Cinema Papers No.62 March 1987

R égisferéff bv»I^NMrà lia Post — p u b lic a tio n n o . V B P 2121

AGFA XT COLOUR NEGATIVE FIL

TOGETHER Gilbert and Garbo, Bogart and Bacall, Tracey and Hepburn, Burton and Taylor. Screen partnerships with that “special” chemistry that made them and their movies outstanding!

AGFA now gives you another special partnership that will leave you impressed!

XT 125 medium speed negative and XT 320 high speed negative. „ Our special chemistry is Advanced Crystal Technology and the results of it are finer grain, outstanding colour rendition, natural skin tones and neutral shadows. XT 125 and XT 320 are terrific separately, but together they look great! Both are totally compatible.

With AGFA you’ve got a partner with that special chemistry!

• ■i Melbourne 875 0222, Sydney 8881444, Brisbane 352 5522, Adelaide 42 5703 and Perth 277 9266

Systems for Photography - Motion Pictures - Television - Graphic Arts - Radiography - Visual Arts - Reprography - Magnetic Recording.

A G FA "#*

.

-v i

Film M a k e -u p T e c h n o lo g y THE SCHOOL FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN FILM AND TELEVISION MAKE-UP

Training com m ences with straight corrective make-up for studio lighting through the various stages of character make-ups, beard and hair work. The course also covers racial and old age make-up techniques, basic hairdressing, as well as all studio protocol.

FILM MAKE-UP TECHNOLOGY

in conjunction with KEHOE AUSTRALIA

Importers and suppliers of professional film , television and special effects make-up for the industry. details contact: Josy Knowiand 43-47 Trafalgar St. Annandale, NSW, 2038 TELEPHONE: (02) 519 4407

From 1 March, Cinema Papers will be at a new location 43 Charles Street, Abbotsford 3067 Telephone: 429 5511 M

|| j5 |g|g 1S n

n

n

|

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH -

1

^ l l I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l I I I 1 I I IV

Editor Philippa Hawker

Publisher

Patricia Amad

Assistant Editor

i l S

Kathy Bail

Art Director-

i i t liillll ^ 3

Mick Earls

Editorial Assistants/Subscriptions Raffaele Caputo Nicole Amad '

. Proofreader

Arthur Salton

Consulting Editors Fred Harden Brian McFarlane

vv SK?

Founding Publishers Peter Beilby Scott Murray

Typesetting by B-P Typesetting Pty. Ltd. S:': Printed by York Press Ltd. Distribution by i; > Network Distribution Company, 54 Park ix* Street, Sydney, NSW 2000. '

\ p Signed articles represent the views of their ¡¡gj author, and not necessarily those of the £& editor. While every, care is taken with -jv manuscripts and materials supplied to the magazine, neither the editor nor the pub­ lishers cari accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may hot be reproduced in whole or in part without the express permission of the copyright owner. - Cinema Papers . is published every two months by MTV Publishing Ltd, 43 Charles St, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3067. Telephone: (03) 429 5511. Telex: AA 30625 Reference ME 230. . © Copyright MTV Publishing Limited, No 62. March 1987

‘ Recommended price only.

COVER: Image from La Campana del Infiemo, 1973 Spanish psycho-.horror, whose director died in a fall from a belltower on the fast day of shooting. '

1

iB 'P ^ C O M M B S M ^ S e ^ a n d T ltli.f T © i

OONMIS

Ir

à-.'OÌX'a

m

4 TRIBUTE: Screwball in the back pocket: Cary Grant

6 NEWS: Film industry directions; what’s the •Apicture? ite**':« Girls just want to have funds; but will they?

8 OVERSEAS REPORT: Dog has his day 9 MAKE ’EM LAUGH: The Hawaii humour conference

MÊ

10 WHO DINO? Report from Los Angeles on the De Laurentiis set-up

m

12 CULTURE SHOCKS: Why don’t we see French films?

What’s Japan got to offer?

m $:

16 BLUE VELVET: Already called the best film of 1987; we talk to director David Lynch SPECIAL FEATURE: SCREEN VIOLENCE 18 Horror defended 22 Porn considered 26 Censorship examined 29 CENSORSHIP LISTINGS: December decisions

■IC'.v'v/

The November-

yy.

30 BOOKS: The scope of horror The art of photography

V.V vr/MvX.' .-.V.

32 THE GREAT NED KELLY MYSTERY: Just who was that masked man?

m m

A‘.V/A,

35 HIDDEN TREASURES: What our archives can S ^ " v .y and might reveal

37 THE POST-MODERNIST ALWAYS RINGS v 'ixPftvi: TWICE: Two views on screen studies .viv!

40 HERE COME THE INDIANS: South America, the final frontier 43 ABORIGINAL WRITERS: A conference report 44 REVIEWS: The Assam Garden; Australian Dream; Betty Blue; Blue Velvet; The Color Of Money; Crimes Of The Heart; Deadly Friend; Death Of A Soldier; Dogs In Space; The Fly; Heartbreak Ridge; Heartburn; The Name Of The Rose; ’Round Midnight; Sid And Nancy; Soul Man; Yellow Earth 60 TECHNICALITIES: Talking blue screen blues 64 PRODUCTION BAROMETER: The complete rundown

p m **

vv.y.v M iiii

mm

mm vvW .

:x-: :

V. ■Xr::-

mm

K*xÿl

66 PRODUCTION SURVEY: Who’s doing what in Australia

vsv : :

v

■YAV.‘(f'-W

SCREWBALL IN THE BACK he recent death of Cary Grant cannot be allowed to pass without a few fare­ well remarks. It seems simply, logically, unquestionably the right thing to do. It’s indicative in a way of the extent to which Grant, even at 82, touched the hearts of so many. His death roused one’s feelings in the manner that one is compelled to the bedside of a dying comrade, relative or lover.

There isn’t the sense that with the passing of Grant, an era in movie history has regretfully been laid to rest — that era had indeed passed by long ago. It’s just that there are those of us who always found something comforting in the thought that this man still walked this earth. This is not too difficult to comprehend; after all, isn’t there the story told of John F. Kennedy, who, it is said, would call Cary Grant on the phone, particularly in times of stress, and ask him to

time I saw The A w ful Truth, and it intensified at each successive viewing.

In the first of the “ My Dreams Have Blown With The Wind” sequences in The A w ful Truth, a slightly embarrassed and somewhat despondent Jerry Warriner (Cary Grant) has just lost the first round to "his ex-wife to be (“ ex-wife to be” , it could only happen in screwball), Lucy (Irene Dunne), as she and her hick boyfriend Daniel Leeson (Ralph Bellamy) are conducting a fine waltz on the dancefloor. Then, almost without a break, the waltz switches to a jitterbug. Jerry’s head props up in two swift moves, he draws a chair closer into the camera, he straightens up, and a glorious, gleaming smile spreads across his face for us to take in and cherish forever. It is just for us, as he and we together witness the

“ Say something, anything. I just want to hear your voice” ?

It didn’t seem to matter much that there were no longer any films starring Cary Grant after 1966, but strange as it may sound, there has always been a longing for Cary Grant, and I’m sure there has always been an audience. For after ’66 what we seemed to do was to appreciate a man more acutely and profoundly than we ever did his films. I can still recall how appropriate I thought it was that Cary Grant should be on the board of directors of Faberge Cosmetics rather than making films. I couldn’t immediately dis­ cern why I thought so, it just felt right. It seemed that he had caught the right moment to opt out of the movies.

But in spite of not gracing the screen, did he really opt out? What came almost immediately to mind was the recollection of Cary Grant as the head of a beauty salon in Kiss and Make Up, Cary Grant as a figure in the diplomatic corps in Houseboat, and Cary Grant as an executive sashaying through the Madison Avenue crowd in North by Northwest. Whenever we confront Cary Grant, it seems we are always damning our­ selves for being so slow, and each time we can just imagine Grant nearby, so self-assured, throwing us a sceptical side glance.

I have never been able to decide if I discovered Cary Grant with Leo McCarey’s The A w ful Truth, or whether I discovered The A w ful Truth through Cary Grant. I was certainly aware of him before seeing The A w ful Truth, through reruns of his films on television; particularly those late in his career and particularly those of Hitchcock. Yet, if it was trailing Cary Grant which led me to discover the greatest of American romantic comedies, I believe it was, nonetheless, The A w ful Truth that made me really discover Cary Grant.

While in the theatre, in the dark, watching a movie, have you ever felt you were in league with a particular figure up on the screen? That there was some special rapport between you and that particular figure, that you notice that figure winking at you, nudging you, occasionally teasing you, but often coming down close and whispering “ Now just watch this” , or “ Can you believe this?” . I felt this special rapport the first C 4 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

Cary Grant and Grace under a certain amount of pressure

curdling effect of Daniel’s dumpish jitterbugging and Lucy’s helplessness. Jerry wins by a knockout. But no, it needn’t end there. Jerry’s a rascal: he’s telling us it was fun, so why not do it again. Just before Lucy and Daniel are about to step out of the ring, he slips the waiter a bill and the band starts up again. Too late.

This image of Cary Grant could never be lost on anyone who has seen The A w ful Truth', it certainly wasn’t lost on Stanley Cavell. Cavell pays loving tribute to the man by opening his book on what he calls the Hollywood comedy of remarriage, The Pursuits O f Happiness, with this very image of Cary Grant, to which he adds the following passage, “This man, in words of Emerson’s, carries the holiday in his eye; he is fit to stand the gaze of millions.”

Cavell, probably more than anyone else, certainly seemed to know implicitly what he was doing and saying, for this loving tribute also testifies to the fact that we would never, ever, have appreciated American screwball to the extent that we do if it were not for the ingenuity of Cary Grant. (I’m sure we’re still to fathom comprehensively all the flip backs, kick backs, and eye popping, the sly innuendoes and overzany passes in dialogue.)

Drawing himself closer into the camera, closer to his audience, is the hallmark of Cary Grant’s talent. I believe it was Katharine Hepburn who had said, “ Cary Grant is a personality continu­ ally functioning” . It is certainly no longer surprising that only his presence was ever necessary to make for the most erotic of screen

The Philadelphia Story (above); Monkey Business (middle); The Grass Is Greener (below)

moments. He need only be there for Ingrid Bergman to ravage him longingly in Notorious, or for Grace Kelly to saunter up to him, absorb a kiss, and then immaculately withdraw into her room in 7o Catch a Thief. We may be astounded at Grant’s extraordinary passivity in these moments, yet it was clearly understood that he was their agent. Only Grant could walk away un­ perturbed, with a smile that told us that he knew full well why Kelly and Bergman were doing it.

Indeed, it was late in his career that the movies finally caught up with Cary Grant. They became more explicitly conscious of ‘Cary Grant’, of the special rapport only Grant could solicit from his audience. Consider the amusing exchange (no dialogue) at the back of the bus in To Catch a Thief. John Robie (Cary Grant) turns away from the bus window, sure that he has eluded the police for the moment, and casts a glance to his right at the woman with the love-birds, he shifts over to his left and casts a glance at the master of suspense himself, and then casts a knowing glance to the camera. We may be looking out for that familiar portly figure, but I cannot recall any other Hitchcock film where an actor was given licence not to be indifferent to Hitchcock’s presence. In Stanley Donen’s Charade, Audrey Hepburn is speaking not only for herself when she asks Grant, “Do you know what’s wrong with you?” To which she also provides the answer, “Nothing” . In North by Northwest, Hitchcock once again slows the action and lets in a delicious aside in the scene that follows Grant’s confinement to his hospital room. He escapes through the window, onto the ledge, and then through a window into another room, alarming its female occupant. She is short-sighted. He moves to put her at ease but is cut short. She slips on her glasses, focuses, and does not need to utter more than a simple, “ Ooh” .

At the 1970 Academy Awards, Frank Sinatra presented Cary Grant with a special Oscar for his overall film acting achievements, saying, “ Cary made it all look so easy” . Yet for many years, Grant has been quoted as claiming that the only role he ever played was ‘Cary Grant’ and that was the toughest thing to do. I do not think we could ask for anything more. In the especially intelligent piece “Charms and the Man” (Film Comment, v.20n.l Jan-Feb 1984), David Thom­ son cites the ‘teaser’ from Hawks’ His Girl Friday, which doesn’t quite catch us ashamedly taking a peep backstage, for it’s an isolated, chilling glance that issues from backstage. It’s the moment, just as Walter Burns (Cary Grant) and Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) are having to face the prospect of imprisonment, when Walter solemnly says, “The last man to say that to me was Archie Leach, just a week before he cut his throat.” We may for that moment want to cultivate the mystery just beneath the surface, only that we are not going to be allowed to — for there is no mystery. Roger 0. Thornhill in North

by Northwest. What’s the 0 stand for? Nothing.

I realise now why Grant considered himself the toughest thing to do.

In Monkey Business, doesn’t Hawks give something of a rejoinder to the Archie Leach line

North By Northwest

from His Girl Friday, with an opening that recalls that of Hawks’ earlier Bringing Up Baby, also with Grant? As the credits are rolling, Hawks’ voice-off reminder, “Not now Cary” , is heard each time the actor absent-mindedly takes his cue ahead of time. Hawks could not be more pointed; when the action comes in on cue, are we to take the credit sequence as a bit of self­ reflexive indulgence on Hawks’ part, as we witness Edwina’s (Ginger Rogers) attempts at getting her absent-minded Professor to shut the front door with him on the outside so they can attend their engagement with Hank Entwhistle?

We could try to tear our way through, but what would be the point? Not submerged, but before us, stands Cary Grant. Could we really ask for anything more?

Raffaele Caputo

Off camera

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 5

MONEY-GO-ROUND:

What’s the picture for the AFC loan bank plan?

In April this year, the Australian Film Commission (AFC) is due to report to government with recommendations on the future direction of the Australian film industry. “ The contents and the timetable depend on the industry,” says AFC policy adviser David Court. “ We’ve put forward quite a radical proposal, but without strong and widespread support it will be much easier for the government just to do nothing.” One thing that everyone agrees on is that “ nothing” would be disastrous for the health of Australian films.

The AFC’s first paper advocated the setting up of a government-backed loan corporation to replace the 10BA tax shelter. The AFC argues that the government’s attitude to tax reform and the new marginal tax rates now make 10BA an unsuitable basis for the film industry. The ques­ tion is, what to put in its place that Is acceptable to government and to the widely differing needs of the film community?

In general, the proposal has met with qualified, rather than enthusi­ astic support. The chairman of the Screen Production Association of Australia (SPAA), Ross Dimsey, says: "It does at least recognise that you have to go out there and sell. It treats our industry as an industry . . .

But I’d be very surprised if SPAA w h ole he arted ly su p po rte d the bank.” Angela Wales, executive officer of the Australian Writers Guild (AWG), says the guild has its reservations about the plan, but con­ siders that one of its positive elements is that it would ensure much more careful scrutiny of budgets.

The AFC’s recent supplementary paper on industry assistance sets out in a little more detail how their finance corporation model would work. It is an attempt to address some of the problems and questions that were immediately raised when the paper came out.

It has been said, for example, that a central loan fund would be too much like a large-scale film commis­ sion, making subjective judgements about the kinds of films that are made.

The supplementary paper argues that a loan fund of $120 million is substantial enough to finance 30 to 40 productions annually. “ This scale of lending precludes comparison with a film commission .. . Rather than selectively ‘picking winners’, the corporation’s task will be to finance an industry with a produc­ tion slate worth at least $120 million annually. " . . . In making decisions the cor­ poration will have in front of it a pro­ duction budget, a figure represent­ ing proven (‘bankable’) commercial interest and a third figure represent­ ing additional estimated returns. The first two can be directly tested. The third can be researched, and, in practice, averaged. These are tasks involving a much lesser degree of subjectivity than is inherent In fund­

6 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

ing decisions based on perceived quality or cultural merit."

The AFC puts forward another ‘safeguard’ against the possibility of arbitrary decisions: it proposes lend­ ing guidelines that would qualify a project with presales or distribution guarantees for a loan equal to the amount of those guarantees. (In the case of television presales or backing by a state film corporation, the project would be eligible for a loan of twice that amount.)

This would represent minimum commitment to a project: additional loans would be negotiated on an un­ secured basis. Projects without presales could still seek up to 100 per cent support.

Apart from pointing to obvious ‘problem’ successes like Crocodile Dundee (which probably would have been assessed as having too high a budget for a film without pre­ sales), and Malcolm (made without AFC support, because it was con­ sidered insufficiently commercial), there are other reservations about aspects of this proposal that have been expressed by different sec­ tions of the film community. There is widespread doubt about the size of the fund, and an expectation that there will be more projects sub­ mitted than money available.

Given the degree of vertical inte­ gration in the Australian film Industry, some parties believe that a good deal of the fund could be tied up by production companies with a link to networks or distributors. Ross Dimsey says that "those who are vertically integrated will have an advantage” , but does not think that the fund should be adjusted In any way on this account.

According to David Court, it is up to the industry to decided what it thinks is best in the circumstances. “ You’ve got three choices: you can say that the same rules apply, you can say that there should be no access to vertically integrated com­ panies, or you can say that they can have access, but the terms will be tougher.”

One related proposal that has been considered by a number of industry groups is that a certain amount of the fund should be set aside for projects that do not have presales. A paper prepared by a group of Melbourne independent producers suggests that 25 per cent would be an appropriate figure, arguing that a reliance on presales encourages conservatism in form

MS.Sim

M W F -----1

MAKING A KILLING: Sterling Hayden and Marie Windsor work out their production budget and content, and increases the likeli­ hood that overseas elements will be Introduced.

In the ABC’s first discussion paper, this issue was raised. "Preselling tends to work best for con­ v e n tio n a l film s w ith p ro v e n elements,” It stated. “ It is worth recalling that Star Wars, with Its then unpopular science fiction genre and innovative special effects, ,was knocked back flat by two American majors . . . In preselling, the fact that the film is still unmade creates a double deterrent to risk-taking. In this sense, preselling is a force for conservatism. It will tend to skew production away from high risk theatrical markets, to more predict­ able, fo rm u la -d rive n a n cilla ry markets, especially home video.”

Ross Dimsey argues that the Special Production Fund (boosted to $10 million) and the state corpora­ tions should be able to take care of “ smaller, more adventurous, more difficult to sell films, and that setting aside the loan fund for unsecured budgets would be “ a form of direct funding, which I thought everyone wanted to avoid".

David Court says that the AFC would be prepared to consider reserving a portion of the fund for unsecured loans. "N o one’s yet sug­ gested a figure . . . but I think It’s better to look at a minimum, and only for low to medium budget theatrical features and documen­ taries. It wouldn’t be an option for television projects.”

Another point on which many groups seek clarification is the degree of Australian content that will be guaranteed under the new system. Both Equity and the Austra­ lian Writers Guild see this as an important concern. The AFC pro­ poses that the existing 10BA requirements be maintained, and that non-Australian elements in a production should not be eligible for loan assistance unless there are "exceptional circumstances” . Ross Dimsey regards this provision as dis­ criminatory and considers the 10BA provisions for Australian content more than adequate. “ Why penalise people further?" he asks.

Producer Tony Ginnane is, not surprisingly, critical of the plan to withhold loan funds from overseas production elements; he is also sceptical about the bank itself. He was ‘ ‘ respectfully cynical, but cynical nonetheless," he told a recent SPAA conference, “ I believe

that the notion of a film bank with $25 million share capital and the capacity to launch a bond issue per year of up to $120 million may be unrealistic and unpalatable to go ve rn m e n t. D o ub tless some government soundings will already ha ve be en m ad e, b u t w ith economists and bankers pressing the government for a real reduction in interest rates, the sort of return subscribers would require for these movie bonds must be higher than acceptable. It may be that as little as $40 million could be raised. Note this amount is to be determined by the treasurer annually. One should make one's own assessment of the treasurer's attitude to the film Industry . . . Even if we assume that the initial target for 1987-88 was approved and raised, I see no reason to assume, based on the track record of government bodies to date . . . that the film bank would not either run out of funds in year two or three, or alternatively would need a further capital Injection which may or may not be forthcoming.”

According to the AFC, a sinking fund provision of $56 million would be sufficient to support annual loans of $120 million. Their model, developed In conjunction with Coopers and Lybrand/W.D. Scott, assumes new loans each year total­ ling $120 million, divided equally between theatrical and television product. The loans are scheduled to match the projected income stream over a five year period; no further Income is assumed. Interest as well as principal is paid from the income stream, with the same bad debt pro­ jections applying to each. The bad debt ratio for theatrical product is 40 per cent, for TV drama 50 per cent, and for documentaries 70 per cent.

It should be noted that these pro­ jected rates of return assume that low budget films which need a high degree of support will be financed through the special fund. The model also assumes that overall production budgets will be lower, because the high financing charges associated with 10BA will be eliminated.

As for the doubts expressed about government response, the AFC argues that a unified industry view would add weight to the film bank proposals. If the general attitude towards the bank is unfavourable, the AFC claims, "the government would be in the position of having to choose between rival sources of advice.”

FUND’S OVER: The Women’s Film Fund gets the wind-up The activities of the Women’s Film Fund will effectively be scaled down over the next three and a half years with operation of the fund ceasing in 1990. A statement re­ leased in February by the Australian Film Commis­ sion (AFC), the organisa­ tion responsible for the fund since 1980, suggests there is no longer a need for a discrete funding pro­ gramme for women within the Commission.

It is expected that the direction of the fund be geared to more specific needs of women in the industry and the independent sector, and that eventually government agencies (like the Australian Film, Television & Radio School, AFTRS), trade unions, areas of the AFC (eg the Creative Development Branch, CDB) and the in d u s try in g e n e ra l, assum e responsibility for redressing im­ balances in employment and oppor­ tunities of women.

The director of the CDB, Megan McMurchy, said that it is "strategic­ ally important” that this shift occurs.

"There is a danger in relying just on the WFF. The time has come for the industry as a whole to see how women stand. The WFF once had an important practical and symbolic function but there have been objec­ tive changes since the fund was first established in 1976.”

She identified the importance of setting up a number of women’s

BRIEFLY...

■ Victoria’s State Film Centre begins a new programming policy from 12 March. The centre will screen up to three sessions per evening, and weekend matinees. My Life Without Steve and Camera Natura will have their Melbourne premiere seasons on 12 March. The two theatres under State Film Centre management will continue to be available for hire by the public, but the State Film Theatre will be available during office hours only.

■ The fourth Australian History and Film Conference will be held at the University of Queensland, St Lucia, from 3 to 6 December this year. Its theme is “ Constructing and celebrating the images of the Australian nation” ; the deadline for titles and abstracts is 11 May. For further information, and offers of papers or assistance, contact the Australian Studies Centre, University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4067, on (07) 377 1111.

lobby groups backed up by continu­ ing initiatives at the AFC. An up-date of the 1983 “ Survey of Women in Australian Film Production” (which found that women were underrepre­ sented in key creative and technical areas in the film and television industry) is due for release soon, and is likely to provide ample "ammunition” for women’s groups, according to McMurchy.

The budget of the WFF will remain at its current level of $190,000 and a new manager is to be appointed.

(The retiring manager Beth McRae is to take up a position at Open Channel.)

Since its inception, the WFF has become known as a "beginners” fund, an avenue for women with little or no track record as filmmakers. As McRae said, "In the past, it was important to give as many women as possible small amounts of money to try out their skills.” However part of the new policy involves the invest­ ment of larger sums of money in two or three projects a year to assist more experienced women pro­ ducers or directors. Although it will not be exclusively limited to women at this "m iddle” level, it is mainly designed to give women the means to produce their first major film.

The fund will also encourage the establishment of small production groups for women in regional areas, and women from disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly migrant or aboriginal women, will continue to receive funding.

A series of seminars on film financing are planned, as well as workshops in technical areas like computer editing and video post production, for women working in the industry. A "girls in schools” information programme to en­ courage younger women seeking a career in different areas of the film and television industry will be intro­ duced.

According to McMurchy, these programmes will be monitored over the three year period and "if specific

initiatives are working well they may be taken up by the AFC affirmative action officer.”

The change to WFF policy has a lre a d y s p a rk e d d is c u s s io n amongst women in the filmmaking community, in particular the new tiered system of funding. There is concern that, while some women have established themselves in the industry, valuable channels like the WFF shouldn’t be denied to younger women.

McMurchy notes that with more women doing tertiary study, there is less pressure on the AFC to provide training opportunities. Others feel that access to tertiary institutions is only open to a small number of women and the need for the WFF remains.

The conclusion that appears to have been drawn from the AFC’s review of the WFF is that economic equity can be found in the market­ place, if not now, at least by 1990, and that government assistance will be given at the most general level.

According to McMurchy, the num­ ber of women receiving funding through the CDB and the No Frills Fund "continues to improve all the tim e . . . C ircum stances have changed and women don’t seem to have problems getting access to these avenues.” She said that the AFC’s affirmative action policy (approved late last year) not only monitors employment but funding practice, guaranteeing continued opportunities for women beyond the life of the WFF. There are many who will ask whether the rosy picture painted by the AFC is an entirely accurate one: w hether wom en entering the industry in three years’ time will really find themselves competing on an equal basis with men; whether the WFF will have any credibility without a production arm.

Indeed many will be left wonder­ ing how a definite time period for the termination of the fund can be set when there is so little evidence to suggest that all will be well in 1990.

■ This year’s round of media musical chairs has resulted in a substantial re-arrangement of Australia’s television ownership patterns. This is how it looked in mid-February, but the game is not necessarily over y e t. . .

The new fourth licence in Perth is owned by Kerry Stokes, but is not operating yet. The 50 per cent interest in Crawford Productions, once owned by Herald and Weekly Times through HSV7 has gone to Fairfax.

Channel 9: GTV Melbourne — Alan Bond TCN Sydney — Alan Bond STW Perth — Alan Bond QTQ Brisbane — Alan Bond NWS Adelaide — Broadcast Investments (Lamb family) Channel 7: HSV Melbourne — Fairfax ATN Sydney — Fairfax BTQ Brisbane — Fairfax ADS Adelaide — Kerry Stokes TVW Perth — Robert Holmes a Court Channel 10: ATV Melbourne — Westfield Capital Corp.

TEN Sydney — Westfield Capital Corp.

SAS Adelaide — Bell Group TVQ Brisbane — Qintex Corp.

(Christopher Skase)

■ The Australian Film Institute; in association with the New Zealand Film Commission, will stage a major season of New Zealand cinema in five capital cities between March and May. The season includes 10 new features, several new documentaries and a range of shorts.

■ Film Victoria’s new chairman is investment consultant Gavin Anderson, a member of the board since 1983. Scriptwriter Jan Sardi and Crawford’s sales and marketing director Nick McMahon are new appointments to the board, with actress Sigrid Thornton and producer Roger Le Mesurier becoming full-time members.

¡gO NjrR IBUTO RS hS.J. Ayre is a filmmaker and freelance writer j Ifflc ifB roderick works as a - ‘J ¡publications offiqër with the Australian Conservation Foi ndation ||hd is a freelance writer on film. É Philip Brophy is a writer on film.- T Raffaele Caputo is^Ireelance ( ||| writer on fijm.

Rolando bâputp.is a freelance pool "hustler i^ |p S Ross Cooper teaches at the Collingwood Education Centre and !4Working on a PhD in visual arts, at Monash University.

Barbara Creed teaches cinema studies-- at La Trobe University Richard Fotheringham is a lecturer in drama at the University of Queenslapd^llj,; Michael Freedman is a freelance : .J film writer and publisher.

-Freda Freiberg is a researcher and writer on Japanese cinema Helen Gamer is a Melbourne writer.

Richard Guthrie is a producer and ’director. -. ‘: Sandra Hall is film critic for TheLi^Ê

bulletin?^ <j ", \ >’ ; î1' Fred Harden runs à production

r company in Sydney called Pictur^te Start. • Rolls Harley is a freelance writer ■ and filmland video maker living in • Sydney.

David Hay is a.freelance journalist J | based in Los Angèles.

Michael Healy is film editor of the Melbourne Report.

Liiij|l3Jaivih was formerly Hong Kong and China correspondent for Asia Week, and is now a freelance , writer based in Canberra.

Dorre Koeser is a freelance writer , ¡and assistant film editor currently living-ini. New Orleans.

David Marsh works for a film 3 distribution):company in Munich.

Adrian Martin is a freelance film ( critic baspd in Sydney.

Andreas Missier is a filmmaker and journalist based in Munich Scott Murray is a film director and founding editor of Cinema Papers.

Stephen Nifeilo is a lecturer in t h e * Department of History at La Trobe University.

Mike Nicolaidi is a freelance writer " and contributor to Variety.

Norbert Noyaux works as an interpreter for the French : .

Commercial Office in Melbourne £ and is a freelance writer on film ;.

Sam Rohdie is a senior lecturer in cinema studies at La .Trobe University. (<■< Vikki Riley is a freelance writer.

Bill and Diane Routt are a couple of Melbourne academics.

Tom Ryan lectures in media :-v *-j studies at the Swinburne Institute ot; Technology.

Jim Schembri is a journalist at The Age. Jocelynne Scutt is a lawyer and , j feminist author.

Susan Stewart is a lecturer in the ■■ Visual Arts Dept, at Monash University.

R.«fc Thompson teaches cinemai-Â., studies at Là Trobe Universi ty

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 7

O

V E R S R E E

E O

A S R T

TOP DOG: Scenes from the only serious rival to Crocodile Dundee

NEWZEALAND

BY MI KE N1COLAID1

The dog has his day Murray Ball’s animated feature, Footrot Flats — A D og’s Life, proving what it promised, has re­ invigorated the film business here.

Not only has the movie already become the top grossing New Zealand feature release of all time, s u r p a s s i n g the overall $NZ1,400,000 gross of Geoff Murphy’s Goodbye Pork Pie, circa 1980, but it has given filmgoing a boost in the country’s small onecinema towns. These old movie houses, built during the boom years of the thirties and forties when Holly­ wood ruled, are suffering the effects of the video boom.

According to Larry Vella, general manager of the Kerridge Odeon chain, distributors of Footrot Fiats, several of these cinemas will still be closing. "But for one great last summer, we have seen the extra­ ordinary appeal of a film bring every­ one out. It’s been nothing less than phenomenal.” He predicts the movie will be KO’s top film of the year.

In the first week of its release, off 28 prints, the Magpie Productions creation grossed over $NZ600,000 — the biggest opening of any film from any source in Kiwi cinema history. Fourteen house records w ere b ro k e n , In c lu d in g the Embassy, Wellington, Regent One, Christchurch, and a host of theatres in provincial centres and towns, from Thames in the north, to Gore in the south. Total admissions nationwide were 150,000. By mid-January, with all prints still out, Footrot Flats was proving it had legs. It broke house records for third week runs in Wellington and Christchurch, main­ taining its early pace.

Predicts producer John Barnett: "W e’re now ahead of Pork Pie and heading for $NZ2,000,000. We’re

8 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

set for a pretty long run." Top gross­ ing NZ features on the home market after Goodbye Pork Pie, are Ian M une’s Came A Plot Friday, $950,000, and Roger Donaldson’s Smash Palace, and Murphy’s Utu and The Quiet Earth, all around $600,000.

Barnett is chuffed that Footrot Flats’ success caused some anxiety to the US majors, who were worried that their Christmas releases, like Clint Eastwood’s Fleartbreak Ridge and Karate Kid 2, might be delayed.

"The problems were in the single cinema towns. The exhibitors had to skirt round these difficulties In some cases by splitting screenings throughout the day between the home product and the import. A bonus has been some early Ameri­ can interest in the film. Warners have been in touch to find out what’s behind it all.”

Barnett Is now looking towards a 50-print nationwide release in Aus­ tralia at Easter, through Hoyts. He

hopes to find sponsors across the Tasman equivalent to the Bank of New Zealand, whose promotional efforts have helped the film along.

He anticipates “ a very large” press, radio and television campaign.

Special Footrot Flats books, which have sold around 70,000 copies here, and soundtrack album (20,000 sales to date), will be distributed through Bay Books, an Angus and Robertson outlet, and CBS, respec­ tively.

A highly significant aspect of the animated feature’s success is that it has been up against Crocodile Dundee. The Aussie blockbuster Is being handled by Amalgamated Theatres, the second major New Zealand chain, which is predicting a film rental take of $NZ2,000,000 over 12 months, which would make It the most successful picture ever In New Zealand.

As elsewhere around the globe, Kiwis are turning out for this first major International breakthrough

into the mass market by an Austra­ lian film. But even so, Footrot Flats is keeping pace with It in two of the major cities, Wellington and Christ­ church.

KO’s Vella describes the two anti­ podean films as the best duo ever to attract audiences over the important Christmas-New Year holiday period.

"Interestingly,” he says, "they both strike chords suggesting that filmmakers In this part of the world are finally making films that encom­ pass the basic fundamentals of entertainment. Both are escapist, both are comedies and both have generated an intense national Interest.”

While Crocodile Dundee has transcended its roots Internationally, Vella Is not so sure how the rest of the world will take to Dog and Wal. "Obviously It will strike chords in Australia, but it will take shrewd marketing outside.”

In their continuing battle to counter the big inroads being made into traditional movie-going by the home video breakthrough, Kerridge Odeon and Amalgamated are buoyed by their summer success stories. Joe Moodabe, managing director of Amalgamated, says his company "managed well, all con­ sidered” during 1986. While he sees the country areas dying, the cities are booming. He predicts more closures of cinemas in small provin­ cial cities, while outlining new multi­ plex centres for Hamilton (three cinemas), Christchurch (four) and Dunedin (three) in 1988. A new three-cinema centre opens in Well­ ington in March this year. The big money spinners for Amalgamated during 1986 were Out of Africa, Top Gun, Jewel of the Nile, Ruthless People, A Room With a View and The Gods Must Be Crazy.

For Kerridge Odeon, 1986 was average, says John Kerridge, general manager of KO film distri­ butors. Handlers of Columbia, Warner, Orion and Cannon product, the big movies were The Purple Rose of Cairo, The Colour Purple, Police Academy 3, Teen Wolf and Rocky 4.

In a windowless room in Waikiki, critics, aca­ demics and filmmakers got together to discuss laughing matters* SANDRA HALL reports.

ON TH E first day somebody . quoted E.B. White’s observation that "humour can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.” Yet the diverse assortment of filmmakers and academics taking part in the Sixth Hawaii International Film Festival’s symposium on Humour in Cinema: East and West bravely kept at it, wheeling up definitions of comedy, tracing cross-cultural links and political implications and analysing the process which occurs in the human brain when both its halves get together to decide something is funny.

Part of the joke in this very serious sidebar event of what is now established as a highly successful festival (free screenings, a rich list of sponsors and a total audience of 40,000) is that it was being held in an appropriately windowless conference room in the basement of the Hyatt International, across the street from the sun and surf of Waikiki. Still, the participants — who included the critics Susan Sontag, Donald Richie and Tony Rayns and the filmmakers Shashi Kapoor, Nadia Tass and Eddie Romero — did their best to lighten the atmosphere.

Exemplary jokes were told, comic film clips screened in many languages (with necessary pauses for exposition) and a local academic wound up his dissertation on the social psychology of humour by accompanying himself on the ukulele in a song about Freud.

Definitions of comedy abounded. Arthur Dudden, a history professor from Bryn Mawr and, he admitted, a veteran of humour conferences, threw in "comedy is tragedy that happens to somebody else” ; and Dr Richard Brislin (the ukulele player) put forward a list of targets which, he suggested, were habitually funny to people of all cultures. These included "people and institutions to whom we give up freedoms” , “ people and institutions which cause tension” and "things we can’t get enough of” (hence food, sex and shopping jokes).

With films from Korea, China and the Philippines prominent in the festival programme, politics was never far from

anybody’s mind. Nor was the question of where humour ends and offensiveness begins.

Malcolm Muggeridge’s remark that all great humour is In bad taste was grasped at as if it were a lifebelt and the Marx Brothers brought up to help keep it afloat ("Harpo could be condemned today for making fun of the handicapped, Chico for making fun of the Italians and Groucho for all kinds of transgressions. The only one to escape criticism would be Zeppo who never made anybody laugh.” ).

Others had their doubts.

Some said they had been offended by Soul Man, the highly successful American comedy about a white Californian who takes tanning pills and pretends to be black so he can get into Harvard on a scholarship, and Susan Sontag felt that humour in contemporary cinema, with its increasing emphasis on violence, could be leaving her behind, as, unlike so many of her friends, she found nothing even blackly comic In either Terry Gilliam’s Brazil or David Lynch’s Blue Velvet.

There were papers on humour In Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Filipino and Australian films (delivered by Nadia Tass), and a rather melancholy talk on humour in Korean cinema whose author, Byung Sup Ahn, a critic and academic from the Seoul Institute of the Arts, confessed that not only was the concept of humour foreign to Korean movies, it was also absent from the Korean language. The years of Japanese Occupation, followed by civil war, had left the Koreans with very little to laugh about.

Conversely, the Filipino filmmaker Eddie Romero said the Japanese Occupation had served to sharpen the

Philippine interest in humour as a way of asserting national identity: "Resentment of our conquerors was something that the censors could repress easily enough in formal drama, but they had unending troubles trying to find standards for distinguishing between grain and chaff in the work of our comedians who, once imbued with the need to speak out on contemporary reality, did so with astonishing wit and resourcefulness, managing, for the most part, to elude censorship and stern reprisal from the authorities by making the most of the subtle ambiguities of the Tagalog tongue, refined in the arts of equivocation through centuries of Colonial rule.”

Chinese filmmakers, too, have traditionally resorted to subtlety to escape censorship, according to Ma Ning, a Chinese critic at present working in Melbourne — not only in the use of humour in their films but in their way of avoiding individual blame for anything judged subversive by maintaining that all their films are collectively produced.

The collaborative process also figured in the paper given

by Harry Shearer, whose work on cable television and scripts for This is Spinal Tap and the Albert Brooks film, Real Life, have turned him into a cult comedian in the United States.

Shearer told hair-raising stories of being one of 18 writers on the Laverne and Shirley show where the atmosphere was distinctly "mechanistic” . "They had two teams of writers. One worked on the story — what the producers call "laying pipe” , then another group came in on Wednesday and put in the jokes. Garry Marshall, the producer, used to say things like, we gotta have that bit there so we can get the ‘blow o ff at the end of Act I . . . "I did it for 13 weeks. That was enough.”

He adds that his career and that of most comedians in the

I t o ld him ( ivas M i k i t y g

pOSt'lnUMOTOuS doco on -the.

S y n e rg y ° f

s tu d ie s .

US is governed by one fundamental fact — "The more people you can speak to, the less you can say.” His answer to the problem has been his new cable TV series, Martin Mull Presents the History of White People in America, which gives him all the satirical range he wants, and "which puts me somewhere between the mass audience and the beat poet on the corner” . But he finds it supremely ironic that top­ earning comics like Chevy Chase, who began as writers, are not being asked to write their own film comedies. “ There’s a major strain of film comedy In America which goes against the trend of comics being creators. Except for Woody Allen and Mel Brooks they’ve gone into film as hired hands . . . often to save scripts.

Call in these people and something funny will happen.”

American network television still lacks political satire. "Either it’s done in Britain or one or more British people are employed to convey a sense of superiority. The US version of Spitting Image was all about American celebrities — watered-down version of the real thing.” As for the string of film comedies aimed at the youth market: "The kids always win by up-ending authority figures . . . That’s not comedy, it’s fantasy. An authority that never wins is not a worthwhile enemy.”

He thinks that this tentativeness in relation to satire has its effect on the media and its relations with public and politicians. "A question is treated as nothing more than a cue for you to start speaking. There is no reason why what you say should have anything to do with what the other person says. Consequently, the public reaction to reporters who ask questions of the President that they expect him to answer Is that they’re being very rude.

"In America, you get all the raw material in the world but nothing to help you process it.” 't h e r e . s

|V n s e r i o u s .

['rvi f 0r

on e

o v e r th e r e in

looking 6 r $ v \ t ..

-th e

C o m e r

with a Jujfm! /4 V V

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 9

THE DINO FACTOR D in o D e L a u re n tiis is c o m in g to to w n . D A V ID HAY re p o rts fro m L os A n g e le s o n th e o p e ra tio n s o f th e m a n w h o p ro d u c e d Five B ra n d e d W o m e n , The B ib le a n d D e a th Wish.

D IN O DE L A U R E N T IIS may be remembered warmly by film buffs as the man who produced La Strada and Nights of Cabiria.

More recently, American critics have been effusive in their praise of David Lynch’s contro­ versial hit, Blue Velvet. But the Dino De Laurentiis, who is investing $US10 million in a studio near Surfers Paradise in Queensland, is no longer simply the producer extra­ ordinaire. (De Laurentiis has made, according to our count, between 400 and 500 films.)

Now he is the head of a multi­ layered film and TV combine, based in the US — the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group.

That DEG has come to the fore as one of Hollywood’s mini­ studios represents an ironic turn of events for the man who, in 1982, left Tinseltown, selling his $US14 m illion mansion in Beverly Hills. He had then decided to concentrate on his ultra-chic food store in New York and on his studios in Wilming­ ton, North Carolina.

In 1985, De L a u re n tiis returned with a flourish, paying $US35 million to buy the rela­ tively small Embassy Pictures from Coca-Cola. He at first wanted to keep the whole operation private but, given the ease with which movie com­ panies were raising money on Wall Street, he restructured the company into the publicly incor­ porated DEG. He still owns 70 per cent of the stock.

DEG is an umbrella for all De Laurentiis’ activities: his produc­ tions, the studio in North Caro­ lina, the 47 per cent holding in his Australian off-shoot, De L a u re n tiis E n te rta in m e n t Limited. But its chief aim is to give De Laurentiis a stronghold in the m ovie d is trib u tio n business. It is no secret that the Italian-born producer (he took out US citizenship last Sep­ tember) was irked by the way the major studios were dis­ tributing his films. MGM/UA’s handling of The Year of the Dragon, directed by Michael Cimino, was apparently the last straw.

10 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

According to the President of DEG, Fredric Sidewater, they were forced into the distribution business. “ By integrating you can earn more money,” he said. “ Auxiliary rights are now the primary source of revenue for films.” Sidewater indicated the major studios were offering very unattractive but all-inclusive deals on the De Laurentiis films.

Once into the wider movie business area, De Laurentiis has been very successful in raising cash. In 1987, DEG plans to make 15 major productions, all budgeted in the $US8 to $10 million range. Their total outlay will be $US150 million.

DEG is only putting up $US23 million of its own money.

Another $US70 million is due to come from a line of credit with the Bank of America. A further $US65 to $75 million, in what DEG’s corporate division pres­ ident, Stephen Greenwald, refers to as “ off balance-sheet financing” , is being raised through a limited partnership.

What’s the public getting as a result of DEG’s cash grab? A lot of middle-brow, commerciallyoriented, Am erican movies whose titles include Evil Dead 2, From the Hip, directed by Bob Clark (Porkys), the thriller Bedroom Window, Date With An Angel, and Bill and Ted's Excel­ lent Adventure. Others are China Marines, to be directed by George Cosmatos of Rambo fame, and Rampage, which is described in DEG’s limited partnership offering thus: “ this courtroom drama ponders the issue of justice-seeker vs. vigi­ lante when a frustrated pro­ secutor is forced to go beyond the boundaries of law after a serial killer’s insanity plea.”

DEG’s budgets and their arriviste position in fiercely com­ petitive Hollywood make it unlikely that the mini-studio will produce many of the big-bucks, big theme, star-laden films the American industry is famous for.

Quirky, non-formula pictures have a hard time landing at DEG. One former executive told me that whenever he heard of a great script doing the rounds, “ it

THREE FACES OF DEG: Dino De Laurentiis; Terry Jackman, managing

was always frustrating to be told by an agent that DEG was sixth on the list to receive the property” .

Within DEG, however, there is one small, idiosyncratic niche.

De Laurentiis has given full artistic control to David Lynch for his next project, a comedy titled Ronnie Rocket. Lynch also has another comedy script in d e v e lo p m e n t, One Saliva Bubble. Lynch is grateful to De

Laurentiis for giving him such a free reign, something unusual for makers of non-formula films which aren’t star vehicles. “ Giving me artistic control is the best thing Dino’s done for me,” Lynch said. “ And as long as th at’s happening, I’m one happy cowboy.”

Lynch was responsible for one of DEG’s few successes in 1986. Blue Velvet cost $US7 million to make and so far has

The Australian Connection In 1977, in an interview with Film Comment, De Laurentiis was adam ant that he be recognised as a “ one-man operatio n ” : “ I believe like when in 1930 the American industry was great in the world, when men like Darryl Zanuck, Zukor, Selznick, Louis B. Mayer, etc, make really the Am erican industry, was one-man operation. And I still believe today the only way to go — one-man operation. Now: If I am studio, or if I am producer, I leave for you to decide. But my answ er is: I am one-man o p eratio n .”

Now, while his response may well be the sam e, the structure of his com pany, De Laurentiis Entertainm ent Group Inc., suggests otherw ise. W ith the form ation of an Australian production base, active interest is coming from all sides.

The January rush on the Australian com pany, De Laurentiis E ntertainm ent Ltd (of which DEG will own 46.9 per cent) was a clear indication of at least financial support. Fifty-five million ordinary shares were floated to the public at 50 cents each and the offer was oversubscribed, easily raising the $27.5 million total. The float is being jointly underw ritten by BT Securities Ltd, Potts, W est and Trum ball and Paul Morgan and Co. A further 10 per cent of DEL is owned by Chase Corporation (Australia), 5 per cent by an associate of Chase, Jonray Holdings Ltd and 3.1 per cent by Classicist, a com pany associated with D EL’s new managing director Terry Jackm an. (Jackman is form er chief executive of Hoyts and one of the m asterm inds behind the m arketing of Crocodile Dundee.)

Construction of D EL’s film studio is expected to

director of DEL; King Kong, who cost $18 million, took in $2.5 million.

returned SUS3.5 million in rentals to the company. DEG is hoping that Oscar nominations and foreign returns will push it over the hill into profitability.

DEG has also had some success with Bruce Beresford’s Crimes of the Heart. By midJanuary, it had grossed $US14 million at the American box office. DEG’s return from the film, however, will be lessened by the large percentages of the

grosses going to the movie’s three stars, Jessica Lange, D iane Keaton and Sissy Spacek. Each received only $500,000 upfront for playlnq in the film.

More notable and more unfor­ tunate for DEG were two of last year’s bigger busts, Tai-Pan starring Bryan Brown, and King Kong Lives. The latter, quickly renamed "King Kong Dies’’ by industry analysts, cost $US18

begin in March 1987 and be fully operational by Novem ber. The $10 million studio will be built on a 100 acre site at C ade’s County, near Surfers Paradise in Queensland. The project appears to have the unqualified support of the Queensland Government who, through the Queensland Government Developm ent Authority, have put up $7.5 million. The governm ent will lease the property to DEL at the nominal rate of $1 a year for four years with an option to buy after eight years.

For Australian producers, the most attractive aspect of DEL’s position concerns distribution. The parent company DEG will guarantee distribution of all DEL films outside Australia and New Zealand which, in the crucial days of the pre-sale, reduces the risks of production. Under the agreem ent, DEG offsets the ‘negative costs’ (direct expenses less distribution and promotional costs) of each production with full payment for each film . DEL will, in turn, acquire the rights to distribute DEG product in Australia and New Zealand. This includes 248 titles from the DEG film library.

DEL’s long-term plan is to release 22 features in 1987, 35 in the year to D ecem ber 1988, and 39 the following year. Whilst most of the product will be films produced by DEG or film s for which the parent company has acquired rights, a portion will be produced in Australia. At this stage, the company expects to produce five film s by the end of next year with an average budget of $5-10 million. One of DEL’s first features is End Of The Line to be produced by Sue Milliken and directed by Bruce Beresford.

Beresford is also a m em ber of the board of DEL. Other directors are Adrian Burr of Chase Corporation, Peter Joseph, a m erchant banker, Richard Tolz, a partner of the law firm Clayton Utz and Stephen Greenwald, a director of DEG. The chairman of DEL is Dino De Laurentiis.

million and took in only SUS2.5 million. The former, made on location in China from the James Clavell novel, cost $US25 million. It has yet to return $US2 million to DEG. When questioned about the impact such mega-flops would have on DEG, company pres­ ident Fred Sidewater, pointed out quickly that "both were con­ ceived under Dino’s preceding operations, when we were only a production company’’. He inti­ mated that DEG was obliged to d is tr ib u te th e tw o film s "because we would have confused our image with dis­ tributors and the public if we didn't release them” . But the newer entity, DEG, according to Sidewater, "had no production cost risk involved in either film.

They are part of our past.”

Nevertheless, such box office disasters have Wall Street analysts worried, especially as many of the latter have already been burnt with their predictions of a rosy future for DEG com­ petitor, Cannon. The latter, under investigation by federal authorities in the US, has had to m arkedly scale back their production plans. DEG exec­ utives bristle when they are put in the same exploitation-film basket as Cannon. "They are a fairly highly leveraged com­ pany,” says Stephen Greenwald. "DEG has low debt-equity ratio . . . and we’re in a different market segment to Cannon.”

Cannon, according to Sidewater, turns out 35 to 40 lowbudget films "that were not initially geared to the US market.

We’re making higher cost films

gea re d fo r the A m erican market.”

Their Australian venture is important but not critical to the American operations of DEG. The company already has a lowcost production base in its studio in North Carolina. The latter is a right-to-work state, so DEG is able to avoid some of the high labour costs of shooting in Los Angeles.

DEG will automatically retain all US distribution rights to any films made in Australia by DEL or in partnership with DEL. "We want to duplicate in Aus­ tralia what we’re doing here,” says Sidewater. "It’ll be an auxil­ iary advantage to us here but that’s not the prime reason we’re down there. Dino looks to Australia as the future home of much new talent.”

"We see our operation down there strengthening our dis­ tribution operations in Australia and New Zealand,” says DEG’s corporate head, Greenwald.

Whilst playing down the notion that their Australian operation could be a source of cheap movies to plug into their distribution network both in America and overseas, DEG is not planning to be wholly dependent on the Australian market to make their money back on their DEL films. "Why try to be successful in a market where other people have tried and failed?” demands Sidewater. "DEL is after covering a portion of their costs in the Aus­ tralian market, with the rest coming from our international distribution network.”

Linking up with DEL will pro­ vide an Australian producer an instant overseas distribution guarantee, something that may prove successful in luring inves­ tors. "If it’s a DEL product we’ll guarantee distribution,” says Sidewater. "If it’s an outside producer working with DEL, we’ll do the same . . . subject, of course, to us liking the property involved.”

Back in the US, DEG’s future, despite upbeat predictions from company insiders, looks mixed.

The company has yet to demon­ strate there is a sizable audience for its middle-level mix of actiona d v e n tu r e a n d c o m e d y .

Although it is currently wellfinanced, it will have a hard time going back to Wall Street for more coin, if its 1987 slate produces few winners. Thus, in 1988, when the cheaper, in US dollar terms, productions from DEL in Australia come on line, the company may have even grander plans for its Australian off-shoot.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH -

11

TAKING LEAVE OF THE FRENCH...

Why don’t Australians see French film s?

MICHAEL FREEDMAN, self-confessed Franco­ phile, looks at the fate of French cinema in this country.

FOR A U S T R A L IA ’S Francophile population (Pacific fallout notwithstanding) who continue to turn up en masse for their annual fix of French film culture, Film Nouveau can be both a challenging and sobering experience. Last year’s event, the third since its inception in 1984, proved once again that for all their ‘grands mots’ the French continue to produce some of the worst films in the world. Happily there was also some pretty convincing evidence that they also produce the best.

Whether Australian audiences will get to see these films is another matter. So far there have been no definite sales, although festival director Daniel Chambon says that negotiations are taking place over three films. For us French film junkies, 1987 looks like being a dry year; there is JeanJacques Beineix’s Betty Blue, and Australian distributors have picked up Alain Cavalier’s Therese and Eric Rohmer’s Le Rayon Vert (Summer)-, but of the 200 or so films made in France each year, we are lucky to see half a dozen, and more often than not they are the most commercial, most ‘American’ in style.

Unlike most international festivals, Film Nouveau is a non-competitive event, but like

12 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

many others its purpose is to sell. For Chambon it’s the festival’s raison d ’etre and the lack of interest being shown in this year’s films is a bitter pill to swallow after the success of the 1985 event. Of the 13 films shown in 1985, seven were subsequently purchased by local distributors but only four have so far got a theatrical release. Even if they weren’t the best on offer, they would have been a promising start on which to build in the future. But ironically it was that high level of sales which has led, at least in part, to the singular lack of interest shown so far this year.

Talk to the distributors and the reasons soon become clear. The only two films to have been given a national release, L 'Amour En Douce and Three Men And A Cradle (both sound commercial prospects) were both picked up by Hoyts who can, of course, guarantee exhibition through their own cinemas.

Those bought by independent distributors are still on the shelf waiting for screen time on the overcrowded art-house circuit, a year later. The distributors are loath to purchase any more films until the backlog has cleared. According to Chambon, “ it’s the theatre owners who control the cinema in Australia and distribution is increasingly becoming a monopoly of the majors’’.

Greater Union, although encouraged by the success of Les Ripoux, didn’t pick up any of the films from the 1985 festival. Their purchase of Tenue De Soiree (Evening Dress) in June seemed to herald a new, softer approach to foreign films, but its price, which many consider too high, is obviously sending them back to safer ground. Terence McMahon, who liked many of the films from Film Nouveau, says they have plans for only one French purchase this year (not from Film Nouveau), but he is reluctant to divulge the title while negotiations are continuing. With large auditoriums and a commercial obligation to fill them, McMahon is looking for European films which can attract both the ‘mass’ audiences and the art-house crowd; a middle-of-the-road tendency which largely defines and characterises Australians’ taste for French cinema.

In Sydney the two most reliable independent outlets for the more interesting foreign language films are the Academy Twin and the Dendy, but both are already heavily committed for this year. Fred

ON NE MEURT QUE DEUX FOIS: Michel Serrault

O’Brien at the Dendy says he won’t be considering any of the films from last year’s Film Nouveau until well into this year, if at all, but by then it will probably be too late. With My Beautiful Laundrette, released in December and still packina in the crowds, programme schedules have been put back while the foreign language films and the distributors continue to wait.

Mike Walsh, in charge of programming at Sydney’s Academy Twin and Melbourne’s Brighton Bay, says both cinemas are already committed well into the second half of this year. His schedules include the French films Death In A French Garden and Betty Blue. He would dearly like to be able to show less commercial but more interesting European films, but without another smaller screen, it would be commercial suicide.

Andrew Pike of Ronin Films, who has imported a number of interesting French films in the past, says Ronin probably won’t buy any more this year.

Falling attendances for foreign language ‘art films’ and the crisis in screen availability for any specialised films is again the reason. According to Pike, the problem for independent distributors has never been worse and he is even having trouble placing Ronin’s own Australian productions on the art-house circuit let alone any of the riskier foreign products.

Of concern to exhibitors also is the apparently fickle nature of the art-house crowd.

Unable to afford the luxury of expensive advertising and promotions, independent distributors must rely very heavily on word of mouth and favourable reviews for their films. One bad review in the daily press can kill a film’s

chances at the box office.

Hoyts, Filmways and the Dendy, among others, have plans to open more' ‘art-house’ cinemas in Melbourne and Sydney, so perhaps some relief is in sight.

The other outlet is of course SBS Television but it also may be a double-edged sword. For Chambon it’s the best thing that’s happened to cinema culture in Australia in the last 10 years. Before SBS, Australian audiences starved for European cinema had the choice of either the Sydney or Melbourne Film Festivals, or they would pounce on the occasional release at art-house cinemas. Now, there is a consistent flow of good-quality European cinema on SBS — for free — and according to Mike Walsh the fall in cinema attendances is very noticeable.

While the small screen may not satisfy cinema purists, it is luring much of the occasional filmgoing audiences away from the art-houses who so desperately need them. So, when it comes to the more challenging films, Chambon has almost completely abandoned the theatres and says his hope for propagating worthwhile French film culture now lies with television.

Ironically, this hand that feeds him may also have a bite of its own. While SBS shows a good selection of European films, most are at least three or four years old before they get screened. SBS’s film-buying policy is a strict $5,000 'take it or leave it’ offer for each film, which European producers are understandably reluctant to accept until all avenues for a more lucrativeTheatrical release in Australia are exhausted.

Otherwise, SBS will make a purchase but accept an embargo for one year or more

so as not to deter audiences trom a potential cinema release.

According to SBS film buyer Marena Manzoufas, the $5,000 offer doesn’t usually limit their choice, but having made their offer for Claude Chabrol’s Poulet Au Vinaigre after the 1985 Film Nouveau they are still waiting for an answer from the French producers MK2.

When they tried to buy Garcon, the producers flatly refused.

The other limitation facing SBS is their obligation to a culturally diverse viewing audience. “ We tend to steer away from films which require too much concentration,’’ says Manzoufas. “ This must always be considered with a television audience.” She liked three of the films from Film Nouveau last year but because of a 16 percent budget cut for film buying she won’t be making any offers until after July.

Back in Paris the news from Australia, while only small-time compared to other markets, will only add to the dilemma of the Film Nouveau sponsor, Unifrance. A governmentbacked co-operative of directors, producers and exporters, Unifrance operates festivals in seven countries, four outside Europe. According to a recent article in Cahiers du Cinema, France’s foreign sales, still second only to the United States, have all but stagnated in recent years. And with more screens being tied up by American majors, prospects for a revival are looking decidedly grim. Cahiers also note that France remains the only country in the world where the local product still outsells American films. But then

France has an enviable system of government support and incentives for exhibitors prepared to show a percentage of art films in their programs.

Another increasingly niggling thorn in the side of the French film export industry are their friends from across the channel. With an apparent revival in British cinema — mainly directed to art-house audiences — the French have one more competitor to contend with. In Sydney in January we saw the unprecedented phenomenon of four British films (My Beautiful Laundrette, Mona Lisa, A Zed And Two Noughts and The Assam Garden) playing concurrently in both the Dendy and the Academy Twin — and all attracting large audiences. The cinemas' owners were reawakening to the commercial delights of the English language. “ You could wait a lifetime for a ‘Laundrette’,” says Fred O’Brien, “ and the film is doing three times the business of any foreign language film we’ve shown.”

Of the six French films voted in the world’s top ten for 1985

by Cahiers du Cinema, only one (Godard’s Hail Mary) has been released in Australia, and, if not for Film Nouveau, no others would even have been seen. For Australian producers pushing for sales in France and other European countries, the trade imbalance must be hard to justify.

While the overwhelming majority of cinema screens in Australia at any given time continue showing American

FLAGRANT DESIR: Lauren Hutton, Anne Roussel

POLICE: Gerard Depardieu, Sophie Marceau

films, and with generations of Australian audiences marinated in American culture, change will be hard to bring about.

Australian exhibitors agree that it’s a language problem which puts all non-English films at an enormous disadvantage, but it’s at the level of cinematic language that the problems are most worth exploring.

The scarcity of good scenarios which has characterised world cinema since the 1940s and hit Flollywood the hardest seems to have elicited opposing responses from either side of the Atlantic. For the American (and alas most of the Australian) industry the answer has largely been found in pursuing technology and special effects, while for the French it has been an increasing commitment to cinematic form and style. One can be viewed in terms of improvement, the other can only be appreciated as an evolution and, given our spasmodic exposure to French cinema, time is running out.

For me, one of the most exquisite films of last year’s Film Nouveau was André Techiné’s Le Lieu du Crime, which seemed to make the screen vibrate with the language of cinema. Whether one considers the dazzling moments of its mise en scene (hard to appreciate while reading subtitles) or the superb symmetry of its construction, the real pleasure remained in seeing the work of a filmmaker who, having remained faithful for almost 20 years to a certain conception of cinema, has brought it to a level of seeming perfection. In this tale of broken promises and unrequited love, Techine has found the perfect chemistry between subject, narrative

treatment and mise en scene.

But it was a pleasure that will be denied to Australian audiences who had only glimpsed Téchiné’s work in one film, The Bronte Sisters, brought seven years after it was made for a run at the Longford and the AFI’s Chauvel in Sydney.

Jacques Doillon’s La Puritaine loomed large in one’s mind long after the festival ended, if for nothing other than its offer of proof that a filmmaker needs no more than a single camera, one location (in this case an empty theatre) and some superb performances to make an intoxicating film. Doillon is one of an increasing number of French filmmakers (Rohmer and Dubroux are others) for whom low budgets are more than a simple economic reality but have become an aesthetic principle.

It would of course be remiss not to point out some of the failures of the festival and two seem worth mentioning.

Flagrant Désir (Claude Faraldo) should serve as a suitable warning to Australian filmmakers embarking on co­ productions with the French: an American cop unravels a murder in the south of France where even the maids spoke perfect English and where any semblance of cultural coherence was purely coincidental. And Parole de Flic (Jose Pinheiro) a Ramboesque orgy of violence and bloodletting, sent many of the Sydney audience scurrying out to the Flollywood cafe next door for a well-earned croissant.

Film Nouveau, Chambon promises, will be back next year but until then it seems we’ll all hold our breath.

Michael Freedman

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 13

MAKING SENSE OF JAPAN W hat’s the best way of presenting films from another culture to a local audie nce?

FREDA FREIBERG and SUSAN STEWART compare recent seasons of Japanese cinema here and over­ seas.

IN PA R IS this winter (our

summer), there were five retrospective seasons of Japanese films screening simultaneously — apart from one-off screenings of individual Japanese films at the Cinematheque.

At the Pompidou Centre, in conjunction with a monumental retrospective exhibition of art works from the various avant garde movements in Japan (‘Japon des Avant-gardes 1910-1970’ — an exhibition of more than 500 works and documents, embracing architecture, design, graphics, posters, photographs, paintings and sculpture, as well as video and film clips), they have been concurrently running four Japanese film seasons.

The biggest of these was ‘Cinema and Literature in Japan — from the Meiji era up to today’ — a season of no less than 96 films adapted from literary works by modern Japanese novelists covering the internationally noted ‘masters’ like Mishima, Tanizaki and Kawabata, as well as women writers not well known in the West, like

14 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

Ariyoshi and Hayashi, and many others.

On the same day, you could see both Kinoshita and Imamura’s adaptation of The Ballad Of Narayama (1958 and 1983, respectively); on another day, three Naruse adaptations of novels by Hayashi Fumiko; on another day, three adaptations of Tanizaki novels by three different pre-war masters (Shimazu, Ito and Mizoguchi); and, on two consecutive days, six adaptations of six different Kawabata novels by six different directors — Shimizu, Naruse, Gosho, Kinugasa, Shinoda, and Toyoda.

Concurrently, there was a season of 15 films for young people, a season of five Imamura documentaries, and a season of 55 short experimental and avant garde films put together by the Director of Image Forum in Tokyo.

We have described the programme available to Parisian residents and long­ term sojourners — the seasons ran from 17 December until 5 March — to give an idea of how much Japanese cinema is on view elsewhere — and to indicate how little of Japanese cinema we get to see here. We know that Paris is a bigger city than Sydney or Melbourne, and that Paris — like London and New York — can rely on a huge tourist population to swell the ranks of audiences for specialised interest programmes; nevertheless, we could not but envy the Parisians for the quantity and range of Japanese films they can get to see, in comparison with what we are offered here.

The AFI’s recent season of ‘New Cinema Japan’ is a case in point. We were offered 11 features in Melbourne and 13 in Sydney. Of those screened in Melbourne, four had been screened at recent Melbourne Film Festivals (Typhoon Club in 1986, A Boy Called Third Base in 1980, A Distant Cry From Spring in 1981, Muddy River in 1.982), two of them (the last named) later receiving commercial releases at art house cinemas. Of those screened in Sydney, Family Game, Crazy Families and Paradise View had been screened in recent Sydney Film Festivals — in 1984, 1985 and 1986 respectively.

More to the point, the package was a disparate group of films with little in common apart from the fact that they had all been produced in the last decade.

THE TYPHOON CLUB: wet weather wear

In Sydney, audiences were swelled by the visit of the lively young Japanese director, Ishii Sogo, who exhibited his early work and discussed it with audiences.

The Sydney season (one of the AFI’s most successful import packages) coincided with a range of events organised for Japan Week. No such activities took place in conjunction with the Melbourne season.

(For the AFI, budget is obviously a factor. The season itself was supported by the Japan Foundation, which picked up the costs of the films, their freight, and the expenses of the festival guest.

A free photo-copied leaflet of material on the films was handed out at sessions: the money to produce a booklet was not available.)

At the Pompidou Centre, the novels from which the programmed films had been adapted were on sale in the lobby bookshop, and an exhibition on the authors of the novels — with photographs, manuscripts, biographical information — was mounted in an adjoining space. The organisers also produced an art-quality catalogue — with high gloss stills — written by French and Japanese experts on Japanese cinema. There were essays on the relations between literature and cinema in Japan, on theatre and cinema in Japan, and on popular literature and its heroes. There were also discursive notes on 37 different writers, with lists of works available in French translation and titles of works which have been adapted to the screen with dates and directors’ names appended.

Any reader of bestseller

lists will be aware that the publishing trade here is intimately linked with film distribution. Local publishers usually manage to re-release in paperback the book on which new American, British and Australian features (and television miniseries) are based, and time their releases to co-incide with the cinema releases. It is time that the publishing trade were co­ opted in the work of promoting Japanese films, through timing paperback releases of translated works of fiction to co-incide with the release of the filmed adaptation of the novel.

It is not only novels, but theoretical and critical writings which are important in the creation of audiences for specific films and groups of films. It would be helpful to promote sales of these publications around Japanese film seasons by, at the very least, providing subscribers THE NEW MORNING OF BILLY THE KID: a

with a bibliography of useful source material.

However, the critical canon of English-language writings on Japanese cinema is not sufficiently up-to-date in its emphases and range to equip the audience for this particular AFI season. A series of articles — on, for example, popular culture in Japan today, stars of the Japanese entertainment world, the Japanese film industry’s attempts to reinvigorate an ailing industry, new young directors at work in Japan today — published in the form of an accompanying booklet or monograph, and/or in the form of a special feature, published prior to the season in newspapers or magazines, could have publicised the season and provided the audience with a more useful context for viewing specific films. While we are aware that time and money are required to prepare and produce such monographs and features, we feel they are necessary in the case of a culture largely unfamiliar to local audiences.

In the end, the time and expense spent on preparing and distributing such articles and publications would prove worthwhile, not only in terms of increased understanding of the Japanese cinema, but also in terms of increased in te re st in it — an interest which will in turn generate an increase in the financial returns for distributors and exhibitors of Japanese films.

For, until we do more educa­ tional work around Japanese film, the old vicious circle will continue. As long as it is perceived as strange and difficult, people will continue to stay away in droves; and as

long as there are no sizeable audiences for Japanese films in Australia, no distributor (subsidised or otherwise) will be encouraged to import large and expensive seasons of Japanese films.

In view of the ‘random sample’ method which appears to have been the criterion used for the selection of films in this latest AFI season, it is not easy to identify common themes, moods or directions within them. There were some recurring themes — disaffected Japanese youth, rampant consumerism, the moral and spiritual vacuum afflicting modern Japan (sic); in other words, the darker side of the Economic Miracle — evident in The F am ily G am e, The M an W ho Stole The Sun, T yphoon Club, A B oy C a lle d Third B ase. However,

alongside them, we were treated to romantic idylls such as M iss Lo n e ly and A D ista n t C ry From S pring, which were strongly marked by the sort of excessive sentimentality which Donald Richie noted as a characteristic of popular Japanese cinema of the past.

We may well question their inclusion in a package entitled ‘New Cinema Japan’. And yet, one could find a common thread linking two such disparate films as A D ista n t C ry From S p rin g and The N e w M o rn in g O f B illy The K id in their quite different homages to the Hollywood western — the former reverential in its attempt to remake S hane in rural Hokkaido, the latter anarchically allusive to the iconography of the western, along with numerous other cinematic references. This latter film, one of the most

THE MAN WHO STOLE THE SUN: comic-strip heroics in performance style

interesting in the season, constitutes a panoramic act of piracy on world cinema, popular culture and high culture. Its list of characters include a hero called Billy the Kid, a femme fatale named Charlotte Rampling, a dishwasher named Marx Engels, an artist named Sergeant (sic) Sanders, a gang boss named Harry Callahan, other villains named Bluce Springstein and Leonid Brezhnev, in addition to a samurai janitor called Musashi (a legendary Japanese samurai hero, whose exploits have been the subject of numerous Japanese films) and a waitress who recites poetry (played by a young Japanese poet familiar to Japanese audiences). Billy the Kid emerges from — and finally returns to — a painted backdrop of Monument Valley, and the action (which culminates in a shoot-out, killing off most of the characters) takes place in a bar called ‘Slaughterhouse’.

A comparable frenetic energy was evident in The M an Who S tole The Sun, but there the black comedy is more focused, less anarchic, because it is used as a weapon in the fight against nuclear power installations. Its narrative, too, is more conventionally suspenseful, despite the strikingly effective use of comic-strip heroics in performance style and editing.

Here again, as in B illy The Kid, the focus on the hybridisation of culture in Japan lays to rest all the old assumptions about the uniqueness and difference and otherness of Japanese culture.

In the programming of two features by Morita, Somai and

Yamakawa in Sydney (Morita and Somai only in Melbourne), an implicit desire to create new Japanese auteurs could be detected. This move was not altogether successful for both Morita and Somai’s more recent films were noticeably less adventurous, less marked by an idiosyncratic style, than their earlier highly acclaimed films, The F a m ily G am e and T yphoon Club, respectively. In Melbourne, The F a m ily G am e was virtually given its commercial release in conjunction with the AFI season, screening daily throughout the fortnight, with most of the publicity directed towards it, at the expense of other films.

Overall, the attendances in Melbourne were disappointing, pointing to the need for more careful packaging, programming, promotion and timing of Japanese film seasons in the future. Clearly, it is not good business sense to launch a season of new and challenging foreign films in late November or December — the so-called Silly Season.

On the other hand, it would be incorrect to deduce, from the attendance figures, that there is a lack of interest in Japanese cinema. Recent Oshima and Imamura seasons have attracted full houses and an enthusiastic audience response. We look forward to the next season confident that past successes can be repeated, if not exceeded, and that we will not need to make an annual pilgrimage to Paris in order to experience the variety and vitality of Japanese cinema.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 15

It's been described as "Norman Rockwell meets Hieronymous Bosch"; writer and director

D L

A

Y

V

N

I

C

D

talks to DAVID MARSH and ANDREAS MISSLER about his most recent and most dis­ turbing work, B lue V elvet.

THREE’S A CROWD: Laura Dern, Isabella Rossellini and Kyle McLachlan in Blue Velvet

TWO’S COMPANY: Hannah Gordon and Anthony Hopkins in Elephant Man

ONE’S A COMMUNAL NIGHTMARE: Jack Nance in Eraserhead

16 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

‘ "W"expected to meet a grotesque, I fat, little German with fat J L stains running down his chin,” said Mel Brooks of David Lynch. “ Instead he turned out to be a clean-cut, American WASP kid, like Jimmy Stewart 35 years ago.” While shooting Dune in 1983, Sting described Lynch as a “ madman in sheep’s clothing” .

How a nice guy born in the American Northwest and raised in Virginia can open the sewers of the human psyche to produce Eraserhead and now Blue Velvet is going to remain an unsolved mystery. David Lynch wants it that way, but the point is that it’s fun to poke around a little, which is also the premise of his latest film.

If you were home from college to look after the store because your father had had a stroke, and then you found a cut-off human ear in a field, you’d probably be curious. So is Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan), the hero of Blue Velvet. He learns from Sandy (Laura Dern), the local police­ man’s daughter, that the ear has something to do with nightclub singer Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) and he connects her with a redneck headcase called Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper), who gets his kicks with an oxygen mask and a piece of blue velvet.

Jeffrey’s curiosity takes him on a nightmare trip to the other side of the tracks.

Why? I t’s a good question to ask in the hotel over coffee. “ I love mysteries, like Jeff­ rey,” says David Lynch. “ I ’m like Henry (in Eraserhead) and Jeffrey because I get confused about things that I see and I worry about a lot of things and I ’m curious.”

So is Jeffrey really David Lynch? “ Well, he fashioned himself on me.” (Some critics have noted a physical resemblance between Lynch and MacLachlan, even down to details of dress.)

Did you choose him as an alter ego? “ Well no. People say that . . . but I suppose I did. But he doesn’t button his shirt like that all the time. There’s something to it. Kyle buttoned his shirt up because he saw Jeffrey as me and he just took on certain things.”

This trademark of Lynch’s is not just a sign of reticence. It invites as many questions as it deflects.

David Lynch has always dressed that way and for half of his 40 years he has been making films. His youth, however, was spent behind an easel and not at the Saturday matinee perform­ ances. It was an attempt at ani­ mation at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts that brought him to film. With his first four minute short The Alpha­ bet and a new script, Lynch applied to the American Film Institute for a grant to do a second film; without hope of suc­ cess, he thought. He was offered a $5,000 grant. According to AFI director, George Stevens Jr, the submitted films had all been cate­ gorised and sorted into various piles and Lynch’s The Alphabet was left all on its own. They decided he deserved a grant on the spot.

The Grandmother, subsequently made with the help of the AFI, introduced the familiar Lynch style. The film has no dialogue, only images and sound effects, and it is the story of a lonely boy who wets his bed in an unsuccess­ ful attempt to gain attention from his parents. He finds a seed which he plants, and from it grows a huge root which later gives birth to the Grandmother. An affec­ tionate figure, she gives the boy the love he needs but she dies, leaving him alone once more.

In 1970, Lynch set off with his family for California to attend the AFI’s Centre for Advanced Film Studies. In the stables of the Centre’s Beverly Hills mansion

H Lynch began work on the five year slog that produced Eraserhead. The money ran out, the pro­ duction stopped, started again, and Lynch delivered the Wall Street Journal to pay the rent. The story of Henry Spencer, with his electrified haircut and sick ET prototype baby, was shown for the first time at the 1976 Los Angeles Filmex. When the lights went up there was dead silence.

Jack Nance, who played Henry, was reportedly delighted at the stunned reaction, “ I told you it would turn them into zombies,” he said to Lynch. There was a long pause to digest this com­ munal nightmare before the ovation came.

His parents, according to the American Cinefantastique maga­ zine, were very upset when they saw The Grandmother. They didn’t know where it came from.

Family life for the Lynches “ was blue skies, red flowers, white picket fences and green grass with birds chirping in the trees” , all of which appear in the opening sequence of Blue Velvet. “ I think what happened was that I went to the big city and it scared me, it was real frighten­ ing,” confided Lynch 'to Cine­ fantastique. Eraserhead, he said at another time, was his revenge on Philadelphia.

So what was the origin of Blue Velvet? “ Well, there wasn’t one point.

I was just getting fragments of interesting things. Some fell away, others stayed and began to join up. I t’s always kind of magical to me how these ideas string themselves together. I t’s n o t s o m e th in g I t r y to manipulate. It comes in from somewhere else, like I was a radio. But I ’m a bad radio. Some­ times the parts don’t hook together. Like w ith Ronnie Rocket, my next project, I ’m just w aiting to get answers to problems. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.”

DAVID LYNCH: “ Madman in sheep’s clothing’’

(Ronnie Rocket is about a guy who is three feet tall, bald and who wears a red wig. It also con­ cerns electricity. This is the standard synopsis given to the world’s press for a couple of years now. Only Dino De Laurentiis knows more.)

You need a long time for a script then? “ Yeah, sometimes I like listen­ ing to music or reading stories, no . . . rather, I like technical manuals or something like that.

Scientific things or metaphysical things to trigger ideas. It took a long time for Blue Velvet; I needed some new ideas and finally when they came, it was so obvious, but they weren’t there for a while.”

You could describe your way of writing as intuitive. Did you have the music in mind at that stage? (For example, Bobby

Vinton’s song Blue Velvet.) “ I wrote the script to Shos­ takovich, the last symphony, No. 15 I think, and I just kept playing a certain part of it over and over again. Sometimes just going out into the street and seeing a building or something makes all the difference. You have to expose yourself to different things.”

In Blue Velvet there are a lot of shots that go down beneath the surface, into the grass, into an ear, and so on. “ There’s a lot of inter-activity on the surface of life but the heavy stuff, the really great stuff, to me, happens in another area.”

Direct questions about the film seem to evoke more precise answers. How about that charac­ ter in the apartment at the end? Is he dead?

“ Well, the lab called. Five dif­ ferent people called the producer that morning and said: ‘There’s no problem, but what is that guy doing? Is he supposed to be dead?

We see him moving.’ And the producer came to me on the set and said, ‘David, this must be a good scene. The lab never calls otherwise. They don’t care about anything.’ ” Producers are another im­ portant factor in David Lynch’s career. One walked out foaming when he was shown a scene from Eraserhead during production.

They ignored David Lynch for four years after that film’s release. Even Mel Brooks thought he must be a fruitcake before engaging him to direct The Elephant Man in 1980. On the success he achieved here, Dino De Laurentiis hired him to direct the

sci-fi epic Dune, based on the Frank Herbert novels. It flopped, but Dino kept his faith in David Lynch. The price of artistic integrity was a deferred salary on a low budget production. Blue Velvet began shooting somewhere in the backwoods of North Caro­ lina, near the not so fictional town of Lumberton, “ the town where people really know how m uch w ood a w o o d ch u ck chucks . . . ” Was there any interference from the producer, or did Blue Velvet get cut at all? “ No. I mean there was no 20 minutes of perfect stuff that got taken out. But there was one scene, before Ben’s place in a bar where a girl put her breasts on fire, her nipples. That was a good scene.”

Are there two parallel, co-exist­ ing worlds in Blue Velvet? “ I see it all as one world.

That’s the weird part of it.

There’s the surface and things you discover hiding. I t’s not a happy ending in Blue Velvet. I t’s the same images as at the start but you know so much more about them. I t’s like if two people walk into a room. One of them, you know, has just had his family machine-gunned and the other has just won a prize or some­ thing. If you didn’t know that, they’d just look like normal people or something. There’s light and varying degrees of dark­ ness.”

Why do some people laugh at the scenes with Sandy and Jeffrey? Particularly at Sandy’s dream? “ That scene is kind of em­ barrassing. Sandy is this emo­ tional kind of girl who gets into this euphoric state which is beautiful. But it’s embarrassing if you watch it in a group. If you’re on your own it’s a different experience. I t’s a strange pheno­ menon. I t’s a feeling of what can happen when two people are sit­ ting in a car and falling in love when they’re all alone and no one else is listening. They say things like this in a safe environment, goofy things. And I think films should be embarrassing in some places. I also like the contrast of Sandy living in the same world as Frank and Ben where they’re all very naturally expressing their feelings.”

Would you give Sandy and Jeffrey a future? “ Yeah, absolutely, but in a way . . . an uneasy sort of future.

It wouldn’t be euphoric . . . ”

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH -

17

o m e o f m y a re a s o f in te re st in film a re h o r r o r a n d e x p lo ita ­ tio n . I ’ve a rg u e d o n m a n y o c c a s io n s t h a t th e r e a re m u ltip le d iffe re n c e s a t w o rk in th ese o fte n m a lig n e d g e n re s, o n ly to be th w a rte d b y th e w id ely -h eld a s s u m p ­ tio n th a t all h o r r o r film s a re th e sam e. T h e y a re n o t. In th e se d e b a te s it h as b een said to m e (so m e tim e s as a p u td o w n ), th a t I a m in te re s te d o n ly in “ g en re s tu d ie s ” , w h e re a s th e m o st re sp o n sib le a n d m o re im m e d ia te c o n ­ cern in th e c e n so rsh ip d e b a te lies in “ e m p iric a l sc ien ces” .

O r, to p u t it m o re b lu n tly , I w o u ld be keen o n e x p la in in g h o w th e p r o ­ d u c e rs re -e d ite d W es C ra v e n ’s The H ills H a v e E ye s — P a rt II, w hile th o s e w ith a b e tte r sense o f so cial re s p o n s i­ bility w o u ld b e g a th e rin g ‘lo b b y a m m o ’ to re la te th e rise o f stre e tv io lence to th e in c re a se d p o p u la rity o f p sy c h o m o v ies. T h e v ery c o n c e p t o f ‘e m p iric is m ’ a n d all its su sp e c t c o n fla tio n s a re ev id e n t even h e re , in th a t ‘tr u e ’ so cial re sp o n sib ility is a ssu m e d to be th a t w h ich m o s t o b v i­ o u s ly d e c l a r e s i t s e l f a s s u c h .

E m p iric ism is th e fic tio n o f fa c ts, o f c o n stru c tin g a ‘f a c tu a lity ’, o f a p p e a r ­ ing fa c tu a l.

B ut e m p iric ism c a n b e d a n g e ro u s b ecau se it a c tu a lly a tte m p ts to en d d e b a te , to e ra d ic a te th e o v e rla p p in g space o f o p p o s in g view s b y sc ie n tific ­ ally ‘p ro v in g ’ th a t th e re is o n ly ro o m fo r o n e sp a c e , o n e side, o n e o p tio n .

R eg ard le ss o f p o litic a l o rie n ta tio n , e m p i r i c a l d a t a c a n b e h ig h ly fla m m a b le fu el in th e v o la tile c e n s o r­ sh ip d e b a te . N e tw o rk s lik e Illin o is ’ N a tio n a l C o a litio n O n T elev isio n V io len ce (since 1980) a n d V ic to ria ’s o w n A u s tra lia n C h ild r e n ’s T elev isio n A c tio n C o m m itte e (since th e m id ­ seventies) p r o p a g a te th r o u g h th e ir n ew slette rs a n e m p iric ism th a t th in ly disguises th e ir so m e tim e s h y ste ric a l beliefs in th e o m n ip o te n c e o f th e elec­ tro n ic m e d ia a n d its e n c ro a c h m e n t o n a lite ra te , civilised so ciety . (See th e N C T V N e w s V o l. 4 N o . 3 M a y 1983 fo r its b ib lio g ra p h y o n re se a rc h in to T V /film v io len ce a n d its e ffe c ts o n society: it lists o v e r 600 stu d ies — m o s t o f th e m p s y c h o lo g ic a lly o rie n te d — p u b lis h e d b e tw e e n 1933 a n d 1983. N o te th e rh e to ric o f th e e d ito ria l h e a d in g : “ V io len ce p ro v e n

S

18 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

The Thing

h a r m f u l w o rld w id e — re s e a rc h ev idence ‘o v e rw h e lm in g ’ a c c o rd in g to U S ” .)

T h ro u g h o u t th e p a s t 30 y ears, th e c e n so rsh ip d e b a te h as c e n tre d on a p p ro p ria te signs o f th e tim es: th e rise o f ju v e n ile d e lin q u e n c y in th e fiftie s ; th e c a m e r a -r e p o r ta g e o f s tu d e n t rio ts, V ietn am a n d p o litical a ssa ssin a tio n s in th e sixties; th e in ­ creasin g d e se n sitisa tio n o f a p u b lic a d d ic te d to n e tw o rk crim e show s in th e seventies; a n d th e g ro ss lim its re a c h e d by th e p ro life ra tio n o f h a r d ­ co re g o re m ovies a n d vid eo s in th e e ig h tie s ( w ith s e x , d r u g s a n d r o c k ’n ’ro ll b ein g c o n sta n ts o v er th o se 30 y ears). E x c e p t fo r th e o cca sio n a l in sig h t in to th e id eo lo g ical co m p le x i­ ties o f th e se c u ltu ra l cu rre n c ies, th e a rg u m e n ts d a n c e a ro u n d rep etitiv e p h ilo s o p h ic a l p o la ritie s as if p e rfo rm ­ ing so m e w eird ritu a l. B o th sides a p p e a r eq u ally rid ic u lo u s, fro m th e fin a lity o f c a u se -a n d -e ffe c t th e o rie s to th e sh allo w n ess o f in d iv id u a l-fre e ­ d o m te stim o n ie s. W o rs t o f all, th e c u ltu ra l a rtifa c ts in th e line o f fire —

Nightmare on Elm Street 2

be th ey film s, v id eo s, T V show s, c a rto o n s , co m ics, m ag a z in e s o r ro ck re c o rd s — s u ffe r fro m a crim inal g e n e ra lisa tio n a n d re d u c tio n . O ne gets th e im p re ssio n th a t n o t o n ly are all h o rro r m ovies th e sam e, b u t a n y ­ th in g p o in te d to as th e cau se o f social ill-effects is sim p ly a n o th e r co rp u scle o f th e social disease.

The Sickness T h e n o tio n o f sickness a n d disease is very in te re stin g . L e t’s lo o k a t th e m u ltip le m e a n in g s o f th e w o rd “ sic k ” . W h e n u se d to d escrib e a g o ry , p e rv e rte d o r p o rn o g ra p h ic film , it refers to th e “ sick m in d ” w h o p ro ­ d u c e d su ch a w o rk . N o t su rp risin g ly , m a n y su ch film s a re lo o k e d o n as the d e m e n te d a n d u n c o n tro lle d m ark in g s o f d e v ia n ts, a ttra c tin g a n d even n u rtu rin g d e v ia n t view ers. P rio rity is g ra n te d to e m p iric a l sciences over g en re stu d ies b e c a u se , by calling a film “ sic k ” , its s ta tu s as cin e m a is o v e rru le d ; fo rg e t th e d a m n m ovies — w e’ve g o t a disease o n o u r h a n d s!

B u t “ s ic k ” h a s a m o re revealing

“T il i l ì M 1 ÌM

Whether it*s Rambo or World Championship Wrestling or / Dismember run

high.

Cinema

where

violence

versy:

in the

women,

Mama, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an

and

is

Papers a

horror as

looks

matter film,

part

of

issue

for

in the the

at

where three

particular

feelings areas contro­

representation

censorship

of

debate.

“ For every prestige horror film like Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby, 10 gross-outs this I way come. In frantic search of a constructive metaphor to justify all the excesses, a ' serious critic risks injury to the eyeball. “ Conversely, what worries or delights Robin Wood would be taken as part and parcel of the genre by readers of Rick Sullivan’s Gore Gazette and Bill Landis’ Sleazoid Express, the little poetry magazine of horror. Call it different needs or sensibilities — does Ethiopia worry about cholesterol? That exploitation fodder occasionally rises to challenge the anxiety of our age makes it irresistibly sociological; that the anxiety is subsequently expressed in terms that will keep you from other kinds of food for hours is its paradox.’’

—Carlos Clarens, Gory Gory Hallelujah, Village Voice, 2 September 1986 p 7 7 _______

m ean in g w h en it is u se d b y k id s. It m e a n s c o rn y , h a m m y , o b v io u s , te d io u s, b o rin g — all th e ad jectiv es th a t go w ith th e d ra w n -o u t y aw n a n d eyes ro llin g to th e ceiling. M o st o f all, it signifies a n o v e rt aw a re n e ss o f th e m ech an ism s o f a n in te n d e d e ffe c t. In th is sense “ sic k ” is th e d u m b n e ss o f a n o ld p u n c h -lin e ; th e d u m m y th ro w n o f f th e sk y sc ra p e r; th e g allo n s o f fa k e b lo o d ; th e s tu p id ity o f th e c h a ra c te r w h o goes d o w n in to th e b a se m e n t; th e ch e a p n e ss o f th e sp a c e s h ip ’s su sp en sio n w ires; th e ta c k in e ss o f th e m o n s te r ’s ru b b e r su it; a n d even th e p re d ic ta b ility o f th e p a re n ts w h o m iss th e w h o le p o in t.

T h is d u a lity o f “ sic k n e ss” is n o t ju s t a n a n th ro p o lo g ic a l o b se rv a tio n o f a ‘g e n e ra tio n g a p ’; it exem p lifies cin em atic sensibilities in c o n flic t. F o r every p e rso n o ffe n d e d b y M a n ia c th e re is o n e left ro llin g a ro u n d in la u g h te r. F o r ev ery p e rs o n le ft sh a tte re d by A N ig h tm a re O n E lm S tre e t th e re is o n e a p p a lle d b y its co rn in e ss. T h e ir d iffe re n c e is c o d e d n o t by ae sth e tic o r critical a p p ra is a l, b u t by m o d e s o f in te rp re tin g c in e ­ m atic style a n d fo rm . A n d it is th is very d u a lity th a t is o fte n m issed b y researc h a n d case stu d ie s w h ich try to ex am in e th e c a u se -a n d -e ffe c t re la ­ tio n sh ip s b etw een th e (sick) m o v ie a n d th e (sick) view er.

O b v io u sly , th e a n a ly st lo o k s a t g o ry film s fo r d iffe re n t re a so n s fro m th e g en re fa n . E a c h h a s th e ir o w n use valu es, p le a su re q u o tie n ts a n d e m o ­ tio n a l g ra tific a tio n b y w h ich th e y m a rk th e film s; a n d ju s t as th e fa n h as n o tim e fo r p la y in g a n a ly s t, th e a n a ly st is u n lik e ly to a d o p t th e f a n ’s m a n ic yet tra n s ie n t c o n s u m p tio n .

E v en if d a ta sheets a n d su rveys q u o te precise re sp o n se s fro m fa n s , a d d ic ts, k id s, d e a d -h e a d s, etc, th e e ffe c t is o n ly o n e o f c o n triv e d a c c u ra c y th a t still sid estep s th e in c re d ib le m u lti­ p licity w h ich th e “ sic k ” d u a lity o n ly h in ts a t. A m u ltip lic ity o f view ing h a b its, in te rp re ta tiv e m e th o d s a n d aw aren e ss levels h a v e c re a te d th e g u lf w h ich s u rro u n d s th e iv o ry to w e r in h a b ite d b y th e so cial a n a ly st.

R e tu rn in g to th e n o tio n o f th e ‘sick m in d ’ w h ich m a k e s g o r y /e tc film s, a sim ilar m u ltip lic ity exists. In c re d ib ly few film s a re a c tu a l d e m e n te d d o o d lings (to fo llo w th e p sy c h o lo g ic a l m e ta p h o r). P o ssib ly E d w a rd W o o d J r ’s G le n O r G le n d a , A lb e rt Z u g s m ith ’s C o n fe s s io n s O f A n O p iu m E a te r, Jesse F r a n c o ’s S u c c u b u s , D o n

20 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

_

E d m o n d s ’ lisa — S h e W o lf O f The SS o r J a c k s o n / Y o u n k i n ’s T h e D e m o n L o v e r c o u ld be c h a ra c terise d in th is w ay. B ut even th ese u n w o rld ly film s h av e a co m p lex yet precise lo c a ­ tio n w ith in th e d ense a n d in te r­ w eaving h isto ries o f h o rro r, sex a n d e x p lo ita tio n in th e cin em a. A k n o w ­ ledge a n d a p p re c ia tio n o f film c u ltu re h elps to id e n tify film s as c u ltu ra l p ro d u c ts; oth erw ise o n e is insensitive to th e ir d ifferen ces a n d to n a litie s.

Few social an aly sts a p p e a r to have th is ab ility .

M a n y “ sick ” film s p lay a t b eing sick b y d e lib erately p ro v o k in g th e w ra th o f con serv ativ es a n d th o se ig n o ra n t o f th e c o n v e n tio n s, o r by p lu n g in g in to th a t g re a t ch asm w here o n ly a ttu n e d sensibilities can illu m i­ n a te th e exact slan t o f th e film . Selfc o n scio u sn ess, iro n y , sh o rt-c irc u it­ ing, p a ro d y , assim ilatio n , sim u la tio n a n d se lf-d e stru c tio n all co m e in to p la y — p a rtic u la rly in th e c o n te m ­ p o ra ry h o rro r film . (See m y “ T ales O f T e r r o r ” in C in e m a P a p e rs 49 D ec.

1984 a n d “ H o rra lity ” in S creen V ol.

27 N o . 1 J a n ./F e b . 1986.) T h is is n ’t a n elite realm fo r th e film b u ff, b ecau se g o re -h o u n d s, h o rro r-h e a d s , a n d sicko freak s (be th e y kid s o r a d u lts) c o n su m e th ese te x tu a l a n d o n to lo g ic a l co m p lex ities in hu g e g u lp s. T h ey can , fo r ex am p le, d iffe r­ e n tia te th e cu te p a ro d ie s (A tta c k O f The K ille r T o m a to e s , M o ro n s F ro m O u te r S p a c e , Ig o r & The L u n a tic s ), fro m th e self-effacin g satires ( M o te l H e ll, M o th e r ’s D a y , D e a d Tim e S to rie s ), fro m th e safe com ed ies (R eA n im a to r, R e tu rn O f The L iv in g D e a d , F rid a y The T h irte e n th 3 -D ),

fro m th e fu ller fu sio n s o f h o r r o r a n d h u m o u r (T h e E vil D e a d , B lo o d S u c k in g F re a k s , A lo n e In The D a rk ).

F ro m th e ir a d v ertisin g ca m p a ig n s to th e ir p ro d u c tio n n o te s to th e ir critical a n d ‘fa n d o m ’ re c e p tio n to th e film s, th e ir n a tu re is clearly co n v ey ed .

T h is k in d o f c in em a is w ell-d o cu ­ m e n te d (u n d e r th e guises o f c u lt/ u n d e rg ro u n d /m id n ig h t/o u tla w /

tu rk e y /e tc film s) b u t d iffe re n t p r o b ­ lem s arise w h en a re a s o f m a in stre a m cin em a (ie h o rro r, g o re a n d sem i­ p o rn film s w ith a c o m p a ra tiv e ly w ider d istrib u tio n v ia film a n d v ideo) o p e ra te in a s u b c u ltu r a l m o d e .

S o-called ‘cult film s’ a re m a d e safe by seg reg atio n a n d m a rg in a lisa tio n , p lay in g in re p e rto ry th e a tre s a n d a r t h o u ses w here th ey can be th e ‘o th e r ’ w ith o u t p o sin g a n y real th re a t. It is in terestin g to n o te , also , th a t very little o ffe n c e can be fo u n d in th ese c u ltu ra l spaces b ecau se th ey p ro m o te m id d le - c la s s , p r o g r e s s iv e v a lu e s sim ilar to th o se th a t h av e in stig a te d th e gen eral co n c e rn w ith th e “ sic k ” m ovies o f th e m a in stre a m . (See th e latest V alh alla c a le n d a r: a jig saw o f all v ariety o f p s e u d o - r a d ic a l/a r ty / c u lt/u n d e r g r o u n d /h ip film s fo r th o se w h o seek so m eth in g ‘b e tte r ’ th a n m a in stre a m cin e m a .) A s co n fu sin g as all this seem s, I w o u ld sum it u p th u s: c o n te m p o ra ry film p ro d u c tio n , d is tri­ b u tio n a n d ex h ib itio n is o fte n likely to c o m m u n ic a te c u ltu ra lly in w ays c o n tra ry to its reco g n ised social o p e ra tio n . S uch o p e ra tio n a l b a rrie rs are very flim sy: is The B lu e s B ro th e rs really a cult film ? is D iv a really a n a rt film ? is B e n e a th The V a lle y O f The U ltra -V ix e n s ju s t a n o th e r ta c k y p o rn m ovie? is C ro n e n b e rg ’s V id e o d ro m e (to q u o te D av id S tra tto n ) “ sc h lo c k ” ? is n ’t M eryl S treep as m u ch a c u lt sta r as M ichael B erry m an ? is n ’t P rlz z i's H o n o u r an ex am p le o f th e S m a rm y W itty B o u rg eo is C o m e d y genre?

O nce a g ain , o n e needs to lo o k a t th e a c tu a l film s in m o re d eta il in ste a d o f sim ply a c k n o w led g in g th e ir p u r ­ p o rte d c u ltu ra l slan t a n d th e ir a d v e r­ tised cin em atic ty p e.

The Films Social a n aly sts a n d c o n c e rn e d p eo p le co u ld still d isc o u n t all o f th e ab o v e by claim ing th a t w h a t is m issing a n d n eed ed is in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e view ers th em selv es — hen ce th e need fo r th e ir field surveys. T h ese surveys will u su ally b e b ased o n a p rio r c o n ­ victio n th a t c e rta in p eo p le sh o u ld n o t be seeing c e rta in film s — hen ce th e need fo r c e n so rsh ip . It is n o su rp rise th a t p re -te e n ag e rs get to see all th ese film s; b u t is th is really a p ro b le m ? I w as 12 w h en th e R -c e rtific ate w as in tro d u c e d a n d n e a rly ev ery o n e in m y class saw C lo c k w o rk O ra n g e a n d The E x o rc is t a t th e cin em a. W as th is b a d th e n ? Is it b a d no w ?

A p u b lic o u tc ry a g a in st violence ( C lo c k w o rk O ra n g e ) a n d sa ta n ism

Sometimes a part of a television or videotape programme is hard to forget, even when you would really like to forget it. Can you describe a part you have seen which was like that, and the name of the programme it came from?

• When the bloke goes into the kitchen and rips his face up (Poltergeist) • When the doctor tried to kiss the nurse (Young Doctors In Love) • The part I want to forget but can’t is the part where the Terminator punches a man in the stomach and his hand goes right through his body and TerminaJdr’s hand was full of blood (Terminator) • News: the child abuse section about the boy that had a cockroach-infested nappy.

—Survey of a year 6 class in a primary school in south-eastern Melbourne, August 1986

Sequence from Sisters

( E x o rc is t ) fo llo w e d th e release o f th o se film s, b u t to say th a t society w as o u tra g e d by th e ir c o n te n ts is sim p lify in g th e m a tte r. B o th film s w ere c u ltu ra l clashes; C lo c k w o rk O ra n g e b ecau se a reco g n ised a u te u r a p p e a r e d to p u r v e y g r a t u i t o u s violence, a n d The E x o rc is t b ecau se it m a rk e d th e in tro d u c tio n o f big b u d g e t s p l a t t e r to m a i n s t r e a m screens. D u e to th e ir c u ltu ra l c o n ­ te x tu a lisa tio n s, th ese film s b ecam e social tra n sg re ssio n s. It d id n ’t ta k e m u ch fo r k id s to reco g n ise th e b re a k ­ ing o f social ta b o o w hen th ey saw it h a p p e n , a n d to d a y kids get ju s t as m u ch o f a kick fro m seeing all th e s tu ff deem ed u n s u ita b le fo r th e m , w hich in d ic a te s th a t th e a p p e a l o f a film is n o t re stric te d to a s tra ig h t­ f o r w a r d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith its c o n te n ts.

K u b ric k a n d F rie d k in a re fa r fro m e x p lo ita tio n d ire c to rs , a n d in d eed th ey are reco g n ised a u te u rs w ho b e n e fit fro m a c e rta in c u ltu ra l a p p ro v a l. R e m e m b e rin g h o w closely th e social a n d c u ltu ra l v alues o f ‘fine a r t ’ a n d ‘su ita b le film s’ a re lin k e d , it is u n lik ely th a t th e a rtistic m e rit o f a re c o g n ise d d ire c to r w o u ld co m e u n d e r fire th ese d ay s. In s te a d , th e ch arg es a re laid m o re d irectly ag a in st th e faceless, tasteless m ass o f titil­ latin g su b je c t m a tte r th a t fleshes o u t th e b u lk o f all e x p lo ita tiv e gen res — a sp raw lin g p la in w h ere sp e c ific a tio n is p re su m e d to be u n n ec e ssa ry . H o w ­ ever, it is q u ite p o ssib le th a t real e x p lo ita tio n p ic tu re s (ie film s th a t n ever p re te n d to h av e a n y a rtistic m e rit w h a tso e v e r!) a re m o re o p e n

a b o u t th e ir e x p lo itativ e n a tu re th a n big b lo c k b u ste rs w hich gloss th e ir low -level ap p e a l w ith high p ro d u c tio n v alues a n d th e sta m p o f a k n o w n p r o ­ d u c e r o r d ire c to r. It is also likely th a t m o st au d ien ces recognise this d iffe r­ ence.

C o m p a re R o c k y IV w ith T h e W o rld W restlin g F e d e ra tio n T V coverage: th e la tte r is to ta l a rtific e a n d u n ­ a b a sh e d th e a tre w hile th e fo rm e r a tte m p ts (in tru e S tallo n e style) to m a k e a p o in t. N o w th e r e ’s th e real d an g er! V o lk ai a n d th e S heik are p u re , p lastic stim u li fo r th e cynic inside m o st o f us, in v itin g us to leer a n d je e r a t th e b lo a te d spectacle w hich d o e s n ’t send u p su p er-p o w er struggles as m u ch as it sim ulates th e m . R o c k y glo rifies, ro m a n tic ise s, idealises a n d d ra m a tise s th e sam e struggles w ith a realism th a t s u ffo ­ cates its very a b su rd ity . O nce ag ain we hav e a co n flict in m o d es o f cin e­ m atic fo rm a n d style; a clash o f sy m ­ b olic co des. R o c k y m a n ip u la te s o u r e m o tio n a l resp o n se (in te n tio n a lly an d in a c c o rd a n ce w ith o u r desire) w hile th e w restling invites us to su sp en d o u r will n o t to be m a n ip u la te d . T his is th e s tu f f o f th e a tre , o f m u tu a l eng ag e­ m e n t, o f a w illingness to be played w ith by a film o r w h atev er. It is also th e m o st d a n g e ro u s a re a to co n sid er cen so rin g becau se o f its im p o sitio n o f a p o w er w hich does n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t how th e in d iv id u al exercises c o n tro l in such a c u ltu ra l exchange.

The Audience H o r r o r an d e x p lo ita tio n w o rk along sim ilar lines to th e w restling, in th a t th e au d ien ces w hich d e te rm in e th e g e n re s’ m u ltip lic a tio n are co n scio u s o f th e signifying n a tu re w o rk in g in these film s; it is in teg ral to th eir e n jo y m e n t o f th e m . T h is m eans th a t th ey are — no m a tte r w h at th e ir age — in te rp re tin g th e film s’ fo rm an d c o n te n t in w ays th a t are n o t show n clearly in survey sheets w hich d etail things like au d ien ce in ta k e , selection a n d ra tio n a le . T o c en tre o n such areas sim ply fulfils th e p rescrib ed needs o f th e survey: in d icatin g th a t eith er a legal in frin g e m e n t is o c c u r­ ring (m in o rs view ing A O m a terial) or th a t ad v erse effects are being p r o ­ d u ced fro m excessive in ta k e s (m in o rs a n d / o r a d u lts view ing to o m u ch A O m a te ria l). B o th co n clu sio n s o f cou rse are in te n d e d to fulfil th e ir ow n desire: to c o n tro l th e p ro d u c tio n a n d d istri­ b u tio n o f A O m a te ria l.

T h e re is so m e th in g u n d e n ia b ly p a re n ta l a b o u t all o f th is — a n d I m ean th a t in th e m o st in sid io u s o f w ays. O n e can fo llo w tw o m a jo r p lo ts in th e cen so rsh ip scen ario : (i) th e p a re n t d esp erately try in g to reg ain its lo st, eg o cen tric c o n tro l o ver th e child; a n d (ii) a cu ltu re d esp erately try in g to re in sta te its c o n tro l o v er n a tu re .

R ead in g th e endless ‘p ro -c o n tro l o f an ti-so cial m a tte r ’ view s o f th e vox p o p u li, th e voice o f th e p a re n t is o fte n raised. It is a voice (it is said) I w o u ld n ’t u n d e rs ta n d b ecau se I d o n ’t have c h ild ren — a fo rm o f closed logic th a t claim s o n ly p a re n ts are q u alifie d to discuss th e m a tte r. B u t I w as on ce a kid a n d I re m e m b e r q u ite clearly how lu d icro u s m o st p a re n ta l co n cern s w ere. A s p a rt o f a n a u d ien ce th e n a n d now (covering 15 y ears o f h o rro r, te rro r, g o re a n d p o rn ) th e s ta n d a rd o f m isin te rp re ta tio n h o ld s: ju s t as p a re n ts p resu m e th a t ch ild ren d o n ’t hav e a voice, th e ‘p ro -c o n tro l’ lo b b y p resu m es th a t th e au d ie n c e fo r ex p lo ita tio n is eq u ally n o t q u a lifie d to discuss th e m a tte r, th a t its voice is a b o u t as irrelev an t as th a t o f th e film critic a n d genre studies.

M o st ‘p a re n ta l’ rh e to ric heavily derives fro m p u lp e d u n d e rsta n d in g s o f psy ch o lo g y a n d sociology. P e rh a p s th e m o st telling asp ect here is th e n o tio n o f ‘being e x p o se d ’ to sick m o v ie s /A O m a te ria l/u n s a v o u ry m a tte r/e tc . It is u n b eliev ab ly d e ­ m ean in g to tre a t a view er as som e d u m b lu m p , w h o h a p p e n s to get stu ck in a th e a tre o r in fro n t o f a T V a n d su ffers a fo rm o f ‘m o ra l ra d ia ­ tio n ’ fro m th e frig h te n in g p o w er o f som e h o rrific im ages b la ste d o n to th e s u b je c t’s re tin a . T h is beg s fo r m easu res co n ceiv ed p rim a rily in b e h a v io u rist term s, a n d w hen legis­ la tu re is b ack ed u p by b e h a v io u rist th eo ries th e n w e’ve re a lly g o t so m e ­ th in g to w o rry a b o u t. A s su ch , th e call fo r cen so rsh ip is th e n fa r m o re d a n g e r o u s t h a n th e d r e a m t- u p h o rro rs o f an illiterate, uncivilised society.

T h e n a tu re o f re p re se n ta tio n is cen tral to th e cen so rsh ip d e b a te . C o n ­ sider how ‘o ld sty le’ h o rro r is p re ­ ferred becau se it leaves m o re u p to th e v iew er’s im a g in a tio n w hereas m o d e rn h o rro r a n d g o re is m erely a b lu n t a ssau lt o f visceral effects; a n d how ‘e ro tic a ’ is acc e p tab le b ecau se it stim u lates desires w hereas p o r n o ­ g ra p h y b lu d g eo n s o u r sexual sensi­ bilities. T his is n o t d o u b le s ta n d a rd s

Sometimes a part of a television or videotape programme is so enjoyable that you always seem to remember it. Can you describe a part you have seen which was like that?

• I like the part where a lady got chopped by an axe (Evil Dead) • I like it when the graves open and all the skeletons come out (Poltergeist) • I like the bit when the man was pulled upside down on a trap and then has his neck slashed (Friday the 13th Part 2) • When the lady monster chewed her hand off and perked (sic) up her guts (Evil Dead) • When a commando threw a blade and it cut off the top half of the other guy’s head

(Commando) [ —Survey of a Year 6 class in a primary school in south-eastern Melbourne, August 1986.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 21

(as so m e h av e a rg u e d ) b e c a u se it is in fa c t tw o se p a ra te m o d e s o f re p re ­ s e n ta tio n — th a t w h ich seduces th ro u g h inv isib le m e c h a n ism s, a n d t h a t w h ic h o v e rp o w e rs th r o u g h visible m e c h a n ism s. It is th e d iffe r­ ence b etw een H itc h c o c k ’s m o n ta g e s a n d H e rsc h e ll G o rd o n L ew is’ in te s ­ tin es; b etw een M o n r o e ’s lips a n d H u s t le r ’s p in k b its. It is th e d iffe re n c e b etw een sy m b o l a n d sign; b e tw e e n m e ta p h o r a n d m e to n y m .

T h e m e c h a n ism s o f c u ltu re — h o w it c o m m u n ic a te s — a re o fte n d is­ g u ised , h id d e n , tr a n s p a r e n t, fu se d , rep resse d . N e a rly all re p re s e n ta tio n s a re c o d e d as a c c e p ta b le so lo n g as th e ir m a rk in g s a re a b se n t. T h e ir ex p o su re cau ses all so rts o f p ro b le m s — p o litic a lly , id eo lo g ically , socially, artistic a lly — a n d as we a re c o n tin u ­ ally m a d e to fo c u s o n th e c o n te n ts o f re p re s e n ta tio n s r a th e r th a n th e ir fo rm s o r n a tu re s , a su d d e n c o n ­ fro n ta tio n w ith th e la tte r u p se ts th e b a la n c e o f th in g s. T o be m o re sp ecific, h a rd -c o re h o r r o r a n d p o rn can c o n s titu te a b asic social tra n s g re s ­ sion b ec a u se th e y c o n fro n t o n e set o f valu es w ith a c o n flic tin g set: n o t th a t p eo p le a re o ffe n d e d b y su ch im ag ery , b u t th a t su ch im ag ery gives a n in d ic a ­ tio n o f w h a t is a lre a d y o p e ra tin g in so fte r, sy m b o lic im ag e co d es. T h e d esire fo r c e n so rsh ip in th is sense can th u s be seen as a re fu sa l to face so m e o f th e b asic social m o d e s o f im ag e p ro d u c tio n a n d id e n tific a tio n — th o se c o n c e rn in g sex, h o r r o r a n d v iolence. T h e u ltim a te d esire, it a p p e a rs , is to erase th ese elem en ts fro m o u r c u ltu ra l a n d p e rs o n a l p syche a n d h av e us in h a b it a w o rld th a t co u ld o n ly exist in a C a re B e a rs m o v ie.

M o re a tte n tio n n eed s to b e p a id to h o w film c o m m u n ic a te s; to h o w a view er in te ra c ts w ith a film ; to h o w a n a u d ie n c e id e n tifie s w ith film s. O n e c a n n o t p o ssib ly u n d e rs ta n d th ese spaces o f e n g a g e m en t if o n e severs th e m fro m th e ir so u rc e — th e film s th em selv es. M o st im p o rta n tly , o n e c a n n o t even get n e a r to d iscu ssin g th e co re p ro b le m a tic s (a b se n t b y desig n in th is article) o f sexual p o litics a n d id eo lo g ical c o n tro l if o n e first d o e s n ’t a c k n o w le d g e th e film s (o r T V show s o r m ag a z in e s, etc) as s p e c ific c u ltu r a l a r tifa c ts . F o rg e t th e sta tistic s fo r a m o m e n t: nex t tim e y o u ’re in a th e a tre a n d e v e ry o n e h y ste ric a lly lau g h s w h en th e p o ssessed z o m b ie chew s o f f h e r ow n h a n d — listen to th e la u g h te r.

he p o rn o g ra p h y d e b a te in ­ volves tw o factio n s, b o th convinced o f th e validity o f th eir sta n d . O ne, c h a ra c te r­ ised by th e em otive use o f w o rd s like “ kiddie p o r n ” an d “ video n a stie s” , is seen by th e o th e r as “ rig h t w in g ” , th e “ w ow sers” , o r “ forces o f d a rk ­ n ess” . T h e second fa c tio n , calling them selves d efen d ers o f civil liberties, c o n cen trates o n “ rig h ts” . Y et th ey are u n ited in a vital respect: th e o v er­ riding co ncerns ta k e n o ac c o u n t o f th e social, econom ic an d political su b o rd in a tio n o f w om en.

T h e so-called rig h t w ing ignores the n o tio n th a t p o rn o g ra p h y is a b o u t the d e g ra d atio n o f w o m e n ’s bodies an d sexuality. T o th em , w o m e n ’s rights are irrelevant an d ch ild ren are th e sole co ncern. A n y w o m an p ro testin g against m ale ex p lo itatio n o f w o m e n ’s bodies is classed selfish o r m isguided: any ‘re a l’ w o m a n ’s c o n cern , they say, should be not fo r herself, but fo r the ‘child v ictim ’. F o r the so-called left g r o u p , fem ale e x p lo ita tio n a n d d e g ra d a tio n is su b o rd in a te d to the right o f m en to see an d d o w hat they w ish, in their ow n sexual term s.

C ertain ly b o th g ro u p s m ay som etim es m ake a false obeisance to “ w o m e n ’s rig h ts” , the a rg u m en t being th a t if we do n o t allow m en to view p o rn o g rap h y , then som e m en will engage in sexual violence against real, live w om en. T he u n d erlying th re a t seem s to be: “ A llow y o u r sisters to suffer e x p lo ita tio n a n d d e g ra d a tio n in p o rn o g ra p h ic d ep ictio n s, an d allow y o u r bodies to be p a ra d e d vicariously

T

| if | | I | | f | | I l

:

i;

on screen in writhing agonies o f

mm mm

sexual d isp lay — o r else, ladies, you will su ffe r th o se indig n ities, th a t e x p lo itatio n a n d d e g ra d a tio n to y o u r ow n b o d ie s.”

I f th e ‘rig h t w in g ’ lo o k s a t w om en at all in th e d e b a te , it do es so th ro u g h a d isto rte d lens. T o th o se on th e right, any n ak ed p ic tu re o f a w o m an is u n accep tab le, unless classed in th e ir term s as “ high a r t ” — w hich m eans som e long d ead p a in te r p a in te d it, an d th e la d y ’s long d ead to o . T o th ose on th e rig h t calling fo r b a n n in g o f p o rn o g ra p h ic film s a n d v ideos, th e con cern is n o t fo r living, b re a th in g w om en. It is th e p e rp e tu a tio n o f th e m yth o f th e ‘tr u e ’ w o m a n , th e ‘g o o d ’ w o m an , as p a ra g o n o n a p ed estal.

T his im age serves th e rig h t well, fo r it em phasises fem ale su b m issio n . T h e style co n fo rm s to w h at is m o st co nvenient fo r th e d o m in a n t g ro u p — nam ely, th e g o o d w ife a n d m o th e r caring endlessly fo r th e c h ild ren , p ro ­ ducing th ree h o t m eals a d ay (e n d ­ lessly), a n d pick in g u p socks an d w et tow els fro m b a th ro o m flo o rs (en d ­ lessly). A n d sm iling endlessly th ro u g h the w et n ap p ies, h o t m eals, d a m p u n d erw ear. J u s t as w o m en in fo rced sexual poses rep resen t a den ial o f h u m an ity to h a lf th e h u m a n race, p u ttin g w om en in fo rced m a te rn a l poses o n pedestals denies th a t h a lf th e sam e h u m a n ity .

T h e ‘left w in g ’ talk s a b o u t freed o m o f speech an d th e rig h t to privacy.

Yet w hen civil lib e rta ria n s in v o k e freed o m o f speech in defen ce o f c o n ­ glom erates ped d lin g p o rn o g ra p h y ; o r new sagents lo ad in g th e ir shelves w ith . m agazines d ep icting w o m en as lu m p s ^

w siÉÊill&ii

lIlK i M V,¡¡Slf 1\S.yl!W ê*iÉÊm ¡ l l l i « 1 1 IM M H ■ ■ ■ g iS »111 illilfi WÊM ¡¡¡¡g » ¡ a

1

; i^ h ^ h h i m m

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 23

o f flesh w ith n o n a m e , n o p e rs o n ­ ality, n o a u to n o m y ; o r vid eo p irates selling th e ir w ares in street m a rk e ts, th e ir voices are a lm o st d ro w n e d o u t in th e s o u n d o f m o n ey . T h e days o f restrictiv e c e n so rsh ip in A u stra lia have n o th in g to re c o m m e n d th em , a n d th ey d id n o t p re v e n t fa st b u ck s fro m being m a d e o n b lue m ovies an d p o rn m ag azin es in p la in w ra p p e rs.

F reed o m o f speech fo r p o rn o g ra p h e rs is never at risk in a society w hich g lo r­ ifies th e s u b o rd in a tio n o f w o m en , p ro m o te s it, o r sim ply to le ra te s it. It is w o m e n ’s voices th a t are silenced by th e p o rn o g ra p h e rs , w ho are s u p ­ p o rte d by so-called civil lib e rta ria n s d efen d in g th e rig h ts to free speech o f th o se p ed d lin g p o rn o g ra p h y . U ntil w om en have eq u al access to eco n o m ic a n d social fre e d o m , a n d to p o litical fo ru m s, ta lk o f free speech fo r w om en is em p ty .

T h e left says view ing p o rn o g ra p h ic m ovies in th e p riv acy o f th e h o m e is an d sh o u ld be a c c e p tab le ; n o s ta n ­ d a rd b u t th e h o m e o w n e r’s sh o u ld be e n fo rce d a t th e h e a rth . B ut this a rg u m e n t is u sed ag ain st in te rv e n tio n in p riv a te h o m es w h ere th e ‘m a n o f th e h o u s e ’ b e a ts, b ash es, rap es a n d abuses his w ife. A ll m em b ers o f a h o u seh o ld sh o u ld have eq u al rights to d eterm in e w h at h a p p e n s in it. B ut w hen th e left talk s a b o u t th e p rivacy o f th e h o m e th e y to o o fte n ig n o re th e fact th a t th e d esires o f h ead o f h o u se ­ h o ld a n d ‘s u b o rd in a te ’ are n o t neces­ sarily id en tical. A n d w h e th e r in th e h o m e o r w ith o u t, p h y sical, p sy c h o ­ logical a n d visual v iolence d e h u m a n ­ ising a n d sexually h u m ilia tin g to w om en sh o u ld n o t be to le ra te d o r en co u ra g e d .

In ta lk in g a b o u t p riv acy an d freed o m , it is o d d th a t w h ere w o m en are c o n c e rn e d , th e w o rd s are m o st o fte n used w h en th e y involve th e p o te n tia l e x p lo ita tio n o f w o m e n ’s b odies a n d w o m e n ’s sex u ality . T h o se talk in g o f ‘f re e d o m ’ in th e c o n te x t o f p o rn o g ra p h y ta lk o f a w o m a n ’s rig h t to p a rtic ip a te in p o rn o g ra p h ic film s.

B ut w h a t is th e v alid ity o f th e p ro fesse d ch oice w o m en hav e, in a c o u n try w h ere th e y still e a rn only 65 p er cent o f m e n ’s p a y (w here w o m en earn an y m o n ey at all), despite decisions allegedly secu rin g eq u al p ay . W e live in a w o rld w here th e legi­ tim ate rig h ts o f w o m en w o rk ers to a p p ro p ria te p a y levels are ig n o red o r “ The effects of TV violence vary, of course, according to the program. Factual, nonglorifying documentaries have been found to increase rather than decrease sensitivity to violence. However, when the purpose of the violence is to excite or entertain the viewer or portrays violence as a successful way to resolve a conflict, the results have been quite harmful. Research shows that the most common effects are major increases in anger and irritability, loss of temper, increased verbal aggression, increased fear and anxiety, and a desensitisation towards violence. Increases, in fighting, distrust and dishonesty, decreases in sharing and co-operation increases in I depression, willingness to rape and actual criminal behaviour have all been repeatedly hiound.

I “ Research clearly suggests but is not yet conclusive that entertainment violence increases racism, militarism, opposition to free political speech, opposition to foreign aid, and support for authoritarian rather than democratic forms of government.”

—National Coalition on Television Violence, NCTV News, Volume 4 No. 3, May 1983

24 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

d o w n g rad e d by em p lo y ers a n d in d u s­ trial co m m issio n s alik e, w hilst p a rlia ­ m ents d e b a te p ro s titu tio n bills a n d nurses are fo rced to e n te r in to p r o ­ tra c te d strikes w ith o u t p ay . T h e tru th is th a t m a n y w o m en are fo rc e d in to p ro stitu tio n o r p o rn o g ra p h y th ro u g h eco n o m ic reality o r th ro u g h physical b ru ta lity , o r b o th .

T h e U S fem in ist A n d re a D w o rk in talk s o f “ th e b itte r fa c t th a t th e only tim e th a t eq u ality is co n sid ered a value in th is society is in a situ a tio n w here som e extrem ely d e g ra d in g tra n sa c tio n is being ra tio n a lise d . A n d th e only tim e th a t fre ed o m is c o n sid ­ ered im p o rta n t to w o m en as such is w hen w e’re ta lk in g a b o u t th e freed o m to p ro stitu te o n eself in one w ay o r a n o th e r ” . T h e n civil lib e rta ria n s lo u d l y p r o f e s s th e i n d i v i d u a l w o m a n ’s rig h t to “ c h o o s e ” to sell h er b o d y in th is w ay. B ut as D w o rk in n o tes: “ T his in d iv id u al w o m a n is a fiction — as is h er will — since in d iv i­ d u ality is precisely w h a t w o m en are denied w hen th ey are d efin ed a n d used as a sex class. A s long as th e issues o f fem ale sexual d estin y are po sed as if they are resolved by in d iv i­ d uals as in d iv id u als, th e re is n o w ay to c o n fro n t th e ac tu a l c o n d itio n s th a t p e rp e tu a te th e sexual ex p lo ita tio n o f w o m e n .”

Ending Pornography T h e d eb a te involves a th ird g ro u p sp eak in g o u t. T h a t th e ir voices are less o fte n h e a rd o r, w hen h e a rd , m is­ u n d e rsto o d o r m isre p re se n te d , itself co n firm s th e social, p o litical a n d eco n o m ic p o sitio n o f w o m en . F e m in ­ ists are n o t sp eak in g o u t to ‘p ro te c t’ w om en o r to ‘sav e’ th em fro m h a rm , b u t becau se w o m e n ’s bod ies are being su b jected to ex p lo ita tio n a n d in d ig ­ nity. W o m e n are being d ep riv ed o f h u m a n rights. T h e fight is fo r rig h ts to civility an d fre e d o m d en ied by th e so-called rig h t a n d le ft, fo r n eith er a rg u m e n t is sa tisfa c to ry . N eith er takes in to a c c o u n t th e civil rig h ts an d (lack of) freed o m o f 51 p er cent o f th e p o p u la tio n . N eith er recognises th a t, in this d e b a te , w o m e n ’s liberties are at stake.

T h e fem inist a p p ro a c h to en d in g p o rn o g ra p h y is p rem ised on fem in ist p rinciples, as D ale S p e n d e r e n u n ­ ciates: “ F em in ism is b ased o n values,

o n values o f self-id en tity , re sp o n ­ sibility, a u to n o m y , e q u ality a n d th e ab sen ce o f d o m in an ce, co ercio n an d o p p re ssio n . U n d e rsta n d in g s w hich do n o t respect these values, no m a tte r fro m w hom they e m a n a te , are n o t to le r a te d .”

F em in ists have fo rm u la te d a civil l i b e r t i e s p h i l o s o p h y r e s p e c tin g w o m e n ’s right to civility an d lib erty .

Since p o rn o g ra p h y is c en tral in creatin g an d m ain tain in g w o m e n ’s in fe rio r social statu s, it is a fo rm o f sex d isc rim in atio n , a p ractice in frin g ­ ing on th e civil rights o f w o m en .

U n d e r the fem inist civil rights based a p p r o a c h p io n e e re d by A n d re a D w o rk in an d C a th a rin e M acK in n o n in the U S, a d efin itio n o f p o rn o ­ g rap h y as sex d iscrim in atio n sh o u ld be in clu ded in th e S e x D is c r im in a tio n A c t 1984 an d equal o p p o rtu n itie s leg islation, to pro v id e th a t m aterial em p h asising the explicit su b o rd in a ­ tio n o f w om en in a d eh u m an isin g w ay as sexual o b jects g ran ts a rig h t o f ac tio n fo r legal claim s. T h e d efin itio n o f p o rn o g ra p h y in th e A ct w ould be th a t p o rn o g ra p h y is: T h e sexually explicit s u b o r d i n a t i o n o f w o m e n , g rap h ically d ep icted w h e th e r in pictures o r in w o rd s , th a t also in cludes o n e o r m o r e o f th e fo llow in g — • w o m e n p res en ted d e h u m a n i s e d as sexual o b jects, th in gs o r c o m ­ m odities • w o m e n p re s e n te d as sexual o b je c ts w h o en jo y pain or h u m ilia tio n • w o m e n p re s e n te d as sexual o b je c ts w h o experience sexual p leas u re in being ra p e d • w o m e n p res en ted as sexual o b je c ts cut u p o r tied u p or m u t il a te d o r b ru ised o r physically h u rt • w o m e n p res en ted in p o s tu re s in sexual su b m issio n or sexual servility, in cluding by inviting p e n e tr a ti o n • w o m e n ’s b o d y p a rts — inclu d in g b u t n o t limited to vag inas, breasts, a n d b u tt o c k s — e x h ib ited , such th a t w o m e n a re re d u c e d to th o s e p arts • w o m e n p re s e n te d as w h o re s by n a tu r e • w o m e n p re s e n te d being p e n e tr a te d by o b je c ts o r a n im als • w o m e n p re s e n te d in scen ario s o f d e g r a d a t io n , in ju ry , o r t o r tu r e , s h o w n as c o n t a m i n a t e d o r in fe rio r, bleeding, b ru ised o r h u r t in a co n tex t th a t m a k e s these c o n d i ­ tio n s sexual.

“ While I have stressed the (horror) genre’s progressive or radical elements, its potential for subversion of bourgeois patriarchal norms, it is obvious enough that this potential is never free from ambiguity. The genre carries within itself the capability of reactionary inflection, and perhaps no horror film is entirely free from its operations.

It need not surprise us that there is a powerful reactionary tradition to be acknowledged — so powerful it may at times appear the dominant one. Its characteristics are, in extreme cases, very strongly marked. “ Before noting them, however, it is important to make one major distinction between the reactionary horror film and the ‘apocalyptic’ horror film. The latter expresses, obviously, despair and negativity, yet its very negation can be claimed as progressive: the ‘apocalypse’, even when presented in metaphysical terms (theoend of the world) is generally reinterpretable in social/political ones (the end of the highly specific world of patriarchal capitalism).’’

—Robin Wood, An Introduction to the American Horror Film, Movies and Methods, Vol 2, edited by Bill Nichols. ______ . '_____ ■

E xcluded fro m th e d e fin itio n is ero tica th a t does n o t rely o n the d ynam ic o f su b m ission a n d d o m in a ­ tio n , b u t is b ased on sexual eq u ality .

If m aterial m eets th e d e fin itio n o f p o rn o g ra p h y , th e A ct sh o u ld p ro v id e fo u r legal claim s o f d iscrim in atio n : 1. C oercion into P erform in g fo r P ornography. W o m e n co e rc e d into p e r f o r m i n g fo r p o r n o g r a p h y w o u ld hav e a cau se o f actio n a g a in s t the m a k e r s, sellers, e x h ib ito rs, o r dis­ tr ib u t o r s o f p o r n o g r a p h y . R ed ress w o u ld be in th e fo r m o f d a m a g e s , elim in a tio n o f th e p r o d u c t s o f the co erced p e r f o r m a n c e fr o m p u blic view, or b o th .

2. F o r c in g P o r n o g r a p h y on a Person. W o m e n w h o hav e h a d p o r n o g r a p h y forced u p o n th e m w o u ld have a cau se o f ac tio n a g a in s t th e p e r p e t r a t o r .

3. Assault or Physical A ttack due to P orn o g ra p h y . W o m e n w h o are a ss a u lte d , a tt a c k e d , or in j u re d in a way th a t is cau sed by a specific e x a m p le o f p o r n o g r a p h y c o u ld seek d a m a g e s fr o m th e m a k e r , d is­ tr ib u t o r , seller, o r e x h ib ito r o f th e m aterial.

4. Trafficking in P orn ograp h y. A n y w o m a n o r g r o u p o f w o m e n co u ld bring a c o m p la in t ag ain st tr a ffic k e rs in p o r n o g r a p h y as a w o m a n acting against the s u b o r d i n a t i o n o f w o m e n .

T hese new rem edies w ould exist a lo n g s id e a n y a lr e a d y e x is tin g crim inal rem edies — for exam ple, sexual assault o r rap e legislation.

Advantages In pro v id in g an avenue o f a c tio n an d redress fo r w om en w hose rights have been infrin g ed by p o rn o g ra p h y , the state clearly declares th a t p o rn o ­ g rap h y does n o t have state san ctio n .

By p ro v id in g a right in th e p erso n w hose liberties have been in frin g ed , the law m ain tain s its con cern fo r the au to n o m y o f w om en. By p ro v id in g a right in the p erso n w hose liberties have been v io lated , th e role o f the state in en fo rcin g sta n d a rd s is lim ited to the rights o f th a t p erso n — it is fo r th e w om en o r g ro u p d iscrim in ated against to decide w h eth er o r n o t the action m eets th e s ta n d a rd , an d on th a t basis to a p p ro a c h th e legal system fo r redress.

Civil liberties an d freed o m s are do u b ly preserved because c o m p lain ts a b o u t p o rn o g ra p h y are m ad e in the public aren a; sta n d a rd s are n o t en fo rced by a d m in istra tiv e m easures th a t are n o t o p en to public view , or are less accessible to th e p u b lic th a n co u rts o r trib u n a ls. If a w o m an believes th a t th e o u tc o m e o f any case

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 25

y g oing th ro u g h th e c o u rt o r trib u n a l is

^

w ro n g , th e n w o m e n m a in ta in o u r rig h t to p ro te s t a g a in st th e d ecisio n , by explicitly d escrib in g to th e p u b lic th e n a tu re o f th e p o rn o g ra p h ic ex p lo ita tio n a n d sh o w in g h o w o u t o f to u c h w ith fem in ist s ta n d a rd s c o u rts o r trib u n a ls are.

Real Sexual Freedom T h e re is every re a so n to believe th a t th e cau se o f e q u a l rig h ts fo r w o m en (an d a c o n se q u e n t in crease in re a l h ap p in e ss fo r w o m en a n d m en) will be ad v a n c e d if a d e fin itio n o f p o r n o ­ g ra p h y is in c lu d e d in sex d isc rim in a ­ tio n leg islatio n . F em in ists d o n o t w an t o r n eed c e n so rsh ip , w hich w o u ld allow o th e rs to im p o se sexual s ta n d a rd s , s ta n d a rd s o v er w hich it is certain fem in ists w o u ld hav e n o c o n tro l. W h a t w o m e n n eed is fo ru m s in w hich o u r rig h t c a n be ex p ressed , to sp eak o u t lo u d ly a g a in st th e e x p lo ita tio n o f w o m e n th r o u g h w h a te v e r m e a n s. S u rely th is is freed o m o f speech.

O th e r w ro n g s e q u a lly re q u ire redress. O p p re ssio n o f w o m en is n o t m a n u fa c tu re d th ro u g h p o rn o g ra p h y alo n e. O th e r p ic to ria l d e p ic tio n s are eq u ally h a rm fu l — like sexist a d v e r­ tising; th a t w o m en a p p e a r in fo o lish guises in so a p o p e ra s; th a t w o m en rarely re a d serio u s new s o r a re u sed in triv ial roles in th e m ed ia. T h ese req u ire e q u a l a tte n tio n .

Y et w h a t is b o th a sto n ish in g a n d at th e sam e tim e in stru c tiv e is th a t w henev er w o m en sp eak o u t ag a in st sexual o p p re ssio n o f w o m en , th e charg e laid a t o u r d o o r is th a t we are engagin g in sexual re p re ssio n . So, b ack to th is b eg in n in g : we live in a w o rld w h ere th e lib e ra tio n o f w o m en — th e liftin g o f w o m e n ’s sexual o p p re ssio n — is view ed by th e d o m in a n t g ro u p m en as a n e n c ro a c h ­ m en t o n th e ir lib erties. W e live in a w o rld w h ere w o m e n ’s o p p re ssio n is b o u n d u p w ith th e lib e ra tio n o f m en.

T h e ir lib erty to d o as th e y w a n t w ith a n d to w o m e n ’s b o d ie s, w h e th e r it be o u r real b o d ies, o r th e real b o d ies o f w o m en d e p ic te d o n screen as re p ­ resen tin g all w o m e n , is seen as a t risk w h en fem in ists p ro te s t. T h e civil liberties o f w o m e n a re in ex tricab ly in terw o v e n w ith civil lib erties o f m en .

T h e tra d itio n a l (m ale) view o f th e ir o w n civil lib erties is a view d e n y ­ ing w o m e n fre e d o m o f sp eech , fre e ­ d o m o f sex u ality , a n d fre e d o m to d efin e o u r o w n sex u ality , to b e sexual su b jec ts r a th e r th a n th e sexual o b je c ts w hich g ro te sq u e ly fill th e p o rn o m o v ie h o u se s, th e b lu e v id eo s, th e sex ist a d v e rtis in g s c re e n s w h ic h p ic tu re a n d m irro r o u r w o rld .

26 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

u s t r a l i a ’s f o u r - c a te g o r y c la ssific a tio n system is sim ple a n d in fle x ib le . S ince th e k in tr o d u c tio n o f th e R ra tin g in 1970 it h as also b een w idely p e r­ ceived as p ro g re ssiv e a n d len ien t.

C o n tro v e rsy flares every y e a r o r so w hen film festiv als fin d th e ir im p o rts u n d e r sc ru tin y o r re je c tio n (S a lo , P lx o te ) o r a film like th e A u s tra lia n F ilm I n s titu te ’s im p o rt D e u ts c h la n d P riv a t is k n o c k e d b a c k . T w o recen t highly p u b lic ise d c o n tro v e rsie s have b ro u g h t th e F ilm C e n so rsh ip B o a rd b ack in to th e lim elig h t; th e a c c u s a ­ tio n s m a d e by relig io u s g ro u p s th a t th e B o a rd h a d failed in its d u ty to b a n G o d a r d ’s H a ll M a ry o n g ro u n d s o f alleged ‘b la s p h e m y ’, a n d criticism fro m critics a n d th e p u b lic a t th e R ra tin g a w a rd e d to D o g s In S p a c e .

T h e R given to th e u n ju s tly m alig n e d H a il M a ry is a case o f th e B o a r d ’s e x tr e m e s e lf - p r o te c tio n , k n o w in g th e c o n tro v e rsia l h isto ry o f th e film . In N Z , w h ere th e film w as sh o w n a t festiv als w ith o u t in c id e n t, it h as a G A ra tin g , ro u g h ly e q u iv a le n t to a n M . T h e D o g s In S p a c e decisio n , re in fo rc e d b y th e B o a rd o f R eview , in d ic a te s n e rv o u s e rrin g o n th e side o f c a u tio n in d ealin g w ith socially sensitive su b je c ts. C en so rs an d w o u ld -b e c e n so rs fall in to tra p s o f p u re s o p h istry . T o d en y ch ild re n a n d teen a g e rs access to scenes o f a n ti­ social activ ity (eg d ru g ab u se) is so m eh o w to p ro te c t th e m fro m e n c o u n te rin g th e sam e p ro b le m s in real life. E rg o , th e d ru g p ro b le m will v an ish . C le a n u p th e screens a n d y o u clean u p th e streets.

A n in te r e s tin g p ie c e b y law p r o f e s s o r A l a n D e r s h o w i t z in A m e ric a n F ilm , N o v e m b e r 1986, p o in ts o u t th a t d u rin g th e y ears th e H a y s O f f ic e C o d e d ic ta te d to A m e ric a n film m a k e rs th a t film s m u st show th a t crim e d o es n o t p a y a n d th e legal a n d ju s tic e system s to be in f a llib le “ s o m e o f th e w o r s t c rim in a l-ju stic e a b u se s p re v a ile d . . . p olice a n d ju d ic ia l c o rru p tio n a n d racial in e q u a lity ’’.

D ru g a b u s e h a s b e c o m e a fla v o u r o f th e m o n th f o r c e n so rsh ip b o a rd s w o rld w id e. I f o n e is to believe an American survey of 55,000 in d iv id u a ls, fu lly 96 p e r c e n t o f th e

A

p u b lic w a n t a ra tin g in d ic a tin g “ s u b ­ stan ce a b u s e ” w hile 90 p er cent w an t film s w ith d ru g scenes to be X ra te d .

T h e A m e ric a n ra tin g b o a rd has ta k e n a to u g h e r sta n d o n d ru g s, m ean in g in effect th e re are fu rth e r reaso n s A m e ric a n film m a k e rs m ay be fo rced to m ak e c o m p ro m ise s in th e ir w o rk s to n e g o tia te low er ra tin g s. R o u g h ly a th ird o f th e film s released in A u stra lia are A m e ric a n a n d h av e a lre a d y ru n th e g a u n tle t o f th e A m e ric a n ra tin g b o a rd . 9V2 W e e ks a n d C rim e s o f P a s s io n are tw o ra re exam ples w here A u stra lia saw v ersions stro n g e r th a n th o se o n A m erican release.

A few years b ack th e sn a re in w hich censors w ere en ta n g lin g them selves w as “ child p o rn o g ra p h y ” . A u stra lia to o k th e b lin k e re d a p p ro a c h by giving an R ra tin g to C h rls tla n e F, a grim fa c tu a l sto ry o f a 14-year-old B erlin g irl’s d escen t in to h ero in a d d ic tio n a n d p ro s titu tio n . T h e film w as also cut to rem o v e all referen ces to th e g irl’s age. A n o th e r ex am ple co n cern s th e B ritish release o f P re tty B a b y a n d an u n u su a l in sta n c e o f c e n so rsh ip in th e fo u rth d im e n sio n .

P re tty B a b y 's release co in cid ed w ith som e h astily e n acted child p o r n o ­ g ra p h y leg islatio n in th e U K . T h e B ritish c en so r ag o n ised fo r m o re th a n a y ear as to w h e th e r L o u is M a lle ’s w o rk fell in to this categ o ry , finally reach in g a so lu tio n in w hich a scene in w hich B ro o k e S hields reclines, o sten sib ly n u d e , o n a c o u ch , w o u ld be p a in te d w ith a yellow dye to th w a rt th e u n w h o leso m e gaze o f eagle-eyed p e rv e rts a n d also to c u t so m e sh o ts in w hich she ta k e s a b a th . It w as n o t th e views o f S h ield s’ b ack in th e b a th th a t w ere c u t, b u t th o se o f a m ale a c to r w atch in g h er. I f th e B ritish p u b lic did n o t view th ese sh o ts th ere h a d been n o p o ssible e x p lo ita tio n o f th e y o u n g actress o n set a co u p le o f years earlier!

T h e fo llo w in g is a listing o f som e decisions m a d e by th e B o a rd a n d B o a rd o f R eview b etw een O c to b e r

1985 a n d D e c e m b e r 1986. A n e x p la n a to ry key is given in th e ta b le o n p ag e 29.

O ct. 85 — A p p e a l d is m isse d a g a in s t R f o r C o m m a n d o -, F e a r C ity ,

p re v io u sly r e f u s e d , g r a n t e d R V (fm g) o n v id e o t a p e .

N o v . 85 — R e f u s e d clas sific a tio n : D e a th W ish 3, V (fhg) at 247 9 .0 0 m e tre s a n d F ra u le in B e rlin S (ihg).

D e a th W a rm e d U p p ass ed R at 2221.83 m , V (fm g ), p re v io u s ly r e f u s e d a t 2271 m .

A p p e a l d is m isse d a g a in s t R f o r In v a s io n U S A .

A p p e a ls u p h e l d re d u c i n g J a g g e d E d g e f r o m R to M a n d R e tu rn to O z f r o m P G to G .

Jan. 86 — A p p e a l u p h e l d r e d u c i n g O u t o f A fric a f r o m M to P G .

F e b . 86 — R e f u s e d c la s sific a tio n : D a y o f the D e a d V (fhg).

March 86 — D e a th W ish 3 reg iste re d R V (fm g) at 2 4 6 8 .7 0 m .

April 86 — R e f u s e d clas sific a tio n : S u d d e n D e a th O ( G r a t u i t o u s sex ual violence) at 2 4 6 8 .7 0 m a n d T a kin g o f C h ristin a S (ihg) O ( G r a t u i t o u s sexu al violence) R e g istered R w ith cuts: C a fe F lesh S (fhg) C u ts 3 2 .2 m 1 m i n 10 secs. N B C afe F lesh is als o reg iste re d u n c u t as X c a te g o r y ta p e .

A p p e a l u p h e l d re d u c i n g D e lta F o rce f r o m R V (fm g ) a t 35 1 0 .0 4 m to M at 2 19 4.4 0 m . T h is s h o r t e n i n g w as m a d e by th e d i s t r i b u t o r f o r c o m ­ m ercial re a s o n s t h a t also re d u c e d th e a m o u n t o f violence.

June 86 — A p p e a l d is m isse d a g a in s t R f o r C o b ra .

A ppeal u p held reducing R aw D eal f r o m R to M .

A u g . 86 — A p p e a l u p h e l d r e d u c i n g R u n n in g S c a re d f r o m R V (fm g ) O (A n ti-so cial c o n c e p t s ) to M .

S e p t . 86 — A p p e a l s u p h e l d : R e d u c in g D e a d E n d D rive -in f r o m R L (fm g ) S (img) O (A n ti-so c ia l c o n c e p ts ) to M ; re d u c i n g M o n a Lisa f r o m R L (fm g) V (im j) O (A d u lt c o n c e p ts ) to M ; r e d u c i n g S a lv a d o r f r o m R V (f m j) to M .

A p p e a l d is m isse d a g a in s t R fo r S trip p e r: O ( E x p lo i ta t iv e n u d it y ).

R e fu se d C la ss ific a tio n : Sudden D e a th O ( G r a t u i t o u s sexu al vio len ce)

> CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 27

1

a t 2 4 2 3 .0 0 m . (T h is film is fin ally classified R V (fm g ) S (im g) at 2 3 5 8 .9 8 m .

Texas C h a in s a w M a s s a c re 2 V (ihg); B e M e B a b y S (ihg). S u b m i t t e d f o r th e A u s t r a l i a n vid eo festival a n d r e f u s e d u n d e r th e N S W F ilm a n d V id e o T a p e C la s s ­ if ic a tio n A c t 1984, S e c tio n 9 (2) (a).

D ec. 86 — A p p e a l u p h e ld re d u c in g H e a rtb re a k R id g e R L (fhg) to M p r o v i d in g a w a r n i n g is a t t a c h e d t o all a d v e rtis in g a d v is in g t h a t ‘L a n g u a g e u se d in th is film m a y o f f e n d ’.

T h e a b o v e reveals a lo t a b o u t th e B o a rd ’s p re o c c u p a tio n s , p a rtic u la rly its h a rd line o n th e v io len t v ig ilan te g enre o r film s d e p ictin g so m e level o f social b re a k d o w n . T h e B o a rd o f R eview h as p e rfo rm e d a few v a lu a b le fu n c tio n s , p a rtic u la rly in p erceiv in g th a t th e realistic vio len ce in S a lv a d o r sh o u ld n o t be tre a te d in th e sam e w ay as th a t in, say, C o b ra . T h e B o a r d ’s a ttitu d e to sp la tte r a n d h o r r o r film s is m o re in c o h e re n t. A s sc h o la rs o f th e g enre will k n o w , so m e q u ite e x tra ­ o rd in a ry h o r r o r film s h av e b een released o n v id eo , yet we a re d en ied w h a t a re u n d o u b te d ly tw o o f th e b e tte r ex am p les, w ith fa v o u ra b le overseas critical c o m m e n t b e h in d th e m , G e o rg e R o m e ro ’s D a y o f th e D e a d a n d T o b e H o o p e r ’s T exas C h a in s a w M a s s a c re 2 . A re th e y sim ply to o g o o d (ie d istu rb in g )? A n d w hy h av e tw o o f H .G . L e w is’ ‘g o re trilo g y ’ b een p a sse d , 2 0 0 0 M a n ia c s a n d B lo o d F e a s t, b u t n o t th e th ird (C o lo r M e B lo o d R e d )?

T h e H e a rtb r e a k R id g e a p p e a l is sig n ific a n t as it o p e n s a c h in k in th e

“ In one newscast IRA terrorism, war in Lebanon, riots in New Caledonia, fighting in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Kampuchea. The search for the remains of a missing man; an aircrash; famine in Africa — all had common features of violence and extreme brutality and suffering, with bodies lying in front of the camera, with torn off limbs and bloody flesh. What is all this doing to young children, I shudder to think.’’ i —Australian Children’s Television Action Committee newsletter, June 1985

a rb itra ry edifice o f th e ra tin g sy stem , w e a k e n in g its p a te r n a lis m and p lacin g som e o f th e re sp o n sib ility fo r w h a t p eo p le m ay w ish th em selv es o r th e ir ch ild ren to see b a c k o n to th e p u b lic . N ew Z e a la n d h as a highly flexible system , seem ingly in v e n tin g a new c ateg o ry fo r each film . T h e N Z R ra tin g h as a ran g e o f age lim its (13, 16, 18, 20) to g e th e r w ith w ritte n w a rn in g s a b o u t c o n te n t a n d p ro v isio n fo r p a re n ts to ta k e ch ild re n to certa in R film s. I t ’s a n ig h tm a re fo r e x h ib ­ ito rs b u t a b e tte r co n su m e r g u id e.

In a d d itio n to th e ab o v e cin em a fe a tu re d ecisions, th e B o a rd also re fu se d c lassificatio n to o v er 200 sexually explicit v id e o ta p e s, a lm o st all o n g ro u n d s o f “ g ra tu ito u s sexual v io le n c e ’’. I f th is n u m b e r seem s g ra tu ito u s it m u st b e n o te d th a t fo r som e re a so n m a n y o f th e sam e titles a re su b m itte d rep e a te d ly a n d th a t m o st o f th e su b m issio n s are m a d e by th e N S W o r V ic to ria n P o lic e , since th ese S tates b a n n e d X v id eo s. (O ne p o in t o f in te re st is th a t in O c to b e r 1985 th e V ic to ria n P o lice ro u n d e d u p a n d su b m itte d ta p e s o f F ellin i’s C ity o f W o m e n a n d a d o u b le ta p e o f The L o n g G o o d F rid a y a n d Q u e e n — L iv e in R io . B o th w ere d u ly p a sse d .) T h e B o a rd w o u ld a p p e a r to be o n safe

'The Filiil Censorship B oardds com posed oT*a^Chiefcan,drE3(e^U^y4p#i^'|' a n d not j ¡¡hore th an 10 members. ¡f , t 4 <*? * ■Ft acts-under Section 51 (1) o f the C onstitution — the regulation o f trade and | ilfimmSpc'e under the C ustom s Act. Section;5p (J) o f the Act G overnor-G eneral m ay by reg u latio n prohibit im ports into A ustralia. The“G ustom s (C inem atographic -Films) R e f la tio n s em anate froiffitteis .sec'tiofbt . "Regulation!; 5 establishes th # |F u ll-t^ p Board examining Film /videotapes to r puhiic exhibition on behalf o f the S tates/Jerrlto ries according to their legislation.* ' , Regulation 35 provides fq r a part-tim e B o ard o f Review to \yln«.h applicants may appeal against the B oard’s decisions.

-'{'C c v y V In T 985 the Board examined 857 cinem a features classified as follows G — 55, PG — .137» M -.244, R — 113, Filrp Festival Exem ption — 29ijJRefusedJ — 12. O f the J2 refused, three were for reasons o f sex, six for VioI^cf^aBp^fihfee^l for com binations o f sex, violence and sextihl violence. " .The Board o f -Review upheld eight appeals and dismissfed’-Hve^ / , — From the Film ¡Censorship B oard’s W eporfion A ctivities /9&S. ’ Although it is written into state legislation that the federal body acts on behalf of the states in South Australia Western Australia and Queensland/the*state has final veto over lts own review board5, .which can declare films unacceptable for thatatate^ln Victoria and NSW the Films Board of Review is the final avenue of ‘Appeal. Thep^ihisterfor Arts is responsible for censorship legislatioh/infWA a n d /) ld ^ n d f ih .t h ^ |> ^ |i|s ^ ® ^ M |S ^ M t t l ;thfe Attorney-General.

T

I— The currfeht m em bers o f th e F ilm C^'s6rsfi.ip Ji'patd are: (Acting C hief Censor), David H aines (Acting D epur\ Chiet C ensoi). Cuajiam ¡¡Vood, DOborajh E hrlich, W illiam Slater, BroniH S Boekenstein, William •Huni'e' A drjan C arnelutti, U na Jo an n a D ow nci, A hdiec M ajgapit^W nght.¿Eve j M ildern (Relief member»). / ; ’.

— In May 1986, Janet Strickland announced pF’-fehief writing, the 26 Department with whom 1esponsibilits loi the appointment lies lanet Stiickland is now working j s a pnvate consultant, lepiesenling Village Roadshow and other companies in rating appeals.

28 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

I

g ro u n d here — th e re will b e little o p p o sitio n to b a n n in g film s fo r ‘g ra tu ito u s sexual v io le n c e ’, unless o ne has seen a few o f th e film s in q u e stio n a n d h as so m e d o u b ts a b o u t th e B o a rd ’s d e fin itio n o f th e te rm ‘g ra tu ito u s ’ a n d th e im p o rta n c e o f fa c to rs such as q u a lity o r c o n te x t.

T h e re are d istin c tio n s to b e m a d e betw een film s w hich m a y deal sy m ­ p ath e tic a lly w ith a n ep iso d e o f sexual c o ercio n (eg A lex D e R e n z y ’s P re tty P e a c h e s ) a n d th o se sim ply in clu d in g a g ra tu ito u s e p iso d e (eg S m a ll T o w n G irls). It leaves us w ith th e q u e stio n w h e th e r a D esiree C o u ste a u film is o r sh o u ld be tre a te d w ith th e sam e evenh a n d e d ju stic e as a M eryl S treep film w o u ld be.

In O c to b e r 1984 th e B o a rd m et w ith C o m m o n w e a lth a n d S ta te M in isters w ith c en so rsh ip re sp o n sib il­ ities, a n d th e y u n a n im o u sly ag reed to revise th e g uidelines fo r th e a m o u n t o f violence p erm issib le in M a n d R film s. T h is so u n d s su sp icio u sly like v o te-catch in g rh e to ric ; th e re will be less violence o n screens a n d by in feren ce less in y o u r n e ig h b o u rh o o d .

In e ffect th e B o a rd h as b een stric te r since 1984.

F o rm e r C h ie f C e n so r J a n e t S tric k ­ la n d h as m a d e several c o m m e n ts in fa v o u r o f a m o re ‘c o n se rv a tiv e ’ a p p r o a c h . “ A s th e c o m m u n ity beco m es m o re socially co n se rv a tiv e , th e B o a rd has a d u ty to reflect th a t in th e ir d e c isio n -m a k in g ,’’ she to ld T h e B u lle tin last y ear.

T h e c h a irm a n o f th e B o a rd o f R eview , Q u e e n sla n d a cad em ic P e te r S h e e h a n , said in A p ril last y ear th a t som e R -ra te d film s w hich h a d b een fo u n d acc e p tab le th re e y ears ag o w o u ld be n o w ru led o u t b ecau se o f excessive violence. “ T h e B o a rd h as recen tly b eco m e stric te r in its to le ra n c e o f ag g ressio n , in resp o n se to a sh ift in c o m m u n ity sta n d a rd s expressing c o n c e rn a b o u t th e level o f ag g ressio n in film s ,” he said.

H o w h as p u b lic o p in io n b een e ffe c ­ tively g au g ed ? T h e B o a rd in fa c t received o n ly 15 letters criticisin g its decisions in 1985. E x h ib ito rs will a tte st to th e fa c t th a t th e film s w h ich h av e cau sed m o st d isq u ie t a m o n g p a tro n s re g a rd in g th e ir su ita b ility fo r ch ild re n h av e b een th e G ra te d D isn ey film s, The B la c k C a u ld ro n a n d R e tu rn To O z.

The Film Censorship Board and the Films Board Of Review decide what films and videos we see and who is allowed to see them. Cinema Papers re-introduces a regular listing of the decisions these two bodies make.

NOVEMBER

1986

Films Registered Without Deletions • G (For General Exhibition) American Tail, An: Bluth/Pommeroy/Goldman, USA, 2194.00m, United International Pictures Boy Who Could Fly, The (edited version): G. A d e lso n , C anada, 2770.43m , V illa g e Roadshow

• PG (Parental Guidance) Dara Vichhay Malay Soriya (main title not shown in English) (16mm): Not shown, Cambodia, 987.00m, Sinehru Ngeth, V(i-l-j) Fouette: Lenfilm Studios, USSR, 2715.57m, Trade Representative of the USSR, O (adult concepts, nudity) Howard — A New Breed of Hero (a): G. Katz, USA, 3017.30m, United International Pictures, V(i-m-j) 0(sexual allusions) Kung Hei Fat Choy: K. Maka/D. Shek/R. Wong, Hong Kong, 2496.13m, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-l-g) Mosquito Coast: J. Heilman, USA, 3236.74m, Hoyts Distribution, 0(adult concepts) On Dangerous Ground: Q. Assonitis, USA, 2633.28m, Hoyts Distribution, V(i-m-j) Lfi-l-j) On the Edge: J. Hayes/R. Nilsson, USA, 2358.98m, Taft Hardie Group, Lfi-m-j) Passion (main title not shown in English): J. Sham, Hong Kong, 2468.70m, Chinatown Cinema, 0(adult concepts) Peggy Sue Got Married: P. Gurian, USA, 2797.86m, Fox Columbia Film Distributors, Ofadult concepts) Second Victory, The: G. Thomas, UK, 2688.14m, Greater Union Film Distributors, V(i-m-j) 0(sexual allusions) Solarbabies: I. Walzer/J.F. Sanders, USA, 2570.00m, United International Pictures, V(i-m-j) Star Trek IV — The Voyage Home: H. Bennett, USA, 3264.71m, United International Pictures, L(i-l-g) Therese: M. Bernart, France, 2468.70m, AZ Film Distributors, 0(adult concepts) Three Amigos: L. Michael/G. Folsey (Jr), USA, 2770.43m, Village Roadshow Corporation, 0(adult concepts) V(f-l-j) (a)

Previously known as Howard The Duck

• M (For Mature Audience) 'Round Midnight: I. Winkler, USA/France, 3565.90m, Village Roadshow Corporation, L(i-m-g) Ofadult theme) Act of Vengeance — A True Story: J. Clements, USA, 2496.13m, Village Roadshow Corporation, L(f-m-g) V(i-m-j) S(i-m-j) Children of a Lesser God: B. Sugarman/P. Palmer, USA, 3236.74m, United International Pictures, L(i-m-g) Ofadult concepts) Club P aradise: M. S ham berg, USA, 2605.85m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Ofdrug use, sexual allusions) Color of Money, The: I. Alexrao/B. De Fina, USA, 3264.17m, Greater Union Film Dis­ tributors, L(i-m-j) Going Sane: T. Jeffrey, Australia, 2441.27m, Greater Union Film Distributors, Ofadult concepts) Guards of Shaolin: Lung Ho Yu, Hong Kong, 2496.13m, Chinatown Cinema, V(f-m-g) Holy Robe of Shaolin Temple, The: Golden Principal Film Co, Hong Kong, 2578.42m, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m-g) Intellectual Trio, The: F. Chan, Hong Kong, 2413.84m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-g)

Films examined in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as States’ film censorship legislation are listed below.

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying non-“ G” films appears hereunder: Frequency Frequent

/ i i /

f f f f

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

V (Violence)...............................

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

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

Title

Producer

Country

Magic Crystal: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2578.42m, Yu Enterprises, V(i-m-g) Name of the Rose, The (b): B. Eichinger, West Germany, 3511.04m, Hoyts Distribution, ’ Night of the Creeps: C. Gordan, USA, 2523.00m, Fox Columbia Film Distributors, V(i-m-g) Peking Opera Blues: T. Hark, Hong Kong, 2880.00m, Chinatown Cinema, V(f-m-j) Queen of Tibet, The: Wu Yan Qin/Zhou You Jon/Zhang Y ing /X ue Chen Xi, Hong Kong/China, 2523.56m, Yu Enterprises, V(i-m-g) Stewardess School: P. Feldman, USA, 2496.13m, Fox Columbia Film Distributors, Ofsexual allusions) S(i-m-g) Tai-Pan: R. De Laurentiis, USA, 3456.18m, Hoyts Distribution, V(i-m-g), Ofsexual allusions) Uforia: G. Wolf, USA, 2550.99m, United Inter­ national Pictures, Ofadult concepts) (b)

Explicitness/lntensity

Infrequent

See also under Films Board of Review.

• R (For Restricted Exhibition) Avenging Force: M. Golan/Y. Globus, USA, 2825.29m, Hoyts Distribution, V(f-m-g) Demons: D. Argento, Italy, 2358.98m, AZ Film Distributors, O(horror) V(f-m-g) Extremities: B. Sugarman, USA, 2413.00m, Filmways Australasian Distributors, Ofadult concepts) Vff-m-j) Lunatics, The: D & B Film Co, Hong Kong, 2523.56m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-g) Ofadult theme) Name of the Rose, The (c): B, Eichinger, West Germany, 3511.04m, Hoyts Distribution, Sfi-m-g) Night Stalker, The: D. Edmonds, USA, 2496.00m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Vff-m-g) Scheherazade One Thousand and One Erotic Nights: S. Winters, USA, 2112.11m, Regent Trading Enterprises, Sff-m-g) Tale of Tiffany Lust, The: A Lispenard, USA, 2245.71m, Regent Trading Enterprises, Sff-m-g) Vindicator, The: D. Carmody/J. Dunning, USA, 2441.71m, Seven Keys, Vfi-m-g) (c) See also under Films Registered Without Deletions — M — for Mature Audiences and under Films Board of Review.

Films Registered With Deletions • G (For General Exhibition) Transformers, The — The Movie: J. Bacal/T. G riffin , USA/Japan, 2304.12m , Hoyts Distribution Deletions: 0.05m. Reason for Deletion: Lfi-l-g)

Films Refused Registration Madam X (edited version): Not shown, Japan, 1298.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence)

Films Board of Review Name of the Rose (c): B. Eichinger, West Germany, 3511.04m, Hoyts Distribution Decision reviewed: Classified R by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Direct the Film Censorship Board to classify M. (c) See also under Films Registered Without Deletions for Restricted Exhibition — R — and Films Registered Without Deletions for Mature Audiences — M.

Low

High

Justified

Gratuitous

rn m m rn

h h h h

j j i /

g g g g

I I I > Submitted length (m)

DECEMBER

Purpose

Medium

1986

Films Registered Without Deletions • G (For General Exhibition) Assam Garden, The: N. Stafford-Clark, UK, 2441.27m, Ronin Films Go Bots Battle of the Rock Lords: K. Wright, USA, 1974.96m, Filmways Australia Nutcracker: Carroll/Kushner/Locke/Wilhite, 2331.55m, Filmways Australia

• PG (Parental Guidance) Conduct Zero: J. Sham/C. Chung, Hong Kong, 2386.41m, Chinatown Cinema, Lfi-m-j) Cry From the Mountain: W. Brown, USA, 2084.68m, Reid and Puskar, Ofadult concepts) Death of a Salesman: R. Colesberry, USA, 3730.48m , Hoyts C orporation, Ofadult concepts, emotional stress) Dim Sum — A Little Bit of Heart: T. Sternberg, USA, 2386.41m, Communications and Entertainment, Ofadult concepts) Goodbye Mummy: Paragon Films, Hong Kong, 2496.00m, Chinatown Cinema, Ofadult themes) I Do: G. Chung, Hong Kong, 2413.84m, Chinatown Cinema, Ofadult themes) Mission, The: F. Ghia/D. Puttnam, UK, 3423.00m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Vfi-m-j) Parting, The: Mosfilm Studios, USSR, 3099.59m, Trade Representative of the USSR, Ofadult concepts) Story of Dr Sun Yat Sen: The First Film Co, Hong Kong, 2743.00m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-m-j) Tough Guys: J. Wizan, USA, 2825.29m, Greater Union Film Distributors, Lff-l-g) Ofadult concepts) Welcome: Maverick Film Prods, Hong Kong, 2578.42m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-l-g) Why, Why, Tell Me Why (main title not shown in English): R. Tang, Hong Kong, 2660.71m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-l-g) Ofadult concepts)

• M (For Mature Audience) Big Meat Eater: L. Keane, Canada, 2221.83m, Valhalla Holdings, Vfi-m-g) Chase a Fortune: Always Good Film Co, Hong Kong, 2413.84m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-g) Crazy Romance: R. Tang, Hong Kong, 2523.00m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-m-g) Lfi-m-g) First Vampire in China, The: Eternal Film Co, Hong Kong, 2523.56m, Golden Reel Films, Ofmild horror) Vff-l-g) Footrot Flats — A Dog’s Tale: J. Barnett/P. Cox, New Zealand, 1892.67m, Hoyts Corpora­ tion, Lfi-l-g) Golden Child, The: E. Feldman/R. Wacks, USA, 2413.85m, United International Pictures, Vfi-m-g) Lfi-m-g) Heartbreak Ridge (a): C. Eastwood, USA, 3538.00m, Village Roadshow Corporation, * How Young We Were: Alexander Dovzhenko Studios, USSR, 2441.27m, Trade Represen­ tative of USSR, Ofadult concepts) Jumpin’ Jack Flash: L. Gordon/J. Silver, USA, 2880.15m, Fox Columbia Film Distributors, Lff-m-g) Ofadult concepts) Lamb: N. Zeiger, UK, 2935.01m, Filmways Australia, Lfi-m-j) Ofdrug use, adult concepts) Love Unto Wastes: D & B Films Co, Hong Kong, 2605.85m, Chinatown Cinema, Sfi-m-j) Ofadult concepts) Melari Dari Neraka: Chow Kam Bui, Malaysia, 2496.73m, Yu Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Missed Date: A. Fung, Hong Kong, 2523.56m, Chinatown Cinema, Sfi-m-j) Ofdrug use) Miss Mary: L. Stantic, Argentina, 2715.57m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Sfi-m-j) Lfi-m-g) Ofadult concepts)

Applicant

Reason for Decision

Morning After, The: B. Gilbert, USA, 2797.86m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Vfi-m-j) Lfi-m-j) Mr Vampire II (main title not shown in English): Bo Ho Films, Hong Kong, 2358.98m, Chinatown Cinema, Vff-l-j) Ofhorror) New Tales of the Flying Fox: M. Fong/W. Ka Hee, Hong Kong, 2660.71m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-g) Soul Man: S. Tisch, USA, 2852.72m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Lfi-m-g) Ofadult con­ cepts, drug use) Tuoi Dai: Alpha Films, Vietnam, 2221.83m, Diep Thai, Ofdrug use, adult concepts) Whistle Blower, The: G. Reeve, UK, 2825.29m, Communications and Entertain­ ment, Lfi-m-j) Ofadult theme) Young Hero of Shaolin Part II, The: Hong Kong Leung Film Co, Hong Kong, 2633.00m, Golden Reel Films, Vff-m-j) (a) See also under Films Board of Review and Films Registered Without Deletions — R — For Restricted Exhibition

• R (For Restricted Exhibition) 52 Pick Up: M. Golan/Y. Globus, USA, 2989.87m, Hoyts Corporation, Vff-m-g) Lff-m-g) Body Count: A. Fracassi, Italy, 2358.98m, AZ Film Distributors, Vff-m-g) Curse of Evil: Shaw Brothers, Hong Kong, 2276.69m, Chinatown Cinema, Sfi-m-g) Vfi-m-g) Danger Has Two Faces: W. Ka Hee/M. Pong, Hong Kong, 2605.85m, Chinatown Cinema, Vff-m-g) Half Moon Street: G. Reeve, UK, 2468.00m, Communications and Entertainment, Ofsexual allusions) Lfi-m-g) Heartbreak Ridge (b): C. Eastwood, USA, 3538.00m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Lff-m-g) Man From Holland (main title not shown in English): Not shown, Hong Kong, 2468.70m, Golden Reel Films, Vff-m-g) Sfi-m-g) People In The World (main title not shown In English): Not shown, Hong Hong, 2441.27m, Yu Enterprises, Sfi-m-g) Vfi-m-g) She’s Gotta Have It: S. Lee, USA, 2276.70m, Greater Union Distributors, Sfi-m-j) That's Life!: T. Adams, USA, 2797.86m, Fox Columbia Film Distributors, Ofadult concepts) Lfi-m-g) (b) See also under Films Registered Without Deletions — M — For Mature Audiences and Films Board of Review

Films Registered With Deletions Nil

Films Refused Registration Madam X: Not shown, Japan, 1309.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence) Sadistic Whore (main title not shown in English): Not shown, Japan, 1630.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence)

Films Board of Review Heartbreak Ridge (c): C. Eastwood, USA, 3538.00m, Village Roadshow Corporation, * Decision reviewed: Classified R by Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Direct Film Censorship Board to classify M, with the special condition that all advertising contain the words: “ Lang­ uage used in this film may offend’’. (c) See also under Films Registered Without Deletions — M — For Mature Audiences and Films Registered Without Deletions — R — For Restricted Exhibition.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 29

B O O IC

R E V I E W S

VAMPYR: Dreyer’s 1931 classic

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HORROR MOVIES edited by Phil Hardy (Octopus, 1986, ISBN 0 7064 2771 8, $29.95 hb).

It is hardly a revelation to observe that horror movies are designed to disturb, trading upon collective fears in order to achieve their ends. Whether they summon an assembly of forces from beyond the grave or merely mobilise a lunatic with a vibrating chainsaw, they present us with a collection of “ what if’’ scenarios which usually clock on as night falls but which are not averse to a tryst in the day­ light either. They also unleash a battery of defence mechanisms.

These come in a variety of forms. The most obvious has an official status and, as a result many films are banned outright (a fate that has recently befallen George A. Romero’s acclaimed Day of the Dead and Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre II), restricted to “ adult’’ audiences, or else defaced in line with some arbitrary measure of public pre­ ference.

Another enlists the reassuring notion that, however graphic or realistic the scenes of terror might appear, they are only the stuff of the imagination: they are not Real. Perhaps they could be, for a common truth of our time has it that it only takes a slight turn of the screw, or a little displaced repression, and any one of us could find him or her­ self shuffling off to Buffalo. How­ ever, for the moment, they’re not, unless that movement behind you in the cinema signi­ fies more than a passing distrac­ tion . . .

The acknowledgement of a third kind of safety zone finds us on a more complicated terrain.

Here the 'experts’ — socio­ logists, psychologists, critics,

30 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

journalists, and any other viewers so inclined — can find a sanctuary of sorts in their profes­ sional assignments, putting the horror at a distance by identify­ ing it, classifying it, and creating an analytical framework for making sense of it. Against the immediate experience of the horrible things happening on the screen, then, the ‘experts’ are able to create a kind of intel­ lectual sedative.

The hope is that we expect to learn something from them about our own responses and about the films themselves. The problem is that it is only rarely that one finds a response to these films that is concerned to deal with them beyond the most superficial level. Instead — and most journalistic reviewing Is especially culpable here — they are generally denied substantial consideration as individual works and lumped together as “ exploitation films” or “ video nasties” , or else laughably reduced to statistics about violent acts. It appears to be a lot easier to reject the lot with a belch of righteous indignation than to explore their differences, because then one would actu­ ally have to think about them, to look for ways of making sense of them and of our responses to them. As Phil Hardy points out in his introduction to The Encyclo­ pedia of Horror Movies, “ Horror remains the most probing and problematic of film genres and the one most In need of examination.”

The position is not entirely hopeless, however. A consider­ able amount of serious explora­ tory work has been done on the horror film in recent years,

encouraging an understanding of it and of its persistent popu­ larity that puts to shame the simplicities that have dogged discussions of it for too long.

Two books in particular deserve mention in passing here. Both are collections of essays: The American Nightmare, edited by Robin Wood and Richard Lippe (Festival of Festivals, Toronto, 1979), and Planks of Reason: Essays on the Horror Film, edited by Barry Keith Grant (The Scarecrow Press, New Jersey & London, 1984). Both recognise that making sense of the genre does not simply require the separation of the good films from the bad, though such a project is an important one, even if the criteria for this separation are notoriously diffi­ cult to defend. The key issue is the cultural phenomenon that horror films represent. As Robin Wood puts it: “ One might say that the true subject of the horror genre is the struggle for recogni­ tion of all that our civilisation re­ presses or oppresses: its reemergence dramatised, as in our nightmares, as an object of horror, a matter for terror, the ‘happy ending’ (when it exists) typically signifying the restora­ tion of repression.”

Hardy’s foray into the field is the third in a series of Encyclo­ pedias which he has edited and which are devoted to popular genres — the previous two dealt with The Western and with Science Fiction, and more are promised. It lacks the coher­ ence of critical perspective that one might have wished for, but it is an indispensable reference work nonetheless (as are the others in the series). Its listings are arranged chronologically and are supported by an alpha­ betical index at the back, inevit­ ably, they are incomplete, and this is implicitly acknowledged.

But the book is, as Hardy’s pre­ face claims, “ the most compre­ hensive . . . overview of the genre ever published” . It is also beautifully laid out.

A minor drawback is that, be­

MIMMIN iiM im

I '■■■HI

IMMHP.

cause of the complications of generic definitions, it has to be used in conjunction with the volume on science fiction.

Hardy produces a reasonable case for the inclusion of, for example, the creature features of the 1950s and the films of David Cronenberg in the latter book. However, a little confusion arises when one finds entries in both books for the various Frankenstein films and for the several versions of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, amongst others.

One’s sense of order is more substantially disturbed, how­ ever, when Night of the Living Dead makes it into both books, but Dawn of the Dead only rates a mention in the science fiction one.

The impulse to quibble in this way, however, should be balanced against the real benefits to be gained from the book. It is, for example, particu­ larly useful for the introduction it provides to a range of national cinemas, including Mexico, Japan and Spain, whose contri­ butions to the genre have re­ ceived little mention elsewhere.

And its detailing of credits is, as far as I can tell, accurate, al­ though the significant contribu­ tion of the composer is, curi­ ously, excluded.

The discussion of individual films produces a very mixed bag, for, while some entries do qualify as the “ informed critical comment” promised in the pre­ face, others most certainly do not. Many contain a lot of useful information about the history of particular productions, about the proliferation of subgenres — film s about m ad doctors, women in peril, Malevolent A u t h o r i t y , t e e n a g e r s in jeo pa rdy, dem on children, nerds getting their revenge, and so on — and about lesser known ‘auteurs’ of the genre, such as the prolific Jesus Franco, w hose decline is charted across the years and through his abundance of pseu­ donyms (although the absence of a directors’ index means that

t

FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL: David ‘Darth Vader’ Prowse comes to terms with art

CINEM S P E C I A L

O F F E R

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Yes, I’d like to subscribe to CINEMA PAPERS for: □ 1 year at $18.75 □ 2 years at $33.75 □ I am a new subscriber □ I am renewing my subscription. My record number is

(Please tick the appropriate boxes) Name.....................................................................................................

Company..............................................................................................

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

I enclose a cheque for $ * (payable to MTV Publishing Limited) Please debit my Bankcard/Mastercard to the amount of $

□

□ □

□ □

□ □ □

□

□

□

□

□

□

Expiry date of card...................................................................................................

Cardholder’s signature...........................................................................................

OFFER CLOSES APRIL 15, 1987 ’ Australia only. For overseas rates, see back page.

Please place the completed order form in a sealed envelope and mail to: Cinema Papers, 43 Charles St, Abbotsford 3067

it is up to the reader to draw this out). There is also a fascinating collection of anecdotes to be found — for example, about director/producer Ray Dennis Steckler, who used to seek attention for his films by having “ fully made-up members of his casts jump out from behind the screen at key moments during performances and abduct mem­ bers of the audience’’. Then there is the oddity of Deafula (1975), “ filmed entirely in deafa n d -d u m b sig n la n g u a g e (though with a voice-over com­ mentary providing a literal trans­ lation) by a director who was responsible for America’s first TV newscast in sign language’’.

All this notwithstanding, the erratic quality of many of the observations about individual films and filmmakers is rather unsettling. It is not just a ques­ tion of my disagreement with particular assessments, though I confess that the anti-De Palma campaign (the approving entry on Body Double aside) made my blood boil. The error-ridden comments on Carrie reveal a lot more about their author’s pre­ dispositions than they do about the film, and the one on Dressed to Kill is so abbreviated and illinform ed as to appear a deliberate act of provocation.

More worrying, however, is the way the entries have an air of objectivity bestowed upon them, despite the abandon with which they hurl their opinions about. Unsigned, they come to represent an encyclop ed ic voice of authority, something which the listing of contributors (mostly of the 'Monthly Film Bulletin’ school) at the front of the book does little to dislodge.

The opportunity for ongoing analytical and evaluative dis­ agreements that could have in­ jected some real critical excite­ ment into the book is thus lost.

And in its place are what end up looking like contradictions, as when the entry for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre enthuses about Tobe Hooper’s later film, “ the excellent The Funhouse" , which, 65 pages later, we are to ld is “ d is a p p o in t in g ly ragged’’.

That said, The Encyclopedia of Horror Movies is extremely useful as a reference and as a potted history of the genre, both for the casual reader and the scholar. It may not qualify as a “ serious critical work’’ in the terms described earlier, but much of it is not only clearly in­ formed by that work but also provides an essential ground­ work for it.

Tom Ryan

TEETH AND SMILES: Jaws producer Richard Zanuck, with star

LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION!

by Louis Goldman (Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, 1986, ISBN 0 8109 1324 0, $67.00) Of the many large-format books of movie photographs, Louis Goldm an’s Lights, Camera, Action! is particularly interesting, for it focuses not on an era, a studio or a genre, but is a selec­ tion from the output of one still photographer.

As Goldman writes, the onlocation photographer is a “ misfit . . . His very presence in this formidable machinery is in­ congruous . . . Of all the assembled technicians, he is the only one who does not contri­ bute directly to what finally appears on the screen.’’

Yet, he continues, “ . . . re­ maining on the fringe of the p a n d e m o n iu m p ro v id e s a unique vantage point from which I (can) observe the world of movies intimately.”

The still photographer’s pri­ mary task, of course, is to pro­ vide sufficient high-quality stills to promote the film, whether those stills become lobby cards, are used in a poster, or illustrate articles in the print media. Such a function is both restrictive (usa­ bility over art) and frustrating (no one's presence on the set seems more annoying to, and demanding of, actors and crew than the still photographer’s).

In Hollywood’s heyday of the 1940s, the still photographer’s art was directed at iconising the studio’s stars. Little attempt was made at veracity: actors could be positioned together even if they never made the same scene together; stills could be tinted even if the film was mono­ chrom atic; and the b a ck­ grounds were often inventive. Of course, consumers didn’t mind;

they believed in the star system as much as the studios did.

As cinema edged towards realism, and the director began to assume auteur status, so the emphasis of production stills changed. They became more accurate renderings of the film’s content and tone. In general, they also lost a lot of magic.

Some directors became quite purist about the new approach.

The photographer would be asked to only take stills from the position of the movie camera, using a matching lens and reproducing the same composi­ tion, lighting, depth of field, etc.

W hile lim itin g the p h o to ­ grapher’s operating confines, such an approach does ensure that the resultant stills accurately capture the look and mood of a film. They are also the preferred choice of pedantic magazine editors who want the accuracy, but not the murkiness, of frame enlargements (much needed in these days of structuralist criticism).

Generally, though, photo­ graphers are left to their own devices, the producer and distri­ butor trusting that, out of the thousands of negatives taken, some will do the marketing job.

Goldman, on the strength of the selection in his book, is a loner photographer, darting about and capturing those incidents he finds the most quirky, amusing or informative about the filmmaking process.

For this is Goldman’s real con­ cern: how movies are made.

As he writes: “ During the 25 years that I worked as a still photographer, I was constantly

struck by a paradox: the general public is fascinated by movies but knows little of what it takes to put one on the screen . . . Out­ siders are not often permitted to watch the shooting of movies ... they have to get clearance or be someone’s guest. In this book, you are my guest.”

It is difficult to guess how each reader will respond to the tech­ nical photographs and whether th e o n -lo c a tio n s tills do sufficiently convey .the process of filmmaking, though the short and amusing text is a good adjunct. This reader is atypical in having visited many films in production and thus views the photograph differently from one who hasn’t. Without a doubt, though, this book is a pleasure, whereas a location visit rarely is.

After a trivial introduction by Gregory Peck, the book opens with “ Directors At Work” , a short but evocative collection of stills of directors brooding about the task at hand. There is Alan J. Pakula in an empty courtroom for All The President’s Men, Joseph Losey looking troubled about Modesty Blaise, Steven Spielberg boyishly atop his shark from Jaws. “ The Technical Side” and “ Roll ’Em” shows movies in the making, from Exodus in 1960 to A Chorus Line (1986). Most are inform ative (the d isturbin g image of a lone gaffer high above the location on Blow Out), many are humorous (the contest of teeth between producer Richard Zanuck and the Jaws shark), some deeply moving.

Here, of course, one ventures into highly subjective territory, reacting as one does to favourite films or people as much as to Goldman’s obvious aesthetic and technical skills. For this reader, the four haunting stills from Robert Rossen’s Lilith in themselves make this book treasured. One rarely gets the chance to see this perfect film (David Stratton showed the un­ censored version for the first time in Australia some years ago at the Sydney Film Festival), and in those long gaps between screenings one was left to con­ tinue the daunting task of track­ ing down J.R. Salamancia’s novel. But now there are Gold­ man’s precious stills.

Singling out these four stills is, of course, an injustice to this book. All the photographs are interesting and most are as good as the still photographer’s art has produced. They are matched by superb printing, ensuring a book which easily claims right to inclusion on any film-lover’s bookshelf.

S co tt M urray

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 31

• W H O SHOT NED KELLY? • W H O PLAYED NED KELLY? THE HERO OF AUSTRALIA'S FIRST IN FILM AN D THEATRE, HAS AN INTRIGUING THEORY THAT LINKS AUSTRALIA'S

MAN IN UNIFORM: Raymond Longford, around 1910 Newspaper ad for The Kelly Gang

32 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

bout a decade ago film historians thought they'd finally caught at least some of the Kelly Gang. They'd tramped around the Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg where The Story of the Keily Cang, Australia's and perhaps the world's first feature film, was supposed to have been shot in the second half of 1906. They'd tracked down posters, advertisements, and reviews in old newspapers, which supported this claim by showing that it ran for over an hour, more than three times longer than any previous filmed dramatic story. They'd located the memoirs of people who claimed to have been involved in making it, and even found a few minutes of the film itself.

As an extra bonus, more of the film turned up in 1982 on a Melbourne rubbish tip. (See Cinema Papers 36, February 1982.) In all about 200 feet (61 metres) has survived, though many frames are ruined by blotches in the decaying nitrate film. But clearly visible are Constable Fitzpatrick's sexual advances to Kate Kelly and his fight with the avenging Ned at the start of the film, the Stringybark Creek massacre, the Glenrowan siege and Ned's capture at the end.

Although there were inconsistencies, caused, it was assumed, by faulty memories, the story of how it came to be made seemed plausible enough. The film was supposed to have been directed by Charles Tait, who wrote the script with his brother John. There were five Tait brothers, all of whom became theatrical entrepreneurs. In later life they ran, some say strangled, the great entertainment empire of J.C. Williamson's. Two St. Kilda chemists who had moved into film processing, Millard Johnson and William Gibson, had worked the cameras, developed the film and perhaps edited it.

All this was based on later memoirs; the contemporary evidence was less clear.

Certainly Johnson and Gibson did the photographic work, certainly "J & N Tait" marketed the film during its first Melbourne screenings, beginning on 26 December 1906.

But in the last of the seven large leather-bound Books of Registration of Copyright Holders in Literary, Dramatic, and Musical Works which the Victorian Patents Office kept between 1870 and 1907, there is a mystery. On 14 December 1906 the copyright officer dipped his pen and wrote the number

'11,449', then "A sheet of letterpress entitled Advertisement of the set of moving pictures entitled 'The Kelly Gang'," and then, in the column for the names of the copyright holders, "Robert Hollyford and Dan Barry": names that no one has ever connected with the world's first feature film.

It is at least plausible that Dan Barry, the outback actor-manager whose theatre company was known in every bush town between North Queensland and Tasmania, was involved in making the film. Born in Dublin in 1851, Barry, like most actors of his day, knocked a few years off his age and claimed in the Hobart Mercury on 17 October 1903 to have been born in Melbourne in 1859.

From 1886, when he registered a play Snared; or, Alone in London, he was well known to the Victorian copyright office, dropping in at regular intervals to enter the names of the dramas he had presented throughout Eastern Australia.

Many of these plays he wrote himself, like Black Thursday; or, The Fury of the Flames, a melodrama about the disastrous Victorian bushfires of 1851 that had darkened the skies in Tasmania. Dan Barry also presented plays by other Melburnians; these included The Carpenter by "A.J. Byrne of Richmond", a controversial piece which showed Christ returning to Earth in the middle of the American Civil War, and The Kelly Cang by "Reg Rede of Fitzroy", first staged on 12 February 1898 in Melbourne.

Reg Rede is relatively easy to pin down.

There had been a number of plays based around the exploits of the Kellys while the gang was on the run between 1878 and 1880, and more after the Glenrowan siege and Ned's capture. Some had died a natural death, unlike Ned; at least one, like him, had been suppressed by the authorities. Kelly plays — and films — usually claimed to teach a great moral lesson about honesty being the best

FEATURE FILM IS STILL AN ENIGMA: R IC H A R D F O T H E R IN G H A M , A QUEENSLAND LECTURER FAVOURITE OUTLAW W ITH ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S FOREMOST FILM PIONEERS. Brnmamsma wmmBB&Hraasgas - , ' * * * ■ . , m m ;■

policy and crime not paying etc, but audiences had an unfortunate habit of cheering every time the Terror of the North-East appeared, and howling with laughter at the efforts of the police to catch him.

In 1890 one of the major actormanagers of the time, Alfred Dampier, got together with the Melbourne journalist Carnet Walch and obtained Rolf Boldrewood's permission to dramatise his very moral novel about bushranging, Robbery Under Arms.

However they took some liberties with the story. They had a corrupt policeman molesting Aileen Marston, which everyone recognised as a reference to Constable Fitzpatrick and Kate Kelly, and the fourth act ended with a siege at a farmhouse which the police set on fire, just as had happened at the Glenrowan Hotel. Dampier and Walch also invented two comic Irish coppers, McGinnis and O'Hara, who displayed a distinct lack of devotion to duty. Audiences loved the play to the extent of 41 performances at Melbourne's Alexandra Theatre, and a particular favourite was Trooper O'Hara, played by Mr Reg Rede.

It is not surprising therefore that when Dan Barry turned up at the same theatre eight years later with The Kelly Gang — in which Mr Reg Rede played Trooper Mulvaney, one of two Irish constables “ Who Don't Relish Their Duty” — the Age commented that “ there were scenes which bore a resemblance to the dramatisation of Rolf Boldrewood's book Robbery Under A rm s". However this was guesswork, for Rede's authorship was never publicly acknowledged.

A more formidable pursuer of Dan Barry as Ned Kelly was Sergeant Steele, the brave policeman who eventually captured him at Glenrowan. Steele was played by one Harry Stoneham who had also been in Robbery Under Arms, though on the other side of the law.

Stoneham was Dan Moran, Boldrewood's

MAN IN MASK: ‘Ned Kelly’ in 1906, frame enlargements from The Story Of The Kelly Gang (courtesy National Film and Sound Archive)

t? i*i

thinly-disguised portrait of Mad Dog Morgan, whose “ Eyes Glittered like a Black Snake's". Both Rede and Stoneham were still with Barry in 1903 when The Kelly Gang was performed on the last Saturday night of a two-week season in Hobart. As always it drew a huge audience. It was still a play after which it was advisable to leave town in a hurry, and by the time the Hobart Mercury thundered its disapproval, Barry, Rede, Stoneham and company were in Devonport.

Where Dan Barry had gone, others quickly followed, and Kelly plays sprang up all over the continent. Some of the other Kelly Gang plays (before 1906) were: Edward Irham ('Bohemian') Cole's Hands Up! first staged in Glen Innes on 27 September 1898; John Henry Greene's The Career of the Kelly Gang on 6 May 1899 at Charters Towers; Arnold Denham's The Kelly Gang on 22 July 1899 in Sydney; and Lancelot Booth's Outlaw Kelly three weeks later and also in Sydney, but probably only a copyright reading before a NSW country tour.

Rede had stolen from Dampier and Walch, and some of these other Kelly plays were clearly leased, borrowed or stolen from Rede. Arnold Denham's Sydney version even had two more ' Bou Id (?) Sons of Erin', this time called Moloney and Murphy. The respectable theatre managers and producers were dismayed, but the authorities took no action, and while these strolling subversives wandered around the country for the next decade killing stage policemen, real policemen controlled the crowds trying to get in.

Which brings us to Melbourne, the second half of 1906, and the film The Story of the Kelly Gang. 'Bohemian' Cole was in town with his “ Australian Bushranging Drama" King of the Road, but this was a story about Ben Hall.

Messrs Johnson and Gibson were giving a 'Picture Panorama' at the People's Concerts in the Temperance Hall. J & N Tait were screening pictures at the Town Hall and also promoting various theatrical and concert ventures. Dan Barry was also around Melbourne; on 16 October he copyrighted his 'W orld Wide Wonder Show' which had opened in Birregurra 12 days earlier. Barry had often experimented with film, as well as theatre — as early as May 1897 he had been promoting his “ Famous English Cinematographe" at the Brisbane Theatre Royal.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 33

NED KELLY Here the clues stop, and the questions begin. Was Barry a con-man, trying to cheat Gibson and the Taits? Unlikely, since he faced a two-year jail sentence if he was caught. And in any case, why didn't the Taits apply for copyright registration of the film, before or after Hollyford and Barry did? They knew about the copyright office — they had registered four pictures earlier that year.

Only registered works were entitled to the benefits of the legislation — an unregistered film could be pirated at will.

The only possible conclusion on the evidence available is that Robert Hollyford and Dan Barry had a legitimate and unchallenged claim to the copyright, whatever fingers Gibson, Millard, and the Taits had in the developing tank.

If that is the case, then what control did Dan Barry have over the making of The Story of The Kelly Gang? His name is not mentioned by any subsequent commentator, unless he is "Sam Crew", mentioned by Lady Viola Tait in her history of the Taits, A Family of Brothers, as the assistant director and a former actor in one of the stage productions.

Unfortunately her book is based on distant memories rather than a study of the contemporary evidence, and is riddled with errors. Did Barry and his Kelly Gang play actors perform in the film? Probably, but there is only one poor photograph of Barry himself, published in Melbourne Punch after his death, and no known illustrations of any member of his company. None of the actors in the film has been positively identified.

There are other puzzles as well. Films and plays had to be first presented in public and then registered for copyright, often by submitting an advertising poster as an exhibit (the "sheet of letterpress").

The date of the Register entry is 14 December, nearly two weeks before the Tait's Boxing Day premiere. Viola Tait mentions a week of country try-outs — did Barry screen the film out in country Victoria, his favourite stamping ground, before leasing it to the Taits for its Melbourne season?

And what happened afterwards? Some subsequent seasons were "Direction of J & N Tait", most weren't. Clutching at straws, we might note that in 1903, in Hobart, Barry had with him 'an excellent orchestra led by Miss Stewart' and a 'Ladies Orchestra' accompanied the film in a season at the Oxford Theatre in George Street, Sydney at the end of 1907.

Dan Barry died intestate at his Hawksburn home on 1 July 1908. The police report on his assets makes no mention of royalties or returns from any of his many theatrical investments, but established that he was moderately wealthy. He owned a house and land, about £270 in various bank accounts, and his famous performing pet bulldog, valued at one pound.

And there, until more clues come to light, that part of the story stops. But there is one more unsolved mystery — who was Robert Hollyford, whose name appeared before Barry's in the Register

34 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

entry? He is first heard of in Soldiers of the Queen, a Boer War drama of Barry's which can be traced through various copyright entries from its premiere in Ballarat on 9 November 1899, to Yass on 17 January 1900, and to Warwick in Queensland on 15 February. A playbill which Barry forwarded to the Brisbane Copyright Office has a Mr R. Holyford as "Claude Devereux, A Young Soldier Known as the 'Dare D evil'."

For five years R. Holyford or Hollyford was the juvenile leading actor in Barry's company, last noticed when Barry passed through Maitland in January 1905. In the same period Lila Byford was the company's leading lady, supported by an

older actor, Rita Aslin. Dan Barry himself was getting too old to be Ned Kelly and other dashing young heroes, and often played comic Irishmen, or, in drag, Irishwomen. Reg Rede and Harry Stoneham sometimes rated a brief mention in the reviews as well.

After he copyrighted the Kelly Gang film, Robert Hollyford is never heard of again. But there is one other possibility, recently suggested by Les Blake, author of a forthcoming biography of Australia's most famous early filmmaker and director of the internationally-acclaimed 1918 silent classic The Sentimental Bloke. Was Robert Hollyford the early stage name of Raymond Hollis Longford?

The early years of Raymond Longford's career have always been shrouded in mystery. All we know for certain is that he was born in 1878, was a seaman in 1896, was married in 1900, and started acting and directing in plays and films as Raymond Hollis Longford between 1908 and 1911. He claimed to have been with a touring theatre company acting as Raymond Hollis during the early years of the century, but a search of the Argus and the Sydney Morning Herald by the staff of the Australian Dictionary of Biography failed to find any trace of Raymond Hollis, or Raymond Longford, until the end of the decade.

The connection between Robert Hollyford and Raymond Hollis Longford is the first possible clue to Longford's lost years. Most actors used assumed names — Dan Barry himself was really John Ringrose Atkins. It helped when debtcollectors and angry fathers came looking for your fixed address. Longford had been born John Walter, Hollis was his mother's maiden name, and Raymond either a childhood invention to distinguish him from John Walter his father, or a later adoption when he left home as a teenager for a life on the ocean wave. He was Raymond John Walter Longford, seaman, when he married the already pregnant Melina Keen in Sydney on Monday 5 February 1900. On Saturday 3 February Robert Hollyford, actor, had an engagement in Uncle Tom's Cabin in Tamworth, and is next heard of in Soldiers of the Queen in Warwick 12 days later. Did he have a few days rest and a hurried matrimonial engagement in Sydney, or did he continue up the north road?

If Robert Hollyford was Raymond Hollis Longford, then two other mysteries still have to be solved. The first is why Longford failed to mention that he'd worked with Dan Barry, that his stage name was Hollyford and not Hollis, and that he had worked on the film about the Kelly Gang. Was there a skeleton, along with the failed marriage, in Longford's film can? Or did his early filmmaking seem crude and unimportant compared to his major films? Bushranging films were banned and condemned during most of Longford's creative years; it was certainly not wise for the great moving picture pioneer, who was still hoping to find backers for his next project, to boast about having been associated with a scurrilous film about policemen being shot and ridiculed to the cheers of a packed house. In old age, Longford did vaguely remember starting his career making bushranging films, but in Sydney, not Melbourne.

Longford briefly mentioned The Story of The Kelly Gang in his testimony to the 1927 Royal Commission into the Moving Picture Industry in Australia; he said William Gibson had "produced" it. This was a calculated insult. William Gibson the young chemist was indeed the same W.A. Gibson who as head of Australasian Films was doing his best to kill Australian

film production, Longford's films in particular. He was also the Gibson who, as John Tulloch points out in Legends on the Screen, was complaining that “ crude bushranging films kept the decent class of patrons away from the cinemas” .

The final mystery is the one we started with — who did what in making The Story of The Kelly Gang? It's long been suspected that the Taits may have overstated their contribution, though they probably had a partial financial involvement. Perhaps they also shot supplementary footage such as a better version of Kate Kelly's ride which was later added to some prints of the film.

W illiam Gibson seems to have had the role closest to what we would now consider the film director's job: organising the film schedule, choosing locations, planning the shots with the cameraman who was also his business partner, Millard Johnson, and supervising the editing. But copyright was claimed by writers, and assigned to financial producers, not stage or film directors.

The column where assigned rights were noted is blank.

What the Register entry probably indicates therefore is that Robert Hollyford and Dan Barry wrote the screenplay, put up some of the money and negotiated with Gibson and the Taits for the rest, organised and rehearsed the principal actors, and played parts themselves. Barry's leading actress Lila Byford is the most likely candidate for Kate Kelly, with Rita Aslin as the outlaws' mother, though this is merely to give little-known names to unknown faces.

The lecherous and rather comic Constable Fitzpatrick in the first surviving scene of the film has a large hooked nose suspiciously similar to that in the blurred and underlit photograph of Dan Barry himself. Reg Rede and Harry Stoneham are probably there too, though why Rede was not part of the writing team is a mystery. There is a tiny surviving scene in the film, just before Stringybark Creek, where two comic coppers (Lonergan and MacIntyre) practise shooting, quite unaware that the Kellys are nearby.

Sergeant Steele brings down Ned at the end, though it takes six policemen to subdue him.

Then what about Ned Kelly himself? It is hard to see him clearly; the actor had a very full beard and the end of the film where his helmet is removed by the police is in parts badly blotched. He is also made up — in fact he looks remarkably like Ned Kelly in the photograph taken shortly before he was hanged, with his curly hair parted on the right. The actor was a very tall, strong, broad faced young man, and could well have been the leading young actor in Dan Barry's Dramatic Company — Robert Hollyford. Did Raymond Hollis Longford, who parted his straight hair on the left like most men but who was certainly tall, strong and broad faced, start his long career in Australian film as Ned Kelly, the Terror of the North-East, the Iron-Clad Bushranger of Australia?

U N L O C K I N G THE ARCHIVE'S SECRETS ARCHIVES ARE STILL A RICH SOURCE O F IN FO R M A TIO N A B O U T THE EARLY AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY. ROSS COOPER REPORTS O N DISCOVERIES PAST A N D PRESENT. ilm is an ephemeral material; it so readily deteriorates, or is destroyed over time, that film history by its very nature, especially in Australia, is a difficult area. So much has been lost, not only most of the films themselves, but also the documentation surrounding them. Even so, it has always been exciting to think that perhaps somewhere in the depths of government archives we will discover full scripts, synopses, letters, probates, wills and diaries of early Australian filmmakers.

In 1968, while I was researching my M A thesis on 'Origins of Film in Australia 1896 to 1913', I spent several months at the then Commonwealth Archives, at that time housed in an old army-style hangar building down by Lake Burley Griffin. I r was directed mainly to récords in the PM's department and External Affairs for early letters from cinematographers and the government's reaction to this new medium. The fact that most of the files had been destroyed shows the importance the government placed on film in those early days of this century. It was often heartbreaking to get on the trail of a really thick file, to follow the vein through several years, only to find the dreaded 'file destroyed' stamp at the end of my search.

I left the Commonwealth Archives in Canberra and went to Sydney, where so many of the early films were made.

I started to go through the New South Wales archives registers, which I could then view in a back room at the Mitchell Library. I decided to look in the Chief Secretary's registers under 'The Theatre and Public Halls Act, 1908', and soon came across the bonanza heading of .

"Prohibited and Objectionable Films".

To my horror and delight, ! discovered that the NSW Chief Secretary had been* enforcing a strict form of censorship via. the police in his department. Filmmakers had to submit synopses, but the practice had also grown up by the 1920s of

F

Charles Chauvel discussing Captain Applejack

The Sentimental Bloke, Lottie Lyell and Arthur Tauchert

Percy Walsh in On Our

Selection (left); chorines from

The Waybacks (below).

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 35

ARCHIVES requiring them to submit full scripts of films they intended to make. Such government interference is intolerable, but it is also a great boon for film researchers, because it means that a wealth of material still survives in the form of scripts, correspondence, posters, programmes etc, which have long been thought to be lost. It was there in October 1969 that I discovered a full shooting script of Raymond Longford's The Sentimental Bloke which would otherwise have been lost to us forever.

In 1978, when Andrew Pike and I were finalising Australian Film 1900-1977 (OUP, 1980), Andrew checked out the copyright holdings of the Commonwealth Archives, and discovered an important cache that still remains the richest concentration of stills in the archive from the early period. Among others from W.J. Lincoln's Melbourne-based filmmaking, there were stills and scripts of The Sick Stockrider. However at that time, Andrew was very busy and did not press for further files. Had he done so he might have found that the copyright department filed their film and stage material in three different places. In "set one", which Andrew consulted, the copyright application was kept, sometimes with the script if it were thin, and occasionally stills from the film. Unlike the US Library of Congress holdings, which gave us the first inklings that there might be similar material in the copyright section of the archives, Australia never required a still from each scene or frame, reproduced on paper. "Set tw oâ&#x20AC;? , it now turns out, was where thick scripts were held, while "set three" was where bulky exhibits like sculptures, disc recordings and large photos were filed.

Last year, in a stroke of sheer serendipity, a Ph.D researcher from Queensland, Richard Fotheringham, broke into a vein of well-preserved stage and film scripts in the "set tw o ", and "set three" mentioned above. (The story has been written up in Time Australia 18.8.86.)

I have recently returned from two weeks in Canberra, with a weekend "lightning trip " to the New South Wales archives, and in that time I have called for more than 300 files, and have inspected more than 93 film scripts or detailed synopses, comprising over 3697 pages and 85 photos or stills, plus at least two pieces of music and lyrics used as theme songs or background music in Australian'sound feature films (Uncivilised and Phantom Gold).

Since the existence of these full shooting scripts (or stage scripts made into films) was unknown even a year ago, this is indeed a mammoth cultural windfall.

There are full scripts of at least two Longford-Lyell films, one of which no longer exists: The Dinkum Bloke and The Woman Suffers. The latter is being reconstructed by Marilyn Dooley at the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) and the script w ill be a great help in her work. There are also other Longford

36 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

associated scripts, including Fisher's Ghost and The Man They Could Not Hang. Now we can also have the luxury of examining scripts written by Longford and Lyell in the mid-twenties that were never made into films, like Song O f Australia. From these signed scripts we can start to put to rest the myth that seems to have been built up recently that Lottie Lyell did all the work on Longford's films.

There are sets of film scripts that make up a body of work in themselves, and the existence of this material is likely to pump up the reputation of lesser (and possibly shady) producers like Arthur C. Tinsdale, purely from the discovery of so many of his scripts. There were 12 pages of a detailed script for his The Solar Eclipse of 1922 or Astronomers and Aboriginals.

This is the case also with the quite unique The Life Story O f John Lee â&#x20AC;&#x201D; The Man They Could Not Hang, which has quite a few different versions registered, in different names at different times. It always puzzled me why this film was such a runaway box office success in the 1920s and I can only assume that because of their convict past, Australians had a morbid interest in capital punishment. Plainly because it was such a money-spinner, it was re-written and recopyrighted a number of times. It would probably take a Ph.D thesis to disentangle the authorship claims. The same thing happened with The Martyrdom of Nurse Cavell, and this is just one more example of the lengthy sagas of litigation and one-upmanship as people tried to pre-empt competitors by copyrighting material first.

The number of scripts emanating from Melbourne seems to go part of the way towards correcting the traditional picture of Sydney as the dominant filmmaking capital of Australia in the silent era. The whole archive collection shows the close (if somewhat confusing) connection between stage and screen in Australia, an interface which is yet to be fully documented.

In other words, a lot of theses or books can now be written about individual films and individual filmmakers like Longford, Barrett, Birtles, Southwell, Tinsdale, Shirley, Chauvel, etc. Critical appraisals can now be written about themes in Australian films, such as 'the outback', 'war', 'racism', etc. A whole book could be devoted to film scripts that were never completed and possible reasons why. We tan look more deeply into behind the scenes activity that went into W orld War Two propaganda films like those made by Cinesound, and also Watt's Overlanders.

Individual enigmas like Shirley and Higgins' The Throwback are now open for investigation into their content, and why production ceased. Most of all, by traversing the whole spectrum of film scripts held in the archive, from 1900 to when holdings ceased in 1969, we can form a detailed overview of just what were the preoccupations, hopes and fears of Australian filmmakers in the first half of

the 20th century (a project we initiated with our book Australian Film).

Another feature of this material which might seem of lesser significance, compared to the excitement of locating the actual scripts and synopses themselves, is important nevertheless.

These copyright documents yield a wealth of indirect spin-off information about the filmmakers themselves.

Nor should the importance of stills in the "set tw o " and "set three" be underestimated as many important discoveries are sure to come to light when the archive staff finish listing and clearing photographic material. They are keen to do this because of the impending bicentennial celebrations, but there are also other reasons for their haste. In both Sydney and Canberra I came across highly inflammable nitrate film that probably had not seen the light of day in 50 years; I called the attention of staff to its existence and it was speedily removed.

I shudder to think of any other 'specimens' similarly entombed in a grave of paper that could burst into flame spontaneously at any time.

Besides this risk of fire from any old nitrate negatives still locked away, there is a further conservation priority in the need to recopy any old negatives and even some of the positives, before they fade or wither away even further, leaving posterity with blurry grey prints of stills instead of crisp originals.

Taken together, the scripts and synopses preserved for censorship purposes in the NSW Archives (and to a lesser extent in the Victorian Stage Archives, which is another story), and the copyright submissions of scripts preserved in the Australian Archive offer the student of Australian film history a rich primary source for the first time. Now instead of delving through newspaper reports of screenings in a fact-grubbing way as we had to do in the past, students can call up copies of these old scenarios and make close textual comparisons between film and script where film still exists, and where they don't remain, we can gain an idea of what the 'extinct' film would have been like. We can go even further and gather up a collection of Australian film scripts that ended up in the 'rubbish bin' of history and were never made. Such were the scripts I looked at, like the many by Agnes Gavin, or Chauvel's The Man From Down Under, that never made it to the screen in their original entirety.

By examining these scripts we can gain some insight into the preoccupations of filmmakers of bygone eras, and judge why some were made into films and others weren't.

What we have at the NFSA is really only the tip of the creative iceberg in comparison to what still remains below the surface. W ith the 'Last Film Search' out of the way for the time being, given the certainty that most of the pre-1930 Australian films we are ever going to get have probably already surfaced, the next big frontier in Australian film research may well be these scenarios.

ALWAYS RINGS TW ICE .-v •

-

v

- *

'

* 7 * -4i.

Did they come to bury film theory or to praise it? ADRIAN MARTIN and BARBARA CREED present two very different views of the last Australian Screen Studies Association conference. '

v ~ * « . « . 't

►

' i■

»*

'1

'<

Screen studies, or What do we do with the dead body?

A

D

R

I

A

N

M

A

R

T

I

N

As the 1986 Australian Screen Studies Association (ASSA) conference, held at the New South Wales Institute of Technology (NSWIT), peeped over into 1987, its participants, in the main, were still wondering what to do with the 1970s. Perhaps one of the central conference themes, “ Film Theory Reassessed’ ’ was — let’s put this in a classically Freudian frame, since good old Freud was one of the unexpected hit stars of the occasion — in the nature of ‘mourning work’ : putting the dead to rest, a necessary time of grief. If only that were the case, for it’s still (in 1987, still!) a night­ mare of the-return-of-the-repressed variety; the dead body just keeps hanging around, stinking to high heaven. Come to think of it, wasn’t that the Trouble with Harry? It’s certainly the trouble with screen studies in Australia . . .

If we can no longer live with the decade, it also seems that we cannot live without it — its memory and its legacy. The reasons are simple: in the seventies — in those great days of Screen and Camera Obscura maga­ zines, of the unwieldy but strategic conglomerate of marxism-feminismsemiotics-psychoanalysis (yes, you’ve probably heard this story before) — screen studies (film first, then television) connived its way into institutional respectability. It became a pedagogy. Before that, it was made up of an assortment of film buffs and visionaries. But in the seventies it became all at once a political platform (this knowledge is subversive), a programme of developing research (master that early Barthes before you move on to the mid- and late-periods, kiddies), and a ticket to avant gardist ‘difference’ (I’ve seen the new Chantal Akerman, how about you?). As an intellectual discipline, the newly baptised beast ‘film theory’ was — and who really needs to be told this in 1987? — necessarily reductive, totalising, water­ tight. It pulped films (not many) into neat illustrations of theoretical pre­ cepts, such that the sight of Norman Bates at the peephole in Psycho meant that all Classical Narrative Realist Hollywood cinema was voyeur­ istic, fetishistic and patriarchal. And it was a big deal to arrive at that con­ clusion, if you were an obedient student or dutiful teacher — once upon a time. Don’t get me wrong: I loved the seventies too, and I’m glad they happened. But . . .

About 10 years ago, the good earth supporting this fantasy of film theory started turning to quicksand. It took about four years, bringing us to around 1982, for some people to be able to say: hey, as theory this stuff has massive problems, and as film theory it doesn’t measure up to the pleasures and riches of particular films. OK; enough said? I’m afraid not,

because two ASSA conferences (1984 and 1986) on, teachers are still coming out of the closet to exorcise from their tortured souls the demon of seventies film theory. For the nagging problem is this: once you wipe the seventies slate, you’ve basically got to have something up your sleeve to replace it. Something vital, complex and pluralist.

This is precisely what we have not seen — not in this country anyway, nor in some of the once-great overseas film journals (Screen has been on a dismal, confused slide since the early eighties, and Framework is fast joining it on the downhill run). But the teachers still have to teach some­ thing, the students still want to believe they’re on top of the scene, and the pages of scholarly and popular journals still have to be filled. So we keep staging repeats of the Last Rites for the seventies, under the cool pedagogic guise of ‘reassessments’. But where does it all get us? Try con­ templating nowhere, nothingness, the void.

This NSWIT conference was a comparatively smoothly run, wellorganised affair; for once, the overseas guests (from America, Dana Polan and Mary Ann Doane) were made to earn their plane fares and participate in the life of the event. The form of the conference was fine; the inevitable, unalterable problem was in the contents.

Dana Polan entered into the context of our local post-seventies melan­ cholia unawares, at a strangely happy tangent: for him, the crisis of classic film theory has well and truly passed, and we have begun an intellectually experimental period when new and exciting moves are eminently possible.

If ‘post-modernism’ as a term or a practice has any hopeful, inspiring value (and we’ll return to this), Polan was on hand to incarnate it: he looped rock video back to Jerry Lewis, and Jean-Francois Lyotard back to Walter Benjamin, all in the name of clearing out new paths for research. We need more cool cats like Polan on the scene. But was anybody in the audience really listening?

It seems our heads were elsewhere, blocked and aching. Mary Ann Doane was more our speed: dogged and dreary, still turning in the circle of classic seventies film theory, particularly of the psychoanalytic variety (Freud plus Jacques Lacan). She epitomises the dead-end drive-in approach to the problem of speaking film anew in the eighties: she collects the old junk daintily around her, and thinks that by rearranging this little piece or that she is actually changing the nature of her surround­ ings (she’s not alone: wave to Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey, Stephen Heath, Paul Willemen . . .). Thus we get an oh-so-slightly revamped psychoanalytic model in which a hovering hand of ‘fantasy and desire’ is suddenly, triumphantly played in place of the old determinist spiel concern­ ing ‘the cinematic apparatus’ .

But what Doane, addressing us from her cell block, cannot hide is this: the irremediable poverty of her actual film analysis once she gets down to cases. It’s the same old shtick of classical vs avant garde cinema: Max Ophuls’ La Signora di Tutti imprisons (the image of) woman while Sally

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH — 37

Potter’s The Golddiggers liberates it. If only Doane could have been present at Australian film festivals of 1984 to hear the bored hisses with which the film scene’s impatient groovers greeted Potter’s film. Oh w e ll. . .

Without intending to sound reactionary, it has to be said that the feminist intervention in screen studies seems, as of the moment, to be proceeding rather arthritically, where once it was so vital. The panel on feminism and film theory was surely the most depressing session of the entire con­ ference. The available options weren’t too exciting: from Liz During, an extremely technical, academic paper on the psychoanalytic definition of fantasy (one more time), spiced with an extremely banal treatment of George Cukor’s wild and fathomless Sylvia Scarlett, from Doane, another call to ‘problématisé’ the gaze, the subject, pleasure and genre (so what else is new?); and from Laleen Jayamanne, a sinuously theatrical gesture born of a typically ‘post-feminist’ disenchantment: she took leave from the theoretical agenda to discuss an arty student film made by a man. Her con­ tribution was certainly the most confident and striking, and yet, in a context where it stood as the only example of a semi-decent fragment of practical film criticism, it came to carry too much weight and significance.

The possible future directions for feminist film study were nowhere sign­ posted on this panel, or at the conference as a whole.

Let’s return to our strange new friend post-modernism. Insofar as Barbara Creed in her paper ‘ From Here to Modernity’ , was anxious to pit post-modernism as the opposition to,the enemy, of feminist film theory, my verdict would be that post-modernism is winning hands down. Creed’s paper was a curious example of Freudian analogy taken to ludicrous extremes in the name of battle strategy. For if (in the Freudian scenario) the male child is plunged into castration anxiety at the real or imagined sight of the mother’s genitals (you’re still with me?), why don’t we say that post-modernism is male and that it (he) fears/disavows the ‘body’ of feminist theory? And furthermore that, insofar as post-modernism in art is meant to be marked by its taste for quotation and repetition, it (he) is obvi­ ously pining for the lost body of the mother? And that if Jean-Francois Lyotard (author of The Post Modern Condition) carries on about 'the un­ representable’ , he must have a problem with women’s genitalia???

Certainly, both the men and the women in the audience who have been actively engaged in trying to sort out the question of what ‘the post­ modern’ might allow us fruitfully to discuss seemed reasonably shocked, if not downright appalled, at Creed’s propositions.

Actually, it’s post-modernism which poses the real threat to screen studies, although this hasn’t anything to do with castration anxiety. The flip side to Polan’s experimental optimism is that it seems to leave many of us practitioners in the screen studies field positively in the lurch, pensioned off — for film, in the strict sense, seems hardly to matter much anymore.

In the wonderful panel on post-modernism (featuring Polan, Meaghan Morris and Ross Gibson), if particular films were mentioned at all, they were used as suggestive pretexts, necessary points of departure — into the broader culture, the intellectual climate, and history. One had to swallow one’s pride (and fear) and admit: this is indeed where the best work is being done, even if film hasn’t much integrally to do with it. At least it’s better than listening to the eternal, infernal ‘problématisation’ of the seventies theoretical baggage!

And the rest? Screen studies in this country today is a completely frag­ mented and privatised field of endeavour — locked up in this students-only course here or that trendy little magazine there. People putter along with their own work and fitfully produce the goods in public. If you scan the slim pickings you might see something that excites you amidst the dross. I was especially drawn to Ross Harley and Stuart Cunningham’s remarkable presentation on Godard’s Hail Mary, which truly had the courage of its con­ viction to try something that, theoretically, was beyond the terms of the seventies agenda, and was also a damn fine piece of practical film analysis. The ultimate religious conservatism of their position (a sophisti­ cated conservatism echoing that of Godard’s film) bothers a hardened sceptic like me, but the magnitude of the paper’s achievement cannot be downplayed.

There was praise for Eric Michaels’ paper on Aboriginal television, and Felicity Collins’ treatment of Laleen Jayamanne’s A Song Of Ceylon. Helen Grace’s wonderful paper on the representations of masculinity and femininity within sport and its surrounding discourses was another sure sign that the best work happening under the screen studies umbrella has displaced film-as-privileged-object altogether.

Ah, but what of television studies, I hear you ask. I must confess to not 38 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

yet having been seduced by the burgeoning work in this area. TV studies has in fact become the new and successful academic pedagogy for the eighties. Strangely, it rides on a reputation of having busted through the chains of film theory. But the field has fast elaborated its own orthodoxy: the same flights of fancy, over and over again, on the ‘open texts’ of rock video and soap opera; or the same ideological tut-tutting over the abomin­ able construction of news and current affairs shows. John Fiske provided a predictably professional, gung-ho presentation from the frontline of this new orthodoxy, on the TV-text as polysemic, open to massive consumer re-writing, and integral to subcultural subversions. But at last, at this con­ ference, his initially attractive spiel met its match.

Tim Rowse’s careful and brilliantly argued critical response to Fiske targeted the dangerous fantasy involved in it — the fantasy of over­ politicising media consumption to the degree that it takes on the aura of a fully conscious revolutionary act. When questioned on this point, Fiske drew around himself the protection of a pedagogic boundary: hey, this isn’t sociology, it’s cultural studies. Yet it’s precisely that kind of intellec­ tual separation, that refusal to think through the kinds of global relations invoked in the post-modern panel, that marks the unimaginativeness of current analysis of TV. So — sorry, wrong exit. The way out of our current malaise is not to be found here.

I remember, as a young lad, attending the first of what has turned out to be many screen-studies-related conferences. I showed up naively expect­ ing to hear speakers and audiences bounce off the most exciting and/or exasperating things happening right then down the road at the local cinema complex. Surely this must be what teaching, writing, discussing film is all about — ceaseless vigilance on the present, a both serious and playful reconstellation of ‘matters arising’ on film (plus now, film-on-video). Years later, I’m resigned to the truth: that conferences are generally about five or 10 years behind the moment (such is the inevitable condition of academia), and never have a finger on the vital pulse of the messy present.

But still, I can’t help looking out the window, away from another session of post-seventies shell shock, to ponder in vain the violence of Mixed Blood, the joy of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the precision of Working Class Man, or the sadness of The F ly . . . And then I realise that the cinema is elsewhere; it has flown the coop leaving me with a dead body I don’t want (the seventies) and a mutant body I can’t quite yet recognise (post­ modernism). That’s it, all right: screen studies in Australia is grounded, and it needs to find some new ways to fly.

Feminist film theory, or The incredible shrinking woman B

A

R

B

A

R

A

C

R

E

E

D

In her keynote address, ‘Remembering Women: Psychical and Historical Constructions in Film Theory’ , Mary Ann Doane, the visiting speaker from Brown University, Rhode Island, ironically pointed out that the term ‘remembering’ was not hyphenated and thus not intended to refer to a masculinisation or phallicisation of woman. Little did she realise that the idea of ‘re-membering’ women means something quite specific in an Aus­ tralian context where feminist film theory — now that it has fallen — appears to have become ‘everybody’s la(d)y’1. It did not seem to matter that Doane’s paper actually addressed the current impasse in which feminist theory — and theory in general — finds itself. The Great Australian Knockers (male and female), anxious not to let down the side, kept mutter­ ing, like Baudrillardian prophets of doom, about the “ end of film theory” — and the failure of feminism to address its own problems. One speaker even went so far as to lay virtually all the failures of seventies theory (as well as his own — one suspects) at the door of feminism while harping back to some idealistic past when men were men and theory was theory. It is this attitude (exhibited by some — not all) that I find most curious.

It would appear that now it is no longer fashionable to be interested in feminism which is seen, in some quarters, as either out-of-date or as part of the mainstream. Rather than acknowledging that all theory is currently at an impasse or working constructively in an endeavour to find new direc­ tions, some are keen to bury feminism as quickly as possible. Why? What do they have at stake? A desire to be seen as, not just abreast, but ahead

of the latest theoretical fashion? Ready with the last word on the latest? It would seem that some, eagerly embracing the post-modern argument that the modern project has failed, including the narratives of humanism, progress and science, are over-eager to extend this to all existing move­ ments in an ‘end-of-everything’ rhetoric. Feminist film theory2, however, has never been a part of the modernist project with its underlying humanist and patriarchal theoretical structures.

When in the panel session on feminist theory a question was asked about the continuing usefulness of the term 'sexual difference’ , any possi­ bility of dealing seriously with this was undermined by a series of angry outbursts. It was as if a lid had been suddenly removed from a pressure cooker — abuse seemed to spurt forth in all directions, working effectively to dampen any possible discussion. One distraught speaker said the notion made her want “ to throw up” ; another seemed to blame feminist theory for all the current problems in her life; various men seemed to think that women should forget theory (presumably a little learning makes women difficult) and learn to enjoy films — the good old ‘Gee! Whizz! Wow!’ approach to the cinema. The possibility of engaging in a sustained critical analysis, discussion and debate (even football replays are treated with more seriousness) was simply not on. Why? The panel session was clearly a failure; the three papers presented were not even discussed. It would appear that feminist theory goads some people to such anger or despair that they become incapable of rational comment. Needless to say, all of the feminist sessions3 held afterwards were well attended (not by the pressure cookers) and provoked stimulating discussion — particularly Mary Ann Doane’s well-documented and amusing paper on advertising and Hollywood films of the forties.

One of the tenets of feminism is that members of one group should not speak ‘on behalf of others’ . Women should not ‘speak for’ or ‘on behalf of’ other women — or men. Yet, in the absence, over the last decade, of any sustained discussion or analysis coming from men about the representa­ tion of male sexuality in the cinema, such an analysis will eventually come from women — desperate to open up the area for discussion. In fact, such a paper was given by Helen Grace; her witty and well-received ‘Martina & The Mysteries Of Manhood’ .

This brings me to a second issue. Why is it that at every conference, in­ cluding this one, there are always a large number of papers presented on the question of ‘sexual difference’ (despite the fact that some now see it as unspeakably unfashionable); that these sessions always attract good audiences; yet, for some inexplicable reason the task of analysing the representation of sexuality in the cinema still continues to fall to feminists — usually women. Furthermore, the object of this analysis is invariably representation of female sexuality. In England, various important and challenging articles have been written — by men — on the representation of male sexuality in the cinema4. Apart from Mick Eaton’s film Caution: Images at Work, which was screened in Perth at the 1985 History & Film Conference, there is little analysis in this area5. Why? Considering the classic Australian hero (Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, Bazza McKenzie, Alvin Purple, etc), it is clear that the representation of the hero is not, in any sense, breaking new ground. Perhaps the topic is thought to be ‘beyond theory’ . Or, perhaps some are worried about engaging in a debate on male sexuality because most discussions of this kind appear to take place between groups of gay men? Or, perhaps . . .? Why do some of the best known male critics and writers, usually never lost for (written) words, become afflicted with rigor mortis of the tongue when the opportunity arises either to discuss male sexuality in the cinema or to engage in an open discussion on the topic of feminist theory?

Hopefully, with the arrival of post-modern theory, the situation will change. The other American guest, Dana Polan from the University of Pittsburgh, in his eloquently-presented paper, ‘Post-Modernism and Film Theory’ , discussed the current critical interest — including feminist interest — in the new writings on post-modernism. Other speakers on this panel, which went extremely well, were Meaghan Morris and Ross Gibson.

Dana Polan was mainly concerned to argue for an historical analysis of the current world situation, particularly Reaganism, as a preliminary to the development of a theory of post-modernism; however, I think we can make some tentative observations about the relationship between feminist theory and post-modernism. Certainly, people were eager to do this during hurriedly-snatched coffee breaks.

There are several major areas where a feminist and post-modern critique intersect: both draw on the areas of semiotics, psychoanalysis and struc­ turalism; both reject the humanist view of philosophy with its emphasis on

Man, Truth, and History; both seek to re-question the project of modernity, particularly the avant garde; both agree that there is currently a crisis within the master narratives in the West; both agree that the construction of sexual identity, based on the framework of dichotomies (man/rationality/subject:woman/emotionality/object, etc) has been dismantled. The difference between the two is that where post-modern writers are engaged in an act of self-exploration, examining their own discourses, feminist writers are coming from outside rather than from within — their critique directed at the phallocentric and patriarchal basis of these discourses and the way in which they have suppressed or rendered invisible the voice of woman. Where the two approaches discover an underlying phallocentrism, an appeal to humanist notions of Man, Truth and Progress, then at these points their positions most clearly intersect. In France the post-modern critique of gender has led to a notion of the feminist man or the manwoman6 — a concept which is highly controversial.

Feminists naturally view some of the developments within post­ modernism with suspicion — particularly the practice in France of using the notion of ‘woman’ or ‘femininity’ to signify a radical position which does not necessarily have anything to do with woman herself. For instance it is argued that D.H. Lawrence had, in his writings, incorporated the process of ‘becoming woman’ to a greater extent than had Virginia W oolf.

Another problem area, discussed at the conference, is the tendency of some writers, such as Craig Owens8, to argue that feminism and post­ modernism have much in common and then proceed to speak ‘for’ feminists instead of examining the phallocentric biases of his own position.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to assume that all feminism is concerned with is the question of sexual difference. Having made this assumption some then attempt to incorporate feminism into post-modernism without seeing that because the two have much in common it doesn’t follow that they should try and speak in the ‘same’ voice. On the contrary, it is possible that the interests of both would be better served if each one contributed, where possible, to the debates of the other while maintaining a critical distance; otherwise the specificities of each position might be undermined, the unique contribution of each — and its strength — diminished. This certainly was the view held by those with whom I discussed the topic.

In conclusion, let me state that I enjoyed the conference. Apart from my complaint, discussed above, I found most of the papers stimulating and the screening of films rewarding — particularly Laleen Jayamanne’s A Song Of Ceylon. The real achievement of the conference, however, resided in the choice of guest speakers. It was refreshing to listen to academics from another country who are inspired by their own fields of research, who are happy to engage in an open discussion about problems in film theory, who are familiar with the work of Australian writers, and who went out of their way to give all the help and encouragement they could offer. It would seem that for some, living in Australia has resulted in an acute case of academic agoraphobia.

NOTES 1. In her paper, Mary Ann Doane discussed Ophuls’ film, La Signora Di Tuff/'(1934) which translates as ‘Everybody’s Lady’. Given what followed the analogy seemed appropriate.

2. Here, I am referring to feminist film theory which draws on semiotics, struc­ turalism and psychoanalysis rather than on other approaches which could be said to belong to a more classic or humanist approach to questions of subjectivity.

3. The ones I attended were: The Autobiographical Voice Of Australian Women’ (Freda Freiberg); ‘Deconstruction of Masculine/Feminine Dichotomy in Marguerite Duras’s Films’ (Michelle Royer); ‘Crossing The Line: Martina and the Mysteries of Manhood’ (Helen Grace); ‘The Ascent of Man: Feminism and Ideology in the Television Documentary’ (Pam Skutenko). Others were: ‘Fables and Endless Genealoqies: Soap Opera and Women’s Culture’ (Mary Ellen Brown & Linda Barwich); Music Video: Masculinity-Femininity & Address (Sally Stockbrldge).

4. Paul Willemen, ‘Voyeurism, The Look and Dwoskin’ in Afterimage, No. 6, 1976; Steve Neale, ‘Masculinity as Spectacle’, Screen, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1983, pp. 2-17; Richard Dyer, ‘Don’t Look Now — The Male Pin-up’, Screen, Vol. 23, No. 3-4, 1982, pp. 61-73; Steve Neale: ‘Chariots of Fire, Images of Men’, Screen, Ibid, pp. 47-53; Ron Burnett: ‘The Tightrope Of Male Fantasy’ , Framework, No. 26-27, pp. 76-86.

5. One paper at the Conference did address these issues — Dugald Williamson’s The Subject Of Sexual Difference’ . Unfortunately I could not attend as it was programmed at the same time as my paper.

6. Jardine, Alice A., Gynesis, Configurations of Woman and Modernity, Cornell Uni Press, 1985, Ch. 1, pp. 31-49.

7. Ibid, p. 62.

8. Owens, Craig, The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism’ in Foster, Hal (ed), The Anti-Aesthetic, Essays on Postmodern Culture, Bay Press, US, 1983.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH — 39

O

W

l

INDIANS

South America has become a new stamp­ ing ground for filmmakers, and South American Indians a new breed of extra, in settings which range from the 18 th cen­ tury to the present. Historian STEPHEN NIBL.O examines three recent examples. e c e n tly w e have been treated to a series o f f ilm s d e a l i n g q u i t e s e r i o u s ly w i t h o n e o f t h e g re a t t h e m e s o f m o d e r n h is t o r y , t h e e x p a n s i o n o f E u r o p e a n c i v i l i s a t i o n at t h e e x p e n s e o f t r a d i t i o n a l s o c ie tie s .

N e ith e r c o n te n t w i t h m i n d l e s s e s c a p is m n o r s atisfie d m e re ly to m a n ip u la te im a g e s , T he M is s io n , E m e r a ld Forest a n d M o s q u i t o C o a s t p u r p o r t t o d e a l w i t h t h e g re a t h is ­ to ric a l th e m e o f p o litic a l and c u ltu ra l e x p a n s i o n . In e a c h ca se m i l l i o n s o f d o lla r s w e r e s p e n t in o r d e r t o l o c a t e t h e f ilm s in d i f f e r e n t r e g io n s o f S outh A m e ric a and o b v io u s e ffo rt w as e x ­ p e n d e d to c a p tu re s o m e th in g o f the e t h n o g r a p h i c r e a li t y o f t h e p e o p l e a n d t h e g e o g r a p h y o f t h e p la c e . T h r i l l i n g , b u t n o t c o n t e n t w i t h c h e a p t h r il ls , t h e s e film s i n v i t e an a p p r o a c h t h a t ta k e s c o n t e n t s e rio u s ly .

N o lo n g e r a re t h e n a t iv e p e o p l e s s i m p l e v illa in s w h o d e s e r v e w h a t e v e r m e a s u r e o f v i o l e n c e t h e lo c a l c o n s t a b u ­ la r y sees fit t o i n f l i c t u p o n t h e m . T w o o f t h e t h r e e film s , T h e M is s io n a n d E m e r a ld Forest, t r y t o r e c r e a t e s o m e t h i n g o f t h e w o r ld v ie w a nd th e a m b ie n c e o f the n a t iv e p e o p l e w h o w a k e u p t o t h e a r r iv a l o f th e E uropeans. T h e y d o n o t treat w e s t e r n e x p a n s i o n as a h e r o i c p a g e a n t ; D a v i d P u t t n a m a n d J o h n B o o r m a n a re a c u t e l y a w a r e o f t h e d e m o g r a p h i c c a ta s ­ t r o p h e t h a t w e s t e r n e x p a n s i o n im p lie s f o r n a t iv e p e o p l e . F ilm s b o l d e n o u g h t o v e n t u r e in t o t h is f ie ld a re t r e a d i n g o n t e r r i f y i n g t h e m e s in m o d e r n h is t o r y .

M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h all o f t h e w r i t e r s a n d p r o d u c e r s o f th e s e f i l m s a p p e a r t o b e u n ­ a w a r e o f it, t h e y n o w f o r m a r e c e n t a d d i ­ t i o n t o a lo n g series o f a t t e m p t s b y E u r o ­ p e a n s t o c e l e b r a t e , ig n o r e o r l a m e n t t h e tr iu m p h o f E u ro p ea n c iv ilis a tio n s o v e r n a t iv e c iv i l i s a t i o n s a n d t h e e r a d i c a t i o n o f n a t iv e p e o p l e s .

T he M is s io n is set in t h e Jesu it m is s io n s in P a r a g u a y s o m e 2 0 y e a rs b e f o r e t h e e x p u l s i o n o f t h e Jesuits f r o m t h e S p a n is h E m p ir e in 1 7 6 7 a n d o n l y a f e w y e a rs b e fo re th e y w e r e e x p e lle d fr o m P ortugal in 17 5 9. It p re s e n t s a w o r l d in w h i c h t h e Jesu it m is s io n a r ie s s o u g h t t o p r o t e c t t h e G u a r a n i I n d ia n s a g a in s t t h e S p a n is h a n d P o r t u g u e s e se ttle rs . T h e b e n e v o l e n c e o f t h e m is s io n s c r e a t e d a n is la n d in w h i c h I n d ia n s s u r v i v e d a n d e v e n p r o s p e r e d .

T h a t w a s in m a r k e d c o n t r a s t t o c o n d i ­ t io n s o u t s i d e o f t h e Jesu it la n d s . S la v e r y

B

AMAZON BUT TRUE: Jeremy Irons brings ice and trouble in Mission (top) UTOPIA, ANYONE? Harrison Ford leads his flock in The Mosquito Coast (left) WILD CHILD: Emerald Forest's noble savage, Charley Boorman (right)

e x is te d f o r m a l l y in P o r t u g a l' s c o l o n y a n d f u n c t i o n a l l y in t h e S p a n is h c o l o n i e s .

Slavers h u n t e d t h e I n d i a n s t o sell t h e m in t o b o n d a g e t o t h e settle rs . E u r o p e a n m ilita ry te c h n o lo g y g u a ra n te e d v ic to r y to the in te rlo p e rs; even th e S p a n ia rd 's d o g s w e r e n o t pets, b u t v i c i o u s a n i m a l s t r a i n e d t o r u n d o w n n a t i v e p e o p l e s . As t h e t w i n d is a ste rs o f d is e a s e a n d f o r c e d l a b o u r c o m b i n e d , t h e n a t iv e p e o p l e s p e r is h e d b y t h e m i l l i o n s .

T h e p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t o f T h e M is s io n is f a s c in a t i n g a n d b r o a d l y a c c u r a t e . T h e Jesuit o r d e r w a s in t r o u b l e in C a t h o l i c E u r o p e s in c e , as t h e s o ld ie r s o f t h e P o p e , t h e y w e r e seen as a t h r e a t t o t h e g r o w t h o f th e n a t io n state, as w e l l as t h e n a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y o f t h e C h u r c h in e a c h c o u n t r y .

U n l i k e all o t h e r o r d e r s , t h e i r lo y a lt ie s w e re to R om e, rath e r th a n M a d r id o r L is b o n . W i t h i n t h e P o r t u g u e s e s p h e r e the M a rq u is o f P o m b a l — th e E n lig h te n ­ m e n t m i n i s t e r o f K in g Jose I, 1 7 5 0 - 7 7 — h a d t h e Jesuits t a r g e t e d . T h e y w e r e t o o a r r o g a n t , t o o w e a l t h y , a n d a b o v e all t o o i n d e p e n d e n t . C h a r l e s III in S p a in v i e w e d t h e o r d e r in m u c h t h e s a m e w a y . So a s p e c ia l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e G e n e r a l o f t h e S o c ie t y o f Jesus w a s s e n t o u t t o c lo s e t h e Jesuit m is s io n s in o r d e r t o t r y t o sa ve t h e o r d e r b a c k in E u r o p e . M i s s i o n I n d ia n s a n d m is s io n a r ie s n o t w i t h s t a n d ­ ing, t h e h ig h p o l i t i c s o f t h e d a y m e a n t t h a t C h r is t ia n v a lu e s a n d c h a r i t y w e r e d o o m e d in t h e fa c e o f t h e s e t t le r 's g r e e d f o r la n d a n d I n d i a n la b o u r .

T h e C h u r c h w a s , t h e n as n o w , d e e p l y d i v i d e d o v e r t h e issue o f w h e t h e r C h r i s ­ t ia n v a lu e s s h o u l d a p p l y t o p o w e r f u l C h r is t ia n s . T e r r i b l e b r u t a l i t y w a s p e r ­ p e t r a t e d u p o n n a t i v e p e o p l e s in t h e n a m e o f p ro g r e s s a n d C h r i s t i a n c i v i l i s a ­ t i o n . T h e m a k e r s o f T h e M is s io n h a d t h a t p a r t rig h t . T h e y a ls o u n d e r s t o o d t h e b r o a d p o l i t i c s o f t h e d a y as s e ttle rs c la s h e d w i t h t h o s e w i t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f B a r t o l o m é d e las Casas, t h e D o m i n i c a n a d v is e r t o t h e E m p e r o r C h a r l e s V , w h o s o u g h t t o p r o t e c t t h e A m e r i c a n I n d ia n s .

It is im p r e s s iv e t o f i n d f i l m m a k e r s w h o a p p e a r t o h a v e s t u d i e d t h e i r h is t o r y .

T h e r e a re p r o b l e m s t h a t o n e c o u l d c it e in T h e M is s io n . In t h e d e s i r e t o p o r t r a y t h e b r u t a l i t y o f t h e s e ttle rs a n d t h e c o lo n is t s , t h e r e is a f a i r l y r o m a n t i c t r e a t ­ m e n t o f t h e I n d ia n s . F a ll in g b a c k u p o n t h e li t e r a r y d e v i c e o f t h e n o b l e s a v a g e , ^ th e film po stulate s a g o ld e n age. T h e '

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 41

INDIANS I n d i a n s a re p r e s e n t e d r a t h e r m o r e as an a d ju n c t o f th e E uropeans th a n a u to n o ­ m o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . C e r t a i n l y w e le a rn lit t le o f t h e i r p o i n t o f v i e w . In t h e n o v e l v e r s i o n o f t h e f i l m b y M is s io n s c r e e n ­ w r i t e r R o b e r t B o lt t h e r e is a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e d e s ir e t o resist t h e E u r o ­ peans and th e te m p ta tio n to a c c o m m o ­ d a te th e m w it h in th e In d ia n c a m p . U n ­ f o r t u n a t e l y t h a t d o e s n o t h a p p e n in t h e f i l m . T h e b est I n d i a n s s e e m t o b e t h o s e w h o m ost sk ilfu lly a d a p t to E uropean ways; som e even le a r n t o p e r f o r m c la s s ic a l m u s i c .

A c lo s e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e f i l m c o u l d a ls o f o c u s u p o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e Je su it m i s ­ s io n s . T h e y w e r e n o t n e w in t h e 17 5 0s, th e y had been th e re fo r a c e n tu ry and a h a lf a n d t h e y c o n t a i n e d n e a r l y a q u a r t e r o f a m i l l i o n I n d ia n s . T h e y w e r e n o t r u n as C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n e s , as T h e M is s io n w o u l d h a v e it, b u t as e f f i c i e n t p l a n t a ­ t io n s . B u t t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s a r e t r i v i a l . If th e a u th o rs had c h a n g e d th e v e n u e fro m t h e Jesuit m is s io n s in P a r a g u a y t o t h e Las C a s ia n m is s io n s in C e n t r a l A m e r i c a it w o u ld have been q u ite accu ra te .

T h e g re a t a c h i e v e m e n t o f T h e M is s io n is in i n t e r t w i n i n g t h e h ig h p o l i t i c s o f t h e d a y w ith th e im m e d ia te s itu a tio n o f the p ri ests, t h e c o l o n i s t s a n d t h e C r o w n o f f ic ia ls . Even t h o u g h t h e I n d i a n s ' w o r l d v i e w is left u n e x p l o r e d , t h e y a re p o r ­ t r a y e d w i t h a se n s e o f h u m o u r a n d h u m a n f e e lin g s . O n t h e te st o f t h e i r h u m a n i t y , t h e y r ate h i g h e r t h a n t h e i r m a s te r s . W h e n w e r e c a ll t h a t a f u n d a ­ m e n ta l E u ro p ea n ju s tific a tio n fo r th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e In d ia ns w as th a t th e y w e r e savages, P u t t n a m a n d Joffe et al h a v e g o n e v e r y fa r i n d e e d .

By c o n t r a s t P e te r W e i r ' s n e w f i l m , M o s q u i t o C oast, is i n n o c e n t o f h is t o r i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . Base d u p o n t h e n o v e l b y Paul T h e r o u x , it is l o c a t e d in t h e p r e s e n t a n d it f o c u s e s o n an i n v e n t o r w h o b e c a m e a lie n a te d b y th e b a rre n n a tu re o f US p ro s p e rity .

A llie , p layed by H a r r i s o n F o rd , t r a n s p l a n t s his f a m i l y t o t h e c o a s t o f C e n t r a l A m e r i c a in o r d e r to b u i l d his w o r l d a n e w . L ik e t h e a d v a n c e d agents o f E u ro p e a n c u lt u r e b e fo r e h im , A l l i e uses t e c h n o l o g y t o p r e v a i l o v e r t h e p e o p le w h o w e r e a lre a d y th e re .

A l l i e b u i l d s an i n g e n i o u s m a c h i n e t h a t m a k e s ic e o u t o f fi r e . W i t h a m i s s i o n a r y ' s z e a l h e ta k e s ic e t o a r e m o t e t r i b e o f I n d i a n s in t h e j u n g l e . H e e v e n t u a l l y f i n d s t h e I n d ia n s , a n d , u n e x p e c t e d l y , b a n d i t s l i v i n g o f f t h e t r i b e . H is i n v e n t i o n o n l y se rv e s t o a t t r a c t t h e b a n d i t s t o his U t o p i a .

T h e c lo s e s t W e i r c o m e s t o m a k i n g a c o m m e n t o n L a tin A m e r i c a n r e a l i t y is a s ta te m e n t th a t a n y o n e w ith . . an o u n c e o f g u m p tio n . . ." need not accept rep re ssio n .

A llie k ills the in v a d in g b a n d i t s b y t r a p p i n g t h e m in , a n d t h e n d e s t r o y i n g , t h e ic e w o r k s as w e l l as t h e c o m m u n i t y n e a r b y . In t h e p r o c e s s h e p o l l u t e s 'h is t o w n ' i r r e v o c a b l y .

T h e m ost s h o c k in g aspect o f M o s q u ito C o a s t is t h e c o n t e m p t e x p r e s s e d f o r t h e na tive p e o p le . T h e m o s t a ttra c tiv e fig u re in t h e f i l m is a b l a c k l a u n c h d r i v e r n a m e d M r H a d d y . In t h e p r o c e s s o f k i l l i n g t h e b a n d i t s A l l i e a ls o d e s t r o y s H a d d y ' s b o a t , w i t h o u t a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t it repre se n ts to h im . T h e a rr o g a n c e o f th e w e a l t h y w o r l d in d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p o o r w o r l d is b o u n d l e s s . L a ter, t h e r e is a p o ig n a n t scene in w h ic h C o n ra d

42 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

R o b e rts , as M r H a d d y , o f f e rs h e l p a n d A l l i e r e je c ts it w i t h c o n t e m p t f o r H a d d y a n d t h e 'n a t i v e s ' .

T h e t h e m e t h a t lin k s M o s q u i t o C o a s t t o t h e o t h e r f ilm s u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is t h e use o f t e c h n o l o g y as t h e k e y t o e x p a n ­ s io n . M u c h t o his m is f o r t u n e , A l l i e is n o t th e o n ly 'm is s io n a ry ' o n th e M o s q u it o C o a s t. In d i r e c t c o n f l i c t a n d c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h A l l i e ' s t e c h n o l o g i c a l m is s io n is o n e R everend S p e llg o o d . A p r o d u c t o f C o ld W a r C h r i s t i a n i t y , h e is g r o t e s q u e l y t r a n s ­ p l a n t e d f r o m t h e US B ib le b e lt . It is n o t su rp risin g that th e t w o 'm is s io n a rie s ' c la s h e d . W h e n A l l i e fle e s u p r i v e r a f t e r a storm d e stroys th e s e c o n d c o m m u n i t y he has c r e a t e d — h e h a d a r r o g a n t l y i g n o r e d H a d d y 's w a r n i n g th a t he w a s b u ild in g t o o c lo s e t o t h e w a t e r — h e c o m e s a c ro s s a re m o te ju n g le c h u r c h w it h S p e llg o o d p r e a c h i n g , o n v i d e o t a p e , t o t h e n a tiv e s .

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f h ig h t e c h n o l o g y t o B ib le b a s h i n g e n r a g e s h i m a n d t h e f a c t t h a t his n a t iv e s w e n t o v e r t o S p e l l g o o d is t o o m u c h t o b e a r.

A t t h e f a m i l y le v e l, A l l i e r u n s his U t o p i a as a p a t e r n a l d i c t a t o r s h i p . H e b u llie s a n d t e r r o r i s e s his c h i l d r e n a n d his w ife , a c u rio u s c h a ra c te r w it h o u t a n a m e (she is s i m p l y r e f e r r e d t o as " m o t h e r ” t h r o u g h o u t t h e f i l m ) . It is n ' t t h a t H e l e n M i r r e n , as t h e w i f e , is an a n t i - f e m i n i s t .

She s i m p l y a p p e a r s n o t t o h a v e h e a r d t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a m o d i c u m o f d i s c u s ­ s io n o v e r t h e r o l e o f w o m e n in m o d e r n s o c ie t y o v e r t h e past q u a r t e r - c e n t u r y .

O n l y w h e n A l l i e is s e m i - c o n s c i o u s a n d in his d e a t h t h r o e s d o e s " m o t h e r ” w o r k u p t h e c o u r a g e t o d i s o b e y his i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d t u r n t h e la u n c h d o w n r i v e r a w a y f r o m his d r e a m o f a j u n g l e U t o p i a . A l l i e ' s v is io n o f e x p a n s i o n has c o n s i d e r a b l y less s ta y in g p o w e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e E u r o p e a n s w h o c a m e to S outh A m e r ic a b e fo re h im .

P eter W e i r has l o c a t e d his f i l m o n C e n t r a l A m e r i c a in t h e a ge o f P r e s id e n t Reagan w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e US h e g e m o n y in t h e r e g i o n , t h e w a r s t h a t a re p r e s e n t l y r a g in g n e a r b y , o r e v e n t h e M o s q u it o In d ia n s w h o have c e rta in ly c o m e t o p r o m i n e n c e . Y e t as a m i c r o ­ c o s m o f US i m p e r i a l i s m , t h e f i l m i n ­ a d v e rte n tly to u c h e s th e lin k b e tw e e n t e c h n o l o g y a n d e x p a n s i o n in its m a n y and va rie d fo rm s . T h e r o m a n tic urge to d r o p o u t a n d f i n d a n u n s p o i l e d a re a in w h ic h to create a te c h n o lo g ic a l U to p ia ( the f i l m is p r o m o t e d as a n e w v e r s i o n o f Swiss F a m i l y R o b i n s o n ) m e r g e s n e a t l y w ith , a n d p r o v id e s a c o v e r fo r, c u r r e n t f a s h io n s o f p o l i t i c a l e s c a p is m .

E m e r a ld Forest is, b y c o n tra s t, e x ­ tr e m e ly s e n s itiv e to th e in d ig e n o u s p o p u la t io n . It is a ta n ta lis in g , b u t p r o ­ f o u n d ly fla w e d film , in w h ic h s o m e s k ilfu l e a rly e t h n o g r a p h y is f o llo w e d b y a se ries o f r o m a n tic d e v ic e s so u n b e lie v ­ a b le as to m a k e a ll b u t th e m o s t in c r e d u lo u s v ie w e r r e c o il. T h a t is a s h a m e , s in c e in m a n y w a y s it w a s th e m o s t a m b itio u s o f th e s e film s . E m e r a ld Forest d o e s a tte m p t t o u n d e r s ta n d th e w o r ld v ie w o f th e In d ia n s .

T h e f ilm is b a se d u p o n a n in c id e n t in w h ic h an A m a z o n ia n In d ia n t r ib e k id ­ n a p p e d th e y o u n g s o n o f a n e n g in e e r w o r k in g o n o n e o f th o s e m a s s iv e h y d r o ­ e le c tr ic p ro je c ts so fa v o u r e d b y th e B ra z ilia n m ilit a r y . T h e h is to r y o f E u ro ­ p e a n e x p a n s io n is r e p le te w it h th e

d e v ic e o f th e lo s t c h ild , fr o m R o m u lu s a n d R e m u s to T a rz a n . T h e film m a k e r s a v o id th e n a tu r e vs n u r t u r e c o n tr o v e r s y a n d tu r n th e f ilm in to a r e fle c tio n o n c o n ­ t e m p o r a r y s o c ie ty .

T h e e n g in e e r , M a r k h a m , e v e n tu a lly fin d s h is s o n , liv in g t h e life o f a tr ib a l In d ia n . H e c o n fr o n ts th e In d ia n 'f a t h e r ' o f th e n o w 1 7 -y e a r-o ld y o u n g m a n , a n d asks w h y t h e y k id n a p p e d h is c h ild . T h e In d ia n says th a t w h e n h is p e o p le s a w th e b o y s m ile a t th e m , t h e ir h e a rts s o fte n e d , a n d th e y d e c id e d t o sa ve h im fr o m a life w it h th e 'T e r m ite P e o p le ' in th e 'D e a d W o r ld '. (T h e se n a tiv e s o f th e A m a z o n b a sin h a v e w a tc h e d as th e 2 0 th c e n t u r y p e d d le rs o f p ro g re s s h a v e d e c im a te d th e ra in fo re s ts ; th e In d ia n s n a m e d o u r w o r ld th e 'D e a d W o r ld ' a n d t h e y c a ll us th e 'T e r m ite P e o p le ' b e c a u s e w e b o re a w a y at a n c ie n t tre e s , d e s tr o y in g th e m .) It is a p o ig n a n t e n c o u n te r , as is th e e x c e lle n t s c e n e in w h ic h th e y o u n g b o y g o e s t h r o u g h th e rite s o f p a ssa g e in t o m a n ­ h o o d . T h e re is a ls o a c le v e r use o f d u b b in g t o a llo w th e In d ia n s t o s p e a k t h e ir o w n la n g u a g e a n d th e n b le n d in E n g lish so t h a t th e a u d ie n c e c a n a v o id r e a d in g s u b title s . ( A fte r a ll, in h is b o o k o n th e m a k in g o f th e f ilm , J o h n B o o r m a n e s tim a te s th a t 2 5 % o f h is a u d ie n c e s w ill b e so f u n c t io n a lly illit e r a t e t h a t th e y w ill h a v e t r o u b le r e a d in g s u b title s .)

A fte r a g o o d s ta rt, in c lu d in g a p e r ­ su a s iv e tr e a tm e n t o f th e o r ig in a l fa th e r 's re a lis a tio n th a t h is s o n s h o u ld s ta y in th e fo re s t, th e f ilm r a p id ly d e te r io r a te s . L o c a l s la v e tra d e rs ra id th e v illa g e a n d d ra g th e y o u n g w o m e n a w a y t o b e s o ld in to s la v e ry in th e lo c a l b r o th e l.

V a lid u p t o th a t p o in t , t h e f ilm th e n fa lls a p a rt. It re v e rts t o o v e r - w o r k e d d e v ic e s , in c lu d in g a s h o o to u t a t th e O K b r o th e l. T h e e t h n o g r a p h ic s c e n e s d e ­ g e n e ra te in t o a d r u g s c e n e in w h ic h th e In d ia n s o n a t r ip c o n v in c e d a n e a g le to h a v e fro g s b r in g o n t h e ra in in o r d e r to d e s tro y a d a m . It has a h a p p y e n d ­ in g , s e c u re in s im p le n o tio n s o f g o o d In d ia n s a n d b a d In d ia n s a n d t h e p o s s i­ b ilit y o f a rr e s tin g th e d e s t r u c t io n o f th e fa ir fo re s ts o f th e A m a z o n b a s in .

T h e s e film s a re im p o r t a n t in t h a t th e y a d d re s s th e o n g o in g r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n w e s te rn e x p a n s io n a n d n a tiv e p e o p le s . S in c e film s d e a l w it h v a lu e s in im p o r t a n t , if f a ir ly im p r e s s io n is tic w a y s , it is e n c o u r a g in g t o fin d in a t le a s t t w o o f th e s e th re e f ilm s a c o n c e rn fo r in d ig e n o u s p e o p le . Y e t R o la n d J o ffe a n d J o h n B o o r m a n a re b e tte r a t e s ta b lis h in g im p re s s iv e p h y s ic a l s e ttin g s f o r t h e ir f ilm s th a n in e x p lo r in g t h e w o r ld v ie w s o f d if f e r e n t c u ltu re s ; P e te r W e ir in a d v e r t ­ e n t ly e x p lo re s th e a p p a llin g in s e n s itiv ity o f th o s e w h o possess m o r e a d v a n c e d t e c h n o lo g y .

F ilm s t h a t p u r p o r t t o d e a l w it h o t h e r tim e s a n d o t h e r c u ltu r e s f r e q u e n t ly fa ll in t o th e tr a p o f m e r e ly d re s s in g t h e ir c h a ra c te r s in o t h e r c o s tu m e s b u t s till d e a lin g w it h us, n o w . A t le a s t w e h a v e in th e s e film s s o m e d e g re e o f s y m p a th y e x ­ p re s s e d f o r t h e v ic tim s o f p ro g re s s , e v e n if th e r e is o n ly a p a rtia l r e c o g n it io n th a t in d ig e n o u s p e o p le havfe t h e r ig h t t o a m a te r ia l basis f o r t h e ir s u r v iv a l. W e s till h a v e , h o w e v e r , a lo n g w a y t o g o b e fo r e th e r e is a g e n e ra l u n d e r s ta n d in g t h a t o t h e r c u ltu r e s h a v e w o r ld v ie w s t h a t a re a ls o w o r t h e x p lo r in g .

A F T R S AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL Ernie Dingo, Justine Saunders, Kath Walker (left to right)

T h e A u s tra lia n Film , T e le v is io n a n d R ad io S ch o o l is o ffe rin g the fo llo w in g short courses:

TWO WEEKS OF HOPE

PUPPETRY W O RKSHO P A ten day course, 6-16th April 1987 (Various days of the course can be taken separately).

Aboriginal writers and actors want the chance to write their own stories. RICHARD GUTHRIE reports. “ Like C hekhov, A boriginal writers are witnessing the end of an era, but unlike most Chekhovian characters in rural Russia, Aboriginal people are finding a way out of their urban wilderness. They have renewed hope, hope for a place, hope to be heard.”

Brian Syron was reflecting on two weeks of an emotionally and spiritually charged conference and workshop. He had seen new w ritin g em erge, new directing talent demonstrating its force, and young actors effortlessly command the stage.

For Syron it was hard not to be emotional in the face of a realised dream.

It was back in 1973, just shortly after he had returned from 10 years’ study and work that Brian had first tried to form a national black theatre. Now 14 years later, after starts had been stalled by public intolerance and government indifference, the dream had begun to take shape.

Syron had helped publish the first Aboriginal play, The Cherry Pickers. It was written by Kevin Gilbert on prison toilet paper, and smuggled out with the help of Marion St John Baker. ‘‘She was an aristocrat, a woman committed to social justice.”

She has since died, but Kevin Gilbert was present at the work­ shop, sitting quietly, but burning with a poet’s indignation at suffering. Paraphrasing the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, Gilbert spoke of the ingrained pain and loss of the last 200 years of Australian history. ‘‘You ask me why I don’t write of birds, trees, the perfumed flowers . . . Come and see the blood in the streets, come and see the blood in the streets.”

Gilbert noted that while Abor­ iginal theatre was born and nurtured around ancient camp­ fires, the Aboriginal written word was only in its infancy. ‘‘Look, we have here the first published Aboriginal poet (Kath Walker), the first Aboriginal novelist (Colin Johnson) and myself . . . That’s how short our written history is.”

With Kath Walker and Jack

Davis, Kevin Gilbert forms an 'old guard’ of writers; their presence was revered by all. In the acting contingent, it was the tireless example of pioneers Justine Saunders and Bob Maza which inspired the new rising talent.

Actors fresh from recent films like The Fringe Dwellers, Short Changed and Backlash — actors such as David Kennedy, Ernie Dingo, Lydia Miller and Kristina Nehm — all felt the strength of ‘Nanna’ Walker. She coaxed, lectured, commented and recited, her voice rich with stones, images and experience.

She recalled the days in the fifties and sixties when whites refused to believe that Abor­ igines could write. Together she and Jack Davis expressed their joy and wonder at all the new young talent they saw.

But there were no stars; a collective spirit grew on the first day, and it remained throughout the conference. Up at 8am, working till 10pm, then singing and sharing stories until the early hours. The plays and film scripts they worked on dealt with themes of cultural and personal loss, the tragedy of family separation, the crumbling of values and law. On the last night, the first black awards ceremony for stage and screen was held.

Short Changed picked up three awards: best actor (David Kennedy), best supporting actor (Jamie Agius), and best film or television screenplay (Robert Merritt); Justine Saunders won best actress for her role in The Fringe Dwellers; and Lydia Miller won best supporting actress for Backlash.

Jack Davis summed up the euphoria and hope of the occasion. ‘‘I didn’t think it was going to happen in my lifetime, I thought it was an impossibility.

But nothing is impossible for A b o rig in a l p e o p le . W e ’ re creative people and because we’ve been downtrodden for so long, we’ve also got the gift of the gab, and brother, can we use our tongue as well as our pen, we certainly can.”

Leading directors, puppeteers, scriptw riters and designers will lecture and conduct workshops. Particular attention will be given to studio and exterior production techniques.

M A R K E T IN G A N D D IS T R IB U T IO N Course director — Glenys Rowe.

A short course starting 27th April 1987.

Designed for those working in the TV and Film industry covering Film and TV financing, export development. Australian and overseas marketing, distribution theatrical and non-theatrical. TV buying and presales.

For further inform ation contact.

Carole Maccoll (02) 887 1666 Australian Film. Television and Radio School 13-15 Lyon Park Road. North Ryde. NSW 2113

FILM AUSTRALIA f—

.

.

in

w

~M~i~

r.

enquiries and sales: SSSgffg g y

1

the production division of the

”

AUSTRALIAN f il m c o m m is s io n

Film Australia, Eton Road, Lindfield NSW 2070 Australia. Telephone: (02) 467 9777. Telex: AA22734 Australia Film, City National Bank Building, 9229 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90069 USA. Telephone: (213) 275 7074 Australian Film Commission, Victory House, London W1 UK. Telephone: (01) 734 9383. Telex: 28711

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 43

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Assam Garden Australian Dream Betty Blue Blue Velvet The Color Of Money Crimes Of The Heart Deadly Friend Death Of A Soldier Dogs In Space The Fly Heartbreak Ridge Heartburn The Name Of The Rose ’Round Midnight Sid And Nancy Soul Man Yellow Earth

44 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

• DOGS IN SPACE ■ ■ Every period, of history has its pariahs — people who have had the group terror of existence projected on to them. In the middle ages it was witches, for the past hundred years it’s been lunatics, and now we have drug addicts.” (Bert Deling, director of Pure Shit, interviewed in Cinema Papers April 1977) T en years after Pure Shit the pariahs are still around, but instead of a singular, one-track-m ind, m arauding gang of junkies, Dogs In Space latches on to prim e time New W ave 1979, and although the two films a re n ’t that far apart in filmic tim e, th ey ’re eons apart in vision.

Pure Shit, its nightm arish obsessive­ ness and intensity hurling you from one scene to the next with as m uch rationale as its characters, attem pted to advertise itself with a poster that included the words “ H eroin — it’s better than d y in g .” (The poster was banned.)

Unlike Dogs In Space, where death signals the end of the party, the end of an era and a return to the pursuit of middle class security, Pure Shit dis­ regarded death as part of the game and revealed one of the most chilling aspects of heroin — that it is bigger than life and death. In the seventies, drugs were an experience to be reckoned with, but in the eighties, they are an om en, a scar.

W hile I d o n ’t wish to focus on drugs as a translator of m eaning, the fate of the drug dabbler (in Dogs at least) is fairly u n d ig n ifie d : d isillu sio n m e n t, n o n ­ achievem ent, loss of identity. O f course substitute the druggies for “ p u n k ” and we are dealing with a subculture, which proves to be a difficult and unyielding volunteer for the cinem a which ignored it all those years ago, and now wishes to exploit its naivety and failure to deliver the prom ised revolution. G enerally, films about that era (even those tran s­ ported into the future like Liquid Sky) follow an unw ritten form ula: m axim um crowd scenes (the concept of the “ fam ily” ), m oderate use of the music and live bands which inspire the youth into varying acts of violence and stance, a religious elem ent involving drugs, and m inim um insight into the individual.

Dogs In Space aspires shamelessly to this form ula but fails to perfect it, even as -fantasy. R ichard Lowenstein has m ade a film so entrenched in contrary m odes of production that he has lost the grasp on the. m agical atm osphere the film desperately tries to recreate and has given way to cliches and tokenism s. Its m ajor inconsistencies of style are visible in the first scene at the Bowie concert queue shot in an almost docum entary blast into the past, in terrupted by the

grand entrance of the car of skinheads, the cam era m oving to ground level to glimpse the ugly yet historic platform shoe — the first of m any symbols Lowenstein uses to classify his charac­ ters, ra th e r th an c o n c e n tra te on personalities.

T he action in the film is lim ited to tracking the decadent hobbies of the punk household and their quaint con­ flicts with m em bers of “ o th e r” ideo­ logical persuasions. T he film confusedly splits itself between non-narrative and narrative, a notion of cinem a verite and video clip images (vaguely rem iniscent of the post-apocalyptic IN X S video) and the use of non-professional and profes­ sional actors. This last division is one of the film ’s greatest weaknesses; Lowenstein’s direction never blends the two, it simply reinforces the im pression that the cast is m ade up of extras versus people who have had acting experience. Yet the film is undoubtedly saved by A ndrew de G ro o t’s w onderful cam era, gliding through crowds, caressing faces, and playing eyewitness to each m inute event: you really feel like you are there.

T he characters, how ever — prone to one-liners and never really allowed beyond their functions of comic supports or party ragers indifferently indulging in drugs or music — only work when they break out of their moulds. L uchio’s long lost love, L eanne (Sharon Jessop), brilliantly beats everybody at this game when she screams in front of the mildm annered punk set, “ How do you know when y o u ’ve had a good time? W hen you throw your knickers at the wall and they stick” . P eter W alsh (T ony, the calm, always stoned, sensitive hippie) and N ique Needles (T im , the clown whose lack of cool gets him throw n out of the band) are good perform ers, and soften the blow for the radicals and political idealists w h o ’ve obviously missed the bus but are m ade to look all the m ore ridiculous for it.

M ichael H utchence is not exploited for his gift of glam our, and his charac­ ter, largely incapable of coherent speech, is a vicious attack on p u n k ’s p re ­ dilection for narcissism and non -p ro d u c­ tivity, as his role is nothing m ore than prim al urges for sex and m om entary re c e ssio n in to c h ild h o o d . S a m ’s am orality and total lack of a cause — when a representative for Rock A gainst Racism , calls to get the band interested, his only concern is how m uch m oney is in it — reinforce his_jduty to the bourgeois pursuit of a career. H ere Low enstein throws out or refuses to acknowledge any effort at subversion the punks in the film m ake. T he fiction takes over and struggle is elim inated as

drugs, m oney and sheer stam ina are m agically supplied, with little in te r­ action with the outside world.

In Dogs nobody is exem pt from L ow enstein ’s sour insight into the a lte r­ native scene, with the exception ol A nna, who seems to serve as a guidinglight of youth untin g ed by politics, taste or unsociable behaviour. Like the rest of them , she comes from the suburbs and retains all the securities necessary for the pretence of punk nihilism , but is the only one who is opinionless; she feels and acts, dream s of a respectable career, is dedicated to her m an , cutely disgusted by his prim al behaviour. T h u s in the fictive course of things she m ust die, and by the hand that eats away but keeps in m otion her peers. H er death is heroic but rom antic, as she is surely on her way to heaven on a first class ticket, her m orality intact, her lover suddenly cleansed and on top of the lad d er of success. T his is the cue for the film dismissively to tu rn its back and, for the last precious m inutes, solve any m oral problem s by tu rn in g into a video clip.

T he car glides into special effects land,

there is a brief scene in the ram with a destroyed Sam and friends (who know now the show ’s over), a cheap grim funeral scene, then the big finale and hit song; any hint of “ social realism ” is su r­ rendered in the nam e of nostalgia. T he end is not surprising but disappointing as it clears up any problem s that could have been pursued in the film about the fate of the little world in the house in a sweep of em o tio n alism and fond m em ories. T his is Dogs In Space's sales pitch, however, and it is the charism a of the rock scene, coupled with the “ true sto ry ” appeal, that will prove its en durance and success.

Vikki Riley DOGS IN SPACE: Directed by Richard Lowenstein.

Producer: Glenys Rowe. Executive producers: Robert Le Tet and Dennis Wright. Executive in charge of Pro­ duction: John Kearney. Screenplay: Richard Lowen­ stein. Director of photography: Andrew de Groot. Art director: Jody Borland. Musical director: Ollie Olsen.

Editor: Jill Bilcock. Cast: Michael Hutchence (Sam), Saskia Post (Anna), Nique Needles (Tim). Deanna Bond (The Girl). Tony Helou (Luchio). Chris Haywood (Chain­ saw Man), Peter Walsh (Anthony). Laura Swanson (Clare), Adam Briscomb (Grant). Sharon Jessop (Leanne). Production company: Central Park Films.

Distributor: Hoyts Distribution and Ronm Films. 35mm.

93 minutes. Australia. 1986.

STARE WAY: Deanna Bond waits on the steps for Michael Hutchence to come home

• SID AND NANCY T he release of Sid And Nancy coincides with a resurgence of 10-years-later interest in the beginnings of punk, as well as a recurrence of questions to do with the rep re se n ta tio n of recent popular culture. H ow do you depict a particular historical situation that is so m ythologised, docum ented and ideal­ ised that pu ttin g it into cinem atic form is alm ost m ade into a publicly respon­ sible act? E ither the w eight of a u th e n ­ ticity imposes upon the task to such an extent that staging a film around the lives of fam ous punksters becom es a textbook reiteration of official New Musical Express or B urchill/P arsons type accounts, or else artistic licence prevails and historical accuracy goes out the window. T h a t is, of course, if you accep t th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich historical a u th e n tic ity and artistic licence are polarised. If you d o n ’t, then the problem of m aking out w hat to think of Sid And Nancy becom es slightly m ore complex.

O n the score of authenticity, Sid And Nancy rates pretty poorly. T h e casting misses the m ark in ju st about every con­ ceivable way, placing stage actors in roles which surely could have been played by perform ers who have a m ore implicit und erstan d in g of their parts. (In this regard, C o x ’s next project, which com bines H arry D ean S tanton, Emilio Estevez, Jo e S tru m m er, Iggy Pop and Elvis Costello, sounds infinitely m ore in te r e s tin g .) D a v id H a y m a n , as M alcolm M cL aren , looks and sounds like A rt G arfunkel, D rew Schofield is absolutely u n fo rgivable as J o h n n y R otten, Chloe W ebb creates an u n sy m ­ pathetic w hingey N ancy, while G ary O ldm an gets away with playing a likeable, if a little over-theatrical Sid. T he characters wind their way through a guided to u r of the Sex P istols’ England and U nited States circa 1977/78 — the 100 C lub, the Ju b ilee D ay boat tour, the H ackney squats, Bill G ru n d y ’s Today program , T exas rednecks, Sid singing M y Way, com pletely out-of-it p erfor­ m ances at C B G B ’s, T h e C helsea H otel, the knife, the needles, the end — w ithout strict regard for the detail or ordering of events.

In itself this irreverence is no crim e, and after all it is the self-destructive love story that em erges betw een Sid and N ancy which is the subject of the film, not docum entary accuracy. But in spite of this, it’s little surprise that none of the figures portrayed in Sid And Nancy have given their approval to this film version of 1977-and-all-that.

T o m any a m ind Sid And Nancy is a

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 45

THE

EL SID: Gary Oldman does it his way

failure because it simply doesn’t get it right. If the nuances of a look, the tear in a T -shirt, the intonation of a voice, the double-sidedness of a posture, the cut of an outfit or the sound of a song a re n ’t right, then everything else loses its vibrancy. H earin g and seeing a bunch of not particularly inspired actors mime to specially recorded ‘live Sex Pistols’ songs for exam ple, dem onstrates how thin the line is betw een sensitive reinvention and dow nright parody. The problem however does not lie in the m atter of historical truthfulness, say in the question of w hether Sid m ade a habit or not of walking through glass windows! N either should the dem and for veracity be confused with a dem and for realism . T he tru th of British punk is represented equally as well in Ju lien T em ple’s parodic and highly fictional­ ised The Great Rock and Roll Swindle as it is in Lech K ow alski’s hardcore docu­ m entary DO A . U nfortunately C o x ’s Sid And Nancy fails to go either one way or the other. Instead, he settles for an u n c o n v in c in g ju n k ie ro m a n c e set against an alm ost cliched punk back­ drop, another version of the authenticity/fiction polarity. C om pared to the perform ances of Sid and N ancy in both Swindle and DO A there is little C o x ’s version has to offer. Because Sid And Nancy does not u n derstand the sense in which its story is already w ritten, engraved in cultural m em ories, im itated in life, reproduced on vinyl, celluloid and m agnetic tape, it adds nothing to the particular ‘live fast, die y o ung’ ethos that it seeks to investigate.

H ad Sid And Nancy been placed at one rem ove from its biographical m aterial and been m ade as a film loosely inspired 46 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

by the Sid and N ancy story, things m ight have been different. T he obvious film to pair Sid And Nancy with in this regard would be Dogs In Space, as this is exactly what it does. T he figures and signs in L ow enstein’s cityscapes rem ain exactly that, largely because they are not essentially tied to any identifiably real characters, though there m ay be m ore than a slight resem blance to m any a M elbourne lum inary. T he m otor of Dogs In Space isn ’t provided by a p re­ ordained storyline, as it m ust necessarily be in Sid And Nancy, and is therefore free to let the cam era roam and drift through tableaux-like settings w ithout the need for either narrative or psychological m o tiv a tio n . In te g ra te d w ith wellconceived art direction, w ardrobe and choice of music, Dogs In Space m anages to list all the elem ents that com bined to form the M elbourne punk scene in 1978 w ithout getting caught up in that most insoluble problem of verisim ilitude. As far as the Sex Pistol movies go, I only wish that Russ M eyer had m ade Who Killed Bambi? when Sid and N ancy were still around. Now that would have been a film with all the energy, anger, sex, m e lo d ra m a an d m aso ch istic selfdestruction that Sid And Nancy misses out on.

Ross Harley SID AND NANCY: Directed by Alex Cox. Producer: Eric Fellner. Co-producer: Peter McCarthy. Screenplay: Alex Cox and Abbe Wool. Director of Photography: Roger Deakins. Production designer (UK):Andrew McAlpine.

Art direction (USA): J. Rae Fox and Lynda Burbank.

Music: The Pogues, Joe Strummer and Pray For Rain.

Editor: David Martin. Cast: Gary Oldman (Sid Vicious), Chloe Webb (Nancy Spungen), Drew Schofield (Johnny Rotten), David Hayman (Malcolm McLaren), Debby Bishop (Phoebe), Tony London (Steve), Perry Benson (Paul), Ann Lambton (Linda). Production company: Zenith in association with Initial Pictures. Distributor: CEL. 35mm. 114 minutes. Great Britain. 1986.

COLOR

The Color o f Money is M artin Scorsese’s fall from grace?. No m atter what the narrative inconsistencies of his previous films, the excesses of stylistic virtuosity, the moral confusions, they were all finally redeemed by a powerful overriding vision: a mix of paranoid, guilt-ridden psychic anxieties in a world suspended between purgatory and hell, with all the exit doors bolted. It was the distilled purity of that vision which made A fter Hours such an impres­ sive film. Scorsese’s film canon is the sacred text of the film cultist. Better then that he should have made a flawed Last Temptation o f Christ than The Color o f Money. For Scorsese’s sin is twofold. Not only has he made a bland film (unforgiveable in itself) but he has failed on seem­ ingly familiar turf — the story of spiritual corruption and redemption in the world of pool hustling. And by trading on the character of Fast Eddie Felson, Scorsese has indirectly tarnished the memory of an earlier screen classic. For The Color o f Money is the sequel to Robert Rossen’s The Hustler (1961).

Eddie Felson (Paul Newman), no longer “ fast and loose” but a self-proclaimed “ student of hum an moves” , a liquor salesman coasting through advanced middle-age, picks up Vincent Laura (Tom Cruise), a nine-ball whizz-kid and his alluring girlfriend Carmen (M ary Eliza­ beth M astrantonio). Under Eddie’s hust­ ling tutelage the three journey from Chicago to Atlantic City in what turns out to be, for Eddie, a quasi-spiritual odyssey of rediscovery.

The Color o f Money is Scorsese’s most classically orientated film. In retrospect, it makes The H ustler look positively modernist, in unexpected ways. With the pool scene backdrop, The Color o f Money cannot match The H ustler’ s use of Cinema­ scope, which provided a fuller sense of compositions surrounding the tables; its austere black and white cinematography gave a gritty atmospheric feel to the dimly lit pool rooms, its whole representation was richly enhanced by the very slow and poetic lap-dissolves, and its range and depth of characterisations. Scorsese’s movie, on the other hand, has a stream­ lined narrative with rare moments of real dramatic intensity. In the game of nineball the dram atic locus of the game is in the beginning, the break shot, and its ending, the pocketing of the num ber nine ball. So it is with the film. The plotting of the middle section of the film is flat and ponderous, which is surprising, given the full throttle narrative velocity of A fter Hours. Its image is clean and crisp, both

OF

MONEY

in its execution (its brightly-lit surface) and in the film ’s moral position.

Some will argue that, as always with Scorsese, there is the theme of redem p­ tion. But it goes nowhere near Raging B u ll on that score; for Eddie Felson i t ’s more like bargain basem ent redem ption. In both films, Scorsese uses pool and boxing as metaphors for the psychic states of his characters. The sequences of boxing and pool shooting have both been called m annerist in style. In one, the extra­ ordinary montaged sequences of La M otta in the ring are magnetic in their formal dynamism and fully integrated into the thematic fabric of the film. In the other, the pool shooting sequences are often m arred by pyrotechnic overkill, and bear a perfunctory relationship to the dram a.

It is clear that The Color o f Money is a Scorsese film gone wrong, and it is also clear where the faults originate. Scorsese and screenw riter Richard Price have mis­ in te rp re te d R ossen’s vision in The Hustler. In P rice’s words, this is how he fashioned the Felson character 25 years on: “ I was interested in Bruno Bettelheim ’s notion of identification w ith the aggressor. You become the thing that you’re most terrified of and that makes you most powerless. W hat makes Fast Eddie Felson most powerless in life?

T h a t’s the George C. Scott character in the first film, the guy that told him he can’t play anym ore. So Newman should become, when he reaches that age, George C. Scott — a cynic, a user of pool players, and hate him self and deny all the hunger and lust for this sport that he had when he was a young m an. T h a t’s the premise, that h e’s now the cold bankroller who refuses to pick up a pool cue.” (Sight & Sound, Autumn 1986) Back in the sixties, in an aptly titled interview ‘Lessons Learned in C om bat’, Rossen stated that most of his characters are “ crippled” . He meant by that that they were morally, psychically or sp iritu ­ ally crippled, and that the film ’s n a rra ­ tives were therapeutic journeys. At the end of The H ustler , Eddie Felson rejects the George C. Scott character and all he stands for, and if that also means never playing pool again, Eddie accepts that willingly. Eddie makes that decision as a ‘moral being’, seeing through his former powerlessness and corruption at the hands of the Scott character. Scott’s power remains one of physical aggression b ut not a psychological one. Therefore Eddie can walk out the moral victor, and it is Scott at that moment who is powerless. To bring the Eddie character back 25 years

RIGHT TO CUES: Tom Cruise, ready to con Vince

on and cast him in the mould of the Scott character is profoundly to m isunderstand the Rossen film. It is illogical; it cannot be sustained, and this throws The Color o f Money off balance from the start. H aving been redeemed once, Eddie is hardly in need of a second redem ption. He may be a cynic but he is hardly corrupt in a destruc­ tive sense.

As a character study, and th a t’s p re­ dom inantly what the film is, it’s hollow at the centre. Scorsese’s characters need to be obsessive, neurotic, pathological, or just plain loony — think of Johnny Boy, Travis, La M otta or Rubert Pupkin. Paul Newman isn’t Robert De Niro. T h a t’s an im portant distinction, because Scorsese’s visual style is tailored around certain screen performances and presences. Scor­ sese tries, as often as not, to lock us into the vision of his characters, as is the case with the slow motion point of view shots in Raging B u ll. The subjective point of view shot is among Scorsese’s favorites; the relentless camera movements dupli­ cate the obsessional, restless nature of his characters. Eddie Felson, as played by Paul Newman, is Scorsese’s least obses­ sional character, and it is for that reason I think that the Scorsese style is less on show in The Color o f Money. I t ’s also the least violent of his films, and I ’m not referring to the absence of graphic violence. Together with his longtime editor Thelm a Schoonmaker, Scorsese has produced the most innovative editing effects and rhythms to be found in con­ tem porary American cinema. The sudden and often unexpected dislocation and dis­ placement of the spectator’s field of vision

is the real centre of Scorsese’s violent imagery; not violence w ithin the image but violence of images in collision. When the field of vision is fixed around neurotic obsessional types like Travis, La M otta or our hero in A fter H ours , the nervy editing effects work well. U nfortunately the cur­ rent Eddie Felson doesn’t fit into that gallery of Scorsese types. Tom Cruise, on the other hand, does. His is a full out, show-stopping, frenzied perform ance.

W hatever energy the film has surrounds the Vincent character. When Eddie undergoes his ‘crisis of conscience’ stage and begins his moral recuperation, the film puts the Cruise character and his girl­ friend Carmen on hold and subsequently gets lost in tempered sentim entality. This is where the film becomes most routine, and none of Scorsese’s previous films could be accused of that.

Ironically enough, in America at least, The Color o f Money represents his biggest box-office success since Taxi Driver. His renewed commercial viability may finally perm it him to mak&The Last Temptation o f Christ , that long awaited project. For the moment though, The Color o f Money is a sad affair.

Rolando Caputo THE COLOR OF MONEY: Directed by Martin Scorsese.

Producers: Irving Axelrad and Barbara De Fina.

Associate producer: Dodie Foster. Screenplay: Richard Price, based on the novel by Walter Tevis. Director of photography: Michael Ballhaus. Production designer: Boris Leven. Music: Robbie Robertson. Editor: Thelma Schoonmaker. Cast: Paul Newman (Eddie), Tom Cruise (Vincent), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Carmen), Helen Shaver (Janelle), John Turturro (Julian), Bill Cobbs (Orvis), Robert Agins (Earl), Keith McCready (Grady Seasons). Production company: Touchstone Pictures.

Distributor: Greater Union. 35mm. 119 minutes. USA. 1986.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 47

R-E-V-l-E-W-S

DEXTERITY: Dexter Gordon, to be-bop or not to be-bop

• ’ROUND MIDNIGHT ’Round Midnight is a kind and lu x u ria­ ting story about the love betw een people and music. Based on events from the lives of m usicians Lester Y oung and Bud Powell, and dedicated to them , this obvious labour of love by French direc­ tor B ertrand T av ern ier addresses the lives of m usicians with endearing and painful accuracy and reverent respect, along with the occasional, m ild cliche.

Living legend D exter G ordon p o r­ trays Dale T u rn e r, an A m erican ex­ patriate saxophonist, playing regular gigs at the Blue Note in Paris in the late fifties. T he aging sax great creates a large and charm ing presence as he struts through the movie in his aw kw ard gait, with a smokey voice that sounds as if he ju st woke up with strep throat. H e is watched by a collective of hawk-like club workers and colleagues, and is denied his pay in cash to prevent him indulging in non-m usical highs.

T he entrance of Francis (Francois Cluzet) on the scene introduces a refreshing love relationship from an angle not often addressed in cinem a.

Based on the character of Francis Paudras, a P arisian who befriended Bud Powell, Francis is a freelance illustrator, 30-ish, abandoned by his wife and

48 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

caring for their young daughter singlehandedly in a small flat. Francis is down on his luck and in awe of his idol, Dale T u rn er. We first meet him listening to T u rn e r’s music outside the Blue Note in the rain, separated from the real action by his inability to pay. H e is frustrated, quick-tem pered, and perhaps not the best father in the world.

But when he m eets T u rn e r, life begins to change for Francis. In the beginning his hero takes advantage of his quickness to buy him drinks, and T u rn e r’s friends and band are slow to accept the new ­ com er’s constant presence. But Francis creates a real friendship out of one-sided idolatry, and draws T u rn e r back to health, an inspiring payback to the m usician he reveres. T u rn e r moves in with him and his daughter, Berangere, and the relationship that blossoms between fan and star is the real beauty of this film. ’Round M idnight was to u ted in A m erica as a story about a m usician “ dealing with substance abuse” . T he objectionable, 1980s TV -m ovie-of-theweek language is totally inappropriate and does a disservice to the story of Dale T u rn er. H e is a m an of the fifties who is both a genius and a drunk, and he lives with the traps of tbe m usician’s life, including drugs, alcohol and estrange­

m ent from family and country. His ‘cu re’ comes not from the hospital de­ toxing and group therapy that m odern catch phrases imply, but from hum an caring and one-to-one healing. Like­ wise, the m an who loves T u rn e r back to health receives sim ilar healing benefits in the process. T hey are both still far from perfect, though. T u rn e r h asn ’t a clue about how to love his 14-year-old daughter, whom he has h u rt too m uch to make am ends. A song w ritten for her is m om entarily inspiring but not what she needs, yet it is all he knows how to give. A nd Francis, blinded by his desire to serve T u rn e r, is unable to consider the feelings of his ex-wife, whom he cruelly shuts out when she makes an effort to help and understand.

It has been noted that the life of D exter G ordon is extrem ely close to that of Dale T u rn e r, which raises the ques­ tion of w hether or not he is really acting.

In an interview, T avernier com m ented on his choice for the part: “ A fter observing D exter on film, I couldn’t think of any other actor doing the part.

Irw in (W inkler) and I had agreed from the beginning that we should have a m usician, not an actor playing a m usician. Even with R obert De N iro, whom I adm ire m ore than any - other actor in the world, I could see in every

fram e of New York, New York, th at he was not a real m usician. H e w asn ’t attu n ed to the beat, he d id n ’t react at the right m om ent. . . ’’ R eg ard in g G o rd o n ’s in ­ volvem ent w ith his screen persona, T av ern ie r recounts, “ O n the last day of shooting in New Y ork, he tu rn e d to m e and said, ‘Lady B ertran d , how long do you think it’s going to take m e to get over this m ovie?’ It was very m oving.

T h e last tim e I called him , he said, ‘L ady B ertran d , do you know th at I ’m still in it? ’ ” (‘L a d y ’ is a term T u rn e r calls his friends by.)

S an d ra R eaves-Phillips as the colour­ ful B uttercup, G abrielle H ak er as F rancis’s d au g h ter, H erb ie H ancock as a bandleader, and Bobbie H utch erso n as a com pulsive cook, are all excellent in supportin g roles. L onette M cK ee offers a spine tingling version of “ H ow L ong H as T his Been G oing O n ’’, although h e r c h a r a c t e r ’s b r ie f a p p e a ra n c e rem ains a bit too enigm atic. D irector M artin Scorsese has an unforgettable bit p art as a New Y ork club ow ner who besieges T u rn e r and Francis w ith a n e r­ vous m onologue. T he m usic, of course, is the overw helm ing star of ’Round M id ­ night, and along w ith D exter G ordon and H erbie H ancock, it is given its pow er by m usicians who include R on C a r te r , F re d d ie H u b b a r d , B illie H iggins, W ayne S horter, J o h n M c­ L aughlin and Bobbie H utcherson.

Dorre Koeser 'ROUND MIDNIGHT: Directed by Bertrand Tavernier.

Producer: Irwin Winkler. Screenplay: David Rayflel and Bertrand Tavernier. Director of photography: Bruno de Keyzer. Production designer: Alexandre Trauner.

Music: Herbie Hancock. Editor: Armand Psenny. Cast: Dexter Gordon (Dale Turner), Francois Cluzet (Francis Borier), Gabrielle Haker (Berangere), Sandra ReavesPhillips (Buttercup), Lonette McKee (Darcey Leigh), Christine Pascal (Sylvie), Herbie Hancock (Eddie Wayne). Production company: Warner Bros (Los Angeles)/PECF/Little Bear (Paris). Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 130 minutes. USA/France. 1986.

• THE ASSAM GARDEN India and gardens have a special fascination for the English, so that this film, located as it is in an Assamese garden in E ngland, inhabits territory which has becom e quite fam iliar. T he garden, built by an ex-colonial tea p lanter (whose funeral opens the film), is avidly tended by his elderly widow (D eborah K err) w hen the possibility arises of it being included in a book called ‘G reat British G a rd e n s’. T he widow is assisted in this herculean task by an In d ian w om an (M a d h u r Jaffrey) who comes initially from h er nearby council estate hom e to request the use of the telephone. T h e film is as m uch about the shifting relationship betw een these wom en as it is about the garden.

U nfriendly and arro g an t to h er neigh­ bour at first, the old colonial reluctantly accepts the In d ia n ’s friendship as a m atter of convenience — she can help with the work — b u t gradually, despite herself, form s a deeper attach m en t than

she would have thought possible. T he potential of the film lies here, as both w om en begin to learn from each other, with the em phasis on w hat the E nglish­ w om an learns from the Indian. T h eir conversations and some delightful m eet­ ings with the In dian w o m an ’s family provide an opportunity to explore, not only the w om en’s personal situation, but beyond to the w ider issues and problem s of im m igration. Elisabeth B ond’s screenplay, how ever, is never quite incisive enough, so that the wom en rem ain tw o-dim ensional and predictable and the larger social issues are m erely scratched on the surface. We are constantly draw n away to the other strand of the film — the challenge of the garden.

T he film is slow to start, lingering too long on the widow alone, and as quiet and em pty as her life after the funeral. It then dwells for m uch of the tim e on her race to com plete the garden in tim e for the im m inent inspection by the book publishers. T his is useful insofar as it defines the com plications of the K err character whose sense of duty to her h u sb a n d ’s m em ory is so at odds with the onerous burden the garden puts upon her, and whose determ ined acceptance of the challenge to revive it reveals a desperate need for an activity by which she can forget her loneliness. T he garden provides a purpose, a m eans of em otional survival which is w orn like arm o u r, but the Indian w om an comes to break through the defences. L ater, exchanging intim acies with h er new friend, the widow reveals that loneliness and isolation are not new, but were a condition of her m arriage. H av in g w arm ed to the experience of com ­ panionship, this confession gives weight and poignancy to the w idow ’s dilem m a later over w hether or not to help her neighbour retu rn to India.

T h e two strands of the film — that is, the garden and the friendship — never m esh as well as they could. But this first feature by M ary M cM u rray has a quiet charm , captures som ething quintessentially English in the character of the widow, and m aintains sym pathy and interest to the end. D eborah K err, in her first film for 15 years, gives an uneven perform ance — crustier th an we have seen her before, at tim es m oving, s o m e tim e s e x a g g e r a te d . M a d h u r Jaffrey, so excellent in Heat and Dust and Autobiography of a Princess, is less com fort­ able w ith this role, but nevertheless con­ vincing enough. Zia M ohyeddin, as the Ind ian w o m an ’s husband, and Alec M cC ow en, as the inspector, are excel­ lent in cam eo roles.

• SOUL MAN As shocking as it m ay sound, it is ju st possible that a new type of teen m ovie is em erging. T he usual teen gross-out, drop-your-pants exploitation com edies — spaw ned by the success of such films as Animal House and Porky’s — are rapidly losing their im pact at the box office. T eenagers, surprise surprise, are becom ing m ore and m ore partial to comedies with the audacity to m esh a bit of intelligence and social relevance with the laughs. Soul M an seems to be the latest of these. But it is not a new ph en o ­ m enon.

In 1982, Risky Business proved that intelligent teen films (in this case, a cynical parable about capitalism and the pressure to succeed), could find a huge audience. Fast Times A t Ridgemont High, The Last American Virgin, and, if you choose carefully, some of the films of Jo h n H ughes, have also shown that intelligence and box office success are not necessarily m utually exclusive in teen movies.

Soul Man has an u pper m iddle-class H arv ard Law School freshm an M ark W atson (C. T hom as Howell) darkening his skin with super tan n in g pills to Negro shade to qualify for a scholarship, his wealthy father (Jam es B. Sikking) having decided, on advice from his neurotic analyst, that his son should pay his own way and prove him self a m an.

An ho u r and a half of tasteless, racial jokes about stereotypes and predictable teen flick com edy situations m ust have been a form idable tem ptation. But rath er than tap into the m ore prim itive instincts and interests of young people (sex, girls, sex, sex, u n d erg rad h u m o u r, sex, drugs, dope, sex, one-upm anship, revenge and sex) the film builds a sure­ footed satire that has not only a sm idgeon of social relevance and a lot of

S.J. Ay re THE ASSAM GARDEN: Directed by Mary McMurray.

Producer: Nigel Stafford-Clark. Screenplay: Elisabeth Bond. Director of photography: Bryan Loftus. Art direc­ tion: Jane Martin. Editor: Rodney Holland. Cast: Deborah Kerr (Helen), Madhur Jaffrey (Ruxmani), Alec McCowen (Mr Phllpott),Zla Mohyeddin (Mr Lai), Anton Lesser (Mr Sutton), lain Cuthbertson (Arthur), Tara Shaw (Sushi), Dev Sagoo (Raju). Production company: Moving Picture Company. Distributor: Ronin. 35mm. 92 minutes. Great Britain. 1985.

CALENDAR GIRL: Deborah Kerr checks her dates

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 49

R -E -V iE -W -S laughs, but some considerable dram atic weight besides.

Soul Man is quick off the m ark. As M ark and friend G ordon Bloomfield (Arye Gross) tentatively open their letters to see if th ey ’ve m ade it to H arvard , the b u rd en of am bition, scholastic and eventually, financial suc­ cess (an echo of Risky Business), is clearly in evidence. T his is, after all, the decade of the Y uppie, and the rule of R eagan.

T he colour issue is handled with so m uch care that the m inor controversy kicked up in the U S by a small nu m b er of critics and black com m unity leaders seems totally unw arran ted . W atso n ’s character is used effectively as an u n ­ am biguous condem nation of sim m ering middle-class bigotry against blacks.

Sure, stereotypes are used, but only to focus on the fact that they are stereo­ types, som etim es funny, som etim es not.

(In an interesting contrast to Soul M an, Ju m p in ’ Jack Flash, starrin g W hoopi G oldberg, treats colour as irrelevant, with only one fleeting refer­ ence being m ade; the fact that she is a wom an is considered m ore im portant.)

Gom edy is the vehicle through which W atson and the audience learn about w hite (m is)co n cep tio n s of blacks.

Invited to an all black m eeting, he turns up as a fully attired m ilitant to the them e of Shaft, only to find a room ful of norm al looking, and surprised, students. T he notion of autom atic black brotherhood is lam pooned when W atson unsuccessfully

appeals for some leeway from his Jo h n H ousem an-like lecturer, played by Jam es Earl Jones. T here is also a hilari­ ous basketball sequence where W atson is chosen because he is black, and a m arvellous dinner party sequence where a white family sees him as a whole host of black stereotypes from rock star to pim p to stud.

But apart from the function of the film ’s hum our, Soul Man is im bued with some effective dram atic devices. T he audience begin to sym pathise and, m ore im portantly, identify with W atson as his new skin colour attracts bigotry from the police. H e also feels increasing irritation at racist jokes m ade by other students who, upon noticing him , quickly offer “ No offence” .

T he audience’s vested interest in the film is com pounded by his relationship with a poor single black m other, Sarah W alker (R ae D aw n C hong), who was to get the scholarship before W atson blacked up and applied.

T his triggers off an im portant m oral dilem m a which seems to develop them es touched on in Risky Business. W hereas Business was a cynical celebration of the m oral im p roprieties com m itted to achieve the capitalistic goals set by schools, Soul Man turns that im propriety back on the perpetrator, m aking him question his action, and giving the film ’s prem ise an added em otional dim ension.

T here have been objections that Howell looks like a golliwog and that

this is offensive. Sure, he doesn’t look black, but in a com edy, one should be prepared to suspend disbelief for the sake of the worthiness of the film ’s politics. In any case, it was far prefer­ able to switching from a white to a black actor, or starting off with a w hitened-up black actor who turns black, which would have been infinitely worse, as was done in the 1968 black comedy Water­ melon Man. I t ’s also been said that the film does little m ore than tediously restate w hat people already know; that police treat black people differently to white people, that racist jokes are unfunny, that bigotry smells. H ad the film failed, this criticism would have been valid. But because Soul Man has been such an u n ­ qualified success, and because it addresses its issues with some degree of intelligence, and balances its com edy with considerable dram atic weight, this m ust surely be a heartening vindica­ tion of the intelligence of the average teenager. H e re ’s hoping, anyway.

Jim Schembri SOUL MAN: Directed by Steve Miner. Producer: Steve Tisch. Co-producers: Carol Black and Neal Marlens.

Screenplay: Carol Black. Director of photography: Jeffrey Jur. Production designer: Gregg Fonseca.

Music: Tom Scott. Editor: David Finfer. Cast: C. Thomas Howell (Mark Watson), Arye Gross (Gordon Bloomfield), Rae Dawn Chong (Sarah Walker), James Earl Jones (Professor Banks), Melora Hardin (Whitney Dunbar), Leslie Nielsen (Mr Dunbar). Production company: New World Pictures in association with Balcor Film Investors.

Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 101 minutes.

USA. 1986.

Soundtrack Albums New and unusual soundtrack recordings from our large range

KILDA FESTIVAL NATIONAL THEATRE 13-16 MAY The pick of the bunch. Australia’s foremost festi­ val of shorts, documentaries and experimental work. Cash prizes. Filmmakers are invited to submit work for consideration on VHS or 16mm, with application form before Fri. 13th March to PB 3, St Kilda, Vic., 3182. Enq. (03) 347 5525.

50 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

Hoosiers M e A n d M y Girl Lost Em pires C rim es O f The H e a rt D a y O f The D e a d 52 P ick-up P lá c id o D o m in g o c o n d u c ts

(G o ld sm ith ) (B ro a d w a y ca st) (TV s o u n d tra c k ) (D elerue)

Die Fledermaus

(Strauss) $30,00 (N ym a n ) $19.99 (N ym a n ) $19.99 (M o rric o n e ) $14.99 (a lb u m & c a sse tte ) (K am en) $17.99 (Z a vo d ) $14.99 (Horner) $13.99

A n d Do They D o/200 C a p ric e s A Z e d A n d Two N o u g h ts The Mission M o n a Lisa D e a th O f A S o ld ie r A n A m e ric a n Tail M u tin y (L o n d o n c a s t re c o rd in g w ith D a v id Essex) C o m p le te Shirley T e m p le S ong Book Still a v a ila b le : Follies In C o n c e rt Subw ay

(C h a n g )

$18.99 $18,99 $19.99 $18.99 $18.99 $18,99

$19.99 (2 a lb u m s / ca ssettes) (TV s o u n d tra c k ) (2 a lb u m s )

$10.99

$39.99 $18.99

READINGS — SOUTH YARRA 153 Toorak Road — 267 1885 (Books, LPs, CDs, Cass.) & 132c/d Toorak Road — 266 5877 (Secondhand LPs & Cass.)

M ail Order: P.O. Box 434, South Yarra, Vic. 3141.

We are always interested in purchasing collections of recordings.

CAUGHT: Kyle McLachlan and Dennis Hopper

B Ir* U E

V E L V E T Let us assume that there is a group of directors we can call ‘post-modernists’. They would be characterised by their self-conscious eclectic aestheticism and the distance they are able to place between the spectators and the universe represented on the screen.

David Lynch would be a charter member of the group and Eraserhead one of the touchstones of the style.

Lynch is, of course, a stone stylist. H itherto his films have been collections of memorable noises and images, eerily still, bordered in black and silence.

Tottering in and about these moments there are often some shreds of story (big lumps of it in The Elephant Man), bemused and out-of­ place.

The obsessional nature of Lynch’s cinema, however, is far more evident in the nasty mise en scene of The Elephant Man and the utter disregard of intrigue in the narrative of Dune than in the designer surrealism of which he is so fond. By his second feature, he was dealing exclusively in, ‘personal touches’ and arch affectations: heaving plumbing, bleeding wounds, grotesquerie and sucking sounds, the full, palpitating panoply of B irth Traum a.

Balancing these AngloSaxon attitudes, we are happy to say, has been a post-modernist sense of humour. L ynch’s combination of satire and hard-edged super-realist visuals has kept everything

cool and these spectators at least guessing at what, if anything, he is trying to tell us.

Now Blue Velvet, which we think is his best film so far.

The credits are shown against a backdrop of crushed velvet of midnight blue, and the tune is one you. have not heard before, vaguely ‘continental’ and played by a standard movie orchestra. Besides, the colour is all wrong for the song you were expecting, too ominous and decadent by far. The story begins with a picture from a greeting card: red tulips pushing up against a white picket fence. More postcard images of a small town follow, and the title song finally — a bit late. But each shot is wrong, somehow. The tulips could be made of plastic. The cam era’s lens, distorts the bulge of a corner. It looks as if Diane Arbus took these pictures.

In short order, of course, these visual intim ations are fulfilled in disaster, climaxing with an hysterically absurd shot in which a fat man, a hose, a little dog and, mysteriously, a baby, make different trajectories. It's all pretty disgusting, but you w on't be the only one laughing.

Perhaps you will laugh too, when Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan in a role exquisitely tailored to his talents) finds the ear. We did.

For a time, perhaps half of its two hours, the tone of

Blue Velvet continues to be predominantly one of oafish, occasionally gruesome, satire. The film's careful framing and precise cleanliness emphasise details of both visuals and dialogue (the brand names of beers, for example). Perplexity is apt to outweigh tension in these stages, which is not a bad thing. Enigma after enigma is posed, as one might expect in so calculatedly Oedipal an investigation as this one.

Some distance is m aintained in this fashion even until the end. But at the same time, for most of the last part of the picture.

Blue Velvet loses its cool. By and large, this is a good thing. The most apt comparison is with Blood Simple, which exponentially increases its irony the closer it comes to the end and finally makes of its climax a failed exercise in stylistics.

Not so Blue Velvet. You are rapt into this film by coils of masochism. Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini —- yes, their daughter), who despite appearances is the most innocent person in the movie, insists on being hurt when she makes love. The scene in which she succeeds in goading Jeffrey into hitting her leads almost directly to Jeffrey’s hum iliation and punishment at the hands of Frank (Dennis Hopper) and his hoods, and the combined effect is excruciating in its immediacy. Jeffrey leaves Dorothy to find true love with Sandy (Laura Dern — yes, their daughter), but cannot escape her bruised body and the demands it makes for restitution. The end of the film, then, is

'CM m

COURTED: Kyle McLachlan and Isabella Rossellini

about pain as much or more than it is about guilt, and this is, we think, why it works so well.

The name of F ran k ’s particular pain happens to be T ourette’s syndrome, a neuropsychiatric disorder described by Oliver Sacks in “ Tics” (New York Review o f Books, 29 January, 1987).

Like the “ Elephant M an’s” deformity, F rank’s is a ‘19th century disease’ affecting the victim ’s appearance, behaviour and perceptions, which lends a grotesque authenticity to Lynch’s cinematic style. The symptoms of T ourette’s syndrome include uncontrollable verbal obscenity and erotic obsession with textured fabrics, such, as velvet.

There is no mention of this disorder in the film, but its effects are felt in two ways. First, the obsessiveness of the condition permeates the experience of watching Blue Velvet so that we find ourselves inexplicably r rivetted, as in a nightm are, by the hallucinatory vividness of objects and images. Second, the physiological base of F rank’s actions, whether we as viewers know about it or not, absolves him from guilt somewhat. It makes this most repulsive of villains a victim as much as Dorothy, the masochist, or Jeffrey, the voyeur. ^ W e are pleased to report that not all of Blue Velvet's plot riddles are solved by the end, as befits a postmodernist pastiche. But when Jeffrey and Sandy look out of their all-American kitchen window and see a mechanical robin chomping on a bug, you know at least that the pain and yiolence are over and the only kind of happiness that is possible nowadays has blanketed the world at last.

Bill and Diane Routt BLUE VELVET: Directed by David Lynch. Executive producer: Richard Roth. Screenplay: David Lynch.

Director of photography: Frederick Elmes. Production designer: Patricia Norris. Music: Angelo Badalamenti.

Editor: Duwayne Dunham. Cast: Kyle MacLachlan (Jeffrey Beaumont), Isabella Rossellini (Dorothy Vallens).

Dennis Hopper (Frank Booth). Laura.

Dern (Sandy Williams), Hope Lange (Mrs Williams), Dean Stockwell (Ben).

George Dickerson (Detective Williams) Production company: De Laurentiis Entertainment Group Inc. Distributor: Hoyts 35inm. 120 minutes. USA. 1986.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH

SEAN TO BE MILD: Sean Connery and Christian Slater discuss the ups and downs of the monastic life

• THE NAME OF THE ROSE U m berto Eco writes a regular colum n in th e I ta lia n n e w s - c u ltu r e w eek ly L ’Espresso. In m id-O ctober last year, in the issue in which the film of his novel The Name O f The Rose was discussed, his c o lu m n , ‘M i n e r v a ’s M a il B a g ’ (M inerva was the R o m an goddess of wisdom), was about the autom atic bank teller m achines in Italy, Bancom at; these seldom work, so that you always have to carry cash, which m akes the m achines unnecessary, so it d oesn’t m atter if they d o n ’t work. T h e very exis­ tence of the m achines m akes their exis­ tence utterly futile.

His colum ns mostly concern such paradoxes. In that sam e issue of the weekly, in a section devoted to the film of his novel, Eco w rote a Small insert, ‘M y First and Last D eclaratio n ’, which takes pains to avoid all paradox, to insist That his book and the film of th at nam e have little if an ything in com m on, and that is how it should be, since film and lite ra tu re are com pletely different m eans; that he has no opinion or ju d g e ­ m ent to m ake on the film, th at the film does not involve him , and that he woujd 52 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

consider it ill-educated, disrespectful, offensive and vulgar if anyone asked him any m ore questions about it.

T he film ’s director, Jean-Jacques A nnaud, is equally at pains to dissociate the film from the book. In the film titles it is announced that the film is a ‘palim psest’ of The Name Of The Rose.

A palim psest is a parchm ent or paper prepared in such a way that the w riting on it m ay be rubbed out and another w riting can appear, m uch like a slate which can be used over and over again.

The two w ritings, the original and the w ritten-over w riting, would obviously be different and probably unrelated, so that any observation of a relation, still m ore any point to be m ade about differ­ ences, would be banal and unim portant.

O n the one hand A nnaud can have all the benefits of the Eco novel (a world bestseller), on the other, he can disso­ ciate him self from it and from any com ­ parisons between his film and E co’s book. Eco makes the same point from the perspective of the w riter, nam ely that the film is only a reading, an in ter­ pretation of his novel, not a transcrip­ tion, hence there are no com m on term s for a judgem ent; hence no m ore questions, no m ore com parisons.

All of this of course is utterly ingenuous. In the U m berto Eco ‘busi­ ness’ it is the nam e of The Name Of The Rose that lends an im m ediate interest and appeal to any film based upon it, while one of the pleasures of the film, indeed, the very delight of the film, is to read, to see, to im agine these two objects side by side, the film and the book.

H aving read the book it would be impossible to see the film w ithout it and besides there is no need to, despite the film ’s denials and E co’s protestations (he concludes his insert in L ’Espresso: “ I shall now go and see the film again, trying to find the innocence of a spec­ tator who forgets the book” ).

C om parison, often in the business of daily criticism, reduces itself to the good and the bad; in the case of The Name Of The Rose, a good and bad valuation based on a com parison between film and book. But I think the com parisons can be richer than a simple referendum .

Let me begin with an innocent regard of the film w ithout the book. W illiam of Baskerville and a young novice, Adso of M elk, enter a m onastery in N orthern Italy to attend a clerical-academ ic debate. It is the m id-14th century. T he debate concerns m atters of doctrine and social policy involving the Franciscans and the official C hurch. T he m onastery is Benedictine. W illiam is a Franciscan, as is Adso. (In the book he is, im por­ tantly, a Benedictine.) T he violent death of a m onk has ju st occurred and w ithin the space of no m ore than a few days, m ore deaths take place. W illiam seeks to discover their cause. Adso is both char­ acter in the narrative and its narrato r, recalling, when he is no longer young, these events of his youth.

T here are a series of ‘stru ctu ral’ differences which surround these deaths and their investigation: between obvious causes and hidden ones, between rational explanations and explanations of religion, m an or the devil. These structure the action of the film, b ut are also m atters of ideology. Q uestions of reason or faith, the obvious and the hidden, are m atters of im portance in the period, testified to by burnings of w itch es, the In q u is itio n , clerical debates, differences in attitude between Benedictines and Franciscans tow ard knowledge. T he deaths are ‘caused’ by the forbidden reading of an allegedly non-existent book, A ristotle’s Treatise on Comedy, which has been hidden in the great library of the m onastery. Those who die mostly die from finding and reading the book; its pages have been sprinkled with arsenic by an old, blind, intensely conservative Benedictine. As they read, tu rn in g the pages and w etting their fingers, they take in the arsenic and expire. Know ledge dies with them .

T he non-existence of the Aristotle T reatise is preserved (m uch like the paradox of the Bancom at). Faith, whose enemies are thought to be paradox, laughter and reason, is preserved. T he monks die out of a desire for w hat is o u t­ side faith, for reason, b u t they die too

out of a desire for the comic and the pleasurable.

Now I m ay be guilty, in this ‘inno­ cent’ reading of the film, of reading into it som ething of the book, of giving it an interest and extra dim ension which it m ay lack. It is very difficult to know.

T he film moves m ore or less w ithin a single level of reality: we are ‘in ’ the middle ages and there are never — though perhaps Sean C onnery ‘play in g ’ a m onk is an exception to never — other realities of tim e or of language which complicate that singular fictional reality.

O n the other hand, the book — and this is part of the reason for its success — not only moves in m ultiple worlds, but m aintains a w riting which is ‘d ista n t’, like the attitude of W illiam of Baskerville tow ard m urder. It is in that distance that the novel produces its comedy and its pleasure (one of the lessons of Aristotle). T he film, on the other hand, though based on a joke, is seldom funny, or witty, or subtle.

W ere I reviewing the book, I would express my delight in it in part for the variety of its languages and tim es and references which com plicate any single dim ension in the fiction; for exam ple, tu rn in g the structure of detective fiction into a quotation, an object to contem ­ plate and enjoy. But my subject is the film and its joy for me is in its addition to the book; for despite the simple linearity of its narrative (Eco is always complicated), and a som breness of tone (Eco is always light), the film recalls the book, overlays it, adds som ething extra, which is neither the book nor the film, but a new and absorbing object.

Sam Rohdie THE NAME OF THE ROSE: Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. Producer: Bernd Eichinger. Executive pro­ ducers: Thomas Schuhly and Jake Eberts. Co-pro­ ducers: Franco Cristaldi, Alexandre Mnouchkine.

Screenplay: Andrew Birkin, Gerard Brach, Howard Franklin and Alain Godard. A palimpsest of the novel by Umberto Eco. Director of photography: Tonino Delli Colli. Production designer: Dante Ferretti. Music: James Horner. Editor: Jane Seitz. Cast: Sean Connery (William of Baskerville), F. Murray Abraham (Bernardo Gui), Christian Slater (Adso of Melk), Elya Baskin (Severinus), Feodor Chaliapin, Jr (Jorge de Burgos), William Hickey (Ubertino de Casale), Michael Lonsdale (The Abbot), Ron Perlman (Salvatore). Production company: A Bernd Eichinger/Bernd Schaefers-Neue Constantin/Cristaldifilm/Fioms Ariane coproduction in associa­ tion with ZDF. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 130 minutes.

West Germany/ltaly/France. 1986.

•DEATH OF A SOLDIER In more ways than it realises, Death Of A Soldier both stands to attention and goes wobbly at the knees at the thought of America. T he film tries to do three things. It depicts in an almost docum en­ tary style the uneasy relations between A m erican troops on R & R leave in M elbourne in 1942 and their host city; and it tells ‘the true-life d ra m a ’ of Private Leonski, a G I who strangled three young A ustralian wom en and tried to strangle two others. It also goes into courtroom d ram a m ode as it asks whether the G I should have been tried by court m artial or u n d er A ustralian

civil jurisdiction. After all, as M ajor D a n n e n b e rg (Ja m e s C o b u rn ) — M ilitary Police liaison officer with the locals, makeshift defence counsel for Leonski, and symbol of Am erican con­ science — passionately rem inds us, the rule of law and the right to a fair trial was what W orld W ar II was fought for in the first place.

T here is a parallel between the style of the film m aking (and its faults) and the hierarchical U S-A ustralian relations that are the bones of the subject m atter.

T he film tries to play the Am erican film game — C oburn and other Am erican actors for m arket pull, adherence to certain narrative and aesthetic conven­ tions — but comes off second best. So too, incidentally, does M ichael P a te ’s attem pt at an Am erican accent.

Death Of A Soldier slips clumsily be­ tween its three m ain aims. T o take the film ’s placem ent of its A ustralian leads as an example of its confusions — Bill H u n ter and M aurie Fields play the two senior police officials in charge of law and order from the local angle during the R & R visit. T hey swear a lot but have their hearts in the right places (DIY dinkum Aussie caricature). Fields also happens to play the blues after the style of Fats W aller; a rough diam ond Aussie cop who plays authentic A m eri­ can music.

Given Death Of A Soldier A trum peting of its sources in ‘tru th ’ — the opening makes extensive use of period newsreel footage and moves into a doco-dram a style that tries to recreate the atm o­ sphere of the times — characterisation turns out meagre at best. H u n ter and Fields symbolise ‘the A ustralian view ’ throughout the search for the strangler and d u rin g the subsequent court m artial.

After the first victim is found outside the Bleak House grog joint, the A ustra­ lians’ worst suspicions are confirmed when the Am ericans refuse to accept that one of their boys probably did it and yet want the incident hushed up. H u n ter and Fields embody at all times a concern that justice be done and be seen to be done. They resist the US Arm y brass’s desire to resort to court m artial (to make an example of Leonski) rather than civil jurisdiction. T he A ustralians fear that Leonski will get short shrift in a court m artial, which he does.

This symbolic use of H u n ter and Fields persists even throughout the court m artial. They give no evidence, appear to have no business at the proceedings whatsoever, and yet at times are kept pointedly in frame to rem ind the viewer that ‘the A ustralian view’ does not approve of such short-cuts through the thickets of due legal process. Aussies are tough but fair.

B eyond this sym bolic fu n c tio n H u n ter and Fields have nothing to do.

A part from D an n en b erg ’s very own M elbourne socialite glory girl (who engages in some excruciatingly fatuous exchanges with her Yankee hero), the two Aussie cops and the five victims of

the strangler are virtually the only A us­ tralians given any voice in the film.

Perhaps this is a revealing tw inning of roles and scopes; on the one hand, indignant but helpless male righteous­ ness, and on the other an equally help­ less female vulnerability to violence.

T he rest of the film ’s voices are Am erican and are given m uch greater space to play in. From D an n en b erg ’s em bodim ent of conscience against the weight of expedient opinion, to the gung-ho gum-chewed utterances of boot-brained arm y functionaries, to Leonski’s “ Please sing for me . . . I like your voice . . . please sing for m e” , while strangling his victims, A m ericans dw arf the range of possibilities open to Australians.

M acA rthur is curiously treated — again, somewhere between docum en­ tary, dram a and historical legend. “ T he closest thing this country will ever get to G od” is symbolically visible in the form of an actor who has very little to say but wears a m ean pair of sunglasses and a general’s cap. At one point there is even a close-up of the fabled sunglasses and cap, just in case we h av en ’t already got the message.

This is all part of the film ’s am bi­ valence towards M acA rthur and w hat­ ever he is supposed to symbolise. T he film is content to recycle, and thereby reaffirm, the visual signs of the great persona, but refrains from tackling the possible m eanings o f ‘M acA rth u r’. O ne of the several films Death Of A Soldier could have been m ight well have set out to explore such terrain.

A nother film that Death Of A Soldier could have been is a character study of Private Leonski, the strangler. T he film’s period docum entary aspects could well have been handled m ore effectively as background to the story of Leonski, making it m ore convincing as dram a, more psychologically insightful, and indeed m ore powerfully symbolic, with the stranglings and Leonski’s state of m ind com ing to synthesise som ething profound about the peculiarly innocent madness of A m erican violence. It would be som ething akin to the way in which G raham G reene’s The Quiet American touches on the sinister innocence of A m erican good intentions in its foreign relations.

As it is, the film makes tokenistic moves in these directions, but as with all else it em barks on, Death Of A Soldier is nothing but a tangle of loose ends, none of which is taken up with any real con­ viction or intelligence.

M ichael Healy DEATH OF A SOLDIER: Directed by Philippe Mora.

Producers: David Hannay and William Nagle. Associate producers: Honnon Page and Richard Jabara. Execu­ tive producers: Oscar Scherl and Richard Tanner. Co­ producer: Lance Reynolds. Screenplay: William Nagle.

Director of photography: Louis Irving. Music: Allan Zavod. Editor: John Scott, Cast: James Coburn (Dannenberg), Bill Hunter (Adams), Reb Brown (Leonski), Maurie Fields (Martin), Max Fairchild (Fricks), Belinda Davey (Margot Saunders), Randall Berger (Gallo), Michael Pate (Sutherland). Production company: William Nagle/David Hannay Production for Suatu Film Management. Distributor: Open Eye (Film & Television). 35mm. 105 minutes. Australia. 1985.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 53

I’M BRUNDLE, FLY ME: Jeff Goldblum contemplates his future

THE FLY/DEADLY FRIEND “ There are limits to the im agination . . .

Now, go beyond those lim its” . The trailer to David Cronenberg’s The Fly says some­ thing along these lines. I t ’s a fairly standard prom otional line for sciencefiction film, and although the words may often change character, the idea of “ going beyond” , or of “ reaching new frontiers” is central. I think Captain K irk ’s voice­ over for each episode of Star Trek, declaring “ to go where no man has gone before” , will be the condition of popular film for a little while longer, at least. But, hackneyed as these words might sound, I would like to extend them to take in some recent films. If limits to hum an im agina­ tion and sensibility exist, then, like the innovations of latex for special effects, these limits have been given plasticity.

Think of a thick rubber band; it forms an enclosure and yet it is something that can be stretched, teased out, expanded, and as long as it doesn’t snap, it still forms an enclosure. The point is that i t ’s not a m atter of a “ going beyond” , of an “ out there” as it were, but of an interiority, as though defining and redefining limits w ithin limits. The invention of the tele­ pod in The Fly will bring to an end all ideas of transport, borders and space, and yet it will be the very thing that etches out a border, confines Seth Brundle to his lab, and, at the same time releases his body, activating a surge of physical mobility.

It d id n ’t seem too long ago that we had ushered in what Phillip Strick called “ the age of the replicant” . W ith Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner foregrounding the idea of the “ double” one could certainly see psycho­ analysis peeping round the corner too.

Even today it is difficult to forget the scene in Blade Runner where Rutger H auer’s replicant collapses the skull of his maker, Tyrell — the man whom replicant Rutger calls “ father” . And could it only be incidental that the bone crunching begins w ith thumbs pressing deep into Tyrell’s eye sockets?

But at the same time that we welcomed Blade Runner we failed to recognise that the age of the replicant had almost run its

54 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

course. The boundaries between sciencefiction and h o rro r had long been shattered: the hardware of science met with the viscera of horror and a new cycle had become evident, a new being was in motion. The ad-line for John C arpenter’s The Thing is a prime example: “ Man is the warmest place to be” .

Psychoanalysis does not seem to be as assimilated into the present cycle. As soon as technological reproduction had become the focus for metaphysical questioning, technology had no other place to go than into the working of our physiology. The hardware of science met the ‘hardw are’ of anatomy. It is not, however, necessarily and only a m atter of knowing what makes the heart beat, but also of knowing what makes the heartbeat poetical. As it is sug­ gested in The Fly, it is the “ poetry of the flesh” that the telepod computer must learn if it is to teleport living organisms.

But this is not at all to say that the ques­ tion of being is abandoned as a concern. “ I am an insect that dream t I was a man, and loved it. Now the dream is over” , is again The Fly at its most poetical and philosophical moment.

We have reached a stage with techno­ logy where the possibility of what we could call ‘fusolution’, replacing the idea of evolution, is plausible. In Wes Craven’s Deadly Friend the im plantation of an artificial brain, not in place of, but, along with a human brain is made analogous to a pacemaker for the heart.

And a pacemaker is now a reality. Fusion between differing natural and artificial organisms, species and m atter, appears to be a continuing thread in much of contem­ porary cinema, and if indeed we can w it­ ness today a cinema which is anthropolo­ gical, which is concerned with our evolu­ tionary origins, then films like The Fly and Deadly Friend seem to attest to a cinema dissatisfied with this very idea. It seems something The Fly is implicitly aware of: the invitation to inspect “ The Brundle Museum of N atural H istory” , which is no more than a bathroom cabinet where Brundlefly stores the scientist’s ear,

fingers and teeth, is a sad farewell to the notion of evolution in favour of a genetic takeover.

Consider this for a fusion of sorts: rather than some nicely hermetic psycho­ analytic model, maybe (and I do mean maybe), just for the time that it takes to read this review, an appropriate concept might be the notion of “ becoming” articulated by Felix G uattari. A notion that, at what G uattari calls a molecular level, there are no firmly established black-and-white categories; a level that eschews clear-cut dividing lines, and where a being can be, instead, permeated with several and often contradictory im­ pulses. The thought is a delicious one; it could stand for much of contemporary cinema. In Tenue de Soiree, for instance, M onique’s suggestion that Antoine be seduced by Bob for him to know what it is like to be fucked, opens the way for a feminine ‘becoming’. In Soul Man, a white youth discards his upper middleclass existence and sets about ‘becom­ ing’ black. But where the notion seems most inappropriate is in recent sciencefiction-horror, where our bodies are made more and more like a rubber band — stretched, teased out, expanded — the repositories for a b strac t, lib id in a l, violent, emotional energies and impulses of our technological age.

Neither as enigmatic as The Fly, nor Wes C raven’s earlier A Nightmare on Elm Street, Deadly Friend, n o n eth eless, modestly composes and compacts a num ­ ber of anxieties with one another. The indication that the cute robot, Bee Bee, has a will beyond the control of his 15-year-old inventor, and the schizo­ phrenic edge of what seems to be an ordinary, American, middle-class neigh­ bourhood, are alternately settled and un­ settled, once the fusion of hum an and robot takes its course. Re-echoing this sort of composition is Deadly Friend’s ending, as we hear off camera, respectively, the girl’s voice asking, “ Come to me P aul” , the boy’s scream, and then the robotic, “ Bee Bee” .

If it looks as though I am not giving Deadly Friend space equal to that of The Fly, it is probably because I feel that The Fly stands on the idea of a “ m ind fuck” .

An interplay between the m ind, intelli­ gence or science and fucking is something that is established at the film ’s very begin­ ning. At the social gathering of the Bartók science show, Seth’s promise to Veronica that back at his lab is an invention that will change the world as we know it, is a virtual “ p ickup” . H is rem ark, “ I thought this was personal” , once he has discovered that he has revealed the tele­ pod to a science journalist, tends to con­ firm this. And what could be at the basis of phrases such as “ plunge into the plasma pool” and the “ dynamic duo club” but the ambitious thought that science (trans­ portation through the telepod) will pro­ vide for unrestricted sexual activity.

A “ m ind fuck” is probably a good metaphor for the way films like The Fly and, to some degree, Deadly Friend are calculated. If our bodies are taken as the

R-E-V-l-E-W-S repositories of contradictory impulses, these films do not move to synthesise them. In discussing Deadly Friend and The Fly, one may not get very far in searching for a consistency of codes — for instance, the elements of the horror genre both films would share in. Just as the characters of these films might be shot through with a curious mixture of fascination, anger, fear and love, so too are the films’ composi­ tions shot through with a curious blend.

In a way, they look toward something else. Deadly Friend, in its modest way, is a composite of horror, juvenile tragedy and an adventure comedy like Disney’s The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes. The Fly stems over to romance and tragedy, exerting an emotional flow that is heart-wrenching.

There is no compromise in The Fly, it maintains all its strings. Your best bet is to string along.

A final point: to see how highly strung and highly tuned The Fly is one has to recognise a single word: ‘‘cheeseburger” .

Every time I recall the scene of the baboon turned into a mass of writhing, squirting, squeaking bones and flesh by the telepod, I think of the word “ cheeseburger” .

Indeed, before anything happens we were already told to think of “ cheeseburger” .

While lunching at a fast food store, Veronica asks Seth about what happens to living organisms that are transported through the as yet imperfect telepods. Seth replies with a cringing, “ Not while we’re having lunch” . But it was only a moment earlier that we were cued, for Seth’s invitation to Veronica to have lunch is, “ I want you to think of one thing . . . cheese­ burger!” It’s exactly what we’ve been asked to think about when the baboon is turned inside out. The word is repeated only once more, after Seth has transported himself through the telepod and Veronica has returned to the laboratory, when his suggestion to go to dinner is met with “ cheeseburger” from Veronica. It stands in a curious way as a foreboding of what Seth will become. But it’s more than a minute thematic thread, it is also The Fly reflecting itself, expounding that uneasy relation between horror and food we often joke about. You better see this one on an empty stomach. If you don’t, at least spare a thought for your next “ cheese­ burger” .

Raffaele Caputo THE FLY: Directed by David Cronenberg. Producer: Stuart Cornfeld. Co-producers: Marc-Ami Boyman and Kip Ohman. Screenplay: Charles Edward Pogue and David Cronenberg, from the story by George Langelaan. Director of photography: Mark Irwin. Production designer: Carol Spier. Music: Howard Shore. Editor: Ronald Sanders. Cast: Jeff Goldblum (Seth Brundle), Geena Davis (Veronica Quaife), John Getz (Stathis Borans), Joy Boushel (Tawny), Les Carlson (Dr Cheevers), George Chuvalo (Marky), David Cronen­ berg (Gynaecologist). Production company: Brooksfilms. Distributor: Fox Columbia. 35mm. 100 minutes.

USA 1986.

DEADLY FRIEND: Directed by Wes Craven. Producer: Robert M. Sherman. Co-producer: Robert L. Crawford.

Executive producer: Patrick Kelley. Director of photo­ graphy: Philip Lathrop. Production designer: Daniel Lomino. Music: Charles Bernstein. Editor: Michael Eliot.

Cast: Matthew Laborteaux (Paul), Kristy Swanson (Samantha), Michael Sharrett (Tom), Anne Twomey (Jeannie), Anne Ramsey (Alvira), Russ Martin (Dr Johanson). Production company: Pan Arts/Layton Productions. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 9.0 minutes. USA. 1986.

• AUSTRALIAN DREAM This is a comedy about the idiot centre of A ustralian life, where, as Schopen­ hauer says, “ most people . . . have as the suprem e guide and m axim of their conduct the resolve to get by with the least possible expenditure of thought . . . ” T he film is kicked a few notches further up the scale towards an extrem e by being set in Q ueensland.

The central character, D orothy (Noni H azlehurst), is m arried to Q ueensland’s Butcher of the Y ear (G raem e Blundell), a dum b and eager little bloke with hands covered in Bandaids and speech studded with spontaneous m eat puns ( “ T h e re ’s been a bit of a snag” etc) which m ade me laugh out loud.

T he butcher has political aspirations (“ O nce you get to the top of your meat tre e ,” says director Jackie M cK im m ie, “ where can you go in Q ueensland except into politics?” ) and is wooing the right-w ing Prosperity Party. D orothy is digging her toes in but looks like being dragged into politicking as his accessory.

D orothy is doing a creative w riting course between bouts of mechanically perform ed housewifely duties, and a Mills and Boon fantasy story she is churning out for an assignm ent (she’s not m uch chop — sorry! — as a writer) functions as voice-over counterpoint to the film ’s action.

At a vibrator sales dem onstration she meets T odd (John Ja rra tt) prancing around in his underw ear, and subsumes him into her fantasy world: he becomes the focus of her frustrated longings for rom ance and sex. T he fact that to the objective eye (ours) he is spotty, u n ­ shaven, vain, corny, and in a really bad band (he doesn’t even move his left hand on the fretboard of his guitar) has no bearing on her infatuation. O f course.

I t ’s a purposely gross comedy which is somehow unsatisfying, stylistically. In early sequences it has daring little flashes rem in iscen t of the visual exaggeration of the ordinary we see in T ati — the choreographed m ovem ents of a line of husbands polishing a line of identical cars in a line of identical drive­ ways — but these rem ain only as hints, and are soon let slip in the film ’s u n ­ m odulated rush towards its climax, a political barbecue which splinters into an appalling bunfight involving all the story’s grotesque and two-dim ensional characters. Poor old D orothy finds, in T o d d ’s panel van on the beach at dawn, that as well as everything else h e ’s a te rr­ ible fuck, and the sun rises on the rest of her life unrescued and unresolved.

D orothy is of a different order from the other characters. H azlehurst is of course adorable. H er face has been issued with twice the usual n um ber of muscles, so that it constantly shows subtle runs and flickers of expression which m ake her a delight to watch. But this undercuts the roaring social satire of Australian Dream. As the site of the film ’s only sustained hum anity, she stands in

such stark contrast to her surroundings that they lose definition and turn into a shrieking m aelstrom of undifferentiated insanity.

M cK im m ie, good on her, is not afraid to go in hard against the Prosperity Party politicians, the ghastly clutter of junky possessions that clogs the houses, the graceless ugliness of street corner charity collectors and of A ustralians’ social behaviour in general, but the con­ flict in style, or almost in genre, between her disgusted and hilarious broadsides against m aterialism , and the points at which the film dips into tender realism , throw the whole thing off balance.

T he truest and best m om ents in Aus­ tralian Dream are a couple of tiny ex­ changes in the kitchen between D orothy and her teenage daughter — these are breathtaking in their tenderness and their gentle comic tone — but their strength is such that they cast the rest of the film ’s world into scream ing outer darkness.

Helen Gamer AUSTRALIAN DREAM: Directed by Jackie McKimmie.

Executive producer: Ross Matthews. Producers: Jackie McKimmie and Susan Wild. Screenplay: Jackie Mc­ Kimmie. Director of photography: Andrew Lesnie.

Editor: Sara Bennett. Sound recordist: Ian Grant. Pro­ duction designer: Chris McKimmie. Music: Colin Timms.

Cast: Noni Hazlehurst (Dorothy), Graeme Blundell (Geoffrey), John Jarratt (Todd), Barry Rugless (Sir Bruce), Jenny Mansfield (Tracy), Caine O’Connel (Jason). Production company: Filmside Ltd. Distributor: Ronin. 35mm. 86 minutes. Australia. 1986.

• HEARTBREAK RIDGE This is a film to avoid for viewers not interested in either Eastwood or popular formula films. It is not the sort of film you send doubting friends to in order that they may come to appreciate Eastwood the filmmaker. T h at said, it is always interesting to watch his form ula films because h e’s good at them.

C redit sequence: grainy black and white docum entary footage of (presum ­ ably) the K orean war, images of men firing large and small weapons. T hen the images shift: soldiers on litters, soldiers in triage, dead soldiers. Into the first scene in a drunk tank. A bleary Sgt. Highway (Eastwood) is telling a young kid a prototypical w ar experience story; profane, surreal, sad.

A nightm are bully — the sort that d id n ’t play A m erican gridiron because they d o n ’t make equipm ent that big — picks a fight with H ighw ay, telling him to go find his own punk, this o ne’s spoken for. (The possibility of hom o­ sexuality and anxiety about it are an explicit verbal m otif in this very verbal film.) Highway defeats the bully and continues his story. I t ’s conventional enough as a scene, but interesting for the deploym ent of generation gap and homosexuality as themes. A nd a less than heroic way to introduce the macho hero.

Highway is one of the last of the old, tough M arines with com bat experience.

He doesn’t fit in well with the peace­ tim e m ilitary, with officers, with >

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 55

R*E*V‘ I'E*W*S

I DID IT HIGHWAY: Clint experiences the living hell of Grenada

civilians, with younger people — with anyone who h a sn ’t shared his experi­ ence. H is m arriage broke up. He drinks, picks fights, ends up in jail. He is frequently transferred because officers can ’t put up with him . H e is on his last chance assignm ent: shape up, m ake a good job of training this platoon of recruits, or y o u ’re out. A nd w e’re going to m ake it as tough for you as we can, get it, H ighw ay?

W hat have the M arines come to?

T he platoon of blacks, chicanos, red ­ necks, etc, are having a great tim e in basic training: ghetto blasters all over the barracks, drinking beer in the m orning, gold earrings, non-regulation clothing. T h e worst of them , a non-stop streetjive black with w hat you call an ‘attitu d e ’ goes out every night dressed up like Prince, playing rock in bars. W e ’re in the kind of m ilitary film which spends nearly its entire length on the training process, the locus of that A m erican contradiction that the m ilitary m ust expunge individualism and replace it with unthinking obedience and group loyalty in order to m ake A m erica safe for the freedom of the individual. Like it or not. T he p roof of the process always occurs at the end, in a com bat situation.

H ighw ay succeeds. As in The Dirty Dozen, the first climax occurs when H ighw ay’s sneered-at platoon shifts the expectations of a train in g exercise and defeats the elite platoon, em barrassing the ribbonclerk C O . T h e final victory is in G renad a (not against nice reggae­ singing G renadans, of course, but C uban regulars).

A nd in the final battle, the arro g an t black street punk comes good w hen H ighw ay is hors de combat (we flash to Sgt. Stryker — J o h n W ayne — dying at the end of Sands O f Iwo Jim a having passed on the torch). H ighw ay is not dead, but now he can retire because he has created a w orthy replacem ent, young but full of the right stuff.

56 - MARCH CiNEftIA PAPERS

T he two continuing strains in E ast­ w ood’s work which dom inate the film are his fascination with tribalism as a viable alternative to m odern society (not a com m une, but a small extended family with shared values and goals — and a c h ie f— in various sorts of isolation from the m ainstream ), and the male soap opera.

From his first film as director, Eastwood has been undercutting the macholoner image that m ade him a star. H e retains the trappings of m acho, to be sure, but gives considerable, often equal, weight to male fear, v u ln era­ bility, self-pity, inadequacy. H e cer­ tainly doesn’t understand fem inism , but he does know that th ere’s som ething w rong with the traditional male opera­ tion. In Heartbreak Ridge, H ighw ay tries to re-unite with his ex-wife, who has understandably had it up to here with Superm arine, his endlessly retold past and constantly deferred future. H e does his hom ework. O n a bus, we see enough of H ighw ay’s head and shoulders over a copy of a w om en’s m agazine he is reading, to see that h e ’s a M arine. C ut to shot of young sailor staring in disbelief.

Back to Highw ay, who lowers the m aga­ zine ju st enough for the sailor to see a pound of cam paign ribbons on his chest, then goes back to studying Cosmo. I t ’s tough to get right, though: as he seri­ ously psychobabbles to her about the conditions of their relationship, she scream s, “ Relationship? W e d id n ’t have a relationship — we had a marriagel” , and starts throw ing things.

Interestingly, I d o n ’t think Eastwood is a gifted action director. T he action sequences in Heartbreak are not em ­ barrassing but neither are they o u t­ standing. H e ’s m uch better at static and /o r m ute images, and at dialogue sequences. T he energy in Heartbreak is in the excessive dialogue. N otions of identity, hierarchy, assessm ent, aggres­ sion, and all m anner of possibilities and consequences are channelled into verbal duels, speakers bristling, strutting, preening, bullying, com peting to see not quite who is the toughest, but who can talk the toughest. T he dialogue is the virtuoso part of the film, a M arin e ver­ sion of the A m erican blacks’ dirty dozens. Footnote: E astw ood’s voice here is m uch m ore thin and husky than usual. Age or perform ance? D o n ’t know. Not as extrem e as B urt R ey­ nolds’s nearly m issing voice in Stick, but an odd coincidence.

Finally, Eastwood films are not m ore expensive C huck N orris films, and the differences should be looked at with some care.

R.J. Thompson HEARTBREAK RIDGE: Directed and produced by Clint Eastwood. Executive producer: Fritz Manes. Screen­ play: James Carabatsos. Director of photography: Jack Green. Production designer: Ed Carfagno. Music: Lennie Niehaus. Cast: Clint Eastwood (Tom Highway), Marsha Mason (Aggie), Mario Van Peebles (Stitch), Moses Gunn (Sergeant Webster), Boyd Gaines (Lieu­ tenant Ring), Everett McGill (Major Powers). Production company: Malpaso Productions. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 129 minutes. USA. 1986.

V

E

L

L

I t ’s 1939, 10 years before the com m unist ‘lib eration ’ o f m ainland C hina. C uiqiao (X ue B ai), only 12 years old, is approaching marriageable age and is terrified at the thought that she w ill soon have to leave her fam ily for the hom e of some man o f her father’s choosing. . Although C u iq iao’s village is not far from the com m unist stronghold at Y an’an, its society is still ruled by custom and superstition. Gu Q ing (W ang X u eq i), a Red Arm y soldier from Y an’an, arrives in the village.

H e is billeted w ith C u iq iao’s fam ily.

Gu tells them about life in the com m unist base area, m entioning that arranged marriages are banned there. E ventually he goes aw ay again, leaving C uiqiao w ith an understanding o f the pointlessness of her fate but ,not the m eans to change it.

Yellow E arth breaks w ith the som etim es enchanting, som etim es infuriating C hinese cinem atic tradition o f opera-like theatricality.

D irector Chen K aige and cinem atographer Z hang Y im ou have created an alternative aesthetic inspired directly by their subject: the peasantry of northwest C hina and the harsh, rugged landscape w hich is their hom e.

In one scene a poor peasant man literally sings for his supper at an outdoor w edding feast. H is clothing is ragged, and his face has the rough, tested look of true poverty.

W hen C hinese film bureaucrat Chen H uangm ei saw the film , he recoiled at the “ u glin ess” o f the singer. “ The duty of film ,” he asserted, “ is to reflect life as realistically as HARSH REALITIES: Xue Bai and Liu Qiang

O

possible . . . But w e m ust not encourage naturalism , nor . . . . [indulge] in voyeu rism and the ■* depiction o f the rem nants o f the prim itive past . . . ’’ A nother member o f C h in a ’s film establishm ent, veteran director X ia Yan, warned in all seriousness that “ if we let things go, there will, be an unconscious drift tow ards ‘art for art’s sake’ and ‘in n o v a tio n for the sake of in n o v a tio n ’. ” The controversies w hich plagued Yellow E a rth in C hina, as sam pled above, m ight seem a trifle m ystifying to A ustralian audiences.

In China, how ever, the official aesthetic o f socialist realism dictates that in literature and film good guys (and that w ould n ecessarily include poor peasants) look good, bad guys look bad and th ey all get th eir ju st deserts in the en d . Yellow E arth not only failed to d isp en se neat portions of poetic ju stice, socialism -style, but it was the first film m ade since 1949 to ‘d e-rom anticise’ the countryside.

The peasantry, norm ally represented as a heroic and p oten tially progressive force, all uplifted fists and rosy-.cheeked good look s, in this film are portrayed as a grim , 'y backward, feudal and self-oppressing mass.

According to form ula, m oreover, the good com m unist Gu Q in g ought to have led the villagers dow n the path of the Great R ed W ay to salvation. Gu m ay be w ellintentioned but he proves relatively powerless to affect their liv es. T his was particularly galling to the authorities in ligh t o f h is com ing from Y an ’an. T h e Y a n ’an period

SOLDIERING ON: Liu Qiang and Wang Xueyin

was the com m unists’ ‘golden age’, one speaks o f it w ith reverence and lowered eyes. One certainly does not im ply that its shining radiance failed utterly and absolutely to illum inate the lives o f peasants liv in g w ithin beam ing distance.

D irector Chen K aige was only 32 w hen he m ade Yellow E arth, his debut feature. D uring the C u ltu ral' R evolution (1966-76), like m any of his contem poraries, Chen had been ,sent down to the countryside to “ learn from the peasants” . The editors of Seeds o f Fire, a recentlypublished anthology of contem porary C hinese literature w hich devotes an entire chapter to Yellow E arth (including excerpts from the official debate quoted here), com m ent on the effect that, experience was to have on C h en ’s vision . H e saw that despite everal decades o f com m unist rule, he peasantry in m any places and in riany w ays rem ained nearly as iackwaira and poor as before lib eration’. I n this sense, Yellow forth is not a historical film at ally md this* the editors note, was one of ts most disturbing aspects for ‘orthodox com m unist view ers” .

C h en made. Yellow E arth -through he Guangxi Film Studio, a relatively m inor, provincial studio. ?ax from the more p oliticised itmosphcre of the bigger studios in ’eking and Shanghai, -Chen was able o secure a relatively high degree of irtistic control over his production. )th er ‘‘fifth generation’’ directors rave headed for the hills to shoot ilm s which?they knew m ight be too ontrovcrsial to even m ake it past cript' stage in the bigger studios.

The provincial studios in addition [eneraflly have been m ore w illin g to ifford these younger film m akers the hance to direct in th e first place.

Yellow E ariE w as finished in late

1984. In itially, it was banned from international release.'W hen it was finally allowed to accept in v ita tio n s - ;from film festivals abroad, it captured the Silver Leopard at L ocarno,1the East-W est C entre ? V Award and Eastern K odak Award "in H aw aii and the prize for best cinem atography at N antes. It never made it to Cannes because a ‘bureaucratic error’ resulted in a video copy being sent to the ju d g es, w ho only accept celluloid. (C hina , has entered other film s in the .Cannes festival; it is im possible that the officials responsible for, this ‘m istake’ d id n ’t know 'the rules.)

In C hina itself, the judges for the official “ Golden R ooster” awards',’” after much deliberation, cautiously presented'w hat was o b v iou sly the most outstanding ‘art’ film their cinem a industry had produced in more than three decades w ith top honours in its cinem atography category only. But one of the ju d ges, veteran actress, producer and w riter H uang Z on gyin g, chided her fellow 1 adjudicators, ‘‘Let m e tell you som ething: i t ’s our ow n.children who can no-longer tolerate the unchanging realities of C hina, th e !p f| stagnant productive forces o f the ' peasants as well as the dead film language we use. T hey have the courage tp break all the rules and they have, rubbed you oldies up the w rong w ay. But. the fu tu re,” -she insisted, “ is on their s id e .” L et’s hope she’s right.

Linda Jaivirt-.

Y E L L O W EA R TH : Directed by Chen Kaige.

Producer: Guo Keqi. Screenplay: Zhang Ziliang. .

Based on the essay Echo in the Valley by Ke Lan. Director of photography: Zhang Yimou. Music: Zhao Jiping. Editor: Pei Xiaonan. Cast: Xue Bai (Cuiqiao)g Wang Xueqi (Gu Qing), Tan Tuo (Father), Liu Qiang (Hanh'an), The Peasant Waistdrum Troupe of Ansai Country. Production company: Youth .Production Unit, Guangxi Film Studio. Distributor: Ronin, 35mm. 89 minutes. China. 1984.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH

•BETTY BLUE C atapulted to fame and glory by the cute and perhaps overrated Diva (1982) and then mercilessly (if not vindictively) shot down for his self-indulgent but largely m isunderstood The Moon In The Gutter (1983), director Jean-Jacques Beineix, in the space of only two films, has experienced both extrem es of filmm aking — its joys and its tears, but m ore im portantly, its lures and its traps.

Yet, Beineix is a gam bler, and if the suc­ cess and fiasco of his two previous films somehow m iraculously neutralise each other, his third film, Betty Blue (37°2 Le Matin) allows him to start from scratch again, learn from his mistakes and . . . take another m ajor risk.

Based on a novel by Philippe D jian, Betty Blue is B eineix’s m ost m ature and subdued film to date. R ecapturing the flair of Diva and the beauty of The Moon In The Gutter, and devoid of the coquetry and artifice that encum bered both films, it goes straight to the point, touches and troubles and consequently provokes.

T he subject: a love story, with its two classical and fundam ental elem ents, a couple and an adventure; a microscopic study of obsessive love. T he story deals with the heady relationship between 3 5 - y e a r - o ld Z o r g ( J e a n - H u g u e s Anglade), who would be content to spend the rest of his life eating chilli, m aking love and painting beach huts, and 20-year-old Betty (Beatrice Dalle), vulnerable and wild, m arked with a passion for passion. As m uch as Zorg seems encrusted in his peaceful and routine lifestyle Betty refuses to make any com prom ises. O ne day she comes across a pile of little black notebooks filled with Z org’s w riting. C ertain that she has discovered the greatest w riter of his generation, she is determ ined to get him published. In a rage, she sets fire to their bungalow and offers him the chance to live an adventure of sublime passion. H e accepts.

From the beginning of Betty Blue, Beineix imposes the two principal traits which have undeniably becom e his trade m a rk : u n e x p e c te d n e s s a n d selfconfidence. T he opening shot shows a couple m a k in g love, slowly an d intensely. Above them , on the wall, the M ona Lisa watches with an accomplice smile. Im perceptibly, we move closer to them . T he shot lasts a long tim e and ends only after the sexual crescendo is reached before o u r eyes. A lm ost cathartic in its effect, this uninhibited display at the outset solves, in a most interesting way, the problem of nudity and sexuality on screen, so that every exposure that follows appears neither coy nor salacious. It is a scene which has no continuation in the film but one that acts as a postulate right from the start.

Like a prelude, it also introduces the m ain them es: desperation and its inevit­ able loneliness.

If Betty Blue is a m elodram a full of suspense (from the richness of the

58 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

em otions and surprises that it provokes), it is also, in a typical Beineix fashion, a film m arked by a trem endously wicked sense of hum our — a lightheartedness which precedes the dram atic scenes as if to give them their force and to drag us m ore deeply into the gravity of the situa­ tions.

T here is no sad or happy ending to the film but a sense of desperate hope, a feeling em bracing the painful love of life. B etty’s jo urney tow ard m adness occurs progressively and we never know at which particular point it becomes dangerous. H er fantasy is sanctioned by her m adness. Zorg goes back to w riting as Betty flounders, and he is obliged to confront the duality between w riting and love. T he ultim ate question then becomes: should one have to choose between life and art?

M odern poet of derision and, u n ­ doubtedly, representative of a genera­ tion, Beineix the author com plem ents m ore than adequately Beineix the tech­ nician in Betty Blue, constantly m ain tain ­ ing perfect equilibrium and grace between the two. H elped by his talented leading actors, Jean -H u g u es Anglade (Z, ’Homme Blesse, Subway) and new com er Beatrice Dalle, and an excep­ tional cast, including G erard D arm on, Consuelo de H aviland and Jacques M athou, Beineix brilliantly composes a w ounding and lyrical fable which encap­ sulates the excessive passion and lack of direction of Tamour fou and ends (literally) with a poke in the eye.

Is it ju st a coincidence that Betty Blue invites com parison with a certain cinem a of the sixties that dealt with m adness — m adness glorified as n o n ­ conform ism , rebellion against society — and m ore precisely, with G o d ard ’s Pierrot Le Foul T here are parallels that can be established: between the m ain c h aracters, F e rd in a n d /Z o rg , M arianne/B etty; between the storylines, as resignation to m ediocrity is swept away by the female presence, as couples leave one environm ent for another. A nd in the fascination with A m erica, and the relentless bleakness of its vision, Betty Blue (and for that m atter, B eineix’s cinem a), presents a considerable reevaluation and reassertion of a cine­ m a t i c l a n g u a g e f a s t b e c o m in g redundant. However, this is not to imply that Beineix’s film should be con­ sidered the beacon of its times to the same degree as G o d ard ’s; yet its acute reflection of its generation cannot be underestim ated.

Norbert Noyaux BETTY BLUE (37° LE MATIN): Directed by JeanJacques Beineix. Executive producer: Claudie Ossard.

Screenplay: Jean-Jacques Beineix. Based on the novel

by Philippe Djian. Director of photography: Jean-Francois Robin. Art director: Carlos Conti. Music: Gabriel Yared. Editor: Monique Prim. Cast: Beatrice Dalle (Betty), Jean-Hugues Anglade (Zorg), Consuelo De Haviland (Lisa), Gerard Darmon (Eddy), Clementine Celarie (Annie), Jacques Mathou (Bob). Production company: Constellation Production/Carqo Films. With the participation of the Centre National de la Cinemato­ graphic (Ministere de la Culture). Distributor: Fox Columbia. 35mm. 121 minutes. France. 1986.

HEARTBURN: Meryl Streep occupies the foreground,

•HEARTBURN Heartburn, the m ovie, is the last stage of a process, a publicity ju g g ern au t that has lum bered along ever since it was announced in gossip colum ns that N ora E phron, jo u rn alist and author, was writing a novel; a ‘fictional’ work about the affair that her husband conducted while Ephron was pregnant with their second child.

T he husband was C arl ‘W atergate’ Bernstein. T he other w om an was the daughter of a form er British Prim e M inister and the wife of the then British am bassador to the U S (him self the brother of the co-writer of Yes Minister)-, details that helped to m ake this tale of high infidelity all the m ore tantalising.

So if you’ve seen the articles on the book, the interviews with Bernstein, with the actors, if y o u ’ve read the book . . . see the film. See Jack Nicholson and M eryl Streep confer their own p a r­ ticular form of celebrity on the already celebrated B ernstein and Ephron (or M ark Form an and Rachel Sam stat, to give them their m ovie nam es).

These layers of expectation m ake it difficult to see the film as a separate entity from the book, if this were desir­ able or possible. E ither way, for m any reviewers, the film has been a letdown.

It has been declared Not As F unny As The Book, M eryl Streep described as Not Jew ish Enough, and Jack N ichol­ son’s perform ance has been com pared to his work in The Shining, where he posed rather a different kind of threat to the stability of family life.

C ertainly there is som ething m ore sober and slow-paced about the film. It adopts a strictly chronological narrative structure, while the book began with the revelation of the affair, m oved around in tim e, and was interspersed with recipes — a touch that hit an extraordinarily responsive chord in readers. Recipes in New Idea are ju st recipes, but Lillian H eilm an’s pot roast in the m iddle of a novel: what daring.

T he book’s sometimes wisecracking, sometimes despairing, always conversa­ tional snap and crackle m ade the reader into an intim ate, a confidante. In the film, we observe Rachel from a distance.

At the same tim e, a sort of first person perspective is m aintained: we get R achel’s story, R achel’s version but not

other things. In the him , this vigour has been refined into glossy, gourm et m aga­ zine slickness, tricked out with a sound­ track from C arly Sim on, queen of rom antic agony for Volvo owners, who was singing ‘T h a t’s T he W ay I Always H eard It Should B e’ m ore than a decade before E phron told us that m arriages d o n ’t work — divorce works.

Philippa Hawker

Jack Nicholson remains a shadowy figure

R achel’s voice. T h e re ’s none of the ‘I t ’s my pate and I ’ll cry if I w ant to ’ verve of the literary R achel, who told us: “ Even now I cannot believe that M ark would want to risk losing that vinaigrette. You just d o n ’t bu m p into vinaigrettes that good.”

She also wrote: “ W hy do I have to turn everything into a story? Because if I tell the story, I control the version.

Because if I tell the story I can m ake you laugh and I would rath er have you laugh at me than feel sorry for me. Because if I tell the story, it d o esn ’t h u rt as m u c h .”

T h ere’s not the kind of self-conscious­ ness at work in the film.

We see h er self-deception from the beginning, b u t som ehow w e’re always invited to sym pathise with it. T hey meet at a wedding: h er eyes are already filling with tears at the phrases about “ longsuffering, kind, all-en d u rin g ” love, while he starts to snore. H e ’s single, she’s told — very, very single.

But reader, she m arries him , and revels in the illusion of security that domesticity confers. She loves to figure out where to hang pictures, and w h at’s for dinner, and do they owe the R ichardsons . . . but M ark . . . W e really d o n ’t know about M ark. His existence is taken for granted: the hu s­ band, then the heel. In the circum ­ stances, it d oesn’t seem appropriate to talk about m iscasting. Ja c k Nicholson has a few zany set-pieces which show that he is gam e to try anything, even songs about petunias; but these spasms of energy c a n ’t disguise the fact that he is to all intents and purposes absent from the film.

W hat book and him do share is food.

Food represents, som etim es stands in for in tim a c y , frie n d s h ip , c a re e r, m arriag e, sacrifice. “ W hen w e ’re m arried I w ant you to cook this once a w eek,” M ark says, after R achel brings him spaghetti carb o n ara in bed at 4 am .

Rachel likes rice pudding, h er friends tell M ark reproachfully, im plying that the adulterous beast d o esn ’t even know her favourite foods.

But in the book, all this detail about bread pud d in g and linguine and six kinds of lettuce and lim a beans with pears, the celebration of potatoes and bagels and toasted alm onds, is vigorous, appealing: it’s w ritten by som eone with an appetite for food and all sorts of

HEARTBURN: Directed by Mike Nichols. Producers: Mike Nichols and Robert Greenhut. Associate pro­ ducer: Joel Tuber. Screenplay: Nora Ephron based on her novel. Director of photography: Nestor Almendros.

Production designer: Tony Walton. Music: Carly Simon.

Editor: Sam O’Steen. Cast: Meryl Streep (Rachel), Jack Nicholson (Mark), Jeff Daniels (Richard), Maureen Stapleton (Vera), Stockard Channing (Julie), Richard Masur (Arthur), Catherine O’Hara (Betty), Steven Hill (Harry). Production company: Paramount Pictures.

Distributor: UIP. 35mm. USA. 1986.

• CRIMES OF THE HEART After Bruce B eresford’s disastrous King David and the em barrassingly p aternal­ istic Fringe Dwellers, one could be forgiven for thinking that the director was either slipping, or had shown true form. T he release of Crimes of the Heart, h o w ev er, c o n so lid a te s B e re s fo rd ’s talents in a skilfully crafted, bittersw eet comedy, only m arginally flawed by weaknesses of script. (This is a surpris­ ing feature, considering Beth H enley adapted the screenplay from her own Pulitzer Prize w inning stage play.)

In Crimes of the Heart, set in the con­ tem porary good o f South, all the protagonists are losers or victims. T he three m ain characters, the M cG rath sisters, gain sym pathy from their idio­ syncratic foibles, which protect them from the crises injected into their norm ally m undane existence.

T he treatm ent is m ainly m ade up of brief vignettes, isolating instances of com passion, fam ily p rid e , sibling rivalry, confession, rem iniscence and com pulsion. T ension and dram atic interest are derived from the abrupt changes in the group dynam ic, the betrayals of confidences and petty point­ scoring.

W atching Lennie (D iane K eaton), Babe (Sissy Spacek) and M eg M cG rath (Jessica Lange) individually or collec­ tively, one suspects m ore than ju st a hint of insanity in the M cG rath family.

W hen Babe is released on bail after im pulsively shooting h er h u sband (comically recounted in a later flashback sequence) and dolefully questions her own sanity, big sister Lennie adm on­ ishes her: “ W hy Babe, y o u ’re ju st as perfectly sane as anyone walking the streets of H azelhurst, M ississippi — even m ore so!”

In a few scenes the fem inine cam ar­ aderie becomes too contrived (such as the hysterical outbursts which accom ­ pany the news that “ grandpah is in a com ah” ). T his film excels, however, in the degree of control the players exert over their m aterial, resisting the poten­ tial to collapse into either histrionics or farce.

T h e m ost com pelling sequences display explosive outbursts (often by K eaton); for exam ple, w hen L ennie berates M eg for trying each of the individual assorted cream chocolates that were her sole birthday present, or the dream -like rem iniscences of the trio of a nostalgic past (in which their m o th er’s bizarre ‘double suicide’ w ith a cat is vibrantly recalled). For all their churlish and erratic behaviour, the genuine and reciprocal affection of the sisters generates a w arm em pathetic atm osphere.

In supporting roles, Sam Shepard (Doc Porter) is perfunctory as M e g ’s lover, b u t Tess H a rp e r steals the show as Chick Boyle, a brilliantly realised, classic Southern bitch. K en A d a m ’s production design is superbly u n d e r­ stated and the com bination of G arret L ew is’ set d ecoration and D an te S p in o tti’s p h o to g ra p h y gives th e M c G r a th h o u s e h o ld a n a lm o s t atem poral feel.

In m any ways, the audience is like M eg in the opening scene — we get off the bus at H azelhurst and w e’ve got a lot of catchin’ up to do. For the M cG rath girls, the screentim e is a process of renewal and liberation — Babe has a m o v in g re v e la tio n re g a rd in g h e r m o th er’s death, L ennie discovers the power of self-determ ination, and M eg comes to term s with an old rom ance she has run away from. For the audience, it am ounts to a delight.

Mick Broderick CRIMES OF THE HEART: Directed by Bruce Beresford.

Producer: Freddie Fields. Executive producer: Burt Sugarman. Screenplay: Beth Henley. Director of photo­ graphy: Dante Spinotti. Production design: Ken Adam.

Music: Georges Delerue. Editor: Anne Goursaud. Cast: Diane Keaton (Lennie McGrath), Jessica Lange (Meg McGrath), Sissy Spacek (Babe McGrath), Sam Shepard (Doc Porter), Tess Harper (Chick Boyle), Hurd Hatfield (Old Granddaddy). Production company: De Laurentiis Entertainment Group. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 105 minutes. USA. 1986.

•RECENT RELEASES A Supplementary Guide January: A n A m erican T ail (U IP)* Bruce Lee — T he L egend (C EL) C lub Paradise (Village Roadshow ) C rim e W ave (C EL) D eath In A French G arden (R onin) Extrem ities (Filmways) G olden C hild (U IP ) Night M other (U IP ) Pirates (H oyts) R u n n in g Scared (U IP)* Sacred H earts (R onin) Shanghai Surprise (CEL)* A Zed A nd Tw o N oughts (R onin)* February: C hildren O f A Lesser G od (U IP)* J u m p in ’ Jack Flash (Fox C olum bia) T he M o rning A fter (Village Roadshow ) Som ething W ild (Village R oadshow ) A venging Force (H oyts) 'Reviewed in Cinema Papers 61 January 1987

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 59

TECHNICALITIES

-

cess w hich allow s one or m ore im ages to be introduced over ¡llre a d y shot material, is a rare sight in Australian film m aking.

FRED h isto ry,

HARDEN

exam ines

aesthetics,

the

prob lem s

En d prospects of the technique.

60 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

The first extensive blue screen matting work for an Australian feature film will have been completed by the time you read this issue.

Mirage Effects in Sydney are completing the post­ production effects for their extensive work on Australia’s latest science fiction feature, The T im e G u a rd ia n . Andrew Mason from Mirage talked about the history behind the blue screen process and their experiences during the model and effects filming for that production. He stressed that he was talking without the benefit of seeing the final composite results from the shoot in Adelaide. The blue screen was the final week of main unit shooting with director of photography Geoff

m

Burton. The T im e G u a rd ia n involved a large Mirage crew in extensive model work, optical and physical effects, and a lengthy post-production period is still ahead.

VIDEO AND FILM MATTES Most people are familiar with the video equivalents of blue screen, chroma key and Ultimatte; yet despite being involved since BC (Before Colour) in the production of TV commercials, I’ve n e v e r used blue screen film mattes, or even seen the process used in Australia. I took this to be just another one of the many signs that video technology was destined totally to replace film opticals.

Ultimatte is a straight

electronic equivalent of the blue screen process. The picture is separated into the red, green and blue and the difference between the three colours is used to make a mask. With that mask, you block out one part of the scene so that you can insert part of another.

In video, what comes out of the Ultimatte is an image where the blue screen has been dropped out and black inserted. At the same time, a black and white silhouette mask is produced which is the difference between the black (formerly blue) and the rest.

The black hole allows you to insert another image electronically as a key. On film, the image is inserted by printing in an optical printer.

RISE A N D FA LL OF T H E B LU E S Andrew Mason explains that “ Blue screen had fallen into disrepute in the fifties and sixties because people couldn’t get it to look convincing for all applications.

It was,” he said, “ resurrected most visibly by the people who did the effects on S ta r W ars. Because of the bulk of material they had to do, Lucasfilm were able to experiment and perfect the technique. “ Along with the injection of George Lucas’s money, lenses improved, lighting sources got better and, importantly, the blue screen information was shared. This knowledge was critical to the future of blue screen because even now it is possible to see bad blue screen work in lots of big budget films. It seems that the sudden popularity of deep space adventures helped the Americans to get it right more often than the Europeans. The main reason seems to be the result of people moving from one place to another and taking with them the accumulated knowledge and information.”

TH E USA C O N N E C T IO N Last year the principal of the US effects company Apogee, John Dykstra, was brought out by the Australian Film Commission (AFC) to share some of his experiences with local filmmakers. He and his partners gave a brief talk; at question time they defended the poor quality of some of

the examples that had been shown, saying how difficult it was to get things right and how often circumstances were beyond their control.

According to Mason, “ Every major group that is now involved in effects in the US was either involved with Dykstra or involved with Douglas Trumbull. It seems that if you were involved with Trumbull then you hated blue screen, because Trumbull liked to use the bigger negative of 65mm and he couldn’t get the right printing stocks for 65mm. So he rationalised it by hating blue screen. “ If you were involved with S ta r W a rs (like Dykstra) then you had to use blue screen because of the sheer volume of model effects shots that you had to do. It saved the time of another pass with the motion control rig to shoot a backlit matte, and instead of a high contrast matte shape they needed the subtlety of the blue screen mattes to hold the motion blur that makes the model moves so realistic. “ Another reason for the S ta r W a rs production’s use of the blue screen was because they were shooting miniatures that were being flailed around by motion control rigs all over the studio.” Conventional techniques, like front or back projection, would have been almost impossible.

O R G A N IC R E A C TIO N S Mason explains, “ Blue screen an easy process because you’re dealing with film and that’s a chemical process. I guess that it is also more difficult on film because you are not looking at it in real time like you do on video. The composite doesn’t happen until much later and it is an organic reaction instead of an electronic one.”

The alternative of front projection has its limitations.

Complicated camera moves on miniatures are restricted by the size of the projection screen, but more usually, it is the scheduling of a picture that doesn’t allow you to shoot the model or effects background plates first. If you’re doing front projection it locks you into the combined image. With blue screen you can at least fit the model work to it later and at a time when you are usually under less pressure.

Cinematographers also seem is n ’t

to find it marginally easier to light for blue screen. Special effects cinematographer and partner in Mirage Effects, Paul Nichola, has done a lot of front projection work and he and DOP Geoff Burton had no problems with the blue screen sequences on The T im e G u a rd ia n .

B EH IN D T H E S C R EEN “ It was not just having the right screen,” Mason said. “ We had to put the right light behind it, so that only blue light would reach the camera.

The original method was to use a lot of PAR 64s evenly spaced, but that was incredibly hot and inefficient.

But they used the same stretched blue plastic material that we have bought from the one person who makes it, Patrick Stewart of the Stewart Film Screen company. “ Stewart’s method is interesting. He mixes up a plastic substrate with a special colour paint as a hot liquid which is pumped into a spray bar, over a long table that sprays upward onto an aluminium ceiling. It moves along leaving a perfectly even coating that, when cool, he separates from the aluminium and the sheet falls onto paper laid on the table, and bingo he’s got a blue screen. Then all he has to do is put holes in the edge to stretch it onto a frame. “ The result is one single seamless piece of material up to a maximum of 40 by 90 feet and it is wonderful for stretching because it has

shape memory. By its formulation, it transmits only blue light, or almost only blue light, with just a touch of green. When lit by conventional tungsten lights there would be enough green to cause problems. Film requires purity because any green will record on the green layer of the emulsion and contaminate the matte.”

Matting on television is not as critical. There you can wind the purity of the blue up or down, but for film you must have a pure blue, and you can’t get that by lighting a painted background. “ During the seventies various people found that if you got the right fluorescent tubes you could have a bank of lights that were much cooler, and if they were the tubes that architects use for blueprint plan printing they produced intense ultraviolet light that was much more efficient. They then had a flicker problem from the fluoros. This isn’t a problem with motion control or model work because the shutter is open for a long time, but so that they could shoot live action they had to stop the flicker. In England where they started this, at Pinewood and Elstree, they found that they could run the tubes on DC to eliminate flicker, but they needed to reverse the polarity regularly to stop the gases moving to one end. This method required big heavy switching gear and it was bulky stuff.”

Someone then found that fluorescent lights in aircraft

SCREEN TEST: Three of The Time Guardian cast in front of the blue screen

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 61

^

for some reason have to run at 30,000 cycles — rather than the usual 50 to 60 cycles — and a number of manufacturers had the frequency conversion equipment available. This solved the flicker problem on film and people started to use the lights on AC but at 30,000 cycles. This made the screens easy to use, lightweight and transportable. The frequency converters are small, and the ballast is the same size as on a normal fluoro tube.

T H E M IR A G E B LU E S C R EEN Mirage bought their backlighting rig from England. “ We have an ongoing relationship with Oxford Scientific Films,” said Mason, “ and they arranged the manufacture of 14 panels, each ten and a half feet by two and a quarter. Each contains six evenly spaced tubes five feet long. It plugs into standard AC and draws one and a half amps each panel while producing an enormous amount of light. “ In front of the tubes, we stretch a diffusion screen and then the Stewart blue screen on an aluminium frame. Our screen is 20 by 15 feet and the whole lot can be clamped by scaffold clamps to a scaffold frame. The nice thing is that it only takes about a day to erect and all that you have to do is turn it on for an incredibly intense, even light source. “ For this film, we were using Eastman 5247 shooting at 24 frames. The right stop was somewhere about eight and a half. That was the right level for the blue screen and you then light the foreground to match. We had hoped that physically setting it up would be as simple as it was, but

62 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

shooting it correctly we knew was going to be a long process of trial and error. “ We did a blue screen shot for B u rk e a n d W ills that didn’t get cut into it, it looked pretty awful. We had a small scale blue screen with fluorescent tubes and the right transmission plastic material so that we could experiment.

It allowed us to at least ask the right questions, but ultimately we had to do it properly. “ So we decided to get some help, especially for the post-production phase.”

A L IT T L E H ELP FROM FR IENDS “ We had contact through various friends with Mike Vargo who had originally worked at Lucasfilm in the optical department at the time they started E m p ire S trik e s B a c k . He worked on P o lte rg e is t, D ra g o n s la y e r, R a id e rs , In d ia n a J o n e s and R e tu rn o f th e J e d i, then ran

the opticals department at Bossfilm, doing 2 0 1 0 and G h o s tb u s te rs , then on to P o lte rg e is t II and The B o y w h o C o u ld F ly.

“ After all that, he was feeling a bit burnt out and we convinced him to come out here for a holiday and a chat, which he did. He is very free and frank with all his help and that gave us an ‘in’ to all those last 10 years of development. We have just started the post-production of the blue screen scenes and it is great to know that he is around to help if we get into trouble; we just couldn’t have done it any other way.”

Of all the advice that Mirage were given, the main point was that just having the screen is not enough. You have to test the lenses you are shooting with to ensure

that they don’t have transmission problems or flare particular colours. Obviously you need extra steady pinregistered cameras because you are going to put two scenes together, and movement against each of them would be obvious on the large screen. And you need the right lenses in the optical printer. Mirage got an American lens designer to work out the lens system, and they replaced all the lenses on their Neilson Hordell printer.

They also found that they needed to have their own film processing setup because the process involves making black and white separations which is a delicate procedure. As Mason said, “ We have always processed our own high contrast mattes but this is panchromatic master positive, and for a film laboratory it’s a pain in the arse, involving small lengths with very particular set-ups just wouldn’t be economical for them. It is even difficult for someone like Rank in London to do it. So we are putting in our own processing machine which is what most of the effects houses in Los Angeles have done — even in Hollywood the labs are not interested in the fine control required.”

FILM S T O C K S FOR T H E B LU ES Conventional colour negative stocks are used for shooting, and the printing stocks that are used for blue screen are all widely available as they are used for making three colour separations for archiving printing masters. For their work Mirage are using Kodak Pan Separation Type 5235.

The new Kodak colour

negative stock 5295 was announced at the time of the 1986 SMPTE conference (see C in e m a P a p e rs 59 September 1986). This is a 400 ASA Tungsten rated film stock, specifically made for blue screen, which is extra sensitive to blue. The film is more expensive because it is manufactured to higher perforation tolerances but for model work where maximum depth of focus requires stopping down to the smallest aperture, the high speed is obviously useful.

FU TU R E P O T E N T IA L Ease of set-up and consistency of lighting are not the only advantages of the Mirage rig. The high output level of the tubes opens up a number of possibilities. Mason made the observation, “ that we were shooting stuff that was at normal speed and we were quite happy to have the foreground lit to f8.5. But one of the potentials of the screen we would love to pursue is, if you were shooting on film for Ultimatte mattes made of telecine, all that light would allow you to shoot high speed up to 300 frames per second.

Then you could have, for example, slow motion pouring shots for your beer commercial on a perfect chroma key blue background.

It would be almost impossible to pump that much light onto a normal painted background.”

As a production tool for Australian features the Mirage blue screen and their growing expertise in its use are welcome and long overdue.

For details contact Andrew Mason on (02) 888 9666, at 10 Byfield Street, North Ryde.

SOUNDFIRM SYDNEY

MORE FOR LESS. At Soundfirm we wouldn’t claim to have Sydney’s biggest mixing desk, but we’ve got the newest and the best — a Harrison Series 10 — the world’s first, totally automated console configured specifically for film and video sound post production.

Using less sophisticated equipment we’ve already provided outstanding results for productions like "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome”, "Crocodile Dundee”, "Malcolm” and a long list of lower-budget TV. productions and documentaries.

Apart from recognising the award-winning quality of our work, directors are unanimous in their praise for our total sound design service — our guarantee of professional soundtrack supervision from script to screen.

And when it comes to budget performance, producers are wildly enthusiastic about the savings our production expertise and advanced technology can make.

So why not check us out? We know you’ll be happy to applaud more Soundfirm performance for less of your precious soundtrack dollars.

Call Ian McLoughlin in Sydney or Roger Savage in Melbourne.

3/372 Eastern Valley Way, Chatswood. (02) 406 0822.169 Bank Street, South Melbourne. (03) 690 8488

AUSTRALIAN MADE

100mm & 150mm BOWLS

10K & 12.5K SOFT LIGHTS

C-STÄNDS ASSOTECNICA Scorpion Mini Dolly

ALUMINIUM DOLLY TRACK

THE NEW NAME IN IMPORTED AND AUSTRALIAN MADE MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

CIN E-Q U IP

(A U S T .J

Unit 4 ,1 5 -1 7 Fitzgerald St., Ferntree Gully 3156. Phone: (03) 758 7554

m

P R O D U C T I O N B A R O ISA . E T E R

Australian productions top $175 million Cameras rolled on 58 Aus­ tralian features, miniseries and telefeatures in the 1986 calendar year (JanuaryDecember) with budgets totalling $174,521,667. In addition, five telefeatures were produced at the ABC, and although exact figures are not available, abovethe-line costs of these pro­ ductions would bring the overall total to well over the $175 million mark.

This represents a $25 million increase from the previous year, despite the fact that fewer productions got under­ way. (See C in e m a P a p e rs 56 March 1986.)

Budget figures given in the charts are those supplied to C in e m a P a p e rs by producers.

A number of producers — those whose productions are marked ‘N/A' in the budget column — did not want their budgets published, but were prepared to supply them off the record, to enable us to compute the overall figures and averages.

Whether or not it is an indica­ tion of a new phenomenon, we felt it was more accurate to place the ABC/International Film Management production Great Expectations — The Untold Story in a separate

category, as a budget break­ down of this combined feature/miniseries is near imposs­ ible.

Two overseas productions, A Place to Call Home and Facts of Life Downunder

both shot segments in Aus­ tralia during the year with Crawfords. The amount spent on production costs in Aus­ tralia was substantial enough to warrant inclusion in the budget totals.

However, extended series such as Crawford Productions’ The Henderson Kids or Grundys’ Sons and Daugh­ ters, which are significant in terms of ongoing industry activity, have not been in­ cluded.

In the case of the telefeature Hound of Music, a budget was unavailable because labour was voluntary and pro­ duction facilities were donated.

Also, for the feature Candy Regentag, the budget is a

64 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

IT

H E A T R 1 C A L

F E A T

T IT L E (P ro d u c tio n c o m p a n y /P ro d u c e r/D ire c to r) Backlash (Mermaid Beach Productions/Bill Bennett/Bill Bennett)

BUDGET 250,000

U R ESI P R IN C IP A L PHOTOGRAPHY 6 January

Backstage (Backstage Films/Frank Howson/Jonathan Hardy)

7,000,000

7 March

Belinda (Fontana Productions/Bedrich Kabriel/Pamela Gibbons)

2,400,000

25 August

The Bit Part (Comedia Ltd/John Gauci, Peter Herbert/Brendan Maher)

1,100,000

17 November

Candy Regentag (Rainy Day/Graeme Isaac/James Ricketson) Cassandra (Cassandra Productions/Trevor Lucas/Colin Eggleston)

750,000

11 August

1,480,000

11 August

4,808,232

22 April

Dark Age (F G Film Productions (Australia) Pty Ltd for International Film

Management Ltd/Basil Appleby/Arch Nicholson) Dear Cardholder (Mermaid Beach Productions/Bill Bennett/Bill Bennett) Dogs In Space (Central Park Films/Glenys Rowe/Richard Lowenstein)

N/A 3,000,000

15 September 24 February

Dot in Good Old Hollyw ood (Yoram Gross Film Studio/Yoram

Gross/Yoram Gross)

N/A

1 July

Frenchm an’s Farm (Mavis Bramston Productions/James Fishburn/Ron

Way)

2,400,000

17 February

7,000,000

28 July

3,750,000

22 September

3,000,000

5 June

Ground Zero (Ground Zero Pty Ltd/Michael Pattinson/Michael Pattinson,

Bruce Myles) High Tide (SJL Productions Pty Ltd for Bush Christmas Productions Pty

Ltd and International Film Management Ltd/Sandra Levy/Gillian Armstrong) Initiation (Filmbar Pty Ltd for International Film Management Ltd/Jane Ballantyne/Michael Pearce) Just Us (Entertainment Media/Peter Beilby/Gordon Glenn)

N/A

16 February

Les Patterson Saves the W orld (Humpstead Productions/Sue

Milliken/George Miller)

7,300,000

18 August

The Lighthorsem en (Picture Show Pty Ltd for International Film

Management Ltd/Simon Wincer, Ian Jones/Simon Wincer)

10,489,320

15 September

The M arsupials — Howling 3 (Bancannia Holdings/Charles Waterstreet,

Philippe Mora/Philippe Mora)

2,000,000

15 October

Peter K enn a’s T h e Um brella W om an (Laughing Kookaburra

Productions/Jan Sharp/Ken Cameron)

3,500,000

7 April

The Place at the Coast (Daedalus II Fllms/Hilary Furlong/George Ogilvie)

2,400,000

3 February

2,600,000

5 May

1,650,000

14 April

2,362,038

17 February

Shadow s of the Peacock (Laughing Kookaburra Productions/Jane

Scott/Philllp Noyce) Sham e (Barron Films in association with UAA/Damlen Parer, Paul

Barron/Steve Jodrell) Slate, Wyn & Me (Ukiyo Films Australia Pty Ltd for International Film

Management Ltd/Tom Burstall/Don McLennan) Spirits of the Air, G rem lins of the Clouds (Meaningful Eye

Contact/Andrew McPhail/Alexander Proyas) Spook (Tesha Media Productions/David Hall, Don C. Philps/David Hall)

500,000 N/A

14 April 17 November

The T ale of Ruby Rose (Seon Film Productions Pty Ltd for Standard

Films Ltd and Film and General Holdings Pty Ltd/Bryce Menzies, Andrew Wiseman/Roger Scholes)

1,200,000

2 June

Those Dear Departed (Phillip Emanuel Productions/Phillip Emanuel/Ted

Robinson)

950,000

30 August

The T im e Guardian (Jen-Diki Film Productions Pty Ltd for International

Film Management Ltd and Chateau Productions Investments Ltd/Norman Wilkinson, Robert Lagettie/Brian Hannant) To M arket, To M arket (Goosey Ltd/Virginia Rouse/Virginia Rouse) Travelling North (View Pictures/Ben Gannon/Carl Schultz)

8,000,000 600,000

29 September 11 August

2,250,000

30 June

2,500,000

3 November

W arm Nights on a Slow Moving Train (Western Pacific Films Ltd/Ross

Dimsey, Patric Juillet/Bob Ellis)

ITHEATRICAL

F E A T U R E / M I N I $ E RIES I

T IT L E (P ro d u c tio n c o m p a n y /P ro d u c e r/D ire c to r)

BU D G ET

P R IN C IP A L PHOTOGRAPHY

G reat Expectations — T he Untold Story (The Australian Broadcasting Corporation for International Film Management Ltd/Tom Burstall, Ray Alchin/Tim Burstall)

5,970,077

10 March

Mesurier/Pino Amenta)

3,000,000

1 December

Petrov (PBL Productions/Bob Weis/Michael Carson)

3,047,000

3 February

S h ark’s Paradise (Memorelle Pty Ltd/Carla Kettner/Michael Jenkins)

1,300,000

22 May

The S hiralee (SAFC Productlons/Bruce Moir/George Ogilvie)

2,750,000

18 October

direct investment from the Aus­ tralian Film Commission.

The average cost of a pro­ duction was $3 million. Five features and four miniseries were budgeted at over $5 million. In fact, the average miniseries budget jumped from $2,701,947 in 1985 to $4,675,428 in 1986: it was another boom year for this portion of the market, with the McElroys The Last Frontier one of the most notable (finan­ cial) successes in both Aus­ tralia and overseas. The Road­ show, Coote & Carroll produc­ tion The Blue Lightning was the only telefeature in the over $2 million bracket, with most budgeted between $1 and $2 million.

4,509,000

March

Per category, the detailed breakdown is as follows:

BUDGET

P R IN C IP A L P H O TO G R AP H Y

4,500,000

17 February

3,750,000

6 October

Buckley/George Whaley)

4,200,000

24 February

Joe W ilson (Bilgola Beach Productions/Alexandra Cann/Geoffrey Nottage)

2,500,000

T IT L E (P ro d u c tio n c o m p a n y /P ro d u c e r/D ir e c to r ) The C hallenge (Roadshow, Coote & Carroll, Golden Dolphin

Productions/Tristram Miall, Bob Loader/Chris Thomson) Fields of Fire (Palm Beach Entertainment/David Elfick, Steve

Knapman/Rob Marchand) The Harp in the South (Anthony Buckley Productions/Anthony

The Last F ro ntier (Ayer Productions/Tim Sanders/Simon Wincer) Melba (CB Seven Productions/Errol Sullivan, Pom Oliver/Rodney Fisher) My B rother Tom (Crawford Productions/Rod Hardy/Pino Amenta)

17 March

12,000,000

6 May

6,050,000

7 July

N/A

17 March

Nancy W ake (Simpson Le Mesurier Films/Roger Simpson, Roger Le

Tracy (PBL Productions/John Edwards, Timothy Read/Donald Crombie,

Kathy Mueller) Vietnam (Kennedy Miller/Terry Hayes/Chris Noonan, John Duigan)

N/A

April THEATRICAL FEATURES

The W ind and the Stars (ABC, Revcom Television, Resolution Films/Ray

Alchin/Lawrence Gordon-Clark)

8,000,000

22 September

Total number produced 31 Total budgets 88,919,590 Average budget Under $1 million $1-$2 million $2-$3 million $3-$4 million $4-$5 million Over $5 million

2,868,374 8 4 9 4 1 5

THEATRICAL FEATURE/M INISERIES

T IT L E (P ro d u c tio n c o m p a n y /P ro d u c e r/D ir e c to r ) Alterations (ABC/Julian Pringle/Julian Pringle)

BUDGET N/A

P R IN C IP A L P H O TO G R AP H Y

1 Total number produced 5,970,077 Budget

3 November

Arm y W ives (Roadshow, Coote & Carroll/Pamela Vanneck/Denny

Lawrence)

1,400,000

23 June

M INISERIES

11 January

14 Total number produced Total budgets 65,456,000 Average budget 4,675,428

The Blue Lightning (Roadshow, Coote & Carroll/Ross Matthews/Lee

Philips)

2,500,000

Cassie (Starlite Film Productions/Carl T. Woods/Carl T. Woods)

N/A

11 January

Coda (Genesis Films/Craig Lahiff, Terry Jennings/Craig Lahiff)

N/A

23 August

Lake/Stuart Margolin)

N/A

8 September

The Fish Are S afe (ABC/Noel Price/Noni Hazlehurst)

N/A

5 May

1,500,000

7 April

Facts of Life D o w nu nd er (Embassy TV, Crawfords/Rita Dillon, Mike

G allag her’s Travels (Gallagher Productions/Andrew Williams/Michael

Caulfield) Hound o f M usic (Full Moon Films/Gary McFeat/Gary McFeat) The H our B efore My B rother Dies (ABC/Noel Price/James Clayden) Hum pty D um pty Man (Capital Productions/Miranda Bain/Paul Hogan)

— N/A 1,292,000

Under $1 million $1-$2 million $2-$3 million $3-$4 million $4-$5 million Over $5 million

_ 1 3 3 3 4

19 December 24 February 3 August

Hunger (ABC/Jan Chapman/Stephen Wallace)

N/A

28 February

Perhaps Love (ABC/Jan Chapman/Lex Marinos)

N/A

26 June

A Place to Call H om e (Embassy TV, Crawfords/MIchael Lake, Jeri Taylor,

Ross Matthews/Russ Mayberry)

N/A

5 May

Pursuit of Happiness (Jequerity/Martha Ansara/Martha Ansara)

N/A

July

N/A

17 November

N/A

7 October

TELEFEATURES

Total number produced 12 ABC in-house productions 5 Total budgets (excluding ABC productions) 14,176,000 Average budget (excluding ABC productions) 1,181,333

The Red C rescent (Somerset Film Productions/James M. Vernon, Jan

Tyrrell/Henri Safran) W atch the Shadow s Dance (Somerset Film Productions/James M.

Vernon, Jan Tyrrell/Mark Joffe)

Under $1 million $1-$2 million $2-$3 million

3 7 1

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 65

P

R

O

D XJ G X J R

Prod, accountant..................................... MareeMayall Completion guarantors................ Performance Budget................................................$690,000 Guarantors Aust. Pty Ltd Length............................................................ 90minutes Length.............................. 90 minutes (approx.)

Gauge....................................................... Super16mm Gauge.......................................................35mm Synopsis: A gang of surfie punks looking for Cast: Eddie Staszak (Jason Blade), Jim an inland sea with year-round surf find the Richards (Jim Baxter), Elaine Kwok (May aliens have landed. And they want a game of Wong). cricket!

Synopsis: A martial arts action feature intro­ ducing Jason Blade to the world, against a backdrop of corruption in Perth.

TH E DAY O F T H E P A N TH E R

Producer................................................DamienParer Director...................................................... PeterWest Scriptwriter................................................PeterWest From a story by................................ Peter West, David Groom Photography.......................... Simon Akkerman Sound recordist........................... David Glasser Editor.........................................................KerryRegan T H E B A T T L E O F L O N G TA N Exec, producers.......................................JudithWest, Prod, company.........Tesha Media Productions Grahame Jennings Producers................................... DonC. Philps, Asst to exec, producer....Andrew Martin-Weber Prod, company....................Virgo Productions/ Robert L. Allnutt Co-exec, producer................................ BeverlyWood EDG E O F IN N O C E N C E TVM Studios Scriptwriter......................... David Anthony Hall Prod, co-ordinator.....................................SusieCampbell Prod, company........................................AvalonFilmsProd, manager.........................Debbie Copland Dist. company....................... International Film Exec, producer....................... Robert MacLeod Producer...................................................... PhilAvalon Marketing (LA) Length............................................ 110 minutes Location manager......................................... LizKirkham Producer......................................Damien Parer Assoc, producer........................... Kip Porteous Gauge....................................................... 35mm Asst accountant...........................Margaret Sills Director.......................................................PeterWestPublicity......................................Lionel Midford Synopsis: The events before, during and Prod, accountant......................................... EricSankey Scriptwriter................................................ PeterWestLaboratory...............................................Atlab immediately after the Battle of Long Tan in 1st asst director........................................ StuartWood Budget........................................................ $1.2million From a story by................................Peter West, Vietnam.

2nd asst director............................. Chris Lynch David Groom Length........................................... 100 minutes Continuity.................................................. ChrisO’Connel Photography......................... Simon Akkerman Gauge...................................................... 35mm B LIN D FA IT H Interstate casting ...Suzie Maizels & Associates Synopsis: A young man sets off on a journey Sound recordist........................................ DavidGlasser Focus puller........................ Mark Edgecombe Prod, company...........................Brian Douglas Editor.........................................................KerryRegan to find his origins. Through a meeting with a Clapper/loader...........................................AnneBenzie Film and Television Exec, producers.......................................JudithWest,young Aboriginal, he discovers not only his Key grip...................................................... KarelAkkerman Producer..................................... Brian Douglas Grahame Jennings past but the murderers of his father and grand­ Asst grip.....................................................DavidCross Director........................................Brian Douglas father.

Asst to exec, producer....Andrew Martin-Weber Boom operators................................ Gary Carr, Scriptwriter................................. Robert Taylor Co-exec, producer.................................BeverlyWood Mark Keating Script editor................................. Brian Douglas Prod, co-ordinator.....................................SusieCampbell RIKKI A N D P ETE Art director....................................

Peter Marlow Based on the original idea Prod, manager....................................... DebbieCopland Prod, company.......................... Cascade Films Wardrobe consultant.................................. NoelHowell by..........................................................RobertTaylor Location manager......................................... LizKirkham Producers....................................... Nadia Tass, Costume designer......................Mandy Groom Editor............................................................ KenSallows Asst accountant.................................. MargaretSills David Parker Make-up.....................................................LiddyReynolds Assoc, producer....................................... Phillip Collins Prod, accountant......................................... EricSankey Director........................................... Nadia Tass Hairdresser............................................... LiddyReynolds 1st asst director........................................ StuartWoodScriptwriter............................................... DavidParker Length...............................................90 minutes Props buyer.......................................... Tim Hall Gauge....................................................... 35mm 2nd asst director........................................ChrisLynchPhotography............................................. DavidParker Standby props......................................Tim Hall Continuitv...................................................ChrisO’Connell Synopsis'. Rivalry between two parish Editor............................................................KenSallows Fight choreography......................Jim Richards Interstate casting ...Suzie Maizels & Associates churches escalates into a media event of Exec, producer.......................... Bryce Menzies Dialogue coach............................ Barrie Barkla Focus puller..........................Mark Edgecombe astronomic proportion — leaving Father Assoc, producer....................................TimothyWhite Safety supervisor.......................................... ArtThompson Clapper/loader........................................... AnneBenzie Brannigan attempting to undo what the miracle Prod, supervisor....................................... LyndaHouse Nurse................................... Johann Akkerman Key grip......................................................

Karel Akkerman he needed has given him!

1st asst director......................... Tony Mahood Publicity.........................

Andrew Martin-Weber Asst grip.....................................................DavidCrossCast: Colin Friels (Pete).

Completion guarantors.................Performance Boom operators.........................................GaryCarr, Synopsis: Bored by their easy existence in T H E C R IC K E TE R Guarantors Aust. Pty Ltd Mark Keating Melbourne, Rikki and her brother Pete set off (Working title) Length...............................90 minutes (approx.)

Art director.................................... Peter Marlow for Mt Isa and a questionable foray into the Gauge.......................................................35mm Prod, company....................................... MonroeStahrWardrobe consultant.................................. NoelHowell hardened world of mining.

Cast: Eddie Staszak (Jason Blade), Jim Dist. company...........Valhalla Holdings Pty Ltd Costume designer.................................. MandyGroom Richards (Jim Baxter), Elaine Kwok (May Producer.................................................... ChrisKielyMake-up.....................................................LiddyReynolds Wong).

Director.......................................................BarryPeakHairdresser............................................... LiddyReynolds ROADW ARS Synopsis: A martial arts action feature intro­ Scriptwriter............................................ MichaelQuinlan Props buyer.......................................... Tim Hall Prod, company......................Roadwars Pty Ltd ducing Jason Blade to the world, against a Photography.............................................. John Ogden Standby props......................................Tim Hall Dist. company......................................PremiereFilm backdrop of corruption in Perth.

Sound recordist.......................................... John Rowley Fight choreography......................Jim Richards Marketing Ltd Editor......................................................... RalphStrasser Dialogue coach............................ Barrie Barkla Producer..................................................... TomBroadbridge Prod, designer..........................................PaddyReardon Safety supervisor...........................................ArtThompson Director......................... Brian Trenchard-Smith Exec, producer..........................................PhillipDwyer Nurse......................................................JohannAkkerman Scriptwriter............................................. PatrickEdgeworth Prod, supervisor...........................................RayPondPublicity......................... Andrew Martin-Weber Based on the original idea by......................................................... PatrickEdgeworth Composer................................................. FrankStrangio Exec, producers........................................PeterBeilby, Robert Le Tet Length............................................................ 98minutes Gauge...................................................... 35mm D O T IN G O O D O LD H O L L Y W O O D Synopsis: A story about modern gladiators set Prod, company........................................ YoramGross in the near future.

Film Studio Pty Ltd Producer................................................. YoramGross S K IP P Y A N D T H E C H A LLE N G E R Director................................................... YoramGross Scriptwriter................................................. JohnPalmer Prod, company.........Skippy Industries Limited Animation director..................................... AtholHenry Scriptwriter................................William H. May Assoc, producer..................................... SandraGross Based on the original idea Music by............................................Guy Gross The meteoric rise of Australian by............................................William H. May Length............................................................

75minutes Exec, producers....................... William H. May, Cinema has been a source of Gauge...................................................... 35mm Malcolm C. Cooke Synopsis: Dot goes to Hollywood. astonishment all over the world.

Assoc, producer........................................ BarbiTaylor Script editor.......................................... BarbaraBishop Peter Weir, Bruce Beresford, Judy T H E E V E R L A S T IN G S E C R E T FA M ILY Casting consultants............Lee Lamer Casting Davis, Sam Neil and Mel Gibson are Prod, company...................Indian Pacific Films Publicity..................... Barbara James Publicity Pty Ltd for International Film now international figures, but the Budget...................................................... $2.79million Management Limited Length............................................................ 9 4 minutes films that made their reputations Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Gauge.......................................................35mm (excluding Australasia) remain intimately and resolutely Synopsis: The adult Sonny Hammond’s two Producers............................. Michael Thornhill, sons, Tim, aged 16, Pete, 10, and their friends, Australian.

Sue Carleton Skippy The Bush Kangaroo and her baby joey Director.................................Michael Thornhill Brian McFarlane, well known for get involved in an action-filled adventure with a Scriptwriter........................... Frank Moorhouse long-shot Australian entrant in the America’s his book W o rd s a n d Im a g e s Based on the short story Cup trials, with exciting and hilarious results. by.......................................Frank Moorhouse amongst others, and editorial Photography............................................ JulianPenney S O M E T H IN G G R E A T consultant to Cinema Papers, has Sound recordist...................John Schiefelbein Prod, company.................................. BoulevardFilmsEditor........................................................... PamBarnetta written a superb book celebrating Producer..................................

FrankHowson Composer.................................................. TonyBremner fifteen years of excitement and Scriptwriter............................................... FrankHowson Exec, producer.................... Antony I. Ginnane Exec, producer.............................. Peter Boyle discoveiy.

Prod, consultant............................. Lynn Gailey Publicity.................................................... LionelMidford Prod, coordinator..................... Perry Stapleton Budget........................................... $5,980,000 Prod, manager........................ Elizabeth Symes Length........................................... 120 minutes Readers may purchase this book (Post & Package Free) by completing the Unit manager.................................. Paul Fenton Synopsis: The true story of the trials and Location manager.......................... Paul Manos privileged offer below. triumphs of Australia’s golden boy of boxing Prod, accountant..........Moneypenny Services, who fell from grace as a result of World War I’s Rosemary Stephenson r ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * conscription hysteria and was resurrected as a Prod, assistant.....................Juliette Van Heyst Fill out this order form and send it to the address below. hero, when he died in Memphis, lonely, 1st asst director......................................... KeithHeygate bewildered and reviled at the age of 2 1 .

2nd asst director............................. John Titley Please send me, post-free,............ copy(s) of AUSTRALIAN CINEMA 3rd asst director.............................. Linda Pavill S O N S O F S TE E L 1970-1985 @ $29.95 each.

Continuity................................ Judy Whitehead Casting......................................................Hilary Linstead Prod, company................... Big Island Pictures I enclose my cheque for $ .........

OR Please charge my Bankcard No. & Associates Producer.......................James Michael Vernon Extras casting...........................Gabrielle Healy Director...........................................Gary Keady Focus puller...................................................IanThorburn Scriptwriter.................................... Gary Keady □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Clapper/loader................................... Susi Stitt Photography................................Joe Pickering Key g rip ..................................

LesterBishop Synopsis: A futuristic adventure set to power­ Asst grip..................................................... GaryLincoln Name: . ful heavy metal rock ’n’ roll music. Fantasy and Gaffer........................................................... RegGarside science fiction are bound together by a band of Electrician...........................................Gary Hill likeable, old fashioned heroes.

Address: Boom operator..............................Grant Stuart Art director.................................... Peta Lawson TH E S T R IK E O F TH E P A N T H E R Postcode: Art dept, administrator................... Judy Ditter Prod, company................... Virgo Productions/ Costume designer....................Graham Purcell TVM Studios Make-up.................................... Noriko Spencer * ,Return to: Heinemann Publishers Australia, 85 AbingerSt, Richmond, Vic. 3121.^ Dist. company....................... International Film Hairdresser.............................. Noriko Spencer Marketing (LA) Wardrobe supervisor.............Heather McLaren

F E AT U R E S

PRE-PRODUCTION

F E A T U R E S

P R O D U C T I O N

I

6« - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

T JL O 1ST E V Y

A full listing of the features, telemovies,

documentaries and shorts now in pre-production, production or post-production in Australia.

Wardrobe stand-by.................. Devina Maxwell Props buyer.................................. Eugene Intas Standby props......................Karan Monkhouse Construction manager.............Brian Hocking Carpenter..........................................John Rega Art dept, runner.............................David Atkins Safety officer............................George Mannix Still photography.......................... Barry Peake Best boy........................................Craig Bryant Runner..................................... Stefan Laguna Catering....................................Kaos Catering, Kathy Trout Laboratory..........................................Colorfilm Lab. liaison....................... Richard Piorkowski, Denise Wolfsen Gauge...................................................... 35mm Shooting stock..................Kodak Eastmancolor Cast: Arthur Dignam (Senator), Mark Lee (Youth), Dennis Miller (Eric), Heather Mitchell (Senator’s Wife), Paul Goddard (Son), John Meillon (Judge), Beth Child (Pottery Woman).

Synopsis'. A political thriller.

Electricians................................................ NickPayne, Casting.......................................................... LizMullinar Chris James Still photography..................................... .DavidParker Boom operator...........................................MarkWasiutak Surf instructor...................................... Vic Ford Art director.....................................Robert Dein Best boy...................................................... PaulGantner Asst art directors...................................... PhilipDrake, Runner............................ Tom Churchill-Brown Graham Duesbury Unit publicist...........................................ShelleyNeller, Make-up & hair The Write-On Group supervisor............................................. FionaCampbell Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm A U S T R A L IA N M A D E Make-up asst.......................................... AngelaConte Lab. liaison.........................Richard Piorkowski Prod, company.......................... Captured Live Wardrobe.................................Margot Lindsay Budget.............................................$3,750,000 Producer.................................... John McLean Wardrobe assts......................Jeanie Cameron, Length.......................................................... 100minutes Director............................. Richard Lowenstein Sandra Cichello Gauge.......................................................35mm Photography..........................Andrew de Groot Props buyer/dressers.............. Ro Bruen-Cook, Shooting stock.........................................Kodak Editor............................................... Jill Billcock Murray Kelly Cast: Judy Davis (Lilli), Jan Adele (Bet), Music producer...............................Mark Opitz Standby props.................................Harry Zettle Claudia Karavan (Ally), Colin Friels (Mick), Special effects...........................................Allan Maxwell, Exec, producer.....................................Ian Gow John Clayton (Col), Monica Trapaga (Tracey), Brian Pearce, Prod, coordinator................. Annette Patterson Frankie J. Holden (Lester).

Peter Evans, Prod, manager........................................... JulieForster Synopsis: The story of love lost and found in a Neville Maxwell 2nd unit director............................. Ray Argali remote Australian coastal town.

Choreography..........................

Tony Bartuccio 2nd unit sound recordist................. Mark Lewis Carpenters...................................... Denis Lees, Sound supervisor...................... Roger Savage Robin Hartley, Mixed at............................................. Soundfirm LES P A T TE R S O N S A V E S T H E Colin Burchall Laboratory................................................... VFL W O R LD Set construction.......................Ken Hazelwood Length............................................................90minutes Prod, company........... Humpstead Productions FEVER Asst editor.......................................David Clark Gauge.......................................................Super16mm Pty Ltd Sound editors...............................

Craig Carter, Shooting stock................................ 7291,7292 Prod, company............... Genesis Films Pty Ltd Producer......................................................SueMilliken Bruce Lambshed, Synopsis: A rockumentary of the Australian Dist. company.......................... J.C. Williamson Director..................................................

George Miller Livia Ruzlc Made concert — the biggest concert tour ever Film Distributors Pty Ltd Scriptwriters........................... Diane Mlllstead, Sound editing assts.................................. PeterMcBain, mounted in Australia starring INXS, Jimmy Producer.................................... Terry Jennings Barry Humphries Karen Harvey, Barnes, The Models, The Divinyls, The Saints, Director........................................... Craig Lahiff Based on the original idea Steve Burgess I’m Talking, Triffids and Mental as Anything.

Scriptwriters..................................John Emery, M ixer..........................................Roger Savage by.........................................Diane Millstead, Craig Lahiff Stunts coordinator......................................GlenBoswell Barry Humphries Exec, producers........................Ron Saunders, TH E B IT P A R T Still photography....................................... GregNoakes, Photography............................... David Connell Craig Lahiff Joe Vittorio Sound recordist...........................................

SydButterworth Prod, company.............................

Comedia Ltd Synopsis: A contemporary suspense thriller.

Best boy....................................................... LexMartinEditor.......................................... Tim Wellburn Producers......................................John Gaud, Publicity.....................................................SuzieHowie Prod, designer............................Grace Walker Peter Herbert Catering................................................CarolineGuiseExec, producer.........................................DianeMillstead Director.....................................Brendan Maher JIL T E D Mixed at.............................................Soundfirm Prod, manager...........................................TonyWlnley Scriptwriter............................... Ian MacFayden Prod, company..................................... MermaidBeach Laboratory................................................. Atlab Prod, co-ordinator.................................... FionaMcConaghy Photography...................................Ellery Ryan Productions Pty Ltd Lab. liaison.........................................Gary Kler Unit manager...................................Tic Carroll Sound recordist.........................................

John Phillips Dist. company.......................... J.C. Williamson Budget............................................... $7 million Location manager.................................... DavidMalacari Editor.......................................Scott McLennen Film Distributors Pty Ltd Length..........................................................105minutes Prod, secretary.........................................LesleyParker Exec, producer.........................Stephen Vizard Producers...................................... Bill Bennett, Gauge................................ 35mm Anamorphic Prod, accountant...........Moneypenny Services Assoc, producers..........................Ian Rodgers, Jenny Day Shooting stock.........................................Kodak 1st asst director......................................... BrianGiddens Frank Brown Director............................................ Bill Bennett Cast: Colin Friels (Harvey Denton), Donald 2nd asst director.........Carolynne Cunningham Prod, supervisor.......................................FrankBrown Scriptwriter.......................................Bill Bennett Pleasence (Prosper), Jack Thompson (TrebilContinuity..........................................JenniTosi Prod, secretary.......................................Tracee McCabe Based on the cock), Natalie Bate (Pat), Simon Chilvers Producer’s assistant........................Fiona King 1st asst director.............................Kath Hayden original idea by............................Bill Bennett (President).

Extras casting............................................. KateIngham 2nd asst director...........................................SigEimutis Photography............................................. GeoffSimpson Synopsis: Ground Zero is a contemporary 3rd asst director.......................................

Jenny Jarman Casting consultants...........Liz Mullinar Casting Sound recordist..........................Toivo Lember thriller about one man’s search for the truth.

A Continuity........................................ Julie Bates Budget........................................................ $7.3million Editor.......................................... Denise Hunter film of mystery and intrigue, suspense and Focus p uller..............................................Tracy Kubler Length............................................................

95 minutes Composer.............................................. MichaelAtkinson action, all of which begins with a seemingly Camera assistant....................................... TinaBowel Gauge...................................................... 35mm Assoc, producer........................................... PruDonovan unrelated series of events.

Key g rip .....................................................

Barry Hansen Shooting stock.........................................Kodak Prod, coordinator................................. DeborahSamuels Asst grip................................ Leigh Ammitzboll Cast: Barry Humphries (Sir Les Patterson, Unit manager............................................DavidJoyce Gaffer.......................................... Ted Nordsvan Dame Edna), Pamela Stephenson, Andrew 1st asst director...................................Phil Rich HIG H T ID E 3rd electrics.......................................... HaydanBrennan Clarke, Thaao Penghalis, Betty Mclvor, Henry 2nd asst director........................Stephan Elliott Art director.................................................Carol Harvey Prod, company. ................SJL Productions Szeps.

Continuity................................................ AlisonGoodwin Make-up/hairdresser........................... LeeanneWhite Pty Limited Focus puller...................................... Nick Mayo Synopsis: Les Patterson saves the world from Dist. company.

Wardrobe............................... Reuben Thomas .............. International Film Clapper/loader.........................................AdrienSeffrin a shocking fate.

Wardrobe supply....................................... RoseChong Management Limited and Gaffer.................................................. /.StephenCarter Props buyer/dresser...................... Adele Flere Hemdale Film Corporation Boom operator...........................................ScottRawlins T H E L IG H T H O R S E M E N Standby props......................................... JennyCreenProducer............. ...................... Sandra Levy Make-up..................................................WendyFreeman Asst editor..................................................SeanLander Director............... ...............Gillian Armstrong Prod, company. ...... Picture Show Pty Limited Wardrobe................................... Magi Beswick Sound asst...................................................RayPhillips Scriptwriter.......... ....................... Laura Jones for International Film Wardrobe asst..............................................LiseGardiner Still photography........................................TiborHegedis Photography....... ...................... Russell Boyd Management Limited Sound editor................................. Dany Cooper Best boy.....................................................JohnBrennan Sound recordist... ..........................BenOsmo Dist. company ................ RKO Pictures Inc./ Mixer......................................... Brett Robinson Catering.................................................... PeterBaileyEditor................... ....................Nick Beauman Cinecom International Films/ Still photography..........................................BobBennett Mixed at.............................................Soundfirm Prod, designer.... ...................Sally Campbell Tech, adviser........................Bruce Williamson Hoyts Distribution Pty Ltd Laboratory................................................... VFL Music consultants .................... Mark Moffiatt, Producers........... ............................. Ian Jones, Mixed at.......................................Sound on Film Budget............................................$1.1 million Ricky Fataar Laboratory..................................................Atlab Simon Wincer Length............................................ 90 minutes Exec, producers... .............Antony I. Ginnane, Director.............. ........................ Simon Wincer Lab. liaison...................................... David Cole Gauge...................................................... 35mm Joseph Skrzynski Scriptwriter......... .............................. Ian Jones Length.............................................93 minutes Synopsis: A comedy about a small-time actor.

Assoc, producer... ................. Greg Ricketson Photography...... ......................... Dean Semler Gauge....................................................... 35mm Prod, co-ordinator. ............. Annette Patterson Shooting stock...........................Eastmancolour Sound recordist.. ......................... Lloyd Carrick Prod, manager.... .... .................. Julie Forster Editor.................. ........................... Adrian Carr Cast: Richard Moir (Al), Jennifer Cluff (Harry), G R O U N D ZERO Unit manager....... ..................Hugh Johnston Helen Mutkins (Cinay).

Prod, designer.... .......................Bernard Hides Location manager ........................ Leah Cocks (Working title) Exec, producer... ................. Antony I. Ginnane Synopsis: Jilted is a story of two people who Prod, accountants .........................Catch 123, Assoc, producers ............................. David Lee, meet on a tropical island resort. Both have had ..Ground Zero Pty Ltd Prod, company.........

Peter Hewitt, disastrous love affairs and are reluctant to get Jan Bladier ..... Michael Pattinson Producer...................

Jenny Verdon Mixed a t............. ..................... Hendon Studios involved. Yet they do. .... Michael Pattinson, Directors....................

1st asst director. ................... Mark Turnbull Laboratory.......... ...................................... Atlab Bruce Myles 2 nd asst director. ..................... Peter Voeten Lab. liaison......... ......................... Graham Keir, ..................Jan Sardi, Scriptwriters..............

TE R R A A U S T R A L IS 3rd asst director.. .................... Maria Phillips Peter Willard Mac Gudgeon Prod, company.........................................YoramGross Continuity......... ....................

Daphne Paris Budget................ .......................... $10,500,000 Based on the original Film Studio Pty Ltd Director's asst... ................. Lyn Henderson Length............... ........................... 120 minutes idea by....................... .................. Jan Sardi, Producer................................................. YoramGross Mac Gudgeon, Director................................................... YoramGross Michael Pattinson Scriptwriter................................................ GregFlynn ............Steve Dobson Photography..............

Based on the original idea b y .........Greg Flynn, .............. Gary Wilkins Sound recordist........

Yoram Gross .........David Pullbrook Editor........................

Animation director...................Graham Sharpe ....... Brian Thompson Prod, designer..........

Assoc, producer..................................... SandraGrossComposer................. ................. Chris Neal Length..............................................75 minutes Burrowes Film Group Exec, producer.........

Gauge..................................................... 35 mm ............Christine Hart Prod, coordinator.....

Synopsis: An Australian Bicentennial ..........Narelle Barsby Prod, manager..........

Authority endorsed animation feature set in .... Michael Batchelor Unit manager.............

Australia about 40,000 years ago. ...........Stephen Saks Location manager..... .........Serena Gattuso Prod, secretary.......... .........Jim Hadjacosta Prod, accountant...... ............Susan Benfer Prod, assistant.......... ........ Stuart Freeman 1st asst director........ ............. Ian Freeman 2nd asst director....... ......... Michael Rumpf 3rd asst director........ ............. David Eggby 2nd unit director/DOP .................... Liz Perry Continuity.................. ...... Gillian Campbell Producer’s assistant..

Send production details to .................. Ian Jones Camera operator......

Kathy Bail, Cinema Papers, 43 ..........Rex Nicholson, Focus pullers............

Mark Sullivan Charles Street, Abbotsford, ............... Rosie Cass Clapper/loader...........

Victoria 3067, or call on (03) ............Ian Benallack Key g rip ....................

429 5511. ...Arthur Manousakis, Asst grips..................

Mark Chambers ............. David Eggby 2nd unit photography. ............Ian Dewnurst Gaffer.........................

F E A T U R E S

POST-PRODUCTION

TO ADVERTISE IN

CINFMA

WE’VE

MOVED!

P & rp

Ring

Patricia Amad: Melbourne 429 5511

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 67

P

R

O S

D U C T U R V

At

Long

D e s ig n e d P o rtab le,

I O N E Y

Last !

A

Rugged,

R e lia b le ,

e x p re s s ly fo r the F ilm I n d u s t r y .

Q uiet, E xcellent O u tp u t.

For s a l e or h ir e .

Tel. ( 0 2 ) 4 5 0 - 2 9 5 6

E f f e c t s E n g i n e e r i n g , Lot 4 6 L a i t o k i Rd. T e r r e y H i l l s ,

Gauge......................................................35mm Shooting stock........................................Kodak Cast: Peter Phelps (Dave), Jon Blake (Scotty), John Walton (Tas), Tim McKenzie (Chiller), Sigrid Thornton (Anne), Tony Bonner (Bouchier), Bill Kerr (Chauvel), Ralph Cotterill (Von Kress), Gary Sweet (Frank), Anthony Andrews (Meinertzhagen), Synopsis: The story ot a group of young men in an Australian Light Horse regiment in the six months leading up to the charge at Beersheba, the world’s last great cavalry charge.

Prod, co-ordinator....

Prod, manager........

Unit manager...........

Location manager....

Prod, secretary........

Prod, accountant....

Accounts asst..........

1st asst director......

2nd asst director.....

3rd asst director......

Continuity................

Producer’s assistant.

Camera operator....

Focus puller............

Clapper/loader.......

Key grip...................

Grip..........................

Electrics..................

............Jennie Crowley ............... Darryl Sheen ........Michael Batchelor .................. Neil McCart ............Sandi Revelins ............... Jim Hajicosta ............. Juanita Parker ............. Robert Kewley .........Michael McIntyre ................ Trish Carney ...... Joanne McLennan ..................Kiki Dimsey .............Nino Martinetti .........Christopher Cain TH E TA LE O F R UBY R OSE ...........Martyn Fleming Prod, company..................................Seon Film ................David Casser Productions Pty Ltd ...........Marcus McLeod Dist. company.................................. Worldwide ..........Paul Johnstone, excluding Australasia Robert Park, Film and General Holdings, Rory Timoney Hemdale Boom operator..........................Mark Wasiutak Producers................................ Bryce Menzies, Costume designer........ .........Alexandra Tynan Andrew Wiseman Make-up...................................... Karla O’Keefe Director.................................................... RogerScholes Wardrobe.........................................Gail Mayes Scriptwriter................................. Roger Scholes Standby wardrobe....... ..........Denise Braddon Project development............Katherine Scholes Art dept manager............... Keith Handscombe Based on the original idea Props buyer/set dresser ......................Jill Eden b y ..........................................................RogerScholes Standby props.............. .................. John Stabb Photography............................... Steve Mason Set construction............................. Hi-rise Flats Sound recordist...........................................BobCutcher Asst editor.................... ............Ronwen Proust Composer....................................................PaulSchutze Mixer.............................................Peter Fenton Exec, producer............................ Basia Puszka Dubbing editors............ ..........Glen Newnham, Assoc, producer.............................. Ian Pringle Ross Porter Mixed a t......................................... Sound Firm Still photography........................ Carolyn Johns Laboratory............................................ Cinevex Unit nurse..................... ..........Victoria Sullivan Lab. liaison...................................Ian Anderson Unit runner.................... .................Doug Green Budget............................................ $1,200,000 Catering............................................ Bande Aid Length............................................................95minutes Studios.......................... Melbourne Film Studio Gauge..................................................... 35 mm Mixed a t........................ ..........Hendon Studios Laboratory..................... ....................... Cinevex Shooting stock............... Kodak 5247 and 5294 Cast: Melita Jurisic (Ruby Rose), Chris Hay­ Lab. liaison................... .............. Ian Anderson wood (Henry Rose), Rod Zuanic (Gem), Martyn Length..............................................95 minutes Sanderson (Bennett), Sheila Florance Gauge............................ .......................... 35mm (Grandma).

Shooting stock............................................Fuji, Synopsis: Located among the haunting peaks Kodak Cast: Wendy Hughes (The Girl). and brooding mists of Tasmania’s Central Synopsis: A romantic thriller.

Highlands, The Tale of Ruby Rose is the story of a woman overcoming an intense fear of the dark.

Synopsis: Australia Revisited is a sequel to an original twelve-part series made by the BBC during 1966. The new programmes look at how the original subjects — and Australia — have changed over the last twenty years.

A U S TR A LIA N W ILD E R N E S S S ER IES Prod, company.............................. Kestrel Film Productions Pty Ltd Dist. company................................ Kestrel Film Productions Pty Ltd Directors................................... David Morgan, David Greig Scriptwriters................................. David Greig, David Morgan Photography...........................Kevin Anderson, Alex McPhee, Terry Carlyon Sound recordists....................... Steve Murphy, Chris Izzard Editors........................................... David Greig, Rebecca Grubelich Exec, producer..................... John Richardson Prod, managers....................Karen Alexander, Mark Ruse Prod, secretary.................... Fiona MacDougall Prod, accountant....................David Butterfield Camera assistants........................... Keith Platt, Greg Harrington Mixed a t............................... Film Sound Track Laboratory................................................... VFL Budget................................................ $800,000 Length...................................... 3 x 50 minutes Gauge.......................................................16mm Shooting stock...................Eastmancolor Neg. Synopsis: Three programmes from a six-parf series lookinq at the Kimberlevs, the Simpson Desert and Kosciusko. The concept of the pro­ grammes is based on making tne auaience aware of the relatively few remaining wilder­ ness areas in Australia.

BALI T R IP T Y C H

Fogger.

N.S.W. 2 0 8 4 .

Editor................ .... Matthew Tucker .Annette McLernon Asst editor........

Assoc, producer. ...........Larry Lucas Prod, supervisor ....... Bee Reynolds Research........... ..........Casey Ryan Prod, secretary.. ..........Casey Ryan Prod, accountant................... Mjanchen Glover Focus puller..................................David Dunkly Prod, trainees.............................Anne Pratten, Ray Eastwood Length............................................. 56 minutes Gauge...................................................... 16mm Cast: Bob Merritt (Presenter).

Synopsis: A home is more than a house. This film looks at how Aborigines are building their own houses and the effect that this is having upon their lives, their communities and their dreams.

BLA C K FU TU R E S 3: G E T T IN G B ETTER Prod, company......................Corroboree Films Producer...........................Michael Le Moignan Directors.................................................... LarryLucas, Yuri Sokol Scriptwriters................................................BobMerritt, Casey Ryan, Michael Le Moignan Script editor................................ '...Larry Lucas Photography............................................... YuriSokol Sound recordist..........................................RuthBerry Editor....................................................MatthewTucker Asst editor...........................Annette McLernon Assoc, producer........................................ LarryLucas Prod, supervisor.........................Bee Reynolds Research..................................................CaseyRyan Prod, secretary........................................CaseyRyan Prod, accountant................................MjanchenGlover Focus puller...............................................DavidDunkly Prod, trainees.............................Anne Pratten, Ray Eastwood Length............................................. 56 minutes Gauge......................................................16mm Cast: Bob Merritt (Presenter).

Synopsis: More than one in 40 Aboriginal babies die within a year of birth. More than one in two Aboriginal men over sixty suffer from the eye disease, trachoma. This film looks at a movement towards radical improvements in Aboriginal health care. We meet the Aboriginal health workers of the 21st century. The'film also provides an intriguing look into traditional Aboriginal methods of healing.

Prod, company......................... Bozado Pty Ltd Dist. company.......................... ABC Marketing Producer.'.....................................John McLean Director................................. John A.C. Darling Scriptwriter...........................John A.C. Darling Photography..........................David Sanderson TH E T IM E G U A R D IA N Sound recordist.......................... Max Hennser Prod, company.........Jen-Diki Film Productions Editor...................................................Bill Aiers Pty Limited for International Camera asst............................Sebastian Thaw Film Management Limited and Mixed at..................................................... Atlab A U S T R A L IA R E V IS IT E D Chateau Productions Laboratory................................................. Atlab Prod, company................... Triad Films Pty Ltd Investments Limited Budget................................................$500,000 Dist. company..................... ABC TV Australia, D O N A LD FR IEN D — Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Length.......................................3 x 50 minutes Central TV UK (excluding Australasia) TH E REBEL S P IR IT Producers...........................Norman Wilkinson, Series producer......................................RobertKitts Gauge.......................................................16mm Prod, company... ....Australian Art Film Directors...................................................... MaiRead,Shooting stock......................... 7291 and 7294 Robert Lagettie Partnerships Pty Ltd Synopsis: A definitive view of Balinese life­ Co-producer............................................HarleyManners Robert Kitts, Producers.......... ..........Don Bennetts, style, history and culture.

Director......................................................BrianHannant Richard Guthrie, Jeremy Hogarth Louise Meek Scriptwriters..............................................BrianHannant, Directors............ ...... Jeremy Hogarth, John Baxter Scriptwriters/research................ Mark Manion, B ETW EEN W O R LD S — TH E URBAN Don Bennetts Photography..............................................GeoffBurton Marlene Abrams, A B O R IG IN E Scriptwriter........ .Christopher Leonard Mai Read, Sound recordist........................... Toivo Lember Photography..... ...........Ray Henman, Prod, company...........................................ABC Robert Kitts, Editor......................................................AndrewProwse Tony Wilson, Dist. company.............................................ABC Richard Guthrie, Prod, designer........................................GeorgeLiddle Terry Carlyon Producer......................................Robin James Louise Meek Exec, producer................... Antony I. Ginnane Sound recordists ............ John Franks, Director.......................................Robin James Based on the original idea b y .........Robert Kitts Studios...................................................HendonStudios George Weis, Photography..............................Peter Nearhos Photography.............................. Mike Atkinson, Mixed a t.................................................HendonStudios Leo Sullivan, Sound recordist....................... Warwick Finlay Garry Rhodes, Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm Sean Heltzer Editor.............................................Kim Cardow Ian Marden, Lab. liaison..................................

Jenkin Editor................. ................. Tim Lewis Producer’s assistant............... Ingrid Andersen John Hawley Budget............................................. $8,000,000 Exec, producer... ...........Don Bennetts Camera assistant................Bradley McCrystal Sound recordists...................... George Weiss, Length..........................................................100minutes Prod, manager.... .................Jo Stewart Sound editor............................ Bruce Redman John Easter, Neg. matching....

Gauge.......................................................35mm ..............Meg Koenig Mixer........................................ Warwick Finlay Tony Morath, ■Still photography Shooting stock.........................................Kodak ..........Robert Walker Length............................................. 30 minutes Richard Hill, Opticals.............. .....................Cinevex Cast: Tom Burlinson (Ballard), Nikki Coghill Gauge............................................................ 1" Laurie Robinson Laboratory..........

(Annie), Carrie Fisher (Petra), Dean Stockwell .....................Cinevex Cast: Eileen Cummins, Edna Barolits, Jan Lab. liaison........

Editors........................................ Russ Herman, (Boss), Henry Salter (Prenzler), Jo Flemming ............Ian Anderson Cottle, Tracy Stokes.

Length...............

Douglas Howard ................50 minutes (Tanel).

Synopsis: Urban aboriginal girls often face Gauge................

Composer................... Andrew Thomas-Wilson ....................... 16mm Synopsis: A sci-fi action movie about a woman problems of low self-esteem and poor career Shooting stock...

Exec, producer.............................................

Mai Read .................

Fuji 8521, expectations due partly to their particular who encounters time travellers from the 24th Assoc, producers..................................MarleneAbrams, Kodak 7292 circumstances. This programme looks at abori­ Century in Central Australia.

Mark Manion Synopsis: Part of a series of films on Aus­ ginal women who’ve been successful — tralian artists and their work. Donald Friend is a Prod, manager.................... Marian Macgowan against the odds — and they, together with two W A R M N IG H TS ON A S L O W M O V IN G decorative painter and draws with the fluency Prod, accountant.................Viera and Bennell aboriginal girls, talk of what it means to be an TR A IN of a master draftsman. He is also a story-teller Continuity..............................Marlene Abrams, urban aboriginal in today’s society. with a taste for satire.

Mark Manion Prod, company...................... ...Western Pacific Still photography........................................MarkManion Films Limited B LA C K FU TU R E S 2: Title designer..................................Robert Kitts D R IFTE R S A N D A N G E LS Producers............................. ..... Ross Dimsey, B U ILD IN G D R EA M S Post-production......................................... Icom Patric Juillet Prod, company......................... Phillip Emanuel Prod, company...................... Corroborée Films Publicity................................................MarleneAbrams Director................................. ............. Bob Ellis Productions Producer...........................Michael Le Moignan Budget.............................. $40,000 per episode Scriptwriter............................ ............. Bob Ellis Dist. company.................................Ronin Films Directors.......................... Michael Le Moignan, Based on the original idea by. ............Bob Ellis, Length......................................12 x 30 minutes Producer.....................................................AlecMorgan Yuri Sokol Denny Lawrence Gauge............................. Vi" tape to 1" master Director....................................................... AlecMorgan Photography......................... ...........Yuri Sokol Scriptwriter....................... Michael LeMoignan Shooting stock....................................Betacam Scriptwriters............................................... AlecMorgan, Sound recordist.................... ...... Gary Wilkins Cast: Charles Perkins, Colonel Joe Mann, Alan Script editor...............................................LarryLucas Mary Callaghan Editor..................................... ...........Tim Lewis Ticehurst, Peno and Livia Bosi, Lillian Frank, Photography............................................... YuriSokolBased on the original idea by........Alec Morgan Prod, designer....................... ..........Tracy Watt Lang and Rose Hancock.

Sound recordist.......................................... RuthBerryComposer.............................. Ralph Schneider

DOCUMENTARIES

68 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

WARDROBE • MAKE-UP VANS • CAMERA TRUCKS • CAST VANS • PROPS VANS • UNIT VEHICLES • TRACKING VEHICLES

PROUD TO BE SUPPLYING:

FOR THE SUPPLY OF ALL FILM PRODUCTION TRANSPORT CONTACT DAVID SUTTOR ON (02) 439 4590 318 WILLOUGHBY ROAD, NAREMBURN, SYDNEY

• • ,• • • •

Nancy Wake Willing and Abel High Tide The Howling III Those Dear Departed Fields of Fire

STATION WAGONS • SEDANS • HI-ACE VANS « 4 X 4 TOYOTA LANDCRUISERS • ACTION VEHICLES • TRAY TOPS « BUSES

Exec, producer......................... Phillip Emanuel Laboratory............................................Colorfilm Budget................................................. $800,000 Length.........................................6 x 30 minutes Gauge........................................................ 16mm Shooting stock................................. 7294, 7291 Synopsis: An entertaining and thoughtprovoking television series about the history and lives of travelling showpeople in Australia.

It will explore the development of the travelling entertainments through to the ‘last’ travelling shows today.

E C H O O F A D IS T A N T D R U M Prod, company...................Orana Films Pty Ltd Producer.................................... Dick Dennison Directors................................. Michael Balson, Matthew Flanagan Scriptwriter..............................Patrick O’Farrell Photoaraohv...............................Michael Ewers Sound recordist.............................Ralph Steele Editor.........................................Michael Balson Music......................................... RTE Orchestra Laboratory.................................................. Atlab Length.......................................3 x 60 minutes Gauge........................................................16mm Synopsis: An alternative history of Australia.

E Q U A L O P P O R T U N IT Y (Working title) .......Market Street Prod, company.............

Films Ltd .Madelon Wilkens, Producers.....................

David Noakes ...........Jack Davis, Directors.......................

Madelon Wilkens ............ Jack Davis Scriptwriter................... .......David Noakes Photography................ ...... John Cruthers Sound recordist............ ...... David Noakes Editor........................... ....Mark Bin Barker Composer.....................

Equal Opportunity Exec, producer.............

Commission .Madelon Wilkens, Prod, managers...........

Brooke Micheals .........Willie Pickett Prod, assistant............ ..Madelon Wilkens 1st asst director........... ..........Liz Andrews C ontinuity.................... .......David Noakes Lighting cameraperson ...... David Noakes Camera operator.......... ...Brooke Micheals Focus puller.................. ...Brooke Micheals Clapper/loader............. ...Brooke Micheals Camera assistant......... ..........Peter Kordyl Key g rip ....................... ..........Peter Kordyl G affer.......................... ....Mark Bin Barker Boom operator............ ....Mark Bin Barker Music performed b y .... ....Mark Bin Barker Sound editor................. ....Brooke Micheál, Editing assitants..........

Mark Bin Barker ............... Kim Lord M ixer........................... ............ Jack Davis Narrator....................... ............. ABC Perth Mixed at........................ .................Cinevex Laboratory.................... ........Ian Anderson Lab. liaison................... ............

15 minutes Length......................... ....................16mm Gauge.......................... ..........Agfa XT125, Shooting stock............

XT 320 Cast: Jack Davis, Beverly Shaw, Marlene Chesson, Willie Pickett, Jenny Davis, Emily Weare, Murray Dowsett, Jill Clark, Roland Paver, Keith Chesson, Kevin Shaw.

Synopsis: Aboriginal playwright Jack Davis explains how the Equal Opportunity Act can be used by Aboriginal people through four dramatised incidents which for many Abor­ iginal people are everyday events.

G IVE US S P A C E Prod, company............... Ministry of Education, Victoria Dist. company....................Curriculum Branch, Ministry of Education Producer............................................. Ivan Gaal Director............................................... Ivan Gaal Scriptwriter.................................. Sally Ingleton Photography.............................Valerie Campan Sound recordist.......................... David Hughes Editor................................................... Ivan Gaal Assoc, producer........................... Helen Clarke Script assistant........................ Samantha Pugh Gaffers..................................... Rob McCubbin, Ian Toohill Laboratory.................................................. VTC Length.............................................. 25 minutes Gauge..............................................1" video Shooting stock............................................Fuji Cast: Alex Anastasidis (Pina), Katie Aves (Narelle), Regina McColl (Sharon), Jeff Phillips (Mark), Stella Pub (Lucy), Julia Gardiner (Mrs Arnold), George Viskich (Max Fitzgerald), Jeff Baird (Allan).

Synopsis: A dramatized documentary about problems girls can encounter in co-educational schools.

months, culminating in three births. One couple will be having their first child at home, one family will be having a homebirth after a previous hospital birth, while the third couple will be preparing their older child to share the experience. The aim of the film is to show that homebirth is a responsible and viable alter­ native to hospital birth.

L L O Y D REES — R E F L E C T IO N S O F A U S T R A L IA

..... Australian Art Film Partnerships Pty Ltd Producers.......... ............ Don Bennetts, Jeremy Hogarth ........ Jeremy Hogarth, Directors............

Don Bennetts ..Christopher Leonard Scriptwriter......... ..............Ray Henman, Photography.....

Terry Carlyon, Tony Wilson, Malcolm Ludgate Sound recordists .............. John Franks, George Weis, Ron Brown, Rob Stalder ................... Tim Lewis Editor................... ............. Don Bennetts Exec, producer....

H ILLA R Y IN D IA P R O JE C T ...................Jo Stewart Prod, manager....

(Working title) ...................Keith Platt Camera assistant .Meg Koenig (Cinevex) Prod, company...................................... MichaelDillonNeg. matching....

Still photography. ...................Keith Platt Film Enterprises .......................Cinevex Producer................................................ MichaelDillonOpticals...............

Laboratory........... .......................Cinevex Director.................................................. MichaelDillon ..............Ian Anderson Scriptwriter............................................. MichaelDillonLab. liaison.......... ..................50 minutes Length................

Photography...........................................MichaelDillon .......................... 16mm Gauge.................

Sound recordists....................................... PeterHillary, ....................Fuji 8521, Shooting stock....

Shaju Joseph Kodak 7292 Editor............................................. Rod Hibberd Synopsis: The first in a series of films on Aus­ Laboratory............................................ Clnefilm tralian artists and their work. Lloyd Rees was Budget................................................... $70,000 born in Brisbane in 1895 and his work is rep­ Length.............................................................50minutes resentational in an age on non-figurative art.

Gauge........................................................16mm His preoccupation in painting is with giving Shooting sto ck..................................... Eastman associations to familiar environments.

Synopsis: Sir Edmund Hillaryand a group of friends set out to climb India andcome face to face with its sheer size and diversity.

M A K E WAY FO R T H E M A C H IN E S Prod, company...

Synopsis: A dramatised documentary exam­ ining the impact of European migration on the alpine areas of Australia focusing on the history of snow skiing.

M Y S T E R IE S D O W N U N D E R Prod, company........Channel Communications (Film Investments) Ltd Dist. company............... EVP Television Pty Ltd Producer.................................................. WayneGroom Scriptwriter................................................. BarryGroom Exec, producer..........................................KevinMoore Length.........................................6 x 60 minutes Gauge....................................................... Video Synopsis: Australian ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not’ — little known facts about Australia.

N A T U R E O F A U S T R A L IA (Working title) Prod, company..........ABC Natural History Unit Producers.................................. Dione Gilmour, David Parer Directors.................................... Dione Gilmour, David Parer Scriptwriter................................................. JohnVandenbeld Exec, producer........................................... JohnVandenbeld Length......................................... 6 x 55 minutes Gauge....................................................... 16mm Shooting stock.............................Eastman neg.

Synopsis: The evolution of the Australian continent — animals and plants.

A P A L E T T E FO R A S W O R D

Prod, company...............................Yarra Bank Films Pty Ltd Dist. company.................................Ronin Films Producer......................................... Ned Lander Director..................................... Trevor Graham Scriptwriter.....................Charles Mereweather Photography..............................John Whitteron Sound recordist........................... George Craig Editor............................................Tony Stevens Prod, m anager............................ Daniel Scharf Prod, accountants................ Natalie Rothman, Helen Gailbraith Camera assistant...................... Mandy Walker Runner........................................... Chris Hunter Prod, company........ Independent Productions Laboratories........................................ Cinevex, H O PE S T R E E T Dist. company......... Independent Distributors Colorfilm (Working title) Producer............................................Peter Butt Length.............................................. 60 minutes Prod, company............East West Films Pty Ltd Director.............................................. Peter Butt Gauge....................................................... 16mm Producer.......................................... Ivan Hexter Exec, producer............................ Graham Ford Shooting stock.................................... Fuji 8521 Director............................................ Ivan Hexter Length.............................................. 50 minutes Cast: Yosl Bergner, Jim Wigley, Ruth Bergner, Prod, manager................................. Sue Hexter Synopsis: Investigates the effect of new George Luke.

Laboratory.................................................... VFL technology on work and leisure in capitalist Synopsis: A Palette for a Sword is a documen­ Length.............................................. 50 minutes society. tary about art and artists, ideals and commit­ Gauge....................................................... 16mm ment, culture and politics. It is the story of Shooting stock................................. 7291,7294 painter Yosl Bergner and his sister, Ruth, a M E T A L M A K E R S Synopsis: Hope Street is the story of youth dancer, who came to Australia to escape the homelessness. It is through a group of resi­ Prod, company...........................ABC/Comalco growing dangers of anti-semitism and fascism dents at a youth refuge that we come to under­ Dist. company....................................... ABC TV in their Polish homeland. In Melbourne, they stand homelessness, the reasons for it, the Producer.................................................... RobinJames become part of a vital artistic movement Director..................................................... RobinJames stresses it creates and the consequences for searching for an art to reflect the great social our young characters.

Scriptwriter................................................RobinJames upheavals of the thirties and forties.

Sound recordist..................................... QuentinBlack Editor.......................................... David Halliday IN D E P E N D E N T C O M P A N Y P A R R O T S O F A U S T R A L IA Exec, producer........................................HarveyShore Prod, company..................Media World Pty Ltd Synopsis: A documentary about the people Prod, com pany.......................................... YohoProductions Producers...................................................ColinSouth, and the processes appertaining to the manu­ Dist. company....................... Documentaries of John Tatoulis facture of aluminium products.

Australasia Director....................................................... ColinSouth Producer....................................................GrantYoung Scriptwriter............................................... PhillipDalkin Director......................................................GrantYoung Based on the novel M O U N T A IN S O F C H A N G E Scriptwriter................................................ GrantYoung by............................................Bernard Callinan Exec, producer........Channel Communications Prod, company............. ...Entertainment Media Synopsis: The story of the Australian forces Budget.............................$95,000 (per episode) Producer........................................ Peter Beilby who fought in Timor from 1941-1943.

Length......................................... 7 x 30 minutes Director......................... .................. Peter Hicks Gauge....................................................... 16mm Scriptwriters................. ................. Peter Hicks, Synopsis: Episodes 7-13 of a documentary Gib Wettenhall J A C K P IZ Z E Y IN A U S T R A L IA series about parrots of Australia.

Photography................ .........Steve Thompson Prod, company.........................Phillip Emanuel Sound recordist........... .............. Geoff Spurrell Productions Ltd Editor............................ .................John Dutton F IR S T N A T IO N A L B LA C K Producer.................................Peter Thompson P U S H K A R FA IR Exec, producers........... ............. Robert Le Tet, P L A Y W R IG H T S C O N F E R E N C E Exec, producer.........................Phillip Emanuel Anne Basser Prod, com pany.....................Mediacast Pty Ltd Length...........................................5x50 minutes (Working title) Prod, coordinator......... ....................Hilary May Dist. company.......Pahlaj Bajaj & Co., Bombay Gauge.......................................................16mm Producer..................................Richard Guthrie Producer............................................ Jim Dale Prod, manager............. ..................Tony Leach Cast: Jack Pizzey (Presenter).

Director....................................Richard Guthrie Director...................................................MichaelDillon Prod, secretary............ ...........Kelly O’Sullivan Synopsis: A look at the Australian way of life Photography............................ Jerry Brookman Scriptwriter...................... Professor W. Geddes Archival film research... ............. Emma Shmith as seen by an ‘outsider’.

Editor...................................... Peter Somerville Sound recordist...................................... GeorgeWeis Script editors................ ......................Ross Bill, Editor...........................................Denise Hunter Exec, producer.............................Kevin Moore, Alison Nisselle LA B O U R O F LO V E Camera operator.......... .........Steve Thompson Exec, producer................................ Brian Syron Channel Communications Prod, company........................... Pumpkin Films 2nd unit photography..........................John Hall Camera assistant.......................Harry Gordon Prod, manager..............................Hazel Joyner Producer................................................. MartynDownMake-up/hair................ ............ Vicki Friedman Prod, accountant............................... Riva Dale Neg. matching........................................... Chris Rowell Director...............................Harriet Clutterbuck Wardrobe...................... ............ Vicki Friedman Laboratory.......................................... Colorfilm Laboratory..............................................

CFL Exec, producer.............................................BobPlasto Music research............. ............David Cheshire Lab. liaison.................................................KerryJenkin Budget................................................... $67,262 Assoc, producer............................ Mary Moody Sound editor................ ............ Steve Lambeth Length.............................................................50minutes Length............................................................. 50minutes Length............................................48 minutes Mixed a t........................ ..........Film Soundtrack Gauge....................................................... 16mm Gauge........................................................ l6mm Synopsis: A Labour of Love examines the Laboratory..................... ..............................VFL Shooting stock.........................Eastman Kodak Shooting stock..................................7291,7292 issues of homebirth and domiciliary midwifery Lab. liaison................... ................ Bruce Braun Synopsis: Shot entirely on location in India, Synopsis: An historic firstgathering of Abor­ in Australia.

The experiences of three families Length.......................... ...................53 minutes this documentary features the colourful, iginal stage and screen writers, actors and and three midwives will be traced over many Pushkar Fair, in the district of Rajasthan.

Gauge........................... ...........................16mm directors to workshop their own plays.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 69

P

R

O P XX c : I I O N S U R V E Y

Laboratory........................................... Colorfilm THE ROAD Lab. liaison................................... Kerry Jenkin Prod, company..........................Concrete Films Budget................................................ $216,600 Producer.................................................... KerryO’Rourke Length..............................................50 minutes Director...................................................... KerryO’Rourke Gauge.......................................................

16mm Scriptwriter................................................KerryO’Rourke Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Photography............................................MarianRedmond Synopsis: This is a film about the Third World Sound recordist..............................Kieran Knox and one man’s fight against oppression. Father Editor............................................ Pat Laugh ren Brian Gore, the Australian priest charged with Laboratories........................................Cinefilm, multiple murder and imprisoned by the Marcos Atlab regime, returns to Negros.

Through his eyes, Length..............................................50 minutes we see how people robbed of their self-respect Gauge.......................................................16mm are able to rescue their dignity and their rights.

Synopsis: A documentary on prisons as an institution and social idea, with particular focus on the Queensland prison system.

A WORLD OF FESTIVALS Prod, company............... Barinder Productions Pty Ltd Prod, company.................................Neon Emu Producer......................................... Joy Barrow Productions Directors.....................................David Barrow, Producer................................................DorothyWardale Barry Sloane Director................................. Terrence Maybury Scriptwriters................................David Barrow, Scriptwriter...........................Terrence Maybury Barry Sloane Based on the original idea Editor.............................................Colin Greive by......................................Terrence Maybury Exec, producer.................................Bob Plasto Photography............................. John Robinson Length......................................12 x 30 minutes Sound recordist........................... Sandra Jacks Synopsis: A documentary series featuring Editor............................................... Paul Payne twelve European festivals. Each episode uses Composer................................................ JamesHewgill the present-day people engaged in celebration 1st asst director......................................BeverlyPoynton to reflect the saga of events and changes that Laboratory..............................................CustomVideohave modified and shaped their society Budget.................................................. $41,000 through time.

Length............................................................ 40minutes Gauge.................................................. BetacamVideo Shooting stock..... Super 8 ,1 6mm, Standard 8, Video Synopsis: Sky’s Witness is a speculative docu­ mentary which will deal with the historical development of the Western Australian wheat belt of Quairading. Utilising home movie footage, stills, archive material and seasonally AL DENTE shot Super 8 footage it will attempt to portray Producers......................................Chris Undy, different interpretations of history (e.g.

Karl Goiser scientific, artistic, business, agriculture, abor­ Directors........................................ Chris Undy, iginal and religious) through the eyes of a child Karl Goiser narrator. While dealing with the history of a Scriptwriters..................................Chris Undy, particular area it will also question the idea of Karl Goiser history.

Photography..................................Chris Undy,

SKY’S WITNESS

S

H

O

R

T

S

Length..............................................30 minutes Gauge...................................................... 16mm Shooting stock.........................................ECN Cast: The Bennett family (as themselves).

Synopsis: An autobiographical portrait of a father/daughter relationship, using home movie footage dating from 1956. A portrayal of the emotional complexity between the patriarch and the young woman. A daughter's story.

INSATIABLE Prod, company................... .... Open Channel Producer............................ ..Peter Kaufmann Director.............................. .David Chesworth Scriptwriter......................... .David Chesworth Based on the original idea by.................................... .David Chesworth Photography....................... .Vladimir Osherov Sound recordist................. ..Chris Thompson Composer........................... .David Chesworth Prod, manager.................... ..... Wendy Clarke Prod, accountant............... .... James Pearce 1st asst director................. ...Fiona Cochrane Continuity........................... ...Fiona Cochrane Camera operator............... ........ Sonia Leber Key grip.............................. .... Peter Kershaw Gaffer................................. .........Greg Harris Boom operator................... .........Tim Stobart Art director......................... .... Kerith Holmes Asst art director.................. .Belinda Bennetts Make-up............................. ....... Lloyd James Music performed by............ .David Chesworth Tech, adviser...................... ...... Brian Sollors Laboratory.......................... .... Open Channel Budget............................... .............. $34,000 Length................................ ..........30 minutes Gauge................................ .............. 1" video Shooting stock................... ....................BVU Cast: John Concannon (John), Di Emery (Di), Jackie Rutten (Jackie), Lloyd Fleming (Lloyd).

Synopsis: An operatic drama where four people turn up for an audition in an old theatre.

As the drama unfolds, their differences become apparent.

Mixed at............................................ Soundfirm Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Budget............................................ $30,965 Length..............................................16 minutes Gauge....................................................... 16mm Shooting stock...................................7291 ECN Synopsis: “ Hmmm . . . when you close your eyes . . ,” speculates Nobody-Else, thus evoking a dream in Rebecca’s mind, where unfolds the story of Grosmond, supposedly a bunyip, and his whacking tail and many teeth.

Grosmond laments the loss of Middriffini, the cause of his greatest toothache. Middriffini’s mysterious identity is eventually revealed, and her spectacular return delights Grosmond. An animated tragicomedy.

RACE OF FOOLS Producer.................................. Frank Gapinski Animator....................................Frank Gapinski Narrator........................................ Peter Nolloth Length..............................................12 minutes Gauge................................ ..................... 16mm Synopsis: A savage satire on life’s rich tapestry and the struggle to climb the greasy pole.

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION FILM

AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN INNOVATION

Prod, company........................... Film Australia Dist. company............................ Film Australia Producer..........................................John Shaw Director........................................... Ian Munro Scriptwriters..................................... Ian Munro, KENNY’S LOVE Con Anemogiannis Based on the original idea Producers....................................Robert Jones, Karl Goiser by........................................... Harry Bardwell Rowan Woods Composer.....................................Leigh Hobba Photography.............................. Andrew Fraser Director...................................................RowanWoods VINCENT, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF Sound mix...................................... Julian Scott Sound recordist.................... Rodney Simmons Scriptwriters............................. Rowan Woods, VINCENT VAN GOGH (Tasmanian Film Corp.)

Editor............................................ Robin Archer Catherine Birmingham Prod, company................................ IlluminationFilmsLaboratory............................................. Cinevex Exec, producer.............................Geoff Barnes Photography...........................Joshua Dodson, Budget.....................................................$6,500 Producers......................Tony Llewellyn-Jones, Prod, manager..............................Ron Hannam George Evatt Length..............................................10 minutes Will Davies Unit manager......................Con Anemogiannis Sound recordists.......................................RoseCoates, Gauge....................................................... 16mm Director................................................. Paul Cox Prod, secretary......................Margaret Crewes Edy Jokovitch Shooting stock................. Tri-X, 7240 Reversal Based on the original idea b y .............. Paul Cox Prod, accountant......................... Stephen Kain Assoc, producer..........................................NickMeyers Cast: Chris Hewitt (Father), Trish Maluta Asst editor...........Mary Jane St. Vincent Welsh Prod, designer.................................... Asher Bilu 1st asst directors..................................... RobertJones, (Mother), Oliver Reindl (Son), Drew Krapf Studios........................................Film Australia Prod, assistant............................ Fiona Eagger James Hughes (Cowboy), Peter W illiam son (Cowboy), Laboratory.................................................

Atlab Continuity................................Ellen Comiskey, Prod, accountant.................... Santhana Naidu Amanda Hinley (New Bride).

Lab. liaison......................................... Bill Inglis Louise MacDonald Camera operator...................................PaulCox Synopsis: A yellow spaghetti blob attacks a Length........................................

5 x 29 minutes Lighting consultants...................................JessTapper, Camera assistant....................Brendan Lavelle suburban family, kills some of them and then Gauge....................................................... 16mm Francisco Vidinha Key g rip .................................. Paul Ammitzboll gets killed. The survivor remarries. The Camera operators...................

Shooting stock.............................Eastmancolor Robert Herbert, Costume designer...................................Jennie Tate newlyweds are shot by a cowboy.

S ynopsis: Australian Innovation is an Joshua Dodson Costume construction......................... BeverleyBoyd incisive and informative look at innovation in Camera assistant...................................... IsayoKimura Carpenters.............................. Kosta Kostoski, FLESH WILL EAT Australia. It examines past and present Art directors................. Catherine Birmingham, Walter Sperl achievements and the importance that innova­ Prod, company......................Base Productions Rowan Woods Mixed a t..................................Hendon Studios Producer...................................... Kathy Drayton Standby props........................................SimoneBarrytion has in shaping Australia’s future.

Laboratory............................................ Cinevex Neg. matching......................... TonyGrummels Director........................................ Kathy Drayton Gauge...................................................... 35 mm Based on the original idea M ixer......................................................... PeterPurcell AUSTRALIAN TRAINEESHIP Shooting stock.............................................Fuji by..............................................Kathy Drayton Still photography..................... Ellen Comiskey SYSTEM Synopsis: A film about the life and work of Photography.............................................. TiborGulyas Dubbing editor............................................ NickMeyers Prod, company.............................Film Australia Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890).

Sound recordist............................... Peter Read Length............................................................ 19minutes Producer......................................Rob McAuley Editor............................................Kathy Drayton Gauge....................................................... 16mm Director................................................. Ian Host Composer.........................................Peter Read Shooting stock............................................ Agfa Scriptwriter................................Andrew Denton Neg. matching...........................................ChrisRowell Cast: Sarah Woods, Rowan Woods, Don Opie, WHERE SHE DARES Photography.............................. Andrew Fraser Musical director............................... Peter Read Virginia Boyle, Jeff Rhoe.

Sound recordist......................................HowardSpry Prod, company........................ Gittoes & Dalton Music performed b y ........................ Peter Read Synopsis: A world of hotdogs, imaginary girl­ Editor......................................................... AnnaWhite Productions Limited Still photography..........................................MelBroefriends and football.

Prod, designer......................... Larry Eastwood Dist. company............................................ABC, Mixed a t ........................................ Palm Studios Exec, producer........................... Ron Saunders Devillier & Donegan Enterprises, USA Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm Prod, supervisor......................................GeraldLetts Producers............................................Gabrielle Dalton, THE MAGIC PORTAL Lab. liaison............................Warren Keathers Prod, manager........................................

GeraldLetts George Gittoes Budget...................................................$15,000 Producer............................................... LindsayFleay Prod, secretary.......................................MaggieLake Director..................................... George Gittoes Length............................................................ 25minutes Director................................................. LindsayFleay Prod, accountant.......................

Geoff Appleby Scriptwriters.......................................... GeorgeGittoes, Gauge....................................................... 16mm Scriptwriter............................................ LindsayFleayCasting............................................. Joe Scully Gabrielle Dalton Shooting stock........................................... 7292 Photography..........................................LindsayFleayGaffers............................ Guy Bessell-Browne, Based on the original idea Synopsis: Experimental documentary on Prod, supervisor............. George Borzyskowski John Briden-Brown, b y .......................................... George Gittoes bodies, architecture, eating habits, sexuality, Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Ian Bosman hamburger shops, dancing, elevators, Photography...........................................GeorgeGittoes, Budget.....................................................$7,800 Make-up....................................... Sally Gordon David Perry demolishing, heroin, redevelopment, stupidity, Length............................................................ 17minutes Sound editor.................................Kathy Fenton hospitals, the sky, toilets, catastrophes, bikie Gauge....................................................... 16mm Sound recordist......................Chris Thompson Mixer................................................. Geoff Stitt slayings, corridors and brain damage.

Shooting stock...........................................7291 Editor...................................Dereck Wenderski Length..............................................12 minutes Synopsis: Three Lego characters in a Lego Prod, secretary.................................Lynn Teda Cast: Tina Bursill, Phillip Ross, Andrew Inglis. spaceship discover the Magic Portal, which Prod, accountant...................................... DavidBarnes, GOOD CLEAN FUN Synopsis: A promotional video to tell employ­ can transport them to other animated realms.

Remarkable Film Computers Producer........................... ....Merilee Bennett ers involved in training staff about the Depart­ However, as the film progresses, it also Prod, assistant.......................... Patricia Waites Director............................. ....Merilee Bennett ment of Employment and Industrial Relations transports them to reality and also into the Laboratory........................................... Colorfilm Scriptwriter......................... ....Merilee Bennett government funded trainee system. animation set they are being filmed in. Film and Budget.................................................$217,000 Based on the original idea real world collide with interesting results.

Length............................................................ 58minutes b y .................................... ....Merilee Bennett Gauge....................................................... 16mm Photography....................... Maria Barbagallo, Shooting sto ck........................................... 7291 THE BIG GIG Merilee Bennett MIDDRIFFINI Sound recordist................. .... Vince Agostino Synopsis: A three-part series about women Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia Producer................................. Sabrina Schmid Editor................................. ....Merilee Bennett writers on the frontline. Part 1 features five Dist. company..............................................Film Australia Director................................... Sabrina Schmid Composer........................... .Douglas Knehans Nicaraguan women; Part 2 follows five women Producer......................................... Don Murray Scriptwriters..........................Sabrina Schmid, Prod, manager.................. ..... Jane Karslake in Africa; and Part 3 looks at five women in the Director............................................ KarIZwicky Gregory Pryor Lighting cameraperson...... ..Maria Barbagallo Middle East frontlines, including Australian Scriptwriter................................................ SteveJohnson Based on the original idea Camera operator................ ..Maria Barbagallo journalist, Dianne Willman.

Exec, producer............................ Tristram Miall b y .........................................

Sabrina Schmid Asst editors......................... .Maria Barbagallo, Prod, manager....................... Virginia Pridham SFX, atmos............................. Jon McCormack Vince Agostino, Prod, secretary.......................................DesireePfeiffer Editor...................................... Sabrina Schmid Jane Karslake Prod, accountant......................................DavidTrestrail THE WHITE MONKEY Neg. matching........ .........Ursula Jung Composer............................................. Ian Cox Publicity........................... Lesa-Belle Furhagen Prod, company.........................................CurtisLevyMusical director..... .Douglas Knehans Animation/rostrum Studios........................................................ FilmAustralia Productions Pty Ltd Music performed by. .Douglas Knehans camera operator................................ SabrinaSchmid Mixed a t....................................................... FilmAustralia Dist. company........................................... CurtisLevySound editors.......... ...Vince Agostino, Neg. matching..................................... WarwickDriscoll Budget................................................ $235,000 Productions Pty Ltd Merilee Bennett Music performed b y.............................. Ian Cox Length..............................................20 minutes Producer...................................................CurtisLevyNarrator.................. ...Merilee Bennett Sound editors........................................SabrinaSchmid, Gauge....................................................... video Director.....................................................CurtisLevyStill photography.... ..Merilee Bennett, David Atkinson Synopsis: A stylistic parody of youthScriptwriter............................................... CurtisLevy Maria Barbagallo Character voices........................Gregory Pryor, orientated B-grade science fiction movies, Based on the original idea by.......... Curtis Levy Opticals................... ................Cinevex dealing with driving skills of young drivers. It Merryn Gates Photography..................................David Knaus Title designer.......... ...Merilee Bennett Animation.............................................. SabrinaSchmid covers a night’s activities of a group of young Sound recordist.............................Leo Sullivan Mixed a t.................. ..........Sound Firm Title designer......................................... SabrinaSchmid friends on their way to the Big Gig. Visiting Editor....................................... Stewart Young Laboratory...............

Sound recording ................Cinevex aliens observe them, commenting on their pro­ Prod, manager.........................Christine Olsen Budget.................... gress and are finally forced to intervene. ................$23,300 studios................. Film Soundtrack Australia

70 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

Prod, accountant.......................... Neil Cousins CALLING AUSTRALIA Prod, assistant........................... Susan Dietrich Prod, company............................................. FilmAustralia Camera assistant..............................Jim Ward Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia Electrician...................................... Ian Bosman Director...................................................GrahamShirley Boom operator.................................. Kate Gunn Scriptwriter............................................ GrahamShirley Art director......................................Jane Norris Photography.......................................Ross King Wardrobe.................................... Angela Knight Sound recordist.................... Rodney Simmons Mixed a t.......................................Film Australia Exec, producer........................... Geoff Barnes Length.........................................6 x 10 minutes Prod, manager..............................................RonHannam Gauge...................................................Betacam Prod, secretary.....................Margaret Crewes SERVICE SPECIALIST Synopsis: Programmes for school children on Prod, accountant.........................Stephen Kain government and the people.

Synopsis: In 1943, the Imperial Japanese Army Secret Service forced a group of Austra­ lian servicemen to appear in a film to show the ‘exemplary conditions’ under which prisoners FILM AUSTRALIA’S AUSTRALIA of war were treated by Nippon, and also to soften up the Australian public for the antici­ Film Australia’s Australia is a series of twelve pated occupation of their country by Japanese video programmes with supporting discussion forces. For 40 years, the making of this film notes. remained a mystery. This documentary tells why the film was made and how it has come to W ORK be forgotten.

Prod, company............................................. FilmAustralia/ Australian Bicentennial Authority Dist. company............................. Film Australia 1st FLOOR, 29 COLLEGE ST Producer.......................................................JanPunch C L O S E U P — A U S T R A L IA N Director........................................................ StanDalby GLADESVILLE NSW 2111 A N IM A L S Educational consultant................................ TedMyers Prod, company............................................. FilmAustralia PH: (02) 816 3371 Research.................................................... JudyAdamson Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia Based on the original idea Producer......................................................John Shaw by........................................................ SunnarIsaacson, Director........................................................John Shaw Norman Baker Scriptwriter...................................... ChristopherLee Photography....................Mick von Bornemann Photography............................................... JohnShawSound recordist......................................HowardSpry Editor..................................... Jamie Robertson Dubbing editor.............................................. RonTaylor Exec, producer......................................Tristram Miall Exec, producer........................... Geoff Barnes Prod, manager.................................. Ian Adkins Prod, manager............................ Ron Hannam Prod, secretary......................... Desiree Pfeiffer Prod, secretary..................... Margaret Crewes Prod, accountant...................................... DavidTrestrail Prod, accountant.........................Stephen Kain Asst editor.............................Claire Williamson Narrator...............................Annette Shun Wah Musical director..........................................MarsLasarFilm archivist.............................. Judy Adamson Music performed by.................................... MarsLasarResearch a sst.................................... GeraldineCrown M ixer.......................................................GeorgeHart Synopsis: A programme showing how dif­ Publicity........................... Lesa-Belle Furhagen ferent types of work have evolved in Australia.

Studios......................................................... FilmAustralia Attitudes to work are examined, as well as the Mixed a t........................................................ FilmAustralia issues of unionism, industrial disease, job Budget...................................................$54,910 retraining and unemployment.

Length.............................................................55minutes Gauge........................................... 16mm/video LA N D Cast: Dr Michael Archer (Presenter).

Prod, company........................... Film Australia/ Synopsis: An entertaining and informative Australian Bicentennial Authority video on seven Australian animals, presented Dist. company..............................................FilmAustralia

by Dr Michael Archer, a zoologist at the Uni­ Producer..........................................Jan Punch versity of NSW. The animals featured are the koala, echidna, kangaroo, platypus, numbat, Director........................... Paul Woolston-Smith crocodile and the Tasmanian tiger.

Educational consultant....................Ted Myers Photography................... Mick von Bornemann Sound recordist............................Howard Spry Video editor................................................. PaulHumfress ~ 1 0 5 /6 -8 CLARKE ST., CROWS NEST. NSW. 2065 COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE Dubbing editor.................................. Ron Taylor ELDERLY Exec, producer............................ Geoff Barnes Prod, company.............................Film Australia Prod, manager............................. Ron Hannam Producer.................................... Ron Saunders Prod, secretary......................Margaret Crewes D irector..................................... Susan Cornwell Prod, accountant.................................. StephenKain Scriptwriter............................... Susan Cornwell Make-up.................................... Brita Kingsbury Photography............................................... John Hosking Sound mixer.....................................Geoff Stitt Sound recordist...............................Mark Lewis Narrator..............................Annette Shun Wah Editor......................................... Lindsey Fraser Research asst.................................... GeraldineCrown Exec, producer.......................... Ron Saunders Film archivist.............................................. JudyAdamson Prod, manager............................. Gerald Letts Synopsis: A look at Australia’s physical land­ Prod, secretary............................. Maggie Lake scape. The programme examines flora and Prod, accountant....................................... GeoffAppleby fauna and uses some excellent early footage.

Camera assistant.............................John Scott Asst editor..................................... Katie James P O L IT IC S Mixer...................................................Geoff Stitt Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia/ Length.............................................................20minutes Australian Bicentennial Authority Synopsis: A documentary for the Department Dist. company............................. Film Australia of Community Services on the range of care, Producer.......................................................JanPunch community services and accommodation avail­ Director.......................................................... IanWalker able for the very elderly. It looks at the assess­ Educational consultant................................ TedMyers ment of work done by a geriatric unit at Research....................................................JudyAdamson Hornsby District Hospital.

Based on the original idea by.........................................................SunnarIsaacson Exec, producer............................Geoff Barnes DJUNGGUWAN AT GURKA’WUY Prod, manager.............................Ron Hannam (PART I & PART II) Prod, secretary.................................... MargaretCrewes Prod, company............................ Film Australia Prod, accountant......................... Stephen Kain Dist. company............................. Film Australia Narrator...............................Annette Shun Wah Producer........................................................ IanDunlop Synopsis: An examination of Australian poli­ Director...........................................................IanDunlop tical history beginning with Federation. The MASCARADE... a team of experienced, highly trained professionals geared Photography...............................................DeanSemler programme looks at forms of government, the Sound recordist...................................... RodneySimmons electoral system, democracy at work, govern­ to produce the face, the look, the feel you need ... for film, television, Editors............................................................IanDunlop, ment services, and how public attitudes to Sharon Bell government have changed. theatre, video and still photography.

Exec, producer............................ Tristram Miall Prod, manager.................................. Ian Adkins MASCARADE... competent specialists in Period make-up, Special Effects Prod, secretary....................................... DesireePfeiffer Prod, accountant........................................ John Russell make-up, Advanced Prosthetics (face casting).

Editor/director................................. Sharon Bell Budget................................................. $180,000(approx.) F IT N E S S — M A K E IT Y O U R B U S IN E S S 2 MASCARADE... the make-up agency in Melbourne for professional make­ Length......................................... 2 x 50 minutes Synopsis: A clan leader invites Film Australia Prod, company............................Film Australia up needs. to record the first ceremony to be held at his Dist. company.............................Film Australia new clan homeland settlement in northeast Director................................................. Ian Host Arnhem Land. The films show the organisation Exec, producer........................... Geoff Barnes The agency has grown from the unique Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, and performance of a ceremony in a contem­ Prod, manager............................ Ron Hannam porary setting and explore the significance of Prod, secretary...................... Margaret Crewes established in 1984 to ensure the professional training of future make-up the clan homeland movement.

Prod, accountant........................ Stephen Kain Synopsis: A follow-up to the successful Fitness artists.

— Make It Your Business video produced for the Department of Health, Recreation and ELECTORAL INFORMATION VIDEOS Graduates from the Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, and experienced Tourism.

Prod, company............................................. FilmAustralia make-up artists working for MASCARADE, are all members of the Make-Up Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia HOM ELESS Producer........................................Alistair Innés Artists Association of Victoria, ensuring the level of excellence.

Prod, company........................... Film Australia Director....................................................... GregReading Dist. company............................ Film Australia Scriptwriter..................................................GregReading Producer....................................................JanetBell Photography.......................... Peter Viskovich, Enquiries for the agency or the school, please call Shirley Reynolds on Director...................................Philip Robertson Bruce Hogan Scriptwriter............................. Philip Robertson (03) 32 9 1403 or (A.H.) (03) 68 3435.

Sound recordist......................Bronwyn Murphy Photography.................................. Andy Fraser Editors........................................... Anna Whyte, Sound recordist.................... Rodney Simmons Nancy Allen Exec, producer..........................................JanetBell Exec, producer.................................. Janet Bell Prod, manager......................... Nigel Saunders Prod, manager........................Virginia Pridham Unit manager................................................... DiHenry Unit manager......................... Marguerite Grey

MOTION PICTURESERVICES • AATON • ARRIFLEX • BELL & HOWELL • C.P. •!

• ECLAIR • CANON & ZEISS LENSES • • CUSTOM MODIFICATIONS •

Lens collimation and repair facilities for all film and video lenses.

Your complete Negative Matching Service,

including: • Time Coding onto 8 " Floppy Disc • Super 16mm • Syncing Neg or Pos Rushes • Edge-Coding Service ("Rubber Numbering") • Tight deadlines our speciality • 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if required. Contact Greg Chapman on

(¡THU Kminit02,,39 3m

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 71

P

R

O S

D U C T U R V

I

O E

N Y

media training materials for small business between science, technology and society, Prod, secretary.............. Amanda Etherington NAVY’S 75TH management education and training pro­ which continue to shape our perceptions of Prod, accountant.......................... Neil Cousins Prod, company............................Film Australia grammes.

Length............................................................ 25minutes progress, are scrutinized and re-evaluated.

Dist. company.............................Film Australia Gauge.......................................................16mm Producer........................................Aviva Ziegler THE WAVES THAT SHAPED Synopsis: Documentary programme made for Director....................................................... NickTorrens R OCK A R T the International Year of Shelter for the Home­ AUSTRALIA Photography................................ Steve Mason, less.

Prod, company...........................

Film Australia Mike Edols Prod, company............................Film Australia Dist. company............................ Film Australia Sound recordists......................................... LeoSullivan, Dist. company............... ..............Film Australia Producer...........................................Janet Bell JUST AUSTRALIAN AEROPLANES Howard Spry Director............................ Paul Woolston-Smith Director.......................................David Roberts Editor...........................................................NickTorrens Scriptwriter......................Paul Woolston-Smith Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Scriptwriter................................ David Roberts Exec, producer............................Tristram Miall Photography.............................. John Hosking, Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Photography................................Andy Fraser Prod, manager..................................Ian Adkins Mick von Bornemann Producer.................................Dick Collingridge Sound recordist............................Howard Spry Unit manager..............................Pauline Chan Sound recordist............................Howard Spry Photography.............................................. John Hosking Editor...........................................

Ray Thomas Prod, secretary..........................Desiree Pfeiffer Editors.........................................................PaulHumfress, Sound recordist............................. Howard Spry Composer.................................Gondwanaland Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell Ron Taylor Exec, producer.............................Tristram Miall Exec, producer................................. Janet Bell Asst editor..................................... Linda Kruger Exec, producer........................... Geoff Barnes Prod, manager.................................. Ian Adkins Prod, manager......................... Nigel Saunders Neg. matching............................Film Australia Prod, manager.......................................VirginiaPridham Prod, secretary.......................................DesireePfeiffer Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington Mixed a t.......................................Film Australia Prod, secretary....................................MargaretCrewes Prod, accountant......................................DavidTrestrail Prod, accountant...........................Neil Cousins Laboratory............................................Cinefilm Prod, accountant.........................Stephen Kain Publicity.......................... Lesa-Belle Furhagen Budget................................................ $135,197 Camera assistant...................................RodneyHindsSound mixer........................................... GeorgeHart Studios.........................................Film Australia Asst editor.................................. Gary O’Grady Length............................................................50minutes Synopsis: The story of the waves of immi­ Mixed a t........................................Film Australia Length............................................................30minutes Gauge....................................................... 16mm grants who have come to Australia over the Budget................................................. $52,305 Gauge...................................................... 35mm past two hundred years.

Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Length............................................90 minutes Synopsis: Billy Harney, son of famous Synopsis: An observational style documentary Gauge...................................................... Video author/raconteur Bill Harney, takes us 200km which will follow a number of sailors from ships Synopsis: Successor to Just Australian Trains; WORLD OF WORK west of Katherine in the Northern Territory taking part in the Australian Navy’s 75th Anni­ compiled from 2-3 hours of Film Australia through Wardaman country, to visit the Prod, company............................ Film Australia versary, and some of the Australian girls out for archival footage shot on Australian aeroplanes, magnificent rock painting sites associated with Dist. company............................. Film Australia a good time. They will interweave the stories of including first release dramatic war footage. It the mythology of the Lightning Brothers. Cere­ Producer......................................Tristram Miall a number of the selected participants from features stories on Flying Boats, F111 s, monies related to these paintings, which have Director..........................................Daryl Dellora their arrival: living with them for nine days of gliding, the history of the RAAF, the Flying not been performed for 40 years, have been Sound recordists............................Dale Sadler, the visit, sharing their fun and observing their Doctor Service and other classic aircraft. recorded in this film which underlines the Ray Carlson experiences and final farewells.

Editor............................................ Daryl Dellora importance of the preservation of these paint­ A LONG NIGHT WITH LETHAL Exec, producer..................................... TristramMiall ings, as part of both Australian and world GUESTS (MALARIA) Prod, manager.............................................. IanAdkins heritage.

REAL LIFE SERIES 1 Prod, secretary.............Desiree Pfeiffer (Working title) Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell Prod, company.......................... Film Australia S O U N D S LIKE A U S T R A L IA G E T T IN G S T R A IG H T Reporter.....................................................PeterMcEvoy Dist. company........................... Film Australia Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Camera operator........................................JohnHosking Prod, company...........................Film Australia Director........................................ Oliver Howes Dist. company............................ Film Australia Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Budget.................................................. $22,029 Scriptwriter...................................Oliver Howes Length............................................................20 minutes Producer................................................. MacekRubetzki Producer.....................................Tristram Miall Editor.............................................Ray Thomas Synopsis: A video programme aimed at Year Director................................. Phillip Robertson Director.....................................................JamieRobertson Exec, producer............................ Geoff Barnes 10 students.

Micros Rule OK is the pilot Photography..............................................TonyWilson Scriptwriter.............................................. JamieRobertson Prod, manager............................. Ron Hannam episode of a proposed series which deals with Photography............................................. SteveWindon, Sound recordist...................... Bronwyn Murphy Prod, secretary......................Margaret Crewes new technologies being introduced and how Editor........................................................... RayThomas Jim Frazier Prod, accountant.......................Stephen Kain they will affect young people in and out of work Sound recordist......................... Max Hennser Exec, producer........................................... TomHaydon Length............................................................ 48minutes and Editor........................................................JamieRobertsonschool.

Assoc, producer............................................ IanAdkins Gauge.........................................16mm to video Length............................................................ 75minutes Composers.....................................Kevin Peek, Synopsis: Research into malaria, especially Mars Lasar Gauge...................................................... 16mm finding a vaccine, is of great importance to Synopsis: The film follows a group of patients Exec, producer..........................................AvivaZiegler Australia. Apart from considerations of world Assoc, producer............................................ IanAdkins from a drug and alcohol treatment clinic during health, it involves our standing as a nation in Unit manager......................................... DebbieSidore their last days in the clinic and the first few this region, and it should be the genesis of an Prod, secretary..........................Desiree Pfeiffer weeks of their return to the community. expanding biotechnology industry, with poten­ Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell tial for Australia and its exports.

Camera assistant.........................Lisa Sharkey KID S IN TR O U B LE Asst editor.....................................Cary Hamlyn Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Neg. matching........................... Film Australia THE MOVERS Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Music performed b y .......................Kevin Peek, Prod, company...........................Film Australia Producer..................................................MacekRubetzki Mars Lasar Dist. company............................Film Australia A ID S Director........................................................ SueCornwell Mixed at...................................... Film Australia Producer.................................... Ron Saunders Photography..............................................TonyWilson Producer...................................Sally Semmens Laboratory.................................................

Atlab Director............................................ Gil Brealey Sound recordist............................................LeoSullivan Scriptwriter................................. Sally Ingleton Budget................................................ $250,000 Scriptwriter............................................... BrucePettyEditor............................................................ LesMcLaren Exec, producer...................................... VincentO’Donnell Length............................................................50minutes Based on the original idea Exec, producer........................................... TomHaydon Length..............................................15 minutes Gauge.............................................

16mm by...........................................................BrucePettyAssoc, producer............................................ IanAdkins Gauge....................................................... 16mm Synopsis: Sounds Like Australia is a music Photography............................. Bruce Hillyard Asst director................................................ LisaNoonan Synopsis: A film explaining to 14-16 year olds film/video featuring Australian musicians Mars Sound recordist......................... Ken Hammond Length............................................................ 65minutes why AIDS is an important issue, how it is trans­ Lasar and Kevin Peek, who create music by Editor......................................................... DavidHuggett Gauge.................................................. 1" video mitted, and where they can get proper informa­ recording natural sounds and then ‘sampling’ Prod, designer..........................Larry Eastwood Synopsis: The film is about the criminal justice tion. them into an Australian designed computer­ Exec, producer.........................Ron Saunders system and its treatment of juvenile offenders. ised musical instrument — the Fairlight. Using Post-prod, supervisor................................... BillInglisThe film includes, for the first time, footage the Fairlight, they bend them tonally and B IC YC LE S A F E T Y Prod, manager.......................................... GerryLettsshot in the Australian court while cases are rhythmically into musical compositions.

Unit manager..............................................VickiSugars Prod, company..... Kooroocheang Productions being heard.

Prod, secretary.............................................. LizWright Producer.......................................Linda House S TO R Y M A K E R S Prod, accountant....................... Geoff Appleby Director........................................Tony Mahood S IN G LE S 1st asst director......................................... GerryLetts Prod, company........................... Film Australia Scriptwriter..................................Jon Stephens Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia 2nd asst director........................................ VickiSugars Dist. company.............................Film Australia Photography................................ David Parker Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Continuity...............................Danuta Morrisey Producer........................................... Janet Bell Exec, producer...................................... VincentO’Donnell Producers.............................. Macek Rubetzki, Researcher (film library)................Tricia Farren Director.........................David Haythornthwaite Budget.................................................. $40,000 Ian Adkins Researcher (stilis/books)......... Sonia Rothbury Scriptwriter................... David Haythornthwaite Length............................................. 20 minutes Director..........................................Karl McPhee Casting..................................................Forcast, Photography............................................. KerryBrownGauge....................................................... 16mm Photography................................. Tony Wilson Rae Davidson Sound recordist......................Bronwyn Murphy Synopsis: A bicycle safety film for late primary Sound recordist.............................Leo Sullivan Camera assistant............................ Ivan Kacer Editor............................................. Ruth Cullen and junior secondary children.

Editor........ ................................ Lindsay Fraser Key g rip........................................... Peter Doig Exec, producer................................. Janet Bell Exec, producer........................................... TomHaydon Gaffer.............................................. Ian Bosman Prod, manager......................... Nigel Saunders B U YIN G A H O U S E W IT H N O M O N E Y Length............................................................ 75minutes Boom operator........................................... MarkKeating Unit manager.......................Corrie Soeterboek Producer.....................................................SallySemmens Gauge..................................................... 16mm Asst art director......................... Rob Robinson Prod, secretary............... Amanda Etherington Scriptwriter...................................Lou Hubbard Synopsis: A foray into the world of the un­ Costume designer................. Tony Jones-Love Prod, accountant...........................Neil Cousins Exec, producer...................................... VincentO’Donnell Make-up................................... Brita Kingsbury attached.

Length.............................................. 30 minutes Budget.................................................. $15,000 Hairdresser..............................Brita Kingsbury Gauge...................................................... 16mm Length.............................................

8 minutes Wardrobe................................. Cheyne Phillips TH E V IS IT Cast: Emily Cannon, Patricia Kennedy.

Synopsis: A short film which explains the key Property master........................................... IgorLazareff Synopsis: The first of a series of documen­ Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia elements of the Home Finance Assistance Props buyer.................................................PetaLawson taries on well-known Australian children’s Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Scheme to low income earners.

Choreography.............. Donald Spencer-Harris writers.

Producer................................................. MacekRubetzki Carpenters.................................... Geoff Howe, Director......................................................

Tony Wheeler Frank Phipps S U B M A R IN E G A M E T O P LA Y Photography................................. Tony Wilson Set construction manager.......... Brian Hocking Sound recordist.............................Leo Sullivan Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia . Props maker.........................Errol Giassenbury Prod, company..................................... OCP Ltd Editor.............................................

Sue Horsley Dist. company.............................................

Film Australia Asst editor................................................. ChrisMcGrath Producer.................................. Sally Semmens Exec, producer........................................... TomHaydon Researcher/scriptwriter............................. June Henman Safety officer............................................BernieLedger Director......................................................JohnNicoll Assoc, producer....................................... ClareEdwards Exec, producer............................Geoff Barnes Still photography................. Robert McFarlane Scriptwriters...................................................JillMorris, Gauge......................................................16mm Prod, manager............................. Ron Hannam Tech, director..........................................DannyDiklich, Mary Lancaster Synopsis: A moving film about a Vietnamese Prod, secretary..................... Margaret Crewes Omnicom Video Pty Limited PhotoaraDhv..............................................KevinAnderson refugee family and the visit to Australia of a son Prod, accountant......................... Stephen Kain Best b o y ............................... Jonathan Hughes Editor................................................... ZbigniewFriedrichs they haven’t seen for four years.

Synopsis: A film about the multiple attacks, by Runner.................................Andrew Dalbosco Exec, producer...................................... VincentO’Donnell air and sea, on Australia by the Japanese Publicity.................................................... LionelMidford Budget.................................................. $27,000 armed forces during World War II, culminating Unit publicist.............................................LionelMidford Gauge......................................................... BVU in the midget submarine raid on Sydney Studios........................................................ FilmAustralia Synopsis: A Game to Play aims to show child­ Harbour. It uses archival footage (much pre­ ren that sport has rewards other than just play­ Mixed a t...................................................... FilmAustralia ROADS TO XANADU viously unseen by the public) and reminis­ Budget................................................ $400,000 ing to win. It presents the case for modifying Prod, company............................ Film Australia cences of Australian and Japanese partici­ Length..............................................58 minutes rules in sport to better suit the physical and Dist. company............................. Film Australia Cast: Drew Forsythe (John), Lorna Lesley pants. emotional needs of children.

Producer..................................... John Merson (Tara), Candy Raymond (Sacha), Bob Baines Director........................................David Roberts (Marcus), Geoff Kelso (Walter), Donald TE C H N O L O G Y A N D B U S IN E S S I W A N N A BE . . .

Scriptwriters................................ John Merson, Spencer-Harris (Bart), Aussie Merciadez E FFIC IE N C Y David Roberts Prod, company................... Seven Dimensions (Helen).

Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Producer.....................................................SallySemmens Based on the original idea Synopsis: The Movers is a comic documentary Dist. company..............................................FilmAustralia by.............................................John Merson Director................................................. Eve Ash about technology and the search for the good Producer....................................... Alistair Innes Exec, producer...........................Geoff Barnes Scriptwriter...............................................KirstieGrant time. A man and a woman push a lounge chair Director.......................................................

Paul Humfress Prod, manager............................Ron Hannam Photography............................Richard Bence, through five different periods of history, Scriptwriter.................................................. PaulHumfress Kathy Chambers Prod, secretary......................Margaret Crewes .’ mechanising it and adding domestic appli­ Photography......................................

Ross King Editor.........................................

Richard Bence Prod, accountant........................Stephen Kain ances to it until, at the end of the film, they Prod, manager....................................... VirginiaPridham Music................................................I'm Talking Synopsis: A four-part series for television that have the chair piled with devices on a ramp Prod, secretary....................................Margaret Crewes Exec, producer......................................

Vincent O’Donnell takes a new look at the dynamic interchange ready for blast off. During the countdown they Prod, accountant......................... Stephen Kain Still photography...................... Ponch Hawkes between Asia and Europe in the modern world. are trying to work out whether they have had Synopsis: Two packages of quality multi­ Budget.................................................. $35,000 The conventional views about the relationship the good time or whether it is still to come.

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION

FILM

72 — MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

VICTORIA

Length.............................................. 25 minutes Gauge......................................................... BVU Synopsis: A film demonstrating women working in the technical areas of the media.

M A R IN E A R C H E O L O G Y

TELEVISION

★

PRE-PRODUCTION

Prod, company.........................................MediaWorld ALW AYS AFTERNO ON Producer.................................................VincentO’Donnell Prod, company....................Afternoon Pictures Director.....................................................RobertGrant Pty Ltd Scriptwriter.............................................. RobertGrant Producer................................... Henry Crawford Photography............................................StevenFlounders Director......................................

David Stevens Sound recordist...................................... PatrickSlate Scriptwriter.................................David Stevens Editor...........................................................MarcGracie Based on the novel b y .....................Gwen Kelly Exec, producer....................................... VincentO’Donnell Prod, designer............................ George Liddle Budget................................................. $20,000 Assoc, producers............................Jan Bladier, Length.............................................................25minutes David Lee Gauge...................................................Betacam Length........................................ 4 x 60 minutes Synopsis: Maritime wrecks are both a scien­ Synopsis: A love story set in 1914. tific and recreational resource. The film presents the case for preserving those wrecks around the Victorian coast.

A R G U IN G T H E T O S S O F A C A T Producers................................................... PaulBrown, Christine Sammers SMOKO Director...............................Christine Sammers Producer................................... Sally Semmens Scriptwriters................................................ PaulBrown, Scriptwriter...................................... Mark Little Christine Sammers Exec, producer....................Vincent O’Donnell Length.............................................................55minutes Budget.................................................. $20,000 Gauge....................................................... 16mmcolour Length..............................................10 minutes Synopsis: Victor the cat prowls and plays in a Gauge....................................................... 16mm working class dockside suburb. Pampered by a Synopsis: A humourous video which illustrates nurse, press-ganged by a drunken sailor, his the benefits of the long service leave scheme favourite residence (where he lets his fur down) to construction workers, and explains why it is belongs to Rose and William, who have sung, compulsory. laughed and argued their way through ten years of unmarried bliss.

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION

*

Lighting Hire * * Special Lighting Effects Microcomputer Lightboards * Single Lanterns ~ Full Rigs (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.

Lighting And Staging Equipment Resources 109 York S t Sth. Melbourne Victoria 3205

(03 ) 690 4879 (02) 698 5585

577 Elizabeth S t Redfem N.SW 2016

ASCOT WIGMAKERS

THE BARTONS

(Working title) Prod, company............................ABC/Revcom Producer......................................Jenifer Hooks Directors................................... Richard Sarrell, Peter Dodds Scriptwriters....................Jocelyn Moorehouse, Paul Hogan, Greg Millin Noel Robinson A U S T R A L IA FILM Script editor............................Sharon Connolly (Working title) Based on the original idea Prod, company...................Promotion Australia b y..................................Jocelyn Moorehouse Producer..................................................... SamLeone Exec, producer.................................. Noel Price Director.......................................................ChrisHindes Prod, manager............................ Marion Pearce Length.............................................................20minutes Prod, secretaries...................................Jacquie Lamb, Gauge....................................................... Video Frances Fitzgerald Synopsis: A general look at Australian life, 1st asst directors industry and culture.

Block 1 ....................................................AnneBartlett Block 2 .................................................... John Slattery G U ID E D B U S H W A L K S Block 3.................................................MaggieGoller Prod, company...................Promotion Australia 2nd asst directors Block 1 ........................................................ AlfMarshall Producer..........................................Sam Leone Block 2 ........................................ Ross Allsop Director..........................................Chris Hindes Block 3 ................................ Graeme Cornish Gauge.......................................................Video Casting........................................... Dina Mann, Synopsis: Two Canberra naturalists offer Caroline Elliott walks in the Australian bush to overseas Art director................................Paul Cleveland visitors.

Length......................................12 x 30 minutes Synopsis: The Bartons is an affectionate M U R R A Y P R IN C E S S exploration of modern suburban family life Prod, company...................Promotion Australia through the eyes of 11-year-old Elly, the only Producer.........................................Sam Leone girl in a family of four kids.

Director................................Robert Hargreaves Photography.................................. John Ellson TH E B U T C H E R ’S S O N Gauge...................................................... ,Video Prod, company........................................... ABC Synopsis: A new riverboat now works the Dist. company............................................. ABC Murray River, in a similar style to Deep South Producer................................................... JulianPringle riverboats of the United States.

Director.................................................. NormanNeeson Scriptwriter............................................NormanNeeson S U P E R A N IM A L S Editor.......................................................... MikeHoney Prod, company...................Promotion Australia Exec, producer......................................... JulianPringle Producer..........................................Sam Leone Prod, managers........................................ CarolChirlian, Director................................Robert Hargreaves John Moroney Gauge....................................................... Video Editing assistant..................................MargaretBenson Synopsis: Australian scientists are using Length.............................................................30minutes genetic engineering and hormone treatment to Gauge........................................................16mm breed a new super animal.

Synopsis: A short film, for television release.

BEARDS • WIGS • MOUSTACHES • SIDEBURNS • ANYTHING IN HAIR • SPECIAL ITEMS FOR SPECIAL EFFECTS HIRE SERVICE • ANY ITEM MADE TO ORDER FOR T.V. • FILM • COMMERCIALS.

P R O M O T I O N A U S T R A L I A

For Enquiries call Judith Schuback 02 4381979

PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd • Completion Guarantees • Marketing • Financing • Distribution We are pleased to announce our current association with the following films:

T H E C O L O R IS T

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION C

B

S

Prod, company....................Gittoes and Dalton Productions Dist. company..............................Premiere Film Marketing Ltd Producers.................................George Gittoes, Gabrielle Dalton Director..................................... George Gittoes Scriptwriters............................ George Gittoes, Justin Fleming

C ES P R O G R A M M E S Prod, company..........................Brian Douglas Film and Television Producer....................................Brian Douglas Director......................................Brian Douglas Scriptwriter................................. Robert Taylor Script editors............................. Brian Douglas, Phillip Collins Treatment/storylines................. Brian Douglas, Phillip Collins, Kent Chadwick, Robert Taylor Co-producer................................ Phillip Collins Prod, co-ordinator.......................Christine Hart Production execs...................... Kerry Shearer, Gayle Brown Post-production supervisor........Phillip Collins l_eng th ....................................... 2 x 20 minutes, 4 x 3 0 minutes Gauge.............................................. ........ Video Synopsis: A series of documentaries for the Commonwealth Employment Service covering ‘ T elephone T e c h n iq u e s ’ , ‘ R e c e p tio n ’ , ‘Vacancy Handling Technique’, ‘Interviewing’ , ‘Freedom of Information’ and ‘Confronting Em­ ployers and Job Seekers’.

PRODUCERS H elp us m a k e th is p ro d u c ­ tion su rve y as c o m p le te as possible. If you h a v e s o m e ­ th in g w h ic h is a b o u t to go into p re -p ro d u c tio n , let us k n o w and w e w ill m a k e sure it is in c lu d e d . C all K a th y Bail on (0 3 ) 4 2 9 5 5 1 1 , o r w rite to h er a t C in e m a P ap ers , 43 C harles S tre e t, A b b o ts fo rd , V ic to ria 3 0 6 7 .

Prince a t the Court of Yarralumla Pigs Will Fly Pandemonium The Surfer Empire State Turnaround Shostakovich The Strike of the Panther The Return of the Panther

PGA, an Australian Com pany 100% underw ritten in London, and internationally recognised by distribution and financial organizations.

For further information contact Juliet Grimm.

SYDNEY: 20 G lebe S treet Edgecliff NSW 2027 Telephone: (02) 3271559 Telex: 73323

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH — 73

P R O D T J C T I O N U R V E Based on the original idea b y .......................................... George Gittoes Exec, producer......................Tom Broadbridge Budget............................................ $1,000,000 Length.............................. 93 minutes (approx.)

9 au9?.......................................................35mm Shooting stock.................. Eastman Color Neg Cast: Doc Neeson (Space Visitor) Synopsis: A visitor from outer space has seven days to sway the eccentric artist, Bill Bradshaw, to leave Earth as there are no living artists remaining in outer space. The odd visitor is sidetracked by Billy’s son, Jack, and a rock ’n' roll band. The diversion helps him to understand human creativity, although he fails to get Bill into space.

When a new lodger, William “ Rollo” Royce, a Make-up..................................................... BradSmith, MESMERIZED good-looking car mechanic, moves into the Bill Jackson-Martin Prod, company.................Mesmerized Pty Ltd boarding house, Nigel decides to take drastic Hairdressers....................................Lisa Jones, Producer............................Daniel A. McGowan action. He disguises himself as Roderick Sue Kelly Director............................ Daniel A. McGowan Strong, man of the world. In his new guise he Wardrobe.......................... Margot McCartney, Editor.......................................... Bob Bladsdall foils a bank robbery, wins a top job and the girl Anna Baulch Exec, producer................Howard M. Gardener of his dreams.

Props buyer......................................... Jan Hing Assoc, producer............. Rodi Wells-McGowan Standby props............................................ PaulKiely, Prod, manager.................................Penny Wall Melissa Carrington Prod, secretary.............................. Soili Sihvola Set decorator...................................Carl Habal, Prod, accountant......................David L. Cherry Kerith Holmes, Script assistant...........................Malcolm Cork Kate Saunders, Casting............................Daniel A. McGowan, Jenny West Howard Gardener Set construction..................................... GordonWhite Clapper/loader......................................... PaulaSouth Runner......................................

Aurelia Ginevra Electrician.................................. Paul Gardener Catering............................... Sweet Seductions Costume designer.................... Kristy Gardener Studios..........................Channel 9, Melbourne A U S T R A L IA . . . TA K E A B O W Hairdresser............................... Paul Patterson Mixed at......................... Crawford Productions DEATH CRY Wardrobe.................................. Kristy Gardner Prod, company.....................Soundsense Film Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Wardrobe asst............................................. SariSihvola Productions Pty Ltd Prod, company............. Sci-Fi Films Newcastle Length.....................................24 x 60 minutes Carpenter.....................................................RoyEvans Producer........................................ Brian Morris Producers......................................... Alan Gow, Gauge....................................................... 16mm Set construction........................................OwenEvans Director.......................................... Brian Morris Gregory Warburton Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Asst editor.............................................MatthewCrocker Based on the original idea Director.............................................. Alan Gow Cast: Robert Grubb (Dr Geoffrey Standish), Liz Length............................................................90minutesby................................................Brian Morris Scriptwriter...........................Andrew Ferguson Birch (Dr Chris Randall), Lenore Smith (Kate Gauge...................................................... 16mm Photography.................................. Paul Warren Photography............................... David Russell Wellings), Bruce Barry (George Baxter), Cast: Malcolm Cork, Shannan Long.

Sound recordist.................................... MichaelGissing Sound recordist....................... James Crawford Rebecca Glbney (Emma Plimpton), Maurie Synopsis: A raunchy but tasteful comedy Editor................................................ Tim Street Exec, producer....................... Grant L. Grothen Fields (Vic Buckley), Val Jellay (Nancy about a barrister who, after his divorce, Prod, manager.............................. Fiona Aaron Assoc, producer.................... Graham R. Busch Bucklevl.

Max Cullen (Hurtle), Pat Evison becomes mesmerized by certain beautiful Prod, manager................. Wayne McNaughton Prod, secretary..........................Linda Hopkins (Violet Carnegie), Terry Gill (Sgt Jack women. What unfolds is a domino effect of Asst editor................................................. LindaGoddard Location manager................................. AndrewFerguson Carruthers). hilarious sight gags.

1st asst director...................... Grant L. Grothen Sound editor..........................................MichaelGissing Synopsis: A Royal Flying Doctor Service is 2nd unit director..................... Grant L. Grothen Mixer......................................................MichaelGissing located in the outback town of Coopers MIKE WILLESEE’S AUSTRALIANS Continuity.............................Graham R. Busch, Still photography..........Wildlrght Photo Agency Crossing. The two doctors, Geoff Standish and Anthony Hill Publicity............................ The Write On Group Prod, company........Roadshow Coote & Carroll Chris Randall, not only contend with the Art director............................ Patrick Perlstone Unit publicist..............................Sherry Stumm Pty Ltd (Transmedia Pty Ltd), medical challenges, but also with the small Asst art director..........................David E. Webb Laboratory................................................. Atlab Film Australia community in which they live.

Musical director........................... David Russell Lab. liaison............................Bruce Williamson Dist. company....... Roadshow Coote & Carroll/ Budget............................................... $343,339 Budget................................................ $922,500 Film Australia Length..............................................82 minutes T H E H E N D E R S O N K ID S II Length....................................... 7 x 28 minutes Series producer.......................... Ron Saunders Gauge................................................1 ” Video Gauge.......................................................16mm Supervising producer............Pamela Vanneck Prod, company.............. Crawford Productions Cast: Stephen Reis (Kurt), Alan James Shooting stock...................Agfa XT125, XT320 Video Pty Ltd Executive producers.....................Greg Coote, (Darren), Jamie Gow (Steven), Ronald Gillette Synopsis: A contemporary look at life in each Producer.......................................... Alan Hardy Matt Carroll, (Anderson).

Australian state and territory. Pictures, music Directors.................................Chris Langman, Robyn Hughes, Synopsis: A group of school army cadets take and sound effects will tell the story — there will Paul Moloney Mike Willesee a suspense-filled trip and encounter a crazed be no dialogue or narration. The series is Scriptwriters........................... Peter Hepworth, Budget.......................................... $9.75 million escapee from a remote institution. None of the endorsed as a Bicentennial project and is Roger Moulton, Length......................................13 x 48 minutes children are sure which of them will survive to sponsored by IBM Australia.

Galia Hardy, Gauge...................................................... 16mm see the following morning.

John Reeves, Synopsis: Mike Willesee's Australians is a David Phillips, drama series of momentous events, unsung B LA C K B EA U TY Andrew Kennedy FIR S T K A N G A R O O S heroes and buried surprises of history from Prod, company...........................Burbank Films Photography..............................Brett Anderson Australia’s penal beginnings to the present Prod, company................................ Roadshow, Producer.........................................

Roz Phillips Sound recordist........................

John McKerrow day.

Coote & Carroll Scriptwriter......................................... J.L. Kane Editor......................................... Lindsay Parker Dist. company............................................. FilmFour Based on the novel b y .............................. AnnaSewell Composers............................

Garry McDonald, International REMNANTS OF TIME Editors......................................Peter Jennings, Laurie Stone Producer....................................................MoyaIceton Caroline Neave Prod, company............. Sci-Fi Films Newcastle Exec, producers.....................

Hector Crawford, Director................................ Frank Cvitanovich Exec, producer...........................................TomStacey Producers..............................Grant L. Grothen, Ian Crawford, Scriptwriter.................................Nigel Williams Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste Gregory Warburton Terry Stapleton Based on the original idea Prod, manager.................................Roddy Lee Director................................... Grant L. Grothen Assoc producer......................C. Ewan Burnett b y......................................Frank Cvitanovich Prod, accountant...................................AndrewYoung Scriptwriter............................................ AndrewFerguson Production executive.................

Michael Lake Photography............................. Ross Berryman Casting......................................................... JoyCraste Based on the original idea Prod, co-ordinator.......................................GinaBlack Sound recordist..........................................NoelQuinn b y ...................................... Graham R. Busch Camera operators.......................... Gary Page, Prod, manager....................... C. Ewan Burnet) Prod, designer........................................HerbertPinter Tanya Viskich Photography......................................Alan Gow Location manager....................................RalphPrice Prod, co-ordinator.................................BarbaraRing Sound recordist........................... David Russell Storyboard................................... Bob Fosbery Prod, accountant......................................... RonSinni Unit manager........................................StephenJones Tim ing.............................................Jean Tych Exec, producer..................... Graham R. Busch 1st asst director................................. Phil Jones Location manager (Syd)........................ PatriciaBluntProd, supervisor................ Gregory Warburton Length.......................................... 50 minutes 2nd asst director.................................... MichaelWhite Prod, accountant......................................Catch1-2-3Prod, manager................. Wayne McNaughton Gauge......................................................16mm 3rd asst director.................................... MauriceBurns 1st asst director............................................BobHoward Location manager.......................... Anthony Hill Shooting sto ck.......................................... 7291 Continuity.................................................LesleyForsyth Continuity................................... Sain Fatouras 1st asst director..................... Graham R. Busch Synopsis: The autobiography of a horse, fol­ Script editor................................................Jutta Goetz Make-up..................................................... JudyLovell2nd asst director................................ Alan Gow lowing the life of Black Beauty through a series Casting...................................................KimlarnFrecker Wardrobe................................................... AnnaSenior Continuity................................................JamesCrawford of different owners, grooms and companions, Focus puller............................................... CraigBarden Length............................................................ 90minutes Casting................................. Graham R. Busch, and the changing circumstances of his life.

Clapper/loader........................ Garry Bottomley Gauge....................................................... 16mm Grant L. Grothen, Key grip....................................... Rob Hansford Shooting sto ck........................................... 7291 Gregory Warburton Asst grip.........................................................IanPhillips Cast: Dennis Waterman, Chris Havwood.

Art director.................................... David Webb TH E F LY IN G D O C T O R S Gaffer...................................... David Parkinson Synopsis: The First Kangaroos is a story of the Budget............................................... $292,567 Boom operator........................................... GregNelson Prod, company............... Crawford Productions first Rugby League tour of Great Britain in 1908 Length..............................................80 minutes Art director............................................ AndrewReese (Series) Pty Ltd by the Australian rugby team. A comedy, it Gauge..................................................1” Video Asst art director..........................................GregEllis Producer.................................Oscar Whitbread deals particularly with the relationships and Synopsis: On a family camping trip, a group of Costume designer..........................Clare Griffin Director................................................. Various comic adventures of the team and their British six children go on an early morning hike. They Make-up..................................................... BradSmith Scriptwriter........................................... Various adversaries. witness the crash of an alien spacecraft. The Hairdresser............................................ CarolynNott Photography.................................Dan Burstall, story revolves around the newly-found friend Wardrobe.................................................. KeelyEllis Barry Wilson, and the adventures they have together.

FUTURETRO UPERS Standby wardrobe...................................MarionBoyce Brett Anderson, Wardrobe a s s t.............................................AnnWent Jamie Doolan Prod, company........................... Brian Douglas UNCLE SAM’S AT THE DOOR Props buyer..................................................Len Barrati Sound recordist..........................Malcolm Rose Film and Television Standby props....................................... RollandPike Prod, company........................... Somerset Film Editors...................................... Aileen Solowiej, Producer..................................... Brian Douglas Set decorators...........................................

Souli Livaditis, Productions Pty Ltd Lindsay Parker Scriptwriter..................................Brian Douglas Leigh Eichler Dist. company..................Tambarle AB Limited Exec, producers.....................Hector Crawford, Based on the original idea Scenic artist.................................................. IanRichter Producers................... James Michael Vernon, Ian Crawford, b y............................................ Brian Douglas Carpenters............................Michael Shadbolt, Jan Tyrrell Terry Stapleton Assoc, producer......................... Phillip Collins Janis Ermanis Scriptwriter.................................Rob Mowbray Assoc, producer............................ Howard Neil Script editor......................... Patrick Edgeworth Set construction..................................... GordonWhite Sound recordist.................................. Tim Lloyd Prod, supervisor.............................Vince Smits Length............................................... 6x1 hour Asst editor...................................................AvrilNicholi Prod, designer...................................... MichaelRalphProd, co-ordinator......... Bernadette O’Mahony Gauge.................................................. 1" video Construction foreman................................PeterMcNee Prod, supervisor............................ Penny Wall Prod, manager................................ Chris Page Synopsis: In the near future, an out-of-work Still photography......................... Bill Bachman Prod, co-ordinator............... Sandra Thompson Prod, secretary.......................Carol Matthews theatre troupe inadvertently prevent the piracy Dialogue coach............................Peter Tulloch Unit manager.........................................RichardMontgomery Prod, accountant..........................

Jeff Shenker of Australia's underground power source by a Location manager.......................Craig Sinclair Best boy..................................................... DarylPearson 1st asst directors.............. Richard Clendinnen, most devious and deadly organization.

Prod, accountant..........................................LeaCollins Runner...............................................Rod Short Don Linke, Accounts asst................................Tracey Hyde Catering..........................................Bande-Aide, Michael McIntyre T H E G ’D A Y S H O W Continuity.................................Kristin Voumard Richard Rogues 2nd asst directors.................................MauriceBurns, Casting...................................................... SuzieMaizels w ith D ot a n d th e K angaro o Mark Farr Studios.....................................................HSV7 Casting consultants.......................Maizels and Continuity................................................

Lesley Forsyth, Mixed at..........................

Crawford Productions Prod, company............................ Yoram Gross Associates Laboratory....................................................VFL Carmel Torcasio Filmstudio Pty Ltd Key grip....................................

Brett McDowell Casting..................................................Graham Moore, Length.....................................................12x60 minutes Producer................................................. YoramGross Gaffer........................................................DerekJones Jan Pontifex Gauge....................................................... 16mm Director....................................................YoramGross Boom operator.........................

Mark Van Kool Camera operators.......................................

Dan Burstall, Shooting stock................................

7291,7292 Scriptwriter..............................................MarciaHatfield Art director.....................................

IanGracie Barry Wilson, Cast: Nadine Garner, Paul Smith, Michael Assoc, producer.......................... Sandra Gross Costume designer...................... Helen Hooper Brett Anderson, Aitkens, Bradley Kilpatrick, Alex Papps, Anita Gauge....................................................... 35mm Make-up....................................Brita Kingsbury Jamie Doolan Cerdic, Marieke Hardy, Nathan Croft, Paul Synopsis: Pilot for a 26-parthalf-hour TV Hairdresser.............................. Brita Kingsbury Focus pullers....................................Louis Puli, Hall, Elizabeth Rule, Louise Howitt. series featuring acombination of animation Wardrobe supervisor................. Rosalea Hood Craig Barden Synopsis: The further adventures of Steve and and live action.

Stand-by wardrobe................... Barbra Zussino Clapper/loader........................................WalterRepich, Tamara Henderson and their friends coming to Props master.............................Richard Hobbs Gary Bottomley grips with life in a tough suburban environ­ G U S & M IL L IE Props buyer................................................. LisaBoyd-Graham Key g rip ..................................John Cummings, ment.

Prod, company........................................... ABC Asst props buyer.......................Murray Gosson Craig Dusting Standby props........................................... JohnOsmond Dist. company............................................. ABC Asst grips.......................................................IanPhillips, Producer.......................................Julian Pringle TH E L A S T O F T H E M O H IC A N S Best boy.......................................................PaulBooth Leigh Tait Director....................................................... GaryWoods Art dept runner....................... James McTeigue Gaffers...........................................................BillJones, Prod, company........... ............ Burbank Films Scriptwriter.................................................GaryWoods Catering......................................................John Faithfull Laurie Fish Dist. company.........Consolidated Productions/ Editor..........................................................MikeHoney Laboratory................................................. Atlab Electricians................................ Con Mancuso, Vistar International Productions Prod, managers........................................ CarolChirlian, Length............................................................ 90minutes Peter Ryan Producers.......................................Roz Phillips, John Moroney Gauge....................................................... 16mm Boom operators.........................................ColinSwan, Tim Brooke-Hunt Editing assistant..................................MargaretBenson Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Greg Nelson Exec, producer...............................Tom Stacey Length............................................................ 30minutes Synopsis: Nigel, a typical seven stone Art director............................ Georgie Greenhill Scriptwriter.....................................Leonard Lee Gauge....................................................... 16mm weakling, is desperately in love with his land­ Asst art director..........................Elena Perrotta Based on the novel Synopsis: A short film, for television release. lady’s daughter, Tracy, but too shy to tell her.

Costume designer.................................... ClareGriffin b y........................... James Fenimore Cooper

74 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

TELEVISION

P R O D U C T I O N

C

2

>C

Æ Hr,x<^y *

%

.

>

/o >

w < ¿

«

g

ji

q

W in d M a c h in e s - D e s ig n e d fo r s tu d io a n d o u td o o r s .

F e a tu r e tilt, s w iv e l, b u ilt - in ra in a n d fo g . ( 1 0 m a c h in e s ).

R a 'n T o w e r s - S tu d io m o d e ls a n d o u td o o r m o d e ls . T h r o w a p r e c is e p a tte r n - t a n k e r a n d h 'Q h p r e s s u r e p u m p s .

F o g M a c h in e s - D e s ig n e d fo r film u s e — r e lia b le a n d q u ie t. " M i n i f o g " " P o r t a f o g " " G a s f o g " " M e g a f o g " fo r la rg e o u tp u t.

A ir C a n n o n s - P y ro d e v ic e s - F ire e x tin g u is h e r s - R e le a s e d e v ic e s — C a p s u le g u n s — S te e r in g c o n tr o l fo r v e h ic le s .

B re r e a kk aavw a y G la s s - S h e e t s - S im u la t e d R e in fo r c e d - b o ttle s , g la s s e s , p la te s , s p e c ia ls m a d e to o rd e r.

.H y d r a u lic a n d P n e u m a tic fig s -

B r e a k a w a y rig s . F a llin g rig s . S tr u c t u r a l d e s ig n a n d e n g in e e r in g .

F ly in g R ig s — 3 d im e n s io n a l m o v e m e n t fo r m o d e ls Or p e o p le t o s im u la te w e ig h t le s s n e s s .

M o d e l M a k i n g — v a c u u m fo r m in g - c a m e r a p r o t e c t io n - m e c h a n ic a l d e v ic e s — e n g in e e r in g w o r k s h o p . , Synopsis: Rob Roy MacGregor is the Scottish Props buyers..............................Sue Mayberry, Scriptwriters........................................... Various version of Robin Hood, who cleverly tricks the Michael Mercurio Script supervisor................................ Ray Kolle evil Duke of Montrose out of the taxes collected Standby props............................................ JohnDaniell Script editors.............................Ysabelle Dean, from the villagers. He is declared an outlaw Asst standby props..........................James Cox Wayne Doyle and has many exciting escapades before he Art dept co-ordinator.......................Debra Cole Based on the original idea can clear his name.

Scenic artist..................................................Ray Pedler by................................................ Reg Watson Construction manager............................ ...JohnParker Sound recordists....................... Dave Shellard, SONS AND DAUGHTERS Foreman.................................................... FrankPhipps Grant Vogler, Prod, company.....................Grundy Television Sound editor.............................................. DeanGawen David Muir, Pty Ltd Stunts co-ordinator......................... Guy Norris Keith Harper, Producer....................................... Posie Jacobs Still photography........................... Jim Townley Rob Saunders Directors..................................................RussellWebb, Prod, designer........................................... SteveKellerResearcher.........................................Kris Wyld Alister Smart, Composer (theme)..................................... TonyHatchNurse...................................Jacquie Robertson Mark Piper, Runners................................................... NaomiEnfield Exec, producer............................... Reg Watson Peter Andrikidis (Production), Assoc, producer.........................................PeterAskew T H E L IZ A R D K IN G Scriptwriters........................................... Various Ian Jobson (Art Dept) Prod, co-ordinator.......................Jayne Russell Prod, company........................................... ABC Script editor................................................GregStevens Catering.............................. Marike Janavicius Prod, manager........................ Vicki Popplewell Dist. company..............................................ABC Based on the original idea Mixed at................................................Colorfilm Off-line editing..................The Editing Machine Producer....................................................... JanChapman by.............................................................. RegWatson Laboratory........................................... Colorfilm Floor managers.......................

Peter O'Connor, Director................................................ GeoffreyNottage Sound recordists.........Zbvszek Krzuszkowiak, Budget......................................................... $3.8million Alan Williamson, Scriptwriter.................................................LouisNowra Noel Cunnington Length.................................................4x 1 hour Peter Hinde Based on the original idea Nick Buchner Gauge........................................................16mm Director’s assts.......................Marianne Gray, b y ......................................................GeoffreyNottage Editor......................................................

MichaelHagen Shooting stock............................................ Agfa Linda Wilson, Photography.................................................JeffMalouf Prod, designer............................Ken Goodman Cast: Anne Phelan, Martyn Sanderson, Kaarin Phonda Bark-Shannon Sound recordist.......................... Chris Alderton Composers..................................................

DonBattye, Fairfax, Anna Hruby, Shane Connor.

Casting................................................ Jan Russ Prod, designer...........................................JanetPatterson Peter Pinne (theme) Casting asst.................................. Jane Daniels Synopsis: Based on the best-selling novel Exec, producer............................................. JanChapman Exec, producer.............................................

DonBattye Art director................................................ SteveKellerP o o r M a n 's O ra n g e by Ruth Park and sequel to Prod, manager...................................... Stephen O’Rourke Prod, manager......................................MargaretSlarke The H a rp in th e S o u th .

Hairdressers......................... David Henderson, Unit manager.............................Vid McClelland Unit manager................................................Ray Walsh David Vawser Prod, secretary.......................Joanne Holliman Prod, secretary........... ..............Lisa Fitzpatrick PRINCE AT THE COURT OF Prod, assistant........................................AntheaDeanWardrobe......................................Isobel Carter, Floor managers.........................................Soren Jensen, Jessie Fountain, YARRALUMLA 1st asst director.......................................... ScottFeeney David Watts, Korrina Glen 2nd asst director..........................Deborah Klika Prod, company........................... Somerset Film Jamie Crooks Lighting supervisor..................Keith Ferguson Continuity............................................... AntheaDean Productions Pty Ltd Director’s assts.............................Jeffrey Gale, Casting.................................................. JenniferAllenProps buyer..................................... Mark Grivas Dist. company........................ Tambarle AB Ltd Sally Flynn, Standby props.................. Richard Williamson, Casting assistant....................................... IreneGaskell Producers....................James Michael Vernon, Lesia Hruby Rosemary Gearson Camera operator.................................... RussellBacon Jan Tyrrell Staging supervisor................................GuntherNeszpor Music editor............................................WarrenPearson Focus puller.............................................GerardQuinn Director.................................... Colin Eggleston Casting.........................................Sue Manger Vision switcher..........................................JennyWilliams Clapper/loader...................Andrew McClymont Scriptwriters........................... Colin Eggleston, Casting asst................................. Helen Salter Technical directors.........................Barry Shaw, Key grip......................................... Alan Trevena Dave Young Make-up..................................Joanne Stevens, Peter Merino, Asst grip....................................................... PaulLawrence Sound recordist.................................. Tim Lloyd Catherine Malik.

Howard Simons Gaffer........................................................ MartinPerrott Prod, designer........................... Michael Ralph Hairdressers...................... Warren Hanneman, Electrician................................................. PierreDrionCatering........................................................ TrioCatering Prod, supervisor............................ Penny Wall Gail Edmonds Post-production...................ATV-10 Melbourne Boom operator............................................ScottTaylor Prod, co-ordinator.............. Sandra Thompson Wardrobe supervisor............................... RobeyBuckley Asst designer.............................................PeterDavisCast: Anne Charleston (Madge Mitchell), Kylie Prod, manager..................... Rosemary Probyn Lighting directors.......................................PeterRussell, Minogue (Charlene Mitchell), Jason Donovan Costume designer..................................... JanetPatterson Unit manager...................Richard Montgomery Mitch Lane, (Scott Robinson), Alan Dale (Jim Robinson), Make-up.....................................Christine Ehlert Prod, accountant.......................................... LeaCollins David Morgan Anne Haddy (Helen Daniels), Stefin Dennis Wardrobe................................................ WendyChuck Accounts asst................................ Tracey Hyde Set designer....................................

Leore Rose (Paul Robinson), Guv Pearce (Mike Youna), Props..........................................................Chris Green 1st asst director................... Michael Farandah Wardrobe assts.................Margarita Tassone, Elaine Smith (Daphne Clarke), Paul Keane Props buyer........................................... AnthonyCronin Continuity.................................

Kristin Voumard Norma Tunbridge, (Des Clarke), Myra De Groot (Eileen Clarke).

Standby props..........................................Nicole Mitchell Casting...................................................... SuzieMaizels Madelaine Cullen Synopsis: Love 'em or hate ’em, but Special effects........................................PaulineGrebert Casting consultants....................... Maizels and Props................................. Andrew Barrance, everyone's got 'em: neighbours. Ramsay Scenic artist.......................... Paul Brocklebank Associates Russell O’Brien, Street . . . the stage for an exciting drama Publicity................................................. GeòrgieBrown Key grip.....................................Brett McDowell Richard McGrath serial . . . drawing back the curtain to reveal Studios.............................ABC French’s Forest Gaffer.............................................Derek Jones Set dresser.................................................

PeterMorris the intrigue and passions of Australian families Mixed at....................................................... ABC Boom operator.......................... Mark Van Kool Music editor................................ Gary Hardman . . . ana their neighbours.

Laboratory............................................Colorfilm Art director..................................................... IanGrade Vision switcher......................................... SarahWilson Length.........................................1 x 90 minutes Costume designer..................................... HelenHooper Technical directors....................................... PatBarter, Gauge........................................................16mm Make-up....................................Brita Kingsbury Keith Cartwright, Synopsis: A woman comes from France to Hairdresser.............................. Brita Kingsbury Graham Manion, POOR MAN’S ORANGE Australia in search of her son, who is missing in Wardrobe supervisor................. Rosalea Hood Paul Rematy the desert. A telemovie conceived as part of Prod, company....................... Anthony Buckley Standby wardrobe.................... Barbra Zussino Catering......................................Taste Buddies nine films to be made in France, Italy and Aus­ Productions Pty Ltd Wardrobe asst..........................Barbra Zussino Post-production......................... Custom Video Producer................................ .Anthony Buckley tralia on the subject of romance.

Props master.............................Richard Hobbs Cast: Leila Hayes (Beryl Palmer), Pat Director......................................George Whaley Best boy....................................................... PaulBooth McDonald (Fiona Thompson), Ian Rawlings Scriptwriter............. .................

George Whaley Runner...................................................MichaelLavigne A M A T T E R O F C O N V E N IE N C E (Wayne Hamilton), Abigail (Caroline Morrell), Based on the novel Poor Catering......................................................John Faithfull Belinda Giblin (Alison Carr), Oriana Panozzo Prod, company.............................ABC/Revcom M a n 's O r a n g e b y .....................................RuthParkGauge.......................................................16mm (Susan Hamilton), Brian Blain (Gordon Producer...................................................... NoelPrice Photography...................................Paul Murphy Synopsis: The Prince of Darkness has Hamilton), Sarah Kemp (Charlie), Danny Director..............................................Ben Lewin Sound recordist....................... Syd Butterworth become schizophrenic and paranoid about the Roberts (Andy Green), Jared Robinson (Craig Scriptwriter........................................ Ben Lewin Editor.............. ...........................

Wayne Le Clos uncontrolled spreading of vampirism through­ Maxwell).

Script editor.............................Sharon Connolly Prod, designer...................................... BernardHides out his homeland of Transylvania. In an Synopsis: They were born twins, separated at Based on the original idea Composer..................

Peter Best attempt to escape the scourge, he moves birth, and reunited 20 years later without by.................................................... Ben Lewin Exec, producer....................... Robert Mercieca himself and his family to sunny Yarralumla, knowing their relationship and that was just the Photography............................................... ChrisDavis Prod, manager............................. Carol Hughes Outback Australia. beginning of the intrigue and drama! One of Editor............................................ Barrie Munro Unit manager.......................................RoxanneDelbarre Australia’ s most popular and successful drama Exec, producer............................................ NoelPrice Location manager.................................... RobinClifton ROB ROY serials.

Prod, manager...................Margaret Greenwell Prod, secretary...................................r...EdwinaNicolls Prod, company............................ Burbank Films Prod, seprefary..................Frances Fitzgerald Prod, accountants.......

Moneypenny Services, Producer.......................................... Roz Phillips 1st asst director..................... Jamie Lipscombe TREASURE ISLAND Nicky Rowntree, Scriptwriter..................................Rob Mowbray 2nd asst director........................................Ali Ali Robina Osborne Prod, company......................................BurbankFilms Based on the novel by.............. Sir Walter Scott C asting............................................Dina Mann, Accounts asst...................Jennifer Deschamps Producer....................................................... RozPhillips Carolyn Elliott Editors...................................... Peter Jennings, 1st asst director..........................................ChrisWebb Scriptwriter...................... ...Stephen MacLean Caroline Neave Length............................................. 90 minutes 2nd asst director.......................................HenryOsborne Based on the novel Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Synopsis: Valma is in her thirties and sick of Continuity................................................. NicolaMoors b y ............................ Robert Louis Stevenson Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste selling salamis. Boyfriend Joe is no potential Casting.......................................................Suzie Maizels, Editors...................................... Peter Jennings, saviour. When Alphonse Toronto, a profes­ Prod, manager.................................Roddy Lee Maizels & Associates Caroline Neave sional Cupid, proposes marriage for profit and Prod, accountant.......................Andrew Young Extras casting........................Caroline Bonham Exec, producer............................................TomStacey Casting.............................................. Joy Craste convenience, Valma persuades Joe to wed.

Camera operator................... David Williamson Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste Camera operators...........................

Gary Page, But marrying Joe to the beautiful Fadya proves Focus puller................................................ JohnPlatt Prod, manager................................. Roddy Lee Tanya Viskich less convenient than Valma might have Key grip........................................................ RayBrown Prod, accountant............................... ....AndrewYoung Storyboard.................................... Bob Fosbery wished.

Gaffer.......................................................... MickMorris Casting.......................................................... Joy Craste Timing....................................................... GeoffCollins Boom operator.............................................. SueKerr Camera operators........................... Gary Pape, Length.............................................................50 minutes N E IG H B O U R S Art director...........................Virginia Bieneman Tanya Viskich Gauge.......................................................16mm Asst art director.......................... Caroline Polin Prod, company..................... Grundy Television Storyboard................................................

SteveLyons, Shooting stock........................................... 7291 Costume designer..................... David Rowe — Pty Ltd Alex Nicholas Voices: Phillip Hinton (MacDonald, King Utopia Road Producer........................................... Philip East Tim ing................................................JeanTych George), Simon Hinton (Young Colin), Jane Make-up................................................. MarjoryHamblin Directors........................................ Gaye Arnold, Length.............................................................50minutes Harders (Oina, Mrs Stewart), Bruce Spence Hairdresser..................................................TerriMeissner Steve Mann, Gauge........................................................16mm Wardrobe mistress...................... Phillipa Eyers TonyO ’Sicka, Shooting sto ck........................................... 7291 Standby wardrobe.............................John Shea Chris Shiel, Synopsis:The classic adventure story of Asst standby wardrobe................... Lyn London Andrew Friedman, pirates and buried treasure.

Montrose), Tim Elliott (Duke of Argyle).

Props maker................Waler Van Veenendahl Kendal Flanagan Storyboard.................................... Bob Fosbery Tim ing....................................... Gairden Cooke Budget................................................. $730,000 Length.............................................. 50 minutes Gauge........................................................16mm Shooting sto c k........................................... 7291 Voices: John Waters, Andrew Clarke, Bill Conn, Judy Morris, Juliete Jordan, Scott Higgins, Wallas Eaton, Ross Higgins, Phillip Hinton.

Synopsis: The American adventure story of conflict among the British, French and Indians.

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 75

P

R

O S

D U C T U R V

I

O E

N Y

Photography............................... Peter Hendry Based on the novel THE VENTRILOQUIST B R E A K TH R O U G H S II Sound recordist.........................................PeterBarber b y ............................ Robert Louis Stevenson Prod, company................ James Clayden/ABC Prod, company..........................Nomad Films Music...............................................John Stuart Editors.....................................Tony Kavanagh, Director....................................................JamesClayden International Pty Ltd Storyboard.................................... Chris Hague Lyn Solly Scriptwriter.............................................. JamesClayden Dist. company............................Kingsway Film Tim ing...............................................Jean Tych Prod, designer...........................Laurie Johnson Script editor.............................Sharon Connolly Distributors Budget................................................ $710,000 Exec, producer....................... Geoffrey Daniels Based on the play by............................... JamesClayden Producer..................................Douglas Stanley Length...........................................50 minutes Assoc, producer........................

Peter Yeldham Sound recordist.............................................BillDoyle Directors................................ Jeremy Hogarth, Asst producer...................................Ray Brown Gauge.......................................................

16mm Editor.................................................Kevin Stott Richard Ryan, Shooting s to ck........................................... 7291 Exec, producer............................................NoelPriceProd, manager............................Judy Murphy Doug Stanley 1st asst director..........................

Wayne Barry Voices: John Ewart, David Nettheim, Max Prod, manager...................Margaret Greenwell Scriptwriters...........................Jeremy Hogarth, 2nd asst director....................................... SteveStannard Meldrum, Phillip Hinton, Carol Adams, Andrew Prod, secretary............................Jacquie Lamb Patrick Maher, Continuity.................................... Emma Peach Inglis, Jill McKay, David Roache-Turner, 1st asst director.............................................BillSmithett Richard Ryan, Camera operator............... .........

Roger Lanser Simeon Hawkins.

2nd asst director...................................GraemeCornish Doug Stanley Clapper/loader............................Robert Foster Synopsis: The classic 19th century story of the Length............................................................ 30minutes Based on the original idea Camera assistant........................................Paul Pandoulis double life of a respectable London doctor.

Cast: Tony Barry (Harry), Ellen Cressy b y ........................................... Gerald Lyons, 2nd camera operator.................. John Winbolt (Louise).

Doug Stanley Key grip..................................John Huntingford FIELDS OF FIRE Synopsis: For five years ventriloquist Harry Photography..............................Terry Carlyon, Asst grip..................................................... GaryBurdett and his wife Louise have played out a strange David Olney, Prod, company.......................................... PalmBeach 2nd camera asst.......................

Lorraine Stacey ritual in which the central character is a dummy Alex McPhee Entertainment 2 Pty Ltd Armourer..................................... Peter Leggett named Max. Louise decides to end their deadly Sound recordists..........................Randall Eve, Dist. company............... Zenith Productions Ltd G affer...................................Tim Murray-Jones game. The dummy must go and Harry must Michael Harrington, Producers.................................................

DavidElfick, Electricians................................................. KenPettigrew, find his own voice if the marriage is to be Sean Meltzer, Steve Knapman Robert Wickham saved.

Scott Montgomery, Director.....................................

Rob Marchand Boom operator.......................................... DavidPearson Rod Pascoe Scriptwriters..........................Miranda Downes, Generator operator......................................BobWoods Editor..........................................Tang Thien Tai Rob Marchand Senior prod, designer..............Laurie Johnson Exec, producer............................

Doug Stanley WILLING AND ABEL Photography............................. Ross Berryman Wardrobe designer......................................JimMurray Assoc, producer...........................Kate Faulkner Sound recordist..........................................Noel Quinn Prod, company......................... The Willing and Designers............................ John Pryce-Jones, Prod, co-ordinator................................StephenTillman Editor..........................................................SaraBennett Abel Co. Pty Ltd Col Rudder, Research....................................................

Likki Bergland, Prod, designer...........................

David Copping Producer.....................................................LynnBayonas Gregor McLean Halina Bluzer Composer...................................................MarkMoffatt Directors................................................... Gariy Conway, Make-up................................... Susie Stewart, Neg. matching...................................... CinevexLaboratories Exec, producer..................Margaret Matheson Kevin Dobson, Sandi Bushell Sound editors...........................................

SergeZaza,Prod, supervisor.............................. Irene Korol Ric Pellizzeri, Asst designer..................................Cathie Silm David Fosdick, Prod, co-ordinator................ Susan Pemberton John Power Design assts............................... Paul Hinderer, Chris Lynch Location manager..........................David Clarke Scriptwriters.................................................TedRoberts, Kerry Reay, Mixer...................................................

Kim Lord Unit manager.................................. Phil Urquart Peter Schreck, Michelle Frost Narrator....................................... Doug Stanley Prod, accountant.......................... Val Williams, David Boutland, Wardrobe Title designer......................................

Cascom Moneypenny Services Sheila Sibley, co-ordinators.............. Rolando Cano-Flores, Mixed at...................................................... ABCPerth Accounts asst................................ Michele Day Peter Kinloch, Elsie Rushton Laboratory.............................................Cinevex Laboratories Prod, assistant............................Sharon Cleary Michael Aitkens, Construction manager.............................LaurieDorn Lab. liaison................................................BryanSlade1st asst director.............................. Bob Howard Leon Saunders, Props buyers............................ Adrian Cannon, Length.......................................13 x 25 minutes 2nd asst director............................................Ian Kenny Luis Bayonas Colin Bailey 3rd asst director........................................RobinNewell Story editor.................................................. TedRoberts Standby props............................................ DonPage,Gauge...................................................... 16mm Shooting stock.............................

Agfa 125/320 Continuity................................................Jackie Sullivan Photography........................................... DannyBatterham Roy Eagleton, Synopsis: This is a series that explores and Producer’s secretary.................................BasiaPlachecki Sound recordist............................................KenHammond John Downie demystifies some of the amazing advances in Casting co-ordinator................. Christine King Editor....................................................... StuartArmstrong Special effects...........................................BrianMcClure science, medicine and technology — which are Camera operator......................Ross Berryman Prod, designer...................................... MichaelRalphSet makers............................................MichaelCarroll, rapidly changing the shape of the world we live Focus puller.............................................. AnnaHoward Composer..................................... Ashley Irwin John McDiarmid Clapper/loader..............................................PhilMurphy Exec, producers........................Lynn Bayonas, Set finisher...............................George Stanton Camera assistant....................................... GlenCogan Ted Roberts Scenic artist..........................Paul Brocklebank D A VID Key g rip ........................................................ PipShapiera Assoc, producer.................................Rod Allan Set dressers......................Sandra Carrington, Prod, co-ordinators................................ SharonMiller, Asst grips..................................... Jason Harris, Robert Hutchinson Prod, company.................Entertainment Media Danny Lockett Amanda Bennett Standby set maker....................Gerry Seymour Producer.........................................Peter Beilby Location manager....................................... LisaHennessey Standby set finisher...............................StewartMcCauley Director.................................................. GordonGlennGaffer......................................... Linasay Foote Unit manager....................................Henk Prins Asst editor................................................ SandiEylesScriptwriter.............................................GordonGlennGenerator operator...................Tom Robinson Boom operators.............................John Dodds, Prod, accountants....................................Catch1-2-3,Assistant................................................. WaynePashley Based on the original idea Gary Carr Theresa Tran Neg. cutter................................................. PamToose b y............................................ Gordon Glenn Art directors.................................... Ken James, Prod, assistant.........................................AlisonMcClymont Assistant..................................................NicoleLaMacchia Photography..........................Andrew De Groot Ron Highfield 1st asst directors...................................... CraigBolles, Sound transfer/rushes................. Mark Walker, Sound recordist...........................Malcolm Rose Art directors’ assts.....................................TobyCopping, Peter Fitzgerald John Miller Editor.............................................. Ken Sallows Jennifer Kernke 2nd asst director......................................NicolaLongSFO............................................................ AlexCullen Exec, producer.............................Robert Le Tet 3rd asst director................... Andrew Merrifield Sound editors......................... PeterTownend, Prod, manager.......................................... HilaryMay Assts to art dept......................... Ffion Murphy, Lawrie Silvestrin Glen Flecknoe 4th asst director........................................ SarahLewis Unit manager.........................................MichaelRumpf Costume designer...................................... AnnBenjamin Continuity................................................. TracyPadula, Editing assistants................... Fabian Sanjurjo, Prod, secretaries.....................Kelly O’Sullivan, Elizabeth Villa Make-up/hair supervisor............................

JosePerez Jenny Quigley Lucy Bakens Standby make-up...................................... AnnaKarpinksi Script editor..............................................HelenSteelStill photography........................................ GaryJohnson Prod, accountant....................................AntonyShepherd Mechanic................................................... JohnClarkAsst prod, co-ordinator............................ EmmaShmith Hairdresser...............................................DianeBiggs C asting.................. Natalie Wentworth-Shields Publicity.................................................GeorgieBrown Wardrobe supervisor......... Lucinda McGuigan Extras casting............................................. BethRoberts Prod, assistant.........................................SelinaNelson Standby wardrobe....................................... RitaCrouch Producer’s asst.......................................... Julia StoneCatering.................................... A & B Catering, 1st asst director.............................. Tony Leach Arthur & Barbara Bottcher Wardrobe construction...... Annemaree Dalziel Lighting cameraperson......... Danny Batterham 2nd asst director............................. Michael Siu Props buyer............................................DerrickChetwyn Focus puller...............................................ChrisCole Budget............................................................$8million Continuity.................................................. AnneMcLeod Clapper/loader.......................................... SeanMcClory Length...............................................................8hoursCasting....................................................... GregApps,Standby props........................................GeorgeZammit Gauge...................................................... 35mm Special effects...................................Brian Cox Key grip.................................. Brendan Shanley Liz Mullinar Casting Cast: Keith Michell (Cook), John Gregg Asst g rip .........................................Ben Howard Scenic artist............................................. GillianNicholas Camera operator................... Andrew De Groot G affer........................................................ ChrisFleet(Banks), Erich Hallhuber (Lt Gore), Jacques Carpenters................................. Austin Nolan, Focus puller.............................................. SteveMcDonald Penot (Clerke), Stephen Grives (Gibson), Peter Best boy......................................................BrettJarman David Stenning, Camera assistant.......................................PeterFalk Carroll (Solander), Fernando Rey (Hawke), 3rd electrics.......................................John Lee Gary McLaughlin, Gaffer........................................................ PeterScott Carol Drinkwater (Elizabeth), Barry Quin (Lt Boom operator.................... Graham McKinney Geoffrey Retch, Boom operator.......................................... LeighTait Art director............................................ AndrewPaul Hicks), Emil Minty (Young Nick).

Nicholas King, Make-up/hair.............................................. VickiFriedman Synopsis: The life of James Cook.

Art dept co-ordinator............ Alanah O’Sullivan Torry Saunderson Wardrobe....................................................VickiFriedman Costume designer..................................... KerryThompson Construction manager.................................

PhilWorth Props buyers.......................................... AndreaJohnston, Make-up............................................... Michelle Barber Stage hand............................................... StuartSimpson Jan Duncan Hairdresser................................................ TrishNewton Runner/office...........................................JulianFaull Editing assistant......................................EmmaMay Standby wardrobe................................ HeatherLaurie Dubbing editor........................................... AnneBreslin Laboratory................................................... VFL Wardrobe asst......................................... ShonaFlett Lab. liaison................................... Bruce Braun Dubbing editor’s asst............................... LauraZusters Props buyer.........................Rowan McKenzie Stunts co-ordinator......................................MaxAspin Length.......................................... 48 minutes Asst props buyer......................................... SamRickard Safety officer.......................................... ClaudeLambert Gauge......................................................16mm Standby props......................................... ShaneRushbrook Storyboard consultant.............................RobertAlcock Cast: Richard Roxburgh (David), Katie Brinson Art dept runner........................................... JudyKelly Still photography...................... Brian McKenzie (Julie).

Scenic artist...............................................ChrisReid Wrangler................................... John Hitchcock Synopsis: The story of ’David’, a young father Asst editor........................................... SuzanneStaal Horse master.........................Frank McNamara who experiences difficulty in coming to terms Musical director...................................... AshleyIrwin Transport/armourer.................................RobertParson with his newborn son’s disability.

THE AUSTRALIAN IMAGE Sound director...................................... StephenSmith Asst transport............................................BarryCockinos Mixers......................................John Dennison, Best boy...............................................Jim Hunt Prod, company...................................AustralianCapital D O N Q U IX O T E TonyVaccher Runner.........................................................GuyCampbell Television Pty Ltd Prod, company..................................... BurbankFilmsNurse............................................................LeaShapiera Stunts co-ordinator..................................BernieLedger Dist. company....................................AustralianCapital Dist. company.........Consolidated Productions/ Runner....................................................... AndyHoward Publicity.................................... Write On Group Television Pty Ltd Vistar International Productions Catering.......................................MMK Catering Catering........................David and Cassie Vale Producers.................................. Nick Hildyard, Producers..................................... Roz Phillips, Studios..................................... The Film Centre Catering asst.....................Juliana Zimmerman Ray Edmondson Tim Brooke-Hunt Mixed a t ............................................ Audio Loc Sound post-production..................... Soundfirm Director..............................Christina Hunniford Exec, producer..............................Tom Stacey Laboratory................................................... CFL Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm Scriptwriter...............

Graham Shirley Scriptwriter..................................................JoelKaneLab. liaison.........................Richard Piorkowski Lab. liaison................................. Kevin Ackroyd Sound recordist................... Bradley Headland Based on the novel b y ..... Miguel de Cervantes Length..................................... 26 x 46 minutes Budget...................................................... $3.75million Editors........................................ Steven Billett, Music............................................. Mark Isaacs Gauge...........................................16mm to tape Length......................................2 x 120 minutes Mark Kelly, Storyboard................................... Bob Fosbery Shooting stock..................... 7291,7292 Kodak Gauge....................................................... 16mm Greg Evans Tim ing........................................................JeanTych,Shooting stock......................................... Kodak Cast: Grant Dodwell (W illing), Shane Exec, producer..................Christina Hunniford Geoff Collins Withington (Abel), Rebecca Rigg (Angela), Cast: Todd Boyce (Bluey), Kris McQuade Prod, co-ordinator.............................. Vicki Pini Budget................................................ $730,000 Lucius Borich (Parramatta), Martin Vaughan (Mum), Melissa Docker (Dusty), Anna Hruby Prod, secretary........................................ SusanMinchin Length............................................................

50minutes (Just One), Tina Bursill (Maggie), Mark Mitchell (Kate), Ollie Hall (Tiny), Bill Young (Lofty), Ken Producer’s assistant............................... RachelMasters Gauge....................................................... 16mm (Dobson), Dane Carson (Swann), Simon Radley (Dave), Phil Quast (Albie), John Jarratt Lighting cameraperson.................. Steve Isaac Shooting stock........................................... 7291 Chilvers (Pisani).

(Jacko), Jack Mayers (Red), Harold Hopkins Camera operator.....................................RobertWalker Voices: Sir Robert Helpmann, Chris Haywood, Synopsis: Willing and Abel is a small business (Whacker), Peter Albert Sardi (Agostini), Terrie Camera assistant....................................... AlanGilvear Jill McKay, Keith Robinson, Phillip Hinton, established by our two central characters, who Serio (Franco), Joss McWilliam (Bill), Patrick Narrator..........................................................BillHunter Peter Kaye. offer their services in any capacity, to anyone, Ward (Chook).

Studios............................. Capital 7, Canberra Synopsis: The celebrated Spanish epic of the at any time . . . an offer which can place them Synopsis: Fields of Fire is a stormy saga of a Mixed a t............................ Capital 7, Canberra chivalrous Don Quixote and his attempts to in situations that can be dramatic, humorous or sensuous young Englishman’s journey to man­ Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm become a heroic knight-errant. dangerous. hood in the brutal and intensely physical world Lab. liaison................................................KerryJenkins of sugar-cane cutting in north Australia.

Length......................................13 x 30 minutes DR JE K Y L L A N D M R H YD E Shooting stock...................................Videotape THE WIND AND THE STARS HEY DAD Cast: Bill Hunter (Presenter).

Prod, company..................................... BurbankFilms Prod, companies....................................... ABC, Synopsis: The series highlights the work of the Prod, company...........Jacaranda Productions Dist. company.........Consolidated Productions/ Revcom Television, National Film and Sound Archive and stresses Dist. company............Pre-sale Seven Network Vistar International Productions Resolution Films the importance of the preservation of our film Producer.......................................... Gary Reilly Producers...................................... Roz Phillips, Producer.......................................... Ray Alehin and sound recording heritage. It explores our Director....................................... Kevin Burston Tim Brooke-Hunt national character as expressed through our Director.......................Lawrence Gordon-Clark Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Scriptwriters.................................... Gary Reilly, films and sound recordings.

Scriptwriter................................Peter Yeldham Scriptwriter............................... Marcia Hatfield John Flanagan

T E L E V I S IO N

POST-PRODUCTION

76 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

Based on the original idea b y ..........Gary Reilly

Executive-in-charge of

production............................... Alan Bateman Studios......................... ATN-7 Studios, Sydney Length.......................................12 x 30 minutes

Gauge.......................................... Videotape Cast: Robert Hughes (Martin Kelly), Julie Mc­ Gregor (Betty Wilson), Paul Smith (Simon Kelly), Simone Buchanan (Debbie Kelly), Sarah Monahan (Jenny Kelly), Christopher Truswell (Nudge).

mixes them with contemporary social and political comment, zany humour, sizzling music, dazzling effects and a cast of thousands.

A L IT T L E LIFE

Prod, company........Vicious Circle Productions Producers.............................................DeborahHowlett, Cheryl Johnson Director..................................................DeborahHowlett Scriptwriters..........................................DeborahHowlett, Cheryl Johnson Based on the original idea H O U N D O F M U S IC b y.......................................................DeborahHowlett, Prod, company.........................Full Moon Films Cheryl Johnson Ltd Photography......................................Jan Kenny Dist. company................................... Toadshow Sound recordist................... Christopher Lynch Producer....................................... Gary McFeat Editor.......................................... Tang Thien Tai Director..........................................Gary McFeat Exec, producer......................................HeatherWilliams Scriptwriters................................. Anne Jones, Prod, manager....................................PenelopeRadunovich Damien Ledwich, Prod, assistant............................Colleen Cruise Gary McFeat, 1st asst director........................Cheryl Johnson Sean Mee, Script edito r................................. Alex Glasgow David Monaghan, Camera operator...............................Jan Kenny David Pyle Focus puller......................... Emily Anne Benzie Sound recordists.....................Mark Chapman, Camera assistant................. Emily Anne Benzie Tim Gruchy Neg. matching............................ Tang Thien Tai Editor.............................................Gary McFeat Editing assistant......................... Claire Calzoni Prod, designer..............................Maria Cleary Still photography.........................Nan Richards Sound design...............................David Gurney Runners........................................... Pat Evans, Exec, producer.................................. Toadshow Paul Payne Assoc, producer..........................Royal Bardon Publicity.................................................... CherylJohnson Community Theatre for Youth Catering..................................................... MarieRadunovich Prod, supervisor........................... Buffy Lavery Studios........................................................... FTI Prod, co-ordinator...................................PhillipaCleary Mixed at....................................................... ABC Theatrical directors.......................... Sean Mee, Laboratory.........................................Movie Lab David Pyle Budget................................................... $91,510 Location manager............................Peter Rush Length.............................................. 50 minutes Prod, secretary....................................Lisa Jack Gauge........................................................16mm Prod, assistants.................... Genevieve Darch, Shooting s to c k ............................................7291 Seanus Mee Cast: Craig Groves (Ricci Vicenti), Leslie Asst directors................................................AnnJones, Wright (Warder), John Hyde (Policeman), Lil Kelman Maurie Venables (Taxi driver), Heather Vicenti Script assistant........................ Jodie Hitchcock (As herself in dramatized sections).

Casting....................................................... AnneJones, Synopsis: A Little Life is a partially dramatized David Pyle documentary about the life of Heather Vicenti Lighting.......................................... Ian MacColl, and her son, Ricci Vicenti, who was fatally shot David Arch, while trying to escape from Vale Remand Fiona Maloney Centre.

Camera operators...................... Peter Neahos, Stephen Frost, MAN AND BOY Roger Bradbury, Prod, company........................................... ABC Lee Faulkner, Dist. company..............................................ABCMelbourne Ben Stewart Producer....................................... Julian Pringle Videotape operators....................Davis Walker, Director....................................................... John Clarke Rainer Guth Scriptwriter..................................................John Clarke c ? 'Srl St' Camera assistants..................... Mark Bracken, (°3) 690 1022 577 Elizabeth St ^ 699 7?58 Photography.....................................Chris Davis Robert Whyte Sth. Melbourne Kedtern Sound recordists........................................TonyDickinson, Grips........................................................ RussellGreet, Mark Tarpey Victoria 3205 N.&W. 2016 Bill Shannon Editor............................................. Barrie Munro Gaffer..................................... Stephen O’Keefe Prod, designer.......................... Paul Cleveland Boom operators................................... RoderickOwen, Location designers.......................Frank Earley, Ian Wells George Raniti Art director................................................. MariaCleary Exec, producer...........................Julian Pringle Costume designer.....................................MariaCleary Prod, manager........................... Marion Pearce Hairdresser..................................................MissCleo’s A u s t r a l ia n B r o a d c a s t in g C o r p o r a t io n 1st asst director...........Christopher Weymouth Hair Design 2nd asst director.................Richard Van’T Riet, Wardrobe................................. Therese Phillips PR O D U C TIO N FACILITIES HIRE & SALES Libby Lavan Wardrobe assts............. Bernadette McCarthy, Continuity...................................................KerryBevan Emma Sheild, Casting............................................ Dina Mann Lindy Stokes Camera operator........................................... IanWarburton P rops.......................................Jodie Hitchcock, Focus puller................................................ GregParish Margaret Ireland, Camera assistants.................Vic Guglielmino, Margaret Crompton, T revor Moore Annette Kerwitz, Key grip................................. Tony Woolveridge Kim Luff, Asst grips...................................Martin Lampitt, Fiona Maloney, Phil Oyston Andrew Raymond Electricians............................. Andrew Holmes, Choreography......................... Sally Patience, Peter Rossborough Angus Lugsdin, Boom operator.................................Ian Cregan John Nabb, Make-up..................................................... DavidJennings Robert Osmotherly, W ardrobe.................................................. JoyceImlach Mark Ross, Action props............................Peter Henderson Anthony Shearsmith, Props buyer.................................................. LesFinlayson Dale Pengelly Staging...................................................... AnnieMaver, Set construction...................Stephen O’Keefe, Paul Gleeson Jamie MacKee Special effects.............................................. RodClack, Asst editor....................................Debra St John Terry Barrow Musical director...............................David Pyle, Asst editor.............................. Andrew Narozny Michael Roper, Colour grading............................................... IanAnderson Rick Caskey Sound editor............................................ StevenRobinson Music performed b y ................... The Wild Nuns Mixer.............................................................PaulFreeman Souna editors..................................David Pyle, Title designer................................................JoeDugonics Gary McFeat Length..............................................

30 minutes Mixers..........................................Davis Gurney, Gauge....................................................... 16mm Mark Lauttit Cast: Terry Gill (Peter), Frank Magree (Boy), Stunts co-ordinator.......................... Sean Mee Cliff Ellen (Bill Brown), Craig Ashley (Tony), Stunts....................................Stephen O'Keefe, Meredith Rogers (Wife).

Michael Golledge, Synopsis: A short film, for television release.

Adam Couper Still photography...............................Rob Wilkie Animation................................................DamienLedwich M ARTY Title designer..........................................DamienLedwich (Working title) Vocal coach....................................John Colwill Prod, company............................. Rogue/Rebus Tech, advisers............................ David Walker, Productions Denis Stokes, Producer..................................... David Rapsey Ian Stevenson D irector..................................Heather Williams Best b o y .......................................Simon Stocks Scriptwriter..............................................MurrayOliver Publicity.................................. Beverley Parrish Photography..........................

Simon Akkerman Unit publicist.................................. Anne Jones Sound recordist.................................. Gary Carr Catering...................................... Allison Davies Editor........................................ Tang Thien Tai Studios.....................................................Avalon Prod. Fac. Hire & Sales Supervisor Production Exec, producer...........................................ACTF Mixed a t....................................................Avalon Prod, manager.........................Susie Campbell Co-ordinator Length............................................ 100 minutes Facilities 1st asst director.................George Karpathakis Gauge.......................................................... BVU ABC Channel 2 ABC Channel 2 Art director................................................... TishPhillips Shooting stock............................................ Sony Laboratory............................................Movielab Cast: Justine Anderson (Maria), Pat Leo (Dr 221, Pacific Highway 8 Gordon St. Length............................................................. 15minutes Von Frankentrapp), Toni Mott (Baroness Didi), Gauge........................................................ 16mm Mary-Ann Jolley (Weasel), Julian St John Gore Hill NSW 2065 Elstemwick Vic. 3185 Shooting stock..................................7291,7292 (Rolf), Brian Cavanagh (Reverend Mother (02) 437 9576 (03) 524 2301 Cast: John McManus (Marty), Rebecca Dan), Stephen Clark (Kurt Schurrt), Adam Hemsley (Carly), Nicole Thompson (Squeek).

Couper (Fritz Weiner), Paul Sugars (Karl Lipp), Fax (02) 437 8076 Fax (03) 523 9230 Synopsis: A short film about a boy who goes to Tracey Tainsch (Stefan Piece). live in the country and has to confront a Synopsis: Hound of Music takes the stories of classroom full of girls.

Frankenstein and The Sound of Music and

35mm & 16mm Negative Cutting

\CHRISROWELLPRODUCTIONS

★ RDH/Vision Paints ★ Rosco ~ Supersaturated, Ultimatte

Chromakey, Roscoglo ★ Ardenbrite Metallic Paint ★ Crystal Fluorescent Paint ★ V.R Professional Brushes

Three Arts Services

We are now able to offer a range of facilities for hire and sale

PRO PS WARDROBE STAGING SCENIC ART SVFX VACUUM FORMED PLASTIC M OULDINGS

For further information contact:

CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 77

P

R

O S

D U C T U R V

I

O E

N Y

Art dept runner........................................... TrlshKeating Lighting directors.......................David Morgan, Electrician........................ Robert Van Amstell MELBA Costume designer...................................... Jane Hyland Peter Russell Boom operator........................................... ScottHysen Prod, company.....................CB Seven Pty Ltd Costume maker......................... Sandy Cichello Boom operators............................................PhHJones, Art director................................Chris Kennedy Producers................................................... ErrolSullivan, Make-up artist...................Amanda Rowbottom Paul Lehman Art dept co-ordinator.................Lucy Maclaren Pom Oliver Hairdresser............................... Rochelle Ford Art director................................................ DiaanYagon Costume designer..........................Jenny Miles Director......................................Rodney Fisher Wardrobe supervisor..............................MargotLindsay Costume designer............................Alan Burns Make-up.........................................Egon Dahm Scriptwriter.......................... Roger McDonald Extras wardrobe.......................................MaritaMusset Make-up........................................Veyatie Hirst, Standby wardrobe.....................Cathy Herreen Photography................................Dean Semler, Armourer.................................................... BrianHolmes Rachel Dal Santo Standby props............................................Mark Abbott Andrew Lesnie Standby wardrobe...................Jeanie Cameron Hairdresser......................... Warren Hanneman Stunts co-ordinator....................................... VicWilson Sound recordist...........................................PaulBrincat Military dresser.............................................PhilChambers Wardrobe.......................................... Alan Burns Mechanic.............................. Truck Humphries Supervising editor................Marc van Buuren Props buyers.............................................. DarylMills,Runner..................................... Stephen Burns Wardrobe asst...................................MadeleineCullen Editor...........................................................VickiAmbrose Murray Kelly Prdps buyer.................................Blossom Slint Catering............................ Cheese Plus Cellars Prod, designer..................................Roger Kirk Standby props............................................BrianLangPost-prod, facilities....................EVP, Adelaide Standby props......................... Leanne Cornish Prod, co-ordinator....................................JennyTosolini Special effects...........................................Brian Pearce Still photography........................................ Julia Morrell Post-prod, liaison........................... Ross Wurst Prod, manager.............................. Helen Watts Set dressers............................... Brian Dusting, Tech, director.............................. Douglas Lam Budget...........................................$1.25 million Unit manager.................................Chris Jones Hamish Hicks Publicity.....................................Lindy Anderson Length......................................10 x 30 minutes Location manager............................... ElizabethSymes Construction manager................................ BobHernGauge.................................................. Betacam Catering......................................Taste Buddies Prod, secretary...............................Susie Jarvis Asst editor................................. Michael Gilders Studios.......................................ATN Channel 7 Cast: Ned Manning (Oscar), Lachlan Haig Prod, accountant...........................Catch 1-2-3 Best bo y......................................Peter Moloney Mixed a t..................................... Custom Video (Sammy), Celine Griffin (Francoise), Daphne 1st asst director........................... Mark Egerton Runner................................................... AndrewMitchell Laboratory..................................

Custom Video Grey (Anna), Moshe Kedem (Zeno), Dave 2nd asst director...........................................PhilPatterson Unit publicist........................................... MarianPageFlanagan (Jacko).

Length........................................ 5 x 45 minutes 3rd asst director........................................ LindaPavllack Catering................................................... DannyPopper Gauge..............................................................1” videotape Synopsis: Sammy is thirteen. He runs away Continuity.......................................... Jo Weeks Laboratory................................................. Atlab Shooting stock...................................... Sony 1” and joins his father, a stuntman. Oscar does Producer’s asst..................................Sue Hunt Length....................................... 4 x 60 minutes Cast: John Wood (Michael Rafferty), Catherine not have the heart to take the boy back even Director’s assts.......................................... TonyKnight, Gauge......................................................16mm Wilkin (Paulyne), Simon Chilvers (Flicker), Arky though he realizes trouble Is brewing. The two Di Misirdjieff Cast: Noni Hazlehurst (Nancy Wake), John Michael (Fulvio), Terry Serlo (Bomber Clayton). pals end up on The run together.

Casting............................ Ann Churchill-Brown W aters (H enri Fiocca), Shane Briant Synopsis: The trials and tribulations of stipen­ Focus puller............................................... ColinDean(Hermann), Patrick Ryecart (Farmer), Alan diary court magistrate Michael Aloysius Clapper/loader............................ Tracy Griffith Andrews (Rake), Lucianno Martucci (Tardivat), Rafferty.

PIGS WILL FLY Key grip.................................... George Tsoutas Frank Gallacher (Gasbard).

Asst g rip .................................. Will Soeterboek Prod, company...........................Somerset Film THE RED CRESCENT Synopsis: The story of Nancy Wake, Aus­ Gaffer.......................................... Peter O’Brien Productions Pty Ltd tralian heroine of the French Resistance in Prod, company......Somerset Film Productions Electrician.......................... Darren McLaughlin Dist. company........................ Tambarle AB Ltd World War 2.

Pty Limited Boom operator.............................................PaulGleeson Producers...................James Michael Vernon, Dist. company................. Tambarle AB Limited Set designer..........................................Igor Nay Jan Tyrrell THE OZLETS Producers....................James Michael Vernon, Asst art director................................. Kim Darby Director....................................................SophiaTurkiewicz Jan Tyrrell Prod, company............................Nomad Films Costume designer....................................... JanHurley Scriptwriter.............................................. CraigeCronin Director......................................................HenriSafran International Pty Ltd Make-up................................Wendy Sainsbury Photography........................... Martin McGrath Scriptwriter............................................

RichardCassidy Dist. company............................

Kingsway Film Hairdresser..............................................CherylWilliams Sound recordist............................................TimLloyd Photography.....................................Peter Levy Distributors Wardrobe supervisor.............Heather McLaren Editor.......................................Pippa Anderson Sound recordist................................Tim Lloyd Producer..................................Douglas Stanley Props buyers................................................. BillBooth, Prod, designer...........................Michael Ralph Sandy Wingrove Directors......................................Roger Bliss, Prod, supervisor...................................... PennyWall Editor..................................................... RichardHindley Prod, designer......................................

Michael Ralph Keith Woodland Standby props........................................... HarryZettel Prod, co-ordinator..................................SandraThompson Prod, supervisor............................. Penny Wall Scriptwriters............................... Bob Leamen, Scenic a rtist............................Michael O’Kane Prod, manager...........................Paula Bennett Prod, manager......................

Rosemary Probyn Wendy Harmer, Carpenters................................................DavidScott, Unit manager...................Richard Montgomery Unit manager.................. Richard Montgomery Jeff Browett, Bronwyn Parry Location manager......................................Craig Sinclair Location manager......................................CraigSinclair Jennifer King Set construction..........................................AlanFleming Prod, accountant..........................................LeaCollins Prod, secretary.................... Sandra-Thompson Asst editor................................................ JennyHicksPhotography (studio)................. Darrell Brown, Accounts asst................................ Tracey Hyde Prod, accountant.........................................?LeaCollins Lance Bennett, Musical director............................................. BillMotzing 1st asst director......... Carolynne Cunningham Accounts assistant..................................TraceyHyde Steven Lowe Music performed 2nd asst director........................................TobyPease 1st asst director..........................................JakeAtkinson Sound recordists.................................. GrahamOwens, b y ................. Elizabethan Sydney Orchestra Continuity................................ Kristin Voumard 2nd asst director........................................ TobyPease Phil Munkton, Sound engineer......................................... MikeStavrou Casting....................................... Suzie Maizels Continuity................................................. KristinVoumard Kevin Smitherman Sound editor............................................ StuartCopley Casting consultants..... ................. Maizels and Casting consultants.... Maizels and Associates Videotape operator................ John Fragomeni Editing asst......................................Nigel Trail Associates Focus puller........................................... ConradSlack Set designer............................................ PierceFleming Wrangler............................................... GrahamWare Focus puller............................................. Calum McFarlane Clapper/loader........................................KatrinaCrook Composers............................ Chris Woodland, Best b o y .................................................... SteveCarter Clapper/loader......................... Miriana Maruslc Key g r ip ..................................................... BrettMcDowell Greg Schultz Runners...................................John Meredith, Key grip.................................... Brett McDowell Exec, producer......................................DouglasStanley Justin Fitzpatrick Asst g rip..................................................... John TateAsst g rip.......................................... John Tate Assoc, producer.......................................... KateFaulkner Gaffer........................................................ DerekJones Catering..................................... Kaos Catering Gaffer........................................................DerekJones Boom operator............................Mark Van Kool Prod, co-ordinators...........Michael Callaghan, Laboratory................................................. Atlab Boom operator........................... Mark Van Kool Mary Louise Halvorsen Art director.....................................................IanGracie Lab. liaison...................................... David Cole Art director.....................................................IanGracie Gaffers.............................. Guy Bessell-Brown, Costume designer.....................................HelenHooper Budget............................................. $6,050,000 Costume designer......................Helen Hooper Make-up......................................................BritaKingsbury Kim Harwood Length........................................4 x 96 minutes Make-up................................... Brita Kingsbury Hairdresser.................................................Brita Kingsbury Wardrobe/puppets................................

Cathryn Ashton, Gauge....................................................... 16mm Hairdresser..............................Brita Kingsbury Jackie Campbell, Wardrobe supervisor............................RosaleaHood Shooting stock............................................ ECN Wardrobe supervisor.................Rosalea Hood Gary Goff, Standby wardrobe...................................

Barbra Zussino Cast: Linda Cropper (Melba), Hugo Weaving Standby wardrobe....................Barbra Zussino Wendy Sherlock, Props master..............................Richard Hobbs (Charles Armstrong), Peter Carrol (David Props master............................ Richard Hobbs Michell Spooner Props buyer..............................................DonnaBrown Mitchell), Julie Haseler (Annie Mitchell), Nell Props buyer......................... Lisa Boyd-Graham Props........................................................TrevorKerslake, Asst props buyer.......................................DianeHenry Schofield (Belle Mitchell), Daphne Grey Asst props buyer...................... Murray Gosson Phil McDonald Standby props............................................JohnOsmond (Isabella Mitchell), Joan Greenwood (Madame Standby props........................................... JohnOsmond Asst editor................................................. StellaSavvas Set construction...................................MatthewHudson, Marchesi), Michael Lerner (Oscar HammerArt dept runner......................................... AdamHammond Fight co-ordinator....................................

RockyMcDonald Wayne Clarson stein), Tom Burlinson (Syd Meredith).

Asst editor....................................................RayCooper Studio operations Best boy.......................................................PaulBooth Synopsis: A miniseries on the life of Dame Stunts co-ordinator..................................BernieLedger co-ordinator..........................

Andrew Round Runner...................................................Michael Lavigne Nellie Melba.

Reptile handler.... ........................George Kann Title designer............................................ IlouraMelbourne Art dept runner.........................................JamesMcTeigue Animal co-ordinator................... Evanna Brand Catering......................................................John Faithfull Tech, directors........................................ ShaneArmitage, Still photography............................. Vivian Zink Murray Basham, Gauge....................................................... 16mm NANCY WAKE Best boy........................................... Paul Booth Selwyn Scott Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Runner.................................................. MichaelLavigne Prod, company............... Simpson Le Mesurier Cast: Henri Szeps (Traynor), Ivar Kants Studios..............................

Taimac Video Corp.

Catering..................................................... JohnFaithfull Films (Mueller), Sheree Da Costa (Cassandra), John Mixed at...................................... Planet Studios Gauge...................................................... 16mm Dist. company........................... Pre-sale Seven Orcslk (Cahill), Peter Corbett (Mortimer), John Length...................................... 13 x 25 minutes Cast: Barry Otto (Lawson), Ralph Cotterill Network Stone (Ivar), Vic Rooney (Ludke), Katherine Gauge.................................................. 1” , Beta (Man), Gosia Dobrowolska (Genevieve), Producers................................Roger Simpson, Thomson (Judy), Ric Hutton (Vencit), Warwick Cast: Ozlets voices: Marty Gittins, Gordon Duncan Wass (Wallace), Gary Down (Dr Sholl), Roger Le Mesurier Moss (Lane).

Gregson, Cathy Jennings, Ric Melbourne, Gwen Plumb (Miss Clemesha), Patrick Ward Director........................................................PinoAmenta Synopsis: A journalist involved in setting in Kelly Newton. Ozlet puppets: Bill Hodge, (Regus).

Scriptwriter................................................RogerSimpson motion a political dirty trick against a small time Trevor Howard, Carolyn Nelson, Ilona Slany, Synopsis: Lawson, an eccentric adventurer Based on the novel politician witnesses events which career out of James Sollls, Ian Tregonning, Janet Ashelford, and famous writer, and Man, his offbeat man­ b y ........................................................ RussellBraddon Matthew Quartermaln. control. His amateur sleuthing uncovers servant, create a fiasco of comedy and Photography...............................................DaveConnell Synopsis: The Ozlets live happily in “ Ozlet devious networks of alliances and a complex of duplicity as they set about convincing the world Sound recordist..................................... AndrewRamage intrigue and deception that touches his life on Park’ , a wildlife sanctuary that is something of that Lawson has “ gone off the deep end” .

Supervising editor........................................PhilReida tourist attraction for children. Then crisis, the most personal and intimate level.

Prod, designer............................................... TelStolfo falling attendances and the Ozlets’ sanctuary RAFFERTY’S RULES Composer................................................... GregSneddon is in danger. We follow their attempts to save RELATIVE MERITS Exec, producers......................................... AlanBateman, Prod, company........................ ATN Channel 7 their home as they work toward a solution in John Sturzaker Dist. company.......................... ATN Channel 7 Prod, company......................... ABC TV Drama the last programme.

Assoc, producer................... Margot McDonald Producer.................................... Posie Jacobs Producer................................... Martin Williams Prod, supervisor................... Margot McDonald Directors.....................................Russell Webb, Directors..................................... Colin Englert, Prod, co-ordinator......................Leonie Jansen Kate Woods, Marcus Cole, PALS Prod, manager Peter Fisk, Graham Thorburn Prod, company................................ Pals Pty Ltd (France).............................................DominicAntoine Karl Zwicky, Scriptwriters..............................................DavidAllen, Dist. company........................J.C. Williamsons Unit manager.................................... John Suhr Ron Elliott John Upton, Producers..................................... Jim George, Location manager..........................Murray Boyd Scriptwriters.............................................. LissaBenyon, Tim Gooding, Wayne Groom Prod, secretary.........................................JennyGray Terry Larsen, Dave Marsh, Director............................... Mario Andreacchio Prod, accountants..................... Margot Brock, Sara Dowse, Michael Cove Scriptwriters..................................Rob George, Robert Threadgold Jane Oehr, Based on the original idea John Patterson 1st asst director......................................... John Wild Michael Cove, by.............................................................. BenLewin Based on the original idea 2nd asst director...................... Brett Popplewell Sound recordists.......................... Ray Mitchell, Sound recordists....................................... BrettWard, b y...............................................Rob George, 3rd asst director.......................Cameron Mellor Noel Cantrill, Matthew Dorn, Ron Saunders, Continuity..................................................JenniTosi Dave Dundas Nick Buchner John Patterson Script edito r............................. Barbara Bishop Editors........................................................ NolaO’Malley, Prod, designer...................................... BernardHynes Photography...............................Roger Dowling Casting...........................................................LizMullinar Graham Tickle Exec, producer.......................... Alan Bateman Sound recordist............................ Rob Cutcher Extras casting........................ Simon Rosenthal Prod, co-ordinator..................................... NeneMorgan Prod, designer...........................................GeoffWedlock Genny operator........................................ LaurieFish Editor............................................. Andrew Ellis Composer.................................................MartinArmiger Prod, manager....................................... ColleenClarke Focus pulle r............................................... GregRyanProd, co-ordinator..................................MichaelDavisProd, accountant......................................... PaulParker Tech, producers........................................... JeffBrown, Prod, manager............................................ GayDennis Clapper/loader............................ Terry Howells Tony Verhey, Prod, assistant......................... Cathy Stephens Location manager...................... Ron Stigwood Key g rip .......................................Ian Benallack John Nixon, 1st asst directors....................... Soren Jensen, Financial supervisor...................David Barnes, Asst grip...............................Arthur Manousakis Peter Knevitt Chris Martln-Jones Remarkable Films Gaffer......................................... Robbie Young 2nd asst director................................... MatthewRlxonProd, manager...................................... StephenO’Rourke Prod, accountant........................Chris Robson Boom operator......................... Scott Rawlings Continuity.................................................. LesieHrubyj, Unit managers................ Scott Hartford-Davis, Art director......................... Bernadette Wynack 1st asst director..................David Wolfe-Barry Jeff Gale Bev Powers 2nd_asst director........................ Linda Cernigoi Script editor............................... Louise Home Prod, secretary........................................SusanWells Casting.......................................Nene Morgan Prod, accountant..................................StephenO’Rourke 3rd asst director..........................................JeanMoyes Please help us keep this survey Prod, assistants........................................ JanetArgali, Camera operators...................... Garry Janson, Continuity...............................Kristin Witcombe Rhonda McAvoy, Peter Westley, Clapper/loader................... Michael Bambacas accurate. Phone Kathy Bail on Anthea Dean, Barry Armstrong, Camera assistant....................................... MarkEvans (03) 429 5511 with any errors or Liz Steptoe, Phil Betts Key g rip ....................................................DevonAmber omissions.

Key g rip............................................... Ken Rule Vicki Bridgland Gaffer...................................... Richard Parkhill

78 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

1st asst directors.....................Gary Stephens, way he saw it, there was no other choice. What Scott Feeney, he hadn’t taken into account was the child’s Scott Hartford-Davis, overwhelming need for love.

Vid McClelland, Graham Millar WATCH THE SHADOWS DANCE 2nd asst directors................... Steve Stannard, (Working title) Deborah Klika, Prod, company....................................SomersetFilm Karin Kreicers, Productions Pty Limited Lance Mellor Dist. company.................Tambarle AB Limited Casting.........................................Jennifer Allen Producers................... James Michael Vernon, Casting assistant......................... Irene Gaskell Jan Tyrrell Lighting cameramen.....................Barry Quick, Director.............................................Mark Joffe Jeff Brown, Scriptwriter........................

Michael McGennan Roy Jeffrey Photography............................ Martin McGrath Camera operators............................Dick Bond, Sound recordist.................................. Tim Lloyd Peter Robson, Editor.......................................... Lindsay Frazer Mick Walter, Prod, designer............................ Michael Ralph Jeff Clegg, Prod, supervisor............................ Penny Wall Gregg Hilton, Prod, co-ordinator/manager...... Paula Bennett Neil Maude, Denis Ghatt, Location manager...................... Craig Sinclair Mike Osborne, Unit manager..................Richard Montgomery GlenTraynor, Prod, secretary.......................................SandraThompson Geoff McGarvey, Prod, accountant.......................................... LeaCollins Murray Tonkin Accounts asst................................ Tracey Hyde 1st asst director.................. Corrie Soeterboek Costume designer................... Jolanta Nejman 2nd asst director............................ Toby Pease Make-up.................................. Michelle Myers, Hannah Fiserova 3rd asst director............................. Martin Jeffs Wardrobe................................................ WendyChuck, Continuity..................................................KristinVoumard Wendy Falconer Casting....................... Maizels and Associates Props.......................................................... PeterBranch Focus puller..............................................CalumMcFarlane Props buyer.................................................TonyCronin Clapper/loader..........................Miriana Maruslc Neg. matching...................... Alfred E. Newman Key g rip....................................................... BrettMcDowell Still photography............................Toni Watson Gaffer..............................................Derek Jones Unit publicist............................Georgie Brown Boom operator............................ Mark Van Kool Catering.....................K-K-K Katering Company Art director......................................... Ian Gracie Studios.................Studio 22, ABC TV, Gore Hill Costume designer...................... Helen Hooper Mixed a t........................ Necam Suite, Gore Hill Make-up...................................................... BrltaKingsbury Length..................................... 10 x50 minutes Hairdresser................................................. BritaKingsbury Cast: Odile Le Clezio (Sarah), Madeleine Wardrobe supervisor................. Rosalea Hood Blackwell (Kath), Brendan Higgins (Paul), Standby wardrobe.................... Barbra Zussino Robert Fraser (Joe).

Props master.............................Richard Hobbs Synopsis: A ten-part series which follows a Props buyer.........................Lisa Boyd-Graham sequence of events during approximately three Asst props buyer..................................... MurrayGosson months in the life of 25-year-old Sarah Russell, Standby props............................................ John Osmond an arts journalist who, when we meet her Is Stunts co-ordinator...........................Guy Norris living with Paul Urbacek, a junior private secre­ Best boy............................................ Paul Booth tary to the Immigration Minister in Canberra.

Art dept runner..........................................AdamHammond Runner....................................Michael Lavigne Catering....................................... John Faithfull THE SHIRALEE Gauge....................................................... 16mm Shooting stock................................ 7291,7292 Prod, company.............. SAFC Productions Ltd Cast: Tom Jennings (Robby Mason), Vince Dist. company......................... South Australian Martin (Steve Beck), Nicole Kidman (Amy Film Corporation Producer....................................................BruceMoir Gabriel), Joanne Samuel (Sonia Spane), Craig Pearce (Guy Duncan), Alex Broun (Henry), Director...................................... George Ogilvie Jeremy Shadlow (Simon).

Scriptwriter................................Tony Morphett Synopsis: Set fifteen years in the future, a Story editor.................................................PeterGawler group of kids have invented The Game'. The Based on the novel b y .............................D’ArcyNiland champion is Robby Mason. Robby accidentally Photography.............................Geoff Simpson sees something he would have given his life Sound team.................................................. PhilKeros, not to. What follows is the most deadly-serious David Lee playing out of The Game’ Robby has ever Editor.......................................................DeniseHaratzis known, for now someone is breaking all the Prod, designer.....................Kristian Fredrikson Composer...................................................ChrisNeal rules in an effort to silence him.

Exec, producer........................................... JockBlair Prod, manager.......................................Antonia Barnard WHAT’S IT WORTH Production secretary.......................... CatherineBishop Unit manager.............................................SteveMoran Prod, company.............................Nomad Films International Pty Ltd Prod, accountant.....................................RobinaOsborne Dist. company......................... TVW7/Kingsway 1st asst director..........................................ChrisWebb Producer.....................................Kate Faulkner 2nd asst director.......................................HenryOsborne Director............................................ Roger Bliss 3rd asst director.........................Lindsay Smith Scriptwriters............................... Doug Stanley, Continuity................................ Elizabeth Barton Tricia Duffield, Casting.................Hilary Linstead & Associates South Australian casting........................... AnnePeters Marty Gittins Camera operator....................................... GeoffSimpson Photography................................. Phil Dority, Alex McPhee, Focus puller..............................................MartinTurner Robert Marden, Clapper/loader............................................. RodBolton Ian Sharkey, Key grip......................................................RobinMorgan Shane Street, Gaffer........................................................TrevorToune Marshall Taylor Art director.................................................DerekMills Sound recordists....................................JeremyAshton, Art dept administrator..................................ToniForsyth Bob Harle, Costume designer..................................... AnnaFrench Robert Hayes, Make-up.....................................................HelenEvans Sean Meltzer Hairdresser............................................... FionaSmith Editors...........................................Kevin Baker, Asst costume designer............................. FionaReilley Ian David, Wardrobe standby..................................... PeterBevan Graham Warner, Machinist/cutter.......................................... Julie Frankham Dave Whitney Art dept runner..........................John Santucci Prod, designer............................ Martin Trevor Props buyers..............................................BarryKennedy, Kris Koslovic Composer..................................................FrankStrangio Standby props............................................PeterDavies Exec, producer...................................... DouglasStanley Facilities co-ordinator...........Nancy McDonald Draftsman.......................................... John Axe Prod, co-ordinator........................ Carnie Rizzo Generator operator................................WernerGerlach Floor Construction................................................ LipsStudios manager.................................... Don Muir Prod, secretary.................... Carolyn Reynolds Asst editor................................................. SimonJames Prod, assistants..........................Halina Bluzer, Stunts co-ordinators................................... GlenBoswell, Le Bawden Veale Zev Eleftheriou Studio audio........................................Vic Jones Still photography........................................ GregNoakes Set construction........................ Noel Dickson Dubbing editor...................... Yvonne Van Gyen Props......................................... Peter Cardwell Asst dubbing editor........ Sarah-Jane Van Gyen Graphic design..................... Dennis Skipworth Edge numberer............... Bernadette Van Gyen Lighting...................................... Brian Grosse, Best boy................................................. GraemeShelton Barry Dux Runner.......................................................DavidSorensen Camera studio.............................. Alan Hurley, C atering....................................... Food for Film, Todd Kluczniak, Keith Fish George Lanyi, Studios................................................... HendonStudios Mick McDermott Mixed a t................................................. HendonStudios 110 West Street, Make-up........................................... RozKemp Laboratory.................................................. Atlab Crows Nest, Technical director........................ Mark Gaynor Lab. liaison..........................................Gary Keir Post-production editing........... Dean Edwards, Budget...........................................$2.75 million NSW 2065, Australia Dean Quartly Length........................................... 195 minutes Phone: [0 2 ] 9 2 2 -3 1 4 4 Still photography.................. Richard Simpson Gauge........................................................ 16mm Publicity....................................................TVW7 Shooting stock..........................................Kodak M o d em : (0 2 ) 9 2 2 7 6 4 2 Studios..........................................TVW7, Perth Cast: Bryan Brown (Macauley), Rebecca Length...................................... 13 x 25 minutes Smart (Buster), Noni Hazlehurst (Lily), Lorna Fax: [02] 957 5001 G auge...................................................1 ” , Beta Lesley (Marge), Reg Evans (Luke Sweeney), Cast: Douglas Stanley, Tricia Duffield, Marty Julie Hamilton (Bella Sweeney), William Zappa Electronic Mail: Gittins, DonChipp, Jackie Love, Keith (Donna Carroll), Frank Gallacher (Beauty), Minerva 07 SNE 064 Stackpole, Sir Hubert Opperman, Rolf Harris, Simon Chilvers (Thaddeus), Lewis Fitzgerald Ron Barassi.

(Tony).

Synopsis: A series that looks at collectors and Synopsis: To Macauley, the child was his the things they collect as well as exploring the ‘shiralee’, a burden and a handicap, and also a how and why. Stamps, toy soldiers, erotica and constant reminder of bitterness and failure. It music all find a place in the series. was his nature to do things the hard way: the

WANT TO SELL A MOVIE OR A TV SHOW IN THE U.S.A.?

Maybe we can Help

Oz JVIovies P.O. Box 1173 Shingle Springs California 95682 Area Code (916) 677 5943 Write for details

The proof is in the proof.

Optical & Graphic — Sydney’s motion picture title specialists — have made titling easier.

We ensure you end up with precisely the titles you want by running them in a number of typefaces from our range of over 120.

Once your selection is proofed, we will make revisions [prior to final approval] free of charge.

Our communication facilities include: Modem, Fax and Electronic Mail Optical & Graphic are titling specialists.

The final proofs of your titles — quick, precise and easy — will be all the proof you’ll need.

[However, you could also ask the producers of Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome” or “ Crocodile Dundee” . . ]

optical&graphic

MU CINEMA PAPERS MARCH - 79

N u m b e r 51 (May 1985): Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo, Winners, The Naked Country, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms.

N u m b e r 52 (July 1985): John Schlesinger, Gillian Armstrong, Alan Parker, soap operas, TV news, film advertising, Don’t Call Me Girlie, For Love Alone, Double Sculls.

N u m b e r 53 (September 1985): Bryan Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, Return to Eden.

N u m b e r 54 (November 1985): Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, Wills and Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster Miller Affair, rock videos.

CINEMA BACK ISSUES N u m b e r 1 (January 1974): David William­ son, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars That Ate Paris.

N u m b e r 2 (April 1974): Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy Harbutt, Film under Allende, Between the Wars, Alvin Purple.

N u m b e r 3 (July 1974): Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O’Brien, William Friedkln, The True Story of Eskimo Nell.

N u m b e r 10 (September-October 1976): Naglsa Oshima, Philippe Mora, Krzysztof Zanussi, Marco Ferrerl, Marco Bellochio, gay cinema.

N u m b e r 11 (January 1977): Emile de Antonio, Jill Robb, Samuel Z. Arkoff, Roman Polanski, Saul Bass, The Picture Show Man. N u m b e r 12 (April 1977): Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John Scott, Days of Hope, The Getting of Wisdom.

N u m b e r 13 (July 1977): Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeannine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search of Anna.

N u m b e r 14 (October 1977): Phil Noyce, Matt Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John Huston, Luke’s Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady.

N u m b e r 15 (January 1978): Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers,) Sri Lankan cinema, The Irishman, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith.

N u m b e r 16 (April-June 1978): Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spiel­ berg, Tom Jeffrey, The Africa Project, Swedish Cinema, Dawn!, Patrick.

N u m b e r 17 (August-September 1978): Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night the Prowler.

N u m b e r 20 (March-April 1979): Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French cinema, My Brilliant Career.

N um b e r 22 (July-August 1979): Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Alble Thoms, Stax, Alison's Birthday.

N u m b er 24 (December 1979-January 1980): Brian Trenchard-Smith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, Harlequin.

N um b e r 25 (February-March 1980): David Puttnam, Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain Reaction, Stir.

N um b e r 26 (Aprll-May 1980): Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, Water Under the Bridge.

N u m b er 2 7 (June-July 1980): Randal Klelser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, Richard Franklin’s obituary of Alfred Hitchcock, the New Zealand film industry, Grendel Grendel Grendel.

N u m b e r 48 (October-November 1984): Ken Cameron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim Dusty Movie.

N um b e r 59 (September 1986): Robert Altman, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnès Varda, the AFI Awards, The Movers.

N um ber 49 (December 1984): Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch McGregor, Ennlo Morrlcone, Jane Campion, horror films, Niel Lynne.

N u m b e r 60 (November 1986): Australian Television, Franco Zeffirelli, Otello, Nadia Tass, Bill Bennett, Dutch Cinema, Movies

By Microchip.

N um b e r 50 (February-March 1985): Stephen Wallace, Ian Pringle, Walerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill Conti, Brian May, The Last Bastion, Bliss.

N u m b e r 61 (January 1987): Dogs In Space, Alex Cox, Roman Polanski, South Australian Film Corporation, Howling 3, Martin Armiger, Film Financing.

N u m b e r 28 (August-September 1980): Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Burns, John O’Shea, Bruce Beresford, Bad Timing, Roadgames.

I BACK ISSUES I

N u m b er 29 (October-November 1980): Bob Ellis, Uri Windt, Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw.

1 or 3 or 5 or 7 or

N um b e r 3 6 (February 1982): Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, Blow Out, Breaker Morant, Body Heat, The Man from SnowyRiver.

N um b e r 38 (June 1982): Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Far East.

N u m b e r 39 (August 1982): Helen Morse, Richard Mason, Anja Brelen, David Millikan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema, National Film Archive, We of the Never Never.

N u m b e r 4 0 (October 1982): Henri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray Barrett, My Dinner with Andre, The Return of Captain Invincible.

N u m b er 41 (December 1982): Igor Auzlns, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The Year of Living Dangerously.

N u m b e r 42 (March 1983): Mel Gibson, John Waters, Ian Pringle, Agnès Varda, copyright, Strikebound, The Man from Snowy River.

N u m b e r 43 (May-June 1983): Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, Careful He Might Hear You.

N u m b e r 19 (January-February 1979): Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sards, sponsored documentaries, Blue Fin.

N u m b e r 4 4 -4 5 (April 1984): David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lambert, Street Kids, a personal history of Cinema Papers.

2 copies: 4 copies: 6 copies: more copies:

$4 each $3.50 each $3 each $2.50 each

1 OVERSEAS SUBSCRIPTION f J a n d back is s u e s r ates l

N u m b e r 3 7 (April 1982): Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama, Monkey Grip.

N u m b e r 18 (October-November 1978): John Lamond, Sonia Borg, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy's Child.

80 - MARCH CINEMA PAPERS

N um b e r 46 (July 1984): Paul Cox, Russell Mulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka Stockade, Waterfront, The Boy in the Bush, The Woman Suffers, Street Hero.

N um b e r 4 7 (August 1984): Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Brad­ bury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms.

N u m b er 55 (January 1986): James Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian Thompson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, The Right-Hand Man, Birdsville, tie-in market­ ing.

N um b e r 56 (March 1986): Fred Schepisi, Dennis O’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, stunts, smoke machines, Dead-End Drive-In, The More Things Change, Kangaroo, Tracy.

N um b e r 58 (July 1986): Woody Allen, Reinhard^ Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story and The Last Frontier.

Zone

6 issues 1 year

12 issues 2 years

18 issues 3 years

1

Surface $32 Air $45 Surface $32 Air $47 Surface $32 Air $55 Surface $33 Air $62 Surface $33 Air $67

Surface $58 Air $85 Surface $59 Air $89 Surface $59 Air $105 Surface $61 Air $119 Surface $61 Air $129

Surface $86 Air $125 Surface $86 Air $132 Surface $87 Air $155 Surface $89 Air $176 Surface $89 Air $191

Back issues Add to the price of each copy Surface $1.20 Air $3.35 Surface $1.20 Air $2.25 Surface $1.20 Air $5.15 Surface $1.40 Air $6.20 Surface $1.50 Air $7.20

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

New Zealand Niugini

Malaysia Singapore Fiji

2

3

4

5

Hongkong USA India Canada Japan Middle East Philippines China Overseas subscribers, please remit in Australian dollars

Britain Europe Africa S. America

Please send your order to: Cinema Papers, 43 Charles St, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3067.

IF YOU COULD BOAST A LIST OF CREDITS LIKE THIS, YOU’D BE PROUD TO O .

SPECIAL SQUAD FRONT

At Cinevex we like to think that when it com es to quality and service, our laboratory is the best. Why else would Australia’s best movie makers choose us every time.

FLYING DOCTOR 1THE PETROV AFf DUNERA BOYS LANCASTER MILLER A MALCOLM SARA DANE TO MARKET TO MARKE KANGAROO THE BIG HURT MY FIRST W CACTUS MAN OF FLOWERS FREE ENTERPR|SE a SAFARI II K

i§ l¡¡||¡ ■ ■

I m a m

WILLS AND BOURKE

CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES 4^^©St(onlstreet, PÌb1 é I8 P b Elstemwick, Victoria 3185 Telephone: 5286188 Telex: AA 38366 -

p S I f illil 1

, . -,

- ' :

1.

ì

'’

,

.. i '

1‘

.

Im ages th rou gh In n ovation

Motion Picture History,

swung full circle with the recent remake of “Mutiny”. The original, one of the ‘lost films’,was directed by Raymond Longford. Shooting started in April 1916 and the film opened in Sydney on September 2 in the same year. Known for its painstaking research and attention to historic detail, it was heralded as absolutely the finest production yet manufactured in Australia (Australian Variety, 6th September 1916). Today the tradition continues with Eastman’s technological leadership and full service support structure making it the first choice in professional film and tape stock. Eastman Professional Film and Video products. Making better images through innovation. l

u v i *i w

i. u v . i v A v t

v

i i » u jlv i i i ^

it

t iiv . lllü L

V I l v / 1V_ V, 111 L ) 1 U l v O O l U I LCJ

Eastman Classic 1916

EASTMAN and KODAK are trademarks. 342P5012 JWT