Cinema Papers No.65 September 1987 by UOW Library

fp||Ã&#x2039;

About the blue halo*

Never was there a special effects film this special. New 5295 delivers an accuracy of perforation to a tolerance half that of anything seen before. EASTM AN and KODAK are registered trademarks. 3 4 2P 7001JW T

It responds to blue and green spectra that other films - let alone the human eye - are not even aware of. A nd it has TG rain.

From the people who bring Patented tabular grain technology that makes high speed you something special nom atter what kind of advantages available in a special effects film for the first time ever. motion picture film you need. 5295.

Philippa Hawker

Publisher Patricia Amad

Assistant Editor Kathy Bail

Art Director Mick Earls

Editorial Assistant/Subscriptions Sue Illingworth

Proofreader Arthur Salton

Office Cat

• '*' Consulting Editors' Fred Harden Brian McFarlane

Founding Publishers. Peter Beilby . Scott Murray. Typesetting by B-P Typesetting Pty. Ltd. Printed by York Press Ltd! Distribution by Network Distribution Company. 54 Park Street.'Sydney. NSW 2000. Signed articles represent the views of their author, and not necessarily those of the editor. While every care is taken with manuscripts and materials supplied to the magazine, neither the editor nor the pub lishers can accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may not 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 65, September 1987 ‘ Recommended'price only.

Cover: Scene from Palisade

THE WRITE STUFF:

Baglicme composes his sianders in the bath

4 B R IE F L Y 6 A F I A W A R D S : The contenders 10 C H IP W IT H T H E L O T : J u st who is Chip Dexter? 12 TH IS J A R M A N M A N : Derek Jarm an on art and

money

fife 's ¡¡¡¡I VA ¡¡¡¡il ¡¡HI 16 J E A N -P IE R R E G O R IN : H ave idées, w ill travel 22 W IM W E N D E R S: The cream pies o f desire 23 C H E N I S M IS S IN G : W hy the director didn’t come

THE W R I T E S T UFF 24 C R IT IC S O N S C R E E N : Film m aking by other means 28 T H E S T R O N G S C R IP T : Who needs it? 30 N O V E L A P P R O A C H E S : Literature and the screen 34 T V T R A U M A S : A scriptwriter tells 35 G U S T A V H A S F O R D : Full m etal book jacket 36 A N G E L A C A R T E R : M agical and m atter-of-fact 40 R E V IE W S: D im Sum , Extrem e Prejudice} From The

H ip, Gardens O f Stone, Ground Zero, High Tide, L a Bam ba, Long Bow Trilogy, N ightm are On E lm Street 3, The Place A t The Coast, Raising Arizona, R iver’s Edge, Slate, W yn & M e, Vincent, The Witches O f Eastwick 55 B O O K S : D on’t Shoot Darling, Love Is Colder Than

Death 60 T E C H N IC A L IT IE S: This and D A T 64 N E W Z E A L A N D : Disney to the rescue? 65 P R O D U C T IO N R E P O R T : B uckley’s chance with

the miniseries 66 P R O D U C T IO N S U R V E Y : W ho’s m aking what in

Australia 73 F U N D IN G D E C ISIO N S: Who got what 79 C E N S O R S H IP : M ay and June decisions m m m

W ÉM

80 B A C K P A G E : September and October film b u ff’s

diary

A REPLY TO ANDREE WRIGHT AND GRAHAM SHIRLEY G raham Shirley and A ndree W rig h t, in their attack on the originality and validity of m y research findings (Cinema Papers, Ju ly ), seem to be w orking from indirect reports rath er than from anything I have w ritten myself. In p articu lar they d o n ’t seem to have consulted m y article ‘C opyright sources for A ustralian d ram a and film ’, w hich is w here I listed the results of m y inquiries into the copyright application files held by the A ustralian A rchives. T his article was published in Archives and Manuscripts in N ovem ber 1986. T h ere were a n u m b er of m edia reports, of varying accuracy, about m y discoveries, b u t it is regrettable that A ndree and G raham have as a result rushed into p rin t half-inform ed as to w hat this research was and w hat it uncovered. T h e R egisters of C opyright P roprietors and the correspondence associated w ith applications for copyright have been used by m an y scholars over the years. B ut w hen I arrived in C a n b erra early in 1986, one im p o rtan t p art of the collection on copyright — the m any-volum e Index to the C om m onw ealth files (1907-1969) had disappeared. I accept that it could have been ‘readily available’ to A ndree W right in 1983; how ever two successive P atents Office L ibrarians, w orking at the request of several researchers, had tried in vain to find this Index d u rin g the first h alf of 1986. I relocated the lost Index, and it has now been m oved from W oden and placed w ith the oth er copyright m aterial in the A ustralian A rchives. T h e im plied claim that it was never lost is w rong. T he assertion that in my oth er discoveries I was only covering ground A ndree h ad covered three years earlier is also wrong. M y research was based on the fact th at there proved to be not one b u t two parallel series of copyright files (plus a third series of u n n u m b ered item s). Previous searchers for plays and film scripts only found the application forms in the first of these series, (A 1336/1) together w ith occasional playscripts or film scripts which were included in the sam e envelope. As I openly acknowledged in m y Archives and Manuscripts article: so m e o f [th e film sc rip ts] in th e A 1 3 3 6 /1 series h a v e b e e n accessed a n d c o n su lte d b y e a r lie r re s e a rc h e rs . (p l4 9 )

H ow ever the A rchive staff can confirm th at I was the first person to system atically and thoroughly search a m ajor portion of the collection, and to locate hundreds of scripts of perform ed A ustralian stage plays, some of w hich were the basis of later films, and a sm aller n u m b er of original filmscripts. As these were too bulky to keep in the same envelope as the application form s, they were held in the ‘h id d en ’ A 1336/2 series. T hey could not have been previously sighted, for the simple reason that they had never been security-cleared (accessed) by the A rchive staff.

■ The Shorts Circuit column on Australian shorts has been held over until the next issue. ■ The Australian Film Commission has approved an investment of $310,000 in five joint ventures with Australian film and television production companies, under a new AFC script unit program. The five companies are: Barron Films Limited (WA); Seon

Film Productions (Vic); Simpson Le Mesurier Films (Vic); Roadshow, Coote and Carroll (NSW); and Taft Hardie Productions (NSW). The AFC’s investment will be matched dollar for dollar by each company. ■ In the review of The Screening O f Australia in the July issue Ross Lansell’s byline was omitted.

Richard Fotheringham

Richard Fotheringham is mistaken in his belief that the purpose o f our article Kelly: Hit Or Myth, was to discredit his finding o f a cachet o f play and filmscripts held by the Australian Archives Office. Our interest continues to lie not so much in the location o f such source material, but in the use to which it is put. In replying to the initial Fotheringham and Cooper articles we desired to set the record straight fo r posterity by the provision o f new material at variance with their reinterpretation o f Australian cinema history. Graham Shirley and Andree Wright

Dear M s Hawker, In an otherwise fine article ab o u t the m aking of High Tide there was an u n fo rtu n ate im plication th a t J u d y D avis took the script aw ay and rew rote h e r character. T h is is incorrect. L au ra Jo n es was the sole w riter of the High Tide screenplay. T h e producer, S an d ra Levy, L a u ra an d I encouraged and were delighted to have J u d y ’s involvem ent d u rin g the final drafting o f High Tide. She atten d ed a couple of script sessions and was involved in som e w onderful im provisations of a n u m b er of scenes d u rin g the course o f rehearsals. M any valuable ideas from these sessions were fed at o u r discretion back into the script. I always like to encourage an atm osphere of creative collaboration d u rin g a prod u ctio n b u t I am a great supporter of the w rite r’s role. I leave the rew riting to the w riter.

FASSBINDER COMPETITION C inem a P apers has five co p ies o f the F assbinder biograp h y by R obert K atz and P eter B erling to give aw ay, courtesy o f A ustralasian P u b lish in g C o m p a n y . (See review p 56.) Ju st answ er one sim ple question: nam e F assb in d er’s last three film s. Send the answ er to C inem a P ap ers, 43 C harles Street, A b b o tsfo r d , V ictoria 3067. M ark you r e n v elo p e, ‘F assbinder C o m p e titio n ’.

4 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

Yours sincerely, Gillian Armstrong

NOTE: The article in question was a complete and accurate transcript o f an interview with Gillian Armstrong.

CONTRIBUTORS Tony Ayres is a freelance film writer based in Melbourne. John Baxter is a film reviewer for The Australian and author of numerous books on the cinema.

’!LM SJVDiOS j

Mick Broderick works as a publications officer with the Australian Conservation Foundation and is a freelance writer on film.

ÎJC «T *0

Richard Brown is a physicist and writer on film. Stephanie Bunbury is a footloose writer living in London.

DALLAS: Three sides of the studio

Jillian Burt is a freelance writer.

DENIS DOES DALLAS

Raffaele Caputo is a freelance writer on film. John Conomos is a Sydney writer on film.

F ilm p u t P a ris , T e x a s o n th e m a p ; D en is T h o m p s o n h o p e s th a t it will d o th e sa m e fo r D a lla s , V ic to ria . H e is c h a irm a n o f A u stra lia n F ilm S tu d io s L td , o w n e rs o f th e P y ra m id a n d M o rt B ay stu d io s, a n d th e c o m p a n y b e h in d a n ew stu d io co m p le x in th e M e lb o u rn e s u b u r b o f D a lla s . T h e c o m p le x , o n th e site o f a fo r m e r m ilk b o ttlin g p la n t, w ill h a v e e ig h t s t u d i o s , w o r k s h o p s a n d p r o d u c t i o n a n d a d m in is tra tio n o ffic e s. S p a c e w ill b e a v a ila b le fo r h ire , fro m th e w hole stu d io to a few o ffic e s fo r p re - p ro d u c tio n . F ifty su b let prem ises w ill c o m p le m e n t th e stu d io a n d p ro v id e o n -h a n d expertise d u rin g p r o d u c tio n . T h e b u sin e sse s will in c lu d e a p la s te r m o u ld er, m o d e lm a k e r, e le c tric ia n , set b u ild e r a n d c a te re r. S tu d io fa cilities w ill in c lu d e a d e e p w a te r s tu d io , a w a te r flo o r stu d io w ith ra in m a k in g e q u ip m e n t a n d a n a n im a tio n stu d io .

Peter Galvin is a freelance writer on film. Fred Harden runs a production company in Sydney called Picture Start which specialises in special effects. Ross Harley is a freelance writer and film and video maker living in Sydney. Michael Harvey is a scriptwriter living in Melbourne. Tracy Hayward is a freelance writer. Anne-Maree Hewitt is a freelance writer living in London.

■ T h e H u m a n R ig h ts a n d E q u a l O p p o rtu n itie s C o m m is sion is o ffe rin g a w a rd s in m ed ia a n d film ca te g o rie s fo r w orks w h ich p ro m o te u n d e r sta n d in g a n d p u b lic d is cu ssio n o f h u m a n rig h ts issu es in A u stra lia . Six m e d ia a n d tw o film a w a rd s w ill b e m a d e , w ith a valu e o f $500 e a ch . F o r m o re in fo rm a tio n c o n ta c t th e c o m m ission a t level 24, A m e ric a n E xpress B u ild in g , 388 G e o rg e S treet, S y d n ey . T h e clo sin g d ate fo r n o m in a tio n s is 16 O c to b e r 1987.

■ Film investment under 10BA in creased by 13 per cent in 1986-87 from the previous year. Feature film financing declined by 26 per cent, down from $105.6 million to $77.9 million, with 29 films secured. Documentary financing almost doubled, from $19.6 million in 1985-86 to $37.9 million in 1986-87. Approximately 50 per cent of the drama projects were fully or partially underwritten prior to the reduction of the 10BA concessions. ■ T h e A u s tr a lia n N a tio n a l D o c u m e n ta ry C o n fe re n c e will ta k e p lace in A d e la id e fro m 15 to 18 O c to b e r. F o r m o re in fo rm a tio n , c o n ta c t th e c o n ference o rg a n ise rs , c / o th e S o u th A u s tr a lia n F ilm C o r p o ra tio n , 113 T a p le y ’s H ill R o a d , H e n d o n , S o u th A u s tra lia 5014.

THE PRIZEWINNERS

— TRIVIA QUIZ, July 1987 issue p35 F irst prize ($250 w orth of CEL’s C lassic C ollection videos): Richard Cann. R unners-up (The A frican Q ueen and S ou th P acific, cou rtesy CBS Fox): B renda W atson, C esare Pirone, L eslie Campbell, D. L ew is and Chris Mead. THE ANSWERS 1. Brett (Gamer), Bart (Kelly), Beau (Moore) and Brent (Colbert). 2. Gordon Chater in the Mavis Bramston Show. 3. Floy Rogers and Dale Evans. It was Trigger he had stuffed, not Dale. 4. Ken. 5. Piano. 6. Green because he has Vulcanian blood. Something he got from his dad. 7. A duck . . . well a puppet that looked like a duck. 8. Five cents. 9. 312 Maple Drive. 10. FAB 1. 11. Ralph Kramden in The Honeymooners. 12. Linda. 13. To protect the innocent. 14. A housebrick. She used it to sock enemies. 15. Nose twitching. 16. Schweppervescence. 17. The store room in the Daily Planet building. Less frequently he used to

disappear down a back alley. Never in a phone booth. 18. Arnold Feather. 19. Robert Taylor’s Detectives and Mod Squad. The actor was Tige Andrews. 20. Jim Anderson from Father Knows B est sold insurance. No wonder he was such a bore. 21. Because his “uncle” came from Mars in M y Favourite Martian. 22. Z Victor 1 and Z Victor 2. 23. Dr Who in his many guises. He has only 12 reincarnations, we are told. 24. Sir Robin of Locksley. 25. But when they need each other most that’s when they’re Ruff ’n Ready. 26. Bailey and Spencer at 77 Sunset Strip. She was Suzanne Fabray. 27. Rosewell. 28. Marion Kirby of the Topper series and her dog was Neil, a St Bernard. 29. Pepsi Cola. 30. He slid down a fire pole then jumped onto the piano.

Melinda Houston is a bookkeeper and closet writer. Simon Hughes is a writer and playwright. Liz Jacka is co-author of The Screening Of Australia and senior lecturer in film studies at NSWIT. Linda Jaivin was formerly Hong Kong and China correspondent for Asia Week, and is now a freelance writer based in Canberra. Brian Jeffrey is a freelance writer based in Canberra. Paul Kalina is a freelance film writer. Kaz is a freelance cartoonist, journalist and topiarist. Brian McFarlane is a lecturer in English at the Chisholm Institute and author of Australian Cinema 1970-1985. Adrian Martin is a freelance film critic based in Sydney. Joanna Murray-Smith is a Melbourne writer and playwright. Mike Nicolaidi is a freelance writer and contributor to Variety. Andrew Preston is a freelance film writer based in Sydney. Bill and Diane Routt are a couple of Melbourne academics. Sam Rohdie is a senior lecturer in cinema studies at La Trobe University. Christina Thompson is a freelance writer. R.J. Thompson teaches cinema studies at La Trobe University. Terence Ziegler is a communications student at Newcastle Institute of Technology.

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 5

AFI AWARDS: THE CONTENDERS eading the article that appeared exactly one year ago in Cinema Papers, The AFI Awards: into the Twilight Zone', it is evident that 1987 has, so far at least, been kinder to the Australian Film Institute's endeavour to stage its annual Awards than previous years have been. This time last year there were many doubts about the very future of the Awards; the ceremony had neither a venue nor a broadcaster, there were several significant films that didn't show up in competition and there were audible grumblings about the sorts of films that were nominated and the very judging procedures. The words ". . . if, indeed, there is a next year . . was for a while at least a realistic attitude. Though there remain areas of contention, the many changes to the structure and judging criteria of the Awards that were foreshadowed last year by AFI executive director Vicki Molloy, seem to have deflected the criticism that the Awards, as Molfoy candidly put it last year, were “ too arty and not useful to the industry". Notwithstanding a query by the Screen Production Association of Australia over the inclusion of one of the most nominated films, The Year My Voice Broke, the AFI has taken steps to overcome the kinds of hitches that threatened the Awards' existence. Amongst the changes, this year sees the best film judged by industry practitioners, and the introduction of a new award judged entirely by the general membership of the AFI. Accredited industry practitioners vote in their own area of specialisation, as well as for best film in the feature and non-feature categories. Producers and directors are eligible to vote in all specialist areas, of which there are nine (comprising direction, screenplay, acting, costume design, cinematography, editing, music, production design and sound). Through the introduction of pre selection procedures, accredited members only have to see the four films nominated in their particular area of specialisation. According to Molloy, there are two main benefits of the changes. Filmmakers and industry personnel have much greater involvement in the judging of awards, through the pre selection panels comprised of members of industry associations and guilds, and the peer-group

6 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

TALE OF RUBY ROSE: Melita Jurisic and Chris Haywood voting procedures. Unlike previous years where time commitments often prevented industry personnel from seeing all the films necessary for them to vote, now they need only see the four films that have been nominated in each category. The newly introduced award is a special AFI Members Award (most popular film) and also includes non-feature categories (short fiction, experimental, documentary and animated which have also been pre-selected by panels). Sixteen feature films have been entered. As well, there are TV awards for best telefeature (for which 20 were entered) and miniseries (14 entered), judged by panels sitting in Sydney and Melbourne, respectively, and each comprised of eight members.

JBm

GROUND ZERO: Jack Thompson and Colin Friels

According to Molloy, good attendances at the national screenings would seem to indicate that the streamlined procedures have attracted a lot of active film practitioners and the changes, she claims, have been very well >

F ilm Victoria congratulates all the 1987 AFI Award Nominees and is proud of its association with:

FEATHERS GROUNDZERO TOMARKET TOMARKET PAINTING THE TOWN SLATE, WYNN ME THE TALE OFRUBYROSE WARMNIGHTS ONA SLOW MOVING TRAIN V FILM VICTORIABest Performance in a Supporting Role.

1987 AUSTRALIAN HLM INSBTUTE AWARDS FEATURE FILM NOMINATIONS Best achievement in costume design:

Best film: Ground Zero High Tide

Bullseye - George Liddle

The Tale O f Ruby Rose

The Place At The Coast - Anna French

The Year M y V oice Broke

Those Dear Departed - Roger Ford

Best achievement in direction:

The Um brella W o m a n - Jen nie Tate

Ground Zero - M ichael Pattinson and

Best achievement in cinematography:

Bruce Myles

THE YEAR MY VOICE BROKE: Loene Carmen and Ben Mendelsohn < received. The Awards ceremony will be held at Melbourne's Palais Theatre on 9 October and will be telecast on ABC-TV. The format of the ceremony is not yet known. Rob Pemberton (as producer and director) and Grant Rule (as executive producer), both known best for their collaboration on live entertainment telecasts of Countdown, will produce the show. However, the sore points of this year's Awards stem from the presence of one film, and the absence of another. The Year My Voice Broke, it has been claimed, was ineligible for the feature film categories as it was made as part of a package of films for television. The film carries nominations for best film, direction and screenplay (John Duigan), actor (Noah Taylor), actress (Loene Carmen), supporting actor (Ben Mendelsohn) and editing (Neil Thumpston). Molloy confirmed, however, that "on the basis of information provided by [the producer] Kennedy Miller, the film will remain in competition". The film, it seems, was made on 35mm with Dolby sound on the understanding that an exhibitor would be sought if the film was suitable for commercial release. SPAA President Ross Dimsey was anxious to hose down the contention, claiming the association merely sought clarification of the AFI's guidelines for the film's eligibility. On the other hand, Dogs In Space was not entered in the Awards, whilst several others were entered (Candy Regentag, The Marsupials — Howling 3, With Love To The Person Next To Me, Shame, Cassandra, The Humpty Dumpty Man) but failed to receive

8 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

nominations. Several other films were not ready in time for the screenings held during July and August. Dogs In Space producer Glenys Rowe said that because the film had already been released, there were no direct benefits to be gained from participating in the AFI awards, and "the cost of two prints and the entry fees was a sufficient deterrent". Interestingly, the four films nominated for best film (Ground Zero, High Tide, The Tale O f Ruby Rose, The Year My Voice Broke) have also been nominated for direction (Michael Pattinson and Bruce Myles, Gillian Armstrong, Roger Scholes and John Duigan respectively) and, with the exception of The Tale O f Ruby Rose, have figured prominently in the original screenplay (Mac Gudgeon and Jan Sardi, Laura Jones, John Duigan, respectively) and acting categories. Only four films were eligible for the category of screenplay adapted from another source, including David Williamson's screenplay of Travelling North, which, to the surprise of many, failed to win nominations for best film or direction (Carl Schultz). In the non feature categories, nominations for the various categories are shared by: Friends And Enemies, H ow The West Was Lost, Musical Mariner (documentary); Crust, In Love Cancer, 224, Worry (animation); Landslides, Nice Coloured Girls, Palisade, Shoppingtown (experimental); Damsels Be Damned, Feathers, Poetry For An Englishman, Spaventapasseri (short fiction).

Paul Kalina

High Tide - Gillian Armstrong

Belinda - M alcolm M cCulloch

The Tale O f Ruby Rose - Roger Scholes

Ground Zero - Steve Dobson

The Year M y Voice Broke - John Duigan

The Um brella W o m a n - James Bartle

Best original screenplay:

W arm Nights O n A Slow M oving Train

Belinda - Pamela Gibbons

- Yuri Sokol

Ground Zero - M ac Gudgeon and Jan

Best achievement in editing:

Sardi

Bullseye - Richard Francis-Bruce

High Tide - Laura Jones

Ground Zero - David Pulbrook

The Year M y V oice Broke - John Duigan

The Um brella W o m a n - John Scott

Best performance by an actor in a leading role:

Thumpston

The Year M y V oice Broke - Neil

Ground Zero - Colin Fuels

Best original music score:

Travelling North

Shadows O f The Peacock - W illiam

Leo M cKern

The Umbrella W o m a n - Bryan Brown

Motzing

The Year M y Voice Broke - Noah

The Tale O f Ruby Rose - Paul Schutze

Taylor

Those Dear- Departed - Phillip Scott

Best performance by an actress in a leading role:

The Um brella W o m a n - Cam eron Allan

High Tide - Judy Davis

Best achievement in production design:

Shadows O f The Peacock - W e n d y

Bullseye - George Liddle

Hughes

Ground Zero - Brian Thomson

Travelling North - Julia Blake

The Place At The Coast - O w en

The Year M y V oice Broke - Loene

Paterson

Carmen

To Market, To Market - Virginia Rouse

Best performance by an actor in a supporting role:

Best achievement in sound:

Ground Zero - Donald Pleasence

Ground Zero - G a ry W ilkins, M ark

Initiation - Bobby Smith

Wasiutak, Craig Carter, Roger Savage

Belinda - Tim Lloyd

The Umbrella W o m an - Steven Vidler

High Tide - Peter Fenton, Phil

The Year M y V oice Broke - Ben

H eywood, Martin O swin, Ben Osmo,

Mendelsohn

Geoff Krix, John Jordan, A nne Breslin,

Best performance by an actress in a supporting role:

John Patterson

Belinda - Kaarin Fairfax

Greg Bell, Peter Fenton, Phil H eyw ood,

High Tide - Jan Adele

Martin Oswin

Shadows O f The Peacock - Tim Lloyd,

High Tide - Claudia Karvan The Place At The Coast - Julie Hamilton

NON-FEATURE FILM NOMINATIONS Best documentary:

Best achievement in screenplay:

Friends And Enemies

H o w The W est W a s Lost - David

H ow The W est W a s Lost

Noakes, Paul Roberts

Musical M ariner (Part O ne)

Spaventapasseri - Luigi Acquisto

Painting The Town

Smacks And Kicks - Catherine Stone

Best animation:

W itchhunt - Barbara Chobocky, Jeffrey

Crust

Bruer

In Love Cancer

Best achievement in cinematography:

224 W o rry

H o w The W est W a s Lost - Philip Bull

Best experimental: Landslides

Musical M ariner (Part O ne) - M ichael Dillon

Nice Coloured Girls

Palisade - Laurie M clnnes

Palisade

Spaventapasseri - Jaems Grant

Shoppingtown

Best achievement in editing:

Best short fiction:

Damsels Be Damned - M urray Ferguson

Damsels Be Damned

H o w The W est W a s Lost - Frank

Feathers

Rijavec

Poetry For An Englishman

Kick Start - Nubar Ghazarian

Spaventapasseri

Musical Mariner (Part O ne) - Simon

Best achievement in direction:

Dibbs, Bill Leimbach

Feathers - John Ruane

Best achievement in sound:

H o w The W est W a s Lost - David

Friends And Enemies - Keiran Knox, Geoff Stitt

Noakes The Nights Belong To The Novelist Christina W ilco x

Landslides - How ard Spry, Denise Haslem

Spaventapasseri - Luigi Acquisto

Musical M ariner (Part O n e) - David Fanshawe, Alasdair M acFarlane Palisade - Greg Bell, M artin Oswin

.. THERE'LL ALWAYS BE A N ENGLAND A S LONG

A S THERE ARE CHARACTER COMEDIES LIKE WTIHNAIL <&/... A S DELICIOUSLY W ITTY AND SOPHISTICATED A ^ IT T ^

OUTRAGEOUSLY FUNNY" . . • ■

LA. TIMES

FILM & SOUND A R C^H I V E congratulates the nominees of the 1987 AFI AWARDS NATIONAL FILM AND SOUND ARCHIVE PROUDLY PRESERVING AUSTRALIA’S FILM HERITAGE

A comedy of decay P a u l M c G a rm • R ic h a rd E . G ra n t • R ic k a rd G r iffitk s W ritte n an d d irec ted k y B r u c e R o k in so n

CEL o sTM eunoN

SCREENING FROM SEPTEMBER ACADEMY TWIN 13a Oxford S t. 334453

(

[59 Toorak Rd • Sth Sferra • 2672700)

ELECTRIC SHADOWS A

BOULEVARD TWIN VAkuna Street, City Phone 475060J

awards Cine vex is part of the process! The same processing expertise that went into ‘Malcolm’, ‘Dunera Boys’ and ‘Kangaroo’ goes into all our work. Being associated with such award winners is not new to Cinevex, after Ml, you do get used to it with 20 years in the business.

CINEVEX

The process of bringing ideas to life CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES : 15-17 Gordon Street, Elsternwick, Victoria 3185 Phone: (03) 5286188. Fax: 5285098. Telex AA 38366

McCoy Circuit, Acton, Canberra GPO Box 2002, Canberra 2601 Telephone: (062) 67 1711 Telex: AA61930 Fax: 474651 47 Little La Trobe Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3001 Telephone: (03) 663 1463 Raymond Engineers Building, 3rd Floor, 24 Market Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. Telephone: (02) 29 8199

W ho is Chip Dexter, and what has he got to do w ith A ndy Warhol., Lassie and a Canadian filmmaker working on his first feature script? JIL L IA N B U R T finds out the answer from

type spots”on the radio in a very X ^ h i p Dexter is a fictional roving straight, factual, developed, sort of reporter assigned for life to question-answer tone. There was communicate the ideas and im absolutely no laugh track, so whoever pressions of Gerald L’Ecuyer. Gerald got it, got it and whoever didn’t L’Ecuyer is a Canadian filmmaker who didn’t .” is taking part three of the Chip Dexter After film school he moved to New chronicles — a short film entitled The York and started working at the Critical Years — on the festivals Factory with Andy Warhol. In his third circuit, beginning with Toronto and Chip Dexter movie Brigid Berlin, who in. He is based in New York and has appeared in many of Warhol’s movies n. an assistant director on Andy Warhol’s cable TV show (includingfrom the sixties, plays Chip Dexter’s mother. New York performance artist Warhol’s rock video for The Cars) and Ann Magnuson, who has appeared in reports his conversations with filmS usan S e id e lm a n ’ s D e s p e ra te ly ikers for Interview magazine. Seeking Susan and Making Mr Right, L’Ecuyer’s first Chip Dexter movie and opposite River Phoenix in Jimmy St $50 and was a Super 8 movie of Reardon, plays the psychiatrist that eight minutes. The second Chip Dexter Chip visits because he is having movie was made while he was study trouble distinguishing fa c t from ing cinema at Concordia University in fiction, Montreal and was 14 minutes long and L’Ecuyer wanted to “ make a film cost $800. “ That won me a whole that would capture what a conversa series of prizes, it won best cinemato tion would look like if one could be graphy at the Canadian student film photographed. I also wanted to make a festival and I got the top prize at my funny film, even if it was in a dark university. It was like a showcard. It way” . He shot the film on a sound was 12 little stories of Chip Dexter, stage in New York city with “ sets either points of view, or stories, or modelled after old television episodes people he was interviewing. Some of Lassie” . The Critical Years js a were actors and some weren’t. And mixture of emotional textures pre that got me quite a major grant from the Canada Council for the Arts to sented in an unusual way. Everything is completely unexpected or viewed develop a Script and keep going. They from an unusual angle. Chip Dexter is stuck with me because I ran out of reviewing moments from his life (he is money twice. Rarely do they stick with heard but not seen, and the narration someone that long. They really had is by L’Ecuyer) with his analyst. The faith and it paid off and they’re really darkest moments with Brigid Berlin, as ecstatic about the film. They’re just a defeated mother eating ice-cream in thrilled to death.” the kitchen of Chip’s childhood, are Chip Dexter is more than a character the most cruelly funny. The flashbacks at L’Ecuyer’s disposal, he’s more like show young Chip as ridiculous and a complete philosophy and reflects a generally reporterly attitude that is profound and revelatory about frogs and pieces of glass. The analyst her present in L’Ecuyer’s work. He was a researcher self, or the concept of analysis, is dis ■ - on radio - with the Canadian sected in a charming, disgruntled per Broadcasting Corporation while at film formance by Ann Magnuson. It’s the school and Chip Dexter spilled over sort of movie that is completely per into his radio work. “ That’s when the sonal and complex and contradictory mixing of the journalism, documen and has a time-release effect; it is tary, fictional feats really intensified. memorable in the most insistent sort By day I was getting screamed at to be of way. factual and to be accurate and to use works properly and not be wrong and “ I write all of my films and one of the be absolutely true to the facts. And things that I think is kind of interesting then at school there was the opposite, — coming out of a journalistic back let go of any precepts or concepts you ground -— when you’re writing for films have of what is formal and forget it. So is that line between fact and fiction I was straddled between the two and it being blurred. When you’ve got a became a very interesting tension. I character you live with him all the time. used Chip Dexter in political cartoon Chip is always there with me. I’m (

E E

H f f f l l fis iS S ilia

10 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

always talking to him and seeing the world through his eyes. I’m allowed through him to say things that I would normally find too embarrassing to say. And Chip is allowed to talk about his family and things like that, where i wouldn’t dare. “ What I wanted to do was tell people that almost everybody’s family has a great story. Everybody has a divorced aunt, everybody’s got what they think are skeletons but are really a great story. It’s also in the way of telling it. You don’t have to tell a story in a tradi tional way to get it across. I feel that people can fill in the holes a lot.” L’Ecuyer talks to filmmakers that he admires and wants to find out more about for Interview magazine. This year he’s done the cover story about Diane Keaton and interviewed David Lynch, among others. “ The qualities involved with being a good journalist are exactly what you don’t want to have when you’re doing a creative film. I’ve always felt that you either do or you report and that’s where the danger comes in for me. I have to temper myself all the time and that’s hard. And also at every one of these interviews I have to resist the unbeliev able temptation at the end of the inter views to say ‘by the way I happen to have a tape of my work here’. You have to resist because there is no point in it, they’ve already given you so much that the purpose of the inter view is an end in itself. In terms of my own writing it helps, it really does help. I hear so much advice along the way. It’s a very confusing kind of jungle but I’m just making up my own rules and so far so good.” The Critical Years was first shown at a private screening at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in May this year and later that same night on cable television in New York. As a result of that screening L’Ecuyer is currently working on a treatment of the next Chip Dexter movie as a feature. “ It’s about Chip Dexter and his best friend. His best friend is a kind of special kid who was on every block* who used to wear baggy shorts and was too skinny for his age and was too smart or too dumb for regular schools. I was always spiritually best friends with that child. This time Chip Dexter and his best friend go off on an adventure.”

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 11

to filmmaking, Derek Jarman

been an innovator* ANNE-MAREE HEWITT talks to i him about ‘footpath movies*, money, British cinema and his film about the painter Caravaggio, soon to be released in Australia* don’t feel anything for filmmaking at all. It started off being a joy and ended up being the albatross in my own life. I began as a happy-go-lucky home-movie maker with my friends. Slowly, as I moved into what one calls ‘cinema’, I found a world that, although it had a sort of camaraderie, was horribly mercenary and hierarchical. I’ve not really had that with my films (I’d had a taste of it working on The Devils with its really big budget) but in a way Cara vaggio pointed in that direction. You could feel that other world hovering in and around it, the world of financiers and money. It had taken seven years to get that film made and in the end I thought, ‘Is it worth spending seven years on any subject?’ I went back to the Super 8 camera because I realised I was not going to sit down and write another script, which we all know is a charade; no way do films ever look like their scripts unless they are boring television movies!

Caravaggio was meant to be your entry to the mainstream, the beginning of co-option into commercial British cinema.

There isn’t a British mainstream. There’s no British cinema, it’s a complete myth. British cinema is composed of four or five people of my generation (this is film, not TV) and four or five of the ‘old guard’ from a time when ‘cinema’ did exist. It’s a series of fragmentations that is draped with the illusion of cohesion. If there was an industry as such, you would get a coherent path one could follow, with people working from one film to the next. This is not so. Go back 10 or 15 years and it’s the generation of Roeg and Russell. Then the seventies was a very difficult time, the cinema was in the wilderness. Where had it all disappeared to? I don’t know. You could name Ken Loach, whose body of work came out of that decade, and perhaps Julien Temple. It still remains a string of individuals. If you think about it, there isn’t even a younger generation. I’m ‘Young British Cinema’, I’m 45 years old, the same with Stephen Frears! We are talking about feature films here, I’m not talking about ‘film’. Don’t think that I segregate it, I’m Photographs by Gerald Incandela from Derek Jarman’s Caravaggio, published by Thames & Hudson. $20 rrp.

more interested in underground film, or what might be experimental, whatever you like to call it. I simply call it very low budget cinema because 1 think it is actually part and parcel of the main stream. I hate to cut it off like that. So where are the feature filmmakers in their twenties? I don’t count someone like Alex Cox — he made Sid A nd Nancy 10 years after it happened and that seems a very American way of making a movie career. It is so unbelievably historicising, you may as well do Caravaggio and go back 400 years as 10! It is also the incredible thing about British features at the moment — hardly anyone is actually reflecting the situation here. The trouble with my filmmaking was that I was stuck in the seventies until Caravaggio was made because I had to stick to that film to make it, so I’d become a historic movie maker. I was, in reality, keen to make films about the issues of now. I read somewhere, ‘Derek Jarman equals art film and all that renaissance stuff’, and I can understand how that can be written. I couldn’t catch up with the eighties as I wanted to stay with the project. Now I am rather glad I couldn’t because they were pretty bleak and when I did catch up I had a better perspective on Thatcher’s Britain, which is a disaster masquerading as a success.

has given Derek Jarman a greater affinity with young filmmakers. Not only is he working in a similar sphere of concern, but he is accessible. To the young actor who accosts him in the street with a resume, or those who bring their work for him to see, he remains friendly and enthusiastic. This openness is part of his view of film as a pro cess rather than a product, an attitude which is a motivating force and keeps him in contact with changes in the film culture).

Music videos have also kept me in contact. They are adverts really, not specifically about products but also the people trapped inside these adverts.

Even though I’m not very good at making these things (in comparison with the glossy promos you see) what they have done for me is put me in touch with all the new technology which I could not have had access to otherwise. You were right when you said that with something like The Queen Is Dead it is difficult to decide whether it was a promotional video for The Smiths or a Jarman film that had The Smiths music on its soundtrack. It was much more the latter. The record company wanted the video, not The Smiths. I said I would make my film and asked the band (via the promoters) if I could use their ^

Yet your films seem to always have a foothold in the present. Even when dealing with myth or masque, the backward look at Arcadia, they have the sense of being contemporary. Perhaps this is due to the issues of sexuality they contain.

The thing about sexual politics is that essentially it can become ridiculous, because it is again a denial that it is one huge spectrum. It can divide things in a way that is impossible, so that all you get is demarcation lines. (Laughing) You know I become ‘Peter Pan faggot’ and that’s it. Don’t use the word ‘gay’ and if you do print it, cross it out, because the thing about it is that although it can distil a few ideas it also makes one a target on many levels. Feminism is another matter, I think that is a much bigger issue involving half the human race and any allies that can be got from the other half. I was never politically straightforward, it’s too difficult. My background is too difficult to fit into the patterns of English politics. The basic political thing about my films is that I carried on making them in Super 8. If I have made any political gesture, that’s the one. Yes, it was for myself struggling against the industry situation to find a way around the blockade, yet at any given time I was thinking this should at least give some . . . what? . . . comradeship to students of film who have absolutely nothing. They can see someone who is still making films in Super 8 even though I’ve made those films which have opened in the Berlin Film Festival in competition. (The determination to continue to produce low budget cinema through media other than 35mm

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 13

music, I never actually met them. So we went away to make those three films as an experiment through video because I wanted to make The Last O f England that way. It was rather like taking out a palette or a paint-box. We used every sort of technique you could imagine to see what the state of technology was for taking Super 8 and video through to 35mm. I don’t think anything happens in that film that hasn’t happened in what you might call traditional underground cinema but it was the ease and cheapness by which you could achieve those effects that was interesting. Pop videos have also provided the means to live by. Though I have not done very many, two or three a year, they have been a stabilising factor. I was able to employ all the people who eventually worked on Caravaggio on them, so as a group we were continuously getting together although we weren’t making the ‘big’ film. There is a striking difference in the eroticisation of the image between the ‘big’ film Caravaggio and your ‘smaller’ films, say Angelic Conversa tion. Is this due simply to differing modes of pro duction or more formal concerns?

A lot of my work is very much a painter/filmmaker ‘looking’, whereas with Caravaggio its style tends to counter that, creating a tension. Angelic Conversation in particular is extreme concentration on looking, on detail, so in that film nothing really happens yet everything is amplified. If someone moves a hand it becomes more important. There was no idea of narrative when we were shooting, it moves because the people in it move. (Laughing) I call that film a ‘footpath movie’ rather than a road movie. It was, of course, shot on Super 8, just me, the camera and a few actors, which does involve more freedom. You can just drift through the summer, turning your gaze on anything. With Caravaggio there was a full crew and a tight six-week shooting schedule, that does change a lot, so I was trying something different. It’s definitely made in a more traditional manner, in the way of a film like Joan O f Arc. If

CARAVAGGIO: Interior scene

14 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

anything, it’s nearer to the essence of a twenties movie than an eighties movie, in its staging. It shares a constraint of camera movement with those old silents. Coming from a design/painting background do you feel your films are more interested in staging, art direction and ‘the image’, drawing meaning from that rather than being strongly narrative?

What you are saying is in one sense true. With Caravaggio I was making a narrative through the paintings rather than his actual life. Although his life is quite well recorded it is not very cinematic. Of course some parts are. He was a murderer — an element for a story — yet most of what we know is how much his paintings cost, how large they had to be, which isn’t exactly going to hold an audience! So this difference lies in the fact that I wanted to realise the ‘story’ through the paintings rather than the way of traditional narrative which would be the reverse of that. In another sense it is simply that I never have had any money to make my films. In fact I totted up the entire amount of money I’d spent on filmmaking . . . we shouldn’t talk about aesthetics, as money is all that matters! . . . I’ve spent less than a million pounds on my films altogether, including the newest, The Last O f England. To make nearly six feature films within that budget, knowing that a low budget film nowadays in this country is two million pounds, more than twice what I’ve ever spent, I had to work out ways around the constraints this imposed. So the economics played a large part. It’s not possible with a very low budget to have a very strong narrative. If one wanted a car chase the film would have had to be only a car chase. So I worked closer to home, in areas I knew well, developed from background influences. (Those influences range from a disciplined child hood growing up on a military base, to Slade Art College and his first film job designing the sets for Ken Russell’s The Devils. That other running through his own career is the constant quest for

funding and resources. The creation of the TV/film link through Channel 4 in the eighties was meant to alleviate the plight of independent filmmakers, yet Jarman still remained on the outside).

Channel Four at their inception said they wanted to make low budget independent feature films, yet I could get all the filmmakers of the seventies who would say ‘Why didn’t they help me?’ They failed to support us all, Julien Temple, Bill Douglas (until this year), Ron Peck, Sally Potter; it goes on and on. I had made the most films of anyone in the British cinema that were genuinely low budget and genuinely independent (three!), Sebastiane, Jubilee and The Tempest and they didn’t support me! They did support those in their own backyard, those in television who knew how to manipulate it. The independents didn’t understand it and no-one knew who they were anyhow. What was the ‘wild west’, the open space, where filmmakers roamed quite freely in the seventies, was suddenly fenced off. The idea was that they were going to irrigate it and make it flower. The irony was, of course, that the ‘odd balls’ that used to wander through this area were shut out, and I was one of them. They did, in fact, make ‘new’ cinema but we were left to fight back with less money. There is usually a sense of amazement at the work you produce with so little money.

It isn’t miraculous, there’s no great secret. Any one can make a film with five pounds and a Super 8 camera, and with a bit more money it can be put onto 35mm via video. It’s just that people are educated to approach things in a certain way. The notion of ‘filmmaking’ is very antiquated and structured so that nothing actu ally gets done. Vast sums of money are spent in order that producers can be in the right restaurants, directors pull rank on set to be called sir. All that which has nothing to do with the life of the film, ideas of work or anything, it’s just the big grinding industry. My criterion for films is not whether I like them or not but to feel that the people who made them, really needed to make them. You can tell that when you watch a film; whether the idea was theirs or so close to their hearts, like The Tempest was to my life, that they adopt it. If you can feel that someone wanted it and their friends got together and made it, then that to me is valid. That’s my criterion when looking at the cinema. Otherwise I am not interested. It is absolutely a view from my side of the fence, for there is nothing on the other side, it’s a desert. In the cinema there should be many voices but the system won’t allow it and you can’t really change that system. It’s like Buñuel said, ‘We failed completely, surrealism was going to change the world but we didn’t change any thing’. His book My Last Breath is so wonderful because it is so honest about such things. So long as the ‘flag is kept flying’ for this small project and that other low budget film, and it carries on from generation to generation, that is all that matters. You know that sometimes someone breaks through, like Buñuel, but most don’t. I don’t make my films for everyone in the world and I’m not a TV analyst who says, ‘Sixteen million watched this therefore it must be good’. That’s not my approach to things. I mean Van Gogh’s pots of sunflowers are first watched by him, then his friends, and then the whole world knows about them. (Laughing) Could this happen to my little films?

Idilli M

—

VIDEO TAPES

Since 1963, when FUJI became Japan’s firs t m anufacturer o f broadcast video tape, FUJI PROFESSIONAL VIDEO TAPE has earned a worldwide reputation for unsurpassed quality and consistency. H 6 21/H 62 1B 1-inch video tape, H521B R /H 521 3/4-inch U-matic videocassette, H 421M ^ fo r m a t/H 3 2 1 BETACAM 1 /2-inch videocassette for ENG/EFP application.

VIDEO TA PE VIDEO TAPE

IMAGING THE WORLD Fuji, leaders in their field of film & videotape technology, now offer a wide range of products for the professionals who demand and expect consistent quality and top performance.

H A N IM E X AUDIO VISUAL DIVISION P.0. BOX 57 BROOKVALE 2100 PHONE: 008 226355 TOLL FREE OR SYDNEY 938 0230

o w th a t y o u 're w in d in g d o w n teaching, w h e re does th a t leave you? You w e re this kind o f n om ad , travelling a ro u n d , and th en located yourself in one spot, in San Diego fo r several years, just like th e cross on th e m ap th a t says " Y o u are h e re " . It's alm ost as th ou gh you w ere reacting to som ething o r against som ething. So w h a t happens now?

I d o n 't k n o w . I re a lly d o n 't. W h a t can I say, I h a v e the sense that th e kind of effort 1 h a v e been in v o lv e d in, m o re or less, in th e last 10 years, an d p rio r to that w ith Jean -Lu c G o d a rd , has b een a v e ry d ifficu lt e n d e a v o u r. If yo u w a n t, I am s o m e o n e w h o has m a in ly fu n c tio n e d th ro u g h o u t his film c a re e r as a film essayist, an d th e things that I d o are film essays. It so h ap p en s that essays in c in e m a are th e m ost repressed sub-genre or m o d e of ex pres sion. W h y ? Essentially b e c a u se th e y are a b s o lu te ly 'at h o m e ', th e y 'r e garage film s an d to ta lly n o n - co m m ercia l. T a k e R o u tin e Pleasures: m o re so th an Po to A n d C ab e n g o , it's a film w h ic h is ab so lu te ly, from its in c e p tio n , signalling itself by th e fact that it's not go in g to m ak e a p e n n y . Thus, y o u r d ia lo g u e w ith th e p ro d u c tio n ap p aratu s is im m e d ia te ly m arred b e c a u se co m p o sitio n is so m e th in g th at c a n n o t be ig n o red . T h e re are v e r y fe w film essayists; y o u can c o u n t th em on th e fingers o f y o u r h an d . JeanLu c G o d a rd fu n c tio n s in part as o n e . B u t o n e sh o u ld n 't forget

16 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

that Jean -Lu c G o d a rd o c c u p ie s a p la c e in th e h isto ry of the c in e m a w h ic h is akin to th e p la c e o f L e o n a rd o D a V in c i in the history of art. So that w h a te v e r Jean -Lu c says, m e a n in g that he casts his p erso n a as e te rn a lly e m b attle d and n e e d y, Jean - Lu c is so m e o n e w h o has no p ro b le m in term s o f p ro d u c tio n . T h e n you h ave s o m e o n e like C h ris M a rk e r w h o , in fact, m y w o r k is closer to in m a n y w a y s . C h ris fu n c tio n s a little bit like m e, 1 su sp ect — I d o n 't rea lly k n o w b e c a u se h e's a v e ry se c re tiv e m an. T hen th e re are p e o p le like S tra u b and H u ille t, w h o I think should also be c o n s id e re d as film essayists. B u t th e ir trajecto ries are e x e m p la ry. T h e y m ight be th e m ost p riva te of th e great film m akers in th e sense that th e ty p e o f d istrib u tio n that th e y get and th e ty p e o f e x p o su re that th e y get is m o re and m o re re d u ce d . In a w a y , th e p ro b le m is that in th e last 20 years th e film essay has fo u n d its p o ssib ility o f su b sisten ce th ro u g h te le v is io n . Essen tially, it is re search ed sectors o f big te le visio n outfits th at have e n a b le d th e film essay to exist. T h e p ro b le m is that, to take R o u tin e as an e x a m p le , h e re is a film essay w h ic h has a strong c o n sid e ra tio n o r un fair e m p h asis on fo rm a l p ro b le m s, o n the form al p ro b le m s o f th e craft a n d , g e n e ra lly , th e p e o p le w h o can su p p o rt th e ty p e o f w o r k th a t I d o are fe w an d far b e tw e e n b e c a u se th e rea lity o f th e te le v isio n outfits is also th e re a lity of a v e r y c o n s e rv a tiv e a e sth etic. Y o u h a v e this situatio n in w h ic h

»ILL TRAVEL j I

W hen JEAN-PIERRE GORIN arrived in tow n for the M elb o u rn e Film Festival, there w as no m atch. His passion fo r investigation, his polem ical response to alm ost any subject put before him , his know ledge of th e film m aking craft, g ave au d ien ces here the sense that he had landed from a n o th e r planet. Indeed it rem ained this w ay until th e final w eeken d of the festival when th e W im W enders ju ggernaut rolled in. On the one side, W e n d e rs ’ prizew inning Wings Of Desire, a big film w orking tow ard th e big ideal; on th e o th er, G o rin ’s idiosyncratic Routine Pleasures, a “ film e s s a y ’ ’ w hich dem onstrates, am ong o th e r th in gs, G o rin ’s love of sm all-scale epics, private obsessions. But th e dust d id n ’t have tim e to settle before th e tw o film m akers had m ade th e ir exit, one of them cynically vow ing th a t w hen he returned the queues outside th e cin em a w ould be fo r his film . In Jean -L u c G odard, G orin once found another m atch, w orking w ith him in the Dziga-Vertov group in 1969-70 (Pravda, Vent d ’est, Lotte In Italia) th en to g e th e r on Tout Va Bien and Letter To Jane (1972). It is how ever a period he is hesitant to discuss: his response to a question concerning G odard at a Festival sem inar was, “ W e have th is terrib ly insane relationship, I mean . . . Phew ! Unless you charge me as my analyst, I w o n ’t say anything m o re .” But fo r his tw o film s screened at the Festival — Routine Pleasures (1986) and th e earlier Poto A n d C abengo (1979) — he has no final w ord. For him, th e film s m ark tw o points in an open-ended system of inquiry, and if you can sneak in a

question about them , it only entices him to fu rth er add layer upon layer to th eir suggestive narratives. A t one level, the film s are docum en taries: Gorin as narrator observing th e lives of others. In Poto, it is the life of six-year-old tw ins G racie and Ginny K ennedy w ho w ere th o u g h t to have invented their ow n language and w ere co nsequently hounded by language experts and press alike, in Routine Pleasures, th e thoug hts of p ainter and film critic M anny Farber are intercut w ith the activities of a group of m odel railroad enthusiasts w ho explain in great detail the w orkings of th e ir m iniature landscape. Y et Gorin also know s how to perform , provoca tively casting him self as “ a drunken bum that grabs you on a bench and is suddenly intent on telling you his life at all c o sts” . He too is a charac te r in these film s: fragm ented autobiographies w hich tell the story of a nom ad w ho left France, travelled in M exico, G uatem ala, th e United States, landed a job teaching film at the U niversity of San Diego (w ith M anny Farber), and then “ s tayed ” . And through th e intricate im aginary landscapes constructed in Poto A n d Cabengo and Routine Pleasures, he has continued to take journeys, m ental journeys. The hobbyists from the Pacific Beach & W estern Model R ailw ay Association have a tale of perm an ence to tell — th a t is th e ir attraction fo r Gorin, som eone w ho is alw ays shifting, refusing the direct line. Even in interview s, as w e soon dis covered, he favours the detour.

Kathy Bail and Raffaele Caputo

1 th ere is, on th e o n e h an d , th e in d u stry — H o lly w o o d and its su b d ivisio n s o r its s u b c o n tra c to rs — an d , on th e o th e r han d , th e re is T V , but to m e it's th e t w o fa ces o f th e sam e c o in in m a n y w a ys . B e c a u s e m y film s are d o n e w ith v e ry little m o n e y, I rea lly th o u g h t th at I w o u ld get sm all a m o u n ts o f m o n e y to be ab le to c o n tin u e a c e rta in ty p e o f c in e m a , a c e rta in b o d y o f w o rk , an d a certain ty p e o f in v e stig a tiv e film m a k in g . I th in k th e reason w h y p e o p le are so u n e a s y w ith m y film s is th e y 'r e e ssen tia lly film s that are m o re in terested in asking q u estio n s th an offering an sw ers. So th e y h a v e so m e sort o f existential d im e n s io n . I m ak e films b e c a u s e s o m e w h e re in th e p ro cess of m ak in g th e film I d o learn s o m e th in g a b o u t m yse lf an d th e w o rld . If I k n e w w h e r e I w as go in g to land I p ro b a b ly w o u ld n 't m ak e th e film . So th e y 'r e esse n tia lly p ro cess- o riented , an d b y p ro cess I m ean ''w o r k ''. A t this stage, an d this is w h y I say I d o n 't k n o w , I d o n 't th in k it's p o ssib le to fin d fu n d in g , w h ic h begs th e q u estio n that it is h ig h ly p o ssib le th a t th e film essay c a n n o t subsist as film an d has to ta k e th e d e to u r o r tran sfo rm itself an d find its m o d e o f e x p res sion th ro u g h th e te c h n ic a lity o f v id e o , w h ic h I th in k is so m eth in g ve ry, v e r y d iffe re n t fro m film . So th e q u estio n fo r m e is, d o l k eep d o in g th e stuff th a t I am d o in g , o r d o I m a k e an effort to find m yself in c o n d itio n s o f p ro d u c tio n an d d istrib u tio n w h ic h are m o re c la s sica l? In o th e r w o rd s , shall I p ro d u c e a n arra tive film

w h e re th e re is classical d istrib u tio n , e ve n if that n arrative film is not rea lly a c o m p le te ly H o lly w o o d film but w h a t I call th e su b co n tra cto rs o f H o lly w o o d . Sh a ll I le a ve or shall I stay? Sh all l be A m e ric a n o r shall I be F re n c h ? A w h o le set o f q u e stio n s th at are m arked by a big q u estio n m ark.

Let's m ove on and ta lk ab o u t Poto A n d C abengo. In a w ay, it seems Poto A n d C abengo is an answ er to L etter To Jane. L etter To Jane looks like a film th a t's really p lan n ed o u t, you have th a t p h o to o f Jane Fonda, y o u 'v e selected th e still fro m Tout Va Bien, and th e voice-overs seem as th ou gh th e y 'v e been alread y w ritte n and th e y 're just read o u t. But Poto A n d Cabengo is co m p le te ly d iffe re n t, it's like you just cam e along and you read this artic le in th e n ew sp ap er and you th o u g h t, " W e ll, I'm just going to grab m y cam era, get into th e car, and w ith o u t any kind o f p la n n in g o r a n yth in g , I'm going to go and shoot this f i lm ." W e ll, I'v e b een tra in e d in e x a c tly th e o p p o s ite w a y . M y s c h o la rly train in g w a s " I used to d o m y h o m e w o r k " , an d " d o in g m y h o m e w o r k " is rea lly like th e ep ig rap h to Letter To Ja n e . Letter To Ja n e is a film w h e r e th e h o m e w o r k is d o n e . I d e c id e d th at I w a n te d to put m yse lf in e x a c tly th e reverse p ositio n , e x c e p t th at ^

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 17

in th e c ase o f P o to A n d C a b e n g o — and this is o n e o f th e things th at e x p la in s R o u tin e Pleasures and in a w a y pissed m e off w h e n I sa w th e re a ctio n to Po to — Po to is a trick . P o to is a trick th ro ug h an d th ro u g h . A t th e tim e I w a s v e r y d ep ressed and I had no w o rk . A frien d of m in e, T o m L u d d y , w h o w a s th en th e d ire c to r of th e P a c ific Film A r c h iv e in B e rk e le y , to ld m e that Ek h ard Stein o f Z D F (Z w e ite s D e u tsc h e s F e rn s e h e n ) w a s passing th ro ug h to w n an d that if I w a n te d to d o a film I had b etter find a su b ject. In th e m o rn in g I just step p ed o n to this n e w s p a p e r w h e r e th e story of th e tw in s w as c a rrie d , an d th e n I had a v e r y b oozed -out e v e n in g w ith Ek h ard an d I lied to h im . I said, " I 'v e got th e tw in s. I'v e secu red th e rights. I'v e seen th e kids. I'v e got th e d o c u m e n ts from th e c h ild re n 's ho sp ital. I'v e got th e film . Let m e d o th e film ." W e ll, Stein e ith e r b e lie v e d m y lie o r he d id n 't. I d o n 't th in k it's th at im p o rtan t. I th in k th at he re a lly w a n te d m e to d o a film and he w a s re a d y to g ive m e th e p o ssib ility to d o o n e . B u t I rea lly had n o th ing . So first, I c a lle d th e parents, w h ic h w a s re a lly fu n n y b e c a u se th e fa th e r a n s w e re d and y o u c o u ld h ear his w ife in th e b a c k g ro u n d g ivin g him d ire c tio n s , an d at first th e fath er w a s kind o f alo o f, sayin g th in gs like " a lot o f p e o p le and a lot o f studios h a v e asked us to d o a film , etc, e t c " . So 1 got a la w y e r friend of m in e to call him b a c k and w e settled on so m eth in g . It w a s also a tim e w h e n I w a s c o m in g b a c k into te a c h in g in San D ieg o . I w e n t to see th e tw in s, a n d th e first th in g that struck m e w as th at th e y sp o k e English. T h e y sp o k e English! T h e story w a s gone. So at th a t p o in t th e re 's tw o so lu tio ns: e ith e r yo u d e c id e , " W e l l th e sto ry's g o n e an d th e film is not go in g to be m a d e " or, on the c o n tra ry , y o u say, " W e l l w h a t's b e c o m in g interesting is pre c is e ly th e fact th at th e story is not t h e r e ." 1 b e lie v e th a t s o m e w h e re alo n g th e line, as an essential p rin c ip le o f film m a k in g , o f n arratio n in fact, w h e th e r it's narrative c in e m a , fic tio n a l o r d o c u m e n ta ry film , th e re sh o u ld be so m e th in g th at is like a b la c k h o le at th e c e n tre o f th e n arratio n . T h ere sh o u ld be s o m e th in g th a t y o u c a n n o t talk ab o u t, or som ething th at y o u c a n n o t b re a k w h ic h is p re c is e ly w h a t a llo w s yo u the d e to u r. In m a n y w a y s , I h a v e this v isio n , this id ea, that language in g e n e ra l, ex p ressio n in g e n e ra l, is o n ly p ossib le if th e re is the im p o ssib ility o f e x p ressio n at its c o re . W e ta lk b e c a u se th ere is so m e th in g th a t w e c a n n o t say. If w e c o u ld say it m a y b e w e w o u ld n 't talk. So I got this id e a th a t I'm goin g to d o a film a b o u t som ething th a t has a lre a d y v a n is h e d . It's go in g to be a film a b o u t th e loss of in n o c e n c e , an d it's goin g to be so m e th in g a b o u t intim ate lan g u ag e, w h ic h is o n e o f o u r d e a re st m yths; I suspect it goes b a c k to th e w o m b an d to th e kind o f c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith in the fo etu s o r th e fo etal w a te rs o f th e m o th er. A n d so it's going to be a b o u t this loss of th e in tim a te la n g u ag e an d th e e n tra n c e into the w o rld . W h a t re a lly stru ck m e a b o u t this situation w a s that I w as d e a lin g w ith o n e o f o u r big m yths — th e m yth th at all m yths are lin ked to, th a t is th e sa vag e infant. Y o u k n o w , w h a t is th e title of T ru ffau t's film ? T h e W ild C h ild . B a s ic a lly it's p o e tic an d then it falls into th e w ild - ch ild - ca te g o ry ty p e o f m yth. T h e w ild-child m yth is b a s ic a lly an ad u lt m yth. It's th e id ea th a t h ere is this thing th at has this strang e m o d e o f c o m m u n ic a tio n w h ic h has to be b ro u g h t b a c k into th e w o rld . In th e case o f P o to , first an d fo rem o st, th o se kids w e re im p o se d u p o n . T h e y , p e rs o n a lly , w a n te d to go out, but e v e r y b o d y w a n te d th e m to be this th in g th a t d id n 't w a n t to go out. E v e ry b o d y ! T h e th e rap ist w a n te d th e m to be N o b e l Prize m aterial. T h e p aren ts w a n te d th e m to be, fo r reasons w h ic h had to d o w ith th e ir w e lfa re a m o n g o th e r things, th e ir path to the e c o n o m ic a l b e tte rm e n t o f th e ir lives. I w a n te d th em to be in a film . T h e kids just w a n te d to go out, an d in a w a y , th e kids w e re a b s o lu te ly fa scin a te d b y th e fa ct th a t e v e r y b o d y sa w th em as m ysterio u s. T h e y d id n 't see th e m s e lv e s as m ysteriou s, and also, b e c a u s e th e y w e r e v e r y p u re an d n a ive , th e y w e r e system atically hurt b y th e m o d e o f in vestig a tio n th e y w e r e attracting. P e o p le w e r e hitting on th e m for a c o u p le o f hours, e n te rin g th e ir w o rld w h ic h had b een v e r y sh e lte re d an d v e r y clo s e d up, b rea k in g into it an d th e n splitting. M y p ro b le m a tic is th a t I c a m e an d I stayed. So th a t b y c o m in g an d stayin g I fo u n d m yse lf c o m p le te ly trap p ed into a w h o le set o f e th ic a l p ro b le m s th a t u ltim a te ly th e film kind o f ex p lo re s. B u t I w a s ta lk in g a b o u t w h a t pissed m e off a b o u t P o to A n d C a b e n g o , an d it's th at p e o p le still sa w it as a " d o c u m e n t a r y " , w h e n fo r m e it w a s e ss e n tia lly a sh o rt story; a fictio n a l film in w h ic h a story w a s to ld in m u ch th e sa m e w a y as a short story by R a y m o n d C h a n d le r w o u ld be to ld , w ith a d e te c tiv e at its cen tre, m e an in g , in th e c a se o f P o to , th e film m a k e r. S o lv in g a case

18 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

w h ic h is s o lve d in fiv e s e c o n d s flat, but th e n h a v in g to d e al w ith th e c o n s e q u e n c e s , th e e th ic a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h a v in g so lve d th e case. T h e re is so m e th in g else w h ic h I th in k is ra th e r im p o rta n t an d I'm go in g to use s im p lic a tio n s fo r th e sa k e o f th e arg u m e n t, but it's th a t I h a v e this sense th a t c in e m a is p ro fo u n d ly sexist — th a t's in a ra th er lib era l, c lassica l sen se — no t o n ly in th e fact th at it d ep icts acts o f a b u s e an d o f p o w e r w h ic h b e a r o n w o m e n , but e ve n m o re, fo r so m e sort o f o n to lo g ic a l reaso n , I th in k th a t film is sexist. W h a t is g e n e ra lly at stake in film is th e d o m in a tio n , th e rela tio n sh ip o f p o w e r o f th e film m a k e r o v e r his m ate rial. M o s t o f th e tim e th e d ire c to r o f a film is re le n tle s sly a d o p tin g th e m is s io n a ry p o sitio n , as th o u g h he is sayin g , " H e r e am I a n d m y m aterial. L o o k at th e w a y I'm h u m p in g it to d e a th . L o o k at th e w a y I d riv e o u t o f it sc re a m s o f p le a su re , a n d p lease, y o u th e a u d ie n c e , d e riv e y o u r p le a s u re fro m th a t v o y e u r is tic re latio n sh ip th a t puts y o u into so m e v ic a rio u s c o n ta c t w ith m y m aste ry o v e r th e m a te r ia l." I h a v e th e sense, a n d o n c e ag ain this is a kind o f liberal c o m p o s itio n an d I'm re a lly s im p lifyin g th in gs th a t are m o re m eta-p olitical th a n a n y th in g else, but I h a v e th e sense that it w o u ld b e in terestin g to m a k e film s in w h ic h , as an e le m e n t of th e p ro b le m a tic , w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n is th a t th e film m ak e r, instead o f b ein g a d o m in a tin g fo rc e , w o u ld s u d d e n ly be a d o m in a te d fo rc e w h e r e th e m aterial w o u ld im p o s e o n th e film m ak er in a c e rta in w a y , th e film m a k e r w o u ld h a v e to be d rive n or sent a ro u n d b y th e m aterial. A n d I th in k P o to is that.

So w h a t you w a n t to do is ch allen g e th a t m easure o f e x p lo ita tion? Yes. B u t I d o n 't e s p e c ia lly in te n d to c h a lle n g e it in p ro b le m a tic term s. T h e o n ly w a y th a t 1 h a v e to c h a lle n g e it is to fin d m yself d ra w n into th e film an d th e n to e n d u p flu sh e d o u t o f this m is sio n ary, G o d - lik e, p o w e r p o sitio n th a t is in itia lly g ive n to m e by th e fact th at I am th e film m a k e r d o in g th e film . It's a rather e x c ru cia tin g e x p e rie n c e in a w a y , w h ic h I m ig h t u ltim ate ly d e c id e to sp are m yself. Let's say th e p ro b le m a tic o f d o c u m e n t a r y is re a lly th e p ro b le m a tic o f respect. Y o u h a v e to s h o w re s p e ct to th e p e o p le and th e situation th a t y o u d e s c rib e . In o rd e r to s h o w re sp e ct yo u h a v e to g ive w e ig h t; to s h o w re s p e ct is n e ith e r to p u t s o m e o n e on a p edestal or to put s o m e o n e d o w n — fo r m e th e y are tw o sides to th e sa m e c o in . It is to s h o w th e e x ten t o r th e range of e m o tio n s an d b e h a v io u r th a t th e situ atio n n ecessitates in y o u in th e re la tio n sh ip to th o s e p e o p le . S o y o u 'r e a b s o lu te ly d ra w n into th e process, y o u b e c o m e th e m a rk e r th a t e n a b le s th e a u d ie n c e to lo c a te itself in th e p ro cess, w h ic h m e a n s th a t I d o n ot m ind lo o k in g like a fo o l in th e film s th a t 1 m ak e . I th in k it's a b s o lu te ly essential in so m e w a y s . In P o to th e parents a re d e s c rib e d as vic tim s an d victim ise rs, y o u get th e sense th a t this is a m ilieu w h ic h is both c a rin g and c o ld , rep ressive and su p p o rtiv e , id io tic in its d re a m s a n d at th e sam e tim e w ith a c e rta in ty p e o f d ig n ity; w h a t is im p o rta n t to m e is th at id ea o f g ivin g th e range, o r g ivin g th e w e ig h t. In m a n y w a y s I try to set up e m o tio n a l d ia le c tic s in m y film s w h e r e id eas and feelings are tra n sfo rm e d into e a c h o th e r at rath er great speed . I th in k it's re a lly im p o rta n t to s h o w h o w m u c h y o u lo v e y o u r su b ject, an d at th e sam e tim e to s h o w h o w m u ch y o u 'r e infuriated b y it. It's re a lly im p o rta n t to s h o w y o u r struggle to try to relate to it, to find y o u r w a y th ro u g h it. B u t w h a t u ltim a te ly b ro u g ht m e a little d e sp a ir w a s th a t P o to w a s o b v io u s ly a c o u p . It w a s a casting c o u p . T h e r e 's n o b o d y in th a t film th a t d o e s n 't lo o k in c re d ib le , an d th e kids w e r e a b s o lu te ly fan tastic to lo o k at an d to be w ith . But, s o m e w h e re a lo n g th e line, th e su b je c t o f P o to had its o w n d ra m a . H e r e w a s a c ase th a t w a s re c o rd e d in th e n e w s p a p e r, a little item in th e d a ily gazettes, an d it had its o w n ju ic e , it had its o w n d ra m a . B u t b e c a u s e I had b e e n in th e c o ld for q u ite a w h ile , I w a n te d to m a k e a film w h e r e p e o p le w o u ld u ltim a te ly like m e, w h e r e th e y w o u ld say, " W o w ! T h is g u y w h o had this rep u tatio n as th e c astratin g an g el o f th e re v o lu tio n is u ltim a te ly h u m a n ." I had no d o u b ts a b o u t m y h u m a n ity , b u t a lot o f p e o p le se e m e d to, a n d I w a n te d p e o p le to u ltim a te ly c a re fo r th e tw in s, o r to h a v e th e sense th a t I w a s a d e c e n t h u m a n b eing w h o w a s try in g to d o a d e c e n t jo b . A n d th e n I got v e r y pissed off w ith m yse lf b e c a u s e I th o u g h t, " W e l l , this is easy: a n y b o d y w h o is not a b ru te c o u ld h a v e d o n e a g o o d film w ith P o t o ." I did a film w h ic h I th in k has e n o u g h o rig in a lity to stand on its o w n tw o feet. B u t after I d id it, I said, " W e l l , fo rg et that, next o n e is g o in g to ta k e p e o p le a n d a su b je c t th a t is as d ry as d ry to a s t." It's g o in g to ta k e p e o p le th a t n o b o d y w o u ld g ive a

se c o n d o f atte n tio n to , w h o s e a c tivitie s w o u ld be felt as u tterly borin g , an d I'm g o in g to d o s o m e th in g w ith it. I'm go in g to tak e this su b je c t w h ic h w ill h a v e less ju ic e th a n P o to A n d C a b e n g o a n d d o s o m e th in g w h ic h w o u ld be m o re c o m p le x , m o re la y e re d , a n d m o re e x p a n d in g th a n P o to .

H o w d id you fin d th e g ro u p o f m o d el ra ilw a y enthusiasts fo r R o u tin e Pleasures? B a s ic a lly , it's th a t id e a I'v e long e x p o u n d e d u p o n , w h ic h is that th e re is n o la ck o f s u b je c t m atter: y o u just p lan t y o u r tw o feet firm ly o n th e g ro u n d , y o u ex ten d y o u r tw o arm s and yo u w h irl a ro u n d o n y o u r axis, an d th a t c irc le d e fin e s th e possibilities of su b jects th a t y o u c a n re a c h . I'm s o m e o n e w h o w a lk s o r travels m a n ic a lly a ro u n d S o u th e rn C a lifo rn ia , but not b y d rivin g a lot of fre e w a y s . I k n e w I had this s e c o n d film to d o . In itially, I w ro te a text c a lle d C .l. Jo e , a n d I k n e w th e film w a s go in g to be a b o u t m y A m e ric a n is a tio n . I d id n 't k n o w e x a c tly w h a t th a t film w as, so I tried this a n d I tried th a t a n d tim e w a s passing by an d m o n e y w a s b ein g sp e n t just w a itin g fo r th e su b je c t to h a p p e n . F in a lly o n e d a y I just w a lk e d o n to th e D e l M a r Fairg ro u n d , w h ic h I rea lly liked , fo r reaso n s w h ic h h a v e to d o w ith a rc h ite c tu re . It has so m e v e r y n ic e p se u d o - S p an ish , M o o ris h , h a cien d a - typ e a r c h i te c tu re , lik e th e kind o f a rc h ite c tu ra l fa n tasy th at set d esigners had in th e 1930s, a n d c h a ra c te ris e s a great d eal o f th e So u th e rn C a lifo rn ia la n d s c a p e . I just w e n t th e re , an d th e re 's tons of b izarre a c tivitie s th a t h a p p e n on th e ra ce tra c k , e v e n d u rin g the o ff seaso n . I w a n te d to d o a w in te r C a lifo rn ia film . I w a n te d to d o s o m e th in g w h ic h had to d o w ith th e n o tio n o f la n d sc a p e . I w a n te d to ta lk a b o u t g e o g ra p h y , b u t I d id n 't h a v e th e m ean s to go tr a v e l ling, so I h ad to ta lk a b o u t g e o g ra p h y from w h e r e I w as. A n d so on this ra c e tra c k d u rin g th e w in te r th e re 's to n s o f activity, for in stan ce , d o g o b e d ie n c e tra in in g sessions in th e m id d le o f th e night a n d th a t kind o f stuff. Fin a lly , I fo u n d th o se guys. T h e m in u te I w a lk e d in I said ''W o w ! T his is it!'' For m e th e re is so m e th in g w h ic h m a y be o n e o f m y defects, an d it's th e need of this sort o f e n c o u n t e r w ith th e su b ject, w h ic h is a v e ry p ra ctical, p ra g m a tic e n c o u n te r, w h e r e y o u w a lk into a sp a c e and yo u sense th a t y o u are go in g to h a v e to e x p lo re that sp a ce. It's like m e e tin g s o m e o n e o r fa llin g in lo v e w ith s o m e o n e w h e re , essen tially, th e o b je c t o f y o u r lo v e gets a lw a y s in d iv id u a lis e d on th e b a c k g ro u n d o f so m e th in g th a t y o u e ro tic is e at large. I guess an e ro tic kind o f film a b o u t S o u th e rn C a lifo rn ia .

D id you have an y fe a r o r w as it a sense o f adventure? It w a s a d v e n tu re , a lth o u g h th e fea r w a s like, “ Jesus, yo u h a v e to h u rry up b e c a u s e th e film is su p p o sed to be d e liv e re d in a m o n th ." B u t m o re a sense o f a d v e n tu re . I just stu m b led on to th o s e guys. T h e r e w a s this hangar, an d in this hangar th e re w a s this box, a n d in this box th e re w a s this la n d sc a p e that w a s v e ry sm all, a n d th e re w e r e all th e s e guys that w e r e m a n n in g this box, w h o lo o k e d like th e y w e r e rejects o f a H a w k s or W e llm a n film . T his is a film a b o u t m en b e c a u s e th e o th e r o n e had b een a film a b o u t w o m e n a n d m y re la tio n sh ip to th e m . T h e re is so m eth in g v e ry , v e r y p e rs o n a l in P o to in term s o f s e d u c tio n , re latio n sh ip s of s e d u c tio n w h ic h is s o m e th in g im p o rta n t in m y life. So th e re w a s also th e id e a o f d o in g s o m e th in g a b o u t m y re latio n sh ip to m en, w h ic h , to tell y o u th e truth, I h a d n 't rea lly th o u g h t ab o u t, b e c a u se m ost o f m y c o n n e c tio n s o r m y a ccess to th e w o rld , I th o u g h t, w e r e a lw a y s tra n sp o rte d th ro u g h w o m e n and by w o m e n . S o th e re it w as, this id ea that I w a s goin g to d o so m e th in g a b o u t m en a n d m y rela tio n sh ip to th em . T h e re w a s this a c tiv ity w h ic h w a s a b iz arre m ix tu re o f p la y and w o rk . T h e re w a s th e re a lity o f an o b je c t — th e train — w h ic h has fo rm e d th e U n ite d States, but is n o w o u t o f date. So th e re w a s this id e a o f this big o b je c t b e in g re d u c e d y e t lo o m in g v e ry large in th e m in d s o f th o s e guys. T h e r e 's this id ea o f d o in g a film ab o u t o b se ssio n , w h ic h is an e x tre m e ly to u g h nut to c ra c k b e c a u se if y o u ask th e o b sessed w h a t obsesses th e m , or w h a t m akes th em tick, th e best th e y c a n d o is sm ile at y o u , as th o u g h th e y are saying, " H o w c a n y o u n o t u n d e rs ta n d w h y I'm so obsessed by w h a t I'm o b sessed a b o u t ? " So th e d ia le c tic b e c o m e s v e ry d a n g e ro u s in th a t y o u a re s u d d e n ly fo rce d to m atch y o u r o w n ob sessio n at d is c o v e rin g th e ob sessio n o f th e o th er. B u t I'm not s o m e o n e w h o 's o b sessed b y trains!

But in a d iffe re n t w a y you are obsessed w ith som ething else. If

w e tak e Poto A n d C abengo and R o u tin e Pleasures and th e w ay you place yo u rself in th e film s as b oth ch arac ter and n a rra to r, w h ich relates to d etec tiv e fic tio n , m o re in a lite ra ry sense th an film ic , th e subject o r th e ac tiv ity th a t goes on tends to stand as a m e ta p h o r fo r yo u rself. Poto A n d Cabengo deals w ith language and y o u r re la tio n sh ip to th a t language, being a fo re ig n e r w h o has to deal w ith a language th a t is n 't yo u r o w n , and R o u tin e Pleasures is so m e w h a t d iffe re n t, it seems to have m oved on fro m th e re , and it's m arked by th e lin e " I 'm not q u ite A m eric an b u t I'm no longer F re n c h ", and so y o u 're try in g to id e n tify yo u rself in this landscape. T h e th in g in R o u tin e is that, on th e o n e h and, this is a film a b o u t la n d scap e, this is a b o u t th e A m e r ic a n la n d scap e, and in a w a y R o u tin e Pleasures is a d ire c t an d p o le m ic a l a n s w e r to things like Paris , Texas. It's saying, " W e l l , I'm sorry, I d o n 't h a v e th e m eans, I c a n 't travel, I c a n 't b u y N astassja Kinski, I c a n 't b u y Sam S h e p a r d ." B u t I d o n 't n eed to go to M o n u m e n t V a lle y . H e re I am stuck in D e l M a r an d I h a v e to d eal w ith this la n d sc a p e , o n e that I h a v e all th e m o re d iffic u lty u n d e rstan d in g b e c a u se it d o e s n 't seem to u n fo ld w ith th e d ep th o f history I am used to w ith th e E u ro p e a n la n d sc a p e . B u t th en v e r y c le a r ly a trick is p la y e d w h ic h p e o p le d o n 't seem to get, an d w h ic h p ro v e s in a w a y th a t at a c erta in p o in t th e film fails. B u t th e tric k is to say: W a i t a m in u te ! W h a t ch ara cte rise s th e A m e r ic a n la n d s c a p e is not a series o f coffee-table b o o k shots. T a k e a g o o d stock b y K o d a k and a g o o d c a m e ra m a n and y o u 'll get that kind o f s p e c ta c u la r stuff w h ic h yo u c o u ld d o in A u stra lia, in M a la y s ia , w h a te v e r. Po stcard s! S u d d e n ly so m eth in g else h ap p en s. T his la n d s c a p e that I'm lo o k in g at is th e la n d scap e o f im a g in a tio n . W a i t a m in u te ! Y o u 'r e seein g th o se guys but at no p o in t d o y o u see th e m o u ts id e o f th a t m o m e n t on a T u e s d a y night, that has b een e n d le s sly rep e a te d o v e r 25 years, in w h ic h th e y p la y th e ir d esire, th e ir p le a su re , th e ir c o n ju n c tio n , an d in w h ic h th e y p la y o u t this m y th ica l position as en g in e e rs. M in d y o u , en g in eers! N o t patrons, not tra ve lle rs. Engineers! T h e guys that h a v e th e p o w e r to m o v e things, and th e p o w e r to m o ve th ese little o b je cts is in so m e w a y s th e p o w e r o f th e ir o w n im ag in atio n to lo c a te th e m s e lv e s in this la n d sc a p e . T h e re is so m eth in g at stake h ere: s o m e w h e re a lo n g th e lin e w h a t c h a ra c terises th e A m e r ic a n p s y c h e is this act o f m in iatu risa tio n . H e re is a c u ltu re that is p ro fo u n d ly n o m a d ic , an d I d o n 't th in k that it is v e ry d ifferen t from w h a t y o u get in A u s tra lia in th e sense o f h avin g to fa c e an d d e fin e y o u rs e lf in this e n o rm o u s c o n tin e n t. H e re is this trib e o f guys w h o h a v e got th e s e little v o o d o o dolls that th e y m o v e a ro u n d , an d th a t is th e th in g that gives scale in this in c re d ib le la n d s c a p e w h ic h has so little histo rical d e p th . So th e re is so m e th in g th e re w h ic h is not sim p ly " le t 's trave l, let's be on th e road, let's travel from M o n u m e n t V a lle y on d o w n to N e w Y o rk C ity, b a c k an d forth an d w h a t n o t " . Instead , w h a t is th e la n d sc a p e o f its im a g in a tio n . . . W h a t is th at s p e c ificity o f the A m e r ic a n im a g in a ry? T h e n so m e th in g d isso lves itself, th a t b iz arre a llia n c e , a b ack and forth b e tw e e n th e n e ith e r F re n c h n o r A m e r ic a n : it is th e id ea o f th e fo re ig n e r b e c a u se , in so m e w a y s , an d I su sp e ct th e re is th e sam e feelin g here, e v e r y b o d y in th e States is a fo re ig n e r. T o be a fo re ig n e r is th e m ost c o m m o n ly shared feelin g , existential feeling , that A m e ric a n s h a v e a b o u t th e m se lve s . T h e y 'r e alw a ys c o m in g from s o m e w h e re else. W h e n y o u ask A m e ric a n s w h e re th e y c o m e from , g e n e ra lly , th e y 'll g ive yo u at a first level a n o th e r c ity th e y o rig in a te d fro m , an d th en w h a t th e y 'll tell yo u is w h a t part o f E u ro p e th e y c o m e fro m . So y o u 'r e not a fo re ig n e r, y o u 're an insider. T h a t's th e m e ta p h o r o f th e box. Y o u 'r e in sid e th e hangar, but in sid e th e h an g a r th e re is a se c o n d box. In th at box th e re 's a n o th e r box, so th e d ia le c tic b e c o m e s : H o w m u ch inside is inside? W h e r e d o y o u get th a t u ltim ate sp e c ificity, w h e n in fact w h a t yo u d is c o v e r is th a t th e origin c o n s ta n tly reced es. In th e p ro cess o f d o in g so m e p re p a ra to ry w o rk , I had said to m yself, " M y d e a r J.P . it's not v e r y interesting, o r it's not v e ry sm art to c o n s ta n tly re a c tiv a te y o u rs e lf in front o f th o se guys as a F r e n c h m a n ." O k a y , w e k n o w it, y o u got a slight a c c e n t, th e y still th in k y o u 'r e M a u r ic e C h e v a lie r o r M a u r ic e C h e v a lie r 's son. But th e re is so m e th in g else: u ltim a te ly w h a t th e film lands o n to is th e artistic im a g in a ry. R o u tin e Pleasures is a film th at puts m e in c o n ta c t w ith w h a t it is to be a film m a k e r o r to b e an artist, w h ic h , at th e lev e l w h e r e I am , is c e rta in ly so m e th in g w h ic h goes against e v e r y id ealistic m yth a b o u t c re a tio n . Let's ta k e th o se guys an d so m e o f th e stuff th at interested me. O n e , a m a c h in e th a t has e n a b le d a trib e to m ain tain its co h e sio n for 25 years. I'm s o m e o n e w h o c o m e s from a tim e w h e r e actio n ^

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 19

w a s c o lle c tiv e , an d th a t's th e sixties, but all th e group s that I h a v e k n o w n h a v e long d ied an d d isso lved th e m se lve s. H e re is a g ro u p th at has m a in ta in e d itself. T w o , this m a c h in e takes 12 m en to be m a n n e d . T his is not an in d iv id u a l m a c h in e , this is a m a c h in e w h ic h exists o n ly in as m u ch as it en a b le s a c o lle c tiv ity to b ra n ch itself o n to it. T h re e , this m a c h in e co n ta in s $250,000 w o rth o f e q u ip m e n t, $250,000 o f trains w h ic h h a v e been put to g e th e r b y p e o p le w h o are lo w e r m iddle-class, ex-arm y, navy, m ilitary, retired , w o rk in g class, u n e m p lo y e d p e o p le . T h e y c o m e an d th e y put th e ir in d iv id u a lly - o w n e d o b je c t o f d esire in a m a c h in e th at o n ly fu n c tio n s c o lle c tiv e ly , an d th e y le a ve it there. T h e y d o n 't p ack up th e ir trains, th e y le a ve th e m th ere. So so m e w h e re on th e D e l M a r fa irg ro u n d exists that o b je c t w h ic h en a b le s C h e ste r, retired ex-navy m an, to c o m e e v e ry o n c e and a w h ile to re ch arg e h im self in this b izarre d rea m in w h ic h yo u play o u t th e d ia le c tic b e tw e e n c h ild h o o d an d w o rk . T h a t kind of stuff interested m e.

W h a t is th e nostalgia th a t you re fer to in R o u tin e Pleasures? Does th a t relate to th e nostalgia o f those men? I th in k it is a c o m b in a tio n o f e v e ryth in g . It's th e nostalgic m a c h in e th at is on d isp lay. T h e re 's a certa in nostalgia of a c o u n try w h ic h has a v e r y short historical span a b o u t its o w n past, an d I w o u ld a n c h o r it s o m e w h e re in th e 1930s. T h e 1930s is a tim e w h e re th e n o tio n s o f w o rk and c o m m u n ity had an e n o r m o u s im p o rta n c e . A t th e sam e tim e, I link that nostalgia to an im a g in a ry re a ctivatio n o f this nostalgia w h ic h I suspect is essen tial to u n d e rstan d th e c o n s e rv a tiv e tim es o f R eagan. Reagan is b as ic a lly th e sam e age as m ost o f th o se guys; he is a kind of H a w k s ia n ve rsio n o f th e n ostalg ic im p u lse that th o se guys have. T h e re 's an e n o rm o u s a m o u n t o f d ig n ity to that co n servatism — w h a t I d e sc rib e in th e film are p ro fo u n d ly c o n s e rv a tiv e people, but it's to see w h a t this co n se rv a tism is rea lly actin g out, and it is not o n ly so m e th in g rep ressive. B u t th e re is also m y o w n nostalgia for several things: for a ce rta in ty p e o f n arratio n in film , for e n s e m b le acting, for films that e x p lo re th e ir o w n prem ises, for outfit film s. T h e n th e re 's the nostalgia th at Fa rb e r e n acts. A ll that fu n c tio n in g at its o w n rh yth m , all th at in te ractin g in that m o m e n t o f sp ace and tim e, all that tryin g to d e fin e w h a t th e tim es are. I th in k o n e o f th e things at stake in th e film is a feeling ve ry c h a ra cte ris tic o f th e eighties. I feel th e eig hties is ab o u t a certain sense o f th e p ro v in c e , w h ic h is w o rld w id e . W e 'r e all p ro vin cia l and w e all feel p ro v in c ia l in as m u ch as w e feel that th ere is, or sh o u ld be, a c e n tre th at w e c a n n o t rea lly grasp b ec a u se so m e w h e re alo n g th e lin e w e 'v e also b een p ersu ad ed that the cen tre has ce ase d to exist. So w e 'll live o u r p ro v in c ia lity in a v e ry kind of frustrated, an g u ish e d w a y . T h e re is no c e n tre — id eolog ical, historical o r so cietal — from w h ic h th e m ain bulk of culture, id eas an d p ro d u c tio n seem s to c o m e . In fo rm atio n is spread all o v e r th e p lace . W e d o n 't k n o w h o w to m ak e sense of it. W e feel like w e 'r e in so m e sort o f gigantic, su b u rb an , p ro v in c ia l lim bo. W e 'r e d ista n ce d from th e w o rld by th e rep resen tation of this w o rld . In a w a y th e film tries to add ress that question. A lso c h a ra cte ris tic o f th e eig hties is th e id ea of th e privatisation o f o u r o b sessio n . B e c a u s e th e c e n tre has stop p ed to exist and w e can o n ly d re a m its ex isten ce, w e , in th e p ra ctic a lity o f o u r lives, go b a c k o n to th o se v e r y sm all units — fa m ily units, friends. T ake things like v id e o . It seem s to m e im p o ssib le to th in k ab o u t c in e m a right n o w w ith o u t seeing th e fact th at v e ry c le a rly p eo p le see film s m o re an d m o re in th e p riv a c y o f th e ir o w n hom es, on th e ir V C R . R o u tin e is p riv a c y u p o n p riv a c y u p o n p riv a cy . Y o u talk ab o u t th e p riva te o b session s o f a g ro u p o f guys of w h o m y o u 'll k n o w v e ry little ab o u t, u ltim ately. N e v e r at a n y p o in t d o I give m yself th e right to trespass b e y o n d th e b o rd e r th e y th em selves have assigned to th e ir im ag in ary. A t no p o in t is a n y kind of rapist in vestigatio n d o n e . I ta k e th o se guys v e r y serio u sly. I ta k e them at w h a t th e y w a n t to be and at w h a t th e y w a n t to s h o w w h ic h is to be th e e n g in e e rs o f th e P a c ific B e a c h & W e s te r n M o d e l R a ilw a y A sso c ia tio n . I d o n 't go into C o rk y 's k itch en . I d o n 't track C h ester, his fat d au g h te r, his b ick e rin g w ife . I d o n 't go into the d ru d g e of G e o rg e th e 44-year-old u n e m p lo y e d , w h o lives w ith his m o th e r. I g ive G e o rg e th e g lo ry o f b eing th e e n g in e e r o f that railro ad . T h e n th e re 's th e p riv a c y o f Farber, an ultra-private painter, w h o d o es th ese big n arra tive can va ses, w h e r e th e n arrative is just an arch , a ce rta in path on th e c a n va s w h ic h gets in terru p ted by a n o th e r path, full o f self-involved referen ces to c h e ck s and

20 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

POTO AND CABENGO: The twins"

c o u nter-ch eck s o f his o w n life, a kind o f n o m a d ic spread o f his life, like a m ap. T h e p riv a c y o f this g u y w h o is u n k n o w n . H e w as the greatest film w rite r in th e States but his w o rk is u n k n o w n , and his paintings, b y and large, are not th at w e ll- k n o w n . T h e n u ltim ately, th e p riv a c y o f J-P. G o rin , w h o is like a d ru n k e n bum that grabs y o u on a b e n c h and h e 's su d d e n ly intent on tellin g y o u his life at all costs. I'm v e r y sen sitive to this. O n e of th e c h arm s o f life for m e is to get into c o n ta c t w ith p e o p le w h o s u d d e n ly start ta lk in g in v e r y p recise and sp e cific term s a b o u t a life I c o m p le te ly ig nore, and that I rea lly d o n 't c a re that m u ch to hear. B u t s u d d e n ly this d isc o u rse gives m e a sense of in tim acy, or m o re an id ea o f in tim a c y th a n th e rea lity o f in tim a c y ex p lo red and c o m p le te d . So y o u 'v e got a film w h ic h is p riva te on priva te on p rivate, an d th e re is so m e th in g in fu riatin g for p e o p le in that process. B u t for m e th e re are m o re things said, in that film , a b o u t th e state o f things th a n in a lot o f o th e r film s th at I h av e seen!

The use o f th e tra in enthusiasts, on o n e side, and M a n n y Farber, on th e o th e r, brings to m in d som ething R.J. T hom pson w ro te o f M a n n y Farber, w h ich is th a t his m o d e o f th o u g h t is analogic ra th e r th an b in ary, an d , in a w a y , w h a t y o u 'v e just said is th a t if you proceed by a b in ary m o d e th e film is going to be closed, and it w o u ld p ro b a b ly be closed fro m th e very beginning. T h a t's rea lly th e big d iffe re n ce . M o s t film s fu n c tio n w ith w h a t yo u call b ina ry; I w o u ld be m o re p recise b y sayin g it's an 'either/or' system . Y o u progress and th e re 's su pp o rts an d yo u c h o o s e either/or, this or that, an d th en th e th in g p rogresses by clo sure, b y s u c c e ssive c lo s u re o f possibilities. In m y c ase I h av e this d ifferen t sense w h ic h I see in M a n n y 's p aintings an d w ritin g . It's m o re an 'a n d . . . an d . . . and . . . a n d ' ty p e o f th in g, w h ic h I th in k has v e r y m u ch to d o w ith love. T h e o n e th in g that lo v e is a b o u t, th a t d e sire is ab o u t, th at lust is ab ou t, is p re c is e ly this kind o f sta m m e rin g m o tio n , w h e r e yo u

the music w orks; th e second ele m en t is th e w ay th e film s relate to detective fictio n ; and th e th ird is th e fact th a t th e subjects of yo u r film s are very localised. It seems these elem ents fo rm a certain relation th a t tends to d efin e th e fact th a t you do not w a n t to m ake distinctions betw een d o c u m en tary and fictio n .

alw a ys d is c o v e r so m e th in g else th at gets yo u off in th e o b je ct of y o u r d esire. A n d w h a t ch a ra cte ris e s th e o b je c t of y o u r d esire is that it d o e s n 't n e e d to h av e w in g s, it d o e s n 't need to be a w o m a n w h o has an a b s o lu te ly stunning b o d y, stunning face, stunning v o ic e , stu n n in g ass, stunning legs, stunning breasts. It co u ld be s o m e b o d y rather d u m p y and n orm al w h o fu n ctio n s sim p ly as this in c re d ib le P a n d o ra 's box. Y o u look at s o m e o n e 's face an d th e re 's a m illio n and o n e associations that it p rod uces. Thus, th e p o ssib ility for desire to c o n sta n tly reg enerate itself. It's m ayb e th e o p p o s ite of th e old id ea o f ro m an tic love w h ic h is linked to c lo s u re an d d o o m . It's the id ea of th e e tern ity of desire and also o f its greyness. I'm s o m e o n e w h o goes b ack to th e thirties; it is a v e ry interest ing p e rio d in film m a k in g history. It is interested in w o rk , w h ic h I th in k is th e last rep ressed no tio n . Y o u can s h o w m ore or less e ve ry th in g in film right n o w , and p o rn o g ra p h y has d o n e it for us by esse n tia lly fo cu sin g on so m e sort o f c en tra lity, on short cuts: go fast to w h e r e th e e x p lo sio n is sup p osed to be. T h e film s of the thirties, on th e o th e r h and, are off c e n tre all th e tim e, in som e w ays, an d o n e o f th e things I like a b o u t th em is th e idea of w o rk . It's also a v e ry b izarre p erio d o f film w h e re w o m e n are p ortrayed in film as p o w e rfu l fo rces, as ch a ra cte rs ab le to hold th e ir o w n in tough c irc u m sta n ce s .

It's also a p erio d th a t has a lot o f tra in film s, if you can call them th a t. T h a t's tru e. B u t th e re latio n sh ip is o n e o f th e things I co u ld not a v o id . It's also w h y I did th e film . I'm not e s p e c ia lly passionate ab o u t trains, but c in e m a an d trains are co-substantial. T h e first film e v e r sh o w n is o f a train e n te rin g a ra ilw a y station.

T here ten d to be th re e p rev alen t elem ents or tendencies in yo u r film s. O n e is th e references to silent cin em a, fo r instance, th e last shot in R o u tin e Pleasures d uplicates th e w e ll-k n o w n Lum iere film o f th e tra in , and in Poto A n d Cabengo it's th e w ay

I d o n 't b e lie v e in th e d ic h o to m y b e tw e e n fiction and d o c u m en tary b e c a u se I d o not th in k a n y b o d y is n aive e n o u g h to b e lie v e that w h a t's on th e screen is a n yth in g else but an im age of the real and not th e real itself, and that film is sp ace on tim e, o r m an ip u latio n o f sp a ce on tim e; it is not this kind of in n o c e n t and n aive activity, but b e h in d it is a certain kind of m a n ip u latio n . T h e p ro b lem is to m ak e th e m an ip u la tio n ap p aren t, so that it can be lo cated , instead of h avin g th e a u d ie n c e co n sta n tly c lo b b e re d o v e r the head by so m eth in g that pretends to be in n o c e n t. T h a t's fascism to m e. T h e reality is that I d o n 't m ind b eing the m an ip u lato r, but w h a t I w a n t is for p e o p le to k n o w w h a t m y m an ip u latio n is and h o w m y m an ip u latio n d e v e lo p s itself. But w h a t's m ore cen tra l to th e tw o issues is this id ea o f n arra tion. W h a t is it to tell a story? W h a t is it for th e screen to light up, the darkness to be felt, and the film to last for a certain a m o u n t of tim e. T h e re is also so m eth in g else at stake in those w o rk s, and it's that I a lw a y s c o n c e iv e d th em as a certain attem pt to re d isc o ve r n arrative m ech a nism s for m yself. T o say to m yself, " W e l l , it w o u ld be kind of interesting to do ex ac tly the sam e thing in a c o m p le te ly n o n - d o c u m e n ta ry context, w ith actors and c o n ce iv in g th e w h o le thing from the b e g in n in g ." T h e thing I'v e m a in ly b een w o rk in g on for all th ese years is the idea of layering. H o w m a n y layers can yo u put into th e su b ject? B e ca u s e I really th in k that th e p ro b lem w e 'r e facin g right n o w is this in c re d ib le a c c u m u la tio n , surplus, o f in fo rm atio n , an d that is the d ra m a tic notion. H o w m u ch do w e k n o w at an y given m o m e n t on a n y given thing? O n c e again the differen tiatio n w ith Jean-Luc in o u r recen t w o rk is he sees that surplus as o ve rlo a d : b ecau se th ere is so m u ch a c c u m u la tio n o f in fo rm atio n , w h a t falls by th e w a y s id e is th e v e ry id ea of being ab le to re cu p e ra te that surplus into o n e c o h e re n t story. So, so m e w h e re alo n g the line Jean -Lu c m aintains th e id ea of the story as th e sp h ere of c o h e re n c e , w h ic h I d o n 't e sp e c ia lly m aintain. For him this o v e r load disjoins th e n arrative and it puts p e o p le in so m e sort of despair. In m y case, th e a c c u m u la tio n of in form atio n reactivates the id ea of n arrative, but the n arrative b e co m e s plural; instead o f 'e ith e r /or', w h ic h is b as ic a lly th e n arrative m od el w h ic h JeanLuc has both longed for and refused, m in e is not e ve n a pro b lem , yo u just d o an 'an d . . . and . . . a n d ' system that e n d lessly a c c u m u la te s the layers. I'm really interested in layering.

Y o u 're w o rkin g on an o th e r film . . . I'm w o rk in g on several things.

The film I'v e heard ab o u t is o ne w h e re th ere are a n um ber of interview s. The first is w ith th e w ife o f th e guy w h o caused the M c D o n a ld s ' massacre in San Diego; th e second is using an actress to p o rtray th e m o th e r o f Lee H a rv ey O sw ald . It's like w e can see progressive stages, fo r instance, G orin and language (Poto A n d C abengo), G o rin and landscape (Routine Pleasures), and w ith this it seems to be G o rin getting closer to th e A m erican psyche, and it's a very d ark psyche, but it's th ro ug h w o m en . It's the id ea of the bystand er. It's a b o u t tw o w o m e n w h o lived in th e p ro x im ity of c rim e, and w h o , u ltim a te ly end up h avin g to b ear the w e ig h t of th e c rim e. B u t I d o n 't th in k that film w ill eve r see th e light o f d ay . T h e re is o n e film w h ic h is c alle d R e al Estate w h ic h is th ree vignettes a b o u t th e e c o n o m ic tran sfo rm atio n of th e la n d scap e. T h e film w a s going to be like a road m o vie b e tw e e n th ree stories. T h e n , I'v e w ritten a spy m o v ie w h ic h takes p la c e in Finland and N e w Y o rk , and it's this trash y w ritin g in a ty p e o f Ph illip K. D ic k m o d e. B a s ic a lly it's a " r e m a k e " of a film b y Sam Fuller c alled Pic k U p O n So u th Street. It's th e story of tw o C IA guys w h o are o b lig ed to pose as p o rn o film m ak ers for a night in Finland b ec a u se th e y are passing th e p o rn o ta p e into Russia w ith fake in fo rm atio n ab o u t s u b m a rin e w a rfa re . I'm also tryin g to se c u re th e rights for a story c alle d M y th O f The N e a r Fu tu re by J.G . B a lla rd , a w rite r I p ro fo u n d ly ad m ire. It's also e x p e n sive . I d o n 't k n o w if a n y o f this w ill see th e light of d ay, but, I'v e got ideas, w ill travel.

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 21

and he walks up to her and takes her in his arms. It was the last thing we shot. And I felt when we were shooting it that through this scene, somehow I had got to a point, emotionally as well as a possibility for myself, where it would open up something new for me, that I could tell another story. I knew that whatever I was going to do next had to start at this point.

You had alternative endings for Paris, Texas though didn't you?

ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS? Solveig Dommartin

WINGS OF DESIRE

W in g s O f D e s ir e , W im W e n d e r s ’ film a b o u t B e rlin , a n g e ls , a t r a p e z e a r tis t a n d th e im p o r ta n c e o f b e in g P e te r F a lk , w a s th e h ig h -p r o file fe s tiv a l film o f 1 9 8 7 . It c o n c e r n s tw o a n g e ls (B r u n o G a n z a n d O tto S a n d e r ), u n s e e n b y m e r e m o r ta ls b u t a b le to h e a r th e ir in n e r m o s t th o u g h ts ; o n e o f th e m fa lls in lo v e w ith a tr a p e z e a r t is t (S o lv e ig D o m m a r tin ) a n d d e c id e s to tr a d e in h is w in g s . T o th e s o u n d o f N ic k C a v e ’s ‘ F ro m H e r to E t e r n it y ’ , h e m o v e s fr o m e te r n ity to h e r. P H IL IP P A H A W K E R ta lk e d to W e n d e r s a b o u t B e rlin , th e d ir e c t o r a s p a in te r , e n d in g s a n d c re a m p ie s . Did you intend to go back to Germany to make a film? Not really. I left New York after Paris, Texas. I had been in the United States for seven years and I left, not in order to make a film in Germany, but because I thought I had finished the scenario I had wanted to do in America.

Did you feel satisfied with that? Yes. I felt satisfied. I felt that I couldn't have very much more. And also I felt that I wasn't going to go on living there much longer. So I found myself back in Berlin, not really because I had intended to go back, but because my production office was there; I had produced all my films except Hammett from Berlin, so I went there to go on working on the next movie, which was going to be a film that I have been wanting to make for almost 10 years, a science fiction movie. And it was only being in Berlin, in Germany for the first time since 1977, that I realised I was in the situation of looking at my country and the city of Berlin from a certain distance. And when I was working on the other project I realised that I should do something about coming home, i thought I could postpone the science fiction movie and thought it was now or never to do

22 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

something in Berlin, in my own country. Another year or I would no longer be in that privileged position of someone coming back and seeing things with different eyes. Any longer and I would feel at home again, and I wouldn't be able to see it any more.

And where did the notion of the angels come from? I really can't put my finger on it. Maybe the whole angel idea came as a way to find a point of view for this film about Germany and in Germany. With the angels came this unlimited possibility of looking at things and being anywhere they wanted to, and they have a very objective way of seeing, and in another way, it's very intimate and subjective, they can listen to people's thoughts.

When did the idea that they would want to become human come into it? That was there from the beginning too, it was almost like the initial idea of the whole thing. I also wanted it to be some sort of love story, and initially, the point of departure for that film was in a way the last thing we shot on Paris, Texas. It was the scene where the mother gets reunited with the little boy and Nastassja comes up to the room where he is waiting for her

Yes, but that was more in the editing. But the last scene I actually shot with Nastassja and Hunter, that was the strongest experience at the end, and whatever the ending of the film was, I knew that that would be the departure for the next film.

What was it about that scene that you felt had to carry through? Maybe it was the idea of acceptance. The boy was accepting the woman. At the same time, together with this scene of Hunter and Nastassja, we shot a scene of Travis getting back into his car and driving off and in a way Travis was driving off, representing not only himself but some of the other men in my previous movies. He was taking off for all of them. He disappeared. And in a way I was left with these other two, and these other two were accepting each other. Everything came to a stop at this moment when they embraced each other. I can say this now, it wasn't all that conscious, but in a way it was logical that I made this film when everything came to a stop. For the first time Wings O f Desire takes place in one place, in one city, in fact everything comes to a stop, a man meets a woman and she says to him, 'Stop, hold it, I have to tell you something.' And she tells him about her desire to love, not as a coincidence, but as a necessity.

You arrive at a very different point at the end of this film from points you've arrived at in the past. Yes. But I'm not that surprised, because I knew that from the outset. I knew that was inevitable. I took this moment very seriously at the end of Paris, Texas, I knew that it would be very different from then on. With Travis's departure, I knew I was onto something else. So maybe it was logical that I came up with a totally different point of view. Everything had to be questioned, so to speak. At the very end of Paris, Texas, all of a sudddn it said that everything was possible. Love is possible, you don't have to run away from it. You can come to a stop without

having to fear that it is going to mean the end.

Just to get back to Wings O f Desire for a moment — did the angels have to be male? I seriously thought about the other way round, and having the angels female, but it didn't feel natural. And in a way to have this woman as a central character, very much alive and doing something very dangerous, it just felt much more right. I wanted her to do something dangerous, so that the angel would look at her, would feel needed, like a guardian angel. And I also thought that angels should feel attracted to the idea of risk because it is something that they don't know about. And I liked the idea that this woman was wearing wings. So, I thought she was alive from the beginning and I felt the need for the man to want to become alive, for this angel to want to leave his eternity and become mortal, I was more familiar with it. And in the beginning there were more angels, some of them were men and some of them were women. And then I reduced it because the whole thing was so vast anyway. There were 20 movies hidden in there potentially, and I had to eliminate something.

How did your collaboration with Peter Handke work? It all happened rather fast. From the moment I stopped the preparation of the other movie I was working on to the first day of shooting it was two, two and a half months. I had something on paper in two or three days, just a basic idea, and the basic idea was these angels, and one of them becoming a man, and what this would mean to him. So I called Peter because I knew they would speak not just in everyday language, but in a special way, almost an old-fashioned language. I called him and I said, 'You're the only one who could write the dialogue for this, come and work on the script with me.' He had just finished a book, and he said he was exhausted and overworked, and couldn't write a script at all, but that he would come over and perhaps write some of the dialogue for the key scenes. Like the first scene where the angels meet in the car, and they talk about what they have seen that day, and one talks about his desire to end his eternity. And that's where we started, with a handful of scenes that I really knew about. W e started shooting and it was really rushed, but I knew the whole thing was only going to work if it was done spontaneously, if it kept the curiosity and the

quality of a daydream. If we knew more than our angels, so to speak, we would lose it. So we went into the whole thing badly prepared. I knew it was important that the movie be made much more like a poem or a painting, structured like a painting. But it was desperate for the production manager and the production designer, they were ready to kill themselves, they didn't know what they were doing. There was a strain involved in doing it that way, of course. But it's the way other people work, if the writer or the painter knew exactly what they were doing the next day, they would give up. So why shouldn't that be a method for filmmaking? And then again, there were the actors, they were there and that made the whole thing very concrete. They lived the whole idea and they turned into angels, and that's not a part you can play during the day and go home in the evening and be yourself. It was quite a challenge for them. O f course, in filmmaking there are so many other people to consider, and you can't really treat them like they are just paint, so it is different. But you can keep up the idea of spontaneity and that was important. And we had something solid from the very beginning, and that was the few scenes Peter had written. In the first two weeks of shooting, we had to shoot the circus scenes, because they had to take down the tent for insurance reasons, they had to fold the tent in mid-November. So there was some sort of structure there too.

Was the ending the only one you envisaged, the only one you shot? W e shot one other. The other angel also became human, carried away by the enthusiasm of his friend . . . The scene that we actually shot was a battle with cream pies, and you can still see the table with cream pies. Because if you've been an angel for eternity, and all of a sudden you

can touch things, the temptation to take a cream pie and throw it is immense, I think. It's the first thing an angel would want to do. But in the end I thought it was more important that one of them stayed as an angel. It was the funniest scene in the movie, and we kept it in the cut for a long time, almost to the end. The other ending was more like guesswork. It was guesswork anyway, the whole movie. Piloting a plane at night with no instruments.

Do you regard that ending as optimistic? Yes. Because really everything is possible. You leave with high hopes for this couple.

The glimpses you have into other lives in the film are very different. On the one hand you have this couple, and then you get those sudden glimpses into other lives, you see them for a second, and then they're gone. How does that difference work? It's like I said before, any of those encounters could become another movie. Anyone could become the hero. The young man who kills himself, the people in the train, anyone of them could become the hero, the movie could just stop there, and you wouldn't see anyone else any more. All these people had such little parts, but everyone was a possible leading character. It was a classless society, so to speak. It was really a strange thing. The motorcycle guy who was dying in the street, we only shot for one day, he came for one day for his thoughts, but it felt like he had been there for the whole movie.

The ending is in some ways a closing off — you are given a certainty about that couple, but you don't have the same sense of certainty about the other people in the film. But it's there potentially. And those two people, they speak for everybody else.

EARTH ANGEL: Bruno Ganz and Peter Falk

Zhang Yimou, Yellow Earth cinematographer (left) and Chen Kaige

CHEN IS MISSING CHEN KAIGE, the director of Yellow Earth, was this year's festival guest that wasn't. The official line handed to the festival organisers at the end of May in a cable from Shi Fangyu, the head of the Chinese Film Bureau, was that Chen was "too busy" to come. It was passed on to the audience attending the film's first festival screening by Ma Ning, an employee of the state-run China Film Import Export Corporation on leave from his job to do film studies in Melbourne. Ma had been asked by festival organisers to speak on behalf of the absent director. That Chen might be too busy to come was perfectly conceivable, for he had been working hard on post-production for his third feature as late as midMay. Unfortunately, it just wasn't true. Days before Shi Fangyu's cable was sent, Chen told friends how much he was looking forward to his first trip to Australia. He also said that he'd have no trouble taking a few weeks off in early june. A week or so earlier, he reported that, although he hadn't even been officially informed of the festival invitation by the authorities, as far as he knew, neither his "work unit", the Peking Film Studio, nor the Film Bureau had any objection to his coming. If they didn't have any objection, however, somebody upstairs certainly did. That somebody may well have been Ding Qiao, the minister in charge of the Chinese film industry, a man who could never be accused of over enthusiasm towards the younger generation of film directors that Chen represents. Then again, Ding may have merely been upholding, or rather creatively interpreting, a policy originally set by Hu Yaobang, former secretary-general of the Chinese Communist Party. At the end of 1985, after Yellow Earth had won awards and praise at a number of international film

festivals, Hu banned the film from further participation in film festivals abroad. He reportedly did this after an overseas Chinese suggested the film be allowed to compete for an Oscar — "w e will not compete for awards with the bourgeoisie," the Party chief was supposed to have said. Cinema, he explained, in the final analysis is a matter of class consciousness: there was something deeply suspicious about a film which went over so well with art cinema audiences in capitalist countries. Hu and other officials were particularly concerned with the image of China as presented in the film — poor, backward and superstitious. Never mind that the events portrayed take place more than 10 years before the communists took power. Despite the fact that Hu himself was forced to resign in January this year, his policy has never officially been overturned. The print of Yellow Earth screened in Melbourne was the one obtained by Ronin Films for commercial release in Australia: the Chinese leadership hasn't let ideology get in the way of export dollars. The Chinese, therefore, had no say in its participation in the festival. They could, however, avoid even more attention being drawn to it by preventing the director from coming. Tough luck for Chen, but also for us, as he has a lot to say about his own movies and those of other young filmmakers in China. He can be quite critical of Yellow Earth. For example, he now considers the film to be overly conceptual, its main characters too cipher-like, symbolic. Chen is also a great raconteur, full of fascinating stories about the special problems — human, artistic and bureaucratic — faced by Chinese filmmakers. Chen grew up, literally, in the film world, for his father is a veteran director and their family flat is located within the walls of the Peking Film Studio. Like many other Chinese in their mid-thirties, in his youth Chen was caught up in the radical political upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. His years in the countryside as a "rusticated urban youth" opened his eyes to the shocking poverty and backwardness still apparent in rural China today, and this experience informs Yellow Earth. Chen doesn't like to talk much about his second film, The Big Parade, which he was forced to change quite a bit of to satisfy the censors. But he is confident that his third, recently finished film, will be his best yet. Maybe we will have a chance to see it, and him, at next year's festival.

Linda Jaivin

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 23

T h e w r ite r h a s o fte n b e e n th e neglected, f ig u r e in th e film m a k in g p ro c ess. I n th is issue.. C in e m a P a p e r s looks at th e phenom enon o f th e c r itic -tu r n e d fllm m a k e r3 d iscu sses th e ty r a n n y o f th e s c r ip t a n d th e d e b a te o n tu r n in g n o v els in to film . W e also talk to w r ite r G u s ta v H a s fo rd , w h o s e n o v e l h a s b e e n

an d o th ers have on a n u m b e r o f m e m o rab le occasions p re sen ted w ell-co n sid ered arg u m e n ts for, a n d critiq u es of, th e p ractices o f rev iew in g , criticism an d c o m m e n ta ry as they relate to o u r local film c u ltu re in d u s trie s .1 A lth o u g h this k in d o f w o rk is b y no m ean s th e strid in g v ic to r o ver som e im ag in ed or real en em y , it has p ro v id e d th e g ro u n d u p o n w h ich rests m u c h o f w h at I h av e to say. M y co m m en ts and rein v o catio n o f th e Cahiers du Cinema an d nouvelle vague stories are n o t p re se n te d o u tsid e th e co n tex t o f th e p rese n t local film scene, b u t in a sense rely u p o n it. M y fu n d am e n tal arg u m e n t is th a t th e m ak in g o f criticism an d th e m ak in g o f film s n eed n o t n ecessarily be co n sid ered as m u tu a lly exclu sive, an d m o reo v er, th a t th is k in d o f in te ra c tio n is not w ithout historical p r e c e d e n t . T h a t th e Cahiers g ro u p d ev elo p ed “Our criticism had a vested interest. “Writing was already a way of making a p a rtic u la r w ay o f co n We aren’t critics who’ve gone on to films. ” - Jean-Luc Godara make films, but filmmakers who c e i v i n g th e r e l a t i o n started out by doing a bit of film “Every critic’s dream is to be able to b etw e en th in k in g an d criticism. ” define an art by its technique. ” d o in g cin em a is n o t o f — Eric Rohmer — Roland Barthes cou rse reaso n en o u g h for us to tak e it as an h a t co u ld th e role o f film criticism possibly be in ex em p lary m o d el eith er. rela tio n to th e actualities o f film p ro d u c tio n h ere, T h e local film scene has tod ay , in A ustralia? A n obvious q u estio n p erh a p s, h ad m o re th a n its fair b u t n o n eth eless p erp le x in g , given th e c u rre n t set o f d e te r m in a n ts w h ich prevails over c o n tem p o rary local filmsh are o f su re-fire m o d els w h ich failed as soon as cu ltu re. In d ee d , w ho even h ears these te rm s m e n tio n e d in th ey w ere a d o p ted , as if a n y th in g m o re th a n a passin g flip co m m en t, a vague w ave in all film c u ltu re re q u ire d th e general d irec tio n o f th o se m o re serious, an d dare I say w as a n ew m o d el in stea d ted io u s, q u estio n s w h ic h n ever q u ite get answ ered an d yet o f a co m p lete o v e rh a u l — n ev er really d isa p p ea r. I f film c u ltu re , or p erh a p s m o re w h ich is w h a t it really co rrectly th e cin em a p e r se, is essentially a living, b re a th in g needs. co m plex set o f in te rre la tio n sh ip s — betw een film s, au d i T h e last th in g th a t I ences, ideas, m oney, places, m y th s and m a terial forces — it w o u ld w an t to see is th e certain ly often ap p e ars to have no d iscern ib le logic. Its logic forced im p o sitio n o f yet is th a t o f th e ch an ce c o n n e ctio n , an d try as certain sectors a n o th e r m o d el w h ic h is m ig h t, th e co n n e ctio n b etw e en criticism an d film m ak in g in cap ab le o f th in k in g an d rem ain s lost m o re often th a n it is found. w o r k in g in its o w n L o cal critical h isto ry is full o f a ttem p ts to eith er som ehow en v iro n m e n t. W h a t I am fo rm u late, m ake sense of, or else try to re th in k th e relatio n su g g estin g is th a t to dw ell b etw een w h at is w ritte n an d w h at is m ade on film . T h e upon a particularly w ritin g s o f Sylvia L aw so n , S co tt M u rra y , M e a g h a n M o rris, in te re stin g ex am p le o f S u san D e rm o d y , L iz Jacka, A d rian M a rtin , R o lan d o C a p u to RIVETTE: Daniel Croheimin

What is the relationship between film criticism and filmmaking? ROSS HARLEY considers the question in relation to the critics-turned-directors of the French New Wave

filmed, b y S ta n le y K u b r ic k , le a rn a b o u t tire tria ls a n d trib u la tio n s o f T V scrip tw ritin g ,, a n d b e a r fro m n o v elist A n g e la C a rte r, w b o b as w r itte n s c re e n plays fo r tw o o f b e r books. I n tb e n e x t issu e, w e w ill b e a r fro m so m e o f A u s tra lia ’s le a d in g sc re e n w rite rs a n d c o n tin u e th e d e b a te o n lite ra ry a d a p ta tio n .

how critical reflection on th e cinem a gave rise to a new and inv ig o rated n atio n al cin em a ca n n o t be devoid o f relevance to o u r c u rre n t critical co n d itio n . P erh ap s w e could even adopt C lau sew itz’s fam ous m axim , “ W a r is politics by o th er m ean s” , a n d co n sid er th e possibility in tru e G o d ard ian fashion th a t “ F ilm m a k in g is criticism by o th e r m e an s” . T h e re is n o th in g p a rtic u la rly new ab o u t critics or th e o re ti cians tu rn in g in to film m ak ers, or conversely, o f film m akers p ro d u cin g critical texts. In R ussia, at th e sta rt o f this cen tu ry , E ise n ste in , P u d o v k in , an d V ertov w ere each co n cerned in d iffe ren t w ays to reflect th eo retically on th e ir ow n cinem atic p ractice as w ell as th e b ro ad e r prob lem s o f cin e m atic form a n d film sense. D u rin g th e forties and fifties L in d say A n d erso n and K arel R eisz w rote on A m erican cin em a an d film p r a c tic e in th e B ritish jo u rn al Sequence, w hile in A m erica, people like P ete r B ogdanovich, P a u l S c h r a d e r, Jo n a s Mekas and Stan B rakhage w rote serious f ilm c r it ic is m e i th e r before or d u rin g th e ir ow n film m aking careers. T h e stu d y o f film m akers w ho w rite and w riters w ho m ake film s is w o rth a couple o f books in itself, b u t I m e n tio n th e m h ere in p assing to convey th e sense th a t criticism an d film p ractice have at least occasionally existed side by side.2 H o w ev er, it is th e g ro u p o f critics w ho w rote for th e F re n c h journal C a h i e r s du Cinema from its in c ep tio n in A p ril 1951 w ho gain o u r atte n tio n

here, if n ot for th e th eo retical rig o u r o f th e ir w ritin g th e n for th e in sig h tfu l accuracy an d passion w ith w h ich th ey arg u ed th e ir polem ics. A n d o f course it is th is g ro u p in g o f Cahiers w riters — Jacques R iv ette, C lau d e C h ab ro l, F ran co is T ru ffa u t, Jean -L u c G o d ard , E ric R o h m er, L u c M o u llet and P ierre K ast — w ho p ro v id ed th e m ajo r im p e tu s b e h in d th e m u ch v au n ted nouvelle vague o f th e early sixties. T o th e critics w ritin g at Cahiers in th e fifties, th e F re n c h cinem a was cu ltu rally , p olitically an d aesthetically im p o v erish ed . T h e n otable exceptions w ere m averick d irecto rs like R en o ir, C octeau, C lair, C lo u zo t, B ecker, A stru c or L e e n h a rd t (both th e last tw o occasional w riters for Cahiers) w ho w ere able to m ake in te restin g film s against th e tid e o f F re n c h cinem a, w h ich according to Jacq u es R iv ette was “ u n w ittin g ly an o th er v ersion o f B ritish cin em a” . A m ediocre fate if ever th ere was one, b u t n o t so very d ifferen t from o u r ow n situ a tion. C a u g h t in a co n tex t w h ere genres have no im m ed iate co n n ectio n to cu ltu ral reference p o in ts, as say th e gangster or th e w estern film s d id in A m erica, a n atio n al cinem a w o u ld have to in v e n t som e o th e r w ay o f gain in g a life o f its ow n. T h e task th a t Cahiers set for its e lf was n o th in g sh o rt o f this, th o u g h its b attles w e re n ’t to be w aged on n atio n alistic or m anifesto style te rm s as o ne m ig h t have expected. I f a new arran g e m en t o f th e pieces w h ich go to g e th er to m ake u p th e cinem a w as to be realised, it h ad to be on th e g ro u n d s th a t cinem a its e lf d em an d ed . T h e new co u ld only be con stru cted o u t o f th e ru in s o f th e old. A ccording to R o h m er: “ F o r th e cinem a to have a fu tu re , its past could n o t be allow ed to d ie .” 3 A nd aw are o f th e h isto ry o f th e cinem a th ey certain ly w ere. T h e C in em a th eq u e F ran çaise p ro v id ed a v en u e for th e film s o f th e past to m ake th e ir e n try in to th e p resen t. T o know th e cinem a is to w atch it, listen to it, p u ll it apart, dream on it, talk ab o u t it, review it, to place one film in rela tio n to an o th er. A lth o u g h an excessive cin ep h ile-tu rn ed film m aker like Je an -P ie rre M elv ille w o u ld claim th a t you c o u ld n ’t u n d e rsta n d th e full significance o f G riffith , H aw ks, L u b itsc h , F o rd or K ea to n un less you saw th e ir film s w h en th ey w ere o riginally released 4 — as o f cou rse he h ad — th e Cahiers critics tirelessly le arn t an d ab so rb ed th e film ic lessons in to th e ir w ritin g an d m em o ry . T im e sp en t w atc h ing m ovies was co n sid ered as an in v e stm e n t in a fu tu re film m aking, w h ereb y th e m a ch in atio n s o f th e cinem a w o u ld >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 25

GODARD: One (director) plus one

< becom e so d eeply eng rav ed u p o n th e ir im agination s th a t it w o u ld dictate secretly, p ow erfully, h ow a scene sh o u ld be shot, w here a lig h t sh o u ld be placed, or how a line sh o u ld be said. T h e cinem a w as th e re to be w atch ed an d to be elab o r ated u p o n , b u t it w as also to be p a rt o f w h at G o d ard refers to as an em b ed d ed “ rev o lu tio n th a t m ig h t be effected in th e aesthetic o f m oving p ic tu res by th is new vision o f its h is to ric ity .” 5 T h e essays th a t R o h m e r an d C h a b ro l w ro te on H itch co ck (later developed in to a book on his first 44 film s), R iv ette’s review s o f L an g an d P re m in g e r, L u c M o u llet on F u ller or G o d ard , T ru ffa u t an d G o d a rd w ritin g on N ich o las R ay, o r T ru ffa u t, R o h m e r an d R iv ette on th e v irtu es o f C in em ascope — all exist as p a rt o f th e art o f conceiving film , be it th e one in q u estio n or som e o th e r im agined film yet to be m ade. C u rio u sly , or p erh a p s n o t su rp risin g ly , th is art o f conceiving, th is p u ttin g to g e th er o f decisions is alm ost identical to th e idea o f m ise-en-scene (literally, th e staging or p rese n tatio n o f a scene) as advanced b y Cahiers over a p erio d o f ten or so years. W ith o u t w an tin g to sim plify th e debates aro u n d th e m e an in g an d significance o f m ise-en-scene as a critical co n c ep t,6 w e can see th a t th e re is a certain eq u iv a lence betw een th e staging o f Cahiers’ critical arg u m e n ts an d th e co n cep tio n o f th e ir film s. As Jo n a th a n R o sen b au m has it, “ i f th e en tire b o d y o f R iv e tte ’s w ork can be read as a series o f evolving reflections on th e cinem a, th e (w ritten) critical w ork . . . is in d isso lu b ly linked w ith th e critical w ork rep rese n ted by h is film m ak in g .” 7 G o d a rd ’s sta te m en ts are sim ilarly angled tow ards th e ideal o f criticism b y o th e r m eans: “ F re q u e n tin g cine-clubs an d th e C in em a th eq u e w as already a w ay o f th in k in g cinem a an d th in k in g ab o u t cinem a. W ritin g w as already a w ay o f m aking film s, for th e difference b etw een w ritin g an d d irec t in g is q u an tita tiv e n o t q u alitativ e . . . T o d a y I still th in k o f m y se lf as a critic an d in a sense I am m ore th a n ever before. In stead o f w ritin g criticism , I m ake a film .” 8 T h e d eb t to A n d re B azin, th e ‘fa th e r’ o f Cahiers du Cinema, an d m o re im p o rta n tly h ere, th e w riter/film m ak er A lex andre A stru c, are p erh a p s obvious. T h e p o te n cy o f th e u n d e rly in g te rm “ cam era-stylo” ca n n o t b e u n d ere stim a te d , for it w as th e co n cep t th a t m o st ca u g h t h o ld o f th e nouvelle vague's im ag in atio n . As a w ay o f re-th in k in g th e relatio n

26 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

b etw een w ritin g an d th e cin em a, it w as p a rtic u la rly u se fu l in p ro v id in g an altern ativ e to th e atric al an d literary term s w h ich p re d o m in a te d m u c h film criticism o f th e day. A stru c ’s sem in al essay “ T h e B irth o f th e A v an t G ard e: la camera-stylo", a p p e ared in 1948 in th e C o m m u n ist sp o n sored jo u rn al Ecran Français, an n o u n c in g th a t th is w as “ th e new age o f cin em a, th e age o f th e camera-stylo (cam era-pen). T h is m e ta p h o r has a v ery p recise sense. By it I m ean th a t th e cinem a w ill g rad u a lly b reak free fro m th e ty ra n n y o f w h at is visual, fro m th e im age fo r its o w n sake, fro m th e im m ed iate an d co n crete d em an d s o f th e n arrativ e, to becom e a m eans o f w ritin g ju st as flexible an d su b tle as w ritte n la n g u ag e .” 9 T h e aim o f b rea k in g free fro m th e d em an d s o f n arrativ e w as, h o w ev er, o n ly p o ssib le via a learn in g o f th e lan g u ag e o f cin em a. Its ac q u isitio n cam e via th e co m b in ed pro cesses o f seizin g u p o n u se fu l g ro u p in g s o f film s, an alysing an d assim ilatin g th e m , an d th e n rein v o k in g th e m b y m ean s o f th e cam era itself. F o r th is reaso n , n o n e o f th e Cahiers’ critical stances o r devices w ere w ritte n in sto n e as it w ere. T h e ir p u b lis h e d rea p p ra isal o f th e A m erican cinem a in th e fifties tu rn e d a tte n tio n to w ard s a large n u m b e r o f n eg lected film s an d film m ak ers at th e sam e tim e as th is w o rk gave rise to a n u m b e r o f key critical concepts. I t ’s n o t m y in te n tio n to give an ad e q u ate acco u n t h ere o f th e use an d significance o f th ese cru cial te rm s — m ise-enscene an d politique des auteurs10 — fo r w h ich I w o u ld reco m m e n d Jim H illie r’s ex cellent In tro d u c tio n to th e Cahiers du Cinem a: T h e 1950s co llectio n . T h e se te rm s w ere h o tly co n te sted w ith in Cahiers at th e b est o f tim es. F o r th e p u rp o ses o f th is article w e can take m ise-en-scene to b e th e w ay in w h ich a scene is p u t to g e th e r — its d isp o sitio n , th e cam era m o v em en t an d p la ce m en t, th e tra n sitio n fro m sh o t to shot etc. As a fo rm o f criticism , m ise-en-scene w as n ev er really a th e o ry so m u c h as it w as a w o rk in g m e th o d b y w h ich film s w ere analysed an d m ad e. So too la politique des auteurs (roughly, a u te u r policy) w as n ev er actu ally a th e o ry , th o u g h so-called a u te u rism w as basically co n c ern ed w ith ev alu atin g th e w o rk o f p a rtic u la r d irec to rs w h o se in d iv id u a lity co u ld be d iscern ed across sep arate film s an d in d e ed w h o le oeuvres. A t th is level, th e tw o te rm s are in e x trica b ly linked. “ It is w ith th e m ise-en-scene th a t th e a u te u r tran sfo rm s th e m aterial w h ich has b ee n g iven to h im ; so it is in th e m ise-enscene . . . th a t th e a u te u r w rites h is in d iv id u ality in to th e film .” 11 B u t a u te u r statu s d id n o t necessarily g u ara n tee th a t each successive film w o u ld au to m atically receive critical acco lades. T h is is p a rtic u la rly tru e o f Cahiers’ a ttitu d e to m u c h o f th e A m erican cin em a in th e sixties. W h e reas in th e fifties p eo p le like A n th o n y M a n n , R o b e rt A ld rich , O tto P re m in g e r an d especially N ich o las R ay h a d b ee n alm o st b ey o n d reb u k e, in th e sixties th e y w ere resp o n sib le for m egaflops, an d h en ce n o t as v alu ab le to th e Cahiers p ro ject. Je rry L ew is, Jo h n C assavetes an d A rth u r P e n n w ere v irtu a lly all th a t was left o f th e A m eric an cinem a, at least i f Cahiers b est film lists are an y th in g to go on. P ie rre K a s t’s w a rn in g — “ b e tte r good p ay ro ll cin em a th a n b ad d irec to rs cin em a” — m ay seem stran g e in th e lig h t o f Cahiers o ft-v au n ted en th u sia sm for a u te u rism , b u t in ac tu a lity rep rese n ts th e degree o f h ea lth y p ra g m a tism w h ic h p e rm e a te d th e ir ap p ro a ch to th e o re tic al co n stru c ts. T h e reason w h y Cahiers critics lik ed th e A m erican cin em a in th e fifties h a d to do w ith th e se film s’ te ch n ic al v irtu o sity an d n o n -E u ro p e a n stylistics. B y th e early sixties Cahiers w as

co m p lain in g th a t A m e ric a n cin em a w as b ec o m in g too ‘E u ro p e a n ise d ’. G o d a rd in siste d th a t o f th e rec en t A m erican film releases, “ now ad ay s 80 p e r ce n t are b a d ” , at aro u n d ab o u t th e sam e tim e th a t A n d re w S arris w o u ld have b een sta rtin g to ‘tra n s la te ’ th e a u te u r th e o ry to th e A m erican cinem a in its to ta lity — o r w h a t at th e tim e seem ed like its to ta lity .12 By th is tim e R iv e tte , R o h m e r, T ru ffa u t, G o d a rd an d C h a b ro l h a d all m a d e th e ir firs t film s. In m a n y w ays th e co n n ections b e tw e e n th e ir criticism an d th e ir film m ak in g practice w ere, as m e n tio n e d earlier, fairly p ro m in e n t. G o d a rd ’s A B ou t D e Souffle w as like a m o d e rn ist versio n o f H aw k s’ g an g ster film s; R o h m e r’s L e Signe D u Lion fits less easily in to a p re-g iv en critical n ic h e, b u t can be seen as his h om age to Ita lia n n eo -realism ; P aris N ous A ppartien t is R iv ette’s L a n g ia n a d v e n tu re w h ere “ no idea can h o p e to explain th e w o rld , o r e x h a u st b y its e lf all th e p o ssibilities o f th e re a l” 13; C h a b ro l’s L e Beau Serge is d istin ctiv ely H itc h cockian in to n e , p o in t o f view an d effect; an d Les 400 Coups, acco rd in g to G o d a rd ’s Cahiers review in 1959, invoked ju st ab o u t all th e q u alitie s o f th e film s on T ru f f a u t’s te n best list for 1958! It w o u ld b e q u ite a task to d e te rm in e th e degree to w h ich th e se te n d e n c ie s w ere p u rs u e d or ab an d o n ed th ro u g h o u t th e ir su b se q u e n t careers. T h o u g h such a task w ould, I su sp e ct, reveal th e d egree to w h ich th is g ro u p in g o f critics su b sc rib ed to ce rtain critical an d th e o re tic al fo rm u la tio n s for as lo n g as th e y c o u ld b e trie d o u t, p ro v en , or else cast aside in th e ir o w n cinem as. In m a rk e d d ifference to th e academ ic th e o re tic ism often associated w ith m an y co n tem p o rary efforts to co u p le th e o ry a n d p rac tice to g e th er, th e Cahiers g ro u p m a in ta in e d a p lay fu lly a d v e n tu ro u s ap p ro a ch to re th in k in g th e lim its o f c in e m a ’s p ossibilities. In th is lig h t i t ’s in te re stin g to co n c lu d e w ith th e instan ce o f th e o n g o in g d isc u ssio n on film language th ro u g h o u t th e sixties. R o h m e r’s ap p ro a c h fra m ed th e q u estio n in te rm s o f stylistics, in sistin g th a t th e idea o f cin em ato g rap h ic language re q u ire d th e film m ak er “ take u p a p o sitio n vis a vis cin em a w h ic h is n e ith e r th a t o f th e a u te u r n o r th a t o f th e sp e cta to r” 14 w h ereas G o d a rd te n d e d to w eld th e in sig h ts o f lin g u istics a n d p h ilo so p h y o f language in to his ow n cin e m atic w o rk fro m th e early sixties o n w ard s. B u t it is R iv e tte ’s d iscussion w ith R o la n d B a rth es in 1963 w h ic h b est ex e m p li fies Cahiers’ resp o n se to th e se d u ctio n o f film th eo ry . T h e

GODARD: Anna Karina in Bande A Part

relatio n b etw een te ch n ic al an d critical or th e o retical k n o w ledge o f th e cin em a is after all a lin c h p in in Cahiers’ p ro po sed p ro b lem atic , an d th e Cahiers g ro u p w as in fact one o f th e first co h e ren t g ro u p in g s to b eg in d iscu ssin g th e rele vance o f sem io tic a n d lin g u istic th e o ries to th e stu d y o f th e cinem a. R e m e m b er, th is is o n ly a year before M e tz w ro te th e first c h a p te r o f Film Language. H o w easy it m ig h t have b een to seize u p o n th is n ew ly em erg in g d iscip lin e an d m ake o f it th e n ew all-em b racin g critical ex p lan atio n , as m ig h t have b een th e case at an o th e r tim e an d place. B u t R iv e tte ’s en g ag em en t w ith B arth es is as en th u siastic as it is reserv ed in its p raise o f su c h a p ro jec t, alw ays aw are o f p o te n tia l p itfalls, red u c tio n ism s an d sh o rtco m in g s. H e co u ld agree th a t “ every c ritic ’s d rea m is to be able to define an art b y its te c h n iq u e ” 15, b u t at th e sam e tim e felt co m p elled to voice h is ap p re h en sio n s: “ T h e idea o f th e cinem a as a lan g u ag e m ay n ev e r p e rh a p s be fu lly w orkable; b u t w e have to p u rsu e it all th e sam e, i f w e are n o t to fall in to th e tra p o f sim p ly en jo y in g th e cin em a as a m ean in g less object — as an o b ject o f p le asu re an d fascin atio n w h ich ca n n o t be ex plained. T h e fact is th a t th e cin em a alw ays has a language; so th a t an elem en t o f lan g u ag e alw ays com es in to p la y .” 16 T h e idea m ay n o t b e fu lly w orkable, b u t “ w e have to p u rsu e it all th e sa m e” . P e rh a p s it ’s n o t su ch a b ad w ay o f looking at th in g s after all.

NOTES

MELVILLE: The director in his own Deux Hommes Dans Manhattan

1. S ee fo r e x a m p le , S y lv ia L a w s o n , “ N o t fo r th e L ik e s o f u s ” , in A . M o r a n & T . O ’R e g a n (e d s), A n A u s tra lia n F ilm R eader; S c o tt M u r r a y , o rig in a l C in em a P a p e rs m a n ife s to r e p r in t e d in C inem a P a p ers 4 4 -4 5 , M a r c h 1 9 8 5 ; M e a g h a n M o r r is , “ In - D ig e s tio n : A R h e to r ic o f R e v ie w in g ” , F ilm n ew s J u n e 1 9 8 3 ; L iz J a c k a & S u s a n D e rm o d y , The Screening o f A u s tra lia V o l 1 1 9 8 7 ; A d ria n M a r tin & R o la n d o C a p u to , “ S ta te o f F ilm C r itic is m ” , F ilm new s J a n /F e b 1985. 2 . T h e m e n tio n o f th e s e p e o p le h a s a c e r ta in a r b itr a r y fe e lin g a b o u t it w h e n p la c e d n e x t to a la rg e r lis t o f w rite r/fllm m a k e rs w h ic h w o u ld a d d th e fo llo w in g to th o s e a lre a d y m e n tio n e d . I n n o p a r tic u la r o rd e r: S u s a n S o n ta g , N o e l B u r c h , R o b e r t B re s s o n , P a u l M a y e rs b e rg , P e te r W o lle n , L a u r a M u lv e y , A n d r e T e c h in e , M ic k E a to n , C o r in n e a n d A r t h u r C a n tr ill, P ie r P a o lo P a s o lin i, A lb ie T h o m s , A le x a n d re A s tru c , R o g e r L e e n h a r d t, A le x a n d e r K lu g e , C h r is P e ttit, M a y a D e r e n , J e a n L o u is C o m o lli, R a y m o n d B e llo u r, K e n n e th A n g e r, R a u l R u iz , P a s c a l B o n itz e r , R o b e r to R o s s e llin i, B e r tr a n d T a v e r n ie r a n d A n d re T a rk o v s k y — fo r s ta r te r s . >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 27

3. Q u o te d in J im H illie r (ed ), C ahiers du C inem a: the 1960s, H a r v a r d U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , U S A , 1 9 8 6 , p 3 1 . 4. M e lv ille w o u ld b o a s t “ I th in k I a m th e la st liv in g w itn e s s in F r a n c e w h o c a n te s tify o n b e h a l f o f p re -w a r A m e ric a n c in e m a . . . T h e film w h ic h w a s re le a se d in A p ril 1 9 3 4 . . . is n ’t a t all th e sa m e th in g w h e n y o u see it n o w s o m e a fte rn o o n o r e v e n in g a t th e C in e m a th e q u e ,” in R u i N o g u e re ira , M e lv ille , L o n d o n , S e e k e r & W a r b u r g , 1 9 71, p 7 . 5. J e a n -L u c G o d a rd , “ S p e e c h D e liv e re d a t th e C in e m a th e q u e F ra n ç a is e o n th e o c c a s io n o f th e L o u is L u m ie r e R e tro s p e c tiv e in J a n u a r y 1966: T h a n k s to H e n r i L a n g lo is ” , in G o d a rd O n G o d a rd , S e e k e r & W arb u rg , L o n d o n , 1972, p236. 6. F o r a m o re d e ta ile d a c c o u n t o f th e q u e s tio n s a t sta k e in th e n o tio n o f m is e -e n -sc e n e , see J im H illie r (ed), “ I n tr o d u c t io n ” , C ahiers du C inem a: The 1950s, B F I , L o n d o n , 1985. 7. J o n a th a n R o s e n b a u m (ed), R iv ette : Texts a n d In terview s, B F I, L o n d o n , 1977, p i . 8. J e a n -L u c G o d a rd , “ I n te r v ie w w ith J e a n - L u c G o d a r d ” in G o d a rd On G odard, o p . c it., p l 7 1 . 9. A le x a n d re A s tru c , “ T h e B ir th o f a N e w A v a n t G a rd e : la c am eras ty lo ” , in P e te r G r a h a m , The N e w W a ve, S e e k e r & W a r b u r g , 1968. 10. H o w “ a u te u r p o lic y ” b e c a m e “ a u te u r th e o r y ” is th e s u b je c t o f m u c h d is p u te . I n g e n e ra l, h o w e v e r, w e c a n say th a t a u te u r is t a p p ro a c h e s to c ritic is m s e rv e d th e p o le m ic a l fu n c tio n o f b e in g a b le to m a rk c e rta in s o rts o f film s fro m o th e rs . T h e d is tin g u is h in g c h a r a c te ris tic o f a u te u ris m is th a t it p o s ite d th e f ilm ’s m e a n in g in d ire c t re la tio n to th e d e g re e to w h ic h its a u th o r /d ir e c to r le ft th e ir p e rs o n a lity o r w o rld v ie w s ta m p e d o n w h a t m ig h t b y o th e r a c c o u n ts re g is te r as a s ta n d a rd g e n re o r s tu d io film . F o r m o re d e ta ile d d is c u s s io n o f h o w la politiq u e des auteurs h a s b e e n m e d ia te d in to c ritic a l v o c a b u la ry , see H illie r ’s “ I n tr o d u c t io n ” , C ahiers du C inem a: The 1950s, A n d re w T u d o r , Theories o f F ilm , S e e k e r & W a r b u r g , L o n d o n , 1 9 7 4 , p p 120-31 ; a n d A n d re w S a rris , The A m e ric a n C inem a, D u tto n & C o ., N e w Y o rk , 1968. 11. J o h n C a u g h ie , Theories o f A u th o rsh ip , R K P , L o n d o n , 1981. 12. D e s p ite th e m a m m o th p ro p o r tio n s o f S a r r is ’ b o o k , it s till h a d o n ly s k im m e d th e s u rfa c e o f H o lly w o o d film h is to ry . T o d d M c C a r th y a n d C h a rle s F ly n n (eds) K in g s o f the B s re p re s e n ts o n e e n d o f th e s p e c tr u m o f tr y in g to a t le a st lis t e v e r y th in g th a t S a rr is ’ b o o k h a d n e g le c te d , w h ile T a v e r n ie r a n d C o u r s o d o n ’s 2 -v o lu m e D ic tio n a ry o f A m erica n F ilm D irecto rs e x te n d s th e c ritic a l a n a ly sis o f m a n y fig u re s o n ly b rie fly d e a lt w ith b y S a rris. 13. J a c q u e s R iv e tte , “ P a ris N o u s A p p a r tie n t” , in R iv ette : Texts an d In terview s, o p . c it., p 9 2 . 14. E r ic R o h m e r, “ T h e O ld a n d th e N e w ” , in C ahiers du C inem a: The 1960s, p 8 4 . 15. R o la n d B a r th e s , “ T o w a r d s a S e m io tic s o f C in e m a . B a rth e s in in te rv ie w w ith M ic h e l D e la h a y e a n d J a c q u e s R iv e tte ” , in Cahiers du Cinem a: The 1960s, p 2 7 9 . 16. ib id , p p 2 8 0 -8 1 .

T R U FFA U T : Fancy footwork on the set of Domicile Conjugal

28 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

THE W R I T E S T U F F “We need better scripts,” has become a catchcry in talking about Australian cinema. SAM ROHDIE argues that so-called ‘better scripts’ are often the recipe for worse movies.

n th e 1950s in Italy th e re w as a k in d o f g u errilla w ar carried on b y som e film d irec to rs, am o n g th e m A n to n io n i, F ellin i, ag ain st la sceneggiatura d i ferro (the stro n g script). It w as fo u g h t in o rd e r to g ain co n tro l o f th e ir film s fro m p ro d u c e rs (th e sc rip t w as an in s tru m e n t for g o v ern in g th e film ) an d in o rd er to free th e cin em a fro m th e ty ra n n y o f th e sc rip t, o f th e n a rra tiv e ru les it im p o sed , an d th e e x p e rim en tatio n an d in n o v a tio n th e sc rip t seem ed to p rev en t. W h a t I w o u ld loosely like to call th e m o d e m cin em a, an d w h ich I w ill give som e exam p les o f in a m o m e n t, has red u c ed th e ce n tral p lace o f th e sc rip t as th e key elem e n t in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th e stru c tu re o f th e film , o f its look, its m o v em en t, its m ean in g s. F ro m so lid o u tlin e, o ften w ith ‘lite ra ry ’ values, th e sc rip t has b eco m e m o re an d m o re a sketch, b are n o ta tio n an d in in stan ces has co m p letely d is ap p eared . T h e sc rip t b elo n g s to a h ig h ly n arrativ ised ‘d ra m a tic ’, no v elistic cin em a w h ich is b y n o w o ld an d tired . B y co n tra st, in A u stralia, th e re has b ee n for som e tim e a call for b e tte r sc rip ts, b e tte r sc rip tw rite rs, b e tte r d ram a tic w ritin g , as i f in h ea d lo n g flig h t fro m ev e ry th in g th a t is n ew an d in te re stin g to w a rd all th a t is co n fo rm ist an d m ed io cre. A n u m b e r o f film s p a rtic u la rly im p re sse d m e at th e last M e lb o u rn e F ilm F estiv al: The Beekeeper (d irected by A ngelopoulos), R outine Pleasures (G o rin ), L e R ayon Vert (R ohm er) a n d H urlevent (R ivette). In n o n e o f th e se film s does th e sc rip t h av e an y p a rtic u la r statu s. In The Beekeeper, w h ic h is a lo n g film , sc rip t elem en ts are few: th e d ialo g u e is sp are, d ram a tic ev en ts are m in im al, th e p lo t is th in , th e m o v e m en t o f events is in d ire c t, m ean in g s are su b tle an d u n sta te d . M u c h o f th e p le asu re o f th e film is visual: settin g s, lig h t, g estu re s o f ch a racters, g estu res o f th e cam era. T h e cam era su d d e n ly in te re sts its e lf in th in g s in d e p e n d e n t o f e ith e r n a rra tiv e or ch aracter, th in g s at th e b o rd e rlin e o f th e fictio n itself: th e lig h t in a w in d o w , th e sh ap e o f a ro ad w ay , a la n d sca p e fra m e d b y p o w er lin es, th e diagonal o f a strea m red e fin in g scale an d d en sity in th e sh o t, th e temps m orts o f spaces b efo re ch aracters ap p e ar in th e m an d a ‘d ra m a ’ b eg in s, o r after ch a racters h av e left th e m an d th e re is no lo n g e r an y d ra m a ‘to tak e p la c e ’. W h a t is view ed is n arrativ ely em p ty ; w h a t is felt is th e actu al d u ra tio n o f th a t reg ard . T h e r e are sh o ts w h ic h seem p u re ly in stin c tu a l, d e p e n d e n t o n m o m e n ta ry th in g s , a p assin g m o o d , a g lim p se o f so m e th in g , a reflectio n o f lig h t, a co m p u lsio n o r fascina tio n o f th e in sta n t, n o n e o f w h ic h c o u ld have b e e n p la n n e d in ad v an ce a n d w h ic h th e film in g co u ld th e n re p ro d u c e . The Beekeeper fre q u e n tly m oves aw ay fro m its n a rra tiv e ; besid e

POST SCRIPT: Le Rayon Vert, The Beekeeper, Hurlevent

th e su b ject o f th e fictio n th e re is th e su b ject o f its film in g w h ich h as a life o f its o w n , its o w n d irec tio n s an d in ten sities. The Beekeeper has no n a rra tiv e core to b in d a n d dictate every o th e r activ ity a n d level o f th e film a n d no h a rd an d fast scrip t to b in d th a t n a rra tiv e . T h e o th e r film s I m e n tio n e d are sim ilar in th is w ay, in th e ir sp o n ta n e ity , fra g m e n ta rin e ss, in th e ir stru c tu rin g a relatio n to w ard s th e n a rra tiv e ra th e r th a n sim ply expressin g it, in th e fact th a t th e y are fo rm e d in th e process o f th e ir m aking, n o t b e fo re h a n d , n o t m ade acco rd in g to plan. T h e ‘d ra m a ’ o f Routine Pleasures d ep e n d s on th e relations b etw een th e film in g o f it, w h ic h im plicates th e very p erso n o f th e film m ak er, a n d th e a p p a re n t su b ject w h ich is film ed, th e m o del railro a d ers. T h e s e relatio n s, o f necessity, are created w h ile th e film is ta k in g place a n d largely dictate th e film ’s d irec tio n s a n d m oves. W h a t becom es fascinatin g is th e sh iftin g lin e b e tw e e n th e su b je ct a n d its ap p re h en sio n , b etw een a d o c u m e n ta rism an d its fictio n alisatio n an d th e c u ttin g across o f th e se b y th e o b jectiv ity o f a reality an d th e su b jectiv ity o f th e search fo r it. T h e se relatio n s change, becom e u n b a la n c e d , u n p re d ic ta b le ; th e y are n e ith e r fixed, n o r clearly n am eab le. T h e film is m ade o f th e sim plest o f elem ents: th e m o d e l railro a d ers, G o rin m ov in g th ro u g h th e ir m in ia tu re la n d scap e, th e au to b io g rap h ic al landscape p ain tin g s o f M a n n y F a rb e r, G o rin ’s search to fin d h im s e lf in th e la n d sca p e o f A m erica. B u t as th e se elem ents m ove to w ard a n d ag ain st each o th e r new th in g s fo rm , new co m plexities o cc u r as th e d irec t re su lt o f th a t activity o f relatin g , o f film ing, o f e d itin g , o f criticisin g . T h e sense o f Routine Pleasures com es in th e v ery p rocess o f th e film an d th e re is n o th in g b efo re th a t; it gets w o rk e d o u t as it m oves along. T h e sto ry o f L e R ayon Vert c o n c ern s a y o u n g w o m an w ho is in search o f so m e th in g w h ic h sh e w ill o n ly know w h en she fin d s it; th a t th in g is b o th m a teria l a n d sp iritu a l, an object a n d a visio n , th e e te rn ity o f a m o m e n t. T h e film has a plan , b u t th e p la n is o n ly a sk e tch (it too is looking for som e th in g ). W ith in th e p la n alm o st ev e ry th in g is im p ro v ised — th e n a rra tiv e -b o u n d sc rip t leaves n o th in g over, n o th in g any m o re to discover. T h e film exists b etw e en its p la n an d th e im p ro v isa tio n o f its d etails (w h ich forces on e to change d irectio n ); w h ile th e p la n tig h te n s its g rip , m o m e n ts and in stan ces d is r u p t it, re -ro u te it; fo r i f th e film is sensitive to th e im p ro v isa tio n s o f th e h e ro in e , th e h e ro in e is sensitive to th e vagaries o f w h ate v er m ay h a p p e n to h e r, fro m w h ich she seeks a n d fo rm s a p la n a n d to w h ic h she reacts . . . an d to w h ich th e film reacts. T h e r e are th e p re ssu re s o f a w o rld (the w o rd , th e sc rip t) a n d th e d isso lv in g p ressu res o f desire

(the p artic u la r, th e u n sp e ak a b le, th e not-y et-fo u n d ). In this p h ilo so p h ic tale o f g reat elegance an d in tellig en ce th e re is an o th e r tale, o r o ne th a t I am im p o sin g o n it, a d isco u rse on n arrativ e, on th e p la n , o f e v e ry th in g w o rk in g to g eth er acco rd in g to p lan . B riefly, H urlevent co n tain s th re e essential elem ents: th e B ro n te novel Wuthering Heights as its p re te x t; th e theatricalisatio n an d m ise-en-scene o f th e actio n o f th e novel to in c lu d e th e d eco rs, th e se ttin g s, co stu m es, th e looks and g estu res o f th e ch a racters, w h o are d o u b le ch aracters (o f th e novel, o f th e th e a tre o f th e novel) th o u g h th is d o u b lin g goes fo r everything; an d th e th ir d elem e n t, w h ic h is th e film o f th is th eatric alisatio n . So th e re are th re e o f ev ery th in g : th e novel, th e th e a tre , th e film o f th e th e a tre . N o th in g at all is stable in H urlevent, n o th in g stays in its place. W h ile each elem en t is m a rk e d sep arately , th e y w a n d e r b etw een d ifferent m aterial fictio n s, d iffe ren t n a rra tiv e su b stan ces. It is n ot sim p ly th a t each th in g , each elem en t, each ch aracter, every lin e a n d every g estu re is p o te n tia lly tre b le d , b u t ra th e r they m ove in to f u rth e r m u ltip le s, in to an o ver excess, a p lu rality o f w o rld s a n d tim es. R iv ette m an ag es th is p lay o f sim p lic ity an d com plexity, o f d ifferen ce an d its d isso lu tio n v ery w ell in d eed ; as w ith th e >

Antonioni

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 29

< o th e r film s I m e n tio n e d , w h a t h a p p e n s o n ly h a p p e n s in p rac tice , in fo rm a tio n , in ‘th e a c t’. In m o st conv en tio n al n arrativ es, actions are co n seq u e n tial a n d organ ised in advance; in th e se film s co n seq u e n ces are m o re varied, m ore explosive a n d th e y can o n ly be k n o w n after. In th e se film s ev e ry th in g m oves; in th e o th e rs n o th in g m oves, all is fixed, set, cen tred . A n to n io n i called film s o f th is k in d (like h is ow n) th e ‘v ices’ o f th e cin em a c o m p a re d to th e ‘v irtu e s ’ o f p o p u la r co m m ercial p ro d u c tio n w h ic h p e rm itte d th e existence o f ‘v ic e’, b o th m a teria lly , fro m th e pro ceed s o f ‘v irtu e ’, and less m aterially, as th e v ery reaso n for th e re to be a cinem a at all. A n to n io n i w as fo n d o f re m a rk in g th a t v irtu e on its ow n w o u ld b e in to lerab le . W h a t tro u b le s m e ab o u t th e A u stra lian film in d u s try is th a t it is so v irtu o u s, an d , so terrib ly afraid o f vice, w ith th e resu lt, as A n to n io n i p re d ic te d w o u ld h a p p e n in su c h cases, th a t it has b eco m e into lerab le. T h e v ery last th in g it n eeds is m o re v irtu e in th e sh ap e o f b etter scrip ts. B esides, I believe th a t th e re is p ro b ab ly no such th in g as ‘b e tte r sc rip ts’ since th e b est sc rip t w o u ld be one th a t w o u ld n o t exist (the ab so lu te o f vice) w hereas to seek to w rite th e b e tte r sc rip t is to seek co n fo rm ity , w h ich could n o t, b y th a t v ery fact, b e m u c h good at all. T h e am b itio n o f th e A u stralian film in d u stry , at least since th e m id-1970s (about th e tim e o f Picnic A t Hanging Rock), has b ee n to m ake a place for its e lf w ith in an in te r n atio n al co m m ercial fram ew o rk w hose ru les an d values have b ee n d eriv ed fro m th e m o d el o f th e A m erican cinem a (and in p a rt d ic tated b y th a t cinem a). L arg ely for th is reason th e re has b ee n a d e m a n d for b e tte r scripts. In th e film -in d u stria l situ a tio n th e re is an established o rd e r for th e realisatio n o f a film : fro m idea, to tre a tm e n t, to screen play, to m ise-en-scene, to film ing. T h e o rd e r im p lies a specific division o f la b o u r, o f ex p erts, o f stages, o f ratio n al isatio n for w h ich th e sc rip t fu n c tio n s as th e essential p lan for th a t o rd er; it fo rm s th e basis for th e calculations o f cost, o f o u tco m e, o f e q u ip m e n t, o f p erso n n e l an d it contain s th e p ro ce d u re s for follow ing o u t its o rd er, o f tu rn in g w o rd s into im ages, a sto ry in to p ic tu re s, a n d p ic tu re s stru c tu re d and lin k ed in to a story. It defines th e v ery fu n c tio n o f th in g s in th e film . In a relatively n ew an d in e x p erien c ed film in d u stry such as th e A u stralian in d u stry , u n s u re o f its ta len ts b u t clear ab o u t its am b itio n s, calcu latio n s h ave to be th a t m u c h finer, co n tro ls th a t m u c h m o re precise; its g reater risks u su ally d ictate a h ig h deg ree o f con serv atism . T h e sc rip t is n o t only th e key elem en t in a d ra m a tic spectacle, b u t th e evidence in advance for th e fin ish e d film (the basis on w h ich finance is o ften sought). T o c o n tro l th e sc rip t in th ese circum stan ces is to c o n tro l th e film . A n d th e line o f co n tro l, a co n tro l exer cised b y p ro d u c e rs, fin an c iers an d fu n d in g bodies, is alm ost alw ays to w a rd th e k n o w n , th e p red ic tab le, th e safe. I d o n ’t w ish to m ake a co n tra ry call to th e call fo r b etter scrip ts, n o r to b ea t ‘v ir tu e ’ w ith ‘v ic e’, to h o ld u p a E u ro p ea n ex p e rim e n ta l n a rra tiv e tra d itio n against w h at is bein g m ade an d co n sid ered in A u stralia, b u t I do w an t to suggest a difference, n o t a co m p lete differen ce (all ‘vice’ w o u ld be eq u ally in to lerab le), b u t th e fact o f difference, th e su p p o rt, alongside a n d w ith in a co m m ercial-narrative-dram aticspectacle cinem a, tig h tly co n tro lled , o rganised, scrip ted , fixed, an o th e r cinem a w h ich , as in th e o ld days, actually m oves. B esides, an d once again to refer to A n to n io n i, o nly su c h a cin em a p ro v id es th e reaso n for th e re to b e a cin em a at all.

30 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

THE WRI T E

STUFF

You’ve read the book, now see the film: from Tolstoy to Nora Ephron, Mary Shelley to Marcel Proust, novelists have been raided for film scripts. But what does the transition from page to screen involve? In the first of a two-part series, BRIAN McFARLANE looks at the discourse on adaptation. v ery o n e w ho sees film s b ased on novels feels able to co m m en t, at levels ra n g in g fro m th e g ossipy to th e eru d ite, o n th e n a tu re a n d success o f th e ad a p ta tio n involved. T h a t is, th e in te re st in ad a p ta tio n , u n lik e m an y o th e r m a tte rs to do w ith film (eg, th e d ep lo y m en t o f th e cin em atic codes or q u estio n s o f a u th o rsh ip ), is n o t a rarefied one. A n d it ran g es b ack w ard s a n d fo rw ard s fro m th o se w ho talk o f novels as b e in g “ b e tra y e d ” b y b o o rish film m ak ers to th o se w ho reg a rd th e p rac tice o f c o m p arin g th e film a n d th e novel as a w aste o f tim e. As to th e film m ak ers th em selv es, th e y have b e e n d raw in g on literary so u rces, a n d especially n ovels o f v ary in g degrees o f c u ltu ral p restig e, since film first estab lish ed its e lf as p re em in en tly a n arrativ e m e d iu m . In view o f th is fact, and given th a t th e re has b e e n a lo n g -ru n n in g d isco u rse o n th e n a tu re o f th e co n n e ctio n s b etw e en film an d lite ra tu re , it is su rp risin g h o w little sy stem atic, su stain e d a tte n tio n has b een given to th e p rocesses o f ad a p ta tio n . T h is is th e m ore su rp risin g since th e issue o f a d a p ta tio n has a ttra c te d critical atte n tio n for m o re th a n 60 years in a w ay th a t few o th er

GRIFFITH: Mae Marsh and Henry B. Walthall in Birth Of A Nation

film -related issues have. B y th is I m ean th a t w riters across a w id e critical sp e c tru m h ave fo u n d th e su b ject fascinating: n e w sp a p e r a n d jo u rn a l review s alm ost in v ariab ly offer co m p ariso n b etw e en a film a n d its literary p rec u rso r; fro m fan m ag azines to m o re o r less scholarly books, one finds reflectio n s on th e in c id en c e o f ad a p ta tio n ; w orks serious an d triv ia l, co m p lex a n d sim p le, early an d recen t, address th em selv es to v ario u s aspects o f th is p h e n o m e n o n alm o st as o ld as th e in stitu tio n o f th e cinem a. In co n sid erin g th e issue h ere , I w an t to b eg in by draw in g a tte n tio n to som e o f th e m o st co m m o n ly re c u rrin g discu ssio ns o f th e c o n n e ctio n s b etw e en th e film a n d th e novel.

C o n ra d , G riffith , an d “ Seeing” C o m m e n ta to rs in th e field are fo n d o f q u o tin g Jo se p h C o n ra d ’s fam o u s sta te m e n t o f his novelistic in te n tio n : “ M y task w h ic h I am try in g to achieve is, by th e p o w er o f th e w ritte n w o rd , to m ake y o u hear, to m ake y o u feel — it is, b efo re all, to m ake y o u see” .1 T h is rem a rk o f 1897 is echoed, co n scio u sly or o th e rw ise , 16 years later by D .W . G riffith w hose cin em atic in te n tio n is re c o rd e d b y film h isto ria n L ew is Jaco b as “ T h e task I am try in g to achieve is above all to m ake y o u see” .2 G eo rg e B lu e sto n e ’s all-b u t-p io n eerin g w o rk in th e film -literatu re field, N ovels Into Film, draw s atte n tio n to th e sim ila rity o f th e rem ark s at th e sta rt o f his stu d y o f “ T h e T w o W ays o f S eein g ” , claim ing th a t “ . . . b etw e en th e p e rc e p t o f th e visual im age an d th e co n cep t o f th e m e n tal im ages lies th e ro o t d ifference b etw e en th e tw o m e d ia ” .3 In th is w ay h e acknow ledges th e co n n ectin g lin k o f “ seein g ” in h is u se o f th e w o rd “ im ag e” an d , at th e sam e tim e, p o in ts to th e fu n d a m e n ta l difference b etw een th e w ay im ages are p ro d u c e d in th e tw o m ed ia an d h ow th e y are received. F in ally , th o u g h , he claim s th a t “ co n c ep tu al im ages evoked b y v erb al stim u li can scarcely be d istin g u ish e d in th e e n d fro m th o se evoked b y n o n -v erb al s tim u li” ,4 an d , in th is resp ect, h e sh ares co m m o n g ro u n d w ith several o th e r w riters c o n c ern ed to estab lish links b etw e en th e tw o m edia. B y th is, I m e an th o se co m m en taries w h ich address th e m selves to cru cial changes in th e (m ainly E ng lish ) novel to w ard s th e e n d o f th e 19 th ce n tu ry : changes w h ich led to a stress o n sh o w in g ra th e r th a n on te llin g an d w h ich , as a resu lt, re d u c e d th e elem e n t on a u th o ria l in te rv e n tio n in its m o re o v ert m a n ifesta tio n s. T w o o f th e m o st im pressiv e o f su ch acco u n ts, b o th o f th e m c o n c ern ed w ith ong o in g processes o f tra n sm u ta tio n am ong th e arts, n o tab ly betw een lite ra tu re an d film , are A lan S pieg el’s Fiction A n d The Cam era E ye5 a n d K e ith C o h e n ’s Film A n d Fiction/The D ynam ics O f .Exchanged B o th o f th ese offer a rig o ro u s, q u e stio n in g ap p ro a c h to w ays in w h ic h th e novel ap p ears to h ave b ee n in flu e n c e d b y th e film . S pieg el’s avow ed p u rp o se is to in v estig ate “ th e co m m o n b o d y o f th o u g h t an d feeling th a t u n ite s film fo rm w ith th e m o d e rn n o v el” ,7 tak in g as his sta rtin g p o in t F la u b e rt w h o m h e sees as th e first great 19th c e n tu ry ex e m p la r o f “ c o n c retised fo rm ” , a fo rm d ep e n d en t on su p p ly in g a g rea t deal o f visual in fo rm atio n . H is line o f e n q u iry leads h im to Jam es Joyce w ho, like F la u b e rt, resp ects “ th e in te g rity o f th e seen object an d . . . gives it p alp ab le p rese n ce a p a rt fro m th e p rese n ce o f th e o b se rv e r” .8 T h is lin e is p u rs u e d b y th e w ay o f H e n ry Jam es w h o atte m p ts “ a b a lan c ed d istrib u tio n o f em p h asis in th e re n d e rin g o f w h a t is looked at, w ho is looking, a n d w h at th e looker m akes o f w h a t sh e (ie, M a isie in W hat M aisie K n ew ) sees” , 9 a n d b y w ay o f th e C o n ra d -G riffith co m pariso n .

CONRAD/COPPOLA: Mistah Sheen, he damp, in Apocalypse Now

Spiegel presses th is co m p ariso n h a rd e r th a n B lu esto n e, stressin g th a t th o u g h b o th m ay h ave aim ed at th e sam e p o in t — a co n g ru en ce o f im age an d co n cep t — th e y d id so fro m o p p o site d irectio n s. W h e reas G riffith u se d h is im ages to tell a story, as m eans to u n d e rsta n d in g , C o n rad , Spiegel claim s, w an ted th e rea d er to “ ‘see’ in a n d th ro u g h an d finally past his language an d his n a rra tiv e co n cep t to th e h a rd , clear b ed ro ck o f im ag es” .10 O n e effect o f th e stress on th e p h y sical surfaces an d b eh a v io u r o f objects a n d figures is to d e-em phasise th e a u th o r’s p erso n a l n arrativ e voice so th a t w e learn to read th e o sten sib ly u n m e d ia te d v isu al language o f th e later 19th c e n tu ry novel in a w ay th a t an ticip ates th e v iew er’s ex perience o f film w h ich necessarily p rese n ts th o se p hysical surfaces. C o n ra d an d Jam es fu rth e r an ticip ate th e cinem a in th e ir cap acity fo r “ d ec o m p o sin g ” a scene, for alterin g a p o in t o f view so as to focus m o re sh a rp ly on vario u s aspects o f an object, for ex p lo rin g a v isu al field b y fra g m en tin g it ra th e r th a n b y p re se n tin g it scen o g rap h ically (ie, as i f it w ere a scene fro m a stage p rese n tatio n ). C o h en , co n c ern ed w ith th e “ process o f co n v erg en ce” b etw een art fo rm s, also sees C o n ra d an d Jam es as sig n ifican t in a co m p ariso n o f novel an d film . T h e se au th o rs he sees as b reak in g w ith th e rep rese n tatio n al novels o f th e earlier 19th ce n tu ry an d u sh e rin g in a n ew em p h asis on “ showing how th e events u n fo ld d ram atically ra th e r th a n rec o u n tin g th e m ” .11 T h e analogy w ith film ’s n arrativ e p ro ce d u re s w ill be clear an d th e re seem s no d o u b t th a t film , in tu rn , has b een h ig h ly in flu e n tia l o n th e m o d e rn novel. C o h e n uses passages fro m P ro u st an d V irg in ia W o o lf to suggest h o w th e m o d e rn novel, in flu e n ced b y te ch n iq u e s o f E ise n stein ian m o n tag e cin em a, d raw s a tte n tio n to its en co d in g processes in w ays th a t th e V icto rian novel te n d s n o t to.

D ickens, G riffith , and S tory-T ellin g T h e o th e r co m p ariso n th a t trails th ro u g h th e w ritin g ab o u t film -an d -literatu re is th a t b etw een G riffith an d D ick en s, w h o w as said to be th e d ire c to r’s fav o u rite novelist. T h e m o st fam o u s ac co u n t, o f co u rse, is th a t o f E isen stein w ho co m p ares th e ir “ sp o n ta n eo u s child-like skill for sto ry te llin g ” 12, a q u ality h e fin d s in A m erican cin em a at large, th e ir cap acity fo r viv ify in g ‘b it’ ch aracters, th e visual p o w er o f each, th e ir im m en se popu lar success, an d above all th e ir re n d e rin g o f p arallel ac tio n , fo r w h ich G riffith cited D ick en s as h is source. O n th e face o f it, th e re n o w seem s n o th in g so >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 31

as a film -o rien te d w rite r m ig h t, to d etailed q u estio n s o f e n u n c ia tio n , o f p o ssib le an alo g y a n d d isp a rity b etw e en tw o d iffe ren t sig n ify in g sy stem s, o f th e ran g e o f “ fu n ctio n al eq u iv a le n ts” 15 available to each w ith in th e p ara m ete rs o f th e classical style as ev in ced in each m e d iu m .

F ilm and the M o d ern N ovel As film cam e to rep la ce th e re p re se n ta tio n a l n ovel o f th e earlier 1 9th ce n tu ry , it d id so th ro u g h th e ap p lica tio n o f te ch n iq u e s p ra c tise d b y w rite rs at th e la tte r en d o f th e cen tu ry . C o n ra d w ith h is in sisten c e o n m a k in g th e read er “ see” a n d Jam es w ith h is te c h n iq u e o f “ re stric te d co n scio u s n ess” , b o th w ith th e ir p la y in g d o w n o f a u th o ria l m ed iatio n in fav o u r o f lim itin g th e p o in t o f v iew fro m w h ic h actions an d objects are o b serv ed , p ro v id e o b v io u s exam ples. In th is w ay th e y m ay b e said to h av e b ro k e n w ith th e tra d itio n o f “ tra n sp a re n c y ” in re la tio n to th e n o v e l’s referen tial w o rld so th a t th e m o d e an d an gle o f v isio n w ere as m u c h a p a rt o f th e n o v el’s co n ten t as w h a t w as view ed. T h e co m p ariso n s w ith cin em atic te c h n iq u e are clear b u t, p arad o x ically , th e m o d e rn novel has n o t sh o w n its e lf v ery ad a p ta b le to film . H o w ev er p ersu asiv ely it m ay b e d e m o n stra te d th a t th e likes o f Joyce, F a u lk n e r an d H e m in g w a y h av e d ra w n o n cinem atic te ch n iq u e s, th e fact is th a t th e cin em a has b ee n m o re at h o m e w ith n ovels fro m — o r d esce n d ed fro m — an earlier p erio d . S im ilarly, c e rta in m o d e rn p lay s, su c h as D eath O f A Salesm an o r Equus, w h ic h seem to ow e so m e th in g to cin em atic te c h n iq u e s, h av e lo st a g o o d deal o f th e ir flu id re p re se n ta tio n o f tim e a n d space w h e n tra n sfe rre d to th e screen.

A d ap tation : T he P h en om en on GRIFFITH: Intolerance

rem ark ab le in th ese fo rm u latio n s as to justify th e ir b ein g so fre q u en tly p ara d ed as exam ples o f th e ties th a t b in d cinem a an d th e V icto rian novel. In fact E ise n ste in ’s d iscu ssio n o f D ic k e n s’ “ cin em atic te c h n iq u e s” , in c lu d in g a n ticip atio n o f su ch p h en o m en a as fram e co m p o sitio n an d th e close-up, is really n o t far fro m th o se m a n y w orks w h ich talk ab o u t film language, strik in g sim ilar analogical poses, w ith o u t giving ad eq u ate co n sid eratio n to th e q u alitativ e differences en jo ined by th e tw o m ed ia, to o ne o f w h ich th e con cep t (eg, language, fram e com po sitio n ) is literally applicable, to th e o th e r o nly m e tap h o ric ally so. L a te r co m m e n ta to rs h av e read ily em b raced E ise n ste in ’s account: B lu esto n e, fo r in stan c e, states b o ld ly that: “ G riffith fo u n d in D ick e n s h in ts for every one o f h is m ajor in n o v a tio n s” ; 13 an d C o h e n , go in g fu rth e r, p o in ts to “ th e m o re or less b la ta n t a p p ro p ria tio n o f th e th e m es and co n ten t o f th e 19th c e n tu ry b o u rg eo is n o v e l” .14 H o w ever, in sp ite o f th e fre q u en c y o f referen ce to th e D ick en s-G riffith co n n e ctio n , an d a p a rt fro m th e h isto ric al im p o rta n ce o f p ara llel e d itin g in th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f film n arrativ e, th e in flu e n ce o f D ick e n s has p e rh a p s b ee n o ver-estim ated an d u n d e r-sc ru tin ise d . O n e gets th e im p re ssio n th a t m any w riters, steep ed in a lite ra ry c u ltu re , h ave fallen on th e D ick e n s-G riffith co m p ariso n w ith a ce rtain relief^ p erh a p s as a w ay o f a rg u in g th e c in e m a ’s resp ectab ility . T h e y have te n d e d to c o n c e n tra te o n th e th e m a tic in te rests a n d th e large, fo rm al n a rra tiv e p a tte rn s an d strategies th e tw o great n arrativ e-m ak e rs sh a re d , ra th e r th a n to address them selves,

32 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

As soon as th e cin em a b eg a n to see its e lf as a n arrativ e e n te rta in m e n t, th e id ea o f ran sa ck in g th e n ovel — th a t already estab lish ed re p o sito ry o f n a rra tiv e fictio n — for so u rce m a teria l g ot u n d erw ay , a n d th e p ro cess has co n tin u ed m o re o r less u n a b a te d fo r n e a rly 80 years. T h e reaso n s for th is c o n tin u in g p h e n o m e n o n , as far as film m ak ers are co n c ern ed , a p p e a r to m ove b e tw e e n th e poles o f crass co m m ercialism a n d h ig h -m in d e d resp e ct fo r literary w orks. N o d o u b t th e re is th e lu re o f th e p re-so ld title, th e exp ecta tio n th a t resp e cta b ility o r p o p u la rity ach iev ed in one m e d iu m m ig h t in fect th e w o rk cre ate d in an o th er. T h e n o tio n o f a p o te n tia lly lu c ra tiv e “ p r o p e r ty ” has clearly b een at least o n e m a jo r in flu e n ce in th e film in g o f n o v els, an d p e rh a p s film m ak ers, as F re d e ric R a p h a e l sc ath in g ly claim s, “ like k n o w n q u a n titie s . . . th e y w o u ld so o n er b u y th e rig h ts o f an ex p en siv e b o o k th a n d ev elo p an o rig in a l su b je c t” .16 N ev e rth ele ss, m o st o f th e film m ak ers o n rec o rd profess lo ftier a ttitu d e s th a n th e se. D e W itt B o d een , a u th o r o f th e screen p lay fo r P e te r U s tin o v ’s B illy B u d d (1962), claim s th a t: “ A d a p tin g lite ra ry w o rk s to film is, w ith o u t a d o u b t, a creativ e u n d e rta k in g , b u t th e ta sk re q u ire s a k in d o f selective in te rp re ta tio n , alo n g w ith th e a b ility to rec re ate a n d su stain an estab lish ed m o o d ” .17 T h a t is, th e a d a p to r sees h im s e lf as ow in g allegiance to th e so u rce w o rk . D e sp ite P e te r B og d a n o v ic h ’s d isc la im er ab o u t film in g H e n ry Ja m e s’s D a isy M iller (“ . . . I d o n ’t th in k i t ’s a g rea t classic story. I d o n ’t tre a t it w ith th a t k in d o f re v e re n c e ” 18), fo r m u c h o f th e tim e th e film is a co n scie n tio u s v isu al tra n slite ra tio n o f th e orig in al. O n e does n o t fin d film m ak ers assertin g a b o ld a p p ro a c h to th e ir so u rce m a teria l, an y m o re th a n a n n o u n c in g c ru d e fin an c ial m o tiv es. A s to au d ien c es, w h a te v e r th e ir c o m p la in ts ab o u t th is or

th a t v io la tio n o f th e o rig in a l, th e y h ave c o n tin u e d to w an t to see w h a t th e books “ look lik e” . C o n sta n tly cre atin g th e ir ow n m e n ta l im ages o f th e w o rld o f a novel an d its people, th e y are in te re ste d in co m p a rin g th e ir im ages w ith those created b y th e film m ak er. B u t, as C h ristia n M e tz says, th e read er “ w ill n o t alw ays fin d his film since w h a t h e has before h im in th e actu al film is n o w so m eb o d y else’s p h a n ta sy ” .19 D esp ite th e u n c e rta in ty o f g ratific atio n , o f fin d in g au d io visual im ages th a t w ill coin cid e w ith th e ir conceptual im ages, reader-v iew ers p e rsist in p ro v id in g audiences for “ so m eb ody else’s p h a n ta s y ” . T h e r e is also a curio u s sense th a t th e v erb a l ac c o u n t o f th e p eo p le, places an d ideas th a t m ake u p m u c h o f th e ap p e al o f novels is sim ply one re n d e rin g o f a set o f ex iste n ts w h ic h m ig h t ju st as easily be re n d e re d in an o th er. I n th is reg a rd , one is rem in d ed o f A n th o n y B u rg e ss’s cynical view th a t: “ E v ery best-selling novel has to b e tu r n e d in to a film , th e assu m p tio n b ein g th a t th e boo k its e lf w h ets an a p p e tite for th e tru e fulfilm en t — th e v erb a l sh ad o w tu r n e d in to lig h t, th e w o rd m ade flesh ” .20 A n d p e rh a p s th e re is a p ara llel w ith th a t late 19th cen tu ry p h e n o m e n o n , d escrib ed b y M ic h a e l C h a n a n , in The Dream That K icks, o f illu stra te d ed itio n s o f literary w orks an d illu s tra te d m agazines in w h ic h g rea t novels first app eared as serials. T h e r e is, it seem s, an u rg e to h ave verbal concepts b o d ie d fo rth in p e rc e p tu a l concreten ess. W h a te v er it is th a t m akes film goers w an t to see ad a p ta tio n s o f n ovels, a n d film m ak ers to p ro d u ce th em , and w h atev er h az ard s lie in th e p a th for b o th , th e re is no d en y in g th e facts. F o r in stan c e, M o rris Beja rep o rts th at, since th e in c e p tio n o f th e A cadem y A w ards in 1927-28, “ m o re th a n th re e -fo u rth s o f th e aw ards for ‘best p ic tu re ’ have gone to a d a p ta tio n s . . . (and th a t) th e all-tim e boxoffice successes favor novels even m o re ” .21 G iv en th a t th e novel a n d th e film h ave b ee n th e m o st p o p u la r narrativ e m odes o f th e 19th a n d 2 0 th c e n tu ries respectively, it is p erh a p s n o t su rp risin g th a t film m ak ers have sou g h t to ex p lo it th e k in d s o f re sp o n se ex cited b y th e novel an d have seen in th e n ovel a so u rce o f ready-m ade m aterial, in the

cru d e sense o f p re-tested sto ries a n d ch aracters, w ith o u t too m u c h co n c ern fo r h o w m u c h o f th e p o p u la rity o f th e o rig in al n ovel is in tra n sig e n tly tie d to its v erb al m ode.

NOTES 1. J o s e p h C o n r a d , P r e f a c e to The N ig g er O f The N a rcissu s, J .M . D e n t a n d S o n s L t d ., L o n d o n , 1 9 4 5 , p 5 2. Q u o te d in L e w is J a c o b , The R ise O f The A m e ric a n F ilm , H a r c o u r t, B ra c e , N e w Y o rk , 1 9 3 9 , p i 19 3. G e o rg e B lu e s to n e , N o v e ls In to F ilm , U n iv e r s ity o f C a lifo rn ia P re s s, B e rk e le y , L o s A n g e le s , 1 9 5 7 , p i 4. I b id , p 4 7 5. A la n S p ie g e l, F iction A n d The C am era E y e : V isu al Consciousness In F ilm A n d The M o d e m N o v e l, U n iv e r s ity P r e s s o f V irg in ia , C h a r lo tte s v ille , 1976 6. K e ith C o h e n , F ilm A n d F iction /T h e D y n a m ic s O f Exchange, Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , N e w H a v e n a n d L o n d o n , 1979 7. S p ie g e l, p x iii 8. Ibid, p 6 3 9. Ib id , p 5 5 10. Ib id , p p x i-x ii 11. C o h e n , o p .c it., p 5 12. S e rg e i E is e n s te in , F ilm F orm (tr a n s . J a n L e y d a ), H a r c o u r t, B ra c e a n d W o rld In c . N e w Y o rk , 1 9 4 5 , p l 9 6 13. B lu e s to n e , o p .c it., p 2 14. C o h e n , o p .cit., p 4 15. D a v id B o rd w e ll’s te rm , in The C lassical H o lly w o o d C inem a, R o u tle d g e a n d K e g a n P a u l, L o n d o n , M e lb o u r n e a n d H e n le y , 1985, p !3 16. F r e d e r ic R a p h a e l, “ I n tr o d u c t io n ” , Tw o F or The R o a d , J o n a th a n C a p e , L o n d o n , 1967 17. D e W it t B o d e e n , “ T h e A d a p tin g A r t ” , F ilm s In R ev ie w , v o l X IV , n o 6, J u n e - J u ly 1 9 6 3 , p 3 4 9 18. J a n D a w s o n , “ A n In te r v ie w w ith P e te r B o g d a n o v ic h ” , S ig h t A n d S ou n d, V o l 4 3 , n o 1, W in te r 1 9 7 3 /4 , p l 4 19. C h r is tia n M e tz , The Im a g in a ry S ign ifier, In d ia n a U n iv e rs ity P re s s, B lo o m in g d a le , 1 9 7 7 , p l 2 2 0 . A n th o n y B u rg e s s , “ O n th e H o p e le s s n e s s o f T u r n i n g G o o d B ooks in to F ilm s ” , N e w Y o rk T im es, 2 0 /4 /7 5 , p i 5 2 1 . M o r r is B eja, F ilm A n d L itera tu re , L o n g m a n , N e w Y o rk , 1 979, p 7 8

P a r t tw o w ill c o n tin u e th e e x p lo r a tio n o f th e d is c o u r se o n a d a p ta tio n , a n d p r o p o se s o m e n e w d ir e c tio n s fo r d is c u ssio n to ta k e.

NOVEL APPROACH: Great Expectations — The Untold Story

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 33

THE W R I T E S T U F F A small-screen writer confesses: MICHAEL HARVEY sets out the trials and tribulations of writing for television h e re is a ce rtain look w h ic h p eo p le give u p o n le a rn in g th a t y o u w rite for television. It is alm o st th a t o f a b o m b -ra v ag e d p o p u la ce u p o n su d d e n ly co n fro n t in g a d o w n ed en em y airm an . Shock, u n c e rta in ty , an d th e n th e final realisatio n th a t so m eone w ho m o m e n ts ago w as an u n se en , u n k n o w n face capable o f w o u n d in g fro m afar w as n o w th e m o rta l, v u ln e ra b le soul sta n d in g before th e m . A p rize to be p ic k ed at, ex am in ed , in te rro g a te d , an d eith er su m m arily d ealt w ith or p a ra d e d th ro u g h th e streets as an object o f cu rio sity an d derision. T h e last su c h tim e w as at a w ed d in g . A p erfectly am iab le co n v ersatio n ab o u t m id w ife ry , o r ru n n in g a m ilk b a r, or th e sh o rt te rm p ro sp ec ts o f in d u stria l lu b ric a n ts w as follow ed b y th e seem ingly h arm less e n q u iry “ So w h at do y o u do?” I recall m u rm u rin g so m e th in g ab o u t T elev isio n a n d ex p ress in g im m ed ia te in te re st in th e cheese a n d le ttu c e sandw ich es. T o o late. I h a d alread y b eco m e a speck on th e rad ar. “ T e le vision? Y ou m ean , re p a ir th e m ? ” “ N o , I h elp . . . m ake it.” I d esp erate ly sw itc h ed m y a tte n tio n to th e sausage rolls, castin g ab o u t as i f looking for th e sauce, b u t by no w th e speck h a d b eco m e a th ro b b in g b lip , th e m issile la u n ch e d an d locked on. “ O h , yes? W h a t . . . n ew s, d o cu m en ta ries?”

"s o

c ia l

o u tc a sts

34 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

m e e t

]

“ E r, d ram a . . . y o u k n o w , serials a n d th in g s .” It w as n o w ju st a m a tte r o f seconds. “ O h , really . . . a n d do y o u act, p ro d u c e ? ” “ W ell, actu ally . . . I w rite th e m .” B ang. In th a t b r ie f p au se o f rea lisa tio n , p a ra c h u te slow ly u n f u r l ing, I b rac ed m y se lf fo r th e in e v ita b le o rd eal. T h e p e rso n w o u ld h a rd ly ever w a tc h T V a n d w h a t th e y d id w atc h th e y w o u ld g en erally fin d to b e ru b b ish , a p a rt fro m th e occa sional good B ritish p ro g ra m . In v ain w o u ld I agree th a t B rita in p ro d u c e d th e b est te lev isio n in th e w o rld . . . it also p ro d u c e d som e o f th e w o rst, ju st th a t w e te n d e d to see m o re o f th e fo rm e r th a n th e la tte r. T h a t y ear in , y ear o u t A u stra lian p ro g ra m s reg u la rly h e a d e d o u r ratin g s lists. T h a t g iven sim ilar b u d g ets an d sc h ed u le s, A u stralia (w h ich o n a p e r cap ita basis w as alread y th e m o st p ro lific a n d m o st efficien t d ram a p ro d u ce r) c o u ld m a tc h it w ith th e U K , th e U S , o r an y w h ere else in th e w o rld fo r th a t m a tte r, a n d in d e e d o ften d id. A ll to no avail . . . T h e a rg u m e n ts ex h a u ste d , th e rev o lv er p resse d to m y b o w ed neck, I w o u ld co m fo rt m y se lf w ith a few p riv a te th o u g h ts. D ee p d o w n , a c e rta in p rid e . T h e p rid e in p e r fo rm in g o n e ’s craft. In m a k in g an u n w o rk a b le sto ry w o rk , an im p o ssib le su b -p lo t p o ssib le. In se ttin g a love scene on th e stairs becau se th e re w as no m o n e y for an ex tra b e d ro o m set. In u n d e rta k in g an e n tire re-w rite in five days b ecau se one o f th e acto rs, G o d b less th e m (an d to th in k w rite rs h av e p ro b lem s), h a d co llap sed fro m e x h a u stio n . A p rid e in w o rk in g (literally) th ro u g h th e n ig h t to co m p lete a n ep iso d e, w alk in g o u t th e fro n t d o o r fo r a b re a th e r at 5.30 am to fin d o n e ’s car h a d b ee n sto len in th e in te rim , an d n o t rin g in g th e police u n til 9.30 am fo r fear o f in te r ru p tio n (it h ap p e n ed ). T h e w ea p o n cocked, th e re w o u ld b e a few w ry m e m o ries too. C o n s tru c tin g a p ay -o ff to a lin e d eliv ered som e fo u r scenes earlier, o n ly to fin d u p o n v iew in g th a t th e ac to r h a d ch an g ed th e set-u p a n d n o t b o th e re d to ch an g e th e pay-off. C u ttin g b ack som e 10 m in u te s fro m a d ra ft b ecau se th e sc rip t e d ito r h a d tim e d it so, o n ly to w itn ess th e cast p e r fo rm in g th e w o rk in p e rm a n e n t slo w -m o tio n like som e G reek trag e d y b ecau se th e ep iso d e w as n o w 10 m in u te s u n d e r. S p e n d in g an e n tire w ee k en d (at th e cost o f all social en g ag em en ts) w ritin g a le n g th y SAS assau lt-co u rse seq u en ce o nly to fin d it la ter d ro p p e d b ecau se th e re w as n o m o n e y to b u y th e ro p e fo r th e flying-fox. T h e trig g e r p ressed , th e h a m m e r fallin g , th e re w o u ld p e rh a p s b e ju st e n o u g h tim e to ac k n o w led g e a few d eb ts. A w ful, clu m sy lin es, w ritte n at sp eed o r in sh eer d e sp e ra tio n , tu rn e d in to p u re g o ld b y som e u n k n o w n ac to r w ith little i f an y reh earsal. W e ary , o v er-b lo w n passages, re d u c e d b y a sc rip t-e d ito r’s p e n to th re e lin es o f te rse actio n . Y et an o th e r car-chase so m eh o w g iv en life a n d o rig in a lity becau se th e p ro d u c tio n te a m h av e again m a n ag e d to m ake $1000 look $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 . A n d above all, d esp ite th e tria ls an d tra u m a s, carp s a n d criticism s, th e joy o f seeing th e re su lt o f o n e’s la b o u rs, i f o n ly fo r a b r ie f m o m e n t, actu ally w o rk in g . . . real d ra m a . . . th e rig h t s t u f f . . . w o rk in g b efo re o n e ’s v ery eyes a n d th e eyes o f co u n tless h o w m a n y o th e rs . . . in h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s o f h o m es . . . p eo p le c a p tu re d , e n te r ta in e d , p e rh a p s even m o v ed . “ R eally? Y o u m e an ‘S o ap s’?” A s I w as jo lted b ack to reality , I n o tic ed so m e th in g stran g e ab o u t m y c a p to r’s face. It w as alm o st sm ilin g . A n d th e h a n d w as n o t h o ld in g a rev o lv er, ra th e r a b o ttle , alread y refillin g m y glass . . . “ G o d , I ’m an ad d ict. C a n ’t resist th e m .” T h e n th e realisa tio n h it m e. I h a d d rifte d b e y o n d th e en e m y , co m e d o w n b e h in d frie n d ly lin es. I t w as a fan. I c o u ld h av e w ep t.

.ONCE A MARINE: Gustav Hasford now

THE W R I T E S T U F F What happens to a novelist whose first book becomes a Stanley Kubrick film? TRACY HAYWARD finds out from Gustav Hasford, whose first novel has been filmed as Full Metal Jacket “I ’ve fought to make the world safe for hypocrisy. ” — The Short Timers.

“Americans invented Communism when they ran out of Indians. ” — The Phantom Blooper (Unpublished).

he S hort Tim ers is an ep ig ra m m a tic , u n re le n tin g ly b ru ta l sto ry o f a U S M a rin e ’s tra in in g at P arriss Isla n d — “ an eight-w eek college fo r th e pho n ey to u g h a n d th e crazy -b ra v e” — a n d h is 385-day, sh o rt tim e, to u r o f d u ty o f V ie tn a m ” . T h e b o o k w as p u b lis h e d in 1979. I t h a d ta k en th e a u th o r sev en y ears to w rite , a n d th re e y ears to fin d a p u b lish e r. V ietn am w as n o t a p o p u la r to p ic o n ly five years after th e w ar, in a c o u n try th a t still w ish es it h a d w o n . E v en after p u b lic a tio n o f w h a t is co n sid ered o ne o f th e b est w orks o f fictio n a b o u t th e w ar, H a sfo rd w as still living in h is V olks w ag en a n d w o rk in g as a se c u rity g u a rd in C alifo rn ia. A n d th e n S tan le y K u b ric k d ec id e d to m ake a film ab o u t it . . . Full M e ta l Ja ck et, K u b ric k ’s title , is a referen ce to th e G en e v a C o n v e n tio n re q u ire m e n t th a t m ilita ry b u lle ts be fu lly -co ated in steel o r c o p p e r, so th a t th e y ca n n o t exp an d . H a sfo rd w ro te th e sc rip t w ith K u b ric k a n d M ic h a e l H e rr, th e a u th o r o f D ispatches. T h e film w as sh o t in E n g la n d . A cres o f la n d a n d an ab a n d o n e d gasw orks in E ssex w ere tra n sfo rm e d in to H u e C ity at th e tim e o f th e T e t offensive. M y co p y o f th e B a n ta m e d itio n o f The Short Timers has a b lu e te x ta scraw l o n th e title page: “ F o r T ra c y fro m G u s P e r th M a y 19 8 6 ” . G u s b r o u g h t P ublisher’s Weekly in stacks o f 50 — articles on w rite rs ’ c o n tra c ts — to th e p h o to c o p y in g c o u n te r w h e re I w o rk e d in th e W e st A u stra lia n S tate L ib ra ry . W e g o t ta lk in g ; G u s likes to talk. “ W h a t am I d o in g in P e rth ? A ctu a lly I w as g oing to go to G e ra ld to n , b u t

MARINE BOY: Gustav Hasford in 1968

I d ec id e d th a t P e r th w as sm all to w n en o u g h . I h a d a leave h ere [w hile h e w as in V ietn am ] b u t a se n io r officer sw ip e d it ju st b efo re I w as su p p o se d to tak e off; I w e n t to H o n g K o n g in stead . V ie tn a m w as a w o rk in g class w ar. N o t o n e S e n a to r’s son ever w e n t to V ietn am . I ’m w ritin g in to m y c o n tra c t for The Phantom Blooper (th e seq u el to The Short Timers) th a t a co p y is se n t to each o f th e 200 C o n g re ssm e n . . . “ T h e im ag e o f th e V ie tn a m v e te ra n as a co ld -b lo o d ed p sy c h o tic is so m e th in g th e U S g o v e rn m e n t sta rte d w h en m en w ere co m in g b ack saying, ‘T h e w ar is w ro n g — w e s h o u ld n ’t be th e r e .’ U S serv icem en d o n ’t say th a t so rt o f th in g ! T h e y h a d to ex p lain it aw ay b y saying th a t w e w ere tra u m a tis e d fro m seein g o u r frie n d s b lo w n u p a n d d id n ’t k n o w w h a t w e w ere saying. E v en u s, ‘th e callous a n d d e h u m a n is e d ’. I ’ve o ften b e e n asked in in te rv iew s ‘H o w m a n y p eo p le d id y o u k ill in V ie tn a m ? ’ J u s t like th a t. A ctu ally m y b o d y c o u n t w as a sta n d in g joke — I k illed as m a n y o f th e m as th e y d id o f m e .” In an article p u b lis h e d in A m erican Penthouse ea rlier th is y ear G u s w ro te: “ L o o k in g b ack n o w w ith flaw less h in d sig h t, I h o p e I h it n o th in g b u t trees, a n d I h o p e th e trees lived. I f I d id k ill a h u m a n b ein g in V ietn am , it w as a trag ic accid en t or self-defense; I re g re t it, b u t I do n o t ap o lo g ise.” The S hort Timers is n o t an a u to b io g ra p h y ; h o w ev er, th e m a in ch aracter, T h e Jo k er, p lay ed b y M a tth e w M o d in e , has m a n y sim ilarities to G u s. H e is six feet fo u r, a fa rm b o y fro m A lab am a w h o jo in ed u p o n sh o rt tim e at 19 (he h a d h e a rd fro m a local o n th e D ra ft B o ard th a t h is n u m b e r w as co m in g u p ). A fter M a rin e tra in in g at P a rriss Isla n d in N o r th C a ro lin a, h e w as m a d e a w ar co rre sp o n d e n t w ith Leatherneck, th e M a rin e m agazine, an d serv ed w ith th e sam e D iv isio n as T h e Jo k er, th o u g h I ’m n o t su re ab o u t th e P eace B adge o n th e b a ttle fatig u es . . . I h ave a p h o to g ra p h o f G u s th a t I th o u g h t at first w as o f M a rtin S h een ; h e is 19, h a n d so m e an d g rim , w ea rin g a flak jacket. T h e r e are san d b ag s a n d m u n itio n s crates in th e b a c k g ro u n d ; it is th e T e t offensive, a n d h e has ju st b e e n to b attle. It is an in te re stin g co n tra st to th e o th e r p h o to g ra p h : th e 39-year-old G u s, sp ecu lativ e, still g rim -lo o k in g , still in fatigues an d so m e th in g o f a cre w c u t (“ O n ce a M a rin e , alw ays a M a rin e ” ) o n th e sh o o t o f S tan ley K u b ric k ’s latest p ro ject. T h e film h a d b e e n sc h e d u le d fo r C h ristm a s 1986 release, b u t w h e n M o d in e b ro k e h is a rm d u rin g sh o o tin g an d th e sch ed u le w as th ro w n b y ab o u t six w eeks, th e d ate w as ch a n g ed to su m m e r 1987. “ T h e y o n ly ever la u n c h m ajo r film s in th e U S in su m m e r o r at C h ristm a s — th e y g et th e b est b o x office fro m college k id s o n h o lid a y .” G u s says h e ex p ects to m ak e ab o u t $1 m illio n fro m th e sale o f th e film tie-in The S hort Timers. “ E v e n a d u d film w ill sell ab o u t tw o m illio n co p ies in th e U S — even B enji sold tw o m illio n ! I f S tan le y w as to m ake th e w o rst m ovie h e ’d ever m a d e, i t ’d still b e a S tan ley K u b ric k m ovie. M o s t o f m y frie n d s are m id d le-ag ed ac co u n tan ts a n d so licito rs, n o t w rite rs o r acto rs. T h e y m ak e ab o u t $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 a y ear. I ’ve b een w ritin g fo r 20 years — I ’ve really ju st m ad e th e sam e as th e y hav e, b u t in o n e lu m p s u m .” B y C h ristm a s G u s w as still in P e r th , n o t in L ag o n d a B each in C a lifo rn ia as p la n n e d . H e a n d K u b ric k , hav in g se ttle d a d isa g re e m e n t a b o u t c re d its, w ere still d iscu ssin g p ay m en t. H e h a d fin ish e d The Phantom Blooper, an d was w aitin g fo r a re sp o n se fro m p u b lis h e rs. I w as g iven a copy, n ea tly b o u n d in pieces o f S w an L a g e r ca rto n . T h e P h a n to m >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 35

< B lo o p er w as a M a rin e m y th G u s o ften h e a rd ab o u t w h en in te rv ie w in g fo r Leatherneck — m e n w o u ld speak o f a tall M a rin e w ith a re d sash a ro u n d h is w aist, fig h tin g w ith th e V iet C o n g in th e h ills. Says T h e Jo k e r in The Phantom Blooper: “ E v e ry o n e k n e w d eep d o w n th a t i f w e looked at th e w ar in logical a n d n o t p a trio tic o r e m o tio n a l te rm s, w e ’d p ro b a b ly all h av e jo in e d u p w ith h im .” T h e n ovel executes a rem a rk a b le p lo t tw ist th a t is c o n v in cin g , ab so rb in g an d sen sitiv e — I p re fe r it to The S hort Timers. G u s was fla tte re d , a n d d ec id e d to n am e a c h a ra c te r afte r m e; th e re is n o w an 11-year-old V ietn am e se p ro s titu te called T ra c y . It w as tw o in th e a fte rn o o n : G u s h a d ju st got u p after w ritin g all n ig h t, w h e n it is q u ie te r, a n d th e re are few er d istra ctio n s. H e ta lk ed m e in to g o in g to see H eartbreak Ridge, a film low o n m y list th a t I d id n ’t enjoy any m o re th a n I e x p e cted to. “ T h e r e w ere a lo t o f c o m p la in ts ab o u t th e langu ag e in th a t, a n d M a rin e officers d isso cia ted th e m selv es fro m it. I g o t th e la n g u ag e c o m p la in ts to o , b u t I ac tu a lly to n e d d o w n th e la n g u ag e — e v e ry th in g a M a rin e says is d ir ty .” G u s h a d ju st b e g u n to w rite d etec tiv e novels, an d th ey seem ed to b e co m in g alo n g easily. W h e n h e gets back to th e S tates h e w a n ts to w o rk o n a p ro je c t ab o u t A m b ro se B ierce, a n d p la n s a n ovel — th e C o n fe d e ra te an sw e r to The R ed Badge O f Courage. T h e r e is a th ir d boo k ab o u t T h e Joker, in v o lv in g th e V ie tn a m V ete ran s A g ain st T h e W a r m o v e m e n t, o f w h ic h G u s w as a p a rt. T h e n h e ’ll have th a t o u t o f h is system . W e ta lk a n d talk; th e sky lig h ten s o ver th e city skyline; five o ’clock joggers ap p e ar. G u s suggests w e w alk back a ro u n d th e riv e r a n d get som e b rea k fa st in th e city. I h av e n ’t sle p t for 20 h o u rs, a n d I ’m tu r n in g g reen . “ Y o u ’ve h it th e w a ll,” says G u s p ro u d ly . A h e lic o p te r h o v ers over th e river; G u s gets edgy. I t re m in d s h im o f h a v in g a ratio n s d ru m land o n h is h e a d d u rin g a s u p p ly d ro p . In M c D o n a ld ’s, th e first place to o p en , eatin g flapjacks o u t o f sty ro fo am co n ta in e rs, G u s sta rts to rem in isce. “ A t o n e tim e I h a d tw o d o llars a day to eat on — I lived o n Big M a c s or K e n tu c k y F rie d lu n c h offers fo r eig h t m o n th s. I w as liv in g in a closet in a f rie n d ’s a rt gallery — I h a d m y ty p e w rite r in th e re , a b e d a n d a shelf. A n o th e r tim e w h e n I w as b ro k e I in te rv ie w e d m y flatm ate — H a rla n E lliso n , h e ’s a science fictio n w rite r, h e w ro te A B o y A n d H is Dog. H e d id n ’t m in d w h a t I said a b o u t h im , so lo n g as I d id n ’t m e n tio n th a t h e w o re sh o w e rc a p s.” A w h ile ago I receiv ed m y last le tte r fro m G u s; h e was ab o u t to leave, finally, fo r th e S tates. “ T h e little b liz za rd o f tin fo il stars is a b o u t to b u r y m e. T h e tra ile r to S tan le y ’s m o v ie is sh o w in g in A m eric a now , a n d it m e n tio n s m y n am e, so th e cy b o rg jo u rn a lists w ill b e afte r m e to chew all th e ju ice o u t o f m e like a p iece o f g u m .” H e h a d ju st seen P latoon (“ i t ’s really d e p re ssin g , th e so rt o f m ovie I ’d like to m ak e a b o u t V ie tn a m ” ), a n d en c lo sed an article h e ’d w ritte n for The W est A u stralian a b o u t th e c u rre n t r u n o f H olly w o o d V ie tn a m film s. U n fa z e d b y th e n u m b e rs, o r th e co m p e titio n , h e is d e lig h te d th a t v e te ra n s in stea d o f “ H o lly w o o d Ja cu z zi C o m m a n d o s ” are g e ttin g th e ir voices h ea rd . It has ta k e n th is lo n g , h e th in k s , fo r th e w ar to b e far e n o u g h aw ay to b e co n sid e re d h isto ry ; b u t, as h e said in th e last lin e o f th e article in The W est A u stralian: “ H isto ry is n o t o v er y et, a n d h isto ry collects its d e b ts .” O n th e back o f th e le tte r w as a p h o to c o p y o f a te le g ra m fro m L o n d o n , saying, in o n ly slig h tly d iffe re n t w o rd s, “ T h e c h e q u e ’s in th e m ail. B est reg a rd s, S tan le y K u b ric k .”

36 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

THE

WRI TE

STUFF

Novelist and writer Angela Carter has had two of her works transferred to the screen. The film based on her novel The Magic ToyshopmW shortly be seen in Australia. STEPHANIE BUNBURY talked to her about screenplays, dialogue, adolescence and the supernatural.

Margaret

la p h a m h as p ro b a b ly alw ays h a d a b e ttin g sho p , an electrical sto re w ith w ire grilles over th e w ind o w s, a n d sh o n k y in su ra n c e jo in ts w ith ed ucative p ic tu res o f h o u se h o ld fires p o k ed in fro n t o f th e V enetians. T h e se days, C la p h a m , grisly o ld C la p h a m w h ere N e ll D u n n b ro k e m id d le-class b o u n d s in th e sixties to go U p T h e Ju n c tio n , has a w in e b a r too. A w in e b a r, L o rd love us. A n d i t ’s n o t th e C o tsw o ld s; i t ’s C lap h a m . C la p h a m also has A ngela C a rte r, 47, w o m an o f le tte rs, ce le b ra ted socialist, fem in ist, n o v elist an d , m o re recen tly , sc re e n w rite r o n su b jects fan ta stic , b u t sh e ’s n o t g oin g to ch an g e in a h u rry . H e r old h o u se is still a re n o v a to r’s dream , w ith b icycles in th e h all a n d piles o f w ash in g on th e chairs. T h e fro n t ro o m is lin e d w ith e n o u g h toys to dress th e set o f The M agic Toyshop, h e r seco n d novel back in 1967 an d now h e r seco n d film sc rip t (the first w as A C om pany O f Wolves'). G o o d ch e er p rev ails am o n g th e m ess. H e r p erso n has n o t fallen p re y to th e d ec o rato rs eith er. H e r h a ir is a defian t silver b u sh , a n d h e r b o d y , w h ic h has clearly sp e n t m o st o f its tim e b e h in d a desk w h ile th e b ra in b u zz ed , slips co m fo rt ably in to th e u n d u la tio n s o f th e couch. S he speaks slow ly a n d m u sin g ly . C o m e w h a t m ay, she is lu x u ria tin g in to m ild ly b o h e m ia n m iddle-age. L o n d o n , sh e says, h as c h a n g ed a good deal. She th in k s w istfu lly o f th e lean po st-w ar days befo re y o u th c u ltu re h it to w n , let alone y u p p ie d o m . The M agic Toyshop is set in th o se years a n d is fu ll o f nostalgia. “ L o n d o n h a d a so rt o f h a u n te d q u a lity ,” she says. “ It was so rt o f like an E a ste rn E u ro p e a n city, w ith o u t very m u c h ad v e rtisin g . N o b o d y w as v ery rich . T h e r e w ere free classical m u sic co n c erts in p u b lic p ark s, everyone h a d en o u g h to eat b u t n o t too m u c h . . . I t w as alw ays ra th e r cold a n d u n c o m fo rtab le u n d e r A ttle e, b u t it w as k in d o f h e a lth y d iscom fo rt so m e h o w .” Y o u w o u ld n ’t ex p e ct th is so rt o f p u rita n ism , n o t fro m th is w o m an , n o t fro m th is w rite r w hose stock in trad e is th e b izarre: w o m en w ith w ings, v am p ires, w erew olves, stran g e co u p lin g s, sin iste r c h a m b e rs fu ll o f flickering candles, sto ries fu ll o f extrav ag an ce a n d v o lu p te . The M agic Toyshop is th e sto ry o f th re e c h ild re n w ho are o rp h a n e d su d d e n ly an d are sen t to live w ith stran g e U n c le P h ilip , a rc h -m a n ip u la to r, h is d u m b w ife M a rg a re t an d M a rg a re t’s d an cin g , fid d lin g Iris h b ro th e rs. P h ilip m akes in g e n io u s toys an d m a rio n ettes an d co n fin es th e fam ily to h is d u n g e o n o f m ake-believe. H is m o st d isto rte d desires are p ro je c te d on to 15-year-old M e lan ie, w ho is co m p elled to act th e role o f rav ish ed L ed a o p p o site a h u g e sw an m a rio n e tte . In th e b ook, P h ilip ’s cre atio n s are d re n c h e d in th e h o rro r o f h is ch a racter. T h e film m akes th is la ten t th re a t m an ifest w ith th e h e lp o f th e su p e rn a tu ra l: th e sw an has its ow n ap p e tites, p ic tu re s m ove, p u p p e ts com e to life an d r u n rio t, a n d M e la n ie ’s b ro th e r Jo n a th a n ru n s aw ay to sea th ro u g h th e p a in te d b ea ch th a t fo rm s th e b ac k d ro p to th e L ed a ta b lea u . It is m agic o f th e w an d -w av in g variety ; m o re or less w h a t y o u m ig h t associate w ith A ngela C a rte r, b u t n o t exactly h e r style. T o o fey b y half. It com es as a su rp rise h o w forcefully d o w n to e a rth she is, in p erso n . S he is n o t, she says flatly, in te re ste d in th e occu lt. S he d id o nce go to a g eo m an c er in Ja p a n , b u t w h a t in te r ested h e r ab o u t it w as th a t h e w a rn e d h e r ag ain st tru stin g p eo p le w ith b lack h a ir, w h e n h e h im s e lf w as Ja p an ese an d v ery b lack o f h a ir in d e ed . S he likes th a t so rt o f c o n u n d ru m . H e r sto ries b rim w ith w itc h es b u t she reg ard s real ones less w ith fasc in atio n th a n a cool sy m p a th y . “ I ’m a p e re n n ia l

PUPPET MASTER: Uncle Philip and his marionettes

stu d e n t o f h u m a n fo lly ,” she says, “ an d , y o u k n o w , th e one th in g w e can be su re o f is th a t w h ate v er th o se p eo p le h ad b een u p to th e y w ere n o t g u ilty o f th e crim es o f w h ich th e y ’d b e e n co n v icted , w h ic h I th in k is a sa lu ta ry th in g to re m e m b e r.” T h e se are th e facts — she is a stick ler for fact. S he likes fairy sto ries too, b ecau se th e y are th e fiction h a n d e d d o w n b y th o se w h o left no o th e r trace: th e illiterates, th e ah isto rical m asses. T h e y are th e o n ly h isto ric al tan g ib les o f p eo p le w h o have v an ish ed . N o w th e p u b lic ists for The M agic Toyshop are try in g to d u b h e r th e m agical realist o f E n g lish le tte rs, an d , in h e r m ild w ay sh e w o n ’t have it. G ab rie l G arcia M a rq u e z cam e o u t o f C ath o lic S o u th A m erica. S he cam e o u t o f S o u th L o n d o n an d th e W elfare S tate. D iffe re n t h isto ry alto g eth er. L e t’s get th is straig h t. T h e su p e rn a tu ra l elem en ts in The M agic Toyshop, she says, cam e largely fro m th e d ire c to r, D av id W h eatley , w ho h ad g en u in e w o rk in g co n n ectio n s w ith S o u th A m erica, as it h ap p e n s. “ H e likes d o in g it,” she says, “ an d I w as easy .” A n d so m e th in g h a d to cry stallise th e m en ace o f th e sto ry in to co n crete im ages. She is h u m b le in th e face o f th e d em an d s o f th e m e d iu m . T h e sto ry its e lf w as full o f holes, w h ich gap ed once th e n o v el’s lan g u ag e w as strip p e d away. “ T h e ho les c a n ’t be left e m p ty for th e rea d er to im ag in e w h a t’s g o in g on, b ecau se th a t’s n o t h o w th e cin em a w o rk s,” she says, th e n adds “ It co u ld b e h o w th e cin em a w o rk ed , b u t it w o u ld be cin em a o f a d iffe ren t k in d , o p e ra tin g at a d ifferen t level. T h is is a stra ig h tfo rw a rd n arrativ e m o v ie .” T h e re w ere ce rtain p re ssu re s fro m th e G ra n a d a p ro d u ce rs, w ho in sisted ev e ry th in g sh o u ld b e ex p lain ed . W o rk in g w ith a g ro u p o n film s is fu n , she says. It gets h e r o u t o f a ch air, o u t o f th e h o u se , a n d she m eets d ifferen t p eo p le, n o n -b o o k ish p eo p le, like th e ones w h o m ad e th e g h o u lish w e re w o lf tra n sfo rm a tio n s for The Com pany O f Wolves an d w ere, sh e says w ith relish , “ ex trem ely odd” . So she w ill n o t do m o re th a n m u tte r v ag u ely a n d d ark ly ab o u t p ro d u c e r in te rfe re n ce , a p a rt fro m u n n a m e d som ebodies w h o are q u o te d as saying “ T h e y w o n ’t sta n d fo r this, y o u k n o w ” w h en a n y th in g stran g e cam e u p in th e dailies. H e r fau lt, she says b reezily , fo r en g ag in g w ith cap italism . I t ’s n o t for h e r to w h in g e a n d m o an . T h e toys o f The M agic Toyshop, h o w ev er, ce rtain ly com e fro m h er. T o y s are real en o u g h . T h e n ovel b efo re The M agic Toyshop, The Shadow Dance, w as set in a ju n k sh o p . “ I like things, ” sh e says firm ly . “ I c o u ld have g o n e in to th e seco n d h a n d b u sin e ss in th o se days. I sp e n t a lot o f tim e at au ctio n s an d sw ap p in g th in g s a ro u n d . I h a d a p assio n fo r au to m ata at o ne stage; I th in k i t ’s th e sim u latio n s o f h u m a n b ein g s th a t I ’m in te re ste d in . I sto p sh o rt o f b e in g in te re ste d in ro b o ts.” H e r th ree-y ear-o ld son A lex, w h o ro m p s a ro u n d h e r like a d o lp h in th ro u g h o u t th e in te rv iew , has q u ite a co llectio n o f art toys fro m m o th e r, b u t sad ly “ h e p refers sm all m etal a u to m o b iles” . She w atc h es in d u lg e n tly as h e w h irrs th e w heels o f tw o little cars ag ain st each o th e r. A t th e c e n tre o f The M agic Toyshop is M e lan ie, virg in al >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 37

MIRROR, MIRROR: Caroline Milmoe as Melanie

< b u t k n o w in g , alm ost, b u t n o t q u ite , g ro w n u p , an d im b u ed w ith a b it m o re sp u n k in th e film th a n in th e original. M e lan ie is p u re C a rter: h e r stories are full o f girls dressing u p , strik in g o u t, ta k in g th e ir desires b y th e h o rn s. T h e fact th a t M e lan ie m u st g rap p le w ith p u b e rty in a h o th o u se o f m ake-believe is a m e re v aria tio n on th e real struggle, as th e w rite r rem e m b ers it. “ I y ea rn ed to grow u p , ” she sm iles. “ Y earn ed and y earn ed. A n d I th o u g h t th e a d u lt w o rld w o u ld com e as som e sort o f accession o f grace . . . O n e day I ’d w ake u p an d I ’d be like Je an n e M o re a u in a black dress. “ B u t m a n y th in g s ab o u t th e a d u lt w o rld seem ed to m e p ro fo u n d ly stran g e. I d id n ’t k n o w w h at w as going on at all . . . T h e w h o le b u sin e ss for m e o f gro w in g u p w as very m u c h tie d u p w ith going to w ork. I w as a re p o rte r, an d th e w h o le su p e r-n u rse ry atm o sp h e re , th e little te m p e r ta n tru m s, th e jockeying for p o sitio n , th e b u sin e ss ab o u t by-lines — I th o u g h t I ’d left all th is b e h in d at p rim a ry school. T h e m otiveless n astin ess o f peo p le — m y goodness me! C ertain ly o ne h ad e n te re d a m u rk y c o n tin u u m w h ere a n y th in g could h a p p e n !” U n c le P h ilip is m a lev o len t i f an y o n e is. G ross an d b u lly in g in th e book, h e is lean a n d p re d a to ry in th e film , an acci d en tal re su lt o f casting. T o m B ell in his P h ilip F lo w er guise looks alarm in g ly like N o rm a n T e b b it, C h a irm a n o f th e C o n servative P a rty . T h e actor, o rig in ally ch osen for h is ‘m ad eyes’, a p p a re n tly stu d ie d T e b b it, a d o u r, grim p u b lic figure, an d has p ro je c te d a b ra n d o f c ru e lty m u c h m o re su b d u e d th a n th e so rt d ep icte d in th e novel: it h as becom e th e tig h t, silen t cru e lty o f th e to rtu re c h a m b e r electrics exp ert. Y et his sh am em p ire, ac co rd in g to A n g ela C a rte r, is “ n o t as b ad as th e real w o rld ” . T h is she exclaim s as i f it w ere en tirely selfev id en t. A m o n g h e r earlier w ritin g s, she says, it w as only th e

38 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

fan tasy novels w h ic h d e m o n stra te d an u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p o w er m e n h ad . T h e m o re realistic n o v els, th e novels ab o u t p eo p le she k n ew w h e n sh e w as y o u n g an d in ten sely u n h ap p y , have m u c h sh ak ier sexual p o litics. T h e y hav e, too, a “ d em en te d h a llu c in a to ry q u a lity ” sh e likes. A side from th e se p lu sses, sh e is ra th e r sc ath in g ab o u t h e r a p p re n tic e sh ip w orks. “ I d id ev e ry th in g o n a w in g a n d a p ra y e r,” she says. “ Y ou c a n ’t u se th e w o rd ‘b a d ’ ab o u t th e m ; th e y ’re n o t b ad novels b ecause th e y ’re n o t even like novels; th e y ’re n o t even im ita tio n s o f novels; th e y ’re d o in g so m e th in g else . . . O n e o f th e really d ifficu lt th in g s ab o u t m a k in g a sc rip t o u t o f The M agic Toyshop is w h e n I read it again I realised it d id n ’t have a p lo t. “ It h a d a v ag u e b e g in n in g a n d an en d b u t n o t m u c h m id d le. A n d one o f th e th in g s th is p a rtic u la r k in d o f film n eed ed w as a c o h e re n t n a rra tiv e s tru c tu re , so o n e h a d to re assem ble th e n o v el in th a t fo rm .” C h a ra c te r, d ialogue, all th e w o rk m an lik e th in g s o f th e realist n o v el w ere m y steries to h er, a lth o u g h she th in k s she h as im p ro v e d th e se days, p artly u n d e r th e reg im en o f film a n d rad io d ra m a ’s form al d em an d s. “ I u se d to b e h o p eless at d ialo g u e. I c o u ld n ev e r w rite a co n v ersatio n . T h is is p a rtly b ecau se I co u ld n ev e r u n d e r sta n d w h y p eo p le filled u p pages o f n ovels w ith ‘H av e a cup o f tea . . . som e sug ar? . . . Y es th a n k y o u ’ — a n d ex pected m e to p ay money for th is !” S he ch u ck les. A ngela C a rter lau g h s v ig o ro u sly a n d o ften , especially at h e r ow n sh o rt com ings. T h e d ialo g u e in th is film , as it h a p p e n s, is very m u c h like th a t in th e b o o k a n d it seem s to sta n d u p q u ite w ell to b ein g spoken. S he lau g h s, too, at h e r o w n in co n sisten cies. S he rests easy w ith th e m . I m ig h t fin d it p u z z lin g th a t th e w rite r w ho d elig h ts in p o rtra y in g th e u n d e rb e lly o f sexuality, u n d e rc u t tin g d ec en t ex p ectatio n s, is d istu rb e d th a t th e ce n tral ch arac te r in The Com pany O f Wolves is o n ly 14 a n d th a t th e re w ere frissons o f k id d ip o rn , she believ es, in th e film . B u t she does n o t. L ite ra tu re is d iffe ren t. H e r fictio n al ch aracters seek ro m an ce; h e r p o lem ical w ritin g s w a rn th a t th e se n tim en tal caress is as d o m in e erin g as sad istic b o n d ag e; b ack in th e real w o rld , all sh e can say ab o u t it is th a t ev ery b o d y w an ts som e one to love. S he w rites ab o u t w itch es alm o st exactly because she reg ard s so rcery so scep tically . H e r m o st rec en t novel, N ights A t The Circus, fe a tu re d an an arch o -sy n d icalist w itch , L izzie. T h e w itc h is th e in h e rito r o f a joke: w h en A ngela C a rte r, in h e r b e m u se d w ay, asked a frie n d w h y h e th o u g h t th e re w ere m a n y b o o k sh o p s w ith n am es like d eo d o ran ts w h ich m ade left-w in g treatises lie d o w n w ith th e occult, w h ich co u ld b e g u a ra n te e d to stock th e Com munist M anifesto an d th e T a r o t P ack , h e su g g ested it w as because every o n e k n ew th a t n e ith e r w o rk ed . S h e liked th e idea, h en ce L izzie. B u t in th e n ovel L iz z ie ’s n ec ro m an c y a n d su b te rfu g e are b o th successful. O f c o u rse. S tan d s to reaso n . “ F ic tio n isn ’t ab o u t life, y o u k n o w ,” A n g ela C a rte r rep ro v in g ly . O f co u rse, I sh o u ld h ave k n o w n . S tan d s to reaso n . “ I t ’s ab o u t w h at w e h o p e fo r fro m life. N o t ab o u t w h a t w e are, b u t w h at m e m ig h t be. A n d w e m ig h t b e, I like to th in k . I get m ore ch eerfu l as I get o ld er, th o u g h I c a n ’t th in k w h y !” She sm iles b e n ig n ly o u t at th e g rey sky o v er C lap h am . A lex w alks u p an d d o w n w ith a w ash in g b ask et o n h is head. A b u ild e r is lo o k in g at th e b a th ro o m w h ic h h a d b een sq u eezed in u n d e r th e stairs. W e are a lo n g w ay fro m The M agic Toyshop.

The . Australian Leaders Cinesure is changing at the top. John H ennings-w ith 16 years experience of the film and television industry - is taking over. And seasoned insurance executive, Bill Clifton, has become claims manager. They’ll bring a new level of service to Cinesure.

FilmM ake-up lechnology THE SCHOOL FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN FILM AND TELEVISION MAKE-UP

They’ll still have the backing of the same substantial and dependable group which founded Cinesure. . . .. .The group which has guaranteed the service and rates which have made Cinesure Australia’s leading film and television insurer.

Training commences 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 g * KEHOE AUSTRALIA

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

i l I 1I I I i I I I I I I T T I T T T 7

The Australian Film and Television Insurance Specialists A Division of The Lipman Insurance Group, Sentinel House, 49-51 Falcon Street, Crows Nest, Sydney 2065, Australia. Telephone (02) 929 0611. Telex AA24696 (TELIP). FAX. (02) 929 6441.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Dim Sum Extreme Prejudice From The Hip Gardens Of Stone Ground Zero High Tide La Bamba Longbow Trilogy A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors The Place At The Coast Raising Arizona River’s Edge Slate, Wyn & Me Vincent The Witches Of Eastwick

• THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK L ate one sto rm y n ig h t in a little tow n called E astw ick th ree u n c a n n ily b e a u ti ful w om en m e et o v er a p itc h er of m a rtin is to b itch a b o u t th e sh o rtag e of eligible bachelors w ith in cooee. A lex (C h er) is a leggy, ra v e n -h a ire d w idow w ith one child a n d a cottage business in roly-poly clay fig u rin es. J a n e (S usan S aran d o n ), th e tim id , childless divorcee, is m u sic in stru c tress at the lo c a l p r im a r y sc h o o l. A n d S u k i (M ichelle Pfeiffer) is a sensitive b u t ra th e r v ap id ab a n d o n e d m o th e r of six an d re p o rte r for th e local rag. “ H e should be h a n d s o m e .” “ B ut n o t too h a n d s o m e .” “ B ut eyes, h e ’s got to have great e y e s.” “ In te llig e n t.” “ A n d sen sitiv e .” F e a tu re by fan tastic featu re they d rea m u p th e p erfect m ale u n til J a n e , to the a m a z e m e n t o f h e r co m rades, concludes th a t he sh o u ld rid e into tow n on a b ig black steed. C u t to o utside an d the d riv in g ra in as a b ig black

JACK NICHOLSON: Liberator

M erced es b arrels th ro u g h th e gates of E astw ick. The Witches O f Eastwick is a th o ro u g h ly e n te rta in in g m ovie. W ith J a c k N ich o l son in th e lead role as th e devil him self, fine p erfo rm an ce s b y th e th re e w itchettes, a n d a stellar jo b by V e ro n ic a C a r t w rig h t in th e su p p o rtin g role as E astw ick ’s local ‘sen sitiv e’ a n d p ru d e , th e re ’s p le n ty o f p ro fessio n alism . M a y b e a b it too m u c h . E v ery o n e co n nected w ith th e film is a H o llyw ood h ero . T h e d ire c to r o f p h o to g ra p h y , V ilm os Z sig m o n d , w on a n O sc a r for Close Encounters', th e co m p o ser, J o h n W illiam s, co m p o sed th e m u sic for, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, Star Wars, Superman, an d E. T .; th e p ro d u c tio n d esig n er, Polly P la tt, is th e ex-w ife o f P e te r B o g danovich, w ith w h o m she m a d e The Last Picture Show. A n d th e d ire c to r is A u s tra lia ’s ow n G eo rg e M ille r o f M ad M ax fam e. T h e r e ’re n o flies on this film . The Witches O f Eastwick, b ased o n the novel by J o h n U p d ik e , is ac co rd in g to its publicists, “ a su p e rn a tu ra l th rille r set in

The Documentary Film In Australia Was $12.95

Now $5.00 (limited stocks) (Foreign: $15 surface; $24 airmail).

Take a close look at the history of Australian documentaries from the 1890s through to the present day. The book also examines documentary production, casehistories, the documentary market and themes and gives some useful contacts in this fascinating area.

The New Australian Cinema It’s certainly one o f the most thorough insights into Australian cinema to date. This book is a selection o f essays exploring themes as diverse as Social Realism, Fantasy, Horror and Suspense, and Historical Films, to name but a few. This volume will make an excellent addition to any film library.

fettMi*«

Was $14.95

Now $7.00 (limited stocks) (Foreign: $15 surface; $20 airmail).

Motion Picture Year Books 1980 and 1981/82 Now $10.00 each (limited stocks) $18.00 for both volumes

Were $25 each

(Overseas: $20 surface; $25 airmail or $35 surface, $35 airmail for both) Both these books are an invaluable record o f the films and the people o f the early 1980s: films like Mad Max, My Brilliant Career, Puberty Blues, The Last O f The Knucklemen, Breaker Morant, Harlequin and more. There’s also plenty o f information, analysis and data you w on’t find anywhere else.

SUBSCRIBE WOW AND WE WILL EXTEND YOUR SUBSCRIPTIOUlBY T É i i t M l

BACK ISSUES: A GUIDE TO WHAT'S AVAILABLE (AUSTRALIAN) WOMEN AND FILM — INTERVIEWS

ALTERNATIVE CINEMA

ANSARA, Martha Changing the Needle: Martha Ansara and Mavis Robertson By Barbara Alysen CP Mar 1983 No. 42

INTERVIEWS

ARMSTRONG, Gillian Gillian Armstrong Interview By Scott Murray CP Jan 1974 No. 1

CPOct-Nov1978No. 18

CP July-Aug 1979 No. 22

MORSE, Helen Helen Morse Interview (with Richard Mason) By George Tosi CP Aug 1982 No. 39 MUELLER, Kathy Kathy Mueller Interview By Helen Greenwood

CP Dec 1984 No. 49

PUNCH-McGREGOR, Angela Angela Punch-McGregor Interview ByJimSchembri CP Dec 1984 No. 49

HAZLEHURST, Noni Communications Breakdown: Noni Hazlehurst By Dorre Koeser CP May 1985 No. 51 HOFFMAN, Sonia Women in Drama: Briann Kearney and Sonia Hoffman By Mark Stiles CP Feb 1982 No. 36

ROBB, Jill Jill Robb Interview By Terry Plane

CP Jan 1977 No. 11

and see MORRIS, Judy

OTHER CINEMA By Sam Rohdie

CPOct-Nov1978No.18

OTHER CINEMA By Sam Rohdie

CP April-June 1978 No. 16

POOR CINEMA By James Ricketson

CP April-June 1978 No. 16

STRAUB/HUILLET: THE POLITICS OF FILM PRACTICE By Susan Dermody CP Sept-Oct 1976 No. 10

AMERICAN DIRECTORS INTERVIEWED PLUS WOODY ALLEN

CP July 1986 No. 58

ROBERT ALTMAN

CP Sept 1986 No. 59

BRIAN DE PALMA

CP Feb 1982 No. 36 CP July 1974 No. 3

WILLIAM FRIEDKIN

ROBERTSON, Mavis See ANSARA, Martha SEAWELL, Jeanine Jeanine Seawell Interview By Antony I. Ginnane

CPFeb-Mar1980No.25

THE FILMS OF IAN PRINGLE By John O’Hara CP Feb-Mar1985No.50

NEVIN, Robyn See MORRIS, Judy

HARTMAN, Rivka Women in Drama: Meg Stewart, Rivka Hartman and Clytie Jessop By Mark Stiles CP April 1982 No. 37

HUGHES, Wendy Wendy Hughes Interview By Richard Brennan CP Oct 1982 No. 40

CP March 1983 No. 42

IAN PRINGLE ALBIE THOMS

FILM AND TELEVISION By Adrian Martin

CP Jan 1986 No. 55

GIBSON, Sarah The Body in Question: Susan Lambert and Sarah Gibson Interview By Susan Dermody CP May 1987 No. 63

HUGHES, Robin Rocking the Boat at Film Australia: Robin Hughes By Mary Colbert CP Jan 1987 No. 61

CP April 1977 No. í¿

BERT DELING

SUBJECTS

MORRIS, Judy Changes: Jill Robb, Robyn Nevin and Judy Morris By Debi Enker CP Mar 1986 No. 56

ARRIGHI, Luciana Luciana Arrighi Interview By Sue Adler CPJuly-Aug1979No.22

CAMPION, Jane Jane Campion Interview By Mark Stiles

CP Jan 1977 No. 11

EMILE DE ANTONIO

and see GIBSON, Sarah

Gillian Armstrong Returns to Eden By Anna Grieve CP May 1987 No. 63

BYRNE, Debbie Debbie Byrne Interview By Debi Enker

CP Aug-Sept 1980 No. 28 {

TIM BURNS

KEARNEY, Briann See HOFFMAN, Sonia LAMBERT, Susan On Guard: an interview with Susan Lambert By Victoria Treole CP Mar-April 1984 No. 44-45

Career Woman: Gillian Armstrong By Debi Enker CP July 1985 No. 52

BORG, Sonia Sonia Borg Interview By Paul Davies

JESSOP, Clytie See HARTMAN, Rivka

CP Dec 1982 No. 41

COLIN HIGGINS ARTHUR HILLER

CP Dec 1979-Jan 1980 No. 24

ALFRED HITCHCOCK CP July 1977 No. 13

Selling Out: Jeanine Seawell By Nick Roddick CP May 1985 No. 51

JOHN HUSTON DAVID LYNCH

CP June-July 1980 No. 27 CP Oct 1977 No. 14 CP March 1987 No. 62

ALAN J. PAKULA

CP July 1984 No. 46

STEWART, Meg See HARTMAN, Rivka

ROMAN POLANSKI

CP Jan 1977 No. 11 CP Jan 1987 No. 61

STRICKLAND, Janet Janet Strickland Interview By Scott Murray CPFeb-Mar1980No.25

SYDNEY POLLACK

CPMay-June1983No.43

MICHAEL RITCHIE

CP Oct 1982 No. 40

TASS, Nadia Cinema In The Round: Nadia Tass By Kathy Bail CP Nov 1986 No. 60

PAULSCHRADER

CP Dec 1982 No. 41

WEAVER, Jacki Jacki Weaver Interview ByTomRyan

CP April 1982 No. 37

STEVEN SPIELBERG

CP April-June 1978 No. 16

OLIVER STONE

CP Nov 1986 No. 60

JOHN WATERS

CP March 1983 No. 42

ORSON WELLES

CP July 1986 No. 58

W ÊÊBÈ

M ü I ü H i I v A w l I ÜÉ

W Ë

111 ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡1 i¡SI !É____ 1__________ I illisi CINEMA PAPERS PUBLICATIONS

No. 2 (April 1974): Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy Harbutt, Film under Allende, Between The Wars, Alvin Purple. No. 15 (January 1978): Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan cinema, The Irishman, The Chant Of Jimmie Blacksmith.

No. 17 (August-September 1978): Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The Prowler.

No. 19 (January-February 1979): Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sarris, sponsored documentaries, Blue Fin. No. 20 (March-April 1979): Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French cinema, My Brilliant Career. No. 26 (April-May 1980): Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, Water Under The Bridge. No. 29 (October-November 1980): Bob Ellis, Uri Windt, Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw. No. 38 (June 1982): Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Far East. No. 47 (August 1984): Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms.

The Documentary In Australian Film □ $5.00

Motion Picture Yearbooks □ 1980 $10.00 □ 1981/82 $10.00

The New Australian Cinema □ $7.00

□

$18.00 (both volumes)

Subtotal $.....

BACK ISSUES Issue No’s ....................................................................... 1-2 copies $4.00 each 5-6 copies $3.00 each

3-4 copies $3.50 each 7 or more copies $2.50 per copy

Total number of issues re q u ire d ....................................... Total cost of back issues $ ................................................

Subtotal $.

CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTION Cinema Papers is published six times a year. Subscribe now and you’ll receive two further issues at no extra cost. Prices include postage. □ 1 year at $25 □ 2 years at $45 □ 3 years at $65. Plus two extra issues, completely free of charge. □ I am a new subscriber.

□ I am renewing my subscription. Subtotal $.

TOTAL PAYMENT FORM FOR ALL CATEGORIES Please send entire page not just this form.

NAME................................................................................................. ADDRESS...........................................................................................; ..................................... Postcode............ Country............................... Title.................................................Company................... .................

No. 48 (October-November 1984): Ken Cameron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim Dusty Movie.

No. 53 (September 1985): Bryan Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, Return To Eden. No. 54 (November 1985): Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, Wills And Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster M iller Affair, rock videos.

NB: Foreign orders should be accompanied by bank drafts in Australian dollars only. All prices are in Australian dollars.

TOTAL $.. I enclose a cheque for $ .................................... Please debit my Bankcard/Mastercard to the amount of $..............

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D O CHEQUES PAYABLE TO: MTV Publishing Limited 43 Charles Street Abbotsford 3067 Vic. Australia

Expires

Signature.

■ IWBmmM I v-

G la m o u r

—e r n a a n d M a d r i

W riters a n d C in e m a • Th e a tre a n d C in e m a Interview s @ N e w s ® R e vie w s • F e a tu re s a n d the only c o m p re h e n s iv e s u rv e y of w h o ’s m a k in g w h a t in A ustralia S u b s c r ib e n o w a n d w e w ill e x te n d y o u r s u b s c r ip tio n b y tw o is s u es

IN T E R N A T I O N A L

R A T E S

6 issues 1 year

12 issues 2 years

18 issues 3 years

Zone 1: New Zealand Niugini

Surface $32 Air $45

Surface $58 Air $85

Surface $86 Air $125

(Add to the price of each copy) , Surface $1.20 Air $3.35 ,

Zone 2: Malaysia Singapore Fiji

Surface $32 Air $47

Surface $59 Air $89

Surface $86 Air $132

Surface $1.20 Air $2.25

Zone 3: Hong Kong India Japan Philippines China

Surface $32 ' Air $55

Surface $59 A ir , $105

Surface $87 Air $155

Surface $1.20 Air $5.15

Zone 4: USA Canada Middle East

Surface $33 Air $62

Surface $61 Air $119

Surface Li $89 Air $176

Surface $1.40 Air $6.20

Zone 5: Britain Europe Africa South America

Surface $33 Air $67

Surface $61 Air $129

Surface $89 Air $191

Surface $1.50 Air $7.20

Overseas subscribers, please remit in Australian dollars

Back issues

•

th e 1980s th a t is also a co m ic b a ttle o f th e se x e s.” I f th e re is a n y th in g to o b ject to it is p ro b a b ly th a t la st b it. A fair few m in u te s o f th e film a re d e v o te d to th e k in d o f eig h tie s re la tio n sh ip ta lk th a t m a k e s y o u shift a r o u n d in y o u r seat. B u t ju s t w h e n y o u th in k it m a y b e tim e for p o p c o rn so m e o n e p u ts a p in to th e b allo o n . D a ry l V a n H o rn e (N ich o lso n ) is a m id d lin g fat, m id d lin g b a ld , e x c ee d in g ly ric h ec c e n tric . H e rocks u p to E astw ick (w as h e su m m o n e d ? ), b u y s th e local h e rita g e h o m e , in stalls his seven foot v a le t, a n d sets to w o rk m a k in g th e th re e w o m e n ’s d re a m co m e tru e . T o e a c h o f th e m h e is j u s t w h a t th e d o cto r o rd e re d : a goo d fuck, a nice gu y , a lib e ra to r a n d a te m p ta tio n . A t le ast t h a t ’s w h a t th e devil is s u p p o se d to b e. B u t in a fa b u lo u sly com ic scene w ith C h e r in w h ich N ich o lso n lead s h e r o n a to u r to th e m a s te r b e d ro o m , e v e ry c o n v e n tio n o f th e se d u ctio n scene is b lo w n w id e o p e n . C h e r ’s no d u m m y , f r a n k ’s h e r m id d le n a m e . J a c k N ich o lso n n o lo n g e r looks like a n y b o d y ’s id e a o f a k n ig h t in sh in in g a r m o u r , a n d C h e r d o e s n ’t ca re if she tells h im so. B u t if th e r e ’s n o g e ttin g a r o u n d th e fact th a t J a c k N ic h o lso n n o lo n g e r looks like a n y b o d y ’s h e ro , th e r e ’s also no g e t tin g a r o u n d th e fact th a t th a t ’s exactly w h a t h e still is. H is p e rfo rm a n c e is, as alw ay s, fa n ta stic . H is m o o d shifts, th e ra n g e o f e x p re ssio n , th e tim in g — h e is e n d e a rin g ly c o rn y a n d m e n a c in g by tu rn s . Y o u ’d a lm o st th in k th a t th e m o v ie w as a p a e a n to h is skill a n d a c c o m p lish m e n ts as a n ac to r. N o t th a t th is is th e b e st th in g h e ’s ev er d o n e. B u t th e re a re echoes o f all th e o th e r N ich o lso n s w e h a v e k n o w n a n d lo v ed , n o t le ast o f th e m th e to ta lly d e m o n ic “ H e r e ’s J o h n n y ” o f The Shining. I n fact, th e re a re lots o f echoes in th is film . L ik e th e b e st o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry H o lly w o o d ’s p ro d u c tio n s, The Witches O f Eastwick is m e ta-film ic. I t ’s ev en b e e n su g g e ste d th a t c e rta in m a g ic scenes a re m o re th a n a little re m in isc e n t o f M ary Poppins. I t ca m e as n o su rp rise to fin d th a t th e p ro d u c e rs o f The Witches O f Eastwick w e re re sp o n sib le fo r th e co m ic h o r r o r m o v ie , An American Werewolf In London. T h a t ’s th e g e n re w e ’re d e a lin g w ith . B u t th is is a m u c h glossier film , a m u c h m o re self-conscious, a m u c h slicker film th a n its p re d e c e sso r. T a k e J a c k N ic h o l s o n ’s w a rd ro b e , to b e g in w ith . A s b efits a m a n o f w e a lth a n d ta ste , h e sp o rts n o t o n ly a p o n y ta il w ith w h a t’s left o f h is h a ir, b u t a su it o f s tra w b e rry b ag g ies. I t ’s a la v ish p r o d u c tio n a n d no m ista k e . N o t a p e n n y sp a re d in , to

JACK NICHOLSON: Temptation

b e g in w ith , th e se arch fo r th e rig h t lo c a tio n . P olly P la tt a n d th e lo c atio n m a n a g e r, w e a re in fo rm e d , lo g g ed o v er 20,000 m iles th ro u g h o u t th e n o r th e a ste rn U S a n d n o r th e r n C a lifo rn ia (ask m e w hy) in th e ir se arch fo r th e p erfec t N ew E n g la n d v illag e. A t le n g th th e y fo u n d th e id eal spot: C o h a sse t, M a s s a ch u setts, rig h t n e x t d o o r to P la tt’s h o m e to w n . W h y th e y e v e r lo o k ed fu rth e r th a n th e ir o w n b a c k y a rd is a m y ste ry o nly H o lly w o o d ca n solve. B u t y o u get all th e pay-offs o f th e b ig ex p e n se . It w o u ld n ’t do to u n d e rp la y th e d e v il’s po w ers a n d som e o f th e effects are first-ra te . I f th e re a re so m e lav ish ly u n n e c e s sa ry o n es (a fin al Alien-\\ke. e x tra v a g a n z a seem s less th a n essen tial) i t ’s o nly in k e e p in g w ith th e g en e rally lu x u rio u s m o o d o f th e film . I f th e r e ’s a n y th in g to m u tte r a b o u t it m ig h t b e th e b ro a d p o litics o f The Witches O f Eastwick. Y o u co u ld say, fo r in sta n c e , th a t w e h a rd ly n e e d a n o th e r d e m o n s tra tio n o f th e irre sistib ility o f u n a d u lte r a te d m a sc u lin e d o m in a tio n . O r th a t C h e r, S u sa n S a ra n d o n , a n d M ic h elle P feiffer, a t le ast tw o o f w h o m a re p ro v e n a n d fo rm id a b le ta le n ts, a re re d u c e d in th is film to legs a n d fluffy h a ir. T h a t th e re is n o t m u c h scope fo r a n y th in g m o re th a n th e r e ite ra tio n o f th e m o st co n v e n tio n a l a n d o p p ressiv e sex u al re la tio n sh ip s. E v e n th a t th e ja b s th e m o v ie tak es a t th e p u r ita n is m o f th e a v e ra g e N ew E n g la n d e r a re p re d ic ta b ly cliched. T h e a n sw e r to th e se ch a rg e s is p r e su m a b ly to b e fo u n d in th e re v e rsa l o f fo rtu n e s c o n c lu sio n w h ich m a k e s a g e stu re to w a rd se lf-d e te rm in a tio n a n d liftin g o f th e p a tria rc h a l yo k e. S o rt of. A ctu a lly , th is k in d o f an a ly sis, th o u g h th e o re tic a lly a p p lica b le to a n y th in g a n d

e v e ry th in g , seem s essen tially o u t o f p lace w h en it com es to The Witches O f Eastwick. In a w o rld in w h ich th e re a re th re e k in d s o f m o v ies: th e D re a d fu l, th e In te re s tin g , a n d th e F u n , th e re is n o m y ste ry as to w h ich c a te g o ry th is o n e falls in to . I t h a rd ly ta k es itse lf serio u sly , I d o n ’t see w h y w e sh o u ld do a n y d iffe ren t. A n d , really , y o u co u ld do a hell o f a lo t w o rse w ith a ra in y a fte r noon. Christina Thompson T H E W IT C H E S O F E A ST W IC K : Directed by George Miller. Producers: Nell Canton, Peter Guber, Jo n Peters. Executive producers: Rob Cohen, Don Devlin. Screen play: Michael Crlstofer. Director of photography: Vilmos Zsigmond. Editors: Richard Francis-Bruce, Hubert C. De La Bouillerie. Music: Jo h n Williams. Production design: Polly Platt. Cast: Ja c k Nicholson (Daryl Van Horne), Cher (Alexandra Medford), Susan Sarandon (Ja n e Spofford), Michelle Pfeiffer (Suki Ridgemont), Veronica Cartwright (Felicia Alden), Richard Jenkins (Clyde Alden), Keith Jochim (Walter Neff), Carel Struycken (Fidel). Production company: Guber-Peters Co/Kennedy Miller. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 118 minutes. USA . 1987.

• RAISING ARIZONA Raising Arizona m ig h t h a v e b e e n m a d e decades ago if D ia n e A rb u s h a d b e e n ask ed to d ire c t th e R o a d R u n n e r ca rto o n s. W h e th e r co n scio u sly o r n o t, E th a n C o e n (th e p ro d u c e r) a n d J o e l C o e n (th e d ire c to r) ow e p le n ty to b o th A r b u s ’s te ra to g e n ic v iew o f th e o r d i n a ry , a n d th e R o a d R u n n e r ’s a b ility to zo o m b lith ely acro ss th e su rfa ce o f th e W e ste rn fla tla n d . T h is an a lo g y is o nly o n e o f a series o f u n lik e ly c o n ju n c tio n s a n d p astic h es o f c in e m a tic m o d e s w h ich Raising Arizona em p lo y s in te llin g its sto ry o f ex -co n H .I . ( “ H i ” ) M c D o n o u g h , h is w ife, ex -p o licew o m a n E d w in a ( “ E d ” ), a n d th e ir c a la m ito u s >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 41

< a tte m p t to com plete the fam ily u n it w ith a “ little c r itte r” (baby). In an ex ten d e d p ro lo g u e, w hich uses a highly skilled co n d e n sa tio n of n a rra tiv e co n v entions, we w itness H i ’s sorry trac k reco rd in “ ra m b u n c tio u s b e h a v io u r” — he in eptly robs “ co nvenience sto re s” (the A m eric an eq u iv ale n t o f o u r 7-1 Is) w ith an u n lo a d e d g u n a n d a locked getaw ay car. E ach tim e he is ca u g h t he woos p olicew om an E d (H olly H u n te r) in th e 15 seconds o r so it takes for h e r to snap his m u g shot. H e goes to priso n , gets p aro led , a n d th e n the cycle starts over. T h e fo u rth tim e a ro u n d , H i (N icolas C ag e) decides to “ go s tra ig h t” . H e m a rrie s E d a n d th ey m ove to a sm all h o u se in the m iddle o f a p ra irie w here they spend th e ir “ salad d a y s” — H i w orks at a factory d rillin g holes into sm all bits o f m etal, E d gives u p w ork an d starts w ea rin g frocks. T h e only th in g m issing is the child w hich will tu rn th e ir h ap p y u n io n into a fam ily. B u t E d discovers th a t she is infertile, a n d they

c a n ’t ad o p t b ecau se o f H i ’s reco rd . T h e ir w o rld , b ased u p o n n aiv e a s p ira tions to n o rm ality , b eg in s to fall ap a rt. T h a t’s w h en th ey h e a r o f th e A riz o n a q u in tu p lets — five b ab ies b o rn to N a th a n A rizo n a , o w n er o f a ch ain of u n p a in te d fu rn itu re stores. T h e y get a te rrify in g id ea . . . T h e titles ap p e ar, the film ‘b e g in s’. By this tim e we h av e b ecom e fam iliar w ith the style w hich th e C o en s are em ploying. A succession of d isto rte d , colourful com ic im ages, often shot in w ide angle, em p h asise th e b iz a rre or w acky (a te rm th e C o e n b ro th e rs use), such as H i a n d E d on vinyl b a n a n a lounges w atch in g th e sun set across an em pty h o rizo n . N a tu ra lism flies o u t th e w indow , rep laced by a k in d of h y p e r realism w ith in a self-conscious sp h ere of im p ro b a b ility w h ere alm o st a n y th in g is. perm issible. F o r ex am p le, H i w ould have sp en t a m in im u m o f fo u r years in prison b etw een th e first shot a n d his final p aro le (all w ith in th e first 10

BROTHERS IN SHADES: Joel (left) and Ethan Coen

m in u tes) b u t n o t o nly does h e a p p e a r th e sam e age, he w ears th e sam e clothes! H u m o u r is often situ a te d b etw e en th e iro n ic h u m ility o f H i ’s p o in t o f view — he w an ts to be a good, h o n est m a n b u t struggles a g a in st b o th his w eak n a tu re an d th e call o f th e co n v en ien ce store — a n d th e h y p e r-re a l ex a g g eratio n s of n o rm a l social b e h a v io u r: E d ’s v ersio n of a lu llab y to th e b ab y she a n d H i h av e k id n a p p ed is a b allad a b o u t a m a n co n d e m n e d to h an g . T h e style co n stan tly refers b ack to c h ild re n ’s carto o n s w h ere b rig h t colours an d n aiv e, literal logic m ix it w ith violence a n d im p licit sad ism . It is a w orld w h ere w ackiness reig n s, a n d th e c h a racter com petes w ith th e v isu al gag for a tte n tio n . A ctu ally th e re is little a tte m p t to m ak e ‘r e a l’ ch a racters. N o tio n s o f ‘th e r e a l’ are tossed playfully in to th e air. E v ery o n e is essentially c a ri ca tu red , as flat a n d as b rig h t as th e a b u n d a n c e o f visual sen satio n s u rro u n d ing th em . C h ild re n ’s carto o n s, how ever, have th e good sense to last for n o m o re th a n a few m in u te s, a n d this is w h ere Raising Arizona sta rts g e ttin g in to tro u b le. T h e film is o p e ra tin g in te rm s w hich are, at th e ir ro o t, alien a tin g . W e are co n stan tly b ein g h eld at a d istan ce. F o r in stan ce, we are d istan c ed fro m th e ch aracters by th e ir lack o f credibility. O u r m odes o f re la tio n to a film ‘c h a ra c te r’ rely u p o n a so p h isticated e x c h a n g e o f a u to n o m y fro m o u r (a u d ie n c e ’s) p o in t o f view for cred ib ility from th eirs. I f a c h a ra c te r ex ten d s b ey o n d an accep tab le logical b o u n d ary , it begins to m ove in to th e realm o f c a ri catu re. It becom es in creasin g ly difficult to situ ate o urselves w ith in th e ir w orld. In s te a d , w e o b se rv e th e m , m o re critically, from th e o u tsid e. T h e g en eral to n e o f Raising Arizona is iro n ic d etac h m en t. O fte n th e force o f th e h u m o u r com es fro m a play w ith sincerity. T h e style em p h asises selfconsciousness — th e carefu l p la ce m en t of objects a n d colours — a n d a u th o ria l presence. G iv en th a t its p rim a ry asset is the w ay it m obilises th e u n fam iliar, Raising Arizona su b stitu te s c h a rm for m o re fam iliar au d ien c e rela tio n s. T h is succeeds to a p o in t. T h e re w ould be few scenes in th e co n te m p o ra ry cin e m a as c h a rm in g a n d full o f p u re d elig h t as the one w here H i first tries to k id n a p o ne of the five A riz o n a b ab ies. B u t th e re is alw ays th e th re a t o f th a t c h a rm w ea rin g th in an d , after h a lf a n h o u r o r so, it does. Y ou b ecom e im m u n e to the b a rra g e o f h ig h ly -crafted , b ea u tifu lly a rt d irected , self-consciously p h o to g ra p h e d scenes. In choosing to use h ighly-stylised visual e x a g g eratio n , th e C o e n s find them selves w ith a critical d istan ce bew een th e film a n d th e au d ien ce. In ste a d o f u sin g this to som e effect, th ey spend m o st o f th e film try in g to c o u n te r act th e stru c tu re s w h ich th e y them selves set u p w ith in th e first 15 m in u tes. Raising Arizona seem s to u n d e rg o a series of shifts in m o d e , fro m a b su rd ist to

‘a d v e n tu r e ’ to ‘th r ille r ’ a n d e n d in g in iro n ic se n tim e n ta lity ; fro m Pink Flam ingoes to The Waltons v ia Rambo. T h e first shift occu rs w h e n th e p lo t sta rts to ta k e over. E d a n d H i a b d u c t N a th a n A riz o n a J r . G ale a n d E velle (Jo h n G o o d m a n a n d Bill F o rsy th e ), tw o p riso n escapees a n d frie n d s o f H i, la n d o n th e ir d o o rstep . H i d re a m s th e L o n e B ik er o f th e A p o caly p se in to ex isten ce — a frig h te n in g b o u n ty h u n te r (T e x C o b b ) fro m th e M a d M a x d e s e rt, w ho ev e n tu a lly com es a fte r y o u n g N a th a n J r for th e re w a rd N a th a n S r offers. H i loses his jo b afte r slu g g in g his boss for su g g estin g w ife-sw ap p in g a n d , in d esp air, trie s to ro b a co n v e n ie n ce sto re. E velle a n d G ale k id n a p N a th a n J r for th e b o u n ty b u t lose h im , neglectfully, w hilst ro b b in g a b a n k . T h e L o n e B ik er tu rn s u p , as do th e e n ra g e d E d a n d H i . . . A ll o f th is p lo t ac tio n te n d s to rid e o v er r a th e r th a n re p a ir th e essen tial p ro b lem . T h e a rb itra rin e s s a n d cleverness o f these tw ists a n d tu rn s pall a n d , afte r b ein g co m p letely a b s o rb e d a t th e sta rt, I fo u n d m y se lf g ro w in g w ea ry as th e film w ore on. Blue Velvet, w hich b e a rs c o m p a riso n (m a in ly d u e to its iro n ic d e ta c h m e n t fro m th e ‘o r d in a r y ’) b rid g es th e d istan c e th ro u g h th e use o f th r e a t a n d a n o v e r w h e lm in g u n d e r c u rr e n t o f sex u ality a n d v iolence. Raising Arizona a tte m p ts a sim ila r shift, b u t th e tra n s itio n is far m o re p ro b le m a tic . T h r e a t is u n d e r m in e d b y e v e ry o n e ’s ca rto o n -lik e in v u l n e ra b ility — eg shots a re fired b u t no o n e e v e r gets h it, a n d w hilst Blue Velvet w as ab le to shift in to a th rille r m o d e w ith o u t a n in te r ru p tio n to its stylistic flow, Raising Arizona ju m p s , like a car o u t o f tu n e , fro m g ea r to gear. A m o re fu n d a m e n ta l b rid g e is n e e d e d b e tw e e n a u d ie n c e a n d c h a r a c te r . O b v io u sly , H i is m e a n t to fulfil th a t role. H is m o n o lo g u e s are re p re s e n ta tio n s o f a n in te rn a l p e rso n , a ‘r e a l’ c h a r acter, th ro u g h w h o m w e, th e a u d ie n c e , can e n te r th e n a rra tiv e . T h is only p a rtia lly w orks. A lth o u g h h e is sw eet a n d lo v eab le, h is sin g u la r p rese n ce as a ‘c h a ra c te r’ ( ra th e r th a n ‘c a r ic a tu r e ’ in th is fo rm u la tio n ) o nly serves to fu rth e r h e ig h te n o n e ’s sense o f iso latio n . H i, th e ‘c h a r a c te r ’, is ex c lu d e d fro m th e n a r r a tiv e . H is in tr o s p e c tio n is alw a y s co n v ey ed d irec tly to th e au d ie n c e . W h e n he acts w ith in th e film , h e acts as ‘c a r ic a tu r e ’. W ith o u t ' b e in g able to assert a stro n g e r e m o tio n a l v alu e for its c h a r ac te rs, th e e n d in g , w h ere H i d re a m s o f h im se lf a n d E d w ith th e ir ow n h u g e fam ily o f c h ild re n a n d g ra n d c h ild re n at T h a n k sg iv in g , is q u ite p ec u lia r. Y ou ca n a d m ire th e w ay it u n d e rc u ts itself, th e o b v io u s m a n ip u la tio n o f c o n v e n tio n a l codes o f s e n tim e n ta lity for h u m o u r , b u t th e re is also so m e th in g m issin g . P e rh a p s a n u n d e rly in g affec tio n fo r th ese ‘w a c k y ’ c a rto o n c h a ra c te rs fro m b o th th e film m ak ers a n d th e a u d i en ce, stra in s a g a in st th is im p e n e tra b le , iro n ic clev erness. T h e r e a re m a n y possible re a d in g s o f

Raising Arizona. I h a v e d iscu ssed a n o p e ra tio n a l difficulty, o r “ w hy I lost in te re st in spite o f b e in g b o w led o v er by th e first h a l f ’, w ith o u t ta c k lin g o th e r possibilities, such as th e issue o f ‘T h e F a m ily ’ o r th e r e c u rrin g m e ta p h o rs o f b irth , fertility /ste rility a n d th e d esert. I chose this ta ck b ec au se u ltim a te ly I th in k th a t th e C o e n b ro th e rs, like all good c ritte rs of p o stm o d e rn te m p e r a m e n t, scan across m e a n in g in iro n ic glim pses in p u rs u it o f so m e th in g m o re spectacular. Tony Ayres R A IS IN G A R IZ O N A : Directed by Jo e l C o en. Pro d u ce r: Ethan C o en. Sc re e n p la y : Ethan and Jo e l C o en . C o producer: M ark Silverm an. E x ecu tive pro ducer: Ja m e s Ja c k s . A sso ciate producer: D eborah Reinisch. Director of photography: B a rry So nnenfeld . Editor: M ichael R. Miller. Prod uction designer: Ja n e M usky. M usic: Carter Burwell. Cast: N ico las C a g e (Hi), H olly H unter (Ed ), T rey W ilson (N athan A rizona Sr), Jo h n G o o d m a n (Gale), W illiam Fo rsyth e (Evelle), Sa m M c M u rra y (Glen), F ra n ce s M cD o rm a n d (Dot), R an dall 'T e x ’ C o b b (Le o n ard Sm alls), T .J. K uhn (N athan Jr),. L y n n e Dum in Kitei (F lo ren ce Arizona). Production co m p a n y: T ed and Jim P e d a s/ B e n Barenholtz. Distributor: Fox Colum bia. 35mm. 92 minutes. U S A . 1987

• LONG BOW TRILOGY In Long Bow Trilogy, C a rm a H in to n a n d R ic h a rd G o rd o n b re a k d o w n th e b a rrie rs o f shyness, su sp icio n a n d p o li tical d istan c e th a t h a v e foiled th e efforts o f m a n y a fo reig n d o c u m e n ta ry -m a k e r in C h in a . C o n s id e rin g th a t th e latest official policy is relig io u s to le ra n c e , for ex am p le, i t ’s n o t easy to c a p tu re on film th e sight o f a ca d re fla p p in g his a rm s like angel w ings as he m ocks C a th o lic view s on h ea v en . N o r is it a sim p le m a tte r to get facto ry w o rk e rs to d iscu ss, on th e rec o rd , details o f a w alk -o u t p ro te st in a co u n try w h ich claim s to h a v e e lim in a te d ex p lo ita tio n — a n d o u tla w ed in d u stria l strikes. T h e d ir e c to r s ’ sy m p a th e tic c a m e ra ev en d raw s a n e m b itte re d o u t b u rst fro m o n e old w o m a n a g a in st h e r h u sb a n d , w ho, she says, h as “ n e v e r tre a te d m e like a h u m a n b e in g ” .' L o n g Bow is th e village in n o rth C h in a w hich W illia m H in to n , C a rm a H in to n ’s fa th e r, im m o rta lis e d in th e >

BRIDE IN SUNNIES: Scene from Longbow Trilogy

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 43

< book Fanshen, a n ac co u n t of la n d refo rm th ere d u rin g th e C o m m u n ist revo lu tio n . H is second book on L o n g Bow , based on visits he m a d e to the village in the seventies, w as titled Shenfan. C a rm a h ad acco m p an ied h im on these research trips. She a n d R ic h a rd G o rd o n re tu rn e d to L o n g Bow in 1982 an d 1983 to m ake this in tim a te , th re e -p a rt d o c u m e n ta ry on th e village. O d d ly , the film s’ n a rra tio n fails to m e n tio n the special links th a t the d irec tors h a d w ith the c o m m u n ity they are film ing. H in to n says only th a t she is an A m eric an b o rn in P ek in g , a fluent C h in ese sp eaker a n d th a t she first visited th e village in 1971. Y et clearly, the d ire c to rs’ p erso n al experiences w ithin th a t c o m m u n ity h av e g u id ed th e ir d o c u m e n ta ry ap p ro a ch , m a k in g it so m eth in g m o re a n d so m e th in g less th a n the can d id look at C hinese village life w hich it ap p ears to be. D u rin g the C u ltu ra l R e v o lu tio n , C a rm a H in to n w as so deeply involved w ith C h in ese factional politics th a t she b ecam e one of C h in a ’s only foreign R e d G u ard s. T h e Long Bow Trilogy, how ever, m akes only the m o st fleeting references to the C u ltu ra l R e v o lu tio n , w hich rag ed from 1966-76, p re fe rrin g to focus in stead on the q u ality o f life before an d after the 1949 “ L ib e ra tio n ” . Y et we n eed look no fu rth e r th a n Shenfan to le arn th a t in the C u ltu ra l R e v o lu tio n the village b ecam e a “ b a ttle g ro u n d ” w here political d isag reem en ts w ere setd ed w ith rifles, pistols an d h a n d g renades — surely, this d id so m eth in g to the fabric o f c o m m u n ity life th a t is w o rth re c o rd ing? In Shenfan, C a rm a ’s fath e r is frank ab o u t his re se n tm e n t at the b re a k u p of C h in a ’s ru ra l co m m u n es by the postM a o leadership u n d e r D e n g X iao p in g . Y ou w o n d er if the directo rs feel the sam e w ay. A re we m issing a crucial su b tex t of these films? In “ All U n d e r H e a v e n ” we are tre a te d to interview s w ith a select h an d fu l o f cadres an d p ea sa n t activists, all o f w hom are u n h a p p y w ith D e n g ’s econom ic refo rm s an d m o u rn the dem ise o f collective farm in g . Y et it ’s well know n th a t m a n y grassroots cadres th ro u g h o u t C h in a chiefly m o u rn the loss o f p o w er w hich econom ic d ecen tralistio n has m e a n t for th e m . G en erally , C hinese farm ers seem to h ave w elcom ed the refo rm s, an d in m a n y places, living sta n d ard s h ave risen as a resu lt o f them . Is L o n g Bow atypical, o r is it th a t we have only b een in tro d u c e d to people w hose views m o st closely m a tc h the d ire c to rs’? W e ca n n o t know , b u t we m u st w onder. Linda Jaivin L O N G B O W T R IL O G Y : Life In A C hinese Village. (Part 1 "A ll U nd er H ea ven : Life In A C hinese Village” , Part 2 “ Sm all H appiness: W o m e n Of A C hinese Villag e” , Part 3 "T o Taste A H und red H erbs: G o ds, A ncesto rs A n d M edicine In A C h inese Villag e’’.): Directed by C a rm a Hinton and Richard Gordon. P rod ucers: C a rm a Hinton, Richard Gordon, K athy Kline, D an Sipe. Written by C a rm a Hinton, Laurie Block, Jo h n Crow ley. Director of photography: Richard Gordon. Editor: D avid C a m o chan. Production co m pany: Lo n g b o w G ro u p P ro d u c tions. Distributor: Ronin. 16mm. 3 x 58 minutes. U S A . 1984/86.

44 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

• THE PLACE AT THE COAST T h e re is a cu rio u s sense of tim elessness ab o u t The Place A t The Coast. T h e place, K ilk e e , is sp e c ia l, e x tr a o r d in a r y , sep arate from th e real w orld. It is a place w here lastin g a n d b ea u tifu l m em o ries are m ad e, an d a su itab le settin g for m o m e n to u s events. W h e n Ellie M cA d am an d h e r fa th e r N eil go to K ilkee for th e ir su m m e r h o lid ay , we b ecom e privy to one o f those episodes in life th a t will alw ays re m a in w hole, d etailed , a n d T ech n ico lo r in th e m in d s o f th e p a rtic i pants. F o r all th e m a jo r ch a racters, this su m m er is a tim e of ch an g e, a n d change in its vario u s guises is th e film ’s cen tral concern. Ellie (T u s h k a B erg en ) is rapidly ap p ro a c h in g adolescence in blissful ig n o ran ce. F o r h e r it is tim e to face the la rg e r q u estio n s of life: boys, fashion, ro m an c e — a n d progress. A dolescence is h e r fa th e r’s p ro b lem too, an d n o t only as a resu lt o f E lb e ’s b lin d flo u n d erin g in to m a tu rity . T h e laconic w idow er, p lay ed by J o h n H a rg re a v e s, is suddenly 17 an d stu tte rin g ag ain w hen he m eets M a rg o t R y a n (H e a th e r M itch ell), a n e ig h b o u r’s c h a rm in g d au g h ter.

A sto rm is b rew in g , b o th literally a n d fig u rativ ely . O n d ay o ne at K ilk ee, Ellie a n d th e e n v iro n m e n t a re b u ffeted by a pow erful, u n se aso n a b le w in d , ru fflin g th e tra n q u illity o f b o th . T h e clouds b u ild w ith th e te n sio n as relatio n sh ip s b eg in to shift a n d te e te r, a n d as a flu rry o f ru m o u rs g ain su b stan ce: th e re are plan s afoot to develop K ilkee. It seem s th a t Ellie is alone in h e r fight to p reserv e h e r place at th e coast. H e r only possible allies h av e b ee n d istu rb in g ly tr a n s fo rm ed from ra tio n a l h u m a n b ein g s in to people in love. T h e film d e m a n d s o u r su p p o rt for E lb e ’s cause — K ilk ee co m b in es som e of the m o st b ea u tifu l elem en ts o f th e A u s tra lia n b u sh a n d coast, a n d in c in e m a to g ra p h e r J e f f D a r lin g ’s h a n d s tak es on an ex quisite d rea m -lik e q u ality . H o w ev er, we are offered little h o p e for its survival. A pow erful a n d ru th less b u sin e ssm a n h eads th e d eleg atio n for p ro g ress, b acked by a co n g lo m erate o f locals m a d e stro n g b y self-interest. E llie is ju s t a girl, an d N eb an d M a rg o t are u n fo rtu n a te ly in cap acitated . T h e closing scenes h o ld am b iv alen c e an d a v ag u e feeling o f irre so lu tio n . T h e m e m o ry we h av e w itn essed is m e re ly th e p re c u rso r to th e m a n y ad ju stm e n ts M a rg o t, N eb a n d E bie w ill h av e to m ak e

FERN CALLS: Tushka Bergen in The Place At The Coast

before relationships stabilise and this transitional cycle is complete. We are convinced, however, that the trio will eventually find their own happy equili brium. The change is natural, and in evitable. The transformation of Kilkee — for which the catalysts are, equally, apathy and greed — is another matter entirely. It used to be embarrassingly easy to recognise an Australian feature film — they tended to be raw, and awkward, with the characters generally balanced perilously between cliche and carica ture. This, happily, is no longer the case. Our films now distinguish them selves more by their understatement. The humour and the drama are rather low-key, the colours rich and muted. The productions have coherence and assurance, but thankfully without Holly wood’s gloss and bravado. The comedy, when it peeps out, is delightful. The drama rests comfortably on solid scripting and characterisation, and evocative mise-en-scene. Films like Bliss and Malcolm excelled in these areas, and they are some of the charms of The Place A t The Coast. M elinda Houston T H E P L A C E A T T H E C O A S T : D irected b y G e o rg e Ogilvie. Pro d u ce r: H ilary Furlong. S c re e n p la y : H ilary Furlong. Director of photography: Je f f Darling. Editor: N ich olas B e a u m a n . Prod uctio n designer: O w e n Patter son. M usic: C hris Neal. Cast: Jo h n H a rg re a v e s (Neil M cA d a m ), H eath e r M itchell (M arg ot R ya n ), T ushka B e rg e n (Ellie M cA d a m ), M arg o L e e (M a y R yan), Willie Fennell (Fre d R yan), G a rry M cD o n a ld (D a n Bu rroug hs), Ju lie Ham ilton (E n id Bu rroug hs), R a y M e a g h e r (U n c le D oug), M ich ele F a w d o n (A unt H elen). Prod uctio n co m pany: D a e d e lu s II Film s/New South W a le s Film C o rp o ra tion. Distributor: Ronin. 35m m . 93 minutes. Australia. 1987.

• HIGH TIDE Cinema has no shortage of truisms, but “ One director, one story” is among the more valid of them. Gillian Armstrong’s story, to which she returns in every film, is that of a woman faced with a crucial career choice. As she reviews a range of un attractive alternatives, various trivial men and one serious one vie for her attention. But in the end she rejects all of them, electing to go on unloved but independent. Elements of this theme are apparent even in Armstrong’s apprentice works, particularly The Singer A n d The Dancer (though the girl, to the chagrin of most audiences, loses her nerve at the last minute). And it’s sexually transposed in Satdee N ight where the central character is a man ‘coming out’ at his first gay dance. In Hundred A Day, still one of Armstrong’s most moving early films (and her favourite), she pared the theme to the core. Men don’t appear, only their handiwork: the foetus the girl aborts, and the pounding shoe factory in which she must turn out her “ hundred a day” or lose her job. “ I had a baby . . . now it’s gone,” she mourns, and the camera pulls away jerkily along a row of

identical terraces. Security can be bought, but only with blood and pain. At the core of the Armstrong story is the preoccupation of all her work — the price that women must pay. All Arm strong’s heroines share a vision of them selves as property, a sexual and social commodity to be bartered for what they want and need. Sybylla Melvyn, Jackie Mullens and Kate Soffel are traded by men on an emotional stock exchange which assesses and values them as objects: Sybylla as a paid tutor to the McSwats and a prospective wife, Jackie, as a prime cut on the meat-rack of the rock business, Kate Soffel as a prop to her husband’s career. None of them takes issue with this fact of life. What they want and finally seize is the right to sell themselves and keep the profits. Armstrong elects to teach the lesson again in H igh Tide. Lilli (Judy Davis) amalgamates aspects of all three Arm strong heroines — the troublemaker of M y Brilliant Career, the rock singer of Starstruck, the mother of M rs Soffel. She’s a back-up singer to Lester (Frankie J. Holden), an Elvis clone who tours the rural clubs. An end-of-season appear ance in a seaside resort coincides with one of Lilli’s fits of mischief, and when Lester pulls out she’s left behind, literally on the beach. Stranded with a busted car and no money to pay the repair bills, Lilli hides out in a caravan park on the windy point above the ocean. Ally (Claudia Karvan), a young girl who lives in the park, intrigues her, but it’s not until she sees the girl’s grandmother Bet (Jan Adele) and recognises her mother-in-law that she realises Ally is her daughter, abandoned years before after her surfer husband’s premature death. So far, so false. This is fifties human ism of the sort one hoped the Australian cinema had discarded along with docu mentary realism, and the plot has an almost • ritual predictability. Lilli will agonise over whether to reveal herself, haggle with a mother-in-law who still reveres the memory of her son, and finally face the choice: to leave Ally in ignorance, or accept the satisfactions — and the responsibility — of middle-aged motherhood. O ne’s reminded irresist ibly of the old T V series Route 66, where Marty Milner and George Maharis breezed into town every week in their convertible, struck a personality problem almost before they’d parked, and roared away next morning to the waves and smiles of those they had reconciled overnight. Laura Jones wrote this story origin ally as a vehicle for a man but, inevit ably, Armstrong reversed the sex. The transposition has its awkward moments. Lilli’s affair with loner Colin Friels is perfunctory, largely a series of doleful reaction shots and a final (though, for the plot, crucial) meeting with Ally. Ally’s preoccupation with surfing sits oddly in the story, too prominent to be a detail, too brief for a theme (a difficulty due in part, says Armstrong, to

problems in finding a convincing stunt double). Bet’s private life also intrudes into what should be, almost to the exclusion of all else, the love story of Lilli and Ally. But Lilli spying with erotic fascination on her daughter as she shaves her legs; mother and daughter meeting on the beach like lovers; meals shared at the hamburger bar where the nearby presence of adolescent boys is almost a physical threat — these scenes show the script of H igh Tide at its best. They dovetail with others where Davis and Armstrong illustrate the role of women as property. Short of the money to rescue her car, Lilli con templates fucking the young mechanic, a scene played to the very lip of embarrassment but redeemed by her belated and self-deprecating acknow ledgement of just how easy it is to dis card one’s principles. She carries that tone into a striptease performed for the rowdies of the local club to earn the repair money. In the least sensual strip of recent years, she lopes towards the camera, peeling off her costume as if it defiles her flesh. The men are buying nothing but cast-offs. Gaunt, pallid, dishevelled, Judy Davis is convincing as a piece of debris from the wreck of the sixties. But it’s Karvan as Ally who truly dominates the film. Accomplished in the war of emotions, she probes for feelings as if they’re mines, maintaining a hauteur that would not be misplaced in an Eric Rohmer film. It’s an impressive debut. Gillian Armstrong is the most original director working in Australia today, and while H igh Tide is not the major work we had the right to expect after M rs Soffel, it shows her exercising her skills with un diminished vigour. But why does a director skilled with extremes of obses sion concern herself with a show-waddywaddy singer in a tinsel wig for whom the pinnacle of wisdom is Bob Dylan’s lyrics for ‘Dark Eyes’? How long before a writer adapts those classical models of the Woman Alone — Electra, Antigone, Iphigenia — to a director uniquely qualified to film them? Joh n B axter H IG H T ID E : D irected b y Gillian A rm strong. Pro d u ce r: S a n d r a Le v y. S c reen p la y : L a u ra Jo n e s . D irector of photography: Russell B o yd . Editor: N ick B e au m a n . M u sic consultants: M ark Moffatt, R ic k y Fataar. P ro d u c tion designer: Sa lly Cam pbell. Cast: J u d y D a vis (Lilli), J a n A d e le (Bet), C la u d ia K a rv an (Ally), Colin Friels (M ick), Jo h n Clayton (Col), M o n ic a T ra p a g a (Tracey), Frankie J . H olden (Lester). Prod uctio n co m p a n y: S J L Productions. Distributor: Film pac. 35m m . 100 minutes. Australia. 1987.

• VINCENT More than any other artist, Vincent van Gogh is the archetypal expressionist. His tragic life and eventual suicide have established him as the very model of the tormented artist working at the fringes of society. It therefore comes as no sur prise that Paul Cox should choose to make a documentary on this artist, given Cox’s apparent reverence for >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 45

< (artistic) suffering a n d h ig h -a rt values. E ven the em phasis on v an G o g h ’s d eath in the tid e is a sure sign th a t suffering an d d eath are key issues here. I t ’s the old cliche th a t to be tru ly creative (an d u ltim ately to possess ‘g e n iu s’) one m u st go b ey o n d the to lerances of bourgeois society to the very lim its o f existence. O n ly in this w ay can o n e ’s a rt be ‘a u th e n tic ’. G iv en this scenario, it is su rp risin g th a t C ox has tak en such a passive m eth o d to tell this story. H e has used no n a rra tio n o th e r th a n the text of the letters th a t v an G ogh w rote to his b ro th e r T h eo , w ho su p p o rted the artist th ro u g h o u t his life. O n e gets the feeling th a t this m e th o d w as chosen to allow the artist to ‘speak for h im s e lf w ith o u t the ex tern al in te rv en tio n of the film m aker. S uch a p p a re n t objectivity com es as a w elcom e change from C ox, w ho m ig h t have b a rra g e d us w ith the k in d of o v er blow n h y steria he gave us in M y First Wife. In stea d , we are p rese n ted w ith im ages of D u tc h an d F re n ch landscapes as E nglish acto r J o h n H u rt reads v an G o g h ’s letters d escribing his s u rro u n d ings. T h is m u ch of the film could be m istaken for a fairly blan d d o cu m e n tary , w ere it n o t for flashes of C o x ’s by now fam iliar S uper-8 footage — here m ain ly as fleeting im ages of the flowers

th a t fascinated v an G o g h in his la te r life. T h is ch aracterises th e early p arts of the film. T h e n a cu rio u s th in g h ap p en s: as the letters com e to discuss v an G o g h ’s social an d political e n v iro n m e n t, ra th e r th a n ju s t his physical su rro u n d in g s, we are show n rec o n stru ctio n s of v ario u s scenes, from a tableau vivant of ‘T h e P o tato E a te rs ’ to a F re n ch b a r setting, all shot from v an G o g h ’s subjective p o in t of view . (H e re C o x really p u ts h im self into v an G o g h ’s shoes: th e cam era becom es th e artist — d a rtin g this w ay an d th a t, lo o k in g th ro u g h w indow s, ap p ro a ch in g p ro stitu tes . . .) T o m y m in d , these scenes fit u n c o m fo rt ably w ith th e rest of th e film , an d one w onders w hy C o x felt th e m necessary. I t ’s as th o u g h he felt th a t th e film lacked the d ra m a n eed ed to su stain it, or was m erely too dry. In d ee d , th ey sm ack of b ad BBC d ram a s (o r th e co rn y m a d m a n ’s-eye-view fo u n d in every J a c k the R ip p e r d ra m a ), especially the lu d icro u s sim ulation of v an G o g h ’s suicide w here the ca m e ra flies u p to w ard s th e sky an d th e n staggers off u p a c o u n try lane. Vincent m ig h t have b een saved by th e stren g th of th e letters: th e ir a p p a re n t clarity belies th e ex trem e difficulty w ith w hich v an G ogh ex p erien ced th e w orld. It is fru stra tin g th a t (p re su m a b ly because the letters d id n o t describe

We suppose that John Carpenter’s Elvis was the first popular music biopic explicitly to link rock stars and death. There’s a gold mine in the idea of course, if the genre can be excavated deeply and widely enough. Buddy Holly has been done. John Lennon. J O’K. Sid. Now Ritchie Valens. The Big Bopper must be next (HELL-ow BAY-bee is a great title.) Think of it: Johnny Ace, Sam Cooke, Eddie Cochran, Frankie Lymon — and, for the nineties, The End, Nothing Left To Lose, Crash Landing, Bang A Gong, Paint It Black, Stairway To Heaven, Cobwebs And Strange and I f I Should Die Tonight (a small prize for the first correct list of performers to reach us at Cinema Papers). La Bomba is more than that of course, but death is written all over the eighties face of Lou Diamond Phillips, who plays Ritchie. He is thin and taut, and even at rest his body seems to twitch. It is hard to imagine anyone physically farther removed from Valens, who looked sort of like a refrigerator. The film opens with a dream of two planes crashing into one another, raining their debris onto a schoolyard of playing children, and the dream is repeated more than once. Ritchie’s half-brother Bob (Esai Morales) is a. bikie dressed in black, and all the rock ’n’ roll greats Valens meets are dead men today. For all that, La Bomba is not morbid (as Elvis, for example, is). We suspect that the film’s covert project is the virtual antithesis of death, which may be one reason that ‘La Bamba’, traditionally a song sung at weddings, serves so well as its title. It is the song, rather than the

46 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

th em ) several key issues o f v an G o g h ’s life are left u n e x a m in e d . B ecause v an G o g h sp en t m u c h of his tim e p h ilo so phising ab o u t th e w o rld , we are n o t given m u c h m a teria l a b o u t his p erso n a l affairs, p articu la rly his frien d sh ip s w ith G au g in an d P issarro . T h is suggests th a t the v iew er should know so m e th in g o f the details o f v an G o g h ’s life before seeing this film — an d yet in th a t case, th e film is p ro b ab ly n o t in te re stin g e n o u g h to reco m m en d . C o x ’s visual sense is n o t sufficiently dev elo p ed a d e q u ately to co m p lem en t the stren g th of th e letters. T h u s we see ra th e r u n in sp ire d shots of the F re n ch co u n try sid e at A rles, an d in d eed the p ain tin g s them selves: C o x could n o t resist th e slow zoom u p to v an G o g h ’s eyes (ah yes, th e eye of th e artist) in the m a n y self-portraits. T h e overall im p ressio n I h av e is th a t C ox lacked th e good ideas to m ak e the p ro ject really w o rth w h ile. W h ile th e film m ay serve as a fair in tro d u c tio n to the artist a n d his w ork, th e b la n d n ess of its ex ecution m akes it a n u n satisfy in g experience. Richard Brown V IN C E N T — T H E L IF E A N D D E A T H O F V IN C E N T V A N G O G H : Directed by Paul Cox. Prod ucers: Tony Llewellyn-Jones, Will Davies. Director of photography: Paul Cox. Production designer: A sh e r Bilu. Production com pany: Illumination Films. Distributor: V illage R o a d show. 35mm. 99 minutes. Australia. 1987.

singer, which focuses and identifies this film. ‘La Bamba’, as you hear it in this film or as Ritchie Valens sang it in 1958, is a key event in the formation of American popular culture. Not only is it a dynamite song (the basis of the Isley Brothers’ Twist And Shout, covered by You Know Who in 1963, and Russell Byrd’s The Letter), it is a dynamite rock ’n ’ roll song sung in Spanish. The film goes out of its way to tell us that Valens did not speak Spanish (something the usual rock sources do not mention), and to situate ‘La Bamba’ deep inside a peculiar mythos which is

constructed in a kind of a tangent to the usual rock ’n ’ roll teenage mythos which also permeates the film (high school, young love, an irresistible urge to make music, the business and so on). Permit us to elucidate. The film gives Ritchie that noumenal half-brother we already mentioned, a character who is remarkably absent in most accounts of Valens life (this does not mean that Valens did not have a half-brother, Bob, only that earlier accounts are imagining one kind of hero and that La Bamba is imagining another). Bob is a small time crook (he runs weed), a wastrel (possibly with some drawing ability), and a drunk,

• NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS W es is back a n d so is N an cy an d h er dad, an d of course F re d d y ’s still a ro u n d , and so the th ird in stalm en t of the ad v e n tures o f the Nightmare On Elm Street kids is som ething of a reu n io n . T h e first three personages have d ifferent roles: W es C rav en , d irec to r of the e x tra o rd in a ry original, is m o re in the b a c k g ro u n d this tim e as a u th o r o f the story, one of the two screenw riters an d co-executive p ro ducer; the first child resid e n t of the m ost h au n ted house in the street, N ancy T h o m p so n , has blossom ed into a psychiatrist specialising in d rea m dis orders; J o h n T h o m p so n has h u n g up his handcuffs an d m oved o u t of tow n; and F reddy K ru e g e r is still F red d y K ru e g er, though even w ith him changes are in evidence. T h e d ire c to r’s jo b goes to novice C h u ck R ussell, w hose screen w riting credit on th a t w onderful little m ovie Dreamscape tells us th a t he know s a th in g or two ab o u t w hat h ap p e n s w hen we close o u r eyes. T h e task of the sequel is to negotiate a relationship betw een the past an d the future — to create a space w hich, while consistent w ith the in teg ral elem ents of

who neglects and abuses his pregnant girl friend. He also has a close and intense relationship with Ritchie. And, as a critical juncture in the film, he takes the kid to Tijuana. In Bob’s mind the idea is to get Ritchie laid, but his aim is deflected when the budding rock star spots a jerocho band playing ‘La Bamba’ and goes to sit in. This is the first time that the song is heard in the film, and the moment is, as you can see, loaded with significance (tradition, sex, innocence). There is more to come, for Ritchie awakes in a hut surrounded by dried desert things and he

and Bob converse with a wise old man who gives him a talisman which Bob will later tear from Ritchie’s neck shortly before he dies. You might say that this sequence is the spiritual heart of the film, tracing not Ritchie but ‘La Bamba’ back to its roots. For when we hear the song again it has been transformed into rock ’n ’ roll: it has become ‘American’ while losing nothing of its ‘Mexican’ heritage. ‘La Bamba’ transforms Ritchie too. When he sings it in New York (in a sequence which directly intersects with American Hot Wax), he calls it “ a rattlesnake” and brings the house down, punching it home

the original, projects th em in to a co m pletely new set o f circum stances. T h e m akers o f Dream Warriors decided to b y pass the in terestin g , if less am b itio u s and com plex first sequel, Freddy’s Revenge, in w hich C rav e n h ad no involvem ent. T h ey cleverly in v en t a p re-histo ry for E lm S treet — a b irth for F reddy — in tro d u ce m a n y new ch a rac ters, an d fully exploit the potential in h e re n t in th e sequel. All of this m akes A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 one o f the best follow -ups as well as a film w hich stands on its ow n. T h e th ird film m akes m o re explicit — or, p erh ap s m o re accu rately , ex ag g er ates — m a n y of the them es of the first. T his strategy opens u p g rea ter d ram a tic and com ic possibilities b u t also risks m ak in g the events seem totally rid ic u lous. T h e film tread s the fine line betw een these two an d inevitably p ro duces elem ents of both. T h e scenario begins thus: it is some years after the ‘u n se ttlin g ’ events of Elm S treet an d they have b een erased from collective m em o ry , w hen a d istu rb in g tren d begins to em erge — teenage suicide. A group of seven teens ( “ the last kids of E lm S tre e t” ) who have attem p ted this trag ic solution to their problem s are b ein g hou sed at W estin H ills P sy ch iatric H o sp ital. K risten

with angry urgency (such as the real Ritchie Valens never had). It is an anthem of identity, a moment of, yes, appropriation, a signal of fusion and defiance. We think the defiance part is pretty important, because it is too easy to brand what is going on here as ‘assimilation’ when that is not it at all. This is assertion, control — not submission, not going under. One measures the canniness of films like this by the ways in which they use convention. Rock biopix tend to make much of mass adulation: the performer and the crowd are regarded with wary fascination. La Bamba is not much concerned with the masses. It makes Ritchie’s San Fernando Valley neighbourhood into his audience, his friends into his fans. The com m unity of the film is modest, local — and possible. And in the end, what might have been a romantic ‘folk’ vision of a troubadour and his village transcends that in its eminent practicality. This is the most we can effect, the film seems to say: a shout and standing up together. It is good enough. B ill and Diane Routt LA BAMBA: Directed by Luis Valdez. Producers: Taylor Hackford, Bill Borden. Executive producer: Stuart Benjamin. Screenplay: Luis Valdez. Director of. photo graphy: Adam Greenberg. Editors: Sheldon Kahn, Don Brochu. Production designer: Vince Cresciman. Music: Carlos Santana, Miles Goodman. Cast: Lou Diamond Phillips (Ritchie Valens), Esai Morales (Bob Morales), Rosana De Soto (Connie Valenzuela), Elizabeth Pena (Rosie Morales), Danielle von Zerneck (Donna Ludwig), Joe Pantoliano (Bob Keene), Rick Dees (Ted Quillin), Marshall Crenshaw (Buddy Holly), Howard Huntsberry (Jackie Wilson), Brian Setzer (Eddie Cochran). Produc tion company: New Visions. Distributor: Fox Columbia. 35mm. 108 minutes. USA. 1987. i

HAVE GUITAR, WILL TRAVEL: Lou Diamond Phillips

(P atricia A rq u e tte , R o s a n n a ’s sister) is the first o f th em to be in tro d u ced . She is b u ild in g a p ap ier m ach e house w hich h ap p en s to be an exact replica of N a n c y ’s old abode, w here all the tro u b le started. W h en K ris te n ’s m o th e r arrives hom e from a date she finds th a t h er d au g h ter has (ap p a re n tly in v o lu n tarily ) slashed h er w rists. K risten is ad m itted to the hospital, an d placed u n d e r the care o f D r N eil G o ld m a n n (C raig W asson), a concerned b u t p erp lex ed psychiatrist who has an em p ath y w ith the kids n ot shared by the m o re strictly d o ctrin aire D r E lizab eth Sim m s (Priscilla P o in ter). D r N a n c y T h o m p s o n ( H e a th e r L a n g e n k a m p ) rea lise s th a t y o u n g K risten possesses the ability to d raw the others into h er d ream s, an d it is obvious to N ancy (because sh e’s been th ro u g h it all) th at th ere is a direct link betw een the y o u n g ste rs’ fear of falling asleep an d d rea m in g an d th e ir suicide attem pts. F red d y K ru e g e r (R o b e rt E n g lu n d ) has quite literally rea re d his ugly h ead again. T h e task is, w ith h y p n o tism an d a new ex p erim en tal d ream su p p ressan t d ru g , to fight h im in th e ir d ream s, on the old hom e g ro u n d she an d F red d y share. As a teen m ovie, Dream Warriors m akes som e cruel if extrem ely funny jokes ab o u t h u m a n p o ten tial an d the >

< capacities o f the kids to act o u t th e ir fantasies. R u d e ly fateful en d in g s aw ait som e of these fresh-faced teens. J e n n ife r (P en elope S ud ro w ), w ho w an ts m o re th a n a n y th in g else in th e w orld to be on T V , gets h e r w ish ra th e r sooner th a n ex pected w hen F re d d y tu rn s up as an u n in v ite d guest on ‘T h e D ick C a v ett S h o w ’ (the in v ited guest is Z sa Z sa G ab o r) a n d (shades o f Videodrome) helps the T V set to grow arm s a n d ra m the y o u n g g irl’s h e a d into it. J o e y (R o d n ey E astm an ), w ho fancies one o f the n u rses, is p lu n g e d in to a seem ingly ‘re a l’ seduction before we le a rn th a t F re d d y is th e cu lp rit. U n d e rsta n d a b ly , th e kids go to e x tra o rd in a ry lengths to stay aw ake. W h e n they stick to g e th er, w ith N a n c y ’s help, they are n o t too far aw ay from th e u p liftin g scenarios of m o re co n v en tio n al te en films. In A Nightmare On Elm Street, th e te e n agers w ho get th e ir co m eu p p a n ce are the ones w ho succum b to the pleasu res of th e flesh, o r excessive am o u n ts o f T V an d heavy m etal. A lth o u g h N an c y is p u rsu e d th ro u g h m u c h of the film , h e r C h ristia n faith an d p u rity are im plicitly w h at saved her. B ut it is the p a re n ts w ho are directly responsible for th e ir child r e n ’s sins: m a rria g e b rea k -u p s, ta k in g on new lovers, neglect, alcoholism an d lack of u n d e rsta n d in g are th e ro o t causes; the d isru p tio n o f th e n u c le a r fam ily ideal. T h e guilt o f the older g en e ratio n is em p h asised m u c h m o re strongly in Dream Warriors, as is th e social o rig in of th e k id s’ p roblem s. E v e ry th in g is th a t m u c h w eirder: F re d d y ’s story, the C h ristian ity an d the o v errid in g h o rro r o f (the real cu lp rit, the real evil) obses sive, u n co n tro llab le m ale sexuality! Y ou b e tte r believe th a t no one has ever looked m o re like a w alking, w rin k led p enis in m a n ’s clothing th a n F red d y . In one of K ris te n ’s n ig h tm ares, he actually tu rn s into an en o rm o u s dick, his h ea d la u g h in g hysterically on the en d o f it.

T h e final m a g n ifice n t b a ttle takes place on tw o fronts: in th e ca r w reck ers w here F re d d y ’s b o n es are b u rie d a n d in the la b y rin th in e b ase m e n t o f N a n c y ’s old house. F re d d y can literally be ev e ry w here at once, a n d so th e d istan ce betw een these tw o locations causes few p roblem s. T h e c u ttin g b etw een th e two is v ery im pressive, as are som e o f th e effects in th e b ase m e n t — in p a rtic u la r a hall of m irro rs, an y o f w hich F re d d y can a p p e a r in to g rab one o f th e kids (no, n ev e r in C o c te a u ’s w ildest . . .). In m o d e rn h o rro r film s an y set o f ex p ectatio n s co n c ern in g consistency of n a rra tiv e d ev elo p m en t can be o v er tu rn e d , especially in th e service o f p ro d u cin g an o th e r sequel, an d this film is no exception. P erh ap s it is sim ply th a t good ca n n o t be allow ed to triu m p h o ver evil. D o u b lin g b etw een N an c y a n d F re d d y in tro d u ces a d eg ree o f a m b ig u ity to the co n v en tio n ally M a n ic h e a n d iffer en tiatio n . T h e ap p e aran c e of th e little girls sk ip p in g an d sin g in g th e ir sw eet, in n o c en t rh y m e, w ith seem ingly sin ister overtones, rem a in s as a c o u n te rp o in t to the fear p ro d u ce d by th e m o st d eadly m ale presence. Dream Warriors b egins w ith a q u o te from Poe ab o u t th e rela tio n sh ip b etw een sleep an d d ea th an d p roves eq u al to th e task of m a k in g it ap plicable ra th e r th a n sim ply p rete n tio u s. It is u n fa ir to co m p are it w ith th e b eau tifu lly strea m lin ed original, b u t this is n o t necessary as th e film ’s b alan ce o f h o rro r, p ath o s a n d h u m o u r m ak e its excesses perfectly excusable. Andrew Preston A N IG H T M A R E ON ELM S T R E E T 3: D R E A M W A R R IO R S : Directed by C h u ck Russell. Prod ucer: Robert Sh ay. Screenp lay: W e s C raven, B ru c e W a g n er. Director of photography: R o y W a g n er. Editor: Terry Stokes. Music: Angelo Badalam enti. Cast: Robert Englund (F re d d y Krueger), Patricia Arquette (Kristen), H eather Lan g e n kam p (Dr N a n c y Thom pson), Craig W a sso n (Dr Neil Goldm ann), Priscilla Pointer (D r Eliza beth Sim m s), Pen e lo p e Su d ro w (Jennifer), R o d n e y Eastm an (Jo e y ). Production co m pany: N e w Line Films. Distributor: S e v e n K eys. 35mm. 96 minutes. U S A . 1987.

FREDDY REARS HIS UGLY HEAD: Patricia Arquette’s worst dreams come true

48 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

• GARDENS OF STONE F ran cis C o p p o la h as n o t y et re tu rn e d from th e jo u r n e y in to A m e ric a ’s rec en t p ast th a t h e b e g a n w ith Peggy Sue Got Married. H o w ev er, u n lik e th e ro u n d trip th a t P eggy S ue Bodell to o k to a p ast th a t sh arp ly d efin ed h e r p re se n t, C o p p o la ’s m o st rec en t film , Gardens O f Stone, offers no such p ersp ectiv e, n o r does it m e a su re itself w ith easily id en tifiab le ch a racters. In its d ep ictio n o f a n o th e r tim e an d place, Gardens of Stone is static, its c h a ra c ters, situ atio n a n d ethics sh ro u d e d b y a p allo r th a t is so m ew h at reg ressiv e, b o th in te rm s o f C o p p o la ’s c a reer a n d th e m o re g en eral co n tex t o f film s ab o u t V ie tn a m . A p p ro p ria tely , Gardens O f Stone is fra m ed an d h a u n te d b y th e sp ectre of d eath . M o st o f th e film ’s ac tio n takes place at A rlin g to n M e m o ria l C e m e te ry w here th e m e m b ers o f th e O ld G u a rd , th e toy soldiers w ho m a in ta in th e a r m y ’s profile on th e h o m e fro n t, g raciously an d cerem o n io u sly lay to rest th e victim s o f th e w a r in V ie tn a m . A m id st a n obses sional fascin atio n w ith th e ritu a ls o f arm y life, th e film trac es th e fate o f th e b u d d in g , idealistic re c ru it Ja c k ie W illow (D .B . S w eeney), b e g in n in g a n d e n d in g in th e cold e a rth o f A rlin g to n , slowly an d aw k w ard ly m e a n d e rin g to its foregone conclusion. T h e r e ’s no d o u b t th a t Gardens O f Stone at least p ro p o ses a refre sh in g an gle on th e A m e ric a n ex p erien ce o f V ie tn a m . W ith th e ex cep tio n o f tw o b rie f in serts of archival footage, th e film is u n lik e m o st o th e r w ar film s in th a t it tak es place alm ost en tirely on th e h o m e fro n t. In a n o th e r’s h a n d s, it m ig h t h av e b e e n a richly evocative film a b o u t th e p assin g o f an era, th e loss o f in n o cen ce, th e w o rk ings o f in stitu tio n s, th e w istfulness o f age a n d th e n aiv e im p e tu o sity o f y o u th . D isa p p o in tin g ly , h o w ev er, Gardens O f Stone d o e sn ’t o p en o n to m u c h o u tsid e of its ow n n a rro w a n d in su la r confines. T h e film ’s p rim a ry rela tio n sh ip is b etw een W illow a n d S e rg e a n t C lell H a z a rd (Jam e s C a a n ), a d ec o rate d vet an d old w a r b u d d y o f W illo w ’s fath er. W illow looks to H a z a r d for p a te rn a l g u id an ce, especially after his ow n fath e r dies d u rin g th e co u rse o f th e film . T o n ea d y b alan ce th e e q u a tio n — fath e r an d son, te a c h e r a n d p u p il — H a z a r d ’s son is in th e cu sto d y o f his ex-w ife. D ecidedly m a d e o f th e T ig h t s tu f f , W illow quickly ea rn s his stripes a n d a place at th e g ro w n -u p s’ ta b le w ith H a z a rd a n d a b lack S e rg e a n t-M a jo r G o o d y N elso n (Jam e s E arl Jo n e s). D esp ite th e c a m a ra d e rie a n d resp ect th a t th e m e n dev elo p , th e re re m a in s a basic rift b etw een W illo w ’s u n fled g in g w ish to serve his c o u n try (his iro n -w illed d e te rm in a tio n could b e O liv e r N o r th ’s w et d re a m ) a n d H a z a r d ’s w istful p red ic tio n o f th e V ie tn a m W a r; “ I t ’s n o t even a w ar. T h e r e ’s n o th in g to w in an d no w ay to w in i t , ” h e says. P lain ly eschew ing th e issue o f resp o n sib ility for th e so ld ier’s d e a th , th e film su rre n d e rs to th e easy o p tio n o f sim ply m a k in g

W illo w a n h o n o u re d h ero . T h e film ’s tre a tm e n t o f th e savvy, su p p o sed ly a n ti-w a r jo u r n a lis t S a m a n th a D av is (A n jelica H u s to n ), w ith w hom H a z a r d h as a re la tio n sh ip , is d o w n rig h t cynical. She is a to k e n p a rtic ip a n t in th e p eace m o v e m e n t a n d th e film p rim a rily re q u ire s h e r to w ait in th e w ings as H a z a r d ’s su p p o rtiv e p a r tn e r, p re fe rrin g to n o t allow th e ir differences to h in d e r th e ir re la tio n sh ip . N o th in g is allow ed to m a r th e sy m p a th e tic p o rtra y a l o f th e m ilita ry . D if ferences o f o p in io n a n d ch allenges to the o rd e r — such as th e w ish o f W illo w ’s e v e n tu a l wife R a c h e l (M a ry S tu a rt M a ste rso n ) to be free o f th e vestiges o f m ilita ry life — are o v erco m e, o r ra th e r, sid e-step p ed , by h a v in g th e c h a ra c te r sw allow th e b a it a n d h u m b ly e n d u re the co n seq u en ces. W ith a film as p ro p a g a n d ist as th is, it d o e s n ’t h elp in k n o w in g th a t it w as m a d e w ith th e full co -o p e ra tio n o f the U S A rm y ; o r th a t N icholas P ro ffitt, u p o n w hose novel th e sc re en p la y is b ased , says he w ro te the book, “ b ecause I d id n ’t like th e im ag e o f th e n o n -c o m m issio n ed o fficer” . A p a rt from the su sp icio n raise d by such claim s, its pitfalls are th e c o n triv ed story-lines a n d im p lau sib le c h a ra c te risa tio n s th a t are u sed to gloss o v er a b arely -co n cealed , se lf-c o n g ra tu la to ry hollow ness. P au l K a lin a G A R D E N S O F S T O N E : Directed by Fra n cis C oppola. P ro d u c e rs : M ich a e l I. L e v y , F ra n c is C o p p o la . S c reen p la y : R onald B a ss. B a s e d on the novel by N ich olas Proffitt. Director of photography: Jo r d a n C ronenw eth. Production designer: D e an Tavoularis. Editor: B a rry Malkin. M usic: C arm in e Co ppo la. Cast: Ja m e s C a a n (Clell H azard), A njelica H uston (Sa m a n th a Davis), Ja m e s Earl Jo n e s (G o o d y Nelson), D .B. S w e e n e y (Ja c k ie Willow), D ean Stockw ell (H om er Thom as), M ary Stuart M asterson (R a ch e l Field), Dick A nth ony W illiam s (Sla sh er William s), Lonette M c K e e (Betty R ae). Production co m p any: Zoetrope. Distributor: Fox Colum bia. 35mm. 111 minutes. U S A . 1987.

• EXTREME PREJUDICE W rite r-p ro d u c e r-d ire c to r W a lte r H ill is one o f th e few ra re excep tio n s to his g e n e ra tio n o f film m a k in g peers: he can m a k e g re a t ex citin g g en re m ovies. H is sense o f th e d iffe ren t g en eric co n v e n tio n s a n d visuals th a t fo rm th e classic H o lly w o o d c in e m a is u n c a n n y ; he can co n stru c t a n d tell a g en re m ovie w ith the clean -cu t u n c lu tte re d ec o n o m y o f a Siegel m o vie. H ill’s k in e tic e x p re ssio n ism a n d stro n g sto ry te llin g skills are clearly a rtic u la te d in his la test effort Extreme Prejudice. T h is finely c h o re o g ra p h e d ac tio n th rille r em b o d ies a solid g rasp o f fo rm u la film m ak in g : i t ’s a m o v ie th a t know s w h a t i t ’s a b o u t, w here i t ’s co m in g fro m a n d w h ere i t ’s going. H ill’s c h a ra c te ristic assu ra n c e as a g en re film m a k e r is ev id en t in fra m e afte r fra m e o f this ex citingly p ac ed an d d esig n ed m o v ie. A fte r th e in itial a p p e a r ance o f th e C h e sty B o n d lookalike J a c k B e n te en , a T e x a s R a n g e r (p erfo rm e d by th e b rillia n t N ick N o lte) a n d S h eriff H a n k P e a rso n (R ip T o rn ) , o ne realises

' ’’ « ■

'X S j M

« ¿ t- 3.W BEtL

WT ! « ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M V

.-¿«saF

XM M

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN? Nick Nolte (in hat) with para-military escort (in pyjamas)

th a t H ill h as clearly co m b in ed tw o d is tin c t genres: th e m ale actio n th riller an d the W e ste rn (alth o u g h th e la tte r a p p e ars in a m u c h m u te d fo rm ). Extreme Prejudice exhibits c e rta in traces o f a p a rtic u la r su b -g en re o f th e W e ste rn , n am ely , those m ovies w hich p re se n t th e cow boy in a m ilieu th a t is rap id ly b ec o m in g m e c h a n ised a n d w hich h e ra ld th e d ea th o f the g enre itself. T w o m ovies o f this k in d are P e c k in p a h ’s The Ballad O f Cable Hogue a n d D av id M ille r’s u n d e rra te d Lonely Are The Brave. B e n teen looks an d behaves like a W e ste rn e r. H e is rarely seen w ith o u t his w h ite h a t a n d his silver six-shooter. M a k e n o m istak e ab o u t it — B e n teen m e a n s bu sin ess. T h is h o m b re is o ne co n sp icu o u s, u p tig h t, a n a ch ro n istic cow boy liv in g in a spaceage cu ltu re diseased b y ra m p a n t crim e. D ru g -ru n n in g a n d daily violence are th e tw o essentials o f B e n te e n ’s m e n a c in g r u r a l h a b i t a t ( th e T e x a s - M e x ic o b o rd er). H ill tak es care to m ak e a lot o u t o f the in h o sp itab le am b ien c e o f the place. In this re g a rd he h as n o t lost sight of the im p o rta n c e o f la n d sca p e in th e W e ste rn . A n d w h at a place it is. I m m e d ia te ly , R a y m o n d B e l l o u r ’s descrip tio n o f T e x a s as a “ lost, crazy p la c e ” com es to m in d . W e are often p laced in d u sty , d esolate desert locales m a rk e d by th e occasional b ro k en -d o w n farm , o r rig h t sm ack in the m id d le o f a sm oke-filled ta v e rn full of rau c o u s ju k e m u sic w h ere d irt-p o o r A m eric an fa rm e rs a n d M e x ica n s d rin k th e ir blues aw ay in a c o m m u n a l b o n d of good tim es a n d illicit d ru g m o n ey . W h e th e r you a re rig h t o u t in th e scrubs o r back on th e m a in stree t o f B e n te e n ’s h o m e to w n o f B en rey , it d o e s n ’t m a tte r — i t ’s all red n e ck c o u n try re a d y to

explode. H ill delivers th e goods o n this score in several stu n n in g lo n g shot scenes o f explosions, w ith th e fram e ja m -p a c k e d w ith th e m o b ile d eb ris o f th e explosion like a J a c k so n P ollock can v as, o r in a m a n n e r re m in isc e n t o f Zabriskie Point, b u t in a m u c h q u ic k e r te m p o . B en teen , w ho possesses th e m o ra l c e rtitu d e a n d sin g le-m in d e d n ess o f R a n d o lp h S cott in a B o e ttich er w estern , is h a u n te d by th e u n c o m fo rta b le tru th th a t his g irlfrien d , S a rita ( M a r ia C o n ch ita A lonso), w as once th e m istress o f the le ad in g d ru g c rim in a l in th e are a, C a sh Bailey (P o w ers B o o th e). T o m ak e th in g s m o re co m p licated for th e T ex a s R a n g e r, b o th he a n d th e p sy ch o p ath ic C a sh w ere once ch ild h o o d frien d s. B en teen w ishes to refo rm C a sh , b u t i t ’s hopeless. T h e in te n sity o f a n ta g o n ism b etw een th e p ro ta g o n ist a n d a n ta g o n ist has b een cleverly m o d u la te d . I n a M ovie in terv iew w ith H ill n e a rly a d ecad e ago, th e film m ak er talk ed a b o u t how th e crim e o r d etectiv e g en re relies o n th e e s s e n ti a l c o n v e n t i o n o f c r e a t i n g an tag o n istic te n sio n b etw een th e m a in c h a ra c te r a n d th e a n ta g o n ist a n d how the film m ak er can m a k e th e sp e cta to r in to his o r h e r accom plice. Extreme Pre judice is a fine in stan c e o f this g en eric featu re. H ill pays h o m a g e to P e c k in p a h ’s re a l istic cin em a in m a n y th rillin g a n d atm o sp h e ric actio n scenes. W h a t w e can trac e in th e m o v ie are m a n y im p o rta n t th e m a tic a n d stylistic co n n e ctio n s to th e w o rk o f P eck in p ah a n d Siegel. A ll th re e film m ak ers are rela ted in te rm s o f th e ir careers as w ell in a m o re fu n d a m e n ta l sense o f b ein g im p o rta n t fig u res in g en re cin em a. P eck in p ah w o rk ed for Siegel as a sc rip tw riter (he also h a d a sm all role in >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 49

< S iegel’s Invasion O f The Body Snatchers) an d H ill ad a p te d J im T h o m p s o n ’s crim e novel The Getaway for P eck in p ah . E arlie r on in the m ovie P earso n , w ho is B e n te e n ’s fath er su rro g a te figure, u tte rs a hom ily w o rth y of W ill R o g e rs ab o u t how the rig h t w ay is the h ard e st w ay an d being evil is so easy. B en teen is a su rv iv o r because of his strict m orality. T e m p ta tio n is everyw here b u t like a good cow boy th a t he is, B enteen will n o t give in. H is A m erica is a hellish zone of absolute m e rc en a ry ethics an d in d iffer ence to the trad itio n al values of the c o u n try ’s fo u n d in g P ilgrim s. E v en the scorpions d o n ’t fare well in such a place. W e see Bailey, in a big, tig h t close-up, crush a scorpion in the palm o f his h a n d after p laying w ith it like a cat w ith a cau g h t m ouse. P re su m ab ly the scorpion we see is one of the several th a t featu re at th e b e g in n in g of The W ild Bunch, stru g g lin g ag a in st killer an ts an d observed by a n u m b e r of children. H ill, like P eck in p ah , explores the id ea of evil as an expression of en v iro n m en t. T h e n o n -d id actic m o ral energy of H ill’s m ovie suggests th a t evil is practically m a n -m ad e. Extreme Prejudice is an im p o rta n t, v ib ra n t genre m ovie, no t only for its allusions to the m a n y b ro a d e r concerns of the H ollyw ood genres of the W e ste rn an d the action th riller an d the filmm a k e r’s p ersonal respect for Siegel an d P eck inpah as tw o m a jo r d irectors of action m ovies. T h e re are also a s to u n d ing m om en ts th a t show H ill’s elastic ability to an im ate the fam iliar n a rra tiv e an d visual conventions of classical genre cinem a. If you are a fan of H ill’s cin em a then this is for you. If you are n o t fam iliar w ith his clever co m m en taries on genre film s th en this is a good sta rtin g p o in t. If you like action m ovies th e n this is also for you. G et m y drift.

collection of asso rted shoes a t th e b o tto m o f a flight o f stairs, a n d a sea. T h e re is a fam iliar m e th o d for ‘re a d in g ’ these kinds o f im ages, co m p re h e n d ing th e m as th e little ‘grace n o te s’, the m o m en ts of ep ip h an y , w hich a d o rn a h u m a n story. H e re is th e story in q u es tion: G erald in e (L a u re e n C hew ) lives w ith h e r m o th e r M rs T a m (K im C hew ). She is “ the best C h in ese d a u g h te r” to look after h e r m o th e r in this w ay, according to n e ig h b o u r A u n tie M a ry (Id a C h u n g ). H o w ev er, G erald in e is to rn inside, in a few d irectio n s — should she m a rry h e r b o y frien d R ic h a rd (Jo h n N ishio) in o rd e r ju s t to please h er m other? S ho u ld she m ove o u t an d live in d ep en d en tly like h e r frien d J u lia (C o ra M iao )? O r should she stay looking after h e r m o th e r — p articu la rly as M rs T a m is co nvinced th a t, at th e age of 62, acco rd in g to a fo rtu n e te lle r’s p r e diction, she is ab o u t to die? C lassic fam ily p ro b lem : th e conflict betw een d u ty to w ard s o n e ’s p are n ts, an d the desire to live o n e ’s ow n life. C lassic m o rta lity p ro b lem : how to die happily. W h a t b e tte r ag e n d a of ‘u n iv ersals’ for a h u m a n ist film? T h e W e ste rn critic fresh from th e latest W o o d y A llen, w ho also cultivates a taste for th e films of Y ashujiro O zu , know s well w h at to do w ith all those em p ty ‘pillow sh o ts’ o f cu rtain s an d shoes an d d in in g tables in Dim Sum: he o r she sees th e re th e signs of tim e passing, an d is rea ssu red th a t life goes on, th a t all w o u n d s will be h ealed, th a t ev ery th in g com es o u t in the etern al, u niversal w ash . . .

W a n g is fully aw a re o f this au d ien ce of sen tim e n tal W e ste rn h u m a n ists, an d he gives th e m a film th e y are su re to love. B u t this is o nly one face o f Dim Sum. In a film so reso lu tely ‘C h in eseA m e ric a n ’ — n e ith e r en tirely o ne n o r the o th er, an d d efin itely n o t th e two m eld ed in to th e sam e species — you m ig h t also expect th e existence of an o th er, m o re h id d e n face w hich can only be seen in a d ifferen t light. O n e th in g is for certain : w h ich ev er face you can see, i t ’s an ex cep tio n ally fine film . D im Sum b o th rep rese n ts, a n d plays o u t on its ow n surface, a series o f d iffer ences b etw een C h in ese a n d A m eric an ‘styles’. In a m a n n e r w hich is sim ilar in feel an d intelligence to som e o f th e g reat A m eric an com edies o f th e 1940s (by S turges, M c C a re y o r C a p ra ), W a n g at no p o in t lays d ow n a rig id o p p o sitio n b etw een tw o poles at ab so lu te sem an tic extrem es. R a th e r, he carefully grades the m a rk e rs o f ‘in -b e tw e e n n e ss’; som e C h in ese are m o re A m e ric a n th a n others. S om e o f th e c h a racters resist assim ilatio n in to th e A m eric an w ay of life (an d succeed o r fail in th e ir resist ance); o th ers asp ire to assim ilatio n (an d likewise succeed o r fail). T h e film m ilks its cleverest a n d m ost p o ig n a n t effects fro m th e a tte m p t to p r e cisely u n d e rsta n d th e play an d b alan ce of cu ltu ral forces in an y given actio n , reactio n , g estu re, affectation. M rs T a m m ig h t at first seem to be th e m o st ‘n a tu r ally ’ C h in ese o f all th e fam ily m e m b ers; b u t we are la te r to ld th a t “ sh e’s C h in ese w hen she w an ts to b e ” in o rd e r to “ get

John Conomos E X T R E M E P R E JU D IC E : Directed by W alter Hill. P ro ducer: Buzz Feitshans. Executive producers: Mario Kassar, A ndrew W ajna. Screenp lay: Deric W ashbu rn, H arry Kleiner. Story: Jo h n Milius, Fred Rexer. Director of photography: M atthew F. Leonetti. Editor: Freem an Davies. Production designer: Albert H eschon g. Music: Je r r y Goldsmith. Cast: Nick Nolte (Ja c k Benteen), Pow ers Boothe (C ash Bailey), M aria C onchita Alonso (Santa Cisneros), Rip Torn (Sheriff H ank Pearson), C la n cy Bro w n (Sgt Larry M cR ose), William Forsythe (Sgt B u ck Atwater), Matt Mulhern (Sg t D eclan Patrick Coker), Larry B. Scett (Sgt Charles Biddle), Dan Tullis J r (Sgt Luther Fry). Production co m pany: Tri-Star/Carolco Pictures. Distributor: Village R oadshow . 35mm. 104 minutes. U S A . 1987.

• DIM SUM W ay n e W a n g ’s D im Sum begins w ith a series o f shots th a t are n o t especially ab o u t the film ’s characters. A m o n g them : a c u rta in blow ing gently w ith the w ind; a b ird tw itterin g in a cage; a lo u n g ero o m ; a d in in g table; a n d finally, cars d riv in g along a m a in ro ad . T h e film ends on a v a ria tio n o f the sam e series of shots. T h e series has been ex p a n d ed , in key p u n c tu a tin g m o m e n ts th ro u g h o u t the story, to in clude a b ac k y ard , a

50 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

DIM SUM: Geraldine (Laureen Chew) and Uncle Tam (Victor Wong) celebrate his birthday

w h a t she w a n ts ” , w h ich is a ra th e r d iffe ren t gam e. A u n tie M a ry is fully co n v e rted to Dynasty, b u t th a t, as she ex p lain s, is b ec au se it is “ ju s t like the C h in e se soap o p e ra — sex, love a n d m o n e y ” . U n cle T a m (p lay ed by the b rillia n t com ic a c to r V ic to r W o n g ) ad o res A m e ric a n c in e m a a n d A m e ric a n w o m en alike, b u t b e m o a n s th e loss of th e m o st ex q u isite C h in ese recipes tr a d i tio n ally h a n d e d do w n from m o th e r to d a u g h te r. A n d ev en th e m o st en tirely W e ste rn ise d te e n a g e rs can get h ea rtily in to a g am e o f M a h j o n g . W a n g ’s sp e c ia l in te r e s t in th e C h in e se -A m e ric a n co m p ariso n cen tres o n th e q u estio n o f em o tio n s a n d th e ir ex p ressio n — th e dim sum o r ‘little b it o f h e a r t’ o f th e title. T h e A m e ric a n ideal of fam ily life, as le a rn t by U n cle T a m from h is e c sta tic ch ild h o o d m e m o ry o f C a p r a ’s You Can’t Take It With You, is th a t o f “ people la u g h in g a n d h u g g in g each o th e r a n d lo v in g each o th e r ” . T h e C h in e se are p o rtra y e d by W a n g as, by in c lin a tio n , less o p en ; M rs T a m p r o vides th e u n e m o tio n a l e x tre m e o f a n in sc ru ta b ility suggestive p e rh a p s o f deep self-rep ression. B u t h e re too th e film yields its m o st te llin g m o m e n ts fro m the slight shifts a n d ch an g es alo n g a sliding scale o f e m o tio n a l ex pressiveness, such as th e scene in w hich J u li a slow ly lets go h e r g rie f o v er h e r m o th e r ’s d ea th . T h e W e ste rn ise d side o f D im Sum itself is th is ‘h u m a n d r a m a ’ aspect. It is a d r a m a o f conflicting c u ltu ra l a n d e m o tio n a l ten d en c ies w hich resolve an d b le n d in to each o th e r in th e course of tim e. L in e a r tim e, th a t is, in w hich flow ers a n d people alike grow a n d die; a tim e p a in sta k in g ly m a rk e d o u t on a ca le n d a r o f fam ily ritu a ls g rea t a n d sm a ll. T h e s e r itu a ls c o n s tr u c t a ‘c o m m o n se n se ’ w o rld o f decisions th a t m u st be m a d e by each a n d every resp o n sib le in d iv id u a l a n d th e “ c a s u a l tie s” th a t follow fro m indecisio n o r b ad d ecision — th e te rm s o f e n d e a rm e n t of ev e ry d ay life. W a n g h as th e g en re o f ‘ev e ry d ay life’ w o rk ed o u t to a fault. D im Sum is e n tire ly co m p rised o f details: p re p a rin g a n d e a tin g food; c o m b in g h a ir; b ru sh in g te e th ; p u ttin g on re a d in g glasses; sw eep in g o u t th e back po rch ; h a n g in g clothes o n th e line; v isitin g o n e ’s n e ig h b o u r at a re g u la r tim e each d ay . . . T h is face o f D im Sum h as a n a p p ro p ria te m u sical score fe a tu rin g a zh e n g a n d a sax o p h o n e w h ich a lte rn a te p h rase s u n til th e final cred its w h en th ey play in h a rm o n y . T h e o th e r D im Sum is h a r d e r to d escrib e. It d o e s n ’t tak e place in lin e a r tim e, o r in th e bits o f space th a t can be u se d u p in a n a rra tiv e . It is e m p ty o f p u rp o sefu l ac tio n , a n d b are ly au d ib le ab o v e th e so u n d o f a single b ird o r a d ista n t m u r m u r o f traffic. It d escribes a w o rld w h ich ca n on no a c co u n t be m a d e ta n d e m w ith w h at th e c h a ra c te rs p e r ceive, feel o r th in k . O n th e c o n tra ry , it is th e w o rld w hich is all a ro u n d b u t co m p letely b e y o n d th e c o m m a n d o f these p eople w h o m W a n g rig o ro u sly h em s in for th e d u ra tio n o f each cry stallin e tw o-

shot o f th e film . A w o rld alw ays off screen, d ra in in g aw ay w ith o u t th e slightest ten sio n . A n d fre q u e n tly o n screen too, in all those ‘pillow sh o ts’ th a t are really a lot m o re th a n ju s t e p ip h an ic p u n c tu a tio n . W a y n e W a n g rea ch ed th e b o rd e r o f this w orld th ree y ears e a rlie r in Chan Is Missing, a n d realised full well th e co n d i tio n o f en try : a b a n d o n th e re a n y n o tio n of a n in d iv id u al consciousness, a ‘su b je c tiv ity ’, w hich can , th ro u g h force of will a n d rea so n , m a ste r a n d c o m p re h e n d all th in g s. N o t a cold w o rld by an y m e an s — in fact, it is full o f su rp rise, la u g h te r a n d w h im sy — b u t one sim ply u n b u rd e n e d of w eig h ty W e ste rn n o tio n s like d e s tin y , ch ro n o lo g y , id e n tity , m e a n in g . I c a n ’t give aw ay th e e n d in g of Dim Sum, b u t I can suggest th a t w h at it releases, like a b ird su d d en ly let loose from the h a n d to fly, is th e in tim a tio n o f this o th e r w orld th a t has b ee n th e re all along. G e ra ld in e le a rn s th a t th e re are no lo n g e r an y te rm s to be m e t, o r decisions to be m ad e. A n d in th e co n tex t o f w h at first a p p e ars as a h u m a n ist h o m ily d e d i cated to the n ecessary p a in o f fam ily r e s p o n s ib ility , t h a t ’s a su b v e rsiv e m essage in d eed . Adrian Martin D IM S U M - A L IT T L E B IT O F H E A R T : D irected by W a y n e W a n g . Prod ucers: Tom Sternberg, W a y n e W a n g , D ann y Yung. A sso ciate producer: Em ily Leung. Executive producer: Vincent Tai. Screen p la y : Terrel Seltzer. B a s e d on an idea by Terrel Seltzer, L au reen C hew , W a y n e W a n g . Director of photography: M ichael Chin. Music: Todd Boekelheide. Editor: R alph W ikke. Cast: L au reen C h e w (G eraldine Tam ), Kim C h e w (M rs Tam), Victor W o n g (U n cle Tam ), Ida F.O . C hu ng (Auntie M ary), C o ra M iao (Julia), Jo h n Nishio (Richard). P ro d u c tion co m pany: Project A. Partnership/A C IM P ro d u c tions film. Distributor: C E L . 35mm. 87 minutes. U S A . 1985.

• GROUND ZERO O n e p ro b lem in rev ie w in g an y film heavily re lia n t u p o n ‘su sp e n se ’ as a strateg y is how m u c h o f th e plot one divulges, a n d th e re fo re, to w h at d eg ree the im p a ct o f th e film is co m p ro m ised . In the case o f Ground Zero little w o u ld be gained by rev e alin g all, alth o u g h on first view ing th e re seem ed to be som e tro u b le so m e loose en d s, q u estio n s left u n an sw e re d , holes in th e plot. N o t so. M y second ex p o su re to th e film n o t only con firm ed , b u t am p lified th e feel in g th a t this is o n e o f th e finest A u s tra lian com m ercial fea tu re s o f th e eighties. F irst a n d fo rem o st, Ground Zero is an accom plish ed th rille r set in th e m ilieu of conspiracy a n d in trig u e o f th e R o y a l C o m m issio n in to th e B ritish n u clea r tests c a rrie d o u t in A u stra lia d u rin g the 1950s a n d 60s. T h e screen p lay , b y M a c G u d g e o n a n d J a n S ard i, is ta u t a n d suspenseful, the p ro d u c tio n v alu es h ig h , a n d th e d irectio n assertive. It is a cre d it to th e scrip tw riters th a t the film m a n ag e s to ad d ress so m a n y difficult a n d o ften ta n g e n tia l th em es, such as th e h id d e n p o litical ag e n d as of ‘se c u rity ’ services o p e ra tin g w ith in this c o u n try , th e E u ro p e a n a n n ih ila tio n of A b o rig in al c u ltu re a n d A u s tra lia ’s p ast

an d fu tu re links in W e ste rn n u c le a r strateg y , w ith o u t a p p e a rin g p a ra n o id or re so rtin g to b le ed in g h e a rt lib eralism . In fact, the focus o f Ground Zero seem s to be th e rela tio n sh ip b etw een ‘le g itim a te ’ p a ra n o ia a n d th e in d iv id u a l c itiz e n ’s ab ro g a tio n of m o ra l a n d political p o w er u n d e r th e guise o f ‘d e m o c ra c y ’ to the deceitful ‘b ack ro o m b o y s’, ex p erts in th e te ch n iq u e s o f m a in ta in in g th e statu s quo. T h e m o v ie o p en s o m in o u sly , as a rad io activ e R A A F L in co ln b o m b e r is u n e a rth e d n e a r M a ra lin g a , resid u e from th e B ritish ato m ic e x p e rim e n ta tio n 30 years ea rlier. It th e n cuts to H a rv e y D e n to n (p lay ed w ith re s tra in t by C o lin Friels) ato p a m o v ie cra n e sh o o tin g a B erkeleyesque a d v e rtisin g seq u en ce for T ex a n -sty le h o td o g s. In sta n tly we are ca ta p u lte d fro m th e ‘h o t’ colonial left overs o f th e p ast, to o u r c o n te m p o ra ry cu ltu ral bill o f fare. T h e se n tim e n t is la te r rein fo rced by a sa rd o n ic e x p a tria te B ritish officer, P ro sp e r G affn ey (D o n a ld P leasence), w h en he is c o n fro n ted by a black A m e ric a n soldier p atro llin g a ‘J o in t F a c ility ’ p e rim e te r fence (p re su m ably N u rru n g a r). “ N o th in g ch anges, only th e u n ifo rm s ,” he w arn s H a rv e y . “ T ru s t no o n e .” D e n to n ev e n tu a lly seeks o u t G affn ey after he le arn s th a t th e recluse m ay know so m e th in g a b o u t m issin g classified footage his m u rd e re d fa th e r film ed w hile w o rk in g as an A rm y c a m e ra m a n d u rin g the ato m ic tests. T h e old m a n is full of rem o rse for p a rtic ip a tin g in th e n u c le a r explosions, his com plicity in c o n ta m in a tin g th e blacks w ith rad io a ctiv e fallout, an d a fu n d a m e n ta l b e tra y a l o f tru st. H e is d riv en by a relig io u s v en g e an c e an d guilt, p ro cla im in g th a t “ w e ’ll all b u rn for w h at w e ’ve d o n e ” , b u t m a n ag e s to help D e n to n a n d w a rd off his foreign p u rsu e rs. T h is en ab les D e n to n to p rese n t ev idence on th e last d ay o f the C o m m issio n h e a rin g s w h ich he believes will conclusively p ro v e th a t th e B ritish w ere co n sp irin g to cover u p th e ex ten t o f th e ir rad io activ e fallout effects, especi ally u p o n th e b lack c o m m u n ity . T h e d eg ree o f so p h isticatio n o f plot an d c h a ra c te risa tio n in Ground Zero is a p p a re n t even in th e m o st p e rip h e ra l of ch aracters, ra n g in g fro m a p a rtia lly d e a f film lab te ch n ic ia n to th e officious A rm y film arch iv ist w hose p u b lic service ‘clo ck -w atch in g ’ is b rillian tly realised. E ven th e m in o r role o f a u b iq u ito u s A S IO spook (S tu a rt F aich n ey , r u th lessly d isp a tc h ed in o ne o f th e film ’s m o re o v ert referen ces to A n to n io n i’s Blow Up) is re n d e re d far m o re im p o rta n t th a n his cu m u lativ e screen tim e o f less th a n 30 seconds w o u ld suggest. A t th e ico n ic/sy m b o lic level th e film m a k e rs h a v e lik ew ise in te llig e n tly la y ered th e ir tex t w ith b ro a d e r asso cia tions. F o r ex am p le, in o n e co n tex t, w h en d ep icted as a T V sta tio n logo, th e sh ared c u ltu ra l m o tif o f tw o a d jac en t circles in te rsec ted b y p arallel lines c o n notes tran sfe re n ce o f in fo rm a tio n a n d c o m m u n ic a tio n , b u t w h en G affn ey scraw ls th e sym bol in th e o u tb a c k d irt a t >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 51

< the h ea d of his A borig in al c o m p a n io n ’s grave, it im plies a totem ic relationship of co m m u n io n betw een w orlds along a d re a m in g track. T h ro u g h o u t the film th e re is a co n stan t allusive b ack d ro p of in te rn a tio n a l c u rre n t affairs, p re d o m in a n tly conveyed by the television in H a rv e y ’s studio a p a rtm e n t; it depicts M X launches, footage of R e a g a n an d H aw ke m e etin g in W a sh in g to n to reaffirm the A N Z U S treaty , an d b u lletins co m m en tin g on the R o y al C om m ission h earings. H o w ever, the iro n y of the com m ercial T V sta tio n ’s failure to address the p e rtin e n t questions by kow tow ing to G o v e rn m e n t ‘D ’ notices w ould n o t be lost on public tele vision lobbyist M ac G u d g eo n . In this scenario, h av in g confronted the m o n o lithic influence of the intelligence co m m u n ity , it seem s the last th in g H arv ey will do (unlike R o b e rt R e d fo rd ’s in effectual th re a t to expose at the finale of 3 Days Of The Condor) is again rely u p o n th e establishm ent m ed ia for v indication an d support. Sim ilarly, the film is full of n ea t con tex tu al em bellishm ents, such as the g larin g tokenism of A S IO ’s A borig in al fro n t c o u n te r rec ep tio n ist, o r the P e rrie r-d rin k in g ch arm of a senior official (Jack T h o m p so n ) w ho relates to H arv ey the difficulty the o rg an isa tio n is h av in g in “ u p g ra d in g its im a g e ” . S u rprisingly, this very slickness of n a rra tiv e design an d m ise-en-scene in no w ay detracts from the b ro a d e r im plications o f deceit an d co rru p tio n p e r m e atin g the ‘h igh g r o u n d ’ of politics, diplom acy an d in terests of n atio n al security. F inally, in m a n y w ays Ground Zero seem s a logical synthesis an d ex pansion of two earlier A u stralian features, The Last Wave (1974) an d The Chain Reaction (1979), in th a t it blends its A borig in al m ythology (the A -bom bs “ k illed ” one tr ib e ’s d rea m in g ) w ith the fo rm er film ’s apocalyptic m e tap h o r/p ro p h ec y an d the la tte r’s depiction o f h egem onic forces atte m p tin g to cover-up n u clea r m ishaps via m u rd e r an d subterfuge. N o t su rp ris ingly, recognition of the M ad Max trilogy is also evident d u rin g the explo sive collision o f D e n to n ’s flam ing H o ld en van w ith a m ilitary je e p , an d in G affn ey ’s pseudo-religious cave p a in t ings, depictin g an A u stralian A rm a ged d o n akin to th a t related by the child survivors in Beyond Thunderdome. T h e rich com plexity of th e m atic m a teria l an d its associations in Ground Zero is m atch ed only by the p recision of execution an d its atte n tio n to detail. It also clearly d em o n strate s th a t this co u n try has the ta len t an d ability to p ro duce intelligent, com m ercial cin em a of the highest order. Mick Broderick G R O U N D Z E R O : Directed by M ichael Pattinson, B ru ce Myles. Producer: M ichael Pattinson. Screen p lay: Ja n Sardi, M a c G u dg eon . Director of photography: S te ve Dobson. Editor: David Pulbrook. Production designer: Brian Thom son. Cast: Colin Friels (H a rv e y Denton), Donald P lea sen ce (Prosper), Ja c k T hom pson (Trebilcock), Natalie Bate (Pat), Sim on Chilvers (President). Production co m pany: Ground Z ero Pty Ltd. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 105 minutes. Australia. 1987.

52 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

V ‘ LOVETHE ONEYO U’RE WITH: (Feck (Dennis Hopper) and M i|s Elly

Tim Hunter’s River’s Edge is being Hunter is an unusual fringe figure in the rightly categorised with the recent spate American cinema. I met him when he of neo-American Gothic items: Blue was among the first year’s intake at the j 7 Velvet, Uforia, Raising Arizona, Over The American Film Institute’s filmmaker Edge, Melvin And Howard, Repo Man, . training centre (fellow students included: Blood Simple, Something Wild — the films * Paul Schrader, Terry Malick, Tom J. Hoberman claims have “ the force of a Rickman, Caleb Deschanel, Jeremy Paul cultural upheaval’’. Whatever. These Kagan). The son of blacklisted films agree to be contained by the large screenwriter Ian Hunter, Tim had forms of commercial film narrative all already made shorts and a feature, right, but at more specific levels their Rappacini’s Daughter, for American excesses keep slogging over, spilling public TV; he had also become a fine toward Stranger Than Paradise, True critic and film historian. Stories, Sherman’s March. They make After that, he put his head down and unusual demands on the filmmakers, slogged, pushing original projects, script who must organise complex shifts of tone doctoring, publishing a mystery novel. and narration; and on viewers, who He wrote Jonathan Kaplan’s Over The must be particularly attentive to detail, Edge (1980), a story of alienated kids in reference, and precisely measured a dying housing estate, signalling his differences from expected models. special interest in youth films. He How any of these films got made ■— adapted and directed the first of the let alone so many all at once — is' S.E. Hinton books to hit the screen, Tex remarkable. Here’s how this one came (1982), which was promptly smothered about. ^ J ; ,v • by Coppola’s Hintons, Rumble Fish and :j Four years ago, Neal Jimenez was a The Outsider. A bit of work on Wenders’ student in a screenwriting class at Hammett; somewhat later, Sylvester. UCLA, He wrote River’s Edge as an Hunter’s roots are in Hawthorne and assignment., “ He told me he got a C + Melville, in the MacMahoniste end of for it,” Hunter says, “ and it went on to American cinema (Lang, Minnelli, 7- win a student prize, which got it Preminger, Walsh, Fuller, Dwan — who gl circulated among agents.” There it held also made a film called The River’s Edge in'a long holding pattern. — Sirk, Hawks, Hitchcock, Ford, V Meanwhile, Tim Hunter was in Tourneur, Corman), and the French ? Martha, Texas making Sylvester, a cinema: Renoir through to New Wave. ■^National Velvet-type horse story which * H e’s an expert on hardboiled novels 5 to^makeand went nowhere. (currently working with James Crumley

on a screen adaptation of Dancing Bear), the Beach Boys, and whatever music kids are listening to at the moment. Nicely and quietly, he pursues the projects he likes rather than the guaranteed b.o. champs. “ After Sylvester, I was settling in for another three-year barren period when Midge Sanford and Sarah Pillsbury offered me River’s Edge. They’re very good independent producers — they did Desperately Seeking Susan. I didn’t change a word of the script, and I had to keep Jimenez from changing lines.” The production deal was set with Hemdale, “ a couple of British wildmen, they like to make films about the dark side of American life, like Platoon, The Terminator, and The Falcon And The Snowman” . They also like to make cheap films: River’s Edge came in for $US1.7 million on a 31-day schedule in sleepy LA suburb Tujunga, with five days of river shooting in Sacramento. Hunter’s longtime editor Howard Smith cut the film. In the US, River’s Edge got a big city arthouse opening, showed enough legs for a wider break, and after that held in arthouses: 150 prints working, great reviews from the writers who counted. At 29 July, 12 weeks in release, $US4 million gross. In a reasonable society, that should be enough to get you into the theatre, and to check Over The Edge and Tex out of the video shop; but at today’s prices . . . River’s Edge starts just after an oversized, inarticulate, babyfaced high school kid, John (Daniel Roebuck), has strangled his girlfriend. He sits by the river, by her naked corpse. His weird howls attract the attention of a precocious grade school wheelybiker, Tim (Joshua Miller), who has just thrown a female doll corpse into the river. The news spreads through the high school where an overactive pharmaceuticals major, Layne (Crispin Glover), organises John’s defence: nobody tells. It’s quite a school: the civics teacher maunders on about how he stopped a war and brought a nation to its knees in 1968, bemoans the lack of 'activism among today’s students, and finally decides they should all hunt John down and kill him like a dog. Responses to John’s act of passion vary, of course, and finally Tim ’s older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), decides

that the responsible thing to do is advise the police, which he does. So Layne stashes John at Dennis Hopper’s suburban gothic house. Hopper hasn’t been out of the house in five years. He has an artificial leg and tells a good story about it. He hands out dope free to kids and answers every knock at the door with, “ The cheque is in the mail!” He is never without his chromeplated revolver, which, he tells us often, he shot his woman with because he loved her . . . He lives with a full size sex doll, Miss Elly; he treats her with great courtesy and requires others to do so (Hunter says they had trouble casting this role: no other actor would touch it because of the Miss Elly character). Moral differences begin to split this small universe (for example, Tim to another 12-year-old kid: “ It’s my fucking brother. Go get your numchuks and your Dad’s car. I know where we can get a gun.” They do and he does). The film moves to a balanced restoration of moral and narrative symmetry. Summary is inadequate: the film is not simple. You will be told that it is a black comedy and a nightmare vision of life in suburban America. True. Hunter’s style is not obsessive, like Blue Velvet; River’s Edge has some lyric, Chabrol passages, but most of the film, like Chabrol, like Lang, is cool and distanced. Characters and events are not presented to be likeable, but to be thought about. It has its surrealism, but a fundamental surrealism not ’ compounded of illogical images but built around l ’amour fou. Hunter uses this distance to contain a variety of character issues and acting styles threatening to spin off into six different films. Hunter pivots the film on the striking duet scenes between John and the Hopper character, a development of souls struggling unsuccessfully to assemble an incomplete do-it-yourself spiritual universe kit. R.J. Thompson RIVER’S EDGE: Directed by Tim Hunter. Producers: Midge Sanford, Sarah Pillsbury. Executive producers: John Daly, Derek Gibson. Screenplay: Neal Jimenez. Director of photography: Frederick Elmes. Production designer: John Muto. Editor: Howard Smith. Music: Jurgen Kneiper. Cast: Dennis Hopper (Feck), Crispin Glover (Layne), Keanu Reaves (Matt), lone Skye Leitch (Clarissa), Joshua Miller (Tim), Daniel Roebuck (John). Production company: Sanford Pillsbury. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 104 minutes. USA. 1987.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT: Matt (Keanu Reeves) and Clarissa (lone Skye Leitch)

wSSat GO W E S T , YO U N G W O M AN: Sigrid Thornton wears the Akubra

• SLATE, WYN AND ME Slate a n d W y n are th e J a c k so n b ro th e rs — in th e tra d itio n of, b u t w ith o u t the p o p u la r m y stiq u e of, th e K ellys. S late (c h a ris m a tic a lly p la y ed by M a rtin Sacks) is a V ie tn a m v e te ra n w ith d a n g e r on his m in d a n d a chip o n his sh o u ld er. E q u ip p e d w ith a p a ir o f m e an sixties sid e b u rn s, S late is a b it o f a ro u g h d ia m o n d in sleepy hollow M o w b ray . T h is is n ’t sm allto w n A m eric a, b u t it m ig h t as well be — th e boys scull b e e r at the local d an ce a n d th e girls m o o ch a ro u n d th e m in sm a rt frocks. O n ly th e fairy lights len d it A ussie n o stalg ia. W y n (S im o n B u rk e) is th e typical y o u n g er b ro th e r: th ic k er in flesh an d m in d , h e rev eres Slate, w ho h as seen action he could o nly d re a m o f a n d w ho know s how to chase it. W h e n Slate suggests rip p in g off th e local b an k , W y n ’s in like F ly n n . T h e h o ld -u p is in te rru p te d by th e local In sp e c to r P lo d . W y n p an ics, his g u n goes off a n d th e th rill seekers tu rn fugitives. B u t th e re ’s a w itness, B lanche (S ig rid T h o rn to n ), a n d so th e boys b u n d le h e r u p , ch u ck h e r in th e b o o t a n d h e a d n o rth . T h o rn to n seem s endlessly d estin e d to play th e w ell-heeled h o rse -rid in g type w ho red eem s h erse lf b y v irtu e o f h e r fiery in d e p en d e n ce (sh ad es o f J u d y D avis?). A s B lan ch e, she co m p eten tly m oves fro m p ristin e sch o o l-m arm to w hisky-sw illing co-rebel as th e boys p ro m o te h e r fro m k ic k e d -a ro u n d to sidekick. J u s t as well she looks a tre a t in m an -size lu rex cow boy sh irts a n d slouch h ats. S w itch in g W y n ’s fab red V a lia n t for the all-tim e fan tasy ca r — a b lu e -fin n e d co n v ertib le w hich is h a n d ily w aitin g in the o u tb a ck to be stolen — th e trio trek alo n g endless d irt track s, besid e endless riv ers a n d th ro u g h endless cam p sites. T h is allow s for lots o f gorg eo u s su n sets a n d m e an in g fu l looks o v er flickering cam p fires. A s B lan ch e beco m es in c re a s ingly m o re b ea u tifu l a n d m a te y , th e re is cause for th e only te n sio n a p p a re n t in th e film . >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 53

y # -I

W h e th e r they get ca u g h t o r n o t is n ’t a m a tte r for concern. T h e b ig w o rry is w ho gets B lanche a n d how the o th er b ro th e r deals w ith it. W ith h e r perfect p o u t an d a deft little m a n ip u la tiv e to u ch , she crushes the m a tesh ip b o n d b etw een tw o m e n w ho only h ad each o th er. I s n ’t th a t ju s t like a w om an? E v ery tu rn o f the plot ru n s tru e to course: the sw itching allegiances, the ten sio n o f isolation, th e a d re n a lin of the o p en ro ad , a tale o f basically sw eet boys w ho in a d v erten tly tre a t th e law the w ay fo rtu n e has tre a te d th e m , a n d find them selves on a one-w ay highw ay straig h t to hell. A lo ng the p red ictab le ro a d of events are v ario u s illogical an d u n co n v in cin g tu r n s , in c lu d in g W y n ’s p an ic-less sh o o ting o f a cop, a m o m e n t d ep e n d en t on co nvincing te rro r a n d a ro u n d w hich the w hole plot tu rn s. D o n M c L e n n a n ’s script is often la b o u r e d a n d o c c a s io n a lly b a n a l, d e s tin e d to p a tc h y d e liv e ry a n d p ro v id in g little com plexity for the actors to sink th e ir te eth into. D espite all this, Slate, Wyn & M e is curiously enjoyable, saved by som e h a rd to d efin e, low -key, sa rd o n ic self m ockery. A fter the theft of the B atm obile, we all feel the jo y of the lean, m e a n m a ch in e rid in g the d u st w ith a confidence th a t infects its passengers. In the back seat, W y n plays his g u ita r an d m im es to C h u ck B erry on the rad io singing ‘N o P a rtic u la r P lace T o G o ’. T h e re are o th e r m o m e n ts of alm ost u n c e rta in h u m o u r, b u t they w ork to diffuse the m o n o to n y a n d cliche. So too does the energ etic o n -th e-ro ad m u sic an d D av id C o n n e ll’s im m ac u late p h o to g rap h y o f the bush. U n fo rtu n a te ly , D o n M c L e n n a n ’s d irectio n , like the p ro tag o n ists an d C h u ck B erry, has no p a rtic u la r place to go. It is n o t really an y b o d y ’s story, alth o u g h the title (rew o rk ed from G eo rg ia S av ag e’s novel on w hich the film is based) suggests it belongs to B lanche. T h e laconic softness o f W y n an d his tale co n trib u tes to the ‘A ussien ess’ of th e film an d is the key to its p a rtia l success. T h e boys d o n ’t b last th e ir w ay th ro u g h life an d the final scene does n o t show th e m b ein g blow n into tin y little pieces ju s t as we really get to like th em . B ut it’s n o t eno u g h . T h e r e ’s lots of ch a rm to this p ic tu re b u t n o t m u c h grit. Sacks, as Slate, definitely gives the film m ost of its edge b u t his p erfo rm an ce is on full rev in a film th a t takes the slow lane. Joanna M urray-Sm ith S L A T E , W Y N & M E: Directed by Don M cL en n an . Producer: Tom Burstall. Executive producers: Antony I. G in nane and William Faym an. Screen p la y: Don M cLen n an . Director of photography: D avid Connell. Editor: Poeter Friedrich. Art director: Patrick Reardon. M usic: Trevor L u ca s and Ian M ason. Cast: Sigrid Thornton (B la n ch e M cBride), Sim on Bu rke (W yn), Martin S a c k s (Slate), Tom m y Lew is (M organ), L esley B a k e r (Molly), Harold Baigent (Sam m y), M ichelle Torres (Daphne), M urray F a h e y (Martin), T a y a Stratton (Pippa). Production co m pany: Ukiyo Films Pty Ltd for Inter national Film M an agem en t Limited. Distributor: Film pac. 35mm. 91 minutes. Australia. 1987.

54 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

• FROM THE HIP T h e te en m ovie is a su rp risin g ly e x p a n sive an d fertile g en re. T h e film s th a t h ave evolved fro m this field — n o tab ly those o f w rite r a n d d irec to r J o h n H u g h es ( The Breakfast Club, Pretty In Pink, Some K ind O f Wonderful) — have tre a te d a v arie ty o f th em es a n d situ a tions in w ays th a t are rele v an t, e n te r ta in in g , an d p o p u la r w ith th e y o u th m a rk et. From The H ip follows in this tra d itio n an d deals exclusively w ith th e y u p p ie d ile m m a o f idealism versus am b itio n . R o b in W e ath ers (Ju d d N elson) a n d J o A n n (E lizab eth P erk in s) rep rese n t these two poles, his b are ly co n tro lled am b itio n co n tra ste d w ith h e r artistic an d spiritu al idealism . T h e ir relatio n sh ip is a solid one, how ever; th e conflict is betw een R o b in ’s conscience a n d th e situation s th a t his m a n ip u la tiv e p e rso n ality places h im in. O f course, R o b in a n d J o A n n live in a fabulous a p a rtm e n t — it w o u ld n ’t be this k in d o f m ovie if th ey d id n ’t — an d they h av e a close circle o f w arm , w acky a n d w on d erfu l friends. T h e tra d e m a rk s of this ty p e o f film are its w itty, id io syncratic, fu n lo v in g b u t sincere y o u n g stars a n d the w o n d erfu l in te rio rs of th e ir hom es (eg About Last Night). In co n trast the ad u lts — a n d th e re are m o re of th e m in From The H ip th a n in the H u g h e s’ film s — are o f th e c a rd b o a rd stereotypical v ariety . E v en J o h n H u rt, w ho plays a m a n on tria l for m u rd e r, is n o t exem p t from this rule. From The H ip ex ag g erates th e glori fication o f y o u th . R o b in , a first y ea r law g rad u a te, has no tim e fo r th e slow clum siness o f th e legal system a n d the tim e th a t p ro m o tio n in a n established legal firm w ould tak e, so he acts “ cre a tively” to fu rth e r his ca reer a n d m ake his “ n a tu ra l ta le n t” available to the w orld. T h is is a film ab o u t th e jo u rn e y to ad u lth o o d w ith all th e b ag g ag e associ ated w ith th a t jo u rn e y — loss of in n o cence an d in c re asin g cynicism . T h e iro n y o f From The H ip is th a t R o b in will eventually b ecom e one o f these stereo typed old fogies a n d echo th e m essage of S .E . H in to n ’s The Outsiders-. “ W h e n you are y o u n g you are g o ld e n ” . From The H ip does differ fro m o th e r y o u th -o rien te d film s in som e respects. T h e ch aracters are exclusively u p p e r m iddle class professionals, w hereas H u g h es alw ays uses an en sem b le cast from a cross section of th e co m m u n ity , often co n c en tra tin g on th e w o rk in g class kids w ho are still a t school. H is film s deal w ith th e search for id e n tity , ra th e r th a n professional ethics an d th e loss of innocence. D irec to r Bob C la rk ’s p rev io u s credits include an en tirely d ifferen t k in d of y o u th m a rk e t film in Porky’s a n d Porky’s 2, as well as Tribute, w ith J a c k L em m o n a n d R o b b y B enson, th e all-star Murder By Decree an d Rhinestone, sta rrin g D olly P a rto n a n d Sly Stallone. C la rk has p ro v ed h im self a flexible d irec to r w ith a v arie ty o f in terests. B u t From The H ip

does n o t h av e th e lig h tn ess o f to u c h o f th e o th e r film s o f its ty p e. I t raises so p h isticated m o ra l q u estio n s w ith in a fram ew o rk w hich is h a lf c o u rtro o m d ra m a , h a lf love story; y et at th e sam e tim e it b etra y s a n in a b ility to d eal fairly w ith com plex ad u lt ch a racters. Terence Ziegler F R O M T H E H IP: Directed by B o b Clark. P ro d u ce d by R e n e Dupont and B o b Clark. Screen p la y: D avid E. Kelley and B o b Clark. Director of photography: D ante Spinotti. Editor: Stan Cole. Production designer: M ichael Stringer. Cast: Ju d d Nelson (Robin W eathers), Elizabeth Perkins (Jo A n n ), Jo h n Hurt (D o ug las Benoit), Darren M cG av in (Craig D uncan), D an M o n ah an (Larry), David Alan G rier (Steve), Allan A rbus (Phil A m es). P ro duction co m pany: Indian N eck. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 111 minutes. U S A . 1987.

• RECENT RELEASES A Supplementary Guide July: Everytim e We Say G oodbye (Fox C olum bia) P ain tin g T h e Town (State Film C en tre — M elbourne) D em ocracy (State Film C en tre — M elbourne) A ustralian M ade (H oyts) M alone (Village R oadshow ) T he K indred (Village R oadshow ) Firewalker (H oyts) O utrageous F ortune (G reater U nion) H ouse 2 (Village R oadshow ) L e t’s G et H a rry (Fox C olum bia) G oing Sane (G reater U nion) August: T he Believers (Village R oadshow ) B righton Beach M em oirs (U IP ) M an H u n te r (H oyts) Those D ear D ep arted (Village R oadshow ) T he W histle Blower (C E L) P red ato r (Fox C olum bia) D uet For O ne (H oyts) C astaw ay (H oyts) Friends And Enem ies (R onin) Q uiet Cool (Seven Keys) T in M en (G reater U nion)

GUILT EDGED? John Hurt faces a murder charge

B O O K .

R E V I E W S

DON’T SHOOT DARLING: Scene from Paulette McDonagh’s The Cheaters (1929)

DON’T SHOOT DARLING! Women’s Independent Filmmaking In Australia Edited by Annette Blonski, Barbara Creed & Freda Freiberg (Greenhouse Publications, 1987, ISBN 0 86436 058 4, $29.95 rrp). O n e o f th e m o s t in te re s tin g a n d im p re ssiv e a sp e c ts o f D o n ’t S h o o t D arling! is its la c k o f n o s ta lg ia a n d m in d le ss c e le b ra tio n . Its to n e is s e rio u s (ev en s o m b re a t tim e s ), c le a r-e y e d a n d c ritic a l. It d o es re c o g n ise a c h ie v e m e n t w h e re it o c c u rre d , b u t v ery m u c h in th e sty le o f o n e w h o h a s g ro w n to g e n u in e m a tu rity , a n d c a n see c le a rly th e p le a s u re s a n d p a in s o f b o th th e p a s t a n d th e p re s e n t. (T h is is n o t to su g g e st th a t th e b o o k h a s ju s t o n e to n e o f v o ice o r ev en a sin g le v o ic e .) It is, as th e e d ito rs d e sc rib e it, n o t a h is to ry o f w o m e n ’s in d e p e n d e n t film m a k in g in A u s tr a lia , b u t r a th e r a “ c o lle c tio n o f d o c u m e n ta rie s a n d d is c u s s io n s ” . It c o n sists o f a n u m b e r o f se c tio n s t h a t ra n g e f r o m a n a ly se s o f g o v e rn m e n t p o lic y to w a rd s w o m e n ’s film m a k in g , to d is c u ssio n o f v a rio u s w o m e n ’s in itia tiv es, to p e rs o n a l s ta te m e n ts b y w o m e n in v o lv e d in film a n d te le v isio n , to w h a t is c a lle d “ te x tu a l a n a ly s is ” . T h e se se c tio n s e m b ra c e a w id e v a rie ty o f sty le s, s ta n d a rd s a n d p e rs o n a l p re o c c u p a tio n s . B u t o v e ra ll, th e g u id in g h a n d o f th e e d ito rs is v ery e v id e n t. A s w ell as m a k in g w h a t a re a m o n g th e b e st c o n tr ib u tio n s in th e b o o k , th e y s u p p ly a n in tr o d u c tio n to e a c h se c tio n , th e re b y th ro w in g a n a n a ly tic a l n e t o v e r th e m a te ria l to fo llo w , ra isin g issu es, p o in tin g to re p e a te d p a tte r n s , e m p h a s isin g c e rta in a sp e c ts, m a k in g a ss e ssm e n ts. T h is d o e s n o t c o n s tra in o r lim it re a d in g s , r a th e r it p e rf o rm s th e n e c e ssa ry ta s k o f b in d in g to g e th e r (b u t n o t fa lse ly u n ify in g ) th e g re a t ra n g e o f m a te ria l in th e b o o k w h ic h , w ith o u t th is g u id in g s tru c tu r e , m ig h t fly a w a y in so m a n y d if f e r e n t d ire c tio n s th a t it w o u ld lo se w h a t I ta k e to be its fo rc e a n d im p o rta n c e , n a m e ly to p ro v id e th e m e a n s b y w h ich p a s t d ire c tio n s c a n b e asse sse d a n d c ritic ise d a n d fu tu re d ire c tio n s c h a rte d . T h e e d ito rs s ta te t h a t th e ir b o o k is n o t in te n d e d to b e a h is to ry , b u t a set o f d o c u m e n ta tio n s a n d d is c u ssio n s. A n d a t firs t sig h t, th e c h o ic e o f m a te ria l is a s u rp ris e : it h a s n o o rig in a l d o c u m e n ts , n o c o n te m p o r a r y m a te ria l. T h e o n ly a rtic le t h a t is re p r in te d fro m a n o th e r so u rc e is B a r b a r a C r e e d ’s u s e fu l su rv e y o f fe m in ist film th e o r y o f th e sev e n tie s a n d e ig h tie s, a p ie c e w h ic h m o re th a n a n y o f th e o th e r s serv es a p u re ly b a c k g ro u n d in g f u n c tio n . O th e rw is e , a ll th e m a te ria l h a s b e e n w ritte n e sp e c ia lly fo r th e b o o k , th o u g h

clea rly o v e r a lo n g p e rio d , d u e to its u n d e rs ta n d a b ly le n g th y p r o d u c tio n tim e . T h is is e n tire ly ju s tifie d b y its s u b s ta n tia l a n d c o m p re h e n siv e n a tu r e . It m e a n s t h a t th e b o o k is b o u n d to b e d e e p ly c o n tro v e rs ia l, a n d it re q u ire d c o u ra g e o n th e p a r t o f th e se a u th o r s , w h o to o k it o n th e m se lv e s to give a h is to ry o f in s titu tio n s a n d e v e n ts th a t so m a n y w ere in v o lv e d in a n d th a t w ere in e v ita b ly sites o f c o n s ta n t b a ttle . A t tim e s th is p ro d u c e s a n a ly sis th a t seem s a lm o s t p e rv ersely c o n tro v e rs ia l — fo r e x a m p le , L is S to n e y ’s s o m e w h a t ec c e n tric a sse ssm e n t o f F ilm news. H e r s ta te m e n t th a t “ a sense o f s e p a ra te id e n tity a n d p o litic a l a u to n o m y f o r wom en film m a k e rs in th e c o n te x t o f Film new s as a lo b b y o f film in s titu tio n s is ra re ly a p p a r e n t” (p 2 5 6 ), seem s a little h a rs h in th e lig h t o f th e ex ten siv e c o v e ra g e giv en to w o m e n ’s film m a k in g o v e r th e y e a rs. A n d th e lo w level, as sh e sees it, o f fe m in ist c ritic ism in th e p ag es o f Film news c o u ld as w ell b e a ttr ib u te d to th e d iffic u ltie s s u r r o u n d in g a d e q u a te p u b lic c ritic ism o f a n y a re a s o f A u s tr a lia n c in e m a as to th e in te rd e p e n d e n c e o f F ilm news a n d th e S y d n ey F ilm m a k e r s ’ C o -o p e ra tiv e , as S to n e y c la im s. T h is p o in t is m a d e in S u sa n S te w a r t’s a rtic le o n th e m e d ia c o v e ra g e o f th e M ovin g P ictures se a s o n , in w h ic h sh e q u o te s M e a g h a n M o r r is ’s a c c o u n t o f th e e x p e rie n c e o f b e in g s q u a s h e d b e tw e e n th e p re s su re s to d e fe n d fe m in ist film m a k in g p u b lic ly , a n d th e p re s su re to be h o n e stly c ritic a l a b o u t it, a p o s itio n w h ic h c a n le a d to d o in g n e ith e r a d e q u a te ly . T h e firs t p a r t o f th e b o o k , th e se c tio n s o n W o m e n a n d th e S ta te , F e m in is t In itia tiv e s a n d T ra in in g a n d A ffirm a tiv e A c tio n p ro v id e s a ric h a n d d e ta ile d set o f a c c o u n ts o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s th a t led to th e e m e rg e n c e o f fe m in ist a n d w o m e n ’s (n o t to b e c o n fla te d as v a rio u s a u th o r s p o in t o u t) film m a k in g in th e e arly sev en ties a n d th e v a rio u s s tru c tu re s a n d in s titu tio n s th a t a ro s e to s u p p o r t it. T h o u g h so m e a rtic le s a re s tro n g e r th a n o th e rs , th is p a r t o f th e b o o k is a w e lc o m e c o n tr ib u tio n to c u rr e n t d e b a te s o n th e film in d u s try , a n d w ill serv e fo r a lo n g tim e as a re fe re n c e w o rk o n th o s e h is to rie s w h ic h h a v e n o t b e fo re b e e n g a th e re d to g e th e r so c o m p re h e n siv e ly . A n n e tte B lo n sk i p ro v id e s a lu c id a c c o u n t o f th e n o tio n o f in d e p e n d e n c e a n d its re la tio n to th e m a in s tre a m as a b a c k g ro u n d to th e s u b s e q u e n t a rtic le s w h ic h c o n s id e r w o m e n ’s fe m in ist film m a k in g as a s u b g ro u p o f in d e p e n d e n t film . T h e n fo llo w tw o c o m p a n io n a rtic le s o n th e W o m e n ’s F ilm F u n d (W F F ): A n n a G rie v e c o n c e n tra te s o n th e c h a n g in g id e o lo g ie s th a t in fo rm e d its o p e ra tio n th r o u g h th e sev e n tie s a n d in to th e e ig h ties, a n d Je n i T h o rn le y ra ise s issu es a b o u t its fu tu re : “ Is th e r e a p u rp o s e fo r th e W F F in th e 1980s, o r is its e x iste n c e a n a n a c h ro n is m , a le ft o v e r fr o m th e a llia n c e o f 1970s g o v e rn m e n t in te rv e n tio n a n d ra d ic a l fe m in is m ” (p 6 2 ). T h e se c tio n as a w h o le raises fo r m e, a lth o u g h n o t e x p lic itly , th e issu e o f w h e th e r w o m e n ’s fe m in ist film m a k in g w ill c o n tin u e to b e a s u b g ro u p o f th e in d e p e n d e n t s e c to r (a n d w h a t o f th is s e c to r itse lf? ) o r w h e th e r it w ill re n e g o ti a te a s e p a ra te re la tio n to th e so -c a lle d m a in s tre a m . T h is q u e s tio n is a lso p o s e d b y N ic o le tte F re e m a n ’s a rtic le o n th e S y d n e y W o m e n ’s F ilm U n it in th e s e c tio n o n tra in in g . H e r h o n e s t a n d th o u g h t-p ro v o k in g a rtic le m a k e s it c lea r h o w very d iffic u lt th in g s still a re f o r w o m e n — d a m n e d to m a rg in a lity if w e d o n ’t h a v e th in g s lik e th e W F U , b e c a u se o f la c k o f skills a n d e x p e rie n c e , d a m n e d if w e d o , to c o n s ta n t g h e tto is a tio n w ith in ‘w o m e n ’s c in e m a ’. T h e te rrib le q u e s tio n t h a t h a n g s o v e r all th e a n a ly se s is: w h a t a re th e o p tio n s fo r w o m e n film m a k e rs a t th e p re s e n t tim e ? Is it to b e “ fe m a le P e te r W e irs ” , as o n e film w o rk e r q u o te d b y F re e m a n p u t it ( p l6 6 ), o r is it to c o n tin u e th e p a tte r n o f s h o r t film s o n ‘w o m e n ’s is s u e s ’? H o w c a n w o m e n ’s film m a k in g e m e rg e in to th e m a in s tre a m w ith o u t w eak ly im ita tin g it, as w o m e n fe a tu re d ire c to rs so f a r h a v e b e e n fo rc e d to d o , fo r th e m o s t p a r t. It m a k e s o n e re fle c t a g a in o n th e tra g e d y o f th e fa ilu re o f th e lo w -b u d g e t f e a tu r e p ro g r a m a t th e A u s tr a lia n F ilm C o m m is s io n , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d sev eral w o m en to m a k e th e le a p in to fe a tu re -le n g th p ro je c ts . O n th e o th e r h a n d o n e c a n c o n te m p la te w ith jo y th a t th r e e o f th e m o s t in n o v a tiv e re c e n t A u s tr a lia n film s f r o m a n y so u rc e h a v e co m e o u t o f w o m e n ’s film m a k in g — M y L ife W ithou t S tev e , A Song O f C eylon a n d L andslides. T h is b rin g s m e to w h a t w as f o r m e th e m o s t e x citin g p a r t o f th e b o o k — th e s e c tio n o n “ te x tu a l a n a ly s is ” . T h is is a c o lle c tio n o f e x te n d e d piece s o f c ritic ism , o f v a rie d q u a lity , o f so m e key w o rk s o f w o m e n ’s film m a k in g . T h e w e a k e st is th e o n e o n G illian A rm s tro n g , b u t th is I b e lie v e re fle c ts th e c o m p a r a tiv e la c k o f in te re st o f A r m s tr o n g ’s o e u v re w h e n v ie w e d a lo n g s id e w o rk s lik e In This L if e ’s B o d y a n d F or L o v e O r M o n ey. M o s t o f th e p iece s in th is se c tio n , e sp e c ia lly th o s e o f F re d a >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 55

B O O KL

R E V I E W S

< F re ib e rg , a re b e a u tifu lly w ritte n , c o m b in in g a so p h istic a te d th e o re tic a l a w a re n e ss w ith a n a c c e ssib le a n d p le a s u ra b le style. B a rb a ra C re e d ’s a p p re c ia tio n o f M y L ife W ithout Steve a n d its re c e p tio n b y fe m in ist a u d ie n c e s a n d h e r e x tre m e ly illu m in a tin g an aly sis o f th e a e sth e tic a n d th e o re tic a l im p u lse s b e h in d A Song O f Ceylon w ere th e m o s t re w a rd in g f o r m e . I a lso en jo y e d C a trio n a M o o r e ’s pieces o n F or L o v e O r M on ey, We A im To Please a n d Serious U ndertakings (w ith C o lle e n H o e b e n ) a lth o u g h I d is a g re e d w ith m u c h o f w h a t sh e sa id a n d w ith th e ra th e r p re s c rip tiv e view o f h is to ry a n d th e s u b je c t th r o u g h w hich she view s th e s e film s. T h e ex c itin g th in g a b o u t th is se c tio n is th a t th is level o f v ig o ro u s a n d e n g a g e d in te lle c tu a l c ritic ism o f A u s tr a lia n c in e m a is a lm o s t w ith o u t p re c e d e n t, th o u g h p e o p le h av e b een callin g fo r it f o r y e a rs. T h is se c tio n sh o w s h o w fru itfu l it c an b e w h en d o n e w ell. P a ra d o x ic a lly , th e le a st in te re s tin g se c tio n o f th e b o o k fo r m e is th e o n e called P e rs o n a l S ta te m e n ts . O n ly th o s e o f C o rin n e C a n trill, a t a n a d v a n ta g e b e c a u se o f its le n g th , a n d H e le n G ra c e , w h o tr e a te d it as a n o p p o r tu n ity to b e b o th su b v e rsiv e a n d self c o n sc io u sly lite ra ry , re a lly g ra b a tte n tio n . It is in te re stin g to sp e c u la te o n all th e re a s o n s , fe m in in e s e lf-e ffa c e m e n t a n d th e lik e, th a t m ig h t h a v e p ro d u c e d fo r th e m o s t p a r t su ch c o m p a ra tively b la n d p e rs o n a l s ta te m e n ts . In fa c t th e sta te m e n ts a re n o t personal, th e y a re m ere ly a u to b io g ra p h ic a l. T h e e d ito rs a n d a u th o r s o f th is in d isp e n sa b le b o o k a re to be c o n g ra tu la te d o n th e ir te n a c ity in g e ttin g th is w ell-p re se n te d v o lu m e p u b lis h e d , w ith fin a n c ia l a ss ista n c e fro m th e W o m e n ’s F ilm F u n d . L e t’s h o p e it receiv es th e se rio u s d isc u ssio n it deserv es a n d th a t p ro d u c tiv e n ew d ire c tio n s f o r w o m e n ’s film m a k in g em erg e. Liz Jacka

LOVE IS COLDER THAN DEATH — The Life And Times Of Rainer Werner Fassbinder By Robert Katz and Peter Berling (Jonathan Cape/Australasian Publishing Company, 1987, ISBN 0 224 012174 5, hbk, $38.95 rrp) R A IN E R W e rn e r F a s s b in d e r, a c c o rd in g to R o b e rt K a tz , w as a sc ru ffy , m o o d y , m a n ip u la tiv e , g lu tto n o u s , fa m e -c ra v in g p ick leh e a d w h o , d e sp ite o r b e c a u se o f all th is, c h u rn e d o u t 43 film s b etw een 1965 a n d 1982. T h e p ro m is c u o u s o u tp u t w as m a tc h e d by a m assiv e in p u t o f a lc o h o l, n ic o tin e , c o c a in e a n d sex w h ich o n ly D e a th , th e e te rn a l p a rty -p o o p e r, c a lle d to a h a lt. A sp e c ta c u la rly u n a ttra c tiv e c h a ra c te r, y o u m ig h t sa y , b u t it w as all p a r t o f th e F a s s b in d e r p la n : “ G ro w u g ly a n d w o rk . T h e n , a n d o n ly th e n , let th e m c o m e . . . I w a n t to b e u g ly o n th e c o v er o f T im e.” A n d th e F a s s b in d e r fa s c in a tio n . “ H e w as g h a stly , even re p u ls iv e ,” rh a p s o d ise s Ir m H e rm a n n , a se c re ta ry -c u m -a c tre ss re c a llin g h e r to r m e n to r /c r e a to r , “ Y et to m e h e w as b e a u tif u l.” Be a ss u re d th a t n e ith e r b io g r a p h e r n o r a n y o f th e F a s s b in d e r ‘p e o p le ’ sh o w s a n y sh a m e a t fish in g fo r th e s tin k in g m e ta p h o r o r th e th u d d in g cliche. I t ’s th a t s o r t o f b io . In F re u d ia n te rm s it is n o w o n d e r t h a t R W F tu r n e d o u t th e w ay h e d id . T h e p r o d u c t o f a b ro k e n h o m e , as th e y say, th e B oy G en iu s f o u n d h im se lf liv in g o n p ro s titu te ro w w ith M o th e r a n d h e r 1 7 -y ear-o ld lo v e r. T h e n M u m m a rrie d a w rite r o f s h o r t sto rie s. F a s s b in d e r w o u ld call o n th e m “ a rm in a rm w ith a tr a n s v estite as b la ta n t as a v ib r a to r ” . (A h e m .) F o r a t 15 R W F h a d f o u n d t h a t h e w as A H o m o s e x u a l. “ H e h a d a v ery , v e ry h e a v y c h ild h o o d ,” his m o th e r la te r e x p la in e d . F a s s b in d e r m a d e h is firs t film , a 1 0 -m in u te e x iste n tia l s ta te m e n t, a t 20. M o re im p o rta n tly , h e b e g a n “ fillin g h is life w ith fo llo w e rs in o rd e r to m a k e m o v ie s, th e n m a k in g m o v ies to fill his life w ith fo llo w e rs ” . H e n e e d e d a fa m ily — to s u b s titu te fo r th e u n s a tis f a c to r y o n e h e w as b o r n in to . T h e ru th le ssn e ss w ith w h ich h e ru le d th e fa m ily is re m in isc e n t o f b o th th e in c ip ie n t h ip p y m o v e m e n t a n d th e m a c a b re C h a rle s M a n s o n . H a v in g re c ru ite d his n e o -sib lin g s R W F w as in g o o d p o s itio n to b e c o m e th e n ew m a n in th e N ew G e rm a n C in e m a . In a v e ry few y e a rs h e w o u ld be its c h ie f scio n . T h e r a p id tr a n s itio n fr o m p ro m isin g ty ro to b a n k a b le n a m e sh o u ld , y o u w o u ld th in k , m a k e a n in te re s tin g stu d y : th e r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n a r t a n d p o w e r, a r t a n d m o n e y e x p o se d to e x a m in e c u ltu ra l p ro c e sse s. A f te r a ll, a b io g ra p h y is m o re th a n ju s t a re c o n s tru c tio n (d e c o n s tru c tio n ? ) fo r th e fa n s . I s n ’t it? W ith th e

56 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

rise a n d rise o f R W F , h o w e v e r, K a tz o n ly gives u s c ru m b s . N e v e r d o es h e a llo w s c h o la rs h ip to s ta n d in th e w ay o f g o o d g o ssip . R e g re tta b le , as it u n d e rm in e s th e w h o le c o n c e p t o f film lite ra c y — im a g a c y , p e rh a p s . M e a n w h ile , b a c k w ith th e b io , h is to ry “ w as g e ttin g g an g b a n g e d a n d p re g n a n t w ith th e issu es o f 1968” . (O h G o d ). A n d re a s B a a d e r a n d h is lo t w e re b e g in n in g to ta k e m a tte r s in to th e ir o w n h a n d s . O n e o f th e ir firs t a c ts w as to d e s tro y th e A c tio n T h e a tr e w h e re F a s s b in d e r h a d b e e n b a se d . S ig n ific a n tly , it w as n e ith e r p o litic a l n o r sy m b o lic b u t a n a c t o f p e rs o n a l re v en g e o n R W F ’s n ew fa m ily . F a s s b in d e r h im s e lf a d m ire d th e s tre n g th o f th e B a a d e r g ro u p . A n d to ju d g e fr o m th e c ritic a l re s p o n se to his w o rk , F a s s b in d e r c o u ld fa irly lay c la im to b e in g a te r r o r is t o f th e a r tf o r m . B u t a g a in K a tz is u n m o v e d b y w id e r c u ltu ra l c o n s id e ra tio n s. H e m e a n s to give u s th e d irt. T h e a n o m a ly , e v id e n t in th e B a a d e r case, b e tw e e n p ro fe sse d a n d p riv a te m o tiv e is p re s e n t in F a s s b in d e r’s film m a k in g . F ro m th e o u ts e t h is c h a o tic p e rs o n a l life w as in e x tric a b ly b o u n d u p w ith h is a rt. N o t o n ly w ere lo v e rs c a s t, so m e tim e s in d e m e a n in g ro le s, b u t th e d ir e c to r a lso a p p e a re d in H itc h c o c k ia n c a m e o s. (In F ox A n d H is Friends h e s ta rre d ). E v e n h is m o th e r g o t a guernsey. A ll w ere ty r a n n is e d . A n d if R W F d e m a n d e d lo y a lty h e gave n o n e . D u b b e d w ith th e sh e -n a m e s o f tra g ic -q u e e n e ry (K u rt R a a b w as E m m a P o ta to ) F a s s b in d e r ’s p e o p le fell in a n d o u t o f love w ith th e ir d ire c to r. S o m e h o w th e film s w ere m a d e . So in c e stu o u s w as th e s e t-u p t h a t b e fo r e lo n g F a s s b in d e r w as m a k in g film s a b o u t m a k in g film s. T h e se b io s o f s h o o tin g s ta rs , d o o m e d g e n iu s, a re a b it like G re e k tra g e d y . T h e a u d ie n c e k n o w s e x a c tly h o w it w ill e n d . T h e d ra m a tic in te re s t lies in th e b io g r a p h e r ’s sk ill in p u ttin g o f f th e in e v ita b le . R W F ’s f a ta l fla w w as h is a d d ic tio n to th e k in d re d d ru g s o f c o c a in e a n d fa m e . T h e A m e ric a n c in e m a b e c k o n e d b e c a u se f o r h im it w as “ th e o n ly o n e t h a t h a s re a c h e d a n a u d i e n c e ” . O n a v isit to a N ew Y o rk g a y b a r th e F a s s b in d e r p e o p le w ere a g o g a t th e im p e ria l excesses o f th e N e w W o rld . “ T h is o f c o u r s e ,” re m in isc e s E m m a P o ta t o fo n d ly , “ w as th e fa m o u s fistfu c k w e ’d h e a rd a b o u t b u t n e v e r seen b e fo r e , a n d w e w ere q u ite ta k e n w ith i t . ” F a s s b in d e r w as p la y in g S p a c e In v a d e rs w ith his sen ses. E x cess w as su ccess a n d a n y m isg iv in g s e x p ressed b y his c ro n ie s w ere d ism isse d as th e sire n calls o f m e d io c rity . “ E v e ry o n e m u s t d e c id e fo r h im s e lf w h e th e r it is b e tte r to h a v e a b rie f b u t m o re in te n se ly fe lt e x iste n c e o r to live a lo n g a n d o rd in a ry lif e .” I w ill say th is f o r R o b e rt K a tz ’s b io g r a p h y . W h e n D e a th fin ally p u lls th e p lu g o n R a in e r W e rn e r F a s s b in d e r i t ’s a re lie f. D esp ite its p a tc h y re s e a rc h a n d its h u g e h o le s th e life is to ta lly in v o lv in g . D re a d fu lly fa s c in a tin g . W h ile it is n o t in th e sa m e class as th e b io g ra p h ie s o f J o e O rto n a n d J o h n B e lu sh i th e r e is c o m m o n to th e m all th e sen se o f h u b ris b e in g p u n is h e d . T h e re is also n o t a little sp ite as w e p a rtic ip a te in a g a m e o f K ick th e C o rp se . In F a s s b in d e r’s c ase th is r itu a l f u n c tio n is p e rf o rm e d f o r us b y K a rin M a i, “ a ta ll, sle n d e r w o m a n , h e r b e a u ty w o rn b u t n o t d im in ish e d b y m id d le a g e ” .(!) S h e m a k e s a d e a th m a s k . “ T h e b o d y w as ro lle d in o n a c a rt, a n d la id o u t o n a m a rb le slab . I w as le ft a lo n e . . . T h e y ’d re m o v e d h is b r a in . . . I c o u ld n ’t get u sed to h is b e in g d e a d . . . E v e ry n o w a n d th e n , w o rk m e n c a m e in to th e ro o m , g ra v e d ig g e rs. T h e y w ere jo k in g a b o u t h im . O n e o f th e m sa id , ‘N o m o re o rg ies f o r M r F a s s b in d e r, r ig h t? ’ ” T h u s is c o m p le te d th e re v e n g e o f th e liv in g . S im on H u gh es

LOVE IS COLDER THAN DEATH: Fassbinder directs

B O O K S

R E C E I V E D

WALT D ISNEY’S FANTASIA J o h n C u lh a n e (A b ra m s I n c /A u s

tralasian P u blish in g C om pan y, 1987, $36, IS B N 0 8109 8078 9) • A c o m p re h e n s iv e , e n th u s ia s tic c e le b ra tio n o f th e c re a tio n o f th e D isn e y m o v ie , illlu s tr a te d w ith c h a r a c te r s k e tc h e s, s to r y b o a r d s , p a in tin g s a n d a n im a tio n fra m e s . THE GOLDEN AGE OF FRENCH CINEM A 1 9 29-1939 J o h n W . M a r tin {C o lu m b u s/A u stra la sia n P ublishing Com pany, 1987, $19.95, IS B N 0 86287 333 9); LUCHINO VISCO NTI C la r e tta T o n e tti (C o lu m b u s/A u stra la sia n P ublish ing Com pany, 1987, $19.95, IS B N 0 86287 332 0 ); FEDERICO FELLINI: VARIETY LIGHTS TO LA DOLCE VITA F r a n k B u rk e (C o lu m b u s/A u stra l

asian P u blish in g C om pan y, 1987, $19.95, IS B N 0 86287 356 8); ROMAN POLANSKI V irg in ia W rig h t W e x m a n (C o lu m b u s/A u s tralasian P u blish in g C om pany, 1987, $19.95, I S B N 0 86287355 X ) • F o u r m o r e title s in th e C o lu m b u s F ilm m a k e rs serie s, re fe re n c e w o rk s o n m a j o r d ir e c to r s a n d film m a k in g tr e n d s d e sig n e d to a p p e a l to b o th g e n e ra l re a d e r s a n d film s tu d e n ts . THE FILMS OF STEVEN SPIELBERG N eil S in y a rd

(G olden

P ress/H a m lyn , 1987, $19.95, IS B N 0 600 55226 8) • A lo o k a t S p ie lb e rg ’s film c a re e r , fr o m h is 8 m m s h o r t a b o u t a sta g e c o a c h r o b b e r y (m a d e a t th e a g e o f 12) to The C o lo r P urple. Illu s tra te d w ith m o r e th a n 135 c o lo u r p ic tu re s . LAUREL AND HARDY: CLOWN PRINCES OF COMEDY B ru c e C ro w th e r (C olu m bu s, $29.95, IS B N 0 86287 344 4) • O v e r-p ric e d illu s tra te d p a p e r b a c k a c c o u n t o f th e film c a re e r o f S ta n a n d O llie. W ith film o g ra p h y . GEORGE GERSHWIN A la n K e n d a ll (H arrap/A u stralasian P u b

lishing C o m pan y, $29.95, IS B N 0 245 54332 5) • T h e b io g r a p h e r o f D a v id G a rric k e x p lo re s th e w o rk , life a n d tim e s o f A m e r ic a ’s f a v o u r ite p o p u la r c o m p o s e r.

Soundtrack Albums New and unusual soundtrack recordings from our large range The Witches Of Eastwick Wild Rovers Raising Arizona/Blood Simple Great Train Robbery Inchon Everything 1Have Is Yours/ 1Love Melvin Betty Blue Castaway Boy Who Could Fly Revenge Of The Nerds Radio Days Right Stuff/North & South Name Of The Rose Golden Seal Twilight Zone — The Movie Final Conflict Thief Of Bagdad Tom Jones Irma La Douce

(Williams) (Goldsmith) (Burwell) (Goldsmith) (Goldsmith)

(Eno) (Broughton)

(Conti) (Horner) (Barry) (Goldsmith) (Rosza) (Addison)/ (Previn)

$18.99 $18.99 $18.99 $18.99 $19.99 $18.99 $19.99 $19.99 $18.99 $18.99 $14.99 $19,99 $19.99 $18.99 $18.99 $18.99 $18.99 $18.99

READINGS — SOUTH YARRA 153 Toorak Road — 267 1885 (Books, LPs, CDs, Cass.) & 73/75 Davis Avenue — 266 5877 (Secondhand LPs & Cass.) Mail Order: P.0. Box 434, South Yarra, Vic. 3141. We are always interested in purchasing collections of recordings.

R o b e r t K atz w ith P e te r B e rlin g

LOVE IS COLDER THAN DEATH TheAlife and times of Rainer Werner Fassbinder Jonathan Cape Cnr Bridge Rd & Jersey St Hornsby 2077 Ph (02) 476 2000

h /c $39.95

Unlike som ads you ma]

inthi

we only say about oi If you’ve b een thum bing th ro u g h some of th e advertising in d u stry ’s m agazines lately, you m ight have caught a glim pse of some o th er V ideolab ads. T h e y w eren ’t exactly self-congratulatory. A c tu ally w e adm itted th a t w e ’d h a d a few hiccups. F ortunately, those little lapses have n o t u n d u ly concerned those of you in th e features and m ini-series business. N o r should they. In fact, for you w e ’ve got n o th in g b u t good new s. S ta rtin g w ith our quotes. W h ic h are already am ongst th e m ost

com petitive y o u ’ll fin d in to w n . N o w th e y ’re even m ore accurate. A n d our invoices are easier to u n d erstan d . T h is is due in no sm all p a rt to o u r new A d m in istra tio n M anager, A la n R obson, w ho jo in ed u s recen tly from H a n n a B arb era. A n d th e q u a lity o f o u r w o rk , th e m ost im p o rtan t reason for com ing to us in th e first place, has also received a sh o t in th e arm . In addition to o ur analogue telecine chains, w e ’ll soon have th e m ost m o d em , m o st sophis tic ate d digital chain in th e w orld. A R a n k C in te l 422 . N o t to m en tio n a ra ft o f o th e r n e w gear.

le Videolab have seen, 5 one fnice things rselves. T h e n w e have fo u r of th e b est graders in the business. H en n o O rro o f “R e tu rn to E d en ” fame. Lee M c C u rtay n e w hose credits include “Last Frontier.” Sue W ilso n , w h o w as responsible for “Cyclone Tracy.” A n d Lee Irv in , w h o ’s w o rk you’ve seen in “The H aw kesbury.” O u r n e w D ire c to r o f E ngineering, Jo h n Schell ju s t arrived from D o lb y L aboratories in the USA. A n d in O c to b er w e ’ll have th e b e st audio drama p erso n in A u stra lia , R ic h a rd B robyn.

O f course, our recent m ove to bigger and b rig h te r prem ises in D ickson A venue has h ad a lo t to do w ith th e new, im proved Videolab. W e’re sure y o u ’ll be m ore com fortable th a n ever before. W h ic h is p re tty im p o rtan t w h e n you’re spending w eeks and m onths at a tim e here. Hopefully, w h e n you emerge, finished job in hand, n o t only w ill ou r ads be saying nice thin g s about us. W e reckon you’ll be saying th em too.

V ID E O LA B 4~14 Dickson Ave., Artarmon 2064. Ph: 439 5922. V L6F

TECHNICALITIES

For anyone who’s wondered about DAT, PCM, kHz FRED HARDEN demystifies digital sound.

HOW IT’S DONE: Steve Dunn explains

WHILE WE still have the same pair of analog ears, subject to the variables of age and health, we have now moved into the era of digital audio. If you have done any sound work for TV recently, you will have encountered the term PCM. Having used PCM tracks for re-striping audio tracks for commercials, I knew that PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) is the most common method of digitally recording sound. Examining the PCM process allows us to cover most of the current and future uses of digital audio recording and reproduction. EXISTING TECHNIQUE VS. THE FUTURE We are comfortable with the analog approach to film sound which involves the chain of a microphone, preamplifier, tape recorder, mag film transfer, multitrack (film or tape) mix, optical sound negative, to final optical print. Processes such as Dolby encoding have dramatically increased the quality at each step of the 60 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

process, but there are still restrictions on the dynamic . range, distortions, signal loss, and noise inherent in analog sound. A digital alternative to the film sound sequence would be limited by the fact that conventional film processes require analog methods for much of the chain of events. From microphone to preamplifier is always an analog signal; although a number of people are using PCM for backup, digital location recording is cumbersome, at least until we see the first of the Digital Audio Tape (DAT) format machines. Time-coded film systems that speed up syncing of rushes are available, but most editors fall back on transferring the location sound to magnetic film. There is no way that the traditional methods would be encoded digitally at these stages. We will have to wait for some of the new editing systems such as Lucasfilm’s Editdroid, where the sync rushes are

transferred to video disc and then played back on multiple laser disc players controlled by a computer. Until then, digital will be used only at the multitrack mix where the master is digital. This would be used to make the optical sound neg or produce the magnetic stripe tracks.

VIDEO AUDIO GOES DIGITAL The biggest and most immediate changes offered by digital sound will be for TV soundtracks and video or film series for TV, where the image and sound are cut on video and the digital audio tapes can be synchronised and laid up on the multitrack for the mix. Then the stereo digital master would be transferred to the new digital VTRs (Video Tape Recorders) so the final release dubs could be digital sound.

THE RECORDING PROCESS The conventional analog

process records the original audio signal as variations in the magnetisation of recording tape. This comes with the attendant problems of replaying the recording accurately and, with copies, degradation and irregularities of the original signal. Wow and flutter, distortion, signal loss, noise from the tape and the processing equipment all come with the process. Digital tape recording still involves the same problems in processing the signal but it breaks the continuous waveform into discrete pulses. All audio waveforms have two main features: the amplitude of the wave (its height and depth) and time (how many waves go past a point in a certain period). The digital system operates by separating time into very short segments, dictated by a crystal-controlled clock. The actual number of segments is called the sampling rate. With each segment, the waveform voltage is sampled at that moment by an analog to digital converter and a digital

number is generated that shows what the actual voltage was at that moment. This turns the continuous waveform into a series of steps approximating the original waveform, as can be seen in the diagram below. More samples will make the digital signal match the analog signal more accurately, but after a certain point this becomes much more difficult and expensive, and the quality increase is difficult to detect. The digital audio system that most of us are familiar with is Compact Disc. The sampling rate for CDs is 44.1 kHz. Audio purists say that the best conventional analog systems can achieve the same high frequency response as CDs but the fact that digital information is recorded as either off or on ‘bits’ of information means there is no room for the ‘maybe or almost’ signals that are heard as background noise. To recreate even the simplest of audio signals requires a massive amount of data about it, and while computers are used to handling and storing this information onto floppy or hard discs, the replay time needed is much slower than for computer text etc. Digital recording on a standard tape recorder requires an increase in the speed of the tape past the heads, a change in the tape heads and the tape itself. A simpler method uses the wide bandwidth available with the rotary heads of video tape recording systems to record the digital audio signal in place of the picture signal information. This means that almost any Video 8mm, VHS or Beta half-inch, or U-matic video cassette recorder can be used as a digital tape deck. All that is required is a PCM converter that feeds a (stereo if required) digitised signal to the VCR. The same device decodes the signal for transfer to the master tracks later.

LIMITATIONS Stationary head recorders offer several advantages over rotary heads. Because cassettes are used for rotary designs this means that electronic editing is necessary. It is difficult to ‘drop in’, and because the stereo tracks are multiplexed (mixed) into a single recorded video track it is difficult to work on just one left or right signal.

Stationary heads also make it easier to record and playback for synchronous tracks, important for professional multitrack recording. This same argument has been echoed by the current development of the soon-to-be-released DAT recorders for the domestic market, where S-DAT and RDAT (stationary and rotary) systems have been developed. The biggest advantage of PCM recording on video equipment is cost. It is possible to have the highest quality production audio for well under $2000 if half-inch equipment is used. Existing video synchronising equipment used in edit suites can control audio editing as well. One of the best examples I’ve seen of PCM used in this fashion is at Frame Set & Match, a Sydney offline edit facility.

FRAME SET & MATCH Steve Dunn and Richard Schweikert, both ex-Videolab editors, have set up a small editing facility that I believe is ideal in size and costeffective. They have an Australian AEC editor controller handling three Sony U-Matics, a Sony Betacam, and a small mixer. While a lot of their work is corporate low

band work, they have the ability and enthusiasm to push the capabilities of the system. I asked Steve what prompted the PCM purchase and how it was used. “ The reason that we jumped onto it was because %-inch has such lousy sound. And suddenly for $800 you can have such uncompromising audio quality. It seems made for the lower quality formats — you can record it on Betacam and oneinch but you can’t time-base correct it for replay. Our major use of PCM is generated from the Betacam. Of the video production for TV today, 10 per cent is on one-inch and 90 per cent on Betacam. After the initial learning stages with Betacam audio tracks, a lot of production is now being done using the Dolby audio tracks of the Betacam. They still use a sound recordist working conventionally with a boom etc, and processing the audio through the Nagra, while making a safety copy on quarter-inch. “ If the quarter-inch tapes need to be used, the best method we’ve come across is recording a burst of the time code from the Betacam at the beginning of the scene onto the quarter-inch. When you come back to the edit suite, we can dub a PCM U-matic from it by feeding the audio

The input analog signal, is sampled

The numerical values of these samples are stored (effect of qiiantisation not shown)

Samples are held to form a staircase representation of the signal

An output lowpass filter smooths the staircase to recover the original waveform

THE DISCRETE CHARM OF TIME SAMPLING: A band limited signal can be sampled and reconstructed without loss

signal at the same time into the time-code reader. The reader doesn’t react to the audio until it hits the section of timecode, starts counting and, when it cuts out, continues to supply code from that point. It is then an easy matter to sync with the edit computer to the Betacam master. “ Sports Crazy from Kennedy Miller is a good example of PCM use. They are doing eight one-hour programs, it’s a massive shoot — about 1000 Beta tapes. At 20 minutes each, that’s a lot of material. “ They do a rough ‘punch and crunch’ assembly of the material, and then bring it here to polish up. So we end up with an edit event list and all the numbers on floppy disc ready for the CMX. That’s not particularly original but at that point there is no extra work to do on the sound. The system is then automatic when you come to sync up the sound. All the numbers are there when you are ready to lay tracks up to the multitrack for the mix. “ The process goes like this. The Dolby tracks are decoded to one or more PCM-Umatics. When they walked into the on line, which they have just finished, they didn’t have to think about the audio. In a $500-an-hour edit suite you shouldn’t be thinking about audio. We laid up the whole series on PCM. We had the edit list and, because all the time codes are the same, we could edit up the different tracks. We would look at the list and if there were dissolves we would pull that edit out, make it 50 frames longer either end which takes a few seconds on the computer and watch it assemble onto the cassettes. Because you can’t get at the stereo tracks once they are on PCM, you can flip it on alternative tracks to make things easier on the sound editor: left/right/ left/right — it’s a matter of choice. Then if you suddenly get overlapping audio you put it on another cassette with the same code. It was all properly sound charted, and they were sort of getting four tracks. We laid up the 100 per cent sound, additional ‘atmos’ and it was all so easy. “ On film it’s different. We have worked where the rushes are all telecinetransferred to cassette. Before we even start editing we select the takes onto a selected master roll. A list of these are then sent to the neg >

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 61

TECHNICALITIES

FRAME SET & MATCH: The set-up

cutters who assemble the whole takes in the same order as we have. But when they start doing their audio, they seem to make it really difficult for themselves. I’ve seen them trying to eyematch the mag transfers to sync using the cassette image. It’s so much easier with video when the numbers are all there. “ Half-inch VCRs seem to have some problems with PCM. Big dropouts are worse on the smaller tape and I do

know that a few people who had been using half-inch PCM to back up on instead of on Nagra (using the original F1 portable PCM unit that unfortunately Sony took off the market). They’ve stopped using the VHS machines and have gone back to Nagras. Gemini Sound was also backing up their masters on PCM VHS and have gone over to %-inch so it seems to have some problems; it may have just been only bad stock,

I don’t know. On the other hand we’ve seen some people using the Video 8 for their backups, not the PCM Video 8 model but recording PCM on the Video 8 vision tracks. “ What has happened on Sports Crazy really is a revolution in video audio, and it can’t help but become the best way to work. And we are trying to convince clients that it’s just as good for commercials. It’s faster and it saves money.

T H E B E G IN N E R S G U ID E MEASURING SOUND

SOUND Sound starts with a vibration of an object. A string is plucked, hands clapped etc, which vibrates the air next to it, compressing the norm ally uniformly distributed air mole cules into radiating waves of denser areas of air pressure fol lowed by lower than normal areas. One sequence of compression and rarefaction is called a cycle and the number of these recurring cycles that pass a fixed point in a second is called the frequency of that sound. The measurement of this frequency is in Hertz (Hz) as cycles per second. The amplitude of that sound is the amount of pressure displace ment above and below the level of the normal air (this is shown on a graph as the height of the wave and depth of the trough above the horizontal axis).

DIRECTION OF PROPAGATION

CATCH A WAVE: Wave propagation

HEARING The range of human hearing is usually given as 20Hz to 20,000Hz (or 20 kiloHertz, written kHz). To give you some idea of the size of that range, consider that a 20Hz signal has a wavelength more than 56 feet long and for 20kHz it is about half an inch. It is easy to imagine that few of the processes that change this sound pressure into electrical signals (such as microphones) can handle the range without affecting some areas of the audible range. This is where the term flat response refers to the device’s ability to leave the range of sound un changed. Few recording instru ments have a flat response over the full range. (Our ears don’t have a flat response; the greatest sensi tivity is in the 3 to 4 kHz range.) Sound pressure depends on the particle displacement in the air and this is very small. In a normal con versation the particle displacement is only about one-millionth of an inch. A football crowd roar would still only be about one-thousandth of an inch. The pressure of the atmosphere is measured in micro

62 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

12" CANNON AT MUZZLE -

220 210 ■i200190

H |i JET ENGINE -

H I

160 140-

• THRESHOLD OF PAIN

120

THRESHOLD OF FEELING ?■

100

NIAGARA FALLS:FACTORY-

OFFICE -

60 • [40"

QUIET HOMEGRAND CANYON NORTH RIMTHRESHOLD OF HEARING-

- ROCKET ENGINES

180

w -10’ ■

• THUNDER - SUBWAY •BUSY STREET - AUDIENCE NOISE - RECORDING STUDIOS

0 dB SPL = 0.0002 dyne/cm

SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS: From the sounds of silence to the noise that annoys bars. The threshold of hearing for most people is 0.0002 microbar. A microbar is equal to one-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure so you can see how sensitive to the minute changes of pressure the ear is. If it were any more sensitive you could hear the motion of air molecules produced by heat. Striking a match would produce not only the scrape of the match on the box and the burst of the

flame and crackle of burning wood, but the sound of the heated air around it! Because the ear operates over an energy range of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 it was necessary to find a way to make all those zeroes workable in calcula tions and formulae. A logarithmic scale with a base of 10 has been adopted. The above range would then be written 1012:1.

The unit of measurement of sound energy or the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is called the decibel (dB). Taking the lowest level we can as perceive OdB, we go through the range daily up to the level of feeling or discomfort at about 120dB (a jet engine hits about 150dB). To confuse the issue, the increases in Sound Pressure Level are not linear. Two jet engines aren’t 300dB — the increase is only 3dB (that’s still a 2:1 increase, remember that it is a logarithmic increase. There are a lot more noughts attached to the actual measured pressure differ ence from the second engine). That’s not really confusing when you consider a typical example of a domestic hi-fi. The formula for calculating dB is dB = 10logP1 divided by P2, where P1 and P2 are values of acoustic or electric power, such as watts. If you are trying to choose between two amplifiers, one with 40 watts out put and the other with 60 watts, your ears will hardly be able to tell the difference. By using the above formula (if you’ve got this far), you will see that the difference = 10log 60/40 = 10log 1.5 = 10 x .176 = only 1.76 dB. Because the minimum level change that your ears can perceive is 1dB, the in crease you hear from the more powerful amplifier will be only slight. OTHER FACTORS Many factors influence how sound is heard initially, and when it is recorded. Attenuation of the sound takes place even as it travels through the air. The sharp, high frequencies of a nearby thunderclap is attenuated to a low rumble as the sound comes from farther away. Different tempera tures affect the way the sound is refracted. It bends around objects, diffuses when it passes through small openings, and sound energy is reflected or absorbed by differ ent surfaces it hits.

“ The future for film is with systems like the CMX 6000, where you have vision and sound on separate laser discs. The neg is transferred to laser video disc ‘rushes’ and the edit is done completely by computer. As a concession in terminology to the film editor, edits are called ‘splices’ etc. The system can be not only time code but edge numbers and the final list can go to the neg cutter. Because it uses fast access

laser discs with multiple heads, the edit is never committed to tape and can be ‘trimmed’ and adjusted by single frames, just like film, without having to then re record from that point again. It all remains in the computer memory so you can play around with different versions of the scene. And all the audio can be handled the same way. It sounds terrific and I hope it comes soon.” DAT’s all folks.

T h e p r o o f is in t h e p ro o f. Optical S, 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 1 20. Once your selection is proofed, we will make revisions [prior to final approval] free of charge. 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” . .] 110 W est St, Crows Nest, NSW 2065, Australia Phone: [0 2 ] 9 2 2 -3 1 4 4 M odem : [0 2 ] 9 2 2 7 6 4 2

Fax: [02] 957 5001 Electronic Mail: Minerva 07 SNE 064

optical&grapljic

GETTING YOUR DIGITAL BEARINGS: A bucket of water and a bucket of ball bearings illustrate some of the differences between analog and digital information brate the volume of the glass from the number it holds. Pouring “ digital” marbles can also be repeated as often as you like and even if you lose one, you already know the shape and size of the marble and can replace it. Digital audio uses clever error checking processes that can replace the gaps in data caused by tape drop outs etc. Your ears never hear them, unless they are massive.

DIGITAL AND ANALOG The textbook explanation (called Blesser’s analogy) of the differ ences between analog and digital information involves the compari son between a glass filled with water and a glass filled with marbles. The analog water can be measured or quantified by weigh ing the glass and water, pouring out the water and finding the weight of the water alone. When pouring out the water, a little sticks to the glass and if it is spilled you cannot recover it. With the “ digital” marbles we can count the marbles and cali

One of the best texts I’ve found on this subject is Principles Of Digital Audio, by Ken C. Pohlmann, from which the illustrations in this article were taken.

ME L B O U R N E B A S E

m Hi

to *

*AC* VKl1

PROFESSIONAL RE-SKILLING

Short Intensive Courses in Film Television and R a d io ''''1 ^ Send for a copy of our Ju ly - D ecem b er 1987 Course Schedule

0 1 0

TIME

Digital signal HILLS AND PARAPETS: Analog and digital signals are two methods of representing information

lighlights include JULY • Research for Film & Television • First Assistant Director AUGUST • TV How does it work - the Electronics of Television • Presentation for Public Radio Announcers SEPTEMBER • A B C Drama Policy - Seminar with Sandra Levy • Continuity for Film/TV Drama OCTOBER • Scriptwriting as a Business • Budgeting and Financing • NOVEMBER • Stereo Post Production • Electronic Cinematography. Courses are designed for those working or intending to work in Film, Television and Radio. Lecturers for each course are top working professionals. For further information: Australian Film, Television & Radio School 369 King Street Melbourne 3003 Ph (03) 328 2517

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 63

V R

E E

S P

E O

A R

S T

Vincent Ward

NEWZEALAND B Y M I K E N I C O L AI DI

TO THE RESCUE T h e e x p erien ce o f th e 10-w eek s h o o t o f th e o ff s h o re W a lt D isn ey T o u c h s to n e F ilm s ’ p r o d u c tio n , The R escue, m a y c larify w h a t h a s b e e n a d ism a l grey a re a in lo c a l in d u s try a tti tu d e s . I t also m ig h t sig n al a m o re c o lla b o r a tiv e a p p r o a c h b e tw een seg m en ts o f th e in d u s try in th e d e c a d e a h e a d . A s in A u s tr a lia a n d else w h ere , th e issue o f o ff s h o re p ro d u c tio n in all its gu ises h as b een a so u rc e o f te n s io n in th e in d ig e n o u s fe a tu re in d u s try . It ra k e s o v er th e c o als o f c u ltu ra l im p e ria lism a n d th e e x p lo ita tio n o f lo c a l re s o u rc e s a n d ta le n t. It c a n d iv e rt lo c a l p r i v a te in v e s tm e n t aw a y f r o m th e h o m e p ro d u c t. In N ew Z e a la n d , w h e re e c o n o m ic c o n s tra in ts a re lik ely to k eep lo c a l fe a tu re s to a b o u t five a y e a r, th e d e b a te c a n fla re w ith v iru le n c e . T h is h a p p e n e d in 1984 w h e n N ew Z e a la n d A c to r s ’ E q u ity p ic k e te d a n d g e n erally h a ra s s e d a c o -p ro d u c tio n , m o u n te d b y N ew Z e a la n d a n d o v erseas in te re sts b u t w ith scarcely a K iw i o n th e c a st list. P u b lic sk irm ish e s also su rfa c e d o n a n u m b e r o f o th e r “ im p o r ts ” in th o s e few y e a rs o f b o o m p r o d u c tio n w h e n film fin a n c in g , th r o u g h th e u se o f lim ite d re s o u rc e lo a n s , w as lu c ra tiv e b u sin e ss f o r d e a l m a rk e ts a n d m o n e y m e rc h a n ts . T h e g o v e r n m e n t f i n a ll y c la m p e d d o w n o n th is film in v e s tm e n t sc a m fr o m 1 O c to b e r 1984. T h e s u b s e q u e n t ex te n d e d In la n d R e v e n u e D e p a r t m e n t in v e s tig a tio n o f sp ecial film p a rtn e rs h ip s o p e ra tin g in th e 1980-84 p e rio d , a n d th e re s u lta n t p a u s e in all fe a tu re film m a k in g in th e c o u n tr y in

64 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

1985 a n d 1986, h a s h e lp e d stifle r h e to r ic a n d in d u c e so m e rea lism . M a n y a c to rs a n d m o s t film te c h n ic ia n s b e g a n to th in k th a t a rm c h a ir g ra n d s ta n d in g w as all v ery w ell. B u t th e p rio rity w as w o rk a n d so m e c o n tin u ity o f e m p lo y m e n t. In a b a c k -h a n d e d w ay a m o re p o sitiv e a tm o s p h e re a lso w as e n g e n d e re d b y th e D a v id L a n g e L a b o u r g o v e rn m e n t. E m p lo y in g m o re stic k th a n c a r r o t, it e n c o u r a g e d less c rin g e a n d g re a te r c o u ra g e a n d c o h e s iv e n e s s b y ta k in g a d v a n ta g e o f d is a rra y b e tw e e n in d u s try se g m e n ts a n d n o t acc e d in g to a n y n ew m e th o d o f in d u s try s tim u la tio n th r o u g h th e ta x sy stem . The R escue w as a w a te rs h e d in lo c a l in d u s try a ttitu d e s , c irc a 1987, as sh o w n b y w h a t to o k p la c e d u rin g th e m o n th s o f p re p r o d u c tio n a n d th e s h o o t w h ich c o n c lu d e d in A u c k la n d in la te J u n e . T h e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e D isn ey p ro je c t a n d p re v io u s o v erseas p ro d u c tio n s w as th a t it w as th e firs t fu lly o ffs h o re fu n d e d film . It h a d a b ig b u d g e t o f $ U S 1 4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e s to r y d e a lt w ith a g ro u p o f A m e ric a n te e n a g e rs w h o re sc u e d th e ir elite so ld ie r fa th e rs fr o m a N o r th K o re a n p ris o n fo rtre s s . D isn e y w a n te d to b rin g in a t le a s t 15 p e r f o r m e r s , h ir e R N Z A F a ir c ra ft f o r a e ria l a c tio n seq u e n c e s, a n d c o n v e rt W h e n u a p a i a ir b a se n e a r A u c k la n d in to a U S b a se in K o re a . T h e g o v e rn m e n t w as a m e n a b le . T h e In d e p e n d e n t P ro d u c e r s a n d D ire c to rs G u ild (IP D G ), p a rtic u la rly in th e p e rs o n o f its p re s id e n t, J o h n (F o o tro t Flats ) B a rn e tt, w as stro n g ly in fa v o u r o f th e p r o je c t. T h e re w as w o rk in th e film , a t ra te s w ell a b o v e th o s e fo r lo c a l fe a tu re s f o r m e m b e rs o f th e N ew Z e a la n d F ilm a n d V id e o T e c h n i c i a n s G u i l d (N Z F V T G ).

D a v id G a sc o ig n e , c h a irm a n o f th e N Z F ilm C o m m iss io n , sa id h e w o u ld n o t lik e to see im p o rte d p r o d u c tio n s w o rk to th e d e trim e n t o f th e lo c a l in d u s try . H o w e v e r, as lo n g as th e r e w as s u rp lu s c a p a c ity in th e c o u n try a n d N ew Z e a la n d m o n e y w as n o t in v o lv e d , h e saw n o re a s o n s a g a in s t it. D is n e y h a s s u b s e q u e n tly c la im e d th e Q u e e n sto w n lo c a tio n s h o o t as “ th e b ig g e st e c o n o m ic n e w s to h it (N e w Z e a la n d ’s) S o u th Is la n d in re c e n t m e m o ry ” . F ifty lo c a l tra d e s m e n w ere e m p lo y e d to b u ild sets a n d 100 o b ta in e d ro le s as e x tra s. In a d d itio n a s s o r te d a n im a l w ra n g le r s , m e ta l w o rk e rs a n d s tu n t p e o p le w ere h ire d . F o r th e th re e -w e e k A u c k la n d s h o o t a n o th e r 300 e x tra s w ere e m p lo y e d . T h e o n ly se c tio n o f th e lo c a l in d u s try u n h a p p y a b o u t D isn e y ’s a rriv a l w as A c to r s ’ E q u ity , w h e re in te rn a l d e b a te w as m o u n tin g o v e r its p o lic y th a t th e re b e n o m o re th a n tw o o v e rse a s a c to rs fo r a n y film m a d e in N ew Z e a la n d . T h e m e m b e rsh ip also w as b o u n d b y th e p o lic y o f th e F e d e ra tio n o f I n te rn a tio n a l A rtis ts th a t o f f sh o re film s m u s t p a y lo c a l a rtists w h a t th e y w o u ld p a y to th e ir o w n a t h o m e . In th e w o rd s o f Jo c e ly n G ib so n , E q u ity n a tio n a l se c re ta ry , th e e x te n d e d a n d d iffic u lt n e g o t i a t i o n s w ith D is n e y fin a lly p ro v id e d th e c a ta ly st fo r p o lic y c h a n g e . F o r th e few N ew Z e a la n d e rs w ith s p e a k in g ro le s in The Rescue, ra te s w ere se ttle d a t a m a rg in a b o v e th o s e f o r m o s t lo c a l film s b u t b e lo w U S S creen A c to r s ’ G u ild ra te s tr a n s la te d in to N ew Z e a la n d d o lla rs. (T h e m in im u m ra te s tru c k is u n d e r s to o d to h a v e b e e n $ N Z 4 0 0 a d a y a n d S N Z 1800 a w eek .) T h e d e a l a ls o in v o lv e d E q u it y r e l in q u i s h in g its re q u ire m e n t o n th e n u m b e r o f o v erseas a c to rs fo r a n y w h o lly fu n d e d o ff s h o re p ro d u c tio n c o m in g in , a n d D isn e y ’s a g re e m e n t to p a y a levy o f 3 °7o o f g ro ss a c to r s ’ b u d g e t — e sti m a te d b e tw e e n $ N Z 3 0 ,0 0 0 a n d $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 . O rig in a lly E q u ity s o u g h t a p e rc e n ta g e o f th e g ro ss b u d g e t, b u t w ith o u t th e s u p p o r t o f te c h n ic ia n s , it a c c e p te d th e D isn e y a c to r s ’ b u d g e t-o n ly c o u n te r -o ff e r. It is th is c ru m b fr o m a H o lly w o o d m a jo r th a t c o u ld b e c o m e th e p re c e d e n t a n d ra lly in g p o in t f o r all seg m e n ts o f th e in d u s try in th e fu tu re . A lth o u g h th e IP D G h a s se e m e d a n ta g o n is tic to a n y fo r m o f levy o n o ff s h o re p r o d u c tio n s , th is w o u ld n o t n e c e s sa rily b e th e c ase if o ff s h o re

p r o d u c tio n s b e g a n c o m p e tin g o n a re g u la r b a sis f o r lo c a l p e r s o n n e l a n d a rtis ts . A s th e G e o rg e L u c a s -R o n H o w a r d fa n ta s y film W illow c h e c k e d in to Q u e e n s to w n fo llo w in g th e D isn e y d e p a r tu r e , th e to u te d r a tio n a le t h a t m o s t K iw i crew a n d a c to rs a lw ay s w o u ld g ive p r io r ity to w o rk o n a lo c a l film (p re s u m a b ly a t lo w e r “ lo c a l” ra te s) b e c a m e a tr ifle s tra in e d . W h ile th e N Z F ilm C o m m is sio n , d e lic a te ly p o is e d b e tw e e n th e g o v e r n m e n t a n d th e in d u s try , o ffic ia lly sits o n th e fe n c e , th e r e a re c h u rn in g s w ith in . T h e p e rs o n a l view o f ex e c u tiv e d ire c to r J im B o o th is th a t o ff s h o re p r o d u c tio n s c o m e to N e w Z e a la n d b e c a u s e o f lo w c rew ra te s a n d th e g re a t n a tu r a l lo c a tio n s . It is lo g ic a l th e y s h o u ld p a y so m e f o r m o f fee. M a n y c o u n trie s in fa c t d o c h a rg e a lo c a tio n lev y , h e says. M ik e W e stg a te , c h a ir m a n o f th e N Z F V T G , b elieves a lo c a tio n levy u s e d to p r o m o te tr a in in g o f lo c a l te c h n ic ia n s a n d a rtis ts c o u ld b e a d v a n ta g e o u s a n d s h o u ld b e fu lly d e b a te d w ith in th e in d u s try . M e a n w h ile , E q u ity ’s G ib s o n h a s se t a b o u t e s ta b lis h in g a c h a rita b le tr u s t to h a n d le th e tin y D isn e y n e ste g g . S h e says it w ill b e u p to th e E q u ity m e m b e rs h ip , a b o u t 800, to d e c id e w h a t is d o n e w ith it — p e rh a p s , film p r o d u c tio n tr a in in g f o r a c to r s , o r a c tin g tr a in in g g e n e ra lly . W h e th e r W illo w fo llo w s D is n e y ’s le a d a p p e a re d p r o b le m a tic a t th e tim e o f w ritin g . G ib s o n , w h o o n ly re c e n tly su c c e e d e d S u sa n O r d in th e k ey E q u ity p o s t, sa y s: “ T h e p ro b le m w ith W illow is th a t in itia l n e g o tia tio n s w e n t b a d ly a n d th e r e h a s b e e n v irtu a lly n o c o m m u n ic a tio n . ’ ’ V e ry fe w , if a n y , N ew Z e a la n d a c to rs w ill b e e m p lo y e d . M u r ra y N e w ey , N Z p ro d u c tio n m a n a g e r, sp e a k s o f “ a b o u t $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ” to b e p u m p e d in to th e Q u e e n s to w n re g io n a n d 50 K iw is d ire c tly e m p lo y e d in crew a n d a s s o c ia te d jo b s . D e e p in d u s try c o n s id e ra tio n o f a levy m a y th e r e f o r e b e p o s t p o n e d u n til a f te r W illow w en d s a n d b e fo r e th e n e x t a rriv a l. M e a n w h ile , V in c e n t W a r d ’s The N a v ig a to r , p o s t p o n e d fr o m la s t y e a r a n d th e firs t c o p ro d u c tio n b e tw e e n th e N ew Z e a la n d a n d A u s tr a lia n film c o m m is sio n s , b e g a n a n in e w eek s h o o t o n 20 J u ly . I t h a s a m ix o f K iw i/A u s tr a lia n crew w ith f e a tu re d a c to r s f r o m b o th c o u n trie s a n d C a n a d a ; a b le n d o f in d ig e n o u s a n d o ff s h o re t h a t c o u ld b e c o m e c o n ta g io u s .

P R O D T J C ì T I Q l s r R E P Ö R T

Anthony Buckley

T H E

M I N I S E R I E S :

the big budget on the small screen "I DON'T think there's any future in the miniseries/' says veteran producer Anthony Buckley. "I'm not convinced the way networks program our drama suits the viewer at all." Buckley has just completed his second miniseries, Poor Man's Orange, and he says he's not planning any more. He feels the format is too restrictive, too expensive and unfair on the audience. "I feel that miniseries aren't fair on the director either," says Buckley. "Because of costs you have to shoot seven minutes a day. The viewer is expecting feature film quality and you can't really give them that because of the expense." Buckley may be less than enthusiastic about the format but he and director George W haley are delighted with the result. Poor Man's Orange is the sequel to their adaptation of Ruth Park's bestselling noVel The Harp In The South, and it continues the story of inner-city, post-war Sydney and the battling Darcys of 121/2 Plymouth St: a poor working-class family of tough Irish stock living among the tenement houses, razor-gangs, brothels and sly-grog shops of Surry Hills in the late 1940s. It is a story of struggle and heartbreak and if there's a slightly melodramatic tone beginning to creep in — then that was inevitable. This series, like its predecessor, is pure melodrama. That's not to underrate Whaley's

achievement. The performers develop Park's earthy Aussie archetypes into flesh and blood characters, when they could have easily become caricatures. Handsome, authentic and expensive as Buckley's production is, there's none of the bloated pretentiousness of other historical miniseries. Its aims are modest but we still get a fine sense of a period, even though the series makes no attempt to deal directly with major historical events. Yet in spite of the constraints of the family-saga narrative, W haley was able to integrate broader themes into the emotional drama; even so, the task proved frustrating. "I am personally interested in the social and political environment and the effect these things have on people," says Whaley. "O f course we did vast amounts of research on Harp and Poor Man's. W e make glancing references to the political events of the time — like strikes and mass immigration, and we deal with the issue of housing commission blocks in Poor Man's. But to treat them properly — and I tried — you'd have to write another story. It just didn't fit. W e were doing the books and while one makes changes, the essence has got to be there and the major events have got to be there. I think Harp and Poor Man's will indicate to a lot of people that perhaps things haven't changed much for a lot of people." W haley had never directed film or television before Buckley offered

him the miniseries project. He is best known for his work in the theatre as an actor, director, producer, teacher and writer; for Buckley he adapted Harp and wrote the script with Eleanor Witcombe as well as adapting and scripting Poor Man's Orange. His stage production of Steele Rudd's On Our Selection set boxoffice records and now Buckley wants to make a new feature film version (not a remake of Raymond Longford's 1920 classic or Ken Hall's 1932 talkie version) with Whaley writing and directing. Whaley is promising something fresh and new; he knows the Victorian melodrama of his stage adaptation would be box-office poison. The new film will incorporate music, comedy, captions and narration. Can Steele Rudd work with a modern audience? "I think it can," says Buckley. "I went to see George's production at the Nimrod very sceptically. I thought, 'Good Lord how will this work in 1980?' Well, I was wrong. It was a mixed audience of young people and old, and they loved it. It played to packed houses. It's extraordinary, that interest in Australiana and authors like Steele Rudd and Henry Lawson. I think there's a great identification out there and I think the big networks miss the point." Buckley believes that the networks are spending too much money on overseas product in an effort to snare ratings. They seem to think that viewers do not want to see themselves, despite the success of local miniseries and dramas like Vietnam, A Country Practice, Rafferty's Rules and The Harp In The South. He also believes that networks should take a long hard look at

their programming, pointing out the advantages of the British system, where commercials are screened every 25 minutes. "You know they're on for five or more minutes, and it gives drama a chance," he says. "It's something that should be looked at in Australia." He feels that an hour screened weekly, as was the case with The Jew el In The Crown and Paradise Postponed, is satisfying for viewers. Buckley, who produced Caddie, The Irishman, The Killing O f Angel Street and Bliss, has three major projects, plus a documentary series, in preparation. These include an adaptation of Robyn Davidson's Tracks, with the director of Bliss, Ray Lawrence. He is convinced that there is still an audience for local product; his biggest fear is the possibility of deregulation in the TV industry. "Deregulation is when you're talking about commercials being imported and the reduction of local content — that has to be fought tooth and nail. The networks want self-regulation and if they are allowed to do that under the present ownership conditions, it will spell the end for the Australian TV industry. "It must be rammed down the government's throat that we would not be sitting here talking to you now if it weren't for the 1956 regulation when television was first introduced — that commercials had to be made in Australia. Out of that came an Australian film industry . .. Look at the people who have come out of commercials: Ray Lawrence, Peter Weir, Fred Schepisi, Bruce Beresford, Paul Murphy. If we're going to deregulate, we're killing a national treasure."

P o o r M a n ’s O ra n g e

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 65

Script editor..............................Hannah Downie THE DREAMING Based on the novel....................... Linda Szafari Prod, company........................... Genesis Films Photography................................... Jozse Pojak Pty Limited for International Sound recordist................................... Kim Lord Film Management Limited Editor.......................................Marianna Miklos Dist. company...........Goldfarb Distributors Inc. Composers...................................... R. Szikora, (The World excluding Australasia C.S. Bogda’n, &The Philippines), G. Berkes, Eastern Film Management Corporation M. Fenyo, (The Philippines), BLIND FAITH A. Bodna’r, Hemdale Ginnane Australia Limited Prod, company...........................Brilliant Films G. Szentmihalyi (Australasia) Producer.................................... Brian Douglas Exec, producer........................Robert A. Cocks Producers...................................... Craig Lahiff, Director...................................... Brian Douglas Assoc, producer....................................... EndreFlorian Wayne Groom Scriptwriter................................. Robert Taylor Prod, supervisor................................... P. Koltai Director...........................................Craig Lahiff CONTACT Based on the original idea Prod, managers........................................ DavidDownie, Scriptwriter..................................... Rob George by.............................................Robert Taylor Prod, company............. Tru Vu Pictures Pty Ltd Endre Sik Based on an original idea b y .........Craig Lahiff, Editor..............................................Ken Sallows Dist. company........................Ronin Films/ABC 1st asst directors................................. MargaretPrior, Terry Jennings Producer’s assistant................ Bob Stevenson Producer......................................... Chris Oliver Z. Bonta Photography..............................David Foreman Director....................................Mary Callaghan Length..............................................90 minutes Casting ...Watermelon Valley Productions (WA) Exec, producer.....................Antony I. Ginnane Scriptwriter.............................. Mary Callaghan Gauge...................................................... 35mm Special effects...................Hungarian Film Lab Script editor................................................. SueSmith1st asst director..............................Gus Howard Cast: Bill Hunter. Musical director...............................................T.Koesa’k Synopsis: Rivalry between two parish Photography................................................RayArgaliStudios.....................................Hendon Studios Sound e ditor................................................... S.Kalman churches escalates into a media event of Sound recordist............................................ PatFiskeBudget............................................. $2,200,000 M ixer............................................................... S.Kalman Length..............................................92 minutes astronomic proportion — leaving Father Editor........................................... Tony Stevens Still photography................................I- Bartók Gauge....................................................... 35mm Brannigan attempting to undo what the miracle Prod, designer............................. Kerrie Brown Tech, adviser..................................... Ron Sims Shooting stock............... Kodak Eastmancolor Prod, manager..............................Anna Grieve he needed has given him! Publicity..................................................GlendaCocks, Synopsis: A contemporary thriller set on a Prod, accountants............. Cathy Montgomery, P. Szanto remote island off the southern coast of Wearne & Co. BODILY HARM Studios............ MTV Light Entertainment Dept, Australia. Publicity.......................................... Kim Lewis, IPV, Prod, company..... Smiley Films Pty Limited for Andrew Pike ABC, International Film Management Limited EMERALD CITY Laboratory.......................................... Colorfilm Hollo-Laszlo Studio Hungaroton Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Length.............................................90 minutes Mixed a t........................ ABC/MTV-Hungaroton Prod, company............. Limelight Productions (The World excluding Australasia), Gauge...................................................... 35mm Pty Ltd in association with the Laboratory.........Hungarian Film Lab Company Hemdale Ginnane Australia Limited Cast: Jo Kennedy, Nique Needles. NSW Film Corporation Budget............................................ $2.2 million (Australasia) Synopsis: Contact is a low-rent, pop-cult love Length............................................ 90 minutes Producer...........................................Joan Long Producer................................Richard Brennan Director....................................Michael Jenkins Gauge....................................................... 35mm Director...................................................... MarkJoffestory. Scriptwriter............................. David Williamson Shooting stock............................. Eastmancolor Scriptwriter...........................................WarwickHind DANGEROUS GAME Based on the play b y..............David Williamson Synopsis: Linda Safari is a story of intrigue, Based on an original idea b y .......Warwick Hind action, adventure, mystery and romance, com Casting consultant....................... Alison Barrett Photography..............................................ElleryRyanProd, company.....................Virgo Productions bining humour and heroism, with rock ’n’ roll Budget.............................................$2,831,738 Sound recordist.................... Andrew Ramage Dist. company..... International Film Marketing music for audiences of all ages. The heroine is Gauge....................................................... 35mm (Los Angeles) Editor................................... Marc Van Buuren Linda, a policewoman with “ Interpol” , well Producers.................................................JudithWest,Synopsis: A scriptwriter and his publisher wife Prod, designer.................................Roger Ford struggle with the temptations of wealth, power known for her “ Tae Kwon Do” and linguistic Basil Appleby Exec, producers.................. Antony I. Ginnane, and harbour frontages. A comedy about moral skills. Several stories operate simultaneously Errol Sullivan Director...................................... Steve Hopkins and the protagonist always wins against great dilemmas. Scriptwriter..................................... Peter West Assoc, producer...........................Julie Monton odds, without guns, in her fight against organ Based on an original idea Prod, manager..............................Julie Forster ised international crime and terrorism. by............................................ Michael Ralph FACTORY GIRLS Prod, secretary...................... Rowena Talacko Photography..................................... Peter Levy Prod, accountant......................... Jill Coverdale Prod, company................... Factory Made Films MULLAWAY Exec, producer.......................Robert Mercieca 1st asst director......................................... EwenKeddie Producers............................... Raymond Quint, Asst producer................ Andrew Martin-Weber 2nd asst director....................................... JamieCrooks John Lonie Prod, company............................... Ukiyo Films Camera operator....................................... DavidWilliamson Co-exec, producer................................... DavidGroom Director................................................RaymondQuint (International) Pty Limited for Focus pulle r..................................Tracy Kubler Prod, accountant.............................Penny Carl, Scriptwriter.................................................JohnLonie International Film Management Limited Moneypenny Services Key g rip ..................................................... BarryHansen Assoc, producer.................................... TimothyWhite Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Gaffer...............................................Simon Lee Casting consultant.....................Susie Maizels Budget.............................................$1.2 million (The World excluding Australasia), Art director................................... Laurie Faen Camera operator.................... Billy Hammond Length............................................. 90 minutes Hemdale Ginnane Australia Limited Asst editor.................................... Jenny Hicks Focus p uller........................................... ConradSlackGauge....................................................... 35mm (Australasia) Budget............................................ $3,400,000 Key grip..................................Noddy Szafranek Synopsis: A group of women is sacked from a Producer..............................D. Howard Grigsby G affer........................................ Rick McMullen Gauge...................................................... 35mm small factory. The film is about the lives of each Director........................................................ DonMcLennan Stunts co-ordinator......................... Peter West Shooting stock................. Kodak Eastmancolor of the women as they participate in, for them, Scriptwriter.................................. Jon Stephens Asst stunt co-ordinators............. Jim Richards, Synopsis: A th rille r dealing with the quite extraordinary events. Based on the novel b y ................................ BronNicholls Joe Schwaiger murderous pursuit of obsessive love. Photography........................................ZbigniewFriedrich Safety officer..............................Art Thompson Prod, designer.........................................Patrick Reardon GENESIS Catering......................................MMK Catering Exec, producer.....................Antony I. Ginnane BRAIN BLAST Budget............................................ $4.7 million Prod, company....World Kangaroo Productions Prod, manager.....................Andrew Wiseman Gauge..................................................... 35mm Producer................................. Michael Radiant Prod, company............................ The Mindless is t asst airector........................................... boo Donaldson Shooting stock........................................Kodak Director..............................................Basir Felix Entertainment Corporation Costume designer.................................Jeannie Cameron Synopsis: A contemporary suspense thriller Scriptwriter.............................Michael Radiant Dist. company................................. Toadshow Laboratory..............................................Cinevex set in Sydney with four teenagers trapped over Synopsis: A musical. Adam and Eve meet in a Producer.............................................. StephenStockwell Budget..............................................$3,000,000 night and almost alone in a department store. futuristic society where women are gaining Director............................................ Andy Nehl Length.............................................. 94 minutes control of everything. They fight the forces of Scriptwriter........................................... StephenStockwell Gauge....................................................... 35mm evil women with the help of good ones and Photography.............................................DebraBeattie Shooting stock................. Kodak Eastmancolor eventually marry. All their adversaries are con ' Publicity................................Amanda Falconer Synopsis: A witty and compassionate story of Length............................................. 83 minutes DOT IN SPACE verted to righteousness and attend the a teenage girl coming to terms with her family wedding and devote themselves to the Virgin Gauge.................................................. 1" video and herself when she learns that her mother is Prod, company........................................ YoramGross Synopsis: Sci-fi-horror-comedy-thriller that fol Mary who officiates. critically ill. Film Studio Pty Ltd lows the havoc when two young brain Producer................................................. YoramGross researchers discover a video effect that stimu LINDA SAFARI Director....................................................YoramGross ROADWARS lates opioid peptides, and both the Mob and Scriptwriter................................................. John Palmer Prod, company...............................Soundstage the CIA want it. Prod, company...................... Roadwars Pty Ltd Associate producer................................SandraGross Australia Limited, Dist. company...................................... PremiereFilm Animation director.......................... Athol Henry MTV Hungary Marketing Ltd Music...............................................Guy Gross Producer...................................Tibor Meszaros Producer......................................................Tom Broadbrid BREAKING LOOSE Length............................................. 80 minutes Co-producer.................................... Gyorgy Gat Director......................... Brian Trenchard-Smith Gauge.......................................................35mm Scriptwriters....................................... A. Coper, Prod, company.............................Avalon Films Scriptwriter..............................................PatrickEdgewort Synopsis: Dot finds her way into an American Gy Gat, Producer......................................... Phil Avalon Based on the original idea spaceship which lands her on a war torn planet R. Rozgonyi Director............................................... Rod Ray by..........................................................PatrickEdgewort of Rounds and Squares. Animator..................................... Janos Katona Scriptwriter..........................................Rod Hay Composer.................................. Frank Strangio Exec, producers........................................ PeterBeilby, Robert LeTet Length.............................................................98minutes Gauge....................................................... 35mm Synopsis: A story about modern gladiators set /CIWEMA in the near future.

F E A T U R E S

PRE-PRODUCTION

Script editor...............................Denis Whitburn Assoc, producer........................... Kip Porteous Publicity......................................Lionel Midford Laboratory...............................................Atlab Budget.............................................$1.2 million Length........................................... 100 minutes Gauge......................................................35mm Synopsis: A young man set off on a journey to find his origins and discovers not only his past but the murderers of his father and grand father.

SOMETHING GREAT

l F* ocvcr/ou/

(C L O S E - O P )

66 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

x tr e m e

c l o s e

)

Prod, company...................................BoulevardFilms Producer.................................................... FrankHowson Scriptwriter................................................FrankHowson Exec, producer............................... Peter Boyle Publicity.................................................... LionelMidford Budget............................................ $5,980,000 Length............................................ 120 minutes Synopsis: The true story of the trials and triumphs of Australia’s golden boy of boxing who fell from grace as a result of World War I’s conscription hysteria and was resurrected as a hero, when he died in Memphis, lonely, bewildered and reviled at the age of 21.

______

T V

I E

SONS OF STEEL

A full listing of th e features, telem ovies, ^

_ _ _ _ _

H nrnm ontaripc .ww and chnrtc now in ■■■ nrA-nrnrfiirtinn r -w production or post-production in Australia.

Camera operator................. David Sanderson Focus puller.....................................Derry Field Boom operator.................... Graham McKinney Make-up..................................... Carla O’Keefe Publicity............................ The Write On Group Unit publicist.............................. Kate Jennings Mixed a t............................................... Colorfilm Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm Budget.............................................$3,500,000 Length............................................. 94 minutes Gauge....................................................1.35mm Shooting stock................. Kodak Eastmancolor Cast: Wendy Hughes (Stella), John Har greaves (Andy), Norman Kaye (Bill), Max Cullen (Blanco), Julie Nihill (June), John Clayton (Riley). Synopsis: A drama set in a small, outback town where a series of events is triggered by a school teacher forced to spend a few days in town when his car breaks down.

Every time Walter’s photoqraphic excursions Composer................................... David Bridie into the outside world merge with his imagin Exec, producer........................... Kevin Moore ings of the photographic past, his head falls off. Prod, manager......................... Rosa Colosimo And fish swim through it. Unit manager.............................. Dino Nicolosi Location manager....................... Dino Nicolosi Prod, secretaries..................... Maria Stratford, OUTBACK Carmel Coscia Prod, accountant........................ Reg McLean Prod, company.............................. John Sexton 1st asst director...........................Kath Hayden Productions Pty Limited for Continuity................................ Salli Englender The Burrowes Film Group Camera assistant................. Christopher Cain Pty Limited and International Key grip.................................Michael Madigan Film Management Limited Gaffer...........................................Rory Timoney Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Art director................................ Michael Kourri (The World excluding Australasia), Make-up.........................Giorgia van den Berg Hemdale Ginnane Australia Limited Hairdresser.....................Giorgia van den Berg (Australasia) Wardrobe................................. Anita Fierovanti Producer................................................ ...JohnSexton Still photography..................... Stephen Gower Director............................................... Ian Barry Runner.............................................Peter Ziras Scriptwriter................................................ JohnSexton Catering.......................................Hilary Neylon Photography............................. Ross Berryman Laboratory.............................................Cinevex Sound recordist..............................Ben Osmo Lab. liaison.................................. Ian Anderson Editor....................................................... HenryDangar CANDY CLAUS BOULEVARD OF BROKEN DREAMS Budget................................................$785,000 Prod, designer..........................................OwenPaterson Prod, company........................................ YoramGross Length.............................................96 minutes Exec, producers...................Antony I. Ginnane, Prod, company........................ Boulevard Films Film Studio Pty Ltd Gauge...................................................... 16mm Kent Lovell Dist. company.....................Bravo International Dist. company...INI (International Network Inc.) Shooting stock........................................ Kodak Line producer................................................ SuArmstrong Distributors/Hoyts Producer................................................. YoramGross Cast: Nick Carrafa (Sal Bono), Dascha Blahova Prod, co-ordinator..................................... VickiPopplewell Producer................................................... FrankHowson Director................................................... YoramGross (Mrs Bono), Norman Kaye (Mr O’Ryan), John Prod, manager..................................Grant Hill Director....................................................... PinoAmenta Scriptwriter.................................................John Palmer Flaus (Mr Maloney), Sheila Florance (Grandma Location manager....................................DavidMalacari Scriptwriter............................................... FrankHowson Assoc, producer.....................................SandraGross Mai), Carmelina di Guglielmo (Connie Bono), Prod, secretary....................................AmandaSelling Based on an original idea Music performed b y ........................ Guy Gross Osualdo Maidne (Vito Bono), Lisa Schouw Prod, accountant............Gemma Rawsthorne, by........................................................... FrankHowson Animation director........................Ray Nowland (Jane), Greg Caves (Brad). Moneypenny Services Photography............................................. DavidConnell Length............................................................25minutes Synopsis: A contemporary romance with 1st asst director............................... John Wild Sound recordist.....................................AndrewRamage Gauge...................................................... 35mm strong comic and absurd elements. Sal, a Costume designer.......................... Terry Ryan Editor..................................................Phil Reid Synopsis: Santa and Mrs Claus receive a gift young doctor, and Kate, a wool classer, fall in Make-up.................................................FelicityBowring Prod, designer...............................................TelStolfofor Christmas . . . a walking talking little doll love. Props buyer................................................. SueMayberry Composer................................................... John Capek called Candy Claus. Budget............................................$7,300,000 Exec, producer.......................................... PeterBoyle LETTERS Gauge......................................................35mm Assoc, producer........................................ BarbiTaylor GHOSTS Shooting stock.................Kodak Eastmancolor (Working title) Prod, co-ordinator.................................. SimoneDole Synopsis: Two men of opposing viewpoints fall (Working title) Unit manager............................................. JohnSuhr Prod, company........................... Soldell Pty Ltd in love with the same woman in this historical Location manager....................................... PaulHealey Prod, company.............................. CorrectionalServices Producer............................................. AndrenaFinlay saga set in the Australian outback at the turn of Prod, accountant...................................BelindaWilliams (Film Productions) Inc. Director.................................. Denny Lawrence the century. Prod, assistant........................................... LynnHowson Dist. company.................................... Hemdale Scriptwriter................................ Paul Cockburn 1st asst director.......................John Powditch Producer.................................................... EvanEnglish Photography............................................SteveArnold RIKKY AND PETE 2nd asst director................... Michael McIntyre Director...................................................... JohnHillcoat Editor.................................................... RichardHindley 3rd asst director.....................Cameron Barnett Scriptwriters.................................... Nick Cave, Prod, designer................................Jane Norris Prod, company..........................Cascade Films Continuity................................................. JennyTosi GeneConkie, Exec, producer.................. Grahame Jennings Australia Pty Ltd Script editor...................................Alister Webb Evan English, Prod, manager...............................Sue Seeary Producers................................... David Parker, Casting....................................................... GregApps John Hillcoat, 1st asst director.........................................JakeAtkinson Nadia Tass Casting consultant.........................................LizMullinar Hugo Race Length........................................................... 95minutes Director...........................................Nadia Tass Focus puller...............................................GregRyan Based on the original idea b y ...... John Hillcoat Gauge...................................................... 35mm Scriptwriter.................................. David Parker Clapper/loader.......................................... TerryHowell Prod, designer...........................................ChrisKennedy Shooting stock........................................ Kodak Based on the original idea Key g rip..............................................Geoff Full Synopsis: Two young kids steal a mailbag for Exec, producer......................................... EvanEnglish by...............................................David Parker Gaffer...........................................................RobYoung the cheques but are forever affected by the Assoc, producer.................................... MichaelHopkins Photography.................................David Parker Art director..........................Bernadette Wynack letters it contains. Prod, co-ordinator..............................Mick Bell Sound recordist............................Lloyd Carrick Make-up.......................... Amanda Rowbottom Prod, manager....................................... DenisePatience Editor..............................................Ken Sallows Wardrobe.................................Cheryl McCloud Prod, secretary......................... Carmella Byrne Prod, designer.......................... Josephine Ford Props buyers..............................................DarylMills,Prod, accountant..................................... JennyDavies THE MAN WHO LOST HIS HEAD Composers......................................Phil Judd, Brian Dusting Prod, company.........................................ChairFilms 1st asst director................................ Phil Jones Eddie Raynor Dist. company.......................................... RoninFilmsExec, producer.........................................BryceMenzies Standby props........................................... BrianLang2nd asst director........................................ LucyMcLaren Producer.................................................JamesClayden Set decorator..............................................TrishKeating Casting...................................................... LucyMcLaren, Assoc, producer........................ Timothy White Director...................................................JamesClayden Still photography........................................GregNoakes Polly Borland, Prod, co-ordinator......................Sue Stephens Based on the original idea Best boy.................................................... PeterMoloney Steve Hardman Prod, manager.........................................LyndaHouse b y........................................................ JamesClayden Publicity....................................................LionelMidford Casting consultant......................... Ian Watson Location/unit manager........ Leigh Ammitzboll Laboratory............. Victorian Film Laboratories Music performed by........................ Ollie Olsen Key g rip .............................................. Mick Bell Unit asst (Melbourne).............................. RogerSelleck Mixer.........................................................SteveBurges Lab. liaison............................................... BruceBraunArt director..............................Macgregor Knox Location asst (Broken H ill)...........Dianna Ferry Publicity.......................................................KimLewisProd, accountant.................................... MandyCarter, Budget........................................................ $1.9million Asst art director...................... Victoria Hobday Mixed at.........................Soundfirm, Melbourne Length..................................................... 95-100minutes Moneypenny Services Wardrobe.....................................Karen Everett Length............................................ 75 minutes Gauge...................................................... 35mm Props buyer............................................... HughMarchant Prod, asst/accountant............................MonicaGehrt Cast: Phil Motherwell (Walter Hey), Marie Hoy Shooting stock............................Eastmancolor 1st asst director......................................... TonyMahood Standby props...........................................PeterDavies (First lodger), Jan Friedel (Psychologist), Chris Cast: John Waters (Tom Garfield), Penelope Set decorator............................................ HughMarchant 2nd asst director................ Hamish McSporran Barnett (Second lodger), John Murphy (First Stewart (Helen Garfield), Kim Gungell (Ian 3rd asst director...................Andrew Merrifield Set construction......................................ShaneAumont policeman), Peter Green (Second policeman). McKenzie), Nicki Pauli (Suzy Daniels), Kevin Continuity........................... Karinda Parkinson Musical director................................ Nick Cave Synopsis: A comedy about the author’s obses Miles (Geoff Bormann). Producer’s assistant.............. Debra Goldsmith Music performed b y ........................Nick Cave, sions. The author, Walter Hey by name, is Synopsis: A contemporary drama set in Mick Harvie, Casting............................................ Nadia Tass obsessed with the process of image making. Melbourne, Los Angeles and New York. It tells Blixa Bargeld Camera operator...................................... DavidParker the story of the fictional character Tom Still photography........................................PollyBorland, Garfield, Australia’s most successful writer, Peter Milne who returns to his homeland after 10 years of Animation....................................................RobHoward Broadway and Hollywood acclaim. Dialogue coach............................................. IanWatson Runner................................... Nikki Vuillerman Publicity..................................Miranda Brown, BOUNDARIES OF THE HEART Capa Productions Prod, company.......Tra La La Films Limited for Budget............................................ $1,680,000 International Film Management Limited Length..........................................................100minutes Dist. company.........Hemdale Film Corporation Gauge......................................................35mm (The World excluding Australasia), Cast: David Mason (Lily), Nick Cave (Punk), Hemdale Ginnane Australia Limited Chris De Rose (Jack). (Australasia) Synopsis: The story of a fictitious maximum Producer........................................Patric Juillet security prison set in the middle of a deep red Director..........................................Lex Marinos desert in a mythical time and a mythical place. Scriptwriter...............................Peter Yeldham Based on the original idea HUNGRY HEART by.......................................... Peter Yeldham Prod, company.............Lions Den Productions Photography..............................................DavidSanderson for Chancom Sound recordist........................................... KenHammond Dist. company................... Octopus Worldwide Editor.............................................Philip Howe Media Enterprises Prod, designer.......................... Melody Cooper Producers................................ Rosa Colosimo, Composer.................................Sharon Calcraft Reg McLean Exec, producer..................... Antony I. Ginnane Director.......................................Luigi Acquisto Assoc, producer...................... Wendy Hughes Scriptwriters.............................................. JosieArnold, Line producer...................................... Tim Reid Angelo Salamanca, Prod, co-ordinator.....................Simone North Rosa Colosimo Prod, manager..........................Michael Fuller Based on the original idea Location manager.......................... Liz Kirkham by........................................... Rosa Colosimo Prod, accountant...................... Dianne Brown Photography................................ Jaems Grant 1st asst director........................ Robert Kewley Sound recordist.........................................MarkTarpey 2nd asst director...........................Trish Carney Editor...................................................CourtneyPage Continuity.................................................. ChrisO’Connell Prod, company....................Big Island Pictures Producer.......................James Michael Vernon Director...........................................Gary Keady Scriptwriter.....................................Gary Keady Photography.............................. Joe Pickering Assoc, producer..............................Penny Wail Publicity...................................... Lionel Midford Synopsis: A futuristic adventure set to power ful heavy metal rock ’n’ roll music. Fantasy and science fiction are bound together by a band, of likeable, old fashioned heroes.

F E A T U R E S

P R O D U C T I O N

TO ADVERTISE IN

CINEMA Ring

Patricia Amad: Melbourne 429 5511

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 67

P R O D U C T I O N S U R V Ê Y

S T E E N B E C K H IR E MELBOURNE’S NEW 16MM EDITING FACILITY LOCATED AT 633 BRUNSWICK ST, NTH FITZROY. CUTTING ROOMS WITH 6 PLATE STEENBECKS IN A COMFORTABLE, CONVENIENT LOCATION. TRANSFERS TO 16MM MAG. FOR TRACK LAYING. THEATRETTE WITH DOUBLE HEAD STD OR SUPER 16. 24 HR ACCESS, REASONABLE RATES.

FE A TURES

‘V & É

POST-PRODUCTION

FOR BOOKINGS AND INFORMATION RING NIGEL BUESST (03) 347 5525

35nw i& 16m ni Negative Cutting

\CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS

■ Studio 75' x 46' with 14' to lighting grid. ■

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

■ Good access to studio for cars and trucks. ■

Asst grip................................................. MarcusMcLeod Focus puller................................................. RexNicholson Boom operator........................... CraigBeggs Clapper/loader....................... Kathy Chambers Art director.................................................PeterKendall Camera dept attachment......... Corinne Watson Art dept co-ordinator.................................StuartMenzies Key grip................................................ BrendanShanley Make-up..................................................KirstenVeysy Asst grip.................................................. NevilleCameron Hairdresser..........................................RochelleFord Gaffer.......................................... Ian Dewhurst Wardrobe.............................. Michelle Leonard Generator operator.....................Tim Morrison Standby props........................... Barry Kennedy Boom operator......................... Chris Goldsmith Still photography........................................ losefDemian Art director............................................ GraemeDuesbury Best boy..............................................Brett Hull Art dept co-ordinator...................... Rike Kullack Laboratory...............................................Atlab Costume designer............................Phil Eagles Gauge...................................................... 35mm Make-up.........................................Sally Gordon Cast: Tom Conti (Moses), Elizabeth Alexander Hairdresser.................................... Willi Kenrick (Barbara). Wardrobe asst......................................AmandaRamape Synopsis: A Jewish comedy about Moses Art dept assts............Darren Hart (Melbourne), Bornstein and his brother Ben. Derek Wyness (Broken Hill) Props buyer........................................... AndreaJohnston Standby props................................John Stabb Special effects.............................Visual Effects SPFX co-ordinator....................... Peter Stubbs Rigs construction manager...............Ian McLay Construction asst................... Aaron Beaucaire Asst editor................................. Virginia Murray Music co-ordinator.......................Chris Gough, Studio Management Services Sound editor................................ Frank Lipson Stunts co-ordinator.................Glen Ruehland BUSHFIRE MOON Best boy..........................................Nick Payne Prod, company.................Entertainment Media Runner......................Kris Kozlovic (Melbourne) Pty Ltd Unit prod, asst..... Jody Lawrence (Broken Hill) Dist. company................................Disney (US), Publicity........................................Suzie Howie Revcom (France), Catering....................................... Rod Murphy Roadshow (Australia) Bus driver..................................... Kevin Bryant Producers................................................. PeterBeilby, Laboratory........................... Colorfilm/Cinevex Robert LeTet Budget................................................ $4 million Director.........................................George Miller Length.............................................95 minutes Scriptwriter..........................................Jeff Peck Shooting stock............................ Eastmancolor Photography.............................................. DavidConnell Cast: Steve Kearney. Sound recordist..................................... AndrewRamage Synopsis: Rikky And Pete is the story of a Editor........................................................... TimWellburn brother and sister living in chaos in Melbourne Prod, designer.....................................Tel Stolfo due to overbearing parents, romantic entangle Composer..................................................Bruce Rowland ments and Pete's urge to provoke the police. Prod, co-ordinator............................. Hilary May When things get too hot, they head for an out Prod, manager............................... Helen Watts back mining town where they embark on a Unit manager.................................... John Suhr zany but lucrative venture. Location manager...................................MurrayBoyd Prod, accountant.......... Moneypenny Services, SEBASTIAN AND THE SPARROW Mandy Carter Prod, company............... The Kino Film Co. Ltd Prod, assistant...................................... SimoneDole Dist. company..........................J.C. Williamson 1st asst director..........................................BrianGiddens Film Distributors 2nd asst director...................................... JamieLeslie (Overseas territories) 3rd asst director............................................. JoFreisen Producer..........................................Scott Hicks Continuity....................................................... LizPerry Director............................................Scott Hicks Casting...........................................................LizMullinar Scriptwriter...................................... Scott Hicks (Liz Mullinar Casting), Photography............................................. DavidForeman Adrienne Dolphin Sound recordist......................................... ToivoLember (The Film House) Editor............................................................ PipKarmel Focus puller.......................................... WarwickField Prod, designer............................................ AnniBrowning Clapper/loader...........................................TerryHowell Exec, producer............... Terry Ohlsson (JCW) Key g rip .............................................. Geoff Full Assoc, producer....................................... DarrylSheen Asst g rip .................................................... DavidNichols Prod, co-ordinator................................... Jennie Crowley Gaffer......................................................RobbieYoung Unit manager.......................................... MasonCurtisElectrician.................................................... RoyPritchett Prod, attachment...................................RhondaGardner Boom operator...........................................ScottRawlings Prod, accountant.............................Chris Hunn Art director........................................BernadetteWynack Accountant............................................MichaelMaiolo Costume designer......................................RoseChong 1st asst director........................................... GusHoward Make-up........................... Amanda Rowbottom 2nd asst director....................................LindsaySmithHairdresser..........................................RochelleFord Continuity........................... Heather Oxenham Wardrobe.....................................................GailMayes Casting........................................................ S.A.Casting Wardrobe asst....................................... RuebenThomas Casting consultant...................................... JanKillenProps.......................................................... DarylMills Lighting cameraperson............ David Foreman Art dept runner............................................TrishKeating Focus puller............................................... JohnFoster Standby props............................................BrianLang Key grip....................................... Robin Morgan Special effects.... Peter Stubbs (Visual Effects) Gaffer...................................... Graham Shelton Scenic artist...........................................GraemeGalloway Boom operator..............................Scott Heysen Carpenter.................................................. HughBateup Make-up.................................................... EgonDahmSet construction.......................................... BobHern Hairdresser................................................ EgonDahmAsst editor............................................. JeanineChialvo Wardrobe........................................... Robi Hall Still photography.................. Tom Psomotragis Props buyer................................................CathCantlon Wrangler.....................................................JohnBaird Standby props...........................................PeterDavies Best boy...............................................Brett Hull Asst editor...................................................CaryHamlin Runner..................................Cameron Barnett Sound editor....................... Yvonne van Gyen Publicity................................................... SusanWood Stunts co-ordinator......................... Mike Read Unit publicist............................................SusanWood Still photography....................................... GregLamey Catering..................................................... KeithFish, Best boy..................................................... KeithJohnson Food for Film Mixed a t................................................ HendonStudios Studios.........................................................FilmVictoria Laboratory.................................................Atlab Mixed at.......................... Crawford Productions Lab. liaison.........................................Gary Keir Laboratory................................................... VFL Length.............................................90 minutes Lab. liaison....................................Bruce Braun Gauge................................................Super 16 Budget................................................ $2 million Shooting stock.................Kodak Eastmancolor Length.......................................................... 109minutes Cast: Elizabeth Alexander (Jenny Thornbury), Gauge.......................................................35mm Robert Coleby (Peter Thornbury), Alex BainShooting stock.................. Kodak Eastmancolor bridge (Sebastian), Jerem y Angerson Cast: Andrew Ferguson (Ned O’Day), Dee (Sparrow), Vince Gill (Mick), Peter Crossley Wallace (Elizabeth O’Day), John Waters (Red). (Patrick O’Day), Nadine Garner (Sarah O’Day), Synopsis: The story of two teenagers, a rich Bill Kerr (Mr Watson), Grant Piro (Angus kid and a street kid, living in adjoining suburbs Watson), Bud Tingwell (Max Bell), Rosie but worlds apart — until their lives cross over. Sturgess (Miss Daly), David Ravenswood (Mr Gullett), Maggie Millar (Mrs Gullett). Synopsis: When he mistakes a ne’er-do-well TWO BROTHERS RUNNING ex-gold miner for Father Christmas eight-yearold Ned O'Day sets in motion a series of events Prod, company.... .Phillip Emanuel Productions that save his family’s sheep from a devastating Producers................................Phillip Emanuel, drought, bring feuding neighbours together, Martin Cohen and reform a scoundrel. Director................ ....................... Ted Robinson Scriptwriter.......... .......................... Morris Lurie Photography..................................Dan Burstall Sound recordist........................Laurie Robinson Editor.................. ...................... Robert Gibson Prod, designer..... .......................... Leslie Binns Help us make this produc Line producer...... ......................... John Hipwill tion survey as complete as Prod, co-ordinator.................................Jan Stott possible. If you have some Location manager .......................... Neil McCart thing which is about to go Prod, secretary.... ......................... Reità Wilson into pre-production, let us Prod, accountant.........................Fran Lanigan 1st asst director...........................Brian Giddens know and we will make sure 2nd asst director.. ........................James Leslie it is included. Call Kathy Bail 3rd asst director................................ Jo Fresian on (03) 429 5511, or write to Continuity............ .....................Christine Lipari her at Cinema Papers, 43 Casting................. .............................Greg Apps Charles Street “ ' Abbe jotsford, Camera operator............................Dan Burstall Victoria 3067. Focus puller.............................. Harry Glynatsis Clapper/loader..... ............................Rosie Cass Key grip........................................ David Casser

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

FOR STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE: Alex Simpson,

(0 3 )5 6 8 0058, (03) 568 2948

68 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

CONTAGION Sound recordist.......................... David Glasser Prod, co-ordinator.................................BarbaraRing Photography...............................................KeithWagstaff Editor.........................................................KerryReganProd, manager....................................... RonaldStigwood Prod, company........................... Reef Films Ltd Sound recordist......................................... GaryWilkins Exec, producers.......................................JudithWest,Unit/location manager............................. FrankManley Dist. company......Premiere Film Marketing Ltd Editor........................................ Gary Woodyard Prod, office attachment..............................ToniForsyth Producers................................... Ken Methold, Grahame Jennings Prod, designer.......................................... LeslieBinns Co-exec, producer.................................BeverlyWoodProd, accountant................................ ElizabethAnderson Leo Barretto Composer..................................Bruce Rowland Laboratory................................................. Atlab Director.........................................................KarlZwicky 1st asst director..........Carolynne Cunningham Exec, producers....................... Dennis Wright, Scriptwriter....................................Ken Methold Lab. liaison....................................... David Cole 2nd asst director.....................Henry Osborne John Kearney 3rd asst director.......................................... PaulPhilpott Photography.................................John Stokes Length..............................................90 minutes Publicity.....................................................SuzieHowie Gauge....................................................... 16mm Continuity............................................. HeatherOxenham Sound recordist..................................Ian Grant Catering.................................................RichardRoques Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Camera operator...................................AndrewLesnie Editor........................................................... RoyMason Laboratory............................................Cinevex Focus puller....................................................JoMurphy Cast: Eddy Staszak (Jason Blade), Jim Prod, designer.........................Richard Rooker Lab. liaison.................................................... IanAnderson Clapper/loader.............................................RodBolton Richards (Jim Baxtert, John Stanton (William Composer................................ Bruce Smeaton Budget........................................................ $8.7million Key grip......................................................BrianBosisto Anderson), Michael Carman (Damien Zukor), Exec, producer......................Tom Broadbridge Gauge................................. 35mm anamorphic Asst grips..............................................GeorgioLived,Shooting stock........................................ Kodak Paris Jefferson (Gemma Anderson), Linda Assoc, producer.....................................RichardRooker Megier (Linda Anderson), Matthew QuarterPaul Reinhardt Prod, co-ordinator............... Rhonda Fortescue Cast: Brian Dennehy (Harrison), Tom BurlinGaffer......................................Graeme Shelton maine (Lambert), Zale Daniel (Martin Flinders), son (Jim), Sigrid Thornton (Jessica), Nicholas Prod, assistant.............................. Tanya Baker Suzanne Dudley (Brothel Madam). Boom operator.............................................DesKenneally Eadie (Patton Junior), Rhys McConnochie 1st asst director............................ David Munro Costume designer................................ClarissaPatterson Synopsis: After the brutal murder of his part (Patton Senior), Peter Cummins (Jake), Mark 2nd asst director......................................... KurtOlsen Make-up/hair.............................................Egon Dahm ner, Jason Blade comes to Perth from Hong Hembrow (Seb), Cornelia Francis (Mrs Darcy), 3rd asst director.........................................TonyCastens Kong to bust up an international drug ring. Wardrobe standby.....................................AnitaSeiler Bryan Marshall (Hawker), Tony Barry (Jacko). Continuity.......................... Carolina Haggstrom Props buyer/set dresser...Christopher Webster Synopsis: The film picks up several years after Producer’s assistant........... Rhonda Fortescue DOT IN GOOD OLD HOLLYWOOD Standby props............................... Mark Abbott The Man From Snowy River. Jim Craig is Casting....................................... Elaine Holland Special effects......................... Jon Armstrong, returning once again to the Harrison home Focus puller............................................... PeterPescell Prod, company........................................ YoramGross Sue Richter stead to take Jessica back to his Snowy River Clapper/loader.............................................ConRigas Film Studio Pty Ltd Armourer/wind & home. But he finds that Harrison — and Key grip......................................................DavidWhanProducer................................................. YoramGross Jessica — have different ideas. So too does Asst grip................................................. DamianRitchie Director................................................... YoramGross smoke effects........................................ BrianBosisto Art dept co-ordinator............... Fiona Paterson Patton, the arrogant son of the banker/landGaffer...........................................................KenMoffatt Scriptwriter................................................. John Palmer Art dept runner............................Patrick Mahon owner who leads a group determined to seize Boom operator.......................................... BruceWallace Editor................................................... Rod Hay the High Country cattle runs. Make-up.......................................................AprilHarvie Assoc, producer..................................... SandraGrossSet construction........................... Chris Budrys Asst editor.................................... Tania Nehme Wardrobe............................ Margarita T assone Music performed b y ........................ Guy Gross Props.........................................................DavidFranks Animation director..................................... AtholHenrySound editor................................ Andrew Plain THE STRIKE OF THE PANTHER Stunts co-ordinator...................... .....Vic Wilson SFX props..........................................Rick Hart Length............................................................ 75minutes Prod, company....................Virgo Productions/ Still photography............................. Vivian Zink Set decorator.............................................DavidFranks Gauge....................................................... 35mm TVM Studios Wrangler.................................. Bill Willoughby Asst editor............Mary Jane St Vincent Welsh Synopsis: Dot goes to Hollywood to take part Producer....................................Damien Parer Best boy..................................................... KeithJohnson Safety officer................................Ken McLeod in a talent contest and raise money for her sick Director......................... Brian Trenchard-Smith Runner........................................... Jean Moyes Best boy........................................................RodMoffatt koala friend, Gumley. There she meets some Scriptwriter..................................... Peter West Nurse..........................................Monica Pearce Catering.............................. Katering Kompany of the Hollywood greats and performs with Executive in charge of Catering............................. The Shooting Party them. Laboratory................................................Atlab Studios.................................................. HendonStudiosproduction................................Juliet Grimm Lab. liaison.........................................Gary Keir Based on the original idea b y .........Peter West, Mixed a t................................................ HendonStudios Length............................................................ 90minutes INCIDENT AT RAVEN’S GATE David Groom Laboratory.......................................... Colorfilm Gauge...................................................... 35mm Photography.......................... Simon Akkerman Prod, company..........Acquabay Pty Limited for Lab. liaison.............................................Denise Wolfson Cast: John Doyle (Mark), Nicola Bartlett Sound recordist..........................David Glasser International Film Management Limited Budget............................................$2,500,000 (Cheryl), Ray Barrett (Bael), Pamela Hawksford Editor............................................Kerry Regan Dist. company...... Hemdale Ginnane Australia Length........................................................... 90minutes (Helen), Nathy Gaffney (Cleo), Chris Betts Exec, producers........................... Judith West, Limited (Australasia), Gauge.................................................Super 35 (Alec), Jacqui Brennan (Trish), Reginald Grahame Jennings Hemdale Film Corporation Shooting stock.................Kodak Eastmancolor Cameron (Henry), Michael Simpson (Frank), Co-exec, producer..................... Beverly Wood (The World excluding Australasia) Cast: Steven Vidler (Rod Cleary), Celine Griffin Allen Harvey (Doctor). Producers.............................Marc Rosenberg, Laboratory................................................. Atlab (Rachel Cleary), Ritchie Singer (Richard Synopsis: A suspense thriller about a con Lab. liaison...................................... David Cole RolfdeHeer Cleary), Vince Gil (Skinner), Saturday Brander taminated mind. Director..........................................Rolf de Heer Length.............................................90 minutes (Annie), Max Cullen (Taylor), Terry Camilleri Scriptwriters.........................Marc Rosenberg, Gauge....................................................... 16mm (Hemmings). THE DAY OF THE PANTHER Rolf de Heer Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 Synopsis: Sci-fi action thriller set in the Austra Cast: Eddy Staszak (Jason Blade), Jim Adapted from an original screenplay Prod, company....................Virgo Productions/ lian wheatfields. Richards (Jim Baxter), John Stanton (William TVM Studios by...................................... James M. Vernon Anderson), Rowena Wallace (Sgt Lucy Producer..................................... Damien Parer Photography......................... Richard Michalak Andrews), Paris Jefferson (Gemma Anderson), Sound recordist...........................................BobCutcher THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER Director......................... Brian Trenchard-Smith TWO Linda Megier (Linda Anderson), Matthew Editor........................................... Suresh Ayyar Scriptwriter...................................... Peter West Quartermaine (Lambert), Zale Daniel (Martin Prod, designer..........................................JudithRussell Executive in charge of Prod, company...............................Snowy Two Flinders), Suzanne Dudley (Brothel Madam). Composers.................................... Tar Music — production.................................Juliet Grimm Productions Pty Ltd Synopsis: More adventures in the West as Graham Tardif, Producer.................................. Geoff Burrowes Based on the original idea b y .........Peter West, Jason Blade works against the clock to rescue Roman de Cronenburg David Groom Director.................................... Geoff Burrowes his girl from brutal kidnappers. Exec, producer....................Antony I. Ginnane Scriptwriter..................................... John Dixon Photography.......................... Simon Akkerman

ASS0TECNICA Scorpion Mini Dolly À w m

t r m

THE NEW NAME IN IMPORTED AND AUSTRALIAN MADE MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

C IN E -Q U IP

( A

T . J

Unit 4 ,1 5 -1 7 Fitzgerald St., Ferntree Gully 3156. Phone: (03) 758 7554

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 69

O S

TJ U

T V

I E

I ST Y

WARDROBE • MAKE-UP VANS • CAMERA TRUCKS • CAST VANS • PROPS VANS • UNIT VEHICLES • TRACKING VEHICLES

PROUD TO BE SUPPLYING:

FO R T H E S U P P L Y O F A L L FILM P R O D U C T IO N T R A N S P O R T C O N T A C T D A V ID S U T T O R O N (02) 4 3 9 4 5 9 0 318 WILLOUGHBY ROAD, NAREMBURN, SYDNEY

• • • • • •

Crocodile II Rlkki and Pete Emma Dirtwater Dynasty Willesee’s Australia Hills End

STATION WAGONS • SEDANS • HI-ACE VANS « 4 X 4 TOYOTA LANDCRUISERS • ACTION VEHICLES • TRAY TOPS • BUSES

Camera assistant...... Adriano Giuseppe Gangi (Tuscany) Laboratory.......................... Colorfilm, Videolab Gauge...................................................... 16mm Shooting stock.................................7292, 7291 Synopsis: A documentary portrait of poet and novelist David Malouf. The visual contrast is between thick freak snow in an Italian village where Malouf comes to write, and a steamy Sydney summer. David Malouf uses this as a metaphor for the processes of imaginative writing. The Tuscany shoot is recounted in his recent book 72 Edmondstone Street.

Photography..............................Pieter de Vries, Mike Twemlow Sound recordist............................ Peter Steege Editor............................................. Chris SpunComposer ................................. Ann Carr-Boyd Exec, producer.................................Peter Reid Prod, manager............................... Anita Atkins Producer’s assistant........Julie Cottrell-Dormer Camera assistants.................Lorraine Stacey, David Maguire Asst editor........................... James Tsatsaronis Narrator...................................Russell Braddon Title designer............................. David Webster Length....................................... 4 x 50 minutes Gauge...................................................... 16mm Shooting stock...........................Eastman neg. Synopsis: An impressionistic portrait of Aus tralia, past and present, to commemorate the 1988 Bicentenary.

Photography.................................. David Parer, Keith Taylor, Neil Rettig, Bruce Reitherman, George Murahidy, Rory McGuinness, BARADINE Mantis Wildlife Films, Prod, company.................. Arcana Productions Glenn Carruthers Producer.................................. Michael Buckley Sound recordists................. Christopher West, Director................................... Michael Buckley Elizabeth Parer-Cook Scriptwriter..............................Michael Buckley Editors....................................... David Luffman, Sound recordist..........................Sue McCauley Peter Vile, Editor........................................Michael Buckley Jeremy Hogarth Music performed by.................................Arf Arf Prod, designer................................... Dale Mark Laboratory....................................................VFL Composer.................................................. KevinHocking DONALD FRIEND — THE REBEL Budget.................................................. $27,000 Exec, producer..................... John Vandenbeld Length..............................................30 minutes SPIRIT Prod, manager....................................... RichardCampbell Gauge....................................................... 16mm Research.................................... Martin Stone, Prod, company....................Australian Art Film Synopsis: The content of this film will be Elizabeth Parer-Cook Partnerships Pty Ltd based on material shot by the filmmaker’s aunt Narrator....................................................RobynWilliams Producers.................................. Don Bennetts, in the fifties with a standard 8 film camera. Length.........................................6 x 55 minutes Jeremy Hogarth Further material will be gathered on three Gauge....................................................... 16mm Directors.................................Jeremy Hogarth, INDEPENDENT COMPANY separate trips to Baradine, a timber village in Shooting stock............................ Eastman neg. Don Bennetts Prod, company....... ......... Media World Pty Ltd central NSW. The film will explore the land Synopsis: The evolution of the Australian con Scriptwriter....................... Christopher Leonard Producers.................................................. ColinSouth, scape, history and mythology of the area. tinent — animals and plants. Photography................................................ RayHenman, John Tatoulis Tony Wilson, Director...................................................... Colin South THE BRISBANE LINE Terry Carlyon Scriptwriter.............................................. PhillipDalkin PAUL’S BOYS Prod, company..........Cast Films for Channel 7 Sound recordists........................................John Franks, Based on the novel Prod, company.............................................. 7SProduction and Queensland Film Corp. Leo Sullivan, by........................................... Bernard Callinan Producer................................................ EugeneSchlusser Dist. company.....................Sarah Frank / BBC, George Weiss, Synopsis: The story of the Australian forces Director...................................................EugeneSchlusser Sean Meltzer New York (USA); who fought In Timor from 1941-1943. Photographer....................................... NicholasSherman Charles and Simon Editor................................................. Tim Lewis Sound recordist.......................Laurie Robinson Target Ltd (UK) Exec, producer............................................ DonBennetts Gaffer.........................................................DavidJenkins Producers................................Charles Target, Prod, manager............................................... JoStewart JO Still photography....................................... JaneNicholls Simon Target Neg. matching...............Meg Koenig (Cinevex) Prod, company...... Milburn Stone Productions Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Director....................................... Simon Target Still photography....................... Robert Walker Producer......................................... Julie Stone Length............................................................ 50minutes Scriptwriter.............................. Peter Charlton Opticals................................................. Cinevex Director...........................................Lynn-MareeMilburn Gauge....................................................... 16mm Photography........................... Zsolt Varkonyi, Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Scriptwriter......................................Lynn-Maree Milburn Shooting stock........................................... 7292 Andrew Lake Lab. liaison.................................................... IanAnderson Photography.......................... Andrew de Groot Synopsis: Ordinary boys achieve extra Sound recordists..........................................PhilLipman, Length............................................................ 50minutes Sound recordist.........................................Peter Clancy ordinary results under the guidance of an Roger Gladdin Gauge....................................................... 16mm Editor................................ Richard Lowenstein eccentric choirmaster, a supportive community Editor...........................................................NellThomson Shooting stock...............Fuji 8521,7291,7292 Prod, designer......................................... Jackie Everett and the inspiration of masterpieces of liturgical Composers..................................John Keane, Synopsis: One of a series of films on living Producer’s assistant..............................ShelleyThomas music. One of the few all-male choirs remain John Cowell Australian artists and their work. Donald Friend Casting...........................................Lynn-Maree Milburn, ing in Australia flourishes in the unlikely Mel Assoc, producer............................... RosemaryCameron is a decorative painter, and draws with the Julie Stone bourne suburb of Brunswick amidst the 1st asst director............. Sophie de Montaigne fluency of a master draftsman. He is also a Camera assistant................... Steve McDonald factories and warehouses. Research....................... Nick Flarding (USA), story-teller with a taste for satire. Key grip.................................. Macgregor Knox Angela Maguire (Australia) Art director................................ Chris Kennedy Sound editor............................................. MariaJanssen RESERVED Costume designer...................... Jackie Everett FLIGHT OF DIAMONDS Rostrum w ork....................................... DominicFlarrison, Make-up.................................... George Huxley Prod, company................................. Ipso-FactoEnterprise Jumbuck Productions Prod, company............................... SoundstageAustralia Hairdressers..................................Troy Davies, Dist. company................................... Ipso-FactoEnterprise Graphics..................................Chloe Diamantis Limited George Huxley Laboratory................................................Atlab,Jumbuck Producers............................................... WayneColes-Jane Producer.................................. Robert A. Cocks Musical director...............................Ollie Olsen Length............................................................50minutes B.J. Price Director.....................................Margaret Prior Mixer...........................................Roger Savage Gauge...................................................... 16mm Directors................................................. WayneColes-Jane Scriptwriter............................. Warren Williams Animation........................................Lynn-MareeMilburn Synopsis: The story of what happened to Aus B.J. Price Photography........................... Robert A. Cocks Laboratory................................................... VFL tralia during WWII. In 1941 Brisbane became Scriptwriters...........................................WayneColes-Jane Sound recordist.........................................DavidDownie Length............................................................25minutes the headquarters for the command of all Allied B.J. Price Editor........................................ Margaret Prior Gauge......................................................35mm forces in the SW Pacific and Australia’s front Editor....................................................... WayneColes-Jane Prod, designer.........................Robert A. Cocks Synopsis: A multi-layered documentary which line. Two million American servicemen came to Length..............................................48 minutes Exec, producer........................Hannah Downie challenges and extends the conventional form stay and when they’d gone, Australia was Gauge...................................................... 16mm Prod, assistant.......................Colette McKenna of animation and cinema to show the personal Shooting stock................................ 7291,7294 never to be the same again. 1st asst director........................................ GeoffArcher history of ‘Jo’. The film will trace the life of this Synopsis: A documentary which seeks to Continuity.............................. Colette McKenna strong charismatic woman, from great happi dispel mythical conceptions of the Army DAVID MALOUF: AN IMAGINARY Gaffer...........................................................PhilBaker ness in peace time Czechoslovakia through to Reserve and its members through neo-realist Boom operator...........................Jenny Sutcliffe LIFE her survival as an actress in war time Prague cinematography. It provides a depth of insight Make-up..................................................MarilynSmits Prod, company.......................... Walking Heads into the Australian Army Reserve hitherto con Hairdresser............................................ MarilynSmitsand her eventual fleeing of the Bolsheviks to a Dist. company.......................... AFI Distribution new beginning in Australia. cealed in myth. Wardrobe................................................ DeniseNapier Producer........................ Richard Kelly Tipping Props................................................. AngellqueCocks Director...........................Richard Kelly Tipping Special effects......................... Rob Greenough SKY’S WITNESS Scriptwriter..................... Richard Kelly Tipping JOHNNY STEWART DROVER Set construction........................................SteveKyme Photography.........Robert Schaefer (Tuscany), Prod, company............Neon Emu Productions Still photography................... Colette McKenna Prod, company...........................................ABC Mike Twemlow (Sydney) Producer.............................................. TerrenceMaybury Runner.....................................Michelle Libotte Producer........................................Doug Murray Sound recordists ...Alessandro Gatti (Tuscany), Director................................................ TerrenceMaybury Catering................................................. GlendaCocks Director..........................................Doug Murray Mike Moore (Sydney) Scriptwriter..........................................TerrenceMaybury Studios...........................................SoundstageAustralia Scriptwriter................................... Doug Murray Editor.........................................Keir McFarlane Photography............................. John Robinson Budget................................................ $73,000 Photography............................. Peter Neahros Composer........................................ Beethoven Sound recordist.............................. Paul Payne Length.........................................................46.5minutes Sound recordist........................ Mike Charman Editor.........................................................David Fosdick Gauge..................................................Betacam Editor.........................................Steve Rhodes Composer................................................JamesHewgill Cast: Bill Kerr (Narrator), Alison Entrekin Exec, producer............................... Ron Drynan W M w w m w w v Runner...................................................Michael Jesser (Jacqui), John Edmunds (Smirnoff), Robert Prod, co-ordinator.......................... Dolly Martin Laboratory.................................. Custom Video Hannah (Romondt), Alinta Carroll (Maria), Narrator.........................................Doug Murray Budget..................................................$41,000 David Colson (Daan), Mark Southworth Budget.................................................. $15,000 Length..............................................40 minutes (Blaauw), Ramsay McLean (Wilson), Grant Length..............................................30 minutes Gauge...................................................... Video Malcolm (Official), Graham Abraham (Joe). Synopsis: After some years of inactivity, Aus Synopsis: Sky’s Witness is a speculative docHelp us m ake this produc Synopsis: Jacqueline Andrees-Wiltens makes tralia’s last great stock route is again awash u-memory which deals with the historical a pilgrimage to where her husband died in with cattle. A profile documentary on drover tion survey as com plete as development of the West Australian wheat belt 1942, shot down by Japanese Zeros near Johnny Stewart who is walking 1400 head from possible. If you have som e town of Quairading. Utilising home movie Broome. The film traces what happened to the the Northern Territory to NSW. footage, stills, archive material and seasonallything w hich is abo ut to go people in the plane, the ordeal of Jacqui her shot Super 8 footage, it attempts to portray self, left behind in Java, and the mystery of the into p re-production, let us NATURE OF AUSTRALIA different interpretations of history (eg scientific, missing diamonds, the plane’s secret cargo. know ana w e w ill m ake sure artistic, business, agriculture, aboriginal and (Working title) religious). The idea of history is also under it is included. Call Kathy Bail Prod, company..........ABC Natural History Unit scrutiny. IMAGES OF AUSTRALIA Co-producers............................................. BBC, on (03) 429 5511, or w rite to (Working title) Australian Heritage Commission her at Cinem a Papers, 43 THE TOP HALF Prod, company.......................................... ABC Producers.................................Dione Gilmour, Charles Street, A bbotsford, (Working title) Dist. company............................................ ABC David Parer Producer..............................Chris McCullough Victoria 3067. Directors................................... Dione Gilmour, Prod, company.......................................... ABC Director................................Chris McCullough David Parer Dist. company............................................ ABC Scriptwriter............................. Russell Braddon Scriptwriter........................... John Vandenbeld Exec, producer................ Andrew Lloyd James

DOCUMENTARIES

PRODUCERS

70 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

Series producer......................... David Leonard Producer........................................... Tim Clark Directors........................................... Tim Clark, David Leonard, David Tunnell 1st asst directors........................Scott Feeney, David Tunnell Research............................. Jennifer Cummins Prod, manager.............................. Anne Chivas Photography..................................Marc Spicer, Helen Barrow Camera assts................................... Ron Foley, Brett Joyce Sound recordists...............................Geoff Krix, Mario Pellegrino Editors........................................ Paul Cantwell, John Pleffer Length.......................................10 x 30 minutes Synopsis: A series of overland expeditions across Northern Australia with bush food and survival expert Les Hiddins.

S H O R T S

Art d ep t................................. Desiree Sheehan, Leanne Springer Make-up..................................... Kristen Moore, Megan Shepard, Jane Stephens Special effects....................... John Koulaouzos Neg. matching............................... Chris Rowell Sound editor............................. Denise Haslem Still photography...................... Jane Stephens Catering..................................... David Herbert Laboratory............................................ Cinefilm Budget...................................................... $9971 Length..............................................17 minutes Gauge......................................... 16mm Shooting stock.................................Fuji A 8521 Cast: Tanya Sparke (Jefflene), Jess Tapper (Ben), Peter Foster (Rima), Rowan Woods (Driver), Marj White (Waitress), Vanessa Fergusson (Waitress’s daughter), Anne McDonald (Diner customer). Synopsis: Jefflene and Ben have landed on a strange planet where water is their enemy. WhatTs more, they have Hollywood in their eyes. The planet is Earth . . .

THE DEATH OF GOD

The Australia Council & AFI Distribution Ltd are proud to announce the release o f the largest range o f videotape resources on Australian literature ever mounted. The Writers brings together three m ajor series o f profiles o f Australian poets, novelists and playwrights with a number o f one-off programs.The series includes the Australia Council Archival Film Series, Richard Tipping's Writers Talking and Dr Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt's Australian Playwrights Speak.

Prod, com pany....................Geoff Clifton Films Producer....................................... Geoff Clifton Director..........................................Geoff Clifton BLOOD ON 5 KNIVES Scriptwriter.................................... Geoff Clifton Prod, company....................Base Productions Photography...... Sarah Borsellino (Ariflex SR), Producer.................................................... KathyDrayton Geoff Clifton (Bolex) Director...................................................... KathyDrayton Editor............................................. Geoff Clifton Scriptwriter................................................KathyDrayton Composer........................................ Andre Leu Writers include: Photography........................................Mel Broe Music performed by........................ Andre Leu, Sound recordist......................................Kristine Conlan La La Cafe, Marjorie Barnard Christina Stead Randolph Stow Editor......................................................... KathyDrayton Paul Bambury John Blight KylieTennant Composer........................................Peter Read David Malouf Drama tutor...............................Margaret Kemp Lighting cameraperson............................. TiborGulyas Crane designer and Judith Wright Gwen Harwood Stephen Sewell Neg. matching........................................... ChrisRowell operator of prototype.............................. JohnRayson David Williamson Music performed b y ....................... Peter Read Roland Robinson Still photography......................................MichelBrouet, A D Hope Sound ed ito r................................... Steve Couri Sandi Wrightson Alan Marshall Jack Hibberd Les A Murray Laboratory............................................Colorfilm Animation.................................................. GeoffClifton, Hal Porter Louis Nowra Dorothy Hewett Lab. liaison..............................................WarrenKeevers with segments by Izabo, Budget................................................... $15,000 Paul Bambury Douglas Stewart Peter Carey Peter Porter Length............................................................. 20minutes Special effects.............................. Geoff Clifton Gauge........................................................ 16mm Neg. matching...................Clodagh Ashburner Shooting sto c k ............................................7292 Mixed a t.............................Palmer Lane Studio These videos can be viewed during Spoleto Writers Festival. Synopsis: Experimental documentary on Laboratory........................................... Colorfilm bodies, architecture, eating habits, sexuality, For further information contact: Lab. liaison..............................Warren Keevers ham burger shops, dancing, elevators, Budget...................................................$10,000 demolishing, heroin, redevelopment, stupidity, Length.............................................. 17 minutes hospitals, the sky, toilets, catastrophes, bikie Gauge........................................................16mm slayings, corridors and brain damage. Shooting stock................................. 7291,7292 D IS T R IB U T IO N L T D Cast: LisaRayson, Ian Shadwell, Adam THE BOARDER Cullen, Kaye Roffey. Synopsis: An expressionist animation with live Prod, company....................Green Room Films action montage. God is overthrown by multi Producer..................................................... BrettDionysius tudes of dissatisfied spirits who demand a 213 PALMER STREET, DARLINGHURST NSW 2010. Ph (02) 332 2111 Director.................................... Shane P. Krause more caring heavenly reign. Asst director............................................... BrettDionysius 47 LITTLE LATROBE STREET, MELBOURNE VIC 3000. Ph (03) 662 1944 Scriptwriter.............................Teague Andrews HOME SCENARIO Additional crew.............................Danny Yates, Jason Sav, Prod, company............................. Paisan Films Producers.................................. David Thomas, Wayne Lyons, Andrew Graeme Arthur D’Aprano Director..................................................... EttoreSiracusa Photography................................... Craig Janke Scriptwriter................................................EttoreSiracusa Budget.........................................................$150 Length...............................................12 minutes Budget...................................................$45,825 Gauge....................................................Super 8 Length.............................................................30minutes Gauge........................................................16mm Shooting stock......................... Ektachrome 160 Synopsis: A photographer takes a look at the Cast: Lois Andrews (Ethel), Conrad Green homes of Italian immigrants. wood (Madman). Synopsis: Alone in her home, a teenage girl JACK THE RABBIT becomes the target of a madman. She fights for her life but does he want to kill her? Producer.....................................Peter Sotirakis Director....................................... Peter Sotirakis CELLULOID SCREAMS Scriptwriter..................................Peter Sotirakis Photography............................................ AdrianMiles Prod, com pany.....................Shot Productions Sound recordist................................. Jan Lucas Producer............................... Shaun Farrington Editor.......................................... Peter Sotirakis Director....................................................... ScottBradley Prod, assistant...........................................Fiona Vance Scriptwriter..................................................ScottBradley Casting........................................ Peter Sotirakis Photography.............................Martin McGrath Camera operator........................Garry Richards Sound recordist........................ Patricia Waites Camera assistant...................Cameron Barnett Editors........................................ Scott Bradley, Boom operator.........................................DarrenBoltin Shaun Farrington Runner.................................................. PhilippaNihill Composer..................................................Julian Knowles Laboratory............................................ Filmplus Prod, m anager..................... Shaun Farrington Budget..................................................... $5,000 1st asst director.................... Shaun Farrington Length.............................................................20minutes Lighting cameraman.................................MartinMcGrath Gauge........................................................16mm Camera operator..................Callum McFarlane Shooting sto ck........................................... 7278 Camera assistant....................................MirianaMarusic Cast: Steve Ahern (Mickey ‘Mike’ Juliette), Art director.................................................. ColinGibson Daniel Voronoff (Jack the Rabbit), Laura Make-up..................................................... NickyGooley Wardrobe.................................................PhillipaEyersHayes (Diane Veil), Roslyn Dobellsky (Amy), Standby props.........................................Charlie RevaiSimone Livingstone (Opal), John Flaus (Hawaiian Fats), Ross Hamilton (Johnny Special effects.......................................NormanYeend, Rubin). Grahame Binding Synopsis: “ Baby I’m going to corner this rat, Music performed by.................................. Julian Knowles but I ain’t wasting no arsehole for your lips Tech, adviser....................................Tex Clarke sugar. He’ll be a dead rabbit when I’m through C atering..................................................... Fiona Power with him. You lick me where it counts and I’ll Budget................................................... $43,530 give you that pleasure, might even end up in Length............................................................. 20 minutes some B-grade flick if you play your cards Gauge........................................................ 16mm right.” Shooting sto ck..........................................Kodak Cast: SergeLazareff (Peter), Ralph Cotterill LINDY LANE (Dr Louma). Producer.............................................. BeverleyPhillips Synopsis: A film editor viewing an old B-grade Director.................................................BeverleyPhillips horror film finds horrors of his own. Photography.................................................RexNicholson Editor.............................................. Aleksi Vellis COOL WATER Choreographer................................. Tania Lacy Music.......................................................... JohnPhillips Director....................................... Robert Herbert and The Pig Pen Scriptwriter.................................Robert Herbert Asst producer...................................... CameronBarnett Photography.................... Francisco J. Vidinha Unit managers....................................... EvgeniaTsaklidis, Sound recordists..................................... JamesHughes, Gabrielle Dunn, Garry Chambers Leanne Bilsen Editor........................................................ JamesHughes Location consultant.................................. EddieTamir Composer................................................... PeterMahony 1st asst director..........................................ChrisStevenson Prod, managers............................... Kath Ford, GREATER UNION Continuity................................................... Sally Martin Sophie Jackson Camera assistant..................................... CathyChambers H IN D L E Y C IN E M A S Location m anager................................... Sherie Malcolm Camera equipment...............................MalcolmRichards \ ^88& 91 HINDLEY 51 5961 J 1st asst director...................... Wendy Chandler Key grip........................................................ PaulHunter Continuity.......................................Vicky James Asst g rip .....................................................BarryBrown Camera operator..................................CatrionaSparkes Assisted by the Australian Film Commission & SA Dept for the Arts G affer..........................................Colin Williams Camera assistant................................ Ben King

A F I

ENTER YOUR FILM OR VIDEO INTO AUSTRALIA'S LEADING INDEPENDENT FESTIVAL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION & ENTRY FORM CONTACT: Mark Patterson FRAMES Festival PO Box 33 Rundle Mall SA 5000 Ph: (08) 223 1500, 223 1600

ENTRY FORM DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 27 1987

K_ _ _ _ A n s e tt.

INGE

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 71

SOUNDSTAGE AUSTRALIA HAS OPENED “ Perths Largest Sound Stage ™ — Quality Low Cost Production»

S O U N D S TA G E A U S T R A L IA 9 Foundry Street, Maylands W.A. (051 (09) 370 2522 Laboratory................................................... VFL Budget..................................................$31,284 Art director..................................Sharon Battat Length..............................................10 minutes Length..............................................12 minutes Art direction............................... Sharon Battat, Gauge...................................................... 16mm Gauge.......................................................16mm Gillian Watt Shooting stock........................................... 7291 Make-up......................... Vivienne McGillacudy Cast: Joanne Aslanis (Nina), Simon McLean (Max). Voice characterisations: Richard Healy (The Hairdresser..........................................BronwynPhillips Man), Jane Lewis (The Lady), Danny Nash Wardrobe..................................................AvivaGraeve Synopsis: Max is at Men’s Group grappling (The Pilot/A Seagull), David Crosbie (A Sea Extras wardrobe....................................... KerrinSheard modern relationships, while Sal and Rita are gull). Stage set................................................... KevinPearce having their own discussion group at the super Synopsis: Trevor and his owners parachute Vocal recordist...........................................JohnRowley market. Inspired, Sal seeks Max out; one way Runner....................................... Adam Pietrzak onto a deserted island where the Man decides or another she has got to find out where this to run a carpark, the Lady an airport, and Catering................................Timbale Catering relationship is going — with or without Max and Laboratory............................................Cinevex Trevor, to subjugate the local seagulls. All is his sensitive man politics. quiet until a plane carrying a load of cars is Length..............................................15 minutes forced to land. Gauge...................................................... 16mm AN ORDINARY WOMAN Cast: Peta Pilling, Dierdre Smart, Cosima Dusting, Tamara Saulwick, Natasha Weber, Producers....................................................SueBrooks, Fiona Rutelle, Rod Murphy, Andrew Beresford, Alison Tilson Gumpy Phillips, Tim Kidman, Bradley Morri Director........................................................ SueBrooks son, Piero Gesualdi. Scriptwriter............................................... AlisonTilson Synopsis: A group of exuberant teenagers Photography........................Nicolette Freeman sky-larking around Melbourne kidnap a dowdy Length............................................................30minutes waitress from an up-market city restaurant. Gauge...................................................... 16mm They transform her into a beauty and include Synopsis: Through the examination of the life her in their nightclub performance. of an absolutely ordinary woman, this film seeks to raise questions about truth and per ception in relation to identity.

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION

THE MAGIC PORTAL

FILM

AUSTRALIA

Synopsis: A comedy drama commissioned by the Department of Social Security for abori ginal community groups about the role of the Aboriginal Liaison Officer.

A.D.A.B. (Working title) Prod. c o m D a n y .............................................FilmAustralia Dist. company..............................................FilmAustralia Director...................................... Bob Kingsbury Scriptwriter.................................Bob Kingsbury Photography..........................................Ajcolotyl Sound recordist.....................................Axolotyl Editor.....................................................Axolotyl Exec, producer........................ Geoffrey Barnes Prod, manager........................ VirginiaPridham Prod, secretary....................................MargaretCrewes Prod, accountant........................................JohnRussell Marketing & promotions officer................ Francesca Muir Special fx photography..........................Axolotyl Studios.........................................................FilmAustralia Length.............................................................15minutes Synopsis: An animation programme commis sioned by A.D.A.B. to show Australians, in an entertaining manner, how, where and why Aus tralia has a development assistance pro gramme.

Producer............................................... LindsayFleay THE RAT RACE Director................................................. LindsayFleay (Working title) Scriptwriter............................................ LindsayFleay ABORIGINAL EDUCATION Photography..........................................LindsayFleayProd, company.............................. Dollar Signs Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia for Eyes Productions AIM ’87 Prod, supervisor.............George Borzyskowski Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Animation.............................................. LindsayFleayDist. company............. Australian Film Institute Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia Producer....................................................AvivaZiegler Producers............................. Suzanne Nussey, Budget.................................................... $7,800 Dist. company..............................................Film Australia Director......................................................AvivaZiegler Jenni-bop Zipporah Length............................................................ 17minutes Producer................................................... GeoffBarnes Researcher................................................ChrisPeacock Directors..............................................SuzanneNussey, Gauge.......................................................16mm Director.......................................................Ross Dunlop Photography.............................................. John Hosking Jenni-bop Zipporah Shooting stock...........................................7291 Scriptwriter................................................. RossDunlop Sound recordist......................... Jack Friedman Scriptwriter......................... Dirk Doppelgänger Synopsis: Three Lego characters in a Lego Photography...................................... Ross King Editor......................................................... RossFlaherty Photography....................................... Suzanne Nussey, spaceship discover the Magic Portal, which Sound recordists........................... Bruce Nihill, Exec, producer..................................... Tristram Miall Jenni-bop Zipporah can transport them to other animated realms. Rodney Simmons Prod, manager.............................................. IanAdkins Sound recordists.................................Suzanne Nussey, However, as the film progresses, it transports Editor................................................ Ian Spruce Prod, accountant...................................... AlbertWong Jenni-bop Zipporah them to reality and also into the animation set Exec, producer......................................... GeoffBarnes Prod, assistant.......................................... MerylJackson Editors................................................. Suzanne Nussey, they are being filmed in. Film and real world Prod, manager............................................. RonHannam Camera assistant........................................CarlFisher Jenni-bop Zipporah collide with interesting results. Prod, secretary......................Margaret Crewes Asst editor............................. Claire Williamson Prod, designers................................... SuzanneNussey, Prod, accountant........................................JohnRussell Marketing & Jenni-bop Zipporah Marketing & promotions officer......... Jennifer Henderson Neg. matching................................Ursula Jung promotions officer......................... FrancescaMuir MIDDRIFFINI Studios........................................................ FilmAustralia Tech, adviser............................ David Atkinson Synopsis: A promotional video for screening in Mixed at....................................................... FilmAustralia Producer................................ Sabrina Schmid Mixed a t............................ Soundstage, Fitzroy the USA outlining the Australian defence Budget.................................................. $90,000 Director.................................. Sabrina Schmid Laboratory....................................................VFL industry’s capabilities for manufacture, supply Length............................................................28minutes Scriptwriters...........................Sabrina Schmid, Budget.................................................. $27,294 and maintenance in the defence industry Gauge.......................................................16mm Gregory Pryor Length............................................................ 15minutes areas. Shooting stock............................................ ECN Based on the original idea Gauge....................................................... 16mm Synopsis: A film to encourage Aboriginal and b y ........................................Sabrina Schmid Shooting stock...........................................7291 THE BIG GIG Torres Strait Islanders to stay in education, SFX, atmos............................ Jon McCormack Synopsis: A humorous look at rodent psycho Prod, company............................Film Australia using examples of people who have stayed and Editor......................................Sabrina Schmid social experimentation using puppet and cut Dist. company.............................Film Australia are achieving. It makes them aware of the Composer.............................................Ian Cox out animation. Dr Umpteen and his assistant, Producer........................................ Don Murray support system available through the educa Animation/rostrum Ron, become rather too zealous in their pursuit Director............................................ KarlZwicky tion system. camera operator................. Sabrina Schmid of knowledge. Scriptwriter................................................ SteveJohnson Neg matching......................... Warwick Driscoll Exec, producer............................Tristram Miall Music performed by..............................Ian Cox ABORIGINAL LIAISON OFFICER Prod, manager....................................... VirginiaPridham Sound editors.........................Sabrina Schmid, THE TICKET David Atkinson Prod, accountant........................... Albert Wong Prod, company........ ...........Film Australia Producer............................. Pantelis Roussakis Character voices........................Gregory Pryor, Marketing & Dist. company......... ...........Film Australia Director.................................................... RobinGold Merryn Gates promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson ................. Janet Bell Scriptwriter............................................... RobinGoldProducer................. Animation............................... Sabrina Schmid Director................... Studios........................................ Film Australia ............. Karl McPhee Editor........................................Therese Oleary Title designer.......................... Sabrina Schmid Mixed a t.......................................Film Australia ................. Janet Bell Photography.............................................. ColinKerr Exec, producer...... Sound recording Prod, manager......... Budget.................................................$235,000 .......Virginia Pridham Sound recordists............... Pantelis Roussakis, studios................. Film Soundtrack Australia Prod, secretary........ Length............................................................ 20minutes .Amanda Etherington Robin Gold, Mixed a t.............................................Soundfilm Gauge....................................................... Video Prod, accountant.... ............. Neil Cousins Therese Oleary Laboratory.............................................Cinevex Marketing & Synopsis: A stylistic parody of youthProd, manager....................................... Kimbel Hann Budget.................................................. $30,965 promotions officer ........Francesca Muir orientated B-grade science fiction movies, Continuity...............................................KimbelHann Length............................................. 16 fit mutes Length..................... dealing with driving skills of young drivers. It ............... 10 minutes Laboratory...........................................Cinefilm Gauge.......................................................16mm Gauge...................................................... 16mm Shooting stock...................................7291 ECN Shooting stock................. Kodak Eastmancolor Synopsis: “ Hmmm . . . when you close your Length............................................................10minutes eyes . . . , "speculates Nobody-Else, thus Synopsis: The elusive pot of gold at the end of evoking a dream in Rebecca’s mind, where the rainbow. unfolds the story of Grosmond, supposedly a bunyip, and his whacking tail and many teeth. Grosmond laments the loss of Middriffini, the SPECIAL PRODUCTION FUND TREVOR ISLAND DOCUMENTARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM cause of his greatest toothache. Middriffini’s Emerald City. Joan Long, feature, sub-distribu Producer.................... ........John Taylor Dancing Dogs, Fat Boys And Bearded Ladies: mysterious identity is eventually revealed, and tion guarantee. Director...................... her spectacular return delights Grosmond. An ........ John Taylor Sue Brooks, Alison Tilson, Michael Webb Celia: Seon Film Productions, feature, loan and Scriptwriter................ $8,880. ........ John Taylor animated tragicomedy. direct investment. Photography.............. ........John Taylor The Changing Face Of Darlinghurst. Michael Narration recorded by ..Gary Constable Five Times Dizzy: Tom Jeffrey, TV miniseries, Turner, $3,500. MY BOYFRIEND MAX Editor.......................... ........John Taylor marketing loan. Ticket To Heaven: Trish McKeon Tony Producer.....................................................Julie Harris Prod, designer........... ........John Taylor Wheeler, $3,500. Director.......................................................Julie Harris Composers................ ....David Crosbie, CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUND Scriptwriter................................................. Julie Harris John Taylor Courageous: Georgia Wallace-Crabbe, Janet Photography............................................. JustinBrickie Musical director.......... ........John Taylor McLeod, production investment of $15,332. WOMEN’S FILM FUND Sound recordist.................................... Ian Mott Music performed b y... ....David Crosbie, Just Looking: Open Channel Ltd, production Editor..................................................... JoanneAslanis Radio Bum: Zana Dare, production grant of John Taylor, grant of $39,405. Prod, manager....................................... JoanneAslanis $5,966. Philip Layton, The Fat Lady. Steve Westh, production grant of 1st asst director.......Joshua Sommerset Reed Alan Fowler $69,213. Producer's assistant............................. JoanneAslanis Sound editor ........John Taylor NO FRILLS FUND Casting........................................................Julie Harris Waiting In The Wings: Mark Jackson, John Animation.... ........John Taylor Rational Life No. S 3-5: Debbie Lee, $2,900. Lighting cameraperson............................Justin Brickie Conomos, production grant of $4,141. Studios........ .‘Qwiklik’ Studios Agasp A t The Wheel: Louise McDonald, Clapper/loader.........Joshua Sommerset Reed Mixed at...... A Day And A Half: Michael Karaglanadis, over ..........Soundfirm $4,048. Make-up................................................. JoanneOddie Laboratory.... age loan of $20,618. .................... VFL Subterrain: Melody Cruickshank, $1,910.

GOVERNMENT FILM FUNDING

72 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

covers a night’s activities of a group of young friends on their way to the Big Gig. Visiting aliens observe them, commenting on their pro gress and are finally forced to intervene.

Casting consultants............................... Forcast Camera assistant..............................Mike Kelly 2nd unit photography................................. AndyFraser Wardrobe buyer............................. Kerry Brown Asst editor..................................................... ErinSinclair Still photography.......................................... RozSharpe A BUSINESS PLAN Legal consultant........................Ann Charlton Prod, company............................................. FilmAustralia Marketing & Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia promotions gfficer..........Jennifer Henderson Producer........................................ Alistair Innes Laboratory.............................................Cinefilm Director.........................................................PaulHumfress Lab. liaison.................................Kevin Ackroyd Scriptwriter................................................... PaulHumfress Budget................................................. $295,000 Photography................................................RossKing Length.............................................................96minutes Prod, manager........................................Virginia Pridham Gauge........................................................16mm Prod, secretary.................................... MargaretCrewes Shooting stock.............................................ECN Prod, accountant.................................. StephenKain Cast: Peter Browne (Andrew Byrne), Jude Marketing & Stratford (Christine Byrne), Michael Cudlin promotions officer..........................FrancescaMuir (Justin Byrne), Sheridan Murphy (Kathy Synopsis: A package of quality multi-media Byrne), Susan Leith (Margaret Reeve), Mary training material for small business manage Acres (Mary Duncan), Kim Knuckey (Rod ment education and training programmes. Campbell). Synopsis: Using the ‘Real Life’ documentary style, this drama observes two years in the life CANE TOADS of the Byrne family as they become involved in (Working title) the complicated legal path that leads to a fully Prod, company............................ Film Australia defended custody hearing in the Family Court. Dist. company............................. Film Australia Director....................................................... MarkLewis Scriptwriter.................................................. MarkLewis FILM AUSTRALIA’S AUSTRALIA Based on the original idea by...........Mark Lewis Photography.....................................Jim Frazier Film Australia’s Australia is a series of 12 video Sound recordist...................................... RodneySimmons programmes with supporting discussion notes. Editor......................................... Lindsay Frazier ECOLOGY Exec, producer............................ Tristram Miall Prod, manager................................. Ian Adkins Prod, company.............................Film Australia Prod, accountant.......................................AlbertWongDist. company..............................Film Australia 1st asst director........................... Debbie Sidore Producer........................................... Jan Punch Camera assistant.................................... WayneTaylor Director....................................Judith Adamson Asst editor.................................................... RhylYatesScriptwriter............................. Judith Adamson Marketing & Exec, producer............................Geoff Barnes promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson Prod, manager.............................Ron Hannam Unit manager.............................................PeterBrown Studios........................................ Film Australia Prod, secretary...................... Margaret Crewes Mixed a t....................................... Film Australia Prod, accountant...........................John Russell Budget................................................. $199,347 Marketing & Length.............................................. 50 minutes promotions officer......................... Francesca Muir Gauge........................................................ 16mm Shooting stock............................................. ECN Length............................................................. 60minutes Synopsis: A stylised, off-beat documentary Synopsis: Ecology is the companion program showing a social history of the Cane Toad to the Natural Environment program and deals through the people who have contact with with human interaction with the environment, land use, land abuse, industry, cities, and them. Informative and entertaining with a unique blend of absurd fact and serious pollution. anecdote.

R h o d o r s il S ilic o n e s • R TV S IL IC O N E M O U L D IN G C O M P O U N D S F O R T H E F IL M IN D U S T R Y . • F U L L R A N G E O F P R O D U C T S A V A IL A B L E IN C L U D IN G G R A D E S U IT A B L E F O R S K IN C O N T A C T .

S O L E D IS T R IB U T O R S

H .J . L A N G D 0 N & C o . P ty . L td . M ELBO U R N E (03) 328 1911 SYDNEY (02) 758 1200

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 w

a Hav 7 Havs a week if remi ¡red P.nnfart

VALUES

Prod, company........................................ ....Film Australia Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia Producer........................................... Jan Punch Director........................................Greg Reading Prod, company.............................Film Australia Exec, producer........................ Geoffrey Barnes Dist. company.............................. Film Australia Prod, manager............................................. RonHannam Producer.........................................................IanDunlop Prod, secretary..................... Margaret Crewes Director........................................................... IanDunlop Prod, accountant.......................... John Russell Photography............................................... DeanSemler PuDlicity........................... Lesa-Belle Furhagen Sound recordist...................................... RodneySimmons Marketing & Editors............................................................ IanDunlop, promotions officer.................Francesca Muir Sharon Bell Synopsis: This is the seventh programme in Exec, producer............................. Tristram Miall the Film Australia’s Australia series. It Prod, manager............................................... IanAdkins examines the diversity of Australian culture Marketing & and lifestyles in a series of short segments promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson taken from Film Australia productions over Prod, accountant........................................ JohnRussell past and recent decades. Editor/director......................................... SharonBell Budget..................................$180,000 (approx.) Length..........................................2 x 50 minutes Synopsis: A clan leader invites Film Australia to record the first ceremony to be held at his new clan homeland settlement in northeast Arnhem Land. The films show the organisation FOR PARENTS and performance of a ceremony in a contem Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia porary setting and explore the significance of Dist. company.............................................. FilmAustralia the clan homeland movement. Producer.................................................... Aviva Ziegler Director.................................. Stephen Ramsay Scriptwriters......................................... Stephen Ramsay, EUROPEAN TRADE MARKETS Judy Menczel Prod, company............................ Film Australia Photography..............................................KerryBrown Dist. company..............................Film Australia Sound recordist......................................RodneySimmons Producer.......................................... Don Murray Exec, producer.............................Tristram Miall D irector................................................. Bob Hill Prod, manager............................................... IanAdkins Scriptwriter............................................Bob Hill Prod, accountant...........................Albert Wong Photography..................... Richard Baillie-Mace Asst director............................................ DebbieSidore Sound recordist........................... George Craig Camera assistant................................Jim Ward MASCARADE... a team of experienced, highly trained professionals geared E ditor............................................. Robin Archer Gaffer...............................................Ian Bosman Exec.producer........................................... GeoffBarnes Narrator....................................................... MikeWillesee to produce the face, the look, the feel you need ... for film, television, Prod, manager..............................................AnnFolland Marketing & Prod, secretary.......................Margaret Crewes promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson Prod, accountant........................................ John Russell Studios.........................................................FilmAustralia theatre, video and still photography. Marketing & Mixed at........................................................ FilmAustralia MASCARADE... competent specialists in Period make-up, Special Effects promotions officer.................Francesca Muir Budget.................................................$181,195 Length..................2 x 30 minutes/2 x 7 minutes Length.............................................. 48 minutes make-up, Advanced Prosthetics (face casting). Synopsis: This program will profile the prob Gauge........................................................16mm lems facing the Australian business person Shooting stock.............................................ECN MASCARADE... the make-up agency in Melbourne for professional make when exporting to European markets. The Synopsis: This film is designed to alleviate series is a key part of the Austrade strategy to parental fears about teenagers and drugs. By up needs. develop an export conscious culture in the looking at three families, Mike Willesee Australian business community. examines the myth that we are powerless over The agency has grown from the unique Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, drugs and alcohol, and a parent awareness course looks at family strategies for fostering established in 1984 to ensure the professional training of future make-up responses to life that are independent rather FAMILY COURT than dependent. ....... Film Australia Prod, company....... artists. .......Film Australia Dist. company........ FREE AND ENTERPRISING ............. Ian Munro Director................... Graduates from the Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, and experienced Prod, company............................ Film Australia ........Anna Grieve, Script development Dist. company............................. Film Australia Ann Charlton make-up artists working for MASCARADE, are all members of the Make-Up Producer.................................................. Alistair Innes .......Joel Peterson Photography.......... Director........................................................ PaulHumfress ..........RobStadler Sound recordist.... Artists Association of Victoria, ensuring the level of excellence. Scriptwriter...................................................Paul Humfress .....Denise Haslem Editor..................... Photography................................................RossKing ....... Tristram Miall Exec, producer....... Prod, manager....................................... Virginia Pridham Enquiries for the agency or the school, please call Shirley Reynolds on ......... Anna Grieve Assoc, producer.... Prod, secretary.................................... MargaretCrewes .........Anna Grieve Prod, supervisor..... Prod, accountant.................................. Stephen Kain (03) 329 1403 or (A.H.) (03) 68 3435. .Kristin Sanderson Prod, co-ordinator.. Marketing & ............ Ian Adkins Prod, manager....... promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson .........Albert Wong Prod, accountant.... Synopsis: A package of quality multi-media Prod, accountant.... ......David Trestrail training material for small business manage 1st asst director...... .........Anna Grieve ment education and training programmes. 2nd asst director.... .Kristin Sanderson

DJUNGGUWAN AT GURKA’WUY (PART I & PART II)

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 73

1< O D U C T I O N S

training and the Tall Ships Event has been run archival footage shot on Australian aeroplanes, GOING STRONG Director........................................ Sue Cornwell ning in the Northern Hemisphere for many including first release dramatic war footage. It Photography.................................. Tony Wilson Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia years; our Australian event marks the first time features stories on Flying Boats, F111 s, Sound recordist............................................ LeoSullivan Producer.................................... Jebby Phillips an event of this magnitude has been staged in gliding, the history of the RAAF, the Flying Editor.............................................................LesMcLaren Director...................................... Mai Tennant the Doctor Service and other classic aircraft. Exec, producer........................................... TomHaydon Southern Hemisphere. Editor.....................................Martha Babineau Assoc, producer................................Ian Adkins Exec, producer........................... Ron Saunders UNION PERSPECTIVE Asst director..................................Lisa Noonan Assoc, producer............................. Helen Steel Prod, company.............................................FilmAustra Length..............................................65 minutes Prod, manager......................................... MargoPulsford KOREA/NEW ZEALAND TRADE Dist. company..............................................FilmAustra MARKETS Gauge.................................................. 1" video Producer’s assistant............Jenny Middlemiss Producer......................................................RobMcAul Synopsis: The film is about the criminal justice Research........................Donna Norton-Lodge, Prod, company............................Film Australia Director................................................. Ian Host system and its treatment of juvenile offenders. Rosalind Gillespie, Dist. company............................. Film Australia Scriptwriter................................Andrew Denton The film includes, for the first time, footage Juliet Phillips Producer......................................... Don Murray Photography......................................Ross King shot in the Australian court while cases are Publicity......................................................JudyBarnsley Director..........................................Paul Hawker Sound recordist.............................. Bruce Nihill being heard. Scriptwriter.................................................. PaulHawker Marketing & Editor...............................................Brian Hicks promotions officer.........Jennifer Henderson Photography.............................................. John Hosking Exec, producer........................... Ron Saunders Funding....................................Francesca Muir Sound recordist............................ Howard Spry SINGLES Prod, manager....................................... VirginiaPridha Length..............................................30 minutes Exec, producer......................................... GeoffBarnes Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia Prod, secretary............................. Robyn Briais Cast: Roger Climpson, Hazel Phillips, Tanya Prod, manager............................................. AnnFolland Dist. company..............................................FilmAustralia Prod, accountant........................Geoff Appleby Halesworth, Red Harrison, Chin Yu Williams, Prod, secretary...................... Margaret Crewes Producers............................................... MacekRubetzki, 1st asst director......................... Loretta Fisher Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell James Dibble. Key grip................................................... MaurieRogers Ian Adkins Synopsis: A weekly magazine show aimed at Marketing & Director.........................................Karl McPhee Gaffer............................................................ IanBosma the Australian over-50 age group. promotions officer................ Francesca Muir Photography................................ Tony Wilson Boom operator......................................... BruceHatfield Length........................................ 2 x 30 minutes Art director..................................... Jane Norris Sound recordist............................Leo Sullivan Synopsis: This program will profile the do’s Make-up...................................................JennyBoehm HARDER THAN EVEREST Editor......................................... Lindsay Fraser and don’ts facing the Australian business Marketing & Exec, producer.............................Tom Haydon (Working title) person when exporting to Korean and New promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson Length..............................................75 minutes Zealand markets. The series is a key part of the Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Cast: Graham Rouse (Geoff), Helen Scott Gauge..................................................... 16mm Austrade strategy to develop an export con Dlst. company............................................. FilmAustralia (Kath), Mark Butler (Malcolm), Sherrie Krenn Synopsis: A foray into the world of the un scious culture in the Australian business com Producer...............................................GeoffreyBarnes (Lisa). attached. munity. Director....................... Tim McCartney-Snape Synopsis: A documentary/drama for the Based on the original idea Department of Employment and Industrial THE VISIT b y .............................Tim McCartney-Snape, LAND OF THE LIGHTNING Relations on youth traineeships. Phil Balsdon Prod, company.............................................FilmAustralia BROTHERS Photography................................................ PhilBalsdon Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia Prod, company............................Film Australia UNITED KINGDOM TRADE MARKETS Editor....................................................... DeniseHunter Producer................................................. MacekRubetzki Dist. company.............................Film Australia Exec, producer..................................... GeoffreyBarnes Director...................................................... TonyWheeler Prod, company............................Film Australia Producer.......................................... Janet Bell Prod, manager.............................................RonHannam Photography................................ Tony Wilson Dist. company.............................Film Australia Director....................................... David Roberts Prod, secretary....................................MargaretCrewes Sound recordist............................ Leo Sullivan Producer......................................... Don Murray Scriptwriter................................. David Roberts Prod, accountant....................................... John Russell Editor............................................ Sue Horsley Director................................................ Bob Hill Photography...............................Andrew Fraser Marketing & Scriptwriter...........................................Bob Hill Exec, producer............................. Tom Haydon Sound recordist........................... Howard Spry promotions officer................ Francesca Muir Photography.....................Richard Baillie-Mace Assoc, producer........................................Clare Edwards Exec, producer.................................Janet Bell Length............................................................60minutes Sound recordist.......................... George Craig Gauge......................................................16mm Prod, manager......................... Nigel Saunders Synopsis: This documentary is about the Editor.......................................... Robin Archer Synopsis: A moving film about a Vietnamese Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington realisation of Tim McCartney-Snape’s boyhood Exec, producer......................................... GeoffBarnes refugee family and the visit to Australia of a son Prod, accountant.........................Nell Cousins dream to climb Gasherbrum 1V, a beautiful yet Prod, manager............................................. AnnFolland Camera assistant.................................. RodneyHindsthey haven't seen for four years. terrifying peak in the Karakoram mountains of Prod, secretary...................... Margaret Crewes Marketing & north-east Pakistan. Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell promotions officer.........................FrancescaMuir Marketing & Length............................................................15minutes promotions officer................ Francesca Muir HELLFIRE PASS Gauge...................................................... 35mm Length................. 2 x 30 minutes/2 x 7 minutes ROADS TO XANADU Synopsis: A short exploring the magnificent Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia Synopsis: This program will profile the prob Dist. company............................................ABC(Pre-sale) rock paintings associated with the mythology Prod, company............................Film Australia lems facing the Australian business person Producer...................................................... TimReadof the Lightning Brothers, north of Katherine in Dist. company................... ......... Film Australia when exporting to the United Kingdom Director..................................... Graham Chase the Northern Territory. Ceremonies related to Producer............................ .......... John Merson markets. The series is a key part of the Aus these paintings, which have not been per Photography............................................. KerryBrown Director....................................... David Roberts trade strategy to develop an export conscious formed for 40 years, have been recorded, with Sound recordist..................................... RodneySimmons Scriptwriters................................ John Merson, culture in the Australian business community. an original Dolby soundtrack from GonwandaEditor....................................................GrahamChase David Roberts Exec, producer..................................... TristramMiall land featuring didgeridoo player, Charlie Based on the original idea WHERE THE FOREST MEETS McMahon. Assoc, producer............................Calvin Miller by..............................................John Merson Prod, manager..................................Ian Adkins THE SEA Exec, producer............................Geoff Barnes Prod, accountant......................................AlbertWong Prod, manager.............................Ron Hannam Prod, company.............................................FilmAustra MUSEUM COMMERCIAL Prod, assistant.......................... Meryl Jackson Prod, secretary.....................Margaret Crewes Dist. company..............................................Film Austra Prod, company............................Film Australia Still photography................. Robert McFarlane Producer...........................................Don Ezard Prod, accountant.......................... John Russell Dist. company.............................Film Australia Marketing & Director..................................... Jeannie Baker Marketing & promotions officer......... Jennifer Henderson Producer........................................... Janet Bell Editor............................................................RayThoma Director..........................................................IanHost promotions officer................ Francesca Muir Budget...............................................$180,000 Composer..............................................MichaelAtherto Length............................................. 50 minutes Photography...............................................RossKing Synopsis: A four-part series for television that Exec, producer........................ Geoffrey Barnes takes a new look at the dynamic interchange Sound recordist............................... Bruce Nihill Gauge...................................................... 16mm Prod, manager............................................. RonHanna between Asia and Europe in the modern world. Shooting stock............................................ ECN7292Prod, manager.........................Nigel Saunders Prod, secretary....................................MargaretCrewe The conventional views about the relationship Unit manager................................Peter Brown Synopsis: The events that occurred at Hellfire Prod, accountant........................................JohnRussel between science, technology and society, Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington Pass on the Thai Burma railroad during WWII Animation.................................................. PhilipPepper which continue to shape our perceptions of are being finally recognised in this docu Prod, accountant..........................Neil Cousins Don Ezard Publicity....................................................HelenZilko progress, are scrutinized and re-evaluated. mentary. Featuring Sir Edward (‘Weary’) Asst animation......................... Nichole Mudie Dunlop, and shot InThailand and Australia, the Marketing & Marketing & promotions RUSSIAN VISIT promotions officer.................Francesca Muir film is a tribute to the spirit and ingenuity of the officer.................................... Francesca Muir Length.............. 1 x 30 seconds/1 x 60 seconds men who lived and died there. (Working title) Laboratory........................................... Colorfilm Cast: Jack Thompson. Prod, company................ Gosteleradio (USSR) Length.............................................................. 7minute Synopsis: A 30- and 60-second community JAPAN TRADE MARKETS Dist. company............................. Film Australia Gauge....................................................... 35mm service announcement for television and Producer......................................................BobKingsbury Shooting sto ck........................................... 5247 Prod, company........................... Film Australia cinema release about the role of Australia’s Exec, producer............................................ RonSaunders Synopsis: This film, based on the Daintree Dist. company.............................Film Australia National Museum. Prod, manager............................ Gerald Letts Rainforest In North Queensland, conveys the Producer...................................................... DonMurray Prod, secretary............................Robyn Briais precious and special nature of the place, its Director....................................................... PaulHawker NEW HOUSING TECHNOLOGY Prod, accountant........................Geoff Appleby vulnerability, and the real position that in only a Scriptwriter.................................................. PaulHawker Marketing & few years it could be gone. It Is intended to Prod, company........................... Film Australia Photography...............................John Hosking promotions officer........ Jennifer Henderson make people feel that they play a part In the Dist. company............................ Film Australia Sound recordist............................ Howard Spry Producer.......................................... Janet Bell rainforest’s future and other special places like Exec, producer......................................... GeoffBarnes it. Director...................................... Paul Humfress Prod, manager............................................. AnnFolland STORYMAKERS: DICK ROUGHSEY Exec, producer................................ Janet Bell Prod, secretary...................... Margaret Crewes AND PERCY TRESIZE Prod, manager....................... Virginia Pridham Prod, accountant....................................... JohnRussell WINNING WOMEN Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington Prod, company............................ Rim Australia Marketing & Prod, company............................ Film Australia Prod, accountant.......................... Neil Cousins Dist. company............................. Film Australia promotions officer................Francesca Muir Dist. company............................. Film Australia Marketing & Producer........................................... Janet Bell Length........................................ 2 x 30 minutes Producer...................................................JanetBell promotions officer................Francesca Muir Director........................................Karl McPhee Synopsis: This program will profile the do’s Director.................................... Susan Lambert Scriptwriters................................ Ursula Kolbe, and don’ts facing the Australian business Synopsis: A fresh look at new housing tech Scriptwriter............................... Susan Lambert Bob Maza person when exporting to Japanese markets. nology made for television and commissioned Photography............................. Laurie Mclnnes Photography.......................................... AndrewFraser The series is a key part of the Austrade by the Department of Housing and Construc Sound recordists................................Pat Fiske, Sound recordist.............................. Bruce Nihill strategy to develop an export conscious culture tion. Bronwyn Murphy Exec, producer................................. Janet Bell In the Australian business community. Editor............................................................... DiPriest Prod, manager.......................................... NigelSaunders PARLIAMENT HOUSE/ Exec, producer......................................... JanetBell Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington JUST AUSTRALIAN AEROPLANES Unit manager................................ Anna Grieve THE BUILDERS Prod, accountant........................ Neil Cousins Prod, company............................ Film Australia Prod, secretary................ Amanda Etherington Camera assistant........................Peter Brown Prod, company............................ Film Australia Dist. company............................. Film Australia Prod, accountant.......................... Neil Cousins Marketing & Producer.................................... Ron Saunders Producer.................................Dick Collingridge Marketing & promotions officer.........................Francesca Muir Director............................................Ian Walker Photography............................... John Hosking Length............................................................30minutespromotions officer................ Francesca Muir Sound recordist..................................... HowardSpryScriptwriter...................................... Ian Walker Length..............................................50 minutes Gauge.............................................1 inch video Exec, producer..................................... TristramMiall Photography.....................................Ross King, Synopsis: A documentary for television, made Synopsis: The second in a series about child Kerry Brown Prod, manager.............................................. IanAdkins for the Australian Bicentennial Authority, about ren’s writers and illustrators. Sound recordists........................ Howard Spry, the Australian women’s cricket team and their Prod, accountant.......................... Albert Wong Rodney Simmons attempt to win the Ashes at Lords. As well, Marketing & TALL SHIPS Exec, producer...........................Ron Saunders some of the stars of women’s cricket from the promotions officer..........Jennifer Henderson Prod, manager.................................Gerry Letts Prod, company............................................ FilmAustralia 30s recall the great moments from their golden Studios........................................ Film Australia Prod, secretary........................... Robyn Briais Producer......................................................... R.McCauley era of the sport. Mixed a t.........'..............................Film Australia Prod, accountant....................... Geoff Appleby Researcher................................................ JudyMenczel Budget................................................. $52,305 Synopsis: A study of the design and building Exec, producer..................................... TristramMiall Length..............................................90 minutes of the new Parliament House in Canberra WOMEN ’88 Prod, manager................................ Ian Adkins Gauge.......................................................Video which is to be completed for the Bicentenary Prod, secretary................Beverley Conradsen Prod, company............................ Film Australia Synopsis: Successor to Just Australian Trains: celebrations. Prod, accountant......................... Albert Wong Dist. company............................. Rim Australia compiled from 2-3 hours of Film Australia Marketing & Producer...................................... Jo Horsburgh promotions officer........ Jennifer Henderson Directors................................ Christina Wilcox, REAL LIFE SERIES Budget................................................$270,704 Ruth Cullen, Length............................................. 55 minutes Please help us keep this survey Tracey Moffatt, KIDS IN TROUBLE Synopsis: A documentary about three young Anna Grieve, accurate. Phone Kathy Ball on Australians sailing out in two magnificent Jinks Dulhunty, Prod, company............................................ Rim Australia (03) 429 5511 w ith any errors or boats, the “ Dar Mlodziezy” from Poland and Liz Stroud, Dist. company............................................. FilmAustralia the “ Eagle” from the USA, to Australia. Sail Mary Callaghan omissions. Producer..................................................MacekRubetzki

74 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

Photography...............................Sally Bongers, GREEN ENGINEERING Jane Castle, Prod, company.................South Pacific Video Bronwyn Nicholas, Producers............................Andrew Wiseman, Sally Eccleston, Steve Edwards Lisa Sharkey, Director....................................... Steve Cozens Andy Fraser, Scriptwriter................................................... lainMcKay Mick Bornemann Photography.................................Mark Savage Sound recordists........................Nadia Kaspar, Sound recordist........................ Paul Harrington K. Gunn, Editor...........................................Wendy Clarke S. Best, Exec, producer........................................... SallySemmens Graham Tardif, Prod, co-ordinator........................Wendy Clarke Howard Spry Presenter....................................... Doug Murray Editors..................................................Di Priest, Budget................................................... $15,000 Dominique Fusy, Length.........................................10-12 minutes Melissa Sandford, Gauge...........................................BVU/Betacam Ray Thomas, Synopsis: A production on the control of S. Ayyar, erosion on building sites. Noel Wright Composers.............................................JoannaPiggott, IN HOUSING NEEDS J. Fielding, Felicity Foxx Prod, company.................Kestrel Film & Video Exec, producer.................................. Janet Bell Producer....................................................EddieMoses Prod, m anager......................... Nigel Saunders Director...................................................... EddieMoses Prod, secretary.................Amanda Etherington Scriptwriter...................................... David Tiley Prod, accountant......................................... NeilCousins Photography.............................................. KevinAnderson Camera assistants................................. JoanneErskine, Sound recordist..........................Simon Wilmot Alison Pickup, Editor....................................................RebeccaDallwitz Sally Eccleston, Mixed at................................... Film Soundtrack Marianna Marusic, Laboratory.................................................... VFL Robyn Petersen Length.............................................................30minutes Asst editors................................. Lindy Kruger, Shooting s to ck......................................... 16mm Stephanie Flack, Synopsis: The film is the third in a trilogy of Helen Martin, films being produced with the Ministiy of Penelope Mulligan Housing, examining issues in public housing in Marketing & Australia. promotions officer.................Francesca Muir Length..........................................7 x 5 minutes SALINITY Synopsis: A series for television celebrating Prod, company...........York Street Productions Australian women during the last 20 years, - ;L * For m ajor repairs, calibration adjustment, o r com plete Producer................................Andrew Wiseman made for release in the bicentennial year. Director............................................. Rob Scott overhaul of all N agra equipm ent. Photography.................................. Leigh Tilson E ditor.................................................Rob Scott • O u r service m anager has 20 years experience w o r il^ ^ S Composers............................... Peter Mumme, David Williams wide, induding 12 years in development, production and Exec, producer......................... Sally Semmens * after sales ..service w ith N agra in Switzerland. Budget...................................................$20,000 Length.............. 1 x 60 seconds/1 x 30 seconds . ? ' Interstate pick-up end delivery ihrough our branch offices Gauge.......................................I6m m /1” video Synopsis: Two community announcements .S afe transit in specially d esig ied packing cases. designed to raise awareness of the signifi cance of the threat of salinity to the well-being • For information, contact Hugo Rudaz a t SyJheyr head office and economy of Victoria.

B IT E S

FILM, TV AND LOCATION CATERING FULLY SELF-CONTAINED, WITH VAN VERY REASONABLE RATES

FIONA ANGEL (02) 949 4886

|M A

g r a

s e r v ic e

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION

NE W S O U T H WALES FILM C O R P O R A T I O N

on (02)4270666, o r one o f the brandies below

THROUGH DIFFERENT EYES II

Prod, company......................... The Film House KOORI: A WILL TO WIN Producers............................Andrew Wiseman, Philip Pappas Prod, company................................ChristopherSweeney Director............................................ Trevor Ling and Associates Photography...............................Barry Malseed Producer..........................................ChristopherSweeney Sound recordist........................ Nigel Borthwick Director............................................ ChristopherSweeney Mixed at............................................. Soundfirm Scriptwriters...................Christopher Sweeney, Laboratory............................................. Cinevex James Miller Budget...................................................$60,000 Photography.................................... Jan Kenny Length.............................................. 12 minutes Editor................................................. Ted Otton Gauge........................................................16mm Laboratory....................................................CFL Synopsis: A promotional film aimed at pro Length..............................................48 minutes spective business emigrants, setting forth the Gauge....................................................... 16mm business, educational and lifestyle advantages Synopsis: Based on the book of the same title, offered in Victoria. Koori: A Will To Win is a story of resistance, sur vival and ultimately of triumph. In it James Miller traces the last 200 years of his family tribal history — that of the Wonnarua people of the Hunter River Valley in New South Wales. With pride and sensitivity he illuminates the past of a people who have survived every attempt to destroy them as a separate race and culture.

Melbourne Adokrido

v 1

■!

(09)396282

M A G N A -T E C H T R O N .C S (A U S T , P TY 'LTD

Australia’s liveliest, most informative performing arts magazine.

TELEVISION

THE STEAM REVOLUTION Prod, company................................ Jollification Producer........................................Russell Tagg Director.........................................Russell Tagg Editor............................................. Russell Tagg Camera operator.......................... Russell Tagg Laboratory.................................................. Atlab Length.........................................4 x 30 minutes Gauge.................................... 35mm to 1" video Synopsis: The cycles of four types of engines are shown in animation: the Newcomen engine, the Boutlon and Watt Rotative engine, the Reaction Turbine engine and the Single and Tandem Compound High Pressure engine. Each will be shown on a monitor next to the relevant engine in the Power House Museum’s re-creation of the 19th century enqine-house at its exhibition commencing in 1988.

PRE-PRODUCTION EMMA

Prod, company....Anro Productions Pty Limited for Multi Films Investments Limited and International Film Management Limited Dist. company........................Fries Distribution Company, Inc (The World excluding Australasia), Hemdale Ginnane Australia Ltd (Australasia) Producers................................................... .AnnChapman, Ross Matthews Director.............................................Gil Brealey Scriptwriters................................................ RobChapman, Ann Chapman Story consultant................................... GeoffreyDutton Photography............................. Geoffrey Burton Sound recordist......................................... RossLinton Editor..........................................Wayne Le Clos Prod, designer.............................................. NeilAnguin Exec, producers...........................................RobChapman, Antony I. Ginnane Prod, co-ordinator..........................................LizHagen Prod, manager....................... Sally Ayre-Smith Unit manager............................................. ChrisJones Location manager....................................MaudeHeath Prod, secretary........................................... SamThompson Prod, accountant...............Elizabeth Anderson, Michelle D’arcy, Catch 123 1st asst director..................................... MichaelBouchier 2nd asst director........................................ PeterKearney FOOLS AND FEATHERS 3rd asst director............. Toby Churchill-Brown Continuity................................................. AlisonGoodwin Dist. company................................Film Victoria Producers assistant....................Angelina Sifis Producer...............................Vincent O’Donnell Casting............................................Liz Mullinar D irector.....................................................PennyRobenstone Focus puller................................ Darren Keogh Scriptwriter......................................... Mem Fox Clapper/loader................................... CatherineMillas Based on the short story by................ Mem Fox Key grip..................................................... BruceBarber Prod, designer..........................................PennyRobenstone Gaffer..............................................................IanPlummer Animation................................................. PennyRobenstone Art director..................................... Robert Dein Budget...................................................$20,000 Asst art director........................................SimonDobbin Length.................................................5 minutes Costume designer.................................GrahamPurcell Synopsis: A parable on peace, concerning the Make-up......................................... Viv Mephan inability of some swans and peacocks to live in Wardrobe supervisor............................HeatherMcLaren harmony.

GOVERNMENT FILM PRODUCTION

FILM

VICTORIA

FIRST ISSUE Libby Dempster John Docker Russell Dumas Hilary Glow Martin Harrison

Suzanne Kieman David Malouf Dacia Mariani James McCaughey Tony Mitchell

OUT NOW Louis Nowra John Romeril Chris Westwood Patrick White

A t a newsagent o r theatre near you, o r ’p hone (02) 33 4744 fo r subscription details. Editors: Pamela Payne-Heckenberg James Waites

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER - 75

P R O D U C T I O N U R V Y Props.......................................... Blossom Flint, Annette Reid Props buyer.............................George Zammit Set construction......................... Danny Burnett Asst editor.................................. Wayne Hages Best boy.................................... Grant Atkinson Catering....................................... John Faithfull Budget............................................ $5,589,567 Length...................................... 2 x 120 minutes Gauge...................................................... 35mm Shooting stock.................Kodak Eastmancolor Synopsis: Based on the story of Emma Eliza Coe, an American-Samoan woman who set up a huge trading empire In the South Pacific last century,

Prod, secretary.......................... Annette Gover Wardrobe standby................... Julie Middleton Fields (Vic Buckley), Val Jellay (Nancy BuckBudget officer.............................. Cynthia Kelly Seamstresses....................... Sheryl Pilkington, ley), Pat Evison (Violet Carnegie), Terry Gill 1st asst director....................Russell Whiteoak Laura Jocic (Sgt Jack Carruthers). 2nd asst director.......................Steve Stannard Property master.............................................BillBooth Synopsis: A Royal Flying Doctor Service is Continuity..................................... Emma Peach Props buyer..............................Daniel Morphett located in the outback town of Coopers Cross Casting........................................ Jennifer Allen Standby props.............................Peter Moyes, ing. The two doctors, Geoff Standish and Chris Casting asst........................ Maureen Charlton Robert Moxham Randall, not only contend with the medical Camera operator..........................Roger Lanser Scenic a rtis t................................ Peter Collias challenges, but also with the small community Focus puller................................. Robert Foster Graphic artist...............................Jane Murphy in which they live. Clapper/loader.................... Chantal Abouchar Brush hands.................................................GusLobb, Key grip................................ John Huntingford Adam Bromhead HEY DAD G affer.................................. Tim Murray-Jones Draftsperson................................... Fiona Scott (Series III) Electricians............................... Ken Pettigrew, Carpenters................................................. AllenGoode, Prod, company............Jacaranda Productions Robert Wickham Darren Phillips, Dist. company............Pre-sale Seven Network Boom operator..............................Mark Bowyer Barry Child, Producer...........................................Gary Reilly Costume designer...................... Wendy Chuck Andrew Tickner, Director...................................................... SallyBrady Make-up........................................... Jiri Pavlin, Deryck Titherley THE G’DAY SHOW WITH DOT AND Scriptwriters............................................... GaryReilly,Construction managers..........................WayneAllen, Jenni Boehm THE KANGAROO John Flanagan Wardrobe............................................. MirandaBrock, John Moore Prod, company........................... Yoram Gross Based on an original idea b y ........... Gary Reilly Barry Lumley Construction runner...................................MarkSchul Filmstudio Pty Ltd Photography..............................................SteveBrackStunts co-ordinator/safety........Bernard Ledger Props......................................................... PeterBranch, Producer................................................. YoramGross Sound recordist............................................ JimAstleyBest boy......................................... Ian Bosman Nicole Mitchell, Director................................................... YoramGross Editor........................................................ GarryBurnsRunners.............................................Ross Bell, Peter Fitzgerald Scriptwriter............................. Marcia Hatfield Composer...................................................MikePerjanik Props buyers.......................................... MervinAsher, Tracey Harbutt Assoc, producer..................................... SandraGross Exec, in charge of Tony Cronin Publicity.................................. Channel 9 (TCN) Length......................................13 x 30 minutes production............................. Alan Bateman Special effects/armourer..............Peter Leggett Studios........................................................ MaxStudios Gauge............................................................ 1"videoNeg. matching....................................... PamelaToose Director’s asst............................................ Julie Hannah Laboratory................................................. Atlab Synopsis: Pilot for a 13-part television series Producer’s asst............................... Kathy Lang Sound editors...................... Lawrie Silverstrin, Tape post-prod, house........................ Omnicon featuring a combination of animation and liveLighting.................................................. RussellPhegan Sandi Eyles Budget........................................$9.215 million action. Floor manager..........................................JamieStevens Mixer.......................................................... MarkWalker Length...................................... 13 x 60 minutes Vision switcher............................ Tanya Djamin Still photography........................ Gary Johnston Gauge........................... Shoot 16mm, edit tape Technical director.........................................PatBarterShooting stock.........................................Kodak TOUCH THE SUN — TOP-ENDERS Publicity..................................... Georgie Brown Make-up.......................................................SueLeonard Catering..................................... A & B Catering Presenter: Michael Willesee. Series prod, company..........ACTF Productions Wardrobe................................Therese Rendle Studios..............................ABC Forest Studios Synopsis: Michael Willesee's Australians is a Prod, company................ Syme Entertainment Set decorator............................. Gordon Brown Mixed a t.............................ABC Forest Studios drama series of monumental events, unsung Producer........................................................JillRobb Set designer.............................. Ken Goodman Laboratory...........................................Colorfilm heroes and buried surprises of history from Director................................. Jackie McKimmie Publicity................................................RhondaDawson Budget.............................................$5,800,000 Australia’s penal beginnings to the present Scriptwriters...........................Michael Aitkens, Studios.................................... ATN Channel 7 Gauge.......................................................35mm day. Jackie McKimmie Length.....................................19 x 30 minutes Length........................................ 6 x 50 minutes Script editor.................................................SueSmith Gauge...................................................... Video Shooting stock.............................Eastmancolor Exec, producer.......................................PatriciaEdgar NEIGHBOURS Synopsis: Robert Hughes (Martin Kelly), Julie Cast: John Hargreaves (William), Victoria Prod, co-ordinator......................................JudyHughes Prod, company.........Grundy Television Pty Ltd McGregor (Betty Wilson), Paul Smith (Simon Longley (Elizabeth), Jane Harders (Edith), Kim Length.......................................................... 120minutes Producer.......................................... Philip East Kelly), Simone Buchanan (Debbie Kelly), Sarah Krejus (Martha). Gauge...................................................... 16mm Directors....................................... Tony Osicka, Monahan (Jenny Kelly), Christopher Truswell Synopsis: Set at the turn of the century, the Synopsis: Alice, who lives with her mother, Andrew Friedman, (Nudge). daughter of a Sydney politician elopes with a Sue, in Darwin, is growing up tough and Steve Mann, Synopsis: A situation comedy based on a young German migrant to the Barossa Valley independent. She is not too nappy wnen ner Mark Piper widowed father trying to raise his three children to start a vineyard. father, after one of his many absences, turns Screenwriters........................................ Various with the help of the family’s crazy cousin. up to rejoin the family yet again. When her Script supervisor......................................... RayKolle father disappoints her again she resolves to AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS Script editors....................................... Ysabelle Dean, MICHAEL WILLESEE’S run away and her friend Frank, a full-blood Prod, company..................................... BurbankFilms Wayne Doyle AUSTRALIANS Aborigine decides to join her. The pair set off Producer...................................................... RozPhillips Based on the original idea b y ........Reg Watson through the Kakadu National Parklands in Prod, company.... ............... Roadshow Coote & Scriptwriter....................................Leonard Lee Sound recordists....................... DaveShellard, search of Frank’s tribe. Frank’s knowledge of Carroll Pty Ltd, Based on the novel b y .................. Jules Verne Grant Vogler, the desert is not as good as he thought and Transmedia Productions Pty Ltd, Editors......................................Peter Jennings, Bruce Finlay, they soon become lost. Film Australia Caroline Neave Keith Harper, Dist. company..................... Roadshow Coote & Exec, producer...........................................TomStacey Rob Saunders Carroll Pty Ltd, Prod, co-ordinator........................................JoyCraste A WALTZ THROUGH THE HILLS Prod, designer.......................................... SteveKeller Transmedia Productions Pty Ltd Prod, manager................................. Roddy Lee Composer (theme).....................................TonyHatch Prod, company....................... Barron Films Ltd Series producers......................Ron Saunders, Prod, accountant.................................. Andrew Young Exec, producer..............................Reg Watson Dlst. company......................... Barron Films Ltd Pamela Vanneck Casting......................................................... JoyCraste Assoc, producer............................Peter Askew Producers.................................. Paul D. Barron, Directors................................................Various Camera operators........................... Gary Page, Prod, co-ordinator.................................... JayneRussell Roz Berrystone Executive script editor.................................SueMasters Tanya Viskitch Prod, manager........................Vicki Popplewell Director..................................................... FrankArnold Scriptwriters.............................Tony Morphett, Storyboard................................................SteveLumley Casting......................................................... JanRuss Scriptwriter...............................John Goldsmith Anne Whitehead, Tim ing..............................................Jean Tych Casting assistant........................................JaneDaniels Based on the novel by............... Gerald Glaskin Roger McDonald, Length............................................................50minutes Off-line editing................. The Editing Machine Sound recordist............................... Bob Hayes John Upton, Gauge...................................................... 16mm Floor managers........................... Bob Villinger, Prod, designer............................ Herbert Pinter Anne Brooksbank, Shooting stock........................................ 7291 Alan Williamson, Prod, manager.......................................DebbieCopland Robert Caswell, Synopsis: The classic tale of Philias Fogg Peter Hinde Unit manager...........................................SimonHawkins Bob Ellis, whose bet took him and his reluctant servant Director’s assts.................................. MarianneGray, Location manager............................ Rose Wise Stephen Ramsay, Passepartout around the world in 80 days. Linda Wilson, Prod, secretary........................... Sharryn Scott John Misto, Marcus Georgiades 2nd asst director........................... Chris Lynch Peter Schreck, BLACK ARROW Art director.................................... Steve Keller 3rd asst director...................... Peter Armstrong Geoffrey Atherden, Hairdressers......................... David Henderson, Prod, company..................................... BurbankFilms Continuity.................................Chris O’Connell Denise Morgan, David Vawser Producer...................................................... RozPhillips Casting (children).......................................JohnRapsey Warwick Hind Wardrobe.................................. Robyn Adams, Scriptwriter................................................. PaulLeadon Focus puller.......................... Mark Edgecombe Business affairs............................................KimVecera Mandy Sedewie, Key grip....................................Karel Akkerman Based on the novel Photography................................................ JanKenny, Julianne Jonas Asst grip.........................................David Cross b y ............................ Robert Louis Stevenson Martin McGrath, Props buyer................................. Mark Grivas Gaffer........................................................... PhilGolomblck Editors......................................Peter Jennings, Andrew Fraser Standby props.................. Richard Williamson, Art director.................................... Matt Nelson Caroline Neave Sound recordist.............................. Noel Quinn Sue Birjac Costume designer......................... Noel Howell Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Editors........................................ Kerry Reagan, Lighting supervisors..........Lynden Matheson, Still photography........................................ SkipWatkins Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste David Yaeger, Rod Harbour, Dialogue coach..........................................JohnRapsey Prod, manager.................................Roddy Lee The Editing Machine Stuart De Young Catering................................................... GriffinCaterers Prod, accountant....................... Andrew Young Prod, designer................................ Ross Major Music editor............................Warren Pearson Budget........................................ $1.825 million Casting......................................................... JoyCraste Exec, producers......................................... MattCarroll, Vision switcher.......................... Jenny Williams Length........................................113 minutes or Camera operators......................................GaryPage, Robin Hughes, Technical directors........................Barry Shaw, (5 x 24 minutes) Tanya Viskitch Michael Willesee Peter Merino, Gauge......................................................16mm Storyboard................................................. GlenLovettProd, supervisor....................... Adrienne Read Howard Simons Shooting stock........................................Kodak Timing.............................................Jean Tych Prod, managers................................. Sue Wild, Catering....................................... Helen Louers Synopsis: The story is set in 1954; Andy and Length............................................................50minutes Lynda Wilkinson, Post-production................ ATV-10, Melbourne Sammy (two young children) live in a small Gauge.......................................................16mm Gerry Letts Cast: Anne Charleston (Madge Mitchell), Kylie country town. They become orphaned and Shooting stock...........................................7291 Prod, co-ordinators..............................VanessaBrown, Minogue (Charlene Mitchell), Jason Donovan discover they will be placed in separate Synopsis: Set in thetimeof the War of the Annette Patterson, (Scott Robinson), Alan Dale (Jim Robinson), orphanages. To avoid this, they decide to run Roses our heroDick Shelton discovers the real Kate Delin Anne Haddy (Helen Daniels), Stefan Dennis away to England to join their grandparents. On identity of the Black Arrow. Unit manager..............................John Brousek (Paul Robinson), Elaine Smith (Daphne the way, they are befriended by a young Abori Location manager...................... Patricia Blunt Clarke), Paul Keane (Des Clarke), Guy Pearce ginal man — Frank — who helps them to reach THE FLYING DOCTORS Prod, accountant........................Paul Hopkins, (Mike Young), Annie Jones (Jane Harris). their goal. Catch 1,2,3 Prod, company............... Crawford Productions Synopsis: Love ’em or hate ’em, but every 1st asst directors................. Adrian Pickersgill, Series Pty Ltd one’s got ’em: neighbours. Ramsay S treet. . . Corrie Soeterboek Producer...................................................OscarWhitbread the stage for an exciting drama serial. . . draw 2nd asst director.......................................... KenMoffat Directors................................................Various ing back the curtain to reveal the intrigue and 3rd asst director........................................ AdamSpencer Scriptwriters.......................................... Various passions of Australian families . . . and their Continuity................................................... SianFatouros, Photography............................. Brett Anderson neighbours. Kristen Voumard Sound recordists....................................... JohnMcKerrow, Producer’s assistant............ Caroline Bonham Malcolm Rose PRISONER OF ZENDA Casting.............. Suzie Maizels and Associates Editor.........................................Lindsay Parker Focus puller......................... Calum McFarlane Exec, producers......................................HectorCrawford, Prod, company..................................... BurbankFilms Clapper/loaders....................................... GlennCogan, Ian Crawford, Producer.......................................................RozPhillips Katrina Crook Terry Stapleton Scriptwriter....................................Leonard Lee THE ALIEN YEARS Prod, supervisor........................................VinceSmitsKey grips.............................. Brett McDowell, Based on the novel by.......................... AnthonyHope Prod, company.... ABC/Resolution Film Pty Ltd Mitch Logan Prod, co-ordinator...................................... GinaBlack Editors...................................... Peter Jennings, Dist. company...................... Revcom Australia Prod, manager.......................................... ChrisPageAsst grip s.................................................. John Tate, Caroline Neave Producer......................................................RayAlehin Matthew Hoile Prod, secretary........................ Carol Matthews Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Director................................... Donald Crombie Gaffer........................................................DerekJonesProd, co-ordinator............................Joy Craste Prod, accountant..........................Jeff Shenker Scriptwriter.............................Peter Yeldham Boom operator........................... Victor Gentile Art director............................... Andrew Reese Prod, manager..................................Roddy Lee Photography..............................................PeterHendry Art director....................................................KimDarbyProd, accountant.......................Andrew Young Set construction........................Gordon White Sound recordist...... ......................Peter Barber Art dept co-ordinator................................CathyCouper Studios..........................Channel 9, Melbourne Casting..............................................Joy Craste Editors.................................. Tony Kavanagh, Art dept runner.......................................... DekeDvrece Mixed at......................... Crawford Productions Camera operators......................... Gary Page, Lyn Solly Costume designer......................................RossMajor Laboratory.............................................Cinevex Tanya Viskitch Prod, designer...................................... QuentinHole Length..................................... 26 x 60 minutes Make-up.............. Lesley Rouvray (supervisor), Storyboard................................................. GlenLovett, Designers...................................Marcus North, Sherry Hubbard, Gauge.......................................................16mm Alex Nicholas Col Rudder Adele Wilcox Shooting stock................................ 7291,7292 Tim ing..............................................Jean Tych Exec, producers..................................... SandraLevy,Cast: Robert Grubb (Dr Geoffrey Standish), Liz Hairdressers........................Michelle Johnson, Length............................................................ 50minutes Geoffrey Daniels Yvonne Savage Birch (Dr Chris Randall), Lenore Smith (Kate Gauge...................................................... 16mm Prod, supervisor......................................DennisKielyWellings), Bruce Barry (George Baxter), Wardrobe supervisor..................Jean Turnbull Shooting sto ck........................................ 7291 Unit/location manager.................................. ValWindon Wardrobe asst/buyer............................. AndreaHoodVoices: David Whitney, Phillip Hinton, Robert Rebecca Gibney (Emma Plimpton), Maurie

T E L E V I S I ON

P R O D U C T I O N

76 — SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

Coleby, Frank Violi, John Fitzgerald, Christie Awor, Claire Crowther, Walter Sullivan. Synopsis: Two men, one a king and under threat from his brother, the other an English man who works for the government, swap places to thwart a plot to take the throne.

RAFFERTY’S RULES

young girls coming to a large country town to continue their education. Set in the 1920s, each episode will pertain to their adventures and misadventures told in a humorous and active manner. The concept of the venture gives us the opportunity for fun and entertain ment built around a cast of delightful characters.

(Series IV) TAKEOVER Prod, com pany......................... ATN Channel 7 Prod, company..........................................PhillipEmanuel Dist. company........................... ATN Channel 7 Productions Ltd Producer....................................... Posie Jacobs Producer....................................................Phillip Emanuel Scriptwriters....................................David Allen, Director.........................................................Rob Marchand John Upton, Scriptwriter......................................Peter Moor Tim Gooding, Photography....................................Bob Kohler David Marsh, Sound recordist.................... Stephen Haggerty Nicholas Langton, Editor.......................................................MurrayFerguson Chris Roache, Prod, co-ordinator.........................Trish Carney John Misto, Prod, manager............................. David Clarke Sue Castrique, Unit manager........................................ Stephen Shelley Chris Peacock, Prod, secretary............................Jane Gazzard Ken Ross, Prod, accountant........... Jennifer des Champs, Justin Fleming Moneypenny Services Based on an original idea b y .............Ben Lewin Prod, designer....................................... BernardHides1st asst director............................................BobDonaldson 2nd asst director............................... Ian Kenny Composer................................... Mike Perjanik 3rd asst director.................. Brendan Campbell Exec, producer............................Alan Bateman Continuity............................Joanne McLennan Prod, accountant............................. Paul Parker Casting consultant...........................Lee Larner 1st asst director...........................Soren Jensen Casting....................................................... HelenSalterFocus puller....................................... Paul Kelly Clapper/loader..................................Peter Falk Musical director.......................... Mike Perjanik Key g rip.........................................................KenConner Publicity....................................Lindy Anderson Asst g rip ............................................ Ian Porter Studios...............................................Channel 7 Gaffer.............................................DickTummel G auge....................................................1" video Boom operator............................................JohnWilkinson Cast: John Wood (Michael Rafferty), Catherine Art director...............................................Patrick Reardon Wilkin (Paulyne), Simon Chilvers (Flicker), Arky Make-up..................................................... Anna Karpinski Michael (Fulvio). Hairdresser.................................................Anna Karpinski Synopsis: The trials and tribulations of stipen Wardrobe.................................................... RoseChong diary court magistrate Michael Aloysius Standby wardrobe....................................JessieFountain Rafferty. Props buyer................................Marita Mussett Standby prop s...........................Tim Browning STRINGER Best boy.......................................................John Leaver Prod, company...... ABC/McCann International Runner................................... Reuben Thomas Dist. company....... ABC/McCann International Catering..................................Sweet Seduction Producer......................................................JohnEdwards Length............................................................. 90minutes Directors.................................................... KathyMueller, Gauge........................................................16mm Chris Thomson, Shooting stock..........................................Kodak Ken Cameron Cast: Barry Otto, Anne Tenney, Wayne Cull, Scriptwriters.............. Billy Marshall-Stoneking, Paul Chubb, Alexander Kemp. Steve Wright, Synopsis: A high-technology comedy about Christopher Lee conflict between a man and his computer. Photography....................................Jeff Malouf Sound recordist............................... Guntis Sics THE TRUE BELIEVERS Editors.................................................... MichaelHoney, Bill Russo (Working title) Prod, designers...................... Murray Picknett, Prod, company.......Roadshow Coote & Carroll/ Janet Patterson ABC TV Drama Composer................................................. MartinArmiger Dist. company.........Roadshow Coote & Carroll Exec, producer............................................JohnEdwards Director.............................................. Peter Fisk Prod, manager........................................... CarolChirlian Scriptwriters...................................... Bob Ellis, Unit manager...................................Clint White Stephen Ramsey Prod, secretary............................ Jane Pepper Prod, designer........................................... GeoffWedlock 1st asst directors......................... Wayne Barry, Exec, producers.......................................... MattCarroll, Gary Stephens Sandra Levy 2nd asst directors..................................... LanceMellor, Line producer...................... Stephen O’Rourke Karin Kreicers Prod. exec, for RCC....................Bernard Terry Continuity...............................Rhonda McAvoy, Prod, manager.............................. Judy Murphy Anthea Dean Unit manager........................................... AdrianCannon Casting.................................................. JenniferAllen Prod, secretary.......................................JoanneHolliman Casting asst................................................ IreneGaskell Prod, accountant........................ Judy Murphy, Lighting cameraperson................................ JeffMalouf Catch 1-2-3 Focus pulle r................................................GaryRussell Prod, assistants.................................. ElizabethSteptoe, Clapper/loader...................Andrew McClymont Peta Jeffs 2nd unit photography.................................. PaulCostello 1st asst director................ Scott Hartford-Davis Make-up..................................................... SuzieStewart 2nd asst directors........................Wendy Gray, W ardrobe...................................Elsie Rushton, Tony Tilse Barry Lumley 2nd unit director............................. Kate Woods Props buyer................................................ ColinBailey Script editor.................................................. SueMasters Still photography.......................................MartinWebby Casting.................................................. JenniferAllen, Studios....................................... ABC, Gore Hill Kate Woods Length........................................ 8 x 50 minutes Casting asst...................................Irene Gaskell Gauge....................................................... 16mm Technical producer.......................Bruce Liebau Cast: Derrick O’Connor (Frank “ Stringer” Lighting director............................ Peter Knevitt Buchanan), Nicholas Papademetriou (Yannis), Cameras.................................................RichardBond, Susan Lyons (Laura), Lynette Curran (Valerie). Peter Robinson, Synopsis: Burnt out war correspondent comes Murray Tonkins, to Sydney seeking a simple life, but becomes Glenn Traynor caught up with a young Greek taxi driver/would Videotape edito r....................................GrahamTickle be rock star/would be anything there’s a dollar Asst editor................................................. CathyFoster Sound.......................................... Wayne Keiley Mixer............................................ Glenn Heaton SUGAR AND SPICE Sound effects.................................Tony Popie Research................................. Dana Chrastina, Prod, company............. LJ Productions Limited Kristen Dunphy Dist. company....................Revcom Television/ Film research.............................Wendy Benson LJ Merchandising Designers................................ Gregor McLean, Producers..................................................FrankBrown, Julie Bell John Gauci, Asst designers...........................Andrew Harris, Louise Hall Lisa Elvy Director........................................... John Gauci Costume designer................... Jolante Nejman Scriptwriters................................................MaryWright, Asst costume designer........... Annie Marshall Allan Hopgood, Make-up................................... Christine Ehlert John Wood, Wardrobe co-ordinator.................... Ron Dutton Brian Wright Wardrobe assts........................Colin Burrough, Photography.........................................Clive Sell Sally McBryde Sound recordist.......................................... John Phillips Props buyers....................... Paddy MacDonald, Prod, supervisor........................................FrankBrown Susan Glavich Prod, co-ordinator....................Tracee McCabe Standby prop s............................................. DonPage, Prod, accountant................Dianne Denneman, Chris Rymill, McLean Patterson Alan Willis 1st asst director............................... Sig Eimutis Set dresser..........................Sandra Carrington 2nd asst director..................... Andrew Mitchell Title designer................................................. BillSykes Continuity.................................. Salli Englender Publicity...........................Georgie Brown, ABC Camera operator............................... Phil Cross Length.........................................8 x 55 minutes Camera assistant............................... LawrenceBalmer Gauge..............................................................1" video Asst grip............................................... Tony Hall Cast: Ed Devereaux (Ben Chifley), Simon Art director................................................Carole Harvey Chilvers (Herbert Evatt), John Bonney (Robert Make-up..................................................Patricia Payne Menzies). W ardrobe..................................................... RayStrong Synopsis: A miniseries which chronicles, Standby wardrobe....................Jessie Fountain through the personalities and issues of the Props............................................... Adele Flere time, the near destruction of the Federal Labor Sound asst....................................... Ray Phillips Party led by Chifley and Evatt. Beginning in Still photography..........................Tibor Hegedis 1945 with the party in power it ends in 1955 Length.......................................20 x 30 minutes with the party split and Liberal leader Menzies Gauge....................................................Betacam as Prime Minister. Synopsis: The series tells the story of two

★

Specialists in Transportation^ of Film & Advertising Props Professionally equipped Pantechnicons & Table Top Trucks Reliable, Experienced & Helpful Crew Radio Controlled Fleet.

★

★ ★

(02 ) 331 3314 74 Burton

St, Darlinghurst

2010,

X CASTING

ASHTON-WOOD MANAGEMENT___________________

Director: TERENCE ASHTON-WOOD_________________ Cornelius Court, 512/1470 King Street SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000 Telephone: (02) 233 2113

Artists' Representation to the Motion Picture and Television Industry.

Your Complete

Reproducing From Your

O rig in a ls AT 4 5 0 L IT T LE C O L L IN S S T., M E L B O U R N E 3 9 9 L O N S D A LE S T, M E L B O U R N E 2 8 4 C IT Y RD., S O U T H M E L B O U R N E

Call In To Lonsdale St. Store And Discuss Quantity Discounts • PRINTING • COLOR PRINTING • PHOTOCOPYING • BINDING • RELIABILITY • QUICK DELIVERY ALL THREE LOCATIONS

l 602 3188 CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 77

D S

C R

T V

I E

1ST Y

Prod, secretary..................................... Jacqule LambArt dept runner...................................... AndrewSmith Lab. liaison.................................... Mark Farrar WESTWARD HO Carpenter.................................................... LipsStudio Prod, assistants........................................ SusieStruth, Budget........................................... $4.3 million Prod, company........................... Burbank Films Asst editor............................. Treesje Klaassen Janet Argali Length........................................ 4 x 60 minutes Producer....................................... Roz Phillips Neg. matching...................................... Clnevex 1st asst director......................... John Markham Gauge.......................................................16mm Scriptwriter................................... Paul Leadon Sound editors......................Yvonne van Guen, 2nd asst director.................. Richard Van’t Rlet Shooting stock...........................................7291 Based on the novel by............Charles Kingsley Glen Newnham Casting............................................ Dina Mann Cast: Tushka Bergen (Freda), Jochen Horst Editors....................................Peter Jennings, Sound editor asst...........Sarah-Jane van Guen Lighting director..........................................RonCromb (Franz), Lisa Harrow (Nancy Kennon), Marshall Caroline Neave Still photography........................................Greg Lamey Make-up................................. Jurgen Zielinski, Napier (Bill Kennon), Dieter Klrchlechner Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Nurse...............................................Maria Blore Denise Gakov (Kurt), Herbert Trattnig (Wolfgang), Ben Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste Tutor............................................. Brian Bercoe Wardrobe............................... Beverley Jasper Becker (Ernst), Matthew Burton (Peter Stein), Prod, manager................................. Roddy Lee Action vehicles co-ord..... Laurence Humphries Grams op.....................................Peter Bradley Simon Burke (Tom), John Poison (John), Taya Prod, accountant......................Andrew Young Tech, producer......................................... PeterCoganSafety officers..................................Vic Wilson, Straton (Alisa). Casting..............................................Joy Craste John Kingston Length............................................................30minutes Synopsis: A love story between the daughter Camera operators......................................GaryPage, Best boy...................................Werner Gerlach Cast: Anthony Hawkins (Gordon W. Teetree), of a country baker and a young German Tanya Vlskltch Runner.....................................Alexander Pyne Elspeth Ballantyne (Mrs Maud Bumb), Martin violinist who has been Interned at Trial Bay Storyboard................................................ SteveLyons Publicity..........................Suzie Howie Publicity Redpath (Captain Crumble), Roy Baldwin (Pop Gaol during WWI. Tim ing........................................................JeanTych Catering........................................Food for Film Gun), Kim Gyngell (Crocodile), Don Bridges Length............................................................50minutes Mixed a t................................... Hendon Studios (Hot Dog). AUSTRALIA . . . TAKE A BOW Gauge......................................................16mm Laboratory............................................. Cinevex Synopsis: Ageing thesplans filled with envy, Prod, company.....................Soundsense Film Shooting stock........................................7291 Lab. liaison.................................................... IanLetche sorrow, and the desire to be centre stage meet Productions Pty Ltd Synopsis: Amyas sails the high seas to rescue Budget.............................................$1,235,000 for Sunday tea at the Fool’s Shoe Hotel. Producer....................................... Brian Morris beautiful Rose from the evil clutches of Don Length.......................................................... 120minute Guzman. Director......................................... Brian Morris Gauge....................................................... 16mm HOME AND AWAY Based on the original idea Shooting stock................... Eastmancolor Neg. Prod, company......................... ATN Channel 7 by...............................................Brian Morris WIND IN THE WILLOWS Cast: Damien Walters (Johnno), John Waters Dist. company........................... ATN Channel 7 Photography..................................Paul Warren (Frank), Michele Fawdon (Kathleen), Joe PetProd, company..................................... BurbankFilms Producer.....................................................John Holmes Sound recordist.................................... MichaelGisslng ruzzl (Tony), Rebecca Sykes (Julie), Sam Producer...................................................... RozPhillips Director............................... Rlccardo Pelllzzerl Editor.................................................Tim Street Sowton (Anthony), Rowan Campbell (Darryl), Scriptwriter........................................... LeonardLee Prod, manager............................. Fiona Aaron Scriptwriter....................................... Bevan Lee Vivienne Graves (Miss Fielding), Peter Healey Based on the novel b y ........Kenneth Grahame Composer...................................................MikePerjanlk Prod, secretary..........................................LindaHopkins (Mr O’Connor), Elspeth Ballantyne (Mrs Green Editors........................................... P. Jennings, Exec, producer............................Alan Bateman Asst editor................................................. Linda Goddard wood). Caroline Neave Prod, manager.....................................MargaretSlarkeSynopsis: Johnno is a good-natured 10-yearSound editor.......................................... MichaelGlssing Exec, producer........................................... TomStacey Prod, secretary........................................... LisaFitzpatrick Mixer......................................................MichaelGlssing old who lives with his parents and sister, Julie, Prod, co-ordinator........................... Joy Craste 1st asst director........................................ SorenJensen Still photography..........Wlldlight Photo Agency in the small South Australian fishing village of Prod, manager.................................Roddy Lee Casting............................................ Maura Fay, Publicity............................ The Write On Group Streeton. Because Johnno Is deaf the other Prod, accountant.................................. AndrewYoung Helen Salter Unit publicist.............................. Sherry Stumm kids don’t understand or accept him, but he Casting......................................................... JoyCraste Art director...................................................KenMcCann Laboratory................................................. Atlab gets by with Julie's help. When she leaves for Camera operators........................... Gary Page, Wardrobe............................Michael Chisholm Lab. liaison............................Bruce Williamson boarding school, Johnno is devastated, mis Tanya Viskitch Studios...................................... ATN Channel 7 Budget................................................ $922,500 behaves at school, and Is expelled. When he Storyboard...................................Steve Lumley Length........................................... 120 minutes Length........................................7 x 28 minutes hears that he Is going to be sent away to a Timing...................................... Gairden Cooke Gauge..................................................1" video Gauge.......................................................16mm special school he runs away and takes a boat Length............................................. 50 minutes Cast: Roger Oakley (Tom), Vanessa Downing Shooting stock................... Agfa XT 125, XT320 to a nearby island where he plans to live a Gauge......................................................16mm (Pippa), Alex Papps (Frank), Sharyn Hodgson Synopsis: A contemporary look at life In each romantic Robinson Crusoe life — but things go Shooting stock........................................7291 (Carly), Helena Bozlch (Lyn), Adam Willits Australian state and territory. Pictures, music terribly wrong. Synopsis: The classic tale of Toad and his (Steven), Kate Ritchie (Sally), Nicolle Dickson and sound effects will tell the story — there will adventures with his friends Ratty and Mole. (Bobby), Sheila Kennelly (Floss), Frank Lloyd be no dialogue or narration. The series Is (Neville), Judy Nunn (Mrs Hogan), Ray endorsed as a Bicentennial project and is TOUCH THE SUN — Meagher (Alf). sponsored by IBM Australia. PETER AND POMPEY Synopsis: Pilot episode of a continuing drama serial. Prod, company.................................. Lea Films THE BARTONS Producer................................................ MargotMcDon Prod, company.............................ABC/Revcom Director.................................. Michael Carson A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE Producer.....................................Jenifer Hooks Scriptwriter..................................... John Mlsto Prod, company............................ ABC/Revcom Directors.....................................Peter Dodds, Script editor.....................................Sue Smith Producer............................................Noel Price Richard Sarell, Photography............................. Julian Penney Director.............................................Ben Lewin Mandy Smith Sound recordist........................................... SydButterw ALWAYS AFTERNOON Scriptwriter........................................Ben Lewin Scriptwriters................... Jocelyn Moorehouse, Editor......................................... Nick Beauman Script editor............................Sharon Connolly Paul Hogan, Prod, company........Afternoon Pictures Pty Ltd Prod, designer............................................ PetaLawson Based on the original Idea b y...........Ben Lewin Greg Mlllin, Dist. company..........................SBS Television Composer.................................................. ChrisNeal Photography.................................... Chris Davis Noel Robinson Producer.................................. Henry Crawford Exec, producer...................................... PatriciaEdgar Sound recordist......................Tony Dickenson Script editor........................... Sharon Connolly Director.................................................... DavidStevens Prod, manager................................... Grant Hill Editor........................................................ BarrieMunro Sound (OB)......................................Ivan Kayne Scriptwriter............................................... DavidStevens Prod, co-ordinator......................Sue Edwards Snr prod, designer.................................Gunars Jurjans Editors.............................................. Ken Tyler, Based on the novel b y ....................Gwen Kelly Unit manager............................................. JohnSuhr Prod, manager........................................... John Winter Gary Watson, Photography................................... Ellery Ryan Location manager..................Michael McLean Unit manager............................................ Peter Murphy Phil Seymour Sound recordist............................. Geoff White Prod, secretary...................... Amanda Selling Prod, secretary...................Frances Fitzgerald Prod, designer.......................Paul Cleveland Editor....................................................... StuartArmstrong Prod, accountant................ Robert Threadgold 1st asst director..................Jamie Llpscombe Studio design...............................Frank Earley Prod, designer....................................... GeorgeLlddle 1st asst director......................................... JohnWild 2nd asst director.......................................All Ali Prod, manager........................................ MarionPearce Assoc, producers.....................................SarahCrawford, 2nd asst director......................................... BrettPopple Continuity..................................................Kerry Bevan Unit manager............................................ Peter Murphy David Lee, 3rd asst director.................................... AndrewMerrifie Casting............................................Dina Mann, Location asst........................................StephenOyston Jan Bladler Continuity...................................................NikkiMoores Caroline Elliott Location design.........................................ChrisForbes, Prod, co-ordinator.......................... Dale Arthur Casting.......................................................... LizMullina Grips....................................Tony Woolveridge, Rob Walters Unit manager......................................... MichaelBatchelor Focus puller................................................SallyEcclest Martin Lampltt Prod, secretary...........................Jacqule Lamb Prod, secretary.............................Reita Wilson Clapper/loader....................................... Duncan Taylor Boom operator.............................................. IanCregan 1st asst directors........................... Ann Bartlett, Prod, accountant............................ Di Gibbons, Key grip.................................................BrendonShanle Designer.................... Colin Gersch John Slattery, Moneypenny Services Asst grip.................................................. NevilleCamero Make-up................................................ ThelmaHenson Maggie Goiler, Prod, assistant.............................................. JoLamer Gaffer....................................................... SimonLee Wardrobe.............................................BeverleyJasper Bill Smlthett 1st asst director...........................................BobDonaldson Electrician.................................................... TedWilliam Dubbing mixer............................................ PaulFreeman 2nd asst directors..........................Alf Marshall, 2nd asst director........................................... IanKenny 3rd electrician............................................ PeterBushby Length............................................................90 minutes Ross Allsop, 3rd asst director................................... BrendanCampbell Boom operator............................................. SueKerr Cast: Jean Pierre Cassel (Alphonse Toronto), Nell Proud, Continuity..................................................JudyWhitehead Costume designer........................ Kerri Barnett Deborra-Lee Furnes (Valma Kerry), John All Ali, Casting.............................. Liz Mulllnar Casting Make-up............................................... Michelle Myers Clarke (Joe McGulness), Kym Amad (Fadya), Graeme Cornish Focus puller................................. Tracy Kubler Hairdresser........................................... MichelleMyers Dallbor Satallc (Zoltán Popescu). Producer’s assistants...............Debbie Challis, Clapper/loader............................. Kim Jonsson Hairdresser asst........................................ MaryGeorglo Synopsis: Valma is in her thirties and sick of Susie Struth, Key g rip .....................................................BarryHansen Wardrobe...................................... Kerri Barnett selling salamis. Boyfriend Joe is no potential Annette Reed, Asst g rip ..................................................DarrenHansen Wardrobe assts............................ Kate Green, Kerry Bevan saviour. When Alphonse Toronto, a profes Gaffer............................................................ IanDewhurst Christine Proctor sional Cupid, proposes marriage for profit and Casting...........................................Dina Mann, Electrician.................................................. GregWilson Props...............................................Liam Llddle convenience, Valma persuades Joe to wed. Carolyn Elliot Boom operator.......................................... ChrisRoland Props buyer................................... Peter Forbes But marrying Joe to the beautiful Fadya proves Lighting directors................ Graham Brumley, Art director.................................................BrianEdmonds Special effects............................................ AlanMaxwe less convenient than Valma might have Peter Lewis, Asst art director....................................... JennyCarseldlne Set decorators.........................................DonnaBrown, wished. Peter Simondson Costume designer..................... George Liddle Peter Forbes Camera operator........................................ DickWilloughby Make-up..................................... Viv Rushbrook Carpenter................................................... JohnPickerin Boom operator................................ Gary Lund TOUCH THE SUN — Hairdresser..............................Deborrah Tyson Construction manager...............................HughBateup Vision operator................................Jim Fowler Wardrobe..................................... Jean Turnbull CAPTAIN JOHNNO Asst editor..............................................AndrewBarnes Costume designer....................Carole Harvey Wardrobe assts...........................Phillip Eagles, Stunts co-ordinator..................................... GlenReuhla Prod, company....J’elly Ballantyne Productions Make-up......................................Ian Loughnan Julie Middleton Stunts....................................The Stunt Agency Producer................................Jane Ballantyne Wardrobe.................................Anne P. Brown, Props buyer.............................................. JamieLegge Still photography.......................................... JimTownle Director............................... Mario Andreacchio Eva Unger, Standby props........................................... JohnStabb Tutor.............................................................. JoKenned Scriptwriter.................................................. Rob George JoyceImlach Special effects............................Chris Murray, Nurse........................................... Wendy Boon Script editor.................................................SueSmith Props.............................................. Jo Shevlin, Brian Holmes Safety officer................................Kevin Bryant Photography.............................................RogerDowling Simon Cooney Set decorator............................... Brian Dusting Best boy....................................................... TedWilliam Sound recordist......................................... TolvoLember Props buyer............................Norm Jones-Ellls Scenic artist.................................................. IanRichter Editor..................................................... AndrewEllis Runner.................................... John McDonald Special effects...................................Rod Clack Carpenters................................................ John Moore, Publicity.......................... Suzie Howie Publicity Composer............................................. StephenMatters Tutor.......................................... Rachel Evans Wayne Allen Exec, producer...................................... PatriciaEdgarCatering.................................. Marika Catering Tech, producer............................... Doug King Set construction.......................................... LipsStudios Laboratory........................................... Colorfllm Prod, co-ordinator.................................. AngelaHeesom Length...................................... 12 x 30 minutes Asst editor........................................... SuzanneStaal Lab. liaison..................................... Ron Martin Prod, manager........................................... Julie Forster Cast: Olivia Harkin (Elly Barton), Michael Neg. matching............................ Kut The Kaper Unit manager...........................................MasonCurtisBudget.............................................$1,428,000 O'Reilly (Anthony Barton), Matt Day (Paul Musical director.......................................DobbsFranks Length............................................ 90 minutes Prod, accountant................................ Elizabeth Anderson Barton), Ben Toovey (Douglas Barton), Frank Music performed Gauge....................................................... 16mm 1st asst director.........................................DavidWolfe-Barry Holden (Mr Barton), Jennifer Jarman-Walker by............. Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra Shooting stock.................................7291,7292 2nd asst director.......................Lindsay Smith Sound editor............................................... MikeJones(Mrs Barton). Cast: Clayton Williamson (Peter), Lynette 3rd asst director....................... Stephen Burns Editing assistant................................. SuzanneStaalSynopsis: The Bartons is an affectionate Curran (Connie), Kate McDonald (Margaret), Continuity..............................Kristin Witcombe Stunts co-ordlnator..................................... GuyNorrisexploration of modern suburban family life Casting................................................... AudlneLeighPaul Chubb (Mayor Leo), Amanda Muggleton through the eyes of 11-year-old Elly, the only Stunts.........................................Greg Skipper, (Mirla), Emil Minty (Wayne Barbuto), Dennis Casting consultants......Susie Malzels & Assoc. girl In a family of four kids. David Bootle Miller (Maxle Barbuto), Aaron Ferguson Focus puller................................................JohnFoster Still photography.........................................EarlMant, (Pompey), Elaine Hudson (Jean), Basil Clarke Clapper/loader...................................... MichaelBambacas THE FOOL’S SHOE HOTEL Bliss Swift (McHugh).. Key g rip ....................................................... RobMorgan Wranglers.................................................. JohnBaird,Prod, company..........................................ABC Synopsis: Three children from a small town on Asst g rip ...............................Robert van Amstel Graham Ware Dist. company............................................ABC the North Queensland coast become Intrigued Gaffer.......................................................TrevorToune Best boy....................................................... LexMartinProducer....................................................... BillGarner when they find Latin inscriptions on a cave Boom operator.......................................... ScottRawling Runner............................................................JoLamer Director.....................................................HelenGaynor wall. A study of the language and further Art director..................................................VickiNiehus Publicity...................................................... SBS Scriptwriter................................................BarryDlcklns Make-up.................................................LeanneWhiteInvestigation lead them to find an authentic Catering...............................Timbale Catering, Script editor........................... Sharon Connolly Hairdresser............................................ LeanneWhiteRoman boat. The children also discover that Out To Lunch Catering Sound recordist..........................................GarySchultz Wardrobe.................................................JennyMilesthe boat is cursed and must come up with a Studios.........Flinders Productions, Melbourne Editor.....................................Michael Wallace way to destroy It without the knowledge of the Wardrobe asst..........................................CathyHerreen Mixed at........................................ VTC, Sydney Prod, designer...................................Des White townspeople, who are making plenty of money Props buyer................................................BarryKennedy Laboratory............................ CFL Film & Video Prod, manager.................. Margaret Greenwell from their new tourist attraction. Standby props........................................... PeterDavies

TELEVISION

PO ST-P R O D U C TIO N

78 - SEPTEMBER CINEMA PAPERS

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS 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 Infrequent S (Sex)...................................... V (Violence).:............................. L (Language)............................ O (Other)................................... Title

i i / /

Producer

Explicitness/lntensity

Frequent f 1 f f

Country

Films Registered Without Deletions

Medium

High

Justified

Gratuitous

I i I I

m m m m

h h h h

j j j j

g g g g

Submitted length (m)

She’s Gotta Have It (b): S. Lee, USA, 2276.70m, Greater Union Film Distributors, Sfi-m-j) Sworn Brothers: Paragon Films, Hong Kong, 2550.99m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-g) (b) See also under Films Board of Review and Films Registered Without Deletions — M — For Mature Audiences

• G (Fo r G eneral Exhibition) Beyond The Edge (videotape): W. Miller, USA, 89 mins, Ski Sport Where She Dares — Las Balas De Las Poetas — The Bullets Of The Poets (16mm): G. Gittoes/G. Dalton, Australia, 724.02m, Gittoes & Dalton

• PG (P aren tal G uidance) Amazing Stories: D. Vogel, USA, 3017.30m, United International Pictures, 0(mild horror) V(i-l-j) I Live With Me Dad: R. Jennings, Australia, 2578.42m, Crawford Prods, L(f-l-j) 0(adult con cepts) Mannequin: A. Levinson, USA, 2441.27m, Hoyts Distribution, Ofsexual allusions) L(i-l-g) Project X: W. Parkes/L. Larker, USA, 2852.00m, Fox Columbia, L(i-l-g) Ofadult con cepts) Radio Days: R. Greenhut, USA, 2413.84m, Village Roadshow, V(i-l-j) Ofsexual allusion)

• M (Fo r M atu re A u dience) Beyond Therapy: S. Haft, USA, 2550.99m, Village Roadshow, Lfi-m-j) Ofsexual allusions) Blood Ties: A. Fracassi, Italy, 2688.14m, AZ Film Distributors, V(i-m-g) L(f-m-g) 0(drug use) Feel The Heat: D. Van Atta, USA, 2304.12m, AZ Film Distributors, L(f-m-g) V(i-m-g) Ofadult concepts) From The Hip: R. Dupont/B. Clark, USA, 2935.01m, Hoyts Distribution, Ofadult con cepts) Immortal Story: Paragon Production, Hong Kong, 2633.00m, Chinatown Cinema, Ofdrug use, adult concept) V(l-m-j) Initiation: J. Ballantyne, Australia, 2523.56m, Filmpac Holdings, L(i-m-g) Ofdrug reference and use) Kindred, The: J. Obrow, USA, 2468.70m, Village Roadshow, L(i-m-g) Vfi-m-j) O(horror) My Name Ain’t Suzie: M. Fong, Hong Kong, 2770.43m, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m-j) Ofadult theme) Ninja Kids: Yip Mu Lin, Hong Kong, 2468.70m, Heng Seng Properties, V(f-m-g) S(i-m-g) Number One With A Bullet: Golan/Globus, USA, 2743.00m, Hoyts Distribution, L(f-m-g) V(i-m-g) Retaliator, The: D. Stern/A. Holzman, USA, 2468.70m, AZ Film Distributors, V(f-m-g) L(i-m-g) Secret Of My Success, The: H. Ross, USA, 2989.87m, United International Pictures, Ofadult concepts, sexual allusions) She’s Gotta Have It (a): S. Lee, USA, 2276.70m, Greater Union Film Distributors, (a)

See also under Films Board of Review and Films Registered Without Deletions — R — For Restricted Exhibition

• R (Fo r R estricted Exhibition Brotherhood: C. Meung, Hong Kong, 2441.27m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-m-g) Ghost Festival (said to be main title not shown in English) (edited version): Wu Fai Kuang, Hong Kong, 2358.98m, Yu Enterprises, Ofconcept of sexual violence) River's Edge: S. Pillsbury/M. Sanford, Canada/USA, 2633.28m, Filmpac Holdings, Ofdrug abuse) L(f-m-g) Ofadult concepts) Scared Stiff: Bo Ho Films, Hong Kong, 2550.99m, Chinatown Cinema, Vff-m-g)

Purpose

Low

Films Registered With Deletions

Reason for Decision

Ishtar: W. Beatty, USA, 2935.01m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lfi-l-g) Vfi-l-g) Ofsexual allusions) Place At The Coast, The: H. Furlong, Aus tralia, 2550.99m, Ronin Films, Lfi-m-j) Ofadult concepts) Spring Outside The Fence, The (said to be title not shown In English): Not shown in Eng lish, Taiwan, 2468.70m, Golden Reel, Ofadult concepts)

• M (For M ature A udience)

Nil.

Films Refused Registration Ghost Festival (said to be main title not shown in English): Wu Fal Kuang, Hong Kong, 2452.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence) Lecherous Lover: Not shown in English, Japan, 1641.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence) Madam Yanai: Not shown, Japan, 1438.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence) Sweethearts: Not shown in English, Japan, 1586.00m, Yu Enterprises, Ofgratuitous sexual violence) Vamp: Not shown in English, Japan, 1943.00m, Yu Enterprises, Sfi-h-g)

Films Board of Review She’s Gotta Have It (c): S. Lee, USA, 2276.70m, Greater Union Film Distributors, Decision reviewed: Classified R by Film Censorship Board. Decision of the Board: Direct Film Censorship Board to classify M. (c) See also under Films Registered Without Deletions — M — For Mature Audiences and Films Registered Without Deletions — R — For Restricted Exhibition Note: Kangaroo (edited version) shown in Cinema Papers July 1987 p64 as 2962.44 metres in length, should have been 2853.00 metres.

J U N E

Applicant

1 9 8 7

Beverly Hills Cop II: D. Simpson/J. Buckhelmer, USA, 2825.00m, United International Pictures, L(f-m-g) Vfi-m-j) Blind Date: T. Adams, USA, 2578.00m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lfl-m-g) Ofadult concepts) Body Slam: M. Curb/S. Lytton, USA, 2523.56m, Filmpak, Vfi-m-g) Boss’ Wife, The: T. Brodek, USA, 2194.40m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lfi-m-g) Ofsexual allusions) Creepshow2: D. Ball, USA, 2441.27m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Lfi-f-g) Ofhorror) Vff-m-g) Demoner (Demons) (videotape): B. Jonsson, Sweden, 116 mins, Australian Film Institute, Ofadult theme) Sfi-m-j) Lfi-m-g) Desire: Not shown in English, Hong Kong, 1974.96m, Golden Reel, Sfi-m-j) Extreme Prejudice: B. Feitshans, USA, 2825.29m, Village Roadshow Corporation, L(f-m-g) Vff-m-g) Ofdrug use) Final Victory: J. Sham, Hong Kong, 2660.71m, Chinatown Cinema, Lfi-m-g) Vfi-m-g) Gardens Of Stone: M. Levy, USA, 3044.73m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lff-m-g) Grow Up In Anger: A. Chow, Hong Kong, 2550.99m, Chinatown Cinema, Vfi-m-j) Ofadult concepts) High Tide: S. Levy, Australia, 2852.72m, Film pac Holdings, Lfi-m-g) Ofadult concepts) La Bamba: T. Hackford/B. Borden, USA, 2935.01m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lfi-m-g) Ofdrug use) Le Rayon Vert (Summer): M. Menegoz, France, 2715.57m, Filmpac Holdings, Lfi-m-j) Let’s Get Harry: D. Blatt/R. Singer, USA, 2797.00m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Lfi-m-g) Vff-m-g) Making Mr. Right: M. Wise/J. Tuber, USA, 2688.14m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Ofsexual references)

Mannen Fran Mallorca (Man From Majorca) (videotape): G. Lindstrom, Sweden, 103 mins, Australian Film Institute, Lfi-m-j) Vfi-m-j) Nightmare On Elm Street, A 3: Dream Warriors: R. Shaye, USA, 2660.71m, Seven Keys, Vff-m-j) Lfi-m-g) Ofhorror, drug use) Nobody’s Fool: J. Katz, USA, 2935.01m, Hoyts Distribution, Lfi-m-g) Ofadult concepts) Prick Up Your Ears: A. Brown, UK, 2935.00m, Communication and Entertainment, Sfi-m-j) Lfi-m-j) Vfi-m-j) Ratboy: F. Manes, USA, 2852.72m, Village Roadshow Corporation, Lfi-m-g) Shame (videotape): D. ParerIP. Barron, Aus tralia, 90 mins, Barron Films, Vfi-m-j) Ofadult theme) Stone Years: N. Doukas, Greece, 3785.34m, AZ Films, Lfi-m-g) Untouchables, The: A. Linson, USA, 3264.00m, United International Pictures, Vff-m-g) Wild Thing: D. Calloway/N. Clermont, USA, 2496.13m, Filmpac Holdings, Vff-m-g) Ofdrug references)

• R (For R estricted Exhibition) Empire State: N. Heyman, UK, 2825.29m, Communication and Entertainment, Ofadult theme) L(f-m-g) Vfi-m-g) Evil Dead II: R. Tapert, USA, 2331.55m, Hoyts ■Distribution, Ofhorror) Vff-m-g) Midnight: L. Ming/L. Ka Kee, Hong Kong, 2139.00m, Golden Reel, Vfi-m-g) Ofdrug abuse) Seductress, The (edited version): W. Rong, Hong Kong, 2468.70m, Golden Reel, Sfi-m-g) Vfi-m-g) Sex Diary: Not shown in English, Japan, 1590.94m, Yu Enterprises, S(f-m-g) Toxic Avenger, The (edited version): L. Kaufman/M. Herz, USA, 2221.83m, Village Road show Corporation, Vff-m-g) Lfi-m-g) Sfi-m-g)

Films Registered With Deletions Nil.

Films Refused Registration Nil.

Films Board of Review Nil.

Special Conditions Ibunda (Mother): S. Soenarso, Indonesia, 2688.14m, Australian Screen Directors Assoc. (4) That the film be screened once only at the Chauvel Cinema, Paddington, NSW, on 25 June 1987, under the auspices of the Aus tralian Screen Directors Association Limited; (5) That no person under the age of 18 years be admitted to the screening of the said film; (6) That the film be exported within the period of three weeks following 25 June 1987. Note: The Bedroom Window shown in Cinema Papers July 1987 p64 as 2797.00 metres should have been 3072.16.

Films Registered Without Deletions • G (For G eneral Exhibition) Dokument: Fanny Och Alexander (video tape): Swedish Film Institute, Sweden, 107 mins, Australian Film Institute Painting The Town (16mm): N. Lander, Aus’ tralia, 625.00m, Yarra Bank Films Routine Pleasures (16mm): J. Gorin, USA, 888.57m, Melbourne Film Festival

• PG (Parental G uidance) Amazing Grace And Chuck: D. Field, USA, 3127.02m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., L(i-l-g) Brodema Mozart — The Brothers Mozart (videotape): B. Forslund, Sweden, 103 mins, Australian Film Institute, Lfi-l-j) Ofsexual allusions) Great Wall, A: S. Sunh, USA/China/Hong Kong, 2688.14m, AZ Film Distributors, Lfi-l-j) Happy Bigamist: Paragon Film Co., Hong Kong, 2441.27m, Chinatown Cinema, Ofadult concepts) Harry And The Hendersons: R. VaneA/V. Dear, USA, 3154.45m, United International Pictures, Lfi-l-g) Vfi-l-j)

AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL

The Australian Film, Television and Radio School is offering a 5-day Course in

C R E A TIV E E D ITIN G For those already familiar with the practical aspects. Areas covered will include: overall structure, rhythm, timing transitions and the sound edit. Dates: 21 to 25 SEPTEMBER 1987 For further details please contact:

The Student Centre A.F.T.R.S. P.O. Box 126, North Ryde 2113 (02)887 1666

§ L 5'

CINEMA PAPERS SEPTEMBER — 79

• When did the first nude scene appear in a feature film? • When do we celebrate Greta G arbo’s birthday? • On what date was the premiere of The Sentimental Bloke? BRIAN JEFFREY presents the first two months of our indispensable

FILM B U FF’S DIARY O

S E P T E M B E R 1

1930: T h e Fo x Film C o r p o r a tion b u y s a contro llin g interest in H o y ts T h e a tre s Ltd, thu s b e co m in g the first A m e ric a n distributor to en ter local ex hib i tion in A u stra lia

3 4

1906:

A le x a n d re T rau n er, art d ir e c t o r (fo r C a r n e ’s L e s E n fa n ts Du P a ra d is , 1945; W e lle s ’ O th e llo , 1952; W ild e r ’s W itn e s s F o r T he P ro s e c u tio n , 1958; Z in n e m a n n 's T he N u n ’s S to ry , 1959), born B u d a p e s t

1892:

D a riu s M ilh au d , poser (fo r B u n u e l ’s H u rd e s , 1932; Ren M a d a m e B o v a ry , 1934; n a is ’ G a u g u in , 1950), A ix-en-Provence, F r a n c e

com Las o ir ’s Res born,

1985: R o c k H u d s o n ( R o y S c h e r e r J r ) d ie s from A c q u ire d Im m u n e D e fic ie n c y S y n d ro m e , B e v e r ly Hills, C aliforn ia

1922:

First p u b lic presentatio n of sound-on-film, the Tri-ergon p ro cess, at A lh a m b ra cin e m a , Be rlin

1898: L e o M c C a r e y , film tor a n d p ro d u c e r ( D u c k 1933; Th e A w fu l T ru th , G o in g M y W ay, 1944), L o s A n g e le s

1905: G r e ta G a r b o (G re ta G u sta fso n ) born, S to ck h o lm , Sw ed en

1919:

1952: C h a rle s C h a p lin ’s re entry perm it to U S re s c in d e d w hile h e is a b o a rd liner Q u e e n E liz a b e th b o u n d for L o n d o n

1864: L o u is L u m ie re, p io n e e r inventor, with b ro ther A u g u ste , of the C in é m a to g ra p h e , born B e san co n , Fra n ce

1902: C e s a r e Zavattini, prin cipal scriptw riter for s c o re s of Itaiian films (U m b e r to D , 1952; B o c c a c c io 7 0 , 1962), born,

1962:

T o d B ro w n in g , directo r (D ra c u la , 1931; F re a k s , 1932), dies, S a n ta M o n ic a

1897: C h a r l e s C h a u v e l , p io n eer w riter a n d directo r (T h e M o th O f M o o n b i, 1926; F o rty T h o u s a n d H o rs e m e n , 1940), born, W a rw ic k , Q u e e n s la n d

1893: (Sir) A le x a n d e r K o rd a (S a n d o r L asz lo K o rd a ) director, p ro d u c e r ( T he P riv a te L ife O f H e n ry V III, 1 9 3 3 ), b o rn , H u n g a ry

1935:

L uzzara, Italy

1941:

C a le b D e s c h a n e l, cin e m a to g ra p h e r ( T he B la c k S ta llio n , 1979; Th e R ig h t S tu ff, 1983; The N a tu ra l, 1984), born, P h ila d e lp h ia

1963: A rthur H igg ins, o n e of A u s t r a lia n c i n e m a ’s fin e s t c in e m a to g ra p h e rs ( T he S e n ti m e n ta l B lo k e , 1919, 1932; O n O u r S e le c tio n , 1920), dies, Sydney

1971:

Billy Gilbert, a cto r w h o p ro v id e d the v o ic e for the d w a rf S n e e z y in D is n e y 's S n o w W hite, dies, H o llyw o o d

11 12

,13 14

d ire c Soup, 1937; born,

Raym ond L o n g fo r d ’s The S e n tim e n ta l B lo k e p re m iere s at M e lb o u rn e T o w n Hall

1894:

J e a n B a c h e le t, d irector of p h o to g ra p h y, n o ta b le for his w o rk with J e a n R e n o ir (L a F ille D e L ’E a u , 1924; L a R e g ie D u Jeu, 1 9 3 9 ), b o rn , A zans, Fran ce

1894: H a g o p A ra k elia n , o ut sta n d in g m akeup artist of F re n c h cin e m a , cre a to r of J e a n M a r a is ’ m o n stro u s fa c e in C o c te a u ’s L a B e lle E t L a B e te (19 46 ), born, E k a te rin o d a r, R u ssia

1974: D irecto r P e te r W e ir ’s The C a rs T h a t A te P a ris o p e n s in M e lb o u rn e

1955: M a g n a T h e a tre Corporation re le a s e s O k la h o m a !, sta r ring G o rd o n M a c R a e , S h irle y Jo n e s , R o d S te ig e r a n d G lo ria G rah am e

■i

I I

1974:

R o b e rt B o b b y C o x, last s u r v iv in g m em ber o f th e original K e y s to n e K o p s, dies, P h o en ix , A rizon a

E n ric o G u a z z o n i, d ire c tor, e s p e c ia lly of historical s p e c ta c le films (Q u o V a d is? , 1912), dies, R o m e

1939: S h o o tin g b e g in s on C h a p lin ’s The G re a t D ic ta to r

1961:

1940: C o w b o y star T om Mix killed in a u to m o b ile a ccid e n t, n e ar Flo re n ce , A riz on a 1921:

1938: T o m Je f fr e y , d irecto r (T h e O d d A n g r y S h o t, 1979), born, S y d n e y

13 14 15

1922:

A rthur P e n n , d irector (B o n n ie A n d C ly d e , 1967; L ittle B ig M a n , 1970), b o m , P h ila de lp h ia

28 29

1916:

1907: R u b y R e b e c c a Levitt, set d e c o ra to r (T h e Sound Of M u s ic , 1965; C h in a to w n , 1974; N e w York, N e w Y ork, 1977), born, Corinth, N e w Y o rk 1932: M e tro - G o ld w y n - M a y e r re le a s e s G r a n d H o te l, starring G r e ta G a rb o , Jo h n B a rry m o re a n d J o a n C ra w fo rd 1972: W illiam B o y d , star of the H o p a lo n g C a s s id y m o v ie s, d ies of P a rk in s o n ’s d is e a s e and h e a rt fa ilu re, Laguna B e a c h , C aliforn ia 1883: G io v a n n i P a s t r o n e , p io n e e r It a lia n f ilm m a k e r w hose m a s te r p ie c e w as C a b iria (1914), born, M o n te ch ia ro d ’Asti, Italy 1982: H S H P rin c e s s G r a c e of M o n a c o , fo rm erly film a c tre ss G r a c e K elly, d ie s in auto m o b ile a ccid e n t, M o n a c o

B - JQ 1941 W a rn e r B ro s stud io I Û re le a s e s T h e M a lte s e F a lc o n , sta rrin g H u m p h re y B o g a rt,

Film a c tre s s Virginia R a p p e is fo un d fatally ill in a room of the H otel S t Fran cis, S a n F ra n c is c o , a n e v e n t w h ich will le a d to film c o m e d ia n R o s c o e ‘F a tty ’ A rb u c k le s ta n d ing trial for he r ra p e a n d m urd er

1909: E lia K a z a n (E lia Kazanjoglou), directo r (A S tre e tc a r N a m e d D e s ire , 1951; O n The W a te rfro n t, 1954), born, KadiK e u , Istanbul

Ju lie A n d r e w s ( Ju lia E liz ab eth W e lls ) born, W altono n-Tham es, E n g la n d

1894: J e a n R en o ir, d irec to r (L a G ra n d e Illu s io n , 1937; T he S o u th e rn e r, 1945), born, P a ris

1921:

R K O S tu d io s re le a s e s T o p H a t, starring F re d A staire a n d G in g e r R o g e rs

1935:

1906:

A rth u r E . A rling, d irector of p h o to g ra p h y ( I'll C ry T o m o rro w , 1956; P illo w Talk, 1959), born, M issouri

1949:

First s c e n e shot for C le o p a tra at C in e c itta Stu d io s, R o m e . P ro d u ctio n of the film starring E liz ab eth T a y lo r a n d R ic h a rd B u rto n will take so m e four y e a rs a n d th re aten to b a n k ru p t 20th C e n tu ry - F o x studios

P e te r F in c h (W illiam M itchell) born, L o n d o n

1899: V eidt H a rla n , G e r m a n d irector best kn o w n for his antiSem itic, pro-Nazi film s ( J u d S u s s , 1940), born, Berlin 1952: First night a u d ie n c e s e e s C in e r a m a w id e- scree n p ro c e s s un veiled, B r o a d w a y T heatre, N e w Y o rk

dies,

Van

1885: F ra n k H u rley, p io n eer d o c u m e n ta ry film m aker (P e a rls And S avages, 1921), later c a m e r a m a n with C in e s o u n d (T h e S ile n c e O f D e a n M a itla n d , 1934), born, S y d n e y

1984: P e g g y A n n G a rn e r, H o lly w o o d child star of the 1940s (y o u n g J a n e in J a n e E y re , 1944; F r a n c is N o lan in A Tree G ro w s In B ro o k ly n , 1945), dies, W o o d la n d Hills, C a lifo rn ia

1916: A ustralian -b orn A n n e tte K e lle rm a n b e c o m e s first p la y e r to a p p e a r n u d e in a fe atu re film w h e n F o x ’s D a u g h te r O f The G ods p r e m ie r e s at L y r ic T h eatre, N e w Y o rk

films for E fftee S tu d io s (H is R o y a l H ig h n e s s , 1932; H a r m o n y R o w , 1933), dies, Sydney

1978: A c to r G ig Y o u n g a n d his w ife of th re e w e e k s fo u n d shot to d e a th in their N e w Y o rk ap a rtm en t, a p p a re n tly in a m urd er- suicid e

1921: M a lc o lm A rn o ld , c o m p o se r (for T he S o u n d B a rrie r, 1952; T he B r id g e O n T h e R iv e r K w a i, 1957; T h e H e r o e s O f T e le m a rk , 1966), born, N o rth am p to n , E n g la n d

1906: M a rc e l Ic h a c , fo rem o st d o c u m e n ta ry film m a k e r s p e cia lisin g in m o u n ta in e e rin g film s ( V ic to ir e S u r L 'A n n a p u rn a , 1953), bo rn, R ueil, F ra n ce

23 24

1950: Al Jo ls o n (A s a Y o e ls o n ) dies, S a n F ra n c is c o , C a lifo rn ia 1925: J e w e lle d N ig h ts , p ro d u c e d b y a n d starring A u s tra lian-born H o lly w o o d a c tre ss L o u is e L o v e ly , opens in M e lb o u rn e

1891: A rth u r H ig g in s, p io n e e r c in e m a to g ra p h e r (T h e S e n ti m e n t a l B lo k e , 1919, 1932; T he K id S ta k e s , 1 9 2 7 ), b o rn , T a s m a n ia

1984: P a s c a l e O g ie r d ie s in her s le e p from h e art failure, a g e d 24, o n ly m o n th s after r e c e iv in g th e Best A c tre s s a w ard at th e Venice

Fi lm

F estiva l for her p e r fo r m a n c e in E r ic R o h m e r ’s L e s N u its D e L a P le in e L u n e

1906: G a b rie l S c o g n a m illo , art directo r (B a b e s O n B r o a d w a y , 1941; T he G re a t C a ru s o , 1951; S tr a n g e L a d y In T o w n , 1955), born, N e w York, N Y

1908: A lb ert Maltz, s c r e e n w riter (T h is G u n F o r H ire , 1942; D e s t in a t io n Tokyo, 1 9 4 3 ), born, B ro o k lyn , N e w Y o rk

1963: A S e n a te S e le c t C o m m it t e e ’s re p o rt, The V in c e n t R e p o rt, re c o m m e n d s a p ro g ram of g o v e rn m e n t aid for the A u stra lian film in d u stry

1925: M a x L in d e r (GabrielM ax im ilien L e u vie lle ), F re n c h silent c o m e d y acto r, directo r a n d sc re e n w rite r (M a x P ro fe s s e u r D e T a n g o , M a x E t L e s F e m m e s , 1912), s u ic id e s with his w ife in a P a ris hotel room

Y v e s M o n ta n d (Iv o Livi) born, M o n s u m m a n o Alto, Italy

1959: Errol Flyn n co u v e r, C a n a d a

I9 6 0 : G e o r g e W a l l a c e , c o m e d ia n sta r of a n u m b e r of

1896:

E thel

W a te rs ,

distin

g u is h e d b la ck a c tre s s (C a b in In T he S k y , 1943), born, C h e ste r, P e n n s y lv a n ia

ATL/809/AK&A

Your Fine Work isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Com plete until the L ab h as Done its Job Well.

W hen it's all said, shot and done, your footage deserves to be processed by a laboratory that recognizes the talent, skill and hard w ork in each shot; a laboratory that regards your film as more than just a roll of emulsion, more likely, exposed emotions.

a u s tra lis

We U nderstand. Television Centre, Epping, N.S.W. 2121. Telephone (02) 858 7500. Facsimile (02) 858 7888. Telex AA70917.

"I m u s t k n o w th a t w h a t I se e in fro n t o f th e c a m e ra V is w h a t I 'll g e t o n th e sc re e n ''

HIRONARITA. Director of Photography Amerika.

"The filming of Amerika involved a broad spectrum of photographic situations and challenges-everything from the cold, m isty landscapes of Nebraskan farms, the huge stately interiors of such sets as the House of Representatives, to the vibrant lights of a crowded nightclub. Each demanded a unique visual atmosphere to enhance the story. AGFA XT 320's wide latitude helped me achieve that. I was able to use bolder, simpler lighting without sacrificing shadow detail or image sharpness. N ight exteriors, w hich were demanded by a good portion of the film, were exceptional. The negative truly amazed m e for its capacity to hold detail while tolerating such moments of extreme brightness as passing headlights or explosions. As a Director of Photography “I m ust know that what I see in front of the camera is what I’ll get on the screen. AGFA XT 320 with its improved color reproduction and sharpness assured me of that. I counted on XT 320 and all of the 1,500,000 feet I exposed delivered consistently day after day roll after roll." AMERIKA is a CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC. - ABC NETWORK DIVISION ENTERTAINMENT presentation of an ABC CIRCLE FILMS production. Directed and executive pro duced by DONALD WRYE.

AGFA XT 125, & XT 320: They reflect the best of you.

AGFA MELBOURNE 875 0222, SIDNEY 888 1444, BRISBANE 352 5522, ADELAIDE 42 5703 A N D PERTH 277 9266