Cinema Papers No.71 January 1989 by UOW Library

R E G I S T E R E D BY A U S T R A L I A P O S T P U B L I C A T I O N NO. V B P 2 1 2 1

J A N U A R Y 1989 N O . 71

mi lumini oí tinsi

ID CRONENÜRG DOUBLES DP FILM AID ARCII1EC1IIE (O-PRODICTIOIS PHILIP BIOPIY H ill SOONI FILM /

DANIEL HOWLAND

FILM F IN A N C E USERS GUIDE SURVEYS /

CENSORSHIP RATINGS

"The ability of both XT 125 and XT 320 to hold (both shadow and highlight detail in some very contrasty situations proved to be quite a bonus"

"Before shooting "W hite Mischief" I did comparison tests ■j u ■ on all the stocks available to me. Each has its own characteristic and Agfa, which has a slightly softer tonal range but very rich blacks, I seemed like a good choice. After 11 weeks shooting on location in Kenya and at Shepperton, I remain very impressed by Agfa | stock." -/ ) - . 4 /> “ -

Roger D eakins, Director o f Photography, W hite M ischief Photographed on AGFA XT Film. Location sound recorded on AGFA P E R 368 Tape.

AGFA XT FILM & PER368 TAPE They reflect the best of you

AG FA 4

IM T E

2 BRIEFLY 3 THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST:

P U B L I S H E R

Patricia Amad M a n a g i n g

e d i t o r s

Philippa Hawker Peter Tapp T E C H N I C A L

E D I T O R

Fred Harden A D V E R T I S I N G

Patricia Amad Peter Tapp F O U N D I N G

P U B L I S H E R S

Peter Beilby Scott Murray O F F I C E

A CROSS-SECTION OF VIEWS. PETER MALONE, ROLANDO CAPUTO 1 0 START LAUGHING: THIS IS SERIOUS: T H E YAHOO SERIOUS / YOUNG EINSTEIN STRATEGY. PHILIPPA HAWKER

1 5 1988: NEAR ENOUGH: TH E YEAR IN RETROSPECT. ADRIENNE PARR AND ANDREW PLAIN 2 0 DANIEL ROWLAND (IN THE LION’S DEN T H E NEW AFC CH IEF EXECU TIV E TALKS TO MARY COLBERT 2 2 DAVID CRONENBERG DOUBLES UP:

CAT

Sylvester

CRONENBERG TALKS TO STEPHANIE BUNBURY ABOUT HIS

DESI GN

Ian Robertson T Y P E S E T T I N G

Typeset on Macintosh SE and processed from disk by On The Ball PRI NTI NG

NEW FILM DEAD RINGERS 2 6 TWO TO TANGO: CO -PRO D U C TIONS PAST AND PRESENT. PHILIPPA HAWKER 2 8 THE FILM

BANK: A U SER’S GUIDE TO T H E FILM FINANCE CORPORATION. LYNDON SAYER-JONES 3 0 PHILIP BROPHY’S FANTASTIC

Photo Offset Productions D I S T R I B U T I O N

Network Distribution Co.

VOYAGE: D IRECTO R BROPHY AND PRO D U CER ROD BISHOP TALK TO TOM RYAN ABOUT SALT, SALIVA, SPERM AND SWEAT

3 5 LOSING THE LIGHT: ARTH UR AND CORINNE CANTRILL AND T H E DEATH OF FILM . FRED HARDEN 3 8 HEROES OFTEN © Copyright M TV Publishing Limited Signed articles represent the views o f the author/s and not necessarily those o f the editors and publisher. While every care is taken with manuscripts and materials supplied to the magazine, neither the editors nor the publisher 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 o f the copyright owner. C in em a Papers is published every two months by M TV Publishing Limited, 43 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3 06 7 . Telephone (0 3 ) 4 2 9 5 511. Fax (0 3 ) 4 2 7 9255. Telex AA 3 0 6 2 5 . Reference M E 230.

FAIL: J O ’K, SHOUT! T H E MINI-SERIES AND AUSTRALIA’S CULTURAL CRINGE. RAYMOND EVANS 4 4 THE GLASS HOUSE: A RCH ITECTU RE AND FILM THEORY WILLIAMD ROUTT

4 9 FILM SOUND: T H E ROLE OF TH E SOUNDTRACK PHILIP BRO PHY, PAUL SCHUTZE 54 FILM REVIEWS 6 3 BOOK REVIEWS 6 6 DIRTY DOZEN 6 9 PRODUCTION SURVEY 7 9 FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

CONTRIBUTORS

C I N E M A P AP ERS IS P U B L IS H E D W IT H F IN A N C IA L A S S IS TA N C E FROM TH E A U S T R A L I A N FILM C O M M I S S I O N A N D FILM V I C T O R I A .

C H RIS BERRY is a lecturer in Cinema Studies at Griffith University, NSW. KEN BERRYMAN is a freelance writer on film and manager o f the Melbourne office o f the National Film and Sound Archive. PH ILIP BRO PH Y is a filmmaker, freelance film writer and a lecturer in Sound at Phillip Institute, Melbourne. STEPH A N IE BU N BU R Y is a freelance writer living in London. RAFFAELE CA PUTO is a freelance writer on film. RO LA N DO CA PU TO is a tutor in Cinema Studies at La Trobe University. SUSAN C H ARLTO N is a freelance writer on film. MARY C O L B E R T is a Sydney writer and researcher. FE L IC IT Y C O LLIN S is a lecturer in Film Theory and Criticism at Melbourne College o f Advanced Education. RAYMOND EVANS is a lecturer in History at the University o f Queensland. FRED HARDEN is a film and television producer specialising in special effects. SH ELLEY P. KAY is a freelance writer on film. P E T E R LAWRANCE is a freelance writer on film. P E T E R M ALON E is editor o f Compass Theology Review. ADRIAN M ARTIN is a freelance writer on film. A D RIEN N E PARR is a film and video producer. ANDREW PLAIN is a freelance film editor. V1KKI RILEY is a freelance writer on film. W ILLIAM D. R O U T T is a lecturer in Cinema Studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne. TO M RYAN is a lecturer in Media Studies at Swinburne Institute o f Technology, Melbourne. LYNDON SAYER-JONES is a film lawyer. PAUL S C H U T Z E is a composer.

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

his issue of Cinema Papers is the first produced in conjunc tion with Filmviews. From now on, the two magazines are combined under the Cinema Papers banner. The new-look publication combines the best of the two magazines. It will bring readers an even better all-round picture of the range o f film and television activity in Australia, and keep them in touch with what’s happening overseas. W e’ll feature industry news, reviews and inter views, covering film, television and video production, technical stories, historical and analytical pieces. The magazine will increase its cover age of television and Asian cinema. The Australian industry is entering into a new and critical phase, and there will be plenty to think about, talk about, read about and write about in the coming year. It is our intention that Cinema Papers will be a vital part of that process of discussion and debate.

T HE W INNERS of the ‘Prick Up Your

Ears’ competition, who will receive a video o f Prick Up Tour Ears and a copy o f Joe O rton’s Complete Plays, courtesy o f C E L and Heinemann Australia are: Laura Bradley, Charles Attard, Michael Atkins, Rick M cLean, V. Gordon, Tony Galinary, Helen Eislere, R.L. Stanley, Peter Gough and Margaret Bennett. The question they had to answer was: for what offence did Orton serve a jail sentence? The correct answer is: for defacing library books.

THE W INNERS o f the 1988 AFI Awards were: «Best feature: The Navigator »Best direction: Vincent Ward ( The Navigator) »Best actress: Nadine Garner ( Mullaway ) »Best actor: John Waters ( Boulevard o f Broken Dreams) »Best sup porting actress: Tina Bursill (Jilted) »Best supporting actor: Kim Gyngell ( Boule

vard o f Broken Dreams)

MAKERS AWARD IS CHRISTOPHER

»Best cinematography: G eoff Simpson ( The Navigator) »Best edit ing: John Scott ( The Navigator) »Best origi nal score: Mario Millo

TUCKFIELD, A 29-YEAR-OLD SYDNEY

( The Lighthorsemen)

★

•&

★

THE WINNER OF THE QANTAS/ CINEMA PAPERS YO U N G FILM

•Best production de sign: Sally Campbell {The Navigator) »Best DIRECTOR RAUL RUIZ IN costume design: Glenys Jackson {The N aviga LE HAVRE, FRANCE tor) »Best sound: Lloyd ★ ★ is is ★ Carrick, Craig Carter, Peter Burgess, James Currie, Phil Heywood, Peter D. Smith, Livia Ruzic {The Lighthorsemen) «AFI Members’ Prize: Mullaway* Best mini-series: The True Believers •Best mini-series direction: Peter Fisk {The True Believers) •Best mini-series actress: Anne Phelan {Poor M an’s Orange) Best mini-series actor: Ed Devereaux {The True Believers) •Best telefeature: M atter o f Convenience »Best telefeature di rection: Ben Lewin {M atter o f Convenience) »Best telefeature actress: Kerry McGuire {Olive) «Best telefeature actor: Ernie Dingo {A Waltz Through the Hills) »Best documentary: Cane Toads, A n Unnatural History •Best short fiction film: Cherith •Best animated film: Where the Forest Meets the Sea »Best ex perimental film: A Song o f A ir «Best short film direction:

Monica Pellizzari {R abbit on the Moon) »Best editing: Lindsay Frazer {C ane Toads, An Unnatural History) »Best sound: John Patterson, Annie Cocksedge, David Bradbury {South o f the Border) »Byron Kennedy Memorial Award: George Ogilvie •Raymond Longford Award: Russell Boyd »Apologies to Simone Lindhout for omitting her in issue 70 from the list o f nominees for best animated film for Home Sweet Home. Qantas travellers on first class flights from Australia to Lon don, Hong Kong and Tokyo over the next four months will have the chance to control what they see as well as what they hear. Twenty-six first class seats will be fitted with the Airvision system, a seven-centimetre screen mounted on the armrest. There will be six channels o f entertainment, includ ing first-run and classic movies. Three new commissioners take up positions on the Australian Film Commission board. They are: producer John Sexton, distributor Andrew Pike and writer Blanche D ’Alpuget.

FILMMAKER. HE WILL STUDY WITH

C I N E M A

The chief executive o f the Australian Film Finance Corpora tion Pty Ltd is Dr David Pollard. Key investment staff appointments are: Moya Iceton, script supervisor and pro ducer; Thomas Murphy, formerly with Morgan Guaranty Australia; Phaedon Vass, formerly o f Santos Limited and the investment banking arm o f Pittsburgh National Bank; N or man Banks, recently director o f finance at Grindlays Australia and the Australian W heat Board; Jonathan Shteinman, previ ously an executive in the investment banking division o f Hambros Australia Limited. The last two appointments will operate at the F F C ’s Melbourne office. The new director o f the Sydney Film Festival is Paul Byrnes, formerly film reviewer on the Sydney Morning H erald. H e takes up his appointment on 1 January 1989.

NOTE The second part o f the Shame screenplay will now run in the March issue.

P A P E R S

7 1

BERLINER FESTSPIELE GMBH ■BUDAPESTER STRASSE 50 • D-1000 BERLIN 30 PHONE: (030) 2 54 89 0 • CABLE: FILMFEST BERLIN ■TELEX: 1 85255 FEST D • FAX: (030)2 5489 249

FEBRUARY10-21, 1989

MARTIN

PETER

M ALON E

SCORCESE'S

W HILE THE LA S T TEM P TA TIO N O F CHRIST HAS D R A W N THE A T T E N

Jesus o f N azareth TION OF F U N D A M EN T A LIS T S , C ENS OR S , PICKETERS, BISHOPS A N D was released in 1977-78, one might have been forgiven for thinking that screen portraits o f Jesus Christ had come to some kind o f peak. Zeffirelli’s B E LA T ED LY , F IL M G O ER S , V E R Y LITTLE OF THE W R ITIN G A B O U T THE reverent and star-studded mini-series captured the Christian imagination the world over. Perhaps Robert Powell was too British to be a fully FILM A N D THE C O N T R O V E R S Y S U R R O U N D IN G IT HAS M A N A G E D TO credible Jesus. Perhaps his speaking voice, articulation and modulation were too elegant. Maybe his eyes DISCUSS THE W O R K ITSELF. HERE PETER M A L O N E RELATES LAS T were too blue. But never a cry o f blasphemy - on the contrary. A theatrical version was released. The mini series screening was well-publicized. Slide-sets were TEM P TA TIO N TO O THER CINEMATIC VIEW S OF CHRIST, A N D R O available for Christian schools. A beautifully-produced book with text by Scottish scripture expert and com LA N D O C APUTO SITUATES IT IN THE B O D Y O F SCORSESE'S W O R K . municator, William Barclay, sold well. This was the culmination o f an 80-year tradition o f Jesus on screen: from Gospel episodes in D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance to to the popular 19th-20th century holy card o f pastel-coloured, almost-feaCecil B. de Mille’s K ing o f Kings (1927) with an ethereally sacred H.B. tureless pretty icons (haloed and cut off at the shins by celestial cloud, no feet Warner; more reticent suggestions o f Jesus’ presence from the ’30s to the ’50s on the ground). Audiences indifferent or hostile to the Gospel story are used (feet or back glimpsed in Last Days o f Pompeii (1 9 3 5 ), The Robe (1953), Ben to reacting and writing critiques o f these films with disdain. H ur (1959): exceptions to this were in church-financed features: the U.S. Interviews with Scorsese indicate how American church pressure halted Methodists’ Prince o f Peace (19 5 2 ), The R edeem er (1954) and Father Patrick the projected film o f Last Temptation in the early ’80s. Suspicions were that Peyton’s Rosary films; then Jesus on screen in the ’60s again - Jeffrey Hunter’s it would be, at least, irreverent, probably blasphemous, if not pornographic. (I was a teenage Jesus’- Time Magazine) K in g o f Kings (1 9 6 2 ), dour Nordic These criticisms were renewed on the release o f Scorsese’s film this year. The Max von Svdow in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1 965) and Pier Paolo campaign was led by Jerry Falwell and other U.S. TV evangelists capitalized Pasolini’s severe Gospel According to Matthew (1964), Brian Deacon as Jesus on it, warning against the film and publicizing their programmes and (1 9 7 0 ).1 The late ’60s ‘J^sus movements’ saw more stylized screen Jesusthemselves. This was a feature o f the Australian campaign against the film’s figures in Godspell{\973) and ] esns Christ Superstar (1973). We might note the release by Fred Nile and his Call to Australia Party. offbeat visualizing o f Jesus in Luis Bunuel’s Milky Way (1 9 6 8 ), Dalton Alarmed by this publicity, many mainstream church authorities, including Trumbo’s Johnny Got His Gun (!978, Donald Sutherland as Jesus) and Ken Catholic hierarchy, were prompted to call for banning o f the film, sight Russell’s The Devils (1 971, Oliver Reed’s Jesuit Urban Grandier imagined as unseen. This had enormous repercussions on the members o f churches and o f Jesus). Buñuel and Russell came closest to controversy - as did the Pythons’ sects who, on hearing the calls for banning, naturally assumed the worst. This skit o f biblical epics and Christian sectarianism, sailing close to the wind in The position has become entrenched amongst various religious groups in Austra Life o f Brian (1979). This is something o f the screen heritage that affects lia, for example the triennial Synod o f Reformed Churches’ official statement, response to Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation o f Christ. Christians by and the handout by the picketers at the Russell Cinemas in Melbourne from Our large are used to a pious representation akin to the classic paintings and statuary Lady o f Perpetual Succour Church, Glenhuntly (a splinter group from the o f Christian art or, more emphatically because o f Cecil B. de Mille and others, main Greek Orthodox Church o f Melbourne).

HEN FRANCO Z e f f i r e l l i ’S

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

< 7 1

> PETER MAL ONE AND ROLANDO CAPUTO

The call for the banning o f the film by religious groups led to media debates about censorship itself, irrespective of Scorsese’s film, about blas phemy as a legal issue for banning films (for example Michael Schildberger’s Sunday Conference, 16/ 10/ 88). This was dramatized within weeks in September-October: the granting o f an R-certificate and therefore no ban, the announcement o f the ban in Queensland (and the Review Board not having to publish reasons), then the appeal by distributors United International Pictures and the re-classification o f the film as M a few days before it went on general release. But then the film itself started to be seen. Time Magazine covered it and Richard Schickel wrote a favourable review. The well-regarded British Catho lic magazine, The Tablet, wrote positively about it. As members o f churches and religious groups saw the film, another factor began to emerge: “funda mentalist” Christians saw the film as blasphemous; Christians in traditions and churches which study the Bible texts both as religious sources and as literature, did not see it as blasphemous. The official representative o f Cardinal Clancy o f Sydney, Father Brian Lucas, did not like the film and urged Catholics to ignore it but did not say it was blasphemous. Anglican Archbishop Peter Carnley o f Perth, on ABC radio, denied that it was blasphemous as did Deacon Peta Sherlock on Neil Mitchell’s show on Melbourne’s 3AW. So also did a Greek Orthodox Bishop on the A BC’s television programme Compass. C I N E M A

The fundamentalist Christians highlight a major impediment to appreci ating what Kazantzakis intended in his novel and what Martin Scorsese and his writer Paul Schrader have done in their film. Fundamentalists take the text of the biblical books as timeless, truth-filled texts that are to be read at face value only. The reader needs almost no preparation to interpret the text. In fact, fundamentalists, although they interpret according to their own principles, are against the developments of the last hundred years or more o f examining the Bible according to the mentality and literary styles o f its period, of examining the nuances o f vocabulary and grammar, appreciating the continuity between Old and New Testaments and the Judeo-Christian spiritual and theological tradition. Thus, Last Temptation is alien, offensive and seems blasphemous. Mainstream churches and others have, on the other hand, gradually welcomed the developments in reading the Bible and interpretation, finding a coherence, a richness and depth in the writings. This approach would be taken for granted (and academically tested) by theological colleges, members o f the colleges o f divinity in our capital cities (and Scorsese’s film could be viewed as a valuably evocative and provocative interpretation o f Scripture). And so to the film itself. Responding as a film reviewer, I found Last Temptation stimulating, o f an earthy, even dusty beauty, generally fluid and fluent. Willem Dafoe looked too Nordic for Jesus; I find it difficult, often grating, hearing American accents in biblical films (but I am biased in favour >P A P E R S

> 7 1

But, despite the film’s opening disclaimer from Kazantszakis and Scorsese that Last Tem ptation is not based on the Gospels as such, in fact it is and has to be, otherwise, what is the point o f writing and/or filming for an audience? The audience knows the Gospel outline and this portrait is seen against what is familiar. This is where its power lies. Objectors, especially those alarmed by reports of what are alleged to be distortions o f the Gospel in the film, should look more closely at the screenplay. They will find that it is strikingly faithful to the Gospel portraits even as it creates its own. After all, research shows us that this is how the early Christian communi ties elaborated Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Schol arship has long since established that, while teachers and commentators o f the early centuries attributed the Gospels to specific individuals (a way o f enhancing the prestige and status o f the writings), it was really a community process over decades that listened to, preached, applied, adapted, re-edited the Jesus stories. Not obsessed by 19th and 20th century demands for factual accuracy, the early communities retold the stories to highlight ancj. apply Jesus’ response to their own questions and controversies. They told the stories in their images and language o f their Old Testament heritage - something which is unappreciated by so many modern readers, especially fundamentalist Christians. To appreciate the Gospels as literature, let alone as religious documents, a sense o f the Old Testament, a sense o f the mentality and customs o f the time, are most necessary. Otherwise nuances are missed. Zeffirelli and co-writer Anthony Burgess knew this and the screenplay o f Jesus o f N azareth is excellent in this regard: for in stance, Jesus’ recounting o f the parable o f the Prodigal Son is set, not just at a banquet o f tax collectors and prostitutes as Luke 15 indicates, but at tax collectorapostle Matthew’s dinner, with Peter unable to sit at table, standing outside listening to the story and then overwhelmed by the question o f how many times he should forgive - seventy seven times? Zeffirelli and Burgess followed the pattern o f the assembling o f the Gospels creatively. The screenplay o f Last Temptation works in the same way even when Kazantzakis has gone beyond the Gospel data. This is evident in Jesus spending the day at Mary Magdalene’s brothel and then loieeling asking her o f English diction which is just as anachronistic but more pleasing); I forgiveness. Most striking (for me) was the portrayal o f Saul as a Zealot appreciated the rhythms o f reverential tableaux mixed with vigorous action persecutor (as the Acts o f the Apostles later depicts him) actually murdering and measured reflective sequences, although I can understand that many Lazarus as a danger to the Zealot cause. The dialogue which some reviewers audiences would find the pace too slow. The camera work in sequences like the have found flat or trite is often Gospel texts presented verbatim. Another carrying o f the cross to Calvary and Jesus led down from the cross had dramatic example is the preaching o f John the Baptist which is a conflation o f texts from sweep; some o f the special effects, however (healings, the apple tree) drew the prophet Isaiah. Whether this works dramatically one can question, but no attention to themselves rather than to the plot. one can question the anchoring o f this screenplay in the texts o f the Old and But much more interesting to me was how Scorsese and Paul Schrader New Testaments. Christians might choose other passages as more congenial communicated this version o f Kazantzakis’ novel. I have not read the novel but to their own spirituality - I think I would. note that commentators like Terry Lane (3L O , Melbourne H erald ), Mike But generally what is on screen is what is on the Gospel page. Exceptions Daly {Age), Joseph Cuneen (U.S. N ation al Catholic Reporter) all agree that come to mind, for instance, Jesus making crosses for the Romans and his Scorsese has followed the novel faithfully. This, in fact, would be Terry Lane’s reluctance to be Messiah; but, then, the prophet Jeremiah was a most reluc basic criticism: that a novel written in everyday Greek, in a Cretan peasant, tant and bitterly complaining prophet and yet revered for his prophetic com Greek Orthodox atmosphere and spirituality, does not transfer to the screen mitment. (And Gerard Manley Hopkins, who versified in Sonnet LI Jere o f the U.S. film industry. Beliefs, symbols, Mediterranean poetry and images, miah’s attempt to sue and cross-examine God, wrote profound religious earthy life-styles in the novel do not sit well with American poetry o f depression, the movie-making styles. Allowing the truth o f this criticism, we Terrible Sonnets, even still have to look at what we have: Scorsese’s version. C arrion C om foit with its ...I N THE CONTEXT OF A G O N Y AND A SENSE OF It is reported that Scorsese spent time in a Catholic lion-mauling imagery.) seminary for training for priesthood. This was brief. But (with BEING AB A N D O N ED BY G O D , JESUS IMAGINES WHAT And so to the dream his New York Italian Catholic piety, so starkly and bizarrely sequence. MIGHT HAVE BEEN. THE T E M P T A T I O N ' IS TO O R D IN A R visualized in M ean Streets) Scorsese would have been brought By strange coinci up on a devout literalist o f the Gospels. Paul Schrader drama INESS, THE DOMESTIC ORDINARINESS OF SPOUSE, dence, the readings in the tized his own serious-minded mid-western Calvinistic spiritu C atholic Liturgy for CHILDREN AND Q UIETLY G R O W IN G O LD. ality in H ard Core (1979). Their collaboration on portraying Sunday 16 October, the the evil city, a bloody saviour and his massacre and passion and weekend o f Last Tem pta low-key exorcism and resurrection was T axi D river (1976). tion’s opening, included One also thinks o f the suffering, obsessed or mad Scorsese heroes: Jake La the famous text from the Letter to the Hebrews: “For it is not as if we had a Motta in R agin g Bull and Rupert Pupkin in K in g o f Comedy - and Schrader’s high priest who was incapable o f feeling our weaknesses with us; but we have own stylized portrait o f Mishima, his novels and his ritual bloody self-slaying. one who has been tempted in every way that we are, though he is without sin Kazantzakis’ exploration o f Jesus’ character and the evolution in his under .... During his life on earth, Jesus offered up prayer and entreaty, aloud and in standing o f his call from God and reluctant acceptance to obsessed commit silent tears, to the one who had the power to save him out o f death, and he ment to his mission can be seen in this pattern. submitted so humbly that his prayer was heard. Although he was Son, he This means that Scorsese’s Jesus could not be in the mainstream art learned to obey through suffering . . . ” (Letter to the Hebrews, Ch. 4 & 5.) tradition, let alone in the cinema tradition or portrayals o f Jesus. He is closer Tested ‘in every way that we are’ - although he made no self-centred, to Pasolini’s Jesus or the stylized Jesus Christ Superstar (and Peter Gabriel’s destructive, sinful choices. That is traditional biblical language. throbbing score sometimes seems to echo Lloyd-Webber). But it is unusual to pursue that thinking into Jesus’ psychology and 6

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• 7

behaviour. I f the doctrine o f the Incarnation means anything, it is that Jesus was fully human, fully divine. That, o f course, is the mystery and the paradox that tested theological thinking for centuries. In the first century A.D. a Christian group, the ‘Docetists’ could not accept the humanity o f Jesus. Passages o f John’s Gospel and letters highlight the humanity o f Jesus to confront the Docetists. They thought the humanity was merely a ‘cover’ for his divinity. In succeeding centuries many theological disputes, amongst Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, caused dispute and literal battle. Political use of different theological opinions, solemn declarations on the part o f the official church are all part o f the Christian tradition. Too much emphasis on humanity, too much emphasis on divinity have been cries for ages. Protesters now feel Jesus’ divinity threatened, “Too much humanity”. Someone wrote to me, objecting to the film, saying that Jesus was perfect. But ‘perfect’ seems to be taken to mean absolutely edifying, untouched by the ‘lower’ human experi ences. But, if one wanted to be technical, this view o f perfection is ‘heretical’. Being perfectly human means experiencing the human condition in its limitations and complexity. Perhaps some Christians are too prudish for Jesus. Which means that in the context o f agony and a sense o f being abandoned by God, Jesus imagines what might have been. The temptation is to ordinar iness, the domestic ordinariness and family happiness o f spouse, children and quietly growing old - the avoidance o f the heroic call to be for others, to selfsacrifice. An appropriate ‘temptation’. Ultimately, we know that being tempted is in no way immoral or sinful. And then Jesus is back on the cross and dies. Last Temptation is a specialist film, not mainstream entertainment. Nobody goes to appreciate a Shakespearian film without knowing the text or the conventions o f Elizabethan drama and poetry. Otherwise, for instance, K in g L ear is an obscure, rhetorical bore. Last Temptation needs some Gospel and theological information to appreciate what Kazantzakis, Scorsese and Schrader have done. Obviously this kind o f exploration of the character and mission o f Jesus Christ has the potential to offend - and has offended and will offend. To others it will be merely another obscure rhetorical bore. I think Scorsese has made a significant film for his own body o f cinema work and it will be argued about for a long time. The Kazantzakis novel might have been on lists to read one day (as in mine), but now his art and insights will be more eagerly explored. And, theologically, I am excited that Scorsese has broken the biblical spectacular tradition and offered us a provocative portrait o f Jesus Christ. 1. Jules Dassin made a version o f Kazantzakis’ novel He Who Must Die (1957)

that there are filmmakers who are made o f singular passions, obsessions, interests: whose style and themes repeatedly rotate around fixed cardinal points,as if there were only one way to capture and make sense o f the world. This is not to say that the works produced are rigid, inflexible - far from it - but the variables and flexibilities are internal to the system, itself held by an immovable and grander design, like the poles o f a compass. Martin Scorsese, I would argue, is a filmmaker o f singular vision and The Last Temptation o f Christ demonstates that in more ways than one. Not a year has gone by in the last decade or so in which he has not given notice of his intentions to film the Kazantzakis novel. Scorsese has so doggedly and publicly pursued this ‘long treasured’ project that there is almost a hidden implication that he would have us believe most o f his previous films were mere sketches for a canvas, o f which Last Temptation is the final unveiling. For those cinephiles who love Scorsese’s cinema (and I count myself amongst them) and await each new film as if it were the ‘second coming’, Last Temptation may not seem to be that masterpiece one had wished for. It is, at best, a flawed film, but not the abject failure that many critics would have us believe. Among all the silliness that has been written locally about Last Tem pta tion, there has thankfully been an admirable piece by Shelley Kay ( Filmnews, November 1988), which I would like to address briefly. I admire the frame in which Kay has cast the debate, if not the picture she paints o f the film. Quite rightly, her short piece is addressed (if only indirectly) to the ‘hardcore Scorsese fans’ . Quite rightly, because the film - made as a very small-scale epic in the European art cinema mode - has such a confessional tone about it that one could be forgiven for believing that it was made solely for Scorsese followers and not a commercial audience which, understandably, along with most reviewers, doesn’t know what to make o f it. Briefly, Kay reads Last Temptation as confirmation o f her assertion that, evolving out o f The Color o f Money, there is a new movement, a new conscious ness, a new search in Scorsese’s cinema, principally in relation to the figuration o f masculinity and gender relations. Kay situates this ‘new’ Scorsesian hero, his Christ, in illustrious company - he is at once Nietzschean, Deleuzian and Masochian. However appealing (and interesting) that comparison may be, one suspects that it fits the wishes o f Kay rather than the intentions o f Scorsese. Furthermore, The Color O f Money has always been a tricky film on which to base any claims about a new and profound consciousness in Scorsese’s cinema, least

ilm h isto ry shows

C I N E M A

o f all in relation to Last Temptation. It should be remembered that, whatever else it is, Last Temptation is a profoundly delayed film. By all accounts it was to follow K in g o f Comedy, a logical point given that both films deal with fame and/or its delusions, a constant sub-theme in Scorsese’s cinema since Alice Doesn’t Live H ere Anymore - this includes the documentaries The Last Waltz and Am erican Boy. What confounds Kay, I believe, is the presence of The Color o f Money between K ing o f Comedy (or A fter Hours) and Last Temptation - she reads it as a fault line, a break, a sign o f a new movement, and lays that onto Last Temptation as the confirmation o f that new movement. What was there in actuality' was not a new movement but a false movement. In an interview in an August issue of the Italian weekly L ’Espresso, Scorsese had this to say in response to a question about the relationship between his status as auteur and the conditions o f working in the industry' (my translation, rough and abbreviated): ‘’To be able to express myself freely, as in this case [Last Tem ptation] I had to shoot two films, good films, but which are nonetheless not in absolute accord with what I want to make. Everyone knows which films I refer to, they are A fter Hoursawd The Color o f Money... The Color o f Money had been for me a means to practise my craft.” Scorsese makes use o f the same distinction (art/craft) as Brian De Palma did when speaking of The Untouchables. Directors like Scorsese and De Palma sooner or later have to play the balancing game - toss out the occasional film which will resurrect their box office credibility with the studios after a string of failures, so that they can risk all the more in other projects. They may be good films, no one disputes that, but they are not the films on which one would want to stake too many major claims. From what I have read to date, Kay has been the only writer to take the film ‘seriously’, to find real significance in it (others may have reviewed it positively, but without depth) and for that, disagreements aside, one should be appreciative. And there may be, after all, something in Kay’s assertion that in Christ we have a new Scorsesian hero in evidence. I grant certain doubts. Passion can often blind one to subtle traces of newness. Difference is cancelled by seduction - the wish to be seduced again by what has always already seduced one in Scorsese’s cinema. This was always the hidden secret principle behind the politique des auteurs. And still,Last Temptation does not seem to me to reveal anything significantly new in Scorsese’s cinema: rather it has the feel o f a final chapter, like the last stretch travelled in a long and arduous road, putting to rest some familiar demon images. The above has been a rather long-winded in trod u ction, an attempt to set in place points of reference for what is to follow. For me, then, Last Temptation is a continuation of all that has come be fore in Scorsese’s cinema. I like the film very much and there were moments in it which deeply moved me, par ticularly the cru cifixion scene and the ensuing ‘dream’ sequence. But I also think it is a very flawed film, somewhat programmatic, with less resonance than other films by this director. It doesn’t seem to sustain a unifying essence, like the majestic fatalism of Rajjinpi Bull, the melancholic beauty' o f New York, New York, the daunting precision o {'King o f Comedy or, finally, the ravaged inten sity' of Mean Streets. But it is also a truism that failure can often illuminate the essence o f a filmmaker’s oeuvre in unexpected ways, make you see more nakedly the architecture, the figures, tropes, the movements which make that cinema turn in a unique way. Therefore I want to read Last Temptation back through Scorsese’s previous films to establish that fundamental line of continuity I perceive to be there. To start with the obvious. In retrospect, and not surprisingly, many of Scorsese’s films are a little bit of Last Tem ptation, or as Kay more aptly states it, he is ‘’synthesising all his cinematic Scorsesisms into one film” . The dualities - flesh/spirit, human/divine, damnation/redemption - are familiar territory, as is the image o f crucifixion, an ever-present spectre in his more graphically violent films. This does not necessarily mean the iconic representation, though it is there in Boxcar Bertha, but more the idea o f mutilation and self-mutilation >■ P A P E R S

* 7 1

o f the body as metaphoric o f crucifixion. I cannot help but think o f the image onto the ultimate reflective medium - television. Reflective surfaces confirm from Raging Bull o f the battered body o f La Motta pinned to the ropes in that in Scorsese’s cinema that m otif o f duality, o f doubling and, from another final fight o f the film. How appropriate o f Scorsese to cut back to the ropes angle, the play o f likeness and difference. Last Temptation has no need o f slowly dripping blood, like the blood smears left on a cross once the body has reflective surfaces, for the figure o f Christ already embodies duality (human/ been removed. But in whatever form or for whatever reason, the theme o f mu divine) and is he not, after all, the ultimate in reflection - as they say, “In the tilation, o f violence summoned to the body has been a constant in Scorsese’s image o f God”. cinema and finds its culmination in Christ’s body. You will find that the Scorsese’s heroes have vivid, hyper-active imaginations. The hallucina moments o f intense violence to the body are also the most stylistically intense; tions, dreams, fantasies, the slow-motion renderings o f what must be the the mise-en-scene intensifies in its expressive virtuosity, even surpassing the mental processes o f his hero’s consciousness, seem all to be concerned with narrativised logic containing the events, like the track and dolly shots which bringing out into the open that private, internalised self, like the need to frame the final carnage in Taxi Driver, provide the external recognition o f or the boxing sequences in Raging an internal imagination. Approach Bull which spill out into a kind o f ex ing it from a different angle, I was re perimental cinema temporarily be minded o f Paul Zimmerman’s com yond narrative form. In this regard, ment that The King o f Comedy was mention should be made o f Scors about “the need to live publicly” . ese’s early experimental student film Travis’s routine in front o f the mir The Big Shave. This film shows noth ror, or Rupert in his basement imag ing more than a man shaving, once ining himself as a T V host, are private then twice, his face becoming disfig rehearsals o f performances which will ured by cuts until finally he slashes his be later played out for real in a public throat. It announced a curious and space. Different, and yet the same, is perverse correlation in Scorsese’s cin the boxing ring for La Motta, I would ema between narcissism and mutila argue: at the one time a public stage tion or what Alain Masson, writing of and a very private and fully fantasized Scorsese’s cinema, has called the arena. To conclude on this point, “ image o f self-estrangement” - a then, I think that much o f Scorsese’s passage through which many o f Scors cinema is about vision in conflict: ese’s heroes have had to pass, Christ how vision becomes a means o f relay among them. Before continuing with ing an interior being and imagination this thought I want to throw up a few through an exterior figuration. Christ is Scorsese’s most privately other ideas in which, by necessity, the former thought will be entangled. anguished being. The film starts close in on Christ in a private moment o f What follows is a somewhat tenu flagellation, perhaps his last real pri ous idea, not fully fleshed out, more CHRIST IS SCORSESE'S MOST PRIVATELY ANGUISHED B E IN G ... vate moment. Henceforth he be hunches than conclusions about what M ORE FICTIVE THAN HISTORICAL, BOUND MUCH M ORE BY THE comes a more and more public figure I think that, in part, Scorsese’s cin DICTATES OF NAR RA TIV E DR AM A THAN HISTORICAL V ERIT Y. THE as he goes in search o f his divine self, ema is dealing with. I f Scorsese is performing miracles, gaining follow searching for something in his art, it M O R A L AND EM O T IO N AL TRUTHS SCORSESE SEEKS FOR HIS CHRIST ers, until his inevitable crucifixion. I f is what I will name here, for the sake SHOULD NOT BY NECESSITY CONCERN FILM CRITICISM... CHRIST AS this figure were not Christ, I would o f brevity, the relation between an say this film was about the down side exterior and interior vision, or, per REPRESENTED HERE IS A KIND OF SCORSESIAN E V ER Y M A N , THE o f fame. And yet, Scorsese’s protesta haps better, the dramatisation o f vi PARADIG M OF HIS (SCORSESE'S) G A LLE R Y OF HEROES. tions aside, I read this Christ as more sion.: how one is relayed, modulated, Active than historical, bound much infiltrated, stalled by the other. There more by the dictates o f drama than is a profound disturbance o f vision historical verity. The moral and emotional truths Scorsese seeks for his Christ operating in his films. Or one could even say the staging o f vision, to borrow and his faith should not by necessity concern film criticism, and in themselves a term from Adrian Martin (an apt metaphojr, for Scorsese made a film o f The do not make the film good or bad. For me, Christ as represented in this film Band in concert without ever once showing the concert audience, a most is a kind o f Scorsesian Everyman, the paradigm o f his gallery o f heroes. Aside curious structured absence; and a film o f which Masson wrote,“ The Last Waltz from reasons o f faith, one can clearly see the attraction Christ as dramatis is a wonderful movie because no image is reduced to its informative value: persona holds for Scorsese. At once a divided figure struggling with an identity frame, light, distance and movement are contrived to give each and every shot without fixity, introspective, assailed by visions he cannot control or under its meaning” ). No contemporary filmmaker has inflected the ‘gaze’ in so many stand (like Travis’s “Got some bad ideas in my head”) the very stability o f ways as Scorsese - it can express at one and the same time, depending on film vision (internal and external) becomes problematic, and the body becomes the and character - voyeurism (both inquisitive and sexual), narcissism, psychosis, locus o f a bloody sacrifice. jealously, hallucinations: in sum, a whole host o f obsessions.This is not the sin The dream sequence is the key to this film. It seems to me much more gular entity that film theory has made o f the gaze. There is a much more complex and paradoxical that critics have made it out to be. It also has an mobile, flexible engagement with the gaze, giving it an incredible range of incredible depth o f residual meaning, which constraints o f time and space gradations. It’s a cinema which insists on noting the effects o f an introspective make it impossible to delve into here. observation o f an external reality. In the best o f Scorsese's cinema there is a Taken as a formal narrative device, this sequence is nothing hew in constant slipping in and out o f a character’s cognisance o f an exterior reality, Scorsese’s cinema. Alain Masson has noted an impulse in Scorsese to build in expressed in the crosscutting between subjective point-of-view shots (more an epilogue or coda to the film “as a supplement to what was expected from often than not in slow motion) and objective, non-character-aligned shots. the form o f the plot”. The examples are numerous: the return o f Travis after There is a constant doubling over o f vision in Scorsese’s cinema. It is not the carnage; the return o f Rupert after imprisonment; the meeting o f the lovers only in the obvious sense, the split that is there by necessity between what is six years later in the finale o f New Tork, New York; and, in a less linear and more seen and how it is seen, but rather in the fact that whereas everything becomes extended fashion, the final moment o f Raging Bull, featuring a bloated La the object o f the hero’s gaze, he rarely becomes the object o f another’s gaze, Motta. The dream squence is perhaps Scorsese’s most adventurous epilogue apart from his own. The hero takes himself as the object o f fascination, as he to date, because the scene o f the crucifixion seems so conclusive an image that does others. This is the point in the narratives when the gaze is turned away the ensuing sequence surprises and confounds one’s expectations regarding from the external world. These moments are often intensely private, an narrative closure. interior, fantasised self made exterior, the hero before his mirror. The most Epilogues o f this nature have a jolting effect on the narrative, triggering famous example is Travis’s monologue: “You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell back meaning through the film, often redefining what has come before. A else you talkin’ to?, Talkin’ to me. Well I ’m the only one here.” A further straight reading o f this sequence has it as a last satanic temptation to seduce example o f note is La M otta’s “On the Waterfront” monologue in the last Christ away from the fulfilment o f his divine destiny. There is an uncanny scene o f Raging Bull. sense, as the figure o f Christ comes off the cross and enacts the events o f what Mirror reflections can be be reassuring (“I see myself as I think myself to is to be a hallucination, that one is watching a film within a film. The fact that be”) as in the opening scene o f Mean Streets, where Charlie awakes from a it is a dream or hallucination notwithstanding, the sequence offers the ultimate troubling dream, pauses to gaze at his reflection, then returns to bed: they can image o f Christ’s self-estrangement from his final destiny as a divine entity. be frightening (“I see something I didn’t realize was there” ), as in the end o f And however much this is against the intended meaning, for a moment Taxi Driver, where Travis, for a split second, catches his own gaze in the rear towards the end one could be forgiven for believing that Last Temptation view mirror and realises, perhaps for the first time, and only momentarily, his “deals with the possibility o f imagination overcoming the world”, as David insanity - as the shaver in The Big Shave must also have realised. Rupert Pupkin, Thomson once wrote o f anpther Scorsese films. ■ in The King o f Comedy, has surpassed mirrors: he wants his image projected 8

C I N | M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

THE BEST OF THE BEST FOR YULETIDF.

THE NAVIGATOR In Sydney: Academy Twin, Paddington Pitt Centre, City The Walker, North Sydney In Melbourne: The Capitol, City Brighton Bay Twin, Brighton In Canberra: Boulevard Twin DROWNING BY NUMBERS In Sydney: Academy Twin, Paddington In Melbourne: Brighton Bay Twin, Brighton Kino Twin, City In Canberra: Boulevard Twin

C I N E M A

A TAXING WOMAN In Sydney: Academy Twin, Paddington The Walker, North Sydney In Melbourne: Brighton Bay Twin, Brighton In Canberra: Boulevard Twin WOMEN ON THE VERGE In Sydney: Academy Twin, Paddington, The Walker, North Sydney Valhalla, Glebe In Melbourne: Brighton Bay Twin, Brighton The Capitol, City Valhalla, Northcote In Canberra: The Playhouse

P A P E R S

> 7 1

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• R E P O R T

B Y

P H I L I P P A

THIS

H A W K E R

IS SERIOUS

The one thing that is absent from this film is irony. The jokes are in earnest, AKE TW O PEOPLE. One is a Tasmanian farmboy who and Yahoo Serious is quick to talk about the messages he believes that Young discovers the theory o f relativity, puts bubbles in beer, invents the electric guitar and saves the world from nuclear disaster. TheEinstein other iscontains. a from the bush, I know that people are scared o f intellectuals, and tirefitter turned painter turned filmmaker who acts, directs, produces,“Coming edits, intellectuals enjoys doing interviews, and has nothing but good things to say about funding are scared o f broad Australian culture. But we’re all one, that is one o f the things Young Einstein is trying to say.” In this film, opposites are organisations, distributors, American majors and the sensitive qualities o f united - there is no tension between them. Albert reconciles all. As Yahoo Australia men. Which one sounds like the fictional character? Serious says, he likes “to examine things in a kind way through comedy”; for I f the film’s marketing campaign has been working properly you should those who feel that kindness kills comedy, Young Einstein will seem a know by now that the first character is Albert Einstein, hero o f Y oung Einstein, cheerfully bland exercise. and the second one is Yahoo Serious, his creator and interpreter. To believe At one stage the film had a bleaker outcome, in an earlier, completed in one, you have to believe in the other: and there are those who believe that version. In fact the star and the film have each had two incarnations. Yahoo this will be “the next big Aussie movie”, the next film to benefit from the great Serious, born Greg Pead, was transformed into Yahoo Serious at art school. expectations that Crocodile D undee has created. Young Einstein, the movie, was completed more than two years ago, and Yahoo Serious says cheerfully that he didn’t think on this scale to begin screened at the 1986 AFI Awards, where it was nominated in four areas and with. “I thought I was making a rock’n’roll film that was a little bit intellectual. won the music award. Since then, it has been re-edited, new scenes have been I didn’t think its appeal was as broad as it appears to be.” shot, and there is about an hour’s difference between the two versions. Yahoo Nevertheless, he describes Young Einstein as a cross between Dr Zhivago Serious’s acount o f this is almost another film in itself, a movie full of and a Bugs Bunny cartoon. His constant reference points are Keaton, Chaplin dedication and goodwill and happy endings. and Woody Allen, with a nod to Charles Chauvel, Peter Weir and George “I refused to stop until I had the right film. I had to sell my car, the actors Miller, and commendations to Barry Humphries and Paul Hogan. He quotes and crew lived in the one house, my mum came and cooked meals, and [co Orson Welles on the need for directors to edit their work, and says that he writer] David Roach and I would take out the garbage while the crew washed learned film language by watching D r Strangelove night after night for three up. Then we’d do some writing, I ’d rehearse, go to bed at three and get up months. at six. From all this, he has created a film whose basic premise is that the inventor “There’s no excuse for losing creative control” he says, in a tone that is o f the the theory o f relativity was a hyperactive apple-eating Tasmanian with almost stern. “Once you let go, that’s it. People say things like, ‘The Americans a Struwwelpeter haircut who plays his violin in the bath while doing the took it off me’ or ‘the AFC didn’t give me any money’ or ‘Australian washing-up. Young Einstein is crowded with sight gags: it features explosions, distributors don’t support Australian films’. But I’ve found all those things to rock songs, balloon flights, breakdancing, a dog that turns out to be Darwin’s be incorrect. Beagle, a hotel in Lonely Street, a host o f quick, sly references to recent “Warner Bros said, ‘We want you to have your vision. We make Police Australian movies, a pie with live kittens as its filling - but most o f all it features Academ y 7, that we’re not particularly proud of, but we want Woody AllenYahoo Serious. Surfing, riding, playing guitar, falling out o f windows, type films. The re-editing and the extra shooting was financed by Village Road climbing cliff faces, he bounces all over this film, as he invents, woos and saves show. They were incredibly supportive, and the Australian Film Commission, civilisation. I t ’s an engaging, energetic performance, a combination o f the Phillip Adams and K m Williams, said, ‘Here’s a couple o f hundred thousand, ingenious and ingenuous.

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

go and edit this thing and come back when you’re happy with it.” Village Roadshow had bought out the Australian rights from his French financiers. One o f the film’s executive producers, Vil lage Roadshow’s Graham Burke, describes how, when the picture was first completed, “Yahoo was desperately unhappy because his financiers hadn’t let him complete it in accordance with his dream. It was akin to West Side Story without the musical num bers. The big comedy highlights were miss ing. We showed it to Terry Semel, the president ofWarners, who flipped and said, ‘I wanna be in the Serious business. This kid could be the Buster Keaton o f the nineties.’ On the basis o f this, Yahoo was given complete artistic freedom to complete the picture he wanted to make. How much does this kind o f freedom cost? “We took one o f the biggest risks with any individual production,” Graham Burke says, adding that he does not like to talk figures, “because in Australian terms they’re very large, in overseas terms they’re very small. “ The story about the film’s genesis must have been told a hundred times, starting with interviews in 1986, but Yahoo Serious still tells it with obliging enthusiasm. “Travelling - that was what I did. That was my main occupation. Now it’s trying to get sleep... I was travelling down the Amazon. I’d crossed the Andes, and there wasn’t a lot to do except watch the monkeys and the trees - the ones they hadn’t cut down. We drank them out o f beer in two days - they hadn’t had Australians in before, and I think they figured they could make more out o f selling us beer than taking us down river. Anyway, they brought in some more beer, and the Brazilian native who carried the beer on board was wearing a t-shirt with that famous picture o f the 72-year-old Albert Einstein poking out his tongue out at the camera. It was such a weird image. It got me thinking ... And that’s where it started. The original idea and the script came together very quickly... and by the time I arrived home, I basically had the first draft.” From this came the notion o f Albert Einstein, Tasmanian apple farmer, inventor o f relativity and rock’n’roll. “I wanted to look at what it’s like for an artist, or in this case a genius, to be born into a Philistine environment or one that’s hostile to change. There’s a message, that kids respond to and adults certainly do, about letting people be what they want to be.” “I ’d never written a script before. I’d never even seen one, let alone structured one, “ he says. “The first script was jam-packed with jokes: I didn’t know how you were supposed to do it, I didn’t know that when you had a slapstick gag for the general audience and one with a more intellectual nuance for... “ he pauses. “You know, the more European audience, that you couldn’t just throw the jokes in. You have to structure it. O f the original script, I guess there’s one in five jokes.” There is obviously an audience that can be reached through the soundtrack o f the film, with performers like Mental As Anything, the Models, Icehouse and Paul Kelly. There is a Mushroom soundtrack album that will be released through A & M in the US and Europe, and some M TV specials will go to air to coincide with the album and film release. Apart from reviving a song he regards as an Australian classic, Icehouse’s “Great Southern Land”, Yahoo Serious “wanted to put “Waltzing Matilda” and “The Wild Colonial Boy” to rock music. I thought about the classical music that gets across to people in the bush, and I realised that it was stufflike Peter and the Wolf, Peer Gynt - stuff that carries a lot o f imagery and takes you back to childhood. “In the music I ’m interested in substituting, in many cases, the lyrics in the song for dialogue, so that the dynamic o f the story is carried forward by the songs. Often music is chosen because o f what song is a hit at the time, but we

didn’t do that. I f you see Young Einstein in 20 years time, the choice o f songs will still make sense.” His collaborators along the way have been David Roach, who co-wrote the film; Warwick Ross, who shares the producer’s credit; and Lulu Pinkus, associate producer and creative consultant, who helped to create the Young Einstein character. “I t ’s a team o f four people, kinda like a rock band more than anything else. But we’ve got a single vision o f what we’re going to do. The four o f us carried through every aspect o f the film, threw it around, which is what you have to do with comedy, especially if you’re on both sides o f the camera. “That’s really important. In fact if I had any criticism o f Australian films or any point I ’d make to young kids kicking off on their own, it’s that there has to be one vision: whether it was mine, or I got it off some guy’s t-shirt, that doesn’t matter. You’ve got to share that vision, because the ego is not precious. A lot o f Australian films are about different visions: the cameraman’s making one film, the director’s working on another, the producer’s got another one in his mind. “Films are such a massive collision o f money and art and entertainment that no one person can hope to make all those correct judgments. I take all opinions and go and sit on my surfboard and think about it. I want to make the film accessible, so I ’ll make changes, I ’ll make adjustments. To make a film for six people in an art cinema isn’t what making cinema in our time is about, to me. You can get a complex message to a mass audience.” He says that he prefers directing the scenes in which he appears. “I work my shots out, I ’ve written the script, I know the way the joke works, and if I ’m performing a stunt or interacting with an actor, I get better results. I can say straight away, ‘You weren’t really in that’, or ‘You weren’t really funny doing that, cross your legs and look that way: you’d be looking into Albert’s eyes if you were angry with him.’ Whereas the scenes I ’m not in, I find more difficult. “It’s not that unusual. I realise now that all my heroes - Chaplin, Keaton and Woody Allen - are all writer-actor-directors. It seems to be part o f an auteur thing, a comedy thing. It’s just that we haven’t had one here yet.” Until now, it seems. The thought o f becoming a performer came late, he says, when the character o f Young Einstein had been developed. “I took a long time to get the confidence. I ’d only been in one school play. The basis o f my acting is dancing, I ’ve always loved that. And I rode horses, I surfed: growing up in the Australian bush I was always very physical. “On location, before we started filming, the creek was flooded, and I just went across the other side, boom-boom-boom. Lulu said to me, ‘I ’ve been to NIDA, I ’ve acted for years, but I ’ve never seen anyone move like that.’ And we sat down and talked about it. She said, ‘You move like Keaton, you’re really nimble,’ and I just said, ‘Naah, go on, get away.’ But we talked about developing the movement side o f it, we went through some things, and I went to a stunt guy and learned how to fall without hurting myself. I read a few books about Keaton, added that to the dancing, and the character was born - the Yahoo comedic character. As soon as the hair went up, and the trousers went on, that w astt.” And now, he’s on the road, talking about the film, a marketing task he seems to relish. “I like it. I like the media. When you talk to people about the film, you get a lot back. Graham Burke said to me, before we started shooting: ‘A kid who’s got nothing can have a say in society, can communicate in the dark to millions o f people, but just remember, making the film is only half o f it.” But he doesn’t regard this as ‘selling’ the film. “I guess I am, but I hadn’t thought o f it like that,” he says apologetically. Selling in a kind way, perhaps.

The Film Editing Bench 0 0 ! by Am ber Technology as part of our com m itm ent to quality professional equipm ent for the Film and Television Industries. For Steenbeck and all your film and television equipm ent needs, talk to

Amber TECHNOLOGY

Steenbeck is the nam e that sets the standards by which all film editing benches are measured, In Australia that standard is supplied and serviced

Äm ter. UnitB, 5 Skyline Place, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W 2086, Telephone (02) 9751211, Facsimile (02) 9751368, AJAS 30P042

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

> 7 1

WHAT ARE W E GOING TO GIVE YOU FOR CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR? O ur sincere thanks to everyone who gave us their support throughout the year to make 1988 such a success. And our com m itm ent to make 1989 an even better year for you. We’re giving you more of the industry’s best technicians, more service, more leading edge technology and we’re even building a new presentation theatre which we believe will be second to none. In fact we’re giving you our com m itm ent to improve the high standard o f quality and service that has made Colorfilm the leading laboratory in the country. Everyone at Colorfilm is looking forward to working with you again in the New \fear.

Q Colorfilm Colorfilm Pty. Ltd., 35 Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050. 'Telephone (02) 516 1066. Eacsimile (02) 516 5240.

I d illi

i #

,K»e

’

AVINCfNTW ARD FILM I '

THE NAVIGATOR m A MEDIEVAL ODYSSEY A Vincent Ward film

BRUCE LYONS CHRIS HAYWOOD HAMISH McFARLANE MARSHALL NAPIER NOEL APPLEBY PAUL LIVINGSTON Screenplay Vincent ward kely Lyons ceoff chapple Director of Photography Geoffrey simpson Editor john scott Music davood tabrizi Production Designer SALLY CAMPBELL Co-producer GARY HANNAM Producer JOHN MAYNARD Director VINCENT WARD

Dolby stereo 1 -------------------------- 1

Produced by Arenafllm P ty Ltd and The Film Investment Coporation o f New Zealand. An Australian and New Zealand Co-production.

_ © Arenafllm Pty Ltd.

Released by Ronln Films

COM ING FOR CHRISTMAS TO GREATER UNION AND INDEPENDENT CINEMAS SYDNEY: COMMENCES 8 DECEMBER

C I N E M A

MELBOURNE; COMMENCES 16 DECEMBER

P A P E R S

« 7 1

A D R I E N N E PARR AND ANDREW PLAIN

TOGETHER (YET) AGAIN, JOHN HARGREAVES AND WENDY HUGHES IN BOUNDARIES OF THE HEART

AUSTRALIAN FILM RELEASES AND DEVELOPMENTS TO SPEAK OF TH E AUSTRALIAN FILMS which were com

pleted and ready for distribution and exhibition in a single year as if they were a group is problematic. To do sowhen that single year is 1988 is even more difficult. However for the same reasons that this year’s films may be less o f a (generic) ‘group’ than perhaps other years, it is nevertheless an interesting year to look at - not so much in terms of the What (was actually produced) more the How and the Why. The feature films and mini-series were representative of, in many ways, a conjuncture o f responses to the upheaval in funding arrangements - a suitable precursor to the water shed which many sectors of the industry hope the new fi nancial setup will induce. It is probably inappropriate to even mention the “new financial setup” (the Film Finance Corporation) at this stage in these terms, for fear of already beginning the construction o f an oedipalising history/analysis of the Film Bank (doubtless this will occur soon enough). But it would not be a misguided speculation to suppose that behind the furrowed brows and reserved judgements of a broad spectrum o f producers and directors (and of course EPs), lurks a ‘quietly confident’ film industry. Time will tell. But certainly very few seem to be letting the demise o f 10BA serve as any major form o f discouragement. The Australian Film Commission, it was believed by some, had planned to force the industry to ‘sweat it out’ during a pro VISION FOR THE FUTURE (?)... INCIDENT AT RAVEN'S GATE

longed changeover period. The hope would have been that the less determined would decide to pursue more lucrative career paths, thus facilitating the patronage system which some film

CROC II...

bureaucrats are known to favour. If this rumour was well-founded, if it was not merely a projection of the

THE FACE OF

somewhat paranoid film community, then the plan was ill-conceived.

AUSTRALIAN

There was no general feeling this year that producers and directors (and even EPs) had

FILM

any intention o f going anywhere other than perhaps into the temporary shelter of institu tional work. The ever-increasing flow o f graduates from the now numerous film produc tion courses around the country represents not only a major contingent of the industry who are trained for little else than filmwork, but also a ubiquitous reminder to those occupying established positions, o f physical and emotional investments in the industry which they would be reluctant to forsake. It seems evident that the federal government (and indeed the AFC) had no absolute concept o f the number o f people the previous system had been keeping employed. (Even the Screen Production Association o f Australia, when trying this year to establish the number o f freelance personnel surviving in the industry for the purposes o f lobbying against a proposed federal tax, found great difficulty in establishing accurate numbers.) If the FFC cannot sustain the existing film community, the resulting reshuffle/scuffle will not be pretty.

>■

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

O BEG IN T O TALK A B O U T 1 9 8 8 ’S FILM S at this point is not necessarily to suggest that those features released this year were conscious pre emptive bids for a place in the hearts and minds o f the board o f the FFC. Indeed it may be more accurate to suppose that those who didn't produce a film during this period were instead busy lobbying. Never theless the films do constitute the efforts o f people who were able to demonstrate their ability to raise finance and produce films under much less than favourable circumstances. As 10BA tailed out and the established producers and directors made mini-series or took work overseas, productions were completed by a largely new and relatively young group o f people in a variety o f enterprising methods. Some begged, borrowed and stole resources ( Phobia, The Pursuit o f Happiness) while some sold souls (and final cuts and cinema releases) to IFM L - for sale to a not always willing, Hemdale ( Incident a t Raven's G ate, Grievous Bodily H arm , Mullaway, Boundaries o f the H eart, The Lighthorsemen, The Everlasting Secret Fam ily - the producer/director o f the latter probably handling the experience a little better than some). Some did production deals with the South Australian Film Corporation ( The D ream ing, Fever, again Incident a t Raven's Gate and The Lighthorsemen), while others utilised co-production agreements ( The N avigator as well as a number o f mini-series). Some got in on the first full funding o f the Special Production Fund ( Tender Hooks, Candy R egentag- has anybody seen this film? - Bachelor Girl, the ABC co-production Olive) or were almost fully-funded by default (Spirits o f the A ir, Gremlins o f the Clouds). And o f course there were those who had a comparatively easy time raising money due to prior successes (Rikky an d Pete, Crocodile Dundee II, The M an From Snowy R iver I I ). In the main budgets were kept quite low. The self-imposed stylistic imposition o f ensemble casts and few locations, as a means to this end, was a recurring phenomenon (Phobia, A fra id To Dance, Dangerous G am e, Jilted , Tender Hooks, Boundaries o f the H eart, Mullaway). It could not be said however that the tailoring o f scripts in this manner was a direct result o f a cause/effect relationship between the end o f 10BA and production. In the last few years there had been constant assertions that an Australian feature film with a budget o f over .... (the figure changed from time to time but was never a huge amount for a feature) could simply not break even without substantial overseas sales. In the light o f this there had in recent years seemed to be a rising collective consciousness o f a need to develop prescrip tive operations for the survival o f the industry in the event o f withdrawal of government support. ‘Cultural integrity’ and ‘authenticity’ were at stake, and besides there had been endless failed attempts at producing specifically fo r overseas markets. (Clearly the one-offs like the Crocodile Dundees, the M ad M axes and the Man From Snowy Rivers were just that.) The most obvious remain ing response was to work from the prem ise that budgets would simply have to come down. And where were the big costs? ‘Action’ (stunts, mul tiple locations with lots o f exteriors, vehicles, expensive equipment, and thus larger crews and insurance etc.) and supporting cast and extras. The solution elevated the already es tablished Paul Cox genre to remedy status. The linear nature o f this response is not surprising. For 15 years the canonised con cep ts of Marketplace and Na tional Identity have forced a whole series JILTED (TO P ), TENDER H O O K S : o f literal and simplistic ...SELF-IMPOSED STYLISTIC IM POSITIO N reactions to a set o f OF ENSEMBLE CASTS A N D very complex circum FEW LOCATIO N S stances. The figure of Western popular cul ture (American, postmodern) has loomed all-pervasive and chameleon-like (unable to be responded to on any concrete terms) throwing the internal politics o f the industry from one state o f panic to the next. What had been expected o f the Australian film “Renaissance”? Clearly, like the promise of some appropriately termed NEW Age process, instant results. However, much has already been written o f this issue, and o f past problems with the conception o f strategies. For our purposes it is more useful

C I N E M A

to dwell upon consequences, upon responses o f a panic-stricken industry. This is not to imply that there is anything intrinsically problematic with the ‘ensemble’ ‘interior’ genre as a response, (and rest assured that there will be more to come in 1989), but merely to point out the tendency o f which the response is symptomatic. Along with the willingness to surrender final cut to strangers (in all senses o f the word), or the readiness to exploit labour and resources to a point where long-term friendships are often placed under extraordinary strain (in the name o f the film) the response typifies the absolute desperation o f film-makers, and the lengths to which they are prepared to go, simply to m ake film s. Underlying much o f the work one undertakes is an unspoken assumption o f who knows how much longer the chance to “make movies” will exist, generating and sus taining the desperation. Unlike 15 years ago, the now abundant and growing numbers o f trained personnel - existing in a panicky relationship with one another, both as mutual threat (employment) and mutual self-perpetuation (casts and crews as op posed to individuals make films), have propelled the situation almost to a point where a personnel/personal issue alone constitutes the entire agenda. This issue consists o f two primary aspects: the first economic (employment), and the second a notion o f ‘practice makes perfect’, o f a need to keep producing for perfection’s sake - a perfection always unspecified, but predicated upon ideas o f ‘production values’ and ‘realism’. (The type o f performance training available to actors in this country is a clear example.) (Above and) beyond these concerns however, reasons for making films have become much more obscure. Also, unlike 15 years ago, when a newly-formed and uncertain film community met regularly to debate proposals for funding arrangements, di rections, etc., there no longer exists a forum for polemical discussion or enquiry. (Whether or not this actually occurred 15 years ago, at least a space did exist.) The evolution o f the original forum resulted in SPAA, which by the very nature o f its prime function as lobby group (united front) excludes these concerns. This situation is intensified in the context o f the federal govern ment’s current preoccupation with export potential. All that is left, the only process which can incorporate public discussion in any way, is the annual gut response to the AFI Awards screenings. This in itself is a problem: that the only way to actually view what was produced in the country, due to the limited exhibition o f most films, is via the AFI screenings. And with the recently introduced pre-selection process, even this is now impossible. Such circumstances are obviously not conducive to open debate. The screenings usually elicit a response somewhere between ambivalence and disgruntlement. This year the meter seemed to be reading a marked shift toward the latter. There was a definite dissatisfaction with the way in which the pre-selection process had eventuated (particularly with the exclusion of Hungry H eart and Bushfire Moon, and the ineligibility o f Shame) and it is difficult to determine how much this figured in the overall maligning o f the films, with much talk o f the year’s “poor standard”, etc. The media focused on this, using the omission o f Crocodile D undee I I (producers’ decision) to corroborate what were in effect quite contemptuous inferences o f conspiracy and intrigue - such as demanding to know why Evil Angels (a film at the time still in post-production) had not been included. What was most interesting in the reading o f this maligning was its equivocal nature. It was unclear what had been expected, and less clear exactly where the disgruntlement and dissatisfaction lay. To help clarify the point to be made, we should mention here that this is a film community which considers third or fourth draff o f a script adequate to shoot on - a procedure initially forced by 10BA funding restrictions, but now completely institution alised (it is difficult to obtain script development money after third draff). O f course every film is not shot on third draft. But subsequent draffs tend to be written during pre-production - not an ideal period during which to be modi fying the script. Really there had been no space in the current structure o f the industry for optimism in the first place. But in the survival this had been overlooked. It seemed nobody had noticed the structure closing in on them. Perhaps the dis gruntlement and dissatisfaction were actually more a manifestation o f frustra tion than anything else. To acknowledge this then is to create a context in which some o f the films can be talked about more closely. Much has been said o f late o f the need for filmmakers to recognise Australian culture as colonised and to work at a con scious level from within that position, and importantly to begin to understand and address Australian cinema’s relationship to popular culture. Although tendencies in this direction were certainly not overwhelming in their presence in the films as a ‘group’, there was nevertheless evidence o f thought along these lines, scattered throughout a number o f titles. The 47-minute Salt, Saliva, Sperm an d Sweat, the thesis o f which deals with precisely these concerns, is o f course the most notable in this respect. Shame, which unfortunately neither o f us has seen, purportedly works some interesting textual variations into conventional action genres. Boundaries o f the H eart is a not so well-founded but nevertheless signifi cant attempt to place the framework o f what could be thought o f as an American ‘deep south’ genre (A Streetcar N am ed Desire, The Long H ot Summer, Long D ay’s Journey Into Night, etc.) over the established Australian cinema convention o f the outback town. This is also interesting in relation to Tra La La’s {B ou ndariesof theH rarf production company) current undertaking, P A P E R S

« 7 1

L u igi’s Ladies, a conscious emulation o f the Touchstone comedies (Bette Midler et al) presently so financially successful. O f further interest is a tendency exhibited by a number o f the films in regard to what had become in Australian cinema the convention o f the inter national (overseas ‘star’ or whatever status could be afforded) lead. The character whom this actor played (the “questioning...searching American”)1 instigated the narrative. His/her arrival on the scene was required for the credibility and hence the unleashing o f filmic events. The character has a long history within the Australian film “Renaissance” as, like the actors who played him/her, a foreigner to the Australian milieu. Originally, in such films as Wake in Fright, a condition o f cultural insecurity resulted in the inclusion o f this foreign character (patron), as endorsement for the cultural product. This outsider developed neatly as a convention to incorporate the overseas star (for 51(1) investment), then the Hollywood actor (when 10BA began to necessitate a US presale). In Incident a t Raven's G ate, Jilted and Where the Outback Ends however, the outsider is indigenous: i.e. still a foreigner to the film’s environment, but from within the national community. The function of these outsiders for the narrative remains the same, but what is most interesting is that unlike their overseas counterparts who generally force the narrative through action, their catalytic effect on events comes merely from a passive presence. (The three characters concerned are each in fact on varying forms of R& R.) Their ‘difference’ alone is enough to cause major (and in the case o f Incident a t Raven's Gate catastrophic) change. Somewhere along this track the narrative premise o f The N avigator can be placed. A group o f medieval miners visits a contemporary New Zealand city. As the ‘ancestors’ o f the inhabitants o f that city, their qualification as ‘indigenous outsiders’ is thus rather more complex than other examples mentioned. Nevertheless despite some problematic fetishisation o f nuclear and Christian imagery, and the disturbingly scant attention paid to the potential which a cinema tradition such as time travel (imagined or otherwise) offers, the film proposes an appropriation o f major significance to the development o f local cinema. The film makes (rightful) claim to and takes possession o f a share in a particular image representation o f ‘past’, previously demarcated as the exclusive field o f examination o f British and European cinema. This search for and reclaiming o f roots (both genealogical and cinematic) has perhaps been prompted by considerations o f the multicultural society' (and more specifically the existence now o f work on cultural identification pro duced from within that society by filmmakers of. non-English speaking backgrounds). Two of this year’s shorts, BossBoy and R abbit on the Moon, both very strong and moving depictions o f life as a first-generation Australian child, are extremely important experiential documents. Their effect (and in no way is this to suggest that the effect is a negative one) is to posit Anglo-Celtics (and other mongrels) experientially into sites o f (illusory) cultural bankruptcy. This is a very interesting position from which to produce, and a consciousness thereof would hopefully prevent what in the past was the desire to simply fill a perceived depleted space. While speaking o f shorts, it is probably appropriate to mention an interesting development which took place during the year: a surge in growth o f the educational video market (a primary source o f financial returns for shorts). The immediate causes were the VHS format (which in real terms dropped in price) as well as the work o f a now stabilised group o f educational distributors helping generate the market. The areas they have accessed account for the use o f videos covering an extraordinarily broad range o f issues (in other words, almost every short ever produced in Australia is usable in some educational context). In the long-term, this situation has arisen as a result o f the work of organisations such as the Australian Children’s Television Foundation. The Touch the Sun series o f children’s films (the third ACTF series, following Winners and Kaboodle) was completed during the year. However, the major credit is probably due to the actual community workers, teachers and academics, most o f whom will always use a locally-produced resource when an appropriate one is available. Over the years, they have worked at ‘ground level’ emphasising the importance o f local product, and have been largely respon sible for pushing the case for locally produced material on to the education agenda. In view o f this, it is disturbing to hear that the Premier o f New South Wales intends to prevent distributors having access to subject heads/teachers o f pri mary and secondary schools by direct mail. All advertising o f film/video product would have to go through journals under the control of those deter mining state-wide policy. NSW represents the largest o f the schools markets for distributors from all states. There is cause to question however the assumed benefits o f ‘infiltration’ into the schools and tertiary institutions, when one o f 1988’s most curious de velopments in production practice is considered. The practice referred to involves mini-series based upon historical events (and apparently has not been an issue with scripts o f fictionalised contexts). These types o f re-creation films and mini-series are ostensibly used to a huge extent in schools. In three in stances this year, scripts (history) were rewritten (i.e. before and quite apart from any o f the ‘conventional’ modifying and recoding processes which char acterise the transition o f a text from news item(s) to script - and then o f course on to film) for the purposes o f securing an American presale. C I N E M A

In The Rainbow W arrior Conspiracy, an investigative jour nalist character based upon Chris Masters was written as an American (in New Zealand on a story about the ANZUS alliance). Richard Neville, writing Shad ows o f the Cobra, the mini-series based upon The Life an d Times o f Charles Sobhraj, wrote himselfbut o f the script to be replaced by an American character. For A Dangerous Life, a mini-series on the fall o f the Marcos govern ment, David William son was requested by the US investors, firstly to reduce the number o f Filipino characters, then to “redress” the screentime balance be tween his (admittedly fictional) Australian female photo-journal ist and American male journalist characters. SHAME (TOP), SALT, SALIVA, In this light it is SPERM A N D SWEAT... RECOGNISING not at all surprising when one hears survey AUSTRALIAN CULTURE AS COLONIZED results revealing that AND ADDRESSING AUSTRALIAN CINEMA'S the majority o f Ameri RELATIONSHIP TO POPULAR CULTURE. can youth are unable to place the United States on a world globe. Script amendments such as those mentioned will of course only strengthen their view o f themselves as ‘the world’, and corre spondingly weaken Australian youth’s already shaky conception o f their own status. It is one thing to acknowledge the superiority o f the playground bully, it’s another to partake (consciously) in the perpetuation o f his rule. Surviving (commercially successful) outside the playground however and hence constituted as ideal was Ca ne T oa d s- An U nnatural History. Cane Toads, a 50-minute documentary, was the final word in ‘cultural specificity’ and yet made a fast and substantial profit without leaving the country. The phenomenon surprised many, not the least o f whom was Film Australia, the production organisation. In their first year as a corporation (i.e. in theory they must now be self-supporting) they would have been very pleased with the returns. Film Australia reportedly were not keen on the project during production, and the unsuccessful court claim o f Mark Lewis (the director) to a share o f the returns after the fact (whilst o f course based upon the substantial amounts o f money involved) was influenced by this. Where the basis for the incredible success o f Cane Toads lay is not entirely clear. Certainly, within this culture, cane toads function in displacement terms as a metaphor for Queenslanders. To say that Cane Toads exploits this would be to state the obvious. In a sense it is the film about Queenslanders everybody has wanted to see/make for a long time, the manifestation o f a need to categorise and articulate (and so come to terms with) the subculture (Other) known as Queensland. The film’s anthropomorphising processes (cane toad as protagonist) through stylistic and genre quotation, its laconic treatise presentation, and above all (through the use o f a special mirror apparatus to impel them to do so) its (human) subjects speaking straight down the lens o f the camera, combine to form a very humorous representation o f Queenslanders (Queens land), far more bizarre than any cinema/television depiction of, for example, America’s hillbillies. Already now, attempts to replicate the form o f C ane Toads (e.g. ‘anoma lous’ subject matter, and even the use o f the same mirror apparatus) and thus as (hopefully) a matter o f consequence, its commercial achievements, are in production. Whether or not a repeat performance is going to be possible remains to be seen. One o f the reasons for suspecting that it indeed might, is the supposition that the financial success o f C ane Toads was linked to a growth (return) in popularity o f repertory and arthouse cinema this year. The type o f film which previously would have gone straight to television, C ane Toads sustained two lengthy cinema seasons at repertory venues in Sydney alone. The redefining by Greater Union of its three-cinema “Pitt Centre” in Sydney as an arthouse complex (marked and consolidated by the extended runs o f Jea n de Florette and Manon des Source) meant that last year’s Australian feature B elinda was able to secure a (probably previously unattainP A P E R S

- 7 1

>►

able for such a film) cinema release. In addition, after a long period during which the producers o f another Australian feature, The Tale o f Ruby Rose, tried to obtain a mainstream cinema release, a season was finally organised with the Chauvel. Backed by the Wilderness Society, the Chauvel season was so successful (with crowds being turned away) that subsequent seasons at the Academy Twin (in Sydney) and the Brighton Bay (in Melbourne) resulted. Developments such as these endorse notions o f the ‘narrower’ audience as a potentially major source o f investment return. The formerly subscribedto idea that everything had necessarily to be aimed at the ‘Ent Cent’ is discredited. (It could perhaps be assumed that Shame, which came and went at Hoyts this year, would have been better off with a longer run at a smaller cinema.) It has only been these developments which have given rise to an environ ment in which parties with interest in Incident a t Raven's Gate could recently make a public plea (through the trade journal Encore) against the contracted distributor (IFM L) for better exhibition treatment (a similar action to that taken a few years ago by the director o f Brazil). Distributors can no longer claim that the most merciful life/death for Australian films is to put them straight to video. Video is still o f course a very important market, but one American selling philosophy maintains that everything should go to cinema before video. This is simply to procure the thousands o f dollars o f publicity (and credibility) a cinema release guarantees (in newspaper listings etc.) which is important for a successful video life. One o f the assumptions o f this philosophy is that the video-renting public essentially believes a cinema release (i.e. their recognition o f a title as having been screened at the cinema) to be the legitimisation o f a film. This is probably especially true o f the Australian audience. Indeed, it may actually be the wearing-off o f the novelty o f the video shop which has resulted in rises in attendances to repertory' and arthouse cinemas. Or perhaps the home video viewing situation was just, for some, becoming at times too claustrophobic. Whether or not either had any bearing on develop ments, the long-term work o f organisations like the Sydney Film-makers’ Co op and National Film Theatre o f Australia, and more recently exhibitors such as the Valhalla, the Dendy/Kino, the AFI and o f course Andrew Pike, (not wishing o f course to overlook the various repertory' cinemas in the capital cities) in conjunction with a growing national population which can now support the exhibition o f a broader range o f films, must be taken into account. With the ready audience, the issue becomes no longer exhibition- centred. (It seemed that in the past distributors and exhibitors were usually ‘blamed’ - not always unjustly- for the situation.) Rather it becomes productioncentred, and attention shifts to the funding arrangements, and specifically whether or not the bureaucracy will respond appropriately to these new developments i.e. provide for the production o f this “broader range o f films” . As a growing proportion o f mainstream filmmakers becomes progressively

more and more nervous about the FFC (and as indeed nothing concrete eventuates), they are turning to AFC funds which, according to guidelines, should be the allocation o f ‘alternative’ film practice. Reports o f the number o f scripts currently with the Special Production Fund would indicate that applications to this fund are quite literally piling up. It could fairly safely be assumed that a large number o f these would be from filmmakers with narrative/genre proposals, their major adherence to the guidelines being the applicant’s willingness to complete the project for (in some cases well) under one million dollars. Developments o f late, including the failure o f proposals such as Helen Grace’s The Lie o f the L an d to proceed (based upon presale and other requirements o f the SPF), along with the nature o f a number o f the projects recently funded (a presale required o f some and not o f others), would indicate that the SPF (with a now unclear brief, and selection processes based completely upon subjectivity and personal taste) is evolving into a ‘Junior Film Bank’. That this position has been taken up by the SPF is not entirely the fault of the section o f the bureaucracy concerned. The absence o f developments with the FFC has resulted in a huge gap (scattered at present with only a few co productions and remnants o f 10BA) between, at one end, these SPF lowbudget (low wage, short schedule) projects, and at the other end, the US and other overseas productions currendy using Australia as a location. These offshore productions are increasing in numbers, and are choosing Australia over other third world possibilities, because o f the availability o f “cheap, skilled, English-speaking technicians”. Their large budgets mean large wages and long schedules. It goes without saying that this situation is already causing a split in freelance crew personnel, according to demanded fees. What it will do to equipment and facilities hire, and provisional services (wranglers, stuntpeople, etc.) may be another story. The two poles will have to be reconciled, and preferably sooner than later. But this is obviously not a role o f the SPF. It is a role o f the FFC, and the promises o f that structure should ensure that the SPF is able to shift back to its rightful position. Then, with the (wait for it) New Image Research Production Assistance Programme (ex No Frills), the Creative Development Fund, the Special Production Fund, the Film Finance Corporation and of course the International Co-Production Programme, the requirements o f the broad spectrum o f production possibilities should be able to be m e t... but this remains to be seen. ■ 12 1. .Meaghan Morris, “Tooth and Claw - Tales o f Survival and Crocodile Dundee”, Art & Text 25, June-August 1987 pp 55-56 2. Meaghan Morris, “Tooth and Claw - Tales o f Survival and Crocodile Dundee”, Art & Text, 25 (June-August 1987 p55-56

LIGH TS CAMERA ACTION WE’RE ROLLING FOR ’89 Join David Stratton and Margaret Pomeranz for a fantastic ’89 season of movies on SBS-TV. The Movie Show: Preview the big movie releases. Cinema Classics: Be entertained by the great movie masterpieces. And don’t miss television’s top drama, comedy or action each week with Movie of the Week. SBS-TV — bringing you the best in 1989. FOR INFORMATION ON HOW YOU CAN RECEIVE UHF, CALL (008) 077 361 DURING OFFICE HOURS.

SBS 4719

TELEVISION C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

J ■

¿ g fe WARNER BROS presents A SERIOUS FILM ^ % .• T ^ J ? f i S S p o o SERIOUS as "YOUNG EINSTEIN" ODILE LE CLEZIOas marie curie-JOHN IHÓCÌ SERIOUS à ’flpfiJO ÌC H director of phoiography JEFF DARLING originai music score WILLIAM *: WLbKfiHfirtflURKE AND RAf BEA M ASSOCIATE producer LULU PINKUS PRODUCED by YAHOO SERIOUS •WARWICK ROSSandDÀVÌD ROACH written and direcied by YAHOO SERIOUS ALBUM, CASStntWIDtBMWO DISC AVAILABLE O W ^ ^ ^ l i K O d D S

YOUNG EINSTEIN SUPPORTS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA

B Y

M A R Y

C O L B E R T

Daniel Rowland I

•

WHEN THE APPOINTMENT

THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION WAS ANNOUNCED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE NAME - TO MOST - DIDN’T HAVE A FAMILIAR RING. FOR DANIEL ROWLAND THIS BRIEF SPELL OF ANONYMITY HAS BEEN SOMETHING TO RELISH. CONSCIOUS OF WHAT LIES AHEAD, HE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO REMAIN AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY AWHILE LONGER.

C I N E NI A

•

T'S N O T THAT HE IS INTROVERTED OR ALOOF - on the contrary, the initial impression is o f a dynamic, articulate, almost exuberant man, who frequently punctuates his comments with a boyish laugh. He comes with impressive credentials: degrees in law (from the UK) and international relations (from the U S), a variety o f high-profile jobs in the legal profession, academia, technology policy, broadcasting, film, television - all with the common denominator of pushing new frontiers. “I like the intensity o f challenges for short, significant bursts o f my life - the tendency to work three- to four-year cycles and move on,” he explains. He thinks the three-year contract is the perfect timespan: long enough for anyone in the position to formulate, inject and execute new ideas and get out. It provides concrete time for realistic targets and prevents anyone from lingering too long. The position particularly caters to his dual impulses (evident throughout his education and career) towards discipline and creativity He attempted to fulfil each alternately, though more recently his work has been a combination o f both. School in the U K (at an institution founded by Jeremy Bentham) was “an excellent system that encouraged free thinking and non-conformity - which surfaced as I matured”. He was channelled into studying law (though quite content to do so) by parental rationale: “he argues well, would make a good lawyer”. Film and theatre had been strong interests: at school Rowland set up a drama club, regularly went to the cinema but preferred European (especially French and Italian) to British films. “I certainly didn’t think o f these in terms o f a career. Pragmatism prevailed in those days.” A scholarship to study international relations at Johns Hopkins University graduate campus in Washington D.C. provided the stimulus he needed for a couple o f years. On returning to the U K Rowland practised law for three years with an international firm o f solicitors in London and Amsterdam. H e’d met his Australian wife in 1970 and four years later,when she wanted to return home he felt it would be an interesting move. Law continued to dominate his career: first at Adelaide Law School, then in Sydney, at the newly established law faculty at the University o f New South Wales. For Rowland it was a particularly lengthy stay - five years - lecturing in public administration, an area where the legal system and media interact. There were additional involvements, such as helping to set up Sydney’s first free legal aid centre in Redfern, but even the world o f academia had a limited timespan as the pull o f interests in media prevailed. Interested in moves for public television by Minister for Communications Tony Staley, in 1981 Rowland joined Metro Television as General Manager. The aim was to acquire a public TV broadcast licence. Artistically, culturally, politically and technically, it was an exciting challenge for someone constantly on the lookout for new options. For Rowland there was the added bonus o f implementing policy through hands-on experience: at last it appeared that the artistic and managerial had married. But 18 months later,with a change o f gov ernment and policy, it became clear that the reality o f public TV was a long way off, and Rowland chose to move on to another innovative territory technology policy. Working with one o f the foremost advisers in the field, he set up a research and consultancy centre for technology and social change to advise govern ments, organisations and private companies. Again, it was a service which filled a gap.

OF THE NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF

P E R S

- 7 1

“I WANT PEOPLE TO PUT FORWARD THEIR GRIPES, AIR THEIR VIEWS, CRITICISMS, STATE THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF WHERE THEY THINK THE AFC SHOULD BE GOING. I’M CERTAINLY LISTENING: MY EYES AND EARS ARE WIDE OPEN, AND I WANT THE INDUSTRY TO KNOW I’M AN ACCESSIBLE PERSON...”

There Rowland was in a prime seat for other offers. In 1985 he accepted a position as manager o f TV operations for the private company Energy Sources International. Working initially from their production studio in Melbourne and later a newly established Sydney office as the company focused more on software and program development, his work - on a much smaller scale - foreshadowed AFC activities: initiating ideas, commissioning writers, developing options, determining projects in which to invest. The company was, in conjunction with Channel 7, executive producer in the mini-series The R ainbow W arrior Conspiracy and bought a couple of Robyn Archer projects, including A Star is Torn (which Rowland helped to develop into an unusual feature). Here he gained significant experience in marketing for US cable network, gaining exposure, at relatively low cost, through a magazine format program, Discover A ustralia , later through the syndicated co-production, The G reat Escape. His next move was to the AFC. Rowland diplomatically evades any comparisons o f his leadership style with that o f this predecessor, Kim Williams, stressing that his team will operate in a very different climate - in a new era where different rules apply. He admits he came on board at a difficult time for the industry, yet in another sense it was appealing: the slate had been wiped clean, and for him that’s an integral part o f the challenge. “Almost within a week, Film Australia Pty Ltd and the Film Finance Corporation were established: the first in a new guise, separate from the AFC, leaving the Commission to revert to its original role o f general activities (creative, cultural and financial investment). And, together with the second, it ushered in a new relationship between industry, government (federal and state) and other institutions. The AFC had to find new players and nurture them in an increasingly internationally oriented environment. It was an appropriate time for the new chief executive to look at the structure and assess the most creative and constructive way to make our involvement,” he says. Where does one begin with such a task? “There are a number o f starting points,” explains Rowland. “First, there is a need to boost morale within the organisation and the industry by providing leadership. There had been a three- to four-month hiatus between chief executives, and that’s never good for any organisation. I walked into a situation where there’d been significant departures and vacancies in vital areas such as policy, which obviously needed to be filled as soon as possible.” Rowland places a high priority on good PR and communication. He particularly wants to reassure the industry and encourage people to provide input into the communication process. “I want people to put forward their gripes, air their views, criticisms, state their perceptions o f where they think the AFC should be going. At the moment I ’m certainly listening: my eyes and ears C I N E M A

are wide open, and I want the industry to know I ’m an accessible person - and I genuinely am. I want to know what’s going on, so I ’m prepared I to talk and listen, though it makes my load that much greater.” He attributes much o f the bitter press to a misunderstanding o f the position. “No matter how much we may want to encourage risk and new talent, for instance, this has to figure promi nently in our calculations. But the idea o f push ing back barriers and harnessing government bodies in the interest o f industry does hold exciting prospects,” he confesses. Rowland speaks with obvious admiration o f the Channel 4 set-up in Britain, with its mission o f making innovative programs through finding tal ent and supporting it through a number o f structures: the kind o f creative process within a structured organisation. “But they have the enormous advan tage o f being their own exhibitor: not only does that ensure TV release but, if acclaimed, the likelihood o f theatrical release also. “In Australia, unfortunately, we have a major distribution and exhibition problem - in film and TV - whereby no one is prepared to take risks, for obvious reasons. In TV, ratings are the order o f the day, and in films, bums on seats philosophy prevails. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because the slate o f American movies are more culturally attuned to audiences and require less money for promotion. The AFC does have a provision in its act for exhibition but it only applies to shorts. Distribution and exhibition do need review, but it’s a tall order to tackle.” He adds that the AFC and FFC have set up a working party to look at assistance with marketing strategies for Australian films. He claims that one o f the major concerns for the AFC is the area o f the international marketplace: “The AFC is representing an industry which is increasingly internationally oriented, especially in the area o f co-productions. We have to be alert to all possibilities on all fronts, provide services, and set up an offensive for an official co-production area that looks beyond the first three years.” But he insists that commercial interests won’t overshadow his strong commitment to fostering new talent. “W e’ll continue to play a developmental role in encouraging new scripts and short films, but other strategies o f taking new risks will need to be considered. It’s premature to say what the best ways to resource this are, but we’ll be reviewing this area seriously in the near future. “I certainly don’t want to act as cultural commissar, but my personal hopes are that some exciting projects can be developed. We may have some rough edges in our .society th,at need more exploration: we live in an urban, multicultural society, yet few o f our films reflect that. Admittedly, we do some genres extremely well: The T ear My Voice Broke, for instance, was one o f the best films I ’ve seen o f its kind, shorts such as P alisade, A Song o f A ir ... I suppose one o f the problems is that we also come from one o f the most suburbanised societies, and suburban cultures don’t like rough edges.” Does he have a general message for filmmakers in this period o f gloom? “Go out and make good films. You’ve got a quarter o f a billion-dollar commitment from government over the next three years with a developmental structure in the AFC. I ’m upbeat about that ... “ Somehow, from where he’s sitting it’s easier to adopt that view. Rowland has three years to persuade the rest o f us to share it. ■ P A P E R S

* 7 1

R E P O R T

STEPHAN

B U N B U R Y

I E

RONENBERG L J

ONSISTENT THEMES IN THE FILMS OF DAVID CRONENBERG HAVE BEEN FLESH, IDENTITY AND DEATH... THEY ARE FOUND IN RABID, IN THE BROOD, IN THE FLY, AND SURFACE AGAIN IN HIS NEW FILM DEAD RINGERS - THIS TIME VIA IDENTICAL TWINS, SUICIDE PACTS AND A W OM AN WITH THREE CERVIXES...

h i s C r o n e n b e r g g u y ’s just got to be some Claire Niveau (Genevieve Bujold) is an actress who has three cervixes and likes sort o f weirdo. No, don’t look at me in that su having sex while tied to the bedstead. perior way, listen a minute: it’s his new one, But there is no room for romance in between the dyad o f mirror images. D ead Ringers, that is o f concern here, not that Beverly, wrenched like a rag doll between his brother and the anatomically it has anything to compare in schlock value to a arresting Claire, seeks solace in uppers and downers and his face becomes a a hairy' Jeff Goldblum vomiting over his food in The Fly, because althoughgrimy make-up effects. But the central set-piece o f his canvas for increasingly craziness is his invention and construction o f some extraordinary surgical there is a culminating scene o f disembowelment, it is very tastefully done as instruments to be squeezed, he says, into the bodies o f mutant women. Not these things go. No, D ead Ringers is a bit o f a foray into Psycho-country really: just Claire with those three compartments bunched like drawstring bags into it’s about twins, symbiotically and insanely dependent on each other, This is her pelvis, but all o f them, all those bodies which suddenly seem all wrong. interesting, sure enough, but he’s made them gynaecologists. Get the picture? That’s the bit that has you wincing and mincing and crossing your legs and Armed to the teeth with neuroses and ready to fire at the heartland o f male saying lightly, “Who dreamed that one up?” phobias, those pink presentations they pick over each day in the surgery, “I Now, it’s not that David Cronenberg isn’t your regular nice guy, Canackdidn’t particularly want to make a movie about twins - ju st twins,” Cronen style: serviceable haircut, nondescript clothes, thick glasses that make him berg tells us. “But when it was twin gynaecologists, whose destiny it was to die seem just true to type when he tells you, “I ’m a bit o f a medievalist myself.” together, that combination was very' fascinating, very' provocative ... for M E.” (You mean like with those instruments that look like something from the In Now me, I ’m not so sure about it. Neither, it seems, were a lot o f actors: quisition’s back room? “Yeah, that’s right and then they can also be instru the director approached many North American actors to play this double role, ments o f sacrifice for some weird religion.” Right.) I ’ve always had a soft spot but found them deterred not only by its technical challenge, especially to an for those people north o f the Niagara, I like the way they combine American American-sty'le method actor, o f playing opposite a space where one’s own articulateness with English politeness, even to the extent that David Cronen image will later fit, but also by playing gymaecologists. Well, that was their berg actually likes being interviewed and tries hard to please. problem. “It just, I guess, has to do with macho imagery',” says Cronenberg Cronenberg has worked mostly in horror and fantasy and is more than dismissively. “You will play a boxer or a killer but you will not play a happy to chew over tasty old chestnuts o f horror theory, like the one about the gynaecologist.” He finished up with Jeremy Irons, who acquits himself so well themes o f horror being mythologised ways o f facing real fears o f the viscous that he grows to look distinct from himself, if you can imagine that. reality o f the body and its inevitable decay into death. In fact, this is an article The twin gymaecologists, Elliot and Beverly Mantle, live in a seemingly o f faith for him because he knows they are his fears, too. Behind these popular bland, larval state o f complementary imbalance. Riveted together at the sci-fi-with-guts flicks is a sober intellectual facing the hard stuff for himself, the psyche, they share a flat, medical awards, and the best o f the women their hiflesh that squelches, the bodies that disgust, although we can’t, as the saying tech uptown fertility consultancy can entice. Indistinguishable (yes, yes, but goes, do without them. this is a story now) they attend each other’s appointments and rummage in each other’s patients, Elliot just a touch more sophisticated, slicker hair, So to The Fly. “As someone who has to watch this transformation o f himself,” says the inventor o f Brundle-fly, “at first he feels total dismay, but smoother shirts, a tiny bit brutal, the seducer who cleaves the path for his more timid brother until - aha - Beverly falls in love with one o f their joint conquests. then he says, no, wait a minute, why should I be dismayed at what I ’ve become,

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

and revulsed and dis Cronenberg likes to look gusted? Let me embrace it for “layers o f meaning and and see it as something interconnection and all positive and good and that that stuff.” So now let’s it is in tact a transforma talk about gynaecology tion, rather than a deterio and those instruments, the ration o f something that knives with handles like was wonderful before and dinosaur bones, the pumps not as a horrible, ruined and coils and scythes cre version o f that. And what ated by the character swim I’m talking about, for one ming in the middle o f this thing, is that we are all des metaphor soup. I f horror tined to become these is about bloodletting, as monsters, to transform carnival is, what is all this into the monster o f senil about? ity and decrepitude, and And then there is this I’m saying to myself, well, moment when Cronen v’know ... is it possible to berg talks, reasonably and becom e a w onderful, pleasantly and still from magnificent old creature? the back o f his armchair in Well, it is possible, because the room where we are I’ve seen some old crea barricaded from raw evo tures who are rather mag lution (that means ‘in nificent, not like wrecked, doors’ for the slower diminished versions o f amongst you) about how DAVID CRONENBERG O N DEAD RINGERS: young people, they are this is drama and all done magnificent in what they with intuition. Things just 'JUST BECAUSE I'M POSITING THESE CHARACTERS are. I’d like to be able to feel right. Start getting po THEY ARE NOT ME; THEY ARE N O T EVERYBODY; I AM do that myself, o f course. litical about it, he warns And if I could go so far as me, and you rob the work INTERESTED IN W HAT THEY DO AND I DO MEAN THEM to include death in that, to o f its humanity as surely as TO REFLECT ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY... BUT THE accept that, then that the Mantle twins dehu would be great.” manise their patients by FILM IS NOT APPROVING OF THIS/ Great juicy stuff here: reducing them to scien let’s keep talking. This is tific projects. “This pop why Genevieve Bujold is allowed to look her 46 years in the blue light o f Dead political approach” - ouch - “to film is very dicey. Because I ’m positing these Ringers, still lovely but her eyes a nest o f crows’ feet. Because we did like that, characters, they are not me; they are not everybody; I am interested in what a lot. Yeah, but “the other thing you could say as a militant feminist, and I ’m they do and certainly, yes, I do mean them to reflect elements o f society and sure it’s going to happen somewhere, is to look at Cronenberg, you know, so on, but the film is not approving o f this, for one thing.” “he’s such a misogynist; he takes this wonderful actress and lights her in the Oh golly, now he thinks I believe he secretly wants to tear women apart worst possible way, and it’s like mutilating her.’” (But no-one has said it yet, and the film is some kind o f autobiographical fiction. Did I slip up somehow? apparently, and why should he expect it, why exactly? Ah, forget it, move on, How did he think I was accusing him? Isn’t horror an expression o f collective there’s a lot o f stuff in this film to talk about.) fears, hidden things we would never re-enact? Why can’t we talk about that, For example, religion. Cronenberg sees Dead Ringers as a quasi-religious about the gulf o f disgust between men and women, about the cavern men fear, ‘quest’ film, in that Beverly, Galahad-like, searches for a separate identity, hungry orifices, the birth o f monsters, oh you king o f pus and scrofula, you moving through an obsession with his work, which in itself is ritualised and enigmatic creature Cronenberg-fly? What Aat the bottom o f the garden? What sacramental, in the director’s eyes, much as religious devotions are and, like lurks in your cranium, apart, I mean, from ripe, glistening, photogenic brains? religion’s narrow certainties and promise o f a disembodied hereafter, detracts Because the glimpses, when you try to explain, with that suddenly narrowed in its minute scientific scrutiny o f the body from the completeness o f the focus you have when we talk about why you wanted the troppo twins to be human? At one point Beverly is dressed for the operating theatre in a red robe gynaecologists, are so tantalising. that makes him look like a cardinal, although the redness is also there, “I was thinking that twins, especially the kind o f twins I was thinking of, Cronenberg says, to cut a visual gash o f gore into the cold blueness o f the film. form a complete little universe unto themselves: you know they think they It is Cronenberg’s interest in the pursuit o f identity that led him to a story don’t need anyone else - they think - not men as well as women. But then that’s about identical twins. a sort o f denial o f their own sexuality, and if they’re gynaecologists it forces “Imagine, so much that we think o f as being individual is the way we look, them in some way to come to terms with female sexuality. And o f course it gives the way w£ sound, our body language and so on. Imagine if there was someone them a chance to be quite twisted about it. How do you deal with women? hanging round you all the time who looks exactly like you and sounds exactly Well, you know, like anything else, you cut her open and see how she works. like you and who people constantly confuse with you. I mean, we don’t have Well, medically that’s very sound, but emotionally it doesn’t work at all.” the experience o f seeing ourselves walk into the room and sit down.” Gives them a chance to be very twisted. A fine thing, chance. They had a Imagining was the backbone o f it: he did no research as such, although the film chance to be anything, to start with. “You imagine you are going to do a story took so long from conception to evolution - 1 0 years - that he incidentally about twins and go from there. What do they do? ... Well, if they’re both, ah, accumulated a lot o f ‘twin lore’ to accompany his musings. He mentions in bus drivers, that doesn’t reflect on the nature o f being twins. I ’m not saying particular a book o f photographs o f twins which includes two sets o f twins, one there might not be some other professions my twins might have had that could male, one female - who inter-married and live as a quartet. “On the wall are have been exciting - twin entomologists, that might have been all right.” two pictures o f the two couples, and they’re the same. I mean it’s fantastic, it’s What? You mean it could have been entomology but it was gynaecology instead? What sort o f mental coin flips that way? And yet, mull it over like very odd.” Drugs, and the psychology o f drug-taking, absorb him too: interestingly, Cronenberg mulls over his themes, and I can, unwillingly, see a bridge his next venture, with any luck, will be a film ofWilliam Burroughs The Naked between the two: that common bedrock horror o f the emblematic female spi der who eats her hapless mate. Lunch, which he has carried to the point o f accompanying Burroughs to Tangiers. The hundreds o f phials and bottles in Dead Ringers are not there Look, Cronenberg, it isn’t really that I think you’re a weirdo, not you: in only to look sordid. Before his habit takes hold o f him, Beverly tells Claire he fact, you’ve probably got more worked out than the rest o f us. You get to retch takes pills only for pain, and that because “pain is unnecessary. It deforms the rot out o f your unconscious and get it safely corralled in neutral public character.” Cronenberg says, “I am fascinated by the way we have never ground. And while I may not especially like the relentlessly vivid way the horror accepted anything as given to us, from this hotel - we don’t want to sit in the genre tackles its agenda o f unspeakable subjects, Dead Ringers is clever stuff, park, we want to be somewhere where we can control the rain and the there’s no denying it. It’s written well and shot with extraordinary deftness, temperature and so on - and that extends even to our bodies. I f we don’t like using a computerised camera which moves the outline between two Jeremy our body’s chemistry, we change it. You take an aspirin, you take things to thin Irons images within a single shot, so the twins could move together in frame. your blood and thicken your blood, you put metal pins in your leg if you don’t And Jeremy Irons in bioscope is masterly, even to somebody who thought one like the way it’s developing, you do things to your brain. We want to be J. Irons was generally more than enough. Don’t think I don’t admire it. But involved in our own evolution: no other animal has done this, and the cutting if we’re going to talk about things kept silent, let’s go right back. Back to the womb, whether it be triple or regular single, and the fears men have that might edge o f that is medicine.” make them want to rip it to shreds. Aha, we say, getting into the swing o f it, and there are not just drugs here either, there’s the fertility clinic,that greenhouse o f hydroponics in life itself. 24

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

HICKINBOTHAM FAMILY WINEMAKERS ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT THE QUANTAS / CINEMA PAPERS YOUNG FILMMAKERS AWARD

H I

5 *.

H ickinbotham W inem akers specialise in cool clim ate viticulture

and winemaking. The prem ium quality image they have obtained in ju st a short time can be attributed to a depth of winegrowing expe rience spanning three generations and millions of litres of wine.

This experience led to the development of the enorm ously success ful ‘H ickinbotham Selection’ concept starting with the supplying of Ansett A irlines, and then The A rts Centres of B risbane and Mel

bou rn e, G overnm ent House in M elbourne, and m ore recently international airlines such as B ritish A irlines, L u fth an sa, Q antas, and through their catering division JA L , Singapore, Cathay Pacific and United. The small 200 ml bottles are filled by very special m achinery. Retained wine freshness in bottle is believed to be

superior due to an A ustralian invention preventing oxidation of wines at filling and during prolonged storage, to a degree never previously possible, and a special wad in the sophisticated screw caps.

O T H A M

The ‘H ickinbotham Selection’ has included: A n go ve s C a b e r n e t

O N

A r r o w e i e l d S em il l o n

B a ro ss a V a l l e y E s t a t e

B a la n d ea n N o uv ea u

B a ro ss a S e t t l e r s

B e s t s T aming a

C a t h c a r t R idg e

C ollege C abernet

CORIOLE

d’A ren berg

D avid W ynn

D ra yt on B in 5 5 5 5

E lderton

F itzpatrick

G e h r i g C a b e r n e t S h ir a z

G olndry C abernet

H e a t iic o t e T ram iner

L eu man n S em il l o n

L it t l e s H er m itag e

M i t c h e l t o n R ies li n g

M t L angi G iiir an

P lRRAMIMMA

T a h b il k , et c et er a

H ickinbotham W inem akers, 2 Ferguson S treet, WILLIAMSTOWN Vic. 3016 phone (03) 397 -1 8 7 2 or 3 9 7 -2 9 4 9 , fax (03) 3 9 7 -2 6 2 9

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

>71

•REPORT

PHILIPPA

HAWKER

C O - P R O D U C T I O N S PAST,

PRESENT

AND

FUTURE

“A C O -P R O D U C TIO N IS N O T ill the end of the world is t h e NAME OF THE PROJECT: t h e CONTRO about making a compromise, it is about making a project,” says the Australian VERSY THAT SURROUNDS IT SEEMS TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO LAST THAT producer o f Till the End o f the World, Julia Overton. Nevertheless, she is adamant that the film will be resub LONG. IN ONE CORNER, W IM WENDERS AN D A FILM HE HAS BEEN NURTUR mitted for consideration as an official co-production, and optimistic that ING FOR A DECADE: IN THE OTHER, THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION, some sort o f accommodation can be reached. “I hope to talk to the AFC and sort it out, ” she said. “I f we can AND ITS CO-PRODUCTION POLICY THAT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR THE resume dialogue we can find out what leeway there is.” LAST TW O YEARS. W H Y HAS THE FILM PROVED SUCH A CONTENTIOUS At the time ofwriting, Peter Carey had just delivered a second draft o f the script, locations had been finalised, ISSUE, AND W H AT IS THE OUTLOOK FOR CO-PRODUCTIONS IN THE FUTURE? and the budget, she said, had been re defined. “We have a new talking point,” Overton said. “We can go back and start again.” producers to apply to the Film Finance Corporation for funding. The FFC will Some o f the talking points about the controversy are far from new. The generally only fund the Australian elements in a production, and official co Australian Film Commission’s refusal to grant official co-production status to productions are not expected to comprise more than 10 per cent o f the a Wim Wenders project has caused international headlines and exercised the supported production slate. Investors would still be able to benefit from 100 diplomatic powers o f French, German and Australian politicians and ambas per cent write-off. sadors at the highest level. When the co-production program was set up in January 1986, one o f its Till the End o f the World has been a long-standing Wenders project, a road central objectives was to ensure that Australian creative contribution to a movie on a global scale, shooting in 15 countries and culminating in what was project was at least commensurate with financial equity. The program was to be a nine-week shoot in Australia. Although the script was initiated and de based on an accord with film industry guilds and unions. At that stage, the AFC veloped by Wenders, Peter Carey came in as co-scriptwriter earlier this year. did not enter into general co-production arrangements: each project necessi He is the major Australian creative contributor. tated an agreement between the AFC and a counterpart authority in the On 20 May, the AFC advised the producers that the project would not be country o f residence o f the overseas producer. granted co-production status. A flurry o f negotiations, representations, corre The advantage included access to new financing and new markets, and the spondence and publicity followed, but the decision remained unchanged. The benefits o f creative collaboration with international filmmakers. film could not qualify for the 120-20 tax concessions, which were phased out The first agreement, signed at the Cannes Film Festival on 15 May 1986, shortly after the co-production decision was made. was between the AFC and France’s Centre National de la Cinématographie. The headlines and the stories have, on the whole, favoured the Wenders Its director-general, Jérôme Clement, said at the time, “I trust that French and side o f the story. They have portrayed the Australian Film Commission as a Australian filmmakers will find many opportunities to implement the benefits bunch o f obstructive bureaucrats applying Procrustean logic to creative o f the agreement,” but his optimism has not proved to be well founded. filmmakers. Some fairly heavy political muscle has been brought to bear on the The industry accord set out guidelines for the determination o f levels o f auteur’s behalf. Australian participation. The creative participation and financial equity was to Much o f the support in the film community for the project is unqualified be no less than 40 per cent. The key creative components were: screenwriter; support for Wenders as a filmmaker with impeccable credentials as an artist director; producer; director o f photography; editor; production designer; and artists are not meant to abide by rules. Hoyts chief executive Brian Rosen, composer; lead and major support cast. The Australian participation is for example, says that “With such creative forces as Peter Carey and Wim calculated as a percentage o f the total number o f components. Wenders, who cares if the creative content does not match to accord It is this formula which has proved part o f the stumbling block for Till the guidelines?” End o f the World. The AFC has calculated a creative participation o f less than However, there are those in the industry who are sympathetic towards the 40 per cent and financial participation o f 55 per cent. Wenders project, but feel that the producers’ request to have the life o f 10BA According to co-productions co-ordinator Mary Gibson: “The project extended in order to assist negotiations was, at the very least, unrealistic. had a German director, German and French producers, a German-initiated “Bloody outrageous,” was one comment. script, an international soundtrack, three out o f four leads were French or For Till the End o f the World, co-production status under 1OBA had clear American. On the Australian side there was a producer, a co-writer, a financial advantages. Publisher and film writer Garry Maddox estimated that production designer and one lead cast member. The whole budget o f $17 “funding in Australia (as sought through an extension o f 10BA at 120-20) million was to be raised under 10BA at 120-20. Five out o f the 28 weeks were would give the producers an effective grant o f up to $4 million plus a notional to be shot in Australia, with a four-week studio shoot. There was no post saving o f about $2.4 million in interest (assuming that the distribution production here.” guarantee is payable a year after investment).” The AFC has an internal assessment procedure to determine eligibility. Under the new system o f financing, co-production status would allow the Suitable projects then go before an industry advisory panel with representa26

C I N E

M A

P A P E R S

tives from the major guilds and unions: the Australian Writers’ Guild, the Screen Production Association, the Australian Screen Directors’ Association, Equity and the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees’ Association. Mary Gibson says that Till the End o f the World was judged ineligible in the first stage o f assessment, but “there was so much pressure from the applicants that it went to the industry panel. The unanimous recommendation was rejec tion: they said it didn’t come within cooee of the minimum guidelines”. The Centre National de la Cinematographic has guidelines with a broader reach, which include the first assistant director, camera operator, costume de signer, sound recordist, production manager and art director in its calcula tions. This is the kind o f model that the producers o f Till the End o f the World are advocating, and they still have some hopes for getting it accepted. Wim Wenders said that “my assistants, my sound engineers, cameramen, decorators and costume people will have huge inputs in the film and they don’t even exist on the [AFC] formula here”. Julia Overton maintains that the budget has also changed since the first submission was made to the AFC. Till the End o f the World will now be shooting for 14 weeks in Australia. She says that the S 17 million budget was purely a production budget, and did not take into account marketing, executive producers’ fees, music, another possible Australian lead, and other factors which are likely to bring the figure up by between $9 mil lion and $11 million. She says that this should change the equity' calculations.

She argues that in any case, the figures don’t convey the Australian elements o f the film. “There are other projects that show no IN CO-PRODUCTION cultural affinity' with Australia and use it is a THE PRISONER OF ST backlot,” she says. “The Australian feeling is integral to this film. Wim has been coming here PETERSBURG regularly for 10 years: he’s not doing a Werner Herzog and he’s not doing a Hollywood studio.” It has been pointed out by critics that only four official co-productions have got off the ground since November 1985, when the trial co-production program was established and it was announced that a maximum o f seven projects per year would be approved. Critics allege that the AFC has fallen well short o f this target. According to co-productions co-ordinator Maty' Gibson, this was a ceiling and not a target, but it has been widely regarded as a goal. The AFC’s own newsletter announcing the scheme, with the headline, “Twoyear trial with 14 films”, would have done nothing to dispel this impression. Two o f the co-productions were features, two were mini-series on sporting themes, made with British partners: The First Kangaroos and The Four-M inute Mile. None of the projects was originated outside Australia. Mary Gibson says that the AFC expects the Film Finance Corporation to be more compatible with co-productions than 10BA. In addition, the AFC is engaged in a process of treaty negotiations which would allow producers much more scope in finding co-production partners: there would not be the constraint that requires an agreement between the AFC and an equivalent authority. So why was this path not taken in the first place? According to Mary Gibson, treaty negotiation would have been a long drawn-out process: the limitations o f the two-year program were a useful first step for Australian producers who have very little experience in the complexi ties and nuances o f co-production deals. “People are in a better position to negotiate now,” she says.“They have found out that co-productions are not monsters.” She adds, however, that the guidelines on creative and financial equity will stand. The two feature projects that have been made under the program have different tales to tell about co-production. The N avigator, at first glance, looks like a co-production success story invited into competition at Cannes this year, and winner o f six AFI awards. But producer John Maynard has been publicly critical o f the AFC, and supported the producers o f Till the End o f the World. The N avigator project had foundered in New Zealand, and Maynard and writer-director Vincent Ward came to Australia to try to get it off the ground as a co-production. An agreement between the AFC and the New Zealand N O AH TAYLOR AND

SOLVEIG DOMMARTIN

C I N E M A

Film Commission had been signed in August 1986. Initially the film had an Australian producer (Maynard) a New Zealand director and New Zealand writers. Other key creative positions were filled by Australians, and the cast was a mixture o f Australians and New Zealanders. “We worked on that basis to fulfil the equity requirements,” Maynard said. “There were no obstacles that were insuperable. With New Zealand and Australia the differences are not that great: there’s a common language, and a lot o f people move and work between the countries anyway. “It was a financially inefficient way o f financing a film, because the producers had to raise two different budgets. I had to raise the money to make it and the New Zealand producer had to raise the money to buy it. “The industry panel was long-winded, and it takes for ever to get anything done. It is an over-protective system. “I ’ve had a great deal o f experience working with film commissions and an extraordinary amount o f patience. “I wouldn’t do it again if I could finance the film another way. The AFC is like a medieval court. What is needed is a change o f attitude, a will to actually m ake films. It needs a greater deal flexibility' and it shouldn’t be so patronising towards people. “The Wenders project could easily have got up if there had been a will from the three participating companies,” he says. He points out that co-productions offer producers new ways o f financing films and access to new markets, and should offer new creative possibilities. But he has little that is positive to say about what they deliver. The other feature film project to have been granted official co-production status is The Pris oner o f St Petersburg, a low-budget ($ 3 80,000 approx) feature about a young Australian in Ber lin, played by Noah Taylor from The T ear My Voice Broke. It also featured Solveig Dommartin, star of Wings o f Desire and one o f the leads in Till the End o f the World. Director Ian Pringle wrote the first draft o f the script in Berlin, with co-writer Michael Wren. Klaus Singer, o f Panorama Films, who was developing another project with Pringle, was keen on the project, and it was put together and shot with little delay. Producer Daniel Scharf said that the only hitch in the procedure of getting the film approved as a co-production was the need to find an appro priate body in West Germany with whom a Memorandum o f Understanding could be signed. The method o f support for films is very' different in West Germany: with no film commission, and a range o f local and Federal government departments providing the finance, it was a government department, the equivalent o f the Department o f the Economy, which proved to be the counterpart in question. “It was easy to fulfil the guidelines,” Scharf said. “The only key creativeperson who wasn’t Australian was the editor, and the male lead was Australian. “The AFC were really supportive, worked hard to get it through and were enthusiastic about getting it going.” The AFC has a small fund to assist the development o f projects that arcintended as co-productions. At the time o f writing, six are in development. In all the high-level lobbying and correspondence that has taken place over the End o f the World affair, there have been clear suggestions that a refusal to back down on the part o f the AFC will lead to problems for future co productions with France. It’s not clear at this stage whether this implication will become a reality'. Producer Julie Monton was aware o f the possibilities o f obstruction when she made a recent trip to France to sound out interest in Tonrde Force, a drama about two friends, one Australian, one French, with the Tour de France as a finale. “I was ready for problems,” she said. “And the AFC told me that I might have some difficulty', which I thought was very fair o f them. But there was no overt rancour. You can’t avoid [the topic] though, everybody mentions it. “There were opinions on both sides. But the attitude seemed to be: We’re fluid and open about the way our co-productions work. We don’t want to have to go back to where you are at. They are fairly well-informed about things like the FFC and the rules and regulations, but 1 don’t think they realise how fragile our industry' is, and there is a lack o f understanding o f what we are fighting for culturally.” She says that she has come back with a better sense of the kinds o f scripts that work best as co-productions. “They are rather different from the kind of mainstream, commercial scripts that we are being encouraged to make here.” A project that is further along the track is The Serpent’s Bridge, a French/ Italian/Australian enterprise that that will be directed bv Sophia Turkiewicz from her script about an Australian girl who goes to Italy to find her natural father. Australian producer Tim Read describes it as a combination o f a personal histon' and a thriller. Negotiations are still being conducted at the time o f writing, but he is confident about the film’s ability to fulfil AFG co production requirements, and optimistic about the CN C’s willingness to examine the project on its merits, without being influenced bv the Wenders experience.

P A P E R S

« 7 1

A USER'S

GUIDE

fc Y L Y N D O N

SAYER-JONES

• THE FILM BANK L E G A L

I S S U E S

IN THE FILM FINANCE JUNGLE YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR LAW. FILM LAWYER LYNDON SAYER-JONES PROVIDES A USER’S GUIDE TO THE FILM FINANCE CORPORATION - WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO APPROACH IT.

HE A USTRALIAN FILM FIN AN CE C O R PO RA TIO N

Pty Ltd (FFC) opened its doors for business on 31 October this year. Official guidelines have been released together with a detailed application form. Applicants are required to provide a full disclosure o f their film/television/documentary project and propose the amount and manner o f assistance to be sought from the FFC. Intending applicants should obtain copies o f the guidelines and application form as they will provide a clear understanding o f the FFC ’s manner o f operation. The purpose o f this article is to highlight some o f the legal considerations that producers should be aware o f in making an application to the FFC. Not only will attention to these matters increase your chances o f obtaining an ap proval but it will also place the project on a secure base to minimize problems later on. It should be noted that while “substantially revised” applications can be resubmitted after an initial application is rejected, it is in a producer’s best interest to ensure the first project application is properly prepared in every respect. This reflects on the producer’s professionalism as much as on anything else. A professional approach to the producer’s tasks from a legal point o f view also gives a project a greater chance o f success at the production and marketing stages. At the same time it avoids the aggravation and compromise often involved in renegotiation o f earlier mistakes. It is usually easier to reach agreement in the preliminar)' stages than when the cameras are about to roll and the bargaining position o f the producer is greatly reduced.

GENERAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FFC course, will be not only that the rights are secured but DAB HANDS are secured in such a way as to not be jeopardized by the a t FINANCE? reasonable contingencies o f film/television producANGIE DICKINSON tion. For example, the author or rights holder should AND RONALD not have a right o f subjective veto (rights o f consultation REAGAN AT are o f course quite reasonable and to be expected) so THE rank that by capricious decision a third party is able to block the making or marketing o f a film. I f these rights have been granted, however, then perhaps by the advanced stage that the project reaches the FFC these rights can be curtailed by subsequent agreement providing “that there is no substantial change to the script” etc. Other areas ofimportance from the FFC ’s point o f view is that subsequent revenue streams may be available particularly in the area o f merchandising, sound track album and o f course sequels and spin-off television series etc.

The FFC has been set up as a private company owned by the Commonwealth Government for the purpose o f providing financial assistance to stimulate Australian film, television and documentar)' productions. Its internal struc ture is based on the model o f a merchant bank with the specific brief to assist the Australian film and television industry. The FFC has an extremely flexible charter which allows it to provide financial assistance in many ways, principally by way o f loans or direct invest ment as an equity participant in a project. It is envisaged that loans will attract a commercial interest rate and equity investment will involve participation by the FFC in a share o f the profits (if any) o f the project. Repayment of the loans or recoupment o f the equity investment will, in virtually all cases, be restricted to revenues generated by the particular film project and e.g. will not be able to be recovered from the personal assets o f the producer or any other organi zation associated with a film project. The Commonwealth Government has accepted that the FFC will not be “profitable” in conventional commercial terms but does expect that the FFC will recoup at least 50% overall o f its investments and loans. It is for this reason that the FFC (like any financier) needs to evaluate its credit risk when providing financial assistance to a proj ect. In this respect the interests o f the FFC are the same as any underwriter or investor. There will o f course be various areas which the FFC will scrutinize, namely the project’s likelihood o f success, its marketing plans, the track record o f the producer, principal cast and crew, presales agreements, budget etc. These are the major legal aspects which the FFC will be undoubtedly examining.

SCRIPT There should be a formal agreement with the writer/s o f the screenplay, narration etc ensuring that the producer has adequate control over the rights in the script. It will also be necessary to ensure that the script has no problems with respect to defamation or (for US purposes) invasion o f privacy o f an individual. These clearance procedures are particularly important as it will be essential for commercially oriented film and television programmes to have “Errors and Omissions” insurance policies. These policies are required by most foreign and domestic distributors and are often listed as a delivery item together with “chain o f copyright” documents etc.

UNDERLYING RIGHTS MUSIC

The producer should be in a position o f having secured the underlying rights to make and exploit a film or television programme etc so that there will be no problems in the FFC recouping its investment from whatever business that project may achieve. Important aspects o f any “rights” agreement, o f 28

C I N E M A

While many projects coming before the FFC will not have definite sound-track plans those projects with a musical focus or component upon which the FFC will be placing a marketing value will need to have appropriate agreements with P A

P E R S

> 7 1

composers, licence holders, publishers etc. Recorded music will also require synchronization and so-called mechanical clearances. While the FFC may well be prepared to give conditional approval subject to such matters being formal ized it is clear that the producer should be in a position o f a negotiated agreement with the parties concerned.

0 N T H E B A L L Wl S H E S T H E P U B L I S H E R S OF

CAST Appropriate agreements which are more than “intention letters” will need to be in place (or at least negotiated) for important cast and crew members upon which the FFC will base its decision. This will clearly apply to any “name talent”, director, producer etc. Cast agreements should contain the usual “publicity” commitment after production to ensure that the film/series can be marketed to its best advantage.

COMPLETION BOND A Completion Guarantee or Bond is an arrangement whereby completion o f a film/television project is guaranteed should there be a cost overrun due to bad weather, scheduling problems etc. In many ways it is like an insurance policy. Completion Bonds do not cover risks that are already insured, such as illness o f lead cast and overages caused by “enhancement” o f the original film concept as budgeted. While it is early days it is highly probable that the FFC will be requiring a commitment from the Completion Bond Guarantor which is enforceable allowing for reasonable conditions that are clearly within the control o f the producer. As a minimum the FFC will probably require at application stage that the Completion Guarantor has approved the budget. As applications will be more advanced than many projects have been in the past at the onset of raising Division 10BA investment this will probably not be too difficult.

L M V

E W S

AND

EVERY SUCCESS

PRESALES The principal ingredient in forming a “deal” to attract FFC participation will be evidence o f genuine commercial potential in a project - no better way that by an advance payment as a presale from a distributor for the project. I f the presale advance can be by direct contribution to the production budget or be discounted by bank loan etc, it will go to make up a contribution to private sector participation. Obviously the FFC will scrutinize presales agreements very carefully. This will involve a credit analysis o f the distributor concerned to ensure that they will be capable o f paying the sale price when the programme is delivered. The FFC will understandably be cautious about any subjective criteria that a distributor may have as an excuse to not pay upon delivery. Technical re quirements e.g. properly exposed negative, broadcast quality video master etc are o f course reasonable (and usually ensured by the Completion Bond). Sub jective delivery conditions however such as “suitability for the distributor’s purposes” or “artistic acceptability” always create the risk that the distributor may renege on the deal. Similarly bank Letters o f Credit securing presales amounts will need to be as tight and unequivocal as possible. While it is desirable to receive the most generous upfront advance to maximize your “private sector participation” (FFC expects at least 30% [lower for children's programming) the real potential o f your project may be effectively discounted as a result. A classic example o f this is Crocodile Dundee - had this film been presold when it raised its 10BA production budget (like most films at that time) there is little doubt that the investors would have received much less o f the phenomenal returns this film eventually generated. Presales are necessarily very speculative and hence tend to be conservative. A producer should try to structure a presales agreement which gives a reasonable return on the film’s expectations but does not seriously compromise its revenue potential, the so-called “blue sky” .

ON T HE BALL C O M P U T E R

R E S O U R C E C E N T R E S P T Y LTD. F A C I L I T I E S FOR A L L A S P E C T S OF

THIRD PARTIES

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN

The rights and benefits o f contracts should be capable o f assignment to third parties e.g. Completion Guarantor. Depending on the particular way in which the “private sector” participation is raised (may well be under lO BA through a public offer document) possible assignment to a final production entity may also be necessary.

AND TYPESETTING. 265 COVENTRY STREET

CERTIFICATION AS AN AUSTRALIAN FILM The FFC expects that, at minimum, an application will have been made for provisional certification so that the film/mini-series/documentary qualifies as “an Australian film”. There is a misconception that this requirement creates an excessive restriction on one’s ability to use foreign locations, personnel etc. Within reasonable limitation foreign elements can be used providing that “effective creative control” is maintained by Australians. Agreement with the various unions e.g. Actors’ Equity will o f course also be necessary.

S O U T H M E L B O U R N E 3 2 0 5. TELEPHONE 696 1973

SUM M ARY Getting things right “legally” is fundamental for a successful application to the FFC. At the same time you will be setting your project on a sound base upon which the production and hopefully its commercial success can be enjoyed. The secret o f getting the most out o f your lawyer is having a basic understand ing o f what is involved and making sure that your lawyer knows this. Ask questions, read documents and keep your own files. When decisions are made with respect to negotiations, make sure you receive written confirmation that the documentation corresponds with your understanding o f the deal . ■ C I N E M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

P H I L I P B R O P H Y A N D ROD I N T E R V I E W E D BY T O M

B I S H O P R Y A N

ALT, SALIVA, SPERM AND SWEAT TAKES

US ON A RELENTLESS ODYSSEY INTO THE BANALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND ITS PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL REPETITIONS AND OBSESSIONS. THE FILM HAS PROMPTED RESPONSES FROM THE DISMISSIVE "BORING, JUVENILE, AND UTTERLY DISTASTE FUL", TO THE LAUDATORY "FASCINATING, UNPREDICTABLE... THIS FILM'S GOT BALLS." GUARANTEED TO DIVIDE AUDIENCES, SALT, SALIVA, SPERM AND SWEAT IS A COMPLEX AND UNCOMPROMISING OPEpflfpN PERFORMED ON THE BODY OF SOCIAL CONVENTIONS WE ALL INHABIT. TOM RYAN TALKED WITH WRITER/ DIRECTOR PHILIP BROPHY AND PRODUCER ROD BISHOP DURING THE FILM'S MELBOURNE SEASON.

TOM RYAN: C ou ld you tell m e a b it ab o u t th e storyboard fo r the film ? I believe it

was crucial to the production process. ROD BISHOP: Philip wrote the first draft of the film in prose form. Philip, Maria Kozic (Art Director) and I then workshopped it twice more. Philip then developed this into the storyboard, which is really a work of art in itself. There are over 400 separate shots in the film, which is a lot for 47 minutes. I insisted on the storyboard because it would simplify all production processes-budgeting, scheduling, etc. Re markably, not one frame was changed during production. It is an exact blueprint of the film. PHILIP BROPHY: Drafting that storyboard was the hardest thing I ’ve ever done. I’ve always nagged students on the importance of a storyboard, but it wasn’t until I started inking out a complex one that I realized what a pain in the arse it is. It had to be very detailed for us to keep track of the four separate stories and the large number of shots. The other reason it was so difficult for me is because when I have an idea for a film or video I never begin by visualizing it. I conceptualize the sound track first, working with the ideas in abstract. I always hear a film first, and see it last. C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

M S B in t o F I B * SltlffiT lie.

Cu-

/¥»*'rw*< m

-li

-■■'■ ''■'■•"lU I«. /¿Tr S£D. .

U>(. KfSC|ftT M * fF

CU— Ida W ere h t ho/5 0fe«ri*J

4*'**./ fit tree

d t ’Sh eS ■

lot. ¿ p J J i t a .A *

P A* £ [ / J

/ f l f f n a - M t S ' jfa

L S - M*»

r*l*fn, n u r s e ir> ^ ^ erx c A -fo v^a} T ' i r . Se. cr~t. f+ +», i f J p»~TS ^a‘ T’f f

tot.

LOC-

— ». -fterjr

.-------------------------I

,, i S - J/*1 -' z«»"! T / /St j S e c t

letter ¿f JL„UÆ

gi**mr.~Zcarn »*•/t* A,// ¿OOnct

C !<'*u ^ h s s r r -

f tn rM n -f S i,

tot. Sê<- jfcT. Aft /ot)

■(Us) , S

M C - Mar, -U,rr,

maUns V-h t-,—U "T/T"

Lot. ^

Sui.^v (FL-

o .@

/„.U s V /U. U fd r .

\*tJ £ 0 if ir W ft M t

lot. S i (- ItCT. N *

Mrn f taci,

f r - n**i jft like f t *y>K!fi in

IOC. é r f h i n . - r *

lOt. g^7ifCT./ BK M i) ut. ^

c tfs h*i*( rtf* fitf*

r$Yi~ *h*l. fn vt H * * * , * * * fp h tf& tJ

■À* fjs/ij.'fiA f*/fj k fr U *Ji r t i

. crQ h w S r & Ô

Z »5 ^7

fthwOh^f

h * * /k r

•

f£*»vi rf+ jU . X x if fit*IT

/¿ J

u a .Z _

» /'^f

iot.^ L

s t a J i:* 0 < D

/. J

t? i(£ )

'jAf kt-fjoi

//r " ¿cu) . Cfÿ r f C*L *- rtffeu'uy i*,/A# 7“,J \ st.{£L

jftr. A7»

t° 3

CU -Mnui ’S -hrS»

it Ch<f /AeCfmrr, ‘rryc

A/Ate " r; i /*»** A;/

./VCjftT./A* 0 * 0

.— " c

/Hf 7JD«hi /m ^ ( t rd>/t 4T >f r* rr< f « '

¿it~ f

of reap,

7',/^ ' j I( t X _ 3

f 7 f

.— ¿u, ) 4 Cftéif/eid

fC U -

ff* r r f

y/sarss/M inff** <5 t f / h r , ¿ n r , Vf/i f a/ftsr ft —

/ J"r»r---

Sta I n^L( f )

f a *

eito 'tk tf

c y p l‘st“ t >f M an

yr,/.

v c . M / u it a .- T p . t 7 f

flÇ—Mr* torUs ¿fa-r* r'n/i /t i/c/

¿C u - fn t

‘c c

m .J~ $ /7 (£ )

p e r s a ?

* ir O )

c £ fM .< * £ Z .7

T 1

h : n

ct/Jé-r-

,6 >

TU Cf/rp it-*-"I hruUaS nf tU w»*'-

u t.^ O fiT. A-

^ V - S tn n rr j.K y ¿ e f f p r ¿ ‘' / ■ ' i f ' M / f ■

£ CU—Crtr( syt/aC/rr ftstt repas/- j/e's Sfnr/'hr, at/ SXjl Jisn> f i s t i .

0 h w J+ rv

Jh ilt -

« y *¿9

¿f A- /'iwA

(ft

W. & 7T

r f flf SKitlr -rh*~frUU— /!„{,f ifi.

«" 6"* - /' /*”/■ft— if

ffIT

P " P = P ^ _

lk . j £ £ _ n a .

fH S W

£_a Ml

frr. trhtrrofitr lot. |Af C i(CT.

f £ F i u r .M ( *

U W

— f t u r n s t y t n -f -J U U

" 6 K f S A 4 /A -

m\r,s o ff a~U -

J_*_Z_

g iìtìr W

Mi - It ids IulcUtry

Ay O e < yi < -« //// 72«

S°t tu n

ii ' c L it -c n y "

0")

LS— ic y ju t « /!rii// * y e Ils " fr, tfr / "

¿ O f — V/>r ¡ o r - r r r ,:

'ralMf/fnPf,/

cUanyer u ta —

Cu -

//“ " d r

fo /'y -

designed for audience identification. I hope it shows how sex and violence are used in contemporary cinema, and how “good taste” techniques are used to seduce audiences. “Art” films generally use these seductive forms to dress up their “serious concern” for issues o f sex and violence. Any Nic Roeg film in how they have evolved in the past 30 years. During the 1960s, the rationale is an example of this. Or Betty Blue, where a highly questionable morality is for sex and violence in the cinema seemed connected to Marshall McLuhan’s carefully disguised by its “arty” surface. notions o f an exploding globe and imploding cultures. To quote Apocalypse Now, people were bombarded with “the horror”, and, although Coppola’s T.R. One criticism that’s been made of the film - and I think it’s a reasonable film was made towards the end o f the 1970s, the image o f America bombard one - is that it’s puritanical in its concentration on what are conventionally ing Vietnam was an apt metaphor for the 1960s. During the 1970s, the seen as the horrible aspects of the body at the expense o f what are conven boundaries o f realism were extended, and directors like Arthur Penn and tionally seen as its beautiful characteristics. R.B. What has to be said here is that, more than anything else, Salt, Saliva, Sam Peckinpah insisted on showing “realistic” violence. Sex and violence in the 1980s is more concerned with hyper-real Sperm and Sweat is a ism - graphic violence almost beyond our com nihilistic film, and a lot prehension. ReAnimator has a good example of people have an ad THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF SEX IN PO R NO G R APH Y FROM THE o f this: a body opens up and the intestines verse reaction to nihil spiral out and choke a character to death. ism. This is so particu 1970S NOW CROPS UP IN M ORE "ACCEPTABLE" FO R M S ... YO U NG TALENT TIME T.R. I can see what you’re saying in relation to larly in the cinema violence, but where does sex fit in here? which, more than any P.B. The graphic representation of sex in por art form, is heavily de KIDS' TOYS, BODY-BUILDING, SPORTS, COKE ADVERTISEMENTS. IT'S NOT JUST nography from the 1970s now crops up in pendent on escapism. more “acceptable” forms... Young Talent Time, Adrian Martin has de SUBLIMATION. THE DERIVATIVES OF SEXUAL PO R NO G R APH Y ARE kids’ toys, body-building, sports, Coke adver scribed it as an “essay tisements. It’s notjust sublimation. The deriva film” and thought some AR O UND US ALL THE TIME. tives o f sexual pornography are around us all audiences misread it as the time. a film about the exis T.R. How far do you think general audiences tential hiatus o f an of fice worker. Others are tempted to read it ju st as a cerebral account o f sex are aware o f the kinds of meanings representations o f sex and violence have and violence. The truth is somewhere in between. The sex and violence is re taken on in the 1980s? ally the underbelly o f the banality of everyday life. P.B. It depends on the films you’ve seen. Something like The Toxic Avenger P.B. A slse e it, Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat isn’t concerned with the aesthetics shows you how grotesque and deliberately bad a film can be. Halloween is a o f the body. It’s more biological than that. David Cronenberg who made The horror film that displays Jo h n Carpenter’s skill at crafting suspense. The Fly, put it well when he said that cancer cells in the body are amoral. They more you see o f “these” films, the more receptive you are to their differences are not maliciously trying to kill a human body. They are actually wanting to and subtleties... you appreciate them as individual films. But it’s hard survive. Their domain ju st happens to be the human body. A film like discussing the issues, because a lot o f people haven’t seen the relevant films. Flashdance,, on the other hand, is the complete opposite o f a Cronenberg They want to go back to Straw Dogs, Bonnie and Clyde and A Clockwork Orange. film. Flashdance is really cerebral pornography - flesh always in sweat, always R.B. Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat attracted me as a film about sex and violence moving, always physical. And the fuel it runs on is the drive to succeed. It’s that wasn’t going to use the conventional techniques for seducing an even subtitled “What A Feeling!” What feeling? Toyota? It’s a very openaudience... no sumptuous photography, no lyrical music, no characters

> - T.R. To what extent can you identify your motivations for making this particular film? P.B. I’m interested in sex and violence in contemporary cinema, particularly

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

ended film and the complete opposite of Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat, which is claustrophobic and enclosed. We tried to put the audience inside the body, and not to observe it from the exterior. R.B. Adrian Mardn said that as well. He thought it was like being trapped in someone’s skull, with all the sounds beating on you from the outside. I think that’s what makes it feel existential, and that's also why audiences think it runs much longer than 47 minutes. It has its own self-enclosed logic, with no obvious way out. T.R. My response to the film certainly in cludes a sense of entrapment, of being locked inside. My feeling, on a single view ing, was that that feeling was induced by the film’s formal design, most notably the four-part narrative construction which locks you into the same human rituals, albeit in marginally different ways. P.B. I can see that our structure works that way, and,pictorially the film is very sche matic too. But in the making it was the sound that was crucial for us. I wanted the sound to intensify the images and give them more resonance. The sound-track helps enrich the film and provides it with part of its formal complexity. And perhaps more than the images, or the narrative, the sound-track provides the flow by keeping up an onslaught of sounds. And, apart from a few instruments, the music is en tirely made up of body noises - rhythms, beats made up from grunts, handslaps, skin being rubbed, and so on. T.R. These sounds were then fed through a synthesizer? P.B. Basically, yes. The idea was to rein force, on a subliminal level, the continu ing presence o f A Body. Right through the entire sound-track of the film is the sound of somebody breathing. Even over the computer text. It’s something usually left out of cinema (except pornography), unless the point is to make the audience aware of a character being unbearably close to camera. More than anything else, this continuous breathing through Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat gives the audience the sense that they are inside some body’s skull. And that feeling of being trapped, of being confronted by the issues in the film, is what I was after. It’s the very opposite of escapism in con ventional films..I wasn’t interested in escapism. Life’s not like that. The more you try to escape, the more you tend to become locked in. T.R. Are there any filmmakers whom you’d care to identify as having influ enced you in making this film? P.B. Yes. At least four. The first is Russ Meyer, who made films like Beneath the Valley o f the Ultra-Vixens. All of his films since 1972 are complex commentar ies on pornography, seduc tion, erotica, repulsion, en tertainment, and titillation. He is a director who has stepped into the pornogra phy area and deliberately con fused the issues. He is the only film-maker I know of who is seriously dealing with the question, “What is pornogra phy?’’Then there’s Sean Cun ningham and Friday the 13th - because, of all the slasher films, his is the most severely p ornographic I’ve seen. Thirdly, Jean-Marie Straub and his perverse use of lan guage, particularly in Othon, where the actors, in Brechtian fashion, stand around the ruins of the Roman Forum reciting lines from Racine’s play like automatons. And, fourthly, Pasolini’s Salo, which takes on four basic themes - shit, sex, violence and food, the four basic cor nerstones of Italian family life. T.R. I see. What have the audi ence responses to the film C I N E M A

been like? Was Sydney any different to Melbourne? P.B. It’s difficult to say because we weren’t in Sydney for the season at the Mandolin Cinema. And, because that cinema and its audience aren’t at the epicentre of the independent film movement in Sydney, we can’t be sure of audience reaction. T.R. But there were some problems with the independent scene in Sydney, weren’t there?

R.B. I guess you’re talking about Laurie Mclnnes.* P.B. In a way, those sorts of reactions are predictable. 1 was more interested in placing the film in a fully commercial cinema, and thereby ignoring a lot of that scene. We had tried to do that with No Dance without success. This time it worked. R.B. In Melbourne, we got a lot of coverage. In press and radio interviews with Philip, he was able to talk about the ideas in the film. The media down here were much more interested in the issues of sex, violence, horror and censor ship than they were in Sydney. I was especially disappointed with Filmnews. They gave us two reviews in articles on the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals, but nothing else. I thought this was a shame as the issues raised by Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat seemed perfect copy for Filmnews. Sure the film’s confron tational and divides its audience on all those issues. And itdoesn’tfitinto the mould of the “heart-warming-socio-political-conscious-independent film”. But it works, and it challenges. I don’t see what’s gained by ignoring it. P.B. I’m kind of in two minds about the Melbourne/Sydney differences. In July, I was in Sydney for a “Trash andjunk Culture” night and it was well-attended and the audience was very responsive. But I don’t think it was an “arty” audience, or even people who would have gone to the Mandolin to see Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat. Perhaps Melbourne audiences are more tolerant, but I tend to think it’s because they represent more of a cross-over audience - the film buffs, art scene and rock heads seem mixed in Melbourne, but in Sydney those divisions seem more territorial. R.B. Whatever the differences are, they are significant - the gross box office receipts were more than three times higher in Melbourne. T.R. What advantage did you see in using negative reviews of the film in the marketing campaign? P.B. Including negative reviews at least gives you an idea of what the film is like. Mostly it’s good reviews that get quoted by exhibitors and distributors to let you know you’ve made a wise, safe choice if you go to see their films. And, since our film is confrontational, why not reflect that in the advertising copy? ■ *A judge of the 1988 Greater Union Awards, who asked for her dissenting view to be recorded when Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat was selected as a finalist. TO P RIG H T: Two pages from Philip Brophy's storyboard for Salt, Saliva, Sperm an d Sweat. ABOVE AND LEFT: Scenes from the film.

P A P E R S

> 7 1

ENTERTAINMENT TRAVEL SERVICES Due to the ever increasing demands of the entertainment industry, we have been forced to expand into larger and more modem premises.

a move in the righ t direction Our new address 3rd Floor, 441 St K ilda Rd M elbourne, V ictoria, 3004, A ustralia Telephone: (03) 829 2333 Telex: 151452 E ntser.

Domestic Air Travel. Hotel Accommodation. Vehicle Rental.

Email: Slocum AA.

Trucks, Investors, Price, Press, Domestic

24 H our Pager Service (03)648 1706 Toll Free: (008) 331 344 Users of Keylink - .

Ticketing, Coaches, Air Charter, PersonÂ

Telex: (021) 10717545

alities, Computerised Cross Referencing

Fax: (03) 267 5550

Logistics, Budgets, Overseas Travel, Locations, Cargo, Stars, Cars and

of Services, Speed Packs, Hotels, Limosines, Couriers, Itineraries, Rushes.

Wfe try harder

choose

f l y AUSTRALIAN

A DARKENED ROOM Carlton’s La Mama Theatre is one 35mm film will be available for a o f the worst places to screen films long time to come, why is there and yet, because it has become as concern aboutthe ‘death offilm’? familiar as a friend’s living-room to a lot o f people, it is one o f the ANXIETY ATTACKS ‘right’ places for filmmakers like In January 1988 the Cantrills the Cantrills to show their work. visited North America for a five AS A VAN T GARDE FILMMAKERS TURN MORE Enter through the car-park off week screening tour, their first Carlton’s Faraday Street, push trip back since they lived there FREQUENTLY TO VIDEO, W HAT DOES THIS MEAN through the corrugated iron gate from 1973 to 1975. They and into the theatre, a tiny down showed their films in Vancouver, FOR THE FUTURE OF FILM AS A MEDIUM? Montreal, Toronto, New York, stairs room o f an old two-storey warehouse. In a space no more Boston, Chicago, Berkeley, San FRED HARDEN DISCUSSES PROJECTED LIGHT', Francisco and Los Angeles, and than 12 x 10 metres, with seating met with film-makers and ad that angles half the audience to the A LIVE TWO-SCREEN PRESENTATION BY ARTHUR AND screen, with no projection box, so ministrators of venues. The re sult o f their comparison with the the projector noises become part CORINNE CANTRILL WHICH, IN CONSIDERING THE BODY avant-garde filmmaking situation o f the ambience, the Cantrills pre of today with the early 1970s, sented their film event, Projected OF THEIR WORK, ALSO CONTEMPLATES and how this related to the situ Light. Every single seat in La Mama ation in Australia was the subject was taken. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEATH OF FILM. o f the editorial in Cantrills Corinne sat at a small desk Filmnotes Nos 55 and 56. reading her commentary into a The following quotes are from the editorial, the sound-track accompany microphone, beside two small screens. Arthur sat at the rear with the remote ing the Projected Light screening, and subsequent conversations with the controls to the projectors, tape-recorder and his microphone. In those next Cantrills. The subject is not one that can be adequately discussed by quoting two hours I believe they placed their entire (considerable) body of work into facts alone, and the emotional response was expressed clearly in the screenings. perspective, and while I was already appreciative, it became something I care about even more strongly. The experimentation o f their earlier years has been As the ‘editorial voice’ o f Arthur and Corinne explained, “the recurring subject of conversation with filmmakers across North America was anxiety refined and beyond the surface there is now much more o f the filmmakers about the future o f film itself and uncertainty as to the direction to take. Some themselves. filmmakers seem to be pausing in their careers while they evaluate the changing “Thinking o f the underlying themes o f our recent work,” Corinne says situation. Colour reversal printing is no longer available in North America and during the screening, “one could say that In This L ife’s Body (1984) is about this is one more withdrawal o f a filmstock/process in a long line o f them since life and living, that The Berlin A partm ent (1986) is about psychosis, and that 1975 when Kodachrome prints were eliminated by the ‘yellow uncle’.” Projected Life is about death.” “Colour reversal has always been the preferred medium for avant garde That death is her own feeling o f mortality and an anxiety about the disap filmmakers for a variety o f technical, aesthetic and economic reasons including pearance o f many o f the reversal film-stocks used by avantgarde filmmakers more intense colour, longer dye life and tougher emulsion.” a disappearance the Cantrill’s and others feel will diminish the richness of film As the Cantrills pointed out, the alternative is to have an interneg niade and as a projected medium. standard Eastmancolor prints made from this. This is essentially an extra gen eration removed in quality from the direct reversal to reversal print, a quality AGAINST THE GRAIN loss that reflects on those filmmakers who consider the print to be an art work. In the last eight years C inem a Papers has documented the swing from film to With the interneg, it becomes ‘just a reproduction’. Even more important in video as a commercial production medium. There has been a growing accep the uncertain financial world o f avant garde filmmaking, the cost o f this tance o f 1/2-inch video formats like Betacam and the camera people have sold interneg process is a barrier to print sales o f the earlier reversal work to their old faithful 16mm CPs, Eclairs, and Arri BLs. The image quality and reso collectors and galleries. lution required for broadcast TV can be achieved by these electronic cameras, A major reason for the diminishing number o f camera and print stocks is and they continue to get better. video, the Cantrills believe. They argue that the market is being “deliberately Almost as a contradiction to this move to video is the development of new manipulated to prematurely withdraw film equipment, film stocks and proc negative stocks for 16mm, which has now become a real alternative to 35mm esses, to hasten the takeover o f video as a vehicle of major profit to the for commercial broadcast TV series production. The new stocks also improve multinationals... the profit in making iron oxide videotape must be hundred Super 16 blow-ups to 35mm, something which provides an entry for low fold that o f the chemically complex silver-based stocks.” budget feature filmmakers. Even without ‘deliberate manipulation’ there is almost complete disap With the use o f 16mm film assured by this continuing demand and with pearance of educational film print sales and those venues that use only projec- >commercial cinema attendance at the highest point for years guaranteeing that C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7

tors. Without doubt the reasons are the conven ience and lower cost o f video. It has become the preferred distribution , medium for non-theat rical production. Organi zations like the V icto rian State Film Centre are now only purchasing video copies o f pro grammes, a sure sign that the distinction between presenting a film by pro jection and by video monitor is either lost or meaningless to their au ARTHUR AND dience. CORINNE CANTRILL... The lower demand CONTEMPLATING THE for 16mm prints has DEATH OF FILM meant that manufactur ers are ‘rationalizing’ their range, laboratories are being forced into keeping stocks by local distribu tors who are following the same cost-cutting policies as most o f the major manufacturing industries. This means that they don’t hold money in stock and will import as you order (as long as you order a sufficient quantity to make the handling worthwhile). Overall the effect is not felt by the commercial filmmakers working within the borders o f the volume processes o f shooting negative and having prints made from that original. So the impact has been on the avant garde and experimental filmmakers for whom the mechanical process o f projecting their prints or originals is part o f film -making. Film as Film. The US avant garde film makers that the Cantrill’s spoke to reported that transferring their films to video was a non issue, as many o f them have an intense dislike o f video.

PROJECTED (NOT TRANSMITTED) LIGHT In the dark o f the La Mama screening, the pattern o f the evening became clear. It was Corinne who presented the emotional argument, while Arthur pre sented the illustrated lecture as he has done for years, always erudite, the details honed down to the minimum, leaving enough room for the snatches o f irony and poetry. The larger screen was showing Corinne’s Kodachrome documentation o f their house, a Victorian period two-storey with a tower in Brunswick. The house is called ‘Prestonia’, and was built in 1888, significant also as an important year in the invention o f the cinema. With the house as a metaphor for the film apparatus, the ca m era obscura (literally the ‘darkened room’ ) the Cantrills speculated how “turn o f the century architecture and decoration was influenced by the emerging art o f projected light”, on their 30 years o f filmmaking and on how they were now facing the problems o f having to significantly change their technical approach to filmmaking. From an apparent looseness o f Corinnfys handheld moving camera there emerged a stylistic pattern. The film was built o f pans across objects lit by the windows, across light into dark with cuts in the black to come across the subject again and again. It was accompanied by the music o f early composers for the avant garde film , Erik Satie ( who began to publish in 1888), and Italian Fu turist compositions. The other sound was o f the splices in the projector slapping past in the dark as another beautiful saturated Kodachrome image snapped onto the screen, with the attendant film-makers anxiously looking out for signs o f the inevitable scratches from showing the original. And Corinne’s voice over which began.... “Film: I remember he called it, A SU PREM E A RT IN A DARK AGE. The end o f Kinema. “...When we no longer live here, it will be as though we were never here - a fragment o f evidence, perhaps found unexpectedly, but nothing more than that. T o defy that swift erasure o f our imprint on this house, I make this film o f Prestonia — (but not a home movie.)”

The second screen was to show Arthur’s illustrated lecture, using slides and film segments, making a point by example from the work o f Méliès, Baldwin Spencer’s early Australian documentation o f Aborigines, the Sestier 1896 Melbourne Cup, and Emile Cohl, Winsor McCay, Charles Chaplin, and Michael Mideke. This was mixed with examples from their own work like the sequence, their son Ivor’s ritual viewing o f the sunset from the tower on the house from their own Skin o f Tour Eye. The result was that Corinne’s film o f the house was refreshed after every pause and sequences like the burst o f single frame images were an emotional high point placed in the context o f other fast cut/flicker work. Pulling the audience with examples o f the development o f film culture, Arthur played with the presentation o f the lecture as well, using a recording o f his voice to distance it from the live presentation, describing how layer by layer the film stock is made and processed, using the fact o f repetition o f its multi layers to add a monotony o f effect to his description. Not sparing the audience, who still have to make an attempt. Pay attention now. And then the Kodachrome again, and what is as vivid a poem to making film and a description o f the qualities o f a film stock as you will read. Corinne’s voice again..... “Kodachrome is a film o f inherent dramatic and stylized qualities: it is stark, saturated, sharp, rich. Unnaturalistic. In its saturation, it suggests hidden secrets, awaiting a more intense light to reveal them.....Darkness is always in the image, threatening to overwhelm it, to invade it. This film has such depth, body. The physical characteristic o f the film material itself is its thickness, depth o f emulsion, the image almost embossed on its surface. “It was designed to be strong, to be used in the camera and then in the projector. We are now projecting the Kodachrome original - there is a power in the original image which is lessened by printing and duping. “The colour o f Kodachrome suggests glazes, velvet, anemones, and blood...Kodachrome shows not the skin o f a person but the flesh and blood beneath the skin. It does not flatter the human face, but suggests the life force within the person. “Its colours are always heightened. Every colour is more: more crimson, more veridian, more ochre, more violet, more black. “Kodachrome is treacherous and unforgiving - it has no latitude in exposure. It can sink in leaden heaviness, or wash out horribly with too much light. It can become overbearing, exhausting, too much in its richness. It is the opposite o f pastel, cool, bland. “It is the opposite o f TV. “Its processing is complex...and toxic... and only Kodak can process it.”

THE LAST FILMS Towards the end o f the evening Arthur quoted from a letter by filmmaker Michael Mideke : “I f we are going to make the LAST films then we should take them as deep and as far as possible... ...Who pays the bill is ultimately ALWAYS the person who does the work, and those who actually DO the work are those who somehow touch or are touched by what we might as well call The Muse - those who see the possibilities o f an expression and follow it. Generally a very different thing from those who see the possibilities o f an audience and follow T H A T !” There is no hope for the argument that suggests “it is the avant garde filmmakers alone who really love film as a projected medium and therefore manufacturers should continue to produce stocks for them as they are preserv ing something special in our film history”. The reality is that the world o f commerce has no room for that, just as Corinne points out that we are “witnessing the last forests, the last birds and animals. All those experiences which first sharpened the eye and ear to nuance o f tone and form”. Even if the writing is projected on the wall for the end o f a more personal ‘Kinema’, there is some hope in the fact that art colleges and film schools are buying up prints. Maybe they will become, as Arthur suggests, the equivalent o f the medieval monastery, preserving the best o f the film culture as illuminated manuscripts. It is totally up to us to decide if we want the richness and diversity to continue or slide with certainty into some new Dark Age. We must support Screenings by filmmakers like Arthur and Corinne so that we hold the best mo ments for as long as is possible. ■

LYN D O N SA Y ER -JO N E S IS PLE A SED TO ANNOUNCE TH E FO RM ATIO N O F A CO M M ER CIA L L E G A L PR A C TIC E

LYNDON SAYER-JONES AND ASSOCIATES • SOLICITORS

•

TAKING INSTRUCTIONS IN ENTERTAINMENT/MEDIA LAW SUITE 216 2ND LEVEL MIRVAC TRUST BUILDING 185 ELIZABETH STREET SYDNEY AUSTRALIA 2000 TELEPHONE (02) 283 1211 FASCIMILE (02) 283 1227

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

Victorian Film Laboratories offering a complete laboratory service including processing of 16 and 35mm Eastman Colour Negative Ektachrome and B/W Reversal Super 16 and Super 35mm Blow Up Aerial Optical Image Printing H ig h Q u a l it y V id e o t o F il m

T ran sfers

Sound Transfers Etc. O vernight service available fo r rushes Student Rates A vailable

Victorian Film Laboratories PTY LTD 4 Guest St., Hawthorn 3122 Tel (03) 818 0461 Fax (03) 819 1451

THE FINEST MAKEUP FOR PERFECT RESULTS This makeup is unquestionably the most advanced product available. Uncomplicated in its presentation, these creamy, smooth, high-pigmented products are com pounded from the highest quality ingredients and satisfy the demanding needs of motion picture, television, still photography, live stage and society salon. Jpbj?products range from ultra and sheer cover bases, highoeutralizers etc. to specialty products blood, latex, adhesives etc. fismetics fAust. Div.) is a wholesaler and

k of Joe Blasco products. If you are interested iecoming a retailer, please contact Suzanne Dawson, Marketing Manager for more information. W e are located at:-

Suite 34, 34 Queens Road, Melbourne 3004. Ph: (03)8209343 O u r authorized retail outlets are:Melbourne: Mascarade. (03)2662087. Sydney: Three Arts Makeup Centre. (02)6981070. Brisbane: Les Magiques. (07)2299008.

DISCOVER HOLLYWOOD'S GLAMOUR SECRET

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

Âť 7 1

H E R O E S

E T

E N

F A I L

UNLIKE AMERICAN CINEMATIC

AN D TELEVISION PRODUC-

TIO N S

MYTHOLOGIZED A

W H IC H

HAVE

PLETH-

ORA OF CULTURAL HEROES

AN D HEROINES, THE BIO

GRAPHICAL FILM, AS A SUB-

GENRE OF DOCUMENTARY

REALISM, IS O N E WHICH HAS

NEVER BEEN GREATLY DEVEL-

OPED

7AMERICAN GENRE FORMS

THIS

COUNTRY.

HAVE N O T ADAPTED EASILY

STANCES/ AS FILM CRITIC,

JACK CLANCY NOTED IN

1985. INDEED, IT HAS EVEN

BEEN LEFT TO HOLLYWOOD

TO RECONSTRUCT THE LIVES

OF OUTSTANDING AUSTRA-

LIANS,

KENNY,

ANNETTE

SUCH

SISTER

KELLERMAN AN D

AUSTRAUAN

EILEEN

ERROL FLYNN.

CIRCUM-

JO Y C E ,

'WE D O N 'll

LIKE TALL POPPIES HERE; EVEN SHORT ONES/ TERRY SERIO, PLAYING THE TINT-SIZED SO NG PULVERIZER' JO H N N Y O'KEEFE, NOTES GLUMLY IN SHOUT! , ONE OF THE RARE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS TREND/ AUSTRALIAN DOCU-DRAMAS HAVE TENDED TO CONCENTRATE MORE UPON EVENT-CENTRED THAN PERSONALITY-CENTRED NARRATIVES* AS GRAEME TURNER OBSERVES, A MARKED 'DEFLECTION FROM CHARACTER TO SETTING' HAS USUALLY OCCURRED. THE EMPHASIS IS UPON BODYLINE RATHER TH AN BRADMAN, AN D EVEN TEXTS WHICH VERGE UPON THE BIO GRAPHICAL, SUCH AS BURKE A N D WILLS AN D BREAKER MORANTf SUBSUME THE INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE ENGULFING M AW OF THE DESERT OR THE LABYRINTH OF THE RIGGED COURT MARTIAL. CHARACTERS, EVEN CENTRAL CHARACTERS, ARE PRESENTED MORE 'IN A STATE OF BEING', RATHER THAN CONSTRUCTED WITH AN Y SENSE OF 'GROW ING OR BECOMING'.2

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

*71

HUS, PERSONALITIES AND TH EIR SOCIAL and/or psychological evolu

couldn’t get on stage, couldn’t get recorded, were certifiable if they don are not of central interest in most Australian films. Rather, it is thought they could succeed internationally ... J O ’K is more than the story what they - as relatively unexamined ‘givens’ - do, or, more often, what is o f Australia’s first rocker: he is the storv o f Australia in the fifties, sixties and done to them by the force of outside circumstance which is o f prime seventies - perhaps even the eighties. ”" concern. Granted such a static approach - where individuals are fixed in A reconstructedjohnny O ’Keefe is here freighted with a considerable time, objectivized and sometimes scapegoated - it is not surprising that burden o f nationalistic signification; and he remains two-dimensional most biographies tend towards the stereotypical, and that the most full precisely because he is purposefully constructed as a placard rather than blown efforts have been reserved for comic strip characters (Fatty Finn, a complex human being. Graeme Turner is actually commenting upon Breaker Morant and Gallipoli, but could ju st as accurately be describing Ginger Meggs, Barry McKenzie), for fictitious flawed superheroes (M ad Max I, II and III, Crocodile Dundee I & I I ) or even horses (Phar Lap, Carbine). Shout! when he states: “Gaps in the substantiality of character are filled by ... the insertion of nation; and characterization is made to enact a consen The few historic personalities whose life-processes have been central sus not on the basis of what constitutes the individual experience of ized in an Australian film narrative are usually those whose major achieve Australia but... of what constitutes the common, unindividuated experi ments have occurred outside the domestic sphere: for instance, the Nazience. So Australianism in a character in film is often used as a substitute for busting activities of Nancy Wake in occupied France or the vocal callisthen (and paradoxically as a signifier of) individuality and authenticity. ics of Nellie Melba at Covent Garden, London and the Metropolitan, New York. The one exception has been The Slim Dusty Story, where the famous Johnny O ’Keefe becomes less o f a rounded personality', less indeed of a public commodity, marketed for teenagers by the recording, television country singer’s outback horizons are always considered rewardingly wide enough. Significantly the strange triumvirate of Nellie Melba, Slim Dusty and entertainment industries and more of a national ‘type’, baiting the monstrous ‘cultural cringe’ in its lair - the hearts and minds of the Austra and Johnny O ’Keefe are the only Australian singer/entertainers who have received a full biographical treatment on film; and the four television lian people - only, ultimately, to be stalked and brought low by it once hours devoted to the latter in the Ben Gannon/Ted Robinson, Channel more in his declining years.' Seven mini-series, Shout! The Story o f Johnny O’Keefe represents one of the ‘Australians are as good as anyone in this world!’ a patriotically bright longest extended coverages o f the life-span of a celebrated Australian.3 eyed O ’Keefe tells his partner, Marianne Renate, as they watch Betty Cuthbert winning her Olympic gold in Melbourne on a A certain symmetry of theme, in terms of both storefront black-and-white television set in 1956. similarities and contrasts, links these three stories. The following year, however, after he has initially Like Melba, O ’Keefe’s professional trajectory is the quest for international fame, but, unlike her, he failed to impress Festival Records with his talents, he I HE GREAT AUSTRALIAN fails dramatically in both New York and London. rails bitterly to Bill Haley, the first American rock’n ’roller to visit these shores, ‘It’s not just me, He tends subsequently to mount as many come CRINGE LIES AT THE VERY HEART Bill! It’s anything Australian! Could be a washing backs as she does farewells. Like Slim Dusty, he machine, a car, even an idea! If it’s Australian-made turns for regeneration to the solid support o f rural OF THE JOHNNY O'KEEFE STORY. it’s third rate!’ O ’Keefe’s dawning awareness o f the Australia, represented in Shout! in two dissimilar debilitating cringe becomes visually explicit as he guises - the first All-Australian Rock and Roll Tour AT A TIME WHEN AMERICANS confronts it upon the revolving stage of that ugly old o f country towns in 1960 and the Arcadian Sunbury tin pile, the Sydney Stadium at Rushcutters Bay. Pop Festival in 1973. Unlike Slim Dusty, whose WERE AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING This mise en scene, especially reconstructed for the travelling tent show is the central vehicle for his mini-series, is redolent of great boxing tournaments sustaining contacts with the ‘true Australia’, FORTHEIR NEXT ROCK-AND-ROLL o f the past and thus represents an ideal place for a O ’Keefe’s stint with a tent show in the late sixties, confrontation. O ’Keefe’s adversary, however, is his ‘on Sideshow Alley doing 16 shows a day with a HERO, AUSTRALIAN ROCKERS own audience and his struggle is for the right to be Maori group’ is shown to be the absolute nadir of heard. The incident has become somwhat apocry his roller-coaster career: ‘The biggest downer ever,’ COULDN'T GET ON STAGE... WERE phal, through being embellished by the real Johnny according to O ’Keefe’s own testimony. Nor is the O ’Keefe, as part of his astute construction of his own bush so unproblematically supportive for this ‘Wild legendary status during his lifetime.3 CERTIFIABLE IF THEY THOUGHT O n e’ from the metropolis. It almost claims his life As he originally recalled the event in the early in a horrendous car smash in mid 1960, outside sixties: ‘When I first appeared at Sydney Stadium Kempsey (the town of Slim Dusty’s birth) and ulti THEY COULD SUCCEED INTERNA with Little Richard... you could feel the resentment mately robs him o f a deal o f his sanity.4 among the audience. They even booed me [because Thus, like the major characters in a host of TIONALLY... ROBERT CASWELL I was Australian]. I was scheduled to do three numbers Australian films, whose ‘individuality resides in ... and in that time I had to win the audience over. I got their vulnerability when confronted by the events’, an encore. It was one of the most exciting moments Shout!’s Johnny O ’Keefe also awaits his ultimate o f my life.’ By the mid-seventies, O ’Keefe’s retelling of this anecdote had perdition. Like Breaker Morant, or Frank and Archy in Gallipoli, eagerly considerably tightened and refined its dramatic mood of confrontation off to their respective wars, he sets out buoyantly to seize the times and to and triumph. As he told an interviewer on Sydney’s 2SM in 1977: ‘I think master his own fate. As he tells bemused ABC officials, while rehearsing his the first thing that I ever remember about Australian audiences was the first Six O’Clock Rock appearance: ‘We could reach out and shake Australia, Little Richard tour... Allen Hefferman who... used to handle all the intro I know we can do it ... I know how to set this studio on fir e!’ Yet, as a ductions said, “And now here he is, Australia’s first rock’n ’roll star, Johnny character, scriptwriter Robert Caswell’s Johnny O ’Keefe operates to a O ’Keefe.” I ran down the aisle into the centre stage of the stadium and all finite set of determinants. The basic template which Caswell’s script bolts I heard was “Boo-oo!”, “Hisss!”, “Get O ff!”, “Go Home Mug!” and all this to the performance of Terry Serio outlines a two-dimensional figure who sort of stuff you know. I put my hands up in the air and said, ‘Now wait a is outwardly brash, but inwardly ‘desperately dependent and needy... the minute! You may boo me and you may poke fun at me but you all paid your very forces in his personality which make him so successful initially, lead money to come and see me BECAUSE YOU ALL LOVE ME ... ‘Ah, Shakehim to self-destruction’.5 a-baby, shake-a-baby shake...’ and it was on from then on it never happened Despite this cautious foray into pop psychology however, the film any more.’1'1 provides no explanatory framework for this alleged dualism in the man’s It is no doubt understandable that the docu-drama plumps for the nature. Indeed, O ’Keefe’s formative years are sprinted through breath latter interpretation. ‘Good television’ as Stuart Hall demonstrates, seizes lessly in four short scenes at the film’s opening, indicating little more than upon the immediate, the visually dramatic to deliver a rapidly moving the precocity of a five year old child. The years 1940 to 1953 are then simply incident-filled fram e.11’ Given such prescriptions, the image o f O ’Keefe, vaulted. (Even the photo montage suggested in Caswell’s original script gradually winning his audience across to the point of ‘encore’ over three was missing from the televised version.) Suddenly, it is 1953, Johnny numbers is less accessible - though seemingly more plausible than the O ’Keefe is eighteen and, in close-up, is being pelted with eggs and brash retort which spontaneously grabs their applause, before even a note tomatoes during his first stage appearance at the Bondi Auditorium. of music is heard. In short, it isjohnny O ’Keefe, ‘the larrikin king’ rather It is, therefore, Australian public reaction to the local performer which than O ’Keefe, the proficient rock and roll singer who spectacularly cap is highlighted here rather than any intricate quest after the inner man. tures their hearts.11 Rather than pursuing the elusive rewards of the psycho-drama, both Indeed, it is the audacity of the larrikin which fuels his ‘slow, hard director and scriptwriter are admittedly after bigger and undoubtedly eas climb to notoriety’ in the first half of the mini-series. He is depicted obses ier game. Johnny O ’Keefe ‘... was ferociously pro-Australian at a time when sively ‘two-timing’ his future bride in order to satisfy female fans, brawling it was the least fashionable thing to be,’ stated director, Ted Robinson in at dances and impulsively hurling a rock through Festival’s plate glass September 1985. What he was really fighting, scriptwriter Caswell adum doors when he is originally passed over as a recording artist. This taboobrated, was ‘the great Australian cringe... T hat’s why I like this story. The challenging, belligerent behaviour, however, is not presented as conven mad Irish rebel tells them all to “Get Stuffed!” Upon finishing his script in tionally dysfunctional, but instead as thematically associated with a power January 1986, Caswell added: “The Great Australian Cringe lies at the very house drive to national fame, particularly in one extended montage, heart o f the Johnny O ’Keefe story. At a time when Americans were featuring an explosive on-stage performance, intercut with rapid sensual aggressively looking for their next rock-and-roll hero, Australian rockers

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

images of drugtaking and promiscuity, accompanying his singing of ‘ (I’m a) Wild O ne’ on Six O’Clock Rock.'2 The larrikin in O ’Keefe is not presented as a ‘folk devil’, therefore, threatening social norms and courting repression, but rather as a tradi tional national ‘type’, demanding acceptance and exculpation. In this way, national myth-making is used to smooth over socio-cultural differences. Johnny O ’Keefe, along with what the contemporary media branded as ‘his mug-lair antics’, is delivered up for consensual acclaim .13 Much like the swagman and the earlier slum-larrikin, whose contradictory presence was mediated by literary myth-making - from troublesome social comport ment to enshrined national distinctiveness - so, too, the flash bodgie is received here into the nation’s heart. He is cleansed o f all counter-cultural challenge and Australia’s rock and roll story becomes simply a rollicking good time for all, rather than the period of aesthetic crisis and intense socio-cultural conflict it really was. In the mini-series, therefore, nationalistic imperatives demand that generational differences (as well as ethnic, religious and gender ones) are marginalized, and, whenever acknowl edged, are easily negotiated away with a smile and a song. As Serio/O ’Keefe de livers a sexually explicit performance of the standard rhythm and blues ‘Flip, Flop and Fly’ at the Leichhardt Police Boys Club, a police sergeant in the audience jocularly tells O ’Keefe’s parents, ‘If he did that on the street I ’d arrest him .’ His mother, Thelm a responds laughingly, ‘You wouldn’t have to, I ’d shoot him .’ Humour thus becomes the mechanism whereby the threshold of toleration is raised and conflict defused. O ’K eefe’s sub-cultural provocation becomes noth ing more sinister to the ‘older genera tion’ than exuberant, youthful hi-jinx, easily containable within the margins of a concert hall stage. At another perform ance, where he effortlessly cons a parson into accepting the wholesomeness of rock and roll by presenting it as a gospel bal lad, the message is clearly conveyed that, on his road to national acceptance, his real enemy will always be the cultural cringe, never the generation gap.11 The rise o f the rock and roll hero is represented therefore as healing all breaches as he comes to them. Further more, O ’Keefe’s rise singularly becomes both the story of rock’s triumph in Aus tralia, and of Australia’s own climb to ^ popular cultural maturation. The struc ture of a complex entertainment indus try, incorporating the careers of scores of performers and entrepreneurs, is encap sulated within that of a single persona who both unifies and succeeds. The peo pling of a mini-series apparently, must reconcile itself to the limitations of a very small screen. Apart from the Delltones who, unnamed, merely provide O ’Keefe’s vocal backdrop, and rapid ‘walkons’ by ‘C o ljo ye’ and ‘Laurel L ee’, virtually no other Australian performer is seen. The ‘Wild O n e’ is left to stand alone, facing the US entertainment onslaught. O f the American artists featured, in turn, each is presented as intrinsically flawed. Johnny Ray, who successfully toured Australia several times, causing fan riots in Sydney, becomes ‘the biggest Ilopperoo you’ve ever seen’; whilst his singing voice, like that o f the Platters, is represented not by original recordings, but by a feeble imitation. Chuck McKinney’s Little Richard is simply a black buffoon and Jo h n Paramour’s Bill Haley is seared by alcoholism. Shout!’s ‘J ohnny O ’Keefe’ is thus allowed an unnec essary head-start in matching or outclassing such performers. His ‘real-life’ achievement, in baiting audiences to call him back, in preference to hearing imported ‘originals’, is significantly down-graded. All this is done, it would seem, to display the cultural cringe to present audiences as a foolish and unnecessary inferiority complex. Yet, as histo rian Stephen Alomes writes, local performers working in cultural areas which first developed mass markets overseas were unavoidably hostage to this dependency. Both the creativity and the technology for reproducing it were foreign inspired and controlled. Given this history, Alomes sug gests, ‘the cultural cringe to overseas... was ... arguably legitimate - learning from the best made sense as the amateur copies from the professional.’ Thus, there is much more to negotiating cultural disadvantage than out performing American artists on-stage. J O ’K began his professional career as a copyist - consciously apeing Johnny Ray and then Bill Haley - before his own peculiar white/black synthesis of urban commercialism and the 40

C I N E M A

rural American ‘blues shout’ fused to generate a unique sound - and, as one critic noted, ‘You could hear the streets of Sydney in that voice.’ 13 O ’Keefe’s early cultural dependency is invariably presented more in terms of personality dynamics than of artistic development.Despite the film ’s purported intention to display the exuberance o f youth culture through the medium of O ’Keefe’s musical performances - something it does accomplish in terms of pure spectacle - the music itself is constantly de-contextualized, torn from its correct time-frame and interpolated into the narrative with careless abandon. Records not cut by O ’Keefe until the mid-sixties or even the seventies are presented unproblematically as his ‘sound’ in the mid-fifties. It’s only rock and roll, so what does it matter, the soundtrack keeps implying; it all sounds the same, anyway. ‘Rock and roll is bloody terrible music, Jo c k ,’ the jazz-orientated Dee Jays tell O ’Keefe in one early scene and even though he embraces it as ‘the greatest music you’ll ever hear,’ he privately admits to possessing ‘a lousy voice’." ’ The question of rock and roll’s evolving aesthetic form over two decades thus receives little priority. What is not understood is that this music must be evaluated according to its own standard, o f tonality and forceful sense of over-statement, its own com pen dium of unique phrasings, accents and rhythms. ‘ [D] istortions of pitch and elon gations and ellipses o f rhythm ... are unnotatable in terms o f conventional musi cal literacy, but relatable to folk and primi tive origins,’ Thus Johnny O ’Keefe ar guably had a ‘lousy voice’ and little art istry by operatic or harmonic crooning standards, much as blues singers Howlin’ Wolf or Ray Charles have ‘lousy voices’. Just as the creativity' of popular culture is conventionally derated - as criteria ob served fleetingly alongside everyday life, like a passing billboard - so too the artis tic com ponent in O ’Keefe’s own musical evolution is here consistently devalued. Rock and roll, which Johnny O ’Keefe continually acknowledged as the pivot of his existence, becomes in the process mere trivia.17 Because rock music is regarded as too ephemeral to sustain analysis, the issue of cultural symbiosis is never examined culturally in the film. Personal ity types, not musical transmissions, be come once more the conduit of cultural interaction. Thus, the young larrikin type O ’Keefe is first given direction by a Bill Haley father-figure. ‘Look for me in any m irror,’ Haley somewhat darkly tells him, as he ostensibly provides O ’Keefe with his first hit record. In fact, this trite novelty tune, ‘ (You Hit the Wrong Note) Billy Goat’, penned by Haley himself, originally sold less than 3,000 copies for the Australian and got him precisely nowhere. As jazz guitarist Frank Beecher informed Haley’s biographer,John Swen son: ‘None of [Haley’s band]... were professional songwriters... and... some of the stuff they came up with was actually ridiculous... “(You Hit the Wrong Note) Billy Goat”... It wasn’t thought out, it was ju st thrown together.’ Haley’s contribution, then, was no more than an embarrassing throw-away - a mere bone for the underdog down-under, following Haley’s tumultuous Australian tour in January 1957.18 By contrast, O ’Keefe’s real breakthrough into the Australian charts was with ‘Wild O ne’ in March 1958 - a song locally and conjointly written by O ’Keefe himself, Sydney disc-jockey Tony Withers and the Dee Jays’ two saxophonists, Dave Owens and Jo h n Greenan. The first Australian rock and roll hit, therefore, was entirely homegrown, not an American reject. Furthermore, the song was then copied byjerry Lee Lewis at Sam Phillip’s legendary Sun studios as well as by jerry Allison, backed instrumentally by Buddy Holly and the Crickets. The cover version, marketed as ‘Real Wild Child’, entered the US Billboard charts in O ctober 1958. Thus, in actuality, the story o f Australia’s first rock recording success is the polar opposite of the film ’s interpretation: an Australian original, enthusiastically copied by American rock luminaries. One indeed might be excused for wondering where the cultural cringe lurks deepest...Hl Secondly, and more profoundly, the cultural dependency pattern is personified by O ’Keefe’s close relationship with form er Chicago entrepre neur, Lee Gordon. Once again, the raw Australian lair is seen to require the controlling hand of the worldly-wiser American. Although Gordon’s ec centricity and instability is captured by an inspired, twitchy performance from Jo h n McTernan, he is invariably shown to be O ’Keefe’s superior at P A P E R S

>71

THE C I N E M A P A P I K S AUSTRALIAN FIL C A L E N D A R FOR 1 9 8 9

• TW ELVE M EM O R ABLE IM A G ES FR O M M O R E T H A N A DECADE O F A U S TR A L IA N C IN E M A . • A H IG H Q U A L IT Y C A LE N D A R T H A T W ILL RECALL THE BEST IN AUSTRALIAN FILM, A N D R EM IN D Y O U O F IM P O R T A N T DATES IN THE FILM M A K ER 'S A N D FILM G O ER 'S YEA R . • A N IDEAL C H R ISTM A S G IFT - IN V A LU A B LE T H R O U G H O U T THE YE A R . N

________________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS I ENCLOSE A CHEQUE FOR $

FOR

CALENDAR(S) PAYABLE TO MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED,

43 CHARLES STREET, ABBOTSFORD, VICTORIA, 3067 PLEASE DEBIT MY BANKCARD

MASTERCARD

TO THE AMOUNT OF $ CARD NUMBER _______________________________________________ EXPIRY DATE_____________________________________

SIGNATURE

VISA

CINEMA

PAPERS

BACK

ISSUES

NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974)

NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979)

NUMBER 43 (MAY/JUNE 1983)

NUMBER 58 (JULY 1986)

David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The C ars that Ate Paris.

Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thoms, Stax, A lison’s Birthday

Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, C arefu l He Might H ear Tou.

Woody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The Fringe Dwellers, G reat Expectations: The Untold Story, The Last Frontier.

NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974) Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy Harbutt, Film under Allende, Between The Wars, Alvin Purple

NUMBER 3 (JULY 1974) Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O ’Brien, William Friedkin, The True Story O f Eskimo Nell.

NUMBER 10 (SEPT/OCT 1976) Nagisa Oshirna, Philippe Mora, Krzysztof Zanussi, Marco Ferreri, Marco Belloochio, gay cinema.

NUMBER 11 (JANUARY 1977) Emile De Antonio, Jill Robb, Samuel Z. Arkoff, Roman Polanski, Saul Bass, The Picture Show Man.

NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977) Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John Scott, Days O f Hope, The G etting O f Wisdom.

NUMBER 13 ( JULY 1977) Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeannine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search O f A nna.

NUMBER 14 (OCTOBER 1977) Phil Noyce, Matt Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John Huston, Luke’s K ingdom , The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady.

NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978) Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan cinema, T he Irishman, The C han t O f Jim m ie Blacksmith.

NUMBER 16 ( APRIL-JUNE 1978) Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The A frica Project, Swedish cinema, Dawn!, Patrick.

NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978) Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The Prowler.

NUMBER 18 (OCT/NOV 1978) John Lamond, Sonia Borg, AJain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy’s Child.

NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979) Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sarris, sponsored documentaries, Blue Fin.

NUMBER 24 (DEC/JAN 1980) Brian Trenchard-Smith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, H arlequin.

NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)

NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980)

NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)

David Puttnam, Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, C hain Reaction, Stir.

Paul Cox, Russell Mulcahy, A an J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka Stockade, W aterfront, The Boy In The Bush, The Woman Suffers, Street Hero.

NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980) Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, W ater Under The Bridge.

NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980) Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, Richard Franklin’s obituary o f Alfred Hitchcock, the New Zealand film industry, G rendel Grendel Grendel.

Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French cinema, My B rillia n t Career.

Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms.

Ken Cameron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim Dusty Movie.

NUMBER 49 (DECEMBER 1984) Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch McGregor, Ennio Morricone, Jane Campion, horror films, N iel Lynne.

NUMBER 29 (OCT/NOV 1980) NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985) Stephen Wallace, Ian Pringle, Walerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill Conti, Brian May, The Last Bastion, Bliss.

NUMBER 36 (FEBRUARY 1982) Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, Blow Out, Breaker M orant, Body Heat, The M an From Snowy River.

NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982) Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama, Monkey Grip.

NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982) Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, F ar East.

NUMBER 39 (AUGUST 1982) Helen Morse, Richard Mason, Anja Breien, David Millikan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema, National Film Archive, We O f The Never Never.

NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982) Henri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray JJarrett, My D inner With A ndre, The Return O f C aptain Invincible.

NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982) Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The T ea r O f Living Dangerously.

Mel Gibson, John Waters, Ian Pringle, Agnes Varda, copyright, Strikebound, The M an From Snowy River.

Robert Altman, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnes Varda, The AFI Awards, The Movers.

NUMBER 60 (NOVEMBER 1986) Australian Television, Franco Zeffirelli, Nadia Tass, Bill Bennett, Dutch Cinema, Movies By Microchip, Otello.

NUMBER 61 (JANUARY 1987) Alex Cox, Roman Polanski, Philippe Mora, Martin Armiger, film in South Australia, Dogs In Space, Howling III.

NUMBER 48 (OCT/NOV 1984)

Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Burns, John O ’Shea, Bruce Beresford, B ad Timing, Roadgames.

Bob Ellis, Uri Windt, Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw.

NUMBER 59 (SEPTEMBER 1986)

NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984)

NUMBER 28 (AUG/SEPT 1980)

NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983) NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979)

David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lambert, a personal history o f C inem a Papers, Street Kids.

NUMBER 51 (MAY 1985) Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo, Winners, '¡he N aked Country, M ad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms.

NUMBER 52 (JULY 1985) John Schlesinger, Gillian Arm strong, Alan Parker, soap operas, TV News, film advertising, D on’t C all Me Girlie, For Love Alone, Double Sculls.

NUMBER 62 (MARCH 1987) Screen Violence, David Lynch, Cary Grant, ASSA conference, production barometer, film finance, The Story O f The Kelly Gang.

NUMBER 63 (MAY 1987) Gillian Armstrong, Antony Ginnane, Chris Haywood, Elmore Leonard, Troy Kennedy Martin, The Sacrifice, Landslides, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Jilted.

NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987) Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, Mel Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian Trenchard-Smith, Chartbusters, Insatiable.

NUMBER 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987) Angela Carter, Wim Wenders, JeanPierre Gorin, Derek Jarman, Gerald L’Ecuyer, Gustav Hasford, AFI Awards, Poor M an ’s Orange.

NUMBER 66 (NOVEMBER 1987) Australian Screenwriters, Cinema and China, James Bond, James Clayden, Video, De Laurentiis, New World, The Navigator, Who’s That Girl.

NUMBER 53 (SEPTEMBER 1985) Bryan Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, Return To Eden.

NUMBER 54 (NOVEMBER 1985) Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, rock videos, Wills A nd Burke, The G reat Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster M iller A ffair.

NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986) James Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian Thompson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, tie-in marketing, The R ight-H an d M an, Birdsville.

NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986) Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, stunts, smoke machines,D ead-E nd Drive-In, The More Things Change, K angaroo, Tracy.

NUMBER 67 (JANUARY 1988) John Duigan, George Miller, Jim Jarmusch, Soviet cinema- Part I, women in film, shooting in 70mm, filmmaking in Ghana, The T ea r My Voice Broke, Send A Gorilla.

NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988) Martha Ansara, Channel 4 , Soviet cinema Part II, Jim McBride, Glamour, nature cinematography, Ghosts O f The Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean.

NUMBER 69 (MAY 1988) Special Cannes issue, film compos ers, sex, death and family films, Vincent Ward, Luigi Acquisto, David Parker, production barome ter, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes.

NUMBER 70 (NOVEMBER 1988) Film Australia, Gillian Armstrong, Fred Schepisi, Wes Craven, John Waters, A1 Clark, SBame Screenplay Part I.

ORDER

FORM

CIN EM A PAPERS/ FILM VIEW S SUBSCRIPTION Cinema Papers is published six times a year and now includes Filmviews magazine. Prices include postage. I 1 new subscriber | | 1 year $28.00

Q renewal, (I orginally subscribed to Q Filmviews Q 2 year $52.00 Q 3 year $78.00

Q Cinema Papers)

SUBTOTAL $

1 9 8 7 / 8 8 FILM V IE W S /C IN E M A PAPERS CA TA LO G U E O F N E W FILMS A N D V ID EO S IN A U S TR A LIA N D ISTR IB U TIO N . In one volume Australia’s most comprehensive Listing o f Films and Videos in Australian Distribution. Filmviews/ Cinema Papers Catalogue o f New Films and Videos in Australian Distribution is the only comprehensive listing o f all currently released films and videos available in Australia each financial year. Included are all imported and Australian produced titles, listed alphabetically under categoiy headings. The Catalogue enables anyone seeking a particular title to quickly check its availability and distributor. The Catalogue includes all 35mm and 16mm features, shorts, documentaries and home video releases, as well as educational, management training, health and safety, and how to programmes. Also listed are all new acquisitions available for free borrowing from Government film libraries. Each Catalogue entry includes the following: 1. programme title 2. director 3. country o f origin. 4 year o f completion 5. running time 6. censorship classification 7. format/gauge 8. synopsis 9. distributor/government film library (including address telephone and fax number). In addition there is a separate Title, Director and Personality Indexes to facilitate quick and easy cross referencing. O f particular use to video retailers and librarians are the censorship classifications; an essential guide and cost effective hedge against stocking unclassified programmes or programmes refused classification. NOTE: The Catalogue is regularly updated with a 48 page insert available by subscription (see next box for more details). 1987/88 Catalogue (published August 1988) Prices include postage

Institutions $35.00

□

Individuals $25.00

SUBTOTAL $ ._____

C A TA LO G U E UPDATES The Filmviews/Cinema Papers updates to the Catalogue o f New Films and Videos in Australian Distribution are published three times a year . An Update consists o f a 48 page A4 booklet with the information presented in the same manner as it appears in the catalogue, (see above) □

Year $12.00

□

2 Years $22.00

□

SUBTOTAL $ ____

3 Years $30.00

BACK ISSUES T O C IN EM A PAPERS Issue Nos □

1-2 copies $4.50 each

□

3-4 copies $4.00 each

Total number o f issues required_____________________

□

5-6 copies $3.50 each

□

7 or more copies $3.00

Total cost o f back issues $ _______________

SUBTOTAL $ ____

TOTAL

PAYMENT

FORM

FOR ALL

CATEGORIES

Please send entire page not just this form N am e______________________ Address__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Postcode____________________Country_________________________ T i t l e __________________________________ Company_______________________________________________________ NB: Foreign orders should be accompanied by bank drafts in Australian dollars only. All prices are in Australian dollars. TOTAL $ ___________

Enclose is my cheque/order No./Postal order for $ __________________ Please debit my

Bankcard

Mastercard

Q] Visa

Card N o ____________________________________________________________ Expiry D ate___________________________ Signature_____________________________________________________ CHEQUES PAYABLE TO: MTV PUBLISHING LTD., 43 CHARLES ST, ABBOTSFORD VIC 3 06 7 , AUSTRALIA.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L R A T ES 6 Issues

1 2 Issues

1 8 Issues

I Y ear

2 Y ears

3 Y ears

B ack Issues (A d d to th e P ric e o f each co p y )

Z o n e 1 : N ew Z ealan d N iu gin i B

Surface 36.00 Air 48.00

Surface 65.00 Air 90.00

Surface 97.00 Air 136.00

Surface 1.20 Air 3.35

Surface 36.00 Air 42.00

Surface 65.00 Air 77.00

Surface 97.00 Air 116.00

Surface 1.20 Air 2.25

Surface 36.00 Air 59.00

Surface 69.00 Air 112.00

Surface 102.00 Air 168.00

Surface 1.20 Air 5.15

Surface 37.00 Air 65.00

Surface 67.00 Air 125.00

Surface 101.00 Air 187.00

Surface 1.40 Air 6.20

Surface 37.00 Air 71.00

Surface 68.00 Air 136.00

Surface 187.00 Air 205.00

Surface 1.50 Air 7 .2 0 ^

■ Z o n e 2 : M alaysia

■

S in g ap o re

Fiji

B B B B B L2 B B B

Z o n e 3 : C h in a H on g K ong In d ia Ja p a n Phillip pin es

a B

Zone 4 : U SA

C an ad a

M id d le E a s t

B B a B

B B

a a

Z o n e 5 : B rita in E u ro p e A frica S o u th A m erica

a S l l I l I B I l i H l I l l l l l l l l l l l

Liberty Records was the most successful independent label on the American west coast at this time, possessing a stable of performers from torch singers like Julie London to inspired rockers like Eddie Cochran. O ’Keefe’s rich ‘New Orleans’ sound, however, interested its talent-spotters greatly. Consequently, he enjoyed his most artistically satisfying and com mercially successful recording session ever in their studios. It produced five Australian ‘Top 20’ chart entries in 1960; and two of these records became regional hits in the United States —topping sales in New York and New Orleans, black American music’s spiritual hometown.2 * Far from behaving unprofessional!/ in America, Johnny O ’Keefe undertook a gruelling twenty-three states tour in a month, provided inter views for every teenage magazine, issued colour film clips to cinemas and television stations and appeared successfully on Dick Clark’s ‘American Bandstand’ and New York’s ‘Clay Cole Show’, where to quote O ’Keefe: ‘I ended up M.C.-ing the show with Cole and I thought it went very well.’ (At no time, apparently, did Cole call him an ‘Asshole’.)2'1 In retrospect, then, Johnny O ’Keefe’s failure to ‘conquer America’ professionally can hardly JOHNNY O’KEEFE’S BIGGEST PROFESSIONAL MISTAKE in the docu-drama be ascribed to personal failings. The crassness of the campaign lay not so occurs when he travels to America in 1959-60 to promote his career inter much in O ’Keefe’s loud suits, but in Liberty’s naive and racially insensitive nationally without Lee Gordon’s guidance. ‘Never set foot out of the promotion of him as ‘The Boomerang Boy’. Furthermore, Bill Haley con country, never been as far as Tasmania’, Gordon mocks him, ‘and he wants tributed to the overall disappointment by supplying his former manager, to lob in the middle of the biggest market in the world!’ O ’Keefe is going ‘Lord’ Jim Ferguson - variously described as a small time ‘con artist’, ‘un to need Lee Gordon, we are informed, like Presley needs Colonel Tom believably vulgar’ and ‘not sharp enough ... to be a top show business man Parker. Yet, when Gordon vanishes and O ’Keefe travels on alone, the lar ager’ - as O ’Keefe’s American publicity agent. (J O ’K did have his Colonel rikin rocker’s fatal flaws - indiscipline, pigheadedness - precipitate his Tom Parker in America after all!) Finally, the timing of the tour was inaus monumental undoing. picious with the shattering ‘payola’ scandals breaking upon the US record The wild colonial boy, it seems, cannot cut it in the big city. He turns ing industry. Billboard magazine reported in May 1960 that, in response, a publicity exercise in Central Park, New York into a fiasco by arriving late, many radio stations were adopting ‘better music’ formats and banning as the script directs, ‘with two black women. He has been partying all night rock and roll from the airwaves.2” and can hardly speak he is so Although failure remains the drunk.’But his ultimate humili dominant motif, what was remark ation occurs when he appears on able about O ’Keefe’s American ‘The Ed Sullivan Show’, wildly T H E IMAGE OF THE BATTLER, BRAVE BUT BEATEN, IS interlude in 1959-60 was its lim perform ing ‘Shou t!’ before a ited success. As Paul McCartney bemused US television audience. 'THE SINGLE MOST REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER' IN THE recalled recently o f the Beatles’ ‘You goon... Ed Sullivan... andyou decision to tour America in 1964, sing a love ballad’, Lee Gordon CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL IDEN some five years after O ’Keefe’s has warned him, but a ‘supremely attempt: ‘... the vision started to confident’ O ’Keefe will not listen. TITY, AND STOCK FODDER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF push forward a bit. We started to ‘Lay back, Jo h n , pull right back’, think “Well, wait a minute, we could Newark disc jockey, Clay Cole tries TYPICAL AUSTRALIAN HEROES... OUR MYTHOLOGICAL do well in America”, which was to direct him before he charges unheard offor a British a ct... Luckily bullheadedly onto Ed Sullivan’s we didn’t know what America was HALL OF FAME IS CRAMMED WITH THOSE WHOSE VAL set. ... or we probably would have been This performance of ‘Shout!’ too intimidated...’ O ’Keefe’s am IANT ENTERPRISES YIELD A BITTER HARVEST... - with O ’Keefe clad in a loud ze bitious efforts were thus somewhat bra-striped suit and backed by a ahead of the times, rather than black vocal trio - is the pivotal boorishly behind them. The film’s point of the biography. The scene, tendency to eschew narrative complexity or any ‘reflective understanding’ shot firstly from an audience viewpoint and then repeated from a backof cultural and socio-economic realities, however, effectively prevents this stage perspective, both closes ‘Part O ne’ and opens ‘Part Two’ of the mini from being shown.2h series. As well as providing this climax, the song serves as both overture and

decision-making, particularly upon business matters. Indeed, the ‘mateship’ bond developed between the two men is closer than that of the singer’s first marriage and, at times, hovers on the brink of the inexpli cable, the eerie. O ’Keefe first sees Lee Gordon on the movie screen and his larger-than-life image mesmerizes the budding entertainer. ‘We connect, Jo h n , we got the same monkey on our back, same demon - ’ Gordon later tells him as they ‘embrace fondly’.Thus, if the undisciplined Australian and the ruthless American represent national types, their mateship link becomes a metonym for our post-war imperial alliance, a bond which - the film seems to signal - is stronger than mere words can convey. When Gordon and O ’Keefe share their dreams, the form er to ‘make this coun try something... with international acts’; and the latter to make Australians international acts, their contradictory intentions are neady elided. Impe rialism nurtures nationalism, rather than frustrating it, is the lesson clearly conveyed.20

coda to the overall production. Performed before Australian audiences, the number conjures first hysteria and later nostalgic devotion. Yet per formed ‘coast to coast across America’, it centrally signals only disgrace. Only his black backing group, it appears, really appreciates his pulsating, raucous sound as, off-stage, white executives grimace and shake their heads. Unlike Elvis Presley and, later, the Beatles who conquered the USA and thus the global entertainment empire via ‘The Ed Sullivan Show’, it is implied, Australia’s number one recording son blows his chance by insensitively cavorting like a noisy hoon, disastrously behind the times. ‘G entle’ Brook B enton’s mellifluous rendition o f the standard ‘Fools Rush In ’, which follows, indicates the wave of the present, while delivering a musical riposte to O ’Keefe’s own foolishness. ‘H e’s singing like a white man. You might try it some time, Asshole’, Clay Cole spits out at a speechless O ’Keefe, over Benton’s insistent crooning.21 The demonstrable truth of the matter, however, is thatjohnny O ’Keefe never appeared - singing ‘Shout! ’ or any other song - on ‘The Ed Sullivan Show’. Artistic licence has here allowed conscious mythmaking to super cede historical accuracy. To begin with, O ’Keefe’s recording of ‘Shout!’ was inspired by the Isley Brothers original version on RGA V ictoi, also cut in 1959, ‘in the best traditions o f frenzied gospel’ music. It had ju st been a million-seller for them in the United States.The Australian equivalent, ‘rehearsed and recorded in 20 minutes at 2 a.m. one Friday morning’, was an epic 4 1/2 minute match for the Isley’s ‘delirious... call and response original. O ’Keefe later claimed it as his biggest success, insofar as a spon taneous ‘association of ideas’ was concerned. And it was O Keefe s spirited ‘Shout!’ which captured the attention of American entrepreneurs (rather than alienating them ), securing him a five year contract at Liberty record ing studios in Los Angeles in November 1959. Ironically, it was only in Australia and New Zealand that ‘Shout!’ struck trouble, being banned from radio because - as one disc-jockey candidly put it - it sounded too much like ‘nigger music’. The Antipodean cringe against it was both gen erational and racial.22 C I N E M A

I n PART TWO OF THE SERIES, O ’Keefe’s American tragedy signals a profound change in his persona. After his international rebuff, no longer can the larrikin succeed. His ‘bad manners’ result in a serious showdown at a Canberra charity performance after which he rages at the night sky, ‘A whole town hates me!... Be the whole country next!’ Then his reckless, bodgie ways cause his near-death in a horrific car crash. A final desperate grab at overseas success induces a nervous breakdown in London and in carceration in a mental institution. Significantly, while the US metaphor hasbeen humiliation, the metaphor for England is imprisonm ent-the mis understood Australian, thrown strait-jacketed into a cell by the British, like a proverbial convict. Significantly, it is an Australian psychiatrist and O ’Keefe’s alter-ego, Lee Gordon, who rescue him.27 Such scenes of incarceration do replay, with some veracity, incidents from O ’Keefe’s short committal to Tooting Bee mental hospital in early 1961. Yet this detailed accounting of hty institutionalization in Britain contrasts starkly with virtual avoidance of similar scenarios in Australia, although O ’Keefe was the victim of five further collapses, with consequent committals to Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and North Ryde. Britain incarcerates, Australia supports, is the message conveyed. In reality, Johnny O ’Keefe was never reticent about his mental difficulties and, indeed, did much publicly to promote understanding for those similarly afflicted. ‘He even made a production of going to the bug house,’ as a friend once put it. Yet the unitary, nationalistic emphases of the biography always encourage a flight from difference - a fear of deviancy. The mental health issue is never seriously addressed. Once more, any attempt to convey individual psychological complexity is lost in the emer gence of another stock national character - the battler.28 ‘Johnny O ’Keefe [has earned] a name among the ranks of the Great Aussie Battlers’, ran pre-publicity for the series. Ensuing dialogue such as, ‘How am I going to make them love me now?’, ‘I never want to sing again’ and ‘Am I dead?’, coupled with images of his battered face and of body >■ P A P E R S

« 7 1

language indicating ‘a sense of limitation to the flesh’, now replaces the larrikin’s form er buoyancy and swagger. His career trajectory runs down wards, or merely horizontally, as the battler ‘pits himself against over whelming odds which cannot be defeated, even if they are confronted head on.-9 His final, wrenching confrontation with the ‘Great Australian Cringe’ comes in 1974, when two American performers steal his arrangement of the rhythm and blues standard, ‘Mockingbird’ and their record is pro grammed on local radio in preference to his. ‘This was my last chance, I can’t fight any m ore’, he tells his second wife, Mau reen Maricic, as she urges him, ‘On your feet, Jo h n ’. ‘No... I hurt... I ’m sick of getting up! Who gives a damn?’ he tearfully replies. Even a rousing statement and a quote from Emerson fail to galvanize him. He ‘looks at her, no energy left. He places a heavy hand on the arm of the chair’.30 This image o f the bat tler, brave but beaten, is, as Graeme Turner shows, ‘the single most representative character’ in the construc tion of national identity, and stock fodder for the produc tion of typical Australian heroes. Much as the subjected Irish and Welsh have elevated their martyrs to legendary status, so too our own mythologi cal hall o f fame is crammed with those whose valiant enterprises yield a bitter harvest - at Eureka, at Glenrowan, at Gallipoli and Singapore. Tales of golden promise soon tarnish tragically. Leichhardt, Burke and Wills and Lassiter are engulfed by the desert. Bert Hinkler and Kingsford Smith are swallowed by the skies. William Lane fails in Paraguay. Gough Whitlam is humbled at Yarralumla. Memories are always cherished of such heroic battlers, beaten by the odds - Les Darcy, Phar Lap, Eddie Gilbert... and Johnny O ’Keefe. Such myths ‘accommodate us to the inevitability of sub

je c tio n .’ Partly, this arises from convict origins and survival ordeals in a harsh land. Yet, ultimately, the myths are those o f a dependent people who treasure the struggles which are never won. Just as Australia, in its colonial relations with Britain and America, has never established independence from outside control, so too its national mythology invariably accommo dates itself to heroes who often fail.31 The Australian entertainm ent industry, like the economy generally, is disadvantaged by foreign intrusion and control. Australia has the second highest per capita expenditure upon recorded music, yet thousands o f in digenous music makers struggle to survive. As Shane Moloney writes: ‘Some 99 percent of manufacturing licence fees and artists’ royal ties sold in Australia are payable to people outside... It is not ju st our mines and forests that are being plundered but our very earholes.’ Yet, despite Johnny O ’Keefe’s militant stand before the Industries Assistance Com mission during the final years o f his life, argu ing unsuccessfully for sizeable grants to aid local music, and for a fifty percent parity quota for Australian records on national radio, a characteristic silence prevails over this struggle in the mini-series. Although O ’Keefe is ulti mately complimented, ‘You had the dream... and young kids in this country dare to dream that bloody dream because o f you’, nothing is disclosed about what materially awaits them when they try to make that dream a reality.32 Instead, following his early death, J O ’K is symbolically transmuted through suffering by having a Countdown award for ‘Best New Australian Talent’ named after him. The alleged substantiality o f this achievement is underscored by having ‘real’ individuals, Ian Meldrum and O ’Keefe’s own daughter, Vicky, deliver a closing panegyric. As the rebel yell o f ‘Shout!’ fades on the soundtrack, the conservative message - ‘celebratory and com placent’ - that there is culturally nothing left to struggle for since Johnny O ’Keefe passed this way, is the final burden which this television biography obliges its battling ‘Wild O ne’ to bear.

Fo o tn o te s

1. J. Clancy, ‘The Search for Form in Australian Cinema’, Islan d22 (1985): 22; R. Caswell, Shout! The Story o f Johnny O ’Keefe (Sydney: Currency Press, 1986) 103; Truth 3 Ju n e 1962. 2. G. Turner, National Fictions. Literature, Film and the Construction o f Australian Narrative (Sydney: Allen and Unwin 1986) 100; Clancy, ‘Search for Form ’, 25. 3. Shout! The Storv o f JohnnvyO’Keefe, produced by View Pictures Pty Ltd for the Channel 7 Network, on a budget of $2.2 million. Shown on HSV7 7.4.86 - 9.4.86. 4. M. Fabinyi, ‘J ohnny O ’Keefe. High Rolling at 42', Bottom Line FebruaryMarch 1977, 7 5. Turner, National Fictions, 100; Caswell, Shout!, 10, 62-3. 6. E. McWilliams, ‘J .O ’K -O .K .’, Look and Listen 2,2 (1985): 12-13; Caswell, Shout!, 9. 7. Turner, National Fictions, 103. 8. Caswell, Shout!, 39, 48. 9. D. Plummer, ‘A Bouquet for Johnn y’ Woman’s Day, 30 April 1962 90; G. McCadden, ‘Johnny Tells Us All About It!’ TVWeek, 24-30 March 1960, 11; 1977 interview with Jo h n O ’Keefe, rebroadcast on 2SM, 6 O ctober 1978. 10. C. McArthur, Television and History (London: BF1, 1978), quoted in Documentary Genres, Course Dossier, School o f Humanities, Griffith University, 1987; See also: W.H. Cohn, ‘History for the Masses: Television Portrays the P a s t Journ al o f Popular Culture, 10, 2, (1976), 280-87; J. Ellis, Visible Fictions, Cinema: television: video (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982) 109-60. 11. K. Quinnell, ‘J . O ’K. The Larrikin King’, Rolling Stone, 2 November 1978, 54-6. 12. S. Bridekirk, ‘The Noisy Achiever’, Cinema Papers 58 (July 1986), 43. 13. See, for instance, Truth, 3 and 10 Ju n e 1962. 14. Caswell, Shout! 33-4, 37-8. 15. S. Alomes, ‘An Austerican Culture? Australian Rock from Johnny O ’Keefe to Jimmy Barnes’, Island 30 (1987), 58; M. Butler, ‘J .O ’K’, Rolling Stone, 2 November 1978, 56. 16. Caswell, Shout! 20 and 35-6. 17. W. Mellers, Twilight o f the Gods. The Beatles in Retrospect (London: Faber andFaber, 1973), 24-30; R. Meltzer, The Aesthetics o f Rock, (New York: Some thing Else Press, 1970); I. Chambers, Popular Culture. The Metropolitan Experience (London: Methuen, 1986) 17-39; L. Zion, ‘Pop Music and Aus tralian Culture: Some Considerations’, Melbourne Historica Journal, 14 (1982): 18-33. 18. J . Swenson, Bill Haley (London: W.H. Allen, 1983), 104; Caswell, Shout! 42

C I N E M A

40, 58-60. 19. Jerry Lee Lewis, ‘Wild One: (March - April 1958)’ Liner Notes, Sun Records; J. Goldrosen, Buddy Holly. His Life and Music (London: Charisma Books, 1975) 121-2. 20. Caswell, Shout! 24, 53, 128. 21. Ibid, 71-2, 83-90. 22. The Rolling Stone Illustrated History o f Rock and Roll, edited by J. Miller (New York: Random House 1976) 374; Johnny O ’Keefe, 2SM interview, 1977; R. Iredale, Cover Notes,Johnny O ’Keefe Live on the Gold Coast, Calendar records, M X27305, 1968;J. Bryden-Brown,J. OK. The Officialjohnny O ’Keefe Story (Sydney: Doubleday, 1982) 72; R. Evans, ‘Shakin’ at the Stadium; The Advent o f Rock ‘n ’ Roll in Australia’. Now Dig This! 16 (July 1984), 12-15; R. Evans, ‘Johnny O ’Keefe; A Personal Memory’, Klatschblatt (Uni. o f Qld.) 2 ,5 (1978): 10-12. 23. C. Gillett The Sound o f the City: The Rise o f Rock and Roll (London: Souvenir Press, 1983), 101; Bryden-Brown, J. O K., 73-4; J. Broven, Walking to New Orleans. The Story o f New Orleans Rhythm and Blues (Sussex: Blues Unlimited, 1974). 24. G. McCadden ‘J ohnny Tells’, 8-11; C. Higham, ‘Our Coolest Cat Invades the U .S.’ Australian TV Life 1, 3 (April 1960), 4-5; Bryden-Brown, J .O K, 72-4. 25. N. Teller, ‘Johnny Dodges the Cops!’ 7Y Week 7-13 April, 1960, 16-20; J . Swenson, Bill Haley, 114-15; Rolling Stone Rock Almanac: The Chronicles o f Rock and Roll (London: Macmillan, 1983) 54. 26. ‘Paul McCartney’, Rolling Stone: 20th AnniversaruySpecial Edition (O cto ber 1987), 19. 27. Caswell, Shout!, 102, 124-30. 28. B. Sheridan, ‘What Makes Johnny Run?’ TV Times, 28 February 1963, 12-14. 29. McWilliams, ‘J. O ’K - O .K.’ 13; Caswell, Shout!, 104, 113-16; Turner, N ational Fictions 21; S. Bagwell, ‘The wild, wild days o fjo h n n y O ’Keefe’ The Weekend Australian Magazine, 10-11 August, 1985, 3; S. Cook, ‘J . O ’K set to rock again’, TVWeek, 14 September 1985, 4-5. 30. Caswell, Shout! 153 31. Turner, National Fictions, 110; M. Dunn, Australia and the Empire. From 1788 to the Present (Sydney: Fontana/Collins, 1984),7-12, 212-15. 32. S. Moloney ‘Our Music Makers: Monopoly Rock rakes in and rips o ff, The Independent Australian 3, 2-3, undated, 2.6; S. Chappie, R. Garofalo, Rock’n ’ Roll is here to pay. The History and Politics o f the Music Industry (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1977); Bryden-Brown,/. 0 % 149; Caswell, Shout! 153. The adjective ‘bloody’ was dropped from the televised script.

P A P E R S

*7 1

nie S ta r Movers W E KNOWHOW TO GET THINGS MOVING MICHAEL JACKSON • ELTON JOHN • DIRE STRAITS • ROD STEWART • DlSf

ICE • FIELDS OF FIRE • TOTAL RECALL •

DAVID BOWIE • KENNY ROGERS • BILLY JOEL • ICE HOUSE • BON J<

LM • THE SHIRALEE • SQUIB • TELECOK

STEVIE WONDER • ANSETT • FORD • GMH • NISSAN • CROC<

GE DWELLERS • LES PATTERSON SAVE:

W e’ve been in the business for years . . . moving super stars and equipment around the country or, across the world. We know what they want and need . . . and, we make sure they get it. Our clients all share one common business technique when it comes to travelling. They need and insist on cost effective efficiency, to us it’s just part of our service. “As the industry leader we know what service is all about and we make it happen” Domestic or International Travel □ Accommodation □ Rental Cars & Trucks □ Domestic & International Freight Forwarding □ Air Charters □ Truck Charters □ Bond Storage & Local Cartage □ Carnet Certificates □ Custom Clearances & Attendances □ So when you want to get moving - give us a ca ll. . .

THE STAR SERVICES GROUP LTD Sydney: (0 2 ) 5 5 0 3 0 0 0 . Toll Free Bookings: (0 0 8 ) 2 2 1 0 2 7 . Telex: AA 7 3 3 6 1 . Fax: (0 2 ) 5 1 6 2 9 7 1 . Email: SHOWFREIGHT - AA. Now with offices in Perth & Melbourne.

> - THE

f ir s t p a r t o f t h i s a r t ic l e a p p e a r e d i n t h e f i n a l

ISSUE OF FILMVIEWS. IN THE INTERESTS OF CO N TIN U ITY, A N D BECAUSE WE FEEL IT WILL BE OF INTEREST TO CINEMA PAPERS READERS, WE TAKE UP WILLIAM D. ROUTT'S EX A M IN A TIO N OF THE IDEA A N D METAPHOR OF ARCHITECTURE A N D CINEMA IN THE WRITINGS OF EARLY FILM THEORISTS.

WILLIAM

D ROUTT

A l l , A l l , A l l - Serg ei E

a t t e n t io n

is e n s t e in

t h e

G la ss H o u se

17 S eptem ber 1 9 2 7

H E STO RY so FAR... The spectator, ani mated by the desire to see the play o f images has been drawn into the cin ema, a Dream House with a sudden inside. Before the screen, she finds herself displaced and wonders what the na ture o f that sensation may be. Several (obscure) writers are consulted for their ex planations o f this Mind House, and the French theoretician and film-maker Jean Epstein is seized upon and wrung out, be cause the author likes the way he thinks. Now read on...

l t h o u g h je a n e p s t e i n ’ s may be the most elaborate development o f this sort o f thinking, our topic will not let us leave without pay ing some attention to the work o f Elie Faure, an aesthetician whose enthusiasm for the cinema in the early twenties helped to legitimize it. Initially Faure previsioned the cinema as architec ture in motion in an apocalyptic experi ence: “At Naples, in 1906, I saw the great eruption ofVesuvius. The plume o f smoke, two thousand metres high, that rose above the mouth o f the volcano was spherical, outlined against the sky and sharply sepa rated from it. Inside this cloud, enormous masses o f ashes assumed form and became formless unceasingly, all sharing in the modelling o f the great sphere and pro ducing an undulation on its surface, moving and varying, but sustained, as if by an attraction at the centre, in the general mass, the form and dimensions o f which nothing appeared to alter. In a flash it seemed to me as a I looked upon the phenomenon that I had grasped the law o f the birth o f planets, held by gravitation around the solar nucleus. It seemed to me that I was looking at a symbolic form o f that grandiose art o f which in the cinema we now perceive the germ, the development o f which the future doubtless holds in store for us, namely a great moving construction ceaselessly reborn o f itself under our eyes by virtue o f its inner forces alone.” 1 The kinship with what Epstein would be writing 24 years later is clear. Faure, however, continued to write, and his later work took a significantly different direction. In ‘Introduction à la mystique du cinéma’ (c l9 3 4 )2, the root metaphor for cinema had changed from architecture in motion to music for the eyes (cf. Germaine Dulac). And in ‘Vocation du cinéma’, which appeared in 1937, he extended the line o f his thinking further - to the cinema as language. Cinematic language, it seemed to him, might include all that

t o

C I N E M A

verbal language does, and more. For ‘an immense domain is forbidden’ to verbal language and open to the cinema, ‘that o f the object inscribed plastically [plastiquement] in matter and o f the languages which express it’.3 Here the representation o f space-time on the screen, the specificity o f place to which I referred earlier, has become the foundation o f a new and more complete way o f communicating, one which subsumes and surpasses architecture and music as well as verbal language. The connection between an experience o f space and a language o f space is neither simple nor obvious, for all that Faure slides easily from one to the other. Indeed, the idea o f cinema as language seemed, as it was taken up in the late 60s and early 70s, partly designed to keep the experience o f viewing a film at a distance, down there with ‘parole’ and all that was unscientific and particu late. Representation provides the foundation for the connection. Represented screen space (‘language’) causes one to have an experience o f space which is more or less identical with what can be inferred from the manifest image, just as (it is assumed) signifiers cause their signifieds to be evoked in the minds o f readers and/or listeners. The idea o f language, then, throws once again into relief the problem of where screen space is itself located. What has been written about the nature o f cinematic space does not provide very many ways to break down the polarity o f the earliest casual metaphors for spectatorial experience. I f the fundamen tal spatial experience o f the cinema is, as all o f these writers seem to agree, one o f displacement, is it that screen space has been displaced into the spectator or that the spectator has been displaced into the space on the screen? Language says that neither o f these constructions is correct. The spectator has been displaced into language, which is a relation between things and people. Yet language implies a world view, a universe. It surrounds the spectator. She can see and comprehend only what it is prepared to allow. The space experienced is not ‘real space’ (whatever that may be) nor, strictly speaking, ‘subjective space’ (an equally meaningless phrase), but the space created by the limitations o f language, its inability to say everything. Language in this sense is prior to any films. A specific film becomes the occasion for such linguistic experience, but the film no less than the spectator is inhibited by language in the same way that any particular instance is reduced when it is incarcerated within ‘an unvarying rule’. Epstein and Faure do not quite see things this way. Indeed Faure is quite definitely not writing about a cinematic language that already exists. He is gesturing in the direction o f something that is to be. And Epstein is describing a universe that arises out o f filmic experiences, not something that pre-exists them. At the same time both are preoccupied with the way in which ‘a machine’ can transform the conditions o f human existence (so also Martin Heidegger on ‘The question o f technology’) and so a simple recourse to interiority in the form o f individual consciousness will not suffice. Epstein quite deliberately sets about constructing the figure o f the cinema as a thinking machine in L ’Intelligence d ’une machine, ‘a philosophising machine . . . a sort o f partial mechanical brain’.4 It is thus not at all the case that man or his machine has discovered a reality P A P E R S

« 7 1

which was pre-existent but, on the contrary, they have constructed it accord ing to the preestablished mathematical and mechanical rules of space-time. Reality, the only knowable reality, does not exist, but it does make itself, realize itself or, more exactly, it must be made. This is only possible within the known framework determined by the operator charged with making the formula work, that is, by the thinking apparatus, whether it be human or inhuman... The cinematograph is itself also an experimental device that con structs, that is, which thinks, an image o f the universe.5 Something like language is implied in ‘the pre-established mathematical and mechanical rules o f space-time’, but those rules are not what we come to know through the cinema, but rather the universe-in-process which they govern. At the same time, this universe does not replace our universe. It remains a way o f looking, o f experiencing, o f knowing. It does not become a way o f life. It is ‘only an idea, an artificial idea for which one can claim no other existence than an ideological and artificial one, a trick of some kind’. 6 Cinematic space, then, in the account o f it supplied by Epstein and perhaps inferable from the work o f some others, is space in the mind, but in the mind o f the cinema, space which we can mentally occupy and which we can mentally manipulate, but not space into which our minds can be (long) subsumed nor space which we can destroy by disuse or disbelief. Henri Agel calls the chapter o f Esthétique du cinéma. that he devotes to the school o f theorists which included Epstein and Faure (as well as Canudo, Delluc, Dulac) ‘Promotion du rêve’ .7 Epstein, besides nominating the cinema as a machine for thinking, also called it ‘a machine for dreaming’ and pressed the analogy both formally and culturally.8 In the last o f Epstein’s books, Esprit du cinéma, published posthumously, Agel says that he gave increasing prominence to the connection between cinematic experience and dreaming, joining forces, at least in spirit, with the surrealists.9 This is not surprising, for the experience o f another mind, another universe, which Epstein describes is hardly different from the liberating dreamworld o f surrealism. Apparently parallels between the two experiences, as distinct from parallels between the contents of the two ‘worlds’, have only been acknowledged (or rediscovered? ) recently by writers in English10 but the French pretty much took the relation for granted until Bazin and the Cahiers du cinema push, undertook to rewrite the history of film thought in the 50s - and even then this mode of thinking continued alive and well in the pages of Positif and o f books published by Le Terrain Vague. Screen space, dream space. And yet I don’t know. It seems to me that there is a vital difference between the two experiences - a difference, moreover, which is ex pressly spatial. In dreams I am surrounded by dreamspace (and this is true even if I am only watching what others do), but in the cinema filmspace never encloses me. No matter how intensely, how completely I experience a film, it is always already elsewhere, outside of me, up on the screen. I watch a movie, I live a dream. Cinematic space is distant, and my participation within it is, unlike my participation in a dream, consciously illusory, finally willed.

Old an d New, Que Viva Mexico) is more a function o f their evocation o f masses in conflict, o f illusory volumes and weights slamming together, than o f the clash of ideas he so wanted to represent ( ‘kino fist’ he called it). And A lexander Nevsky wad the two parts o f Ivan The Terrible, although less aggressively, exu berantly, dynamic, still stick in the mind principally as consisting o f images o f figures o f inhuman density challenging the limits o f timber, metal and stone (and ice). Indeed, stills from these later films illustrate as few others do what the cinema as architecture might be. In 1939 perhaps it is not surprising that the edifice Eisenstein drew was not unlike a Grecian temple, a government building or a bank. The mythic connotations of such a building fit perfectly with the heroic Soviet realism then in fashion, and its derivation from European antiquity expresses the rather equivocal position o f the post-1934 Stalinist cultural policy which most historians believe had victimized the director. In the late twenties, however, I imagine he would have drawn something more like Vladimir Tatlin’s proposed steel tower for the Third International, an unfulfilled emblem of the

T he G lass House On March 10th, 1939, Sergei Eisenstein sketched out a plan for the book he was writing on film direction.11 He titled it in English ‘The Building to be Built’ and it was, just that in outline form: a picture of a building, a neoclassical building seated on an impressive podium made up of ‘Dialectic method’ at the foundation, surmounted by a two-tiered stylobate o f ‘Human expressiveness’ (to show two stages). Above this is a tetrastyle portico. The outer two columns are ‘Pathos’ and ‘Comedy’ respectively, and the inner two, flanking the door o f ‘Montage’, are labelled ‘Mise en scene’ and ‘Mise en cadre’ (mise en frame, as it is sometimes called). The ‘Montage’ door is set in the facing wall of IMAGE (it is ‘a door to the understanding of the image’ ) and has its name written vertically to show that it brings together ‘everything in itself, including the latest understanding o f sound.’ ‘Montage’ and ‘Mise en scene’ are shaded, indicating that they are 70% finished . Emotion thought is inscribed on the cornice, which with the eaves of ‘Sociology’ and ‘Tech nique’ encloses ‘The philosophy o f art’ in a pediment. Atop the whole structure flaps the banner o f ‘Film method’, free-waving (and somewhat anachronistic) counterpart to the firmly grounded ‘Dialectic method’ be neath. I do not find it surprising that, o f all directors, this one should resort to a proto-architectural sketch in attempting to conceptualise a project. The almost physical impact o f his earlier ‘montage’ films (Strike, Potemkin, October, C I N E M A

revolution. Here the conceptual elements of the design would have had to spiral around a core, and the whole, rather than being safely capped by a flag, would have had to project its result onto the clouds. At that time, when Eisenstein’s attention was given over to the possibilities of montage, and his own films were making eccentric spaces of bodies, faces, ships and livestock as well as buildings, he characterized the notion o f editing which had preceded his own as ‘a means of description by placing single shots one after the other, like building blocks’.12 Here the metaphor of building (a wall?) is intended to convey mere surface depiction and linearity (‘ unrolling an idea with the help o f single shots’ ): Bakshy’s two-dimensional space in its nega tive aspect. Eisenstein’s own space was never so fiat, so uniform. But, as careful as any poet, he sought out a root metaphor to point up the contrast with architecture: ‘The shot is a montage cell (or molecule)’." Spatially, and cinematically, the > FACING PAGE: From Eisenstein’s scrapbooks picture o f Frank Lloyd Wright's drawing for a Glass Tower, 1930. ABOVE AND FO LLO W ING PAGE: Sergei Eisenstein: Sketches for The Glass House project, 1947.

P A P E R S

* 7 1

image evoked is astonishing, although it has not been, so far as I am aware, the subject o f much comment. For the shot envisaged here is a nucleus generating significance in four dimensions (temporally as well as spatially). A cell or molecule is surrounded by its counterparts, linked backwards and sideways as well as forwards. It is as though from any one point in a film different simultaneous sequences o f images would be triggered, creating continually interlinked and successive networks. On a very simple level something like this happens in a well-known section o f Potemkin when a sailor hurls a plate to the deck in fury and his whirling motion is repeated, not once but several times. Suddenly we are forced back along the axis whence we came and, because o f the circularity o f the motion, there is a sense o f expanded experience, ‘a new, higher dimension’.*3456789*124 ‘The filmic fourth dimension’ is the title o f an August 1929 essay designed to explore some o f the implications o f this notion o f montage, particularly as they arise from Old an d New. The diction o f the article suggests very strongly that Eisenstein did not go into this film project with definite ‘montage principles’ in mind - rather, he seems to have discovered them, as we might, in trefr --the process o f examining the film text. In any case, what catches him up here is ‘overtonal montage’, structuring according to ‘the visual overtonal complex o f the shot’.1516The overtone ‘cannot be traced in the static frame, just as it cannot be traced in the musical score. Both emerge as genuine values only in the dynamics o f the musical or cinematographic process’.16 The over tone, then, is something new, an ele ment o f purely cinematic space invis ible in ordinary experience, ‘an actual element o f - a fourth dimension!’17 For Eisenstein, too, the four-di mensional film experience is defined by the addition o f time to the other three dimensions. And Eisenstein also invokes the theory o f relativity to validate the idea o f the world as ‘a four-dimensional space-time continuum’.18In addition, he stresses a certain ‘physiological’ quality o f this kind of montage which allows him to claim an essential similarity between visual and aural overtones and to prefigure some questions o f the addition o f sound to visual images by incorporating the soundtrack into the apparatus o f the filmic fourth dimen sion. The appeal to the senses also allows him to appeal to criteria o f experience which escape the prison o f intellect. For the musical overtone (a throb) it is not strictly fitting to say: “I hear.” Nor for the visual overtone: “ 1 see.” For both, a new uniform formula must enter our vocabulary: “I feel.”1920 Yet finally, I think it would be a mistake to conflate Eisenstein’s and Epstein’s descriptions o f the nature o f cinematic space. The mistake, I think, would lie in taking their accounts o f spectatorship as essentially the same. The hand o f revelation lies heavily on what Epstein has written: the cinema, the intelligent machine, can change one’s life. Yet, despite one’s expectations o f radical technological instrumentality in the frankly political writing o f Eisen stein, the chain o f force runs in the opposite direction: it is the revolution which has changed the cinema, not the other way around. Such a conception invests the spectator with what may be called ‘a responsibility o f seeing’. In this way o f thinking, films remain films, they don’t become dreams. The fourth dimension is there, on the screen, for you and me to find and to experience, if we know what to look for. It is not going to sneak up on us unawares and snatch us away. In many ways the clearest understanding o f Eisenstein’s notion o f film space in its difference from other sorts o f space can be drawn out o f his project for a film to be called The Glass House (1 9 2 6 -4 7 ).211 The idea arose out o f experiments in building with glass which the film director and former engineer apparently heard o f first in Berlin.21 It was later confirmed by a Frank Lloyd Wright drawing o f a glass tower which he saw while he was in the United States in 1930, casting about for a project that might be acceptable to Paramount. Indeed, in spite o f the Germanic inspiration for the building o f glass, The Glass House was conceived o f from the start as an American film: ‘A look at America through walls . . . Treatment to parody the material o f real America - America seen through Hollywood cliches.’ There was no story (the project finally foundered for lack o f a story). The whole idea was simply a collection o f incidents to take place in that location: a skyscraper o f glass. Within this structure action would take place which would then be shot through its walls, its floors, its ceilings: ‘Take the most ordinary actions and change the point of view’. At first the occupants would not be aware o f one another: ‘All live as though there are real walls, each for himself. Later they would see and react: ‘In a capitalist sphere this leads to chaotic hatred, violence and catastrophe. Explosion o f passions until the house is in ruins.’22 Eisenstein’s sketches show glass rooms and people from odd angles. Objects like rugs and doors impede vision. The second note in a list o f eleven made in 1927 reads: ‘A white ball on the ground floor and a dismal zigzagging black figure on the floor above. Over their white circling.’ Another describes lights going on in a series o f rooms shot from beneath. Yet another a wall o f 46

C I N E M A

faces watching a suicide. 23 On the face o f it, this idea is an architectural one - and in some sense that is the case. But in another, more interesting sense, to think o f it simply as ‘architectural’ is to miss its significance entirely. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s drawing o f a glass skyscraper is an architectural project, and it looks nothing like Eisenstein’s sketches. Is shows the whole building as it might appear from the street, rising away impressively into the sky. No individual rooms are shown, no strange points o f view, no people. O f such projects, Mies van der Rohe wrote: ‘I discovered by working with actual glass models that the important thing is the play o f reflections, and not the effect o f light and shadow as in ordinary buildings’. 24 Eisenstein, on the other hand, never seems to have sketched the whole building at all, and he is interested only in what is going on inside. Reflections do not come into his consideration, but light and shadow - how they are seen in the new environment o f glass - are recurrent concerns. The senses o f space which arise from the two presentations o f essentially the same building are quite distinct. One is sculptural: we feel the object in space, see its surfaces, its bright smooth planes. The other is - dare I say it? more complex. Surfaces remain, but are at the same time, traversed by the camera eye to spaces defined by action within. Glass on all sides reveals and maintains distance at once. The strict, cold, geometry o f the rooms encloses, only tenuously as it turns out, human violence and suffering. Eisenstein’s cinematic architecture is virtually at no point the same as Mies van der Rohe’s pure architecture. But it is also removed from the spatial experience you and I might have within or without such a glass house. The shifting points o f view, the montage o f shots and scenes, the dominating position from high outside the structure (I imagine a crane crawling up and down a glass facade) - all are o f the cinema, not o f physical architecture.25 Moreover, it is not a question o f ‘being inside’ the building in imagination, o f having been swallowed by it as one is swallowed by the dreams within one’s self. This is no dream, albeit it is no ‘reality’ either. The glass surfaces through which all is seen tell us as much. They repeat the wall which is the screen - that wall which ultimately stops the motion, begun in desire on the street, that brought us here to look, to watch a movie. We see through them, but we cannot, finally, go through them. And if they are mirrors, as certainly all panes o f glass can be, what we see within them are but signs o f ourselves and o f what clusters about us, markers o f that presence, something to observe - to reflect upon perhaps - distanced from our lived existence by those very walls o f glass.

NO TES 1 .Elie Faure, ‘The art ofcincplastics’, Film : an anthology, cd.Daniel Talbot (New York: Simon & Shuster 1 9 59), 12. This uncredited translation, published only in part in Talbot's anthology, was issued in 1923 by a small press, The Four Seas Company o f Boston, and was reprinted in full in 1970 by the Arno Press as part o f Screen M onographs 1. The original French essay, ‘ De la cinéplastique’, is most readily accessible in Fonction du cinem a (Paris: Editions Gonthier n.d.), and appeared first in book form in 1922. 2 . In Fonction du ciném a, 4 8 -6 8 . 3. 'Vocation du cinéma’, Fonction du ciném a, 75. In 1926 Epstein had characterized cinematogra language, which did not interest him twenty years later, as ‘prodigiously concrete, direct, brutal and alive’ (‘L’objectif lui-même’, C in éa -C in ép o u r tous, 15 January 1 9 26, cited in Leprohon, 125). 4. L ’Intelligence, 186. 5. L ’Intelligence, 192-193. 6 . L ’Intelligence, 194. I must say that I find ‘spiritualism’ an inadequate epithet for this kind o f thinking. It only really applies to certain hints in the last few pages o f Le ciném a du d iab le about ancient modes o f thought which the cinema apparently emulates. 7. Agei, Esthétique du ciném a (Paris: Presses Universitaires 1957) 7-38 8. Formally in L ’Intelligence, 1 4 2 -1 4 4 , culturally in D iable, 2 0 3 -2 1 6 . 9. Agel, 2 2 -24. 10.. On the evidence, admittedly suspect and dated, o f a reference to F.A. Sparshott in Ian Douglas, Film a n d M eaning (Western Australia: Continuum Publications 1 9 8 8 ), 23 7 . 11. The sketch, and an almost complete translation o f the notes to it, appear in Eisenstein a t work, ed. Jay Lcyda and Zina Voynow (LondomMetheun 1988 [1 9 8 2 ]), 110. There is a reference to (Karl von) Eckartshausen in Eisenstein’s notes which I do not understand. 1 2 . Eisenstein, ‘A dialectic approach to film form’ (1 9 2 9 ), Film Form (New York: Meridan Books 1957 [1 9 4 9 ]), 48. 13. ’Dialectic’, 53. 14. ‘Dialectic’, 49. 15. Eisenstein, ‘The filmic fourth dimension’ (1 9 2 9 ), Film Form , 67. 16. ‘Fourth dimension’, 69. 17. ‘Fourth dimension’, 69. 18. ‘Fourth dimension’, 70. 19. ‘Fourth dimension’, 71. 20. Notes and sketches for the project appear in Eisenstein a t work 36 37, 42-46. 2 1 . The immediate impetus was doubtless the Bauhaus, Dessau, designed by Walter Gropius and Adolf Meyer and finished in 1926. But the most famous glass skyscraper o f the time was probably Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s unrealised design o f 1919, and the Bauhaus had been preceded by Gropius and Meyer glass boxes for the Fagus works in 1911 and 1914. Bruno Taut, inspired by Paul Scheebartfs book G lasarchitekrur (1 9 1 4 ), had been drawing glass towers in the middle o f model housing developments since that time. Lyonel Feiningerdrew a glass cathedral for the frontispiece o f the first Bauhaus manifesto in 1919. For a discussion o f all o f this see Reyner Banham, Theory a n d design in the fir s t m achine age (London: The Architectural Press 1960) 2 6 4 -3 0 4 . Wolfgang Pehnt, Expressionist A rchitecture (L o n d o n : Thames and Hudson 1973) also deals productively with Taut and the cinema and manfredo Tafuri’s The sphere a n d the Labyrinth, A vant-gardes a n d A rchitecture fro m Piranesi to the 1970s (Cambridge: M IT Press 1987) continues the discussion, reprinting a Taut story treatment in the process. (Many thanks to Celia at Architext for an instant Tafuri reference service above and beyond the call o f duty!) 22. All o f the above from Eisenstein at work, 36. 2 3 . Eisenstein a t work, 3 6 -3 7 (sketches also on 4 2 -4 6 ). 24. Quoted in Theory a n d design 26 8 . 25. Marcel Martin, a French theoretician whose work lies outside the arbitrary temporal parameters I have placed upon this piece, puts the difference very well: Architecture, sculpture, theatre and dance are thus arts in space, space. On the contrary', the cinema is an art o/spacc. I mean that the cinema reproduces real material space in a fairly realistic manner, and moreover it creates an absolutely specific aesthetic space' (Le lan gage ciném atographique [Paris: Editions du C erf 1 9 6 2 ], 20 7 ).

P A P E R S

>71

D I S C O V E R I N

A U S T R A U

A N

F I L M

A N D

T E L E V I S I O N

A LIMITED NUMBER OF THE BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED CATALOGUES ESPECIALLY PREPARED FOR THE RECENT SEASON OF AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION AT THE UCLA FILM AND TELEVISION ARCHIVE IN THE U.S. ARE N O W AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN AUSTRALIA. EDITED BY SCOTT MURRAY, AND WITH EXTENSIVELY RESEARCHED ARTICLES BY SEVERAL OF AUSTRALIA'S LEADING WRITERS O N FILM AND TELEVISION, THIS CATALOGUE PROVIDES AN EXCELLENT CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT STRANDS OF AUSTRALIAN PRODUCTION: WOMEN OF THE WAVE [by Kate Sands] exam ines the creative participation of w om en in the A ustralian industry during the past two decades, and encom passes the work of G illian Armstrong, Jane Cam pion, Mary Callaghan, Corinne C antrill, Tracey M offatt and many other o utÂ standing directors. FORMATIVE LANDSCAPES [Ross Gibson] looks at why so many different film -m akers, audiences and critics in A ustralia have been under the spell of som e spirit of the land. "W hy this preoccupation w ith the natural environm ent?", he asks. "W hat can the cin em atic rendition of the land tell us about A ustralian culture in general?" CROSS-OVER AND COLLABORATION: KENNEDY MILLER [Debi Enker] is an in-depth analysis of the work of A ustralia's leading production house, Kennedy M iller. Beginning w ith a history of its origins and developments, the article also exam ines all the features, tele-features and m ini-series, pinpointing and elucidating various parallel and overlapping them es. GEORGE MILLER [Scott Murray] is an interview w ith the acclaim ed director of the Mad M ax film s and T he W itches of Eastw ick. In particular, it exam ines the collaborative approach of Kennedy M iller, whereby writers, directors, producers and actors work from the beginning to collectively evolve a project. TERRY HAYES [Scott Murray] discuses H ayes's joining Kennedy M iller and the role he has played since as a w riter and producer. Hayes is also interviewed about the collaborative approach and gives an interesting and often different perspective to that of M iller. MIXING FACT AND FICTION [Graeme Turner] explores how A ustralian film -m akers have extended the form al lim its of docum entary and fictional concepts in their work. "F act has been interrogated, reshaped, 'm ade strange', w hile fictions have been fam iliarized through the invocation of history." CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER [M ichael Leigh] explores Aboriginal representation in the A ustralian cinem a, from its earliest days at the end of the N ineteenth Century, when the im age-m akers were always w hite, through u n til today and the contemporary work of Aboriginal and w hite film -m akers. NURTURING THE NEXT WAVE [Adrian M artin] is a critical review of the vital margins of A ustralian cinem a, giving due attention to the new and/or unknow n film -m akers and their relation to the A ustralian industry. M any short, anim ated and docum entary film s are exam ined in this often provocative study. THE "BACK OF BEYO N D " CATALOGUE IS N O T O N LY EXTENSIVELY ILLUSTRATED W ITH MORE TH A N 130 PHOTOGRAPHS, IT IS COMPREHENSIVELY INDEXED A N D HAS FULL CREDIT LISTINGS FOR SOME 80 FILMS. IT IS ATTRACTIVELY DESIGNED A N D PRINTED, A N D W OULD BE OF GREAT INTEREST TO ALMOST A N YO N E INTERESTED IN AUSTRALIAN FILM A N D TELEVISION, THE MAINSTREAM A N D THE FRINGE. THE CATALOGUE PRICE IS $24.95, W HICH INCLUDES POSTAGE A N D PACKAGING, AN D IT CAN BE PURCHASED MAIL ORDER FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COM M ISSION, 8 WEST ST NORTH SYDNEY 2060, OR FROM M TV PUBLISHING, 43 CHARLES ST ABBOTSFORD 3067. PLEASE MAKE CHEQUES OR M O N EY ORDERS PAYABLE TO "AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION - BACK OF BEYO N D ", OR TO "M TV PUBLISHING". "BA CK OF BEYOND: DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM A N D TELEVISION" W AS PUBLISHED BY THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION W ITH THE GENEROUS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY.

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

Off 'Roufá 'B ehüecn ^ec¡4¿ A

m a g ic ' s

"EVERY N O W A N D THEN A FILM COMES A LO N G WHICH IS SO QUIRKY AN D ORIGINAL THAT YO U HAVE TO FALL IN LOVE WITH IT - BAGDAD CAFE IS SUCH A FILM" Sunday express

nouJhe/e. o k

- ■

"A N INSPIRED CHARMER OF THE FIRST ORDER . . . M AG IC " LATIMES

'QUIRKY, LOVING, IRONIC A N D IRRESISTIBLE" Derek Malcom THE GUARDIAN PERCY ADLON’S

BAGDAD CAFE out of Rosenheim -ED MARIANNE SAGEBRECHT • CCH POUNDER • JA CK PALANCE Produced by PERCY & ELEONORE ADLON Directed by PERCY ADLON ["ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK ALBUM AVAILABLE O N ISLAND RECORDS |

Martin Place Cinema 233 8166

S TA R TS JA N U A R Y

K#N

P la c e * 3

P A P E R S

>71

Cinemas SHOW ING

45 C O L L I N S S T . 6 5 0 2100

C I N E M A

N P W

GEL

FOR MUCH OF THE CINEMA’S HISTORY, FILM IMAGE HAS BEEN GRANTED AN EXALTED STATUS OVER FILM SOUND BOTH BY FILM SCHOLARS AND TO VARYING DEGREES BY FILM-MAKERS. IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDRESS O

THE VALUATION OF THE IMAGE TRACK OVER THE SOUND TRACK,

F IL MM U S ICTHE AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION AND RADIO SCHOOL AND b yP H IL IPB R O P H Y FILMVIEWSPRESENTED A ONE DAY FORUM UNDER THE TITLE OF ©

SOUND IN FILM. PRESENTED HERE ARE PAPERS BY TWO OF THE

INT H EG H E T T OKEYSPEAKERS, PHILIP BROPHY, DIRECTOR OF SALT, SALIVA, SPERM b yP A U LS C H U T Z E AA© SWEAT, AND NO DANCE, AND LECTURER IN SOUND AT PHILIP IN STITU TE; AND PAUL SCHUTZE, COMPOSER, WHOSE RECENT SCORES INCLUDE ASSULT ON FIRE BASE GLORIA, PRISONER OF ST. PETERSBURG,

CRUEL YOUTH, AND THE TALE OF RUBY ROSE. C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

PHILIP BROPHY

F I L M

F M

I U S I C

NARRATIVE

/ NARRATIVE

NARRAT

VE / N A R R A T I V E

FILM

C M

U S I C

the temporal mobilization o f structure. Jm ME HEN QUESTIONED ABOUT his unconventional ap To say that film is image is sure folly. (Actually it’s downright stupid.) proach to scoring the ballet Parade in 1917, composer Erik Satie returned Film is a time-based medium. Temporality is its primary governing factor, the question : when the villain enters the stage does the scenery grimace? distinguishing it from photography. To realize the temporality of film is to Satie was making the point that if background scenery remains fixed while comprehend cinema as the fusion o f sound and image ; what Godard called the balletic/choreographic narrative develops, could not the musical score son-image. Cinema is 100% image and 100% sound. Cinematic narrative (as similarly sever itself from the dramatic flow. The score to Parade is a virtual distinct from whatever literary-based concept of narrative you might enter cut-up of musical fragments, where each section or movement (illusory tain) is the temporal muldplication of all possible narratives generated, terms in this case) are arbitrarily collaged. Dramatic intensities change produced and effected within any cinematic occurrence or continuum. seemingly of their own accord and without apparent reason, as the music de Further folly is ensured once you try to separate the sound-track from the liberately lacks and absents convendonal dramatic flows and structures. image track. In essence it is an impossible task, because the sound and image To contemporary ears, Parade sounds fairly conventional : it meanders tracks narrate each other as well as themselves. Their fusion is terial, and appears to have a distracted, half-disconnected dramatic flow. As it ontological and phenomenological. Their structure, form and flow are passes through a set of dramatic styles, musical forms and emotional points, infinitely interactive and immeasurably mobile. The fact that we ‘watch’ or one gets the sense that something is happening but - more importantly ‘see’ films and videos tesdfies not only to visual primacy in our culture, but one doesn’t feel the need to know what the music might be describing or also our culture’s incessant separadon of things into parts, levels and layers suggesting. Back in 1917 things weren’t that casual. Modernity and modern (a tendency evident in the paradox of Satie’s separatist critique of theatre’s ism in European art and culture were peaking throughout the first quarter separation of the background scenery from the musical score). One might of the century, and Satie’s dadaist refutation of dramatic logic and rational be able to take apart a watch or a car engine and put it back together again. music was purveyed and taken as ‘anti-narrative’ in its modernist drive. That’s kids’ stuff. Try doing it while they’re still going. Whatever your Today the pseudo avant garde notion of any ‘anti-narrative’ or ‘non conscious mind thinks as it takes in a film, your unconscious body is taking narrative’ form is either retrograde, naive or plain imperceptive, because it all in - in total, on the run, and while the film’s going. such an oppositional notion is based on what are now historical (classical, ‘Narradve music’ is a confusing term. It’s like looking at a part from the lyrical, epic, etc.) concepts of narrative. Narrative today - in the swirling watch or car engine and recognizing it as a part (apart) - but not being able blurring of modernist and postmodernist drives of this century- is somewhat to understand how exacdy it works the way it does when it’s actually working. different. Narrative (like genre, iconography and style) is morphological in “Narrative music” is in fact a hazy and lazy term, for all music is narrative the true biological sense : it grows, it breeds, it mutates. Narrative is not - as even in the most conventional structural sense. Music starts, goes, and ends. is commonly assumed - formal or structural. It is not something to be built Its passage of time is controlled by its dynamics, and its dynamics are the up and broken down. The terms ‘anti-narradve’ and ‘non-narrative’ are mi mobilization o f its structural components (harmony, rhythm, etc.). Freeze rages of phantom structures, the hangover of a perception conditioned to it and you’ve got its structure. Set it going and you’ve got its narrative. dealing with building blocks and picture books. To posit narrative as mor The term ‘narrative music’ implies that music ‘itself is not narrative. But phological is not simply to discern changes and developments in narrative ju st as one can question the validity o f ‘non-narrativity’ when one realizes the form, but also acknowledge that narrative exists in time and changes shaky foundations to our concepts of structural narrative, so too can one through time (on both macro and micro temporal/historical planes). If question the validity o f ‘narrative music’ when one realizes music’s narratolyou’ve got ‘time’ (say, as in any time-based medium, or even in a passage of ogical form. ‘Narrative music’ more properly (yet inappropriately) hints at your everyday life) you’ve instantaneously got a split narrative : a narrative the narrative effect produced by music once it is engaged in the multiplica o f simultaneity and a narrative of memory ; of experiencing a temporal flow tion of narration and acknowledging how you are experienc in the cinema. By ing that temporal flow. Issues of “structure’ concentrating on are mainly formal and/or poetic ways of TO SAY THAT FILM IS IMAGE IS SURE FOLLY... CINEMA IS 100% the musical score, perceiving narrative which often neglect Satie n eglected that while narrativity is not inherent in IMAGE AND 100% SOUND. TO SEPARATE THE SOUND TRACK FROM the totality of nar time, it is unavoidable. To claim something ratives w hich as ‘anti/non-narrative’ likewise ignores this THE IMAGE TRACK IS IN ESSENCE AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK, BECAUSE make up theatre. aspect of temporality which typifies and THE SOUND AND IMAGE TRACKS NARRATE EACH OTHER AS WELL AS M usic in film governs much narrative form (in film, the should n o t be atre, dance, literature and music) o f this THEMSELVES...WHATEVER YOUR CONSCIOUS MIND THINKS AS IT similarly isolated, century. for musical scor Satie - one of the key figures in dadaist TAKES IN A FILM, YOUR UNCONSCIOUS BODY IS TAKING IT ALL IN. ing in the cinema conceptualizations of music - was perhaps is generally cogni a bit rash in his breakdown of the plastic zant o f its partial components of stage ballet. Surely the scen form yet total flow : it realizes both its contribution to the film’s form and its ery ‘changes’ continually because of a number of factors : (i) the passage of role in the film’s development. time itse lf; (ii) changes in lighting upon the scenery ; and (iii) its relation Interestingly, when people talk o f ‘narrative’ music they are generally re to the continually changing stage action. At around the same time Lev ferring to music which has been composed in a primarily linear fashion, de Kuleshov was watching films like D. W.Griffith’s Intolerance (1916) and signed as such to synchronously follow the dramatic dictates, leads and cues analyzing Griffith’s editing syntax and technique. Conducting a series of o f the plot action and character interaction - to grimace whenever the ‘syntactical’ proto-montage experiments (prior to Eisenstein’s theories) he villain enters the screen. ‘Narrative’ here is a negative term, and is countered proposed that one could intercut a single image with a series of different by a supposedly ‘non-narrative’ approach to musical sco rin g - that o f the ne images and thereby make the original image perceptibly change its psycho fariously labelled ‘ambient’ approach. The logic implicit is that if one logical resonance . Film histories accord Kuleshov the honour of realizing provides a deliberately unfocussed and multi-layered musical continuum, narrative form through the syntactical structure made by editing images. one is somehow escaping the literality and linearity of the film’s narration. True - but he also (implicitly or explicitly) demonstrated that narrativity is 50

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

*71

One can even sense in this approach a desire to totally forget the temporality of film and compose music which would be atemporal, sitting in the back ground like.... scenery. The connection between Satie and ‘ambient music’ (as signposted by Brian Eno in 1975 with the release of his Discreet Music) is neither acciden tal nor coincidental. Satie was influential on both experimental and mini malist composers at the start of the 70s because he fostered a yearning for not only the breakdown of logical musical structure (a la Arnold Schoen berg’s serial compositional method) but also the complete absence of any such logic in music. His passion was for composing music which was designed to not be listened to - such as the small ensemble music he composed to be performed at an art gallery opening, which unfortunately everyone stopped to listen to as if it were a recital. (Satie apparently went around at the opening yelling at people to ignore the music.) E no’s ‘ambient music’ likewise attempts to engage a non-listening state. Unfortunately his theorization of ‘music for films’ (released on two albums o f that title in 1978 and 1983) is severely weakened by a superficial under standing of film narrative, music in film, and narrative in music. He associates a predominantly floating and intricately textured musical styling with the presumed unspecified location and indefinite presence of music in the film’s narrative. The notion is that by having vaguely evocative music which denies or avoids the structural precepts of ‘songs’ and the like, one is attaining a state, style and form akin to that of ‘film music’. Quite simply - and ironically - this is the result of someone who has been listening to the film score when they perhaps should have been taking the film in as a whole. Eno is still in the gallery listening to the music with Satie yelling - a typically modernist paradox that is exemplified by Eno’s definitive ‘ambient’ record from 1978 Music For Airports: background music he composed after studying and listening to airport muzak. Satie and Eno together leave us a popular yet (in my view) undesirable legacy : to compose film music as background scenery, as what could be called ‘architectural silence ’. Silent? No. Dumb? Yes. This ‘non-narrative’ approach is of course ju st as narratological as any other ‘traditional’ re

course. Music in film will always give us mood while telling us something a bind inherent in the base temporality of music. Some scores are skillful, cunning, creative and/or perverse in their switching between and combin ing of these two narrative modes (suggestion and description), while other scores are ignorant of or neglectful toward the total narrative effect of cinematic forms. Furthermore, some scores might work best by effacing their presence during the film’s narration, while some scores which intrigue and fascinate might detract from the film’s overall effect. The point is that there is no ‘best way’ for a score to happen in a film because each film ultimately determines its own criteria for the function and performance of its musical score, leaving us to remember that film music is best discussed in relation to the many other aspects of the film. Satie’s music today (not to mention its aural imaging in Eno’s ‘ambient’ stylings) perfectly fits the bill for contemporary cinem a’s wavering, hover ing, floating, driving, disembodied sono-musical texturing which is gener ally accepted as being in opposition to the ‘old school’ approach to theatrical/operatic scoring techniques. Sometimes it works ( Nomads At Close Range; The Man Who Fell To Earth; Birdy ; Blood Simple, Starman;) sometimes it doesn’t (Bladerunner; Koyannisquatsi; Picnic At Hanging Rock; Fraserhead; The Emerald Forest; Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence) . And even in the films I just cited their exact effectiveness and ineffectiveness is hard to specify, because sometimes a music score can best function by being ineffective. The most unassuming or conservative films can have the richest and most complex sound and music narratives, while the most radical or unconventional films can have the most pedestrian and obvious sound-tracks. Perhaps the point to be made is that a composer who knows little about film is as bad as a director who known little about sound-neither are acknowledging yet alone realizing cinema’s full potential. That full potential is ultimately realized as our conscious minds and unconscious bodies intake a film. In the end we have to deal with total effects, multiple flows, compound languages and meshed experiences. In the end we have what we started with-film narrative. And that’s where we must start.

PAUL SCHUTZE

THE G H E T T O

THECASE

F OR

S A COMPOSER WORKING in the film indus try, I encounter a recurring problem. At first I thought perhaps I ought to adjust my working method - my expectations. Now, I believe the problem persists for me only because I refuse to succumb to the ghetto mentality from which it springs. The dismissive manner in which the industry deals with sound (I include music here) and its potentialities, is astounding. If film is indeed, as Phillip Brophy is fond of saying, ‘100% image and 100% sound’, then there is a great deal o f mute cinema at large at this moment. There is no question that sound is as effective a vehicle for information as image. Certain important film examples aside, one need only recall the radio play as proof o f this. Music, if it must be separated from sound at all (and this may well be at the heart of the problem), operates in a more complex and interactive way. Because music has its own logic, its own history and, most importantly, its own present, it gathers up a great deal of emotional and intellectual conjecture, which forms aspects of its lexicon. To use music as a ‘utility’ (which is the manner o f most film makers) demands an understanding of those properties which make it a living language comparable to film. It must also be remembered that music exists independ ently o f film. So I ’m stating the obvious, but I would go further and suggest that film and ‘contemporary’ music are the only ‘living’ communicative artforms currently practised. Opera, literature, theatre, dance, mahjong tourna ments, high tea etc. are rarefied, self-referential, historically inert and, most importantly, avoidable. None of these diversions inform the contemporary vocabulary, which is increasingly organic and gathering speed. Given that film is a pre-eminent communicative medium, it seems bizarre that it has become a refuge for the culturally illiterate. This is most apparent from my position, as I am required often to guide apathetic film-makers through a brief history of world musical development since Bob Dylan (or, in serious cases, since Vivaldi), this being the only way to establish a basis for discussing, by example, the appropriate style and aspect for the jo b at hand. The importance of a working knowledge of both the current musical ‘environC I N E M A

SOUND

ADVICE

ment’, and even the more interesting new developments in technolog)' cannot be overstated. There is, at any given time, a clearly perceived musical vocabulary which assembles itself, unbidden, from the crossfire of contem porary influences. Popular music must play a significant part in this scenario and yet, it is considered quite acceptable, even ‘cred’, in the film industry' to be blissfully ignorant of all this. I don’t know if this is some residual Protestant work ethic,or just another wacko correct-line stance, but it does seem that to actually take time out to see the work of other film-makers and to investigate music, television, magazines and all the ‘invisible literature’ of popular culture, is viewed generally as an indication of irresponsible frivolity. So, ‘working’ involves emerging pale and bug-eyed from the lab, editing suite or studio, every three months and flying straight to Bali. Then the cycle begins again. Perhaps this is part of a wider inability to deal with the late 20th century. The rash of directors hell-bent on mythologizing their (highly suspect) memories of the Sixties would support this theory. There is no doubt that such cultural self-denial produces a powerful bonding within the industry. On the whole, this tendency ensures the poor grip that many film makers (especially locally) have on their time and on the language which film must address if it is to operate now. More specifically, this is the reason why film music becomes dislocated and retrospective. When directors are only conversant with music from their past (the context of which is usually recalled erroneously) and with music from the history of the cinema, they will look to composers with a similar handicap (and there is no shortage of those, either). Then film music becomes largely a barren ornamentation, concerned only with its own past and mimicking images in the great tradition of opera, where everything is reinforced on eight levels to satisfy the audience’s craving for vertigo. Add to this the disparity between sound technology in cinemas, which is years behind image reproduction and completely out of sync with developments in domestic sound technology, and we have a two-fold problem which perpetuates itself. The public now expect bad sound in cinemas (with the exception of T.H .X. venues) .They expect huge pops in the atmosheres as the reels >> P A P E R S

> 7 1

change. They expect characters on screen to talk as though pillows were which concern me primarily are:- that directors become familiar and conver pressed to their faces. They expect static crackling, which on a record would sant with ‘music as material’; that composers develop more concise methods be considered ample reason to return it to the shop. They expect to walk into of communicating aural ideas to visually biased clients (I have found records lavishly decorated art-house cinemas where no expense has been spared on particularly useful for this - this way you discover ju st how many musical vari the heartstopping curtain fabrics, but the cones in the surround speakers ations exist on a directive like ‘it must be poignant and yet somehow gather dust. The majority o f films today can withstand this reproductive can frivolous’!); that sound editors and composers work in concert rather than nibalism, because the sound and music are so incidental to the images that slugging it out at the mix (‘but 1 spent a week laying effects for every frame their mutilation has no direct effect on the narrative or the tone of the film. of this scene, no-one told me it was going to run on music alone!’); that It makes you wonder why squads o f highly skilled people are employed to sound and music directions are scripted and storyboarded (‘but we sent sweat blood, m eticu second unit back to blow it all up again whaddya lously recreating precise mean it works better if you ju st hear the explo sonic replicas of prosaic sion off-screen! ’); that both producers and direc MANY FILMMAKERS CURRENTLY DISPLAY A and predictable scenar tors find out exactly how a mixing studio works ios, all at staggering cost, before the mix (‘why can’t you ju st cut that bit MONUMENTAL LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE 100% when, in the final analy out of the 24-track master - you know, with OF A FILM WHICH IS SOUND, COMPOUNDED BY AN sis, their work contrib scissors - like we do with sprockets?!!’); that utes little to the substance producers are restrained from spending post APPALLING IGNORANCE OF THE CONTEMPORARY of the film and will proba production funds on contingency (‘but we kept bly not be audible to the the hovercrafts on hold for a week while Clint LANGUAGE AND USAGE OF SOUND. audience anyway. All this, workshopped his agoraphobia so the film is in as I said before, boils mono now with one day for the mix’) ; that long down to two points which seem to be connected: (1) A monumental lack of term creative exchanges are established between directors and sound per concern on the part of film-makers for the 100% of a film which is sound, sonnel, hopefully establishing solid working liaisons (such as those more compounded by an appalling ignorance of the contemporary language and common between a director and a D.O.P.), so that a dialogue about image usage of sound; and (2) A genuine disparity between one’s expectations of and sound begins to have a history and a substantial idea base; that the myth cinema sound (due to hopeless resignation) and that of even modest of the cutting-room recluse who renounces all sensory input and creates domestic sound equipment. (dead) art in a vacuum, is debunked for good; that the rejection o f a popular culture and the conceits of the professional ghetto are treated with the In my experience, film-makers who show an interest in developing the music score alongside the images, i.e. actually engaging the composer or contempt they deserve; that writers and commentators on film address the image bias of film theory, so as to begin dealing adequately with the issue of sound designer in pre-production, are generally young, inexperienced and sound; that cinemas start to take sound reproduction seriously; that film working with tiny budgets. Sooner or later it becomes apparent that most of makers exert pressure on cinemas, i.e. refuse to preview on unsatisfactory or what they wish to try will notwork on 16mm optical because the sound quality is actually worse than that of a domestic cassette player. The images are unaligned systems (obviously, it takes large productions to do this but it does work - a certain chain of cinemas in Sydney was forced to replace and acceptable however, making it an ideal way to learn about film. Sound, of upgrade its systems when a major local release it was distributing refused course, is not likely to be taught seriously anyway. Video, on the other hand, each of its outlets in turn on the grounds of unacceptable sound quality !); has relatively high quality sound - better even than 35mm optical, yet there that educators in the field reassess the importance of both the contemporary is usually no question of using video because of the poor image quality! cultural landscape and the role of sound. (My experience o f practitioners I often wonder whether the lag in cinema sound technology simply coming straight from the various schools is that this is not happening in most reflects a complete lack of interest in sound on the part of the industry as a of them now.) whole. Certainly developments in image quality, camera and film technol None of these things are new or radical. From the beginning films have ogy, and in the nature of the images themselves, have been considerable. There is no doubt that inadequate image reproduction is both recognized been made which demonstrate and bear out all of these points, but they are in a tiny minority and are often overlooked as they are difficult to discuss with and noisily rejected by cinema audiences. the image based language widely in use. Significandy these films are not Perhaps we are a more image-based culture than we imagine. I have seen being made here. There is a chance for us to reverse a trend which prevails so many films recently which basically deny that the planet has emitted so much as a peep since 1962 ... but I can’t accept this situation. As the single in other, more established film communities. This surely would go a lot further towards distinguishing Australian film as unique rather than a most important document o f our time, our myths and our very singular fears, film has a responsibility to address its full potential and oust those who insist mandatory shearing scene. on using it as an ideological smelter. This will involve many changes. Those

1987/88 Filmviews/Cinema Papers Catalogue of New Films and Videos in Australian Distribution. In one volume Australia's most comprehensive Listing of Films and Videos in Australian Distribution. Filmviews/ Cinema Papers Catalogue of New Films and Videos in Australian Distribution is the only comprehensive listing of all currently released films and videos available in Australia each financial year. Included are all imported and Australian produced titles, listed alphabetically under category headings. The Catalogue enables anyone seeking a particular title to quickly check its availability and distributor. The Catalogue includes all 35m m and 16mm features, shorts, documentaries and home video releases, as well as educa tional, management training, health and safety, and howto programmes. Also listed are all new acquisitions available for free borrowing from Government film libraries.

C I N E M A

Each Catalogue entry includes the following: 1. program m e title 2. director 3. country of origin. 4 year of completion 5. running time 6. censorship classification 7. form at/gauge 8. synopsis 9. distributor/government film library (including address telephone and fax num ber). In addition there is a separate Title, Director and Personality Indexes to facilitate quick and easy cross referencing. Of particular use to video retailers and librarians are the censorship classifications; an essential guide and cost effective hedge against stocking unclassified programmes or programmes refused classification. 1987/88 Catalogue (published August 1988) •Institutions $35.00 »Individuals $25.00 Prices include postage See the subscription form in the centre of this issue of Cinema Papers to subscribe. Note: The Catalogue is regularly updated with a 48 page insert available by subscription.

P A P E R S

• 71

INDUSTRY PROGRAM

A FT RS AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL

JANUARY New South Wales • Preparing Budgets (in association with the AFC) • Television Direction for Film Directors • Studio Demonstration Day

Victoria • Preparing Budgets (in association with the AFC)

NATIONAL LISTING

JANUARY to JUNE 1989 • • • • • • • • •

Advanced Video Cassette Editing Creative Video Editing for Film Editors Scriptwriting Masterclass Producer: Art Department David Puttnam Seminar Preparing Marketing Budgets (with AFC) AUSTRADE: Latest Guidelines Radio Copywriting Safety Report Writing

Victoria

• Preparing Budgets (in association with the AFC)

• • • •

Western Australia

South Australia

• Preparing Budgets (in association with the AFC) • Actor-Director Relationship

FEBRUARY

Victoria • ENG Editing • Directors’ Seminars • Jerzy Domaradski: Workshop • Documentary Seminar

Tasmania

• Screen Acting Workshop with Jerzy Domaradski • Small Production Company Workshop

Commissioning Corporate Video Jerzy Domaradski: Working with Actors Nell Dunn Seminar: Writer of STEAMING Single Camera Coverage Television Current Affairs Journalism Production Accountancy Successful Script Development The Audience with Jacqueline Huie The Producer Script Editing

Screen

Acting

Queensland

• Marketing and Distribution Seminar

Queensland

APRIL

• Radio as an Advertising Medium

New South Wales • • • • • •

Jerzy Domaradski: Working with Actors Writing TV Commercials Video Distribution: Playcount THE PITCH Radio Announcing and Presentation Producing Corporate Video

Victoria

South Australia

• Producers Workshop • Regional Radio Workshop

MARCH New South Wales • Production Management

South Australia • Independent Film Workshops and Seminars in association with SA Media Resource Centre

Western Australia

Queensland

Western Australia

• Post Production sound • Getting the Most out of your PC • Jerzy Domaradski: Actor-Director Relationship

• Writing for the Screen (Scripting)

• The Moving Camera

• Director’s Workshop • Studio Camera • Industry Attachments

New South Wales • Successful Packaging • Editing and Post Production for TV Commercials • 16mm Editing: Showreel course • Radio as an Advertising Medium • Graphics and Animation Workshop

Tasmania

• TV Directing Seminar

• Cinematography - The Art of Visual Design (in association with FILMVIEWS magazine) • Radio Copywriting and Commercial Production • Cinematography (in association with ACS) • Packaging and Marketing

South Australia

MAY

Victoria

• Guide to the Film Laboratory

Western Australia

New South Wales • • • • • • • • • •

David Puttnam Seminar IFF and CDF Case Studies Single Camera Coverage Safety Report Writing

Queensland • Directors Weekend - Jerzy Domaradski

JUNE New South Wales • • • • • •

Producer and the Law Radio Studio Procedures Commissioning Corporate Video Video Post Production Techniques Marketing your Product: Strategic Planning Line Producer

Victoria

• Producing Voice Overs for Radio and TV • The Crew

South Australia • Independent Film Workshops and Seminars in association with SA Media Resources Centre

• Production Management

Tasmania • Acting for TV Workshop • Approaches to Radio Journalism

Tasmania

Western Australia

• Writing for the Screen (Production)

• Copywriting for Radio

• Art Direction

ALL YEAR The School Offers the following on-going activities:

STUDIO TH REE

Peer group master-classes where professionals meet together to focus on a specific aspect of their craft. CONTACT JIM TUMETH (02) 805 6611

TR Y O U T

Assistance with experimentation and new ideas. CONTACT JULIE WIGGINS (02) 805 6611 or SIMON BRITTON (03) 690 7111.

PUBLICATIONS

AFTRS and AFC series TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS available from AFTRS for $15 plus $1.50 for postage and handling (per volume). For further information re New South Wales and Queensland courses: Phone AFTRS Sydney Base on (02) 805 6611 and for further information re courses to be held in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia phone AFTRS Melbourne Base on (03) 690 7111.

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

* 7 1

THIS ISSUE: DEVIL IN

THE FLESH, Y O U N G EINSTEIN,

EVIL ANGELS, GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM , M ASQUES, M AP AN TSU LA, MARRIED TO THE M O B, W H O FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?, TUCKER,

AND TENDER

H O O KS

DEVIL IN THE FLESH... A FILM OF VISUAL EXACTITUDE NOTHING EXCEEDS THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOVERS

DEVIL IN THE FLESH Inescapably, the first thing that strikes one about Devil In the Flesh is that it reveals the hand o f a miniaturist at work.Though its original source is literary - Scott Murray’s first feature is an adaption o f Raymond Radiguet’s novel Le Diablc an Corps - from the evidence o f style the metaphors which initially come to mind are painterly. This is a film o f visual exactitude, the world in microcosm - nothing ex ceeds the immediate environment o f the lovers. This film canvas is rendered as if with the restrained, subtle strokes o f a brush. Absolutely no extraneous ornamentation o f style. Nothing weighs this film down, everything - colour, light ing, framing, composition - achieves a harmonious balance. One cannot help but admire Murray’s sense o f discipline. Since at least the period o f the French New Wave (if not before) first features have become, more often than not, ex ercises in stylistic virtuosity, either succeeding brilliantly, as with Jean-Luc Godard’s A BoutdeSouffle, or failing misera bly, as with Jean-Jacques Beineix’s Diva, to take a more recent example. Murray’s Devil in the Flesh is one o f three films made from the Rndiguet novel: the others are Claude AutantLara’s 1947 version and Marco Bellocchio’s 1986 version, which was so radical in its updating and so free in its inter pretation that it can hardly be called an adaption proper. If at first there were fears that Murray’s transplanting o f the novel into the Australian enviroment would distort both the letter and the spirit o f the novel, these are quickly laid to rest. The film succeeds wonderfully at this level, making necessary changes but fundamentally remaining faithful to the book. For those unfamiliar with Radiguet’s novel, it is set during the period o f War World 1 and tells the storv o f a doomed love affair between an adolescent on the brink o f manhood and a young woman engaged to a French soldier absent at the Front for much o f the story. The events take place on the outskirts o f Paris. Murray has updated the period to World War 2 and set the events in a quietly pic turesque rural Australia. Marthe, the young woman, is the daughter o f a established French immigrant family, and Paul, the young lover, the son ofa local middle-class family. C I N E M A

P A P E R S

*71

To retain historical accuracy, Marthe’s fiancé in the novel has been changed to a local Italian interned at the outbreak o f war. He is not her fiancé but her husband, which further heightens the moral dilemma for the parents (if not for the lovers). Most o f these changes are nothing more than shifting the scenery, but keeping the forefront o f the drama intact. However, one significant structural change between novel and film is the ending. Murray has commented on this, saying : “In the novel, Marthe dies soon after giving birth to the child. While it is an effective literary resolution, it is a rather Victorian device. I felt the film should have its own ending, one that evolved logically and emotionally from its own structure.” Without giving away too much detail, one can briefly say that from the evidence on screen Murray was justified in changing the ending, for the sequence o f the lovers meeting a year or so after the break-up o f their relationship provides the film with one o f its very finest moments. Both the performances o f the young actors, Katia Caballero as Marthe and Keith Smith as Paul, should be complimented, though Caballero demonstrates a greater sense o f the nuances o f screen acting. At times the characterization o f Paul seems beyond Smith. T o be fair, though, his is the more complex role. Both characters are at different stages o f their lives. Marthe is more emotionally mature, more secure in her understanding o f an adult world and the shades o f grey in a moral universe: Paul, on the other hand, is approaching manhood, entering unfamiliar territory (both sexual and psychological) in his relationship with Marthe, stimulated and responding to new sensations. Therefore Smith, playing Paul, must cover a greater range o f the emotional spectrum. Emotionally, there is no equivalence between Paul and Marthe. For example, with the growing realization o f the hurt caused to parents by the relationship, Marthe responds through a deep-felt distress, a genuine sympathy for the feelings of others. Paul, on the other hand, responds through defiance. One is the response o fa mature individ ual, the other that o f a selfish child. Marthe may not be the spark for Paul’s sexual awakening (one is o f a ‘sexual mind’ long before the act is consummated) but their affair does provide Paul with a rite o f passage to manhood. Marthe is the freer spirit, more open and generous with her emotions, Paul is more closed and rigid. Though his personality must have been undergoing changes through the course o f their affair, it is only at the end that we fully realize the effect the affair has had on him. In that final scene, Paul reveals (not through words but gesture ) a ne w depth o f sentiment in the face o f reality. The theme o f a free spirit changing the personality o f an emotionally closed individual is also the

subject (in much more elaborate form) o f Sydney Pollack’s Bobby Deerfield, a film Murray must hold in high esteem, for his film contains a discreet reference to it. I f I began this review by invoking certain painterly correlations (though I did not mention Balthus, whose influence can be seen in the interior design o f Marthe’s apartment in the use o f colour, light, furniture and, at other times in the film, in Marthe’s costumes), finally, it must be said this is the work o f a film purist. From the opening image (in depth o f field) o f a car moving into frame and taking with it the gaze o f the audience into this imaginary world, it is evident that Murray has given great thought to the use o f narrative space. Each shot is carefully thought out, both in terms o f its own narrative function and its relation to other shots. For the most part the film strips aside the use o f conventional establishing shots, transitional material between scenes, and extraneous cut-away shots: narrative form stripped to its essence. At all times the camera keeps its proper distance from the action, respecting the intimacy o f the lovers’ thoughts. The film avoids, at all cost, attempts at psychological intrusion: at no time is a banal explanation o f the characters’ behaviour laid out for the audience. In turn, much is left to the audience mem bers’ interpretation and their respective moral viewpoints. Such refinement o f style results in a work which I would call classicism in a minor key (though it is imbued at times with the modernism o f mid-period Chabrol). The delicacy of style extends to Andrew De Groot’s brilliant cinematogra phy, providing a great sense o f clarity to the images, and Philippe Sarde’s quietly effective musical score. Finally, a curious thought crossed my mind. Allowing for qualitative differences, Murray has started his feature filmmaking career with a refined, elemental, relatively nonexpressionistic style that some o f the great directors moved towards in the course o f their careers: Bresson, Ozu, Dreyer (I am thinking o f G ertrud), for example. It is the supreme example o f a mature style o f filmmaking. It will be interest ing to see what style Murray adopts in his subsequent films.

ROLANDO CAPUTO D evil in the Flesh Directed by Scott Murray. Producer: John B. Murray. Executive producer: Peter Collins. Screenplay: Scott Mur ray. Director o f photography: Andrew de Groot. Editor: Tim Lewis. Art director: Paddy Reardon. Music: Philippe Sarde. Cast: Katia Ca ballero (M arthe), Keith Smith (Paul), John Morris (John Hansen), Jill Forster (Jill Hansen), Colin Duckworth (Pierre Fournier), Reine Lavoie (Madeleine Fournier), Simon Green (Jeremy Johnson), Odile le Clezio(Simone). Production company: Collins Murray. Distribu tor: Hoyts. 35mm. 103 minutes. Australia. 1985

YO U N G EINSTEIN Apparently, in America Yahoo Serious is considered to be the equal ofTim Burton - Warner Bros, committed itself to this film before production began. At home, the film is promoted as a kind o f never-before-seen Australian com edy, which you can take to mean that it is vaguely post modernist in orientation: that is, comedy for the sophisti cated child, that new, rapidly expanding target group whose major attribute is aesthetic discernment. The fact that the script was obviously tapered to slot into the American market explains a lot o f the overboard patriotism in this film, although in no way is it as sophisticated or as solidly rooted to both national myth and deeplv-felt senti mentality for small heroic acts as Crocodile Dundee was. No, this film bears the marks o f art school ideas conceptualized for the masses, who are in need o f a few ideological and moral helping hands to guide them. There is something very condescending about the kinds o f comic images Yahoo Serious foists upon the underlying efforts to contemporize this film with mildly Left-leaning poetic conceits: the outright celebration o f rural Australian (Tasmanian even) honest virtues, native flora and fauna (a real Aborigine, sheep, pet kangaroos, sce nic vistas, challenging climates) and, most important, the homegrown adventurism o f the ‘local’ music - this is the film’s worst concession to modernist impulse, along with the obligatory' Morricone tune). Everything is working in the struggle against, quite simply, megalomania and the nuclear threat. In this film, the world is portrayed as a Manichean universe inhabited by exaggerated cartoontype people and, not surprisingly (in the wake o f Pee W ee’s Big Adventure) interpreted by a normal guy who has no objections to coming to terms with his ‘weird’ destiny of immense social obligation. While Yahoo tries his best to be as moronic and nerdv as is ‘coolly’ possible, a Pee Wee he is not, although I get the feeling that Yahoo has interpreted Pee Wee’s moralisms a little too literally. He is less black and devious, has less complicity with the comic potentialities o f siding with evil and decidedly unchildlike domains such as sex, even though right through Young Einstein there are disembodied dirty jokes and prolonged kisses. With all its fairytale earnestness and detached parody intact, Young Einstein comes across as naively optimistic and Utopian in its resolution: on its other level, as a rock film, it surely defies many theories o f relativity. According to the plot, Young Einstein split that atom in 1905; in 1906 he discovered the concept o f rock’n’roll while watching children play hop scotch. Suddenly we hear the Models “I Hear Motion”, although in a previous scene we were treated to Icehouse’s “Great Southern Land”, when Einstein appeared to traverse the Australian landscape in a mon tage o f video dip cliches o f epic gran deur. Every piece o f rock music in the film is accorded an awkward, literal function o f matching what is hap pening on screen - there’s lots of classical music, but that behaves more or less conventionally, as straight atmospherics. The Lime Spiders are used in an asylum sequence, the Stems for Ein stein’s meeting with Marie Curie, in a song literally called “At First Sight”. The lyrics o f the songs supposedly stand in for dialogue, but what really occurs is the suspension o f the narra tive for a musical break. Even though the story tells us that Einstein in vented rock, there is no historical progression - the Models as the beginning o f traditional rock? because everything is rock in this

YOUNG EINSTEIN... BEARS THE MARK OF ART SCHOOL IDEAS CONCEPTUALISED FOR THE MASSES

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

film, even “Waltzing Matilda”. As in Back To The Future, Chuck Bern' had no hand in it. All this new wave sensibility struggles to appear as eccentric as it can: and by eccentric, we mean Yahoo’s hair and the ‘Energizer’ effect his body endures when he plugs himself into the atom splitting machine and Rock - in particular the guitar - beats the Bomb. But it ends up being downright conventional, the film signing itself off as Ein stein turns conventional rock star, singing “Rock’N’Roll Music”, cheered on by his fellow-Tasmanians and watched bv his adoring women.

VIKKI RILEY Young Einstein: Directed by Yahoo Serious. Executive producers: Graham Burke, Ray Beattie. Producers: Yahoo Serious, Warwick Ross, David Roach. Associate producer: Lulu Pinkus. Screenplay: Yahoo Serious, David Roach. Director o f photography: Jetl Darling. Supervising editor: Yahoo Serious. Editors: David Roach, Neil Thumpsron, Peter Whitmore, Amanda Robson. Art directors: Steve Marr, Laurie Faen, Colin Gibson, Ron Highfield. Music: William Motzing, Martin Armiger, lommy lycho. C.ast: Yahoo Serious (Albert Einstein), Odile le Clev.io (Marie Curie), John Howard (Preston Preston), Pee Wee Wilson (M r Einstein I, Su C.ruickshank (Mrs Einstein), Lulu Pinkus (The Blonde), Kaarin Fairfax ( The Brunette), Lonely Street Hotel Manager! Michael Lake). Production company: Serious Films. Distributor: Village Roadshow 35mm. 89 minutes. Australia. 1988

EVIL ANGELS This film is not a whodunnit. This film knows the dingo did it. This is a film about how the media did it, about how urban (and country) mvth did it and about how the judicial svstem did it to Lindv and Michael Chamberlain. Onlv problem is the film fails to tell us how the media, mvth and the judiciary did it. The film’s perpetuation o f the web ofinnuendo and inference spun around the disappear ance of nine-week-old Azaria Chamberlain from a camping ground at Uluru in 1980, inadvertently puts Evil Angels in the same shameful position as the much reviled media from which it attempts to dissociate itself. It’s the same shameful position that we (Australians who tell jokes or laugh at them) all deserve to occupy and from which there is no escape - or so the film attests. Evil Angels performs a number o f dexterous moves to produce this oxerriding sense o f shame. By simple juxtapo sition o f scenes o f media manipulation with scenes of popular myth-making, the film implies that jokes and news reports belong to the same order o f exploitation. Similarly, intercutting private exchanges between Lindv (Meryl Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) with courtroom drama, makes the police-forensic-judicial processes seem ludicrous, even malevolent. The discrediting o f media and legal constructions of the Chamberlain story leaves us with just one legitimate angle: the dynamic o f Michael and Lindv’s relationship how it suffered and how it survived. Hence, many moving moments which accumulate inexorably to a final affirma tion o f home, church and family. The last scene o f the film sums it up: after her release from prison Lindv is welcomed back into the family, and the reunited family is ceremoni ously welcomed back into the church. Outside, the media vultures descend as the Chamberlains emerge from the sanctity o f the church into the glare o f television cameras. Michael has the last word when he declares that the importance o f Innocence to innocent people guarantees the continuation o f the fight to clear their names. Michael and Lindy emerge as survivors o f a nightmare journey from an initial state o f innocence to a determina tion to prove their Innocence. The opening scenes o f the film celebrate an innate goodness at the heart o f family life, captured in that quintessential Australian family experi ence: the camping holiday. All the ingredients for a popular mythology are firmly in place by the time Michael is busily barbecuing vegetarian sausages at the fateful campsite. Enter the dingo. Exit Azaria. The end ofinnocence begins. From this point the film begins to function as somekind o f avenging angel, swooping into pubs, press rooms and dinner parties across Australia, singling out bad taste and media hype for judgment and censure. The Chamber lains, meanwhile, struggle to maintain a sense o f bemused incredulity as their own image is fed back to them via local gossip and national headlines. Part o f their painful emer gence from the cocoon o f small town family life into na tional prominence involves putting aside their faith in straight talk and learning to play by the media’s rules. However, the film backs off from this complex nexus whereby one family was singled out to bear the brunt o f a

national imagination which revealed its deepest fears o f the maternal by casting Lindy Chamberlain in the role o f mur derous mother. For the film’s purposes, the media and the myth-making process become mere sideshows for the real drama going on in the bedroom and the courtroom. Time and again Evil Angels falls back on the behindthe-scenes drama o f a disrupted family life as its real focus. Although this tactic is eminently engrossing up until Lindy’s imprisonment, the family dynamic gets the kid gloves treatment for the tail end o f the story. What emerges is the sense that a marriage contract based on a shared faith in the will o f God has been tried, tested and not found wanting. Michael’s darkest hour occurs during the Alice Springs trial. As he falls apart from anxiety and misery, Lindy grows more ironic, more stolid, encasing her monu mental anger in an expanding body to produce the film’s most biting moments o f black comedy. Meryl Streep’s repulsively attractive performance tics not to mention her repertoire o f accents, function like a mask which keeps us caught up in the unwinnable game o f trying to catch a glimpse o f the real Lindy behind the media image. Sam Neill’s performance provides a neat foil. His image blends into Michael Chamberlain’s, producing a perfect fit. This disparity between an exaggerated imper sonation and an understated performance is curiously appropriate for signifying the strain in the relationship between Lindy and Michael. The unasked question in the film has to be the role o f the Northern Territory police in re-opening and pursuing the investigation into Azaria’s disappearance. When the Alice Springs jury reaches a verdict o f guilty, the decision seems absolutely inexplicable according to the conventions o f courtroom drama, because the film fails to advance a single shred ofevidence capable ofleading to such a verdict, let alone a life sentence. From the guilty verdict to Lindy’s release from prison, Evil Angels covers a lot o f ground in a very short time. The condensation o f the events leading up to her release enables a number o f issues to be neatly sidestepped. We remain none the wiser about the political motivations behind re opening the case and we are left to conclude that public opinion, somehow or other, exerted enormous influence over the judicial system which put Lindy behind bars and which eventually freed her. The film fails to advance any hy

pothesis about the inner workings o f the system, inducing a certain paranoia expressed in Lindy’s sentiment that such a thing should never be allowed to happen again in Austra lia. The implication that this extraordinary saga could have taken over the life o f any hapless family on holiday in the Australian outback, induces fear and shame. It also in duces derision and a new round o f dingo jokes. Evil Angels attempts to exonerate itself from the crime o f media exploitation by adopting a position o f moral superiority. Yet it is exactly this position that incites scepticism and invites another player into the arena to generate another telling o f this endlessly re-tellable tale o f the ‘bad’ mother, the lost child and the hungry wolf.

FELICITY COLLINS Evil Angels-. Directed by Fred Schepisi. Producer: Verity Lambert. Line producer: Roy Stevens. Executive producers: Menahem Golan, Yorarn Globus. Screnplay: Robert Caswell, Fred Schepisi, based on the book Evil Angels by John Bryson. Director o f photography: Ian Baker. Editor: Jill Billcock. Production designers: Wendy Dickson, George Liddlc. Music: Bruce Snieaton. Cast: Meryl Streep (Lindy), Sam Neill (Michael), Mauric Fields (Barritt), Charles Tingwell (Jus tice Muirhcad), Bruce Myles (Barker), Nick Tate (Charlwood), Sandy Gore (Joy Kuhl), Neil Fitzpatrick (Phillips), Dennis Miller (Sturgcss). Production company: Cannon Entertainment Inc/Golan Globus«in association with Cinema Verity. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 121 minutes. Australia. 1988..

GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

For a study in suspense Grievous Bodily H arm works with some notable attributes, including a complex storyline, location shooting that rapidly establishes dramatic mood, and characters who are never quite what they appear to be - initially, at least. This said, however, the film also reveals a number o f glaring problems in the film’s narrative devel opment, particularly in its second half. From the outset Grievous Bodily H arm appears evenly constructed: scenes are drawn out as the film develops a lin gering, almost voyeuristic sensibility. The opening se quence features teacher Morris Martin (John Waters) watching a video where two women and a man indulge themselves sexually. This is intercut with a road accident attended by journalist Tom Stewart (Colin Friels) and a de tective, Ray Birch (Bruno Lawrence). Each ofthese charac ters display some commitment to this respective activity but, importantly, they also appear to be dis tanced, as though merely going through a set o f empty motions. Connections are es tablished in this manner through the editing proc ess, although such con nections are devoid o f any immediacy o f character as they proceed with their business. Sooner or later their worlds collide. Thus Tom Stewart, accompa nied by his staff photog rapher (laconically por trayed by Kim Gyngell in EVIL ANGELS... SINGLING OUT a manner too close to his Comedy Company work BAD TASTE AND MEDIA HYPE FOR JUDGEMENT for comfort) set off on AND CENSURE their rounds. They attend the scene o f a siege and connect with the cop. Im mediately the cop uses the journalist to talk to the gunman. As the police down their weapons and Stewart steps forward to talk to the man, the cop picks up a high-powered rifle and quickly disposes o f the target. Presuma bly, this saves a lot o f fur ther hassle. The first half o f the film is about laying such scenes out. Morris Mar GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM... tin’s story proceeds in a similar manner. He is NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS... BUT obsessed with the recent SOME GLARING PROBLEMS IN ITS NARRATIVE death o f his young wife DEVELOPMENT (one o f the women in the

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

7 1

video). Things are brought to a head as he whiles away the hours in a nightclub. There he spies his wife, suddenly not dead, chases her but loses her. Realising her death was staged, he sets out in deadly pursuit. Her friends maintain he is wrong and soon Morris develops a very violent attitude. Cut back to the journalist and the cop, both on the trail o f Morris. The film rolls on, gently swaying from character to character, more cleverly playing with our expectations. Disturbingly, this structural mode is dropped about mid-way through as the action escalates. Any complexity built up beforehand dissolves as characters are simply made to go through the motions. We know that Morris Martin is a psychotic killer but once that is established the film has no space for further examination; he becomes a kind o f au tomaton who kills. Tom Stewart is introduced as a some what hard-bitten, cynical journalist, but where earlier some attempt had been made to examine this deterioration, this too is put on hold. Instead, we see him quickly patch things up with his ex-wife (Kerry Armstrong). Conveniendy, one might add, because this provides him with a kind o f refuge. At this point the object o f the furore, namely Claudine (Joy Bell) comes back into the picture, describing her reasons for dropping husband Morris (he was convenient at the time) and her reasons for working, now, as a high class prostitute (something about the money), thus providing enlightening information as to why the whole catastrophe began in the first place. Now while I refer to the way in which the major roles are left to flounder, it is also important to look at what the film has been doing with the ‘secondary'’ characters. The key here is the figure o f Claudine, first seen, we may recall, displaying her sexual proclivity on video. Like all women in the film, she is treated with the contempt o f a misogynist. Indeed, women are consistently drawn in Grievous Bodily H arm as cardboard cut-outs: women are desirable and sexually available - Claudine and Vivian, Morris’s ex mistress, also seen in the video; or dangerous and deceitful - ditto; or the good wife who waits for her husband to return from his dalliance, whatever that may b e-in this case, Annie, Tom ’s ex-wife. Other parts too are either under-utilised - John Flaus playing the journalist’s editor, (why this actor is relegated to minor roles is beyond me, - for my money the film could have been made into something had Flaus been given the role ofthe cop). Then there’s the third figure in the dreaded video, a doctor married to the late Vivian, whose appear ance in the film (searching for the embarrassing videotape) sets off the potential for a truly interesting sub-plot. In stead, he finds the video and subsequently disappears, com pletely uninterested in the fate o f his wife. Director Mark Joffe created an impressive work with the television mini-series The G reat Bookie Robbery. There he appeared to be at ease in developing a range o f charac ters, in creating a tense and complex narrative structure, in deed, in directing action. In Grievous Bodily Harw it would appear Joff'e’s ease has lessened, almost as though the constraints o f a feature are too overwhelming. Where at first a rhythm is established in Grievous Bodily Harm, crosscutting, building and developing characters, and pushing the narrative along gendy seems to be the norm until, inexplicably, as though time was running out, the film changes pace. With its pace picked up, the focus o f the film turns to action rather than attempting to strike a balance between action and character development. This problem is there after gratingly present, particularly given the film’s initial style; the location shooting which is such a feature o f Grievous Bodily H arm , is an achievement which manages to transcend the notion o f a recognizable place and fortu nately creates its own world. A spectacular sequence shot in the Blue Mountains adds to this splendid style, and when juxtaposed with the claustrophobic wet city it is visually remarkable. Such features go some way toward redeeming this urban thriller; however, they are left lying around as distant memorabilia in a mess o f trite characterisation and an unnecessary, awkward structure.

PETER LAWRANCE Grievous Bodily Harm-. Directed bv Mark Joffe. Executive producers: Antony I Ginnanc, Errol Sullivan. Producer: Richard Brennan. Screenplay: Warwick Hind. Director o f photography: Ellery' Ryan. Editor: Marc Van Buuren. Production designer: Roger Ford. Music: Chris Neal. Cast: Colin Friels (Tom Stewart), John Waters (Morris Martin), Bruno Lawrence (Det. Sgt Ray Birch). Joy Bell (Claudine). Chris Stalker (Allen). Kim Gyngell (M ick). Shane Briant (Stephen Enderby). Caz Lederman (Vivian Enderby), John Flaus (Bradshaw). Production company: Smiley Films/FGH . Distributor: Filmpac. 35mm. 9 6 minules. Australia. 1988.

MAPANTSULA

MARRIED TO THE MOB

A coming to consciousness film (Burning a n Illusion, After Something Wild I thought Jonathan Demme was the Broken M irrors) always has one big hurdle to clear - the founding father o f yet another new American cinema. moment o f change crucial to the film’s premise. The film There is no doubt about the brilliance and skilful nature o f has to convince the audience that a character who once was Something Wild, but my assessment o f Demme had to be blind now can see. Advertisers rely on Before and After shaken up, compounded into more suitable, less passionate logic to sell all sorts o f products. Political filmmakers also statements that actually refer to where the director (and engage their anti-heroes in the same logic - before enlight maybe directing) is in America at present. enment and after enlightenment. In advertising, the agent Something Wild could be placed in the same gothic o f change has a brand name. In politics, that agent is much American camp as Blue Velvet and A fter Hours, but M arried harder to identify. As Adorno has pointed out so succinctly, to the Mob has a certain quirkiness in common with Tim in the consumer market we buy the product despite our Burton’s Beetlejuice and Pee Wee’s B ig A dventure, disbelief. For Thomas Mogotlane (co writer and star) and Oliver Schmitz (co writer and director) their initial premise - a black man, who has learned to live off/with the system o f apartheid, reaches a point where he will say “N o” - involves the suspension o f disbelief. Making the moment o f coming to consciousness work in terms o f narrative logic is the hard bit. M apantsula solves the problem o f plausibility in three ways. Firstly, the fragmentation o f space produces shift ing perspectives o f a complex social world. M apantsula’s spatial strategies produce a startling counterpoint for television’s coverage o f the apartheid territory o f Soweto/Johannesburg. We never get a good look at the place - the tourist gaze is blocked. Only gradually do the differ ent sites take on some form o f coherence as the narrative traces out the paths taken by anti-hero, Panic (Thomas M ogot MAPANTSULA... lane), as he moves from scumbag to comrade - or criminal to terrorist, as his A SOPHISTICATED NARRATIVE STRUCTURE; white interrogator would have it. FOR EACH FORMAL STRATEGY THERE Secondly, there are two plot lines IS A MAJOR PAY-OFF which intercut two temporal orders the first is the trajectory o f events leading up to Panic’s arrest; the second is the trajectory o f events in Carpenter’s Big Trouble in Little C hina or Eddie Murphy’s Com ing to A m erica. Demme has thrown restraint to the the prison leading up to the moment o f crisis and change. wind and gone head-over-heels crazy with set design and The film opens with a turning point (Panic’s journey to prison in the back o f a van) and, in alternating moves, trav details. M arried to the Mob is visually overpowering. In Citizens B an d and Melvin an d H ow ard Demme showed he els back over the chain o f events leading up to Panic’s arrest, had an eye for American kitsch and an oddball talent for and forward from the moment o f arrest to the climactic depicting idiosyncrasy and everyday delusions in individu scene which ends the film. als, without moral conjecture. Something Wild offers the Finally, the film leaves the moment o f change (o f re restraint o f these earlier films alongside a masterful art for fusal) to the last shot. set design: the rich avant garde feel o f Audrey/Lulu’s Cutting from the climax to the end credits deprives us Manhattan apartment contrasts perfectly with the empty o f a resolution and denouement. We are left to imagine the interior o f Charlie’s Long Island home. In M arried to the After. This sophisticated narrative structure makes the film Mob the interiors and exteriors surrounding members o f a great deal more than the first black feature to come out o f the mob and their wives are built up layer upon layer like South Africa. shelves in a hypermarket. I t’s an explosion o f candy-col For each o f M apantsula’s formal strategies there is a oured lollipop daydreams, a material kitsch illuminated by major payoff. Space - as place/site o f oppression and resis sensational and flamboyant lighting. M arried to the Mob is tance, upstages narrative development in the powerfully one o f the most stunning examples o f cinematic light I have suggestive scene where Panic visits the empty classrooms o f seen in recent American cinema, along with Martin Scorsese’s a Soweto school in his search for Sam (Eugene Majola). The The Last Temptation o f Christ. split time structure pays o ff when the film intercuts Panic’s J. Hoberman has pointed the rise o f “the new Amershoplifting o f a suit with the interrogation scenes where he icarama” within the prevailing American independent scene is gradually stripped not only o f the suit but, most impor using as examples the Coen brothers (Blood Simple, R aising tantly, o f his streetwise bravado. A rizon a), Jarmusch (Stranger Than Paradise, Down By The incidental narrative structure pays o ff when the Law ), David Lynch’s Blue Velvet and David Byrne’s True interrogator shows Panic the police video o f the political Stories. He cites Jarmusch and the Coens as early propo demonstration which Panic had joined just after learning o f nents o f this new, picaresque Americarama (both surfaced Sam’s death. Confusion and coincidence led to Panic’s ar at the 1984 New York Film Festival) but when he eventu rest and it is coincidence that leads Panic to his moment o f ally sums up I find him describing Jonathan Demme as far refusal at the end o f the interrogation. I f the police interro back as Citizens B an d (19 7 7 ) with its prefab two-lane gator had used any other video except the one which re blacktop-CB radio regionalism, and Melvin a n d H ow ard minds Panic o f Sam’s death, then Panic would’ve had no (1 9 8 0 ) which rushes by like a hymn to K-Mart, credit cards, reason not to buy his own freedom at the cost o f fabricating get-rich-quick schemes and the all-American game show. evidence against his political cellmates. The film suggests “Americarama,” according to Hoberman, “is pop culture that it is the memory o f the impact o f Sam’s death that gone reflexive. It meditates on the pathos o f received ideas, triggers Panic’s refusal. O f such coincidences resistance is broods over the wonder o f the ersatz, revels in the miracle made. o f everyday bad taste. Deadpan irony blurs with rapt FELICITY COLLINS appreciation. From a position o f unfathomable hipness, the Mapantsula-. Directed by Oliver Schmitz. Producer: Max M ontocAmericaramist regards the heartland as something like a chio. Executive producers: David Hannay, Keith Rosenbaum. Screen kitsch theme park.” (Prem iere, October 1988). play: Oliver Schmitz, Thomas Mogodane. Director o f photography: Rod Steward. Editor: Mark Baard. Art director: Robyn Hofmeyr. Demme learned a lot when he worked for Roger Music: The Ouens. Cast: Thomas Mogodane (Panic), Themba Corman, but what he seems to have learnt hard and fast, Mishali (Pat), Peter Sephuma (Duma), Police Interrogator Stander and will never give up, is the attitude that a filmmaker must (Marcel van Heerden), Eugene Majola (Sam), Dolly Rathebe (Ma make his or her characters likeable. With a Demme movie, Mobise). Production company: Max M ontocchio Production. Dis even the bad guys are loveable (Ray Liotta in Something tributor: David Hannay Prod. 35mm. 106 minutes. South Africa/ W ild ate my heart out) because the idea o f good and bad in Britain/Australia. 1988

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

a Demme movie is subject to the laws o f cultural relativity: he makes everything normal and circumstantial, which gives the widest scope for fashioning a picture o f mass culture informed by a wonderfully empathetic ironic composure. Demme never loses his crazy humanism: he has no vindictiveness, no sense o f sneering superiority. Some people hate his work precisely because he passes no judg ment on his characters. For instance, you’re not supposed to like the head o f a Mafia establishment but you’re gonna love Dean Stockwell .as Tony ‘The Tiger’ Russo. Every thing from his flamboyant dress sense, the white trash tiger skins in his office to that purrfect delivery o f little phrases

MARRIED TO THE MOB... A RICH BLEND OF ELEMENTS SHAKING UP INTO A STAR-SPANGLED RHINESTONE COCKTAIL like “oh danks” or, to mistress Karen (Nancy Travis), “You go straight home lollipop,” in a Long Island-cum-Bronxian accent. He just has that special touch (we saw it in Blue Velvet, where he played a pansexual drug dealer) that Demme is not embarrassed to play out. What makes M arried to the Mob so delightful is its rich (Mississippi mudcake kind o f rich) blend o f elements: a marvellously ostentatious Disneyesque landscape; a flair for characterisation and generally fantastic casting; Demme’s talent for musical nuance; at the script stage, the decision to combine a gangster scenario with a romantic comedy; and, to top it off, the decision to angle the story from the domestic point-of-view o f a dispirited and morally inclined mob wife (Michelle Pfeiffer). These ingredients shake up into a star-spangled rhinestone cocktail. Is there anything more splendiferously PoMo than the Pantheon honey moon suite at the Eden Roc Hotel in Miami, with its Greekblue flying dolphins and golden mermaids that contrast lav ishly with the giant Mediterranean blue pompoms embed ded in the bedcover. Michelle Pfeiffer’s Angela is a brilliant study in chew ing gum nervousness powered by a ducklike walk and a rubber mouth expression that signifies hopelessness coex isting with optimism. Mercedes Ruehl’s Connie Russo is this year’s model o f the jealous housewife taking comic tension to a ballbreaking extreme. Her performance is power plus. I just flipped out over her white leather outfit emblazoned with rhinestones and her brilliant stage en trance towards the end o f the film. And then there is Demme’s gift for the unexpected detail: the old guy, toting a shopping trolley, crossing the railway tracks in the opening scenes; Frank DeMarco’s mother (Maria Karnilova) throwing herself upon the de scending coffin o f her son (Alec Baldwin); the Mr Spoons sequence; Tony’s preoccupied filing o f his fingernails as he reminds Tommy (Paul Lazar) to order a serve o f onion rings at a suburban Burger World. Or Demme’s use o f the visual rhyme: above the outrageously idiosyncratic bed (Tim Burton-inspired, surely) inhabited by FB I agent Mike Downey (Matthew Modine) is an Americana-style picture o f a cowboy riding a bucking bronco. The same image illustrates a pair o f earrings worn by Angela when she goes out on her big date with the duplicitous agent. Animal im agery runs rife through the film, from the way the DeMarco dog looks at Angela when she scolds her son Joey (Anthony J. Nici) for playing three card monte with the neighbour-

ROGER RABBIT... THE SPIRIT IS RIGHT! LET THOSE TOONS OUT WHERE THEY BELONG

hood kids, to the snarling, growling dog faces o f agent Downey and his FB I sidekick Ed Benitez (Oliver Platt) when they spot the Mafia heavies entering a restaurant that looks like King Arthur’s castle. Although the landscape becomes more and more a melodramatic cartoonesque it is evened out by some seri ous cinematic stylistics. Most o f the scenes are lit for daylight, which gives the movie a bright, get-away-from-itall mood, much like the breezy photos we see advertising the South Seas. When the lighting is dark or dim we can be sure that something sober or dangerous is happening: agent Downey’s speech to Angela about how some people deserve a second chance; the homicidal trip to Burger King. In opposition to the vertical line used in a film noir, M arried to the Mob follows the horizontal American tradi tion o f Griffith or Ford. The establishing shots where the camera pans high speed along the railway tracks set the pace so, like a Warner cartoon, there is little need for shadow or contrast and the screen is always flooded with light high lighting colour, tone and hue. This works to give the characters and their actions total authority within the frame, helping to play out Demme’s eternal humanism. The horizontal line structure also evokes a sense o f forward movement, o f change and its probability within the narra tive: cars moving along highways, shopping trolleys along supermarket aisles, etc. Demme is informing his audience from the very start to be prepared to move as fast as the plot. He wants you to keep up with his speed but, paradoxically, the horizontal line works to engage your attention within the frame and close the logico-temporal gaps in the plot that, put in the hands o f an inferior director, would stand out glaringly. For example, my favourite, the slighdy angled horizontal line o f an old bathtub sitting in the middle o f the kitchen at Angela’s empty Lower East side apartment. This latter line signals a total moral change o f character and pace within an environment where the junk wealth in an suburban outer land o f Mafia supremacy is inverted for a cross-cultural slum integrity within a big city. I t’s as if mise en scene is enunciating a repudiation o f the slick suburban American dream and replacing it with the idea that the big city (the original site o f gangster warfare and immorality) offers a sanctuary for starting over; in the big city Angela meets her new friend Rita (Sister Carol) from the Hello Gorgeous hair salon and she finds herself a new man who offers her child knowledge about dinosaurs in preference to gifts o f guns and lessons in how to use to them. When vertical lines are used they are used with economy to emphasise separation or alienation. The most comic use o f the vertical effect is in a scene between Angela and agent Downey where they are tightly packed into an elevator and symbolically separated'by a white chair which has a back made o f vertical wooden bars, similar to a cage. They talk to each other through the bars. Downey tells her she’ll have to strip it before she can paint it. Like stripping away the white paint from the wooden chair, Angela and Downey have to strip away the false knowledge they have o f each other before they can get down to the 58

serious business o f a sexual relationship which is, o f course, the traditional ending within the formula o f the romantic comedy. I can’t help but go overboard about a Jonathan Demme film. The stark films o f the seventies gave us a cinema o f self-destruct - a mixed, dark reverie o f the common man (K in g o f M arvin Gardens and Taxi Driver). During that period o f filmmaking, change and any notion o f a future was annexed by a beautiful but savage realism. Life and love in the ‘new’ American cinema o f the seventies was about as hopeless as in a film noir ( You Only Live Once) or a thirties gangster flick {Scarface). Demme’s Something Wild retains some dark Gothic elements only possible in the aftermath o f the seventies, but M arried to the Mob displays a beautiful and delightful baroque style in all areas o f its composition. What stays with me is the luxuriance o f the musical mise en scene: the interplay between a soft and jazzy saxophonic rendition with a heavier, more contempo rary and citified reggae-rap sound. Demme is constantly evoking our senses. What more can I say?

SHELLEY P. KAY M arried to the Mob: Directed by Jonathan Demme. Producers: Kenneth U tt, Edward Saxon. Executive producers: Joel Simon, Bill Todman Jr. Screenplay: Barry Strugatz, Mark R. Burns. Director o f photography: Tak Fujimoto. Editor: Craig McKay. Production designer: Kristi Zea. Music: David Byrne. Cast: Michelle Pfeiffer (Angela DeM arco), Matthew Modine (Mike Downey), Dean Stockwell (Tony Russo), Mercedes Ruehl (Connie Russo), Alec Baldwin (Frank DeM arco), Trey Wilson (Regional Director Franklin), Joan Cusack (Rose). Production company: Mysterious Arts/Demme. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 103 minutes. USA. 1988

W H O FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? I don’t care who framed Roger Rabbit. M/aiframed Roger R ab b it is the question befitting this big picture. Although Roger Rabbit is a pyrotechnical celebration o f animation, it saddens me to the very core that a film with so much to be playful with - all that Hollywood (film noir) history, all those crazy cartoon(ist)s - can lack just so much soul. You’d think that with its 700-odd credits, just a little more could’ve crept in. Soul, that is. After bashing my head against a brick wall for an hour trying to figure out how to assess this film, I came up with a couple o f alternatives. Firstly, you judge it by what the filmmakers set out to do: the technical-cum-commercial side o f the game. T o wit: Spielberg, the Disney Corp., Richard Williams and Robert Zemeckis all concluded they wanted a feature-length animation that combined live action with cartoon characters. So, does the interplay be tween the live action and the Toons seem real? Yes, it does; there is sufficient shadow cast by rite Toons, they handle their coffee cups and guns adequately, the camera carefully focuses its angle on a Roger Rabbit foot as the foot stands still, but the camera moves and Bob Hoskins handles empty space as if it were a hallucination (the actors had to stare at thin air and imagine a Toon standing or sitting there doing something). On first viewing, R oger R a b b it blew my mind. Admirable. Commendable. Box office blah-blah. I thought C I N E M A

P A P E R S

> 71

it a beautiful ode to only the very best in cartoonland. On the level o f special effects, it is a pioneering groundbreaker into a brave new world where the second dimension meets the third (Tron).The Toons stand their ground at 2 4 frames a second - a lot o f work for animation director Richard ( Pink Panther) Williams. The Toons, by the way, are hand drawn and their shading is com puter generated which adds a great deal to their three dimensionality. As with the full animation tech niques used to create early Warner and Disney cartoons it is a visual pleasure to watch these Toons doing their stuff on a big screen. This resurrection o f artful anima tion and cartoon character design back from the never-never land o f the awful television dead is a serv ice to society. It reminds us o f the dreadful mess we’ve got our animated heroes into: their conservation at the Museum o f Modern Art (MoMA) is comparable with foreclosing on extinction by keeping wild animals in zoos; or, even worse, like stuffed dodos or dinosaur skeletons in natural history museums. The spirit o f R oger R ab b it is right: let those Toons out where they belong. For a few fleeting seconds Daffy Duck is reborn to the big screen. It’s just that sometimes in R oger R ab bit the chemistry is wrong. There is a sense o f classical Hollywood lurking in the background o f R oger R abbit, where aesthetic discipline and artistic vigour in terms oftechnique actually mean something. Roger R abbitis set in 1947 - the end o f a decade o f brilliant Warner Bros cartoons directed by such greats as Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Fritz Freleng, Frank Tashlin and, o f course, Chuck Jones. It’s a shame Disney refused to share Roger Rabbit with Warner Bros because the liaison could only have added to the film, even if it meant splitting profits. But, after all that praise, one suddenly feels a bit empty and starts wondering if Roger Rabbit is just a bag o f air. I asked myself - and you should too, when you see it whether I ’d been totally seduced by a simulacrum. And the answer was: yes, yes, yes. The simulacrum did it. I felt as if /had been framed, and not that goddam hyperactive rabbit. The ordeal cost me some anxiety so I had to find another means o f assessing this film. How does it stand up against current feature films. And where do the Toons fit in? Two hours o f Tex Avery or Chuck Jones has me in the aisles beg ging the projectionist to do it to me again, only longer this time. My original five-star rating for Roger Rabbit plum meted to a miserable three-and-a-half on second viewing. Joe Dante did it to his audiences with Gremlins. What’s up, R oger R abbit? Roger Rabbit, the character, is pretty crazy and anar chic, but when he tells you Disney’s Goofy was a genius he gets under your fingernails - unless you happen to agree with this absurdity. (Everyone knows the masters in Car toonland are Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny.) R oger R abbit, the movie, doesn’t go far enough, and despite a full bag o f dazzling tricks and gags, it is fairly badly flawed in terms o f storyline and plot development. For instance, the twist in the plot that links the death o f Marvin Acme with the Maroon Cartoon-cum-Red Car Lines real estate deal could easily be lost to you if you’re not paying attention when a fake newsreel hits a cinema screen within the film. Also, the potential for reductio a d absurdum (evoking the spirit o f animated anarchy) is lost when detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) finally goes inside Toontown - as if finishing the film as quickly as possible was the controlling motiva tion. This flaw in plot and script development is lost to you on first viewing (can’t see the faultline for all the ersatz). On second viewing I get the feeling this film should have been given to a better director (Dante was wasted on In n er Space) and the script needed a great injection o f structure (Zemeckis did O K with Back to the Future) to make the whole thing plausible (give a Toon a break, why dontcha?). From a buildup to the crucial change o f location for

the film’s denouement (from Toons in real downtown H ol lywood to humans in Toontown) it is basically one long scene that ends the film. It just doesn’t gel - the film folds up like a deflated noise balloon that went down with a whimper instead o f a bang. In R oger R a b b it the rigour o f comic timing is some times adhered to (“I ’ve got a 50-year-old lust and a threeyear-old dinky” ), sometimes lost ( “I ’m as good as dipped!” ), sometimes nostalgic ( “Is that a rabbit in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?” ), sometimes perfect ( “A Toon killed his brother” ). There are plenty o f good gags. All my favourites work in that fifth-of-a-second time zone discov ered by Tex Avery: the Clampett-like overstatement o f Roger busting through a real window and leaving his silhouette in the glass; the Daffy Duck and Donald Duck piano sequence inside Marvin Acme’s nightclub, and par ticularly Daffy’s line about Donald’s speech impediment; Droopy in the T oon Town elevator; Baby Herman smok ing his cigar; Dumbo-on-loan sequence; Betty Boop’s cameo. When the gags don’t work, like all the huff around the film’s McGuffin (Roger’s love letter) it makes you want to run screaming into MoMA, begging for a fix o f old faves like Porky in W ackyland (1938), Duck A m uck (1 9 5 3 ), W hat’s Opera Doc?( 1 9 5 7 ), R ed H ot R id in g H ood (1 9 4 3 ), Tou Ought to be in Pictures and Thugs with Dirty Mugs (1 9 3 0 ). Who let Toons into feature films anyway?

SHELLEY P. KAY Who F ram ed R oger Rabbit?-. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Produc ers: Robert Watts, Frank Marshall. Executive producers: Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy. Associate producers: Don Hahn, Steve Starkey. Screenplay: Jeffrey Price, Peter Seaman, based on the book Who Censored R oger R a b b it? b y Gary K. Wolf. Director o f animation: Richard Williams. Director o f photography: Dean Cundey. Editor: Arthur Schmidt. Production designers: Elliot Scott, Roger Cain. Music: Alan Silvestri. Visual effects supervisor: Ken Ralston. M e chanical effects supervisor: George Gibbs. Cast: Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Christopher Lloyd (Judge D oom ), Joanna Cassidy (D ol ores), Charles Fleischer (the voice o f Roger Rabbit, Benny the Cab, Greasy, Psycho), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), Kathleen Turner (the speaking voice o f Jessica Rabbit), Alan Tilvern ( R K Maroon). Production company: Touchstone Pictures/Amblin Entertainment. Distributor: Village Roadshow. 35mm. 103 minutes. USA. 1988.

TENDER HOOKS Tender Hooks is a film about ‘doing time’. Time exists as a succession o f states, but in Tender H ooksit is not marked out by the passage o f the sun and the moon across the sky. Instead, there is time on the outside and time on the inside. The cyclical path o f these two states is inextricably and inevitably linked, like night following day. The shadow o f one is remembered in the living o f the other. On the outside, life is instantaneous. Thoughts and desires are obsessional and then become distracted, with the same erratic speed o f moths mesmerised by ever-

changing sources o f light. On the inside, time is something to be endured doses. “Not much to do here except mutilate yourself,” says Rex (Nique Needles) almost drily. Tender Hooks is the first feature from Australian filmmaker Mary Callaghan, and it bears a close relation to her previous work, the highly regarded short fiction film, Greetings fr o m Wollongong (1982). Both films share histo ries o f painstaking script development, trying to get the moment and the milieu ‘right’. The dividing line between Callaghan’s ensemble o f actors and their characters tends to blur, as she works with professionals renowned for particu lar kinds o f roles, and other performers seemingly straight out o f the local bars, apartment blocks and shopping malls that shape her story. One tends to see these actors around. Tender Hooks is a small story writ large with the finest o f detail. The actors understand this detail. There is a strong sensation for the viewer that each scene has been experi enced in some way before. This reaction is not one o f personal déjà vu, relived on the part o f the audience, but rather an intuitive guess that the writer/director is an inveterate scribbler and note-taker with an eye like a Polaroid. The audience’s enjoyment lies in the resonance o f the film’s repertoire o f looks, quips and body moves, rather than through a structured series o f climactic moments. Rex is always on the move somewhere else, following up yet another scam. At first, this only serves to make him all the more endearing and Mitchell (Jo Kennedy) finds him im plicated in her life before she has had a chance to absorb it. Rex has perfected the sheepish grin and it’s a winner for him for quite some time, overriding Mitchell’s doubts about his crim friends, uncertain movements and endless stream o f stolen presents (meaningless objects given as meaningful gifts). The two live their lives out in the city, getting the best views and the best times from all that Sydney has to offer. Their lovemaking is a jumble o f clothes and limbs, TV and dirty dishes. “I f you hadn’t stuck your tongue in my ear I could have gone on for longer,” says Rex as he cleans up the results o f a split condom, using Mitchell’s hairdryer. All the time, marital bickering from the flat overhead (sounding suspiciously like the voices o f director Callaghan and pro ducer Chris Oliver) sets an ominous tone. On a ‘jo b ’ at a harbourside penthouse with two mates, Rex watches porn on the home video and eats from the fridge while the work o f fleecing the joint is supposed to be taking place. This kind o f sensual relationship towards theft cannot last. Gradually, life on the outside heads towards its inevitable reunion with that on the inside o f the prison wall. Callaghan makes the point that crims carry their prison around with them and those who love them end up ‘doing time’ as well. These are the Tender Hooks that tear people apart at the same time as they are keeping them together. Though the film might wish to be about Kennedy’s ‘Mitchell’, it cannot help but revolve around Needles’ ‘Rex’. Even though he seems power less - shorn and made scrawny by prison life - it’s still his life and experience that give struc ture to the narrative and to the life o f Mitchell. Choices have to be made. It’s a lazy option to pro pose that Needles and Ken nedy are not really acting familiar as we are with the types o f roles they play. Instead, one must remember that these types o f roles are their forte. They are not alone in this project and there are several other figures who people the same city that they inhabit. In particular, Garry Aron-Cook is striking as fellow-crim Terry, whose subtle sense o f menace TENDER HOOKS..

A SMALL STORY WRIT LARGE WITH THE FINEST OF DETAIL

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

7 1

burns like a slow fuse. Art direction by Kerrie Brown and music direction from Graham Bidstrup (ex-Angels, Gangajang, T V ’s Sweet a n d Sour) are essential elements in the realisation o f Tender Hooks. They provide the sound and image that allows Callaghan’s stories to be peopled. They cannot be sepa rated from her act o f direction. Mary Callaghan’s fictions have documentary inten tions and every little detail must ring true - and they do.

SUSAN CHARLTON Tender Hooks-. Directed by Mary Callaghan. Producer: Chris Oliver. Associate producer/production manager: Anna Grieve. Director o f Photography: Ray Argali. Editor: Tony Stevens. Art director: Kerrie Brown. Music director: Graham Bidstrup. Cast: Jo Kennedy (M itch), Nique Needles (Rex), Anna Phillips (Gaye) Robert Menzies (Yawn), John Poison (Tony), Ian Mortimer (Vik), Garry-Aron Cook (Terry). Production company: Tru-Vu Films. Distributor: Ronin. 35mm. 93 minutes. Australia. 198

TUCKER The June 1988 issue o f A m erican Film announces Francis Coppola’s return to “risky, personal moviemaking with his new film, Tucker ”. This return is marked in two ways. First, as a return to the kind o f stylistic visual embellish ments Coppola is often noted for, and which were evidently absent from his previous two films, Peggy Sue Got M arried and G ardens o f Stone. One example that immediately comes to mind is the live, split-screen technique which, as a cele brated feature o f One fr o m the H eart, makes an equally celebrated re-appearance in this film. The second way this return is marked is through the fact that the true story o f maverick inventor Preston Tucker and his hope for manufacturing the near-perfect automo bile has a resemblance to the fate o f Coppola and his dream o f a utopian movieland. The opening sequence o f Tucker sets out two visual registers. On the one hand, the film opens in a public relations film style as a voiceover advocates the inventive genius o f Preston Tucker and the virtues o f the Tucker Torpedo. But it is also the credit sequence, where its exotic, period-feel colour titles and images (a Coppola signature point) get intermingled with grainy, black-and-white footage o f Je ff Bridges as Preston Tucker. The voiceover carries itself over both visual forms, thus, in effect, coalescing the two, or identifying and drawing one towards the other. Preston Tucker and Francis Coppola may have much in common, but whether Tucker bears a relation to the relatively consistent stable o f other Coppola characters is another matter entirely. Moreover, it is not so much ‘i f he does b u t‘how’ he does. One can concede that Peggy Sue and G ardens o f Stone is Coppola with his wings clipped technically and stylistically straitjacketed - but they are no less Coppola. Insofar as character is as central as technique, Tucker is not so much a return as a continuation and, importantly, a realignment in view o f the films considered within Coppola’s hiatus period. In a review o f Peggy Sue Got M arried the suggestion that the film “tends to be more than the sum o f its parts” was the result o f momentarily forgetting that it was a Coppola film in order to see a Coppola film. The same can be said o f G ardens o f Stone. Many o f Coppola’s characters are bound on a quest or journey, and no matter whether or not the journey is actually realized it is always symbolic o f a moral-spiritual journey. By the final stage o f the journey characters may articulate a changed consciousness, the anguish that set them on their quest dispelled, both literally and figuratively, as with, say, the C. Thomas Howell char acter in The Outsiders, who finally puts pen to paper (and writes the book the film is based on). Or, a more notable example, the figures o f Dixie Dwyer and Sandman Williams in The Cotton Club, where personal freedom is matched by the liberation o f clearly marked out spatial relations, Peggy Sue Bodell and Gardens o f Stone’s Jackie Willow notwith standing. But, with the sense o f their ‘demons’ overcome and exorcised comes an even greater sense o f failure and o f loss, for what has been cited in these two films as nostalgia is also melancholia. Taken at this angle, Tucker can be seen as a very tricky morality play, where Coppola, as usual, is masterful at carefully balancing out all (contradictory) elements, per spectives and shades o f meaning. Returning to the credit sequence, what at first may appear as a metaphor o f fiction embracing fact can also be considered as the curious meeting o f fiction with fiction, for although the film does not understate its two different visual registers, neither does it understate the fiction o f Jeff Bridges playing Preston Tucker in its newsreel shots. One cannot be so sure anymore that Coppola is meeting (only) Tucker. 59

TUCKER... A TRICKY

MORALITY PLAY BALANCING OUT ITS CONTRADICTORY ELEMENTS This notion of a meeting o f one fictional register with another is drawn out further in the self-conscious rendering o f Tucker as a Frank Capra film. The plot involves the plight of the small man’s hope in the face o f big business and its political supports. Tucker, the character, is a figure whose idealism, although stretched at times, is never compro mised, and his ideal o f America as a haven for crackerbarrel visionaries is espoused in a court toom sequence that recalls many a Capra film. There’s even a nod toward Capra’s form o f homespun philosophy where a sign reads, “Where There’s A Will, There’s A Way” in a scene that has Tucker meet the first set o f obstacles to his dream - money and the need for a prototype o f the Tucker Torpedo to be ready in 60 days. A classic Coppola device is when the closure o f the film inverts the opening, as it did most recently, for instance, in G ardens O f Stone, where the American flag at the end - once we understand Jackie Willow’s death is implicated in what it represents - is made different from the one seen at the start. But neither Tucker the film, norTucker the character, is any different at either end. His comment to his partner and financier, Abe Karatz (Martin Landau), on the steps of the court house after his acquittal from charges o f fraud “The cars? That’s just machinery. I t’s the idea that counts,

A r t &

and the dream” - affirms this. The realization o f his dream is squashed, and the forces that worked against him remain unchanged, but the dream continues nonetheless. This kind o f idealism is not necessarily Coppola, but it’s defi nitely Capra. It’s at this point, however, that one finds that the film has forked in a number o f directions. Although his vision remains intact, how is it that Tucker as a Capra hero fails? A Capra hero never fails, for, at the point o f falling from grace, the forces that worked against him finally capitulate to his idealistic vision - M eet John Doe, Ton C a n ’t Take It With Tou, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, et al. Again, there is the tendency to be more than the sum o f its parts. But where once the answer lay, in part, in an active forgetting, the proposition here, on the other hand, must be that this is not the Coppola one thinks it is. The film poses certain questions to itself through the figure o f Abe Karatz. When he warns Tucker o f his impending arrest and says that it would be in Tucker’s interest for Karatz to resign (because o f his dark past), Karatz concludes by recalling his grandmother’s warning, “D on’t get too close to people, you’ll catch their dreams.” But Karatz then admits that it wasn’t until many years later that he realized she had actually said, “Germs, you’ll catch their germs.” Karatz is an interesting and important figure, for even he has a demon - his dark past - and he appears to be the only one that undergoes a form o f spiritual change: the realist on the verge o f catching someone else’s dream. Yet, his remarks and the confusion o f a word once uttered long ago are to resound on Tucker. IfTucker is Capra, where is Coppola? Or, put differently, how does Coppola become Capra? Preston Tucker appears to have his demon, but the demon is not necessarily to be found in either the Faustian transaction with his board members or in the silent Detroit businessmen and politicians who wish to bury him. His demon is close by. Returning to the scene on the steps o f the court house, Tucker’s remark that “it’s the idea that counts, and the dream” echoes the words uttered earlier in the film by another strange, visionary figure. It’s the scene o f the “Spruce Goose” and the meeting between Preston Tucker and Howard Hughes (played by Dean Stockwell). It’s a scene that is in stark contrast in mood and setting to the rest o f the film. Their meeting takes place in an airplane hangar o f enormous proportions (remembering that T ucker earlier buys the largest disused World War II airplane

plant), and the whole scene is shot at a low angle that dramatically heightens the surreal sense o f this world. I t’s all dark, desolate and icy-cold, and where Tucker is all showbiz flair, warmth, spirited and optimistic (even at the gravest o f times), Hughes is restrained, cold and clammy (he doesn’t shake hands), and his speech is laboured and monotonal. Above their heads, however, looms the weighty and gigantic aeroplane christened the “Spruce Goose” . Casually, without passion, Hughes explains, “They say it can’t fly, all they care about is whether it will fly or not...what does that matter, that’s not the point.” As it seems to suggest, Tucker is concerned with a variable set o f ‘meetings’. But here Tucker has taken a glimpse o f his dark, mirror image: Hughes is his demon. Although, at one level, Hughes is a visionary on par with Tucker, these two figures are also, at the same time, so very far apart, because for Tucker, the “Spruce Goose” would have to fly. T ucker’s vision o f things is utilitarian, his visions have a purpose that expands outwards beyond some strange personal form o f satisfaction. Hughes’ vision, on the other hand, is completely bound up, closed in, it has an inward direction that is not even strangely personal, but seemingly verging on the pathological. Like the point at which Lewis Carroll embraces John Bunyan in Peggy Sue Got M arried, it’s here that we can return to Capra more credibly, and to one o f his most noted films, I t ’s A W onderful Life. With the inclusion o f the How ard Hughes scene, the image o f Preston Tucker at the end o f the film is the image o f George Bailey after he has glimpsed the nightmare vision - dark, desolate and ravaged - o f his small hometown had he not existed, or had he pur sued the personal goals he wanted but the town continually thwarted. Thus, in finding his demon Tucker can lose, but his dream can continue: and so, if there is cause to celebrate, it is not so much that Coppola has returned, but that he never left.

RAFFAELE CAPUTO Tucker: Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Producers: Fred Roos, Fred Fuchs. Executive producer: George Lucas. Screenplay: Arnold Schulman, David Seidler. Photography: Vittorio Storaro. Editor: Priscilla Nedd. Production design: Dean Tavoularis. Music: Joe Jackson. Cast: Jeff Bridges (Preston Tucker), Joan Allen (Vera Tucker), Martin Landau (Abe Karatz), Frederic Forrest (Eddie Dean), Mako (Jimmy Sakayuma), Dean Stockwell (Howard Hughes), Lloyd Bridges (Sen. Homer Ferguson). Production company: Lucasfilm. Distributor: U IP. 35mm. I l l minutes. USA. 1988.

T e c h n o lo g y o f M a k e * U p

incorporating Three Arts make-up Centre Pty Ltd • Film • Television • Theatre One or two year full time courses in Theatrical Arts Year One: All aspects of make-up A rt class/design layout presentation Sculpture class/special effects

Three Arts Make-Up Centre P ty Ltd (E st. 1966) Cnr. Shepherd & Myrtle Streets, Chippendale, NSW 2008 Tel. (02) 698 1070

T h eatrical h air styling Congratulations to all our past and present

Year Two:

students who are continuing with excellence the

Prosthesis w ork/special effects T h eatrical h air styling (advanced)

fo r our Film, Television, Theatre, High Fash

B asic wig knotting

ion and Art!Sculpture, plus other related areas

Special courses also available

high standard in Make-up and Special Effects

o f employment fo r make-up artists.

• Special classes with SMILKA Australia’s own international make-up artist, will hold classes in glamour, high fashion, video and photography and Bert Charles international high fashion make-up artist. Tuesday night 6.00-8.00 p.m. (career course) • Facepainting Six week course to learn the art of face painting or as a revision course. Wednesday night 6.00 - 8.00 p.m. (career course) • Workshop classes in Special Effects • Holiday Hobby Course: For schools, amateur theatre or people think ing of a career in make-up. Monday - Friday (Every school holiday) ! Week only. (Except Easter)

Theatrical Arts Shop: • M ake-up • Body W ashes • Masks • M aterial for Mask Making and Sculpture Dawn Range of Cosmetics

• Lecture Demonstration All aspects of make-up for schools, amateur theatre and interested groups.

For fu rth er information write or telephone D awn Swane RADA , ASMA , Principal and Founder

Private appointment only; Facial prosthetic and skin camouflage; Remedial Techniques; Direct Likeness: Head sculpture’s created in bronze, resin and plaster. —

• Professional M ake-Up Brushes • New

Courses For 1 9 8 9

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• 7 1

H A P P Y

FROM THE COMPOSER OF A ZED AND TWO NOUGHTS, THE DRAUGHTSMAN'S CONTRACT and DROWNING BY NUMBERS

M E R G E R !

THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT

PETER LUCK PRODUCTIONS

extends C in em a P a p ers and F ilm v iew s very best wishes on their merger and good luck for the future. PETER LUCK PRODUCTIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD.

makers of B icen ten n ial M inutes... A T im e to R em em ber, This Fabu lou s Century, The A ustralians, W here A re They Now? Who A re We? and other films for the Australian

BASED ON THE ACCLAIMED BOOK BY OLIVER SACKS

A NEUROLOGICAL OPERA BY MICHAEL NYMAN DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER RAWLENCE

television networks and various clients. We also supply library and film editing facilities. [PG]

PETER LUCK PRODUCTIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD. PETER LUCK PRODUCTIONS (VIDEO) PTY LTD.

19 Edward Street, East Balmain, Sydney 2041 Phone 810 2458 Fax 818 5325 ' THIS M O V IE IS A TRIUM PH - BILL COLLINS 'A SWEEPING PANORAMA O F A VAST COUNTRY . . /

# ~

- DAVID STRATTON

On Australia Day 1988, over 20 film crews across the country filmed from midnight to midnight to create an authentic, kaleidoscopic, humorous and critical portrait of a nation . . .

M ASCARADE — a team of experienced, highly trained makeup designers and makeup artists geared to produce the face, the look, the feel you need . . . for film, television, theatre, video and still photography.

DIRECTED BY PAT FISKE

M ASCARADE — competent specialists in Period Makeup — very natural “ No-Makeup” look, Special Effects Makeup, Fantasy, Prosthetics.

PRODUCED BY GRAEME ISAAC & PAT FISKE

Ì 1

MASCARADE — the Makeup Agency in Melbourne for all

makeup needs.

SEASON COMMENCES 8 DECEMBER

The agency has grown from the unique Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, established in 1984 to ensure the highest standard of training for future makeup artists. Enquiries for Agency and School: Shirley Reynolds on (03) 266 2087 or (AH) (03) 68 3435.

i l m

e a

1 MACARTHUR STREET EAST MELBOURNE 6511490

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

« 7 1

“Love turned upside down is love for all that.” - Hugh Leonard A remembrance of a father and son relationship, DA is a very special movie based on Irish playwright Hugh Leonard's autobiographical play.

EXCLUSIVE AUSTRALIAN PREMIERE STARTS FRI, DEC 23

SUM M ER LATESHOWS U2 RA TTLE &HUM Fridays

John Waters’

H A IR SP& Y » ! Saturdays *

MORNING MATINEE S^(iÙtC(ièSrMep’9 CLASSIC

cSsnowWhäe V _/ Lkmrß ^ and the^ even

59 Toorak Rd, South Yarra. 267 2700

FilmMake-up GNS OF INDEPENDEN

Technology

Since the AFC's Creative Development Fund was established in 1978, it has been the primary

TH E SCHOOL FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN FILM AND TELEVISION MAKE-UP

source of production funding for Australia’s low-budget film and video makers. Signs O f

Independents - Ten Years O f The C reative Developm ent Fund records independent film and video makers over the past decade. Included in Signs o f Independents are:

T ra in in g c o m m e n c e s w ith stra igh t corrective make-up for studio lighting through the various stages of character make-ups, beard and hair work. Th e course also covers racial and old age make-up techniques, basic hairdressing, as well as all studio protocol.

• Essays by Susan Dermody, Ross Gibson, Megan McMurchy, Adrian Martin and Jennifer Stott which provide a historical overview of the CDF, as well as focussing on various strands of filmmaking which have been supported by the CDF • Full profiles of 100 major titles, including synopses, cast and crew credits, and details about festivals, awards, distribution and sales • A complete listing of films and videos made with the assistance of the Creative Development Fund, the Women’s Film Fund, the Documentary Development Program and

FILM MAKE-UP TECHNOLOGY

the Documentary Fellowship Program between 1978 and 1988, including title, filmmaker, genre, gauge or format, length and year of completion

in conjunction with

KEHOE AUSTRALIA

• Select bibliography • Directory of distributors

Importers and suppliers of professional film , television and special effects make-up for the industry.

Signs o f Independents is enjoyable and easy to read, as well as being an invaluable reference book. (160 pages $10 including postage)

details contact: Josy Knowland

Order Form:

43-47 Trafalgar St. Annandale, NSW , 2038

N a m e _____ A d d re s s ___

T E L E P H O N E : (02) 519 4407

________________________________________________________ Postcode_____________ Please send me ____ copy/copies of Signs o f independents at $10 per copy (Includes postage). Make cheque or money order payable to Australian Film-Commission.

C I N E M A

P A P

• 7 1

THIS ISSUE: THE SCREENING OF AUSTRALIA

VOLUM E 2, BLEEDING BATTLERS FROM IRONBARK AND CHINESE FILM

THE SCREENING OF AUSTRALIA VOLUME 2 : ANATOMY OF A NATIONAL CINEMA Susan Dermody & Elizabeth Ja c k a Currency fress, Sydney, 282pp. $24.95 The Screening o f A ustralia is the sort o f book that doesn’t go short for reviews. I f you’re keen, by the time you reach this you’ll have read at the very least the Filmviews (Ina Bertrand) and Film-news ( Ken Berryman) treatments, and probably also The A ustralian Book Review (Tom O ’Regan) and god knows what else. So there’s a few areas o f discus sion I ’ll spare you: the relation o f Vol 2 (Anatom y o f a N ation al C in em a) to Vol 1 (A natomy o f a Film Industry, released last year), the unhappy tale o f their split publishing history, the effects o f the book having been composed in the main probably three years ago... I ’d also like to spare myself a summary o f contents, which has been supplied already by the aforementioned reviewers. Suffice it to say that this volume o f Screening is essentially devoted to the analysis o f a select number o f films falling within the years o f the 1970s Australian film ‘renais sance’ - an analysis which illustrates and nuances the general claims made in Volume 1 about the kind ofindustry and culture we have, and the kinds o f films they tend to produce. This, from the outset, makes it perhaps the most coherent text o f its kind produced on the Australian cinema - it doesn’t trail o ff into an assortment o f critical and/or purely whimsical annotations a la Brian McFarlane’s Aus tralian Cinem a. The armature o f the book is solid. The films are dealt with in terms o f a matrix o f ‘materialist’ terms that have rarely been used so precisely or elegantly - a critical attitude to how the films relate to the various circulating myths o f ‘Australianness’, myths o f history, place, identity; and, conversely, a celebration o f the traces o f non-jingoistic ‘regionalism’, o f authentically Australian ‘voices’. Heading up the book is a suggestive sketch o f Australia’s (like Canada’s) position as a ‘second cinema’ in the imperialist shadow o f Hollywood, and the sorts o f double binds and paralyses for cultural production this creates. So far, so good. However, the actual argumentative construction o f the book is not quite as together as its gen eral ádrift’. After the introduction, the authors dice up the corpus o f recent Australian film via a laborious exercise in genre sifting. Beyond the first two categories o f ‘the AFC

Jacka may not have a particularly high tolerance for certain genre’ and ‘the social realist film’ which serve the rest o f the hyper-masculine film and filmmaker types, but any argu book extremely well, the overall classification system bor ment about Australian cinema’s ineptness with popular ders on total incoherence (prospective classroom users action genres that downplays Tim Burstall and writes out should attempt drawing a diagram o f it). Without blinking, altogether Brian Trenchard-Smith, Richard Franklin and the book glides from stylistic modes like social realism, to C hain Reaction, is mounted very shakily indeed. And the an intentional category ‘purely commercial’, to the recur authors’ reluctance to really dive in to the morass o f 10BA rent sub-genres or topics o f the Australian Gothic and the quickies - surely not such an impossible research task - is Sexual Mores and Male Ensemble film, to a particularly also troubling. arbitrary and digressive grab-bag o f ‘Icons, Actors, Roles, Indeed, there’s something about the whole critical Sexual Difference’, and round finally to personal-taste head-set underlying Screening which seems rather ghost selection o f notable ‘eccentric’ works! This constitutes like to me, offered to the reader in invisible ink only. Apart neither a usefully ‘closed’ nor a generatively ‘open’ model from a few elegant grabs in passing at this or that new or old o f generic mapping. Its only real function in the book is to intellectual framework, the book is silent as to which critical announce areas and list films that will be taken up subse traditions - Australian or international - it derives from quently. (apart, that is, from feminism, which doesn’t always score The book boasts a few more o f its own eccentricities. the best point in every single analysis). It’s also not com Perhaps 95 percent o f the text is, sensibly enough, devoted pletely apparent which cultural sensibility the authors are to mainstream feature films. Independent less-than-feamost comfortable with, which one(s) they live in or ‘come ture-length Australian cinema keeps butting in (rather from’. When they allude to genre movies, are they thinking predictably) as the argument’s’good other’, that place o f Howard Hawks or Over the Edge? Is the reference point where cultural references and formal experiments are, on in film melodrama Douglas Sirk or Mommy Dearest? Paul the whole, far more interesting (hear, hear) - but fleshing Cox is a successful art-house director in comparison to out this abstract rhetoric (probably scarcely convincing to whom exactly - Tarkovsky or Michael Apted? What is the the average philistine industry reader) is a detailed consid ‘popular culture’ that Dermody and Jacka long to see enter eration o f no more than John Ruane’s Queensland. Der Australian cinema - A n im al House or Doonesbury? mody and Jacka should perhaps have applied the same ‘all or nothing’ writing logic to the topic o f the mini-series And what o f that stirring underworld o f ‘independent cinema’ which is regularly invoked with such roaring (covered more comprehensively in recent issues o f Filmviews) approval and seeming familiarity - is Queensland really the - why the arbitrary focus on A Town Like Alice out o f all the right metonym for the diverse cinematic experimentalisms possibilities? o f the 1960s, 70s and 80s? What about super 8, the avant This is not to suggest that what the authors say about garde, the militantly theoretical works, and all the rest? these stray examples or unsystematised generic areas is Although the book deplores ‘middle o f the road’ cinema uninteresting; only that their book has an unmistakeably and extols the virtues o f ‘eccentricity’, some readers may be belleslettresair about it. This means that, while it is never less left with the wear)' suspicion that its authors haven’t really than a pleasure to read - always elegant, witty and evocative managed to wander very far away from the mainstream’s - it’s also a bit thin. It strolls through its agenda ofconcepts slow lane. in a leisurely and sometimes repetitive fashion. (I read O f course, to be fair, Dermody and Jacka probably perhaps one too many times the virtually identical explana tion o f the effect o f misogynist jokes on female spectators, have walked on the wild sides o f cinema - it’s just that you or o f the ocker attribute o f ‘being on to yourself). One wouldn’t know it from this book. This is because o f a prob lem endemic to studies o f Australian cinema; a veritable longs, at moments, for the sort o f breathless cross-cutting form o f critical dyslexia. Virtually every writer who tackles between texts, contexts and ideas that a national film history can well exploit to create a crowded, deep perspec our national cinema inevitably fixates on it, desperately tive, as in Durgnat’s A M irror fo r England. Screening is a shutting out the possibility o f sustained comparisons with other national cinemas - whether first, second or third quieter book, more modest in its scope, but it wears its cinema. But this fixation is the exact opposite to the living scholarship rather too lightly at times, and is rather shame lessly under-documented - in the manner o f those flamboy experience o f any working critic or regular movie goer, who consumes M ad M ax I I in a heightened haze contempora ant ‘quickies’ by French intellectuals who write in cafes unavoidably far, far away from their bookshelves. neous with Escape From New York, The T ear My Voice Broke with C an ’t Buy Me Love, Cactus with H a il Mary. Most o f the book (Chapters 3 to 8) is taken up by a chronological series o f compressed film analyses. The No book on Australian cinema to date has pursued the majority o f these are thousand and one poten tial comparisons, connec admirable and illuminat tions and trans-evaluations ing. They make up a kind VIRTUALLY EVERY WRITER W HO TACKLES that occur in the receptive o f historical narrative o f space o f a film buff’s dazed the ‘milestones’ o f the OUR NATIONAL CINEMA FIXATES ON IT... head. And for an obvious Australian feature revival SHUTTING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF reason: the suspicion that, - either the best, or the SUSTAINED COMPARISONS WITH OTHER from the word go, Austra most significant, or the lian cinema would suffer most symptomatic, or the NATIONAL CINEMAS... THIS IS THE EXACT by comparison. Who, in most discussed releases o f OPPOSITE TO THE LIVING EXPERIENCE OF their right mind, could the time. It is only when even pretend to haul Stir you bump up rudely ANY... REGULAR MOVIE GOER. up to the pantheon that against the queer potted ‘filmography’ at the back contains R a g in g Bull, or W inter o f Our D reams that you suddenly realise to the one holding Wings o f Desire? In fact, such a world some o f the yawning gaps and omissions in this narrative. weariness truly underwrites this volume o f Screening - with Some absences are merely puzzling, since they could easily have found a place in the book’s schema- I missed Fran, Dermody and Jacka indicating finally that they “await the end o f (Australian) cinema with optimism” . Flard Knocks, Pure Shit (it’s a great pity' to see Bert Deling disappear from yet another Australian Cinema book). If Several reviewers have already commented on the cu Dermody and Jacka think these films have already been ade rious discrepancy between this sad conclusion and the quately covered, I ’d like at least to know where. interest and value they ,seem to find along the way in so many individual films. Does this mean that the value is a But beyond these perhaps arbitrary omissions, there delusion, an effect purely o f obsessional analytic fixation? I are more ominous structuring absences: Dermody and C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• 71

don’t believe so. The knot to be loosed here is one in which analysis o f a young and battling national cinema seems always bound to notions o f quality, ‘good’ cinema (Brian McFarlanc: “I want the films to beg ood” - yawn) in short, to a system o f evaluation. But to wield such a system upon Australian cinema results usually in either unsustainable idiot-grin optimism ( ‘our cinema is as good as anv cinema anywhere’, when it isn’t), or an equal overkill on apocalyp tic gloom (Dermody and Jacka’s ‘dead end’ imagery). However, despite the classic joke that ‘interesting’ is the great wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual word, I ’ll ven ture that what we might need at this time is a study o f how Australian films can be, not good, but...well...interesting. For what makes a film interesting may have nothing to do with its quality, but rather the connections it can spark, the issues it may throw into relief- the Durgnatian sense that a film is not a finished object (from which we must demand a ‘depth’ or completeness) but a skeleton-structure on which to hang random (or not so random) thoughts, hunches and dreams. Raw material, ifyou like - treated with the right amounts o f professional respect and critical disre spect. Dermody and Jacka, read from a certain angle, are indeed already engaged in this task o f finding and making Australian cinema interesting (despite the apocalyptic dis claimers). It’s this engagement which makes their book lively and fascinating. Other critics and writers, too, sidestep the gauntlet o f evaluation in order to spin revealing yarns that are just as much about the situation o f a national culture as o f a national cinema - Tom O ’Regan, Stuart Cunningham, Albert Moran, Bill Routt, Meaghan Morris, and Ross Gibson, to name a few. Screening is a fine and necessary book, but it’s even finer when read in the context ofrecent articles and publications that it both nourishes and is nourished by - Morris on Crocodile Dundee( A rt& T ex t), Gibson on landscape and nature (in Scott Murray’s excel lent catalogue for UCLA, Back o f Beyond), Cunningham on the Chauvels (in Paul Foss’ pathbreaking collection Island in the Stream ), the late Eric Michaels on Aboriginal TV and video ( For a C ultu ral Future) - ushering in a phase of ‘scholarship’ so alive and creative that, for some o f us, it makes the topic o f Australian cinema interesting for per haps the very first time. Which is not a bad achievement.

ADRIAN MARTIN

BLEEDING BATTLERS FROM IRONBARK: AUSTRALIAN MYTHS IN FICTION & FILM 1890S - 1980S D avid Myers Queensland: Capricornia Institute Publications, 1 9 8 7 pp. 178; R R P : $12.95 Inspired by things Bicentennial, Rockhampton academic Dr. David Myers has produced a curious little b ook-som e thing o f a cross between Graeme Turner’s N ational Fictions and Brian McFarlane’s Words a n d Images. Myers is clearly aware o f these earlier works, even taking issue with McFar lane’s view on certain texts (see below). But where Turner is a multi-disciplinarian who knows his theory and McFarlane is a literature lecturer who knows his films, Myers seems ill-at-ease as soon as he strays far from page to explore the process o f adaptation to screen. He aims to re-float the “grand myths o f the 1890s” mateship, egalitarianism, suspicion or repudiation o f au thority, through a process o f “selective quotation” from relevant Australian film and literary texts. There is not too much science in this approach: Myers has little regard for literary scholars or academic historians who undermine the “proud lies that make us walk tall” in the interest o f an “uninspiring factual truth” . He admits to being “sentimental and anachronistic” enough to draw his inspiration and sense o f what it is to be uniquely Australian from: ...the romantic bush ballads o f Banjo Paterson, the farcical humour o f Steele Rudd, the vigorous self-assertion o f Miles Franklin and the passionate commitment to egalitarian democ racy made by Henry Lawson (pp. 17-18).

In the best pulpit tradition, Myers implies that “today’s Australians” need to do the same. The first half o f Bleeding Battlers takes selected literary examples from this period and compares them with (mosdy) recent film adaptations o f the same title: On Our Selection, Squeaker’s M ate, The Union Buries Its D ead (from Three In One). For The Term O f His N atu ral Life, My B rillian t Career. The Getting O f Wisdom, We O f The Never Never andPicnic A t H angin g Rock. Somehow, Gallipoli, Breaker M orantand Sunday Too F ar Away make it into this Hall o f Fame as well, despite their lack o f literary (if not mythic) antecedents. In Par/Two - “The Self-Satirising Present”

Soundtrack Albums

Perhaps the best way for us to interpret the character o f the TV hero Rufirs Dawes is as a combination o f the Count o f Monte Cristo and Superman with a bit o f Robinson Crusoe and Papillon thrown in for good measure... In spite o f [my] criticism o f [ Term ], I did enjoy many scenes in it. The photography o f the rugged sea-coast o f Tasmania was aweinspiring, the cos tuming and settings at sea and on land all seemed authentic, and the acting was o f high professional standard. Frere, Rex Vickers, Rufus and North were all excellently portrayed (p.65)

The illustrations in this case do not assist us much either,

E L E C T R IC SHADOWS B O O K S H O P

New and unusual suundtrack recordingsfromour large range $19.99 LP $30.00 CD $16.99 LP Big River (Original Broadway Cast) $25.00 CD Seven Little Australians (Australian Cast) $16.99 LP & Cass. $25.00 CD $19.99 LP The Big Blue (Soundtrack) $19.99 LP Chess (Original Broadway Cast) $30.00 CD Cocktail (Soundtrack) $16.99 LP & Cass. $19.99 LP Red Heat (Soundtrack) $30.00 CD $45.00 3 LPs, Showboat (Complete Recording) 3 Cassettes, 3CDs $19.99 LP Barbara Cook-The Disney Album $26.99 2 LPs Under Milk Wood (New Recording with All Star Welsh Cast) 2 Cassettes Music and Production by George Martin $30.00 2 CDs

- Myers uses the same comparative book/film approach to look at contemporary works which suggest alternative myths and “tend to mock and undermine the common beliefs o f average Australians”, viz: The N ight The Prowler, Monkey Grip, The C han t O f Jim m ie Blacksmith, Bliss, and The G reat McArthy. Myers claims in his Preface to be confused about his own Australian identity, but readers will be under no illusions as to where his loyalties and preferences reside. They are also likely to tire o f the endless damning o f his peers (which includes us) - “today’s godless readers”; “us penpushing urban bureaucrats”; “over-civilised urban neurotics”; their “egotistically over-planned and sceptically uncommitted lives”; “amoral pleasure-seeking and irrelig ious cynicism”; “casual, meandering lives”, “neurotic urban excesses”; “selfish, materialistic urbanisation”; “our cyni cal, experimental age”; “irreligious, frivolous society” and “big city rat-race”. Like Marcus Clarke, Myers has a pro nounced tendency to moralise and, as this litany would suggest, to repeat much the same line o f argument regard less o f the text - book or film - under discussion. For students o f Australian film, the pickings are espe cially lean - a disappointment given the paucity o f critical treatment previously afforded to such works as Squeaker’s Mate, Three In One, and the Term o f His N atu ral L ife mini series. These titles illustrate one o f the problems the book has in dealing with films. T o Myers, they are simply narrative adaptations: no distinction is made between the different types o f film - short, feature, mini-series (or the “TV serial film” as he describes Term) or consideration o f the varying dramatic possibilities that each form presents. There are limited references to creative personnel involved in each production and analysis o f characterisa tion, critical worth, etc. remains, for the most part, at a simplistic level. Thus:

(0 6 2 ) 4 8 8 3 5 2 Fax (062) 4 9 1 6 4 0

Anything Goes (New Broadway Cast)

Specialising in Film , M edia & T V

Services: • individual/overseas orders • m a il/te le p h o n e orders • free quarterly catalogue Hours: M on-Fri 12.30pm -8pm , Sat 3pm -8pm Foyer Playhouse, Canberra Theatre, Civic. P.O. Box 1005 Civic Sq. ACT 2608.

T O A D V E R T IS E IN

C lN R E M A ¡■ 'C i/p 'S y !/}

READINGS- SOUTHYARRA 153 Toorak Road - 2671885 (Books, LPs, CDs, Cassettes) & 73/75 Davis Avenoe - 266 5877 (Secondhand LPs & Cassettes) Mail Order: PO Box 434, South Yarra, Vic. 3141

C I N E M A

Ring Patricia Amad: Melbourne 429 5511

P A P E R S

7 1

since they relate to Norman Dawn’s 1927 production of Term which is otherwise unacknowledged in the text. Bleeding Battlers does have a Select Bibliography, but no Index or Filmography to aid the students and teachers o f Australian literature and film for whom the book is prin cipally designed. Nor is there any distribudon information which may have enabled the target groups to better source the material under discussion. The factual information which is provided must also be taken on trust. According to Myers, Ray Lawrence’s previous “hit film” prior to Blisswas Caddie., Helen Jones is credited as the Vision Splendid in Bliss rather than as Honey Barbara; Ruth Cracknell is allo cated Kerry Walker’s role as Felicity in The N ight The P row ler; there seems to be some confusion re the Lewis FitzGerald and John Waters roles in B reaker Morant^ and so it continues. In 1920 and 1921, Myers tells us, Raymond Langford [sic] directed two films based on Steele Rudd’s popular short story collection On Our Selection. I have not seen these films but have been told that they were o f high quality (p.22).

It is no surprise that Myers hasn’t seen the latter film - R u d d ’s New Selection - since it remains on Australia’s missing features list. It’s reassuring though to know it was o f high quality. Some errors are inevitable in the most carefully edited text, but in Bleeding Battlers they creep into the interpre tive area as well. The question ofHarry (Sam NeillJ’s height in My B rillian t C areer, for example, which Myers attributes to Brian McFarlane in Words a n d Im agesznd discusses as an irrelevance - was first raised in an article by Jack Clancy. McFarlane acknowledges as much and extends the argu ment beyond the point at which Myers leaves it. Overall, there is - with the exception o f the references to the principal family in RAw-little Joy in Dr. Myers’ book. A sense o f literal-mindedness and didacticism - “We now come to the second message o f the film...” “There are no Australian myths celebrated in The Getting O f Wisdom...'” - bordering on prudishness pervades the text, ultimately undermining what could have been a useful exploration o f our collective folk memory as distilled through film and literature. These closing examples should give sufficient indication o f the range o f insight readers can expect to find in Bleeding Battlers: Beresford almost destroys the emotional impact o f his film’s ending, however, when he shows Breaker Morant holding hands with the larrikin as they walk through the dawn to their execution. Surely this is “high-camp” anachronism (p.44). Sunday Too F a r Away is a romantic glorification o f the Austra lian itinerant worker, the shearer, but it is a glorification o f him as he really was (p.46). Perhaps the impetus for a fresh beginning in Australian culture will come, in part, from [the] revolutionary alternative [offered by Nora and her friends in Monkey Grip] This is an opinion, however, which I personally do not hold (p .132) We o f the Never Never is one o f the most lyrically beautiful and thoughtful films ever made in Australia. And yet I have often heard friends denigrate it because it is allegedly too slow-paced. It is not slow, it is intense (p.98). Weir has escaped from a vulgar present to take us on a male voyeur’s nostalgia-trip to a sexual utopia for neo-Victorian necrophiliacs ... It is an enormous tribute to the camera work in this film that the real-life Hanging Rock, which is a boring collection o f uninspiring stones just off the prosaic MelbourneAdelaide highway, could be so transformed into a menacing monolith (p.lll).

KEN BERRYMAN

CHINESE FILM: THE STATE OF THE ART IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC George Stephen Semsel (Ed) N T: Praeger 1987, 191 pp., Ulus. As the rising tide o f Chinese cinema on the international film scene becomes ever more impossible to ignore, so does the woeful lack o f English-language studies on this impor tant national cinema. In these circumstances, one cannot but understand and applaud the motivation behind this compilation o f essays and interviews. In the best o f circum stances, such a collection o f materials would intersect productively. However, in this case the end result is some what less than the sum o f its parts, and although one essay is excellent, a minefield o f factual and typographical errors seriously undermine the rest o f the book. To start with the good news, the Chinese scholar Ma Ning, now studying in Australia, has contributed an analy sis o f new trends over the last ten years, modestly titled ‘Notes on the New Filmmakers’. This is quite simply one o f the best pieces o f writing on contemporary Chinese cinema available anywhere in the world, and should be required reading for anyone wishing to acquaint themselves with the subject. Bringing together his thorough knowledge o f the methods and theories ofWestern film analysis with a careful and pertinent awareness oi his own culture, Ma constructs his argument for the relevance o f humanism and its resur gence in China to an understanding o f the new cinema through a series o f careful and close readings o f important texts. His analyses o f the films o f Yang Yanjin in the light o f the epistemological crisis o f the late seventies is particularly masterful. Also useful is Patricia Wilson’s oral history account o f the early days o f Communist China’s cinema in the North east o f China. It provides detailed memories o f a period about which little concrete information has hitherto been available. However, the period was also very disordered, and the additions o f maps and biographies o f the numerous people mentioned would help the less informed reader to make sense o f the narrative. Indeed, without biographical notes, the reader cannot be expected to know that the woman mentioned as Tian Fang’s wife on page 29, ‘Yu Lin’, is the same person as the ‘Yu Lan’ mentioned on p. 33, and that the name should in fact be ‘Yu Lan’ throughout. This is only one o f the many typographical errors that vitiate whatever reference value the book might have completely. Neither Semsel nor Praeger Press seem to be aware that the apostrophe is an integral part o f the Pinyin romanization system. Yan’an is printed ‘Yanan’ through out, and Xi’an appears throughout as ‘Xian’. Even poor Chen B o’er’s name is printed as ‘Chen Boer’ - whatever else she was, Chen B o’er was not a South African. Misspell ings are also common. ‘Hanzhou’ should be Hangzhou (p.3), ‘Ye Jianyin’ should be Ye Jianying (p. 15), ‘Long Zifeng’ should be Ling Zifeng (p.26), ‘Su Yu’ should be Su Yun (p.27), and so on. Things reach their worst when Madame Mao’s name (Jiang Qing) is rendered as “Qing Jiang” (p.7). Factual errors abound, too. In the bibliographical notes, editor Semsel is described as having worked for ‘China Film Corporation, the state enterprise responsible for all matters o f film business within the country.’ Pre sumably he supplied this information himself. However, China Film Corporation is only responsible for distribution and exhibition, and all other aspects o f film business, in particular production and co-production, are in the hands o f other organisations. When the editor o f the book does

not know the basics about who he worked for for a whole year, one has to wonder about his grasp on the rest o f his information. And indeed, when he can blandly state in his introduction th at‘In the 1950s and 1960s the film industry ran quite smoothly,’ apparently in complete ignorance o f the upheavals ofanti-Rightist campaign, the ‘cultural revo lution’ and other movements, one knows one is not neces sarily in good hands. Apart from the materials he himself originated, look ing at the article alleged to be on film theory by Xia Hong, it becomes evident that Semsel also decided to be an editor with a light touch, despite the fact that parts o f this article are translated so appallingly that they make no sense at all. Words not found in any English dictionary, even the sort of Chinese-English dictionary produced in Taiwan, such as ‘conceptualism’ and ‘labelism’ are thrown about, and the reader is even presented with the sentence ‘Filmmaking challenges theory filmmaking’ (p.36). This article certainly challenged me! Finally, the interviews that make up about half the book are enormously disappointing. Apart from the highly variable standard oftranslation, and the factual errors about the personal histories that one doubts the subjects could have really made, the results are vague, uninformed and dull, largely confined to confused reminiscence, hesitant opinion, and lists o f favourite Hollywood movies. Is it that all the subjects were vague, uninformed and dull, or was there a problem with the questions that were asked? Since the questions are not printed, we will never know. All this compels me to address a more serious issue. I cannot understand how so compromised a book was ever published. How did Semsel, who all too apparently speaks no Chinese and knows little_about China, Praeger, sociol ogy editor Alison Podel (is this a sociology book?) and foreword writer Professor Robert Wagner, maybe a com munications expert but hardly famous for his intimate knowledge o f the Chinese cinema, get the nerve to think they were qualified to produce this book? What sort o f racism and cultural presumption makes it possible for a book like this on Chinese cinema to be published, when I sincerely hope I am right in thinking a similar manuscript on the French or the German cinema would never have seen the light o f day? All in all, apart from Ma’s article, one would need to be an expert in the Chinese cinema already to be able to pick through this book and extract whatever there might be o f value in it. I had high hopes o f this volume, and I know George Semsel developed a deep love o f the Chinese cinema during his stay here. I am sure he produced this book with the best o f intentions, but I am dismayed that he could not even secure the help and expertise to ensure that names were spelt correctly. In his foreword, Professor Wagner remarks that the book ‘is a volume which, in addition to the light it sheds on the new Chinese cinema, is a reminder that we are all still the primitives in this medium.’ How sadly and ironically accurate he has proved to be!

CHRIS BERRY

IA N

ROBERTSON

GRAPHIC 03

646

DESIGN 13 19

COULD YOUR TRAVEL AGENT REPLACE THIS BY 8.00 AM ... IN COOPER PEDY OR COWRA? WE CAN; AS WELL AS ARRANGE A N Y OF THE 1000 OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'LL NEED FOR FULL LOCATION LOGISTIC SUPPORT 0 0 8 0 2 2 544 FROM ANYWHERE A N Y TIME

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• 7 1

Budget 65

A N D

M ASQUES

Dirty Dozen

Bill Collins

9 6

Keith Connolly

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

KEITH C O N N O LLY (M ELB O U R N E H ER A LD ), JO H N FLAUS (3RRR M ELB O U R N E), S A N D R A H A LL (THE BULLETIN), PH ILIPPA HAW KER (CINEM A PA PERS ), JO H N HINDE (ABC R A D IO / T V ), IV A N HUTCH

DOUGAL

M A C D O N A LD (CANB ER RA TIM ES), A D R IA N M AR TIN (XPRESS), M ICHAEL V A N NIEKERK (THE W EST A U S T R A LIA N ), TO M R YA N (3 LO : R A M O N A K O V A L S H O W ), DAV ID STRATTON (THE M O V IE SHOW SBS), EV A N W ILLIAM S (THE A U S T R A LIA N ). ERRATA: In t he last issue o f Filmviews David Stratton's ratings for R am bo I I I and Gun Crazy were incorrectly listed. His actual ratings were 1 (R am bo II I ) and 9 ( Gun Crazy).

NOTE: The Dirty Dozen will in future appear in ever)' second issue o f Cinema Papers. It will alternate with TV Scanners, the television critics

•

Mike Daly & Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Dougal Macdonald

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

M IDNIGHT RUN

Paul Byrnes

Bill Collins

Keith Connolly

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

Ivan Hutchinson

Stan James

Mike Daly & Neil Jillett

Mike Daly& Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Dougal Macdonald

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

DIE HARD

Paul Byrnes

Bill Collins

Keith Connolly

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

Ivan Hutchinson

Stan James

Mike Daly & Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Dougal Macdonald

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

ratings lists.

C I N E M A

7 6

TRACK 29

INSO N (H SV 7 ) , STAN JAM ES (AD ELAID E AD V ER TIS ER ), NEIL JILLETT

Ivan Hutchinson Stan James

Mike Daly & Neil Jillett

Michael van Niekerk

THE CRITICS A R E , BILL COLLINS (C H AN N EL 10 , D AILY M IR R O R ),

Tina Kaufman Adrian Martin

O N A SCALE O F O N E TO TEN - TEN BEING THE O PTIM U M R A TIN G .

(FILM N EW S),

Paul Byrnes

Dougal Macdonald

ING FIILM W ATCHERS H A V E RATED TW ELVE O F THE LATEST CROP

K A U FM A N

Bill Collins

Ivan Hutchinson

W RITERS A R O U N D AU S TR ALIA AR E T H IN K IN G . A PA N EL OF LEA D

A G E ), TIN A

Paul Byrnes

Stan James

THE DIRTY D O ZE N IS Y O U R CHANCE TO CATCH UP O N W H AT FILM

(M ELB O U R N E

BEETLEJUICE

P A P E R S

* 7 1

, Adrian Martin

LAST TEM PTATION O F CHRIST

SIESTA

Paul Byrnes

Bill Collins

Keith Connolly

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

Ivan Hutchinson

Stan James

Mike Daly & Neil Jillett

Mike Daly 8c Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Dougal Macdonald

Adrian Martín

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

RED HEAT

A FISH CALLED W A N D A Paul Byrnes

Bill Collins

Keith Connolly

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Paul Byrnes

Philippa Hawker John Hinde

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

Ivan Hutchinson

Stan James

Mike Daly 8c Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

M APANTS U LA

REPAST - MIKIO NARUSE1951

Dougal Macdonald

Paul Byrnes

Bill Collins

Keith Connolly

•John Flaus

John Flaus

Paul Harris

Sandra Hall

Philippa Hawker

John Hinde

Ivan Hutchinson

Stan James

Mike Daly 8c Neil Jillett

Tina Kaufman

Dougal Macdonald

Adrian Martin

Michael van Niekerk

Tom Ryan

David Stratton

Evan Williams

MASQUES: AVERAGE RATING 6.2 S

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

SIX PLATE FLATBED EDITING SUITE F OR SU PER 8 AND 16M M

SOUND TRANSFERS

THE PRODUCTION HOUSE

FO R SU PER 8, 16M M , VHS OR U-M ATIC

TRACKBUILDING FO R SU PER 8, 16M M O R VID EO

AUTOMATED MIXING

YOUR NORTHERN TERRITORY CONTACT CINEMATOGRAPHY LOCATION SURVEYS UNIT MANAGEMENT PHONE MIKE ATKINSON IN DARWIN (089) 85 1093

FO R SU PER 8, 16MM OR VIDEO TELECINE SUPER 8 TO VHS AND U-MATIC SUPER 8 SPLICERS AND FULL COAT CRYSTAL SUPER 8 CAMERA HIRE THIRD EDITION OF SUPER S IN THE ACE OF VIDEO DUE JANUARY 1989

ACE

EDIT

P.O.BOX 323 BONDI JUNCTION NSW 2022 TELEPHONE (02) 398 9039 FAX (02) 327 5394

Hot eppers LTM Peppers represent the most advanced and most useful range of professional, portable studio and location lighting equipment available today. From the smallest professional fresnel, Pepper 100 watt, to the mini fresnel 650 watt, soft lights, floods, Pepper Kits containing all the necessary accessories to make a complete mobile studio. The LTM Peppers are available exclusively from Trace Technology. Call us for details on Peppers, theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re Hot.

TECH N O LO G Y Unit 26A, 1 Short Street, Chatswood N.S.W. 2067 Telephone (02) 4177922, Brisbane (07) 8326420 AJAS 60P009

T U R E S

HEAVEN TONIGHT

Boulevard Films Frank Howson Pino Amenta Frank Howson Peter Boyle Barbi Taylor Lynn Howson David Connell Deborah Samuels Belinda Williams Marija Nikolic Anne Cashin Annette Nevill John Suhr Colin McLean John Powditch Brett Popplewell Max Thomas Rob Visser Jenny Tosi Greg Ryan Terry Howells Andrew Ramage Scott Rawlings Bob Young Peter Moloney Roy Prichctt Ian Benallack Arthur Manousakis Bernadette Wynack Daryl Mills Daryl Porter Trish Keating Hamish Alderson-Hicks Brian Lang Standby props Jeannie Cameron Wardrobe designer Marion Boyce Standby wardrobe Amanda Rowbottom Make-up Pam Murphy Hair Greg Noakes Still photography Keith Fish Caterer Ken McGregor Catering assistant Philip Reid Editor Peter McBain Asst editor Screwed & Glued Construction Vehicle co-ordinator Action Vehicles Australia Films Guns Pty Ltd Armourer New Generation Stunts Safety/stunts The Joinery' Cutting rooms Eugene Wilson Sound transfers Craig Carter Sound editor Greg Apps Casting Liz Mullinar & Assoc Lionel Midford Publicity Samuelsons Film Service Camera Equipment VFL Laboratory Kodak Shooting stock Hammond Jewell Insurance Performance Completion guarantor Guarantees Australia Hendon Studios Mixing studios CAST: John Waters (Johnny Dysart), Rebecca Gilling (Annie Dysart), Guy Pearce (Paul Dysart), Kim Gyngell (Baz Schultz), Sean Scully (Tim Robbins), Sarah de Teliga (Robbins’ secretary), Ted Hepple (Caretaker), Bruce Venables (Police man), Syd Conabere (Priest), Reg Evans (Norm Jenkins), Robert Morgan (Carl), Bryan Dawe (Stewart Murchison). SYNOPSIS: Twenty years after his first chart suc cess, Johnny Dysart, one o f the most legendary' rock performers o f the late sixties, is still trying to recapture the magic o f “Heaven Tonight”, the song that launched him and his band, the Chosen Ones.

Production company Producer Director Screenwriter Exec, producer Assoc, producer Prod, executive Photography Prod, co-ordinator Financial controller Accounts assistant Asst to exec, producer Receptionist Location manager Unit manager 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Unit runner Continuity Focus puller Clapper/loader Sound recordist Boom operator Gaffer Best boy Genne operator Grip Asst grip Art director Props buyer Art dept co-ordinator Set dressers

PRE P R O D U C T I O N

BEYOND MY REACH Peter Boyle Frank Howson Frank Howson Barbi Taylor Lionel Midford

Executive producer Producer Writer Assoc, producer Publicity

THE GOLDEN EAGLE SoundstageAustralia/ Bevanfield Films(London) Mary Swindale Producers Tibor Meszaros Robert A. Cocks Timothy Forder Director Warren Williams Scriptwriters Timothy Forder Hannah Downie Exec, producer From an original Hannah Downie idea by Angélique Malcolm Casting Rob Greenough Stunts coordinator Movielab Pty Ltd Laboratory $ 1 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 Budget 35mm Gauge Eastman Color Shooting stock SYNOPSIS: A children’s film set in the West Aus tralian goldfields. An English girl visits her cous ins, and there is lots o f adventure, animals and even a ghost. Prod company

HUNTING Executive producer Producer Director Writer Assoc, producer Publicity

Peter Boyle Frank Howson Frank Howson Frank Howson Barbi Taylor Lionel Midford

RETURN HOME Musical Films Pty Ltd Prod, company Cristina Pozzan Producer Ray Argali Director Ray Argali Scriptwriter Based on the original idea by Ray Argali Mandy Walker Photography Bronwyn Murphy Sound recordist Ken Sallows Editor Daniel Scharf Assoc, producer Elisa Argenzio Prod, manager Greg Apps Casting consultant Jo Erskine Camera assistant J. Van Loendersloot Still photography Soundfirm (Melb) Mixed at Cinevex Laboratory Ian Anderson Lab. liaison $ 2 8 5 ,0 0 0 Budget 80 mins Length 16mm Gauge Fuji Shooting stock SYNOPSIS: The story o f two brothers, Noel and Steve. After a close childhood, they gradually drifted apart and now live in different cities. The film is an observation o f the different environ ments that have shaped their lives, and the shared values which now, 10 years later, draw them back together.

YOUNG FLYNN Executive producer Producer Scriptwriters Associate producer Publicity ■

Peter Boyle Frank Howson Frank Howson Alister Webb Barbi Taylor Lionel Midford T U R E S

P R O D U C T ION

CINDERELLA'S SECRET Yoram Gross Film Studio Prod, company Yoram Gross Producer Ray Nowland Animation director Leonard Lee Scriptwriter Sandra Gross Assoc, producer Guy Gross Music 80 minutes Length 35 mm Gauge CAST: Robyn M oore, Keith Scott SYNOPSIS: An enchanting story which borrows characters and events from popular fairy tales and weaves them into one charming and suspenseful tale o f love, mystery and mirth.

ISLAND 1

Illumination Films Paul Cox Santhana Naidui Paul Cox Director Paul Cox Scriptwriter Based on the original idea by Paul Cox Mike Edols Photography Jim Currie Sound recordist Russell Hurley Editors Jim Scott Neil Angwin Prod, designer Bill Marshall Exec, producer Fiona Eagger Prod, coordinators Tassos Ioannidcs Paul Ammitzboll Prod, manager Joanie Shmith Prod, secretary Antony Shepherd Prod, accountant Frances O ’Donoghue Continuity Leigh Parker Focus puller Prod, company Producers

C I N E M A

Ann Darrouzet Clapper/loader David Rawlinson Boom operator Cameron Clarke Asst editor Hendon Mixed at VFL Laboratory Bruce Braun Lab. liaison 9 7 minutes Length 35 mm Gauge Fuji Shooting stock CAST: Eva Sitta (Ev;i),AnojaWeorasinghe(Sahana), Rena Frangioudakis (Marquise), Chris Haywood (Janis), Norman Kaye (Henry') Francois Bernard (Frenchman). SYNOPSIS: A film about three women and their struggle with fate. Three women - an Australian, a Sri Lankan and ;t Greek woman - meet on the barren island o f Astvpalea in the Dodecanese, and become entangled by their own desires, the inten sity o f the location, and the threat from the outside world. 1

.A T U R E S

POST- P R O DU C T I O N

THE BACK STREET GENERAL Avalon Film Corporation Prod, company Overseas Film Group Dist. company Phillip Avalon Producer Denis Whitburn Scriptwriter Phillip Avalon Based on the play by Allan Trott Editor Eric Jupv Exec, producer Michael Boon Assoc, producer Stephen McCaglan Unit manager Stephen McCaglan Location manager Sue Pickup Prod, secretary Michael Boon Prod, accountant Faith Martin &: Associates Casting Tony Nolan Still photography Bob King Studios Avalon Film Corporation Studios $ 3 .6 million Budget 9 0 minutes Length 35 mm Gauge

CAPPUCCINO Archer Films Pty. Ltd. Prod, company Anthony Bowman Producer Anthony Bowman Director Anthony Bowman Scriptwriter Based on the original idea by Anthony Bowman Tom Cowan Photography Ross Linton Sound recordist Darrell Lass Prod, designer Archer Films/RALM Exec, producer Sue Wild Assoc, producer Sue Wild Prod, supervisor Chris Jones Unit manager Max Studios Studios Atlab Australia Laboratory' 9 0 minutes Length Super 16mm Gauge CAST: John Clayton (Max), Rowena Wallace (Anna), Jeanie Drynan (Maggie), Barry Quin (Larry'), Richie Singer (Bollinger), Simon Mathew (Nigel). SYNOPSIS: A film about five Sydney actors who just happen to be friends! Their “ups” are never too high - their “downs” are always too low!

Rory Timoney Maria Harbecke Steve King Maria Ferro Art director Anita Fioravanti Costume designer Vivienne McGillicuddv Make-up Vivienne McGillicuddv Hairdresser Anita Fioravanti Wardrobe Annette Kelly Asst editor Janinc Lambell Neg. matching Joe Dolce Music performed by Phil Hevwood Mixers Peter D. Smith Bill Stacey Stunts coordinator Lou Trifunovic Stunts Dragan Durkic Nicholas Sherman Still photography Oliver Streeton Title designer Steve Price Best boy Angelo Salamanca Runner Julia Fraser Publicity Helen Clarke Catering Anita Juliff Hendon Studios Hendon Mixed at Cincvex Laboratory Ian Anderson Lab. liaison 90 mins Length 16mm GaugeEastman Kodak 7 2 9 1-1792 Shooting stock CAST: Steve Basoni (Sam), George Harlem (Al fio), Marie-Louise Walker (Lola), Linda Hartley (Angie), Kite Jason (Mrs Macca), Yvette Ventata (Connie), George Kapiniaris (Enzo Vozza), Bet tina Spivakovsky (Vittoria Scrini), Dino Nicolosi (Carmelo Scrini), Vince D ’Amico (M r Giblisco) SYNOPSIS: Inspired by the opera La Cavalleria Rusticana, in its turn based on Giovanni Verga’s short story o f the same name, the film centres on a quartet o f working-class people in their twenties: two couples, Sam and Angie, Alfio and Lola. It is taken for granted they will marry, but a tar more complicated series o f relationships ensue. Gaffer Boom operators

DOT IN SPACE Prod, company Yoram Gross Film Studio P/L Yoram Gross Producer Yoram Gross Director John Palmer Scriptwriter Sandra Gross Associate producer Athol Henry Animation director Guy Cross MusicJeanette Toms Prod. supervisor acki Goodridgc Prod, manager Stephen Hayes Asst, editor 80 minutes Length 35 mm Gauge CAST: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott. SYNOPSIS: Dot finds her way into an American spaceship which lands her on a war-torn planet o f Rounds and Squares.

LUIGI'S LADIES Prod, company Dist. company Producer Director Scriptwriters

CLOSER AND CLOSER APART Rosa Colosimo Pty' Ltd Octopus World Wide Media Enterprises Rosa Colosimo Steve Middleton Angelo Salamanca La C avallcria Rusticana Peter Clancy Catherine Birmingham Joe Dolce Alison Sadler Bettina Petith Rose Chiodo Kellie Remain Reg McLean Rose Chiodo Kellie Romain Rick Lappis Pamela Ryan Gillian Hunnibell Angelo Salamanca Vladimir Osherov Katrina Bowell Katrina Bowell Katrina Bowell Michael Madigan

Prod, company Dist. company Producer Director Sriptwriter Inspired by Sound recordist Editor Composer Prod, manager Unit manager Prod, secretaries Prod, accountant Prod, assistants 1st asst, director Continuity Producer’s assistant Casting Camera operator Focus puller Clapper/loader Camera assistant Key grip

P A P E R S

Photography Sound recordist Editor Prod, costume designer Composer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Prod, coordinator Prod, manager Location manager Prod, secretary' Prod, accountant 1st asst director 2nd asst director Continuity' Focus puller Boom operator Trainee designer Make-up Supervisor Standby costume Props buyer Standby props

Tra La La Films Ltd. Hoyts Patrie Juillet Judy Morris Jennifer Claire Wendy Hughes Judy Morris Ranald Allan Steve Mason Ken Hammond Pamela Barnetta Melody Cooper Sharon Calerait Wendy Hughes Rachel Svmes Hilary May Brenda Pam Suzi Parker Lisa Harrison Dianne Brown Charles Rotherham Nikki Long Jenny Quigley Laurie Kirkwood Jo Spinelli Kerry' Aynesworth Karla O ’Keefe Costume cutter/ Annette Cooper Machinist/ Lucy Rose Dominello Stephen Teather Asst. prod, designer/ Sue Vivian

Art dept, runner Carpenter Painter/finisher 1st Asst, editor Sound editor Still photography

Martyn Nightingale Mike Vivian Lyn Roland Wayne Pashlev Andrew Plain Carolyn Johns Bliss Swift Publicity Annie Wright Catering Kevin Varncs Dtboratorv Colorfilm CAST: Wendy Hughes (Sara), Anne Tenney (Jane), Sandy Gore (C ee), David Rappaport ( Luigi), John Walton (Steve), Ray Meagher (Lance), Serge Lazareff (Tree), Joe Spano (Nick), Max Cullen (Chet). SYNOPSIS: Three close friends meet regularly at an exclusive waterfront restaurant run by Luigi. The story revolves around the three women and the effect on their lives o f the 1987 stock market crash.

THE PRISONER OF ST PETERSBURG l rod. company

Seon Films Productions/ Panorama Film Producers Daniel Scharf Klaus Singer Director Ian Pringle Scriptwriters Ian Pringle Michael Wren Photography Ray Argali Sound recordist Richard Kuchenbecker Editor Ursula West Prod, designer Peta Lawson Composer Paul Schutze Prod, manager Jolanda Derbyshire Location manager Michael Scheel Prod, accountant Marion Kronberger Prod, assistant Uwe Kossman Continuity Lindsay Mcrrison Lighting/designer Andre Bclitzki Focus puller Klaus-Petcr Venn Clapper/loader Justus Hasenzahl Gaffer Stephan Sommersberg M ake -up/ward ro be Veronika Wildt Asst editor Eva Schellman Best boy Benjamin Schclsingcr Runner Lars Michalak Laboratory Geyer Werke Gauge 35mm Shooting stock Agfa 195 B & W neg CAST: Noah Taylor (Jack), Solveig Dommartin (Elena), Katja Teichmann (Johanna). SYNOPSIS: Jack, a young man front Australia, is a prisoner o f St. Petersburg (that faded heart o f Russian literature) and on the run, forever escaping, trapped and penniless in West Berlin, establishes an odd, comic relationship with two girls. They invigorate each other with a new lease o f life and fun until each is freed o f his own prison.

THE PUNISHER Prod, company Producer Director Scriptwriter Photography Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Co-producer Prod, coordinator Prod, manager Unit manager Unit assistants

Production runner

New World Pictures (Australia) Limited Robert Kamen Mark Goldblatt Robert Kamen Ian Baker David Lee Tim Wellburn Norma Moriceau Su Armstrong Catherine ‘Tatts’ Bishop Tony Winley Chris Jones Bill Mathews Ken Moffat G eoff Giuffre Dennis Hulm Ian Freeman John McDonald Simon Baker John Martin

Unit runner Location managers

Prod, secretary Prod, accountant Accounts assistants 1st asst director 2nd asst director Assistant directors

Mark Taylor Christiaan Hoppenbrouwers Maude Heath David Malacari Susan Jarvis Moncypcnnv Services Jane Corden Marianne Flynn Elaine Boyd Philip Hearnshaw

John Titley Brett Popplcwcll Michael Faranda Mark Chambers Naomi Enfield Director’s assistant Diana Freeman Continuity. Alison Goodwin Producer’s assistant Denise Goulston Casting Faith Martin (Australia) Melissa Skoff (USA) Extras casting Suzanne JohannesenCamera operator/ Steadicam operator Ian Jones Focus puller Leigh McKenzie Steadicam focus puller G eoff Hall Clapper/loader Peter White Camera dept, attacht Kriv Stenders Mr Lundgrcn’s driver Sue Fleming Mr Gossett Jnr’s driver Robert Fisher Asst to Mr Gosset Jnr Otis Harper Key grip Ray Brown Grips Warren Grieff Ian Bird Aron Walker Danny Lockett Gaffer Reg Garside Best boy Allan Dunstan Electricians Gary Hill Robert Burr Patrick O ’Farrell Practical electrics Graham Beattie Add. electrics Lewis Sparks Robert Verkerk Stephen Carter Dean Bryan Boom operator Phil Keros Art director Peta Lawson Asst art director Laurie Faen Ass. prod designer Kim Hildcr Art dept, manager Judy Ditter Art dept runner David Atkins Art dept attachment Jaspar Galloway Costume designer Norma Moriceau Make-up supervisor Viv Mepham Make-up Cassic Hanlon Sherry Hubbard Prosthetics make-up Brian Bertram Hairdressers Joan Petch Jan ‘Ziggy ‘ Zcigenbein Wardrobe supervisor Paula Ryan Workroom supervisor Mel Dykes Wardrobe assistants Julie Frankham Kate Ross Standby wardrobe Fiona Nicholls Ass. standby wardrobe Gary Jones Robyn Bunting Draughtspersons Alky Avramides Judy Harvey Props buyers Eugene Intas Will Soeterboek Asst, props buyer Cathy Finlay Standby props John Osmond Asst, standby props Murray Gosson David Watson Special fx supervisor Steve Courtley Special fx co-ord. Chris Murray Special fx props makers Albie Hastings Walter Van Veenendaal Special fx Props buyers Paul Gorrie Rodney Burke Special effects Patrick Fitzgerald Alan Maxwell Hans Fieguth

Special effects

Montic Fieguth Harry Gordon Paul Gorrie Brigitte Oulsman Philip Parsonson Atmospherics Ray Fowler Atmospheric assistants Dean Steiner Glen Johnson Armourers Robert Colby Bill Colby Action vehicle c/o Ric Petro Mechanic Tim Parry Assistant vehicle c/o Frank Campesie Scenic artist Ray Pedlar Set construction Phil Worth Asst editor Jeanine Chialvo Apprentice editor/ USA editing Stephanie Flack Construction manager Phil Worth Leading hands Tony Bardolph Andrew Chauvel Set finishers Des Kenna Martin Bruvcris Matt Connor Set Finisher/signwriter David Duffin Carpenters Herman Bron James Street Steve Huxtable Bronwyn Parry G eoff Staker John Pickering Andrew Gardiner Martin Croydon Roland Fitzhum Yvonne Gudgeon Standby carpenter Guy Miller Labourers Paul O ’Brien Derek Burke Peter Warman Brush hand Debbie Cullen Construction runner Gillian Farrow Model maker John Murch Asst model maker John Searle Leatherworkers Ken Barnett Chantal Cordey Stunts coordinator Chris Anderson Asst stunt coordinator Brian Ellison Storyboard artists Don McKinnon Steve Lyons Still photography Jim Sheldon Safety officer Rangi Nikora Martial arts instructor Brian Fitkin Mr Lundgren’s watches Yanni Dialogue coach Arthur Sherman Interpreter Ikuko Vial Nurse Jacki Ramsay Masseur James Davidson Chaperone Celia Loneragan Publicity' Rea Francis The Rea Francis Company Catering Kollage Catering Studios ABC French’s Forest & Pyramid Studios Insurance Hammond Jewell - Tony Gibbs Completion guarantor Film Finances Ltd Sue Milliken Kurt Woolncr Legal advisors Tauro & Riviera - USA Westgarth Baidick - Aust Laboratory Colorfilm Lab. liaison Denise Wolfson Length 110 minutes Gauge 35mm Shooting stock Kodak CAST: Dolph Lundgren (The Punisher aka Frank Castle), Lou Gossett (Berkowitz), Jeroen Crabbe (Franco), Kim Miyori (Lady Tanaka), Nancy Everhard (Sam Leary), Barry O tto (Shake), Bryan Marshall (M oretti), Brian Rooney (Tommy), Todd Boyce (Tarrone), Stan Kouros (Deleo). SYNOPSIS: Frank Castle, hero cop, goes under ground to wreak revenge when his family is killed by the crime lords. Then the Yakuza move in on the decimated local criminals. Castle sits back until the Yakuza kidnap their rivals’ innocent children.

SALUTE OF THE JUGGER Prod, companies

Handistom Investments Pty. Ltd. Kamisha Corporation Ltd. Dist. companies Kings Road Entertainment Hoyts Australia Producer Charles Rouen David W ebb Peoples Director Scriptwriter David Webb Peoples David Eggby Photography Editor Richard Francis-Bruce Prod, designer John Stoddart Prod, manager Carol Hughes Guy Norris 2nd unit director Casting Alison Barrett Casting Art director John Wingrove Terry Ryan Costume designer Special make-up Michael Wcstmore Bob McCarron Guy Norris Stunts coordinator Publicity Annie Wright CAST: Rutger Hauer (Sallow), Joan Chen (Kidda), Vincent D ’Onoffio (Young Gar), Hugh KeaysByrne (Lord Vile), Max Fairchild (G onzo), Anna Katarina (Big Cimber), Delroy Lindo (Mbulu), Gandhi MacIntyre (Old Kusai), Justin Monjo (Dog Boy).

SWEETIE Prod, company Producers

Arenafilm Pty. Limited John Maynard Billy Mackinnon Director Jane Campion Scriptwriters Jane Campion Gerard Lee Photography Sally Bongers Sound recordist Leo Sullivan Editor Veronica Haussler Prod, manager Patricia L’Huede Asst. prod, manager Don Colantonio Prod, co-ordinator Sam Thompson Prod/unit runner Christopher Gill Prod, accountant Reel Accountants Prod, attachment Mary-Joy Lu Unit attachment Trudi Billsberry 1st Asst, director John Fretz 2nd Asst, director Tina Andreef Continuity Lynn-Maree Danzey Camera operator Jane Castle Focus puller Felicity Surtees Camera assistant Mike Kelly Key grip. Phil Stainer Asst grip. Richard Bladel Gaffer Jamie Eagan Boom operator Sue Kerr Art director Peter Harris Asst, art directors Martin Say Jennifer Kernke Art dept runner Peter Munro Make-up/hair Wendy Freeman Asst make-up/hair Nicole Sorby Wardrobe supervisor Amanda Lovejoy Wardrobe asst Melinda Trost Still photography Regis Lansac Best boy Michael Eagan Art department runner Peter Munro Asst editor Jane Cole Editing attachment Claire Corbett Dubbing editor Tony Vaccher Asst dubbing editor Pamela Dunne Dialogue editor Liz Goldfinch Asst dialogue editor Raj Oakley Safety officer Bernie Ledger Chaperone Barbara Sweeney Catering Nancy Wohlquist Shoot Through Catering Laboratory Colorfilm Lab. liaison Ann Ellingworth Length 95 minutes Gauge 35mm CAST: Genevieve Lemon (Sweetie), Karen Col ston (Kay), Tom Lycos (Louis), Jon Darling (G or don), Dorothy Barry (Flo), Michael Lake (B ob ), Andre Pataczek (Clayton).

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

FOR THE SUPPLY OF ALL FILM PRODUCTION TRANSPORT CONTACT DAVID SUTTOR ON (02) 436 3191

P R O U D T O B E S U P P L Y IN G :

• • • • •

4 Day Revolution Rainbow Warrior Kokoda Crescent A Long Way From Home Australian Break

318 W ILLOUGHBY R O A D , N A R EM B U R N , S Y D N EY STATION WAGONS • SEDANS • HI-ACE VANS « 4 X 4 TOYOTA LANDCRUISERS • ACTION VEHICLES • TRAY TOPS • BUSES

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

• 7 I

SYNOPSIS: An ironic look at modern relationships - the confused, the sulking and the banal.

WHAT THE

Scriptwriter Rosalind Gillespie SYNOPSIS: A documentary with simple drama se quences which tell the story o f how nursing, once seen as women’s work, is historically locked into a MOON SAW position o f paradox, with esteemed but poorly re Boulevard Films warded positions that lower its status as a profes FrankHowson sion. Pino Amenta

Prompt Reliable Service

Prod, company Producer Director Scriptwriter Frank Howson IN LANDS OF ESCAPE Photography David Connell Sound recordist Andrew Ramage (W ORKING T IT L E ) Editor Marc Van Buuren Producers John Cruthers Prod, designer TelStolfo Philip Tyndall Exec, producer PeterBoyle Director PhilipTyndall Assoc, producer Barbi Taylor Scriptwriter PhilipTyndall Co-producer James Michael Vernon Prod, manager Jo Bell Prod, coordinator Deborah Samuel Music performed by Gerald Murnane Location & unit manager John Suhr Length 56 mins Producer’s asst LynHowson Gauge 16mm Prod, accountant BelindaWilliams Shooting stock Eastman Exec, producer’s asst Anne Cashin SYNOPSIS: The real and imaginary world o f Aus 1st asst director John Wild tralian writer Gerald Murnane 2nd asst director Andrew Merrifield 3rd asst director Max Thomas KEEN AS MUSTARD Continuity. Jenny Tosi Prod, company Yarra Bank Films Unit runner. Rob Visser Producers TrevorGraham Casting Greg Apps Sharon Connolly Liz Mullinar & Assoc. Director Bridget Goodwin Focus puller Greg Ryan Scriptwriter Bridget Goodwin Clapper/loader Angelo Sartore Length 50 mins Key grip Ian Benallack Gauge Beta Asst grip ArthurManousakis SYNOPSIS: An account o f secret chemical warfare Gaffer Rob Young experiments in Australia during World War II; o f Best boy Peter Maloney international involvement in those tests and of Boom operator Scott Rawlings their effects on service personnel, scientists and Art director BernadetteWynack volunteers. Make-up AmandaRowbottom Hairdresser PamMurphy PROCEED WITH CAUTION II Wardrobe designer Rose Chong (W ORKING T IT L E ) Wardrobe supervisor Julie Barton Producer Craig Reardon Standby wardrobe Reuben Thomas Director Colin Budd Props buyer Daryl Mills Scriptwriter AndrewScott Standby props Brian Lang SYNOPSIS: Sequel to the medico monster smash, Special effects Visual Effects (Brian Pearce) Proceed With Caution. Set dressers Trish Keating

Helpful Experienced Staff Taxi Trucks & Removal Vans Antique, Household & Office Removals Film & TV Props Transportation Est. 1968 • Member NSW Furniture Removers Assoc.

British Taxi Trucks & Removals 74 burton street darlinghurst 2010

CM CM

in co <T> CO

c\T o

C\J

Hamish Hicks THE QUEST OF JIMMY PIKE Construction Screwed & Glued Prod, company JuniperFilms Asst editor. Peter McBain Producers John Tristram Sound editor Craig Carter Ian James Wilson Stunts New Generation Length 50 mins Safety officer New Generation Stunts Gauge 16mm Still photography Greg Noakes SYNOPSIS: A documentary on the life and art of Tutor Kerri Boyle Aboriginal artist Jimmy Pike. Publicity LionelMidford Catering Keith Fish Catering asst Glenda Fish THE TIGHTROPE DANCER Gauge 35mm Producer RuthCullen CAST: Andrew Shephard (Steven Wilson), Pat Director RuthCullen Evison (Grandma), Danielle Spencer (Emma), Screenwriter RuthCullen Mark Hennessy (Tony/Sinbad), Max Phipps (Mr. Length 50 mins Zachary), Jan Friedl (Mrs. Melrose), Kurt LudeGauge 16mm scher (George), Adrian Wright (Kurt), Murray SYNOPSIS: Explores the life and work o f the artist Fahey (Ali), Ross Thompson (Hardy), Kim GynVali Myers, who is unknown in Australia, but gell (Shilling). whose drawings fetch major prices in North America SYNOPSIS: A young country boy comes to stay in and Europe. She lives in a secluded valley in the city with his grandma, who works in a theatre Southern Italy accessible only by foot. box office. His stay in the city and his fascination with the world o f theatre help him to mature.

3 5 m m & 1 6 m m N e g a t iv e C u ttin g

\CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS

G eoff Clifton Films G eoff Clifton G eoff Clifton G eoff Clifton Prod, company Clifton Prod/Glasshouse Sarah Borsellino Pictures Limited G eoff Clifton Producers Bernard Terry Editor G eoff Clifton Peter Clifton Composer Andre Leu Director Peter Clifton Music performed by Andre Leu Scriptwriters Glenn A. Baker Paul Bambury Peter Clifton Still photography MichelBrouet Animation G eoff Clifton BECOMING A NURSE Latex artist Izabo Prod, company Matthews Media and Special effects G eoff Clifton Entertainment Catering KathyHewitt Producer CraigReardon Make-up Trish Besseling Director Craig Reardon Costumes Justine Pearsall Craig Reardon Scriptwriter Neg matching Chris Rowell Craig Schubert Photography Music mixing Film Australia Craig Reardon Editor Laboratory Colorfilm Rob Grant 1st asst director Lab. liaison WarrenKeevers Michelle Royal Production assistant Budget $ 3 2 ,0 0 0 Leif Ericson Gaffer Length 18 mins Avril Nichol Boom Gauge 16mm Martin Saunders Still photography Shooting stock Fuji/Agfa/Eastman Video Gauge CAST: Lisa Rayson, Ian Houston-Shadwell, Kay PRESENTERS: Lenore Smith, Brett Climo Roffey, Lisa Cameron. SYNOPSIS: Two well-known on-screen nurses SYNOPSIS: A young man dies and travels to heaven, take us on a tour o f the career path o f a real life only to witness God’s murder. A 20th century nurse. fable treated in an expressionist, nightmare-like

THE BEAT GOES ON (AKA THE LOST GENERATION)

HANDMAIDENS AND BATTLEAXES Prod, company Producer Director

Silver Films Rosalind Gillespie Rosalind Gillespie

O co

m E

O « ^r C\l <

Your complete Negative Matching Service,

including: • Time Coding onto 8" Floppy Disc • Super 16mm • Syncing Neg or Pos Rushes • Edge-Coding Service ("Rubber Numbering") • Tight deadlines our speciality • 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if required. Contact Greg Chapman on

DEATH OF GOD

DOCU MEN TARI ES

Prod, company Producer Director Scriptwriter Photography

”GTH1 1 KPTILTD<02>4 3 9 3988’ 1 0 5 /6 -8 CLARKE ST., CROWS NEST. NSW. 2065

o p t i c a l ^ g rservices a Ipty.ltd. p h ic ■ 110 West Street, Crows Nest NSW 2065 Australia Phone: (02) 922-3144) Fax§02] 957 5001] Modem: (02)922 7642

T itle S p ecialists

style.

FACADE Prod, company Producer Director

AFTRS Christopher J. Tuckwell Christopher J. Tuckwell

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

7 1

CALL FOR PANEL TOPICS ^

1ST ASIAN CINEMA STORIES CONFERENCE ^ JULY 6,7 ,8 1990 GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY, RRISRANE

The 1st Asian Cinema Studies Conference is intended to stimulate, consolidate and publicize work in this emerging interdisciplinary and international field, and to provide an opportunity for researchers to network and liaise. • At this point, we would like to call for panel topics and panel chairs. Panel topics should be transnational, e.g. “Gender in Asian Cinema”, to promote exchange across national specializations. Deadline 31st March, 1989. • After panels and panel chairs have been determined, there will be a call for papers. Individ ual panel chairs will select papers. • All correspondence should be addressed c/o Mr Chris Berry, Lecturer in Film & Media, Division o f Humanities, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Qld 4 1 1 1 . Tel (07) 275 7 4 6 4 , (0 7 ) 358 5139

) o □ o

dU I P iO o

/T h e Joinery rents cutting rooms with 4 ,6 and 8 plate Steenbecks, Moviolas, Picsyncs, and all the other usual bits and pieces, ^ p lu ss location hire of:

□d

Magnatech sound transfers, Doublehead projectors, Codemaster numbering machines. (0 3 )6 9 9 6666 i

□ □ □ □ r ^ fbj D □ □ c C o m i n g

s o o n . . . O f f l i n e

E d i t i n g

FILMFINDER O ffe rs Yo u | • 23 years experience in the media industry — commercial TV as well as ABC radio and television • film research credits on such current affairs For all yo ur archival

programmes as TDT, Nation Wide, Four Comers;

film and video tape

historical documentaries such as History of Australia, the

research requirem ents,

Blainey View; ABC 50th Anniversary TV Special

c o n ta c t W e n d y B o rc h e rs telep h o ne (0 2 )

• comprehensive knowledge o f archival film and archival film sources

439 2949 o r

w rite to F ilm F in d e r, 119 C h a n d o s S tre e t,

• an expanding list o f contacts inside and outside the industry; inside and outside Australia

C ro w s N e s t N S W 2065

• a thorough comprehension o f copyright clearance procedures

EXPOSE YOURSELF! Submissions are invited for the forthcoming A u s t r a l i a n S h o r t F i lm R e v ie w

a video release of the best independant Animation, Video & Film. Works may have been originated on any format but may only be submitted for preview on VHS/BETA/lilVlATIC. If return of tapes is essential please include appropriate postage. All care but no responsibility for posted items.

For more information write or send tapes to Bruce Blake, Australian Short Film Review, PO Box 222, Avalon NSW 2107

C I N E M A

Scriptwriter Christopher J. Tuckwell Photography Philip Baker Co-producer Felicity Nove Sound recordist John Van Rullen Photography Emil Novak Editor Peter Pritchard Sound recordist Michael Webster Prod, designer Robert A. Cocks Editor Carmen Galan Composer David Downie Production designer JanetMerewether Exec, producer Howard Worth Production manager Felicity Nove Prod, manager Angélique Malcolm Location manager Giselle McHugh Continuity Andrew Hutchison 1st asst director Fran McGivcrn Casting Angélique Malcolm 2nd asst director SusanKowalski Philip Baker Lighting cameraperson Camera operator Emil Novak Rob Grcnough Key grip Focus puller Roman Baska Asst grip John McGuckin Clapper/loader Linda Ljubicic Jenny Sutcliffe Boom operator Key grip Stewart Green Make-up Marilyn Smits Boom operator Christian Bass Michelle Preshaw Props Art director DianaRiley Set decorator Glenn Suta Asst art director Stavros Ethymiou Steven Kyme Set construction Costume designer Janet Merewether Budget $ 1 6 0 ,0 0 0 Makc-up/hairdresscr MelissaBroe Length 5x10 minutes Wardrobe Petrina Carden Gauge Betacam Props Stavros Ethymiou Shooting stock Sony Props buyer DianaRiley CAST: Ciaran Byrne (Johnno), Alinta Carroll Asst editor PaulSaunders (Melina), Samantha Black (Sam) Karen Richards Composer Scott Saunders (Debbie), Neil Armstrong (Steve), Adrian De Still photography Stine Baska Souza (Mark), Sally Curtain (Robyn), David Ber Mixer Ben Cheah man (Pete), Christy Sistrunk (Gail). Studios AFTRS SYNOPSIS: A series o f five videos on teenage sexu Mixed at GeminiSounds ality, targeted at 16-year-olds. Laboratory Colorfilm Lab. liaison Richard Piorkowski NIRVANA STREET MURDER Length 14 mins Prod, company Aleksi Vellis & Fiona Gauge 16mm Cochrane Shooting stock Agfa X T 3-20 Producer Fiona Cochrane CAST: Richard Moir (Robert Itvak), John Orcsik Director Aleksi Vellis (Gordon Kolbe), Robert Davies (The Minister), Scriptwriter Aleksi Vellis Nicola Barlett (Suzie Itvak), Stephanie Nicholson Photography Mark Lane (Max Itvak), Fiona Bales (Newsreader), Miranda Sound recordist Mark Atkin O tto (The Girl), J. Hiscox (The driver). Prod, manager Wendy Clarke SYNOPSIS: The moral dilemma o f a press officer Unit manager IainMcKay who stumbles on unpleasant facts about his boss. Prod, attachment David Bleasley Prod, assistant Margaret Eastgate THE INVITED 1st asst director PeterJordan Production company Cypher Productions Continuity Victoria Sullivan Producer Swinburne Institute o f Technology Lighting cameraperson Mark Lane Director Lindsay Christopherson Camera operator Paul Meulenberg Scriptwriter Lindsay Christopherson Camera assistant Kathy Chambers Sound recordist Jock Healy Gaffer Peter Scott Editor Joseph Dongia Boom operator Philip Healey Prod, designer GeorginaGreenhill Art director Lisa Thompson Composer Tony Tomorrow Asst art director Adele Flere Exec, producer Swinburne Inst.of Wardrobe asst Angie Ray Technology Laboratory VFL Prod, supervisor Chris McGillLab. liaison Bruce Braun Prod, manager Elizabeth Wellington Budget $ 1 3 5 ,0 0 0 Prod, assistant LuiseSextonLength 50 minutes 1st asst director Stewart CarterGauge 16mm Continuity Jennibop Zipporah Shooting stock Kodak Eastmancolour Lighting cameraperson Davide CAST: Ben Mendelsohn (Luke), Mark Little Michelin (Boady), Sheila Florence (Molly), Effie James Clapper/loader VickiDun (Helen’s M other), Tamara Saulwick (Penny), Camera assistant VickiDun George Huxley (Smeg), Mary Coustas (Helen), Gaffer Bill Roberto Micale (Hector). Boom operator CathySouth SYNOPSIS: Luke & Boady O ’Hagan hide out at Art director GeorginaGreenhill Molly’s mansion after they are busted. A story Asst art director Bbee Pfcstotti about sleepwalking, waterbeds, blackmail and wogs. Make-up LydiaCover Hairdresser LydiaCover THE 7.13 FROM PADDINGTON Wardrobe Bbee Pestotti Prod, company Jolimont Productions Asst editor LaurenceJohnston Producer Paul Brown Neg matching UrsulaJung Director David Tiley Sound editor Carol Williamson Scriptwriter David Tiley Mixer Sound Firm Photography Jaems Grant Still photography Denise Martin Sound recordist Chris Thompson Wrangler Evan P. Watts Editor Peter Friedrichs Runner Tony Composer Felicity Provan Catering Employ Catering Prod.manager Trevor Graham Mixed at Sound Firm Laboratory Cinevex Laboratory VFL Budget $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 Lab. liaison Bruce Braun Length 50 minutes Budget $ 3 1 ,0 5 9 Gauge 16mm Length 30 minutes SYNOPSIS: A study o f the Melbourne M etropoli Gauge 16mm tan rail system - the complexities, the nature o f Shooting stock 7291 work, the industrial relations, the engineering CAST: Tahli Rockman (Franny), Helen Rollinson culture. Told as a detective story which follows the (Paula), Andrea Swifte (Lynette), Anthony Fletcher 7 .1 3 through a day on the Met. (Ross), Laine Lamont (Mrs Peterson), Tom Gutteridge (Tom ), Michelle Hawker (Michelle), Al exander Kemp (Walter), Leigh Morgan (Franny’s GOVERNME NT FILM Mum), Steven Lawson (Terry) PRODUCTION SYNOPSIS: Set in Frankston in 1 9 65, the film shows a view o f the adult world through the eyes FILM VIC TO R IA o f a 10-year-old girl, Franny. She spends most o f her time with her neighbours, the Petersons, a nice COMMUNITY ARTS Christian family. But when Paula Peterson gets Prod, company Maggie Fooke married, Franny comes under the bad influence o f Executive producer Sally Semmens Paula’s old school friends. Director Maggie Fooke Scriptwriter Maggie Fooke THE NAME OF THE GAME Editor Maggie Fooke Prod, company Soundstage Australia/ Photography Chris Knowles Length 10-12 mins West Ed Media Dist. company West Ed Media Gauge Betacam Producer Robert A. Cocks SYNOPSIS: A video designed to demonstrate the Director positive benefits of—Community Arts to local Ron Elliott Scriptwriter councils and their communities. Hannah Downie

P A P E R S

7 1

CREDIT RIGHTS Prod, company Video Projects Executive producer Sally Semmens Director Tony Wright Scriptwriter Mark Georgiou Gauge Betacam SYNOPSIS: A short drama to teach people to be careful and cautious about using credit systems.

OPENING OF PARLIAMENT Prod, company Executive producer Photography

Captain Video Sally Semmens Colin Christman John Belgue Sound recordist G eoff Spurrell Length 4 hours Gauge O .B. SYNOPSIS: Opening o f the 51st Parliament.

G.P. Prod, company

LEGAL AID Prod, company Media World Sally Semmens Exec, producer John Tatoulis Director Steve West Scriptwriter Peter Zakhorov Photography Michael Collins Editor John Wilkinson Sound recordist KPM Mood Music Music 18-20 minutes Length Betacam Gauge SYNOPSIS: A video designed to illustrate the services provided by the Legal Aid Commission. These services include: telephone advice; advice in an interview situation; legal assistance and duty lawyers.

Sergio P. Adimari Daniel M. Brennan Phillip J. Bowler Camera Steven A. Scoble Hank Eykman Jack Dcgenkamp Russell M. Howard Lighting Paul Indaimo Audio Scott Finlay John C Budge Russell Stuart McAbcc Colin Swan Kevin J. Carlin Floor manager Rebecca De Regt Katherine Archer Make-up Timothy St J Coulston Technical director Frank Racina Lighting Jonathan M. Olb Vision switcher/asst Gavin J McNeil Dane Elliott Clarke Scenic Facilities Georgina Grccnhill Art director Jill Eden Set dresser Rod Taylor Production videotape Miranda Howlett CAST: Nick Giannopoulos (Jim) , George Kapiniaris (M em o), Simon Palomares (Rick), Simon Thorpe (Skip), Tracey Callendar (Liz), George Vidalis (Manolis). SYNOPSIS: Kostas leaves his son Jim in charge of the Acropolis cafe. But you should see the Acropo lis Now.

2nd asst, director Tony Tilse Continuity Rhonda McAvoy Producer’s asst. Marion Kennedy Extras casting Sue Walsh Casting consultant Liz Mullinar Art director Graham Johnson Costume designer Jolanta Nathan Studios ABC Frenchs Forest Mixed at ABC Length 4x50 mins Gauge 16mm SYNOPSIS: Cassidy is the Premier o f New South Wales who, on his deathbed, nominates his es tranged daughter as executor o f his estate. A story ofcorruption, murder and political intrigue against a background o f Sydney, Hong Kong and Lon don.

Exec, producers Supervising producer Directors Scriptwriters Script editors Script co-ordinator Story department Medical consultants Prod, designer Assoc, producers

Prod, co-ordinator Prod, manager Prod, secretary Moving Pictures Casting consultants Russell Porter

NEIGHBOURHOOD MEDIATION

Prod, company Exec, producer Director Ivan Hexter Props buyers Scriptwriter Richard Keddie Photography Rob Marden Unit publicist Sound recordist Ian Wilson Studios Length 10-12 minutes Mixed at Gauge Betacam Length SYNOPSIS: A documentary which will explain the Gauge working o f neighbourhood mediation centres, 1st asst, director and how local communities can benefit from them.

Roadshow Coote 8c Carroll/ABC Matt Carroll Sandra Levy Sue Masters Various Various Betty Quinn Greg Millin Kris Wyld Matt Ford Kristen Dunphy Dr Stephen Faux Dr David Whitten Marcus North Kim Vecera Judy Murphy Francoise Fombertaux Annette Cover Irma Havlicek Maura Fay 8c Associates Rory Cronin Ian Andrewartha Virginia Sargent ABC ABC 1 hr weekly 1" video Gary Stephens

ALL THE WAY

Synopsis: Drama series detailing the comings and goings o f an inner city medical practice John Ruane 8c Denise Patience I T E L E V I S I O N Executive producer Sally Semmens Director John Ruane P R O D U C T ION Scriptwriter Robert Grant ABOUT OUR PETS Length 10-12 minutes Coral Films Prod, company Gauge BVU Richard Rooker SYNOPSIS: An informative video on the role o f the Producers Richard Hart Office o f the Public Advocate in advocating the Richard Rooker Directors rights o f people with disabilities. Richard Hart Richard Rooker Scriptwriters RECYCLED WATER Richard Hart Exec, producer RussellPorter Based on the original idea by Richard Hart Scriptwriter Kathy Armstrong Chris Bewley Photography Length 12 minutes Chris Bewley Editor Gauge Video Richard Rooker Prod, designer SYNOPSIS: A documentary with the primary aim Phil Manning Composer o f overcoming resistance within industry and ag Richard Rooker Exec, producer riculture to the idea o f recycling water. Graham Weeks Tech, adviser 26 X 30 minutes Length T E L E V I S I O N Video Gauge SYNOPSIS: A very funny but informative series P R E - P R O D U C T ION presenting a different pet every week.

PUBLIC ADVOCACY

Prod, company

ALL THE RIVERS RUN II

Prod, company Producer Director Associate producers Prod, supervisor Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator Art director 1st asst director Photography Publicity

Crawford Productions Alan Hardy John Power Vince Smits Helen Watts Vince Smits Helen Watts Bernardette O ’Mahoney Robbie Perkins Brian Giddens Dan Burstall Susan Elizabeth Wood

CASSIDY Archive Films Pty Ltd/ABC Prod, company Bob Weis Producer Tony Winley Line producer Michael Carson Director Joanna Murray-Smith Scriptwriter Morris West Based on the novel by Murray Picknett Prod, designer Sandra Levy Exec, producer Wayne Barry Assoc, producer Carol Chirlian Prod, manager Shuna Burnett Prod, co-ordinator Val Windon Unit manager Maude Heath Location manager Elizabeth Gilroy Prod, secretary Scott Hartford-Davies 1st asst, director

ACROPOLIS NOW Prod company Producer Director Exec, producers Scriptwriters

Script editor Story editor Director’s assistant Co-ordinator Casting Assistant to producer Prod, secretary Prod, accountant Prod, supervisor Offline editor Offline sound editor Post-prod. Supervisor Unit publicity Network publicity Vision switcher/asst Make-up Studio hand

Crawford Productions Oscar Whitbread Ted Emery Ian Bradley Gary Fenton Nick Giannopoulos George Kapiniaris Simon Palomares Peter Herbert Jutta Goetze Julie Bates Wendy Walker Jan Pontifex Coyla Hegarty Carol Matthews JeffShenker Vince Smits Jo Rosas Anne Carter Dee Liebenberg Susan Elizabeth Wood Sally Flynn Sean Mark Riley Barbara Cousins Katherine Archer Lindsay Charles Pugh Raymond J. Ackerlcy Adam Pictrzak

C I N E M A

Crawford Productions Crawford Productions Bill Hughes Mandy Smith Marcus Cole Russell Webb Pino Amenta Gary Conway Leon Saunders Scriptwriters Peter Kinloch Sheila Sibley Everett De Roche Andrew Kennedy Story editor Jutta Goetze Script editors John Lord Philip Scott Asst script editor Sue Ellis Researcher Cheryl Long Script co-ordinator Frank Hammond Photography Ian Bradley Executive producer Vince Smits Prod.supervisor Chris Page Prod, manager Kimanie Hameister Prod, co-ordinator Julie Burton Asst co-ordinator Belinda Pribil Prod, secretary Jeff Shenker Prod, accountant Spider McCart Location manager Phil Jones 1st asst director# 1 Hamish McSporran 1st asst director #2 Robert Visser 2nd asst director Lynn Danzey Continuity/DA Julie Bates Carmel Torcasto Coin McLean Unit manager Phil Eastabrook Relief unit manager Keith Wray-McCrann Runners Richard Jacob Rob Hansford Key grip Rod Short Asst grip Sally Shepherd Production designer Brian Dusting Art director Phill Eagle Asst art director Rolland Pike Props buyer Brian Lang Standby props Simon Carter Colin Robertson Set dressers Souli Lividatis Greg Blcechmorc Jamie Lcgge Stefan Kluka Michael Rumpf Scott Adcock Gordon White Construction Justine Sloan Graphics Clare Griffin Costume designer Marion Boyce Wardrobe supervisor Gavlc Mayes Wardrobe standby Cathy Farr Liz Harper Make-up Anna Karpinski Julie Cox Paul Pattison Hairdressers Fiona Rees-Jones David Henderson Sweet Seductions Catering Mobile Pro Make-up/wardrobe bus duction Facilities David Cheshire Music editor Peter Tulloch Dialogue coach Rob McLeod Picture vehicles Peter Allen Transport Anne Carter Sound editor Prod, company Dist. company Producer Directors (include)

P A P E R S

* 7 1

Andrew Jobson Lindsay Parker Ailen Solowiej John Wilksonson Audio (location) Greg Nelson Adrian Vermeulen Audio (studio) Matthew Walsh Steve Delmenico Lex Martin Lighting (location) Peter Ryan Roy Pritchett Peter Scott Jim Perkins Lighting (studio) Ken Kelliher David Field Arch Sodeman Floor managers John Magee Richard Cornish AFM Craig Pennicuik Technical director G TV 9 Studios Crawford Productions Mixed at Video Gauge CAST: Rowcna Wallace (Elaine Seymour), Peter Sumner (Philip Seymour) Ben Mendelsohn (Lindsay Seymour), Danii Minogue (Penelope Seymour), Dennis Miller (Ray Scott), Maggie Millar (Lorna Scott), Martin Sacks (Alan Scott), Lisa Hensley (Christine Scott), Dominic McDonald (Barry Scott), Diana Davidson (Madelaine Vaughan), Nikki Coghill (Terry O ’Rourke), Vince Colosimo. Sound mixer Editors

THE BODYSURFERS Prod, company Producer Director Scriptwriters

stories by Sound recordist Photography Editors Prod, manager Prod, designer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Unit manager Location manager Prod, secretary Prod, accountant 1st asst, director 2nd asst.director 3rd asst, director Continuity Casting Extras casting Camera operator Focus pullers Key grip Asst grip 2nd unit photography 2nd unit assistant Gaffer Electricians Boom operators Assistant designer Design assistants Costume designer Hair/make-up

Wardrobe Wardrobe asst Props Props buyers Standby props Special effects Choreography Set

Scenic artist Carpenter Painter Set construction Asst editors Sound editora

John Sexton Productions/ABC Ross Matthews Ian Barry Suzanne Hawley Chris Lee Denis Whitburn Based on the short Robert Drewe Guntis Sics Jeff Malouf Chris Spur Mike Honey John Winter Janet Patterson John Sexton Ray Brown John Downie Clint White Sandy Stevens Jill Coverdale Russell Whiteaok Lance Mellor Caroline Grose Tracy Pad ula Liz Mullinar Irene Gaskell Jeff Malouf Gary Russell Brendan Shaw Gar)' Burdett Nick Hocking G eoff Manias Paul Doney Ken Pettigrew Pierre Orion Tim Harris David Pearson Chris Nilsen Helen Baumann Karen land Ian Usher Annie Marshall Christine F.hlcrt Ron Bassi Chiara Tripodi Barry Lumicy Lorraine Verheven Philippa Wooten Roy Eagleton Adrian Cannon Mervyn Asher John King Benn Hyde The Australian E fcx Company Robyn Moase Richard Kennett Sandra Carrington Leanne Bushby Brent Bonheur Paul Brocklebank Tom Slettum Mark Newton Steve Bums Laurie Dorn Mai Healey Martin Connor Elizabeth Villa Roslvn Silvcstrin Phillipa Byers

Editing assistants

Larissa Filipic Tania Brown Mixer Stephen Hope Stunts co-oridnator Bernie Ledger Still photography Gary' Johnston Wrangler Evanna Chesson Runner Paul Eperjesi Publicity Georgic Brown Catering Reel Food Catering Studios ABC Frcnchs Forest Mixed at ABC Laboratory Colorfilm Lab. liaison Martin Hoyle Ixngth 4x50 minutes Gauge 16mm Shooting stock 7 2 9 1 ,7 2 9 2 CAST: Peter Kowitz (David), Linda Cropper (Anthea), Joy Smithcrs (Lydia), Pennc HackforthJones (Angela), Patrick Ward (Parnell), Abigail (Mrs James), Felix Nobis (Paul Lang), Tim Robertson (Rex Lang), Clayton Williamson (Young David). SYNOPSIS: A television adaptation o f Robert Drewe’s short stories. Over roughly an 18-month period. Searching beyond mid-life crisis, David finds the unanswered questions o f his childhood can lead him towards a state o f maturity. He realises it is his last hope for reconstructing his fractured family.

Continuity/D.A Script assistant Producer’s assistants Casting Lighting Camera operators

Camera assistants Audio directors

Peter Dudkin Karen Willing Stephanie Richards Louise Crane Justine Slater Pip Nacard Shauna Crowley John Norton Paul W ootten Glen Steer Peter Westlcy John DeRuvo Dietrich Brock Andrew Barrance Graeme Hicks

Howard Fricker Russell Thompson Mark Mitchell Steve Muir Kit Moore Veyatie Hirst Rachel Dal Santo Wardrobe Therese Rendle Wardrobe assts Allan Burns Meg Hunt Props Wayne Pickard Malcolm Gregory Julie Puglisi Props buyer Ion Lucini Set dresser Doug Kelly Still photography Steve Brack BRIGHT SPARKS Publicity Kathy Campbell Prod, company Beyond International Catering Taste Buddies Group Studios ATN Studio “B ” Producer Pru Donovan Mixed at Custom Video Directors Jeff Gale Shooting stock 1 "video Mark Lamprcll CAST: Shane Porteous (Dr. Terence Elliott), Di Scriptwriters Karl Kruszelnicki Smith (Dr. Alex Fraser), Lorrae Desmond (Shirley Mark Lamprcll Gilroy), John Tarrant (M att Tyler), Brian Wenzel Editors Fiona Strain (Sgt. Frank Gilroy), Kate Raison (Cathy Hayden), Michelle Cattle Jo Mitchell (Jo Loveday), Brett Climo (Michael Music Twilight Productions Langley), Joyce Jacobs (Esmc Watson), Joan Prod, secretary Lily Krupica Sydney (Matron Sloan), Syd Heylen (Cookie Lock) Prod, assistant Adam Boulter Gordon Piper (Bob Hatfield). Animation Yoram Gross Film Studios Animation producer Yoram Gross SYNOPSIS: Set in the small rural community o f Animation assoc, prod. SandraGross “Wandin Valley” , the series deals with medical and social issues, through the major characters and the Animation director Athol Henry local Bush Nursing Hospital1. It also dramatises Animation camera Joseph Cabatuan Animation editor Stephen Hayesthe lives o f the local vet and the National Park Animation prod, mgr Jeanette Tom s Ranger.

Editing assistant Stephen Barbour Dubbing editor Pamela Dunne Length 12x24 mins Gauge 1" video CAST: Keith Scott (Sparky), Robyn Moore (Alex), Taylor Owens (Amy) SYNOPSIS: An animated science and technology show for children.

Prod, company

Boom operator Art director Make-up.

DOLPHIN BAY Prod, company

Paramount Pictures (Australia) Pty Ltd Co-exec, producer Allan Marcil Prod, executive Michael Lake Scriptwriter Peter Bcnchlcy Photography Nino Martinetti Prod, manager Grant Hill Prod, designer Sally Shepherd CHANCES Art director Brian Dusting Beyond International Length 8x1 hour Group SYNOPSIS: An American scientist and filmmaker Mark DeFriest MikeSmith with a special interest in dolphins is brought to Australia by a wealthy entrepreneur who shares his David Phillips love o f dolphins. Brcndon Lunney

Producer Director Scriptwriter Exec, producer Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator

NeneMorgan Natalie WentworthShields Prod, company Prod, designer Andrew Blaxland Art director Jenny Catseldinc Producer Length 9 0 mins Directors Gauge 1" video CAST: ChristopherStollery, Marcus Graham, Mark Koumas, Diane Craig, Natalie McCurry, Caz Lederman, Michael Caton SYNOPSIS: The story o f the Taylors - a family on the edge o f fortune. Scriptwriters

A COUNTRY PRACTICE Prod, company Producers Directors

Scriptwriters

idea by Editor Exec, producer Prod, coordinator. Prod, manager U nit manager Location manager Prod, secretary Prod, accountant. 1st asst directors

2nd asst directors

JN P Films Pty. Ltd. Denny Lawrence Bill Searle Robert Meillon Leigh Spence Peter Maxwell David Phillips Judy Colquhoun Steve J. Spears Graeme Koctsveld Based on the original James Davern Graeme Andrews James Davern Barbara Lucas Chris Martin-Jones Margi Cremin David Watts Toni Higginbotham Kathy Wood Mark Moroney Ian Simmons Richard McGrath Andrew Turner

E STREET

Westside Television Production Bruce Best Rod Hardy Geoffrey Nottage Bill Hughes Greg Shears Peter Andrikis Julian McSwiney Forrest Redlich David Phillips Sally Webb Hugh Stuckey Mary Dagmar Davies Tom Galbraith Grant Fraster Nicholas Langton Exec, producer Forrest Redlich Assoc, producer Terrie Vincent Lesley Thompson Prod, manager Caroline Stanton Script editors Tim Pye Martin McAdoo Prod, designer David Scandol Lighting directors Bob Miller 52x1 hour Length CAST: Penny Cook, Brooke Andersen, Cecily Poison, Leslie Dayman, Catriona Sedgwick, Vic Roonic, Tony Martin, Warren Jones, Melanie Salomon. SYNOPSIS: A drama focusing on an inner city suburb arid its residents.

FIELDS OF FIRE III Prod, company Producers

Palm Beach Pictures David Elfick

C I N E

M A

Irene Korol Director David Elfick Scriptwriter Patricia Johnson Photography Geoffrey Simpson Length 2x 2 hours Gauge 16mm CAST: PetaToppano, John Jarratt, Kris McQuade, M ichele Fawdon, Harold H opkins, Noni Hazlchurst. SYNOPSIS: Cane farming in Queensland in the Fifties - the continuing story

THE FLYING DOCTORS Prod, company

Crawford Productions (Series) Pty. Ltd. Producer Oscar Whitbread Directors Brendan Maher Mark dc Friest Paul Moloney Scriptwriters Denise Morgan Tony Morphett Luis Bayonas Shane Brennan Photography. Ron Hagen Barry Wilson Sound recordists Malcolm Rose Paul Clarke Editors Scott McLennan Bill Murphy Exec, producer Ian Bradley Assoc, producer Ray Hcnnessy Prod, supervisor Vince Smits Post-prod, supervisor Sue Washington Prod, co-ordinator Gina Black Unit manager Andrew Oliver Location manager Chris Odgers Prod, secretary Carol Matthews Kevin Plummer Prod, accountant .Stewart Wright 1st asst directors. Jamie Leslie Kath Hayden 2nd asst directors. Aurelia Ginevra Peter Nathan Continuity. Tara Ferner Anne Went Story editor Andrew Kennedy Script editors Tony McDonald Jan Harficld Casting Jan Pontifex Focus pullers Craig Barden Gary Bottomlcy Clapper/Ioaders Ian Phillips Kim Jonsson Key grips Craig Dusting Kerry Boyle Asst grips Leigh Tait Wayne Mitchell Gaffers Bill Jones Gary Plunkett Boom operators .Stephen Haggerty Colin Swan Art director Andrew Reese Asst art director Leigh Eichler Costume designer Clare Griffin Make-up Viv Rushbrook Brad Smith Hairdressers Lisa Jones Christine Miller Wardrobe supervisor Keely Ellis Wardrobe standby Anna Baulch Rachel Nott Props buyer Kate Murray Standby props Paul Kiely Georgina Campbell Set decorators Kerith Holmes Darren Jones Brad King John Stafford Set construction Gordon White Sound editor G eoff Hill Editing assistant Michael Carden Mixer Andrew Jobson Best boys Con Mancuso Peter Ryan Runner Andrew Bull Catering Location One Catering Studios Crawford Productions Mixed at Cinevex Length 26x 4 7 minutes Gauge. 16mm Shooting stock 7 2 9 1 ,7 2 9 2 CAST: Robert Grubb (D r Geoffrey Standish), Liz Burch (Dr Chris Randall), Lenore Smith (Kate Wcllings), Bruce Barry (George Baxter), Pat Evison (Violet Carnegie), Rebecca Gibney (Emma Plimpton), Maurie Fields (Vic Buckley), Val Jellay (Nancy Buckley), Peter O ’Brien (Sam Patterson), George Kapiniaris (D .J.). SYNOPSIS: A Royal Flying Doctor service is located in the outback town o f Coopers Crossing. The two doctors, G eoff Standish and Chris Ran dall, not only contend with the medical chal lenges, but also with the small community in which they live.

P A P E R S

• M M

THE HEROES Prod company Producer Exec producers

GVS Films Anthony Buckle Graham Benso Valerie Hardy Director Donald Crombie Scriptwriter Peter Yeldham Photography PaulMurph Editor Wayne Lc Clos Length 4x1 hour Gauge 16mm CAST: Paul Rhys, John Bach, John Hargreaves SYNOPSIS: The story o f a group o f Englishmen and Australians who launched an attack on Sin gapore Harbour during World War II.

"HEY DAD" SERIES 5 Prod, company Dist. company Producer Director Scriptwriters

Gary Reilly Productions Pre-sale Seven Network Gary Reilly SallyBrady GaryReilly John Flanagan Kim Goldsworth Bill Young Based on original idea by Gary Reilly Photography SteveBrack Sound recordist Jim Astley Editor Garry Burns Composer Mike Perjanik Exec, in charge o f prod. Alan Bateman Assoc, producer KathyLang Director’s assistant Julie Hannah Lighting.. Russell Phegan Floor manager Jamie Stevens Vision Switcher Ronnie Hicks Technical Director. PatBarter Make-up. Sue-Leonard Wardrobe Therese Rendle Set decorator Gordon Brown Set Ken Goodman Publicity Fiona Brown Studios A TN Channel 7 Length 30x 30 minutes Gauge 1 “ videotape CAST: Robert Hughes (Martin Kelly), Julie McGregor (Betty Wilson), Chris Mayer (Simon Kelly), Simone Buchanan (Debbie Kelly), Sarah Monahan (Jenny Kelly), Christopher Truswell (Nudge). SYNOPSIS: Situation comedy based on a widowed father trying to raise his three children with the help o f the family’s crazy cousin.

HOME AND AW AY

Prod, company ATN Channel 7 Dist. company ATN Channel 7 Producer Andrew Howie Story editor David Worthington Based on the original idea by Alan Bateman Exec, producer Des Monag Assoc, producer Peter Askew Prod, co-ordinator Kate Delin Prod, manager LisaFitzpat Prod, accountant Therese Tran Prod, assistant Edwina Searle 1st asst directors Grahame Murray Michael Ailwood Grant Brown 2nd asst directors Shane Gow Jane Ogden Continuity Frances Swan Marcus Georgiades Liz Perry Script assistant Sharon Rosenburg Casting Inese Vogler Casting consultants Maura Fay Lighting directors Dave Morgan Dave W ood Dave Mutton Art director Ken McCann Costume designer Michael Chisholm Make-up ElaineHorton Mary Georgiou Hairdressers DavidJenning Georgina Bush Wardrobe Rita Crouch Francesca Bath Wardrobe asst Bronwyn Doughty Props buyers. Philip Cumm Kate Saunders Standby props Glen Turner Adam Hammond Musical director MikePerjani Runner Alex Tinley Studios. ATN Channel 7 Shooting stock Video CAST: Roger Oakley (T om ), Vanessa Downing (Pippa), Alex Papps (Frank), Sharyn Hodgson (Carly), Helena Bozich (Lyn), Adam Willits (Ste ven), Kate Ritchie (Sally), Nicolle Dickson (Bobby), Sheila Kennelly (Floss), Frank Lloyd (Neville), Judy Nunn (Ailsa)^Ray Meagher (Alf). SYNOPSIS: A warm and amusing family drama

that follows the lives o f Tom and Pippa Fletcher, their foster children and the residents o f the sea side town o f Summer Bay. They battle daily vicis situdes and triumphs as they search for their place in the sun.

Prod, manager Directors’ assts

Stottie Marianne Gray Linda Walker Jane Daniels Script supervisor Ray Kollc Script editor Wayne Doyle Story editor Lois Booton KABOODLE 2 Casting Jan Russ Prod, company A CTF Productions Ltd. Michelle Luvisctto Exec, producer Patricia Edgar Camera operators Joe Battaglia, Supervising producer Ewan Burnett Andrew Bern' Series producer Susie Campbell Paul Barnett Budget $65 8 ,0 0 0 G eoff Biggs Length. 6 x 2 4 minutes Mark Collins Gauge 1 inch video Mark Allen SYNOPSIS: Six more: half-hours o f television Peter Hind drama for the under-ten age group, this time all Andrew Currie animated and regular characters. Floor managers Ray Lindsay Bob Villinger Alan Williamson MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE Lighting supervisors Stuart de Young Prod, company Paramount Pictures Rod Harbour (Australia) Pty Ltd Make-up. William Mcllvancy, Supervising producer Michael Fisher Joanne Pardv Prod, executive Michael Lake Zeljkica Stanin Directors Cliff Bole Hairdressers Michael Longhitano Kim Manners David Vawser Scriptwriters Various Wardrobe Mandv Sedewie Script editor Stanley Walsh Julianne Jonas Photography Ron Hagen Gursel Ali Length 13x1 hour Props buyer Mark Grivas CAST: Peter Graves, Thaao Penghlis, Terry MarkStandby props Richard Williamson, well, Phil Morris, Tony Hamilton Sue Birjak Synopsis: The Impossible Mission Force is a Warren Pearson Music editor multi-national organisation which operates, inde The Editing Machine Off-line editing pendently o f governments, against the forces of Vision switcher Jenny Williams evil. Post production ATV 10 Melbourne Tech, directors Howard Simons NEIGHBOURS Peter Merino Prod, company Grundy Television Barry Shaw Producer Mark Callan Peter Coe Runner Cameron Strachan Directors Various Catering. Helen Louwcrs Scriptwriters Various Post-production .AT\T- 10 Melbourne Based on the original CAST: Anne Charleston (Madge Bishop), Jason idea by. Reg Watson Donovan (Scott Robinson), Alan Dale (Jim Robin Sound recordists Peter Say son), Anne Haddv (Helen Daniels), Stefan Dennis Grant Vogler (Paul Robinson), Ian Smith (Harold Bishop), Lisa Bruce Findlay Armytage (Beverly Robinson), Kristian Scmid Prod, designer Steve Keller Composer (theme) Tony Hatch(Todd Landers), Sally Jensen (Katie Landers), Guy Pearce (Mike Young), Annie Jones (Jane Exec, producer Don Battyc Harris), Rachel Friend (Bronwyn Davies), Jessica Exec, in charge o f production Peter Pinne Prod, co-ordinator ReitaWilsonMuschamp (Sharon Davies).

GRIPS

SYNOPSIS: Love ’em or hate ’em, but everyone’s got ’em: neighbours. Ramsay Street...the stage for an exciting drama serial...drawing back the curtain to reveal the intrigue and passions o f Australian families...and their neighbours.

RAFFERTY'S RULES

SERIES V

Prod, company Dist. company. Producer Directors

ATN Channel 7 ATN Channel 7 Robert Bruiting Kevin Dobson Mark Piper Karl Zwicky Alister Smart Mike Smith Marcus Cole Scriptwriters David Allen John Upton Tim Gooding David Marsh Nicholas Langton Chris Roache Sue Castrique Mark Stiles Michael CoveBen Lewin Based on the original idea by Bernard Hides Prod, designer Mike Perjanik Composer Louise Home Script executive Prod, manager Linda Wilkinson Peter Warman Location manager Caroline Black Prod, secretary. Prod, accountant Janccn Faithfull Fiona Hile Prod, assistant Soren Jensen, 1st asst directors. Peter Warman Cathie Roden 2nd asst director Pip Spilsbury Continuity. Casting Helen Salter Maura Fay Casting consultant Lighting director Peter Russell John Catt Camera operator Rodney Vincent Key grip Boom operator Phil Jones Richard Hobbs Art director Jo Stevens Make-up Hairdresser James Matantis Lyn London Wardrobe. Madeleine Cullen Wardrobe asst Cathy Finlay Props buyer Dallas Wilson Standby props Daniel Burns Art dept, runner

Musical director Audio directors

Mike Perjanik PhilTipcne Matthew Dorn Stunts coordinator FrankLennon Tech, director Dave McCulloch Publicity. FionaBrown Catering. GerryBilling Studios Channel 7 Mixed at Atlab Length 47 minutes per episode Gauge 1 “ video CAST: John Wood (Michael Rafferty), Simon Cliilvers (Flicker), Arky Michael (Fulvio), Katv Brin son (Lisa Blake). SYNOPSIS: The trials and tribulations o f stipendi ary court magistrate Michael Aloysius Rafferty.

REALMS OF GOLD (DARFYDD AUR) Prod, company

Kingcrolf/Tcliesyn/ A BC/S4C J.C. Williamson/S4C Terry Ohlsson PaulTurner HowardGriffiths RossDimsey Dilwvn Jones Assoc, producers RichardMcyrick Prod, co-ordinator Jenny Crowley Prod, manager Lorraine Alexander Studios Kingcroft Length 90 minutes SYNOPSIS: A tale based on the real life story o f a Welsh minister wheo travelled to Australia in the 1840s, preached the first sermon in Welsh in Australia, made a fortune out o f property in the goldfields, and started a newspaper which eventu ally merged into the Ape group. Dist. company Producer Director Scriptwriter Exec, producers

SHADOW OF THE COBRA Prod, company Producer Assoc, producer Director Scriptwriters

View Films BenGannon BarbaraGibbs Mark Joffe Michael Laurence Scott Roberts Photography G eoff Burton Prod, designer Brian Thompson Length 2x2hours Gauge 16mm CAST: Rachel Ward, Michael Woods, Art Malik, Helen Budav, Arthur Dignam, Tony Barry.

N O W S U P P L IE S

C A M E R ASOUND S PRODUCTION DEPARTMENTS

TRAVELCART

SALE SPECIAL

THE VERSATILE CARRIER FOR FILM + VIDEO CREWS CARRY UP TO 300 lbs REGISTRATION CHART

DIRECTOR’S VIEWFINDER M k IV 10:1 ZOOM . B O T H 16 & 3 5 m m .

C A L L S M P F O R

CHARTS

COLOUR REFERENCE CHART

LIGHTWEIGHT. STRONG. COMPACT

NEW IN TOWN FROM

PANAVISION

SMP PRODUCTS

D E P T H O F F IE L D C A L C U L A T O R

C IN E M A T O G R A P H E R S ’ PRO G RA M M ED BY DAVID SA M U E L SO N

A L S O A V A IL A B L E ; K E L L Y & S A M C IN E II D E P T H O F F IE L D C A L C U L A T O R S . 16m m & 3 5 m m

FILM & VIDEO SUPPLIES DELIVERED FAST - [02] 5172745 SM P PRODUCTS - SIMPLY MORE PRODUCTS 30 GIBBENS ST, CAMPERDOWN, 2050 TEL: [02] 517 2745 FAX: [02] 519 1985 TLX: AA177644 SMPROD C I N E M A

P A P E R S

SYNOPSIS: A story based on the experience o f Julie Clarke and Richard Neville while working on their book about Charles Sobhraj.

Laboratory V FL Length 8x28 mins Gauge 16mm SYNOPSIS: Good food and good health go hand in Land - so the C SIR O believes. Gabriel Gate, one o f Australia’s top chefs, tours Australia and dem onstrates a dazzling variety o f dishes to show that a healthy diet doesn’t have to be dull.

THIS MAN ... THIS WOMAN Prod, company

Crawford Productions Pty Ltd/ABC Producer Graham Moore Director Paul Moloney Scriptwriter Terry Stapleton Executive producers Ian Bradley Ross Dimsey Production manager Marion Pearce Prod, co-ordinator Kimanie Hameister Prod, secretary Kathleen Burns Prod, accountant Rod Sinni 1st asst director Bill Smithett 2nd assistant directors Neil Proud Ann Bartlett Location manager Mark Gibson Continuity Aidccn Stevenson Casting officer Jan Pontifex Louise Mitchell Casting assistant Production designer Max Nicolson Designer Rudi Joosten Costume designer Anne Pennington-Brown Steven Crosby Assistant designer John Cuskelly Props buyers Norm Jones-Ellis Set dresser Michael Keane Andrew Best Action props Rod Clack Special effects Wardrobe co-ordinators Beverly Jasper Joyce Imlach Make-up/hairdresser Thelma Henson Bill Jackson-Martin Lighting director Clive Sell Graham Brumley Technical producer Gary Schulz Senior audio operator Soncr Tuncay Senior camera operator Terry Mitchell Camera operators Roger McAlpine John Smith Vision operator Chris Edwards Vision mixer Richard Goffin Boom operators Christopher Coltman Peter DeHaan Senior grip Electrician Mick Sandy June Williams Videotape operator Ken Tyler Editor CAST: Catherine Wilkin (Marion Clarke), Robert Coleby (Neil Clarke), Ben Mendelsohn (Matthew Clarke), Rachael Beck (Susan Clarke), Andrew

INCREDIBLE CREATURES Soundstagc Australia FilmFair (London) Tibor Meszaros Sandor Polyak Sam Leland Directors Janos Katona David Downie Sam Leland Scriptwriter From an original Janos Katona idea by Sandor Polyak Photography Olga Polyakane Gyorgy Oroszcan Composer Trevor Spenser Hannah Downie Exec, producer Robert A. Cocks Assoc, producer Endre Sik Prod, supervisor David Downie Prod, manager Robert Sharpe Prod, accountant Kevin Peek Musical directors Gyorgy Oroszcan Ric Curtin Sound editor Sandor Polyak Animation Janos Katona Balojty Laszlo Gyapai Tamas Kurtej Marta Tamas Arra Iren Bartha Lestak Csilca Ramsey McLean Dialogue coach Studios Tracks Studio/TW 7/Taimac SBS Tracks Studio Mixed at Hungarian Film Lab & Laboratory Filmlab Pty Ltd Gyorgy Erzsebet Lab. liaison $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 Budget. 16m m /l " video Gauge CAST: Joy M oore, Owen Stickels, Martyn Gittens, David Vallon. SYNOPSIS: Thirteen-part animated children’s se ries. The delightful stories o f the Incredible Creatures. Each story is full o f humour and has an Prod, company Dist. company Producer

Maddocks), Lucy Bayler (Kathy Robinson), John Gregg (Joe Lawrence), Max Phipps (Barry Farmer),. SYNOPSIS: A contemporary role reversal love story. “This Man” , Neil Clarke, facing midlife crisis brought on by his retrenchment from middle management has nagging doubts that his family, particularly his wife, no longer needs him. “This Woman” , Marion Clarke, caught in the classic “Superwoman” syndrome, doesn’t appear to have noticed that her rtiarriage is showing signs o f strain. T E L

E V 1 S I O N

POST- P R O D U C T I O N

ADVENTURES ON KYTHERA Prod, company Dist. company Producers Director

Media World Pty. Ltd. Richard Price Television Associates John Tatoulis Colin South John Tatoulis

THE GOOD FOOD SHOW Prod, company Dist. company Producer Director Scriptwriter Advisers-

Photography Sound recordist Editor Exec, producer Assoc, producer Presenter Prod, secretary Prod, assistant 1st asst director Camera assistant Scenic artist . Set construction Asst'editor. Mixer Title designer Studios. Mixed at

C SIR O Film and Video Centre C SIR O Film nd Video Centre Nick Pitsas Nick Pitsas Marianne Latham Dr Paul Nestel Dr Katherine Baghurst Dr David Topping Roger Scccombe Robert Kerton Ross Thompson Nick Alexander Malcolm Paterson Gabriel Gate Kathleen Egan Alice Bugge Roger Scccombe Howard Scccombe Martin Dolby Doug Green Annette Kelly Gerry Duffy Video Paintbrush Co. Studio 3 1 4 Labsonics

THE LAST VOYAGE Spcctacor Films/Samson Productions NBC Dist. company Tamara Asseyev Producers Sue Milliken Robert Collins Director Robert Collins Scriptwriter Vince Monton Photography Noel Quinn Sound recordist Ross Major Prod, designer Adrienne Reid Prod, managers Sue Wild Caroline Bonham Prod, co-ordinator Will Matthews Unit manager Patricia Blunt Location manager Moneypenny/Jill Steele Prod, accountant Phil Jones 1st asst, director Chris Odges 2nd asst director Lyn Henderson 3rd asst director Tom Jeffrey 2nd unit director Jackie Sullivan Continuity Casting Liz Mullinar Casting/Anna Smith Kim Batterham Camera operator Robert Agannis Focus puller Alison Maxwell Clapper/loader Brett McDowell Key grip John Tate Asst grips Robert van Amstel Tony Holtham Gaffer Jon Leaver Best Boy: Victor Gentile Boom operator Kim Darby Art director Anna Senior Costume designer Sally Gordon Make-up Michele Myers Hairdresser Jean Turnbull Wardrobe supervisor Lyn London Standby wardrobe Suzy Carter Andrea Hood Extras dresser Lissa Coote Props buyers Bill Booth Peter Moyes Standby props Conrad Rothman Special effects Daniel Morphett Art dept runner Wayne Allen for Max Set Construction Rocky McDonald Stunts co-ordinator David Holmes Runner The Happy Cooker Catering Prod, company

C I N E M A

Max Studios Studios Colorfilm Laboratory Denise Wolfson Lab. liaison 9 7 minutes Length 35mm Gauge Eastmancolor Shooting stock CAST: Lee Grant (Marilyn), Karl Malden (Leon), E.G.Marshall (Judge Kubacki), Vera Miles (Sophie), Christina Pickles (Charlotte), Barry O tto (Kevin), Susan Lyons (Ruth), John Orcsik (Al Quantan). SYNOPSIS: A hijack at sea.

NAKED UNDER CAPRICORN Prod, company. Dist. company Producer Director Scriptwriter Based on the novel by Photography Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Exec, producers. Prod, coordinator Prod, manager Unit manager Prod, accountant Prod, assistant 1st asst director. 2nd asst director Continuity Casting consultants. Focus puller Clapper/loader. Key grip. Asst grip. Gaffer Boom operator. Art director.. Asst art director Costume designer Make-up Wardrobe Props buyers Standby props Set construction. Asst editor Art department asst

Resolution Films P/L Revcom Ray Alehin Rob Stewart Peter Yeldham O laf Ruhen Julian Penney Tim Lloyd Pippa Anderson Quentin Hole Geoffrey Daniels Peter Yeldham Ffion Murphy Anne Bruning Ralph Clark Jennifer Deschamps Moneypcnny Services Debbie Atkins Bob Donaldson Ian Kenny Kristin Voumard Liz Mullinar Casting Sally Eccleston Duncan Taylor Lester Bishop Gary Lincoln Simon Lee Mark Van Kool Nick McCallum Robyn Williams Douglas Smith Trish Glover Louise Wakefield Lisa Elvy, Viv Wilson Peter Davies Laurie Dorn Stella Savvas David Joyce

Mary Harris coordinator Gerald Egan Wrangler Greg Allen Best boy Frederik Range Runner Reg Steel Publicity Out T o Lunch Catering Colorfilm Laboratory Wayne Dunstan Lab. liaison 2 x 2 hours Length 16mm Gauge Kodak Shooting stock CAST: Nigel Havers (Marriner), Noni Hazlehurst (M onica), David Gulpilil (Activity). SYNOPSIS: Davy Marriner, robbed and left alone in the desert to die, survives with the help o f an

P A P E R S

■ 71

aboriginal tribe. He becomes a rich man, and in the process unwittingly ruins the people who saved his life.

POLICE RESCUE TELEMOVIE Prod, company Producer Director Scriptwriter Photography Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Composer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Location manager Prod, secretary. Budget co-ord Prod, assistant Researcher Script editor 1st asst director 2nd asst director Continuity Casting Camera operator Focus puller Clapper/loader Camera assistant Key grip Asst grip Gaffer Electricians

A BC John Edwards Peter Fisk Everett Dc Roche Steve Windon Nick Wood Lyn Solly Laurie Johnston Martin Armiger Sandra Levy Dennis Kiely Val Windon Kerrie Mainwaring Cynthia Kelly Sue Walsh Garry Maddox Christopher Lee Steve Stannard Deborah Klika Elizabeth Steptoe Liz Mullinar Paul Costello Andrew McClymont Greg Heap Philip Murphy John Huntingford Colin Drayton Tim Murray-Jones Martin Perrott Richard Grant Craig Sinclair Boom operator Col Rudder Art director Walter Salmon Asst art director Michelle Milgate Costume designer Jiri Pavlin Make-up Jenni Boehm Wendy Falconer Wardrobe Michelle Letters Wardrobe asst Colin Bailey Props buyer Susan Glavich Peter Moroney Standby props Jon Swain Greg Bush Tony Williams Set dressers Tim Tulk Fabian Sanjurjo Asst editor Pamela Toose Neg matching Erika Moss Sound editors Lionel Bush Mixer Mark Walker Stunts co-ordinator Glen Boswell Still photography Barry Gaunt Publicity Geòrgie Brown Catering A & B Catering Studios A BC Film Studio, Frenchs Forest Laboratory Colorfilm Lab. liaison Martin Hoyle Length 90 minutes Gauge 16mm CAST: Gary Sweet, Sonia Todd, Kerry Armstrong, Marshall Napier, Tim McKenzie, John Clayton, Peter Browne, Doug Scroop, Brian Meegen, Damion Gore. SYNOPSIS: Based on incidents and characters in the Police Rescue Squad. _

T H E F I L M

O T H E R D I ST TH E/^J

(£ a HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER SEEKING HIGH CONCEPT SCRIPTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION INTERESTED IN ALL GENRES PARTICULARLY ACTION, ADVENTURE AND COMEDY. SEND SCREENPLAY AND SYNOPSIS TO KELLIE DAVIS PINK COYOTE PRODUCTIONS 2926 HERMOSA AVENUE

F IL M S

R I B U T I ON .I f

DjWJTUllC O L L E T

FILMS FOR BOOKING NOW

Many of these films are available in 16mm as well as 35mm.

HOME OF THE BRAVE PAITOQUET CRAZY FAMILY I LOVE YOU THE MAX HEADROOM FILM SWEET MOVIE BIG MEAT EATER FINAL DUEL LA GRANDE BOUFFE POSSESSION ELEMENT OF CRIME ROBOT MONSTER PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM THE SACRIFICE LE BAL MYSTERY OF ALEXINA SECRET HONOR REPULSION CUE DE SAC , ' THE BRONTE SISTERS ••.STMNGERTHAN PARADISE . . YEAR OF f HE QUIET SUN . - * ALLEGRO NON TROPPO P-® TO RN :OFTHE SECAUCUS 7 • • m S S p f S j o E S TATI' FILMS" '

HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA USA 90264

Please write to us for our full catalogue or phone GREGORY MILLER on (03) 489 1741 89 High St, Northcote, Victoria, Australia, Fax (03) 481 5618

Pictures • Facts Historical Advice, Australian and European

on Design • Dress • Architecture from qualified researchers. 4 Y o u n g Street C r o y d o n , N . S . W . 2132 (0 2 ) 747 5092

pen Channel is Australia’s largest communitybased video organisation. We operate a broadcast standard television studio, hi-band and lo-band production and post-production facilities as well as VHS and Betamax domestic standard cameras, recorders and editing systems. A comprehensive training programme assists members of the public, community groups and independent film and video producers to learn about and fully utilise our resources and facilities.

WISHES TO THANK THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION AND FILM VICTORIA FOR THEIR C O N TIN U IN G ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

Australian Film Commission

Y Film Victoria

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

> 7 1

AUGUST 1988 G (FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION) BIG TOP PEE-WEE P. Rcubens/D. Hill, USA, 84 mins, UIP.

LA BOHEME L. Comencini, Italy/France, 104 mins, Filmpac

MAN W HO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT, THE D.

Hauer, U K, 74 mins, Parris Media

POWAQQATSI M. Lawrence, G. Reggio, L. Taub, USA, 99 mins, Hoyts

THANKS GIRLS AND GOODBYE S. Maslin, S. Hardisty, Australia, 52 mins, Newground Prod.

ROCKET TO THE MOON

TW O M OON JUNCTION

LA MITAD DEL CIELO

A. Zimbalist/J. Rabin, USA, 61 mins, Parris Media, V(i-l-g)

D. Borchers, USA, 104 mins, Filmpac, L(f-m -g), S(i-m -j)

SEBASTIAN AND THE SPARROW

ZOMBIE BRIGADE

(H alf o f Heaven): L. Megino, Spain, 125 mins, Sharmill Films, V(i-m -j) L(i-l-j) Ofadult concepts)

S. Hicks, Australia, 92 mins, Kino Film Co, L(i-l-j) OJadult concepts)

C. Musca/B. Pattison, Australia, 95 mins CM Film Prod, V(i-m-g) O(horror)

TESTIMONY

WORLD APART, A S. Radclyfle, UK/Zimbabwe, 109 mins, Village Roadshow, OJadult concepts)

M (MATURE AUDIENCES) BEAST OF WAR, THE J. Fielder, USA, 109 mins, Fox Columbia, V(i-m-g) L(f-m-g)

BETRAYED

TOM M Y THICKER AND THE STAMP TRAVELLER

I. Winkler, USA, 126 mins, U IP, V(i-m-g) L(i-m-g)

R. Demers, Canada, 101 mins, Palace

BREAKING LOOSE

W AITING FOR THE MOON

P. Avalon, Australila 87 mins, Hoyts, L(i-m-g) V(i-m-g)

S. Scliulberg, USA, 87 mins, Richard Walberg

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDED) BE M Y LOVELY CHILD AGAIN

COCKTAIL R. Cort/T. Field, USA, 102 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m-g) 0(adult concepts)

CRITTERS 2

L. Hool, USA, 101 mins, Filmpac, V(i-m-g) D. Valdes, USA, 89 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-m-g) L(i-m-g) 0(d ru g use)

GLEN OR GLENDA

HANNA'S WAR

HAUNTED COP SHOP ll,THE Not shown, Hong Kong, 92 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m-g) O(horror)

BAT 21 D. Fisher/G.Neill/M. Balson, USA, 104 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-m -j) L(f-m-g)

BIG BLUE, THE P. Ledoux, France, 119 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-m -j) L(f-m-g)

BLOB, THE J. Harris/E. Kastner, USA, 9 4 mins, Fox Columbia, L(i-m-g) O(horror)

BLOOD MONEY D. March, USA, 95 mins, Filmpac, V(i-m-g) L(i-m-g) OJadult concepts)

BUSINESS AS USUAL S. Geater, U K, 88 mins, Hoyts, L(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

1-2 2 SEPTEMBER 1988 G (FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION)

DAMNED WHORES AND EVIL BITCHES R. Colosimo, Australia, 86 mins, Australian Video Festival, 0(adult theme)

DIE HARD L. Gordon/J. Silver, USA, 131 mins, Fox Colukmbia, V(f-m -j) L(f-m-g)

DROWNING BY NUMBERS Metro Goldwyn Mayer, USA, 135 mins, Victorian Arts Centre

LICENSE TO DRIVE

FIELD DIARY

R. O ’Brien, UK, 72 mins, Ronin, L(i-m -j)

J. Mueller/A.Licht, USA. 89 mins, Fox Columbia, L(i-m-g) 0(adult concepts)

A. Gitai, Israel, 83 mins, Oceania Media Network

FRIGHT NIGHT PART 2

MAPANTSULA

PUSS IN BOOTS

H. Jaffe/M. Engelberg,USA 103 mins, Fox Columbia, V(f-m -j) O(horror)

M. M ontocchio, South Africa, 103 mins, David Hannay Prod. L(i-m -j)

M. Golan/Y. Globus, USA, Hoyts

MOON OVER PARADOR

RIGOLETTO

MARRIED TO THE MOB

Not shown, W. Germany/ltaly, 122 mins, Filmpac

P. Mazursky, USA, 103 mins, U IP, L(i-m-g) Ofadult concepts)

MR MISTRESS

C. Evans, USA, 111 mins, Village Roadshow, S(i-m -j) L(i-m-g) V(i-m-j)

J. Maynard, New Zealand/Australia, Ronin, 0(adult concepts)

M (MATURE AUDIENCES)

S. Burns/H. Burns, USA, 9 7 mins, Richard Walberg, L(f-m-g) S(i-m-g)

MONKEY SHINES

NAVIGATOR - A MEDIEVAL ODYS SEY, THE

J. Tokofsky, USA, 9 7 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

BEN HUR

0(adult concepts)

S. Haft/S. Steloff, USA, 92 mins, Village Road show, 0(adult concepts)

WILDFIRE:

Lange, France, Filmpac, 0(nudity)V(i-l-j)

PING PONG:

HEAT AND SUNLIGHT

K. U tt/E. Saxon, USA, 101 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -j) V(i-m-j)

MR NORTH

MONDO NEW YORK S. Shapiro, USA, 81 mins, Video Excellence, L(f-m-g) 0(sexual allusions, adult concepts)

M . Golan/Y. Globus, Isracl/Hungary, 146 mins, Hoyts, V(i-m -j)

D. Granger, USA, 118 mins, Village Roadshow,

(main title not in English): Seasonal Film Corp, Hong Kong, 99 mins, Yu Enterprises, 0(adult concepts)

J. Weiss, USA, 9 7 mins, Fox Columbia, Ofadult concepts)

(a): G. Chan/A. Choi/Y. Someno, Hong Kong, 93 mins, Chinatown Cinema, * * * Decision reviewed: Classify RR 13(1) (a) by the Film Censorship Board. Decision o f the Board: Direct the Film Censorship Board to Register and Classify R. (a) Sec also under ‘Films Refused Registration’ and R (Restricted Exhibition)

R. Brennan, Australia, IFM L, S(i-m-g), V(i-m -j), L(i-m-g)

HANDFUL OF DUST, A

ROCKET GIBRALTAR

D. Lee, Hong Kong, 9 7 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m-g)

ANGEL

GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

GUESTS IN THE HOUSE

FINAL JUSTICE

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

P. Fowler, J. Landau, USA, 93 mins (Hoyts) L(i-l-g) V(i-l-g) 0(ad u lt concepts)

A. Fung, Hong Kong, 91 mins, Chinatown Cinema, 0(ad u lt concepts)

M. Craddock/M. Guest, UK, 100 mins, L(i-l-j) OJadult concepts)

(a): G. Chan/A. Choi/Y. Someno, Hong Kong, 93 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-h-g)

CAMPUS MAN

D. Shek, Hong Kong, 93 mins, Chinatown Cinema, L(f-l-g) OJadult concepts)

P.Kohner, USA, 99 mins, Hoytsm V(f-m-g)

(main title not in English): Seasonal Film Corp, Hong Kong, 101 mins, V(i-m-g)

G. Weiss, USA, 66 mins, Parris Media, 0(adult theme)

FRACTURED FOLLIES

DEATH WISH 4 - THE CRACKDOWN

WALK ON FIRE

J. Gerrand, Australia, 78 mins, James Gcrrand, Ofadult concepts)

Not shown, Taiwan, 104 mins, Chinese Cultural Centre, 0(adult concepts)

A.Finlay, Australia, 9 0 mins, Seidell, L(i-m-g) S(i-m -j) 0(adult concepts)

DEAD POOL, THE

FLOWERS OF PARADISE

MACBETH

(a): G. Chan/A. Choi/Y. Someno, Hong Kong, 93 mins, Chinatown Cinema, * * *

AFRAID TO DANCE

DEAD OR ALIVE

Not shown, Taiwan, 104 mins, Canberra Chinese Club, Ofadult concepts)

ANGEL

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION

J. Gerrand, Australian 58 mins, James Gcrrand, 0 ( : H. Kuo Liang, Taiwan, 108 mins, Canberra Chinese Club 0(em otional stress)

FLOWERS OF PARADISE

R. Louis, USA, 98 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-l-g) OJemotional stress)

ANGEL

CAMBODIA - KAMPUCHEA

B. Couturic/T. Bird, USA, 85 mins, Village Roadshow, 0(ad u lt concepts)

MAC AND ME

N. Canton/J. Petrs/J. Guber, USA, 9 7 mins. Village Roadshow, L(i-m-g)

B. Opper, USA, 85 mins, Hoyts, V(i-m-g) 0 ( horror)

DEAR AMERICA - LETTERS HOME FROM VIETNAM

R. Louis, USA, 98 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-l-g) Ofsupernatural themes)

CADDYSHACK II

H. Kuo Liang, Taiwan, 108 mins, Canberra Chinese Club, 0(em otlonal stress)

CAMBODIA - THE PRINCE AND THE PROPHECY

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION)

T. Palmer, U K, 152 mins, Hoyts, L(i-l-j) Ofadult concepts)

MAC AND ME

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE)

PASCALI'S ISLAND

BINGO, BRIDESMAIDS & BRACES

E. Fellner, U K, 103 mins, UK, Newvision, V(i-m-j)

T. Miall/G. Armstrong, Australia, 92 mins, 0(ad u lt concepts)

PRESIDIO, THE

DIXIELAND DAIMYO

(edited version): D. Conte, USA, 9 6 mins, U IP, V(i-m -j) L(i-m -j) S(i-m -j)

Daiei Co, Japan, 84 mins, Luna Films, V(i-l-j) Ofadult concepts)

RED HEAT

DOUBLE FATTINESS

W. Hill/G. Carroll, USA, 103 mins, Village Roadshow

(main title not in English): S. Sin, Hong Kong, 95 mins, Chinatown Cinema, OJadult concepts)

C I N E M A

P A P E R S

K. Kassander/D. Wigman, UK, 117 mins, Hoyts, 0(scxual allusions, adult concepts)

FRIENDSHIP'S DEATH

POLICE STORY PART II L. H o, Hong Kong, 106 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(f-m-g)

RESCUE, THE L. Ziskin, USA, 9 6 mins, Village Roadshow, V(i-m-g)

SPLIT DECISIONS J Wizan, USA, 95 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m-g) V(i-m -j)

WITCHBOARD G. Geoffray, USA, 98 mins, Vestron, V(i-m-j) L(i-m-g) O(horror)

> 79

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION)

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

QUESTA VOLTA PARLIAMO DI UOMINI P. Notarianni, Italy, 9 4 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, Ofadult concepts)

AS TEARS GO BY (main title not in English): N ot shown, Hong Kong, 95 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m -g)

LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, THE (a): B. De Fina, USA/M orocco, 162mins, U IP,

TOSCA Not shown, Italy, 121 mins, Filmpac, V(i-m -j)

Decision reviewed: Classify ‘R ’ by the Film Censorship Board Decision o f the Board: Direct the Film Censorship Board to classify ‘M ’

BLUE JEAN COP (a) J. Harman, USA, 95 mins, Hoyts, V(i-m -g) 0(ad u lt concepts, anti-social theme)

M (MATURE AUDIENCES)

CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A S. Kubrick,UK, 135 mins, Village Roadshow, V (f-m -j), S(i-m -j), 0(ad u lt concepts)

13-3 1 OCTOBER 1988

AMERICAN ROULETTE G. Easton, U K, 102 mins, Hoyts, L(i-m -g) V(i-m -j)

G (GENERAL EXHIBITION)

BIRD C. Eastwood, USA, 155 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -j) Ofdrug use)

SKITTISH GIRLS N ot shown, Japan, 64 mins, Yu Enterprises, S(f-m-g)

TIGER CAGE (main title not in English): S. Shin, H ong Kong, Chinatown Cinema, V(f-m-g)

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION

BLOWPIPES AND BULLDOZERS

T . Ganz/D. Blum, USA, 123 mins, Village Roadshow, L(f-m -g) 0 (d ru g theme and use)

J. Kendell/P. Tait, Australia, 60 mins, Gaia Films

CODICE PRIVATO

MATTER OF HEART

(Secret Access): L. De Laurentiis/A. De Laurentiis, Italy, 85 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, 0(ad u lt concepts)

N. Moretti, Italy, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, OJadult concepts)

(a): J. Harman, USA, 95 mins, Hoyts, * * * Decision reviewed: Classify R b y the Film Censorship Board Decision o f the Board: conform the decision of the Film Censorship Board (a) See also under R (Restricted Exhibition)

IO E M IA SORELLA (Me and My Sister): M. Cecchi Gori/V. Cecchi Gori, Italy, S(i-m -j) 0(ad u lt concepts)

M IGNON E' PARTITA

F. Fowler/J. Landau, USA, 93 mins, Vestron, L(i-l-g) V(i-l-g) Ofadult concepts)

CONTRADICTIONS

MIMI METALLURGICO

D. Knaus, Australia, 57 mins, Film Australia, Ofadult concepts)

Euro International, Italy, 115 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, (Ofadult concepts) V(i-m -j)

CROSSING DELANCEY M. Nozik, USA, 9 6 mins, Village Roadshow, Ofsexual allusions, adult concepts)

DECIDUOUS TREE

MORTUARY ACADEMY

(main title not in English): Marui Kobun Co/ Kindas Ega Kyokai, Japan, 102 mins, Japan Information and Culture Centre, 0(nudity, adult concepts)

D. Winfrey, C. Miller, USA, 85 mins Taft hardie, L(f-m -g) 0(ad u lt concepts)

LE LEGGENDA DEL SANTO BEVITORE:

BEYOND GENOCIDE

NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4 - THE DREAM MASTER, A

The Other Cinema, India, 78 mins, Finelinc Films

R. Shaye/R. Talalay, USA, 92 mins, Hoyts, 0(h orror)V (i-m -g) L(i-m -g)

V. Dc Lc/R. Cicutto/M. Cecchi Gori/V. Cccchi Gori, Italy, 130 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, 0(ad u !t concepts)

DER BARBIER VON SEVILLA

NOTTE D'ESTATE CON PROFILO GRECO, OCCHI A MANDORLA E ODORE DI BASILICO

A King/B. Crystal/M. H crtzbcrg, USA 102 mins, U IP , L(i-m -g) 0(scxual allusions)

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE)

L'AM I DE M ON AMIE M. Menegoz, France, 100 mins, Newvision, L(i-m -j)

(said to be) (title not shown in English): Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 8 7 mins, Chinatown Cinema, L(i-m -g) V(f-m -g)

MEMORIES OF ME

(main title not shown in English): Pearl River Film Productions, China, 9 9 mins, Ronin

IMAGINE - JOHN LENNON

(Mignon Has Left): L. Pescarolo/G. De Laurentiis, Italy/France, 99 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, Ofadult concepts)

(a): B. De Fina, USA/M orocco, 162mins, U IP, * * *

SWAN SONG

Lau Tin Chi, H ong Kong, 98 mins Vacole, V(i-m -g) Ofadult concepts)

CAMPUS MAN

LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, THE

(The Barber o f Seville): H. Hohfeld, Italy, 142 mins, Filmpac

HEART TO HEARTS S. Shin, H ong Kong, 9 4 mins, Chinatown Cinema, Ofadult concepts)

IN THE BLOOD

R. Lawrence, USA, 78 mins, U IP, OJsexual allusions)

G (GENERAL EXHIBITION)

R. Cardarelli, Italy, 123 minutes, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, O f nudity, sexual allusions) V(i-m -j)

Seiyu, Gakushu Kenkyusha Kinema Tokyo Prod, Japan, 106 mins, Japan Information and Culture Centre

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE)

IT TAKES TW O

23 SEPTEMBER 12 O C T O B E R 1 9 8 8

FILM D'AMORE E D'ANARCHIA

STORY OF JIRO, THE

J. Long, Australia, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -j) 0(sexual allusions)

BLUE JEAN COP

FATAL LOVE R. W ong, H ong Kong, 82mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m -g) S(i-m -g)

D. Wolper/A. Solt, USA, 105 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

Whitney, USA, 102 mins, Ronin

EMERALD CITY

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

EVIL ANGELS V. Lambert, Australia, 121 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

HOW TO PICK GIRLS UP!?

CLEAN AND SOBER

DOMANI ACCADRA

HIDDEN RAGE J. Braun, USA, 100 mins, Taft Hardie Group, 0(gratuitous sexual violence)

DISTANT VOICES, STILL LIVES J. Howarth, U K, 81 mins, Dendy Cinema, Ofadult concepts)

MOTHER VS MOTHER

(aka Seven Bcauties):Medusa Distribuzione, Italy, 120 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, 0(ad u lt concepts) V(i-m -j) S(i-m -j)

PRAYER FOR THE DYING, A P. Snell, UK/USA, 107 mins, Vestron, L(i-m -j) V(i-m -j)

SPELLBINDER J. Wizan/B. Russell, USA, 9 6 mins, U IP, L(i-m -g) 0 (o ccu lt theme)

1-g)

SPOSI

NGATI

(Brides and Bridegrooms): A. Avanti/ C. Bonivcnto, Italy, 9 7 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, L(i-m -g) Ofadult concepts)

J. O ’Shea, New Zealand, 81 mins,

PATTY HEARST

QUALCUNCO IN ASCOLTO

M. W orth, USA, 103mins, Filmpac, L(f-m-j) V(i-m-j)

(High Frequency): G. Piccioli/G. Leopardi, Italy, 105 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, V (i-l-j) Ofadult concepts)

L(f-l-j)

THINGS CHANGE

R. Donners, USA, 95 mins, U IP , OJadult concepts, horror)

PASQUALINO SETTEBELLEZZE

Lau Tin Chi, Hong Kong, 9 6 mins, Vacole, L(i-

G. Mincrvini, italy, 95 mins. Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, L(i-m -j) S(i-m -j)

SCROOGED

P. I. PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS S. Colin/S. Sighvatsson, USA, 91 mins, Vestron, V(i-m -j) L(i-m -j)

M. Hamlyn, USA, 99 mins, U IP, L(i-m -g)

UN COMPLICATO INTRIGO DI DONNE VICOLI E DELITTI:

BIG BLUE, THE

STEALING HOME

(edited version): P. Ledoux, France, 119 mins, Fox Columbia 0(ad u lt concepts)

T. M ount/R. Moonjean, USA, 9 7 mins, Village Roadshow, L(i-m -g) 0(sexual allusions)

W ITHOUT A CLUE

F. Lucisano, Italy, 107 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, V(i-m -j) L(f-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

M. Stirdivant, U K, 106 mins, Filmpac, V(i-m -j)

VROOM

YOUNG GIRLS IN LOVE

YOUNG EINSTEIN

J. Corman, USA/Ireland, 101 mins, Village Roadshow L(i-l-j) Ofadult concepts)

Not shown, Jpan, 95 mins, Japan Information and Culture Centre, 0(ad u lt concepts)

P. Lister, UK, 88 mins, Hoyts, L(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

DIARY OF A BIG M AN , THE

YOUNG GUNS

(edited version): Y. Serious/W. Ross/D. Roach, Australia, 91 mins, Village Roadshow Ofadult concepts)

(main title not in English): Tsui Hark, Hong Kong, 8 9 mins, Chinatown Cinema, 0(ad u lt concepts)

J. Roth/C. Cain, USa, 106 mins, Vestron, V(i-m-g)

I BASILISCHI

M. Hausman, USA, 100 mins, Fox Columbia, L(i-l-j) Ofadult concepts

U2 - RATTLE AND HUM

M (MATURE AUDIENCES)

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION)

(The Basilisks): L. Giapcondi, Italy, 80 mins, Ente Autonomo Di Gestione per il Cinema, 0(ad u lt concepts)

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION) BET ON FIRE (main title not in English): Not shown, Hong Kong, 95 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m -g)

CONSUMING PASSIONS W. Cartlidge, U K, 9 8 mins, Vestron, Ofsexual allusions, adult concepts)

BLUE VELVET F. Caruso, USA, 119 mins, Hoyts, S(i-m -j) V(i-m -j) L(f-m-g)

I G O TO TOKYO

I LOVE MARIA

DARK NIGHT

K. Yoshihide, Japan, 90 mins, Japan Information and Cultural Centre, O(nudity) L(i-l-g)

Tsui Hark/ J. Sham, H ong Kong, 9 9 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(i-m-g)

Lo Wai, H ong Kong, 9 7 mins, Golden Reel Films, S(f-m -j) Ofadult theme)

CALL ME

JUST CRUISING

(main title not in English): Golden Princess Amusement Company, Hong Kong, 91 ins, Yu Enterprises, V(f-m -g)

DECEIVERS, THE

CRAZY LOVE

D. Murphy, Australia, 6 4 mins, Sounds Write Productions, L(f-l-j) S(i-m -j) 0(ad u lt concepts)

I. Merchant, UK/India, 102 mins, Vestron, V(f-m -g)

E. Provoost/A. Keysman, Belgium, 87 mins, Dendy Cinema, S(i-m -j) Ofadult concepts)

NOI VIVI

SCHOOL ON FIRE

DISTANT THUNDER

(We the Living): Scalera Films, Italy, 173 mins, Richly Communications, 0(ad u lt concepts)

K.. Chan, Hong Kong, 101 mins, Chinatown Cinema, V(f-m-g)

R. Schaffel, Canada/USA, 113 mins, U IP, L(f-m -g) V(i-m-g)

TRAVOLTI DA UN INSOLITO DESTINO

INTO THE NIGHT

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

Infrequent

Explicitness/Intcnsity Frequent

Purpose

FATTO DI SANGUE TRA DUE UOMINI

Low

Medium

High

Justified

Gratuitous

V (Violence)

L (Language)

O (Other)

S (S e x )

Title

Producer

Country

Submitted length

C I N E M A

Applicant

P A P E R S

Reason for decision

* 7 1

R. Cardarelli, Italy, 114 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema, S(i-m -j) Ofsexual concepts)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying n on -"G " films appears hereunder: Frequency

J. Quill/L. Martel, USA, 98 mins, Vestron, L(f-m -g) S(i-m -g)

H . Colom bo, U K, 118 mins, Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema

LA FINE DEL M ONDO NEL NOSTRO SOLITO LETTO G. Shiva, Italy, 108 mins# Ente Autonomo di Gestione per il Cinema,

The Bicentennial Women’s Program celebrates the achievements of Australian women film makers by sponsoring the film, video and television products: ★

Australian Women’s Film & Video Catalogue A catalogue of films and videos produced or directed by Australian women and dealing with issues of concern to women. The catalogue is available from AFI Distribution, 47 Little Latrobe Street, Melbourne 3000. Tel: (03) 662 1944

★

Fair Play A major film on wom en’s cricket from Film Australia. Director: Susan Lam bert. Executive Producer: Janet Bell. Available from Film Australia Pty Ltd, PO Box 46, Lindfield, NSW 2070 Phone: (02) 477 9777

★

Hats In The Ring A video promoting the role of women in local government. Director: Annie Pridham. Producer: Bobbie Fenyvesi of the Municipal Association of Vic toria. Available in VHS and Beta from “ Hats in the Ring” , Box 15, City Road Post Office, South Melbourne, Victoria 3205

★

Women 88 A series of five-minute films for television which celebrate the quality of Australian wom en’s achievements, produced by Janet Bell. They are:Watch Out — Director: Tracy Moffat Breaking Through — Director: Christina Wilcox Up in Arms — Director: Anna Grieve Fitting Image — Director: Liz Stroud Home Truths — Directors: Mary Callaghan and Kris Wild Fire Eaters — Director: Jinks Dulhunty Egg Heads — Director: Ruth Cullen Available in Z2" VHS or Beta from Film Australia Pty Ltd, PO Box 46, Lindfield NSW 2070. Phone: (02) 467 9777 See over for order form

Women '88 can be ordered in Vi" VHS or Beta. Please send this completed form with your payment to: Sal*» Offic«; Marketing and Distribution, Film Australia, PO Box 46, Lindfield NSW 2070 Phone: (02) 467 9777 Fax: (02) 465 672

FAIR PLAY can be ordered in VHS or Beta. Please send this completed form with your payment to:

Please send Women '88 in the quantities specified below. I understand delivery will be within 28 days.

Sales Officer, Marketing and Distribution, Film Australia, PO Box 46, Undfleld NSW 2070. Phone: (02) 467 9777 Fax: (02) 46 5672.

N am e:_____________________________________________ fb sition :_____________________

Please send FAIR PLAY in the quantities specified below. I understand delivery will be within 28 days.

Company/lnstitution:

___________________________________________________________

Delivery Address: ________________________________________________________________

Name:_________________________Position:.

Postcode____________ Telephone:

C om pany/lnstitution:_____________ _______ Delivery A ddress:__________________________________

Title No: 86161 FAIR PLAY Price Tax Freight TOTAL (H applicable) (Priee+Tax+Freight) x Qty (See below)

Format Qty

VHS

41.62

8.33

5.00

Beta

41.62

8.33

5.00

Vvbmen '88

Title No: 86101

______________________ Post C o de _______ Telephone:

Format

Qty

Price

Freight

TAX (if applicable) (see below)

VHS

$39.95

$5.00

$7.99

Beta

$39.95

$5.00

$7.99

TOTAL (Price+Tax+Freight) x Qty

□ I enclose a cheque/money order payable to Film Australia for $ x

Please charge my Bankcard □ Mastercard □ with $ ____________

□ I enclose a cheque/money order payable to Film Australia for $ Please charge my Bankcard □

Mastercard □ with $ _________________

A cct.N o. I

I I

Cardholder s Name____________________________________________ _ Cardholder's Signature.

Cardholder's Name _________________________________________________ Cardholder's Signature:___________________________________Expiry date If you are a tax exempt institution please complete and sign below.

Expiry Date

Sales Tax Exemption S a le s T a x E xem p tion

I hereby certify that these goods are required for the use of _________________________________________________ and are not for resale, arvd exemption is accordingly claimed under items 63A D; 74 G; 78 □ ; 81 (1) G; In the first Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifi cations Act). Signature: ____________________________

I hereby certify that these goods are required for the use of and are not for resale, and exemption Is accordingly claimed under items 63A □ ; 74 O; 78 □ 81(1) Q; in the first Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications Act). Signature____________________________________________________

Title: ______________________ Date: ________________

T itle _________ _______________________ _________ D ate__________ Freight charges apply where goods are delivered at your request. If you chose to collect the goods you will not be charged for freight.

Freight charges apply where goods are delivered at your request. If you choose to collect the goods you w ill not be charged for freight.

ORDER FORM

A ustralian W om en’s

Yes, I would like to know more about women in local government

Film & Video | |

please send me[______ | copies o f the Hats in the Ring video*, com plete with bibliography, at S 7 5.00 each.

I |

please send m e l I copies o f the Hats in the Ring v id eo*, com plete with bibliography, AND Amanda Sinclair’s book Getting the Numbers, at the combined price o f S 8 5 .0 0 each.

| I

please send me|______ | copies o f Amanda Sinclair’s book Getting the Numbers at $ 1 5 .9 5 each.

I enclose a cheque for $_ _, made payable to the Municipal Association o f Victoria, as full payment, including return postage.

Mrs

ORDER

FORM

PLEASE SEND M E: | | A. _______ addition al copy/ies o f the A ustralian W omen’s Film & Video Catalogue at a cost o f $5 each plus $1.30 postage and handling. | | 3 . A FI D istribution 1987/88 Film & V ideo Catalogue fr e e o f charge. □ C . A FI Film & Video subject brochure/s on the follow in g area/s o f interest.

I enclose a cheque payable to AFI Distribution to the value of $ PERSONAL N A M E-____ _ ___________ ___

Nam e l^ is s l.M s .

ORGANISATION________________________________

Organisation (if applicable) . A d dress___________________

A D D RESS______________________ 1________________ _ Phone (

_____________________________ PO STCO D E—_______

Send to “Hats in the Ring” P .O . B o x 1215 City Rd. Post Office, South Melbourne 3 2 0 5 .

T ELEP H O N E____________________________________ Return to A FI Distribution 47 Little Latrobe Street Melbourne 3000

Please allow 14 days for order fulfilment.

♦Video normally supplied as VH S, unless specifically requested as BETA. M U 027

A catalogue o f films and videos produced or directed by Australian women

talent,we help keep the show on the road.

Promoting Australia can be quite an art. As the Australian Youth Orchestra, Sydney Dance Company, Australian Ballet, National Institute of Dramatic Art and the Australian National Gallery have proved so well. Qantas helps provide vital sponsorships for all of these. As well as the Australian Video Festival, Australian Pops Orchestra and the Sydney Theatre Company. In fact, when it com es to promoting Australian talent, Qantas puts on quite a performance. k u M J v m s The spirit of Australia. QPH 5037 Mojo.MDA

W ith our new film, you 11never have to filter these pools. T h e new Eastman High-Speed Daylight Negative Film

5297 and

7297 allows you to shoot in sports stadium lighting conditions without the need to use filters at all. N o wonder its making quite a splash. .Âťâ&#x2013;

O ne good film deserves another.

K odak and Eastman are registered trademarks. 342P7040 JW T