R E G I S T E R E D B 1 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 2121
i N T E It. V I E W S
JOCELYN M O OR H OUSE TALKS A B O U T 'P R O O F ' BLAKE E D W A R D S : 'S C A LLIE K H O U R I : ' T H E L f t§ | S P E C f A L
fill-
IN D E P E N D E N T t t i l B I T I O N A N WSMi
D I S T R I B U T I O N IN A U S T R A L I A R E P O R T A N D IN T E R V IE W S iM g flP v j t
HE A F ^ n D
FFC R E S P O N D
A L L - T I M E F A V O U R I T E F IL M S N D R E J T A R K O V S K Y / LEE RE
.ELLEN BA RK IN IN BLAKE. E D W A R D S ’ SWITCH
Steve and Walter used to have a preference for blondes. Then Steve was murdered... and came back as one. Will being a woman make him a better man?
ELLEN BARK IN IN
BLAKE ED W AR D S’
switch JIMMY SM1TS JoBETH WILLIAMS LORRAINE BRACCO CINEM PLÜS, L.R ™ A BECO PRODUCTION ELLEN BARKIN BLAKE EDWARDS’ W IC H " J1MMYSMITS TRISH CAROSELLI ¿BiH EN R Y MANCINI JoBETH WILLIAMS LORRAINE BRACCO EARNON MILCHAN PATRI »TONY ADAMS E BLAKE EDWARDS m
RECOMMENDED FOR MATURE 15 + AUDIENCES 15 YEARS AND OVER MEDIUM LEVEL COARSE LANGUAGE
□DtDOLHY STEflEo]* N SELECTED THEATRES
PANAVISION®
ODYSSEY ootmujom itd
dby
&.
Regency NreimQNH.t«
SOUNDTRACK ALBUM ON MCA RECORDS, CASSETTES AND COMPACT DISCS.
SEASON COMMENCES OCTOOER17 AT CINEMAS EVERYWHERE CHECK LOCAL NEWSPAPERS FOR DETAILS
i M T V PURI IS H IN 't. L J M II HP)
No v e m b e r 1 9 9 1
ss
number
f u i w v / e iv s
in c o r p o r a t in g
JOCELYN MOORHOUSE: THE1GIFT OF PROOF INTERVIEW 8 X JAN'EPSTEIN
FAVOURITE FILMS H H H
SCpO T MURRAY, JOCCL'rN MOORH_0U,SE 1
S M M & H È TOPPÉSpLAKE EDWARDS: FFC: JOHN MORRIS REPLIES CALLIE KHOURI: SCRIPTING THELMA & LOUISE
■EDITOR S c o tt M u fra y
INTERVIEW BY ANA MARI A .B A H l'A N A ^V *^
^
' & r> y \?
*
THE INDEPENDENTS A RISKY BUSINESSj
‘N I S T R A TT 0 N • ’ .D e b ra -S h a rp CAL
‘^ V
A REPORT ON INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS AND DISTRIBUTORS IN AUSTRALIA »¥§. - /J w S b ‘ ' S i C ' ' v t * : . ''j
EDITOR
Fled H arden
Vijg DESIGN
THE INDEPENDENTS: INTERVIEWS FRANK COX lyn Mc C a r t h y ,
la n -R obertson ,e ;em t o r i
ANDREW PIKE MTV *• '
BOARD
OT
DIRECTORS
INTERVIEWS BY GREG KERR AND PAUL KALINA
Jolin-Jost [Chairman-], Patricia^A'tnïd,
Gil Appl'ehon^-Ross Dimsey; Natalie Miller; l-ÿi$ ; :r-s.GhViè " Stew’a’ LEGAL
FlLM fiËVIEW S
ADVISOR
P ï -^ N îc h o la 's P u lle n
’k kíTCH ' PAULINE ADAMEK -
ADVERTISI NG
' 1
HUNTING GREG KERR
WÊÊÊMÊmmxmm.
S U BS CRI PTI ONS
t v . Ü * » V ■Piáujd ‘-Apijád * - * V T , 'V j^ F O U N D I N G
TECHNICALITIES
PUBLI SHERS
Ë m f WÊÊÈÊÊÊÈÊ I m i
P e te r B e ilb y S c o tt M u rra y P h jltp p e M ora
BOOK REVIEWS A'BOUT ANDREI TARKPVSKY ''TATtKOVSKY: CINEMA AS ROE TRY , ; i ~-%i4■^"^.R fyK iT ; I N G J e iik tn B u xton P rin te rs DI STRI BU TI ON
RAFFAELE CAPUTO BOOKS PFOEiVED
OBITUARIES: TOM HAYDON. LEE REMICK ■
CINEMA PAPERS IS PUBLISHED
PRODUCTION SURVEY
WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THEAUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION !
-,
AND FILM VICTORIA
AKA DIRTY DOZEN ¡5 Cpi^YRIGHT 1991 MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED / ’.^ '"s rg n e id y j'c le V /e .p re s e n t the. view s,of the authors and n o t n ecessarily t h a t <}f the e d ito r -and publisher :*]$ «
W hile ev„rv care is taken yvith manu cn pts ar d
'ipqt&paJs supplied to th e magazine n eith er jn e editor! K nor the p u b lish e r ta n accept'liabiilLJ fo r ap> lo ss or damage vhicn mav arise Thi
m a p a /ire mav not be
Pa u l in e
adam ek
is a Sydney based freelance w rite r on film
film w riter based In Los Angeles; Helen
barlow
the College o f Fine Arts U niversity o f New South W ales, perm ission o f th e copyright owners Cinema Papers is
j a n e p s t e in
is film re v ie w e r f o r
ana
M a r ia
b a h ia n a
>s a Brazilian'!?«
Is a Sydney-based w riter on film Jo h n
The Melbourne Report]
conomos
marcus
pat
Gil l e s p ie
is
a fre e la n c e w r ite r a nd p u b lic is t;
|Sj
published aop o < m ia te l,i every two n o n trij b, P ublisning Lim ited, '4 3 Cna’rles S treet, Telephcne (03) 4 29 5 b l l
M s m lM
m
Fax O il 12~ 3 2b o
Reference-ME ME 230
GREG KERR is a fre e la n c e w r ite r \ i l l r Ot
l|
ALISSA TANSKAYA
p e n a lis in g m th e e n te rta in m e n t in d u s try KARL n a
II
part-tim e tu to r at th e University o f Sydney; TOM
t zu br yc ki
q u in n is
RAT MONO VOUMS
is,a docum entary film m aker.
a Treefapee^.J.'.'- ~i
FILM FINANCÉ CORPORATION FUNDING DECISIONS AUG . 1991 FEATURES f r a u d s (95 mins) Latent Image Produc tions. Executive producer: Rebel PenfoldRussell. Producers: Andrena Finlay, Stuart Quin. Director: Stephan Elliott. Scriptwriter: Stephan Elliott. Cast: Phil Collins. A woman accidentally kills a thief, setting off a chain of events involving her conniving husband and a bizarre insurance investigator. NO w o r r ie s (95 mins) Palm Beach Pictures. An Australian-UK co-production. Executive producer: Kim Williams. Producers: David Elfick, Eric Fellner. Director: David Elfick. Scriptwriter: David Holman. Salvation comes from an unlikely source for a girl from the bush traumatized by a move to the city. D O C U M E N T A R I E S LUC LONGLEY - AUSTRALIA’S FIRST NBA PLAYER (60 mins) Onset Productions. Pro
ducers: Ross Close, Russell Kennedy, Brian Beaton. Director: David Wood. Scriptwriter: Ross Close. Recently selected for the U.S. National Basketball Association, Luc Longley is about to become Australia’s highest-paid team sportsman. This is the story of basket ball in Australia and Longley’s giant strides into the big time. AUSTRALIAN DIRECTORS WITH OVERSEAS PRODUCTIONS LORENZO’S OIL George Miller Cast: Nick Nolte, Susan Sarandon [No other details available] RUBY CAIRO Graeme Clifford Kadokawa Productions. Producer: Lloyd P h illip s . E xecu tive p ro d u ce r: H aruki Kadokawa. Screenwriters: Robert Dillon, Michael Thomas. Director of photography: Laszlo Kovacs. Production designer: Richard Sylbert. Cast: Andie MacDowell, Liam Neeson, Jack Thompson, Olympia Dukakis. WHITE SANDS Roger Donaldson Morgan Creek Productions. Producers: Wil liam Sackheim, Scott Rudin. Executive pro ducers: James G. Robinson, David Nicksay, Gary Barber. Screenwriter: Daniel Pyne. Di rector of photography: Peter Menzies. Cast: Willem Dafoe, Mickey Rourke. FROZEN ASSETS George [Snowy River] Miller Frozen Assets Productions. Producer: Don Klein. Screenwriters: Don Klein, Thomas Kartozian. Director of photography: Geza Sinkovics. Cast: Shelley Long, Corbin Bernsen, Larry Miller, Dodie Goodman, Jeannie Cooper, John Asher. MR BASEBALL Fred Schepisi Universal. Producers: Fred Schepisi, Doug Claybourne, Robert Newmyer. Executive p ro d u ce rs: J e ff S ilve r, John Kao. Screenwriters: Peter S. Seaman, Jeffrey Price, EdSoloman. Director of photography: Ian Baker. Cast: Tom Selleck. r ic h in l o v e Bruce Beresford The ZanuckCo. Producers: Richard Zanuck, Lili Fini Zanuck. Screenwriter: Alfred Uhry.
Based on the novel by Josephine Humphrey. Director of photography: Peter James. Cast: Albert Finney, Jill Clayburgh, Piper Laurie, Suzy Amis, Kyle MacLachlan, Kathryn Erbe, Ethan Hawke. 2
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
-ikr
DB
AUSTRALIA’S FILM HISTORY GOES UNDER THE HAMMER LEO W A S S E R C U G
REPORTS
A significant part of Australia's film history re cently went under the hammer. One of the units in the former Palmerston Studios in Waverley, Syd ney, was auctioned on the 3 October 1991. During the early 1920s, Palmerston Studios was one of Australia’s leading film production studios. It was forced to close down due to the policies of the American-owned “Combine” which controlled the major cinema chains in Australia at the time, and preferred to exhibit American-made films. Australian-made films were refused exhibi tion or only shown long after they were made, with the result that Australian producers and directors, working on shoestring budgets, ran out of money and closed down, one after another. The end-result was the destruction of the Australian film industry and the domination of Hollywood for many decades. By the time the Federal Government called a Royal Commission on the Film Industry in 1927, it was too late. The Australian Film Industry did not revive until the “New Wave” films of the 1970s. The fate of the Palmerston Studios also re flects another influence of Hollywood on the Aus tralian Film Industry: the brain-drain of Australian talent to Hollywood. Carroll-Baker Australian Productions was formed in 1919 by Reg “Snowy” Baker, the broth ers E. J. (Edward John) and Dan Carroll and Southern Cross Feature Films. In April 1920, the company took over Palmerston House, a colonial mansion which may have been built as early as 1835-1838. They turned it into a film studio. With its 28 rooms, 5 acres of land, gardens, artificial lakes, waterfall and bridges, it was ideal for film production. “Snowy” Baker did some spectacular stuntwork at the cliffs of nearby Bronte Beach. The Carroll-Baker company made three films in rapid succession at Palmerston Studios: The Man from Kangaroo, The Shadow of Lightning Ridge and The Jackaroo of Coolabong (respec tively numbered 169, 172 and 177 in Pike and Cooper’s Australian Film 1900-1977). All three were essentially Westerns set in Australia. They gave full scope for the athletic Baker (who num bered an Olympic medal for swimming and an Australian Rugby Union Test guernsey among his numerous sporting accomplishments) to play swashbuckling roles with plenty of stunts. A stagehand at Palmerston Studios, where he learnt his first filmmaking skills, was Charles Chauvel, after whom the AFI Cinema in Padding ton was until recently named. Chauvel was a student at Baker’s physical culture school and his stablehand. By the time the third film was made, Chauvel had progressed to become the assistant property man and transport organizer. In August 1920, Baker left to try his luck in Hollywood, followed soon after by Chauvel. Baker lived in Los Angeles the rest of his life, where he achieved fame as a stuntman and coach. Raymond Longford had already been doing some work at Palmerston while Baker was there. With Baker’s departure, Longford took over the studios in conjunction with the Carroll brothers and later also with Lottie Lyell under the name of
HI
□
the Southern Cross Feature Film Company. In 1921, Longford made Rudd’s New Selection (No. 183) and The Blue Mountains Mystery (No. 189). Rudd's New Selectionwas the sequel to his clas sic silent film, On Our Selection. Both were based on Steele Rudd’s Dad and Dave stories. After The Blue Mountains Mystery was re leased, the Carrolls withdrew from film produc tion to concentrate on film exhibition. Dan ended up heading Hoyts and remained prominent in the film industry until his death in 1959. With the departure of the Carrolls, Longford and Lyell transferred to other studios. Commonwealth Pictures made only one film in 1921 at Palmerston Studios, Silks and Saddles (No. 180), before it went into liquidation. The last to try their luck at Palmerston Stu dios were Jack Bruce and E. R. Jeffree, who produced one film in 1927, A Triumph of Love (No. 193). Bruce left for Hollywood in 1923. This marked the end of Palmerston House as a film studio. Itwas turned intoablockofflatsand, in 1925, the five-acre estate was subdivided into dozens of blocks of land and the creation of several new streets. So ended a magical era in Australian filmmaking. Today Palmerston House remains a graceful and charming building replete with a grand en trance foyer with patterned tiles, columns, and an archway as well as a large staircase, wide hall ways and 3.5m-high ceilings.
AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION FILM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME GUIDELINES At its July meeting, the Board of the Australian Film Commission approved new Guidelines for the Film Development programme effective for the 1991-92 financial year. The new Guidelines reflect a consolidation of policy and a refinement of application and decision-making processes following the implementation of the AFC review late last year. Response to the Guidelines was sought and received from industry bodies and cultural agen cies around the country. The AFC considers the feedback both encouraging and stimulating. After consideration by the AFC, some amendments were made to the Guidelines as issued on 3 July and copies of the amended Guidelines, effective until 30 June 1992, are available on request from the Melbourne and Sydney offices of the AFC. The AFC believes that in annually reviewing the Film Development Guidelines, and actively seeking and encouraging feedback from the in dustry, it will ensure Film Development is both responsive to the industry needs and that a more dynamic and fruitful relationship between the industry and the AFC can ensue.
1992 FFC FILM FUND A third FFC Trust Fund was announced in August, with a closing date of 1 October. FFC Chief Executive John Morris said, “The 1992 Fund will raise production finance for four feature films through a combination of private sector and FFC participation.” Budgets of around $2 million were preferred, with no budget exceed ing $2.5 million being accepted. All financing and
P
H
Y
7
SPECIAL PRODUCTION FUND DEAR
prospectus-related costs are added to the pro ducer’s budget by the FFC. The FFC expected scripts to be at final stage and for producers to have a firm plan as to the key creative participants. Morris emphasized that the FFC’s recent script buyout policy (250% of prin cipal) would be applied to projects that had been developed by a federal or state film agency. No decision has been made in regard to the financial management of the 1992 Fund nor the distribution of the films. Morris indicated, how ever, that negotiations with a number of Austra lian distributors and financial institutions had commenced. Morris said that the decision by the FFC to have a fund at a lower-budget level than last time reflected concern that in this range producers were most hard pressed in securing private sec tor participation and market attachments. Films wili be selected with a view to their commercial potential and ability to have an Australian theat rical release. Morris advised that the FFC would, in col laboration with the selected distributor, commence assessment of the scripts with a view to a prelimi nary shortlist of approximately 15-20. In the first two weeks of December, there would be inter views with the semi-finalists, with a final shortlist anticipated in the first week of January. Morris stated thatthis year’s Film Fund would have a new element, namely that the final short listed scripts would be given the opportunity to undergo further script development, hopefully with the assistance of the AFC and state film bodies. Morris indicated that approximately eight weeks would be made available for this process, so that the FFC and the distributor could review the completed scripts with a view to further inter views with the finalists and selection of the final four at the end of February. According to Morris, this will ensure that the selection of the shortlisted projects will be on the basis of final scripts. Morris also stated that the role of the distribu tor would change in this year’s Film Fund with the distributor having final selection of the scripts, approval over key cast and crew, and approval over the producer’s cut. Morris indicated that these new measures were more in line with the FFC’s policy of respecting the marketplace’s de cisions in these areas. He added that producers and directors will participate in actual film reve nues and that the Fund’s revenues would not be fully crossed in order to provide this opportunity. The details of this participation are to be deter mined after selection of the Fund Manager. Ac cording to Morris, this is an incentive and a fair reward for producers who apply to the Film Fund. Morris also indicated that the measure will pro vide an appropriate reward given the FFC’s deci sion to cap producers’ and directors’ fees to a maximum of $75,000 each.
CORRIGENDA Pauline A dam ek’s nam e was incorrectly spelt in the previous issue. And the photographs of the Cannes press conferences should have been cred ited to p h o to g ra p h er R obert T re ic h le r. Cinem a Papers apologizes for these errors.
[EDITOR]
I read the August edition of Cinema Papers with some alarm. Nowhere in the eulogistic review of Brian McKenzie’s film On the Waves of the Adriatic was there mention of the AFC’s majority invest ment. Nowhere in the eight-page interview with Dennis O’Rourke on The Good Woman of Bangkok did the AFC get a mention despite its having supplied most of the cost of the film. In the report on Australian films at Cannes, which is almost exclusively concerned with Proof and Holidays on the River Yarra, the AFC as ma jority investor in both films goes uncredited. I am not imputing editorial negligence here, nor am I expecting every mention of a film having AFC support to make that fact a priority of reporting. It does, however, concern me greatly that the existence of these films is not located within the politics of money, as if they were immaculately conceived quite independ ent of the AFC’s endless need to justify its own existence. In the report on Susan Dermody’s Breathing Under Water, the AFC is acknowledged but in misleading terms. The notion that this was a “perfect” film forthe AFC to finance implies that the decision took itself. On the contrary, invest ment in a film as unconventional as this was one of the toughest decisions over the past three years. Wonderful though it is, Breathing Under Water represents but a fraction of the work to be done outside the remit of the FFC. The AFC has $9.8m. this year with which to directly support film development and produc tion with a remit that embraces the rich variety of films featured in the August Cinema Papers. Of this sum, $7.1 m. (72.5%) is due to be cut in the financial year 1992-93 because, as we discovered only recently, there has existed, since 1988, a Cabinet decision linking the end of the first three years of the FFC to the termi nation of the AFC’s Special Production Fund. We must therefore now engage in another review, alongside the FFC review, in an at tempt to justify and retain this fund. Otherwise such films will not be made In Australia in future, the AFC’s role being reduced, at best, to script development for FFC investment. AFC production funding will surely disap pear if taken for granted, marginalized in dis cussion, or acknowledged only in relation to so-called “experimental” film. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, Peter Sainsbury
Principal Advisor, Development, AFC THE
EDITOR
REPLIES
There is much one can sympathize with in what Sainsbury says, though one may quibble with certain details. Of course the role of the AFC in independent filmmaking must not be underes timated. The AFC remains the bastion of per sonalized, creative filmmaking. Cinema Papers has never shirked its res ponsibility in regard to documenting the AFC’s input into filmmaking; not an issue goes by without dozens of references to the AFC. How
ever, the one thing Cinema Papers cannot do is put words into other people’s mouths. If a recipient of AFC funds in an interview about his/her first film fails to make mention of, let alone thank, the AFC, that is the filmmaker’s (somewhat ungrateful) choice. Equally, if a director has his/her film at Cannes but chooses not to give thanks to the AFC’s Marketing Division for the moral, practical and financial support, so be it. Instead of writing to Cinema Papers, the AFC should perhaps be taking to task some of those filmmakers it decides to fund. Not all filmmakers, however, do fail to credit the AFC. While Sainsbury says there is not a single mention of the AFC in the ten-page interview with Dennis O’Rourke, on p. 9 O’Rourke says: As it happened, I had a little bit of money from the Australian Film Commission’s Documentary Fellowship Scheme which gave me the chance to make a film on any subject I chose. It was very useful for me to be able to go and make something without having to worry about securing pre-sales, which invariably mean having to make the exact film I said I’d make. The Fellowship allowed me to be this experimental for the first, and possibly the last, time in my work ing life. As for the review of On the Waves of the Adriatic, it is not appropriate for film reviewers to go into a film’s financing, be the film Austra lian, American or whatever. It is what is on screen that he/she should be discussing. As for the Australians at Cannes piece, yes the majority of Jan Epstein’s article was on Proof and Holidays on the River Yarra for the simple reason they were the only two Austral ian films selected at the Festival. It was a critical piece and, again, how they werefinanced was not to the point. Breathing Under Water. Sainsbury feels that the remark about its being a “perfect” film for the AFC to finance is misleading. But it is a quote from the producer Megan McMurchy, which Cinema Papers has no right to rewrite. It is her opinion and Sainsbury’s criticism should be taken up with her. (The article, incidentally, was checked by both Susan Dermody and McMurchy before publication and neither que ried this quote.) Of course, Cinema Papers' Editor could put a note at the end of an article or interview, filling in the omissions or correcting the facts, but where would it end? As well, what right has an Editor to editorial intrusion if a libel is not being committed or the reputation of the magazine is not being called into question? The matter of the Cabinet decision is, of course, far more serious. Now that it has been brought out into the open, it is something con cerned filmmakers should lobby strongly against. It would be a tragedy if the AFC’s pioneering work in low-budget features should be in any way curtailed, when the state of the industry really demands it be greatly increased. Return Home, Proof, Holidays on the River Yarra, et al, are proof of that.
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
3
P O N C* t-T-j-filA W K E
ÍÉÍÉÉÉIÉIÉ
111
, documentées: se le ctio n as openingfiSm for La Quinzaine s
des Réalisateurs C D irectors’ Fortnight) a t Cannes in IVlay 1 9 9 1 , where it received strong reviews and was a runner- :
up. fo r th e Camera D’Or fo r b est fir s t film ; screenings a t th e M elbourne and Sydney Festivals in June to thunderous applause; and a th e a tric a l release in M elbourne in A ugust to sp e c ta c u la r !
^
review s and so lid box-offi c e» vÿ /-¿v’'
¡¡¡I l
.., ,rX ^
'* Since its Cannes premiere, Proofhas been no tch ing up im pres s ive sales around th e worlds. Producer Lynda House says “ Every Xf•<.-$% ■% étXfXW^X /^y rT%* ffiT v''J'V'r* |S|§§ P S I <"- > maj
te rrito ry , e x c e p t Japan and Am erica w as sold in Cannes. Xe»W$xÊftXfj%&&î^~? ^\^v*,X l/ l' x ‘ ^ ^
^ p e ric a w e .w ill have bythe end o f th e year; th e re à re a lo to f people who are in te re ste d in i t . ” This is a rem arkable record fo r a film th a t c o s t $ l . l m illion (from th e A ustralian Film Com m ission and Film V icto ria ) and is th e lowest-budgeted film a t th e j.S©3_ AFI Awards. Jan Epstein, w ho fir s t saw house to
Proof at
Cannes, in te rvie w s Moor-
help|plnd'; o u t w h a t hast made, i t th e m ost-acclaim ed
A ustralian debut fe ature since Sweet/e.
.
■
C A N N E S
What effect has the Citrines reaction had for you as a first-time writer-director? Fantastic. Itwas a wonderful gift- to Proof, to me and to Lynda. What it did was put a spotlight on the film. I was very pleased that itwas at the Directors’ Fortnight, because of its history and how it is a little differentfrom the restof the Festival. And being given opening night wasjust great, because it meant the Directors’ Fortnight people were saying that the film was special. But that also set up an enormous sense of expectation in people’s minds, which is frightening for a filmmaker. The really positive word of mouth Proofreceived after opening night was just priceless because people kept talking about it. Extra screenings were arranged and Kim Lewis [the film’s sales agent] was inundated with people wanting to buy the film. Cannes is a great place for people to start talking aboutyour film, because they all go back to their different countries and talk and write about it. That international word of mouth really helps with sales. [ Variety reviewer] David Stratton said that he felt the film would go beyond the arthouse market. Afew people have said that and I actually believe itwill, too, because it’s not strictly an arty kind of film. People seem to really enjoy it and have a good laugh, and a lot come out quite moved. They’re not alienated by the film; it’s not a struggle to get through. I never set out to make an art film. I wrote it because I was interested in the:characters and the story. And, as a director, it gave me a lot of challenges, and let me explore things in different and interesting cinematic ways. But I wasn’t out there trying to make an esoteric piece of art; I was actually interested in telling a story. Proofcombines well the so-called European arthouse tradition with Australian naturalism, which is rather appealing with its Australian vernacular and naturalistic acting style. There might be some truth in that. The way I would interpret is to say that Proofis about real people in a very unusual and extraordi nary story. People can relate to these ordinary characters and yet be taken on a very mysterious kind of ride. There are a lot of things that people can laugh at. They don’t have to be aware of any kind of theory or genre. They can just enjoy it as ordinary people. That’s maybe what sends it into a more mainstream sort of film. Obviously Roadshow [the film’s mainstream distributor in Austra lia] feels that it has that sort of potential. Well, I always hoped it would. I think it has a lot to offer a bigger audience. We’ll see, won’t we! Is there a sense of continuity with Cannes? Does the fact that you have done well this year make them especially interested in your next work? Oh, yes. [Film director] Atom Egoyan told me that the Directors’ Fortnight is like a family and they don’t forget you. Once you’ve been part of it, you are always a kind of relative. And once they commit to your film, they love it and love you. That’s whatl felt. I was really drawn into the family, which was really nice. Itwas unexpected because I wasn’t prepared for that nurturing atmosphere. 6
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
“I think th at i t ’s important for a film to be made about men and women from a woman’s point of view. [Proof! is my point of view. I am a woman and, therefore, anything I write and direct about a man is going to be seen though female eyes.”
Did you see many other films at Cannes?
% H
No, because I was so busy. But I liked Thelma & Louise. It really blew me away. I was kept busy every single day, byjournalists from all over the world and by Directors’ Fortnight people. They didn’t tell me that they had all these unscheduled screenings that I would have to attend. And, on top of the marketing screenings, they also had a diplomatic thing of, “Oh well, we’ll be nice to this theatre, we’ll be nice to this town, we’ll have this screening.” I was constantly going and giving talks and being translated. After Cannes, did you go to the opening of the Australian season at the Centre Pompidou? No. I was planning to and I was very excited about it. I dropped into the Pompidou Centre before we Went to Cannes and loved it. I couldn ’t believe that my film was going to be on here. And then I got news that my child was sick with very bad croup and was having breathing difficulties. Nightmares came flooding to my head. I started imagining that he was fading like in Beauty and the Beast - my little beast, getting sicker and sicker. So we made profuse apologies and hopped on the plane. B utl’m going back to Paris in September, so I’ll go and apologize personally. T H E
F I L M
Does Proofhave any autobiographical material in it? Not historically, not factually, but all the characters have me in them. My feelings and fears are very strongly there. Which characters represent those qualities the most? Obviously Martin [Hugo Weaving] and Celia [Genevieve Picot]. They contain an awful lot of me, and a lot of the relationships I’ve had with people - the psychological games I’ve had with men I’ve known. I have taken things from friendships that have stayed in my heart and put them into Martin: his fear of women’s strength and mystery; the things that he yearns for, but is terrified of; his fear of sex. He is not actually afraid of his desires, just afraid of how vulnerable they make him. By actually opening up for a woman, he is now in a position to be hurt and betrayed. I’m very interested in that quality in people and particularly in men. A man is supposed to be so strong, so tough, and yet a lot of men are really small boys hiding behind that exterior. That can sound very puerile and cutesy, but I don’t mean it that way. I really am interested in the children in adults - and in myself. Some of the child I still carry as part of me I definitely should hang on to. But to some of it I should say, “Come on, it’s time you went away. This part of me has to grow up.” I guess I’m interested in exploring those elements in film. Andy, of course, is different, because he represents the kind of people who are really quite special and beautiful. They are very generous and loving, and they don’t play games. They often get hurt, but they can cut straight through the games of people who think they are more superior, who try to keep people like Andy at arm’s length. But people like Andy often still break through. He
LEFT: "THEY'RE LIKE DRUGS FOR ONE ANOTHER": CELIA (GENEVIEVE PICOT) AND MARTIN (H UGO W EAVING). JOCELYN MOORHOUSE'S PROOF.
Moorhouse
represents people I admire and love. I know a few people like Andy, and I have tried to capture them in him. Why use the male? Is it because you want to showcase male problems? To me, men are fascinating topics, though I wouldn’t say that Celia isn’t fascinating. She is my darker fears - of what could have happened to me if I had remained unfulfilled in my life, if I had suffered from too many rejections, from being made to feel worth less the way a lot of women are. A lot of people think Celia is very funny and they love her relationship with Martin; I do, too. There is a lot of fun, but it is hiding a really deep and black despair about her womanhood and about the fact that being a woman makes her powerless in this m an’s little world. So, she’s fighting that. She’s saying, ‘You tell me that I’m just a cleaning lady. You tell me I’m worthless, but I’m going to make you realize that you need me, notjust as a housekeeper and notjust physically, but sexually. Even though you’re going to try to fight me off, I won’t take no for an answer.” She is desperate. What does she see in him?
That h e’s a man, that h e’s handsome. He is in pain and she would like to cure and help. She wants the right to help him. That is a big fixation with a lot of women. They think they can cure bastards like him. They think they can save them. It’s a very real fixation and I’ve had it myself at times. But you find that there is nothing you can do for people like that; they’ll just hurt you. Why does it need him to break it of f from her? He is the one that says, “This is enough.” Yes, he does. That is because she loves him too much to ever leave him. She is addicted to him. They’re like drugs for one another, and they do get a sort of fulfilment, a kind of sexual and emotional titillation, from the games they play. But, of course, it’s never anything healthy or positive. It’s always, ‘Yes, you have my attention for the moment. Yes, you’ve made an impact on me momentarily.” That’s what she gets from him. By putting furniture in front of him and by causing a few bruises or upsetting him, at least it’s some attention. It’s notjust being paid off and, “Go home now Celia. Thanks for doing the ironing.”It’s, “Oh, you bitch. I’vejustfeltyour breast. Gee, that was a bit amazing”, or ‘T hat was a bit scary. ” But at least she is actually forcing him to say, ‘Yes, you are part of my life”, because there is nothing more cruel than being told you have no significance in the life of someone whom you believe you adore. He knows that, and that’s how he plays the game. I think that she is more addicted than he is, and he has a realization that it’s time to end the games. And that’s what he does, though he still has a little bit of fun when he fires her. But he is actually finally respecting her as a woman, as a human being, when he says, “Okay, I acknowledge we’ve been playing games. I’ve been cruel. Let’s end it.” It has to be brutal, it has to be, “That’s it”, and she realizes that. When we talked about that scene in rehearsal, and during the shooting, we realized that this was the first time that they actually
LEFT TOP TO B O TTO M W : THE BUND MARTIN ASKS A N D Y (RUSSELL CROWE) TO DESCRIBE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR HIM. MARTIN, RIGHT, VERIFIES W ITH TOUCH W H A T A N D Y HAS TOLD HIM. CELIA TAKES MARTIN TO HIS FIRST CONCERT. FACING PAGE: CELIA WITH A PH O TO M O N TAGE OF AN D Y . PROOF. 8
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
“/V man is supposed to toe so strong, so tough, and yet a lot of men are really small boys hiding behind th a t exterior. [ — ] I really am interested in the children in adults —and in myself-”
treated each other like human beings. He even acknowledges that she has exceptional breasts. They finally respect each other. And, for me, that’s the saddest scene in the film. That realization is simultaneous with his coming to grips with his past.
Now, she drives a BMW. Avery old one. But still it is a status symbol which one wouldn’t imagine someone in her situation having.
Yes. It’s a sort of a crisis point. Martin has been heading for this all his life.
Well, don’t forget she’s middle class. She’s not extremely poor. I always saw her as being a woman who might of had a lot of dreams and aspirations, and maybe she came from quite a well-off family.
So has she.
So, they are both middle class?
So has she. That’s true. I wanted to give the impression that she is a woman who has been trodden on many times by many men. Finally, she has a chance. H ere’s a man who has a handicap and she can get in. She hasn’t been able to get in anywhere else. But because Martin can’t see her, she has suddenly all this power. She can endlessly watch him, the object of her love, which she couldn’t do if he could see her. She can spy on him and take photographs and possess a bit of him. She can manipulate him. This is a wonderful liberating power for her and she goes for it. I can imagine I would if I were like her and in that situation. It’s because she has up until now had no power and suddenly she has a little.
Yes, but it’s a very disillusioned class, too. I’m not one of these people who are into discussing class. I saw her as a person who was probably an only daughter, and whose parents gave her an education. But she never really fulfilled any body’s expectations, including her own, of what she was going to achieve in her life. She’s been slowly getting worse and worse kind ofjobs. Both her parents are dead now, and sh e ’s obviously inherited some money. But she’s a little bit aimless. I always imagined that car was either one she inherited or boughtwith some of the money she gotwhen her mum died. It’s not a new BMW, but it does tend to define that she wants something better in life. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
9
M oorhouse
But she allows him to do that. There’s a lot of me in that, you know. For all our feminism and self-assertion, we are trapped in the sense that we need someone to cut the tie. That’s right and sometimes it has to be him. You don’t allow background to intrude, although it’s a really dense psychological drama. And in that psycho logical drama, it seems that Celia and the mother are sort of twins. They are, yes. The mother must have had a profound effect on Martin’s character for him to feel the way he does.
But if she wants something better, one has to ask why she becomes the housekeeper to a blind man? It is that kind of love’s obsession. But why does she want to love someone who kicks her in the head? She didn’t know when she started that he was going to be like that. All she knew was that he was a handsome blind man. And he becomes a challenge? I always figured that she would be like a traditional woman who has a Charlotte Bronte complex. I don’t know if you ever read JaneEyre, I did and loved it. And, of course, Rochester is blinded. He is, he is. Andjane is aplain butincredibly fascinatingwoman who had been trodden on all her life. Yet she manages to win the love of this wonderfully charismatic bastard, whom she turns into a nice person. It is the perfect romance. For the 19th century. Yes, but we women still suffer from this. We are still trying to cure those bastards. And the crueller Martin is to Celia, the more she wants to stay. She has harboured this dream of “I’m going to turn you into a caring human being.” But, of course, that’s a very tough call and she probably can’t do it alone; in fact, she gets hurt. I always said to Genevieve and Hugo that I didn ’t think Celia was like this when she started. I imagine she was quite vulnerable and had probably been quite plain all her life. I mean, I don’t see Genevieve as plain - 1 think she’s gorgeous - so I dressed her down. She has this wonderful smouldering beauty that I wanted audiences to think they have discovered. Luckily, a lot of people do think she’s really beautiful and they almost indignantly say, “How dare you! What’s she doing as a housekeeper?”, as if housekeepers can’t be beautiful. It’s a good effect because I wanted them to think Martin is stupid for treating her like a monster, because she’s not. H e’s turned her into one by his cruelty. 10
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
I am sure she did, but it wasn’t her fault. It isn’t that she didn ’t love him, though she is a little bit repelled by her fear of his disability. How I imagined the situation was this: she’s had a handicapped baby and her husband’s left her because he couldn’t handle it, which happens a lot. Back in the 1960s, children with disabilities were considered to be flawed, shameful things and were hidden away, or just not brought out in public very much. It was incredibly cruel. Children are so intuitive and Martin felt that rejection. Then, when she died, he saw that as an ultimate rejection because children are the centre of their own universe. The death of the mother became, “She left me. ”And, of course, he had no proof that she had died; the father had left, so maybe she had left him, too. It would have been very easy to do. As he gets older, Martin knows it’s unlikely that she lied but, because he was so devastated by the loss of his mother, he keeps her alive by hating her and by believing she is still alive. That is better than admitting she’s dead and that he is alone. Thereafter, every relationship he has is based, more or less, on levels of hate. That’s why when Celia says, “I didn’t think he was capable of not hating anything”, Genevieve used to complain it was a double negative. “Can’t I just say that he’s not capable of loving?”, and I used to say, “No, no, no. You can’t use the word ‘love’ here, until you talk about Andy.” She’d say, “Oh, that seems a bit unfair,” but I’d say, “No, that’s the way Martin feels. He either hates someone less than he hates that person - especially with women, because that’s the only way h e’s known how to feel towards them. It’s not really hate, though, just fear.” It is intriguing that you are intent on understanding the male point of view to illuminate the female predicament. Oh, I think that it’s important for a film to be made about men and women from a woman’s point of view. It is my point of view. I am a woman and, therefore, anything I write and direct about a man is going to be seen through female eyes. And yet the film, when one first looks at it, appears to be through male eyes, because the first impression of Celia is that she’s a malign character and that Andy is the goody. ABOVE: MARTIN W ITH A N D Y , W H O "ACTUALLY BETRAYS MARTIN MORE TH A N [CELIA] DOES. SHE SETS IT UP, BUT HE DOES IT. HE'S W EAK AN D CULPABLE." RIGHT: MARTIN AN D CELIA: "THEY CO N TAIN A N AWFUL LOT OF ME, AN D A LOT OF THE RELATIONSHIPS I'VE HAD WITH PEOPLE." PROOF.
“I ’m not interested in making a thesis, or starting with a theory and then writing the story. I ’m much more interested in being taken and haunted toy a story, and then encompassing^ some of my passions.”
But he actually betrays Martin more than she does. She sets it up, but he does it. H e’s weak and culpable, because I don’t think anybody’s perfect and h e’s a typical male in that he can’t resist her. She’s offering herself and he goes for it, even if it means being hurt. I’m not saying all men do that, of course, but a lot of them do. A lot of them swallow their physical pride. Have you had any criticism from feminists for that point of view? Not oumight criticism, just questions. There is a sense of its having its roots very thoroughly in the background, so one doesn’t really question it. Well, I hope so. I thought about the characters for years. The script is very, very carefully worked out, as is the film. There is a lot of hints in there, like the fact that we put Celia in a small flat and put tram sounds on the soundtrack. If you’re on the tram tracks, the rental places are a bit cheaper, but you do become haunted by the sounds of ti'ams. And while people may not consciously be aware of that, diey are subconsciously aware that she’s not rich. She spends all her money on photographs of Martin, because drey would be expensive to get enlarged and framed. How does Martin earn his living? Apparently, in one draft of the script there was a hint that he had something to do with computers. Yes, he was a reviewer. Basically, you know his mother was rich and that he’s living a little on what she left him - his trust, whatever. In the original script, he also made money by listening to CDs and reviewing them. When I spoke to a lot of blind people, diey said that’s quite a common job. Would you think of putting that back in? Have other people asked that question? No. In fact, I only put it in at a late stage when someone did ask, “O h, what does he do for a living? ”But it seemed to stick out. I never really cared what he did and I thought, “Well, maybe nobody else will.”
You could ask a lot of questions about all of them, and I don’t mind people doing that because it means the characters are real for them. They are real for me, too. I often wonder if Celia has a sister, what was her background, what kind of education she had. As for Andy, he’s obviously estranged from his parents. It gets back to why I explore men. Clearly I am fascinated by maleness, but my next film is very much exploring the human condition from a woman’s point of view. Absolutely. But getting back to Celia, I don’t think I sold her short. I think I really explored her as well. That’s true. Butwhynothave made a film about Celia? Why not have taken her point of view? I was having a conversation with a friend in a coffee shop and she told me about this blind man who took photographs. I guess that’s what stuck in my head: a blind man. For all I know, if she had told me about a blind woman, the film might have been different. It is interesting that you resist using his blindness as a metaphor. I’m not interested in making a thesis, or starting with a theory and then writing the story. I’m much more interested in being taken and haunted by a story, and then encompassing some of my passions. So it had a more organic idea, dealing more on emotions. Yes, very much. People often talk on psychological and semantic levels, but I’d hate to be pressured into thinking I have to make films like that. People often get surprised when they hear I’m making a thriller. They go, “Why?” And then I vaguely outline the plot and they go, “Oh, it doesn’t sound at all like Proof. B u t I’m not just Proof. I have other things I want to do. Apparently it took you four years to go from script to finished film. Yes, and I’m very glad it did, because it let me have a long break between writing the script and directing it. I was able to think about it and making the transition. Of course, giving birth and becoming a mother changed my personality and the way I approached my work in an enormous way. It provided me with more empathy and took me to further extremes that I had ever been before as a human being. For one thing, I understood more the flashbacks about the mother and child. I’d written those scenes earlier and now I was a mother, with a son. It definitely helped me to direct Heather [Mitchell]. I knew what I was talking about this time, rather than just imag ining feelings about the human condition, and levels of pain andjoy. It’s hard to explain, but it really stretched me psychologically. I was sent plummeting, but I also was sent soaring on emotional levels after the birth of my baby. I sank that into my work, which was great. It really helped me, because Proofis about all kind of emotions. It is a very powerful scene where the mother wakes up and finds the little boy touching her face. She tells him not to do that. It is a really cruel scene. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
11
Moorhouse Yes, but she doesn’t mean to be. I wanted to show that, sometimes, just a comment, a mistake, can have a really powerful effect on a vulnerable person. The idea was: If I were alone in this dark world, would sounds be enough? No, I think I would want physical contact. When the little boy is feeling his mother, he reallyjust wants to look at her. He loves her and she doesn’t really understand. She thinks she’s his eyes. She is trying to teach him to survive, but that’s the pain of being a mother. You want to protect your children, but at the same time you realize that your instinct to hold them close and protect them is the worst thing you can do, because you should be preparing them for what is actually a brutal world. So this scene was obviously influenced by your new experiences as a mother? Even though I wrote it before giving birth, I wanted to try to capture this woman, and not just have her as a mean, one-dimensional character. Even though I knew I only had a few scenes in which to capture her, I wanted to say that she was a full person, that she wasn’t just a cinematic mummy. How often do you see the mother in an apron baking the cakes? I wanted to say that she was a woman with her own pain and problems. She is struggling with her own loneli ness and, on top of that, she has a handicapped boy. She doesn’t know how she feels about that. She’s not a saint the way that movies often try to say that mothers with handicapped children are. Rather, she’s dealing with it and with the fact that she’s dying and will be leaving him in a few months. Even though at this point in the film you don ’t know it, I wanted to convey that she is kind of snappy. Even though she rejects him, she’s not rejecting him on a deep and profound level. He gave her a fright and she ’s being brutal with him, saying, ‘You’re not going to be able to do that.” It is also revelatory about the way blind people use their fingers as eyes. It shows how much they really do miss out on. We can just glance around the room, continually checking our existence. Ifwewantto reach out to somebody, we can do it with a smile. It’s just a quick reassurance: ‘Yes, I’m loved”, or “I’m liked, I’m approved of.” But people who are in the dark, what can they do? It’s funny, but when you talk to blind people, their fingers are constantly travelling. They are so beautiful and almost liquid. I was fascinated by the hands of the children that I worked with and spoke to who were blind. Did you do much research? I did once I was about to make the film. I though 11could only benefit from spending time with children who were blind, so I went on out to the Burwood School and met quite a few children. They were really lovely. They really fascinated me. Also, I was looking for someone to play the boy. But the actor you used wasn’t blind? No, but I did think about the possibility of working with a blind child. How far does the story you heard originally parallel the finished film? It was nothing like it and we have never talked about it since. I never even met the blind guy. He wasn’t blind from birth, so that’s one difference. Also, he was very well adjusted and married with chil dren. He took photographs and had his children describe them to him. He could trust them; he was lucky. I felt it would be much more interesting for me as a writerdirector to invent a character who couldn’t trust others; that gave me many more possibilities for stories. I started with a character; I 12
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
didn’t know where the story was going to lead me. So what do you think happens to Martin? Does he go on to a new relationship? I think so, but I didn’t want to give the film a wham-bang happy ending because that would have been incredibly false. At the same time, I did want to give a feeling, however small, that there’s hope. Martin is actually going to start again. His whole way of relating towards people will change because h e’s learnt from Andy that faith and trust aren’t about finding a method of proof. You can never have proof of those things. It’s an instinctive thing, a leap of faith. You have to decide to view the world in a more positive way, to trust people. Then, things start to get better. People aren’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean that everybody is going to betray you. Someone might lie to you once or twice, but does that mean that they don’t love you? When it comes down to it, is it more important to always get the facts, or to have somebody’s love? Obviously, to me it’s much more important to have their love. I don’t like to be lied to, b u t ... FUTURE
PLANS* I
With your new film, will you be using the thriller as a genre? Well it’s not going to be your standard thriller. My model is something like Don’t Look Now, which is a thriller but also incredibly emotional. My film is about a tight group of people, a family. It brings in all kinds of things like destiny and psychic bonds between parents and children. I also want to explore that fear of becoming a parent, of procreation, and all its implications. When you create a new generation, the fear can overwhelm your emotions. It’s terrifying when you suddenly realize you are now at the mercy of fate. If something happens to the child you will be devastated. The world is blocked out, more than in any other relationship, and then that can be very frightening. Then, I though t what a challenge it would be to try to do a thriller that dealt with these emotions. How far along are you with it? I did afirstdraftafewyears ago. But that was before I began injecting the Oedipal elements. I’m also making the central character a daughter, just so that my son doesn’t get a terrible complex about me when he gets older. I don’t want him thinking, “Is that how she felt about me?” So, I’m basically slaving through another draft. I don’t know when it will be ready, but I don’t want to have to wait too long. It will be very complex and, because it’s an idea which is very dear to me, I don’t want to rush it. I’d hate to turn around and think, “Hell, I should have done another draft.” Would you use Picot and Weaving again? I would love to use them all again, although I don’t want to fall into the trap of writing a character for an actor. I really want to create totally original characters and let really wonderful actors breathe life into them, which is what happened with Proof. Obviously, the characters have power because the actors have power. But I don ’t think it would be a good idea to design a character for an actor. Anyway, an actor probably wouldn’t like it, because they like to meet challenges, the same way writers and directors do. But a lot of directors have ensemble sort of stables. Oh yeah. I have a lot of favourites and I would happily work with any of the actors in Proo/again. In fact, I would love to. ■
T
JLhree part-time jobs.
Fifteen Italian lessons. A n d novo twelve months overseas. A ll with one bank.
\U You can b a n k onWestpac.
Westpac Banking Corporation arbn 007 457141 Westpac Savings Banl< Limited acn ooo161624
IM072/91
ALL-TIME
FAVOURITE
F I L MS
Reel Pleasu SCOTT T h is n e w c o lu m n in v ite s c r itic s to lis t, w ith o p in io n a te d c a u s e , w h a t th e y c o n s id e r to b e th e fin e s t film s o f w o r ld c in e m a .
C in e m a P a p e rs w ill a p p ly n o r u le s , o th e r th a n th o s e o f s p a c e . A s w e ll, n o te d A u s tr a lia n film m a k e r s w ill b e a s k e d to s u p p ly th e title s o f th e ir te n fa v o u r it e film s . S ta r tin g o ff th e c o lu m n a re J o c e ly n M o o r h o u s e , w r ite r - d ir e c to r o f P ro o f , a n d S c o tt M u rra y .
THIS PAGE: MARTHE (ISABELLE WEINGARTEN) LOOKS AT HER RETURNED LOVER WHILE JACQUES (GUILLAUME DES FORETS) STARES AT THE M O O N . ROBERT BRESSON'S FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER. (FRAME ENLARGEMENT). FACING PAGE BOTTOM: THE 'M A D ' JOHANNES (PREBEN LERDORFF RYE), THE WHITE W A S H IN G A N D THE CALMLY BROODING GREY SKY. CARL TH. DREYER'S ORDET. (FRAME ENLARGEMENT). TOP: A KISS CAN KILL: LILITH (JEAN SEBERG) LEANS FORWARD TO KISS HER O W N REFLECTION. ROBERT ROSSEN'S LILITH. (FRAME ENLARGEMENT).
14
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
MURRAY
To avoid this list becoming almost
position is to celebrate that which is magical.
exclusively the credits of Robert Bresson1, the
How else can one view the selfless love that
n o t e
:
self-devised rule of only one film per director
rescues the pickpocket, the determination that
has been invoked. Mention is also made on
frees the condemned man, and the purity that
each film ’s availability, and in what form.
transports Jeanne d ’Arc, the Cure and Mouch-
®
QUATRE NUITS D’UN RÊVEUR (FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER) R O B E R T B R E S S O N , 1971
ette from pathetic earthly bonds to sainthood? To make one experience this transforma tion, Bresson uses realistic elements to create and elaborate a spiritual world, where every
For many, Bresson is the single greatest crea
stylized action (a hand leaving a door handle,
tive force of the 20th century. No other film
feetturning a street corner, a book being thrown
maker is as elevating of the spirit, so perfec
abruptly to the floor) is an ¡conization of a truth.
tionist in technique or rigorous of intellect. He
Choosing one Bresson from all the others
moves one profoundly, not by easy sentiment
is necessarily arbitrary, but Four Nights of a
or cinematic trickery, but by paring every ele
Dreamer wins for being Bresson’s most deli
ment down to essentials. Each frame is emp
cate and poetic film. This rhapsodic love affaire
tied of meaning and only through the juxtaposi
with Paris at night is at heart, like Pickpocket
tion of images does meaning accrete. In a
(1959), a paean to pure, accepting love. Here
similar way, the viewer is kept emotionally
the boy may not end up with his desired (he
suspended until the film ’s end, when all the
stares up at the moon, she at her absent lover,
elements combine in one deeply poignant mo
in one of the cinem a’s most heart-rending im
ment of spiritual transformation.
ages), but as Dostoyevsky writes at the end of
All Bresson’s films are about an individual’s
the story (“White Nights”) that Bresson adapted,
progress from confinement to freedom. That is
“My God, a moment of bliss. Why, isn’t that
why to call him a pessimist is so wrong-sighted.
enough for a whole lifetim e?”2
Equally misconstruing is the label “austere”,
[NB: Shown at the Melbourne Film Festival; oth erwise unavailable in Australia. No French vide
which implies bitterness or astringency. For while Bresson never winces from denouncing elements of society that decry and deny the wondrous in humans and nature, his principal
ocassette released, but was shown on television recently in England. Time-shifted cassette copies are all there is to remind one of the original.]
res ORDET (THE WORD) C A R L T H . D R E Y E R , 19 5 5
Dreyer, with Bresson, is the great purist film maker. He, too, has been labelled austere and pessimistic, yet here is a film in which a young girl’s belief in a simple man’s spirituality Is enough to bring forth a miracle. O rdets stark universe is one of competing religious faiths, where neighbours are divided by varying conceptions of God. And ridiculed
ral laws, which He also created.)
Inge’s transformation from death to life, there Is that glow of faith against a doubting grey sky.
by all but the children is the ‘mad’ Johannes
But Johannes will have nothing of so cow
(Preben Lerdorff Rye), who sees himself as a
ardly a faith and, strengthened by a child’s faith
Dreyer made an even more perfect fo r
living Christ.
in him, he awakens Inge from death. It Is a
malist work next, G ertrud (1964), but O rdet
Johannes returns from days in the wilder
scene of near terrifying power.
remains the preferred here for its sublime
gious discussions, it is a stunning tribute to
beauty and power. [NB: Shown originally at the festivals and recently
perhaps the most harrowing in cinema). He
Dreyer’s mastery that he has made afilm which
shown on SBS.l
finds his distraught family around her open
for every frame is hypnotically Involving. Like
coffin, together with the village parson (who Is
Bresson, he has no truck for false naturalism
LILITH
more Interested in social engagements than
and he stylizes the performances as much as
R O B E R T R O S S E N , 1964
practising real faith) and neighbours. Now re turned to ‘normality’, Johannes challenges those
his mise en scène. The elaborate camera movements must have been staggeringly in
Based on J. R. Salamanca’s remarkable novel4,
gathered for not asking God to bring his sister
ventive for the time, and today are no less rich
this is a supreme film on mental Illness, or
back to life. This Is blasphemy he Is told, but
with nuance.3
ness afterthe death of Inge (Birgitte Federspiel)
Given the potential dourness of the reli
from childbirth (though mostly off-screen, it is
“difference” as Rossen would have It. His is a
Johannes replies by calling them “half-believ
Dreyer and director of photography Henning
truly romantic view, where the schizophrenic
ers”. And he is right, for the church (in all Its
Bendtsen also use black and white with great
are described by a head psychiatrist as having
guises) promotes faith only to a certain, safe
s u b tle ty -a ll muted greys and soft lighting. One
degree; to go further would make demands it
need only look at the opening, where the white
believes will not be met. (The parson explains
of some sheets flapping on a clothes-line stands
this away by saying God does not perform
out so brightly against a calmly brooding sky.
miracles because they would contravene natu
The Image reverberates with frissons of pow
ral laws, which He also created.)
erful, even mystical, events to unfold. And in
seen too much with too fine an instrum ent... They have been destroyed, one mightsay, by their own excellence. Regarded in this way, they are the heroes of the universe, Its finest product and Its noblest failure. In this case, Lilith (Jean Seberg) has, as with other Salamancians, been shattered by becoming too close to a sibling. (In Southern Light, Salamanca’s Sylvie stares into the sun while making love on the beach with her brother, thus rendering herself blind.) For Lilith, the ‘traum a’ is to live in her own world, of people and language, but a world so enticingly magical that Vincent (Warren Beatty) wants to visit it as well. The results, as when Vincent allows the jealousies and fears of the outside, ‘normal’ world to invade hers, are disastrous. For exam ple, when Vincent finds Lilith with a lover, Yvonne (Anne Meacham), he screams with male rage, “You dirty bitch.” To this Lilith calmly replies, “If you should discover that your god loved others as much as he loved you, would you hate him for it? I show my love for all of you and you despise me.” Rossen invests every element of his magi cal universe with poetic intensity, be it the way the sound of a flute carries through the other wise still air, or the way Lilith’s reflection on mist-brushed water shimmers with beauty and CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
15
to the female partner. Some critics feel the film
LE MÉPRIS (CONTEMPT)
ABOVE: "D O Y O U LIKE M Y BO TTO M ?", ASKS CAMILLE (BRIGITTE BARDOT) OF PAUL (MICHEL PICCOLI) IN THE CENSORED BED SCENE FROM JEAN-LUC G O DARD'S
avoids taking sides over the correctness of
J E A N -L U C G O D A R D , 1963
LE MEPRIS. (FRAME ENLARGEMENT). FACING PAGE: LEFT: GENEVIEVE (CATHERINE DENEUVE)
Le Mépris is the most rapturous of Godard's
IN JACQUES DEMY'S THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG. RIGHT: "G IV E M Y LOVE TO THE SUNRISE": MICHAEL O 'H A R A
cinem atic meditations on love. It has even
(O RSO N WELLES) A N D ELSA BANNI5TER (RITA HAYW ORTH)
been described by its director of photography,
IN WELLES' THE LADY FROM S H A N G H A I.
Raoul Coutard, as a m illion-dollar love letter from Godard to his Danish muse and collabora
fear (for a kiss can destroy). If one aim of great
tor, Anna Karina.7
cinema is to evoke a world that so beguiles and
Based on Moravia’s II Disprezzo (G host at
entices an audience that leaving it is a matter of
Noon), and inspired by Rossellini’s Viaggio in
profound sorrow, then Lilith is one of its finest
Italia (1953), Le Mépris is a study of contempt,
achievement.
and how its seeding in one partner can quickly
A film of startling stylistic purity, Lilith is
undermine a relationship. Here, Camille (Brigitte
gloriously shot in black and white, by Eugen
Bardot) believes she has been pushed towards
Shaftan and Tibor Sands, with a dazzling use of
the arms of the producer, Prokosh (Jack
slightly wide-angle lenses and startling two-
Palance), by her screenwriter husband, Paul
shot compositions (as when Vincent watches
(Michel Piccoli). It is her contempt for him, and
Lilith weave a garment from her hair). When
Paul’s moral indecision, that lead to the break
French director Jean-Pierre Melville saw this
up. (And never has a separation been more
film, he turned to his wife and said, “You have
brilliantly visualized: Paul leans against some
just seen the last film of Robert Rossen. Any
rocks, his head down, while Camille swims
man who achieves this degree of perfection
naked in the opposite direction, up, through
just has to die.”5 And so was the case.
and away from frame.)
[NB: To show, yet again, how puritans get things
Paralleling this story is Paul’s proposed
wrong, this humanist masterpiece was banned in
script rewrite of The Odyssey, in which Penelope
Australia and released only after destructive cuts
sexually betrays Ulysses, thus provoking the
were made.6 To see the whole film one must
long voyage home. This Ulysses mirrors Paul’s
import the American video.]
own indecision and weakness, the blame shifted
Paul’s interpretation versus director Fritz Lang’s more conventional one8, but it is tonally clear that Godard is siding with Lang and thus against Paul and himself. Anotherform of contem pt Godard explores is that of m oney-minded producers who control and taint the work of auteurs. But despite Go dard's often caustic tone, Le Mépris remains a joyous celebration of film m aking, from the tracking shots from which Prokosh’s Alfa Romeo twice accelerates (once with deadly conse quences), or that sweep through and past vil las, to the ¡conization of Bardot and Lang, and the cheeky off-cut montages. Even when the film ’s producers reportedly insisted on more flesh, Godard turns an obligatory moment of nudity into a meditation on the im possibility of possession, and of equating flesh and desire (“Do you think I have a pretty bottom? [...] And my hair? [...] my face? [...] my eyes? Then you love me totally?” “Yes ... totally, tenderly, tragically.”) Of all the Godards, this is the most elegant and elegiac, the camera recording in glowing T echnicolour and Techniscope the Caprian villa of Malaparte, the back lot on Cinecittà, the morally vacant modern flat on the outskirts of Roma. And the luscious score by Georges Delerue adds to the atmosphere of almost
JOCELYN
MOORHOUSE
1 . Don’t Look Now (n ic o l a s 2 . Nashville (Ro b e r t
ro eg,
a lt m a n ,
4 . All About Eve (Jo s e p h
5 . Profondo Rosso (Deep Red) (d a r io 6 . Lawrence of Arabia (d a v id
copy is slightly less cut but is hideously dubbed.
1975) kurosow a,
m a n k ie w ic z ,
lean ,
1963)
female translator’s now unnecessary mouth
1975)
1962)
7. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (St a n l e y 8 . Blue Velvet (d a v id
k u b r ic k ,
lyn ch ,
9 . Dog Day Afternoon (S id n e y 10 . Women in Love (ken
16
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
1964)
ru ssell,
movements, the dubbers have written for her some of the most feeble repartee in cinema. Equally, the film was made in Techniscope and an uncropped version is unavailable here. Even the American video (with sub-titles) is not letterboxed. One must import a copy from France for
1986)
lu m et,
And as the original film is in French and English (with a little German), the resultant all-English version is a travesty. For example, to fill in the
1950)
argen to ,
[NB: The version of Le Mépris shown theatrically in Australia was heavily censored.9The television
1973)
3 . Tengohu to Jigoku (High and Low) (a k ir a
over-powering melancholia.
that. And it has the added bonus of the two off-cut
1975)
1970)
montages and the original voice-over credits spoken by Godard, along with his meditation of Bazin, cinema and desire.]
{
N, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG (THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG)
(5 ) V
— y
J A C Q U E S D E M Y , 1 96 4
at the end (in fact, one Australian film springs to
theatrical performance (from lawyer to clown),
mind), but Demy, ever the romantic, has a
the film ’s relentlessly inventive playfullness and
parallel love story, one of less glamour but
the way the director incorporates themes of his
greater spirituality, triumphantly overcome. Like
other work without ever allowing himself to
Demy’s recent death has inevitably helped fo
Bresson’s Michel (Martin La Salle), Guy can
appear serious. The dram atic range is also
cus attention once again on this most individu
rightly claim, “W hat a strange path I have had
stunningly broad, from the blood-thick sea where
alistic and brilliant film m aker. This is particu
to take to reach you.”
sharks prey to a lonely street where a lovesick
larly so for those fortunate in having seen
Les Parapluiesis by no means Demy’s only
Agnès Varda’s precious tribute, Jacquot de
masterpiece, and it is perhaps ungracious to
Nantes (1991), where many moments from
rate it above, say, Lola and Les Dem oiselles de
There is a view, widely-held, that the film
Demy’s life are evocatively recreated (yes, his
Rochefort (1967). Even his last film, Trols
makes no sense (and, even if true, why is this
fool is going to “forget her” or “Maybe I’ll die trying”.
father ran a petrol station in a town where
Places p o ur le 26 (1988), is a dazzlingly inven
necessarily a fault?). But, no, “every i is dotted
sailors swept through the streets). Scenes that
tive and joyous celebration of life.
and t crossed”, as John Huston once said of a
will always haunt include those where Demy is
[NB: Still screened and available locally on un-
W e lle s
bought his first camera, in the balustraded
letter-boxed video with sub-titles.]
filmmaking at its finest.
shopping arcade from Lola (1961) and Les
is b ra v u ra
[NB: Still occasionally screened theatrically.]
Parapluies de Cherbourg, and how he glimpsed
THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI
the rich potential of cinema when watching
O R S O N W E L L E S , 194 8
Bresson’s Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (1945) at 14.10
p e rfo rm a n c e .11 T h is
JUDEX G E O R G E S F R A N J U , 196 4
Again one faces the problem of selecting just
Demy grasped that potential and created
one film: Is it Citizen Kane (1941), The M ag
Franju is the most underrated of the great
his own contagiously magical world. It is an
nificent Am bersons (1942; perhaps W elles’
French directors, yet he made several of that
emotional state as much as a decorative or
finest in its original version), The Lady from
country’s finest films, including Le Sang des
architectural one, be it a modern Los Angeles
Shanghai, Othello (1952), Mr. Arkadin (1955),
Bêtes (1949; short), La Tête contre les Murs
or the fairy tale world of Peau d'Ane (1970),
Touch o f Evil (1958), The Trial( 1962) or Chimes
(1959), Les Yeux sans Visage (1960; how
where a princess wears Louis XV clothes and
at M idnight (1966)? That is, eight masterpieces
Chabrol must have taken keen note of it before
a king can fly in a helicopter. And in everyone’s
from a director biographers and critics keep
shooting the night drive of Le Boucher, 1970),
heart there aches a love story.
claiming was a talent who went Into irreversible
Thérèse Desqueyroux ( 1962), the best by far of
decline after Kane. Nothing could be more
all the Malraux adaptations, and Thomas
Les Parapluies is the most tender of all, replacing the coolly intellectual approach of
criminally libellous.
l ’Im posteur (1965). Even the flawed La Faute
much French cinema with an audacious lyri
Here The Lady from Shanghai gets the nod
cism. This singing-only film, gloriously scored
for its cinematic bravery, which is even more
by Michel Legrand, is photographed (by Jean
dazzling than Kane’s. Certainly few if any film
Of all great directors, Franju is (with
Rabier) against stylized backdrops of pastel
makers of today have come anywhere nearthis
Bresson) the true poet. His sensitivity, a deli
de l ’Abbé M ouret (1970) has moments of such delicacy as to numb the senses.
colours, where characters glide as much as
stylistic mastery (and Mr. Arkadin pushes the
cate and precise mise en scène, and the rare
walk, and where the lesser emotions are ex
sytlistics even further). In a two-man conversa
fied beauty of his compositions make no other
cluded to concentrate on what Demy senses
tion on the yacht, for example, W elles shoots in
appellation possible. And of all his masterworks,
keeps people alive.
reverses. But instead of the standard (Ameri
Judex Is arguably the most sublime.
In some ways, Demy has borrowed the
can) approach of cutting back and forth be
Inspired by the d ire c to r’s love of the
pure relationship from Bresson’s Pickpocket
tween the same two two-shots (with close-ups
Feuillade serials (Fantom as, 1913-14, and
and remodelled it for Guy (Nino Castelnuovo)
tossed in for variety), Welles reframes the two-
Judex, 1917-18), the new Judex is a touching
and Madeleine (B ie n Farner). But here the
shot composition on almost every reverse. In
homage to an earlier, more innocent cinema
man must not free himself from the prison of a
stead of the basic two (or four) shots, there is
(and also to the narrative fictions of a Georges
criminal compunction, but from the binds of a
maybe twenty. And yet each one is arguably
Leblanc). With extremely few words, near sur
love affaire gone awry. Many directors would
the most dazzling two-shot in cinema!
realist imagery and photography by Marcel
have been tempted to leave It with Guy meeting
Equally outstounding are W elles’ witty
F rade tal th a t d e lin e a te s e v o c a tiv e ly the
Geneviève (Catherine Deneuve) and their child
meditations on the cinema and the nature of
polarities of white and black, Franju weaves a
ABOVE: LEFT: JUDEX (C H A N N IN G POLLOCK), DISGUISED IN A BIRD MA SK, AT THE GRAND BALL. GEORGES FRANJU'S JUDEX. RIGHT: THE PROFESSOR (BURT LANCASTER) (RIGHT) AT HOME W ITH PART OF HIS
8 V.
.X
GRUPPO DI FAMIGLIA IN UNO INTERNO (CONVERSATION PIECE) L U C H IN O V IS C O N T I, 1974
and Fascist (Stefano) - or social - old world/ aristocratic (Professor), nouveau riche (Bru monti), working class (Konrad). With the calm wisdom of a life fully lived,
'FA M ILY ': THE LAWYER (ROM OLO VALLI), STEFANO (STEFANO PATRIZI) A N D LIETTA (CLAUDIA M A R SA N I).
Given that the great Luchino Visconti also made
Visconti sees (through his Professor) all these
LUCHINO VISCO NTI'S CONVERSATION PIECE.
Senso (1954), II Gattopardo ( The Leopard,
BELOW: THE BRUTE'S SON (MARC Dl NAPO LI),
disparate and sometimes warring factions as
1963), Vaghe Stelle d e ll’Orsa (Sandra, 1965)
part of his and Italia’s one family. One may like
DUCHAUSSOY) IN CLAUDE CHABROL'S THE BEAST MUST DIE.
and L ’lnnocertte{\ 976), along with several neo
a certain child more or less than the others
FACING PAGE: LEFT: THE FINAL CO NFR ON TATION IN MIKLOS
realist films of standing, this may seem an
JANSCO'S THE RED A N D THE WHITE. RIGHT: THE ECTASY
(Visconti himself wavering between marxism
unusual choice. But this is the film closest to
and aristocraticism), but how can one not love
Visconti’s heart, a poignant rumination on a
them all?
lone old man’s coming to terms with unwanted
[NB: Released theatrically. SBS has also shown the film, in letter-box format.]
A POLICEMAN A N D THE DEAD BOY'S FATHER (MICHEL
OF DEATH: JEF COSTELLO (ALAIN DELON) IN JEAN-PIERRE MELVILLE'S LE S A M O U R A I. (FRAME ENLARGEMENT).
‘fam ily’. This is many ways reflects the homo complex plotthrough gloriously visual film m ak
sexual Visconti’s lackof children, and thecasting
ing. Responses are triggered not by ‘meaning
of Visconti’s lover, Helmut Berger, as one of the
ful’ dialogue but connections between images,
‘adopted’ sons has led some critics to mistake
an immaculate sense of what in a scene should
the film for a gay love story. Not that that would
be highlighted and what dismissed, and of
matter much except that such a reading misses
using a collaboration between scored music
/" V
9
X
QUE LA BÊTE MEURE (THE BEAST MUST DIE/KILLER!) C L A U D E C H A B R O L , 1969
so much of what is fine and telling here. For this
Chabrol hit one of the greatest winning streaks
(by Maurice Jarre) and camera movement to
is not a film interested in delineating sexuality
in cinema from Les Biches (1968) to Juste avant
heighten emotion almost mystically.
or modes of loving, but joyously celebrating the
la Nuit (1971), with only La Rupture (1970)
There are many sequences that can be
existence of feeling, of emotion. In Visconti’s
breaking the pattern. (La Rupture actually
singled out as classics, though to do so incor
world, it is the negative impulse for power that
prefigures a baroque style that was picked up
rectly suggests an unevenness to this perfectly
is condemned.
modulated work. But, for illustration, there is
again with La Décade Prodigieuse in 1972 and
Though confined essen
the moment when the evil Diana (Francine
tia lly
Berge), dressed as a nun, approaches Jac
Visconti films in his usually
queline (Edith Scob) from behind and plunges
sumptuous way, moving gra
to tw o
a p a rtm e n ts ,
a hypodermic into her shoulder as an off-camera
cefully over the fam ily portraits
train powers up to depart a station (this is a film
that adorn the walls, past the
where women are the active characters). Then
bowls of fresh flowers and to
there is the scene where a circus performer and
the exasperated but warmly
Ju d e x’s men scale like black beetles an
forgiving countenance of the
unscalable wall. And most remembered of all is
Professor (Burt Lancaster).
where a mysterious stranger in a bird mask
On another level, so clear
enters a ball holding a lifeless dove, which he
but so far seemingly uncomm
brings miraculously back to life before ‘taking’
ented on by critics, Conversa
the sinister banker’s life. But all is never what it
tion Piece is Visconti’s loving
seems as people swap roles, revealing their
tribute to his homeland. The
true selves from behind false masks.
film is very much about the
There have been many fine pastiches in
various fam ilies that make up
cinema, but none else to the standard of Judex.
Italia, be they political - Com
[NB: Same situation as Four Nights o f a
m u n is t (as w ith
Dreamer.]
Christian Democrat (Brumonti)
18
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
K o n ra d ),
which led to a decline from which, sadly, Chabrol
has only interm ittently emerged.)
even a warmth, absent from most others.
And in this man-made carnage, Jancsó
C habrol’s streak of five films is extraordi
Szegénylegények { The Round Up, 1965) is
takes no sides. In E giBarany {Agnus Dei, 1972), for example, the opposing forces are not even
nary: the delicate sexual and cinem atic games
boldly stylistic in conveying the horrors man
of Les Biches, the coolly elegant examination
bestows on others for political or class gain (if
identified.13 In The Red and the White, when a
of marital betrayal in La Femme Infidèle ( 1969),
not just from stupidity). Csend és Kiáltás (S i
Cossack member of a White unit rapes a peas
the sage adaptation of Nicholas Blake in Que la
lence and Cry, 1968) is chilling in its simple
ant girl, the W hite officers swiftly execute him,
Bête Meure, the sheer perfection of Le Boucher
evocation of the pressures that lead to mur
yet later one sees Red soldiers molest women
(1970), with its shatteringly poignant ending,
der.12
without the slightest protest.
and Juste avant la N uit (1971), a crystallinely
One wonders,
But it is The Red and the White, with a
indeed, why the Soviets helped fund this film
serene look at the bourgeoisie’s need to con
graceful poeticism and the stunning black and
for there is nothing in it to please a communist
fess guilt, which closes with the bleak, “Bring on the night.”
white (by Tamás Somló), that makes it the
ideologue.
visually richest. Set in the USSR of 1918, Jancsó
[NB: Originally screened at the Melbourne Film
Que la Bête Meure is selected here for the
again creates an unbearably tense world where
Festival. Also shown on SBS, but it suffers dra
dazzling employment of aspects of the detec
individuals are defenceless, unsure for even a
tive genre (here a father assumes the tracking
second whether they will live for even a second
matically from the smallness of the screen and inappropriate cropping.]
role in bringing to justice the brute who ran over
more. Yet in this utter hopelessness many find
his son) to examine forms of guilt and bonding.
the strength and will to survive.
Most powerful is the realization of individual
Again mounted cavalry ride in dramatically
responsibility, the aggrieved father having per
from the sides of frame, drifting out of sight and
haps willed the brute’s son to fratricide and thus
re-appearing with frightening suddenness.
sailing out to sea to give up his own life and
Again the camera moves on tracks that twist
‘release’ the boy. The tripartite collaboration of Chabrol, di rector of photography Jean Rabier and editor Jacques Gaillard has resulted in a craft level of
and circle back, leaving one as unsure of where one has been (or is going) as one is of a moral centre. Jancsó’s portrayal of war is unique for its
such sophistication and wit that one can only
insistence on the arbitrary. The terrifyingly ran
delight in it. More important, meaning comes
dom way officers pick out enemy soldiers for
expressly from that which separates cinema
execution contrasts pointedly with the way most
from literature, as when Chabrol morally 'bonds’
American directors preferthe really bad guys to
Charles and Philippe not with dialogue or ac
die - or, for sentimental reasons, the odd good
tion but an arcing camera movement (a Chabrol
one. They like to believe there is a God over
stylistic). One could analyze the script of this
seeing and even structuring the insanity of war;
film and come up puzzled as to individual cul
Jancsó knows better and his evocation of a
pability, but the filmmaking itself makes the
morally-destitute battleground is all the more harrowing for it.
meanings precisely clear. [NB: Released theatrically and shown on SBS.]
Jancsó well understands de Sade’s maxim about having to repress people in order to
/"
10
V
_y
CSILLAGOSOK KATONAK (THE RED AND THE WHITE)
stripped of their clothes and their dignity, made
M IK L Ô S JA N C S Ô , 1967
to perform pointless actions and have drained
Jancsô is perhaps the cinem a’s most individu a lis tic s ty lis t,
ha vin g cre a te d a uniq ue
filmmaking language. He brilliantly recounts important moments of East European history with an ambivalence as shifting as his everaltering camera perspectives. Since many of Jancso’s films touch similar themes, and utilize similar cinematic patterning, selecting one is somewhat arbitrary. IgyJottem {M y Way Home, 1964) has a casual gentleness,
oppress them. That is why they are continually
from them any desire to live. In an early scene of The Red and the White, captured Red sol diers are given a chance to escape a disused monastery. But when most are soon caught in adead-end lane, they meekly allowthem selves to be neatly marshalled and lined up to be shot. Or there is the even more poetic image of a riderless horse galloping backwards and for wards through a stone archway as a cavalry man rides past.
LE SAMOURAI J E A N -P IE R R E M E L V IL L E , 1967
Yet another purist masterpiece, Le S am ouraiis Melville’s finest and coolest film. With few words, an obsessive attention to detail and a perfectly judged mise en scène, Melville has created the film about that B-film icon, the solitary killer (“There is no deeper loneliness than the sam ourai’s, except the tiger’s in the jungle ... perhaps”). Le Samourai absolutely delights in its own iconography: Henri Decaè’s subtle lighting, the blue-grey colour scheme, the trenchcoat with upturned collar and speckless hat, the loner whose actions and words convey nothing of his soul - there are only his eyes, at times empty, at others so sensitive. Some have called Melville Bressonian (to which he loved to retort, “ It’s Bresson who has always been M elvillian”14), and one can easily see why in Le Samourai. Similar stylistics ap ply: each image is emptied of meaning, so that it can accrue only from the juxtaposition of images; the actors don’t act but simply exist without attempting to impart significance other than through gesture; sound and light convey only what the meaning requires and all else must be excised (or goes to black). This juxtaposition of images is well illus trated by the way Melville signals his samourai’s decision to commit suicide. When Jeff (Alain Delon) first visits the nightclub to commit a murder, he keeps his car engine running. Near the end, after a scene with his loverthat speaks
ABOVE: LEFT: THE M A X IM U M A N D THE M IN IM U M : VER O N IK A (FRANÇOISE LEBRUN). JEAN EUSTACHE'S THE MOTHER A N D THE WHORE. RIGHT: THE WIFE (VIVIEN
tionshlps. It is to Eustache’s great credit that in
ACCIDENT
this epic meditation he totally avoids the pre
J O S E P H L O S E Y , 1967
MERCHANT), THE GIRL (JACQUELINE SASSARD) A N D THE
dictable literalness of much modern cinema.
HUSBAND (DIRK BOGARDE) IN JOSEPH LOSEY'S ACCIDENT.
So, when Veronika (Françoise Lebrun) makes
Of the Losey-Pinter collaborations, this is the
her extraordinarily powerful declaration of self-
most perfectly realized; in fact, it is one of the
BELOW: A M A N CRIES; TERRY M CKAY (IRENE D U N N ) WIPES A TEAR A W AY FROM THE FACE OF MICHEL MARNET (CHARLES BOYER). LEO MCCAREY'S LOVE AFFAIR.
determination at the end, it is full of contradic
least flawed films made in English (and only if
(FRAME ENLARGEMENT).
tions, of emotional and verbal extremity (cf. the
that dog hadn’t run towards camera in the last
number of times she says “maximum” and
shot ...,6).
volumes from its minimal words, Jeff pulls up again atthe nightclub. Melville dollies in slightly as Jeff turns off the car’s ignition; nothing more need be said. As for M elville’s purist approach, this can be seen in his narrative use of the small bird Jeff keeps at his barren flat (stocked only with a medicine kit, stacks of Gaulois and rows of mineral water bottles). When the police break in and plant a bug, the frightened bird flies frantically about its cage. By the time Jeff re turns, the bird’s alarm is such that he realizes instictively his flat has been tampered with. When he returns even later, the bird’s still greater fright makes Jeff suspect someone Is hiding in his flat. And ail of this is completely wordless and silent, save for the relentless chirping of the bird. At the end of the scene, having overpow ered his would-be assailant, Jeff leaves. He looks back at the caged and frantic bird. Will he release it? Will his eyes bespeak some com passion or thanks? No, just emotional silence. This is as chilling as cinema gets. [NB: Released theatrically, In a full version re combined by its Australian distributor, Bob Ward. Seen also on SBS.]
S'
12
LA MAMAN ET LA PUTAIN (THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE) JE A N E U S T A C H E , 1973
Jean Eustache has quickly become the forgot ten genius of 1970s cinema. The M other and the W hore, at 219 minutes, is the definitive portrait of a particularly Parisian lifestyle, where verbalizing emotions is more revered than ex periencing them, where sexuality takes on the meaningless abstraction of endless coffees and Pernods atthe innumerable sidewalk cafés. Eustache sets up a series of extremes, be it the
m oralistics of the love-versus-sex de
bate, the nature of cinema as compared to a perhaps less encodable reality or the con straints on behaviour within conventional rela20
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
“minimum”), of Irrational denunciation. Truth is
Some critics (especially the French) tend to
not sacrificed on the trivializing altar of struc
prefer Losey’s last American and early British
tural ‘neatness’.15
work, but for all their lucid moments these films
Shot In stark 16mm black and white by that
are incomplete works, often roughly-hewn.
brilliant director of photography, Pierre Lhomme
Arguably, only Time Without Pity (1957) works
(who also shot Four Nights of a Dreamer), this
overall (along perhaps with the more minor but
is cinema at its most unadorned. Eustache
charming Blind Date, 1959). The French also
uses a record number of fades to and out of
have great affection for The Go-Between (1971),
black to cut away the filler directors usually use
which doesn’t reward re-viewing, and Mr. Klein
to keep a plot moving. Here, Eustache will fade
(1976), the other “Reel Pleasures” candidate
in to someone lying on a bed listening to a Piaf
from Losey, and the best fictionalized account
record then fade out at the end. No context is
of French culpability in the Occupation.
insisted upon, no words spoken to unnecessar
Then there is Accident, the de finitive
ily explicate. The emotional meaning of such a
analysis of male ‘m enopause’ and how, as in
scene is all and Eustache has faith in his
Ingmar Bergman’s Det Sjunde Inseglet (The
audience to perceive it. This is cinema envis
Seventh Seal, 1957), the educated and wise do
aged and ennobled by a purist.
not necessarily have many answers. Here an
[NB: Rarely screened since original release.]
ethics lecturer (Dirk Bogarde) shows little un-
derstanding of where and how to draw bounda
A U TH O R ’ S
ries in his personal life, ‘raping’ a female student (Jacqueline Sassard), playing childishly com petitive games with his best friend (Stanley Baker), and lying to his wife (Vivien Merchant) and others. Losey, who is sometimes a baroque and unsubtle director, is in scintillatingly precise form here, inspired no doubt by Pinter’s spare dialogue and dram atic ellipses. Every frame of the film is true, played by one of the most perfect casts ever assembled (save the unfor tunate Jacqueline Sassard, who looks correct but is not a natural actress) and sensitively captured by Gerry Fisher who records every subtle shift of light - just as the soft sun drifts behind a wispy cloud, so do finer bursts of
N O T E
Following these films, the list continues: 15. La
Rodzinne (Family Life, Krzysztof Zanussi, 1971),
Gueule Ouverte ( The Mouth Wide Open, Maurice
Cadaveri Eccellenti (Illustrious Corpses/The
Pialat, 1974) 16. II Conformista (The Conform
Context, Francesco Rosi, 1976), La Joven ( The
ist, Bernardo Bertolucci, 1969)17. Andrei Rublev
Young One, Luis Buñuel, 1961), Nattvards-
(Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966) 18. Goto, Tiled A m our
gàsterna(W inter Light, Ingmar Bergman, 1962),
(Goto, Island o f Love, Walerian Borowczyk,
K a in g e ri
1969) 19. Zavtra Byla Vojna ( The Day Before
Yoshida,1973), She Worea Yellow Ribbon (John
the War Started/Tomorrow There Was a War,
Ford, 1949), Point Blank (John Boorman, 1967),
(C o u p
d ’E ta t,
Y o s h is h ig e
Jurij Kara, 1987) 20. El Sur (The South, Victor
W alkabout(Nicolas Roeg, 1971), M arnie(Alfred
Erice, 1983)
Hitchcock, 1964), L ’Avventura (Michelangelo
Near misses include (among many others):
Antonioni, 1960), Cu/-cfe-sac(Roman Polanski,
Pyat’ Vecherov(Five Evenings, Nikita Mikhalkov,
1966) and Lassie Come Home (Fred M. Wilcox,
1980), La Kermesse Héroïque (Jacques Feyder,
1943).
1935), Charulata (Satyajit Ray, 1964), Zycie
emotion slip behind deceitful facades. So accurate is A ccid en ts portrayal of the game-playing English that many believed Losey to be English-born. But like Nicolas Roeg’s poetic exploration of Australia ( Walkabout, 1971), Accident is testim ony to how foreign direc tors can render a culture’s essences with a clarity rarely displayed by its native filmmakers. [NB: Released theatrically and shown on televi sion.]
LOVE AFFAIR LE O M c C A R E Y , 1939
This is the greatest of the American romantic comedy-dramas, brilliantly scripted (by Delmer Daves and Donald Ogden Stewart) and with inspired direction by the great Leo McCarey. The scene where Michel (Charles Boyer) and Terry (Irene Dunne) visit his aged G rand mother (Maria Ouspenskaya) is one of the cinema’s most heart-rending. The two key closeups of Michel (one in the chapel and another by the piano) bespeak emotions and premonitions no words can define. As for the reconciliation, it is both intensely m oving and sta rtlin g ly brave. W ould any American film m aker today dare to play it with the two characters pretending to have swapped places in a recounting of a love rendezvous missed? Would an American audience of today understand it? Also utterly rem arkable is M cCarey’s closing his film on a close two-shot of a man crying. How often has that happened in cinema? How often have men been accorded such sensitivities? But then, as Jean Renoir said, “Leo McCarey is one of the few directors in Hollywood who understands human beings.”17 McCarey remade the film many years later as An A ffa ir to Remember (1957), with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. The script is almost the same, and shot after shot matches the original. But it is, in important ways, a quite different film. For one, it is less overtly senti mental (in that intelligently stylized 1930s way), but it is also marginally less powerful and the ‘ad-libbing’ is at times a touch forced. But, like its predecessor, and several others by this director (Duck Soup, 1933; Ruggies of Red Gap, 1935; Make Way for Tomorrow and The A w ful Truth, 1937; et al), it is a cinema classic. [NB: A regular on television. An Affair to Re
NOTES
1.
The Top Ten without provisos would be: Quatre Nuits d’un Rêveur, Pickpocket, L'Argent, Un Condamné à Mort s'est échappé (ou le Vent souffle où il veut), Le Journal d ’un Curé de Campagne, Mouchette, Le Procès de Jeanne d’Arc, Ordet (Dreyer), Le Diable Probablement, Une Femme Douce and Lilith (Rossen). Les Anges du Péché has not been sighted, though the ‘lost’ Les Affaires Publiques (1934) has (thanks to Mike Campi). 2. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “White Nights”, in Notes From Underground, translated by Andrew R. MacAndrew, New American Library, New York, 1961, p. 61. 3. For example, Dreyer sets up a plane which he shoots and tracks against, as if the interior of the house is made of only one wall. But then he realigns that seemingly immutable perspective by following a character’s unexpected move ment, and begins again, an adjacent wall be coming the new plane. It is easy to see why the critic-filmmaker Paul Schrader finds Dreyer’s work so worthy of exploration and homage. 4. Lilith, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1961. This is unbelievably scarce. There was also a Heinemann edition (1962), also extremely rare. 5. Thought to have been quoted in Rui Nogueira, Melville on Melville, Seeker and Warburg, London, 1971. However, a glance through the first edition failed to reveal it. So, any ideas where? 6. Most particularly, the censors disapproved of Lilith’s lesbian relationship with Yvonne. 7. Coutard: “I am convinced that Godard is trying to explain something to his wife in Le Mépris. It’s a sort of le tte r- one that’s costing [co-producer Georges de] Beauregard a million dollars.” Quoted in review of Le Mépris by Philip Strick, Monthly Film Bulletin, July 1970, p. 141. This view of their relationship is supported by Godard’s next film, Bande à Part (1964), which films Karina so lovingly, but she is quite disin terested in the rhapsodic gaze. 8. See Jacques Aumont, “The fall of the gods: Jean-Luc Godard’s Le Mépris (1963)”, in Susan Hayward and Ginette Vincendeau (Eds), French Film: Texts and Contexts, Routledge, London and New York, 1990, p. 227. 9. Nudity was the problem here; specifically, Bardot’s bottom. 10. One ‘revelation’ of Jacquot de Nantes is that Demy was a glorious painter. One hopes that an exhibition may soon be forthcoming. 11. As Father Mapple in Huston’s MobyDick(1956).
12. Jancsó has made many other major films, in cluding Sirocco (1969), Fényes Szelek (The Confrontation, 1969), Agnus Dei, Még Kér a Nép ( Red Psalm, 1971), Vizi Privati, Pubbliche Virtù (Private Vices, Public Virtues, 1976), Magyar Rapszódia (Hungarian Rhapsody, 1978), Allegro Barbaro (1979) and A Zsarnok Szive, avagy Boccaccio Magyarorszàgon (A Tyrant’s Heart, or Boccaccio in Hungary, 1981). One would like to comment on his work of the past ten years, but festival directors have not been interested and SBS shows only the early ones. 13. Some might think an exception to this is the ending where a small group of Red soldiers nobly marches to certain death at the hands of thousands of White soldiers. It is certainly very moving, but there is nothing in the way Jancsó handles this scene that suggests a greater affinity for the Reds than the Whites. In fact, as his films eloquently testify, Jancsó’s interest is in people, not ideologies. 14. Quoted in Nogueira, op cit, p.27. 15. A modern comparison can be made with Ridley Scott’s Thelma & Louise (1991 ), which verita bly numbs by its all-too-neat, literal insistence. Here characters go on paths of discovery so straight-mapped, with so little ambiguity or human inconsistency, as to render the results predictable and tedious. An obvious example among many is how, at the start of the film, Thelma (Geena Davis) puts an unlit cigarette in her mouth (and, yes, in case you missed it, scriptwriter Callie Khouri tosses in some dia logue to help you catch the drift). Then, at film’s end, Thelma, having found a new self, lights her cigarette. Had that one detail been all Scott had used to convey his character’s progress, it might have been effective. But it is merely one in a deadening overload. 16. As Losey reprises the off-camera sounds of the car crash that began the film (over the same composition of the house, though at dusk), some viewers have felt the dog, which runs to and behind the camera, has caused another crash. This is clearly not what Losey intended. The problem was that the dog refused to go in the front door before Bogarde closed it and, ratherthan having a stray dog wandering round his impeccable last shot, Losey made the in stantaneous decision to call the dog to him. And so can meaning so quickly change ... 17. Quoted in the McCarey entry in Ephraim Katz, The International Film Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Press, London, 1980, p. 748.
member is available for sale on video.] CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
21
TH E
I N T E RV
W BY
LESLIE HALLIWELL ONCE WROTE OF BLAKE EDWARDS, “A MAN OF MANY TALENTS, ALL OF THEM MINOR.” THIS IS PERHAPS THE STANDARD VIEW OF EDWARDS AMONG MANY
RAFFAELE
CAPUTO
certainly represents the generation of old-school auteurists, yet is still working in today’s Hollywood with relative independence and integrity. His latest Film, Switch, starring Ellen Barkin and Jimmy Smits, is the story of a man who becomes a woman, but not by his own volition. However it may be received, publicly and critically, there’s enough evidence to show his career is not about to end. But even if it were, as though Edwards could be analogous to a blazing comet on the verge of burning out, then it is apt to quote from S.O.B., “But ah my foes, and oh my friends, it gives a lovely light.”
CRITICS, PARTICULARLY ANGLO-AMERICAN. HE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS SOMEONE WHO SHOWED A GREAT DEAL OF PROMISE EARLY
Role reversals and confusion over sexual identity are not uncom mon features of your films. Do you think you have exhausted the possibilities with Switch?
IN HIS CAREER BUT MID-WAY THROUGH HAD SOMEHOW RUN OUT OF CREATIVE ENERGY. BUT CONSIDERING HIS CAREER GOES AS FAR BACK AS 1947, WELL WITHIN THE STUDIO-ERA OF HOLLYWOOD, AND HAS DEALT WITH AN INDUSTRY TH A T AT BEST CAN BE DESCRIBED AS VOLATILE, EDWARDS HAS PROVED TO BE A MOST DURABLE FILMMAKER. THIS IS MADE EVERMORE SHARPER GIVEN THE NEAR-CATASTROPHIC RESULT STUDIO INTERVENTION ON DARLING LILI AND THE WILD ROVERS HAD UPON HIS CAREER IN THE EARLY 1970S. FACING PAGE: DIRECTOR BLAKE EDWARDS DURING THE FILMING OF SWITCH.
I probably have in terms of emphasis, of doing a whole film about it. These kinds of things might crop up again, but only incidentally, and not as the major portion of a film. In my early ones they turn up as well, so maybe they’re evolutionary. But I am not really a student of my own films. People tell me these sorts of things are there, and I say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” I suppose they do crop up to some degree, if I can rely on the critics. There has been a couple of books written, but I can’t remember the names of the authors off-hand.*1 To use the title of the song from DarlingLili - “Whistling in the Dark” - your characters emerge from the darkness, literally and meta phorically, since they are in the dark about their sexual identities. So what is Steve Brooks (Perry King) in the dark about or, for that matter, Amanda (Ellen Barkin)? That’s a very interesting question. I don’t know that they are in the dark before the transition is made. He doesn’t have any problems initially and knows pretty much who he is. But when he becomes her, she is certainly in the dark about a lot of feminine things. H e/ she has to learn. Because it is convoluted, I guess you could say that he is very much in the dark throughout the whole film, to one degree or another, as to what women are about. It takes becoming a woman to find that out. That’s the way I would describe it. One really isn’t sure where to draw the line, but a central moment in Switch is when Amanda is about to make love to Sheila Faxton (Lorraine Bracco), but doesn’t. It is pointed out that she might be homophobic, but actually it’s Steve who is.
22
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Yes, I think Brooks is very much homophobic before the change happens. He is an insensitive womanizer and as unpleasant as I could make him, short of turning him into a serial killer. He’s a man who suddenly becomes a woman and has to struggle with that situation. He is homophobic to the degree that, even though he is in a woman’s body and is faced with the possibility of having an affaire with Sheila, which at first is interesting to him because he regards it as a kind of masculine prerogative, he’s saying, “What the hell, I have a woman’s body. I’m still a man in my head, so I’ll have no problem. I’ll just lay her and that will be that.” But when he gets right down to it, the homophobia that he suffers from is so great that he can’t manage it.
The curious thing about Sivitch is the unlikely combination of highenergy “feel” (like in Blind Date) and probing a darker mood (That’s Life ). In your later films, dark elements creep in at unexpected points. What you’re saying is absolutely true. It has that probing element, but it’s neither the high-content nor high-energy type; it’s a little of both. I can’t talk too much about it, but I like to feel that people think not whether they’re good or bad, but that they evolve. Again, whatever I do has some evolution to it and it’s moving ahead. I don’t know whether “ahead” is correct, but it doesn’t stay static, anyway. There is a dark side to this film, no doubt about it.
Edwards
ABOVE: LEFT: WALTER STONE (JIM M Y SMITS) A N D A M A N D A BROOKS (ELLEN BARKIN). CENTRE: LORRAINE BRACCO AS SHEILA FAXTO N. RIGHT: WALTER, A M A N D A AN D ARNOLD FREIDKIN (TO NY ROBERTS). BLAKE EDWARDS' SWITCH.
Is it related to the fact that, although your films have a central figure, you are not so much concerned with establishing a sense of individu alism as with the relationships of a group of people? The individual is important, but not as a beacon in that unit, rather as someone who sets off those relations, or structures, to see what is the social embroidery. As you’re making these observations, I’m trying to adjust to them and ask myself, “How true is that?” I know you have a point, definitely, because there is a very strong social point-of-view in my films, and maybe to the exclusion of the characters somewhat. I have been trying to think of other films, and something like Victor/Vic toria, which certainly talks a lot about role playing and things to do with social-sexual roles, is a very strong character-driven piece. Since then, however, the character-driven aspect is maybe less discernible. I don’t know. It’s hard to respond because, while I recognize what you are saying, I don’t recognize it so strongly that I can really address myself to it without a lot of thought. It’s so fucking hard trying to. I mean, I enjoy an interview like this because it provokes me a little. Well, looking back to some pivotal films in your career, Experiment in Terror and Days of Wine and Roses represent a radical departure from thefype of films you were making previously. It’s interesting because I always believed for quite awhile that one did/H’t necessarily have to be typecast as a director. I probably predicated that opinion on the fact that I did get for those films you’ve mentioned, and certainly for Wine and Roses, some high de gree of praise as a “serious”filmmaker. That’sjust to use a word. Not that I believe comedy can’t be serious, because it is very serious at times. Strangely enough, and I don’t know whose fault it is, whether mine or the industry’s, I seemed to be pushed into the mould of 24
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
being a comedy director. And it’s a very, very tough industry at times for a filmmaker to try something else in. I have just finished a script which is a very dark piece. I was quite excited about it, naively so. I gave it to my agent and he didn’t care for it; he sort of suggested what I should do next or can do next. In other words, if he were to go out and sell me in the marketplace, he wouldn’t have a chance of selling me for one of those films. I felt myself getting really pissed off. I always believe, as Billy Wilder said, ‘You’re as good as the best thing you’ve ever done.” And I think some of the best things I’ve ever done have been, if not a whole film, then moments of very serious stuff. I hope so, anyway. So, I resent the fact that what my agent said might be true. It makes me really irritable, if not angry, because right now in my career I’m infinitely more important in Europe than I am in the States. I can undoubtedly go to any number of European countries and make films until I can’t get out of my wheelchair. Why do you think that might be? I don’t know. You naturally tend to say, “Well, it’s because Europe ans are less smart or more discerning than us.” You find yourself playing that little game, which is not good. The only thing I have been able to come up with is that it seems Europeans are more interested in filmmaking. They are more interested in the process of making a film, and in the people, in the auteurists. When I am interviewed by the European press, as opposed to the American, or even when I talk to people in Europe who may not have anything to do with the industry, but are film-goers, they really seem to know so much more about it. They don’tjust go and sit there. I’m sure some do, but there’s an awful lot who seem to be interested in film and the people who make them. They can be just as discerning about something they don’t like as what entertains them. In the States, there is a kind of spoon-full-of-sugar mentality. People go to be entertained. How the film got there, and what is behind it, is really of no consequence to them.
“ In -the S t a t e s , th e r e is a kind of spoonfullof-sugar m e n ta lity . P eo p le go to be e n te r ta in e d . H ow th e film got: th e r e , and what: is behind it, is really of no c o n s e q u e n c e to th e m
I
I really can’t figure it out, unless somehow I’ve become Euro pean by osmosis. I’ve spent so much time living in Europe and I’m married to an English lady [Julie Andrews], so maybe I am uncon sciously more European. It’s possible. Your next pivotal film was probably Gunn, more than anything else because of the dialogue. Take the exchanges between Peter Gunn (Craig Stevens) and Jacobi (EdAsner) in the opening sequence, for example: the dialogue is sublime. I don’t remember the sequence that well. What I can say is that I came out of radio, where all you had was dialogue. I also grew up on Sam Spade and the Dashiell Hammett genre, which I truly love. I don’t know how, but somehow I gleaned a little of that for myself. Although these days we are able to tell very good stories and make some wonderful films without much dialogue, we’re forget ting that there are theatrics involved in what we do. I enjoy the theatrics. But with such an emphasis on naturalism - and there’s nothing wrong with that - somehow the theatricality is lost. I’m delighted that you feel that way about Gunn. Itwasnotafilm I had intended to do. It was a kind of low-budget movie my company was supposed to do. I had written the script, and then I had to step in and replace the director. It turned out to be great fun.
So, for me anyway, there is a part of it that is a wonderfully disfigured beast. It has such “interesting” mood changes, the things you were talking about. But, on top of that, it’s hard for me to even describe. If it had been done today, it would have won, or certainly been nominated for, a number of Academy Awards, like cinematog raphy. Look at the original print of that film: show me somebody from that year that even came close to that kind of cinematography. We worked so hard to get such wonderful things from a great cast, the sound recording and particularly the art direction and cos tumes. There is no doubt in mind that film deserved half a dozen Academy Awards, leaving me aside. If they had allowed me to do certain things that I wanted to do, I am absolutely positive it would have been a commercial success. But they just destroyed it. Yet there still seems to be enough left there to make me sad. So, it seems, they really didn’t destroy it completely. But I wish they had guttered it totally. S. O.B. is a most damning and dark film. No one or nothing gets away unscathed, except the dog.
Of all your other films, Darling Lili is probably the most intricately devised in terms of the way the appearances of the characters keep switching: is this a mask or the real person?
That was a result of Darling Lili and another film I felt was the best I had ever done and which I had to let the studio completely destroy. It was called Wild Rovers, a film I loved dearly. If you have to see that film, please get a hold of the long version. It’s closer to the version I wanted. And if people do see it, I’d love to hear from people, just to hear what they think about it. I truly mean that.2
That’s very interesting. Darling Lili is one of those films that drives me crazy, because it came to represent a major turning point in my personal life and my career working for a major studio. Unfortu nately, I didn’t have final cut, and my prerogatives were usurped by a new regime that moved in. It’s an old story by now and people around me are kind of tired of hearing it. I tried to do certain things with that film which I think would have made it a much, much better movie.
The slapstick tradition is very strong in your films. Possibly because of that, a good deal of critics, as you said earlier, tend to slot you into a light-weight category. But a good deal of your comedy is highly sophisticated. For example, when King Marchand (James Gamer) in Victor/Victoria discovers that Victor (Julie Andrews) is actually a woman, even though he is secure in his own heterosexuality, he is actually hiding inside a closet. It’s a very sophisticated, subtle kind of humour that makes us laugh at ourselves, at our fears. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
< 25
Edwards
ABOVE: LEFT: JULIE ANDREWS AS LILI IN BLAKE EDWARDS' D ARLING LIU. RIGHT: THE RESULT OF M U D O N YOUR SHOE: BLAKE EDWARDS' THE PARTY.
I don’t think that was my intention. I don’t set out to say, “Okay, I’m going to make my audience laugh at things.” What I set out to do is exercise my own demons, to make myself laugh at things which, to one degree or another, represent other people. That’s the way I approach it, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Youjust don’t use a gag and throwit away, you really milk it. The Party, for instance, even though it has been described as episodic, is really one continuous gag from the moment Hrundi V. Baksi (Peter Sellers) comes through the door with mud on his shoe. I’d love to talk about that. I learned that technique through a very famous director named Leo McCarey. I was a writer then working for him and he taught me a lot. We’d sit and he would talk about how filmmakers had lost the art of the visual joke. One time he was describing to me a scene in one of his early tworeelers where a young man sees a girl off on a streetcar. In those days in Los Angeles, the streetcars had fixed steps. So, she’s up in the car and h e’s standing in the road, talking to her. The streetcar begins to move and he begins to walk. The streetcar gets faster and he’s walking faster and faster. Eventually, he begins to run alongside the streetcar and it is going so fast that the steps flip him through 180 degrees and he lands on the street. That would be thejoke today. But not then, however. Now he has the problem of getting out of the way of traffic. And when he landed, his hat flew off and all of his things fell out of his pocket. So he has to not only dodge the traffic, he also has to retrieve these various things. The best way to do that, he figures, is to put everything in his hat. When he’s done that, dodging traffic all the time, he gets back and sits down on the kerb. A lady then comes by and drops a quarter in his hat. That’s the end of thejoke. I’ve always remembered that story and, whenever I do a joke, I always investigate to see if there is a topper, and, if there is, a topper to the topper. And that was what we did with The Party. It is very in novative and I love it. ■ 26
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
1. The books are William Luhr and Peter Lehman’s Blake Edwards, Ohio University Press, Athens-London, 1981, and their updated and revised ver sion, Returning to the Scene: Blake Edwards Vol. 2, Ohio University Press, Athens-London, 1989. 2. The long version is available on video in the U.S., but not in Australia. Edwards, however, has graciously offered to send over a copy. BLAKE
EDWARDS:
FILMOGRAPHY
AS DIRECTOR: 1955 He Laughed Last - also writer; Bring Your Smile Along- also writer; 1956 Mr Cory - also writer; 1958 This Happy Feelingalso writer; The PerfectFurlough- also writer; 1959 Operation Petticoat', 1960 High Time ; 1961 Breakfast at Tiffany’s ; 1962 Experiment in Terror - also producer; 1962 Days of Wine and Roses; 1963 ThePink Panther- also writer; 1964 A Shot in the Dark-also writer, producer; 1965 The Great Race—also writer; 1966 What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?-also writer, producer; 1967 Gunn-also writer, producer; 1968 TheParty-also writer, producer; 1969 Darling Lili - also writer, producer; 1971 Wild Rovers - also writer, producer; 1972 The Carey Treatment; 1974 The Tamarind Seed—also writer; 1975 The Return ofthe Pink Panther -also writer, producer; 1976 The Pink PantherStrikesAgain-also writer, producer; 1978 Revenge ofthePink Panther - also writer, producer; 1979 “10”- also writer, producer; 1980 S.O.B. also writer, producer; 1981 Victor/Victoria - also writer, producer; 1982 The Trail of the Pink Panther- also writer, producer; 1982 The Curse of the Pink Panther - also writer, producer; 1983 The Man Who Loved Women also writer, producer; 1984 Micki and Maude, 1985 AFineMess- also writer; That’s Life - also writer; 1986 Blind Date; 1987 Sunset- also writer; 1988 Justin Case (tele-feature) - also writer; 1989 Skin Deep- also writer; 1989 Peter Gunn (tele-feature) - also writer; 1991 Switch - also writer ALSO: 1947 Panhandle -writer, producer, actor; 1948 Stampede- writer, producer; 1952 Sound O ff-writer; Rainbow ’Round My Shoulder--writer, All Ashore - writer; 1953 Cruisin’Down the River - writer; 1954 Drive a Crooked Road - writer; 1955 My Sister Eileen - writer; 1957 Operation Mad Ball-writer, 1962 The Notorious Landlady -writer; 1963 Soldier in theRain -writer, producer; 1967 Waterhole Three - producer
SOUNDTRACKS
BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON SOLICITORS
NE W & U N U S U A L S O U N D T R A C K RECORDI NGS FROM OUR LARGE RA NG E
‘L a w y e r s W ith V i s i o n ’
Backdraft • Hans Zimmer • $28.00 Rocketeeer • James Horner • $30.00 The Sound & The Fury • Alex North • $30.00 Citizen Kane • Bernard Herrman • $28.00*
A lot of lawyers don’t understand the motion picture business. We do...
[*N ew recording by the Australian Philharmonic] Soapdish • Alan Silvestri • $28.00 Terminator 2: Judgment Day • Brad Fredel • $28.00
Our Entertainment Group provides advice on:
Ryan's Daughter / El Cid / Hang 'em High Complete scores • $30.00
♦ Financing films and TV projects
Words & Music / Belle of New York / Deep In My Heart
♦ TV network negotiations
The Pirate / Two Weeks With Love / I Love Melvin
♦ Cast and crew contracts
Complete Soundtracks • $30.00
READINGS
* SOUTH
♦ Distribution and pre-sale arrangements ♦ Management and sponsorship
YARRA
♦ Copyright ♦ Taxation ♦ Broadcasting
OPEN 7 DAYS A WEEK
and all other related areas.
153 TOORAK ROAD • 867 1885 • BOOKS /LPS/ CDS/CASSETTES 73-75 DAVIS AVENUE • 866 5877 • SECONDHAND LPS/ CDS/CASSETTES
We have an international base and practice.
OTHER STORES
C o n tact: P a u la P aiz es, J o h n K e n c h o r J a c k F o r d
366 LYGON STREET CARLTON 347 7473 • 269 GLENFERRIE ROAD MALVERN 509 1952 710 GLENFERRIE ROAD HAWTHORN 819 1917 MAILORDER • P 0 BOX 482 SOUTH YARRA VIC. 3141
225
G eorge St , S yd n ey
NSW 2000
T el:
(02) 258 6000
Fa x :
(02) 258 6999
S yd n ey ♦ M elbourne ♦ Brisbane ♦ Perth ♦ C anberra Lo n d o n ♦ S in g a p o r e ♦ Port M oresby ♦ Ja ka r ta (A s so c O ffice)
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
27
J OHN
In the previous issue of Cinema Papers, Helen Barlow wrote an overview of the Australian Film Finance Corporation. One of those interviewed for the article, John Morris, the FFC’s Chief Executive, has taken exception to various aspects and sent the following response. Barlow replies at the end, followed by a comment by the Editor. Where Morris quotes Barlow’s text, it is reproduced in bold. To aid in comprehension, sometimes more of a quoted sentence has been printed than the short excerpt used by Morris to identify a section.
AUSTRALIAN FILM FINANCE CORPORATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE JOHN MORRIS.
28
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
MORRIS
M O R R IS
REPLI ES
LETTER
Dear [Editor] Further to my letter of 16 August I [...] offer the following comments: Page 34 [...] many filmmakers are in the dark as to FFC proce dures. If so, it is not our fault. The FFC is at pains to explain its procedures. I have given many interviews on all aspects of the FFC’s operations, including the Film Fund. Investment Managers take telephone calls every day from prospective applicants want ing to discuss one aspect or another of their proposed produc tions or our funding attitudes in general. We have published guidelines which are updated every year. I am sure that despite all of this some people are confused, but I think the comment is unfair in that it implies secrecy on our part and blame. If this comment has been made by a filmmaker, I would suggest that the filmmaker has had, by choice or by genre of filmmaking, no direct contact with the FFC. The FFC is aiming for a self-sufficient industry [...] I did not say this. I have always stated, as has every document the FFC has ever authorized, that the Australian film and television industry will always need financial subsidy. The FFC’s stated aim is to reduce the am ount of subsidy required for each individual production so that the same am ount of subsidy will be able to support a larger production slate. [John Morris says that, after the heavily-funded 10BA period,] the industry needs 10 years to become market-driven. I did not say this. The FFC’s funding decisions are market-driven and have always been. What I said was that I believed it would take 10 years for a market-driven industry to reach its commercial potential. This is something quite different. The FFC finances documentaries and television drama, but most of its funding goes to feature films. Stated in our previous guidelines was our target for 45-55 per cent of our funding to go to feature films, 40-50 per cent to television drama and 10 per cent to documentaries. We eliminated these targets in our current guidelines (which refer to a balanced production slate). This year we are down on our television target because the difficulties commercial networks are experiencing have led to a reduction in drama and documentary commissions
ce Corporation and pre-sales; that has led to a reduction in available television and documentary projects, but this is contrary to our objectives. The above statement is quite misleading. Its procedures for features can be confusing [because different guidelines apply according to the ways projects are funded]. Who says? I do not believe any professional producer would agree with this. The FFC’s investment programme operates entirely on the basis of commercial risk. Not true. While commercial risk is a major factor it is not the only one. Others are: 1. Genre. We have different requirements for genre films (e.g., action-adventure, thrillers, etc.) from those productions which are less obviously market-driven; 2. Commercial and critical record of major participants; 3. Size of budget. A low-budget production will be treated differently from a high-budget one; and 4. Cultural remit. The government’s policy of support for the industry is based on cultural factors and this is reflected in the FFC’s contract with the Commonwealth which governs the conditions of its annual appropriations. Page 35 He [Morris] fails, however, to explain how they chose the “best films” [, when the FFC only considers commercialpotential.] I can only assume that the interviewer has misunderstood what I said. The statement is misleading since it implies that I failed to answer a question put to me when none was. [ War Crimes... producer Ron Rodger says, “The FFC gave a lot of support while the project was still afloat, but, when it fell apart,] they weren’t there when you needed them.” The FFC held open its financial commitment to War Crimes (thereby stopping any other production from using the money) for 15 months in order to give the producers time to tie down the deals they had promised. Eventually, when there was no further hope that the deal originally offered to us could be delivered and none other was put in its place, we had no option but to let our offer lapse. The money thus freed was immediately invested in another production which had managed to secure and deliver marketplace support. War Crimes, for example, was not permitted to apply to the Film Fund. War Crimes was submitted to the Film Fund but was withdrawn by the producers when we were sent a letter from Bill Bennett, the
director, informing us that he and the writer, Peter Carey, had not agreed to the film being included in the Fund and opposed the application. To imply that this was anything over which the FFC had control is misleading. To publish such a comment without either interrogating its author as to the details or giving the FFC an opportunity to answer the criticism is I consider irresponsible. [The $20 million Film Fund offers five films a budget of around $3.5 million,] with $5 million left over for FFC costs. The $5 million is not for FFC costs. It is the non-deductible items of the budget which include: 1. Legal costs; 2. Underwriting costs; 3. An allowance for market testing of the film at double-head stage; 4. An allowance for enhancem ent required by the producer as a result of such screenings, etc., etc.; and 5. Delivery and other marketing materials. All this is made quite clear in the Prospectus. [.-.. applications closed for the second Fund last October,] yet a final decision was not made until March. What does the word “yet” mean? I think it is reasonable to infer that there is some criticism about the length of time required to arrive at a final decision. Applications closed on 30 November and the final decision was taken and announced on 22 February. As is reported elsewhere, we had 178 applications. I personally worked over Christmas (and through my annual holidays), as did Moya Iceton, our external assessors and the Beyond executives. I think the implication that we somehow took longer than we should is unwarranted and unfair. Last year 178 scripts were submitted to the Fund and had to endure a number of assessment panels. The number was first cut to 50 by four outside assessors [(who ask to remain anonymous).] There was only one assessment panel - for the final short-list as the article itself reports. The assessors provided comments, but were not responsible for short-listing the projects. The FFC short-listed the scripts. It was a commercial consideration that all films appeal to the under-25 audience. This statement suggests that this was an essential selection crite rion: it was not. [One anonymous filmmaker ... said that:] “We were reduced to being contestants in a wheel of fortune [...]” CINEMA
PAPERS
85
■ 29
Apart from my dislike of anonymous criticism, I have a num ber of complaints about this quote. There was no wheel of fortune similarity. Every script was read and re-read, evaluated and de bated, and to imply that the selection process was arbitrary is a nonsense and gives no credit to the short-listed projects. Further, to suggest that there was some pre-decision to choose films about boys’ coming of age is not true. Such anonymous criticism is ignorant and mischievous and I consider it disreputable to pub lish it. As a matter of interest you may like to know that of the 178 scripts submitted, 145 were written by men, 8 were the result of male-female collaboration and 25 were written by women. Page 36 “As it happens [, none of the selected directors is particularly experienced]” This appears to follow on from the quote by the anonymous filmmaker on the previous page. It is I believe something that I said in response to your interviewer’s question “Why are all the people associated with this year’s Film Fund well-known, experi enced filmmakers?” I assume something has gone wrong in the typesetting. [Morris was disappointed with the overall standard of the scripts,] but says there were too many to cope with. I can only hope that this was not what your journalist wrote. The sentence consists of two separate and unrelated statements: 1. I was disappointed with the overall standard of the scripts; and 2. In response to your interviewer’s question as to why FFC employed outside readers, I said there were too many scripts for our limited internal resources to cope with adequately in a realistic time-frame so it was necessary to employ outside readers to help with grading of the scripts. Running the two unrelated statements together means some thing quite different and is I consider most damaging to the FFC and me personally. [...] the Film Fund aims for cultural integrity and only approves imported artists if deemed necessary on ethnic grounds. The FFC has approval rights over principal cast in the Film Fund but takes no position in regard to imports. The producer casts the film and seeks the FFC’s approval, which is always given if the casting is sympathetic and appropriate. It is the producer’s re sponsibility to obtain Actors Equity’s approval for imports. Eth nicity is one of Equity’s, not the FFC’s, criteria. [A recent issue of the film trade magazine, Encore (June 7-21), revealed that] a problem with The Delinquents’ distribution deal has resulted in the film’s not being released in the U.S. This is nonsense. Nothing in the Encore article says or implies this. [...] probably three [films from the second Trust Fund] will apply to Equity for international actors [to appear in leading roles.] I do not believe that more than two were ever contem plated by the various producers. As it turns out, I believe only one will apply. Page 37 [FFC Investment Manager Catriona Hughes says,] “The 30
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
most important thing is to make as much money as we can so that we have enough money to reinvest.” Catriona advised Helen Barlow that only I had the authority to speak in relation to the Fund. For this reason she has no recollec tion of exactly what she said. She denies having made this comment, although agrees something to this effect may have been said in a much more detailed discussion about the revenue implications of casting promotable names. [...] the FFC exists on the premise that the industry will eventually support itself [...] As I have said earlier it does not. This is absolutely incorrect. Page 39 Adams adds that Ellis’ “fantasy” of becoming a director [is not such a good move]. I do not wish to comment on any of Phillip Adams’ statements as reported in the article. I do, however, put it to you that it is unhelpful for Cinema Papers to publish this statement when Bob Ellis is on the point of directing the biggest and most im portant feature of his career. He is nervous enough as would any director be. He should not have to read such comments as this in a magazine that is supposed to be supporting the industry. Yours sincerely, John Morris Chief Executive B A R L O W
R E P L I E S
While researching an article on screenwriters earlier this year, the FFC constandy came up in interviews I was conducting. As a film journalist, my interviewees expected me to have the answers to such questions as, “Whatever happened to Turtle Beach?” and “Is Till There Was You as bad as I hear?” Since subsequent interviewees included John Morris, Phillip Adams and David Caesar, who all have various associations with the FFC, I decided to compile an overview of the organization, as much to soothe my own curiosity as anyone else’s. Cinema Papers was interested in publishing the article, but required further information on FFC-funded films. FFC Chief Executive John Morris informed me that I had to approach the individual producers of each film, even though the information I required was fairly basic (final budgets, release dates, box-office takings, casting, etc.). Luckily, the 1991 FFC Prospectus came out shortly before the article deadline and helped me in this regard, but not before I had spent several days on the telephone chasing up producers and directors. I ended up with a much larger story than I had bargained for. I twice telephoned Morris with additional questions, once while Catriona Hughes was in his office. She added her comments to the interview. (The FFC has a somewhat distancing telephone where you can be randomly spoken to by a num ber of people from across the room; I was.) In writing the article, I tried to synthesize the sentiments expressed by filmmakers from both sides - the winners and losers - but never too much to the detrim ent of the FFC or the career of
JOHN MORRIS: T h e re w a s no w h e e l o f fo rtu n e s im ila r ity . Every s c r ip t w a s read and re -re a d , e v a lu a te d and d e b a te d , and t o im ply t h a t t h e s e le c tio n p ro c e s s w a s a rb itra ry is a n o n s e n s e and g iv e s no c r e d it t o t h e s h o rt-lis te d p ro je c ts .
the quoted filmmaker. While much of the information in the article may seem common knowledge to professional filmmakers, I felt that the cinema enthusiasts and aspiring filmmakers who read Cinema Papers needed to be informed of the current methods for funding Australian film, especially now that the FFC logo is appearing on film credits. The overall response to my article has been that it presented a balanced view of the FFC procedures. While Morris constantly rem inded me that too much muck-raking would be detrimental to the FFC and the future of the industry, I believe that publicly discussing film funding is surely more constructive than the conspiracies developed under 10BA. These are the things people are saying, whether Morris likes it or not; the stories are only made bigger because they are not discussed. So many people are whinging, who knows what to believe? I think a book could one day be written on industry talk generated from the production of Turtle Beach, for instance. In his letter, Morris appears to be overly defensive at my attem pt to explain FFC funding procedures in reader-friendly terms. And I was always careful to veer away from personal criticism. (The com m ent regarding Bob Ellis, while stated by Phillip Adams, is shared by many a filmmaker on the basis of Ellis’ two previous efforts as director.) If Morris felt misrepresented in my article, he has had his right of reply. While I apologize for the two lines on page 36 beginning “Morris was disappointed”, which should have gone at the top of the page, I do however deny any inaccuracies in direct quotes. As for my comment re the FFC aiming for a self-sufficient industry, Morris’ continued reference to films being commercially- and market-driven did not lead me to connect it with the require ments for a continued subsidy. In our three interviews, Morris stressed the “market-driven” agenda for the FFC investment films and not once m entioned the consideration of genre or cultural remit that he alludes to in his letter. He does, however, defend Green Card's Australianness, because of Peter Weir and its supposed “look”. In other less-noted cases, readers would naturally assume that the “commercial and critical records” of the filmmakers applying for the fund would have been examined by the organizations providing the pre-sale or distribution agreem ent - the initial 40 per cent. It is certainly interesting, as Morris states, that current Film Fund projects will probably not be using im ported actors. This possibly alludes to the all-Australian casts of Death in Brunswick and Proof, which have been released since my article was written. Let’s hope that the next Good Weekend Australian film article will be about the New Wave of Australian Cinema. TH E
E D ITOR
C O M M E N TS
Morris makes three specific criticisms which reflect on editorial propriety. ONE: Morris criticizes Cinema Papers for publishing the statement
that '‘War Crimes [...] was not perm itted to apply to the Film Fund”. He writes that “without either interrogating its author as to the details or giving the FFC an opportunity to answer the criticism is I consider irresponsible”. Well, its author was interrogated, the basic information com ing (as the text implies) from an interview with War Crimes producer, Ron Rodger. Rodger claims that War Crimes was never submitted to the Fund (which is at variance with what Morris says). This is because during a discussion with the FFC about making a submission it became clear that the FFC did not believe that the film’s budget could be effectively reduced to m eet the Fund’s upper limit. As the FFC had approved previously a budget of $8.5 million, it is not surprising that the FFC balked at thoughts of attempting to make the film for only $3.5 million (a view shared by Bill Bennett and Peter Carey). And rejection of this idea by the FFC at discussion stage meant that the FFC was actively discouraging Rodger’s applying to the Fund. Morris would no doubt argue that this active discouragement does not constitute “not being permitted to apply”. Others might disagree. Certainly, without this fuller explanation, the statement as printed could be said to be confusing. If this is so, Cinema Papers apologizes to the FFC (as it does for any factual inaccuracies). For the record, Rodger also claims that the FFC kept its offer open only eight to nine months, not the 15 Morris says. TWO: Morris feels that “anonymous criticism is ignorant and mischievous and I consider it disreputable to publish it”. Well, while printing a quote from an anonymous source is obviously far less preferable to using an attributed quote, it is an accepted practice in all democracies. Courts have even ruled in its favour. Second, the key question is: Why are so few people in the industry willing to openly comment on the film funding bureauc racy? The answer is simple: Apart from low-budget films sup ported by the AFC and state bodies, almost all Australian features need FFC financial involvement. Many filmmakers feel that criticizing the FFC may affect their chances of getting that money. THREE: Morris objects to Cinema Papers' printing Phillip Adams’ opinion that Ellis’ wish to become a director “is not such a good move”. First, Morris does not make mention that a few lines earlier it is stated that “Adams is thrilled about the Film Fund’s selection of The Nostradamus Kid". Surely Adams’ comment on Ellis must be seen in this context. Second, Cinema Papers does not believe in censoring people’s views. What Adams said is fair comment and the Cinema Papers Editor had no right to suppress any section he may not have liked. Third, Morris feels that printing an honest opinion about a director’s talent is contrary to “supporting the industry”. Surely an industry can only be strengthened by open, fair discussion. As many other societies have shown, suppression of ‘critical’ mate rial leads nowhere noble. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
31
ANA
MARI A
BAHIANA REPORTS
f£f. n a town like LA, where everybody from your valet parker to your dentist seems to be writing a screen-*/*.play with dreams of wealth and glory on their minds, Callie Khouri is a strange, notable exception. Not only didn’t she write a script in the almost ten years she’s been living here, but, when she finally decided to do it, it was for all the wrong reasons. “ I really was kind of frustrated because I did feel like I was a creative person and was just looking for something”, she says with the sweetest smile in the sunny living room of her Santa Monica bungalow. “For years I had studied acting and
had learned about
production. I thought writing was the perfect way to implement both skills. So, I sat down to write, just to see if I could finish the thing.”
32
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Thelm a & L o u is e
PHOTO:
SA NDR A
J O H N S O N
A G E N C Y :
CINEMA
RETNA,
H O L L Y W O O D
PAPERS
85
33
K h o u ri
34
â&#x20AC;¢
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
“ I w a n te d t o pul: t w o w o m e n up t h e r e w h o m you h a d n 't soon b e fo re , w h o w e r e g o in g t o
ho d o in g th in g s t h a t you c o u ld n ’t
re a lly p re d ic t. B e c a u s e , you Know, I c a n 't re c a ll a lo t o f m ovies w h e r e I w o u ld g o, ‘Oh, I w o u ld w a n t t o be lik e t h a t w o m a n .'"
• .. ot only did Khouri finish the “thing”, but it found its • ' . y way into the sereen in a big way: it became Thelma & •:li; Louise, one of this year’s biggest hits in America, and III ’i l l the most talked-about movie of the summer. How? Oh, I just gave it to a friend of mine to see if she would be interested in helping me produce it, and instead she gave it to Mimi Polk, who’s a friend of hers, and Mimi gave it to Ridley Scott and that was it. Of course, when people hear this story, they just hate me. The true beauty of Thelma & Louise isn’t the fact that it’s such a well-accomplished (and incredibly lucky) first effort from a newcomer who admits to have been trained by “watching a million movies, reading lots of books. I read a few scripts, too, to see kind of how they were laid out.” The true beauty of it - and the reason why it sparked such a furious debate and ended up on the cover of Time magazine - is that Thelma & Louise, quite deliber ately and in a fun, enticing, thoughtful way, turns inside out every single film cliché about women. Says Khouri: That was quite intentional. I definitely wanted to put a new slant on it. I wanted to put two women up there whom you hadn’t seen before, who were going to be doing things that you couldn’t really predict. Because, you know, I can’t recall a lot of movies where I would go, ‘Oh, I would want to be like that woman.’ Not that I’m saying people would want to be like Thelma and Louise - they’re criminals and outlaws and I wrote that quite clearly in the script - but, in most movies, the women up drere are so alien to me. I would just find myself questioning their motives: ‘Why is she taking that? Why is she putting up with that?’ You know what I mean? I just thought it would be fun to put women as the active characters, make them the driving force of the story. And driving force they are. In Khouri’s script, Thelma (Geena Davis), a housewife trapped into a marriage that is indifferent at best and abusive at worst, and Louise (Susan Sarandon), a waitress with a shaky past, some emotional scars that refuse to heal and a non-committed boyfriend, band together for what is intended to be a weekend of female bonding, fun and games. A couple of hours into it, though, Louise can’t resist shooting a man who has
FACING PAGE: TOP: THELMA (GEENA DAVIS) AN D LOUISE (SUSAN SARANDON) HIT THE ROAD FOR " A WEEKEND OF FEMALE BO N D IN G , FUN AN D GAM ES". RIGHT: THELMA TRIES TO BACK A W A Y FROM A N OVER-INSISTENT ADMIRER, HARLAN (TIM O THY CARHART). LEFT: J.D. (BRAD PITT), A Y O U N G HITCHHIKER, GIVES THELMA A TASTE OF PLEASURABLE SEX. THELMA & LOUISE, DIRECTED BY RIDLEY SCOTT AN D SCRIPTED BY CALLIE KHOURI.
tried to rape Thelma, and the duo finds itself in the dangerous and exhilarating fringes of law, order and society, where the road is apparently open and where, somehow, they must find and redefine themselves. It is a road movie with the cleverest gender bending: there’s still two outlaw renegades behind the wheel cruising the vast western landscape, toting guns, cracking jokes, engaging in furious, casual sex - they only happen to be women. “I didn’t start out by saying, ‘Let’s see, I think I’d like to write a road movie.’ I started out thinking about women as criminals. That idea was interesting to m e.” Khouri’s own background is, in her own words, “a little bit Thelma, a little bit Louise”. The daughter of “a doctor and a doctor’s wife” in small-town Kentucky, Khouri grew up with thoughts of becoming an actress “or some thing”, basically because on some level what was supposed to be the ideal woman wasn’tworking very well. Families were breakingup at an alarming rate. Women who hadn’t educated themselves past the lowest degree in college were now 42 and having to ask their exhusbands for money. It wasn’t a pretty situation. Khouri finished college - where she majored in drama - and suddenly found out she didn’t want to be an actress any more. “I thought I would move to Nashville and maybe work in a bank and be an ordinary person. ” Big mistake: she found herself working in a departm ent store under a manager who was “a weaselly guy” and called her “Cully”. Taking a cue from her aunt, she auditioned for a job as an extra/apprentice in a local theatre - that closed ayear-and-a-half later. Faced with more “ordinaryjobs” - she took one as a waitress in a country-and-western bar - Khouri opted for a radical move: she packed her things and headed west, to that flickering ma hogany of promises and dreams, Los Angeles. Khouri got ajob as a runner for a video production company, and worked her way up: director’s assistant, production co ordinator, production manager, producer. “It was a good job, good training. I learned a lot about the whole structure, and I enjoyed it very m uch.” There was a problem, though - a very big one: the blatandy sexist nature of 99% of the videos she had to produce. It was a moral compromise I had to do about once a month. I found myself in a position of having to pay a woman to do stuff that I thought was detrimental to all women - having her ass shot from about a foot away; stuff like that. It made me angry because it doesn’t have to be that way.
“This is n ’t tilie s to ry of tw o worrier* w h o b e c o m e fe m in is ts ; it 's t h e s to ry o f tw o w o m e n w h o b e c o m e o u t la w s _T h e y a r e n 't t h e m a rty re d w i f e / g i r l f r i e n d - T h e y a r e n 't t h e
m u rd e r v ic tim , t h e
psycho Killer, t h e p r o s titu te : th e y a re o u t la w s ." CINEMA
PAPERS
85
.
35
K h o u ri
The combination of this “monthly compromise” and the need to do “something creative” led, Finally, to the challenge of writing what would become Thelma & Louise. “To me the real challenge was actually finishing it”, she says. “I thought, ‘Well, I have absolutely nothing to lose by trying to do it.’” The loud outcry over the film, that had the American critics neatly split in the middle - Is this, at last, a truly feminist movie, or is it just male chauvinism in reverse? Worse yet: Is it a male bashing, violence-condoning nasty little script? - caught Khouri by surprise, but certainly not off-guard. So many people are going, ‘Oh, well, this is male bashing and the men are caricatures.’ Well, no more so than women generally are in movies. As for the violence, there’s violence in almost every movie, it’s just that the violence is usually perpetrated against women rather than by them, and I think that’s the thing that’s really bothering people. This isn’t the story of two women who become feminists; it’s the story of two women who become outlaws. They aren’t the martyred wife/girlfriend. They aren’t the murder victim, the psycho killer, the prostitute: they are outlaws. I put them outside - outside everything, outside of something that is recognizable in pop culture. I didn’twant them to be like the characters in The Grifters: two hateable, conniving, despicable women who didn’t get cried at because they were wearing tight dresses and they were prostituting themselves when ever that was necessary; but that was somehow more acceptable. I think that if Thelma and Louise were wearing black bustiers and fishnet stockings and high heels they probably would have gotten away with it a little more. 36
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
KHOURI: "VIOLENCE IS USUALLY PERPETRATED AG AIN S T W O M EN RATHER TH A N BY THEM, AN D I THINK TH AT'S THE TH IN G TH AT'S REALLY BOTHERING PEOPLE." LOUISE AN D THELMA TAKE AIM IN THELMA & LOUISE.
Khouri, who is married to a writer-producer and is “in no way a man-hater, not by a long shot”, is currendy working on a script (which she’s scheduled to direct as well, as part of her freshly signed three-picture deal with 20th Century Fox) about “a couple of generations in a Southern family” - from the women’s point of view, of course. I think that the people that are saying that Thelma & Louiseis male bashing are certainly making the case because this movie isjust an inverted genre. So, if this is male bashing, then everything else is female bashing, isn’t it? Is there - would there ever be - a way out of it? A “feminization ” of Hollywood, so to speak? Khouri replies in a thoughtful way: I think the whole thing boils down to money. If people start wanting to see films like Thelma & Louise, as opposed to films like Hudson Hawk, then, believe me, that’s what every studio will want to make. I can’t find any rational reason for sexism. It’s the same thing with racism - there’s no rational back-up for racism. I don’t know if all women together are going to be able to take one giant step forward, but each woman can take a step. As soon as we stop feeling like a minority, I think things will start changing around a little bit. I don’t feel like a minority; I feel like I’m in the majority. I don’t know why. Maybe that’sjust hopelessly optimistic, but we are fifty-one percent of the population. ■
GREATER UNION VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY is not only a supplier of “STATE OF THE ART” cinema equipment, but with its combined strength of manpower, and technical expertise, is a leader in the design and manufacture of computerized automation systems for cinemas.
from 35mm projectors, both cine and slide, Xenon bulbs, lenses, carbons, rewinders, accessories and spare parts. Whether equipping a new cinema or up-dating your existing plant, our range of products allows us to quote equipment to suit your budget at competitive prices. GIVE US A CALL
GREATER UNION VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY
MELBOURNE
BRISBANE
ADELAIDE
PERTH
Head Office
26 Hall Street
82 Arthur Street
59 King William Street
100B Burswood Road
19-25 Marsden Street
East Hawthorn VIC 3123
Fortitude Valley OLD 4006
Kent Town SA 5067
Victoria Park WA 6100 Australia
Camperdown NSW 2050
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Phone (03) 822 3386
Phone (07) 358 5022
Phone (08) 363 0454
Phone (09) 362 2627
Phone (02) 550 5488
Fax (03) 822 9519
Fax (07) 358 4969
Fax (08) 363 1402
Fax (09) 472 3322
Fax (02) 517 1946
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
37
A REPORT ON INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS AND DISTRIBUTORS IN AUSTRALIA BY GREG KERR AND PAUL KALINA
the arctic c h ill of a Melbourne Friday n igh t John Freeman sits glumly in the projection booth of The Carlton Moviehouse. It is the S m first time he has screened Shohei Imamura's
K uroi A m e [B lack Ra in ]
M U and there are only four people in the 260 seats below. Across town at The Kino, patrons by the dozen begin queueing up to see the new Jocelyn Moorhouse film ,
P roof.
The contrast says a lo t about the nature of independent cinema in Australia: two respected cinemas in the entertainment heartland of Melbourne; two films both highly acclaimed and topical; yet already, one seems doomed to die a quiet box-office death, while the other continues to bring in big audiences. Consider, too, the way these films emerged from the distribution pipeline. While the much-vaunted
38
â&#x20AC;&#x2122;
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
P roof
unreeled at the Directors'
Fortnight at this year's Cannes Film Festival, four distributors - three 'independents'â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, one 'major' - put in their bids for what promises to be among the year's best home-grown box-office performers. As Variety
would have it, Roadshow ankled the indies, yet the film is
screening not in Village Roadshow cinemas but, ironically, in the independent 'arthouse' venues belonging to the three under-bidders. When distributors acknowledge that the market for independent film s has grown dramatically over the past few years, they are referring invariably to the way major distributors and exhibitors have entered the field. It might have once been an underestimated market, feels Dendy Films'Lyn McCarthy (who also bidded for P roof), but "it is now realized that there is a really important audience for the quality upmarket film ".
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
â&#x20AC;˘
39
Independents RISKS AND GAM BLES While most independent operators would say they have a finelyhoned understanding of their audiences, it remains a risky enter prise, Distributors and exhibitors cite their own experiences: the expensive tide that could never go wrong but did, and the littleknown movie slotted in to fill a programming hole that became a “sleeper” hit. A gamble that proved expensive for Tony Zeccola, managing director of Palace Entertainment, was the $325,000 marketing campaign on the British gangster film, The Krays, which fizzled at the box office in the face of stronger competition. George Florence at The Astor Theatre in St Kilda imagined that reviving an old print of Lawrence ofArabia might have been risky, yet the film went on to gross an astounding $40,000 in one week. Not so for Anthony Bowman’s Cappuccino, which did so poorly in Sydney that it closed after one week and was not released anywhere else. Frank Cox, head of Newvision Films, has purchased the new Peter Greenaway film, Prospero’s Books, sight unseen - a risk he took knowing the success of Greenaway’s The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover. A calculated risk yes, but, even Cox would admit, you never do know. ‘T o a degree, they are all gambles”, says Michael Walsh, manag ing director of Premium Films with cinema interests in Melbourne (Brighton Bay) and Sydney (Academy Twin and Walker Street.) There appears to be a consensus, particularly among exhibitors, that no matter how much aforethought, time and money is put into the promotion of a film, its destiny is in the control of higher elements. “It’s not such much a matter of marketing films as pot luck”, says The Carlton Moviehouse’sjohn Freeman, who as chief projection ist for 12 years has seen his cinema through busier times, when it was one of the very few genuinely alternative screening venues in Melbourne. Others, however, have a somewhat more mercenary approach toward the job of promoting fiims whose lack of stars, big-name directors, hype, cultural flag-poles and often unconventional treat m ent would leave them in the too-hard-basket of major distributors. “Look at Sweetie, look at Proof, says McCarthy. ‘W ithout being cyni cal, if you have a good film, you can create that sort of phenomenon. Youjust have to be presenting the film to the right sort of audience. ” S P EC IA LIZ ED FILM S, S P EC IA LIZ ED AU D IEN CES, S P EC IA LIZ ED HOUSES Few can deny that the ground of independent cinema has markedly shifted from the halcyon days of subtitled European art-films. Even a cursory glance at the screening programmes of independent cinemas across the country will confirm the diet these days takes in afar broader range and greater variety of films. The divide between independent and mainstream cinema has plateaued over the past two years with the realization that films can do well in both arenas {Hamlet, The Field, even, to a degree, Proof. The trend is truly re flected at the Brighton Bay where its “Classic French Film Event” in August was being advertised alongside mainstream-oriented prod uct including Defending Your Life and Hunting. “The line has become a little blurred because the Hollywood or bigger producers are dishing out better-quality films or films that make people think as well as entertain”, says Frank Cox.
40
’
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Many distributors prefer the term “quality cinema” to “arthouse cinema”, particularly to describe the market genre that includes films as differentas Waiting, Cyrano deBergeracwnd Eric Rohmer films. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the independent distri bution and exhibition industry is the delicate relationship that exists between these (more or less) ‘specialist’ films and a tailored audience. The ultimate challenge, which to a large degree the independent distributors in Australia have succeeded in meeting, comes in obtaining product that satisfies a discerning audience or which, better still, creates and educates a new audience. “Knowing your audience is half the battle”, says Frank Cox. “Having a good product is num ber one, and knowing who is going to come and see it is num ber two.” Natalie Miller, executive director of Sharmill Films and The Longford Cinema, says it is important for an independent operator to recognize the loyalty of its audience. She said she could “make a fortune” by screening a mainstream release like Batman, but adds, “We have an audience that trusts us.” At the Croydon Twin, co proprietor Alan Simpson veers from product with exploitative elements, even though a willing audience exists. Of Terminator 2; Judgment Day, he says: It’s a two-hour glorification of violence. I would feel as though I were committing a community sin if I played a film like that in an area where they have a big enough youth problem as it is.
Reaching an audience or, more specifically, reminding them of the latest attraction depends largely on the finances and resources of distributors. Promotional pushes vary from Palace Entertain m ent’s $325,000 marketing campaign for The Krays to a friendly plug in the “What’s-on-around-town” segment of Radio 3RRR’s “Filmbuff s Forecast”. However, Lyn McCarthy speaks for every independent distributor and exhibitor when she says that her staff work very hard, often “on the smell of an oily rag”, to promote films. Maximum editorial coverage, promotions, contra deals and openingnight events have become a trademark of many distributors. It must also be said that many of these distributors do an outstanding job with press ads and foyer presentations. House styles are so well defined that often a distributor will pass a print onto another exhibition outlet to fully exploit its potential. On occasions, though, a distributor might decide against screening a title because it is not in keeping with the charter of its exhibition arm. For instance, Frank Cox distributed 11 prints of Hardware across Melbourne, but did not run it at The Kino. “The Kino is more known for exclusive arrangements”, he said. “We’re not really known for screening science-fiction and horror films.” Those who go to independent venues regularly do so primarily because they seek a more specialized alternative to mainstream commercial cinema. And with the advent of multiplex theatres around Australia, the need for smaller, more intimate alternative venues, and the distinctive fare each offers, has perhaps never been as sharply defined. A vital element in this formula is the degree to which the independent distributors rely not on output deals from major suppliers and producers, but on thoughtfully selected films to suit the requirements of the available venues. Admits McCarthy:
CONTEMPORARY V I S I O N S
TEMPORARY S I O N S
'O n e o f F e d e r i c o F e l l i n i ’ s m o s t VISUALLY SPLENDIFEROUS FILMS.” — Vincent Can by, ISetc York Times
BACK
ISSUES:
CINEMA
PAPERS
NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974): David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that Ate Paris.
NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974): Censorship, Frank M oorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy H arbutt, Film under Allende,
Between The Wars, Alvin Purple NUMBER 3 (JULY 1974): Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O ’Brien, William Friedkin, The True
Story OfEskimo Nell. NUMBER 10 (SEPT/OCT 1976) Nagisa Oshima, 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 ShowMan. NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977) Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John Scott, Days Of Hope,
The Getting Of Wisdom.
NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980)
NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984)
Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, obituary of Hitchcock, NZ film industry, G rendel Grendel Grendel.
Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, H ugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms.
NUMBER 28 (AUG/SEPT 1980)
NUMBER 48 (OCT/NOV 1984)
Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Burns, John O ’Shea, Bruce Beresford, Bad
Ken Cameron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim
NUMBER 13 ( JULY 1977)
Timing, Roadgames.
Dusty Movie.
Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search OfAnna.
NUMBER 29 (OCT/NOV 1980)
NUMBER 49 (DECEMBER 1984)
Bob Ellis, Uri Windt, Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw.
Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch McGregor, Ennio Morricone, Jane Campion, horror films, Niel Lynne.
NUMBER 14 (OCTOBER 1977) Phil Noyce, M att Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John H uston, Luke’s
Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady. NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978)
NUMBER 36 (FEBRUARY 1982)
NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985)
Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, Blow Out,
Stephen Wallace, Ian Pringle, Walerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill Conti, Brian May, The Last Bastion, Bliss.
Breaker Morant, Body Heat, The Man From Snowy River.
Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan cinema, T he
NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982)
Irishman, The Chant OfJimmie Blacksmith.
Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama,
NUMBER 16 ( APRIL-JUNE 1978) Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The Africa Project, Swedish cinema, Dawn!, Patrick.
NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978) Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The
Monkey Grip. NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982) Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Far East.
NUMBER 39 (AUGUST 1982)
NUMBER 18 (OCT/NOV 1978)
Helen Morse, Richard Mason, Anja Breien, David Millikan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema, National Film Archive, We Of The Never Never.
John Lamond, Sonia Borg, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy’sChild.
NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982)
NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979)
Henri Saffan, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray Barrett, My
Prowler.
Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sarris, sponsored documentaries, Blue Fin.
NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979) Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French cinema, My Brilliant
Career. NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979) Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thoms, Stax, Alison’sBirthday
NUMBER 51 (MAY 1985) Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo,
Winners, The Naked Country, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms. NUMBER 52 (JULY 1985) John Schlesinger, Gillian Armstrong, Alan Parker, soap operas, TV News, film advertising, Don’t Call Me Girlie, For
Love Alone, Double Sculls. 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)
Dinner With Andre, The Return Of Captain Invincible.
Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, rock videos,
NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982)
Wills And Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster Miller Affair.
Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins,
The Tear Of Living Dangerously. NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983) Mel Gibson, John Waters, Ian Pringle, Agnes Varda, copyright, Strikebound, The
NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986) James Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian Thompson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, tie-in marketing, The Right-
Hand Man, Birdsville.
Man From Snowy River.
NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986)
NUMBER 24 (DEC/JAN 1980)
NUMBER 43 (MAY/JUNE 1983)
Brian Trenchard-Smith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, Harlequin.
Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, Careful He Might
Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, Dead-
NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980)
NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)
David Puttnam , Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain Reaction,
David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lambert, a personal history o f Cinema
Stir.
Papers, StreetKids.
NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980)
NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)
Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, Water Under
Paul Cox, Russell Mulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka
The Bridge.
Hear Tou.
Stockade, Waterfront, The Boy In The Bush,A Woman Suffers, Street Hero.
End Drive-In, TheMore Things Change, Kangaroo, Tracy. NUMBER 58 (JULY 1986) Woody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The
Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story, The Last Frontier. NUMBER 59 (SEPTEMBER 1986) 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 62 (MARCH 1987) Screen Violence, David Lynch, Cary Grant, ASSA conference, production barometer, film finance, The Story Of
The Kelly Gang. NUMBER 63 (MAY 1987) Gillian Armstrong, Antony Ginnane, Chris Haywood, Elmore Leonard, Troy Kennedy Martin, The Sacrifice, Landslides,
Pee Wee’sBig Adventure, Jilted. NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987) Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, Mel Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian TrenchardSmith, Chartbusters, Insatiable.
NUMBER 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987) Angela Carter, Wim Wenders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Derek Jarman, Gerald L’Ecuyerr Gustav Hasford, AFI Awards, Poor Man’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 67 (JANUARY 1988) John Duigan, George Miller, Jim Jarmusch, Soviet cinema- Part I, women in film, shooting in 70mm, filmmaking in Ghana, The Tear My VoiceBroke,
SendA Gorilla. NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988) Martha Ansara, Channel 4, Soviet Cinema, Jim McBride, Glamour, Ghosts Of The
Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean. NUMBER 69 (MAY 1988) Special Cannes issue, film composers, sex, death and family films, Vincent Ward, Luigi Acquisto, David Parker, production barometer, Ian Bradley, PleasureDomes.
NUMBER 70 (NOVEMBER 1988) Film Australia, Gillian Armstrong, Fred Schepisi, Wes Craven, John Waters, A1 Clark, Shame Screenplay Part I.
NUMBER 71 (JANUARY 1989) Yahoo Serious, David Cronenberg, The Year in Retrospect, Film Sound , Toung
Einstein, Shout, The Last Temptation of Christ, Salt Saliva Spermand Sweat
FILMVIEWS ILABLE
ISSUES BACK OF BEYOND
NUMBER 123 AUTUMN 1985 1984 W om en’s Film U nit, Solrun Hoaas, Louise Webb, Scott Hicks, Jan Roberts
DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM A N D TELEVISION
NUMBER 124 WINTER 1985 Merata Mita, Len Lye, M arken Gorris, Daniel Petrie, Larry Meitzer
A
NUMBER 125 SPRING 1985 Rod W ebb, M arken Gorris, Ivan Gaal, Red Matildas, Sydney Film Festival
NUMBER 127 AUTUMN 1986
LIMITED NUMBER o f th e beautifully designed catalogues especially prepared fo r the 1988 season o f Australian film and
wmmmmmm television at the U C L A
Jane Oehr, John Hughes, Melanie Read, Philip Brophy, Gyula Gazdag, Chile:
film and television
archive in the U .S . are n o w available fo r sale in
Hasta Cuando? NUMBER 128 WINTER 1986
Australia. E d ited b y Scott M u rra y , and w ith exten
Karin Altmann, Tom Cowan, Gillian Coote, Nick Torrens, David Bradbury, Margaret Haselgrove, Karl Steinberg
sively researched articles b y several o f Au stralia’s leading writers on film and television, such as Kate
NUMBER 129 SPRING 1986 Reinhard Hauff, Nick Zedd, Tony Rayns, Australian Independent Film, Public Television in Australia, Super 8
NUMBER 130 SUMMER 1986/87 Sogo Ishii, Tom Haydon, Gillian Leahy, Tom Zubrycki, John Hanhardt, Australian Video Festival, Erika Addis, Ross Gibson, Super 8, Camera Natura
NUMBER 131 AUTUMN 1987 Richard Lowenstein, New Japanese Cinema, Ken Russell, Richard Chatavvay and Michael Cusack
NUMBER 132 WINTER 1987 Censorship in Australia, Rosalind Krauss, Troy Kennedy Martin, New Zealand Cinema, David Chesworth
NUMBER 133 SPRING 1987 Wim Wenders, Solveig Dommartin, Jean-
Pierre Gorin, Michelangelo Antonioni, Wendy Thompson, Michael Lee
Sands,
Women of the Wave; Ross
NUMBER 134 SUMMER 1987/88
Landscapes;
Film Music, Groucho’s Cigar, Jerzy Domaradzki, H ong Kong Cinema, The Films of Chris Marker, David Noakes, The
Kennedy Miller;
Devil in the Flesh, How the West WasLost
M u rray,
NUMBER 135 AUTUMN 1988
and Fiction;
Alfred Hitchcock, Martha Ansara, New Chinese Cinema, Lindsay Anderson, Sequence Magazine, Cinema Italia, New Japanese Cinema
NUMBER 137 SPRING 1988 H anif Kureishi, Fascist Italy and American Cinema, Gillian Armstrong, Atom Egoyan, Film Theory and Architecture, Shame, Television Mini Series, Korean Cinema, Sammy and Rosie Get Laid ■
D e b i Enker,
The
George Miller,
G raem e T u rn er,
M ichael Leigh ,
A d ria n M artin ,
NUMBER 80 (AUGUST 1990)
Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit, Australian Sci-Fi movies, Survey: 1988 Mini-Series, Aromarama, Ann Turner’s Celia, Fellini’s La dolce vita, Women and Westerns
Cannes report, Fred Schepisi career interview, Peter Weir and Greeneard, Pauline Chan, Gus Van Sant and Drugstore Cowboy, German Stories.
NUMBER 73 (MAY 1989)
NUMBER 81 (DECEMBER 1990)
Cannes Issue, Phil Noyce’s Dead Calm, Franco Nero, Jane Campion, Ian Pringle’s The Prisoner ofSt. Petersburg, Frank Pierson - Scriptwriter, Australian films at Cannes, Pay TV.
Ian Pringle Isabelle Eberhardt, Jane Campion An Angel At My Table, Martin Scorsese Goodfellas, Alan J. Pakula Presumed Innocent
NUMBER 74 (JULY 1989)
Francis Ford Coppola The Godfather Part III, Barbet Schroeder Reversal ofFortune, Bruce Beresford’s Black Robe, Ramond Hollis Longford, Backsliding, Bill Bennetts, Sergio Corbucci obituary.
NUMBER 82 (MARCH 1991)
The Delinquents, Australians in Holly wood, Chinese Cinema, Philippe Mora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, True Believers, Ghosts... ofthe Civil Dead, Shame screenplay. NUMBER 75 (SEPTEMBER 1989)
NUMBER 83 (MAY 1991)
Sally Bongers, The Teen Movie, Animated, Edens Lost, Mary Lambert and Pet Sematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman.
Australia at Cannes, Gillian Armstrong: The Last Days at Chez Nous, Joathan Demme: The Silence ofthe Lambs, Flynn, Dead To The World, Marke Joffe’s Spotswood, Anthony Hopkins
NUMBER 76 (NOVEMBER 1989) Simon Wincer and Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok Hilton, John Duigan, Flirting, Romero, Dennis H opper and Kiefer Sutherland, Frank Howson, Ron Cobb.
NUMBER 77 (JANUARY 1990) Special John Farrow profile, Blood Oath, Dennis W hitburn and Brian Williams, Don McLennan and Breakaway, “Crocodile” Dundee overseas.
NUMBER 78 (MARCH 1990) George Ogilvie’s The Crossing, Ray Argali’s Return Home, Peter Greenaway and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Michel Ciment, Jack Clayton, Bangkok Hilton and Barlow and Chambers
NUMBER 84 (AUGUST 1991) James Cameron: Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Dennis O ’Rourke: The Good Woman ofBangkok, Susan Dermody: Breathing Under Water, Cannes report including Australia at Cannes, Film Finance Corporation, Festivals reports. ■
Scott
M ixing Fact
Curiouser and Cnriouser;
N u rtu rin g the Next Wave.
Back of Beyond
C atalogue is lavishly illus
trated w ith m ore than 130 photographs, indexed, and has full credit listings fo r some 80 films.
PRICE: $ 24.95, including postage and packaging. NUMBER 72 (MARCH 1989)
Formative
Cross-over and Collaboration:
Scott M u rra y ,
Terry Hayes;
G ib so n ,
ORDER FORM CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTIONS
I N T E R N A T I O N A L RATES
I wish to subscribe for
6 Issues
12 Issues
18 Issues
Back Issues
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
Add to Price per copy
□ 6 issues at $28.00 □ 12 issues at $52.00 □ 18 issues at $78.50
Zone 1:
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
New Zealand
36.00
65.00
97.00
1.20
Niugini
Air
Air
Air
Air
48.00
90.00
136.00
3.35 Surface
Please □ begin □ renew
my subscription from the next issue
Total C o st_______________
Zone 2:
Surface
Surface
Surface
Malaysia
36.00
65.00
97.00
1.20
Fiji
Air
Air
Air
Air
Singapore
42.00
77.00
116.00
2.25 Surface
Zone 3:
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
Surface
Surface
Surface
Hong Kong
36.00
69.00
102.00
1.20
India
Air
Air
Air
Air
Japan
59.00
112.00
168.00
5.15
Surface
Philippines
1. BACK OF BEYOND:
China
DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM ANDTELEVISION Zone 4:
I wish to order
no. o f copies
□ $24.95 per copy (Includes Postage)
Surface
Surface
Surface
USA
37.00
67.00
101.00
1.40
Canada
Air
Air
Air
Air
Middle East
65.00
125.00
187.00
6.20
Surface
Total Cost $ ______________ Zone 5:
2. BACK ISSUES
Surface
Surface
Surface
UK/Europe
37.00
6 8.00
187.00
1.50
Africa
Air
Air
Air
Air
South America
71.00
136.00
205.00
7.20
I wish to order the following back issues □ CINEMA PAPERS Issue nos.
FILL
OUT
AND
NOW
□ FILMVIEWS Issue nos. N A M E ___ □ 1-2 copies @ $4.50 each TITLE____ □ 3-4 copies @ $4.00 each □ 5-6 copies @ $3.50 each
COMPANY
□ 7 or more copies @ $3.00 each
ADD RESS-
Total no. o f issues Total Cost $ COUNTRY__________________ POSTCODE________ TELEPHONE Cheques should be made payable to: MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED and mailed to: MTV Publishing Limited, 43 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria 3067
Enclosed is my cheque for $ or please debit my □ BANKCARD □ MASTERCARD
Card N o .__ Expiry Date.
NB. ALL OVERSEAS ORDERS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY BANK DRAFTS IN AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS ONLY
HOME____________ W ORK________________
Signature—
□ VISACARD
Sure, the Dendy, Kino and Metro cinemas do consistently good business, but I’m sitdng back and I’m cherry picking. I’ll have that film and that film, but I won’t have all those others.
CHERRY PICKING Subjective value judgements on the part of operators inevitably affect their choices, although purchases are ultimately made in tune with commercial realities such as the cost factor and availability of product. “We will look at any film and, if the deal is right, we like it and feel we can market it, we will go out with it”, says Richard MacClure, whose company R.E.P. distributes films as diverse as Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Apartment Zero and Michael Apted’s 35 Up. MacClure’s commentwell summarizes the indefinable blend of perceptions, feelings and commercial concerns that determine a distributor’s decision to buy a film. Even AFI Distribution, with its government “cultural b rief’, does not leave a stone unturned in divining the commercial openings for a film. “We will exploit every avenue we can with every film and some of them can be quite successful commercially and some of them will never be because they are not commercial kind of films”, says Jan Dale, general manager of the AFI’s distribution arm. The AFI’s Hobart exhibition house, The State, takes on firstrelease titles in order to compete with its non-government subsi dized rivals. Meanwhile, the AFI Cinema (formerly The Chauvel) in Paddington has a more selective programme incorporating special film events, eclectic titles and Australian short films and documen taries. The ATI’s executive director, Vicki Molloy, says neither cinema has a charter written in stone, which allows both venues to respond to various market and product trends. On a slightly different note, John Freeman admits that the films that perform best at The Carlton Moviehouse are not necessarily the ones he likes. Lyn McCarthy says, “We have our own quirks and tastes, and you go for those films you think you are going to be able to deliver.” Most operators say they don’t run to programme “formulas”, though it would seem foolish, for instance, to ignore the impact of a groundbreaking American independent drama by emerging black director Spike Lee. ‘W e’d run anything from An Angel at My Table and a Jungle Fever to Longtime Companion and TheField. As long as they are quality films, we don’t mind which spectrum they come from”, says Miller. Indeed, a certain eclecticism has emerged as the governing style of most independent distributors. McCarthy says her films are “oneoffs. T here’s something a bit different about each one, and I think that’s what people look for in a Dendy film.” Although the independentfilm marketis specialist by nature, its players have varied methods and motives. Operators willingly con fess to a mercenary approach, as much as they say they love their product. One distributor-exhibitor, Tony Zeccola, says his successful soft-core porno movie programming in the 1970s enabled him to cover loses on quality films. Others like George Florence at The Astor allow a philanthropic zeal for reviving and screening old prints to over-ride the profit motive. Some distributors say an element of altruism also plays a part. “Some films”, says McCarthy, who has released such films as Atom Egoyan’s Speaking Parts and Ghosts ...of The Civil Dead, “haven’t de livered the bucks, but that’s not necessarily why we took them.” She
adds, “It is also a good thing on the part of the distributor to have had someone’s first film; it’s not totally altruistic.” DISTR IBUTIN G AU STR A LIAN To a large degree, the independent distributors rely on imports, though some specialize in local product. Ronin Films’Andrew Pike observes that a lot of Australian films are destined primarily for the “quality end of the market”. The ideal release pattern for an Australian film, he suggests, is a cross-over using both major and independent cinemas. While in the public eye Australian films appear to be enjoying a resurgence at the local box-office - “Like lastyear’s TheBig Steal, Death in Brunswick is a ray of hope, a sign that audiences are finding their way back to Australian cinema”, reported The Age Good Weekend on 24 August - some distributors are cautious and reserved about picking up local productions. For every distributor willing to cite the success stories and the films that “held their own against the foreign competition”, there are others acknowledging that they’ve had their fingers burned, that Australian films are harder to sell, that the tall poppy syndrome has a stark flip-side. Says Andrew Pike, ‘With a failed French film, you still get a few dedicated people picking it up for a screening here and there, but an unwanted Australian film is very unwanted.” Pike, whose Ronin Films has a particular interest in Australian films with four films currently awaiting release (Strictly Ballroom, Aya, Dingo and Holidays On The River Yarra), says that local productions are very labour intensive, as opposed to international productions which tend to be capital intensive. McCarthy confirms this view referring to the Australian film that arrives without a trailer or poster, and requires an entire market campaign. On the other hand, this ability to shape a film’s total marketing campaign from the ground up is one that distributors, such as Capricorn (whose most recent releases include Father and Struck by Lightning) and Roadshow Distributors, clearly relish. In a written submission to the House of Representatives “Moving Pictures Inquiry”, Village Roadshow managing director Alan Finney said, W ith Australian films our people have every opportunity to develop the material and get the creative satisfaction of working on the project from start to finish.” Itwas Finney who engineered the marketing campaign for Death in Brunswick, an independent film with a popularist identification, once Roadshow-Greater Union purchased the theatrical rights. Producer Timothy White said he did not agree with all the elements Finney chose to highlight in the campaign but he was not about to argue. For one, Finney believed in the film even when, according to White, it had its “detractors” within Roadshow. And besides, Road show was mounting the entire cost of the campaign. White says: I always had the confidence in this town [Melbourne] that the film could play out in the suburbs. 11wasn’tjust afilm to play at the specialist houses. I felt itwasimportant that the kind offilm that maybe perceived tobevery off-beat and of kind of marginal interest to tire general public was being sold by a person who understood the film.
Of the 21 screens running the film in Melbourne (where it grossed $1.4 million at the box office) and Sydney, not more than five were independently operated. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
41
Independents If there are openings in the independent film market in Victo ria, no one is saying much about what they are. Most operators claim they have an interest in short films and documentaries but they present difficulties with programmes structured around conven tional two-hour session formats. Andrew Pike, however, claims to have clocked up “some remarkable figures” with theatrical docu mentaries, most notably First Contact and Cane Toads. There is also the occasional case where the cherry, rather than being picked, defies gravity and decides where it wants to land. The producers of Ghosts ... of The Civil Dead distributed the film them selves, negotiating seasons directly with the screening venues. M ULTIPLE SO UR CES Smaller exhibitors without their own distribution apparatus often run into difficulties in trying to obtain product. Some move-over houses specializing in second-release prints are forced to be some what opportunistic in their methods - in some cases constructing their calendars from 15 different distribution sources (The Astor). John Freeman at The Carlton Moviehouse makes a rather grim confession: “That’s right, we’re parasites.” In what seemed like an inspired attempt to overcome the product dilemma, The Carlton Moviehouse negotiated directly with John Dingwall to secure the rights to screen Phobia, a psycho logical drama starring Sean Scully and Gosia Dobrowolska. The Moviehouse screened the film early this year, four months after SBS screened it as part of the station’s 10-year anniversary. SaysFreeman: That really damaged the film because it wasn’tfirst release in some of the reviewers’ eyes in Melbourne. Neil Jillett [of The Age] wouldn’t review it because he’d seen it on SBS and that’sa good warning for anyone who wants to put a film on television before they go theatrical.
It is recognized that with The Astor and The Valhalla screening repertory titles, the market for revival cinema is pretty well covered in Melbourne. The days of thriving repertory houses, however, appear to have passed. Alex Meskovic, co-director of The Mandolin Cinema in Sydney, describes how his cinema, after floundering with repertory programmes, forged a new identity and lease of life: Schlock wasn’t working, repertory wasn’t working. There was nowhere for us to go. We tried a fewfilms, like Miami Blues, and they worked. We said let’sget more films. So, we got TheHot Spot, The Grifters, StateofGrace, and The Comfort ofStrangers, which has gone through the roof.
Against this trend, however, The Carlton Moviehouse is looking at screening more repertory product, among other alternatives, to stave off competition from a new Premium Films moviehouse under controversial development at the Lygon Court complex, some fifty metres away. A frustration common to all independents is the film booking policy of the movie chains which prevents specialist theatres screen ing titles while they are still in their mainstream first-release period. Some exhibitors report having to wait up to nine months before a print is made available, by which time the title has often been released on video. Another gripe among exhibitors is the refusal of commercial distributors to allow single-screen cinemas to run split sessions once a print of a major film has been released. Tony Zeccola was at a loss to explain the logic of the no-share policy which he says has prom pted him to initiate plans to expand the Balwyn Cinema into a twinplex. 42
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Alan Simpson, director of the Trak in Toorak and co-proprietor of the Croydon Twin, likens the policy to a white goods supplier telling an outlet, ‘You can only sell refrigerators in your shop thisweek. You have to get rid of all the stoves and the dishwashers and so on because we need a return on refrigerators’, and itjust happens to be the end ofwinter andyou can’t sell them.
Product supply frustrations have prompted the Sydney-based United Independent Cinema Group to take legal action against Roadshow Distributors. At the time of publication, the Sydney matter was unresolved and The Astor was seeking legal advice with a view to a separate action against Roadshow. Alan Finney of Village Roadshow sees the split-sessions issue differently. He points out that all Roadshow requests of an exhibitor is that it guarantee its two key sessions to the film in question. For example, on The Silence of the Lambs, an adult title, Roadshow would require the two evening sessions. On a children’s film, such as Rescuers Down Under, it would want the two day sessions. As Finney points out, it would be silly of a distributor to request every single session since a film like Rescuers Down t/rcderwould have only mini mal appeal at night. THE PIRANHA FACTOR When one wants to talk to Frank Cox at Newvision Films in Port Melbourne, one first has to get past his pet piranha. “People watch what they say to Frank Cox”, he jokes, gesturing towards the furiouslooking fish on his desk. Cox explains the stuffed South American piranha was sent to him by an associate. In the flesh, Cox looks nothing like a piranha, but whoever sent the fish presumably knows a thing or two about his resolute business approach. Among his peers, Cox has a reputation for being a shrewd operator whose gambles, more often than not, pay off. It was Newvision, for instance, who introduced the once obscure, off-beat Coen brothers to Australia with Blood Simple, the company also re putedly paid about $500,000 for Cyrano de Bergerac, the sort of figure which some distributors say creates an inflated pricing watermark. The grounds for co-operation between distributors are small, unless you’re sharing product with an affiliate. “I think everybody is out there to getwhat they can for themselves”, said Cox. “Sometimes that is really bad because it over-inflates a certain product’s prices.” Michael Walsh at Premium Films uses a hackneyed but effective analogy to explain how product options in the independent film scene are limited: “The cake is only so big and there are a lot of people bidding for a slice of that cake.” McCarthy candidly admits that she knows who her competition is when she sets out to buy a film: When we go to Cannes, without naming names, there’sprobably one or two [distributors] that have got abetter chance than the others ofgetting the film. But there’splenty of room, and you get some and lose some. It’s as simple as that.
However, the jungle does have its own set of market-driven laws. There exists a seemingly amicable, co-operative rapport between each of these alleged competitors. In their quieter (or, more accurately, off-the-record) moments, the distributors might well admit that each has a reasonably secure niche in the market. Richard MacClure of R.E.P., a division of the television produc-
O V E R N IG H T S E R V IC E ON IN TER STA TE RUSHES? . . .TRY US !!
^ H te V
Entertainment Services i i Engineers and Suppliers to Theatre and Cinema
ULTRA* S T E R E O )
J lc d to A a io s u f,
ic t o r ia n
F
ilm
L
a b o r a t o r ie s p t y ltd
[SINCE 1959] TELEPHONE (03) 818 0461 FACSIMILE (03) 819 1451 4 GUEST STREET (P. O. BOX 457) HAWTHORN VICTORIA 3122
JSX
-
1
0
0
0
35m m Cinem a Sound P rocessor Approved by the Lucasfilm THX® group for use with THX® sound systems.
Sydney’s Second
Film Fair NOT TO BE MISSED!!!!
SUNDAY 20 OCTOBER 10AM -4P M RAILWAY INSTITUTE HALLCENTRAL RAILWAY (CHALMERS STREET ENTRANCE)
films books movie posters videos records memorabilia EVERYTHING FROM $1.00 BARGAINS TO RARE COLLECTIBLES FREE SOUVENIR PROGRAMME ADMISSION $2.00 (10 -1 2 ) $1.00 AFTER 12 ENQUIRIES (0 2 ) 328 6698
SPECIAL OFFER UNTIL 30th NOVEMBER 1991
k J S X 1 0 0 0 o n ly $ 7 0 0 0 ★ SAVE $654 COMPLIMENT THE PROCESSOR WITH
A CM-35 BOOTH MONITOR PRICE $1000 WITH PURCHASE OF JSX 1000 PROCESSOR U L TR A *S T E R E O THE AC A D E M Y A W A R D W INNING M ANU FAC TU RER PRESENTS IT’S
CM-35 and CM-35E Multi-Channel Booth Monitors
C A LL BAR R Y OR JO HN TO DISCUSS ANY REQ UIREM ENT FOR YOU CINEM A. D O N’T FORGET TO DISCUSS SERVICE CO N TR AC T AS ENTERTAINM ENT SERVICES IS ON C A L L 24 HRS A DAY FOR SERVICE CLIENTS.
7 Butterfield Street Herston 4006 Brisbane Australia Telephone International (617) National (07) 252 4848 Facsimile International (617) National (07) 252 2773
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
43
“AMERICAN FRIENDS deserves to be spoken of in the same breath as A ROOM WITH A VIEW and to be honest, I enjoyed it a great deal more”
Independents
DAILY EXPRESS UK
“AN ABSOLUTE DELIGHT FROM START TO FINISH” ian l y n e s s
DAILY EXPRESS
“A THOROUGHLY ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE” Ch r is t o p h e r t o o k e y
“UTTERLY CHARMING” NIGELANDREWS
FINANCIAL TIMES
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
“THE FILM IS A DELIGHT” GEORGE PERRY SUNDAY TIMES
tion and distribution outfit R. A. Becker, admits that the majors will undoubtedly outbid him for the same film. (This sentiment is shared universally by all the independent players.) “Butyou have to remember that nobody has filled the vacuum left by a company like Filmpac.” The last five years have seen the downfall of a number of dis tributors - Filmpac Holdings, Seven Keys and CEL - which were playing the field between arthouse specialists and the major movie chains. The void has been filled by the survivors and old competi tors, and, to a lesser extent, Boulevard Films, which is now distrib uting overseas films (as well as producing its own). The cross-fertilization of films appealing to both mainstream and specialist markets prompts a question: What exactly is inde pendent cinema? There is now such a diversity of product that an answer eludes, though George Florence’s definiton is as acceptable as any: “I think ‘independent’ means a cinema that is run and controlled by an independent party that is not part of any chain or major organization.” ‘OUR SU C C ES S IS OUR D O W N FALL’
M I C H A E L
P A L IN
MERICAN 'TRIENDS / ‘A MISADVENTURE IN LOVE” — STARRING—
MICHAEL PALIN
CONNIE BOOTH
TRINI ALVARADO
BRITISH SCREEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE BBC PRESENT A MILLENNIUM FILMS / MAYDAY / PROMINENT FEATURES PRODUCTION M I C H A E L P AL I N . ! A M E R I C A N F R I E N D S ' T R I N I A L V A R A OO C O N N I E BOOT H A L F R E D MOL I N A COSTUME DESIGNER BOB' RINGWOOO PRODUCTION DESIGNER ANDREW MCALPINE EDITOR GEORGE AKERS DIRECTOR OFPHOTOGRAPHY * PHILIP BONHAM-CARTER MUSIC BY GEORGE DELERUE screenplay by MICHAEL PALIN AND TRISTRAM POWELL FROMA STORY BYMICHAEL PALIN PROOUCEOBY PATRICK CASSAVETTI ANDSTEVE ABBOTT 9 ^ ■== E > DlRECTEOBY TRISTRAM POWELL ' an REP release
COMMENCES NATIONALLY NOVEMBER CHECK LOCAL PAPERS FOR DETAILS — DISTRIBUTED BY —
PAID A S S A S S IN S
RICH A RD ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS A DIVISION OF R.A. BECKER & Co. PTY. LTD. PHONE 02 438 3377
44
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
FAX 02 4391827
85
In some ways, the independent market resembles a city landscape where tall skyscrapers have begun to block the light to the smaller buildings below. Smaller distributors and exhibitors agree that there is simply no such thing as a cheap film any longer. “It costs so much to advertise, so much for screen time. You can get a film for nothing, but it still costs a lot of money to put it on the screen. That’s the problem”, says Meskovic. Like George Florence with his efforts to bring new prints of sadly missed films into Australia, Meskovic has discovered that innovative, revival programmes involve large outlays of time, energy and money. Mike Walsh (the former television personality who runs Sydney’s Hayden Theatres) reportedly paid a hefty $15,000 for a new 70mm print of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. In response to the general downturn of the mid-to-late 1980s and the difficulties of obtaining product from fledgling distributors who preferred to use their own screens to showcase product, the State Film Centre ofVictoria recently embarked upon an innovative venture into distribution (to later come under threat from state government budget cuts). With limited means, SFCV took on a number of films that had been left by the distribution wayside. Recent first-run seasons of Yaaba and In Fading Light have seen a rise of 61 per cent in cinema attendances. But, as Chris Brophy, Deputy Director of Distribution, puts it, “Our success is our own downfall. ” She cites examples of exhibition programmes initiated by the SFCV that were once considered to be marginal and fraught with risk. These programmes, like Apted’s 35 Up (then 28 Up) and The Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, have subse quently enjoyed successes which place them in a league well outside the reach of such organizations.
Film critics, exhibitors agree, influence audiences - and ultimately word of mouth - in varying degrees. Reviews are regarded as being especially important to operators who handle first-release arthouse product. Both Miller and Cox say they have known unfavourable reviews to “kill”small independentfilms, whereas a commercial film or a cult hit (Hardware) , buoyed along by a persuasive marketing
campaign, can often stand up to a barrage of negative comment. Cox says, “Good crits mean big weeks and big weeks mean good word of m outh.” John Rouse at The Valhalla admits to circumventing the review system by looking for titles which have been previewed favourably at film festivals: At Christmas we have T h e Comfort o f Strangers. Ivan Hutchinson [ T he H er a ld -S u n ] and NeilJillett both liked this film a lot [at the Melbourne Film Festival] and have said so in print. In one sense already, we knowwe have a film which is going to get very good reviews.
S TA TE OF IND EPEND ENTS Independent operators have, on the whole, consolidated their positions after the video boom of the early 1980s. Significantly, the major players have managed to ‘vertically integrate’ their opera tions, meaning they now control cinema venues where the product they distribute can be optimally placed. Premium Films controls the twin screens at The Brighton Bay in Melbourne, The Walker Street cinema in Sydney and (together with Ronin Films) Sydney’s Acad emy Twin. Ronin, in turn, controls The Electric Shadows in Can berra and is a partner in Natalie Miller’s Longford Cinema in Melbourne. Lyn McCarthy and Graeme Tubbenhauer are co directors of Dendy Distribution, The Dendy Cinema in Sydney, The Metro in Brisbane and The Kino Cinemas in Melbourne, whose third co-director is Newvision ’s Frank Cox. In a more straightforward manner, several cinemas, such as The Valhalla, The Mandolin and The Trak, have direct or near-direct links to distribution entities. All who spoke to Cinema Papers reported a competitive yet prof itable trading climate. There is a commonly held view that atten dances are up from two years ago because “there is an audience out there that doesn’t want to go to the multiplexes” (Natalie Miller). Some simply believe independent films are getting better; others say the advent of video is largely to thank for making people more “film conscious” (George Florence); some cite the range of inter national cinema promoted by SBS and, to a lesser extent, the ABC; others merely laugh at the statistics that herald the current ‘boom’. “Of course, they’re up [attendances]. You know what point they came up from? We almost went broke, like a lot of other cinemas.” (Meskovic) While most were reluctant to divulge figures, Sharmill Films reported a conservative increase of eight per cent in revenue over the past 12 months; Alan Simpson says box-office takings are up 20 to 30 per cent at The Trak and The Croydon Twin. And despite a problem with flagging attendances recently, Freeman says The Carlton Moviehouse has been making a profit every week for the past three months. It is difficult to derive a figure for the independents’ share of the overall film market. One of the industry’s most experienced players, Michael Walsh of Premium Films, estimates independent exhibitors in Australian capital cities hold about 15 per cent market share. In the week ending 7 August, three independent films - Hard ware, The Company of Strangers and Queen of Hearts - featured on Australia’s Top 20 movie list, which was headed by Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The independent films amassed $126,000, $40,000 and $47,000 respectively; Robin Hood took $939,000 at the box office. Flowever, Tony Almond of the Motion Picture Distributors Associa tion (which compiles the list) says the results cannot be converted
into an accurate market share because only a few independent operators supply figures. FRINGE BENEFITS The video market’s interest in independent and so-called arthouse fare has at best been tenuous, the major video distributors by and large locked into output deals with foreign suppliers. The main stream distribution of foreign-language films on video has only ever been limited. Nonetheless, most independent distributors actively seek the ancillary rights (i.e., television and video) for any film they distrib ute. As well as the financial gains, they require ‘protection’ from the threat of a television broadcast during a film’s theatrical run or an untimely release to video shops. AFI Distribution’s non-theatrical regime for Donald Friend’s documentary The Prodigal Australian targeted tertiary and secondary institutions, public libraries and art societies, as well as television and the home-video market. A few independent distributors have moved onto the video distribution market, both through licensing their films to estab lished video distributors (for example, Boulevard Films recently signed a deal with Warner Home Video) and through establishing their own distribution channels. Premium, and until recently Ronin, have interests in the Home Cinema Group, while Newvision re cently ventured onto the market with a ‘sell-through’ label. Other distributors negotiate with video distributors on a film-by-film basis, R.E.P. notching up some impressive sales with Apartment Zero and Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, which MacClure claims sold more than 10,000 units. Dendy Films will put its signature to a new label, Dendy Video, before the end of the year. Distributed by RCA-Columbia PicturesHoyts Video, the label will allow Dendy Films to put out all its titles, plus other product that it considers suitable. “We’re assuming we will create a following for that label”, says McCarthy. Ronin has also managed to tap into the educational video market, which Pike claims accounts for about 40 percent of turn over. WE SHOULD ALL BE MAKING M OVIES With the consolidation of the independents during the 1980s, it is not in the least premature to consider the next stage of vertical integration. Some distributors have already committed themselves to local film production; others envisage it as a possible area of future involvement. There is, however, universal recognition of the benefits for film distributors to become involved in a film’s produc tion at as early a stage as possible. In this way, stills and press kits required for the eventual promotional campaign can be best obtained, ‘unit publicity’ can be organized to create awareness for a film and matters such as product placement can be considered (Tony Malone of Capricorn Films). Ronin will executive produce Money Tallis, while R.E.P. will soon announce the imminent production of its first feature in Australia, Gross Misconduct. Lyn McCarthy confirmed that she is actively read ing the many scripts that are being presented to her. “We’ve been getting a lot more lately I think because of the FFC’s requirement that producers go out and raise 40 percent of the finance.” At Beyond International, too, exists a very close link between film production and distribution. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
45
At the same time, Frank Cox perhaps touched on one industry apprehension when he said, “Exhibition is risky, distribution is more risky and production is riskier still.” Natalie Miller lists as the biggest disappointment of her career her involvementwith ThePerfect Family Man, a film she was to produce. “The $1.2 million we’d raised for it fell through just before we were going to start official preproduction”, she said.
The same market forces apply to acquiring Australian product, with premiere screenings at local film festivals often acting as a cue for negotiations between distributors and producers. Local film festivals also serve the needs of the State Lilm Centre of Victoria, which, unable to travel to overseas markets, relies on the offerings of The Melbourne Film Festival. It was at the Festival that interest in In Fading Light and some other films currently under negotiation was nurtured.
W ARM IN W IN TER AND COOL IN SUM M ER Several Victorian operators identified the superior standard of M elbourne’s independent cinemas and their product as a major reason for the strength of the sector. Well-travelled as most distribu tors are, a num ber claimed that Melbourne cinemas were at least as good as, if not better than, specialist movie houses in Los Angeles, New York and London. They put this down to overall comfort, ambience and the quality of sight and sound. This aside, at least two Melbourne independent exhibitors have received complaints about their air-conditioning systems. John Rouse at The Valhalla said work was underway on correcting an air circulation problem and John Freeman said plans to install a new Dolby sound system at The Carlton Moviehouse would have to take priority over an air-conditioner “which rattles a bit”. Meantime, Sydney’s original arthouse, The Mandolin, with its old velvet seats and Chinese wallpaper, continues to resist the trend towards gentrification and modernization. ‘They’re great compared to the arthouses in New York”, ruminates Alex Meskovic: I sawone that had the speaker on the ground in front of the screen. The thing is people come for the modes, not the comfort. If they want that, they go to George Street. We don’t even have pop-corn.
TO M ARKET, TO M ARKET A large percentage of independent films screened in Australia is purchased from primary sources overseas. Distributors bid for product in person at various international film markets including Cannes, the American Film Market and Mifed in Milan. At times, it is preferable to chase leads and to haggle via fax and telephone. For buyers of independent film, “going to market” guarantees them first-hand exposure to important titles that have attracted little or nothing in the way of pre-packaged advertising or word of mouth. Gems often turn up where they are least expected. John Rouse recalls the day he saw another one of those Ameri can gangster movies. We saw GoodFellas not expecting it to be a bonanza because it hadn’t yet opened in America. For some reason we thought it was going to be a soft film. But two reels into the film we thought, ‘This is fabulous’. We went out with it on first release.”
AND SO THE CA R O U S EL TU R NS In the words of Natalie Miller, independent film distributors and exhibitors are on a merry-go-round they can’t get off. “Itwilljustget better”, she adds. Her optimism about the industry’s future vitality is shared to varying degrees by her peers and competitors. Most say they have established a secure portion of the market; most know the sort of pictures that do well at their venues, give or take a few rough dips at the box office. It would seem they are also in a position to withstand competition from (and perhaps screen) films which lie in the murky terrain between “quality”and popularist cinema. The good signs are where you look: the low-budget local drama (.Proof) that everyone wants to see; the jum p in overall attendances at most movie houses; the independent director (Ray Argali) who goes to the Seattle Film Festival and is told about Australian films he never knew existed; the growing support among European and UK distributors of “personal statement” pictures emerging from Aus tralia. The truth is the industry is only as good as the product it continues to deliver. It is hard to foresee the supply of quality product running dry given the recent popularity of new independent films - both local and international - not to mention repertory titles and, to a lesser degree, documentaries. The most immediate challenge of every independent film buyer is to acquire films in an increasingly competitive market. They, in turn, must continue to satisfy audiences who are becoming accus tomed to greater diversity, sophistication and stimulation in films they won’t see at a multiplex. And ultimately, no matter how widely touted a title, nor how well it is delivered, it is what the audience thinks that really matters.
T H E O TH ER FILM S F I L M
collection.
D I S T R I B U T I O N
_____________
MAKE UP
'TivonrtfcW''**'' %
w i T H he, 1(® 46
•
CINEMA
John Barry Group Pty. Ltd. Head Office (02) 439 6955 PAPERS
85
__
gel»!,)««•)»"*’ BEEN S H E 'S —
__ __________ ______
_
VteroW -Son!
■3>f
PeoOV - __
^
^
_ ^
89 HIGH ST, N0RTHC0TE, VICTORIA 3070 PH (03) 489 1741 FAX (03) 481 5618
Also available: Half of Heaven La Grande Bouffe, L’Age D’or, the Tati films, The Thin Blue Line, Un Affaire des Femmes, Ghosts of the Civil Dead, Where the Buffalo Roam.
|
Val M o rg a n is p r o u d to .'bring; y o u Q u a n te l P a in tb o x , th e le a d in g e d g e com puter technology that produces liigliquality, sop h isticated cinem a slides with a ran ge and d e p th o f lig h t and c o lo u r never seen before. E x c it in g .
E n t e r t a in in g .
E ttid tiv e i
Persuasive* Tomorrow’s technology is here today —and only Val Morgan lias it.
CINEM A ADVERTISING SYDNEY . M ELBOURNE
B R ISB A N E
ADELAIDE . PERTH . NEW ZEALAND Check your shoivbagfor Val Morgan's Trivial Pursuit Competition entry form - and you could win a trip for 2 to Hong Kong, and lots more!
Independents That’s a very broad statement, but by “some thing to offer” we mean either intelligently made or from a first-time director who is doing a lot with what he has. We are more interested in hard-hitting films than bland statements. With B lo o d S im ple, you broke new ground in that you introduced the Coen brothers to Australian audiences. How did you pick up that film?
Frank Cox: Newvision Films and (with Graeme Tubbenhauer and Lynn McCarthy) The Kino Cinemas, Melbourne
I N T E R V I E W E D BY GREG KE R R
Are there any openings in Australian inde pendent exhibition and distribution? I think there are for the right market and the right sort of location.What they are, I’d rather not discuss. I ’d also rather not discuss what we are after. Has the market for arthouse independent films changed in recent years? I think it is very much a product-driven mar ket: if you have good product, your market will be there. It is regarded that times are pretty quiet, but it only needs a good film, like Jesus ofMontréal or The Company ofStrangers, to bring the people out. I think the same players who were around two years ago are around now. The only thing that has happened in the past five years is the middle distributor has dropped out. In the old days, we had Seven Keys and Filmpac, distributors which sat between the independ ent arthouse distributor and the majors. Those companies have disappeared. It is quite hard to be a commercial film distributor, if you don’t have an organized chain of cinemas behind you. Also, the “B” movie, which in the old days you could do something with, became harder and harder to make work. These days it’s the big Holly wood blockbusters that make the grade or films that have some sort of market penetra tion. Pinpointing the market is the problem and maybe those companies were out of touch. What sort of films do you like to screen at The Kino? We’re not just an arthouse exhibitor. We try to pick films that have something to offer. 48
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
No other distributor had made a strong offer on the film. When we saw the film we thought that itwould do really well on video. We didn ’t kid ourselves, though: we knew the theatrical would be a very hard sell, and it was. Theatri cally, we didn ’t even get our advertising money back. But it launched the film and it became a cult hit on video. At the end, we also sold it to television. The only difficulty we encounter in buy ing a product is when there are other existing bids. If you’re prepared to pay, say, $50,000 but there’s another offer of $55,000, then you’re going to have to up your bid. Sometimes you pay more than what you should have. Is there a certain sort of film that you rely upon to do exceptionally well at the box of fice?
stuck, then it’s your bad luck. The idea is to buy films that you think you are going to return money on. None of the independents is subsidized, so you cannot say, “I will catch up one day.”You’re going to have to catch up year in, year out. I don’t think there are many small distributors out there which can afford three or four flops. Where does a distributor and exhibitor such as Newvision get most of its income? Is it at the box office? Yes, most of it, but it varies from year to year. If you have a year where your biggest films have been foreign-language films, the market for video and television is extremely small. If you do 500 to 1000 units on video, then you ’re doing better than most people. But it really doesn’t translate into many dollars, especially if you are using a third-party distributor and you are only collecting a royalty of, say, 30 per cent. Foreign-language films on Australian television are non-existent on the commer cial stations. The ABC buys only now and then, and SBS can’t afford to pay the sizeable amounts of money that may help a distributor recoup. What sort of involvement have you had in the production of films?
No, we don’t go with formulas. I think New vision is good at picking new trends, films that people will want to go and see this year, but didn’t know about three years ago. You have to be constantly in tune with changing trends and buying product that will support these trends.
Not much. What we have found recently is that there are areas when we can pre-buy. Although we haven’t pre-bought any Austral ian films yet, we certainly are getting offers. And we have pre-bought overseas films; that’s because they have a known director and we trust what they are going to do.
Is there a reasonable level of co-operation among distributors?
C O N T I N U E S ON P A G E 50
To a certain degree. In the old days, when one went to a film market, it was, “You take this and I’ll take that.” That way, we didn’t outbid each other. Those days, though, are over.
BELOW: THE FLYER FOR BREATHLESS (JEAN-LUC GODARD). A PREMIUM RELEASE SCREENED AT THE KIN O . FACING PAGE: THE FLYER FOR YOUNG SOUL REBELS (ISAAC JULIEN) A FILM BEING HANDLED BY DENDY FILMS.
Is there a danger that the smaller playerswillbe forced out by the higher level of pricing that a big buy cre ates? The truth of the matter is that nobody forces anybody to pay whatever. People pay the money they have calcu lated to get back. If they are doing it just to grab the product from the opposi tion, then they better have some kind of financial fallback to carry them through. If you come un
40 SE B ER G
Wn'Benmi fatal byJanrtut I J l J 1
KfN#
AUSTRALIAN PREMIERE SEASON COMMENCING EARLY MAT
reiacied by PREMIUM
Aftisticandtechnkal advisor B R E A T H L E S S at R O S A T I
ROSATI
From an exhibitor’s viewpoint, if I had to go and programme Hoyts George Street, or the Pitt Centre, there’s absolutely no way I could consistently make money with every film, every week. I don’t even know if I could find enough films to put in there, let alone good ones. Is there much competition for the same prod uct?
Lyn McCarthy: Co-director (with Graeme Tubbenhauer) of Dendy Films and The Dendy Cinema, Sydney; The Metro Cinema, Brisbane; and (with Tubbenhauer and Frank Cox) The Kino Cinemas, Melbourne
I N T E R V I E W E D B Y P AUL K A L I N A
Dendy Films has now been in exhibition for seven years. What are some of the changes during that time? The most obvious thing to me is that the major distributors and exhibitors are getting involved in what I and others term “arthouse product”. That has made it more interesting for everybody. Ten years ago, the big films were the teen movies playing George Street. Cinemas like The Dendy were seen to take risks; that same product isn’t seen to be risky today. Peter Greenaway is no longer a risk, nor is a Spike Lee film. At the same time, do you think that the true art film has been displaced? It depends how you define it. I call a true art film something like Wings of Desire or Distant Voices, Still Lives. I get a lot of pleasure from Wim Wenders’ and Terrence Davies’ work, where you are as involved with the form as with the content. You will still not find these films handled by the majors yet, but there are other sorts of films that are now being accepted into the major art cinemas and creating audiences. We’ll see what happens with Wim Wenders’ next film. One of the reasons the majors are so inter ested in the arthouse venues is their consist ent trading. Whereas the majors’ trade tends to be in peaks and troughs, the art houses’ tends to be more consistent and steady.
Absolutely. But at the same time you know who your competition is. With Proof Natalie Miller, Newvision and Dendy were all bidding against Village Roadshow. As for Cannes, it’s a real bun-fight: there are so many films but there might be only three or four films you bother bidding for. In our case, the one film we absolutely wanted was Europa. Every year there’s one and hope fully it’s not the same one Frank Cox or Natalie Miller thinks is “the one”. It’s a personal thing for us: we really have to love a film to handle it. If it doesn’t work out, you can always say, “Well, the audience was wrong! ”We want films that we really are com mitted to on an emotional, as well as logical, level. How would you describe the Dendy audience?
Yes, and I don’t think we do too badly in Melbourne. Premium, Dendy and Newvision all have publicists who work very hard; that’s the key to it. I can tell you as an exhibitor that it’s very rare to have cinemas with full-time paid publicists. We ’ve put a lot of emphasis on publicity, because we’ve had to do everything on the smell of an oily rag. We don ’t believe in huge publicity budgets; we believe in trying to stretch the dollar as far as we can, getting as much editorial space as possible, going for promotions, opening nights and contra-deals. That’s very much a trademark of the Dendy and Kino set-ups. The Dendy basically set that situation up and, when we started The Kino with Frank, we duplicated the Dendy style of promotions. How do you see the prospects for distributing Australian films? Difficult. We don’t handle many. I think that when you do have a very good Australian film, C O N T I N U E S ON P A G E 50
I think it is looking for films that are innovative one-offs and which have emotional credibility as well as in telligence. It’s not as if we only want serious films about serious political issues. Queen of Hearts, for example, is a very soft film in many ways, but we felt it said something and would be popular. Are there instances where you have miscalculated, where that expecta tion has not been met? It’s not so much an expectation. There are films we’ve boughtwhich we knew were risky, and when we got them on the screen our appre hension came to fruition, as with Speaking Parts. We knew it was risky, but we felt Atom Egoyan was a young, up-and-coming director. I don’t think we’ve ever had a film where we didn’t know what we had. As for a film like Sweetie, I was very surprised about how popular it be came. I thought it would get the younger audience but that the older audience would totally miss the point and not appreciate it. But it got an across-the-board audience and did very well. Do you have have a good relation ship with the media in Sydney?
Isaac Julien N a d in e IVlarsh-Edw ai Valentine N ony IVIo Sesay Dorian Healy Fra n ce s Barbet
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
49
lyn
M c Ca r t h y F R OM P A G E 49
there’s quite a bit of competition to distribute it. For instance, I think Spotswoodisavery good film, but that was already tied up with the funding situation and wasn’t even up for grabs. Proofis a very good film and we went in very hard to try to get it. Some producers don’t want to deal with the majors - they feel their films are better looked after by one of the minor players - but they’re usually films that need a lot more work. You have to do things like create the whole market campaign; there’s no trailer, no poster, no flyer. It’s an incredible amount of work, as against when you have bought a film from overseas and everything is sent to you. You may not like it, or you may change it, butatleastyou have the trailer, the poster, etc. Working on Australian films is extremely hard. Most of the time the filmmakers are fantastic, but now and again you get someone who’s impossible to work with, who thinks that the distributor is the big bad wolf. On most Australian films, we haven’t made a lot of money. Andrew Pike jokingly suggested that Waiting might have done better if it were a French film. Would you have a similar observation after exhibiting Return Home?
FRANK COX F R OM P A G E 48
You have purchased the new Peter Greenaway film without seeing it. Is that a big gamble ? Prospero’s Books is a gamble, but at least Peter Greenaway’s work is known. Whether the subject matter will become popular or not is a different question. We also have a relationship with Greenaway’s production company. We started working with them on The Cook The ThiefHis Wife & Her Lover. We kept them very close to the whole marketing and publicity of the film. So, when the next project came up, they spoke with us first and we grabbed it. What sort of money did you pay for the new Greenaway film? I’m not at liberty to discuss minimum guaran tees, but it is an expensive film. Greenaway films have been selling for $ 100,000 and above for the last three or four productions. What has been the biggest gamble for you in recent years. Was it Cyrano de Bergerac? 50
«
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
No. People look at the bottom line and think “not fantastic figures”, but, if you look at how many weeks and how many sessions it was on, it did okay for what it was. I mean, Return Home is not a masterpiece, but it has a beautiful tone. We felt that the film had to be seen and that the director was someone who should be supported. But nobody thought they were going to make a million bucks out of it.
that’s happening, you think, “God, if the filmmaker only knew how his film is being promoted...”It might be screened on the very last night of a festival, when nobody knows about it and most people have gone home. I think there’s room to market Australian films directly to sellers. You have to start selling the film from script stage and there’s a skill to creating a film through marketing.
Would your company be interested in more hands-on involvement in local productions?
Will your new video label be like Newvision’s recent move into sell-through video?
Sure. We read a lot of scripts. We are restructuring the company a bit at the moment and we are hoping that we can see our way clear to being involved in produc tion in the future. We go to the film festivals, and we know about buying and selling films, and how the AFC functions. We see there’s a gap here for a company that really knows how to work those film festivals with good product. At the moment, you have only Beyond International, Kim Lewis Marketing and the AFC, which is not so much a sales agent as a support system at overseas festivals. That’s it. And Beyond International and Kim Lewis are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Kim’s work ing basically from America, handling stuff from the European end. That tends to mean smaller films. We have been going to the festivals for seven years. I don’t want to go into it too much, but, when you see some of the stuff
No. RCA-Fox Columbia is releasing all Dendy Films product on a Dendy Video label. It will be sell-through and rental.
Cyranowas a different story because we bought it after we saw the finished product at Cannes, with an audience. But it was a gamble in that it was the most expensive foreign-language film we have bought. We made the film a success and now we are returning overages. Which films are amongyour biggest successes? fesus of Montréal has grossed in excess of $2 million, which is pretty big for foreign-lan guage films. Cyrano de Bergeracis coming up to that, being just a notch down on $2 million. Our highestgrossingfilm, however, is Sex, Lies, and Videotape, which didjust over $2.9 million. With anything that bills more than half a million dollars, you have a fairly successful film on your hands. What have been some of your biggest disap pointments? Like everybody else, we have our fair share of dissatisfactions. A disappointment this year has been Bertrand Tavernier ’sDaddy Nostalgie. We thought we would have a wide audience, but you never know. Maybe people didn’t come and see it because they didn’t like the film, or maybe we put it out at a time when it
The video market in the past has shunned foreign films, claiming there’s no future for sub-titled films in this country. My Life as a Dog, which we released through RCA-Columbia Pictures-Hoyts Video, was very popular We’re going into this with our eyes wide open, so is RCA. We’re not expecting to break the bank. Itwill be like anythingwe take: some will work, some won’t, and the ones thatwork will really work. We are buying a lot more English-lan guage product; it’s not because of the prob lem with foreign-language films, it’sjust that we’re finding there is a lot of interesting, English-language, independent product out there at the moment. ■
was competing with all the Academy-Award films - Dances With Wolves, Ghost, Awakenings - all of which had fairly adult elements. Are Australian independent films good enough for The Kino? Sure. We screen quite a fewAustralian films at The Kino. Mind you, The Kino can only screen films it is offered. How did Return Home go there? That was a nice surprise. It was a film that we well liked and wanted shown at The Kino, and it succeeded to a level above our expectations. Do you have any thoughts on the role of film critics? I think the film critics play a big role in the launching of films in Australia. You can buy a lot of good films but, if the critics are not going to like them, it does disadvantage a mediocre film. It might even kill a small film. I think most of our critics are pretty good and most of them are film lovers, though there are the one or two who, when they don’t like something about a film, stick their teeth in and rip it to bits. ■
CtNlVA1SE AMDmm PAR FILM PRESENTS
TH E1992 ATOM AWARDS
A FILM BY BERTRAND B IIER CHARLOTTE GAIHSBOURG • ANOUK GRINBERG
CALL FOR ENTRIES The ATO M Film and Video Awards will be celebrating its 10th Birthday in 1992 Entry forms can be obtained by calling the ATOM Office on (0 3 ) 4 82 2393
NOTE: CLOSING DATE FOR ENTRIES 30 NOVEMBER 1991
TH E A STO R THEATRE PROUDLY PRESENTS AN EXCLUSIVE SEASON OF STANLEY KUBRICK S
MICHEL BLANC • JEAN CARMET • ANNIE GIRARD0T • JEAN-LOUIS TRINTIGNANT CATHERINE JACOB • THIERRY FREMONT AND GERARD DEPARDIEU A CO-PRODUCTION CINE VALSE, H I M PAR H IM , ORLY FILMS, D.D. PRODUCTION, SEDIF, FILMS A3 AND THE PARTICIPATION OF SOFICAS, SOFIARP, INVESTIMAGE 2 AND 3
• T h e o n ly o n e in th e b u sin e s s th a t p ic k s h e r o w n g u tte rs ,
• r d w o r s h ip th e g r o u n d she
e d d ie c a n t o r
w a lk s o n , if o n ly sh e liv e d in a b e tte r n e ig h b o u r hood.
•
karl m ar x
B itch!
m a r ia k o z ic
•
Do yo u
s u p p o s e I c o u ld b u y b a c k m y in tro d u c tio n to h e r? Gr o u c h o
g e t it!
• S h e 's g o tta h a v e it; s h e 's g o n n a
m arx
•
s p ik e lee
O n th e w h o l e I'd r a th e r b e in
P h ila d e lp h ia , w .c.
f ie l d s
KIRK DOUGLAS LAURENCE OLIVIER JEAN SIMMONS CHARLES LAUGHTON PETER USTINOV JOHN GAVIN BRAND NEW 7 0M M PRINT OF THE RECONSTRUCTED VERSION BY RICHARD A. HARRIS INCLUDING NEVER BEFORE SEEN FOOTAGE. SCREENING FROM DECEMBER 1 - 15
BAD R E P U T A T IO N GREAT RESULTS
MICHE Coming soon to The Astor and The Orpheum Sydney: New 70mm print of "BEN HUR". THE ASTOR THEATRE 1 Chapel St., St. Kilda. Phone: 510 1414
FILM
BONETT
R E S E A R C H
S T O C K I M A G E R E S E A R C H F O R F E A T U R E F IL M S , D O C U M E N T A R I E S , IN D E P E N D E N T P R O D U C T I O N S , C O R P O R A T E V I D E O A N D T V C O M M E R C IA L S 244
WAVERLEY
TELEPHONE
ROAD
EAST
MALVERN
(03)
563
643 1 FAX
PAGER
483
4444
#450
(03)
VIC
3145
808
4923
373
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
51
Independents No, those barriers have broken down alot. We do a lot of our business with the majors, Greater Union especially, but also with Hoyts. The idea of the arthouse seems to be a bit old-hat these days. It’s more of a continuum and we tend to operate at the quality end of the market with our cinemas and in distribu tion. With this continuous spectrum, our tides can penetrate into mainstream houses. Aré there areas where the independents have a unique role to play?
Andrew Pike: Ronin Films, Boulevard Cinemas, Canberra
I N T E R V I E W E D B Y P AUL K A L I N A
How do you see the current state of independ ent distribution and exhibition? Independent distribution and exhibition is very buoyant. There is now a wider range of cinemas, both independent and major, will ing to take risks on so-called art-cinema product. And there is a bigger market out there. Whereas 10 or 5 years ago we were dependent on the same old group of die-hard independents, nowadays, provided the cinema queues are good and there’s good product, one can get quite a lot of playing time for a film in all the major cities, including Darwin, Alice Springs and other regional centres. Is Ronin picking up different sorts of films today to 10 years ago? Very much so. Probably three quarters of our theatrical releases are Australian, both feature films and documentaries. We also pick up a steady stream of Asian cinema, which we have a personal interest in, particularly Japanese cinema and, until a year or so ago, Chinese cinema. However, we are still involved in some Hong Kong and Taiwanese sources. Australian product is not particularly easy to handle in that it is very labour intensive, in terms of preparing materials for the market place. Overseas titles tend to be more straight forward, just capital intensive. But we like the challenges of local productions and the in volvement of producers and directors, and devising strategies for the individual films. How many films would Ronin handle in a year? We tend to have fairly close involvement on titles, rather than going for volume, so I’d probably say about four to six per year. Is there any longer a clear division between the independent and mainstream market? 52
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Certainly the theatrical release of documen taries is something that the majors wouldn’t take on, and documentaries theatrically can clock up remarkable figures: the obvious ones are First Contact and Cane Toads: An Unnatural History. Some of the independents are willing to be a bit more adventurous with flexibility of programming, session times and policy. With the number of independent players about, have the deals changed much? For instance, the price paid by Newvision for Cyrano de Bergerac was apparently a lot more than other local independents could afford. The greater buoyancy in the market is making the choice overseas titles very competitive, so the prices are going up. The high price of Cyranowas pardy the high expectations of the French, but also the competition at this end. The French very successfully played one party off against another, as I understand it. And I think that the same may apply soon to Austral ian titles; a lot of money was paid by Village Roadshow for Proof and there is at least one other Australian producer who is holding off on his film’s rights until it can be shown to a range of distributors and some bidding gets going. A few months ago the producer would have been happyjust to have a producer. But now he wants an advance as well. What have been your major successes and failures? The successes are fairly clear-cut. An Angel at My Table, which we co-distributed with Natalie Miller, has been our most successful release. Other titles close to that have been The Navi gatorand Cane Toads. At the bottom end of the scale - and I don’t want to suggest that it is a bad film,it just didn’t work commercially Cappucdno is a stand out. That was a real pity.
But while Waiting has been a disappoint ment, the producers will see averages from the theatrical release. One of the advantages offilms thatdo play in the independentsector is that they tend to cost a lot less to launch. It is a difficult business handling Austral ian films, but we’re learning how to structure deals so that we’re less exposed. We are building up our non-theatrical distribution and that gives us a lot more security when we consider a title. That’s one positive outcome of the difficulties we have experienced at tracting audiences and the trade to Australian films. We’ve had to become a lot more selfreliant and build up other sources of income, like non-theatrical. Our aim now with Australian features is to get involved as early as we can. Involvement differs from film to film. We’ve done the lot: directly invested under 10BA, provided distri bution and marketing guarantees, and mar keting advances. There’s no set formula. The next stage which we are involved in is becom ing executive producers [on Money Talks], A film we have currently in post-produc tion is Strictly Ballroom, directed by Baz Luhrmann, a young turk from the Australian Opera. As well, Aya, Dingo and Holidays on the River Yarra are awaiting release. How important are the ancillary rights? We don’t do a theatrical deal unless we can get video, partly because we are interested in the educational video ourselves, and we try to get television as well. But often with Austral ian films they are financed via television pre sales, so we can’t get access to that. The Australian market produces very low returns for producers on the whole. But there is enough in video to give a distributor like ourselves a bit of security to launch into a theatrical release. But no, it’s not a big market; you can do a lot better with American or British product. The fact that a film is Australian is something of a liability in the eyes of some home video dealers. Waiting probably should have been French for the theatrical market and Ameri can for the video market.
You have been quoted as saying that Waiting was a disappointment.
Do you think that the independent scene will come around again to the adventurous risktaking of picking up films favourablyreviewed at international festivals but which by-pass Australia, such as the latest films of Akerman, Varda and Jacques Demy?
The media was very responsive to the film and gave it a lot of coverage, but the audience just didn’t come in the numbers we had hoped for. It’s certainly tough persuading Austral ians to come and see an Australian film. I think that if Waiting had been in French with sub-titles it would have done a lot better.
It would be good if it happened, I agree, but I don’t know that we’re the ones to do it. Our direction is more toward Australian product. If it is overseas stuff, it is more likely to be Asian cinema, or national film events. They are viable commercially and we get a lot of satis faction out of doing them. ■
GEORGE FLORENCE
import new prints of old product. That has been our specialty for the past few years. What are the mechanics and costs involved in obtaining a print for a single night? When we show a film for a single night it’s not a lot different to a cinema showing a film for a week or two months. You pay a percentage, which for us for a new film can be as high as 50 per cent of a gross, but generally averages around 35 per cent. The difference with us compared to a lot of other cinemas is that we don’t get any allowance for advertising or operating expenses. So, we pay a fairly high premium in film hire. Do you have a set criterion for your program ming? You have a wide range of product.
George Florence: The Astor Theatre
I N T E R V I E W E D B Y GREG K E R R
Although not directly involved, George Flor ence says he has been a “keen observer”of the United Independent Cinemas Group-versusRoadshow court case in Sydney because of the effect Roadshow’s policy has on all independ ent cinemas. FLORENCE: There were certain policies im
plemented long ago which made booking Roadshow films quite difficult in relation to the sort of programming that we normally do, which is essentially single-night repertory. The Roadshow policy, by the way, has sort of been compromised. We’ve been dealing backwards and forwards with Roadshow for months with letters and what have you, and we’ve sought our legal advice independent of the Sydney action. Basically, there are various breaches of the Trade Practices Act going on. The problem is that no one has been prepared to stand up and say, “Hey, this is not right. These policies are very restrictive.” I think that it’s going to shake up the industry. It’s the first time the spotlight has been on the industry in such a big way. Can you cite examples where the Roadshow policy has left you “high and dry”? Over the past two calendars we weren ’t able to book any films that were screening in their first city release, which was nearly every major film that we would want to show. Because we book three months in advance, that meant we had to wait up to nine months to screen afilm, by which time it had either been released on video or had been totally forgotten. Is life somewhat difficult without your own distribution arm? Our sort of programming doesn ’t rely on that because we normally only show a film for one night. We don ’t generally release films for on going seasons, the exception being where we
Yes, new and old. That formula has worked very well and has been developed over quite a few years. What we’ve done with The Astor is make an alternative type of cinema-going popular. We present a broad cross-section of film to a very broad and large audience. We’ve sort of popularized the concept of repertory cinema. Given that you occasionally show a main stream film, do you think you can call The Astor a truly independent cinema? We’re as independent as anyone. To survive, we have to depend on 15 different distributors, Roadshow being the main one, for supply of film. We turn over a lot of product. How did you obtain revival prints of old films such as Lmvrence ofArabia? Lawrence was part of a worldwide re-issue of the reconstructed print. Other titles we have undertaken to import, like the group of about 12 titles from UIP and about 10 from Colum bia. We actually buy the prints and pay freight duty, and then the film company gets its film hire out of that. There is no risk whatsoever to the film company. It is a very expensive proposition. When you take into account that prints cost $2000 to $3000 each on a double feature, and we pay the promotional costs and film hire, we basi cally break even. The good thing is thatwe are beginning to build up the library of older titles in Australia, which has been depleted over the years. In the long term it benefits us because we are able to screen them again. Is there is a big future in revival cinema? In the U.S., there is a move to make it far more broad than it has been. A group of directors, including Scorsese and Woody Allen, has been getting together the idea of having clas sics divisions within the major companies preserve and release all the titles they hold. There are glaring examples where there’s
been major problems in securing good-qual ity prints. The negative to Sunset Boulevard, for example, which we made a new print of, was in such a deteriorated state that the print we were issued was virtually unrunnable. We had to run a studio copy. Was that a costly exercise? Costly because we had to import another printout - the unrunnable print itself was valued at about $3000. That indicates it’s not treated very seriously amongst the major cor porations which now control the libraries. In box-office terms, can you cite any revival films that have performed exceptionallywell? The box-office re-runs have even startled some of the distributors. We got good feedback from Columbia in the U.S. when they got our figures for Lawrence ofArabia, which screened over a week and grossed about $40,000. What have been some of your disappoint ments in recent years? It’s hard to hold big expectations for every thing because a lot of it is fairly risky. Two Bette Davis films that we brought in - Now Voyager and The Old Maid —didn’t perform that well. But it all averages out and makes it viable in the long term. The biggest disappointment I’ve had is when we’ve approached other cinemas to see if they are interested in contributing to the cost of these prints and I’vejust met with a big blank, “No”. We have been the only ones paying for the last batch of films that we brought in from Columbia. Where do you think the exhibition market for independent films is headed? It’s hard to know where the industry is head ing from one minute to the next. For us, in particular, I see a healthy future, mainly be cause The Astor is a unique venue. There is much more film awareness now than there was 10 years ago. I think video, as terrible as it is in some ways, has made people more film conscious. How do you go about promoting your films given that you haven’t got a distribution arm behind you? We rely on our base audience via mail and publicity brochures. We also have a very help ful network of sympathetic people in the media who support us. We also take out televi sion advertising at times on Channel 9, which is expensive but I think reaches a very wide audience.You need that exposure sometimes. The key element is that people have to want to see that film. If it’s a film that people don’t want to see you could drop 20 million free tickets by helicopter and no one would turn up. ■ CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
53
FI L M
R EVIE WS
BRAN NUE D A E; T H E C O M F O R T OF S T R A N G E R S ; T H E COIVI IVI ITIVI E N TS ; D U T C H ; H U N TIN G ; 4/VD, RROOF
ABOVE: JIMMY CHI'S STAGE MUSICAL AS CAPTURED IN TOM ZUBRYCKI'S BRAN NUE DAE.
FACING PAGE: COLIN (RUPERT EVERETT) AND MARY (NATASHA RICHARDSON) IN VENICE IN PAUL SCHRADER'S THE COMFORT OF STRANGERS.
BRAN NUE DAE M A R C U S
T
B R E E N
‘
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
reflects this condition.
he song “Bran Nue Dae” is deeply moving.
It is a docum entary in the most conven
It tells the story of the early struggles for
tional sense. Dispassionate, bordering on the
land rights in W estern Australia and the fight of
mechanistic, it covers the terrain with lazy
Aborigines for dignity. The song (and its song
disregard for the exciting story it is telling. It is
writer Jimmy Chi and hisgroup Kuckles) should
an almost soulless film, whose only purpose
be an Australian classic.
seems to be to attract an audience to the
That they are not simply serves to reinforce
intense joys of Aboriginal music and to give due
the knowledge that white A ustralia’s treatm ent
recognition to Jimmy Chi, who wrote “ Bran Nue
of the continent’s original black inhabitants is
Dae” and the musical of the same name.
as racist as it has ever been. This is neither a
It is painful to have to write such comments
new nor original observation. Itshould, however,
in a review, but after many years working on the
be an observation that causes more distress
production of a book about Aboriginal music, I
and anger than it does among white liberals
probably have a different perspective to others.
and radicals.
54
nal population is hard to gauge. But there is no doubt that Tom Z ubrycki’s film, Bran Nue Dae,
My comments are engendered in part by a
Evidence of the loss of momentum of out
plethora of positive reviews and articles the film
rage about A ustralia’s treatm ent of its A borigi
received in the mainstream media, from Aus-
tra lia ’s agenda-setting reviewers.
THE COMFORT OF STRANGERS
They seemed keen to dig deep into their kit bags of superlatives to find ways of congratu lating the film and the film m aker. This congratulations-at-any-cost-because-this-is-a-film-
R A Y M O N D
Y O U N I S
relationships which involve dom ination by the patriarch and the legacy of this; and the doubleedged sword that is obsession, a driving force
P
aul Schrader and Harold Pinter, at first
that demands fulfilm ent and yet destroys the
glance, would seem to have little in com
very subject that seeks its actualization.
about-Aborigines m entality is patronizing and
mon. One is steeped in the configuration of the
Such issues are heightened by the style.
pointless. We should have passed a long way
transcendental, particularly in the films of Ozu,
The searching camera slowly descends through
beyond that attitude to our Aboriginal peoples
Bresson and Dreyer, and is preoccupied with
the empty corridors and chambers that resound
and stopped congratulating them for things we
m arginal, displaced and/or torm ented indi
with the past and evokes the unbroken se
would not accept anywhere else.
viduals; the other is fascinated by the dynamics
quence that links the dead patriarchs with the
Bran Nue Dae is an em barrassingly poor
of interpersonal manipulation, the motif of si
haunted present; the measured descent also
film. It is bereft of a cutting edge, a conviction or
lence, and the transformation of power-struc
reinforces the subtext of the prison (in terms of
a point of view. It was made through a com m is
tures. The tension between the respective pre
desire as well as the city itself). Taut editing and
sion of sorts (by Chi and friends at Broome), but
occupations is one of the aspects that make
the insertion of static shots serve to bring the
that seems a poor excuse for its quality.
The Com fort o f Strangers, which was scripted
seem ingly discontinuous strands of the narra
It is afilm about Jimmy Chi’s stage musical,
by Pinter from a novel by Ian McEwan and
tive closer and closer together until they fuse in
but we discover very little of the detail of this.
directed by Schrader, such an intriguing work.
the image of the double-sided mirror. Venice,
We do discover quite a lot about Jimmy Chi,
Colin (Rupert Everett) and Mary (Natasha
itself, is portrayed not as the diseased host that
who is schizophrenic. He is probably the most
Richardson) return to Venice to learn more
is a symptom of social and political decline in
articulate Aboriginal artist in the country. His
about their relationship and future. W hat they
V isconti’s Death in Venice, nor as the source of
ability to write and sing songs with passion has
do not realize is that Robert (Christopher
menace and illusions in Roeg’s D on’t Look Now.
stood for many years as a beacon for A borigi
W alken), a singularly strange figure, is observ
Rather, it is akin to a labyrinth - an image that
nal musicians and other Aborigines who needed
ing them. Slowly, they are drawn into his world.
also reinforces the sense of individuals who
someone of his calibre as an intellectual, critic
The consequences are quite serious.
and leader of the community.
have difficulty understanding themselves and
Schrader, it must be said, could have had
others, and who cannot fathom the ends to
Chi’s role in establishing the Broome A bo
major problems: Everett and Richardson can
ward which the ir actions lead. Venice, in
riginal Musicians Corporation, as well as alco
be rather mannered at times (witness Chroni
Schrader’s film, is a city full of phantoms whose
hol-free environm ents in shelters in Broome, is
cle o f a Death Foretold and Patty Hearst), but
influence is palpable and pervasive, especially
not well-enough known. The film tells us noth
Schrader elicits solid performances. W alken’s
in Robert’s life. And Schrader does not ignore
ing about his social function or his role in these
talents have been wasted in many roles, butthe
the ugly aspects: the dilapidated stores, the
organizations. The absence of such details
role of Robert is the most vivid and complex
dark and dirty back alleys, the ominous and
may not have been included in the brief given to
since his role in The Deer Hunter. He performs
shadowy regions (though he does not resist the
Zubrycki, but their absence only serves to rob
with panache and authority (though he does
postcard views, either).
the film and its story of an appropriate context.
have some problems with the accent).
The musical itself has been staged in most
The film has been criticized for a number of
As mentioned earlier, one of the most re
reasons: for being slow; for its depiction of
capital cities and has generated considerable
m arkable aspects is the relation between
women as passive sufferers; and for its depic
interest, as the first Aboriginal musical. But the
Schrader’s interest in the ways in which the
tion of the city. The third criticism has been
telling of the story of Bran Nue Dae does little
family and society alter perceptions and out
answered above. The first criticism is not really
to enlighten me about the musical or its ges
looks, and Pinter’s interest in the penetration of
valid since the details, isolated and fragmented,
tation. The film flounders along, emphasizing
a seemingly secure domain by a menacing
the gestures, which are repeated, and the in
the life of Chi, which is interesting, and con
outsider who is enigmatic and potentially hos
sistent glimpses of the past, are meticulously
trasting that with the musical.
tile. The film certainly explores some troubling
in te rlin k e d -th e measured pacing is necessary
The musical, which I have not seen, is an
and provocative issues: relationships with
to allow such things to be emphasized and to facilitate the cumulative effect of the whole.
important landmark in Australian musical his
deeply-embedded stresses - silence itself be
tory. Unfortunately, the docum entary does
comes the outward sign of the gulf that can
(This is a film where the cumulative effect is the
nothing to enhance its appeal, with a sound
separate lovers - where language becomes a
main factor.) The second criticism is based on
quality of live performances which should be
struggle against the unnamed, the unspoken;
a m isunderstanding: Pinter’s screenplay sug-
unacceptable in the 1990s and rejected by funding bodies which have failed in this project to maintain acceptable production standards. There is no joy in reviewing bad films. There is even less joy in reviewing films about a pet subject which fail to meet any expecta tions. Alternatively, it is probably unfair for a relative specialist in Aboriginal music, like myself, to be reviewing this film. No doubt there are aspects of the film that serve a purpose; not least among those is the political and practical function of publicizing Aboriginal gains. But nothing can offset the deep disappointm ent I experienced in watching this film. BRAN NUE DAE Directed by Tom Zubrycki. Producer: Tom Zubrycki. Executive producer: Chris McGuigan. Director of photography: Joel Peterson. Editor: Ray
Thomas. Narrator: Stephen Albert. Music: Kuckles. Cast: Ernie Dingo (Uncle Tadpole), John Moore (Willie), Maroochy Barambah (Auntie Theresa), Bob Faggetter (Father Benedictus). Jotz Productions. Australian dis tributor: Ronin. 35 mm. 55 mins. Australia. 1991. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
55
gests that Mary is an independent woman - she
charting a path toward profana
questions C olin’s view of her as a possession
tion - in this case, in terms that
(and, in fact, speaks of him in these terms, thus
are lucid and yet fragmented,
getting her own back). Indeed, the script and
profound and not a little disturb
film emphasize hergrowing sense of independ
ing.
ence - for example, after her solitary swim. She, like Caroline (Helen Mirren), is the victim of a psychotic and violent personality. This is not to say that the film is beyond criticism. S chrader’s style, though it is most authoritative here, can be rather cool. The concern with form and style can lead to a muting of the emotions which is quite different from Bresson’s cultivated austerity and its calculated effects. The problem is exacerbated here by the fact that Pinter has presented Colin as a som ewhat vain and uncomprehending individual. As a consequence, it is difficult for the viewer to feel for Colin when he is con fronted by Robert. And, of course, it is difficult to sym pathize with the latter precisely because
THE COMFORT OF STRANGERS Directed by Paul Schrader. Producer: Angelo Rizzoli. Scriptwriter: Harold Pinter. Director of photography: Dante Spinotti. Production designer: Gianni Q uaranta. Costum e d e sig n er: Mariolina Bono. Editor: Bill Pankow. Composer: Angelo Badalamenti. Cast: Christopher Walken (Robert), Natasha Richardson (Mary), Rupert Everett (Colin), Helen Mirren (Caroline), Manfredl Aliquo (Concierge), David Ford (Waiter), Daniel Franco (Waiter), Rossana Canghiari (Hotel maid), Petra Amadi (German tourist). Angelo Rizzoli & ERRE Production. Australian dis tributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 110 mins. Italy-UK. 1991.
he is such a sinister individual. But the film is richly and subtly wrought.
THE COMMITMENTS
W hat emerges from the fabric is a complex network of associations and contrasts: the links between remembered trauma and obsessions
PAT
G I L L E S P I E
ew films about the music in
with subjection and dom ination/hum iliation; the
F
links between sexual pleasure and physical
en than not, films about it and the
pain; between desire and sacrifice, murder and
lives of band members are a pop
dustry have “soul”. More oft
the “need” for purification. Reality is constructed
ish pastiche of stereotypes: glitz and glam,
as something fragmented, elusive, enigmatic.
obligatory sex, sordidness and squalor, and
Personalities are shaped by persistent traces
tem per tantrums, interspersed with gig footage
“the Lips” Fagan (Johnny Murphy), who de
of the past, by half-concealed violations, by
and ersatz “behind the scenes”.
clares, “The Lord sent me.” Joey’s appearance
JIMMY (ROBERT ARKINS), NEXT TO SOME ICONS IN ALAN PARKER'S THE COMMITMENTS.
partially glimpsed episodes which are never
On the surface, The C om m itm ents is
theless crucial. The force of shadowy subcon
nothing more than a urban “pop realist” tale of
rockabilly, rock ’n’ roll, 1970s glam and ’60s
scious drives is also hinted at, for example, in
young band members wanting to bring soul
flow er child.
is a pastiche and parody of music influences:
the recurrent motif of the return, and in the
music to the Irish Catholic capital, Dublin. But
Jimmy and Joey forge a soul bond. Initially,
different reasons that each individual has. (Even
Alan Parker’s parable of contem porary times is
“Lips” plays a father/God role to the younger
G igli’s voice, with its lyricism and its sweet
peppered with biblical parallels.
Jim m y’s Christ-like persona; later, he assumes
ness, heard in the background at so many
The film opens on Jimmy (Robert Arkins),
a Christ-like role, exemplified in one of the later
points in the film, becomes a reminder of the
an unemployed youth on his way to a wedding
scenes where young Jimmy accuses the older
past as a constant form of trespass, of the past
reception, where he meets with mates who
but wiser Joey of lying to him. Joey thrice
that is dominated by the fearful and uncom pro
want to start up a new band. In a few deft
comments, in different scenes, that he is sur
mising patriarchs.)
scenes, Parker unobtrusively introduces most
prised “you would doubt me brother”. Like Pe
of his characters.
ter, Jimmy later realizes that he thrice doubted
The psychological insights that are sug gested are, perhaps, the major sources of the
The cam erawork is static, the movement
film ’s sophistication. The role of the mother as
within each frame making up the vignette, such
“Lips” is regarded by the other band mem
a source of comfort, in contrast to the father, Is
as when the bride with a bun in the oven tosses
bers as a religious eccentric. He baffles all the
a crucial aspect In Robert’s life, just as the
down a Guinness, flocked by bridesmaids who
younger male band members with his sexual
sisters who betray and humiliate him provide a
busy themselves with the bride’s swelling girth,
aura. Imelda Quirke (Angeline Ball), the Mary
clue to his obsessions with being a “real man”.
or when the old man is woken abruptly by an
Magdalen of the female backing trio, has a soft
The tension between his seem ingly ambivalent
alcohol-fuelled lad who grabs the microphone
spot for young Jimmy. One of the other vocal
sexual preferences and the image of the father
and begins crooning (he becomes the new
vixens also attempts to charm him, but is re
band’s lead singer).
jected. Inevitably, all three girls fall for Joey
is also crucial (and it surfaces in the repeated
the older m an’s word.
story of his father’s “mascara”). Caroline, his
Jimmy advises his mates that the only way
“the Lips”, who in many respects personifies
wife, is an intriguing figure, too, since her sexu
the band will be successful will be by going
the passion, desire and charism a young Jimmy would like to possess, but for the present is
ality is explicitly defined in terms of guilt and the
back to working-class roots. Jim m y’s role alter
dissolution of the self. Freudians will find more
nates. In the first half of the film, he adopts a
intent on his mission: to bring soul to D ublinand
than a few hints of the death-wish in the film.
C hrist-like persona, perceived by deed not
become famous.
Essentially, The Com fort o f Strangers\s an
words, celibate, reflective and obsessed with
It is during the rehearsals and perform
ironic and subtle drama of obsession and re
thoughts of being the next most successful
ances that the characters expose their vuln
lease, and of shifting thresholds between mas
Irish export since U2 and Sinead O ’Connor. In
erabilities. Most of these scenes are punctu
ter and slave, predator and victim (a recurrent
the latter half, where the band performs, he
ated with various hum orous incidents and
element in Pinter’s plays). The awakening of
assumes a modern day St Peter role, always
banter. The stage is their “soil” and site of
sexual desire in the lives of both couples is also
doubting and questioning his beliefs and mo
growth, and Parker eagle-eyes it, capturing
thought-provoking, since it seems to be based
tives in mock interview situations. Could this be
details that only band groupies would notice.
on mutual contact. Schrader’s view is that Ozu,
seen as parlaying to God, media style?
In rehearsal, young Jimmy sits back, whilst
Bresson and Dreyer were preoccupied with the
Jimmy advertises for additional band mem
older showman Joey “the Lips” orchestrates
charting of the holy. W hat is becoming increas
bers, and selects twelve ‘apostles’. Among the
and smooths politics. The Judas of the group,
ingly apparent is that Schrader (and Pinter) is
pickings is a born-again Christian called Joey
Deco (Andrew Strong), the lead singer, is a
56
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
suprem e egotist, universally disliked by the
THE COMMITMENTS Directed by Alan Parker. Pro
lect Doyle from his exclusive private boarding
band, which begrudgingly acknowledges his
ducers: Roger Randall-Cutler, Lynda Myles. Execu tive producers: Armyan Berstein, Tom Rosenberg,
school in Atlanta. Both Natalie and Dutch are
fine singing talent. Deco and Jim m y’s relation ship is sim ilar to that of Judas and Christ in that Jimmy has a soft spot for the singer who later “betrays” him in front of an audience, by declar ing “the manager fucked up”. There are two key scenes in The Com m it ments worth noting. One involves an incident which occurs during the band’s first paid gig. Jimmy is paid cash but is then heavied by thugs who demand payment for gear the band is using. The band members witness the fight and their perform ance deteriorates, during which the drum m er, Mickah (Dave Finnegan), a hardcore thug, leaps from the stage and head butts the baddies, rescuing Jimmy. Joey “the Lips” , in the meantime, orders the band to keep playing and is shortly joined by the bleeding Jimmy, who proudly introduces each band member to the crowd, am idst cheers and ap plause. It is a scene which cements the band
Souter Harris. Line producer: David Wimbury. Co producers: Dick Clement, Jan La Frenais, Marc Abraham. Scriptwriters: Dick Clement, Jan La Frenais, Roddy Doyle. Based on the novel by Roddy Doyle. Director of photography: Gale Tattersall. Production designer: Brian Morris. Costume designer: Penny Rose. Art directors: Mark Geraghty, Arden Gantly. Set recording engineer: Tim Martin. Sound consultant: Joe O’Herlihy. Music supervisor: G. Mark Roswell. Music arranged by Paul Bushnell. Cast: Robert Arkins (Jimmy Rabitte), Michael Aherne (Steven Clifford), Angeline Ball (Imelda Quirke), Maria Doyle (Natalie Murphy), Dave Finnegan (Mickah Wallace), Bronagh Gallagher (Bernie McGloughlin), Félin Gormley (Dean Fay), Glen Hansard (Outspan Foster), Dick Massey (Billy Mooney), Johnny Murphy (Joey “The Lips” Fagan), Kenneth McCluskey (Derek Scully), Andrew Strong (Deco Cuffe). A First Film Company-Dirty Hands Production. Australian distributor: Roadshow. 35 mm. 117 mins. 1991.
DUTCH
aware that Doyle isn’t going to accept a surro gate father figure in a hurry, but that doesn’t faze Dutch: “I’m a com m unicator ... a break through kinda guy ... and when the smoke cleared I had a new friend.” He seems to envis age some sort of conflict. T hat’s putting it mildly. Nothing could prepare him for their first en counter. Unlike the adorable monster in Home Alone - our mini-hero Kevin (Macauley Culkin) Doyle is a self-centred, elitist shit. His first reaction to the stranger in his room is to jump on him, beat him up and shoot him with his BBgun. Doyle’s achieved a high brown belt in karate (sure he has ...), so this is almost too easy. But Dutch has a mission: he’s going to bring Doyle home to Chicago whether he wants to come or not. The best thing about a John Hughes script is that those articulate little know-it-alls always get their noses rubbed into their own smart-
m em bers’ faith, a communion of kindred spirit
arsed snobbery, especially when faced with
and soul on stage. eter Faiman has allegedly been dodging a
likeable, funny-guy Dutch Dooley who gives as
volley of scripts since the phenomenal
good as h e g e ts -a n d some. There are no rules
gig, and hinges on the arrival of soul idol Wilson
success of Crocodile Dundee. He appears to
on how you’re supposed to treat a child - no Dr
Pickett. Prior to going on stage, Jimmy an
have been won over by writer-producer John
Spock laws, just good, honest fighting rules,
nounces to the band that Pickett is going to
Hughes’ screenplay and has again taken the
clean punches and no fancy kicks. We like
drop by after his show and jam with the group.
chair to direct Dutch, a road movie about a man
Dutch; w e’re on his side.
He inspires the band to perform at their hottest.
and a boy overcoming their mutual animosity to
In the crowd, the rock press badger for space
develop respect, friendship and trust.
The second key scene, the climax and denouement of the film, also occurs during a
P
The theme that the two antagonists repeat edly toss at each other is that they don’t have to
and scoops. Jimmy paces anxiously. Audience,
At the beginning of the film, we see Natalie
take the other’s crap and set out to prove it by
viewer, band members and the manager are in
(JoBeth Williams) at an exclusive party of her
winning points against each other and gener
a state of anticipation and tension.
ex-husband’s friends, suffering the third de
ally getting up each other’s noses. Actually,
Parker seals the heat of this scene stylisti
gree while her new man, Dutch (Ed O ’Neill), is
Dutch is more of an irritating torm ent than
cally with zooms: a close-up of a singer’s face
exploring the house. This opening sequence
Doyle, who is busy maintaining his upper-class
that abruptly pulls out to a two-shot; a crash
pits the audience against the wealthy snobs as
pride. But Doyle comes up with the ultimate
zoom into a guitarist’s axe; zoom shots of the
well as neatly presenting Dutch as a no-non
pay-back and they are forced to hitch-hike two-
crowd. The band’s playing is tight, Deco is
sense, unpretentious, wisecracking guy who
thirds of the way home.
whipping himself into a frenzy and the crowd is
charm ingly shows us how af
excited. Pickett fails to show, and this band’s
fected and gullible the elite can
nervous tension explodes into a giant back-
be when hede ftlyflicksth eca viar
stage brawl.
from his biscuit and cracks ajoke.
Jimmy, depressed by Pickett’s non-ap
Relieved by someone fam iliar
pearance, disgusted by the sight of the braw l
within an alien environment, we
ers and hurt by Deco’s onstage barb, departs
readily identify with Dutch.
as in much the same way he is first introduced: as a loner. Parker has drawn some very fine perform
Natalie is keen to spend Thanksgiving with her pre-teenage son, Doyle (Ethan Randall).
ances from his young ensemble cast. Camera
His predilection is made appar
angles initially are wide and shots are long,
ent: he’d rather be with his rich
which become medium close-ups, and close-
and successful father. Doyle’s
ups as the pace and plot develops.
undisguised contem pt for his
Parker’s penchant for simple tales height
mother is fuelled by his belief
ened by impressive imagery, which at times is
that it is solely his m other’s fault
discordant and contradicts mood and atm os
the marriage broke down, that
phere, works menacingly in M ississippi Burn
she didn’t “make it w ork”. But
ing and endearingly, albeit vacuously, in Fame,
Dad has other plans this year
but in The Commitments seems overly stylized.
and, in the usual manipulative
Urban Dublin and the working-class ethic have
fashion, he has left itto Natalie to
a nice, too-wholesom e gleam. Music and text
break the unpopular news to
integrate well, but is it too much to venture that
Doyle.
the band is a modern day choir spreading the
Enter Dutch on the family
word of God? The Commitments, like all of Parker’s films,
scene. He comes up with the bright idea of driving over to col-
will polarize audiences, but its structure is inter esting. In searching for commitment, the band
AN UNLIKELY PAIR SETS OFF ON THE ROAD: DUTCH DOOLEY (ED O'NEILL)
disintegrates. One wonders if Parker shares
AND DOYLE (ETHAN RANDALL).
this pessim istic view?
PETER FAIMAN'S DUTCH. CINEMA
PAPERS
85
•
57
The journey turns into a full-blown mission
rather than mapping out the path for our sym
Its central character is Michael Bergman
as they overcome all obstacles, and he and
pathies in a heavy-handed way. Coupled with
(John Savage), an American investment mogul who moves to Melbourne to shore up his busi
Dutch get to know and like each other. Doyle
his unique sense of humour and a vibrant score
develops a sense of humility through hardship
of country and rock songs, it makes for a light
ness empire; a local news headline in the
and learns to think less selfishly. More im por
and entertaining film with a warm core.
opening reveals that Bergman has his eye on
tant, the nature of the ordeal, the struggle to
DUTCH Directed by Peter Faiman. Producers: John
“greater media interests”.
Hughes, Richard Vane. Executive producer: Tarquin Gotch. Scriptwriter: John Hughes. Director of photog raphy: Charles Minsky. Production designer: Stan
Australian film by appearing in a stockbroker’s
make it home in time for the all-im portant Thanksgiving supper, brings him closer to his mother. John Hughes’ off-beatdialogue propels the story forward. In Dutch, his humour is largely unsophisticated, relying on slapstickforlaughs. Some of the s c e n e s -th e ir editing and structure - a r e pure Hughes, such as an elaborate pratfall by Dutch when he attempts a karate-inspired kick. He also employs comic economy to good
Jolley. Costume designer: Jennifer Parsons. Editors: Paul Hirsch, Adam Bernardi. Composer: Alan Silvestri. Cast: Ed O'Neill (Dutch), Ethan Randall (Doyle), JoBeth Williams (Natalie), Christopher McDonald (Reed), Ari Meyers (Brock), E.G. Dailey (Halley), L. Scott Caldwell (Homeless woman), Kathleen Freeman (Grltzi). 20th Century Fox. Australian distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 105 mins. U.S. 1991.
effect, as in the early scene when Dutch de
HUNTING
Natalie and Dutch discussing their plan of ac
G R E G
KE RR
that rates a huge laugh of surprise. It is tempting to speculate that this lead role could have beenfilled by Paul Hogan. It couldn’t. Ed O ’Neill is well cast as the likeable larrikin, Dutch Dooley, who acts the clown with ease and without injuring his ego or appearing fool ish. Each gag or trick shows him looking really pleased with himself, a goofy grin revealing his tongue pushed flat behind his teeth. It is kind of endearing, I guess. Yet Dutch is a tough guy who makes it clear from the start he’s not to be outdone by any kid: “ In my world you’re about as troublesome as a cloudy day.” He’s not thick, he’s cluey and enjoys being a big kid without seeming too childish. Why should kids have all the fun? This attitude Is best exhibited in the scene where Dutch tries to prise a smile from Doyle when he messes around with some fireworks. The Inten tion of the scene is plain: Dutch makes the effort to win over Doyle’s friendship, to break the icy aloofness. But, as comedy, the scene falls flat and it lacks Inventive direction. Ethan Randall is convincing as the hurt and angry boy who wants to embrace his father’s cold values without thinking of the feelings of others, particularly those of his exiled mother. JoBeth W illiams is also competent in her role as Natalie, although her scenes are few and her character Is thinly sketched. Her ap pearances at the opening and closing of the film cap it like a set of bookends. For his return as feature director, Faiman’s choice is apt. Dutch is a warm comedy about a relevant subject: “stepfathers” getting to know their partner’s children, always a prickly ob stacle. The character of Dutch Is well-drawn yet the film is not about his personal journey so much as Doyle’s. There are a few giggles in this film, but I w ouldn’t call it a comic masterpiece. To its credit, it avoids a sentimental treatm ent of the “getting-to-know -you” theme and offers like able characters in reasonably credible situa tions. Hughes does not pass judgem ent on their actions or subsequent predicaments, he simply explores a situation or sequence and enjoys deftly guiding the progression of events 58
•
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
A fter a bit of nervous eye-contact, some appallingly trite dialogue and a cup of spilt coffee, Bergman seems to have cast some sort of a spell on Michelle. In these vital early moments, the apparent sexual Intensity between Bergman and Michelle problem, considering it sets the tone for the entire film. Howson’s explanatory device for their attraction comes in the unusual form of a
tion; he’s a good guy because he is preparing conversation is continued at a restaurant and
office “as if by m agic” to the surprise of a jittery secretary, Michelle Harris (Kerry Armstrong).
is neither credible nor convincing, which is a
cides to collect Doyle from school. We see
the evening meal. In the next scene, their
Savage heralds his first appearance in an
L
candle. Pretty soon, the moth has been lured
group’s new excursion into film noir, Hunting, is,
into the flame, so to speak, and the pair are
at the very least, a significant step in a brave
enmeshed in an illicit affaire of far-reaching
direction. It is an involving tale that tackles its
consequence. Michelle is cheating on her down-
ocally, Boulevard Films has a reputation for ■ producing melodramatic soap-operas. The
subliminal frame of a moth being drawn to a
dark themes with considerable flair and im agi
and-out husband, Larry (Jeffrey Thomas), for
nation, w riter-director-producer Frank Howson
one, and rekindling the guilt of her Catholic
endeavouring to branch Into the human psyche,
upbringing.
melding subconscious vision with a highlystylized sense of reality. The result Isa m oody-looking, overly-indul-
The association reveals a darker side to quietly charism atic Bergman. By degrees, one learns he is a sybaritic egotist who harangues
gent picture which Is hard to place in the Aus
his associates and likes to surround himself
tralian movie experience. It has the makings of
with white candles.
a psychological drama, the atmospherics of a
Bergm an’s methods are reminiscent of a
Romantic study and the cautionary elements of
few figures, fictional and real. He manoeuvres
a fable. Although It Is flawed along the way by some patches of weak scripting and artistic
his way to acquiring an international entertainMICHAEL BERGMAN (JOHN SAVAGE),
largesse, Hunting is still a commendable first-
CENTRE, WITH PIGGOTT (NICHOLAS BELL) AND SHARP
up effort by Howson.
(GUY PEARCE). FRANK HOWSON'S HUNTING.
ment group (Rupert Murdoch), pontificates
death. While the camera makes it obvious he
Shot entirely in Victoria for less than $5
about the dangers of indifference and cynicism
has been viciously pummelled, the script would
million, Hunting has a rich texture that com
(Citizen Kane), and manipulates with charm
try to have viewers believe that Melbourne’s
pares with far more expensive overseas films.
homicide procedures are so inept as to declare
The camera work of David Connell and Dan
and ruthlessness (Don Giovanni). Initially, Savage’s portrayal is stilted by a type of one-dimensional detachment and he is
Burstall gives Melbourne the look of a cosm o
his murder a “suicide”. It is hard to fathom why Howson did not
politan metropolis, which will help Boulevard market the film as an “international” product.
burdened by a script that does not offer enough
make this development more credible by guillo
insight to his motives. Why, for instance, would
tining a few frames and leaving it an open-
Howson says he has attempted to “push
a bloke with more brass than he can count
ended killing. That said, Hunting gets around
the edges” with Hunting and create a picture
choose a decrepit warehouse as the location
such problems with a leaning toward artistic
that is a step in the right direction for Australian
for a sexual encounter with a woman he is out
licence in deference to fact and, in this case,
films. After a screening of the film at the 1990
to impress?
logic.
AFI Awards (where it was widely criticized), an
No doubt some of these questions are
Where Hunting stands out from most Aus
industry figure apparently told Howson Hunting
contrived to build an idiosyncratic aura around
tralian films is that its characters are not prod
would be a hit if it had the name Peter
Bergman, but it is only in the latter half of the
ucts of a specific xenophobic environment;
Greenaway or David Lynch on it. Even if the
film that the character comes to life. Armed with
they are players on an almost surreal landscape
comment contained an element of solacing
that brooding emotional tension he delivers so
with no geographical context. Many of the
flattery, it is something to think about.
poignantly in films like The Deer Hunter and
sc e n e s
HUNTING D ire c te d b y F ra n k H o w s o n . P ro d u c e r: F ra n k
M aria’s Lovers, Savage comes into his own in
accentuations in lighting, sound and action. An
H o w s o n . E x e c u tiv e p r o d u c e r: P e te r B o y le . L in e p r o
the first badman role of his film career.
omnipresent, sweeping darkness licks the
d u c e r: B a rb i T a y lo r . S c r ip tw r ite r : F ra n k H o w s o n . D i
The turning point occurs mid-way through when two of Bergman’s seedy-looking minders
edges of this film and shadows tend to partially
r e c to rs o f p h o to g r a p h y : D a v id C o n n e ll, D a n B u rs ta ll.
(Guy Pearce and Nicholas Bell) pay a visit to
never rains in Bergman’s world, it only pours,
the man Bergman and his lover are cheating. It
and behind closed doors Bergman is forever
is here that Howson demonstrates his skill in front of the camera and in the editing room. To
encircled by candles. With the help of his technical team, Howson
an evocative tune from Mozart’s Don Giovanni,
designs his scenes with symbols, dreams and
R hys
images of the protagonist’s seducing his prey
blurred images. The effect of the candles is
(S h a rp ), N ic h o la s
roll across the screen, interspersed with the
presumably a sight metaphor to the film ’s
A u s tr a lia n d is tr ib u to r : G re a te r U n io n . 3 5 m m . 9 6 m in s .
brutal slaying of Larry, who knows too much. The scene doesn’t quite measure up to the
subtext involving the way a character's “light
A u s tr a lia . 1 9 9 1 .
brillian t baptism /m urder sequence in The
of darkness. A book dealing with the subject,
PROOF
Godfather, although its visual strength is none
The Murder of Christ by Wilhelm Reich, is
KARL
theless effective. At once it illustrates how power in disparate guises can conquer; it also
mentioned in the credits. The style of the film may be considered
■ft m artin (Hugo Weaving) is a blind, emotion-
underlines the consequences of surrendering
excessive by some, inspired by others; which
oneself to the lure of power.
are
e m b e llis h e d
by
o p e ra tic
obscure characters during pivotal moments. It
P ro d u c tio n d e s ig n e r : J o h n D o w d in g . C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r : A p h ro d ite K o n d o s . S o u n d r e c o r d is t: R o g e r S a v a g e . E d ito r: P h ilip R e id . C o m p o s e rs : J o h n F re n c h , D a v id H e rz o g . C a s t: J o h n S a v a g e (M ic h a e l B e rg m a n ), K e rry A r m s tr o n g ( M ic h e lle H a rris ), J e ffr e y T h o m a s ( L a rry H a rris ), R e b e c c a R ig g ( D e b b ie M c C o r m ic k ) , M c C o n n o c h ie
( B ill S t o c k t o n ) , G u y
P e a rc e
B e ll (P ig g o tt) . B o u le v a rd
F ilm s .
ness” or purity subconsciously attracts figures
For all its polish, however, the scene opens
ever way, it is hard to ignore. The visuals are complemented by a soundtrack which ranges
up a narrative oversight concerning Larry’s
from Marc Jordan and The Cars to a John French and David Herzog score similar in parts to A Clockwork Orange. Chief sound mixer Roger Savage also makes a strong contribu tion by engineering a pulsating back-hum that sets the tone fo rth e film ’s most powerful scene. While Hunting is not a happy film, it does not allow itself to become oppressed by its themes. Every so often a quirk or a clever sightreference turns up as a counterpoint to the gloom. In one instance, a broken man stares blankly at a television screen as a suicidal George Bailey (James Stewart) laments his lot in It's a Wonderful Life. The telephone voice of the Senator we never meet happens to belong to John Waters, and Bergman bares his soul to a group of associates at a dinner party only to have one of them (Rhys McConnochie) com plain about his fish. One, however, does not need to look hard to find a few holes, particularly In the area of scripting and acting. While Savage and, to a lesser extent, Armstrong eventually fill their roles with substance, the performances overall are limited in scope and marred by overstate ment. One might have expected good things from Guy Pearce as Bergman’s right-hand man,
Q U I N N
I v f l ally-repressed thirty-som e th in g man who uses an Instamatic camera to take pho tographs of the world he cannot see. He has a collection of snapshots, pictorial framings of the things he senses around him, but he has no framework of verification, of proof, external to himself. Martin is waiting for someone to break through the solipsism of his existence, and that someone is Andy (Russell Crowe). At first, Andy seems an unlikely choice of confidante for the erudite, aloof Martin, who earns his living by writing classical music re views for a bra ille m agazine (I owe this knowledge to a conversation with the director, Jocelyn Moorhouse; Martin’s occupation is never explained in the film, though the com puter on his desk hints at some such activity). Andy is a kitchen-hand, a self-confessed nogooder, whose apparent ease with life belies a deep-rooted sense of failure. What attracts Martin to Andy is the latter’s lack of guile; as Martin tells his newfound friend, “ I like your style: simple, direct, honest.” These are quali ties which Martin obviously feels are missing in the only other living person of any significance in his life, his housekeeper Celia (Genevieve Picot). Celia is thirty and has been working for Martin for some years, in spite of his unrelenting cruelty to her. She has tolerated his psycho logical abuse out of an infatuation that borders
but he barely intones a word let alone a pinch
on obsession, manifest in the room of her flat in
of personality through the entire film. New Zea lander Jeffrey Thomas is convincing and be
which the walls are full of surreptitiously-taken
lievable as Armstrong’s betrayed husband; it is a pity he departs the scene so early.
photographs of her employer. The film opens on Martin walking briskly down a Melbourne laneway, the camera swlngCINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 59
W hat happened to his fa ther? Why does he own such a huge house?), P roof is an extrem ely ac com plished film. Enough praise has been heaped upon it already that any thing said here would only be replication. I feel I must, however, take issue with th o s e
re v ie w s
w h ic h
speak of the film as hav ing an “alm ost European quality”. The film seems to
m e,
not
a
n a tiv e
Melburnian, to show its origins very clearly: the a rc h ite c tu re , the la ne ways, the parks, the drivein and the diverse ethnic ity all point to Melbourne, not the much more homo geneous cities of Europe. Moorhouse herself sug gests that the tendency to see the film as European in style has more to do with the dark interiors, and MARTIN (HUGO WEAVING) WAITS WITH WOUNDED CAT AT THE VETERINARIAN'S. JOCELYN MOORHOUSE'S PROOF.
the sense of claustropho
lack of sight, which has made Martin so de pendent on others, except that he refuses to accept that position with the grace that the
bia that permeates the film (as a visual allegory for M artin’s vision-less world), than with any definable stylistic similarities.
ing at his side is in close-up. We then get a
sighted world almost demands. He also suffers
close-up of his face, complete with dark glasses.
from the absence of the mother whom he
This desire to find points of reference out
T hissh o tth e n pulls back to reveal Martin in full:
suspects of having faked her death in order to
side Australian film culture prompts one to
a blind man, swinging a white cane and carry
escape the burden of her blind son. And there
wonder if what is at play in the celebration of
ing a camera, and walking with much more
is the further unexplained absence of the fa
Proof is not some vestige of the dreaded cul
ther.
tural cringe, which we supposedly shook off a
confidence than we might expect. This series of incongruities, so cleverly pieced together in
While Martin's acceptance of Andy seems
one flowing movement, suggests in the open
to run against the grain of his character, it
ing seconds of the film that the relationship
makes sense insofar as Andy apparently wants
between people, objects and their meanings is
nothing otherthan friendship. Andy’s refusal of
not as self-evident as it appears. (Framing is
M artin’s offer of money in return for describing
here, as elsewhere in the film, a central m eta
the hoard of photographs he keeps is a test that
phor: how we frame the world determines what
decade ago. One must ask if the film would have been as well received here had it not gained such a high profile prior to release, courtesy of the Cannes Film Festival. How often is an Australian feature, by a first director, shown at arthouse cinemas, yet advertised on
Celia has presumably failed to pass. Martin
commercial television? How many Australian
we can know of and about it.) But just as we
clearly resents Celia’s desire to have it both
films receive arthouse distribution from a major
might be settling into a com fortably liberal reas
ways, as a paid employee and as a potential
company like Roadshow? I don’t ask these
sessment of our initial responses (“Well, why
lover. He feels disdain and distrust for what he
questions in order to challenge the wisdom of
shouldn’t a blind man be that self-assured?”),
feels is her mercenary attitude, and so shields
showing such support to Proof, merely to ask why such conviction is not evident in relation to
Martin crashes into the boxes of rubbish which
her eyes when going to the safe to pay her
have spread from the rear of a restaurant into
(there is more at play here than just a question
the laneway, thereby proving how tenuous are
of security), and scoldingly asks “ How much do
Proof done so well merely because it is a
the foundations of his confidence. Martin can
I owe you?” when she bakes a cake in honour
wonderful film, or because international critics
know his physical environm ent only so long as
of her own birthday. The safe, of course, as
told us it was a wonderful film? While P roof iutty
nobody moves the pieces around.
sumes importance again at the end of the film,
deserves the accolades it has received, this is,
local cinema on a more regular basis. Has
when Martin takes out what he calls “the most
I believe, an important question to answer if the
the only way he can exclude unpredictable
important photo I have ever taken”, in order to
much-touted second wave of Australian cin
shifts in the emotional fram ework is to exclude
ask Andy for one final description. As Andy
ema is to have any chance at either self-suffi
em otionality in toto. We see ample justification
describes the photograph, it becomes clear
ciency or longevity.
for M artin’s behaviour, yet we also see none.
that everything that had passed between them
He is cruel to Celia because he senses that to
to this point was secondary to this act, this
allow her to love him, to allow himself to love
moment of proof. For in it, M artin’s entire re
her, would irrevocably alter the balance of
lationship to his m o th e r-h ith e rto based on the
So it is with M artin’s emotional world. But
P R O O F D ir e c te d b y J o c e ly n M o o r h o u s e . P r o d u c e r: L y n d a H o u s e . S c r ip tw r ite r : J o c e ly n M o o r h o u s e . D i r e c to r o f p h o to g r a p h y : M a rtin M c G r a th . P r o d u c tio n d e s ig n e r : P a tr ic k R e a rd o n . S o u n d r e c o r d is t: L lo y d
power so integral to their relationship. He much
assumption that she had lied to him simply
C a rr ic k . E d ito r: K e n S a llo w s . M u s ic : N o t D r o w n in g ,
prefers the inconvenience of Celia moving
because she could - is altered; so, too, is his
W a v in g . C a s t: H u g o W e a v in g
objects around the house out of spite to the
relationship to the world at large, for trust has
P ic o t ( C e lia ) , R u s s e ll C r o w e (A n d y ) , H e a th e r M itc h e ll
( M a r tin ) , G e n e v ie v e
perm anent dislocation of need (hers for him,
entered his frame of knowledge, however pre
( M a r tin ’s m o th e r), J e ffr e y W a lk e r (Y o u n g M a rtin ), F ra n k
into his for her). At a deeper level, his rejection
cariously.
G a lla c h e r (V e t), F r a n k ie J . H o ld e n ( B r ia n ) , S a s k ia
of Celia’s advances stems from a multiple sense of lack. Of primary importance is, of course, the 60
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Minor quibbles with background inform a tion aside (What does Martin do for a living?
P o s t ( W a itr e s s ) . H o u s e & M o o r h o u s e . A u s tr a lia n d is tr ib u t o r : R o a d s h o w . 3 5 m m . 8 6 m in s . A u s tr a lia . 1 9 9 1 .
T E C H N 1C A L I T I E S COMPILED
BY
FRED
HARDEN
70mm The Judgement Day BEING GIVEN A PLATFORM SUCH AS THIS TO STAND ON, IT IS HARD NOT TO WANT TO STRETCH ONESELF AND LOOK OVER THE HORIZON, TO TRY AND SYNTHESIZE THE INFORMATION FLOWING AROUND YOUR FEET
he inter view with James Cameron in the
35mm with CDS offers better quality sound,
August issue (No. 84) of Cinema Papers
without the softness inherent in the blow-up to
must have done its bit to help Australian Ter
70mm. The prices quoted in U.S. dollars were
m inator 2: Judgem ent Day ticket sales to what
“under $2000” for a 35mm print as against the
T
was, as Variety would call it, a “boffo” opening.
“$7,000 to $10,000” for a 70mm with magnetic
There are two behind-the-scenes stories to the
tracks. The lower 35mm print price means that
$100 million budget film: the ground-breaking
it is more financially feasible for a feature that
digital special effects and a test for the release
is getting scratched and worn to be replaced,
of the new CDS sound in 35mm format, a test
but the bottom line for the acceptance of the
that led Variety to ask: Is there a possible
CDS system may well have been provided by
“Digital Demise for 70m m ?”.1
the results for the release of Term inator 2.
Terminator 2 was the first major 35mm re
In San Francisco, one theatre was running
INTO SOME VIEW OF THE FUTURE.
lease with the new CDS digital sound. CDS, as
a 70mm and a 35mm CDS print of Terminator
mentioned in our June issue, is the audio sys
2 in the same com plex. The 35mm print
IN THE WHIRL OF AN INFORMATION
tem co-developed by the Motion Picture and
outgrossed the 70mm screening in the opening
Television Products Division of Eastman Kodak
week by 8%. In the second week, it was 15%.
WORLD DOMINATED BY INNOVA TIONS IN ELECTRONICS AND TELE VISION, THERE IS A PLEASANT FEELING THAT FILM, AFTER BEING LEFT OFF THE INVITATION LIST FOR A LONG TIME, IS GOING TO AGAIN JOIN THE DANCE.
Company in Rochester, New York, and Optical
Variety reports that data provided by theatres
Radiation Corporation, in Azusa, California.
indicated that 35mm CDS prints grossed 60%
Introduced in May 1990 in 70mm, the CDS system allows for six tracks: five full-bandwidth
more than standard analogue stereo prints playing in the same multiplexes.
channels and a sub-woofer channel. The latter
Theatre chains have been cautious about
is used for low-frequency bass tones. In con
the new digital processes with a wait-and-see
trast, current 35mm stereo systems provide
approach to CDS and the competing Dolby SR-
two discrete tracks on the film that are matrixed
D system due out in 1992. The other considera
for four channels of sound.
tion is cost - about $20,000 to equip each
In addition to the six discrete audio chan
theatre for CDS. The UATC (United Artists
nels, there is a MIDI (Music Industry Digital
Theatre Chain) had only four CDS theatres
Interface) control channel, a synchronization
across the U.S. as test sites. For Term inator2,
track containing SMPTE time-code (which puts
they outfitted 18 theatres and advertised heav
a machine-readable address on each frame),
ily. UATC S enior Vice President Howard
and various identification fields, such as the
Edelman was quoted as saying the results
name of the film, the date sound was recorded
were “phenom enal”.
and similar information. The control channel can be used for booth and theatre automation,
TH E S M A L L D E TA IL S
and for synchronizing in-theatre special effects
The latest CDS press releases contain some
(moving the seats and adding strobes or lasers
extra information about using the process that
inside the theatre space seem to be the most-
I found interesting.
mentioned way to “significantly amplify the
In 35mm format, the area currently used on
movie-going experience”). Did the seat move
prints to record the optical soundtrack is wide
for you, dear?
enough to contain the digital soundtrack. How
The CD-quality sound is recorded as an
ever, the digital soundtrack on a 70mm print is
optical track that allows existing contact print
slightly larger than the magnetic track which is
ers to be used to make release prints with
currently used.
Cinema Digital Sound; current 70mm sound is
CDS considered a number of possibilities,
on magnetic stripe. In the U.S., the DeLuxe,
such as putting the track outside the perfora
CFI and Technicolor labs in Hollywood have
tions, changing the picture area or moving it.
been making CDS prints.
They came to the conclusion that the highest
To get that number of tracks in quality
reliability and the least disruption in existing
surround-sound previously required a 70mm
practices in 70mm was to put the track in the
print with that bigger form at’s room for multiple
position of the No. 4 mag track, located inside
m agnetic tracks. In the U.S. especially, a
the perfs on one side of the film.
number of features are blow n-upfrom 35mm to
“The reduction in frame area is about 1
70mm for release concurrently with standard
percent on each side”, Ronald E. Uhlig, agroup
35mm. Variety quotes a figure of less than 100
leader in the electronic development section of
cinemas that show about a dozen features a
Kodak’s Motion Picture and Television Prod
year in 70mm. The widest release is a 35mm
ucts division, rather boldly says in the press
print with analogue optical stereo tracks with
release:
the Dolby system of encoding rear surround
T h a t s h o u ld h a v e no im p a c t o n th e w a y film s a re
tracks.
c o m p o s e d . C in e m a to g r a p h e r s v e r y CINEMA
PAPERS
r a re ly u s e 85
• 61
T EC H N I C A L I T I E S
th e e x tr e m e e d g e s o f th e fra m e in t h e ir c o m p o s i
Fast audio fade-outs and fade-ins are used
tio n , s in c e m o s t e x h ib ito r s u s e a m a s k w ith 7 0 m m
If large gaps of data are damaged or missing,
Term inator 2 is possibly the most expensive
causing the signal loss to be virtually undetect
effects picture that has been made, a factor
p r o je c to r s in o r d e r to c r e a te a b la c k fra m e a r o u n d th e e d g e s o f th e p ic tu r e a re a .
able to the human ear.
D IG ITA L TE R M IN A T IO N
always relative to the overall picture cost. It
The reason that CDS was introduced first in
Approxim ately 6 billion bits of data are read
the 70mm form at was because those theatres
and recovered per second, and the process
for special effects and a display of the state-of-
owes a lot to the high-resolution characteristics
the-art in digital compositing.
being equipped to play back the 70mm mag
certainly will be seen as breaking new ground
tracks already have high-quality front and sur
of modern motion picture films. Kodak’s Fed
round speakers. Uhlig explains:
The effects for Term inator2 were produced
eral Systems Division also developed propri
by Industrial Light & Magic. ILM is the company
A ll t h e y n e e d to d o is r e tr o f it th e p r o je c to r w ith a
etary customized integrated circuits (ICs) for
George Lucas started in 1975 to create the
d ig ita l s o u n d p ic k u p h e a d , a n d in s ta ll a d ig ita l
the error-correction and error-detection sys
visual effects for Star Wars and it has contin
p r o c e s s o r in t h e ir e q u ip m e n t r a c k . V ir t u a lly no
tem, to allow for the imaging characteristics of
ued to win awards and break new ground with
film, the number of channels, etc.
films such as the Indiana Jones series, Who
m a in te n a n c e o r t r a in in g is re q u ire d .
The pickup head will fit any projector and scans the film digital information. The con
TH E L A S T BIG P IC TU R E
verter decodes or unpacks the digital inform a
So where does this leave 70mm, if the process
tion and translates it back into sound. Howard
is now seen as being less than the ultimate?
Flemming, the programme director for Optical
The process of shooting for 70mm on 65mm
Radiation Corp. explains,
film seems now to be the domain of short films
O n e b ig a d v a n ta g e o f d ig it a l s o u n d is th e m a th
forthe specialized theatres in amusement parks.
e m a tic a l t e c h n iq u e s th a t c a n b e a p p lie d f o r a n
Processes such as Showscan and Imax pro
e r ro r d e te c tio n a n d e r r o r c o r re c tio n s y s te m in th e
vide the ultimate visual quality and processes
p ro c e s s o r.
like CDS 70mm sound will ensure that the
U tiliz in g p r o v e n d ig ita l te c h n o lo g y , s u c h as
sound quality will remain high on these prints,
c o n c e a lm e n t a lg o r ith m s , th e p r o c e s s o r a u t o m a ti
an important factor considering they screen
c a lly p r o v id e s a n a c c u r a te a u d io s ig n a l d e s p ite
many times a day. Another of the side benefits
s p lic e s , d ir t o r s c r a tc h e s o n th e film . EDDIE V ALIANT (BOB HO SKINS) W ITH THE BOUND JESSICA A N D ROGER. ROBERT ZEMECKIS' W H O KILLED ROGER RABBIT.
is that it eliminates the head wear from mag netic tracks. The last Hollywood feature shot in 65mm was Disney’s Tron in 1981. However, one 65mm feature Is currently in production, an untitled-as-yet Ron Howard p ictu re s ta rrin g Tom C ruise. Given the higher cost of stock and prints, the big-budget blockbuster seems the only vehicle left for true 70mm theatrical release.
TH E LO C A L C O N T E N T There was to be a demonstration of the CDS system at the recent AES show in Melbourne, but this was cancelled and no date has been set for further dem onstra tions. Rod Haley from Greater Union Village Roadshow Tech
Fram ed Roger Rabbit and The Abyss. Kodak has started a series of interviews called “Innovation in the Film A rts”. Richard Krohn supplied me with a copy of the first of the series, which is with the principals of Industrial Light & Magic. W ithout the space to print the entire piece, I have chosen the section with Stuart Robertson, Head of the Digital Department at ILM, with some brief comments from Dennis Muren. I am grateful to ILM and Kodak for permission to reprint the material here. Anyone interested and involved in the process of film effects, including cinem atogra phers, should seek out a complete copy. The interviews are with Ed Jones, Director of Postproduction; Scott Ross, Group Vice President; Dennis Muren, Visual Effects Supervisor; Stuart Robertson, Head of Digital Department; and Mark Dippe, Assistant Visual Effects Supervi sor. Industrial Light & Magic has created visual effects for more than 60 feature films, and built a consistent award-winning reputation for its effects w o rk .2 ILM’s reputation has been as a leader of computer effects and their integration into fea ture films, the ‘G o-m otion’ m otion-control tech nique that adds realistic controlled blur to stop motion animation, and some pioneering work in 3-D animation.
D E N N IS M UR EN V IS U A L E F F E C TS S U P E R V IS O R
nology (interviewed in Issue 79)
Muren relates how his interest in special effects
believes the industry here will play
reaches back to when he was six- or seven-
a waiting game to see the Dolby
years-old. When he was 14, his parents bought
digital system before making a
him a 16mm camera, and he experimented with
choice, with the number of in
a lot of the special-effects techniques we use
stalled Dolby systems being a big
today. He shot a low-budget, sci-fi feature film
factorintheirchoice. He believes,
called Equinox while a freshman at Pasadena
however, that the first demon
City College. He worked in the special-effects
strations of the Dolby system will
department at a major commercial production
not be until December this year,
house and joined George Lucas when he was
and that Dolby still has only pro
building a visual-effects team for Star Wars.
to typ e units to show . H aley mentioned that they were offered CDS for the Australian release
Earlier you predicted that this will be the digital decade. What does that mean ?
of Terminator 2, but the movie will
I think we are on the edge of finally doing really
run here, at best, in Dolby stereo.
good digital work, which is like painting, or moulding something out of plastic. You can soon grab any part of an image and move it
62
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
#
> 1
c
r
around, do image processing, and create char
T H E C O M P A R IS O N : A N A L O G U E T O D IG ITA L
acters who don’t have to follow the laws of physics. I call that three-dim ensional digital work as opposed to image processing which is 2-D.
How do you create images with a computer? It’s kind of like electronic clay. It helps to start with a 3-D model that you can show the director, so you can talk about it, hold it up and look at it. Then it’s a matter of digitally describing the model into the workstation through a mouse, a
B riefly th e s p e c ific a tio n fig u re s fo r C D S
c h an n el into an o th er, so th e lis te n e r in th e
read as fo llo w s :
th e a tre w ill no t h e ar th e so u n d co m in g
D Y N A M IC R A N G E d e s c rib e s th e ran g e of
from w h ere th e prod ucer intended. M agnetic
lo u d n e s s
in d e c ib e ls . T h e h ig h e r th e
so un d in th e 70m m fo rm a t m easu re s at a 50
nu m b er, th e b ro a d er th e rang e from so ft to
dB level. C D S m easu re s at a 100 dB level.
loud. C o n v e n tio n a l 35m m m onaural o p tical
F R E Q U E N C Y R A N G E fo r a 35m m m o n a u ral
so un d ty p ic a lly have d y n a m ic ran g es from
o p tic al so u n d tra c k is 30 to 6 ,3 00 Hz. For a
44 dB to 52 dB d e p e n d in g on th e co n d itio n
35m m s tere o o p tic a l track , th e fre q u e n c y
of th e prin t. S tereo o p tic al so un d in 35m m
rang e is 40 to 12,500 Hz. For a 70m m sound
fo rm a t ran g es from 51 to 59 dB d e p en d in g
track , th e fre q u e n c y rang e is 30 to 14 ,500 Hz.
keyboard or with a graphic pen. You can as
on th e c o n d itio n of th e prin t. A n a lo g u e in
semble shapes like clay, so you can look at it
70m m m ag n etic fo rm a t rang es from 78 to
from various angles. You can build a shape and
80 dB.
manipulate it without any limitations, as long as it works with the script.
James Cameron has been quoted as saying that the pseudopod in T h e A b y s s t u r n e d out to be exactly what he visualized and that is a great compliment for ILM. What did he visualize?
Fo r C in e m a D ig ita l S o u n d , th e fr e q u en cy rang e is 20 to 20 ,0 0 0 Hz, w h ich is on
C in e m a D igital S ou nd re ta in s a level of
th e ed g es of a p e rs o n ’s a b ility to hear. Th e
arou nd 96 dB fo r th e life o f th e p rin t. The
d ig ita l sy stem a u to m a tic a lly d e te c ts and
d iffe re n c e b e tw een 70m m m ag n etic and
c o rre c ts flu tte r c a u s e d
70m m d ig ita l o p tic al so un d is m ost n o
v a ria tio n s in p ro je c tio n sp eed .
by e v e n s lig h t
tic e a b le in th e a tre s w ith low b ackg ro un d
D IS T O R T IO N . O n e e x a m p le of th is is th e
n o ise lev els. Th e d iffe re n c e b e tw een 35m m
s ib ila n t d is to rtio n a s s o c ia te d w ith hig h e r
m o n a u ral, stere o o p tic al so un d and C in
fre q u e n c y
em a D igital S ou nd in 35m m fo rm a t is d e
m o n a u ral and s tere o o p tic al so u n d track s.
“s ” sounds
on b o th 35 m m
He wanted a snake-like projection with a sur
sc rib ed as “d ra m a tic ” .
In both cases, th e rang e of h a rm o n ic d is
face that constantly undulated with sort of a
C H A N N E L S E P A R A T IO N is th e s y s te m ’s
to rtio n is from 1 to 7 p e rc e n t, p rim a rily
random rippling effect. He wanted itto have the
a b ility to iso late so u n d s co m in g from sp e
d e p e n d in g on th e d e n s ity at w h ich th e prin t
texture of water. Our animators designed a
cific d ire c tio n s or sp e a k e rs . C o n ven tio n al
w as m ade and th e ex act nature of the sound.
snake-like tube with a rounded head. The pod had an imaginary spine, which was basically a line through the centre that we used to connect
35m m stereo optical sound has se p aratio n s
A s te re o 70m m p rin t has a h a rm o n ic d is to r
from one ch an n el to a n o th e r th at rang e
tio n level fre q u e n tly reach in g 3 p e rc en t.
from 12 to 49 dB . T h is can m ean th a t th ere
T h e a v era g e h a rm o n ic d is to rtio n on a CDS
is a te n d e n c y fo r sound to “ le a k ” from one
prin t is .01 perc en t.
pivot points. By manipulating the points, we could create whatever movements he wanted. We built the pseudopod in 3-D computer
conditions. Later they will be able to digitally
What’s the difference?
space, and then composited it with 2-D images
alter colours, brightness, contrast and even
Once you are in digital format, there’s lots more
shot on film ... the background plates. We
granularity. It will be like timing film, only they’ll
you can do. The mattes are far better. You can
actually created 3-D dimensional computer
do it in the digital domain, which will give them
do paintwork on individual frames. Maybe you
models of the background plates, which ac
a lot more control. T hey’ll be able to look at a
have a nearly imperceptible matte line, and it
counted for the angles, movements and focal
digital monitor or a digitally projected image,
only shows on four frames of film. Once we are
length of the camera. This created an environ
and say, “Let’s pull the reds down, and make
in the digital world, we can paint them out.
ment for plotting the moves of the pod.
the sunset a little more golden across the top of
The most challenging part was creating the rippling effects that made the water snake seem real. That was achieved with a combination of software, timing and animation, and an under
the fram e.”
Aretheregeneral rulesforsuccessful visual effects?
Are the same people doing the work in both domains? Some of them are. But we also have people who have been working with computer graph
Ninety percent of the time we shoot film effects
ics. We are starting to bring the skills of optical
In the VistaVislon format because we want a
of light on a moving object. In the end, your
camera operators into the digital world. Some
larger image area than the 35 mm film used for
sense of the aesthetics is as important as the
of them can see subtleties that computer peo
production photography. That gives us an edge
mastering of the technology.
ple don’t, because they know what to look for.
in matching the image quality of the live-action
You look at a composite and say to yourself,
And what is 2-D digital technology?
footage. The ultimate goal for all visual effects
“The colour looks great. It looks a little hazy
That could be imaging processing. It could
is to be seamless. For that reason, effects
going off into the distance, bu tth e outline is too
involve making electronic composites, colour
shots generally shouldn’t be on the screen too
sharp.” Most people aren’t going to see that.
grading, or erasing guide-lines with electronic
long, but there are always exceptions. The
But if you cut that scene into the middle of a
paint. Maybe a scene was shot on a day when
longer an audience has to scrutinize an effects
movie, it will stand out and lookfake. So, I think
there was haze in the air, so the sky is kind of
shot, the better the details have to be.
standing of how to mix refraction and reflection
a pale blue, and the director wants it to be a richer blue. The lab will be able to change the sky to whatever blue the director wants without altering any other blues in the same scene.
On T e r m in a to r territory?
2
you explored a lot of new
There are 45 special effects shots combining
it is really important for the people who have been doing this kind of work with film to get experience with the computer side. The thing I have been pushing for is sim pler and more accessible tools
I think cinem atographers will love this sys
com puter-generated or com puter-altered im
tem because they’ll have so much more con
ages with live-action photography. We scanned
trol. If they have to shoot a location scene on a
in the background film plates, compositing dig
Yes, and software. How well do you interface
day when the weather is really bad, say, they
itally with com puter-generated graphics. Then
with it? How well does it talk to you? How do you
might use the EXR 5296 film in real low-light
we recorded the digital composite onto film.
talk to it? All of this technology is still evolving.
By tools, you mean computer workstations?
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 63
T E C H N I C A L I T I E S
Six or seven years ago, people were using
him. He can shoot plates on location and make
Cray computers to generate electronic images.
a more believable composite without matte
Now we are using Silicon Graphics w orksta
lines.
tions and Macintosh computers. The more af
How about taking a look out beyond this decade into the next century?
you need an enormous amount of computer
I think w e ’ll see sm aller theatres in malls and
every three seconds, it takes less computer
fordable and user-friendly these tools are, the more people you can involve in this process. T hat’s important because you want people who have the talent and experience to make the right artistic decisions about contrast, bright ness, colours and all of those elements of the image which can evoke an emotional response.
What kind of resolution is required? It depends on the shot and the script. Some
What does that mean ? if you have to scan X-number of pixels to digital form at in real time, or at 24 frames per second, power and memory. But if you scan one frame
shopping centres which have simulated rides
power. That isn’t a great problem, since in the
and fantasy films. If the pace of life continues to
visual-effects domain we typically work with
speed up, people will be looking for entertain
one frame at a time.
ment on the fly. Maybe they’ll spend 20 minutes
I can see that you are installing a number of Macintosh computers. What are they going to be used for?
instead of 2 hours seeing a film. At the same time, I think home entertain ment will get better.
We are setting up a digital-based compositing
subjects may require 2,000 or 2,500 lines of
I don’t think there will be a particular year
resolution. If you are creating an image where
that we will be able to look back to and say
there’s a lot of motion so you can’t see details,
tha t’s when digital filmmaking happened. It’s
you need a lot less resolution. In Young Sherlock
going to be an evolutionary process. Maybe a
Holmes and the Pyram id o f Fear, the re’s a
director will use five digital composites in one
com puter-generated character, a stained glass
film, and then 10 in the next one, and then 30.
and effects facility. At this point, we are using Macintosh 11 computers to do some of the work that has been done in the optical, animation and rotoscope departments. This is very much like what is being done in video with Harry systems. Basically, we will be doing problem
man, and he’s always walking or moving. We
Then, 10 years down the road to the future,
wanted image blur like you would get from a
w e’ll realize that we have gone through this
methods. For example, if someone is shooting
camera shutter, so the details w ouldn’t be too
transformation. But w e’ll still be using film
blue screen, and they get too close to the blue
sharp. We felt that one shot would be best at
opticals for more complex composites.
screen, the light will reflect off the object, and
600 lines. If you can get away with that, it’s the way to go because there are fewer image data storage requirements, which means you can do everything faster. But the goal is to make composites and digitally-generated objects and characters look more realistic.
Is that an artistic or a technology decision? Visual effects is both an art and a science. The artistic side is determining how to use technol ogy to make the look convincing.
that light will either become transparent or
S T U A R T R O B E R TS O N
black. We call that blue-spill. You can address
Robertson went to school at the University of
that problem with much greater facility digitally.
Kentucky, and did graduate work at the Art
On top of that, there’s the question of prob
Institute in Chicago. He worked in optical de
lem shots. The capability that you have in
partments for film labs and visual effects houses
digital is to go in and do retouching - in effect
for 15 years, joining ILM in 1988.
directly on the film fra m e -o r completely invisible
How do you see visual effects changing and evolving?
This frees us to do things we haven’t been able
came into this business. The use of computers for motion-control made an enormous impact
The look is usually determined during pre-
during the past seven to eight years, especially
production meetings with the director, the ef
in animation graphics. It has made a big differ
fects supervisor and art director.
ence in determining what you can do. When I started out on an optical camera, there was a
w ith
a b s o lu te
a c c u ra c y
and
are also affected by the improvements in the
repeatability. There are only five or six basic
camera films they use. Camera stocks are
manipulations you can perform, like superim
getting sharper and finer grained. The Eastman
posing, matting things in and out, and sizing.
EXR 5245 film is a remarkable breakthrough in
Computerized motion-control allows us to mul
image quality. Film has been a very precocious
tiply the potentialities and make much more
technology. I think all of the T-Grain emulsion
realistic and sophisticated composites
films are big improvements. They are giving us
What’s the second major change?
and more details on film.
class of effects that w asn’t possible before. We are really getting into position to apply the same range of possibilities that has taken place in video technology during the past few years to
So you really need to be able to manipulate a great amount of visual data ?
m atic moves and make m ultiple separate passes
That means you are getting more resolution
easily make it seem to float in space, or you can cast shadows that look truer. That’s a whole
film.
Most of them want to know what we are doing,
more speed with less grain and better contrast.
of a hand puppet into a scene. You can more
lot of hand-plotting. Now you can set up auto
and we have to match their look. Of course, we
At the same time, lenses are getting sharper.
split-screen shots anywhere within the frame. to do before. Let’s say you want to integrate film
There have been two major changes since I
Who decides what the look should be?
How about the director of photography?
solving work that is resistant to traditional
We are working with very large picture files. We are carrying about five times the amount of picture information that you would have in a normal television picture file. We are dealing in very high resolution.
What do you do after digital compositing is completed? How do you get back onto film?
Digitization. Since we used computer graphics on The Abyss, we have had at least two or three scenes in every film where we have done some digital work, usually wire removal. Instead of
What are the ramifications for the artform?
manipulating images optically, we are scanning
We are just scratching the surface. W hat we
the film into digital format, painting the wires
consider to be far-out filmmaking, like Termi
out digitally, and then recording back onto film.
We are using a film recorder with a high-inten sity light source. Primarily, we have been scanning onto the 5245 film, which is a very low-grain, high-contrast stock.
What do you see happening with traditional optical work?
nator 2, w on’t be far-out anymore because it
The key to the evolution of this technology is
I don’t see it going away in the immediate
will be more accessible. The ram ifications ad
that we need to work at film resolution, and that
future. The question is: How fast will digital
dress every aspect of film m aking. Maybe a
takes a lot of memory. You can compensate by
hardware advance? There are things we can
director needs a certain shot, but he can’t stay
trading time for resolution, since film, unlike
do today that you can’t do traditionally, but
on location and wait for the weather to give it to
video, isn’t a real-time medium.
other things take longer. The calendar time is
64
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
I
VI
about the same. The total hours spent are about the same. If we need to digitally composite more than two orthree elements, you sta rtto go downhill very rapidly. When you look at film as an inform ation recording device, you realize you can record a vast amount of information very rapidly. So we anticipate that film will keep
Over the years, are you going to find that the most talented new people will want to work in this area, and, if so, where will the next generation of optical camera people come from?
times as easy, and we probably could have done some things that the director would have loved to have happen. The director was already thinking in terms of effects that were appropri ate for digital. No effect is ever created by
This type of work requires a hands-on ability.
machine. It always starts with an idea, and, the
It’s very much a craft, and in any craft knowl
more tools you have, the more you can create.
doing those things quite well for a long time.
edge and experience are advantages So peo
In R o g e r R a b b it, there are composites with more than 100 elements. Is that kind of complex shot still being done?
ple with good optical experience will be that much more valuable.
How far can you look ahead into the next decade in terms of applying this technol ogy?
Do you see digital image capture becoming a future reality?
can see some of the freedom that the video
traditional opticals are more efficient.
Put it another way: I can’t see any advantage in
people have had being given to film directors,
Give us an example where something would be more practical or possible to do digitally from an actual picture.
not using film as a recording medium. You will
and not just for blockbusters. It might have a
always have a better picture with a larger for
bigger impact on films that don’t have gigantic
mat. That’s just like a better storyline will make
budgets.1
In Back to the Future Part II, where Michael Fox
a movie more interesting. Digital technology
is playing three generations of a fam ily sitting
isn’t a panacea. It doesn’t mean you can do
around a table. We shot this on film with a state-
anything. It means you can solve problems you
of-the-art split-screen. It took months. Some
couldn’t solve as easily before. However, there
The
thing like this could very properly be done by
are limits and constraints.
in n e rs p a c e ,
layering the items digitally and erasing lines
How important is it to have a digital picture standard?
E x tra te rre s tria l, R a id e rs o f th e L o s t A rk , The
I’m not sure. As long as we are inputting and
o t h e r O s c a r n o m in a tio n s f o r D ra g o n s la y e r, P o l
Oh sure, and tha t’s another example where
you don’t want.
I wouldn't attempt to do that other than to say I
1.
V a rie ty f r o n t p a g e , d a te d J u ly 9 1 .
2.
IL M h a s e a r n e d 1 0 O s c a r s f o r v is u a l e f fe c t s f o r
Abyss,
W ho
F ra m e d
R oger
R a b b it,
C o c o o n , In d ia n a J o n e s a n d th e
T e m p le o f D o o m , R e tu rn o f th e J e d i, E T : The E m p ire S trik e s B a c k a n d S ta r W ars. T h e r e w e r e
What kinds of backgrounds are you looking for in computer operators?
outputting to and from film, it might not be that
te rg e is t, Y o u n g S h e rlo c k H o lm e s a n d th e P y ra
We are really looking for an eclectic mix. We
important to us.
m id o f F e a r a n d W illow .
have people from opticals and rotoscoping, but
extension of conventional techniques. Foryears
Is there any danger of digital technology advancing to the point where it kind of ho mogenizes the artform and everyone is do ing the same things?
optical people have been saying, I wish I could
There’s no reason why it should. This is kind of
also people from computer animation and com puter people with Harry experience. This is an
In
a d d it io n ,
IL M
has
r e c e iv e d
f o u r t e c h n ic a l
a c h ie v e m e n t a w a r d s fro m th e A c a d e m y o f M o tio n P ic tu r e A r t s a n d S c ie n c e s . IL M a ls o w o n fiv e a w a r d s fr o m
B A F T A ( B r it is h A c a d e m y o f F ilm
a n d T e le v is io n A r ts ) f o r B a c k to th e F u tu re P a rt II,
W ho F ra m e d R o g e r R a b b it,
The W itc h e s o f
E a s tw ic k , P o lte rg e is t, a n d R e tu rn o f th e J e d i.
smear that edge. You have to know what you
a cut-and-paste craft more than anything else.
want to do, why and w hat’s needed. That’s why
W hat we are doing is realizing the director’s
w e’re mixing people from different disciplines
vision. If we had had the Macintosh w orksta
f o r E w o k s : The B a ttle fo r E n d o r a n d f o r A n E w o k
tions working on Ghost, itwould have been three
A d v e n tu re .
and extending their capabilities.
N O T
T h e r e w a s a fif th n o m in a tio n f o r B a c k to th e F u
tu re . IL M h a s w o n tw o E m m y s f o r v is u a l e f fe c t s
E
T h e c h a n g e s ta k in g p la c e in film an d re la te d te c h n o lo g ie s a re s ig n ific a n t a n d , as th e y a re n o t b ein g c o v e re d e ls e w h e re , Cinema Papers is p la n n in g s o m e c h a n g e s to th is s e c tio n of th e m a g a z in e . A s o f th e n e x t is s u e , it w ill b e a tte m p tin g to p ro v id e an e x p a n d e d film -o rie n te d s e c tio n o f n e w te c h n o l o g y , p ro d u c t in fo rm a tio n an d u s e r c o m m e n t th a t s h o u ld a d d re s s s o m e of th e n e e d s o f th e A u s tra lia n film in d u s try . If yo u h a v e in fo rm a tio n th a t yo u b e lie v e w ill be o f in te re s t, p le a s e c o n ta c t F red H a rd e n at th e Cinema Papers o ffic e o r a t P .O . B o x 33, A lb e rt P a rk 3 2 0 6 .
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 65
BOOK
R E V I E W S
stubborn and curt, he often hurt people by speaking his mind and, while he claimed that he disliked himself, he seems to have been entirely self-centred. For these and other reasons, not every word in this book is filled w ith
a d o ra tio n .
A n d re y
M ikh a lko v-K o n ch a lo vsky, for example, confesses to re g u la r d re a m s of T a r kovsky; in some, he con fronts the dead man, as he did in their later associations in life, and tells him that his films are much too long and boring. In fact, the dead fig ure of Tarkovsky seems to be haunting most authors in
ABO UT ANDREI TAR K O V SK Y
vodka-drinking sessions and, of course, the
C o m p ile d b y M a rin a T a rko vska ya , va rio u s tra n s la
making of T arkovsky’s films. These diverse
his ghost, and those who feel they might have
tors, P ro g re ss P u b lish e rs, M o scow , 1990, 3 8 2 p p ., pb,
articles have been written in a highly personal,
wronged him while he was alive tend to be more
£ 6 .9 5 (im p o rt)
emotional and often totally over-the-top man
than apologetic. All these earthly and other
ner by Tarkovsky's friends, family and col
wise emotions make for a thrilling and w him si
leagues. W hat unites their authors is that, at
cal read.
TAR K O V SK Y: CINEM A AS POETRY M a ya T u ro vska ya , tra n s la te d b y N a ta sh a W ard, e d
one time or another, they were all closely in
ite d a n d in tro d u c e d b y Ian C h ristie , F a b e r a n d Faber,
volved with Tarkovsky in various ways.
L on d o n, 1989, 1 7 7 p p ., hb, Ulus., rrp $ 2 9 .9 5
TIM E WITHIN TIM E: THE DIARIES 19701986 A n d re y T a rko vsky, tra n s la te d b y K itty H u n te r-B la ir, S e a g u ll, C a lcu tta , 1991, 3 9 2 pp., Ulus., £ 2 5 (im p o rt) A L I S S A
T A N S K A Y A
this book: some of the articles are addressed to
Inevitably, much of the narrative centres on the Russianness of Tarkovsky and his work. It
Among the more interesting articles in this
should almost be possible to re-title this book
collection is the account of T arkovsky’s birth
as “Andrey Tarkovsky and Mother Russia”. The
and early childhood, reconstructed from en
atmosphere set up by the book is intensely one
tries in a special diary his mother and father,
of Russian nostalgia: walks around Moscow,
Arseny Tarkovsky, the poet, had kept for him.
conversations at Mosfilm studios, drinking and
The piece is lyrical and full of nostalgia, nostalgia
guitar-playing parties at various country houses,
being one of the more prominent features of
swimming in the rivers of Russian forests, the
this book. However, there is little significance in
changing of the seasons and the overwhelm
The Russian “glasnost” derives from a word
this story being about Tarkovsky; rather, it is a
ing, tidal-wave evocation of the Russian spirit.
which can be translated as “to publicize” or “to
piece about Russian life in the early 1930s.
It is this atmosphere that, most articles claim,
make known”, and certainly in the past few
The articles by actors in T arkovsky’s films
Tarkovsky should have never left. Several im
years the Soviets have been acknowledging
occupy the greater part of the book and their
ply that, for Tarkovsky, leaving Russia was
much of their history and culture, which, while
authors speak just as much of themselves as of
suicidal.
extrem ely important, has been suppressed for
their beloved “master”, and “m aster” is how he
However, personal and emotional senti
too long, a fact which has inevitably benefited
is mostly represented. It seems as if Tarkovsky
ments aside, Andrey Tarkovsky was a film
the West. The artistic achievem ents of Soviet
undergoes a type of an artistic apotheosis in
maker and, as this book continuously insists,
Russia have been tumbling off the proverbial
their words: throughout the book he is often
one of the greatest, if not in the history of world
shelf, presenting some surprises and occa
compared to such figures as Christ and So
cinema, then certainly in the history of Russian
sional revelations.
crates, and to various forms of sainthood. These
cinema. The lengthy and detailed accounts of
Although the films of Andrei Tarkovsky have
words from Nikolai Burlyaev, who played Ivan
Tarkovsky at work should prove to be a verita
never really been “locked up”, he remained for
in Ivan’s Childhood and the bell caster in Andrey
ble film m aker’s delight. The actors recall con
a long time a controversial name in the Soviet
Rublyov, largely sum up the general sentiment
versations, fights, tears, mood swings, laugh
Union, particularly after his exile in 1982. Now,
of most authors in this book:
ter and exaltation as they tell of the filming of
several publications about his life and work
W h e n w e m e t it w a s lo v e a t f ir s t s ig h t. H e w a s
various scenes. Scriptwriters, authors, design
have become available, both in the Soviet Un
h a n d s o m e , s t r o n g a n d d e b o n a ir , a m a n w h o
ers and composers evaluate the pressures of
ion and abroad. One of the most fascinating is
k n e w e x a c t ly w h a t h e w a n te d , t o u g h , k in d , a n d
working with an egomaniacal genius, whom
A bout A ndrei Tarkovsky, an unobtrusive-look
c a p a b le o f p u t t in g o t h e r s a t e a s e w it h h is lig h t
they believed, as he did himself, to be no less
ing volum e of m em ories and anecdotes,
h u m o u r . H e w a s t h e a b s o lu t e c e n t r e o f t h e w h
than a prophet of modern Russia. The candour
translated and published in the Soviet Union.
o le g r o u p , e n jo y in g e v e r y o n e ’s r e s p e c t , [p . 71 ]
is at once unsettling and fascinating, recreating
Compiled by Tarkovsky’s sister Marina, it is an
Y e s , I lo v e A n d r e i. I s e e h is ‘t e r r ib le ’ q u a lit ie s
intriguing combination of diary entries, poems,
a n d lo v e h im . [p . 8 2 ]
a world which existed for a split fraction of time, a world now vanished along with its creator.
fictional and philosophical narratives, recollec
The “‘terrib le’ qualities” of Tarkovsky’s per
Andrey Tarkovsky greatly influenced many lives
tions of dreams, and accounts of journeys,
sonality are also outlined by many: he was
that became caught in the web of his fanatical
66
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
world, and the book is a testam ent to this. Not all of the articles have been written by
pandering to his often offensive suggestions
M acDonald’s interviewees manifest a so
about women. I do not wish to discredit the
phisticated theoretical understanding of the dominant illusionist codes of mainstream nar
Russians. The last part of the book is written by
entire female population of the USSR by sug
the members of the cast and crew of The
gesting that questioning such matters might be
rative cinema as indicated in their own film ic
Sacrifice, and there is also a piece by Krzysztof
irrelevant to them, which leads me to conclude
practice, and offer many critical insights into
Zanussi and a scenario for a documentary
only that Turovskaya might find fem inist dis
their own backgrounds, influences, major con
about Tarkovsky’s exile and death by Ebbo
course quite irrelevant in a discussion about
ceptual, cultural and audio-visual interests and
Demont.
Tarkovsky’s work.
the overall situation of independent cinema in
Incidentally, it is not at all necessary to
Overall, the book is poorly structured. The
have seen all or any of T arkovsky’s film s to be
explanation for this is given early on when it
To begin with, all of M acD onald’s inter
able to read and appreciate this book. It reads
states that the book is a mixture of different
viewees represent many different form s and
as a type of a post-modern novel about a
essa ys w ritte n o ve r the e n tire span of
traditions of American avant-garde cinema as
Russian film m aker’s life, from the time just
T arkovsky’s career, and collected for this pub
“structural film ”, “experimental narrative”, “trash
before his birth to the time of (and most obses
lication. The explanation, however, is unsatis
film ”, “punk film ”, “diary film ” and “recycled
sively so) his death. There is not even a brief
factory as there are several repetitive pas
cinem a”. M acDonald’s subjects include such
instance of an attempt to ‘read’ his films, and
sages. Obviously, she borrowed from her ear
key e x p e rim e n ta l film m a k e rs
this is refreshing.
lier essays in the later ones, and these could
Frampton, Larry Gotheim, Carolee Schnee-
The uncustomary, to say the least, transla tion of most of the articles is not so much
contem porary American society.
as H o llis
have been edited out without too much distur
mann, Vivienne Dick, Beth B and Scott B, John
bance to the text as a whole.
W aters, Bruce Conner, Babette Mangotte and
annoying as amusing and quaint. As well, the
On a final note, Tarkovsky’s diaries have
Manuel De Landa. All of M acD onald’s inter
amount of typos and misspelt words points to a
also been recently published, in India, by Seagull
viewees, through their films, contest dominant
lack of sufficiently skilled English-literate proof
Books. It is called Time Within Time and con
cinem a’s conventional modes of representa
readers in the great publishing house of Prog
tains all his diaries, including some hand-writ
tion. W hat is stressed (time and again) is how
ress Publishers, Moscow.
ten pages and sketches, from 1970 to 1986, a
these particular avant-garde filmmakers put
A much less interesting or beneficial vol
1966 interview for To the Screen, and various
into crisis the underlying cultural, institutional
ume is the collection of critical (and this de
recorded conversations and thoughts on some
and theoretical emphases of mainstream nar
scription is questionable) essays by Maya
of his films and plays. The book also contains
rative cinema and its apparatus of spectatorship.
Turovskaya, an apparently leading Soviet critic
a large collection of photographs.
Their films embody all the more characteristic
who claims to have been a close associate of
But it is to a word image by the painter
conceptual and stylistic preoccupations that
T arkovsky’s. Tarkovsky: Cinema as Poetry,
Shavkat Abdusalamov, printed in A bout Andrei
form the American avant-garde cinema since
Turovskaya writes, is nothing more than “the
Tarkovsky, that one continually returns:
the 1940s.
spontaneous reactions of one cinem a-goer”,
W h e n , in th e t e le p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n w ith M a
but one suspects her of being coy. She attempts
At this juncture we should examine what
r in a , I a s k e d h e r w h e t h e r t h e y h a d a c o u n tr y
MacDonald means by the term “critical cinem a”
and fails to sound theoretical. The most re
h o u s e a n d w h e r e , it w a s w ith t h e f a in t h o p e t h a t
as it colours his main observations and argu
deeming feature of the theoretical aspect of
t h e r e w a s s t ill s o m e b it o f A n d r e i liv in g s o m e
ments about the various filmmakers who make
this book is the introduction to the Faber edition
w h e r e u n h e a r d . S o m e n a m e le s s s o u r c e a t th e
up his book. For the author, “critical cinem a”
by Ian Christie. The rest is mostly a rather
e d g e o f t h e c e m e t e r y in P e r e d e lk in o , s o m e f e w
can be seen to be synonymous with terms like
p a c e s f r o m a d a m p p a th w ith a d a r k e n e d b o a r d
“underground cinem a”, “the New American
tedious reading of the plots of Tarkovsky’s
s q u e lc h in g u n d e r f o o t , [p p . 2 7 7 - 7 8 ]
films. By and large, Turovskaya approaches the
Cinem a”, “experimental cinem a” and “avantgarde cinem a”. In other words, for MacDonald
she attempts to interpret them while describing
A CRITIC AL CINEM A: INTERVIEW S W ITH INDEPENDENT FILMM AKERS
the plot of each. She seems to be aware of the
S c o tt M a c D o n a ld , U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo rn ia P ress,
has been shadowing the history of American
possible difficulties in her approach, and, while
B e rkele y, 1988, 4 1 0 p p., pb, rrp $ 29
popular cinema for the past four decades.
films as if they were novels and, what is worse,
admitting to be preoccupied with the “semantic
J O H N
C O N O M O S
load” of his films, she is prompt to add that, “The
“critical cinem a” refers to a counter-cinem a of non-commercial and semi-commercial films that
It is MacDonald’s contention that the most interesting and useful film -critical insights to
shimmering halo of meanings [in his films] is
Since the late 1970s Scott MacDonald has
have emerged during recent years have been
wider than any expression of it in words could
been steadily acquiring a substantial critical
coming not so much from modern film theory as
convey.” One cannot help but ask: Why then
reputation as a dedicated and insightful scholar
such, but more specifically from that rem ark
did she ever embark on that task? Much of her
of the American avant-
able body of American
discussion centres on the exposition and
garde. Anyone who is
independent films which
analysis of the various “m otifs” in the films,
fam iliar with such spe
has been designated by
motifs through which she attempts to unite the
cialist art, cultural and
critics, film m akers and
entire Tarkovsky oeuvre. Not only is her analy
film periodicals as A f
theorists as “critical cin
sis primitive, in the style of “Tarkovsky for the
terimage, Cinema Jour
em a”. Having said this, it
laym an”, or indeed “laywom an”, but she at
nal,
Q u a rte rly ,
should be pointed out
tempts to read all images literarily, rather than
Artforum, Wide Angie,
that, aside from th e ir
visually: only the briefest mention is made of
Millenium and October
critical edge as radical
cinem atic style; of pans, lenses, cuts, etc. The
will recognize his name
audio-visual texts, these
basic modus operandi of this critic is to tell you
because of the many in-
diverse films are predi
that this-is-what-you-see and that-is-w hat-it-
depth interviews he has
cated on a sceptical indi
means.
been doing with some
vidualistic spirit that be
F ilm
Even more disturbing is her blasé approach
of the leading pra cti
lieves in the ultim ate
to Tarkovsky’s portrayal of women. Tarkovsky’s
tioners of independent
value of creating art for
own attitude towards women and female per
cinema. A Critical Cin
oneself to communicate
sonae in his films was, if not misogynistic, then
ema is a wide-ranging
personal fee lin gs and
at least highly dubious. Turovskaya does not
and
ideas to the w orld at
begin to question T arkovsky’s exploration of
sample of these com
large. These specific in
the “m other/wife/m other Russia” problematic.
prehensive and stim u
dividualistic qualities of
Instead, she goes along with his obvious intent,
lating interviews.
re p re s e n ta tiv e
critical cinema were ob CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 67
served by W illiam Burroughs nearly a decade ago:
emotional and mental states that they have
enjoyable as much as they are conceptually
experienced or are experiencing.
stimulating.
d a n g e r im p lic it in
Carolee Shneemann is a representative of
A C ritical Cinema is a necessary and re
t h e s e e x p e r im e n t s : a n y n u m b e r c a n p la y . Y o u
the a u to b io g ra p h ic form of a v a n t-g a rd e
warding book to read for anyone who is re
c a n b e y o u r o w n G o d . A n d s in c e t h e c a m e r a
film m aking in her direct representation of her
motely concerned with avant-garde cinem a as
a n d r e c o r d e r a r e s im p ly r a t h e r c r u d e e x t e n
personal life, and she im plicitly critiques the
it developed in Am erica since the 1940s. Each
s io n s o f t h e h u m a n n e r v o u s s y s t e m , y o u c a n
dram aturgical conventions of commercial cin
interview is preceded by a valuable introduc
m a k e y o u r o w n m o v ie s a n d m a k e t h e m b e t te r ,
ema in the way it “reveals” the personal lives of
tion to the film m aker’s work and possesses
main characters. Schneemann (like Robert
detailed bibliographies and film ographies. It is
H o lly w o o d
soon
saw
th e
w it h o u t a c a m e r a o r r e c o r d e r . In f a c t, y o u h a v e to .
[“T a k e
N ir v a n a ” , I n t r o d u c t io n
to
C anyon
C in e m a C a ta lo g 5, 1 9 8 2 ]
Huot) chooses elements that are explicitly ab
modest in its conceptual ambitions as a critical
sent in mainstream popular films, elements
film text and it accom plishes its defined objec
MacDonald delineates three broad tradi
that cut across her other activities as a major
tives in mapping out the aesthetic, cultural and
tions in critical cinema: (a) mimetic - these
multimedia feminist artist: performances, photo
textual contours of American avant-garde cin
film s embrace certain forms and concerns of
text works, painting and writing. Specifically,
ema. MacDonald’s style of interviewing is un
commercial films and, at the same time, mani
Schneemann's films focus on the intimate per
obtrusively non-didactic and creative in allow
fest critical divergences from these very con
sonal moments of her life and sexuality and,
ing opportunities for his interviewees to ex
cerns; (b) autobiographical - these films focus
generally speaking, her autobiographical pre
press themselves on a wide range of related
on the film m aker as the subject of the film and,
occupations mirror the larger canvas of sexual
topics. Given the current theoretical studies
in the process, critique the traditional constructs
politics in post-war American society. At first
that are com ing from Am erican university
of biography and character in mainstream nar
glance, it might seem that Schneem ann’s cin
presses on avant-garde filmmaking, A Critical
rative cinema; and (c) theoretical - these films
ema is related to the codes of mainstream
Cinema is a bonus addition to this growing list
downplay character developm ent and plot as
cinema (and pornography), but it clearly be
and deserves a place somewhere next to one’s
articulated in popular narrative cinema and
comes evident that her films are innovative
copies of Jonathan Rosenbaum and David
focus on its mechanical, chemical conceptual
examples of the autobiographical mode and
Ehrenstein’stw o books bearing the same name
and perceptual structures. All three modes of
are influential works for subsequent develop
Film: The Front Line published respectively in
avant-garde cinema have developed at the
ments in critical cinema.
same time and several of the film m akers inter
Finally, the theoretical mode rigorously
viewed have moved from one group to another
avoids the standard conventions and language
during their careers as artists. The largest group
of character, narrative and plot of mainstream
of film m akers centres on the mimetic form of
cinema. The film m akers who belong to this
filmmaking, and the autobiographical and theo
particular form of American avant-garde cin
1983 and 1984. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the promised annual series on independent cinema?
HARDBOILED IN HOLLYW OOD: FIVE BLACK M A SK W R ITER S AND TH E MOVIES
retical form s have at most a tiny group of
ema are interested in articulating new defini
interested enthusiasts.
tions of space, time and imagery in their sys
George Kuchar is a fine example of the
D a v id Wilt, B o w lin g G re e n S ta te U n iv e rs ity P o p u la r
tem atic explorations of the textual properties of
P ress, O hio, 1991, 189 p p ., pb. rrp $ 1 8 .9 5
mimetic approach. Since the late 1950s, George
the medium of film itself. It should be noted that
and Mike Kuchar produced prolific 8mm mov
the theoretical film is meant to be valued more
R A F F A E L E
C A P U T O
ies with their friends and neighbours in the
than just as a technical experiment. These
With Hardboiled in Hollywood, the reader’s
Bronx. Many of their films (including George
filmmakers are also concerned with the interro
appreciation is split between what is on offer and what actually gets delivered. On the one
Kuchar’s subsequent 16mm productions) im i
gation of film ic spectatorship and of cinema as
tate and spoof com m ercial cinem a's more
a socio-cultural product functioning in our ma
hand, the book is appealing in that it looks
m elodramatic genres and iconographie preoc
terial world. Although theoretical films are di
toward illuminating the often neglected art of
cupations. W hat distinguishes their work is
verse in character, what unites them is their
the screenwriter and, more generally, the rela
their ability to define the gap between Holly
common project of setting up a grid structure
tions of film to literature. This is especially
w ood’s illusion of reality and everyday life.
(not unlike Eadweard M uybridge’s highly-influ-
accented given that the study is specifically
Kuchar’s characters do experience m elodra
ential method of recording his motion studies),
centred on five writers who made a niche for
matic traumas like their commercial counter
whereby the film m aker is able to contemplate
themselves through the 1920s and ’30s with
parts but as average, everyday characters
and gauge a series of specific developments.
the enigm aticpulp magazine, Black Mask. (One
whose dreams and lives have been stamped by
Hollis Frampton is arguably one of the most
of the featured writers, Horace McCoy, would
prevailing Hollywood illusions. This mimetic
challenging and intellectually stimulating fig
be fam iliar to many of the readers of Cinema
mode includes such key figures as Kenneth
ures of the theoretical mode. W hat character
Papers-, the others include Eric Taylor, Peter
Anger, Jack Smith, Andy W arhol, John W aters
izes Fampton’s humorous prolific films is their
Ruric, Dwight V. Babcock and John K. Butler.)
and the m id-to-late '70s “punk” or “New W ave”
system atic and perceptive examination of the
On the other hand, the sum and substance
film m akers like the Bs and Vivienne Dick.
very processes of conceptualization and think
of the goods delivered amounts to a hokum
The autobiographical mode eschews the
ing. Coming from a fine arts background,
account of these w riters’ lives in Hollywood,
m elodramatic concerns and forms of com m er
Frampton was a major innovator in the history
which is elevated an extra two degrees with a
cial cinema, but it suggests the impact that
of avant-garde cinema, whose progression from
potlatched inventory of screen credits and pro
popular narrative films have on our film ic con
short films to the longer experimental works
duction information. This is only welcome be
sciousness as expressed by the textual con
like Zorns Lemma (1970) and Hapax Legomena
cause, as the Introduction quite rightly states,
figurations in the works of the diverse exem
(1971-72) m anifests the film m a k e r’s p ro
“for too long writers have been almost com
plars of this particular form of critical cinema
nounced capacity for wit and punning, and
pletely ignored in favour of film directors in
also known as diarists. Autobiographical films
reflects his enorm ous breadth of reading
terms of contributions to the style and content
of the American avant-garde form a central part
(aesthetics, history, philosophy, science, math
of Hollywood film s.” (p. 5) W hat author David
of what P. Adams Sitney has called “visionary
em atics and literature). Influenced by the
W ilt indicates at least is that the Black Mask
film ”,and, like most kinds of critical cinema, are
moderns such as Borges, Joyce and Pound,
legacy on Hollywood may extend further than
inextricably related to painting, poetry and fic
Frampton believed in creating films that en
the noted contributions of Raymond Chandler,
tion. As Sitney has suggested, the films of Stan
gage the aesthetic sense, the intellect and the
Dashiell Hammett and a few others. Yet this is
Brakhage, Gregory Markopoulos, Ron Rice,
emotions of film spectators. Despite Frampton’s
far as the red carpet treatm ent can go.
Robert Nelson and Kenneth Anger have dis
reputation as a “genius”, his movies are struc
W hat W ilt fails at in the five chapters de
tinct connections to the western poetic tradition
tured in th e b e lie fth a tc ritic a lc in e m a s h o u ld be
voted to each writer is to actually elaborate and
of the artist as seer. These film m akers create
aimed at a mass film audience and they are
support an argum ent for what the legacy con-
68
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
sists of in æ sthetic or
treatm ents had to be
an example, it seems to make very little diffe r
s ty lis tic te rm s w h en
turned into scripts; dia
ence to W ilt that McCoy sometimes co-wrote,
tra n s p o s e d to H o lly
logue had to be written,
or provided original scripts, or had adapted for
wood. One consistent
and written in advance
the screen work of another author, or even to
feature of note, for in
of film in g . T hus, the
discuss how McCoy’s own stories were brought
stance, is that the five
coming of sound was for
to film (“They Shoot Horses, Don’t T hey?” and
writers highlighted, de
m any w rite rs , e s ta b
“Kiss Tom orrow G oodbye”), none of which
spite greater aspirations,
lished and otherwise, the
McCoy adapted. All gets levelled out to som e
worked in the loosely-
beckoning call of Horace
thing along the lines of ‘McCoy contributed to
edged, perennially-fickle
Greely, so to speak. Wilt
such-and-such a film for such-and-such a stu
area of the term ite:
establishes that a sig
dio and the film dealt with such-and-such a
n ifica n t c o n tin g e n t of
top ic.’ The monotonous manner by which Wilt
th e
Black M ask contributors
treats his subject is a condition of his reliance
jo u r n e y m e n b r o u g h t in
took up this call. The In
on what seems to be second-hand resource
a s s c r e e n w r it e r s
be
troduction reproduces a
m aterial. Hence, M cC o y’s co n tribu tion to
c a u s e th e y h a d p ro v e d
photograph of the 1936
Nicholas Ray’s The Lusty Men amounts to:
th e y
B la c k
O n a lo w e r e c h e lo n , h o w e v e r,
w e re
c o u ld
w r ite
( w h e t h e r it h a d b e e n
M ask
d in n e r;
T h e L u s ty M e n is a n e x c e lle n t f ilm w it h g o o d
seven of the eleven w rit
p la y s , s t o r ie s , n o v e ls ,
p e r f o r m a n c e s b y th e p r in c ip a ls a n d a lit e r a t e
ers in attendance were
s c r ip t , a s w e ll a s c o m p e t e n t d ir e c t io n b y N i c h o
c le s ) , a n d w o u ld w o r k
or would eventually be
la s R a y . [p . 3 8 ]
c h e a p , [p . 4 ]
employed in Hollywood:
or
new spaper
a r ti
As is suggested, the contributions of this contingent were workmanlike, rather than on hire by virtue of reputation. A quick perusal of their screenwriting output (without exception all their contributions were for B-pictures) bears this out further. But it’s not a termite sensibility that takes up their cause. On the surface, the conditions of the screenw riter often made one B-picture indistinguishable from another, but the w ork manlike quality was also (on occasion) a mine field for distinctive aspects of cinematic ex pression. W ilt, on the contrary, doesn’t seem attuned to even the vaguest possibility of inno vative forms of visual expression or technique that mây have been yielded by the literary devices of writers who were specifically identi fied with a ‘school’. For this reason, the reader is largely burdened by plodding, humanist de scriptions of thematic concerns. There is a strong incongruity between the stated and implied objectives set out in the Introduction and the work done in each chapter on each writer. The Introduction is somewhat
Chandler, Hammett and the five writers fea tured in this book.
And, after some sim ilar humanist waffle about Bronco Buster in between, he concludes:
From what Wilt has laid out here (even by
T h e L u s ty M e n is a m o r e “ a d u lt f ilm ” in s o m e
going on the reputations of Chandler and Ham
w a y s : t h e w o m a n t h e t w o m e n a r e c o m p e t in g
mett alone, and, although they are not included in this study, they still form part of a ‘school’),
f o r is t h e w if e o f o n e ; t h e r e is n o h a p p y e n d in g , a la B ro n c o B u s te r, a n d t h e o v e r a ll r o d e o m ilie u is d e p ic t e d in m u c h d a r k e r t e r m s , [p . 3 9 ]
one can safely assume that this contingent would have had a significant effect on film
This is as far as evidence of a discernible
practice through their prose style. But Wilt
style goes for Wilt; and it is the kind of writing
doesn’t seem at all sensitive to organizing this
that stems from resource material that looks
assumption into a quantifiable argument, which
like it was culled from press information pro
in turn would be sensitive to examining the
vided by the studios.
screenwriting craft via the comparative rela tions between film and literature.
On the whole, it is obvious W ilt would have fared better with a com parative analysis of the
Wilt is too literal-minded. What starts off as
screenplays, the films, the w riters’ novels and
an intriguing assumption remains an assump
stories, as well as the adaptations of their own
tion in the study that follows. Not one of the
stories, if any.
chapters provides enough evidence of the “hard-
If there was a special affinity between the
boiled” style in the screen work of the five
coming of sound, the development of the “hard-
writers. Wilt merely carries the assumption over
boiled” school, and the types of films produced
from his Introduction as though it were a self-
in Hollywood at a certain point in time, it is
evident fact. All that was on offer becomes a
hardly evident by what this book delivers. At
flat, streamlined, cataloguing exercise.
best, Hardboiled In Hollywood is a mildly en
To take the chapter on Horace McCoy as
brief, yet it still manages to establish a worthy
B Ó OKS
proposal for fruitful research. First, although relying on the words of Joseph T. Shaw, the most influential of the Black M ask editors, Wilt
C O M P IL E D
gaging reference guide.
RE C EJVE D
BY R A FFA ELE C A PU TO AN D
K E R R IE
H A R R IS O N
nonetheless identifies the “hard-boiled” style: T h e f o r m u l a o r p a t te r n e m p h a s iz e s c h a r a c t e r
AN ACTOR’S GUIDE TO GETTING WORK
A FEAST OF FILMS
a n d t h e p r o b le m s in h e r e n t in h u m a n b e h a v io u r
S im on D un m o re , P a p erm a c, L on d o n, 1991, 2 2 8 pp.,
J o h n H o w a rd R eid, R astar, S yd n ey, 1991, 2 2 4 pp.,
o v e r c r im e s o lu t io n . In o t h e r w o r d s , in t h is n e w
pb, rrp $ 1 9 .9 9
hb, rrp $ 40
p a t te r n c h a r a c t e r c o n f lic t is t h e m a in t h e m e ; t h e e n s u in g c r im e , o r i t s t h r e a t , is in c id e n t a l [ .. .]
The interesting thing about this guide is that it
All reference books have an linking topic or
S u c h d i s t in c t iv e t r e a t m e n t c o m p r is e s a h a r d ,
is written from the viewpoint of a director, with
theme that allows for unity of purpose: films on
b r it t l e s t y le [ .. .] a f u ll e m p lo y m e n t o f t h e f u n c
useful ideas on how directors operate when
television, Academy Award-winning films, films
t io n s o f d ia lo g u e , a n d a u t h e n t ic it y in c h a r a c
choosing actors for their productions. While it
of the 1940s, foreign films, whatever. It is what
t e r iz a t io n a n d a c t io n . T o t h is m a y b e a d d e d a
covers the basics - such as training, getting an
determines either inclusion or exclusion of titles.
v e r y f a s t t e m p o , a t t a in e d
in
p a r t b y t y p ic a l
e c o n o m y o f e x p r e s s io n w h ic h , p r o b a b ly , h a s h a d d e f in it e in f lu e n c e o n w r it in g in o t h e r f i e ld s .
[P- 2] W ilt then identifies a historical juncture: the developm ent of the “hard-boiled” style reached its peak at the same time as the arrival of sound to motion pictures. The technological changes to the film m aking craft wrought significant ef fects on the screen-writing craft: henceforth,
agent, attending and preparing auditions, etc. -
Unlike previous volumes in Rastar’s se
Dunmore also makes thoughtful suggestions
ries, Volume 5 leaves one bemused forthe re is
on dealing with rejection and nerves, and cre
no clearly perceived theme. The book provides
ating a rapport with interviewers, among other
all the essential details and more, but the title
things. Although written for professional and
says little by way of indicating to the reader a
would-be actors, it contains useful information
particular interest. It appears that the unity of
for anyone seeking employment (especially
purpose here is in producing a reference book
the chapters on interviews and letter writing).
for the sake of producing a reference book.
Dunmore claims this guide is not complete, but it certainly is a great start.
C O N C L U D E S O N P A G E 72
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 69
OB fT U A R IES
TOIVI HAYDON LEE REIVIICK
His first one was a eight-part
felt he had gone too far and ignored a vibrant
series on the environm ent fol
Aboriginal com m unity still surviving in Tasm a
lowed by a seven-part series
nia.
profiling Australian prime min isters. The Talgai Skull, made in
On his return to Australia in 1980, Tom Haydon devoted himself to executive roles where he supervised and produced films, and
1968, was the first film Haydon
inaugurated new programmes of production.
made which achieved critical
These included a number of docum entary se
acclaim. The hour-long docu
ries, such as Changing Australia and The H u
mentary traces the adventures
man Face o f Hong Kong, as well as the cinéma-
of a scientist turned detective
vérité series Real Life, which has never had a
who tries unearthing the site of
television release. During that time, Haydon
a fossilized Aboriginal skull from
was appointed as Director of the National Pro
the memories of a backwoods
gram at Film Australia, where he worked for
community in Queensland. This
three years.
was followed a year later by Dig
Haydon had an active role in film industry
a Million, Make a Million, an
affairs and became Chairman of the Documen
ironic study of Hamersley Iron
tary Division and Vice-President of the Screen
and the developer Lang Han
Producers Association of Australia. He played
cock. “ It’s one laugh after an
a leading part in securing 10BA tax conces
other [...] As a dash of com eup
sions for film investment, lobbying hard to en
pance for pompous industrial
sure that they also applied to documentary.
ists, politicians and financiers,
However, he quickly became disillusioned with
it’s as keen as garlic salt”, said
the scheme which he and colleagues, including
Harry Robinson in The Sydney
myself, believed discrim inated against com
Morning Herald.
mitted social documentary. This concern gave
Tom Haydon was not afilm -
birth to what many believe to be Tom Haydon’s
maker who ran away from con
single biggest achievement: the Documentary
TOM HAYDON 1938 - 1991
troversy. After arriving in England in 1969, he
TO M
riled the Brits with a dramatized documentary,
In 1984, Haydon approached Malcolm
The British Empire: Beyond the Black Stump.
Smith, then the General Manager of the Aus
om Haydon, who died of cancer in July, will
This film - a black-humoured exposé of the
tralian Film Commission, with a proposal to set
be sadly missed by his many friends and
myths of British colonization enshrined in Aus
up a scheme which would “encourage the pur
film m aking cplleagues. Not only will he be re
tralian history - caused massive controversy
pose of innovation and excellence in docum en
membered for such incisive and controversial
both in Britain and Australia. One newspaper
tary film ”. The idea found favour inside the AFC
films as The Last Tasmanian (1978), people will
ran a byline: “With a friend like Haydon who
and was quickly implemented. Two fellowships
recall the very prominent role he played in
needs an enem y?” An emotional correspond
were to be awarded to recognized docum en
prom oting and developing the standing of
ence ran for weeks in The Times and the film
tary film m akers (or filmmaking teams) each
docum entary film production generally.
was the subject of a debate in the House of
year, giving them the freedom to work on
Three weeks before he died, the Australian
Lords. “How could you expect an absentee
projects of their own choosing. A number of
Film Radio & Television School organized a
spiritual landlord like Lord Clifford of Chudleigh
m em orablefilm s were produced, including Bob
moving testim onial for Haydon. A 15-minute
[who attacked the film in the House of Lords]
Connolly and Robin Anderson!s Joe Le ah y’s
montage of Haydon’s work was screened and
understand how truly Australian Haydon’s film
Neighbours. As one of the early beneficiaries of
speeches were made by anthropologist Rhys
is?”, wrote Don Anderson in The Bulletin.
the scheme (Friends & Enemies), I relished the
T
Z U B R Y C K I
Fellowship Scheme.
Jones, ex-Film Australia chief Robin Hughes,
But probably the film which still continues
ability to be able to work at my own pace and
writer Michael Brindley, and film m akers Tom
to cause huge controversy is Haydon’s The Last
develop a docum entary style outside tele vi
Manefield, Gillian Coote and Ray Beattie. The
Tasmanian. This feature-length film, made in
sion-imposed orthodoxies. Ironically, the ABC
event proved extrem ely successful and was a
1978, m ethodically and m eticulously builds a
eventually became a partner in the scheme as
rare opportunity where people got together to
case which chronicles the extermination by
part of its then increasing com mitment to inde
bury their differences.
British colonists of the Tasmanian Aboriginal
pendent documentary.
Haydon began his professional filmmaking
race in the early part of the 19th century. The
The fellowships helped consolidate the
career in 1960, soon after graduating from the
film was very popular with audiences, showing
profile and place of the social documentary.
University of Sydney with a BA Honours degree
at 17 international film festivals and selling to
The scheme, however, has now been discon
in History. He joined the ABC as a specialist
television in 22 countries. On the Ten Network
tinued. The progressive developm ent of a
trainee in the Education Department, where he
in Australia it rated 25, winning the night. Many
unique documentary tradition which is amongst
worked producing and directing children’s pro
people felt it was a compelling documentary
the w orld’s best will inevitably suffer.
grammes. Over the next four years he pro
m ethodically analysing the horror of this geno
While involved in his managerial roles,
gressed rapidly to making film documentaries.
cide, but others, especially prominent blacks,
Haydon’s work in the 1980s as an independent
70
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
film m aker was rather sporadic, and it didn’t
LEE REMICK 1936 - 1991
meet with the same critical success of the
IAN
H O R N E R
earliertw o decades. Haydon’s m ajorfilm in this period is Behind the Dam, which chronicled the
Lee
was
one
o f th o s e
r e a lly
g ra c e fu l
and
c h a r m in g la d ie s . W h e n w e w e r e s h o o t in g T h e
L e tte r [ t e le - f e a t u r e , J o h n E r m a n , 1 9 8 2 ], I w a s
he passing of few Hollywood stars has
confrontation over the dams in Tasm ania’s
T
evoked such a sense of loss as the recent
s o n a l w a r m th . S h e p u t e v e r y t h in g in to h e r p e r
south-west. In that film, Haydon tries to be fair
death of Lee Remlck. She was admired by all
fo rm a n c e a n d , o n c e th e c a m e ra s s to p p e d , s h e
to both sides as well as being controversial; the
for her unaffected grace, her poise and beauty,
s w it c h e d a lm o s t m a g ic a lly b a c k in to t h e r e a l
com bination doesn’t work.
and, by the few who were allowed to glimpse it,
H aydon’s current project when he died was to be a feature film orrthe theme of Aborigines
a surprising doggedness and unexpected strength.
s t a g g e r e d b y h e r p r o f e s s io n a lis m a n d h e r p e r
L e e R e m ic k . I w a s p l a n n in g to g o s e e h e r u p a t C a p e C o d w h ile I w a s in A m e r ic a t h is tr ip , b u t t h e y t o ld m e s h e w a s t o o ill to r e c e iv e v is it o r s . W e w e r e n ’t
migrating from Indonesia to Australia some
The first fortnight in July was a sad two
60,000 years ago. This had involved a long and
weeks for the industry with the sudden passing
h e ll, w e w e r e a ll s o r e a lly , r e a lly s a d . S h e w a s
intensive period of research and consultation
of Remick, Michael Landon, Coral Browne, the
s o lo v e ly .
with Aboriginal com m unities in W estern Aus
Australian-born actress and wife of Vincent
On screen, Remick was always depicted
tralia. The film, which was going to include
P rice, and 1960s te le v is io n sta r Jam es
as poised and demure; off-screen during the
complex special effects, was Intended to com
Franclscus.
municate Dreamtime mythology and Aboriginal
s h o c k e d w h e n w e le a r n e d w e ’d lo s t h e r b u t,
last months she w asn’t afraid of appearing
Remick, 55, died on 2 July at her Brentwood
vulnerable and angry about the affliction. It was
tradition to a popular audience. Haydon had
home in California after a long battle against
an anger rarely seen, apart from an outburst in
also completed a major survey of Australian
cancer. She is survived by her husband of 21
Australia a few years ago.
docum entary. This large tome was in its first
years, English producer W illiam “Kip” Gowans,
In 1985, Remick came here to star in
draft and it is hoped the AFTRS will publish it.
and her two children, Kate Colleran Sullivan
Emma's War in the Blue Mountains, near Syd
Tom Haydon never believed that the gulf
and Matthew Remick Sullivan, and her mother,
ney. It was a very tight four-week-and-two-day
actress Pat Packard, who lives in New York.
shoot on a closed set for first-tim e director-
between art and the need to reach a wider audience was as great as other people thought.
It was only during the past two years people
In an interview in Filmnews published In 1991,
becam e aw are of R e m lck’s courage and
w riter-co-producer Clytie Jessop, whose ob taining Remick was considered quite a coup.
Haydon advocated building bridges between
strength as she determined not to give up
Virtually nothing has been heard of the
executives of commercial television, the AFC
without a fight and refused to stay at home,
picture since It was shot, but the ruckus Remick
and independent filmmakers. These Ideas have
even though at the last stages she couldn’t
created when she was here was certainly not
only very recently been taken up and discussed
venture outside without a stick, and even then
for nothing. Sheim plied there was an unhealthy
at the Senate Inquiry into Distribution and Ex
walking was excruciating.
arrogance in our industry and she severely
hibition of Australian Film. Clearly Haydon will be remembered as a person of great vision who had a major role to play in this ever-crisis-ridden Australian Film
One of her favourite co-stars, Jack Lemmon, told Cinema Papers by phone from New York:
lambasted Actors Equity for its restrictions thrust upon visiting actors.
w ill a lw a y s
This reporter suffered the full force of her
r e m a in o n e o f th e m o s t jo y o u s e x p e r ie n c e s o f
fury during a rare interview she gave from the
K n o w in g
and
w o r k in g
w ith
Lee
Industry. His immense, often boyish enthusi
m y life . S h e w a s p r e c io u s a n d c e r t a in ly th e
otherwise-closed set in the secluded moun
asm for film in all its creative and political
e m b o d im e n t o f g r a c e .
tains township of W entworth Falls. Such an
manifestations will be treasured by all of us who knew him. At Haydon’s testim onial dinner, the AFTRS announced the establishm ent of a Documen
I t ’s a t e r r ib le , t e r r ib le lo s s . S h e w a s r e a lly v e r y s p e c ia l. N e it h e r o f u s w a s e v e r p a r t o f th e H o lly w o o d s c e n e v e r y m u c h . W e w e n t t o t h in g s , o f c o u r s e , b u t w e w e r e n e v e r je t - s e t t e r s . I t h in k
outburst sat very uncomfortably indeed with her image as one of H ollyw ood’s most gentle women:
L e e a n d K ip le d a q u ie t life , lik e F e lic ia a n d m e .
L o o k , t h e p ic n ic p e r io d in y o u r b r illia n t m o v ie
I ju s t t h o u g h t L e e w a s a c e s ; it ’s a t e r r ib le lo s s .
c a r e e r in t h is c o u n t r y is o v e r ... t h e h a n d w r it in g
Jack Thompson, while In Los Angeles fin
is o n t h e w a ll! H a v in g b e e n p e r m it t e d - h a v in g
set, but it will be worth at least $10,000. The School is currently looking for additional dona
ishing the Francis Ford Coppola production
tary Scholarship to honour his achievements. The details of the scholarship have not been
tions.
Wind, told Cinema Papers:
b e e n g r a n t e d p e r m is s io n [s h e r a is e d h e r e y e b ro w s ] -
to w o r k h e r e , I’ m t o ld t h a t I’ m n o t
a llo w e d to c o m e b a c k f o r t w o y e a r s ! I’ m n o t e v e n a b le to s t a y a w h ile o r s o a f t e r w a r d s ! J u s t a w e e k b e f o r e a n d a f te r t h e s h o o t. It r e a lly is a b s u rd . T h is is t h e w o r s t o f w h a t u n io n s a r e a b o u t. Look,
u n e m p lo y m e n t in t h is
d u s t r y is a lw a y s h ig h -
in
80 p e rc e n t
a r e o u t o f w o r k a t a n y g iv e n t im e . I ju s t w is h t h a t a n y o f u s in a n y c o u n t r y d i d n ’t h a v e a n y o f t h e s e b a r r ie r s , lik e u n io n s , k e e p in g a c t o r s o u t o f jo b s . W r it e r s w o r k a ll a r o u n d t h e w o r ld a n d t h e ir b o o k s a r e in d if f e r e n t la n g u a g e s . A r t is t s h a v e g a lle r y s h o w in g s r o u n d t h e w o r ld . It ’ s t h e s a m e in m u s ic . M u s ic ia n s w r it e t h e ir m u s ic in d if f e r e n t c o u n t r ie s a n d p la y it a r o u n d th e w o r ld . W e ll, t h e r e s h o u ld b e m o r e a c t o r s m o v in g r o u n d t h e w o r ld . T h a t w o u ld h e lp m a k e m o r e m o v ie s , p u t m o r e b u m s o n s e a t s . A s it s t a n d s , I c a n ’t e v e n
com e
back
h e r e to
do
p u b lic it y f o r t h is f ilm .
>-
LEE REMICK AS ANNE GRANGE, WITH FRANK (TERENCE DO N O V A N ) IN CLYTIE JESSOP'S EMMA'S WAR.
LE E R E M IC K
C O N T IN U E D
A t le a s t s o m e t im e s I’v e b e e n t o t h e c in e m a a n d b e e n to u c h e d , m o v e d a n d - d a re o n e s a y
Remick was angry and hurt. It was the second time a foreign country’s union laws had made life difficult for her. Five years before she had been ready to shoot Tribute (Bob Clark, 1980) i n Canada with Lem mon, her Days o f Wine
-
e n lig h t e n e d . It d e f in it e ly d o e s n ’t h a p p e n a
lo t. I k n o w a s a m o v ie - g o e r I lik e to e x p e r ie n c e
b e s t s h o t . B u t I’v e n o r e a s o n to b e lie v e I’ m d u t y b o u n d to g iv e it a n y t h in g e ls e .
W hat about unavoidably public things?
s o m e t h in g f u lly . I t h in k in W ild R iv e r [ E lia K a z a n ,
S h o p p in g c a n b e d if f ic u l t . T h e r e w a s o n e t im e
1 9 6 0 ] I a c h ie v e d t h a t. I m e a n 'w e ' d id - i t ’ s n o t
w h e n I w a s in a s u p e r m a r k e t a n d a li t t le g ir l
t h a t y o u e v e r d o it a lo n e . A n d , p r o b a b ly , W in e
s c r e a m e d w h e n s h e s a w m e . I’d b e e n a d e a d
a n d R oses.
b o d y o n t e le v is io n t h e n ig h t b e f o r e !
and Roses (Blake Edwards, 1963) co-star of 17 years before, when the Canadian Screen Ac tors Guild claimed she was “not of sufficient
Only probably?
Over the years Remick had some interest
It d e p e n d s o n w h o ’ s lo o k in g a t it. It w a s n ’t ju s t
ing luck. She inherited the part in Anatom y o f a
international standing” to bring her into the
a m a t t e r o f s a y in g ‘d r in k is b a d ', it w a s th e
M urder when Lana Turner disliked her cos
country:
e f f e c t o f a lc o h o l a n d w h a t it d o e s to t h o s e
tumes and, when Marilyn Monroe was fired from Som ething’s Gotta Give, director John Ford
a ro u n d yo u . W e ll, J a c k a n d I w e r e f a c e d w it h m a k in g t h e m o v ie o u t o f C a n a d a , p r o b a b ly F lo r id a . T h e
Ironically, we discussed the highlights of
p r o d u c e r s [ G a r th D r a b in s k y a n d J o e l M ic h a
her career, a career soon to be ended all to
e ls ] t o o k t h e u n io n to t a s k a n d c h a lle n g e d t h e m
abruptly:
w o u ld h a v e b e e n t h e lo s e r . A f t e r a ll, w e e m p lo y e d a n e n t ir e c r e w f o r e ig h t w e e k s o r s o .
replacement, only to see the film dropped alto A F a c e in th e C ro w d [K a z a n , 1 9 5 7 ] w a s m y f ir s t a n d It w a s v e r y e x c it in g . T h e n A n a to m y o f a
M u r d e r [ O t to P r e m in g e r , 1 9 5 9 ] a n d D a y s o f W in e a n d R o s e s . O f c o u r s e , W ild R iv e r is m y
Both Days o f Wine and Roses (about al
f a v o u r it e . T h a t w a s K a z a n . I t h in k it h a s s o m e
coholism) and Tribute (estranged fam ily rela
o f m y b e s t w o r k . M o n t y C lif t w a s in it a n d it h a s
tionships) had very strong messages. Why did
a s p e c ia l p la c e in m y h e a r t .
an actor of such strong conviction make so many inconsequential films? I w o u ld n ’t c a ll T h e W o m e n ’s R o o m [ t e l e - f e a tu r e , G le n n J o r d a n 1 9 8 0 ] in c o n s e q u e n t ia l! B u t I k n o w w h a t y o u m e a n . B a s ic a lly , t h e r e ’ s n o t m uch
I f e e l I w a n t t o s a y o n s c r e e n . B u t it
d e p e n d s w h o ’s w r it t e n It d o w n . “ M e s s a g e s ” : h o w I h a t e t h a t w o r d . It’ s a b a d c h o ic e f r o m m y p o in t o f v ie w . T o m e i t ’s a m a t t e r o f p la y in g t h in g s w h ic h h a v e r e le v a n c e to w h e r e life is e m o t io n a lly , if y o u c a n g e t t h e s c r ip t s .
sexier than she is and a much better actress to boot.” She was immediately signed as Monroe’s
t o p u t t h e ir c o m p la in t s in w r it in g , w h ic h t h e y w o u ld n ’t d o , a n d T rib u te w e n t a h e a d . C a n a d a
said: “Marilyn Monroe? Hell, Lee Remick’s a lot
gether when Dean Martin refused to act with anyone except Monroe. E m m a’s War was the last feature film Remick made. Remick: N e it h e r K ip n o r I lik e b e in g f u s s e d o v e r . B a c k
T h e n t h e r e w a s J a c k in W in e a n d R o s e s a n d
T rib u te . H e ’s w o n d e r f u l: v e r y I n v e n t iv e , f u n n y , s m a r t , b r ig h t, w itt y . A n d , o f c o u r s e , T h e L e tte r w ith y o u r lo v e ly J a c k .
w h e r e w e liv e p e o p le r e a liz e t h a t a n d i t ’ s n o b ig d e a l. I d o n ’t e n jo y n ig h t c lu b s a n d I n e v e r d id . W e d o n ’t g o to t h o s e t h in g s , lik e h u g e , lo u d , n o is y p a r t ie s . O u r I d e a o f a g o o d n ig h t o u t is
Remick worked with some of the most pow
e ig h t o r te n f r ie n d s a t d in n e r . It is n ’t r e a lly h a r d
erful directors and actors in Hollywood. Why,
t o liv e a p r iv a t e life If y o u w a n t t o . Y o u ju s t h a v e to b e s t r o n g , a n d d e t e r m in e d , a n d s o w h a t If
then, did she keep such a low profile?
t h a t ’ s n o t w h a t p e o p le e x p e c t y o u to b e ? I d o n ’t c h o o s e to liv e a p u b lic life . I lo v e m y w o r k . I e n jo y it im m e n s e ly . O h , I lo v e to c o o k , g a r d e n a n d t r a v e l a b it, b u t i t ’s m y w o r k I a d o r e . A n d w h e n I’ m w o r k in g , I g iv e it m y f u ll e f fo r t , m y
BOOKS C O N T I N U E D
RECEIVE F R O M
P A G E
6 9
JAMES DEAN: BEHIND THE SCENE
else since his death, this book looks toward
E d ite d b y L e ith A d a m s & K e ith B u m s, S m ith
explaining the James Dean persona and ends
G ryp h o n, L on d o n, 1991, 2 2 3 p p ., hb, Ulus., rrp
up furthering the mystique.
SCREEN/PLAY: DERRIDA AND FILM THEORY P e te r B ru n e tte a n d D a v id W ills, P rin c e to n U n iv e rs ity P re ss, N e w J e rs e y , 1989, 2 1 0 p p ., pb, rrp $ 2 4 .5 0
$ 4 9 .9 5
1991 marks the 35th anniversary of James Dean’s death and the 60th anniversary of his birthday, and with only three major films to his credit no other movie figure seems to be so widely documented in photographs than Dean.
BEYOND THE STARS: STUDIES IN AMERICAN POPULAR FILM: VOLUME 2: PLOT CONVENTIONS IN AMERICAN FILM E d ite d b y P a u l L o u k id e s a n d L in d a K Fu lle r, B o w lin g G re e n S ta te U n iv e rs ity P o p u la r P ress, O hio, 1991, 1 8 7 p p., pb, rrp $ 1 8 .9 5
The grand total of three films gives a limited
Outside of the occasional tracings of Jacques Derrida’s influence in the work of film theoreti cians like Brian Henderson, Dana Polan and a few others, Derrida has otherwise had minimal application in film studies. This is especially felt in com parison to his influence on Anglo-
indication of his acting potential, and the prolif
Like volume one in this continuing series of
eration of m em orabilia points to little else that
studies of popular American film, volume two is
Thus, this book represents an initial, if tentative, first step in addressing the work of
American philosophy and literary studies.
he could have achieved dramatically. Yet even
equally concerned with tackling a particular
within a limited scope, the on-going circulation
stock element the editors feel is of great signifi
Derrida and “deconstruction” within film theory
of Dean artifacts is certainly testam ent to his
cance in revealing the most fundamental cul
and criticism in a major way. The authors do not
impact several generations of movie-goers.
tural assumptions of American society.
provide what could be called deconstructive
Jam es Dean: Behind the Scene is a col
The volume collects a number of essays on
readings of films, but readings of Derrida’s
lection of never-before-published photographs
a variety of plot devices ranging from wedding
post-G ias work as a fram ework for critiquing
and documents mostly from the archives of
scenes to political campaign imagery, and from
(albeit provisionally) the assum ptions of film
W arner Bros. The book also includes photo
Christmas celebrations to the use of songs in
theory in general.
graphs taken by Dean of many of his co-stars,
screwball comedy.
and a very moving, candid Introduction by
These volumes are typically low on critical interpretation because it seems the editors’
Dennis Hopper.
CUT! PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIA’S FILM & TELEVISION INDUSTRIES
Perhaps all that could possibly be discov
intent is som ewhat catalogue-oriented. Yet
ered and said of D ean’s personality has al
there are the occasional essays which escape
R oss Jo n e s , The C e n tre o f In d e p e n d e n t
ready been done so, though he still remains a
this intent, and, on the whole, given the extent
S tu d ies, N S W , 1991, 9 6 p p., p b , rrp $ 1 1 .9 5
mystery. Behind the Scene does not really ex
of topics, this volume proves to be slightly more
To be reviewed next issue.
plain or offer anything new about Dean; like all
engaging than volume one.
72
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
HAVE YOU SEEN
J&Bbur"
?
K Î Î J°hn Barry Group Pty. Ltd. ^ • I § Head Office (02) 439 6955
STOCK FOOTAGE LIBRARY CHRIS ROW ELL PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD SUITE D 172 FILM AUSTRALIA BUILDING ETON ROAD LINDFIELD NSW 2070 TEL: (02) 416 2633 FAX: (02) 416 2554
MATCHING to TAPE EDIT or CUTTING COPY,
USING ‘EXCALIBUR’. The latest technology in COMPUTERIZED NEGATIVE MATCHING S U I T E 105, 6- 8 C L A R K E S T R E E T C R O W S N E S T NS W 2065
C ONT A C T G R E G C H A P M A N P HONE : (02) 439 3988 • F A X : (02) 437 5074 CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 73
PRODUCTION
SURVEY
IN F O R M A T IO N IS C O R R E C T A N D A D J U D G E D A S O F 1 0 /9 /9 1
NOTE: Production Survey forms now ad
Still p h o tograph y
here to a revised format. Cinema Papers
C a tering
Philip le M asurier
regrets it cannot accept information re
Art Department
ceived in a different format, as it regretfully
A rt d ire c to r
does not have the staff to re-process the information.
A rt dep t runner
Dist. com pany
Fortress Film s V illage R oadshow (G reater Union Dist.)
Jane M urphy C o m po ser
M artin C o oper & Co. Danny Batterham
S tandby w a rdrobe
C h eyne Phillips
Casting consu ltants
R oger S im pson Liz M ullinar Casting
Production Crew O & G
On-set Crew
Lab oratory
Atlab
1 st asst director
Neg m atch ing
A nne Bruning
3rd asst d irector
Kim S teblina
Boom ope rator Bob Donaldson
C hris Rowell C o ntinuity K odak
P hillip H e arn shaw
1st asst d ire c to r
Jan Luthian Prod, m anage r
O pticals
On-set Crew
N icky M oors
Government Agency Investment
Ja ck Friedm an Fiona S e arson (DDA)
Unit Publicist
Art Department Art d irector
D e velop m en t
AFC
Dina G illespie
Production
FFC
S tuart G ordon Cast: M ark Little (Lenny), Lisa H ensley (Sue),
Marketing
D avid M cKay
A rt dep t co-ord.
Tracey M oxham
Post-production M ixer
M ax Cullen (Tom ), Syd C o nabere (M ilton),
Inter, sales age nt
Beyond International
Phil H eyw ood
M ixed at
A tla b A u stralia A tla b A u stralia
John F
G ia C a rides (G ina), Rob S teele (M anager),
Cast: [No details supplied]
Lab ora tory
N eil N o rdlinger
Leigh R ussell (D ave), K ris to ffe r G reaves
Synopsis: A gentle rom a ntic com edy about
G auge
M ichael Lake
(B oofhead R obbie), David W enhem (Trevor),
the end of the world. T he religious and sexual
Screen ratio
com ing of age of a 1960s Seventh Day A d
Length
ventist boy, w ho acqu ires a taste fo r drink,
Cast: A den Y oung (Jim m y Becker), Zoe
Irene Dobson Frank W hitten (Dad), Robyn Nevin (M um ).
Exec, produce rs
G raham BurkeSynopsis: Poor Lenny, he gives it a go, he
35 mm 1.185 95 m ins
G reg Coote
gives it a try and look w h at happens. So what
w o m en and philosophy, and b elieves the end
C arides (H elen Sm yth), Bill H u nte r (Police
T roy Neighbours
if he isn't really a greenkeeper, and the gre e n ’s
is nigh during the C uban M issile Crisis, even
C o m m issioner Andrew s), John W alton (Frank
Steven Feinberg
gone brow n? It’ll com e good, it’ll be right, he
th ough the m uch lo n g e d -fo r a p o c a ly p s e
T aylor), M arshal N a pier (D ave G reen), John
David Eggby
ju s t needs a bit m ore tim e, th a t’s all. Then
seem s to keep getting postponed.
Clayton (S uperintendent Church), M ax Cullen
Tim W ellburn
th e re ’s Sue. It’s like s h e ’s been sitting there
DO P Editor
David C opping
Other Credits Unit pub licist
Camera Crew G raem e Litchfield
Publicity
Line pro d u ce r
Prod, d e sig n e r
Legal services
C hris Neal
Key grip
Marketing
S crip tw riters
R oger Ford
C a m era o pe rator
Shooting stock
C o -produ cers
S ue M illiken (Film Finances)
Planning and Development
...2 0 /1 0 /9 1
John Davis
C o m pletion gu a ra n to r
S crip t edito r
21/10/91 ...
P roducers
N eil M cE w in (FUIA)
Tess S chofield
P roduction
Principal Credits
M ichelle D ’A rcey
Insurer
W ardro be super
P re-production
D irector
Bob Ellis
Prod, a ccou ntan t
G eoff Burton
C h arlie RevaiProd, d e signer
Props buye r
A s s t edito r
Prod, com pany
R oger Sim pson S crip tw riter
Post-production FORTRESS
R oger le M esurier
Kim Ihnatko DOP
Wardrobe
FEATURES PRE-PRODUCTION
Exec, produce rs
C a m era C ooks
(Rev. A rthur H ickey), Sean S culiy (D etective
so long her batte ry's gon e flat. She could
RECKLESS KELLY
com e g oo d too w ith a bit of tim e. But Len ny’s
Prod, com pany Dist. com pany
C ra ig
Serious E nterta inm ent
H a k e r) ,
Paul C hubb
( G e o ffr e y
D rinkw ater).
A n nie W rig h t (Ooh Aust)
all out of tim e: the clu b c h a m p io n s h ip ’s
Cast: C h risto p h e r Lam bert [No oth e r d etails
creeping up and D ave w a n ts his thre e th o u
supplied]
sand now. W ell, he sh o u ld n ’t have given her
Production
Synopsis: Set 45 years in the future, h u m an
the stuff in the first place if she d id n ’t have the
Principal Credits
kin d ’s pop ulation has in crea sed tenfold. A
m o n e y ... should he? B ut Len ny's a battler, he
D irector
Y ahoo Serious
new law has been created to preserve the
w o n 't give up and he's g oing to sort it out one
P roducers
W arw ick Ross
life in the o uter suburbs of Sydney. H owever,
stability of society. A n yone w h o breaks the
w a y or another.
Y ahoo Serious
th e ir dream is q uickly shatte red w ith the ar
law w ill be sent to a rem ote m axim um security Prod, com pany
SAFC
GREENKEEPING
H a rvest Prods
Prod, com pany
C entral Park Film s
P re-production
26/8/91 - 2 0 /9 /9 1
Production
23/9/91 - 18/10/91
Principal Credits
Budget
$4 m illion
P re-production
5/8/91...
Production
30/9/91...
P ost-production
15/11/91...
David C aesar
Principal Credits
P roducer
G lenys Rowe
D irector
S crip tw riter
David C a esar
Producers
D irector
DOP E ditor Prod, d e signer C o stum e d e signer C o m po sers
Ann Turner
P roduction runner
Y ahoo Serious
Other Credits International dist.
S crip tw riters
P eter Hepw orth
David Brodie
Ann T urner
John Philips
Based on stories “H am m ers o v e r the A n v il”
P a tricia L’Huede Julie tte Van Heyst
details supplied]
m odern-day in ternatio nal bank robber who rides a pow erful hom e-m a de m otorbike.
Alan M arshall P eter G aw ler
G auge
35 mm
Length
95 m ins
BLINKY BILL Prod. co.
David H annay Prods B eyond Films
Budget
$4,141,485
P roduction
7/1/91 - 3 1 / 1 /9 2 1/2/92 - 30/5/92
Principal Credits
19/8/91 -1 1 /1 0 /9 1
D irector
Production
21/10/91 - 6 /1 2 /9 1
Producer
P o st-production
9/12/91 - A pril 1992
Principal Credits
Y oram G ross Y oram G ross
Exec, produce r
S a ndra G ross
S crip tw riters
D irector
Y oram G ross
Paul H arm on
Producers
Cast: [No details supplied]
Y oram G ross Film S tudios
P ost-production
P re-production
John P alm er
David H annay C h arles H annah
Leonard Lee B ased on
The Complete Adventures
Synopsis: A fu n n y , m oving, inspirational loss
S crip tw riter
of in nocence story set in the e arly days of this
DOP
N ancy Lloyd
century. T w elve years old and crippled with
S ound recordist
polio, Alan dream s of beco m ing a great
Editor
W ayne Le Clos
A n im ation d irector
M ichael Philips
C o m po ser
Focus puller
Joan ne P arker
horsem an. He m ust le arn that life is not
Prod, d esigner
C lappe r-loa der
A lison M axw ell
nece ssarily w h at he w ants it to be, but it's
C o stum e designer
w orth living anyw ay.
C o m poser
Key grip
G len Day
A sst grip
G reg T oohey
G affer
A n dre w R obertson
THE NOSTRADAMUS KID
Vicki Sugars
Pre-production
19/8/91 - 1 3 /1 0 /9 1
Prod, m anager
2nd asst d ire cto r
Sarah Lewis
Production
14/10/91 -6 /1 2 /9 1
Prod, co-ord.
3rd asst d irector
Jam es M orrison V icto r G entile Nicki G ooley
M ake-up PAPERS
85
P ost-production
7/12/1991 ...
Principal Credits D irector P roducer
Bob Ellis T e rry Jennings
P rodu cer’s asst Prod, a ccou ntan t
Production Crew
Boom o pe rator
Prod. co.
Prod, m anage r
A lison Barrett
Casting consu ltant
Linda Ray
Allan Zavod
Prod, supe rvisor
Prod, assistan t
Beyond Film s
C o ntinuity
C larrissa Patterson
D o rothy W all
Other Credits
Paul Harm on
Sim pson Le M esurier Film s
1st asst d irector
Ross Linton
o f Blinky Bill W ritten by
S crip t edito r
Dist. com pany
On-set Crew
D avid O 'B rien Kim Batterham
Planning and Development
Paul Johnston
CINEMA
FEATURES PRODUCTION
Steven C aesar
Prod, a ccou ntan t
74
sio n e r acts as best m an at Jim m y and H e le n ’s w edding.
R ichard M ontgom ery
Camera Crew
Best boy
W arner Bros
Synopsis: A d ventu re com edy based around
Dist. com pany
Liz M ullinar & Assoc.
siege begins w hich captures the atten tion of the nation, durin g w hich the Police C o m m is
Cast: Y ahoo Serious (Ned Kelly) [N o other
Prod, com pany
S cript editor
Unit m anager
S crip tw riter
G us H ow ard
Casting
Prod, co-ord.
rival of a ’b e n t’ cop, T aylor, and an a rsenal of w e apons left by H e len’s schizoid brother. A
P eter G aw ler
W ritten by
Prod, m anager
Lulu Serious
P eter H a rvey-W right
Planning and Development
Kings C ross to seek th e ir dream of a norm al
G raham Burke
M ark Perry
Production Crew
of gaol, and pregna nt girlfrien d Helen leave
Exec, produce r
Kerith H olm es T ess S chofield
Wedding is a bizarre d ram a, a love story and a com edy of errors. Jim m y Becker, fresh out
con te m p o ra ry issues w ith Ned Kelly as a Ben G annon
Sim on Sm ith
Synopsis: Set in the late 1960s, Shotgun
Oct. - Nov. 1991
C o -produ cer
HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL
prison know n as “The F o rtre ss”.
V illage R oadshow (G reater Union Dist.)
R obert Sm it G uy G ross R obert Sm it Je a n e tte Tom s Jane Barnett S arah M cD ougall Jan Egger
Insurer B renda Pam Sam T ho m pson
P rodu cer’s asst
Kim S terlina
Prod, secretary
Kriselle Baker
C o m pletion guaran. Legal S e rvices Lab ora tory
FIUA Film Finances M artin C o oper & Co. A tla b A u stralia
G auge
Location m anager
C h ris Jones
S h ooting stock
Unit m anager
C hris Jones
Government Agency Investment
35 mm K odak
D evelop’t
N S W Film & T e levision O ffice
Laboratory
C inevex
FFC
Lab liaison
Ian AndersonI
Producfion M arketing
B eyond Internatio nal G roup
Marketing
Shooting stock
K odak
Government Agency Investment
Leading hand
Herb S tephe ns (workshop)
C o nstruction Set construction
A B C S ce nery w o rksho p
Post-production
M arket consu ltant
Tim B rooke -H unt
Inter, sales age nt
Beyond International
Film Victoriai
International dist.
Beyond International
Cast: R ussell C row e (H ando), D aniel Pollock
DD A
(D avey), Jacqu eline M cK e n zie (G a b e ), LeighI
Sound supe rvisor
Voices: Robyn M oore (fem ale voices), Keith
Russell (Sonny Jim ), Eric M ueck (Cham p),
M usic coord.
Scott (m ale voices).
Daniel W yllie (C ackles), Jam es M cK enna
Publicity
W aiter S perle (Swan Hill)
Production
Karen Sim s
H a irdre sser
Jan Zeigenb ein (Ziggy) Ruth O sborne
C hore ographer
A sst editor
AFC
M ark Keating
Boom ope rator M ake-up
M aria K a ltenhaler
Sound tran sfers by
Eugene W ilson S ound
Still pho tograph y
Skip W atkins
C atering
S teve M arcus
S e rvices Dean G aw en C hris G ough, M ana M usic
Debbie Hansen S afety officer
Rob G reenough
Unit publicist
Fiona Searson, DD A
Art Department
Synopsis: A n im ate d featu re film of the ad
(Bubs), Frank M agee (Brett), C hristopher
Laboratory
C inevex
ventures of Blinky Bill, the m ischievous koala,
M cLean (Luke), Alex S cott (M artin).
Lab liaison
Ian A n derson
A rt dept, co-ord.
Tracey H yde-M oxham
and his friends (S plodge, Flap Platypus and
Synopsis: The story of the d isintegration of
G auge
35m m
Art dept, runner
R ichard B lackadd er
Nutsy Koala) in the A u stralian bush. The y
an urban stree t gang.
Shooting stock
battle aga in st illegal loggers w h o destroy but Blinky Bill rallies his friends and together
5248
I
FEATURES POST-PRODUCTION
their hom es and a ttem pt to d estroy the bush,
K odak E a stm ancolor
D evelopm ent
R om per S tom per
Production
S tandby w a rdrobe
13/5/91 -2 8 /6 /9 1
M illiken (Julie), Paul S tevn (R ussell), Lucy
W ardro be dept, attachs.
1/7/91...
Sheehan (Jacqui), Frankie J Holden (Mai),
Sassine
M atthew Krok (D ouggie), O llie Hall (Biggs),
Em ily Steel
Post-prod.
Sept. 1991 - M arch 1992
Principal Credits Director Exec, producers
Phil Jones
DOP
Ron Hagen
Sound recordist
David Lee
Editor Prod, d e signer
Bill M urphy Steven Jone s-E vans
C ostum e designer C o m poser
A n na Borghesi John C liffo rd W hite
Planning and Development Casting
S criptw riters
G eoffrey W right DOP Sound recordist Editor
G reg Apps (Liz M ullinar C asting)
Casting C asting assts
Production Crew Prod, m anager Prod, co-ord. Location m anager
Stephen Brett
Prod, m anager
Prod, runner
Eva Freidm an
Prod, co-ord.
B ernadette B reitkreuz Tony Leonard (S teeves Lum ley)
C om pletion g ua ran tor
Rob Fisher
(First A u stralian C o m pletion Bond Co.) Legal services
C hris Lovell (H olding Redlich)
Camera Crew Focus puller C lappe r-loa der Key grip Asst, grip G affer Best boy Electrician
2nd a s s t director 3rd asst director C ontinuity Boom ope rator M ake-up/hair M ake-up asst S p ecial fx supe rvisor
from prison. T h e ir paths cross w hen Russell is em ployed to w o rk o n Charlie's latest project:
M andy W alker
the construction of a giant M urray Cod as a
M usic supervisor
tourist attraction for a sm all Victorian town.
Laboratory
Atlab A u stralia
Editing room s
M ighty M ovies
Ken Sallow s
Unit m anager P roduction runner Prod accountant Accounts asst Insurer C om pletion guarant Legal services
W arik Law rance
Camera Crew
Leigh Tait
Jane H yland
Dina Mann Jane H am ilton
M arion Pearce Jenny Barty
Cam era operator
Leigh Am m itzboll Jacqu eline Perske M andy C arter S o phie S iom os Steeves Lum ley Film Finances Roth W arren M enzies M andy W alker
Tom M oody
Focus puller
G reg H arrington
M onica P earce A n dre w Power V ictoria Sullivan C athy G ross C h ristine M iller
C lapper-loader Cam era type
Trevor M oore
Key grip
Max G affney Richard Allardice
<Gaffer IB est boy iG enerator ope rator
T re vo r Ripper
Producer
David Elfick
Cast: Craig A dam s (Ken Riddle), Rhonda
John W inter
Findleton (G w en Riddle), M artin S acks (Max
Nina Stevenson
W ise m a n ), Aden Y oung (B arry), R ussell
S crip tw riter DOP
C ostum e designer Script editor C asting Extras casting
Prod, m anager Prod, secretary
C olin Robertson Lisa T ho m pso n C olin R obertson G rae m e B lackm ore
Wardrobe
Art dep t coord
U nit m anager
Sim on Hawkins
Unit assts. Prod, runner Prod, accountant
Tony Dickinson Bill S chober J enn ifer M itchell M iranda Brown Keith Fish
Freight co-ord. B ase-office liaison
Focus puller C lappe r-loa der C a m era asst
Hugh Bateup Sharon Young
C a m era equip Key grip
A dele Flere
G affer
Daryl Porter
Best boy
W ardro be asst.
C h eyne Phillips
Props buyers
A d ele Flere
Electrician
M arita M ussett O live r S treeton
Wardrobe
Eugene W ilson
S tandby w ardrobe
F rank Lipson
Construction Dept
Director
Jam es Bogle
P roducer
G eorge M annix
S criptw riters
Daryl Porter
Leon M arvall
Philip Taylor
M artin Brow n
M ark Haw thorne
G eorge M annix
Liane Lee
Jam es Bogle DOP
John Brock
B ronw yn D oughty
Film Finances Jet Aviation
Nigel Brooks Laura Zusters
Prod, designer C om posers
M artin Brown M ichael Roberts
S how freight Basia Plachecki
Phil Rigger
Production Crew Prod, m anager
M ark S p icer S teve M acD onald A nnie Benzie
Prod, co-ord. Prod, assistant Prod, runners
Sim on Frost Sam uelson Film Service Ray Brown Ian Bird
G eorge M annix David Holm es Kylie G askin Ero C oroneos Zalenah Turner
Insurer
Neil M cEw in (FIUA)
Camera Crew C a m era operators
C raig Bryant
Tonti C onnolly M artin Turner
S teve Johnson John Lee
Jon Cohen Focus pullers
Jam es Burke
2nd unit cam era op
Tom G leeson
On-set Crew 1 st asst director
P eter R asm ussen
G iancarlo M azzella
Camera Crew C am era operator
5/8/91 - 20/8/91 Sept. - Oct. 1991
Principal Credits
Editor
Set dresser
Edge num berer
Post-production
Ham m ond & Jew ell
Asst, grip
S ound transfers
Production
Insurer
Paul M acak
Standby props
A p r il- J u ly 1991
S ound recordist
P ropsperson
Jane U sher
Pinchgut Prods
Pre-production
C h ristine Robinson
Art dept runner
Post-production
MAD BOMBER IN LOVE Prod, com pany
A cco unts asst.
G abrielle Dunn
S ound edit, d e signer
Liz Kirkham Jillian Harris
S tandby w a rdrobe
Asst edito r
Perth and Kalgoorlie in the 1950s.
Euan Keddie
Art Department Art director
passionate in terest in the fem a le form . Set in
Elinor Bradbury
Location m anagers
Travel co-ord.
Catering
tistic 16-year-old with a ram pant libido and a
Julie Sim s
Ann Beresford
Lisa Tho m pso n
C iarrissa Patterson
M aggie Lake
Prod, co-ord.
C ontinuity
Unit publicist
Synopsis: A rom antic com edy abo ut an a r
A n drew M ayhew
C om pletion g ua ran tor
Art Department
(Cyril W illiam s).
David M cKay
Ali R oberts D irections
S toryboard artist
Tony G ilbert
Still photography
Bollinger), Jill Perrym an (Dorry), V incent Ball
C hristine King
Karen M ahood
Tech, adviser
M aya Stange (Ivy Riddle), Bill Y oung (H erbert
G untis Sics
G lenda H am bly
:2nd asst director
Keith Fish
Crow e (A rthur), S a m an tha M urray (M aisie),
Planning and Development
3rd asst director
P eter Leiss
John Cundill
S tuart Arm strong
Prod, designer
ID ennis Davidson A ssoc.
S teve W indon
(M oneypenny)
A m anda R owbottom
Beyond Film s
C o-producers
Jane G regory
IBoom ope rator
FFC
Publicity
Sue Kelly T ait P eter S tubbs
Marketing
David Elfick
Daryl Pearson M alcolm M cLean
K odak
Inter, sales agent
D irector
'O n-set Crew 1st asst director
P roduction
10/6/1991 ...
Principal Credits
A rriflex BL4
A sst grip
John H opkins
Government Agency Investment
Beyond Film s
Production Crew C am pbell M iller
C hris O dgers
P roduction
Carryl Irik Isla C arboon
Film S tock
Palm Beach Pictures
Denise P atience
C am era asst
Battista Rem ati
Prod, com pany Dist. com pany
John C ruthers
G ene Van Dam T re vo r Ripper
THE GREAT PRETENDER
Editor
IM ake-up
S tandb y props
Ray Argali
G eorgia C arter
C hris Peters
Props buyers
Asst editors
Frank Falconer
Harry Kirchner
Prod secretary
W ally Dalton
Set dressers
Post-production
Sound recordist
Safety officer C atering
the com plete opposite, has just been released
Judith Hughes
S tunts co-o rd in a to r Still pho tograph y
S cenic artist
Bryce M enzies
P roducer’s asst
G ary Bottom ley
On-set Crew 1st asst d irector
seem in gly everything going for him. Russell,
Production Crew Prod, supe rvisor
Insurer
C onstruction super Peter C arm en (Dakota)
Jill Robb
C am eron Harris E lisa A rgen zio Fiona Eagger
Prod, accou ntan t
Construction Dept.
Planning and Development Script editor
Jackline
D esm ond Kelly (Bert).
Kerith Holm es
C ostum e designer
Lisa G alea D elia S p icer
Synopsis: C harlie is a young a rchitect with
Ian C regan
Prod, designer
W ardro be buyer
T im othy W hite
Ray A rgali
Producer
Ian Pringle S crip tw riter
Jo M alcolm
Cast: M a tth e w F a rg h e r (C h a rlie ), A n g ie
P ost-production
Assoc, produce r
W ardro be supe rv is o r
25/3/91 - 10/5/91
Production
Daniel Scharf
Wardrobe
P re-production
18/7/91 -9 /8 /9 1
P roducers
R obert M oxham
Film Victoria
1 2 /8/91-20/9/91
G eoffrey W right
FFC
Standby props
M eridian Film s
Pre-production
Director
A licia W alsh Denise G oudy
Props buyers
Prod, com pany
Production
Principal Credits
Set dresser
G len Johnson
: Film V ictoria AFC
EIGHT BALL Prod, com pany
M ichael Philips
Government Agency Investment
they fig h t to p reserve th e ir hom es.
ROMPER STOMPER
A rt director
A nnie Benzie Colin Fletcher
2nd asst director
Sarah Lew is
C a m era type
3rd asst d irector
Lisa Farinosi
Key grip
C o ntinuity
Jan Piantoni
Sony B etacam SP Pip “the G rip ” S h apie ra G len Day
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
75
G affers
S im on Lee G reg Allen M ichael W ood
Best boy
Paul Klicin
On-set Crew
M aureen Zust (NZ) C o m pletion gua ran tor Insurer
Film Finances Steeves Lum ley
Camera Crew
G eoffrey G uiffre Stephen Saks
2nd asst d irector C o ntinuity
C lappe r-loa der
Trevor Rowe
G affer
S teve Latty
Electrician
Alan W oodfield
G affer
Alan W oodfield
On-set Crew
A licia Sluzarski
On-set Crew
Dina G illespie
Art Department
C o ntinuity
M ake-up assts
Karen A lexand er
Boom operator
M yk Farm er
M ake-up
Fiona C am pbell
M ake-up asst
D ebra East
H airdresser
A rt director
Tony C am pbell
A sst art d irector
P eter R asm ussen
S tandby props
M ax W orrel Jam es C oburn
Wardrobe
P eter U nderdow n
V isual fx
Nick Rowney
C h ore ographer
Tony Bartucchio
S tunts co-ord.
Peter Bell
Still photography
M artin S tew art
Art Department
W ardro be supe rvisor
Terri K ibbler
Animals N igel Brooks
Post-production
Art director
Kevin Leonard-Jones C am eron Feast
Set dresser
Brad Mill
A sst set dresser
Laboratory
Videolab
Shooting stock
B etacam SP
V ideo special fx
T an ia Burkett
Marketing
Nick Rowney
P rops buyer
Brad Mill
Standby props
Jania Bates
Wardrobe C o stum e supervisor
M aketing consu ltant
John S w indelle
Poster d e signer
Jim Sheldon
Cast: Rachel S zalay (Julia), C raig Pearce
C h ristian M cG ow an C am eraquip
Paul Sayers
Standby w a rdrobe
A ndrea Bunn
Construction Dept C o nstruction m anager
Tony A rnold
Stephen V a ughan N icole Stacey
S tunts co-ord. Stunts Child m inder Still pho tograph y C atering
Bob Hicks
Kerry W hittaker
Wardrobe Meg G ordon
Post-production
Staging S tandby staging
Synopsis: Mad Bomber in Love is the story
Set m akers
Edge num berer
O live r Streeton R ochelle O shlack
S ound editor M ixer M ixed at Titles
see previous issue: INTRAVENOUS REGIONAL
Shooting stock
Kodak
ANAESTHESIA SMOKING CESSATION
Marketing B ennetto Publicity
M ulock (Frank #1), David W enham (Frank
Prod, com pany
(Nguyen).
Production
Synopsis: W rite r Duncan and his young son
P ost-production
K erry Dunn
Hugh live alone. The y are pursued from
Principal Credits
Karen Baker
S y d n e y to C a n b e rra and b a c k by Red,
D irector
A lex C hom icz
A m anda, V ivien and the two F ranks. The final
S crip tw riter
Alex C hom icz
coincide nce foils the stockbroker, the thugs,
DOP
the politician and the editor - and hopefully
Sound recordist
ends the m adness.
[See previous issue fo r details]
basem ent o f the hotel w h ere the B eatles are
BREATHING UNDER WATER
night unfolds, they slow ly start to reveal their
Lynda House
dee pest secrets, their hopes, their dream s.
David Arnell
Featuring som e of the m ost fam o us m usic
DOCUMENTARIES
ever w ritten.
P eter C arrodus Kevin Leo nard-Jones
Prod, assistan t
C olin M cLellan
Prod, secretary
Sarah Bailey
Location m anager Location asst
A lex Collins R achel Stew art
Ronin Film s
Principal Credits
Production Post-production
P roducers Exec, producer A ssoc, producer S crip tw riter Based on story W ritten by DOP
Location scout
D ave Norris
S ound recordist
Unit m anager
Alex Collins
Editor
Prod, accou ntan ts
76
• CINEMA
Jim H a jico sta (Aust)
PAPERS
85
C o m poser
Helen M ains Nic Brunner Dirk V anden-D rie sen
C rane /G rip
G run t Film G rips
Boom ope rator
R obert C h om icz
Still pho tograph y
Karl Fehr Susan Burke C h arlie B oyle
3 /4 /9 1 - 10/5/91 June - Oct. 1991
Tony Llew ellyn-Jones
Roger Pulvers
Red Herring V irginia Rouse Ian Jones Phillip Healy M ark Atkin A n dre w Y e ncken
16 mm
Shooting stock
K odak 7248, 7296
Director
M ike D avies
Laboratory
M ike Davies
Cast: A lyce Platt (P regnan t drug pusher),
T ech nical producer S criptw riters
W illiam M arshall Trish Carney
25 m ins
P roducer Exec, producer
V irginia Rouse
Brad Pim m s G auge
V irg inia Rouse M ary Hands
Jacqu i Deacon
Art dep artm ent
Flinders M edia
Dist. com pany
Production Crew Sue T ho m pson
Jeffrey O wen
M ake-up
Length
Dist. com pany
D irector
Prod, co-ord.
John W areham
Steadycam
Flinders M edia
G oosey Ltd
Principal Credits
Prod, m anager
V e ra Biffone
C a m era asst
Prod, com pany
Prod, com pany
Planning and Development P enny O ldfield (NZ)
W ade Savage
BREAST FEEDING
C asting
Liz M ullinar (Aust)
1 st asst d irector
R unners
SEEING RED
Jan Sardi
Production designer
Other Credits
Unit nurse
W illiam T M arshall
Ken Saville
N igel Traill Robert C h om icz
C ostum e d esigner
RECENTLY COMPLETED See previous issues for details on:
staying during th e ir A u stralian tour. As the
Editor
Editor
WIND (form erly Radiance)
Reid (Sister Anuzia), P eter Vere-Jones (Jock),
M ichael Pattinson
Dam ien W yvill Basil K rivoroutchko
2nd asst d irector
Joy W atson (R and olf's mother).
M ichael Pattinson
Sept. - Oct. 1991
C o m poser
Lorim ar (Kid), Lorae Parry (Reporter), Joan
Producer
O bscure Film s A u gust 1991
David C lark
D irector
Sound recordist
DIAL-A-CLICHE
Fiona S earson (DDA)
Em otion! Five teenage rs trapped in the giant
David Connell
COUNSELLING IN PREGNANCY SOOTHING THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH
#2), David Field (W illiam ), A n thony W ong
Synopsis: June, 1964. M adness! M usic!
DOP
For details of the following
Colin Pacey
17/6/91...
S crip tw riter
blindness.
1:1.85
Spartels (M ark), Henri S zeps (Louie), John
B eyond International G roup
M ichael C aulfield
FFC
Screen ratio
(Cop), N lcki H ooper (Girl fan), C h ristop her
Exec, producers
P roduction
Synopsis: A p ortrait of P rofessor Fred H ol
35 mm
STRICTLY BALLROOM
Line produce r
Erika A ddis
Ian Anderson
[See previous issue fo r details]
Principal Credits
M ichael Frankel
C a m era ope rator
Film gauge
Cam pbell (R and olf's father), Peter Dennett
Dist. co.
Film Finances
Lab liaison
O ’N eill (Vicki), Noah Taylor (R andolf), Eddie
Production
C inesure
C om pletion gu a ra n to r
C inevex
[See 83 Issue fo r details]
A valon Pictures
M oneype nny S e rvices
Insurer
Laboratory
Kennard (Danny), Dannii M inogue (Didi), Willa
NFU S tudios Production
Davood T abrizi
coun tries w h ere m illions su ffe r from curable
O live r Streeton
Cast: B eth C h a m p io n (E m ily ), M alcolm
Victorian International P ictures
C o m poser
A u s tra lia o ffe r a m odel fo r T h ird W orld
ROUND THE BEND
Prod. co.
D enise Haslem
Jam es C urrie
(form erly Over the Hill)
SECRETS
Pat Fiske
Editor
H endon S tudios
Hon Heath
Set finishers
Unit publicity
S ound recordist
John Flowers
literally. It is a d o m estic th rille r w ith a d iffe r A sst editor
Erika A ddis
lows, A ustralian of the Year, whose eye health
Lam bert (Am anda), Peta Top pano (Vivien),
A nton Buys
not your turn to do the washing-up.
Pat Fiske
DOP
p ro g ra m s in E ritea, N e pal, and o u tb a ck
Ton y L le w e lly n -J o n e s (D u n c a n ), G eorge
psycho path w ho m oves into a house with
Post-production
C o-produ cer
Livia Ruzic
R ichard M artin
Tony Evensen
ence - there's no place like hom e. Pray it’s
Pat Fiske M egan M cM urchy
Craig Carter
A sst sound editor
Vaughan Schw ass
of B ernard and Julia. B ernard is a charm ing Julia. T h e ir w h irlw ind rom ance is explosive,
D irector
Government Agency Investment
Publicity
C ullen, Zoe Carides.
27/9/91 ...
Legal services
W ardro be supervisor
Cast: Z o e C a rid e s (R ed), A n n e Lou ise
G raham , Helen Jones, Paul Chubb, Max
P ost-production
Principal Credits
Prod, accountant
S cenic w o rksho p coord. W ayne R utherford
Design estim ator
29/7/91 ...
Erik Holm berg Robert M cFarlane
S ce nic artists
C raig M cLachlan, A n thony Ackroyd, M arcus
1/7/91 ...
Production
Other Credits
(Kevin), Z achary M cKay (Bill), Laura Keneally (M ary Lou). Special gue st appearances by
$281,791
P re-production
Phil M eacham
(Bernard), Alex M orgos (Gunther), Alan Lovell
M ike Travers
B ow er Bird Film s
Producer
T a n ya Enderson
S ound tran sfers by
Art dept runner
A nim al handler
David Lindsay
Linda Ray
Boom operator
W i Rakete
W atsons Film C atering
Ian Jones
Adam W illiam s
D ave Norris Anna Cahill
FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE Prod. C om pany Budget
C ontinuity
1 st asst director 3rd asst director
Unit pub licist
C lappe r-loa der C a m era m aintenance
2nd asst director
C atering
Focus puller
G enerato r operator
B lair M axwell
M arshalls & Dent
C a m era ope rator
N icole Lazaroff
C hris T ow nsend
G eralyn Sm ith S teeves Lum ley
Thad Law rence
Ruth O sborne
Still pho tograph y
Insurer
Best boy
Jan Z eigenb ein (Ziggy)
S p ecial fx supe rvisor
of the issues and problem s associated.
Camera Crew
Asst grip
K a therine P arkinson
C hore ographer
Polly W atkins
W arren B radshaw
A lison H enville
Sue Kerr
natural breastfe e d in g and discussion of som e
Unit assistan t
Legal services
W arren G rieef
Boom ope rators
T rish C arney
G reg Ryan
Key grip
Pru D onovan
H a irdre sser
Focus puller
Leah W right Sophie Fabbri-Jackson
M ake-up
Ian Jones
Synopsis: An o vervie w of the argum ents for
Prod, m anager Prod, accou ntan t
C a m era ope rator
1st asst directors
Production Crew
Based on idea by S ound recordist Editor C o m poser
Alan Bentley
M a rk H e m b ro w (T y p ic a l 'A u s s ie ' lo se r),
Rod Larcom be
Jona than Hardy (O bscene caller), C hristine
M ike D avies
A m o r (N o s e y n e ig h b o u r), D a v id
Patricia Sm ith
(Yobbo), C h arlie Boyle (Kidnapper).
S ound editor M usic perform ed by
L e tch
R osem ary C onroy
Synopsis: A day in the life of a typical te l
Rosem ary C onroy
ephone box seen from the p a yp hone’s point
A ndrew G anczarczyk
of view.
M ike D avies M atthew Atherton
Other Credits C a m era ope rator
Atlab
SOMETHING TO DO WITH ANTS Prod. co.
M ike D avies A n dre w G anczarczyk M atthew A therton
Curtin U niversity of Tech nolo gy [Film & T elevision School]
Principal Credits D irector
Kerryn de Cinque
Producer
M eg B erry
have a fallin g -o u t o v e r the sam e w o m an . A
them selves throw n to g e th e r by a chance
M ichael B ennett
darkly, hum orous spiral of even ts leads to
m eeting. Jim m y, along w ith his pet tortoise, is
see previous issue:
M itchell Kelly
th e ir confronta tion as th e ir fa th e r becom es
on the run from his unfortun ate dea lin gs in his
JOHNSON & FRIENDS (II)
Sound recordist
D elia M cC arthy
trapped in a w orld betw een illusion and reality.
past life -in-crim e. Louis, a v isiting London
HEROES OF OUR TIME
Editor
A u bre y T redge t
rock-n -roller w ho never quite m ade it, finds
LA STUPENDA
S crip tw riter DOP
Other Credits Prod, m anage r
For details of the following
him self in the passe nger seat. As the story
see previous issue: A POCKETFUL OF RYE
unfolds th e ir lives beco m e stran gely c o n
M ia Farinos
1st asst
A n n e -M a rie Sprogos
G auge
16m m
FILM VICTORIA
nected by the even ts that take place during
RHINO CHRISTMAS
Cast: [No details supplied]
For details of the following
For details of the following
th e ir jo u rn e y to Alice.
see previous issue:
SECRETS
Synopsis: D ick Lawn, private eye, gets a pecu lia r jo b - D erm ott Frip has had dream s, “strange, ugly d re a m s”. H e’s not sure w h a t
For details of the following
ART OF DROWNING
AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL
see issue 83:
MR NEAL IS ENTITLED TO
HOPE
BE AN AGITATOR
ROAD TO ALICE
FILM AUSTRALIA
it’s all about, but it’s som ething to do w ith the
SHEEP
ants.
WHISPERS Prod. co.
S w inb urn e Film & TV School
Dist. com pany
AFI
Budget
$16,000
Principal Credits D irector
Vivi Rajah
P roducer
Vivi Rajah
Exec, produce r
Luigi A cquisto
Prod, com pany
AFTR S
Dist. com pany
AFTR S
Budget
$21,000
Principal Credits
Prod, com pany
FA
Dist. com pany
FA
S tavros Efthym iou
Principal Credits
Producer
Frances M cG ivern
D irector
Ian D unlop
D irector
S crip tw riter
S tavros Efthym iou
Exec, produce r
C hris O liver
P rodu cer
DOP
Rohan Sm ith
Sound recordist
Ben Cheah
R esearcher
A nnie Stivens
Vivi Rajah
Editor
lan Jones
Prod, designer
C a the rine M ansill
Prod, co-ord.
C o stum e designer
C a the rine M ansill
Prod, accou ntan ts
V a lerie Fisicaro Vivi Rajah
A rt director
S usila S aw thirajah
C o m po sers
C hris Foreham. Rick M cLean
Planning and Development S crip t consu ltant
C o m poser
Extras casting
Daniel O ffenburg Vivi Rajah
Budgeted by
Carol G regory
Production Crew Daniel O ffenberg
Joy S argent Big D ram a
S hooting schedule
Frances M cG ivern
B u dgeted by
Frances M cG ivern
Prod, runner
Frances M cG ivern S onia S hort Kate Tierney
Vivi Rajah Location scout
Hugh M cLaren
Prod, runner
A lissa Tan skaya
B a se-o ffice liaison
Leanne Evans
Camera Crew C a m era o pe rator
lan Jones
C a m era asst Addt. ca m era asst G affer Best boy
C a m era operator
Rohan Sm ith
Focus puller
Peter Borosh
C lappe r-loa der
F rancesca M uir
Length
Publicity
Lesna T hom as
G auge
Synopsis: An ethnograph ic film about the
S p onsor
Baruya people of Papua N ew G uinea.
Cast: Jay M annering, Pat Sands. Synopsis: Provides a guide to health, safety,
DIAMONDS ARE A GIRL’S
rehabilitatio n and w o rk e r’s com pensa tion in
BEST FRIEND
the w o rkplace. It show s the benefits of a safe
Prod, com pany
FA
and hea lthy w o rkplace; explain s the e m
Dist. com pany
FA
p lo y e rs ’ and em plo y e e s ’ rights and respon
P roductin
Aug. - O ct. 1991
sibilities in relation to w o rke rs’ com pensa tion
Post-production
Oct. - Dec. 1991
and the role of the W orkC over A u thority.
Principal Credits D irector
Derek Longhurst
P roducers
Derek Longhurst Sue T aylor
Exec, produce r
lan Jones
Brian Pritchard
Best boy G enerato r operator
N igel Harte lan Bosm an
W ritten by
Sue T aylor
Prod, co-ord.
Fiona S ch m idberger
Prod, accou ntan ts
On-set Crew 1st asst d irector 2nd asst director Boom operator
Nicole Lazarof Sim one W ajon
C atering
Fotini M anikaris
S usila S aw thirajah
Runners
Kate T ierney Robin
Art Department
IMAGEMAKERS
Post-production
W ardro be super Vivi Rajah S w inb urn e Film & TV Vivi Rajah C hris Forehan
P ost-sync supe rvisor M usical director M usic m ixer
A lec M organ prison staff to follo w procedu res w hen d e a l C hris O live r
W ritten by
A line Jacques
dram atized it follow s the trau m atic day of a Hilary M ay custodial officer w ho com es in contact with
Prod, m anager
H ilary May an attem pted suicide, a fight am ong priso n Fiona S ch m idberger
Prod, a ccou ntan t
Francesca M uir
AF TR S
Prod, com pany
A u s tra lia ’s post-w ar im m igration policies.
D irector
H eather O gilive
S crip tw riter
Prod, com pany
FA
D.O .P
Dist. com pany
FA
S ound recordist
Principal Credits
Laboratory
Atlab
Laboratory
C inevex
Lab liaison
B ruce W illiam son
Lab liaison
lan Letcher
Screen ratio
Neg m atching
Paul C ross
S hooting stock
G rad er
lan Letcher
Video tran sfers by
G auge
16 mm
1C ast: H ugo W eaving (Louis), N oah Taylor
Other Credits
S tanda rd 16 mm
(Jim m y), Helen Buday (Alice), Loene C arm en
Prod, m anager
K odak 7297, 7245
(Shannon), A n gelo D’A n gelo (Dim itri), Em il
Prod, co-o rd in a to r
8:1
T he D aily Planet M alcolm M acD onald
Producer
ON THE NOSE
Jerem y P arker (shooting)
7248
THIS VOTING LIFE
FA
Synopsis: A film about the secrets behind Ben Cheah Ross M uir
ers, a colleag ue injured by a needle, and
Dare S kinner finally a trau m a coun selling session.
International dist.
G enevive Joans
M ixed at
ing w ith prisoners, cell searches, and injured
A lec M organ colleag ues to avoid contracting AID S . Fully
M arketing exec. AF TR S
Post-production
Rick M cLean H endon S tudios
Kylie M cLean
G eoffrey Jenkins, Jam es Rose.
Synopsis: D esigned to enco ura ge custodial
D irector
Prod, co-ord.
Studios
Jam es Currie S u sila S a w thiraja h (artwork)
P eter Leggitt
Construction Dept
Asst edito r
FA
Principal Credits
B u dgeted by
Wardrobe
24 m ins Dept of C o rrective Services
M ary Regan, P atrick Falzon, Kris G reaves,
Prod com pany
Other Credits
Arm ourer
V isualeyes
Cast: W illiam Zappa, M ichelle Faw don, Pe
Exec, p roduce r Kylie M cLean
C h ristop her G ordon
te r B row ne, A n dre w S harp, Bruce Venebles,
B rendan Boys
A n na Johnson
Prod, m anage r
Francesca M uir Lab ora tory
W estern Australia.
C elia M orris
M artin Fox
A lissa Tan skaya
Denis H e ra tzis O rig. C. G ordon
S p onsor
B rendan Boys
Shooting stock
de C respigney
E ditor
searches for diam o nds in the outback of
Props buyer
S creen ratio
de C respigney
Bob Burns
Standby props
M ixed at
Robin
Length
S usila S aw thirajah
Titles
de C respigney
S crip tw riter
S ynop sis: A y o u n g w o m a n g e o lo g is t
S usila S aw thirajah
Sound m ixer
Robin
A ngie Spring
M ake-up Still photography
M arketing exec.
Set dresser
M usic perform ed by
Robin
Producer
Janine TrappM usic Dare S kinner
K ristin Sanderson
W ardro be
Sound editor
H onky T o n k A ngel Prods
D irector
Jan Kenny
Asst art d irector
Post-prod, supervisor
C hris O liver
JUST ANOTHER DAY Prod. co.
Rob S talder
John Fox
S ound tran sfers
W orkC over A u thority of NSW
D.O .P
Art Department
Art dept, runners
19 m ins Betacam SP
Hilary May Sound recordist
A n n e -M a rie W illgoo se
A rm ourer
M arketing exec.
Jake A tkinson
Prod, m anage r
M ichael Kitson
M ake-up
Library
Prod, m anage r
Other Credits
N ikola C aro
Still pho tograph y
M usic
lan Bosm an
R obert W allace
Boom ope rator
Bill M cC row
Jeng his Turk
G affer
C o ntinuity
2nd sound recordist
Ron C roft Editor
Asst grip
On-set Crew 1st asst d irector
Richard Novatin
Bruce H ogan
P eter W hite
G ary Scott
C o ntinuity
A llison Baillache
R odney Long
D .O .P 's
Tony Bosch
Brian Pritchard
G enerato r operator
Prod, accountant
Camera Crew
S crip tw riter
Key grip
G ary Scott
G rips
Robin
Bill M cC row Brian Hazon
Kieran Doolan Brian Pritchard
S teadicam o pe rator
Janine Trapp Dare S kinner
Production Crew Prod, m anager
Bill M cC row Film s
H ilary May Fiona S ch m idberger
K ristin Sanderson
Prod, co-ordina tor
Prod, m anagers
Prod, m anage r
Jim Bowm an
Planning and Development C asting
Luigi A cquisto
S h ooting sched ule
David H ewitt
Prod, com pany
Other Credits
DOP Editor
THE EFFECTIVE APPROACH
D irector
S crip tw riter S ound recordist
NSW FILM & TELEVISION OFFICE
BARUYA MUKA
D irector Exec, produce r S crip tw riters
AF TR S
R odney Long Preston C lothier G ran t R oberts
Editor T am m y B urnstock C hris O liver Tam m y Burnstock
Z solt Kollanyi
M usic
G raham T ard iff
Prod, m anage r
D oodie Herm an
N arrators
H.G. Nelson
M ax Lake
Roy Slaven Laboratory
V isualeyes
H ilary M ay
Length
18 m ins
Fiona S ch m idberger
G auge
B etacam SP
Cast: H uw W illiam s (Egon), Ezra Bix (Lucas),
M inty (D o-D o), Colin M oody (Hood).
Prod, accou ntan t
Dare S kinner
S p onsor
John Flaus (Old man), Kay Keighery (S oph ia),
Synopsis: Road to Alice is a com ic tale of
G auge
SP Betacam
Cast: H.G. N elson (G reig Pickhaver), Roy
Brian Pritchard (S cruffy man), C hris M cLean
chan ce and synchronicity. T ravellin g in an
M arketing exec.
(1 st goon), R obert W a llace (2nd goon).
old V a lia nt across the A u stralian landscape
Synopsis: A d ocu m en tary on the pow er of
Synopsis: Show s the e lectoral process from
Synopsis: Egon and L ucas are brothers w ho
are tw o m ism atch ed people, w h o have found
sm ell.
declaring an election to the tally room and the
F rancesca M uir
N S W S tate E lectoral O ffice
S laven (John Doyle).
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
77
court of disputed returns. N arrated by H. G.
Exec, producer
N elson and Roy Slaven, w e ll-know n sporting
Develop, producer
com m entators.
S crip tw riter Based on the novel
For details of the following see previous issue: ACCESS TO ENGLISH
Patterson), Gil Tucker (Frank Patterson), Ailsa
Peter Kinloch
Piper (M ag gie P atterson), Katy Brinson (Dr
John Reeves
A lison Nisselle
Robyn F oster), M a tthew K ette ringham (Chris
S hane Brennan
P atterson), M ickey (Junior), Jo S pano (Brian
Galaxy and Turn Left
Shiela Sibley
Robin Klein
D enise M organ
Synopsis: The continuing story of three young
Judith Colquhoun
children grow ing up in Fern C ove and their
DOP
David Connell
Sound recordists
John Phillips
HEAR ME TALKING TO YOU
A n dre w Ram age
HOUSING IN HARMONY
Editor
MAIN STREET
Denise Haratzis
Prod, designer
NOT JUST LOOKING AT PICTURES PEOPLE FIRST
C ostum e designer
Sally G rigsby
S cript editor
SYDNEY AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE WE STAND FOR SAFETY
ALL TOGETHER NOW (series)
Jan Pontifex
THE BOYS FROM THE BUSH (series II)
Pam Tum m el
Prod, designer
G eorgie G reenhill G arry M cD onald
C asting
Sandi R evelins
Prod, m anager
Location m anager
M aurice Burns
Prod, co-ord.
E n tertainm ent M edia C inem a Verity Shirley Barrett Robert M archand P eter Beilby Robert Le Tet Douglas Livingstone
Post-production
9/12/91
Jenn y Sharp
Principal Credits
G ina Black
Peter Allen
P roducer’s asst
C oyla Hegarty
Tim Scott
Prod, secretary
Helen Boicovitis
Justin Hughes
Location m anager
Prod, accountant
Patti Pulbrook
T ranspo rt m anagers
Peter Scott
Unit m anager
Reel W heels
G reg Ryan
Financial controller
S teve Brett
Key grip
W arren G rieef
Insurer
A sst grips
Aaron W alker
C om pletion guarant
G affer
Dick Tum m el
Best boy
Darryl Pearson
G enerato r operator
Adam W illiam s
On-set Crew
J enn ifer C levers H am m ond Jew ell Film Finances Barker G osling
Legal services
Camera Crew C am era operator Focus puller 2nd unit focus Key grip
Joel W itherden C raig Dusting
(Reg), Pat Thom son (Doris), Nadine G arner
3rd asst director
Dam ien G rant
(Arlene), M ark Haddigan (Leslie).
C ontiunity
Synopsis: In Series II, Reg is again surprised
Boom operator
by a visit from his ingenue English nephew
M ake-up/H air M ake-up asst
Peta Hastings New G eneration Stunts
m illionaire's son and “M elbourne Confidential"
Art Department
get involved with som e very big players in
Art director
deed. [No furth e r details supplied]
Set dresser
On-set Crew 1st asst directors 3rd asst director
Darryl Mills
S tandby props
M arcus Erasm us
Wardrobe Rachel Nott
(tele-feature)
S tandby w ardrobe
A u stralian P acific Film s (Cairns) Beyond International G roup
Principal Credits
Construction
D irector
M ark Eliot Post-production
Producer
M ark Eliot Post-prod, supe rvisor
Planning and Development
M ark Eliot Cast: [No details supplied]
Props buyer
M onica MeschSynopsis: A fte r winning the gove rnm ent lot
S tandby props
B udgeted by
M onica Mesch tery fo r the 27th tim e in a row, Father finds
Wardrobe
questions being asked of his honesty. W hat to do? Escape, of course, and so begins the
from all over the w orld. The crocodile, the
story of this strange little fam ily from the
S tandby wardrobe
w o rld's oldest creature, has survived the d i
planet Zyrgon as they travel halfw ay across
Animals
nosaurs, and, although savagely hunted by
the galaxy, turn left and land on earth.
Anim al trainer
the 21
original species not one has yet been made
HOME AND AWAY (serial)
extinct. But how much lo nge rca n th e cro co d ile
[See issue 80 for details]
hang out?
KELLY 2 (m ini-series)
HALFWAY ACROSS THE GALAXY AND TURN LEFT (series) Prod, com pany Production
C raw fords A u stralia 9/9/91 - 28/2/92
Paul M oloney Producer
78
CINEMA
Jan M arnell
PAPERS
85
Paul Thom pson Benn Hyde Ken Pettigrew
Best boy
Bruce Young
On-set Crew 1st asst director
Tony Tilse Karen K reicers V icky H astrich
C ontinuity
Suzanne Brown
Boom operator
Jerry N ucifora
M ake-up
Ron Bassi
Budget
Unit nurse
G uy Cottrell
Art Department
M arion M andy S edaw ie
Set dressers
R obert Hutchinson
P ropsperson
C hris Rym an
Tim Tulk Prop m akers
C athy Young
M ichael G arcia
Edge num berer
Post Production Facility Pro Image The M usic D epartm ent
S hooting stock
Kodak Pro Image
Government Agency Investment
Pre-production
19/8/91,— 14/10/91
D evelopm ent
Production
14/10/91 - 24/1/92
Production
Post-production
1 4 /1 0 /9 1 -2 9 /6 /9 2
Marketing International dist.
Tim W estcott
Wardrobe Colleen W oulfe
Ray Daley
16 mm
O ff-line facilities
Standby props
W ardrobe co-ords.
Post-prod, supervisor
Recording studio
Paddy M cD onald M atthew Bartley
Film gauge
Principal Credits
Sue Andrew s
Boyce
Tele Images
$3.5 m illion
Dem m a W ilson
A dele Flere
C inevex
W endy Falconer Standby w ardrobe
M ary C hristodoulou
Construction Dept S cenic artist
Paul Brocklebank
C arpenter Set finisher
Post-production Asst editor O ff-line facilities
Film V ictoria FFC
Bob Hunt M ichael H natek Liz W alshe Spectrum Film s T ouchvision
Cast: [No details supplied] Synopsis: The Leaving o f Liverpool tells the
T ele Im ages
story of tw o rem arkable children w h o w ere
A tlantis Releasing
victim s of the conn ivance and cruelty of the
D irectors
C hris Langm an
W estbridge Entertainm ent
gove rnm ents and organizations involved in
Line producer
Ray Hennessy
Cast: Max the dog (Kelly the dog), C harm aine
the m ass tra n s p o rta tio n of d ep rived and
Jonathan M S chiff
G orm an (Jo Patterson), A lexand er Kem p
hom eless children th ro u g h o u t the British
David Phillips
(D ann y F oster), A n th o n y H a w kin s (M ike
Em pire in the 1950s.
M ike Sm ith Rod Hardy
M atthew Tem ple
G affer
3rd asst director
Laboratory
W estbridge Entertainm ent
Principal Credits D irectors
Sean M cClory
C lapper-loader
C hris Peters
W estbridge Prods A tlantis R eleasing
[See previous issue for details]
M arc S picer
Focus puller
2nd asst director
W ardrobe supervisor
Sound tran sfers by
THE FLYING DOCTORS (VIII, series)
C am era operator
C hris A nderson
Post-production
Dist. com panies
Leah Vincent
Chris Jam es
Synopsis: This tw o-hour tele-feature puts
[See previous issue for details]
John Downie
Production runner
A sst grip
A n gela C hrista
the crocodile on trial and investigates attacks
Prod, com pany
Unit m anager
P eter R am sey
Susan Elizabeth W ood
A COUNTRY PRACTICE (series)
Lisa Hawkes Peter Law less
Chiara Tripod i
Alan Ryan Art dept runner
Shooting sched ule
man fo r the past m illion years, of
Prod, secretary Location m anager
A n gela Conti
Band Aide
Set dressers
Rick R ogers Publicity
S cript edito r
S andy S tevens
Art Department
Marketing
R esearcher
Jo Rooney
Prod, co-ord.
Key grip
A n thea C ollin
Peter M cNee C atering
Liz M ullinar Liz M ullinar Casting
Prod, m anager
Ray Phillips
Ponch Hawkes
Unit publicist
C onstruct, m anager
C asting consultants
Irene G askell
C hris Peters
C lair Sm ithStill photography
Casting
Camera Crew
Film Trix
G abriel Dunn Safety officer
W ardrobe asst
A nnie M arshall
Planning and Development
Richard C lendinnen
New G eneration Stunts
Stunts
C ostum e designer
C ynthia Kelly
Special fx
Kelly Ellis
M arcus North
Prod, accountant
M ichelle Johnstone
Stunts co-ord.
M ike Honey
Prod, designer
A cco unts asst
Kay H ennessy
M ake-up asst
S teve W indon
Editor
Robert Kewley G ene Van Dam
C ontiunity
Denise G oudy M ake-up
W ardrobe supervisors
Dist. co.
M ichael Hughes
Anne W endt
THE CROCODILE ON TRIAL Prod. co.
Laurie Fish
Electrician
Ken Jam esBoom operator
Props buyer
CHANCES (serial)
Arri SR
Zeija Stanin Stunts co-ord.
[See issue 83 for details]
C am era type
G affer
DOP
Production Crew
Asst grip
average kangaroo. Arlene is engaged to a
John Alsop S usan Sm ith
Terry Howells G ary Bottom ley
Phil Jones
bourne is even m ore surprising than your
Stephen O 'R ourke
S criptw riters
Lucy M onge
Christian Robinson
Leslie. This tim e Leslie arrives to find M el
Assoc, producer
S teve Lyons
2nd asst director
Stephen Vaughan
Penny Chapm an M ichael W earing
Extras casting
Cast: C hris H ayw ood (Dennis), Tim Healy
Am anda R owbottom
Exec, producers
Storyboard artist
Stuart W ood
Anne W est
M ichael Jenkins S teve Knapm an
Terry Howells
1 st asst directors
Bill G arner
Director P roducer
G reg Ellis Conti M ovie Trailers
Paul Sm ith
8/7/91 16/9/91
Fiona Eagger
Production runner
C am era assistant
A B C -B B C -K nap m an Prods
P re-production Production
Jo Rippon
Prod, secretary
THE LEAVING OF LIVERPOOL (series) Prod, co.s
Laurie Stone
Planning and Development
Production Crew
Principal Credits
S crip tw riters
Ray Daley Philip W atts
W endy W alker
C lapper-loader
Exec, produce r
Editors
Camera Crew
[See previous issue for details]
Directors
tion, adve nture romp.
Prod, co-ord.
Unit m anager
BONY (series)
John W ilkinson
Script editor
T ranspo rt m anager
[See 83 issue for details]
adve ntures w ith a retired police dog. An a c
S ound recordist
C om posers
Production Crew Prod, m anager
TELEVISION PRODUCTION
Brett A nderson
G raem e Farm er
C asting
Horton).
DOP
Dale Duguid
Planning and Development
SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Prod, com panies
Peter H epworth
Peter H erbert
Halfway Across the
W ritten by
GARDEN OF FRIENDSHIP
Terry O hlsson
Exec, producer S criptw riters
NEIGHBOURS (serial)
C o ntinuity
[See previous Issue for details]
C h ristine Lipari
Boom ope rators
Ray Phillips Julian G lavacich
TELEVISION POST-PRODUCTION
M ake-up
Kirsten Veysey
H a irdre sser
Cheryl W illiam s
S p ecial fx s upe rvisorr
BRIDES OF CHRIST (series) [S ee 83 Issue fo r details]
Brian Pearce
C h ore ographer
Sue Ellen Cox
S tunts
N ew G eneration S tunts
U nit nurse
CLOWNING AROUND (tele-fea ture) (form erly Clowning Sim)
M arg are t Kelly
Still pho tograph y
R oss D earing
U nit pub licist
[S ee p revio us issue fo r details]
V icto ria Buchan
C atering
B a nde-A ide C atering
Runner
EMBASSY (II, series)
C h ristine H utchins
Art Department
[S ee issue 83 fo r details]
Art director
J enn ifer C a rseldine
A rt dep t co-ord.
GOOD VIBRATIONS Prod, com pany
Set d resser
S o uthe rn S tar Film s
Dist. com pany
S outhern S tar
P re-production
6/5/91 - 28/6/91
Production
1/7/91 -2 /8 /9 1
P o st-production
Phil C ham bers
5/8/91 - 4/10/91
Principal Credits
Prod, m anager
Vicki Popplew ell
Prod, co-ord.
A m and a Selling
Bob Dog
V ideo tran sfers by O ff-line facilities
Bob Dog
V ideo special fx
C hris G odfry, A nim al Logic
Government Agency Investment D e velop m en t N S W Film & T e levision O ffice
Ju stin e S cott
P roduction
S tandb y props
John O sm ond
Prod, accou ntan t
Jill C overdale
Marketing
Wardrobe
Insurer
W ardro be supe r
S a ndra C ichello
S tandb y w a rdrobe
G abrielle Dunn
C om pletion gua ran tor Legal services
FIUA Film Finances Lew is W ebb
Camera Crew
Post-production The Editing M achine Anim al Logic
Government Agency Investment FFC
Robyn W atts
M arketing consu ltant Int. sales agent
Film A u stralia
Internatio nal dist.
Film A u stralia
Publicity
W endy Day
Cast: M ax P h ipps (A lb e rt D u m p), D rew
M ark G ledhill
Forsythe (R alph), Julie G odfrey (Jocelyn),
Key grip
Adam G ood
S ally W arw ick (S am antha), Troy B e ckw ick
A sst grip
John Reynolds
(M ichael), David W alters (Jason), Bill C onn
G affer Best boy
Production
FFC
C hris Fleet S tephen A ske r
On-set Crew
(Bill), M ichela N oonan (H arm ony), D avid G ibson (G rand Baby), Kyla (Ajax).
Synopsis: Not supplied
Lynn Bayonas
Cast: S tephen W hittaker (Raf), G enevieve
1st asst director
G ary M oore
P ic o t (K a te ), F e lic ity S o p e r (S ky), A lan
2nd asst director
Adam S p encer
SIGN OF THE SNAKE
John W ilkinson
H o pgood (Cec), S asha C lose (Lily), David
3rd asst director
Debbie Atkins
[See 83 issue fo r details]
John Budge
H oflin (D ono van), J e ffre y W a lk e r (Jack),
C ontinuity
Bill Russo
W illia m M c ln n e s (D a vid ), M e lis s a J a ffe r
Boom ope rator
M ark Van Kool
TOMORROW’S END
(Annie), Neil M elville (Jim ).
M ake-up
Lesley Rouvay
[See 83 issue for details]
B ruce Finlayson Liz M ullinar
Synopsis: A frag m en ted fam ily learns to live
M ake-up asst
together w ith an obnoxious ghost in a haunted
Special fx m ake-up
house in the country.
S tunts co-ord.
Production Crew
Unit nurse Ros Tatarka
HEROES II - THE RETURN (m ini-series)
Sue E dw ards
[See previo us issue for details]
Jill Brooks M aurice Burns
THE MIRACULOUS MELLOPS (m ini-series) Prod, com pany
M illenium Pictures
H am m ond Jew ell
P re-production
6/5/91 23/6/91
Film Finances M aureen Barron
T ravel co-ord.
S h ow Travel
Camera Crew
Production
24/6/91 ...
P ost-production
... 15/11/91
Principal Credits
B etacam SP
Key grip
Barry Hanson
A sst grip
Noel M udie
Producer C o -produ cer Exec, produce r S crip tw riters
Karl Zw icky Posie G raem e-E vans A n dre w Blaxland Ian F airw eather M aureen Ann M oran
F rank R acina
A nthony Ellis
David C larke
Ray Harding
On-set Crew
Al W ebb
2nd asst d irector
Rosem ary M orton
Paul J Hogan
3rd asst director
M atthew W ilson
Richard T ulloch
Brett Popplew ell
A lison Ely
R ebecca Sym on Bob M cArron
TRACKS OF GLORY (m ini-series)
Bernie Ledger
[See previo us issue fo r details]
Sue Andrew s Patrick R iviere W endy Day
WHEN THE WAR CAME TO AUSTRALIA [S ee 83 issue fo r details]
O ut to Lunch
Art Department Art dept coord Art dep t runner Set dresser P ropsperson Props m aker
D irector S teve Scoble
Unit pub licist
Art director
M argot Brock
Legal services
Still pho tograph y C atering
M ichael B a tchelor
C o m pletion gua ran tor
Bob Dog SP B etacam
G auge
Phil U rquhart
V ideo special fx
Planning and Development
Insurer
John M eredith
C hris G odfry, A n im al Logic
Lab ora tory
Production runner
O ff-line facilities
C o stum e d esigner
Prod, accou ntan t
S tephen Jone s
O pticals
Unit m anager
Kim W illiam s
M ichael Bridges
Unit m anager
Brett Popplew ell
Production Crew
Location m anager
Hoyts North R yde S tudios
M ark Dawson
M aritta M ussett
Des M onaghan
Prod, d e signer
1st asst director
Budgeted by
Helen S a lter
C a m era asst
Editor
G affer
Shooting schedule
G reg H a ddrick
John Baird
DOP
C a m era type
C asting
G regg T ho m as
G reensm an S tudios
Post-production
Planning and Development
Horse w rang ler
M orris G leitzm an
Location m anager
C hris Harriot
Lynn Bayonas
David Phillips
Prod, secretary
M a rg arita Tasso ne
G ary Janson
S crip tw riters
Prod, m anager
Bob Patón Sven John sen
C a m era ope rator
Rod Allan
Prod, co-ord.
Roy M ason
C o m po ser S cript edito r
Bill U ndery D avid Scott
C a rpe nte rs
A n dre w B laxland
Anne Hura
Exec, produce rs
C a m era o pe rator
C o stum e de s ig n e r
P eter F letcher
A n im al handler
Line produce r
C asting consu ltants
Editors Prod, d esigner
M ichael O ’Kane
S ce nic artists
Phil Keros
G raham T ho rbu rn
P roducer
S ound recordists
David Scandol
Props buye r
Animals
D irector
DOP S ound recordist
S tandby props
John Pryce Jones Lisa H arrison H ierouim K alw inek Alky A vram ldes Lew is M orley M urray G osson
Wardrobe W ardrobe super W ardrobe asst Cutter S eam stress
INCLUSION «IN T H E P R O DU C T l O N SURVEY
M argarita Tassone Em m a Jacobs Lindy W iley
CONTACT CINEMA
PAPERS
ON
Randa S adda
Animals Anim al trainer
F.OR
Jon Ronde
'3 ' Luke Hura
Construction Dept C o nstruction supervisor
Alan Flem ing
SEE k & fifc A C G * ' ON SET John Barry Group Pty. Ltd. Head Office (02) 439 6955
CINEMA
PAPERS
85
• 79
Ten
Critics ? Best
and
Worst
TENEBRICOSE TEN A PANEL OF TEN FILM REVIEWERS HAS RATED A SELECTION OF THE LATEST RELEASES ON A SCALE OF 0 TO 10, THE LATTER BEING THE OPTIMUM RATING (A DASH MEANS NOT SEEN). THE CRITICS ARE: BILL COLLINS (CHANNEL 10; THE DAILY MIRROR, SYDNEY); SANDRA HALL ( THE BULLETIN, SYDNEY); PAUL HARRIS (“EG”, THE AGE, MELBOURNE); IVAN HUTCHINSON (SEVEN NETWORK; HERALD-SUN, MELBOURNE); STAN JAMES (THE ADELAIDE ADVERTISER); NEIL JILLETT (THE AGE); ADRIAN MARTIN (AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS REVIEW, SYDNEY); TOM RYAN (3L0; THE SUNDAY AGE, MELBOURNE); DAVID STRATTON (VARIETY; SBS,
AKIRA K othiro BACKDRAFT
AVERAGE
TOM
EVAN W ILLIA M S
D A V ID S T R A T T O N
RYAN
M A R TIN A D R IA N
N EIL J IL L E T T
STAN JAM ES
A tom o
8
-
6
-
7
6
1
-
6
7
5.9
R on H ow ard
7
5
3
6
5
4
-
3
6
-
4.9
-
-
5
-
-
8
-
5
5
6
5.8
7
4
4
6
7
4
-
3
6
-
5.1
8
2
2
5
3
3
-
1
1
-
3.1
9
7
2
7
-
2
-
6
6
-
5.6
8
6
3
6
-
3
-
3
4
5
4.8
9
-
1
6
-
1
-
6
1
4
4.0
8
2
-
0
2
-
5
0
-
-
2.8
-
8
7
-
4
-
1
-
7
-
5.4
-
-
6
8
-
4
-
7
7
7
6.5
-
-
1
4
7
1
1
7
7
-
4.0
-
9
0
5
-
5
-
-
5
8
5.3
6
-
3
-
5
-
-
-
6
6
5.2
-
-
3
6
-
3
8
1
-
-
4.2
8
-
2
6
6
6
0
-
5
-
4.7
9
-
1
4
6
3
1
2
4
-
4.0
-
8
7
9
-
9
5
8
8
7
7.6
9
8
5
-
-
8
5
3
5
8
6.4
9
6
1
8
-
5
0
7
9
8
5.9
-
7
1
6
7
1
-
1
9
-
4.6
9
-
7
8
8
-
-
7
8
8
7.9
-
8
6
8
-
-
0
7
-
8
5.8
BRAN NUE DAE T om CITY SLICKERS
THE FIELD Jim
Zubrycki
R on U nd erw o o d
DYING YOUNG Jo e l
S c h u m ac h er
S h erid an
GUILTY BY SUSPICION Irwin HARDWARE R ich ard
W inkler
Stanley
HUDSON HAWK M ichael
L e h m an n
IN BED WITH MADONNA [Truth or Dare: In Bed with Madonna] LA BAULE LES PINS [C'est La Vie]
MR & MRS BRIDGE Ja m es
K aurism aki
Ivory
THE NAKED GUN 2 1/2 : THE SMELL OF FEAR David NOCE BLANCHE Je a n -C la u d e
PROOF Jocelyn
Z ucker
Brisseau
NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER B rian ONLY THE LONELY C hris
G ilb ert
C olum bus
M o o rhouse
QUEEN OF HEARTS J o h n
Am iel
ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD T om A STORY OF BOYS AND GIRLS P upi
Avati
TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY Ja m es 35 UP M ichael
Alex K eshishian
D iane Kurys
LENINGRAD COWBOYS GO AMERICA Aki
80
IVAN H U T C H IN S O N
D irector
P A U L H A R R IS
BILL C O L L IN S
FILM TITLE
S A N D R A HALL
SYDNEY); AND EVAN WILLIAMS (THE AUSTRALIAN, SYDNEY).
A pted
C am ero n
S to p p ard
THELMA & LOUISE Ridley
Scott
-
9
7
-
-
3
1
8
9
9
6.8
TOO HOT TO HANDLE Je rry
Ross
6
-
-
2
3
5
-
3
4
5
4.0
WHAT ABOUT BOB? F ra n k
Oz
5
-
-
3
4
5
-
-
5
-
4.4
• CINEMA
PAPERS
85
Bank of Melbourne
Free C heques! N o Fees! (Even on balances below $5 0 0 ) ■ Free Cheques No Fees, regardless of account balance size.* ■ Earn good interest ■ Receive a free VISA Card or Bank of Melbourne Card and a free cheque book. ■ Bank on Saturday from 9 to 12 (most branches). On W eekdays from 9 to 5 * Only government duties apply.
B A N K 42052
Bank of Melbourne cuts the cost of banking Head Office: 52 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000.
At Qantas,we dont just applaud A ustralian talent,we help keep the show on the road.
It’s always been a long way to the top for aspiring artists. But at Qantas we’re making sure they get there quicker by providing travel and promotion for actors, writers, even circus performers. So when they return to Australia they’ll have a world of experience from which to draw. And we’re sure Australia will rise to its feet and call for more. ^ 4 .Q /liin V I S The spirit of Australia. '
QPR5349