Cinema paper No.86 January 1992 by UOW Library

J AN U A R Y 1992 NO. 86

OCR

JACQU E L t ^ M ^ K ^ Z

ifc v*«iÒ Ftf|?V re

■L

F E C I A L

S U P P L E M E N T

T M

-. "y-^SB^BBSmfßr- :

W H A T 'S H A P P E N IN G IN A U S T R A L IA N FILM: A N O V E R V IE W R O M P E R S T O M P E R / THE N O S T R A D A M U S K I D / G R E E N K E E P I N G / E IG H T BALL '^Ä

P L U S

KATHRYN

’

BIGELOW / TO KYO

FILM FE S T IV AL / H D T V A N D SUPER

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION dedicated to the development, production and marketing of Australian programs through the provision of

script & project development funding ♦

production investment ♦ marketing support ♦ assistance to film & video organisations ♦

research and publishing assistance ♦ policy advice

For further information contact the

Australian Film Commission Sydney 8 West Street North Sydney NSW 2060 Telephone 02 925 7333 Toll free 008 22 6615 Facsimile 02 959 5403 Melbourne 185 Bank Street South Melbourne Vic 3205 Telephone 03 690 5144 Toll free 008 33 8430 Facsimile 03 696 1476

(MTV PUBI ISH IN U IIM IT F D )

I N C O R P O R A T I N G F IL M V IE W S

BRIEFLY

F E A T U R E P R O D U C T IO N

GEOFFREY WRIGHT'S ROMPER STOMPER ■ LOCATION REPORT BY EVA FRIEDMAN

LOCATION REPORT BY ANDREW 'lâïîïlBBAiN

COVER^DANIËL POLLOCK AND JACQUELINE McKENZIÈ IN GEOFFREY WRIGHT'S ROMPER STOMPER. SEE ARTICLE P. 6.

EDITOR

PICTURE PREVIEW

Scott Murray

DAVID CAESAR'S GREENKEEPING

MANAGER

LOCATION REPORT AND INTERVIEW BY PETER GALVIN

Debra Sharp TECHNICAL ‘

EDITOR

PICTURE PREVIEW

i rec* Harden

DESIGN

KATHRYN BIGELOW

lan-Robertson EDITORIAL

ASSISTANT

Raffaele Caputo

* ’ m t V î â q ,â r p *°té John Jost [Chairman], Gil Appleton Ross Dimsey ' si , v-

.LEGAL J

ADVISER

Nicholas Pullen

iO RAM GROSS STUDIOS

® ' iS H h P Patricia Amad, Natalie Miller " Chris Stewart

RAFFAELE CAPUTO

REP,ORT BY SANDRA HALL

REEL PLEASURES ADRIAN MARTIN BRIAN McKENZIE

ADVERTISING

Debra Sharp SUB

THE GOOD WOMAN OF BANGKOK GREG KERR THE HAIRDRESSER S HUSBAND RAYMOND YOUNIS

CRIPTIONS

Raffaele Caputo FOUNDING

MISTER JOHNSON RAYMOND YOUNIS

PUBLISHERS

PROSPERO S BOOKS BRIAN MCFARLANE

Peter Beilby Scott Murray, Philippe Mora

-'i* * O n The'Ball

TECHNICALITIES

M BOOK REVIEWS

jnHHpppM Jenkin Buxton DISTRIBUTION

Network Distribution

MBMÉ« cun ■*

i v

Scott Murray V ^v-X 'i

V fA jF S

I *u S Tfi \L1 1 n

' f t B

I h

V T- f

j ÿ Ë

L it

ç ~,V

t v l / vfc 1“

QUEENSLAND IMAGES IN FILM AND TELEVISION KEN BERRYMAN

i£ ? \ *

CINEMA PAPERS IS PUBLISHED

« ^ IS

t e n e b r i Co s e t e n

While every care Is taken with manuscripts and

materials supplied to the magazine, neither the editor nor the publisher can accept liability for any loss or

■ ■- >■ PAULINE ADAMEK

1 S dr

film writer based in Los Angeles; and Sound Archive

/■ If th

sa n d r a h a ll

regular contributor to The Age s EG, reproduced in whole or part without the exprer permission of the copyright owners. Cinema Papers is published (approximately) every two months by Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3067. Reference MF ME 230

GREG KERR

1 r**el

I r

/ r lr rp f |

ANA MARIA BAHIANA

I I

BERRYMAN ¡à manager of the Melbourne office of the National Film

ken

rit

or The B il<.t i

p e te r g a lv in is

i- n

ev a fr ie d m a n

h ►

l t

ADRIAN MARTIN

Business Review Weekly, BRIAN McFARLANE is an associate professor in the English Department at Monash

V l

i, p

/it

ALISSA TANSKAYA

i i

an M A student at the University of Technology Sydney

„11

RAYMOND YOUNIS

FILM FINANCE CORPORATION FUNDING DECISIONS SEPT.-OCT.

□

Q, YT

T E L E V I S I O N

ROUND THE TWIST 2 (13 x 24 mins) ACTF Pro ductions. Executive producer: Patricia Edgar. Di rectors: Esben Storm, Steve Jodrell. Script: Paul Jennings. Cast: Richard Moir, Frankie J. Holden. Humorous contem porary fantasy seen through the eyes of three children who live in a lighthouse on Victoria's Shipwreck coast. SINS (7 x 55 mins) Archive Films. Executive pro ducer: Jill Robb. Producer: Bob Weis. Script: Keith Thompson, Joanna Murray-Smith, Glenda Adams, Belinda Chayko, Andrew Bovell, Hahnie Rayson. Seven tele-features, each devoted to a deadly sin. CHILDREN’S TELE-FEATURE PACKAGE (4 x 92 mins) CTP. Producer: Robert Bruning. Directors: Mike Smith, Tony Bowman, Noel Price. Script: Tony Morphett, Peter Neale, Rob George, Stephen Measday. Four telefeatures designed for children. D O C U M E N T A R I E S

A CHILD’S VIEW OF FAMILY LIFE (60 mins) ACTF Productions. Executive producer: Patricia Edgar. Director: Gordon Glenn. An exploration of children’s experiences of diverse family situations. GOD’S GIRLS (60 mins) Central Park Films. Pro ducer: Glenys Rowe. Director: Cherie Nowlan. Script: Cherie Nowlan. Life and history of the Singleton Sisters of Mercy.

FILM FINANCE CORPORATION

d ifficult tim es at the m om ent and we wish to

Producer Kim Dalton has been appointed In

in s u re going to the movies, continues to be an

vestm ent M anager of the FFC’s M elbourne

experience affordable to a ll.”

office. Dalton is perhaps best known for the m ini-series The Magistrate and In Between.

KOOKABURRA CARD The N ational Film & Sound Archive is running

A SHORT’S SUCCESS

a special gift prom otion on its Kookaburra Card.

W hile Proof grabs the headlines (Best First

For $25 (or $40 for two people living at the

Feature at Valiadolid; a shared Bronze for First

sam e address), the card offers many benefits,

Features at Tokyo), a short Australian film has

including half-price tickets at all G reater Union

been chalking up considerable success.

cinem as and drive-ins, student discount rates

The world television rights for Pauline

at the United Independent C inem as (NSW,

C han’s Hang Up (see Cinema Papers No.80,

Vic., Qld and ACT) and at Birch, Carroll &

A ugust 1990, pp. 20-23) have ju st been ac

Coyle cinem as (Qld, Darwjn and Lism ore),

quired by the independent U.S. distributor,

plus concessions at selected independent cin

Propaganda Films, which handled Wild at Heart

emas (all m ainland states and ACT).

and Twin Peaks, among others:

For details, ring toll free on 008 020 567.

Financed by the AFC, Hang Up was shot on 8mm, edited on video and blown up to 35mm. It debuted at Cannes and has since screened in eighteen international festivals.

NEWLY-REFURBISHED STUDIO The Victorian M inister for the Arts, Jim Kennan, opened on 7 Novem ber the new ly-refurbished

31 OCTOBER

M elbourne Film Studio in Port M elbourne. It is

F E A T U R E S

THENUN AND THE BANDIT (90 mins) Illumination Films; Executive producer: William Marshall. Pro ducers: Paul Cox, Paul Ammitzboll. Director: Paul Cox. W riter: Paul Cox. Principal cast: Chris Haywood, Norman Kaye, Gosia Dobrowolska. O utback drama in which an outlaw ’s kidnapping takes a surprise twist when he falls in love with a nun, beginning a battle between spirit and flesh. THE SILVER BRUMBY (90 mins) Media World. Executive producer: W illiam T. Marshall. Produc ers: Colin South,. John Tatoulis. Director: John Tatoulis. W riters: Elyne Mitchell, John Tatoulis, Jon Stephens. Story of a stockm an’s obsession with the legendary Silver Stallion, king of the wild brumbies in the High Plains.

GREATER UNION PRICE FREEZE

hoped the studio and production offices w ill be

Greater Union has frozen ticket prices for twelve

a centre for M elbourne’s film com m unity.

months and extended its Bargain Day to Days

A lready there are G rundy T e le v is io n ’s

by including Tuesday (with M onday). Paul O neile, M anaging D ire ctor of GUO, said,

Bony, which has been in the studio since June, and Richard Low enstein’s S ay a Little Prayer,

“G reater Union recognizes that Australia is in

which has its production office there. Cascade

A N E D IT O R ’S R U M IN A TIO N One concern raised in the previous issue, in

been at the centre of one as the central ch a ra c

response to a letter from the Australian Film

te r.” This is clearly not correct. W omen have

C om m ission’s Peter Sainsbury (p. 3), was whe

directed action th rille rs in Am erica, Europe

D O C U M E N T A R I E S

ther a m agazine editor should intrude when an

and, presum ably, elsewhere. More surprising

VISIONARIES II (3 x 1 hour) 220 Productions. Producers/Directors/W riters: Julian Russell, Tony Gailey. Profiles three extraordinary individuals: Frances Moore Lappe, author of Diet for a Small Planet ; Petrea King, counsellor to those with lifethreatening diseases; and Dr Michel Odent, pio neer of the natural childbirth revival. BAREFOOT STUDENT ARMY (60 mins) Open Channel Productions. Producer: John Moore. Di rector: Catherine Marciniak. W riter: Catherine Marciniak. The story of Burma’s student freedom fighters and the two Australian sisters, Lyndal and Sophie Barry, who shared their struggle against Burma’s repressive governm ent regime. VIEW FROM THE EDGE (55 mins) Jotz Produc tions. Producer: Tom Zubrycki. Director: Tom Zubrycki. For the El Salvadorean families living in the M elbourne suburb of Broadmeadows, the traum a of torture and dislocation still haunts their daily lives - few Australians understand their plight.

interviewee is m aking a statem ent that is po

is Bigelow ’s not being aware of action thrillers

te n tia lly w ro ng or m is le a d in g . G e n e ra lly

with wom en in the central role, such as Alien

speaking, editors refrain from doing so unless

and Aliens, especially given the latter was di

a libel is being com m itted, in which case an

rected by her husband, Jam es Cam eron.

The FFC has also entered into contract negotia tions with the producers on this project: GREENBUGKS (55 mins) Archangel Australia. Producers: Gabrielle Kelly, Nick Hart-Williams. Director: Nick Hart-W illiams. Global look at busi ness and the environment, focussing on eight individuals doing business in Australia, Asia-Pa cific, North Am erica and Europe, as they grapple with the challenges of sustainable development.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

other opinion is sought and quoted, or, if time or resources don’t perm it, a cut is made. An exam ple of the form er course of action was the addition of a paragraph in last issue’s report on independent distribution and e xhibi tion. In the a rticle ’s draft form , some of the various interviewees were strongly critical of an aspect of a Village Roadshow distribution policy. On reading it, this editor fe lt that the allegation should be checked w ith Village Roadshow. Alan Finney was faxed the relevant section and he responded with a different inter pretation. As a result, a clarifying paragraph

But what should an editor do? Add a fo o t note, which m akes it look as if one is picking on the poor interview ee (as may appear the case here), track down the interview ee and try for a clarification (difficult with foreign interviewees, given tim e constraints) or do nothing, trusting in the reader’s knowledge of, and interest in, cinem a to provide the context by which to evaluate the remark. That last course of action was chosen here. The second situation arose in the interview with David Caesar about his bowling-green comedy, Greenkeeping. On p. 26, he says:

was included into the text on p. 42. This was a pretty clear-cut case because a

I’m sure semloticians won’t be impressed at

strong allegation about fact was made and one

all. For a start, the characters speak English, live in Australia -and don’t want to leave.

has a responsibility to check that fact. But what about personal opinions ? This issue provides two exam ples. First, in the interview with Kathryn Bige low, the director of Blue Steel and Point Break claim s (p. 7), “ Not only has no wom an ever done an action thriller, no wom an has ever

There must be something fundamentally wrong with them, I suppose. They’re not de pressed all the time, which is another reason the semioticians won’t like the film. Semioticians deal with their own problems and blame the rest of the world.

N A D IA TASS A ND DAVID PARKER SIGNAL THE OPENING OF

L E TTE R : ‘B R A N N U E D A E ’

THEIR MELBOURNE STUDIO.

Films (Nadia Tass) and Meridian Films (Tim W hite and Bryce Menzies) are perm anently

[DEAR EDITOR,]

production between Tom Zubrycki and the Bran

based there, in the first half of 1992, the ACTF's

As the executive producer of the film Bran Nue

Nue Dae Aboriginal Corporation which owns the

Round the Twist will shoot in the studio.

Dae, and as a person who has worked very

film. From the start, the intention was to inter

closely with the Broome Aboriginal comm unity, I

weave in a com plex way several elem ents: the

must respond to the review of the film by Marcus

story of the show, Jim m y’s own experiences, the

Who are these sem ioticians to whom Cae sar refers? Is he using the word correctly, or

Breen [Cinema Papers, No. 85, November 1991,

struggle to get the play produced and the histori

pp. 54-5].

cal origins of the music itself. Black-white rela

deliberately misusing it for ironic or other ef

Breen’s review goes beyond being a review

fect? Does the reader have enough background

of the film to being a criticism of Jim m y C hi’s own

especially the role of the Church. W hat isn’t

to fully understand what he is saying? Certainly

point of view and the message he is trying to put

conveyed is a form of moral didacticism that

there are clues, when he says elsewhere,

across both in the musical and in the film.

C inem a in A ustralia should be, and to a cer tain extent is, an extension of people sitting in the pub talking bullshit to one another. [...] My film s are n ’t about me com ing in as a film . m aker into a com m unity and making films about it. I’ve been around bowling clubs all my life. [...] I make film s about w here I come from.

Yet, but only a few lines on, Caesar also

Breen has made the serious m istake of trying

tionships are portrayed as mixed and ambiguous,

Breen obviously desires, possibly out of a sense of ‘w hite g u ilt’.

to im pose his own views on Aboriginal people. He

Surely one m easure of the success of the film

is guilty of telling Jim my Chi to express more

is how Aboriginal audiences have responded to it.

outrage and be obsessed with oppression when

Figures show that the distributor, Ronin, has had

Jim my is trying to put across a com pletely differ

a high number of requests fo r.p rin t rentals and

ent point of view.

orders for video copies from Aboriginal com m uni

Jim my has gone beyond merely expressing

ties throughout Australia. The film has inspired at

outrage. He wants people to come together

least one com m unity to m ount its own production of the show.

through better understanding. As Jim my him self

says that the visual style of Greenkeeping will

says in the film, when talking about his reasons

The quality of the sound of the live perform

be “som ewhere between Pee Wee Herman

for writing the song “ Bran Nue Dae” , he wanted to

ances in the film, which Breen also criticizes, is

and Jacques T a ti.” Neither of these artistes is

do a song that dealt with land rights and other

determined by the quality of the performers. There

noted for their representations of Australians,

issues in a way that would not divide people.

are lim itations on what you can expect inexperi

in the pub or elsewhere, so one im agines Caesar is pulling the collective leg.

Jim m y’s m essage is that Aboriginal people

enced and untrained perform ers to do in their

have a strength and well-being that produces a

first-ever perform ance on stage. His failure to

But is this sense of m ischievousness the

great, lively and happy perform ance. Is there

recognize these lim itations would lead one to

sole e xp la n atio n fo r the use of the term

som ething wrong with Aboriginal people being

question his com petence as a “relative specialist

“sem ioticians"? Perhaps not, which is why two

happy? A major point that Breen seems to have

in Aboriginal m usic” .

extra questions were sent to Caesar: “Who are the sem ioticians you are referring to ? ” and “ Do you see it as ironic that one of your biggest supporters critically is Adrian Martin, whose w riting is greatly influenced by sem iotics?” However, C aesar declined to answer, though the film ’s producer, Glenys Rowe, did fax back, “ David was being tongue in cheek he is quite black at tim es.” Indeed, but the question remains: Who is he being black about?

missed is that Bran Nue Dae is showing what we

Let Aboriginal people havd their say. By all

in urban white Australia are lacking and that

means criticize the results, but don’t restrict the

Aboriginal people may well have som ething to

form s they are allowed to use to express them

teach us about how to live.

selves.

When white film m akers make film s about blacks they often end up presenting moral clichés. Aboriginal people have found this form of racial

CHRIS McGUIGAN Executive Producer Bran Nue Dae

stereotyping insulting. Your reviewer is obviously unaware of that.

Bran Nue Dae is very much a collaborative

BREEN REPLIES: My com m ents on the film stand.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 3

When it comes to supporting the Arts From Opera House to Movie House â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Westpac is there â&#x20AC;&#x201D; The Sydney Film Festival The Melbourne International Film Festival Victorian Arts Centre The Australian Opera The Australian Chamber Orchestra Art Express Sydney Symphony Orchestra The Festival of Sydney Victoria State Opera

11/

You can bank on Westpac

Westpac Banking Corporation a r b n

007 457141

IM082/91

A P R O D U C T I O N O V E R V I E W : P A R T ONE

WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH AUSTRALIAN FEATURE PRODUCTION? ■

minimal feature film activity, suddenly the fax to

C inema P a p e r s ’ íáP r o d u c t i o i i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 9^ ^ m j É i n g m > t

with new

jj¡

Most of these features are low budget, funded by the

Australian Film Finance Corporation's Trust Film Fund. One feature has even gone into production with no

To give an overview of what’s happening behind the cameras, C inema P apers will run (over this and the next issue) location reports and picture previews on every feature to go into production in 1991/92.

PRODUCT I ON OV E RV I E W

n 1988, Geoffrey Wright wrote and directed his first short feature, L over B oy, the story o f an improbable liaison between a 43-year-old woman and a 16-year-old boy. Lover Boy won awards for Best Short Film at the M elbourne and Sydney Film Festivals in 1989, and was hailed as an impressive first effort by critics. W right, a graduate from the Swinburne Film and Television School, was praised for his sensitive treatm ent of a young boy’s hurtlin g towards sexual maturity, and for his ability to ren d er a stark and som etim es excruciatingly accurate picture of urban, working-class Australia. Since com pleting Lover Boy, Geoffrey W right has done a lot of waiting to get his nex t project, Romper Stomper, off the ground. In 1991, the Australian Film Commission, to gether with Film Victoria, provided the $1.6 million budget for Romper Stomper, a story W right says he h ad been living with for m ore years than he can rem em ber. It has been a long haul. W right’s story is a familiar one to the in d ep en d en t film m aker who is at once liberated and hobbled by a reliance on governm ent funding. However, in the case o f Romper Stomper, the film ’s evolution was fu rther com plicated by the controversy which clung persistently to the project from the start. For in Romper Stomper W right fixes the fram e squarely on a band of undesirables: Neo Nazi skinheads.

GEOFFREY WRIGHT’S

LOCATI ON REPORT BY EVA FRIEDMAN PETER L E I S S

PHOTOGRAPHS:

ABOVE: WRITER-DIRECTOR GEOFFREY WRIGHT RIGHT: THE SKINHEAD G AN G . ROMPER STOMPER.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Romper Stomper Romper Stomper charts th e escapades o f a gang o f skinheads w ho believe in white suprem acy. T h e gang is led by H an d o (Russell Crowe), a m an subsum ed by his h a tre d o f Asians. T o g eth e r with Davey (D aniel P ollock), his w ithdraw n friend, the gang becom es involved in u rb a n w arfare with th e V ietnam ese in th eir n e ig h b o u rh o o d . In to this m aelstrom o f violence walks - G abe (Jacqueline M cK enzie), an im petuous girl o n th e ru n from h e r ju n k ie boyfriend. She becom es involved with H ando. However, as she sinks fu rth e r a n d fu rth e r in to this tum ultuous world, she is drawn to H a n d o ’s sullen friend, Davey. A m id th e endless street wars, the film explores th e com plex em otional entanglem ents o f these th ree characters. W right’s film draws th e viewer into a grim , su b terranean w orld d o m in ated by violence a n d h u m a n desperation. As a pow erful d ram a w hich casts an u n rem ittin g gaze o n racial in tolerance, th e film is a radical d e p a rtu re from th e gentle, quirky com edies w hich have critically d o m in ated A ustralian feature film m aking fo r th e past decade. Recalls W right grimly: 8

• CINEMA

PAPERS

I thought it m ight never get m ade and I was pretty fatalistic about it. We got some negative feedback from the AFC readers at first. They thought we were glorifying racist hooligans and that my attitude m ight be unsavoury. I can understand that. If you gave the script to someone who wasn’t sensitive to these problems, you certainly could end up with a film that glorified a group of racist hoodlums. I d o n ’t think funding bodies are as brave as they could be. I suppose if you didn’t know the person, or if you w eren’t sure of the person’s abilities to stop the film from turning into something unsavoury, then you would be afraid. In the end, Romper Stomper got made because there were some very bold individuals at the AFC. W hile W right insists his film does n o t glorify “racist hooli gans”, h e was careful to avoid a didactic response to th e material. I judged the skinheads in my m ind, but in the film I am less judgem ental. W hat I hate most of all is to be given a simple m or al equation. Tele-movies and television series do that. In the film I show what they do and say, “Now it’s your turn to make up your minds about this.” I suppose the film will attract attention because I chose to create pretty horrible characters.

LEFT: HANDO (RUSSELL CROWE), LEADER OF THE SKINHEADS, WITH CACKLES (DANIEL WYLLIE). ABOVE: THE VIETNAMESE G ANG.

ROMPER STOMPER.

Romper Stomper m ost certainly belongs to the skinheads. It is theirstory. Most o f the tim e the outside, ‘real’ w orld is a m uffled presence som ew here beyond the squats an d the squalor. It’s an odd thing to say, but I d id n ’t want to alienate anyone in the audience who is like the people in our film. I didn’t want skinheads to sit there and say, ‘This guy is talking about putting us into some sort of perspective that we d o n ’t see as being real. We’re interested only in our mythology.’ I wanted to be true to that mythology and true to that world, even though that mythol ogy all comes to rubbish in the end. W right did extensive research for the film. W hile a rd en t skinheads would n o tco m e forward, thosew ho h ad passed through th at stage o f th eir lives agreed to discuss th eir views with him. W hat W right discovered from these p eople was an ideology inform ed by an u n d e rc u rre n t o f frustration. Skinheads are trying to hold onto a dream. It is a nightm are as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but a dream to them. Most feel disenfranchised, excluded and overlooked. They’re angry and fiercely nationalistic. They resent foreign culture. They express all of their fears through nationalism. They want to

belong, so they belong to each other. They hold onto the idea of the nation as something to belong to. They want to belong because to belong is to have meaning, and that’s what they crave. The meaning is ugly and grotesque, but they derive a lot of strength from this sense of belonging. It was, in part, the dram atic potential o f skinheads which attracted W right to the subject m atter. Skin culture is bold and imposing. Skinheads have strong views and they knowwhat they want, which makes them good material for dram a no m atter how morally bankrupt they are. One is intrigued by monsters no m atter how awful. Skinheads were interesting to me precisely because they go beyond what is acceptable behaviour. A ccording to Romper Stomper’s p ro d u cer D aniel Scharf, it is W right’s audacious approach to his subject m atter which distin guishes him as a filmmaker: Geoff is prepared to do things in his treatm ent of stories and characters that others will not. He is willing to take things to the edge. Australian filmmakers have a tendency to stick to the mediocre, the middle ground, but Geoff is willing to go out on a limb. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 9

Romper Stamper

ABOVE: HANDO A N D GABE (JACQUELINE McKENZIE) TOGETHER. A N D , DAVEY (DANIEL POLLOCK) TRIES TO INTERVENE AS HANDO MANHANDLES GABE. CENTRE: GABE A ND DAVEY. RIGHT: BUBS (JAMES MCKENNA); A N D , MEGAN (JOSEPHINE KEEN), LEFT, A ND TRACEY (SAMANTHA BLADON). ROMPER STOMPER.

W right is a staunch critic o f Australian films an d is quick to p o in t o u t their shortcom ings. Most Australian films lack motivated characters. The characters d o n ’t seem to want anything very much. There doesn’t seem to be any dramatic mainspring. T h ere’s not m uch at stake. I think most Australian films are dull. We give a lot of praise to some very static films we find valuable now, almost for archaeological reasons. I think we’re interested in ourselves. W e’re not sure if anybody else is interested in us, but we like to think we are. So, if we turn the camera into the backyard, we think that’s marvellous. There is nothing wrong with turning the camera on in the backyard, as long as there is something happening out there. In Romper Stomper, W right endeavours to take his story o u t of the backyard an d into th e streets, creating a heady brew o f action a n d dram a. W hile h e is relu ctan t to describe Romper Stomper as an action film, h e acknowledges th a t it partakes o f the genre. O nce 10

* CINEMA

PAPERS

the skinheads becom e em broiled in a vicious street war with a gang of Vietnam ese, they are perpetually on the run. T h e cam era m anages to catch them in mid-flight as they escape down gnarled alleyways and over rooftops. It is as restless as the people in the frame. I wanted the camera to move a lot. O ur DOP, Ron Hagen, did some fantastic hand-held stuff, which was so steady I had to tell him to make it shakier at times. I thought the hand-held camera would be good for the fight scenes. You get close. It’s very useful for the mobile kinds of fights we had where people are running down alleyways. A hand-held camera reminds you of the six o ’clock news. It puts you right in there. Shot in six weeks in and a ro u n d the W estern suburbs of M elbourne, the film was, according to W right, a mad operation from start to finish. It was a hard shoot with a lot of running around in it. I mean that quite literally. You have to be physically fit to do a film like this one. We were really flying by the seat of our pants. But that’s not a bad atmosphere to have when you are making a film about mad, frantic characters. W right p u t a lot o f work into casting his “m ad, frantic charac ters”. H e says h e is delighted with the results h e achieved with

G E O F F R E Y

W R I G H T :

“M ost Australian film s lack m otivated characters. The characters d o n 't seem to want anything very much. There d oe sn 't seem to be any dram atic mainspring. There's not much at stake. I think m ost Australian film s are d u ll."

Russell Crowe as the brutal H ando, Daniel Pollock as the with drawn Davey an d new com erjacqueline McKenzie as the m ercu rial girl who jo in s the gang. Russell Crowe (who has em erged as one o f A ustralia’s most sought-after actors, appearing in M ark jo ffe’s Spotswood, Jocelyn M oorhouse’sP roo/and,m ostrecent, in A nn T u rn e r’s new project, Hammers over the Anvil) was perfect in the role o f H ando. “Russell looks right for a start,” explains W right. “H e ’s a well-built chap. Also, th ere is a h eadstrong elem en t to Russell, com bined with a certain degree o f resdessness a n d im patience, which I think was perfect for the character.” Romper Stomper m arks the film d eb u t o f Jacqueline McKenzie, a NIDA graduate with an impressive list o f stage credits to h e r nam e. W right d etected a certain sense of adventure in McKenzie which he felt would work well for the character o f Gabe. Jacqueline is bold, courageous and natural. So many other young actors are corrupted by working on television and they start to believe their own publicity. They worry about damaging their image. Jacqueline was hard working and willing to try anything. Perhaps th e m ost challenging role o f all was that o f Davey, the diffident young boy who falls in love with Gabe, yet cannot

express his feelings. Says Wright: Davey isn’t a very articulate character. I saw him as someone who for the most part isn’t an initiator. The other two are doers but Davey is more a reactive character. Davey isn’t a complete personality. He has to divest himself from Hando in order to be that. That was a problem for Daniel Pollock as a performer, because he was looking for an initiating role while the character was more reactive. Pollock gave Davey a great deal of subtlety and vulnerability. Romper Stomper is brim m ing with action and energy, yet the film has a love story at its core. W right, who illustrated in Lover Boy th at exchanges betw een lovers are som etim es unsophisticated an d even clumsy, continues to eschew Hollywood solutions to rom ance. Romper Stomper is full of desperate people who are full of anger and hate, caught up in a situation of their own devising. Gabe and Davey happen to find something a bit more tender. They’re people who are not used to tenderness. I wanted to do a love story that wasn’t heavy handed or sentimental. The two simply man age to find each other in this film; there is really more to come. You could almost do another film with these characters, but I think we will leave them there. ■ CINEMA

PAPERS

• 11

íf' wB I B Ê mÊmÊÊÊÊ

■ ■ ■ 9 f l H i

P RODU CT I ON O V E R V I E W

luminous human cockroach” is how Bob Ellis describes Elkin, the central character in his latest and most personal film. The Nostradamus Kid is based on his own youth in a Seventh Day Adventist heaven on earth. N ot th at it felt like one: the end o fth e world was always nigh, and its incessant com ing was pun ctu ated by a growing libido. In w hat is one of the best exam ples o f a left-handed com pli m ent, Ellis says of the casting process: “I quickly realized that N oah Taylor would be the only actor capable o f such a role. ” But Ellis is n o t casting aspersions on Taylor. A lthough the film has a strong autobiographical foundation, it levitates in a world o f Ellis’ im agination. Most o f the characters are composites: “O n e is^ certainly a com pilation o f three people: Les Murray, Roy Masters and Dick B ren n an .” A nd the phrase “lum inous hu m an cockroach” is, in reality, self-deprecating. But despite a degree o f cloning him self in the m aking o f the film , Ellis is frank and ho n est ab o u t the differences between him self and N oah Taylor’s Elkin: I’m glad to say I was much better looking, but I had m uch less charm. He is tremendously charming, whatever he does. Even when he does all the grubby things I used to do, he makes friends where I used to make enemies. Bob Ellis has kept many of his enem ies, an d has asked th at the nam e of one of them be edited o ut o f this story, to avoid unnecessary angst. Such is the pow er o f an Ellis m isadventure. But th en he is a passionate m an, a m an o f words a nd language, a lover o f m elancholy an d often a bare soul. H e is a w riter whose image am ongst his peers has in d eed becom e like th at o f a lum inous cockroach, a survivor am idst the unbearable h eat o f a cruel world. No w onder, then, th at this self-revealing w ork was spat o ut in eleven days: MERYL (LOENE CARMEN) AND ELKIN (N O A H TAYLOR), WRITER-DIRECTOR BOB ELLIS' ALTER EGO IN THE NOSTRADAMUS KID.

K id

PRODUCTION REPORT BY ANDREW L. URBAN

P H O T O O R A P H S BY CINEMA

PAPERS

The Nostradamus Kid

I ju st sort of like vomited or something. Although the script has been trim m ed back a fair bit, and there have been a couple of gag lines added to it, it remains substantially as it was written. A discharge ... an expulsion ... an excretion. It was terribly painful writing it. David Puttnam asked me to write this and gave me $5000 to do so. But I was frightened by it. I delayed and delayed for about a year, and Puttnam got pissed off with me and went away. Then I wrote it, without drawing a breath, in fear of Puttnam. W hat Ellis w rote was ascrip tfo ra film th at A ustralians so rarely make: a personal film, thick with the nuances o f private imaginings, the rich arom a o f failed seductions an d stum bling youth, the search for m eaningful existence an d the best possible effect on strangers. These are certainly elem ents that can be found in Flirting, which Ellis regards as the best A ustralian film h e has seen, alth o u g h h e m aintains its popularity was deflated by an appalling title. Clearly, Ellis adm ires J o h n D uigan’s film m aking: Superbly precise and witty writing, marvellously controlled di rection and camerawork, impeccable perform ances and a sort of achingly universal story that everybody w ho’s ever been a kid, which means everybody, can identify with. I was very impressed with the fact that my then nine-year-old daughter got off on it. It is also possible that The Year My Voice Broke is the best Aus tralian film. T h ere’s not m uch between the two. Ellis is know n to passionately care ab o u t A ustralian culture an d to be a d efen d er o f it. B ut does h e think Australian culture is autom atically displayed on the screen by a director? An interesting example is The Year My Voice Broke, which is very m uch set in an Australian country town. But it also resembles a lot of Polish and Czechoslovakian films that we’ve seen. There isn ’t exactly a universal culture, but there is a European culture that stretches from Galway to Minsk and embraces parts, though n ot all, of this continent. It doesn’t embrace any of America. The mistake people always make is in thinking we have som ething in common with Americans. Nobody has anything in com m on with Americans. They are a facade, a sales pitch, a bullshit act. They’re not a culture; they’re a ‘self. As for The Nostradamus Kid, Ellis says it started o u t as o n e thing, but, while shooting it, h e saw it develop into a film com parable to The Graduate. It’s a gentle rom antic comedy about the end of the world, based on my experiences as an adolescent at university and two en counters with the end of the world, set during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when I persuaded [now an enem y’s] daughter to go with me in her father’s stolen car to the mountains, to avoid the certain atomic holocaust on Sydney. I had to bring back his daughter and the car, and face down this dreadful man who put a court order on me. No, it’s n o t a coming-of-age film; Elkin never com es o f age. H e ’s incurable. B ut is m aking the film a catharsis for Ellis? Well, yes, to some extent, but it was m ore so in the writing than in the realizing. T he realizing is m ore like a job. TOP: BOB ELLIS, LEFT, DIRECTS LOENE CARMEN A N D N O A H TAYLOR. BOTTOM, ELKIN. FACING PAGE: ELKIN A N D W A Y LA N D (ERICK M ITSAK). THE NOSTRADAMUS KID.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

B O B

E L L I S :

“It 's a g e n tle rom antic com edy about the end o f the world, based on m y experiences as an adolescent at u n ive rsity, and two encounters with the end o f the world, s e t d urin g the Cuban m issile crisis in 1962

On the o ther hand, it has involved the joy of watching Noah Taylor at work. He is a sort of genius of cinema like Keaton or Chaplin. He adds so m uch to the bare bones of the original story, just in personal quirkiness. Why “g en tle” comedy? Are the laughs g ende, o r th e people? If you just say ‘comedy’, people might think you are employing Richard Pryor, and it’s im portant n o t to give that impression. The hum our is that which comes out of observed truth. In the main, you would say Woody Allen’s comedies are gentle, whereas Mel Brooks’ are not. T o w hat ex ten t does Ellis th in k it is th e sort o f film m ainstream audiences will w ant to see? Embarking on it, I thought it was not m uch m ore than an arthouse film. But now I think it’s going to be very popular indeed, particularly with kids, in the way TheBigStealwas, or should have been. T here has been a big change because it’s m uch m ore stylish than when I wrote it. I thought it was going to be like Withnail & I.

..."

The Nostradamus Kid com es at a crucial tim e in Bob Ellis’ life. H e is tu rn in g 50, for o ne thing, an d as a film m aker h e welcomes the fact that, after a few ra th e r b ad experiences, this is by far the easiest an d m ost relaxed. It is also a film th at stands alone, apart from the rest o f his body o f work. Having w ritten it, a n d having expelled th at great sigh of release, there is som ething else: the m aking o f afilm by which Ellis will be ju d g e d as a film m aker. About 5 months ago I thought, ‘This is ridiculous. I should [give up film and] write a really good novel and then another one ’, and so on. But now it’s fairly obvious that I should do a series of films like Preston Sturges’. I should do five or six or seven really beaut comedies and maybe do other things as well. T h ere’s one I ’ve written which is a Sturges, called The Girlfrom Kiev, about two drunk, Australian, 40-year-old divorced lawyers fetching up 60 miles from Chernobyl and falling in love with a Russian girl. I’d also love to do afilm that’s set in the ancient kingdom of the Nation Review in M elbourne. For instance, th ere’s all those CINEMA

PAPERS

• IS

The Nostradamus Kid

to spend m ore time on the scripts. In America, they think nothing of doing 12 or 14 drafts. Sim pson an d his p a rtn e r subm it ted th e script to the Film Finance C o rp o ra tio n ’s second T ru st Film F und, b u t w ere p re p a re d to take it fu rth e r if it was n o t successful. B ut it was, an d Sim pson pays trib u te to the FFC for m aking it h ap p en : Various people have tried to get it m ade, including Bob, and the project was in pretty good shape, although we felt it was u n d er budgeted. It’s quite an ambitious script, but with very fine writing, the sort of script you seldom see. We were puzzled why it had not been made. Bob had insisted on directing it, and we had worked out a good relationship. Besides, we outnum ber him: three pro ducers to one director.

bearded, drunk, middle-aged bastards with teenage mistresses being harassed in law suits and chased by gangsters and falling down pissed and so on. I’d like to do a Milos Forman-type film about that sort of thing. Ellis d o e sn ’t only see The Nostradamus Kid ■as a new direction, b u t also a challenge to prove his w orking relationships. “I t’s im p o rta n t politically fo r m e; it shows th a t p eo p le can w ork with m e w ith o u t looking sideways o u t o f fram e, ho ld in g th eir breath. ” T hey can, o r so R oger Sim pson assures one. Sim pson Le M esurier Films w orked w ith Ellis o n th e fo rth co m ing four-hour mini-series, The Spycatcher Trial, based o n M alcolm T u rn b u ll’s acco u n t o f th e infam ous case in w hich M argaret T h a tc h e r’s G overn m en t tried to suppress a b o o k by ex-spy P eter W right. Ellis a n d S tep h en Ramsey co llaborated on th e script o f the mini-series —they h a d co llaborated earlier o n The True Believers script - a n d Sim pson fo u n d th e process th oroughly enjoyable an d professional. It was d u rin g those m o n th s o f developing th e script th at Ellis again b ro u g h t o u t his screenplay fo r The Nostradamus Kid. Again, because it has a history g oing back som e ten years, w hen David P u ttn am first h a n d e d over th e five big ones. B ut by this stage, P u ttn am h a d b een b o u g h t o u t a n d th e A ustralian Film Com m ission was paying fo r th e developm ent. R oger Sim pson a n d his p a rtn e r R oger Le M esurier instantly liked th e script. T hey w ere far from p u t off by its age a n d in d eed w elcom ed th e fact th a t th e w ork has h a d a p ro lo n g ed gestation. Says Sim pson: W here o u r industry could do with im provem ent is a better, longer script-development process. Producers tend to be too im patient, happy with getting three drafts. T here is a lot o f developm ent m oney around, m ore than in a lot of countries, so we have no complaints there. But we need

• CINEMA

PAPERS

T h e th ird p ro d u c e r is T erry Jennings, who has been taken aboard at Sim pson Le M esurier Films for his experience in features. Prim arily a television p ro d u ctio n house, th e com pany has only o ne previous experience with features, a n d an u n h ap p y o ne at that, with Squizzy Taylor in 1981. Sim pson says that, since th en , they have b een only thinking ab o u t m aking films; this is th e first th at they are actually m aking, the first o f several m ore, all a ro u n d $4 m illion. “M ost o f o u r films will have a big television elem ent, like a pre-sale for a Movie o f the W eek, because o f o u r in te rn a tional contacts. T h a t’s w here o u r know ledge a n d connections are .” For Sim pson Le M esurier, it is the o p en in g o f a chapter; for Bob Ellis, it is m ore like th e closing o f one. If th e w riting was a cathartic expulsion, th e m aking o f the film is a shiver o f creative pleasure for him . H e gets to recreate m agic m om ents o f his childhood, to w ork with a favoured directo r o f photography, G eoff B urton, and h e gets M iranda O tto as Jenny, th e girl o f his - aka E lkin’s - dream s. M iranda O tto, w ho turns 24 o n D ecem ber 15, is ju s t as lum inous as N oah Taylor, with freshness stam ped all over her. A fter m aking films such as Emma s War an d The Place at the Coast, O tto w ent to NIDA. A lm ost as soon as she finished h e r course, she was cast in the title role in The Girl Who Came Late, m ade ju s t a year ago. She h a d C hristm as off, th en began w ork on th e latest (yet-tobe-released) Gillian A rm strong film, The LastDays of Chez Nous, w ent on to th e mini-series, Heroes II, a play on stage and, now, The Nostradamus Kid. Je n n y is 19, rich, confident, to th e p o in t o f seem ing cold at times, d etach ed even, b u t capable o f w arm th. She com es from a rich family, b u t h e r ‘co infidence’ evaporates at university, w here she is am idst ‘scum bags’ with th eir own universal laws. O tto: T he first thing I look for in a script is the pain - what pains the character most. It doesn’t have to come out in the script, b ut I

B O B

E L L I S :

“I do resent the idea that I'm a m aniac who c a n 't count and who only has a nodding acquaintance w ith the ablutions o f the p la ne t and so on. I think I'm b e tte r than that. "

have to be able to identify it. I am really fascinated by pain; it is often the thing that drives a character. It is a surprise to learn th a t O tto can be very tem peram ental, even on set: I try to control it. I feel that I have a right to be in my own mood, but it’s a bad thing if it affects other people. It is part of being very harsh on myself. At NIDA, I even hit myself sometimes. It’s destructive, and people say I’m a very serious person. ButI would really like to be able to get on and mix with everyone and be easy going. B ut O tto gets distracted very easily, an d she works b e tte r if she keeps to herself. A t present, she is in a strange career vacuum, having m ade th ree films alm ost back-to-back, each with vastly different characters, each filled with prom ise, a n d yet n o n e has b een released. It seem s as th o u g h h e r perform ances have been stillborn. The Girl Who Came Late will be released aro u n d Ju n e 1992, th en Chez Nous a b o u t A ugust an d finally Nostradamus Kid p erhaps n e x t O ctober. By th e e n d o f 1992, M iranda O tto could well be th e flavour o f the m o n th as the A ustralian actress derigueur. If it happens, she feels confid en t it w o n ’t affect her. “I learn t early, even before NIDA, n o t to do a jo b - ever - ju s t for the m oney. If you d o n ’t d o it well, it’ll stuff you u p long te rm .” T h ere seem s to be n o d an g er o f th at here; Ellis is delighted: Making the film and writing it is like the difference between composing and conducting, or the difference between writing a speech and delivering it. But it’s som ething m ore, too. Because you have such good actors, and such good young actors, there is som ething else that is going on, which is a kind ofjoyous creative play. P ro d u cer T erry Jen n in g s says Ellis is able to realize the film because it is so dialogue based, an ideas film. Ellis has always b een n o te d as a w onderful an d idealistic writer, o ne in love with words. Does h e feel com fortable with th a t de scription?

censedjoker. I’m notvery good with one person across the table; I ’m pretty good with four people at the table; I ’m really good with a room full; and I ’m terrific with a hall full and a m icrophone. A n o th er aspect p ro d u c e r T erry Jen n in g s relishes ab o u t The Nostradamus Kid is its u n iq u e setting: The film looks at a rarely seen area of Australiana, a Seventh Day Adventist Camp in the 1950s, and Sydney university life in the early ’60s, through the eyes of a boy who fast acquires a taste for drink, women and philosophy. But why is Elkin so convinced o f the im m in en t e n d o f the world? Ellis: I was brought up that way. It was a psychological foetus because at the time I was taking a lot of m ethadone, which was later known as speed. The Cuban missile crisis was the most dangerous night in the world’s history. And, if the nuclear holocaust was going to be ‘o n ’, it was going to be in the biggest city in Australia. This yearning for the end of the world is actually a universal thing. I am going to write a book to be published in 1999 called The Panic Merchants, about all the end of the world scenarios that made authors alot of money over the past 200years. People really are half in love with the end of the world, and this character is, too. But he comes at itfrom afunny angle, which is a n u t religion. Y etThe Seventh Day Adventists n eed n o t worry. T h e film, says Ellis, is very kind to them . I think the Adventists are good people. They are just wrong on about 15 major points. The way they were portrayed in Evil Angels was dead right. You know how warm and cuddly they were? They are like that. But Ellis left their warm and cuddly em brace, all the same. A nd the final straw th at m ade him leave is in the film. You’ll know it w hen you see it. ■

Sure, I d o n ’t m ind that. But I do resent the idea that I’m a maniac who can’t count and who only has a nodding acquaintance with the ablutions of the planet and so on. I think I ’m a little better than that. T here are two sides to me: one is a sort of a rat, a quiet introvert who sits alone in Chinese restau rants reading Private Eye, and the other is som eone who is almost precisely like a politician, some body who works with the rumours. T h ere’s an am ount of adrenalin that hits me when th ere’s a lot of like-minded people in the room. Suddenly my brain improves with stimulation and conversation. And in this kind of a setting I ’m a liFACING PAGE: JENNY (M IR AN D A OTTO) A N D ELKIN. THE NOSTRADAMUS KID. RIGHT: FILMING A SCENE W ITH ELKIN A ND W AYLAND .

CINEMA

PAPERS

CARROLL BALLARD

ABOVE: WILL PARKER (MATTHEW MODINE) AND KATE (JENNIFER GREY) SAIL A 12 METRE.

PICTURE PREVIEW

BELOW LEFT: U.S. SKIPPER M O RG AN WELD (CLIFF ROBERTSON). RIGHT: DIRECTOR CARROLL BALLARD, LEFT, WITH MATTHEW MODINE A ND JENNIFER GREY. PHOTOS: JENNIFER K. MITCHELL.

the film, and the tension between the characters, is the theme of class struggle, between people who earn their own money and those who inherit it .” Director Ballard adds: “I liked the idea of a film that isn’t about

ind

is the n e w feature

people killing each other. Sailing is like a big war game where nobody gets k ille d . . . These are people who stake their whole lives on a

of Carroll Ballard, the acclaimed

sailboat race. I t ’s very competitive, and that’s one of the themes of

American director of The B lack S tallion

the film: guys who enjoy being winners.” The cast includes Matthew Modine, Jennifer Grey, Cliff Robertson and Jack Thompson. It is being produced by Mata Yamamoto and Tom

(1979) and N ever C r y W olf (1983).

Luddy, with Francis Coppola serving as one of the executive producers. It is an adventure drama based loosely on thé 1983 and '87 America’s

The film’s technical adviser was Peter Gilmour, who is currently part of

Cups, which saw an epic struggle for 12-metre sailing supremacy

the “Spirit of Australia” team vying for the 1992 America’s Cup.

between Australia and the U S. Scriptwriter Rudy Wurlitzer says there is

Wind’s twelve weeks of filming began in Fremantle, Western Australia,

no literal reference to existing people and that, “Part of the fabric of

on 25 February 1991. It is now in post-production.

ETERNAL PROMOTIONS

Not Drowning, Waving "Proof the movie soundtrack out now on CD (Digipak) at all great music stores! RG001 rrp $16.00 on Rogues' Gallery Records thru M.D.S.

FRO M T H E C R E A T O R O F J E A N D E F L O R E T T E ’ AND M ANON DE SO U R C ES’

“The Promise of Immortality ” — the last shot o f The Shining Australian film and documentary publicity, promotions and P.R. Campaigns to suit any budget

TW O ORIGINAL SO U N D T R A C K S O N O NE CD

MUSIC COMPOSED, ARRANGED AND CONDUCTED BY VLADIMIR COSMA (C O M PO SE R O F DIVA) AVAILABLE O N CD T H R O U G H G O O D M USIC R ETA ILER S

A N

MARKETED BY EAST WEST RECORDS. A DIVISION OF WARNER MUSIC AUSTRALIA. A TIME WARNER COMPANY

ETERNAL

PROMOTIONS

20 Neptune Street St Kilda Victoria 3182 Telephone (03) 525 3482 Facsimile (03) 525 3607 CINEMA

PAPERS

• 19

ÉÉÉI1É i « «

C A E S A R ’S

Im SS

P ROD U CT I ON O V E R V I E W

NKEEPING PRODUCTI ON REPORT BY PETER GALVI N PHOTOGRAPHS BY PHI LI P LE

enny

isin trouble.

Em ployed as greenkeeper at the local bowls club, he has come up against a problem he doesn’t know how to fix. T h e g reen s are dying, th e club cham p ionships are com ing u p a n d th e club m an a g e r is b e g in n in g to catch on to th e fact th a t L enny (M ark Little) isn ’t really who he says h e is. M ilton (Syd C o n a b e re ), th e long-tim e club cham p ion, is o n to L enny as well. H e wants to use him to sabotage the efforts o f his n e a re st rival, Rikyu (K azuhiro M uroyam a), the Japanese schoolboy w ho plays th e gam e like a veteran. For th e seem ingly hapless g re e n k e e p er, dom estic life offers no respite. T h e g a rd e n is over-run an d it looks like Sue (Lisa H ensley), L en n y ’s wife, d o e sn ’t care a b o u t anything any m ore -e v e n the $3,000 she owes Dave (Leigh R ussell), th e local drugdealer a n d a w alking c h a p te r o f b ad history from L en n y ’s past. For Sue, everything is easier to cope with th ro u g h a m arijuana haze, even a m arriag e th a t is looking d ead on its feet. L ennyjust keeps thin k in g , “I t’ll be all right. I ju s t n e e d som e tim e.” T rouble is, th e r e ’s n o tim e left. Greenkeeping aim s to b e a serious film th a t is also very funny. Based on aw ry, brilliantly-w ritten script, it is th e first featu re to be w ritten a n d d ire c te d by A ustralian Film Television 8c Radio School grad u ate, David Caesar. Lawn bowls is am o n g th e m ost g en teel o f sports and, as befits its setting, C aesar’s script is gentle, so rich in ch aracter and in c id e n t th a t o n e c a n ’t h e lp b u t be to u c h e d by the authenticity o f th e w riting. C aesar has deftly sketched a total world from his working-class b ack g ro u n d , treatin g his charac ters w ith affection a n d fin d in g th e com ic in th e everyday. His fondness fo r Bill F orsyth’s “g en tle co m ed ies”, particularly Local Hero, is clearly evident. T h e re is th e w him sical tre a tm e n t o f serious th em es (in this film, ra c ism /x e n o p h o b ia ) th a t never dem eans th e subject, b u t ra th e r creates a sense o f optim ism LEFT: LENNY (M ARK LITTLE), THE GREENKEEPER, WATCHES THE BRILLIANT JAPANESE SCHOOLBOY BOWLER, RIKYU (KAZUHIRO M U RO YAM A). ABOVE: SUE (LISA HENSLEY), LENNY'S WIFE A ND A DREAMER OF THINGS PAST. DAVID CAESAR'S GREENKEEPING.

a ro u n d th e conflict o f ideals. Like Forsyth, too, C aesar carefully builds th e com edy a ro u n d his characters, h o ld in g back th e p lo t twists a n d resolving th e conflicts in away th a t is b o th logical an d totally u n ex p ected . C aesar may w elcom e th e com parisons to F orsyth’s w ork, b u t Greenkeeping possesses a to u g h e r sense o f irony an d a sense o f h u m o u r th a t is at once physical (th ere are m any clever visual gags) as well asverbal. T h e dialogue is a high-point. Fast, brittle, p o in te d an d often surprisingly funny, it is m o re rem in iscen t o f CINEMA

PAPERS

• 21

Greenkeeping cam e ra set-ups, in c lu d in g “bow ling c a m ”, w hich gives th e au d ie n c e a grass-high view o f th e action on th e g reen , a n d “m agpie c a m ”, w hich speaks fo r itself. T h e g rip crew, h e a d e d by D anny Lockett, b u ilt th e g ear on spec. T h e tiny club th a t is Greenkeeping s m ain set is snuggled away, at th e b o tto m o f a d ead -en d street, a m o n g m o d est h o m es in th e tree-lined avenue o f a Sydney su bu rb. K erith H olm es, p ro d u c tio n d esigner, explains th e c o n c e p t o f achieving a com ic look fo r the film:

a n o th e r o f C aesar’s favourite films, Barry L evinson’s Tin Men. W hatever th e com parisons in style are, w hat exists in Greenkeeping is a specific cu ltu ral m ilieu - an A ustralian m ilieu - th a t is n e ith e r cloying n o r precious. Greenkeeping s p ro d u c e r is Glenys Rowe, w ho has b een w orking w ith C aesar fo r a co u p le o f years dev elo p ing projects, in clu d in g th e already leg en d ary “P rim e M over”, a to u g h , b ru tal script a b o u t tru ck driving, th e o u tb ack an d obsession. Rowe has already p ro d u c e d o n e film w ith Caesar, th e stylish an d very successful d o c u m e n ta ry Bodywork. U nlike th e still-in-develop m e n t “P rim e M over” (w hich Caesar w rote in 1983), Greenkeeping h a p p e n e d fast. Rowe explains: Greenkeeping was w ritten in the m atter o f a m onth. It read “achievable”. It said we could m ake this film quickly within the budget confines o f an Australian feature. T he Australian Film Commission has set aside an am ount of m oney for first-time directors, which David is. We are actually m aking this feature for less than $1 million. W hen people see it, they w on’t believe it. We are shooting the film in four weeks and are having absolutely no problem s in doing that. It has tu rn ed out to be quite an easy film to make, only because David Caesar designed it that way. C aesar was m eticu lo u s with his p re p a ra tio n s. Every scene was com pletely sto ry b o ard ed a n d Cae sar p ro d u c e d a floor-plan fo r every set-up. In scope, th e film ap p e a rs m o d est, w ith ju st two p rin c ip a l locations: th e bowls club, a n d L enny a n d S u e ’s fibro cottage. B ut Rowe explains th a t th e re are six o r seven lo catio n s w ithin th e bowls club. Caesar, ever conscious o f p ro d u c in g a “cin em atic e v e n t” fo r th e au d ie n c e , has d esig n ed th e film fo r som e elab o rate, inventive a n d ra th e r com ic 22

• CINEMA

PAPERS

It’s fairly straightforward as a look but, be cause it’s a comic film, th e re ’s things that have been pushed a bit fu rth er than they would be in reality. I started stylizing colours as m uch as possible. T he exteriors are sunbleached and the interiors [for the bowling club] I w anted to look very golden, with layers of tobacco-smoke colours. Because th e re ’s this dram a about the yellowing greens at the club, I th o ught it would be a nice idea to have a lot of fresh green in the o ther location, Lenny’s house. This ju st exaggerates Lenny’s frustrations. But nothing is alive in Lenny’s house: they’re all representations, like floral patterns on a lounge. T h e d irecto r o f p h o to g rap h y , Sim on Sm ith, a n o th e r AFTRS g rad u ate, is w orking fast an d enthusiastically o n this his first feature. W e’ve had great weather, which was crucial to the look we decided on: sharp shadows, bright sunlight and very intense colours, which you can see in the art direction. W e’re using Kodak 5245 daylight stock. W herever we can, we’re going for a very warm look, using filters. T here are visual echoes of the bowling ball th roughout the film. I’ve found it great the way the comic aspects of the film have determ ined ways of shooting. You can ’t help b ut think comedy, especially when you get such wonderful actors to gether. Often ways that we’ve decided to shoot get tu rn ed on their head because we want to see some detail from an actor.

Rowe is full o f praise fo r th e crew a n d its d irecto r, who, w hen on set, seem s relax ed , affable, even casual. E xplains Rowe: I do believe it’s the director who sets the tone on the set, the etiquette and the m an n er in which the film is made. It’s to David’s credit th at he has a crew that are runn in g so well and who are so obviously fond of each other. W hile its to n e is essentially com ic, Rowe believes th a t Greenkeeping offers a d e p a rtu re fo r A ustralian cinem a, a film th a t describes working-class life w ith o u t th e p a tro n izin g squint. W hat appeals to me about all o f David’s writing is that he has a fundam ental respect for the working class. He has a fantastic ear for the language of working-class Australians, w hether it’s bush people o r suburbanites. T he working class is also where I come from. In m ost films - especially British ones, apart from Mike L eigh’s - the working class is characterized as stupid or crimi nal, and th a t’s appalling. For m e to be able to give space - nonpatronizingly- to working-class people is som ething that I want to do and feel quite strongly about. You could never say th at David has a well-developed Marxist politic; it’s n o t about that at all. It’s about a warm cultural appreciation, and th a t’s what appeals to me. To find som eone who is n o t trying to produce that from some o th er position, but is com ing from within, was a great joy. FACING PAGE, TOP: G IN A (G IA CARIDES), THE BARMAID, A ND LENNY PLAY POOL. LEFT: TOM (M A X CULLEN), A STUBBORN OLD DIGGER AT THE BOWLS CLUB. GREENKEEPING. ABOVE: DIRECTOR DAVID CAESAR A ND ACTOR TO NY HELOU.

IN TE RV I E W

W R ITE R -D IR E C TO R D A V ID C A E S A R David C aesar g ra d u a te d from th e A ustralian Film Televison & R adio School in 1987 as a d irecto r o f ph o to g rap h y . H e has p h o to g ra p h e d an d d irected m usic clips, m ade sh o rt films an d ads, a n d w ritten several scripts, in clu d in g “P igskin” an d “Prim e M over”.*I

How did Greenkeeping come about? I h ad a frien d w ho was harassing m e a b o u t this th in g called Films O n Stage [at Sydney’s H aro ld P ark H o te l], w hich is w here you g et a w hole lo t o f actors a n d re a d a script on stage in fro n t o f an audience. T hey w anted m e to do “P rim e M over”, b u t I felt u n co m fo rtab le w ith th e id ea because it’s a very visual script: it has lots o f trucks, deserts a n d stuff, a n d it w ould have b e e n very tedious for th e au d ien ce to sit th ro u g h a lo t o f scene descriptions. O f my o th e r scripts, Greenkeeping, seem ed th e m ost ap p ro p riate. T his was in Jan u ary and, at th a t stage, Greenkeepingwas only a treatm en t. So, I w rote it to first-draft stage, w hich is w hat I p re se n te d at Films O n Stage in April. I was very keen o n th e script because I th o u g h t th e w hole bowls scene was a well o f o p p o rtu n ity w aiting to be tap p ed . I also felt th a t if I d id n ’t do it so m eo n e else w ith h a lf a b rain

w ould. B ut a lo t o f p e o p le th o u g h t th a t a film set in a bowls club d id n ’t so u n d very exciting, so basically it was a m a tte r o f convincing p e o p le , a n d Films O n Stage was th e o p p o rtu n ity to d o that. W e g o t a full h o u se a n d they really enjoyed it, la u g h in g in all th e rig h t places. A lo t o f p e o p le cam e u p after wards, in c lu d in g a few p ro d u c e rs trying to fin d o u t w h e th e r an y o n e h a d th e rights! O n th e basis o f Films o n Stage, it g ain ed a lo t o f m o m e n tu m a n d we w ent to th e AFC, w hich was k een b u t felt th e script n e e d e d a lo t o f w ork - w hich it did. So, I sp e n t th e p ast few m o n th s d o in g that. I ’ve b e e n in th e indu stry now fo r ten years a n d , in term s o f my d ev elo p m en t as a film m aker, th e n e x t step was to m ake a low -budget featu re. So, th e scale o f th e p ro d u c tio n has b e e n co n tain ed . T h e re are basically two locations a n d it is a four-w eek shoot. If it h a d ra in e d , we w ould have b e e n fucked. B ut it h a s n ’t, a n d nin ety p e r c e n t o f th e exteriors are in b rig h t sunlight, w hich m akes th e w hole th in g glow. Sim on Sm ith, th e D O P, has d o n e an am azin g jo b . I th in k p e o p le a r e n ’t g oing to believe w e’ve d o n e th e film fo r th e a m o u n t o f m oney we have. In term s of p ro d u c tio n valu es—th e look, th e design, th e a m o u n to f cam era m o v em en t —th ey ’re goin g to say it’s a $3 m illion movie. T h e crew is fantastic. L in d a [Ray] o n co n tin u ity has saved my arse so m any tim es. She w ould say after a take, ‘W e n eed a n o th e r close-up o f D avid”, a n d I ’d go, “All rig h t”, a n d b e grudgingly sh o o t it. I ’d see th e stuff in th e rushes th e n e x t day a n d say, “T h a n k you, L in d a .” B efore, I h a d n o id ea w hat a co n tin u ity p e rso n really did. T h e o th e r th in g is th e actors. W e h a d two weeks o f re hearsal, w hich is n o t e n o u g h , b u t it’s b e tte r th a n n o n e. It’s b een am azing having g o o d actors. O n ce they fo u n d th e ir characters in reh earsal, th ey ’ve b e e n th e re all th e tim e. T h e secondary ch aracters are th e re all th e tim e, too. T h e r e ’s n o w eak link in th e chain. T h e p e rfo rm a n c es are so good, n o t because I th in k I ’m a really g re a t d ire c to r, b u t because we cast so well.

The comedy in the script has alot o f warmth and vigour, but the film is quite dense thematically, as well. * I was in te re ste d in e x p lo rin g n o tio n s o f racism a n d change. A bowls club is like a m icrocosm o f A ustralia. F o r exam ple, the c lu b ’s b arm aid , G ina [Gia C a rid e s], is a y oung G reek girl w ho hates Asians. A n d th e n th e re are th e club m em bers, m ost o f th em diggers, w ho really like, a n d are friendly to, Rikyu [K azuhiro M uroyam a], th e Ja p a n e se boy. A n im p o rta n t p a rt o f th e story is th e fact th a t th e greenk eep er, L en n y [M ark L ittle ], has this fu n d a m e n ta l b elief o f th a t “I t’ll be all rig h t o n th e day.” H e feels h e sh o u ld n ’t worry. T h e fact th a t h e has n o qualifications, a n d th a t if so m eth in g goes w ro n g h e ’ll re a d a b o o k to fig u re it o u t, d o e sn ’t really 24

• CINEMA

PAPERS

m atter. B ut th e club is starting to g et in to financial difficulties, an d they w o n ’t accept th a t any m ore. So, th e film is talking ab o u t a level o f com placency, a level th a t L enny finds accept able in his life. T h e re ’s a lo t o f family stuff as well. I t’s a b o u t th e relatio n ship betw een L enny an d his wife, Sue [Lisa H en sley ], a n d th e way it changes. She still wants to live in th e days w hen they used to grow plants a n d sm oke lots o f drugs an d lead a very h e d o n istic lifestyle. She still wants L enny a ro u n d , b u t all th e ir o th e r friends have settled dow n a n d g o t p ro p e r jo b s. She wants to live in th e past, w hereas L enny wants to change. H e u sed to grow drugs, w ent to gaol, th e n g o t a jo b as a g re e n k e e p er, w hich h e ’s trying to b lu ff his way th ro u g h .

The script refuses to moralize about the relationships. The message that “You can’t live in the past” may appear trite, but in the context o f these characters and this environment it takes on a great deal o f weight. Exactly. You c a n ’t live in th e past, w h e th e r it’s in term s o f a n atio n o r a bowls club, w ith old diggers refusing to accep t Asians, o r w h e th e r it’s a w om an w ho w ants to take drugs a n d party all th e tim e like she u sed to ten years ago.

The script recalls the gentle, character-based humour often characterized by the Alexander Mackendrick’s Ealing come dies, most notably The Man in the White Suit (1951). The most successful contemporary interpretation o f that style are Bill Forsyth’s films. But whereas Forsyth tends to be whimsical, Greenkeeping has a lot o f sharp ironies in the verbal jokes. It recalls more Barry Levinson’s Baltimore movies, Diner and Tin Men.

DAVI D

CAESAR

"1 don't believe in elitism in cinema at all. The sort of films I like

can be shown to anybody. Cinema in Australia should be, and to a certain extent is, an extension of people sitting in the pub talking bullshit to one another. ”

Greenkeeping is like Forsyth a n d L evinson films. I like to call the style o f com edy “A ustralian w him sy”. M ark Little a n d I have also b e e n talking ab o u t th e film as a new style o f film m aking called “dag vision”.

im p o rta n t th in g in films. I leave th a t u p to th e a u dience. If they w ant to decide w h eth er p eo p le are com pletely fucked, th e n th a t’s th eir business. I certainly d o n ’t think, as I m ake it, th a t th e re are any such ch aracters in this film.

What does that mean?

Your view is a nod toward the populists’ view. In cinema, the archetype would be the films o f Frank Capra.

Well, th e ch aracters are w hat you m ig h t call dags. T hey are n o t th e Sort o f p e o p le w ho w ould be very acceptable at an arts o p en in g . T h ey ’re ordinary. I ’m sure sem ioticians w o n ’t be im pressed at all. F or a start, th e characters speak English, live in A ustralia an d d o n ’t w ant to leave. T h e re m ust be so m eth in g fu n d am en tally w rong with th em , I suppose. T h ey ’re n o t d ep ressed all th e tim e, w hich is a n o th e r reaso n th e sem ioticians w o n ’t like th e film. Sem ioti cians deal with th e ir own p ro b lem s a n d blam e th e rest o f thè w o rld .1

So you think Greenkeeping has a humanistic point of view? I t’s hum an-based. It d o e s n ’t pass m o ral ju d g e m e n t on any characters. T h e re is a racist c h a ra c ter in the club, b u t I th in k he does have som e h u m a n values at th e e n d o f th e day. Even the best ch aracters have som e black aspects to them . I ’m n o t really fo n d o f black-and-w hite n o tio n s o f g o o d an d evil, rig h t or w rong.

I have no desire to be seen as an in tellectu al film m aker. I d o n ’t believe in elitism in cinem a at all. T h e so rt o f films I like can be show n to anybody. C inem a in A ustralia sh o u ld be, a n d to a certain e x ten t is, an extension o f p eo p le sitting in the p u b talking bullshit to on e a n o th er. T h e so rt o f things p eo p le say to o n e a n o th e r in pubs are ju s t yarns with a p u n ch lin e. It works as a form o f folklore, w hich is ab o u t th e m ores an d substance o f a society. I t’s n o t a b o u t an o u tsid er looking in. My films a re n ’t ab o u t m e com ing in as a film m aker in to a com m unity an d m aking films a b o u t it. I ’ve b e e n a ro u n d bowl ing clubs all my life. I ’ve grow n u p with p eo p le like Lenny. I m ake films ab o u t w here I com e from . N inety p e rc e n t o f the dialogue in the film is w hat I ’ve h eard . T h e only real skill I have as a w riter is th a t I can re m e m b e r w hole conversations I h ear betw een p eo p le on buses an d in clubs, an d everywhere else.

In the script, Australians appear a rather lackadaisical lot. T hey are, b u t I d o n ’t th in k th a t’s such a b ad thing. T h e re ’s so m eth in g very civilized a b o u t stan d in g in th e m id d le o f a paddock, rolling balls dow n it, a n d th e n sitting dow n to have a b e e r a n d som e polite conversation.

But there is a sinister edge to this. Milton, the champion bowler, tends to represent all that is Unpalatable about the Australian ethos. H e changes th e rules all th e tim e a n d h e m an ip u lates Lenny. In a way, th a t’s how A ustralia often works. If th e rules d o n ’t go your way, you ch an g e th em . B ut you c a n ’t g et away with it any m ore. T h a t’s th e m essage o f th e film. I t’s also saying th a t A ustralia is changing, w h e th e r you like it o r not.

Australians have to accept what they are becoming: a multi cultural, non-Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation. T h a t’s o n e o f th e best things a b o u t A ustralian culture. A ustra lians always accep t ch ange, m o re so th an , say, th e A m ericans. A ustralians w ould never form so m eth in g like th e KKEL A ustralians will curse, w hinge a n d carry on a b o u t Asians, b u t th e n th ey ’ll be dow n at th e club eatin g C hinese.

You find that ironic? It is. T h a t’s th e n a tu re o f life in A ustralia, w hereas irony is so m eth in g A m ericans seem allergic to. Irony is a very culturally specific thing. M ainstream A m erican cu ltu re d o e s n ’t have it, alth o u g h a lot o f A m erican Jew ish h u m o u r is based on it. T h e sort o f things I look to, a p a rt from Bill Forsyth an d Barry Levinson, are A ustralian w riters like H en ry Lawson and, m o re recently, T im W hiton. Law son’s stuff is h u m a n e . It isn ’t a b o u t passing ju d g e m e n t o n p eo p le, w hich I th in k is an LEFT: SUE A ND HUSBAND LENNY. RIGHT: ZH A N G YON G AS THE CHINESE MUSICIAN W H O PLAYS "CLICK GO THE SHEARS" O N A H A W A IIA N STRING GUITAR. GR CENKEEPING.

CINEMA

PAPERS

* 25

Greenkeeping O n e o f th e things I was very conscious o f w hen w riting the film was th a t it w asn’t g oing to look like a tele-m ovie. T h e r e ’s a lo t o f dialogue in th e film, b u t it’s very dynam ic. I t ’s p eo p le having conversations o n th e ru n across th e g re e n a n d things like that. N o n e o f th e cam era m o v em en t is g ratuitous: it’s always in co n tex t with th e story, m otivated by an action o r by revealing som ething. A little storyline in th e film is the m agpie th a t keeps attacking L en n y ’s h e a d w hen h e ’s w orking o n th e g reen . We b u ilt this crane, w hich we have above L enny, a n d it swoops dow n on his h ead. Now, th e r e ’s a w hole seq u en ce in th e film w here L enny is a ttacked by a m agpie on L ad ies’ Bowls Day an d all th e w om en play with icecream co n tain ers on th e ir heads, o r with th e ir sunglasses on backwards. In th e co u n try w here I grew up, th a t’s w hat you used to do: draw a face on an icecream c o n ta in e r a n d w ear it backw ards o n your head ; th a t way birds will never attack your real face. I d o n ’t know w h e th e r they w ould do it at a bow ling club. I t’s real b u t it’s also surreal.

What are some o f the visual motifs in the film?

LENNY OFFERS RIKYU SOME COACHING ADVICE. GREENKEEPING.

But haven’t you applied to your script more intellectual rigour than you care to admit? W h at I do is n o t an intellectu al exercise b u t a craft exercise. I t’s a b o u t logic. I d o n ’t th in k b e in g in te llig e n t a n d b e in g intellec tual are th e sam e th in g . If you w ent dow n to th e p u b a n d asked p e o p le a b o u t th e society they live in, w h a t’s w rong with it an d th e th in g s they like, well th a t’s w hat my film s are doing.

You have, on the basis o f a few shorts, a reputation for finding a strong visual style for the material, most particularly in Bodywork. What style will Greenkeeping have? I t’s som ew here betw een P ee W ee H e rm a n a n d Jac q u es Tati. I know it’s a cliché a n d an over-used term , b u t th e look is “h e ig h te n e d re a lism ”. B ut fo r Greenkeeping I th in k it’s a p p ro p riate. K erith H o lm es, th e p ro d u c tio n d e sig n e r, has dressed L en n y ’s h o u se in floral p a tte rn s. T h e c a rp e t looks like astro turf. A n d th e grass w e’ve p a in te d a b rig h te r g re e n th a n grass is. W e have also u sed lots o f aerial a n d c ra n in g shots so you can see p e o p le s u rro u n d e d by g reen . I ’ve b e e n very fo rtu n a te in g e ttin g a very g o o d crew w ho w ork very fast, b ecau se we only have fo u r weeks to sh o o t th e film . A n d I ’d say h a lf o f it is tracking, c ra n in g o r m oving in som e way. 26

• CINE MA

PAPERS

As th e grass on th e bow ling g reen gets sicker, it tu rn s yellow to brow n. At L enny a n d S u e’s house, the g re e n c a rp e t is covered by m agazines a n d clothes an d , as th e film progresses, they g et taken away. In th e b e d ro o m o f th e ir hou se th e re is a g reen b e d sp read w hich is fo lded dow n a t th e b eg in n in g o f th e film, b u t it th e n gradually covers th e bed. So, as th e bow ling g reen dies, th e hou se gets g reen er. T h e re ’s lots o f little things like th a t a n d th ey ’re very subtle. For exam ple, all th e scenes at th e bowls club a n d at th e house are at sunset. B ut the last q u a rte r o f th e film is th e last day an d it starts to dawn. Now, th e sort o f a u d ien ce I ’m h o p in g for is C inem a 8 C am pbelltow n an d th e M anly T rip le —o u t in th e suburbs. A nd I d o n ’t th in k this au d ien ce is g oing to sit a n d p o n d e r th e sem iotics o f th e daw n-and-dusk m otif, b u t I do th in k th a t those elem ents are a p a rt o f your craft. I do th in k p eo p le sub co n sciously feel th a t stuff. I d o n ’t th in k p eo p le p o n d e re d th e sem iotics o f Tin Men an d th e fact th a t th e characters sold alu m in iu m clad d in g - w hich is an am azing m e ta p h o r fo r America - b u t I do th in k au d ien ces w ould have felt th e n a tu re o f den ial in th e ir society. I d o n ’t th in k th a t m akes th e film difficult.

Sue is an unusual character for Australian cinema, let alone a comedy. As a m ale w riter, you g et away w ith w riting fem ale characters th a t are o n e d im en sio n al - this h a p p e n s th ro u g h o u t w orld cinem a. B ut th e m ajority o f this crew are w om en a n d you find really soon th a t you c a n ’t g et away w ith it! You have to fix it. I th in k it’s a b it u n fa ir th a t I have to fix u p my fem ale characters w hen n o o n e else does.

What’s next? Finish this properly. W e still have “P rim e M over” sitting th ere, a n d th e r e ’s a n o th e r sm aller scale p ro ject a b o u t b u sh ran g ers th a t I ’d like to do. O n e o f th e really g o o d things a b o u t this ex p e rie n c e is th a t b efo re I d o n ’t th in k I was ready to do “P rim e M over”; now I feel m u ch m o re co n fid en t. ■1 1. See “An Editor’s Rumination”, p. 3.

O V E R N IG H T S E R V IC E ON IN TER STATE RUSHES? . . .TRY US !!

BE IN FOCUS

GET I NTO YOUR NEW W I F T I S HI FT NOW!

O R I G I N A L DESI GN BY MALCOL M T H O M S O N 1 00% COTTON ONE SIZE FITS ALL • $35 ( N ON - ME MB ERS) • $ 2 5 (MEMBERS)

*7<4eOwi&pjew&ent jßcJßQtodosuf, V ictorian F ilm L aboratories

pty ltd

[SINCE 1959] TELEPHONE (03) 818 0461 FACSIMILE (03) 819 1451 4 GUEST STREET (P. O. BOX 457) HAWTHORN VICTORIA 3122

Sydney’s

F ilm F a ir N O T T O B E M IS S E D !!!! S U N D A Y 9 F E B R U A R Y 1 0 A M -4 P M R A IL W A Y IN S T IT U T E H A L L C E N T R A L R A IL W A Y (C H A L M E R S S T R E E T E N T R A N C E )

films books movie posters videos records memorabilia E V E R Y TH IN G FR O M $ 1 .0 0 B A R G A IN S TO R A R E C O L L E C T IB L E S FR EE S O U V E N IR P R O G R A M M E A D M IS S IO N $ 2 .0 0 (1 0 ^ 1 2 ) $ 1 .0 0 A F T E R 1 2 E N Q U IR IE S (0 2 ) 3 2 8 6 6 9 8

Name:... Address: .Postcode: Number of T-shirts........ □ YES, I would like more information about WIFT. Send your cheque to: WOMEN IN FILM AND TELEVISION 31 Victoria Street, Fitzroy Vic., 3065 Ph: 03 417 3300

CAMERAQ.UIP FILM EQUIPMENT RENTALS (A Wholly Australian Owned Company)

For thebest inARRI camerasin Australiator you next FilmProduction * A R R I 35BL4s * A R R I 35BL3 * AR R I 35III H IG H SPEED *ARRI 16SRII *ARRI 16SRII SUPER 16mm *ARRI 16SRII H IG H SPEED 6 6 TOPE STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3 2 0 5 , AUSTRALIA PHONE:(0 3 )6 9 9 3 9 2 2 F A X :(03)696 2 5 6 4 330 KING GEORGES AVE, SINGAPORE 0820 PHONE:[65] 291 7291 FAX:[65] 293 2141 CINEMA

PAPERS

• 27

m&gm

RAY A R G A L L ’S

ay Argali’* R eturn H ome was the first o f the

acclaimed Australian films of the 1990s. Now, Argali is in post production on his new film, E ioht Ball. Film ed ip M ay antiJune t h is y e t y iB G f t f ^ another human comedy. Charlie is a young architect With seem ingly everything going for him ■ RUssell, the complete o ^ d s i^ i h ^ ju st; been released from prison. Their paths cross when Russell is em ployed to work on Charlie's latest project: the construction of a giant Murray Cod as a tourist attraction for a small, Victorian town. Argali wrote the screenplay with H arry Kirchner and, as with R eturn H ome, the director of photography is M andy Walker, and the editor is Ken Sallows. The cast includes M atthew Fargher (as. Charlie), Paul Stevn (R ussell), with Lucy Sheehan, Frankie J. Holdeni, M atthew Krok, Ollie Hall, Angie M illiken and Desmond Kelly. M A IN PICTURE: CHAI

W FARGHER) WITH A MODEL OF THE BIG FISH.

DIRECTOR A N D CO-W

iRGALL. BELOW LEFT TO RIGHT: RUSSELL (PAUL

-A ND CHARLIE. CHAR

i(E R ^ N K IE J. HOLDEN) DISCUSS THE BIG FISH.

m k' ''

JACQU

Financed by the FFC and Film Victoria, the film shoiiid\be ready for release early in 1992.

i ^ K ^ L N D RUSSELL. JUUE (ANGUE MILLIKEN)

llllf l

A N D CHARLIE. EIGHT BALL.

PHOTO GRA PHS : JENNIFER, K .- MI TC H EL L

§i¡§s3lj

J?l'

wmi

«ÊÊÊÉËÊÊË

mm W ÊÈm È

K H M iiM Ig lp b^MijgfeMBB T *f ! mmMsmèmx&iA lflBM|MlMM|il|ii|l|M||pB ■' , * _______M m

H B §8 r 1 , -fcvP ËÊêÊ^m Ë

the U .S .: N ear Dark, a fascinating Gothic tale of vampires on the road in the wastelands of Am erica. And the director w as — and here critics . usually held their breath in awe — a wom an! “Th a t confuses m e” , says Kathryn Bigelow, the w om an in question,

“only because I don’t

understand w hy. I wish there were more w om en out there, and I also wish

it w e re n ’t such a novelty.

However, I understand h o w it could be unusual.

K athryn

B orn (in 1951) an d raised in San Francisco, Bigelowwas trained in the arts: first in the San Francisco A rt Institute an d th en at the Witney M useum in New York. She fo u n d herself b o red with w hat she now calls “the elitist lim itations” o f traditional visual arts, so, with a group of o th er avant-garde painters an d sculptors, Bigelow started dabbling in film as an expressive m edium . T he passion struck im m ediately, an d lasted. Bigelow enrolled in C olum bia University’s G raduate School of Film, w here she studied u n d e r Milos Form an. In 1978, she com pleted h e r first project, The Set Up, a m uch-praised short film chronicling a violent street-gang con frontation. T h ree years later, Bigelow directed h e r first feature, The Loveless, a stylish bikie movie starring Willem Dafoe. Bigelow’s n ex t film, Near Dark, h ad a troubled post-production. ‘T h e com pany th at m ade it lost its distribution [deal] while we were cutting the m ovie”, recalls Bigelow. “They sold it to Dino de Laurentiis, b u t DEG w ent b a n k ru p t while it was releasing the picture. So, it h a p p en e d twice on the one film! T h a t’s terrifying for a film m aker.” Still, w hen the film finally hit the m ajor m arkets in 1987, it firmly established Bigelow as one o f the m ost prom ising and interesting A m erican film m akers - “n o n-gender specific”, she adds with a mis chievous grin. Blue Steel (1990), a gripping thriller starrin g jam ie Lee Curtis and Ron Silver, and this year’s surfers-on-a-crime-rampage, Point Break (starring PatrickSwayze, in hisfirstpost-G/io5£role, and Keanu Reeves), fu rth er ex p an d ed h e r clout as a stylish action director, who, of course, also h ap p en s to be a w om an, and is m arried to an o th er m aster o f the genre,Jam es C am eron. “It’s funny”, she says. “No one approaches, say, W alter Hill, an d says, ‘W alter, because you’re a m an, how do you make such an d such a m ovie?”’*I

After making Blue Steel, where the female character is the driving narrative force, you chose to do Point Break, which is, essentially, a male-bonding picture. What attracted you to this project? It h ad everything: characters with really great psychological dim en sion, an d an environm ent an d setting which I th o u g h t offered a lot of possibilities. It is aw orld th at h a sn ’t b een seen before. You m ight think you know a lot ab o u t surfing, but, w hen you analyze it u n d e r a m icroscope, it becom es very surprising: tribal, prim al, mythical and rom antic. T he piece also h a d a form at w hereby the visuals could be extraor dinary a n d challenging, which is som ething I always look for. It was a pretty rich canvas to work with.

Did you do a lot o f research into the Californian surfing community? I m et an d talked to som e o f them . They have a really strange spirit and are very spiritual, b u t in a crude, inarticulate way. They d o n ’t com m u nicate verbally an d they’re very Zen - th e re ’s no o th e r way to describe it. It’s like they have evolved to a hig h er state o f consciousness.

Did you uncover any violent strain in the community, such as the one you portray in Point Break? No, no, no. T hey’re n o t violent. In the film, B odhi [Patrick Swayze] says, “I hate violence”, an d th a t’s very im p o rtan t for this character [a mystical m asterm ind who shows Jo h n n y (K eanu Reeves), an FBI agent, a whole new way o f looking at th e world, an d him self]. Surfers are n o t violent people unless they’re p u sh ed into a situa tion. T h ere is certainly a lo t o f aggression o u t on th e water, b u t surfing 32

• CINEMA

PAPERS

"# d o n 't think dire cting is a gender-related jo b .

Perceptions that wom en are b e tte r su ite d to certain types o f m aterial are ju s t ste reotyp e s; th e y 're m e rely lim itations - "

is a singular quest an d personal challenge. They p u t themselves in lifeth reaten in g situations every single day because they love it. They are very surprising.

You certainly portray them with an almost mythological dimension. I look at things n o t in the specific b u t m etaphorically. Politically, it’s really interesting to keep those myths alive, to n o t buy th at grid, that system, w ithout challenging it. Maybe they d o n ’t articulate it, b u t surfers do challenge the system. T h e re ’s a myth here, an A m erican spirit; they’re like cowboys. T h eir lifestyle is also very seductive. You begin to u n d erstan d how they see the universe, why they give up their jo b s a n d a ll th eir m aterial things, get in a car with a surf-board an d drive to the n ex t break. They spend th eir entire lives going toward the n ex t wave.

Did you get a lot of feedback on the fact that you, a female director, were shooting a macho-action film? I h ad people saying th at the audience would never know th at this film was written and directed by a woman! [Laughs.] I d o n ’t think directing is a gender-related jo b . Perceptions th at wom en are better suited to certain types o f m aterial arejust stereotypes; they’re merely limitations.

Would you say, then, that there is a stereotype that women can only direct ‘soft’ material? I d o n ’t really know if that stereotype exists, because so few w om en direct! But if there is that stereotype, it’s perceptual. I can ’tbuy into the clichés. I think the otherw ay around: W hyaren’t m ore w om en m aking this kind o f action material? I ’m curious.

What was the starting point for your previous film, Blue Steel? It all began with the idea of doing a wom an action film. N ot only has no wom an ever d one an action thriller, no w om an has ever been at the centre o f one as the central character. Obviously I was fascinated by that, because I ’m a wom an watching all those action films an d th e re ’s always a m an at the centre. You begin to identify with this m an, with the m ost powerful character. From that takeoff - deciding to p u t a wom an in the centre —we worked o ut w hat the ramifications would be: How was it the same? How was it different? Obviously, w hen a person is fighting for h e r life, for survival, there are universal aspects th at transcend gender. T o what extent is it germ ane to the fact th at she’s a woman? We th en p u t in a serial killer, gave h e r an obstacle and also m ade it a twisted, strange love story.

And for Near Dark? NearDark started because we w anted to do a W estern. B ut as no one will finance a W estern, we thought, “Okay, how can we subvert the genre? L et’s do a W estern b u t disguise it in such a way th at it gets sold as som ething else.” T h en we thought, “Ha, a vam pire W estern!” So, it becam e a w onderful m eld o f two mythologies: the W estern and the vam pire movie. O ne reinforced the other. T h a t sort o f clicked. Again, we cam e up with some characters and th en p u t them in horrible situations to see w hat happened.

TOP: FBI AGENT J O H N N Y UTAH (KEAN U REEVES) MEETS BODHI (PATRICK SWAYZE) IN KATHRYN BIGELOW 'S P O IN T BREAK. BOTTOM: JO H N N Y A N D TYLER (LORI PETTY). PO IN T BREAK.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 33

K ath ryn B ig e lo w J O H N N Y , CENTRE, A N D HIS PARTNER PAPPAS (G ARY BUSEY), LEFT, REPORT TO THEIR BOSS BEN HARPER (JO H N M cG INLEY ). P O IN T BREAK.

m ake a picture look too nice an d distract peo p le from the em otions it has.

Your films show a certain fascination with the subject o f violence. Is that a personal interest o f yours?

Were Anne Rice’s vampire books a big influence in your writing? We w ere aware o f them , but, w hen we were writing, we w ent straight to Bram S to k er’s Dracula. T h e transfusion in the en d com es straight from Dracula. It was really the first m ajor piece of w riting o n th e subject. T h e n o u r effort becam e: How can we red efin e an d reinvent this vam pire m ythology in a way th a t h a sn ’t b een d o n e in writing o r in th e movies? So, first o f all we decid ed n o t to call them vam pires and, second, we took away all th e G othic aspects cashes, bats, silver bullets, crosses, stakes in the heart. O urs are m o d e rn vam pires, A m erican vam pires, o n th e road. I d o n ’t know w hat they are. T h ey ’re creatures o f the night, who m ust d rink b lood to survive. They are ... curious.

What prompted you to make the transition from painting to film? I felt p ain tin g was isolating a n d a litde bit elitist, w hereas film has th e p o ten tial to beco m e an incredible social tool with w hich you can reach a mass audience. Som e p ain tin g requires a certain am o u n t o f know ledge o r ed u catio n o n th e p a rt o f the viewer to b e ap p reciated . Film is n o t like that. It m ustbe accessible to work w ithin a cinem atic context. Given that, th e transition m ad e a lo t o f sense. Film is acces sible, challenging a n d very stylistic, very visual. It works as a narrative a n d I saw it as a k ind o f m o d e rn literature. I t’s a very com plex m ed iu m a n d I love it.

Were you always attracted to directing? I never th o u g h t o f it as ‘d irectin g ’, b u t as a differen t way o f m aking art. First I was d o in g painting, th e n I was m aking movies. Later, I realized th a t w hat I was d o in g was w riting an d directing, being a film m aker. B ut I reallyjustsaw it as sw itching m edium s, from the w orld o f a rt to m ainstream m ovie-making.

Does your art training help in the visual stylization o f your films? It is im p o rtan t, b u t I am draw n m ainly to story an d characters. T h a t’s th e m ost im p o rta n t thing; th e visuals com e easily. W ith my training, I can obsess o n th e visuals forever, an d I do w ork o n that; I draw every sh o t befo re we start film ing. B ut I focus m o re o n th e story an d character, because th a t is w hat n eeds the work. N o m a tte r how b eautiful a film looks, th e m ost im p o rtan t th in g is th a t th e a u d ien ce conn ects with th e characters. You can 34

• CINEMA

PAPERS

I d o n ’t know. It’s n o t necessarily a personal fascination, th o u g h I do like intensity in movies. I like high-im pact movie-making. I t’s challenging, provocative. It m akes you think. It upsets you a litde. I ’m ju s t n o t draw n to m aterial th at m akes you feel good constantly. I d o n ’t know why. Ijustlove to see action films by G eorge Miller, Sam P eckinpah, M artin Scorsese, [James] C am eron, W alter Hill. T hese are g reat film m ak ers. It’s high-im pact with em otional involvem ent. I ’m also draw n to strong, dark characters you believe in a n d care about. I like p u ttin g characters in very intense situations, which are an organic extension o f those char acters an d th at story. Take th e ro ad h o u se scene o f Near Dark. I know it is a very violent scene, b u t I co u ld n ’t im agine portraying those characters w ithout th at scene, w ithout showing how they live. T h a t is the tru th o f th eir life. I th o u g h t it was critical to th e picture. In Blue Steel, the guy is a serial killer. H e ’s n o t som eone w hojust waves his gun aro u n d . H e ’s a seriously d eran g ed h u m an being. You n e e d th e tru th o f his character, his psychosis. So, I guess I believe in violence as a way to portray a character or a story faithfully. T h a t d o e sn ’t preclu d e soft, em otional m ate rial th at has n o violence. It’s ju st th at th e p articu lar stories I ’ve chosen are very intense.

Do you believe there is a feminine way of expressing violence in film? I d o n ’t th in k th e re ’s a fem inine way o f expressing violence or dealing with it. T h e re ’s only ju st th e film m aker’s approach. I d o n ’t th in k it’s g e n d e r specific. V iolence is violence. Survival is survival. I d o n ’t th in k th e re ’s a fem inine eye o r a fem inine voice. You have two eyes, an d you look in th ree dim ensions a n d in a full range o f colour. So can everybody. W hat ab o u t a w o m an ’s b ackground would m ake th at vision different? In all my films, my characters, m ale an d fem ale, are fighting for th e ir lives. T h a t’s a h u m an thing.

As you said, women are still a minority when it comes to directing - especially directing their own scripts. But there have been a few changes this year, with important films like Thelma & Louise, The Doctor and Rambling Rose being written or directed by women. What, in your opinion, would be necessary for a major change in Hollywood’s gender bias? M ore w om en have to w ant to m ake movies. Maybe th e desire is n o t there, because I have always believed th a t w here th e re ’s a will, th e re ’s a way. I d o n ’t believe in tokenism . I t’s n o t a m atter o f the industry saying, “Okay, we w ant m o re w om en d irectors.” A w om an an d a m an should w ork u n d e r th e sam e deg ree o f resistance. In o th e r words, it should be based o n th eir projects a n d w hat they have to show b e h in d them . W om en have to realize very early o n th a t every conceivable occupation is o p en to them . I c a n ’t th in k o f anything th a t w ould n o t be o p en to a w om an. So, it’s an educational thing. As babies, girls are given certain toys, boys are given certain toys, a n d certain instincts are developed an d b ecom e en coded. If you ju s t realize th a t anything is possible ... it is! ■

SOUNDTRACKS

THE TOPFRENCHFILM OF THEYEAR. — Derek Malcolm. London Guardian

‘DANCES W ITN LIFE. A winning performance from Hippolyte Girardot’

N E W & U N U S U A L S O U N D T R A C K R EC O R D I N G S FROM OUR LARGE RA NG E

— The Times, London

‘W E BEST FILM OF W E YEAR/

Hook • John W illia m s • $30.00

— Cinema Papers

Ja w s 2 • John W illia m s • $30.00

‘A TRIUM PH . ,

cooI to the end.

Words & M usic / Belle of N e w York / Deep In M y Heart

An extremely charming romantic comedy. ’

The Pirate / Two Weeks With Love / I Love M elvin

— David Denby, New York Magazine

Complete Scores First Tim e on CD • $30.00 each

‘STYLISH AND ENORMOUSLY WITTY*

Prince Of tides • N e w Streisand Soundtrack • $30.00 For The Boys • N e w Bette M id le r Soundtrack • $30.00 The Robe • A lfre d New m an • $30.00

Enjoyable, fresh. excellent. ’ . — Time Out, London

‘WONDERFUL HUM OUR

From Russia With Love • John B arry • $30.00 Crossing The Line • Ennio M orricone • $30.00 Ricochet • A la n S ilve stri • $30.00

and lightness of touch.’ — The Independent, London w ritte n a n d d ire c te d b y ERIC ROCHANT sta rrin g HIPPOLYTE GIRARDOT a n d M1REIUE PERRIER

Legends of Hollyw ood - Franz Waxman Vol 2. Queensland Sym phony • $30.00

READINGS • SOUTH YARRA OPEN7 DAYSAWEEK 153 TOORAK ROAD « 867 1885 • BOOKS /LPS/ CDS/CASSETTES 73-75 DAVIS AVENUE • 866 5877 • SECONDHAND LPS/CDS/CASSETTES

A VORLD

VITHOUT PITY UN

MONDE

SANS

PITIE

COMMENCES JAN 24

OTHER STORES

V A LH ALLA

366 LYGON STREET CARLTON 347 7473 • 269 GLENFERRIE ROAD MALVERN 509 1952 710 GLENFERRIE ROAD HAWTHORN 819 1917

189 High Street Northcote 482 2001 i

MELBOURNE

The m ost strikin g French d e b u t o f th e ye a r. U niv e rs a lly p ra is e d and m u lti-a w a rd w in n e r, A W O R L D W IT H O U T PITY has d ra w n c o m p a ris o n w ith th e e a rly w o rk s o f th e g r e a t " N e w W a v e " d ire c to rs T ru ffa u t a n d C h a b ro l. H ip p o d o e s n 't b e lie v e in G o d , n o r in a b rig h t fu tu re , n o r in th e E u ro p e a n M a rk e t. H e has no d re a m s , no id e a ls , no pro je cts. The o n ly th in g th a t m ake s life w o rth livin g is love. R ele ase d b y FILM W A Y S

( m ) 15+

COMMENCES MARCH V A LH ALLA I i1166 Glebe Point Rd Glebe 660 80501

Check 016 *ge and Sydney Morning Herald for screening details.

SYDNEY

M AIL ORDER • P 0 BOX 482 SOUTH YARRA VIC. 3141

• The only one in the business th at picks her ow n gutters, e d d ie c a n t o r • I'd w orship the ground she w a lk s on, if only she lived in a better neighbour hood. k a r l m a r x • Bitch! m a r i a k o z ic • D o yo u suppose I could buy back m y introduction to her? groucho m arx • She's gotta have it; she's gonna get it! s p ik e lee • On the w h o le I'd rather be in Philadelphia, w.c. fields

CLASSIC MOVIES, BOOKS

BAD REPUTATION GREAT RESULTS MICHE F I L M

from "THE GOLDEN YEARS'"

BONETT

R E S E A R C H

S T O C K IM A G E R E S E A R C H F O R F E A TU R E F IL M S , D O C U M E N T A R IE 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 ID E O A N D T V C O M M E R C IA L S 244

WAVERLEY

TELEPHONE

and MEMORABILIA

ROAD

EAST

MALVERN

(03)

563

643 1 FAX

PAGER

483

4444

#450

(03)

VIC

3145

808

4923

MAIL ORDERS WELCOME Shop 2, 199 Toorak Road, South Yarra, Vic.

Tel. (03) 826 3008

373

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 35

â&#x2013;

CINEMA

PAPER'S

LEFT: Y O R A M GROSS. PHO TO : ROBERT McFARLANE. A BO VE, LEFT TO RIGHT: DOT A N D FRIENDS IN DO T A N D THE K A N G A R O O (1 9 7 7 ). ROLF HARRIS (CENTRE) AS THE OLD STORYTELLER, W ITH G O VERNO R LIGHTFOOT A N D AUG USTA. THE LITTLE

C ON VICT (1 9 7 9 ). S AN TA CLAUS A N D DOT IN A R O U N D THE WORLD WITH DO T (1 9 8 2 ).

YORAM

GROSS

PROLIFIC

FEATURE

PERHAPS

AUSTRALIA’S

FILMMAKER.

OVER THE

MOST PAST

DECADE OR SO, GROSS HAS PRODUCED ABOUT A DOZEN ANIMATED FEATURES. THIS MAY COME AS NO SURPRISE GIVEN TH A T ONE IS DEALING WITH ANIMA TION, BUT THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HANDS-ON WORK EACH ANIMATED FEATURE REQUIRES MAKES TH A T AN EXTRAORDINARY ACCOMPLISHMENT.

A Raffaele Caputo Reports

■ ■

t th e age o f 20, Yoram Gross was o ne o f th e first students A to atte n d the newly-formed Polish Film Institute, fo u n d e d by th e ren o w n ed Jerzy Toeplitz. Gross later g ained d irect film m aking experien ce as an assistant to such Polish directors as Eugeniusz Cekalski an d L eon Buczkowski, an d to D utch d irecto r Joris Ivens. Gross m oved to Israel in 1950, w here he fu rth e re d his career as a scriptw riter, p ro d u c e r an d director. B efore arriving in Aus tralia in 1969, his films includedJoseph theDreamer, OnePound Only and the award-winning Chansons sans Paroles. B eginning at h o m e in the early 1970s, Gross co n tin u ed to develop his specialist tech n iq u e o f com bining live-action back

g ro u n d with anim ation, a style h e began experim enting with in Israel. H e was aw arded prizes at the Sydney Film Festival for his sh o rt films The Politicians an d To Nefretiti in 1970 an d 1971 re spectively. Having at this tim e also form ed the Yoram Gross Film Studios - a far cry from the fully-equipped studio it is today—Gross h ad to com pete in Australia and abroad with such well-established p ro d u ctio n houses as Disney an d H anna-B arbera. T h a t h e has m anaged to do so, an d pro d u ce work which has b een acknowl edged worldwide, is a tribute to his resilience an d vision. Since th e inception o f the Yoram Gross Film Studios, the com bination o f live and anim ated action has b een its tradem ark, let alone testim ony of a personal signature. Yet, it is probable th at no o th e r film catapulted this technique to landm ark com m ercial pro p o rtio n s than Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) by R obert Zemeckis and R ichard Williams. This, however, in no way belittles th e quality o r insightfulness o f the w ork p ro d u ced by Yoram Gross. T h e Studios’ o u tp u t still rem ains successfully m arketed u n d e r the b a n n e r o f “family en te rta in m e n t” (m ore so overseas th an in A ustralia), and o ne can assum e this success is in p a rt due to the fact th at because anim ated feature films are so labour intensive, as well as expensive, the technique o f com bining the two “realities” is a carefully considered econom ic requirem ent. But this is really only half the picture. If a Gross feature looks q u ain t in com parison to the sophistication o f a Roger Rabbit, th at is m erely a prelim inary, k n e e je rk reaction. A Gross feature com pensates by the distinctiveness with which each feature goes ab o u t com bining the realities of live-action an d anim ation, often

Yoram Gross interw eaving a n u m b e r o f artistic an d cinem atic forms. T h e experience o f viewing a Gross feature m akes fo r som e u n expected a n d w orthw hile pursuits into areas o f film ex p erim en tatio n that the alm ost perfectly seam less in teg ratio n o f live an d anim ated action in Roger Rabbit could n o t allow to envisage. Gross’ tech n iq u e ten d s to have a definite an d com plex affinity with film practices o f th e 1920s, w hen ex p erim en tatio n with the m ed iu m was rife am o n g p ain ters a n d m usicians especially. A go o d deal o f G ross’ films te n d to take u p th e practices o f “direct film ” (n o t to b e confused with th e “d irect cin em a” m ovem ent of th e 1960s). Sarah, fo r instance, utilizes W orld W ar II footage an d this 38

• CINEMA

PAPERS

seem s etch ed with figures approxim ating soldiers going into battle. T h e exam ple rem inds o ne o f the graphic cinem a o f Len Lye, a New Zealander, who incidentally cam e to A ustralia in thè 1920s to learn anim ation before m oving to L ondon. It was Lye w ho coined th e term “d irect film ”, an d was o n e o f the first to ex p erim en t with the tech n iq u e o f directly applying paint, draw ing o r etching on the film stock. T h e significant aspect o f this technique as practised by Lye is th at it by-passed the p h o to g rap h ic process. For Gross, however, the pho to g rap h ic process is certainly n o t o n e to reject. In this respect, if one takes a film like Epic, Gross has closer affinities with th e works of F ern an d L éger o r H ans R ichter. T h e graphic figures an d shapes or surroundings o f jEjbicsometimes take on abstract dim ensions o f th e calibre th at take the film fram e as a prim e condition fo r creating effects - m oving horizontally, vertically a n d in d ep th , while synchronizing th e m ovem ents to music.

TOP R O W , LEFT TO RIGHT: SARAH (M IA FARROW) A N D FRIEND IN S AR AH (1 9 8 3 ). DOT A N D THE B U N N Y IN DOT A N D THE B U N N Y (1 9 8 4 ). ALI A N D B IN TA , THE BABY CAMEL, IN THE

CAMEL B O Y (1 9 8 4 ). BENITTA COLLINS A N D DINGOES IN EPIC ( 1 9 8 5 ).

In Dot and the Whale, th ere are points in the film w here the com binatio n o f live an d an im ated m aterial is com posed with the fram e as th o u g h it were a collage o r Cubist painting. T h e contours a n d planes are so d em arcated th a t th e shapes cut away th eir rep resen tatio n al a n c h o r an d te n d to b atd e fo r th e space o f th e fram e. As a w hole, the fram e has a sense o f com pleteness, b u t the m aterials form a conflicting relationship with o n e a n o th e r th at goes half-way into abstraction. Most o f all, however, from Dot and the Kangaroo to th e ju s t released The Magic Riddle, th e liveaction figure a n d / o r b ack g ro u n d magically tu rn s in to its ani m ated equivalent (and back a g a in ), which, as o n e o f the m ajor objectives o f ex p erim en tal cinem a, signals th e process itself, and confers th e m u ltitu d e o f form al possibilities th a t are o p e n e d up. But, it should also be em phasized, Gross featu re films are n o t only a vagary o f possibilities o f th e plastic arts, they also tell stories, an d significant ones. T hese stories are m osdy fo r child ren with an indisputable ed ucational p urpose. T hus, th e films cross over into

BOTTOM R O W , LEFT TO RIGHT: A M INIA TURIZE D DOT A N D HER PAL, KEETO THE M O S Q U ITO , IN DOT A N D KEETO (1 9 8 6 ). DOT A N D THE KOALA (1 9 8 6 ). DOT A N D HER FRIEND, NEPTUNE THE D O LPH IN , IN DOT A N D THE WHALE (1 9 8 6 ). D O T A N D THE SMUGGLERS (1 9 8 7 ). DO T GOES

TO HO LLYW OO D (1 9 8 7 ). THE M AGIC RIDDLE (1 9 9 1 ).

the area o f docum entary. T h e live-action an d anim ated com bina tion has the desired purpose o f weaving fictional-mythical elem ents with real elem ents in the subject o f a lesson. Stories are often suspended as the film takes off into w ondrous journeys ab o u t sea life, for exam ple, o r wild-life birth, and so on. W ith Yoram Gross o ne could certainly form an interesting typology o f experim ental techniques an d purposes. It should rem em b ered , after all, th at p a rt o f his career is g ro u n d e d in experim ental cinem a, for w hich h e has w on awards. W hat is astonishing is th at Gross has n o t taken the p a th to self-destruction (as so m any experim ental artists have before him ) in approaching an d firmly establishing him self in th e com m ercial sector. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 39

YO R A M

G R O SS:

F IL M O G R A P H Y

M a n y of G r o s s ’ f ilm s h a v e had title c h a n g e s d u r i n g p r o d u c t i o n , a fact w h ic h ha s c a u s e d s o m e c o n f u s i o n as to the e x a c t n u m b e r of fea tu res the Y o r a m G r o s s S t u d io s ha s p r o d u c e d . F o r e x a m p le , the E n c o r e D ir e c t o r y 1991 lists C in d e r e lla ’s S e c re t a s a 1988 p r o d u c t i o n a n d T h e M a g ic R id d le a s a 1990 p r o d u c t i o n . T h e t w o are in fact the s a m e p r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h w a s re lea se d th is ye a r. P u b lis h e d b e lo w is a c o m p le t e f i lm o g r a p h y of feature f ilm s m a d e in A u s tr a lia b y the Y o r a m G r o s s S t u d io s . It s e e k s to c le a r the c o n f u s i o n , n o tin g f o r m e r titles a n d , w h e r e a p p lic a b le , a lte rn a tive o n e s .

1977

Sound editor: Rod Hay. Mixers: Phil

Anim ation director: Ray N ow land.

S z e m e n y e i. A n im ators: N ic h o la s

DOT AND THE KANGAROO

Heywood, Julian Ellingworth. 80 mins.

Storyboard and character d esign :

Harding, Ray Nowland, Kevin Roper.

Nicholas Harding, Athol Henry, Ray

Assistant animators: Astrid Brennan,

Nowland, Andrew Szemenyei. Layouts:

Maria Brinkley, Marian Brooks, Diane

D irector: Yoram G ross. P roducer: Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer, Yoram Gross. Based on the book, The

Exciting Adventures of Dot & the Kanga roo, by Ethel Pedley. Director o f pho tography: Frank Hammond (live-action), Graham Sharpe (animation). Art direc tor: Sandra Gross. Editors: Rod Hay, Klaus Jaritz. Composer: Bob Young. Lyrics: Marion von Adlerstein, Bob Young. Songs perform ed by: George Assang, Kerrie Biddell, John Derum, Barbara Frawley, Kevin Golsby, Ross Higgins, N ola Lester, Spike Milligan, June Salter, Sue Walker. Sound record ists: P h il Judd (d ia lo g u e), M aurie Winnore (music). Mixer: Phil Judd. 70 mins.

Anim ation director: Paul McAdam. Character design: Athol Henry, Paul McAdam. Storyboard: Laurie Sharpe. Background layouts: Amber Vellani. Casting: Richard Meikle. Animators: Athol Henry, John H ill, Cynthia Leech, W al L o g u e, P au l M cA dam , Ray Nowland, Vivien Ray, Irena Slapczynski, Kay Watts. Inbetweeners: Mark Benvenuti, Maria Brinkley, JanD’Silva, Rodney D’Silva, Dianne Farrington, Wal Logue, H elen McAdam, Kay W atts, Milan Z ahorski. C o lo u r d esign : C arm el L en n on . P ain ters: N an cy A nning, Christopher Cole, Kim Craste, Ruth Edelman, Gail Engel, Murray Griffin, Seiko Kanda, Jane Kinny, Chris Long, Sue Mason, Krystyna Mikita, Belinda Price, W ende Weis.

Character design and storyboard: Laurie Sharpe. Animators: Sue Beak, Cam Ford, Peter Gardiner, Rowl Greenhalg, Athol Henry, Greg Ingram, Richard Jones, Wal Logue, Peter Luschwitz, Vivienne Ray, Laurie Sharpe, Richard Slapczyniski. Casting: Richard Meikle. Director o f voices: Mary Madgwick.

Voices: Sean H inton (Toby), Kerry McGuire (Polly), Paul Bertram (Silly Billy), Shane Porteous (Jack Doolan), Harry Lawrence (Dipper), Gary Marika (Wahroonga), Anne Haddy (Augusta), Brian Harrison (Big G eorge), Paul Ber tram (Corporal Weazel Wesley), Gary Files (Governor Lightfoot), Richard

Voices: Spike Milligan, Lola Brooks,

M eikle (Sergeant B ully L an gd en ),

Joan Bruce, Barbara Frawley, Peter

Ronald Falk (Pertwee).

Gwynne, Ron Haddrick, Ross Higgins, Richard Meikle, June Salter. Synopsis: Dot, the little daughter o f a settler in an isolated part o f the Austral ian outback, becom es lost in the bush, and is rescued by a friendly kangaroo, who teaches her about the bush ani mals, before safely returning her home. © Yoram Gross Film Studios. Completed: 1977. 1979 THE LITTLE KANGAROO D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer: Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Ray Nowland. Backgrounds: Amber

Farrington, Eva H elisch er, Brenda

Ellis, Abignew Dromirecki (Kolorkraft

McKie, Paul Marron, Kaye Watts. Addi

L ab oratory). A nim ators: N ich o la s

tional animation: Irena Slapczynski, Ty

H arding, A thol H enry, Joh n H ill,

Bosco. Colour design: Susan Speer.

Cynthia Leech, Paul Marron, Chris Minos, Ray Nowland, Kevin Roper, Andrew Szemenyei, Kaye Watts. Assis tant animators: Lynda Amos, Elizabeth Goodwin, Lyn Hennessy, Ted Hennessy, Tony Hill, Sharyn Jackson, I. B. Kazda, Boris Koslov, Ginnady Koslov, Babetta Latooy, Svetlana Lin, Glen Lovett, Narelle N eils, Dagmar Persan, Ann Rossell, Vaclav Smejkial, Robyn Smith,

Voices: Joan Bruce, John Faassen, Ron Haddrick, Shane Porteous. Cast: Mia Farrow (Sarah). Synopsis: The story o f a young girl, Sarah, who escapes from her war-tom Polish village and takes refuge in the forests, where she joins the struggle against the enemy.

Michael Sutton, Jeanette Tom s, Maria

Venness, Brace Warner, Fiona Warner, Olga Zahorsky.

Completed: February 1983. 1984

Voices: DrewForsythe, Barbara Frawley,

DOT AND THE BUNNY

R on H addrick, Anne H addy, R oss Higgins.

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Cast: DrewForsythe (Santa Claus).

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer. Based on an original idea by Yoram

Synopsis: The continuing adventures o f Dot and her search for the missingjoey. Dot m eets with a hobo in her outback hom e town, the hobo becom es Santa Claus, and takes Dot on a wonderful ad ven tu re w itn e ssin g the variou s

Gross. Animation photography: Jenny O c h se , G raham S h a rp e. E ditor: Christopher Plowright. Composer: Bob Young. Lyrics: A. B. (Banjo) Paterson, John Palmer. Sung by: Barbara Frawley, Ross Higgins, Robyn Moore. Sound re

Cast: R olf Harris.

Christmas ceremonies around the world.

Synopsis: The story o f 13-year-old Toby,

Film. Sound editor: Tomas Pokom y.

the youngest convict to be deported to

Completed: May 1982.

Mixer: Peter Fenton. 81 mins.

Australia from England, and his friend

Animation director: Athol Henry. Ani

ship with Wahroonga, an Aboriginal boy,

1983

and a pet koala, Yo-Yo.

SARAH

cordist: Black Inc Recorders, Sound on

mators: Ty Bosco, John Burge, Ariel Ferrari, Murray G riffin , N ich o la s

[aka: Sarah and the Squirrel zndThe Sev

enth Match]

Harding, Eva Helischer, Athol Henry, Lianne Hughes, Victor Johnson, Cynthia

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Leech, Chris Minos, Pere van Reyk, Laurie Sharpe, Eva Szabo, Szabolos

1982

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

AROUND THE WORLD WITH DOT

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: Yoram Gross.

Szabo, Andrew Szemenyei.

[formerly Dot and Santa Claus and

Based on an original story by Yoram

Voices: Barbara Frawley, Ron Haddrick,

The Further Adventures of Dot and the Kangaroo]

Gross. Animation photography: Jenny

Anne H addy, R oss H iggins, Robyn

Ochse, Bob Evans. Animation camera

Moore.

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Based on an original story by Yoram

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Gross. Lighting: Madd Lighting. Live-

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer,

action photography: Brian Probyn, Chris

Yoram Gross. Based on original story

Ashbrook, Frank Hammond. Animation

by Yoram Gross. Photography: John

photography: Jenny O chse, Bob Evans,

Barnard, Chris Ashbrook. Animation

Graham Sharpe, T ed Northover. Ward

photography: Jenny Ochse, Bob Evans.

robe: Judith Dorsman. Editor: Rod Hay.

Editors: D es H o m e , C olin Waddy,

Composer: Bob Young. Lyrics: R olf

Jennifer Kretzschmar, Chris Plowright.

Harris, Harry Butler, Barry Booth, John

Composer: Bob Young. Lyrics: John

P a lm er, D avey & H u g h es, Frank

P alm er. Su n g by: D rew F orsythe,

operator: Jenny O chse. Director o f photography (NewYork): LloydFreidus. Wardrobe (for Mia Farrow): Marsha

Cast: Anna Quinn. Synopsis: The adventures o f D ot as she

Patten. Art director: Athol Henry. Edi

continues her search for the missing

tor: C hristopher Plow right. Music:

joey, amidst the native flora and fauna

Vivaldi’s Four Seasons. Perform ed by: I

o f the Australian bush. During the course

Musici. Music for clarinet perform ed

o f her search she is constantly con

by: Giora Feidman. Sound recordist

fronted by a little rabbit who is desper

(N.Y.): Gary Rich. Mixer: Phil Judd. 80

ately faying to be recognized as a kanga

mins.

roo in order to be a protected species.

Animation director: Athol Henry. Back

D ot’s encounters with the rabbit prove to be highly amusing.

R oosen . Songs p erform ed by: R olf

Barbara Frawley, Ross Higgins. Sound

ground layouts: Athol H em y, Amber

Harris. Sound recordists: Phil Judd,

recordists: John H ollingworth, John

V ellani. Principal animators: Athol

Laurie Napier, David McConnachie.

Franks. Mixer: Martin Benge. 80 mins.

H en ry,

Completed: February 1984.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

C yn thia

L e e c h , A n d rew

one

BACK ISSUES: A

G U I D E

CINEMA

W H A T ' S

PAPERS

A V A I L A B L E

NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974):

David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that A te Paris. NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974):

Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, 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 O f Eskimo 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 Show Man. NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977)

Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John Scott, Days O f Hope, The Getting O f Wisdom. NUMBER 13 ( JULY 1977)

Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search O f Anna. NUMBER 14 (OCTOBER 1977)

Phil Noyce, M att Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John Huston, Luke’s Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady. NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978)

Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan cinema, T he Irishman, The Chant O f Jimmie Blacksmith. NUMBER 16 ( APRIL-JUNE 1978)

Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The Africa Project, Swedish cinema, Dawn!, Patrick.

NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980)

NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984)

Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, obituary of Hitchcock, NZ film industry, Grendel Grendel Grendel.

Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh 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 Timing, Roadgames.

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

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 36 (FEBRUARY 1982)

NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985)

Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, Blow Out, Breaker Morant, Body Heat, The Man From Snowy River.

Stephen Wallace, Ian Pringle, Walerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill Conti, Brian May, The Last Bastion, Bliss.

NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982)

Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo, Winners, The Naked Country, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms.

Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama, Monkey Grip. NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982)

Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Far East.

NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978)

Bill Bain, Isabelle H uppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The Prowler.

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 O f The Never Never.

John Lamond, Sonia Borg, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy’s Child.

NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982)

NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979)

Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sards, sponsored documentaries, Blue Fin.

Henri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray Barrett, My Dinner With Andre, The Return O f Captain Invincible. NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982)

NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979)

Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French cinema, My Brilliant Career.

Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The Tear O f Living Dangerously. NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983)

NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979)

Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thoms, Stax, Alison’s Birthday

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

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 Hear Tou.

NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980)

NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)

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

David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lambert, a personal history of Cinema Papers, Street Kids.

NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980)

NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)

Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, Water Under The Bridge.

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

NUMBER 51 (M AY 1985)

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 O f The Kelly Gang. NUMBER 63 (M AY 1987)

Gillian Armstrong, Antony Ginnane, Chris Haywood, Elmore Leonard, Troy Kennedy Martin, The Sacrifice, Landslides, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Jilted. NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987)

Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, Mel Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian TrenchardSmith, Chartbusters, Insatiable.

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 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987)

Angela Carter, Wim Wenders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Derek Jarman, Gerald L’Ecuyer, Gustav Hasford, AFI Awards, Poor M an’s Orange.

NUMBER 53 (SEPTEMBER 1985)

Bryan Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, Return To Eden.

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 54 (NOVEMBER 1985)

Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, rock videos, Wills A n d Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster Miller Affair. NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986)

James Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian Thompson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, tie-in marketing, The RightH and Man, Birdsville.

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 Voice Broke, Send A Gorilla. NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988)

Martha Ansara, Channel 4, Soviet Cinema, Jim McBride, Glamour, Ghosts O f The Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean.

NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986)

Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, DeadEnd Drive-In, The More Things Change, Kangaroo, Tracy.

NUMBER 69 (M AY 1988)

Special Cannes issue, film composers, sex, death and family films, Vincent Ward, Luigi Acquisto, David Parker, production barometer, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes.

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 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 Sperm and Sweat

FI L M V I E W S AVAILABLE BACK OF BEYOND

NUMBER 123 AUTUM N 1985

1984 W om en’s Film Unit, Solrun Hoaas, Louise Webb, Scott Hicks, Jan Roberts

DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION

NUMBER 124 WINTER 1985

LIMITED NUMBER o f the beautifully

Merata Mita, Len Lye, M arken Gorris, Daniel Petrie, Larry Meitzer NUMBER 125 SPRING 1985

designed catalogues especially prepared for

Rod Webb, M arken Gorris, Ivan Gaal, Red Matildas , Sydney Film Festival

the 1988 season o f Australian film and

NUMBER 127 AUTUM N 1986

television at the UCLA film and television

Jane Oehr, John Hughes, Melanie Read, Philip Brophy, Gyula Gazdag, Chile:

archive in the U .S. are now available for sale in

Hasta Cuando? NUMBER 128 WINTER 1986

Australia. Edited by Scott Murray, and with exten

Karin Altmann, Tom Cowan, Gillian Coote, Nick Torrens, David Bradbury, Margaret Haselgrove, Karl Steinberg

sively researched articles by several o f Australia’s

NUMBER 129 SPRING 1986

leading writers on film and television, such as Kate

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 AUTUM N 1987

Richard Lowenstein, New Japanese Cinema, Ken Russell, Richard Chataway 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, W om en o f th e W ave; Ross Gibson, F o rm a tiv e

NUMBER 134 SUMMER 1987/88

L andscapes; Debi Enker, C ross-over a n d C o lla b o ra tio n :

Film Music, Groucho’s Cigar, Jerzy Domaradzki, H ong Kong Cinema, The Films o f Chris Marker, David Noakes, The

K e n n e d y M iller, Scott Murray, G eorge M iller; Scott

Devil in the Flesh, How the West Was Lost

Murray, T erry H ayes; Graeme Turner, M ix in g F a ct

NUMBER 135 AUTUM N 1988

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 ■

a n d F ictio n ; Michael Leigh, C u rio u ser a n d C u rio u ser; Adrian Martin, N u r tu r in g th e N ext W ave. The Back o f B ey o n d Catalogue is lavishly illus trated with more than 130 photographs, indexed, and has full credit listings for some 80 films. PRICE: $24.95, including postage and packaging.

NUMBER 72 (MARCH 1989)

Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit, Australian Sci-Fi movies, Survey: 1988 Mini-Series, Aromarama, Ann Turner’s Celia, Fellini’s La dolce vita, W omen and Westerns NUMBER 73 (M AY 1989)

Cannes Issue, Phil Noyce’s Dead Calm, Franco Nero, Jane Campion, Ian Pringle’s The Prisoner of St. Petersburg, Frank Pierson - Scriptwriter, Australian films at Cannes, Pay TV. NUMBER 74 (JULY 1989)

The Delinquents, Australians in Holly wood, Chinese Cinema, Philippe Mora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, True Believers, Ghosts... of the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay. NUMBER 75 (SEPTEMBER 1989)

Sally Bongers, The Teen Movie, Animated, Edens Lost, Mary Lambert and Pet Sematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman. NUMBER 76 (NOVEMBER 1989)

Simon Wincer and Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok Hilton, John Duigan, Flirting, Romero, Dennis Hopper 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.

Lover, Michel Ciment, Jack Clayton, Bangkok Hilton and Barlow and Chambers NUMBER 80 (AUGUST 1990)

Cannes report, Fred Schepisi career interview, Peter Weir and Greencard, Pauline Chan, Gus Van Sant and Drugstore Cowboy, German Stories. NUMBER 81 (DECEMBER 1990)

Ian Pringle Isabelle Eberhardt, Jane Campion An Angel A t My Table, Martin Scorsese Goodfellas, Alan J. Pakula Presumed Innocent NUMBER 82 (MARCH 1991)

Francis Ford Coppola The Godfather Part III, Barbet Schroeder Reversal of Fortune, Bruce Beresford’s Black Robe, Ramond Hollis Longford, Backsliding, Bill Bennetts, Sergio Corbucci obituary. NUMBER 83 (M AY 1991)

Australia at Cannes, Gillian Armstrong: The Last Days at Chez Nous, Joathan Demme: The Silence of the Lambs, Flynn, Dead To The World, Marke Joffe’s Spotswood, Anthony Hopkins NUMBER 84 (AUGUST 1991)

James Cameron: Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Dennis O ’Rourke: The Good Woman of Bangkok, Susan Dermody: Breathing Under Water, Cannes report including Australia at Cannes, Film Finance Corporation, Festivals reports. NUMBER 85 (NOVEMBER 1991)

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

Jocelyn Moorhouse: Proof, Blake Edwards: Switch, Callie Khouri: Thelma & Louise; Independent Exhibition and Distribution in Australia, FFC Part II. ■

I NTERNA TI ONA L RATES

CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTIONS I wish to subscribe for

6 Issues

12 Issues

18 Issues

Back Issues

1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

Add to Price per copy

Surface

36.00

65.00

97.00

1.20

Air

48.00

90.00

136.00

3.35 Surface

□ 6 issues at $28.00 Zone 1:

□ 12 issues at $52.00 □ 18 issues at $78.50

N ew Zealand Niugini

Please □ begin □ renew

my subscription from the next issue

Total C o st_______________

Surface

Malaysia

36.00

65.00

97.00

1.20

Fiji

Air

Singapore

42.00

77.00

116.00

2.25 Surface

Zone 2:

Surface

H on g Kong

36.00

69.00

102.00

1.20

India

Air

Japan

59.00

112.00

168.00

5.15

Surface

Zone 3:

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

Philippines

1. BACK OF BEYOND: DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILMANDTELEVISION

China Surface

Surface

U SA

37.00

67.00

101.00

1.40

Canada

Air

Middle East

65.00

125.00

187.00

6.20

Surface

68.00

187.00

1.50

Zone 4:

I wish to order__________ no. o f copies □ $24.95 per copy (Includes Postage) Total Cost $ ______________

Zone 5: U K /E u rop e

2. BACK ISSUES

37.00

Africa

Air

South America

71.00

136.00

205.00

7.20

I wish to order the following back issues □ CINEMA PAPERS Issue nos.

□ 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 □ 7 or more copies @ $3.00 each

COMPANY ADDRESS^

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

home ________

_w O R K _____________

Enclosed is my cheque for $ or please debit my □ BANKCARD □ MASTERCARD

□ VISACARD

Card N o _________ _______________________________ Expiry Date______________ _______________________

NB.

AT T.

OVERSEAS ORDERS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY

BANK DRAFTS IN AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS ONLY

Signature------------------------------------------------------------

1984

Voices: Ross Higgins, Robyn Moore,

Griffen, Joanna Fryer, Greg Farrugia.

Rod Hay. Composer: Guy Gross. Lyr

THE CAMEL BOY

Benitta Collins

Painters: Robyn Drayton, Mimi Intal,

ics: John Palmer, Bob Young, Chris

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

C orallee M unro, Joseph Cabatuan.

Harriott. Sound editor: Rod Hay. Mixer:

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Synopsis: An exciting and magical jour

Backgrounds: Amber Ellis. Graphics:

Phil Judd. 75 mins.

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

ney in search o f the secret o f life. This

E ric D a v id . S p e c ia l f x p ain tin g:

Based on an original idea by Yoram

is the story o f a journey o f battle with

Christiane van der Casseyen, Jeanette

Gross. Photography: Graham Sharpe,

the spirit o f earth, fire and wind.

Tom s.

Voices: Robyn M oore, Keith Scott.

Jenny Ochse. Editors: Philippe Vignes, Christopher Plowright. Composer: Bob Young. Lyrics: John Palmer. Sung by: R obyn M oore. S ou n d editor: Ray Thomas. Mixer: Peter Fenton. 75 mins.

Animation director: Jacques Muller. Animators:Jacques Muller, Athol Henry, B ren d a M cK ie, W al L o g u e, N ick Harding, John Burge, Stan Walker, Andrew Szemenyei, Rowen Smith, Bela

Com pleted September 1984.

Synopsis: The residents o f a small Aus tralian country town desperately want

1986

to lead more exciting, more m odem

DOT AND KEETO

lives. Mayor Percy Pig convinces the

Szem an. Inbetweeners: Paul Baker, Steve Becker, Lu Rou, Vicky Robinson, Maria H aren, Dom ingo Rivera, Jan S te p h en , Ju d y H o w ie so n , Murray

A nim ation director: Ray N ow land.

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

B ackgroun d layouts: A m ber E llis,

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Gennady Kozlov. Animators: Gairden

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

Cooke, Ariel Ferrari, Murray G riffen,

D irector o f photography: Graham

N ich o la s H arding, Lianne H ughes,

Sharpe. Photographers: Jan Carruthers,

Charles McRae, Robert Malherbe, Don

Ricky Vergara. Composers: Guy Gross,

Yuasa, Brenda McKie, Jacques Muller.

M cK innon, Ray N ow lan d , A ndrew

Bob Young, John Sangster, John Levine,

Completed: September 1985.

Painters: Robyn Drayton, Mimi Intal,

Szemenyei, Eva Szabo, Szabalos Szabo.

John Zulaikha, Paul Adolphus. 75 mins. 1986 DOT AND THE WHALE

Paulette Martin, Annamaria Dimmers.

A dditional animators: Paul Barker, Zbigniew Bilyk, Lucinda Clutterbuck, Max Gunner, Eva H elischer, Koichi Kashiwa, Wayne Kelly, Boris Kozlov, Dom ingo Rivera, Vicky Robinson, Liu Ruo, Phillip Scarrold, Jan de Silva, Bela Szem an, Min Xu, Gennady Kozlov. P ainters: B elin d a Batem an, Maria Haren, Mimi Intal, Corallee Munro, Wendy Munro, Eva Wajs, Li Yang. Back grounds: Amber Ellis, Gennady Kozlov. Models: Leaf Nowland. Graphics: Eric David. Special fx painting: Amber Ellis, Jeanette Tom s, Gennady Kozlov.

Animation director: Ray Nowland. Ani m ators:

Ray

N o w la n d ,

A ndrew

S zem enyei, Ariel Ferrari, N ich olas Harding, Rowen Avon, Paul McAdam, Stan Walker, John Berge, Wal Logue. Inbetweeners: Paul Baker, Jenny Bar b er,

Mark

B e n v e n u ti,

R o d n ey

Brundsdon, Hanka Bilyk, Barbara Coy, Greg Farrugia, Murray Griffin, Max G u n n er, D eb b ie

H o r n e , J o se p h

Cabatuan, D om ingo Rivera, Wayne Kelly, Sarah Lawson, Julie Peters, John R o b e r tso n , V icky R o b in so n , Jan Stephen, Bela Szeman. Painters: Robyn

‘townspeople’ - a strange collection o f haughty cows, hardworking horses and aggressive dogs — that the answer to their problem is a massive dam.

Griffen, Joanna Fryer, Greg Farrugia, H anka Bilyk, R olan d Chat, Clare Lyonette, Kathie O ’Rourke, Paul Stilbal, Peter McDonald. Layout artists: Nobuko

C orallee M unro, Jo sep h Cabatuan, Backgrounds: A m ber E llis, S h eila

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Christofides, Barry Dean. Special fx

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

painting: Jeanette Tom s. Graphics: Eric

Sandra Gross. Screenplay:JohnPalmer.

David.

Based on an original idea by Yoram G ross. D irecto r o f p h otograp h y:

Voices: Robyn M oore, Keith Scott.

Graham Sharpe. Photography: Ricky

Synopsis: A circus owner attempts to

Vergara, Erik Bierens, Graham Bind

capture a mysterious Bunyip, but Dot

ing. Composers: Guy Gross, Bob Young.

and her bushland friends try to foil his

Lyrics: John Palmer. Sung by: Kim Dea

plans. Dot soon discovers that the cir

con, Robyn M oore, Keith Scott. Sound

cus is merely a front for an international

editors: Rod Hay, Derek Wenderski.

wildlife smuggling operation. Backed

Mixers: Paul Heywood, Ron Purvis. 75

by her pals, Burra the kookaburra and

mins.

two boxing kangaroos, D ot goes on the

John Meillon, Robyn M oore, Michael

Drayton, Mimi Intal, Corallee Munro, Joseph Cabatuan. Backgrounds: Amber

Animation director: Ray Nowland. Ani

Pate.

Ellis. Graphics: Eric David. Special fx

mators: Wal Logue, Nick Harding, John

painting: Jeanette Toms.

Burge, Stan Walker, Ariel Ferrari, Paul

Completed: N ovem ber 1986.

Voices: Barbara Frawley, Ron Haddrick,

Cast: Ron Haddrick (O ’Connell). Synopsis: The friendship between a boy

warpath.

McAdam, Andrew Szem enyei, Bela Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott

Szeman, Rowen Smith, Gairden Cooke. Inbetweeners: Paul Baker, Steve Becker,

1987 DOT GOES TO HOLLYWOOD

and a camel, set against the burning

Synopsis: After eating som e magic roots,

sands o f the inland deserts and the

Dot shrinks to insect size and finds

Clare Lyonette, Kathie O ’Rourke, Lu

[formerly Dot in Good Old Hollywood

hurricane-lashed waters o f the ocean.

h erself among the ants, spiders and

Rou, Vicky Robinson, Maria Haren,

and Dot in Concert]

caterpillars that inhabit her backyard.

Dom ingo Rivera, Jan Stephen, Judy

She is helped by her pal, Keeto the

H ow ieson, Murray G riffen, Joanna

m osquito, as she desperately tries to

Fryer, Greg Farrugia, Hanka Bilyk. Lay-

find a way to return to normal size. 1985 EPIC D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Based on original story by Yoram Gross. Photography: Graham Sharpe, Jan Car-

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

ruthers, Ricky Vergara. Editor: Y. Jerzy.

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Composer: Guy Gross. Sound editors:

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: Greg Flynn.

Arne Ohlsson, Lee Smith. Mixers: Pe

Based on an original idea by Yoram

ter Fenton, Phil Heywood. 75 mins.

G ross. D ir e c to r o f p h otograp h y: Grahame Sharpe. Photography: Jan

Animation director: Athol Henry. Ani mators: Gairden Cooke, Ariel Ferrari, Murray G riffen, N icholas H arding, Andrew Szemenyei, Rowen Avon. Addi tional animators: Paul Baker, Zbigniew Bilyk, Lucinda Clutterbuck, Koichi

Corallee Munro, Joseph Cabatuan, Paulette Martin, Annamaria Dimmers. B ackgrounds: A m ber E llis, S h eila

1986 DOT AND THE KOALA

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

outartists: RayNowland, Nobuko Yuasa. Painters: Robyn Drayton, Mimi Intal,

Carruthers, Ricky Vergara. Editors: N eil Thumpston, Ted Otton, Ian Spruce.

Christofides, Barry Dean. Special fx painting: Christiane van der Casseyen, Jeanette Tom s. Graphics: Eric David. Voices: Robyn M oore, Keith Scott.

Muller, Wal Logue, Nick Harding, John

Moore. Musicperformedby: Guy Gross. Sound editors: Rod Hay, Nicki Roller, Guy Gross. Mixer: Phil Judd. 75 mins. Animation director: Athol Henry. Back Ellis, Gennady Kozlov, D ixon Wu. Col our designers: Amber Ellis, Jeanette

creature they m ust first find the old and

T om s. S p ecial f x painting: S h eila

wise Moby Dick.

Completed: July 1986.

Ruo, Phillip Scarrold, Jan de Silva, Bela

Guy Gross. Lyrics: John Palmer, Bob Young, Guy Gross. Sung by: Robyn

an Australian beach. To save the dying

Animators: Gairden Cooke, Jacques

Sharpe. Editor: R od Hay. Composer:

grounds: Sheila Christofides, Amber

Lyrics: Gairden Cooke. Sound editor:

Kashiwa, Wayne Kelly, Boris Kozlov,

p h otog ra p h y : J o se p h

Cabatuan, NgocM inh Nguyen, Graham

the dolphin, find a whale stranded on

Andrew Plain. 75 mins.

Dom ingo Rivera, Vicky Robinson, Liu

A n im a tio n

Synopsis: D ot and her friend, Neptune

Composers: Bob Yotmg, John Sangster.

Animation director: Gairden Cooke.

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer: Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

1987 DOT AND THE SMUGGLERS [formerly Dot and theBunyip and Dot and

C hristofides, Am ber Ellis, Jeanette Tom s. Animators: Junko Aoyama, Paul M cAdam , N ob u k o B u rn field , Ray Nowland, Ariel Ferrari, Darek Polkowski, Nicholas Harding, Bela Szeman, Athol Henry, Andrew Szemenyei, Wal Logue, Stan Walker. Character design ers: Nobuko Burnfield, Ray Nowland,

Szem an, Min Xu, Gennady Kozlov,

B erge, Stan Walker, Joanna Fryer,

Maria H aren. Painters: Mimi Intal,

Andrew Szem enyei, Paul McAdam.

Corallee Munro, Robyn Drayton, Joseph

Inbetweeners: PaulBaker, Steve Becker,

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

N o w la n d .

Cabatuan. Backgrounds: Amber Ellis,

Karen Boubouttis, Bela Szeman, Julie

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

G ennady K ozlov, N orm an Y een d ,

Peters, Lu Rou, Vicky Robinson, Maria

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: Greg Flynn.

Benvenuti, Peter M cDonald, Joseph Cabatuan, Kathie O ’Rourke, Yukiko

Graham Binding. Graphics: Eric David.

Haren, Dom ingo Rivera, Wayne Kelly,

D irector o f photography: Graham

Davis, Jim Rivera, Phillip Einfield, Vicki

Special f x painting: Amber Ellis, Jeanette

D enise Kirkan, Jan Stephen, Rodney

Sharpe. Photography: Ricky Vergara,

Robinson, Gennady Kozlov, D ixon Wu,

Tom s, Gennady Kozlov.

Brunsdon, Judy H ow ieson, Murray

Erik Bierens, Graham Binding. Editor:

Sophia Rou Lui, Antony Zmak, Clare

the Lake Monster]

Stan Walker. Layouts: Athol Henry, Ray In b etw een ers:

CINEMA

PAPERS

M ark

> 41

Lyonette, Jaime Cabatuan. Painters &

Kathie O ’Rourke, Philip Peters, Dang

Post-sync engineer: Angus Robertson.

struction and clearing o f their hom e by

T ra cers: J a im e C ab atuan , C indy

Phuong, Robert Qiu Yuan, Jung-ae Ro,

Music engineers: Simon Leadley, Tim

loggers. But Blinky Bill rallies his friends

L u ck w ell, A nna M aria D im m er s,

Craig Saunders, Andi Spark, Andrew

Ryan, Kirke Godfrey, James Cadsky.

and, in a series o f exciting adventures,

Paulette Martin, Mimi Intal, Jung-Ae

Szabo, Amanda Thom pson, Elizabeth

Mixing studio: Soundfirm . Post-sync

the bush animals win the struggle to

Ro, Elizabethjamsik, Carlos Rodrigius,

Urbanczyk, Ian White, James Wylie, Xi

stu d io: S p ectru m . M u sic stu d io s:

preserve their existence.

Xi Kang Lin, Charlie Scapellato. Anima tion aid: Bernard Vidal.

Kang Lin, Leon Yu, Shaojie Zheng. Lay

Trackdown, Palm Studios, GGM Stu

outs: Sue Beak, Craig Handley, Nicholas

dios. Laboratory: Atlab Australia. Lab

Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott.

Harding, Glen Lovett, Paul McAdam,

liaison: D en ise W olfson . N egative

Alex Nichols, David Skinner, Robert

matching: Miriam Cortez. Grading:

Synopsis: D ot goes to H ollywood to

Smit, Andrew Szemenyei, Animation

Arthur Cambridge. Graphics: European

take part in a talent contest and raise

supervisor: Cynthia Leech. Colour styl

G rey. M ark etin g con su ltan t: T im

m oneyforhersickkoala friend, Gumley.

ing: Jeanette Tom s. Camera operators:

Brooke-Hunt. Financial adviser: Peter

There she m eets som e o f the Holly

Margaret Antoniak, Joseph Cabatuan,

Done. Legal advisor: Martin Cooper.

w ood greats and perform s with them.

Joseph Dugoings, N goc Minh Nguyen,

Com pletion guarantors: Film Finances.

Gary Page, Wayne Tom s. Background

Insurer: FTUA.

Completed: June 1987.

painters: Milena Borkert, Paul Cheng, Amber Ellis, Beverly McNamara, H ellen Steele, Obert Qui Yuan, Ken Right,

Synopsis: A pot-pourri o f fairy tales

THE MAGIC RIDDLE

Richard Zaloudek: Rendering & Spe

from the Brothers Grimm, Hans Chris

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer: Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Sandra Gross. Screenplay: Yoram Gross, Leonard Lee, John Palmer. Animation p h o to g ra p h y : M argaret A n toniak , Joseph Cabatuan, Joseph Dugonigs, N goc Minh Nguyen, Gary Page, Wayne Tom s. Editor: Rod Hay. Composer: Guy Gross. Orchestration: Guy Gross. Lyr ics: John Palmer. Sung by: Ross Higgins, Robyn Moore, Keith Scott. Mixer: Phil Judd. 90 mins.

DOT IN SPACE Producer: Yoram G ross. D irector: Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer: Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer. Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott. Synopsis: Dot finds her way into an

Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott.

1991

[formerly Cinderella’s Secret]

American spaceship which lands her on a war-torn p la n et o f R ou n d s and Squares.

cial fx: Jo-Anne Boag, Angela Bodini,

tian Andersen and many more favourite

H elen Connolly, Penny Dawe, Russel

stories, woven together into a story full

[No further details at this stage.]

Ladewig, Janet R ob in son , Jean ette

o f magic, mystery and mirth. Featuring

Tom s, Dania Wu, Li Ping Yi, Shaojie

Cinderella, Little Red Riding H ood,

Zheng. Cell painting supervisors: Robyn

Pinocchio, the Three Little Pigs and many more.

Drayton. Karen Clarke, Carla Daley, Amy Green, Karen Gross, M ichelle Harre, Lisa Hughes. Cell painting: MaryAnne Jam es, Stefan Kater, R ebecca

OTHER 1987

CANDY CLAUS © Yoram Gross Film Studio.

[sp ecia l h alf-h o u r te le v isio n p r o

Completed: 1991.

gramme]

Main, Khursid Namdar, Belinda Price,

D irector: Yoram G ross. Producer:

Roberta Saliba, Michael Sheil, Marisa

Yoram G ross. A ssociate producer:

Sillem, Morag Smart, Jan Smith, Vicki Summers, Michelle Walker, Sally Wu, H ong Zheng. Cell tracing supervisors:

Animation directors: Junko Aoyama, Sue

Christine O ’Connor, Alice Borkert,

Beak, N obuko B u rn field , N ich olas

J e n n ife r Carter, D ym pna Murray,

Harding, Athol Henry. Storyboard: Ray

Christine Stoddart, Lauralei Wethy.

Nowland. Background layouts: Richard

Post-production supervisor: Rod Hay.

Zaloudek. Animators: Junko Aoyama,

Script editors: Jerzy Domaradzki, Mark

Sue Beak, Nubuko Burnfield, Patrick

Lewis. D irector’s asstistant: Donna

Bum s, Jim Davis, Ariel Ferrari, Maurice

Portland. Production accountant: Loma

BLINKY BILL

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: John Palmer.

Director: Yoram G ross. Producer:

A n im a tio n

Yoram G ross. Executive producer:

Cabatuan, Graham Sharpe. Editor:

p h o to g ra p h y : J o se p h

Sandra Gross. Screenplay: Yoram Gross,

Stephen Hayes. Sound editor: Rod Hay.

John Palmer, Leonard Lee. Based on

Com poser: Guy G ross. M usic p er

the novel, TheAdventures ofBlinky Bill,by Dorothy Wall. Animation photography:

form ed by: Guy Gross. 25

m in s .

Anim ation director: Ray N ow land.

Margaret Antoniak (and others not yet

Background layouts: Jaime Cabatuan,

finalized). 80 mins approx.

Amber Ellis, Gennady Kozlov. Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott

Giacomini, Nicholas Harding, Athol

Carlon. Production assistants: Audrey

Animation directors: Robbert Smit,

H em y, Victor Johnson, Ray Nowland,

Auld, Roderick Lee, Sarah McDougall.

Athol Henry, Junko Aoyama (and oth

Darek Pierkowski, Stella Wakil, Stanley

P rod ucer’s assistant: Jane Barnett.

ers n ot yet fin alized ). Storyboard:

Synopsis: Santa and Mrs Claus receive a

Walker. Assistantanimators: TimAdlide,

T echnical supervisor: Janusz Antoniak.

gift for Christmas: a walking, talking

Michael Bates, Brett Bower, Jan D’Silva,

Assistant to Guy Gross: Cathie Lovell.

Robbert Smit (and others not yet final ized).

little doll called Candy Claus.

Michael Butcher, Paul Cheng, Mark

Dialogue editor: Rod Hay. Additional dialogue: Rod Hay. Sound effects edi

Voices: Robyn Moore, Keith Scott.

Colem an, Andrew C ollins, Stephen C u llen ,

G raham

tors: Nicki Roller, Les Fiddess, Tim

Synopsis: The film tells the story o f

D avidson, M ichael Dunn, M ichelle

Ryan. Floey editor: Greg Bell. Assistant

Blinky Bill’s childhood with his friends

TERRA AUSTRALIS

G aren e, D e n ise K irkham , K irsten

editors: Basia Ozerski, Barbara Karp,

in the bush. The peace and charm o f

Ramke, Alexander Lavelle, Mac Monks,

Joanna Surucic. Sound mixer: Philjudd.

their existence is shattered by the de

[35mm feature film project which was never started]

Y ukiko

D a v is,

Completed: 1987.

To YORAM GROSS FILM STUDIOS from uDOT & THE KANGAROO” to UTHE MAGIC RIDDLE” It has been a pleasure working with you on all your productions From your friends at KODAK (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD

Eastmary Motion Picture Films 42

• CINEMA

PAPERS

LUXURY APARTMENTS Special industry rates: $75-125 per night, $395-690 per week. All apartments feature usual luxury appointments, separate livingroom/ bedroom(s), very fully equipped kitchen, full size bath/shower over. In-house laundry, sauna, spa. In-house movies; direct dial-in phones; answering service and facsimile on request. Full business service. Room service lunch and dinner. Continental breakfast on request (in apartment). 24 hour reception. High security building. We are the film and entertainment specialists, attentive to your special needs.

44 FITZROY STREET ST KILDA TELEPHONE (03) 536 3000 FACSIMILE (03) 525 4571 TOLL FREE (008) 033 786 MELBOURNE

AUSTRALIA

THE OTHER FILMS F I L M

D I S T R I BUT

I O N

89 HIGH ST, NORTHCOTE, VICTORIA 3070 PH (0 3) 489 1741 FAX (03) 481 5618

SUPPORT THE W ORK OF THE AFI - and you'll N E VER have to pay full price at the cinema again!

collection.

"POWERFUL... TVienttsHntdligentty

IU D O U n * »

Phone us now for our full H j 35mm & 16mm Catalogue including UN AFFAIRE DES FEMMES, SHE’S BEEN AWAY HALF OF HEAVEN AN ANGEL AT m Y TABLE, the TATI films, the BUÑUEL collection, ALLEGRO NON TROPPO, LA GRANDE BOUFFE, THE VALLEY and many others.

ART AN D TECHNOLOGY OF MAKE-UP STUDIO Trading as THREE ARTS MAKE-UP CENTRE and THEATRICAL ARTS PTY LTD TELEVISION THEATRE FILM MAKE-UP EST 1966 ACN 002 830 533 Shepherd Street, Cnr. 44-46 Myrtle Street Chippendale NSW 2008 Australia Phone (02) 698 1070 Fax (02) 319 1950

THEATRICAL ARTS COLLEGE • MAKE-UP ARTIST TECHNICIANS CERTIFICATE COURSE • ADVANCED CERTIFICATE COURSE IN SPECIAL EFFECTS MAKE-UP • HIGH FASHION MAKE-UP ARTIST COURSE, PART TIME IN BLOCKS OF SIX WEEKS • SPECIAL EFFECTS COURSE, PART TIME IN BLOCKS OF SIX WEEKS • HOLIDAY HOBBY MAKE-UP COURSE, ONE WEEK • HOLIDAY HOBBY MASK MAKING COURSE, ONE WEEK • THEATRE MAKE-UP, SPECIAL SCHOOL PROJECTS • PRIVATE TUITION • FREELANCE MAKE-UP ARTISTS SUPPLIED FOR THE INDUSTRY • MAKE-UP AND PROSTHESIS FOR PRIVATE USE AND INDUSTRY SPECIAL ORDERS • COMMISSIONED WORK AND SPECIAL PROJECTS PRODUCED TO ORDER • WORKSHOPS IN SPECIAL AREAS OF MAKE-UP, SCULPTURE AND CASUALTY ASSIMILATION CAN BE ARRANGED • REGISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS

AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE

j | | | j k l i $ an AFI member you receive nationwide cinema discounts, pins regular new sletters, discounts on all AFI seasons and events, special product offers, access to the AFI Research & Information centre, the AFI Awards and m ore... As an AFI member you also get 2 5 % o ff your next subscription to

■

SO D O N 'T D E LA Y - J O IN THE A F I TO D A Y W rite to: AFI Membership services P .0 . Box 522 Paddington NSW 2021 Telephone Sydney (0 2 ) 3 3 2 2111 Melbourne (0 3 ) 6 9 6 1 8 4 4

OPEN CHANNEL CO-OPERATIVE LTD.

Best Television Documentary 1991 AFI Awards Executive Producer- Film Victoria Writer!Director - Carole Sklan

For over a decade Open Channel has been producing programs that are innovative, informative and entertaining. We also have an extensive range of equipment and facilities for hire and a comprehensive production training program.

13 Victoria Street, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065 Telephone: (03) 419 5111 Fax: (03) 419 1404 'Guns and Roses' is distributed by AFI Distribution. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 43

Tokyo International Film Festival SANDRA

[the indignation of some, die list of awaid winncis in the main Competition at the Tokyo International Film Festival turned out to be a triumph of political even-handedness. Therewere no arguments ahout the winner oi the big prize, the Tokyo Grand Prix. John Sayles’ City of Hope was an immensely populai choice, right!} seen as an im pressive work from a distinguished inde pendent. Rather, the murmurs of dis content were hcatd in ielation to the perfect geopolitical balance achieved by the rest of the list. The Special Jury Prize was split be tween Taiwan and China; the Best Actor was Russian; the Rest \c tress. ( hinesc. AlanParkerwon the Best DirectorAward with The Commitments^ ihe most comirierdal oi all the entries; die home team

HALL

REPORTS

took the prize for Artistic Contribution (I licit o Onehi's Shimantogawa, a nostal gic piece set in the 1950s, won for its luminouslv picture-postcard photogra phy of one of the most beautiful parts of iura! Japan); and die pii/c lot Best Screenplay went to a U.S.-Japanese co production, a strange hybrid called Iron Maze. This one transported the Rashomon story to an ironworks town near Pitts burgh. and changed the samurai of the onginal into an insensitive Japanese tv coon who has bought up the town and plans to turn it into a fun parlour. One of ¡ton Maze's executive pioduceis is Tdwai d R. Pi essnian, who also serveel as Chairman oi the I estival's second com petitive event, theYoung CinemaAwards. Pressman’s company recently signed a production deal with thejapanese AS( 111 Pictures Corporation.

The Tokyo Festival is trying very hard to fulfil its ambition of becoming “the ( annes of die Fast'. I ndei the direction of avigorous new manager, the film, television and publishing mogul, Yasuyoshi Tokuma, it has decided to switt.li fiom being a bieniii.il to a yearly event, and this year’s budget of $9 mil lion indicates that theJapanese at e not at all discouraged bv the huge amounts of monev they have lust in the past foui vcais as a result of dieir Hollywood a< qnisilions and investments. Moicover. Japan's status as Holly wood’s largest fbreign mat ket makes the fokyo festival an event of particular intei est to the L'.S. majors, while the rest of the world's filmmaking countries chei ish hopes of enku gmg their shat e of Japan's expanding market foi <uthou.se cinema via video and direct-hroadcast

satellite television. The Sydney-based company, Pacific link, is opening a Tokyo office, to mar ket Austrahanfilms inJapan and its chief, Charles Hannah, was at the ¡Festival, to gether with the Australian Film Commis sion’s Peter Sainsbury and representa tives of the Film Finance Corporation and Beyond Intel national. Four Yusli.ilian films were screened. Jocelyn Moorhouse's l*rnof won one of three Bronze Ywards (woitli 5 million yen 01 $ 17,00.0) in the Vbung ( inema ( ompetition; Paul Cox’s \ Woman s Tale was in the International Section; Leo Berkeley’s Holidays on the Rivet Yarrowas one of six films soli cted Irom ( annes’ Un Cei tain Regard section and brought to Tokyo; andSolrun Hoaas’Aya Wasshown as part of Women’s Lilin Week Although the Festival plans to set up a market a la Cannes, its business side so far is more a matter of ritual than deal making. This year, industry executives went to see and be seen at the lavishly catered receptions held almost every eveningatthe city’s grandesthotels. Film buffs, meanwhile, coulddo acrashcourse inAsian cinema, follow the competitions or plot an eclectic course through the main events and sidebars, sampling a hioad tioss section ol woi Id <inenia -Yfair pi oppi turn of the Iilmmakers in the main competition were well-estab lished names and. along with Sayles. ( .ox andPaikei.Ynlkei Schlondoi ff was there with his latest film, a German-FrenchU.S.-Greek co-production called Homo

;Faber (Voyager), adapted from the hovel by Swiss writer Max Frisch. Sam Shi par d playsan Vine i it an c ngineer restlessly moving around the world in a dedicated attempt to escape com mitment of any kind. He is in mid-flight when his past catches up with him, wht ic upon coincidences multiply, love pioves irresistible and the ail becomes heavy with the cloving scent of selfindulgc nc t VIthough a niut h shorter and more disc iphnedwoik, I oyaget mack an instructive companion-piece to Wim Wenders’ Uhtiltht Indof theliuthi.v\Inch was shown on the closing night of the Festival. Both filinniakcis have trave lie d far horn home since the heyday of the New German Cinema in the 1970s, with v,u iable results. Until theEnd ofthe World, for example, is a long way from the moody

Inilliauce of Wenders’ !m Lauf da Zeii (KingsoftheRoad). Stretched out to three houis plus, its mishmash of styles and confusion ol dicmcs makes it seem like six lilms. none ol them am good. It lurches from film noir to science fiction to fantasy and farce, with a last-minute burst of existential angst as the plot shifts rapidly from Nice to Paris to San Francisco to Tokyo, finishing up in the Australian outback where a multi-cul tural cast (Solveig Dommartin, William Hurt, Sam Neill, Jeanne Moreau, Max vonSydovv, 1ruie Dingo. DavidGnlpilil. Justine Saunders) struggles to convey the illusion that the script (co-written by the novelist, Peter Carey)is makingsensc. Among the Asian films in the main Competition, tin most eagerly antici pated was ldwaid Vang's \ Brightet Summer Day. co-winner of thejury Prize. I sing a hi oad canvas and the kind o l long static takes more often associated with his fellow star of the Taiwanese New Wave, Hon Hsiao-hsien ( Tongtiian Wamtpht | Hu him tol iveandtJn hint to Ih t \.Bt iqingt hengshi | 1 ( ity oj Sadntvs|), Vangdraws on his adolescent e in Taipei in the 1960s to tell a story of rival gangs of adolescents, the sons and daughters of ( hinese exiles leading f i nstrated, un settled lives in a city unsure of its own idciiutv and dominated hv fear o f its mainland neighbour.

FACING PAGE D O M IN IQ U E P IN O N IN JE A N PIERRE JEUNET A N D MARC CARO S MACABRE A N D WITTY DELICATESSEN ABOVE HIDEO O N C H I S

SHIMANTOGAWA W IN N E P FOR

ARTISTIC CONTRIBUTION LEFT: W ILLIA M HURT A N D SOLVEIG D O M M A R TIN IN W IM WENDERS ILLUSORY UNTIL THE END

O F THE WORLD

CINEMA

PAPERS

LEFT: DEEPA M EHTA'S COMEDY ABOUT IN D IA N S LIV IN G IN TORO NTO , SAM & MB. BELOW: TW O OF THE FOUR AUSTRALIAN FILMS AT TO KYO : SOLRUN H O A A S ' A Y A (NICHO LAS EADIE, ERI ISHIDA, JED CHEDWIGGEN) A N D LEO BERKELEY'S

HOLIDAYS O N THBRIVBR YARRA (CRAIG A D AM S, LUKE ELLIOT).

W i P |i |

WMmi |f

¡.n

tire French box-office, Delicatessen is a macabre and witty fantasy set in a future where food has become so scarce that camivorous Parisians are resorting to cannibalism. The setting is a mock-Gothic lodging house in the suburbs where the landlord runs the downstairs delicatessen and those who wish to remain in Qne pjece avoid using the stairs

at night. The tenants are played by a talented ensemble cast of comic actors who enter imaginai ||l || tively into the grotesque spirit of -*'■ the thing, which withJeunet and Caro’s mordantly satirical tone, embodied in their visual flair and their hilarious use of music and sound effects, adds up to highly original entertainment. Although it failed to take out a prize, another favourite among the critics was Sam &Me, a multi cultural comedy about a small community of Indian immigrants liv ing in Toronto. A first feature from Indian television and documentary producer-director Deepa Mehta, who emigrated to Toronto in the 1970s, it was written by its leading actor, Ranjit Chowdhry (also to be seen in BarryBrown’s Lonely in America and Mira Nair’s Mississippi Masala), and is an Indian-Canadian varia tion on the Driving Miss Daisy theme. Chowdhry plays ayoung Indian immigrant who is hired as compan ion to a crotchety old

. fpol

Yang’s teenagers put on rock concerts, idolize Elvis Presley and think of the U.S. as the promised land while working out their grudges against the world in vicious street fights. It is an explosive mix, but the vio lence is diluted by the impassive nature of the performances and Yang’s very deliber ate, contemplative directing style. As in Hou Hsiao-hsien’s films, the cast is big and you have to work hard for the first half hour to pin down the characters and their relationships. Then the slow rhythms of Yang’s style go to work. He uses his sets like stages. The camera frames them as actors move in and out of shot, often leav ing the audience gazing for a moment into an empty room so that the city’s ambience becomes a character in its own right. Since Yang has a fine eye for composi tion and is working with a fascinating time and place, it is a diverting technique but the film’s texture is not nearly as rich or its scope as broad as Hou Hsiao-hsien’s com parable work aboutTaipei, A City ofSadness, and, bythe tíme its 185 minutes have passed, inventiveness has staled and torpor set in. There were some strong contenders in the Young Cinema Competition. Itwas won byDelicatessen, the first feature from French directing team,Jean-PierreJeunet and Marc Caro, who have collaborated before on short films and video clips. Already a hit at

Jewish eccentric.;,An unlikely if predictable friendship develops between the two- men and the value of individuality in a conformist societyisconfirmed. Butthis time the mix is made distinctive by a strong and very funny supporting cast of Indian actors led

jj|| ,

j '**• r^ ^ ak., . ■ ■ , B | ¡¡1

by Otri Puri as Chowdhry’s uncle, deter mined to help his nephew get on in the world. They share ramshackle accommoda tion in Toronto with a small band of Indian immigrants whose amiable squabbles and backyard cricket matches contribute to a whimsically effective meditation on cul tural displacement. More on that subject came from Mis sissippi Masala, which was screened as part of Women's Fibn Week and follow's the fortunes of an Indian family that settles in ' ' ; • 'v'.. the American South after being expelled from Idi Amin’s Uganda. . > . Once again, a gifted Indian cast con tributes lots of humour and vitality to what is essentially an interracial love story (the leads are Denzil Washington and a new like Mehta, makes deft comedy out of culcature. Minor characters are meticulously drawn and exuberandy acted, the dialogue affectionate eye on the interplay between die Indian and die white and black Ameri can communities of her small Mississippi town. : Both these films reflect a cosmopolitan view of the world. Their expatriate charachome for themselves in die countries in which diey have fetched up, no matter how

TeH that to the Japanese who, artisti

vest), which was a Bronze Award winner.

cally at least, seem to prefer the nostalgic view. The tone Was set with the opening film, Yoji Yamada’s My Sons, which covered ground familiar to fans of Ozu’s Hitori

Relatively commercial in tone and struc ture, this one pits father against son and makes unlikely allies of gauchos and Indian peasant farmers as thé traditionalists take

Musuko (The Only Son, 1936), with its story of die family of an elderly widower forced to consider a move from the house and farm where he has spent most of his life.

alists out on the pampas. Satyajit Ray’s new film, Agantuk (The Stranger), was another work in praise of

His two sons live inthe city and he visits -.both, expecting to make his home.with the elder, ayoung executive. But Tokyo proves to be harsh, cramped and alienating, and the audience is treated to an occasionally poignant dissertation on die difficulties of trying to maintain a sense of human dignity in the course of making a living there. The simpler, purer pleasures of times gone by were.again confirmed in the pictorially magnificent Shimantogawa. Set in the Shikoku region, beside a river described as being “Japan’s last clear stream”, this film is both a childhood memoir and an elegy to a vanishedway of life. At a slow-moving but graceful pace, its director, Hideo Onchi (one of the veterans of the Japanese indus try), traces the day-to-day routines of the children of a riverside storekeeper as the family endures typhoon, flood and eco nomic hardship in order to go on enjoying the tranquil and idyllic pauses in between, and, in the film’s gradual accumulation of poetic images, it achieves a powerfully hypnode sense of time aud place. Similarly nostalgic sentiments were ex pressed in Argentina’s candidate in the Young Cinema Competition, Miguel Pereira’s La Ultima Sienibra (The i M S t Har

on the new generation of economic ration

traditional values but turned out to be dis appointingly tendentious, A comedy of manners centring on a comfortablymiddleclass Calcutta family receiving an unex pected visit from an uncle remembered Onlyfaintly from childhood, ithas a crudely administered moral message and this time round Ray’s characteristicallyleisurelystyle seents merely laborious and verbose. A much more raucous and cynical view of family life came from the Chinese direc tor, Huang Jian-Zhong. His The Spring Fes tival, a co-production from the Beijing Film Studios and Hong Kong’s Wanhe Film and TV Co., is being billed as a tragicomedy focusing on the “changes brought forth to Chinese families by the introduction of commodity economy”. With no great hope of enjoying them selves, members of a large family come together to celebrate the lunar New Year. There are new spouses and lovers to be introduced, old feuds to be mended and delicate financial matters to be settled, but everybody’s worst expectations are soon realized. There are fights over sex, money and status and while the most affluent and Westernized characters in the story are also

FESTIVAL AWARD WINNERS

TOKYO

GRAND

PRIZE

City of Hope (U.S., John Sayles) It I s 1 H I K I ( I U l <

Alan P.ii kei (The Commitments, Ireland) BEST

ACTRESS

Zhao Di-Ling (The Spring Festival, China) BEST ACTOR

O. Mcngvinetukutsesy

(Get Thee Hence/Get Thee Out, [Dimitri Astrakhan,] USSR) BEST

SCREENPLAY

Tim Metcalfe (Iron Maze, [Hiroaki Yoshida,] U.S.-Japan) JURY

PRIZES

A Blighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, Taiwan) The Spring Festival (Huang Jian-Zhong) ARTISTIC

CONTRIBUTION

Shimantogawa (Hideo Onchi, Japan) YOUNG CINEM A 1991

the nicest, the gifts that they bring have a devastating effect on i„ - ■ family relations. The ending is both ideo logically correct and profoundly pessimis

Delicatessen (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Marc Caro,

tic.

Five Girls and a Rope

Instartlingcontrast S fr to this bleak view of the ;g a jk benefits of the market - J e c o n o m y , the Festival P" itself is all optimism. F | |k /% ll|t ''Nk

Its organizers seem determined to do it right and do it big, and if Japan’s recent adventures in Hollywood are any indication, no expense will be spared.

GOLD

SILVER

PRIZE

(Yeh Himg-Wei, Hong Kong) BRONZE

PRIZES

La Ultima Stempra (The Last Harvest, Miguel Pereira, Argentina); Himmel oder Helle (Heaven or Hell, Wolfgang Nunnberger, Germany); Proof (Jocelyn Moorhouse, Australia)

Satyajit Ray

CINEMA

PAPERS

REEL

R LE A S U RES

D IAR Y FOR M Y LO YES A d r i a n

M a r t i n

n the su bject o f “ reel p leasures” , I tend to agree w ith

THE

LIST

the French c ritic Gerard Legrand, w ho suggested in 1963 that there is JOHN CASSAVETES: I d is c o v e re d

som ething rather delicate and d iffic u lt about revealing one’s lis t of

C a ssa ve te s ‘la te ’ - in m y m id -tw e n

‘fa v o u rite s ’, as if one were a sexual fe tis h is t suddenly caught in a

tie s - and no e x p e rie n c e of cin e m a

sp o tlig h t, hopelessly having to rationalize to a vast, uncom prehend

b e fo re or sin ce has even a p p ro a ch e d th e p ro

ing and m erciless audience the inscrutable log ic of

fu n d ity and fo rce of th is re v e la tio n . For me,

one’s private, surreal obsessions. Who can say, really, w hy they love a p a rticu la r som ething or som ebody? Such ‘object ch o ice s’ form ulate them selves in the course of a long and tw iste d personal h istory, a h is to ry o f passions, acci dents, polem ics, allegiances, revelations, surrenders. In short, I believe that film s are never ‘g re at’ in them selves; they are only made great by virtue of w hat people personally in v e s t in them . 1

th e re are a lm o st no w o rds th a t can be sp o ke n, even in the m ost d e fe re n tia l and in tim a te h om age, a b o u t th is an g el: q u ite sim p ly, I b e lie ve (with T h ie rry Jo u sse ) th a t “ it is th ro u g h him th a t life e n tere d th e c in e m a ” . LOVE STREAMS (1984) GLORIA (1980) OPENING NIGHT (1978)

feel more and more that c ritic s w ho try to establish ‘o b je c tiv e ’

ROBERT BRESSON: It is th ro u g h

standards of evaluation - the kind w ho endlessly, fe ro c io u s ly debate

B re sso n th a t m any c in e p h ile s d is

w hich m ovies are the ‘c la s s ic s ’ and the ‘m asterpieces’, the ‘over

co ve r - in a to ta lly fe lt, p h ysica l w ay

rated’ and the ‘u nderrated’ - are sim p ly elaborating an extraordinary

- the p u rity of c in e m a tic form . V irtu a lly all his film s have th a t unique, ch is e lle d , B re sso n ia n

cover fo r th e ir own naked desire fo r p articula r film s, film experiences

p e rfe ctio n , but th e se tw o are sp e cia l to m e - f o r

and film m akers. (In th is, my tone and approach may d iffe r som ewhat

the sh a tte rin g tru th fu ln e s s of th e irth e m e s , and

from that of the previous c o n trib u to r to th is colum n.) So, my se lection has alm ost everything to do w ith subjective love, desire and m adness, and alm ost nothing to do w ith so-called ‘critic a l o b je c tiv ity ’.

the deep e m o tio n a l e ffe cts th e y eng en d e r. AU HASARD, BATHAZAR (1966) L’ARGENT (1983) COMEDY [PROFOUND]: T he mise en

scène p a ssio n s of th e Cahiers c in e p h ile s of th e 1950s (plus all th o se la te r in flu e n ce d by th e m ) le ft little p o s s ib ility fo r the p ro p e r a p p re cia tio n of a n o th e r kind of film m aker, th e kind w h o se art w as c o n c e n tra te d in th e scrip t, the p e rfo rm a n c e s and th e a tric a l sta g in g ra th e r than ca m e ra p y ro te c h n ic s or kin e tic m ontage. Leo M cC a re y and P reston S tu rg e s are, h o w ever, fa r m ore than ju s t fin e film m a ke rs to m e; th e ir s to rie s of love, c o m m u nity, so cie ty, and the p a in fu l g e ttin g of w isd o m a b o u t o n e se lf and o th e rs are as p ro fo u n d as th e y are vital. THE AWFUL TRUTH (McCarey, 1937) HAIL THE CONQUERING HERO (Sturges, 1944) THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK (Sturges, 1944)

THE LADY EVE (Sturges, 1941) MALE MELANCHOLY: Film s of m ale m e la n c h o ly ,

based

a ro u n d

th e

su b je c tiv itie s of m en v a rio u s ly re p re sse d , p a ra lyze d , im p ote n t, d is ta n t, c o n te m p tu o u s, m ou rn fu l or tra g ic a lly , in e ffe c tu a lly vio le n t, have a sp e cia l im p o rta n c e and p o e try fo r me. It as if th e cinem a^ so o fte n p e g ge d as 48

• CINEMA

PAPERS

a p a tria rc h a l a p p a ra tu s d e sig n ed to fla tte r, g lo

ta in s m onum ents of cinem a, a fe w personal

rify and a rouse the m ale vie w e r, found one of its

fe tish es, and even an e sp e cia lly sad S h irle y

ren d e zvo u s w ith d e s tin y by in fa ct d e scrib in g

T em p le m ovie.

ONCE UPON A TIM E IN AMERICA (Sergio Leone,

L’ATALANTE (Jean V igo ,1934; restored version 1990)

LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN (Max

1984)

TWO LANE BLACKTOP (Monte Heilman, 19 71) LA MAMAN ET LA PUTAIN (Jean Eustache, 1973) RAGING BULL (Martin Scorsese, 1980) LOVE AND DEATH: T his is a broad ca te go ry, but n e c e s sa rily so. In fact, ju s t a b o u t m y e ntire list co u ld go un d er th is hea ding . I am a su cke r fo r film s th a t em body m issed e ncounters, mad dream s, tragic m is u n d e rs ta n d in g s , o ce a nic d e sire s, fle e tin g e p ip h a n ie s, s e cre t so rro w s, qua kin g personal re ve la tio n s and m assive pe rso n a l rep re ssio n s. In short, I am a rom a n tic. T his gro u p in g co n

L U B IT S C H : T o

d is c o v e r

L u b its c h is to d is c o v e rth e p o w e ra n d p o ig n an cy of w h a t has been called

the ‘in d ire ct a im ’ of m uch p o p ular, m ainstream

(w ith in d e lib le , h e a rtre n d in g a ccu ra cy) the b re a kd o w n of th a t very app ara tu s.

ERNST ^

Ophuls, 1 948)

LA RAYON VERT ( The G ree n R ay, aka Sum m er, Eric Rohmer, 1986)

cinem a. For un d ern e a th all the form ulae, the clich é s, the ste re o typ e s, the o b lig a to ry happy en d in gs and co n d on e d co n se rva tiv e va lu e s in L ubitsch, th e re stirs o th e r fe e lin g s and ideas, not o nly w ith e rin g irony, but e x tra o rd in a ry lo n g ing.

PETER IBBETSON (Henry Hathaway, 1935)

TROUBLE IN PARADISE (1932)

ANGEL FACE (Otto Preminger, 1953)

DESIGN FOR LIVING (1933)

UNE PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE (Jean Renoir, 1936)

HEAVEN CAN WAIT (1943)

HIMMER ÜBER BERLIN ( W in gs o f D esire, Wim Wenders, 1987)

GAGOLOGY: G a g olog y is the reverse

A WALK WITH LOVE AND DEATH (John Huston,

side of th e P rofound C o m ed y coin:

1969)

w h e re the la tte r is deep and frag ile ,

EN PASSION (A P assio n , Ingmar Bergman, 1969)

the fo rm e r is sh a m e le ssly, lib e ra tin g ly s u p e rfi

STROMBOLI (Roberto Rossellini, 1950)

cial, kn o cka bo u t, ca rd b o a rd. T he gag is one of

NOW AND FOREVER (Henry Hathaway, 1934)

c in e m a ’s tru e st art fo rm s, e xte nd in g from c la s sic sile n t co m e d ia n s (K eaton, C haplin, Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy) through to T ashlin and Lewis, cartoons, Blake Edwards and Philippe de Broca, and the m ost exce ssive p ra ctitio n e rs of e x p lo i ta tio n film m a kin g like Russ M eyer and Sam Raim i. SEVEN CHANCES (Buster Keaton, 1925) ARTISTS AND MODELS (Frank Tashlin, 1955) THE LADIES’ MAN (Jerry Lewis, 1961) ROCK-A-BYE-BABY (Tashlin, 1958) RED HOT RIDING HOOD (Tev Avery, 1948) CHOW HOUND (Chuck Jones, 1955) SUPERVIXENS (Russ Meyer, 1975) L’ HOMME DE RIO ( That M an From R io, Philippe de Broca, 1964)

F A C IN G PAG E: J O H N CASSAVETES: M A N N Y (BEN G A Z Z A R A ), MYRTLE (G E N A R O W L A N D S ) A N D M A U R IC E (J O H N C A S SAVETES) IN O P E N IN G N IG H T. A B O V E , LEFT: ROBERT BRESSO N: M A R IE (A N N E W IA Z E M S K Y ) IN A U H A SAR D , BALTH AZAR. A B O V E , R IG H T : M ALE M E L A N C H O L Y : "N O O D L E S " (ROBERT DE N IR O ) A N D EVE (D A R L A N N E FLEUGEL) IN SER G IO LE O N E 'S

O N C E U P O N A TIME IN AM ERICA. LEFT: LOVE A N D D EATH : JULIETTE (D IT A P AR LO ) A N D J E A N (JE A N DASTE). J E A N V IG O 'S L 'ATALAN TE.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 49

AROUND 1 5 MINUTES: P o ssib ly the

ORSON WELLES: W e lle s is the su prem e and eternal e m b o d im e n t of

c in e m a tic m o d e rn ism . E ve ryth in g

ugliest w ord in the e ntire lexicon of the cinem a busin e ss is “s h o rts ” . It is

a bout both his film s and his legend - the u n fin

so de e ply ingrained into so m any people that

ished w orks, the restle ss, relen tle ss form al

the very d e fin itio n o f ‘film ’ is ‘fe a ture length film ’

e xp e rim e n ta tio n , the in crea sin g pro fe ssio n a l

th a t som e of the m ed iu m ’s g re a te st a ch ie ve

m a rg in a liz a tio n -

m ents a lm ost alw ays go unhonoured. The fo l

a tte s ts to his tro u b lin g ,

a g ita tion a l g reatness. T he re can be no ‘o n e ’

low ing are, to me, p e rfe ctly form ed, cysta llln e ,

W e lle s m aste rp ie ce ; I have sim ply picked my

astonishing f ilm s - m aybe even ‘m a ste rp ie ce s’.

fa v o u rite s from fo u r su cce ssive decades.

M ost are betw een ten and tw e n ty m inutes long.

F FOR FAKE (1975) THE TRIAL (1963) TOUCH OF EVIL (1958) THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942)

AMOR (Robert Beavers, 1 97[?]) LA TERRA VISTA DALLA LUNA ( The Earth S een From the M oon, episode of La S treg he [T h e W itches], Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1967)

EXPERIMENTAL NARRATIVE: A m ere se lection of the sup p ose d ly ‘d iffic u lt’ film s w hich have m oved, provoked and excited me m ore than o p e ra tio n a lly s tra it laced ‘c la s s ic a l’ m ovies ever can.

MOMENT (Stephen Dwoskin, 1968) WILD NIGHT IN EL RENO (George Kuchar, 1977) MURDER PSALM (Stan Brakhage, 1984) GARE DU NORD (episode of P a ris vu pa r..., Jean Rouch, 1 965)

CRITICAL MASS (Hollis Frampton, 19 71) LAST CHANTS FOR A SLOW DANCE (Jon Jost, 1977) JE TU IL ELLE (Chantal Akerman, 1974) CELINE ET JULIE VONT EN BATEAU (Jacques

MAGIC: Even when they are not es-

Rivette, 1974)

IN THIS LIFE’S BODY (Arthur and Corinne Cantrill, 1984)

p e c ia lly

r e lig io u s

p e o p le ,

m o st

cin e p h ile s hold one of the highest

and put into looney o verdrive. A g a g olog ica l

‘v is io n a ry ’ , choosing from an elect com pany of

W elles?

THE SCENIC ROUTE (Mark Rappaport, 1978)

austere, sp iritua lly ‘tra n sce n d e n ta l’ directors:

PLAYTIME (Jacques Tati, 1967)

Bresson, Ozu, Dreyer, T arkovsky, R ossellini.

SIROKKO ( W inter Wind, Miklos Jancso, 1970)

A lthough for the m ost part 1 have no idea what

MURIEL (Alain Resnais, 1963)

his film s are referring to, my visio n a ry is Sergei

INDIA SONG (Marguerite Duras, 1975)

Paradjanov. The other m agic film s here are, in

LES ENFANTS DU PLACARD (T h e C hild ren in the

various vo lu n tary and in vo lu n tary w ays, under

C upboard, Benoit Jacquot, 1977)

a lis m ’ of the 1930s and ’40s all m angled, m ixed

places in th e ir pantheon for their preferred

the sign of surrealism and a m arvellous ‘im a gi

LA VILLE DES PIRATES (C ity o f Pirates, 1983) LES TROIS COURONNES DU MATELOT ( The Three C ro w n s o f the Sailor, 1982)

MANOEL ET L’ ILE DES MERVEILLES (M an u e l on the Islan d o f M arvels, three-part television series,

1985)

n a ry’ w hich lifts the film off the g round in the first

JEAN-LUC GODARD: G odard is the )

fram e and never sets it back down.

m ost ephem eral (and the m ost hyp ed) of all film m a ke rs; a film of his that

one loves in the w hite heat of a cu ltural m om ent can e va p ora te into no thing n e ss alm ost im m e d ia te ly. But his p ra ctice - as “the d irecto r who re-in ve n ts cin e m a fo r us every fo u r ye a rs” , as S erge Daney once put i t - i s still one of the m ost in vig o ra tin g gam es in town.

NRAN GOUYNE ( The C o lo u r o f P om egranates, Sergei Paradjanov, 1969)

14)

1 9 1 5 -1 9 3 6 : T eaching cinem a has alw ays been an adve ntu re fo r me: I m ade it a personal rule for m any

years to book only film s I had never seen.

BELLE DE JOUR (Luis Buñuel, 1967)

O nce, w a n d e rin g fa irly blind into a co u rse on

KAOS (Paolo and Vittorio Taviani, 1986)

cinem a h istory e ither side of the com ing of

EXCALIBUR (Joh n Boorman, 1 981)

sound, I d isco ve re d w h a t I still regard as the

THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (Charles Laughton,

unsu rp a ssa b ly richest, m ost fe rtile aesthetic

1955)

period of the m edium , roughly betw een the m id-tens and the m id -’30s.

SOFT AND HARD (co-dir. Anne-Marie Mieville, 1986)

RAUL RUIZ: Ruiz is heir to W elles:

PASSION (1982)

excess, sp e e d, in co m p le tio n , im

NUMERO DEUX (1975)

p ro visa tio n are his trad e m a rks. Plus

TOUT VA BIEN (co-director Jean-Pierre Gorin, 1972) BANDE A PARTE (1964)

the le g a cie s of su rre a lism , m agic rea lism , hyperreal do cu m e n ta ry and French ‘poetic re

THE CHEAT (Cecil B. De Mille, 19 15) FOOLISH WIVES (Erich Von Stroheim, 1922) FREAKS (Tod Browning, 1932) THE SCARLET EMPRESS (Josef Von Sternberg, 1934) UMARETE WA MITA KEREDO (/ W as Born, But..., Yasujiro Ozu, 1932)

TABU (F.W. Murnau, Robert Flaherty, 19 31) SEVENTH HEAVEN (Frank Borzage, 1927) CLASSIC CINEPHILIA: If th e re ’s any truth in Paul W llie m e n ’s assertion th a t the “o b je ct of c in e p h ilia par e x c e lle n ce ” is “the look of a p a rtic u la r kind of narrative c in e m a m ade in H ollyw ood in the 40s and 5 0 s” or betw een “ Pearl H arbour and the Bay of P ig s” , here is the list to prove it. It is pretty m uch (except for M ichael Pow ell) the c la s s ic c in e p h ilia c in v e n to ry of fe tis h iz e d A m erican cinem a d irecto rs (m inus John Ford). And th e re are plenty of o ther film s by the sam e d irecto rs w hich sh a d ow th is s e le ctio n : All That

Heaven Allows, Shadow of A Doubt, Johnny Guitar, Only Angels Have Wings, The Foun tainhead, Shock Corridor, I Walked With a Zombie, Ride Lonesom e ...

LEFT: M A G IC : A S IA T IC CLIENT (IS K A K H A N ) A N D SÉVERINE

THE 198 0S : I feel unable y e tto place,

SÉRIZY (CATHERINE D ENEUVE) IN LUIS B U N U E L 'S BELLE DE

in th is g ra n d io se list, the m any and

JO U R . F A C IN G P A G E : THE 1 9 8 0 S : M A R IL IA PERA (R ITA LA

va ried vie w in g h ig h lig h ts of the past

P U N T A ) A N D HER S O N T H IA G O (R IC H A R D U LA C IA ) IN PAU L M O R R IS E Y 'S M IXED B LO O D. B E LO W R IG H T: TEEN M O V IE S :

d ecade. But th e se title s in d ica te at least a few

S H IN J I S O M A I'S T Y P H O O N CLUB.

of the m ajor shifts, m utations and breakthroughs in th e

m a in s tre a m

and

s u b -m a in s tre a m

film m a kin g of the period. th re e ‘s tra ig h t’ m usicals and tw o flo rid m utants. THE FLY (David Cronenberg, 1986) THE PAJAMA GAME (George Abbott, Stanley

BREATHLESSS (Jim McBride, 1983)

Donen, 1957)

MIXED BLOOD (Paul Morrissey, 1985)

ON THE TOWN (Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen, 1949)

EVIL DEAD II (Sam Raimi, 1987)

THE BAND WAGON (Vincente Minnelli, 1953) THE 5 ,0 0 0 FINGERS OF DR T (Roy Rowland,

TEEN MOVIES: S ince aro u n d 1987,

1953)

my ce n tra l g e n e ric ob se ssio n has

LES DEMOISELLES DE ROCHEFORT (Jacques

been the teen m ovie (in te rn a tio n

Demy, 1 967)

ally). It has p ro ve d to be an in e x h a u s tib le re search to p ic, but h e re ’s my o ff-th e -c u ff fa v o u r

BLAKE EDWARDS: C in é p h ile s often

ites.

have one sp ecial fa vo u rite w ho is, FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF (John Hughes, 1986)

a g a in st all reason, a rg u m e n t and evid e n ce of the eyes, loved u n co n d itio n a lly,

LIGHT OF DAY (Paul Schrader, 1987)

like an in cu ra b ly sick child. My fe e lin g fo r Blake

THE LEGEND OF BILLIE JEAN (Matthew Robbins, 1985)

E dw ards is perh a p s u n a ccou n ta b le , but I do

THE TYPHOON CLUB (Shinji Somai, 1985)

agree with G erard Legrand: “The d irecto r seem s SCARLET STREET (Fritz Lang, 1945)

to say: it is up to the sp e cta to r to be a tte n tive if

BLACK NARCISSUS (Michael Powell, 1946)

s/he w ish e s to be truly, p ro fo u n d ly to u c h e d .”

THE TARNISHED ANGELS (Douglas Slrk, 1958) RIO BRAVO (Howard Hawks, 1959)

VICTOR/VICTORIA (1982) THAT’S LIFE! (1986)

GUN CRAZY (Joseph H. Lewis, 1949) THE BIRDS (Alfred Hitchcock, 1963)

NUTS: I have a sp ecial fo n dn e ss for

VERA CRUZ (Robert Aldrich, 1954)

film s set inside the c o n scio u sn e ss of

THE SEVENTH VICTIM (Mark Robson, producer Val Lewton, 1943)

q u ie tly but g ra n d ly crazy p ro ta g o nists - in part b ecause of the im m ense p ro b

THE TALL T (Budd Boettlcher, 1957)

lem s this ends up posing fo r any cle a r reading

IN A LONELY PLACE (Nicholas Ray, 1950)

of e ith e r the ch a ra cte r or the film . It is if the

RUBY GENTRY (King Vidor, 1952)

film m a ke r, in a sa lu ta ry em brace of ‘o th e r

UNDERWORLD, U.S.A. (Sam Fuller, 1961)

n e ss’, had stra te g ica lly a b sorbed som e of the

SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS (Ella Kazan, 1961)

m adness of the hero. (The nut in River’s Edge, by the w ay, is C rispin G lover.)

SHOW BIZ: W a tch in g them on te le visio n in my e a rly teens, H ollyw ood m u sica ls (and L e w is ’ The Ladies

Man) in tro d u ce d me to the a b so lu te rap tu re of

BADLANDS (Terrence Malick, 1973) THE KING OF COMEDY (Martin Scorsese, 1983) RIVER’S EDGE (Tim Hunter, 1986)

pure cin e m a -th e a tre sp e ctacle. I have listed

BRIAN

M cKEN ZIE 1.

Reifezeit

Tokyo Monogatari . 3.

Dummy Partner

Amatar 5.

10.

(h a n s Ch r is t e n s e n , 1976)

Bleak Moments Traffic

Themroc

Ardiente Paciencia 9.

(Tokyo Story, YASOJiRO OZU, 1953)

(The Camera Buff, KRZYSZTOF KIESLOW SKI, 1979)

(Coming of Age, SOHRAB SAHID SALESS, 1976)

( m ik e l e i g h , i 9 7 1 )

(J a c q u e s t a t i , 1 9 7 2 ) (c l a u d e f a r a l d o , 1 9 7 4 )

(With Burning Patience, ANTONIO SKARMETA, 1984)

Fata Morgana

(w e r n e r h e r z o g , 1 9 7 1 )

The Last Picture Show

( p e t e r Bo g d a n o v i c h , 1 9 7 1 )

11 .L a Battaglia di Algeri (The Battle of Algiers, G illo P ontecorvo, 1967)12. Z (C o n s ta n tin C o sta -G a vra s, 1969); 13. Im Lauf der Zeit (Kings of the Road, W im W e n d e rs, 1976); 14.

Zerkaio (Mirror, A ndrey T arkovsky, 1974); 15. Harlan County U.S.A. (B arbara Kopple, 1977); BR IAN M CKENZIE: W RITER-DIRECTOR (STAN& G EORGE'S

N EW LIFE, ON TH E WA VES O F TH E ADRIA TIC, WITH LO VE TO TH E PER SO N N E X T TO ME)

16. Hori, Mä Panenko (The Firemen’s Ball, M ilos Form an, 1967); 17. Blockheads (Hal Roach, Stan Laurel, 1938); 18. Blue Velvet (D avid Lynch, 1986); 19. News From Home (C hantal A ke rm a n , 1976); 20. The King of Marvin Gardens (Bob R afelson, 1972).

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 51

F I L

R E

I E

T H E G O O D W O M A N O F B A N G K O K ; LE M A R I DE LA C O I F F E U S E ( T H E H A I R D R E S S E R ’S H U S B A N D ) ; H O L I D A Y S ON T H E R I V E R Y A R R A ; M I S T E R J O H N S O N ; R R O S R E R O ’S B O O K S ; A N D , A W O M A N ’ S T A L E

A B O V E : A O I, THE T H A I PROSTITUTE SELECTED BY D E N N IS O 'R O U R K E A S THE

TH E G O O D W O M A N OF BANGKOK

it be co m e s c le a r th a t Aoi is th e c e n tre -p ie c e of

GREG

O ’ R o u rke ’s ca m e ra , as w e ll as his se xu a l c o m

A lthough it is never actually stated or show n,

CENTRE-PIECE OF H IS THE G O O D

W O M A N OF BANGKOK.

KERR

pu lsio n . In m aking a film a b o ut th e w o m a n he

o m atte r how hard th e y try to p re se n t

has paid fo r sex, th e d ire c to r has re d e fin e d the

“ re a lity ” , all d o cu m e n ta rie s are, to an e x

b o u n d a rie s of th e in te rv ie w e r-in te rv ie w e e re la

tent, e m b e llish e d by the p e rso n a lity and vie w s

D uring a re ce n t in te rv ie w (see Cinema

.is as reve a lin g of its d ire cto r, D ennis O ’R ourke,

Papers, A u g u st 1991, pp 4-13), O 'R o u rk e said

as its actu al su b je ct, a 2 5 -ye a r-o ld T ha i p ro s ti

he rem a in e d u n su re of th e m ea n in g of this

tute.

d o cu m e n ta ry, u n d o u b te d ly his m ost p e rso n a l

T he film is a v o ye u ristic, co n trive d and

S om e th in g s b e co m e cle a r, th o u g h , as he

B a n g k o k ’s re d -lig h t d istrict. It is bleak, s h o c k

w o rks his w a y th ro u g h the e m o tio n a l e n ta n g le

ing and, at tim es, tra g ic; m ost of all, it is a

m ent of his ow n re la tio n sh ip w ith A oi. It is m ore

fa s c in a tin g e xe rcise in sto ryte llin g .

than ju st an arbitrary look at p ro s titu tio n : beneath

T h e in te n tio n s of O ’R o urke are h inted at in

A director whose marriage has come to an end, a visit to Bangkok where one can experience erotic sex and love without pain, a meeting in a bar with a woman called Aoi. • CINEMA

PAPERS

to date.

su b je ctive lo o k at the life of one w o m an in

the p re fa ce :

tio n sh ip .

of th e ir m akers. The Good Woman of Bangkok

O ’R o u rke ’s c a re fu lly m ea su re d n a rra tive , the v ie w e r can se n se the te n s ity of a d ire c to r b e se t by his own se xu a l illu sio n s and gu ilt. It is th is c o n flic t - and O ’R o u rk e ’s a b ility to h a rn e ss it th a t g ive s The Good Woman of Bangkok an e n e rg y fo u n d in fe w o th e r d o cu m e n ta rie s .

S om e m ay fin d th e p re m ise of O ’ R o u rk e ’s

n ip u la tio n s of th e in te rvie w e r; th e other, th a t

sta n d s as a p o ig n a n t sym bo l in itself, ye t it is

film o ffe n s iv e on m oral and e th ica l g ro u n d s. He

th e su b je ct sh o u ld not be p re ye d upon du rin g

d ilu te d by s u p e rim p o sin g th e s ce n e w ith a

is, a fte r all, one of m any s e e kin g p le a su re in a

m om e n ts of g rie f and v u ln e ra b ility.

reco rd e d m o n o lo g u e in w h ich Aoi sta te s th a t

city w h e re g irls and young w o m en a re en sla ve d

For a good p a rt of th e d o cu m e n ta ry, A oi -

to p ro s titu tio n by fo rce , if not n e ce ssity. W h a t’s

w h o ta lks m ostly in T ha i, so m e tim e s in broken

trying to a cce n tu a te a m ood, th e d ire c to r seem s

m ore, he is m aking a film a b o ut it and, at the

E nglish - is o b v io u s ly sp a ce d out from d ru g s or

to have o ve rlo o ke d the axiom th a t a good p ictu re can te ll a th o u sa n d w ords.

she w a n ts to be a bird h e rse lf. In n e e d le ssly

end of it all, o ffe rin g to buy Aoi a rice farm on the

sh e e r e xh a u stio n or both. T he re is n othing

c o n d itio n th a t she no lo n g e r se lls her body. Is a

d is c re e t a b o ut O ’R o u rk e ’s style of in te rvie w in g

The Good Woman of Bangkok w a s film e d

film fo r a rice farm a fa ir deal?

her, nor his m ethod of film in g . A t one p o in t his

o ve r nine m onths, using th e R ose H otel as a

O ne a ssu m e s O ’R o urke w a s m otiva te d at

ca m e ra pans o ve r Aoi - her b e hind sca n tily

base. Som e of the fo o ta g e w as c a p tu re d on

le a st p a rtly by a ltru is tic c o n ce rn here, though

cla d by a to w e l - as she trie s to sle e p ; she is

vid e o (and la te r to be tra n s fe rre d o nto film ),

one w o n d e rs how fa r he m ight have g o n e w ith

also show n re -a d ju stin g her glass eye. On

w h ich p re s u m a b ly a llo w e d O ’ R o u rke m ore

his su b je c t had she not been p ro m ise d m o n e

a n o th e r o cca sio n , the ca m e ra le e rs o b liq u e ly

free d o m to m ove and sh o o t in lo w -lig h t c o n d i

ta ry sa lva tio n .

as she eats a bow l of noodles. She looks up and

tions. It co n ta in s m ate ria l th a t co u ld have only

T o his cre d it, O ’R o urke n ever trie s to d is

o b je cts: “ I’m e ating now; it’s n othing to do w ith

been recorded cla n d e s tin e ly in a d is tric t w h e re

g u ise his m od u s o p e ra n d i. He so u g h t a p ro s ti

your film .” It is in te re stin g th a t O ’R ourke chose

a v ideo ca m e ra in the w ro ng pla ce often m eans

tu te and fo u n d one; he w a tc h e s to u ris ts seek

not to leave th is scene on the c u ttin g -ro o m flo o r

a broken cam era. Ju st how O ’R ourke m anaged

th e ir p re y at s tre e t-s id e bars; he film s b iza rre

b e ca use it reve a ls u n a sha m e d ly, and perh a p s

to put to g e th e r the p ictu re is a c re d it to his

sex sh o w s; and he lets th e ta p e roll on re le n t

p a in fu lly, his in te n tio n s fo r e xa ctly w h a t they

stre e t nous and his a b ility to win the c o -o p e ra

le ss ly in the hotel room as his su b je ct ba re s her

are: to m an ip u la te and d ise m p o w e r his subject.

tio n of his su b je cts. It se e m s odd, th o ug h , th a t

ta tte re d so u l in fro n t of a m irror. He is both w itn e s s and a c c e s s o ry to th e fact. O ’R o u rk e ’s vo ice is heard on one or two o cc a s io n s d u rin g the in te rv ie w s but at no stage

F ootage is also in clu d e d of A o i’s a unt v o ic

fo r all of th e p ro je c t’s ca n d id h onesty, it does

ing su sp icio n s of the d ire c to r’s m otives. “ H e’s

not a ctu a lly show Aoi, its ce n tre -p ie c e , w o rk

not m aking th o se naked p ictu re s, is h e ? ” , she

ing.

a sks her niece.

The Good Woman of Bangkok is the so rt of

do e s one see him, e xce p t fo r an e a rly scene

O ’ R o u rke ’s te ch n iq u e , th o ug h , su g g e sts

w hen his re fle c tio n is c a p tu re d in the rear-

nothing o th e r than a film m a k e r w h o is a w are of

re lu cta n t “s ta r” of the p ictu re and its a b iding

visio n m irro r of a tu k -tu k ta xi, as if to u n d erlin e

his ow n m otive s. T e ch n ica lly, the d o cu m e n ta ry

stre n g th . She is often sce p tica l of O ’R ourke,

th a t w h a t is to fo llo w is ve ry m uch his own po in t

fo llo w s a co n ve n tio n a l stru ctu re asid e from the

his ca m e ra and his rice farm offer, but she

of view . Even so, th e d ire c to r’s p h ysica l p re s

use of som e slo w -m o tio n scenes, and e ffe ctive

rem a in s p o ise d and sto ic th ro u g h o u t.

ence is o b vio u s in e ve ry fra m e . His ca m e ra

in te rcu t e d itin g in vo lvin g the su b je ct of Thai

g iv e s d ire c t a c c e s s to th e c la u s tro p h o b ic

g irls w ho are sold into slavery.

film th a t m oves and sta ys w ith you. Aoi is the

In the te llin g of A o i’s story, the d o c u m e n ta ry ch a rts the e vo lu tio n of a uniq u e carnal

se e d in ess of re d -lig h t alleys, the bars, the vapid

The Good Woman of Bangkok, O ’R o u rke ’s

d isco m usic and the go -g o g irls w ho w e a r

eighth d o cu m e n ta ry, does not o ve rtly set out to

m ay n e ve r have e xiste d w ith o u t O ’R o u rk e ’s

n u m b e rs on th e ir b ik in is so as to a llo w easy

a n sw e r any q u e stion s. R ather than deal w ith

o ffe r of a rice farm . Aoi w as used and abused by

bond b etw een a u tho r and su b je ct, a bond th a t

id e n tific a tio n by c lie n ts. He reve a ls the rapid

th e w h y s and w h e re fo re s o f p ro s titu tio n ,

O ’ R ourke, and she knew it. But a deal is a deal,

ageing p ro ce ss of the w orking girls, th e ir beauty

O ’ R ourke seem s to be te llin g his a u d ie n ce : It is

a fte r all.

and te n a c ity , and the c o m m o d ity th e y sell w ith

thus, as I am thus. T he cre d its d e scrib e the

d e ta ch e d p ro fe s s io n a lis m : sex.

p ictu re as a “d o cu m e n ta ry fictio n film ” . Its fic

THE GOOD WOMAN OF BANGKOK Directed by Dennis O ’Rourke. Producer: Dennis O ’Rourke. Asso

T he w o m en in O ’R o u rk e ’s lens know only

tio n a l and d ra m a tic a spects are b orne out of the

ciate producer: Glenys Rowe. Scriptwriter: Dennis

th e ir w o rld , th e ir p lace in it and th e ir fa te . O ne

d ire c to r’s e m o tio n a l bond w ith his key su b je ct

O'Rourke. Director of photography: Dennis O'Rourke.

reca lls a sce n e w h e re a bar girl co m p la in s to

and her e n viro n m e n t.

Sound re cordist: Dennis O ’R ourke. E ditor: Tim

a n o th e r b a c k s ta g e th a t her ja c k e t has fle a s in

At tim es, the w o rds and im ages are as

Litchfield. Cast: Yagwalak Chonchanakun (Aoi). A us

it. H e rc o lle a g u e re p lie s w e a rily, “W e ’re all flea-

d ra m a tic as th e y are real, but it is w orth noting

tralian distributor: Ronin. 35 mm. 82 mins. Australia.

ridden h e re .”

th a t v irtu a lly all the in te rvie w e e s, from the to u r

1991.

In a n o th e r p o w e rfu l and d istu rb in g scene,

ists ca sing the bars to A o i’s aunt, a p p e a r to be

O ’ R ourke hones his c a m e ra on a young girl

un d er the in flu e n ce of alcohol or a narcotic.

o u ts id e a club. T he girl, a p ictu re of a n g e licism ,

O ne thus m ay argue th a t O ’R ourke has p re

lets her sm ile w id e n as she b e g in s to sim u la te

se n ted a d isto rte d vie w of reality, but it is a

fe lla tio .

tru th fu l sto ry no less.

In title and a cce n t, th e d o cu m e n ta ry draw s

Som e of the m aterial in vo lvin g Aoi is a little

a p a ra lle l w ith the B re ch t play, The Good Per

re p e titive and h yp e rb o lize d by leading q u e s

son of Szechwan, a sto ry O ’R ourke d e scrib e s

tio n s; there are also tim es w hen it is d o w n rig h t

as “an iro n ic p a ra b le a b o ut the im p o ssib ility of

h e a rt-re n d in g . “W h a t I love, I d o n ’t know. I w ant

being good in an evil w o rld ” . Aoi, O ’R o u rke ’s

love but I know me. Me is no good. No people

good w om an , is e xp o sed fo r all her p a tho s, lost

can love m e” , Aoi says te a rfu lly as the rain

hope, w isd o m and s e lf-lo a th in g . “ I have to close

p ours dow n o u tsid e her hotel room . A w om an

my eyes to fo rce m yself to do it fo r m o n e y ” , she

has laid bare her g rie f fo r all to know , and, for

says in one scene. Aoi, it is e xp la in e d , w as fo rce d into p ro s ti

a m om ent, all m ovie d ra m a seem s im p ote n t by co m p a riso n .

tu tio n p rim a rily b e ca use of the b e tra ya l of tw o

O ’ Rourke uses se ve ra l d e vice s to a m p lify

m en in her life: her e x-h u sb a n d , and, e a rlie r on,

the dram a. An aria by D am e J a n e t Baker is

her fa th er, w h o g a m b le d and d ra n k aw ay the

used at se ve ra l ju n c tu re s as a stron g c o u n te r

m on e y su p p ly of her fa m ily. H er sto ry is a

p oint to the p e re n n ia l d a rkn e ss of p ro stitu tio n .

co m p e llin g , sa lie n t m e ta p h o r fo r every Thai

In a q u ie te r respite, Aoi pays som e m oney so

p ro s titu te , and the w a y O ’R ourke e xtra cts her

th a t she can relea se a gro u p of tin y birds from

sto ry is a form of s o lic ita tio n in itself.

a cage (fre e in g th e birds, a sign te lls us, will

M ore p re c is e ly , O ’ R ourke v io la te s tw o tra

b ring p ro sp e rity and good luck). T he sce n e at

d itio n a l jo u rn a lis tic co d e s: one th a t d e m a n d s a

once illu stra te s the stren g th s and s h o rtco m in g s

su b je c t be g iven the o p p o rtu n ity to tell his or her

of O ’R o u rke ’s w ork. The im age of Aoi relea sin g

sto ry w ith o u t th e s u b je c tiv e /p re ju d ic e d m a

the birds, w h ile a ca t w a tch e s s te a lth ily nearby,

LE M ARI DE LA C O IF F E U S E (THE HAIRDRESSER’S HUSBAND) RAYMOND

YOUNIS

atrice L e co n te ’s fa scin a tio n w ith the re la tio n s betw e en d e sire , o b se ssio n and the

p u rsu it of ha p pine ss w as viv id ly e v id e n t in

Monsieur Hire. Now, th is in te re st is again the b a sis of Le Mari de la Coiffeuse ( The Hair

dresser’s Husband), a fa n cifu l, e p is o d ic idyll w ith a d e e p ly e le g ia c und erto w . T h e re are num e ro u s a n a lo g ie s b etw een th e tw o film s: fo r exa m p le , both deal w ith a m a n ’s fix a tio n upon a n o t-so -o b scu re o b je ct of d e sire ; both e xp lo re re la tio n sh ip s w h ich are in a sense p re ca rio u s even in the e a rlie st s ta g es; both are co n ce rn e d w ith the d e e p e st fe a rs and a n xie tie s w h ich tro u b le th e p o lish e d and e le g a n t s u rfa ce s. But the d iffe re n ce s are m ost strikin g. T he film e xp lo re s the g ro w th of an o b s e s sion w ith a m p le -b o so m e d h a ird re s s e rs and v a rio u s typ e s of e xo ticism . A t the sta rt, A n to in e (H e nry H o ckin g ), a tw e lv e -y e a r-o ld boy, is g lim p sed d a n cin g, or rath e r a tte m p tin g to do so, to the p la in tive to n e s of an A ra b ia n song. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 53

Behind him w e see the se a sh ore - an im age th a t w ill be im p o rta n t th ro u g h o u t the film . He then d e v e lo p s a fix a tio n on th e local h a ird re s s e r, w h o h a p p e n s to p o s s e s s th e p ro p o rtio n s of a F ellin ia n e a rth -m o th e r - indeed, a n u m b e r of a s p e c ts w h e re the lin k betw e en such w om en and e ro tic is m

is h ig h lig h te d reca ll

F e llin i’s Amarcord, fo r e xam ple. T his fix a tio n rem a in s w ith him even a fte r it b e co m e s im p ossible fo r him to see th e h a ird re sse r. (N e e d le ss to say, he is a reg u la r v is ito r to sa lo n s and his hair re m ains un ifo rm ly s h o rtth ro u g h o u t th e film .) La ter in life, A n to in e (Jean R o ch e fort) fin d s a n o th e r h a ird r e s s e r,

M a th ild e

(A n n a

G a lie n a ), to w h o m he p roposes. She acce p ts. T he e xp lo ra tio n of th e ir jo y fu l re la tio n s h ip begins. Leconte has w orked w ith both Jean Rochefort and A nna G aliena b efore. T h e ir p e rfo rm a n ce s p ro vid e the v e ry ce n tre of the film . R o c h e fo rt’s A n to in e has a c h ild like q u a lity th a t is q u ite c o m p a t ible w ith an a iro f s e rio u sn e ss, an e a rn e s tn e s s th a t m akes him no ob je ct of ridicule and readily gives w ay to frivolity

M ichael N ym a n ’s m usic adds a n o th e r in

T h a t the film is p e ssim is tic sh o u ld not be a

and m isch ie f, th o ug h one fe e ls th a t he has had

trig u in g dim en sio n to the film , ju s t as the use of

su rp rise . It is no tab le th a t both h a ird re sse rs

to endure h ardships, as well. G a lie n a ’s M athilde

lighting h e ig h te n sth e sense of devotion. Nym an

m ake ch o ice s w h ich are s a d d en in g . T ho u g h

is an e xp e rie n ce d w o m an w ith an im plied h is

p ro vid e s a sw e e tly e lo q u en t, rom a n tic m elody

A n to in e , u nlike Hire, is not an o b je c t of s u s p i

to ry of in d e p en d e n ce . O f course, her life w ith

to com plem ent their intim ate m om ents, a m elody

cion or ridicule, he is so m e th in g of an o u tc a s t

A n to in e is a radical change. T his co n te xt is

th a t itse lf su g g ests g re a t p assion but also a

b e ca use of his p re fe re n ce s. Indeed, the film

crucial.

sense of longing, a hint o f w istfu ln e ss th a t is by

e xp lo re s the iro n ic sta tu s of his fa th e r’s b e lie fs

M ore o ve r, Leconte em p lo ys e xp e rie n ce d

no m eans a rb itra ry. Light is allow ed to flo o d in

reg arding the “s im p lic ity ” of life and the fu lfil

th e a tre a cto rs in le sse r roles and th e se are

thro u g h the w in d o w s of the salon, even though

m ent of d e sire s, the iro nic s ta tu s of A n to in e ’s

a m ong the m ajor d e lig h ts of the film : th e g e n

they are in the b a ckg ro u n d m uch of the tim e

illu sio n s of ha p pine ss (as a d e te rm in e d h a ir

e rous s p irit of A g o p ia n (M a u rice C hevit) and,

(som e key and fill lig h tin g m ay have also been

d re s s e r’s husband), as w e ll as his m istaken

later, his d e sp airin g in sig h ts into old age; Julien

used). T he p re d o m in a n t use of so ft lighting

p e rce p tio n s of M ath ild e (“ n othing e ver b o the rs

B u k o w s k i’s m e la n c h o lic visito r; the p h ilo s o

crea te s a sense of e xp a nsive lu m in ou s space

h e r”) and the re a liza tio n th a t the d e sire to m ake

p hers and th e to rm e n te d couple. W h a t th e ir

and g ive s M ath ild e an a lm ost d re a m like aura, a

the m ost of the “good th in g s ” in life b e tra ys a

often b rie f a p p e a ra n c e s su g g est, in fact, is the

m agical halo. T he re is a strong se n se of m o

kn o w le d g e of the fle e tin g nature of th in g s. Like

re c u rre n t e n c ro a c h m e n t by the exte rn a l w orld

m ents w hich are tra n sfig u re d . (Inte re sting ly,

Dem y and T ru ffa u t, Leconte can deal w ith s e

upon th e hap pine ss of A n to in e and M athilde. It

th is is s im ila r to D re ye r’s strate g y in Ordet.)

rious issues w ith e le g a nce , d e x te rity and a

b e com es c le a r th a t the b lissfu l co u p le ca n n ot

L e c o n te ’s mise en scène is m e ticu lo u sly and

be g uilin g lig h tn e ss of to u ch. Here, dea th itse lf

ig n o re th e re a litie s o u tsid e: the m elancholy,

in te llig e n tly a rticu la te d .

th e co n flic ts , th e u n h ap p in e ss, th e rava g e s of

In som e respects, how ever, the film is not

tim e and so cie ty. Indeed, th e re is a strong

e n tire ly co n vin cin g . Som e e le m e n ts are d e riv a

co n tra s t b etw een the d e sire to fo rtify o n e ’s jo y,

tive : fo r e xam ple, the use of the sto rm -m o tif as

is tra n sfo rm e d su d d e n ly and fo rc e fu lly into a w ay of triu m p h in g o ve r tim e, and its e xpected ravages, into a m om e n t of a p o th e o sis.

to e n clo se it, and the in a b ility to p re ve n t the

a sign of im p en d in g strife is too fa m ilia r to have

LE MARI DE LA COIFFEUSE (THE H A IR

re c u rre n c e of a d ve rsity.

the req u ire d im pact. O ne w o n d e rs also w hat

DRESSER’S HUSBAND) Directed by Patrice Leconte.

L e c o n te ’s co m m itm e n t to P a n avision is as

A n to in e did betw een ch ild h o o d and m aturity.

Producer: Thierry De Ganay. Line producer: Monique

s trikin g here as it w as in Monsieur Hire. A l

.W e re th e re o th er h a ird re sse rs, or did his hair

Guerrier. Scriptwriters: Claude Klotz, Patrice Leconte.

th o ug h m uch of th e sto ry ta ke s place in the

a ctu a lly g ro w u n d istu rb e d ? T he scrip t p ro vid e s

sa lo n , the fo u r w a lls seem not to re strict them

no c le a r a n sw e rs. And w hy d oes M ath ild e a c

at all - indeed, the use of P a n avision te n d s to

ce p t A n to in e ’s p ro p o sa l?

Director of photography: Eduardo Sauvagnac. Art director: Ivan Maussion. Costume designer: Cecile Magnan. Sound recordist: Pierre Lenoir. Editor: Joëlle Hache. C om poser: M ichael Nyman. Cast: Jean

s u g g e s t th a t th e ir re la tio n sh ip tra n sce n d s such

T he g re a te st risk w as the d e cisio n to p o r

Rochefort (Antoine), Anna Galiéna (Mathilde), Roland

b o u nd s; th a t th e ir love, to m isq uo te Ham let,

tra y such p eople. T w o people w ho are c le a rly In

Bertin (Antoine’s father), Maurice Chevit (Agopian),

m akes them regents of space th o ug h bou nd e d

love, have, and seek, no frie n d s and have no

Philippe Clevenot (M orvoisieux), Jacques Mathou (Mr

by a nu tshe ll. T he set itse lf h e ig h te n s o n e ’s

a p p a re n t in te re sts beyond e n jo yin g one a n o th

Chardon), Claude Aufaure (Gay customer), Albert

s e n se th a t th e ir w o rld u n fo ld s sp o n ta n e o u sly

e r’s co m p a n y do not n e ce ssa rily m ake fo r the

d e s p ite the lim ited size and, indeed, de sp ite

m ost co m p e llin g vie w in g . But it is rem a rkab le

th e a ctu al p re se n ce of a clie n t (as is e vid e n t in

th a t Leconte m an a g e s to su sta in o ur interest,

one of the film ’s m ost e ro tic sce n e s). A lth o u g h

nay, fa scin a tio n , fo r the m ost part. (The “v is i

in s p ir e d

to rs ” are, then, a n e ce ssa ry ad d itio n to the

b y T a v e r n ie r ,

L e c o n te

u tiliz e s

P a n a visio n in a bold and d is tin c tiv e m anner. 54

• CINEMA

PAPERS

film .)

D elpy (D on ecker), H enry H ocking (1 2-yea r-o ld Antoine), Ticky Holgado (M orvoisieux's son-in-law). Lambart Productions -T .F .I. Films Productions. Aus tralian distributor: Newvision. 35 mm. 90 mins. France. 1991

H O L ID A Y S ON TH E R IV E R Y A R R A

a ctio n in the n a rra tive is s u g g e s tiv e of th e lack

pro ve his c u lin a ry a b ility by b rin g in g e vid e n ce

of a ctio n in th e live s of the n o n -film ic M icks and

to th e g ro u p ’s h ideout, b u t in th e m ea n tim e both

E ddies of urban A u stra lia ). A nd it a lso o ffe rs a

boys m ust raise $5 0 0 as c o n trib u tio n to the

m o m e n t o ftra n s itio n fo r Eddie, from in n o ce n ce

n all th e m ed ia hype su rro u n d in g th e p e r

m issio n fu n d s, and as fu rth e r e vid e n ce of th e ir

to e x p e rie n ce , from b o y to m an (as co n s titu te d

fo rm a n c e of J o c e ly n M o o rh o u s e ’s Proof at

co m m itm e n t to th e cause.

KARL

of co o k is su g g e ste d . He is g ive n a fe w da ys to

QUINN

w ith in th e id e o lo g y of v io le n ce and racism ), from rebel w ith o u t a ca u se to k ille r on the run.

C a n n e s, one co u ld be fo rg iv e n fo r b e lie vin g

In re a lity, n e ith e r M ick nor E ddie is rea lly

th a t it w a s th e o n ly A u s tra lia n film in vite d to the

co m m itte d to the ca u se . R ather, th e m ission

T he real stren g th of B e rk e le y ’s film lies in

F estiva l. In fa ct, th e re w e re tw o A u s tra lia n film s

a p p e a ls fo r its se n se o f a d ve n tu re . M ick th ro w s

th e ch a ra c te r of Eddie, and he is fo rtu n a te th a t

at C a n n e s, and Leo B e rk e le y ’s Holidays on the

h im self w h o le h e a rte d ly into th e p ro ce ss o f ra is

he has in C raig A d a m s an a cto r w h o a p p ea rs

River Yarra w a s the oth er. W h e th e r th e c o m

ing m oney, using th e h o n ou re d tra d itio n s of ca r

d e vo id of se lf-c o n s c io u s n e s s w h ile p la yin g a ch a ra c te r w h o is c o m p le te ly s e lf-o b s e s s e d .

p a ra tiv e la ck of in te re s t in Holidays th u s fa r

th e ft and m ugging. But E ddie has less d is re

sh ow n in A u s tra lia has a n yth in g to do w ith the

gard fo r o th e r pe o ple and th e ir p ro p e rty and,

E ddie has no in sig h t into him self, ye t is fu lly

film ’s p e rc e iv e d in te rn a tio n a l rece p tio n is not

b e sid e s, he has to m ake an e d ib le m e a l- w h ic h

aw a re of his e xiste n ce as a so cia l s ig n ifie r, of

c le a r (though I w o u ld argue it do e s), but it is not,

he has n ever b e fore m anaged. J u st w hen he is

v a lid ity o n ly in re la tio n s h ip to the se t of signs

at a n y rate, ju s tifie d .1

about to concede de fea t E ddie’s m other (Angela

from w h ich he is e xclu d e d . T h e se sig n s in clu d e p a re n ta l lo ve , a c a d e m ic a c h ie v e m e n t and

Holidays on the River Yarravery cle a rly has

M cK e n n a), in a rare m om e n t of a c k n o w le d g e

less in co m m o n w ith P ro o fth a n it d oes w ith tw o

m ent of his e xiste n ce and his needs, ba ke s him

m ea n in g fu l e m p lo ym e n t, and are as a b s tra c t

o th e r re ce n t film s from M elbo u rn e , Death in

a su p e rb c h o co la te ca ke w h ich e arns him the

and foreign to Eddie as the fa r-o ff A frican country

Brunswick and Nirvana Street Murder. Like

rite of p a ssage.

upon w h ich he hopes to im pose his ow n system of signs, as u n fo rm u la te d as th a t m ig ht ye t be.

th e m , and un like Proof, th e film is se t w ith in a

A s hopes fo r raising th e m on e y fade, a

visio n of urban d e ca y w h ich is so m e tim e s a b

d e sp e ra te plan o ccu rs to M ick: E ddie should

If he ca n n o t reach A frica , th e re is on ly one role

s tra c t and s o m e tim e s s p e cific, ye t a lw a ys there

hold up th e A sia n p ro p rie to r of a fish and ch ip

open to Eddie, th a t of the b ro o d in g ly n a rc is s is

to be e sca p e d from . In Death in Brunswick, Carl

shop w h ich th e y had visite d ea rlier. M ick hands

tic o u tsid er, th e loner, s im u lta n e o u s ly th e v ic

(Sam N eill) fin d s a w a y out of his e xiste n tia l

E ddie his knife, and te lls him to “ju s t sca re the

tim of and, b e ca use of his h e ig h te n e d self-

im p a sse th ro u g h ro m a n tic /s e x u a l fu lfilm e n t in

g u y ” . Instead, it is Eddie w ho be co m e s scared,

kn o w le d g e, th e v ic to r o ve r a s o cie ty th a t c a n

his re la tio n s h ip w ith S o p h ie (Zoe C a rid es). In

and as the A sian fa ce b e fore him sw o o n s and

not hope to co m p re h e n d the depth of his a l

Nirvana Street Murder, it is the uto pian p a ra

m ixes w ith e ve ry o th e r A sian face he has ever

ienation.

dise of Byron Bay th a t p ro m ise s a b e tte r life to

seen, and w ith e ve ry racist slo g a n he has ever

But fo r w h a te v e r stre n g th s A d a m s b ring s to

B odie (M a rk L ittle ), th o ug h it is u ltim a te ly death

heard or seen pa in ted , and w ith th e se n se of

th e film , th e re are e qual d e tra ctio n s . Som e of

w h ich se ts him free . In Holidays on the River

o p p o rtu n itie s m issed or n e ve r o ffe re d , Eddie

the p e rfo rm a n ce s are not as sh a rp as one

Yarra, th e se a rch fo r e x c ite m e n t be yo nd the

lunges, and the m an slu m ps to the flo o r in a

w ould hope, and the d ia lo g u e at tim es se e m s

co n fin e s of a d yin g city c o n tin u e s.

pool of blood.

u n n e ce ssa rily stilte d . T he ch a ra c te r of S te w ie is ill-d e fin e d ; the racism of a th irty -is h , s e m i-h ip

E ddie (C raig A d a m s) and M ick (Luke Elliot)

In m ore w a ys than one, th is is th e tu rn in g

are u n e m p lo ye d te e n a g e rs , kickin g th e ir heels

p o in t of the film . It o ffe rs the lo gical co n clu sio n

urban g ro o vste r ne e ds e xp la n a tio n , w h ich is n ’t

in a w a s te la n d of d ocks, fa c to rie s and new

of the ra cist id e o lo g y w h ich in fo rm s m ost o f the

to s u g g e st th a t sa rto ria l style is a g u a ra n to r of

su b u rb s. T h e y a re a d rift from th e m ainstre a m

ch a ra cte rs a round M ick and Eddie, and it is

p o litics, m ere ly th a t the clash of sig n s here

roles and a s p ira tio n s of so cie ty, and stru g g le to

fittin g th a t Eddie, to a large e xte n t an em pty

w o rks a g a in st b e lie va b ility. S im ila rly, it is never

fin d v irtu e in th e ir a lie n a tio n . A ttra cte d by a

vesse l w a itin g to be fille d by the ideas and

cle a r w h e th e r the m e rce n a rie s rea lly plan to

p ro m ise of cash, th e p a ir is e n liste d to p aint

p a ssio n s of others, sh o u ld be the only one to

ta ke the boys a long, or if the plan is to ta ke th e ir

slo g a n s on fa c to ry w a lls fo r S te w ie (T a h ir

have the co u ra g e (stup id ity) of th e ir co n v ic

m oney and d um p them , or sim p ly to ig n o re

C a m bis), a m em b e r of a s h a m b lin g racist o r

tio n s. It also offers a m om e n t of irru p tio n , the

them a lto g e th e r. W hile the $500 is cru c ia l in

g a n iz a tio n . W hen S te w ie give s them a w in n in g

v io le n t in cu rsion of action upon a film and a

te rm s of n a rra tive d rive, it adds an e le m e n t of

tip at the g re yh o u n d s, his p o sitio n as role m odel

la n d sca pe in w h ich a ctio n has been d e cid e d ly

co n fu sio n w h ich in no w a y adds to th e story.

is ce m e n te d ; in th e ir eyes, he is m aster, not

a b se n t (this is not to say th a t the film is not

S till, th e se fa u lts do not ruin the film , th e y

victim , of his d is a ffe c tio n . But M ick and Eddie

in te re stin g up to th is po in t; rather, the la ck of

m ere ly m ake it fla w e d . T h e re are som e ge n u-

are not ye t eq u al to S te w ie ; th e y still have rites of p a ssa ge to n e g otia te . S te w ie in tro d u c e s M ick and E ddie to a co u p le o f his co m ra d e s, Big M ac (Alex M englet) and F ra n k (Ian S co tt), w h o are pla n n in g to lead an e x p e d itio n of m e rce n a rie s on a m ission to o ve rth ro w the g o v e rn m e n t of a sm all A frica n na tio n. A c c o rd in g to Big M ac, if so m e b o d y d o e s n ’t s ta rt doing s o m e th in g a b o ut all the b la ck n a tio ns c ro p p in g up, soon th e re w ill be no hope le ft fo r w h ite c u ltu re . M ick is o ffe re d a pla ce on the m issio n , b u t the s lig h te r Eddie a p p e a rs to be of no use to them , until the role

1. Ed.: In fact, several im portant critics preferred H o lid a y s o n the R iv e r Y a rra to P ro o f. For a com pari

son, by different critics, see P o s itif, July-August 1991.

A B O V E LEFT: DESIRE, O B S E S S IO N A N D THE PURSUIT OF H A P P IN E S S : A N T O IN E (JE A N ROCHEFO RT) A N D M A TH ILD E ( A N N A G A L IE N A ). PATRICE LEC O N TE'S THE HAIRDRESSER'S

H U S B A N D . R IG H T : EDDIE (C R A IG A D A M S ), M IC K (LUKE ELLIOT), THREE 'M E R C E N A R IE S ' (J O H N B R U M P T O N , JACEK K O M A N , CHRIS A S K E Y ) A N D B IG M A C (A L E X M E N G LE T). LEO BERKELEY'S V IS IO N OF U R B A N D E C A Y , H O LID A Y S O N THE RIVER YARRA.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 55

in e ly b rillia n t m om ents - i n p a rticu la r, th e scene

the ch a ra cte r p ro vid e s the e m o tio n a l and d ra

in w h ich M ick and E ddie b a la n ce p re ca rio u sly

m atic core of th e film .

on a bridg e , p o ise d to ju m p into th e rive r below ,

th o se to w hom Jo h n so n d e d ic a te s his e ffo rts are p re cise ly th e ones w h o are o b lig e d to e n

T he sim ila ritie s b etw een the film and the

fo rce his p u n ish m e n t). Indeed, the iro n ie s are

but n e ith er tru s tin g the o th e r to jo in in the leap

novel are m ore n o table. As sta te d ea rlier, the

q u ite s trikin g : J o h n s o n ’s im a g in a tio n fin d s its

of fa ith - and so m e im p re ssive b la ck hum our.

film is tru e to the s p irit of th e novel to a re m a rk

e x p re s s io n in R u d b e c k in th e s e n s e th a t

T he p h o to g ra p h y is a d m ira b le , and th e sce n e s

able exte nt. C a ry’s Jo h n son is a po e t (of sorts)

R u d b e ck be co m e s its ag e nt, so w e are not

in w h ich C la u d ia K arvan a p p ea rs as E d d ie ’s

w h o cre a te s fo r him self, or a tte m p ts to crea te

a lw a ys sure w ho is the s u p e rio r and w ho the

w a n n a b e frien d E lsa have a lig h tn e ss and

fo r him self, an a ura of glory. (It is w orth re

in fe rio r; the road w h ich is c o m p le te d by v irtu e

s in c e rity a b o ut them w h ich sta n d in w e lco m e

m e m b e ring th a t the ch a ra cte r upon w h ose

of J o h n s o n ’s in g e n uity, and w h ich op e ns up a

relief to the d a rk d ish o n esty of o th er in te ra ctio n s

e xp e rie n ce s C ary d re w w as an A frica n cle rk

new w o rld - one to w h ich J o h n son is c o m m itte d

w ith in th e film ’. But it is p ro b a b ly p re cise ly

w ho co u ld co n tro l raging m obs w ith a single

- leads to his d e m ise .

b e ca use the o v e rw h e lm in g p ictu re p a in ted by

w o rd; a m an who bo a ste d of having been p u r

Like the novel, the film p ro vid e s an im p o r

the film is sorblack, so u n like th e ‘D um b S tre e t’

sued by w ild e le p h a n ts and of having c o m m it

ta n t e xp lo ra tio n of the d a m a g in g e ffe c ts of

im age of urban A u s tra lia , and hence so th re a t

ted h e ro ic fe a ts on th e fro n tie r, even th o ug h he,

c o lo n iz a tio n . J o h n s o n , in fa c t, b e c o m e s a

ening to co sy a ss u m p tio n s of th is as th e Lucky

in reality, lived as a ju n io r cle rk on a q u ie t

stra n g e r in tw o w o rld s, d e s p ite his in g e n io u s

C o u n try, th a t Holidays on the River Yarra w ill

sta tio n .) B e re s fo rd ’s Jo h n son is c e rta in ly an

e ffo rts to b ecom e a p a rt of b oth. He is b e tra ye d

rem ain a film th a t p e o p le sh o u ld see, but

e xu b era n t, fa n ciful and life -a ffirm in g in d ividual,

by the v illa g e rs w h o se lo y a lty he rea lly o u g h t to

p ro b a b ly w o n 't.

a p o in t w h ich is re in fo rce d in his love of d ance

be able to co u n t on: fo r exa m p le , his w ife,

and song. He, too, has a poe tic se n sib ility.

Bam u (B ella E nahoro), is d islo ya l and is re

HOLIDAYS ON THE RIVER YARRA Directed by Leo

Tw o o th e r asp e cts of th e film recall the

Berkeley. Producer: Fiona Cochrane. Scriptwriter: Leo

novel: J o h n s o n ’s w o rsh ip of R u dbeck (P ierce

as a co n d em n e d m an, o n ly the p a ra p h e rn a lia

B ro sn a n), w ho re p re se n ts the e m e rg e n ce of

of the “ English g e n tle m a n ” link him to the

the Em pire in N igeria, and J o h n s o n ’s d e votion

co lo n ize rs, e v e n th o u g h in a ty p ic a lly g e n ero u s

Berkeley. Director of photography: Brendan Lavelle. Production designer: Margaret Eastgate. Sound re cordist: M arkTarpey. Editor: Leo Berkeley. Composer: Sam Mallet. Cast: Craig Adams (Eddie), Luke Elliot (Mick), Alex Menglet (Big Mac), Tahir Cambis (Stewie),

sp o n sib le w ith h e rfa m ily fo rtu rn in g him in. And

to the id e a s and va lu e s of th e English w a y of

g e stu re he parts w ith the m ost im p o rta n t o b

life. Indeed, th is d e vo tion is the so u rce of som e

je cts at the end.

Claudia Karvan (Elsa). Jungle Pictures. Australian

am u sin g m om e n ts in the film : fo r exam ple,

It is cle a r th a t his w ife ’s a lle g ia n c e s are w ith

distributor: Ronin. 35 mm. 88 mins. Australia. 1991.

Jo h n son c a rrie s an u m b re lla even th o ug h the

the triba l w ays and it is p e rh a p s c h a ra c te ris tic

skie s are clo u d le ss and is e xtre m e ly proud of

of Jo h n son th a t he n ever rea lly seem s to u n d e r

his E n g lish m a n ’s le a th e r sh o e s even th o ug h

stand the c o n se q u e n ce s of this. His office r,

M IS TE R JO H N S O N RAYMOND

YOUNIS

th e y are the so u rce of som e physica l d is c o m

u n d e rsta n d a b ly, is re lu cta n t to defy o rd e rs in

fo rt to him.

o rd e r to save Jo h n son , even th o ug h Jo h n son

ruce B e re s fo rd ’s in te re st in lite ra tu re is

T he p lo t is a cle ve rly co n d en se d ve rsion of

again e v id e n t in his a d a p ta tio n of Joyce

the novel. The esse n tial te n sio n s and the m ajor

nation (a m ajor co n ce rn in the film and novel),

C a ry ’s Mister Johnson {his last film , of course,

ch a ra cte rs are included. Jo h n son a p p lie s his

by w h ich he b ridg e s both w o rld s to a ce rta in

w as an a d a p ta tio n of an o ff-B ro a d w a y play,

c o n sid e ra b le po w e rs of im a gina tio n to fin d in g

exte nt, ca n n o t d e live r him in th e end. Indeed,

Driving Miss Daisy). A lth o u g h the film is qu ite a

solutions to R u dbeck’s problem s, but not always

the su g g estio n i's th a tth e u n fette re d e xe rcise of

fa ith fu l a d a p ta tio n , th e re are som e m inor d iffe r

in w a ys w hich are p ru d e n t or d iscrim in a tin g .

the im a gina tio n can have se riou s, even trag ic,

ences. For e xam ple, Jo h n son is a round 17

T he co n se q u e n ce ? He is accused by a p e d a n

co n se qu e n ce s. A lth o u g h J o h n s o n ’s im a g in a

ye a rs old in the novel and se e m s “ h a lf-g ro w n ”

tic o ffice r of e m b e zzle m e n t and m isa p p ro p ria

tion has a lib e ratin g e ffe ct on R u dbeck in the

w ith a sm all body; R u d b e ck is stout, sh o rt w ith

tio n of fu n ds (even th o ug h C ary and B e resford

sense th a t it fre e s him from th e s tra it-ja c k e t of

reddish hair, and so on. In the film , Jo h n son

m ake it cle a r th a t Jo h n son has no in te n t to

m ilita ry co n ve n tio n s and stiflin g reg u la tio n s,

(M a yn a rd E liashi) is not a te e n a g e r at all and

co m m it crim e s; his aim is to help R udbeck, and

the film , like the novel, su g g e sts th a t it m ust be

B e re sford seem s ju s tifie d in his ca stin g since

it is one of the m ost po ten t ironies in the film that

s u b o rd in a te d to th e re c o g n itio n of e th ic a l

de fie d law s and eth ics to help him. Even im a g i

bo u nd a rie s and legal fram ew orks. B eresford is a cknow ledged as a fin e d ire c to r of acto rs, so it is not su rp risin g th a t th e p e rfo rm a n c e s in the film are firs t-ra te . T he m ajor c h a ra cte r is Jo h n son , and w h a t e m e rg e s is a c o lo u rfu l and en d e a rin g

p e rs o n a lity ,

a w a rm

h e a rte d , g e n e ro u s , e x u b e ra n t s p irit w ith a dep th of fe e lin g th a t is qu ite m em o rab le . A las, w h a t also e m e rg e s as a p a rt of th is p e r so n a lity is an in a b ility and u n w ill in g n e s s to c o n s id e r c o n s e q u ences. If Jo h n son is a p oet in s o m e re s p e c ts ,

he is a ls o a

d re a m e r in th e s e n s e th a t he seem s not to be a w are of the se riou s n ature of his tra n s g re s sions, se e m s not to p o sse ss any g re a t sense of res p o n s ib ility . But it is E dw ard W o o d w a rd w ho ve ry n early ste a ls the film as G o llu p , a nasty, b ru tish and notso -sh o rt sto re ow ner, w h o is d e vo te d to gin, the a buse of a h e lp less w o m an and the Pax B ritan56

• CINEMA

PAPERS

B E L O W LEFT: J O H N S O N (M A Y N A R D E Z IA S H I) W IT H LO C AL N IG E R IA N S IN BRUCE BEREFO RD'S A D A P T A T IO N OF THE JOYCE C A R Y N O V E L , MISTER J O H N S O N . R IG H T : A N H D T V -E N H A N C E D IM A G E F R O M PETER G R E E N A W A Y 'S R E N D IT IO N OF S H A K E S P E A R E 'S THE TEMPEST, PRO S PERO 'S B O O K S .

nia. (In fa ct, his a b u se of M atu m b i, the b la ck w om an, p rovides a vivid analogue to the ravages and a buses w ro u g h t by co lo n ize rs on an ancient p e o ple and th e ir w a ys.) In th e novel, his a f firm a tio n of th e im p e ria lis t cree d and social D a rw in is t p rin c ip le s (e s p e c ia lly in his ta lk of h ig h e r race s) is ce n tra l to the critiq u e of id e o lo g ie s and p s e u d o -s c ie n tific th e o rie s w hich are a tth e h e a rt of c o lo n iz a tio n . B e re sford c o m m u n ica te s th is c ritiq u e s u c c e s sfu lly. O ne of the d e lig h ts of th e film is the fa c t th a t Jo h n son le a rn s to m a n ip u la te G o llu p in m any w ays, a p o in t th a t im p lic itly ne g ate s th e so cia l D a rw in ist a rg u m e n t th a t G o llu p is asse rtin g . T h e re are p ro b le m s, h o w ever, w ith o ther a sp e cts. B e re sfo rd fra m e s w ith a p a in te rly eye and, as ever, th e film looks e le g a n t and even s trik in g ly b e a u tifu l. B ut the c o n sta n t e ffo rt to fin d th e a n g le s and sh o ts th a t are m ost p le a s ing aesthetically a c tu a lly w o rks a g a in st the film in parts such as th e end. T he c o n ce n tra tio n on th e aesthetic se rve s to le ssen the e m o tio n a l im pact, th e fo rc e of the ig n o b le and the ugly th a t is co m m u n ic a te d so w ell in the novel. M ore o ve r, som e roles su ffe r: G elia, R u d b e ck’s w ife , is an u n d e rw ritte n c h a ra cte r. As a result, no se n se of e m o tio n a l or p s y c h o lo g ica l d e v e l o p m e n t is c o n v in c in g ly p re se n te d . But one can o n ly la m en t the fa ct th a t this film did not a ttra c t m ore in te re s t in th e cinem as. It is a co g e n t s tu d y of a m an w ho su ffe rs from a ro m a n tic s e n s ib ility and a su rp lu s of n a ive id e a lism , of a man w h o ca n n o t co m p re h e n d the g u lf be tw e en im a g in a tio n and p ra g m a tic im p e ra tive s. It is a p o ig n a n t ta le of the e xte nt to w h ich d u tie s and re g u la tio n s d e stro y the fa b ric of frie n d s h ip , and of the tra g ic co n se qu e n ce s of the e x e rc is e of c re a tiv e free d o m w ith o u t s tra t egy, p ru d e n ce and fo re s ig h t, w ith in the co n te xt of a harsh, even tre a c h e ro u s co lo n ia l p ow er and e q u a lly tre a c h e ro u s , e le m e n ts in triba l so cie ty. It is also an in d ic tm e n t of m ission e d u catio n , by im p lic a tio n , since it is cle a r that Jo h n so n w as not ta u g h t th a t m ora lity is m ore than a c o n v e n ie n tfa c a d e , a d is p e n s a b le m ask. It is fittin g th a t the film sh o u ld end w ith yet a n o th e r th o u g h t-p ro v o k in g tra n s fo rm a tio n : J o h n s o n ’s d eath b e co m e s not o n ly the pre lu d e to R u d b e c k ’s e d u catio n , but also th e pre lu d e to an u n d e rsta n d in g of th e m eaning of va lu e s such as lo ya lty, s e lfle s s co u ra g e and de vo tion .

P R O S P E R O ’S B O O K S

In th e se w o rds, P ro sp e ro reca lls his exile as D uke of M ilan, and the film , set firm ly in

BRIAN

McFARLANE

P ro sp e ro ’s m ind, is stru ctu re d a b o ut the s u s

o one w ith even a p a ssin g a cq u a in ta n ce

ta in in g w e a lth of th e se vo lu m e s. V o lu m e 1 is

w ith Peter G re e n a w a y ’s oeuvre - from , at

“T he B ook of W a te r” , V o lu m e 2 is “T he B ook of

least, The Draughtman’s ContractXo The Cook

M irro rs ” , V o lu m e 3 is “A rch ite ctu re and O th e r

The Thief His Wife & Her Lover - is going to

M u sic” , and so on, each helping to p iece to

e xp e ct a ca re fu l, resp e ctfu l film ve rsion of a

g e th e r the sto ry of tre a ch e ry, b a n ish m e n t, the

him . Prospero’s

recreation of a R enaissance world in m icrocosm ,

Books ca rrie s the cred it, “An a d a pta tio n of The

the e n a ctm e n t of ve n g ea n ce , and th e final

S h a k e s p e a re a n p la y from

Tempest by W illia m S h a ke sp e a re ” , but it gives

a ccess of the g re a te r m a tu rity of te n d e rn e s s

new m eaning to the idea of film a d a pta tio n . By

and fo rg ive n e ss.

th is, I m ean G ree n a w a y has ta ke n a g re a t te xt

To th is exte nt, the S h a ke sp e a re a n n a rra

in a n o th e r m edium and a ltered, m odified - re

tive line e m e rg e s w ith m oving c la rity . T he

im a gine d - it in such a w ay th a t it b e com es

p h a n ta sm a g o ric play of im a g e s - th e c re a tu re s

u n th in ka b le as an ything o th er than a film .

of P ro sp e ro ’s fe rtile im a gining s, not m erely

In the past year and a half, th e re have been

m a n ip u la te d by him but a ctu a lly cre a te d by

th re e o th er film s of S h a ke sp e a re a n o rigins, all

him , to the p o in t of his often sp e a kin g fo r them

o fth e m w ith ve ry c o n sid e ra b le m erits. Kenneth

- is at ce rta in m om ents rep la ce d by a b e a utifu l,

B ra n a g h ’s fin e , re a lis t Henry 1/ su s ta in e d

s tra ig h tfo rw a rd sim p licity. I th in k here of som e

c o m p a r is o n

of P ro sp e ro ’s sce n e s w ith M ira n d a (Isab e lle

w ith

O liv ie r ’ s 1 9 4 4 c la s s ic ;

Z e ffire lli’s p la in -m a n ’s Hamlet w as cle a r and

Pasco) and F erdinand (M ark R ylance) as th e se

v ig o ro u s, if not e x a ctly in sp ire d ; and Tom

tw o respond w ith love to each o th e r and w ith a

S to p p a rd ’s film version of his play, Rosencrantz

d ire ctn e ss th a t seem s to ch a lle n g e P ro s p e ro ’s

and Guildenstern Are Dead, tu rn e d Hamlet

control. T here is a m om ent when M ira n d a tends

inside out, as it w ere. S to p p a rd ’s play and film

the sh ip w recke d Ferdinand on the ste p s of a

turn on a bold co n ce it w h e re b y the m ain action

ca rd b o a rd p o p-up p o rtico w hich has m ag ica lly

of S h a k e s p e a re ’s play is view ed by (not quite)

a ssum ed so lid d im en sio n s. T h e y are jo in e d , in

in n o ce nt b ysta nd e rs, w h e re a s the o th er two

th is b e a u tifu lly co m p o se d shot, by P ro s p e ro ’s

film s are w ell w ith in the tra d itio n a l m ould of

ap p ea rin g above them as g re a t d oors open,

S h a k e sp e a re -o n -film , th o ug h not n e ce ssa rily

and w h a t he sees fe e d s the w o n d e r th a t in

the w o rse fo r that.

fo rm s his ta lk of a ffe ctio n s be co m in g “te n d e r” .

W hen one tu rn s to Prospero’s Books, one

Even th o se fo r w hom S h a ke sp e a re should

fin d s not ju s t a m atte r of tu rn in g the o riginal

be left to sp e a k fo r h im self, th o s e in n a tely

inside out or upside down, but, rather, a dazzling

d is tru s tfu l of “ta m p e rin g w ith ” or “v io la tin g ” the

to u r de fo rce in w h ich the pla y has been shaken

o rigina l, can sca rce ly fail to be m oved by the

in th e m a n n e ro f a ka le id o sco pe . In th e p rocess,

P rospero w hich G ree n a w a y has allo w e d John

Producer: Michael Fitzgerald. Executive producer: Bill

the eye is a ssa ile d w ith g o rg e o u s im a ge ry and

G ielgud to create. P erhaps the m ost ce le b ra te d

Benenson. Scriptw riter: W illiam Boyd. Based on the

the m ind is kept pan ting w ith the e ffo rt to

stage Prospero of the ce n tury, G ie lg u d here, at

novel by Joyce Cary. Director of photography: Peter

MISTER JOHNSON Directed by Bruce Beresford.

re co n stru ct the g litte rin g pieces a s th e y fa ll. But

eighty-seven, gives one of h is - a n d the s c re e n ’s

James. Production designer: Herbert Pinter. Sound

th a t is not to su g g e st chaos: out of his no n -sto p

- g r e a te s t p e rfo rm a n ce s. T he old, w ise , se re n e

recordist: Leslie Hodgson. Costume designer: Rose

tw o -h o u r b e d azzlem e n t, G ree n a w a y shakes

fa ce fla sh e s w ith a n g er and cun n in g but m oves

out a still ce n tre of e m o tio n a l and in te lle ctu al

to w a rd s th e m ost a ffe ctin g co m p a s s io n as

mary Burrows. Art director: Fabian Adibe. Editor: Humphrey Dixon. Composer: Georges Delerue. Cast: Maynard Ezlashi (Mr Johnson), Pierce Brosnan (Harry Rudbeck), Edward W oodward (Sargy Gollup), Beatie Edney (Bulteen), Nick Reding (Tring), Bella Enahoro (Bamu), Femi Fatoba (W aziri). An Avenue Pictures release of a Michael & Kathy Fitzgerald Production. Australian distributor: Hoyts. 35 mm. 103 mins. U.S. 1991.

co n tro l in the re p re se n ta tio n of a Prospero

P rospero a cce p ts the “ lo ss” of his d a u g h te r in

(John G ie lg u d ) w ho know s e xa ctly w h a t he is

the fin a l te m p e st of g ro w ing , as he “d ro w n s ” the

up to and w h a t he m ust do:

books, fre e s A riel and, out of th e p assion th a t has crea te d the storm , is ready to fill th e space

K n ow ing I loved my bo oks, he [G o n za lo ] fu rn is h ’d me From m ine own libra ry w ith volum es that I prize above my dukedom .

left in “A B ook of 35 P la ys” w ith the p la y he has crea te d , The Tempest. T his is the fa c e of a m an w ho has looked on h o rro rs - the b o d ie s of the CINEMA

PAPERS

• 57

dead á fte r the tre a c h e ry òf A n to n io (Tom Bell),

and rum in a tio n s. But th e y do th is m em o rab ly:

th is tim é á tth é s è rvice o f illu m in a tin g one o f the

thè im p ris o n m e n t of A rie l in a tree, the birth of

J o s e p h s o n ’s fa ce re g iste rs G onzalO ’s life tim e

g re a t d ra m a tic te xts of th e la n g u à g e .

C a lib a n (M ich a ë l C la rk) - and w ho has e x e r

Of d e vo tion , C ra nh a m and Bell havé à w a tch fu l

Tempest hás a lw a ys se e m e d to me ohe of the

Thè

cise d tò thè fu ll his p o w e r o ve r th e lives Of

s tilln e s s as th e y a b so rb the fa c t of ProsperO ’s

rich est, but also one Of th e m ost e n ig m a tic and

o th ers. It is a lso the fa ce of a m an w ho in the

fo rg ive n e ss, ahd M ichel B la n c ’s AlorisO j thè

ta ñ ta liziñ g , of S h a k e s p e a re ’s p lays. G reè ri-

end U nderstands w h o lly w h a t he has w ro u g h t

King of N aples, looks like an ho n est b u s in e s s

a w à y ’s á c h ie ve m e n t is to shed his Own lig h t On

and w h à t he m ust dò tò a llo w nature tò rea sse rt

man com ing to te rm s w ith u n e xp e cte d n e g o tia

its rich es and, in d o in g so, to e s ta b lis h h im s é lf

its é lí o v e r a rtifice .

tions. How p e o ple lo o k in a film in w h ich th e y

ás one of the m ost fa s c in a tin g film m a k e rs at

For m uch óf th e film P rospero sp e a ks not

are sCarcëlÿ p e rm itte d to sp e a k is the g re a te r

w o rk ih thè cin e m a to d a y - an in te lle c tu a l w ith

o n ly hiS ow n lin e s but th o se òf m ost of the o th er

p a rt of th e ir “a c tin g ” . T he b a lle tic m o ve m e n ts

a c in é p h ile ’s eye.

c h a ra c te rs as w e ll. In th is w a y, and m aking Use

arid g a ris h ly -p a in te d bo d y of C a lib a n (w ith red

Of th é w o n d e rfu l in s tru m e n t ó f G ie lg u d 's voice,

genitals) ; the bizarred ruffed-and-shod survivors

G re e h â w a y e n a cts the idea of P ro sp e ro as

Of the s h ip w rè ck; th e yo u th fu l O penness of

PROSPÉRG’S BOOKS Directed by Peter G reena w ay. P rod ucer: Kees K asander. C o -p ro d u ce rs:

riiá s te r-rriá n ip u lá to r. S o m e tim e s he sp e a ks in

M ira n d a and F erd in a n d; th e fo u r g o ld e n -cu rle d

Philippe Carcassonne, Michel Seydoux. Associate

u n iso n w ith thérh; at the end, w h e n fo rg ive n e ss

A rie ls Of v a rio u s ages: th e se w o rk e sse n tia lly

producers: Masato Hara, Roland Wigman. Executive

hàs óuSiéd vé n g e a n c e , th e o th e r ch a ra cte rs

th ro u g h visu a l im p re ssio n but, w ith G ie lg u d

p ro d u c e rs :

m a g iste ria lly at the ce n tre , th a t is eno ug h .

Scriptw riter: Peter Greenaway. Adapted from W illiam

àrê a llo w e d th ë ir ow n vo ice s. It is a da rin g c o n c e it and one th a t w orks. T ho u g h it is a film sw a rm in g With people,

none Of th e

Prospero’s Books m ay be a d iffic u lt film fo r a nyone u n fa m ilia r w ith The Tempesi (though

K ees

K a s a n d e r,

D e n is

W ig rfia n .

Shakespeare's T h e T e m p e st. Director of photogra phy: Sacha Vierny. Production designers: Ben van Os, Jan Roelfs. Editor: Marina Bodbyl. Composer:

o th e rs m a tte rs m uch e xce p t in the

such u n fa m ilia rity can be q u ic k ly re m e d ie d ); it

s e n se of w h a t th e y reve a l of th e w o rkin g of

is a d e m a n d in g film fo r a nyone, and ne e ds at

Michael Clark (Caliban), Michel BlanC (Alonso), Erland

P ro s p e ro ’s m ind. T he film has a ca st fu ll of

le a st a Couple Of v ie w in g s b e fore one perh a p s

Josephson (Gonzalo), Isabelle Pasco (Miranda), Tom Bell (Antonio), Kenneth Cranham (Sebastian), Mark

d is tin g u is h e d a cto rs, such as B e rg m a n ’s g re a t

fe e ls se cu re in s u rre n d e rin g to its ravishm e n ts.

s ta r, E rlarid Jo s e p h s o n (as G o n zalo, p ro vid e r

But an yo ne fa m ilia r w ith o th e r G re e n a w a y film s

o f th e b o o ks), RSC p la ye r M ark R yla n ce as

m ay well feel that is alm ost as helpful as knowing

F erd in a n d , K e nneth C ra nh a m a nd T om Bell as

o n e ’s S h a ke sp e a re . T h e re is th e ch a ra c te ris tic

Michael Nyman. Cast: John G ielgud (Prosperó),

Rylance (Ferdinand), Gerard Thoolen (Adrian), Pierre Bokma (Francisco), Jim Van Der W oude (Trinculo), Michiel Romeyn (Stephano). Allarts-C inea-C am era One-Penta co-production in association with Elsevier

th e tre a c h e ro u s S e b a s tia n and A n to n io , and

p ro fu sio n of im ages and id e a s, and the c h a ra c

th e b e a u tifu l Isa b elle P asco, b u t th e y a re rare ly

te ris tic m a rria g e of p ro fu sio n and d iscip lin e .

NHK. Australian distributor: Newvision. 35 mm. 124

re q u ire d to be a cto rs so m uch as to p ro vid e

T h e re is p la yin g w ith lists and g a m e s, w ith the

mins. France-U.K. 1991.

im ages, to be sig n ifie rs of P ro sp e ro ’s im aginings

a rt/life and illu s io n /re a lity d ich o to m ie s, and it is

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Vendex Film-Film Four Intl.-VPRO TV-Canal Plus-

LEFT: THE ENIGMATICALLY SERENE LAST SCENE, WITH A N N A (GOSIA DOBROWOLSKA) BENDING OVER THE DYING MARTHA (SHEILA FLORANCE) TO EASE THE OLD W OM A N'S FINAL PAIN. PAUL COX'S A WOMAN'S TALE.

own life. W hen Martha tells the story of the “dog

a g e s of trams, waterfall, figures wandering in

fights” in England and the death of a tén-

dead-w ood forests, bombing raids on WW II

m onths-old daughter during World War II it

London and fire-and-water im agery of all kinds

b e c o m e s increasingly difficult to s e e an acted

would have estab lish ed so m e interesting con

character. There s e e m s to be only Sh eila Flo

nection s within the film. H owever, any points

rance d iscu ssin g a painful memory. Ultimately,

Cox is attempting to m ake are m ercilessly ham

A W O M A N ’S TA L É

this style is often jerky and uncom fortable to

mered in.

ALISSA

w atch, particularly w hen one con sid ers the

TANSKAYÁ

other major perform ances in this picture.

O ne of the film’s main running th e m es is the notion that Martha can still look after herself

aul Cox is no new com er to films dealing

G osia Dobrowolska, who plays Anna, the

with problematic social issu e s . He has

district nurse and Martha’s b est friend, g iv es

idea is perfectly con veyed and, later, again and

covered divorce, ethnicity and sexu al hang

su ch a gentle and subtle perform ance, so dif

again. This surplus material virtually strangles

at her a g e. Within m inutes into the film, this

ups of all sorts. Ip his latest film, he o n c e again

ferent to the overall style of the film that by her

the film. About a quarter into the film Martha

tries to battle on e of the more difficult topics in

p r e se n c e alone sh e som ew h at un b alan ces its

and Billy are walking in the gardens. This sc e n e

the range of the so-called marginal issu es:

tone. H owever, her relationship with Florance

is introduced by a p assin g procession of nurses

society and the aged . Admittedly it is on e of the

in the film is original and beautiful. If one d ecid es

pushing w h eelch airs with the le s s fortunate

le s s favourite with th o se who attempt to pro

to ignore the obvious contrasts of “this is YOUNG

(com petent?) old folk. This is also intercut with

f e s s sou nd ideological attitudes in their work;

and this is OLD” type of iconography, the in

sh ots of Anna and her lover in Martha’s bed.

the more popular being race, gender and sexual

teraction of the two a c tr e sse s (not the two

O ne w anders how uncom prehending Paul Cox

difference. Su p p osed ly, topics falling in the

characters) begins to con vey its own signifi

e x p e cts his au d ien ce to be.

category of illness, physical and mental d is

c a n c e. The enigm atically se r en e last s c e n e ,

On the favourable sid e, on e could be grate

abilities and so c ie ty ’s treatm ent of the aged

with Anna bending over the dying Martha to

ful forth e film’s honesty when representing the

and the dying, though needing d iscu ssion , lack

e a s e the old w om an’s final pain, su ggestin g the

visual qualities of a g e and death. The myriads

the glamour and the fashionably political te n

controversial euthan asia issu e, is perhaps the

of wrinkles on Martha’s fa ce and body (there is

sion s. A film that d e a ls with any of th e se issu e s

b est material in the entire film. It is the b est

a very daring s c e n e of her in the bath), and all

is, therefore, im m ediately important, if only

acting, lighting and framing. If it could only

of the m ost unattractive featu res of cancer and

b e c a u se it is being brave.

share its qualities with the rest of the film!

death are laid out bare forthe viewer, no matter

C ox’s A W om a n ’s Tale m akes this brave

Norman Kaye g iv es one of the better per

how disturbing and even threatening they may

attempt, but it also m akes all the difficulties

form an ces of his career a s the com pletely s e

se e m . O ne can im agine a film of this type m ade

obvious. A W om a n ’s Tale d esp erately wants to

nile and dying Old Billy, Martha’s neighbour.

in America would be trying hard to make it all

be an uplifting, life-affirming story about old

But if one of the main things Cox is trying to

look sw ee t and pretty.

a g e and death; it strives towards being pro

sh ow is the prolonged m onotony of Billy's

A W om a n’s Tale is a difficult film, not b e

found, dialectic and spirited; but unfortunately

situation, he certainly su c c e e d s, and perhaps

c a u se it is challenging, but b e c a u se it, like

it trips over its own w ell-m eaning, optimistic

just a bit too well. Mainly, Billy’s senility is

waiting for death, is alm ost trying the audi

foundations and sinks into the m onotony of

represented by his perpetual forgetting his door

e n c e ’s patience. But perhaps this is C ox’s way

repetitive clich és and a prosaic, histrionic por

key when going to the toilet, his inability to

of fusing style with su b sta n ce. W hatever the

trayal of th o se m om ents in the ch aracters’

sh a v e him self and, finally, his forgetting to go

c a s e may be, and not due to any fault on the

private lives which need the greatest subtlety.

the toilet.

part of its ca st overall, A W om a n’s Tale is not

The film is ultimately soporific and even d e

T h e se three characters are the only o n e s

beguiling, though its brave attem pts to make an

pressing, and this is a pity a s its tenor is of great

who receive the more sen sitive and intelligent

exploration of an unpleasant them e a c c e ssib le

im portance and n e e d s to be com m unicated.

parts of the script. The rest of the characters,

are highly com m endable.

Cox con ceived the idea for one of the most

like Martha’s son , who is w eak and indecisive

ten aciou s veteran s of Australian acting, Sheila

at the c la ssic prospect of putting his mother

Florance; he also b a sed parts of the story on

away into a hom e, or, like Billy’s daughter and

her life; and overall the film proves to be an

son-in-law who only appear in the film after his

unsettling c a d e n c e to her life and career. The

death, claiming that after se e in g him on Christ

dying Sh eila Florance e n a cts herself dying. On

m as Day they did not even realize that there

its own, this fact holds so m e disturbing fa sc i

w as anything wrong, are dished out the much-

Editor: Russell Hurley. Composer: Paul Grabbwski.

nation; it is perhaps more interesting than the

trodden clich és available to the 'bad g u y s’

Cast: Sheila Florance (Martha), Gosia Dobfowolska

film itself. O ne s e e s an ill, eighty-year-old char

when the ‘good g u y s’ are the a g e d - e x c e p t that

(Anna), Norman Kaye (Billy), Chris Haywood (Jon

acter, Martha, battle to keep her dignity, and

th e se ‘bad g u y s’ are w orse. The representation

athan), Myrtle W oods (Miss Inchley), Ernest Gray

the control of her life intact, trying to enjoy her

of Martha’s other two neighbours (also ‘bad

(Peter), Monica Maughan (Billy's daughter), Max Gillies

last m onths in her own, albeit w him sical, w ays,

g u y s’), a couple of French h om osexu als, is not

rebelling against the prescriptive p en sion er’s

only clichéd but offen sive b e c a u se of it. One

d o s e of “geriatric d u ties”. More important, how ever, one also s e e s

w onders if Cox is in fact trying to su g g e st that it is b e c a u se they are French and are hom o

EDITOR’S NOTE:

the aged and ill a c tress at work, som ething that

sexual that they are nasty. Martha’s ninety-

The recently-released A y a was reviewed in C in e m a

is so much more difficultto ‘keep up’ than going

year-old friend Miss Inchley (“W ho’s never had

P a p e rs , No. 83, pp 52-53, and D riv in g M e C r a z y under

shopping on her own, going down for a swim at

a man in her life”) is primitively am using and

its original title, Dutch, In the previous issue, pp 57-58.

the local pool or arguing with her landlord. There

generally ludicrous.

is a pervading s e n s e of the real story of Sheila

The overall structure d o e s not rescu e this

Florance, the wom an behind the character of

film from the clich és. The rather bluntly-in

Martha, being so much more powerful, signifi

serted dream s e q u e n c e s, and the obvious im

cant and much better able to make the film’s

agery throughout, do not fare well; one h op es

points. F lorance’s nostalgic perform ance, signed

they would have so m e greater significance

by her typically overwhelm ing theatrics, is a

they are explained in the dialogue, just in c a se ,

A WOMAN’S TALE Directed by Paul Cox. Producers: Paul Cox, Samathana Naidu. Executive producer: William Marshall. Line producer: Paul Ammitzboll. Scriptwriters: Paul Cox, Barry Dicklhs. Director of photography: Nino G. Martinetti. Sound recordist: Russell Hurley. Production designer: Neil Angwin.

(B illy’s son-in-law), Nino G. Martinetti (Café owner). Illumination Films. Australian distributor: Premium Films. 35 mm. 93 mins. Australia. 1991.

than the obvious, but they never do. M oreover,

mixture of m isdirected acting and deeply per

one su p p o se s, the aud ien ce m issed the point.

sonal and powerful m on ologu es that se e m to

W ere it not for this technique of perpetual

be alm ost an improvisation on the them e of her

trivialization, the slow-m otion, step-printed im CINEMA

PAPERS

• 59

Introduction W e lc o m e to th e n e w -lo o k “T e c h n ic a lit ie s ” . E v e r g e t th e fe e lin g that y o u ’re irre le v a n t? S o m e w h e re a lo n g th e w a y to k e e p in g u p w ith the latest te c h n o lo g ie s in im a g e -m a k in g , th is s e c tio n of th e m a g a z in e had lo st th e p lo t. T h e ‘p lo t’, as I read it, is that th is is a te c h n ic a l-b a s e d s e c tio n of a ‘c in e m a ’ m a g a z in e , and a m a g a z in e w h e re th e re a d e rs h ip is w id e r th e n th e s m a ll g ro u p of p e o p le a s s o c ia te d w ith the A u s tra lia n film a n d te le v is io n in d u s try . B u t if it is no t re le va n t to th e m , th e re is n o w h e re else to tu rn . C in e m a P a p e rs is it. S o if y o u d e te c t a drift a w a y fro m v id e o a n d c o m p u te r a rtic le s to w a rd s m o re film -b a s e d in fo rm a tio n , it is e n tire ly in te n tio n a l. T h e r e are o th e r m a g a z in e s that c o v e r th o s e a re a s (a n d I v o r a c io u s ly read th e m a ll), b u t th is is g o in g to be a te c h n ic a l s e c tio n fo r film m a k e rs a n d u sers. F ro m in s id e lo o k in g o u t at th e film -b a s e d te c h n o lo g y of c in e m a , th e re is n o n e of th e e x p lo s iv e g ro w th of v id e o a n d c o m p u te rs te c h n o lo g y . T h e c h a n g e s h a v e be en s m a ll, c o n tin u a l and c o s m e tic , w ith fifty -y e a r-o ld h a rd w a re still b e in g u s e d . B u t th e re is a w in d of c h a n g e a n d it is the a p p lic a tio n of th o s e e le c tro n ic s a n d c o m p u te r in n o v a tio n s that has stirre d th e still air. (A perfect e x a m p le is th e n e w A R R I 535, p ic tu re d b e lo w . A ls o , see A rri te c h n o lo g ic a l h ig h lig h ts o n p. 62.) It is a c o m m e rc ia l re a lity that th e d e liv e ry fo rm a t of m o s t film im a g e s w ill e v e n tu a lly be on v id e o . C o m p u te r a n d d ig ita l p ro c e s s in g w ill a llo w fo r h ig h e r re s o lu tio n v id e o a n d b ro a d c a s t te c h n iq u e s ( H D T V ) to be d e v e lo p e d , but, in th e p ra ctic a l real w o rld , th e effect h a s b e e n to point to film as th e c h e a p e s t h ig h -q u a lity im a g e -m a k in g fo rm a t fo r a lo n g tim e ye t. T h e effect of th is re a liza tio n h a s be en added im p e tu s a n d re a s s u ra n c e fo r e q u ip m e n t m a n u fa c tu re rs a n d g ro u p s lo o k in g to c u t c o s ts and sp e e d u p th e p ro c e s s e s tha t a d d tim e/co st in the p ro d u c tio n of f ilm .T h is h as b ro u g h t e m p h a s is to n o n -lin e a r ed it s y s te m s fo r fe a tu re s a n d series, an d to w a rd s th in g s s u c h as S u p e r 16. T h e r e are m a n y o th e r a s p e c ts of th e craft that fit in to th e ‘te c h n ic a l’ d e s c rip tio n . C o v e rin g th e s e a n d th e art in v o lv e d w ill be th e editorial brief fo r th e n e w “ T e c h n ic a lit ie s ” , a n d I’m lo o k in g fo rw a rd to th e c h a lle n g e to m a k e it relevant fo r re a d e rs a n d a d v e rtis e rs alike. FR ED H AR D EN 60

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Super 16 The Australian Experience DOMINIC CASE* REPORTS ON A SPECIAL ACS MEETING, IN SYDNEY, ON THE 28 AUGUST 1991, AND THE CURRENT STATE OF SUPER 16.

t is a sign of the times that the promised changes in television standards are causing more of a flurry in film production techniques than any theatrical or photographic developments. The battle between film and television has for some years been fought on the grounds that 35mm film gives better definition than a video camera (as well as giving the tonally softer “film look”). But now, with High Definition Television getting endlessly closer, film has come back fighting with the apparent sacrilege that television’s best standard yet can be matched by 16mm film with one hand tied behind its back. Super 16 negatives use single-perforated stock, exposing image right out to the non-perforated edge (the area reserved for sound-track in standard 16 prints). The wider gate gives an aspect ratio of 1.66:1, closely matching the theatrical wide screen format, whereas standard 16 has the conventional television screen ratio of 1.33:1. Back in the early 1980s, 16mm film was just about okay for conventional television production (although in the U.S. it has never been considered as anything other than a “low-budget” format). But why bother with film? As video origination got easier and easier, good old “grainy-vision” has progressively become a less practical or affordable medium. And with talk of higher definition television “just around the corner” offering 35mm film resolution, the future of 16mm didn’t seem all that brilliant. So what has changed? Film, for one thing, and television for another.

HI-16 COALITION In Europe, a group of equipment manufacturers, filmmakers and service providers has dusted off the Super 16 idea. They call themselves the Hi-16 Coalition. Super 16 film and High Definition Television we already know about: but here’s a new angle. For film release, a Super 16 mute print is projected, with sound coming from interlocked DAT or CD players. But it’s not such a new angle at all. Didn’t The Jazz Singer use synchronized discs for Al Jolson’s numbers back in 1927? One of the drawbacks with the early sound-on-disk systems was the tendency to lose sync, particularly if the film had broken and been spliced together a frame or two short. No such problems with Compact Disc, the Hi-16 people point out: by matching to a control track on the film, the digital sound will always adjust itself to match the picture in the event of any loss of sync. The Super 16 film format isn’t as old as sound-on-disk. Origi nally proposed by the Swedish cameraman Rune Ericson in 1970, it has had steady use in Europe, with bursts of enthusiasm from time to time. But we are seeing a great resurgence of interest now, mainly because of its proposed use as a shooting format for high definition television.

KODAK’S CORPORATE VIEW: THE DIGITAL HIGHWAY Since Sony started their development programme for High Defini tion TV back in 1979, the film and television world has changed more than a little. Enormous strides forward in emulsion technology-the T-grain - have almost made HDTV obsolete before it has arrived. But the competition for ever-better quality and eversmarter ways of distributing programmes has opened up many JO H N BOW RING, FROM LEMAC, W ITH A A TO N XTR CAMERA AT THE SYDNEY ACS NIGHT.

“HI-16”: A FILM GAUGE, A NEW TELEVISION FORMAT, OR A SONG BY CHUCK BERRY At a recent Australian Cinematographers’ Society meeting in Sydney, Lemac’s John Bowring showed a very impressive 7minute presenter reel demonstrating (and explaining) the Super 16-to-35 blow-up techniques. It is good; in fact, very good. Call John and ask to see it. Then ask to see the negative: nothing else will convince you that this was not a 35mm original. The magic ingredient according to John is Kodak’s new 7245 50EI daylight stock, although even the higher speed members of the EXR family of stocks, such as 7296, looked very good. John also heaped praise on the laboratory, Cinevex, who had only received the 16mm negative the day before. Negative matching, two stages of blow-up and duplication, sound transfer and a graded print in Sydney the following evening must set some kind of record, though hopefully not a precedent. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 61

A R R IF L E X TE C H N O L O G IC A L H IG H L IG H TS

FIRST ARRIFLEX CAMERA KINARRI 35

1917 Company founded by August Arnold and Robert Richter ARRI trademark created from first two letters of Arnold’s and Richter’s last names. 1924 First Arriflex camera, KINARRI 35, introduced. 1925

Introduced first Arriflex lighting fixture. Product line has been manufactured continuously to the present.

1927

First Arriflex film developing machine with friction drive introduced.

1932 Spinning mirror reflex shutter invented at ARRI by Chief Design Engineer Erich Kaestner. Landmark design permits reflex viewing through motion picture cameras for the first time. 1937

Designed and built the Arriflex 35 camera, forerunner of the famed ARRI 2C camera. First 35mm film camera with spinning mirror reflex shutter.

1952

Introduced the Arriflex 16St camera, the first professional, reflex-viewing, pin-registered, 16mm motion picture camera system.

1965

Introduced Arriflex 16BL camera, first Arriflex self-blimped 16mm production camera.

1966 Academy Award. Scientific and Engineering Award for the design and development of the Arriflex 35mm portable motion picture reflex camera. 1972

Introduced the Arriflex 35BL lightweight, sync sound produc tion camera system.

1972

Introduced the world’s first HMI lights at Munich Olympics.

1973 Academy Award. Scientific and Engineering Award for the development and engineering of the Arriflex 35BL motion picture camera. 1975

Introduced the Arriflex 16SR 16mm production camera system. It incorporated the revolutionary swing-over viewfinder design.

1979 Introduced the Arriflex 35-3 MOS camera. 1982 Academy Award of Merit (Oscar Statue) for the concept and engineering Of the first operational 35mm, hand-held, spinning-mirror reflex motion picture camera. 1987 Academy Award. Scientific and Engineering Award upgrade with Zeiss for the design and development of high-speed 35mm motion picture camera lenses. 1988 Academy Award. Scientific and Engineering Award for the concept and engineering of the Arriflex 35-3 motion picture camera. Introduced ARRI Grip, the newest line of lighting and grip stands and equipment. 1989 1990

Introduced the Arriflex 765, 65mm camera system. Introduced the Arriflex 535 camera system. This advanced camera incorporates as standard features design concepts and technologies, such as a Swing-over Viewfinder, and Programmable Shutter Control and Frame Rate Selection, that are unique to Arri.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

other areas of development, and the crystal-ball gazers are talking faster than ever. Richard Krohn presented Kodak’s corporate view of the future - “the digital highway” (or is that the Yellow Brick Road?) touching on almost every major area of development in image production today. Much of Kodak’s vision concerns theatrical entertainment: feature films in the cinema. The Kodak view even includes a personal hope (expressed in the words of Joerg Agin, V.P. of the Motion Picture division of Eastman Kodak), that more and more old cinemas would be restored as single-screen “pal ace” theatres. (In Sydney, the only old anything still standing, the State Theatre, is in line for conversion to a live theatre. Are we ahead of or behind the U.S.?) Not surprisingly, though, the future will bring more contact between film and television imaging. Originating images on film, television productions are already using the convenience of ran dom-access video editing, but then matching back to a final cut negative, using the barcode edge-number system to automate the process. The film image has always had the advantage of being compatible with all present television standards. Now it carries sufficient resolution to satisfy any High Definition TV requirements for the foreseeable future, and Kodak points to the known superior archival qualities of film for long-term preservation of material. Some of the big developments will touch local producers earlier than others; some of them will spin off to the smaller productions, commercials and documentaries quite quickly. Cin ema Digital Sound has already been used on a few features overseas: Terminator 2: Judgment Day is the latest. Among the other steps along the digital highway, Kodak counted its electronic intermediate system - a video editing and graphics-manipulation system with all the quality of film - being developed at Kodak Australasia’s headquarters in Coburg. As well, Kodak has embraced the steps towards High Definition TV, with the convincing argument that film is the only medium suitable for image origination in the HDTV world, with figures and graphs to prove that even 16mm film can provide the resolution required.

SUPER 16 PRODUCTION Afterthe Yellow Brick Road, it was up to Bruce Williamson of Atlab to bring us back to earth. After all, the meeting was billed as a “Super 16 night”. Bruce has been the laboratory expert on Super 16 for a good few years, and reminded us of the many features already shot in that format. There are currently three post-produc tion routes, leading respectively to 35mm prints for theatrical release, to a tape finish, or to a standard 16 print. He guided the audience through the steps involved in each one, and some of the pitfalls. Much the same theme was taken up by John Bowring of Lemac Film & Video, quite clearly a Super 16 enthusiast. John recom mended Aaton XTR cameras, adaptable between super and standard 16 in a matter of minutes. The Arri camera can also be converted, but involves a two-day factory operation, (although, according to Ben Vanderlinde of the John Barry Group, a simpler conversion is “on the way”). Lemac publish a Super 16 handbook, packed full of practical information about the format: lenses to choose, framing difficulties, laboratory requirements. One on-going difficulty used to be in the area of telecine transfer. Having gone to the trouble of shooting a picture in a widescreen format, a special telecine gate is needed to cope with ’While it may not be well known that Dominic Case was a founding member of the Super Sixteen Sceptics Society, Dominic is well known to most Sydney film and lab technicians. He was the technical face at the now departed Colorfilm, and a long-time office bearer and member of the SMPTE. He is now teaching at the University of Technology, Sydney, and is a consultant for a number of technical clients, including Filmlab Engineering and Kodak.

the image and convert it back to standard television ratio. After various solutions, there is now a gate for the Rank Cintel, manu factured by Lanarealm, and now fitted at AAV, Melbourne. Appar ently this resolves all earlier problems.

POST-PRODUCTION: FILM OR TAPE? When Super 16 first raised its head in Australia, I was less than convinced by it. Indeed, I was a founder member of the Super Sixteen Sceptics Society. One of the things that puzzled me was why anyone would go to the trouble of shooting on a widescreen format, if they were planning to go to video. But that was then; this is the future. Shoot on widescreen today for HDTV release tomorrow (or whenever it arrives) is the current catchcry. Mean while, let’s rush out a first release on PAL TV. But for the Super 16 producer, this presents a dilemma that hasn’t really been addressed: Whether ’tis nobler to transfer to tapefrom the original negative, orfrom a fully graded answerprint. It’s true that Super 16 film can outstrip HDTV for resolving power, but all the figures are for the original negative. Once you make a print there are losses-printer slippage, optical flare-that can’t be avoided. So, the ultimate quality requires a neg-to-tape transfer. In London, the Unitab facility is, I believe, the only place in the world where you can get a first-generation PAL transfer from final cut negatives (A & B rolls). They use two linked telecines running in tandem.

TV PRODUCERS Has your product got a future? Today, only film products will be saleable to H D T V (unless you shoot H D T V video.) Protect your product’s future income earning potential.

Shoot SUPER 16 today.

W HO’LL BE THE FIRST TO INSTALL TWO HDTV TELECINES? WITH SUPER 16 GATES? While we wait, an off-line edit followed by a conventional film negative match and a fully graded contact print seems the most effective method, using any of the non-linear editing andtimecode/ KeyKode translation systems around. The Super 16 print will serve as a master for transfer to all current television systems (taking the sound from the final mix magnetic).

CAN YOU AFFORD NOT TO SHOOT FILM FOR TELEVISION? For some time, one decision to be made quite early in any production is: “Can I afford to shoot film for television?” Now the question John Bowring asks is: “Can I afford not to shoot film for television?” For Super 16 is - a bold phrase this - “Future-proof”. There is no doubt that blow-ups from Super 16 look better than ever. There is no doubt that a good original can match-to the eye - the average results from 35mm. The official figures are a little ambiguous, but what is certain is that 35mm negative is the sharpest, and that Super 16 and HDTV are roughly comparable, a little way behind. But given the average viewer’s acceptance of even VHS cassettes, it seems to me that the most noticeable thing about HDTV will be its shape. Surprisingly, the one thing that all systems have in common is an aspect ratio of 16:9, or 1.77:1. Present day television programme tape masters, be they PAL or NTSC, are all the nearly square 1.33:1. I suspect that a good-quality standards conversion upto HDTV would satisfy many viewers, exceptforthe old-fashioned shape which wastes the extra areas of widescreen. But given the choice of cropping heads and toes, with substantially further loss of line resolution, or black masking on both sides of the broadcast image, most programme managers would opt for nei ther, and buy a programme that is already widescreen. And that is the simple issue that Super 16 addresses. Origi nally introduced to outsmart 1950s television, the widescreen format failed to make television go away, and instead became an embarrassment to directors of photography who were serious about their framing. Now at last television is turning its face -and widescreen - to 16mm production, which may turn out to be the saving grace of film imaging systems.

The Ultimate SU P E R 16 Camera The AATON X T R Plus & Canon 8-64mm Zoom

Nobody knows SUPER 16 like we do. Ask to see our Lemac, Kodak ® Cinevex 35mm to SUPER 16 Blow Up Demo. Also available: Our free SUPER 16 Handbook, Rental ® Aaton Sales Catalogues.

Other SUPER 16 specialists include: Cinevex, Kodak, ® AAV SUPER 16 Telecine.

LEMAC SYDNEY (02) 816 4266 MELBOURNE (03) 429 8588

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 63

Super 16: A Technical Guide KODAK AND LEMAC FILM & VIDEO HAVE BOTH PREPARED TECHNICAL LEAFLETS COVERING MANY OF THE ASPECTS OF SUPER 16 PRODUCTION. THEY OUTLINE THE DETAILS OF PRODUCTION TECH NIQUES, AND GIVE A LIST OF THE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS OF SUPER 16 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES. THIS GUIDE IS DRAWN FROM THESE TWO PUBLICATIONS AND FROM A NUMBER OF OTHER SOURCES. [F.H.]

SUPER 16: THE FUTURE-PROOF FILM 16mm film dates back to 1923, but the Super 16 format only dates back to the early 1970s. Originally, Super 16 w as design ed a s a low-cost w ide-screen origination medium for blow-up to 35mm w idescreen theatrical release. However, today a number of new possibilities have becom e available, and Super 16 is now also available a s an origination medium for High Definition Tel evision (HDTV), or even direct projection on Super-16 projectors interlocked with high fidelity sound on Compact Disk or Digital Audio Tape. Film has been shown to carry m assively more picture information than any of the pro p osed HDTV system s, and may be stored for many years longer (under the correct condi

television image, but the image would be smaller

tions) than current videotape. Both its definition,

than a full-screen image.

SUPER 16: CAMERAS AND LENSES Essentially a Super 16 cam era is the sam e a s a

its format and its longevity make a programme

If the entire screen area were to be used, it

standard 16 cam era, with just four differences.

shot on Super-16 “future proof" for som e years

would be n ecessary to crop a small strip from

The picture aperture is enlarged to the Super 16

to com e.

left and right of the im age (approximately 8% on

area, the lens is recentred in its mount to the

each side). The result would be com parable to

new Super 16 centre-line, and the viewfinder

SUPER 16: THE FORMAT

conventional standard 16 production.

has the extended markings of the Super 16

The Super 16 format m akes u se of the greatest

Rank Cintel Mk III telecin es fitted with a

frame on its ground g la ss. Finally, all film

possible picture areaon 16mm original negative.

Super 16 gate allow the full width of the negative

transport areas (rollers, m agazine, etc.) are

Compared with standard 16, the picture extends

to be scann ed , so that full-width or full-height

modified to support the Super 16 film by the

about 20% more to screen right, covering the

im ages can be produced. To obtain a correctly

narrow ed g e left outside the extended picture

standard 16 soundtrack area.

centred im age, the gate must be repositioned

area.

This produces an original negative asp ect

approximately 1 mm to the right. The new

AATON LTR & XTR cam eras have the ad

ratio (screen sh ape) of 1.66:1, identical to the

“Lanarealm” telecin e gate greatly simplifies

vantage, being design ed by Super 16 pioneer

European standard for w idescreen projection.

conversion of the Rank for Super 16. In addi

Jean-Pierre Beauvialla. T h ese cam eras have

In the U.S. and in Australia, w idescreen is the

tion, Super 16 conversions are available for

Super 16 alternatives a s standard features,

slightly tighter 1.85:1. This results in only a

Bosch and Marconi telecin es.

with a lens mount that rotates to recentre for Super or standard 16 positions.

slight cropping of the original image. HDTV will have an asp ect ratio of 1.77:1 midway b etw een the two different cin em a standards. (To date, this is about the only standard that all the high definition television sy stem s have in com mon.) Thus nearly all the original negative area will be used fortransferto w hichever cinem a or television format is re quired. This results in a substantial increase in the im age quality, compared with blow-ups from standard 16 negative. At a 1.77:1 ratio, the Super 16 negative has 43% more im age area than standard-16.

SUPER 16: FOR CONVENTIONAL TELEVISION

SUPER 16: RESOLUTION FOR HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION The new generation of film stocks has greatly improved the im age quality obtainable from 16mm film. Grain size is much smaller in th ese .typ es of film, and the slow er-speed film stocks, such as Kodak 7245, give the b est results. In a paper presented at Uniatec in Montréal in 1989, Kodak compared the resolving pow ers of 35mm film, 16mm film (Super and standard) and HDTV.

The ARRIFLEX 16 SRII is available in a dedicated Super 16 version, but the conversion betw een Super and standard is not ea sy . While simpler and cheaper conversions are promised, it s e e m s b est to stick with one format or the other. With any Super 16 cam era, it is importantto check for pressure fogging a s well as scratch ing. Current film stocks are tougher but their em ulsions are more sensitive, and a light rub (often on the e d g e of the standard 16 area, but

The Modulation Transfer Function (M.T.F.) for

well within Super 16 im age) may not show up

each format, multiplied by the frame height in

until after processing.

each c a se , sh ow ed the d egree of contrast loss

S om e standard 16 le n se s may not cover the

at a range of frequencies, corresponding to finer

extended Super 16 area, resulting in “vignet

If Super 16 program mes were screen ed in their

and finer detail. In the c a s e of video equipment,

ting” around the corners of the im age. Check

original a sp ect ratio, there would be a black

the limiting resolution corresponds to the number

zoom le n se s at their w idest angle of view, and

m ask at the top and bottom of the television

of lines In the television picture. The graphs

sm allest aperture. A range of zoom le n se s for

screen. The entire negative area would be used,

sh ow that a Super 16 negative performs better

Super 16 u se has been introduced by Canon,

so there would be le s s film grain in the final

than the HDTV system at all levels of detail.

Cooke, and Angenieux. (The Lemac booklet

• CINEMA

PAPERS

has a com plete list of zoom and fixed len se s,

DESK-TOP NON-LINEAR FOR FEATURES, ETC.

along with a list of cam eras that they knovy have b een , or are able, to be converted for Super 16.)

As with any “blow-up”job, image quality and sharpness is especially critical. Select the best available lenses, and take extra care with dust ing and cleanliness.

SUPER 16: FILMSTOCKS AND EXPOSURES Naturally, single-perf stock must be used . The em ulsion must have fine grain and exact m e chanical specifications (perforation tolerances). G rain in ess New stock s are substantially le s s grainy than before. However, when viewing a print, the eye tends to focu s on the sh arp est elem en t of the im age, which may well be the grain structure. Shadow areas in a negative contain the largest grain, but this can be su p p ressed with a highcontrast im age and rich, black sh adow s. Underexposure is the surest way to a grainy im age. If you overexp ose the im age by anything from a third to one stop, a le ss grainy, a s well as

d ig itiz in g process (d ig

F irstly, I am an AVID user and have been fo r about

S T E P H E N F. S M ITH

itiz in g is the tra n s fe r of

6 m onths. The system

MANAGING DIRECTOR FRAMEWORKS EDIT PTY LTD

s o u n d and v is io n to

has been very reliable

d iscs). T his seem s to be a long and te d io u s

and back-up from both AVID in the U.S. and Q uantum P acific in

process, p a rtic u la rly w hen com pared to

A ustra lia has been very good. Having said

the speed of actual e d itin g on the non

that, I m ust p o in t out tha t F ram ew orks is

linea r system . AVID has attem pted to

a fa c ilitie s to e d ito rs. Therefore, we m ust

deal w ith th is w ith the p ro v is io n of Me-

lo ok o b je c tiv e ly at any and all system s

dialog, w hich is a softw are package w hich

w h ich may pro vid e a better service fo r

c o n tro ls a serial interface m achine w h ich allow s you to log all m aterial, w h ile at the

ou r clients. The big q u e stio n s now is, “ S hould I

sam e tim e crea ting a data base of all the

lo ok at de sk-to p n o n-line ar fo r my next

m aterial w h ich can be accessed at any

feature, series or te le -m o vie ? ” The an

tim e d u rin g the e d itin g process. A ll “ O K ”

sw er to tha t qu e stio n is a reso un din g

takes are then sorted and au to m a tica lly

“ Yes, b u t!” T h e b u f is: make sure you have

d ig itize d onto the AVID. The d ig itiz in g

done y o u r hom ew ork.

pro cess is real tim e, like du b b in g from

There cu rre n tly are a few big pro je cts

one m achine onto another. L ig h tw o rks

flo a tin g around out the re and I have had

p ro v id e s a s im ila r s o ftw a re lo g g in g

Avoid special techniques such a s flashing

to take a long hard lo o k at w h ich system

package.

and force processing. T h ese tend to degrade

Fram ew orks w ould need to provide. There

For long-term pro je cts, the arch ivin g

the im age to an unacceptable amount. Modern

are really o n ly tw o con tend ers at the m o

of m aterial and q u ic k access to tha t ma

colour negative em ulsions have considerable

m ent: AVID and L igh tw orks. A ltho ug h not

teria l is esse ntia l. Here is w here the tw o

latitude, and, although under-exposure should

w ish in g to dism iss EMC com p le te ly, fo r

system s part com pany. L ig h tw o rks ar

be avoided, it is not helped by force processing.

the m om ent the y cannot play fu ll fram e

chives on op tica l drives. However, it can

S om e experim ents have been done in 35mm

w h ich is som ew hat useless to an editor.

o n ly access sou nd and v is io n fo r e d itin g

using “pu ll-p rocessing” (under-developm ent,

For the sake of th is exercise, le t’s only

from the hard drives. This means tha t

com bined with over-exposure) to limit grain

lo o k at w here the system s are here and

once you are fin ish e d w ith one batch of

size, and th e se te sts may be worth repeating for

now.

a richer and more detailed, im age will be ob tained.

m aterial, you need to load in a new batch

I w o n ’t get in to a sid e-b y-side com

of m aterial from the o p tica l discs. A l

P ictu re c o m p o s itio n

parison of the system s here. I am sure

tho u g h th is process can b e d o n e a ttw ic e

Filling the Super 16 frame will present no

tha t before a d e cisio n on w h ich system to

real-tim e speed, it w ill s till req uire tw o

problems when blowing up for 35mm theatrical

use is made, you w ill have a long hard

hours to load fo u r ho urs of m aterial. T his

r elea se or for future HDTV. The final im age will

lo o k at yo u r op tion s. Both system s have

also in h ib its the a b ility to go back and

be the sa m e full width and there will only be

great and s im ila r features, and are priced

grab takes w h ich may not have been

marginal cropping from top and bottom (less

about the same. Your de cisio n w ill come

loaded to the hard drives. AVID is the

than 5%). The cam era viewfindershould indicate

down to personal taste.

o n ly system w h ich can use op tical drives

Super 16.

the 1.85:1 frame height, slightly outside the TV

Rather, I w o uld like to cover an issue

w ith JPEG re so lu tio n at fu ll-fra m e rate

sa fe area. When there is a potential television release

w h ich is relative to both system s. The

on line. A fte r d ig itiz in g d ire c tly to the

issue of lo gg ing , d ig itiz in g and a rch ivin g

o p tica l discs, these d iscs can then be

on the current (PAL or NTSC) system , som e

of m aterial.

cropping will take place - 8% on each side of the

used d ire c tly on line w ith o u t the need to

L ig h tw o rk s is be in g a g g re s s iv e ly

tra n sfe r file s to the hard drives. It takes

frame - so that the im age remains centred.

m arketed as an e d itin g m achine to film

all of about 10 seco nd s to change a disc.

Naturally, you should u se the “Shoot & Protect”

ed itors. In fact, L ig h tw o rks is very em o

A ccess tim e on the o p tica l d iscs is

method, ensuring that no strange elem en ts such

tio n a l about the issue of

as m icrophones (or directors) appear in th e se

film , alm ost to the p o in t of

areas. Multiple framing for Super 16 is easier than

sno bb ery: “ W ell, if you re

when shooting standard 16 for television and blow-up, when cropping occurs at top and bot tom of the frame in the cinem a.

SUPER 16 AND THE LABORATORY Ensure that all Super 16 film sen t to the lab is clearly labelled a s such, so that correct equip ment and handling procedures are used. While

a lly call y o u rs e lf a film e d i

som ew hat “ s lu g g is h ” as com pared to hard drives.

o n ly system fo r yo u r film .”

But the tra d e -o ff is cost:

Be careful, not all is w hat it

$400 fo r an o p tica l d isc

seems.

as com pared to $7,000 fo r a hard disc.

C u rrently, the bigg est

Before ch o o sin g , do

b o ttle-ne ck to non-line ar e d itin g is the lo gg ing and

of special considerations that your lab must the lab before you start. P rocessing is exactly

hard drives. E dito rs w ill fin d the use of o p tica ls

tor, then L ig h tw o rks is the

the film ga u g e is the sam e, there are a number take into account. D iscu ss the production with

f * Art!

slo w e r than th a t of the

C R E A TIV E

W6RK f T E C H N O L O G Y

YOU

som e hom ew ork.

C O M M A N D

82 WEST STREET NORTH SYDNEY 2060 PHONE (02) 954 0904 FAX (02) 954 9017

sam e a s for standard-16. Work prints are done CINEMA

PAPERS

• 65

on a conventional 16mm contact printer fitted

D IG ITAL READY It was inevitable that digital audio technology be applied to motion picture sound. However, the requirements of the film industry have made it necessary first to achieve a high level of practical ity as high as the sound quality. Like the original Dolby Stereo optical format and then Dolby Stereo SR, Dolby Stereo SR.D has been ¡ntroduóed only after that level of practicality was assured. With the arrival of the Dolby CP65 cinema processor in Australia, we are now ready for the introduction of digital sound release prints. The Dolby CP65 SR.D has beéri demonstrated in Holly wood, New York and London, and received with

Super 16 film (negative or print) may be trans

E d itin g and N egative M atching

ferred directly to PAL tape via the Rank Cintel

R u sh es screening and editing: projectors re

Mk III fitted with a S u p e r i6 gate, and modified

quire the sa m e conversion details a s cam eras,

film transport rollers.

so simply fitting an open gate m ask may not be

In the realm of HDTV , develop m en ts are

enough to show the entire frame on the screen.

moving fast, and work don e on the joint d e v e l

Most flatbed editing m achines can be converted

opment by Kodak and Rank has in fact confirmed

to Super 16, and, of course, they remain suitable

the suitability of S u peri 6 a s a HDTV format.

for standard 16 editing. (When editing standard

B lo w -u p fo r 35mm T h e a trica l P rin ts

16 you may need to m ask off the right-hand

A 35mm duplicate negative is prepared via an

e d g e of the screen .)

intermediate positive. For b est im age quality,

N egative matching may be done in the nor

Further demonstrations are planned includ ing Australia, possibly before March 1992.

make a 35m m interpositive. Alternatives, such

perforation black spacing. However, any imper

a s à Super 16 interpositive blown up to 35mm

fections in the negative sp lice tend to be m agni

dupe negative, although slightly cheaper, will

fied in the step-printed blow-up. This can be

produce noticeably w orse im age quality,

avoided by the “zero cut” technique, where

The blow-up is usually hard m asked in the

each sc e n e overlaps the next by four fram es, or

1.66:1 ratio, to produce a black frame-line in the

by optical printing from full tak es a ssem b led in

35mm print.

a single negative roll. D iscu ss th e se alterna

S uper 16 w ith S tandard 16

tives with your lab and your negative matcher before starting with the sc isso r s. maximum length of 380 feet if a blow-up to 35mm is required. This length will extend, with leaders, to about 1,000 feet of 35mrfi.

Digital and Analog soundtracks

the blow-up should be done at the first sta g e , to

mal checkerboard A & B roll format, using single

In any c a se , reels should be edited to a

considerable enthusiasm.

T ele cin e T ra n sfe r

with a full aperture gate.

•Super and standard 16 negative cannot be cut together. If material in both formats is to be used, separate rolls of negative must be a s s e m bled. Printer settings are different for each for mat, and so the blow-ups are done separately. The separate interpositives may then be cut

T itle s and O p tica ls

together before making the contact duplicate

For best results all titles and opticals (bth’ér than

negative.

sim ple fa d es and d issolves) should be pro

If you want a standard 16 print from a Super

duced in 35mm, with title backgrounds blown' up

16 negative, this will require ex p en siv e optical

from Super 16 negatives onto 35mm m aster

re-positioning’, so that the im age is still corrèctly

positives. The 35mm optical n égatives are then

centred. Equal amounts of im age will be cropped

cut in with the blow-up negative, or dropped in

from both sid e s.

to the video after separate telecine transfer. Opticals can be shot directly onto Super 16

SUPER 16: A NOTE OF CAUTION

DOLBY STEREO SR.D

negative to be cut in with the original negative:

SR.D is the latest Dolby Stereo 35 mm optical print

this requires a Super 16 optical printer gate.

(editing, in the labs, Opticals and neg matching)

format. It provides for the existing four-channel

This method would be n ec essa ry if a Complete

are cautious about Super 16. The sm ailer film

analog Dolby Stereo SR track in the usual location,

Super 16 release print is required.

siz e is difficult to handle, and yet it requires

The A n sw e r P rin t

considerably more care than 35mm, a s any

and adds the new Dolby Stereo digital optical track -w ith six discrete channels-located between the sprocket holes on one edge of the film. Leaving the conventional analog track en sures that Dolby Stereo SR.D prints are playable in virtually any theatre, while the digital track offers improved performance in theatres equipped for

Many post-production people I have spoken to

A Super 16 answ er print, fuily gradéd and wet

marks Of dirt show up relatively larger on the

gate printed can be m ade to approve grading,

screen . In particular, the support arèa òn thè

and this print may be u sed for direct transfer to

non-perf side of the film is very narrow, arid

tape. Alternatively a low-contrast telecine print

lea v e s little room for rollers or e d g e guid es in

may be preferred. Super! 6 prints have no room

Synchronisers, printers and so on.

for a soundtrack, so screening must be double-

If care is taken throughout thè production,

traòk are discrete multiple channels (Left, Centre',

head using a m agnetic track. The European Hi-

how ever, the results will be excellent: cinem a-

Right, Left S urround, Right Surround and

16 coalition is promoting the uSe of e d g é

(or HDTV-) quality with the ad van tages of a

Subwoofer), outstanding durability, and CD per

tim èèode to link the projector to a high-quality

16mm shoot. And for the staunch disbelievers:

formance equivalent to thè best Dolby Stereo 70

sound sou rce Such a s CD or DAT. The projec

if 16mrh is that good, then 35mm rriust bè really

rhm magnetic releases.

tors are available (from Kinoton in W est Ger

som ething!

digital playback. Among the benefits of the digital

Equipping for digital playback requires fitting the projectors with digital readers supplied by

many and others), but the control track is not ready yet.

Dolby Laboratories, and adding a digital decoding unit to the sound system ahead of the Dolby Stereo processor. As with the developments that preceded it,

An in du stry magazine w ith ou t ads is boring. They should provide up-to-the-m inute (or

Dolby SR.D is intended to keep audiences going to

up-to-our-deadline, at least) inform ation and provide a statem ent about the advertisers

the movies - to enjoy the combination of a big,

themselves. We welcom e advertisem ents to th is section that help the readers to make

detailed picture and superb multi-channel sound that can be experienced only in the theatre.

Graham F. Codd

g en . m anager

c in e m a

GREATER UNION VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY HEAD 0FFICE19-25 MARSDEN STREET CAMBERDOWN NSW 2050 PH: (02) 550 5488 FAX (02) 517 1946

ADVERTISING IN TECHNICALITIES

• CINEMA

PAPERS

better judgem ents about the s u ita b ility of the ir products. To th is end, “ T echnicalities” w ill help advertisers prepare these “ inform ation advertisem ent colum n s” , in the hope that by providing m ore space there w ill be a higher inform ation content. It is, however, not our editorial space and the com m ents of the colum nists are their own. if you w ould like to talk about advertising in th is or other sections of the magazine cell Debra Sharp on (03) 429 5511.

SUPPLIERS to the film and broadcasting Industries from Consumables to Cameras

John Barry Group Pty. Ltd.

SALES: Suppliers to the industry for over 20 years. Agencies include SACHTLER, RONFORD, MILLER, TIFFEN, CINE 60, ARRI, OPTEX, ALAN GORDON, COOK, ZEISS, CENTURY, MANFROTTO, F.G.V. AND MANY MORE. Also suppliers of all your consumables needs. SERVICE: We have a fully equipped service division with experienced, qualified technicians. MANUFACTURING: Custom-made aluminium cases through our subsidiary, Samuelson Cases Pty. Ltd. SALES A N D SERVICE SYDNEY: Phone (02) 439 6955 Fax (02) 439 2375 MELBOURNE: Phone (03) 646 4088 Fax (03) 646 4636 PERTH: Phone (09) 242 2944 Fax (09) 242 2490

EXCLUSIVE AGENTS FOR ARRI CAM ERAS AN D LIGHTING EQUIPM ENT

THE PRODUCTION BOOK 1992 EDITION AVAILABLE NOW! AN INVALUABLE DIRECTORY FOR EVERYONE IN THE FILM, TELEVISION AND VIDEO INDUSTRIES • Over 15,000 listings • Expanded and completely updated • Includes credits for Producers, Directors, Scriptwriters, Scripteditors, Production Designers, Production Managers, DOP's & Editors • Actors' contracts, Child employment information, Location contracts and more • Over 200 catégories • Provides addresses, telephone, fax, pager and after hours contact numbers • Easy reference charts for studios, video post-production houses and grips cranes • Fully indexed •Sturdy spiral binding

AVAILABLE NOW - $70 per copy including postage and packing

HOW TO ORDER Send your cheque for $70/copy to PB Publishing PO Box 705 Kings Cross NSW 2011 or phone (02) 331 3877 (or (02) 356 3355 after January 1st) with your credit card details for immediate dispatch.

ALSO AVAILABLE FROM Stanmart's - Sydney, Remo's - Sydney, Cinequip - QLD, Samuelson's - all states, Electric Shadow Bookshop - Canberra, Queensland Film Crew, Great Southern Films - Adelaide, WA Film Council, WA Freelancers and High Rise Flats - Melbourne. PB

PUBLISHING

BOX

705

KINGS

CROSS

NSW

2011

FAX:

331

4355 CINEMA

PAPERS

• 67

B O O K

R E V I E W S

taken at random, is found in the section entitled

(1982). As J o n e s well knows, that opinion is in

“Film Quality” (p. 67).

no way an an alysis of Australian cin em a in the

To many, the m ost important rationale of

random is a s liable to give an accurate over

Australian cinem a contributes vitally to this

view of quality a s taking the month Crocodile

country’s culture and character. If one w ish es

D undee op en ed a s typical of Australian box-

to write off this argument, a s J o n e s d o e s, on e

office perform ance.

mustfirst condu ctath orou gh critical an a ly siso f

What is more puzzling is that J o n e s d o e s

the output of the Australian film industry, taking

not attempt to personally justify his own conclu

into consideration all the relevant factors (low

sion of poor quality. Instead, he q u otes, out of

bu dgets, inexperienced personnel, etc.), and

context, the opinion of a filmmaker-critic he has

then balancing that appraisal with a relative

never even met or contacted. W orse, without

exam ination of other film cultures.

testing that q u ote’s veracity, he u s e s it to damn

That is so m e undertaking, yet here, in its “Film Quality”: As long ago as 1982 concern was expressed within the industry as to the quality of the films

gave an average of 3.5, claiming that ‘there does

be equal to, or higher than, the average for

seem to be a consensus that most films were

m ost film industries, if on e tak es into account a

(Murray, 1982:406.11).

large proportion of the output.2 W hen on e d o e s a similar e x er cise with recent American films, for instance, but taking into account only th ose films considered good

At the end of the decade ha[d] this situation

enough for cin em a or video relea se in A us

changed? In the two years 1986/87 and 1987/88,

tralia, the average is le s s than 3.5 (b ased on

72 10BA-assisted film s were made, while 49 re

the sc o r e s recorded in this author’s diaries over

ceived some cinema release. It is possible that

past years). Indeed, im agine how low the score

such com parisons may not be entirely accurate because some 1987/88 productions may not have been completed for release in the same year. But

C u t! Protection o f A u s tra lia ’s Film and T e le vi

ferring to guide his reader into assum ing it is a lousy one. But he is very wrong to have done

even and some w on't even get a proper release’

MURRAY

O ne should also query what that average of 3.5 actually m eans. J o n e s d o e s n ’t bother, pre

so . The preselector in q uestion con sid ers 3.5 to

Almost all of the films have no chance of breaking

SCOTT

is simply irresponsible.

selector, rating all 30 films on a scale from 0 to 10,

scribed as an em barrassment to the industry ...

N S W , 1991, 7 7 p p ., p b , rrp $1 1 .9 5

a nation’s filmic output for a w hole period. This

entered in the Australian Film Awards. One pre

poor, and that at least 10 could [only] be de

R o s s J o n e s , T h e C e n tre fo r In d e p e n d e n t S tu d ie s ,

early 1 9 8 0 s. S electin g on e group of films at

governm ent support in the film industry is that

entirety, is what J o n e s h as to sa y on Australian

CUT! PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIA’S FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES

may go if on e also included all th o se ‘turkeys’ that couldn’t even m ake it to video. Yet, with the

if a lagged comparison is made, comparing, say,

Australian score, th o se sort of films were taken

[the] productions [of] 1985/86 and 1986/87 to

into account.

sion industries is an attem pted analysis of the

[the] releases [of] 1986/87 and 1987/88, the find

In other words, in term s of overall output,

benefits, or otherw ise, of governm ent support

ings are similar. Many films gain[ed] no cinema

the p reselector con sid ers Australian cinem a to

of film and telev isio n .1 Author R o ss J o n e s ’

release. While film -m akers may argue that this

be superior on average to American.

reason for writing the book is revealed by the

[wa]s due to anti-competitive and collusive prac

blurb on the back:

tices on the part of distributors and exhibitors, another explanation may simply be that the films

As other industries are being subjected to the

[we]re unworthy of release.

Now, will J o n e s also ca st this brief, unchal len ged opinion in sto n e? Will he argue e ls e w here the p o in tle ssn e s s of supporting the

rigours of microeconomic reform to make them

Of those films that ob ta in e d ] release most

American film industry, given its poor quality?

more com petitive, A ustralia’s film and television

[we]re commercial failures. Many may be artistic

Of cou rse not, yet this is the sort of irrational

industries are enjoying rising levels of assistance

failures as well. Of the 24 Australian features

n o n se n se he has posited above.

and protection.

released in 1987/88 the two most successful

J o n e s also fails to list the good films made

w ere sequels to previously successful film s

in 1982, which include M ad M a x 2 (arguably the

Ross Jones refutes all the arguments used to defend this privileged treatm ent [...]

This is a bold claim and simply untrue: only so m e of the main argum ents are raised, and few , if any, are convincingly refuted. Instead of

('Crocodile Dundee II' and T h e Man from Snowy River II’). Most of the remaining 22 films attracted very small audiences. Independent art-house cinemas played eight of the films. There is no evidence to suggest that Australian cinema-goers

finest ever m ade by an Australian at hom e), G o o d b ye Paradise, Lo n e ly Hearts, M onkey Grip, Pu b erty Blues, etc. Surely su ch films need to be considered in any evaluation of the quality

being a substantial analysis, this thin volum e is

prefer[ed] to see Australian rather than foreign

of Australian films. More important, film indus

poorly research ed and written, relying too much

films. Instead there seems to [have] be[en] an

tries are valued by their highpoints, their great

on unchallenged u se of extant research. There

oversupply of the Australian product.

e st films, not so m e ‘a v e r a g e ’ score.

is precious little ev id en ce of J o n e s, a Senior Lecturer in E conom ics at the University of T ech nology, S yd n ey, actually having don e much first-hand research . (Of the 14 printed

This is nothing if not disin gen u ou s (and

Moving now to paragraph 3: J o n e s begins

eratically written, h e n c e th e num erous editorial

with “Of th o se films that obtain relea se m ost

intrusions). Take the first two paragraphs: J o n e s’

are com m ercial failu res.” What h as com m er

“At the end of the d e c a d e ha[d] this situation

cial failure to do with an a n alysis of quality? If

tab les, for exam ple, all bar one five-line ex a m

c h a n g e d ? ” is m ischievou s. What situation? For

there is connection b etw een quality and com -

ple are taken from elsew h ere.)

a start, the quoted p reselector (this author) w as

merciality, which the history of cinem a arguably

But it is the attem pts at “a n a ly sis” that find J o n e s m ost lacking. O ne of many exam p les, 68

• CINEMA

PAPERS

giving a personal opinion about th o se films

proves there is not, J o n e s m ust prove it. But he

entered for only on e year of the Film Awards

d o e s n ’t. Fie is merely content to muddy the

quality issu e by tossin g in a pejorative and

the greatest impact on em ploym ent and w a g e s

holiday? This is not a refutation a s prom ised on

irrelevant remark about com merciality. From a

in the industry.” Given J o n e s has b een talking

the back c o v e r o fth e book, m erely an irrelevant

senior acad em ic, this is in excu sab le.

only about salary and budget in c re a se s, o n e ’s

and unsupportable ‘analogy’.

J o n e s then m akes a bizarre remark about

reading of su ch a remark is autom atically preju

Notice, too, J o n e s ’ favoured tech nique of

the com m ercial s u c c e s s of two se q u e ls. Again,

diced (i.e., a ssista n c e eq u als in crea ses). Why

quoting on e opinion, then trying to destroy that

what has that to do with the quality issu e he has

d o e s not J o n e s, a s he ought to have, an alyse

opinion so a s to underm ine all th o se w ho hold

se t him self up a s d isc u ssin g ? (Anyway, m ost

how the AFC has en couraged the lowering of

a similar position. He must have little regard for

se q u e ls are com m ercial failures. The fact that

salaries through its low-budget fund, or how the

the intelligence of his readers.

th e se w ere not is surely a tribute to the filmmak

FFC introduced salary limitations on Trust Fund

ers and som ething worthy of celebration.)

films?

But w orse is to follow, w hen on p. 43 he adds:

W orse is J o n e s ’ “There is no ev id en ce to

In fact, the average budget in the late 1980s-

su g g est that Australian cin em a-goers prefer[ed]

early 19 9 0 s is far lower than that of a few years

programs will show A ustralia in a favourable light.

to s e e Australian rather than foreign film s.” Yet

before. J o n e s d o e s not bother to record or

Schou’s argument could be applied in reverse to

again, that has nothing to do with the quality of

d isc u ss this.

Australian films, u n less on e d em on strates the connection.

Further, not all Australian films and television

an Australian film like ‘Mad Max 3 ’ [sic], which

Now, J o n e s may claim that the printed

shows A ustralia after the devastation of nuclear

charts he borrowed stop ped at 1988/89, but, as

war and may actively discourage foreigners from holidaying in Australia.

Now, J o n e s well may argue that his book is

his book cam e out in July 1991, why did he not

essen tially about econ om ics and that the above

do his own research on the intervening period?

J o n e s and The Centre for Independent

section is atypical. How, then, d o e s J o n e s

U p -to-d aten ess s e e m s not to have b een a

R esearch must be kidding. This is near to

sco re on e co n o m ic s? Well, not too well.

priority. Or, w a s there a hidden a g en d a that

m in d lessn ess.

In Chapter 1, for exam ple, there is a brief

lowering bu dgets did not m eet?

Oh, but why go on? D esp ite Padraic P.

potted history of the structure of exhibition and

In fact, the chapter that reveals the book for

distribution in Australia. J o n e s reveals him self

what it is, and the quoted cover blurb for the lie

his “P reface”, this book is ill-researched, poorly

early on with a sub-h ead : “The Heavy Hand of

that it is, is Chapter 3: “Argum ents for Interven

written and woefully argued. Its publication is an em barrassm ent for all concerned.

R egulation”. He then sa y s (p. 3, all italics this

tion”. Here J o n e s sp e n d s 14 p a g e s listing what

author’s), “O nce the conviction of market fail

he claim s are the main rationales for govern

ure w a s estab lish ed , it w a s a short step to a

ment intervention. They are:

variety of recom m endations that would lead to

•

The Im perfectly-Competitive Markets and Film

•

Foreign Film Distribution and Australian Pro

g re a te r g overn m en t re g u la tio n s the industry.” After a short an alysis of the 1973 Tariff

Distribution

Board Inquiry, he then contradicts him self with,

duction Opportunities

“Most of the Tariff Board’s recom m endations

•

Externalities Arguments

for greater intervention in the industry were

•

The Merits Goods and Information Market Failure Arguments

rejected.” (p. 4) Eight lines on it b e c o m e s “the sh elvin g of the proposals of the Tariff Board.” J o n e s then turns to the 1984 New South

•

The Infant Industry Argument

•

Income Redistribution Arguments

W ales Inquiry, finishing with “The controversial

J o n e s then attem pts to refute th e se argu

recom m endations of this Inquiry [...] w ere not

m ents. Taking on e at random, the Externalities

accepted by the NSW State govern m en t.” (p. 5)

Argument, J o n e s ponders (on p. 42):

M cG uinness’ favourable opinion of this work in

NOTES 1. Since this reviewer is unfam iliar with the television industry, only the film sections of the book are consid ered here. 2. An obvious exception would be the French industry. This is an opinion based on, in some years, having seen about one-third of the French feature output.

IMAGES OF AUSTRALIA: 100 FILMS OF THE NEW AUSTRALIAN CINEMA N e il R a ttig a n , S o u th e rn M e th o d is t U n iv e r s ity P re s s , D a lla s , 1991, 338 p p , p b , rrp $1 2 .9 5

BRIAN

McFARLANE

Thus, J o n e s fails to list here a single e x

Supporters of film industry assistance measures

am ple of “greater governm ent regulation”, d e

claim that film and television production generate

By now, it strikes one a s odd to read of “the

spite having alleged it at the start of the section .

external benefits. But do Australians really think

dearth of written material on the Australian

This is not scholarship; it is unsubstantiated

that local film and television industries generate

cinem a in general and the New Australian Cin

propagandizing.

so many external benefits that they are willing to

Turning to another section at random, the

pay for them?

em a in particular”, a s Neil Rattigan writes in the introductory section of Im ages o f Australia. In

chapter titled “The Failure of Intervention”, Jones

Then c o m e s the ‘a n a ly sis’. J o n e s begins

talks about executive-producer fe e s being “con

badly with a fe e b le dism issal of Australian pride

books, let alone num erous articles on the A u s

siderable” (p.68); not som e, but all it se e m s. He

in Australian film and television s u c c e s s e s

tralian cinem a of the past two d e c a d e s, and

even mentions that “Dermody and Jacka (1987)

o v e r se a s. He then m oves on to the notion of

there is not much that is actually new in

note that such fe e s are a s high a s $500,000 per

“dissem ination of know ledge about Australia

Rattigan's book, though the material is organ

film.” What a furphy. For one, even if such fe e s

o v e r s e a s that will stim ulate dem and for Austra

ized along som ew h at different lines.

fact, there is now a quite im pressive shelf-full of

existed, they would represent but an extremely

lian products and promote Australia a s a tourist

After a very brief historical overview which

small percentage of the many hundred executive-

destination” (p. 43) He q u otes K. Schou who, in

arrives at the surprising conclu sion that the

producer fe e s paid in the past decade. Again,

P o licie s for the Australian Film Ind ustry Part A :

“[New Australian Cinema] rem ains in a very

Jon es is being disingenuous.

Rationale for A ssistan ce and D irect G o ve rn

healthy sta te ”, Rattigan s e ts out to provide a

After then deciding “salaries paid to pro

m ent S tu d y (AFTRS), argues that “Australian

“cultural con text” in which to place his d isc u s

duction personnel also [...] increase[d]”, J o n e s

films may be a relatively co st efficient way of

sion of Australian cinem a. What he aim s to do

g iv es a chart (adapted from A F C N ew s) on film

achieving such b en efits”.

in “Part I: C on texts” is to add uce certain key

budget in c re a se s from 1981/82 to 1988/89. But J o n e s g iv es no proportionate analysis of how

J o n e s sn e e r s at such a position:

elem en ts of our national m ythologies and to

This line of argument can be logically extended to

su g g e st how th e se are articulated through re

salary in c re a se s contributed to th e se budget

a wide variety of activities to justify a subsidy. For

curring th em es in Australian films. “Part II:

in c re a se s. There is also no an alysis of the

example, an Australian tourist in the US may

T exts”then exam in es one hundred films, largely

m assive stock, equipment and laboratory costs,

meet Americans on his/her travel, as a result of

in the light of how far they exem plify the im ages

et al. Most important, J o n e s d o e s not take into

which the Americans decide to visit Australia.

of Australia and A ustralianness laid down in

accou nt the add-on 10BA c o sts (prospectus,

Does this justify a governm ent subsidy to the

brokerage, legal, etc.) which contributed up to 20 per cen t of a budget.

Australian planning to visit the US? [p. 43]

Part I. For each film considered in Part II there is a brief plot sy n o p sis follow ed by a nearly two-

But by what known logic can one com pare

p age accou nt of the film, su g g estin g which of

A few lines on, J o n e s then claim s, “A s sis

a cultural artifact show n to th ou san d s or mil

the delineated th em es/m otifs/im ages it m ost

tan ce to the film industry has apparently had

lions of people with the chit chat of tourists on

clearly exhibits. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 69

prises: on e could have w ished him to elaborate

his reading of a wide range of films, and his

more carefully the so m etim es contrary influ

book supports his contentions about th ose

e n c e s of Britain and America on the directions

myths and leg en d s that underpin the national

which Australian culture has taken; but a s a

culture.

general, summarizing account, Part I will do a s an introduction to his reading of the films. He at least m akes clear why he has structured the book in this way, and he also sp ells out his criteria for ch oosin g the hundred films (e.g., a feature film is a narrative fiction over eighty

QUEENSLAND IMAGES IN FILM AND TELEVISION Edited by Jonathan D aw son and Bruce Molloy, University of Q ueen sland P ress, St Lucia, Qld, 1990, 180 pp, pb, rrp $ 2 4 .9 5 .

m inutes in length; no anim ated ordocum entary films; etc.). O ne d o e s n ’t have to agree with his

Ken Berryman

criteria or regard his structure a s the b est p ossib le, but he at least m akes clearth e nature

In looking at the im ages and m ythologies which

of the enterprise.

film and television have constructed about

Again and again in his accou nts of the films he draws attention to the th em es of the bush, of

Q u e e n sla n d , Griffith U niversity a c a d e m ic Jonathan D aw son found:

m ateship, of growing up and of the lo ss of inn ocence. My im pression is that the book is at its m ost perceptive in its understanding of the way the bush has worked a s a formative influ en ce on the national psyche, tracing this through

G o o d b y e P a ra d is e , w e’re seen as dangerous, the

equivalent of the Deep South in America, with manic dictators leading a strange, white-shoed,

R azorb ack and E vil A ngels. His characterizing the bush a s a place of hidden terror is well

w hite-belted populace of sub-crim inals ( T h e

though in several in stan ces (e.g., his unenthu-

then that is an accurate reflection. There is

siastic account of W alkabout) he la p se s into

nothing foolish in the book but the constant

that old cliché about lan d scap e a s “character in

reiteration of this or that them e (e.g., lo ss of in n ocence) a s one m oves from film to film is

the narrative”. L andscape is surely p assive; If in a film it a ss u m e s a threatening asp ect, this

wearying; To be fair: no doubt Rattigan d o e s n ’t

will be largely a function of m ise en scène (of

really exp ect people to read it from beginning to

framing, of cam era angle and so on). Rattigan’s

end a s a review er must, and dipping into it to

praise for the non-realism of R a zorb a ck 's rep

ch eck his view s on a particular film is probably

resentation of the bush su g g e ststh a t he is alert to such matters.

more what he has in mind. To be fair again:

som ewhere other, som ew here strange, sub tropical, somewhere alien. Often, in films like

such diverse films a s P icnic at H anging Flock,

substantiated in his d iscu ssion of th e se films, If this sou n d s a slightly tedious procedure,

constant reference to Queensland [...] as being

virtually ho organizational m ethod for dealing

If the str ess on the “growing-up-in-Austra-

with a large number of film texts s e e m s able to

A u s tra lia n , 12 June 1990)

Many of th e se films w ere show n a s part of a “m ileston e” festival, entitled Q ueen sland Im a g e s, which screen ed over a three-w eek period at three v e n u e s in Brisbane in June last year. This major retrospective of Q ueen sland film and television included m ainstream and lowbudget features, docum entaries, short dram as, advertisem ents, anim ated and experim ental works, and historical footage from the National Film & Sound Archive and private collections more than 100 titles in all. While organizers w ere disappointed with

avoid either a certain am ount of repetition or

lia” films b e c o m es w earisom e - and it d o e s this is b e c a u se a quite extraordinary number of

so m e strained categorizing. The only books on

films have organized their narratives around

the New Australian Cinem a which have avoided

this phenom enon. It s e e m s to me, while re

th e se traps are collections of e s s a y s which do

sp ecting Rattigan’s right to structure his m ate

not aim at the c o m p r eh en siv en ess of a survey.

rial a s he d o e s, that the cinem atic rendering of su ch a them e would be more usefully can

fa sh io n , the Q u e e n sla n d Im a g es festiv a l

v a ss e d under a them atic heading, rather than

sp aw n ed a publication of the sa m e nam e,

making a point through sh ee r reiteration. This

launched to coincide with the festival opening.

way, one would perhaps be led to make c o n nection s not merely betw een the films exhibit

versity of T echnology acad em ic Bruce Molloy,

The recurring ele m en ts which Rattigan identifies in the national m ythologies and which he locates a s motifs in New Australian Cinem a include, unsurprisingly, the bush (the “one overriding myth that d efin es and underlines all attem pts to create and maintain a perception of what Australia is”) and the “legend of the bushm an.” A ssociated with th e se are the legend of the pioneer which, unlike that of the bushm an, “permits a place for w om en in its m ythology”, and the A nzac legend . In d iscu ssin g the latter, he m akes the point that the historical facts of G allipoli/‘provided an opportunity to bring the ordinary Australian into the dominant cultural p erceptions”. R u ssel Ward and, drawing on

atten dan ce figures in so m e c a s e s , their feeling w a s that, overall, the event su c c e e d e d in term s of the attention it generated and in helping to “reinstate in history a w hole lot of vanished p eo p le” and their work. Also, in c la ssic tie-in

As D aw son and co-editor, Q een slan d Uni

ing such preoccupations, but betw een them

note, while the Q ueen sland film industry has

and the culture they derive from and in so m e

traditionally been m arginalized by the southern

w ays reflect.

sta te s, it is som ething of an irony that Q u e e n s

There are incidental felicities of interpreta

land p o s s e s s e s a “surprisingly strong, criti

tion and criticism scattered throughout the book:

cally-based film culture”, located mainly but not

for exam ple, on M ad D og M organ, he writes of depiction of the bushranger a s “cultural inter

exclusively in the universities and c o lle g es. All

mediary b etw een convict and larrikin”, or on

su g g est, “for a s long, that is, a s they remain

M ad M ax a s a rare su cc e ssfu l exam ple of “films .that deny any Australian cultural specificity”, or

stu d en ts”. It is the tertiary sector, also, which is

is fine for stu dents of film and m edia, they

m ost likely to find this publication useful. Unlike

on Kitty and the B agm an a s a film which “avoids

Dick Marks’ television beer com m ercials, this is

the o b s e s sio n with historical veracity that

no g lo ssy number, destined for coffee table

by the perception of the Australian at war.

p lagu es many period productions of the New Australian C inem a”. And so on. In general,

tions from m ost of the prominent film scholars in (or from) Q ueen sland , including Steph en

Ward, John Tulloch have already d isc u sse d how the bush legend w a s crucially reinforced

adornment. It d o e s, how ever, boast contribu

R a ttig a n g o e s on to situate the “ocker”, in his

though, the book would have been w iser to

“rejection of many dominant or m iddle-class

avoid evaluation sin c e it h a sn ’t the sp a c e to do

Crofts, Stuart Cunningham, Tom O ’R egan,

v a lu e s”, a s a natural d escen d a n t of the bush -

more than offer brief summarizing opinions

Albert Moran, Toby Miller, a s well a s D aw son

and Anzac-fixed im ages of the Australian male,

(“Oz is unpretentious but entertaining”. “It must

and Molloy.

and the im a g es of Australia, a s virtually every

be added that Petersen is not a good film.”)

The book is divided into two section s:

on e has noted, are essen tially male.

Rattigan is not essen tially concerned to d e

“Filming Q u een slan d ” and “Projecting Q u e e n s

Most of this introductory material is un ex

velop such evaluative criticism, for which, of

land”. The first part, much of it anecdotal, c o n

ceptionable. Rattigan)s account of the Aus-

course, there is a place. His chief interest is in

sists of interviews with or recollections by pio

tralianness of Australian culture offers no sur

the kinds of national im ages that em erge from

n e e r cin em a to g r a p h er G eo r g e Burne (of

• CINEMA

PAPERS

K inetone Films); anim ators Rowl G reenhalgh,

h o o d s” a s the M ission: Im possible production

film and television history a s suitable territory

G eorge W ilson-C opper and Max Bannah (from

formulae transforms and internationalizes the

for research ers. Q u e e n sla n d Im ages m ay help

w h o se film V iolent and B ru tal the book’s coyer

‘real’ Q ueensland: Moran’s exam ination of the

su bstantiate this claim.

illustration h as b een c h o sen ); su c c e ssfu l ad

phenom enal, if unlikely, s u c c e s s of Mark L ew is’

In relation to The M oving Im age, I also re

maker Dick Marks; former ABC educational

C a n e Toa ds also co n sid ers the question of

call being struck not so much by the particular

film producer David Parmiter; and the sta te ’s

v o ice-o v ers in recent docum entary practice.

ity of the W estern Australian film and television

h igh est profile filmmaker, Jackie MpKimmie.

Cunningham, previewing his more detailed trea

exp erien ce, or by the privations suffered a s a

The “Filming Q u een sla n d ”-se ctio n a lso fe a

tise of Charles C hauvel’s work in Featu ring

result of its geographical situation, but by the

tures a warm tribute to Monty Morris, who

Australia, sees S ons o f M atthew as unquestion

p arallels with sc r e e n cultural e x p e r ie n c e s

e sta b lish e d the s ta te ’s Educational M édia

ably the “great Q ueen sland film". D aw son finds,

throughout Australia. D o e s the sa m e hold for

Centre, written by former staffer David M cRob-

surprisingly, th a t! “in aiming for the patriotic

Q u e e n sla n d Im a g es? Patrick Cook in Cane

bie. Educational filmmaking a s a topic r eceiv es

flavour beer marketers in Q ueen slan d se e m e d

Toads sees Q u een slan d ers’ idolatry of the can e

sca n t print c o v er a g e a s a rule, but M cR obbie’s

to have ch an ced on transnational arch ety p es”.

toad and B jelk e-P etersen a s e v id en ce of their

accou nt s u g g e s ts that the Q u een slan d Media

i The first e s s a y in the “Projecting Q u e e n s

peripheral statu s, but Albert Moran argu es that

S e r v ic es Centre, at least, h as b een a positive

land” section , written by co-editor Bruce Molloy;

su ch metropolitanism can be multiplied indefi

also looks at dominant im ages of Q ueen sland ,

nitely:

force over a niimber of years. The book’s se c o n d , and larger, section ,

from feature films se t in, sh ot in or referring to

“Projecting Q ueensland", contains three d e

the state. Q ueen sland , he con clu d es, has with

At different times, to residents of New South W ales and Victoria, the frontier is not just in

scriptive p ie ce s: H elen Y e a te s ’ sobering ac-

few excep tion s been variously constructed or

count of the rise and fall of the Q ueen slan d Film

rep resen ted a s “mythic destination, exotic

Corporation (which mirrors in a way Jackie

playground, utopian backdrop, even final rest

M cK imm ie’s wry Script in Part One);. Pat

ing p la c e ”. Much of this definition c o m es from

edly sometimes sorry that they are on the outer

‘o u tsid e’ the state, but th e se popular percept

compared to their cousins in Sydney. In Sydney,

ions are unlikely to ch an ge, Molloy insists, un

figures like [ T h e S y d n e y M o rn in g H era/djournalist

til aregionalfeatu refilm industry is operational.

Martin] Johnson and Cook crouch in Glebe and

Làughren and S u sa n Ward’s breath less cover a g e of independent filmmaking in Q ueen sland sin c e the early 1950s; and Alan Y oung’s equally rapid-fire appraisal of the fluctuating fortunes of the sta te ’s film so c ieties. T h e se e s s a y s are interspersed with critiques of individual pro ductions and their cultural r eso n a n ces: Tom O’R egan on Buddies-, Step h en Crofts on The C oolangatta G o ld ; Toby Miller on the “all-new ” M ission: Im p o ssib le ; Albert Moran on Ca ne Toads:

U n n a tu r a l

H is to r y ,

S tu a rt

Cunningham on S o n s o f Matthew, Jonathan D aw son on the range of national and regional beer com m ercials. There is much to value in th e se c a s e stu d ies. By exploring in broader con texts the two m ost prominent featu res m ade with QFC a s sista n ce , O ’R egan and Crofts argue effectively

Australia but in outlying regions - Tasmania, W estern Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. But Melbournites are even report

Molloy is surprised by the number of A u s

Balmain feeling that everything beyond Parramatta

tralian feature films which make reference to

is frontier territory. In Brisbane C a n e T o a d s plays

Q ueen sland , and provides a checklist of forty titles in this category at the end of his article. S o m e of his om ission s - Jilted, W hite Death, 27A, Typh oon Treasure, even B ack o f B e yo n d

at a local art cinem a and audiences are con vinced that the periphery is in North Queensland. After all that is where the cane toad comes from. In short this us/them , civilization/w ilde rne ss thinking is everywhere ... [pp .155-156]

- are equally surprising, given that th e se titles w ere included for screening at the Q ueen sland Im ages festival. In fact, the organizers of the festival, Molloy included, apparently identified more than 500 movie and video titles pertinent to Q u een slan d in their search for suitable

In the “Foreword” to Q u e e n sla n d Im ages, Peter Coaldrake, Pro-Vice Chancellor (R e search ) at Q ueen slan d University of T ech nol ogy, puts it another way: Queensland may or may not be unique or, for that

screening material. In so m e w ays, their efforts

matter, even appreciably different as compared

to catalogu e the “evolving history of Q u e e n s

with other parts of Australia. The reality is, how

land film and television ” appear a s more com

ever, that many people think it is different, and probably just as many want to believe that it is.

prehensive than the accom panying text.

for a more seriou s appraisal of both. Miller

The book, for exam ple, m akes no refer

highlights the incongruity of a state described

But cham pioning localism by establishing

e n c e to the work of Fred Wills, Q u een sla n d ’s

often a s “sp ecial b e c a u se of its distinctive

an “us/th em ” opposition has its limitations a s

official photographer, who filmed the twilight of

s ta s is ”, in turn celebrating “topographic fa lse

well. Toby Miller, for exam ple, draws attention

the colonial era with a Lumière ciném atographe.

to Armand Mattelart’s statem en t that, “The d e

üQ E

QUEENSLAND IMAGES IN FILM AND TELEVISION

His films, produced for the Greater Britain Ex

nunciation of an evil ‘other’ is never exem pt

hibition in 1899, represent possibly the oldest

from a certain holier-than-thou attitude to be

govern m en t-b ased film production in the world.

found at the heart of the notion of cultural

Similarly, apart from a few rem in iscen ces by

identity”, which, the argum ent continues, can

G eorge Burne, no real c overage of new sreel

lead to an “asphyxiating localism ”, esp ecially

p r o d u ctio n , d istrib u tio n or r e c e p tio n

w here such localism am ounts to little more than

Q ueen slan d is provided, or of the vast array of governm ent or sp onsored docum entaries m ade in or about Q ueen sland - Mark L ew is’ and the M acD ougalls’ work excep ted . Treatm ent of ‘in digen ou s m edia’ is confined to a few para graphs in the Molloy and Laughren-Ward e s sa y s. And there is no index to guide the reader to sp ecific titles, personalities or subjects. D esp ite the book’s title, the reader is also unlikely to gain much im pression of television in Q ueen sland , past or present. There is simply no p iece in Q ueenslan d Im ages to com pare with the John Hartley-Tom O ’R egan or Eric Fisher articles in W estern Australia’s equivalent text, The M oving Im age (1985). In reviewing that publication at the time, I noted that it, too, like

Edited by Jonathan Dawson and Bruce M olloy

familiar narrative styles. P erhaps the Q ueen slan d ‘predicam ent’ is b est e x p r essed , in the book’s strange coda, by the former Executive Officer of the Q ueen slan d Film D evelopm ent Office, Michael Michener. The QFDO provided financial support for both the Q u een sla n d Im ages festival and publica tion, and M ichener e x p r e s se s the hope that the QFDO will continue to play an active role in the develop m en t of a Q ueen slan d film industry. The possibilities, after all, are “so e x c itin g -th e w eather, the locations, the stu dios, and the p e o p le ”. And his parting statem en t? “Well, it’s out of my hands now - I ’ve m oved to a co o le r clim ate.” [italics mine]

m ost com pilations, w a s uneven in quality but

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

significant a s the first attempt in Australia to

The assistance of Anne Demy-Geroe, of the Brisbane

map a regional film and television culture. In so

International Film Festival, in providing background

doing, it staked a claim for legitimizing regional

information for this review is gratefully acknowledged. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 71

Negative Cutting Services (Australia) Pty Limited

r optical&gra|jhic 5 Chuter Street, McMahon’s Point NSW 2060 Phone: (021922-3144] Fax: [02] 957 5001] Modem: [02] 922 7642

1/85 Longueville Road Lane Cove NSW 2066

COMPUTAMATCH Lim ited 1/71 Dean Street London W1V 6DE Ph (071) 287 1316 Fax (071) 287 0793

A MESSAGE TO ALL FILM PRODUCERS Save 25-40% o f y o u r p o st-p ro d u ctio n bu dg et by using COMPUTAMATCH®. In 1981 w e had already created w h a t is called in 1991 th e "la te s t te c h n o lo g y ". COMPUTAMATCH®, ou r unique and h ig h ly developed system o f com p uterized negative c u ttin g , has been o p era t ing fo r years in A ustra lia , England and N e w Zealand. COMPUTAMATCH® has already been used on 13,000 com m ercials, 100's o f docum entaries, 100's of hours o f m in i series and 17 c in e m a /te le visio n features. COMPUTAMATCH® is co m p a tib le w ith all linear and n o n

STOCK FOOTAGE LIBRARY

linear e d itin g system s ie. Ediflex, Touchvision, M ontage, S h o tliste r, etc. COMPUTAMATCH® is 100% A ustralian designed and developed.

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD SU IT E D 172 FILM AU STR A LIA BU ILD IN G ETO N R O AD LIN D FIE L D NSW 2070

PHONE (02) 428 4022 FAX (02) 427 7919

TEL: (02) 416 2633 FAX: (02) 416 2554

PROFESSIONAL NEGATIVE MATCHING MATCHING to TAPE EDIT or CUTTING COPY, USING ‘EXCALIBUR’. The latest technology in COMPUTERIZED NEGATIVE MATCHING: SCANNING BARCODE S U I T E 105, 6- 8 C L A R K E S T R E E T C R O WS N E S T NSW 2065 Negthink Pty Ltd A.C.N. 001 643 321 72

• CINEMA

PAPERS

C O N T A C T GRE G C H A P M A N P H O N E : ( 0 2 ) 439 3 9 8 8 • FAX: ( 02) 4 3 7 5074

P R O D UC T i O N

S UR VE Y

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 7/1 1/91

NOTE: Production Survey forms now ad here to a revised format. C in e m a P a p e rs regrets it cannot accept information re ceived in a different format, as it regretfully does not have the staff to re-process the information. FEATURES PRE-PRODUCTION LIVING COLOR Pre-production Budget

10/12/1991 $2.5 million

Based on

The Com plete A dventures o f Blinky Bill

Dorothy Wall

Written by

Other Credits Robert Smit Guy Gross Robert Smit Jeanette Toms Jane Barnett Sarah McDougall Jan Egger FIUA Film Finances Martin Cooper & Co. Atlab Australia 35 mm Kodak

Animation director Composer Prod, supervisor Prod, manager Producer’s asst Prod, assistant Prod, accountant Insurer Completion guarant.

Principal Credits Director

Neal Taylor Rene Nagy Jr Neal Taylor Summer Nicks Steven Mathews Neal Taylor Nick Paton

Producers Co-producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter DOP

Other Credits Casting Casting consultants

Jacqueline Jones Sheridan-Champs & Assoc. Extras casting Studio A Casting Management Services Special fx make-up Believable Effects Unit publicist Nicks Publicity & Promotions Gauge 35 mm Shooting stock Kodak 5296 Cast: Kim Demnam (Molly), Derek Rucker (Dougle), Michael Julian Knowles (Christian), Evelyn Taylor (Rachel), Scott Webb (Doc). Synopsis: Cat-and-mouse game between Molly, the young wife of Dougle who is still mourning the sickness of her new-born baby, and their neighbour, Christian, a deranged killer out to be rid of all women because of his beliefs.

Legal Services Laboratory Gauge Shooting stock

Government Agency Investment Development

NSW Film & Television Office FFC Beyond Inti. Group

Production Marketing

Marketing Marketing consultant

Tim BrookeHunt Beyond Inti. Beyond Inti. DDA

Inti, sales agent Inti. dist. Publicity Voices: Robyn Moore (female voices), Keith Scott (male voices). Synopsis: Animated feature film of the ad ventures of Blinky Bill, the mischievous koala, and his friends, Splodge, Flap Platypus and Nutsy Koala, in the Australian bush. They battle against illegal loggers who destroy their homes and attempt to destroy the bush, but Blinky Bill rallies his friends and together they fight to preserve their homes.

FORTRESS Davis Entertainment Village Roadshow Greater Union Dist. Dist. company Twentieth Century Fox (U.S.) $15 million Budget ... 20/10/91 Pre-production 21/10/91 ... Production

Prod, company

RECKLESSKELLY Serious Entertainment Village Roadshow (Greater Union Dist.)

Prod, company Dist. company

Principal Credits Director Producers Co-producer Exec, producer Scriptwriter

Yahoo Serious Warwick Ross Yahoo Serious Lulu Serious Graham Burke Yahoo Serious

Principal Credits Director Producers Co-producers

Other Credits Warner Bros

Inti. dist.

Cast: Yahoo Serious (Ned Kelly). [See next

Line producer Exec, producers

issue for fuller details)

Synopsis: Adventure comedy based on contemporary issues with Ned Kelly as a modern-day international bank robber who rides a powerful, home-made motorbike.

FEATURES PRODUCTION

Dist. company Production Post-production

Yoram Gross Film Studios Beyond Inti. Group 7/1/91 -31/1/92 1/2/92-30/5/92

Principal Credits Director Producer Exec, producer Scriptwriters

DOP Sound recordist Editor Production designer Costume designer

Planning and Development

BLINKY BILL Prod, company

Scriptwriters

Stuart Gordon John Davis John Flock Neil Nordlinger Michael Lake Irene Dobson Graham Burke Gregory Coote Troy Neighbours Steven Feinberg Terry Curtis Fox David Eggby Paul Clark Timothy Wellburn David Copping Terry, Ryan

Yoram Gross Yoram Gross Sandra Gross Yoram Gross John Palmer Leonard Lee

Todd Fellman Production runner Lyn Paetz Prod, accountant Tricia Mclnally Accounts asst FIUA Paymaster Comp, guarant. The Completion Bond Co. Show Travel Travel co-ord Showfreight Freight

Camera Crew Camera operator Focus pullers Clapper Loader Key grip Asst grips

Gaffer Best boy Electricians Camera dept attach Video split operator Visual consultant Camera equipment

On-set Crew Charles Rotherham 1st asst director Nikki Long 2nd asst director Adam Spencer 3rd asst director Sophie Fabbri Jackson Continuity Craig Walmsley Boom operator Tim Towers Cable man Karla O'Keefe Make-up supervisor Margaret Archmen Make-up assts Carla Vincenzino Karla O’Keefe Hairdresser Bob Clark Prosthetics Jason Baird Posthetics asst Tad Pride (Aust) Special fx super’s Paul Gentry (U.S.) Robbie Blalack (U.S.) Special fx co-ord. Trisha Wallace Special fx secretary Arthur Spinks Jr Special fx techs Kent Miklenda David Pride Mechanical effects Bob Hicks Special fx assts Kevin Bratovic Alan Maxwell Pyrotechnics Paul Jennings Pyrotechnics asst Glenn Boswell Stunts co-ord Josef Schwaiger Stunts asst Johnny Hallyday Safety officer Susan Burke Unit nurse Fiona Searson (DDA) Unit publicist Jim Townley Still photography Kathy T routt Catering Kaos Katering Denise Ward Catering asst Paula Sproul Linda Sproul

Art Department Art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Props buyers

Maura Fay & Assoc. Casting director Casting Mike Fenton Casting (U.S.) Tim Burgard Storyboard artists (U. S.) David Russell Chris Buchinsky

Standby props Asst standby props Armourer

Production Crew

Costume supervisors

Exec, in charge prod. Prod, co-ord Prod, asst Prod, secretary Location manger Unit manager

Doug Yellin Sharon Miller Justina Cattell Silla Childs Brian Burgess Neville Mason

Philip M Cross Derry Field Laurie Balmer Adrien Seffrin Andrew Conder Pat Nash Mark Abraham Gary McNamara Cary Vignal Tony Holtham Trevor Ripper Murray Head Ian Mathieson Matthew Meyer Andrew Conder Simon Murton Samuelson Film Service

Diaan Wajon Rosslyn Abernethy Lizzi Dulieu Paul Dulieu Derrick Chetwyn John Daniell Michael lacono Phillip Moritz

Construction Dept Scenic artist Asst scenic artist Construct, manager 2nd in command Leading hand Brush hand Carpenters

Greg Hajdu David Duffin Mark Jones Kim Howard Noel McCartney Graydon Le Breton Martin Scurrah Wayne Porter Michael Dempsey Warner Roadshow’ Movie World Studios

Driver Labourer Welders Studios

Post-production 1st asst editor 2nd asst editor Projectionist Laboratory Tape transfers Video playback

Jeanine Chialvo Andreya O’Reilly Roger Garrod Atlab Hoyts Jumbuck Intercity Hire

Marketing IAC Film Sales Twentieth Century Fox Greater Union Distributors Cast: Christopher Lambert (John Brennick), Kurtwood Smith (Prison Director Poe), Loryn Locklin (Karen Brennick), Lincoln Kilpatrick (Abraham), Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez (Nino), Jeffrey Combs (3D-Day), Tom Towles (Stiggs), Vernon Wells (Maddox), Denni Gordon (Lydia), Alan Zitner (Camper). Synopsis: Set 45 years in the future, hu mankind’s population has increased tenfold. A new law has been created to preserve the stability of society. Anyone who breaks the law will be sent to a remote maximum security prison known as “The Fortress". Inti, sales agent Inti, distributor Release publicity

HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL SAFC Harvey-Wright Enterprises (Harvest Prods) $4 million Budget Pre-production 19/8/91-10/10/91 11/10/91-29/11/91 Production Post-production 30/11/91...

Prod, company

Principal Credits Ann Turner Ben Gannon Peter Harvey-Wright Janet Worth Gus Howard Peter Gawler Assoc, producer Barbara Gibbs Peter Hepworth Scriptwriters Ann Turner Based on “Hammers over the Anvil” Written by Alan Marshall James Bartle DOP Sound recordist Phil Tipene Editor Ken Sallows Ross Major Prod, designer Ross Major Costume designer Composer Alan John Director Producer Co-producer Exec, producers

Planning and Development Script editors

Wardrobe Phil Eagles Peter Bevan Helen Mather Standby wardrobe Paul Warren Sally Marshall Wardrobe asst Australian Film Sets MU/wardrobe vans Green room/Star van Orana Film Transport

Michael Chorney Derek Wyness John Parker Andrew Gardiner

Casting Casting consultants Extras casting

Peter Gawler Sue Smith Liz Mullinar Casting • Jackie Quilter Jan Killen

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, co-ord Producer's asst CINEMA

Barbara Gibbs Barbara Ring Christina Van Der PAPERS

Prod secretary Location manager Unit manager Unit assts Production runners Prod, accountant Accounts asst Insurer Completion guarant. Camera Crew Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Key grip Asst grips Gaffer Best boy Electrician Generator operator On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Special fx Stunts co-ord Safety officer Unit nurse Still photography Unit publicist Catering Art Department Art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Set drésser Props buyers Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe super. Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst Costumier Seamstress Animals Horse master Horse wrangler Construction Dept Scenic artist Construct, manager Carpenters

Heyden Heather Muirhead David Lightfoot Gary Buss Paul Winter Chris Gintowt Sean McGovern Celia Moore Gill McKinlay Sharon Jackson Tony Leonard (Steeves Lumley) Sue Milliken (Film Finances) David Williamson Darrin Keough Julie Wurm Robin Morgan Robbie Van Amstel Andrew Smith Trevor Toune Werner Gerlach Darren Ballangarry Darren Ballangarry Chris Webb Monica Pearce Geoffrey Guiffre Kristin Witcombe Scott Piper Jane Surrich Sash Lamey Anifex Zev Eleftheriou Zev Eleftheriou Jenny Bichard Hugh Hartshorne Rhonda Dawson Steve Marcus Vicki Niehus Deborah Wilde Tony Rosella Tony Xeros Tony Cronin Andrew Plumer John Sdntucci Rdth de la Lande Andrea Hood Kelly Foreman Sandy Cich'ello fracey Richardson

Paintèrs

Bill Willoughby Gerald Egan Peter Gollias John Moore Brenton Grear Arthur Vette Guy Allain Christo Reid

Post-production 1st asst editor Maria Kaltenthaler 2nd asst editor Giselle Fullgrabe Laboratory Cinevex Lab liaison Ian Anderson Gauge 35 rrirri Length 95 mins Government Agency Investment Production FPC Marketing Beyond Films Inti, sales agent Cast: Charlotte Rampling (Grace McAlister), Russell Crowe (East Driscoll), Alexander Outhred (Alan Marshall), Frankie J. Holden (Alan’s father), Frank Gallacher (Mr. Thomas), Jake Frost (Joe Carmichael). Synopsis: Afunny, moving, inspirational lossof-innocence story set in the early days of this century. Twelve years old and crippled with polio, Alan dreams of becoming a great horseman. He must learn that life is not necessarily what he wants it to be, but it is worth living anyway. 74

CINEMA

PAPERS

THE NOSTRADAMUS KID Prod. co. Simpson Le Mesurier Films Dist. company Beyond Films Pre-production 19/8/91 —13/10/91 Production 14/10/91 -6/12/91 Post-production 9/12/1991 - 14/2/92 Principal Credits Director Bob Ellis Producer Terry Jennings Exec, producers Roger le Mesurier Roger Simpson Scriptwriter Bob Ellis DOP Geoff Burton Sound recordist David Lee Editor Henry Dangar Prod, designer Roger Ford Composer Chris Neal Planning and Development Script editor Roger Simpson Casting Liz Mullinar Casting Casting consultant Liz Mullinar Extras casting Kate Finsterer Production Crew Prod, manager Anne Bruning Prod, co-ord Debbie Atkins Prod, secretary Jennifer Des Champs Location manager Maude Heath Unit manager Will Matthews Asst unit manager Dennis Hulm Unit asst Noelle Maxwell Production runner Tom Read Financial controller Moneypenny Services Prod, accountant Marianne Flynn Accounts asst Sandie Morris Insurer Tony Leonard (Steeves Lumley) Completion guarant. Sue Milliken (Film Finances) Legal services Marshall & Dent Travel co-ord Set in Motion Camera Crew Focus puller Kathryn Milliss Clapper-loader Leilani Hannah Key grip Simon Quaife Asst grips David Hansen Paul Smith Gaffer Ian Plummer Best boy Robbie Burr Electrician Grant Atkinson Asst electrics Nick Delaine Orl-set Crew 1st asst director Bob Donaldson 2nd asst director John Meredith 3rd asst director Ian Hamilton Continuity Nikki Moors Boom operator Cathy Gross Make-up Trish Glover Makë-up asst Paul Pattison Stunts co-ord Bernie Ledger Unit nurse Jackie Ramsey Still photography Robért McFarlane Catering Camera Cooks Art Department Art dirèPtor Laurie Fáéri Asst art director Catherine Silm Aft dept runner Sara PfObyn Set dresser Sandy Wingrove Props, buyer Jock McLachlan Standby props John Osmond Action vehicle co-ord Michael Lendrurh Wardrobe Wardrobe super. Louise Wakefield Wardrobe buyer Jenny Miles Standby wardrobe Devina Maxwell Construction Dept Construction super. Danny Burnett Scenic artist Eric Todd Leading hand Deán Steiner Post-production Asst editor Basia Ozerski Editing asst Nicole Mitchell Laboratory Atlab Lab liaison Ian Russell Gauge 35 mm Shooting stock Kodak Government Agency Investment Development AFC

Film Victoria Production FFC Marketing FFC Marketing Inti, distributor Beyond Films Publicity DDA Cast: Noah Taylor (Ken Elkin), Miranda Otto (Jennie O'Brien), Jack Campbell (McAlister), Erick Mitsak (Wayland), Alice Garner (Esther), Lucy Bell (Sarai), Arthur Dignam (Pastor Anderson), Loene Carmen (Meryl), Jeanette Cronin (Christy), Peter Gwynne (Shepherds Rod), Hec McMillan (Pastor Dibley). Synopsis: A gentle romantic comedy about the end of thé world. The religious and sexual coming of age of a 1960s Seventh Day Adventist boy, who acquires a taste for drink, women and philosophy, and believes the end is nigh during the Cuban Missile' Crisis, even though thé much longed-for apocalypse seems to keep getting postponed. SAY A LITTLE PRAYER Prod, company Flying Films Production 14/10/91 ... Dist. company Beyond Inti. Group Principal Credits Director Richard Lowenstein Producer Carol Hughes Scriptwriter Richard Lowenstein DOP Graeme Wood Sound recordist Lloyd Carrick Editor Jill Bilcock Production designer Chris Kennedy Costume designer Lynn-Maree Milburn Planning and Dèvelopment Casting Consultants Liz Mullinar Casting Extras casting Kelly O'Shea Drama coach Kaarin Fairfax Production Crew Prod, manager Catherine “Tatts” Bishop Prod, co-ord Jackie Mann Prod, accountant Juanita Parker Location manager Michael McIntyre Unit manager Simon Hawkins Unit asSt Phil Taylor Production runner Carl Conti Insurer Steeves Lumley Completion guarant. Film Finances Legal services Philip Luca Travel co-ord. Set in Motion Camera Crew Steadicam operator Harry Panagiotidis Steadicam asst David Lindsay Focus puller Robin Plunkett Clapper loader Bryn Whitie Camera equipment Samueison Key grip Ian "Pear Head" Beriállack Grip Arthur Manousakis Gaffer Rory Timoney 2nd electrics Steve Price 3rd electrics Battista Remati On-set Crew 1st asst director Toby Pease 2nd asst director Emma Schofield 3rd asSt director Mathew Bennett Continuity Jan Plantoni Boom operator Cfaig BeggS Make-up Vivienne MacGillicuddy Neill Timms Hairdresser Vivienhe MadGillicuddy Stunts co-ord Mark Hennessy Safety officer Eddie McShortall Still photography Jennifer Mitchell Tutor Lynne Klugrnan Catering Sweet Seduction Traffic stopper Warwick Fry M/U-W/R vehicle Empire Tutor vehicle Reel Wheels Unit publicist Fiona Searson (DDA) Art Department Art director Hugh Bateman Art dept co-ord Victoria Hobday Art dept runner Paul Macek Art dept trainee Rebecca O’Brien

Props buyers Props dresser Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe super. Standby wardrobe Cutter Construction Dept Construct, manager Carpenter Post-production Asst editors

Georgina Campbell Murray Gossan Georgina Campbell Murray Gossan Jacqui Everett Cathy Hereen Catriona Brennan Walter Sperl Robin “Syd” Hartley

Jane Moran Nick Cole Sound transfer Soundfirm Laboratory Vic Film Lab Stock Kodak Rushes screening Film Soundtrack Stills processing Color Factory (col) Di Keller (b&w) Polaroid stock Vanbar Photographies Publicity DDA Finance FFC Inti, sales Beyond Films Cast: Fiona Rutelle, Sudi de Winter. [No other details supplied] Synopsis: A skinny, introverted eleven-yearold meets the young effervescent but drugaddicted Angie and enters her fantasy world. It is a relationship that offers strength to each, and through the highs and lows of a long hot summer they both gradually learn to face the truth about each other and themselves. SHOTGUN WEDDING Prod, company David Hannay Prods Dist. company Beyond Films Budget $4,141,485 Pre-production 19/8/91 -11/10/91 Production 21/10/91 -6/12/91 Post-production 9/12/91 - April 1992 Principal Credits Director Paul Harmon Producers David Hannay Charles Hannah Scriptwriter David O’Brien DOP Kim Batterharh Sound recordist Ross Linton Editor Wayne Le Clos Prod, designer Michael Philips Costume designer Clarrissa Patterson Composer Allan Zavod Planning and Development Script editor Paul Harmon Casting consultant Alison Barrett Extras casting Cathering Griff Additional casting Catherine Griff Baby casting Meredith Fleming Production Crew Prod, manager Brenda Pam Prod, co-ord. Sam Thompson Producer’s asst Kim Sterlina Prod, secretary Kriselle Baker Location manager Chris Jones Location security Russel Fewtrell Peter Simon Unit manager Chris Jones Unit assts Rick Kornaat David Holmes Casual unit assts Angus Harrison Nick Watt Ross Bridekirk Toby Church-Brown Greg Garry Stuart T rewan Production runner Denise Ingham Prod, accountant Michelle D’Arcey Accounts asst Cathy Smith Insurer Neil McEwin (FUIA) Completion guarant, Sue Milliken (Film Finances) Legal services Martin Cooper & Co, Police liaison Bruce Nelson Camera Crew Camera operator Danny Batterham Focus puller Martin Turner Clapper-loader Kate Dennis

Caméra attach. Steadlcam operator Camera equip. Key grip Grip Casual grip Gaffer Best boy Electrician Electrics attach. On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst directors

Anna Townsend Martin Lee Samuelson Film Services Graeme Litchfield Mark Ramsey Michael Vivian John Morton Mathew Hoile Ken Cooper Steve Byron

Philip Hearnshaw Henry Osborne Vicky Sugars 2nd 2nd asst director Sarah Lewis 3rd asst director Kim Steblina Continuity Kristin Voumard Boom operator Jack Friedman Make-up Lesley Vanderwalt Hairdresser Paul Williams Casual m.u./hair Jan Zeigenbein Bee Simon Karen Johnson Lesley Rouvray Special fx co-ord David Young Stunts co-ord Grant Page Stills photography Veronika Sive Meredith Fleming Unit nurse Unit Publicist Fiona Searson (DDA) Catering Robert Jang Catering asst Anne Fearle Art Department Art director David McKay Tracey Hyde-Moxham Art dept co-ord John Riley Art dept asSt Michael Burge Art dept attach. John Riley Art dept runner Alicia Walsh Set dresser Alicia Walsh Props buyer Dallas Wilson Standby props Robert “Moxy” Asst standby props Moxham Robert Colby Armourer Tim Burns Action vehicle co-ord Martin Brown Action vehicle asst Set decorator Glen W. Johnson Nick Bonham Graphic artist Wardrobe Jane Johnston Costume supervisor Marilyn Brent Costume buyer Gabrlelle Dunn Standby costume Gostume asst Jackline Sassine Sam Cook Wardrobe asst Emmanuel Kostoglou Pattern maker Construction Dept Bob Paton Construct, manager Geoffrey Staker Carpenters Angus Harrison Ron Martin Nigel Boyle Daniel Gray Ron Martin Standby carpenter Daniel Heather Construct, runner Greg Commerford Brush hand Frank Falconer Set finisher Greg Thomas Greensman Post-production Wayne Hayes Asst editor Simon Martin Edge numberer Spectrum Films Editing room Audio Loc Sound Sound transfers by Design Phil Heywood Mixer Atlab Australia Mixed at Atlab Australia Laboratory 35 mm Gauge 1:1.85 Screen ratio Agfa-Gevaert Stock 95 mins Length Government Agency Investment FFC Production Marketing Beyond Films Inti, sales agent DDA Publicity Cast: Aden Young (Jimmy Becker), Zoe Carides (Helen Llewellyn), Bill Hunter

(Godfrey Andrews), John Walton (Det Frank Taylor), Marshall Napier (Det Dave Green), John Clayton (Sam Church), Warren Coleman (Ben Quill), Paul Chubb (Geoffrey Drlnkwater), Yves Stenning (Peter Bingham), Richard Healy (Brian Alcott), Sean Scully (Det Craig Haker), Vince Sorrentl (Det Mario Bonelli), Jeff Truman (Det Ted Jones), Andrew S Gilbert (Bruce Llewellyn), Bruce Venables (John Tyke), Bill Charlton (the Sergeant), Max Cullen (Rev. Arthur Hickey). Synopsis: Set In the late 1960s, Shotgun W edding Is a bizarre drama, a love story and a comedy of errors. Jimmy Becker, fresh out of gaol, and pregnant girlfriend Helen leave Kings Cross to seek their dream of a normal life In the outer suburbs of Sydney. However, their dream is quickly shattered with the ar rival of a ‘bent’ cop, Taylor, and an arsenal of weapons left by Helen’s schizoid brother. A siege begins which captures the attention of the nation, during which the Police Commis sioner acts as best man at Jimmy and Helen’s wedding. FEATURES POST-PRODUCTION EIGHT BALL Meridian Films Prod, company Pre-production 25/3/91 - 10/5/91 Production 13/5/91 -28/6/91 Post-production 1/7/91... Principal Credits Director Ray Argali F’roducer Timothy White Jill Robb Exec, producers Bryce Menzles Ray Argali Scriptwriters Harry Kirchner Mandy Walker DOP Ian Cregan Sound recordist Ken Sallows Editor Kerith Holmes Prod, designer Jane Hyland Costume designer Planning and Development Script editor John Cruthers Casting Dina Mann Jane Hamilton Casting assts Cameron Harris Production Crew Denise Patience Prod, supervisor Marion Pearce Prod, manager Jenny Barty Prod, co-ord. Judith Hughes Producer’s asst Georgia Carter Prod secretary Leigh Ammitzboll Unit manager Jacqueline Perske Production runner Mandy Carter Prod accountant Sophie Slomos Accounts asst Steeves Lumley Insurer Film Completion guarant. Finances Roth Warren Menzies Legal services Camera Crew Mandy Walker Camera operator Campbell Miller Camera asst Greg Harrington Focus puller Trevor Moore Clapper-loader Arriflex BL4 Camera type Max Gaffney Key grip Richard Allardice Asst grips Daryl Pearson Gaffer Trevor Ripper Best boy Malcolm McLean Generator operator On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Tech, adviser Still photography Unit publicist Catering Art Department

Euan Keddie Tony Gilbert Karen Mahood Ann Beresford Tony Dickinson Amanda Rowbottom Bill Schober Jennifer Mitchell Miranda Brown Keith Fish

Art director Art dept coord Art dept runner Set dresser Propsperson Props buyers Standby props Wardrobe Standby wardrobe Construction Dept Leading hand Construction Set construction

Hugh Bateup Sharon Young Paul Macak Adele Flere Daryl Porter Adele Flere Marita Mussett Daryl Porter Bronwyn Doughty

Herb Stephens (workshop) Walter Sperle (Swan Hill) ABC Scenery workshop

Post-production Asst editor Sound transfers by

Maria Kaltenhaler Eugene Wilson Sound Services Sound supervisor Dean Gawen Chris Gough, Mana Music coord. Music Laboratory Cinevex Ian Anderson Lab liaison 35mm Gauge Kodak Eastmancolor Shooting stock 5248 Government Agency Investment Script: Film Victoria Development AFC Production FFC Film Victoria Cast: Matthew Fargher (Charlie), Angie Milliken (Julie), Paul Stevn (Russell), Lucy Sheehan (Jacqui), Frankie J Holden (Mai), Matthew Krok (Douggie), Ollie Hall (Biggs), Desmond Kelly (Bert) Synopsis: Charlie is a young architect with seemingly everything going for him. Russell, the complete opposite, hasjustbeen released from prison. Their paths cross when Russell is employed to workon Charlie’s latest project: the construction of a giant Murray Cod as a tourist attraction for a small Victorian town. THE GREAT PRETENDER Palm Beach Pictures Prod, company Beyond Films Dist. company Production 10/6/1991 ... Principal Credits David Elfick Director David Elfick Producer John Winter Co-producers Nina Stevenson John Cundlll Scriptwriter DOP Steve Windon Sound recordist Guntis Sics Stuart Armstrong Editor David McKay Prod, designer Costume designer Clarrissa Patterson Planning and Development Script editor Glenda Hambly Christine King Casting Ali Roberts Directions Extras casting Andrew Mayhew Storyboard artist Production Crew Maggie Lake Prod, manager Prod, co-ord. Julie Sims Prod, secretary Elinor Bradbury Liz Kirkham Location managers Jillian Harris Unit manager Simon Hawkins Giancarlo Mazzella Unit assts. Philip Taylor Prod, runner Mark Hawthorne Prod, accountant Liane Lee (Moneypenny) Accounts asst. Christine Robinson Insurer Hammond & Jewell Completion guarant. Film Finances Travel co-ord. Jet Aviation Freight co-ord. Showfreight Base-office liaison Basia Plachecki Camera Crew Camera operator Mark Spicer

Steve MacDonald Annie Benzie Simon Frost Samuelson Film Service Ray Brown Ian Bird Craig Bryant Steve Johnson John Lee

Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera asst Camera equipment Key grip Asst, grip Gaffer Best boy Electrician On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Choreographer Still photography Catering Safety officer Unit publicist Art Department Art director Art dept, co-ord. Art dept, runner Set dresser Props buyers

Colin Fletcher Sarah Lewis Lisa Farinosi Jan Piantoni Mark Keating Karen Sims Jan Zeigenbein (Ziggy) Ruth Osborne Skip Watkins Steve Marcus Debbie Hansen Rob Greenough Fiona Searson, DDA Michael Philips Tracey Hyde-Moxham Richard Blackadder Alicia Walsh Denise Goudy Glen Johnson Robert Moxham

Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Wardrobe buyer Standby wardrobe Wardrobe dept, attachs.

Construction Dept. Construction supervisor Scenic artist Post-production

Jo Malcolm Lisa Galea Delia Spicer Jackline Sassine Emily Steel Peter Carmen (Dakota) Frank Falconer

Carryl Irik Isla Carboon John Hopkins Music supervisor Atlab Australia Laboratory Mighty Movies Editing rooms Kodak Film Stock Government Agendy Investment Production FFC Marketing Inti, sales agent Beyond Films Publicity Dennis Davidson Assoc. Cast: Craig Adams (Ken Riddle), Rhonda Findleton (Gwen Riddle), Marlin Sacks (Max Wiseman), Aden Youhg (Barry), Russell Crowe (Arthur), Samantha Murray (Maisie), Maya Stange(lvy Riddle), Bill Young (Herbert Bollinger), Jill Perryman (Dorry), Vincent Ball (Cyril Williams). Synopsis: A romantic comedy about an ar tistic 16-year-old with a rampant libido and a passionate Interest in the female form. Set in Perth and Kalgoorlie In the 1950s.

Asst editors

ÓREENKEEPING Prod, company Central Park Films Pre-production 26/8/91 -20/9/91 Production 23/9/91 - 18/10/91 ... March 1992 Post-production Principal Credits Director David Caesar Producer Glenys Rowe Scriptwriter David Caesar Simon Smith DOP Liam Egan Sound recordist Mark Perry Editor Kerith Holmes Prod, designer Tess Schofield Costume designer David Brodie Composers John Phillips Planning and Development Liz Mullinar & Assoc. Casting Production Crew Patricia L’Huede Prod, manager CINEMA

PAPERS

• 75

Prod, co-ord. Unit managers Production runner Prod, accountant Insurer Completion guarant. Legal services Camera Crew Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera type Key grip Dolly grip Gaffer Best boy On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Still photography Unit publicist Catering Art Department Art director Props buyer Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Animals Animal handlers

Juliette Van Heyst Richard Montgomery Grayden Le Breton Steven Caesar Nancy Lloyd Cinesure Film Finances David Shannon (Frankel & Co.) Simon Smith Jo-Anne Parker Alison Maxwell ARRI Danny Lockett Greg Toohey Paul Johnstone Andrew Robertson Vicki Sugars Sarah Lewis James Morrison Linda Ray Victor Gentile Nikki Gooley Philip le Masurier Dina Gillespie Camera Cooks Kim Ihnatko Charlie Revai Jane Murphy Tess Schofield Cheyne Phillips Gwyn Anderson Brian Anderson Jan Coles

Construction Dept Greensman Post-production Asst editor Sound editor Mixer Mixed at

Darryl Hammond

Jan Louthean Counterpoint Sound Robert Sullivan Soundfirm Film Australia Opticals O&G Laboratory Atlab Neg matching Chris Rowell Gauge 35 mm Shooting stock Kodak Printing stock Kodak Government Agency Investment Production AFC Marketing AFC Marketing Publicity Dina Gillespie Cast: Mark Little (Lenny), Lisa Hensley (Sue), Max Cullen (Tom), Syd Conabere (Milton), Gia Carides (Gina), Rob Steele (Manager), Leigh Russell (Dave), Kazuhiro Muroyama (Rikyu), David Wenham (Trevor), Frank Whitten (Dad), Robyn Nevin (Mum). Synopsis: A film about sex, drugs and lawn bowls. MAD BOMBER IN LOVE [See previous issue for details] MAP OF THE HUMAN HEART Prod, company Working Title Films (U.K.) Principal Credits Director Vincent Ward Tim Bevan Producers Vincent Ward Timothy White Co-producer Redmond Morris Assoc, producer Louis Nowra Scriptwriters Vincent Ward Eduardo Serra DOP Editor John Scott John Beard Prod, designer Gabriel Yared Composer 76

CINEMA

PAPERS

Other Credits Art director Prod! manager Prod, accountant

Jean-Bapiste Tard Irene Litinsky Jane Corden Moneypenny Services Post-prod, supervisor Sylvia

Walker-Watson Janet Cook (Vincent Ward) Judith Hughes (Timothy White) Co-editor Frans Vandenburg 1st asst editor Dany Cooper 2nd asst editor Nigel McKenzie 3rd asst editor Priscilla Thorley Add. asst editor Liz Goldfinch Sound supervisor Andrew Plain Sound asst Shawn Seet Fx editors Annie Breslin James Manche Fx assts Nicholas Breslin Leanne Glasson Dialogue James Manche Leanne Glasson Dialogue editor Lyvia Ruzic Dialogue assts Benita Carey Craig Carter Mixer Gethin Creagh AFTRS attach. Jenny T Ward Editing rooms Spectrum Films Foley Soundfirm Mixed at Soundfirm Laboratory Atlab Video transfers by Videolab Inti, sales agent Manifesto Film Sales Cast: Patrick Bergin (Walter), Anne Parillaud (Albertine), Jason Scott-Lee (Avik), Jeanne Moreau (Sister Banville), Ben Mendelsohn (Farmboy), John Cusack (Clark), Annie Galipeau (Young Albertine), Robert Joamie (Young Avik), Clotilde Courau (Rainee). Synopsis: A love story spanning thirty years about an Eskimo who ventures into the world of the white man to find his childhood sweetheart and is swept up in the ferocity of World War II. Prod, assts

ROMPER STOMPER Prod, company Romper Stomper Pre-production 18/7/91 -9/8/91 Production 12/8/91 - 20/9/91 Post-production Sept. 1991 - March 1992 Principal Credits Director Geoffrey Wright Producers Daniel Scharf Ian Pringle Assoc, producer Phil Jones Scriptwriter Geoffrey Wright DOP Ron Hagen Sound recordist David Lee Editor Bill Murphy Prod, designer Steven Jones-Evans Costume designer Anna Borghesi Composer John Clifford White Planning and Development Casting Greg Apps (Liz Mullinar Casting) Production Crew Prod, manager Elisa Argenzio Prod, co-ord. Fiona Eagger Location manager Stephen Brett Prod, runner Eva Freidman Prod, accountant Bernadette Breitkreuz Insurer Tony Leonard (Steeves Lumley) Rob Fisher Completion guarant. (First Australian Completion Bond Co.) Legal services Chris Lovell (Holding Redlich) Camera Crew Focus puller Gary Bottomley Clapper-loader Warik Lawrance Key grip Leigh Tait Gene Van Dam Asst, grip Gaffer Tom Moody Best boy Trevor Ripper

Electrician On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up/hair Make-up asst Special fx supervisor Stunts co-ordinator Safety officer Still photography Catering Art Department Set dressers Props buyers

Trevor Rowe Asst grip Steve Latty Gaffer Thad Lawrence Best boy Alan Woodfield Electrician Generator operator Alan Woodfield On-set Crew Dave Norris 1st asst director Wi Rakete 2nd asst director Anna Cahill 3rd asst director Karen Alexander Continuity Myk Farmer Boom operator Fiona Campbell Make-up Make-up asst Debra East Hairdresser Peter Underdown Nick Rowney Visual fx Choreographer Tony Bartucchio Peter Bell Stunts co-ord. Martin Stewart Still photography Art Department Art director Kevin Leonard-Jones Art dept runner Cameron Feast Set dresser Brad Mill Asst set dresser Nick Rowney Props buyer Brad Mill Standby props Jania Bates Wardrobe Costume supervisor Paul Sayers Standby wardrobe Andrea Bunn Construction Dept Construction manager Tony Arnold Scenic workshop coord. Wayne Rutherford Scenic artists Mike T ravers Richard Martin Design estimator Vaughan Schwass Staging Hori Heath Standby staging John Flowers Set makers Colin Pacey Tony Evensen Anton Buys Set finishers Kerry Dunn Karen Baker Post-production Asst editor David Clark Unit publicity Fiona Searson (DDA) Cast: Beth Champion (Emily), Malcolm Kennard (Danny), Dannii Minogue (Didi), Willa O’Neill (Vicki), Noah Taylor (Randolf), Eddie Campbell (Randolf’s father), Peter Dennett (Cop), Nicki Hooper (Girl fan), Christopher Lorimar (Kid), Lorae Parry (Reporter), Joan Reid (Sister Anuzia), Peter Vere-Jones (Jock), Joy Watson (Randolf’s mother). Synopsis: June, 1964. Madness! Music! Emotion! Five teenagers trapped in the giant basement of the hotel where the Beatles are staying during their Australian tour. As the night unfolds, they slowly start to reveal their deepest secrets, their hopes, their dreams. Featuring some of the most famous music ever written.

Battista Remati Chris Odgers Monica Pearce Andrew Power Victoria Sullivan Cathy Gross Christine Miller Sue Kelly Tait Jane Gregory Peter Stubbs Chris Peters Wally Dalton Peter Leiss Keith Fish Lisa Thompson Colin Robertson Lisa Thompson Colin Robertson Graeme Blackmore

Standby props Wardrobe Standby wardrobe Gabrielle Dunn Wardrobe asst. Cheyne Phillips Post-production Asst editor Jane Usher Edge numberer Oliver Streeton Sound transfers Eugene Wilson Sound edit, designer Frank Lipson Laboratory Cinevex Lab liaison Ian Anderson Shooting stock Kodak Government Agency Investment Production AFC Film Victoria Cast: Russell Crowe (Hando), Daniel Pollock (Davey), Jacqueline McKenzie (Gabe), Leigh Russell (Sonny Jim), Eric Mueck (Champ), Daniel Wyllie (Cackles), James McKenna (Bubs), Frank Magee (Brett), Christopher McLean (Luke), Alex Scott (Martin). Synopsis: The story of the disintegration of an urban street gang. ROUND THE BEND (formerly Over the Hill) [See 83 issue for details] SECRETS Victorian Inti. Pictures Avalon Pictures NFU Studios Production Dist. company Beyond Inti. Group Production 17/6/91... Principal Credits Director Michael Pattinson Producer Michael Pattinson Line producer Lynda House Exec, producers David Arnell Michael Caulfield William T Marshall Scriptwriter Jan Sardi DOP David Connell Sound recordist Ken Saville Editor Peter Carrodus Production designer Kevin Leonard-Jones Planning and Development Casting Liz Mullinar (Aust) Penny Oldfield (NZ) Production Crew Prod, manager Sue Thompson Prod, co-ord. Mary Hands Prod, assistant’ Colin McLellan Prod, secretary Sarah Bailey Location manager Alex Collins Location asst Rachel Stewart Location scout Dave Norris Unit manager Alex Collins Prod, accountants Jim Hajicosta (Aust) Maureen Zust (NZ) Completion guarant. Film Finances Insurer Steeves Lumley Camera Crew Camera operator Ian Jones Focus puller Greg Ryan Clapper-loader Warren Bradshaw Key grip Warren Grieef Prod, company

SEEING RED [See previous issue for details] STRICTLY BALLROOM [See issue 84 for details] WIND (formerly Radiance) [See issue 84 for details] RECENTLY COMPLETED See previous issues for details on: BREATHING UNDER WATER ■

DOCUMENTARIES

VITALI S AUSTRALIA Prod, company Looking For Australia Dist. company Beyond Inti. Group Pre-production Sept 1991 Production Oct 1991 Post-production Nov-Dec 1991 Principal Credits Director Jon Ossher Producer Jonathan Lester Line producer Fiona Cochrane Exec, producer Harry Bardwell (ABC)

Scriptwriter DOP

Vitali Vitaliev David McGuire Sound recordist John Garwood Editor Zbigniew (Peter) Friedrich

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, accountant Insurer

Wendy Clarke Monica Gehrt Steeves Lumley Film Finances Gina Milicia

Completion guarant. Still photography

Post-production Musical director Laboratory

Albert Dadon Cinevex Pro-Image 16 mm to 1" Four Plus One ABC FFC Beyond Inti.

Gauge Off-line facilities Finance

Inti, sales agent Cast: Vitali Vitaliev. Synopsis: An intelligent look at urban Aus tralia through the eyes of noted Russian writer Vitali Vitaliev, who now lives in Mel bourne. For details of the following see previous issue: BREAST FEEDING FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE SHORTS URBAN MYTH Prod, company Obscure Films $10,500 Budget Principal Credits Director Angelo Salamanca Producer Scottie Walker Peter Tammer Exec, producer Angelo Salamanca Scriptwriter Stephen Amis DOP Andrew Ferguson Sound recordists Anny Mokotow Angelo Salamanca Editor Paul Carland Prod, designer Jeanine De Lorenzo Composer Production Crew Scottie Walker Prod, manager Rosa Colosimo Prod, adviser Ingrid Wilkie Prod, runner Camera Crew Camera operator Stephen Amis Joanne Donahoe Camera assistant ARRI SR Camera type Swinburne Camera maintenance Institute Dean Stevenson Key grips Luis Da Silver Liam O'Hara Christine Rogers Gaffers Luis Da Silver On-set Crew 1st asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Still photography Catering Art Department Art director Post-production Asst editor Sound transfers Sound editors

Steve Middleton Jacinthe Springer Andrew Ferguson Gina Weidemann Kym Schreiber Paul Walker Veronica Stute Paul Carland

Angelo Salamanca Angelo Salamanca Piero Colli Angelo Salamanca Music performed by Jeanine De Lorenzo Opticals Cinevex Titles Cinevex Laboratory Cinevex Gauge 16 mm Screen ratio 1:1.88 Cast: Suzy Cato (Bea), Joseph Spano (Eric), Peter Stratford (Spencer). Synopsis: Bea finds herself pregnant for the first time at the age of forty-four; she does not know whether her husband or lover has fa

thered the child she is carrying. Bea has important decisions to make. For details of the following see previous issue: DIAL-A-CLICHE SOMETHING TO DO WITH ANTS WHISPERS AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL SOTTO VOCE Prod, company AFTRS Dist. company AFTRS Production 31/7/91 -4/8/91 Post-production 5/8/91 - 1/11/91 Principal Credits Director lain Knight Alison Wotherspoon Producer Scriptwriter Marguerite Bunce The Third Based on story titled D a y in The Decam eron Written by Giovanni Boccaccio DOP Susan Thwaites Alicia Slusarski Sound recordist Editor Polly Seddon Tara Kamath Prod, designer Planning and Development Joy Sargant Casting Production Crew Prod, manager Alison Wotherspoon Prod, co-ordinator Scott Davis Harriet McKern Prod, assistant Camera Crew Andrew Taylor Camera operator Christophe Michelet Focus puller Clapper-loader Paul Yoo SR 16 Camera type Tony Bosch Key grip Gaffer Tony Mandl On-set Crew Stephen Gallagher 1st asst director 2nd asst director Victoria Hunt Anna McGinnley 3rd asst director Cindy Mikul Continuity Boom operator Cathie Napier Lynnette Turner Make-up Joanne Larcombe Clark Sheedy Hairdresser Still photography Michael Killalea Art Department Daran Fulham Asst art director Bart Groen Standby props Post-production Cathie Napier Sound editor Cathie Post-sync supervisor Napier Ben Chea Mixer AFTRS Mixed at Vic Film Lab. Laboratory 16 mm Gauge 1:1.85 Screen ratio 7248 Shooting stock Ian Phipps Publicity Cast: Luciano Martucci (Giovanni), Anne Looby (Beatrice), David Downer (Franco), Sal Sharah (Father Paolo). Synopsis: A married woman seeks the help of a priest. If the blatant and threatening advances of his young friend continue, her reputation and her life will be at risk. In a medieval Italian town, one would expect the priest to have great influence. And in an unexpected way, he does. For details of the following see previous issue: ROAD TO ALICE FILM AUSTRALIA THE COLOURED CAMPAIGN Prod, company FA Post-production 4/11/91-7/2/92 Principal Credits Director Alec Morgan

Robert Marchand Exec, producer ChrisOliver Exec, producers Peter Beilby Written by AlecMorgan Robert Le Tet DOP Pieter de Vries Douglas Livingstone Sound recordist GrahamWyseScriptwriters Bill Garner Editor Denise Haslem Cast: Chris Haywood (Dennis), Tim Healy Other Credits (Reg), Pat Thomson (Doris), Nadine Garner Budgeted by Hilary May (Arlene), Mark Haddigan (Leslie). Prod, manager Hilary May Synopsis: In Series II, Reg is again surprised Prod, co-ord Fiona Schmidberge by a visit from his ingenue English nephew, Prod, accountant DareSkinner Marketing exec. FrancescaMuir Leslie. This time, Leslie arrives to find Mel bourne is even more surprising than your Inti, distributor FA average kangaroo. Arlene is engaged to a Synopsis: A film about the secrets- behind millionaire’s son and “Melbourne Confidential” Australia's post-war immigration policies. get involved with some very big players in deed. DIAMOND ARE A GIRL’S BEST FRIEND FA Prod, company CHANCES (serial) FA Dist. company [See isssue 83 for deatails] Productin Aug. - Oct. 1991 Oct. - Dec. 1991 Post-production THE CROCODILE ON TRIAL (tele-feature) Principal Credits Prod, company Australian Pacific Films Derek Longhurst Director (Cairns) Derek Longhurst Producers Dist. company Beyond Inti. Group Sue Taylor Principal Credits Chris Oliver Exec, producer Director MarkEliot Sue Taylor Written by Producer MarkEliot Other Credits Planning and Development Hilary May Prod, manager Researcher Rick Rogers Fiona Schmidberger Prod, co-ordinator Script editor MarkEliot Prod, accountants Janine Trapp Dare Skinner Shooting schedule by Monica Mesch Francesca Muir Marketing exec. Budgeted by Monica Mesch S yn o p sis: A young woman geologist Synopsis: This two-hour tele-feature puts searches for diamonds in the outback of the crocodile on trial and investigates attacks Western Australia. from all over the world. The crocodile, the world’s oldest creature, has survived the di ON THE NOSE nosaurs, and, although savagely hunted by FA Prod, company man for the past million years, of the 21 FA Dist. company original species not one has yet been made Principal Credits extinct. But how much longer can the crocodile Tammy Burnstock Director hang out? Exec, producer Chris Oliver Tammy Burnstock Scriptwriters A COUNTRY PRACTICE (series) Max Lake [See issue 84 for details] Other Credits Hilary May Prod, manager Fiona Schmidberger THE FLYING DOCTORS (VIII, series) Prod, co-ordinator [See issue 84 for details] Dare Skinner Prod, accountant SP Betacam Gauge HALFWAY ACROSS THE GALAXY AND Francesca Muir Marketing exec. TURN LEFT (series) Synopsis: A documentary focusing on the Crawfords Australia Prod, company power of smell. Production 9/9/91 - 28/2/92 For details of the following Principal Credits Rod Hardy Directors see previous issue: Paul Moloney BARUYA MUKA Producer Jan Marnell IMAGEMAKERS Terry Ohlsson Exec, producer Peter Herbert Develop, producer FILM VICTORIA John Reeves Scriptwriter Based on the novel H alfw ay A cro ss the For details of the following see issue 84: G ala xy and Turn Left ART OF DROWNING Written by Robin Klein MR NEAL IS ENTITLED TO BE AN DOP David Connell AGITATOR Sound recordists John Phillips SHEEP Andrew Ramage Editor Denise Haratzis NSW FILM AND TELEVISION OFFICE Prod, designer Dale Duguid Sally Grigsby For details of the following Costume designer Planning and Development see previous issue: THE EFFECTIVE APPROACH Script editor Graeme Farmer JUST ANOTHER DAY Casting Jan Pontifex Production Crew THIS VOTING LIFE Prod, manager Pam Tummel Wendy Walker TELEVISION Prod, co-ord. Prod, secretary PRODUCTION Sandi Revelins Location manager Maurice Burns Peter Allen Transport manager ALL TOGETHER NOW (series) Unit manager Tim Scott [See issue 83 for details] Production runner Justin Hughes BONY (series) Patti Pulbrook Prod, accountant [See issue 84 for details] Camera Crew Clapper-loader Peter Stott THE BOYS FROM THE BUSH (series II) Camera assistant Greg Ryan Prod, companies Entertainment Media Warren Grieef Key grip Cinema Verity Asst grips Aaron Walker Principal Credits Paul Smith Directors Shirley Barrett CINEMA

PAPERS

• 77

Gaffer Best boy Generator operator On-set Crew 1st asst directors 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up/Hair

Dick Tummel Darryl Pearson Adam Williams Stuart Wood Phil Jones Christian Robinson Damien Grant Anne West Stephen Vaughan Amanda Rowbottom Zelja Stanin Peta blastings New Generation Stunts

Make-up asst Stunts co-ord. Art Department Art director Set dresser Props buyer Standby props Standby dresser Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisors

Ken James Denise Goudy Darryl Mills Marcus Erasmus Richie Dean Rachel Nott Kelly Ellis Gabriel Dunn Clair Smith Gloria Allen

Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst Seamstress Construction Construct, manager Peter McNee Post-production Post-prod, supervisor Alan Ryan Marketing Publicity Susan Elizabeth Wood Cast: [No détails supplied] Synopsis: After winning the government lottery for the 27th time in a row, Father finds questions being asked of his honesty. What to do? Escape, of course, and so begins the story of this strange little, family from the planet Zyrgon as they travel halfway across the galaxy, turn left and land on earth. HOME AND AWAY (serial) [See issue 80 for details] KELLY 2 (mini-series) Prod, company Westbridge Prods Dist. companies Te|e Images Atlantis Releasing Westbridge Entertainment Budget $3.5 million Pre-production 19/8/91 - 14/10/91 Production 14/10/91 -24/1/92 Post-production 14/10/91 -29/6/92 Principal Credits Directors Chris Langman Mike Smith Line producer Ray Flennessy Exec, producer Jonathan M. Shift Scriptwriters David Phillips Peter Hepworth Peter Kinloch Alison Nisselle Shane Brennan Shiela Sibley Denise Morgan Judith Colquhoun DOP Brett Anderson John Wilkinson Sound recordist Editors Ray Daley Philip Watts Prod, designer Georgie Greenhill Garry McDonald Composers Laurie Stone Planning and Development Galia Flardy Story editor Jenny Sharp Script editor Jo Rippon Casting Production Crew Prod, manager Gina Black Prod, co-ord. Susie Evans Coyla Flegarty Producer’s asst Prod, secretary Helen Boicovitis Location manager Greg Ellis Transport managers Reel Wheels Conte Movie Trailers Steve Brett Unit manager Jennifer Clevers Financial controller 78

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Insurer Completion guarant. Legal services Camera Crew Focus puller Clapper-loader 2nd unit focus Camera type Key grip Asst grips Gaffer Best boy Electrician On-set Crew 1st asst directors 2nd asst directors 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Make-up asst Special fx Stunts co-ord. Stunts Safety officer Still photography Unit publicist Catering Art Department Art dept runner Set dressers

Hammond Jewell Film Finances Barker Gosling Terry Howells Warik Lawrance Gary Bottomley Arri SR Joel Witherden Craig Dusting Laurie Fish Roy Pritchett Michael Hughes Robert Kewley Richard Clendinnen Maria Phillips Rosemary Morton Gene Van Dam Kay Hennessy Paul “Crusty" Kiely Ray Phillips Angela Conte Michelle Johnstone Film Trix New Generation Stunts Chris Peters Chris Anderson Chris Peters Ponch Hawkes Anthea Collin Band Aide

Props buyer Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Animals Animal trainers

Peter Ramsey Adele Flere Guy Cottrell Angela Christa Chris James Marion Boyce Mandy Sedawie Michael Garcia Paul Van Vliet

Post-production Post-prod, supervisor Ray Daley Edge numberer Post Sound transfers by Post Recording studio The Music Department Laboratory Cinevex Film gauge 16 mm Shooting stock Kodak Off-line facilities Post Government Agency Investment Development Film Victoria Production FFC Marketing Inti. dist. Tele Images Atlantis Releasing Westbridge Entertainment Cast: Max the dog (Kelly the dog), Charmaine Gorman (Jo Patterson), Alexander Kemp (Danny Foster), Anthony Hawkins (Mike Patterson), Gil Tucker (Frank Patterson), Ailsa Piper (Maggie Patterson), Katy Brinson (Dr Robyn Foster), Matthew Ketteringham (Chris Patterson), Mickey (Junior), Jo Spano (Brian Horton). Synopsis: The continuing story of three young children growing-up in Fern Cove and their adventures with a retired police dog. An action, adventure romp. THE LEAVING OF LIVERPOOL (series) ABC-BBC-Knapman Prod, companies Prods Pre-production 8/7/91 Production 16/9/91 Post-production 9/12/91 Principal Credits Director Michael Jenkins Producer Steve Knapman Penny Chapman Exec, producers Michael Wearing Assoc, producer Wayne Barry

Scriptwriters

John Alsop Susan Smith DOP Steve Windon Sound recordist Peter Grace Editor Mike Honey Prod, designer Marcus North Costume designer Annie Marshall Planning and Development Casting Liz Mullinar Casting consultants Liz Mullinar Casting Extras casting Lucy Monge Storyboard artist Steve Lyons Production Crew Prod, manager Jo Rooney Prod, co-ord. Sandy Stevens Prod, secretary Lisa Hawkes Location manager Peter Lawless Asst unit manager John Downie Production runner John Vitaliotis Prod, accountant Cynthia Kelly Accounts asst Irene Gaskell Camera Crew Camera operator Marc Spicer Focus puller Sean McClory Clapper-loader Matthew Temple Key grip Paul Thompson Asst grip Benn Hyde Gaffer Ken Pettigrew Best boy Bruce Young Electrician Greg Allen Generator operator Phil Mulligan On-set Crew 1st asst director Adrian Pickersgill 2nd asst directors Craig Sinclair Ross Giannone 3rd asst director Leah Vincent Continuity Suzanne Brown Boom operator Gerry Nucifora Make-up Chiara Tripodi Kerry Jury Jemma Wilson Special fx John Neal Stunts co-ord Claude Lambert Unit nurse Sue Andrews Still photography Gary Johnston Unit publicist Ksana Natalenko Catering Marike’s Catering Tutors Narelle Simpson Karen Sander Art Department Art director Colin Rudder Asst designers Marc Ryan Kerrie Reay Andrew Harris Art dept co-ord Lee Bulgin Set dressers Robert Hutchinson Tim Tulk Brent Bonheur Kristian Robertson Propsperson Chris Ryman Prop buyers Cathy Young Paddy McDonald Standby props Tim Westcott Matthew Bartley Wardrobe Wardrobe co-ords Colleen Woulfe Wendy Falconer Standby wardrobe Mary Christodoulou Wardrobe asst Olivia Schmidt Construction Dept Scenic artist Paul Brocklebank Carpenter Bob Hunt Set finisher Michael Hnatek Post-production Asst editor Liz Walshe Off-line facilities Spectrum Films Touchvision Cast: Christine Tremarco (Lily), Kevin Jones (Bert), Frances Barber (Ellen), Bill Hunter (Brother O’Neill), John Hargreaves (Harry), Frankie J. Holden (Bunger), Martin Jacobs (Brother Jerome), Kerry Walker (Mrs Dunne), Pamela Rabe (Mrs Lang), Colin Moody (Mr Symonds). Synopsis: The Leaving o f Liverpool te\\s the story of two remarkable children who were victims of the connivance and cruelty of the

governments and organizations involved in the mass transportation of deprived and homeless children throughout the British Empire in the 1950s. LIFT OFF (series) Prod, company Australian Children's Television Foundation $10.3 million Budget Production ... 27/3/92 Post-production 30/3/92-12/7/92 Principal Credits Steve Jodrell Directors Mario Andreaachio Mandy Smith Colin Budds Paul Nichola Producer Patricia Edgar Exec, producer Patricia Edgar Line producers Margot McDonald Rob Pemberton (ABC) Assoc, producers Ewan Burnett Susie Campbell (Animation) DOP Jaems Grant Sound recordist Ian Cregan Editors Tim Lewis Edward McQueen- Mason Prod, designer Tel Stolto Costume designer Rose Chong Planning and Development Senior script consultant Jeff Peck Casting Liz Mullinar Casting Extras casting Camilla Gold Dialogue coaches Julie Forsyth Josi Robson Production Crew Prod, managers Yvonne Collins Mervyn Magee (ABC) Prod, co-ords Amanda Crittenden Serena Gattuso Prod, secretaries Liz Grant Claire Walsh Location manager Neil McCart Location searcher John Wild Unit manager Leigh Ammitzboll Production runner Steph Stewart Prod, accountants Moneypenny Services Sophie Siomos Insurer Steeves Lumley Completion guarant. Film Finances Driver Craig Lambert (ABC) Camera Crew Camera operators Roger McAlpine Greg Wilden Karen Johnson Andrew Schmidt Camera asst Peter Falk Technical producers Michael Bramley Peter Simondson Technical director Campbell Miller Technical asst Max Gaffney 2nd unit DOP Ian Warburton 2nd unit camera asst Peter Nearhos Key grip Peter De Haan Asst grip Tim Porter Rigger Max Gaffney Gaffer Andrew Topp Best boy Darryn Fox Lighting directors Michael Bramley Graham Brumley Lighting assts Mick Cleary Kevin Pearce Electrician Mick Cleary On-set Crew 1st asst directors Paul Healey John Wild Phil Jones Ross Allsop David Clarke 2nd asst directors Marcus Hunt Martin Green (ABC) 3rd asst director Andrew Power Continuity Carmel Torcasio Karinda Parkinson

Aideen Stevenson (ABC) Andrea Fitzpatrick (ABC) Vision operator Eric Burt Vision mixer Chris Edwards Tape operator John May Boom operators Tony Dickinson (ABC) Graham Cornish (ABC) Audio operators John Beánlánd (ABC) Chris Doyle Audio assts Nevjlle Kelly (ABC) Catrina McDonald (ABC) Make-gp Nik Doming Anna Karpinski Hairdressers Nik Doming Anna Karpinski Asst hairdresser Laura Morris Special fx Peter Stubbs Nurse/chaperone Glad Fish Still photography Greg Noakes Unit publicity Howie & Taylor Catering Keith Fish Sheila Buzza Director’s attachmenlt Megan Manning Art Department Art directors Bernie Wynack Dale Mark Art dept co-ord Rob Walters Art dept runner Michelle Venutti Set dressers Marita Mussett Phil Chambers Michael Keane (ABC) Mark Reynolds (ABC) Props buyers Murray Kelly Kris Kozlovic (ABC) Standby props Fiona Greville Brian Lang Alf Camilieri Head puppeteer Peter Wilson Puppet builder Rod Primrose Puppet makers Rob Matson Richard Mueck Add. puppet maker Michael Logan Puppet maintenance Rob Matson Richard Mueck Puppet doctor Paul Myers Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Concetta Raff Standby wardrobe Rachel Nott Bernice Devereaux Wardrobe assts Monica O’Brien Gail Mayes Dalys Lamson Wardrobe runner Cappl Ireland Machinists Blair Broadhurst Maureen Ryan Post-production Post-prod, co-ord Ken Tyler (ABC) Supervising editor Ralph Strasser Asst editor Christina de Podolinsky Stock footage co-ord. Christina de Podolinsky The Joinery Editing facilities Sound mixers Steve Witherow (ABC) Ian Battersby (ABC) John Wilkinson (ABC) Chris Neal Music consultant Christoph Music educationalist Maubach David Chesire Music co-ord Paul Nichola Visual fx director Visual fx prod. Peter Bain-Hogg manager Visual fx ‘EC’ Maree Woolley fantasies artist Michael ‘Lotis’ interior fx co-ord Bladen Glenn Mellenhorst ‘Patches’ animator Julian Dimsey Visual fx runner Peter Viska Animation consultant Cast: Mark Mitchell (Mr Fish), Paul Cheyne (Nipper), Erin Pratten (Poss), Maria Nguyen (Kim), Madeline Blackwell (Jenny), David Sandford (Ted), HeberYerien (Turbo), Robert Peschel (Max), Aru Kadogo (Swap), Aku

Bielicki (Little Aku). Synopsis: Lift O ff is a children's televisioni programme aimed at three to eight year-olds. It will consist of 26 one-hour programmes which can be split into half-hour episodes, and will be screened weekly during and after school on the ABC from May 1992. It will use! actors, puppets and animation and each episode will be based around a broad theme. NEIGHBOURS (serial) [See issue 84 for details] I TELEVISION. POST-PRODUCTION BRIDES OF CHRIST (series) [See 83 issue for details] CLOWNING AROUND (tele-feature) (formerly Clow ning Sim) [See issue 84 for details] EMBASSY (II, series) [See issue 83 for details] GOOD VIBRATIONS Prod, company Southern Star Films Dist. company Southern Star Pre-production 6/5/91 - 28/6/91 1/7/91 -2/8/91 Production Post-production 5/8/91 -4/10/91 Principal Credits Director Graham Thorburn Producer Lynn Bayonas 1Line producer Rod Allan Exec, producers Kim Williams Des Monaghan :Scriptwriters David Phillips Morris Gleitzman Lynn Bayonas iDOP Gary Moore ISound recordists John Wilkinson John Budge 1Editor Bill Russo 1Prod, designer Michael Bridges Costume designer Bruce Finlayson 1Planning and Development Casting consultants Liz Mullinar Production Crew Prod, manager Ros Tatarka Prod, co-ordinator Sue Edwards Prod, secretary Jill Brooks vocation manager Maurice Burns Unit manager Michael Batchelor Prod, accountant Margot Brock Insurer Hammond Jewell Completion guarant. Film Finances Legal, services Maureen Barron Travel co-ordinator Show T ravel Camera Crew Camera operator Steve Scoble Camera type Betacam SP Barry Hanson Key grip Asst grip Noel Mudie Gaffer Frank Racina On-set Crew 1st asst director David Clarke Rosemary Morton 2nd asst director Matthew Wilson 3rd asst director Continuity Christine Lipari Boom operators Ray Phillips Julian Glavacich Make-up Kirsten Veysey Hairdresser Cheryl Williams Special fx supervisor Brian Pearce Choreographer Sue Ellen Cox New Generation Stunts Stunts Unit nurse Margaret Kelly Still photography Ross Dearing Unit publicist Victoria Buchan Catering Bande-Aide Catering Runner Christine Hutchins Art Department Art director Jennifer Carseldine Art dept co-ord. Phil Chambers Set dresser Maritta Mussett Mark Dawson Props buyer

Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor

John Osmond Sandra Cichello Gabrielle Dunn

Standby wardrobe Animals Animal handler Anne Hura Horse wrangler John Baird Post-production Off-line facilities The Editing Machine Video special fx Animal Logic Government Agency Investment Production FFC Cast: Stephen Whittaker (Raf), Genevieve Picot (Kate), Felicity Soper (Sky), Alan Hppgood (Cec), Sasha Close (Lily), David Hoflin (Donovan), Jeffrey Walker (Jack), William Mclnnes (David), Melissa Jaffer (Annie), Neil Melville (Jim). Synopsis: A fragmented family learns to live together with an obnoxious ghost in a haunted house in the country. HEROES II - THE RETURN (mini-series) [See issue 84 for details] THE MIRACULOUS MELLOPSS (mini series) Prod, company Millenium Pictures Pre-production 6/5/91 23/6/91 Production 24/6/91 ... Post-production ... 15/11/91 Principal Credits Director Karl Zwicky Producer Posie Graeme-Evans Co-producer Andrew Blaxland Exec, producer Ian Fairweather Scriptwriters Maureen Ann Moran Anthony Ellis Al Webb Ray Harding Paul J Hogan Richard Tulloch DOP David Scandol Sound recordist Phil Keros Editors Peter Fletcher Roy Mason Prod, designer Andrew Blaxland Costume designer Margarita Tassone Composer Chris Harriot Planning and Development Script editor Greg Haddrick Casting Helen Salter Shooting schedule by Brett Popplewell Budgeted by Stephen Jones Production Crew Prod, manager Vicki Popplewell Prod, co-ord. Amanda Selling Location manager John Meredith Unit manager Phil Urquhart Production runner Justine Scott Prod, accountant Jill Coverdale Insurer FIUA Completion guarant. Film Finances Legal services Lewis Webb Camera Crew Camera operator Gary Janson Camera asst Mark Gledhill Key grip Adam Good Asst grip John Reynolds Gaffer Chris Fleet

F OR IN T H E

Brett Popplewell Adam Spencer Debbie Atkins Alison Ely Mark Van Kool Lesley Rouvay Rebecca Symoh Bob McArron Bernie Ledger Sue Andrews Patrick Riviere Wendy Day Out to Lunch John Pryce Jones Lisa Harrison Hierouim Kalwinek Jon Ronde Alky Avramides Lewis Morley Murray Gosson

Wardrobe asst Cutter Seamstress Animals Animal trainer Construction Dept Construction supervisor Scenic artists Carpenters

Margarita Tassone Emma Jacobs Lindy Wiley Randa Sadda Luke Hura

Alan Fleming Michael O'Kane Bill Undery David Scott Bob Patón Sven Johnsen Gregg Thomas Hoyts North Ryde Studios

Greensman Studios Post-production Opticals Chris Godfry, Animal Logic Laboratory Bob Dog Gauge SP Betacam Video transfers by Bob Dog Off-line facilities Bob Dog Video special fx Chris Godfry, Animal Logic Government Agency Investment Development NSW Film & Television Office Production FFC Marketing Marketing consultant Robyn Watts Int. sales agent Film Australia Inti. dist. Film Australia Publicity Wendy Day Cast: Max Phipps (Albert Dump), Drew Forsythe (Ralph), Julie Godfrey (Jocelyn), Sally Warwick (Samantha), Troy Beckwick (Michael), David Walters (Jason), Bill Conn (Bill), Michela Noonan (Harmony), David Gibson (Grand Baby), Kyla (Ajax). Synopsis: Not supplied SIGN OF THE SNAKE [See 83 issue for details] TOMORROW’S END [See 83 issue for details] TRACKS OF GLORY (mini-series) [See issue 84 for details] WHEN THE WAR CAME TO AUSTRALIA [See 83 issue for details]

INCLUSION

PRODUCTION

CONTACT

Stephen Asker

Best boy On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Make-up asst Special fx make-up Stunts co-ord. Unit nurse Still photography Unit publicist Catering Art Department Art director Art dept coord Art dept runner Set dresser Propsperson Props maker Standby props Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor

CINEMA

(03)

429

SURVEY

PARERS 5511

CINEMA

PAPERS

Ten

C r i t i c s ’ 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 (3RRR; EG, THE AGE, MELBOURNE); IVAN HUTCHINSON (SEVEN NETWORK; HERALD-SUN, MELBOURNE); STAN JAMES (THE ADELAIDE ADVERTISER); NEIL JILLETT (THE AGE); ADRIAN MARTIN (BUSINESS REVIEW WEEKLY, SYDNEY; “SCREEN", 3RN); TOM RYAN (3L0; THE SUNDAY AGE, MELBOURNE); DAVID

AVERAGE

E V A N W IL L IA M S

TO M

D A V ID S T R A T T O N

RYAN

M A R T IN A D R IA N

N E IL J IL L E T T

S T A N -J A M E S

IV A N H U T C H I N S O N

P A U L H A R R IS

B IL L C O L L IN S

FILM TITLE D irector

AYA S o lru n H oaas

3.8

THE COMFORT OF STRANGERS Paul S ch rad er

7.3

THE COMMITMENTS A lan Parker

7.2

DOC HOLLYWOOD M ich ael C aton-Jones

DRIVING ME CRAZY [Dutch] P eter Faim an

1.4

THE FISHER KING Terry G illiam

6.9

6.6

HOLIDAYS ON THE RIVER YARRA L eo B erk eley

5.7

HUNTING Frank H o w son

IMPROMPTU D ia n e Kurys

4.8

JU DOU Z h an g Yi-Mou

•7

JUNGLE FEVER Sp ike L ee

5.9

LIFE IS SWEET M ike L eigh

6.4

LONELY IN AMERICA Barry A lex a n d er Brown

4.6

MISTER JOHNSON B ruce B eresford

6.2

MORTAL THOUGHTS A lan R u d olp h

MERCI LA VIE B ertran d B lier

3.8

NEW JACK CITY M ario V an P eeb les

4.9

PROSPERO’S BOOKS P eter G reenaw ay

REGARDING HENRY M ike N ic h o ls

3.4

THE ROOKIE C lin t E astw ood

3.8

SOAPDISH M ich a el H o ffm a n

5.1

SWITCH B lake Edwards

TRUST H al H artley

7.2

WALTZING REGISTZE Kaspar R ostrup

6.7

A WOMAN’S TALE Paul C ox

6.3

LE MARI DE COIFFEUSE

S A N D R A HALL

STRATTON (VARIETY; SBS, SYDNEY); AND EVAN WILLIAMS (THE AUSTRALIAN, SYDNEY).

• CINEMA

PAPERS

[T h e H a ird re s s e r's H u s b a n d ]

P atrice L e co n te

—

’

3.3

Bank of Melbourne

Free C heques! N o Fees! (Even on balances below $500) ■ 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.

BANK 42052

Bank of Melbourne cuts the cost of banking Head Office: 52 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000.

Australian talent,we help keep the show on the road.

It’s alw ays been a long w ay to the top for aspiring artists. But at Qantas w e’re making sure they get there quicker by providing travel and prom otion for actors, writers, even circus performers. So w hen they return to Australia they’ll have a world of experience from w hich to draw. And w e’re sure Australia will rise to its feet and call for more.

The spirit o f Australia. QPR5349