Cinema Papers No.100 August 1994

PRI NTED P OS T A P P R O V E D P P 3 4 2 7 2 / 0 0 0 0 7

AUGUST 1994 NO. 100

MIA (UMA THURMAN) IN Ì|u ÌN T IN TARRANTINO’S ‘ PULP FICTION’

CANNES ’94 REPORT NEW SOUTH WALES SUPPLEMENT/‘the

US’ FILM AND THE D IG ITA L WORLD / ‘SPIDER & ROSE’ / ‘MURIEL’S WEDDING BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI ON ‘ LITTLE BUD D H A’ sum of

No Transaction Fees on your Personal Banking ■ No Transaction Fees, regardless of how many transactions you make.

■ 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 Weekdays from 9 to 5.

Bank of Melbourne cuts the cost of banking Head Office: 52 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000 -------------------------------------------------- —

BANK 44322

* Our cards are debit not credit cards. You only spend the money in your account. Government duties apply to all transactions.

AUGUST 1 9 9 4

NUMBER

1010

2

BRIEFLY

#

BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI: LITTLE BUDDHA’

10

CANNES

16

FILMS WE LOVE: PART I

Interview by Sue Adler

Round-up by Jan Epstein Adrian Martin, Ross Gibson, Graham Shirley, Susan Dermody

NEW S OU T H WA L E S S U P P L E M E N T 24

GREG SMITH: NEW SOUTH WALES FILM & TELEVISION OFFICE Interview by Raffaele Caputo

29

CHIME FLEURY’S TUNNEL VISION’

30

‘THE SUM OF US’: GEOFFREY BURTON

3f c -

SUE MILLIKEN: SAMSON FILMS, FILM FINANCES AND AFC

m

‘SPIDER & ROSE’

49

TECHNICALITIES: THE FILM AND DIGITAL WORLD; SPECTRUM

Picture Preview Interview by Leilani Hannah and Raffaele Caputo Profile by Raffaele Caputo

Report by John Conomos and Raffaele Caputo

Dominic Case

60

ATJSTRALIA’S FIRST FILMS: “SOLDIERS OF THE CROSS’ x x Part 9 of a continuing historical feature by Chris Long and Clive Sowry

67

FILM REVIEWS

Fearless Scott Murray; The Hudsucker Proxy John Conomos;

Lex and Rory Anna Dzenis; Shotgun Wedding Raymond Younis; The Sum o f Us Alissa Tanskaya

74

BOOK REVIEWS Phantasms: The Dreams and Desires at the Heart o f Our Popular Cinema Reviewed by Ross Gibson; The Case o f Shame; Identification, Gender and Genre in Film Reviewed by Stuart Cunningham; Long Shots to Favourites: Australian Cinema Successes in the '90s Reviewed by Raffaele Caputo; War Cameraman: The Story o f Damien Parer Reviewed by Deane Williams

78

SOUNDTRACKS

86

PRODUCTION SURVEY

92

TENEBRICOSE TEN

Ivan Hutchinson including Film Finance Corporation funding

Ten critics' best and worst

SUE ADLER is a Rome-based translator and media commentator; DOMINIC CASE is a motion picture technical consultant; JOHN CONOMOS lectures at the College of Fine Arts, University of NSW, Sydney; STUART CUNNINGHAM is Senior Lecturer in

Communications at Queensland University of Technology; SUSAN DERMODY is the director of Breathing Under Water, and author of several books; ANNA DZENIS is a tutor in Cinema Studies at LaTrobe University; JAN EPSTEIN is the film reporter for The Melbournian; ROSS GIBSON is a filmmaker and writer on Australian cultural studies; LEILANI HANNAH is a freelance writer on film and a camera

assistant to Geoffrey Burton; IVAN HUTCHINSON is film critic for thehe Herald-Sun and a presenter on the Seven Network; CHRIS LONG is a Melbourne film historian; ADRIAN MARTIN reviews video releases for The Australian; GRAHAM SHIRLEY is a freelance

documentary filmmaker, researcher, and co-author of Australian Cinema: The First Eighty Years; CLIVE SOWRY is a New Zealand film historian; ALISSA TANSKAYA is an aspiring Melbourne filmmaker; DEANE WILLIAMS is a lecturer in the Department of Visual Arts, Monash University; RAYMOND YOUNIS is a lecturer at the University of Sydney and a passionate lover of films.

Editor: Scott Murray; Assistant Editor: Raffaele Caputo; Technical Editor: Dominic Case; Administrative Manager: J. Brodie Hanns; Advertising: Barry Telfer; Subscriptions: Raffaele Caputo; MTV Board of Directors: Chris Stewart (Chairman), Patricia Amad, Ross Dimsey, Diana Cribble, Natalie Miller; Legal Adviser: Dan Pearce, Holding Redlich, Solicitors; Design: Ian Robertson; Bromide Output: Witchtype P/L; Printing: Jenkin Buxton; Distribution: Network Distribution. © Copyright 1994, MTV Publishing Limited A.C.N. 006 258 699. Signed articles represent the views of the authors and not necessarily that of the editor and publisher. 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 damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the copyright owners. Cinema Papers is published approximately every two months by MTV Publishing Limited, 43 Charles Street Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3067 Telephone (03) 429 5511. Fax (03) 427 9255. Cinema Papers is published with financial assistance from the Australian Film Commission and Film Victoria.

B R I E F L Y

Victorian Film Industry hits all-time high!

Toronto. On returning to Australia, she was produc­

Programme 3: Experimental Narrative

tion manager on such projects as Through Australian

Amelia Rose Towers (Jackie Farkas, 1991), Pali­

The Victorian film and television industry is enjoy­

Eyesand The Maestro’s Company'in the early 1980s.

sade (Laurie Mclnnes, 1987), Yeah Mostafa (Ali

ing a boom in production. This year’s production

In recent years, Pam has worked on such films

Higson, 1993), E levation (Stephen Cummins,

as Tunnel Vision (also associate producer), Spi­

1989), The Lead Dress (Virginia Murray, 1985),

slate has hit $120 million, up 65% on 1992-93.

Jenifer Hooks, Executive Director of Film V ic­ toria, said: The industry is seeing a resurgence for a variety of

der & Rose, Gross Misconduct, Shotgun Wed­

The Occupant (Ettore Siracusa and Peter Lyssiotis,

ding, The Tasmania Story, Luigis Ladies and David

1985), Obsession (John Cumming, 1985), Night

W illiam son’s Em erald City.

Cries: A Rural Tragedy (Tracey Moffatt, 1990)

Programme 4: Forms and Gestures

reasons. Melbourne presents a unique urban en­

Pam joined the FFC on May 18. She replaces

vironment in which to work and the films originat­

Dennis Kiely, who has left to resume work in inde­

S.S.S. (Andrew Frost, 1986), Vivarium (Mahalya

ing from here have a distinctive contemporary

pendent production. He is currently associate pro­

Middlemist, 1993), Thread of Voice (Arf Arf, 1993),

look and feel. We have a wealth of talent plus first-

ducer on the Film Australia children’s series Spell­

E.G. (Virginia Hilyard, 1990), A Passion P/ay (Tony

class crews and post-production facilities.

binder, which is shooting in Poland and Australia.

Twigg, 1991), Square Bashing (Stephen Harrop, 1982), A Song o f Ceylon (Laleen Jayamanne, 1985)

The confidence in the state of the industry is evident in the Victorian governm ent’s recent allo­ cation of $2.5 million to Film Victoria for a Commit­

New Film Society for students

ted Funding Facility, which will assist local com ­

It is many people’s dream to make a film. But how

panies and attract interstate and overseas pro­

do you go about it if you’ve never made one before? For students at the University of New

ducers to Victoria.

A one-off grant of $500,000 will assist in the

South Wales, help is at hand.

establishm ent of The Melbourne Film Office, a

A film group, KINO NSW Film Society, has

new film industry marketing and locations advi­

recently been formed by a group of students who

sory service offered by Film Victoria. The MFO

want to see a greater and more active film culture

provides locations advice to producers interested

developing at the University. They hope to achieve

in shooting in Melbourne and Victoria, and mar­

this by encouraging students to make their own

kets the film industry and its services within Aus­

films, as well as screening films and inviting peo­

tralia, and abroad.

ple in the film industry to deliver seminars and hold

The MFO represents Melbourne’s interests on

workshops for the students.

Madrid Experimenta

facilitate production by familiarizing local authori­

The Festival of Experimental Cinema in Madrid this

ties with film and television production procedures.

year gave over a big proportion of its screen time to

special Victorian film industry Supplement.

Harold Blair emerged from the vicious repression of the Queensland Reserve system in 1945 to become the last great Australian tenor of the concert hall era. He was touted by the media as “the first A borigine” to sing opera, visit America and appear on television.

Harold starred in the 1951 ABC Jubilee Con­ cert Tour, and sang at the opening of the 1956 Olympics and alongside Paul Robeson on the construction site of the Sydney Opera House.

Australian films. Fifty-one short films from 1962 to

180°{Steven Ball, 1992), Embrace (Bill Mousoulis, 1988), Excerpt (Chris Knowles, 1983), Serious Undertakings (Helen Grace, 1983)

Programme 6: The Strange and the Comic Caramba (Nick Meyers, 1985), Passionless Mo­ m ents: Recorded in Sydney A ustralia Sunday October 2nd (Jane Campion [and Gerard Lee], 1984), Mystery Love (Chris Windmill, 1985), Treas­

(John E. Hughes, 1986), Concertinas (Accom­ plice Films S.A., 1992), H istory Takes Place (Sonia Leber, 1987), This Woman is N ot a Car (Margaret Dodd, 1982) • • • • • •

ian Focus, the most extensive survey of Australian

Corrigenda

Curated by Melbourne film maker Marie Cra­ ven, the programme surveyed a wide range of work in a number of experimental ‘genres’, includ­ ing personal cinema, experimental narrative and comedy in the avant garde. Critic Adrian Martin was also in Madrid as a member of the Jury for the Festival’s International Competition.

The Australian Focus in Madrid was a tribute to the renaissance and artistic vigour of experimen­ tal film in this country over the 30 years since its first appearance. The films screened were:

Programme 1: The 1960s and ’70s

Flying Carpet Films is producing a one-hour

Home Movie: A Day in the Bush (Arthur & Corinne

documentary about Harold Blair’s life for broad­

Cantrill, 1969), Adam and Eve (Dusan Marek,

cast on ABC Television. It is seeking film footage

1962), Bolero (Albie Thoms, 1967), Album (David

of Harold performing on stage. If you have, or know

Perry, 1970), Whitewash (Lynsey Martin, 1973),

of, material please contact Steve Thomas or Marion

Black Fungus (Michael Lee, 1971), Dance Deluxe

Crooke at 13 Victoria Street, Fitzroy 3065. T el­

(John Dunkley-Smith, 1975), We Aim to Please

ephone (03) 419 5111 or Facsimile (03) 419 1404.

(Margot Nash and Robin Laurie, 1976), Bark Rind (Paul Winkler, 1977)

Programme 2: Personal Cinema

New Budget Analyst for FFC

1984), City Walk (Moira Joseph, 1992), Periscope

the present were screened in the Festival’s Austral­ experimental films ever seen outside this country.

Call for Archival footage on Harold Blair

W ood R oads/W rong Ways (G eorgia W allaceCrabbe, 1983), l/Vafe/fa//(Arthur&Corinne Cantrill,

1-5 (Debbie Lee, 1989), The Germ o f an Idea

tralian film service exports. The MFO will also

See the next issue of Cinema Papers for a

Long Shadows (Paul Winkler, 1991), Holzwege:

ure (Melanie El Mir, 1993), The Rational Life Films

Export Film Services Australia, a federal body set up in conjunction with Austrade to increase Aus­

Programme 5: Essays, Documents, Maps

Roll Film (Neil Taylor, 1990), Understanding Sci­

In the 1994 Cinema Papers Film C alendar featur­ ing Australian Women Directors, Martha Ansara was incorrectly credited as director of the docu­ mentary Munda N yuringu(1984). Ansara only pho­ tographed the documentary; the director is Jane Roberts. Also, the photograph of Martha Ansara was incorrectly credited to Ponch Hawkes. The photograph was actually taken by Sandy Edwards.

Cinema Papers apologizes to Ansara, Edwards and the maker of Munda Nyuringu for these unfor­ tunate errors.

The Australian distributor credit accom pany­ ing Lorraine M ortim er’s review of Laberinto de Pasiones, Pepi, Luci, Bom y oras chicas del monton and Entre Tinieblas in issue No. 99 was incor­ rectly given to the Valhalla. All three films are distributed by Potential Films. Also, Entre Tinieblas (Dark Habits) is distributed on 16mm, not 35mm.

Gremlins attacked the Eidetic Eight during the hectic pre-Cannes post-production stage and vari­ ous errors resulted. Most notable was the direc­ to r’s credit on Rapa Nui being transm ogrified from the correct Kevin Reynolds to the unfortunate

The Chief Executive of the Australian Film Finance

ence (Dirk de Bruyn, 1992), Westgate Bridge

Kevin Costner, who, while involved as a producer,

Corporation, John Morris, has announced that

(Nick Ostrovskis, 1984), In Loving Memory (Leone

should not shoulder more responsibility for the

Brenda Pam is the FFC’s new Budget Analyst.

Knight, 1992), Eat (Kathy Drayton, 1988), Knife in

result than that.

A well-known production manager, Pam has

the Head, Spooky (C atherine Lowing, 1985),

more than 20 years experience in the film and

A rnold West (Gary O ’Keefe and Deborah Warr,

Giuseppe Tornatore was incorrectly given as the sole director of La Domenica Specialmente,

television industry.

1992) , Lunettes (Pete Spence and Norman Pearce,

when he was but one of three on this tripartite film,

In the late 1970s, Pam was unit production man­ ager for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2 • CINEMA

PAPERS

1 00

1 9 9 3 ) , One View (M aggie Fooke and C hris Knowles, 1985), Adaptor (Michael Hill, 1986)

CONTINUES

ON

PAGE

83

Film V i c t o r i a ecognising the cultural significance uf film by supporting urgauisatiuus, grujects and events which fnster the agpreciatinn nf film and televising and develng an audience and infrastructure fnr Australian grnductinn.

Proudly supported by A u s t r a l i a n F i lm In s t i t u t e M e l b o u r n e In t e r n a t i o n a l F ilm F e s t i v a l M o d e r n I m a g e Ma k e r s A s s o c i a t i o n O pen C hannel • Experimenta C i n e m a P a p e r s • M e t r o Ma g a z i n e A T O M A w a r d s • A W G IE A w a r d s

Film Victoria 4th Floor, 49 Spring Street Melbourne, 3000 Telephone (03) 651 4089 Facsim ile (03) 651 4090

I N T E R V I E W E D BY SUE A D L E R

L ittle Buddha is the t|j

the mystery of cinemai; it is, he believes, his nq CINEMA

PAPERS

1 00

RTOLUCCI lird consecutive feature of Bertolucci’s search IM B l and life in the Orient. M ade principally for cjtildren ost “transgressive” film. ^ CINEMA P A P E R S

100

Your work has been described as “cinema of poetry” and you first made your m ark as a poet when you won the Viareggio Prize in 1962, with a volume of poems entitled In c e r c a d e l m i s t e r o {In S e a r c h o f M y s t e r y ) . Are you still “in search of m ystery” ?

Yes. It’s strange the w ay this title, which is 32 years old, comes back. It would be perfect also for Little B udd h a .

In fact, in the period I wrote that book - it contains all the poems from when I was 13 to the age of 21 - Elsa M orante, who was a great writer, gave me a book she had just published called Th e Life o f Milarepa. It was my first close encounter with Buddhism and is the story of a picturesque Tibetan, who first destroys a family with black magic. He then performs an act of repentance and becomes a great saint, a hermit.

I was very impressed by this book, but I completely missed the point. I saw only the aesthetic beauty, the poetic values. M any years were to pass before I came to approach the substance of Buddhism and, therefore, the mystery.

In a sense, my movies are like a spaceship exploring universes which are big question marks for me. A movie helps me to understand the reality of something in particular, alw ays and every time. But with Buddhism, I am still an amateur. It’s not enough to have made a film, or to have studied for a few years, to be able to declare yourself a Buddhist.

W hat happened that made Little B u d d h a finally come together?

If you w ant to find a date and a specific moment, it was the first meeting with the Dalai Lama. I went with Jeremy Thomas, my producer, to meet him in Vienna in the summer of 1991. Here was the government of Tibet in exile, reunited in a hotel.

We were taken to meet his holiness. I told him first of all that I wanted to do a movie about Buddhism, but that I w asn’t a Buddhist. He was very pleased about it: “Much better, because you w ill have the detachment a Buddhist rarely can have”. Then I told him that it will be a movie children will be allowed to see, which is new for me because I’d never done movies for children.

At the end of this meeting, I came out with a great feeling, which was because I understood something new. The Dalai Lama was talking all the time about compassion and I started to put myself in touch with this word. It is a word I have always underestimated.

Not only that, but my generation was never sensitive to it. We were sensitive to the words “transgression” and “revolution”. Compassion wasn’t a popular word in my time. So, coming out of that meeting, I felt I had had a sudden revelation.

In the Dalai Lama, there is w hat I would call the intelligence of compassion. I understood that compassion is a very deep and profound understanding of the suffering of others. True compas­ sion is a w ay of helping, but helping so that there can ¡be understanding. It’s not exactly a pure sentiment of goodness, which is a little blind; it’s something that is suddenly there. That is when I understood that Buddhism is all analyzing, and a way of trying to understand. Buddhists never talk about a soul, which is a religious idea; they talk about mind. M ind is something we need; it’s the brain in a word. That is understanding.

In this sense, I find there is a continuity with w hat have been my interests in political ideology. Now I have gone towards this distant, but in some ways very close, culture, precisely because of this spotlight on man with the quality of intelligent being. I noticed this very much.

So what did you w ant to say with Little B u d d h a ?

I wanted to tell a story I liked, and, at the same time, open a window for the first time on a cultural landscape that is unknown in our country, in the West. I wanted to open that window for everybody, including children.

M y movies have hever been very popular with children.

Children were kept aw ay from them for a long time, for one reason or another. But this time I thought it was a really good occasion.

A few years ago, I. saw a video called T h e R e i n c a r n a t i o n o f K e n s u r R i n p o c h e , made by a Tibetan director in England with his wife. It is very, very beautiful.

The click for the story was the relationship between the Lama, who searches for the reincarnation, and the child, who is the reincarnation. It is the story of someone we can call a tutor and the child.

Often you have old men who become for these children the father, the mother, the playm ate. The men feel a great affection for them. They stay with the children, feed them, play with them, wash them and do w hat a fam ily, the mother in general, does.

"IN A SENSE. MY MOVIES ARE LIKE A SPACESHIP EXPLORING UNIVERSES WHICH ARE BIG QUESTION MARKS FOR ME [...] I KNOW BUDDHISM IS COMMONLY CONSIDERED TO BE A RELIGION. BUT PERHAPS WE HAVE TO GET IT INTO OUR HEADS THAT. MORE THAN A RELIGION. BUDDHISM IS A PHILOSOPHY." BERNADO BERTOLUCCI'S LITTLE BUDDHA.

Is the fact that one of the children is American accepted by traditional Buddhism?

Suddenly they switch from just great affection to also having enormous respect for the children because they are none other than the reincarnation of the men’s masters, their teachers. The men respect these children because their teachers are in these children.

This combination of affection and respect conquered me completely. I thought: “Isn’t that the w ay all children should be treated by us: affection and great respect?” Often there is affec­ tion, but not respect.

W hy respect? It is the Buddhist idea of the continuum. In fact, these children are bringing back these characters in other forms, in other physical containers. They’re bringing back the mind of somebody great. They are Boddhisatva in general.

We are all, in Buddhist religion, reincarnations. But some of us are special beings, called Boddhisatvas, who can emigrate into N irvana. It is a kind of Club M ed where everybody is on holiday and really relieved and relaxed, and having fun. This is a simplis­ tic but funny w ay to consider it.

In N irvana, you are a particle in the harmony of the universe; you interrupted the Sam sara, and you are not condemned to come back and suffer again.

The Boddhisatva does not take advantage of this disappearing into N irvana in total harmony. The Boddhisatva decides to come back to life, to give up N irvana, in order to help people. These Boddhisatva are not necessarily, but they are often, Lamas, great m editators. T hat’s w hy I think, when the searchers find the child and decide he is the reincarnation of the Lam a, they have found the Boddhisatva. These children are all Boddhisatva.

Not only accepted, but there are various cases like this. I wanted to do a film about this culture being transmitted to the West.

There is a famous case of a Spanish boy, Lama Osel, who was found two years ago, and is the reincarnation of Lama Yeshe, whom I met. Then there are at least seven or eight cases of Tulku.

Tulkus are the children found in the United States. I met one in Katmandu just after I started shooting the movie. A sweet boy, 22-years-old, who had been declared a reincarnation by Karmapa, a very famous and great Lama in H alifax; he was very blond, very much like Jesse in the film. He lived w ith his mother from nine until the age of 20 or 21. He said, “I worked hard in a pizza parlour and put some money aside and I came to Katmandu to spend six months here to decide what I want to do, whether I w ant to enter the monastery or whether I w ant to go back.” I’m not sure, but I think his decision was more on the side of going back to the States because he thought he could be more useful there than in a monastery. Or, maybe as a 22 year-old American man, he didn’t feel like spending time in a monastery. But anyw ay, he said, “I feel more useful.” It’s a w ay of showing that Buddhism is cunning; Buddhism can help us.

In fact, in the film the boy’s father [Dean] is the one who is the most sceptical about the adventure. He is a certain w ay at the beginning of the film, and at the end he’s changed. You can see the change on his face; he has understood something. I don’t know how much he has changed, but this adventure has had some effect on him.

W hat he sees at the end of the film, when the Lama dies, is a sort of rapprochement between him and the Lama after the Lama recognizes the three children, the three reincarnations. Then there is moment between the Lama and the father and they communi­ cate. I think he is very moved by the Lama and then goes to see him.

W hile the Lam a’s meditating, he slips into death. You don’t witness events like that without being in some w ay changed and I think Dean is changed.

•

X T 100, X T R 2 5 0 , X T S 4 0 0 C o l o u r N e g a t i v e F i l ms

th e la s t th in g i w a n t t o d o in s id e th e I 5 th p r e c in c t is b lo w o u t th e w in d o w s .

NYPD Blue is a great show to shoot because we’ve practically thrown out the rule book. The camera itself is a voy^ euristic character. To pump up the grit and realism, I use tons o f edge light and virtually no fill. The film that lets me do this is AGFA XTR 250. It’s a low er contrast film, yet it ’s razor sharp and has a great tonal range. XTR 250 lets me light by eye and not w o rry about fill levels o r blown-out windows. I really believe it’s one of the best films fo r telecine transfer.

When I’m done shoot­ ing, th e re ’s a nice fat negative fo r post-pro­ duction, which gives me a lot of latitude. I'm not locked into heavy colour saturation, and the low­ er contrast gives me total control over the blacks and highlights.

AGFA XTR 250 helps me work faster and with more confidence. And, most im portantly, it looks great.

w e

r e f l e c t

t h e

b e s t

o f

y o u

AGFA ^ AG5

Motion Picture Division 875 Pacific Highway Pymble NSW 2073 Phone (02) 391 6611 Fax (02) 391 6699

BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI

W hat is your position on reincarnation?

I cannot say I share the Tibetan vision of reincarnation. As a character in the film, the father, says, “I can’t believe that a reincarnation can be found w ith a name, an address and a telephone num ber.” At the same time, I respect the old Tibetan rituals regarding reincarnation for various reasons. First of all, it’s a metaphor. Reincarnation is a w ay of finding and keeping the continuity of a person’s thought.

Western society today is based on a kind of induced amnesia.

Once goods have been bought, you have to forget them so as to buy new goods. The consumeristic model of life doesn’t like the idea of continuity, because by deleting continuity you can sell more and more “new ” stuff. W e’re always looking for the “new”.

In our society, there is a need for continuity. It’s not only a Buddhist, Tibetan thing. It can be in our work. It can be represented by our ideas, which are taken by others and elabo­ rated on.

H aving said this, I am fascinated by the idea of reincarnation.

It is a kind of sentence in Buddhist culture and is called the chain of Sam sara. Sam sara means the chain of deaths and births and deaths and births for infinity. Reincarnation is considered a punishment, because you have to come back and experience suffering twice.

For W esterners, however, the idea of reincarnation is a kind of treat, because our idea of death is very different to that in the East.

I remember being in New Jersey for a children’s preview. They were all excited by the idea of reincarnation. W hy? Children of today, poor little things, are unfortunately obsessed by the idea of death, because they continually see dead people on television - and dead children, too.

When I was a child, death was absolutely.not a reality; perhaps a distant old uncle died, but there w asn’t death. It was as if we were practically im m ortal. But now children feel threatened: w hat they see on television could also happen to them.

The children at the preview were very intelligent. I asked them, “But aren’t you sad that the Lama, who is so nice and kind, dies at the end?” “Oh no, he’s coming back”, they said. “Is he really coming back?”, I asked. “Oh yes, he’s in the belly of the mother.”

They immediately thought the Lama was being reincarnated because Jesse’s mother is pregnant. It’s a very direct, simple w ay to continue thinking, in life and for the future of the characters in the film.

Does Little B u d d h a represent the need for religiosity?

I know Buddhism is commonly considered to be a religion. But perhaps we have to get it into our heads that, more than a religion, Buddhism is a philosophy. You could call it a religion w ithout a God which ends up becoming a philosophy.

Buddha w as born in a Hinduist religious context, where there are m illions of Gods. Through his elaborations, Buddha decided to repudiate all these Gods, so that man was at the centre of his observation.

I found a very strong link between the importance to man that Buddha’s thought gives, and the fact that I have alw ays been involved with particular schools of thought - political ideologies - where man is at the centre. If you think of M arxism , if you think of Freud’s w ork, these are also philosophies without Gods, where man is focused on, under observation. So when somebody asks me, “How can you pass from M arxism to Buddhism?”, I say it’s very, very natural.

W hat did it feel like to have the D alai Lam a at the premiere in Paris? It’s not exactly the same thing, but the Pope didn’t go to the premiere of Franco Zeffirelli’s J e s u s o f Naz areth.

M aybe it was shown to the Pope in that auditorium they have at the Vatican, designed by Nervi, the architect.

It was at the beginning of the project that I wanted the Dalai Lama to be one of the first people to see the project realized. So we invited him and he came to this big, big theatre with a huge screen and a copy of the film in 70mm.

Before the screening, the D alai Lama thanked the guests and talked a bit about the problems of Tibet. He was very sweet, because he said, “This is the first time that I have actually set foot in a movie theatre.” This was a kind of revelation for me. Then he sat down next to me. I looked: at him and thought, “M y God, here I am witnessing the initiation, the cinema initiation, of a man who is the great in itiator.” Every year, or every two years, he initiates thousands of monks. ‘Now I was seeing him being initiated into cinema and it was exciting. He laughed and smiled, he reacted, he was moved, he took my hand a few times.

At the end, he said, “W onderful, wonderful” , before disap­ pearing into a jam of bodyguards. Then he wrote something very flattering about the film for a French magazine. He said that he had been a bit scared, nervous, at the idea of a movie about Buddha. How can you visualize the Buddha? Then he saw in his hotel a piece of a movie about Jesus Christ on television. He said it was so effective, so why not o.n Buddha?

Perhaps it was Zeffirelli’s film he saw?

Or maybe it was Pasolini’s.

Now that the film has been released in Italy and France, are m any children going to see it?

Yes. In the morning, the cinemas are doing matinees for schools.

The film was done thinking of this, trying not to give a heavy philosophical lesson about Buddhism, trying instead to smuggle in the basic idea of Buddhism, the most important and basic teachings, in the form of a fairytale or fable, to make it possible for children to understand.

Of course, when you talk about Buddhism, grown-ups in the W est are like children, because we know nothing. So, the film is for children of all ages.

VOYAGE OUT OF ITALY

How did your “flight to the O rient” begin? It coincides with the period after La T r a g e d i a d i u n U o m o R i d i c o l o [T r a g e d y o f a R i d i c u l o u s M a n , 1981].

T r a g e d ia is about a country which is my country, Italy. I worked with Carlo De Palma, the director of photography, and I wanted the photography of the film to be very sharp because it is a movie about a country which is blurred. I wanted very sharp photogra­ phy because what is going on in the story is so blurred, so incomprehensible and mysterious.

In the two or three years which followed - which was the beginning of the big economic boom, the beginning of the 1980s - I started to very strongly feel the incredible corruption every­ where. Corruption and cynicism alw ays go together, and my camera could not film this. M y camera was not inspired by that CONTINUES

ON

PAGE

80

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 - 9

e F E S T I V A L I N T E R N A T I O N A L DU F I L M

hen Quentin Tarantino, the w u n d e r k i n d of comic splatter, won the Palme d’Or at the 47th Cannes Film Festival for Pulp F i c t i o n , roars of acclaim erupted from sections of the press, who assembled to watch the telecast of the aw ards ceremony in a nearby auditorium . Hosted by Jeanne M oreau, this is France’s night of nights, a fact not lost on Jury president Clint Eastwood who, resplendent in white, presented Cannes’ top prize to his elated countryman.

Despite the roars, however, the decision w asn’t universally popular. 1994 is the year that saw the Cannes Festival return to its European roots. Two years previously, the American presence at Cannes had reached a peak. The U.S. majors were flooding the film m arket with blockbusters; the year before M adonna stripped to her underwear on La Croisette for the world m edia; and in 1992 a record six out of 21 films in competition for the Palme d’Or were American.

This year, in contrast, the A m ericanm ajors were conspicuous by their absence, and only three out of 23 films in Compétition

W

10 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

were American, none of them studio films, although Pulp Fiction w as fully financed by M iram ax Films, the largest U.S. mini-major and a force to be reckoned with at Cannes and elsewhere. For the Europeans, with a strong showing of quality films from France, Russia and Italy in particular, this w as good news, and a chance to recoup cultural clout and lost stature.

H ollywood has dom inated Cannes for more than a decade, just as American films dominate the European box office, com­ m anding between 80% and 90% of box-office takings in some countries. Figures show that European film production has declined 35% to 45 % in the past five years, and one result of this sense of crisis in the European film industry is the successful attempt by the French at the recent GATT negotiations to m aintain tariffs under the banner of “cultural exception”.

Last year’s so-called ‘dearth’ of Am erican studio films at Cannes was explained aw ay by both the Americans and the French as the result of the summer release program me of the U.S. film industry, which targets the release of its summer blockbust­ ers at least six weeks before Cannes, and sometimes longer,

QUENTIN TARANTINO'S PULP FICTION. WINNER OF THE PALME D OR. LEFT TO RIGHT: VINCENT VARGA (JOHN TRAVOLTA) AND MIA (UMA THURMAN). VARGA AND JULES (SAMUEL L. JACKSON).

BUTCH (BRUCE WILLIS). BUTCH AND FABIENNE (MARIA DE MEDEIROS).

meaning that the best American commercial product, and its biggest stars, are often not available. However, compared to this year, last year’s Cannes w as aw ash w ith American films.

Tarantino himself explained the lack of American presence this year as due sim ply to the absence of quality in American filmm aking. This m ay be true in part. But a stand-off of sorts exists between the Americans and the French, which has more to do with the perceived threat of H ollywood to French film culture and European film production than talk about standards and the summer tim etabling of American films.

W hile a number of good independent American films such as Clerks, S le ep w i t h M e (Rory Kelly), Clean, S h a v e n (Lodge Kerrigan), Fresh (Boaz Y akin), and the new^ H al H artley, A m a­ te u r :, were shown at Cannes side-bar sections La Semaine de la C ritique Française (C ritic’s W eek) and JLe Q uinzaine des R éalisateurs (Directors’ Fortnight), the films which created the most “buzz” at Cannes this year (Croisette-speak for hot titles that were snapped up by the m ini-m ajors either before Cannes or by riding rough-shod over the independents through sheer force

of superior purchasing-power) were from A ustralia, Asia and the European masters.

Hence, it was with a sense of quiet outrage that the Europeans witnessed the hijacking of their Festival at the last moment by an American, after all.

Like Tarantino’s debut feature, R e s e r v o i r D o g s , which received a special screening at Cannes in 1992, Pulp Fiction is awash with blood and violence. Nonetheless, it is funny, brilliantly-written and -directed, and boasts bravura performances from the all-star cast, in particular John Tra volta and Samuel L. Jackson as two notso-bright hit men, Bruce W illis as a double-crossing prize fighter, Harvey Keitel as a tuxedoed ‘efficiency’ expert, and Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer as two jumpy thieves.

Pulp Fi ct io n draws inspiration from the cheap crime novels and pulp magazines of the 1930s and ’40s, but little of the genre’s conventions survive. Instead, Tarantino takes two clichés - the gangster told to take his boss’ wife out for the evening and the boxer told to “throw a fight” - and uses them as the starting point for an anthology of startling inventiveness, in which three CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 11

CANNES

’ 94

separate stories, involving a dozen sharply delineated characters, eventually dovetail into one.

Tarantino has a gift for characterization and a eye for the incongruous, and in many respects his audacious blockbuster, which takes nearly three hours to unspool, deserved the coveted Palme d’Or. But the bloody mayhem which it flaunts, which is so central to its entertainment value, is difficult not to feel am biva­ lent about it.

Pulp Fiction is less gratuitously sadistic than R e s e r v o i r D o g s , but it still celebrates violence with a gung-ho, locker-room jocularity which makes it not so different to the R a m b o films, save that Tarantino masks his bloodletting with sophistication and intelligent handling. In the end, it is disappointing that such intelligence and talent is used to support w hat is at heart an ugly entertainment: the ‘blowing aw ay’ on screen of human life for the æsthetic excitement of exploring the pyrotechnics of murder.

The w orry is that giving the Palme d’Or to Pulp Fiction legitimates our interest and pleasure in watching violence. This is not to make an argument for censorship. Rather, it is a plea for recognition that some films are more w orthy of adm iration than others, irrespective of critical acclaim.

It m ay be that lucid exploration of violence is indeed cathartic and beneficial, as was once thought. However, there is a rising tide of opinion amongst feminists that this acting out of violence is a male preoccupation. Catharsis for women rarely extends to the excesses of pornography and violence that have characterized the more egregious works of male filmmakers, including Pupi A vati’s M a g n i f i c a t and Peter G reenaway’s B a b y o f M a c o n at Cannes in 1993, the Belgian film C ’e s t Arrivé Près d e Chez Vous (Man Bites D o g , Rémy Befvaux, André Bonzel and Benoit Poelvoorde), and M arco Ferreri’s La Ca rne in 1991, ironically ail works by European filmmakers.

T arantino’s indulgence in the playfulness of am orality, with its attendant devaluing within the film of the worth of human life,

was in sharp contrast to the political and m oral concerns of N ikita M ikhalkov’s splendid O u t o m l i o n n y e S o l n t s e m (Bur nt by t h e Sun), a searing, gentle film set in Russia in 1936, about how the organism of the totalitarian state seeks to m ake the value of individual lives irrelevant.

It is disappointing that a film such as Pulp Fict ion , which panders to violence, should be valued by the judges above such estimable films as Zhang Yim ou’s H u o z h e ! (To Live!), and Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Tr ois C o u l e u r s : R o u g e ( T h r e e Colours: Red), which also speak about ultim ate human values as well as excelling artistically. Not surprisingly, there were murm unrigs at the press conference after the announcement of the aw ards about “compromise” and “sops” to the Americans in the w akë of GATT. B u r n t b y t h e Sun and To L iv e! were jointly aw arded the Grand Prix du Jury, traditionally the runner-up prize. N ikita Mikhalkov, who not only directed B u r n t b y t h e Sun but also stars movingly in it with his six-year-old daughter, N adia, w as clearly disap­ pointed at not winning the Palme d’Or. “Be ready to receive the best, but don’t be surprised if you receive the w orst”, he com­ mented w ryly.

According to the critics’ polls published in the daily trades, the most applauded film in the Festival w as T h r e e C o l o u r s : Red. This final part of K ieslowski’s trilogy features Jean-Louis Trintignant in a stand-out performance as a retired judge who listens in illegally to his neighbours’ telephone conversations, and Irène Jacob as the young model who uncovers her fate through him.

Superior to B le u (Blue) which won the top prize at Venice last year, and B l a n c ( White) which garnered the Golden Bear at Berlin this February, R e d is m asterly, w arm and satisfying on all levels.

To the disappointment of m any, however, R e d was ignored in the aw ards, and Kieslowski was deprived of his triple crown.

This year more than most, the Cannes Festival brought into sharp focus the dichotomy of values represented by the new

LEFT: ONOFF (GÉRARD DEPARDIEU) AND INSPECTOR (ROMAN POLANSKI) IN GIUSEPPE TORNATORE'S UNA PURA FORMAUTA (A PURE FORMALITY). BELOW AND RIGHT: JENNIFER JASON LEIGH AS DOROTHY PARKER. THE ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE CIRCLE MEETS. ALAN RUDOLPH S MRS. PARKER AND THE VICIOUS CIRCLE.

12 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

--------( Cannes Awards ^-------PAL ME D ’ OR

Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino) G R A N D PRI X DU J U RY

O u t o m l i o n n y e S o l n t s e m (B u r n t b y t h e Su n , N ikita M ikhalkov, Russia-France) and H u o z h e ! (To Live!, Zhang Yimou, China) PRI X D ’ I N T E R P R E T A T I O N F É MI N I N E

Virna Lisi for La R e i n e M a r g o t (Q u e e n M a r g o t , Patrice Chéreau, France) PRI X D ’ I N T E R P R E T A T I O N M A S C U L I N E

Ge You for To Live!

ISABELLE ADJANI AS MARGOT IN PATRICE CHÉREAU S LA REINE MARGOT.

world and the old. We associate Europe with films of high artistic value and high moral seriousness. This is despite our cognisance that Europe has been, and still is, the seed bed of wars of global consequence, and that, while it is home to Beethoven’s ninth, Europe has t w i c e this century needed deliv­ ering by those whose catchcry is “T hat’s Entertainm ent!”.

Elollywood has transformed cinema into entertainment. This is why an estimated 80% of European box office goes to the U.S. The resentment of many at the success of American movies is partly justified because of that country’s seeming disregard for the great m oral questions which were born in Europe, and preoccupy Europeans and European filmmakers still. But it is also fuelled by jealousy, that by abandoning the very concerns which lie at the heart of Europe, Americans can dominate filmm aking w orldwide.

Two films in Compétition came out fighting against the American stranglehold on European filmgoing preferences.

M ichel Blanc’s G r o s s e F at ig ue (D e a d Tired), a finely-executed comedy about the perils of fame, concludes with a w itty swipe at the GATT negotiations that had the French at Cannes applauding w ildly. It also opened strongly in French cinemas the same week. Blanc, who plays ‘himself’ in the film (as do

PRI X DE LA M I S E - E N - S C E N E

Nanni M oretti for Caro Diario (D e a r Diary, Italy) PRI X DU S C E N A R I O

Michel Blanc for G r o s s e Fati gue (D e a d Tired, France) PRI X DU J U RY

La R e in e M a r g o t G R A N D PRI X T E C H N I Q U E DE LA C O M M I S S I O N SU P E RI E U RE T E C H N I Q U E DE L ’ I M A G E ET DU SON

Pitof, special effects director for D e a d T ir ed C R I T I C ’ S WEEK J U RY PRI ZES

Clerks (US) and P e r f o r m a n c e Anxiety (US, short)

Films de Court Métrage PAL ME D ’ OR

El H é r o e (Carlos Carrera, Mexico) PRI X DU J U R Y : 1 e r PRI S

L e m m i n g Aid (Grant Lahood, New Zealand); 2ème Prix: S yr up (Paul Unwin, UK) PRI X DE LA C A M E R A D ’ OR

Petits A r r a n g e m e n t s a v e c les M o r t s (C o m i n g to T e r m s w i t h t h e D e ad , Pascale Ferran, France) MENTION SPÉCIALE

Les S il e n c e s d u Palais (The S i l en ce s o f th e Pal ace, M oufida Tlati, Tunisia-France)

Non-Official Prizes F I P R E S C I ( I N T E R N A T I O N A L C R I T I C S ) PRI ZE

Exotica (Atom Egoyan, Canada) and B ab E l - O u e d City (M erzak Allouache, France-Algeria-Germany-Switzerland) E C U M E N I C A L J U R Y PRI ZE

To Eive and B u r n t b y t h e Sun SPECIAL MENTION

Neak Sre (Ri ce P e o p l e , Rithy Panh, Cambodia-France-Switzerland-Germany)

C I N EMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 13

CANNES

’ 94

Phillip Noiret and other French actors), wrote the script from an idea by Bertrand Blier, and the film won Best Screenplay.

Italian actor-director Nanni M oretti’s whimsical, highly-personal Caro Diario (D ea r D ia r y) is a more self-conscious critique of the world. This charming, rambling discourse which sometimes slips into real time, includes a hilarious attack on the hold over the Italian psyche of American television soaps, and a witty rebuke to a film critic for tolerating the violence in Henry: Portrait o f a Serial Killer (John McNaughton), which involves the critic being read his own review until he is weeping with shame.

It was widely recognized that this year there was a depth of quality in the films in Compétition. Zhang Yim ou’s deeplyhumanist To Live! is a further example of w hat this greatest of Chinese directors is able to achieve in a film within the con­ straints of Communism. His film follows the lives of a small fam ily in China from the 1950s to the ’70s, reflecting their will and optimism as that country moves through great change. Gong Li accepted the joint Prix du Jury on behalf of Zhang Yimou, who was forced by Chinese authorities to remain in China. The prize for Best Actor was awarded to Ge Jou, who plays the father.

Giuseppe Tornatore’s Una Pura Formalità (A P ure F o r m a l i t y ), which screened to a mixed reaction, is a psychological drama of Dostoievskian proportion, in which a police inspector pits his wits against a murder suspect who is a famous novelist. It is marked by towering performances by Roman Polanski and Gérard Depardieu, and filmed with great atmosphere and tension.

Equally impressive was Atom Egoyan’s kinky E x o ti ca , a tale about people trapped in the exoticism of their own experience which has the C anadian director moving beyond the purely dysfunctional into warm er climes.

M ost disappointing was France’s La R e i n e M a r g o t , Patrice Chéreau’s m ulti-m illion dollar Renaissance epic which bogs down in cliché and gore despite a superb performance by Virna Lisi, who won the Best Actress aw ard; Joel Coen’s T h e H u d s u c k e r 14 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

P r o x y , a pastiche of ’40s H ollywood films which looks good, but is never the sum of its parts; and Alan R udolph’s Mr s Parker a n d t h e Vicious Circle, which fails, surpris­ ingly, to take advantage of Dorothy Park­ er’s razor-sharp wit.

Amongst the best of the rest were Hal H artley’s Am ate ur (Directors’ Fortnight), a characteristically quirky, contemporary film noir, with Isabelle Huppert and Martin Donovan; Rory Kelly’s Sleep With M e (Un Certain Regard), an emotionally-laden com­ edy of modern manners in the mould of Sex, Lies, a n d Videotape (Steven Soderbergh), featuring Eric Stolz and M eg Tilley (with Quentin Tarantino in a cameo rôle at a party, deconstructing T o p Gun)-, and scriptwriter Boaz Yakin’s Fresh (Directors Fortnight), an edgy urban drama about a 12-year-old black boy who uses his knowledge of chess to survive life in the neighbourhood.

Also worth noting were Iranian master Abbas Kiarostami’s Z ir éD a r â k h tâ n Z ey to n ( U nde r t h e O l i v e Tr ee s, in Compétition), a touching film about life in afflicted Northern Iran in which Kiarostami again blurs the distinction between fiction and docu­ m entary, and Lodge K errigan’s Clean, S h a v e n (Un Certain Re­ gard), a disturbing portrait of a schizophrenic in search of his daughter, which uses a complex soundtrack to recreate the character’s auditory hallucinations and tormented inner life.

Since the revival of A ustralia’s fortune at Cannes, Australian films have won a reputation for originality and style. This year, following in the footsteps of Stri ctly B a l l r o o m in 1992, both Stephan Elliott’s T h e A d v e n t u r e s o f Priscilla, Q u e e n o f the D e s e r t (Un Certain Regard), and M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g (Directors’ Fortnight), directed by P. J. Hogan, provided Cannes with the much-needed pizzazz that the Festival lacked in the first week.

FACING PAGE: LEFT: NORVILLE BARNES (TIM ROBBINS) AND AMY ARCHER (JENNIFER JASON LEIGH).

JOEL COEN'S THE HUDSUCKER PROXY. FACING PAGE: BELOW: JOSEPH (ERIC STOLZ). SARAH (MEG TILLY) AND FRANK (CRAIG SHEFFER) IN RORY KELLY'S SLEEP WITH ME. ABOVE: ADAM (GUY PEARCE). STEPHAN ELLIOTTS THE ADVENTURES OF PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT. BELOW: RHONDA (RACHEL GRIFFITHS) IN P. J. HOGAN S MURIEL S WEDDING.

In grand fashion, Priscilla arrived and became the talk of the town before its much-heralded premiere in the midnight-screen­ ing slot reserved for high-profile fun movies, which are calculated to turn the evening into an event. No one was disappointed, either critics or attendees, of whom close to 2,000 were turned aw ay. So popular was the film, and the three drag queens who accompanied Priscilla to Cannes, that La Croisette was promptly dubbed a “drag strip” by the press.

Muriel's W e d d i n g , too, lived up to expectations, with Hogan receiving a 15-minute ovation at its premiere. Both Priscilla and Muriel's W e d d i n g are quirky, individual, small-budget films, the kind of ‘product’ the world is increasingly coming to expect from Australian directors, and for which there is a growing demand.

Muriel's W e d d i n g has a delightful freshness and a bright, striking style that counterpoints the seriousness of its theme, which is about the effect on his family of a bullying, abusive father.

Toni Collette, last seen playing Ben M endelsohn’s nice but mousey girlfriend in S p o t s w o o d , put on kilos to become M uriel, the gauche, overweight Gold Coast ‘loser’ who becomes a ‘winner’ when she finds a friend and begins to live out her fantasies, particularly that of being a bride. It is to H ogan’s credit as scriptwriter and director that his larger-than-life style (Aus­ tralian grotesque) rarely overwhelms the reality of his characters.

The welcome exception is M uriel’s trio of bitchy girlfriends, led splendidly by Sophie Lee. Bill Hunter is suitably appalling as M uriel’s father, a corrupt Gold Coast politician (included is a delicious joke at Bob H aw ke’s expense). Newcomer Rachel Griffiths debuts impressively as M uriel’s friend Rhonda, while Jeanie Drynan is barely recognizable as M uriel’s hapless mum.

M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g is carefully crafted, and has the polish one expects from producers Lynda House and Jocelyn Moorhouse (Hogan’s wife, and the director of P ro o f) .

After Stephan Elliott’s drubbing at Cannes last year over Frauds, revenge must have been sweet. Priscilla confirmed the faith shown in the young director by Festival director Gilles Jacob, and it is evidence, if it were needed, that the Cannes Film Festival not only sticks by its own, but has the power to persuade others. Priscilla's success is due to both its audacity and good nature, which has the power to disarm even the most m ilitant in the Festival of Light.

About two drag queens and a transsexual who set off on a cabaret tour of the outback in a bus, Priscilla exploits the carnivalesque,

turning the world topsy-turvy. Performances are spirited with Terence Stamp excelling as the transsexual Bernadette who strives for dignity.

Hugo Weaving camps it up outrageously, and movingly when necessary, as Tick/“M itzi”, who has a date with his ex-wife (Sarah Chadwick) and young son at a resort hotel in Alice Springs. Guy Pearce (from television’s Nei gh bou rs and H o m e an d Away) plays the screaming queen “Felicia”, while Bill Hunter plays Bob, the ordinary bloke who finds Bernadette special.

Just as Priscilla and Muriel were feted at the Festival, so Australian films did well in the market generally, aided no doubt by the shortage of American ‘sleepers’. Altogether, 16 Australian films went to Cannes this year. Best received was T h e Sum o f Us, Kevin Dowling and Geoff Burton’s daring take on David Stevens’ play about the relationship between a gay son and his surprisingly tolerant father in working-class Sydney. Starring Russell Crowe and Jack Thompson, the distribution rights for The Sum o f Us in North America were picked up by the Samuel Goldwyn Co. C o u n t r y Life, M ichael Blakemore’s period piece starring Sam Neill and Greta Scacchi, was bought by M iram ax, as was M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g and Pauline Chan’s Traps, set in Vietnam.

Other Australian runners were R o u g h D i a m o n d s , starring Jason Donovan, Bill Bennett’s splendid S pi der & R os e, Dendy Films’ first venture into production which showcases Ruth Cracknell and M ax Cullen, and Bill Young’s curiosity, T h e R o l y P o l y Man, an oddball film noir for Roger Corman die-hards only.

A ustralia w asn’t the only Antipodean country to do well at the Cannes m arket this year. Creating a sensation was Lee T am ahori’s O n c e W er e W arriors, a powerful film about do­ mestic violence amongst urban M aori, which captures the toughness and reality of M aori culture as well as its physical and spiritual beauty. Genuinely moving, the emotional impact of W ar ri ors comes from the raw power of the actors’ perform ­ ances, in particular Rena Owen as Beth, the abused wife, and Temuera M orrison as Jake, the husband who tragically can’t keep his fists to himself.

■

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 15

LEGIONS OF THE Lost, Forgotten, Underrated and Ne ADRIAN

MARTIN ^

Going Down PRODUCED AND DIRECTED BY HAYDN KEENAN 1 6MM, 94 MINS, 1983

One of the richest m ini-traditions in Australian cinema is com­ prised of messy, unsentimental, streetwise films about sub­ cultural inner-city lifestyles involving some mix of drugs, crime, unemployment, anarchist politics, underground music and sexual perversity. This illustrious tradition includes P u r e 5... (Bert Deling, 1975), G o i n g D o w n (Haydn Keenan, 1983), D o g s in S p a c e (Richard Lowenstein, 1987) and Nirvana Stre et M u r d e r (Aleksi Vellis, 1991 ), to mention only features. Sim ilar to related works from other countries (such as Jacques Doillon’s Les D o i g t s d a n s le t ê t e , 1974, and Gus Van Sant’s D r u g s t o r e C o w b o y , 1989), these films tend to deal with a network of fragm entary, volatile, often treacherous group relationships (rather than con­ centrating on one or two main characters). They explore, in a largely non-judgemental, even deliberately am oral manner, lives that are lived a very long w ay from the values of honour, decency, loyalty and sexual fidelity that are considered normal by straight society.

Since these films are about m arginal cultural styles and people often on the edge, they also tend to revel in a certain w ild, ramshackle social m obility - not upwards or downwards but endlessly sideways, through the m any haunts, dives and lairs of the urban underground. They document and dramatize a cease­ less, headlong skid that can at times only be halted by death.

G o i n g D o w n is one of the most outstanding films of the sub­ cultural tradition. It is certainly one of the most authentic. It provides a virtual ethnography of sub-cultural Sydney in the early 1980s, with junkies, artists, Aboriginal activists, students, 16 ' C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

drag queens, social workers and insatiable partygoers endlessly colliding and reconfiguring as they spend a long night searching for a good time. This classic narrative device of a long day’s journey into night (with its m orning-after coda - see also Ian Pringle’s T h e P r i s o n e r o f St P e t e r s b u r g , 1990) is crucial in giving the film its overall structural drive and energy, inviting the viewer to experience the same w hirligig of emotions, moods and situa­ tions that the characters do. Even the erratic poverty-row images and sound editing internal to m any scenes adds to the film ’s vivid achievement.

G o i n g D o w n is unique in focusing on a group of women (sub­ cultural portraits are usually male-centred) who struggle to endure and perhaps break free of their harsh, urban environment. They live out a great deal together and separately during their lim inal night - a heightened, condensed period of time in which choices must be made and truths faced. Their experiences are emblematic not only of the w ays in which women are exploited and degraded (by men and by the system), but also of the w ays they can survive, resist and take revenge. But no one, man or wom an, is m orally or ethically pure in the world of the film; friends help each other out, but they also abandon or rip each other off if necessary.

The film’s style is a wonderful cross-mix of gritty naturalism and elevated expressive devices - something which (in combination with the ugly subject matter) has earned it predictably dismissive notices from sesthetically-normative and/or politically-conservative critics.

Haydn Keenan fashions sequences that are sometimes lyrically

BELOW: JANE (VERA PLEVNIK) AND JACKIE (JULIE BROWN) IN HAYDN KEENAN’S ‘GOING DOWN’.

poetic (as in the shots of the city at dawn), at other times angular and racy (as in the opening tracking shot through a dishevelled bohe­ mian share-house, anticipating a similar introduction to D o g s in Space). Aided particularly by the performance(s) of David Argue at his most flamboyantly excessive, the film finally frees itself alto­ gether from the shackles of realism and plunges itself into merry burlesque - a liberatingly utopian ending for an essentially downbeat, unsentimental, punk story.

G o i n g D o w n is a film that has been little screened or critically discussed locally since its release. Yet not only is it, unarguably, a key w ork in the history of independent feature filmmaking in this country for the w ay it combines and m utually enriches both naturalistic and expressionistic approaches to narrative cinema,

lected

it is also (at least for this critic) in its own terms one of the finest and most memorable films made in Australia.

GOING DOWN Directed by H aydn Keenan. Producer: H a ydn Keenan. Associate producer: Julie Barry. Scriptwriters: Melissa W oods, Julie Barry, M oira M acLaineCross. Based on an original idea by M oira M acLaine-Cross. Director of p h o t o g r a ­ phy: M alcolm Richards. Productio n designer: M elody Cooper. Sound recordist: Lloyd Carrick. Editor: Paul Healy. Music c o-ordinator: Kim Chesire. Emulated sound: Andrew T h o m a s Wilson. Cast: Tracey M a n n (Karli), Vera Plevnik (Jane), Julie Barry (Jackie), Esben Storm (Michael), David Argue (Greg/Trixie), Ian G ilm our (Shadow), Lou Brown (Adam), Mercia Dean-Jones (Ned), Ian N im m o (John), Henk Joha nne s (Ian). X Productions. Australian distrib utor: H a ydn Keenan. 16mm. 94 mins. Australia. 1983.

AUSTRALIAN FILMS

ROSS

GIBSON

i

Square Bashing PRODUCED, DIRECTED, WRITTEN AND EDITED BY STEPHEN HARROP SUPER 8, 9 MINS, 1982

All films are leached of verve somewhat when described, but Stephen H arrop’s S quar e B a s h i n g is particularly difficult to represent well in words. The ‘affect’ of the film is disturbingly paradoxical, and, whereas p ara­ doxes usually challenge our th in k in g , it is in the sensuous patterning of mood and desire that Sq u ar e B a s h i n g conjures its most productive contradictions.

The film is alw ays building and releasing its tensions, swinging the mood in upbraiding rhythm. A claustro­ phobic rage-for-order m arshals m any of the rectilinear compositions and the cruelly-compressed frames. And the film’s guttural sound cues and gruff pictorial cuts are quite frightening in their authoritarianism . (As one STEPHEN HARROP’S ‘SQUARE BASHING’. character grunts early in the film: “I run this place.

M E !” ) But throughout these hard régimes, Squar e B a s h i n g also lurk most nights in the airw aves. They are the melodramatic melts tenderly with a fluid, yearning kind of formal promiscuity. panoply of ordinary schmoes striving for extraordinary freedoms.

It is a Super 8 film composed almost entirely of gorgeously “Give me alw ays a good heart, give me happiness ... take all I reprocessed television sequences overlaid to the ‘impossible’, have.” So mutters one character just after Sal M ineo has prayed ‘forbidden’ degree of four superimpositions. It is palpably illicit for forgiveness and confessed that his mind must alw ays take off and hot in the w ay it looks. In their m acromatric re-filming, the on a syncopated version each time he contemplates the rectitude images have picked up a weird radioactive fuzz so that these of sacred music. And then, like every other character in Harrop’s larcenously-acquired pictures glow like something that will alter deeply-layered film, M ineo must drown again in m elodram a’s your blood as well as your soul. over-reaching.

In addition to being s t o l e n , the images have also been illicitly I’ve watched S q u a r e B a s h i n g maybe fifty times in the past ten commingled and overlaid. Harrop has tampered with the pat­ years. (I rely on it the same w ay I need a few songs.) It never seems ented mechanisms of the Super 8 cartridge so that he has to exhaust itself or become taw dry. It has com pelling themes and managed to do w hat Kodak goes to some lengths to prevent: the meanings - frustration, yearning, the futility of repression - but film is wound back in its cartridge (after the ratchet mechanism I’m pretty sure that its greatest force is not something nameable. has been removed in a black bag), so that multiple exposures can Its greatest force comes in the w ay it disturbs and stops you! be made on the one stretch of narrow film. This requires an ratiocination. For me, fan that I am, S q u a r e B a s h i n g draws forth extraordinary sophistication of conceptual editing to get all of an endlessly ponderable well of feelings, structured and unstrucA the four or five superimpositions interacting effectively. And the tured, in a w ay that hardly any other film does. wonder of S quar e B a s h i n g is the w ay the levels disturb each other • • • • • and the viewer so aptly and deeply. Several ‘im agegrounds’ seep SQUARE BASHING is available on a c o m p ilatio n v ideotape entitled A ustralian Super into each other in an almost narcotic sluice of vision. As you sense 8 1981-1986, distribute d by AFI D istribution. them bleeding aw ay in the emulsion, character upon character cries out for coupling and rest, unaware that the film has cruelly assembled so many of them so intim ately in this ghostly, unre­ GRAHAM SHIRLEY quited communion. And just as this secretional ooze of imagery begins to define the film, the guttural, m ordant editing comes back to police the promiscuity.

The effect is not adolescent at all, but there is a strange DIRECTED AND WRITTEN BY PAULETTE McDONAGH pubescent force in the film ’s nine minutes. It’s an ardent film. The 84 MINS, SOUND VERSION, 1931 simultaneous regim entation and dalliance of images and sound­ tracks produce a sad but importunate kind of erotics. In the surge W ithin the past decade, several A ustralian early sound films long of superim positions, every disem bodied ghost fades from assumed lost have been rediscovered by the N ational Film & corporeality and prays, either for release or for reinstatement.

Sound Archive. The finding of one of them, S h o w g i r l ' s Luck The ambivalence is painful. It is as if the characters are still (1931), received saturation publicity. But the re-emergence of embodied enough to know desire, but they are becoming so others - among them Neville M acken’s race-relations short A evanescent they have only the memory of feeling. As we watch S t r a n g e r in His O w n L a n d (1931) and Paulette McDonagh’s from our own disturbed bodies, we literally feel for the characters Trail o f t h e R o o (1931) and H o w I P la y C ri c k et (with Don as they fade and moan. Here is an exquisite and banal w orld of Bradm an, 1932) —have received no mention at all, possibly decay - Dante’s C o m e d y , syndicated latenight and nationwide. because they’ve been shorts and not the attention-grabbing W here do these sounds and images come from? Whose fleshy features. One feature, however, which w as hardly mentioned in ghosts are they? M ostly, they’re from the m idnight and m idday its day and whose rediscovery in recent years has scarcely been movie archive: e.g., N o w V o y a g e r (Irving Rapper, 1942), T h e whispered about is the M cD onagh sisters’ 1931 talkie version of Hill (Sidney Lumet, 1965), T h e G e n e K r u p a S t o r y (Don W eis, their originally-silent T h e C h e a t e r s (1930). Indeed, the sound 1960). Here, in television’s daily alluvium , Harrop picks out version of T h e C h e a t e r s rem ains the most tantalizing and myste­ sparkling motes. The cast of his film are the usual suspects that rious of all early A ustralian talkies.

The Cheaters

18 - C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

In August 1988, Ken Berrym an wrote for F i l m n e w s about this previously unknown version of T h e C h e a t e r s after its first reel had been given to the NFSA by a Bondi (Sydney) resident, M r T. Davey. Berrym an recounted that after m aking their first two highly-successful features, T h o s e W h o L o v e (with P. J. Ramster, 1926) and T h e Far P a r a d i s e (1928), the McDonagh sisters (writer-director Paulette, actress Isobel who was billed as M arie Lorraine, and production m anager-art director Phyllis) had completed the silent T h e C h e a t e r s in late 1929. To improve the film ’s chances of release, as well as make it eligible for the federal government’s film production contest of 1930, they produced a sound-on-disc version w ith a music track and three synchronized dialogue sequences. Not helped by the crude sound technology and disastrous m onitoring of disc playback levels, a preview audience and critics scoffed at the sound-on-disc T h e C h e a te r s when it w as first shown in June 1930. Beyond at least one other screening in M elbourne1, the disc version is not known to have been further shown, and its print is now lost.2 Still determined to put their film before the public, the McDonaghs deployed cameraman Jack Fletcher’s newly-perfected Standardtone soundon-film recording process to em bark on a bold initiative: combin­ ing re-shot w ith post-synchronized scenes for a full-talkie version of T h e C h ea te rs .

The process of converting the film to sound appears to have been long and arduous, for, having been announced in July 19303, the Standardtone version was not available for release until October of the following year.4 For reasons that w ill become apparent, this sound version, like the silent, failed to find a m arket and vanished from memory. Indeed, it was never men­ tioned in interviews I conducted in the 1970s with Paulette McDonagh and Neville M acken, who had not only financed T h e C h e a te r s in its silent and two sound versions but also put money into the Standardtone process and documentary shorts directed

by Paulette M cD onagh and himself in the early ’30s.

Ken Berrym an’s 1988 F i l m n e w s piece queried how the first reel of the Standardtone T h e C h e a t e r s had come to be found in a lanew ay, and w hat the chances were of other Australian films emerging in sim ilar m ysterious fashion. Astonishingly, two di­ PAULETTE MCDONAGH’S ‘THE CHEATERS’.

vergent answers emerged in just two years. In December 1988, Sydney-based record collector M ike Sutcliffe contacted me to say that he had found one of the music discs for the sound-on-disc T h e C h e a t e r s . 5 And in 1990 Ruth Hill of the NFSA’s N itrate Preservation Program (established 1988) found three more reels from the Standardtone version as she w as going through untitled spools that the NFSA had acquired from a Ron Noad in around 1983. One of the two reels missing from the Noad print was reel one, suggesting that both the Davey and Noad finds originally came from the same collection.

Ironically for the nil attention it received in its time, the silent version of T h e C h e a t e r s has screened often since its rediscovery in the 1960s. W ith good reason, too, since it is one of the best of all surviving A ustralian silents. Its blend of stylized dram a and naturalism allows it to stand close comparison with Raymond Longford’^s masterpiece, T h e S e n t i m e n t a l B l o k e (1919), and Paulette M cD onagh’s previous feature, T h e Far P ar ad is e, while its chiaroscuro, noirish visual approach links it to German expressionism and the influence of that movement on the Am eri­ can cinema. Performances have an emotional truth and show an instinctive grasp of m ulti-phased relationships w ith a sense of an inner life rippling across the faces as strongly as it guides action and reaction. Dialogue intertitles are commendably scarce, a l­ lowing audiences to share the characters’ lives rather than to simply watch.

Even given that one reel is still missing, the full-talkie T h e C h e a te r s is a fascinating, frustrating experience. W ith touches of R o m e o a n d Ju li et, the plot is one of young love threatened by parental conflict, one father being a w ealthy businessman who sends the other, an embezzler, to prison. The problem in viewing both versions is that while the silent turns potentially stock elements into a heartfelt, engaging romantic tragedy, the talkie reduces them to m echanical basics. Two things contribute to this change. The first is a pruning-down of the original film, editing aw ay many of the reflective passages in a bid to turn intertitles into the spoken word. This translation removes much of the original’s dream -like quality, forcing an inner w orld into out­ w ard form w ithout compensating factors. Second, dialogue which ‘reads’ well in the silent simply sounds flat in its spoken form - a problem shared by Alfred Hitchcock’s first talkie, Bla ck m ai l (1929), where, as John Russell T aylor has written, dialogue “sounds like spoken titles rather than having an independent life of its ow n”6.

Yet the talkie T h e C h e a t e r s retains enough of the o rigin al’s com plexity to place it among the most visually striking of A ustralian films up to the m id-1930s. The idea of post-synching and/ or re-shooting much of a feature w as virtu ally unheard of anyw here at that tim e7, and sound improves the im pact of at least two sequences: a farew ell between father and daughter, and the first m eeting between the lovers in a hotel dining room. In the latter sequence, the casu al­ ness of the surrounding chit-chat and back­ ground music gives effective counterpoint to the rising tension when Paula M arsh (M arie Lorraine) first sets eyes on a rope of pearls she’s been instructed to steal - a tension heightened when, instantly afterw ards, she first properly sets eyes on her lover. In other hotel scenes, Paulette M cD onagh strives hard to m atch visual CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 19

realism w ith its audio equivalent, highlighting the need for it elsewhere in the film.

The overall result of adding sound to T h e C h e a t e r s , however, is cursory and incomplete, clearly illustrating how difficult it could be for established silent filmmakers to make their first talkies. Even given that this one is a hybrid, it shows that the transition silent filmmakers had to make was one of tossing aw ay certain number of the old rules and adapting to new ones. In the place of richly-nuanced mime speaking an international lan­ guage, w hat filmmakers now needed was a symbiosis between the most fluid screen conventions and a naturalism of perform­ ance that made verbal impact while continuing to draw from the inner self.

W ith T h e C h e a te r s , Paulette McDonagh was clearly beginning to grasp what amounted to a new medium but was overwhelmed by a technically-untried, financially-parlous process. Ample evi­ dence of her talent exists in w hat survives of her silent work, and enough of it shines through in the talkie Th e Chea ter s for one to again lament that such a highly-skilled, still comparatively young filmmaker w asn’t encouraged to make films after 1934.

THE CHEATERS Directed by Paulette M cD onagh. Scriptwriter: Paulette M cD onagh.

Director of photography: Jack Fletcher. Art director: Phyllis M cD onagh. Cast: Marie Lorraine (Paula M arsh), A rthur Greenaway (Bill Marsh), John Faulkner (John Travers), Josef Bambach (Lee Travers), Nellie M cNiven (Mrs Hugh Nash), Elaine de Chair (Louise Nash), Frank H a w th o rn e (Keith M anion), Leal Douglas (The Lady), S ta n le y C o u rt (Jules Severie), Reg Q uartle y (Jan). M cD onagh Productions. Australian source: National Film &c Sound Archive. 35mm. Originally 84 mins. 1931.

^SUSAN

DERMODY

Shirley Thompson versus The Aliens PRODUCED, DIRECTED AND CO-WRITTEN BY JIM SHARMAN 104 MINS, 4 972

I’ve likedthis film of Jim Sharm an’s since I first heard the title. He made it in . 1972, before the film industry was considered resurrectable, after speaking to Joseph von Sternberg at the 1967 Sydney Film Festival and asking why Australia didn’t have a film industry. “F don’t know ”, replied Von Sternberg, “You have cameras, don’t yo u ?” I’ve liked Shir ley T h o m p s o n v e r s u s t h e Aliens since I heard that story, and every time I’ve watched it.

“Being ignorant meant we had no fear”, said Jim Sharman of this film and his collaboration with w riter Helmut Bakaitis, although he m ay just as w ell have been talking about the bubble that has preserved the industry, for much of its subsequent lease of life, from too much cinematic consciousness. So in he went with $17,000 (all his own money), onto the terrain of female madness in the 1950s retro sci-fi teen horror flick.

It’s the ’50s, and the suburbs (embodied by liver-brick, doublefronted Drummoyne), that have driven Shirley Thompson (Jane Harders) mad, as anyone can understand. Front yards with their lone, spindly front-yard shrubs; “Emoh R uo” over front doors; the over-regulated zone of the house interior with bed-dolls, koala cushions, and rose-emblazoned tea-towels; an epic angle on the lone arm of the M ixm aster descending to its task in the bowl below; the same M ixmaster hurled in shattering close-shot through the kitchen window when Shirley’s father has abruptly had a gutfull. These are the iconic objects (Jane Campion was to learn a lot from this), held in a wide-angled camera stare, that speak dumbly from the heart of the matter of Shirley’s angst.

20 - C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

SHIRLEY THOMPSON (JANE HARDERS) AT HER WEDDING. JIM SHARMAN’S ‘SHIRLEY THOMPSON VERSUS THE ALIENS’.

Is “Our H ome” a habitable place? If you’re a bright girl in the ’50s, only with considerable accommodation, am ounting, say, to a lobotomy, suggests the film. Or perhaps a split personality, in the first instance. Shirley, like Felicity Bannister (Kerry W alker) to follow, in Patrick White's T h e N ig h t t h e P r o w l e r (Sharman, 1979), is a nice girl by day who grits her teeth and goes for a m ilkshake at Bondi with Harold (Helmut B akaitis), the nice boy her parents have in mind for her. By night, she is a w idgie, queen of a motorbike gang, breaking into the Funa Park River Caves Ride for a moment’s relief from all that conformity.

In the papier-mâché Caves, bobbing past in a boat, she comes across the aliens, who need her to relay important warnings to the world. With good faith and real ingenuity, Shirley pirates a radiostation signal to relay the warnings about the end of the world. “So it’s true, so what? ”, snaps her father when he hears it between bars of the Aeroplane jelly commercial. The River Cave aliens are more fam iliar and finally less alarm ing than the people back home. And Shirley gradually slips from Emoh Ruo to another kind of home altogether, zombie-like, lobotomized, quiet at last.

Shir ley T h o m p s o n is a great first entry, along with Peter W eir’s 1971 short, H o m e s d a l e , in that perversely pleasurable subterra­ nean ‘genre’, A ustralian Gothic. This ‘genre’ or tendency is maybe the first original move that w as made in the space of the revived industry. The hallm arks are dark, inw ard comedy drawn from the ‘norm ality’ of suburban and sm all-tow n Australia, pulled upside-down to show its underbelly of perversity, grotesquerie, malevolence. Stereotypes are drawn as much from pa­ thology, as from the social or the psychological. The trajectory is between the back-yard and the back-w ard. Few ‘sane’ protago­ nists escape with their lives or sanity com pletely intact; the solution is zombie-dom. And, while the films shows their art-film and experim ental bloodlines quite openly, they freely ransack the bins of popular trash culture for their perversely delightful motifs

and subgenres, and display a special feel for the secret life of o b j e c t s . Think of the M a d Max cycle8, T h e Cars th at Ate Paris (Peter W eir, 1974), G o i n g D o w n (Haydn Keenan, 1983), Star Struck (G illian Armstrong, 1982), Bliss (R ay Lawrence, 1985), M a n o f F l o w e r s (Paul Cox, 1983), M a l c o l m (Nadia Tass, 1986), Stri ctl y B a l l r o o m (Baz Luhrmann, 1993) to some extent ...

Then there’s the great series of female protagonists down the years who can trace their lineage from S h ir ley - such as Felicity Bannister in T h e N ig h t t h e P r o w l e r ; Jackie (Jo Kennedy) on the light side in Star Struck (where she w alks a difficult tightrope between dilliness and unstoppable resilience); and on the dark side in W r o n g W o r l d (Ian Pringle, 1986), a fascinating survivor alm ost eroticized by the heaviness of her pessimism; Celia (Ann Turner, 1989); both sisters in different w ays in S w e e t i e (Jane Cam pion, 1989); even Janet (Kerry Fox) in An A n ge l at M y T ab le (Cam pion, 1990) ... These are all strong, even obdurate, female characters, deeply riddled w ith insecurity and living close to madness, but singing with life, as well. They all speak strongly and unsqueam ishly to the condition of being female in this Antipodean, late-20th Century culture, and I’m grateful to them.

Finally, I’d m ake a case for Ada (Holly Hunter), in T h e P ia no (Jane Cam pion, 1993), as a not-too-distant descendant of Shirley Thompson, in a generation still benefiting from the inheritance.

T h e P ia n o evokes another, more literary romantic Gothic trad i­ tion of course, and peers into female narcissism and its eros, with the help of two or three classic fairytales; even so, it also has tendril roots in A ustralian Gothic. The piano itself is an object p a r e x c e l l e n c e that stirs deep dream work, and A da’s securing of an inviolable zone of muteness as a place from which she can have a life, in a time when wom en’s lives were shipped and sold like any other item on the m anifest, shows her place in the lineage.

This time, ‘Shirley’ pursues the true business of her own soul w ith more steel and more preparedness to directly suffer the joy and the wounding. M aybe the 1850s were a slightly easier time to psychically survive than the 1950s.

SHIRLEY THOMPSON VERSUS THE ALIENS D irected by Jim S harm an. Producer: Jim S harm an. Associate producer: M a t t C arroll. Scriptw riters: H e lm u t Bakaitis, Jim Sharm an. Director of photography: David Sanderson. Art director: Brian T h o m p s o n .

Sound recordist: Ken H a m m o n d . Editor: M a lco lm Smith. C om poser: Ralph Tyrell.

Cast: Jane H a r d e r s (Shirley T h o m p s o n ) , June Collis (Dr Leslie Smith), Tim Elliot (Dr G eorge T a l b o t ) , M a r i o n J o h n s (Rita T h o m p s o n ) , J o h n Llewellyn (Reg T h o m p s o n ) , M arie N ichols (Narelle T h o m p s o n ) , H e lm u t Bakaitis (H a rold), J o h n Ivkovitch (Bruce), Bruce Gould (Blake), Kate Fitzpatrick (Nurse). Kolossal Pictures.

16m m. O riginally 104 mins, n ow 80 mins. 1972.

Notes 1 See Cinema Papers, November-December 1975, p. 259.

2 Only a third prize was awarded in the 1930 Commonwealth production contest - to Arthur Higgins and Austin Fay’s Fellers. After that film, The Cheaters was rated fourth.

3 Everyones , 30 July 1930.

4 Film Weekly, 15 October 1931.

5 The disc is labelled: “McDonagh film. The Cheaters with Orch. PRT.129.

Part 10. 31/3/30.” One of its two music pieces is Rachmaninoff’s “Prelude in C-Sharp Minor”.

6 John Russell Taylor, Flitch: The Life & Times o f Alfred H itchcock, Berkley Books, New York, 1980, p. 87.

7 Leni Riefenstahl’s German feature Das Blaue Licht (1932) has the look of a film shot with full silent-era mobility to which sound has been postsynched - in this case, most effectively. In Australia, Efftee’s A Co­ respondent’s Course (1931) also used post-production dubbing over location footage.

8 M ad M ax (George Miller, 1979), Mad M ax 2 (Miller, 1981) and Mad M ax Beyond Thunderdome (Miller and George Ogilvie, 1985).

Level 1 , 3 3 Berry Street, North Sydney 2060 Telephone (02) 954 1477 Facsim ile (02) 954 1585 P. O. Box 1155 North Sydney 2059

Australia’s leading Film and TV Insurance Underwriting Agency W e S p e c ia lis e in In s u ra n c e for:

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Film Producers Indemnity (Cast) Negatives and Videotapes Errors and Omissions Additional Expenses Props, Cameras, Lighting, Sound Equipment

TEAM Jo h n H e n n in g s

G ra h a m B u tt M egan O ’R ile y ACN: 007 698 062

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 - 21

o

O Q

^ «

o

o

üä»

TWENTY YEARS & 100 ISSUES! CONGRATULATIONS CINEMA PAPERS ON A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT FROM NEW SOUTH WALES FILM & TELEVISION OFFICE o

O CL*..

._ ***& »

--

-

o

0 ,

J

- w

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

Level 6,1 Francis Street, East Sydney NSW 2010, Australia. Telephone: (612) 380 5599 Facsimile: (612) 360 1090

FACB andMotion Picture Guarantors JOIN IN CONGRATULATING

CIN EM A PAPERS ON THEIR

20 YEAR S

AND

100TH

ISSUE

W ELL DONE!! ♦

♦

♦

FIRST AUSTRALIAN COMPLETION BOND CO. PTY. LTD. Suite 6, 255 Military Road, Cremorne NSW 2090 Ph: (02) 908 4022 Fax: (02) 909 8294 (Contact: Rob Fisher)

MOTION PICTURE GUARANTORS LTD 177 Scotchmer Street, North Fitzroy VIC 3068 Phone and Fax: (03) 482 2301 (Contact: Chris Suli)

22 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

n

South

Wales

The following Special Supplement looks at aspects of the film industry in

Australia’s biggest state. It follows supplements on Queensland and New Zealand and precedes those planned on Victoria (next issue), South Australia and Western Australia, as well as on such federal bodies as the AFC. No one supplement can in itself be comprehensive, but, by specifically devoting space on an annual basis, Cinema Papers can hopefully ensure an extensive coverage of important companies, activities and films.

ABOVE: SPIDER (SIMON BOSSELL) AND ROSE (RUTH CRACKNELL).

BILL BENNETT’ S ‘ SPIDER & ROSE’.

AN INTERVIEW BY RAFFAELE CAPUTO

Smith D ir e c t o r , N ew S o u t h W a l e s F il m & T e l e v is io n O f f ic e Formation When the state Liberal government came into power in 19 8 8, one of the first things it did was get rid of the NSW Film Corporation [NSWFC], which went out backwards with an accum ulated deficit of $7 m illion. There was a bit of concern about some of its operations and that led to an ICAC inquiry, as everybody knows.

W hat a lot of people often forget is that the NSWFC actually produced, or was responsible for, a number of A ustralia’s best films, such as [S u m n e r L o c k e Elliott’s] C a re fu l H e M i g h t H ea r Y o u , M y Brilliant C a r e e r and T h e M o r e T h i n g s C h a n g e . . ., which in turn reflected a certain capability w ithin the NSW industry.

The government then set up the New South W ales Film and Television Office [NSWFTO]. This w as done under the Film I n d u s t r y Act, which meant it w as a statutory corporation like Film Victoria. But, unlike Film V ictoria and most other film agencies around the country, it doesn’t have a board.

Prim arily, the NSWFTO’s brief was to m anage the NSW FC’s on-going distribution responsibilities. Unlike its predecessor, it w asn’t able to invest in production and w as essentially a devel­ opment agency. It also acted as executive producer, and still does, for government documentaries, like Film Victoria. It also had a location liaison function, acting as a go-between for location

owners and regulatory authorities, on the one hand, and film­ m akers, on the other. Location owners are basically state and local government councils, whether they be the w ater board, the police, the am bulance, the M inistry for Housing, whatever.

At the time of the NSW FC’s closure, there were great concerns about a possible vacuum of investment. Did that eventuate?

I don’t think so.

In 1988, there w as still the remnants of 10BA. As w ell, it is fair to say the NSWFC had focused on film only, not television drama or anything else. It supported only a relatively small number of the creative com munity w ithin NSW, so by taking it aw ay you w eren’t hurting the whole industry.

Sydney also had, and still has, the head offices of all of the other government assistance agencies and 60% of the national slate. The critical mass of industry activity in Sydney is such that it can sustain itself, and that certainly w as the case in 1988.

The NSWFTO office seems somewhat dwarfed by those of the federal funding bodies.

In terms of financial resources, we have nothing like them. In terms of people resources, we have 12. Applications have gone from 100 a year to more than 400, and our people resources were stretched until the recruitm ent of extra staff. That has been a w orry to me. It has meant that w e’ve almost become captives of

the budget and given the filmmakers all sorts of extra scope.

Sim ilarly, B r o k e n H i g h w a y , which we supported at scriptdevelopment stage, needed about $100,000 in production in­ vestment which we couldn’t provide. So it moved north and Film Queensland, as it is now, provided that money.

That situation has changed; the NSWFTO can now m ake production investments.

In the 1992/93 financial year, the state government, through a very supportive m inister, Peter Collins, accepted our argum ent, which we had to deliver in very economic rationalist terms.

We commissioned economic research to project the conse­ quences of our being given $1 m illion to make strategic produc­ tion investments, through small investments of $100,000 or $200,000. It was on that basis we got the $1 m illion, as a oneoff. They weren’t convinced it was a necessary thing for govern­ ment to be doing. But at least they were prepared to give it a shot.

We then spent $800,000 of that knowing we had to get the runs on the board within the financial year in order to make sure we got that support again.

We also commissioned KPMGP M arw ick, and David Court of EBR to do an ‘audit’ of w hat happened with the money we invested. The economic results were outstanding. In fact, as “industry support financing”, as an economic rationalist might like to characterize this money, it outperformed any other state

•• Sydney is seen as the more commercial, slightly cowboy, business-oriented, go-it-alone industry. Its output is twice that of Victoria’s and has process, where, in order to just go through the sheer number of applications, w e’ve become mere paper-pushers. I really wanted always been harder to to get out of that.

M y philosophy about organizations like this is that they should characterize. NSW has be small, lean and accessible. They should be non-bureaucratic, be of the industry and they should care. We are all of that. something of everything?’

How m any do the assessments at present?

Two plus me, or a bit of me, is involved in the script and project development area. We also use a panel of outside assessors.

Effectively, we spend about $1 m illion a year on script and project development, and now another $1 m illion on production investment. That compares with 50-odd staff at the AFC and a $20 m illion annual budget.

P roduction I nvestment In the post-10BA hiatus, with the FFC just starting to hit its straps, the NSWFTO rose phoenix-like, but with rather little wings in terms of human and financial resources. One of the things it couldn’t do was to make production investments.

N ow with every state but NSW offering production invest­ ment opportunities, the inevitable result w as that a number of films generated in NSW were forced to leave for elsewhere. In a sense, NSW film m akers were being disadvantaged against, par­ ticularly in the area of low-budget features.

G re e n k ee p in g , for example, which cost about $800,000, was disadvantaged by being made in NSW. Had it been filmed in Victoria, it probably could have gotten $100,000 out of Film Victoria [on top of the AFC investment]. That would have enhanced

government industry assistance programme. Nothing else comes within coo-ee of it, even without taking projected returns from the investments into account. We delivered on 30:1 basis, which is apparently unheard of. We created up to 700 new full-time jobs, and the cost per job to the state government was lower than in any other industry.

As a result, and with Peter Collins becoming Treasurer in the intervening period, that money has been confirmed and is part of our recurrent funding. We don’t have to fight for it every year.

M ore than that, we get to retain the earnings we generate from those funds. Over time, we can build up, like Film Victoria has, a lump of earnings that is a significant addition to the annual allocation from the state government.

W hat kind of a capping is there on the investment?

10% of the budget is the m axim um, and/or $200,000 in a financial year.

Does the increase in investment change the financial resources in another area? For example, is there more money for script development, or is the investment fund strictly for production?

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 25

Greg Smith

The extra money is targeted for the purpose of production investment. In production investment, we w ill support, and have supported, feature films, low- and high-budget, television, series and tele-features, and documentaries. We w ant to apply in time the same approach to production investment as we apply to development finance. That is, we are interested in everything, conventional and experim ental, short and long, documentary and dram a, young and old.

S tate bo dies

T a TTS (DAVID FIELD) AND ANGEL (ADEN YOUNG)

There are industry presumptions by which the state bodies are categorized: Film Queensland for off-shore, big-budget Ameri­ can films; the NSWFTO for commercial, m ainstream films; Film V ictoria for quirky, experim ental films and cultural benefit. Do you agree with this view?

No. First, I do not think that quirky or experim ental and commercial are m utually exclusive terms. Films that are different

IN LAURIE MclNNES’ ‘BROKEN HIGHWAY’, “ WHICH WE SUPPORTED AT SCRIPT-DEVELOPMENT STAGE.”

Queensland has essentially had no industry and it is now valiantly, and I think intelligently, building an industry off the back of off-shore production. The tricky bit comes in m aking sure you are not just a backlot to Hollywood, that you do in fact develop a local industry that produces its own films.

W hat Queensland has been doing is growing the pie. T radi­ tionally, 60% of production was NSW sourced or based, V icto­ ria 30% , and the other 10% spread around Queensland, South A ustralia and Western A ustralia.

Queensland is now getting a more balanced share, and in fact it has taken a number of productions from NSW. It is also getting the lion’s share of off-shore production. The effect of that, though, is to add on, not to redistribute. It’s making the pie bigger. The $1.3 billion worth of domestic production each year is being increased.

Queensland did $100 million of off-shore production, they say, over 1992/93. That is aggregate budgets; that is not all the money which was spent in Queensland. $27 m illion of that was P e n a l C o l o n y [aka No R e t u r n \, and they did post-production in the UK, so presumably a lot of that $27 million went off-shore.

But even if you discount that aggregate figure by a large am ount, Queensland is still getting $50-odd million worth of off-shore production benefit into the state.

A n OLD ANZAC (MAX CULLEN) IN DAVID CAESAR’S ‘GREENKEEPING’, “ WHICH COST ABOUT $800,000, [AND] WAS DISADVANTAGED BY BEING MADE IN NSW”.

are more likely to be successful than those which stay in a mould.

V ictoria has an enorm ous track record of successful film m aking and a very strong film community, which is one of its greatest assets. That has not changed since the days when I was Director of Film Victoria. The downside is that it can be looked upon as insular, as fearing, or not w anting to use, external influences.

Sydney is seen as the more commercial, slightly cowboy, business-oriented, go-it-alone industry. Its output is twice that of V ictoria’s and has alw ays been harder to characterize. NSW has something of everything. You can’t quite say, “It’s a centre for low-budget feature film m aking”, which is often said about Victoria. Yet when you look at it, it does a lot of low-budget feature film m aking. But it also does big-budget and middle-size filmm aking.

26 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

O ff-shore

When you first came to this job, was attracting off-shore interests one the initiatives you wanted to implement?

Off-shore interests are currently coming from the States, to a lesser extent from Europe and not much from South East Asia, except in the area of commercials, where we are getting a lot out of Japan and Korea.

One of the reasons people come to A ustralia is the exotic locations. Queensland has rainforests and coral reefs and a lot of people w ant that. The point is: If th at’s where it is, that’s where you send them. There is no point in promoting yourself as something you are not, because people w ill be disappointed, they w on’t come back and your credibility goes down.

Having said that, my own view in promoting A ustralia, or NSW, as an off-shore location is to assist the local industry. The industry requires internationalizing if it wants to stay at the cutting edge of technical, as w ell as creative, capabilities. If it wants to m aintain and increase its role in the international

“ [M]y own view in promoting Australia, or NSW, as an off-shore location is to assist the local industry. The industry requires internationalizing if it wants to stay at the cutting edge of technical, as well as creative, capabilities.” industry, then it requires a level of infrastructure and training and netw orking and exposure which off-shore production can assist, and which the local industry m ay not be able to provide.

If you have a big film coming here, and it can mean the difference between the viability and non-viability of some new piece of post-production equipment, then the local industry benefits from it. This is why I think it is worth attracting off-shore production. But perceptions differ.

In NSW, I see it as augmenting an already existing, wellentrenched, proud, expert industry, with a level of infrastructure already in place. We will only sell NSW on the basis of a value-formoney package, where we are offering not only locations but also the technical and creative capabilities, the stability and international reputation of the industry, the English language, reverse seasons, exchange rate savings and whatever else might be practically relevant. If you bundle all of that up, it is a pretty attractive package.

I would never m arket Australia on the basis of lowest cost, G l o r ia ( r e b e c c a g ib n e y ) in b e n l e w in ’ s ‘ l u c k y b r e a k ’ : “ t h a t though, for two reasons. One, because there will alw ays be WAS FULLY DEVELOPED WITH US, BUT WAS MADE IN MELBOURNE.” somewhere in world that is cheaper. Two, it would attract what I call the “opportunistic producers”, who are only ever going to be motivated by whomever has the lowest price today. They are not of being made here. But, yes, we might develop projects which the sorts of people you build a strategy towards. You want to deal will be made elsewhere. The last thing I would w ant to happen with professional, international producers, not fly-by-nighters. is a film be constrained to being produced in NSW, when that is not where it ought to be produced. The first priority is w hat is right for the film.

We have co-operative relationships with every state film agency and the AFC. Philosophically, it reinforces that A ustral­ ian nature. Practically, it is a w ay of laying off half of the financial exposure. A project might be too expensive for NSW but, if you can get Film Vic to tip in half, it works and the film m aker is happy. M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g is an example of FFC, AFC, Film Victoria and NSWFTO collaboration.

If you are doing it with WA, it’s probably of necessity going to be shot in W estern A ustralia. I can be comfortable w ith that, sitting here as I am in Sydney, because so much post-production is done here and so much of the crewing happens out of Sydney or M elbourne.

Queensland has offered and enticed producers to relocate. Has this been significant enough to affect production here?

I’d have to say “N o.” I don’t know how m any producers have actually taken that up, apart from Ross Dimsey, Damien Parer, Rosa Colosimo and Jonathan Shiff.

S t e p h a n e l l io t t ’S ‘ t h e a d v e n t u r e s o f p r is c il l a , q u e e n of It is a clever thing to do from a strategic point of view. The THE DESERT’ : “ WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE A SMALL, BUT VALUABLE, Studios could have been a white elephant, but they have been PRODUCTION INVESTMENT AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE.” turned into something which can act as a catalyst. The next thing is to start generating your own Queensland films. You need I strongly believe in m arketing A ustralia. And if we operate co­ resident producers to be able to do that, so relocation makes operatively and collectively, then I think it w ill work out best for sense. I am not sure if it has actually worked, but I understand the the industry overall. rationale.

But by w orking collectively, m ightn’t a project that has been A sia i n i t i at i v e s developed in NSW leave for some other state?

It depends. I’d like the capability not to lose projects developed in NSW which should stay here. There are projects which were created in the minds of the film m akers with the specific intention

W hat plans do you have in relation to South East Asia? Is it w orthwhile attracting Asian productions rather than American or Europe or UK? CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 . 27

Greg Smith

I don’t know if it can be done on a regional basis. At the end of the day, it comes down to the project, and the creative people you are dealing with.

Export Film Services of A ustralia [EFSA], which is this child of AUSTRADE and the NSWFTO, happened a few years back when I was sitting here w orking out how to attract off-shore production to NSW. I came across two guys in AUSTRADE who had been doing music and they decided they’d be interested in doing film. So, we got together.

I m aintained from the start that, if we were going to do it, it should be on an A ustralia-w ide basis. They, of course, represent­ ing a federal agency, were happy to accept that. Now I am happy to say, after a year or so, we have all the other states on board.

Last year, we kicked that off with AUSTRADE in Los Angeles at the Location Expo and American Film M arket. That was effectively selling A ustralia’s capabilities as an off-shore produc­ tion base, represented at the time by NSW and Queensland. It was part of a three-year programme, funded in large part out of AUSTRADE in Los Angeles. AUSTRADE money comes from the posts, not from Canberra.

The second cab off the rank was Japan. AUSTRADE Japan, seeing how successful the programme was in Los Angeles, decided they would commit for one year. We are hoping they w ill commit for next year and beyond. It was a result of our realizing that there would be a growing relationship in feature film and television production between Japan and Australia.

We kicked that off with a seminar at the A ustralian Embassy in Tokyo on 12 November last year, which was launched by Senator Cook, the then Federal M inister for Trade. A number of us went up there, but, more important, we had five Japanese speakers with personal experiences of A ustralia. They spoke very glow ingly about our capabilities and w hat we were on about.

As you can see, the strategies differ as to working with different countries and their particular industries. In the case of North America, we can legitim ately go out there and say, “If you w ant to come on down with your fully-financed production and use our value-for-money package, then you are very welcome.

Just don’t abuse us or try to override us. I’d rather not make Sydney look like Seattle, but if you have a project that can benefit by being made in A ustralia, then why no t.”

Japan I see differently. I don’t see that we just say “Bring your fully-financed production down to A u stralia.” T hat’s not the w ay they are going to operate.

Japan is interested in having a greater role in the international film industry, and it sees as one of the characteristics for that the English language. It recognizes that we have a proud industry of our own, as do the Japanese, and that we are efficient and economical. There is an opportunity there.

I think the relationship with the Japanese w ill not just be financial, it w ill be a creative exchange, where their creative input is part of the deal, as is ours. And as soon as you say that, you are im m ediately saying it is going to depend on the project.

We have been involved with a tele-feature called C ri m e B r o k e r and, to a lesser extent, T h e S e v e n t h Floor. These are both part of a tripartite package between Portmans out of UK, Sogo vision out of Jap an and John Sexton and N etwork Ten out of A ustralia.

I had real apprehension about C ri m e B rok er. I thought, “By the time we take on board all the cultural differences and requirements of all of these parties, we are going to get down to such a lowest common denominator. Do we really w ant to get involved in th is?”

28 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

W hat in fact happened w as that the input that came from each of those countries actually enhanced the tele-feature, rather than detracting from it. Chris Brown at Portmans and H iroyuki Ikeda at Sogovision are very talented, creative people. They brought to the project rather than taking aw ay.

It sounds like you are talking about establishing co-production deals?

Yes, but not necessarily formal co-productions. It might be co­ financing, co-developing.

W hat about South East Asia?

South East Asia doesn’t mean a lot to me other than Japan at this stage. I know there is a lot of interest in Indonesia and Korea. I share that interest, but I don’t know enough about their indus­ tries to have developed a view on w hat to do.

W hat I can say is that I am concerned that we came late to South East Asia. It bothers me that, having ignored or turned our back on relationships with their film industries for the past 15 years, all of a sudden it suits us, for commercial or other strategic reasons, to say, “Oh, remember us. So rry.”

That’s why about three years ago, through John M cQ uaid, who works in the Office and is a great Asiaphile w ith enormous respect for and experience in Asia, we re-activated our role as a country in the Asia-Pacific Film Festival. It has fourteen member countries and is held in a different city every year.

In 1993, it was held in Fukoka in Japan, the year before in Seoul and the year before that in Taipei. This year it is going to be in Sydney. We bid for it a couple of years back, and my rationale for doing that was that we ought to back up our new­ found commercial interest with some sort of cultural bona fides.

One w ay of doing this is the Asia-Pacific Film Festival.

H appily, we have now the support of the A ustralian Film Commission and SPAA. I understand the Prime M inister, con­ sistent with his Asia agenda, has accepted an invitation to be involved as well.

The Festival is a good start and is an example of how we need to balance up, on a daily basis, the cultural with the commercial.

One aspect of the Asia-Pacific countries is that they don’t need us.

Their industries are actually quite self-sufficient.

Again, I am not expert in the areas of m arketing and distribution, but, yes, I would be very surprised to find a big m arket growth in A ustralia for Indonesian and Korean films.

On the other hand, we are looking at a region which economi­ cally is growing at 10 % per annum. I am told that is going to lead to growth in the middle-classes, who are going to have an increasing desire for “W estern” m aterial. In this area, there m ay well be a role for A ustralia to play in the production and/or co­ production of Western film and television productions.

Technologically, I think we have a lot to offer. Again, depend­ ing on the region or country, they may produce hundreds of films per annum, but the quality of the films is not very high by world standards. I think associations with Australia can advantage them.

S tudio When John M orris was at the NSWFTO, there w as talk of establishing a studio. Is this still on the cards?

CONTINUES

ON

PAGE

81

lives of three people will change dramatically ... don’t look back”, as the prepublicity has it. Scripted by .director Fleury and shot by Paul J^Lurphy, it stars British import Patsy Kensit, with Robert Reynolds (from Traps), Rebecca Rigg and Justin Alonso. cl ock

% 'MAIN-PICTURE: PATSY KENSIT IN CLIVE FLEURY'S TUNNEL VISION. ABOVE: KENSIT, ROBERT REYNOLDS ’ AiND REBECCA RIGG. RIGH|. REYNOLDS AND RIGG. m TUNNEL VISION:

C I N E M A P A P E RS 1 0 0 • 29,

Geoffrey Burton

interviewed

by Leilani Hannah and Raffaele Caputo This interview can be considered an adjunct to the one with Geoffrey Burton published in the previous issue of ‘Cinema Papers’ (No. 99), in which discussion centred primarily on his career as a director of photography. Here, Burton discusses ‘The Sum of Us’, his first feature as (co-)director, and a long-cherished project, ‘The Songlines’, an adaptation of Bruce Chatwin’s book of the same name.1

T h e S o n g l i n e s is C hatw in’s account of a journey through Central A ustralia and of a personal experience of enlightenment in his contact w ith Aboriginal culture. Chatwin explores a melange of ancient trails of song, invisible pathw ays of ritual journeys which have sung the world into existence.

T h e Sum o f Us is based on a highly-successful stage play successful, that is, in countries other than Australia. It w as written

by Melbourne playwright David Stevens, who is also a television and feature director, whose credits include T h e C linic11983), "Un­ d e r c o v e r ” (1984), and A T o w n Like Alice (mini-series, 1981), which he also wrote. He now lives and works in the U.S.

LEFT: FATHER AND SON: HARRY (JACK THOMPSON) AND JEFF (RUSSELL CROWE). GEOFF BURTON AND KEVIN DOWLING'S THE SUM OF US. ABOVE: CO-DIRECTORS GEOFF BURTON AND KEVIN DOWLING.

The play was staged in Australia in 1988 as part of the Bicentennial theatre effort, with the Sydney Theatre Company. It was in a period leading up to the M ardi Gras, when there were a lot of gay activities going on. This, in a sense, spelt its death-knell because the bulk of theatregoers dismissed it as being a gay event.

I was shooting a film in Asia at the time and, although I knew about the play, I didn’t see it. The local production was report­ edly very good, but it just w asn’t seen.

There was some testing of it in Los Angeles, where it did a few performances and, although people thought the play was inter­ esting, it didn’t go much further. It w asn’t until the play opened off-Broadway that it really took off and ran for more than a year.

Kevin Dowling, who directed the play for its New York release, is now my co-director of the film version.

Is Dowling in the same position as you: someone who hadn’t directed a feature film till now?

The play is set in Footscray about a fam ily situation between a father and a gay son, and how they both handle it. Essentially, it’s a love story between the father and the son. The film is re-set in the Sydney suburb of Balmain, and Burton co-directed it with Kevin Dowling2, the p lay’s New York director.

Geoff Burton: There are autobiographical elements in T h e Sum o f Us: characters who are like people David grew up with. A lot of situations come from his experience as a young gay man living and growing up in Footscray. But the actual story is not David’s story per se.

Yes. Kevin has no film experience but enormous theatre experience.

His career is that of a theatre director, writer and actor. He has also had a long association with this play, something like five years.

When [producer] Hal McElroy was attempting to set up the project, and he was negotiating with David Stevens about adapt­ ing it, David said, “You must get Kevin to direct it. He has just done this fantastic version of it and it really w orks.” That’s how Kevin came to be involved.

One of the main reasons H al decided to set it up as a co­ directing exercise is because Kevin had no film experience. W hat H al was looking for w as someone like me who has enormous film experience but very little experience of working with actors.

That’s not exactly true, I have worked with actors for more than thirty years, but not on a level of generating and assessing performance.

The whole process of co-directing has been very interesting because, early on, Kevin and I discussed how the relationship could be productive, non-competitive and tension-free. And it worked. It has been an extremely good collaborative experience, which is often hard in any endeavour like film.

Filmmaking relationships that are based on a hierarchical struc­ ture, although they can create tensions, invariably work. Because there wasn’t a hierarchy in this case, there was great potential for major tension, major confrontation and major failure.

C IN EM A PAPERS

1 0 0 . 31

GEOFFREY

BURTON

I must say, I’ve been involved in a couple of co-directing ventures before, not with feature films, but with tele-features and dram atized documentaries. They have worked out very w ell, but at various stages during the process there was some tension.

Consequently, I was keen not to go into this project unless I felt confident about the potential w orking relationship between Kevin and myself.

W hat has in essence made this relationship really work is that we approached the project on a genuine co-work basis: we resisted the idea of breaking the functions into w hat one would norm ally expect to be the relative work strengths of each person.

In other words, the most obvious thing to say is, “W ell, you are a cinem atographer. You’ve done thirty pictures and you know how to w ork coverage; look after the camera and where to point it. Kevin, on the other hand, knows nothing about the technical side, but has worked with actors for years and years; let him work with the actors.” That would be the most obvious demarcation, and under some situations that could work.

I’ve done shorter films with Rodney Fisher, including his first film after a long stretch of theatre directing, and Richard W herrett when he did his first film. In those sort of relationships, one is really happy to take on a greater work load as a technical cinematographer. But on The Sum o f Us, Kevin and I were very keen this w ouldn’t be the case. As a result, we smudged those lines as much as we could, and I contributed to getting the performances out of the actors, making decisions about perform­ ances and assessing the dram atic value and level of each scene.

The same with Kevin, who also contributed enormously his ideas about the w ay the film should be shot. Obviously, because of our respective lacks of experience on one side we often made silly m istakes. But often the strength of the relationship would pick up on those mistakes and say, “T hat’s not really a good w ay of doing it; let’s do it this w a y .” T hat’s how the pre-production, rehears­ ing and shooting worked.

In the editing, on the other hand, the co-directing decisions

32 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

were far more even because we were both into processes which neither of us are very fam iliar w ith. We had a very good editor, Frans Vandenburg, who provided a good centre-road approach to the film. He is the one who probably generated more creativity than either of us here. Kevin and I were in more of an assessing capacity of what the editor was doing, rather than laying down rules and saying, “W ell, in my last picture I did a montage and it worked b rillian tly.” That was not the w ay we were w orking because it was not w hat our experience indicated.

But given that Kevin is more stage-bound, so to speak, he would still have been relying on you technically?

That’s true. Things like screen direction and all those mechanical details about directing imagery, which you take for granted when you’ve made a couple of films, were all quite new for Kevin. He was quite surprised by all of it, and also by the translation of perform­ ance to film. Often, material that he had been really worried about, worked brilliantly on film, and vice versa. It had a lot to do with the actors’ relationship with the camera, of course, and the w ay they had been photographed - those subtle nuances which you mightn’t see off the video split or in the flesh but on a fifty-foot wide screen are very apparent. In this sense, I believe Kevin experienced more new things from the editing than I did.

The greatest thing I picked during the editing is the signifi­ cance of attem pting to m aintain an emotional flow w ithin, say, one long scene, shot over several days with m ultiple actors. That has been enormously interesting.

How did you get to know Kevin Dowling w ell enough to decide that it would be fine to w ork with him?

It was very difficult at first, because we had a short time in which to establish a working relationship. We were also in different countries. In fact, it was during the production of Sirens (John Duigan, 1994) when I started talking with Kevin via long-distance telephone. Then the producers wisely brought him to Australia six months before we started shooting in order to meet me, w ork out the basis of our collaboration, and to do some prelim inary casting. But it was well into pre-production before we spent real time together working out our common goals and traits.

Although I am older than Kevin, we both came through a similar pe­ riod of history. We had the same ideas of protest, a similar attitude toward the 1960s and’70s. We largely share the same tastes in music and film. So, already we were on com­ mon ground.

An enormous advantage is that w ith Kevin being an out-and-out New Yorker, he says w hat he feels all the time, and very succinctly.

There is never any doubt as to what Kevin means, and it’s a great at­ tribute N ew Yorkers have more than any other race. I say “race” advisedly, because New Yorkers are

FACING PAGE: PUBLICITY SHOT OF JEFF AND HIS HOPED-FOR BOYFRIEND, GREG (JOHN POLSON).

LEFT: JOYCE (DEBORAH KENNEDY) AND HARRY. THE SUM OF US.

your own shorts, which we all did at that time. Professional opportunities were much less and cinem atography was an easier track to take. I’m talking about the film industry of 32 years ago, which I realized with alarm the other day. In fact, at that time, there were no features being made, except an occasional partforeign film like the adaptation of Nino C ulotta’s T h e y ’r e a W eird M o b (M ichael Powell, 1966].

Is cinematography your second choice then?

Yes, except I was never in a career situation where I could say, “O kay, I am not directing, I’ll take cinem atography because that’s my second choice.” I wanted to make films, and I still regard myself as a filmmaker rather than a cinematographer. I think it remains important to smudge those demarcations. As technology becomes easier and easier to m anipulate, in future those functions are going to become much more integrated. I am just a filmmaker who has spent most of my career photographing other people’s films.

Have you always had this approach, which is different to most cinematographers ?

Yes, and I suppose it is different. I never planned a career in cinematography and said to myself, “I’m going to operate for ten years and then go on up the ladder.”

Instead, the story, ideas or world view has been the most important aspect to how you approach a film, rather than your working out an individual style?

completely different, even to the bulk of Americans and espe­ cially to Los Angeles-based Americans, whom you can never, ever trust. Kevin is totally frank, totally honest. You know where you stand im m ediately.

In the end, I don’t think one can really make rules about any creative collaboration. Years ago I was involved in a film company called Artists Productions. The three principals were Pat Lovell, Tom Haydon and myself. Tom, who is now dead, sadly, was an extraordinary documentary filmmaker whom I had known since the very beginning. We made T h e Last T asm an ian (1978) together. We had a great collaborative working experi­ ence, but it was all based on sheer fear and trepidation, angst and conflict. This was the w ay Tom loved to work. We were the greatest of friends, but every shot was fought over, every situa­ tion we got into was an argument. His attitude was that conflict produced the best result. Some people still feel that w ay; I don’t.

I defiantly oppose this w ay of w orking because not only do I believe it is wrong, it’s also a dreadful w ay to have to live. But there are still directors who believe conflict produces the best results, and so you can’t lay down rules. It really depends on the attitudes and values of the individuals involved.

Is The Sum of Us a step toward fulfilling a long-time directing ambition?

Yes. I have alw ays wanted to direct, and if the industry had been bigger when I joined, film direction would have been the track I headed down. As it w as, there were very few films being made and very few opportunities to direct pictures, unless you made

Yes, and I think everybody should feel this w ay. I don’t believe it’s a unique attitude, but it’s true in my case. It gives you a philosophy for approaching the photographing of films. This is perhaps different to conventional cinematographers, where they are quite often looking for a chance to explore a particular style, or illustrate a w ay of shooting they have wanted to pursue, or see as reflecting their own style.

There is a great trap in this approach, and I think it has been a trap that has often been fallen into in A ustralian cinema. The cinematography has resulted in work which is basically inappro­ priate to the film. There are hundreds of films, and we shouldn’t run through titles, where it is easy to see that the cinem atography is just detracting and/or distracting from the script’s and direc­ tor’s intent. It is not done m aliciously, it’s just that the cinem a­ tographer is not saying to him- or herself, “I must find a w ay of photographing this film which is first and foremost totally appropriate to w hat this film is about.” I don’t think this is done often enough. It has been my philosophy in shooting films, and it’s probably why I spend more time with the script and the director before shooting starts.

T he Songlines Is the notion of landscape-as-character your attraction to Bruce Chatwin’s The Songlines?

Very much so. T h e S o n g lin e s is fascinating because it’s not just the landscape as a playing field for actors, as it is in a lot of other films. One example is a children’s film I did years ago called S to rm B o y (Henri Safran, 1976). At times, the landscape had to change from being totally deadly and alienating to a place of almost nirvana-like enlightenment, even though it was basically CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 33

GEOFFREY

BURTON

the same stretch of sand and w ater. You had to m anipulate the light, filtration and everything else to give the landscape its different role. That is one use of landscape.

W hat is more interesting is when you give the landscape some sort of m ystical significance in its role. We attempted this and largely failed in T h e Year M y V oice B ro k e (John Duigan, 1987).

Although the landscape of the hill is a haven for Danny (Noah Taylor) and Freya (Loene Carmen), and becomes a safe place when they are aw ay from the urban tensions of the town, we actually wanted to make the landscape much more at one with the kids. It w asn’t just a question of them feeling comfortable, but for them to actually gain a strength from the land, from the hill, and from the cloudscapes that went past. This is something which is very hard to do and still keep a narrative going.

There are elements of mysticism in the film, like D anny’s attempts to telepathically communicate with Freya, and the fact they draw stars together. We staged m ajor moments of aw are­ ness and enlightenment which actually give the hill a certain importance in their lives. However, even though I think the film is very successful and gratifying, and I am pleased with it in the sense that the cinem atography is suitable and appropriate, I would have liked to have linked the landscape closer to Danny and Freya. That was difficult to do because we would have had to illustrate other people being less comfortable in that land­ scape. We were compromised by the fact that people w eren’t uncomfortable, that the little old lady who lived in the house with the pianola was clearly and perfectly at home in that landscape.

In fact, she was a sort of mystical character as w ell, and she drew the same sort of comfort the kids drew from the landscape.

There was a lot to do with T h e Year M y V oice B ro k e which generated my interest in T h e S o n glin es. It is an opportunity to use landscape as a much stronger player because of the Aboriginal association with land. For Aborigines, land is the essence of all life.

In white culture, you might make a film about the presence of a God, or a relationship between a man and a God. We do it in films all the time, once we identify the God. We can make it work because, although in white society God has many different forms, there is a God-head. Yet, by and large, the relationship is pretty hard to define.

Now, this is extraordinarily simplistic but from my under­ standing of Aboriginal culture the relationship is much easier to define. It has to do with their relationship to land. But if the land/ Aboriginal equation is like the white man/God-head, the parallel w ill become very hard to define on film, hard to make any sort of drama out of, and hard to visualize.

It is difficult for white society to understand, but, in the case of A boriginal culture, the relationship w ith land is not so difficult because all around them, every day and in everything they do, there is a consciousness with the m ysticism of the land. The land is w hat drives their life and w hat drives their death. So, in T h e S o n g lin e s we are basically attem pting to illustrate the conscious­ ness and m ysticism of the land.

For instance, a wom an m ay be out hunting and through a cut in her toe, a scratch on her leg, or through her vagina, a spirit w ill come up from the land and she’ll become pregnant. A child w ill be conceived and born from the land, and usually she doesn’t know about this until the foetus starts to move. At the point the foetus moves, she is aw are she is pregnant, and the spot becomes the child’s conception site. The conception site remains the 34 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

child’s sacred site for all of his or her life. It is identified by the elders and a tjuringa w ill be placed there for the child, or taken from there and put in a tjuringa store house. There is just no parallel to this in white culture or society.

A writer who springs to mind as a parallel to T h e S o n g l i n e s is D. H. Lawrence and K a n g a r o o , though, given the description you’ve just offered, a comparison seems somewhat ridiculous, because in Lawrence the land is something indecipherable.

A parallel w ith Lawrence is not as silly as you m ight now think.

He doesn’t pursue the same m ystical track that Chatwin does, but in the sense of Lawrence being a foreigner in a new land the parallel is pretty exact. I think w ith K a n g a r o o Lawrence brings a perception of A ustralia that can only be that of a foreigner, as does Chatwin.

I’ve not had much to do w ith Lawrence in the sense that I’ve not done any research on him. But in pursuing research for the Chatwin film I’ve discovered that the attitudes of people tow ard Bruce Chatwin are so polarized in this country, especially from other w riters. They either adm ire and adore the idea of the different view he brings, or they violently reject him as being out of hand for having done it. This is also true of academ ics and people in the Centre, whom Chatwin wrote about in the book.

In Alice Springs society, you are not really accepted until you’ve lived there for five or six years, and even then you are talked about in terms of where you came from. C hatw in w as violently opposed because how dare he come into our society and three months later produce a book which in w orld terms has become the definitive book about A boriginal culture and white A ustralia. But then there are the few who say “Hey, yeah, he is right. M aybe it’s okay to come and m ake these observations” .

I think Lawrence was reacted to in the same w ay, because there are a lot of cultural purists in this country w ho’d reject anybody else’s view of themselves.

How much has B e D e v il (Tracey Moffatt, 1993 ) prepared you for The S o n glin es?

Every experience I am able to have w orking w ith A boriginal people, culture and ideas is a worthwhile contribution to w hat I hope to do with T h e S o n g lin e s.

It’s interesting that whenever I’m involved w ith urban Abo­ rigines, which I try to be as often as I can, I am constantly reminded of my obligations as a w hite film m aker to allow the right amount of contribution from Aboriginal people. In fact, I seek out their contribution because, by and large, they have an enormous amount to say. U sually it is stuff you take for granted and think you can m anage w ithout, but they’ll tell you something about a specific aspect of relationships, for instance, w hich you just never think about.

It was in 1988 during the Bicentennial year when I had just heard about T h e S o n g lin e s and w as really attracted to it. There w as a germ of an idea that this was something I should pursue, largely because at the root of it all Sharon Bell3, who is an anthropologist and anthropological film m aker, and I were quite keen to m ake a docum entary film about Professor [Theodor] Strehlow and his wife Kathlene, who have custody of an extraor­ dinary collection of tjuringas and other A boriginal artefacts.

CONTINUES

ON

PAGE

82

■

wmmmm.

m

lilli ■

■HB

ÉBHi

Î iM

Wm. Æ ¡jj

W Êm É

i

¡SS

WÊÊÊÈk ■

ÉBB

j|

■ WÊÊÊÊÊm. É » » B I

■

■

■ « PP

■

■

■

■

■

iü fcw lW La

^ m i^^^^Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê à

s

■ Wm

■

■

M■

» » ■ ■

■ mmm

sine tes d

service to buyers .............

WZmmmMÊÊmrn

WmMmÊmÊÊÊÊËÊÊÊÊM.

WSÊmuÊÈÈL

W Èm

a

■■'^ v mÊÊMÊtSÊÈmm ê WJMMMmMüyMÆ

fcllllill

é '4'hÂ^Éûk%&É?ÉÊÊkâ

wék wèê,

wm m

St

■

WÊÊmÊÊÊÊÊik ■

wMmÉmwk

Wm

* 7 »M f*r * v

A PROFILE BY RAFFAELE CAPUTO

S a m s o n f il m s , F ilm F in a n c e s , AFC Samson Films is one of the oldest production companies to emerge in the NSW film industry since the late 1960s revival. It was form ed by Tom Jeffrey in 1968 w ith a friend, Sam Leon. They were flo o r managers at the ABC at the tim e and had dreams of producing and directing feature film s. Leon subsequently left the ABC and the indus­ try , and the com pany sat dorm ant until Sue M illiken, who w orked at the ABC as a continuity person, met Jeffrey.

The first thing M illiken and Jeffrey did through Samson Productions was manage the film in g of ‘Born To Run’ (Don Chaffey, 19 7 6 ), a television “ movie of the w eek” which Disney in the U.S. had decided to shoot in Australia.

This was not the first tim e Disney had brought a prod­ uction over: ‘Born to Run’ followed ‘Ride the Wild Pony’ (Don Chaffey, 1 9 75 ), on which M illiken had w orked as a production manager.

36 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

The cash-flow from B o rn to R un enabled Samson to set-up offices in the Sydney suburb of Pyrmont, where it has existed to this day. Its first A ustralian production was W eek en d o f S h a d ­ o w s (1978), which Jeffrey directed (and co-produced with M att Carroll). M illiken is credited as associate producer, because Samson produced the film in conjunction with the South A ustral­ ian Film Corporation (SAFC). T h e O d d A n gry S h o t (Jeffrey) soon followed in 1979.

FILM FINANCES One could easily assume that M illiken’s role as a producer was an extension of her skills in m anaging the A ustralian branch of the completion bond company, Film Finances. But, in fact, it’s the other w ay around: her role as a producer gave her the necessary skills to be a completion guarantor, which is perhaps one of the reasons why the company is the most successful such operation in A ustralia.

M illiken began to manage the A ustralian end in 1980, really as a one-off venture, when the com pany’s principal, Richard Symes, asked her to represent Film Finances on Richard Franklin’s R o a d g a m e s (1981). Soon after, the 10BA legislation came into effect and the film industry went into a production frenzy. W hile no formal arrangem ent was made, M illiken continued to look after the business of Film Finances, while at the same time developing projects w ith Jeffrey. M illiken produced F ig h tin g

“The culture of disdain so long embedded in the bureaucracy’s attitude to filmmakers is, happily, becoming a thing of the past. The staff of the government agencies these days pretty much see themselves as part of the team, as partners with the filmmakers in the process.”

Back (M ichael Caulfield, 1983) with Jeffrey, but did not produce anything else until 1985 because she was working full-time for Film Finances. The company is still m anaged by Samson, through an informal ar­ rangement.

The success of Film Finances can be attributed to a combination of Richard Symes and the fact that the people running the Australian operations, principally M illiken, are themselves filmmakers. M illiken: Richard Symes is a unique individual. He has visited Australia at least twice a year, every year, for the past 12 or 13 years Film Finances have been working here.

He knows everybody here and he does business on a handshake; you can trust him.

Whether it is me or the people I’ve employed to run the day-to-day business, we always try to put ourselves in the position of the filmmaker. We try to contribute to the production, rather than be a kind of policeman. We know what their problems are.

I’ve tried hard never to let the standards slip, and I don’t think they ever have. We’re as fresh and enthusiastic about doing the right thing by the filmmakers as we were when we started in 1980.

That is one of the reasons Film Finances works, plus the fact that we have paid out whenever we have been called on. In 15 years, nobody has ever waited for their money. I think that counts.

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION In December 1993, M illiken was appointed the new chair of the Australian Film Commission for a three-year term, replacing writer-director Chris Noonan.

For many years, industry people have felt the need for filmmak­ ers to have direct responsibility in the development and running of the industry. The trend started long before M illiken took up the position, and now virtually all the commissioners are practition­ ers. These include: Robert Campbell, managing di­ rector of the Seven Network; scriptwriter Laura Jones; casting consultant Liz M ullinar; producer John Sexton; and AFC chief executive Cathy Robinson. Though not practitioners in the strict sense, the other members of the AFC board are Professor Stuart Cunningham of Queensland Uni­ versity of Technology, and chair and chief executive of the Bank of Melbourne, Christopher Stewart.

For C in em a P a p e r s ’ 20th Anniversary issue, M illiken wrote: The culture of disdain so long embedded in the bureaucracy’s attitude to filmmakers is, happily, becoming a thing of the past. The staff of the government agencies these days pretty much see themselves as part of the team, as partners with the filmmakers in the process.

Thus, perhaps one question that im mediately comes to mind has to do with the reconciliation of M illiken’s role within a federal organization and CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 37

LEFT: FILMING FIGHTING BACK (MICHAEL CAULFIELD. 1983).

PRODUCERS TOM JEFFREY AND SUE MILLIKEN ARE CENTRE FRAME. BELOW: BLACK ROBE (BRUCE BERESFORD. 1992), AN AUSTRALIACANADA CO-PRODUCTION. MILLIKEN PRODUCED (WITH ROBERT LANTOS AND STÉPHANE REICHEL).

CO-PRODUCTIONS

that of a practitioner, where it is sometimes believed there is an unconscious tendency toward a parochial view of the industry.

But this is where M illiken’s long experience as a completion guarantor, plus the fact that in 1988 and 1992 she undertook a review of the SAFC and the West A ustralian film industry, respectively, place her in a unique position. Looking after other people’s productions as a completion guarantor, and having held the chair on both the SA and WA reviews, has meant extensive and consistent travel around Australia since 1981, and thus a perspective on the industry that cannot be limited to NSW or Victoria - the two major sources of production - but is funda­ m entally a national one. M illiken: I am very conscious of the concerns of people outside NSW about getting a fair deal from the AFC. It’s an issue continually in mind when discussing policy. r Something I’d like to get around to this year is talk to everybody in the other states, get a dialogue going and let people feel that it’s their AFC as well as ours. They have the same access and right to the AFC, and they have to really overcome geography.

Geography is a strong discussion point for M illiken, not only in terms of selling locations, as; one might expect, but in terms of juicing the advantages each state can offer as a way of overcoming geographical limitations. This is especially the case in regard to the film industry in WA, and, to a lesser extent, that of South Australia.

With Queensland developing both an off-shore and a local industry, filmmaking activity now moves steadily up and down the eastern seaboard.

From a political point of view, M illiken maintains that the integrity of state-by-state industries should be sought internally with their own state governments, in terms of competing for production. M illiken: The way to get state support is, of course, to talk up your own state with your own state government, which I believe everybody has been fairly successful in doing. The states are all different, and we have all got so much to offer.

I’ve produced films in Queensland and South Aus­ tralia, as well as in NSW. As a producer, even if I am hoping I can make a film within two blocks of Bondi Beach, I’ll look for the location that best suits the project.

But we are still the same one industry and we have still got to come together and present ourselves feder­ ally, and to the rest of the world, as one industry.

38 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

One problem area cited by M illiken in the 20th Anni­ versary issue of C in em a P a p ers is “the squeezing of budgets in the $3 to $4 m illion range”. Producers of M illiken’s stature have no objection to working on low-budget films with first-time directors, but find they cannot due to fees and overheads. If a producer like M illiken is going to take on smaller-budgeted films, then she is going to need other things going at the same time to pay the overheads necessary to keep the whole show on the road.

In this kind of scenario, a co-production deal tends to be the w ay to go. M illiken ’s last two pictures, Black R o b e (1992) and Sirens (1994), were both with estab­ lished directors, Bruce Beresford and John Duigan, and financed as co-productions. M illiken: Black R o b e is the first official feature film co-production between Australia and Canada. It is not a 100 % Australian film, but all the Australian money went on the Australian elements, and Australia made a major creative contribution both on the screen and in post-production, j With Sirens, we simply wouldn’t have been able to make the film without British Screen money. We had a really tough time putting the money together. As it happened, the film was shot here, and it’s the most Australian film you’ll ever see, but it was post-produced in England. I would have much rather postproduced it here, because I live here and because it’s a post­ production environment that I know.

If there were a way of financing films at that level, without doing any deals that had obligations to them, I’d do it. But it was an interesting experience working over there, and I’ve learnt from it. Hopefully, I can impart that experience.

The co-production deal, however, is somewhat controversial.

M any feel the reputation of the film industry in this country lies within the low-to-medium-budget range, and, if a co-production trend picks up full steam, then the area likely to lose out is that of development and skill enhancement. But as an astute observer of trends, M illiken feels co-producing is not something that will last forever. M illiken:

1994 A u stra lia n M o vie C o n ven tio n At the moment it is a useful tool in financing Australian films. A lot of people have different points of view about it, and I can understand that. But I think you have to be a bit patient and take a long-term view, and see how the whole thing pans out.

R ather than take on a high-versus-low-budget stance, w hat is im portant for M illiken is to encourage and m aintain a good level of infrastructural support within the low-to-m edium-budget activity, particu larly as a w ay of developing the rôle of the producer in both creative and entrepreneurial capacities. M illiken: There are ways now where producers work with young filmmak­ ers as mentors and are associated with their productions. People have to make their own way and it’s good for young producers to have access to experienced filmmakers.

There is a tremendous infrastructure now through the Austral­ ian Film, Television &c Radio School, the AFC and all the various other interlocking elements of the industry. This simply didn’t exist even ten years ago. People can now take advantage of experience without being weighed down by it.

I’m all for people getting out there and doing it. Find a team and go at it. Make some mistakes but do something interesting. And then do it again.

NEW SOUTH WALES H aving the greater share of overall production activity, NSW can safely claim to be the centre of the film industry. In whatever way the NSW industry is affected, then it is a fair gauge for the whole film industry.

During the 1992-93 period, there was a slump in production in NSW. This picked up a little bit by late 1993 and has been steadily grow ing ever since, largely as a result of that healthy infrastructure. M illiken: I think the NSW industry is in the best shape it has been for a long time, certainly since the days of the ’80s, when there was a lot of money around.

The NSW Film & Television Office is an extremely-supportive and well-run organization; it really gets in there and does stuff.

NSW also has a terrific Minister for the Arts, Peter Collins, who is very supportive. The NSW industry has worked hard to find support, and it has certainly got the support back at a state level.

In relation to the rôle and future of NSW, M illiken feels optim istic about the future of the A ustralian film industry generally, with films being made at all sorts of levels, and from different voices within the film m aking community. Two of the emerging voices are to do with women and with m ulti-culturalism , especially with regard to indigenous people. M illiken: Women are well on their way to finding their voice, and I think the next one is going to be the Aboriginal Torres Strait islander people. The enthusiasm and energy with which they are now approaching the visual medium is, I think, going to stun every­ body in a few years’ time.

At one graduation ceremony at the AFTRS for a six-month training course, where 20-odd Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders started and 14 finished the course, I watched these gorgeous kids who have so much enthusiasm, talent and energy. The course was a tremendous success, and the next stage is to see that they find some work and experience to build on.

Interesting contemporary films are being made that are often saying something quirky and idiosyncratic about our society. We seem to be finding a national style - not ‘style’, because the country is too different to ever have a total style - but we do seem to be finding our new ‘voices’.

■

Wednesday August 17 to Saturday August 20 1994 ANA Hotel Gold Coast, Surfers Paradise, Australia the 49th Gala Event hosted by the

Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association of Queensland.

INTERNATIONAL GUEST SPEAKERS: Mr. Mark Zoradi President, Buena Vista International, Inc ft Guest Speakers from all areas of the movie industry and allied trades ft Important business sessions highlighting the latest production trends and major developments ft Special times for Trade contact and in-depth discussion at Display Booths . ..

Video presentations . . . Hospitality etc. ft Previews of new products . . . Promotional and advertising information ft Award presentations ft Cocktail parties, Special Breakfasts, Luncheons, Dinners ft Top Entertainment REGISTRATION FEES PER PERSON: Full Registration A$350.00 (or A$310.00 if paid by July 15,1994) Daily Registration (no part day or function-only registrations) Wednesday $65.00; Thursday $140.00 Friday $140.00; Saturday $140.00 (N.B. * Tax Deduction to industry members in current tax year if paid prior to 30th June 1994; * Registrations close on 10th August 1994 and No registrations will be accepted at the Convention)

SPECIAL AIRFARE PACKAGES WITHIN AUSTRALIA ARE AVAILABLE IF BOOKED THROUGH ’’HOYTS TRAVEL MACHINE” - Contact Viv Plattus on (02) 261 7766 REGISTRATION FORM: (Please photocopy for additional registrations) Surname:

Christian Name:

Theatre/Company: Address:..............

State:

Postcode:

Ph: ( ) ......................................Fax: ( ) .................................

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU REQUIRE ACCOMMODATION AT THE ANA HOTEL SURFERS PARADISE ( ) Standard room - single, double, twin share - Room rate $130 per night ( ) Suite - $190 per night Arrival Date:.................................... hour:......................................................

Departure Date:..............................

(As a room deposit, please include an additional $20.00 with your registration fees) Please detach and return this section to Mrs P Parker, Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association of Queensland (Inc) PO Box 1031, STAFFORD CITY QLD 4053 with your registration fees.

Phone: (07) 356 5671, Fax: (07) 832 2197

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 39

ü

CONOMOS

Spider & Rose

LEFT: WRITER-DIRECTOR BILL BENNETT. BELOW: SPIDER. RIGHT: JACK (MAX CULLEN) AND ROSE. SPIDER & ROSE.

lady basically wants to die, the young man wants to live, and they both have quite definite pre-conceptions about each other.

The two have been thrown together when Rose requires an ambulance transfer to her son’s property in the country, and Spider, on his last day and near the end of his shift, is the one pressed upon to perform the task. Bennett:

ill Bennett is a director best known for an energetic improvisational style, literally throwing himself into the lives of other people and using film as a form of social conscience that explores the plight of ordinary, powerless individuals against the anonymous face of political and social bureaucracies. This is especially so with A S treet to D ie (1985), and his celebrated second feature, B ack lash (1986), which was scripted with his cast on a day-to-day basis while on location.

Bennett’s background in television journalism and documen­ tary drama is an important, if obvious, conceptual and practical stepping stone in the development of his thematic and stylistic concerns. He believes there is a strong link between his writing experiences and his filmmaking. Bennett:

B

I’m interested in people: what people do, the way they treat each other, the way we live our lives and how those lives are changing.

What journalism allowed me, in a very short and concentrated period of time, was to throw myself into other people’s lives and to gather very quickly a wide cross-section of experiences. It was a very important period for me because it fuelled me as an interpreter of contemporary life, if I can call myself that.

Bennett maintained his independent stance as writer, director and producer on a number of low-budget, though very respect­ able, tele-features and feature films (including M a lp r a ctice and M o r t g a g e ). But his two features after B ack lash, D ea r C a r d h o ld e r and j i l t e d -produced in 1986 and 1989 respectively-w ere never theatrically released.

At face value, it would appear that after the theatrical disap­ pointments of D ea r C a r d h o ld e r and J i l t e d Bennett bailed out, and a four-year hiatus from feature filmm aking ensued. S p id er & R o s e , which recently screened in the M arché at the Cannes Film Festival, marks his return.

Not unlike B a ck la sh , S p id er & R o s e is a road movie with only a handful of characters. It is a film about Rose (Ruth Cracknell), who has lost her will to live after the death of her husband, and Spider (Simon Bossell), an unruly young ambulance officer who has been greatly affected by dealing with death. Where the old 42

. CINEMA

PAPERS

100

What this film is about I think is the foolishness of making assumptions about people. It’s not so much about age-ism or age prejudices, because Rose is as prejudiced towards him as he is towards her. But all the way through the film, they meet people and they think they know them, but in fact find out that they don’t.

I really think we shouldn’t judge people. Often there is much more underneath than we realize, and in absolute contradiction to the way they look or apparently behave.

As we approach the turn of the millennium, we are moving towards, or we have been forced to move to­ wards, a much more integrated society. Immigration is going to become a very big issue; we are going to have to live very closely with different cultures. Already schisms are happening because people have an inability to actually confront that fact.

What they are really talking about is fear.

That analysis is apt in terms of the European scenario, the m igrating patterns of displaced populations which form multi­ cultural societies in countries like A ustralia and Canada. Bennett: Spider & R ose is a very positive film about the fact that you must never accept your lot in life. People will always try to put you down, they will always try to shackle you, whether it’s because you are an old person and they think you should behave in a certain way, or whether it’s because you are a young person and you’re not allowed to do this. This is a film which says you must follow your heart. You must never lose the life force that’s within all of us, because that life force is going to enable us to overcome most things.

Again, at face value, the film appears to m ark a somewhat obstinate return to the concerns of Bennett’s earlier w ork. But

houses. I would like to be in a position where my stories are disseminated by a wide audience, and the way to do that is by using the medium to the full extent.

Essentially, for Bennett this meant bringing a support­ ive producer to his side, rather than once again wearing the producer’s hat. Thus, in a scenario that can be por­ trayed as something of a “like a virgin” experience, S p id er & R o s e also marks the producing debut for Dendy C in em a p rin c ip a ls Lyn M c C a rth y an d G raem e Tubbenhauer.

The basis of the association between Bennett and Dendy was forged back in 1986 when Dendy distributed B ack lash. Bennett met up with M cC arthy several years later at an opportune time: Bennett was working on the script while M cC arthy and Tubbenhauer were feeling the need to move into production, and were looking for something to produce. After having read the script, it was the combination of comedy and pathos that, from a “Dendy Cinema perspective”, finally sealed M cC arthy and Tubbenhauer’s involvement in the project. M cCarthy: Bennett m aintains a distinction: “I regard everything I’ve done up to this film as being part of my apprenticeship. If you like, S p id er & R o s e is like my first film after graduation.”

This is an unusual proposition given that, within the filmmaking community, Bennett is recognized as having developed his own very distinctive style and voice. The long hiatus was actually spent w orking through 13 drafts of the screenplay, which obvi­ ously leaves little room for improvisation, a practice once so central to Bennett in terms of scripting and the performance of his actors. Bennett: The reason I haven’t made a film for so long is because I decided that the period of my working life which involved films like Backlash and M alpra ctice was over. At that stage, improvisation was important, and it was something I wanted to explore, having come out of documentary. It had always struck me that a lot of drama was too stitched up and too staid. With M alpra ctice, Backlash and so on, I really wanted to try to capture “truth”.

Spider & R ose is not like that. It’s not that search for “truth” spontaneously. This is a very precise shoot and there is very little that is made up on the day. All of the film has been very carefully thought through.

W orking in a much more tightly-controlled and precise w ay meant securing the right am ount of money, the right amount of time, and the right people behind it. In the past, Bennett has not only written and directed, he has produced, if not co-produced, his own films. In undertaking such a m arathon effort, he could never quite free himself up to concern himself completely with the creative endeavour of m aking a film. Bennett: I felt that I started to get tired of not having a proper crew and not being able to have time to figure out how to use cinema. I love cinema and this is the first time I’ve ever really been given the opportunity to explore my love of it.

M oreover, Bennett’s desire to explore the possibilities of cinema w as also fuelled by the dissatisfactions of the small audience appeal of his earlier films.

Ultimately, my aim is to be able to tell stories that a large number of people can see. It occurred to me that if I kept going down a M a lpra ctice or Backlash vein, I’d always be stuck in small art-

If you want to look at it from a commercial point of view, we’ve had a lot of successes with that kind of film. I read that combination and I saw bucks: make ’em laugh, make ’em cry and make ’em pay. [Laughs] O riginally, M cCarthy and Tubbenhauer made a bold and brash move in attempting to have the film made as a co­ production with Zenith in London. From an international distri­ bution perspective, the co-production attempt w as one of two options: taking the easy road by securing a well-known English actor for the rôle of Rose, or deciding on the tougher road with a local talent. The latter option was finally settled upon. M cCarthy: We spent a couple of weeks in London trying to cast it and, after that process, we actually realized the best person for the rôle was Ruth Cracknell.

Now, our overseas distributors said, ‘Couldn’t we put the absolute best person in, but someone whom we all know.’ That would have been fine if we could find the person. But there is a lot of risk-taking in the rôle: she does nudity, and it’s very emotion­ ally risky. There were not many 60-plus actresses who wanted to do it and some agents wouldn’t even show their clients the script.

At the end of the day, we said, ‘Okay, we know it’s going to be a tough call, but it’s going to be an all-Australian movie.’

Zenith pulled out, but another opportune moment arose when the Film Finance Corporation undertook changes to the Film Fund in 1992. M cCarthy: I think the Film Finance Corporation got its act together by realizing that they shouldn’t treat the Film Fund like a chookraffle and ‘best of bad lot wins’. They have to say to people, ‘Develop this script further and then come back to us’.

We say this all the time, because Graeme and I are in no rush. We don’t need the money. We j ust want to make the best movies we can.

Bennett believes having M cC arthy and Tubbenhauer on board has given him more creative freedom and more resources to explore his rôle as a filmm aker. Bennett: Right from the start, they have encouraged me to be very bold.

They gave me a creative brief, if you like, to really go for it, which is a terrifying prospect for a filmmaker, because you have no excuses to hide behind.

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 43

Spider & Rose

The film was shot in locales mostly around Mudgee. M cCarthy:

From my point of view, this kind of collaboration is absolutely wonderful for a director because you have producers who respect the director’s task, and yet have input. When you have mutual respect, then the whole collaboration process works really well.

Lyn and Graeme, even though it’s their first film, have enor­ mous experience in assessing films. They’ve been fantastic be­ cause they have buffered me, but also because they have an overview which at times I don’t have.

M cC arthy adds: We have a really good division of labour because Graeme and I don’t want to be directors. We are happy to be producers; we find it really creative.

At the same time, it was very important for us to have the right script and the right director to work with, because all else follows.

If you know that on a personal level you have the same attitudes about life, if you get on together, and that all of us are heading in the right direction, then any little bumps along the way are just that.

Tubbenhauer: I can also say as a exhibitor-distributor that the whole experience has been incredibly rewarding for me. Up until this time, I hadn’t been on a film shoot before. I have learnt an incredible amount and, each time I now see a film, I will be looking at it slightly differently from this experience. I can really see the process now.

All those behind S p id er & R o s e set out to make it very adventurous looking. M cC arthy, for one, wanted to see the $3.4 m illion up there on the screen. In part as a result, it has been shot in Super 35 and is going to be projected in anamorphic.

Bennett is extremely enthusiastic about working with director of photography Andrew Lesnie. They had known each other for some time, but this is their first feature together. Bennett: Andrew has just been a gem. He has contributed enormously and it has been an association that I have found very rewarding. I hope it will continue over future films.

I went to Andrew with some ideas in terms of the overall look.

I was really taken with an American stills photographer, William Eggleston, who shoots a lot in the southern states of America, Louisiana and so on. His photographs have a very distinct look in that the colour is very complex. Andrew and I spent hours perusing these photographs, trying to break down the effects he achieved. We then did extensive camera tests with various filter packs to try and get a look that would not be copying that, but would be distinctly Australian.

We came up with a filter pack we felt comfortable with and which would ultimately link thematically with what the film was saying. There is no point in doing all this fancy technical stuff if it’s just there for its own purpose. It has to link in narratively and thematically.

I basically wanted the film to play stylistically against the script.

The script reads as a kind of pastoral story, but I wanted it to be shot in a very urban, gritty, confrontational style, and yet still keep a semblance of elegance. It’s a tough balance, but I think we have achieved the elegance and also a real edge in terms of very abrasive camera movements. Maybe for the first time in my life, I feel as though I’ve found my distinctive style.

Tubbenhauer is certainly enthusiastic about the film ’s look: I would have to say that, after 10 years of watching and program­ ming films at the Dendy cinemas, I’ve never seen some of the shots that Bill has accomplished, many of which are very subtle.

The look of the film is very international. It’s not a hackneyed kind of Australian cliché look. Maybe the accents in the film aren’t international, but everything else about it is.

44 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

Mudgee is not only the place we went to shoot, but stands for a particular kind of Australian landscape that you don’t usually see: rolling green hills, sheep and cows, instead of your red desert, kangaroos and your emus.

One of the reasons we had to be really creative was because it is a road movie. The film could have been boring with two people just sitting inside a car, which is what the two characters do a lot of the time.

Not only are the producers happy with w hat Bennett has done to visualize the film, they have been impressed by his w ork on set w ith the crew. Tubbenhauer: What Bill has actually brought to this project is an incredible leadership which everyone recognizes and respects. People would have walked over hot coals for Bill during this film, both the cast and crew. Bill is a lucid commentator and communicates very clearly. His personal vision of this film has been so well imparted that he has been able to achieve whatever he wants.

M cCarthy and Tubbenhauer left the everyday running of the production to their line producer Ju lia Overton and “a fantastic production team ”. M cC arthy: The whole crew are the best possible people you can get; there is no denying it. They have got on with their job, they have been incredibly business-like. They have loved working and have worked really hard. You couldn’t ask for anything more.

Bennett adds: We’ve had enorfnous fun on the film, and that’s terribly impor­ tant. As a director, what I aspire to do is create the right environment each day on the set so that people can give their best.

It’s been a very happy shoot and I’ve had an absolute ball.

That sense of engagement and fun has been carried through post-production with the choice of music, which w ill be the basis for a lot of humour and emotion. Prim arily, the filmmakers have used music by the A ria-winning A ustralian rock group, The Cruel Sea. Tubbenhauer: If you know the band, the thing about them is that they are essentially instrumental. That’s good for us because you need that incidental music as well. They are a great band that has a diversity of style.

There are a few other groupss, as well. We’ve got some Dead Kennedys in there, and the Deltones. The Deltones are in there for one funny scene.

Getting The Cruel Sea was the initiative of Christine Woodrop, the musical director. She played two bars of music and Bennett and M cC arthy looked at each other and said, “T hat’s them !”

Completed in time for Cannes, the film w ill be released n atio n ally in September by Dendy Films. M cC arthy and Tubbenhauer plan for the film to have mainstream theatrical exhibition as well as play the festival circuit. M cC arthy: We are going to have the Australian premiere in Mudgee. It was a very good experience shooting there and the people of Mudgee want it, so we agreed.

Based on the material, I believe the film should have a platform release. We will go out on a certain amount of prints and build from that, depending on how we are going. I think that’s a smart way of releasing any film at the quality end of the market.

Tubbenhauer adds: Domestically, I don’t have any doubts that this film is going to be very popular, given the creative people involved and Ruth Cracknell’s involvement.

Internationally, it’s always unclear how things are going to go.

We really have to wait to see how we go at Cannes, because it’s the best barometer. But I personally believe the script and the way it’s been shot is very exciting and world-class.

■

H

n in n if ig T o T 1

0 0

0

o u t

F IL I

1

0

0

10 c°Pies of A u stralian Cinem a Edited by Scott Murray Published by AUen&Unwin rrp $24.95

by Adrian Martin Published by McPhee Gribble rrp $16.95 □ Colours: Blue Supplied by Newvision Distributors □

Cambridge University Press rrp $29.95 □ rrp $12.95 □

□

10 copies of Phantasms

10 classic movie posters including Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Three

A Selection of titles from the Cambridge Film Classic series Published by

5 copies of The Paper based on the screenplay Published by Penguin Books Group

5 copies of Fearless by Rafael Yglesias Published by Penguin Books rrp $12.95 □

Published by Prentice Hall rrp $25.95

™ IS S U

10 copies of Method Actors

10 assorted movie soundtracks on CD Supplied by Readings Bookstore □

Film Scripts Supplied by Cinestore [ j 5 AFI National Memberships valued at $40.00 each □ Memberships Valued at 30 each - programme run by the National Film and Sound Archive □ 1992 Edited by Scott Murray Published by Oxford University Press rrp $39.95 □

10 assorted

2 Yearly Kookaburra Card

5 copies of A ustralian Film 1978-

7 copies of Back of Beyond: Discovering

A ustralian Film and Television Edited by Scott Murray rrp $24.95

Please use boxes provided to indicate order of preference. Please note however that we cannot guarantee such preferences will be met as supply is on a ‘first come’ basis Many thanks to the numerous groups who donated gifts for this promotion

BACK

ISSUES: w

CINEMA h

NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)

Ken C am eron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharm an, French film, My Brilliant

Paul Cox, Russell M ulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, R obert Duvall, Jerem y Irons,

Career.

Eureka Stockade. Waterfront, The Boy In The Bush,A Woman Suffers, Street Hero.

Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thom s, Stax, Alison's Birthday

NUMBER 24 (DEC/JAN 1980) Brian Trenchard-Sm ith, Ian Holm es, A rthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, Harlequin.

NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980) David Puttnam , Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain

Reaction, Stir.

NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980) Charles H. Joffe, Jerom e Heilm an, M alcolm Smith, Australian nationalism , Japanese cinem a, Peter W eir, Water

NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974):

Under The Bridge.

David W illiamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Arm strong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that

NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980)

NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974): Censorship, Frank M oorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy H a rb u tt, Film under Allende, Between The Wars, Alvin Purple

NUMBER 3 (JULY 1974): R ichard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O ’Brien, W illiam Friedkin, The

True Story O f Eskimo Nell.

NUMBER 10 (SEPT/OCT 1976) N agisa O shim a, Philippe M ora, Krzysztof Zanussi, M arco Ferreri, M arco Belloochio, gay cinema.

R andal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham , Donald Richie, obituary of H itchcock, N Z film industry, G rendel Grendel Grendel.

NUMBER 28 (AUG/SEPT 1980) Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Burns, John O ’Shea, Bruce Beresford, Bad

Timing, Roadgames.

NUMBER 29 (OCT/NOV 1980) Bob Ellis, Uri W indt, Edw ard W oodw ard, Lino Brocka, Stephen W allace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw.

NUMBER 36 (FEBRUARY 1982) Kevin D obson, Brian Kearney, Sonia H ofm ann, M ichael R ubbo, Blow Out,

NUMBER 11 (JANUARY 1977)

Breaker Movant, Body Heat, The Man From Snowy River.

Emile De A ntonio, Jill R obb, Samuel Z. Arkoff, R om an Polanski, Saul Bass, The

NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982)

Picture Show Man. NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977)

Stephen M acLean, Jacki W eaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, wom en in dram a,

M onkey Grip.

Ken Loach, Tom H aydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John D ankw orth, 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 a tt Carroll, Eric Rohm er, Terry Jackm an, John H uston, Luke's

Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady.

NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978) Tom C ow an, T ruffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen W allace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan film, Chant O f Jimmie Black­

smith.

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

m

NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979)

NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979)

Ate Paris.

PAPERS

NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982) Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, Jam es Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony W illiams, law and insurance.

NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984) R ichard Lowenstein, W im W enders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh H udson, Robbery Under Arms.

NUMBER 48 (OCT/NOV 1984) Ken C am eron, M ichael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Body line. The Slim

Dusty MoL’ie.

NUMBER 49 (DECEMBER 1984) Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch M cG regor, Ennio M orricone, Jane Cam pion, horror films, Niel Lynne.

NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985) Stephen W allace, Ian Pringle, W alerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill Conti, Brian M ay, The Last Bastion, Bliss.

NUMBER 51 (MAY 1985)

slides, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Jilted.

Ruo, Winners, The Naked Country, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms.

1

NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987)

NUMBER 52 (JULY 1985) John Schlesinger, Gillian A rm strong, Alan Parker, soap operas, TV News, film advertising, D on’t Call Me Girlie, For

Love Alone, Double Sculls.

NUMBER 53 (SEPTEMBER 1985) Bryan Brown, N icolas Roeg, Vincent W ard, H ector C raw ford, Emir Kusturica, N .Z . film and TV, Return To Eden.

NUMBER 54 (NOVEMBER 1985) Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorm an, M enahem G olan, rock videos,

Wills And Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster Miller Affair.

NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986) Jam es Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian T hom pson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek M eddings, tie-in m arketing, The Right-

Hand Man, Birdsville.

NUMBER 39 (AUGUST 1982)

NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986)

Helen M orse, Richard M ason, Anja Breien, David M illikan, Derek G ranger, N orw egian cinem a, N ational Film Archive, We O f The Never Never.

Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’R ourke, Brian Trenchard-Sm ith, John H argreaves,

NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982)

NUMBER 58 (JULY 1986)

Dead-End Drive-In, The More Things Change, Kangaroo, Tracy.

W oody Allen, R einhard H auff, O rson Welles, the Ciném athèque Française, The

Dinner With Andre, The Return O f Captain Invincible.

Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story , The Last Frontier.

NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982)

NUMBER 59 (SEPTEMBER 1986)

Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tam m er, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins,

R obert A ltm an, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnes V arda, The AFI A w ards, The

The Year O f Living Dangerously.

Movers.

NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983)

NUMBER 60 (NOVEMBER 1986)

The Man From Snowy River.

A ustralian Television, Franco Zeffirelli, N adia Tass, Bill Bennett, D utch Cinema, M ovies By M icrochip, Otello.

Bill Bain, Isabelle H uppert, Brian M ay, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The

NUMBER 43 (MAY/JUNE 1983)

NUMBER 61 (JANUARY 1987)

Prowler.

Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graem e Clifford, The Dismissal, Careful

Alex Cox, R om an Polanski, Philippe M ora, M artin Arm iger, film in South A ustralia, Dogs In Space, Howling III.

NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978)

NUMBER 18 (OCT/NOV 1978)

Mel G ibson, John W aters, Ian Pringle, Agnes V arda, copyright, Strikebound,

He Might Hear You.

John Lam ond, Sonia Borg, Alain T anner, Indian cinem a, Dimboola, Cathy’s Child.

NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)

NUMBER 62 (MARCH 1987)

NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979)

D avid Stevens, Simon W incer, Susan Lam bert, a personal history of Cinema

Screen Violence, David Lynch, Cary G rant, ASSA conference, production barom eter, film finance, The Story O f

Antony Ginnane, Stanley Haw es, Jeremy T hom as, Andrew Sarris, sponsored docum entaries, Blue Fin. 46 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

Papers, Street Kids.

Gillian A rm strong, A ntony Ginnane, r Chris H ayw ood, Elm ore Leonard, Troy Kennedy M artin, The Sacrifice, Land­

Lino Brocka, H arrison Ford, Noni H azlehurst, Dusan M akavejev, Emoh

Far East.

H enri Safran, M ichael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, W endy H ughes, Ray Barrett, My

NUMBER 63 (MAY 1987)

The Kelly Gang.

N ostalgia, Dennis H opper, Mel Gibson, V ladim ir O sherov, Brian TrenchardSmith, C hartbusters, Insatiable.

NUMBER 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987) Angela C arter, W im W enders, Jean-Pierre G orin, Derek Jarm an, G erald L'EcuvcsjPl G ustav H asford, AFI Aw ards, Poor

M an’s Orange.

NUMBER 66 (NOVEMBER 1987) A ustralian Screenwriters, Cinem a and China, Jam es Bond, Jam es Clayden, Video, De L aurentiis, New W orld, The

Navigator, Who's That Girl.

NUMBER 67 (JANUARY 1988) John D uigan, George M iller, Jim Jarm usch, Soviet cinem a- Part I, women in film, shooting in 70m m , filmmaking in G hana, The Year M y Voice Broke, i

Send A Gorilla.

NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988) M artha Ansara, Channel 4, Soviet Cinema, Jim McBride, Glam our, Ghosts

O f The Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean.

NUMBER 69 (MAY 1988) C annes ’88, film com posers, sex, death and family films, Vincent W ard, David Parker, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes.

NUMBER 70 (NOVEMBER 1988) Film A ustralia, Gillian A rm strong, Fred Schepisi, Wes Craven, John Waters, A1 Clark, Shame Screenplay Part I.

NUMBER 71 (JANUARY 1989) Y ahoo Serious, David Cronenberg, 1988 in Retrospect, Film Sound , Last Temp­ tation o f Christ, Philip Brophy

NUMBER 72 (MARCH 1989) Charles D ickens’ Little Dorrit, Australian.

Sci-Fi movies, Survey: 1988 Mini-Series, A rom aram a, Ann T u rn er’s Celia, Fellini’s La dolce vita, W om en and W esterns

NUMBER 73 (MAY 1989) Cannes ’89, Dead Calm , Franco Nero, Jane C am pion, Ian Pringle’s The Prisoner o f St. Petersburg, Frank Pierson, Pay TV. NUMBER 74 (JULY 1989) The Delinquents, A ustralians in Hollywood, Chinese Cinem a, Philippe M ora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, Ghosts... o f the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay.

BACK OF BEYOND NUMBER 75 (SEPTEMBER 1989)

DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AN D TELEVISION

Sally Bongers, The Teen Movie, Animated, Edens Lost, Mary Lambert and Pet Sematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman.

A

NUMBER 76 (NOVEMBER 1989)

Simon Wincer, Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok Hilton, John Duigan, Flirting, Romero, Dennis Hopper and Kiefer Sutherland, Frank Howson, Ron Cobb.

LIMITED NUMBER of the beautifully designed catalogues especially prepared for the 1988 season of Australian film and television at the UCLA film and television archive in the U.S.

are now available for sale in Australia. Edited by Scott

NUMBER 77 (JANUARY 1990)

Special John Farrow profile, Blood Oath, Dennis Whitburn and Brian Williams, Don McLennan and Breakaway, “Crocodile” Dundee overseas.

Murray, and with extensively researched articles by several of Australia’s leading writers on film and televi­ sion, such as Kate Sands, Women of the W ave; Ross

NUMBER 78 (MARCH 1990)

George Ogilvie’s The Crossing, Ray Argali’s Return Home, Peter Greenaway and The Cook...etc, Michel Ciment, 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 At 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 (MAY 1991)

Australia at Cannes, Gillian Armstrong: The Last Days at Chez Nous, Jonathan 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: Good Woman of Bangkok, Susan Dermody: Breathing Under Water, Cannes report, FFC. NUMBER 85 (NOVEMBER 1991)

Jocelyn Moorhouse: Proof; Blake Edwards: Switch; Callie Khouri: Thelma & Louise; Independent Exhibition and Distribution in Australia, FFC Part II. NUMBER 86 (JANUARY 1992)

Overview of Australian film: Romper Stomper, The Nostradamus Kid, Greenkeeping, Eightball; plus Kathryn Bigelow, HDTV and Super 16.

NUMBER 87 (MARCH 1992)

Multi-Cultural Cinema, Steven Spielberg and Hook, George Negus filming The Red Unknown, Richard Lowenstein Say a Little Prayer, Jewish Cinema.

NUMBER 88 (MAY-JUNE 1992)

Cannes ’92, Strictly Ballroom, Hammers over the Anvil, Daydream Believer, Wim Wenders’ Until the End of the World,

Gibson, Form ative Landscapes; Debi Enker, Cross-over NUMBER 90 (OCTOBER 1992)

Gillian Armstrong: The Last Days of Chez Nous, Ridley Scott: 1492, Stephan Elliot: Frauds, Giorgio Mangiamele, Cultural Differences and Ethnicity in Australian Cinema, John Frankenheimer’s Year of the Gun. NUMBER 91 (JANUARY 1993)

Clint Eastwood and Unforgiven; Raul Ruiz; George Miller and Gross Miscon­ duct; David Elfick’s Love in Limbo, On The Beach, Australia’s First Films.

NUMBER 92 (APRIL 1993)

Yahoo Serious and Reckless Kelly; George Miller and Lorenzo’s Oil; Megan Simpson and Alex; Jean-Jacques’s The Lover, Women in film and television.

Australia’s First Films Part 2.

and Collaboration: Kennedy M iller, Scott Murray, George M iller, Scott Murray, Terry H ayes; Graeme

Turner, M ixing Fact and Fiction; Michael Leigh, Curiouser and Curiouser; Adrian Martin, N urturing the N ext Wave.

The Back o f Beyond Catalogue is lavishly illustrated with more than 130 photographs, indexed, and has full credit listings for some 80 films.

PRICE:

$24.95, including postage and packaging.

NUMBER 93 (MAY 1993)

Australian films at Cannes, Jane Campion and The Piano, Laurie Mclnnes’ Broken Highway, Tracey Moffat’s Bedevil, Lightworks and Avid debate NUMBER 94 (AUGUST 1993)

Cannes Report, Steve Buscemi and Reservoir Dogs, Paul Cox interview, Michael Jenkin’s The Heartbreak Kid, ‘Coming of Age’ films.

NUMBER 95 (OCTOBER 1993)

Lynn-Maree Milburn’s Memories & Dreams, The Science of Previews, John Dingwall and The Custodian, Documen­ tary Supplement including Man Bites Dog, Tom Zubrycki, John Hughes.

NUMBER 96 (DECEMBER 1993)

Queensland issue: An overview of film in Queensland, Early Queensland cinema, Jason Donovan and Donald Crombie: Rough Diamonds, The Penal Colony.

NUMBER 97/98 (APRIL 1994)

20th Anniversay double issue with New Zealand supplement, industry comments, Simon Wincer’s Lightning Jack, Richard Franklin, The Salvation Army.

NUMBER 99 (JUNE 1994)

Australian films at Cannes ’94, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Ken G. Hall Tribute, special Cinematography supplement, Geoffrey Burton, Pauline Chan’s Traps.

■

Satyajit Ray. NUMBER 89 (AUGUST 1992)

Cannes ’92, David Lynch, Vitali Kanievski, Gianni Amelio interview, Christopher Lambert in Fortress, FilmLiterature Connections, Teen Movies.

SEE O V E R P A G E F O R S U B S C R IP T IO N & O R D E R F O R M

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 47

CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTION I wish to subscribe for

I N T E R N A T I O N A l RATES With 25%

6 Issues

12 Issues

18 Issues

Back Issues

Increase

1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

Add to Price

Zone 1:

Surface

Surface

per copy

J 6 issues at $35.00 (one year) Save $16.70! j 12 issues at $65.00 (two years) Save $18.40!

L_ 18 issues at $95.00 (three years) Save $30.10!

my subscription from the next issue

Total Cost________________

New Zealand

S45

$84

$121

$1.80

Air

Air

Air

Air

$60

$114

$166

$3.35

Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface

Malaysia

$45

$84

$121

$1.80

Fiji

Air

Air

Air

Air

$66

$126

$184

$3.20

Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface

$45

$84

$121

$1.80

Zone 2:

Singapore Zone 3: Hong Kong

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

Surface

Niugini

Please □ begin renew

Surface

India

Air

Air

Air

Air

Japan

$72

$138

$202

$5.15

Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface

Philippines

1. BACK OF BEYOND:

China

DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM A N D TELEVISION Zone 4:

I wish to order

no. of copies

$24.95 per copy (Includes Postage)

USA

$48

$90

$130

$2.40

Canada

Air

Air

Air

Air

Middle East

$81

$156

$229

$6.20

Total Cost $ _______________ Surface

Surface

Surface

$urface

UK/Europe

$48

$90

$130

$2.40

Africa

Air

Air

Air

Air

South America

$87

$168

$247

$7.20

Zone 5:

2. BACK ISSUES

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

FILL OUT AND 1-2 copies @ $4.50 each □ 3-4 copies @ $4.00 each

MAIL

NOW!

NAME ___ TITLE ___

] 5-6 copies @ $3.50 each □ 7 or more copies @ $3.00 each

COMPANY

Total no. of issues.

ADDRESS _

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 NB. ALL OVERSEAS ORDERS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY BANK DRAFTS IN AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS ONLY

______________ w o r k ______

home

Enclosed is my cheque for $ or please debit my BANKCARD

~

MASTERCARD

~ VISACARD

Card N o.___________________________________ Expiry Date_________________________________ Signature_______________________________ _

The Film and Digital W orld Bruce Williamson’s brainchild, the Digital Courier, is a way of transferring film images directly into the compressed digital format for non­ linear editing, beating the log-jam at the telecine stage, and avoiding the traffic

Bruce says the idea arose from a party c o n v e rs a tio n ,

w he n

a frie n d

d e s c rib e d

Telecom ’s goal of being able to send by phone anything currently delivered by a courier serv­

jams outside as well. Rushes have never been so quick! I spoke with Williamson

ice. Instantly to mind came the lab’s 6:30 am

at Atlab to get an idea of how far this remarkable idea had progressed.

courier, racing around town delivering proc­

Meanwhile, anyone who goes to the cinema (that much at least must be a common factor for the readers of this column) can’t have failed to notice the increase in numbers of commercials before the feature. The change is perhaps directly attributable to the re-born kine process, currently available from three Sydney effects houses: Acme, Zap and Animal Logic, each of which operates a slightly different process. Chats with all three.

Finally, with the options for post-production increasing all the time, I spoke with Simon Dibbs of Spectrum about the implications for post-production and the film industry now that non-linear editing is being adopted by so many productions.

essed negative to the tape houses before the traffic built up. And so the “ Digital Courier” came about.

Digital Courier is an open system for send­ ing digitized, compressed images and sound over commonly-available telephone lines. It was conceived for those productions originating on film, and editing on non-linear editing systems.

The intention was to reduce the time taken in getting images from the negative into the edit­ ing system, wherever the system was located.

For Atlab’s initial testing, they got together with Quinto, which supplied Lightworks equip­ ment, with Spectrum, whose Lightworks sys­ tem has received the first test transm issions, and with Telecom, of which W illiam son was

The Digital Courier The film -to-television interface has been around for a long time. In fact, the very first BBC television transm issions, in 1936, were shot in the studio on film, which passed directly from the camera gate into a rapid developer, and the negative was scanned by a flying spot camera while still wet (wet gate as well!). Not so many years ago, “grading by telephone” used to be a joke around the lab, dragged out by someone every time the agency wanted a new print, they wanted it now, and, no, there w asn’t time to send the old one back by courier. But now, in w hat he claim s to be a w orld first, Bruce W illiam son, R&D m anager at Atlab, is about to offer not just grading, but telecine and editing by phone as well.

moved to say, “They supplied heaps of inform a­ tion and technical backup. Geez! they were good. I can’t speak highly enough of them .”

W illiam son explained that the idea is based on Telecom ’s ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network). To start the operation, processed camera negative is run through A tlab’s Rank Cintel telecine and the signal is digitized and compressed and stored on hard disk. There is no videotape in any form at involved.

Next, the com pressed image data is sent via Telecom ’s ISDN service. Atlab has tested the system by transm itting data to a Lightworks system at Spectrum Films in W illoughby. After some tests of mute shots lasting only a few seconds, they have built up to a ten-m inute edited segm ent with sound, which was tran s­ m itted in just over twelve minutes. (The con­ cept of “ running tim e” has little meaning: you CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 . 49

ATLAB'S BRUCE WILLIAMSON AT THE DIGITAL COURIER.

sent to the lab fo r reference; final edits can be sb n t to the lab w ith the ED L fo r neg m atching; or sound e ffects can be sent from any location d ire ct to the editing m achine.

Yes, it’s all possible. W h a t’s not p ossible is to finish this piece w ith o u t dragging in a re fe r­ ence to T he D igital H ighw ay. W ill the D igital C o u rie r take film post-p ro d u ctio n out of the tra ffic and onto the expressw ay? P erhaps - at least the o n-ram p is in sig h t - but it’s still a long w ay to reach the fa st lane.

Digital Film Transfers: Coming Back to Film ca n ’t w atch the pictures as they com e down the

W illiam son com pared the set-up cost with

phone line). The data received is fed d ire ctly

buying a Betacam SP recorder. For a p e rm a­

into Lightw orks, ready fo r editing.

nent editing fa cility across tow n it w as well

W illiam son contrasts the D igital C o u rie rw ith

ju stifie d , he thought, although prices will have

the “V id e o fa x ” se rvic e c u rre n tly o p e ra tin g ,

to com e down before it is viable as a set-up f o r '

w hereby finished tele visio n co m m e rcia ls are

location rushes on a six-w eek fe a tu re shoot!

tra n s m itte d to s ta tio n s . He e x p la in e d th a t

E ssentially, the daily cost has to be com pared

V ideofax uses T e le co m ’s “M icro lin k” service,

with the cost of cassette tapes and couriers,

connecting only tw o ISDN phone lines. So, a

and in term s of the tim e saved. Can the co m ­

30-second com m ercial w ould take about ten

m ercials e d ito r sta rt cutting as soon as he gets

m inutes to send. A tla b ’s D igital C o u rie r is d e ­

in to w ork? Does the Gold C oast production

signed for rushes of com m ercial or program m e

w ant to sta rt an o n-location assem bly the sam e

m aterial - m aybe several thousand fe e t of film

day, or can it w ait fo r the next flig h t? How

at a tim e, up to an h o u r’s running tim e - which

im portant is the tim e saved?

w ould take all day to send at th a t rate.

My own concern is that, at a tim e when

To speed things up, A tlab chose to use

d ire cto rs and DOPs are concerned a bout not

“ M acrolink” , w hich distrib u te s the picture in fo r­

seeing film rushes, the D igital C o u rie r is e ro d ­

m ation across 30 phone lines, each capable of

ing even the second option of a videotape, and

carrying 6 4K b/sec.B e ca u se the data is co m ­

going stra ig h t into the co m pressed editing fo r­

pressed fo r storage before tele p h o n e tra n s m is ­

m at - okay fo r editors, useless fo r c in e m a to g ­

sion, fa s te r tim es can be achieved by more

raphers. W illiam son agreed th a t it w ould be

com pression - but naturally at the cost of im age

possible to take a second feed from the telecine

quality. Bruce W illiam son explained th a t the

to m ake a videotape copy, w hich could be

1 2 -m in u te re s u lt w as usin g th e “ m e d iu m ”

delivered in the con ve n tio n a l way. He also

Lightw orks quality, m ost often used fo r dram a

m entioned a m o dification to the telecine which

editing. Sound is stored in a se parate (sm aller)

w ould allow the te le cin e grade to be reported in

data file, w ith a third file to link and sync the

term s of film grading lights. T his is a poor

im age and sound toge th e r. These take a fra c ­

su b stitu te fo r a w orkprint, but perhaps one that

tion of the tim e that the im age takes to transm it.

begins to address som e of the problem s c u r­

A t first glance, it seem s the system w ill not

rently fe lt by directors.

be cheap. To set up an ISDN connection at

W ill it succeed? Can D igital C o u rie r fit into

presen t costs $3,000; and then th e re is an

the in cre a sin g ly com plex netw ork of p o s t-p ro ­

annual service fee of $12,000 (e q u iva le n t to

duction options? For producers w ho insist on

line rental). Then you need the m u ltip le xe r or

U rsa-type q uality fo r th e ir video rushes, it’s

Call me an o ld -fashioned cynic if you like (you w o n ’t be alone), but I’m a little bit d isappointed every tim e I settle down w ith the popcorn at the cinem a, and the com m ercials start. Not the slides fo r the Thai restaurant round the corner, but the fu ll-on te le visio n com m ercials. T h a t’s w hat they are, of course, tra n sfe rre d stra ig h t off the sm all screen. Sure, the e ffe cts are great (and th a t’s the problem ), but it’s still television.

Not only are they the ads I th o u g h t I’d left at hom e, th e y som ehow d o n ’t have the visual im pact th a t I cam e out to see. O bjectively, th e re a re n ’t the clean, rich, detailed blacks, nor are the im ages so sharp.

W hat w e ’re seeing, of course, is g o o d oldfa sh io n e d kines. And having had my grum ble th a t it’s not real film , I have to adm it th a t kines are looking heaps b e tte r than th e y e ver used to.

W ho rem em bers the o ld e r style of ta p e -to -film tra n sfe r, direct from one-inch? T he sh a rp e st thing on the screen w as alw ays the television lines, and as fo r shadow detail ... w ell, the old kines are no m ore. O ver the past couple of years th e re ’s been a dram atic im provem ent, w ith the new tra n sfe rs com ing, not out of the vid e o houses, but from the special e ffects and production com panies.

K in e -re cording! Even the nam e sounds a r­ chaic, so it’s no w o n d er th a t th e re ’s a new term .

The phrase now is “ D igital Film T ra n s fe rs ” . And the big d iffe re n ce is due to H arry, and a new gene ra tio n of optical film recorders (cam eras).

decoder. T hese are cu rre n tly in the vicin ity of

hard to see them acce p tin g p ictu re s-b y-p h o n e .

ACME

$12,000, although W illiam son says th a t a ye a r

But D igital C o u rie r can link in w ith autom atic

se rvice fo r about fo u r years, and its cu rre n t

ago the price w as $22,000, and he expects all

rushes syncing - already a p o ssib ility w ith the

system , like A nim al L o g ic’s, is based on the

these costs to com e dow n fu rth e r as the ISDN

Aaton in-cam era tim e co d e system and with

O xb e rry S o litaire cam era. T he m ajority of co m ­

system is used m ore. A fte r all this, th e re ’s the

phone exchange of film logging files - and then

m ercials you w ill see at the cinem a (and nearly

cost of the phone calls - a ple a sa n t surprise: a

th e re is real p otential fo r much w id e r a p p lic a ­

all of them are tra n sfe rre d from a video finish)

local connection can be as little as $12.75 fo r3 0

tion. As W illiam son points out, the ne tw o rk is

have been tra n sfe rre d at A cm e. P e te r Flynn

m inutes before 8:00 am (w hich, a fte r all, is the

not lim ited to a lab service: users can link up

com m ented th a t S ydney had becom e the “ kine

A cm e has had its digital film tra n s fe r

right tim e fo r a rushes service), although the

w ith each other, so that, fo r exam ple, the e d ito r

c a p ita l” of S outh E ast A sia, fo r p roducers w ho

price rises steeply during business hours or fo r

can send a rough cut to stu d io bosses inte rsta te

used to send com m ercials to London or the

interstate connections.

or overseas; optical e ffe cts seq u e n ce s can be

U nited S tates. For com m ercials, Flynn claim ed

50 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

TECHN ITAIITIFS the

digital

---------wor

Id

th a t A cm e w as “A tla b ’s b ig g e s t c u s to m e r” -

the H arry w as useful in a n u m b e r of w ays, as

m ig h t be g ra d ed a cco rd in g to the q u a lity of

tru e e n ough, w hen you c o n s id e r th a t te le v is io n

w ell as c o n tro llin g th e im age q u a lity. For e x a m ­

o utput. Fast clo se -u p action m ight w o rk w ell on

c o m m e rc ia ls leave th e lab a fte r the n e g a tive is

ple, in a T ig e r B e e r ad th e re w a s e xce ssive

a g ra d e 3, w h e re a s a b e tte r grade 8 or 9 m ight

p ro c e sse d , w h e re a s cin e m a ads in vo lve o p ti­

s p a rkle in one sce n e (from th e o rig in a l n e g a ­

be needed fo r a s lo w -m o vin g s h o t of a je t

cal so u n d n e g a tiv e s and bu lk re le a se prin tin g .

tive ), w hich th e y w ere able to p a in t out fra m e by

a g a in s t a c le a r blue sky.

A t th e lab, S im on Ja co b s e stim a te d th a t A cm e

fra m e b e fore tra n s fe rrin g back to film .

ANIMAL LOGIC

m ig h t send a co m m e rcia l n e a rly e v e ry day,

Z ap d o e s n ’t do m any tra n s fe rs by c o m p a ri­

w h e re a s the o th e r tw o fa c ilitie s w o u ld be e ve ry

son w ith A cm e, but, as C ox p o in te d out, at

services is offered by A nim al Logic, w here Zareh

co u p le of w eeks or less.

seven s e co n d s p e r fra m e , he w ould need a n ­

N albandian says it started the service as an

o th e r H arry to cope w ith all the w o rk if it in ­

integrated stage in its productions fo r “all-digital

ZAP

P aul C ox set up th e syste m at Z ap a

cre a se d m uch. M ost of its b u sin e ss is te le visio n

c lie n ts ” . It m ade sense fo r m aterial created in

co u p le of y e a rs ago: it uses a H arry to su b tly

co m m e rc ia ls fo r South E ast A sia, a lth o u g h Zap

the digital fo rm a t by A nim al Logic to be tra n s ­

a lte r the c o lo rim e try of th e im age to su it the film

re ce n tly sh o t som e c o m p u te r a n im a tio n fo r a

ferred to film by the sam e com pany, and it pro ­

e m u ls io n ’s se n s itiv ity . T he c a m e ra itse lf is a

m u ltim e d ia p re s e n ta tio n in N ew Z e a la n d (p ro ­

vided the appropriate im age m anagem ent to crop

D unn ca m e ra w ith a h ig h -re s o lu tio n m o n o ­

d u c e r Logan B rew er).

fitth e 4 :3 im age to cinem a w idescreen, and so on.

T he new est of the three

Since then, said N albandian, the service has

c h ro m e C R T . Each c o lo u r is d is p la y e d in turn

A lth o u g h Zap has done a lot of w o rk to

on the tu b e , and p h o to g ra p h e d o nto Eastm an

m a xim ize its im age qu a lity, and the speed of

extended to “e xternal” clients, w ho sim ply w ant

524 8 n e g a tive th ro u g h the a p p ro p ria te co lo u r

th e pro ce ss points to a h ig h -q u a lity o utput, both

film transfers from finished material.

filte r. It’s a slo w p ro ce ss - each fra m e ta ke s 7

C ox and Je n se n are co n s c io u s of the lim ita ­

A nim al Logic is a digital production house

s e c o n d s - but th is helps to im p ro ve the s h a rp ­

tio n s of the p rocess. C ox fe e ls th a t c lie n ts often

th a t d evelops its own softw are as w ell. M any of

ness and also s lig h tly in cre a se s th e b rig h tn e ss

assu m e th a t all kine p ro ce sse s are now up to

its own de ve lo pm ents include features th a t are

range of the im age as p h o to g ra p h e d . T o in ­

film re so lu tio n s ta n d a rd and a u to m a tic a lly e x ­

useful in enhancing the end result of the film

cre a se the a p p a re n t sh a rp n e s s of th e im age,

pect J u ra s s ic P a rk results, w hich, as Jensen

tra n s fe r process. T he digital im ages, usually

th e ca m e ra “ d ith e rs ” or m oves the line im age

p o in ts out, can o n ly be a ch ie ve d w ith a K odak

treated by the H arry system , are fed via A nim al

v e ry s lig h tly durin g e xp o su re . T h is a p p a re n tly

C ineon o r Q ua n te l D om ino p ro ce ss or sim ila r.

Lo g ic’s E thernet system that links up all of its

g ive s an e ffe ctive 1400 lines re so lu tio n .

A u d ie n c e s d o n ’t d e se rve to be sold short. Cox

facilitie s through its own softw are called S hootit,

s u g g e s te d th a t d iffe re n t film tra n s fe r p ro ce sse s

running on the Silicon G raphics platform , and

S oren Jen se n (also of Z ap) e x p la in e d th a t

H a p p y 100th iooue C in em a P apero H a p p y 100th iooue C in em a Papero H a p p y 100th iooue

O il IMAGE !

HAS NEVER BEEN

O S' a

•3

I

I-

.S i

Si

!

5

Cq

For around 60 years, the Adab group of laboratories has been doing its utmost to ensure that what you shoot is what you get.

Atlab’s network extends from Sydney to Melbourne, Auckland and MovieW orld on Queensland’s Gold Coast.

v w o v iq

BETTER. Our services and facilities include: standard and super 16mm/35mm processing and printing, including wetgate of colour and black and white negatives and positives.

Optical effects. Sound transfers (all formats).

Mono/stereo sound mixing

ovpçn e/iooi fc d d v jj poodv^

v iu o u iq

with THX monitoring.

Colour grading via COLORMASTER. Multiple copy release printing Negative matching including OSC/R via PAL or NTSC.

■f 5

! £• £ fo . à

restoration facilities. Preview theatres for composite and double head.

47 Hotham Parade PO Box 766 Artarmon NSW Australia 2064. (02) 906 0100, Fax (02) 906 7048.

ÌHi 5

I Henderson Partners ATL 045

on o n

e/iooi U d d v jj p j o d v j

v iu o u iq

CINEMA

o v p h

PAPERS

I

1 0 0 • 51

TECH N ICAim rs the

_______

digital

world

a production fram e by fram e fo r film tra n s fe r

right. T h e a trica l stereo in D olby A or D olby SR

can take up to a day fo r a bout tw o m inutes of

has fo u r tracks, adding centre and surround

screen tim e - so a 30- or 6 0-second c o m m e r­

tracks. A cco rd in g to Jacobs, A tla b ’s sound d e ­

cial w ould go overnight. M ost of the w ork - as

p a rtm e n t can do a lot to cre a te fo u r tra cks out of

at the oth e r fa cilitie s - is fo r te le visio n c o m m e r­

tw o, su b tly adding re verberation and o th e r e f­

cials going up fo r cinem a pre se n ta tio n . A l­

fects, and they tre a t each kine tra ck on its own

though there are occasional pieces fo r inclusion

m erits to get the best result.

in p rogram m es, N albandian w as h e sita n t a bout

W ith average costs of around $ 4 ,000 fo r a

th e ir e ffe ctive n e ss: “T h e re ’s still a big d iffe r­

o n e -m in u te com m ercial, from ta p e m a ste r to

ence - you ca n ’t cu t it in w ith orig in a l film

a n sw e r print stage, it’s cle a rly w ell w orth it,

m a te ria l” , although a sh o t in te rcu t w ith other

co m pared w ith the costs of new film opticals,

scenes w o u ld n ’t show up so noticeably.

n egative m atching and so on. D igital ads are good fo r film - th e y ’re bringing som e a d v e rtis ­

THE TECHNICALITIES

F ram ing fo r cinem a

ing revenue into the th e a tre s - and d o e s n ’t the

p resents an in teresting problem . Just as c in ­

fe a tu re look good on film w hen it fin a lly starts!

e m a to g ra p h e rs have to “s h o o t-a n d -p ro te c t” w id e -scre e n film , to allow fo r extra im age top and bottom on video screens, so m aterial shot o rig in a lly fo r television is going to su ffe r top and bottom cropping w hen it is tra n sfe rre d to cinem a screens. O ften th e re ’s a need to rack

Post Production ____on the Rebound?

FRAME ENLARGEMENTS FOR AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR

above or below the m id-fram e position fo r som e

T ape or n o n -lin e a r editing, fo llo w e d by a m atch

CABOTS. WHICH HAD PAINTING DONE ON ANIMAL LOGIC S HENRY.

shots - or to d yn a m ica lly a d ju st rack through a

back to n egative, is an in cre a sin g ly com m on

ANIMAL LOGIC USES THE HENRY FOR RE-RACKING IN VIDEO-TO-

shot. Anim al Logic includes an hour of this re­

p o st-p ro d u ction path fo r all sorts of p ro d u c ­

racking w ork on H enry in its tra n s fe r prices.

tions: not only d o cum entaries, but now dram as

into the O xberry Solitaire film cam era, loaded

N albandian m entioned the su cce ssfu l V ic to ­

and fe a tu re s at all budget levels are being

with Kodak 5245 daylight negative stock. By use

rian Road S afety cam paign from last year,

edited on a m onitor. A t S pectrum , the p ro d u ce r

of intelligent interpolation of pixels, the im age is

w here the fram ing in the original shots was

can choose betw een editing on a fla tb e d film

upgraded from norm al television resolution to

very tight, and c o u ld n ’t be cropped, and so the

editor, Betacam w ith S hotlister, or the latest

e ith e r2 ,0 0 0 o r4 ,0 0 0 lines. This process, unique

im age actually finished up m asked w ith left and

ve rsio n s of Lightw orks. So S p e ctru m ’s Sim on

am ong the Sydney kine system s, is more than

right side bars. This gave the im age b e tte r film

D ibbs is b e tte r placed than alm ost anyone to

sim ply “dithering” or line doubling: fo r each pixel,

resolution than otherw ise, because the full video

com pare the m ethods, and point out the a d v a n ­

the system looks at the pixels all around, and

im age w as blown up to less film w idth.

tages and disa d va n ta g e s of each. And like

FILM TRANSFERS.

m akes intelligent guesses about how to fill in the

At A tlab, Sim on Jacobs - w ho deals with

m any o thers ca u g h t up in the te ch n o lo g ica l

gaps betw een each picture elem ent. As the

D igital Film T ra n sfe rs from all three fa cilitie s -

m aelstrom of post production in the 1990s,

resolution increases, so the m em ory - and tim e

explained a couple of oth e r problem s th a t cam e

D ibbs is w ell aw are of the pitfalls in rushing into

- requirem ents increase: 4,000 line im ages have

w ith fittin g a te le visio n production into a c in ­

new te ch n o lo g y. His voice is one of a grow ing

fo u r tim es the inform ation of 2,000 line im ages

ema form at. The classic, perennial problem is

band urging caution and ta lkin g good com m on

(up to 80 M bytes per fram e), and so the tim e and

the fram e rate: 24 or 25 fra m e s per second.

sense a b o ut the rush to save p o st-p ro d u ctio n

cost increase proportionately.

Invariably, the m aterial is shot at 25 fps fo r

tim e and budgets.

N albandian expla in e d th a t the choice of

te le visio n , and so w ill a p p e a r slow , with fla t

Like m ost co n ve rsa tio n s on this topic, we

resolution depended a lot on the m aterial, and

m usic (just over a sem itone dow n). M oreover,

sta rte d w ith the disa p p e a ra n ce of w orkp rin ts.

the fo rm a t it had started in. T he best choice fo r

a 60-second sp o t w ill run tw o and a half s e c ­

Dibbs:

origination (o th e rth a n purely co m p u te rg ra p h ic -

onds overtim e. C utting fra m e s out of the im age

But a lot of people are coming back to doing at

im age generation) w as 35m m film , w ith 16mm

(w hich Jacobs e xp la in e d could be done at

least some workprint now - ten or fifteen per­

film behind, then source m aterial such as d ig ­

A cm e before the tra n s fe r w as done) w ould

cent or so. I think C ountry Life [M ichael

ital SP Betacam . O ne-inch analogue tape he

a d ju st the running tim e, but w ould also create

Blakemore] did one or two set-ups in each

placed at the bottom of the list. N albandian:

sound sync problem s if lip sync w as involved.

scene. But Tunnel Vision - which is here now

35mm film is the best, although for some types

A tla b ’s sound d e p a rtm e n t has pitch co rre ctio n ,

for Phil Avalon - they workprinted very little;

of image, good Betacam can look very good,

w hich could be used to bring a slow -running

only a few shots where they suspected there

because the clean, bright saturated colours in

track up to tone, but a p p a re n tly w hile voice and

might be a problem.

the original reproduce well all through. With

effects tra cks responded w ell, the results on

rapid movements shot on tape, because of the

m usic, p a rticu la rly w hen it is heard in full D olby

two-field interface problem, you get a double

quality, w ere less than perfect. Ja co b s e x ­

image on every frame when you come out to

plained th a t m ost cu sto m e rs w ere uncertain

film. So, we have to just take one field, and that

how the sound should be tra n sfe rre d when

isn’t so good. It depends entirely on what the

A tlab m ade the optical sound negative. But

W e’re doing it differently in Australia. Most of the world is going about it a different way. I talked to the Lightworks people overseas, and they were amazed that we were going straight off the neg and then just cutting the neg. Every­ where else they are seeing their workprint and then going into Lightworks with what they know

production is.

th e re is a sim ple test: how long does the tra ck

N albandian regards its D igital Film T ra n s fe r

run for? If the total running tim e m atched the

service as ju s t one part of a h ig h ly-in te g ra te d

im age at 25 fps, then the tra n s fe r had to be

everything. It’s okay in principle, but I think

digital production fa cility. T he tim e taken by the

done at 25, and so on.

there are just too many things to go wrong.

S olitaire cam era isn’t really the lim iting fa c to r in the w ork: the entire process of re -rendering 52 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

S tereo sound p resents the o th e r dilem m a.

T e le visio n stereo has tw o tra cks -

left and

to be okay. The thing is, there’s a push from the technocrats to let the computers take care of

O ne of the te ch n ica l th in g s th a t can go w rong - m ainly because very few people can

DIGITAL NON-LINEAR EDITING for FEATURE FILMS

The Dragon Gate THE CUSTODIAN THE SEVENTH FLOOR

)§ Six Degrees of Separation Intersection K a l i m m i

fV \ r\ 4

White Fang I t The Myth of the White Wolf

Eight Seconds

Clear and Present Danger Nightmare On Elm street 7 The Little Rascals The Beverly Hillbillies Highlander III J Lx,kk’ italian“0™^ A ttic BlueO JpCCvlDarkM anii Street Smarts Red Scorpion II The Colour Of Night ANGEL BABY ♦

•

HOTEL SORRENTO NAPOLEON I

L ig

Í h tw o r k s

L igh tw orks N on -L in ear E d itin g S ystem s available from :

QU1NTO COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD SYDNEY: Unit 4 ,3 5 8 Eastern Valley Way, Chatswood, N SW 2 0 6 7 Telephone: (02) 4 1 7 5 1 6 6

MELBOURNE: Unit 1 , 4 5 Gilby Road, Mt. Waverly, VIC 3 1 4 5 Telephone: (03) 5589377

AUCKLAND: 8 The Promenade, Takapuna, Auckland 9 Telephone: (09) 4 8 6 1 2 0 4

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 53

TECHNMf Al ITIFS the digit a I w o r l d

understand w hat is happening - is the issue of

telecine stage. Then the Lightworks digitizes it,

We can o utput the dialogue sound from

tra n sfe rrin g 24 fps film to video and then into a

sampling at 50 Hertz, but it plays the samples

Lightworks onto a dubber, and sync up with the

n o n -lin e a r system . As Dibbs explained:

back at 48. Because it’s digitally sampled, there

workprint. Remember the sound magnetic -

The video has to put an extra frame in every

isn’t actually a frequency shift - it runs at the

that’s your original sound - hasn’t been touched

second, because PAL can only run at 25; and

right speed and the right pitch.

yet, so it’s still clean. If there are any changes,

then the editor isn’t actually cutting film frames,

S yncing sound rushes co n tin u e s to be a

we can re-edit in Lightworks, which then pro­

but video frames. There’s always a possibility of

b o ttle n e ck in n o n -lin e a r p o st-p ro d u ctio n . One

cutting on the inserted frame, which isn’t there

e x c e lle n t s o lu tio n

duces a “changes list”.

in -c a m e ra

Lightworks has four sound channels, so we

in the negative.

tim e co d e system : because the film and the DAT

can get enough sound for the screenings with­

W hile the negative m atching system s (O SC /

sound have the sam e tim e co d e (generated

R, E xcalibur) can cope w ith the problem (and

during the shoot), the DAT is co n tro lle d to

is th e A a to n

D ibbs pointed out th a t because people tended

chase the te le cin e auto m a tica lly. Of course,

not to understand the problem they accepted

this requires DAT sound recording, sm art slates

the results as being unavo id a b le ), the new

and so on, on set. But as D ibbs pointed out:

version of Lightw orks took a dvantage of its own

There are still a lot of sound recordists around

te ch n o lo g y to avoid the problem co m pletely.

who like their Nagras. Why should they have to

(This is also a fe ature of the latest Avid s o ft­

change because of a problem in post? You can’t

w are.) D ibbs explained the procedure he had

just plug into all these things - there are a lot of

devised to apply the system m ost reliably:

other people involved.

It’s only been done once before, as far as 1 know, on Frankenstein, but this is what we are

out the expense of doing a temporary mix.

Once the picture is locked off, we can lay up the magnetic tracks using the rubber numbers we don’t have to juggle timecodes and Keykodes together. And then if the soUhdJs going to the Fairlight, we can re-transfer the piciurpf/om the final-cut workprint - this time at 24, so the cassette runs at the correct speed for the Fairlight.

I’d seen this as a bit of a one-off, just for this sort of feature, because the sound syncing

Integrating im age editing, digital sound ed ­ iting and tra d itio n a l tra ckla yin g could pose im ­

really isn’t quite solved yet. But I thought it wouldn’t get a run in this country, because

doing on the current Canadian-Australian fea­

m ense p ro b le m s as w ell: but D ibbs has a I

producers look at workprint costs as something

tu re

by G illia n

solution, also being used fo r Little Women.

that can be cut out.

o n to th e

For low-budget features, the other alterna­

We took a PAL Betacam machine to Van­

w o rkp rin t and onto the m agnetic sound, and

tive is to transfer the negative, then, after the

couver where they were transferring everything,

th e s e

edit, workprint the selected takes and cut the

so it’s all being done in PAL. They transferred

Lightw orks database. Dibbs:

L ittle

W omen [d ire c te d

“ R u b b e r n u m b e rs ” a re s ta m p e d

Armstrong],

n u m b e rs a re a ls o

lo g g e d

in to th e

print before fine-cutting the negative. But look­

from workprint, at 25 frames a second, so every

I’ve gone for the American method, where each

ing at Super 16, the workprint costs are much

frame of video corresponds exactly to one frame

roll of film gets continuous numbering through

cheaper. I’m still trying to get all the costs

of film. Now the tape would run the action fast,

the roll, rather than the English method of chang­

worked out, but it’s more or less line ball [if you

but, when it goes into Lightworks, it can run the

ing the numbers for each slate. Rubber numbers

do Super 16 workprints at the rushes stage].

images at 24 (the computer isn’t tied to PAL or

are reliable, simple, safe and secure. If you get

There’s no need for an auto assemble after the

any other television system).

a screw-up, you can simply number the roll

edit; you can cut the print to match the EDL and

again.

get proper screenings on film. You don’t cut the

The problem is synchronizing the sound to run at the right speed, and the answer we have at the moment is that it has to be synced at the

SPECTRUM'S SIMON DIBBS AT THE LIGHTWORKS WORKSTATION.

So now we can bring the job back here on

neg until after the workprint is okay - and the

Exabyte, fine cut on Lightworks up to the stage

neg matchers much prefer to have a print to cut

of a director’s cut, and then conform the print.

to. You save money in lots of places.

W e’re breaking through all the technical problems, and finding the best way to go, but it’s still difficult to persuade producers, even when there’s only a very slight cost difference.

Dibbs explained that Spectrum had m anaged to integrate S hotlister into non-linear editing: People can do their logging on Shotlister, and start editing on Betacam; then when they’re ready they can switch over to Lightworks. W e’ve worked out how to load the logging files from one to the other.

Shotlister is really good. We’ve cut 15 fea­ tures on it here with no problems and we’ve never lost a frame. We wouldn’t let anything out of the place without running it through. Their software guy, Nick Repin, deserves a mention for that.

Dibbs is concerned about the rapid in tro d u c­ tion of new technology th a t m ight appear to handle its own area of operation very well, but often produces com plications elsew here. It all takes tim e and m oney to resolve the difficulties.

Lightworks isn’t cheap, but all the cost of the software represents research and development, and support - and we pay that for the system because we know how much support it’s going to need. But too many people just see a new toy and say, ‘Ah! here’s a way to save money.’

54 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

FRAMEWORKS LONG FORM SUPPORT HAS (HANGED POST PRODUCTION FOR GOOD The day Frameworks introduced the first Avid to Australia we set about

care of everything. From rushes to neg. matching. Daily budget and

refining the way a long form

progress reporting. And, apart

project should be supported in

from always being accessable,

the new 'Non-Linear'

Stephen still supervises complete

environment.Working with top

or refresher Avid courses for

editors and producers of drama,

the editor.Frameworks is the

documentaries and features, Frameworks' Stephen Smith has perfected a system that takes

most experienced digital Non-Linear facility in Australia.

Call Stephen for a quote.

His accurate budgeting and proven post production back-up, can only be good for your next project.

FRAMEWORKS 2 RIDGE STREET NORTH SYDNEY 2 0 6 0 PHONE (02) 9 5 4 0 9 0 4 FAX (02) 9 5 4 9 0 1 7

For the finest in motion picture cameras

CAMERAQUIP Rim Equipment Rentals & Service

64 -6 6 Tope Street, South Melbourne 3205 Phone: (0 3) 699 3922 Fox: (0 3) 696 2564

330 King Georges Ave, Singapore 0820 Phone: [65] 2917291 Fax: [65] 293 2141

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 55

TECHNICALITIES

the d i g i t a l w o r l d

We’re throwing huge amounts of money in

Yes, we have gre a t loyalty.

dram a, but it’s sh o t at 25, so

this country to keep up with technology, and it’s

F ilm m a k e rs

you d o n ’t have th e 2 4 /2 5

not coming back. There’s a lot of people who are

k e e p c o m in g

back to us b e cause w e look

problem .

going to hurt - assistant editors aren’t getting

a fte r them , and this is a m a-

onto post schedules for so long - even editors

jo rc o n c e rn fo r people. S p e c­

What made you go with Lightworks instead of the Avid?

finish quicker, so they don’t get as much money for the job.

Post-production seems to be changing still, with newer computer editing systems arriving, it seems, nearly every week, and new experts to run them. It’s my hope that there will soon be a time for reappraisal, and we may well see some

trum has people th a t know w hat th e y are ta lkin g about.

Lightworks has the advantage

We

c o m fo r ta b le

of having the w hole film at

s u p p ly

room s fo r film m a ke rs, and

your fingertips. S ay you have

u p -to -d a te e q u ip m e n t and

a 90-m inute film w ith a 10:1

e n g in e e rs to look a fte r e v e ­

ratio, you are looking at 15 or

of the simple, unsophisticated, yet elegantly

rything th a t happens here.

16 h o u rs of m a te ria l. On

straightforward systems - like rubber numbers

T he bottom line a lw ays is

L ig h tw o rk s , e v e ry s h o t is

- bouncing back.

th a t ed ito rs and d ire cto rs are

available at any second. In­

not c o n ce rn e d a bout w hat

stead of having to take out a

goes w rong here; it ju s t has

hard disk and put another one

P R O F I L E _________________

____Spectrum Films

to be fixe d and d e a d lin e s

SPECTRUM'S HANS POMERANZ.

have to be met. W e arrange

in and conform ing it to tape, it’s all there at any second.

a lot of th in g s fo r the film m a ke rs, from people

And the capacity can be increased: you could

The NSW film industry is s tro n g e st in the area

a n sw ering the te le p h o n e s and taking th e ir m e s­

have a film with 45 hours of m aterial. W e can still

of p o st-p ro d u ctio n , and one com pany, S p e c ­

sages, to having tapes up and de live re d to the

give them 45 hours of hard disk m em ory, w here

trum Film s, has co n trib u te d m uch to this state

lab. W e ju s t m ake sure things happen. Film - 1

every shot is available. You ju st dial in the slate

of affairs, e sp e cia lly in regard to keeping up

m akers have a dea d lin e and, if you d o n ’t m eet

num ber and the tape num ber and there it is.

w ith new technology. W hat fo llo w s is a brief

the deadline, you can lose a lot of m oney and

history of the com pany, and an in te rvie w with

prestige.

On the te ch n o lo g y side, we are alw ays on

S im on D ibbs, w ho is my p a rtn e r in th is area,

the cutting-edge of new technology. Touchvision

and we looked at all the n o n -lin e a rs y s te m s . W e

H ans P om eranz and S im on D ibbs on how the L ightw orks system has co n trib u te d .

W e did enorm ous research: I w ent m yself th re e or fo u r tim es to the S tates and so did

Hans Pom eranz left the ABC in 1964 and be­

w as the firs t of the n o n -lin e a r system s. It w as a

looked at every system a vailable, including

cam e w hat was called a freelance editor, which

ta p e -b a se d system w ith VHS tapes and it did

A vid, and we co nsidered w hat w ould suit us

m eans 1994 ostensibly marks S pectrum ’s 30th

a bout tw o y e a rs ’ good w ork here. But w hen the

best. It w as L ightw orks fo r w h a t it had to o ffe r us

birthday. U nderstandably, no one in Australia

Lig h tw o rks and Avid cam e out, it w as old te c h ­

in te rm s of the eno rm o us m em ory.

had effectively hung up their shingle before '64,

nology. So, the T o u ch visio n we d o n ’t have any

and Pom eranz was procuring a good deal of work

m ore, and w e ’ve gone the Lig h tw o rks w ay. It

But apart from memory, don’t the different systems perform the same process?

on docum entaries and, a little later, com m ercials

seem s to w ork fo r fe a tu re film s.

No, th e y w ork on d iffe re n t program m es, w hich

and corporate work. He did this fo r a num ber of

is the o th e r a d vantage of Lightw orks. It’s m uch

years and also travelled extensively. Then in

How well does Lightworks integrate with the existing equipment?

1971 he got married [M argaret Pomeranz], and

D eciding on L ig h tw o rks w as a big step. T h e re

on film , b e cause it has a S te in b e ck-typ e control

he also produced and directed a film titled S tock­

w ere a lot of th in g s to th in k about. W ith film , you

w hich A vid h a s n ’t got. B ecause A vid w e n t the

ade (from a script by Ken C ook which was o rigi­

sh o o t at 24, but you cut at 25 on the Lightw orks.

A p p le M ac w ay, you need to do m ore m anual

W h a t we have u pstairs is an aw ful lot of

th in g s than L ightw orks to operate it. E ditors of

S tockade did get a release but w as not

S teinbecks, so people are still cutting on film

a high ca lib re in the fe a tu re film m a kin g side of

su cce ssfu l, and, although the film w as sold to

and I th in k th a t w ill hang a b o u t fo r a w hile. But

p ro d u ctio n believe L ightw orks is m uch m ore

C hannel 7 m any years later, it a ctu a lly lost a lot

Lig h tw o rks is the new te ch n o lo g y and th in g s

u se r-frie n d ly, q u icke r and e a s ie r to learn. I

of m oney and scared him w itless. The e x p e ri­

are d e fin ite ly heading in th a t d ire ctio n . W e have

th in k A vid w as sm a rt to go the M ac w ay b e ­

ence did not leave him w ith a keen sense to

three SP Beta room s w here we still do corporates

cause so m any people know M ac - M acs are

pursue d irection. T he com b in a tio n of fa m ily life

and co m m e rcia ls, but L ig h tw o rks is heading in

used at hom e - but once e d ito rs have been on

and fa ilu re of S tockade de te rm in e d the fate of

the dire ctio n of doing the c o rp o ra te s as well.

the L ig h tw orks and trie d it out, th e y p re fe r it.

nally a stage play).

m ore u s e r-frie n d ly fo r ed ito rs w ho are cutting

P om eranz and S pectrum Film s: he decided to

W ith the Lightw orks, the options are so m ul­

Simon Dibbs: Lightw orks m akes a difference in

stick to the p o st-p ro d u c tio n side of things,

tiple th a t it gives a d ire cto r the choice he or she

as fa r as we are able to do m ore film s in the

putting his total con ce n tra tio n into looking a fte r

m ight be looking for. It’s a little bit diffe re n t on

period of a year. You have the a bility of p ro d u c­

sound and editing.

film

b e c a u s e th e re ’s a tim e re s tra in t. B ut

ing m ore film s in a sm aller space, m ore e ffi­

1971 w as also a tim e w hen m u rm u rin g s of

Lightw orks allow s you to cut film w hile still at the

ciently and, to a certain degree, to less cost.

an A u stra lia n film revival could be heard. The

shooting stage: rushes get processed and then

B ecause of the speed of Lightw orks and the

A u stra lia n Film C om m ission s ta rte d to give out

go off to the tape house to get a tra n sfe r of the

options it gives you, it enables you to m ake

m oney, and the film in d u stry really to o k off.

negative to Beta tape; they com e back here and

b e tte r m ovies fo r the sam e am ount of m oney.

T h a t’s really how I think the tool should be used.

From a single cutting room in 1971, S pectrum

are then digitized. O nce it is cut on Lightw orks,

Film s has grow n into w h a t it is to d a y w here,

we do a tra n sfe r to VHS and send on location a

although it still does a lot of co m m e rcia ls and

cut version of the shoot the day before.

c o rp o ra te m aterial, it c o n c e n tra te s m ainly on

T h is is not unique to S p e ctru m -

A t the m om ent, people are m ilking the new te ch n o lo g y to save m oney, w h e re a s I believe

o th e r

w ithin the next six m onths people are going to

fe a tu re film s.

people are doing it - but I d o n ’t know of too

realize th e y are b e tte r o ff m aking b e tte r m ovies

Spectrum tends to maintain a strong and regular stream of clients. Why is that?

m any o th e r people cutting dram a on Lightw orks,

fo r the sam e am o u n t of m oney. In te rm s of the

e sp e cia lly w ith fe a tu re s. T h e re is te le visio n

w ay S p e ctrum is w orking, th is w ill m ean th a t

56 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

HA

^ N egative C utting Services has m oved 1/7-9 Albany Street Crows Nest Telephone (02) 906 2900 Facsimile (02) 901 4855 YES it’s true NCS has gone global!

But it didn’t happen overnight and the time has come to set the record straight.

For 21 years we have given the Australian film industry the hightest standard of negative cutting in the world. We developed and perfected the FIRST computerised negative cutting system in the world and we continue to update that system as technology advances.

10 years ago, the rest of the world started to demand a frame-accurate conversion between film and tape. NCS was able to respond to that demand as our system had already been tested and proven over many years. Once again Australian technology was the first in the world.

NCS AUSTRAFIA has what the world wants - film and tape technology beyond comparison and the people trained to use it.

WE HAVE THE SYSTEM - WE INVENTED IT SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK FILM TO TAPE... TALK TO US! NCS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (call MARILYN) Suite 1/7-9 Albany Street Crows Nest Telephone (02) 906 2900 Facsimile (02) 901 4855 COMPUTAMATCH (call ANDREA) 1st &2nd Floor 71 Dean Street London UK Telephone 0011 44 71 287 1316 Facsimile 0015 44 71 287 0793

US MATCH’N ’1 5161 Cartwright Avenue North Hollywood CA 61601 USA 1

THE NEG ROOMS (call ROXANNE) 2nd Floor 174-178 Willoughby Road Crows Nest Telephone (02) 439 8602 Facsimile (02) 437 4871 NCS KUALA LUMPAR (call KERRI) 5 Jalan ss 23/23 Taman Sea Petaling Jaya 47400 Selangor Malaysia Telephone/Facsimile 0011 60 3 704 0751

r (call VICKI) >hone 0011 1 818 766 4507 Facsimile 0015 1 818 766 4265

OUR SOFTWARE AND EXPERTISE ALSO OPERATING AT: FINECUT (call MICHELE) 37 Richmond Road Ponsonby Auckland NZ Telephone/Facsimile 0011 64 9 376 0894

UPPERDECK (call JAY) The Production Village 26 Wright Street Wellington NZ Telephone/Facsimile 0011 64 4 382 9129

THE MONITOR OF THE LIGHTWORKS, THE NON-LINEAR EDITING MACHINE FAVOURED BY SPECTRUM.

editors w ill cut on L ightw o rks and fo llo w on film .

A t present, the only thing Lig h tw o rks d o e s n ’t give them is the ab ility to look at the film on 35 mm, on the big screen, and this is a serious con sid e ra tio n . If there is anyth in g we are p u sh ­ ing tow ards at the m om ent, it is ju s t that. P eo­ ple w ill allow som e m oney to get a prin t done at som e stage in the cut, and the s o ftw a re is now available w here som eb o d y in a n o th e r room can bring the film up to the cut th a t has been done on Lightw orks. S om e people are doing th a t at the m om ent, but not m any.

What is the picture quality like when doing a film cut on Lightworks?

T he quality Lightw orks is p roducing can be com pared to U -m atic, w hich is a long w ay from 35m m on a 50 -fo o t screen, but it’s gettin g b e tte r all the tim e. W hen it’s on a huge screen, there is a d iffe re n t fe e lin g to w hat a film has on a little screen. You get the ben e fits of speed and e fficiency, and having the a b ility to cut as fa st as you can th in k on Lightw orks, but you d o n ’t

well. It ju s t costs a little bit m ore m oney

su b sta n tia l. W ith the kind of exp e rie n ce S p e c­

A nyone can go out and buy one of these

trum has got, we d o n ’t believe there is anyone

boxes, but th e re ’s a lot m ore to it than having

else w ho can do it, sim ply because w e have

H ow ever, w ith a little bit of extra m oney -

the box. M aking a fe a tu re film is becom ing a/

been doing it fo r so long. I th in k we are in a

and, le t’s face it, film m a ke rs are saving quite a

very com plex e xercise, and th e re are a lot of

unique situ ation in that we can tru th fu lly say to

lot by doing it this w ay - p ro d u ce rs will be able

little d etails w hich need to be looked after.

som eone we can d e live r from the firs t day of

to have the best of both. T hey will be able to

W hat S pectrum is about, in pa rticu la r, is having

the sh o o t until the final mix, on tim e, and they

have all the e fficie n cy of cu ttin g on Lightw orks

e ve ryth in g done pro p e rly because the co n s e ­

w o n ’t have any problem s. W e do it tim e and

and the a bility to see it on the big screen as

quences of not doing it pro p e rly are really

tim e again.

have the ab ility to see it on the big screen. I am the firs t to recognize that.

■

Neg Matching to Offline Edit or Cutting Copy

N E G T H IN K 'S COM PUTER M A TC H B A C K 1SYSTEM S ca n s K e y k o d e ™ in 16m m , s u p e r 16m m o r 35m m P ro d u c in g Fram e A c c u ra te Neg c u ttin g lis ts fro m EDLS p ro d u c e d by ali lin e a r o r n o n lin e a r e d itin g s y s te m s .

CONTACT

Greg Chapman PTY LTD

PH: ( 0 2 ) 4 3 9 3 9 8 8 FAX: (0 2 ) 4 3 7 5 0 7 4

1 0 5 / 6 C LA R K E ST R E E T C R O W S NEST NSW 2065

2 0 Y e a rs s e rv ic e to th e M o tio n P ic tu re In d u s try

optical & graphic Pt,y Ltd

• • • • •

Titling Specialists

1 0 0 0 Typefaces on line Extensive Proofing system Accept IBM or MAC Files for discount All formats including anamorphic Quoting a pleasure

5Chuter St, McMahons Point, NorthSydney, NSW2060 Phone: (02) 922 3144

Fax: (02) 957 5001

STO CK FOOTAGE LIBRARY

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD SUITE D 172 FILM AUSTRALIA BUILDING ETON ROAD LINDFIELD NSW 2070 TEL: (02) 416 2633 FAX: (02) 416 2554

CELEBRITY COLLECTABLES Specialists in the importation of Hollywood Collectables Autographed Memorabilia • One Sheet Movie Posters Sporting Personalities • Still Photographs • Movie Scripts 1000s of quality photographs that w ill suit the most discerning collector including: Michelle Pfeiffer Joe Montana Autographed Sports Equipment Blake’s Seven M ichael Biehn Shannon Doherty Sylvester Stallone Alien Madonna “V” Arnold Schwarzenegger Luke Perry 90210 Cast Star Wars Kevin Costner Marilyn One Sheet Posters Including Wolf Wyatt Earp Last Action Hero The Chase Lightning Jack Silver Bad Girls Geronimo Stars Wars Schindler’s List Please forward request list and $2.00 to cover postage PO BOX 2195 BENDIGO MAIL CENTRE VICTORIA 3554 AUST

58 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

1 00

Australia’s most literate film reviewer.

Every month in TheIndependent Monthly.

HOWTO SUBSCRIBE

X

CP

1 } O f f wishto subscribe to i a 1 I The Independent Monthly now.

Q 2 years at $88, a saving of 20 per cent (save $22). Q One year at $49, a saving of 10 per cent (save $8) Q This is a personal subscription. Q A gift subscription X

Post to: Reply Paid 575, The Independent Monthly, 4th Floor, 64 Kippax Street, S u rry H ills, N S W , 2010.

(A stamp is not necessary) I.M. Publishing Pty. Lid. A.C.N. 003 713 899.

fax For faster service on credit cards fax the coupon dir­ ectly to The Independent Monthly on 02 211 3490.

Or phone 02 211 3199 with your credit card details.

Name (of recipient):------------------------ ----- ----------------------------------------------------------Address(of recipient): ------------------------— ---------------------------------------------------------P/Code: E nclosed is my cheque in favour of I.M. Publishing Pty. Ltd., | 2 years $88 Q l year $49, or debit my [^¡Diners Q Bankcard | Visa O Mastercard | Amex Expiry Date:------— No: Donor’s/Holder’s Name: Address:_____________ P/Code: Signature:

Date:

THEMNDEPtMJENT

— --------------------------- Australia’s National Quality Monthly

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 59

Australia’s First Films

• •

C H R I S ( . ONG a n d C L I V E S O W R Y

Part Nine: Colonial Cinem a’s

Above: Joseph R osenthal, chief cam eram an of the L ondon-based W arwick T rading Com pany, at the Boer W ar, filming transports crossing the Vaal River, early 1900. His films were sold in Sydney by Baker &c Rouse, and were exhibited

by J. C. W illiam son’s Anglo-American Bio T ableau. In 1901, Rosenthal came to A ustralia to film the Royal Visit to Sydney and M elbourne.

60 . C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

n 1900, no permanent Australian film venue yet existed. It was the heyday of the travelling picture show. A few vaudeville programmes still included a selection of short films thrown together to exploit the medium’s declining novelty, but more sophisticated presentation techniques were emerging elsewhere.

Topical “lantern lectures”, pioneered in A ustralia’s pre-cinema days by the likes of the “w ar artist” Frederic V illiers1, were enjoying a resurgence with the advent of film.

Touring celebrity lecturers in 1900, like A. B. “Banjo” Paterson, G. H. Snazelle, W ybert Reeve and Herbert Booth, assembled single-subject film programmes to illustrate their entire night’s entertainment. M ost of them used imported films, Herbert Booth alone relying on the local product. These lecturers assumed a role later taken by the editors of feature-length documentaries, as­ sembling an aggregate of appropriate visuals to fit their narra­ tive.2 In this early period, slides usually alternated with the films, but even this editorial construction was a significant progression towards the style of the narrative feature film as we know it.

Fictional films were steadily increasing in length, particularly those made by the French. Although 100 feet (approxim ately 2 mins) remained the standard length, special productions like M éliès’ C en d rillo n ( C in d er ella , 7 mins, 1899) and J e a n n e d ’Arc

I

FACTS AND FABLES

Conclusion {Joan o f Arc, 14 mins, 1900) were being sold by Baker & Rouse Sydney by the end of 1900.' By January 1901, a touring Victorian provincial film show was exhibiting A laddin a n d his W o n d er fu l L am p (French, “in 45 tableaux” totalling 15 mins).4

W ar

on

F ilm

With the Boer W ar’s outbreak on 11 October 1899, Australia •Was involved in its first conflict to be recorded by the movie Camera. Film was suddenly regarded with unprecedented seri­ ousness as a window onto the unfam iliar battlefields of South Africa, where loved ones were risking their lives. The Boer W ar was the first m ajor stimulus to the proliferation of Australian cinema. The number of picture shows m ultiplied rapidly.

Casler’s “American Biograph” was an extraordinary electrigally-driven device projecting unsprocketed 70mm film at a flickerless 40 pictures per second.' Its images were eight times the area of standard 35mm film, both on the film and on the screen.

When the Tivoli’s manager Harry Rickards brought it to Australia in August 1897, it was only moderately successful.6Re-introduced to Australia as The British Biograph (sic) by H. G. L. Wyld and C. H. Freedman with authentic Boer W ar films on 19 M ay 1900 y its Aiistralian appearance coincided with the celebrations of the relief of M afeking. Superbly clear w ar coverage taken by W. K. L. Dickson, the former leader of Edison’s movie development team8, created a sensation. Australian troops were recorded on their arrival at Cape Town, and later films taken under fire during the battles of Colenso, Spion Kop and Grobelars Kloof brought the horror of war to the screen for the first time.9Dickson’s w ar diaries were published as T he B io g r a p h in B attle (T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1901), describing the sufferings of a combat cameraman struggling with bulky 70mm cameras and frequent bouts of disease. Some of his films survive as “mutoscope” flip-card reels,

and a few were re-animated for the author’s NFSA video F ed era ­ tion Films (1981). W yld and Freedman’s Australian tour extended over 18 months, and was given universal acclamation.

The British raconteur and pioneer recording artist G. H. Snazelle (1850-1912) brought projectionist Herbert W yndham and Royal Navy Captain F. Edwards to A ustralia, and together they presented the documentary film series O u r N a v y on a local tour which began late in 1900 and lasted almost a y ea r.10 The 10,000 feet of unique films covered nearly every conceivable aspect of life in the British navy, and were produced by the firm of G. West and Sons (principal cameraman Alfred J. West) of Southsea, near Portsmouth in England." The fam ily was not Below: Left, Boer W ar cam eram an W. K. L. Dickson shooting 70mm film of the battle of Colenso, December 1899. W hen show n in A ustralia by Wyld and Freedm an, these outstandingly clear films, shot by the only Boer W ar cam eram an with the newlyinvented telephoto lens, caused a sustained sensation. From H. W. W ilson’s W ith th e F la g to P r e to r ia , Volume 1, H arm sw orth, London, 1900, p. 104.

Below: Right, George H arry Snazelle (18501912), pioneer recording artist, world traveller, entertainer and raconteur. He brought the docum entary film entertainm ent O u r N a v y to A ustralia late in 1900, raising “ the social plane of anim ated photography in A ustralia” - and helping naval recruit­ m ent. Photo courtesy of Dr Mimi Colligan.

Right: One of the first single-subject film entertainm ents to tour Australia was A. J. W est’s O u r N a v y , late in 1900. Local films of Boer W ar troop departures and the celebrations of federation were occasionally slotted into this touring show, during which G. H. Snazelle lectured and sang. Collection: the author.

related to the T. J. W est of later Australian exhibition fame. O u r N a v y w as of a patri­ otic character in tune with the advent of the South African w ar, and it aided naval recruitment. It was later recalled as hav­ ing done “a lot of good in placing the Anim ated Picture entertainm ent on a higher [social] plane than we [in Aus­ tralia] had formerly known of”. 12 Famous T h e S y d n e y M o r n i n g H era ld Boer W ar correspondent and poet “Banjo” Paterson (1864-1941) commenced a lec­ ture tour of his w ar reminiscences in Sep­ tember 1900, just after returning from South A frica.13 Initially, he illustrated his lectures with slides printed from his own sketchbook and snapshot negatives. In October 1900, he added fifty short films of Boer W ar scenes released by British producers14 and combined them with his lectures: “The Tartan, The Shamrock and Tommy A tkins”; “Australians in Action and the Humours of an Army on the M arch ”; and “The Ever Victorious ‘Bobs’” (Lord Roberts).

These explained the conflict to the average A ustralian, and were presented with characteristic humour and colour by the author of “The M an from Snowy R iver”. His A ustralia-wide lecture tour extended over six months.

Theatrical entrepreneur]. C. W illiam son briefly engaged the projectionist Lindesay Campbell to exhibit “Boer W ar” films in February 1 9001'1, m ainly simulated w ar scenes staged in Britain

by R. W. Paul.

In M arch 1900, W illiamson contracted the London-based W arwick Trading Company to send out Clement Mason to project regular shipments of genuine 35mm film coverage from their three cameramen in South Africa.16W arw ick’s Jewish cockney cam era­ man, Joseph Rosenthal (1864-1946), headed their combat camera crew, and later came to Australia to film the Royal Visit in 1901 .17 The W arwick-W illiam son Australian presentations began in M el­ bourne on 17 M arch 1900 under the jawbreaking title of “J. C. W illiam son’s Anglo-American Bio-Tableau”. 18 The few local films appearing in these Boer W ar presentations featured the em barkation of Australian m ilitary contingents for South Africa. The First Queensland Contingent was filmed departing Brisbane in October 1899, and the coverage was described in Part 6 of this series (No. 96, December 1993). Most of the films of Victorian Contingent departures were shot by the Salvation Army Limelight Department, and were listed in Part 7 (No. 97-8, April 1994). The rem aining pre-Federation A ustral­ ian m ilitary em barkation films were: A Sydney coverage, probably shot by Baker & Rouse Limited

1 NSW [First?] Contingent Passing Through George Street, Syd­ ney (c. 3/11/99). On 21 M arch 1900, Baker & Rouse’s m aga­ zine, T he A ustralasian P h o t o g r a p h i c R e v i e w (p. 23), stated “ [we] have a supply of New South W ales films of our troops on the day of their departure for the front. These were especially taken for the firm. ” The D a y le s fo r d A d v o c a te (Victoria), 9 June 1900, p. 2, lists NSW C o n tin g e n t P a ssin g T h r o u g h G e o r g e S treet on a programme presented by W ybert Reeve for J. C. W illiamson Limited, and this is probably the same film. Of the four Sydney troop departure parades before 21 M arch 1900, only the Second Division of the First Contingent paraded down George Street, and that was on 3 November 1899, the likely shooting date. Earliest known reference to film: A ustralasian P h o t o g r a p h i c R e v i e w , 21 M arch 1900 p. 23.

62 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

Only surviving A ustralian Boer W ar departure films show the First Q ueensland Contingent in its final parades of late O ctober 1899. T he films w'ere shot by Wills and M obsby of the Q ueensland D epartm ent of A griculture, and were discussed in Part 6 of this series. These copies were taken from the video transfer, by courtesy of Ken Berrym an, N ational Film & Sound Archive, M elbourne office.

B Melbourne coverage shot by Stephen Bond Bond was one of the earliest A ustralian film projectionists, commencing on an R. W. Paul machine at the M elbourne Opera House just after Carl H ertz’s departure in October 1 8 9 6 .19 He toured as projectionist with the N ewbury-Spada theatrical com­ pany, commencing at Ballarat on 3 December 189620, arriving at Hobart on the ss M a ra ro a on 12 December 1896.21 On that day he supervised T asm ania’s first film screening at H obart’s Theatre R oyal.22 Returning to M elbourne on 9 Jan u ary 189723, he again toured as film exhibitor with the N ewbury-Spada Company in rural V ictoria.24 During 1898 and 1899, he gave movie shows at the N ewbury-Spada Com pany’s “Shilling Pops” concerts at the M elbourne Town H all, and showed films at the Gaiety Theatre, M elbourne, in association with C ogill’s M instrels.25 His earliest known film productions were taken on the outbreak of the Boer W ar in 189926, possibly on a camera of his own construction, and included the following scenes of the local troops.

2 First Victorian (Boer War) Contingent Marching Through Melbourne City. Shot 23 October 1899, and shown at a M elbourne Exhibition Building patriotic concert on the same evening. Probably around 100 feet in length (1 min 40 secs).

Earliest known reference to film: T h e A rgus (M elbourne), 23 October 1899, back page.

3 S.S. “Medic” Leaving Port Melbourne Pier (with First Victo­ rian Contingent). Shot 23 October 1899, and shown at a M elbourne Exhibition Building patriotic concert on the same evening. Probably around 100 feet in length (1 min 40 secs).

Earliest known reference to film: T h e A rgus (M elbourne), 23 October 1899, back page.

4 First Victorian (Boer War) Contingent Training at Langwarrin Camp. Item recalled by Stephen Bond’s son, Rupert, in E v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 13 June 1923, p. 38. Probably about 100 feet (1 min 40 secs) in length. No screenings yet traced.

Shooting date unknown, but c. October 1899.

5 Naval Gunnery Training Practice by Boxer Rebellion Contin­ gent, Williamstown (Victoria). Item recalled by Stephen Bond’s son, Rupert, in E v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 13 June 1923, p. 38.

Probably about 100 feet (1 min 40 secs) length. Rupert Bond stated, “I started to turn the handle. When [the guns] fired I got such a shock that I stopped turning as the recoil of the gun shook the ground. That made me look around - I w as only very young then - but I certainly got the next shot they fired. ” No screening dates yet traced, but probably shot just prior to the em barkation of the Victorian N aval Contingent for the Boxer Rebellion on 30 Ju ly 1900.

Stephen Bond shot further films of the Royal Visit to M el­ bourne in M ay 19012/, and by 1904 was m anufacturing movie projectors of his own design for clients including Johnson & Gibson of St. K ilda; Alex Gunn of M elbourne; M r Sculthorpe of Queen Street, M elbourne; and Richard Lean, manager of Osborne 6 Jerd an ’s lantern and cinem atograph department in Sydney.28 Several Bond projectors survive in private collections, reputedly being m ostly of the “beater interm ittent” type, though the designs are known to vary.29 Later machines are believed to have been given provisional patent protection. Bond also made his own movie cam eras, printing and perforating machines, and processed his own film s.30 The Boer W ar intensified A ustralian patriotic feelings which had already been stim ulated by the imminence of federation and its emphasis on national identity. This jingoistic mood was profitably exploited by Boer W ar film exhibitors, who inciden­ tally augmented the country’s fighting funds by screening their films at numerous patriotic concerts and benefit rallies.

A ustralia’s most outstanding locally-produced film propa­ ganda exercise of 1900 w as, nevertheless, of an entirely different character, staged by the Salvation Army.

‘S

o l d ie r s o f th e

C

ross’

F il m o g r a p h y

This “production” was m eticulously described in our last issue, to strip aw ay the cloak of myth it acquired in earlier popular accounts. It w as n o t a feature film, not “a film ” at all, not even w h o l l y a Salvation Army production.

“Soldiers of the C ross” was an elegantly illustrated lecture, only distinguished from its m any contemporaries by its usage of m any locally-produced slides and films. Herbert Booth’s persua­ sive propaganda exercise succeeded in its aim: to boost the recruitm ent of staff to serve in the Salvation Army.

M elbourne’s T h e War Cry of 22 September 1900 (p. 9) gives a précis of the lecture and an outline of the arrangem ent of its illustrations. The m any detailed reviews of its presentation in the secular press allow us to assemble a definitive list of the short

films it included. They were episodic, carrying no continuous narrative except through intervening slide sequences. Booth presented the films in roughly chronological order of the events portrayed. They are listed below in that order.

All of these films except P a u l ’s E s c a p e f r o m D a m a s c u s , T h e Arrest o f St P e t e r in t h e T o m b , T h e R o m a n M o t h e r E s c a p i n g o v e r a B r i d g e and A Christian Youth T o r t u r e d o n t h e Rack were shot and exhibited on Lumière ciném atographes, and therefore must have been less than 90 seconds in length.

1 C hrist’s Entry into Jerusalem (Lumière film No. 935, French, 1898). From Georges H atot’s La Vie e t la P a s s io n d e J é s u s Christ with the actor Brettau in the title rôle, shot in Paris.

Length: about 55 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

2 The B etrayal (Lumière film No. 939, French, 1898). From Georges H atot’s production, the betrayal of Christ by Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. A uc k l an d Star, 21 M ay 1901, p.

3, states, “As Christ kneels praying, Judas suddenly appears, which is the sign for the soldiers to seize Him and take Him to the C ross.” Length: about 55 seconds. Earliest known refer­ ence: B r i s b a n e C ou r ie r , 9 April 1901, p. 4.

3 The Crucifixion (Lumière film No. 943, possibly also Nos. 942, 944 and 945, French, 1898). From Georges H atot’s Paris production. Reviews are not specific about the aspects of the Crucifixion which were shown. Length: about 55 seconds.

Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

4 The Stoning of Stephen (Production: Salvation Army. Camera: Joe Perry. Director: H. Booth). Probably shot at Murrumbeena in m id-1900. T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 22 September 1900, p. 9, describes the slide sequence preceding the film, and the film itself: “The events that lead to the martyrdom of Stephen passed in review. The Sanhedrim, the trial, Stephen’s impeachment by the rulers and the stoning of the first martyr. The kinematographe was employed in this latter scene. The effect on the audience, as they beheld in a moving picture the innocent Stephen cruelly beaten to the earth, and killed by fiendish fanaticism of the formal religionists of his day cannot be described. The kinematographe gives place to a picture [slide] of Stephen lying dead upon the roadside, while Paul the persecutor stands over him in an attitude of painful contem plation.” The part of Stephen was played by Salvation Army Cadet James Annetts (refer Th e War Cry (Melbourne), 25 October 1958, p. 7).

Below: Left, “ Soldiers of the C ross” , film 7: M a s s a c r e o f C h r is tia n s in th e C a ta c o m b s . Courtesy of Meg Labrum, NFSA, Canberra. Right, “ Soldiers of the C ross”, film 10: T h e M a r ty r d o m o f P o ly c a r p . Courtesy of Meg Labrum, NFSA, Canberra.

“ Soldiers of the C ross” , film 16: A C h r is tia n Y o u th T o r tu r e d o n th e R a c k . Courtesy of Meg Labrum, NFSA, Canberra.

Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: The War Cry (Melbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

5 Paul’s Escape from Damascus. Adapted from “A cts”, chapter 9, verse 25: Paul’s escape in a basket lowered from the city w all. Length: probably less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: A uc kl and Star, 21 M ay 1901, p. 3.

6 The Arrest of St. Peter in the Tomb (catacombs). St. Peter, seized under orders of Nero, was later crucified upside-down, according to the writer St. Jerome, because Peter thought himself unworthy of the same form of death as Christ. Earliest known reference to the film: Brisba ne C ou r ie r, 9 April 1901, p. 4.

7 M assacre of Christians in the Catacombs (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry). Roman soldiers cut down a group of worship­ ping Christians in a corner of the 700 miles of ancient tomb passages below Rome. Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War C r y , 18 August 1900, p. 9.

8 A Burial in the Catacombs (Director: Booth; Camera: Perry).

Christian burial in a wall-niche under clandestine conditions below Rome. Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known references: T h e War C r y , 22 September 1900, p. 9; E v e n i n g P o s t (W ellington, New Zealand), 28 M ay 1901, p. 2.

9 The Roman M other Escaping Over a Bridge (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry, c. April 1901). Slides showing an open-air Christian service being raided by Roman soldiers were fol­ lowed by this chase sequence on film, described in T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 M ay 1901, p. 9: “A Christian wom an, w ith a babe in her arms, was being pursued by Roman soldiers.

The path lay across a series of wooden planks forming a narrow bridge. A comrade in the faith on the near side of the stream encourages the woman to cross, and receives her with a ready grasp and presses her on in a hurried flight. A soldier, who had outstripped his confederates, reached the plank and dashed across. Forgetting to take into account the spring of the board under his weight and rapid movement, he suddenly loses his balance, and is seen flying through the air, and drops w ith a great splash in the stream .” The film was made on W arw ick Bioscope equipment around April 1901, and m ay be around 3 minutes in length. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 4 M ay 1901, p. 8.

10 The M artyrdom of Polycarp (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry).

Bishop Polycarp of Sm yrna, executed under the authority of 64 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

Emperor M arcus Aurelius around AD 180, at the age of 86, the event adapted from an account by the ancient w riter Eusebius. T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9, states: “In the midst of a howling mob, mocking and jeering, you see him led to the place of m artyrdom in one of the public squares of Rome. You see him bound to the stake; then the fagots are ignited, and the smoke and flames rise round the aged saint’s body - he is seen to lift his eyes heavenward, and as his face glows with the glory of expectation and God-given triumph, his spirit takes its fligh t.”

The m aking of the Polycarp film was recalled by Lieut. Colonel Harold Graham in T h e War C ry , 25 October 1958, p. 3: “my own father, who posed as Polycarp being burnt at the stake. In this instance it was behind a real fire at M urrumbeena. M y father told me that the fire nearly smoked him out. However that was overcome, and my dad did the part as m entioned.”

Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: Th e War Cry (Melbourne), 22 September 1900, p. 9.

11 Christian M artyrdom in the Lime Kilns (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry). T h e War Cry 18 August 1900, p. 9, states: “As the film opens, the patient faces of the m artyrs are seen through the rising smoke to be encouraging each other to look with joy to the glory of the crown which w aited on their m artyrdom. In the rear are seen the w aving plumes of the Roman soldiery. A pagan priest comes w ith his attendant to the front. The incense is offered, an opportunity is given to recant, but neither man, wom an, nor child can be found unfaithful enough to touch the unholy incense. Then, without w aiting the onrush of the soldiers to compel them into the burning kiln, you see them joyfully commend themselves to heaven and deliberately plunge over the brink, disappearing amid the thickening vapours of the pit beneath, and the soldiers, coming cautiously forward, peer through the smoke w ith blanched, awe-struck faces into the boiling cauldron.”

The film’s production was recalled by Colonel Charles R ixon in T h e War C r y , 25 October 1958, p. 7: “As each one jumped, a puff of smoke poured out. The patriarch who began the j ump was Cadet J. P. Rive [...] Each jumped about four feet on to a mattress and timed it so that, whether man or boy, or wom an, they knew in which direction to roll out of the w ay. The puffs of smoke were steam from a boiler, and the tube was m anipu­ lated by no other than Ben Orames [Commissioner], and Jock Brodie, the sweet Scotch tenor of those days. But the last person to jump w as Brigadier Lily Burgess; she hesitated too long, and Herbert Booth called out sharply ‘Quick, Burgess, quick.’ All she thought of w as answering her leader’s instruc­ tions, and obeying them, so she jumped to her feet and saluted, hence a tragic picture ended with the head of a bonny wom an at the edge of the pit with a hand at her forehead [in a Salvation Army salu te].” Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest refer­ ence: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9. The film w as also called T h e B u r n i n g Fie ry Fur na ce .

12 The Drowning of Bishop Calepodius (Director: Booth; Cam ­ era: Perry). A third century martyrdom at the hands of a frenzied mob during the time of Emperor Severus (AD 197 235). Film described in T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 22 Septem­ ber 1900, p. 9: “One wonderful film, which brought forth a storm of applause, and demand for an encore, is the martyrdom of an old man. He was dragged through the streets, and, with

a huge weight tied about his neck, was thrown into the running river [...] The moving water, the plebian carrying the weight to the river s brink, the rabble escorting the glorious saint, the tying of the weight upon his neck, and then immediately lifting him over the heads of the men, and throwing him bodily into the water, the splash, the swirling eddy as he sank out of sight, are so real as to create in the audience a spirit of intense excite­ m ent.” Film was recalled by Colonel Charles Rixon in T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 25 October 1958, p. 7: “The drownings in the Tiber, of Christians encased in sacks laden with stones thrown there by the rabble of the streets, provided one of the most thrilling pictures, and people fainted everywhere as the sack containing Officer Gault was thrown into the Richmond Baths most realistically.” Length: under 90 seconds. Earliest reference: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

13 A ttack on the M artyr in the Sealed Room (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry). Described in T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 22 September 1900, p. 9: “The kinem atographe picture depicts the saint praying in secret, regardless of the storm of riot w ithout, the mob thirsting for his blood. Suddenly, however, the door is broken through, a panel first, then the whole door gives w ay. The raging rabble rush in and beat the saint to death on the spot, one battle-axe blow mercifully ending his tor­ ture.” Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 22 September 1900, p. 9.

14 The Burning of the Valerian M artyrs (Director: Booth; Cam ­ era: Perry). The slow torture and death of Christians by burning during the time of persecution by the Emperor Valerian, AD 2 5 7 - 2 5 9 . Descriptions of this film are vague and it may be the same item as film (11). The name of the Valerian martyr Hippolytus is mentioned in a review in T h e Age (Melbourne) on “Soldiers of the C ross” : final slide revealing the propaganda purpose of the presentation, in boosting the recruitment of the staff to the Salvation Army. Courtesy of Meg Labrum , NFSA, Canberra.

14 September 1900, p. 7. The most famous of the Valerian m artyrs was probably St. Lawrence, who was slowly roasted on an iron grid, but a film of that type would probably have attracted a review if it was included. Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

15 M artyrdom of a Roman Fam ily (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry). This film is mentioned only in T h e Y o u n g S o l d i e r (M elbourne), 29 September 1900, p. 14, which states: “we saw two Roman boys who were the cause of their parents’ conver­ sion, and then we saw the whole fam ily burning at the stake”.

Length: less than 90 seconds. This m ay have been one of the B u r n i n g o f t h e Valerian M a r ty r s series.

16 A Christian Youth Tortured on the R ack (Director: Booth; Cam era: Perry). The film was first mentioned during the New Zealand tour of M ay 1901, and showed “the sufferings of a half-naked youth on the ra ck ”. A slide m atching this descrip­ tion survives in the NFSA set. Length: unknown, but m ay have been up to 3 minutes. Earliest known reference: N e w Z e a l a n d T i m e s (W ellington), 28 M ay 1901, p. 7.

17 Slaughter of Christians by W ild Animals in the Arena (or Coliseum). Described in Th e War Cry (Melbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9: “You see the martyrs slowly march into the arena; they kneel together while they receive their last blessing from their aged leader; then, while they pray, round a jutting portion of the Arena creeps a huge tiger. The Christians suddenly shrink back at the sight of the monstrous beast. Little children rush to their mothers - friend clasps friend. Almost instantly another equally ferocious creature steals behind the first, adding addi­ tional terror to the scene, and, while in the act of springing upon them, the film closes.” The production was recalled by Colonel Charles Rixon in T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 25 October 1958, p. 7: “The film in which you refer to a lion coming into tho arena had a tiger in my day, and I had the horror and honour of going into the back entrance of the Theatre Royal and accepting delivery of the full length tiger with his skin over a bamboo frame. When I took it to the Murrumbeena Girls’ Home, Gault and Rumble [Salvation Army Officers] asked me to crawl into the creature and manipulate the rings that moved the lips and controlled its revolting jaws and rolling eyes. They were so long discussing things, that I became tired of being a quadruped and stood up. They then decided to use two boys in the tiger [Joe Perry’s.boys] and just as the animal was about to enter the arena, the hind quarters fell over, and it was quite interesting to see the little fellow in the front half, trying to pull his brother onto his feet. That film had to be made again, of course.” Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

18 Slaughter of Christians by G ladiators in the Arena (Director: Booth; Cam era: P erry). The film m ay have been confused w ith item (16), as its description is sim ilar. However, it is men­ tioned twice, first in T h e War C ry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9; later in the O t a g o Da ily T im es , 8 June 1901, p. 1.

Film would have been less than 90 seconds in length.

19 The T rial of Perpetua (Director: Booth; Camera: Perry). St Perpetua, a high-born and wealthy Roman citizen of a North African town near Carthage, was tried and executed for her Christian faith in about the year AD 202 during the persecutions of Emperor Severus. The film was also called P e r p e t u a B e f o r e t h e P ro - C o n su l. In this film, Perpetua is asked to burn some incense indicating her worship of Roman gods, but she refuses.

CONTINUES

ON

PAGE

84

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 65

OPEN CHANNEL • OPEN CHANNEL • OPEN CHANNEL

LEARN from our Short Courses

CREATE with our Facilities and Equipment and

ACHIEVE with our Production Services

Award winning production house

Third Brisbane International Film Festival

OPEN CHANNEL V ictoria's d ev elo p m en t cen tre for in d ep en d en t film and v id eo

Call now for on information kit on our courses, facilities and services.

13 Victoria Fitzroy, Vic. Ph: 03/419 Fax: 03/419 PRODUCTION

•

FACILITIES

•

Street 3065 5111 1404

TRAINING

4-1,3 August 1994 H O Y T S R E G E N T S H O W C A S E T H E A TR E Q U E E N STREET M A LL

A n exciting and stimulating cinema showcase New Australian features and shorts. A French cinema focus.

The Annual Chauvel Award. A powerful Asian retrospective.

Late Night Movie Shows. Hollywood’s latest...and the Gala Opening Night Premiere and razzle-dazzle cocktail reception.

T IC K E T S O N S A LE N O W !

Gold Pass $ 135

Admits you to all screenings, forums, seminars and the Opening and Closing Night Premieres and parties

Silver Pass $100 Take 5 $35

Admits you to all screenings, forums and seminars

Two reserved and three unreserved films

H O T L IN E (07) 220 0444 Please call the Festival Hotline for programme details, (fax 07 220 0400), or drop by the Festival Information Centre Level 2, Wintergarden Shopping Complex, Queen Street Mall, Brisbane

The Third Brisbane International Film Festival gratefully acknowledges the support of its sponsors

WIN TEROAR DE| /T MORGAN stockbroking

L a THE AUSTR ALIAN AIRLINE

NEWS/TALK

®>t (¡Courier-Wail 4,Sünday Mail

E ve ryth in g for Queensland 66 ■ C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

•••I •••I •••< EXTRA

it

On

YELLOWQLJSN Castlemaine Perkins Limited

FILM

REVI EWS

Fearless; The Hudsucker Proxy; Lex and R ory; Shotgun W edding; The Sum of Us

FEARLESS SCOTT

MURRAY

One o f o u r p ro b le m s to d a y is th a t we are n o t w e ll a cq u a in te d w ith th e lite ra tu re o f th e s p irit. W e’re in te re s te d in th e new s o f the day and th e p ro b le m s o f th e h o u r.

— Joseph C am pbell1

P

e a rle ss opens w ith fig u re s in a c o rn fie ld .2 In a d re a m lik e s e q u e n c e , M ax K le in (Je ff

B ridges) carries a baby and leads a young boy to so m ew here at firs t undefined.

T h e y e m e rg e from th e corn o n to som e scarred earth, w here people, m o stly H ispanic farm w orkers, kneel in prayer. Max m ay well have stum bled onto som e a n c ie n t ritual at a sa cred site.

Then, the sm ouldering tail of a aeroplane is revealed. S urvivors of an A m erican intercity air crash are being m arshalled together. Max looks fo r the b aby’s m other. The audience at first thinks that m ay be C arla (R osie Perez), but, no, the baby belongs to another. Max finds her, and hands over the child. He is view ed as a kind of saviour.

M uch of th is takes place in slow m otion, a te ch n iq u e W eir uses th ro u g h o u t the film , even

alive. In this sense alone, F earless is a deeply

va rying the cam era speed d uring shot on o c c a ­

a n ti-re lig io u s film .

Laura has constructed herself around the conventional view of wom an as w ife and mother;

sion. T his heightens the dre a m like q u a lity of

The risk fo r Max and C arla, and all those

she has little understanding of ideas and em o­

the events, giving them the q uality of ‘o th e rn e ss’

seeking personal enlig h te n m e n t, is th a t it can

tions outside this construct (which is w hy she

one te n d s to a sso cia te w ith e xp e rie n ce s of the

be at the expense of o n e ’s a b ility to so cia lly

cannot understand M ax’s evangelical role in

soul or s p irit.3

interact, to find m eaningful con n e ctio n w ith the

C a rla ’s life and im agines they are having an

minutiae of daily life. One in evitable social strain

a ffaire5). H ow ever Max and Laura began life

is w ithin m arriage.

together, th e ir journeys are no longer in sync;

For Max, the experience does not stop in the im m ediacy of the crash site. For m onths after, he feels he is floating free of the w orldly bonds

In Fearless, M anny (B enico del Toro) ap ­

they are no longer tw o souls m erging into one.

th a t can inhibit a true connection with o ne’s

pears to express little sadness fo r the loss of his

But perhaps it is im possible to pursue inner life

inner self. By surviving death, as if were, and

and C a rla ’s child (though he does not appear in

w ithin a love relationship, and one m ust choose

thus no longer fearing it, Max is free to e xp e ri­

the narrative until so m e tim e a fte rth e event). His

between the tw o.6(C ertainly K rzysztof Kieslowski

ence the “ rapture of life”4 w ithout restriction. He

prim ary concern is scoring as much as possible

w ould agree. W hen discussing Trois C ouleurs:

feels im m ortal, sym bolized by his w alking across

from the inevitable lawsuit. But his real failure is

Bleu, he says “ love is contradictory to fre e ­

a teem ing freew ay and daring to eat stra w b e r­

to show too little love and support fo r his wife. It

dom ”7, even if his ending is more am biguous.)

ries, a fru it w hich has alw ays provoked in him a

is little surprise C arla dum ps him by film ’s end; a

da ngerously-fierce allergic reaction.

m arriage is nothing if there is not support.

In the final scene, w here Max im agines him ­ self w alking dow n the em pty w reckage of the

As w ith Larry in W. S o m e rse t M a u g h a m ’s

Inte re stin g ly, W e ir and sc rip tw rite r Rafael

The R a z o r’s Edge, M ax becom es a te a c h e r of

Y g le sia s also m ake M anny a ta le n te d w ood

light of death, he asks Laura to help pull him

o thers, e sp e cia lly C arla, w ho is s tru g g lin g to

carver. Life is not so sim ple as to brand a

back, to help him re-engage w ith life. T he film

com e to te rm s w ith the gu ilt she fe e ls fo r not

person a fa ilu re m erely because of an in a d ­

then closes w ith them in each o th e r’s arm s. It is

having been able to save her child in the crash.

e quacy in one area; qu a litie s and w e aknesses

a jo y o u s ly a ffirm a tive ending, but in term s of

are m ore oddly d istrib u te d than that.

c e le b ra tin g life, not the convention of m arriage.

For Carla, C atholicism has always been a

p la n e ’s fu se la g e tow ards the com forting w hite

com forting, reassuring salve. But in the face of

T he m arriage of Max and Laura (Isabella

her personal crisis, its rhetoric seem s empty. She

R ossellini) is m ore d e tailed than C arla and

is unclear, though there is reason to hope for

turns to Max, who argues that grief can only be

M a n n y’s. For m uch of the film , Laura is a not

em o tio n a l and sp iritu a l convergence.

faced on an individual level, inwardly, not through

a typ ica l p a rtn e r of som eone going through a

belief in som e greater, controlling power. Life is

p ow erful life experience. A p a rt from one brief

around him also includes th a t w ith his son,

m eaningless except for w hat we make of it.

m om ent, she fe e ls a lienated from M a x’s e xp e ­

Jonah (S p e n cer V room an). It brings into focus

riences and can express no jo y in his revaluing

the very passage from child to adult. T his has

a sp e cts of his and th e ir life.

nothing to do w ith age, but w ith attitude.

T h is realization, instead of d a u n tin g C arla (and us), a w akens her to the very jo y of being

The fu tu re re la tionship betw een Laura and Max

M a x’s re a sse ssm e nt of those relationships

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 67

M ax e xplodes an g rily w hen Jonah ab ru p tly

have its m isjudgm ents. Several scenes (as in

leaves the T h a n ksg ivin g ta b le and goes to his

Green Card, 1991) are not acted or staged as

room to play a video gam e. By leaving, Jonah

well as they should (e.g., the group psychiatric

is refusing to partake in a tribal ritual (T hanks­

session), there are m om ents of overstatem ent

giving). He is also rejecting the ‘m ature’ (a ritual

(as when Max crosses the freew ay and then quite

in service of man) fo r a childishness of addiction

unnecessarily verbalizes his sense of im m ortal­

(child in service of consum erist society). Max

ity) and there is too much exposition at tim es. But,

later explains he d oesn ’t w ant his son to grow up

to this viewer, they are minor blem ishes.

to be a child in a m an’s body, hiding in the inviting, blinkering w orld of consum erism .

W hat surely can’t be in doubt is that Fearless marks a trium phant return for W eir as a visual

This is only one aspect of how W eir in F e a r­

director. He hasn’t m ade a film so strikingly

less is continuing his critical exam ination of

im agistic in a long time, and he is generally well

A m erican society. More notable is how the anger

aided by DOP Allen Daviau. (The lighting in the

w hich energizes The M osquito C o a st{ 1986) has

shot of Laura waiting for Max outside the hospital

been replaced w ith a calm er tolerance.

is chillingly beautiful, while the am ber colourings

C riticism of capitalism has tra d itio n a lly ce n ­

of the diner scene are perfectly controlled.)

tred on its exploitation of som e fo r the benefit of

Here, W eir the cinem atic craftsm an is at his

others; to W eir, the sickness is m ore in the ways

finest. The striking com positions and cutting are

m aterialism blinds one to ideas and em otions of

bold but nevershow y, giving the narrative strength

value. T hat is w hy A llie (H arrison Ford) in The

and power. The opening sequences is a to u r de

M osquito C oast m oves his fam ily to an in h o sp i­

force, as are all the intercut scenes on the ailing

table but hopefully re-invigorating place.

plane. The final crash, set to part of Henryk

In Fearless, the character of law yer Brillstein

G orecki’s Third Sym phony, is sim ply stunning.

(Tom Hulce) is key. In his fuelling of a culture

Only Am erican resources can technically achieve

C h ristine A. Johnston, Alan B. C urtiss. Scriptwriter:

w here expiation of grief is equated with cash

the visual perfection of this re-enactm ent; per­

Rafael Y glesias. D ire cto r of photography: Allen Daviau.

settlem ents8, he is a pariah feeding off the

haps only an Australian director could so resist

m odern w orld and its psychoses. Im portantly,

trying to dazzle the audience with show y effects.

he also has a reptilian charm and a degree of

To those, like this author, who have strongly

Production designer: John Stoddart. Costum e designer: M arilyn M atthew s. S ound recordist: C harles W ilborn.

Editor: W illiam A n derson. C om poser: M aurice Jarre.

Cast: Jeff Bridges (Max Klein), Isabella Rossellini (Laura

self-know ledge that shape him as the s till-lo v ­

preferenced W eir’s Australian work over his Am eri­

able (to som e) face of a moral ground zero.

can, Fearless is a startling riposte and majestic re­

(B rillstein), John T urtu rro (Dr. Bill P erlm an), Benico del

affirmation of his singular vision and talent.

Toro (M anny Rodrigo), Deirdre O ’C onnell (Nan Gordon),

Equally, it is a brilliant touch in having Jeff Gordon (John de Lancie), M ax’s closest friend

/ K le in ), R osie P e re z (C a rla R o d rig o ), T om Hulce

John de Lancie (Jeff G ordon), Spencer V room an (Jonah

and business partner, m ake a few sneaky d o l­

Notes

Klein). S p rin g cre e k Production. A u stra lia n distributor:

lars out of exchanging the tickets Max bought fo r

1

Roadshow . 35m m . 121 mins. U.S. 1993.

cheaper ones ... an indiscretion only death could reveal. The film m akers d o n ’t do this to belittle

M oyers, D oubleday, New York, 1988, p. 3.

2

T he re is an a rticle to be w ritte n on the role of co rn fie ld s in A m e rica n film s, e sp e cia lly th o se of a

Jeff, but to hum anize both him and the situation.

p sych ic or m ystical nature, such as F e a r le s s and

In a m inor key, it is true pathos.

F earless is one of m any new film s that have

T h e P o w e r o f M y th , Joseph C am pbell w ith Bill

F ie ld o f D r e a m s (Phil Alden R obinson, 1989).

3

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY JOHN

CONOMOS

On a m ore ‘re a lis t’ level, the te ch n iq u e also helps

new film by the C oen brothers is one very

been influenced by the research into m yths by

recreate the w ay accid e nts can slo w tim e down

authors such as Joseph C am pbell (cf George

and give them a surreal, d ista n cia te d q uality. W eir

A

M iller’s L o re n zo ’s Oil, 1992). This backgrounding

a p p are n tly spoke to m any air crash su rvivo rs, and

tem porary cinem a as a m ass-cultural art form.

th e ir re co lle ctio n s have cle a rly helped him shape

W h a te ve r the subject m ight be, the C oens are

is quite explicitly stated in the scene w here the a irlin e ’s psychologist, Dr Bill Perlm an (John

4

T urturro), explains the im portance in tribal tim es

i a p p e aling reason w hy I still believe in con­

the sequence.

a u te ur-conjurers of the first order: they can make

C am pbell: “ People say th a t w h a t w e ’re all seeking

film s th a t arrest you dead in your tracks. They

is a m eaning fo r life. I d o n ’t th in k th a t’s w h a t we are

w rite m ovies that resonate w ith a m ulti-faceted

of telling stories around cam pfires. The fra g ­

really seeking. I th in k th a t w hat w e ’re se e kin g is an

m entation of society into nuclear fam ilies has

e xp e rie n ce of being alive, so th a t o u r life e x p e ri­

denied m ost people access to com m unal s to ry­

ences on the p u re ly p hysical plane w ill have

of a Jacobean or a P irandello play. T heir ear for

reso n a n ce s w ithin o ur own in n e rm o st being and

the m utating verbal nuances of the American

reality, so th a t we a ctu a lly feel the rap tu re of being

v e rn a cu la r and genre cinem a is seldom sur­

a liv e .” , op cit, pp. 3.

passed in H ollyw ood cinem a today. The curious

telling. Television, film s and novels have in a w ay replaced them , but they are one-w ay proc­ esses: one can’t interrupt the te lle r with a q ues­ tion or pose a challenge.

5

in a b ility to p ro p e rly und ersta n d L a rry’s re la tio n ­

W eir and Y glesias highlight the m ythic inten­ tion of their film in various ways. There is the

S h a d e s again of T h e R a z o r ’s E d g e , w ith Isa b e l’s ship with S ophie.

6

Even the norm ally razor-sharp C am pbell appears

d ram aturgical and psychological pow er worthy

am algam of black hum our and a funky, ironic sense of the labyrinthine attributes of the world is a unique characteristic of th e ir m agnetic oeuvre.

A bove all, th e ir hyperbolic, stunning visual style

drive through O akland to view m ythological paint­

to go round in circles when trying to explain how two

ings and murals, the use of the light-at-the-end-

people in m arriage can explore their separate selves

and inventive, open-ended use of film sound com bine to m ake any C oen m ovie an unpredict­

of-the-tunnel im agery, the paintings on M ax’s

through th e ir being m erged into one. The ve ry word

table, buying presents fo r the dead, even the

“ m erged” im plies both an aba nd o n m e nt of in d ivid u ­

able, expanding experience of cinem a as a moral

discussions about playing with sw ords.

ality and a tran sm u tatio n into som ething else. But is

theorem on the absurd, dark recesses of the

there any m arriage w here there are not still two

hum an im agination as film form .

This interest in myths and their value as lessons has inevitably led to Fearless’ being

souls, how ever united, tw o co n stru cts of desire?

In short, the Coen b ro th e rs’ m ovies are made

7

See in te rvie w with K ie slo w ski in C in e m a P a p e r s ,

8

T he Je ffre y D ahm er case is a rece n t exam ple,

th e ir m ovies are eccentric, highly-personal crea­

uncom fortable by film s of the spirit, no m atter

w h e re som e rela tive s of the victim s have c o rp o ­

tions - from the gritty neo-film noir B lo o d Simple

how well-m ade. They do not wish to be m oved to

rate ly jo in e d w ith D a h m e r to m ake m oney off the

(1984) to the aw esom e, fin e ly-w rou g h t gangster

the level of intensity to which Fearless strives.

in e vita b le e x p lo ita tio n righ ts (t-s h irts , m ovies,

film of betrayal and loyalty, M iller’s C rossing(1990),

books, etc.).

w hich is (in my estim ation) one of the great

labelled as New Age and being rejected quite out of hand by some. Many people today are made

As well, though Fearless is at its best a pow ­

no. 99, June 1994, pp. 26-32.

as if th e ir (and our) lives depended on them . All

erful film, especially in those scenes where Max

FEARLESS Directed by Peter W eir. Producers: Paula

m om ents of the genre to date - and all of them

assum es a C hrist-like persona, Jeff B ridges’ eyes

W e in ste in , M ark R osenberg. C o -p ro d u ce rs: Robin

e xem plify a profound virtu o sity fo rth e m edium of

piercing through one from the screen, it does

F o rm a n , W illia m

cinem a as a popular form of storytelling.

68 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

B e a s le y . A s s o c ia te p ro d u c e rs :

The H u d s u c k e r P ro x y is a large, rollicking, fun house of a m ovie, fe a tu rin g m any sce n e s of

in his hand as he se re n a d e s a room fu ll of

h ig h ly -e n te rta in in g c in e m a tic v irtu o sity, scenes

p e o p le w ith th e liq u id “ R eturn T o M e” - in o rd e r

th a t evoke (in u n p re d icta b le te rm s) the c la s s i­

fo r M u s s b e rg e r and his c o h o rts to d e va lu e the

cal th e m a tic, g e n e ric and visu a l a ttrib u te s of

s to c k so th e y th e m s e lv e s can buy it and c o n ­

the m is e -e n -s c e n e of the scre w b a ll com edy

tro l th e c o m p a n y .1 So M u s s b e rg e r’s plan does

film . It is quite a cin e m a tic a ch ie ve m e n t, for, in

w o rk fo r a w h ile as B arn e s kills tim e pla yin g

le sse r ca p a b le hands, this film w ould have

golf, d o o d lin g in his o ffic e and cle a n in g his

like ly tu rn e d out as a m a n n e red exe rcise in re­

nails. T he com pany stock starts spiralling d ow n­

p re se n tin g the d a n cin g sta cca to Surfaces and

w a rd s as H u d s u c k e r once did, and th is s itu a ­

te xtu a l tro p e s of the scre w b a ll co m e d y film as

tion co m e s to the a tte n tio n o f A m y A rc h e r (J e n n ife r Ja son Leigh), a P u litz e r P riz e -w in ­

a stillb o rn effort.

NORVILLE BARNES (TIM ROBBINS) AND SIDNEY J. MUSSBERGER (PAUL NEWMAN). JOEL COEN'S THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.

w ith a lo o se b o w -tie and the u b iq u ito u s m a rtin i

T his is not to s u g g e s t th a t The H u d s u c k e r

ning n e w s p a p e r re p o rte r w ho su s p e c ts th a t

P ro xy is a fa u ltle s s w o rk - on th e co n tra ry, it

so m e th in g is not qu ite rig h t w ith B arn e s and

does have a fe w longueurs, sce n e s and m o ­

co m p a n y. So A rc h e r (m o d e lle d on the c h a ra c ­

m ents w hich d o n ’t quite w ork out. N e v e rth e ­

te ris tic acid w is e -c ra c k in g n e w s p a p e r hounds

less, it is a b rillia n t e vo ca tio n of a p a rtic u la rfilm

of s c re w b a ll co m e d ie s and also, a rg u a b ly, on

genre and an era in A m e rica n cu ltu re and h is ­

th e scre e n p e rso n a s of Mae W e st and R osalind

tory (the 1950s). W h a t we see and hear in this

R usse ll) s e ts out to u n c o v e r the sco o p of the

w o n d e rfu lly -o rc h e s tra te d b la ck co m e d y are

y e a r as she d e cid e s to prove th a t the b u m b lin g

num erous im ages and sounds th a t su g g e st the

fo o l from M uncie, Indiana, is a c o rp o ra te g rifte r

cu ltu ra l a rc h ite c to n ic s of c o n te m p o ra ry h o rro r

w ho d e s e rv e s to be unco ve re d .

film s and fictio n as w ell as the m ore tra d itio n a l

Of course, A rcher discovers th a t Barnes is

m odes of the absurd and e xiste n tia l lite ra tu re .

ju s t a swell, regular guy who has plans to invent

The H u d s u c k e r Proxy, w hich w as d ire cte d

The e x tra o rd in a rily kin e tic and a tm o s p h e ric

things (“You know, fo r kids”) like the hula hoop -

by Joel C oen and w ritte n by Joel and Ethan

g othic m ail-ro o m scenes teem w ith shouting

an idea th a t initially distinguishes Barnes to

Coen in ta n d e m w ith Sam R aim i, is a hugely-

m id d le -a g e d ga rg o yle s of m a il-so rte rs w ho rep-

M ussberger as the ideal proxy fo r his corporate

B re u g -

re s e n tth e d e feated in life a m id st the ca co p h o n y

fraud schem e. How w as M ussberger to know

helesque w orld of the s cre w b a ll co m e d y genre

of p n e u m a tic m essage co n ta in e rs (who can

th a t the m inim al Zen idea of a circle draw n on a

of the 1930s and ’40s, and its n e ck-b re a kin g

re m e m b e r them ?) th a t sh o o t along in tubes

piece of p aper w ould m ake m illions? T he scene

pace, ra zo r-sh a rp w ise -c ra c k in g dia lo g u e , and

throughout the dark, cavernous, art-deco spaces

depicting B arnes’ entering M ussberger’s fo o t­

rhizom atic te xtu a l e n e rg y is (tim e and again)

of the skyscra p e r. M u s s b e rg e r’s office is lo ­

ball stadium of an office w aving a dreaded blue

consum m ately re cre a te d in the film . T he s c re w ­

cated next to the huge lum inous clo ck and it

envelope and stum bling all over M ussberger as

ball film - p a rtic u la rly the s u b -g e n re of the form

echoes the g ra n d io se evil of fa s c is t office a rc h i­

he is trying to conduct urgent business on a

that deals w ith the to p s y -tu rv y , M a ch ia ve llia n

te ctu re th a t is so v ivid ly rendered in B e rto lu c c i’s

phone is a to u r de force fo r its directorial and

world of a m bition, scanda l, d e a d lin e s and sex

II C o n fo rm ista ( The C onform ist, 1971). T hese

perform ative qualities. M oving overhead- and

in the A m e rica n ta b lo id n e w s p a p e r w orld of

scenes evoke K afka as much as th e y do of

w ide-shots show Barnes trying to pry loose his

ye ste rye a r - is a p e rfe ct v e h ic le fo r th e C oen

S turges, Poe as m uch as th e y do of H awks.

fo o t caught in a w aste-paper basket that is alight

s ty lis h

h o m a g e to th e c o c k -e y e d ,

brothers to e xp lo re th e ir uniq u e th e m a tic and

Tim R obbins is p e rfe ctly ca st as N orville

with M u ssb e rger’s indispensable contract as

visual in te re sts as film m a k e rs w ho like to peer

Barnes, the w ide-open-eyed innocent who seeks

som e of it disappears in the proverbial black

into (from all so rts of o ff-b e a t a n g le s) the R o se ­

success in the c o rp o ra te w orld of New Y ork and

hole of a w indow that Barnes has m anaged to

bud snow storm w orld of the A m e rica n dream .

fin d s it (thanks to M ussb e rg er): his ta ll, lean

sm ash as he zig-zagged all over the place.

The w h ite -h e a t audio-visu a l e nergy of The

fra m e w ith his “c o u n try h ick” a w kw a rd n e ss in

Initially, M ussberger sees Barnes as a hopeless

H udsucker P ro xy and its sp e cific th e m a tic and

the s k y s c ra p e r ju n g le of New Y o rk m akes him a

fool, but suddenly (in accordance w ith the spirit

genre p reoccupations have hurled us - like N or­

very su ita b le scre w b a ll fa ll-g u y. He is (despite

of Sturgean com edy) this fool from Indiana is a

ville Barnes (Tim R obbins), the film ’s bum bling,

his a m bition to m ake it in the h a rd -n ose d w orld

heaven-sent answ er fo r his plans to sw indle the

of co rp o ra te A m e rica ) clo s e r to the top than he

com pany stock.

naive hick from M uncie, Indiana - into the belly (m a il-ro o m ) o f th e K a fk a e s q u e s k y s c ra p e r

re a lize s w hen the h urtling, scre a m in g body of

M o se s’ d ie getic role as the s to ry te lle r-c o m ­

owned by W aring H udsucker (C harles D urning)

W aring H u d su cker hits the c o n cre te p a ve m e n t

m e n ta to r th a t details to us the chan g in g fo r­

and w hich acts as m eta p h o r fo r the fickle a b ­

outside H u d su cker’s skyscra p e r as Barnes finds

tu n e s

surdity of the w orld and fo r the scre w b a ll com edy

a jo b in the m ail-room .

s k y s c ra p e r th a t fram es the film ’s com ic plot,

genre itself (particularly the glorious Preston Sturges film s of the ’40s).

o f B a rn e s

in s id e

a n d o u ts id e th e

The scene depicting the founder of H udsucker

and th o se of the tw o cab drivers in a d in e r scene

In d u strie s’ hurtling to w a rd s the concrete p a ve ­

p ictu rin g A rc h e r’s bold plan to g et into B a rn e s’

One o f th e key gu id in g m e ta p h o rs of th e film

m ent is one of tw o sim ila r virtuoso scenes of

life, stre ss how the C oen b rothers are so c o n ­

is the p ro m in e n t rôle th e c lo c k of the s k y ­

visual accom plishm ent; the other one features

su m m a te ly in control of th e ir d ra m a tic and g e ­

scraper ta ke s in the o ve ra ll sto ry lin e of th e film .

B arnes’ falling down the sim ila r route th a t once

n e ric m a te ria l. T h e c lo c k ’s m e ta p h o ric a l

Looked a fte r by M oses (W illia m C obbs), an

H udsucker to o k before becom e an angel. Yes,

sig n ific a n c e is pa ra m o un t to B a rn e s’ absurd

A fro-A m erican c lo c k -k e e p e r w ho is th e s to ry ­

the C oens have w orked into th e ir satirical fable

d estiny, and tim e itse lf com es to stop tw ice in

telling su rro g a te fo r th e C oen b ro th e rs, and

a b o u t destiny, success and the com m on fo lk a

o rd e r fo r th e s p e cta to r to ta ke sto ck in a re fle x­

who know s the sco re a p ro p o s of B a rn e s ’ d e s ­

little su p ernatural too, a la It’s A W onderful Life

ive m a n n e r of the film sto ry and the possessed

tiny as a s u c k e rfo rth e evil, s ch e m in g S id n e y J.

(F rank Capra, 1946), H eaven Can W ait (E rnst

c h a ra c te rs w ho in h a b it it: (a) M oses fre e ze s

M ussberger (P aul N ew m a n ) and his c o -b o a rd

Lubitsch, 1943) and H ere C om es Mr. Jordan

B a rn e s ’ fre e fall to a certain death in the urban

of directors, it e m b le m a tiz e s th e random a b ­

(A le xa n d e r Hall, 1941), etc.

in fe rn o of th e scre w b a ll com edy film by ja m ­ m ing the c lo ck th ro u g h inse rtin g a broom h a n ­

surdity of life, the e v e r-ch a n g in g fo rtu n e s of the

H u d s u c k e r’s s u ic id e p ro m p ts M u s s b e rg e r

com m on person in the s tre e t (a m a jo r th e m a tic

to p e rs u a d e th e tim id b o a rd o f d ire c to rs to fin d

dle into its revolving gears and (b) the false

concern of S tu rg e s ’ s cre w b a ll film s w hich, a r­

a p a ts y ,

re p la c e

te e th of M u s s b e rg e r’s loyal ind u stria l fa c to tu m /

guably, re fle ct s im ila r e x is te n tia l id e a s of a b ­

H u d s u c k e r as th e C h a irm a n of th e B oard -

spy land into the clo ck fo r a m o m e n t’s respite to

surdity and d e stin y in th e h a rd -b o ile d crim e

s p e a k in g of w h ich , S in a tra d o e s not a p p e a r

cu shion B a rn e s’ fall onto the sn o w -co ve re d

novels and film s of th e era).

b u t D ino (i.e ., as a fic tio n a l c h a ra c te r) does

c o n c re te fo o tp a th .

a g u ile le s s

s u c k e r,

to

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 69

The elaborate, m o vin g -ca m e ra in tro d u ctio n

C h a rle s D urning (W aring H u d su cke r), John M ah o n e y

eran te le v isio n a cto r S te w a rt F aichney. Yet,

to the little folk w ho live and w o rk in New Y o rk ’s

(C hief), Jim T ru e (B uzz), W illia m C obbs (M oses),

th e y w ere able to a ttra c t the pro d u ctio n e xp e r­

Bruce C a m pb e ll (S m itty), Joe G rifa si (Lou), John

tise of people like Mai B ryning, firs t a ssista n t

line of skyscra p e rs - a w e ll-e s ta b lis h e d tro d d e n path of so m any film s from the cla ssic H o lly ­ w ood cinem a - is done w ith a s ty lis tic and technical ve rve th a t ca p tu re s the film m a k e rs ’

S eitz (B enny). P olygram Film ed E n te rta in m e n t and S ilve r P ictu re s in a sso cia tio n w ith W o rking T itle P ic­ tu re s. A u stra lia n d istrib u to r: Dendy. 35m m . 111 mins.

d ire c to r on Fred S c h e p is i’s The D e v il’s P la y­ g ro u n d (1976), w ho la te r w ent on to w ork in A m erica, and Tim S m art, the second unit cin-

U.S. 1994.

e m a to g ra p h e ro n the orig in a l M a d M a x (G eorge

E m ersonian pre o ccu p a tio n w ith the com m on, the fo lk of the stre e t and th e ir habits and p h i­

LEX AND RORY

losophy of life (that p ro m in e n tly fe a tu re s in

ANNA

M iller, 1979).

“T he a ssem bled crew b ro u g h t e xperiences

DZENIS

S ta n le y C a v e ll’s irre p la c e a b le stu d y of the

a c cu m u la ted on the sets of M a d Max, C rocodile In one w ay o r a n o th e r, m o s t teen s to rie s are

scre w b a ll com edy of rem arriage, P u rsu its o f

a b o u t w h a t c u ltu ra l th e o ris ts call th e lim in a l

H a p p in e s s (1981), and also especially rendered

e xp e rie n ce : th a t in te n se , s u sp e n d e d m o ­

in dark, surreal term s in B arton F/n/c(1991) with

m e n t betw een y e s te rd a y and to m o rro w ,

the burly psychopath (John G oodm an, surely

betw een c h ild h o o d and a d u lth o o d , betw een

one of the m ost capable, in te llig e n t and nim ble

be in g a n o b o d y and a s o m e b o d y, w hen

perform ers to grace H ollyw ood film today) ro a r­

e v e ry th in g is in q u e s tio n , and a n y th in g is

ing dow n a fie ry hotel co rrid o r w ith a shotgun

p o s s ib le . — Adrian M artin1

shouting th a t he w ants to show B arton and the

D undee, E v il A ngels, The R ussia H ouse, The M an from S n o w y River, and B la c k Robe, am ong m any o th e rs .”3 At least 65 percent of the investors hailed from A lbury-W odonga. Friends and fam ily ral­ lied to the cause w ith m ore than 100 of them investing their own savings. C orporate sp o n so r­ s h ip a ls o ca m e th ro u g h w ith S c h w e p p e s ,

tw o P interesque de te ctive s “the co u n try of the

F a iry ta le s can com e tru e . Dean M u rp h y

m ind” th a t belongs to the com m on person that

used to m ilk co w s fo r a liv in g and S c o tt

services. To keep on-line costs to a m inim um ,

B arton so idealizes in his plays and W allace

A n d re w s s o ld fu rn itu re . Now th e y make

the actors, the crew, M urphy and A ndrew s only

B eery in his w restling m ovie script.

m o vie s and tra v e l to H o lly w o o d .2

drew m inim al pay during the production, a ccept­

The H u d su cker P roxy lives up to its prom ise of representing the choreographed wild action of the screw ball com edy film, with the ballistic body

Telecom and P orsche offering m oney and/or

both fo r its

ing instead a percentage of any profits the film

i ch a ra cte rs and its creators. S u b title d “th a t

m ay m ake on its release. T his is a not-unusual

m agical m om ent w here dream s becom e re a l­

strategy in low budget/no budget film m aking,

ex a n d R o ry is a fa iry ta le -

L

posturings of its characters like Barnes, A rcher

ity” , Le x a n d R o ry is about dream s com ing true.

but is one w orthy of note considering the pool of

and M ussberger, the stylized verbal w it of the

U n fortunately, the film will pro b a b ly go dow n in

talent behind this p articular project.

film form that crackles along like greased light­

the annals of A u stra lia n film h isto ry m ore fo r

ning, and cynical, schem ing characters as e p ito ­

the story of its creation than fo r its cin e m a tic

but it’s not m eant to look like a g e o g ra p h ica lly

m ized by A rch e r’s jou rnalistic peers who are

a ch ie ve m e n ts.

sp e cific b o rd e r tow n. If its c o n te xt is anything,

alw ays keen to out-m anceuvre each other to get

M ost of the film w as shot in A lb u ry-W o d o n g a

O rig in a lly co n ce ive d as a lo w -b u d g e t video

it is th a t of its genre: the teen film . A t tim es, I am

the dirt on the respectable citizens who are living

release th a t w ould cost a bout $10,000, it grew

rem inded of M ark (C hristian S later) in P um p Up

at the top end of town. The often heard e xp re s­

to a $2.2 m illion, 35m m w id e -scre e n , Dolby

the V olum e (A llan M oyle, 1990), alone in his

sion “Hey, w hat gives? ” sum s up the q u ick­

stereo fe a tu re m ade fo r a bout 20 perce n t of its

b a se m e n t room , full of records, tapes, live

w itted and naked am bition of A rcher and her

pro je cte d budget. Dean M urphy, the 2 2 -ye a r-

c re a tu re s and e ro tic a rte fa cts, se n d in g his

peers as representative plotting figures of the

old w rite r-d ire c to r-c o -p ro d u c e r, and S co tt A n ­

m essages out on the pirate airw aves, ‘talking

screw ball com edy: everyone has som ething to

d re w s , th e 2 5 -y e a r-o ld c o -p ro d u c e r-s c rip t

h a rd ’ w ith o u t actually facing N ora (S am antha

hide, and everyone w ishes to ride up the greasy

c o lla b o ra to r-e xe cu tive producer, w ere tw o p e o ­

M athis), the girl of his dream s. At o th e r tim es,

totem ic pole of social success. The film ’s highly-

ple w ith not much m ore than a dream and

so m e th in g of the th e a tric a lity of the playing out

energized com edic m aterial and tone encapsu­

largely u n explored talents. T h e ir chosen cast

of re la tio n sh ip s in Lex a n d R o ry rem inds me of

lates the Coen b ro th e rs ’ tire le ssly inventive

w ere all new com ers, with the exception of v e t­

John D u ig a n ’s O ne N ig h t S ta n d (1984), and the

capacity to inject new dram atic, verbal and sty­ listic concerns and agendas into the fa m iliar genres of A m erican cinem a. But they give us som ething else extra: as enchanted film s p e cta ­ tors we can easily fit into the film ’s sharplydelineated and pulsating audio-visual w orld of deeply-resonating individual and collective truths about ourselves and our need to tell stories to each o th e r ... just as we do w hen we snug into our w ell-w orn slippers before a fireplace.

Note 1

I prom ised m yself that som ehow in the not-tood ista nt future I would refer to Nick T o sch e s’ brilliant book on Dean M artin, D in o (Seeker & W arburg, 1992). T hanks to a w o n d e rfu lly “ hip” scene in the film , we see Barnes and A rch e r entw ined as a rom antic pair on a balcony above the glittering lights of New York, and inside the a p a rtm e nt is Dino and his back-up group crooning the night away.

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY D irected by Joel C oen. P ro­ ducer: Ethan C oen. E xecutive p ro d u ce rs: Eric Fellner, T im

Bevan.

C o -p ro d u c e r:

G ra h a m

P la c e .

S c rip tw rite rs : Joel C oen, Ethan C oen, Sam Raim i.

D ire cto r of p h o to g ra p hy: R oger D eakins. P roduction d e s ig n e r:

D e n n is G a s s n e r. C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r;

R ichard H ornung. S ound reco rd ist: A llan Byer. E di­ tor: T hom Noble. C om poser: C a rte r B urw ell. C ast: Tim R obbins (N o rville B arnes), J e n n ife r Ja so n Leigh (A m y A rch e r), Paul N ew m an (S idney J. M ussb e rg e r),

70 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

LEX (ANGUS BENFIELD) AND RORY (PAUL ROBERTSON). DEAN MURPHY'S LEX AND RORY.

ro m a n ce s he co n fig u re s in th e S yd n e y O p e ra

W h a t L e x a n d R o ry does b e st is th is s o rt of

LEX AND RORY D ire cte d by Dean M urp h y. A s s o c ia te

H ouse a m id st its sets and c o stu m e s. A nd, of

zany, crazy, absurd, rid icu lo u s s cre w b a ll c o m ­

d ire cto r: Mai Bryning. P roducers: S cott A ndrew s, Dean

co u rse, th e re is F e rris B u e lle r’s D a y O /f (John

edy. T h e h a lf-b a ke d jo ke s, m ad a n tics and

M urp h y. E xe cu tive p ro d u ce r: S co tt A n d re w s . A s s o c i­ ate p ro d u ce r: Mai B ryn in g . S c rip tw rite r: Dean M urphy.

H ughes, 1986) w ith its c ra z y y o u n g e rs ib lin g , its

p a n to m im e -lik e d a n ce s p e rfo rm e d by Lex and

dream red car, and its tag line d o u b le ending

R ory e n e rg ize th e film and propel the story.

w h e re sw e e t revenge has its day. A nd so on ...

T h e re p e titive e ffo rts of D a i’s y o u n g e r b ro th e r

B e n fie ld

L e x a n d R o ry is ju s t such a fa n ta s y w orld.

Ja m ie (A sh le y B indon) to avoid the tra d itio n a l

M a cG re g o r (D ai), W e n d y Holies (N ikki). Lex & Rory

D ire c to r of p h o to g ra p h y : Tim S m art. E ditor: John L e onard. C o m p o se r: F ra n k S tra n gio . C ast: A n g u s (L e x ),

Paul

R o b e rts o n

(R o ry ),

F io n a

Lex (A ngus B enfield) a p p e a rs to live w ith his

‘b irth d a y b a s h in g ’ at school, w h ile D a i’s m o th e r

P ro d u ctio n s. A u stra lia n d is trib u to r: G lobe. 35m m . 95

b e st m ate, R ory (P aul R obe rtso n ), in a g a ra g e

(C arol B rand) leaps and sn a rls as she co a ch e s

m ins. A u stra lia . 1994.

(d e void of a house), fu ll of w o n d e rfu l a d o le s ­

her yo u n g son to hit back and fig h t “ like B a t­

c e n t dre a m s — pinball m achines, g a u d y p o s t­

m an” , p ro vid e the e sca p ist, triv ia l d e ta ils th a t

SHOTGUN WEDDING

ers, b a ske tb a ll rings, Tom a n d J e rry chess

m ake the film really e n te rta in in g .

RAYMOND

sets, am ps, sp e a ke rs, co m p u te rs, d irty clo th e s,

If L e x a n d R o ry had stayed w ithin these

le ft-o v e r pizza, sp ra y-ca n a rt w ork, a h a n d s ­

com ic param eters, it w ould probably have been

free phone, and a red P orsch e w ith $50 in the

a m uch better film . Instead, w hen it decides to

g lo ve box. L e x’s fa th e r, a fre e -s p irite d th ro w ­

take itself a bit too seriously, it becom es e m b a r­

back to the 1960s, o c ca sio n a lly p h o n e s him,

rassingly d ifficult to endure. T he least c o n vin c­

o ffe rin g w o rd s o f m is c h ie v o u s in c ite m e n t.

ing scenes are those betw een Dai and her selfish

S o m ehow he tru sts his sch o o l-a g e son to live

fa th e r w hose desires to have Dai follow him in

alo n e and fe n d fo r him self, ye t b e ra te s him fo r

the fam ily business override her own dream s of

not ta kin g the P orsche fo r a spin (d e sp ite the

becom ing a fashion designer. These c o n fro n ta ­

tra g ic loss of his o th e r son, L e x ’s o ld e r bro th e r,

tions are painfully long, and anything but subtle,

in a h o rrific road a cc id e n t o n ly a few years

deserving a much m ore com plex understanding

e a rlier. A nd tho u g h still at sch o o l, we la te r

and portrayal than the film provides. Le x’s m eta­

learn th a t Lex has had his lice n ce fo r tw o years,

physical philosophizing over the phone, e sp e ­

w hich ju s t re in fo rce s the fa n ta s y of w a n tin g to

cially his denouncing of all parents and teachers

be com e som e o n e you are not, even if it is ju s t

w ho have failed at life, is w o efully inadequate.

an a dult). His fa th e r’s pre se n ce (vo ice ) e v a p o ­

And the film ’s clim ax, w hich has Lex running

rates ju s t as q u ickly as it a p p e a rs, back to an

through the dark streets of suburbia, follow ing

a p p a re n tly a fflu e n t w orld, fre e of any concern

the sp o tlig h t to his R apunzel in her brick veneer

fo r the m ore b a sic p ro b le m s of life.

tow er, to rescue her in a ‘true lo ve ’ clinch, m o­

For Lex, and hence also his ta g -a lo n g m ate

m ents after her near-suicide attem pt, contains

Rory, alth o u g h living on th e ir ow n, th e y n e ve r

none of the pathos or hum our prom ised by the

have to th in k ab o u t the d a y-to -d a y p ro b le m s of

lead-up. T hough th e film seem s intent on m aking

su rv iva l. L e x’s only problem is th a t he th in ks he

him a hero, a knight in shining a rm our w hose

is a nerd - one of th o se h a rd -w o rkin g , e a rn e st

sim plistic m oral platitudes can som ehow e m ­

and u n tro u b lin g stu d e n ts w ho are m e a n t to

pow er Dai, it falls short of em pow ering us to go

spe n d all day in fro n t of th e ir c o m p u te rs, o r w ith

along with, let alone be convinced of, their dream ’s

th e ir heads buried in books, n e ith e r of w hich

realization.

Lex seem s to spend th a t m uch tim e doing. But

O pting fo r m ultip le e n dings, the film m ore

he th in ks of h im se lf as a nerd all th e sam e. He

s u c c e s s fu lly returns to its co m ic form . A fte r the

sp e n d s all his tim e fa n ta sizin g a b o u t c a p tu rin g

ro m a n tic com ing to g e th e r of Dai and Lex, and

th e heart, and love, of the e v e r-s o -p e rfe c t and

R ory and N ikki, the fo u r drive off in th a t red

in c re d ib ly -p o p u la r Dai (F iona M a cG re g o r). But,

P orsche, m e tic u lo u s ly fo llo w e d in one long take

u n fo rtu n a te ly, Dai a lre a d y has a hunk of a

by a h e lic o p te r-m o u n te d cam era. Fade to black

b o yfrie n d , is loved and adm ire d by her p arents

o n ly to return w ith a th ro w a w a y scene w here

and the te a ch e rs at school, and is w ay above

D ai’s fo rm e r boyfriend, T hom as, takes up a n o n y­

L e x’s league. W ell, at least th a t’s w hat Lex

m ous phone ca lling. A nd then ju s t as the cre d its

th in ks.

s ta rt to roll, D a i’s y o u n g e r b ro th e r Jam ie calls

But his best m ate R ory has a plan to help Lex

fo r a rew ind and we return to a s ile n t film parody

c a p tu re D ai’s a tte n tio n , and p re su m a b ly her

in b lack and w hite w here J a m ie ’s fa n ta s y of

heart. H ow ever, a fte r a he ctic and w e ll-sta g e d

d e fe a tin g the sch o o l bullies fin a lly com es true,

se q u e n ce of fa ke d bike a ccid e n ts, co m plete

c o m p le te w ith jo k e s in in te rtitle s.

w ith to m a to -s a u c e b lo o d , m a d c a p c h a s in g

The pre m ise th a t ‘one call can ch ange yo u r

th ro u g h the stre e ts, the rescu e of a man from

life ’ seem s loaded w ith a s ig n ifica n ce th a t the

his b u rn in g ca r w reck, and all th e o th e r stu ff

film c a n n o t and p ro b a b ly fin a lly does not w a n t

th a t heroic nerds e n c o u n te r on a d a ily basis,

to carry. On th e o th e r hand, I’ve a lw a ys b e ­

th e ir fre n e tic p u rsu it of the belo ve d Dai goes

lieved th a t sm a rt, sn a p p y d ia lo g u e can win

c o m p le te ly u n n o tice d . So Lex has no choice

hearts, and th a t peo p le can fall p a s s io n a te ly in

but to fin a lly sum m on up the c o u ra g e to phone

love th ro u g h long, ram bling te le p h o n e c o n v e r­

h e r d irect. A fte r a few s tu m b lin g m om ents, he

sa tio n s. P erhaps a few m ore w ise cra cks in the

d is c o ve rs he can o ve r-co m e the n e rd ’s w o rst

m outh of Lex, ra th e r than m audlin im m ature

fe a r: he can a ctu a lly ta lk to a girl. B ut in ste a d of

se n tim e n ts, and m aybe th e ir love a ffa ire w ould

tru ly re ve a lin g h im se lf to Dai, he tu rn s a round

have had the sp a rk it lacks.

and lies a b o u t his identity, cla im in g to be s o m e ­ o ne ca lle d J a ck T e a g a rd e n . He is as a n o n y ­

Notes

m ous as is his m ate Rory, w ho is th e na m e le ss

1

a u th o r o f the love le tte rs D a i’s g irlfrie n d N ikki (W e n dy H olies) receives. A nd so the c o n v e rs a ­

P h a n ta s m s , M cP hee G rib b le -P e n g u in Books, M el­

B

YOUNIS

attler, “c a rth ie f and con artist” Jim m y B ecker (Aden Y oung), ju s t out of gaol, leaves w ith

his p re g n a n t g irlfrie n d H elen (Z oe C arides) in search of a new life on the o u tskirts of S ydney.

T he p re g n a n cy itself, one presum es, m arks the p o te n tia l fo r a new beginning: the w ish fo r a new sense of resp o n sib ility; a new role fo r a co u p le w ho are young and w ho have som e reason fo r op tim ism . T h e y are driven to a ru n ­ dow n house by H e le n ’s rather odd brother, w ho carries an arsenal of w eapons, including a rocket lau n ch e r, g re n ades and a shotgun. The b ro th e r re a lize s th a t they are not safe and trie s to pe rsu a d e H elen to leave w ith him . She refuses.

He leaves, but the w eapons rem ain.

J u s t w hen the couple seem to be se ttlin g dow n, a cro o ke d detective, F rank T a y lo r (John W alton), a rrive s abru p tly seeking revenge. It seem s th a t B e cker has given ra th e r co m p ro ­ m ising in fo rm a tion about m em bers of the p o ­ lice fo rc e in e xchange fo r his release. B ecker is su p p o se d to be protected, though no p ro te c­ tion is e vid e n t in this new setting, or in B e cke r’s new life. A n u m ber of m isu n d e rsta n d in g s o ccu r w hen the m edia, the to w n sp e o p le and o th e r po lice m e n arrive. A siege ensues, during w hich H elen gives birth to a boy. B ecker, H elen and th e ir son are tra p p e d in the house. T his is the story of the siege, a birth, a m arriage, a c o m ­ p rom ise and a death.

The film is an uneasy syn th e sis of dram a, rom ance and com edy of errors. A s “bizarre d ra m a ” , in the w ords of the syn o p sis th a t a c ­ co m p a n ie s the film ’s p roduction notes, it is s u cce ssfu l to a degree. T h e re are unusual situ a tio n s, unusual c h a ra cte rs and odd a tti­ tud e s. T h e se elem ents, though, are not really d o m in a n t and not really bizarre in any c o n s is t­ ent w ay, m ainly because a n u m b e r of s itu a ­ tions, ch a ra cte rs and attitudes are not unfam iliar enough. (The w edding scene is cle a rly an e x ­ cep tio n . B ecker m arries H elen w ith a grenade in one hand and a w edding ring in the other.

T he police c o m m issio n e r is best man and a d e cid e d ly a n xious p rie st c o n d u cts the p ro c e e d ­ ings, as tw o “frie n d s ” , each w ith peroxided hair and loud app a rel, look upon the solem n c e r­ em ony.) As a love story, it is e n g aging and both actors (Y oung and C arides) p erform c re d ita b ly and cre d ib ly. It is clear, how ever, th a t the rela­ tio n s h ip is a d oom ed one. T he film is least s u cce ssfu l as a com edy of errors. It is sim ply not fu n n y enough. Indeed, the p u rsu it of com ic m o m e n ts d issip a te s the tension th a t such a

bourne, 1994, p. 68.

film re q u ire s if it is to hold the v ie w e r’s c o n c e n ­

2

P e n e lo p e D eb e lle, T h e A g e , 28 M ay 1994.

tra tio n . T h e re are am using m om ents, but these

3

M aria G a lin o vic, T h e B o r d e r M a il, 2 0 M ay 1993.

are m o stly sm all m om ents w hich involve a w it-

tio n s begin.

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 71

ticism , gesture or v u lg a r com m ent.

m ig h t say, is e clip se d by the c o n s tru c tio n w hich

THE SUM OF US ALISSA

T he m edia is portra ye d yet again in an un ­

then com es to c o n s titu te th e w h o le of the

fla tte rin g light. T he vie w e r is left in no d oubt

sto ry, at le a st to th e lis te n e rs and v ie w e rs

ab o u t the m o tiva tio n s and te c h n iq u e s of a

w ith in th e film . O ne of th e s h re w d e s t p o in ts in

num ber of reporters and b ro a d ca ste rs. It is

th e film is in fa c t th e one a b o u t th e e x te n t to

c le a rth a t the em otive and s e n s a tio n a lis t use of

w hich som e re p o rte rs a c tu a lly b e co m e in c a ­

Y ear of Tolerance, The Sum o f Us could not be

language w hich leads to d isto rte d p e rsp e ctive s

pa b le of d is tin g u is h in g be tw e e n the e ve n ts

more topically appropriate. This humanitarian work

and m isinform ation is not sh unned here. T here

and th e ir ow n re c o n s tru c tio n s of them , no

is about the meaning and im portance of all types

seem s to be little in te re st in a ccu ra cy on the

m a tte r how fa r fe tc h e d o re x a g g e ra te d o rw ilfu l

of fam ilies, and it encourages and prom otes to le r­

part of such reporters: they seem to be more

th e s e re c o n s tru c tio n s are.

ance and understanding of our differences.

W

TANSKAYA

ith 1994 being the International Y ear of the Fam ily, and 1995 the International

interested in ratings points and ca re e r p ro s ­

The film is co m p e te n tly done and should

To say th a t this film is about the rela tio n sh ip

pects than in the task of cla rifyin g and a n alyzing

a ttra ct som e fa vo u ra b le atte n tio n . T he p e r­

betw een a gay son and his (straight) fa th e r

som e of the precise d etails of the in ju stice s and

fo rm a n ce s are quite co n vin cin g in general and

w ould be o ffe n sive ly reductionist. M ostly, The

com prom ises th a t are taking place u nder th e ir

quite strong in parts from a ca st of exp e rie n ce d

Sum o f Us is about true love and co m p a n io n ­

co lle ctive noses.

actors including Max C ullen, Bill H u n te r and

ship; all types of true love, w ith o u t bias to age

Few a ccu ra te re p o rts a c tu a lly em e rg e d u r­

Paul C hubb. The te ch n ica l asp e cts are a d m ira ­

or gender, w h e th e r it be betw een a husband

ing th e siege, so it is not at all s u rp ris in g th a t

ble in m any parts, and lighting and filte rs are

and w ife, a fa th e r and son; betw een gay men or

B e cke r beco m e s c e le b ra te d as a “ b a ttle r” w ho

used e ffe c tiv e ly to hig h lig h t states of exclusion

lesbian w om en. T rue love and com p a n io n sh ip

is then m yth o lo g ize d and lio n ize d by an in a d ­

or d e m a rca tio n s and b o u n d a rie s w hich are

have, of course, th e ir polar o pposite: true lo n e ­

e q u a te ly -in fo rm e d and c o n s is te n tly -m a n ip u ­

so m e w h a t blurred by the co rru p tio n and the

liness. T his too, as the film so to u ch in g ly d e m ­

lated public. Indeed, th is a s p e c t is one of the

d ishonesty. T he film , how ever, la rg e ly lacks

o n stra te s, fu n ctio n s w ith o u t bias.

m ost in te re s tin g in the film : given a se t of in itial

one of the e ssential in g re d ie n ts of the “siege

The film follow s the lives of a set of characters

co n d itio n s w hich are then e x a g g e ra te d , d is ­

g e n re ” : it does not sustain the ten sio n th a t is

as they search for and som etim es fin'd, their true

torted, w ilfu lly shaped or in a ccu ra te ly recorded,

ne ce ssa ry to keep the v ie w e r c o n siste n tly in te r­

a chain of in cre a s in g ly -a b s u rd o r o b je c tio n ­

ested in the p lig h t of the couple. Indeed, th e fa c t

able o r e rro n e ou s e le m e n ts fo llo w s . It is re ­

th a t the sto rylin e in e ssence is revealed in the

m arkable th a t som e ch a ra cte rs in the film retain

form of a prologue does not help m atters. One

som e se m b la n ce of s o b rie ty . P art of th e jo ke

can guess w hat the next step w ill be. S till, it is

here of co u rse is th e fa c t th a t B e cke r sees

a film th a t does deserve an audience.

/

reports on te le visio n w hich are p u ta tive ly a bout

SHOTGUN WEDDING D irected by Paul H arm on. P ro­

him but w hich have little or noth in g to do w ith

ducers: David Hannay, C h arles Hannay. S crip tw rite r:

his c h a ra c te r or w ith his a ctu a l b e h a vio u r. T he

D a v id

in fo rm a tio n - a ctu a lly m is in fo rm a tio n - w hich

B atterham . P ro d u ctio n d e sig ne r: M ichael P hillips.

is p re se n te d th ro u g h fo rm s of the m edia such

C ostum e desig ne r: C la rrissa P atterson. S ound re ­

as this becom es a cce p te d to such an e xte n t and in such an u n critica l w ay th a t the w hole

O ’ B rie n .

D ir e c to r o f p h o to g r a p h y :

K im

co rd ist: Ross Linton. Editor: W ayne Le C los. C om ­ p o se r: A lla n Z a v o d . C a st: A d e n Y o u n g (Jim m y

loves in their varied attem pts to escape the lone­ liness. T w enty-four-year old Jeff (Russell Crowe) tries to w ork out a relationship with Greg (John Poison). Je ff’s father, Harry (Jack Thom pson), meets and woos a lonely widow. A fter the death of her husband, H arry’s m other finds happiness in the arms of a fem ale com panion.

T here could hardly be m ore unifying aspects of hum an existence than love, loneliness, pa r­ ents, children and, ultim ately, death. The Sum o f Us presents these aspects as the com m on ground from which it then explores and rejoices

B ecker), Zoe C a rides (H elen L le w ellyn), Bill H unter

in our differences. A m azingly, w hilst achieving

(P olice C o m m issio n e r A n d re w s), John W alton (D e ­

this with great success, the film never becom es

T he p ro je cte d im ages and the re p o rte d s to rie s

te ctive F rank T aylo r), M arsh a ll N a p ie r (D e te ctive

didactic or heavily m oralistic. It rem ains greatly

s u p p la n t the re a lity its e lf to such a d e g re e th a t

Dave G reen), John C layton (S u p e rin te n d e n t F rank

entertaining; very funny and very m oving. It is

the la tte r fa d e s from view . T he re a lity, one

C hurch), W arren C olem an (Ben Q uill), Paul Chubb

q u e stio n of truth o r fa c t be co m e s im m a te ria l.

(G eoffrey D rinkw ater), Y ves S tening (P eter Bingham ), Sean S cully (D e te ctive C raig H aker). A D avid H annay

also pleasantly surprising.

In The Sum o f Us tw o blokes sit dow n, crack

POLICE COMMISSIONER ANDREWS (BILL HUNTER), SUPERINTEN­

P roduction in asso cia tio n w ith the A u stra lia n Film

a couple of tinnies, talk about a fo o ty team and

DENT FRANK CHURCH (JOHN CLAYTON) AND REVEREND ARTHUR

F in a n ce C o rp o ra tio n . A u stra lia n d is trib u to r: REP.

then ... th ey kiss. E arlier, a grandm a tosses a

HICKEY (MAX CULLEN). PAUL HARMON S SHOTGUN WEDDING.

35m m . 95 m ins. A u stra lia . 1994.

fo o ty w ith her grandson in the backyard w hile a lady ob se rves them from the veranda. Later, the g ra ndm a and the lady lie in bed, holding each o th e r in th e ir sleep. N othing is as it seem s.

The re liable m yths and the stock ico n o g ra p h y th a t m ake up ou r p erception of A u ssie n e ss are sub ve rte d . Even the e stablished p rocesses of re p re s e n ta tio n of th e s e m yth s on film are d e co n stru cted, as cheeky references are m ade to S u n d a y Too F a r A w a y {Ken H annam , 1975) in the firs t ten m inutes of the film . H aving given us the tough, rugged shearer, Foley, nineteen ye a rs ago, Jack T hom pson show s us a m ore evolved and sig n ifica n tly m ore se n sitive A ussie bloke now.

But w ho are the average A ussie bloke and the a verage A ussie sheila? A nd w hat are th e ir average A ussie lives? To a n sw e r these q u e s­ tio n s, the film turns all the clich é s inside out, d e stro yin g the co n ce p t of “a ve ra g e n e ss” as it does so. T he h um our evo lve s out of the ta ke n o -p ris o n e rs, in -y o u r-fa c e a p p ro a ch to th is d e stru ctio n - or, b e tte r still, the re -d e fin itio n of the a ve ra ge A u stra lia n s and th e ir daily fives.

The p u b ’s clie n te le m ay still be, as in S u n d a y Too F a r A w ay, all m ale, but now som e o f the

72 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

JEFF (RUSSELL CROWE) AND HARRY (JACK THOMPSON). GEOFF BURTON AND KEVIN DOWLING S THE SUM OF US.

a lw ays a bit of a shaky ground), the sim ple fa ct of it o rig in a tin g in the th e a tre m ade it im m e d i­ a te ly less a cce ssible, fo r A u stra lia n audiences, at least. O ne can only hope that, by bringing it to the screen, B urton and D ow ling w ill find a w hole new a u d ience th a t w ould never o th e r­ w ise have had a chance to a ccess such a story.

T he ch o ice of the lead a ctors may, h o p e ­ fu lly, be of som e help here also - T hom pson being a veteran hero of A ustra lia n screen, and C row e being the spunky new star. T hey also give the best p e rfo rm a n ce s they have done to date. The fla w le ss nuances of C ro w e ’s acting reaffirm the u n p o p u la r th e o ry that, ultim ately, g re a t acting ca n n o t be taught; it is a ta le n t one is born w ith. How long to pause betw een tw o phrases or tw o w ords, so th a t an extra level of m eaning, w hich is beyond w ords, evolves? Just how, w hen and by how m uch to m ove a glass or shrug a sho u ld e r; to flic k e r the eyelids or turn the head, so th a t those m ovem ents becom e e nriched w ith precise em otions? C row e seem s to know in stin ctive ly how to do all these things not ju s t well, but perfectly. One suspects th a t T h om pson, playing m ost of the tim e aga in st C row e, sim ply could not help but m ake H arry the special p e rform ance of his ca re e r (F oley has indeed com e a long w ay), and it is a jo y to w atch these tw o actors w ork together.

Loving a film one has ju s t seen is one thing, feeling g ra te fu l to the film m a ke rs fo r m aking it is quite a nother. H aving seen The Sum o f Us, I th a n k D avid S tevens fo r the b rillia n t and b ra ve ly-h o n e st stage play and the d ire cto rs G e o ff B urton and Kevin D ow ling fo r bringing it so a ptly to the screen. It is a little and gentle G raham “G ra ce ” W a lke r and the n o-frills, u tili­

film , and, like its m ain characters, all rough and

ta ria n c in e m a to g ra p h y of G eoff B urton (except

basic around the edges, but b eautiful and in tri­

m ost topics of discussion. T ongue-in-cheek, the

in the fla sh b a cks). The d ia logue is all plain-

cate on the inside.

film even acknow ledges this, when, a fte r a d is ­

speak A ussie, like down at the pub. It’s funny

cussion on m asturbation betw een Je ff and Harry,

and clever, too, p e ppered w ith se lf-re fe re n ce ,

J e ff turns to cam era and says, “Sorry, th a t was

picking up the th e m e s of the lang u a g e itse lf and

a bit b o ld .” N evertheless, beneath this funny,

e n d le ssly playing w ith the va ria tio n s. The main

o cke r veneer lurk the m any subtle layers w hich

p e rfo rm a n ce s are spot-on: we know th e se p e o ­

are serious and disturbing. R ight in the m iddle of

ple, we m et them ju s t the o th e r day or we m ight

S tevens. Based on his play. D ire cto r of p h o to g ra p hy:

a to ile t-h u m o u r m om ent com es the discussion

m e e tth e m to m o rro w ... o rth e y ju s t m ight be us.

G e o ff B urton. P ro d u ctio n d e sig ne r: G raham “ G ra c e ”

of a fa th e r’s long-lived fe a r of seeing his son one

T he acce ssib ility is increased even fu rth e r by

W a lke r. Editor: F rans V a n d e n b erg . M usic su p e rviso r:

day die of A ids. B eneath all of H a rry’s crude

the device of the d irect-to-cam era address, su c­

John H opkins. C o m po se r: D ave F aulkner. C ast: Ja ck

ba n ter on the sexual activities of gay men is a

cessfully utilized to its very lim its thro u g h o u t the

T h o m p so n (H arry), R ussell C row e (Jeff), John Poison

real concern fo r his s o n ’s heart and soul. The

film . Borrow ed from A lfie (Lew is G ilbert, 1966),

( G re g ),

boys m ight be w earing m ascara.

T he hum our is crude, bold and basic, as are

S um o f Us is exem plary in presenting the s e ri­

ano th e r film th a t deals with m orals and sexuality,

ous issues in an accessible m anner.

the d ire ct-to -ca m e ra address is the ultim ate way

U n fo rtu n a te ly, m any film s th a t deal w ith gay

of inviting the audience into the film , into the

and lesbian issues are often too a lie n a tin g to

c h a ra c te rs ’ inner feelings, thoughts and the is­

th o se who. m ay m ost require an access, th e ir

sues they are struggling with, w hilst sim u lta n e ­

d e lica te co n te n ts o ve r-styliz e d in re p re s e n ta ­

ously bringing the characters o u t o f the film to

tio n . The S um o f Us refuses to do th is. S ty lis ti­

becom e a part of the audience. Unlike Alfie,

cally, it is as “o rd in a ry ” and s tra ig h tfo rw a rd as

how ever, w here only A lfie (M ichael C aine) talks

N e ig h b o u rs, “o rd in a rin e s s ” , of course, being a

to the audience, both H arry and Je ff do so here,

style in itself. T he idea behin d th is seem s to be

giving the sp e cta to r the o pportunity to intim ately

v e ry sim ple: If the film is tryin g to show its

know diffe re n t sides of the story.

c h a ra cte rs to be ju s t o rd in a ry fo lks and w ants

M ost of th e se “a c c e s s ib ility ” a sp e cts of the

the a u d ie n ce s to relate to them as such, w hy

film , plus all the in te llig e n ce and the hum our,

re p re se nt them and th e ir a d v e n tu re s in an e x ­

are in th e o riginal D avid S te ve n s play, and

tra -o rd in a ry m anner? H ence, the u ltra -b a sic

praise should be given w here praise is due.

and u ltra -a p p ro p ria te p ro d u c tio n d e sig n by

U n fo rtu n a te ly (and sp e c ta to rs h ip th e o rie s are

THE SUM OF US D ire cte d by G e o ff B urton, Kevin D ow ling. P ro d u cer: Hal M cE lroy. E xe cu tive p ro d u c ­ ers: Hal M cE lroy, Errol S u lliva n . C o -e x e c u tiv e p ro ­ d u c e rs : C o rk y K e s s le r,

D o n a ld

S c a te n a , K e v in

D ow ling. Line p roducer: Rod A llan. S c rip tw rite r: David

D e b o ra h

Kennedy

(J o y c e ),

R ebekah

E lm a lo glo u (Jenny), Jo ss M oro n e y (Je ff aged 8), M itch M atth e w s (G ran), Ju lie H e rb e rt (M ary). Hal M cE lro y-S o u th e rn S ta r P ro d u ctio n . A u s tra lia n d is ­ trib u to r: UIP. 35m m . 100 m ins. A u s tra lia . 1994.

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 73

K REVI EWS

PHANTASMS: THE DREAMS AND DESIRES AT THE HEART OF OUR POPULAR CULTURE

than sim ply evaluative. of things, it is som e th in g lib idinous, so m ething

healthy thing to vibe along w ith m any of the

A d ria n M artin, M cP hee G ribble, Victoria, 1994,

w ith w hich to g lim pse e x p e rie n ce o utside “the

essays, to go through th e ir c a llisth e n ics and to

2 1 2 pp., pb, rrp $16 .9 5

brutal realities of taste and d is c e rn m e n t” , so m e ­

keep up, to realize th a t I can do the responsive

ROSS

thing th a t evokes intense live lin e ss in a “lim inal

routine this w ay, or to u nderstand th a t this

GIBSON

M a rtin ’s p ro je ct generally. Let me try now to

W h a t is p o p u la r culture? In M a rtin ’s schem e

un d e rsta nd w hy. O ne reason is th a t I find it a

sp a ce ” so m e w h e re and som etim e “before the

se e m in g ly in co n sid e ra b le o b je ct o ve r here is

T his is a book form ed out of its w rite r’s m e d ita ­

alm ighty, in e scapable fall into s o c ia lity ” . T his is

so m e th in g good to pick up. Such fo llo w -m y-

tion on those m om ents w hen so m e th in g breaks

im p o ssib ly rom antic, of course, but I th in k it

m oves “e xe rcise ” is one w ay to w o rk w ith a text,

into yo u r heart, w hen one of th o se “se e m in g ly

strike s the true chord w ith anyone w ho has ever

an o b je ct or an event. You can g et in a good

in sig n ifica n t but uncannily co m p e llin g ” details

been enra p tu re d by a song or a gesture. And

sw e a t in an essay like “ I am the V ie w e r of

littered th ro u g h o u t po p u la r cu ltu re com m ands

who could deny th a t im possible rom anticism is

D u n le a v y ” , w h e re

yo u r attention. In devoting h im se lf to p h a n ­

one of the sta p le s of p o p u la r art? M artin co n ­

D u n le a v y program m e a ctu a lly lays out its own

tasm s, A drian M a rtin 1 lingers over the strange

fro n ts and ackn o w le d g e s this fa c t rather than

sly and d isre sp e ctfu l rules and then runs hard

gestures, phrases or scenes th a t o ccu r in film s,

disa llo w in g its va lid ity. In M a rtin ’s w orld of a tti­

and sm a rt w ithin its own gam e-plan. To like or

m agazines and televisio n show s. W hat e m a ­

tude, the tric k the pop cu ltu re c ritic m ust get

dislike D u n le a vy can then be seen as a d is c o n ­

nates in book form is a se rie s of pulses as

right is to break into th a t im p la u sib le “lim in a l”

certing confrontation w ith o neself and w ith o n e ’s

M artin issues short, sharp essays co n co cte d in

space, feel w hat it’s like in there and then figure

own ta ste s and presum ptions. And regardless

response to p o p u la r-cu ltu re events w hich are

out how the w orld sits w ith it. W hich I th in k is

of w hat you decide a fte r stopping to think, the

p a ra d o xica lly both fle e tin g and reproducible.

true to how m ost of us schnooks use pop as we

tra n s fo rm in g , p o litic a l e v e n t is th a t y o u ’ve stopped and thought. For M artin it w as D unleavy

M a rtin

s h o w s h o w th e

In w riting w ith the se little surges of e x c ite ­

go a bout our regular lives. (In this respect,

m ent or revulsion, M artin m anages to do m ore

M a rtin ’s line runs w ell a lo n g sid e R ichard D ye r’s

itse lf th a t upbraided him . For me, w ho has not

than m ost th e o rists of the popular. In an in te l­

ce le b ra te d quip a bout m o vie -m u sica ls: they

taken the tim e w ith the te le visio n in this in ­

lectual co n te xt w here “c o m m e n ta tin g ” tends to

d o n ’t tell you how to get to utopia, but th e y help

stance, it w as the essay about the show that

be a synonym fo r “e va lu a tin g ” , M artin strive s to

you know w hat th a t no-place m ight feel like.)

co n fro n te d me w ith my a u to m a tic ju d g e m e n ts.

keep a few critical pro ce d u re s going at once: he

B ecause p o p u la r cu ltu re is so ephem eral

Here is an o th e r thing th a t m akes M a rtin ’s

helps the reader to “fe e l” the p h a n ta sm a tic

and u nrem itting, the w ritin g p roduced around it

w ork so c o n sid e ra b le and reco n sid e ra b le . He

pulse, and then he grasps

ca n a ls o se e m

occa­

does su p erb “patrol w o rk” in p o p u la r culture,

the e th e re a l th in g c o o lly

sio n a l and th ro w a w a y.

being out there a m ongst it m uch m ore than

For th is re a so n , m ost

m ost of us are able. I inva ria b ly get the feeling

ha

enough to a nalyze it and know

its fu n c tio n s .

He

c o m m e n ta to rs on th e

his reports are inform ed rather than o p in io n ­

p o p u la rte n d to a ckn o w l­

ated. And I e sp e cia lly value the results of the

procedure of description +

edge at the o u tse t that

A PB s he puts out on specific objects or a ctions.

judgem ent. R a th e rth a n be ­

th e y

o ff,

In P hantasm s, fo r exam ple, there are essays

ing above the rubble of pop,

punching out som ething

th a t have arisen out of m issions to track, re ­

M artin attem pts to be s i­

fleeting about som ething

s p e c tiv e ly , th e s y s te m a tic a p p e a ra n c e s of

m u lta n e o u s ly in sid e and

flighty. B u tth e b e tte rtric k

“a g g ro ” , telephones, ghosts, and the fig u re of

beside it. By his own a c ­

fo r the re a d e r and the

the in tru d e r in pop culture. T hese are reports

count, he has “tried to w rite

w rite r is to re c o g n iz e

a bout p eriods of cultural fixa tio n , w hen the

in a w ay th a t m ixes re p o rt­

w hen

s o m e th in g

p hantasm w alks in recognizable shape through

age and analysis, e x p e ri­

w eighty, pe rm a n en t and

a m yriad “te x ts ” and then va p o rize s (or m orphs

[ Á í; cCWit'nti a w / ífaúí'fvÁ

■flu?au£ax- CiMxtn

avoids the m ore sim p listic

//C '

<k

a re

g o o fin g

encing these phantasm s up

re c o n s id e ra b le can be

into som e new T hing). T he firs t realization that

close, and then looking fo r

said ab o u t the e p h e m ­

strike s you in reading these essays is s tu ff like,

som e b ig g e r pictu re into

eral. I p oint this out b e ­

“yes, the phones are up to som ething at present” ,

w hich to fit th e m ” .

T his is the first startling

'

thing P hantasm s helps you

cause I fe a r th a t there

or “ch a ra cte rs are com ing in through the w in ­

w ill be som e sq u in ty re­

dow s th e se d a ys” . T he next m om ent, y o u ’re

s p o n s e s to th is book,

tryin g out a few expla n a tio n s. (And as is the w ay

realize: very few pop-culture “com m e n ta to rs”

w here review ers will q uickly ‘get it’ in an ill-

w ith p o p u la r culture, there are alw ays several

care to think about th e ir own placem ent in the

inform ed w ay and decide th a t these are th ro w a ­

e xp la n a tions, m any of them co n tra d icto ry, and

tum ult. The delirious gloss of the fanatic or the

w ay th o u g h ts on th ro w a w a y o bjects. C ertainly,

one has to learn how to live w ith them all.)

disinfectant buff of the sceptic, these tend to be

the prose of P h a n ta sm s often skanks along like

W hich m eans th a t y o u ’re a nalyzing yourself, or

the standard, autom atic options. M artin tries

pop c u ltu r e - w ith w ords like “h o ke y” , “v ib e ” and

m ore pre cisely, y o u ’re a nalyzing the B rundlefly

som ething else, which entails both of the sta n d ­

“pe sky” being used as part of the critica l to o lk it

thing w hich is p o p u la r-cu ltu re -in -yo u rse lf.

ard options plus a kind of politics of everyday

- and M artin n e ve r d e nies th a t tra sh is trash

This business of com ing to know more about

consum ption. P recisely because m any people

pre cise ly because you th ro w it aw ay. But this

yourself is im plicit to m ost of M artin’s work. And all

w ake up w ith popular culture, then w ork w ith it

does not m ean th a t th in kin g a b o u t trash goes

I can do as a reviewer here is testify that it w orks

during the day and dream in it through w aking

out w ith the refuse. N or does it m ean th a t the

fo r me. For exam ple, in the sparkling essay on

and sleeping jags, it is a “pla ce ” w here political

trash itse lf is w o rth le ss. T h in k of it as com post.

teen movies, I sense the light bulb go on over my

effects and aspirations can be divined. So its

And th in k of w h a t co m p o st can produce.

head when M artin explains that teen m ovies usu­

study is political, active and constructive rather

74 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

O b vio u sly I’m a fan of this book and of

ally pose a burning question: “W ho do you w ant to

spare parts because of an

LONG SHOTS TO FAVOURITES:

insight I can go back to one of

accident, in Ginborak. The

my own troubling phantasm s

fa ct th a t the rider is a

AUSTRALIAN CINEMA SUCCESSES IN THE 90S

- t h e m om ent in The Lost Boys

w om an,

M a ry A n n e R eid, A u s tra lia n F ilm C om m ission,

be?” W ith th a t little glim m er of

A s ta

C a d e ll

w hen the vam pire gang jum ps

(D eborra-Lee Furness), is

off the bridge into the fog and

surprise enough, but se v­

c a lls out, “ C om e w ith us,

eral scenes into the film it

Sydney, 1993, 111 pp., pb, rrp $ 1 4 .9 5 RAFFAELE

CAPUTO

M ichael” - and I feel I can

is revealed that she is a

Fade into the b e g inning of the 1990s and A u s ­

understand at last a little of

barrister. She is drawn into

tra lia n film has s u d d e n ly unde rg o n e som ething

the pow er in that m om ent.

m o b iliz in g

th e to w n s ­

of an im age ch ange. E ssentially, it has m ade, o r

S im ilarly with the articles on

w om en to fight the sham e

a p p e a rs to be m aking, a leap from box-o ffice

the JFK industry and on Thirty­

and im m obility caused by

poison to b o x-o ffice and critica l cre d ib ility. T he

som ething, I get a little critical

a reign of terror created

cu lp rits re sp o nsible: Proof, R o m p e r S to m p e r

p u rc h a s e on so m e of my

by youths who gang rape

and S tric tly B allroom . (If it w ere not fo r the

e n th u s ia s m s

under the cover of the

tim in g of th is p ublication, The P /a n o w o u ld likely

police and th e ir e ld e rs ’

be behind bars as w ell.)

and

annoy­

ances.

T h e p ro to co ls of “good

tacit acceptance. The only

Lon g S h o ts to F a vo u rite s is a re p o rt co m ­

c ritica l w ritin g ” tend to p re ­

feasible way, the film su g ­

m issio n e d by the A ustra lia n Film C om m ission

clu de the a n e cd o ta l te stim o n y, but the profuse,

gests, to break this vicious cycle is through women

on w hat co n s titu te s a “su c c e s s ” on the cu rre n t

s e lf-m o tiv a te d e n g a g e m e n t th a t one has w ith

asserting their legal rights as citizens, and their

A u stra lia n film scene. T he three film s are held

p o p u la r cu ltu re te n d s to p rio ritiz e the private

personal rights to fight back in self-defence. The

up as case s tu d ie s in respect of th e ir c o n s id e r­

e p ip h a n y. S uch flicke rs of su b je c tiv e b rig h t­

scale of the violence grows in intensity, from Asta

able co n trib u tio n s to the im age change.

ness m u st be reported be fo re the p o p -cu ltu re

slapping the overbearing son of the rich and

The author, M ary A nne Reid, pro vid e s a

m o m ent can even be show n to have occurred.

pow erful local m eatworks owner, Mrs Rudolph, to

deta ile d , though not d e fin itive , stu d y of all the

H erein lies a reason w hy th e re has not been an

a full-scale pitched battle with consequences that

a p p a re n t fa cto rs w hich w ent into the m aking

o ve rw h e lm in g a m o u n t of in cisive in te lle ctu a l

are tragic but em pow ering for the tow nsw om en.

and m a rke tin g of the three film s. T he scenario

w o rk done on the popular. S tru c tu re s of fe e lin g

The story of Sham e w orks a fem inist inflection

is s im ila r on all three counts: the film s all begin

w h ich are also p a tte rn s of th o u g h t have not

of the W estern sub-genre of the loner righting the

as und e rd o g s w hich have battled th e ir w ay to

been w e ll-a tte n d e d in m ainstream A n g lo -A m e ri­

w rongs in a small town (for exam ple, film s like

becom ing m ajor “success” stories (at least w ithin

can th o u g h t. T h e re ’s been p le n ty of su p e rio r

Shane, High Plains Drifter, and Pale Rider), and

th e ir hom e m arket). S u pporting the “ u n d e rd o g ”

a n d /o r s u sp icio u s in te lle ctu a l w ork, but not so

of classic youth subculture film s like R ebel W ith­

sce n a rio are in te rvie w s w ith the m a jo r players -

m uch th a t is pulsing in phase w ith the m o m e n ­

out a C ause and The W ild One. Regarding the

film m a ke rs, fu nding bodies, d istrib u to rs, sales

ta rily in ca n d e sce n t pop ob je ct. W e ll-a ttu n e d

first, Sham e portrays an ensem ble of women

a g e n ts and p ub licists - w ho de scrib e how they

c o m m e n ta ry on p o p u la r cu ltu re te n d s to com e

uniting to defeat socially-structured and -sanc­

w orked out the “ca m p a ig n ” at each su cce ssive

from the edges - from p eo p le “m ire d ” in fa n a ti­

tioned violence, rather than a lone hero m ajesti­

sta g e of the p roject. M ost of the in form ation is

cism , from m a ve ricks o utsid e the ta ste fu l in s ti­

cally cleansing the social order and reinstating

a ta lly of fa cts and figures, and graphs of box-

tu tio n s, from co m m u n itie s o r “s c e n e s ” d riftin g

the status quo. C om pared to

o ffic e

a ska n ce from the m ain cu rre n ts of pow er. M a r­

th e youth s u b c u ltu re film ,

n u m b e r of w eeks in re ­

tin com es from all th e se “p la c e s ” . M ost o b je cts

Sham e focuses on the social

lease. T he publica tio n is

he s c ru tin iz e s have com e from s o m e w h e re else

roots of a young w om an’s

also dotted th ro u g h o u t with

re c e ip ts a n d th e

and are th e re fo re “o ffs e t” by the tim e he gets to

tragic rite of passage, rather

e x c e rp ts fro m

them . T h e y are still fu n ctio n in g but th e y d o n ’t

than the existentialist dilem ­

w hich then include a listing

lo o k natural. M ost vitally, th e y look s u s p ic io u s

mas of young men.

and fascinating.

Such w ords, in tandem , also seem right fo r p ra isin g this book.

1 E d ito r’s note: A d ria n M artin is a fre q u e n t c o n trib u ­ to r to C in e m a P a p e r s .

re v ie w s ,

of pro, m ixed and con re ­

It is appropriate that such

vie w s in both local and

a p o w e rfu l A u s tra lia n film

ove rse a s publica tio n s, as

should receive the detailed

w ell as a listing of aw ards

treatm ent it does here in the

received.

hands of Stephen Crofts. And

P roblem atic in this re­

the AFI is to be congratulated

port is the issue of “s u c ­

on initiating such a series,

cess” . As Reid indicates in

THE CASE OF ‘SHAME’:

which provides a platform for

the introduction, com m er­

IDENTIFICATION, GENDER AND GENRE IN FILM

m o n o g rap h -le n g th p u b lic a ­

cial returns is not the only

tions on A ustralian film stud­

criterion fo r m easuring suc­

S te p h e n C rofts, A u s tra lia n F ilm Institute,

ies. This area of publication

cess: “T he tw o obvious c ri­

1993, 192 pp., pb, rrp $24.95.

has la n g u ish e d s o m e w h a t

STUART

CUNNINGHAM

due to contraction in journal outlets and the con­ traction in academ ic film studies in Australia.

teria are com m ercial and critical perform ance but w ithin these tw o ca te g o ­ ries film s w ork on m any different levels.” W hat

T he low -budget A ustralian fe a tu re film S ham e

C rofts show s how a th o ro u g h e n g a g e m e n t

appears to be a central concern is the “flow -on

(directed by S teve Jodrell fo r B arron Film s and

w ith the v a rio u s p ro to co ls of film stu d ie s can

b e n e fits” to the parties involved, and to the

UAA Film s, 1988) is the sub je ct of this study, the

e n live n and en rich o u r a p p re c ia tio n of the

industry as a w hole, no m atter if the film is a

second m onograph in the A F I’s M oving Im age

a ch ie v e m e n t of Sham e. T he p u b lica tio n also

sm all, m odest or huge m oney-spinner. But Reid seem s to ju s t toss this idea in w ith o u t giving it the

series of publications. S ham e portrays the e f­

in clu d e s the s crip t of the film , w ith a n n o ta tio n s

fe cts on a country tow n in W estern A u stra lia of a

w hich allo w a c o n sid e ra tio n of the d iffe re n ce

kind of d e velopm ent it deserves. All three film s

m ale youth culture of gang rape, and the lengths

betw een the sh o o tin g s c rip t and the release

did do well at the box-office, and the report is

to w hich an ensem ble of o ld e r and yo u n g e r

script. T h is w ill h o p e fu lly e n co u ra g e film p ro ­

littered with financial inform ation to back it up,

w om en and girls m ust go to o vercom e it.

ductio n , and e s p e c ia lly s c re e n w ritin g courses,

w herein the only conclusion the reader can reach

S ham e draw s on the genre expectations em ­

to use the b ook as w ell as a ca d e m ic film stu d ie s

is th a t the bottom line is indeed the ring of the box-office register.

bodied in the A m erican W estern, but tw ists them

co u rse s. It is th o ro u g h ly re co m m e n d e d as a

decisively aw ay from its m asculine culture of

live ly and e s p e c ia lly th o ro u g h te xt fo r a v a rie ty

violence. A lone bikerider is stalled, w aiting for

of cla ssro o m uses.

E q u a lly p ro b le m a tic are the co n c lu s io n s reached by the report. Reid points to several CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 75

elem ents in com m on w hich tend to have c o n ­

th a t th e book w ould be of in te re s t to stu d e n ts of

cism and, in p a rticu la r, his m e m b e rsh ip of the

trib u te d to the “s u cce s s ” of all th re e film s. In

A u stra lia n film cu ltu re , W orld W a r II sch o la rs

C a m p io n s in S ydney reveals a religious and

sum m ary, th e se are firs t-tim e d ire cto rs, long

and jo u rn a lis ts , to w hich P arer has becom e

R ig h t-w in g politica l dim ension w ith resonances

d e ve lo p m e n t phases, low budgets, co n te m p o ­

s o m e w h a t of a m yth o lo g ica l fig u re . Through

th a t are beyond the scope of M cD o n a ld ’s in te n ­

rary stories, a hard sell in ge ttin g the film s

close atte n tio n to dope sheets, returned fo o t­

tio n s. M c D o n a ld ’s p o inting out of the slip p a g e

produced, distrib u te d and m arketed, but w arns

age and e xte n sive in te rvie w s w ith p ro ta g o n ists

betw een the fie ld s of d o cu m e n ta ry and n a rra ­

of the d isa p p o in tm e n ts in ove rse a s m arkets as

of the era such as Ken G. Hall, Max Dupain and

tive, M e lb ourne and S ydney, and private and

opposed to the dom e stic m arket. T his, h o w ­

Ron M aslyn W illiam s, and those th a t w orked

g o ve rn m e n t film m a kin g bodies d isp la ys the

ever, te n d s to com e across as a fo rm u la fo r

a lo ngside Parer, including G eorge Silk, C h e s­

c o m p le xity of a tim e th a t is often expre sse d in a

success. It is a very u n re a listic p re scrip tio n ,

te r W ilm o t and O sm a r W hite, M cD onald p ro ­

s im p lis tic m anner.

e sp e cia lly given the co n clu d in g p aragraph:

vides an in sig h t into m ore than the w ork of

W hether or not suburban com edy/dramas will

T he bulk of W ar C am eram an m akes great reading fo r those inte re ste d in the m a c h in a ­

D am ien Parer.

continue to dominate Australian films in the

T he book d isplays an a ffection fo r “ D a m ien”

tio n s of m ilitary cam paigns in T obruk, G reece

1990s is less im portant than the precedent

th a t seem s to be m ore a bout c h a ra c te r traits,

and New G uinea, and P a re r’s n a tio n a listic fe r­

they have set. Filmmakers can put together

than ability, even though it is

vo u r as it e m anates from the

new projects with confidence that the param­

P a re r’s le a rn e d se n s e of

A n z a c tr a d itio n

eters for what makes a good Australian yarn

quickly com posing shots and

have

editing in the cam era th a t

M cD o n a ld ’s a p p a re n t e n th u ­

are wider than ever.

By reducing the stu d y to only the a p p a re n t succe sse s ce rta in ly gives a sense of p re c ­ edence, but no real ind ica tio n of w id e r p a ra m ­ eters. A com m on elem e n t the report seem s to m iss in its concluding rem arks is the rôle of C annes as w ell as the rôle of the A ustralian m edia at C annes. All th re e film s, in one form or another, prem iered at C annes, and reports through the m edia on h o w th e y w ere received in C annes do indeed im pact on th e ir eventual reception back hom e.

P erhaps a m uch m ore in te re stin g exercise w ould have been in w e ighing up these success stories w ith the “fa ilu re s ” , so to speak. Proof, R o m p e r S to m p e r and S tric tly B a llro o m w ere not the only A ustralian film s slo gging it aw ay in the m arketplace, or the only film s m ade by firs t­ tim e directors, or the only film s w ith co n te m p o ­ rary stories and settin g s, or low budgets, or long d e velopm ent periods, or w ith o u t re p re se n ­ tation overseas.

From this angle, the report is useful in so fa r as it d ire ctly relates to the th re e film s in q u e s ­ tion, but, in relation to the film in d u stry in g e n ­ eral, w hat the report seem s to reveal is that Proof, R o m p e r S to m p e r and S tric tly B a llro o m m ade the m ost noise, and issues regarding the type of cinem a A u stra lia is p roducing really seem to com e to naught.

WAR CAMERAMAN: THE STORY OF DAMIEN PARER N e il M cD onald, L o th ia n B ooks, M e lb o u rn e , 1994, 2 5 8 pp., pb, rrp $ 3 4 .9 5 DEANE

WILLIAMS

Neil M cD onald extends the fo cu s of his b io g ra ­ phy of D am ien P a re rto c o n s id e rth e im portance th a t this kind of study m ay have fo r A u stra lia n film culture w hen he w rite s in W ar C am eram an: The S to ry o f D am ien Parer.

its

s e e m s to

re s id u e

in

M cD onald m arks as his m a­

siasm fo r this m aterial. For

jo r a ttrib u te s. The book also

th o se readers in te re ste d in

co n ve ys P a re r’s a b ility to

the film cu ltu re of the period,

q uickly acquaint him self with

the story th a t sits am o n g st

and read the va rio u s s itu a ­

the d e ta ils of a tta c k s and

tions th a t he found him self

landings is the sto ry of the

in. T hese are tw o of P a re r’s

D e p a rtm e n t of In fo rm a tio n

g re a te st tra its th a t rem ain

F ilm

fro m th is c o m m in g lin g of

seem s to provide an in te re s t­

yarns and docum ents. T his

ing case study.

is not to say th a t P a re r’s a b ility

is d im in is h e d

U n it in w h ic h

P a re r

W ar C am eram an is the

by

story of a cam eram an w o rk ­

M cD onald in th a t the a u th o r

ing

a rtic u la te s th e d ra m a of

u n d e r th e

e n o rm o u s

w e ig h t of w a rtim e re s tric ­

P a re r’s life w ith the sam e v ig o u ra p p a re n t in the

tions, as w ell as the ideological lim ita tio n s to

fa m o u s K okoda F ro n t Line and A s s a u lt on

w hich all em ployees of the DOI w ere subject.

Salam aua footage. This v ig o u rsh o w s M cDonald

P a re r’s p osition is com plex in th a t his firm belief

to be an ad m ire r of P a re r’s as w ell as a b io g ra ­

in the n a tio n a listic im pulse behind the w ork th a t

pher.

he and Ken Hall (as producer) w ere p e rform ing

T he q u irkin e ss of W ar C am eram an seem s

did not preclude him from the re stra in ts in s titu ­

to em anate from its po sitio n in g of the reader

tio n s b ro u ght upon th e ir w orkers. M cD o n a ld ’s

and e xp e cta tio n s th a t he or she m ay have about

e xp lo ra tio n of the m a chinations of the DOI d u r­

the a u th o rize d Dam ien P arer b iography. It is

ing the w a r years brings out the sense of P a re r’s

not an aca d e m ic te xt like S tuart C u n n in g h a m ’s

a w a re n e ss of his o b lig a tio n s to the D epartm ent

book on C hauvel, F e a tu rin g A u stra lia , nor is it a

and his u ncanny a bility to w ork under extrem e

ripping yarn in the m a n n e ro f, say, Cecil H olm es’

co n d itio n s to produce fo o ta g e th a t could be

a u to b io g ra p h ic a l w o rk ,

e m ployed in the w ar effort.

O n e M a n ’s

W ay.

M c D o n a ld ’s book sits s o m e w h e re betw een

W ar C am eram an also brings to the fore

these tw o in a place th a t m ay be called cultural

nam es that have rem ained subdued beside the

studies, and herein lies its interest.

light shone on the likes of P arer and Hall. M aslyn

T hrough the s tric te r atte n tio n paid to P a re r’s

W illia m s’ strength and faith in P arer’s w ork re­

life, the book provides g lim pses of A ustralian

veals a rem arkable friendship and W illiam s’ work,

film cu ltu re in the 1930s and ’40s th a t have

in particu la rthe brilliant M ike an d S tefanie (1952),

been ra re ly e xplored e lsew here. The ea rlie r

cries out for m ajor research. P arer’s w ork a lo n g ­

ch a p te rs provide som e fa scin a tin g ske tch e s of

side ABC radio correspondent C hester W ilm ot

the in fa n t M elbourne film cu ltu re w here P arer

and New Zealand photographer G eorge Silk

and close frie n d John H eyer a ttended s c re e n ­

also plays a m ajor part in M cD onald’s story,

ings of S oviet film s put on by the late Ken

adding to it the sense of cam araderie am ongst

C o ld icu tt fo r the F riends of the S oviet Union, as

w artim e correspondents, regardless of m edium ,

w ell as P arer and H e ye r’s exp lo ra tio n of the

th a t spilt out into the w ay M cD onald was re ­

w orld of burg e o n in g film p u b lica tio n s through

ceived by present-day jo u rn a lists upon the re­

m agazines such as C lose Up and C inem a Q u a r­

lease of W ar C am eram an.

Thus although Parer, Hurley, W illiams and the

terly. T hese early ch a p te rs also p oint to the

It is th rough the w orks of people such as

rest may have appeared to be working for the

in flu e n ce th a t John G rierson m ay have had on

P arer and Hall, H urley and W illiam s, th a t it is

newsreels, they were also pioneers of a tradi­

P arer and H eyer th rough th e ir reading.

p o ssib le to see the em e rg e nce of a d o c u m e n ­

tion of governm ent film making that was to lead

T hese early c h a p te rs on P a re r’s fo rm a tive

ta ry aesthetic th a t fed off the im petus of the

to the formation of the Commonwealth Film

years also include th e in flu e n ce and e n c o u r­

th e o rie s of G rierson and the B ritish d o cu m e n ­

Unit, now Film Australia, [p.49]

a g e m e n t of the C h a u vels w ith w hom P arer

ta ry film m ove m e n t to influence A u stra lia n film

W ar C am eram an: The S to ry o f D am ien P a re r

w orked as a ssista n t d ire c to r on H e rita g e at

cu ltu re rig ht up until the present. P arer and

disp la ys the kind of ob se ssive research th a t

E ftee S tu d io s in M elb o u rn e b efore m oving to

H a ll’s n a rra tiviza tio n of recorded e vents, a ta b ­

m akes fo r gre a t h istorica l w ritin g . It w ould seem

S ydney to w ork on U ncivilised. P a re r’s C a th o li­

loid d o c u m e n ta ry, re ca lls the in flu e n ce the

76 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

H e a rst p re ss is sa id to have had on G rie rso n .

S a u te t, G o re tta , B e rto lu cci, S ch ro e d e r, Ferreri,

M c D o n a ld ’s b io g ra p h y of P a re r re ca lls th e se

G a in sb o u rg , T e ch in e , G irod, M iller, H andke,

CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION

in flu e n ce s in m otion.

C o m e n c in i, J e s s u a , P ia la t, R e sn a is, B e rri,

Stuart Cunningham and Toby Miller, UNSW Press,

M cD onald provides a very readable co m m in ­

C o rn e a u , T ru ffa u t, V e b e r, W a jd a , B e in e ix ,

Sydney, 1994, 184 pp., pb, rrp $24.95

gling of docu m e n ta ry research, w a rtim e facts,

R a p peneau, W eir, G o d a rd ... et al. If n othing

oral history, ch a ra cte r sketch e s and b iography

To be re view ed next issue.

else, D ep a rd ie u know s how to pick (R idley

th a t, a lth o u g h

S c o tt’s 1492 being an odd e xce p tio n ).

c lu m s y a t tim e s , p ro v id e s

resonances that articulate much more than seem s

B u t th e re

is m u ch

AOTEAROA AND THE SENTIMENTAL SHRINE: MAKING FILMS IN AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND IN THE SILENT PERIOD

m o re in th is b o o k :

intended. T he glim pses of A u stra lia n film culture

D e p a rd ie u ’s p a ssio n a te a p p ro a ch to life - in

th a t a p pear through the strictu re s of a bio g ra p h y

C h u tk o w ’s view , p a rt p ro fo u n d , p a rt c h ild like -

Edited by Jonathan Dennis, Le Giornate del Cinema

such as this m akes W ar C am eram an m uch m ore

to frie n d sh ip s, to food and w ine, to being French.

Muto, Pordenone, Italy, 1993, 44 pp., pb, rrp $15.

than ju s t the story of D am ien Parer.

D e p a rd ie u is a s u p re m e ly co m p le x m ix of e n o r­

JACK’S LIFE: A BIOGRAPHY OF JACK NICHOLSON

m ous physica l p re se n ce and g re a t d e lica cy of

BOOKS RECEIVED

vo ice . He has m ade cin e m a feel alive. (SM)

DEPARDIEU: A BIOGRAPHY

JOSEPH LOSEY: A REVENGE ON LIFE

P a u l C hutkow , H a rp e rC o llin s , London, 1994,

David Caute, Faber and Faber, London, 1994,591pp.,

351 pp., hb, rrp $ 3 9 .9 5

hb, rrp $45.

G e n e ra lly fa s c in a tin g a cco u n t of D e p a rd ie u ’s

To be review ed next

life and career. T he a u th o r m ay, fo r som e tastes,

issue, th is a re m a rk ­

be a little too p ro m in e n t in places, but he has

a b le

w ritte n a ‘s ta r’ b io g ra p h y of ra th e r m ore than

L o se y’s life and w ork.

usual skill and ta ste . T h e re are p le n ty of e n te r­

R a re ly has a w rite r of

ta in in g a n e cd o te s and D e p a rd ie u does com e

su ch d is tin c tio n a t­

a c ro ss as the su ita b ly co m p le x and p a ssio n a te

te m p te d a b io g ra p h y

account

K ingsgrove A

of

SPECIAL PERFORMING ARTS RATES for our Fully Self Contained & Serviced Apartments

D e p a rd ie u ’s c a re e r is not o n ly nota b le fo r

sta tu re . The French

th e e x tra o rd in a ry q u a lity of his w o rk (a fte r the

w ill p ro b a b ly be e n ­

dyin g sce n e s in C yra n o de B e rg e ra c and the

raged by it (d espite

m o n o lo g u e s from Tous les M a tin s du M onde,

the help from M ichel

w ould anyone a rg u e th e re is a fin e ra c to ra liv e ? ),

C im e n t a n d

b u t also fo r the p eople he has w o rke d w ith.

R is s ie n t ) ,

D epardieu is no s ta r w hose ta le n ts have dw arfed

th o se w ho acce p t th a t

the film s he has played in o rth e d ire c to rs he has

“A c c id e n t is L o s e y ’s

w o rke d w ith (co n tra ry to m any o th e r sta rs). T he

b e s tfilm ” (p. 182), this

roll-call of c o lla b o ra to rs is dazzling: D uras, Blier,

is a m ust. (SM)

■ Comfortable 4 Star Apartments ■ Serviced Daily ■ Just Ten Minutes From The CBD ■ Transport Available Outside Our Door ■ Right In The Heart Of Cosmopolitan St. Kilda

P ie rre but

partments

MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA

of a d ire c to r of such

c h a ra c te r one assu m e s him to be.

P atrick McGilligan, Hutchinson, London, 1994, 478pp., hb, rrp

fo r

CALL TOLL FREE 1 800 033 786 TODAY I 44 Fitzroy Street, St. Kilda, Victoria, 3182

A R T & T E C H N O L O G Y OF M A K E - U P C O L L E G E

3 ARTS M AKE-UP CENTRE PTY LTD E S T A B L IS H E D 1966

• FULL TIME & PART TIME COURSES (Austudy/Abshidy allowance approved) Advanced certificate in make-up technology Advanced certificate in period coiffure & make-up Advanced certificate in special effects for make-up Advanced certificate in wigknotting and postiche Associate diploma of make-up technology • OVERSEAS STUDENTS Full Time Study, Lecture Demonstrations • THEATRICAL ARTS SHOP complete r a n g e o f m a k e - u p /m a s k s /w ig s & special effects m aterials CNR SHEPHERD & MYRTLE STREETS (o ff Br o a d w a y ) CHIPPENDALE, NSW 2008 SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

T R E S

H

O

W

C

A

1

S

E

7

I

C

S

I

N

Tel: (02) 698 1070 Fax: (02) 319 1950

l

E

n

M A S

B ringing Perth the very best in World Cinem a

cmEtAACparadiso NORTHBRIDGE

m

DCCOPICTUREPdWCe*=^

CNR BEAUFORT & WALCOTT STS MT LAWLEY 370 1777

THE GALLERIA 164 JAMES ST (n e ar Lake St) 227 1771

c I N EMA

PAPERS

100

. 77

UN DT R A C K S IVAN

HUTCHINSON

A lack of new m ovie scores of great interest this

leased by RKO in the early 1940s, is a very

C opland w rote rarely fo r film s, but, w hen he

issue is counter-balanced to som e extent by the

A m erican va ria n t on F a u st w ith W a lte r H uston

did, his individual harm onies and spare chording

release of com pilations featuring the w ork of

giving a m isch ie vo u s and g le e fu lly evil p e rfo rm ­

are im m e diately discernible. Lew is M ile sto n e ’s

such com posers as B ernard H errm ann, John

ance as Mr S cratch, the D e v il’s em issary.

ve rsio n of S te in b e c k ’s The R e d P o n y gained

Barry, John W illiam s, A aron Copland and Franz W axm an.

H e rrm a n n ’s m usic fe a tu re s a m em orable “Sleigh R ide” (T rack 8) and a sp lendid “ F in a le ”

T here is really e xc e lle n t m usic in th e se v o l­ um es. Even if som e of the film s are forg o tte n ,

(T rack 12), and sounds b e tte r here than it ever did in theatres.

im m e n se ly from C o p la n d ’s fla vo u rso m e , very A m erican score.

The rousing “ M orning On T he R anch” (T rack 1), and the te n d e r and dram atic “ G ra n d fa th e r

m uch of the m usic sta n d s on its own, enjo ya b le

For O bsession, Brian De P a lm a ’s kid n a p ­

as c o n ce rt m usic or m usic by w hich to create

ping th rille r w hich w as also H e rrm a n n ’s p e n u l­

Q u ie t C ity has had a nu m b e r of recordings and

yo u r own im ages.

tim a te score, H errm ann has p rovided a n o th e r

is w e ll-kn ow n to co n ce rtg o e rs. T he m usic w as

WELLES RAISES KANE, OBSESSION ETC. (UNICORN-KANCHANA UKCD1065)

chilling, a tm o sp h e ric w ork. Based on sim ple

w ritte n fo r a play by Irwin S haw and, since the

T his generous CD (76 m inutes 16 se co n d s) is a re-issue of tw o se pa ra te LPs released in the 1970s on the London label. The m usic is co m ­ prised of tw o suites B ernard H errm ann arranged fo r the c o n ce rt hall, taken in part from m usic he w rote fo r the m em ora b le C itizen K ane and the le s s -w e ll-k n o w n but e q u a lly -m e m o ra b le

(if

T a le ” (T rack 6) are the ones to sam ple here.

ju x ta p o s itio n s of chords, and often a c o n tra st

p rincipal ch a ra cte r is a tru m p e t player, th a t is

betw een forte o rg a n -b ra ss-tym p a n i o u tb u rsts

the in s tru m e n t fe a tu re d as a s o lo ist a g a in st a

and p ia n o w o rd le ss-ch o ru s replies, this show s

string b a ckground.

a m a ste r m usician at w ork (T rack 11 show s his

F eatured tru m p e t p la ye r Tim M orrison also

suprem e skill in a va rie ty of m oods.) H e rrm a n n ’s

gets the s p o tlig h t on the suite from B orn on the

death cam e su d d e n ly and all too soon. R e co rd ­

F o u rth o f July, w hich has one of th o se lush,

ing is firs t class.

p la n g e n t m elodies W illia m s tu rn s out w ith ease

MUSIC FOR STAGE AND SCREEN

and e ffe ctive n e ss.

you’ve ever seen it) The D evil a nd D aniel W ebster

(SONY SK64147)

(also known as A ll That M o n e y Can Buy).

A n o th e r e xce lle n t recording fe a tu rin g the m usic

T he real d e lig h t on this disc is the m usic from the 1969 S teve M cQ u e e n -M a rk R y d e llfilm ( The

of A aron C opland fo r film (the 1949 The R e d

R eivers), based on W illiam F a u lkn e r’s com ic,

arranged but m ake m a rv e llo u s ly -v ig o ro u s and

Pony) and th e a tre (Q u ie t C ity in 1939), and

c o m in g -o f-a g e novel. T h is is not only sp irite d

e lo q u e n t lis te n in g .

John W illia m s (B orn on the F o u rth o f J u ly and

m usic (18 m inutes 42 seconds of it), b ut has the

The R eivers).

a d v a n ta g e o f b e in g

T hese th e m e s have been c o n sid e ra b ly re­ The D e v il a n d D a n ie l

W ebster, directed by W illiam D ieterle and re­

78 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

n a rra te d

by B u rg e s s

M e re d ith , p e rfe c t as the old m an lo oking back

in sp ire him to his b e st e ffo rts. By the w ay, the

a rra n g e r of v a rio u s w e ll-k n o w n th e m e s of

n o s ta lg ic a lly at his youth.

12 -m in u te -2 0 -s e c o n d su ite from

The S ilv e r

K h a ch a tu ria n . H ow it all w orks in this new film

CLASSIC JOHN BARRY

C h a lice proves liste n a b le , and is so m e th in g

re m a in s to be seen, but one of the problem s fo r

( s il v a screen

w orth sa vin g from th a t fia sco .

D24532)

a n yo n e o u tsid e the U.S. is the a sso cia tio n of

T h e C ity of P rague P h ilh a rm o n ic gets th ro u g h a

LITTLE BUDDHA

lot of B a rry ’s m usic (nearly 80 m in u te s in fa ct).

R yuichi S a k a m o to ’s sco re fo r B e rto lu c c i’s film

T h e re are s u ite s from The L a s t Valley, R aise

c o ve rs all bases, e v e ryth in g from Indian ragas

the film ’s big ro m antic them e w ith a o n ce -p o p u -

(v ir g in 7243 8 39475 22)

la r B ritish te le visio n series, The O nedin Line, It’s hard not to th in k of ships ra th e r than sa tire w hen the m u sic gets un d e r w ay.

The Titanic, R obin a n d M a ria n and The Lion In

to big lush sym p h o n ic tra cks. C h o ru s and solo

W inter, and m any s h o rte r tra cks.

vo ice s blend into th is e x o tic s o u n d sca p e . T ry

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL

“ N e p a le se C a ra v a n ” (T ra ck 5) fo r sta rte rs -

(LONDON 828 509-2)

a tm o sp h e ric to the n th -d e g re e !

T he so u n d tra c k of this hit com edy, or at least

E ffe ctive enough in th e a tre s , th e re is n e v e r­ th e le ss a sa m e n e ss in tem p o and style w hich te n d s to m ake to o m uch of B arry a bit so p o rific.

the so u n d tra c k as released on CD, co n sists

A d m ire rs of B a rry ’s lush style of co u rse m ay not

ON DEADLY GROUND

m o stly of d isp a ra te tunes, som e of w hich are

agree, and fo rth e m th is disc (at a re d u ce d price

(VARESE SARABANDE VSD 5468)

d e fin ite ly not heard in the cinem a.

of $ 2 1 .9 5 ) is a real bargain .

Big, noisy, e m p ty - a good m atch from c o m ­

O f the eleven tracks, th re e are by Elton

FRANZ WAXMAN VOL. Ill

p o se r Basil P oledouris fo r S e a g a l’s aw ful m ovie.

John, one by S ting, one by G loria G a yn o r and a

H ard to im agine w hy a n yb o d y w ould w a n t a

fe w by nam es (W et, W et, W et, I to I, S w ing O ut

(VARESE SARABANDE VSD5480)

re m in d e r of On D e a d ly G ro u n d in any shape or

S ister) w hich could eq u a lly w ell be the nam es of

form a round the house. T h is is only fo r those

tu n e s as p e rfo rm e rs. T here are tw o good things

w ho c o lle c t e ve ry so u n d tra c k d isc e ve r issued.

here. First, try T ra c k 2 (“ But N ot For M e” ) on

W a xm an’s lesser-know n scores, including music

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY

y o u r frie n d s and see how m any com e up w ith

from E lephant Walk, The Furies, H o te l Berlin and

(VARESE SARABANDE VSD 5477)

the nam e of the s in g e r w ith o u t being told.

Paul N ew m an’s first film, The S ilve r C halice (how

I t ’s b e e n

used

S econd, a canny d ecision has been m ade by

his screen career m anaged to survive that film

K h a ch a tu ria n ’s “Sabre D ance” on a film so u n d ­

the re co rd p ro d u c e r to in clu d e a c to r John

says a lot fo r N ew m an’s screen appeal).

track (W ild e r’s One, Two Three, as a m atter of

H a n n a h ’s reading of an A uden poem as p e r­

T h e re is p lenty of v a rie ty in style, but not

fact) and the last place one expected it to turn up

form ed in the film . It’s an u n e xp e cte d ly-m o vin g

m uch really m e m o ra b le by w ay of th e m a tic

w as on the soundtrack of the new Joel Coen film.

se q u e n ce in this breezy com edy, and m any

m a te ria l. Like all the top H o llyw o o d co m p o se rs

A s a m a tte r o f fa c t, th e r e ’s as m u ch

w ho w ere a ffe cte d by it in the cinem a w ill be

of W a x m a n ’s period, cra ftsm a n s h ip is of a high

K h a ch a tu ria n as there is C a rte r B urw ell, who,

o rder. W h a t is really lacking here w as a film to

a p a rt from som e m usic of his own, is c re d ite d as

The Q ueensland S ym phony under Richard Mills (a fine com poser in his own right) has released a w ell-engineered and -played recording of som e of

y e a rs

s in c e

anyone

has

d e lig h te d to have it on disc.

FREE Q U A R TE R L Y C A TA L O G U E OF N EW TITLES A V A ILA B LE

SOUNDTRACKS

Specialising in Film, Media & TV

NEW & UNUSUA L SOUNDTRACK RECORDINGS F ROM OUR L ARGE R A N G E B A D G IR L S

• GERRY GOLDSMITH • $32 • HANS ZIMMER • $29.95 VARIOUS THEMES PLAYED BY THE

THE H O U SE OF THE S P IR IT S

City Walk, Akuna Street, Boulevard Shopping Centre, Canberra City 2608 Ph: (06) 248 8352 Fax (06) 249 1640

F R A N Z W A X M A N VOL 3

DUEENSLAND SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA • $32 CITY SL IC K E R S I I

• MARK SHAIMAN • $32

FOUR W E D D IN G S A N D A FUNERAL

OPEN

SEVEN

DAYS

S C R I P T S

• VARIOUS THEMES M A R N IE , FRENZY • $21.95

A H IST O R Y OF H IT CH CO CK

INCLUDING FILM

• VARIOUS • $29.95

TOPAZ,

W ID O W 'S P E A K

• CARL DAVIS • $32

32 SH O R T F IL M S A B O U T G L E N N GOULD

Fearless The Hudsucker Proxy The Crow M averick W hat’s Eating G ilbert Grape?

B lu e Velvet • The B lu e s Brothers • B lu e Collar D e a d A g a in • D e a d P oets Society • D e a d R in g e rs H o m e A lo n e

•

The D o o rs • R e a r W indow

Hundreds of titles

N IG H T M A R E BEFO RE C H R IS T M A S THE B A B Y OF M A C O N

• VARIOUS • $29.95

• DANNY ELFMAN • $32

• VARIOUS • $29.95

AT LAST THE ORIGINAL B L A D E R U N N E R • VANGELIS • $32

READI NGS • SOUTH YARRA OPEN7 DAYS A WEEK 153 T00RAK ROAD • 867 1885 • BOOKS/LPS/CDS/CASSETTES 73-75 DAVIS AVENUE • 866 5877 • 2NDHAND LPS/CDS/CASS.

Books • S creenw riting Software • Laserdiscs 366 LYG0N STREET CARLTON 347 7473

T HE

CI NEST ORE

37 Liverpool St., Sydney N.S.W. 2000 Telephone/Facsimile (02) 283 3049

269 GLENFERRIE ROAD MALVERN 509 1952 710 GLENFERRIE ROAD HAWTHORN 819 1917 MAILORDER • P 0 BOX 482 SOUTH YARRA VIC. 3141

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 79

BERNARDO BERTOLUCCI

FROM

PAGE

8

reality. I didn’t recognize my country as I used to like it and I didn’t like it any more. I needed a break.

So, I went to China. Then I had the Saharan experience and then this, Little B u d d h a , which is a bit of a synthesis of certain things I have learnt in my Oriental experience.

W hat has been happening over the past year or two for me has been like understanding that “M y God, it w asn’t the hysteria of an artist.” M y fam ily had said “W hy are you leaving? W hy don’t you stay? W hy don’t you make movies in Italy? ” “No, no, no. It’s too corrupt.” “W hat do you mean too corrupt?” Yet w hat has happened in the past two years has proved I w as right.

Tangentopoli' is the proof that my feeling w asn’t completely wrong. Now that is sort of finished and there is this kind of desire to rethink our society. T hat’s why I felt that maybe now I’ll be able to shoot in this country.

The epic strain of L ast Emperor, The Sheltering Sky and L ittle Buddha followed Tragedy o f a R idiculous M an. Did this come out of a desire to scrap everything and go back to the roots of Italian cinema with C a b iria ?

No. [Long pause.] M aybe there w as more, I don’t know, in T h e Last E m p e r o r , which is a film that’s ail Chinese. But I find that it is also a very Italian film. There is a lot of m elodram a, like in an opera, w ith the tenor, the soprano and the baritone. The film is very accurate on China, as accurate as we could make it.

For each film it was different. For the last film, if you w ant to know w hat the models were in my imagination, the part in ancient India, the part of Siddhartha, I thought of the cinema of Michael Powell. He did T h e T h i e f o f B a g d a d [1940] and beautiful films like A M a tte r o f Life a n d De at h [Stairway to H ea v en , 1946], Black Narcissus [1947], which is a kind of epic, and R e d S h o e s [1948].

He was an amazing, great inventor of fantastic films of fantasy.

So, M ichael Powell together with Indian stereotyped painting, a relative feeling of Indian kitsch which I think is really important to respect in some w ay because part of India is also this kitsch, like part of China is the c h i n o is er ie . They are real things, they are not just for foreigners. Then W alt Disney in some ways and Prince Charming. At the beginning, Siddhartha is a bit like Prince Charming.

For the modern part, I was thinking in some ways of Antonioni.

The house in Seattle starts like the house in an Antonioni film, where you see three solitudes getting together, the mother and the father and the child. They are together in this kind of existential emptiness. When the Lama enters the house, he says “Very empty, very beautiful”. So it gives another feeling, another appreciation to emptiness. Buddhist emptiness has a different meaning from that of existentialism .

For the part in Bhutan, in the monastery, I thought a lot about F r a n c e s c o - g i u l l a r e di D i o [ F lo w e rs o f St Francis, Roberto Rossellini, 1950],

learning everything at these dinners.

M y first experience on the set w ith A c c a t t o n e [1961] w as of course where it m aterialized. I could see my fantasies about cinema put into practice, because I was w atching somebody like Pasolini make his first movie. Not being a cinéphile like I w as I w as a cinéphile, Pasolini w asn’t; he w as a w riter - he was interested in literature and all that. He had the great courage to do his first movie and also the first of a series of beautiful, great films. It was like seeing somebody inventing cinem a, not w riting in cinema terms like somebody like me who knew cinema would have done. Since Pasolini didn’t really know cinema, he was inventing and so he started talking about “You know, I w ant to do these frontal shots of everybody, you know like they are the frontispiece of saints in a 14th Century altar-piece in prim itive Tuscan sculpture ”, etc. And that w as his decision and it w as great because when he was doing a close-up it w as like seeing how a close-up w as done for the first time. And when he was moving the cam era, it was like he had invented the dolly. That w as great.

Is the taste for transgression dead in you?

No, because I see the reactions of some critics who claim that Little B u d d h a is too simple, too elem entary. I can say that even doing this film for children in some w ay transgressed w hat was the expectation. I love the surprise. I think that Little B u d d h a in its w ay is transgressive of the convention of my films. I think one remains transgressive forever. When you are you are. You can have peaks in some movie.

Last T a n g o in Paris is considered my most transgressive film, but I think Little B u d d h a is more transgressive. T hat’s because it really cuts through a veil of ignorance and shows you something you don’t know. You can say it’s trangressive of the convention of movie subjects. Some would say, “Oh no, this is a H ollywood m ovie.” M aybe it has some qualities of H ollywood movies, the spectacle, but in H ollywood they have never done a film w ith this kind of meaning.

Getting back to L ast Tango, when it came out here about five years ago, everybody was saying, “Oh yes, I liked it just as much as the first time.” And they were lying; they’d never seen it. Were you amused by that?

I was secretly quite very satisfied by the fact that a movie which had been in gaol from 1973 till ’88 w as a big hit again and was still a movie with a great impact. When you see a movie from the past, it’s hard for it stand up so w ell.

1

“ K i c k b a c k c i t y ” . It is t h e e p i t h e t c o i n e d b y t h e I t a l i a n p r e s s , o r i g i n a l l y refe rrin g to M ila n o , b u t n o w u sed to d e sig n ate th e a n ti- c o r r u p tio n regim e o f a rre sts a n d trials t h a t h a v e to p p le d political p a rties a n d t u r n e d Italian g o v e rn m e n t a n d in d u stry upside d o w n .

FILMOGRAPHY

What was it like to be starting one’s career, doing one’s school­ ing, when people like Roberto Rossellini and Lucchino Visconti were working.

Yes, they were w orking then, but there are m any people of my generation, my age, who started in that period.

I don’t know, but maybe I was lucky - because of my father, who was friends with [Alberto] M oravia and [Pier Paolo] Pasolini - to know these people. I did my first movie when I w as 21, interrupting my university studies. I w as having dinner almost every night w ith Pasolini, M oravia and his wife Elsa M orante, and I used to think that these dinners were my university. I was 80 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

1962 La C o m m a r e Sec a (T h e Grim R e a p e r ); 1964 P r i m m a della R i v o l u z i o n e (B e f o r e th e R e v o l u t i o n ); 1966 La Vie d e l Petroli; Il Canale; 1967 Ballata d e u n Milliardo; 1967 II f i c o i n f r u t t u o s o , episode of A m o r e e ra bb ia ( Vangelo ’70, L o v e a n d Anger); 1968 Partner; 1969 La Strategia d e l R a n g o (T h e S p i d e r ’s S t r a t a g e m ); 1970 II C o n f o r m i s t a ( T h e C o n f o r m i s t) ; 1971 La saluta e m a l a t o o I p o v e r i m u o r i o r o pr im a ; L ’inc h ies a ; 1972 Ultimo T a n g o a Parigi ( Last T a n g o In Paris); 19 7 6 1900 ( N o v e c e n t o a t t o I and N o v o c e n t o a t t o II); 1979 La Luna; 1981 La T r a g ed ia di u n U o m o R i d i c o l o {The T r a g e d y o f a R i d i c u l o u s Man); 1987 T h e Last E m p e r o r ; 1989 T h e S h e lt e r in g Sky; 1993 Little B u d d h a

G re g Sm ith

FROM

PAGE

28

Yes. It is not something the NSWFTO would do itself. We did it at Film V ictoria, but then it w as able to be cut loose and managed by the private sector - happily, David Parker and N adia Tass.

I think it is fair to say that there is a strategic gap in NSW of a m ulti-stage complex which can accommodate very large fea­ ture films from H ollyw ood and UK/Europe.

I’ve gone on record a number of times as saying that the lack of such a complex is costing us production. In the area of off­ shore production, that is certainly true. Had Sydney had an equivalent to the Gold Coast Studios four years ago, it would have been much harder for the Gold Coast facility to have achieved w hat it has.

However, we should put that into perspective. First, we do have 38 studios in Sydney, with 56 stages between them. So it is not as if we are w ithout. Second, the only better facility exists on the Gold Coast. Victoria has no better facility, nor has South A ustralia, W estern A ustralia or Brisbane. Third, Sydney has been the centre of the industry for as long as it has existed. That has m eant we have become very good at improvising.

There are a number of proposals on the drawing board now.

Then there’s the Hoyts three-stage complex, the old Channel 10 out at North Ryde. There’s a range of them, including M a x ’s, M entm ore, and French’s Forest.

Nswfto

investments

In 1993, we invested in the development of T h e P i a n o , and the year before that Stri ctl y B a l l r o o m . Both are wonderful successes, but they increase the pressure. You w ant to do the same the next year as well.

Of course, we have been involved in a lot of other films that haven’t done anything and that is in the nature of government financing and government support for the film industry. It’s high risk, particularly for the development end. But if government agencies aren’t prepared to take the risk, then who is?

M ore recently, we have been in John D uigan’s Siren s, which is a UK co-production. Then there is R o l y P o l y Man, a low-budget feature film, to which we were able to provide $100,000. The rest of the finance came from the FFC. Had we not been in it, the FFC couldn’t have funded it and it probably w ouldn’t have happened.

That’s an example of the very real value of strategic investments.

There is T h e A d v e n t u r e s o f Priscilla, Q u e e n o f t h e D e se rt , which is Stephan Elliott’s second film. We provided development finance for his first, Frauds, but this time around we were able to provide a sm all, but valuable, production investment as well as development finance.

S i n g a p o r e Sli ng is a pilot tele-feature with Barron Films, which hopefully w ill result in a series. C r i m e B rok erh a. s come and gone.

B ill io n D o l l a r C r o p is a Barbara Chobocky documentary, and E ter nit y a docum entary on M r Eternity. He is very much a Sydney character, a guy who used to go around and write “eternity” in copperplate on all the pavements. He is the grandaddy of all graffiti artists. It has been shot by Dion Beebe, produced by Susan M cKinnon and directed by Lawrence Johnston.

W e support about a hundred projects a year, across all areas.

We are supporting T h e Gap, which is Christina Andreef and Helen Bowden’s newest short. They did E x c u r si o n t o t h e B r i d g e o f F r ie n d s h i p , which w as invited to Cannes. We provided finance for them along w ith the AFC; they are a very talented team.

W e have provided development finance for one of Jan C hapm an’s next projects. Tristram M iall has a couple of projects w ith us. The same w ith John M aynard.

Then there’s the Ben Lewin film, L u ck y Break. That w as fully developed with us, but was made in M elbourne.

On the other hand, Film Vic provided quite a lot of finance for M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g , even though it happened in Sydney. We provided a very small am ount of financial assistance.

We’ve also provided some finance for Millenium Pictures and its next lot of children’s things. They did Miraculous Mellops, which went to air in 1992. Also, there is Cenotaph, a Chris Tuckfield documentary on World W ar I. We do quite a lot in documentary, in fact.

Although you call it investment, it’s also a bit more. It’s like a service as well.

We provide whatever creative and personal support we can. It’s an inform al programme, where all our bits come together. We do a lot of m arriage broking, where we put people together, such as a w riter who is in search of a director or producer.

O rganizations like this have a very real value in that they can overview the industry. The industry is made up of m any small players who don’t get to see that. It’s one of the non-cash very im portant roles these places can fulfil. At the same time, you have to be careful about being proscriptive about creative partner­ ships. In the case of M u r i e l ’s W e d d i n g , we made available a visiting producer’s office. I don’t w ant to put words into [joint producer] Lynda House’s mouth, but she found it useful to come and sit in here for a couple of weeks with a desk and photocopier, a fax, a computer and a phone. It didn’t cost us much money, but it was very useful for her.

Of course, we loved it because we had a real operating filmm aker in here for a few weeks and that reinforces how we see ourselves. She could roll with the punches and put up w ith the H allelujah chorus being sung up and down the corridors, and all the rest of it that goes on here. It is pretty wild here from time to time. We are a small group of people, but quite idiosyncratic. The hours are quite irregular and we have the odd glass of wine.

T he

future

How do you see the future of the film industry in NSW? Very bright over the next four years, for a range of reasons.

The federal government is stable. It is supporting the industry and will m aintain that support. State governments are also m ain­ taining, if not increasing, their level of support to the industry.

At the same time, that would be nothing if it w eren’t for the filmmakers. The whole r a i s o n d ’e t r e for all of this is the film m ak­ ers. If we don’t have them, then we don’t have anything.

I think that we have spent a long time as an industry on our knees, as supplicants to the community saying, “Please under­ stand our films and please go to see them ” and to governments saying, “Please, sir, can we please have some money because we deserve it.” I don’t think we need to be on our knees any more.

The industry has demonstrated, particularly over the past few years, that it w arrants respect and collective pride. It delivers far more than it costs on a cultural level, as well as on an economic level. It more than pays its w ay.

We have continuity and stability of funding, and we have fabulous talent. We have a really strong base of young film m ak­ ers. They seem to me to have an extraordinary blend of creative integrity and ability, and commercial acumen.

Beyond the next four years, I cannot be sure of the stability of the environment in which these filmmakers are going to be operating. I am confident they’ll go beyond that, but I think the next four years are really promising.

■ CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 81

GEOFFREY BURTON

from

page

34

For all sorts of reasons, the film became impossible to make: there were so m any obstacles put up against m aking it. Nonethe­ less, there was a fascination w ith this idea of tjuringas and their relationship to land, and the question of whites in association w ith these sacred objects. Then lo and behold Chatwin writes this book and, of course, Chatwin had read Strehlow ’s book, S o n g s o f C en tra l Australia4, which was really his inspiration. So, there are links between C hatwin, ourselves and Strehlow in a sense.

At the same time, however, Sharon and I also decided to make a protest film about the Bicentennial, objecting to the invasionary attitude of the colonists. The film is centred on Radio Redfern, which is an inner-city, black radio station. The film is called 88.9, which is the frequency of Radio Redfern. The Aboriginal com­ m unity norm ally had two hours a day of airtim e in which they could programme Aboriginal songs and shows. But for the month of Jan u ary in 1988, they were going to operate Radio Skid Row twenty-four hours a day for the whole month. And through the radio station they were going to co-ordinate the long march of Aborigines coming from all around A ustralia to stage their march through the city of Sydney. The radio station was going to be the nucleus of it all, and we thought it would be a fantastic opportunity to film this month of protest from an Aboriginal perspective.

After a lot of negotiations with the people who run Radio Redfern, and their acceptance of us as white filmmakers, we got funding from Film Australia and staked out the place for a month, all hours of the night and day, and made an observation film.

In relation to my experience of Aboriginal contact in setting up T h e S o n g l i n e s , w hat was interesting is that I learnt more from that month than years of shooting documentaries with A borigi­ nes in out-stations or remote communities. Here w as a chance to really relate one-to-one in a very close urban environment, and w ith blacks from desert-like towns who had arrived by bus and crowded into this little tenement in Redfern.

It was a fascinating experience and really im portant just to be able to gain acceptance, not by convincing them that you were not being exploitative, but by w ay of explaining w hat your intention is, by w orking with them to encourage their viewpoint, and from trying to get a world view from a tribal Aborigine whose first taste of the city is at the age of 60. That made me much more confident in m aking T h e S o n g li n e s .

Because they were willing to trust you?

Yes. It’s about gaining trust and about being fair. When you have been shooting there for a few weeks, and at 2:00 in the morning some old guy with a big beard throws his arm around you and calls you “brother”, you’ve established a rapport which is highly desirable.

T h e S o n g l i n e s has to be like that as w ell. It m ustn’t be a film of white supremists coming in and looking at people as exotic subjects.

But I must emphasize that neither is it an Aboriginal film. It is clearly a white film about a white man who goes on a journey of his soul - a physical journey as well - and is changed as a result of the journey, and w hat most changes him is his contact with black culture. I am not belittling the Aboriginal component of the film, but it still has to be perceived as a white m an’s film, except that it is influenced beyond belief by black culture. Of course, the question of Aboriginal representation is a critical one and I willbe looking for lots of guidance on this from Aboriginal filmm akers.

A good deal of cinematographers speak of working instinctively or by intuition and, when they do so, it often recalls the way jazz 82 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

musicians talk about their music, especially their improvisations.

It seems in no other two contemporary art forms is intuition so strongly emphasized or provides a parallel discourse. Also, especially since Chatwin’s description of the landscape in T h e S o n g l i n e s is aural as well as pictorial, do you think there is as close a connection between photography and sound (and music) as there is between photography and light?

That is really interesting. There has alw ays been a broad debate about cinema as art, as you know, and that debate extends into whether cinem atography is an art or not. Of course, those of us who w ork in the industry and adm ire film unquestionably believe cinema and cinem atography is art. But, one basic difference between this art form and virtually all other of the plastic arts is the emphasis on the m onetary factor.

All I’m really saying is that with a feature film, for instance, one is constantly confronted with the business and investment of cinema, and there is always a reminder that the budget for shooting a film in five weeks is the same as for building a big block of flats. The investors could have chosen to do that instead of investing in your film.

Now, every other art form, except for some giant brassmoulded sculpture, does not have this sort of investment stake.

It is a shame, and a terrible thing to say, but I believe it’s this sort of atmosphere which forces you to lim it intuition in your w ork.

A jazz m usician is the most free of all artists because he or she can practise intuition via im provisation by sitting alone in a room w ith an instrument. You can feel and experience it in their music.

Of all the arts, great jazz is the most free-spirited. You also see it in a lot of painting. You can see it in Brett W hiteley’s stuff; the freedom of the brush on the canvas is just extraordinary. H ow ­ ever, the question is: W hat is at stake? W hat kind of pressure is there? I guess as some people become more and more famous, there is a lot at stake in how intuition works.

In terms of choosing the w ay a cinem atographer lights, if you are intuitively wrong about the w ay you photograph a star this can quite easily determine the degree of success or failure of a film. It’s a wild assertion, but of all the factors that m ake a film successful, your intuition can contribute to its success or not.

That puts great pressure on you and your intuitive responses.

Therefore, in commercial feature cinema, I believe you can never be as responsive to your intuition as you would like to be. This is not to say that an intuitive response is not alw ays there, because it is. The best intuitive response I have to a film is when I first read the script and can run free.

I annoy people sometimes because when I get a script I w on’t attempt to read it until I can give the script the freedom it deserves, and when I can it is a really enjoyable experience for me.

I go aw ay and take up to a day to read the script. M y intuition runs riot. You think about and imagine all sorts of sensory factors which m ay or m ay not be directly related to lighting; they could be related to music, or theatre, or to something else. But these are sensory responses to reading about w hat this project is, and invariably from then on the w ork becomes a process of com pro­ mise. And if you can finish a film and look at it and still experience and recognize those intuitive responses when you first read the script, it is something of a triumph.

Because of the extremely tight schedule, budgetry pressures and the added pressure of co-directing on T h e S u m o f Us, how much did these pressures limit your intuition?

In this particular case less than a lot because my am bitions at the beginning were very realistic. The script helped because it’s a very tight narrative and it’s based on a proscenium performance. The script already had a whole lot of lim itations built in.

Something like T h e S o n g l i n e s is com pletely and absolutely different. There are so m any w ays of responding to the im agery

of Bruce C hatw in that there are a minefield of w ays to go. M y problem over the past three years has been controlling my response to it. The process of w riting the script has also been a process of controlling my response to Bruce C hatw in, and that is w hy it has taken so long.

Do you feel you have found the right path?

I do. But who knows until the film is finished and seen.

It’s interesting to read the current screenplay and think back to my first responses to the book three or four years ago. I see roots and links all the time to something that occurred when I first read the book. Things that we threw out in the process years ago have come back in this draft. I’ve actually recognized them as the responses I had years ago. I think that says something about the power of intuition.

Do you think there is a danger in working on a script for too long?

There is never a danger of w orking on a script for too long. You can’t overwork a script.

Bill Constable5 once said that, as soon as you see or read some­ thing, this is when you should hold on to all your ideas because from that point onwards you’ll lose what affected you most.

I think there are im portant points of inspiration and judgement which you have to recognize in the whole film m aking craft. This is w hy in the case of T h e S um o f Us I was insistent we screen rushes on film because, for me as a film m aker beyond cinem atog­ raphy, the most im portant response of all is the experience of rushes in a would-be theatre, in a darkened space, with other consciousnesses around you.

I am very fussy about the procedure of rushes because this is when you really have your first reactions to the im agery. As a film m aker, you are going to see the images thousands of times over the next couple of months, but the first view of rushes will give an impression that is going to have the most effect on the w ay you deal w ith the film for the rest of its life.

Another im portant point is the first time you lay a piece of m usic, and the effect it has on you. I am really, really opposed to the idea of being offered up piece after piece of film music and seeing how each piece works or how it fits. A lot of sound editors and sound designers thrust this idea at you and it’s becoming B

R

I

E

F

L

Y

FROM

PAGE

easier and easier to do with non-linear film m aking. I oppose it.

We went through the process of choosing music whereby you have an image in your mind of how a particular scene works and w hat it is saying visually, and then philosophically w orking out w hat sort of sound you w ant to associate with that im agery. You either have to find the piece of music or have it w ritten, and generally your first response is alw ays the right one. But it has to be a considered response. It just can’t be an ad hoc thing.

But the difficulty would be your strong intuition as opposed to Kevin Dowling’s?

It hasn’t been a problem. Sure, we had different intuitive re­ sponses to some of the performances, which would be debated and one of us would agree with the other.

Everybody you talk to about co-directing im agines and antici­ pates conflict. We did a segment for the M o v i e s h o w and M argaret Pomeranz kept saying, “W here’s the problem ?” W hat problem?

There is no problem!

There are inherent logistical problems with co-directing, of course. It is slower. There is no question about that, because it’s not one person making one decision. You have to debate. You have to at least look at the other person. That’s the shortest w ay you can do it. But it can also be a two-hour discussion, which obviously slows down the process. That’s the only negative in this case.

Notes 1

T h e S o n g l i n e s w a s first p u b l i s h e d in 1 9 8 7 by J o n a t h a n C a p e , L o n d o n .

2

K e v in D o w l i n g , t h e a t r e d i r e c t o r , w a s a f o u n d i n g m e m b e r a n d A r t i s t ic

B ru c e C h a t w i n d i e d in J a n u a r y 1 9 8 9 .

D i r e c t o r o f T h e A c t o r ’s E n s e m b l e in N e w Y o r k . H i s s t a g e p r o d u c t i o n o f T h e S u m o f U s starred T o n y G o ld w y n a n d R ichard V enture, and op en ed

a t t h e C h e r r y L a n e T h e a t r e . T h e p r o d u c t i o n re c e iv e d t h e 1 9 9 1 O u t e r C r i ti c s C ir c l e A w a r d f o r Best O f f - B r o a d w a y P r o d u c t i o n a n d t h e 19 9 1 O b i e A w a r d f o r O u t s t a n d i n g P e r f o r m a n c e by T o n y G o l d w y n .

3

D r S h a r o n Bell is a p r o d u c e r , d o c u m e n t a r y f i l m m a k e r a n d h o l d s a P h . D in a n t h r o p o l o g y . She h a s b e e n r e c e n tl y a p p o i n t e d D e a n t o t h e S c h o o l o f C r e a t i v e A r t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i ty o f W o l l o n g o n g .

4

S o n g s o f C e n tr a l A u s tr a lia

w a s fir st p u b l i s h e d in 1 9 7 1 by A n g u s &

R o b e r t s o n , S y d n e y . T h e a u t h o r is a ls o k n o w n as “ T . G . H . ” S t r e h l o w ; t h e i n itia ls s t a n d f o r T h e o d o r G e o r g e H e n r y .

5

Bill C o n s t a b l e w a s a d o c u m e n t a r y c a m e r a m a n a t t h e A B C d u r i n g G e o f f B u r t o n ’s t r a i n e e s h i p . H e is c u r r e n t l y H e a d o f F ilm S t u d i e s a t C u r t i n U niversity, W e s te rn A u stra lia .

2

Cohen, Australia); E cu m e n ica l A c h ie ve m e n t:

Francis Girod gained a “u” , of which he had no

Australian National University; D arw in: July 2 8 -

need, and the French title given for The Elegant

29, Deckchair Cinema; B risb a n e : August 1-3,

Seven Days Under Mavis (Anna Johnston, Aus­

C rim inalw as both pedestrian and incorrect. Lastly,

Chinatown Twin Cinema; M elbourne: August 7 -9 ,

tralia); F u ll-le n g th F eature A w ard: W hat’s Eating

the ligature in Un Cœ ur en H iver got lost at the

State Film Theatre; Perth: August 12-14, Perth

Gilbert Grape? (Lasse Hallstrom, U.S.)

chem ist (as they would have said on Laugh-In).

Institute of Film & Television; L a u n c e s to n : Sep­ tem ber 8 -9 , Village Cinema.

Short Poppies: International Festival of Film and Video

Dendy Awards for Australian Short Films

S hort Poppies: International Festival o f Student

Melbourne Film Festival Awards

Film and Video opened in Sydney on 7 July for

C ity o f M e lb o u rn e G rand P rix: Only the Brave

S te n d e rs); G e n e ra l C a te g o ry : P alace C afe

three consecutive nights, and tours nationally until

(Ana Kokkinos, Australia); Film V ic to ria E rw in

(Andrew Lancaster); Yoram . G ross A n im a tio n

F ic tio n C ate g ory: Only the Brave (Ana Kokkinos); D o c u m e n ta ry

C a te g o ry :

M o th e rla n d (K riv

September. This year, the Festival received more

Rado A w ard: Only the Brave\ K ino F ic tio n A w ard:

A w ard: M idriffini (Sabrina Schmid); New S outh

than 200 entries from around the world, and of­

Avondale Dogs (Gregor Nicholas, New Zealand)

W ales E th n ic A ffa irs C o m m issio n A w ard: M oth­

fered over $12,000 in prizes.

Work was judged by a panel of five filmmakers,

K ino A n im a tio n A w ard: His Comedy (Paul Bush,

erland] R ouben M am oulian A w ard: Fences (David

UK); K in o D o cu m e n ta ry A w ard: Life will be Lived

Ceasar).

critics and students in five categories: Fiction, Ani­

(Jon Bang Carlsen, Denmark); K ino E xp e rim e n ­

mation, Experimental, Documentary and General.

ta l A w a rd : Girl from Moush (Garine Torosian,

The Festival tour dates for the other states are

Canada); K in o A u s tra lia n C re a tive E xce lle n ce

as follows: A delaide: July 14-15, Mad Love, Rundle

A w a rd : Eternity (Lawrence Johnston, Australia);

Street; C anberra: July 2 1 -2 2 , H aydon-AllenTank,

S cie n ce A w ard: A rtists in Cyberculture (Jonathan

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 83

Australia’s First Films

from page gs

Giving up her child, and in spite of the pleas of her parents, she is committed to be thrown to a wild bull in the arena. In T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 25 October 1958, p. 3, Colonel Charles Rixon recalled that Perpetua was played by Captain Tolley, later M rs M ajor Newbold, and that the Pro-consul was played

by Cadet H. Stephens of Bundaberg. Length: less than 90 seconds. Earliest known reference: T h e War Cry (Melbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

20 The M artyrdom of Perpetua. Reports are ambiguous as to whether this scene w as conveyed via slides or film. A scene of Perpetua being gored by a bull, and then being killed on a glad iator’s sword, would have been difficult to stage. If the film existed, it would not have exceeded 90 seconds in length.

Earliest vague reference to film: T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 18 August 1900, p. 9.

F il m s m a d e b y O ctober 1 9 0 0

t h e f ir s t

‘B

io r a m a

’ C

ompany

,

In October 1900, Commandant Herbert Booth fell ill, suspend­ ing presentations of “Soldiers of the Cross”. The First Biorama Com pany was then formed by the Salvation Army Limelight Department to undertake fund-raising film exhibitions. It con­ sisted of: • Joseph Perry: leader, lecturer, cam eram an and projectionist • Ju lia Perry: soprano, deputy leader and advance agent • Sidney Cook: assistant projectionist, brass instrum entalist • John Brodie: tenor and projectionist • M ira W hitem an: soprano and pianist.31 They toured Victoria screening religious programmes on Sundays and giving secular entertainments for the rest of the week, commencing at Colac on 20 October 1900.32 They ex­ ploited the novelty of the Salvation A rm y’s film m aking facilities by shooting local films, which attracted newspaper publicity and increased their attendances when they returned to screen them on subsequent tours.

1 Rough Seas at Shelly Beach, Warmambool, Victoria (shot 24 October 1900). The War Cry (Melbourne), 4 November 1900, p.

6, states, “The two Ensigns [Cook and Brown] and Captain Brodie made off to the rocks, fighting their way in the teeth of the wind, heavily laden with tripods, snap-shot cameras and kinematographe paraphernalia, getting splashed with spray and blinded with sand [...] All of them got more or less wet, but they were rewarded with some lovely kinematographe and photographic views.” The film was probably about a minute in duration. Earliest known refer­ ence: W a r m a m b o o l Sta nd ar d , 25 October 1900; see also W a r m a m b o o l Standard, 13 September 1901.

2 Port Fairy’s Fishing Fleet M anoeuvring in the M oyne River (shot 29 October 1900). T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 24 November 1900, p. 6, states, “It happened that the whole of the fishing fleet had been storm-bound, and was lying at the w harf, and as a further piece of good fortune for the M ajor [Perry], the fishermen themselves were all attending a meeting of their association. At the request of the M ajor they not only turned out to a man to have their photograph taken, but unloosed their boats and went for a spin so that as they came up the river, the M ajor was able to get a tip-top film .” On subsequent visits to Port Fairy, Perry was able to shoot more scenes for this fishing film. By September 1903 it had evolved into a 400-foot (7-minute) industrial documentary on the fishing industry. Refer B r o a d f o r d C o u r i e r (Victoria), 11 Sep­ tember 1903. Frame enlargements from the first sequence 84 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

“ Port Fairy Fishing Fleet Manoeuvring in M oyne River” . Film taken by the first “ B ioram a” company , October 1900, during their tour of Western Victoria. From T h e W a r C r y (Melbourne), 24 N ovem ber 1900, p. 6, and 1 December 1900, p. 14.

By courtesy George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne.

were reproduced in T h e War Cry (M elbourne), 1 December 1900, p. 14. Earliest known reference to film in P o r t Fairy G a z e tte , 30 October 1900, p. 2. See also W a r m a m b o o l S ta n d a r d , 13 September 1901.

3 A Ride on a C oal T rain in Gippsland (shooting date un­ known). Shown by the Biorama Com pany at Port Fairy on 30 October 1900. Probably shot in the vicinity of Korumburra or O uttrim on one of P erry’s earlier visits. Perry visited Korumburra 26 to 28 M ay 1900, while the Lim elight Depart­ m ent’s James Dutton visited Korumburra on 4 and 5 February 1900, and Outtrim on 11 and 12 February 1900. Perry had also made an earlier visit to Outtrim on 19 and 20 M arch 1899. Unfortunately, the local newspaper for the Outtrim region, O u t t r i m N e w s , only held by the State Library of Victoria, is barred from public access owing to conservation problems. Earliest known reference to film in P o r t Fairy G a z e t t e , 2 November 1900.

4 The Back Beach at Sorrento, V ictoria (shooting date un­ known). Shown by the Biorama Com pany at W arm am bool, Victoria, on 25 October 1900. M ay only have been a “still” photograph. Earliest known reference in W a r m a m b o o l Stand ­ ard, 26 October 1900.

O

th er

P

r e- F e d e r a tio n

P

roducers

A St. Hill and M oodie announced in the A lb ury D a ily N e w s of 4 September 1897 (p. 2) their intention to film “several pictures on the [Albury] Show Ground, special arrangem ents having been made to take the hunters as they jump, including the champion Fairfield and his rival, Sham rock, and an anim ated scene of the lady riders w ill also be taken and shown in the Salon [temporary cinema] the same night” .

Frank St. H ill in early 1896 w as m anaging Broken Hill and other kinetoscope movie peepshow venues33 for the M acM ahon brothers (q. v.). In October 1896 he teamed w ith M oodie, apparently still under M acM ahon m anagem ent, using the Edison Vitascope to give the first film projection shows in Adelaide and P e r t h . I n 1897, St. H ill and M oodie toured with the Salon Ciném atographe, during which they shot the Albury films, and possibly others.35 The W a n g a ra tta C h r o n i c l e o f 26 August 1899 records a visit of St. Hill and M oodie’s New Bioscope and Concert Com pany, and late in 1900 they opened the New

Polytechnic film venue in George Street, Sydney36, but their local production had ceased by that time.

B Jam es Searle of 274 Collins Street, M elbourne, advertised himself in the 25 Ju ly 1912 Australian K i n e m a t o g r a p h J o u r n a l (M elbourne) as “the only practical m anufacturer of Lim elight A pparatus in A u stralasia”, also offering “repairs to Bio. M a­ chines - a sp ecialty” . Searle is known for one defective reel of Lumière movie negative, apparently shot around 1899 outside the M CG Hotel in W ellington Parade, East M elbourne. Included in the auth or’s NFSA video L i v i n g M e l b o u r n e (1988), it shows crowds apparently crossing W ellington Parade from the direc­ tion of the nearby MCG to board a w aiting fleet of cable trams.

The im ages on this 60-foot reel are very poorly registered, indicating that the cam era had a fault which Searle m ay have been repairing. No movie screenings by Searle have been traced, and the reel of negative, which he donated to the Museum of V ictoria in the 1920s as a curio, could not originally have been printed. The film m ay have been shot in an attem pt to analyze a transport fault in a Lumière Ciném atographe. The Salvation Arm y Lim elight Department were by far the largest users of Lumière m achines for production in M elbourne at the time, so that the film m ay have been shot by, or for, them.

1900, p. 9; T h e L e a d e r ( M e lb o u rn e ), 19 M a y 1900, p. 22; T h e B u lle tin (Sydney), 2 J u n e 1900, p. 8; T h e L o n e H a n d (Sydney), 1 O c t o b e r 1909, p. 621.

8

See P art 1 o f this series, “ T h e Kinetoscope in A u s tr a l ia ” , by C hris Long, C in e m a

9

W illiam K. L. Dickson, T h e B io g r a p h in B a t t l e , T. Fisher U nw in, L o n d o n , 1901.

P a p e r s ( M e lb o u rn e ), N o. 91, J a n u a r y 1993, pp. 36-43.

Earlier coverage ha d s h o w n t r o o p m o v e m e n ts behin d the lines o f conflict, but D ickson to o k th e c am era right to the front line. T h e British Biograph ran for an un p re ce d en te d 160 p e rfo rm a n c e s a t M e l b o u r n e ’s A th e n a e u m H all, finally d e p a rtin g on a provincial t o u r o f Australia in M a y 1901.

10

B a lla r a t C o u r ie r , 2 7 Fe brua ry 1901, p. 5, states t h a t O u r N a v y h a d just

c o m p le te d a six-week se ason a t M e l b o u r n e ’s A th e n a e u m Hall. T a s m a n ia n N e w s ( H o b a r t) , 30 O c t o b e r 1901, p. 3, says th a t it ha d a p p e a r e d “ 10 weeks

Sydney; 6 weeks M e lb o u r n e ; 3 w eeks Brisbane; 3 w eeks Adelaide; a n d a week o r so each in R o c k h a m p t o n , T ow nsville, C h a r te r s T o w e rs , Bendigo an d B a lla r a t” .

11

J o h n Barnes, F ilm in g T h e B o e r W a r , Bishopsgate Press, L o n d o n , 1992, pp. 97103.

12

T h e K i n e m a t o g r a p h a n d L a n te r n W e e k ly (L ondon), 20 A u g u st 1908, p. 3:

“ Pictures in A u s tr a l ia ” (interview w ith Sidney C o o k , form erly o f the Salvation A rm y Limelight D e p a r tm e n t, M e lb o u rn e).

13

T h e S y d n e y M o r n in g H e r a ld , 21

Septem ber 1900, p. 6: “ First P a terson

L ec ture ” .

14

T a s m a n ia n N e w s ( H o b a r t) , 3 N o v e m b e r 1900, p. 3; 5 N o v e m b e r 1900, p. 2;

6 N o v e m b e r 1900, pp. 2, 3; 7 N o v e m b e r 1900, p. 2; T h e S o u th A u s tr a lia n R e g is te r (Adelaide), 19 O c t o b e r 1900, p. 7 ; N e w Z e a l a n d T im e s (W ellington),

4 D e ce m ber 19 0 0 , only m e ntions six films.

15

T h e A r g u s (M e lb o u rn e), 9 Fe brua ry 19 0 0 , p. 10; 10 Fe b ru a ry 1900, p. 16 (film

16

T h e A r g u s (M e lb o u rn e), 15 M a r c h 1900, b a ck-page “ A m u se m en ts - Princess’s

list); 10 M a r c h 1900, p. 16 (film list); 15 M a r c h 1900, p. 16 (last night).

F ir s t

fea tu r e- leng th

f il m f o r

F e d e r a tio n

Until 1901, all Australian-m ade films were less than 100 feet long (2 mins), even those illustrating the far-famed “Soldiers of the C ross”, owing to the m echanical lim itations of cam eras and projectors locally used, particularly the Lumière machines. Our next instalm ent describes the first local film which broke these bounds, the half-hour I n a u g u r a t i o n o f t h e Australian C o m m o n ­ w e a l t h (January 1901), made by the Salvation Army Limelight Department for the New South W ales government, and recently released on the NFSA video F e d e r a t i o n Films (1991).

T h e a tr e [sic]” a n n o u n c e s Bio-Tableau pics arriving per s s O r m u z -, 17 M a r c h 1900, p. 16: first A ustralia n pre senta tion of Bio-Tableau. T h e S y d n e y M o r n in g H e r a ld , 22 M a r c h

1900, p. 2: Lindesay C am pbell disengaged. T he w a r

c a m e r a m e n were R osenthal, E dgar H y m a n a n d J o h n Benett-Stanford.

17 J o h n Barnes, F ilm in g th e B o e r W a r , loc cit, pp. 164-5; S ig h t a n d S o u n d (L ondon), A u tu m n 1983, pp. 260-5: “Joseph Rosenthal: T h e M o s t G lorious Pro fe ss io n ” by Stephen B ottom ore.

18

T h e A r g u s (M e lbourne), 17 M a r c h 1900, p. 16.

19

L v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 13 Ju n e 1923, p. 38: “ A n o th e r Pioneer o f the M o v i e s ” ;

ibid, 1 8 April 1923, p. 29: “ A Pioneer S h o w m a n ” . B o n d ’s son, R u p e rt, recalls here t h a t when Stephen Bond first screened movies, Florrie F orde an d “ the Franze family of a c r o b a t s ” were on the sam e bill. T he M e l b o u r n e O p e r a H o u s e

A

ckn o w led g em en ts

George Ellis of the Salvation Army’s Melbourne Archives provided the bulk of the Limelight Department material for this episode. Assist­ ance was also provided by the following people, to whom we are deeply grateful: Wellington, New Zealand: Major Laurence Hay, Salvation Army Archivist. Brisbane: Pat Laughren and Griffith University, who provided financial support for this series. Melbourne: NFSA Melbourne Office - Ken Berryman, Helen Tully; the late John Price (Boer War historian); Frank Van Straten; George Ward.Canberra: NFSA Docu­ mentation Officer Meg Labrum. Our wives, Anne Sowry and Prue Long, provided assistance above and beyond the call of matrimony (!).

The Authors gratefully acknowledge financial assistance for this series from the Australian Research Council.

Notes 1

3 4

(M e lb o u rn e), 24 O c t o b e r 1 896, p. 8 (which correctly gives spelling as the Frantz family of acrobats).

20

2 D e ce m b er 1896, p. 1; 4 D e ce m b er 1896, p. 4.

T h e M e r c u r y (H o b a r t) , 1 4 D e c e m b e r 1 8 9 6 , p . 2: “ Shipping A r r i v a l s - M a r a r o a ”

22

T h e M e r c u r y (H o b a r t) , 12 D ece m ber 1896, p. 5; 14 D e ce m b er 1896, pp. 2, 3;

23

T h e A r g u s (M e lb o u rn e), 11 J a n u a r y 1897, p. 4: “ Shipping Arrivals - P a t e e n a ”

(Bond listed as passenger w h o arrived 12 Decem ber).

15 D e ce m b er 1896, p. 3; 16 D e ce m b er 1896, p. 3; 17 D e ce m ber 1896, p. 2.

(Bond listed on his return from L a unc eston, 9 J a n u a r y 1897).

24

C o la c H e r a ld , 12 J a n u a r y 1897, p. 3.

25

E v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 13 Ju n e 1923, p. 38. H e screened som e of T h w a it e s ’ films

(q.v.) in 1898 an d a p p ea rs to have had an association w ith the Falk p h o to studio.

26

Ibid.

27

Ibid. T h e e x ac t subjects sh o t are u n k n o w n .

28

Ibid. R icha rd L e a n ’s c areer is reviewed in L v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 23 M a y 1923,

29

Peter W o lfe n d en a n d Phillip Grace, M e l b o u r n e film a n d e q u ip m e n t collectors,

p. 26: “ A Pioneer Picture M a n ” .

C ha rle s M u s se r, H i s t o r y o f th e A m e r ic a n C in e m a V o l. 1 , Scribner’s, N e w Y ork,

have sighted several m odels over the years. T he late H a r r y D a v id so n th o u g h t

1 9 9 0 , p. 2 5 8 et seq.

t h a t they started p r o d u c tio n in 1904, p re su m ab ly on the basis of p a te n t dates,

A u s tr a la s ia n P h o t o g r a p h i c R e v i e w (Sydney), 2 2 N o v e m b e r 1900, pp. 2 4 -5-, T h e

b u t p ro d u c ti o n p r o b a b ly p e ak e d som e tim e later, p e rh a p s 1906-7.

B u lle tin (Sydney), 30 J u n e 1900, p. 8; 29 D e ce m b er 1900, p 25.

30

E v e r y o n e s (Sydney), 13 J u n e 1923, p. 38.

B e n d i g o A d v e r t i s e r , 3 0 J a n u a r y 19 0 1 , p. 1 ; 4 F e b ru a ry 1901, p. 2. M t A l e x a n d e r

31

A p h o t o of this g r o u p w as published on page 63 o f Ju n e 1 9 9 4 ’s C in e m a P a p e r s ,

M a i l (C astlem aine, V icto ria), 9 F e b r u a ry 1901, p. 2, states t h a t A l a d d i n ra n

b o t to m left of page. T h e personnel w ere listed in T h e W a r C r y (M e lb o u rn e), 24

m o r e t h a n 15 m in utes; G i p p s l a n d T im e s (Sale, V ictoria), 18 F e b ru a ry 1901, p.

N o v e m b e r 1900, p. 6, a n d 1 D e ce m ber 19 0 0 , p. 14.

2, a dvertises A l a d d i n as be ing “ 1 7 0 0 feet lo n g ” . A c cording to J o h n Barnes (St.

32

C o la c H e r a ld , 19 O c t o b e r 1900; 23 O c t o b e r 1900; C o la c R e f o r m e r , 23 O c t o b e r

33

T h e B a r r ie r M i n e r (Broken Hill), 2 7 Fe b ru a ry 1896, p. 2; T h e W e s t A u s tr a lia n

34

T h e S o u th A u s tr a lia n R e g is te r (Adelaide), 19 O c t o b e r 18 9 6 , p. 6; 2 0 O c t o b e r

Ives, E ngla nd), the film w a s m a d e by a n u n k n o w n French p ro d u c e r, w as sold

by R o se n b e rg &C Co. in E n g la n d a n d w a s 7 5 0 feet long, in 45 “ t a b l e a u x ” .

5

1900, p. 2.

C harles M u s se r , loc. cit., p. 145 et seq.; G o r d o n H e n d rick s, B e g in n in g s o f th e B i o g r a p h , T h e Beginnings o f the A m erican Film, N e w Y ork, 1964.

6

(Perth), 23 M a r c h 1897, p. 1, p. 4: “T h e P h o n o s c o p e ” .

T h e S y d n e y M o r n i n g H e r a ld , 23 A u g u s t 18 9 7 , p. 2: “ Palace T h e a t r e ” , p. 3; 24

1 8 9 6 , p . 6; 7 N o v e m b e r 18 9 6 , p. 10; T h e W e s t A u s tr a lia n (Perth), 21 N o v e m b e r

A u g u s t 18 9 7 , p. 6. T h e N e w c a s t l e H e r a ld , 8 Septem ber 1897, p. 1, reveals th a t R ic k a r d s is using the Casler bio g rap h w h e n he th r e a te n s a n o th e r theatrical

1896.

35

A l b u r y D a i l y N e w s , 4 Septem ber 1897, p. 2; 6 Septem ber 1897, p. 2; W a n g a r a tta

36

T h e B u lle tin (Sydney), 2 9 D e ce m b er 1900, p. 25.

c o m p a n y ag ain st using the n a m e “ b i o g r a p h ” .

7

B a lla r a t S ta r , 3 D ece m ber 1 896, p. 3; 4 D ece m ber 1896, p. 3. B a lla r a t C o u r ie r ,

21

B a lla r a t C o u r ie r , 26 June 1895, p. 3; G e e lo n g A d v e r tis e r , 26 June 1895, p. 3; B a lla r a t S ta r , 21 June 1895, p. 2; G e e lo n g E v e n in g N e w s , 2 5 June 1895, pp. 2-3.

2

p r o g r a m m e exactly fitting these p a ra m e te rs m ay be f ound in T h e A r g u s

T h e A r g u s ( M e lb o u rn e ), 16 M a y 19 0 0 , p. 12: “ A th e n a e u m H a l l ” ; 21 M a y

D is p a tc h , 15 Septem ber 1897, p. 2; B e n d ig o A d v e r t i s e r , 16 O c to b e r 1897, p. 1.

CINEMA

■

PAPERS

1 0 0 . 85

P R O D U C T I O N SURVEY

BROUGHT

FFC

FUNDING

A pril 1 and 8

FEATURE OH OUR SELECTION 100 mins. Anthony Buckley Productions. Execu­ tive producers: Bruce Davey, Jonathan Shteinman.

Producer: Anthony Buckley. Co-producer: Carol Hughes. Director: George Whaley. Scriptwriter: George Whaley. Principal cast: Leo McKern, Joan Sutherland. Saga of Australian rural life in the first decade of this century. The Rudd family battle to hang onto their 150-acre bush property in the face of drought, plagues of kangaroos and a take-over threat from a wealthy squatter.

DOCUMENTARIES SEARCH FOR LI-JIEN LOST CITY OF ROME 55 mins. Co-Productions Australia. Producer: PeterWelch. Director: PeterWelch. Scriptwriter: David Harris. Based on the work of historians David and Christine Harris and their discovery of the lost city of Li-Jien, a Roman bastion in central China dating back to the Han Dynasty.

A GLORIOUS WAY TO DIE 55 mins. Fleur Films. Producer: Martin Guin­ ness. Director: Glenn Singleman. Principal cast: John Weir. Award-winning adventurer, John Weir, recently led the Australian Whitewater Team in a rally with the Russian team in Siberia. The film looks at why Russian people risk their lives in a spectacular way.

MARY 72 mins. R. B. Films. Producer: Rosemary Blight.

Associate producer: Bridget Ikin. Director: Kay Pavlou. Scriptwriters: Julie Macken. Kay Pavlou.

Re-enactment of the story of Mary McKillop, who will soon become Australia’s first saint.

DOCUMENTARIES CHILDREN’S CASUALTY 52 mins. Iris Pictures. Producers: Jo-anne McGowan, Mary-Ellen Mullane. Director: Jessica Douglas-Henry. Scriptwriters: Mary-Ellen Mullane, Jessica Douglas-Henry. A film explor­ ing our basic instinct to protect the young. Filmed in the Accident and Emergency Department of a busy, inner-city children’s hospital.

A TOWN THAT’S LIKE ALICE 90 mins. Mistpalm. Producers: Bob Plasto, Ruth Berry. Director: Bob Plasto. Scriptwriters: Bob Plasto, Ruth Berry. An investigation into the mythical and romantic qualities of Australia’s heart - and the reality.

THE ISABELLAS 55 mins. Singing Nomad Productions. Producer: Sally Ingleton. Director: Sally Ingleton. Line pro­ ducer: Denise Patience. Scriptwriter: Sally Ingleton. On New Year’s Eve 1991,56 Chinese refugees landed in a wooden boat, code-named Isabella, in north-western Australia. After surviv­ ing weeks in the desert they were placed in detention at Port Hedland, awaiting refugee sta­ tus. The Isabellas follows the Captain of the boat back to the Kimberley to tell his story.

BOYSTOWN 55 mins. Emerald Films. Producer: Sally Brown­ ing. Co-producer: Glenys Rowe. Director: Mark

PAPERS

DECISIONS Worth. Scriptwriter: Mark Worth. A documentary about the criminal culture known as “raskolism” in the urban and rural areas of Papua New Guinea.

LEGENDS 47 mins. Legends. Executive producer: Roy Norris. Producer: Wal Missingham. Director: Darryl Rigby. Scriptwriters: Darryl Rigby, Mark Hadley. The history of surfing in Australia, con­ centrating on the great surfing legends from the early 1960s on.

THE EDGE 30 mins. Heliograph. Producer: John Weiiey.

Director: John Weiiey. Line producer: Cathy Flannery. Scriptwriters: John Weiiey, Richard Neville. The Blue Mountains sharply define the edge of the true wilderness hard up against the city of Sydney. Through the unique power of the Imax large screen format the audience will par­ ticipate in an extraordinary journey through this breathtaking environment.

Since the April 29 Board meeting the Australian Film Finance Corporation has entered into con­ tract negotiations with the producers of the fol­ lowing project:

THE SILVER BRUMBY ANIMATION SERIES 13 x 25 mins.Media World Features. Producers: Colin South, John Tatoulis. Supervising director: John Tatoulis. Scriptwriters: John Stevens, Judy Malmgren. Animation studio supervisors: Neil Robinson, Maggie Geddes. Follows the adven­ tures of Thowra, the magnificent silver brumby, and his youthful gang of high country friends.

27 May

FEATURE BACK OF BEYOND

A pril 29

86 • C I N E M A

PERMANENT

TO YOU

100

95 mins. Executive producers: Gary Hamilton, Doug Yellin. Producer: John Sexton. Director: Michael Robertson. Scriptwriters: Rick Sawyer, Paul Leadon. Principal cast: Paul Mercurio. A young man is summoned to a derelict garage in the parched red desert of the Australian outback.

The story moves from mysticism to a dangerous rendezvous and finally romance.

DOCUMENTARIES LIFE CHANCES 55 mins. Film Projects. Producers: Gregory Miller, Georgia Wallace-Crabbe. Directors: Gregory Miller, Georgia Wallace-Crabbe.Scriptwriters: Gregory Miller, Georgia Wallace-Crabbe. The film will focus on the lives of a number of children born in Melbourne in 1990. Through an exami­ nation of their diverse social circumstances and family lives, the film will pose the question - what are their life chances? The film, based on a longitudinal survey by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, will incorporate archival footage owned by the Brotherhood.

FIRST DAY 55 mins. Australian Children’s Television Foun­ dation. Executive producer: Patricia Edgar. Pro­ ducers: Patricia Edgar, Gordon Glenn. Director: Gordon Glenn. Scriptwriter: Gordon Glenn. The story of that exciting/frightening experience, the first day at school, from the child’s point of view.

NOTE: Production Survey forms now adhere to a revised format. Cinem a P apers regrets it can­ not accept information received in a different format, as it does not have the staff to re-process the information. Information is correct and ad­ judged as of 14/6/94.

TRUSTEES

Post-prod, supervisor Sound designer Gauge Screen ratio

Government Agency Investment Development Production

FEATURES PRE-PRODUCTION

Sean Caddy Tania Nehme Peter D. Smith Super 35 1:2.35 SAFC FFC

Marketing

Inti, sales agent Intrafilms (Rome) Cast: Ulli Birve (She), Syd Brisbane (The Man).

Synopsis: An intergalactic love story about a MUSHROOMS planet earth.

Prod, company RosenHarper Entertainment THE LIFE OF HARRY DARE Producer Brian Rosen Prod, companies Infinity Pictures Executive producer RichardHarper South Australian Film Corp.

Director AlanMadden

Principal Credits Scriptwriter AlanMadden Director Cast: Julia Blake, Lynette Curran, Simon Chilvers.

Producer Synopsis: A romantic black comedy about Minnie Assoc, producer and Flo, widows in their mid-sixties, who be­ Scriptwriter come embroiled in a macabre plot when a corpse DOP and a cop both decide to take refuge in the Sound recordist disused pawn shop that is their residence.

Editor Art director Costume designer FEATURES

PRODUCTION ALL MEN ARE LIARS Arenafilm Pinnacle Pictures

Prod, company Dist. company

Principal Credits Gerard Lee John Maynard Robert Connolly Gerard Lee Steve Arnold Murray Pope Surresh Ayyar

Director Producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter DOP Prod, designer Editor

Other Credits Elizabeth Knight Chris Robson Tor Larsen Lynne-Maree Dansey 90 mins 35mm

Prod, manager Prod, accountant Art director 1st asst director Length Gauge

Government Agency Investment Production FFC Synopsis: Mick, a 16-year-old country boy, cross dresses and joins an all-girl band in town for the local festival. He falls hopelessly in love with band member Angela who is flirting with lesbianism.

She’s hot for Mick, not just because he’s cute and talented but being a woman he’s honest.

[No further details supplied.]

EPSILON Prod, companies Pre-production Production Post-production

Co-producer Assoc, producer

Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator Prod, accountant Location manager Unit manager Unit asst.

Production runner

Barbara Gibbs Barbara Ring Kevin Plummer Miriam Ready Tim Stanley Sean McGovern Chris Cronin

Camera Crew Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Key grip Asst, grip Gaffer Best boy

Paul Meulenberg Lyddy Van Gyen Wayne Aistrope Mike Smith Paul Hamlyn Richard Rees-Jones Chris Herfeld

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Boom operator Continuity Make-up Runner Stunt co-ordinator Safety officer Tutor Nurse Still photography Catering

Monica Pearce Karan Monkhouse Michael Oxenberry Mike Bakaloff Carmel Torcasio Andrea Hood Michael Oxenberry Zev Eleftheriou Zev Eleftheriou Rob Dekok Jenny Bichard Simon Stanbury Maria Blore

Art dept asst.

Props buyer Props dresser Standby props Art dept runner

Yuri Poetzl Moira Fahy Moira Fahy Phil MacPherson Perscia Brokensha

Wardrobe Rolf de Heer Domenico Procacci Rolf de Heer Digital Arts Sharon Jackson

Other Credits Prod, manager Unit manager Completion guarantor Special fx photography

Production Crew

Art Department

Epsilon Fandango (Rome) Jan - Mar 1994 Mar 1994 ... ... Mar 1995

Principal Credits Director Producers

Aleksi Vellis Terry Charatsis Barbara Gibbs Gerald Thompson Geoff Hall Bronwyn Murphy Tony Patterson Ian Jobson Beverley Freeman

Sharon Jackson Charles Kiroff Film Finances Digital Arts Tony Clarke Mike Carroll

Standby wardrobe

Andrea Hood

Post-Production Asst, editor Sara Jane Van Gyen Attachment Shane Wilton Cast: John Moore (Harry), Gordon Weetra (Harry, 8 years old), Aaron Wilton (Jim), Billy Trott (Jim in his twenties), Bobbi-Jean Henry (Jem), Francesca Cubillo-Alberts (Dulcie, 1965), Carole Frazer (Dulcie, 1978-80s), Bob Agius (Bert), Carrie Mellett (Anne), Ben Nelson (Johnny), Tony Briggs (Dan).

Synopsis: Harry Dare is the coolest Aboriginal

detective there ever was.The man spent years restoring his VW KOMBI only to have it stolen after its maiden voyage. Equipped with the de­ tective kit bought by young son, Jim, father and son trek off to find the KOMBI. Their search leads them to a relationship they never had, and to unravelling the mystery of Harry’s father’s disap­ pearance many years ago. A comedy about discovery.

NAPOLEON Prod, companies

Film Australia Furry Feature Films

Principal Credits Director Producers

Mario Andreacchio Mario Andreacchio Michael Bourchier Naonori Kawamura (Herald Ace) Exec, producers Ron Saunders Masato Hara Line producer John Wild Mario Andreacchio Scriptwriters Michael Bourchier Steven J. Spears Roger Dowling DOP Prod, designer Vicki Niehus Editor Edward McQueen-Mason

Other Credits John Wild Sue Edwards Deborah Wilde Mason Curtis Kristin Witcombe John Foster Kath McIntyre John Smith Tony Cronin Brian Scaggs Kieran Weir The Cuong Truong Alice Truong Mick Braddock Barbara Moore Dog consultant Asst editor Adrian McQueen-Mason James Currie Sound designers Craig Carter Carolyn Johns Still photographer Richard Oliver Insurer FACB Completion guarantor FFC Finance Herald Ace Cast: [No details supplied.]

Synopsis: A story of a happy suburban puppy, Napoleon, unexpectedly transported into a natural bushland world.

Prod, manager Pro. co-ordinator Prod, accountant Location manager Continuity Focus puller Clapper-loader Grip Standby props Unit asst.

Storyboard artist/admin.

Dog/bird wrangler Asst wranglers

Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera equipment Key grip Gaffer Best boy 3rd electric Generator operator

Sion Michel Andrew Jerram Samuelsons Barry Hansen Ted Nordsvan John Brennan Greg de Marigny Greg de Marigny

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Make-up Hairdresser Make-up bus driver Still photography Unit publicist Catering

Euan Keddie Robbie Visser Damien Grant Kirsten Veysey Zeljka Stanin Jolyon (Joel) Simpson Jennifer Mitchell Fiona Searson, DDA Rick Herr Harley to Rose

Art Department Art director Art dept co-ordinator Art dept attachment Set dresser Props buyer Standby props

Hugh Bateup Sharon Young Joanna Park Glen W Johnson Marita Mussett Dean Sullivan

Wardrobe Standby wardrobe Asst costume Sound design Sound editor Laboratory Lab liaison

Isobel Carter Martine Simmonds Post-production Frank Lipsom Frank Lipsom Cinevex Ian Anderson

Government Agency Investment FFC Production Cast: John Lynch, Jacqueline McKenzie Synopsis: A roller-coaster journey to the fringes of the human psyche.

HOTEL SORRENTO Prod, company

Bayside Pictures

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Scriptwriters Based on play by DOP Sound recordist Prod, designer Costume designer Editor

Richard Franklin Richard Franklin Helen Watts Richard Franklin Peter Fitzpatrick Hannie Rayson Geoff Burton Lloyd Carrick T racy Watt Lisa Meagher David Pulbrook Greg Apps

Production Crew

FEATURES POST-PRODUCTION

B

1

ANGEL BABY Astral Films 21/3/94 ...

Prod, company Production

Principal Credits Director Producers Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Production designer Costume designer

Michael Rymer Timothy White Jonathan Shteinman Michael Rymer Ellery Ryan John Phillips Dany Cooper Chris Kennedy Kerri Mazzocco

Planning and Development Casting Additional casting

Trish McAskill Alison Barrett Casting Greg Apps

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator Producer’s asst.

Director’s attach.

Location manager Asst location m’ger Unit manager Unit asst.

Production runner Insurer Complet’n guarantor

Yvonne Collins Jo Friesen Judith Hughes Tanja George Steve Brett Melissa Rymer Andy Pappas Jolyon (Joel) Simpson Emma Javold Tony Leonard Steeves Lumley Antonia Barnard Film Finances

Camera Crew Camera operator

Robert Murray

Sue MacKay Prod, manager Rachel Garnsey Prod, co-ordinator Jacinta Lomas Prod, secretary ‘Spider’ Neil McCart Location manager Michael Batchelor Unit manager Paul Ammitzboll Unit assistant Cameron Stewart Production runner Lyn Jones Prod, accountant Kim McKillop Producer office attach Tony Woods, H. Wood Insurer Antonia Barnard, Complet’n guarantor Film Finances Chris Lovell, Holding Legal services Redlich Greg Helmers, Traveltoo Travel/Freight Motorolas Brett Woodhouse, Hirecom Australia

Camera Crew Focus puller Clapper-loader 2nd unit DOP Camera equipment Key grip Grip Grip (location) Gaffer Best boy Generator operator

Kathryn Milliss Leilani Hannah Jaems Grant Samuelsons Scott Brokate Peter Stockley Steve Wells Brian ‘Soapy’ Adams Tim Morrison Chris Shanahan

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hair supervisor

Art Department Art administrator Art dept assts Set decorator Standby props

Chris Webb John Martin Tanya Jackson Julie Bates Chris Roland Jose Perez Jose Perez

Christina Norman Shane Aumont Steve Meier Jill Eden Chris James

Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Costume cutter

21/3/94 ...

2/5/94 ...

Production Post-production

Principal Credits Clive Fleury Phillip Avalon Phillip Avalon Phillip Bowman Brenda Pam Clive Fleury Paul Murphy John Schiefelbein John Scott Phil Warner Rosalea Hood David Hirschfelder

Director Producer Line producer Assoc, producers Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer Composer

Planning and Development

Margot McCartney Rachel Nott Laura Jocic

Script editor Casting Extras casting Shooting schedule by Budgeted by

Ian Doig (Kincaide)

Production Crew

Wardrobe

Gerard Maguire Liz Mullinar Casting Rose Garcia Bob Howard Phillip Avalon Lynda Wilkinson

Construction Dept Construct, manager

Post-production Zoran Rakovic Asst editor Cinevex Laboratory Ian Anderson Lab liaison David Flint, AAV Video transfers/post Clive Duncan Lab liaison Steve Tayson, Kodak Stock Cast: Caroline Gillmer (Hilary), Caroline Goodall (Meg), Joan Plowright (Marge), Ray Barrett (Wal), Nicholas Bell (Edwin), Ben Thomas (Troy), Tara Morice (Pippa), John Hargreaves (Dick).

Synopsis: Three sisters are reunited at their seaside family home by the disappearance of their father.

LADYKILLER Prod, company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Innersense Productions $2,500 1/2/94 - 6/3/94 7/3/94 - 25/3/94 April 1994 ...

Principal Credits Director Producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordists Editor Composer

Bill Mousoulis Bill Mousoulis Bill Mououlis Laki Sideris Tim Joy John Humphries Bill Mousoulis Mike BellasMitchell

Production Crew Prod, assistant

Planning and Development Casting

Loli Sanchez Heather Ross George Mannix Suzie Woods Michael Batchelor Unit Facilities Mobile Make-up/wardrobe bus Production Facilities Publicist John Thornhill, Beyond Films Keith Fish Catering Tony Sisi Asst caterer

Hair stylist Make-up asst.

Safety report Still photography Double green room

Helen Hassoura

Camera Crew Camera operator Camera assistant Camera type Gaffer

Laki Sideris Tim Joy Canon 1014XL-S Tim Joy

On-set Crew Continuity Boom operators Still photography Catering

Danica D. B. Tim Joy John Humphries Danica D. B. Moose

Art Department Danica D. B.

Art director

Post-production Mike BellasMitchell Music performed by Kodak Laboratory Ian Anderson Lab liaison Super 8 Gauge 1:1.33 Screen ratio Kodachrome 40 Shooting stock Cast: Rhys Muldoon (Chris), Catherine Hill (Susan), Angela Twigg (Helen), Mary Bellas (Mary), John Papanicolaou (John), Gerard Stainsby (Mark), Peter Roberts (Geoff), Jennifer Doherty (Kim), Helen Pigrum (Lisa), Alex Newton (Jason).

Synopsis: “Let me tell you something about myself, Dave. Ten years ago I was really fucked up. I sat down one day and did some serious thinking. I decided to change m y life. I took my life on as a project. Do you understand what I’m staying?” A disturbing/uplifting film.

Brenda Pam Prod, manager Jennifer Cornwell Prod, co-ordinator Kerry Mulgrew Prod, secretary Chris Strewe Location manager Stuart Lynch Unit manager Warren Stewart Asst unit manager Phil Morant Unit asst Angella McPherson Production runner Michele D’Arcey Prod, accountant H. W. Wood Australia Insurer Film Finances Competion guarantor Martin Cooper & Co. Legal services Jet Aviation T ravel Jet Aviation Freight co-ord.

Clark Film Services Make-up van Clark Film Services Wardrobe trailer Starwagons Australia Cast van Starwagons Australia Unit truck Qld liaison Pacific Film & TV Commission

Camera Crew Paul Murphy Mike Kelly Chris Taylor Samuelsons Grant Neilson Jacon Parry Brett Marks Chris Fleet Phil Mulligan Mick O’Brien Paul Klican

Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera maintenance Key grip Asst grips Gaffer Best boy Electrics Casual electrics

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Sound attach.

Make-up artist Make-up asst.

Hairdresser Choreography Stunt co-ordinator Safety officer Still photography Publicity Cast van driver Cast driver Make-up/wardrobe bus Catering Runner

Bob Howard Julie Burton Peter McLennan Jenny Quigley Chris Goldsmith Matthew Archman Sally Gordon Sash Lam ley Sash Lamley Alan Lane Chris Anderson Greg Skipper Keith Byron Rea Francis Publicity Warren Stewart Hans Van Beuge Phil Morant Quinnele’s catering Angela McPherson

Art Department Asst art director Art dept runner Set dresser Props buyer Standby props Standby props asst Armourer Action vehicle co-ord

Tracey Robertson Priscilla Cameron Michael Tolerton Kristin Reuter Bradley Campbell Bradley Pimm Steve Courtney Harry Ward

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Wardrobe asst

Phil Eagles Sacha Drake

Animals Ron Roman

Animal handler

TUNNEL VISION Prod, company Dist. companies Pre-production

Construction Dept Avalon Films Beyond Films Pro Films 14/2/94 ...

Construct, supervisor Scenic artist Construction crew

CINEMA

Exhibit One Tony Short Gary Vaughan-Wilson Jean Tropeano PAPERS

1 0 0 • 87

Carpenters

Exhibit One

Post-Production Post-production supervisor Rose Dority Asst editor Lisa-Anne Morris Sound transfers Spectrum Films Sound editor Karin Whittington Asst sound editor Rick Lisle Karin Whittington Post-synch super.

David Hirschfelder Musical director Lee Smith Foley Phil Heywood Mixer Atlab Mixed at Rick Springett Opticals Optical & Graphic Titles Movielab Laboratory Lab liaison Martin Hoyle Neg matching Chris Rowell Kelvin Crumplin Grader 35mm Gauge Shooting stock Agfa Agfa Print stock Video transfers by Apocalypse Spectrum Off-line facilities Video master by Apocalypse

Government Agency Investment FFC Pacific Film & Television Commission

Production

Inti, distributor SBS Marketing Synopsis: Portraits of people at different levels of one of Australia’s largest unions, the Automo­ tive, Food, Metals and Engineering Union. The portraits will focus on union members campaign­ ing for changes, and reveal aspects not usually seen by television portrayal.

BEYOND THE DREAMTIME Valley of the Winds Prods 5300.000

Prod. co.

Budget

Beyond Films Pro Films Cast: Patsy Kensit (Kelly Wheatstone), Robert Reynolds (Frank Yanovitch), Rebecca Rigg (Helen Martelli), Gary Day (Steve Docherty), Shane Briant (Kevin Bosey), Craig Breslin (Justin Monjo), David Woodley (David De Salvo).

Vanessa Steele (Rachel Kossinger), Craig Ashley (Knowles), Jonathon Hardy (Henry Adams).

Synopsis: At the height of a murder investiga­ tion, Detective Frank Yanovitch is drawn into a web of deceit, jealousy and self pity. His partner, Kelly Wheatstone, has her own agenda. The killer holds the ace card and decides to play his game on his terms.

See previous issue for details on: COUNTRY LIFE THAT EYE THE SKY LUCKY BREAK TO THE POINT OF DEATH

DOCUMENTARIES

John Lind John Lind Charles E. Hulley John Lind

Director Producer Scriptwriters Based on the biography

A insiie R obert & the D ream tim e

Written by DOP Sound recordist Add. sound recordist Editor Composer

Charles E. Hulley Paul Warren Scott Piper Max Hensser Philip McGuire Toivo Pilt

Production Crew Prod, manager Units assts.

Legal services Base-office liaison

June Henman Rhys Robeds Maggie Urban Robed Madel Michael McMichael Bee Reynolds

Camera Crew Special fx photog.

Camera type

Peter Luschwitz.

Flix Animation Philip McGuire, White Rino Film Company 16mm AATON LTR

On-set Crew 1st asst director Still photography

Philip McGuire Claude Coirault

Post-production Vicki Ambrose Asst editor Atlab Australia Sound transfers David Lourie Sound editor Justine Saunders Narrator Alan Dargin Music pedormed by Add. music coudesy of The Garden of Peace Ensemble 'Tribal Fusion’ M o th e r W here A re You? W ild H one y D ream ong From Pedormed & composed by Riley Lee Matthew Doyle

ANATOMY OF A UNION Summer Hill Films SBS 5183,000 June - July 1994 Ju ly-S e p t 1994 Oct - Dec 1994

Principal Credits Peter Flynn Tony Wicked Geoff Barnes (SBS) Peter Flynn Tony Wicked Andrew Moylan Murray Ferguson

Director Producer Exec, producer Scriptwriters Sound recordist Editor

Other Credits Researchers

Budgeted by Prod, manager Prod, assistant Prod, accountant Insurer Completion guarantor Legal services Post-prod, super Sound editor Recording studio Mixed at Gauge Screen ratio Shooting stock Oiif-line facilities

Peter Flynn Tony Wicked Rodney Freedman Rodney Freedman Rodney Freedman Yael Altman Joe Wicked Cinesure Film Finances Simpsons Solicitors Rodney Freedman Murray Ferguson Tracks Australia Tracks Australia Betacam SP 20:1 Fuji Betacam Clear Cut

Post Production Video master

Ambience Communications

Government Agency Investment FFC SBS Marketing

Production Marketing 88 • C I N E M A

PAPERS

100

Vocalists Didgeridoo

James Grace Wendy Grace Mark Robson S ongs From the B urnt Earth

Didgeridoo solos Extra didgeridoos Recording studios Foley Mixer Fx mixer Mixed at Laboratory Lab liaisons Neg matching Grader Gauge Shooting stock Video transfers by Off-line facilities Video special fx Video master by

Stephen Kent Gary Thomas Andy Gray Digital City Studios David Lourie David Lourie David Lourie Film Sound Atlab Australia Kerry Jenkins Simon Wicks Negthink Tony Manning (film) Peter Simpson (telecine) 16mm Kodak 7245, 7248 Agfa XT 100 Telecine & Online at Omnicon Video John Davis Film & Video Omnicon Video Omnicon Video

Government Agency Investment Post-production AFC AFC Marketing Synopsis: Australian adist Ainsiie Robeds re­ jected the affluent spiritless security of an adver­ tising agency to trek remote regions of ancient Australia. During the subsequent 35 years he produced some of the most dramatic surrealist images of the Aboriginal dreamtime, popular­ ized in the D ream tim e B ooks series. This film takes him back to the desert and beyond into our collective unconscious.

Oracle Pictures Notion Picture Co. 3/1/94 - 11/3/94 14/3/94 - 5/4/94 6/4/94 - 24/6/94

Principal Credits Director Producers Exec, producers Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer

David Caesar Robert Reynolds Victor Gentile Max Lloyd Gregory Swanborough Victor Gentile Mark Zagar Victor Gentile Mark Perry Soula Gargoulakis

Planning and Development Researcher Casting Extras casting

Graham Shirley Liz Mullinar Casting Lucas Management

Production Crew Robert Reynolds Prod, manager Marea Williams Prod, co-ordinator Moneypenny Services Prod, accountant Insurer Film Insurance Underwriting Agencies Film Finances Completion guarantor Hart & Spira Legal services Showt ravel Travel co-ordinator

Camera Crew Camera operator Camera assistant Grip Gaffer

Mark Zagar Frank Flick Adam Good Nick Delaine

On-set Crew 1st asst director Make-up Special fx Safety officer Unit publicist

Victor Gentile Emma Jewels 1 Lou Stefanel George Mannix Marea Williams

Art Department Prod, designer’s asst Art dept Armourer

Sylvia Guenther Andrew Taylor Peter Gordon

Post-production Asst editor Editing assts

C hild's Lam ent

D esert D ream s in an A n cie n t Land

Prod, company Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Pre-production Production Post-production

Principal Credits

Marketing Inti, sales agents

CONVICTIONS Prod, companies

Edge numberer Sound editors Foley Mixer Mixed at Opticals Titles Laboratory Lab liaison Neg matching Grader Gauge Screen ratio Shooting stock Print stock Video transfers by Video master by

Louise O'Donnell Annette McLernon Robin Lloyd Chris McGrath Victor Gentile David White Kate Gaultier David White Counterpoint Sound Atlab Optical & Graphic Atlab Anthos Simons <Shris Rowell Productions Tony Manning 16mm 1:1.33 & 1:1.66 Kodak Kodak Apocalypse Apocalypse

Government Agency Investment Development Production

NSWFTO FFC ABC Synopsis: C onvictions is an examination of per­ sonal and national convictions and the forces that shape them. Using the Korean War as a back­ drop, the film explores the experiences of Austral­ ian servicemen who survived the Communist re­ education camps which were such an intrinsic and unique feature of this Cold War conflict.

Tony Clark Mike Piper Jim Roberts

DOP Sound recordist Editor

Other Credits Dr Peggy Rismiller Mike McKelvey Angela Heesom Shooting schedule Mike Piper Budgeted by Angela Hessom Prod, manager Richard Hyde & Assoc.

Insurer Jenny Woods Completion guarantor Film Finances Greg Sitch Legal services Marshalls & Dent Dr Peggy Rismiller Animal handlers Mike McKelvey Cinevex Laboratory Ian Anderson Lab liaison 16mm neg Gauge Kodak 7248 Shooting stock Complete Post Video transfers by Piper Films Off-line facilities Complete Post Video master by Researchers

Government Agency Investment Piper Films FFC Piper Films

Development Production

Marketing Pavilion - Independent Wildlife Synopsis: A half-hour natural history documen­ tary about the world’s oldest and least-known surviving mammal, the echidna. Filmed entirley in the wild at the Pelican Lagoon Research Station on Kangaroo Island with researchers Dr Peggy Rismiller and Mike McKelvey, the pro­ gramme contains unique sequences of the egglaying echidna’s behaviour never filmed before.

Inti, distributor

GOING TRIBAL DROPPING OUT IN THE ’90s Prod, company Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Light Source Films One World Films 5190,000 May - Aug 1994 Aug - Sept 1994 Sept - Dec 1994

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Exec, producer Scriptwriters Editor

Michael Balson Michael Murray Ronald S. Tanner Geoff Barnes Michael Murray Michael Balson Michael Balson

Other Credits Researcher Shooting schedule by Budgeted by Prod, manager Financial controller Laboratory Screen ratio Video transfers by

Michael Murray Michael Murray Ron Tanner Michael Murray Ron Tanner Movielab 15.1 (film) 20.1 (video) Apocalypse

Government Agency Investment Production

FFC SBS Marketing Marketing consultant Jenny Cornish Inti, sales agent One World Films Synopsis: This film looks at the re-emergence of tribal culture, especially amongst young people as society and the family beakdown. It uses a group of “ferals” as a microcosm of this global phenomenon.

A HOPE IN HELL ECHIDNA - THE SURVIVOR Prod, company Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Piper Films Pavilion - Independent Wildlife $189,000 July 1993 Aug 1993 - Sept 1994 Aug - Oct 1994

Principal Credits Director Producer Exec, producers Scriptwriter

Jim Roberts Mike Piper Dione Gilmour (ABC) Mike Piper (Piper Films) Jim Roberts

Prod, companies Dist companies Pre-production Production Post-production

The Write-On Group Emerald Films AFI Distribution Discovery International 6/12/93-17/12/93 22/12/93-4/3/94 7/3/94 - 9/6/94

Principal Credits Director Producers Scriptwriters DOP

James Ferguson Leisl Hillhouse Sherry Stumm James Ferguson Stephen Dunne Tom Gleeson

Editor Composer

Tony Egan Alastair Stevenson

Other Credits Still photography Sound post-prod.

Runner Legal services Insurers Post-prod, studio

Michael Blanchino Jim Blackfoot Toni Strachan David Geddes FIUA Cinesure Audio Edge

Marketing FFC Cast: Jacqueline Ninio.

Synopsis: A film about a yong Australian woman, Jacqueline Ninio, who gives up a career as a lawyer and travels to Jerusalem to study Judaism and become a woman rabbi. This film examines the changing role of women in Judaism.

AFC NSWFTO Synopsis: Within the hell of the prison system there is a small unit called the Special Care Unit where inmates are helped to come to grips with their feelings. We meet a complex and compel­ ling group of people who are taking part in this process, and we become involved in the drama and pathos of their day-to-day lives.

Prod, company

Prod, company

Colosimo Films for The National Centre for South Asian Studies Pre-production Jan - Mar 1994 Production Apr - July 1994 Post-production Aug - Dec 1994

Principal Credits Director Exec, producer Scriptwriter Editor

Rosa Colosimo Marika Vicziany Rosa Colosimo Will Spencer

Other Credits Prod, manager 1st asst director Prod.assistant Camera operator On-line editor

Will Spencer Will Spencer Angelo Salamanca Arthur Paraskevopoulos Greg Lynch

Bombay Crew Camera operator Camera asst

Channan Arora T. P. S. Nair

Stephen Ramsey Productions

Prod, designer Composer

Stephen Ramsey Jane Ramsey Stephen Ramsey Pamela Williams Stephen Ramsey Tony Wilson Mark Hensser Leo Sullivan Douglas Howard

Casting Storyboard artist Shooting schedule Budgeted

Principal Credits Director Producers Exec, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordists Editor

THE INDIAN CONNECTION

Planning and Development

NOT WHAT A NICE JEWISH GIRL WOULD DO (Working title WOMAN RABBI) Piper Films Piper Films $220,000 Feb 1994 M ar-A pril 1994 April - June 1994

Sound recordists Editor

Researchers

Jane Ramsey Stephen Ramsey Budgeted by Jane Ramsey Prod, manager Jane Ramsey Prod, secretary Jane Ramsey Stephen Ramsey Assembly editor Jane Ramsey Prod, accountant Insurer H. W. Woods Completion guarantor Film Finances Michael Frankel Legal services Betacam SP Camera types Sony 3 Chip HI-8 Video 8 Still photography Stephen Ramsey Narrator Noni Hazlehurst Cast: Arthur Dignam (Character voice-over).

Synopsis: Using cinema vérité, home movie and interview styles, this film follows three families through the traumas arising out of children moving into adolescence.

WHAT’S SO FUNNY? Prod, company Budget Production Post-production

Video Projects $316,910 23/3/94-30/6/94 4/7/94-18/11/94

Principal Credits Director Producer Assoc, producer.

Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor

Steve Westh Tony Wright Maryanne Carroll Steve Westh Jenni Meaney Paul Finlay Ken Sallows

Other Credits Prod, manager Producer’s asst Prod, accountant Gauge Off-line facilities Video master by

Kim Anning Anna Molyneaux Monica Gerht SP Betacam The Joinery Icon

Jacquelynne Wlllcox Mike Piper Geoff Barnes (SBS) Mike Piper (Piper Films) Jacquelynne Willcox Martin McGrath (Israel) Corey Piper (Aust) Mike Piper (Israel) Scott Piper (Aust) David Banbury

Film Victoria Development FFC Production Cast: Hung Le. Synopsis: Hung Le is the central character in W hat’s So Funny?, a comic documentary which looks into the lives of several ethnic comedians and their attempts to realize their ambitions on the comedy stage. Their stories offer a window to the broader contemporary ethnic experience and the current state of multicultural Australia.

Other Credits See previous issue fo r details on: Jacquelynne Willcox THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT: FOR Angela THE SAKE OF LIFE AND LIMB Heesom PHYSIOTHERAPY AT FLINDERS Mike Piper Budgeted by Angela Heesom Prod, manager Richard Hyde & Assoc. H r Insurer SHORTS a Jenny Woods, ■ Completion guarantor Film Finances ARMOUR Greg Sitch, Legal services Attitude Films Prod, company Marshalls & Dent Attitude Films Dist. company Video Gauge Oct 92 - Feb 93 Pre-production Betacam SP Shooting stock Feb - Mar 93 Production Piper Films Off-line facilities Mar 93 - Apr 94 Post-production Network 8 Video master by Researcher Shooting schedule by

Government Agency Investment Development Production

Defrim Isah Jimi Ink James Damon Escott Anthony Wall Cinesure

Prod, manager Producer’s assistant Production assistant Production runners Insurer

Camera Crew Camera operator Camera assistant Camera type Gaffer Generator operator

Grant Market Dan Betacam SP Ian Quatermass Ian Quatermass

On-Set Crew Ross Hughes Jimi Ink Ben Moller Andrew Miller Lisa/Natalie Max East Sumo

1st Ass. director 2nd Ass. director Continuity Boom Operator Make-Up Still photography Catering

Art Department Propsperson Props buyer

Wanda Dobe Jimi Ink

Wardrobe Max East

Wardrobe supervisor

Piper Films FFC Piper Films

Principal Credits Directors Producers

Lori-Jay Ellis Robyn Evans Lori-Jay Ellis

Ben Ambrose Andrew Miller Andrew Miller BTQ 7 Glen Voyzey Andrew Miller BTQ 7 Ag Business

Assistant editor Musical director Music performed by Recording studio Music mixer Assistant mixer Mixed at Off-line facilities

Government Investment Production (Film Queensland)

$9,095.

Marketing Poster designer Lori-Jay Ellis Cast: Phil Toyton (Norman Grady), Meagon Brookman (Leah), Matt Simson (Dick), Rupert Owen (Bag lady/Groom), Simon Cook (Rollerblader), Jimi Ellis (Bride), Vicki Carmichael (Ringmaster).

Synopsis: Not supplied

Government Agency Investment

Principal Credits

Scriptwriter DOPs

Production Crew

Post-Production

Chaman Arora Camera operator Virendra Singhnegi Camera asst Manu Goel Sound recordist Length 5 x 25 mins Betacam Format 20:1 Shooting ratio Synopsis: A look at contemporary India, its grow­ ing middle-class, its entry into the global economy and the implications for the country itself and its relationship with Australia.

Director Producer Exec, producers

Mary Quadrant Casting Ben Ambrose Attitude Films Attitude Films

Other Credits

Delhi Crew

Prod, company Dist company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Created by DOP Sound recordist Editors

RITES OF PASSAGE

Government Agency Investment Production

Robyn Evans Robyn Evans Suit Yourself Series Lori-Jay Ellis Ben Ambrose Karim Lori-Jay Ellis Robyn Evans Lori-Jay Ellis Andrew Miller

Scriptwriter Based on the artwork

IN LIVING MEMORY Prod.company Budget Completion

Streetwise Films $30,000 May 1994

Principal Credits Directors Producers

Exec, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Composer

Glenn Fraser Chris Wheeler Glenn Fraser Jodie Gero Chirs Wheeler Grant Harris Chris Wheeler Rod Turnbull Pawel Whyhowski Glenn Fraser Paul Anthony Smith

Other Credits Art director Storyboards Camera asst 1st asst director 2nd asst director Gaffer Grip Prod assistant Sound asst Neg cutting Laboratory Gauge Shooting stock

Justyne Gilchrist Martin Egan Peter Borosh Alex Morrison Martin Sparkes Paul Johnstone Damien Heckendorff Larissa Truby Liam Weston Chris Rowell Movielab 16mm 7248

16 minutes Length Cast: Anthony Wheeler, Linden Jones, David Wolff Synopsis: An old man’s memories of the war in Europe provoke a radical change in his life’s direction.

LESSONS IN THE LANGUAGE OF LOVE Prod, company Production Post-production

Slamcam Films 21 - 2 4 June 94 July - Aug 94

Principal Credits Director Producer Line producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer

Scott Patterson Scott Patterson Edwina Nicols John O'Brien Daniel Ardilley Greg Hodge Scott Patterson Janeen Lynch

Other credits Cowley Hearne Zoe Bunton John Deering Arri 16SR Nobby Szafranek Daniel Pront Peter Bushby AI Flower John Barker Angela Mork Stephanie Dwyer Kay Campbell Reg Lynch Hugh Sinclair Kate Green Wardrobe supervisor Felicity Howell Wardrobe asst Jon Marsh Studios Mixed at Opticals Springett Optical Services MovieLab Laboratory Ian Stevens Lab liason Neg matching Negative Cutting Services 16mm Gauge Shooting stock 7293 Videolab Video transfers by

Legal services Focus Puller Camera assistant Camera type Key grip Asst grip Gaffer 1st asst director 2nd asst director Make-up Still photography Catering Art dept co-ordinators

Government Agency Investment Production AFC Marketing AFC Cast: Richard Roxburgh, Anni Finsterer, Gabrielle Adkins, Marianne Bryant, AI Flower.

Synopsis: The undefinitive guide to language that’s harder to learn than Votyak, but much more important.

ROBERT WHO? Prod company Pre-production Production

Opus Film Feb - April 94 May - June 94

Principal Credits Director Exec, producer Producer Scriptwriters DOP Editors Composer

Jason Munn Peter Thurmer (MAPS) Richard Hyde Jason Munn Richard Hyde Micheál Con Bambacas Jason Mann Richard Hyde Richard Robinson

Other Credits Leigh Sutton Script editor Matthew Long Focus puller 1st asst director Richard Hyde Audio technician Linton Vivian Continuity Vicki Schwartz Prod, assistant Kathie Gleeson Gauge Hi-8 Post production Network 8 Cast: Micheál Allen (Robert), Kate Kendal (Mrs Morgan ) Synopsis: A postie is suddenly exposed to the problems ot tame.

ROSIE'S SECRET Prod company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Lisa Matthews Productions $40,000 Feb 94 Mar 94 April -May 94

Principal Credits Director

Lisa Matthews CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 . 89

Producer Consulting producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Costume designer Composer Editor

Lisa Matthews Janet Bell Lisa Matthews Kathryn Miiliss Nicole Lazaroff Tess Schofield Robert Moss James Bradley

Cast: Marcella Russon (Sylvanna), Robert Cusenza (Dario), Josephine Eberhard (Carmel) Synopsis: A young woman is tom between two opposing realities, those of her Italian father and those of contemporary Australian society.

See previous issue fo r details on: NOWHERE TO HIDE

Other Credits Script editor Prod, manager Prod, assistants

Anne Whitehead Anne Folland Madelaine Aroney Michele Hutchinson Leilani Hannah Allison Hall Jan “Ziggy” Zeigenbein Jan “Ziggy” Zeigenbein Anne Zahalka Apocalypse

Camera assistants Hair Make-up Studio photographer Post-production

Technical consultant Paintbox Paintbox Telecine On-line editor Liaison Sound post prod.

Sound effects editors Mixer Publicity Stills

Labs Lab liaison Legal services Insurer Safety report Length Gauge Screen ratio

AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL See previous issues fo r details on: THE STRANGER

FILM AUSTRALIA SPELLBINDER Prod, company

Tim Dyroff Claire Morris Warren Lynch Roy Andrews Tony Lynch Counterpoint Sound Mark Ward Kate Gauthier Christian Bass Anne Zahalka Moshe Rosenzveig Judith Longhurst Atlab Film Plus Anthos Simon Arts Law Centre Michael Frankel & Co Cinesure Brian Mannix 11 minutes 16mm SP Betacam 1:1.85

Government Investment Agency Production AFC Cast: Phillip Adams, Dale Spender, Richard Hall, Amelia Longhurst, Dorothea Baltzer, Dorris Anning, Norm McAlpine, Bill Carty, Walter Sullivan, John Pola.

Synopsis: History does not repeat itself, Histori­ ans repeat each other. R osie’s Secret explores the mythical process of history making and un­ covers oneof Australia’sforgotten heroines, Rosie Foster. We discover the significant rôle Rosie played in the construction of the country’s na­ tional icon, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and more importantly why she was omitted from history.

Film Australia

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriters DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer

Noel Price Noel Price Polish Television Ron Saunders Dennis Kiely Mark Shirrefs John Thomson Martin McGrath Paul Wyowski Pipa Anderson Nick McCallum Julie Middleton

Other Credits Casting Liz Mullinar Prod, manager Glenda Carpenter Prod, assistant Louise McCallum Prod, accountant Jill Steele 1st asst director Bob Donaldson Continuity Nicola Moors Art director Angus Tattle Asst art director Geoff Howe Sound editor Les Fiddess Cast: Heather Mitchell.

Synopsis: [No details supplied.]

UN PADRE TRADIZIONALE

Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Open Window Productions $50,000 January-March 1994 April 1994 May-August 1994

Kay Ben M’Rad Tara Ferrier Amanda T rotter Jo Warren Trish Mclnally Trish Hepworth Maree Gray Ian Kenny Arnie Custo 2nd asst director Rachel Evans Paul Kiely Continuity Focus puller Gary Bottomley Underwater DOPs Ron Hagen Ross Isaacs Underwater focus puller Gary Bottomley Boom operator Ray Phillips Richard Rees-Jones Gaffer Still photography Steve Brennan (Port Douglas) Art directors Adele Flere (Port Douglas) Brian Alexander (Melb) Adele Flere Props buyers (Port Douglas) Brian Alexander (Melb) Set decorator Jill Eden Location dresser Shane Aumont Standby props Chris James Post-prod, supervisor Philip Watts Standby wardrobe Alban Farrawell Make-up Maggie Kolev Hairdresser Maggie Kolev Asst make-up/hair Doug Glanville Neri double/diver Zelie Thompson Whale robotics Chris Chitty, Robotechnology Animal wrangler Karina Eagle Special fx Peter Stubbs Post-production I AAV Sound post-prod.

Soundfirm Laboratory Cinevex Insurer Richard Oliver Completion guarantor Film Finances

Government Agency Investment Development

BOOK LAUNCH Prod, company Streamline Sponsor NSW Health Dept.

Synopsis: Compilation of existing footage for B ook Launch, plus studio camera shots to be added.

Prod, company DOP's

Streamline Mai Hamilton Mike McKenzie Sponsor NSW Health Dept. - Public Affairs Synopsis: Footage for news release and archi­ val purposes.

Marketing Inti, distributor Beyond Distribution Cast: Marzena Godecki (Neri), David Hoflin (Jason Bates), Jeffrey Walker (Brett Bates), Alex Pinder (Winston Seth), Kerry Armstrong (Dianne Bates), Jacalyn Prince (Vanessa Lane), Nicholas Bell (Dr. Hellegren), Joel De Carteret (Jake “Froggy” Reilly), Cassandra Magrath (Zoe Kondelos).

Synopsis: Neri, the mysterious girl from the sea, returns to search for the secret of her past. Aided by the kids from Orca, she uncovers the incred­ ible truth, and starts the quest for the sister she never knew existed.

TELEVISION PRODUCTION

Principal Credits Director Producer Scripwriter DOP Sound recordist Picture editor Sound editor Art director

Anna Louise Sortini Sue Brown Anna Louise Sortini Gerald Thompson Tod Smart Tania Nehme Simon Whitington John Haratzis

Camera Crew Robertto Karas John Martin

Camera assistant Gaffer

On-set Crew

Art Department Post Production Media Resource Centre DFL Super 16

Government Agency Investment Development Production

90 • C I N E M A

OCEAN GIRL 2 (mini-series) Prod, company Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

SAFC SAFC

PAPERS

100

Westbridge Productions Beyond Distribution $3.5 million 6/6/94...

1/8/94 ...

21/10/94 ...

Principal Credits

Exec, producer Line producer DOP Sound recordist Editors

Caroline Farmer

Asst art director Editing facilities Laboratory Gauge

TELEVISION PRE-PRODUCTION

Directors Mel Ortuso Gail Kovatseff Robert Hardman Elaine Jesser Isabella Toffoli

1st asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Still photography

Film Victoria Film Queensland FFC Film Victoria Film Queensland

Production

NSW FILM & TELEVISION OFFICE

FUNDS BOOST - NEWS/ARCHIVAL Prod, company

Prod, accountant Asst producer Exec, producer asst Prod, co-ordinator Prod, secretary Script typist Tutor 1st asst directors

Prod, designer Composers

Judith John-Story Mark De Friest Jonathan M. Shift Gina Black Ron Hagen John Wilkinson Philip Watts Andrew Scott Tracy Watt Garry MacDonald Laurie Stone

Other Credits Story editor Script editor Casting director

Peter Hepworth Michael Joshua Jo Rippon

See previous issue fo r details on: BLUE HEELERS (series) THE FEDS (tele-feature) Prod, company Dist. companies Pre-production Production Post-production

Crawford Australia Eaton Films Modicum 5/4/94 - 27/5/94 30/5/94-11/11/94 14/11/94-2/95

Principal Credits Directors Producer Exec, producers Scriptwriters

DOPs Sound recordist

Donald Crombie Michael Pattinson Jan Marnell Bruce Gordon John Kearney Jan Sardi Everett DeRoche Vine Moran Ian McFadyen Patrick Edgeworth David Foreman Roger Dowling John McKerrow

Bill Murphy Denise Haratzis Paddy Reardon Marion Boyce Bruce Rowland

Editors Prod, designer Costume designer Composer

Planning and Development Story editor Script editors Casting Extras casting AFC attachment

John Reeves John Reeves Graeme Farmer Jan Pontifex Nikki Longstaff Julie Goodall

Production Crew Prod, supervisor Prod, co-ordinator Producer’s asst Location managers Unit manager Prod, assistant Prod, runner Prod, accountant Accounts asst Insurer Completion guarantor Travel co-ordinator Freight co-ordinator

Chris Page Jo Friesen Betty Parthimos Greg Ellis Neil McCart Shane Warren Carol Matthews Emma Jamvold Ron Sinni Sandra Djuma Jardine Tolley F.A.C.B. Showfilm Show Freight

Camera Crew Focus puller Clapper-loader 2nd unit DOP 2nd unit focus Camera type Key grip Asst grip Gaffer Best boy Generator operator

Liddy Van Gyen Trish Keating Brent Crockett Angelo Sartori ARRI 16 SR II Scott Brokate Alistair Reilly Nick Payne Anthony Tulloch Chris Shanahan

On-set Crew 1st asst directors 2nd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Make-up asst Hairdresser Asst hairdresser Special fx Stunts co-ordinator Stunts Safety officer Catering

Brendan Campbell Chris Odgers Robbie Visser Carmel Torcasio Jenny Sutcliffe Brad Smith Andrea Cadzow Brad Smith Andrea Cadzow Film Trix Zev Eleftheiou New Generation Stunts Tom Coltraine Sweet Seduction

Art Department Art directors Art dept co-ord.

Set dressers Propsperson Props buyer Standby props Armourer Action vehicle co-ord.

Michael Rumpf Hugh Bateup Karen Salter Simon McCutcheon Viv Wilson Susie Thompson Rolland Pike Stuart Redding John Fox Rob McLeod

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe

Caaren Hulme Rachel Nott

Construction Dept Construct, manager Studios

Peter McNee Crawfords Australia

Post-production Post-prod, supervisor Editing asst Dialogue effects Sound editors

Foley Music editor Mixed at Time lapse Titles

Laboratory Lab liaison Telecine grader Gauge Shooting stock Video transfers by

David Birrell Barry Lanfranchi Bruce Climas Stephen Vaughan Michael Carden Andrew Jobson Tracey Grimshaw John Simpson Chris Pettifer Crawfords Australia Digital Arts Film & Television David Birrell Jon Holmes Trout Communications DFL Pamela Hammond Charlie Ellis 16mm Kodak 7293, 7298 AAV

Off-line facilities

Crawford Productions

Government Agency Investment Production FFC Cast: Robert Taylor (Dave Griffin), Angie Milliken (Jo Moody), John Bach (Rainer Bass), Brain Vriends (Michael), Marcus Eyre (Blocker), Nell Feeney (Rose), Amanda Jane Bowden (Tina).

Synopsis: Experienced, likeable, all-too-human, a family man with a broken marriage, Superin­ tendent Dave Griffin spearheads the feds’ battle against organized crime . Dave’s regular partner is Detective Sergeant Jo Moody, a lawyer turned policewoman. Jo and Dave were lovers once.

Now they are both striving to put the job first.

See previous issue fo r details on: HEARTBREAK HIGH (series) HALIFAX F. P. (tele-feature) Prod, company

Simpson Le Mesurier Films Beyond International $7,800,000 May 1994 ...

July 1994 ...

Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production

Principal Credits Directors

Paul Moloney Mike Smith Steve Jodrell Brendan Maher Michael Carson Roger Le Mesurier Roger Simpson Ros Tatarka Roger Simpson Peter Kinloch Mac Gudgeon Keith Aberdein Howard Griffiths Craig Barden Andrew Ramage Anne Carter Tel Stolfo Sandi Cichello

Producers Exec, producer Scriptwriters

DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer

Prod, accountant Accounts asst Insurer Completion guarantor Legal services Travel co-ord.

Camera Crew Focus puller Gaffer Best boy Electrician

Angelo Sartore Dick Tummel Darryl Pearson Adam Williams

On-set Crew 1st asst directors 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Make-up Unit publicist

Bernadette Wynack Marita Musset

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst

Casting consultants

Julie Turner Tom Hegarty Liz Mullinar Kelly O’Shea Liz Mullinar Casting Consultants

Production Crew Prod, co-ordinator Producer’s asst Prod, secretary Location managers

Sandi Revelins Christine Vella Kerri Ryan Janice Duncan John Brousek

Prod, designer Composer

Other Credits Lighting directors

Clive Sell Graeme Brumley Tony McDonald Story editors Alison Nisselle Prod, manager Lorraine Alexander Script editor Jutta Goetze Cameron Harris Casting Length 26 x 50 mins Gauge SP Betacam Synopsis: Jan us is a story of justice, and the corruption of justice. It is about lawyers, judges, magistrates and police who work with a very imperfect system, about those who know it is time for change, those who will resist and those who will lead.

Martine Simmonds Gabby Dunn Tracey Richardson

•

TELEVISION POST-PRODUCTION

Post-production Post-production by Sound post-prod, by Laboratory

LIFT OFF 2 Prod, company

FFC Production Cast: Rebecca Gibney (Jane Halifax).

Synopsis: Jane Halifax is a forensic psychiatrist whose specialty is the criminal mind.

Principal Credits

JANUS (series) Prod, company Production

ABC 23/5/94 - 27/11/94

Principal Credits Directors

Producer Exec, producer Series concept Scriptwriters

Michael Carson Kate Woods Julian McSwiney Amanda Smith Bill Hughes Penny Chapman Alison Nisselle Tony McDonald Deborah Parsons Deborah Cox Joanna Murray-Smith Susan Höre Cliff Greene Alison Nisselle Graham Hartley Annie Beach

Production Crew Prod, manager Segment unit prod, mgr Prod, co-ord.

Segment unit co-ord.

Visual effects co-ord.

ABC prod, manager ABC prod, co-ord.

Prod, secretary Producer’s secretary Receptionist Location manager Prod, runner Prod, accountant Completion guarantors Guarantor rep.

Ray Hennessy Deborah Samuels Susie Wright Julian Dimsey Julian Dimsey Mervyn Magee Lee-anne Jones Robin Astley Jan Challenor Jan Challenor John Brousek Michael Agnew Sophie Siomos Film Finances Ann Darrouzet

On-set Crew Phil Jones Stuart Wood

1st asst directors

Art Department Bemie Wynack Dale Mark Marian Murray Samantha Eddey Hamish Hicks Terry Denton Rob Matson Michael Bladen

Art designer ABC asst designer Props buyer Art dept secretary Puppet doctor Puppet designer Puppet maker Special fx designer

Post-production

Complete Post Labsonics Cinevex

Government Agency Investment

Planning and Development Researcher Script editor Casting

Stuart Wood Monica Pearce Christian Robinson lain Pirret Liz Perry Kirsten Veysey Robyn Smith, GTV Channel Nine

Art Department Art director Propsperson

Tony McDonald Michael Harvey John Cundill Graeme Koetsveld Jutta Goetze Barbara Bishop Sally Shephard Paul Grabowsky

Margot Brock Andrew Walker Steeves Lumley Film Finances Marshalls & Dent Performance Travel

Series director Directors

Producer Co-producer Line producer Scriptwriters

IDOP IProd, designer Costume designer IEditor Composer

ACTF

Other Credits (Wakadoo Studio) Brendan Maher Paul Nichola Ray Boseley Cameron Clarke Dr Patricia Edgar Susie Campbell Sandra Alexander Ray Boseley Christine Madafferi Cameron Clarke Sue Edgar Sue Hore Penny Robenstone-Harris Craig Barden Tel Stolfo Rose Chong Edward McQueen-Mason Chris Neal

Planning and Development IResearchers Story & script editors Casting

Ralph Strasser AAV David Cheshire

Supervising editor Video facilities Musical director

Julie Turner Camilla Gold Chris Anastassiades Robert Greenberg Liz Mullinar Casting

Katrina Mathers Producers’s asst Technical producer Julie Peters Mike Bramley Lighting director Lighting console operator Eric Burt Andrew Jepson Lighting assistant Audio operator Gary Schultz John Parker (WK7) Vision operators Pat Njorth (WK9) Senior camera Greg Wilden Vision mixer Joe Murray Camera operators Soner Tunchay Andrew Schmidt Sound assistants Peter Bradley Ernie Everitt Kelly Simpson Asst grips Lisa Burridge Darko Hribemik Setting crew staging Alf Camilleri Bill Whiteside Asst designer Peter De Jong Staging assistant John Lambert Sue Woods Videotape operator Cast: [No details supplied.]

Synopsis: [No details supplied.] w

Advertisers Please Note!

The next issue of C in em a P ap ers w ill contain a special Supplement on the film industry in Victoria. Please contact Barry Telfer on 4 2 9 5 5 1 1 to meet any advertising needs.

CINEMA

PAPERS

1 0 0 • 91

Ten

C r i t i c s ’ Best

and

Wor st

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 (NETWORK 10; DAILY MIRROR, SYDNEY); SANDRA HALL (THE BULLETIN); PAUL HARRIS (“EG”, THE AGE; 3RRR); IVAN HUTCHINSON (SEVEN NETWORK; HERALD-SUN); STAN JAMES (THE ADELAIDE ADVERTISER); NEIL

D A Z E D A N D C O N F U SE D F E A R L E SS

J o h n L a n d is R ic h a r d L in k la t e r

P e te r W e ir

FOUR W E D D IN G S A N D A FU N ERAL FOR A LOST S O L D IE R

Roelande Kerbosch

G E R O N IM O : AN AMERICAN LEGEND

Walter Hill

Roger Donaldson

THE GETAWAY

THE H O U SE OF THE S P IR IT S THE H U D S U C K E R PRO XY K IK A

M ik e N e w e ll

Bille Auguste

Joel Coen

Pedro Almadovar

THE LAST SE D U C T IO N

Dean Murphy

LEX A N D RO RY THE P A P E R

Ron Howard

R A IN IN G ST O N ES LE S A M O U R A I LA SC O R TA

John Dahl

Ken Loach

Jean-Pierre Melville

Ricky Tognazzi

SEC R ET G A R D E N THE S U M OF US

Agnieszka Holland Geoff Burton and Kevin Dowling

32 SH O R T F IL M S ABO UT GLENN G OULD W H O ’S A F R A ID OF G ILB E R T G R A P E W ID O W S P E A K

92 . Cl N E M A

John Irvin

PAPERS

1 00

Francois Girard

Lasse Hallstrom

AVERAGE

B EV ER LEY H ILLS C O P I I I

EVAN WILLIAMS

R o n F ric k e

DAVID STRATTON

BARAKA

Ia in S o ftle y

TOM RYAN

B A C K B EA T

P e te r G re e n a w a y

SCOTT MURRAY

THE B A B Y OF M A C O N

N ic k B r o o m fie ld

NEIL JILLETT

A IL E E N W U O R N O S: THE SELLING OF A SERIAL KILLER

STAN JAMES

Shadyac

IVAN HUTCHINSON

Tom

PAUL HARRIS

A C E VEN TURA: PET DETECTIVE

SANDRA HALL

FILM TITLE D ire cto r

BILL COLLINS

JILLETT (“THE AGE”); SCOTT MURRAY; TOM RYAN (THE SUNDAY AGE); DAVID STRATTON (VARIETY; SBS); AND EVAN WILLIAMS (THE AUSTRALIAN).

-

-

-

-

0 J

0 0

-

-

-

6

4

8

9

6

8

-

8

-

8

-

6

7.6

9

3

2

6>

3

2

-

-

6

T 0

4.3

-

8

5

5

7

6

-

4

6

-

5.9

9

-

5

7

-

2

-

5

-

8

6

4

-

J

-

4

2

-

2

-

-

2.8

-

-

2

6

-

5

-

-

-

-

4.3

9

8

0 J

7

-

J

8

7

9

8

6.8

8

8

6

10

9

0 0

5

8

9

-

7.3

-

-

5

7

-

5

-

-

5

-

5.5

8

7

6

7

7

8

-

8

7

-

7.3

8

-

2

8

6

2

-

0 J

8

-

5.3

7

6

1

J

6

o J

1

-

1

4

3.5

-

6

-

6

-

4

-

-

8

-

6

-

-

4

5

-

5

-

7

8

-

5.8

-

8

5

8

9

-

7

9

8

7.7

-

-

2

5

-

0 J

-

-

Ó

2

o J

8

7

") J

8

5

6

-

0

2

-

5.3

-

8

6

8

-

8

-

6

10

7

7.6

10

-

8

8

-

9

10

10

10

9

9.3

-

-

7

8

6

9

6

-

8

-

7.3

8

6

5

6

-

6

-

7

8

-

6.6

-

-

5

-

-

-

7

2

8

-

5.5

-

-

5

8

-

-

-

7

-

8

7

-

-

4

7

-

-

-

6

7

-

6

-

7

0

5

-

4

-

1

1

-

3.5

Find out why so many film editors amusing our Emmy Award winning system.

Congratulations to Frameworks, Kennedy Miller and Mike Reed Post Production for using the Avid Film Composer to edit Heartbreak High, The Babe and numerous commercials. Over 50 features have been cut on the Film Composer, the only non-linear system that edits in native 24 FPS mode and outputs a frame accurate cut and optical lists.

And it’s from Avid - the company that’s already proven in over 3,500 film and video installations worldwide and in over 100 installations in Australia and New Zealand.

For more information, please contact your local Avid representaba Australia: Amber Broadcast Tel: 975 1211 Fax: 975 1368 New Zealand: Mastacom Electronics Tel: 649 443 0753 Fax: 649 410 8381

a

. v .

i

•d

R e

l

e

a

t

e

In tr o du cing the E A S T M A N

film system. For the first time, there

■y "*

u r is a direct link between your ideas

v

i

s

i

o

n

and

audie nce s

everywhere.

Because

with the addition of EXR color print

film, the technology of the EXR film

family now lives within every step

of

the

process — from

to

intermediate m

negative

IfHease.

EASTMAN EXR film |f@ -e'm .

The

Think

of it as a projector for your mind.

©

Call 008 337 935,

for more information.

Eastman Kodak Company, 1993.

Eastman and EXR are .trademarks.