Cinema Papers No.109 April 1996 by UOW Library

S I E ! rosi 4361844 H E U E [031 9 646 3044 P E I [0181 963 636 G ITA 6331

LAI

HST [0761 5 38 6643

Focus A U S T R A L I A N FI LMS SHINE S u n d a n c e F ilm F e s tiv a l By R obert C onnolly

P r o d u c e r R o b e rt C o n n o ll y r e p o r ts back f r o m th e r e c e n t S u n d a n ce Film F estiva l w h e r e S co tt H ick s’ Shine c a u s e d a cr itic a l se n s a tio n a n d o p e n e d m a n y A m erican c h e q u e b o o k s

12 MICHAEL TOLKIN L iv in g w it h t h e Q u e s tio n B y Paul Ka l in a

M ich a el Tolkin is o n e o f H o l l y w o o d ’s fin est scrip tw riters (The Player}, d ire cto rs (The New Age) a n d n o v elis ts (Among the Dead). “O n ly an o p t im is t ic tim e is c a p a b le o f w ith sta n d in g tragedy, a n d this is n o t an o p tim istic t i m e ”, h e explains in this w id e-r a n g in g d iscu ssion o f his work

16 COS I , V I D E O F O O L FOR LOVE, HOW TO M A K E A N A M E R I C A N O U I L T T h r e e A u s tr a lia n D ire c to rs S tr ik e G o ld B y P e t e r M a l o n e , M o n i c a Z f. t l i n , F in cin a H opgood

M o z a r t’s Cosi Fan Tutte has b e e n tu r n e d in to a c h a r m i n g film , b y w a y o f a stirring p la y ; an e d it o r f il m s his l o v e - l i f e o n vid eo , to d istu rb in g e f f e c t ; w h i le J o c e l y n M o o r h o u s e ’s first A m erican film is a triu m p h o f w o m e n ’s s t o r y t e ll in g

Inbits

N e w M edia

Festivals

Technicalities

Documentary

History

Inreview

Legal Ease

Inproduction

One of Australia’s hottest actors reveals to M a r g a r e t SMITH a true commitment to individualistic cinema: “The film industry is only the people in it who have the vision to make films. It is not all the crap around the edges. We kind of forget that sometimes.”

Eidetic Eight

PAGE 6

Chris Berry teaches in the Department of Cinema Studies at LaTrobe University; Dominic Case is a motion-picture technical consultant; Robert Connolly is a filmmaker [M r Ikegami's Flight) and producer; Anna Dzenis is a tutor in Cinema Studies at LaTrobe University; Philip Dutchak is the editor and publisher of the monthly newsletter, Convergence (those interested can contact him at pdutchak@geko.com.au);

Rachel Griffiths

Holly Ferguson is a solicitor who recently joined the firm Hart and Spira; Richard Franklin is a writer-director (David Williamson's Brilliant Lies); Freda Freiberg is a film and photography critic with wide cultural interests; John W . Hood has written on the films of Mrinel Sen and Buddhadeb Dasgupta, and is completing a study of representations of women in Indian cinema; Fincina Hopgood is an Arts-Law student at Melbourne University and a former editor of Ormond Papers, Chris Long is a Melbourne film historian; Peter Malone is director of the Catholic Film Office; Kathy M ueller is a film and television director (Daydream Believer); Robert Nery is a filmmaker and writer living in Sydney; Deborah Parsons is a scriptwriter [In Too Deep); Margaret Smith is a scriptwriter and writer on film; Nina Stevenson is a solicitor with Hart and Spira; Carolyn Ueda is a writer and literary editor living in Sydney; Monica Zetlin is a producer's assistant and writer on film.

successful with more than $2 million earmarked for this area over the next few months. Many of these investments will "roll over" into project investments.

NEWS,

VIEWS,

AN D MORE

NEWS,

ETC.

CONFERENCE DATES

AFTRS APPOINTMENTS

* * T h e Language of Interactivity", I a three-day, AFC-organized conference examining the emerging language of interactive media, w ill be held at the ABC Radio Centre, Ultimo, on 11-13 April. National and interna tional speakers will examine ways in which disk-based multimedia and on-line interactive works convey meaning. The conference will present an opportunity for interactive media developers, writers, designers, educa tors, filmmakers and other media professionals to discuss the creative opportunities emerging from this new form. Registration costs $200; $100 concession. For further information, contact Vicki Sowry at the AFC on (02) 321 6444.

he new year sees a number of key appointments at the Australian Film Television & Radio School. Rod Bishop has been appointed Head of the School, replacing the retiring John O'Hara. A filmmaker and academic, Bishop was formerly Associate Professor in Film in the Department of Visual Communication at Melbourne's R.M.l.T. Bishop's film credits include co-producing and co writing the feature Bodymelt(Ph\Wp Brophy, 1994) and the documentary Beginnings (Bishop, Gordon Glenn, Scott Murray, Andrew Pecze, 1971). Bishop has also been a major conributor to Cinema Papers. Writer-director Denny Lawrence [Army Wives, 1987) joins the AFTRS this year as Director in Residence. Stage and screen director George Whaley (Dad & Dave On Our Selec tion, 1995) also joins the school as the new Head of Directing.

"Digital /Esthetics One", a sympo sium investigating the position of aesthetics within the realm of digital creation and consumption, w ill take place (concurrently) on 9-13 April at the College of Fine Arts, University of NSW. International and local speak ers include: Shiralee Saul, Zbigniew Karkowski, Dr Rachel Armstrong, McKenzie Wark, Stelarc, Arthur and Marilouise Kroker, Jane Goodall, Mark Dery, John Conomos and Allucquere Rosanne Stone. The conference is hosted by Melbournebased CAT (Contemporary Art and Technology), which can be contacted on (03) 9728 1162, or P.O. Box 1545P, G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.

AME ROUND TWO he Australian Multimedia Enter prise has approved funding of more than $2.5 million for Australian developed multimedia projects in its second round of funding. The funding will be provided for both on-line and CD-ROM projects. The projects approved for funding are:

CROCADOO Park, a CD-ROM children's entertainment project based on the Australian animated television series of the same name, created by Unlimited Energee Pty Ltd; HyperAciive 2.0, a WWW site for the games market and produced by Next-Online Pty Ltd; A medical reference CD-ROM produced by Canberra-based Com puterised Practice Records Pty Ltd; Safe Passage: Preventing Collisions A t Sea, a CD-ROM project by JCAM Pty Ltd; and A genealogy reference CD-ROM. Martin Cooper, CEO of the AME, commented:

co ver

Lucy (Toni Collette) in Mark Joffe’s Cos/.

DISTINCTLY AUSTRALIAN INITIATIVE FELLOWSHIPS

There are currently more than 40 projects being reviewed by our investment and business develop ment teams. Our concept funding operations have also been highly

he AFC has announced 57 Fellow ships worth a total of $975,000 under the Distinctly Australian Initia tive Fellowship schemes. The Fellowships are designed to provide career development opportunities for writers, script editors, writer-directors and producers. Producer Fellowships worth a total of $430,000 were awarded to 31 producer applicants to allow consoli dation of creative and business plans. Producer Fellowships of $10,000 were awarded to: Michael Tear; Robert Connolly; Chris Hilton; Sophie Jackson; Franco di Chiera; Lori-Jay Ellis and Robyn Evans; Kathryn Symmons; Craig Monahan; Dixie Betts; and Liz Hoffmann. Producer Fellowships of $14,000 were awarded to: Rosemary Blight; Ben Grant; Gayle Lake; Martha Coleman and Anthony Anderson; Judy Hamilton; Terry Charatsis; Marc Gracie and David Foster; John Beaton. Producer Fellowships of $15,000 were awarded to: Antonia Barnard; Anthony Buckley; Andrena Finlay; Ned Lander; Gaby Mason; Jonathan Shteinman; Al Clark; Bill Hughes; Ross Matthews; Aanya Whitehead; Carlos Alperin; Tony McDonald. Producer Fellowships of $20,000: Tom Jeffrey; Marian McGowan; Jon Stephens. One Fellowship of $25,000 was awarded to Jane Ballantyne, Helen Leake, Rob George, Scott McDonald, Gus Howard and Mike Piper. Four Documentary Fellowships of $20,000 each were awarded to Victorian filmmakers Daryl Dellora, Sally Ingleton, Don Parham and Steve Thomas. Paul Cox, Esben Storm, Danny Vendramini and Stephen Wallace have been awarded Writer-Director Fellowships of $35,000 each. These Fellowships are to enable the recipi ent to step aside from commissioned work to develop a screenplay of great personal importance. The Project Fellowship Scheme allows writers to undertake a non project specific professional initiative (such as an attachment to a studio or filmmaker, or travel plan designed to establish or consolidate professional contacts overseas). The recipients

are: Roz Berrystone ($2,000); Stuart McDonald ($7,000); Teck Tan, Mira Robertson, Trevor Todd ($10,000 each); Robert Carter, Pauline Chan, Michael Buckley, Kathy Mueller ($15,000 each). Script and Story Editing Fellow ships were awarded to Belinda Chayko, Annette Blonski and Alexa Wyatt ($15,000 each). Six writers - Tim Gooding ($28,500), Deborah Oswald ($17,500), Michael Cove ($30,000), Terry Larsen, Peter Schreck, Jan Sardi ($35,000 each) received Writer Fellowships designed to provide writers of considerable industry standing the chance to con centrate on a project of great personal commitment. Wendy Gray received a $5,000 Fellowship.

cinema aprii 1996 number 109

116 Argyle Street, Fitzroy, V ictoria, Australia 3065. Postal

address:

PO Box 2221,

Fitzroy MDC, Victoria 3065. T el: (03) 9416 2644. F a x : (03) 9416 4088. Editor: S cott M urray Assistant Editor: Paul Kalina Technical Editor: D ominic C ase Advertising: T erry H aebich Subscriptions & Office Assistance:

M ina C arattoli Accounts: T ory T aouk Proofreading: A rthur S altón Office Cat: O ddspot

WOMEN'S PROGRAM RECIPIENTS

Legal Adviser: Dan P earce

(Holding R edlich, S olicitors) M TV Board o f Directors:

ound editor Jane Patterson, direc tors of photography Erika Addis and Anna Howard, and editor Maria Kaltenhaler have received support under the AFC's Women's Program Film Technicians Scheme. The Scheme supports women already working in technical positions at mid-career level, who are trying to make the step from assistant positions to senior creative roles or from low-budget production to feature films. Eight women have received support under the New Imaging Technologies Support Scheme: Jen McCarthy, Margaret Dodd, Wendy Spencer, Fran Dyson, Belinda Knell, Kathryn Brown, Penny Robenstone Harris and Trace Balia. The scheme allows for one-off grants to enable women working in the area of new imaging technologies to upgrade their skills.

C hris Stewart (C hairman ), Patricia A mad , R oss D imsey, Dlana Gribble, N atalie M iller Founding Publishers:

Peter B eilby, S cott M urray, P hilippe M ora Design & Production:

Parkhouse Publishing pty ltd T el : (03) 9347 8882 Printing:

F rank Daniels

pty ltd

Film:

C ondor G roup D istribution:

N etwork D istribution. © COPYRIGHT 1996 MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED. S ig n e d a r t i c l e s r e p r e s e n t t h e v ie w s OF THE ALTHORS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER. W h il e e v e r y c a r e is t a k e n w it h MANUSCRIPTS AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED TO THE MAGAZINE. NEITHER THE EDITOR

VILLAGE ADDS 12 SCREENS

NOR THE PUBLISHER CAN ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANT LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY a r is e .

illage Roadshow, in conjunction with Greater Union and Warner Bros., has proposed construction of a 12-screen cinema complex at Westfield Shoppingtown Fountain Gate in Victoria. The venue will provide seat ing for more than 3,000 people, with expansion potential for up to 20-plus screens and 5,000-plus seats. Steven Lowy, Executive Director of Westfield Holdings, comments:

The constantly changing competitive retail market and consumer demands means that we are designing our centres as fully integrated retail/ entertainment/leisure complexes providing the fullest range of shop ping and leisure activities under one roof.

T h is m a g a z i n e m a y n o t be

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS. C in e m a P a p e r s is p u b l is h e d e v e r y t w o MONTHS BY M T V PUBLISHING LIMITED,

116 A r g y l e S t r e e t . F it z r o y , V i c t o r ia , A u s t r a l ia 3 0 6 5 .

CINEMA PAPERS IS PUBLISHED WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION, FILM VICTORIA AND FILM QUEENSLAND.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

CENSORSHIP he decision of the Office of Film And Literature Classification to ban Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man (reported in the previous issue of Cinema Papers) was reversed by the Review Board on 22 December 1995. The film will be released uncut with an R classification and consumer advice "Medium Level Violence". Writing in The Weekend Australian on 13 January 1996, David Stratton, after describing at length the scene that prompted the ban, wrote:

The Censors decided this fleeting moment was "indecent by current community standards", which I sug gest is nonsense given the context of the scene, and they arrogantly and presumptuously went further, asserting the incident served "no essential narrative function". Stratton went on to point out that the decision to ban the film was made by three of the 11 members of the Censorship Board. Chief Censor John Dickie had not seen the film when the ban was announced. It's almost unthinkable that such an important decision, Involving a major film, should be made by such a small minority of the board. Stratton also pointed out that the Office's oft-made claim of increasing pressure to implement "community standards" stands in contrast to the sharp decline in actual complaints received by the Office, the number of complaints dropping from 241 in 1991/92 to 123 in 1994/95. Serious concerns over the tighten ing of censorship regulations - in particular changes to the regulations governing the importation of films by film festivals and specialist exhibition events - has also surfaced in a detailed submission prepared by the AFC. The document has been pre pared to inform Ministers of recent changes in classification legislation and procedures and to request Ministers (inter alia): to agree on censorship standards for festivals which are different from "commer cial" public exhibition standards; to agree on common guidelines for the granting of exemptions for festivals; and to remove from the Chief Censor the power to decline or revoke exemptions granted to approved orga nizations who manage such events. The last matter directly refers to the Chief Censor's decision last year to refuse registration of the film Tiras Crista!, which was to screen as part of the Mardi Gras Film Festival. The AFC submission questions the Chief Censor's decision to refuse the film registration, and voices the wide spread concern of the festival

Two Bob Mermaid: a short film by Darlene Johnson commisioned by the Australian Film Commision's Indigenous Branch, which screens as part of the national touring season "From Sand to Celluloid". For information on screening times and venues, telephone Marianne Collopy at the Australian Film Institute, on (03) 9695 7205. community that concessions granted in 1983 by then Attorney-General Senator Gareth Evans have been abandoned, and that the censorship standards applied to mainstream, commercial release films have been reinstated for festivals. • Despite the Festival having approved organization/event sta tus, the Chief Censor "called in" the film because he did not believe it was suitable for public exhibition and advised the Festival to submit it for registration under the "com mercial" part of the Cinematograph Films Regulations, which do not provide for films of "artistic or educational merit", instead of being processed under Part III of the Regulations which does provide for festival films. • The position that festival films are subject to the same exhibition standards as commercial release films is plainly wrong. It has been the practice since 1983, and, before then, by all Australian Gov ernments to recognize the special need to provide for festival audi ences. In fact, no festival film has been treated in this way by the OFLC or its predecessor since 1983.

• Also incorrect is that the repeal of the Cinematograph Films Regula tions and the commencement of the new Commonwealth Act (or, more correctly, the complementary State and Territory legislation) will retain the status quo as far as film festivals are concerned. It is clear that the censorship impediment to importation imposed by the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations will be transferred to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Plowever, what has not been disclosed is that Prohibited Imports Regulations are to be amended to tighten the criteria to bring them into line with the other legislation. In other words, the exhibition standards appear to be "one size fits all" and this appears to have anticipated it with his actions in relation to Tiras Cristal. The document summarizes its recom mendations thus: 1 Recognition of the good reputation of Australian festival organizers and the rôle of film festivals and seasons, whose purpose is to promote celebrations of art and cultural diversity.

2 Re-introduction of censorship standards for festivals and seasons which are different from "commer cial" release public exhibition standards in recognition of: • the purpose of festivals • the good reputation of Australian festival organizations • their adult "art house" or "cultural" audience • the limited seasons, and • secure access by adult audiences to screenings. 3 Issue precise, uniform and national guidelines for the administration of exemptions (e.g., under Section 51 .[2] of the NSW Act) for the use of the Chief Censor and/or Ministers. 4 Structuring of the Chief Censor's discretion in relation to approvals for organizations/events/exemptions so that the office may grant but not decline or revoke. This should appropriately only be exercised by Ministers of the Crown and should isolate the Chief Censor from media and pressure-group lobbying. 5 Provide for an appeal mechanism in all jurisdictions on decisions by the Minister to refuse to grant approved organization status, or

to refuse exemption to a particular film. Section 59 of the ACT legislation is a useful model. 6 Consult with the Australian Film Commission in relation to the matters in this submission. In the future, the AFC also offers its assistance to Ministers on matters of assessing the bona fides of festivals, or the merits of a particular film, or generally on regulatory matters which affect the conduct of festivals. 7 No fees to be introduced for exemptions for festivals because they are non-commercial and non-profit organizations.

CORRIGENDA s noted in the December 1995 issue of Cinema Papers, Don Catchlove and Terry Hayes are indeed the writers of the Nadia Tass-directed My Entire Life. Producer Jim McElroy has alerted us that the names of the writers were placed in the wrong order in the production survey of that issue. Contributor Lesley Stern was incorrectly listed in the February 1996 issue as a lecturer at the College of Fine Arts. Stern lectures at the University of NSW.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

jJ W S S W fc

Bank of Melbourne

fc.

Assetbuilder the flexible line of credit for Home Owners

You only pay interest on the money you use ■ Turn your home equity into a tax-efficient line of credit ■ Costs less than overdrafts or personal loan interest rates ■ Convenient and portable .You may never need a loan again

/ Invest in property / Improve your home / Build your business y Invest in shares

■ Visit your nearest branch o r c a ii

13 1 575

BANK 46352

New loans only. Bank and Government charges apply. Term s and conditions available on application.

Caution and discrimination have been important elements in Rachel Griffiths’ extraordinary career. She trained for the stage in Melbourne, then she read the screenplay for M uriel’s W edding (P. J. Hogan, 1994) and felt destined to play Muriel’s very adventurous friend. Griffiths says she’s not a golden person but a “straggler”, and after M uriel’s W edding she went back to the stage to reassess her career. She was then offered the role of Lucy in Mark Joffe’s film of Cosz, a career woman motivated by her own certainty. The rest of 1995 was fast and furious. Griffiths went on to John Hillcoat’s To H ave and To H old (formerly “The Small Man”), Peter Duncan’s Children o f the R evolution and Michael Winterbottom’s Ju d e the O bscure (UK), all filmed almost back to back. The films gave her insight into acting, directing and writing, and how the best Australian films are shaped and brought to the screen. In reflection, Griffths says of her work, “I don’t find it difficult running the gamut from tragedy to comedy, because that’s the story of my life.” R

C I N E M A ' P A P E R S â&#x20AC;¢ APRI L 1 9 9 6

a v e y o u b e e n s u rp ris e d b y h o w q u ic k ly y o u r

T h a t's n o t th e ca se in A m e ric a fo r a c to rs o n c e th e y

a c tin g c a re e r h as ta k e n off?

b e c o m e sta rs.

I guess I have in terms of film. I never really expected a film career. When I was a young actor, I saw myself as a character actor. I saw a career that had longevity, which I still do, but I didn’t think it would have its peaks quite so accelerated and certainly not when I was so young. I didn’t think I would come into myself until I was about 30. Y o u a re s o m e th in g lik e 2 5 n o w ?

I’m actually ... I just turned ... I’m old at the moment!

That’s right. I can’t wait till I get a producer’s credit. [Laughs.] With my innate bossiness, I get so sparked off with ideas and want to do more. But it has actu ally been very good for me to do less. Before I started doing film, I had reached the point of finding I wasn’t Orson Welles, that I couldn’t do everything well. Although there are other things I think I can do well apart from acting, I can’t do them simultaneously. So, it’s been very good for me just to take responsibility for my bit.

D id y o u tr a in fo r th e s ta g e?

Yes. I did a Bachelor of Education in dram a and design. M y first three years out were spent doing group-devised work through different processes, with directors and writers. I worked in a theatre company for young people for two years, based in Geelong, which has since been cut in a government central ization of art policies. Then I did a bit of telly, before doing M uriel’s. S o , fr o m th e o u ts e t, y o u w e r e in te re s te d in w o r k in g in a c o lla b o ra tiv e process?

Yes. That has always been a primary thing for me. But with film, although you may be involved in the process in an early w ay, it’ s very much y o u ’ re involved in the process of developing yo u r character with the director and/or writer, and that’s all you are involved in. It doesn’t go past your boundaries and that demarcation is extremely strong in film.

“Something about our film culture is so young that we are compulsive definers m Australia: a pimple appears and everyone wants to measure it and squeeze it.”

Muriel's Wedding P .J. HOGAN, 1994

M uriel’s was one of those great out-of-the-blue things, where you get a script and truly, deeply believe you are the best person in the universe to play the part. Then the director happens to agree! [Laughs.] Since then, I have gone into many screen tests and auditions feigning that I’m the best person to play a part. But I just as easily could say, “Look, if I don’t get this, I know this fantastic girl who is really right for it!” [Laughs.] But with M uriel’s , I really felt I was the one. I was very lucky that the part and I came together at the right time. A year earlier, it probably would have been a wrong time for me, and now would not have been a right time for me for that charac ter. But, at the time, I felt an enormous empathy for Rhonda and a real understanding. I was very well exercised because I’d been working quite hard for two-and-a-half years. I had a real sense of where I wanted to go as an actor. R h o n d a is also a c o m p le x p a rt, w ith a lo t o f e x tre m e s .

My strength is my breadth of emotional work and my breadth of intellectual processes. I can imagine many different states of mind, from quite ordinary ones to the really bizarre. Rhonda was a real show-off rôle for me. I don’t find it difficult running the gamut from tragedy to com edy, because that is the story of my life. [Laughs.] It is what I have always valued in other actors. That is my strength. I do that better than purely dramatic rôles or purely comic ones. I feel as if I’m not quite funny enough to pull off a rip-roaring comedy, and not enigmatic or self-reliant enough to pull off a full blown tragedy as the pro tago n ist; I could in a supporting rôle.

H a d y o u m e t T o n i C o lle tte b e fo re th e film ?

No. I met her on my second audition. I was very con fident that I’d get the rôle, despite the fact that I was a complete unknown. I knew it was very dependent on Muriel: that there had to be very good chemistry. It was as important as a love-affaire chemistry. And, as soon as I met Toni, I knew I had the rôle; we made sense together. Instantly we were having cups of tea. D id y o u b o th g r o w as a c to rs b e c a u s e o f y o u r re la tio n s h ip to g e th e r?

I can’t speak for Toni, I can only speak for myself, and she taught me a great deal. We grew up through the film, and certainly that process of transition hasn’t really stopped since it hap pened. M uriel’s catch-phrase of “success is the best revenge” is certainly true for P. J. and me and I think Toni, to a degree. None of the three of us had ever been a golden person, you know. We have all been stragglers and not necessarily destined in other peo ple’s perceptions for great success. [Laughs.] The film was a great catharsis. P. J. has a confidence that he did not have before, which is probably true of all of us. M aybe less so of Toni; she has always been fairly sure of who she is. H o w m u c h re h e a rs a l o r im p r o v iz a tio n d id y o u d o on Muriel's?

The cast had a great deal of respect for the text of

M ûriers. I wouldn’t say P. J. was precious about it, but he knew that the script was com plete, so we didn’t improvize a great deal. It always came back to the screenplay, and, as we all knew it was very, very good, only a couple of words were changed on the day. The rehearsal period was more a process of agree ing that we were making decisions that we were all happy with. For me, it was mapping the journey. I was very clear about Rhonda’s journey. Only occa sionally would we question a point in the journey, and maybe try a different choice, but with the text. G iv e n th e r e a re s o m e fa irly v u ln e ra b le s c en e s in th e film , y o u m u s t h a v e h a d to re a lly tr u s t th e d ire c to r.

It wasn’t necessarily conscious. I found M uriel’s very difficult and very stressful. I’d gone from television work, where you don’t do any more than six takes, to finding myself with 80 people standing around on take 16. I was sure that at any moment [producer] Lynda House would appear and sack me on the spot. [Laughs.] You know, stuff like that. I did trust P. J., because that is all I had. I had no experience to back me up. He had such a strong vision for the film that you just knew he was going to get what he wanted, and that what he wanted would work. O b v io u s ly y o u m u s t h a v e fe lt th e s a m e a b o u t th e d ire c to r o f p h o to g r a p h y as w e ll?

Well, to be honest, on M uriel’s it was the beauty of being ignorant. Now I might ask the person behind the camera, “What was that like?”, or wonder what my light is like, which is the curse of experience. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to have a relationship with the cinematographer. [Laughs.] Since then, I have done that, either very consciously or because they are usually very nice people. A fte r Muriel's, y o u w e n t b a c k a n d d id s o m e p la y s .

Yes. I did two plays for the M T C , in clud in g a national tour. I also did a short-run comedy thing on television. The year of M uriel’s was a huge learning curve for me, just changing mediums from theatre to film and television. I felt very much that I couldn’t learn with such high stakes for much longer. I just reached a particular point of stress and fatigue. I wanted a year that would consolidate me within myself as an actor; theatre does that. So, that is what I did that next year. It really did sustain me for most of 1995, when the stakes were increasingly high for different reasons.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

, h w i s h 't o s u b s c r i b e f o r m

I f f e e s at 1 0 # H f ! $37.50 (normally i S S f e

iPjWBjg--- •*.

12 issues at 15% orf? S^O.Op (normally S83A0). . 18 issues at 20% off! $100.80 (norrsalivilSS.Wf Renewal? Back issues: $6.00 each; ^ ■. Please list issue-Nos required:

aH ToW€oSt$

Nam e....................................................................................... T itle ................................................................................................................. Company Address . Country......................................................Post C o d e................................ § Telephone (H )........................................(W ).............................................. ¡ S p l l j Enclosed is my cheque for $ ................................................................. or please debit my D Bankcard Li Mastercard D Visacard Card No............................................................................ ................................. Expiry D ate..................................... ...............................................

- ä-V Ö.::; IS p

Signature.........................................................................................................

Cheques should be made payable to MTV Publishing Limited and mailed to P0 Box 2221 Fitzroy MDC Australia 3065. All overseas orders should be accom panied by Bank Drafts in Australian Dollars Only. Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing.

■■ü & CÖ. : CO

No. If I had done anything, it would have been some legal stuff. But you don’t really see Lucy in her occu pation, so her occupation is irrelevant. Sometimes research is really important, and other times it is not. It can confuse the issue. On Cosi, we really needed to find the truth in the work itself, the truth in Louis [Nowra’s] words, and the truth in what M ark was trying to do. It wasn’t important for me to go off on my own bent. I had to stick by my materials, which were Ben, Aden [Young] in a couple of scenes, Louis and M ark Joffe. D o y o u th in k y o u h a v e th e a b ility to p h y s ic a lly tr a n s fo r m y o u rs e lf fo r a role? Y o u r fa c e lo o k s q u ite d iffe re n t in Cosi th a n in Muriel's Wedding.

Yes, I think I do. But M uriel’s was also, in some ways, the last year of my girlhood on film. I don’t mean that “Oh my god, I’m getting old”, but there is something in my face in M uriel’s that has the essence of the girl, which is just not there now. There is something else there, though, I think. So, it is part that and part the haircut and the stuff you do physically, vocally and with your presence. Lucy has a very restrained presence, so the face is not so animated and alert. B en M e n d e ls o h n h as also c h a n g e d . H e is n o w a y o u n g m a n , a fte r h a v in g b e e n a b o y fo r a lo n g tim e .

That’s right, and I think within a couple of years we will see a man man. Ben is still a boy man. He prob ably will be until he is maybe 30. In A u s tra lia , w e h a v e n 't h a d m u c h o f a h is to ry o f s u c c e s s fu lly tr a n s la tin g p la y s to film s .

No. We had that spate with D on’s Party [Bruce Beresford, 1976] and W illiam son’s early plays, which I think translated really well. I remember seeing [David Williamson’s ] The Club [Bruce Beresford, 1980] when I was quite young and thinking it was wonderful. And H otel Sorrento [Richard Franklin, 1995] I think is a fine film. I saw Cosi as a play and thought, “This would be a great film.” Louis has such a wonderful imagina tion and a wonderful ear and mind for dialogue. He is often quite visual, especially in Cosi, which is one of his more immediate plays. If we produce more really good plays, we might pinch a few more for film.

Cosi MARK JOFFE, 1996 Lucy is o n ly a s u p p o rtin g p a rt, b u t s h e is v e ry im p o r ta n t b e c a u s e s h e is lin k e d w it h re a lity .

That was the function of the house [where Lucy and Lewis (Ben Mendelsohn) live]. The house is the socalled reality and is juxtaposed with what is meant to be the crazy world of the asylum. The house comes under threat and actually becomes quite mad and unstable within itself. I saw the role of Lucy as extremely functional, and pretty much in the terms that you are speaking. Y e t L ucy re p re s e n ts a lo t o f m o d e rn w o m e n to d a y , b a la n c in g a c a re e r w ith tr y in g to h a v e a life w ith m e n w h ic h has s o m e m e a n in g a n d is n 't d e s tru c tiv e .

I didn’t take Lucy as necessarily any kind of arche type. W hat I w anted to do w ith her was portray one of those people who are incredibly certain of the w orld: certain of things, and certain of an order. These people are less open to being affected by chance encounters and by people’s vulnerabilities. Their strength is that they keep the bricks in the wall. They don’t pull a brick out to see what is behind because it all might topple over. Lucy is a very certain kind of person. I find such people intriguing because I can’t understand them C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

even remotely. I don’t know what it would be like to be completely certain about things! [Laughs.] Hopefully, Lucy is partly annoying on that level, because it m akes the frag ility of other states of mind very beautiful, rather than making people think they are loopy. There is a real beauty in not knowing everything. L ucy d o e s b e c o m e less c e rta in th o u g h , d o e s n 't she?

Yes and that freaks her out. But she is not going to lose the plot; she is pretending she is still certain. D id y o u re h e a rs e m u c h ?

Yes. We rewrote a lot of that stuff, mainly because, in adapting the play to film, it was brought up from 1972 to the present day. The asylum in 1972 is vir tu ally no different, nor the people in it, but the outside world and the politics are very different. When it was set in ’72, Lucy was a radical, antiVietnam fem inist, very much into free love. The cornerstone of 1960s and early ’70s feminism was that a woman owns her body and that matrimony is a production of the patriarchy, invented by men to subjugate women. So, there was a lot of stuff that just couldn’t be updated. That left the character of Lucy very much up in the air. So, we talked a lot about what we felt she should be. D id y o u n e e d to d o a n y p re p a ra tio n fo r y o u r p a rt, lik e B en M e n d e ls o h n d id b y v is itin g p s y c h ia tric in s titu tio n s ?

To Have and To Hold JOHN HILLCOAT, 1995

In To Have and To H old I play Kate, a romantic nov elist who falls in love with the classic romantic hero. She goes off to Papua New Guinea with him, which is where he lives, and then proceeds to have her entire self and life deconstructed as her lover, Jack [Tcheky Karyo], goes through his process of grief. It is a film about romance and the projection of wanting some one else to be what is in your mind, rather than who they are. Is t h a t a b la c k c o m e d y ?

No, it is not remotely funny, believe it or not. [Laughs.] John was really exploring the melodramatic form. Tcheky, who was in Nikita [Luc Besson, 1990] is an extraordinary French actor, and it was a fairly amaz ing experience, as was going to Papua New Guinea. John is really fascinated by themes of claustropho bia and containment, as in Ghosts ... o f the Civil Dead [1989]. In some ways, a lot of the same themes are there, but they are in the jungle. It is a man and a woman, and love actually becomes the prison. In Papua New Guinea, there is an undercurrent mood of anarchy. It is a very formidable, messy kind of jungle. People go troppo anywhere, but Papua New Guinea has a raw brutality to it that you don’t nec essarily think of in tropical paradises, although it can look amazingly like a tropical paradise.

Children of the Revolution PETER DUNCAN, 1996 T h e n c o m e s th e r a th e r s e c re tiv e ly -film e d Children o f the Revolution.

I play Anna, the wife of Joe [Richard Roxburgh] and the scarcely-tolerated daughter-in law of Joan Fraser [Judy Davis]. I come into the story when Joe is 19 and falls in love with me. Joan is a radical commu nist who has tried to raise a more radical communist than herself in Joe. But he turns out to be an apathetic anarchist during the Vietnam war, and he proceeds to fall in love with a mounted policewoman, which is me. It is a fatal meeting. It takes his political career in quite a different direction than the one his mother had dreamed for him. It is an amazing film and just one of the most amaz ing things I’ve ever read. I was giggling, laughing and crying when I read it. Peter Duncan is such a clever man. He has a wonderful love and irreverence for Australian political history and political culture. And, from his love of that, and his wonderful imagination, he has produced a really extraordinary story. I don’t think there has ever been anything like it written or produced in this country. It really rolls along. It has a huge time span; it is epic. It is not magic realism, but it has more in common with Marquez’s genera tional political things, where themes can float, than with any Australian film I’ve seen. Peter also has a wonderful love of dialogue, so it is very rich and fast and dense. It is very intelligent on the page, which is I think unusual for an Australian film, where the intelligence is usually beneath char acters who struggle to articulate w hat they need and want and believe. A very predominate Australian archetype is the inarticulate person, who may have a big heart and may even have a big mind, but who doesn’t use language as a weapon or, like the Irish, as a tool of joy, which Peter does. That is so much fun as an actor to play with. Is D u n c a n 's a p p ro a c h to film m a k in g m o re lik e y o u r o w n , m o re p o litic a l?

Yes. I love how he looks at the world. I think part of it is a love of language, which as an actor is really liberating. Judy Davis has some sensa tional speeches which are a page-and-a-half long and are hysterically funny, brilliantly witty, acerbic and

violently accurate, in a very subversive way. To get a wind up is something you only really get to do in the theatre. It is not necessarily emotionally driven, it can be an intellectual thing. W h o else is in th e film ?

Sam Neill, F. Murray Abraham, Geoffrey Rush, and Richard. S o , y o u h a v e b e e n w o r k in g w ith th e cre am ?

I have, haven’t I? I’ve been working with the cafe latte of the whole industry. I haven’t worked with a direc tor who is a cunt yet. It is quite extraordinary. H o w w a s it w a tc h in g J u d y D a v is w o rk ? D id th a t te a c h y o u a n y th in g ?

Oh, there is really something to be said for being on your toes. I had a couple of scenes with her, one in particular where I was very determined to hold my own against one of the best actors in the world, which was sim ultaneously a daunting and a challenging thing. Judy’s commitment to any decision she makes is so extraordinary. Her decisions are not safe. She goes from being very active, very over the top, very dri ving, w an ting and im pressive, to moments of extraordinary vulnerability. I’m sure technically she knows exactly when to do what, which I don’t, really. It was amazing to watch all those actors, too. Geof frey has his own processes, which are fascinating. He maintains his centre.

W e w ere all tellin g different parts of the story. We were very aware of that. It was a truly wonder ful experience. H as y o u r re la tio n s h ip w it h th e c a m e ra b e c o m e m u c h m o r e k n o w in g ?

Yes. I’m yet to see if it doesn’t turn out to be a bit of a curse, however. I got to a point on To Have and To Hold where it was quite a difficult filming process. I’d find myself making compromises about my action because I realized it was going to be very difficult with the set-up of the camera as it was. Whereas, when I was making J u d e the O bscure in England, if I said, “Look, I don’t have to go over there”, even though that is what we had blocked, the response was more, “Oh, we will get it; don’t worry.” I think there is something to be said for sticking to what you want to do and waiting until you are told it is impossible, rather than having a constant nego tiation. I’m very aware of that. You say, “Would it help if I...?”, if there is some problem. You know that if you moved in half an inch, or didn’t do that lean forward, the shot would be a lot easier to get. It is very easy to compromise what you are doing before you really add up whether or not the performance is going to lose anything by that.

Jude the Obscure MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM, 1996

Jude is directed by Michael Winterbottom, who has

“I think this year is going to be an astonishing one for Australian filmmaking, both here and for Australians making films overseas.”

won the Europa Prize the past two years in a row, which is for films on television. One was Go Now, which is really extraordinary, and the other is Fam ily. He also did a film called Butterfly Kiss [1995] and he is just about to start a film called Sarajevo. He is very hot. Actually, Michael is quite similar to Peter Duncan, except he is not a writer, though I think he co-wrote B utterfly Kiss. He has a very strong sense of what he wants to do. I found myself very much trusting his vision. Even if he was suggesting an approach that had radically not occurred to me, I knew that it was coming from a very holistic sense of the film he was making, which I don’t have. I don’t think many actors do. You could trust him, which was quite amazing. It was shot by Eduardo Serra. The few rushes I saw have the look of a 1960s Polish film. It is very stark. The first thing we would do when we arrived in the m orning was cut about a third of the dialogue. Michael was constantly reducing what actors were doing until there seemed to be virtually nothing, and then accidents would happen, which he would love. [Laughs.] You fuck up when you don’t have that much there. It was quite an interesting experience. I found doing my accent more difficult than I had imagined. I didn’t have a voice coach on set. It was horrendously difficult trying to maintain an accent that doesn’t really exist, which is a subtle version of the accent which is used for [Thomas] Hardy and for that time and place. M ichael didn’t want it to be a study in accents. So, it is a very, very light Glouces ter rural accent that almost doesn’t exist now. I was acting opposite Chris Eccleston, from M an chester, and Kate W inslet, who is a w ell-spoken Londoner, shooting in Yorkshire with a crew of Lon don Cockneys. We then moved to Edinburgh and to New Zealand. So, it was just horrendously difficult maintaining that accent. The only other person who really had my accent was Chris, who, as soon as the camera was off, would be speaking in a broad Man chester accent. And the other person that was always on set was Irish. [Laughs.] It was a nightmare. H as th e s to ry b e e n c o n te m p o ris e d in a n y w a y ?

I don’t think so. I don’t think “contemporise” is really the word that Michael was seeking. E A f5 He wanted to take the BBC out of Thomas p52

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Frame Set and Match now has an URSA Gold telecine, a Renaissance Colour Grading panel and Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only Real Time Steadigates with MetaSpeed. Which means you get transfers with sharper resolution on all film formats, the most stable pictures (normal speed reverse to three times forward) and greater colour range than ever before. O And we've got the best graders in Australia, Warren Lynch and Peter Simpson, to operate it. No other post production house can match that. Come in and see for yourself. Just phone F RAME, SET AN I MATCH PTY. LTD. Tony, Rick or Steve on (02) 9954 0904 and ask for a demonstration. pH: ÂĄ32) 9 2 5 4 0 9 0 < AX: ( 0 2 ) 9 9 5 4 9 0 :

rior to 1996, the Sundance Film Festival’s most important year was 19 89. That was when Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape premiered at the Festival, before heading off to Cannes, where it won the Palme d’Or, and the huge commercial success which followed. That year established Sundance as the premier festival of independent American cinema. Since then, in search of the next breakaway suc cess, an increasing number of creative executives and agents make their ways to Park City to talent-scout the now-outnumbered filmmakers attending the Fes tival, and to ski. It is a place where deals are struck, souls sold and Hollywood careers begun. This year will be considered an equally-important year. Combating misuse of the Festival - key distrib utors platform-releasing out of Sundance - Robert Redford this year insisted that the majority of films be previously unseen and have true premieres at the Festival. This resulted in an increased presence of dis tributors taking an aggressive approach to acquisitions in such a competitive market. Although an unofficial market, 1996 saw such sub stantial sales that the Festival will never be perceived in the same way again. In fact, the sale of Australian Scott Hicks’ Shine, from the previously unrecognized World Cinema section of the Festival, places it on the international circuit as a key film market. Shine received one of the most enthusiastic responses at the Festival at a screening reminiscent of the special midnight screening at Cannes of Strictly Ballroom (Baz Luhrmann, 1992). Pre-screening word-of-mouth guaranteed much interest in the world premiere. With standby tickets available on the day only, Festival-goers braved the

for several hours in the falling snow. Director Scott Hicks, producer Jane Scott and writer Jan Sardi attended the screening, and were sincerely over whelmed by the lengthy standing ovation at the film’s end. Shine tells the story of Australian pianist David Helfgott’s descent into madness, and eventual redis covery of his career in Australia. Its international cast of supporting rôles includes Sir John Gielgud, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Lynn Redgrave, with an extraor dinary performance by leading Australian stage actor Geoffrey Rush. Noah Taylor also gives an outstand ing performance of Helfgott in his earlier years. As one local producer noted, “It is hard enough to get buyers to stay until the end of a film, let alone witness them weeping throughout it.” A heart felt emotion marked the audience’s response to the film’s optimism and celebration of this relativelyunknown musical genius. The commercial response was immediate, with Fineline Films purchasing North American rights within 24 hours for $US2.7 million. In keeping with the aggressive market that Sundance has become, Har vey Weinstein and Tony Safford from Miramax left a Park City restaurant after a vocal dispute with Pan dora’s Jonathon Taplin, who had allegedly implied a successful sale to Miramax. As compen sation, Miramax and Buena Vista purchased key w orld territories, with assorted other territories tied up quickly by Sundance Festival-initiated deals. Taking Shine to Sundance rather than waiting for Cannes will prove a courageous decision that paid off. Cannes is tradi tionally the key market for Australian films and will see some 16 films in the market this year, with an as yet unknown number in the Compétition. Technically, Shine may be eligible, although these rules are yet to be contested as Sundance is a national festival only, and Shine screened out of Competition.

Furthering the continued reputation of Australian cinema in the U.S., Angel Baby (Michael Rymer, 1995) also screened at the Festival to much acclaim. Supported at Sundance by producer Jonathan Shteinman, director Michael Rymer and lead actress Jacqueline McKenzie, Angel Baby continued its inter national festival acclaim, as did Gregor Jordan’s short, Swinger. Australian Jacqueline Turnure’s short, The Silence Betw een , screened in Competition and generated much interest in her work. More than one dozen film makers with features screening had their earlier shorts shown in previous years, under the continued sup port of the Sundance Institute which runs the Festival. Formed in 1981 by Robert Redford, the Sundance Institute supports filmmakers through assorted pro grammes, some of which are available to Australian filmmakers. The Festival is obviously the most rec ognized of these. Highly sought after screenwriter and director-based “labs” complement independent producer conferences, screenings in Tokyo and Bei jing, and, most recently, the newly-formed Sundance Channel. The Sundance Channel is a cable-based pay chan nel delivering the best of independent American and world cinema. Redford describes it as providing

Photos by David Noakes

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

“a chance and a choice: a chance to see something they’re not going to see anywhere else, and the chance to decide for themselves what they like, what they want to see, and what they don’t like”. The Channel will be screening independent Aus tralian films. In a year marked by increasingly accessible films, Robert Redford and Geoffrey Gilmore (director of programming) identified a healthy shift away from genre-based Tarantino-inspired work. When asked about the central theme of the Festival, Redford replied simply “women”, acknowledging a conscious effort by the Festival to support a new direction in subject matter and style. The Piper-Heidsieck Tribute to Independent Vision was this year given to Dianne Wiest in recog nition of “the original voice and vision of an independent film artist”. Wiest is best known for her films with Woody Allen: Radio Days (1987), H an nah and Her Sisters (1986) and Bullets Over Broadway (1994). The award is in keeping with the Festival’s new direction; previous recipients including Denzel

Washington, John Turturro and Nftolas Cage. Wiest is the first woman to receive the award. The Woman in Film Spirit of Sundance Award went to Marcia Gay Harden and Candace Bowen, and is awarded annually to “women who embody the true spirit of independent filmmaking”. Gay Harden is best known in Australia for her role in New Zealand filmmaker Alison M aclean’s Crush (199 2), and appeared in this year’s Festival in Lee David Zlotoff’s Care o f the Spitfire Grill. The biggest sale of the Festival, the $US6 million Care of the Spitfire Grill whose world rights sold to Castle Rock Entertainment for $US10 million, set a Festival record. A tightly-constructed story of redemp tion and re-birth, it follows ex-prisoner Perry Talbott (Alison Elliot) in her attempts to re-build a life in small-town Maine despite suspicion and distrust as her past fails to remain hidden. Walking and Talking (Nicole Holofcener, 1993), another exceptionally-performed ensemble piece about female friendships, idle banter and telecom

munications in the big city, was also well received. With an extremely high profile at the Festival, and a lucrative deal to Miramax for North America, Walk ing an d T alkin g illustrates the optimism and celebratory nature of this year’s selection. Jim McKay’s Girls Town also chooses friendship amongst women as its central theme, capturing the spirit of young women on the verge of discovering strong voices. Another Festival favourite, this simplyconstructed and gently-paced drama brings together an ensemble of talented actors that includes Lili Tay lor, Bruklin Harris and Anna Grace. Of course, no Sundance Film Festival would be complete without some violence. The stunning doc umentary of the George Foreman-Muhammad Adi fight of the century in Zaire missed its first screening as the print failed to make it through the snow. When We Were Kings (Leon Gast) was subsequently replaced by the latest Jackie Chan martial-arts orgy, Rumble in the Bronx (Stanley Tong). Chan and his team definitely captured an ironic and satirical vision of the action genre, which this film celebrates. Dubbed into English for a 1,700-print release in North America, Chan’s incredibly good humour and martial-arts skill make Van Damme look like a whitebelt beginner. As Chan’s uncle drives him into New York for the first time, he asks if he speaks English. “Now you’re here in New York, you should practise. Let’s talk in English from now on.” The story then unfolds, in an unsubtle and entertaining way, in the most outrageously funny dubbing since W oody Allen’s What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966). Previously known for its discovery of ultra lowbudget films, the Festival’s inclusion of huge action-adventures like Rumble in the Bronx is indica tive of a further shift in its philosophy. Matthew Bright’s F reew ay (1995), a moral tale along the lines of Little Red Riding Hood and starring Kiefer Sutherland, Reese Witherspoon and Brooke Shields, is another mainstream inclusion. Smaller films from established filmmakers Kenneth Branagh’s A M idw inter’s Tale opened the Festival - also screened. A celebration of staging a play (Hamlet), the film was ultimately upstaged by A1 Pacino’s Looking for Richard. Pacino was joined in the Festival selection by another actor turned direc tor, Kevin Bacon, whose first feature, Losing Chance, premiered. Old Festival favourites returned as well, including Hal Hartley, whose Flirt presents the same short script

Jackie Chan, right, in Stanley long's Humble in the Bronx.

Matthew Bright's freeway

iviork (M atthew Faber], ¡odd Solondz's Welcome to the Dollhouse.

Kenneth Brannagh's A M idw inter's I ale.

Alison (Percy Talbott), Hannah (Ellen Burstyn) and Shelby (Marcia Gay Harden). Lee David Zlotoffs Care of the Spitfire Grill.

Catherine Keener and Kevin Corrigan in Nicole Holofcener's Walking and talking.

Joe (Eric Schaeffer] and Lucy (Sarah Jessica Parker). Eric Schaeffer's If Lucy Fell.

Richard III (Al Pacino). Al Pacino's Looking for Richard.

Liam (John Lynch) and Kenny (James Frain). Thaddeus O'Sullivan's Nothing Personal.

made with three separate casts in three different loca tions. It occasionally reaches the heights set by his first films, Trust (1991) and The Unbelievable Truth (1990). Other popular films included Cold Fever (Fridrik Thor Fridriksson), especially for its depiction of the Icelandic w ilderness; P re cio u s (A lexander Payne, 1993), for its controversial subject matter; and I f Lucy Fell (Eric Schaeffer, 1995), for Elle Macpherson alone. Festival winner W elcom e to the D ollhouse (Todd Solondz) is a skilfully-directed black comedy that fol lows young schoolgirl Dawn W einer as she becomes tormented by other school kids, family and an obnoxio usly-go o d yo un ger sister. A lthough it avoids a H ollyw ood happy ending, D o llh o u s e has a m ain stream reach as a universal tale of the persecuted child whose plight worsens. Nick Park’s short, Close Shave, also torments its protagonist. The latest animation from the Aardman team, it stars W allace and Grommit from The Wrong

David Helfgott (Noah Taylor). Scott Hick's Shine.

Trousers (Nick Park, 1993), and follows their mis adventures as W allace’s love for a local wool shop owner brings about their ruin. W ith submissions for the Festival up by one-third and the introduction of a non-competitive American spectrum section, there is obvious evidence of a booming independent filmmaking scene in the U.S. capturing the bottom end of feature films. The Slamdance Film Festival now runs sim ulta neously in Park C ity, presenting an adventurous programme of the type of independent features orig inally shown by the Sundance Festival. Highlights of the programme included Erica Jo r dan and Shirin Etessam’s Walls o f Sand, the complex study of the relationship between a young Iranian woman living in the U.S. and a mother battling with ago rap h o b ia. A m utual tru st in th eir frien dsh ip becomes the only w ay to save the custody of the mother’s son. The Daytrippers (Greg M ottola), pro

duced by Sundance Festival star Steven Soderbergh, also received much acclaim. Park City, 30-minutes from Salt Lake City, Utah, is a small ski resort in an idyllic setting. Although the town is not designed for a festival of this size, the hype and buzz generated focuses much interest in inde pendent film. Tim Roth in The Player (Robert Altman, 1993) calls out “see you in Park City”. The Festival, as Altman ref erences it, is an often desperate place, a ski holiday for agents and executives where young filmmakers hope to build a career on a chance meeting on a chair lift, or in a queue outside an already-packed screening. W ith an increasingly high profile and after the huge success of Shine, the W orld Cinema section of the Festival will have a much higher profile as an alter n ativ e, e sp e c ially for A u stralian film m ak ers considering, a premiere at an international event other than Cannes. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

FRAM EW ORKS N O W OFFERS TR A C K LA YIN G Continuing to lead the way in non-linear technology, Frameworks now provides full digital non-linear sound track laying. W e a r e t h e f i r s t f a c i l i t y in A u s t r a l i a t o o f f e r t h e n e w 24 t r a c k A v i d A u d i o / V i s i o n .

A u d i o / V i s i o n is t o t a l l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o u r A v i d Fi l m C o m p o s e r s , i n c l u d i n g 4 4 k h z and 4 8 k h z d i g i t a l a u d i o s a m p l i n g and d i g i t a l n o n - l i n e a r p i c t u r e . T h i s a l l o w s us t o t a k e t h e a u d i o and p i c t u r e f i l e s d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e p i c t u r e c u t . T h i s a v o i d s t i m e c o n s u m i n g c o n f o r m i n g f r o m o r i g i n a l D A T ’s r e q u i r e d w i t h o t h e r s y s t e m s . L i k e w i s e , A u d i o / V i s i o n is t h e o n l y t r a c k l a y i n g s y s t e m u s i n g n o n - l i n e a r p i c t u r e g i v i n g t h e s o u n d e d i t o r t h e sa me s p e e d and f l e x i b i l i t y o f t h e A v i d Fi l m C o m p o s e r s .

Ring Stephen F. Smith about a picture and' sound “ package” for your next film.

Suite 4, 239 Pacific Highway, N orth Sydney 2060. Phone (02) 955 7300 Fax (02) 954 0175

F ilm S p e c ia l E ffe c ts Film in >> Film o u t

FLAME > URSA GOLD at

C O M P L E T E .|

ost

Feature Film and Television series Post Production

12 T h istle th w a ite St South M elbourne Victoria 3205 A ustralia Telephone 61 3 9699 4633 Facsimile 61 3 9699 3226

C O M P L E T Ep

-f

'■ ichael T olkin is the author of two published novels, The Player and A m ong The Dead, three screenplays, G leaming The Cube (Graeme Clif ford, 1988), D eep C over (Bill Duke, 1992) and The P layer (Robert Altman, 1992), and w riter-director of two exceptional features, The Rapture (1991) and The N ew Age (1994)2 Like many other recent Amer ican films (and novels), his work is deeply concerned with the material, spiritual, moral and social fabric of the contemporary world. W ithin this field, Tolkm ’s work is distinguished by its austerity, intellectual depth and challenging of viewer expectations. The son of a p o litical jo urn alist and television writer, Tolkin moved to Hollywood in 1978-9 - “just as the Hollywood I loved had ended”2 - after w ork ing as a jo u rn a list in N ew York. U nlike m any contem porary film m akers, he did not attend film school. He claim s to have lo o ked through the viewfinder of a camera for the first time when m ak ing his directorial début, The Rapture, in 1991. Tolkin describes The Rapture, The N ew Age and The P layer as “period pictures set in the present”3. These movies about California between 1990 and 1994” deal with the social, psychological and spiritual malaise of the 1990s, which he identifies as symptoms of the Reagan years and the recent downturn in the American economy. As Peter W itner (Peter W eller) gloomily expounds in The N ew Age:

b o rn b e c a u s e th e econom y was S e e , now i t ’ s c o l l a p s i n g , -h e w o rld eo. uo • i n ohe one. g.d. y o , ohe j_clv*o oI e v e r y t h i n g i n b a l a n c e , when p e o p le mony w it h n a t u r e . And now, n a t u r e a n d t h e r e ’ s no more h arm o n y, and o m t l e s s . ^S| Hi

Interview by Paul Kalina \

Katherine (Judy Davis), and Peter Witner

^Griffin Mill fimi Robbins),

(Peter W eller) Michael Tolkm’s The New Age.

Hoferî Altman's The Playei

Tolkin’s work, however, extends far beyond the parameters of social-realist cinema. Combining a surrealistic mise en scène with caustic irony, it presents astute observations of contemporary American culture: religious fundamentalism {The Rapture)) the decline of Los A ngeles’ upper middle class m the late 1980s (The New Age)) the immorality of a Hollywood studio executive for whom murder provides a career opportunity (The P la yer). t h a n assum ing authorial superiority, Tolkin approaches his sad and deeply-troubled protagonists with understanding and, often, affection. It is a ploy that flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of movies that insist on virtue being rewarded and crime being punished, not to mention the problem of pre senting unhappy characters. In reply to the vexed question of sympathy for his characters, Tolkin offers the following anecdote from the life of Jackie Gleason: “I don’t drink to get rid of m y warts, I drink to get rid of yours.” At the same time, his films do not endorse the nihilism or dismissive cynicism that pervades so many other films of this nature. In The Rapture, Sharon (Mimi Rogers), a telephone operator and regular on the swinger scene, becomes dis enchanted with her life and embraces Christian fundamentalism. Years later, accepting what she believes to be God’s command, she takes her daughter into the desert to await their ascent into Heaven. Self-induced tragedy forces her to discover that she cannot full}- engage with the fatalistic logic of the beliefs she has adopted. In The New Age, L.A. sophisticates Peter and Katherine Wit ner (Judy Davis) both lose their jobs on the same day. The ensuing financial crisis shatters the very foundations of their existence, and to relieve the pain they dabble in infidelities, New Age spirituality and S & M, and open a shop whose survival, ironically, is dependent upon thenown endangered species of privileged consumers. While it is a film that many viewers find profoundly saddening, The New Age is a far more optimistic work than Tolkin’s novels The Player and Among The Dead. The latter is a devastating journey through the morallybereft, emotionally-crippled life of Frank Gale - a close cousin of sorts of The P layer's Griffin M ill - who lunches with his mistress and thus misses the plane that carries his wife and daughter to a holiday resort in M exico, where Frank had planned to announce the end of his affaire and to be reco n ciled w ith his estranged wife and daughter. The plane crashes, the revelatory letter for which Frank searches in the wreck age a chilling symbol of his abominable life.

R ather

M ic h a e l T o lkin F ilm o g ra p h y

The novel of The Player is a despairing vision of power and the mindset of those whose assumed supe riority buffers them from the non-élite the}" have “cast” as losers and victims. Unlike the film, which has tended to be seen as Altman’s “comeback” and a satire of the vagaries of Tinseltown, Tolkin’s novel is fuelled by the fury of the scriptwriter who is haranguing studio exec utive Griffin M ill for the reply M ill promised him. Nothing in the film approaches the savage tone of the book’s blistering epilogue. The work of Michael Tolkin, who was a guest of the National Screenwriters’ Conference in Australia several years ago, deserves a far wider audience than it has attracted so far on local shores, as evidenced by the failure of his latest feature to get a theatrical release despite the A-list cast of Judy Davis and Peter Weller. For those seeking out the mature vitality of American films and books, his work is a discovery to be made. he N e w Age is a v e ry in te re s tin g title in t h a t it

I watched the financial decay of an upper middle class in Los Angeles that thought itself immune from economic worry. It was being pounded by the reali ties that affected assembly-line workers in the rust belt. I saw people whose lives were centred on their aesthetics and were suddenly being confronted with a missing content, falling apart. I took seriously the collapse of real-estate prices. I didn’t think it was something just to laugh at and I thought that some thing significant was going on. A n d y o u th in k t h a t c o n tin u e s ?

Yes. I think the strikes in France are as much to do with what I’m talking about as the unsettling of an upper middle class in America. They call it “down sizing” in America. Companies are contracting. The overlords who run the corporations are paying them selves m ore m oney than they have ever paid themselves before. The gap between the salaries of the highest level of corporations and those of the low est levels of corporations are the highest ratio in the world. And the people caught in the middle, like Peter and Katherine, are suddenly being stunned by the reality that they may dress rich and look rich but they are not rich, and they are scared. That fear is the beginning of the story. The story isn’t about economic collapse; the story is about the fear ful response to it, the emotional response to a collapse.

In The N ew Age, th e m in u te o n e sees th e sp iritu a l

re fe re n c e . It is s im u lta n e o u s ly lite ra l a n d iro n ic; it

a ro u n d w ith , o n e e x p ec ts an in v ita tio n to rid ic u le

also re fe rs to th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e c o u p le ,

th e s e p e o p le . B u t th e film d o e s n 't ta k e th a t ap proach ;

has so m a n y d iffe re n t re g is te rs a n d p o in ts o f

g ro u p s an d th e k in k y S & M c ro w d th a t P e te r hangs

P e te r a n d K a th e rin e W itn e r , a n d , in a w id e r se n se ,

it is v e ry n o n -ju d g m e n ta l. W h a t w a s y o u r in te n tio n in

to A m e ric a in th e 1990s.

s h o w in g th e s p iritu a l g ro u p a n d th e S & M c ro w d ?

You said it! That is it. Next question! [Laughs.] I always thought it was a good movie title because it was complicated, because of what you said. It could be taken literally, satirically and prophetically. Sometimes you open up a book and get a half-quote worth five years of education because of a strange insight. Somewhere I read about Proust the idea that, if you really want to look at the future, you look at the way the upper classes are decaying. That will give you a clue to what is coming next for everybody. I really wanted to write about the death of the 1980s, which is still going on, because the ’80s, like the ’60s, are going to extend so much longer. I think the ’80s will be remembered for having a tremendous amount of power and we are picking up the pieces now.

as d ir e c t o r a n d w r it e r :

That happened, too, when I was making The Rapture. I think it is too easy to ridicule people. Since the film came out, I’ve changed the way I for mulate this, but America is an incredibly hypocritical country. Part of the vehicle for that hypocrisy is the presumption of an objective press which asks objective questions via an objective reporter, w rit ten in an objective tone for an objective audience, which itself is ideally neutral. So, each reader pre tends to be in a position of presumed superiority to the subject of the story. This is how it is taught in schools: that religion is something that can be deci phered; that anybody with a good college education and a few courses, with knowledge of a couple of definitions of words like “projection” or even the

1991 The Rapture, 1994 The N ew Age

a s s c r ip t w r it e r :

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

word “psychology” or “myth”, is somehow able to understand w hat really is going on with religion, or what is really going on with perversion, or with social disaster. That presumed superiority also presumes non-par ticipation on the part of that ideal audience, which is invented by this, presumably, morally- and politicallyneutral in terlo cu to r, the rep o rter. But, in fact, America is a widely hypocritical country. People make fun of The Rapture , but more people in America go to church and are religious than in almost any other country. Yet there is the press try ing to be above religion. There are sex stores selling sex stories all over the country, and every video store has its porno room, but you wouldn’t know that from the way these things are written about. Nobody ever comes out and confesses directly. There is a huge area of secrecy in people’s lives. Partly this is because that is the only way they can protect themselves against total culture. There were so many things I wanted to say and put in The New Age, and I would have liked having a dif ferent way into the S&M. Maybe the film wasn’t quite the right vehicle. Maybe I would have had to make a three-and-half hour movie. I have a number of friends who are very active in the S&M world - some of them are psychos and some of them are heroes. Let’s just take S&M as an example. People don’t trust each other. People are living in a world where it is impossible to trust anybody. People who are look ing for trust and looking for acceptance test each other with this process called S&M , which is partly just a way of finding people you can trust. It is not so much about the orgy, but the buffet after the orgy. I’ve seen this, and I wanted to make the point that Peter was incapable of just relaxing and just jumping into the pool. I think the same is true for a lot of reli gion. It’s like the 12-step programmes. I have a lot of friends in AA and in NA and, you know, it is a reli gion. I’m not saying that d erisively - religion is certainly a vehicle to faith and to healing - but it is always made fun of. The press always treat it some what satirically and somewhat condescendingly. In fact, it is the most incredibly sincere, extremely impor tant movement in the world for its healing. But even to say a word like “healing” is to invite derision derision by people who are themselves searching. T h e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n P e te r a n d his fa th e r (A d a m W e s t) in The N e w Age is n o t u n lik e t h a t

b e tw e e n F ra n k a n d his d a d in Among the Dead. It is b a s e d on s im u lta n e o u s c o n te m p t a n d c o n fo rm ity .

I think that the intentional subtext that Batman [Adam West] is Peter’s father should answer the question. You see these guys around LA all the time: silver foxes like Peter’s father, who seem to have made a lot of money, or seem to be on top of money, and travel around with girls in their twenties. They seem to ... float. You don’t see fathers too often in the movies because nobody wants to admit they have one. We can save a few thoughts for what the movie is, and why it was received the way it was, and what it is about the movie which disturbed a lot of people. But one of the offences I committed was having a partic ularly unhappy hero and showing what his father was like, showing a father out of whom he likely would have come. You know, his father bounces a cheque on him. His father is so morally numb, so morally thin, himself. There is no lesson there. H o w d id th e film o ffe n d p e o p le?

It’s a bit of a cliché, but only an optimistic time is capable of withstanding tragedy, and this is not an optimistic time. So, when you are holding up the mir ror, people don’t want to see that. America also has no tradition of a cinema of the middle class, of the bourgeois. Forget “middle class”; it is a bad term. Use the French word because it actu ally fits a little bit better. There is no cinema of the bourgeois in America the way there is in Europe. There certainly is one in France, as there is in Italy. I’m not so sure there is in G erm any, though Fassbinder certain ly made movies about the bourgeois. And it doesn’t exist in America because America wants Natty Gann and Huck Finn. They are not interested in the American rich, except in a kind of glossy, theatrical way; never in any kind of realistic way. For the most part, it wants people to be rich in a kind of fairytale way, not because there is any understanding of social class. Screwball comedy is probably the only form in which some version of the rich has ever really been represented by a lot of different filmmakers. In the ’30s and ’40s, when there was a high society, when the papers were filled with stories, it was a world that Gatsby wanted to crack - you know, big houses, big parties, private schools, yachts and polo - and that is a world that doesn’t matter any more. That world with a set of clichés was the subject of

the movies for a long time. But it is hard to think of movies now in America which take class as a given, either as comedy or drama or tragedy. Shampoo [Hal Ashby, 1975] was one of the rare films which took on the notion of class and class envy. It is interesting. I’ve been making a study, so I could be wrong about a couple of choices, but American independent films over the past six or seven years have done well at the big film festivals when they have been satirical and grotesque, and have not done well when they have been sincere. The Coen brothers and Quentin Taran tino and David Lynch have done films that did well at Cannes, but a slew of movies that took America a little more seriously, and not quite so broadly, were mostly rejected at the film festivals. David Mamet made movies that didn’t go to film festivals. Leav ing Las Vegas [M ike Figgis, 1995] didn’t get into Venice or Cannes and Safe [Todd Haynes, 1995], which was a brilliant movie, I don’t think did very well overseas. Leaving Las Vegas is a bit of an exception because it got a lot of good reviews. It is a great movie: vio lent and sexy, with a great score. It is entertaining and very colourful, but it is also an incredibly depress ing film. Safe would make a great double bill with The New Age. The N ew Age is about the H ollyw ood Hills and Safe is about the San Fernando Valley, which is on the other side of Hollywood Hills. So, they are really about two sides of the same coin. Safe is sort of Katherine without Peter. The woman is married, but the husband is a much less significant factor in the story. I w o n d e r if The N e w Age also ja rs w ith a u d ie n c e s b e c a u s e y o u r w o r k is c o n c e rn e d w ith in d iv id u a ls d e fin in g th e ir o w n se n se s o f m o ra l a n d e th ic a l rig h t a n d w r o n g . It is a b o u t a v e ry in d iv id u a lis tic s e n s e o f th e s e m a tte r s w h ic h is v e ry c o n tra ry to th e A m e r i can m o v ie n o tio n o f a co n s e n s u s , o f th e s e n s e o f a u n ifo rm m y th ic a l d re a m .

What Americans don’t want to think about - nobody in the world wants to think about - is their isola tion in a world gone crazy. I like looking at it, I like thinking about it, I like writing about it, and I’m told there are other people who like that. I’m certainly grateful when people come up to me a n d __ let me know that my work has actually made sense to them and given comfort. p52

Gleaming The Cube (Graeme Clifford), 1992 Deep Cover (Bill Duke), 1992 The Player (Robert Altman), also co-producer

new media

Negroponte and Closer to Home Phillip Dutchak talks to American guru Nicholas Negroponte, then heads h om e to discuss the future o f n ew media with a range o f key Australians

n 1987, Stewart Brand (editor and publisher of the W hole Earth C a ta logu e ) released his book, The Media Lab: Inventing th e F uture at MIT. H aving w o rked at the M ed ia Lab, Brand began:

The M ed ia L aboratory is a brand-new facility, SUS45 mil lion am bitious, housed in a sleek I. A4. Pei edifice on A4IT [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] East Campus, built around Negroponte’s conviction that something big and convergent is happening to the whole gamut of communications media - tele vision, telephones, recordings, film, newspapers, agazines,since books, and Not much hasmchanged Brand infesting and transforming them all, wrote these words. The Media Lab is still computers. there. N icholas N egroponte, one of

the co-founders of the Aledia Lab, is still there. The ideas, initiatives and projects coming out, around and through the M edia Lab that Brand chronicled back in 1987, have not been rendered passé by the pace of technological develop ments nor been judged “boring” in a changing world. The opposite is m ore true. The Media Lab(s) have achieved cult status. People make pilgrimages to view Aledia Lab dem onstrations, or to study or work. Businesses invest money in the Labs so not to be left behind. And Nicholas Negroponte has become the “guru” - the man, the guy who knows about the brave new digital world we are heading into. Negroponte is the “point man” for the Media Labs. His position at the Labs has given him access to a wealth of infor m ation in an in form ation age. Negroponte’s duties in attracting cor porate sponsorship have put him in touch w ith business needs and views. Not only has Negroponte excelled as the original “talking head”, but he’s become a media star aided by a regular column in the U.S. magazine Wired (ohhh, we are not w o rth y) and the cobbling together of these Wired column pieces into his best-selling book, Being Digital , published in 1995. In the process, Negroponte has changed from being a smart guy “who knows” into being an internationally-recognized smart guy “who knows”. So m uch so th at the Q ueensland

offices of the A ustralian Institute of A lanagem ent (AIM) brought N egro ponte to Australia in March to speak at a series of one-day seminars in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. I (represented only as an e-m ail request to the Aledia Lab) interviewed Negroponte via the Internet while he was in Switzerland in February of this year.

understanding matters, issues or situa tions in 3-D and more to do w ith “asking questions”. Engineering tends to be problem solving, whereas design is more about question-asking. Most givens are not givens at all. I h e a r p e o p le s a y in g " th e y k n o w " , b u s in e s s e s e s p e c ia lly , w h e n it c o m e s to a n y th in g d ig ita l, b u t d o th e y ?

It is im portant to experience cyber space, like a place.

h a v e a th e o r y t h a t y o u r tr a in in g as

In an a rtic le in Scientific America,

a n a rc h ite c t - th e a b ility to c o n s id e r

y o u s u g g e s te d t h a t h o lo g ra m s w e r e a

s itu a tio n s in a p ra c tic a l 3 D m a n n e r -

lo n g w a y o ff fr o m b e in g a c o m m e rc ia l

■

h as b e e n a g r e a t b e n e fit to y o u as

y o u m o v e d in to th e d ig ita l fie ld .

I agree. It may have less to do with

re a lity .

H olographic movies are a-ways off because of bandwidth, display resolu

Negroponte: M ost p eop le k n o w fa r le ss th an th e y th in k abou t th e digital w o rld . T h e ir k id s u su a lly k n o w m ore.

tions and real-tim e computer speed. But holographic hard copy, for med ical engineering, for example, is here and now. The display medium is chem ical-based, the resolution is sufficient, and there is no need to do anything in real time. Don’t ask me why radiolo gist don’t use holograms. C a rlo A le s s i o f th e Ita lia n d e s ig n h o u s e A le s s i - th o s e in te re s tin g c o ffe e p o ts - w a s r e c e n tly in A u s tra lia ta lk in g u p th e v a lu e o f d e s ig n a n d th e im p o r ta n c e o f th e d e s ig n o f o b je c ts . Is o b je c t d e s ig n im p o r ta n t in a d ig ita l o r v irtu a l w o rld ?

Design has to go beyond looks and include p erso n ality: tone of voice, what the coffee pots say and when. That kind of thing. At the MIT M edia Lab, we have started a program m e called “T hings th at T h in k ” and it engages a wide range of manufactur ers: N ike, Levis, S teelcase, Lego, Volvo, Gillette, etc. [46 of them]. The key to th in k in g is lin k in g ; hence, other m em bers in clu d e A T & T , D eutsche T eleko m , M o to ro la and Nokia. A m e ric a n te c h n o lo g y is th e m e a n s fo r g o in g d ig ita l. A m e ric a n c o n te n t - i.e ., H o lly w o o d , c o n s u m e r g o o d s - is to b e fo u n d e v e r y w h e r e . C an c o u n trie s lik e A u s tra lia e v e r s e t th e a g e n d a in th e d ig ita l w o rld ?

W ell, you gave us Rupert M urdoch and he sure is setting an agenda in the digital world. Remember the Web [the worldwide web] was invented in Europe and only about half of it is used in English. W h e n d o e s c o n te n t, n o t te c h n o lo g y , b e c o m e th e d riv in g fo rc e in a d ig ita l w o rld ?

It already is. Disney is a big player. But you have to understand that, in the past, content was king because it was different to person-to-person commu nication, like a phone call. Now we have a new type of content, in the mid dle: m ulti-user gam es, MUDs and M O O s. This is not content as we know, but content of a kind as we will get to know it. W h a t a re th e im p o r ta n t issues fo r n e w m e d ia as w e g o in to 1 9 9 6 o r b e y o n d ?

1996 will be the year for three things: 1) security and privacy 2) digital cash 3) cyberlaw. C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Closer to Home C in em a P a per s interviewed representa tives from across Australian business and organizations for their views on the dig ital world. The question put to everyone was: “For Australia, what are the impor tant issues for new media as we go into 1996?” People were free to define “new media” as it pertained to their respective point of view. Some respondents talked about CD-ROMs, while others talked about the Internet, so the diversity of views continued. In traditional terms, this is a survey. In new media terms, this is a database full of intellectual property. In my terms, it was fun to do.

R og er B u c k e rid g e Roger Buckeridge is senior consultant at Cutler & Co. which has p rodu ced a num ber o f reports on n e w media and telecom m unica tions for corporations and g o vern m en t ew media is all about the Internet p arad igm , as a com m unicative medium with low barriers to self-pub lish in g. This form of m ultim edia com m unication is rap id ly becom ing imbedded in business-to-business, business-to-consumer and person-to-person communication. It w ill be about a 10year transition until these practices are as accepted into daily life, as is the tele phone today, and are equally easy to use. The com puter and the consum er electronics industries will make a vast array of digital devices to suit users’ needs, from digital large-screen livingroom d isp lays to m obile hand-held devices. New media has little to do with paytelevision. That is old media funded in a different way than solely by advertisers. New media is an enormous business productivity tool. It is transforming the economic structure of many industries, in particular those industries that can have th eir service or product both ordered and delivered electronically. All video and cinema industries are in this class. It is taking out the intermediary and is delivering more profit margin to the creator of the service [“content”], and lower prices to buyers. In the country areas, it looks like satellite and wireless technologies may become the way to deliver at least some of the broadband features that town dwellers will get. There are big issues of equity of access to new media services for those outside the cities. We are talk ing about the future physical structure and location of A ustralian com m uni ties here. About access to life-lo n g learning and skilling. About how to get and keep high-paying jobs. New media is much, much more significant than 100 channels of couch potato, all-you-caneat television.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

C ra ig C a m e ro n Craig Cameron is the C hief Operating Officer for the n ew ly-fo rm ed Telstra Multimedia Pty Ltd

IMoric D ila n c h ia n None Dilanchian is Vice-President for the Australian Interactive Multimedia Industry Association (AIMIA) and an Intellectual Property law yer specializ ing in n e w media n 1995, multimedia activity intensified in Australia. For years, Australia has had a greater number of experienced multimedia production teams than any other country in East Asia - the region with which Australia’s economy is now most closely associated. It should be noted that, after the U.S., Australia on a per-capita basis has the second highest ownership of computers, and the second highest number of users of on-line and Internet services. We are globally com petitive. Looking ahead, the pace of develop ments w ill escalate. Convergence will be driven by electronic commerce into the broader economy. Beachheads are already established beyond the commu nications, entertainment and information industries. In time, it will become clear that, while titles or products have market share, services represent the core market and a trem endous opportunity for growth.

W en d y B uchan Wendy Buchan is Media Manager in Research and Strategies for DDB Needham Australia he introduction of “new media” has created an excitement and hype for both advertisers and agencies; however, the full creative use of existing media has yet to be exploited to its full extent. The new/interactive media - pay tele vision, interactive television, CD-ROM, the Internet, touch-screen kiosks should be seen as com plem entary to existing media. Such new media will cre ate niche market properties, requiring a close look as to how we are currently communicating with our customers. The new media will give customers increased choice, and users will be drawn by creativity and relevance to “visit” us. Plus, new media will allow advertisers to more accurately target their message. So, there is a need to know who is using new media and why. DDB Needham has developed a pro prietary research system called Personal Media Network. It is used to determine what the media people are selecting, why thev are using it and when. We see this as an imperative as the fragmentation of audiences increases every day.

m a l%i»■»*; .-**•*■

K im W illia m s Kim Williams is Chief Executive for Fox Studios Australia

ox Studios Australia will be devel oping a sophisticated studio complex at the Showground Moore Park site in Sydney. The studio will encompass set construction, custom workshop, storage and post-production facilities, in addi tion to sound stages. Digital developments in sound, on line and special effects will be central to the operation of the studio. This will also include flexible and comprehensive on site sw itching and com m unications systems able to transfer images, sound and tex t from w ithin the studios to external points. The detailed design refinement of these “high-tech” appli cations will progressively occur through 1996 and 1997.

ew media is using new technology to deliver information, data, pic tures, sound and tex t by em erging communications services in means that haven’t been done before. The issues for new media are tech nolog)-, cost, applications, regulator)- and the pace of change. It is not only a mat ter of establishing technologies, such as wireless communications, cable modems or ISDN services, but also the cost of these services and delivering them at the right price to our customers. We need to think about the applications that peo ple need and want, and then building them in conjunction with software devel opers and content producers. The regulatory environment for new media is important, and an industry code-ofconduct has to be developed that benefits both users and providers. Some people are not com fortable with change and that is a very real con sideration to be aware of as this area develops. But m ultim edia is a terrific opportunity both here and overseas. As an export product and for its related ser vices, m ultim edia has low barriers to successful trading. A highly-developed A ustralian m arket could lead to increased international sales.

B rendan Yell Brendan Yell is Business Strategist Interactive Services for Optus Vision ew media is all dependent on the efficien cy of the n etw o rk to deliver new applications and services. Optus V ision’s integrated network carrying cable television, telephony and interactive services - will provide such efficiencies. High capacity at low cost is just not possible with our existing communications infrastructure. Once there is an efficient delivery mechanism, the scope of the new m edia w ill be dependent on the creative minds that explore it.

Kodak n M arch 1995, Kodak announced that it was form ing w o rld w id e a Kodak D igital and A pplied Im aging Group. Representatives for Kodak Aus tralasia sum m arized the co m pany’s current position as:

Kodak is in the picture business and sees its role in new media sim ply as making pictures easier to use, whether they be digital images or from other media such as silver halide film, which the company keeps making technical advances in due to m arket demand. New media isn’t mass media yet. Kodak has developed “hyb rid” tech nologies which harness the best features of traditional imaging, such as superior resolution and colour values, to the ver satility of digital technology. Examples of these technologies include Photo CD or Cineon, a film-to-digital-to-film tech nology. Plus Kodak is a leader in “pure” digital imaging technology as a devel oper and manufacturer of components for digital cameras, digital storage plat forms and document-imaging products and services.

BiSI A lla rd Bill Allard is Director o f Marketing for EDS Australia ew media is coming about because of the convergence of the com munications, information technology and entertainm ent industries. This is creating new products and services. In the future, there will be two-way com munications to the home - perhaps in multimedia type format. This is referred to as interactive broadband communi cations and allows, for example, people to get information on demand instead of advertisers or broadcasters “airing” their content and hope som eone is watching. But communication at this level is very difficult because of the complexity of the technology and the number of d ifferen t system s av ailab le. So, the development of standards in the new media area is an important issue.

J o h n Pauli John Pauli is the Sales & Marketing Manager for Big Hand Asia Pacific here are a million web sites [world w ide web addresses] and m any programmers out there working in new

F ran k C h a lm e rs

down the road” as to what is coming. Web sites have become more than Inter net billboards, and we are looking to sell corporate Australia on our expertise in new media, and offering clients a full marketing programme for new media. In time, new media will mean broad band com m unications, but we don’t believe broadband communications will spell the end of the CD format. There has been a lot of m oney invested in the CD platform, so cross-platform CD issues are important, such as CDI being com patible w ith CD -RO M or w ith Video CD.

N a tio n a l Film & S ou nd A rc h iv e

tion and compression methodologies for archival motion pictures. W e’ve been using advanced digital sound restoration processes for the past six years and are anticipating digital still image restoration in the next year or so. Sound dubs can be provided for clients on CD.

Mark Nizette is Senior Manager Preservation Branch and lan Glimour is Manager New T echnology Group for the National Film & Sound Archive (NFSA)

Frank Chalmers is Senior Interactive Designer & Writer for Digital Video Productions in Brisbane or 1996, we are currently develop ing an ed ucatio n al series on Autom otive T echnology w hich w ill com prise 32 CDIs when finished by mid-year. W e’ve noticed that, compared to less than a year ago, many more pro jects are taking shape around on-line delivery, and we expect this trend to continue. Coming from a film and television background, I look forward to when talk about “content” in multimedia is replaced w ith talk about stories and ideas. Stories and ideas in multimedia w ill lead to genuinely different com puter interfaces and exciting ways of presenting multimedia material, and will get multimedia away from Hollywood movies with so-called alternative paths tacked on and not constrain multime dia to the gam es m odels of A lien Invasion. We need interactive drama for Grown-ups.

media, but Big Hand Asia Pacific has a different approach partly due to the John Fairfax investment. [Big Hand Asia-Pacific is a joint venture between U.S. m ultim edia developer Big Hand and John Fairfax Holdings]. We are producing THISlzine as a quarterly CD-ROM publication with an exciting computer interface prom ot ing an “in your face” theme. It is an example of what our company can do and allow s us to test the m arket for acceptance of self-published CD-ROM titles. W e’ve formed a research and developm ent unit to keep “looking

R icci S w a rt Ricci Swaii is the Multimedia D evelop m ent Fund Manager for Film Victoria

ilm V ictoria recently announced that it will manage the $2 million per annum V ictoria 21 M ultim edia Development Fund. The Fund, which is open to application by private-sector organizations, operates both a concept development to develop concepts to a production-ready stage, at which equity investment can be sought, and a pro ducer package to assist experienced multimedia producers with basic run ning costs and costs associated with m arketing m ultim edia products and services. An Evaluation Committee of indus try practitioners has been appointed to consider applications on a m onthly basis. Victoria 21 M ultim edia Devel opment Fund Investment Guidelines are now available from Film Victoria.

he NFSA has set up a special unit to in vestigate and report on new strategies and potential services for preservation, storage and access. The NFSA is pursuing new ways of m aking more m aterial available to a wider range of people in more locations by searching and browsing the collec tion via the Internet, W W W and future broadband services. In itia lly, inform ation about the NFSA’s collection has been made avail able by publishing a CD-ROM of the Archive’s collection database, MAVIS. N ew er versions of the MAVIS CDROM w ill be linked to snapshots of stills, audio and moving images. D igitized moving images must be heavily compressed for transmission or to fit onto CD-ROM and have to be restored to remove scratches, dirt and blemishes which make the signal more complicated and harder to compress. The NFSA is currently involved in research efforts to develop appropriate restora

M a rc u s Rose Marcus Rose is Executive Director for the develop m en t capital com pany, C oncept Capital he pace of technological change, convergence of industries and new sources of content are creating many opportunities in the market. Concept Capital is looking to invest, but Australian high-tech companies are not being as well received as U.S. hightech on the respective stock markets. It is maybe that the Australian market is more down-to-earth on companies in this area and not as sanguine as our American counterparts over the future of high-tech firm s. T here has been recent U.S. press that the expectations put on Netscape Communications by the market is “unreal”. But there are real opportunities in Australia for development capital and start-up cap ital for telecom m unications/high tech businesses. ©

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Apollo 13 Batman Forever

tw t.a L ight w

o r k s

Halifax FP

Braveheart

Law of the Land

W aterworld

Singapore Sling

Pulp Fiction

Frontline

Speed

Liftoff II

Mrs Doubtfire

Home & Away

Nell

Colombo

Little Women

Spellbinder

Disclosure

M atlock

Rob Roy

Cracker

Lucky Break

Conspiracy

Angel Baby

Hotel Sorrento Cosi Shine Brilliant Lies Pelican Brief Conga I.Q,

Beaurepairs TVCs

The best in digital editing for features, episodic television, multi camera, documentaries, commercials, music videos, and information programming.

A Country Practice QANTASTVC The Late Show Skytrackers Funky Squad Discover Australian W ines

Available from:

Six Degrees of Separation M ighty Morphin Power Ranges

QUINTO COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD A.C.N. 002 956863

( 03 ) 9558 9377 ( 02) 417 5166

Better Homes & Gardens The Cosby Mysteries

festivals

The Indian Panorama John H. Wood looks at the latest Indian films on show at the 1996 Indian Film Festival in Delhi ost of the w o r ld ’ s le a d in g film festi vals are held in the city whose name the festival takes: Venice, Berlin, Cannes, London, etc. In a country where cu ltu ral interests can easily become regionalized, the International Film Fes tival of India aims to promote itself as a national event and so rotates annually from one major city to another. In recent years, the Festival has been held in Ban galore, Delhi, Calcutta and Bombay, and this year it was held again in Delhi; there is talk that next year it w ill go south again, possibly to M adras or T rivan drum. There are obviously many good reasons for a peripatetic film festival, but the lack of a permanent base and facili ties th at can be used year after year certainly makes the task of organization extraordinarily difficult. Nevertheless, in January this very big festival was run again with remarkable efficiency by the Directorate of Film Festivals under the leadership of M alti Sahay. The Festival has a number of sections, including a competitive section intro duced this year for films made by Asian women. The Indian Panorama offers the twenty or so best Indian non-commer cial films made over the previous year. The contents of the Panorama used to be selected by several regional panels, each selecting a number of films from its particular zone. This year, however, a panel chaired by em inent film m aker Buddhadeb D asgupta, who had not made a film since his highly successful Charachar in 1993, selected 19 films from some 150 entrants. There was some apprehension con cerning the quality of the Panorama. After all, where were the big names? Besides Buddhadeb Dasgupta, M rinal Sen, Goutam Ghosh and Adoor Gopalakrishnan were also missing. Some naive optimists, including myself, looked forward to this as a great opportunity for some hitherto unknown talent to emerge, creating the kind of excitement that would do the art cinema in India no harm at all at the moment. Ultimately, the Panorama presented five very good films, there were maybe two that one would w illingly see again and perhaps again , w hile the rest w ere good or mediocre. The two that invited repeated viewing were not by any exciting new

talent, but by established, noted direc tors, Shyam Benegal and Biplab Ray Chaudhuri, whose films, M am m o and Nirbachana , were clearly the best of the Indian Panorama. Benegal’s M am m o actually opened the last Indian Film Festival in Bombay, but, as it was not shown as part of the Panorama, it was eligible to be screened again this year, by which time it had become quite well known after screen ings in major Indian cities throughout much of 1995. It is a delightful film based on the remarkable story of a Mus lim woman whose husband had taken her to settle in Pakistan after the Parti tion of India in 1947, but after his death life with her inlaws became intolerable for her and she set out for the land of her birth, arriving unannounced on the doorstep of her sister in Bombay. On one level, the film is a warm and joyous story of Mammo’s easy and natural mak ing of the world a better place, especially for her sister’s grandson, a young boy effectively orphaned and trying to grow up with lofty ideals in a world charac terized by cynicism. On another level, it shows M am m o in a more an alytical light, presenting her in conflict with the petty functionaries of a heartless bureau cracy whose lives, it would seem, are dedicated to making other people’s lives unhappy. Ultimately, it is a wonderfully m oving story of the trium ph of the human spirit. Biplab Ray Chaudhuri’s Nirbachana is a very different kind of film. It takes a general rather than an individual focus,

people’s desires and needs to profit at the expense of one another. The politi cian who offers a bribe of one hundred rupees for anyone who votes for him is a minor character; the camera’s focus is on the cunning and the meanness of the village people who live in deprivation made worse by the advent of m ining technology that has ruined their once prosperous rice production. Nirbachana is beautifully photographed, carefully paced and very gently brought to its dis turbing conclusion. The rest of the five very good films were Shekhar Kapur’s controversial Ban dit Q u ee n , Rituparno Ghosh’s Unishe April and Dev Benegal’s very funny Eng

lish August. Fortunately I had already seen Ban dit Q u e e n in London, w here it was shown uncut. In fact, the film could well do with some judicious cutting, given th at much of it is rep etitio us in its endeavour to portray the horror of rape and violence or - would it be cynical to suggest? - its endeavour to sensational ize rape and violence. N evertheless, the only people who should do the cut ting are the editor and the director, not some p h ilistin e p ro tector of public morals, as was the case in Delhi, where some eight minutes were hacked out of the film. The larg ely true story of Phulan Devi’s war against caste privilege is gen erally very well known now. The film seeks to chart this story, giving it chrono logical titles to enhance its documentary realism, but, in trying to keep to the sim

"Notwithstanding the excellence of several films, most of the Indian Panorama this year was marked more by competence than by inspiration." and, w hile M a m m o is saturated with optimism, Nirbachana looks critically at the negative features produced by a cer tain social chemistry, though more with compassion than with censure. The title literally means “election”, and is given with an element of irony missed by many - the English title, The Hustings. In fact, the imminent election alluded to in the film is merely a catalyst in the produc tion of the unpleasantness that Ray Chaudhuri develops, concentrating skil fully on the reasoned em ergence of

ple facts of actuality, it wears rather thin, w anting more than anything a philo sophical basis to give broader perspective to the atrocities that the film depicts with such disquieting and, at times, disgust ing effect. The b rillian ce of the photography is sometimes compromised by the clumsiness of the editing, but in general it is a very well made film, one which disturbs and distresses but rarely explains more than the barest basics of Indian social dissension and conflict. C areful to the other extrem e in

explaining itself is Rituparno Ghosh’s

Unishe April (The N ineteenth o f April), a film th at won the Indian national award (The Golden Lotus) for Best Film of 1995. Ghosh demonstrates a meticu lous care for detail in his treatment of conventional narrative development and extensive use of dialogue. The story con cerns the delicate relationship between mother and daughter - one, Sarojini, a leading classical dancer; the other, Aditi, a m edical student - and the dramatic turning-point that causes them to come to terms with themselves as well as with each other. The title establishes the intensity of the drama, being the anniver sary of the death of Aditi’s father. Her loving memory of him contrasts with her m other’s reco llectio n s, and it is this difference th at helps form the basis of the drama. Unishe April establishes the young Rituparno Ghosh as one of India’s very skilful filmmakers, yet it is C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

such a wordy film, concentrating almost exclusively on just two characters and dense with dialogue and polemic that, despite its technical polish, it becomes rather tedious towards the end of its 130 minutes. From April to August gives us Dev Benegal’s film based on the excellent novel of Upamanyu Chatterjee, English August. The title is the nickname of the central character, Agastya Sen, a young civil servant sent to M adna, a nonde script backblocks town in the sticks of India. Here the young dreamer, who is too urbane and cynical to find comfort in provincial bureaucracy, finds it rather in sexual fantasy, m asturbation and dope-smoking - as well as in the Medi tations of Marcus Aurelius. The film is, in fact, a very funny satire on provin cialism , w ith its conservatism and closed-mindedness, its incumbent oldergeneration reverence for Gandhism, and C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

its regional language that the Englisheducated Agastya cannot speak. The film is a good deal slicker than the novel, con centrating more on the comic value of the characters and their circumstances and making a hilarious and often irrev erent joke out of them . The serious element of the novel, taken less seriously in the film (and quite appropriately, too), is the jo urn ey of self-discovery that emerges from a year amidst crushing ordinariness. Both the novel and the film are in English. The better of the rem aining films included two from Assam: Itthas (Explo ration ) by Bhabendra Nath Saikia (who, incidentally, has a doctorate in physics from London and is one of eastern India’s most popular short story writers), and the very beautiful It’s a Long Way to the Sea, by Jahnu Barua. Itihas has a pre dom inantly urban setting for its story about exploitation of the weak by the

strong, while Barua’s film is the story of a rural boatman who lives alone with his orphaned grandson and makes his liv ing from ferrying locals across the river. He is forced into a reassessment of his life when his weak and unscrupulous son (and the son’s even more unscrupulous wife) take advantage of him over a prop erty deal and when local government is successful in having a bridge built over the river, thus m aking his livelihood redundant. Except for an uncomfortable and predictable moment when the old man gets drunk and tries to chop down the bridge, the film moves gently yet with an inexorable sense of purpose, weaving its atmosphere out of the tensions that destroy families when love is soured by lust for profit. While the film ends with the old man’s future looking bleak, the relationship between grandfather and boy is its one gleaming ray of hope. Also from Assam but in the Bodo lan guage of the northeast of the province, the first Bodo feature film to be screened at an Indian Film Festival, was Jwngdao Bodosa’s extraordinary film, Rape in the Virgin Forest. Jwngdao Bodosa takes credit not only for the film’s direction, but also for the production, the story and screenplay, the camera work and the editing. Moreover, he made the film on a budget of less than $A12,000, some thing like a tenth of what most Indian art film directors, well used to working on less than a shoe-string, would call an absolute m inim um purse. Given its financial restraints, the film has obvious technical defects, yet, given its unpre tentious treatment of its subject of forest preservation and the obvious love of the country that Jwngdao Bodosa’s camera reflects, it is easy to make excuses for the blemishes. One especially warm moment is when a sm all group of trib al men entertain each other, one by dancing as a praying mantis, another as a rat and a third as a tortoise. The dances are superb in themselves, but also as part of the overall syntax of the film - just as is the stunning ending which fuses the rape of a woman with the rape of the forest. H arikum ar’s Sukrutham (B en e fa c t i o n ) from K erala is an in tellig en t presentation of ideas about mind over body in the treatm ent of cancer and some disquieting thoughts on the value of death over life, but it is very long and wordy, labouring the point more often than enough. Amol Palekar’s Bangarwadi (the name of the village in which the film is set) is much easier to look at, and its story of the first year in the professional life of a young primary teacher, work ing am ongst deprived, ignorant and superstitious shepherd people, is han dled w ith candour, earthiness and compassion. The story, in fact, is rather thin, but, as a carefully-crafted ‘slice of life’, many would find it rewarding. There were two films made by noted,

though not great, directors that promised much more than they deliv ered. It is perhaps to Sandip R ay’s disadvantage that his own p ub licity material hails him as the son of the late Satyajit Ray, for he certainly does not have the talent of his father. He is very good at putting a film together, and some of his work for television, as well as his Target shown at the Festival, sug gests that he might be highly successful in the commercial cinema. Target, a story of the conflict between a landlord and his high-caste cronies and the nearby untouchables colony, is very well acted (particularly by Om Puri) and is made with obvious technical flair. Neverthe less, the theme is unoriginal and the narrative proceeds through a treasury of clichés, both social and cinematic. The ending, in which the untouchables defeat their ruthless overlords, is an almost patronising reflection of what simply does not happen in actuality in India. The maker of the other film, Saeed M irza, started his career w ith such intense and incisive films as The Strange Fate o f Arvind Desai (1978) and What Makes Albert Pinto Angry? (1980). On learning that his N aseem is set in the context of the destruction in 1992 of the Babari Mosque at Ayodhya, one looked forward to something hard-hitting and perhaps historically significant from this talented and skilful filmmaker. Unfor tunately, Naseem is characterized not by cinematic power but by caution, so obvi ous is the director’s endeavour not to offend the majority community by por traying the thugs’ vandalism as candidly as most of the w orld’s television net works did at the time the mosque was destroyed. (It is not unreasonable to sus pect that Saeed felt intimidated by the destructive potential of the present reac tio nary governm ent of the state of Maharashtra which gave so much sup port to the destruction, yet such an excuse hardly strengthens the film.) At best, Naseem is a pleasant human-inter est story, easy to watch and easy to like, and - sadly - just as easy to forget. There w ere other very pleasant human interest films, though none of them destined to be in any way memo rable. One might note M. S. Sathyu’s Galige {Moments), a populist young love story set in the lofty though somewhat naïve idealism that sees unity beyond sec tarianism, and Chidananda Das Gupta’s A modini, a lovely piece of cinem atic confectionery dealing with marriage cus toms in Bengal at the time of the British conquest. N otwithstanding the excellence of several film s, most of the Indian Panorama this year was marked more by competence than by inspiration. One certainly hopes for the return to next year’s Panorama of Sen, Dasgupta and Gopalakrishnan - at least. ©

Proudly supplying broadcast equipment, service and support for over 10 years.

(3VG Video Desktop Editing System & Ultimatte for the MAC

Are you reading scripts, looking for precise

file

motion control, finding scene changes for

Qr*b

0:00 :81:81

fctfit

Options

ÿfiodow

PATTAIt Inet JNI oN

& Ifc .

DASTLAIEttytUDO

logging or editing on-site? Or do you need automatic masking for blue and green screen desktop image compositing? Techtel have the solutions for production, post and broadcast professionals.

Medium shot match 2

».ISIEALEHINEW |S/B| Clinton add ressing Cangici

[d o seu p ol bride and groom at the altar Insert S cen e

latic Scene Detector/Logger

cuewof®

Sydney: (02) 9906 1488

Melbourne: (03) 9899 3032

technicalities

Digital Freight Thain Gathers Speed Dominic Case finds Australians are catching up in the world o f film-to-film digital-effects systems istory isn’t often con venient: it w ould be nice to cite Babe (Chris Noonan, 1995) as the film that launched the Australian digital effects industry. But the disappointing truth is that not only does the little rasher talk with an American accent, but his mouth was moved by A m erican com pany Rythm’n’Hues. A year ago, no Australian company had the capacity to attempt such a big production. Now, however, there are two complete film-to-film dig ital-effects systems in Sydney.

out of the image, and create a matte or mask for the red areas. He was also able to increase the exposure for these areas to eventually brighten the colour. He then drew a “garbage matte” for the rest of the shot, blocking out any holes in the image matte caused by traces of red else where in the im age. Then, applying d esaturatio n to the im age - except where the matte is - and combining it with the brightened red areas, he ended up with a black-and-white scene with smears and splashes of red blood.

before. They first saw it in our image, so we went back and checked and dis covered that it wasn’t our problem: the movement was in the camera orig inal as well. It was quite easy to fix: we applied motion tracking to one distinctive point in the im age, and Cineon matched the pattern frame for frame through the bump. Then we applied the motion track, from the original image, to the final desaturated output image. One of the very early shots that I did

a t firs t, a n d th e y c a m e to y o u w ith ju s t a s im p le a n d o b v io u s job?

Wire removal isn’t necessarily a sim ple job. Everyone tries to hide the wire on the set, but they can’t. And that makes it very difficult. A wire is always slightly visible, and even if you think you can’t see it, it’s there, and it has to be got rid of. Looking at a single frame, especially against a busy background, you can’t always see it clearly, but on running film you see it very clearly as a moving line of den sity. So, w hat I can do is go into a small area of the frame where I think the trouble is, and play it down on the system at full resolution. Then I can highlight the area and get to work on it. But it would be easier if the pro duction didn’t try and hide the wire at all. Iridescent green wire would be a lot easier! When we finally met them in Syd ney, I got the impression that they had th o ugh t th at the o rig in al job was about as hard as anything we could do. But when they saw what the sys tem was capable of, they said, ‘Next tim e w e ’ll give you m uch h ard er things to do.’

Dfilm Services w as form ed out of Atlab’s optical printing department and Acme’s Kine department. This is the site of A ustralia’s first Kodak Cineon sys tem, consisting of a high-resolution film scanner, a digital work station and a film recorder. Dfilm’s first venture was for a Chinese feature, Sun Valley (Ho Ping). The work covered a representa tive sam ple of d ig ita l tech n iq u es, including wire removal, some elaborate rotoscoping and colour draining, and steadying a cam era jolt in one shot. I spoke with Dfilm’s Digital Effects M an ager Rob Sandeman:

Sun Valley was a Chinese feature that

For the colour desaturation, Sandeman started by using one of Cineon’s Ultimatte tools to pull the red components C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

S o , th is is an in s ta n c e w h e r e th e c lie n t w a s n 't a w a re o f w h a t c o u ld b e d o n e

Dfilm Services

Roger Savage [Soundfirm] had brought into the country for sound post pro duction, and Cinevex was completing the elements of post production. The production had tried to hide the wires in one shot and they hadn’t quite done it, so we were asked to have a look at it. As a result of that being successful, and the output quality of that shot, we were then asked to do a test - just off a couple of fram es of w ork print for a dream sequence where the colour had to be desaturated to monochrome, but keeping the red components of the image - which were blood and a scarf. We sent the first test down to Cin evex for processing and a work print; we d id n ’t even see the final result here. But on the basis of that, we got another two minutes’ worth of work using the same process. But we didn’t actually meet them until after it was all done.

into the mix level through time, and that gave a pulsing effect in the eyes, going between bright blue and grey in a few frames. We sent that shot down to them , and they liked it. But, as these things happen, when they cut it into the film and got back to H ong Kong, they showed it to people there and decided it wasn’t quite appropriate. So, they w ent back to the steady blue eyes, which we’d done as well.

W h a t a b o u t th e im a g e s te a d y in g ?

We had to do the 31 shots in about a w eek, so the process had to be as autom atic as possible. We certainly w eren’t looking right through every shot for frame-by-frame. We had to do a bit of garbage matting and so on, but then we just put them out to film. In one scene, there was a slight bump in the image that they hadn’t noticed

as a trial is from inside a basket look ing out. There’s a close-up view of a swordsm an outside the basket: his hand is h o ldin g a sw ord w ith a demon’s mask carved into the handle. They asked us to retain the blue of the eyes, as w ell as the red sm ears of blood. When I’d created the separate elem ents for the eyes, I used a m ix tool with frame-by-frame animation

R o b S a n d e m a n : " [W ]h e n th e y s a w w h a t th e

s y s te m w a s c a p a b le o f, th e y s a id , 'N e x t tim e w e 'll g iv e y o u m u c h h a rd e r th in g s to d o .'"

General M anager Alan Robson added that since completing Sun Valley, Dfilm had embarked upon a number of fea tures, including Under th e L ighthouse Dancing (Graeme Rattigan), and features from Japan (shot at Warner Bros studios in Queensland) and Korea. Robson: W e’re getting a lot of w ork in, and g en erally people are com ing to us with scripts, so there’s an opportunity for design input from us. W e have people like Dale Duguid and Peter Doyle on contract if the production calls for them, and they’re about the best aro un d , p a rtic u la rly for film effects. They have all the experience.

technicalities Animal Logic Just around the corner from Dfilm, Ani mal Logic has become a highly-regarded graphic-design and digital-effects house since its inception five years ago. Its lat est acquisition, Quantel’s Domino system, comprises a 35mm high resolu tion film scanner, the image processing work station (which is interfaced directly into Animal Logic’s network of Silicon Graphics work stations and Quantel Henrys), and a digital film recorder. I spoke with the company’s director Zareh Nalbandian about how digital film work was developing. We’re still uncovering areas where we can use the system, because there’s been such a limitation with film, espe cially in Australia, as there have been so few optical facilities. We’re looking at a couple of scripts every week, and we’re always uncovering possibilities for us to give producers a real oppor tunity of doing the film more efficiently, or cost effectively, or being able to tighten up the production schedule. And the most obvious cre ative areas so far have been in title design. Our experience is both in TV title design as well as in TV special effects for commercials. That experience applies to the new technology at film resolution, because the creative con tent is the same. The tools are a bit different, but not all that different, which makes it easy for our design ers to make the transition. They’re certainly a lot more powerful than any traditional optical techniques. W e’re

a design-based company with a very strong technical bent, so we approach any brief as a design brief; there is no real technical challenge, it’s a creative challenge. When people have come to us with design briefs up to now, both preDomino [for example, the titles for Babe], and at first with Domino for Lilian’s Story [Jerzy Domaradzki] and

N ot F o u r te e n Again [Gillian Arm strong], we’ve been given a set brief, a set budget, and quite a few precon ceived ideas. When it comes to the films that we’re looking at now, we have got quite a lot more input, and we think that’s going to involve those ideas which make a lot more use of the technology. One thing that has really given us lat itude and predictability at the same time has been our ability to grade material as we’ve scanned it into the Domino system. Then we’ve been able to view the work as we go, at 24 frames per second, using a synthesized cine shutter on a print-calibrated mon itor at film resolution. O n N o t Fourteen Again, th e title d e s ig n - th e fo n ts , th e la y o u t - is v e ry d is tin c tiv e . D id th o s e s e le c tio n s c o m e

I'm im p re s s e d b y th e la ck o f s tro b in g o n th e title : th a t's q u ite h a rd to d o in a h o r iz o n ta l ro lle r title . W a s it h a rd to a c h ie v e ?

We did have to struggle. Anyone w ho’s worked with strobing titles knows you can go a little bit slower or faster and you can fix it. But we could try that on the film resolution moni tor, so we didn’t have to go to a film output every time and keep wasting stock. D id y o u u s e m o tio n b lur?

Yes. That certainly helped, and it’s something you would have trouble controlling using traditional tech niques.

fr o m th e p ro d u c e r, o r fr o m A n im a l

W h a t a b o u t Dating the Enemy

Logic?

[M e g a n S im p s o n H u b e rm a n ]?

Our designer, Belinda Bennetts, who’s had a great deal of film title experi ence, even in the pre-digital era, but is also very au fait with digital technol ogy, conceived and designed the typography - the approach to the

Z areh N

a l b a n d ia n

" [ W ]e a p p r o a c h a n y b r i e f a s a d e s ig n b r ie f ; t h e r e is n o r e a l t e c h n ic a l c h a lle n g e , it's a c r e a t iv e c h a lle n g e ."

whole title sequence - and collabo rated with the director [Gillian Armstrong] to fine-tune it.

Dating’s a great example: that’s one where we did have a lot of creative input. Sue Milliken [producer] came to us with early storyboards, and we were able to discuss the story she wanted to tell - that’s important with enough visual impact to stir the audience’s imagination, but without letting budgets run riot. She worked with our designer, Andy Brown, and visual effects director Chris Godfrey, and our producer, Kriselle Baker. In this one, we were involved in storyboarding, in the technical require ments for the shoot, visualizing lighting requirements and camera angles. That planning is P®® C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Kingsgrove Apartments MELBOURNE

C a m e r o n H a r r is C a s t in g

• AUSTRALIA

S p e c i a l P e r f o r m i n g Art s r a t e s for our F u l l y Sel f Contained & Serviced Apartments

• Comfortable 4 Star Apartments • Serviced Daily • Just Ten Minutes from the CBD • Transport Available Outside Our Door • Right in the Heart of Cosmopolitan S t Kilda C A L L TOLL FREE 1 8 0 0 0 3 3 7 8 6 4 4 FITZROY ST, ST KILDA VIC 3 1 8 2

A NEW OPTION IN CASTING Credits Include JANUS. CORRELLI. THE DAMNATION OF HARVEY McHUGH THE BITE

CAMERON HARRIS Unit 1. 16 Hotham Grove. Elsternwick, V ie.. 3185 Phone: 03 9531 5707, M obile: 014 O li 916. Facsim ile: 03 0525 7314

O p t ic a l & G r a p h ic 5 Chuter Street

'iah

McMahon's Point

NSW 2060

Australia

Phone: 02 9922 3144, Facsim ile: 02 9957 5001 Modem: 02 9955 2836

Titles & Credits

aum] o

Titling design & graphic effects Extensive range of typefaces

C H R I S R O W E L L P R O D U C T I O N S P T Y LTD

Word processing files accepted

THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND PRO FESSIO N AL NEGATIVE CUTTING COMPANY IN A U ST R A LIA

Flexible proofing system

N EW ^

Ail formats

S UI TE D 172 FI LM A U S T R A L I A BUI L DI NG

Quoting S. student discounts

V Digital Effects N Available

101 E T ON R O A D L I N F I E L D N S W 2 0 7 0 TEL: ( 02) 416 2633 FAX: (02) 416 2554

Accounting

for

the

Arts

Actors Animators Architects Art Directors Artists Clowns Cinematographers Comedians Composers Choreographers Costume Designers Critics Dancers Designers Directors Film & Television Editors Festivals Galleries Graphic A lan Dredge Designers incorporated Associations Journalists & Co Pty Ltd Jugglers Landscape Architects Multimedia Artistsand Producers Musicians Performers Chartered Accountants Tax Returns, Audits, Painters Photographers Playwrights Film Accounting & Financial Advice, Television and Radio Producers Print Electronic Tax Lodgement Makers Production Companies Publicists 18 Hill Street, Sculptors Sound Technicians Singers Richmond, Victoria 3121 Telephone 03 9428 3855 Stunt Persons Theatre Companies Writers

NEG MATCHING

GRADING EDLS FOR TELECINE OR ‘OFF-TAPE’ GRADING ‘ N/G TAKES REMOVED FRAME CRITICAL NEG CUTTING DIRECT FROM EDL OR VIA A POS CONFORM 2 OSC/RS & 2 KEYCODE-SCANNING WORKSTATIONS • PAL OR NTSC NEG PULLS - STOP TO STOP OR MINIMUM ‘HANDLES’ FAST COMPILE ONLINE EDLS ANY FORMAT DISK/EDL IN OR OUT P TY LTD ‘POS’ CLIPS PULLED FAST c o n t a c t

Greg Chapman

(02) 439 3988

fax

(02) 437 5074

K i C L A R K E S T R E E T C R O W S N E S T NSW 2065 C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

C H A R L E S STURT U

CCI

Charles Sturt University is one of Australia’s largest regional universities with campuses at Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst and Wagga Wagga. The following position is located at Wagga Wagga.

TELEVISION PRODUCTION Associate Lecturer/Lecturer

The successful applicant will be required to teach subjects in television multicamera for studio and outside broadcast production within the Bachelor of Arts (Television Production). In addition, he or she will be required to build and maintain contacts with the television industry. A tertiary qualification in an appropriate area or equivalent recent industry experience in essential. A Postgraduate qualification and previous tertiary teaching experience are desirable. For further information, contact Dr Frank Molloy, Head, School of visual and Performing Arts, telephone (069) 332589. Application forms and position information material are available from the Wagga Wagga Personnel Office, telephone (069) 332230.

Applications close on 12 April, 1996

E q u a l o p p o r t u n it y in e m p lo y m e n t is U n iv e r s it y p o lic y .

Internet Address http://www.csu.edu.au

technicalities

The Shape of Things to Come o into any art gallery: you will find every picture is not only a differ ent size, but also a different shape. And every picture has a frame made to fit. Film and television don’t have the same freedom: the picture must be made to fit the frame, or the screen. This places an onus on the technologists to provide the ideal shape - or aspect ratio - for moving pictures. Is there an ideal shape? The early movies quite quickly stan dardized on the familiar 1.33:1 or 4x3 shape (4 units across, three high). The introduction of optical sound-on-film in 1928 chopped ten per cent off the width of the picture, and chaos ruled until the Academy of M otion Picture Arts and Sciences settled on 1.37:1 (the “Academy Frame”). Television was at first restricted by the need to fit the image onto a round p icture tube, and a square picture seemed the most efficient use of the given area. However, an NTSC com mittee in 1940 found that “since most of man’s [sic] movements take place in the horizontal plane, there should be more freedom of movement in the hor izontal direction” and television soon settled on a simple 4x3 - almost exactly the same as the cinema. (For no appar ent reason, film is always expressed as a ratio (e.g., 1.33:1) and television as a dim ension (e.g., 4 x 3): both mean exactly the same.) When television viewing ate into cin ema attendances, the film industry hit back with the wide screen. Two systems prevailed: anamorphic (e.g., Cinemas cope), in which a picture ratio of 2.35:1 is squeezed onto a nearly square film frame; and widescreen (1.85:1), which, misleadingly, is achieved simply by crop ping top and bottom off a norm al Academy frame image, and projecting it larger to restore it to the full height of the screen. C inem atographers continued to expose the full Academy frame (as they do to this day) as there was at first no common standard. 1950s audiences were subjected to Fred Astaire films sans feet; other actors often had heads truncated. The ultimate standard of 1.85:1 seems to have been picked simply as a convenient average between Academy and Anamor

phic ratios. In Europe, a less-wide ratio of 1.66:1 is adopted - for no better rea son, although it seems to approximate to the so-called “golden ratio” of 1.618, a number that emerges from mathematics and crops up in classical art, architecture, psychology, biology and chaos theory (among others!). When Hollywood gave up the fight and allowed its movies to be shown on television (converging technologies!), it soon became apparent that television screens could not be widened as easily as cinem a screens. C ropping nowaffected the sides of im ages, and the problem remains with us to this day. Essentially, systems with different aspect ratios are incompatible. Some compromises must be made in translat ing betw een one and the other. Cinematographers for many years have adopted a practice known as “shoot and protect”. Pictures destined for both the atrical and television release are best shot with an open or Academy gate in the cam era. R eticles engraved on the viewfinder show the limits of the cinema screen: essential action must be kept within this area, but unwanted images (booms, dolly tracks, set tops, etc.) must be kept out of it. This no-man’s-land has been called “fluff”. W hen 16mm (1.33:1) or Super 16 (1.66:1) is blown up to 35mm, a wide screen frame line matte is often “burnt in” to the interpos, or the print, to ensure that prints are racked correctly when projected, and to totally eliminate distracting camera or printer frame lines. This crops some m aterial from top and bottom of the original image. However, if a telecine master is to be made from such a print, the “fluff’ areas are no longer available for scanning, and the image must be enlarged to fill screen, with consequent cropping at left and right as well. In the case of ’scope pictures, nearly half the frame is cropped from left and right at telecine, and so panning and scanning is required to select the most important part of the frame. Invariably, the o rigin al film ’s com position is severely compromised by this technique. In a seminar at SMPTE (Sydney 1995), Derek M alone of Roadshow demon strated the utter im p o ssib ility of reframing a celebrated scene from The Remains o f the Day (James Ivory, 1994) without serious loss of value.

An alternative solution is “letter boxing” to create a wider aspect ratio on standard television. A black mask appears at top and bottom of the screen, but the full width of the filmed image is visible. Of course, the image is smaller. A bigger television screen is no help as resolution is limited by the number of lines used for the image. American television audiences generally will not accept this; Europeans do; and in Britain and Australia it seems that commercial channel audiences pre fer full-screen cropped images w hile letterbox has appeared mainly on SBS and the UK’s Channel 4 movies. Fitting film into television is confused by one more factor: most domestic tele vision sets underscan: that is, they crop a certain amount of the picture. This is simply an issue of manufacturing and adjustment tolerances to avoid the risk of non-image data running up and down the edges of the screen. As a result, an area known as “safe picture area” or “TV essential” is defined within the normal 4 x 3 area, where it is certain that images w ill be seen. An even sm aller area is known as “safe title area”. Titles should be inside this area, which, vertically, is a little bit tighter than 1.85:1 masking. Anything outside “TV essential” may be seen on some sets, but not all. H isto rically, television has been handicapped in its flexibility to change: aspect ratio is entirely governed by the shape of the display tube in many mil lions of domestic lounge rooms. Any change is not to be taken lightly. Still, there has been general consensus that a wider screen would be better, most par ticularly for sport (with the possible exception of high diving!). Astonish ingly, the different proposals for high definition, extended definition and dig ital television seem to agree on one common aspect ratio - 16 x 9, or about 1.77:1 - although the American Society of Cinematographers maintains a rear guard action in favour of 2:1. W hy 1 6 x 9 ? M any reasons are reported. Practically, it’s a convenient average between the two widescreen ratios (1 .8 5 :1 and 1 .6 6 :1 ), thereby requiring very little cropping from films in either format. For the m athem ati cians, it fits into a neat series: standard television is 4/3; widescreen television is 4/3 x 4/3; ’scope is 4/3 x 4/3 x 4/3. For digital engineers, one argument starts

from the current digital standard of 720 samples per line for 4 x 3 television, increases this to 920 for widescreen, and doubles it to fit a generally agreed goal for HDTV. Assuming square pixels, this is an im age of 1920 x 1080 p ixels, almost exactly 2 Megabytes. Any other ratio would either fail the resolution test or would overflow convenient memory chips. Finally, for those who can’t get enough television, it’s possible to fit a large 4 x 3 image with three small ones down the side, onto one wide screen. Currently, delivery on film seems the best bet if both conventional 4 x 3 tele vision and wide screen television are to be catered for. If a 4 x 3 videotape is converted to w idescreen television, there must be a loss of resolution, as roughly two-thirds of the video image will be enlarged to full height.

MEDIA RELEASE Zero One Zero becomes "One-stop Shop" with Ursa Gold and Digital Audio suites completed February 1996 marked the official launch of Zero One Zero’s new Ursa Gold telecine and Digital Audio suite. Zero One Zero’s Ursa Gold with da Vinci Digital 8:8:8 Renaissance grading system features, for the first time in Aus tralia, the unique Aaton keylink system, Snell & Wilcox digital vision mixer and Artisan. Other features include optical effects, Jum p Free, V ariSpeed and a dedicated digital betacam machine. Senior C olorist is Paul H olm es. Holmes, from Windmill Lane Pictures, Dublin, has worked with the cream of Europe on high-end commercials, doc umentaries, music clips and features. Holmes:

The Ursa Gold has become the world standard for the highest quality filmto-tape transfer. The Ursa Gold at Zero One Zero is the most advanced system in Australia with greater flex ibility and range of effects than ever before. The layout and design of the suite is also of the highest q u ality, combining technical excellence with a luxurious interior. This process of expansion and reshaping Zero One Zero to become a complete post house, or one-stop shop, began in 1994 with the installation of the most powerful digital online suite in Australia, the Sony 9100. Soon to follow was the installation of the AVID M C8000, the F1AL Express and extensive renovations to house all the new equipment. The biggest turning point for the company was when David Quinn, Zero One Zero’s Senior Editor, went to Las Vegas to attend the NAB conference and sign an order for an Ursa lr —^ Gold telecine. Quinn also spent m any hours researching post P®® C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

ntityand markelpg I interface,intep^ & infoirnatic|rÂŽ|

Marigold Design Group is a fusion of designers, programmers and art directors working in multi-media, 3D presentations, film, television and print. By maintaining a fresh eye and professional approach, Marigold has accumulated a body of work of great variety, although projects have tended toward corporate identity, typography and information design for interactive multi-media, W3, film, television and exhibition graphics. S I |

incorporated in NSW. ACN 06G 416 882

Level 10, 1 Elizabeth Plaza, North Sydney 2060

c in e s u r e

(off Mount Street) • PO Box 1155 North Sydney 2059 Telephone (02) 9954 1477 Facsim ile (02) 9954 1585

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

Film Producers Indem nity (Cast) N egatives and V ideotapes Errors and O m issions A dditional Expenses Props, Cam eras, Lighting, Sound Equipm ent Public Liability Money ourT

EAM

J o h n H e n n in g s G ra h a m B u tt M e g a n 0 9R ile y ACN: 007 698 062

IB iB IllllillM il

The Finest Motion Picture Rental Equipment

docum entary

Spottin the Trends Freda Freiberg review s the recen t D ocum entary C onference or five days at the end of last N ovem ber, the n o rm ally nefarious Fitzroy Street, in St Kilda, was taken over by the Fourth In tern atio n al Documentary Film Confer ence. The foyer and three cinemas of the George, the p ark across the road, the pub up the road, and Stop 22, the gallery space housed mer St Kilda Railway Station, all buzzed with documentary doings, dealings and debates. Conference participants were predominantly documentary filmmak ers, but a significant sprinkling of media bureaucrats, teachers and critics were also present. In addition to the large con tingents from all the Australian states, many overseas visitors attended, includ ing a goo dly num ber of Asian documentary filmmakers, whose partic ipation was fostered by the collaboration of Netpac (the network for the promo tion of A sian cinem a) w ith the Conference organizers. As at all film conferences, the pro gram m e was tigh tly packed with concurrent and continuous screenings and seminars, lectures and workshops. Difficult choices had to be made between the competing claims of the programme, complicated by the pressure to satisfy basic human needs (for rest, food and drink, shelter from the elem ents - it was unusually warm for Melbourne - and social intercourse). It was noticeable that filmmakers favoured those sessions which enabled them to hear and meet the net w ork personnel responsible for the development, programming and acquisi tion of docum entaries. In p articular, veteran ex-pat and cinéma vérité guru Mike Rubbo, who has recently returned to his native shores to assume the posi tion of Flead of Documentary at ABC TV, received the kind of welcome nor mally reserved for conquering heroes in wartime. On the other hand, screenings of visiting filmmakers, especially those from Asia, were poorly attended. The tendency to pursue the television network personnel is understandable, given the lim ited range of options for sales and exhibition of documentaries, and so can be interpreted as enlightened self-interest; but the failure to attend the screenings and sessions with Asian visi tors can also be interpreted as a sign of parochialism , an intellectual narrow mindedness that restricts interest to local concerns, or even as discourtesy to peo ple who have bothered to travel long distances and brave the language and cul-

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

tural barriers to present their work here. The Conference generally reflected the death and burial of the broad left coalition of issue-based oppositional film m aking. On the local scene, that coalition has disintegrated and splintered since the demise of the Sydney Film makers Co-operative a decade or so ago. In its place, there has emerged a plethora of separate issues, and special-interest ingroups the forpromoting their own particular agendas. Whereas in the past documen tary filmmakers felt free to pursue a wide range of issues, they are now more cir-

haps this is unavoidable, in our frag mented times. Access to media technology, as the means to self-representation, has been of paramount importance to the feminist, gay and black rights movements. How ever, after the initial period of access to and consolidation of resources, a rigidlyimposed separatism can prove counterproductive and divisive. By confining membership of the-group-withthe-right-to-speak to an exclusive biolog ical, cultural or social category, you not only risk alienating existing and potential

Kim Longinotto's Shinjuku Boys

cumspect before rushing in to embrace a cause. Their right to speak on behalf of others has been questioned. Given the excessive amount of footage that white filmmakers have devoted to Aboriginal subjects and issues, it is hardly surpris ing that black filmmakers are requesting a moratorium and asserting their right to speak for themselves. On the other hand, in this reclaiming of territory, and assertion of the right to speak on one’s own behalf, there is a danger that issues will become exclusively identified with the desires and agendas of a particular minority, community or sub-culture, and fail to appeal to a wider audience. Per-

supporters of your cause but also fly in the face of social realities, for there are no pure cultures, societies or peoples. But the historical victims of racism, sexism and homophobia bear scars and grudges that are not quickly or easily removed, and understandably seek support and solidar ity with their own kind. There are also basic economic considerations, as Koori activist Richard Frankland pointed out in a session at the Conference. The fragmentation of the audience into separate interest groups was evident at the Conference. Aboriginal activists, gay activists and nuclear activists attended separate sessions with few signs

of audience crossovers. Australian film veterans and film historians attended the sessions devoted to the film m aking careers of John H eyer, Colin Dean, M aslyn W illiam s and Judy Adamson. Sessions devoted to the work of the Asian documentary filmmakers were attended by a small core of Asian film specialists and Australian documentary filmmakers with knowledge of the region. But, given the fragmentation of the audience and the splintering of coali tions, certain trends were visible across the board. The major discernible trend was towards the personal diary film - on video and super-8, cheap and easily transportable formats. Perhaps this is another sign of the retreat from the political into the personal, or a pragmatic strategic move away from the uncom p ro m isingly po lem ical tow ards the commercially packageable. It is signifi cant that Rubbo indicated his preference for quirky personal films like Sherman’s M arch (Ross M cE lw ee, 1986) over broad issue-based docos, for microcosmic dram a over the m acrocosm ic viewpoint. Like Ross McElwee, fellow American Conference guest Ellen Spiro travelled around the Deep South on her own per sonal quest, but it’s a very different quest from his and her diary film (Greetings from Out Here ) revealing a very differ ent Deep South. T rav ellin g by campervan, accompanied by her dog and video camera, she unearths a rich vari ety of gay activity in this unlikely terrain, conveying the information gleaned from her research in a warm and witty com mentary on the move from one location to the next, from one arresting charac ter to the next. Engaged and engaging, this personal road movie sweeps you along in its constant movement and its light polem ical charge on a charming voyage of discovery. A very young Japanese visitor, Naomi Kawase, a member of a super-8 film club in Nara, showed us her personal diaryfilm, Like Air, shot on super-8, about her search for her unknown father. Another journey film, full of comings and goings, it is poetic, disjunctive, am bivalent, and stran gely m oving in a very con temporary way. Less experim ental in construction, but powerful in emotional impact, were two A ustralian video diaries w hich explored the daily routines, thoughts and feelings of two lonely people. They were com m issioned for an Open __ C hannel and SBS-sponsored series of video diaries called First

history

Morals and the Mutoscope In part 18 o f this series, Chris Long and Bob Klepner examine the M utoscope and Australia’s first m ajor censorship prosecution

You drop a p en n y ui a slot Then g lu e y o u r ey e with aw esom e hush

T h ere’s a new and fea r fu l thin g in town T h at’s ca u sin g quite a rush

English cast-iron Mutoscope, c. 1902. It is typical of the first such machines to reach Australia. Bob Klepner collection, Melbourne.

he Mutoscope movie viewer made its Australasian début in Brisbane on 10 October 1 9 0 2 .1 This coin-slot peepshow w orked on the flip-card principle. Succes sive movie fram es w ere contact printed onto photo graphic paper from 70mm negative film . The cards were mounted radially on a metal drum, which was rotated by a crank handle operated by the person viewing. A metal finger in the machine flipped the suc cessive prints past the viewer. Mutoscope parlours exhibiting up to 50 machines were established in Aus tralia’s major capitals by 1903. Initially, they were fairly prestigious venues with edifying fare including news films of Royal pageants, the Boer W ar and even Pope Leo XIII. However, peepshows inherently provided a privacy of view ing unattainable in a cinema. Patrons were less inhibited in watching risqué material. The American Mutoscope and Biograph Com pany catered to these tastes more than its British counterparts, which were then supplying most of Aus-

Of yo u n g and ch arm ing dam es to frown And policem en old to blush [...]

tr a lia ’s cinem atic fare. E xploitative M utoscope reels like A P eepin g Tom, Who O w ned the Corset? and The Maid e n ’s Midnight R om p 2 had an outraged clergyman complaining to Victoria’s Pre mier. It triggered Australia’s first major movie censorship battle. In February 1904, Melbourne’s notorious “wowser” elem ent sent the police to confiscate offending Mutoscope reels. Court cases ensued, reels w ere seized and the m ach in e’s p u b licity was m agnified beyond the exhibitor’s wildest dreams. Today, the Mutoscope’s fascination lies not only in the content of those early reels, but in their frequent survival. The flip-card reels are wonderfully durable. Many have outlived the unstable nitrate films from which they were printed. The authors are aw are of more than 150 M utoscopes and perhaps double that number of reels surviving in Australia alone. It’s a heritage worthy of more serious and accurate study than the cur rent literature provides.

The Mutoscope's Origins The flip-card idea was an old one, patented by Coleman Sellers in America

To one sm a ll lens and then y o u ’ve g o t The m u toscopic blush [...] B a lla r a t

as far back as 1 8 6 1 .3 H ow ever, the developm ent of the concept into a commercial reality for movie display largely originated with Edison’s associ ate, William Kennedy Laurie Dickson. Dickson was chiefly responsible for the development of 35mm movie film (1892) and for the worldwide commer cializatio n of movie film as an en tertain m en t via the kinetoscope (1894).4 By the middle of 1894, Dick son becam e discontented in his association with Edison. W hile still in Edison’s employ, Dickson had informal associations with at least two indepen dent movie developm ents. First, he assisted the Latham family in devising a projector for kinetoscope films, known as the “Eidoloscope”4. A press screening was given on 21 A pril 1895, and it opened com m ercially in a New York storefront theatre on 20 M ay 18 9 5 .6 M ore than seven m onths before the Lumières’ commercial début, this date is conveniently ignored by French cinema protagonists! Dickson’s other independent associ ation was w ith the engineers H. N. M arvin and Herm an Casier, and the

C o u r ie r ,

25April 1905, p. 2

financial backer, E. B. Koopman. In 1894, Dickson indicated the commercial potential of a flip-card movie viewer to Marvin. Koopman came in as backer and the young Syracuse inventordesigner, Herman Casler (1867-1939), worked out many details and mechani cal improvements.8 They teamed as the “KMCD S yn d icate” (an acronym derived from their surnames). Casler b u ilt a pro to typ e M utoscope using frames cut from a kinetoscope film, and then applied for an in itial patent on the device (U.S. No. 5 4 9 3 0 9 ) on 21 November 1894.9 Edison was approached for the sup ply of kinetoscope film s for the Mutoscope, but bluntly refused to co o p e rate .10 The group was forced to devise its own film supply. With liberal guidance from Dickson, Casler built a movie camera to supply subjects for the Mutoscope in the first half of 1895.11 It purposely avoided any similarity or patent conflict with the ear lier Edison “B lack M a ria ” cam era. 70mm unperforated film was electrically driven through the cam era.12 Fed by a friction ro ller and an eccentric cam, C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

A Peeping Tom: frame enlargements from one of the four Mutoscope reels precipitating one of Australia's first movie obscenity trials (1904). Melbourne Magistrate Panton declared in court on 11 March 1904 that this was "most degrading" and "a disgraceful exhibition". Courtesy of Bob Klepner. Tom peeks through the window as some schoolgirls undress. One of the girls flings a handbasin of water over the voyeur. As the reel closes, the girls laugh uproariously at their victory over the voyeur.

the images were intentionally irregularly spaced, but w ith reg istratio n holes punched while each image was exposed in the cam era.13 These holes could be used to register the images in the mak ing of film prints, or for printing onto paper for use in the Mutoscope. Each im age was 70m m by 55m m , running right out to the edges of the unperfo rated film .14 These provided an image area eight tim es greater than that of 35mm film, with consequent superb def in itio n .15 W ith its 2.5 horsepow er electric m otor, the so-called “M utograph” camera was claimed to be able to shoot film at 60 frames per second16, although most surviving films from the period appear to project correctly at about half that rate. Through the latter half of 1895 and into 1896, the team temporarily diverted its efforts away from the flip-card viewer to produce m ovie subjects and to develop a film projection system.1' Dick son resigned from Edison’s employ on 2 April 18 9 5 18 to work exclusively for the KMCD S yn d icate, and this also accelerated the progress. Projection was experimentally achieved at the group’s C an astota (N ew York) w orkshop in November 189519, at about the time that the concern changed its name to “The American Mutoscope Com pany”, and dubbed its projector “The Biograph”. The commercial début of the Biograph with its 70mm films took place at the Alvin Theatre in Pittsburgh on 14 Sep tember 1896.20 With its high projection speed, superb image definition and large screen size, it gave an illusion of moving reality superior to anything exhibited previously. A series of projection demon strations by the broad-gauge Biograph then proceeded in various theatres across the U.S. C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

M utoscope developm ent had not been at a complete standstill through this period. Joseph M ason filed a patent (U.S. No. 603112) in December 1896 for coin-slot operation of the M uto scope. This mechanism never appears to have been produced in quantity.21 All of the surviving coin-slot Mutoscopes are based on patents filed by Casler (U.S. Nos. 652713 and 652714) in February 1898. These cover tim ing and clutch mechanisms, an illumination system and the coin mechanism. Casler also made a contribution to the Mutoscope in M ay 1897 by patent ing (U.S. No. 5 9 7 7 5 9 ) a system of interleaving the image photographs with plain cards to speed up the “snap” from one image to the next, adding resilience to the reels. The earliest American Muto scope Company reels, now very rare, had between 1200 and 1500 images. This was later reduced to a standard of around 800 to 900 cards, with a running time of about a minute. The earliest Mutoscopes (model “A”) were housed in hexagonal wooden cab inets, as illustrated in Casler’s February 1896 patent. However, the first machines

to reach Australia were octagonal castiron models manufactured in England, and m ounted on an ornate p illar or stand. One of these is shown on the cover of the M elbourne War Cry of 5 March 1904. Although coin-operated Mutoscopes had been com m ercially exhibited in America since the start of 1897--, only limited numbers of machines with the Mason mechanism appear to have been placed on trial. Large-scale exhibitions began in 1898 at the time that Casler’s mechanism appeared.23

saw one in London, which he noted in his diary on 20 August 1898:

Australian Entry Via Britain

However, no M utoscopes were com mercially exhibited in Australasia for the next four years. T ait could not have bought the machines as they w ere, at that time, leased out by the International Mutoscope and Biograph Syndicate of London. Brass plates on the machines announced that they remained the prop erty of the Company. Outright sales of Mutoscopes to interested parties did not begin until well after March 1900, when a prospectus indicated that machines were only available on a territorial con cession basis.26 Exhibition territories

Like most cinematic innovations of the turn of the century, the Mutoscope came to Australia via Britain. A few machines had just been introduced in various Lon don locations when the Mutoscope was exhibited at the National Photographic & Allied Trades Exhibition at London’s Baker Street from 22 to 30 April 1896.24 A ustralian th eatrical en trep ren eurs searching Britain for novel attractions soon noticed these peepshows. Charles Tait, one of the brothers later associated with The Story o f the Kelly Gang (1906),

Stew art Bale who is an advertisin g expert with a large piano firm [...] told me about a new autom atic machine called the Mutoscope, as being one of the most successful automatic machines of the age. I saw it w o rk and was amazed. I’ll buy 12 if the price is rea sonable [...] C alled on the London agents for the Polyphone [which] run Living Pictures, penny in the slot, but they are poor in com parison to the Mutoscope.2j

history

Above: Cover illustration from Melbourne's War Cry, 5 March 1904, showing English cast-iron Mutoscope then used in Australia. It is interesting to note that this caricature by a Salvation Army artist depicts Satan cranking a machine with views of the Russo-Japanese war. One can only assume they considered this a greater obscenity than the girlie' reels which were then the subject of a Melbourne court case. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne.

Top right: First Mutoscope reel brought to Australia? In 1901, the Royal couple touring Australia brought out a Mutoscope aboard the "Ophir" with reels of their children. Here, the future King Edward VIII is seen in 1901 35 years before his liaison with Mrs W allis Simpson forced him to renounce the throne. Reel shot by Joseph Mason for the British Mutoscope and Biograph Company.

Early English cast-iron Mutoscope with door open to reveal the flip-card reel. Bob Klepner collection, Melbourne.

were sold, but individual machines were only made available to territorial con cessionaires. There are several possible reasons for the relatively late (1902) arrival of Mutoscopes in Australia. The Mutoscope and Biograph Company’s Australian exhibi tions of 70mm film began in August 1897 through Harry Rickards’ theatres.2 The brevity' of the initial run of exhibi tions of its Biograph suggests that com m ercial results in A ustralia were mediocre. When H. G. L. W yld and C. H. Freedman re-introduced the 70mm exhibitions in May 1900, things im p r o v e d .28 The integrated

programmes of Boer War films actually shot at the seat of battle created a sen sation.29 Many of the films were wholly or partly printed as Mutoscope reels.30 However, the Biograph exhibitors may have feared that m iniaturized M uto scope exhibitions of the same subjects w ould lessen the im pact and profit potential of their screenings. In fact, the local demise of 70mm Biograph exhi bition in Australia does coincide with the introduction of the Mutoscope. Before 1902, only one Mutoscope is known to have reached Australia. It was not commercially exhibited and the cir cumstances were unusual. It came out aboard the Royal Yacht, the “Ophir”, during the Royal Tour of Australasia in 1901.31 H oused in a w ooden cabinet designed to match the ship’s fittings, it was a presentation model displaying reels of the visiting Royal couple’s chil dren at play. As their offspring had to be left in England during the seven months of the tour, the reels must have been a poignant reminder of home, par ticularly to the Duchess of York (later Queen Mary).32 The machine may have been presented by the Mutoscope Com pany in thanks for perm ittin g the film ing of the R oyal ch ildren . The machine survives in the Will Day Col lection at the C iném athèque Française in Paris.33 The authors should emphasize that the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company was much more than just a minor amusement novelty pro ducer. It was established with $2 million of publicly subscribed cap ital in 1 8 9 5 .34 Its fortunes were consolidated by the success of its broad-gauge film exhibitions. The com pany’s cam eram en travelled widely, shooting news and actuality films, apparently unhampered by the bulk of their cameras and batterypower supplies. A studio at 841 Broadway, New York, sup plem ented this output to supply the company’s exhibition units w o r ld w id e .F ilm in g extended to Britain in M ay 189736, and to other European countries in the following year.J/ By 1899, the M utoscope and B iograph Com pany was A m erica’s largest film producer, with an interna tional network of corporate affiliates in

Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Bel gium, South Africa, Italy and India.38 Its success was exclusively based on the exhibitio n of its own non-standard 70mm films via projection and through the Mutoscope. Technically barred from the exhibition of any other producer’s films, this was a rem arkable achieve ment. As just one m an ifestatio n of the Com pany, the M utoscope m ust be regarded as something central to the success of the pioneering movie indus try. It was much more than the “mere b ackw ater for the m otion picture stream”39 that is implied by Terry Ramsaye and other movie chroniclers. This is the com pany w hich gave birth to the careers of D. W . G riffith, M ary Pickford, Mack Sennett, the Gishes and cameraman Billy Bitzer, and which in 1910 would be in the vanguard of the W estern move to H ollyw ood and is worthy of more serious recognition.40

Australia's Mutoscope Début Gordon Hendricks in his ground-break ing volum e, B eg in n in g s o f the B iogm phA\ notes that researching the Mutoscope through newspapers pre sents a problem. “The current press, then as now, took little notice of arcade entertainment.”42 One’s knowledge of Australian Mutoscope débuts is limited by the lack of detailed reports in local newspapers. One can be sure that the first Aus tralasian exhibitions of the Mutoscope occurred in Brisbane, and they were probably controlled by a company based in that city. Australian collectors have noticed that Mutoscopes with the low est serial numbers found in this country invariably bear nameplates with the leg end “Licensed for use in Queensland only by the International Mutoscope Syndicate, London”.43 The Brisbane Courier of 8 October 1902 published the earliest known A ustralian adver tisement for a Mutoscope show.44 25 machines were to be exhibited at Bain’s Photographic Studio in Queen Street, Brisbane, on 10 October 1902. The first day’s takings, about £25 in pennies from the 25 Mutoscopes, was donated to the Hospital Aid Association.45 This gesture ensured the patronage of M ayor L. G. Corrie of Brisbane, and favourable sub sequent p u b licity in the Brisbane C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

papers.46 Within a week, the Brisbane Courier noted that the Mutoscope show was attractin g “over 6000 patrons d a ily ”4 and th at they had “5 0 ,0 0 0 records to choose from”. Presuming that this meant 50,000 images, it would indi cate that the Company had 50 reels to show, or roughly two for each machine. No note of the subjects of the reels shown in Brisbane has been located. These were Australia’s first automatic penny-in-the-slot movie peepshows. Australia’s earlier displays of the Edison kinetoscope between 1894 and 1897 levied a shilling’s charge for admission to their venue. They had no coin mech anism.48 Little is known of the A ustralian company exhibiting the Mutoscope. By 1904, there was an “Australasian Muto scope Company Limited” touring the backblocks of Queensland with a set of Mutoscopes accompanying demonstra tions of film projection by the “Biotint”49, and this may have been the same concern. Its general manager at that tim e was listed as a W ill Hollinworth, but we know nothing of him other than the name. Mutoscope press reports were given in much greater detail when the com pany commenced its Sydney exhibitions on 12 December 19027° There, the show was given on a greatly expanded scale. Two shopfront venues w ere opened for the machine’s exhibition on that day, one at 290 George Street and

the other at 74 Oxford Streetd1 There were fifty machines at each venue, a total of 100 machinesd2 The companyrepeated its Brisbane tactics by giving its first day of Sydney takings to the “Hos pital Saturday Lund”, which ensured that the Lord Mayor of Sydney would attend the opening - with consequent publicity- for the show. Three months later, the Sydney Mutoscope venues were still thriving and The Bulletin reported: NSW is gradually being dotted over with the Mutoscope, the new machine into which you drop a penny, turn the handle, and see moving pictures [...] The Co. has two stands in Sydney, and is exhibiting the machines in various suburban and country locations [...]>3 On 11 April 1903, The Bulletin gave the first intim ations that trouble might occur owing to the risqué fare being purveyed via this peepshow: Waiting for some reverend howler to open up a crusade against the Mutoscope. In ‘Sylvia U ndressing’, ‘ [A] Peeping Tom ’, ‘Who owned the Corset[?]’ etc., the spectator who has invested a penny is just thinking he is going to see something shocking when the light goes, and the penny, which has been acting as a joint in the circuit, falls down into the cash box with a sound like a fat chuckle. ‘Great is the art of finishing’. Why doesn’t some parson arise and denounce the

machine for leaving off in this villain ous manner?^4 The reels that the Australasian M uto scope Company chose to advertise gave an entirely different impression of their fare. By July 1903, a Melbourne Muto scope venue at the Eden photographic studio, 149 Swanston Street, boasted reels of The Pope [Leo XIII] Blessing his P eo p le , Speed Trials o f HMS Viper, A Bull Fight in S pain , C harge o f the Citrassiers and Finish o f the [English?] Derby.^ The Bulletin indicated that such false impressions of high ideals were rapidly slipping: Watching the public at the Mutoscope came to the conclusion that the machines labelled ‘High Kicking’, ‘[A] Peeping Tom’, ‘[The] Maiden’s M id night Romp’ &c. would soon break dow-n through overwork, whilst those entitled ‘R iding with K itchener’, ‘Coronation Scenes’ &c., will proba bly die of starvation. As I possessed a penny at the time, had a look at one of the first-m entioned and was shocked. When I have another penny am going to get shocked againd6 By the end of 1903, there was a Muto scope parlour in Brisbane, at least two in Sydney (including a new one at Man ly’s Ocean Beach)’ , two in Melbourne and even an extension of operations into New Zealand. The Sydney opera tors had been “packing plant and duplicates for an early opening in Maorila n d ”’ 8 late in N ovem ber. On 9 D ecember, a M utoscope Parlour opened at Barnett’s Buildings, W illis Street, Wellington, with 20 machines, the reels advertised including The Great Indian Durbar and What Happened to J o n es H Again, the first day’s takings were donated to the local hospital. The sudden and vigorous prolifera tion of the M utoscope throughout Australasia was bound to come under official scrutiny sooner or later. The “crunch” came at the end of 1903 with a farcical charge of indecency being pur sued through the courts. N atu rally, Melbourne’s conservatism precipitated the outcry.

Obscenity Trial in Melbourne On 29 October 1903, a Rev erend W. W illiam s w rote to Victorian Premier Irvine comC I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Top left: Founders of the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - Harry Marvin, VV. K. L. Dickson, Herman Casier and Elias Koopman - in Canastota, New York, September 1895. Top middle: Casler's American patent 652,713, filed February 1898, is the basis of all the surviving Mutoscopes. His coin mechanism is seen here fitted into what would be the wooden model "A" Mutoscope. Courtesy of Bob Klepner. (Refer also British patent No. 8338 of 1899.j Top right: W. K. L. Dickson films Pope Leo XIII at the Vatican, 24 June 1898. Earliest known continental European Mutoscope and Biograph film. Note the batteries driving the huge 70mm film camera. The reel printed from the film in production here is held by Bob Klepner. From The Scientific American, 14 January 1899, pp. 24-5.

Above: Name plates from Australian Mutoscopes reveal territorial concessions. Earliest (No. 11941, c, 1902), bottom, is for Queensland: top (13096) is for "Australasia, except Queensland". Courtesy of Bob Klepner.

f,l^

the ñostetcv» O p e n Ciiy^i'-iv'jffS -P\jrn

ce/e'5ráíe ‘The '^ e a / 'ü ^ e S 'î' Colons0f i S“00"1 T han

e ° +7

r e 7 u ' r <?

h ^ ’ IJ \on S f o n 5 o r ^ > ^

k”i“ ™

S'^'irv1’vl,n0) d^/osV fW

rn ^

\o^

jo Sepferob^p

A rfo ïf^ e

Sh o rts

-p s o C ^~s ;¿zo¿l rr,'n V +

'ú c ^ u a/

'O n

C oS/*5

c / o / i i eSB | H

t ç

/ ess

,t^°rry' ,°'S jç o r ^

* *

e r

?V?^)S t T k

The Uruvertirv of Newcaiile

' í 0^ )

¿ lié

C \¿f £/•

Howto Make an American Quilt

Tim Robbins'

Raúl Ruiz

DeadMan Walking

F lN C IN A H O P G O O D delights in Jocelyn M oorhouse’s first American feature and its valuing o f female ^ —- -i^_ storytelling ^.S

P eter M alone is impressed

--fri--— by Tim Robbins’ jgBfc- \ W m t\ K

mfmmf'

R obert N ery examines

fair-m inded exam ination o f capital punishm ent in Dead M an W alking

possible readings o f “narrative drive” in the works o f Raúl Ruiz

hat happens to a filmmaker

fantastic situations. They’ll be

observe the filmmaking process

who has pushed all the

shocked by the fact that he’s made

critically.

boundaries? In Almodovar’s case, a “mainstream” film, about people he’s turned back the clock, paid who are just a bit crazy. homage to Frank Capra and made a

THE FLOWER OF MY SECRET (L A FLOR D E M I S E C R E T O )

F lo w e r o f M y S e c re t

attempting to console a distraught mother: her son is dead, even

does have many of his trademarks.

though he’s being kept ‘alive’ by

the marvellous inconsistencies of

There are

artificial means. Will she or won’t

human nature.

n e rv o u s b r e a k d o w n ,

F lo r d e m i S e c re to )

Directed by Pedro Alm odovar. Executive

But T he

T h e F lo w e r o f M y S ec ret

begins with two doctors clumsily

quirky film about love, betrayal and

will have people

w o m e n on th e v erg e o f a

in ridiculous

T h e F lo w e r o f M y S e c re t {La

m a ta d o r s ,

various women

she donate his organs for other

men acting

“live” people? The mood of this

and most of the char

emotionally-charged scene is cut

h igh h e e ls ,

talking about Almodovar, but not in

acters forever asking themselves,

abruptly and disturbingly, as we see

producer: Augustin Alm odovar.

the usual way. This time there’s no

“W h a t h a v e I d o n e to d eserv e t h i s i ”

the camera, panel of observers, and

Scriptw riter: Pedro Alm odovar. D irector

gender-bending, outrageous charac

of photography: Affonso Beato. Editor: Jose Salcedo. M usic: Alberto Iglesias.

As is customary in Almodovar’s

ters in strange fancy costumes and

films, the audience is forced to

Betty (Carmen Elias), the seminar director, discussing the performance with the actors.

Sound: Bernardo Menz. Cast: M arisa Paredes (Leo), Juan Echanove (Angel),

The “real” script that follows

What

(Betty), Rossy de Palma (Rosa), Chus

T h e r e is a lo n g d r a m a t i c h e r i t a g e t h a t t h e " f o o l "

is like a high-class soap opera. The central character, Leo (Marisa

Lampreve (M other), Joaquin Cortes

t e l l s t h e t r u t h a n d g iv e s w i s e a d v ic e t o t h e

Paredes), who writes Mills & Boon

(Antonio), M anuela Vargas (Blanca).

( a l le g e d ly ) s a n e . T h e f o o l t e l l s t h e t r u t h w i t h w i t ,

novels, has turned up to the seminar

Spain. 1995. 35mm. 105 mins.

ir o n y , p la y f u l jo k e s , n o n s e n s e v e r s e a n d p la i n t i v e

to see her friend, Betty, to get her

Imanol Arias (Paco), Carmen Elias

s o n g s . M a r k J o f f e 's v e r s io n o f L o u is N o w r a 's a d a p t a t i o n o f h is p la y is a g le e f u l a n d g e n t le A u s tr a lia n c o n tr ib u tio n to th is tr a d itio n . p 40

Poetics of Cinema: 1, Miscellanies

Janet Leigh's Psycho: Behind the Scenes o f the Classic

le ig h ’s account o f som e aspects

in review

performances, and the housekeep

says a lot about modern love affaires

er’s son, Antonio (Joaquin Cortes),

between creative people.

is willing to steal to get them both back on the stage.

I j

ance in S h a n g h a i

T r ia d (Y ao A h

T ao , Y ao D a o W a ip o Q ia o )

singing

j on a nightclub stage. Wearing a

ble, with Marisa Paredes as the fantastic unpreditable Leo, Juan

meringue-like confection of ostrich

own “secrets”, which erupt as the

Echanove as the soft-hearted Angel,

feathers, all in Zhang Yimou’s trade

story progresses. It’s only after they

the television star Imanol Arias as

mark red, she does a world-weary

the edge and capable of jumping

have confronted something in them

Paco, and Almodovar’s long-term

little shimmy and demands that we

into the abyss. Leo’s sister, Rosa

selves that they stand any chance of

favourite, Rossy de Palma, as the

look her up and down, inspecting

(Rossy de Palma), and her mother

survival. When Leo falls into the

family victim Rosa.

every inch of her. Why be embar

tight boots pulled off. She tells Betty

(Chus Lampreve) are locked into a

arms of Angel, it's during a student

she’s lonely, not “crazy”, and she

weird endless battle of comical

demonstration shouting don’t get

var’s films are of great interest, not

aches to see her absent husband.

absurd shouting matches, where

“fucked” by the authorities.

just in how they push the bound

Films continued

Leo’s like a wounded female

The other characters in F lo w e r o f M y S e c re t

T he

are equally on

they predict each other will end up

All the people are earning their

Almodovar’s casting is impeca

ong Li makes her first appear

The context for all this neurotic

There's no doubt that Almodo

rassed, she sings, that is what you’ve paid for? For fans of Zhang Yimou and

aries of filmmaking and of

Gong Li’s early collaborations,

warrior who’s living out her own

like the “mad” Aunt of the family.

action is modern Spain, a sophisti

characterization, but also in what

S h a n g h a i T r ia d

desperate romantic scenario, similar

These scenes are reminiscent of

cated, fast-paced, affluent country

they reveal about life in the 1990s.

More recently, he has cast her in the

to the ones she writes in her pulp

some of Almodovar’s more outra

with citizens paying the high cost of

Despite all the chaos, there’s some

less-than-glamorous roles of a heav-

fiction. She actually publishes under

geous films, despite their suburban

stress, corruption, drug dependence

thing marvellously crazy about these

ily-pregnant peasant woman in

a pseudonym, Amanda Gris, but she

setting.

and alienation with the breakdown

very cosmopolitan people and their

S to r y o f Q i u J n (Q iu f it D a G ita n s i,

of relationships, or their reduction

ultimate humanity.

to monetary transactions. For

cannot stop herself writing “real”

The visual style of these claus

novels where characters experience

trophobic scenes and of Leo’s

pain and betrayal, as well as love.

confrontation with Paco is particu

arolyn

U eda & M

1992) and a dowdy matron in argaret

mith

instance, Leo has signed a contract

L in e (H u o z h e ,

T he

1994). This latest

film marks a return to the sultry-’,

with her publishers that specifies she

SHANGHAI TRIAD

write books with blue skies, yuppies,

(Y A O A H Y A O , Y A O D A O W A IP O Q IA O )

happy endings and no politics. And

is a great relief.

sour-sweet image that made Gong Li the only Chinese star known around the globe.

when Angel saves Leo from breach

Directed by Zhang Yimou. Producers:

of contract, he admits to anticipat

Jean Louis Piel, Yves M arm ion (UGC),

back to what audiences came to

W u Yigong (Shanghai Film Studios).

expect from a Zhang Yimou film

ing a 80/20 percent split in the

Executive producers: W ang W ei, Zhu

royalties. Almodovar’s delightful cynicism permeates everything. He shows up the commercial realities of art: you must copyright everything, even garbage, because someone is bound to steal the idea for a film. His depiction of this high-pitched lifestyle is heightened by a sound track filled with ringing phones,

Yongde. S criptw rite r: Bi Feiyu, from the novel Gang Law by Li Xiao. D irector of photography: Lu Yue. Editor: Tu Yuan.

Jing. Cast: Gong Li (Bijou), Li Baotian

S h a n g h a i T r ia d

takes us

S o rg h u m (F lo n g G a o lia n g ,

1988 ) ,J t t d o u (1990) and R a is e

th e

R e d L a n te r n (H o n g D e n g lo n g G ao

1991) in many other

respects, too. It is a highly-stylized rendering of historical settings fea

(Boss Tang), Li Xuejian (Uncle Liu), Sun Chun (M r. Song), W ang Xiaoxiao (Shuisheng). A Shanghai Film Studios, UGC Images, La Sept. Cinema co

after R e d

G ao G u a,

Production designer: Cao Jiuping. Costumes: Tong Huamiao. Sound: Tao

operation w ith pa rticipation of the

Indeed,

tures, again. In this case, it is not feudal China, but the underworld of that most alluring sin city, 1930s Shanghai. Again, the colours are rich

buzzers and the electronic noise of

M in is try of Foreign A ffa irs (France).

and the cinematography sensual.

video games. Often a sound is

Australian distributor: Dendy. 35mm.

Shot mostly at night, the camera

103 mins. France/China. 1995.

moves through massive, glowing

imposed on a seemingly-unconnected visual, which taxes the But when her publisher reads her

larly striking. Its key moments are

viewer to make the connection,

“reality”, the truth she creates is just

filmed against mirrors with multi

too strange, and they threaten her

ple-fractured images, in very

adding to the feeling of disorienta tion.

with breach of contract.

composed and almost classical

Leo is one of those women

The film also contrasts the old and new Spain, when Leo retreats to

Almodovar always dresses stylishly,

real at the same time, and, as an

her mother’s village. Here, the

even when she’s caught in the rain,

audience, we’re forced to keep our

director seems to be suggesting a

in bed, or driving nervously around

distance and discover what is really

synthesis of both worlds, and a kind

the streets of Madrid. He creates

going on.

of rebirth. The housekeeper’s jour

tableaux for her with the look of his film, so we’re aware that, despite all

And what is going on? Well, it

ney is created in tandem. The dance

seems through this film Almodovar

she brings to the stage at the end of the film is recognizably Spanish fla

her suffering and tears, she’s a

is suggesting that we are all in a sort

woman who really could never give

of tangled web of our making, made

menco; however, modern jazz and

up. Even when her husband Paco

even more tangled by the larger

Japanese dance elements have been

(Imanol Arias), a Lieutenant Colonel

events of our socio-political world.

added, reflecting the possibilities for

in NATO, arrives and says he can

Leo’s husband is off trying to do

the future.

only stay three hours, her frenzied

something for the Bosnians, but he

attempt to talk to him via her type

can’t talk to his own wife when she

S e c re t

writer shows Leo a survivor, despite

is at her most distraught. Leo’s

suggest a new synthesis. Leo finds

her mania for self-destruction.

friend Betty is capable of the most

the “maleness” in herself so she can

Certainly in

T he F lo w e r o f M y

the characters Leo and Angel

unexpected betrayal, and Angel

negotiate her way in the world, and

(Juan Echanove), an editor of the

Angel finds his “feminine” side and

war he finds the perfect and seem-

newspaper E l P a is to whom Leo

stops manipulating so he can listen

ingly-selfless escape from marital

goes in her effort to break out of

and learn. They are both capable of

problems. But, ironically, he can’t

her straitjacket, is not really a hard-

resurrecdon. They even negotiate

stand any sort of personal conflict,

nosed journalist but a softie who

with each other a sort of business

and even tells Leo the worst war of

wants to write romantic novels.

deal and a personal relationship that

all is having to listen to her emo

Leo’s housekeeper is really a fla

will benefit both of them. It’s an

tional outpourings.

menco dancer forsaking her public

interesting twist to a love story', and

Paco has volunteered to serve in the NATO forces in Bosnia, and in

images. They are both real and not

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

marble and mahogany interiors loaded up with deco glass and gilt.

h a i T ria d because they recognize i that the film lacks real political bite. S h a n g h a i T ria d also has the What has distinguished Zhang fable-like qualities that made Yimou’s films so far from pastiched Zhang’s early films so accessible for \ copies such as B lush (.H ongfen ) and non-Chinese audiences. As before, i F a re w e ll M y C o n cu b in e (B a w a n g we have the evil patriarch, the rebel- 1 B ie ji, Chen Kaige, 1991) is a con lious young woman, the younger temporary allegorical relevance they rival, and the child witness. lack. Li Baotian, who took on the For Chinese audiences at least, younger rival role in Ju d o u , appears 1 the despair, betrayal, patriarchal as the evil godfather, Boss Tang. oppression and failure of rebellion in Ju d o u , for example, were clearly Gong Li is his dissatisfied mistress, Bijou. And Sun Chun is Mr. Song, i legible in the wake of the 1989 Boss Tang’s second-in-command, 1 Tiananmen Massacre and led to the having an affaire with Bijou and film being banned. In contrast, at determined to take over as number most S h an gh ai T riad can be seen as one. i a parable about the dangers of wor The whole tale is seen through ' shipping mammon as China’s new market economy burgeons. This is a the eyes of young Shuisheng, giving message unlikely to touch any raw the film a B illy B ath g ate (Robert Benton, 1991) twist. A poor country i nerves with the Communist Party cousin in the Tang clan, Shuisheng i hierarchy. has come to Shanghai to join the Yet, although S h an gh ai T riad may miss out on the larger political family business, and is about to dis cover just how unpleasant relatives ] message, it very well expresses Zhang Yimou’s current difficulties can be. As always, Zhang Yimou handles 1 as a filmmaker. In the film, young Shuisheng is initially encouraged to these elements with panache. The film moves at a measured, dream-like \ see himself as a junior member of the male hierarchy that is the Tang pace, its highs and lows perfectly family. But, by the end, he has come pitched as it follows Shuisheng’s to understand that he has much coming-of-age story to its ruthless more in common with the woman conclusion. Indeed, the virtuoso final and outsider, Bijou. She appears to shots must not be missed. be a haughty and exotic embodi Had anyone other than Zhang ment of the city, but, like him, she Yimou directed S h a n gh a i T riad , it originally came from the country would certainly have been received side with dreams of changing her as a triumph and been garlanded life. And, although she has suc with international awards. Yet inter ceeded, she has less freedom and nationally, and especially in Asia, power than before, not more. the film has received a cold critical For Zhang Yimou, success has reception regardless of audience also brought ever more restrictions. enjoyment. On one hand, the Party pays special Perhaps critics expect something attention to him. After To L ive new from Zhang at this point in his incurred its wrath, it passed a special career, or even see S h a n gh a i T ria d as regulation forbidding the export of a retreat after Q iu J u and To L iv e. any negative until a film had passed Certainly, this film confirms that he censorship within China. In other is no longer at the cutting edge in words, Zhang can no longer make China. Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige films that are banned in China but and the other members of the once win at the international box-office. radical Fifth Generation have No wonder Sh an gh ai T riad plays moved on to larger budgets and it safe. more mainstream audiences these On the other hand, his produc days. ers are unwilling to invest in A new avant-garde has already anything that breaks with what they emerged in the 1990s to take their perceive as his magic formula. For place. Dealing with the nitty-gritty example, it is well-known that, since of contemporary Chinese urban life the end of his personal relationship rather than history and allegory, with Gong Li, Zhang has wanted to their most recent films include work without her, but the producers Zhang Yuan’s Sons (E rzi ), Lu have insisted otherwise. Rumour has Xuechang’s T his is H o w S teel is it that he is determined his next M a d e (G an gtie S h i Z h e ya n g L ied e), script will have no roles for women and Wang Xiaoshuai’s In to the F u r over the age of twelve and under n ace TYanre de C hengshi ), all of seventy. which will be doing the film festival But until Zhang finds a way out circuit this year. of his current double and triple Furthermore, Asian critics have binds, S h a n g h a i T ria d provides a been particularly scornful of S h an g

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1 996

Cosi Directed by Mark Joffe. Producers: Richard Brennan, Timothy White. Executive producers: Phaedon Vass, Harvey Weinstein, Bob Weinstein. Writer: Louis Nowra. Director of photography: Ellery Ryan. Production designer: Chris Kennedy. Costume designer Tess Schofield. Editor Nicholas Beauman. Cast Ben Mendelsohn (Lewis), Barry Otto (Roy), Toni Collette (Julie), Paul Chubb (Henry), Colin Fuels (Errol), Rachel Griffiths (Lucy). Australian distributor. Roadshow. 35mm. 100 mins. Australia. 1996. here is a long dramatic H

heritage that the "fool" tells the truth and gives wise

■

advice to the (allegedly) sane.

The fool tells the truth with wit, irony, playful jokes, nonsense verse and plaintive songs. Mark Joffe's version of Louis Nowra's adaptation of his play is a gleeful and gentle Australian contribution to this tradition. It is not in

Mendelsohn with a warm ingenuousness

that we take for granted after Strictly

the vein of Shakespeare's tragedies,

that carries the film) takes the audience

Ballroom (Baz Luhrmann, 1992), Muriel's

but it is putting on a play-wrthin-a-play,

with him in his journey from a happy-go-

Wedding (P. J. Hogan, 1994) and The

more a Midsummer Night's Dream with

lucky, chancy interview for the

Adventures of Priscilla, Queen Of The

the patients in a mental institution the

play-directing job to an authentic, life-

Desert(Stephan Elliott, 1994). This

affirming respect for troubled people.

humour travelled well overseas, and so

latter-day mechanicals. The title, Cosi, should become a

If that sounds too solemn, it is not

should Cosi, though the Americans will

by-word in talk about the Australian

the tone of the screenplay or perfor

be puzzling more and more about what

film industry in the 1990s, but it refers to

mances. The film does rely on sentiment

we are really like. The other theme of Cosi is love and

Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte, rehearsed and

But it is also ironic, vulgar (in its original

performed by an unlikely ensemble - as

meaning of crowd-pleasing and down-

therapy, as a modern-day mental health

to-earth) and irreverent Joffe is able to

Mozart's 18th-century fable, that "la

funding project and as a celebration of

highlight his characters' eccentricities,

donna e mobile" - at least as seen by

joy and beauty of worlds that have been

letting each tell a sad and traumatizing

men taking the moral high ground with

lost and, more than probably, never

story (we can laugh with them), rather

little justification. The screenplay

existed.

than spotlight grotesqueries (which

attempts some parallels between the

fidelity. Much is made of the sexism in

Sydney colonial buildings and Bondi

could make us laugh at them). In fact

central characters' relationships and

Beach provide an old/new setting which

it is the sane people, Rachel Griffiths'

the fidelity test of the opera's libretto.

contrasts with an increasing carnival

legal student, Lucy, and Aden Young's

This is the least satisfactory aspect of

design and costumes for the staging of

narcissistic director, as well as the

the film. It is not developed and the

the play. This symbolizes the contrast

management who display touches of

resolution is too quickly pat

between an outer world of the "normal"

the grotesque. David Wenham's firebug,

and an inner world of brightly-coloured

Doug, is the inmate closest to the

The ensemble acting is excellent with too many fine performers to name

ragtatter decor and fancy dress with

grotesque (apart from the funny initial

and praise. The inmates run the danger

an audience waving sparklers as Julie

auditions and the guest-star cameos),

of caricature, especially Barry Otto's

(Toni Collette) movingly sings an unac

with his cat-burning tales, his crass

turn, as if he were mimicking a certified

companied "Stand By Me".

monologues and his genuinely-

Barry Humphries, but his and the other

dangerous threats to Lewis. This

performances are clever and restrained,

What is normal? What is sane? What is the relation between appear

character keeps us from romanticizing

even when at the edge, and the direc

ances and inner-life? Who and where

the inmates, as do Barry Otto's manic

tion combines verve and discretion. Ben Mendelsohn, Barry Otto, Pamela

are the truly mad? In a city like Sydney,

depressive, Roy, with his theatrical highs

in cities anywhere, are outsiders,

and lows and Pamela Rabe's Ruth, with

Rabe and David Wenham have lived

unaware of their madness, the urban

her meticulous obsessiveness.

with Cosi for some years, having

inmates running the asylum?

There are some very funny moments,

appeared in theatre productions. (For what must be synchronistic reasons

Louis Nowra tells us that this is

thanks particularly to Barry Otto, Paul

an autobiographical story, although the

Chubb and Jacki Weaver. Cosi stands

rather than calculation, pigs play a

musical he directed in the 1970s was

in the strong tradition of Ocker comedy,

central rôle in the film and audiences, attuned to Babe-pigs, will enjoy them.)

Trial By Jury. It is a young man's story.

especially the way that tradition has

The screenplay opts for feelings as crite

developed in the exaggerated, flamboy

ria for judging what is deeply human,

antly primary-coloured, colloquial,

example of complete ensemble

not reason or logic. Lewis (played by Ben

spoofing, pretensions-undermining style

filmmaking.

Cosi is highly entertaining, a fine © P eter M alone

These stories continue to have repercussions on the women’s lives and threaten the harmony of the quilting circle, when the tale of Constance (Kate Nelligan) and the death of her husband intersects with the saga of Em (Jean Simmons) and her wayward husband Dean (Der rick O'Connor), as Dean and the widowed Constance develop a close friendship. The lessons learnt by these women have a profound effect on Finn, who finds herself questioning the nature of love and betrayal when she is drawn to a handsome local boy, Leon (Johnathon Schaech). Reflecting on her own betrayal, Finn’s grandmother, Glady Joe (Anne Bancroft), observes that “self-expression heals the wounded heart”. This is reinforced through out the film, the creation of Finn’s quilt representing the collective healing of these women's hearts. The story which has the greatest impact, one of the highlights of the film, is that of Sophia (Lois Smith), a cranky old woman whom Finn has always feared. What makes this story of a failed marriage so moving and engrossing — almost a filmwithin-a-film — is the portrayal of

inreview Films continued

Finn’s arrival at her grandmother's

young Sophia by Samantha Mathis.

Burstyn, Jean Simmons, Lois Smith,

house in the small country town of

We see her age across decades,

Maya Angelou, Kate Nelligan, Rip

Grasse, where she plans to spend

from an independent teenager with

Torn) and "bright young stars"

the summer finishing the thesis.

a passion for amateur diving to a

(Winona Ryder, Alfre Woodard,

In this house, the women of the

crushed, lonely housewife who

t seems only fitting that Holly

Samantha Mathis, Claire Danes,

Grasse Quilting Bee regularly assem

cannot bear to wade in a backyard

wood came a’knockin’ on Jocelyn

Loren Dean, Dermot Mulroney) in

ble to quilt and share stories, an

pond for the pain of memory. Hers

Moorhouse's door after the warm

a tale of women's lives and loves

appropriate environment for Finn

is a tragic loss of spirit, an indict

receptions of her first film. P ro o f

across generations, reflected in the

to complete her work. Her three-

(1991), on the U.S. arthouse circuit

rituals of quilt-making. While the

month “exile" from city life is also

ment of love and its imprisonment of the heart.

film is of a similar genre to that of

intended to give her the space and

very watchable diversion. As Gong

and the equally-successful M u r ie l's

Li tells us in that opening scene,

W e d d in g

we might as well give her a good

she produced. What is surprising is

look, without any embarrassment,

the speed at which the American

because that is what we are paying

film industry recognized and

and with each other, than the latter

(P. J. Hogan, 1994). which

(Herbert Ross,

While quilting is an appropriate

time to consider a marriage pro

symbol for this collection of wom

1989), it offers a deeper exploration

posal from her boyfriend, Sam

en’s stories and hard-won wisdom,

of women’s relationships with men,

(Dermot Mulroney).

S te e l M a g n o lia s

and as a symbol of taking the good

To mark Finn's engagement,

with the bad in any relationship,

for. And until the market demands

rewarded such talent (contrast the

film and, on the whole, successfully

the women are making a quilt for

regrettably it is this persistent use of

something different, that is what we

comparatively slow-bum of Gillian

negotiates the fine balance between

her, with the working title “Where

symbolism which becomes the film’s

are going to get.

.Armstrong's U.S. career which

sentimentality and mawkishness.

Love Resides". Each woman reveals

weak point. It constantly verges on

hris

erry

culminated in an uncannily similar

HOWTO MAKE AN AMERICAN QUILT Directed by Jocelyn M oorhouse. Producers: Sarah Pillsbury, M idge Sanford. Executive producers: W a lte r Parkes, Laurie M acD onald, Deborah Jelin N ew m eyer. S criptw rite r:

project,

L ittle W o m en

A m e r ic a n Q u ilt

(1994)).

is based on the

novel by Whitney Otto, which

where she once found love as she

overstatement, with the most banal

creates her individual square, which

and predictable example at the

Moorhouse was hand-picked by

began as her graduate thesis project

will eventually be joined with the

film’s close, when Finn — repeating

producers Midge Sanford and Sarah

and became a N e w

other squares, symbolizing the

an earlier story — follows the flight

Pillsbury’ (D e s p e ra te ly

seller. Jane .Anderson's adaptation

multifarious nature of love. Each

of a black crow to her “true

for the screen has its own quilt-like

square represents a story, and the

beloved”. The power of symbolism

quality’. She takes the fragments of

film tells these stories in flashback,

lies in its ability to evoke a depth

Otto's narrative — anecdotes of the

with meticulous attention to period

of meaning with an economy of

S e e k in g S u s a n ,

Susan Seidelman, 1985:

R iv e r's E d g e ,

Tim Hunter, 1986) to direct H o w M a k e a n A m e r ic a n Q u ilt

for Amblin

Y ork T im e s

best

Jane Anderson. Based on the novel

Entertainment. Although the film

women's lives and a century of

details and the use of colour to

expression. It also lies in choosing

by W hitn ey Otto. D irecto r of

represents for Moorhouse a more

American history interspersed with

signify mood and time changes.

associations between object and

photography: Janusz Kaminski.

collaborative project than the indi

detailed instructions on quilt-mak

Tales of infidelity, lost opportunities

meaning which exceed the obvious

Production designer: Leslie Dilley.

vidual vision of P ro o f (which she

ing — and threads these together

and death span the early 20th

Editor: Jill Bilcock. M usic: Thomas

or the common. Water (a pervasive

also wrote), this follow-up film

through the central character of

century to the present, across three

metaphor throughout Sophia’s

Newm an. Cast: Kaeiyn Craddick, Sara

demonstrates her scope as a director,

Finn (Winona Ryder), who also

generations. Other themes explored

story) has frequently been used as

equally comfortable with “warm

serves as the film’s narrator. Finn

throughout the film include the his

representing the alternating pleasure

fuzzy feelings" as she is with

is a graduate student who keeps

tory of slavery, the passing down of

and turbulence of sexual desire (for

(Sam), Ellen Burstyn (Hy), Anne

emotional repression and sexual

changing her thesis topic just as it

family histories, teenage pregnancy,

example, Ken Cameron’s M o n k ey

B a n cro ft (Glady Joe). A ustralian

obsession.

nears completion; she has finally

and the tension between the desires

G rip

settled on “women’s handiwork in

of the individual and the sacrifices

“wind of change” that whips

tribal cultures”. The film opens with

that love demands.

through Glady Joe’s house, scatter-

Craddick (Young Finn); Kate C apshaw (Sally), Adam Baldw in (Finn's Father), W inona Ryder (Finn), D erm ot M ulroney

distributor: UIP. 35mm. 109 mins. U.S. 1995.

actors (Anne Bancroft, Ellen

A m e r ic a n Q u ilt

features an out

standing ensemble cast of veteran

, 1982) while the stormy

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

The AUSTRALIAN FILM CO M M ISSIO N is engaged in the international promotion of Australian film and television programs, and is pleased to announce the following markets and events:

9 - 13 Oct, 1995 M IPCOM TV market, Cannes

27 Oct, 1995 - 15 Jan, 1996 Strictly Oz, Museum of Modern Art, New York. A 100 year feature film retrospective curated by Laurence Kardish

5 - 10 Nov, 1995 MIFED feature film market, Milan

Feb 1996 Strictly Oz, UCLA Toohey’s Australian Film Season, UK

29 Feb ■8 Mar, 1996 AFM, feature film market, Santa Monica

17 - 24 March 1996 Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival, focus on Australian documentary

ia n

i-n m s

Australian Film Commission a ¡

l ¡

p I

S j

Sydney ■' - - • 7 : : L- yV ' Level 4, 150 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 : Tel: 02 321 6444 Toll Free: 1800 22 6615 Fax: 02 357 3631 .•

7 j

l ~

•

:V ,v •;

t c -

M elbourne ^ Level 24 120 Clarendon Street, Southbank VIC 3006 Tel: Ò3 9696 1476 Toll Free: 1800 33 8430 Fax: 03 9279 3400

London * ~ p * 2nd Floor, Victory House, 99-101 Regent Street, London W1R 7HB, UK 734-9383 -Fax: 44

[imireview DEAD MAN WALKING

Films

D irected by Tim Robbins. Producers: Jon Kilik, Tim Robbins, Rudd Simmons. Executive producers: Tim Bevan,

continued ing Finn’s thesis notes into the backyards of the other women, has been a Hollywood staple since T h e W iz a r d o f O z

(Victor Fleming,

1939). Apart from the metaphor of quilting itself, none of these ele ments is present in Otto’s novel. It is unfortunate they were considered

Eric Fellner. S crip tw rite r: Tim Robbins. Based on the book D ead M a n W alking by Sister Helen Prejean, C.S.J. D irector of photography: Roger Deakins. Editor:

W a lk in g

D ead M an

is one of the latter films.

In fact, it is based on a best-sell-

For dramatic purposes, espe

after the harrowing sequences of the

cially since some of the characters

execution, audiences did not note

portrayed are the victims of crime as

and reflect on the final images of the

well as their grieving and angry par

film with Susan Sarandon and Ray

! ing memoir of her work with

ents, two actual convicts on death

mond J. Barry.)

i prisoners, especially on death row,

row in the ’80s have been conflated

| by a Louisiana nun, Sister Helen

by Robbins to create Sean Penn’s

its lighter moments - and they are needed. The screenplay tries to help

Not that the film does not have

| Prejean, who acted as technical

character. He writes to Sister Helen,

i adviser on this film. Publicity notes

who is living in a small apartment

audiences understand the call and

i that Susan Sarandon met Helen Pre-

with another nun working with

life of a nun. The celibacy issue is

1 jean in New Orleans during the

local black families, asking her to

handled briefly, tellingly but unob

[ filming of T h e

visit him. She has never been in a

trusively. Helen Prejean’s life is

C lie n t

(Joel Schu-

Lisa Zeno Churgin. P roduction designer:

i macher, 1994) and read her book,

prison and struggles, especially after

given credibility even if it is only for

R ichard Hoover. Costume designer:

i Tim Robbins wrote the screenplay

meeting him and finding him vio

a small number of women.

Renée Ehrlich Kalfus. M usic: David Robbins. Cast: Susan Sarandon (Sister Helen Prejean), Sean Penn (M a tth e w Poncelet), R obert Prosky (Hilton

and directed the film. Obviously, it

lent, racist and insolent, as to what

While the subject matter and

is a labour of love.

he wants and how she can minister

treatment fit the image of Susan

Sarandon plays Helen Prejean midway between Marmee

(.L ittle

to him. (Penn is thoroughly persua

Sarandon, they are a surprise with

sive in the role.) She also has to

regard to Tim Robbins. Audiences

W om en-,

(T he C lie n t:

anything to it. As a demonstration

Barber), M argo M artinda le (Sister Colleen), Celia W eston (M a ry Beth Percy), Raymond J. B arry (Earl D elacroix), R. Lee Ermey (Clyde Percy).

shrewdness in fighting for a victim

of the ways in which symbolism can

A ustralian distributor: Polygram . 35mm.

i and a cause), with the commitment

screenplay, and Robbins’ creation of

i of the mother in L o r e n z o ’s

the Penn character, is that, while he

1995) and sardonic comedy like

remains quite unsympathetic to the

P la y e r

necessary. They are not essential to the film’s narrative and fail to add

120 mins. U.S. 1995.

strengthen the collective narratives of women’s lives, a benchmark example, albeit in a different medium, is Drusilla Modjeska’s “novel”,

T h e O rc h a r d .

nice integrity) and Regina forcefulness and

O il

t the 1995 Oscar awards night,

j (George M iller, 1992) but in a more

presenters Susan Sarandon and

Tim Robbins jokingly declined to

self-effacing style, In fact, it is probably the best

think through her attitudes towards

are used to his wry, bemused smile

capital punishment.

which gets him through drama like

One of the strengths of the

T h e S h a w s h a n k R e d e m p tio n ,

roman

tic fluff like I .Q . (Fred Schepisi, The

(Robert Altman, 1992). His

end, the intellectual and emotional

own B o b

reasons for and against execution

de-force (political tour-de-farce) combination of genres, visual styles

R o b e rts

(1992) was a tour-

make the kind of political statement

i portrayal of a contemporary nun on

are dramatized fairly. Audiences are

that they had on previous occasions

' screen in recent decades. (Compar-

drawn to identify with Sister Helen

and editing flair. He now shows he

couldn’t help but enjoy the film.

- which, of course, reminded the

in her compassionate outreach, but

can step back from centre-screen

No doubt this is influenced by my

audiences of their political views

Dobrowolska and Paul Cox’s fine

they are jolted several times to find

and commit himself to a rather

personal identification with Finn,

and their heart-on-the-sleeve

interpretation of a 1950s nun in

that the compassion agenda has

plainer and unobtrusive style. He

as a graduate student, and by my

approach. Perhaps the deeper rea

N u n a n d th e B a n d it

blind spots, especially concerning

can be facetious and intensely seri

feminist sensibility that understands

son was that they were involved in

Judith Ivey’s practical and sensible

the victims’ parents. Raymond J.

ous: the marks of a “Tim Robbins

the importance (and the pleasure!)

the production of D e a d

’80s nun in Robert M. Young’s W e

Barry and R. Lee Ermey give effec

Film”?

of women’s storytelling. Does this

in g ,

mean A m e r ic a n

indeed.

Despite this reservation, I

Q u ilt

is a “women’s

film”? Of course it is, and in a main

M a n W a lk

a very serious-minded film

stream market dominated by overtly

ber of prison movies:

(Angela Pope, 1994), M u r d e r

1995 these included M o n e y

T ra in

F ir s t

(Joseph Ruben),

(Martin

ring Tim Robbins,

G o ld e n e y e

D esp erad o

(Robert

C a p tiv e s in th e

(Mark Rocco, 1995) and, star

R e d e m p tio n

isons can be made with Gosia

A re T h e C h ild r e n

The

(1993) or

(1987)). Most

i filmmakers think that, as photo-

Recently, we have seen a num

masculine, action-driven films (late

Campbell),

T he S h aw sh an k

(Frank Darebont,

opportunistic journalists assert, a

[ “real nun” is one who wears a reci ognizable religious habit and veil,

eter

alone

tively contrasting performances as the two fathers and give the film more depth.

VIDEO FOOL FOR LOVE Directed by Robert Gibson. Producers:

Audiences pro capital punish

George M iller, Doug M itchell.

ment will not be persuaded to

i They do not seem to be aware of

change their minds, but will have to

| changes within the Catholic Church

look again at their motives and the

| since the ’60s and in nun’s lifestyles,

consequences of state violence.

Videographer, editor: Robert Gibson. A dditional videography: Robert W ern er, A pril W ard. M usic: A nthony Partos. Cast: Gianna Santone, Robert Gibson,

Rodriguez)) it provides an impor

1994). Each offers a particular focus

i work and dress. Judging from the

Audiences anti capital punishment

A pril W ard (as them selves). Australian

tant counterpoint. But just as many

on inmates, some guilty, some inno

i accuracy of the dialogue, Helen Pre-

will have their stances reinforced,

distributor: Kennedy M iller. 35mm.

women enjoy films such as the D ie

cent. Some, as with dentist (Julia

[ jean advised Tim Robbins closely,

but will have to extend their com

Colour. 83 mins. Australia. 1995.

Ormond) in

j The sequences with the two nuns at

passion to those who have been hurt

! home and with the prison chaplain i are just right.

and are driven by a sense of revenge

H ard

trilogy and the Tom Clancy

C a p tiv e s

and lawyer

adaptations, men will also get some

(Christian Slater) in M u r d e r

thing out of A m e r ic a n

F ir s t,

Q u ilt .

In part,

this is due to Moorhouse’s insis tence that the male characters be “lovable and as complex as the women, for the audience to under

in th e

focus on the outsider drawn

and justice. (It would be a pity if,

££ ~ r\ e o p le

d o n ’t k n o w w h a t it is

JL to a c t u a lly g e t h o ld o f a g r e a t m o m e n t o f d r a m a in t h e ir liv e s a n d h a v e so m e c o n tr o l o v e r it. ”

Speaking is Robert Gibson, videographer, director and editor of V id eo F o o l f o r L o v e ,

a feature-length

stand why these men are loved by

home movie like you’ve never seen

these women”. Anderson’s script

before. This film is an attempt for

and Moorhouse’s direction succeed

Gibson to embody this wish: to

in fleshing out these male charac

encapsulate the great drama of love

ters, who merely haunt the margins

and human relationships, and exert control over that drama.

of Otto’s novel. But the film’s universal appeal

Since 1983, Gibson has kept a

lies in its exploration of love and

video diary of his life. He has edited

friendship, which touches everyone,

the past 12 years into a compelling

regardless of gender. A m e r ic a n Q u ilt ’s

greatest asset is its cast: a

83 minutes. The title of the film is self-explanatory: Gibson’s “life”

certain calibre of acting, a uniform

takes the shape of a series of roman

level of excellence across the whole

tic entanglements which define him,

ensemble, that evokes a life lived

obsess him, and drive him cre

within the filmic space of five min

atively, emotionally and spiritually.

utes. Ultimately, this is what makes

He is th e fool for love - fool in

the film such a richly-coloured quilt.

love, just plain fool, full-stop.

For the performances alone, it is worthseeing.

i into the life of the prisoner and the i tensions in the prison.

in cin a

H opgood

The potential of the ubiquitous home video camera is taken to

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Wm I ^

extremes, as Gibson tapes every

I 1 i I ü ¡111118 y

i for London, Robert falls in love with

human encounter with what is

Gianna. Her presence is straight

essentially his extended eye, arm

away associated with a mystical

and penis. Casual conversation, pri

invocation. Robert tells the camera

vate musings, heated arguments,

that fate brought them together;

even a bit of masturbation, are all

she is his “holy grail”. It is a theme

open to his camcorder. It’s an

repeatedly brought up. Gianna is at

intriguing idea which results in a

first shy of the camera, overwhelmed

film which is, at turns, fascinating,

by its attention. One of the most

funny, revealing, frustrating and

fascinating aspects of the film is how

annoying.

Gianna, in particular, becomes a

And the story of the film? For it

performance of herself, as she comes

is a story, a narrative, unlike true diaries, which have no linear goal or defined structure. Basically, F o o l fo r L ove

I I

to realize that a relationship with i Robert is one with a man inseparable from his camera.

V ideo

is the story of

As in certain horror films, there

Robert’s doomed romance with the

i is the reflex to watch the continuing

beautiful Gianna. It is a love story, a

i narrative with fingers strategically

romance, one that is intensely per

positioned over eyes, as Robert

sonal but perhaps universal, in the

leaves Gianna to go overseas to

way all romances are. We first meet Robert; he is an editor with the esteemed Kennedy

April. He finds out she may or may I not be engaged to another man; in i response, he offers to marry her.

M iller production house, the pro

“perform” in this doomed love

It’s this tension between natural

finds less and less space within

The buying of the ring and subse-

affaire. Both she and Robert assume

ness and the artificiality that is a

Gibson’s frame and consideration.

quent part}' are filmed in a jaunty,

the positions of wrathful defender

driving force behind the compelling

And, as in

provided the funding for this pro

slightly-hysterical manner, as the

and hapless victim respectively. In a

nature of the film. The fascination,

the obvious interrogation of the

ject. In fact, one of the funnier

two of them soon settle into their

bizarre déjà vu that only the audi

and frustration, lies in the way that

image of woman: the constant and

moments of the film occurs straight

bickering ways. He leaves April to

ence seems party to, they decide the

Robert, as lover, idealizes a concept

obsessive watching and exposure of

away, as Gibson tapes George

her travelling, safe in the patriarchal

best defence is to marry. Again, the

of “Gianna”, and the way that Gib

Gianna works to in fact structure his

Miller contemplating the viability

assumption that he has set her on

ritual buying of the ring. However,

son, as filmmaker, idealizes the

own identity and process of mascu

of backing such a seemingly absurd

her path, and he can resume his

instead of a party, Gianna gets cold

concept of romance; the way that

line renewal. For all of the scene

project. “I like the [film] about love,

search for the “holy grail” in

feet and half-heartedly suggests she

Robert, as new-age guy, cannot

where Gianna is talking, and being

but I don’t like the title”, he says

Gianna.

doesn’t want to marry him. Why?

escape essential patriarchal myths

looked at, and even responding to

Robert confides to the camera that

about women, and Gibson, as clever

the camera, there increasingly

it is the fault of Gianna’s friend,

postmodernist, cannot escape the

becomes a kind of black hole where

“Caterina the black witch”.

boundless possibilities of audience

her presence should be. There’s a

duction house which ultimately

before the title card appears.

At this stage, Gibson the film

At this stage, Robert is in love with April, a wacky child-woman,

maker introduces a parallel sub-plot | involving the commencement of

who is with him when he wins an

the Gulf War. As the U.S. starts it

AFI award for editing F lir t in g (John

i bombardment of Iraq, Robert

At this stage, like others, the viewer is perhaps tempted to reach

interpretation.

G ood W o m an ,

there is

frustrating lack of insight into why

Gibson recognizes this tension -

she's in this relationship, how she

Duigan, 1991). He records their

i returns to Sydney, where Gianna

through the elusive camcorder lens

emotionally, by introducing staged

relationship as one of sulky silences

j quickly moves in. He falls heavily

and slap him. Maybe it’s because,

scenes of himself crying to a senti

and petulant outbursts, all of which

for her, and much tape is devoted

for all this talking and “open” con

mental Roy Orbison song. And he

are dutifully taped and edited into

to Gianna’s easy banter and sensual

fessionals, no real communication

recognizes it intellectually, by one

Gianna’s eventual betrayal, and then

a sequence which sets up a certain

visage. It is as they reach the zenith

is taking place! The curse of the

particularly telling scene at the

uses this as an excuse for staged

almost pre-destined pattern of

of their mutual sexual and emo

camera is an artificial naturalness,

dénouement of their disintegrating

catharsis and release. It comes as no

behaviour. Robert is her

tional bonding that the real Scud

a performance, where emotions are

romance, where a shot of Gianna

surprise when it’s revealed that he

father/lover, smothering her with

missiles attack - for April has found

usually an opaque gel for viewer

accusing him of having “no struc

has found another lover, Cindy,

his nagging and his camera.

out about his betrayal,

sympathy and attention for our

ture” to his film or thoughts is

who comes to him as his “guardian

intercut with another discussion, a

angel”, and who was there as sup

close-up of himself responding by

port and encouragement as he

Two days after April’s departure

Now Gianna really starts to

“victim” Robert.

At the end, it seems so obvious to the viewer that Robert invites

saying he’s unhappy he can’t give

produced this film. She seems

her an orgasm.

another in the chain of women who

This kind of video vérité is not

don’t seem to differ in their love

unique to Australian or interna

and adoration of Robert, who are

tional cinema. A film that

continuations of the theme of

immediately comes to mind, though

Robert’s idealized love.

without the intellectual approach, is

It is tempting to dismiss Robert

Dennis O’Rourke's

Fhe G ood

as a loser, but that’s too easy. It is a

W o m an o f B an gko k

(1992). Like

brave filmmaker that undertakes, in

this film, there is the problem that

the manner of a sacrificial lamb, an

Gibson’s camera actively “Others”

exploration of the unexplainable

the woman, as an adored and ideal

reason why people love so fiercely,

ized reflection of the filmmaker’s

so hurtfully, or at all. Perhaps this

desires. As the Other, Gianna

brings back the concept of control

becomes the locus of disorder,

mentioned earlier. In the end, Gib

which Gibson increasingly tries

son does have control of Gianna,

to control by more and more

and over their relationship, not just

obvious imposition of structure

through his subjective control over

and materiality in the editing and

camera and editing, but through his

juxtapositioning of images.

instinctive need to use this process

As with Aoi (Yagwalak Chonchanakun) in

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

feels, where she sees it going.

G ood W om an,

Gianna

as a type of messy, self-serving therapy.

inreview

Booké POETICS OF CINEMA 1. M IS C E L L A N IE S

Raúl Ruiz (translated by Brian Holmes), Editions Dis Voir, Paris, 1995,124pp., rrp $37.50.

the Middle Ages, more or less. This

i conceptual schemes of obscure or

' now drummed into us by film

is interesting in a book in which

i exotic texts for analyzing cinematic

i schools and consumer guides.

every third sentence drops a name,

| possibilities: the priest Pavel Alek-

| The theory is:

and probably deliberately. He is

| sandro Florenski,

more interested in the possibility of

\ P a in t in g b y th e M o n k o f th e G reen

to achieve this state at the end. A

speculation where he finds it than in

film which is a narrative drive, as

truth or its modern form, critique

Shih-T’ao, 19th-century Muslim

opposed to having one (having is

(or its Anglophone form, cultural

| mystic Abdel Kader. (The last is not

not being), moves for the sake of the

various digressions, all the ele-

studies).

an invention, I hope. Is Ellemire

ments of the story are arranged

view along the way chosen for the

In his book,

else doesn’t want them to have !

; Zola, who “conceived alchemy as

P o e tic s o f C in e m a ,

the range of cultural reference is

an extension of charity to the ani

moves because of the way. The

vertiginous. Like Borges, Ruiz is a

mal, vegetable, and mineral reigns”,

movies of Raul Ruiz are narrative

collector of philosophies and ideas,

a tall tale?) In English and European

drives, twisting, unpredictable, cir

with a connoisseur’s appreciation of

literature, his display of reading is

them as artifacts. Am ex-seminarian,

impressive. Stevenson, Chesterton

Ruiz is a Chilean-born film maker who has made almost a

he is fond of mystical and Muslim

(T he M a n W ho W a s T h u rs d a y )

theology, and has a great memory

James Hogg’s C o n fe s sio n s

and

o f a J u s ti

for mediaeval philosophers. He

f ie d S in n e r

country, around campfires in

based in France since 1973 when he

reads analytic philosophy, not to

favourites (Hogg misspelt Hoog in

join in debate but to draw from it

this edition), but he has also read

was forced into exile. He was a cul

faces have a yarn about the latest

tural adviser to Allende and had a

Martin Scorsese, in smoke-free cor

reputation as a playwright in Chile

are among his English

Philip R. Dick, William Gibson,

he creditably gives the gist of the

before he made his first feature

Aanerican philosopher Donald

bibliography or footnotes, with

there. The most productive experi

Davidson’s essay “Paradoxes of Irra

such an improbably vast range of

pared, in stations on the Antarctic

mentalist in cinema since Jean-Luc

tundra around the video-player, the

Godard, he also owes little to the

phrase “narrative drive” is bandied.

latter. Godard is a classicist, devoted

“N a r r a tiv e d r iv e !” N a r r a tiv e d r iv e !”

to balance, clean lines and lightness;

As most of us know, the term refers

and even when his works are made

to an urge, a force, a momentum ...

up of fragments, they seem com

or usually does. But a close look at

posed of classical fragments. Godard

the conjunction of the two words

is a French rationalist. Ruiz is

suggests another meaning.

baroque, mannerist, sceptical and

Just to be contrary, let us use it

has a taste for the distinctively

with this second sense occasionally.

minor in literature. In P o e tic s

We speak of going for a drive

C in e m a ,

(down to the Riviera, for example).

to Baudrilliard, but no further men

Why not say a film goes for a narra

tion of any contemporary French

there is a passing reference

tive drive? Or is a narrative drive?

theorists or philosophers: no

In the sense I here propose, no final

Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault,

state-of-affairs is aimed for by the

Kristeva, no

characters of a film which is a narra

critics, no French philosophy after

tive drive, who either succeed or fail

C a h ie rs d u C in é m a

film

intellectual reference, it is natural to suspect that Ruiz is sometimes

rationality of a person’s actions, it

fibbing: talking about game theory,

may be necessary to posit two or

he writes “cf. Tarski and Solar Petit, on the applications of S. Ulam’s ‘measurable cardinal’”. Tarski and

comments on Davidson by way of a

Ulam I have heard of, “measurable

story from the Chinese

cardinal’ I will let pass, but Solar later in the book I notice Ruiz

them what Surrealists did with the

o f C in e m a ,

digression. This inconclusiveness makes the book like one of Ruiz’s

volumes, P o e tic s

Dionysus the Areopagite to German

extraordinary, erudite, but often

expressionism, from Wang Wei to

whimsical, series of speculations on

is an

films. Digression in the book takes

what cinema can be. Ruiz says that

P. J. Farmer - by way of Piero Della

thing about P o e tic s

about a book that calls itself a poet

argument but digression, relentless

dissecting table: “From Pseudo-

o f C in e m a

Apart from its extraordinary

theses. Its method of inquiry is not

The first of three projected

sewing machine, the bicycle and the

“Mystery and M inistry”, “The Cinema: Traveling Incognito”.

ics, is that it rarely argues for any

Petit is too good to be true. And mentions an Emiliano del Solar.

He praises the potency of boredom, too. The later chapters cover

cultural range, the most striking

works in the individual. But he

juxtapositions of ideas, doing with

and likes Snow, Straub

scious”, “For a Shamanic Cinema”,

more conflicting belief-desire net

He likes unsettling

Baudine, Ed Wood and Ulmer’s T h e

“Images of Nowhere”,’’Images of

that to preserve the principle of the

G o ld e n F lo w e d .

the vagaries of B-grade directors Beebe, Le Borg, Lewis, Boetticher,

Images”, “The Photographic Uncon

tionality”, where Davidson argues

S e c re t o f th e

believes in, needless to say. He loves

and Huillet, Ozu, Andy Warhol.

Arthur C. Clarke. In a book without

merits of our own auteurs are com

narrative drives, distractions from boredom that increase our tendency

B la c k C a t ,

for speculative fiction: for example,

ridors of power where notes on the

| Central-conflict movies with

to be bored, are not the cinema Ruiz

hundred features, and has been

desert gullies where weather-beaten

it. From that point on, through

around this central conflict.

view and not the final destination,

cumlocutory.

A story begins when someone wants something and someone

by the Chinese painter

verywhere in our movie-mad

several forms. First, there is the form “This reminds me of the following idea”. Second, the form

Francesca, Rembrandt and Sweden

[the three volumes] will be of no

borg.” (In this quote, Wang Wei is

great value to film buffs or profes-

the great 8th-century Zen Buddhist

sionals. I wrote them with an eye

story” where the story is fictional.

painter and poet, contemporary of

to those who use the cinema as a

The form “I remember (on a boat in

Li Po and Tu Fu; P. J. Farmer, pre

mirror, that is, as an instrument

sumably, the science-fiction writer.)

of speculation and reflection, or

He throws in a lot of merely amus-

like his comparison of artists with French, Spanish, English and German explorers. He prefers to use the

as a machine for travel through space and time.

ing comparisons, too, for texture,

P u m p k in

O p in io n s on

“Imagine this/Let us imagine/This 1 made me think of the following

! Canton, etc.)”. Fourth, the form of ' digression which is to go through several ideas about a topic, and then, after stating all of them, digressing.

The book begins with a chapter

Fifth, interpolation, without stated

about “Central Conflict Theory”,

why or wherefore. The craziest

the kind of plot structure which is

! examples of this are in “For a

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Shamanic Cinema”, where the computer seems to have had a mind of its own. Sixth, the form of digression “Allow me to digress/At this point let us take a look at”. And one or rwo others forms. The result of these digressions is a book that is often entertaining, sometimes tanta lizing and sometimes interminable. If nothing more, it is valuable for what it tells us are Ruiz’s intellectual sources, preoccupations and preferences. But it is more: it is a demonstration of how to create films as a means of speculation, for the book is full of “theoretical fables” and imaginar)' situations. It is like a notebook of projects.

together like a kiss of death, [p. 3]

The essays in this collection recognize this dilemma. They are distinguished by their fascination with the cinematic, and characterized by a desire to enact that fascination through their writing. In her introductory' essay, | Jayamanne provides a context by j marking out three key paradigm i shifts within feminist film theory, i She describes the first stage as one 1 concerned with “images of women” j or “women and film”- a stage j foregrounding represenrarions of i women but with real methodologi1 cal limitarions. This led to a second j paradigm: when psychoanalytic theThe second volume of the trilogy , ory became important in theorizing will be called S e r io L u d e n s , “made i the cinematic apparatus and the up of parodies and conceptual | viewing subject. This stage was also simulations”. The third, M e th o d s , is j preoccupied with close attention to “composed of exercises and , the text and frame-by-frame analyformula:”. © R obert Nery ! sis. The third shift refers to the i present time dominated by the work KISS ME DEADLY ! of Gilles Deleuze on the cinema, F E M IN IS M A N D C IN E M A | and its concerns with time and FOR T H E M O M E N T i memory'. Jayamanne sites the Edited by Laleen Jayam anne, Pow er i anthology' within this most recent Publications, Sydney, 1995, 285pp., j stage of feminist film writing rrp SI 4.95. ; pan of this new wave. moment was marked: an Patricia Mellencamp’s keynote opportunity for some to reflect, i address, “Five Ages of Film Femifor others to look ahead. A one-day 1 nism”, also retraces a journey conference called “Kiss Me Deadly: j through the feminist history of film, Feminism and Cinema Now” was ! linking it at key points to her own held at the University of Sydney i life experiences. Pier reflections are inl991, as part of the Dissonance i more critical than celebratory. project- a retrospective on Aus | “We got it wrong”, she says, focustralian feminism in the arts over the j ing on sexual difference and control past twenty years. This anthology i of the female image instead of includes essays presented at the i what are, and always were, the real conference and others influenced by 1 sources of pow'er: money, work it, but wnitten after the event. | and knowledge. Canonical films for The captivating title is there for j feminist analysis such as V ertigo a number of reasons. It pays tribute i (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954), T h e lm a to Robert Aldrich’s film of the same 1 & L o u is e (Ridley Scott, 1991) and name because, as editor Laleen ] P r iv ile g e (Yvonne Rainer, 1990) are Jayamanne argues, K iss M e D e a d ly j revisited and reconsidered. The (1955) has been read in contradic i films of Tracey Moffatt are linked tory and subversive ways. As well i to those of Julie Dash, and to the as this, Aldrich’s inventive casting 1 importance of generations of choices have diversified and | women and their conversations in enriched the image of the 1940s i telling the story' of our lives. Her femme fatale. Most significantly, i redress of the past wishes to not the phrase “kiss me deadly” cap i only “not forget” - part of her tures for Jayamanne the feeling of ! polemic is to remember the history' ambivalence that has pervaded the \ and the women. feminist project in cinema from at i Other essays are more particular least the mid-’80s. She describes a i and specific. Jodi Brooks in concern felt by herself and others 1 “Between Contemplation and that { Distraction Cinema, Obsession and i Voluntary Memory” uses Benjamthe very theory that set out to i in’s work on Proust and Baudelaire explicate and transform our 1 and the concepts of involuntary' understanding of ‘woman’ in cinema was killing a certain expe j memory to theorize an “erotics of i the encounter”. Needeya Islam rience of cinema. For some of us i examines the action films of cinema was at least as important as feminism, and there seemed to 1 Kathryn Bigelow, demonstrating \ how the work of this female be something wrong in the way i auteur tests cinematic and generic the two terms were brought \

i i | j i

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1 996

conventions rather than conforming ro them. Melissa McMahon invokes Deleuze and Guattari and De Certeau to help account for the way bodies unfold themselves in space in Robert Bresson’s M o u c h e tte (196/), the films of Chantal Akerman and the dance of Pina Bausch. Michelle Langford in “Film Figures: Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s T h e M a r r ia g e o f M a r ia B r a u n and Alexander Kluge’s T h e F e m a le P a t r io t ” is focused on rwo women: Maria Braun and Gabi Teichert. She uses structural and strategic aspects of each film to show how Maria and Gabi intersect with, and are integral parts of, the filmic process, mirror ing each film’s mode of production, She argues that it is not possible to understand these women from feminist perspectives alone. Toni Ross rakes a film - B a d

1 i

J a n e t Leigh, w ith C hristopher N ickens,

Pavilion Books, London, 1995,197pp., illus., rrp S29.95 (he)

n page 58 of h e r book on P s )’ch o , Janet Leigh includes a photo of John Gavin and herself lying on a bed together under the watchful gaze of Alfred Hitchcock and a Mitchell camera. Its caption reads, “Is Janet pulling John’s chain?” It’s a provocative shot I’ve not seen before. But having heard what Hitchcock actually asked Janet to do to John (or at least her daughter Jamie’s account of her mother’s recollection of same), I wonder why Janet is so coy 35 years after the fact. In a book she claims will “set the record straight”, why she would ask her reader to put together this caption and references to Hitch cock’s love of wordplay ris q u é , to read between the lines? Perhaps she has chosen to counter the muck-raking of Donald Spoto (T h e D a rk S id e o f G e n iu s :

1 1

; j

i j

T im in g : A S e n s u a l O b sessio n

(Nicolas Roeg, 1980) - which on its release was regarded as seriously misogynist and investigates, through an early strand of German romantic aesthetics, the process by which authorship and human agency are allegorized. She also invokes Deleuze on faceification. Jayamanne’s own essay in the collection, ‘“Life is a Dream’ Raul Ruiz was a Surrealist in Sydnev: A Capillary Memory' of a Cultural Event”, uses Benjamin’s theory of allegory' in relation to Ruiz’s filmic allegory in L e s T ro is C o u ro n n e s d u

T h e L ife o f A lfre d H itc h c o c k ,

M a t e lo t (T h ree C ro w n s o f a S a ilo r ,

1982). Her interests in the femme fatale figure leads her to the mater nal as a Deleuzian rime-image. Lesley Stern’s “Meditation on Violence” is a version of a chapter in her book T h e S c o rse se C o n n e r tio n . Through description and juxtaposition, she compares Michael Powell’s T h e R e d S h o es (1948) with Martin Scorsese’s R a g in g B u ll (1980), focusing not only on the performances of the boxer and the dancer, the totemic object of shoes and gloves, but also on our processes of engagement with the cinema. There is always a problem in regarding an anthology-' as a coherent body of work. K iss M e D e a d ly is in fact a diverse and varied collection. What the writers do share is an engagement with difficult questions about reading, taking ideas from contemporary theory' and using them to try and understand some compelling poetic texts. It is an anthology of writing by women in love with the cinema who are endeavouring to understand what that might mean. © Anna Dzenis

PSYCHO B E H IN D T H E S C E N E S OF T H E C L A S S IC T H R IL L E R

j I

i j

i t1 j

i j

i i I

Weidenfeld and Nicolson) since she goes on at length about how re s p e c tfu l Hitchcock was of his leading lady. (Vera Miles, who w a s under contract to Hitchcock and did more scenes in P s y c h o than Janet, is outright indignant about her men tor’s propriety', and another Psy:ch o player, Par Hitchcock, supposedly the victim of a cruel prank by her father on a ferris wheel on S tr a n g e rs o n a T r a in , assures me nor only that it never happened, bur that Spoto never even talked with her.) But Spoto h a s talked to Janet Leigh. During pre-production on P s j’c h o II, my producer, Hilton Green, and I attended an American Film Institute screening after which Spoto literally le d Janer to corrobo rate a series of his remarkable assertions (like the bird allusions she lists here). In one instance, Spoto claimed the licence plates of Marion’s car were an acronym of something like “Norman Lives”. Janet (or rather her collaborator, Christopher Nickens, in one of rhree chapters which bear his ini tials) goes one better claiming the plates are “scatological humour”. In fact, the plates came from the AD’s (Hilton Green’s) own car. One infers the anecdotal writing about her life, friends and collabora tors particularly in the years after P s y c h o , when she deduces Tony Perkins was devastated not to have got an Oscar nomination, is by Janet Leigh - it is in fact her third book.

\ But mosr of the behind-the-scenes i stuff promised by the title, I deduce, | is actually by' collaborator Nickens, j otherwise why would sh e interrupt \ h e r first person account constantly i to quote herself. I 1i Nonetheless, the book makes j an interesting companion piece to \ Stephen Rebello’s {A lfred H itc h c o c k i a n d th e M a k in g o f P s y c h o , DembI j ner, 1990), if only because it claims ! to be the account of someone who \ was there. And in the p o s t-s tru c 1 t u r a lis t era, when not even authors i j are supposed to understand their j own work, much less a u t e u r s , it is j interesting to ponder just how ! much an actor, especially one i i whose character dies at the end of i : “Act I”, knows of the overall. The book lacks the behind-thei scenes research and scholarship of something like Hugh Fordin’s paean ; to the Freed unit (T h e W o r ld o f \ E n t e r t a in m e n t, Doubleday, 1975). j But like Katharine Hepburn’s diary i written during the making of T h e j A fric a n Q u e e n (a real contrast to j Peter Viertel’s W h ite H u n t e r B la c k i H e a r t ) , it is nonetheless an insight ! into what actors perceive is going on on the films they’re in - espej dally given the hindsight that this one has become a classic. Of the shower scene, for exam ple, Janet (and Ps^’c h o ’ s AD, Hilton Green) put paid to Saul Bass’ claim to have directed it (one wonders how many other scenes - e.g., the battle from S p a r t a c u s , which he laid claim ro on his visit here in the 1970s - were really his). But she comes up with the old chestnuts: no knife contact with the body; no frontal nudity. How can this furphy of Hitchcock’s (to fool the censor) still persist in the era of video play ers with freeze frame and search functions? Anyone who still believes as Janer does has only ro look to see I both a knife penetrating a rubber torso just below the navel, and full frame breasts in the background of the hand reaching for the shower curtain. Another Hitchcock furphy was the use of a boy as an upper body double (in rhe overhead shot, for example). To her credit, Janet acknowledges Marli Renfro, a nude model she claims was hired to line up shots and start rumours. Reading between the lines again, Marti w a s photographed when Janer was not there, on three our of rhe te n days it took to shoot the scene - Janet claims to have been there for all seven, then concedes to turning up | another day and encountering her \ naked counterpart (she continues ! nonetheless to claim the body was

¡preview Books continued all hers). Returning to “chain pulling”, the minute Jamie told me what M r H had asked Janet to do,

Carey talks about the actor’s

ing section, Carey has designed the

ability to “respond”. However, dia

second part as an inspired, enlight

logue scenes, where the likelihood

ening and detailed analysis of a wide <i

of exploring “response” is greater

range of speeches, with practical

than in monologues, are low on

ways to release the dynamics inher

ing and the re-directing of energies

the agenda. Screen auditions often

ent within the writing, and thus

for maximum benefit in audition

require dialogue scenes rather than

increase a sense of personal owner

opportunities. Carey generously

monologues. Hosting one’s own

ship. Entitled “The Creative Arena”,

acknowledges the actor’s contribu

audition is certainly empowering

Carey explores these speeches

tion to the design and development

and I highly commend Carey for

within the context of “rehearsal

of these processes. His writing is

exploring ways of creating actor

room exercises”.

laced with useful anecdotes and

self-sufficiency, but dialogue audi

examples of the creative process.

tions are usually more useful in

thought out. Each entitled exercise

revealing the actor’s flexibility in

has an introduction revealing the

At the heart of Carey’s writing is the understanding of the actor’s

authentically responding to the

general purpose for the exercise.

profession, a profession which deals

situation at hand.

This is followed by an explanation

intent had been to relax

daily with emotional issues, fears,

In many cases, this is followed by a

the Golden Globe) for her portrayal

process; deconstructing the facade;

“Man 1/Woman 1”. Evidently a

section on application of the con

of the lost innocent, Marion Crane,

finding the source; motivation, and

new script about a mother and son

cepts, encouraging wider use of the

relationship had been written but

exercise in other contexts. (Perhaps this is where more focus could be

read: “Woman 1, Man 1”.

given to celluloid references?) As

and inspired. He is generous in his references to the great master

scene, the actor concluded that the

illustration, he prefaces it with the

into what goes on on film sets (as

influences: Stanislavski, Chekhov,

two characters were passionate

point of concentration, directing

Based on his feelings towards the

shot at a two-act. I’m mixing modes, working against genre.” Prescriptive texts such as Seger and Field can be terrifically useful

Carey moves towards a specific

editing tools but, as Dancyger and Rush are only too well aware, in the wrong hands they can be downright

opposed to their character), it is

Grotowski, Benedetti, Balos, Keith

lovers experiencing a tumultuous rift

clear focus in how to explore the

interesting to know that the short

Johnstone, Viola Spolin. He takes

in their relationship. He arrived for

objective. Then even further specific

dangerous:

est-lived leading lady seems to have

their organic explorations further.

the audition and met the older

illustrations from within a variety of

partly grasped what Hitchcock was

The usual notions of public persona

woman who had been hired to read

contexts are analyzed, with follow

doing, at least in this one interaction

and private self are re-explored and

opposite him. He evidently worked

up notes on each illustration.

- after 35 years. © Richard Franklin

redefined, the creative process is

very well off the other actor, his

For those who intend to use

distilled in terms of the communica

choices reflecting his belief about

Carey’s work for screen auditions,

MASTER CLASS

using a restorative three-act struc ture”, I’ll tell him. “I’m going exaggerated ironic. I’m having a

the audition scene that was sent out

(as opposed to their character) and

85”, I wailed! I was dead wrong. At

Seger and Field at me. “I’m not

fits into the scheme of preparation.

insights of actors into the overall

turning point between pages 75-

my argument when he starts citing

of exercise objective, and where it

audition of the dialogue scene,

procedures are thorough, articulate

book, I cringed. “Not

in front of my producer to back up

repertoire is the anecdote about the

Bates. And as an insight into the

hen first confronted with this

last I have something I can waggle

predicaments, pitfalls; a profession

Carey’s audition preparation

you your script is down the toilet if

which deals daily with: the creative

transformation.

Press, Boston, 1995,300pp., index,

another prescriptive text that tells

Janet Leigh was justifiably

hands of the lost innocent, Norman

Ken D ancyger and J e ff Rush, Focal

rrp $65.00.

nominated for an Oscar (and won

who blunders into retribution at the

you haven’t hit your second act

“woodenness”, I knew the director’s

My favourite story from Carey’s

W R IT IN G B E Y O N D T H E R U LE S

Carey’s methodology' is carefully

supposedly to overcome John’s her.

ALTERNATIVE SCRIPTWRITING

Most amateur scripts contain every one of [Seger’s] prescribed act breaks and many would pass the checklist for act accomplish ments, yet most of them are absolutely dead.

tion and the power of kinæsthetic

their turbulent relationship. His

TH E A C T O R 'S A U D IT IO N M A N U A L

perhaps the most useful exercise in

response, and relevant exercises

actions and gestures of physical

this section is the one on “inner

Dancyger and Rush state up front

Dean Carey, C urrency Press, Sydney,

present useful applications of the

familiarity informed by the dilemma

monologues/ departures”: finding

that “the purpose of this book is not

theory and content.

in which he and his lover had found

the inner connections through a

to prescribe, but to explore”, and

themselves created a deep emotional

sort of “thought script”.

this they do very well. They are

229pp. (Vol. 1), 225pp. (Vol. 2), illus., rrp S17.95.

Although as a film director I was disappointed that little focus is given

estrangement in the playing. At the

to the screen audition, as a theatre

conclusion of the playing, all con

to her psychiatrist in Anthony

that. While Dancyger is chair of

director I was delighted by the great

cerned where shocked and speechless

Minghella’s screenplay of T ru ly

Film and Television at New York

range of exercises which demand an

until the mix-up was discussed.

M a d ly D e e p ly

I have not had the pleasure of

exploration of the “authentic self”

However, the actor had committed

ration of the “thought script”

They make you think. They make

reading the original, but I suspect

and “emotional flexibility”, which

so completely to his interpretation

and the intimacy of those thoughts

you want to see films they cite that

will go a long way to help prepare

that he was offered the job. A great

on screen is truly dynamic.

for men or volume two for women,

for the requirements of film audi

story about talent, preparedness, and

has all that any actor would require

tions. Perhaps in a future edition the

inspired interpretation, and Carey’s

80 monologues for men and

for stage audition preparation.

inherent temporal/spatial differences

exercises inspire the honing of talent,

another 80 monologues in the

between film and stage could be

preparedness and interpretation.

women’s volume. Among the

has been designed as a hard working

he preface of M a s te r

C ass

states that these volumes are a companion to M a n u a l,

T h e A c t o r s A u d itio n

first published in 1985.

that M a s te r

C la s s ,

either volume one

“Part One - The Path To Process” updates the art of audition-

discussed.

After this very enriching open

Carey focuses on Nina’s speech

both teachers, and good teachers at

University, Rush is chair at Temple.

(1991). His explo

may have slipped your notice as well as re-view ones you may have

Part Three contains more than

underrated. While A lt e r n a t iv e

S c r ip t w r itin g

contributors are excerpts from the

text for students, it is equally as

works of Hannie Rayson, Louis

stimulating for the jaundiced profes

Nowra, Stephen Sewell, Alma De

sional. It is a general book that takes

Groen, Nick Enright, Michael Gow,

a broad, sweeping look at the art of

Alan Ayckbourn, David Hare,

scriptwriting (for the writers do

Arnold Wesker, James Saunders,

indeed believe scriptwriting is an

Jules Feiffer, Charles Marowitz,

art), and, while it concentrates on

Sam Shepard, Neil Simon, Ten

American film and writers, it makes

nessee Williams, Tony Kushner.

a valiant effort not to exclude refer

The author apologizes for not sepa

ences from other countries. It looks

rating the speeches into comedy

at low budget and big budget, films

and drama, but his point is well

that work and those that don’t.

taken: “labelling” speeches may

What Dancyger and Rush are on about is encouraging the screen writer’s individual voice to come through. It is a sad fact that

limit the possible ways of seeing and interpreting.

For all those actors and directors who want an insightful, inspiring and practical handbook for auditions and rehearsal processes, I highly recommend this book. © Kathy M ueller

if you were to watch all the films released in any three-month period, you’d [...] think (all the writers) grew up in a ten-minute drive from Universal Studios,

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

were all the same sex, and were

missed the original, I cannot com

BLADE RUNNER TWO

born ten minutes apart.

ment on its improvement. All I can

T H E E D G E OF H U M A N

Dancyger and Rush seek to redress

do is highly recommend this latest

this.

incarnation.

The book is structured like a

P.S.: While the study of the

Greek chorus with its strophe/anti-

heroic myth in relation to film nar

strophe, always describing the

rative is both worthy and relevant,

conventional before moving to the

it has been done to death and it was

alternative. Thus, they give an

with great relief I noted Joseph

analysis of the restorative three-act

Campbell didn’t crack a mention

structure before moving on to

anywhere.

examples that work against it.

K. W . Je te r, Orion, London, 1995,340pp.,

C hristopher M id dleton, S erpent's Tail,

rrp $29.95 (he).

London, 1995,149pp., rrp $19.95.

discussing films that subvert or The authors write densely,

JODIE FOSTER

Robert Tanitch, Studio Vista, London,

Philippa Kennedy, Pan, London, 1996,

1995,192pp., illus., index, rrp £12.99

283pp., illus., rrp $14.95.

BRITISH FILM STUDIOS

History, Politics” chapter informa transformation of historical and

PULP CULTURE

A n d re w B ritton, Studio Vista, London,

H A R D B O IL E D F IC T IO N A N D T H E CO LD W A R

1995, 256pp., illus., index, rrp $34.95 W o o d y Haut, Serpent's Tail, London,

CAPTAIN QUIRK

ew edition of Andrew Brit

T H E U N A U T H O R IZ E D B IO G R A P H Y OF W IL L IA M S H A T N E R

Dennis W illia m Hauck, Pinnacle Books,

filmography, and a list of the

N ew York, 1995, 298pp., illus., rrp $9.95.

actress’ stage work.

100 stills, updated bibliography and

ing various aspects of the U.S.

Forew ord by A lexa nde r W alker, Dorling

Karen Raugust, Focal Press, Boston,

Kindersley, London, 920pp., illus., index,

1996,126pp., illus., index, rrp $59.00.

entertainment industries. Provides a

whole is due to [...] story telling at

the U.S. between October 1994 and

its old fashioned best”, it is impor

11 August 1995, together with basic

tant to bear in mind the role that

production credits.

the Australian funding bodies have

CHRONICLE OF THE CINEMA

A ndy Dougan (w ith an introd uction by Steven Spielberg), M ainstream

writers being good, old-fashioned

Publishing, Edinburgh, 1994,192pp., illus., index, rrp S39.95.

storytellers. Quirky rites-of-passage

1995, 246pp., rrp S14.95.

CLINT EASTWOOD

H. E. Bates, Penguin, London, 1995,

SCREENING THE PAST

190pp., rrp $14.95.

A S P E C T S OF E A R LY A U S T R A L IA N F IL M Edited by Ken Berrym an, N ational Film

COPYCAT

A PERIOD OF ADJUSTMENT

Lauri M aerov, Signet, N ew York, 1995,

Dirk Bogarde, Penguin, London, 1995,

302pp., rrp $13.95.

280pp., rrp $12.95.

R ob ertT an itch , Studio Vista, London,

AN ACTOR'S REVENGE Ian B reakw ell, BFI Publishing, London,

rather than the rule.

1995, 55pp., illus., rrp £6.99.

Biderman and David Madsen.

PERSUASION

S heridan M orley, W eidenfeld and

(W IT H A M E M O IR OF JANE AUSTEN)

N icolson, London, 1995, 96pp., illus.,

Jane Austen, Penguin, London, 1995,

A C E L E B R A T IO N OF T H E B R O A D W A Y M U S IC A L

STRAWBERRY AND CHOCOLATE

399pp„ pb, rrp $8.95.

Donald Frantz w ith Sue Heinem ann,

ALADDIN

offensive. Without exception, pro

T H E M A K IN G OF A N A N IM A T E D F IL M

tagonists, writers, etc., are referred

PROJECTIONS 41 /z

fo re w o rd by Alan M enken, Hyperion,

John Boorm an and W a lte r Donohue

rrp $49.95 (he).

(editors), Faber and Faber, London,

John Culhane, H yperion, N ew York,

yet invariably in 95 percent of the

1992,119pp., illus., index, rrp $24.95.

examples cited they are male. Call me a pragmatist, but I would have

THE ART OF POCAHONTAS

felt more comfortable if occasionally the cold, hard truth had been reflected in their general comments.

FASHIONING THE NATION C O S T U M E A N D ID E N T IT Y IN B R IT IS H C IN E M A

he majority of the latest edition of P ro je c tio n s is an English

translation of “The

P o s it if

Collec

tion”, in which the editors of the leading critical magazine

T ext by Stephen Rebello, Hyperion,

1996,138pp., illus., index, rrp £12.99,

commissioned “our favourite film

N e w York, 1995,197pp., illus.,

£35.00 (he).

rrp S75.00 (he).

of warning to all budding screen

AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION AND INTERNATIONAL MEDIASCAPES

Some screenwriters make a great deal of money but get very little respect from their peers. Most make very little money and get

P o s it if

makers to write a piece about an actor, or a film, or a director who

writers from the authors:

very little respect from their peers.

Pam Cook, BFI Publishing, London,

The book finishes with a word

GET SHORTY Elmore Leonard, Penguin, London, 1991, 292pp., rrp $14.95

has had a special significance for them”. The response was astonish ing, with a range of filmmakers, from Mario Monicelli, appraising

IMAGE AND MIND

Langdon, to Alain Resnais, suggest

Dancyger and Rush speak the truth

Ja cka , Cam bridge U niversity Press,

F IL M , P H IL O S O P H Y A N D

ing that Jacques Rivette write an

both here and elsewhere. As they

1996,284pp., illus., index, rrp $29.95.

C O G N IT IV E S C IE N C E

full review will be published

G regory Currie, Cam bridge U niversity

- “New technology has arrived.

in the next issue of C in e m a

Press, N e w York, 1995,301pp., index,

Each copy of a film can be changed

P a p e rs.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

ncludes an extended interview with author Senel Paz and the

short story “The Wolf, The Woods and The New M an”, together with the script of the film C h o c o la te

S tr a w b e r ry >a n d

(Tomás Gutiérrez Alea,

Juan Carlos Tabío, 1994).

THE VAMPIRE COMPANION T H E O F F IC IA L G U ID E TO A N N E R IC E 'S TH E V A M P IR E

C H R O N IC LES Katherine Ramsland, Little, Brow n, London, 1993, 577pp., illus., rrp $29.95.

the overlooked career of Harr)'

S tuart C unningham and Elizabeth

Senel Paz, Bloom sbury, London, 1995, 197pp., illus., rrp S19.95.

N ew York, 1995,160pp., illus., index,

1995, 312pp., illus., rrp $24.95.

to in general terms as being female,

version of the 1991 edition. As I

film ography, rrp $29.95 (he).

From the BFI Film Classics series.

rect almost to the point of being

This book is a recently updated

184pp., illus., rrp S24.95.

T H E LIFE OF G IN G E R R O G E R S

DISNEY'S BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

& Sound A rchive, Canberra, 1995,

SHALL WE DANCE

ased on the screenplay by Ann

films are over-represented, while

say, “That’s the way it is.”

THE RUN OF THE COUNTRY

A MONTH BY THE LAKE

R IC H A R D A T T E N B O R O U G H B E H IN D T H E C A M E R A

tralian film is not solely due to our

I found the authors politically cor

From the BFI Film Classics series.

Shane Connaughton, Penguin, London,

rrp S75.00 (he)

THE ACTORS'DIRECTOR

tentiously perhaps) that the singular

As a minor quibble, I have to say

rrp £6.99

1995,192pp., illus., index, rrp £18.99 (he).

made here. I would contend (con-

(1993) are the exception

QUEEN CHRISTINA M a rcia Landy and Am y Villarejo,

comprehensive almanac cover

and domestic, released theatrically in

horror films such as Philip Brophy’s

1995, 230pp., index, rrp S29.95.

ton’s text includes more than

100 Y E A R S OF T H E M O V IE S

“success of (Australian) films as a

B o d y M e lt

excellent series.

S T A R A S F E M IN IS T

1995,757pp., rrp S19.95.

useful listing of all films, both foreign

lack of diversity in genre of Aus

published hard-cover biography.

MERCHANDISE LICENSING IN THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY

I share the authors’ view that the

in the selection of films that get

for filmmakers and film lovers alike, as one has come to expect of this

KATHARINE HEPBURN

Rowen, H oughton M ifflin, N ew York,

style and point of view.

Character over Action” and, while

aperback edition of recently

Edited by R obert M oses and Beth

also for its examination of narrative

in the chapter “The Primacy of

Potter, James Toback, Michael Tolkin and others. Essential reading

BFI Publishing, London, 1995,79pp.,

political material into fiction, but

Australian films crack a mention

ing Richard Lowenstein, Sally

London, 1995,192pp., illus., index,

Bookv Received THE 1996 INFORMATION PLEASE ENTERTAINMENT ALMANAC

(1954). In addition, the editors

Patricia W arren, B. T. Batsford Ltd.,

clearly and well. Students of screen

tive not just for its discussion of the

tig o

responses from filmmakers includ

BRANDO

rrp $39.95.

writing will find the “Character,

Marker analyzing Hitchcock’s V er of P r o je c tio n s solicited their own

A N IL L U S T R A T E D H IS T O R Y

genres and how they work before

ent from another as performances of plays in the theatre” - to Chris

Robert W alser, w ith an a fte rw o rd by

And again they outline the various

mix genre.

INSTITUTE BENJAMINA

rrp $90.00.

article for P o s it if on new technology

a d in f in it u m

and become as differ-

WOODY ALLEN AT WORK THE PHO TO G RAPHS OF B R IA N H A M IL L Essay by Charles Cham plin, H arry N. Abram s, N e w York, 1995,191pp., index, illus., rrp $69.96 (he).

legal ease

Partnerships and Companies Holly Ferguson and Nina Stevenson examine the options fo r settin g up a form al business venture hoosing the best busi possible taxation benefit of the trading ness structure can be losses of the business. If a business is tricky when embark expected to make a loss in its early exis ing on a new business tence, and a partnership exists, the loss venture. The popular may be distributed to its partners, whereas business structures in the losses of a company are trapped until the film industry are there are profits against which they can sole traders, partnerships, ventures bejoint offset. and proprietary limited companies. So, to Disadvantages help you decide which of these structures w ill best suit your needs, this article One of the main disadvantages of the use pitches the pros and cons of these struc of the partnership structure is that of tures, particularly the partnership and the unlimited liability. Ever)' partner is jointly company. and severally liable for all debts and oblig ations of the business. This means that if SOLE TRADER the partnership is sued, each of the part Many film producers begin their careers ners will be fiable for the full amount of without adopting any formal business structure. They operate in their own names, or under a business name, as a sole trader. Many of the advantages of a partnership (discussed below) equally apply to a sole trader. The major risk is personal exposure to being sued, which in turn places all your assets (for exam ple, your car or house) at risk if you are required to pay dam ages w here, for exam ple, you are successfully sued because your film defamed someone.

You should also bear in mind that the maximum number of partners is limited to twenty persons (with exception to cer tain professional partnerships).

Conclusion In summary the advantages of partnership are as follows: • it avoids the complex and sometimes onerous provisions of the Corpora tions Law; • you can withdraw and introduce cap ital as often and whenever you wish; • there is less cost in setting up and maintaining the structure; and • it is easier to understand the struc ture of the business arrangement.

bring together the skills and talents of a director and producer and possibly also a w riter. The partnership agreem ent should be quite specific as to ownership of copyright and any rights reserved to a particular partner. The delineation of creative versus business/financial deci sions may also be necessary if one partner is accorded final say on certain creative decisions and another partner has over all control of financial decisions. Another major consideration is remu neration. If all partners’ proposed fees from the film budget are not to be equal, it is also advisable to clarify this at the out set of the relationship. You should also register a business

PARTNERSHIP For a new business venture involving two or more people, it is often simpler and cheaper to commence with a partnership trading under a business name or under the names of all the partners. There will be no returns to prepare and no forms to file with the Australian Securities Commission. If the partners subsequently decide to abandon the development of the film pro ject, the partnership can be easily dissolved. Winding up a company is a more complex, time-consuming and expensive process. Of course, if the film development phase is successful and the film project is financial, the partners may decide to trans fer the film project to a company. The assignment of the film property can be done relatively simply and inexpensively, although it is necessary to have regard to stamp duty and capital gains tax consid erations.

Advantages Generally speaking, it is less expensive to maintain a partnership since there is no requirement to keep registers, hold meet ings, retain minutes, prepare and lodge statutory annual returns, and otherwise comply with the provisions of the Cor porations Law. Another factor to be considered is the

the claim, not merely his/her share. It does not matter that the blame may be attrib utable to only one or some of the partners. Provided that their actions fall within the scope of the business of the partnership, the other partners are unable to disclaim liability. Therefore, the partner with the most “personal” assets (for example, a house) is the most at risk. Another disadvantage is that the part nership terminates as soon as there is a change in the constitution of its members. For example, death of a partner will dis solve the partnership unless provision is made to the contrary in the partnership agreement.

What to Do if You Choose a Partnership It is not essential that there be a written partnership agreement. It is, however, highly advisable in order that the terms regulating the contractual relationship between the partners can be properlyidentified. The m ajor points that should be addressed in the partnership agreement include: the sharing of profits (and losses); loans to the partnership by partners; voluntary retirement; dissolution and the application of arbitration and mediation in the event of disagreement. Furthermore, a film partnership may

name (see below “W hat’s in a Name”) unless you intend to operate under the names of the partners. All contracts entered into by the part nership (for exam ple, a book option) should permit the partnership to assign the rights. This provision is to anticipate the possibility of the partners subsequently deciding to incorporate. COMPANY The most im portant advantage to be gained from incorporating a company is that of limited liability. This is because the shareholders of a company are not liable for the debts of the company. However, C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

with the increasing popularity of company directors’ guarantees, the protection of limited liability is becoming largely illu sory. Company directors may also find that, in addition to providing personal guarantees, they may be asked to provide some form of security (for example, giv ing a mortgage over their house) to secure the performance of the company’s oblig ations. Since the company directors who are normally requested to give guarantees are generally the only shareholders, lia bility for corporate debts w ill still find its way to their doorstep, so to speak. N evertheless, few film contracts require a company director’s personal guarantee and a corporate structure may provide some protection against legal claims such as, for example, that the film is defamatory. A company is a unique business struc ture in that it is a legal entity in its own right. This has a number of consequences including the following: • it does not depend on the continuing existence of its members, if one or all of its members retires, resigns or dies the company will still continue; • members are able to deal with it and sue it which provides p articular benefits in the areas of workers’ com pensation, superannuation and freedom to contract with the entity itself; and • it can own and dispose of property and other assets. A proprietary limited company can have up to 50 members, and with a public com pany the number of members is unlimited. These advantages should be carefully weighed against the disadvantages.

Company Disadvantages To begin with, the incorporation itself can be quite costly. Even if you buy a company off the shelf, you can still expect to pay in the region of $850. In addition, the com pany w ill incur A ustralian Securities Commission filing fees for annual reports and other documents and higher accoun tancy fees. Remember, filing fees are an ongoing expense for the life of the com pany. U sually a film budget does not include the initial incorporation costs or the ongoing filing and accountancy fees. Companies are subject to reporting requirements under the Corporations Law which means lack of privacy. Also, because the affairs of the company are more open to the public, anyone can obtain infor mation on the affairs of the company that would otherwise be unavailable.

Conclusion In sum mary, because of statutory and common law restrictions and require ments, the additional administrative load and extra costs are important factors to consider when deciding whether to incor porate. Nevertheless, the making of a film fre C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1 996

quently involves risks that insurance poli cies do not cover. The protection of “the individual” through a corporate structure is often the primary motivation to incor porate, particularly once a film project proceeds beyond the development phase into production.

What to Do if You Choose Incorporation The simplest way to acquire a company is to ask your solicitor or accountant to pur chase a “shelf company” for you. Broadly speaking, a shelf company is a company that has never undertaken any transac tions. Your chosen company name will become the company name unless another company already has the name. You must also nominate the names of the directors of the company and the shareholders prior to obtaining the com pany. It is now no longer necessary to have two directors and two shareholders (see discussion of the First Corporate Law Simplification Act below). If, however, the company does have two or more share holders, it may be appropriate to have your solicitor draft a Shareholders Agree ment, designed to clarify and regulate certain aspects of the business relationship of the shareholders not specifically dealt with in the company’s governing rules (its Articles of Association).

Administration Requirements On incorporation, your company is issued with a nine digit number. This is the Aus tralian Company Number, or ACN, which is unique to your company. The Corpo rations Law provides that this number, as well as the company name, must appear on the following: • the common seal (a rubber stamp, which is the equivalent of the compa ny’s signature); • every public docum ent lodged, or intended to be lodged, with the Aus tralian Securities Commission; • every public document signed, issued or published by the com pany, for example, letterhead, every contract entered into by the company; and • every negotiable instrum ent of the company, for example, cheques. The company name must also be con spicuously displayed on the outside of its registered office and of every other office. A company must have a registered office in Australia (cannot be a post office box). The company’s registered office must be open for at least 3 hours each business day between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm. A company must keep various registers including a shareholders register. A company must also lodge an annual return with the Australian Securities Com mission. The fee for lodging this annual return is currently $185.00.

Duties of Directors and Secretaries Any individual, over 18 years of age, can be a director and/or secretary of a com pany. The duties and liabilities which are placed on a director are onerous. They include the obligation to act honestly and in the best interests of the company, and to exercise care and diligence and avoid conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the company. Failure to carry out these duties and obligations could mean conviction of a crim inal offence with a penalty of $200,000 or up to 5 years imprisonment, or both! The company secretary also has spe cific duties which includes ensuring that the company notifies the Australian Secu rities Commission of any changes to any of the details of the company and its offi cers, and ensuring that the annual return is lodged on time with the Australian Secu rities Commission. The secretary must also ensure that the company keeps a written record of each meeting (minutes), which should include the date, the time, the members in attendance and the resolu tions.

The First Corporate Law Simplification Act (the "Act") Pursuant to the Act, a company is now only required to have one director, one company secretary and one shareholder, and, of course, the one person can be all three. Furthermore, if the company is classi fied as a “small company”, it will generally not be required to prepare form al accounts (annual profit and loss accounts and a balance sheet), or have them audited. In addition, the company is no longer required to provide key financial data in the annual return. Nevertheless, the company should continue to prepare its accounts in accordance with standard accounting procedures for taxation requirements, etc. A company is a “small company” if any two of the following criteria are satisfied: • the gross operating revenue is less than $10 million for the year; • the gross assets are less than $5 million for the year; • there are less than 50 employees for that year. Accordingly, higher budget films made by a company w ill probably result in the company being excluded from being a “small company”. If the company fails to satisfy at least two of these requirements, it is classified as a “large company” and formal accounts will need to be prepared and be audited and lodged with the Australian Securi ties Commission along with the annual return. The Act also does away with the need to have an Annual General Meeting.

What's in a Name? To carry on a business under a business name in Australia, you have to register your business name under the Business Names Act in your state, or the states in which you will be carrying on your busi ness. If your business is going to be a global enterprise, then it may be wise to register the name in all states to ensure that the name will not be registered by anyone else. In general, anyone can apply to have a business name registered, provided that they are the person or persons carrying on or proposing to carry on business in the state under that name. You can choose any name, subject to a few restrictions. For example, a business name is not to be registered unless it is comprised entirely of letters, numerals and punctuation that are part of the English language. Also, you cannot register a name if it is likely to be confused with a com pany name or a registered business name.

Registration Before applying for registratio n of a business name, you should search the Companies and Business Names index. Registration is then simply effected by completing the prescribed form (available from the office of Business and Consumer Affairs in your state) and lodging it together with the appropriate fee (which is approximately $100). The initial registration of a business name will be in force for a period of three years. Close to the expiry of the term, you will normally receive a renewal form and any renewal of registration will take effect from the date of expiry of the previous registration. You should note that registration in itself will not confer on you any particu lar rights in relation to third parties. However, where someone has been car rying on business under a registered name for some time, it would afford substantial evidence of the person having established a right to the exclusive use of such name.

Administrative Requirements You should also be aware that the regis tration of a business name imposes certain obligations, the main duties being as fol lows: • the business name must appear in leg ible characters on business letters and other formal documents; • the business name must at all times be displayed in a conspicuous place on the outside of every place at which busi ness is carried on under that name; and • the certificate of registration of the business name must at all times be exhibited in a conspicuous position at the place where business is carried on under that name, or if there is more than one place, at the principal place where business is so carried on. If in doubt, remember to check it out. ©

Rachel Griffiths H ard y, but th a t’s w h y Ang Lee has d irected S en se a n d p10 S e n s ib il it y , and w hy The Woodlanders is being directed by quite a rad ical docum entary film m aker. Everybody is very aw are that w ith these classic literary adaptations there has to be a fresh vision attached. It has to get back to the essence, which in some ways has been muddled up with a certain reverence and a style of adaptatio n that people are no longer interested in. M ichael was being more fervently true to the time. Most of Ju de is set in O xford, and he d id n ’t w ant to use Oxford because Oxford looks like a chocolate box now, whereas H ardy’s ‘Oxford’ was a very austere, forebod ing, impressive, classist place. So, we moved to some of the harsher places in Edinburgh to get a lot of that stuff, and also to Durham. Michael went for landscapes that were rugged rather than picturesque. The type of farming and the size of farms were different then to how they are now. Costume dramas tend not to want to acknowl edge the poverty level, the grit and the dirt of England at that time. In Roman Polanski’s Tess, there is the smell of shit. I think Polanski was right. The stench of 1860s England was certainly enough to keep many of French per fume facto ries in good business. [Laughs.]

Future Directions A re y o u ta k in g a b re a k n o w ?

Yes, ap art from flyin g around the world three times with Muriel’s. I had some w onderful tim es. I w ent to Barcelona and the film festival there. I met some wonderful filmmakers, try ing to get other jobs, basically. I met some of my heroes, which has been very exciting. Y o u s e e m to h a v e c h o s e n y o u r w o r k w it h a d e g re e o f c a u tio n .

Caution for me is not something that I have to feign. I’m probably overly aware of my lim itations as a person and as an actor, and have been at var ious stages in my career. I’ve never done anything for money - no, that’s not true; I actually did an ice cream ad for the money. I’m not saying I would n’t do that again in the future, with the mortgage and a couple of kids, but I was very careful in moving from sup po rt parts to lead rôles. I’m very careful about not being typecast. I’ve knocked back quite a few Rhondatype rôles since Muriel’s. I sometimes actually regret that, because some of them were very good, and I think I could have been very funny.

Sometimes I think I’ve done things that I may not be as good in, but they have stretched me, and on the next thing I do I feel exorcized from the thing before. But I certain ly never expected to be an overnight success and I don’t really expect things to last. I always think, “This is the last job”, and you want your last job to be your best, rather than, “Well this is just the shit I do before the next big hit.” I just wouldn’t dare think that way. G e o rg e M ille r sa id re c e n tly th a t A u s tra lia c o u ld s ta rt te a c h in g A m e ric a n s a d iffe re n t kin d o f s to ry te llin g . W h a t are y o u r fe e lin g s a b o u t th e A u s tra lia n film

squeeze it. But the moment we think we should make this kind of film or that kind of film, we are fucked. Films come from individual visions and indi vidual im aginations. They then go through some kind of collaborative process, but the initial impulse in the way the world is seen is from the indi vidual, and we can really only foster the individual. That is more important than fostering The Film Industry, this almost nebulous thing. The film indus try is only the people in it who have the vision to make films. It is not all the crap around the edges. We kind of forget that sometimes. ©

in d u s try n o w a n d w h e r e it is h e ad in g ?

I don’t think last year’s stuff was really that wonderful, but I think this year is going to be an astonishing one for Aus tralian filmmaking, both here and for Australians making films overseas. I know that there are a couple of extra ordinary projects. Apparently someone in the Los A ngeles T im es review of Shine said “We used to make movies like this” and they were going into rap tures. There is a m iddle ground of content and form which has been lost in the A m erican m arket at the moment. Movies have become polar ized into m essage m ovies and anti-message movies. So, you’ll have Pulp F iction and the anti-m essage “Fuck you, this means nothing and I’m not going to give you a big ending. You know that makes the world seem like a chocolate cake”; it’s a really heavily embraced form. At the other end of the spectrum, there are movies that are very unadventurous in their form; their content is fairly heavy and obvious. Australians tend to occupy the mid dle ground, where form and content are inseparable. I don’t think we like saying anything too obviously, unless it is undercut in the next second with “All, I was only kidding.” To me, the most significant art in any medium, or the most meaningful, is where both those things fit somewhere in the mid dle in an extraordinary blend. I think we do that and Children o f the R evo lution is a wonderful example. It really excitedly uses form and explores dif ferent ways of storytelling and it is not without content, whether that is polit ical or even just human content - what it is to be hum an - w ith no real answers but with things floating. Lilian’s Story, having heard a little bit about it, certainly seems to have both. I think Cosi really embraces form and is not without content. Priscilla might have been light on content, but it wasn’t heavy on message; it was just celebra tion of form in a really positive way. Something about our film culture is so young that we are com pulsive definers in Australia: a pimple appears and everyone wants to measure it and

Michael Tolkin ,__

But most people are not looking for com fort, they are n “ 119^ looking to be overwhelmed. I like to be overwhelmed, too, but I’m suspicious of movies that overwhelm. A re th e r e m a rk e d d iffe re n c e s in th e w a y th e film is re c e iv e d in A m e ric a a n d th e w a y it is re c e iv e d o u ts id e o f A m e ric a ?

I don’t really know what the response was overseas because I didn’t see that many reviews. The film was so badly distributed that it wasn’t really going to have much of a chance. Most of the international festivals didn’t want it. We were at Deauville, but we didn’t get into Cannes or Venice. At the time it bothered me, but then I saw that there was a certain kind of movie they were taking. There is a certain kind of American film that the Europeans usu ally don’t get - or do get and don’t w an t to th ink about. The Europe which is waiting for America to save it from Bosnia is not the holy temple of intellectual clarity that American intellectuals imagine Europe is. W hen The N ew Age came out, we got some incredibly good reviews here. Harpers called it the funniest, sexiest American comedy in a decade, and Film C om m ent magazine put us in the top ten. We were on the top five list of Peter Rainer, head of the national crit ics organization, and it was the second night’s film at the Tokyo Film Festival, where they gave Judy a big award. We had a gala at Toronto, but there was also a resistance to it, and a certain kind of confusion. This gets back to what I was trying to say earlier about hypocrisy. There is a confusion th at comes from a fraudulent superiority and objectivity. People pretended they didn’t like these p eople. This is the com m ent th at always bothers me, whether it is about my w ork or anybody else’s w ork. I think this applies to a film like Leav ing Las Vegas or to Safe. The term “independent film ” was coined by A m erican d istribu to rs

around six or seven years ago, because the term “art movie” was death in the market place. So, somebody came up with the Independent Feature Project, which has been around for ten years. It is an organization devoted to help in g in dep en den t film m akers. But, across the board, the independent films, or independent-minded movies, don’t go very well at the box-office because the audience that really should be sup p ortin g them w aits for the video. In the end, the audience wants to see the easier commercial movie, like everybody else does, even what used to be the intellectual audience. Smoke [Wayne Wang, 1995] was a very good movie, a wonderful, relax ing couple of hours in the theatre. It doesn’t change the world, but it has a feeling of reverence. It is beautifully done, an incredibly good ending, and Harvey Keitel gives one of the best per formances of his life. But I don’t think it made more than $8 or $9 million, and it had to eke that out. They spent a lot of money on advertising even to get that and it didn’t cross over. The Usual Suspects [Bryan Singer, 1995] crosses over because it is a bril liantly put-together heist film, but even then it only made $20 million; it did n’t make $60 million. There is a little bit of grit in it, there is a little bit of discomfort, there is something in that movie to make you feel uncom fort able, something about it that is just a little bit queer, and I mean queer in every way. And w hat’s queer in it is what makes most independent movies interesting, but is what will turn off all but a specialized audience. D id y o u s p e c ific a lly w r it e The N e w Age fo r J u d y D a v is a n d P e te r W e lle r?

When I wrote The Rapture, I had Judy in mind. So, I had been thinking about her for a long tim e, though I really didn’t have anybody specifically in m ind for The N ew Age. I was actu ally very grateful that Judy and Peter did the movie. I m et Peter at a p arty and he is a big fan of The Rapture and was raving to me about it. We gave him The New Age and he called me and said he wouldn’t want anyone else to be in it, he had to be in it; it was his story. Then Judy read it. I had a couple of calls with her when I was here and she was in Sydney, and we worked it out. H ad y o u seen th e m to g e th e r in The Naked Lunch [D a v id C ro n e n b e rg , 1991]?

Yes, and I liked the idea of w orking with the Astaire and Rogers of psy chosis. I hope that somebody lets them make a movie again. It would be great to see them do a movie in about 10 years. It would be very interesting to see them work together again. C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

A n d J e a n L e v y [P a tric k B a u c h a u ], w h o is a k in d o f fa c ilita to r , a c o n d u it o f s o rts fo r th e s e c h a ra c te rs m a k in g th e s e jo u rn e y s . Is t h a t w h y y o u c a s t P a tric k B a u c h a u a g a in in The N e w Age?

That is a good question. Patrick him self is very interesting, very thoughtful; I’d say a philosophical and spiritual person. He has a very interesting, rich energy. Too often he is used because he is European and has an accent and is handsome ... a cliché vampire. I promised him that the next time I make a movie he is going wear a straw hat, ride a bicycle and pick up the tow els around the pool at a N ew York hotel, and have absolutely nothing to say of value to anybody ... and not get laid! A t th e e n d o f The N e w Age, K a th e rin e s e e m s to b e to s o m e d e g re e a little m o r e a c c e p tin g o f th e c o n s tra in ts o f th is n e w life , h a v in g fa c e d ro c k b o tto m , w h e r e a s P e te r s e e m s to still h a v e a n e e d to b e in to ta l c o n tro l.

Peter elected to go to hell.

Well, I think because she earned it. She also had to get away from him. For Katherine to grow, she was going to have to leave him. C o u ld y o u ta lk a b o u t th e in flu e n c e s , p a rtic u la r film s , w r itin g s , in m a k in g The N e w Age? Y o u m e n tio n e d P ro u s t e a rlie r.

I haven’t completed Proust, so I don’t want to use him as a reference. I’m a classically-eclectic product of an edu cation and an adolescence in which I really didn’t see that much difference between Jam es Bond and Chekhov, because I thought they were both kind of cool. When you are 1 4 ,1 think you are re a lly d efin in g things for the future. W hat trash do you like and w hat art do you like? W hat kind of pornography do you like? “What was the formative pornography of your adolescence?” would be an interesting question to ask people. I don’t know whether it is polite, and whether they are obliged to answer, but it is cer tainly something to think about. A fte r w a tc h in g The Rapture, I w o u ld

A n d h e ll is a te le p h o n e m a r k e tin g

h a v e th o u g h t a d e fin in g in flu e n c e

com pany?

w o u ld h a v e b e e n B ress o n o r D reye r?

Have you ever worked at one? N o , b u t y o u h a v e , I u n d e rs ta n d .

Maybe he is in purgatory, but I think not. Peter is given every opportunity to show some courage and he just can’t. A n d w o u ld y o u in c lu d e in t h a t te r m " c o u r a g e " k illin g h im s e lf?

No, he takes the leap. She gives him the choice of life and he takes life again, but he doesn’t have the courage to go any further w ith it. He is not there. I think he is too shocked. It is like the end of T he R apture. Mimi and I talked about “The Rapture Part II”, w hich is about th ree sec onds long. T h ere’s darkness, M im i looks up, you hear God saying, “Oh, all right”, and then she goes too! At the end of The N ew Age, I talked to Peter and Adam West about com ing back, in 10 years. Just as I think that somebody should use Peter and Judy again in a movie, I’d like to see a m ovie about Peter and his fath er, when the father is too old to take care of himself and Peter takes care of him. W ill h e s till b e tr y in g to b u y re d s u its , a n d p ic k u p y o u n g w o m e n ?

No, no. There will be no money. T h e y m ig h t b e in t h e m id d le o f th e d e s e rt?

I see them not at a trailer park - that is too easy - but living in a small retire ment community, and the son is taking care of the father. The son is in his fifties and the father is in his eighties. The N e w Age h o ld s o u t a little b it o f h o p e fo r K a th e r in e , a t le a s t.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Not that much. I don’t really know Dreyer that well, and, while I’ve seen most of the Bresson movies, I haven’t really studied them. W hen I was a kid I saw a lot of Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa. I was influenced by the classical European cinem a, W arner Brothers gangster movies and film noir on television as a mood rather than a series of com plete movies. When you are little, you don’t really know the whole story. You don’t even necessarily watch the whole movie from beginning to end. You get scenes and shadows and you take the movies the way we wake up in the morning as dreams. So I think that was really the influence. I don’t want to underestimate James Bond. Ian Fleming had a big effect on me. I haven’t re-read Fleming in a long time. I don’t think I’ve read a Bond novel since I was in my teens, but I read them all. In w h a t w a y w e r e th e y b ig in flu en ces?

Rapid storytelling. Also, Bond is a veryinternal character, a very dark inter nal character. He has no friends, he is a loner, he is sexual, there is always danger and I think he is unhappy. That is what makes him so compelling. H o w d o y o u d iv id e y o u r t im e in b e tw e e n w r itin g a n d d ire c tin g film s a n d w r itin g n o v els ?

Right now I’m concentrating on film. After I wrote The N ew Age, I had fin ished seven years’ worth of intense work. All my movies and my books were done in that seven or eight years, and I was just tired.

The N ew Age came out a year-anda-h alf ago, and I spent the last year-an d -a-h alf w o rkin g on other scripts. I’ve been working on an adap tation of Patricia Highsmith’s Ripley Underground, which I hope to direct next, for about one year. There are three Ripley projects right now. Anthony Minghella has The Tal e n t e d Mr R ip ley, I’ve got R ip ley Underground, M ike Newell has Rip l e y ’s G am e. All of us are racing to get there first. I actually think it would be cool if everybody made a movie. Three Ripleys, three films ... may the best man win! I’ve been w orking for a year on a p ro ject for D ream w orks, w hich I won’t be directing, about a false accu sation child abuse scandal in North Carolina; a pilot for HBO for a year; and a children’s movie, Herald and the Purple Crown, I’ve been working on for two, two-and-a-half years. But I’m also desperate to direct. I’d like to direct a few movies quickly right now, but I don’t know. There is a lot of talk about money being available for lowbudget movies, but nobody has proven that those lo w -b udget m ovies are really going to break out. It is just that they lose less money. They don’t make money, they just lose less, you know. A re Gleaming the Cube a n d Deep Cover v a s tly d iffe re n t to w h a t y o u w r o te ?

Last year, Grove Press published an edition of my screenplays. M y intro duction covers this territo ry and I spent a lot of time trying to explain it. W hen I published the book, I decided to print the version of the script which conforms to what is on the screen, because I don’t think that it really serves the film for people to know what went before. It makes peo ple experts of the movie. Again, what I don’t want to do is create a feeling of in dep en den t su p erio rity to the work, or any extra knowledge about the w ork. As soon as you look at a movie and you know that the scene on the film is not exactly what was on the page as w ritten , you are out of the film , and you become an expert. I d o n ’t th ink art should encourage expertise. I think expertise is a posi tion of independence which, as I keep saying, is bad for art. There isn ’t a movie made that doesn’t have a few people working on it. It is very rare where one writer is on a project all the way from beginning to end. The W rit ers’ G uild has decided th at for everybody’s health it is best to try to lim it the number of writers who get credit.

t h a t y o u a d m ir e , o r w o u ld lik e to c o m m e n t on?

I’m tired of the movies a little bit right now. I’m tired of the discourse; I’m tired of the way we talk about movies all the time. But, as I said, I really like Leaving Las Vegas. I think Figgis has made his best movie. I saw Wim W enders’ Lisbon Story, and I really liked that, because it has Patrick Bauchau and was a veryslight movie. In the face of so much energy on the screen, and so much ambition, I think to make a movie that was as gentle and as free as this was really a welcome, radical gift. I loved M u r ie l’s W ed d in g [P. J. H ogan, 1994], I had an incredible time with that. I like small movies. I like a good small film, you know, just people’s lives. Ah, and I think Babe [Chris Noonan, 1995] is the best movie of the year! I do. I think it is the smartest film, the most generous. I liked D um b a n d D u m b er [Peter Farrelly, 1995]. One of the things I like about it was the way that at the end they didn’t get on the bus. They were too stupid to get on the bus with the massage oil team. I thought that was actually very pure. Abbott and Costello would not have got on the bus, Laurel and Hardy would not have got on the bus, and I just thought there was a certain honesty, an integrity, to that. I really like Seven [David Fincher, 1995], too. One of the things I liked about S ev en is th at I w as sure the movie was going to end with the wife wrapped in silver gaffer tape sitting on a bomb. I just thought they are going to sell out. In Babe, the thing that I was really grateful for was that the dogs come and give Babe the password before the competition begins. There was some thing about that which was extremely pure. It didn’t play one more overly predictable or really sentimental card at th at m om ent, and it had th at integrity. We have a little theme worked up here, which is: What I liked about the Wim Wenders movie, and Seven, and Babe is that all of them absolutely held to the w ay they w an ted to tell the story, regardless of the trad itio n al methods. © 1

T h e R a p tu re

was released theatrically in

A ustralia and is available on video. N ew A ge

The

was released direct-to-video in

Australia lare in 1995 by W arner Home Video. 2 Interview- with Gavin Smith, m e n t,

F ilm C o m

September-October 1994.

J From the introduction of

T h ree S c re e n

A r e th e r e p a rtic u la r film s o r film m a k

p la y s B y M ic h a e l T o lk in ,

Grove Press,

ers w h o s e w o r k y o u h a v e s e e n la te ly

New York, 1995.

history p lain in g of the in decency of Mutoscope pictures.60 The task of cen so ring these types of shows in Victoria before the appoint ment of an official censor in 1926 was allocated to the state’s police force.61 The alleged offence took place at a Mutoscope Parlour run by Frederick G. W ilson at 138 Swanston Street, M el bourne. A cting on com plaints, Detective-Sergeant Macmanamny was asked to investigate, reporting the result to the Crown Law Department of Vic toria.62 The parlour was later described in court: The room was a sort of vestibule, with rows of stands round it, each stand h o ldin g one of the m utoscope machines, with an apparatus to look through. On each m achine w as a notice saying that if a penny were put in a slot the instrument would work. The suggestive always attracted peo ple, and in this case great crowds were attracted. The w orst feature of the place was that to enable children to look at the pictures a small platform for them to stand on had been built in front of the machine.63 From the end of January 1904, Detec tive-S ergean t M acm anam ny visited the Mutoscope Parlour several times.64 Acting on condemnatory statements by this policeman, a Permanent Magistrate, M r Panton, issued a warrant authoriz ing M acm anam ny to seize four M utoscope reels on 19 February 1904A These were Why Marie Blew the

Light Out, A Peeping Tom, Behind the S c e n e s and T he T e m p t a ti o n o f St. Anthony.66 The first of these showed “a woman undressing, but [she] blew the light out before [her] nude figure could be seen”.67 A P eepin g Tom, a copy of which survives in Australia with frames enlarged to illustrate this article, opens w ith a man w atching some girls in a bedroom through a window. As they start to undress, the voyeur is detected and the girls throw a washbasin of water over him. The contents of the last two reels have not yet been determined. U nder section 77, p art 5, of the Police Offences Act (1890), Mutoscope manager Wilson was summonsed to jus tify his objections to the confiscation of the reels.68 The case was heard in the M elbourne City Court on 11 M arch 1904, the charge being that Wilson pos sessed and exhibited for profit “obscene pictures”.69 Macmanamny was grilled by the defence counsel (the unfortu nately named M r. Purves, K.C.), and it was hinted that the policem an had acted on behalf of complaints by YMCA officials.70 The Bench retired to view the four sets of p ictures, and, w ith only one

exception, they agreed that the action in confiscating the m aterial was justi fied. Panton’s summing-up was a broad condemnation of the show: Anyone who had seen the pictures brought before the Court must agree that they were most degrading. It was a matter for regret that any company should have thought that such an exhi b ition w ould be to lerated in M elbourne. It was not as if it were confined to adults, but children were allowed to go and look at these pic tures. It was a disgraceful exhibition.71 W ilson was fined £10 or seven days’ gaol on default, and the Bench ordered that the reels be held until the time fixed for an appeal, then destroyed.72 Defence Counsel Purves immediately lodged an appeal on this decision, charg ing that there was no proof that Wilson had exhibited the four reels in question. Furthermore, under the law, the occu pier of the premises where the material was allegedly shown was liable to pros ecution - but W ilson had not been charged as the occupier.73 These proceedings only served to boost W ilso n ’s M utoscope Parlour more than paid advertising could ever aspire to. While Wilson waited for his appeal, the normally conservative Bal larat C o u r ier in d icated that his conviction wasn’t widely supported by the community: The Mutoscope has been doing a roar ing trade in Melbourne. This was quite sufficient for that peculiar evolution ary result of the genus homo known as the policeman to step in and sum mons somebody. It is so comforting to know that we will not be allowed to go astray in spite of ourselves, and that we are paying huge sums of money yearly for the maintenance of a body of huge men to keep a watchful eye on us and see that we don’t drop a penny in the slot to have a peep at a picture th at can m ake a policem an blush, w h ilst our houses are robbed and garotters [are] allowed to roam about at large.74 In the Melbourne Practice Court on 27 April 1904, M agistrate Panton’s deci sion was quashed.7;>No detailed account of the appeal has been lo cated, but W ilson’s exhibitions appear to have continued without further interruption or trouble. By 12 May 1904, another Mutoscope Parlour opened when photographer Chuck of Sturt Street, Ballarat, set up a dozen machines outside his studio. This time the programme of items on show was a little more subdued76: 1) Queen Victoria’s Last Visit to Ireland 2) The Delhi Durbar 3) Dinner Party 4) Ardpatrick’s Derby

5) Kitchener’s Return from South Africa 6) King Edward and President Loubet in Paris

7) A Tug in a Heavy Sea 8) The Sydney Express 9) Griffo vs. Doherty Prize Fight 10) C onvict’s Escape 11) Lord Cardigan’s M elbourne Cup 12) The Drunken Carpenter.

Decline of Mutoscope Parlours After the 1904 obscenity trials, M uto scope P arlou rs slo w ly lo st th eir novelty. The machines continued to be exhibited, but they were to be found in less numerous groupings, integrated w ith other co in -slo t attractio n s in amusement arcades, in public houses or by the seaside. By 1908, no new films expressly intended for Mutoscope exhibition were being produced77 by the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, and, in the following year, its company name was abbreviated to the Biograph Company78, as its future was seen to be with films for projec tion in theatres. Follow ing the demise of the Bio graph Company during W orld W ar I, the remains of the Mutoscope opera tion were sold to W illiam Rabkin of New York, who formed the Interna tional M utoscope R eel Com pany in 1920.79 In 1924, he commenced pro ducing his own one-minute ‘filmlets’, building up a catalogue of comedy and ‘girlie’ items for reproduction as Muto scope reels for fairgrounds. Three years later, he started to produce M utoscopes in a sim p lified sh eet m etal cabinet, and, in 1934, he supplemented his reels w ith to p ical subjects from new sreels. The last vestige of N ew York’s International Mutoscope Reel Company was still printing Mutoscope reels in 1991!80 For a short period the Mutoscope rep resen ted the state of the art in motion picture viewing. In the 1890s, when the minute-long Mutoscope reels equalled the average length of a film, they could seriously compete with the atrical film projection as a profitable means of presentation. As films grew longer and more complex, the minutelong extracts that the Mutoscope could show relegated it to a minor role as a conveyor of mirth and titillation. It is difficult to think of any other motion picture device th at is so sim ple and effective in continuous commercial use since its introduction a century ago.

in the form of M utoscope reels. An animation bench to rephotograph these reels frame by frame onto 16mm film was built by Long. In this way, M uto scope film s of L ord D u n d o n a l d ’s

C avalry C a p tu rin g a K o p je n e a r th e Spion K op (1 8 9 9 ), Q u e e n V ictoria’s Funeral (1901) and Q u een Alexandra Presenting B oer War Service Medals to V eterans at W h iteh a ll (1 9 0 2 ) w ere in cluded on the video. Each reel of almost 1,000 frames took a good eight hours’ work to rephotograph, produc ing only a m inute of action, but the material was otherwise unavailable. The question naturally arises as to the survival of early Australian movies in this form. None has been sighted so far, but their existence is highly likely. On 2 November 1899, W. K. L. Dick son shot two 70m m film s of the

Disembarkation and First Roll-Call o f the N ew South Wales Lancers at Cape T ow n (Boer W ar)81, and these would probably have been printed as M uto scope reels. Furtherm ore, on at least two occasions, 70mm Biograph show ings in Australia included local items on their programmes, and these may have been printed as Mutoscope reels:

1897 T here is some doubt of these being 70mm films as they resemble material shot by E. J. Thwaites and R. W. Harvie of Melbourne on 35mm film: Caulfield Cup Series (shot 16 October 1897)

1) Arrival o f Race Train at Caulfield Station

2) Start o f the Caulfield Cup 3) Finish o f the Caulfield Cup 4) The Crowd on the Lawn, Caulfield. The above were shown at the Criterion Theatre, Perth, commencing 1 Novem ber 18 9 7 .82 Advertisements indicated that the machine had previously been shown at the Palace Theatre, London, B ritish M utoscope and B io grap h ’s London venue. The co m p an y’s announcement of 3 November 1897 (p. 7) in The West Australian stated that “tonight both the Cinematographe and the Biographe will be exhibited - a deci sion arrived at by the management for the purpose of proving that the latter is an entirely different invention”. This statement may indicate that the com pany was exhibiting both 35m m and 70mm films.

1901 Royal Visit Series (shot 6 May 1901)

Mutoscope Reels of Australian Films?

1) The Duke and Duchess o f York land ing at St. Kilda Pier [Melbourne]

W hen Chris Long was producing the NFSA video, Federation Films, in 1990, he becam e aw are of the su rvival of news films from the turn of the century

2) The Royal Procession Passing O ver Princes Bridge [Melbourne]. The above w ere c e rta in ly shot on 70m m film by exhibito rs W yld and C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Freedm an, but th ere is some doubt about their successful processing and exhibition. (Refer Cinema Papers, No. 104, June 1995, p. 55.) On 10 M arch 1902, the American courts ruled that Edison’s control over the usage of 35m m film was invalid. This permitted the Mutoscope and Bio graph Company to use standard 35mm film, which could be enlarged for repro duction on Mutoscope reels. The 70mm gauge was phased out by the Company over the next three years. W ith this change, the likelihood of A ustralian films being reproduced as Mutoscope reels was greatly increased. So far, only the following Australian reels have been noted from advertisements - in the Bal larat Courier, 13 M ay 1904, p. 2:

Poverty Point”, and ibid, 6 August 1903, “At Poverty Point”.

Both of the above m ay be A m erican reels re-labelled to imply local origin. For instance, the race reel may be The [B ritish] G rand N a tio n a l (shot 24 March 1899), and The Sydney Express m ay be E m pire S tate Express (shot 1897).

gram m e (p rin ted in N elso n , N ew

T he P h o n o g ram ,

Zealand, early in 1901) listing W yld and

N ew Y o rk, O ctober

Freedm an’s “British Biograph” films. It

The

includes

K in e t o s c o p e : B e g in n in g s o f t h e A m e r ic a n F ilm ,

em a,

T h e E m e r g e n c e o f C in

scope re e l of th is is h eld by the

Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York,

1990, pp. 91-100. N e w Y o rk W o r ld ,

28 M ay 1895, p. 30.

7 Gordon Hendricks, B e g in n in g s

o f th e B io

g r a p h , B e g in n in g s o f th e A m e r ic a n F ilm ,

New York, 1964, pp. 2-8.

N ig h t s ,

A M illio n a n d O n e

Prem ier’s Correspondence Index - Rev.

item

W illia m s co m p lain s of in d ec en cy of

140, “One M utoscope”, n.d. - c. 1935.

M u to sco p e p ic tu re s, le tte r d ated 29

o f E m p ir e ,

33 T here is some doubt about its present

11 Vide ref. (7), pp. 8-15.

location. Klepner thought that it was in

12 Ibid, pp. 53-6

the M useum Des Arts et M etiers, Paris,

13 Ibid, pp. 54-5. 14 The image occupied the whole width of the film , w h erea s in 35m m p ra ctic e

John Barnes,

T h e R is e o f t h e C in e m a in

Bishopsgate Press, London,

T h e B u lle t in ,

Sydney, 11 April 1903, “At

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Biograph was to Italy to film the Pope on

T h e H e r a ld ,

24 June 1898. Refer ref. (24), p. 158.

1904, p. 5;

40 Eileen Bowser, C in e m a ,

19 Ibid, pp. 19-24.

p. 60.

known by either of the authors. See also

B r is b a n e C o u r ie r ,

22 Vide ref. (7), p. 65.

46 Ibid.

23 Vide ref. (5), p. 264.

47 Ibid, 18 October 1902, p. 2.

24 John Barnes,

P io n e e r s o f th e B r it is h F ilm ,

48 C o n firm ed by re fe re n c e to an o th e r

Bishopsgate Press, London, 1983, p. 162.

machine from the same batch that came

25 Viola Tait, A

to A ustralia; see

Heine-

F a m ily o f B ro th e rs ,

T he A ge o f M o v em en t

(activ

Stocking” in

No. 91,

R o c k h a m p to n R ec o rd ,

1904,

23 August 50

Sydney,

51 Ibid.

S o u t h A u s t r a lia n R e g

52 Ibid.

29 P u n c h , M elbourne, 31 M ay 19 00;

53 The

New York, 3 Septem ber 1967 (re. Rabkin); T h e N e w Y o rk e r, 16 O cto ber 1 9 4 8 : “P ro file - P enny

Arcade Philanthropist”, by Robert Rice. Bob K lepner v isited the w o rksh o p in N ew Y o rk in 19 91 and saw th e re el p rin ter - o rigin al m ach inery from the 1890s - still in operation.

30.

p. 6.

T h e B u lle t in ,

Dover Books, N ew

Vide. ref. (40), p. 35.

W . K. L. Dickson, tle ,

T h e S y d n e y M o r n in g H e r a ld ,

Im age,

79 T h e S u n d a y N e w s ,

D a ily M a il,

T h e B io g r a p h in B a t

T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1901, p.

24.

12 Decem

ber 1902, p. 2; 13 December 1902, p. 9.

28 L e a d e r , Melbourne, 19 M ay 1900, p. 22;

Adelaide, 19 June 1900, p. 3.

23 Ju ly 1904,

26 S ep tem b er 1 9 0 4 , p. 6 ; 1 O ctober

Klepner, M elbourne.

is t e r ,

Andrew H. Eskind, “She Banked on her

1904, pp. 2, 6; 23 September 1904, p. 5;

Angeles, C alifornia. Copy held by Bob

T h e B u lle t in ,

Ibid, 13 M ay 1904, p. 2.

21 September 1904, p. 2 ; 22 September

tu re A rts and Sciences co llectio n , Los

2 June 1900, p. 8;

scope Case”. 76

Brisbane, 20 September 1904, pp. 2, 6;

1900, held in A cadem y of M otion Pic

1897, p. 2; p. 3: “Palace T heatre”.

Ibid, 28 A pril 1904, p. 4 : “The M u to

23 July 1904, p.

p. 2; 27 July 1904, pp. 1, 2 ;

C om pany and its a ffilia te s), c. M arch

T h e S y d n e y M o r n in g H e r a l d ,

Ibid., 23 April 1904, p. 2.

York, 1979, p. 28.

C in e m a P a p e r s ,

R o c k h a m p t o n B u ll e t i n ,

itie s of the M u to sco p e and B iograp h

31 M arch 1904, p. 6:

January 1993, p. 38.

mann Australia, Melbourne, 1971, p. 17. 26 Prospectus:

Ibid.

8 October 1902, p. 2.

45 Ibid, 11 October 1902, p. 6.

ref. (7), plate 2 caption.

Ibid.

“The Mutoscope Case”.

number 11941 (c. 1902).

21 No su rv iv in g M ason m echan ism s are

Ibid.

73 B a l l a r a t C o u r ie r ,

43 Bob Klepner has an exam ple with serial

20 Ibid, pp. 39-40.

T h e T r a n s f o r m a tio n o f

U niversity of C alifornia Press,

41 Vide ref. (7). 42 Ibid,

M e lb o u rn e, 26 F ebru ary 22 Feb

G e e lo n g A d v e r t is e r ,

Vide ref. (63).

Berkeley, 1990, p. 152.

18 Ibid, p. 1.

12 M arch 1904, p.

ruary 1904, p. 1.

38 Vide ref. (5), p. 264.

17 Vide ref. (7), pp. 30-9.

G e e lo n g A d v e r t is e r ,

37 Earliest known European excursion by

9: “The W ar By Biograph”.

Ibid. Vide ref. (63).

39 Vide ref. (9), p. 216.

16 T h e A r g u s , M elbourne, 21 M ay 1900, p.

M elbourne, 12 M arch 1904,

p. 5.

No. 104, June 1995, p.

40.

T he A rg u s,

Ibid. Also T h e H e r a l d , M elbo urn e, 20 February 1904, p. 3; 26 February 1904,

C in e m a P a p e r s ,

15 Ibid. Refer frame enlargements with this

22 February 1904, p.

the Cinémathèque Française.

on both sides of the image strip. Hence,

article, and copy sample of neg strip in

62 G e e lo n g A d v e r tis e r ,

34 Vide ref. (7), p. 30.

one might expect.

F i l m C e n s o r s h ip in A u s

U niversity of Q ueensland Press,

p. 16: “M utoscope Pictures”.

35 Vide ref. (5), p. 170.

film , rather than the four-fold increase

Ina B ertrand, tr a lia ,

while John Barnes (UK) thinks that it’s in

sprocket holes occupied a significant area

2 June 1900, p. 22;

T h e W eb

1978, p. 11.

1983, p. 147.

“Mutoscope Exhibition”.

October 1903. 61

M acm illan, London, 1902, p.

G r e a t B r it a in ,

10 October 1902, p. 4,

to n , VPRS 1 4 1 1 , V o l. 5 7 , p. 6 3 7 , C a ta lo g u e o f

eight tim es the area of those on 35m m

B r is b a n e C o u r ie r ,

R id in g

438.

10 Ibid.

W ellington, 8 Decem

V ictorian Public Records Office, Laver

32 Sir Donald Mackenzie W allace,

1926, p. 213.

Ibid, 26 November 1903.

59 T h e E v e n in g P o s t ,

p. 6.

the B iograph 70m m film im ages w ere

tralian M utoscope advertising as

t h e W i l l D a y C in e m a C o l l e c t i o n ,

Simon and Schuster, New York,

S yd n ey, 14 A p ril 1 9 0 3 :

“Amusements”.

Copy held by Bob Klepner.

9 T e rry R am saye ,

T h e B u lle t in ,

w as p ro b ab ly the re el n am ed in A us

31 Vide ref. (9), p. 422. Also

67-9

w it h K it c h e n e r .

8 Ibid, appendix “A”, Herman Casler, pp.

Sydney, 6 August 1903: “At

Poverty Point”.

ber 1993, pp. 4 and 6; 9 December 1903,

Next Issue

This series is financially supported by Griffith University (Brisbane) and the Australian Research Grants Commis sion, whose support was very graciously arranged by Pat Laughren of the Grif fith M edia Studies D epartm ent. The authors would also like to thank the fol lowing individuals and institutions: In Melbourne: State Library of Vic toria; Public Records Office, Laverton; Ian M cLarlane; M im i Colligan; Prue Long; Bev Klepner; Australian Indus trial P roperty O rganisation (Patent Office). In Brisbane: State Library of Queens land; Tim Mather. In W ellin gto n : C live So w ry, for details of the Mutoscope’s introduction to New Z ealand; New Z ealand Lilm Archive. ©

56 T h e B u lle t in ,

Performing Arts Museum, M elbourne. It

So far, this series has examined the work of pre-1904 Australian producers such as the Salvation Army Limelight Depart ment, Marius Sestier, and others more or less well known. But what of the for gotten men, like H erbert W yndham , chief producer for the Australian Ani mated Picture Syndicate, who attempted to promote immigration via Australian films shown in Britain? The n ext issue w ill exam ine the work of Australia’s forgotten produc tion pioneers.

Acknowledgments

The M uto

M elbourne, 11 Ju ly 1903; 18

July 1903; 25 July 1903: “Amusements”.

L o r d D u n d o n a ld ’s C a v a l r y n e a r

L ie F la t - H o r s e s to th e R e a r ”.

Ibid, 11 April 1903: “At Poverty Point”.

55 T h e A g e ,

S p io n K o p , S e iz in g a K o p je , “D is m o u n t -

New York, 1966.

5 Charles M usser,

State L ib rary of T asm an ia, has a p ro

ary 1861.

1892, pp. 217-8; Gordon Hendricks,

Sydney, 1 August 1900, p. 10.

30 J. W . B. M u rp h y T h eatre C o llectio n ,

3 U.S. Patent No. 31,357, issued 5 Febru

1) L ord C a rd iga n ’s M e lb o u r n e Cup [shot 3 November 1903] 2) The Sydney Express.

R eferee,

T h e W est A u s tr a lia n ,

Perth, 28 October

1897, pp. 1 and 5; 1 November 1897, p. 1: “C rem orne T h ea tre” ; 1 N ovem ber 1897, p. 2 ; 2 N ovem ber 18 97, p. 1; 3 Sydney, 21 M arch 1903, p.

N ovem ber 1 8 9 7 , p. 7 ; 5 N ovem ber 1897, p. 2.

technicalities essential to make sure that we have the tight material to work with. Then, once the material was shot, we made high-quality video templates. We run Softimage, Alias and R enderm an here. T h ey’re the three big packages used by the highend film effects people around the world. For this one, we chose Alias. We developed looks and styles in video resolution, com positing the video effects onto backgrounds in the Henry to produce a video offline for the director, before tackling the high-resolution rendering and com positing on Domino. T h ere’s still opportunity for adjustments and cre ative work right through, but then the output to film is a purely mechanical process: there’s a fixed light at the lab; it’s not an area to worry about. The lessons to us are to grade it; make it look good on the way in.

p28

A r e n 't y o u d o in g s o m e th in g th a t o th e r s y s te m s h a v e b e e n c ritic iz e d fo r: w o r k in g a t lo w re s o lu tio n a n d th e n w a itin g fo r re n d e rin g a t h ig h re s o lu tio n ? It s e e m s to m e th a t y o u 'r e d o in g th a t, b u t th r o w in g tw ic e as m u c h te c h n o lo g y a t th e jo b .

No, I’d hate for it to be misconstrued that way. Domino works very fast, and very interactively for the resolution its working at. The whole process could take place on the Domino if one wanted. There’s an opportunity that’s specific to our company - because we have two H enrys and a H arry and 15 SGI stations to work at - to further extend the creative process. When you’re designing a particle animation effect of two bodies transforming into each other, at first it’s a creative process; you’re not worried about the resolution. Later you are, and w e’ve used the film resolution work station to death.

start rendering at high resolution, and do more fine-tuning. A re th e e ffe c ts e s s e n tia lly a m o rp h in g te c h n iq u e ?

No, it’s adding elements to the scene. It’s not just taking shots and bending them around. The design that Andy came up with is of particles actively emanating from one body and show ing some obvious transfer to the other body. We created a number of 3D objects w ith lighting that m atched the background lighting, and we also added lighting effects to the back ground itself. The elem ents were created using Alias, and then we ported everything sep arately onto the Domino, and did the final tuning and integration on the Domino. I'v e seen a lo t o f p u b lic ity a b o u t sys te m s su ch as th e A u to d e s k 3 D S tu d io , w h ic h are v e ry lo w -c o s t g ra p h ic s sy s te m s fo r th e PC, an d a p p a re n tly w e r e u sed fo r e ffe c ts in film s lik e J o h n n y Mnemonic a n d Virtuosity. D o y o u fee l t h a t th e lo w -c o s t s y s te m s fo r PCs such as th e A u to d e s k 3 D S tu d io a re a th r e a t to th e m illio n s o f d o lla rs w o r th o f e q u ip m e n t th a t y o u 'v e in v e s te d in?

They aren’t a threat to something like Domino, which is the complete inte grated film-to-film package. Certainly, some films have had scenes or effects done on the lower-end equipment, but the higher-end gives the speed and accuracy and flexibility that you need to exist in a commercial environment. T r a d itio n a lly , A u s tra lia n b u d g e ts h a v e n 't re a lly a llo w e d fo r a h ig h -e n d .

But Australian production values have always been high-end. And I’m sure other companies in Australia would agree that we probably charge about two-thirds of what you’d expect to pay overseas - for film work probably less, because it’s new. But the quality and production values have always been as good, if not better. ©

H o w d id y o u d o th e t w o b o d ie s c h a n g in g place?

First of all, we’re designing a sequence. So, it’s not just a shot-by-shot approach; we had to design an overall look first. Then, while shooting was taking place, we were designing some lighting techniques and particle ani mation techniques, using freeze frame plates, just to create looks. When the m aterial was ready and cut, we scanned in accurately-selected lengths. Then we fine-tuned the look that we’d already designed to fit the actual shots. We composited the particle animation elem ents over the background on Henry and fed it back to the 3D ani mation head, and kept that process fairly interactive until our designer was satisfied. Then, w hen the director approved it, we gave the go-ahead to

houses in New York and London. Zero One Z ero’s D igital p30 Audio Suite, the Fairlight MFX3 with Tactile technology, was officially launched in February. According to Alan Ferguson, Audio Director, the technical layout and design of the suite will make it the most advanced system in Sydney: “Clients will be able to finish an edit then apply the audio mix all within the digi tal dom ain and all during the same booking.” Zero One Zero is now the only post production house in Australia to offer the Ursa Gold telecine, Sony Digital Edit suite, D igital A udio suite, AVID M C8000 offline/online, HAL Express, Paintbox and Analogue Edit suite. Zero One Zero also offers outside broad cast and studio facilities.

docum entary

Person, and made by “amateurs”: one an ex-con recently released from prison and still on parole; the other a woman taxi driver. Incredibly intimate, spacially and emo tionally, these diary films engage the view er in a com pelling m ixture of voyeuristic and identificatory pleasures, and suggest that they could be thera peutic for their subjects, in allow ing them to explore and parade their hangups in their own voices. However, at an early session of the Conference, one of the diary subjects revealed that the involvement of other people (edi tors and producers) in the final shaping of her diary resulted in her feeling that she had lost control of her own story. The powerful emotional charge is, of course, not restricted to the diary film. More traditional forms of docu mentary, when inflected with a personal connection, can exhibit it, as shown by two feature-length films exhibited at the Conference. The often-derided medium of talking heads, in the hands of an empathetic and skilled director, can be profoundly moving. Gaylene Pre ston’s War Stories (1995) allowed seven New Zealand women (including her own mother) to relate their personal wartime memoirs direct to camera in starkly-fram ed separate interview s, p unctuated w ith arch ival new sreel footage, im ages from photograph albums and clips from old newspaper articles. This rather traditional docu mentary construction was shown to be capable of revivification and strong impact. As Bill Gosden wrote in the pro gram m e notes to its N ew Z ealand Festival screenings last year: p

What is discovered in these stories is the em otion that has been long repressed in pain, smothered in shame or disregarded as insignificantly per sonal in the context of the international disaster of war. Another powerful account of hitherto repressed histo ry was presented by Dong Cheng Liang in Every Odd Num bered Day, his personal testimony to the 20-year ordeal of his people, the peo ple of the Kinmen islands, who were caught in the crossfire between China and Taiwan, and suffered unremitting bombardment. This is one of those postCold W ar films w hich focus on the human and environmental costs of the Cold War, and the sins of warriors on both sides. But its director is more than an interested observer. Furthermore, the islanders were active participants in the film, as co-funders, as performers (of dramatized re-enactments), and as inter view subjects. A sim ilar kind of community investment in a documen tary film occurred in the case of The M u rm u rin g, Byun Young Jo o ’s film

about survivin g Korean com fort women, which was financed by the sale of thousands of cheap badges to stu dents and other supporters of the project. These committed filmmakers did not depend on government hand outs or rich investors for finance; they went to the people who cared, to whom it mattered. The second pronounced shift in cur rent documentary, that was visible at the Conference, is a shift away from gender difference to gender bending. Conse quent to recent developments in queer theory, the whole area of gender and sexuality has been expanded beyond the old simple binarisms of male and female, straight and gay. In this Conference, three films in particular concentrated on transvestites in Asian societies. Nick Deocampo’s Sex Warriors and the Samu rai follows young M anila drag queen Jo-an around town, at work in bars, at home with his family, and fulfilling the requirements of entry to Japan, where he w ill work as a drag performer and prostitute with the full approval of his large family (parents and sublings), all of whom live off his earnings. As he is the supporter of the fam ily, and an earner of foreign exchange, there would seem to be no conflict between family (or national) values and his aberrant lifestyle. Kim Longinotto’s Shinjuku B oys, like her earlier docum entary, Dream Girls, introduces us to Japanese girls who impersonate men, for the plea sure of other Japanese women, bringing into question the supposed subordina tion of Japanese women to masculine desire. These films are punchy and accessi ble, and have already been screened on prim e-tim e televisio n . O ther more demanding films screened at the Con ference include Anand Patwardhan’s Father, Son and Holy War (an analysis of the nexus between H indu funda mentalism, nationalism and machismo in contemporary India), Hara Kazuo’s A D edicated Life (a demonic film that destroys the reputation of his subject, a renow ned leftist author, and in the process explodes the fact-fiction divide), Steve Fagin’s avant-garde video, The Machine that Killed Bad People (which deconstructs television gram m ar by deploying CNN-style news reporting techniques on footage from M arcos family home movies), and Byun YoungJo o ’s The M u rm u rin g (w hich I’ve discussed at length in an article in Metro, No. 104). A significant industrial outcome of the Conference was the resolution to form a nation-wide Australian Docu mentary Alliance, which w ill promote the interests of documentary filmmak ers and act as a lobby group on their behalf in representations to broadcast ers, funding bodies and government. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

'Subscribe taMmema Ratfërs now B F Jm T and gettitiîo 2 0 % discount | M

j P

^ » ^ W

Ì h P ^ ì« OFFER ENDS

s c r i t o

CINEMA PAPEF

screenplay

1 Paul Con. Mu hael Jenlin'*

TheHeartbreak

Look who’s lumen as the

liât source representing...

IMF

•B i i[: i . Ü _ j

■■ ■

Avenger

K5600 Inc

KATA-BAN P

ÍNIUÍSTRIA FOTOTECNICA

F IR E N Z E

G a m G o k > r& f* D eep qyted p olyester coter fíftér.s

jíwestcott Millef Professional Products Australia's only single-point source for all your lighting needs, including: Studio

design, tungsten ENG lighting, fluorescent and PAR HMI lights, heavy duty and lightweight stands, studio grid systems, pantographs and hoists, grip accesories, gels, diffusion, reflectors, backgrounds and carry cases. M ffim

M ille r Professional Products 30 Hotham Parade, Artarmon, NSW 2064 ¡¡¡§ te ll(0 2 ) 439 6377, Fax: (02) 438 2819

■H

FCC Funding Decisions

CTPF Decisions

[

Features True Love and Chaos You Don’t Know What Love Is Oscar and Lucinda

59 59 59

Blood Ties

Kangaroo Place

Whipping Boy

Production Survey

Television Spellbinder 2: The Land of the Dragon Lord

The Barefoot Bushman The Butler Mao’s New Suit No Place Like Home The Nature of Healing

5 5 5 5 5

9 9 9 9 9

I Lilian’s Story

Dead Heart

j My Entire Life

Fistful of Flies

61 ¿1 o1

■ The Quiet Room I . Race the Sun

6 1 61

! River Street

Idiot Box I

Love and other Catastrophes

Love Serenade

Lust and Revenge

Shine

Under the Lighthouse Dancing

To Have and to Hold

62 62

The Zone

Turning April

A w aiting Release Features Production

Tele-features

Road to Nhill

j The Phantom

Features Pre-production A Nice Guv

Docum entaries

Features Post-production Dating the Enemy

Documentaries

Children of the Revolution

The Nature of Healing

Acri

David Williamson’s Brilliant Lies

Our Story

Hotel De Love

First Strike

Those Who Flew South

Red Herring

Floating Life

Victoria in the Ashes

Academy Beverly Hills Family Robinson Heat The Place of the Dead White Lies

63 63 63 63

Television Drama (other) I

Mercurv Pacific Drive Plasmo Tabaluga: The Little Green Dragon

63 63 63

mproduction I

J A C K I E CHAN C O M E S TO M E L B O U R N E W : V ic M a rti n

FFC Funding Decisions

P r e - s a l e : C h a n n e l 7, D i sco ve ry C h a n ne l D is t : J

Featnrr j

TRUE LOVE AND CHAOS (95

m in s )

A shlink D: S t a v r o s E f thymiou P: A n n D a r r o uz e t W : S t a v r o s E f thymiou

PC:

H ugo W

co ntem porary love story, w he re M id o ri, an unhappy Japanese honeym ooner, fakes her disa ppea ran ce and ends up being taken hostage in a bungled bank robbery. Saved by Colin, the getaw ay driver, the unlikely pair are pursued across the ou tb ack by the obsessive husband, the police and the re ven ge seeking bank robbers.

eavi ng

OSCAR AND LUCINDA

D i s t : N e w V i s ion F ilm D i s t r e i b u t o r s , B e yond F i l m s D eveloped

with the a s s i s t a n c e of :

V i c to r ia ,

(120

F ilm

AFC

imi and Hanif begin a road trip from M elbou rne to Perth, M im i heading home to make peace w ith her mother, H anif running from the consequences of his invo lvem ent in a drug th e ft m asterm inded by his friend , Dean. So begins a jo u rn e y of discovery for M im i and co m p lica tio n fo r Hanif, throw ing th e ir re la tion ship into confusion and doubt.

Da n i e l S

EP: W: D ist:

REP

charf,

outh

R ob in D alton

P: J

ones

e arc hl ig ht

SPELLBINDER 2: THE LAND OF THE DRAGON LORD (26 x 24

P re -s a l e : A B C D e vel ope d

A u s t r a l i a n F ilm C o m m i s s i o n

MAO'S NEW SUIT (52

m in s )

D: S ally In gl e ton

P: N oel P rice EP: R on S a u n d e r s W : M a rk S

with th e a s s i s t a n c e o f :

PC:

A u s t r a l i a n F ilm C o r p o r at i o n

hirr efs,

H e ath er M

ohn

m in s )

S inging N omad P roductions

D: N oel P rice

F ilm D i s t r i b u t o r s ,

with the a s s i s t a n c e of the

touching p o rtra it by Anna Kannava of her ec ce n tric brother Nino, and the 20 years of her fam ily's life in A ustralia since m igrating from Cyprus in 1974.

F ilm A ustralia

N o wr a

C r u t h er s

ohn

W : A nna Kan nava

Tele vu ton

B e yond F i l m s , A m u s e D e veloped

D: A n n a K a n n a v a

hi te ,

C raig Lahif f

Louis

ABC A ccord)

D: G illian A r m s t r o n g

D i s t : F ox S

H elen L eake

mins

H uzzah P roductions

ased on a novel by P eter Carey, O scar an d Lucinda is a story about fate, love, gam bling and faith.

D: C raig La hi ff

Ps:

THE BUTLER (55

c o - p r od uc t io n

W : La u r a J

Duo A rt P roductions

M eridian F ilms P s : T i mothy W

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS (95 m in s )

ob Bredl is The B a re fo o t Bushman. He is out to dispel m any of the m yths w h ich have developed around A u s tra lia 's native w ild life . In pa rt one, D ancing w ith Dingoes, he show s th a t the dingo is A u s tra lia 's firs t "fe ra l" anim al, and explains ho w it and other fera l anim als a ffe c t the ecosystem . In pa rt tw o , Licking Lizards, he roam s all over A ustralia and parts of Asia show ing some of the m ore w o n derful va rietie s of reptiles.

m in s )

A u s t r a l i a -U .K.

C o r ni s h M edia

e nn y

T homson

itchell

P r e - s a l e : C h a n n e l 9, F a mi ly C h a n n e l ,

P: S ally In gl e ton W: S

ally

I n gle ton

P r e - s a l e : S B S I n d e p e n d e n t , C h a n n el 4 D i s t : C elluloid D r e a m s D e vel ope d

with the a s s i s t a n c e of :

F ilm

V ictoria

T elewizja P olska D is t: S

h ang ha i

F ilm S t u d i o ,

F ilm A u s t ra l ia D e vel ope d

with the a s s i s t a n c e o f :

F ilm V ictoria

young girl on a cam ping holiday in the A u s tra lia n bush w ith her tw in b ro th e r and parents discovers a stra nge bam boo boat and m eddles w ith som ething she shouldn't. She fin ds he rse lf stranded in the parallel w o rld of the land of the D ragon Lord, a w o rld of illusion, rom ance and danger.

Documentarieà

NO PLACE LIKE HOME

THE BAREFOOT BUSHMAN

D avid Flatm an P roductions

(2 x 52 m in s ) Light S ource Films D: V ic M a rti n P: M

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

or decades people in China have w orn nothing but navy blue Mao suits. To w e a r anything diffe ren t m eant th a t you stood out - and in China any sign of in de pend entthoug ht has always been dangerous. But China's door has opened and so have peoples' w ardrobes. M a o 's N e w S uit follo w s tw o young fashion designers trying to make it in China's new m arket econom y. The film w ill show the lead-up to the launch of th e ir firs t designer collection, set am idst B eijing's annual fashion com petitions and nouveau riche.

ic hael

M u r r a y , V ic M a rti n

(56

m in s )

D: F i o na H e r g s t r o m P: D avid F l a t m a n

F i ona H e r g s t r o m P re -sa l e :

ABC

hildren at serious risk of violence, abuse and n e glect in the home are tra d itio n a lly rem oved from th e ir parents by w e lfa re au th oritie s and placed in fo s te r homes or institutions. This film docum ents a bold new initiative as fam ilies on the brink of disintegration enter an intensive sh o rt term pa rtnership w ith sp e cially-tra in ed ca se -w o rke rs w ho se aim is to keep them together.

THE NATURE OF HEALING (6 x 30

m in s )

R eel I mages D s : B rian B e a t o n , C elia T ait P: B rian B e aton W : Di Ha t h a wa y P r esa le : S B S D i s t : B eyond D i s t ri b ut i on

lte rna tive or "c o m p le m e n ta ry " m edical tre a tm e n ts are used w id e ly among the co m m unity but are only ju s t gaining acce p ta n ce among tra d itio n a l pra ctitio n e rs . This series w ill introd uce a range of popular altern ative therapies, reveal th e ir origins, de m ystify the tre a tm e n ts and explain the m ind and body co nnection fundam ental to the h o listic approach.

EP Executive Producer P Producer Co-P Co-Producer AS Associate Producer LP Line Producer D Director SW Scriptwriter C Cast PC Principal Cast SE Story Editor WD Writer-director DIST Distributor NOTE: P roduction S u rvey fo r n u now adhere to a revived fo rm a t. regrets it ca n n ot a ccep t inform ation received in a d ifferen t form a t.

Cinema Papers

Cinema Papers d oej n ot a ccep t resp on sib ility f o r the a ccu ra cy o f a n y inform ation supplied by p roduction com panies. This is p a rticu la rly th e ciu e when inform ation ch a n ges b ut the production com p a n y m ak es no a ttem p t to correct w hat has a lrea d y been supplied.

production CTPF Decisions The Commercial Television Production Fund approved lor funding in February:

BLOOD TIES ( m in i - series;

4 x 1 hour)

D: Robert M archand P: Ew a n B urnett W s: A ndrew Kn ig ht , D eborah C ox N etwork : 7 our young A u s tra lia n s se t o ff on a jo u rn e y of disc o ve ry to London in the sw ing ing 1960s.

H al M c E lroy -S outhern S tar

WHIPPING BOY

EP: H al M c Elroy W : T ony M orphett N etwork : 10

(tele- feature) J N P F ilms

w om an seeks revenge on a rich, p o w e rfu l and c o rru p t fam ily.

D: Di D rew Ps: Ray A lchin , J ames D avern W : P eter W Y eldham

KANGAROO PALACE ( m in i - series;

4 x 1 hour)

A rtist S ervices

N etwork : 10

th rille r baed on the novel by G abrielle Lord.

Digital artists: R uyuichi SuNO, S youko S uno , T sutomu N omoto Stunts co-ordinator: C hris A nderson Stunts assistant co-ordinator: M itch D eans Unit nurse: P atsy B uchan Catering: Eleets Film Catering

A rt Department Art director: A dam H ead Art department administrator: M alcom Ross Art department runner: CAMERON Leigh COOPER Set dresser: P riscilla Cameron Property master: Jo Fairburn Standby props: B radley Campbell Art department assistants: A nne Flynn , Lucianna B iffone Boat wrangler: Gary M c N amara Diving co-ordinator: P eter W est Diver medic: B ob M cCarron

W ardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: Daw n D ouglas d’O r Standby wardrobe: A manda C raze Wardrobe assistant: JACQUELINE T revethan

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: B rendan Campbell 2nd assistant director: D am ien G rant Continuity: A nny B eresford Boom operator: M ark W asiutak Make-up: K irsten V eysey Make-up & Wardrobe bus: Starwagons A ustralia Hairdresser: D avid V awser Assistant hairdresser: D allas Stephens Safety report: N ew G eneration S tunts Still photography: S kip W atkins Unit publicist: A nnette S mith Roadshow Film D istributors Catering: Food For Film Catering Runner: C hristopher D avenport

A rt D epartment Art department co-ordinator: A llison P ye Art department research: J ane Long Art department runner: T ao W eis Set dresser: Colin R obertson Draftspersons: J eff T horp, G odric Cole Storyboard Artist: CONNIE WOOLSTRON Art department conceptualists: Claudia Rowe , T ony B ubenicek , V anessa C erne Buyer: M arita M ussett Standby props: D ean S ullivan

W ardobe Costume supervisor: VlCKl THOMPSON Standby wardrobe: Gabrielle D unn

Construction Department Construction manager: Ray Pattison

Production Survey Information is as supplied and adjudged as of

26/02/96

Featured Pre-production A NICE GUY Production companies:

Golden Harvest (HK) Ltd Distribution company: Golden Harvest Budget: $A4.5 million Pre-production: 12/02/96 ... Production: 13/03/96 ...

Principal Credits Director: SAMMO Hung Producer: Chua Lam Co-producer: Dick Tso Scriptwriter: Edward Tang Director of photography: Raymond Lam Production designer: Horace Ma Continuity: J ackie Chan

Featured Production ACRI Production companies: VRP Production Services, Cappadocia Pre-production: 20/11/95-28/1/96 Production: 29/1/96-16/3/96 Post-production: 17/3/96 ...

Principal Credits Director: T atsuya I shii Producers: S hinya Ka w a i , J un - ichi S chindo Australian line producer: M ichael Lake Executive producer: A sao 0KAM0T0 Assistant producer: A kemi SUYAMA Scriptwriter: M asum i S uetani Director of photography: GENIKICHI Hasegawa Sound recordist: A ndrew Ramage Editor: J ohn S cott Japanese production designer: Kyoko H eya Australia production designer: M ichael Ralph Costume designer: DAVID R owe

P lanning

and

Development

Script adapted by: CORAL Drouyn , Casting: Maura Fay & Associates Shooting schedule by: S tuart Freeman

Production Crew Japanese production manager: Kazuo N aka mura

Production manager: Elizabeth S ymes Production co-ordinator: S erena GATTUSO Producer's assistant: TESS M addocks

Production secretary: K erry M ulgrew Director's secretary: T omoo SUZUKI Japanese production assistant: C hristopher Cannon Japanese Interpreters: Rie S h ir aishi , J ulie H ayes , Robin T aubenfeld Location manager: J ames Legge Unit manager: R ick Kornaat Unit assistants: B rad Field , P aul W inter Production runners: M arkus H unter , Cas P edersen Financial controller: YURIKO M ameshiro Japanese production accountant: Y umiko M iw a Australian production accountant: PAYOLA P/L - R ichard C oates Accounts assistant: T oni P earson Paymaster: D ebbie G ilbert Insurer: H. W . W ood (A ust ) P/L

Camera Crew Lighting cameraperson: P hillip Cross Underwater camera operator: Ross I saacs Focus puller: J ohn W areham Clapper-loader: J eff Fleck Video split operator: H eather Kyle Key grip: Ian Freeman Grip: Paul Reddin Assistant grip: Dan M axwell Gaffer: G raham R utherford Best boy: S teve G ordon 2nd electrics: Paul V an A rcken

On - set Crew Japanese 1st assistant director: M asaki Hamamoto Australian 1st assistant director: STUART Freeman Japanese 2nd assistant director: U-ICHI A be Australian 2nd assistant director: W ade Savage Australian 3rd assistant director: V era B iffone Continuity: J ackie S ullivan Boom operator: D ean Ryan Make-up: Christine M iller Hairdresser: C heryl W illiams Supervisor of special make-up effects: B ob M cCarron Senior special make-up effects artists: W endy Sainsbury , Lesley V anderwalt Special make-up effects artist: Carla V lNCENZINO Special fx supervisor: H arry W ard Special fx assistant: W illiam M cLaggon Japanese visual effect producer: S huji A sano Japanese visual effect supervisor: T akahiko A kiyama Associate visual effect supervisor: D ale D uguid Japanese visual effect assistant supervisor: Kagari Yasuda

Post- production

Catering: J an W hitford

Camera equipment: M artin Cayzer

Construction Department

Post-production supervisor: Sylvia W alker WlLSON Laboratory: A tlab

Construction manager: H ugh B ateup Foreman-construction: B rendan M ullen Lead scenic artist: J ohn H aratzis Drivers: Kerry K ervin & M ark T aylor

Cast

Post- production

TBA (H isoka ), T atsuya Fuji (S akota ), TBA (B illy), Ron Graham (N orris ), M iko K ijim a (J essie ), T etsuo Y amashita (K eisuke ), Kim ik a Y oshino (A cri), T omoko T anaka (M erm aid ), A udubon (J ohn B enton ), Linden G oh (K ai G en IM El).

Assistant editor: Robert H all Editing rooms: Cascade Films Musical supervisor: CHRISTINE WOODRUFF Laboratory: ClNEVEX Film stock: Kodak A ustalia Video transfers by: A A V A ustralia

Ja pane se stud ent, Hisoka, com es to A u s tra lia to fin d o u t ab out his lineage. A re porte r, B illy, fo llo w s him in se arch of m erm aids. A m arine biolog ist, Sakota, believes the s e c re t of m issing link in hum an evolution lies in the ocean.

A den Y oung (R ick D unne ), Saffron B urrows (M elissa M orrison ), S imon B ossell (S tephen D unne ), P ippa G ran dison (A lison Leigh ), Ray B arrett (J ack D unne ), J ulia B lake (E dith D unne ).

HOTEL DE LOVE Production company: V illage R oadshow P ictures Distribution Company: R oadshow Film D istributors Production: 5/2/96-19/3/96

Principal Credits Director: C raig Rosenberg Producers: D avid Parker, M ichael Lake Executive producer: P eter H eller Scriptwriter: Craig Rosenberg Director of photography: Steve W indon Sound recordist: Gary W ilkins Editor: B ill M urphy Production designer: S im on D obbin Costume designer: B ruce Finlayson

P lanning

and

D evelopment

Casting: M aura Fay & A ssociates

P roduction Crew Production manager: Ray H ennessy Production co-ordinator: S andi REVELINS Production secretary: J ana B lair Location manager: N eil M cCart Location assistant: Fran Lugt Unit manager: M ichael B atchelor Unit assistant: N ino N egri Production accountant: N adeen K ingshott Accounts assistant: Frances G radman Insurer: H. W . W ood A ustralia P/L Completion guarantor: Film Finance Motorolas: M ax W oodhouse M ulticom Com m unicatio n Travel Agent: S howtravel

Cast

t's 1983. Rick and Stephen Dunne, fra te rn a l tw in s , both fa ll head over heels fo rth e viva cio u s M elissa M o rriso n at a stu d e n t pa rty in Suburban M elbou rne . Rick, born tw o m inutes e a rlie r and alw ays tw o steps ahead, in te rc e p ts M elissa. B ut th e ir rom ance is sh o rt lived.

Principal Credits

D evelopment

Casting: Karl M adderom Casting consultant: Karl M adderom Shooting schedule by: Karl M adderom Budgeted by: Karl M adderom

Production Crew Production manager: Cassie M adderom Financial controller: Karl M adderom

Camera Crew tersal

Focus puller: TESSIE Cassar Clapper-loader: Danielle Boesenberg Camera assistants: Tessie Cassar, Gavin

MacGrath Camera type: A aton 16 m m Camera maintenance: Lemac Assistant grips: Cameron M c D onald , A ndrew R edford Gaffer: Reice N orton

old as a fla shb ack, Red H erring te lls the story of N ick, an ageing, fru s tra te d gangster. Sick of his opposition in the sm all drug trad e, he m anages to kill them before se tting his fo u r co u n te rp a rts and tw o old business co llea gues up a g ainst each other. H ow ever, w he n it seem s all is going to plan, predica m e nts arise.

Podt-Production DATING THE ENEMY Production company: D ating the Enemy Distribution company: T otal Film and TV (A ustralia ), Pandora C inema (I nternational ) Production: 23/10/95 ... Post-production: 18/12/95 ...

P rincipal Credits Director: M egan S impson H uberman Producer: S ue M illiken Executive producers: P hil G erlach, H eather O gilvie Scriptwriter: M egan S impson H uberman Director of photography: Steve A rnold Sound recordist: Leo S ullivan Editor: M arcus D 'A rcy Production designer: T im Ferrier Costume designer: T erry Ryan and

D evelopment

Production supervisor: A nne B runing Production co-ordinator: J ulie SlMS Producer's assistant: Chris G ordon Production secretary: M ichelle Russell Location manager: PHILLIP R oope Unit manager: S imon Haw kins Production runner: Paul S ullivan Financial controller: M oneypenny S ervices Production accountant: J ames B ramley Accounts assistant: D avid B enn Insurer: ClNESURE Completion guarantor: Film Finances I nc . Legal services: Lyndon S ayer -J ones

Camera Crew Clapper-loader: Robert A gganis Camera assistant: M ichelle C loete Key grip: G reg M ollineaux Assistant grip: Paul R eddin Gaffer: J ohn M orton Best boy: Paul S elgren Electrician: A lan Y ork

On - set Crew

Camera operators: M ark Sayer , J ohn T a t

Camera Crew

Cast David W hitford (N ick ), R on B lanchard (M iles ), B artholomew Rose (T he D oc tor ), D avid O'C onnor (C harley ), A nthony Haw kins (T o m ), B ruce T rickett (B en ), Cassandra W hitford (S heryl), Kathryn Z ealand (A ngelique ), J ane M ac (J ulia ), Karl M adderom (B uyer).

Production Crew

Director: Karl M adderom Producer: Karl M adderom Executive producer: Karl M adderom Scriptwriter: Karl M adderom Directors of photography: A drian T aylor, J ohn T attersal , Fred M adderom Sound recordists: T im M artin , P eter S heperd Editor: D am ien M assingham

Camera operator: M ark S picer Clapper-loader: M ark T oll 1st camera assistant: Frank Flick Key grip: T ony Hall Grip: G reg T uohy Assistant grip: P aul Reinhardt Gaffer: C on M ancuso Best boy: B rett H ull 3rd electrics: D avid Lovell Generator operator: Robert Fabris

M arketing Publicity: Karl M adderom

Casting: S ue M aizels

RED HERRING

and

Post- production Laboratory: MOVIELAB Laboratory liaison: Karl M adderom Negative matching: Chris Rowell Screen Ratio: 3:1 Shooting stock: Kodak 7248/7293/50D

P lanning

Production company: T angent Films

Planning

A rt Deprtment Prosperson: R eice N orton Props maker: Reice N orton

1st assistant director: CAROLYNNE Cunningham 2nd assistant director: G uy Campbell 3rd assistant director: T om Read Continuity: NlCOLA MOORS Boom operator: NlCOLE Lazaroff Make-up: Viv M epham Make-up assistant: R obyn AUSTIN Hairdresser: T oni French Special fx: A n im a l Logic Still photography: R obert M ac Farlane Unit publicist: T racey M air Catering: MARIKE

On - set Crew

A rt D epartment

Boom operator: A ndrew R edford Make-up: Cassie M adderom Still photography: Emmanuelle M arshal Unit publicist: Karl M adderom

Art director: M ichelle M cGahey Art department co-ordinator: H eidi Oosterman Art department runner: J am ie H owe

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Props buyers: Faith R obinson , Karen H arborow Dressers: Faith R obinson , Karen H arborow Standby props: G eorge Z a m m it

B rian D u s t i n g ( A lice S

Standby props:

prings)

I gor La za r e ff

W ardrobe Costume supervisor: T r ac ey R i c h a r d s o n Costume assistant: F i ona H olley

W ardrobe

Construction D epartment

Wardrobe supervisor: M el DYKES Standby wardrobe: Is o b e l C ar te r Wardrobe assistant: M e l i s s a M o n t a g u e

Scenic artist: D avid T u ck we l l Construction manager: La rry S a n d y Assistant construction manager:

Construction D epartment

A s h l ey H olt

Driver:

Construction manager: J a m e s M c K ay Carpenters: P hillip A s c o t , J ulian V an W el Set finisher: P eter Collias

P ost- production Assistant editor: J ane M aguire 2nd editing assistant: A lison W heeler Sound editor: J ulius C han Laboratory: A tlab Laboratory liaison: D enise W olfson Grader: A rthur Cambridge Film gauge: 35 m m Screen ratio: 1:1.85

P ost- production

M arketing

Laboratory: A t l ab Laboratory liaison: IAN RUSSELL Shooting stock: K odak

International sales agent: S outhern S tar Film S ales

Government A gency I nvestment

D ina Panozzo (G race), T asm a W alton (M ars ), J ohn Lucantonio (J oe), M aria Louise A batz G entile (M agda ), G iordano Gangl (E rcole), Eamon D avern (J ohnny ), M ario Ga m m a (E no ), Rachel M azza (D r P owers ), Franca S enise (N o nna ), Catherine M ichalak (I nnocentina ), T ony P oli (P riest ).

M arketing International sales agent: VILLAGE R o a d s h o w In t e r n a t i o n a l S

ales

Cast

Government A gency I nvestment

B ry an B r o w n (R a y ), E r ni e D ingo

Development: AFC, NSW FTO Production: FFC, NSWFTO

(D a v i d ), A ng ie M illiken (K a t e ), A a ro n P e d e r s e n ( T o n y ), G n a r n a y a r r a h e W

Claudia Karvan (T ash ), G uy P earce (B rett), Lisa H ensley (L aetitia ), M att D ay (R ob ), P ippa G randison (C olette), Christopher M orsley (P aul ), H eidi Lapaine (C hristina ), J ohn H oward (D a vis ), S cott Lowe (H arrison ).

aita ir e

( P o p p y ), L e w i s F itz - G erald

( L e s ), A n n e T e n n e y ( S a r a h ), J J

arratt

ohn

( C h ar li e ), L af e C ha rlton

( B illy ), S t a n l e y D j u n a w o n g (T j u l p u ).

death in the co m m u nity and a d e fia n t and doom ed love affaire bring trib a l la w and A u stra lia n la w into explosive co n flict.

^ ^ m o d e r n ro m antic com edy.

FISTFUL OF FLIES DEAD HEART

Production company:

Production company: D ead H eart P roductions Distribution company: Roadshow Production: 23/10/95-12/11/95 (A lice S prings ), 13/11/95-6/12/95 (S ydney )

Pre-production: 28/8/95-28/10/95 Production: 30/10/95-22/12/95 Post-production: 02/01/96-16/6/96

P rincipal Credits Director: MONICA P e luz za ri Producer: J ulia Ov er to n Scriptwriter: MONICA PELUZZARI Director of photography: J a n e C a s t l e Sound recordist: B r o n wy n M urphy Editor: JAMES MANCHE Production designer: L i s s a C oûte Costume designer: L o u i s e W a kefield Composer: F elicity F ox

P rincipal Credits Director: N icholas Parsons Producer: B ryan B rown Co-producer: H elen W atts Scriptwriter: NICHOLAS PARSONS Based on the play titled: D ead H eart Written by: NICHOLAS PARSONS Director of photography: JAMES BARTLE Sound recordist: PHIL TIPENE Editor: H enry D angar Production designer: B rian E dmonds Costume designer: Edie Kurzer Composer: S teven Rae

Planning

and

Development

Casting: Faith M artin & A ssociates Extras casting: Kris W allis

P roduction Crew Production manager: Lesley Parker Production co-ordinator: T rish Foreman Production secretary: J ane H ealy Location manager: M ason Curtis Unit supervisor: D eb H anson Unit assistant: Steve S alotti Production runner: T im Faulkner Production accountant: Lyn J oner Insurer: H. W . W ood A ustralia Completion guarantor: Film Finances Legal services: H art & SPIRA Base-office liaison: B ella

P lanning

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: J am ie Crooks 2nd assistant director: A dam S pencer 3rd assistant director: Kate T urner Continuity: S usan WlLEY Make-up: J ose P erez, P aul Pattison Hairdressers:JosE P erez, Paul Pattison Safety officer: W ally D alton Unit nurse: J enny BlSCHARD Still photography: USA T omasetti Unit publicist: T racey M air Public relations: M aria Farmer Catering: Steve M arcus

and

Development

Script editor: M a r i o n O r d , A l is o n T i ls on Dialogue coach: C ath L eahy

P roduction Crew Production manager: H elen P a n c k h u r s t Production co-ordinator: G INA T w y bl e Production secretary: P ru S mith Location manager: R ob yn B e r s t e n Unit manager: EDWARD DONOVAN Production runner: La r a E s d e n Production accountant: CHRISTINE M o ran Insurer: ClNESURE Completion guarantor: Film Finances Legal services: M i chael F r a n k e l & A s s o c i a t e s

Camera Crew Camera operator: J a n e C a s t l e Focus puller: T im T h or n to n Key grip: R o b b i e M or ga n Gaffer: M i chael W ood Best boy: D avid H o l m e s

Camera Crew Camera operator: J ames B artle Focus puller: Dam ien W yvill Clapper-loader: M argaret M c Clymont Key grip: Paul T hompson Assistant grip: B enn Hyde Gaffer: N ick P ayne Best boy: A ntony T ulloch Assistant electrics: G reg de M arigny

L ong B lack

P roductions

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: C h r is W e b b 2nd assistant director: T a n y a J a c k s o n 3rd assistant director: P hilip J o s e p h Continuity: VICTORIA SULLIVAN Boom operator: S te v e V a u g h a n Make-up: T ri sh G lover Make-up assistant: S herry H u b b a r d Hairdresser: T r is h GLOVER Hairdresser's assistant: SHERRY H u b b a r d Still photography: S i mo n C a r d w e l l Unit publicist: T r ac ey M air Catering: O ut TO L unch

A rt Department Art department runner: JONATHAN T i db al l Set decorators: K e rri e B r o w n ,

A rt D epartment Art director: Richard H obbs Set decorators: S ue M aybury (S ydney ),

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

G len W J

Standby props:

ohnson

MALCOLM GREGORY

W ardrobe Costume buyer: MICHELLE MORRIN Standby costume: G a ry J o n e s

A nimals Animal trainer:

S t e p h e n A u s ti n

Post- production

Sound editor: Liam Egan Mixer: PHIL JUDD Laboratory: A tlab Negative matching: Chris Rowell Gauge: S uper 35 m m Shooting stock: K odak

Government A gency I nvestment Development: NSW FTO Production: FFC

Government A gency I nvestment Production: Film FINANCE CORPORATION

Davidson

Development: NSWFTO P r o d u c t i o n : FFC

Cast

Assistant editor: J ane Cole Sound editors: A ndrew P lain , J ane Patterson Mixed at: A tlab Laboratory: A tlab Laboratory liaison: D enise W olfson Grader: A rthur Cambridge Film gauge: 35 m m Screen ratio: 1:1.85

Cast

ixte e n -ye a r-o ld M ars Lupi is the only d a ughter in a co nse rva tive C atholic Ita lo -A u stra lia n fa m ily stru ggling to com e to term s w ith her sexuality. She clashes w ith her se xua lly-rep ressed m other and her ph ilandering father. A com edy/dram a ab out a young girl and her qu est to be tre a te d as a m ature w om an.

IDIOT BOX Production company: C entral Park Films Budget: $2.5 MILLION Production: 30 /1 0/9 5-1 5/12/95 Post-production: 16/12/95—M ay 1996

P rincipal Credits Director: David Caesar Producer: G lenys Rowe Associate producer: N icki R oller Scriptwriter: D avid Caesar Director of photography: J oe PICKERING Sound recordist: Liam Egan Editor: MARK PERRY Production designer: Kerith H olmes

P lanning

and

D evelopment

Casting: S hauna W olifson (Liz M ulunar )

P roduction Crew Production manager: S ue W ild Production co-ordinator: VANESSA B rown Production secretary: J ason B ath Location manager: AUSSIE I smail Unit manager: J ames H opwood Unit assistant: S imon H olmes Production assistants: S andra S ciberras , C lara V uletich Production runner: C la n cy M c D owe ll Production accountant: JOHN B r o u s e k Insurer: R o l l in s H udi g H all Completion guarantor: F ilm F i n a n c e s Legal services: M ic hael F r a n k e l & Co

Camera Crew Focus puller: A dam Ham m o nd Clapper-loader: JAMES T odd Key grip: Greg T ouhy Assistant grip: I AN FREEMAN Gaffer: D erek J ones Best boy: Ken T albot

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: DAVID LlGHTFOOT 2nd assistant director: Karen M ahood 3rd assistant director: A ndrew T aylor Continuity: Linda Ray Playback operator: D ave Eggins Boom operator: S teve M urphy Make-up: A ngela Conte Make-up assistant: T roy Follington Stunts co-ordinator: R ocky M cD onald Safety officer: Rob G reenough Still photography: PAUL BLACKMORE Catering: Gypsy K itchen

A rt D epartment Art department runner: B rock S ykes Props buyers: Richie D ehne , N icki Gardiner Standby props: H arry Z ettel Armourer: Ken JONES Art department attachment: Rachel B esser

W ardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: W endy A sher Standby wardrobe: W endy C oric

A nimals Animal trainer: A ngela T owle

P ost- production Assistant editor: J eanine C hialvo

Cast B en M endelsohn (K ev ), J eremy S ims (M ick ), Robyn Loau (La n i ), G raeme B lundell (E ric ), D eborah K ennedy (L eanne ), S usie P orter (B etty), J ohn P olson (J onah ), A ndrew G ilbert (G reg), S tephen Rae (C olin ), S usan P rior (L uce). he boys, M ic k and Kev, are all revved up, w ith now here to go ... and unem ployed. W ho isn't? They are rebels w ith o u t a cause, w i t h , / testosterone to burn. They ju s t do n 't w a n t to be nothing, okay? They have an idea: an arm ed hold-up. The problem is th e y have no experience, no guns, no idea. The end w ill probably be bad. It depends on w h ich w a y you look at it.

LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES Directors: Emma-Kate Croghan, Stavros Efthymlou [NO DETAILS SUPPLIED.]

Make-up: STEPHANIE Larman Make-up assistant: H eather Ross Special fx make-up: N IK D orning , A n n -M aree H urley, Laura M orris Hairdresser : S tephanie Larman Assistant hairdresser: H eather R oss Stunts co-ordinator: J ohnny Halliday Stunts assistants: P aul D oyle, D ebbie Sanctis Stunts: C ollin D r a g s b a e k , P a u l D oyle Safety officer: B e r n a d e t t e v an G ue n Unit nurse: STEPHANIE C a s t r o Still photography: E l is e LOCKWOOD Unit publicist: M a ri a F a r m e r P ub li c R e l a t io n s

Catering: Camera C ooks, C laire P ollard, G ino Lopez Bunners: D ebbie A ntoniou , N igel D oyle

A rt Department Art director: TONY CAMPBELL Art department co-ordinator: MIRIAM J ohnson Art department runner: Katie S harrock Set dressers: JOANNA PARK, COLIN Robertson Props buyers: J oanna P ark , Colin R obertson Props maker: T ristan Fitzgerald Standby props: Robert M oxham Assistant standby props: Katie S harrock

W ardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: Robyn Elliott Standby wardrobe: N ina Parsons Wardrobe assistant: Cheyne P hillips Cutter: S uzanne H ead

A nimals

LOVE SERENADE Production company: J an C hapman P roductions Distribution company: B eyond Films Budget: $3.8 MILLION Pre-production: 2/10 /95 -8/11 /9 5 Production: 9/11 /95 -21 /1 2/95 Post-production: 6 /1 /9 6 -A pril 1996

P rincipal Credits Director: SHIRLEY BARRETT Producer: J an C hapman Scriptwriter: SHIRLEY BARRETT Director of photography: M andy W alker Sound recordist: Gary WlLKlNS Editor: DENISE HARATZIS Production designer: S teven J ones -E vans Costume designer: A nna B orghesi

P lanning

and

Development

Script editors: K eith T hompson , J an C hapman Casting: A lison Barrett Casting Casting consultants: A lison Barrett Extras casting: S hirley Cameron Shooting schedule by: P. J. VOETEN Budgeted by: S ally A yre-S mith

Animal wrangler: Evanne Chesson (A ustralian M ovie Livestock ) Animal handler: C hristine P owell

Construction Department Scenic artists: C ecily Gatacre , H elen D avies Construction manager: W alter S perl Leading hand: Colin G earman Carpenter: M arcus S kipper Greensman: STEVE WRIGHT

Post- production Post-production supervisor: D avid B irrell Assistant editor: D avid B irrell Laboratories: A tlab , Cinevex Laboratory liaison: Ian A nderson Negative matching: A tlab Grader: A tlab Gauge: 35 m m Shooting stock: KODAK Video transfers by: AAV A ustralia

Government A gency I nvestment Development: NSWFTO Production: FFC, NSW FTO, Film V ictoria , B eyond D istribution

M arketing

P roduction Crew Production supervisor: S ally A yre-S mith Production manager: S ally A yre-S mith Production co-ordinator: Lorelle A damson Producer's assistant: Lee-A nne H iggins Production secretary: J an Edwards Location manager: M aude H eath Unit manager: B ob G raham Unit assistants: Laurie P ettinari, N ino N egrin , P hil B rown Production runners: D ebbie A ntoniou , N igel D oyle Production accountant: D enise Farrell Accounts assistant: S tuart M c P hee Insurer: H. W . WOODS (T ony G ibbs ) Completion guarantor: Film Finances , I nc . Legal services: T ress Cocks & M addox

Camera Crew Camera operator: M andy W alker Focus puller: Kattina B owell Clapper-loader: Viv S canu Camera assistant: R ena M arnich 2nd unit D.0.P: JOHN WHITTERON 2nd unit focus: A ndrew BlRBARA Camera type: 35 m m ARRI BL4 Camera maintenance: Samuelsons Key grip: T ony H all Assistant grips: Paul R einhardt , Fabian P oggendorf Gaffer: Les Frazier Best boy: T revor Ripper Electrician: W arwick Fry

International distributor: B eyond Films Publicity: M aria Farmer P ublic Relations

Cast M iranda Otto (D im ity H urley), R ebecca Frith (V icki-A nn H urley), G eorge S hevtsov (K en S herry), J ohn A lansu (A lbert). et in the Riverina to w n of Sunray, Love Serenade is the story of tw o sisters, V icki-A nn and D im ity Hurley, aged 26 and 21, w h o are both beset by the notion th a t so m e how the w o rld is passing them by. V icki-A nn, in p a rtic u la r, feels sh arp ly the lam entable lack of d e ce n t bo yfriend m aterial in Sunray. D im ity has a p parently given up co m p le te ly and given he rse lf over to her ch ie f in te re st in life, fish. So, w hen Ken S herry - m id -forties, th ric e divo rce d, ex-drivetim e king of B risbane radio - arrive s to take over the tin y radio station, the sisters respond by abandoning all sibling loya lty and launching into a fie rc e battle fo r his a ffections.

THE PHANTOM

On - set Crew

Production companies: VRP PRODUCTION S ervices, Paramount P ictures Budget: $50 MILLION Production: 2/10 /95 -24 /1 /9 6

1st assistant director: P. J. VOETEN 2nd assistant director: J ohn MARTIN 3rd assistant director: J ennifer Leacey Continuity: KRISTIN VOUMARD Boom operator: P hil S terling

Director: SlMON WlNCER Producer: A lan Ladd J nr , Robert Evans Co-producer: J effrey B oam Executive producer: R ichard V ane

Principal Credits

¡^production Production Survey continued Associate producer: B onnie A baunza Scriptwriter: J effrey B oam B ased on the comic strip , The P hantom C reated by Lee Falk Director of photography: D avid B urr Sound recordist: B en Osmo Editor: N icholas 0. B rown Production designer: P aul P eters Costume designer: MARLENE STEWART

Planning

based on The Phantom com ic strip created by Lee Falk in 1936 and pu blished in 500 ne w spap ers w o rld w id e by King Features Syndicate.

UNDER THE LIGHTHOUSE DANCING i

and development

Casting: Lynne Ruthven - G old C oast Casting consultants: M aura Faye & A ssociates

P roduction Crew Production manager: B rian B urgess Production co-ordinator: CHRIS BAER Assistant production co-ordinator: Kim S teblina Production secretary: Jo SUNA Production runner: SCOTT CRUSE Financial controller: E lton M ac P herson Production accountant: Lynne Paetz

[

;

Camera Crew Camera operator: LOUIS IRVING Focus puller: Colin D eane Clapper-loader: N ick W att 2nd unit D.O.P: A camera -P aul T aylor, B Cam era -B rian B reheny 2nd unit focus: A CAMERA-John B reslin , B camera -L eah A shenburst 2nd unit clapper: A CAMERA-REBECCA S teele , B camera -B en J asner Key grip: Lester B ishop Gaffer: B rian Bansgrove

Planning

and

Wardrobe supervisor: S andi C ichello Standby wardrobe: RACHEL N o n Designer glasses: PETER COOMBS

A nimals Lizard wrangler: WARREN BLAKE

Construction Department Construction manager: B ob H ern (W oomera ), G erry P owderly (M elbourne ) Foreman: Paul P ocok Set finisher: M ark Stewart Studios: Crawfords

Post- production Post-production supervisor: Peter Ba in -H ogg Assistant editor: S am VENNING Sound editor: Ian M cW illiams , P eter Palankay (Labsonics ) Mixer: JAMES CURRIE Digital effects: DAVID NELSON (U nreal P ictures ) Laboratory: ClNEVEX Laboratory' liaison: IAN ANDERSON Film gauge: 35 m m Shooting stock: KODAK Video transfers by: AAV Off-line facilities: T he Facility

D evelopment

Production Crew

Production manager: YVONNE COLLINS Production co-ordinator: MANGUS M a n s i E Assistant production co-ordinator: Kim T ravis Production secretary: Fran S hepherdson Location manager: TlM SCOTT Unit manager: M ichael B atchelor Unit assistants: Ian Lloyd, M erv T ucker Production accountant: JUDY MALMGREN Accounts assistant: Fran S tphenson Insurer: H. W . WOOD Completion guarantor: Film Finances Legal services: M arshalls & D ent Travel co-ordinator: S how T ravel Freight co-ordinator: S how T ravel Base-office liaison: Louise C heslett

Camera Crew

Construction D epartment Construction supervisor: J ohn V illarino Scenic artist: Ray P edlar Construction manager: ANDREW GARDINER

Post- production ]

Cast

W ardrobe

Government A gency I nvestment

Casting: G reg A pps (P rototype) Extras casting: B ernadette Ryan (P rototype) Storyboard artist: PAUL WILLIAMS

W ardrobe

he Phantom m antle has been handed dow n from fa th e r to son ever since the fo u n d e r of the line w itn e sse d his fa th e r m urdered by pira te s 400 years ago. A s the la te st heir to th is proud tra d itio n . The Phantom (B illy Zane), is sw o rn to fig h t greed, co rru p tio n and cruelty. The film is

Principal Credits Director: J ohn T atoulis Producer: JOHN TATOULIS Co-producer: Colin S outh Associate producer: PETER Ba in -H ogg Scriptwriter: D eborah P arsons Director of photography: PETER ZAKHAROV Sound recordist: J im D unwoodie Editor: P eter B urgess Production designers: P hil C hambers , S tan A ntoniades Costume designer: CLARE GRIFFIN Composer: BURKHARD DALLWITZ

Wardrobe supervisor: LlSA Lovaas Standby wardrobe: S ean Cundlach Wardrobe assistant: CHRISTELLE C0R0NES

Art department co-ordinator: Christopher G ogos Dressers: Roland P ike , T oni Forsyth , T ony X eros Buyers: Roland P ike , T oni Forsyth , T ony X eros Standby props: BRIAN LANG Action vehicle co-ordinator: J ohn Chase Action vehicle mechanic: Barry B ell

THE ZONE

Art director: Lisette T homas Set dresser/Decorator: A my W ells, Lesley Crawford Draftsperson: JACINTA Leong Armourer: A llan M owbray

B illy Z ane (T he P hanto m ), Kristy Sw anso n (D ia n a ), J ames Remar (Q uill ), T reat W illiams (D rax ), Cather ine Z eta J ones (S ala ), D avid P roval (C harlie Z ephro ), Casey S iemaszko (M organ ), Patrick M cG oohan (P h an to m ' s Father ), Cary T agaw a (K abai S engh ).

Cast J acqueline M cKenzie , J ack T hompson , N aomi W atts , A den Gillett, P hillip H older, Z oe B ertram

A rt Department

Production company: M edia W orld F eatures Pre-production: 28/8/95-20/10/95 Production: 23/10/95-8/12/95 Post-production: 11/12/95-3/5/96

A rt Department

Assistant editor: B ryan Carroll Editing assistants: B rett Carroll, G ina Carroll , G eoff Lam b Laboratory: A tlab AUSTRALIA - GOLD COAST Laboratory liaison: Gary K eir

P rincipal Credits Director: Graeme Rattigan Producer: D avid G iles Line producer: J ane S cott Scriptwriters: David G iles , G raeme Rattigan Director of photography: P aul M urphy Editor: David S tiven Production Designer: Laurence Eastwood Finance: B acked by A sian investors Publicity: Fiona S earson , DDA

n uplifting ro m antic com edy based on the true sto ry of thre e couples w h o visit R ottnest Island to stage a i m agical w edding. !

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: B ob DONALDSON 2nd assistant director: S imon W arnock 3rd assistant director: D ebbie A tkins Continuity: JUDY WHITEHEAD Boom operator: GERRY NUCIFORA Make-up: JUDY Lovell Hairdresser: A rturo Rojas Special fx supervisor: A l Lorimer Stunts co-ordinator: B illy B urton Stunts assistant: Danny Baldw in Still photography: ANDREW COUPER Unit publicist: Vic PIeutschy

Production company: S ilver T urtle Films Production: 16/10/95 ...

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: B rendan Campbell 2nd assistant director: CHRISTIAN ROBINSON 3rd assistant director: EMMA JAMVOLD Continuity: J ulie Feddersen Boom operator: T ony D ickinson Make-up: B ill J ackson - M artin Hairdresser: B ill J ackson -M artin Special fx co-ordinator: A aron BEAUCAIRE Special fx assistant: Lloyd FlNNEMORE Stunts co-ordinator: A rch Roberts Safety officer: A rch R oberts First aid officer: JEANETTE GREENFIELD Safety report: P eter C ulpan Still photography: B rian M c K enzie Unit publicist: Sandy Kaye Catering: STUART BRINKWORTH, D oug Costello (S ilver S creen ) Runner: G reg CAPURS0

\ '

| ' ,

Camera operator: HARRY PANAGIOTIDIS Focus puller: PETER SCOTT Clapper-loader: BRUNO DORING Aerial photography: PETER ZAKHAROV Camera hire: CAMERAQUIP Key grip: Freddo D irk Grip: G ene V an Dam Gaffer: Rory TlMONEY Best boy: Chris S hanahan Electrician: ROBBIE HECHENBERGER Assistant electrics: R obbie H echenberger Generator operator: ROBBIE HECHENBERGER

Development: SAFC Production: Film V ictoria , FFC

M arketing International distributor: B eyond Films

Cast P eter P helps (L ieutenant Leo M egaw ), Carolyn B ock (A nne / N ovan A nne ), B rad Byguar (B oas ), A lex M englett (T ito ), J eff Kovski (P agett ). he Zone Is a fu tu ris tic th rille r. Lieutenant M e g a w w o rks fo r the A rm y (NTU) and Is posted to the stark, barren sa lt-m ines of Zone 39. There he discovers th a t large tra c ts of land have been m ysteriously contam inated. A m ystery unfolds as M e g a w fin ds out w h a t re ally happened to the Zone.

Awaiting Release S ee previous issues for details ON THE following :

FLOATING LIFE LILIAN'S STORY LUST AND REVENGE MY ENTIRE LIFE THE QUIET ROOM RACE THE SUN RIVER STREET ROAD TONIHILL SHINE TO HAVE AND TO HOLD

Gaffer: T erry K olbe

A rt Department

Art director: A ngelo SALAMANCA

P ost- production

1 i ] \

Musical director: David Eldridge Video gauge: Hi 8 Screen ratio: 1:1.33 Shooting stock: SONY Off-line facilities: T he S alvation A rmy T raining College

Government A gency I nvestment

] 1

Production: D epartment of Education Employment and T raining Marketing: T he S alvation A rmy

Cast C rossroads , W estcare , B runswick Food B ank , S t . K ilda Crisis C entre n explora tion of the num erous se rvice s offered by or au splced by the Salvation A rm y

(FORMERLY THE SMALL M A N )

TURNING APRIL

THOSE WHO FLEW SOUTH

Documentaries THE NATURE OF HEALING Production company: R eel IMAGES Distribution company: B eyond D istribution Pre-production: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1996 Production: FEBRUARY-MARCH 1996 Post-production: M ay -J une 1996

PrincipalCredits Directors: B rian B eaton , C elia T ait Producer: B rian B eaton Associate producer: SERENE LlM Scriptwriters: B rian B eaton , S erene Lim , C elia T ait Directors of photography: IAN PUGSLEY, G raeme B eck, G reg K night Sound recordists: G lenn M artin , G lenn D illon , Glen D avies , R ob D ewar Editors: PETER PRITCHARD, ROLAND SMITH Composer: A lan H olbrook

Production Crew Production manager: NlOBE S yme Production co-ordinator: M andy C orunna Production accountant: T ony A rto Insurer: PIUA Completion guarantor: FACB Legal services: Garton S m ith /O wen

On - set Crew Make-up: AiNSLEE H iggins

Government A gency I nvestment Development: SCREEN WEST Production: FFC

Production companies: W inding Road Entertainm ent , Footprints I mage M akers Pre-production: N ovember 1995-J anuary 1996 Production: J anuary -M arch 1996 Post-production: M arch -M ay 1996

P rincipal Credits Director: Krishna Kumar Producers: W ill S pencer , S uresh Kum ar , A. K. S hamsuddeen Scriptwriter: J aya CHANDRAN S Directors of photography: N adia COSSICH, N otir F Editor: N otir F

Planning

T / ? e N ature o f H ealing Is a 6 x 26 " m ins D ocum entary S eries w h ich looks at some of the 'a lte rn a tiv e ’ or 'com p le m e n ta ry' m edical trea tm en ts used w id e ly am ong the com m unity, ye t only ju s t gaining acce p ta n ce among tra d itio n a l pra ctitio n e rs . The series w ill introd uce a range of th e ra p ie s and th e ir origins, de m ystify the trea tm en ts and explain the m ind-body co nnection fund am ental to the h o listic approach.

OUR STORY

Production Crew Production co-ordinator: TRACEY MAHOOD

M arketing Marketing consultant: P roduced for D oordashan (I ndian G ovt . TV) he Indian prese nce In A ustralia from the firs t early 19th-century im m igrants - do m e stic servants, plantation labo ure rs and ha w kers - to the present. Indians are no w among the top incom e ea rners, prom inent in business, the professio ns and academ ia, and have an increasin g cu ltu ra l presence w ith re sid e n t dance com panies and a w a rd -w in n in g w rite rs.

Production company: Sting PRODUCTIONS Budget: $10,000 Length: 5 MINUTES Completion date: J anuary 1996

Principal Credits Director: E m m a Freeman Producer: G lenn FRASER Scriptwriter: Em m a FREEMAN Director of photography: Ross M c Lennan Sound recordist: Kyla W ard Sound designer: Paul A nthony S mith Editor: GLENN FRASER Composer: Paul A nthony S mith

Production Crew

Production company: T he S alvation A rmy Pre-production: 27/11/95-8/12/95 Production: 11/12/95-20/12/95 Post-production: 21/12/95-12/01/96

Production designer: MELISSA Luke Production manager: A ngela M aier Producer's assistant: B ridgette G ower

Camera Crew Camera assistant: T om SPARK Grip: D am ien H eckendorf Gaffer: M atthew H orrex

Principal Credits Director: A ngelo S alamanca Producer: CHRIS GARCIA Executive producer: Graeme M cC limont Director of photography: M atthew P ierce Sound recordist: M atthew M aher Editor: M atthew P ierce and

On - set Crew 1st assistant director: W endy C ohen Make-up/Stylist: H elen G lover

Post- production

Development

Telecine: C hris B utton Sound assistant: Liam W eston Laboratory: M o v ie u b Shooting stock: Kodak 7287

Researcher: ANGELO SALAMANCA Budgeted by: A ngelo S alamanca

CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION DAVID WILLIAMSON'S BRILLIANT LIES FIRST STRIKE

Production supervisor: C hris Garcia Production co-ordinator: A ngelo S ala

(FORMERLY THE STORY OF CJ.A.)

Camera operator: M atthew P ierce

Production Crew

manca

Production assistant: M ichael C ook

Camera Cew

Development

VICTORIA IN THE ASHES

M arketing International distributor: B eyond D istribution

P u n n in g

and

Researcher: ROSA COLOSIMO

Cast S usie Lind e m an , J ill Lin d e m a n , Errol B annister , M ichael T eulon young w om an com es to te rm s w ith the la ck of re sp o n sib ility in he r life, and take s co ntrol in a unique w ay.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

Tete-Featured

Doris, the clea ner; and M opsy, the dog. Life seem s alm ost p e rfe c t until her exhusband J a c k is ca st as he r love r in the se ries in w h ic h she is cu rre n tly starring.

ACADEMY Production company: TAFTA & CRTV (T he A ustralian Film & TV A cademy & Catholic Radio & TV) Budget: $302,000

and

P rincipal Credits

eus

D evelopment

Script editor: Garrett R ussell Casting: J ohn Orcsik , J odie M c K enna Dialogue coach: D anielle Paul Shooting schedule by: Caro lina FIaggstrom Budgeted by: T imothy Carter , D aniel FIarvey Line producer's assistant: Paul M oran Executive producer's assistant: S im on O rcsik

Other Credits Production office: GOLD COAST Art director: MICHELLE McGAHEY Gauge: 35 m m Length: 93 MINS U.S. Broadcast: ABC Entertainment

Cast D yan Ca n n o n , M artin M ull, S arah M ichelle G ellar, Ryan O 'D onohue , Kevin W eism an , M ichael Edw ard S tevens , N ique N eedles, J osh P icker

P roduction Crew Production manager: D aniel FIarvey Producer's secretaries: A nne M offat , T iffany S akkas Location manager: J odie M c K enna Production runner: SlMON ORCSIK Production accountant: C hris Ryan Accounts assistant: Rachel Ryan Insurer: Film I nsurance U nderwriters A ssociation Legal services: Robert S ummerton

co ntem porary sp oof of the m ode rn-day classic Disney ad venture The S w iss Fam ily Robinson, th is is an actio n -p a cke d com edy about a crazed ce le b rity hom em aker, M arsha Robinson, w h o is sh ip w recked w ith her fa m ily on a tro p ic a l island and tu rn s a tre e house into a d e co ra to r's sh ow place .

Camera Crew

HEAT

Camera operator: S teve Lyons Focus puller: D uncan B arrett Clapper-loader: T rish Foley Camera assistant: D arren C risp Technical Director: K evin S tott Key grip: J oe C iaglia Gaffer: S hane G ilfeather Gaffer's Assistant: Evan B urrows Best boy: J oe C iaglia

Production company: BARRON TELEVISION Production: 15/1/96-15/2/96

On - set Crew

A rt D epartment

(series; 1 x 90

m in s ;

12 x 50

m in s )

j :

Budget: S2,600,000

Principal Credits

Cast P aula D uncan (J ennifer H ayw ood ), T ony B onner (J ack S teele ), M ichael M cG linchey (W il l ia m ), J essica O rcsik (N atalie S teele ), A sia M atthews (L illy \ Z a b r is k i ), S uellen U nderwood (G eral- | dine ), Pauline Ca m p t o n -L owe (D oris ), i B ryan W illiam s (D avid S tolz ), M att | Flanagan (T o m ), A zura A dams (J oanna j Parso ns ), B laise C ooper (L uke ), H eath i W illiam s (T im ), B ianca J ackes (L is a ). ,

i i !

i i \

Director: S uri Krish na m m a Producer: J eff P ope Line producer : A llison M alone Written by: J eff P ope Scriptwriter: J eff P ope Director of photography: NIN0 MARTINETTI Sound recordist: P aul C lark Editor: LW T Production designer: M ichael Ralph Costume Designer: D avid R owe

Cast G reg W ise (B r itt ), S imon D utton (N eill), D ave N ellist (P age ), Ralph B rown (M a n n ), D ougray S cott (M ayfield ), J ohn M cA rdle (F oster ), P hil M cK ee (S hearer ), T imothy W est (W innerick ), A nna B olt (N icky ), Craig S hai H ee (K evin ). [S ee previous issue for further details ]

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

A rt D epartment

Art director: M ichael T olerton Art department co-ordinator: T racey Robertson Art department runner: MICHAEL KlSSANE Set dressers: J ill J ackson , Robert P orter Props buyers: J an M cKay , Kristin Reuter Standby props: A lison P ickup , S imon Carter , J ohn Lambert

Production.... 29 M arch 1996

Principal Credits ! j Director: J ulian M cSw in ey , K ate W oods , Ian W atson , B rendan M arr i Producers: Fiona Eagger , S tephen C orvini Executive producer: SUE MASTERS Scriptwriters: Cliff Green , B ill Garner , David Rapsey , S onia B org, S ue H ore, J ohn Cundill , D eborah P arsons , G lenda H ambley Creator: C liff Green

| 1 i

;

W ardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: R ita Crouch 1 Standby wardrobe: H elen M aggs , H elen M a in s , V alerie Evans , Wardrobe assistants: J ulie Z ahra , Carina Caldarone

P rincipal Credits Director ANTHONY LAWRENCE Producer: T ony W right Scriptwriter: ANTHONY LAWRENCE Production designers: ALISTER Ha r d im a n , Fil Barlow Animation: A nthony Lawrence, Rob Gudan

Other Credits Script editor: JOHN THOMSON Gauge: 16 m m Pre-sale: ABC, BBC Finance: Film V ictoria , ACTF lasm o and his friend s, Parsty and N ikNik, escape the hostile e n viron m e nt of Pynco and end up on the p lan et of M o n jo tro ld e clip d o c.

TABALUGA: THE LITTLE GREEN DRAGON (series; 26 x 25

PACIFIC DRIVE (series)

Production company: VILLAGE ROADSHOW Distribution company: N ew W orld Entertainment Pre-production: 12 J une 1995 ...

Principal Credits

Other Credits Production manager: Lea M ilic Gauge: 35 m m Pre-sale: ZDF Voices: Keith S cott, Robyn M oore

Post- production 1

P rincipal Credits Director: YORAM GROSS Producer: Y oram GROSS Co-producers: YORAM GROSS FILM STUDIO, T abaluga G m b H, ZDF Enterprises , EM Entertainment Associate producers: T im B rooke-H unt , S andra G ross Scriptwriters: GREGOR Rottschalk , S ue B eak, M alcolm M c Gookin Editors: CHRISTOPHER PLOWRIGHT, S ally Fitzpatrick Composer: P eter M affay

Construction D epartment

i i

Post-production supervisor: J eremy R ice Assistant editors: B rad Lindenmayer , R ebecca-A nne M urphy Sound transfers by: T racks A ustralia Sound editor: T ony M urtagh Musical director: CHRIS N eal Music performed by: T he H ipshop Recording studio: Chris N eal Foley artist: HELEN BROWN Foley engineer: R ichard B robyn Mixer: TREVOR H arrison Fx mixer: ROSS B oyer Mixed at: T racks A ustralia Titles: David Barker Grader: D eidre M cClelland Video gauge: D igital B etacam Shooting stock: DIGITAL BETACAM/SONY Print stock: D igital B etacam /S ony Off-line facilities: C utting Edge Video master by: Cutting Edge

i Directors: I an W atson (B locks 1, 2), B ill H ughes (3, 8), M alcolm M c D onald (4, 9), ETC. | Producer: B ruce B est Co-executive producer: N ick M c M ahon i Line producer: TERRIE VINCENT j Executive producers: Greg Coote , G raham i B urke i i Associate producer: Jo PORTER Executive story editors: CORAL D rouyn (EPS 1-100), T om H egarty Scriptwriters: BEVAN L ee, Ro H um e , B oaz [ Government A gency I nvestment j S tark , K it Oldfield , D aniel K rige 1 Development: Pacific Film and T elevision Directors of photography: M ark W areh am , i C om m ission B randon A pps M arketing Sound recordists: GRAEME H icks , G reg i International distributor: N ew W orld B urgmann Entertainment Editors: S uzanne Flannery , Patrick Publicity: Frank T obin P.R. S tewart , M ichael Hag a n , L eigh Elmes , Cast David J ones | Kate Raison (G eorgina Ellis ), Lloyd Production designer: S ally S hepherd Costume designer: Sally Grigsby i M orris (T rey D evlin ), M elissa T kautz i Composer: T he H ipshop ! (B ethany D aniels ), A drian Lee (J oel | R itchie ), S imone B uchanan (Laura Har Planning and Development Script editors: MICHAEL JOSHUA, ANNETTE | ris ), Joss M cW illiam (M artin H arris ), i D anielle S pencer (C allie M acrae ), Erik M oore, Evelyn S aunders ) | T homson (B rett B arrett ), Christine Casting: M aura Fay and A ssociates J S tephen -D aly (A mber Kingsley ), Libby P roduction Crew T anner (Z oe M arshall ) Production co-ordinators: Lara T wyford , | a cific Drive is w here sun, sand and Catherine H all : surf make the ultim ate backdrop to Production secretary: J ustin LYONS i am bition and obsession. In the shadows Location manager: COLIN O ddy ! i behind the high-rise, the brutal m urder Unit manager: PAUL MALANE Assistant unit manager: J ohn M alane | of one of the coast's m ost pow erful : Production runner: JUSTIN HUGHES ; identities w ill have dram atic ram ifications Production accountant: PATRICIA PASSLOW i fo r the tw enty-som ething urban ! Accounts assistant: LlANE MOREL i professionals w ho live on P acific Drive.

m in s )

Production company: Y orma Gross Film S tudio Production ... M arch 1996

Construction manager: Z latko M ilic

he lives of jo u rn a lists and th e ir re la tion ships w ith a ne w sp a p e r and i each other.

| |

W ardrobe Wardrobe consultant: S tella H ughes Standby wardrobe: A ureole M cA lpine W ardrobe assistant: T a m a ra La Frenais

MERCURY

C laudia Karvan , J ohn M oore, S onia T odd , S teve Bastoni , M artin J caob , J eremy S ims

S ervices (M ichael Care )

Televu on Drama (other)

THE PLACE OF THE DEAD

[ 1 !

Production company: P lasmo M ega Studios Distribution company: B eyond D istribution I nternational Production:... J anuary 1977

Cast

Production company: VRP PRODUCTION

) i

Gauge: 16m m j 1st assistant directors: A drian P ickersgill, Length: 96 MINS 1 D arren M allett, Clinton W hite , M att Finance: FFC, N etwork T en , Film Q ueens Enfield , J ake A ttkinson ; land 2nd assistant directors: V era BlFFONE, International distributor: PoRTMAN GLOBAL David G unzberg Cast i Continuity: J ulie Bates -B rennan , Karen M im i Rogers, A ndrew M cFarlane , M ansfield , Louise Grant T emuera M orrison \ Boom operators: S hane W alker, Gary D ixon i Make-up: A pril Harvie , J acqui D eacon po litic a l th rille r about the public i Make-up assistants: Jo M ulquin , X anthia faça de and private lives of an | W hite j aspiring p o litic ia n and his w ife . Stunts co-ordinator: CHRIS ANDERSON i Safety officer: PETER ARMSTRONG \ Still photography: J ason B oland , S ean Barnes i Unit publicist: A ndrew M ercado j i Catering: QuiNELLES CATERING

Other Credits

Art director: JOHN ORCSIK Art department co-ordinator: AUREOLE M cA lpine Standby props: T rish Foley Armourer: B ob PARSONS

Story editor: B arbara B ishop Network: ABC

n id e a listic s o lic ito r heads to the bush a fte r a disillu sioning en co u n te r w ith the legal system . In a sm all co u n try tow n, she w itn e sse s an in cid e n t be tw ee n police and tw o A bo rig in e s and becom es em broiled in a fig h t fo r justice.

Camera operators: B rendan W illiam s , A ndrew Condor Camera assistants: T erry B razier , T revor S mith Key grips: Leigh T a it , M alcolm Evans Assistant grips: G eorge Caramelis , B rody Hamilton Gaffers: J ack M eyerink , J ohn B ryden B rown Best boys: T ony M eyerink , B ernard S lattery

II PLASMO (series; 1 3 x 5 mins)

On - set Crew

P rincipal Credits

Camera Crew |

Other Credits

Director: S cott Hartford -D avis Producer: P aul D. Barron Executive producers: Paul D. B arron , B ill H ughes Scriptwriter: LEON S aunders Script editor: J ulie M onton Production manager: J an TYRRELL Pre-sale: SEVEN NETWORK Finance: FFC Length: 93 MINS

Paymaster: R oza LONG Insurer: H.W . WOOD Travel co-ordinator: S howtravel Freight co-ordinator: S howtravel

Production company: Rutherford Films H oldings Pre-production: 22/1/96-23/2/96

Other Credits

1st assistant director: Caro lina Haggstrom 2nd assistant director: J odie M c K enna Continuity: CULLEN BLACK Boom operator: N athan V astag Make-up: M artell FIam m er Make-up assistant: M arnie K elly Make-up consultant: P eter Frampton Assistant hairdresser: P eter T aranto Stunts co-ordinator: R ob GREENOUGH Stunts assistant: COLIN FIandley Safety officer: Rob GREENOUGH Still photography: Gale A lder Unit publicist: ANTONIO B alin Catering: M aggie Strike Catering supplies: Peter' s S teaks (P eter A bood )

e n n ife r H ayw ood, a h ig h -p ro file actress, m oves to the Gold Coast to sta rt a ne w life fo r he r daughter, N atalie, and herself. She brings w ith her a co lo u rfu l household: he r bo yfriend W illia m ; Lilly, the nanny;

title only )

Director: P auline C han Producer: J ohn S exton Co-producer: JULIE FORSTER [ Executive producers: Chris B row n , T im 1 B uxton Scriptwriters: H enry T efay, K ee Y oung Director of photography: MARTIN M cG rath i Editor: T im W ellburn | Production designer: S tewart B urnside

Director: T roy M iller Producers: J effrey Lambert , I rw in M ar Executive producers: George Z aloom , Les M ayfield Based on the story titled: T. C. S mith Director of photography: ROGER Lanser Production designer: I AN A llan Costume designer LA: T om BRONSON

(working

Principal Credits

Production company: ZM PRODUCTION IN assoc , w ith W alt D isney T elevision Production: 25/1/96-23/2/96

Director: J ohn ORCSIK Producer: T imothy Carter Line producer: D aniel FIarvey Executive producers: P aula D unc an , T im o thy Carter Scriptwriter: J ohn O rcsik Based on the story & synopsis by: J ohn Orcsik , Paula D uncan Director of photography: P eter M orley Sound recordist: V ictor K asper Editor: C lay B a um an Production designer: J ohn O rcsik

P lanning

BEVERLY HILLS FAMILY ROBINSON

P rincipal Credits

WHITE LIES

\ 1 i

he anim ated story of Tabaluga, a young dragon, and his stru ggle to save his w o rld from the snow m an, A rktos.

S ee previous issues for deatils on :

BEAST THE BITE BLINKY BILL'S EXTRAORDINARY EXCURSION BLUE HEELERS FIRE II FLIPPER G.P. HALIFAX F.P. HEARTBREAK HIGH HOME & AWAY HOUSE GANG KLINE'S BOTTLE NEIGHBOURS OCEAN GIRL 3 POLICE RESCUE THE SILVER BRUMBY SWEAT US AND THEM WATER RATS

> < m

JO > a m

ANG LEE TRIUMPHS WITH A-USTEN • BEfBAN KIDRON FAILS ITJS DR AGW EEN S • BILL BENNETT DIVIDES T;HE CRITICS

C opycat

J o n A m ie l

Dead M an W alkin g T im

» 9

R o bbin s

Devil in a Blue Dress C trl

F r .a n k l i n

Eclipse J eremy P odesw a

Feast of Ju ly C h r ist o ph e r

M e n a it

Un Fem me Française Re g is

W a r g n ie r

Get Shorty B arry S on n en feld

La Fîaine M a th ie u K a sso y itz

if 9

I 1

1 1 1 1 1

H eat M ic h a e l

M ann

Leaving Las Vegas M ike

F ig g is

M ighty' A phrodite W o o d y A llen

1 1 ! i 1

1 1 1 1 1

A M onth by the Lake J o h n

I r v in

M u rd er in the First Marc R o c c o

Persuasion

R oger

M it c h e l l

Powder Vic t o r

S a l va

Sabrina Sydney P ollack

The Scarlet Letter R ola n d J ofeé

Sense and Sensibility A n g L ee

issi 9

Stonew all N ig e l

F in c h

T hree W ishes M artha

C o o l id g e

188

To Die For G us

Va n S a n t

To W on g Foo Thanks for Everything, Ju lie N ew m ar B eeban

K id r o n

Tw o if by Sea B il l B e n n e t t

W aitin g to Exhale F o r e s t W h it a ke r

The W onderful H orrible Life of Leni R iefenstahl X xxxx X xxxxxx

B E IS JÌ!

1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ! i 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i I

8 9

7 6

1 1 1 1

jj 7 ;

7 7 9

7 ;

! 1

B [| B B |

6 .2

4 .7

B H B | |

o f C '-

b é

¡ ¡

;

! i i 1 i 1 i

1 i i i i i > i i i i i i i

8 -

1 1 B ■! 1 1 i1

—

' 1 B lj ii i ■

1 1

» M

1 T 1

B B |

» H B —

1 -

J.3/J

lifts!

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! 1 1 1 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

P ope

I to

Captives A ngela

■--)i

H B l

■

^ é m m h ìiìb é B B B M

B B B B

7.2 ' . B B B B

¡Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê Ê M

a B B B R i

îg ¡g p

ttÈ

■■

74/

nb : Eidetic: a. Applied to an image that revives an optical impression with hallucinatory clearness, or to a person having this faculty.

A p a n el o f eigh t film review ers has rated a selection o f the la test relea ses on a sca le o f 0 to 10, the la tter bein g the optim um ra tin g (a dash m ea n s n ot seen ). The critics are: B i l l C o llin s (Fx on F ox tel); B a r b a r a C reed (T he A ge); S a n d r a H a ll (T he B u lletin ); P a u l H a rris ( “The Green Guide ”, The A ge); S ta n J a n i e s (T he A delaide A dvertiser); A d ria n M a rtin (T he Age; “The Week in F ilm ”, Radio N ational); T oni R y a n (T he S unday A ge); a nd E van W illia m s (T he A ustralian).

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1996

R esolution ♦

♦

striving for The Ultimate Resolution, Dfilm Services

introduce the Kodak Cineon Digital Film System, a dynamic state of the art technology that offers unlimited vision to filmmakers, in Australasia and globally. Combining Film Scanning, Manipulation and Film Recording abilities, with Optical Effects and Kines , Dfilm Services' Digital Image Centre gives filmmakers strategic direction and progressive options, to achieve a faster, more cost effective, often more creative experience with greater simplicity. From the most subtle technical additions and alterations, to hi tech creations that bring prehistoric animals to life and detailed period sets alive, Dfilm and the Cineon Digital Film System provide the solutions to keep audiences spellbound around the globe. All this and more in a convenient one stop location. Acting as the lens to broaden the focus of an already strong film industry, Dfilm Services make the vision, the reality.

Silicon

- Full film resolution scanning . an d /ec o rd in g s - Intelligent colour keying and , "matte production - Seamless multi-layer compositing - Image restoration; dusU^siffiffT A scratch removal,. frame salvage - Im a g p â c ^ z m g

Film in - filffi'^qup bureau s e rv ic e ^

- Optical effects and titles

Motion tracking

- Video to film transfers with ACM E's propriety im age enhancement system

W id e range of filtering tools; »-image blurring, sharpening, re-grain, de-grain Comprehensive paint package with full 10 bit per colour sampling

- All format video and computer media transferred to slides - Image stabilisation

Dfilm Services 51A Hume Street Crows Nest N SW 2065 Australia Telephone (02) 436 1466

Facsimile: (02) 436 1833 BG&D Dfl 453

What have you done on your

Television Commercials

Feature Film Special Effects

Agency: Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd Client: Volvo Director: David Garfath Work: Multi-layer Composite and Painting Facility: Digital Film at The Moving Picture Company

Film Restoration

Film: The Shadow Director: Russell Mulcahy Work: Multi-layer Blue-Screen Composite and Colour Correction Facility: The Digital Film Group at The Post Group

Film: Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs Client: Walt Disney Pictures Work: Dustbusting and Colour Correction Facility: Cinesite Hollywood

Digital Cinematography Cinema Commercials

Client: C&A Director: Roman Kuhn Work: Tone Scale and Colour Alteration Facility: ARRI Digital Film

Film: No Escape Director of Photography: Phil Meheux, BSC Work: Selective Tone Scale Enhancement Facility: Cinesite Europe

The quality and creative power to expand your imagination and your business from Kodak. F o r m o re in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e C in e o n D ig ita l Film S y s te m p le a s e call:

Russell Chapman Richard Krohn

(03) 9353 2437 (02) 870 4270 Kodak and Cineon are trade marks

g] â&#x2013;

Motion Picture & Television Imaging