Cinema Papers No.108 February 1996 by UOW Library

ICKIE, HOW

NUMBER 108

Retiifn รถ ftjie Thought Police

Austr

The Hits,

> 1o p 100 5 'lops, the Memories;

LTS WATCH

STH!(OSI 4361844

PERTH[018] 968 636 ID1 ST[076] 6886543 fl 6801 719 6403 111L UNPUR603 632 6202

03] 9 646 3044

ES 224 W J

CINEMA PAPERS

contents NUMBER 108

• FEBRUARY 1 9 9 6

WmtM

¡¡pi & 1

;

SEVERED INTENSITIES & 'V

Conjuring John Hughes' What I Have Written

B y L esley S tern

Stern finds new ways o f conceiving tim e a nd presence, sex and cinem a, in W h at I H ave W ritten

What I Have Written

CTHULU The Return of H.P. Lovecraft By M

Writer-director John Hughes tells Paul K alina what he found cinematically and philosophically attractive in John A. Scott’s acclaimed novel and how he made the movie. PAGE 6

ic h a e l

H elm s

W hen the A F C says “N o ” to a short, don't despair, just head o f f to Canberra a nd m ake y o u r first fea tu re... well, at least that's what D am ian H effern a n did

THE TOP 100 AUSTRALIAN FILMS First Steps Toward a Core Collection B y K en B e r r y m a n

T he N FSA sent out 6 ,0 0 0 Poll form s to

Issu e s

Legal Ease

N ew M edia

H istory

Inproduction

T e ch n ica lities

In review

Tenebrious Ten 64

In b its

Denis Altman is a lecturer in Politics at the LaTrobe University; Chris Berry is a tutor in Cinema Studies at LaTrobe University; Ken Berryman is the Melbourne manager of the National Film & Sound Archive; Nigel Buesst is a Melbourne filmmaker and lecturer; Anna Dzenis is a tutor in Cinema Studies at LATrobe University; Philip Dutchak is the editor and publisher of the monthly

try an d determ ine what are Australia's T op 1 0 0 films. T h e results are in ... a nd often surprising!

newsletter. Convergence (those interested can contact him at pdutchak@geko.com.au); Emma Coller is a writer on film; Gabrielle Finnane is a Sydney writer on film; Michael Helms is the editor of Fatal Visions, Tina Kaufman is the former editor of Filmriews and a freelance writer on film; Chris Long is a Melbourne film historian; Jocelynne Scutt is a feminist barrister and writer; Lesley Stern lectures at the College of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales.

in bits NEWS,

VIEWS,

AND

NEWS,

he Board of the Australian Multimedia Enterprise Limited (AME) has

approved funding to support multimedia projects worth up to $7 million. Holding its first meeting outside

ETC.

ni Ids

mm LIT TCP

project approved for funding by the Board is being matched dollar for dollar media group: This means that this Australian

Sydney, in Perth, to consider the first round of project applications for

of $6 million to establish itself as a

funding, the AME board gave approval

major international competitor in

for the immediate funding of $3.5

the multimedia market. technology, which has only been

13 submissions.

available over the past four weeks,

announcement keeps faith with the very tight timetable which the AME imposed

among the top 20 most-visited sites

on itself last July.

in the world.

The projects approved for funding rep sources and platforms.

disappointments from the film s released in 1995 ( including on video):

Best Feature Babe Chris Noonan

Runners-up

asia.java.com Pty Ltd aims to create a web site on the internet which is

resent a range of genres, geographic

The Editors of Cinema Papers have chosen their annual pleasure,* and

Using state-of-the-art development

multimedia projects from a field of AME's CEO, Martin Cooper, said the

indicated strong market performance, showing the potential to make an

1. asia.java.com Pty Ltd - up to $3

impact in a crowded market and the

million of the $6 million budget for

sports-related product having a high

a worldwide web site targeted for

sales potential in the Asian market.

an educational Mac/PC CD-ROM title for children; and 3. Clone C & S Design - $46,400 of a $100,000 total budget for a sports information-related title.

Boaz Yakin

Hélas Pour Moi

Vf.

Léon

Jean-Luc Godard

Luc Besson

Hotel Sorrento (Richard Franklin)

6.4

That Eye, the S/ry(John Ruane)

6.3

Angel Baby [M\chae\ Rymer)

Babe

Mighty Morphin Power Bangers

Eternity

Memories & Dreams

Everynight... Everynight

industry in this country. People and

Lawrence Johnston

Lyn-Maree Milburn

(Alkinos Tsilimidos)

longer have to go offshore to get

Best Foreign Feature made by an Australian

funding and recognition.

projects left the Perth Board meeting

This announcement has done three

in no doubt that the Australian multi-

things: firstly, the negative view that

media industry is vigorous and

there is no viable internationallycompetitive product in Australia has

AME is biased towards CD-ROM has proves that we are interested in a broad range of materials so long as

«I

it is commercially viable. of the AME's investment managers in

Fred Schepisi

in such a remarkably short time.

applications. The Chair of the AME, Mark Burrows, said:

Die For.

The AME's investment in locally-

4.2

Billy's Holiday (Richard Wherrett)

3.7

A ll Men are Liars (Gerard Lee)

3.6

Metal Skin (Geoffrey Wright)

3.4

Talk (Susan Lambert)

3.3

Streetfighter(Steven E. de Souza)

2.8

Back of Beyond [Michael Robertson)

1.8

Joel Schumacher

Six Degrees of Separation

8.1

(Fred Schepisi) ¥ m

Milk Money

Nine Months

Richard Benjamin

Chris Colombus

Waterworld

month to consider new projects for sistent and continuous evaluation of

Mushrooms (Alan Madden)

Forever'

¥ : Bad Boys m Michael Bay

The AME Board will meet once a funding in what is described as a con

4.3

Overseas Features directed by Australians

Runners-up

processing so many applications and having three ready for Board submission

4.3

V ' M ixed Nuts NoraEphron

been proved wrong; and, finally, it

Cooper praised the extraordinary efforts

Six Degrees of Separation

iVLost H apless F eatu re

been proved wrong; secondly, that

in Gus Van Sant’s To

Dad and Dave On Our Selection

(George Whaley)

4.5

(Brian Spicer)

f t

discussions with the developer. Cooper:

Suzanne (Nicole Kidman)

Say a Little Prayer (Richard Lowenstein) 5.4

of growing a viable multimedia

viable ideas and products will no

8.8

The New Age

a very successful start to the process

to $1.25 million was deferred for further

c o v e r

Babe (Chris Noonan)

Michael Tolkin

Best Australian N on~features

There is no doubt that this has been

The following is how the Cinem a (and Cinem a Papers Editor,s) rated a ll the Australian features theatrically released locally in 1995. A ll the critics were re-polled and m ay have varied their original scoresfrom those published in previous polls. The average o f a ll the scores is what is given below, in descending order. Papers ’panel o f critics

rently in discussions for up to 30 project development funding applications:

1995 Australian Features

the Perth Board meeting, AME was cur

organizations with commercially-

internationally competitive.

•

substantial project funding allocated at

Another project involving a budget of up

The standard and quality of these

Fresh

Best Australian Feature

Cooper said that in addition to the

$385,035 of a $700,000 budget for

\£

Wong Kar-Wai

The other projects approved had also

The projects approved for funding are:

2. Firmware Publishing Pty Ltd -

Chungking Express

i f

with Firmware's edutainment CD-ROM

families;

by a major U.S.-based international

development team will have in excess

million for the development of three

p u p a r i

TT* T73

Cooper commented that the major

AME

m u

Kevin Reynolds

Despite being advertised as "Batman Forever", the film 's title is simply Forever. Behind that word is the bat graphic. As this is only ever referred to in the film as the "bat symbol", there is an argument for calling the film Bat Symbol Forever, but common sense rules against it What is curious is why thousands of film critics the world over, after having seen that the film is called simply Forever, would then write up reviews with a wrong title. The collective (uniconsciousness is working in bizarre ways.

Little Women (Gillian Armstrong)

7.1

Braveheart (Mel Gibson)

6.8

Species (Roger Donaldson)

5.9

The Shadow [RusseW Mulcahy)

4.4

Blown Away (Stephen Hopkins)

3.3

A Good Man in Africa (Bruce Beresford) 2.7 Silent Fall (Bruce Beresford)

developed multimedia product was

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

never stop ' bethg amKetoe You become a bit of an emotional parasite: you tend to use everything. You become observant, you tend ¡to look more a t people and say, \ ‘I m ust use that somewhere, jdhat s a fantastic walk !’. ” JB a - - J

ohn

H arg reaves

cinema

aimed at creating an environment

Robinson was appointed to the position

for the development of a viable

of Chief Executive in 1989, and to the

Australian multimedia industry.

Board of Commissioners in 1991.

The projects approved for funding

february 1996 num ber 108

have the potential to achieve strong 116 Argyle Street , F itzroy,

market acceptance once they are

V ictoria, Australia 3065. Postal

address:

completed.

PO B ox 2221,

There is obviously a wealth of

F itzroy MDC, Victoria 3065.

talent within Australia's multimedia

T el : (03) 9416 2644.

community. We can produce leading-

F ax : (03) 9416 4088.

edge product which can compete with the best in the world.

Editor: S co tt M urray

The warmth of the reception from

Assistant Editor Paul K alina

the Perth multimedia industry and the

Technical Editor: D ominic C ase

high level of attention given us by the

Advertising: T erry H aebich

WA Government is much appreciated. This visit puts paid to any suggestion

Subscriptions & Office Assistance:

M ina C arattoli Accounts: T ory T aouk Proofreading: Arthur Salton Office Cat: O ddspot Legal Adviser: D an P earce

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

C hris S tewart (C hairman), Patricia Am ad , R oss D imsey , D iana C ribble, N atalie M iller Founding Publishers:

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

Parkhouse Publishing pty ltd T el : (03) 9662 9992 Printing:

F rank D aniels

pty ltd

Rim: C ondor G roup Distribution:

N etwork D istribution . © COPYRIGHT 1995 MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED. S ig n e d a r t ic l e s r e p r e s e n t t h e v ie w s O F T H E AUTHORS AND N O T NECESSARILY TH O SE O F TH E E D ITO R AND PUBLISHER. W h i l e e v e r y c a r e is t a k e n w i t h MANUSCRIPTS AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED T O TH E MAGAZINE, N EITH ER TH E EDITOR N O R T H E PUBLISHER CAN ACCEPT LIABILITY F O R ANY LOSS O R DAMAGE W H ICH MAY a r is e .

T h i s m a g a z in e m a y n o t b e

REPRODUCED IN W H OLE O R PART W ITH OU T TH E EXPRESS PERMISSION O F TH E CO PYRIGHT O W NERS. C i n 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 m o n th s by

M T V P u b l is h in g L im it e d ,

AGREEM ENT ON STUDIO DEAL

egotiations for Fox Studios Australia to develop a studio

facility at the Sydney Showground have concluded. The agreement allows Fox to lease the site for 40 years with an option for a further 10 years. Fox will pay a minimum rental of $2 million per annum or five percent of gross-traded public revenues, whichever is the greater, once the site is occupied in 1999. Most of the initial $120 million

that the AME is neglecting WA and

investment will be spent on the film

that the WA interactive multimedia

and television production studio and

industry is not vital.

ancillary public facilities in the first

AFC APPOINTM ENT

he Australian Rim Commission has announced the appointment of

Cathy Robinson as its Chief Executive for a further three years, starting 7 February 1996. Chair Sue Milliken said: The Commission was unanimous in its decision to extend Cathy's appoint ment. Her leadership and manage ment qualities, and her work in restructuring the organization follow ing the establishment of the FFC,

three years of occupancy. The working studio will include: multiple sound stages of varying sizes; post-production facilities for picture and sound editing, sound and music recording, editing and special effects; communications links and facilities to permit image and sound transfers domestically and internationally; backlot areas for external shooting with room to construct streetscapes; and screening facilities for viewing work-in-progress. The agreement stipulates minimum

in assistance to, and development of,

rental for the site, investment levels and job targets for Fox Filmed Entertainment to meet over the next

the Australian film and television

11 years, and a condition that Fox will

industry.

lose access to certain parts of the site if it fails to meet those levels. A board, comprising Gillian Armstrong, Jan Chapman, Guy Gross, Laura Jones, Baz Luhrmann, Andrew Mason, Peter Menzies, Greg Smith, Richard Roxburgh, David Watson and Bob Weis, has been appointed to advise on the development. Cinema Papers will feature the studio in an upcoming issue.

have assured the AFC's important role

The AFC's work in script and project development, in assisting film culture across the nation, in developing pro gramming for the new technologies and in marketing the industry interna tionally is a vital part of the infra structure which ensures that Australian society is reflected on the screens of the world.

Dead M an

Banned

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man has been refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. A press release issued on 28 November 1995 by Globe Film Co, the film's Australian distributor, cites violence as the reason for the Censor's decision. A number of film industry figures have expressed concern over the implications of this decision, as well as surprise that the film's depictions of violence should be

116 Argyle Street , F itzroy , V ictoria,

cause for the Office to refuse the film classification. The film, which stars Johnny

Australia 3065.

Depp and Robert Mitchum, premiered at La Quinzaine des Réalisateurs (Directors' Fortnight) at the 1995 Cannes Film Festival and is soon to be released in Japan and the U.S. (by Miramax). Globe plans to appeal the decision; pending re-classification, the film will be released in April 1996. (See the report on censorship in this issue of Cinema Papers.)

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

NETWORK DOCUMENTARY ACCORDS

els of stress due to unorthodox work hours, sporadic employment and the necessity to travel away from home, to the point where they feel that

he Australian Film Finance Corporation has announced the establishment of Accords for funding

combining work in the industry with

Australian documentaries pre-purchased by commercial networks. It is the first time Accords have been established

tioners because some parents feel it

between the FFC and all three commercial networks. Under the new Accords, up to five new documentaries will be approved for FFC investment for the 1995/96 financial year. The documentaries will be required to be about single-subject social issues and be culturally relevant to Australian audiences; wildlife, natural history, travel and adventure pro grammes will be ineligible for funding.

coincides with the time of life when

CALLS FOR ENTRIES The Provincial Film Festival, presented by the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, Cafe Provincial and Media World on 31 March 1996, seeks short films (of five minutes duration or less) of a comic or humorous nature on 16mm film. Cash prizes of $3,000 for Best Film and Best Animated Film will be awarded. Closing date for entry forms and preview tapes is 28 February. For further information, phone King and Associates (03) 9416

raising children is incompatible. The industry is losing experienced practi is necessary to leave the industry, at least for a short term, and this often people's careers begin to gain momentum.

1995 SURVEY OF FEATURE FILM AND INDEPENDENT TV DRAMA PRODUCTION

he AFC has released its sixth annual National Survey of Feature Film and

Independent Television Production, for the 1994/95 financial year. Key points of the Survey are: • Total production value of features and independent television drama was $334 million. The amount of pro duction expenditure increased to $287 million from $269 million in 1993/94; • Feature film production declined to $113 million for 20 feature films in 1994/95 from $210 million for 31 films in 1993/94. There was a significant reduction in the value of privately-

0122.

funded films produced. The 20 feature

13th St Kilda Short Film Festival, taking place at the Astor Theatre, Melbourne, between 24-28 April 1996, seeks entries. Films completed prior to November 1995 had to be submitted by 12 January 1996; films completed after November are to be submitted by 16 February. For further information and entry forms telephone (03) 9209 6699.

films include 18 Australian films with a total value of $43 million and two foreign films shot in Australia with a total value of $70 million. • The AFC funded one rather than two features and the FFC contracted two fewer films than in the preceding year due to the absence of the Film Fund. • Television drama production

AFC LAUNCHES PRODUCERS' CHILD CARE FACT SHEET he Australian Film Commission has launched an awareness campaign, including a poster and a Producers' Child Care Fact Sheet, on child care needs and cost-effective strategies to deal with child care issues. The campaign has been developed with the co-opera tion of the Screen Producers Association of Australia and the Media Entertain ment Arts Alliance. The poster, depicting well-known industry identities with their children, is designed to assist attitude change in the industry. The Fact Sheet provides practical information to producers about the different types of assistance that are applicable, taxation implications, and examples of how assistance has been provided.

AFC Chief Executive Cathy Robinson states:

increased both in the number of productions (from 34 in 1993/94 to 51 in 1994/95) and in value of production (from $157 million to $221 million). Mini-series doubled in value to $69 million (12 titles) in 1994/95 from $33 million (4 titles) in 1993/94. Tele-features also doubled in value, increasing to $54 million for 22 titles from $24 million for 14 titles. • Seventeen series and serials worth $98 million commenced principal photography in Australia in 1994/95. These included 14 Australian series and serials produced by independent producers with a total value of $65 million.

CORRIGENDUM

last-minute redesign, and rewrite, left the opening paragraphs on

! the second page of the George Miller i and Chris Noonan interview looking j like they were written by a literacy-

Many parents working in the film and

| challenged kindergarten student.

television industry experience high lev ! Cinema Papers apologizes for the errors.

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Supporting organisations, events and programs which en Victoria as a centre of excellence for screen culture • A U STR A LIA N FILM IN STITUTE • M ELBOURNE IN TER N A TIO N A L FILM FESTIVAL • M ODERN IM AGE M A K ER S' A SS O C IA T IO N • O PEN C«A dN N El|j| • SPAA CO N FEREN CE • ST K ILD A FILM FESTIV AL • CINEM A PAPERS • METRO M A G A ZIN E • ATOM AW ARDS • AW GIE AW ARDS

Film Victoria, 4th floor, 49 Spring Street, Melbourne/ Tel 03 9651 4089 Fax 03 9 6 5 Ï4 0 9 0

In the cinema, is it enough to be

told something

has happened without sighting the i

been written, in letters, diaries, a manuscript? W hat, then, is the viewer to make of!

sighted on screen, the sightings themselves a contradictory maze of viewpoints, i

questions at play in John Hughesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; second feature, What I Have W ritten , in which the

constructions of memories of a sabbatical sojourn in Paris and fragm ents of life i

evidence? W hat if the key to a puzzle is contained not in visual clues but in what has

such indeterm inate traces when they falsify - and are falsified by - what is finally

of perspectives, of “ suspicious” readings? These are but some of the fascinating

KSSISBHPaSlSi

■■■■■

possible disintegration of a marriage is traced via amorous letters, a manuscript,

>in urbane, suburban Melbourne. JOHN HUGHES interviewed by PAUL KALINA.

HUGHES: “There is a tradition of ‘suspicious’ reading in art history which

ased on a novel of the same name by John A. Scott, the film opens with art historian Jeremy Fliszar (Jacek Koman) delivering his interpretation of a Leonardo da Vinci painting, The Virgin, Child and Saint Anne, in an austere university lecture theatre. Fliszar has been minding the house of his academic colleague, Christopher Houghton (Martin Jacobs), who is on sabbatical in Paris with his wife, Sorel Atherton (Angie Milliken). They have now returned to Melbourne, but the shadow of Christopher’s meeting with Frances Bourin (Gillian Jones) in Paris continues to haunt their relationship, especially after the arrival of letters from Frances and a manuscript in which the pro tagonists find their reflections in the fictional characters Avery (also played by Martin Jacobs), Catherine (Jones) and Avery’s wife, Gillian (Milliken). Fliszar obligingly helps Sorel as she investigates the nature of her husband’s affaires and the distractions that characterize their seven years of marriage.

for his “speculative docu mentaries”, O ne Way Street: Fragm ents fo r W alter Benjam in (1993) and All that is Solid (1988), and a début feature, T raps (1 9 8 6 ), Hughes once again moves beyond the strictures of surface narrative into a playful, teasing game that calls into question the very nature of representation and meaning in cinema. B e s t k n o w n t il l n o w

John A. Scott's novel doesn't strike one as typically filmic source material.

I agree; its orientation is deeply literary. John Scott and I have known each other for quite a long time and have worked together before. We keep in touch with each other’s work. I think it was about the middle of 1993 when I saw an excerp t of the book in S cripsi and, as I read it, it announced itself as my next project. It was quite strange, quite a strong knowledge of “All right, so this is it.” Simultaneous with that experience was the knowledge that it would be extremely difficult [laughs]. I contacted John and, on the basis of the full man uscript, commissioned a treatment. I had ideas about visual styles and so on, and we worked together to develop what we called an “expanded treatment”. At that stage, the key reference points were prob ably La Je té e [Chris Marker, 1962], Poison [Todd Haynes, 1991], Bad Timing [: A Sensual Obsession, Nicolas Roeg, 1980]. One of the unusual things about this project was a close collaboration with all the creative people involved in the film, including the writer. For exam ple, the collaboration with John went on from the moment of asking him to do a treatment to the final cut. T h ere was a lot of discussion all the wav through. The film is devastating in its depiction of male behaviour and male sexuality: one character tries to exercise his fantasies, the shock of which sends him into a coma, while another exploits the person he supposedly loves and completely betrays his only friend.

One of the other elements I guess the film is con cerned with relates to questions of fetishism of the image and identification between connoisseurship,

and a kind of pornographic imagination and objec tifying imagination. One way of looking at it would be to say that there is an idea that flows through or underneath those behaviours of the characters, which you identified, and which has to do with this kind of objectifying practice. But I’d want to resist that leading to a kind of essentialist interpretation. Certainly the film looks at masculinist sexuality and problems of relationships among men. Interestingly, though, the film is being received by different spectators and audiences in quite different ways. You can come into it at different places and gain quite different things from it, which I think is one of its strengths. I agree that an essential one is about questions of masculinity [laughs], but one of the things that interests me is not so much the psychological dimensions of masculine behaviour but to connect some of those issues with issues of spectatorship. There is a tradition of “suspicious” reading in art history which connects with the interpersonal behav iours that you see taking place, whereas, on the other hand, it is actually a mode of suspicious read ing that drives the female character’s desire. It is that kind of complexity that interests me, rather than saying, “Men are destructive, objectifying and homi cidal, and women are able to seek the truth and have a d ifferen t . . . ” T hose things are present, but I wouldn’t be comfortable to let it settle there. One of the things the film is toying with is the void between representation and experience. That is a central thing. I’m not going to say simply that the film says that men and women read things differ ently. In the film certainly that happens; you can see it like that. In his reading of the Da Vinci paint ing, Jeremy is able to turn the apparent intention of the artist entirely on its head, by means of a Freudian reading which is deeply implicated with his own projections, whereas Sorel’s reading is much more concerned with a philological examination of the origins of the text itself. She gets at it by means of an examination of absences and errors in the text, basically. Is there a particular point at which Sorel becomes cognisant of the authorship of the manuscript?

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

connects with the interpersonal behaviours that you see taking place” .

For me, one o f the interesting things is that it is never possible for her to know. She can know some things, she can examine the text and understand aspects of its origins, and she can speculate about the voices that have come into play in its produc tio n , but she can never really know . M o re important, she can never really know the truth of her relationship with her husband. Jeremy, on the other hand, behaves out of a kind of certainty. But is that impulse of certainty to do with the control that he wields over the situation?

In his delusional system of belief, he does. He sees himself as prospering in terms of how he manipu lates events. I ask about Sorel's realization because Sorel and Christopher have been living that way for seven years. It is clear from the voice-over that she has been aware that he is distant, uncaring, neglectful.

This could be where it is possible to reflect on what has been said so far in a productive way. Where do you derive the evidence that the relationship has been in a certain way for seven years? If you derive it from the voice-over, who is the author of the voice-over and w hat is its real meaning? If the author is Christopher, is it true, is it fiction, is it autobiography? If the author of those words is Jeremy, is he providing revelations to Sorel about the nature of masculine betrayal that she has been a victim of for seven years? Is he revealing the truth to her? Is he creating a fab ricatio n in order to have a certain effect on Sorel? When she reads it, does she understand that it is autobiography or does she understand that it is fiction, and can she ever know this? This is what the work is about; it is about texts and their readings, and their unknowability. If your point of identification with the film hap pens to be S o rel, rath er than one o f the male characters, your reading is quite different. It is ter rific to witness arguments betw een and among couples viewing the film. One mischievously throws in the question, “Is Christopher fundamentally inno cent?”, and the men say, “Yes, he didn’t do anything. He is virtually being murdered. He is being cruci fied by the conspiracy around him”, whereas women

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

say, “W hat do you mean he is innocent? He has been deeply, existentially unfaithful and that is what matters.” Does the allusive ending of the film differ from that of the book?

In the book, the material that is available to Sorel doesn’t allow her to sort it out, whereas here she can sort it out to some extent. She has before her the finished manuscript, but she has also found Christopher’s version, so she can work it out. But she can never really w ork out the truth of her relationship with Christopher. Why did you feel that need to draw that out a bit further in the film?

Well, it was actually one of the things that came out of the collaborations. The process of taking the work from the book to the script also involved the col laboration of [script editor] Annette Blonski, which was terrific. She and John worked very closely on the work late in 1993 and early 1994 at the firstdraft stage, after the first treatment had been written. How did you design the script in terms of the over lapping and interconnected viewpoints, clues that have various different interpretations?

That is the beauty of John Scott’s writing. All of John’s œuvre, his poetic works as well as his novels, have very intricate and dense and intelligent struc tures. It is absolutely his w riting. H ow ever, it changed again in editing where [editor] Uri Mizrahi’s storytelling also came powerfully into play. Do you see any kind of filmic precedents to the kind of writing that John Scott is involved in?

I’m sure there are heaps, but in terms of a kind of cinematic moment, for me L a Je té e is the reference point. L a J e t é e is this science-fiction work made by Marker in 1962 that proposes a very complex set of ideas about memory and the image, the recov ery of memory and the past and the future, in which the meaning of moments recalled are in a constant state of transition. The central motif of the film is the walkway at the top of the Orly airport, which is a space that is neither here nor there. It is the space of transition that the film works around on a num

ber of layers and levels, and those things seem to me to become important reference points to W hat I H ave Written. It is continually about a kind of shift ing betw een som ething and som ething else, an indeterminancy, present and non-present charac ters becoming quite different people. How did you set up that particular, very complex design of the film and the collaboration with cinematographer Dion Beebe?

Dion’s work was wonderful. The collaboration with Dion, like with John, was very productive and close. The evidence of D ion’s skill is very much on the screen. It also relates to the luscious surface o f a film and the seductiveness of the luscious surface, the “fascinated” reception that it can generate. This is part of the problem that the film is interested in arguing. There is an intention to generate at certain points in the film a discomfort in the spectator with this fascination with the surface of the image. The ideal reader would, at certain points, begin to won der what the co n n ectio n was betw een the art historian’s fascination with the surface of the paint ing and the cinema spectator’s fascination with the luscious surface of the image, and the connec tions between that and the story. Hopefully, it has an edge to it. Another place where that edge can be identified is the point where that imagistic fascination is focused on the stills, at that moment the moving image is still and becomes in a sense fetishized. For the most part, these are the representations of France and they are incredibly romantic, incredibly nostalgic. However, there is a very dark edge to that as well as the story unfolds, and the kind of darkness of that fascination, possibly, becomes apparent. They are double edged in that sense, because it is about a highly-romanticized image of the other that Paris is to the Australian. But that is also fairly blatant in the depiction of sex as well, where you cut from fairly romantic, kinky images to some hard-core pornographic images of a woman sandwiched between tw o men, or the shot of that fist and the doll.

The fis t and th e doll “ evoke a ‘re fe re n c e ’ to th e pornographic im ag e” I think they evoke a “reference” to the pornographic image. They don’t actually reproduce it - they pro duce something else - and that was always one of the really interesting problems in the translation process from the book to the image. In the book, these descriptions are quite gruelling, extremely con fronting, whereas here they are different. They are confronting by means of the kind of reference they make to a genre rather than being pornographic in themselves. They are full of all kinds of other ref erences that dissipate the brutal dimension of the pornographic image and, instead, foreground an asstheticized reception of the pornographic image. It is very interesting trying to solve that, to work out how to do it. Do you expect there will be any problems with censorship?

I don’t know. We are yet to find out. I’ll be very interested to see. W hat sort of influences were at work in the sound design? How did you come up with the scheme?

From a very close and productive collaboration with Uri Mizrahi. The sound design has elements in com mon with certain sequences in One Way Street, the previous film I did with Uri. The layering of voices is pretty much a mirror of the ideas the film is play ing with around the narrative voice. It is about problematizing the authorship of the text. Are we listening and watching Sorel reading? Are we lis tening and watching Christopher writing? It is really just trying to set those things into play on the track. I think Jo hn Phillips and David Bridie’s work in developing musical treatments and themes around the interplay of narrative voices also works extremely well. How do you see this film in the context of your other films, which have mainly been in the documentary tradition, though I use the term documentary tradi tion in a very loose sense. Do you see many parallels between the kind of issues and styles of your previous films and this film, which is more in a fiction mould?

I think there are clear through-lines. The other way of approaching this problem of what we mean by

the word documentary - which I’ve been advocat ing for some time - is to simply recognize there is a variety of traditions within documentaries and these traditions can be re-formulated at different points. I see my documentary work as having drawn on spe cific traditions within documentaries that I think can be called “speculative” : there ought be a cate gory called a “speculative documentary”. But the common through-line from Traps, through All that is Solid to One Way Street, has to do with problems of representation and meaning. Broadly, Traps is all about discourses that are in play in the production of Australian political culture at a particular moment in the first reign of the Hawke Government. All that is Solid is to do with the ways that people were try ing to formulate completely disparate visions of the future in the late 1980s, the central idea that one of things that characterizes the present is the absence of any unifying visions of the future. Both of those films also have been involved in a play around the interaction of the traditions of drama and docu mentary, trying to set each against the other. The narrative voice of Sorel is represented in a visual style that evokes aspects of the documentary style and plays that off against other modes of under standing. So, I think there are through-lines there. I don’t know, but they might be a bit obscure for others. Did you do workshops before shooting began?

W e had four weeks rehearsal tim e w hich was invaluable. It was a terrific opportunity for me to learn about performance from Jacek, Angie, Gillian, M artin, Maggie [M argaret Cam eron, who plays Clare Murnane] and Nic [Nico Lathouris; Claude M u rn an e]. W e w ent throu g h a num ber of

processes, both directly w ith the te x t and also processes around the text that were extremely help ful. I was particularly keen to do the workshops because I was aware that I had a lo t to learn. I was very pleased that I had such excellent teachers. It would be wonderful to be able to work on pro jects in a kind of ensemble context, but it is very difficult to do so; the budgetary structures that are orthod ox, conventional and presumed m ilitate against that kind of style of work. It is the style of w ork that I have always found most productive, and the closest that we were able to get to it in the case of this project was this four-week rehearsal period. We were all keen, and actors far prefer it, to play out rehearsal in a workshop mode rather than in a strictly rehearsal mode. I think the making of this film throughout was an excellent model of collaborative practice. Sarah Stollman was the production designer on P oison, which was a film that I really loved and, when I dis covered th at she was living in M elb o u rn e , I immediately rang her up. This was in the middle of 1 9 9 3 or som etim e. She was fabulous and very closely involved. The process of workshops rather than limited and instrum entally-d esigned rehearsals was also extremely productive. So, in some ways, if I wanted to use the film to make an argument about some thing, it would be in favour of that kind of method of work. The other thing that one could use this to argue for is the creative possibilities of low-budget work which, again, I think is an interesting instance of low-budget work working. ® E ditor ’s

n o te :

See also “Technicalities”, pp. 27-34.

»iminiiniimnninnniiiE

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 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 i; (normal speed reverse to three times forward) and greater colour range than ever before. / \ m ____ / And weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve got the best graders in Australia, Warren Lynch and Peter Simpson, to operate it. set] M No other post production house can match that. Come in and see for yourself. Just phone S a H i Tony, Rick or Steve on (02) 9954 0904 and ask for a demonstration.

FRAME,

SET

AND

MAT CH

P T Y. LTD.

PH: ( 0 2 ) 9 9 5 4 0 9 0 4. FAX: ( 0 2 ) 9 9 5 4 9 0 ) 7.

SEm < n Es Conjuring John Hughes’ What I Have Written —

a 111 ■ i hi — 1||iTiitwiiiHinmiimumM

olour comes and goes. One moment it’s there in the background, on edge, momentarily emblazoned on a fragment of the image, fluttering across the screen - and then it’s gone. So you wonder, as when you catch an unexpected glance thrown across a crowded room: Was it there at all? Or has desire conjured into being a sensation, a memory, a texture? Perhaps a person. PERHAPS A PERSON. I t’s not merely sensations, ephemeral gratifications, that are produced by fan tasy; in the realm of the fantastic, intensities are severed from the real, people and relationships are realigned, conceived out of thin air. And out of the thin air of cin ema What I H ave Written conjures, marvellously, but with a lethal undertone, a story about storytelling. Yet this is what the film prompts me to ask: Is the cinema, for all the flickering ephemerality of its images, itself thin air? And is there some “real” that exists before, and outside of, the cinematic experience? A man’s voice narrates, in the first person, a story of a marriage gone stale, a Melbourne estrangement played out in Chatel-Guyon and Paris, his own seduc tion by an older woman, the beginning of an affaire. Chatel-Guyon is given as a series of stills in black and white, or perhaps sepia. I can’t quite describe it chro matically, but there is lustrous emanation from these images. The light spills out - out of the screen, out of the past. Two people are caught again and again in cool, antagonistic poses; strangers are stilled in motion, scrutinized; the spectre of old age, the aloof allure of youth, the spectacle of poverty - these images rise to the surface and then disappear. Like the colour which comes and goes in a most extraordinary manner, not between but across and within images - touches of colour, flashes, severed intensities. Colour moves. And so it is incorrect to speak of still images as though there were no movement. The images are moved by colour, but movement is also introduced in other ways. Some times the image seems to vibrate or disintegrate; figures are on occasion mobilized; images move into each other and out again in weird and tantalizing ways. Then, suddenly, there is a transition: in a brash and shocking move we are back in Melbourne. The man (Martin Jacobs) and woman (Angie Milliken) are arriv ing home, being greeted at Tullamarine airport. In the C hatel-G uyon story, they were called Avery and

Gillian, now they are Christopher Houghton and Sorel Atherton. After the stylized “foreign” sequence - echo ing L ’A n n ée d er n ièr e à M a rien b a d (L a s t Y ear a t Marienbad, Alain Resnais, 1961) - Melbourne declares itself as the “real”, but the colours of the real are abrasive, synthetic. The saturation here is as curious as the black and white. What is going on in this transition, in the imagistic difference between the sequences? Is it the case that Chatel-Guyon represents the past, or memory, or fantasy? Is Melbourne securely situated in the present, in the real? The questions persist and, indeed, become more convoluted as the film progresses. On one level, it seems relatively straightforward. Christopher, the writer, returns home with his wife, Sorel, but continues an epistolary liaison with Frances Bourin (Gillian Jones) in Paris, whom he calls Catherine in the novel he is writing. In the novel, fact and fiction blur. But this in itself is not remarkable; what is remarkable is the cin em atic rendering in What I H ave Written of a story that enmeshes the imaginary and the real, the cinem atic interpellation of the questions, “Who is speak ing?” and “To whom?” Paris and Melbourne are not as distinct as it might at first seem. Before long, Melbourne, too, is drained of colour, and some of the cin ematic tropes identified with the past, that other country, the phantasmatic, recur. In par ticular, there are certain attributes of what I’ll call the Paris footage that become discon certingly present - in their very presence, however, paradoxically making the distant what we have taken to be the temporal pre sent. T hroughout the film , there are

by Lesley Stern

It is not that philosophy illuminates the cii occasional disturbances of the image, a fluttering, a realignment of the figuration which suggests the swoop ing of a bird, and on the soundtrack some sound that resonates like a vulturous flapping of wings. Let me backtrack a moment: this sign of the vul ture, of sexual predation, is intimated in the opening of the film, in the credit sequence which precedes the Chatel-Guyon episode. It begins with a blur, with the abstraction of colour - a luscious blue-green which sharpens and comes into focus as an image-fragment. We see details of a painting, upside-down and from various angles, and then the painting takes flight, whooshes through the air, and lands in a slide carousel. It is a classic painting, we’ve seen it before: Leonardo da Vinci’s The Virgin, Child and Saint Anne. A man’s voice-over whispers:

“It seemed to me that, as I lay in my cradle, a vulture came to me, opening my mouth, and striking me sev eral times between my lips, with its tail”, so Freud quoted from one of Leonardo’s earliest childhood recollections. From voice-over to enactment to a close-up on his lips as he says, “It is a startling fantasy.” The camera tracks this man, Jeremy Fliszar (Jacek Roman), as he walks with his carousel through university corridors and his voice, now much louder, resonates in voice-over as though in the auditorium: “Why has the suckling mother been replaced by a vulture?” Then he is in the men’s room, mouthing the words to himself, perhaps rehears ing a speech, a mode that continues in a crowded lift. The sequence culminates in a lecture theatre where he is delivering a lecture to a small class, where he explains

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

~12 66264Ô21* MHtitimilillimimilli Gillian (A ngie M illiken) and Avery.

Fran ces Bourin and a lover.

rr'dfifj

¡nema, but that the cinema philosophizes. how Freud argues the case for the artist’s passive homo sexuality. Again he declares, “It is a startling fantasy.” Much is set in place in this opening, but in a rather subterranean way, less emphatically than in my pedes trian account. What begins is actually an unsettling of place and time and origin (who speaks, who sees, from whence) rather than a setting in place. But there are a number of concerns that declare the disposition of the film. There will be a swooping and circling around questions of originality and copy, real and fiction, and a preoccupation with the nature of masculine fan tasy. There will be strongly hermeneutic impulse, a detective element, if you like, replete with a death to be deciphered. But most strikingly there will be a com pelling exploration of what Deleuze has called the “thought of cinema”.

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Let me sidetrack for a moment, and make a con fession. I loathed John A. Scott’s book (of the same name) on which the film is based, and so approached the film with great trepidation. I found the language of the book overly precious and became quickly impa tien t with the them atic about authorship. The self-conscious reflexivity seemed to me to amount to little more than an endless rehearsal and routine expo sure of predictable male fantasies - all dressed up in aspirations to the refined art of erotica. There are times when I feel a trace of this persists in the film, particu larly in an occasional sense of portentousness in the language. But mostly I think that John A. Scott and John Hughes (and Annette Blonski as script editor, I imagine) have done a superb job of transformation. The film disturbs categories - like erotica and pornog

raphy, still and moving, detection and painting, acting and being, drama and documentation - but it also invests the material with a sense of drama and intrigue (the performances are focused and slightly mysterious even when evoking the utterly quotidian) that keeps at bay the precious ennui of arthouse erotica. And it kept me there, utterly engrossed. I was absorbed - in a way I find very rare in Aus tralian cinema - by the thought of cinema, by being caught up in the act of cinema thinking. When Deleuze uses this phrase, he is indicating not a particular kind of cerebral cinema, but a propensity for the cinema to enact, in the way that no other medium can, certain ways of conceptualizing and apprehending the world. It is not that philosophy illuminates the cinema, but that the cinema philosophizes. At its most exciting, the cinema can generate new relationships that turn upside down all our predictable ways of conceiving time and presence. It does this not through representing ideas, but through an enactment, through apprehending the senses, through the m atter of cinema. What I H ave Written does this sensationally through conjuring, out of thin air, something that matters. ©

R ,

In bright sunlight on art otherwise chilly morning in July, on top of an rural outskirts of Canberra,ithe elaborate preparation for a sacrificial ritual murder is nearing Rs horrific c o n c l u s i o n . Ju s t as the caped leader of a hovering group of wild youths pulls out a large silver blade ^ ^ B fetdiness for the death blow, a gunshot rings out from a wooded area surrounding the potential ; : J k ' o m i c i d e site. It s the police, who, although hopelessly outnumbered, begin to launch an offensive attack on the cultists when ... the only cloud in the sky performs a total eclipse and all on-camera human movement is immediately frozen by Damian Heflernan, the 26-year-old writer-director, who sees this as a good moment to bring his single camera closer to the action. hile the above scene description, along with all the atten dant tensions, may be familiar to any one who has ever attempted to stage an outdoor location shoot without the aid of artificial light or reflector boards, and the subject material itself may bring on some sense of déjà vu, it’s entirely doubtful whether any reader or potential viewer has ever witnessed any film shot at this particular proximity. Not that hilly rural Canberra differs greatly from any other similar piece of Australian landscape, but, as far as anyone on the set of Cthulbu (pronounced “k-thoo-loo”) was concerned, this was the first feature-length film ever to be shot smack bang on the doorstep of our great administrative city, and that in itself makes it unique. Of course, it’s also being shot on film (16mm) without financial aid from any of the funding bodies that are fed by our nation’s capital. Someone says that a feature might have been made in the 1960s, but details are vague.1 Another crew person ventures that there was a shot-on-video feature several years ago2 but, hey, with Cthulbu we’re talking made-on-film, the only (still) legitimate exhibition format and, any way, on this shoestring-budget shoot no one has the time to contemplate such matters as resources are scarce and all hands are definitely required on deck at all times. A constant stream of Ed Wood jokes and a couple of palettes of sandwiches keep things cheery as the two dozen extras rush for jumpers and warm clothing between takes. It’s only later within the salubrious confines of a Manuka coffee shop over cappuccinos and cherry gâteaux (my shout) that the genesis and gestation for C thulbu can be extracted. Like every film project, Cthulbu was formed by several factors, but the major driving fo rce seems to be, hold on to your film cans, frustration. It arose specifically, according to Heffernan, from the Australian Film Commission’s refusal to fund a certain short film project:

About four-and-one-half years ago, I began to piece together a sort of science/fantasy/horror short and I duly applied to the AFC for funding. It was to be shot on 35m m , was about 13 m inutes long, and w ould’ve utilized this new techniqu e for desaturizing colour that I worked out with a cine-

by Michael Helms matographer. The effect that we were getting on 35mm was like a hand-tinted black-and-white print. It looked beautiful; amazing stuff. It was also going to have some computer-gener ated effects and concerned itself with virtual reality. I saw it as being highly innovative. I thoroughly researched and pre-produced it from running film tests to getting a fantastic artist to sketch me some schematics and designs for the virtual reality' gear. Agfa processed a test reel for us for free, and the com puter-graphics company and everyone else involved were prepared to do it for absolute rockbottom prices. I even had a distribution commitment from the Australian Film Institute which, for a short, at that time, was completely unheard of. Anyhow, my request for a budget of $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 was denied on the grounds that they didn’t believe I could do it for the price. To say I was flabbergasted

"B ugger it, I'm not going to w aste any fu rth er energy. I'm going to go one step beyond and independently create a feature fo r the same price." was an understatement, and I took it as a personal attack on my ability to organize the whole project. At the beginning of what could have been an end less and pointless letter-writing campaign, I thought, ‘Bugger it, I’m not going to waste any further energy. I’m going to go one step beyond and inde pendently create a feature for the same price.’ That’s when Cthulbu was born. Rewinding further, besides falling in love with the cinema and specifically fantastic cinema at an early

age (“I loved An American W erew olf in London [John Landis, 1 9 81]. I probably saw it 20 times when it came out because I thought it was brilliant. I just loved the atmosphere of it”), Heffernan also began to con sciously tread the independent route from the outset, especially with regards to receiving an education in practical filmmaking experience: I did still photography, and the only film and video production courses that Canberra has. I went out and shot some Super 8 stuff and thought, ‘Okay, I’m 21. That’s the minimum age to get into the Aus tralian Film Television & Radio School’, and went to its open day. I talked to all the lecturers, went through all the les son schedules and saw what they were teaching. Basically, because I’ve probably got 2 0 0 books on film pro duction and have read everything I could possi bly find from A m erican Cinematographer onwards, I saw there was nothing I hadn’t already done or already learned that they could teach me, except for multi-camera televi sion - stuff w hich I ’m not interested in. Film is what I want to do. Talking to them, I speculated on what I’d get out of it: access to equipment, the chance to run a film a year or whatever, and make contacts. But, apart from that, film students did the course and then had to struggle for a grant and financing. It’s four years, then the struggle. I thought, ‘I would rather go to the struggle now and see what I could d o .’ Besides which, I saw the graduate films and was severely unimpressed! T here were three that were any good, two of which were by Pauline Chan. There was a blackand-white one called The Space B etw een T he D o o r & T he F lo o r and another one [Desert H earts] about this group of cross dressing mud w restlers going across outback A ustralia. T h at was in 35m m colour. Both are brilliant. I saw those two

of Ct CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1 996,

films and thought, ‘Bang!, she’s going som ewhere.’

Peak, the creato r of As Time Goes By (1 9 8 8 ), who

There was another film called Palace Cafe , which

shared a sim ilar b ack grou n d o f p ro jectio n ro o m

was actually by a sound student [Andrew Lancaster],

duties.3 Peak wasn’t averse to including elements of

and it left all the directorial students’ stuff for dead.

the cinema of the fantastic into his filmmaking either.

So, I thought, ‘The material they’re turning out after

Of course, Heffernan’s Greater Union experience has

four years is not substantially better than the crap

helped him gain the wherewithal to get other projects

I’ve been churning out on Super 8 , so why bother

up and running which brings us back to Cthulhu.

going there?’ I just went for a grant to see if I get a sh ort film going and w ork my w ay up. I go t the

Lovecraft

grant straight away for a 16m m short, a black-and-

The writings of How ard Phillip Lovecraft have p ro

white one. ‘M ore basic training for m e’, I thought.

vided constant source material for movies since the

Heffernan cites two N ew Zealanders, Vincent W ard

early 1960s, when presumably the copyrights to this

and Peter Jackson, along with Peter W eir as his most

long-time dead North American’s writings lapsed and

influential role models. H e sees Jack son ’s ability to

entered the public dom ain. Unsurprisingly, it was

hold out until H ollywood comes to him (Jackson is

famed low-budget producer Roger Corman who first

currently making The Frighteners in New Zealand for

picked up the ball, principally to fill holes in the flag

Universal with M ichael J. F o x starring and Robert

ging Edgar Alan Poe series he was then making for

Zemeckis as the executive producer) as particularly

American International Pictures. This he did with Vin

inspirational, claiming that Australia is definitely the place to work.

cent Price and Lon Chaney Jr. in The Haunted Palace

N ot long after his AFTRS encounter, H ef

( 1 9 6 3 ) . H e then follow ed th rou gh by p rod u cin g Daniel H aller’s version of “The Colour Out of Space” under the title Die, Monster, Die!

fern an w alk ed in to G re a te r U n io n ’ s

( 19 6 5 ) . L a tte r-d a y effo rts include

Canberra office and offered his ser vices

as a p ro je c tio n is t

■ k Jk

in a

re c ip ro c a l tra in in g d eal. T h ey

Spanish schlockmeister Juan Piquer Simon’s direct-to-video Cthulhu

|||Sf É l

accepted and he’s still there gaining tech n ical know ledge and

■

Mansion and Stuart Gordon’s ReAnimator (1 9 8 5 ). N ot only are

in sight few A u stralian film

L o v e cra ft’s w ritings the right

m ak ers g et to o b serv e on a

price ror a no budget feature (that is, nil), but his meditations on madness are still com m er

In fact, I can only think of on e o th e r A ustralian

cially viable. John Carpenter’s recent John Carpenter’s In the

Mouth o f Madness (1 9 9 4 ) is considered a homage to L o v e c ra ft, if

(From top) Make-up guru Kent Vaughan. Shoestring - budget blimp. Filming Cthulu.

Dan Upton and Inspector Legrasse (Paul Williamson).

not a direct pastiche, but Heffernan believes there’s still much to be made out of Lovecraft’s work. I love H. P. Lovecraft. I think he’s a brilliant writer but every movie they’ve done from his stuff has been complete trash, principally because of Stuart Gor don, who helm ed R e-A n im a to r and who is now trying to do ‘Shadow Over Innsmouth’, which is a great story and which he’s sure to massacre. All he’s done every time is whack heaps of blood and gore, which doesn’t fit the story. Lovecraft has some blood and gore, but it is at the right spot, and he spends the whole story build ing up to it. You have to have a lot of psychological fear, and then when the gore hits it kills you. Generally, people just laugh at the Lovecraft films: ‘Yeah, yeah, some more blood.’ My idea of horror is to keep it all psychological; it works much better. When you hit them with the gore, it’s going to have that much more of an effect. L o o k in g fo r som eth in g th a t could be done cheaply, I immediately thought of Lovecraft because he’s been done this big injustice. At the same time, he’s more marketable now because he’s known. His books are always being reprinted and there’s the role-playing game on the market, ‘Call of Cthulhu’. So, I thought, ‘Here’s the chance. W e’ll go for it and w e’ll see if we can do Lovecraft that is actu ally a really terrifying film. Bring back the terror part of horror, rather than concentrating on blood for blood’s sake.’ H effernan went on to explain how he adapted his version of Lovecraft.

with the film, because it has the key characters. If

few of them in plays that I’ve put on in Canberra,

Professor Armitage is out of this and Legrasse is the

which is where I was trying to amass production and

guy th a t busted the c u lt.’ ‘T h e T h in g at the Doorstep’ is a bit more obscure, so they might not associate with that, but it’s got key characters that

So, I’ve used the best people that I’ve worked with.

they’ll know anyway, which is why I called the film

cerned in sp e cifically te ch n ica l areas such as

C thulhu.

prosthetic make-up effects and the supply and oper

body thinking, ‘I don’t know what’s going on’, and

Back on the primitive hilltop location, Heffernan han dles the dozens of cast and crew milling around him with affability and general good nature, even when it’s discovered that a production assistant has fo r g otten those pesky re fle c to r b oard s again. He expresses serious doubt about traversing the steep hillside once more. Heffernan’s ingenuity comes to the fore when seeking to get a close-up of the nefar ious cult leader in fading light, the board that the camera dolly has been sitting on is put into use for a second time, along with the silver foil the sandwiches were wrapped in. Amazingly, the shot works, which H effernan only discovers four days later when the rushes appear from the lab in M elbourne (another negative aspect of working with film in Canberra). Besides the lack of physical resources (after all, C anberra only has one television station and no film labs or equipment hire companies), the human resources were culled from his work in the theatre. Luck was a major factor with both the cast and crew, as Heffernan explains:

his friend gets dragged into this and figures out

W e’ve mainly got stage actors, though a few have

There’s around six stories on the Cthulhu mythos, which is about this ancient race that once inhabited the earth. I took three of the stories. T h e main one is called ‘The Thing at the Doorstep’, which is all about mind transference. As the body of a cult expert-come-high priest dies, he swaps his mind into the mind of his daughter because she’s close at hand. B ut he needs to be in a m ale body to sum m on C thulhu from the dead, so he swaps in to her boyfriend, a uni student. Our story centres on the two uni students and a cop. Because the exp ert’s in a female body, he can’t maintain the mind swap and keeps swapping back. This poor Ed guy will swap right back in the mid dle of some cult ritual with blood and sacrifices everywhere and ask, ‘W h at’s going on here?’ At other times, he’ll be locked in a study in this female

what’s going on. So, I’ve taken Cthulhu from ‘The Call of C th u lh u ’, the cop and the creatu re

transference from ‘The Thing on the Doorstep’. The thing works after many, m any d rafts. I t ’s all tied in nicely to g eth er, and has all these key characters from the C thulhu mythos. W hen you play the roleplaying game, you’re playing Inspector Legrasse basically. You run around with a group o f o th er cop s d efeatin g the cult. But usually what happens is you get hammered by the monster

work in Sydney. He goes there and does

H effernan:

student films just to gain experience,

so he’s very good. "I love H.P. Professor Armitage is played Lovecraft. by Malcolm M iller and he’s the bees knees. We lucked I think he's onto him . H e ’s 6 5 , h e ’s done a heap of film work, a brilliant w riter list as long as your arm, and but every movie he’s brilliant! He had two minutes in [D ad an d D ave] they've done On Our Selection [George from his stu ff has Whaley, 1995]. The other people are been com plete younger and more inex trash. perienced, but here’s their

at the end, because it’s too powerful. I think Cthulhu fans will associate

done commercials here and there. Paul W illiam son is playing Inspector Legrasse. H e’s done quite a bit of film

out of the ‘Dunwich H o rro r’, and com bin ed them w ith the mind

well. They’ve done stage work. I’ve worked with a

they’ve read any of the stories, they’ll think, ‘Wow,

chance fo r exp o su re. I t ’ s their début, so they’re looking to shine as

organizing experience as well as working with actors. Also, interestingly enough, as far as crew is con

ation of pyrotechnic devices, I’ve had to rely on the help of M elbourne-based workers. Sydney-based operators just didn’t want to know. H effe rn a n d escribes his th e a tre w o rk as being involved as producer, director ... everything. Canberra theatre is all the same, so when I did A M idsum m er N ight’s D ream , I staged it on an island on Lake Burley G riffin. W e had firew orks, fire breathing and explosions and effects and stuff. T hen I did a play called D o o m s d a y w ith the last Canberra Festival [1995], which had a cast of 100 and was a story about angels and devils. The angels fall from grace and there are devil battles and explosions. We had costumes with three-metre high wing-spans, devils and so on. It was huge. Speaking weeks later from his bedroom in which he’s crammed with a Steenbeck to get C thulhu to roughcut stage in order to meet a self-imposed deadline for a screening with a local distributor, Heffernan likens his film to E l M ariachi (Robert Rodriguez, 1992) and Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994), and says distributor input will be necessary to get it to its intended market of the North American video-viewing public. With min im al m ark eting assistan ce from the A FC in its Australian production information publicity, inter national sales agents and genre film festivals are calling, but, whatever transpires, Heffernan is con fident he’ll have a 35m m print of the film ready for its intended Australian premiere at the 1996 Canberra Festival. Overall cost: less than your average parlia mentary barbecue pit. © 1 Editor: Warwick Freeman’s D em onstrator (1971) was set and shot in Canberra. 2 Editor: Several X-rated video features were made in the countryside around C anberra in the late 1 9 8 0 s and early ’90s. 3 Editor: John D. Lamond is another. Lamond, the direc tor of The ABC o f L ov e and Sex Australia Style (1978)and Felicity (1979), among others, was the on-the-road pro jectionist for John B. Murray’s The N aked Bunyip in 1971. In Alvin Purple (Tim Burstall, 1973), Lamond even played the court projectionist.

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Media 100 is just perfect for all you

impatient creative video types.

And if you sit still for a second,

M edia 10 0 , featuring the single card, P C Icompatible V m cent ’ digital video engine (D V E ), shatters the barriers o f cost, complexity and quality, allowing you to create finished video and multimedia programs on a smgle computer based system. M edia 1 0 0 unites the power o f on-line video

we’ll tell you how.

and multimedia production with the simplicity o f a standard Power M acintosh computer. It allows you to

MEDIA

create on-line quality programs intuitively, affordably and productively with total QuickTime™ compatibility. F o r a d em on stration , call A dim ex today on (0 2 ) 361 49 7 0 .

Out o f the blue, this great idea for a video hits you. You rush to find a way to see your idea come to life. You sit at your Media 100 configured digital video system. You begin. No studios to book, no editors to hire.

suite 3 144 riley st east Sydney nsw 201 0 australia telephone (02) 361 4970 facsimile (02) 361 4974 e-mail: adimex@ geko.com.au

Using your source video footage and Media 100 system, you create a finished, broadcast quality video without having to leave the room.

You deliver your idea to your client.

Media 100® Digital Video Production System. Call for demonstration.

new media

works o f Jon M cCormack (Turbulence) and Phillip George and Notations)#

Silicon Graphics* Virtual studio

traiian pieces of work that have attracted School, in late November J 9 9 5 , Ansell,

international acclaim: Turbulence by Jon

Mnemonic Notatiorà-

who j j j a form er life was a m em ber of the rock band 1 he Reels, delightfully

byPhillip George and Ralph W ay ment. pMffi m uch' o f th e d iscu ssio n -in new

nnm. \\'’ t t«.\L <■ \\rrt jj

W e mav be three to five \ears away “ipafket penetration o f p rod u ct”, the would hat e the lights over a d>gitalh -

re a s o n in g behind T u rb u len ce an d

ifittemonie N o ta tio n s , com b s fro n i another space (n o t place). ogy be fine art5 tel, when they -demonstrated in Sydney Tin November 1995). technology ablf.to create3D virtual sets. Using ‘blue screen” ther^is no place from which to g e t such p ^ ^ r l yiew: ihistedd; there are any num ber of perspectives vying for attention. The good news is th at this techn o lo g ical

evo lu tio n

will

even tu ally

straig h ten itself o u t to allow th e eyetyperson to actually start using some :of this stuff instead of being bamboozled by it. The bad news is that no one is sure w h e n so m eo n e lik e, say, C o n th e JfS^forer will go on-line using the shop’s

fancy ^-|pkftfpn-ekh-Oa things n ext to the « ^ ^ t ^ V bjsitTar^ye'of j nft | m attar” for p eople to use this-technolog) or how they use it

backgrounds and computer software, the com p u ter creates backgrounds w hich live an n ou n cers and p erfo rm ers can

T u & V L L N C h th e title is d eriv ed fro m Refer S r^ e v e n s ’ boQ ^ i^ ife w s .

itbN uture^ is an in teractive w ork on video'laser disc. By touching a computer kcr-een, a la rg e r w all p re se n ta tio n o f ted .

seemingly work u ithin. Tile composirll image is then broadcasted out as part of the nightly programme!

derfuliy “alive” animation ofTurbulence

The digital w orld is playing o u t in how we, as an audience, view the vision. • At art galleries, cinemas, sporting events and poet readings, it has been one-way

evo iu tio n ;th e com puter becomes-the world w th in w hichartiiiu.il life forms

traffic, w ith ourselves as the observers

are created, through simple algorith

and not the participants. The buzz for

mic rules - the Artificial Life equivalent

participation in new media is interactive

of DNA.

o r in teractivity. T he m ultim edia area

First shown at Siggraphx9j4;(Special Inter

(not multimedia industry) has, by prac

est G roup Graphics;

tice, made interactivity the “clicking” of

Turbulence has won awards at Images du

your computer “mouse” on a static com

Futur, C an ad a, 1 9 9 5 ; wAs-a winning-

%T'Turbulence took three years to make,.

puter screen, but this is only the start-of

entry a t the New Voices, N ew Visions

.WÌtfomych o f the time taken up by the?

something much,bigger p U b lic -

C orp o-

cégèpufer working to translate the com

| | a| | | l^ ip ® | ^ ^ ^ P ® g om p an y, U.S.,

p u tet code M cCorm ack especially wrote

front award -

,foe;foa¥ethe images for th e “installa^

take dow n-; hiarkehhufhudehffy: it invokes knowing

tio h ”. H e also composed the music for P w a i ^ w t e ^ S i ^ j f e I leiIronu 1 hm-

th%^project and has w ritten widely on qqhtpUtef tlieory graphics and its impli c a tio n s . F r o m its release in 1 9 9 4 ,

^ ^ f c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o s t .r e c e t i t showing

Turbulence has gained increasing inter national recognition and M cC o rm ack

( c h i n , Nov Midi» M p

h u

n r tin

of art which has the viewer shaping the

f f iM fi.eh o f Multimedia Art in Tokyo,

Hnagc{s)_, And

Japahr >Jb ||¡1 *

should be seen as a major talent.

Jon McCormack's Turbulence.

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY-1996

Background: Jon McCormack Untitled 1992,

m . ( (i i M M ideali i M

Turbulence

Film Commissi on money, but as Gary W arner, form er Project C o-ordinator, Film Developm ent for N ew M edia at

fee®

Jon

the ® C , acknowledges '?!•>'S ' back in late l<-5P%%&en initfal fund ing was approvedYor the project, the I AFC heeded convincing to know what Jon was on abou|||0 cl why computers ;:_d id n T ;e| ^ ^ ft| ^ ^ p ^ m ean creating

T o tal funding received by ^JcC orm ack

post-graduate course in animation at Swinbui ne Then I went back to get my honours in computer s cie n çé li^ ^ ^ ^ ^ off and on at Video Paintbrush, Mel b ou rn e, m television an im ation , worked freelance, made a film called Ens, did part-time lecturing a tR M IT and did some travelling before starting

T urbulence. It becam e b oth a very

CINEMA PAPERS

FEBRUARY 1996

rewarding and a very g ain in g experi ence. I am in the process of getting my ideas together for my next work, work ing for a living, trying to recover

Mnemonic Stations

included the Mernmont Gallery in New' \iiiklm d l uJi um^t iv. built upon ¡¡j create the next in the series. George, stares thaxMrie.monk. M ôtdtions^ about “how ' fundamental elements like memory and

«.on^iousiK^ itinihuK r«i pmdiin i Nik | assist the memory - began and continue puter-created still images Phjltip George has at v a rib a i tin u s been u n ited to

new media

Phillip George and Ralph W aym ent's M nem onic Notations IV.

Phillip G eorge's M aze (1993).

ically saved by George. At the time, Ralph Wayment was working on a master’s degree at the college where George lec tured. After some discussion between the two, Wayment began work on an inter active presentation of George’s images. Phillip George: I got into computers

after completing my studies as a painter. I found I had been working with graph ics, collage and photography, all as separate media. I wanted a medium, a platform, which had the flexibility to incorporate all these disciplines, so I started looking at computer imaging. Ralph W aym ent: I started a degree

in archaeology, got into photography, and then digital imaging as a way of further realizing a picture. I became more interested in the relationship between people and what they were viewing, and that led me to interactive design. Working both part-time and full time, M nem onic N otation s took me about two years to complete and itself has gone through a number of editions which were exhibited. The current installation is M nem onic N otations V, which was exhibited at Siggraph 95 in Los Angeles. There, viewers walked into a darkened room to find a still

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

image from a large wall screen reflected on to an eight-foot-by-four-foot [2.5 mby-1.2m] black plexy-glass table. Sitting on the table was a white com puter “mouse”. By using the mouse with the reflected image, viewers could navigate the “space” of the installation. T h at m eant clicking on parts o f an image, some of which would “react”, leading the viewer to the next image in the “stack” or creating an animation, or dragging the “m ouse”-activated image on to the next part of the instal lation. W aym ent describes it as a journey through the presentation with the possible options numbering in the

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

hundred of thousands. In McCormack’s Turbulence, touching computer buttons or lettering launches computer code that reacts to the current on-screen image to create new images. Wayment said that the structure behind the interactive design for Notations is based on the early Buddhist doctrine of creation by causes, which describes the spi ralling process of birth, growth, death, decay, regeneration and rebirth. McCormack noted, too, in an inter view with Lionel Dersot, The message of evolution is extremely profound, so much so that I don’t think many of us really accept all the

consequences of what it means [...] People in the industrialized world have a problem with nature - we are part of it, yet it is something that we desperately try to leave behind us. George and Wayment funded the inter active version(s) of M nemonic Notations themselves, but have secured AFC fund ing for their next project. Its working title, M n em on ic N o ta tio n s VI, is due to be shown at the Sydney Museum of Contemporary Arts in 1996. Michael Hill, Project Co-Ordinator, Film Devel opment for the ATC, said, The AFC has provided $84,600 to help

create the latest version of the project which will expand the themes and con cerns of the earlier incarnations. Jon McCorm ack currently lectures at Monash University, Melbourne. Phillip George lectures at the College of Fine Arts, University of NSW, Sydney. Ralph W ayment is the director of interface design at Monitor Information Systems. © o t e : The au thor w ou ld be interested to know o f other people doing w eird a n d w o n d erfu l thin gs in n ew media. C ontact is pdutchak@geko.com.au

A u t h o r ’s N

Picnic at Hanging Hock

t r

e 22

l i a

r r y

CINEMA PAPERS â&#x20AC;¢ FEBRUARY 1996

Mad Max

Poll Features

t its last meeting for 1994, the Victorian Centenary of Cinema Commit tee recommended that the National Film & Sound Archive (NFSA) draft a proposal for a Centenary of Cinema project based on M elbourne Film Festival director Tait Brady’s idea of creating a list of signif icant Australian films. The notion of listing important films is hardly new. T ait had drawn to the C om m ittee’s attention the Library of Congress ‘register’ of key U.S. films, a for mal, critical/academic procedure organized by a body called the National Film Preservation Board. Recent entries to this register included E .T .: The E xtra-ter restrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982) and the 20-second home movie Abraham Zapruder shot of the assassi nation of President Kennedy - indications of a very wide selection brief. These entries had brought to 150 the total number of films designated for protection as historically and culturally significant by the Library of Congress and the Preservation Board. The Victorian Committee also had as local prece dent the CILEC T list of important Australian films, compiled by Denny Lawrence, which was reprinted by Australian Film Television & Radio School in 1983. Lawrence canvassed film historians and acad emics, as well as film critics and producers, to obtain his data. M ore recently, T he Age journalist Andrew Masterson published a list of 5 0 significant Australian films as part of a spread on the Centenary in its Sum mer Sup plem ent (1 6 Jan u ary 1 9 9 5 ). G iven the provenance of the selections, The Age methodology wasn’t altogether clear. It did, however, point to the need for, and the opportunity provided by, the Centenary to conduct a formal poll and publish the results in order to: • stimulate debate within the film community (over title inclusion/exclusion, etc.); • create more general interest in Australian cinema through any press and electronic media coverage of the poll results; and • obtain a ‘high heritage’ list, from which the NFSA could conduct a title specific search for requisite film material, and promote awareness of the con tinued need for film preservation.

Methodology While the Committee saw the ‘100 Key Films’ con cept as an obvious tie-in with 100 Years of Australian Cinema, it was hoped that the large number would provide scope for diversity in title selection as well. The Poll proposal, as a consequence, encouraged film selection from all categories and lengths (excluding only works made specifically for television or non film formats). ‘Key’ films were designated as those that have made a notable aesthetic, technical or his torically important contribution to Australian cinema. Similarly, the criteria for ‘Australian-ness’ was defined broadly rather than narrowly. After the Archive’s proposal was endorsed, more than 6 ,0 0 0 Poll entry forms were printed and dis tributed over a four-m onth period to: accredited members of the Australian Film Institute; industry guilds and unions; film critics and reviewers; acade mics and media teachers; and the NFSA’s Kookaburra Card members. A list of the entire Top 100 Australian films, based on Poll returns, appears below. C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1996

The 'R ecency Factor' The most striking

aspect of the Poll results is the predominance of post-1970 films in the Top 100 listing. Of the 100 titles, only 24 were produced prior to 1970. This sug gests that many voters only chose films they were familiar with, rather than nominating titles they may only have read about. It also suggests that, with an unbroken period of direct government assistance or incentive schemes now extending beyond 25 years, numerically the film industry has produced an enor mous range of material to choose from , probably exceeding the entire local output pre-1970 - or, at least, the surviving components of it. The timing of the Poll enabled H o t e l S orren to (Richard Franklin, 1995), for example, to secure a placing, with its cinema release coinciding with the distribution of entry forms. For the same reason, films such as B abe (Chris Noonan, 1995) and Angel B aby (Michael Rymer, 1995), with their later release dates, have missed placings, although both picked up some votes prior to release. The ‘out of sight, out of mind’ principle may also explain why some pre- 1940s titles have been selected by voters ahead of other, in some cases more highlyregarded, films. For example, NFSA reconstruction work on and/or national or state-based screenings of such films as The Silence o f D ean M aitland (Ken G. Hall, 1 9 34), T he W om an Suffers (Raymond Long ford, 1918) and Eureka Stockade (Harry Watt, 1949) may have helped get them over the line. By contrast, nothing of the work of, say, the Salvation Army’s Limelight Department, or Franklyn Barrett, or Beau m ont Sm ith, or the M cD onagh sisters, or Frank H u rley ’s p r e -1 9 3 0 output is represented in the

(in order oi votes received/

Picnic at Hanging Rock Peter Weir, 1975

Mad Max George Miller, 1979

My Brilliant Career Gil Armstrong, 1979

Strictly Ballroom Baz Luhrmann, 1992

'Breaker' Morant Bruce Beresford, 1980

Gallipoli Peter Weir, 1981

Ken Hannam, 1975

Jedda Charles Chauvel, 1955

The Year My Voice Broke John Duigan, 1987

Newsfront Phillip Noyce, 1978

Top 100.

Sunday Too Far Away

The Chant o f Jimmie

11 Blacksmith

The 'F eatu re T yran n y' As Chris Long’s

articles in C inem a Papers continue to remind us, Australia as a film-producing nation has always had a richer tradition of non-feature filmmaking than the reverse. Despite this, the industry is invariably judged in terms of its ‘health’ by its feature output often to the complete exclusion of other categories of film production. Apart from the media hype which surrounds a successful local feature, the ‘feature pri m acy’ is reflected in other spheres as w ell. The allocation and promotion of Australian Film Institute Awards is a good example. Prior to 1 9 7 4 -5 , most awards went to non-features and no division, in terms of merit, was made between features and non-fea tures. By 1976, following the U.S. Academy model, the AFI had divided the award categories between features and non-features, with increasing emphasis on the former. Since then, of course, the ‘Best Film’ has always been, and is assumed to be, a feature-length drama. It is no surprise, then, to find narrative features dominating the Poll results - so much so that only one non-feature (Damien Parer’s K okoda Front Line!, 19 4 2 ) appears in the Top 100. The next highestranked documentary is C ane T oad s: An Unnatural H istory (M ark Lewis, 19 8 8 ) at 1 2 4 ; the first liveaction shorts are Passionless M om ents: R ecord ed in Sydney A ustralia Sunday O ctober 2 (Jane Campion and Gerard Lee, 1 9 8 4 ) and N ig h t C ries: A R u ral Tragedy (Tracey M offatt, 1990), at equal 1 4 2 ; the first genuine ‘alternative’ film is In This L ife ’s B ody (Corinne and Arthur Cantrill, 1984), at 147; the first animated feature is D ot a n d the K an g aroo (Yoram Gross, 1977), at 140; while Bruce Petty’s Academy Award-winning animated short, Leisure (1977), could finish no higher than 156th. Even within the voting for features, there were a number of surprises. Notable absentees from the Top 1 0 0 in this category include T h ree in O n e (Cecil

H o .

Fred Schepisi, 1978 M uriel's Wedding

12 P. J. Hogan, 1994

4 b 'm

r-k

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Proof

Jocelyn Moorhouse, 1991 Crocodile Dundee

Peter Faiman, 1986 The Devil's Playground

Fred Schepisi, 1976 Malcolm

Nadia Tass, 1986 Wake in Fright

Ted Kotcheff, 1971 Don's Party

Bruce Beresford, 1976 Caddie

Donald Crombie, 1976 The Adventures o f Priscilla, Queen o f the Desert

Stephan Elliott, 1994

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29

The Cars That Ate Paris

Peter Weir, 1974 The Sentimental Bloke

Raymond Longford, 1919 M ad M ax 2

George Miller, 1981 The Piano

Jane Campion, 1993 Man o f Flowers

Paul Cox, 1983 Forty Thousand Horsemen

Charles Chauvel, 1940 The Man from Snowy River

George Miller, 1982 Romper Stomper

Geoffrey Wright, 1992 Sumner Locke Elliott's Careful He M igh t Hear You

Carl Schultz, 1983

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

B liss

Ray Lawrence, 1985 Death in B run sw ick

John Ruane,1990 Storm B oy

Henri Safran, 1976

é | i 4 4 ‘w *

The Sum o f Us

Kevin Dowling and Geoff Burton, 1994 The Getting o f Wisdom

Bruce Beresford, 1977 Sw eetie

Jane Campion, 1989

Breaker

M onkey Grip

Morant

Ken Cameron, 1982 The Overlanders

Harry Watt, 1946

B arry M cKenzie

The A dventures o f

My Brilliant Career

Jedda

Strictly Ballroom

Bruce Beresford, 1972

39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Shame

Steve Jodrell, 1987 Dead Calm

Phillip Noyce, 1989 They're a W eird M ob

Michael Powell, 1966 Flirting

John Duigan, 1991 Sons O f M a tth e w

Charles Chauvel, 1948 The Picture S how M an

John Power, 1977 For the Term o f His N atural Life

Norman Dawn, 1927

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Travelling North

Carl Schultz, 1987 B ad B oy Bubby

Rolf de Heer, 1994 On Our Selection

Ken G. Hall, 1932 W inter o f Our Dreams

John Duigan, 1981 The Shiralee

Leslie Norman, 1957 On Our Selection

Raymond Longford, 1920 The Year o f Living D angerously

Peter Weir, 1982

Puberty Blues

Bruce Beresford, 1981 The Last Wave

Peter Weir, 1977 Spotsw ood

The Big Steal

D iversity A pleasing feature of the Poll returns, and an indicator of the w ide-ranging interests and depth of knowledge of contributors, was the sheer diversity of entries. Nearly one thousand individual Australian film titles received votes and, while some voters returned entries of less than 100 titles, several had difficulty confining their preferences to 100 only. Apart from C ane T oads: An Unnatural History, other docu mentaries to poll well included E tern ity (Lawrence Johnston, 1995), F o r L o v e or M on ey (Megan M cM urchy, M argot Nash, M argot Oliver and Jeni Thornley, 1983), T w o L aw s (Alessan dro Cavadini and Carolyn Strachan, 1981), Bingo B ridesm aids & Braces (Gillian Armstrong, 1988), B od y w ork (David Caesar, 1989) , I ’ll Be H om e fo r Christmas (Brian McKenzie, 1984), Pearls an d Savages (Frank Hurley, 1921), Front Line (David Bradbury, 1980) and D esert P eop le (Ian Dunlop, 1967). The best-rated live-action shorts, after Passionless M om en ts and N ig h t C ries: A R u ral T ragedy, were N ice C o lo u re d G irls (Tracey M offatt, 1 9 8 7 ), P eel (Jane Campion, 1 9 8 2 ), C am era N atura (Ross Gibson, 1985), A G irl’s Own Story (Jane Campion,

Nadia Tass, 1990

1983), V iolence in the C in em a ... Part 1 (George M iller, 1972),

55 56 57

Tim Burstall, 1973

John Heyer, 1954

59 60

Mark J off e, 1992 A lvin Purple

The Sundowners

Fred Zinnemann, 1960 The B ack o f Beyond

Hightide

Gillian Armstrong, 1987 The Last Days o f Chez Nous

Gillian Armstrong, 1992

61 62

Evil Angels

Fred Schepisi, 1988 The Kid Stakes

Tal Ordell, 1927 S tar Struck

63 64 24

Holmes, 1957), Fran (Glenda Hambly, 1985), Stir (Stephen W al lace, 1980), The N avigator: A M edieval Odyssey (Vincent Ward, 1 9 8 8 ) , The Clinic (David Stevens, 1983) and 27A (Esben Storm, 1 9 7 3 ). At the other end of the scale, P icnic a t H an gin g R ock (Peter W eir, 1 9 7 5 ) secured the N o. 1 position by an ov er whelming margin, while M ad M ax (George Miller, 1979), voted No. 2, easily outpolled its often more highly-rated sequel. Apart from the Mad M ax trilogy, and John Duigan’s autobiographical double, sequels generally fared poorly, despite their relative com mercial success. O f Australian feature directors, Bruce Beresford with seven entries was best represented in the Top 100. Others to poll well were: Peter W eir (5); Ken G. Hall (5); Gillian Armstrong (4), with her short feature, T he Singer a n d the D an cer (1976), also highly regarded, finishing 1 1 1 th ; Charles Chauvel (4); Jo hn Duigan (4); and Phil Noyce (4).

Gillian Armstrong, 1982

F rom th e T rop ics to th e S n ow (Richard M ason and Jack Lee, 1964) and Stations (Jackie McKimmie, 1983). Other short fea tures to attract a lot of votes were Q u een sla n d (John Ruane, 1 9 7 6 ), O nly th e B rave (Ana Kokkinos, 1 9 9 5 ), F eath ers (John Ruane, 1987) and L o v er B oy (Geoffrey W right, 1989). Highest ranked films which offered variations in cinema form, apart from In T his L i f e ’s B o d y , were M y L ife W ith o u t S teve (Gillian Leahy, 1986), M ystical R ose (Michael Lee, 1975), Seri ous U ndertakings (Helen Grace, 1 983), A Song o f A ir (Merilee B ennett, 1 9 8 7 ), T his W o m a n is N o t a C ar (M argaret Dodd, 1 9 8 3 ), T he L e a d D ress (Virginia M urray, 1 9 8 4 ) and P alisad e (Laurie M clnnes, 1987). Other arguably significant milestones in Australian film his tory were largely ignored by voters - for example, T he Q ueen In A u stra lia , the first featu re-len g th co lo u r film made in this country; the Salvation Army’s coverage of the Federation cere monies; AFI Grand Prix winners, G ram pian s W on d erlan d and A dam an d E ve; John W eiley’s IM A X work; the entire output of the cinema advertising industry; and so on. Sandra Hall, in her perceptive article, “Human Projectors” (T he B u lletin , 8 August 1 9 9 5 ), considered the Poll selection criteria to be “ludicrously broad”. In terms of eligibility for inclu sion, of course, she is right. Her own personal approach was to take a narrow focus, fix on a particular period, and highlight sem inal films of the “now famous” : It D roppeth as the G en tle Rain (Bruce Beresford and Albie Thom s, 1 9 6 3 ), M a rin etti (Albie Thoms, 1969), The Girl from the Fam ily o f Man (Michael Thorn hill, 1970), B etw een Wars (Michael Thornhill, 1974), Stork (Tim Burstall, 1971), M outh to M outh (John Duigan, 1978), J a c k an d J i ll : A P ostscrip t (Phillip Adams and Brian R obinson, 1 9 7 0 ), H earts a n d M inds (Bruce Petty, 1 968), Leisu re, V iolence in the C in em a ... Part 1, H o m esd ale (Peter W eir, 1971), O ne H undred a D ay (Gillian Armstrong, 1973), G o o d A fternoon (Phillip Noyce, 1971), and Lou sy L ittle Sixpence (Alec Morgan, 1983). Such an eclectic list, contextualized and debated in the mainstream press, helped fulfil one of the Victorian Centenary Com m ittee’s aims in conducting a National Poll. Barrett Hodsdon found the selection criteria equally “fuzzy

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Lonely Hearts

Paul Cox, 1982

Backroads

Charles Byer Coates, 1906

Phillip Noyce, 1977 The S tory o f the K elly Gang

Heatwave

68 Phillip Noyce, 1982 The Odd A n g ry S hot

69 70 71 72

Tom Jeffrey, 1979 Bush Christmas

Ralph Smart, 1947 P harLap

Simon Wincer, 1983 Celia

Ann Turner, 1989 Pure S...

73 74 75 76 77 78

Bert Deling, 1975 Stork

Tim Burstall, 1971 Return Home

Ray Argali, 1990 Strikebound

Richard Lowenstein, 1983 Smithy

Ken G. Hall, 1946 M a d M a x Beyond Thunderdome

George Miller and George Ogilvie, 1985 Dad and Dave

Come to Town

Ken G. Hall, 1938 Young Einstein

80 81 for lists like this”. He argued that it would be preferable to go for “non-canonical film lists to spread the net more widely”. The Top 100 placings bear out H odsdon’s concerns, but such an approach was beyond the resources of the Victorian Committee at this time. A longer project for the year 2 0 0 0 , perhaps?

W h a t Is A u s tr a lia n ?

In choosing w orks for the “Strictly Oz” exhibition, currently screening in New York, curator Larry Kardish opted for films set and shot in Australia and directed by resident Australian directors. The Centenary Poll selection criteria were far broader than that but, even so, votes were recorded for many films not usually considered ‘Australian’, for example: L ittle 'Women (Gillian Armstrong, 1994), L o ren z o ’s O il (George M iller, 1 9 9 2 ), P sycho II (Richard Franklin, 1983), W itness (Peter W eir, 1 9 85), B rother, Can Yon Spare A D im e? (Philippe M ora, 1974), B arbarosa (Fred Schepisi, 1982), C lear an d Present D anger (Phillip Noyce, 1994), R ocky H orror Picture Show (Jim Sharman, 1975), even B raveheart (Mel Gib son, 1995). None of these, or other comparable, titles recorded sufficient votes to warrant a Top 100 placing, but their presence indicates that a definitive notion of what constitutes an ‘Aus tralian’ film is by no means a given.

D iffic u ltie s o f T ab u la tio n The real fun in process ing the Poll came from interpreting individual entries. How to apportion votes, for example, to films with identical titles and no dates supplied (The D e v il’s P layground, On Our S electio n , K a n g a ro o , R o b b ery U nder A rm s, Bush C h ristm a s, The Sentim ental B loke, etc.). The variations of titling in relation to films concerning the Kelly Gang were especially tricky to decode. Since the Poll database was arranged alphabetically, misquoted titles (“My Life As An Aboriginal”, “Adventures of Eskimo Nell”, etc.) made vote counting interesting as well. Some voters opted for the grouping approach (UBU films; films of Frank Hurley; films by Bruce Petty; Salvation Army films; films by the Cantrills; Damien Parer war films; “everything that Lottie Lyell ever made”; etc.), while others favoured the synoptic method - “That film set

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

in the outback with two lost kids (after father [...] suicided)”. The afterthought enabled us to eliminate The B ack o f B eyon d (John Heyer, 1954), and substitute W alkabou t (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)! The Zapruder example in the explanatory letter which accom panied the outgoing entry forms may also have inspired a number of individual ‘title’ entries as well: Tasmanian tiger footage; the Whitlam dismissal; the ‘Petrov newsreel’; our America’s Cup win; the ‘very first newsreel’; etc. Given the complexities involved in selecting 100 film titles, we were also amazed at the speed with which some entries were returned: producer Richard Bren nan had the honour of submitting the first return, within 36 hours of receiving a form. Entries like producer Tim W hite’s were also particularly appreciated: typed, dated and alphabetically listed!

Hotel Sorrento

Richard Franklin, 1995

We o f the N ever N ever

Igor Auzins, 1982 Goodbye Paradise

83 84

Carl Schultz, 1982 David W illiamson's The Club

Bruce Beresford, 1980 The Silence o f

Dean M aitland

Ken G. Hall, 1934 M outh to M outh

John Duigan, 1978 Eureka Stockade

R ecom m endations The Poll results have now given the NFSA its first formally constituted ‘high heritage’ list ing to assist its collection development work. It will be interesting to learn how many films from the Top 100 listing are “at risk” in preservation terms. The thoughtfully-compiled Poll return of the Australian Film Commission’s Marketing Branch also provided some welcome input to the heritage debate. It provided two listings: the first of titles which the AFC, as one of the few agencies involved in curat ing programmes of Australian film locally and internationally, believes “run the risk of disappearing”; the second of more recent titles which have already ‘earned their stripes’, as it were, and are suggested for future preservation. Again, such recom m en dations should prove useful to the Archive in its future selection decisions. In terms of the low penetration of films made prior to 1970 in the overall Poll results, though, the Archive - and, by associ ation, other film cultural bodies and Australian film history writers and practitioners - clearly have much to do in further exposing today’s viewers to yesterday’s pictures. A knowledge of where the local film industry is headed is important; of equal significance is knowing where it has been.

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

To all who made the time and effort to submit entries to the National Centenary Poll, special thanks. ®

Yahoo Serious, 1988

-, -

Harry Watt, 1949 The Rats o f Tobruk

Charles Chauvel, 1944 On the Beach

Stanley Kramer, 1959 The F.J. Holden

Michael Thornhill, 1977 The Fringe Dwellers

Bruce Beresford, 1986 Kokoda Front Line!

Damien Parer, 1942 The Squatter's Daughter

Ken G. Hall, 1933 W alkabout

Nicolas Roeg, 1971 The Woman Suffers

Raymond Longford, 1918 The Tale o f Ruby Rose

Roger Scholes, 1987 Dogs in Space

Richard Lowenstein, 1986 Tim

Michael Pate, 1979 Blackfellas

Jam es Ricketson, 1993 -

jLUU

The Lighthorsemen

Simon Wincer, 1987

ipment, years.

Are you reading scripts, looking for precise motion control, finding scene changes for

file Qrab £d il Options W indow gf

ins riva 11tyct iNi oN

SEP l!P»aU «~ ........ ' JL lu

D^TCALCRyUOO

logging or editing on-site? Or do you need automatic m asking for blue and green screen desktop image com positing?

0 0 :0 0 : 01:01

Techtel have the solutions for production,

Mediani shot maid) ?

post and broadcast professionals.

DJjSTEALER\NEW |Sfl3| Clinton addressing Congrei

W F W I H iW ■ itn ifin - tn nn \ Insert Scene Cony Scene 1 0 0 : 0 1 :4 0 :2 6 0 :0 1 :4 0 :2 6 0 :0 1 :4 0 :2 6 0 :0 1 :4 0 :2 7

Techtel Sydney: (02) 99061488

Melbourne: (03) 9899 3032

technicalities

The Film of the Book Dominic Case examines the elaborate visual techniques utilized in the low-budget feature, What I Have Written o we dream in colour or in black and white? And do we remember - or imagine - events as m oving scenes or frozen tableaux? Director John Hughes faced these questions in dealing - quite lit erally - with the transition from written text to screen images in his feature, What I H ave Writ ten. Sections of the film show the scenes described in a novella written by one of the characters, H oughton (M artin Jacobs), and read for the first time by his wife, Sorel (Angie Milliken). Does she remember the events he describes, or are they imagined? I became involved in this project as a technical consultant, to find ways of realizing the very clearly defined images wrought by John A. Scott’s novel, as they are described in the script. At a time when digital imaging is all the rage, we accomplished the effects in W hat I H ave W ritten using very traditional optical printing techniques. The account that follows is drawn from conversations I had with director John Hughes, DOP D ion Beebe and C in ev ex ’s O ptical Supervisor, Ian Sheath.

attention focused on the visual look of the Houghton novella, which was the first one of these styles. These sequences appear mostly as still frames, in black and white w ith just a hint of colour. In some cases, w e see subliminal movement through a series of stills. W hat is the articulation between the physical style and w hat you are saying about the story? Hughes: The three styles are about a

variety of ways of knowing, and the first one is to do with the reading of a text. As Sorel is reading her hus band ’s m anuscript, she is both rem em bering and im agining - as one does with a text. So, we tried to come up with a style that would be

have been a different film, with very distinct styles. This way there’s more of a sense of a sliding between the views, which heightens the unknowability. It isn’t as clearly distinguished. The script was written w ith very specific descriptions of images and effects. Did you have to make a lot

Were film opticals the only way to do

of compromises because of the

this within the budget.

difficulties of effects?

Hughes: The other way to do it - the

really low-budget way - would have been simply to shoot the Houghton novella as still photographs; Sorel’s perspective - a kind of investigative project - could have been on video; and Jeremy’s material on 35mm film.

Hughes: No, I think they’re all there. T h e re ’s a poetic language used to describe the look of certain scenes, but I think, by and large, it has been achieved. I’m also interested in the principle of trying to achieve things within a limited budget - it’s a valuable disci pline. So, in some ways, it was an awareness of the probable constraints on the budget. Knowing that, and that we’d have to shoot some material in Europe, led to the possible solution of shooting a significant portion of the film in still images. It’s not entirely a budgetary solution, but the budgetary constraint is an element that led us to arrive at that solution. started?

What I Have Written deals w ith three events, which are distinguished by different visual styles. Hughes: Well, there’s certainly an ele m ent of d ifferen t perceptions of events. But it works around a written text. I t’s more concerned with the reception of a text, and with questions of interpretation, and the unknowability of the final meaning of a text, than it is with the same events per ceived by different participants. Evolving the script from a novel presented a whole series of questions about developing a treatment which would enable it, cinematically, to deal

with the themes in the book which are more literary concerns. The other question was doing all this on a very low budget, which even

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

That would work, too. But it would

Were tests done before production

different narrative views of the same

tually was $1.6 million. W e decided on a set of quite dif ferent visual styles for the different characters. One of them is indebted to Chris M arker’s early short, L a Je té e [1962]; another is a documentary real ism; and the third is a more saturated, almost surreal visuality. A lot of our

quite distinct from the perspective of Sorel and Jerem y Fliszar Qacek K om an], and that would evoke a whole series of uncertainties. The images are on a cusp between mem ory and imagination, or on a cusp of black and white and colour, or on a cusp of the image stilled and the image moving.

c o n c e n

Beebe: It was quite clear th at the black-and-white stills look was tech nically and creatively the most challenging, and we needed to test the various methods of achieving this look well ahead of principal photogra phy. The first set of tests we did covered several different methods: we tried shooting on a 35mm stills cam era using stills negative stock, and also on motion-picture stock loaded into stills cassettes. We tried d ifferent 16mm stocks - both colour and black and white - to test the quality of the optical blow-ups, and we also shot a series of fram e-rate tests, varying between 4fps and 1 8 fps. Shooting directly onto 35mm black-and-white movie stock was out of the question because of the budget. We chose to shoot principal photography on Super 16 colour stock. The tests showed us quite a lot. The 35mm stills option meant some for matting problems, and we were also limited to 36 frames per roll, leading to takes of 30 seconds or less once the motor drive was utilized. The Super 16 stocks showed a gaping chasm

technicalities between the new T-grain technology of the colour stocks, and the old grain stru cture of the black and w hite. Everyone agreed that the level of grain in the blow-ups from black and white was distracting, so we agreed on going for Super 16 colour onto black-and-white interpos. Another deciding factor was the difficulty in getting hold of single-perf black-andwhite stock. Shooting at 6fps was an effective way of covering the action contin uously. In e ffe c t, we co lle cte d hundreds of “still” frames of each scene. The slow rate also helped to induce motion blur into the action a look that Jo h n was very keen to achieve. We combined the 6fps with som e scenes at 1 2 fp s, as w ell as 24fps coverage of some black and white live-action scenes. The next thing that became clear was that the only way to sort through thousands of individual still frames was on a non -lin ear edit system . This also allowed the editor to decide on the duration of each shot without the cost of expensive opticals. How was the non-linear editing phase? Hughes: I’m pleased about that ele ment of it, because it seemed to me that it was an opportunity to use the possibilities of non-linear editing to their fullest advantage, and very pro ductively from a creative point of view. We only used non-linear editing on these sections of the film; the rest of it was done on a Steenbeck, because we couldn’t afford to use Lightworks for the whole cut. But, without non linear editing, it would have been an

"It w as quite clear that the black-andw hite stills look w as te ch n ica lly and creatively the m ost ch a lle n g in g , and w e needed to test the vario us m ethods of ach ie vin g th is loo k w ell ahead of principal photo graphy."

extremely expensive process. W e’d have had to produce an enormous amount of freeze frames, and make work prints of all those, to make choices. As it was, using Lightworks, we were able to construct whole sequences very easily and quickly. So, rather than using Lightworks just to save time, we were able to manufac ture a visual style that wouldn’t have been possible without it. So, you w ere able to preview the effect of the various choices you were making, rather than relying on blind faith that you were making the right decision before committing to expensive opticals. Hughes: Yes. Had we not had Light works, and had we wanted to achieve this kind of result, we’d have spent quite a lot of time looking at a Steen beck screen with black spacer and a chalkline through it. Is that when you discovered the slight colour left by the telecine process, and that sort of tinted effect became a possibility for the first time? Hughes: That was always a part of it, but I was aware that it would be very expensive in the motion-picture con text, so we had to hold back on it. But towards the end of the Paris shoot, Dion and I realized that the budget might have more room in it to achieve the effect I’d always wanted. There were two ways: either by telecineing and grading the colour almost out, and coming back onto film by a highgrade kine process, or by a fully-digital process. The telecine/kine result had a kind of mechanical texture to it - it was very regular - and the equivalent quality in the film was the quality of grain, which somehow seemed to be more convivial. There was nothing wrong with the telecine effect - it would have been quite acceptable but we decided to live with the down side of the film process, which was the degree of uncertainty, and to wel come the craft and aesthetic skills of the opticals team at C inevex, Ian Sheath and [grader] Ian Letcher. They were certainly very interested in the p ro ject - in getting a suc cessful result - and to do that they w ere very engaged in the whole p ro ject. I t ’s one of the points where the collaborative process was very productive.

Were you ever concerned about the open-ended nature of the optical process in terms of the tim e and the cost of redos if the effect didn't work out first time? Hughes: They certainly delivered what was wanted. However, in terms of somebody else’s being interested in exploring similar ideas, I wouldn’t discount the possibilities of the elec tronic process. There is a lot more control, kines are getting better and better, and th ere’s nothing wrong with the distinct look that the telecine gave it. You can certainly control more dimensions. Both methods have their drawbacks and advantages. I’d also like to praise the interest and willingness of Complete Post in Melbourne to engage in testing the telecine process for this project. They were very generous in their enthusi asm. I don’t want to come out of this saying that the lab process is always the best. I’m not convinced th a t’s true, although it’s the one that we preferred this time. Sheath: The optical effects made up

about a third of the film, but actually we did the whole film the same way. We started by selecting the takes of camera negative that were required and extracted full takes - camera-stop to camera-stop. I did a timed blow up colour interpos, and a blow-up black-and-white fine grain of the nec essary freeze frames or running shots, so all the action was timed to the cor rect length in each shot. That locked in the action for me. Then using those com ponents [and double-printing back to dupe negative], I did a six-

"W ay b a ck before w e ever started, [Hughes] show ed me a book that had these photographs w ith a sort of co lour tinge. That's w hat he w anted, and that's w hat w e g o t ... in the end."

teen-frame wedge from full colour to black and white. On the screen, you’d just see a series of rapid fades out of colour. I did every shot that way, because the colour content or density is dif fe ren t in every shot. T h ere w ere about 600 of those. But it didn’t take too long. The main time element was actually the blow-up, because it’s a slow process. Then I showed each wedge to John [Hughes] and he chose the frame where the colour was right each time. At this stage, I had timed elements, so I just had to print each scene to dupe neg with the chosen proportion of colour and black and white. W hat sort of percentages of colour did you use from shot to shot? Sheath: On a scale of 1 to 16 - that’s

the 16 frames from colour through to black and white - most of them were 12, 1 3 , 14. So, about 80 per cent black and white. But some went right down to 3; it depended on what was in the shot to start w ith. Som e of the statues were pretty grey - there wasn’t much colour in them anyway - so th ey ’d be the ones th at were down at the colour end of the scale. Did John talk w ith you about w hat he was trying to achieve aesthetically? Sheath: Absolutely. Way back before we ever started, he showed me a book that had these photographs with a sort of colour tinge. That’s what he wanted, and that’s what we g o t... in the end. Did you try different black and w hite stocks? Sheath: I tried Kodak 5 235 - that’s

the panchromatic separation stock and we got a sepia cast when we went through to interneg. So, for the next test, I used 5 234 dupe neg stock, and this time I got a blue cast. It was a nowin situation. But I varied the printer lights to filter out the cast, and now I have a situation where I can use either and get a good neutral balance. To me, 5 2 3 5 is the way to go, because it’s a very much finer-grained stock. But, in fact, there is a mixture in the final product, and I doubt if you’d pick it. It was just a matter of availability of the stock because we had to im port it from America.

Ian Sheath Dion Beebe

WNLMA PAP EM • FEBMMa.99fi

434 Clarendon S t , South Melbourne Victoria, Australia 3205 Tel: (03) 9699 3922 Fax: (03) 9696 2564

16 Conyngham St.. Glenside South Australia 5065 Tel: (08) 338 2811 Fax: (08) 338 3090

77 Doggett S t , Fortitude Valley Queensland, Australia 4006 Tel: (07) 3854 1919 Fax: (07) 3852 1814

340 King Georges Ave. Singapore 0820 Tel: (65) 291 7291 Fax: (65) 293 2141

fle a d P c e

The Finest Motion Picture Rental Equipment

FR A M E W O R K S

N O W

OFFERS

TR A C K

L A Y IN G

C o n t i n u i n g to lead the way in n o n -lin e a r te ch n o lo gy, F ra m ew orks now pr ovides full digital n o n -lin e a r sound tr a c k laying. W e are the f i r s t fa c il it y in A u s t r a l i a to offer the new 24 t r a c k A vid A ud io/V ision.

A ud io /V isio n is t o t a l l y c o m p a t i b le with ou r A v id Film C o m p o s e r s , in c l u d in g 4 4 k h z and 4 8 k h z digital audio sam pl in g and digital n o n - l i n e a r p ic t u r e . T h i s a ll ow s us to take the audio and p ic t u r e files d i r e c t l y from the p ic t u r e cut. T h i s avoids time c o n s u m in g c o n f o r m i n g from ori g in a l D A T â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s r e q u i r e d with o t h e r sy st e m s. L i k e w i s e , A u d i o / V i s i o n is the only t r a c k laying sys tem using n o n - l i n e a r p ic t u r e givi ng the sound e d i t o r the same speed and f l e x i b i l i t y of the A v id Film C o m p o s e r s .

Ring Stephen F. Smith about a picture and sound â&#x20AC;&#x153;package" for your next film.

Suite 4, 239 Pacific Highway, North Sydney 2060. Phone (02) 955 7300 Fax (02) 954 0I75

technicalities Resolution

Going back to the first test, when you saw the video treatm ent and the

optical treatm ent, w hat was your opinion of the comparison? Sheath: Certainly the quality of the

film one is so much superior, but obviously the video one was so much easier to do. They did the tests in a fraction of the time that it took us. But, like the DOP, I ’m a film man myself. I want to get the best quality, and that’s why I would choose the 5235 stock for the opticals. I should mention about registration of the im age. W hatever is in the 16mm original is now locked into the 35m m , because I’m very particular about w here the pin p o sition is. When we did the blow-up, we used the main projector gate in the cam era. Then, when we did the interneg, we put the same gate back into the projector, so we’re still driving the film with the same pin. That way, I’m able to run the shots without any jit tering on the screen. You mentioned that the rest of the film was done the same way. Sheath: Well, all the colour stuff was blown up to interpos, but we didn’t neg cut that. Because so much of it was pulled out for op ticals, we thought we’d try the whole film by neg selecting. So, everything was assembled as com plete takes, and then it was a single timed run on the Oxberry to 35mm interpos. Surpris ingly, it doesn’t take any longer. It’s a single run so it’s cleaner, and you get over the splice problem. 16mm splices tend to bubble and kick a lit tle bit, so I prefer to do it this way. And with the 5 2 4 4 interpos stock, you get the best possible quality. The colour part of the film is less unusual than the black-and-white sequences, but still shows two very distinct looks. What was your approach to the other two sections of the film? Beebe: The second stylized approach

was a little less complicated, being mostly a decision about coverage. But to make sure that the looks didn’t overlap, I shot on the 500ASA 7298 for all the scenes to do with Sorel’s story. W e used this for everything, whether it was day or night, interior or e x te rio r. I used a one-qu arter white pro-mist filter. W hen it blew up to 35mm, it gave a soft, somewhat grainy and desaturated look. The third method was more con trolled. We wanted to create a dark, secretive world for Jeremy. It was full of shadows, and rich in colour and texture. We shot this primarily on 72 4 8 , overexposing and then print ing down to keep the deep colours. The rest of it was a matter of lighting and design. ©

re these pictures really sharp enough to m atch a good film image? Still-frame focus charts shot on a fine-grained negative are the most demanding test, and shows that around 3 ,0 0 0 dots do a fairly good job. But, in reality, the image on film rarely approaches the negative’s own resolv ing power. Camera movement, image movement, depth-of-field limitations and printer slippage can all contribute to reducing detail in the image, so a lower image resolution may well be ade quate. Conversely, the scanning system needs to have a higher resolution than the image itself: the “M oire” patterns on television when the new sreader wears a striped shirt demonstrate the “aliasing” that can occur otherwise. Finally, film grain size and pixel size are not comparable: the random pattern of film grain is much less notice able than the regular grid imposed by a similarly-sized digital pattern. Software developers have worked hard to intro duce a couple of techniques to blur the distinction: com puter-generated images can have motion-blur introduced to each frame to match the effect of cine camera shutter speed; and it is quite com mon now to superimpose a film grain pattern on an image, so that gen erated elements have the same subtle texture as original film elements (which may have undergone grain removal at an earlier stage). To achieve the best results, the film scanner used by Quantel’s Domino is 6 ,0 0 0 elements wide, to produce an oversampled image of good resolution and a close match to the original film.

icholas N egroponte, founder of M .I .T .’s M edia Tab, says in his new book, Being D igital: “We are still mindlessly addressing the wrong prob lems, those of image quality-resolution, frame rate and the shape of the screen [...] definition isn’t the issue, being dig ital is the issue.” Negroponte may be right. In digi tal film, the capabilities of the image and what we can do with it present the chal lenge: the pedestrian details of why and how the technology has got there should no longer be a problem. Still, issues of resolution, speed and tonality continue to arouse interest, argument and, among some, even passion. So let’s address them once, and then get on with using what are, after all, just tools.

Pixels

ike individual grains in a p h o to graphic im age, the pixel is the smallest element of a digital picture on a video screen, a single group of three red, green and blue phosphor dots, but, in memory, simply a single group of three numbers. In the PAL video format, a digital image consists of 5 7 6 rows of pixels, each row having 720 from left to right. A full frame is effectively composed, therefore, of just over 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 such pixels. Computer images can be any size, limited only by memory. Imaging sys tems in this field are know n as resolu tion in d ep en d en t, as finer reso lution is simply obtained with a larger picture. Typically, images to be output to a video format may be 2 ,0 0 0 pixels across. F or film output, Q u an tel’s Domino system works with images that are 2 ,8 0 0 pixels across, while Kodak’s Cineon at full resolution delivers 4,000 pixels per row, or a massive 12 mil lion per frame. O f course, it isn’t possible to dis play every single pixel on the monitor, so computer software either rescales the image for display, or only show a por tion of the fram e. Sim ilarly, it’s not often possible to view - or transmit full resolution computer images at 24 frames per second but, unlike video, computer systems aren’t constrained by having to operate in real time.

Bit Depths lthough a digital image is suppos edly free of d isto rtion , its distinguishing feature brings a new set of constraints. The colour and bright ness of each pixel are represented by three numbers - for red, green and blue. Conventionally, digital video and com puter graphics images use values betw een 0 and 2 5 5 , as the range of numbers that can be stored in eight bits (or one byte) of com puter memory. There are no half-measures, so the scale from black to white is restricted to these 255 steps (although combinations of R, G and B lead to potentially sixteen mil lion colours). In general, one-value steps o f brightness are sm aller than the human eye can distinguish, so that a continuous shading between, say, val ues of 130 and 140 should still appear continuous. Several problems upset this simple arrangement, however. Firstly, the eye (like photographic film) responds to proportional steps in brightness, rather than absolute steps, so that the differ ence between steps 10 and 11 is much

greater than between 100 and 101. In the shadow areas, the 8-bit scale isn’t really enough. Secondly, when images are digitally processed and mixed, math ematical rounding errors magnify the increments, leading to “steppy” tone gradients. Finally, the extra brightness range that film is capable of means that each step from 0 (black) to 255 (white) must cover a greater range. K o d ak’s solu tion to this in the Cineon System is to move up from 8 bits to 10 bits per colour (making 1,024 steps instead of 2 56) and to measure brightness on a logarithmic scale like film density, m atching the eye’s response, so that the steps are spread more uniformly in perception between black and white. Quantel’s Domino stays linear, but scans film at even more resolution (12 bits or 4 0 9 6 steps) and then uses a proprietary system called “dynamic rounding” to reduce the information to eight bits avoiding the “steppy” effect in tone gradients. While this might seem less efficient, many computer graphics software packages work with linear (not logarithmic) data to process images, and so less mathematical processing (and approximation) is involved.

Memory

hy not use larger numbers - up to 16 bits per colour - to avoid this issue altogether? It’s all to do with size and speed. Even at eight bits per colour, one full frame in Domino takes up 18 megabytes of memory, while, at full res olution, Cineon demands 51 megabytes. Suddenly, film seems to be a remarkably com pact and cheap storage medium! Compression techniques can reduce the amount of data by many times (how it’s done is another story), but, because of the additional processing time and the loss of detail, it is rarely used in this application.

Interpolating

ld -fash io n ed analogue kine recordings used simply to repro duce the 5 7 6 image lines from the television image on to the film image. A sharper system simply meant that the raster (line scan) was m ore visible. Now that film recorders such as the S o lita ire are cap ab le o f displaying much finer line-resolution, digital tech niques are used to enhance the PAL image, typically to about 1 ,4 0 0 lines top to bottom (2,000 wide or 2K res olution). This system fills in the gaps intelligently: there’s no new informa tion in the computer picture, but the steps o f tone are m uch fin er and smoother. This presents a good inter m ed iate step b etw een telev isio n resolution and full film resolution, with correspondingly faster and more eco nomical film recording. ©

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Apollo 13

Thorn Birds

Batman Forever

Halifax FP

Braveheart

Law of the Land

Waterworld

Singapore Sling

Pulp Fiction

Frontline

Speed

Liftoff

Mrs Doubtfire

Home & Away

Nell

Colombo

Little Women

Spellbinder

Disclosure

Matlock

Rob Roy

Cracker

Lucky Break

Conspiracy

Angel Baby

Hotel Sorrento Cosi Shine Brilliant Lies Pelican Brief I |

Conga

Beaurepairs TVCs

The best in digital editing for features,episodic t e l e v i s i o n ,multi camera, documentaries, commercials, music videos, and information programming.

I .Q .

Available from:

Six Degrees of Separation Mighty Morphin Power Ranges

Q UCOMMUNICATIONS I N TPTYOLTD A.C.N. 002 956 863

(03) 9558 9377 (02) 417 5166

A Country Practice Q AN TASTVC The Late Show Skytrackers Funky Squad Discover Australian Wines Better Homes & Gardens The Cosby Mysteries

O p t ic a l &. G r a p h ic

K i n g s g r o v e A p a r t m e n t s

5 Chuter S tr e e t McMahon's Point NSW 2 0 6 0 Australia Phone: 0 2 9 9 2 2 3 1 4 4 , Facsimile: 0 2 9 9 5 7 5 0 0 1 Modem: 0 2 9 9 5 5 2 8 3 6

T i t l e s S. C r e d i t s

M EL B O U R N E

• A U S T R A L IA

S p e c i a l P e r f o r m i n g Arts r a t e s for our F u l l y Self Contained & Serviced A partments

T itlin g design & graphic e ffe cts E x te n siv e range of typ e face s

Co?nfortable 4 Star Apartments Serviced Daily • Just Ten Minutes from the CBD • Transport Available Outside Our Door • Right in the Heart of Cosmopolitan St Hilda •

W ord p ro ce ssin g files accep ted

•

Flexible proofing sy ste m

n e v

All fo rm a ts Quoting & stu d e n t d isco u n ts

\ H

D ig it a l E ffe c ts N Available V

C A L L 4 4

T O L L

F I T Z R O Y

F R E E S T ,

Accounting

1 8 0 0

S T

0 3 3

K I L D A

for

7 8 6

V IC

the

3 1 8 2

Arts

Actors Animators Architects Art Directors Artists Clowns Cinematographers Comedians Composers Choreographers Costume Designers Critics Dancers Designers Directors Film & Television Editors Festivals Galleries Graphic Designers Incorporated Associations Journalists Jugglers Landscape Architects Multimedia C H R IS R O W E L L P R O D U C T IO N S P T Y TH E M O ST E X P E R IE N C E D N E G A T IV E C U T T IN G

Artists and Producers Musicians Performers

LTD

Painters Photographers Playwrights Film

AND P R O F E S S IO N A L

Television and Radio Producers Print

C O M P A N Y IN A U S T R A L I A

Stunt Persons Theatre Companies Writers

T E L : ( 0 2 ) 41 6 2 6 3 3 F A X : ( 0 2 ) 4 1 6 2 5 5 4

O F

Chartered A ccountants T a x Returns, Audits, A ccounting & Financial Advice, E lectronic T a x Lodgem ent

Sculptors Sound Technicians Singers

101 E T O N R O A D L I N F I E L D N SW 2 0 7 0

O U T

& Co Pty Ltd

Makers Production Companies Publicists

S U I T E D 1 7 2 F IL M A U S T R A L IA B U I L D I N G

W A L K

Alan Dredge

IL A A

W IT H

18 Hill Street, R ichm ond, V ictoria 3 1 2 1 Telephone 03 9 4 2 8 3 8 5 5

S H O W R E E L

Direction, cinematography, 1st A.D., Sound Recording, Screenwriting, Camera Operation, Still Photography, Continuity, Editing, Video Production and Video Editing. Any or all of these can be on your showreel within the Diploma of Screen Arts programme at ILAA. Typically our students direct at least one film (16mm Synch) and crew on four or five other key roles. LECTURERS practising professionals AFTRS qualified

IN S T IT U T E

LENS

ARTS

THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE

P O B O X 177 K A L O R A M A V I C 3 7 6 6 T E L E P H O N E 9 7 2 8 1150

FREE QUARTERLY CATALOGUE OF NEW TITLES AVAILABLE

S P E C IA L IS IN G IN FILM , M E D IA

& TV.

C IT Y W A L K , A K U N A S TR E E T, C A N B E R R A C IT Y 2601

T E L E P H O N E (0 6 ) 248 8352

F A C S IM ILE (0 6 ) 247 1230

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1996

issues

Censorship Resurgent Tina Kaufman examines some disturbing trends in censorship legislation s C in e m a P a p ers goes to press, news th a t the O ffice of Film and Literature C la ssifica tio n has withheld classifica tion from D ead Man (1995), the new film by Jim Jarmusch, is making concrete the growing suspi cion that a new conservatism is at hand. Som e p rescien t com m en tators have been picking up on various incidents as pointers to a change in the criti cal clim ate, but this is the first major decision to really ring the alarm bells. As Richard Payten, c h ie f execu tiv e o f O ne G lobe Film s, the film ’s nation al d is tributors, has commented,

If they are going to ban a film on the grounds of the one scene they have sp ecified in D e a d M an, then this action should be of concern to us all - distribu tors, exhibitors, filmmakers and filmgoers - because it’s going to affect the way we see films. W ith a new classification intro duced on 1 January 1996, three major concerns have rather belat edly been recognized: w hether classifications under the new system will be more conservative; whether film festivals and film events w ill be able to regain their special-event status; and how the foreshadowed move to a m ore co m m ercially -v iab le Classification Board will affect the film and video bodies which are its clients. The new structure should make the classification of films, videos, publications and computer games a simpler and better-organized system, but the draft guidelines fo r film and video show that actu al c la ssifica tio n could be m ore open to in te rp re ta tio n , while the changes that are being made to the Board itself, and to the way it operates, could be of great co n cern to the d ifferen t industries w hose products are classified. And, perhaps of most significance, in the changeover from one system to another, the special arrangement for film fes tivals and special events to bring their films in unclassified has been eliminated.

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

The new structure A new Classification (Publications, Films, and C om puter G am es) A ct, which came into operation on 1 January, has been developed to address the structural prob lems that made the current system so cumbersome. Both federal legislation and supporting state legislations have been drawn up and passed, or are soon to be passed, by their respective governments in what the current Chief Censor, soon to be the Director of the Classification

Board, John Dickie, sees as a spirit of great co-operation. He insists that what has happened is merely the tidying up of a clumsy, state-based system into a national classification code. Up until now, the Office of Film and Literature Classification has been classi fying material in accordance with the regulations and classification require ments of the enforcement legislation of each state and territory; these are not uni form, and have occasionally caused films

and publications to be banned in some states and not in others, or to be released under certain conditions in some states and not in others. Changes or amend ments had to be made to legislation in each state, which was not only cumber some but often caused enormous delays. The recent classifications for computer games have, in fact, been something of a toothless tiger, as they have only been picked up by a few states so far, leaving computer games not needing classifica tion in most states. The new federal Classification Act details both the classification requirem ents and the en fo rce m ent legislation, and, after an exhaustive consultation process, all states and te rrito rie s have agreed to the package, which is being supported by uniform state legislation. The states will still retain the right to independent action, but it is confidently antic ipated that this will be very rare, and it is also confidently expected th at the system w ill be m uch more streamlined. T h e new A ct also sees the establishment of two boards, the C lassificatio n Board (the cu r rent Censorship Board), and the Board of Review. Board members will have their terms strictly lim ited to seven years, and, to cope with the increase in w orkload brought about by the addition of computer games and multimedia to the classification process, more Board members will have to be appointed. Classification charges are also to be increased, in line with a programme to bring the Office to a more commerciallyviable state w ithin five years. Charges will be initially increased on the introduction of the new system, and it’s been suggested that, to achieve economic viabil ity, they will have to increase four times more within the five years. The cost of classification is cur rently $ 2 8 0 per film or video. Currently video com panies are negotiating to have educational videos which would attract a G classification exempted, while the computer game industry is argu ing for self-regulation.

C lassification changes T h e d raft guid elines fo r film s, videos and com p u ter games w ere

^ ^ P®®

history

Australia’s First Producers in Europe - 1904 In part 17 o f this series, Chris Long examines the Limelight Department's pioneering activities in Europe y 1904, Melbourne’s Salvation Army Lime light Department was A u stralia’s leading film producer. It had made more than 200 films, including all of the six Australian fea tu re-length screen presentations made up to that time.1 It became commercially desirable to demonstrate these achieve ments internationally. The support of the Salvation Army’s London leadership was mandatory before this could proceed. Accordingly, a contingent of the Lime light Department went to London with a complete production and projection outfit in 1904. They were the first Aus tralian film producers to work in Europe. While there, they shot a two-hour docu mentary film variously known as T he Congress C osm oram a, The International Congress Film s or The Salvation Army Panoram a. Prints were sold in England, Canada and the U.S. Some of the footage survives in Britain. In many ways, the project marked the climax of Australi a’s first decade of film production.

The 1904 Congress was a public-rela tions exercise and a reaffirmation of faith through fellowship - both of Christian faith, and of faith in the Salvation Army’s social work. Hugely successful in spec tacle and public impact, it indicated a new community acceptance of the orga nization. W illiam B ooth was often portrayed as a radical extremist in ear lier years, but at the 1904 Congress he was saluted in a multi-national marchpast of 3 0 ,0 0 0 of his worldwide forces at the Crystal Palace.4

paganda and as a potentially-profitable attraction, the film was equally a credit to its Australian producers.

Australasia's Contingent In January 1904, the Australasian Sal vation Army Commissioner, Thomas McKie, announced plans to send a local contingent to the London Congress. Six Limelight Department members were to be included.6 A “Biorama International Congress Company” was immediately raised under the command of the Lime

Britain Beckons A perfect excuse for Australian Salva tionists to visit Britain was provided by the Salvation Army’s third International Congress in L ondon. Scheduled to occupy the fortnight following 24 June 1 9 0 4 2, it was the first gathering of its type since the advent of cinema. It was also the last International Congress to be supervised by the Salvation A rm y’s found er, the 7 5-y ear-o ld G eneral William Booth (1829-1912). In a period almost completely lack ing in state aid for the p oor, the Salvation Army’s policies and practice provided a striking contrast. Its 1904 Congress consequently attracted far more attention than it would if it were held today. Twenty thousand Salvation ists from fifty countries descended on London; 70,000 spectators attended the Crystal Palace celebrations of the Army’s 3 9 th anniversary day alo n e .3 O ther meetings were held in the Royal Albert and E xeter H alls, and at a speciallyerected International Congress Hall in The Strand, capable of seating more than 5,0 0 0 people.

financial records of the Salvation Army confirm the overwhelm ing predom i nance of imports from these dealerships, including the Warwick Trading Com pany, R o b ert W . Paul, W illiam so n , Mitchell, Bamforth, Mason and Urban.8 T h e French Lum ière Com pany was already fading from the scene, and Pathé Frères had not yet developed its Aus tralian market to any great extent.9 In London, Perry could examine British films and film equipment at first hand, no longer having to purchase material “sight unseen”, as he had in Australia. He could negotiate film supply with the principal dealers on a face-to-face basis, and perhaps even arrange international com m ercial ou tlets for some of the Limelight Department’s more saleable film productions. The Limelight Department’s finan cial records show that more than £ 154 of film equipment was bought for the British trip on 31 January 1 9 0 4 10, only a week after the announcement of its forthcoming London venture. A further £92/13/- was sent to the Salvation Army’s London headquarters for the purchase of raw film stock on 26 Feb ruary 1 9 0 4 .11 It made sense to have the unexposed negative stock for the Con gress coverage w aiting for them in London, so that its transport through the tropics could be avoided.

Embarkation for Britain

Cover illustration from Melbourne's War Cry, 22 October 1904. Image on the screen shows Japanese Salvation Army representatives taking the salute from the organization's founder, William Booth, at the Crystal Palace, 5 July 1904. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne.

Booth’s adulation was reinforced by King Edward VII just before the Con gress, when the two leaders met for cordial discussions on 22 June 1904.5 The film record of London’s C on gress was to be powerfully-persuasive evidence of an organization, personified by Booth, at last receiving the credit that its selfless activities deserved. As pro

light Department’s chief, Major Joseph Perry. For the first five months of 1904, the Company toured New South Wales and Queensland, exhibiting films to raise money for the trip, and shooting local film s to show in L o n d o n .7 Our last instalment listed these. For a film veteran like Perry, the Lon don trip had commercial potential. Most of the films then shown in Australia were imported from British dealers, even if they were produced in America or con tinental Europe. British film dealers had regional sales rights covering Britain’s colonies and possessions abroad. The

On 18 April 1904, about 40 members of the Australasian contingent for the London Congress assembled for a final send-off in the Melbourne Town Hall.12 Resplendent in their specially-designed military-style khaki uniforms and slouch hats, several were called upon to say a few final words from the stage. The principal Limelight Department representatives accom panying the party were M ajor Joseph Perry (1864-1943) and Staff Cap tain James Dutton (1 8 6 4 -1 9 4 2 ). Both were veteran cine cameramen by that time. Lieutenant-Colonel Gilmour, for merly the narrator for presentations of the feature-length film, Under Southern Skies (1902), was to undertake similar work during the London film showings.13 Oth ers in the group helped to provide musical backing during the London exhibitions. From the Town Hall stage, Commis sioner McKie introduced Perry, pledging

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

to see that the International Congress would be brought back by “camera and

1904 Salvation Army International Congress identities.

k in em atograp h e” . 14 T h o se unable to attend w ould be given an avenue of

the Australian command in 1909, closing down the

observing the event for themselves. The party boarded the S.S. “Afric” at P ort M elbou rn e on 19 April 1 9 0 4 .15 M o st of them were away for the next five months. An eight-week voyage took them to London via H obart, Durban, Cape Town (19 May), Teneriffe and Ply m outh (10 Ju n e ).16 In that tim e, they co n d u cted sixty m eetings a flo a t17, including several film and slide presen tations for the 350 passengers on board. The first film show was given by Perry in the middle of the Indian Ocean on 12 M ay 1 9 0 4 .18 Using an arc light in his projector for the first time on record, an electric supply was improvised from the ship’s generator with the help of the crew ’s engineers.19 They also rigged a temporary cinema out of canvas awnings strung across the deck, with deck chairs for the audience. The tw o-hour show “went down a treat”, and in the words of the W ar Cry report: The “Port Fairy Fishing Fleet” and the “Coaching Scenes in New Z ealand ” were deemed to be the best [films] [...] The lovely scenery of the W est Coast of the South Island is beheld in all its unequalled grandeur and beauty. The New Zealanders among the passengers were in ecstasies over the true repre sen tation o f one o f their co u n try ’s beauty spots.20 On Sunday 29 May 1904, while swelter ing in the humid mid-Atlantic tropics, the improvised deck cinema again induced passengers out of their cabins.21 Perry and Dutton projected a religious film and slide programme which gave Gilmour a chance to practise his skill at narration. A small orchestra and a vocal quartet provided musical accompaniment. This was such a popular success that the shipboard “Com m ittee o f A rrangem ents” requested another show, which took place on 2 Ju n e.22 Lieutenant-Colonel Kyle, com manding the Salvation Army contingent, described the social work of the organi zation in Australasia with film and slide illustrations. An encore brought forth a film of a skirmish between settlers and Aborigines w hich had been staged by Perry in Queensland earlier in the year. One passenger declared that the shows were the best thing he’d seen on the voy age, while another promised to become an annual subscriber to their social work funds.23 It was exactly the reaction that Perry was hoping for.

Screenings in London The Australasians were the first of 49 national contingents to arrive in London, on or about 13 June 1904.24 Those trav elling by the S.S. “Afric” were joined by thirteen other Australasian Salvationists already in England.25 Australasian Corn-

CINEMA P APE RS • FEBRUARY 1996

From left: Commissioner Jam es Hay, who would assume

Limelight Department; General William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army; and Booth's son, Bramwell Booth. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne.

Frame enlargement from either Perry or Howse's movie film; The Australasian Contingent leaving The Strand Congress Hall, c. July 1904. Note Australian flag being held aloft at left of frame. Courtesy of Salvation Army Staff Training College, Melbourne.

Frame enlargement: the Australasian contingent at the London Congress passes the movie camera of either Howse or Perry. William Booth takes salute at rear. Film shot at the Crystal Palace Review, 5 July 1904. Courtesy of Salvation Army Training College, Melbourne.

Limelight Department camera crew. Although taken in Christchurch, New Zealand, in November 1906, the equipment shown is similar to the equipment they took to Britain two years earlier. From left to right, back row: Alf Delevante with "still" camera; unknown with unknown movie camera (possibly a Gaumont); unknown with Warwick Bioscope model "A" camera; C. Knight with Warwick model "B" camera. Front row, left to right: Orizaba Perry with unknown camera; Joseph Perry seated. Note that the crew is still wearing the slouch hats used in London. From The Canterbury Times, 1 November 1906. Courtesy of Clive Sowry and NFSA, Melbourne office.

missioner Thomas McKie, for instance, had arrived via the Suez and Marseilles by a faster steamer, the S.S. “Omrah”.26 Altogether, there were 53 in the Aus tralasian group. The London W ar Cry was eager to interview them, especially Perry, whom it called “the leading cinem ato g rap h ist in the S ou thern Hemisphere”.27 It announced that “the Australian Biograph will be seen at sev eral of our Corps (churches)”.28 On Saturday 18 Ju ne 1 9 0 4 , Perry exhibited a selection of his “Australian Biorama” pictures at the Clapton Con gress Hall. He’d been in England for only five days. This well-attended pre-Congress “trial run” was probably the first all-Australian film show to be given in Britain. The London W ar Cry reported: At an early moment on Saturday night Commissioner McKie handed over the meeting to Major Perry and Staff Cap tain Dutton, the cinematographich [sic] experts of Australia. Lieut. Colonel Gilmour explained that the exhibition was a hurriedly improvised affair, but the fact remains that it was the best thing of its kind we had yet seen. The animated pictures of Australian life were simply wonderful in their beauty and realism.29 Another review in the same issue stated: The dioramic views presented under the direction of M ajor Perry [...] were excellent, and throw out the sugges tion - though probably, it is too late - that the service which he renders in Australia could be produced here by the co-operation of [Salvation Army] Cadets or London Soldiers. [...] As it

is, Stt aff Capt. D utton’s [vocal] solo

To contrast with this degradation, Perry

Perry also filmed London-based Salva

ing, illustrated , as he p roceed s, by

filmed the London Salvation Army at work:

tion Army officers sending messages

“beater” movement, which hit the film

to Australian audiences. Many of them

surface to pull each frame into position.

had past Australian connections:

The emulsion and the sprockets took a

limelight views, suggests an infinitude of forms by which singing can more than ever be salvationised. As for the animated pictures Australia is well to the fore, and in a comparatively small matter like this the Congress is sure to be a pow erful factor in stim ulating [motion picture] enterprise.30

Australians Film London Before the opening of the London Inter national Congress on 24 June, Perry and Dutton were feverishly busy. Although no more film showings were recorded before the Congress, Perry regularly appeared with the Australasian Contin gent at various London suburban Salvation Army halls. He also began shooting films of London and of Salva tionists in London for use on his return “down under”. These included some har rowing scenes taken in the London slums:

Are you insured? The Commissioner

m ach ines had an e c ce n tric cam or

and staff of the Salvation Army British

All Officers at the Congress who for

beating. Consequently, Perry switched

Assurance Society marched in circular

merly served on this continent or in New Zealand were asked to send mes

his Limelight Department to using the

throng of accountants, agents and oth ers [...]

sages to th eir old com rad es at the

je c to r as its stan d ard eq u ip m en t in

A ntipodes. C om m ission er M cK ie,

Australia. One of his exhibition units

It may be said that Com m issioner

who undertook to deliver the epistles,

was subsequently dubbed the “Chrono

Coombs [Australasia’s commander in

is shown waiting at a table; he greets each “old Australian” who leaves his

Biorama Company”. Gaumont produced. Originally an out

order upon the screen; an uncountable

the early 18 9 0 s] has revisited M el

Gaum ont “professional ch ron o” p ro

Perry was also impressed by the films

exhibited him in many and various

docum ent, and passes out to make room for the next [...]

roles - singing a solo, making a speech

In the final scenes, the Chief of Staff

p rod u ct, by 1 9 0 4 it was selling films

surrounded by his Staff, and marching

[Bramwell Booth, son of the founder]

made in its British studios (including

at the head of a fine body of men - the

and Mrs. Booth sent messages to Aus

those by the pioneer chase film direc

D.O’s of the British Field. A family film

tralasia. They are seen entering an

to r, A lfred C o llin s).38 F u rth erm o re,

contains C om m issioner and M rs.

enclosure; each in turn sits at a small

British Gaumont had become agents for

Coombs, accompanied by two tall girls,

table. After writing the messages, the

many British and foreign producers,

equal in stature to their mother [...]

latter are placed upon the screen and

including Lumière, Hepworth, Claren

bourne - for a num ber of films

The lectu re-roo m of the In tern a

read by the audience [...].33

let only for the company’s French studio

don, W illiam son, Biograph, M itchell

tion al T rain in g G arrison o f the

M ovies and “stills” of London street

and K en y on , and N o r w o o d .39 The

[Salvation] Army in London is shown,

scenes and landmarks were also shot for

L im eligh t D e p a rtm e n t’s fin an cial

A drunken woman and her husband

with Commissioner Rees in the act of

Australian exhibition. Perry’s secondary

records show that Perry opened a Gau

fighting with each other, and a police

lecturing the Cadets. These are some

concern while in London was to canvass

m o n t a c co u n t in 1 9 0 4 , p urch asin g

man, in an awful scene, at the same

o f the finest films ever taken. The

British film and equipment suppliers for

en orm ou s quantities of film from it

time being ludicrous.31

whole of the lecture-room is produced

the latest cinematic innovations.

Salvation Army International Congress Review at the

by means of a sliding, arrangement [a

Crystal Palace, London, 5 July 1904. Sketch of either

panning shot?] [...]

Perry or Howse shooting the Salvation Army film of the event, parts of which survive in the 1955 documentary,

God's Soldier. The sphinxes stood either side of the steps to the Crystal Palace. From the London War Cry, 16 July 1904, p. 4. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne. General William Booth reviewing his international Salvation Army forces at the Crystal Palace, London, 5 July 1904. Films of this were shot by Perry and his

afterwards. For example, on 16 Decem ber 1 904, there was a purchase of more

British Gear for Australian Cinema

than £ 2 0 0 of film from G au m on t

The last scenes are located in the

The first visit to London since the advent

another purchase of £8 1 on 9 February

Abney Park Cemetry [sic], in London.

of cinema by Perry, chief of the Limelight

1905 , and yet another for £ 1 5 2 on 12

The [A ustralasian] C om m ission er

D epartm ent in Australia, was sure to

April 1 9 0 5 .42 W ith film selling at about

[McKie] visited Mrs. General Booth’s

introduce improvements to the technol

sixpence a foot43, this indicates an aggre

grave, and the graves of Commissioner

ogy

and

gate of ab ou t 1 7 ,0 0 0 feet o f film ,

Dowdle and Colonel Barker [an Aus

exhibition. With permission from Com

running roughly five hours. The aver

tralian Salvation Army pioneer]. He

missioner M cK ie, Perry toured the

age film ran about five minutes, so that

[McKie] is seen in a moving picture

commercial “lantern and kinematograph”

some sixty titles must have been bought

placing flowers on these graves. On

from Gaumont’s catalogue!

of our film production

of the London Salvation Army, and by the Charles Urban

the latter he leaves a small emblem

dealers’ offices.34 Several important pur chases were made.

Trading Company. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation

in the name of and for the people of

A new triple “Docwra” slide projec

product may have induced Perry to scale

Army Archives, Melbourne.

Australia.32

tor was purchased, permitting elaborate

down his Australian production efforts in 1 905.

Australian camera crew. It was also covered by Howse

transitional and mechanical effects hith

The range and sophistication of this

erto unseen in Australasia. However, the most important purchases were of film

Filming the Congress

projectors and film.35 Most of this came

W hen the Salvation A rm y’s In tern a

from the G aum ont Com pany, whose

tion al C ongress op en ed on 2 4 Ju n e

British branch at Cecil Court had been

1 9 0 4 , Perry was not the only film pro

headed by C olonel A. C. B rom head since 1 8 9 8 .36

ducer on hand with a movie cam era. Adjutant Henry Howse of London had

A new and superb G aum ont p ro

been using a Lumière Cinématographe

jector, the “Professional Chrono”, had

in an unofficial way to raise funds for

recently been introduced. Solidly built

the Army since M arch 1 8 9 7 .44 H ow

of the most durable materials, it had a

ev er, its use in E ngland had been

maltese-cross intermittent permanently

hampered by a conservatism typified by

immersed in an oil bath.37 It easily out

this com m ent in the Salvation Army’s

performed the Limelight Department’s

British staff magazine, The Officer.

W arw ick B ioscop es. T h ese earlier

In Australia they [the phonograph and

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

cinematograph] have been very suc cessful auxiliaries to our work [...] Like everything fresh, these departures have their dangers, and Field Officers [min isters] should exercise their most vigilant care in making them, like the lantern, a means to an end. We use a train, not to behold the ever-varying scenes over which we travel, but to get to a certain destination. The destina tion, or end of every meeting is to get at people’s consciences, and anything which fails to impress or help in this direction frustrates the business of a Field Officer, no matter how big the crowd he attracts, how substantial the offering, or how pleased the people may be.45 As a result, the use of film by the Salva tion Army in Britain never approached the scale of its usage by the organization in Australia. N evertheless, Howse acquired film production facilities by 1903, and began a small-scale “cine matograph campaign” around London in that year.46 By January 1904, a further two projectors were acquired and issued to Brigadier Noyce of Ireland and Major Cox in the Midlands.47 Howse produced simple films of Salvation Army meetings and activities, showing these with other religious films and commercial films of the Salvation Army. For instance, in 1903, he exhibited General Booth’s Tour through America , Scenes at the Land Colony, Hadleigh, Our Slummers at Work and Play49, and Funeral of Consul Emma Booth-Tucker.49 W ith such parallel interests to the Australian Limelight Department, it was natural that Howse and Perry should “team up” on the filming of the Inter national Congress. The London War Cry reported: M ajor Perry, the Australian cin e matographic expert, has taken several unique Congress scenes for reproduc tion as living pictures on the ‘other side’ [of the world]. Adjutant Howse, from In tern ation al H eadquarters [London], also had his machine busy on Wednesday [29 June 1904], so in the days to come we may have the opportunity of living these happy times over again.50 The coverage of the International Con gress was later review ed in the Australian War Cry after the film’s first

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

showing at the Melbourne Town Hall: The return of the Canadians to the Clapton Congress Hall from the Sun day afternoon bombardment is a very fine film. Commissioner Eva Booth leads the way, followed by the Staff Band, the Alaskan Indians, and the Bermudan children [...] The General [William Booth] enter ing the Strand Hall is fascinating in its realism. He is seen alighting from the cab; walking down the steps he stops to talk to an officious old lady who must shake hands with him, he resumes his walk towards the audi ence, until his face and form fill the screen, when he vanishes out of sight The climactic Review of International Salvation Army Forces by General W illiam B ooth was shot on 5 Ju ly 1904.52 Held on the Lower Terrace of the Crystal Palace, contem porary drawings show the cinem atograph set up on the pediment of an ornate sphinx nearby. The coverage occupied almost 2 ,0 0 0 feet (30 mins) of film, one-fifth of the entire presentation.53 The content of this sec- ____ ^ tion was reviewed by the Australian War Cry: p54

Australasian contingent sent to the 1904

H i n l i h / ì l L îI Ü d A K I M OM D A Y , Se n t 24th, 8 p.m . F and ^

JOth Sept.

International Salvation Army Congress, London. Those mentioned in the text are (1) LieutenantColonel Kyle; (2) Australasian Commissioner Thomas McKie; (3) Lieutenant-Colonel Gilmour; (4) Major Joseph Perry, chief cameraman; (5) Staff-Captain James Dutton, camera assistant. From Melbourne's War Cry, 27 August 1904, p. 8. Courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne.

The above Company will Render a Most Up-to-date Programme,

Movmg ßjorama Pictures B IO G R A P H

S U B JE C T S -

tolkoi i TtrySnart Basii«. Thi PirSm Slur/ Life sf ïapatem.

Winter Ssreaften j-

Sm U m ’in i

c__ _ ' .

t a (Past Prm a arai Patere). Mj p3|Cariy. W as. (he c f ? Eeiljf Did. Warned, a Dog. Thai Leg oi Xaatt. The Birihdaî ________________ Bffibreiia. Se. iis .

Biorama Pictures WiD ce P ro jected

an ÏIp-to-Baîe and Powerfe]' Plant

Grand New Programmes of Moving Pictures.

. SUBJECTS TO SUIT ALL TASTES. ANumber of Beautifully Hfu$tráled English am) American Songs rendered by our Selected Vocalist* EachEvening. AflyifefcgiBgfofflifaabiyRriiiiadtyiieMechajiigadlfflpreyedItehiw

From Melbourne's War Cry, 30 April 1904. Cover illustration courtesy of George Ellis, Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne. Poster for Hobart screening by the Salvation Army "Chrono Blorama Company", September 1906. Taking its name from the Gaumont "Chrono" projectors then used, by 1906 the Salvation Army's programmes contained few Australian films. Most of the items mentioned on this poster are derived from British Gaumont. Poster from J. W. B. Murphy Theatre Collection, State Library of Tasmania, courtesy of Tony Marshall.

A Complete- Change ol Programme Assured fad ftTntog. P o p u la r P ric e s, 2 s., Is.

vices. Where this Company visite a town for Sunday, a beau!

SACRED PROGRAMME

Scriptural arri T e n tra n c e Picture? and illustrated Hymn? ar)d Soogs win be giver).

y!l*n*SCleC'“”' rj>0iii *n<l

Hymnswillbeused.

Sunday, 7.30 pm. Silver Coiiection at the Doors. ,

Level 10, 1 Elizabeth P laza, North Syd n ey 2060 (off Mount Street) • PO Box 1155 North Syd n ey 2059 Telephone (02) 9954 1477 Facsim ile (02) 9954 1585

u s t r a l i a ’s

I n s u r a n c e

l e a d i n g U

n d e r w

F i lm r i t i n g

a n d A

T V

g e n c y

We S p ecialise in Insurance for: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Film P roducers Indem nity (Cast) N egatives and V ideotapes Errors and O m issions A dditional E xpenses Props, C am eras, Lighting, Sound E quipm ent Public Liability M oney o u r

TEA M J o h n

e n n in g s

r a h a m

B u t t

e g a n

O ’R i l e y

ACN: 007 698 062

SHORT TERM H IRE (GREAT DEALS LONG TERM !) Lightw orks n on -lin ear random access editing system available fo r sh o rt o r long term h ire. M ain crate an d tw o tow ers giving a m axim um of 3 0 hours of m aterial storage. In road cases ready fo r im m ediate delivery. C all to r m ore in rorm atiou. (0 3 )

9699

9722

l f o n s

io r in d o

;

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

Barry So n n e n feld 's G e t S h o rty Pulp Fiction w as so popular a sequel looks likely. Several o f the producing team have com e with their ow n take, but E mma C o ller ...

isn’t convinced

To W ong Foo, T h a n k s for Everything! Ju lie N ew m ar D ennis A ltman visits an American attem pt at a Priscilla. Queen of the Desert but finds fem inism and heterosexism at w ork

Pat Lovell's N o P icn ic: A n A u to b io g ra p h y Ken Berryman finds in Pat L o v ell’s probing behind the highs and lows o f her career a highly-informative analysis Australian film production

P rim itive P a ssio n s: Visuality, Sexu a lity, Eth no g ra ph y, a n d C o n te m p o ra ry C h in e se Cin em a Chris Berry delights in this first book-length study o f the post-M ao Chinese cinem a

UNE FEMME FRANÇAISE Directed by Régis Wargnier. Producer: Yves Marmion. Executive producers: Ingrid Windisch, Gérard Crosnier. Writers: Régis Wargnier, Alain Le Henry. Director of photography: François Catonné. Sound: Guillaume Sciama, Olivier Burgaud. Composer: Patrick Doyle. Cast Emmanuelle Béart (Jeanne), Daniel Auteuil (Louis), Daniel Barylli (Mathias), Jean-Claude Brialy (Arnoult), Geneviève Casile (Solange), Michel Etcheverry (Charles). Australian distributor: Palace. A Franco-German co-production. UGC lmages-TF1 Films Production-D.A. Films-Recorded Pictures Company-Studio Babelsberg. France. 1995.35mm. 100 mins.

n e F e m m e F rançaise is a

strange title for this bio-pic offering from French melodrama director Régis Wargnier. The film is dedicated to, and is based on the life of, the director’s mother, Jeanne. The title is strange because it implies that a certain degree of universality

I Louis (Darnel ! Auteuil) and Jeanbe I [(Emmanuelle B é a «

li E l

Une Femnnei Françaises

and rather subversive nature of Jeanne in the film - unless, of course, by the use of this title, Wargnier is implying that his moth er’s character and actions are comprehensible and explicable, because it could have happened to any French woman under the cir cumstances. Except that it didn’t; the story is Jeanne’s alone. The film begins in the late

may be attributed to Jeanne (osten

1930s. Jeanne (Emmanuelle Beart)

sibly the woman of the title), that

marries Louis (Daniel Auteuil) on

she could be any French woman and

the same day as her sister marries

that there is something typical about

Louis’ brother. Soon after, Louis is

her. This contradicts the complex

taken prisoner-of-war and, while he is away, young Jeanne has affaires -

Nicole Kidman wants to be on television. To Die For is one o f a number of recent Am erican film s satirizing the decomposition of social mores. The full-blow n physicality o f Tarantino's movies, the mannerisms o f the Coen brothers' movies and the satirical abstractions o f M ichael Tolkin's film s are strikingly different reflections of these concerns. p4 0

Suzann&ü ÇyÆmï:.--. /, Æ sêm

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

many affaires, the film implies. “There were days I thought you’d never come back. And on those days I knew men were looking at me, thinking I was pretty, desiring me. It gave me strength to carry on”, Jeanne tells Louis when he comes back from the war, and, though her own family by now condemns her behaviour and have rejected her, Louis forgives her and their marriage continues. Jeanne’s justifi cations for her first lot of infidelities apparently set up the motivations for her actions for the rest of her life, and thus the rest of the film.

in review Films

extraordinarily sympathetic. And no amount of speeches in the film about men going off to make war, while expecting women to sit

more depth and spend more screen

around back home and not go mad,

time demystifying her motivations.

can make him less likeable.

We see her fall in love with, seem

continued

forgiving and gentle husband, is

Daniel Auteuil is yet again effort

ingly, anyone who gives her a

lessly spot on, his craft making a

suggestive look, touches her thigh

perfect match to that of Béart, who

Jeanne and Louis move to the occu

or writes her a love letter. She is

looks particularly beautiful in this

pied, war-torn Germany, have

neglectful of her children, in one

film. The rest of the cast does noth

another child, and, when the war in

particularly-disturbing scene locking

ing remarkable. Patrick Doyle’s score

Indochina takes Louis away again,

up her small son in one room while

is yet again rich and luscious, as is all

Jeanne falls in love with a German

she has a noisy “quickie” in another.

the period design and costuming,

and has another affaire. This one is

She makes endless promises to her

though the cinematography could

serious and long-lasting, resulting in

long-suffering husband, affects his

have been more interesting. Over all,

violence and a great amount of

career choices and, in the end,

one feels that with Une F em m e

despair and suffering for all con

always betrays him, one time almost

Française Régis Wargnier is not up

cerned. But Louis will never let

killing him in defence of her lover.

Jeanne go, and Jeanne will never be

Yes, she is a passionate woman living

able to tear herself away, no matter

in a suffocating social climate and

how hard she tries and with how

unstable and difficult times. But she

many other men. Passion, love, lust,

can also be seen as a well-to-do,

mma

YV rind evening is night I hurry to m y blue heaven . . . ”

o ller

Allegonde (Dora van der Groen),

betrayal and the conservative bour

bored, lazy and spoilt housewife,

geois morality foreground the

who’d rather get drunk and argue

tumultuous history of France during

with her lover than bath her child.

To D ie F o r

1930s-\5Os period.

Wargnier sets up this complex char

Directed by Gus Van Sant. Producer: Laura Ziskin. Co-producers: Leslie Morgan,

acter and then leaves her there as an

Sandy Isaac. Executive producers: Jonathan Taplin, Joseph M. Caracciolo.

if Wargnier’s fans expect this to be

enigma, perhaps because that is what

Writer: Buck Henry. EditopCurtiss Clayton. Director of photography: Eric Edwards.

as gorgeous as his Indochine (1992)

she ultimately was to her son.

Composer: Danny Elfman. Production designer Missy Stewart Costume designer:

The film is pretty to look at, but

they will be disappointed. This is a

Wargnier’s penchant for beauti

smaller, more-contained film, which

ful, passionate, strong women

seems unable to decide whether it

characters is admirable. He tries to

wishes to be an intimate and serious

know them, he wants to explore

drama, a histrionic melodrama or a

and understand, but he remains

historical epic. The genres are inter

attached to surface facts, though

changeably and constantly sacrificed

perhaps where one finds gaps and

for each other, resulting in a patchy,

deficiencies others find subtlety.

uneven narrative, poorly-developed

Perhaps Jeanne’s character is

characters and motivations, and a

granted some privacy, and audi

vaguely-implied sense of history -

ences are left some room to use

this last one perhaps being clearer

their own imaginations. On the

to the French audiences and those

other hand, the lack of explanations

expert in 20th-Century French

also leaves room for judgement,

history.

and therefore resentment, of the

One would have liked Wargnier to give Jeanne’s character much

protagonist, particularly because the character of Louis, as the adoring,

Beatrix Pasztor. Cast: Nicole Kidman (Suzanne), Matt Dillon (Larry), Joaquin Phoenix (Jimmy), Alison Folland (Lydia), Casey Affleck (Russell), llleana Douglas (Janice), Dan Hedaya (Joe Maretto). Australian distributor: Fox Columbia Tristar Films. ;

sit in an upright position in the open coffin whilst, true to the words of the song, “a turn to the right” and Jesus cranes his neck to look down at Allegonde, the coffin, the congrega tion and Danielle (Els Dottermans). Both the lively corpse and the song she sings, and the quizzical look of an inquisitive Jesus, are at the time seen and heard only by Danielle, Antonia’s daughter. Fifty years later, Danielle’s granddaughter, Sarah, “revisits” this animated funeral (and everyone) taking place in the village over the 50 years which span from the day Antonia (Willeke Van Ammelrooy) returned, at the close of World War II. A ntonia’s Line is a glorious film

Ryssell (Casey Affleck) are textbook cases; of dissociation: indifferent-to moral consequences, lost in sexual fantasy, inarticulate. They're supposed

1o be young people enamoured of tele- ' -j vision and yet the film doesn't credit them with standard television literacy, Jimmy proclaiming, "I can't follow what Donahue's saying." There's an . element of moral alarmism in the way Jimmy is construed as gullible, or sus ceptible, to the dangers of projecting his fantasy world into life. He'S named

U.S. 1995.35mm. 117 mins.

after James Dean, likes to think he

■

o Die For is a film about

was really named after Jim Morrison

variously menacing, endearing,

contemporary diseases:

devoted to women who think they

and is even glimpsed at one point

.celebrity, vyarped aspirations,

want something, not someone, else (A

watching James Stewart in Vertigo

Kiss Before Dying , M r Wonderful ).

(Alfred Hitchcock, 1952). Van Sant has

ambition and the moral

indifference of television.

Italian restaurateurs with mafiosi con

a fondness for suggestive doubles: the

nections, Larry's family seem to belong

stolid, sweaty beauty of Lydia recalls

to be on television, Suzanne Stone

to another story: the actors (Dan?

Bonanza Jellbean (Rain Phoenix) in

(Nicole Kidman) films a sullen trio of

Hedaya and Maria Tucci as the par|jp|

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1994).

teenagers and orchestrates a tabloid

ents, llleanna Douglas as Janice, the

Like a narcissistic inversion of Sissy

drama in which she is the star. There's

sister) display a soul-beauty reminis

(Uma Thurman) in Cowgirls, Kidman's;p|

a twist on this plot, but you can guess

cent of Gus Van Sant’s earliest films.

stringy Suzanne too seems painted for

it if you've watched television or read

There's à hint of the Tonya Harding

fantasy, an icon to flatness.

a newspaper in the past decade.

story in the relationship between Lar

Convinced she was put on earth

The film is hampered by a disin-

On one level, Suzanne's story is a

■

ry's sister and Suzanne. Janice breaks

question of "How far can she go?" The

into television early on, but Suzanne's

aspiring television news announcer

story takes centre stage and she

relates to the media like a hostess to :

cable television station run by men

comes into her own in a dénouement

old-fashioned society: she inculcates

who've walked out of a 1950s provin

which features David Cronenberg as a

manners in her husband, grooming and 3

cial newsroom. Smalltown life is

hitman. Gus Van Sant's direction and

weight control in her female peers. -3

3 genuous media critique and a chalky /sociology of Americana. There's a

c represented by Suzanne's poker-faced

white parents and her husband's fam' ily. Larry, the husband, is played by Matt Dillon, who seems to be finding a second career playing a husband,

casting plays on this uncanny circling

She doesn't want babies, has no time •

of real people, movies and shadows of

for her husband, and only cares for

other possible stories.

things (the dog and the condo) and

The teenagers, Lydia (Alison Folland), Jimmy (Joaquin Phoenix) and

On one level, Suzanne s story is a question of “How far can she go?” The aspiring television news announcer relates to the media like a hostess to old-fashioned society. 40

Antonia’s mother, jauntily sings this song at her own funeral. She rises to

Directed by Marleen Gorris. Producer: Hans de Weers. Co-producers: Antonino Lombardo, Judy Counihan. Writer: Marleen Gorris. Director of photography: Willy Stassen. Art director: Harry Ammerlaan. Costume designer: Jany Temime. Music: Ilona Sekasz. Editors: Michiel Reichwein, Wim Louwrier. Cast Willeke Van Ammelrooy (Antonia), Els Dottermans (Daniëlle), Jan Decleir (Bas), Marina de Graaf (Deedee), Mil Seghers (Crooked Finger), Veerle van Overloop (Thérèse), Elsie de Brauw (Lara), Dora van der Groen (Allegonde). Australian distributor: Newvision. Belgium-The Netherlands-UK. 1994. 35mm. 93 mins. d W r j h e n whippoorwills call,

to his Oscar-winning standard. © E

ANTONIA S LINE

success at any cost. This portrait Of <31 the plastic woman of commercial tele-

vision doesn't show us anything about 3 ... well, plastic,The public talkfestof American television has already, by itsW f very existence, thrown the culture of celebrity into ironic relief. So, although Suzanne's story is odd enough, the film seems to lack perversity. Van Sant knows and believes in the m argin alia ¡zed characters of his earlier films, but me doesn't believe in and doesn't want . :

us to believe in the ambitions of more

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

asks for her hand. “My sons need a

muster, a curse that goes on

leaves the church, for he cannot

and on.

reconcile his love of life with the

mother”, he says. “I don’t need your

charms of Letta: “He knocked her

sons”, she replies. Then, as time

Mad Madonna howls at the

up, and they had a child every

goes on, their bond of friendship

moon. Below, in his apart

year.” “Fuck it!”, she cries when,

strengthens until one day Antonia

ment, the Protestant bangs

many years later at the birth of the

says, “You can’t have my hand, but

with the handle of his broom

thirteenth child, she succumbs to

you can have the rest.” Yet there are

on the ceiling. Will she never

death in childbirth. “I did so want

conditions! “Not in my house or

stop ? Yet when she does, her

to continue.” With his “twelve disci

yours. That would be too hectic for

baying silenced in the long

ples” alongside, the curate departs

people of our age.” The summer

nights of the full moon, the

the village to become a social

house rocks and chimes with the

Protestant is devastated. Days

worker. (The eldest child, Simon, in

energy and laughter of their love-

love with Thérèse, remains behind.)

making. And much love-making

Elsewhere in the village,

- quirky, loving, humorous. The

home with Antonia’s family. Years

later, he too lies down to die. In the

dark underside of village life is

later, Pitte returns to inflict the self

strictly Catholic village, their mar

there, too. Pitte, the grimly parsimo

same crime upon Thérèse (Veerle

riage would be “made in hell”. In

“I fear I have to tell you that your

Danielle and Lara, Deedee and

nious farmer’s son, rapes his sister,

van Overloop), Daniëlle’s daughter.

death, he will be united in heaven

daughter isn’t normal”, says the doc

Loony Lips (Lippen Willem), the

Deedee (Marina de Graaf), in the

Antonia marches into the pub and

with his Mad Madonna.

tor, when the girl is three or four.

Curate and Letta ... “I can’t sleep!”

barn. Danielle discovers him in the

removes Pitte at gunpoint. Standing

“I am a child prodigy”, says Thérèse.

roars Thérèse.

And so there are births and

Thérèse has talents all her own.

there is - Farmer Bas and Antonia,

midst of the attack, pins his hands

in the middle of the town square,

deaths, love and hate, couplings and

Antonia has her lover, too. In

And alongside all the love and

to his bare knees with a pitchfork,

gun at the ready, she inflicts the

partings. The numbers at Antonia’s

the early days of her return to the

manual work in the outdoors runs

and takes Deedee away, to make her

greatest curse upon him she can

table grow and grow. The Curate

village, Farmer Bas (Jan Decleir)

the constant love of Antonia and her

provincial types. Consequently, the

22) wrote the leaky script. Gus Van

candid shots of people, using set-

character of Suzanne Stone remains

Sant turns the plot on its head, chop

piéces as a shorthand for character.

lacklustre. There's a pallid echo of

ping back and forth in time, showing us

The characters alternate between ungainly silence and chattering clichés.

Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1954)

how people live their lives scripted by

when she walks towards the photogra

television. The problem is the direc

To Die For is one of a number of

phers' flashbulbs on the night of her

tor' s style seems here lackadaisical,

recent American films satirizing the

husband's murder. 1couldn't help but

even unconvincing. The conceit of tak

decomposition of social mores. The

long for the lurid uncertainties of

ing television form as the expression of

full-blown physicality of Tarantino's

Almodovar's world where kitsch dis

a fragmented hyperreality is a well-

movies, the mannerisms of the Coen

plays a gorgeous and troubling appeal.

rehearsed one. The time warp evident

brothers' movies and the satirical

Suzanne could have been a Madame

in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is still

abstractions of Michael Tolkin's films3

Bovary of television or a Mommie

present here, in stale lines such as,

are strikingly different reflections of

Dearest, a parallel which would lead to

"You can't be anyone in America with

these concerns. There are cases of

a harsher parody of celebrity culture

out being on television" and

satirical mimicry - Robert Altman's

than Wilder's elegiac black comedy or

"Everybody wants to be on television

films, for example - which have moved

7b Die For.

but someone's got to watch." The

beyond irony to genuine observation

director ploughs through pastel-

and successfully shifted ground to

Buck Henry (The Graduate, Catch-

coloured episodes, flashing forward to

entertain the problem as one of spiri

When the director reverts from

tual emptiness. There are satires on

satire to lyricism. To Die For has strik

making it (The Hudsucker Proxy, The

ing moments: Lydia and Suzanne

Player, Reservoir Dogs?), on the dimin

arguing in the shopping mall, Russell

ished moral sense [Shortcuts, Pulp

and his father fishing for clams, and

Fictioif), on aspiration and disappoint

Suzanne posing on a chair in the dark

ment (anything by Hal Hartley, Naked

of a television studio on the night of

in New York, Sleep with Me, Bodies,

her husband's murder. Like Even

Rest& Motioif).

In Van Sant's earlier films, such

Cowgirls Get the Blues, To Die For

is another whimsical puzzle from a

themes were the pretext for an elegy

filmmaker with a flair for creating a

to failure, a kind of poetry of disen

porous structure, for colour, for the

gaged dreamers. A drug gang, a

odd portrait shot ® GabriellE Finnane

narcoleptic street boy, a fey hitchhiker, rebel cowgirls: these disenfranchized people live asthe somewhat vacant, vaguely-defined centre of a maelstrom of remote forces. The incongruities of their behaviour, normally a subject for burlesque, result in a poignant impressionism, glimpses of a lack of fit between solitary interior fantasy and the half-light of an unsatisfactory

1 A Kiss Before Dying (James Dearden, 1991), M r Wonderful (Anthony Minghella, 1993).

2 The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967), Catch-22 (Mike Nichols, 1970).

3 The Rapture (1992), The New Age (1994).

4 The Hudsucker Proxy (Joel Coen, 1994), The Player) Robert Altman,

public world. These marginal,

1992), Reservoir Dogs (Quentin

charmed characters don't live in full

Tarantino, 1992).

conscious awareness, scarcely com prehending their own actions. In all his films, even this latest, Van Sant dwells on tfie various ways this solipsism impinges on expe rience and on interpersonal relations,

5 Short Cuts (Robert Altman, 1993), Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino,

1994).

6 Naked in New York (Dan Algrant, 1994), Sleep with Me (Rory Kelly, 1994), Bodies, Rest & Motion (Michael Steinberg, 1994).

in review Films

tific, will lovingly determine what

was the volume of Antonia’s last breath! Sarah sees the smile on her

continued family for Crooked Finger (Mil Seghers), the reclusive philosopher who encourages Thérèse in her tal

great-grandmother’s lips, and knows it is a smile that says “nothing has come to an end”. Antonia’s Line deftly combines earth with sky, light with love,

ented creativity: mathematics, music

and death with pain and joy. The

and learning. But Crooked Finger’s

dialogue is filled with the wit of

ability to quote this philosopher or

phrases having a resonance that

that is not always revered. "This is

lives long after the final credits have

no time for Schopenhauer. This is

rolled. The Belgian countryside is

important”, says Antonia, when the

photographed crisply green, the rus

great question of whether Thérèse

set-brown and verdant hills rolling

will bear a child or not is raised.

on and on under clear blue skies.

“Have it!" “No, don’t have it.”

Reds and pinks, the colours of life,

“You shall.” “You won’t.” “You

are dotted here and there - a dress,

must!” “You mustn’t.” ‘Tou will.”

a skirt, the walls of the farmhouse,

“You won’t.” The entire family,

a picture over the mantel.

from the very youngest to the most

Marleen Gorris has made a film

elderly, joins the debate - but it is

that will live in the souls of all who

up to Thérèse to decide. She does,

see it.

©JOCELYNNE SCUTT

and Sarah is born. Antonia’s Line begins on the last day of Antonia’s life. She has told

GET SHORTY

Sarah she will let her know before

Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld.

she dies, so that Sarah will not be

Producers: D anny DeVito, M ichael

taken by surprise. On this, the last

Sham berg, S ta c e y Sher. Co-producer:

ometime ago, Hollywood stum

idea sometime, particularly if the

bled upon a very simple but very

arthouse film in question had a

old-time enemy, Ray “Bones” Bar

profitable idea: if it works once it

crossover appeal to both arthouse

boni (Dennis Farina), to collect

will work again. Since then, popular

and action-adventure audiences, a

from an apparently-“deceased”

culture has been inundated with

film like Pulp Fiction (Quentin

drvcleaner, Leo Devoe (David

Tarantino, 1994). For Jersey Films,

Paymer). Chili’s search for Leo leads

day, Antonia rises from her bed,

Graham Place. Executive producer:

and opens the shutters. She calls

Barry Sonnenfeld. W riter: Scott Frank.

Terminators, Lethal Weapons and

Sarah in to give her the news. Then,

Based on the novel by Elmore Leonard.

Nightmare on Elm Streets and many

the producers of Pulp Fiction, it

Director of photography: Don Peterman.

him to Las Vegas, where he picks up

surrounded by her family - her

other junkier “numbered” pics.

would have only made good busi

another job: that of collecting money from a gambling schlock-

daughter, her granddaughter and great-granddaughter, Farmer Bas, Deedee, the lovers and children, and the memories of those who are gone - she dies. And in death she knows

Editor: Jim Miller. Com poser: Jo h n

Digits following titles denote their

ness-sense to rework, and therefore

genre; the films can only be action-

capitalize on, such successful ele

film producer, Harry Zimm (Gene

adventure, horror or spoof comedy -

ments as the cool John Travolta

Hackman), in Los Angeles. While

Palm er), Gene Elackm an (Harry Zimm),

such as the Police Academy films -

character, quirky turns of events in

trying to collect from Zimm, Chili

Rene Russo (Karen Flores), Danny

but never “arthouse” cinema. After

an amusingly bizarre low-life milieu,

meets and falls in love with Zimrn’s

Lurie. Production designer: Peter Larkin. Costum e designer: Betsy Heimann. Cast: Jo h n Travolta (Chili

that each of those whom she loved

DeVito (Martin W eir), Dennis Farina

all, just try to imagine The Piano,

smart and punchy dialogue, and an

old-time girlfriend and the scream-

will bear her death in whatever idio

(Ray "B o nes" Barboni), Delroy Undo

The Piano 2 and The Piano 3: The

intricate post-postmodern narrative

queen star of Zimm’s Z-grade

syncratic way she wants. Thérèse,

(Bo Catlett). Australian distributor: UIP.

true to her study of matters scien

U.S. 1995. 35mm. 105 mins.

Key Strikes Again!. But, it might not be such a bad

structure. But to make Pulp Fiction

movies, Karen Flores (Rene Russo).

2 would have been a tad uncool, so

Being a great film-buff himself,

they made Get Shorty

Chili decides on a career change.

instead. However, “num

He proceeds with his previous jobs,

bered” follow-ups, even if

but also tries to sell an idea for his

disguised, are rarely as

own film (the story of which is the

good as the original prod

one we are watching; therefore,

uct, because some of the

some of the plot is told and/or

key successful elements

shown during Chili’s “pitches”).

are usually missing and

He attempts to help Zimm raise

Get Shorty is no excep

money for Zimm’s new project, sign

tion as it was made

up the big star of the moment and

without the participation

Karen’s ex-husband, Martin Weir

of either Quentin Taran

(Danny DeVito), for either his own

tino or Roger Avary.

or Zimm’s film, free Zimm from his

Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the

obligations to the drug dealer Bo Catlett (Delroy Lindo) and his mob,

same title, Get Shorty is a

and make sure that anyone who is

film of a film being made

vaguely a “nice guy” remains alive

about trying to make

and well, at least until the end of the

films, or at least it allows

movie (either the one you are

for such a reading, being

watching or the one being made or

fairly complex and con

any of the above, take your pick).

voluted. Chili Palmer

sent by his mob-superior and an

The complicated narrative is a

(John Travolta) is a

pleasure to mull over and untangle as

Miami loan-shark, who is

you watch, and for some time after-

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1 996

wards. There are some terrific scenes

i would have done with the part,

travelling across the country,

glamorous “career women”,

ideology, however, serves to totally

of funny, intelligent, perceptive writ

i The twists and turns of dialogue are

showing the contrast between the

although towards the end Carol

desexualize and trivialize the three

ing and brilliant acting. The running

j witty and surprising, but not quirky

glittery world of make-believe and

Ann (Stockard Channing), in whose

central characters. The notes to the

gags are fun and clever. The film is

j enough. The locations and set

the prejudices - but ultimately good

house they’re billeted, admits she

film identify Vida, Noxeema and

stylishly designed and shot, and the

i design are perfect for the story, but

hearts - of smalltown/outback

noticed their Adam’s apples on the

Chi Chi as “gay men who choose

score is aptly “groovy”. However,

i not really hip, which cannot, inci-

America/Australia?

first night. But then the inhabitants

to live their lives unabashedly and

Get Shorty adds up to something less

1 dentally, be said of the costumes -

Whether or not it was influenced

of Snydersville are painted as hicks

unapologetically in drag”. But the

than the sum of its parts.

j costume designer Betsy Heimann

by Priscilla, To Wong Foo is very dif

derived from a mixture of Depres

film never suggests that these “gay

Big problem, number one, is that

j having also done Pulp Fiction.

ferent. Both films have in common

sion photographs and L’il Abner,

men” might have sexual and emo

it lacks narrative drive. There are just

i The “bad guys” are a bit too tame,

the triumphant display of straight

not one of whom had presumably

tional relationships of their own;

too many different sets of characters

i world-weary and sensible, and the

actors showing that they, too, can

ever seen a drag queen on the

when Chi Chi is courted by one of

involved in different plots moving in

| whole film is a bit too grown-up,

camp it up (though Priscilla’s actors

Oprah Winfrey Show.

different directions. Never mind that

\ even middle-aged. And though

do it better). But whereas Priscilla

Moreover, the town seems

Snyderville’s dumber young men, Bobby Ray (Jason London), she is

they are all ultimately connected á la

i there is nothing wrong with “mid-

succeeded because we were able to

composed largely of tough young

warned off by the others. Ironi

Pulp Fiction, because, unlike Taran

! dle-aged”, it’s not exactly “cool” -

suspend belief while actually caring

hooligans, whom the three tame,

cally, the most positive note about

tino and Avary, scriptwriter Scott

j middle-aged being presently synony-

what happened to the characters, To

and oppressed women, whom the

homosexuality comes from the rav

Frank and director Barry Sonnenfeld

\ mous with baby-boomers, and they

Wong Foo becomes a sentimental,

three dress. Carol Ann’s husband

ings of the offended police

have not achieved the appropriate

i were “cool” back in the 1970s.

unconvincing and ultimately

(Arliss Howard) beats her, until

officer, who (surprise, surprise)

tension and timing between the sepa

homophobic film which

Vida, always ready with a lethal

might well be a deeply-repressed

rate elements of the story.

! unfair and futile exercise to com-

punch, kicks him out of the house.

closet case.

But perhaps it is ultimately an

leaves one slightly

Establishing a narrative drive also

j pare Get Shorty to Pulp Fiction,

requires an audience’s involvement

\ even if its makers did leave the film

a dance/fair in the town square to

with the characters. If the characters

i and themselves wide open for such

celebrate Strawberry Pie day, at

are mainly unsympathetic, or monot

i an analysis. If Pulp Fiction didn’t

bored. And, as

At the end of the weekend, there is

Drag is about performance, but performance which is always aware of itself. Because we only see the three dressed and performing as

one, or simply fail to make the

women, the ironies of drag are com

audience care, then the audience will

pletely overlooked, and the film

not care about their fates. Though

reinforces the idea that homosexuals

the motley assembly of low-life and

are men who want to be women.

Hollywood big-shots in Get Shorty

Of course they will fail - there will

is amusing and momentarily impres

always be a Carol Ann to spot

sive, individually none has much

that Adam’s apple - but, as

depth or exposition to inspire real

Carol says to Vida at the end

involvement. Ultimately, they are

of the film, “I don’t think of

too caricatured - it’s all surface

you as a man or a woman.

impressions.

I think of you as an angel.”

The other element which so

Angels, of course, are sexless,

distracts one from being carried

and thus Hollywood has succeeded

away by the story is the film’s preoc

in making a film about three gay

cupation with itself: with how it is

men which turns them into non

written, how it is acted, how it is

exist, Get Shorty

designed and shot, and, in a broader

would stand up perfectly

context, with how Hollywood in

well on its own as a not particularly

general functions. It’s all too intra

memorable but decent little film, as

industry, and we’ve already had

a bit of crafty fun, not too deep,

The Player (Robert Altman, 1992),

rather entertaining, a bit violent, a

Mistress (Barry Primus, 1992) and

bit junky ... as a bit of pulp fiction. © E

a host of other lesser-known ones

mm a

that we can love to hate ourselves and you will pay money to see us

TO WONG FOO, THANKS FOR EVERYTHING! JULIE NEWMAR

do it” tends to sour one’s attitude

the heterosexist status quo. The various (heterosexual) couples in Snydersville come together -

any drag

Bobby Ray happily deserts Chi Chi

queen could tell you, bore

for Carol Ann’s daughter - and the

dom is among the greatest of sins. N o x e e m a J a c k s o n (W e s le y S n ip e s ), V ida

three go on to triumph in Holly

Miss America Drag Queen contest,

B o h e m e (P a tr ic k S w a y z e ) an d Ch i Chi

wood without so much as a kiss to

Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze),

R o d rig u e z (J o h n L e g u iz a n o ).

Bound for Hollywood, and the

o ller

(perhaps a new genre is emerging?). Get Shorty's tone of “We’re so good

women, and triumphantly reinforces

To Wong Foo,

muss the make-up. At the end of the

Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes)

Thanks For Everything! Julie Newmar.

film, Julie Newmar, once statuesque

and Chi Chi Rodriguez (John

which the townspeople come

and now ver)' made up, crowns Chi

Leguizamo) drive across the country

together in a scene which will bring

Chi Miss America Drag Queen, and

in a dilapidated Cadillac convert

back memories of the dance

Cvndi Lauper sings “Girls Just Want

towards the whole experience of

G. M ac Brow n. Executive producer:

ible. They carry with them a

sequences in Seven Brides for Seven

To Have Fun”.

this film.

Bruce Cohen. Writer: D ouglas Carter

photograph of leggy actress Julie

Brothers (Stanley Donen, 1954) - a

Newmar inscribed “To Wong Foo,

film, by the way, which starred Miss

film, masquerading as daring, is

Thanks for everything!”, a message

Julie Newmar.

directed by Beeban Kidron, who

Big problem, number two, is

Directed by Beeban Kidron. Producer:

Beane. Director of photography: Steve M ason. Production designer: W ynn

that in comparison to the precursory

Thom as. Editor: And rew M ondshein.

Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino,

M usic: Rachel Portman. Cast: W esley

1994), Get Shorty is just not “cool”

Snipes (N oxeem a), Patrick Sw ayze

enough, and the “cool” factor, though difficult to define, is what

Fruit and Antonia and Jane. Per

Wong F oo is politically correct: not

haps appropriately a film named

three are marooned there for the

only are the three queens white,

after one of Hollywood’s lesser

Danner (Beatrice), A rliss Howard

weekend while a spare part has to

black and Hispanic, but Noxeema is

idols succeeds in taking the sex out

(Virgil), Ja s o n London (Bobby Ray),

be ordered. Their visit brings civil

given to invoking the discrimination

of homosexuality, and making

ity, happiness and technicolor to the

experienced by black movie stars.

three flamboyant drag queens a

inhabitants of the town, who join

There is a feminist text running

modern version of the fairy god

forces to protect them from Sheriff

through the film, with the drag

mother. Better spend your money

charming, but almost too subtle.

Chris Penn (Sheriff Dollard). Australian

Gene Hackman is superb as the

distributor: UIP. 35mm. U.S. 108 mins.

ciently weird a character to inspire

made Oranges Are N ot the Only

wit and unattractive racism, To

small town of Snydersville, and the

(Vida), Jo h n Leguizam o (Chi Chi),

Travolta’s Chili is still laid-back and

ultimately too pathetic and insuffi

The car breaks down outside the

Unlike Priscilla, with its vicious

Sto ckard Channing (Carol Ann), Blythe

ultimately made Pulp Fiction.

desperate has-been producer, but

which is never explained.

Sadly this extremely-reactionary

t is hard not to look for comparisons between this film

j and The Adventures o f Priscilla,

Dollard (Chris Penn), whom Vida

queens representing the force of

on a video of VictorfVictoria (Blake

has clobbered on the way.

sisterhood which will save the

Edwards, 1982) or Som e Like It

too many laughs. Rene Russo doesn’t

j Queen o f the Desert (Stephan

women of Snydersville. They don’t

H ot (Billy Wilder, 1952), which

subtract anything from the film, but

| Elliott, 1994). Is it just coincidence

not to tell these are men from 15

actually sing “I am Woman...”,

make cross-dressing far more

she doesn’t add either; one can only

i that two films were made based on 1 the idea of three drag queens

metres away in the dark, the inhabi

but you get the general idea.

interesting and amusing.

dream of what Uma Thurman

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

No matter that it is impossible

tants of Snydersville see them as

This imposition of a feminist

e n n is

ltm a n

The AUSTRALIAN FILM C O M M ISS IO 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 IPCO M 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 Tooheyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

A u stralian Film C om m ission Sydney Level 4, 150 William Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 Tel: 02 321 6 4 4 4 Toll Free: 1800 22 6 6 1 5 Fax: 0 2 357 3631

M elbourne Level 2, 120 Clarendon Street, Southbank VIC 3 0 0 6 Tel: 0 3 9 6 9 6 1476 Toll Free: 1 80 0 33 8 4 3 0 Fax: 03 9 2 7 9 3 4 0 0

London 2nd Floor; Victory House, 99-101 Regent Street, London W1R 7HB UK Tel: 4 4 171 7 3 4 9 3 8 3 Fax: 4 4 171 4 3 4 0 1 7 0

Innovative Sound and Media Technologies Pty Ltd

The Digital Vision Expo Melbourne November 2, 9:30am - 5:30pm Camberwell Civic Centre 340 Camberwell Road Camberwell Victoria

Sydney November 8, 9:30am - 5:30pm University of New South Wales Terrace Room, Squarehouse G Enter @ gate 14, Barker St Kin

Please call for more information

Brisbane

Tel: (02) 9967-2922 Fax (02) 9967-2761 Tel/Fax (07) 3880-0830

Melbourne Tel (03) 9416-9688

Adelaide

Fax (03) 9480-0352 Tel (08) 397-5466 Fax (08) 397-5331

own autobiography at the time.

joining the workforce, however,

connection provided a diverse range

Park cited the “awful difficulties”

Lovell quickly found her feet.

of experience for Lovell, including a

of the work:

Readers unaware of her background

15-year association with the univer

in radio will find this section of

sally loved Mr Squiggle, in turn

the decisions to include this or date my query, for which 1 was very grateful. Reading her absorbing account

of life in the “shark pool of the Aus tralian film industry" - with a

leave that out, or skate over the

interest, and consistent with other

leading to stints on commercial tele

lot, the fictional skills one must

accounts of local broadcasting

vision, with a string of appearances

use in structure or risk the read

pre-television. In the 1950s, work

in advertisements; in “happy house-

er's becoming bored [...]

opportunities for unskilled trainees

wife’ -type roles in Hunter, Riptide

For the most part, Lovell's work

sizeable slab of it devoted to the car

would seem to have surmounted

riage of Gallipoli from concept to

such difficulties and, as well as

release and beyond - I couldn't help

engaging the reader, may also have

but feel retrospectively guilt}’ for

served a cathartic function for the

making that impromptu call. While

author in her assessment as to

the Gallipoli experience proved to

whether further dives into the

be an especially happy one for the

“shark pool" are warranted in the

author, rhe overwhelming impres

face of continued "despair and

producer Patricia Lovell in her auto

sion her autobiography makes is

frustration”.

biography, No Picnic, “your mind

reflected by the book’s title: that

becomes so centred there is no time

her career in film and, indeed, her

cally, with chapters on her earlv

NO PICNIC AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY Patricia Lovell, M acm illan, Australia, 1995, 321pp., illus., hb, rrp S35.00

£ £ 'i''tr r h e n you’re working on a W

film,” writes Australian

Lovell’s story is told chronologi

for the outside world." The “out

life in general, has been no picnic.

childhood memories and subse

side world", nevertheless, is not

Preparing this book over the past

quent schooling, entry into the

always a great respecter of a film

three years, we are told, was an

workforce, and experience in radio

producer’s needs or wishes.

equally painful process; at one

and television, leading up to her ini

My only personal contact with

point, Lovell was ready to “junk the

tial forays in the film industry in the

Pat Lovell occurred in September

lot". The idea of a book was origi

early 1970s. Separate chapters are

1980 when, with a handful of coins

nally mooted by a Sydney literary

devoted to each of her realized film

and some insensitivity, I rang her

agent, but Lovell took some con

properties (Gallipoli is described

production office from a public

vincing. Autobiographies, she

over three), the machinations sur

phone-box seeking clarification on

believed, were something you

rounding the ultimately abortive

discrepancies in advertised running

undertook when you had quit an

Lovell Gibson production company,

times for Picnic at Hanging Rock

active working life for something

and an overview chapter to con

(Peter Weir, 1975) for a written

more tranquil. And Lovell, as No

clude. If recent years have not been

assignment imposing its own weight

Picnic affirms over and over, is no

overly kind to Pat Lovell, her child

on me at the time. Having just

quitter.

hood was less than idyllic as well,

begun the shoot on Gallipoli (Peter

In an unofficial Foreword to the

including rhe deaths of an older

Weir, 1981), Picnic was about the

book, Lovell includes a letter writ

brother she never knew and a

furthest thing on Pat Lovell's mind,

ten to her in 1992 by friend and

younger brother and sister she

but she did her best to accommo

mentor, Ruth Park. Working on her

knew only too well, a mother who never got over rhe grief, a philan dering father, acrimonious divorce proceedings and several relocations.

N O P IC N IC A M

Lovell recounted in press interviews: The only reason I went into my

and Skippy, ten years as a panelist

years and Lovell, having joined the

on the daytime Beauty and The

ABC as a teenage filing clerk,

Beast programme; and five years as

moved through sound effects,

a presenter on ATN’s Today show.

“Listener Research” and a stint in

This part-time work was coupled

the Education section in Hobart to

with stage management assistance

become a junior broadcaster for the

for the fledgling Marian Street

ABC's Children's Session. Her asso

Theatre, and raising two small

ciation with Ruth Park dates from

children in an increasingly-strained

this period, with a part written for

marriage, culminating in an all-too-

her as the new chum in the radio

public divorce in 1971.

adaptation of the Mitddleheaded

At about that time she happened

Wombat - an auspicious début

upon a copy of Joan Lindsay's

as Mouse’s American cousin!

novel, Picnic at Hanging Rock, and

Involvement with the Metropolitan

the rest, as they say, is Australian

Theatre as stage manager proved

Film History. Without doubt, the

equally liberating.

chapters of N o Picnic devoted to

The stage and radio connection also led to her involvement with

Lovell’s career as a creative pro ducer, through the heady days of

actor Nigel Lovell, whom she

the 1970s, the 10BA era in the ’80s

married - thereby cancelling out

and the new-talent fixations of the

“ambition for a full-time career" to

'90s, provide the most penetrating

devote herself to family needs, as

inside account of recent movie-mak

was customary at the time. But the

ing in this country yet published. It

coming of television, its impact on

is not necessarily a pretty picture.

radio drama programming and

As a career primer for would-be

subsequent financial strain on the

producers, one would have to say

Lovells, by now with a baby daugh

that it should be almost compulsory

ter to support as well, led Pat to

reading. Despite the box-office and

seize an opportunity to try her hand

critical success of her films, industry

at the new medium as part of a reg

awards and personal recognition

ular ABC children's television team,

(an AO, an MBE, 1983 Business

doing one show a week. Live televi

Woman of the Year, etc.), Lovell’s

sion proved enormously stimulating

efforts to produce quality Australian

for the rookie presenters and crews

films over more than 20 years read

as they came to terms with the new

like a series of long and bloody

technology, underwent a huge

battles.

childhood in detail is because I

learning curve, and developed a

Lovell's difficulties can best be

thought it might explain to people

camaraderie quite distinct from

summarized under three headings:

why I'm so nuts now. It was

the cold, distant feeling of a radio

as a woman; as a small independent

exceptionally difficult and painful.

studio. Lovell's high regard for

producer; and as a “tall poppy”. Her time in television left her under

Boarding-school years proved just

Australian technicians, especially

as restrictive, although they did

camera operators, dates from this

no illusions as to how women were

expose Lovell to theatre and cinema,

period.

treated in the industry: how it was

much to the teenager's delight. After

were far greater that in more recent

The ABC children’s television

unwise to “make waves” with so

few on-camera roles for women,

i Picnic was a mere $6,000 and,

valued more today. The industry

other than as “a glorified piece of

i despite the film’s success over the

is so obsessed with finding new

been invited on free tickets, than

i cat burial moves from tragedy to

meat”; the appalling rates of pay

' years, she has little to show for it

talent that it overlooks many of

one would hear from critics in a

| bathos as the headstone “escapes”

and salary differentiation between

j after returns to primary investors.

them. In a healthy industry, the

the sexes; the patronizing treatment

! The difficulties for the small pro-

best producers and directors con-

from management (“It’s not com

i ducer without regular income in

tinue to work up to retirement.

pulsory for television executives on

i maintaining a production office

high salaries to be polite”); and so

| between projects or during script

on. Even her husband was moved to

| development are well documented,

comment on learning of her job

i as any funding goes elsewhere,

offer from the ABC, “What could

i To make anything other than low-

you do in television?” Yet one still

' budget movies in Australia seems

senses an element of surprise as

\ equally onerous without the contin-

Lovell goes on to experience varia

\ ued involvement of large publishers

tions on the “boys’ club” nature of

t or media barons. Lovell’s experi-

i One of the book’s principal

mieres where the audience have

! notized chook; the tale of the family

year. For some reason, getting

\ and proceeds to demolish a fibro

tarted up and not having to pay

! outhouse further down the hill; and

brings out the worst in many

i one assumes she has dined out for

people, [p. 252]

] years on her “The Day Squiggle

i achievements is in illuminating the

i If Lovell was not working from

j Lost His Nose” story.

i day-to-day nature of a film produc-

: diaries or daybook entries, her

Lovell admits herself that,

j er’s rôle. The G allipoli chapters are

recall of people, places, and events

i despite a tendency “to self-destruct

\ specifically detailed for this pur-

is also quite extraordinary. All are

j at the most inappropriate

i pose. As Lovell’s account of each of

rendered in incredible detail, over

\ moments”, her sanity has often been

1 lengthy periods. Her love of travel

I saved by “laughter and a good sense

! her productions indicates, there is i no simple definition of a producer’s

| is described ad nauseam and, while I I of the ridiculous”. These admirable 1 qualities do much to leaven the text,

\ rôle. For someone like Lovell, with

; could have done with less emphasis i on the virtues of overseas destina

the film industry. In her four-year

i ences with Associated R & R and the

\ a need to feel involved “in all levels

vigil to get Picnic on the screen,

j Weintraub company illustrate both

i of production”, it is for the most

Lovell, as a novice in the industry,

\ the potential benefits and the perils

i part sheer hard work. The classic

initially received several knockbacks

i for the small producer in negotiat-

i example here is the St Valentine’s

and passion for her work, and for

from the government-funding

i ing the minefields of raising finance

amount of specific detail in N o

j Day breakfast scene from Picnic,

the craft of filmmaking in general,

bureaucracy of the time and was

1 and hanging on to a vision. Market-

Picnic, there are also surprisingly

\ prior to the filming of which the

additionally shocked to be patron

\ ing the finished product and

i producer assisted the understaffed

ized by a woman in power. Nor

\ securing reasonable local distribu

i wardrobe department by spending

tion and overseas sales are shown

could she interest local businessmen

[ “nearly twelve hours straight, iron-

tions, to be fair much of it is in the | production context. Given the

few errors: Fred Zimmerman; j Henry Saffron; and the nine-yearold “trooper” cast in Summerfield I and little else.

] which might otherwise be construed | as essentially a masochistic yarn. Above all, Lovell’s commitment to

shine through. She acknowledges the various assistance schemes which have benefited the film indus try over the past 25 years, and is

to invest in Australian film in that

i to be equally problematic. In this

| ing petticoats, camisoles, frocks and

period. Thereafter, after suffering a

j context, Lovell’s account of the

\ sashes, just for that scene”.

“surfeit of McElroys” and South

\ promotion and sales of Monkey

Australian Film Corporation input,

\ Grip (Ken Cameron, 1982) - from

passion for making movies. “And

i the initial poster design with the

and, certainly, Pat Lovell has few

Lovell felt “in danger of becoming

' ing is a glamorous business, with

invisible” as Picnic continued to

1 title spelt out in monkey tails to

qualms about venting her spleen

we will prevail”, she concludes. The

j pots of money to be made, though

clay duck from Kilkenny which sits

take shape.

j Labor Arts Minister Barry Cohen’s

and, if necessary, getting up “a lot

\ Lovell has certainly had her share of

on her kitchen dresser, after surviv

\ comment: “You’re the one who’s

of people’s noses”. The surprising

Lovell admits her error in

i exposure to industry hype, glitz and

ing the rigours of international

accepting the lesser executive pro

i made the pornographic movie” -

thing to me is that the author is not

ducer credit on the film, in what

i are particularly instructive. The tall-poppy syndrome is also

becomes a recurrent theme in the book. This bitter fight for credits is quite normal in the film business and often the creative team is knocked down in the rush. [p. 155]

Such anecdotes also work to undercut any notion that filmmak-

megadeals. She is at pains to demys1 tify the whole process, and is most

j critical of those whose ambition

| still alive and well, if Lovell’s post-

\ and greed often far outweigh their

i 1991 experience and struggle to

i talent. Thus:

i finance new projects are anything to i go by. In this instance, the “track j record” - the absence of which was

Anyone who thinks they want to

One thing you learn very fast in little generosity of spirit in the grab for credits, [p. 168]

i took years to establish and maintain j ment: “Just because she’s made

Like Picnic, once G allipoli had

\ she is?” After a series of humiliating

been delivered it seemed de

! letdowns in recent years, Lovell i j would be heartened by such com-

rigueur that rampant male egos

The schemes that were devised for i

the sole intention of misusing the tax legislation during the 10BA days should be recorded in a doc ument for posterity as a warning to governments and investors

alike, [p. 272]

j ments as Scott Murray’s (in The

\ And industry screenings and

! 1995, p. 17):

i premieres?

at a price. Her producer’s fee for

ducers from the seventies are not

for Lovell - as her book will for its

industry backhanders over the

readers - as “a constant reminder of

years. In fact, she is most generous

the possibilities for survival”.

in her praise of those who have

<en B

errym an

PRIMATIVE PASSIONS VISUALITY, SEXUALITY, ETHNOGRAPHY, AND CONTEMPORARY CHINESE CINEMA

Peter Fenton, David Williams, Ken Hall, David Stratton, Peter Weir plus others who worked on a number of her films - Pom Oliver, Mark Egerton, “Grace” Walker, Alison Barrett, etc. In relation to the shafted Lovell Gibson company, she

Rey Chow , Colum bia U niversity P re ss, N ew York, 1995, 252 pp., pb, rrp $32.00

rimitive Passions is the first book-length study of the post-

is selectively amnesic, concluding

Mao Chinese cinema. But it is much

only that the duplicity of LA deal

more than that. It is also a critical

ings could be written off “as an

and interpretive engagement with Chinese intellectual life, a realm of

I’ve heard more garbage and more

For magnate Robert Stigwood, by

increasing and pressing relevance to

damaging comments made at pre-

contrast, she had only praise for his

the rest of the world, but about

“having the courage to let us run”.

which we know little. Using the

In such a splendidly-candid book, many of the author’s wry

CI NEMA P APE RS • FEBRUARY 1996

made positive contributions to the

interesting learning experience”.

It’s a pity some of the best proI

flight in precarious wrapping, serves

on the receiving end of so many

industry, and not just to her own

\ Australian Magazine, 7/8 October

her independence, but it has come

more acidic, or resentful, after being

projects - John Daniell, Bill Gooley,

ment and contribution, [p. 253]

the local scene who share her

money should think again, [p. 271]

should try to belittle my involve

As a small producer, Lovell valued

1995) describes it as an angry book

get into the movie business for the

i - appears now to be an impedi{ some hit films, who does she think

review of N o Picnic (8 October

i Similarly, on tax inducements:

encouraged by the ranks of “new and talented filmmakers” now on

j such an initial barrier, and which this business is that there is very

The Brisbane Sunday Mail

internationally-distributed Chinese art cinema, Rey Chow moves

observations are turned back on

behind the beautiful imagery to

herself. From the moment she

examine the intellectual concerns

announces to friends during her

that animate the films, and to add

time with the ABC in Tasmania that

her own ideas and readings. The

she has a boyfriend who is a con

result is not only mandatory reading

ductor, and receives the quizzical

for all who wish to gain a deeper

reply “Tram or bus?”, the reader is

understanding of what is at stake in

continually reassured that this

the contemporary Chinese cinema,

woman is in no danger of suffering

but also some of the best cultural

from delusions of grandeur. Some

studies scholarship around.

of her stories are very funny indeed:

Chow focuses on such well-

her wedding day account is almost a

known films as Wu Tianming’s Old

comedy script in itself; her “glam

Well (L ao Jing, 1986), Chen Kaige’s

orous and classy beginning” on

Yellow Earth (Huang Tudi, 1984)

ABC/TV consisted of holding a hyp-

and King o f the Children (.Haizi

In review Books continued

from outside to retain or regain a

than a primer, it will delight and

either contention. However, with

speaking position. To these dr}' old

challenge all intelligent readers.

no belief in the possibility of a

sticks, Chow’s work is a long over

retreat to cultural authenticity,

due incendiary device.

Chow does not believe inaccuracy is

Opposed to the orientalism of Chow are those Chinese scholars

throughout the world, the dates

today. In a culture now caught

ethnography. They write the mem

Chow calls “nativists”. They believe

generally refer to the year of pro

between the devastation and disillu

ory of Chinese culture as an exotic

\ that they have a privileged access to

sion of the Cultural Revolution and

object in a colonial imaginary from

understanding Chinese culture, a

the perspective of the colonized.

position that rejects the orientalist scholars but is equally dependent on

1988), Judou (1989) and Raise the

and hybridizing incursions of global

objectified woman who defiantly

cultural authenticity. Chow’s insis

Red Lantern (Da Hong Denglong

capitalism on the other, the search

returns the gaze, Chow sees a

tence on her own status as at once

Gao Gao Gua, 1991).1 Noting that

for Chinese identity is ambivalent.

metaphor for this process whereby

foreign and Chinese, further com

the remote, feudal China they rep

It is both a fetishistic nostalgia for a

the formerly objectified now seize

plicated by gender difference,

resent is as exotic and strange to

time of imagined wholeness and

agency in, and engage in dialogue

infuriates and enrages them at least

ordinary Chinese viewers as it is to

oneness, and an angry effort to

with, the post-colonial world. The

as much as it does their old oppo

foreigners, she asks why Chinese

track down the cultural origins of

result may not be ideal, but Chow

nents.

filmmakers have developed this pas

today’s problems.

has no faith in ideals and would

Chow’s own rejection of the very possibility of ever finding one true China leads her to look for

ave you ever shuffled faces,

one that lies som ewhere just over the edge o f your memory<, the one y ou ’ve been waiting for. (Tetter

These few examples only give a

thing right. Furthermore, although

enable her to read them against this

zlingly original and daring quality of

of her argument in Primitive Pas

conclusion, and the second consist

particular grain. For example, she

Chow’s work. Those familiar with

sions, there is much, much more in

ing of readings of individual films.

notes that the re-imagined China-as-

her earlier work will not be sur

this book, making it a very dense,

In the first section, Chow refuses

primitive-China of the more recent

prised by this achievement. Her first

substantial and satisfying work.

any condescending benevolence that

films is evidently positioned as

book, Woman and Chinese M oder

Chow traverses such other issues as

might seek to position her as an

counter to those other representa

nity, won her a readership far

film as an imported technology-' in

authentic voice by virtue of her eth

tions of an equally essentialist vision

beyond specialists in Chinese wom

the post-colonial world, the mean

nicity by declaring:

of China, the boy-meets-tractor

en’s issues. Primitive Passions, her

ing of woman in the representations

a barbarian whose interpretations

Susan M. White, Columbia University Press, New York, 1995, index, Ulus., rrp S35.00

\ believe she must be doing some

tioning as a long introduction and

always remain a kind of outsider,

MAGISTERIAL VISION AND THE FIGURE OF WOMAN

j results, Chow has every right to

cultural authenticity forms the basis

modern China, will nonetheless

THE CINEMA OF MAX OPHULS

rather rely on making the most of

small hint of the complex yet daz-

in the languages and cultures of

duction.

what is strategically possible now.

other elements in the films that

ultimately as a foreigner, who,

in China and released sporadically

like cards, hoping to find the

Faced with such remarkable

sections, the first and third func

while having been born and raised

1 As many of these films were banned

she sees Zhang’s films as a new

And in the figure of Gong Li, the

land Chinese cinema, therefore,

erry

filmmakers and other intellectuals

one hand, and the homogenizing

I write about contemporary main

the sinologists but equally upset by

the failure of socialist separatism on

The book is divided into three

h r is

a viable basis for criticism. Instead,

Wang, 1989), and Zhang Yimou’s

implications are.

passions” of so many Chinese

Red Sorghum (Hong Gaoliang,

sion for the primitive and what its

from an Unknown Woman, 1948) Men never know but one part o f reality. And w hy? [...] Because they only see one aspect o f things. Me, I see everything, because l see all around, and that allows m e to be everywhere at once. (La Ronde, 19 SO) Turn, turn, my characters [...] this is the circle o f love. (Lola Montés,

myths of Maoist modernism. With

third book in English, is equally

this invocation of a rival vision of

high-powered and equally provoca

from ethnographic theory, juggling

true Chinese identity, they them

tive, and it deserves to be at least as

all adroitly as she moves smartly

Max Ophüls has been there at some

selves put the very possibility of a

influential.

along.

very special moments in my life.

true Chinese identity into crisis at

However, I am sure it will also

j she examines, ideas and arguments

Excellent though Primitive

1955)

Several years ago, I was privileged

the same time as they obsess about

be controversial. Chow’s work has

Passions is, one note of caution

trying to find it.

angered and upset so many vested

should be sounded. The book nei

taught by Bill Routt called “Film

interests at the same time as it has

ther pretends to be nor is a history

and Interpretation”. Questions about the hermeneutic circle - read

Pursuing this angle leads Chow

to participate in an academic subject

to some unexpected and very

won her a wide following. For the

of the contemporary Chinese cin

insightful readings of the individual

sinologists that still clutter and

ema. Readers seeking basic factual

ing, meaning, the possibilities and

films she examines in the second

dominate Asian Studies departments

information on film production in

the limits of interpretation - were

This issue of cultural authenticity

section. For example, Zhang Yimou

around the English-speaking world,

China, introductions to films less

focused on and around the writings

lies at the heart of her many-faceted

has been roundly criticized by many

their entire academic life is

well-known outside China than

of Paul Ricoeur and Hans-Georg

argument. For Chow not only

Chinese critics and academics for

premised upon the existence of a

those discussed here, or biographies

Gadamer. Paralleling and intersect

excludes herself from any authentic

inventing customs which never

unique Chinese identity as their

of major filmmakers will be disap

ing with these theoretical

Chinese position, but also

really existed, such as the foot mas

object of study. Now they find

pointed. Nor does Chow attempt to

investigations was a body of film

challenges the very existence of

sages in Raise the Red Lantern or

themselves confronted with a

correlate the films to Chinese social

texts - in this instance, it was almost

authentic cultural identity as

the jolting of the bridal sedan in Red

young, ethnically-Chinese scholar

and political developments in any

all of the œuvre of Max Ophüls.

anything other than a fantasy or

Sorghum, and for pandering to for

who declares herself and China as

direct or close way. However, so

I can remember being fascinated,

ideological construct. This is how

eign tastes with his salacious

always ahead}' a fiction, and also

long as Primitive Passions is under

intoxicated and mesmerized. In

she understands the “primitive

narratives and imagery. Chow does

hybrid, willing to adopt and adapt

stood to be a perspective rather

more ways than it is possible to say,

carry within them the risk of ille gitimacy and impropriety, [p. i l ]

not dispute the factual basis of

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

this experience filled my head and

as a context, or as a cause, as that

(p. 19). The other is to provide a

the “topos” of “the family romance”.

my heart with ideas and images that

which could explain the text, the

re-reading of the kinds of visual

The Reckless M oment provides a

continue to haunt me.

newer kind understands that life,

pleasure that these films are able to

critique of the patriarchal family.

or rather its reconstruction, pre

offer.

Letter from an Unknown Woman

sublime and the poetic of Ophiils’

investigates the destruction of those

cinema.

More recently, at the Centre for Contemporary Photography in Mel

cisely as one further text in its

bourne, in a seminar programme

turn, a text on the level with the

Historical claims for Ophiils as an auteur and a master of form such

characters who fall prey to the

called “A Short History of Photog

other literary texts of the writer in

as that found in the work of Cahiers

power of the image. Le Plaisir

raphy”, Adrian Martin presented a

question and susceptible of form

du Ciném a, Robin Wood, Andrew

(1952) and Caught depict women

I case for their relevance. There were many occasions, though, that I 1 longed for the opposite: for the

nna

z e n is

FILM INTO VIDEO A GUIDE TO MERGING THE TECHNOLOGIES

paper entitled “Second That Emo

ing a larger corpus of study with

Sarris, Paul Willemen and Barry Salt

who trade upon, then fight to leave

tion”. The presentation addressed a

them. [p. 14]

are largely relegated to footnotes.

behind, their status as commodity-

Richard H. K allen b erger and G eorge D .

White is, however, interested in

image. The “bourgeois solution” of

Cvjetnicanin, Focal P ress, Boston, 1994, 369pp., illus., index, rrp S I 25.00

series of production stills, which he

The author’s life then becomes a

had for various reasons kept in his

text that can be woven and layered

what she describes as “the most

social mobility is presented as unsat

possession. Amongst the stills which

into a reading of a film or a series of

jaded and profound” truism about

isfactory and finally undesirable.

functioned as sites for all sorts of

films. In her concluding chapter,

Ophiils’ cinema: that it is a cinema

In her concluding chapter, as

historical, theoretical and imaginary

White explains something else

of movement. She positions this

she discusses Ophiils’ final film,

depth of experience in the telecine

leaps were images from two Ophuls

about her motivation.

against the inverse of this proposi

L ola Montés, White attributes to

department shows throughout this

tion: that Ophiils’ cinema is a

Ophiils a

films: Caught (1949) and The Reck less M oment (1949). A rapturous attention to the kinetic details of the lean, inebriated, slumped body of C aughfs Robert Ryan, his extended hand, a glass on the table and the strategically-arranged chairs in his room was magically linked to Leo McCarey’s An Affair to Rem em ber (1957) and its lovers’ near-impossi ble quest to find a space for love in the confines of their world: bodies in space, frozen moments, evoking one another and so many other moments, still and yet uncannily moving. It seems appropriate to find Ophuls so pivotally placed in these larger questions of interpretation of reading the still and the moving image: the still within the moving, the moving within the still, and the relationship between the frozen image and its narrativization. Susan White’s book also concerns itself with questions of reading and interpretation. How ever, this is not a biography of the life and times of Ophuls. White is, in fact, very defensive as she frames her field of inquiry. In the introduc

One-author (or [-Jdirector) books don’t sell, I have been told. In order to maximize the marketabil ity of my work, Ophuls [sic] must be hooked up to the totalizing machinery that will make him “useful” to current criticism. [p. 302]

cinema “of non-movement, of still ness that is both a kind of captivity and a position of mesmerizing power” (p. 23). This leads White to the metaphor of the circle, which for her is the dialectical synthesis of the moving and the fixed. It is the place of the exchange - of women,

For White, “current” and “useful”

money, jewellery, disease and espe

devolve around issues of feminism

cially of images that circulate and

postmodern reworking of the modernist concern for the stakes of representation; in his attempt to move back to the origins of cinema, perhaps to “free” cinema from its fetishistic qualities, to celebrate the woman’s ability to exhibit, Ophuls [sic] reveals a process of breakthrough and recu peration that is never resolved but

Both authors work for Unitel Video in Hollywood, and their

book. Film into Video approaches the crucial operation of transferring film to tape from every possible angle. It seems that no question the authors have ever been asked has been left unanswered. The sub-title - A Guide to Merging the Technolo gies - does rather overstate the book’s ambit, however. The merger between film and video needs to be charted in a number of other areas,

and female spectatorship. The films

repeat. It is like the carousel. She

she selects for analysis are moti

observes in the narratives a wild

vated by theoretical concerns and

circulation of commodities and

do not follow the chronological

persons halted by a frozen image, a

In her desire to be contemporary

for example. Perhaps Focal Press

sequence of a life’s work. The films

pause for a photograph. She notes

and “current”, White’s book strikes

has stumbled on a series title here:

that are closely analyzed present a

that these cycles of movement and

me as being somewhat schizo

it’s too broad a topic for one book.

set of ideas and images surrounding

halting in the films of Ophiils

phrenic. Authorship is justified by

(or producing) the figure of woman.

achieve an effect similar to that

contemporary theory, caught

overview of the two media, and

White cites as the sources for her

described by Deleuze and Guattari

between cynical and irreverent sub

then discuss the areas of essential

thinking specific writers in post-

in their elegy to capitalism gone

headings - “Honey I’m Home”,

differences between film and video

structural psychoanalytic studies -

crazy.

“Your Seams are Showing”, “Excuse

tape: the different aspect ratios or

Me, You’ve got Linz on Your Uni

frame shapes, the greater contrast

Laura Mulvey, Jacqueline Rose,

In the body of her book, White

continues to circle through “revo lution” upon revolution, [p. 301]

too: shooting film for both theatri cal and video distribution, and conforming negative to edited tape,

The authors start with an

Kaja Silverman, Mary Ann Doane,

demonstrates over and over again

form”, “The Persecuting Gaze and

range accommodated by film, the

Gaylyn Studlar, Luce Irigaray, Tania

how Ophiils’ films articulate the

The Sound of Music” - and an

greater resolving power of film and

Modleski and Judith Mayne - and

“woman’s dilemma” in quite radical

often complex and sophisticated

the different frame rates are the

quite clearly positions herself in the

ways, foregrounding contradictions

textual analysis. White activates a

principal of these. Here, the book

powerful body of work and makes a

displays a serious omission: while

“second wave of psychoanalytic film

that inform the representation of

criticism” which no longer regards

women in mainstream cinema. At

the woman in the role of passive

every historical moment, she claims,

recipient of the aggressive male

there was a radical Ophiils text.

gaze. Her purpose in activating and

Even in an early film such as Die verkaufte Braut (The Bartered Bride,

tion, she uses the words of Frederic

analyzing the Ophuls texts are

Jameson to defend the attention to

twofold. One is to demonstrate the

1932), White notes that the “image

Ophuls that she wants to give:

different ways that the women in

object” woman comes to manipu

Where the older biographical crit

Ophuls’ films “successfully combat

late the image herself. De Mayerling

icism understood the author’s life

their role as sexual spectacle”

à Sarajevo (1940) is seen to reverse

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

piece. So, to be told that every

has moved on while the book was in

minute on location with a crew

i you have to do?

preparation. Read with these caveats

costs big bucks and that meticulous

in mind, it should be a valuable

preparation is essential might be

' matography, sound and editing

considered a bit of a downer.

\ receive only superficial coverage.

source of information.

Books

Devices such as the Renaissance Da

continued

may be expanded in a later edition. A comparison between grading for

(whereby film running at 24 frames

film and for tape, for example,

per second is contrived to provide

would have been illuminating.

o m in ic

Case

Having given an account of the

PRODUCING AND DIRECTING THE SHORT FILM AND VIDEO Peter Rea and David Irving, Focal P ress, Boston, 1995, 325pp., Ulus., index, pb, rrp $74.95.

his is another excellent publica

The authors’ fundamental belief

The technical areas of cine-

i The focus here is on production and

in learning by doing is succinctly-

direction. So, perhaps those older

stated in the preface:

standbys by Kris Malkiewicz (cine-

There is no better way to learn

\ matography) or Lenny Lipton

how to make a film or video than

! (independent filmmaking) would

by actually doing it. Books and

i make good companion reading. Rea and Irving find it particu-

manuals can serve as a guide. Other films and videos can act as

] larly difficult to give detailed advice

inspiration, and talking about and

in the fast-changing area of post

video) is discussed and explained

equipment used in telecine transfers,

with great clarity, PAL is completely-

the subsequent chapters address

ignored. According to Kallenberger

potential customers of the facility,

and Cvjetnicanin, all PAL transfers

giving advice on preparation of film

are simply run at 25 fps, as the speed

for transfer, an explanation of vari

increase is “barely noticeable”,

ous roles, such as colourist, tape

although they do comment on the

operator and client’s representative,

slight flicker inherent in the 50 Hz

and some guidelines on getting

PAL television system itself. Of

quotes, estimating the time required

course, the truth is that, ever since

for a job, etc. Once again, the book

variable speed telecines became

hefty price, particularly compared

shows its U.S. accent: this last

with that other learning alternative:

They use three successful short films

1 the same as they did sixty years ago.

available, most negative for tape

information may be accurate in the

| And what better way to learn all

editing has been transferred to PAL

the short course.

throughout the book to illustrate

Hollywood context, but seems

video at true 24 fps camera speed,

generous by local experience.

maintaining sound sync and true

A chapter entitled “The Telecine

tion from Focal Press whose list of how-to-do-it media publications has been building steadily over the years.

critiquing films and videos can

production - whether to finish on

trigger ideas. However the two

film or tape, linear or non-linear, or

best teachers are failure and

j some hybrid technology'. These

success. Experiencing the process

! days, the waters are so clouded with

of putting a project together,

i options there is no one best

New York University, one of the

building work muscles, and

1 methodology. We can assume,

world’s foremost film schools. They

understanding the craft and

j however, that, despite all the great

have gathered a lifetime of experi

discipline of the process are

\ technical advances of recent years,

ultimately the best ways to

i most short films still end up on cel-

develop your skills.

i luloid with an optical soundtrack,

The authors are lecturers at

ence into a book worth all of its

Every stage of the process is laid out in detail, from raising the finance,

these case studies at the end. Also

CD-ROM than in a well-written

through scripting and production, to

at the end is a series of appendices,

book published on paper!

Environment” prepares the

post-production and distribution. All

rich in detailed information: a glos

difference is dealt with by repeating

customer for the telecine suite,

this comes with generous advice and

sary, a bibliography with all manner

one video field every half second.

describing not only the hardware to

warnings for the unwary, to such an

of useful follow-up reading, a list

Some non-linear editing systems

be found, but also deals with such

extent that at times it borders on

of the great short films (with no less

now accommodate 25 fps transfers,

questions as, “Who’s in charge

spoiling the fun. Many films have

than three by Jane Campion!), a list

but this remains a thorny and com

here?” and “What is our goal?”

been inspired by the myth where

of short film distributors and one of film schools. In the international

The following chapter, on “Telecine

Godard arrived on the set on the

Techniques”, is a useful instruction

first day of shooting with only a few

festivals appendix, poor old Mel

two telecines in some detail. Typical

primer for the telecine colourist,

notes scribbled in an exercise book

bourne fails to get a mention after

of flying-spot machines is the Rank

going through the skills needed,

and proceeded to improvise a master

handing out generous prizes for

Cintel Mk III, and for contrast the

the tasks to be accomplished, and

Bosch FDL 60 CCD machine is also

the functions of the basic telecine

described. These have been the stan

controls.

The book goes on to describe

dard workhorses of the industry for

Perhaps the most telling section

about it in this hi-tech age of the

their points, and include scripts of

running times. The 24 to 25 frame

plex issue in PAL countries.

ig e l

u esst

Book,:i Received ARTLINES

(m agazine)

Issue 1, O ctober-Novem ber 1995, published by the Arts Law Centre of Australia.

he first issue of this “bulletin on arts and law in the digital age”,

some years. The more recent Rank

of the book is a series of “scenarios”

published by the Sydney-based Arts

Ursa and Bosch FDL 90 are men

or logbook reports on four typical

Law Centre of Australia, includes

tioned just briefly. Here, the authors

transfer jobs, ranging from an

articles on the impact of digital

face the difficulty of describing such

overnight music video to mastering

technology on the arts industry,

a rapidly-changing technology with

an “A” feature in five versions,

AFC Assistance for Multimedia

out dating the book too quickly, and

which took 14 days. These accounts

Developers and a thorough,

come out of it quite well. Their

will ring very true to anyone who

provocative article on a maze of

accounts are sufficiently generic for

has ever been in a telecine session,

issues relating to Copyright by the

the reader to build up a basic under

and do more to familiarize novices

Centre’s director, Ian Collie. The

standing of telecine systems, so that

with the complexities of getting the

magazine also lists general informa-

a post house’s enthusiastic plug for

job done right than all the rest of

its latest Ursa Gold, for example,

the chapters about what it should

may make more sense after reading

be like.

these chapters. Considerable attention is given

As is usual from Focal Press, the book includes a number of clear

to sound transfer, including a clear

illustrations, and a comprehensive

distinction between the task of sync

glossary of technical terms.

ing sound (at the beginning of a

telecine suite; perhaps this topic

the technique of “3/2 pulldown’’

30 frames per second of NTSC

Vinci colour corrector are bringing more and more power into the

I short films over 40 years. What do

already apparent that the industry

This is far and away the most

shot) and resolving it (keeping in

comprehensive account of the

sync throughout the reel). There is

telecine transfer process and its sur

also a survey of the various periph

rounding technologies available. It

erals in the telecine system - from

has something for most people, be

Keykode readers to transport and

they post-production house staff,

edit-list management systems to film

filmmakers, students or producers.

cleaners. However, given that the

Perhaps inevitably it suffers a little

telecine operator is normally called

in the journey from Hollywood,

a “colorist”, there is surprisingly

and, just as inevitably, in this

little detail on colour correction.

rapidly-developing technology, it is

i International I Dictionary of Broadcasting and Filin D É S »I K . B O G IU Á R

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

tion, event dates and notices of rele

CLOCKERS

vance to those working in various arts industries. Artlines is published

Richard Price, Phoenix, London, 1995, 655pp., pb, rrp $14.95

bi-monthly and is available on sub scription. The Arts Law Centre can

aperback edition of the book by

novelist and scriptwriter

be contacted on 1 800 221 457.

Richard Price, filmed in 1994 by

A NECESSARY EVIL

Spike Lee.

Bruce V enables, Random House,

COMPLETELY FRANK

Syd n ey, 1995,469pp., pb, rrp $12.95

crime thriller by Australian actor Bruce Venables (Stark,

THE LIFE OF FRANK SINATRA Deborah Holder, Bloom sbury, London,

ALL MEN ARE MORTAL Sim one de Beauvoir, translated by Euan

Inn (!) and discuss the script with

1992. The pieces are written by

there are the usual errors found in

the writers “over a huge bowl of

“major television controllers,

film books written by non-film peo

potato chips and gallons of cream

black programme and film-makers

ple (e.g., Roger Donaldson is not a

cheese and onion dip”. The scribes

and key decision makers from the

New Zealander, but an Australian),

rhen came

predominant film and television

and the odd - nay, many - sweeping

up with fresh, wonderful concepts

generalization. As with even the odd

for each character, based on the

Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, Lola

film book written in Australia, it is

idea that these three guys [...] were

Young and Mike Phillips.

FRANK SINATRA

who can’t get enough about this son

A CELEBRATION

when a little bundle of joy is aban

of Nicholas Blake (a detail strangely

doned on their doorstep! [...]

unreported by Jackson, especially

they’d never grown up, never

wo books on Sinatra at the same time, in similar formats,

both lusciously filled with colour, j

translation by Leonard M. Friedman,

Sinatra fan, be he/she a film or

Virago, London, 1995,406pp., pb, rrp

music buff.

learned responsibility. (And when they do, they discover, to their

make), this book may suffice as a

amazement, that they like it.)

I AM SPOCK

SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT

INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF BROADCASTING AND FILM

Deborah C h ief Signet, N ew York, 1995, 236pp., pb, rrp $12.95.

riginally published in 1946, Tons les H om m es sont Mortels

acting also garnered an Oscar. He

has never been available in a Com

had great presence and his mug-

' Leonard Nimoy. It is a must for all

monwealth-sanctioned translation

gings with Dino and Sammy remind

j dedicated Trekkies.

till now. Here, film has helped liter

one of how cinema can be trivial

For others, of particular interest

ature: a film version, starring Irène

and fun at the same time. (If not

i is the section on making Three Men

Jacob and Stephen Rea, has forced

more: Rolando Caputo argues the

' and a Baby, which is unintentionally

publication.

iconic shot of the Rat Pack outside

revealing about how Hollywood

lavalier (lav) A small microphone

the Sands in Las Vegas is an influ

keeps stuffing up remakes of French

usually worn on the lapel or on a

films:

holding string around the neck by

BEYOND THE STARS

ence on Scorsese’s Casino.)

devotee wanting only one of these

was wonderful but severely Gallic in tone, with French attitudes and

One can’t imagine the Sinatra

Richard Taylor (editor), translated by

books, and a cursory glance reveals

W illiam Pow ell, British Film Institute,

little to choose between them (save

1995, illus., index, 889pp., hb, rrp £45.00

Holder having one more film in her

his is the autobiography of actor, director and screen icon

THE MEMOIRS OF SERGEI EISENSTEIN

his is Volume 4 of S. M. Eisenstein’s selected works and the

filmography - 61 versus 60 including Sinatra’s first appearance,

first unabridged translation in Eng

in the 1935 short, Major B ow les’

lish of Eisenstein’s memoirs from

Amateur Theatre O ff the Air). Both

the newly-established definitive

books also have discographies.

Russian text. Printed in India, the

i '

THE BIOGRAPHY

in the hand, but the engagement of

But when I read the [first Amer

for not one of 1995’s critical and commercial hits.

1995, 268pp., pb, rrp $52.95.

ovelization of the screenplay written by Callie Khouri

Desi K. Bognar, Focal P ress, Boston,

n excellent dictionary of film

TRUE MYTHS

and television terms; to wit:

the announcer or performer. See lapel.

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Nigel An d rew s, Bloom sbury, London, 1995, illus., index, 284pp., hb, rrp $39.95.

politically-interested biography which analyzes,

MASTERCLASS

atmosphere.

en route, American values via the

Dean Carey, C u rrency P ress, Sydney,

striking career of Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, who

ican rewrite of the] script, I was

1995, 225pp. (Volume 1), 229pp. (Volume

troubled, because it read like a

2), pb, rrp $17.95 each volume.

may one day yet be an American

o be reviewed by director Kathy

politician. Even Kindergarten Cop

Mueller in the next issue.

is deconstructed in terms of

stilted English. The characters’

President Bush’s push for family

attitudes towards life, work, love,

REMOTE CONTROL

values. Interesting reading at times,

and children were still extremely

DILEMMAS OF BLACK INTERVENTION IN BRITSH FILM AND TV

“dubbing” script - a direct transla tion of the French, with very

DANIEL DAY-LEWIS

book has an oddly third-world feel

Trois H om m es et un Couffin [...]

Walker for one of 1995’s critical

and insight, Spock.

342pp., illus., index, hb, rrp $29.95.

ovelization of the screenplay written by Andrew Kevin

Thanks for adding all that depth

Leonard Nlmoy, Century, London, 1995,

1995, 248pp., pb, rrp $12.95.

and commercial hits.

singer of our recent time, but his

Anthony Bruno, Bloom sbury, London,

Strangeways Day-Lewis would quick fix.

institutions”, including Isaac Julien,

SEVEN

given what an interesting Nigel

Sinatra may be the greatest

$14.95

Black & White in Colour Conference held in London in

bers and many key players. As well,

with women. But all that changes

and both aimed at the same devoted

Cam eron, based on an original

ture - was to check into a Holiday

(Donaldson, again). Still, for those

illus., index, hb, rrp $39:95

access to Day-Lewis, family mem

Peter Pans who’d been totally irre

Stan Britt, Carlton, London, 1995,160pp.,

about cops and crime.

ssays emanating from the

sponsible in their relationships

Hong Kong counter-terrorist unit, Venables is well qualified to write

commonality from culture to cul

risk being portrayed as the villains

Evil Angels, The Roly Poly Man, et Kong water police, then head of the

of love, life and work having no

biography was written without

those who are not interviewed who

1 995,192pp., illus., index, $45

al). A former member of the Hong

sub-head, this archetypical ‘star’

Gallic; they even had French

even if Nigel Andrews’ writing style is becoming increasingly casual (“Ron Howard, himself

the mind is both brilliant and illumi

Laura Ja c k s o n , Smith Gryphon, London,

names! An American audience

nating. All concerned in this

1995, 215pp., index, illus., hb, rrp $34.95

wouldn’t identify with the

Ju n e Givanni (editor), BFI Publishing,

no slouch in the multi-generation

characters at all. [p. 272]

London, 1995, illus., 86pp., pb, rrp £6.99

comedy”). ©

continuing project deserve to be applauded.

espite confidently adopting the definitive article in the

■1AJORmotionpicturestarring BRADPirr ANDMORGANFREEMAN

i Nimoy’s solution to this problem -

TRUE MYTHS the life and times of

ARNOLD NIGEL A N D REW S

rem o c o n tro l

e d it e d by

June Givanni

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

legal ease

Don’t Forget the Rights! Part 2 The first part o f this article discussed the acquisition o f rights in an underlying work. Now, Richard Silverton focuses on the clearance o f rights in the script and the film. any of the advice will need to be sought, including portrayed or physically appearing in a c le a ra n c e s possible advice on U.S. law from a U.S. film, permission should also be sought d is c u s s e d attorney. by the producer in relation to locations below will One way to avoid issues of defama or buildings which are recognizable or be prerequi tion, and offending the rights of publicity distinctive in the film. Again a useful sites to the and privacy, is to obtain written releases precedent can be found in the P rodu c p ro d u c e r’s from all persons whose names, faces or tion M anual. obtaining insurance cover for legal lia likenesses are recognizable in the film. As a general rule, all material incor bility arising from such actions as In a recen t case, a release was not porated into the film must be cleared. infringement of copyright, defamation, obtained by the producer from an artist’s One area which often causes confusion plagiarism of titles, infringem ent of model posing naked in the documentary for producers is the hanging of artwork trademark and invasion of privacy. Such film entitled D on ald Friend: The Prodi in background settings. Section 67 of the insurance is usually referred to as E& O gal Australian. The model was shown in Copyright Act says that an artistic work insurance (“E & O ” meaning “Errors and the docum entary from the back. He may be included in a film if its appear Omissions”). Prior to obtaining cover, sued, albeit unsuccessfully, in defama ance is incidental to the principal matters the producer must submit a completed tion. D efam ation is notoriou sly depicted in the film. The term “in ci proposal form. The proposal form sets expensive litigation to run, so, win or d en tal”, how ever, is not defined. A out the minimum clearance pro cedures. It is im portant to HEY, KID! THERE'S A FIVE SPOT IN IT, IF YA SIGN THIS recognize that E & O insurance WAIVER - MY LAWYER SAYS I SHOULD MAYBE GET YOUR will n ot p ro tect the producer PERMISSION IF I WANNA USE YOUR ARTWORK against omissions by the producer, IN MY MOVIE. but rather omissions by third par ties. A failure on the part of a producer to clear a piece of music, for example, would not be cov ered. However, the policy would operate if the producer relied on a warranty from a music publisher that it was the owner of the music when in fact this was incorrect and the actual owner sued for infringement of copyright. First and forem ost, a script should be read prior to the com m encem ent of produ ction to elim inate defam atory m atters. N o t only will the p ro d u cer’s E& O insurer require a legal opin ion from a defam ation lawyer on any p otentially actionable matter in the script, but so, too, will the lose on the judgement, there are no win licence may therefore be required from investors. ners at the end of the day. A release is an artist whose artwork is consciously The other matters closely connected not necessary if the person is incidental hung in the background of a particular with issues of defamation, but which are to a particular scene; for example, if the scene, because, arguably, the appearance more relevant to the U.S. than Australia, person is part of a crowd scene. A use of the painting is not incidental to the is a person’s right of publicity and right ful precedent for a personal release for scene if it was specifically selected to of privacy. T h e broad d istin ctio n documentaries can be found in the Pro dress the set. If, however, a scene was between these is that the right of pub duction Budgeting and Film Management being shot in the Art Gallery of NSW, licity is a proprietary right which will be M anual compiled by the Australian Film and certain paintings were hanging in violated if a person is deprived of Commission and Australian Film Tele the background which were not specif income received from the exploitation vision & Radio School. ically relevant to the shooting of the of his or her name, likeness or photo If you want to make a feature film scene, then these paintings would be graph, whereas the right of privacy is about a person, generally you will need incidental to the scene and clearances not proprietary, and the grievance is the a carefully-drafted agreement covering would not be required. invasion of privacy rather than a depri numerous issues, including the personal A producer should make this clear to vation of income. Unless a film is to only information they are to provide, exclu his or her art department early on in the be seen domestically, the infringement sive access to letters and ensuring they production. In a recent example, quite of a person’s right of publicity should do not conduct interviews with the press unbeknown to the producer, the back be examined. If there is a real possibil without your approval. drop of a scene was very similar to a ity that the script infringes this right or In the same way th at approvals painting by a prominent French artist, the right of privacy, the appropriate should be sought from persons either excep t that the colou rs had been

changed. This not only gave rise to an issue of payment for reproduction of the painting but also moral rights (for alter ing the colours). As the producer only became aware of the problem after the scene had been shot, and the scene was essential to the story, retrospective clear ances had to be obtained from the estate of the French artist, which proved to be a very difficult and expensive process. W arning bells should ring if a scene requires paintings, posters, a ‘turned-on’ television or radio, or shots from a mag azine or a newspaper. Unless original and fictitio u s artw ork is created by the art department, clearances will be necessary. The clearance of footage can also be a lengthy and frustrating process for producers as usually not only the film but also all its elements (including music and cast) must be cleared . If the footage is quite old, then obtain ing clearances from the estates of the cast, for example, may be very time-consuming. M usic in the film must be cleared and the procedures for doing this were discussed in the legal ease column, “The Sound of Music: There’s More than Meets the Eye”, in the August 1995 edi tion of C inem a Papers. The producer must also enter into agreem ents w ith the key creative crew which will, amongst other things, ensure th at the results and proceeds of their services on the film are the sole and exclusive property of the producer. Finally, the issue of censorship will need to be considered. An application for a classification must be made to the Office of Film and Literature Classifica tion. The Office has issued guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes which may assist producers in meeting their intended m arket. If a producer makes a film with the youth market in mind, but the classification granted in respect of the film eliminates this mar ket altogether, there will be catastrophic consequences to the box office of the film. Producers should give careful con sideration to the guidelines prior to filming. ©

HART

CINEMA PAPERS

S PI RA FEBRUARY 1996

Assetbuilder Flexible finance that costs less than overdrafts

M ' l°" &

W£0&.J <^olhi ¿o*# 1

00 o .

J m

ûQî

Access cash from $2 0 ,0 0 0 to $1 million or more

Turn your property equity into flexible finance you control with a cheque book You only pay interest on the funds you use Fluid your business or investments and save thousands in tax Visit your branch or call Assetbuilder 1 3 1 5 7 5

WE VISIT your home at your convenience.

Bank of Melbourne cuts the cost of banking .Head Office: 52 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000^

BANK 46191

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

history ^__

The [national] contingents pass in review before the General: band follows band, flag succeeds flag, bearing the name or some design to signify the portion of the Army thereby represented. The General is seen upon the review stand, surrounded by his principal Staff Offi cers, waving his hat to the happy marching hosts [...] At the end of the march, the Gen eral’s return to the [Crystal] Palace [by motor car] is shown, also a panorama of the grounds and the immense crowds that appear to be almost tread ing upon one another, so thickly are they clustered at certain points of van tage.04

Also on 5 July 1 9 0 4 , Perry and D ut ton ran “Australian Biorama” films of “life and work ‘down under’” from 9:30 am at the Crystal Palace’s Theatre. The place was “packed from floor to ceiling” and Australasian Commissioner McKie introduced the show: Through some misunderstanding the display was not quite up to the mark; but the hearty applause given after each picture showed that it was highlyappreciated, and it was with regret that the time at the disposal of both speaker and operator did not permit a fuller portrayal of the great work done by The [Salvation] Army in the Southern Hemisphere. With all respect to the capital Aus tralian films used, the latest ‘snaps’ of the Major [Perry] were appreciated the most. These related more imme diately to the Congress. Nearly all of the foreign Contingents were seen arriving at Clapton or elsewhere, hold ing meetings, marching through the streets, and fraternising in Congress Costume [...] Colonel Gilmour, of New Zealand, made an excellent lecturer, and for a Scotchm an displayed an u n con scionable amount of humour.00 Throughout the remainder of the day, Salvation Army films were shown at an “Electric T heatre”.56 The march-past films were quickly processed in London and exhibited by Perry to the Salva tion Army Territorial Commissioners’ C ouncil m eeting a few days a fte r wards.57 The meeting, which included General William Booth, declared that they were “very good”.

Perry Films Europe Not being content to be the first Aus tralian to shoot film in England, Perry also shot film on the continent during the 1904 trip. Between the conclusion of the London Congress on 8 July 1904 and the Contingent’s embarkation from London per the S.S. “O roya” on 12

August 1904oS, Perry, Dutton and Com missioner M cK ie toured continental Europe. No detailed account of the tour has been located, but their movements are indicated by reviews of the films they shot, and by the Limelight Depart ment’s accounting books09: Payment 13 September 1904 - Fare per Orient Company - Perry - £11/4/0 Payment 13 September 1904 - Fare per Orient Company - Dutton - £12/6/0 Payment 13 September 1 904 - Rail fares to Naples - £15/10/0 Payment 27 September 1904 - Trav elling: Perry & Dutton [on continent] -£26/11/8 d. Payment 14 October 1904 - Conti nental expenses - £7/13/3d. This month-long continental tour saw Perry and Dutton shooting “still” and moving pictures of their travels prolifically. Film views of street life in several continental cities were recorded. Hol land was represented by A m sterd am Canal Life and City Views, and The Sal v a tio n A rm y D u tch C o n tin g e n t60, headed by C om m issioner and M rs Estill. Some of Perry’s best continental film s were taken in F rank fu rt and Berlin. These included, The Alley o f Vic tory, P an o ra m a o f th e R eich stag and C om m issioner M cKie’s reception by the G erm an S a lv ation A rm y C on tin g en t (McKie served in Germany before his Australasian command). There was also a touching film of Com m issioner McKie L a y in g a F lo w e r U pon th e G rav e o f C olon el Ju n ker in the Berlin Cemetery. The greatest praise in reviews was reserved for M arch Past o f a G erm an M ilitary R egim ent Changing G uard at the E m peror’s Palace in Berlin.61 The German visit may have been productive of film purchases from Ger man producers. Limelight Department accounts record a “cable to Germany re films” being sent from Melbourne for £1/7/0 on 17 O ctob er 1 9 0 4 , and (import) “duty on German films” being paid on 27 January 1905 for £l/2/6d.62 Italy was represented by a film of M ount Vesuvius in Eruption, undoubt edly taken during the visit to Naples. Finally, in France, Perry and Dutton shot the P aris S a lv a tio n A rm y B rass B and in M arching Order, F o llo w ed by French Officers.62, Commissioner McKie is known to have been picked up by the S.S. “Oroya” at Marseille.64 It would be likely that Perry and D utton also rejoined the Australasian contingent at Marseille a few days after the rest of the contingent embarked from London on 12 August. From Marseille, it was only a four-week trip via the Suez to M el bourne, where they disembarked on 21 September 1904.

"Cosm oram a" Showings in Australia Within a fortnight of Perry’s return, his slides and about 160 minutes [10,000 feet] of film had been processed, edited and prepared for exhibition. Dubbed The Salvation C osm oram a for its pre miere at the Melbourne Town Hall on 10 October 1 9046°, it was a worldwide account of the work of the Salvation Army, concentrating on the exhibitions at its recent London International Con gress. Singing, stage presentations and slide sequences preceded the film com ponents. As each national contingent was represented, their national flags were displayed on stage.66 The presen tation lasted just on three hours. It was the only Limelight Department pre sentation to be narrated by Australasian Commissioner McKie, and the premiere saw the T ow n Hall “crow ded to its utmost capacity” with an audience who were “frequently enthusiastic [with] hearty singing to the music of the band [which] added much to the fervour of the demonstration”.67 T o audiences unused to any film exceeding five minutes in length, the complexity of the visuals were some times overwhelming. At the premiere, the march-past sequence was run uncut for 3 0 minutes, but it was cut by half for subsequent showings in response to com plaints.68 The Limelight D epart ment’s sophistication of programming had advanced somewhat further than some reviewers would bear: A connected selection of pictures with an explanatory lecture describing the [Salvation Army] m ethods would probably prove of more value in mak ing the general public better acquainted with the vast scope and general organisation of the Army work, of which last night’s exhibition of pictures left a somewhat confused impression of unknown vastness on the minds of the uninitiated spectator [...] but there is no gainsaying that for superior effect and for excellence and variety of pictures nothing as good has ever been seen [...]69 The presentation subsequently toured throughout Australia over the next year or so. Prints of selected highlights of the Australian coverage were sold widely abroad, and the renown of the film even induced the Salvation Army in America to buy a p rojection plant from Aus tra lia ’s pioneers. T h e L im elight D ep artm en t’s sales record s tell the story70: 12 September 1904 - 750 ft. film to U.S.A. - £6/5/0 12 September 1904 - 1786 ft. film to B rigadier M cM illa n , Canada £37/4/2d. 12 September 1904 - Bioscope etc. to Canada - £27/17/6d.

13 September 1904 - 2609 ft. I. Con gress Film to Canada at 5d. per foot £5 4/7/1 d. 13 September 1 904 - 1 020 ft. Aust Film at 4d. per foot to Canada - £ 1 7 13 Septem ber 1 9 0 4 - 2 5 2 slides at l/3d to Canada - £l5/15/0d. 13 Septem ber 1 9 0 4 - 50 Congress Contingent slides at 2/- to Canada £5. 13 September 1904 - Limelight Out fit to U.S.A. - £l39/3/4d. 30 September 1904 - 71 slides at 1/-; 13 at 2/- to Canada - £4/17/0d. 23

N ovem ber

1904

Film

Williamson [UK?] - £36/13/0d. 1 December 1904 - Goods to Canada - £l9/7/0d. 2 2 M arch 1 9 0 5 - Film s to J . C. Williamson - £97/12/7d. Commercial film producers were also present at the International Congress. A 7-minute film of the 5 July 1904 Con gress Review was released by the Charles Urban Trading Company and shown at L o n d o n ’s H ippod rom e. According to the February 1905 Urban C atalogue: By courtesy of M essrs. Russell and Sons, and the Crystal Palace, we obtained the exclusive bioscope rights to photograph this historic dem on stration. We extended the privilege to the Salvation Army photographers on the condition that the pictures secured by them be confined strictly to the advancement of their work [,..]71 Adjutant Henry Howse in London had prints of the Congress coverage of 1904. These probably included most of Perry’s footage. Howse’s material sur vived into the 1 9 5 0 s , when it was located “in the attic of a deceased [Sal vation] Army officer’s house”.72 With the co-operation of the London head quarters of the Salvation Army, it was w orked up into a docum entary film called G o d ’s S oldier by Hugh Baddeley Productions of H ertford shire in 1955.

1905 - Production Slump Although the In tern a tio n a l C ongress Cosm oram a was well received and prof itable, there was a sharp decline in Australian Limelight Department pro duction straight after its release. During 1905, its only known production was a 150-fo o t [3-minute] film, E m p lo y ees Leaving Sw allow & A riell’s Biscuit F ac tory in Port M elbourne. Dutton shot it to draw people to screenings at the Protestant Alliance Friendly Society in April 1905.73 It survives in the National Film & Sound Archive video compile, Living M elbourne (1988). In the Lime light Department’s sales records, there’s

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

a note of something being sold to the V ic to ria n Railw ays D ep artm en t for £73/10/- on 23 February 1 9 0 5 74, but this may only be a fee for screenings. No other production for 1905 is recorded. Several factors were involved in this production slump. On Perry’s return from Europe in September 1904, Sidney C o o k ’s local production activity was made redundant. Cook was transferred to Sydney to look after Salvation Army fund-raising activities.75 As the main Sal vation Army producer of local interest films in Australia, his departure acutely affected its film output. C o o k ’s new duties didn’t suit him, so in July 1905 he resigned from the Salvation Army in tan dem w ith L im elight D ep artm ent musician Ebenezer Jackson.76 Cook and Jackson set up a travelling picture show touring New South Wales and Queens land, specializing in the shooting of local films.77 By 1911, Cook owned one of the largest cinema chains in Queensland/8 Perry was ap p arently c o n te n t to screen imported films from Gaumont during 1 9 0 5 , and, in any case, he was not in Australia for most of that year. In February 1 9 0 5 , he took the Bioram a Com pany o f 15 m em bers on a New Zealand tour.79 They were not back in Australia until December 1905. The Lim elight D epartm ent’s Aus tra lia n p ro d u ctio n schedule d id n’t properly resume until December 1907, when the persecution of Salvation Army officers in Sale (Victoria) induced Perry to shoot aspects of the incident. His sub sequ ent featu re-len g th produ ctions included T he G rand M em orial Service (February 1908), Visit o f the A m erican F leet (August 1908), E xpedition to the Islands o f Bass Strait (December 1908), H e ro es o f th e C ross (May 1 9 0 9 ) and, finally, The Scottish Covenanters (shown only in New Zealand from about July 1909 onwards). H ow ever, by 1 9 0 7 , the Lim elight Department had lost its unique leader ship of local production. Its halcyon days exten d ed from 1 8 9 8 to 1 9 0 4 , when Joseph Perry undeniably earned the title of “the father of Australian film production”.

Research Council grant on which this series is based. The main source of mate rial for this issue has been George Ellis of the Salvation Army Archives in M el b ou rne. A d d itional m aterial was supplied by Clive Sowry (W ellington, New Z ealand); State Library of T a s m ania; Jo h n Barnes (U K ); G ordon Taylor of the Salvation Army Heritage C entre in L on d on ; State L ibrary of Queensland; La Trobe Library (Victo ria ); and The C anterbury M useum (Christchurch, New Zealand). ®

(1898-99), Soldiers o f the Cross (1900); In a u g u r a tio n o f th e A u stralia n C o m m onw ealth (1901), Royal Visit to Victoria (1 9 0 1 ), R o y a l Visit to N ew Z e a la n d (1901) and Under Southern Skies (1902).

3 Ibid, p. 258. 4 Ibid, p. 260. 5 Ibid, p. 257. 6 War Cry, Melbourne, 16 January 1904, pp. 9-10. 7 Ibid. T he films were listed in the last instalment of this series. 8 TH Q Accounts B ooks have recently been acquired by Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne. The film companies’ names may be found scattered through the “Limelight Department Expenses” pages for the years 1903-4. 9 Pathé Frères began selling significant numbers of films in Australia, c. 1905.

34 War Cry, Melbourne, 15 October 1904,

4. 13 War Cry, London, 25 June 1904, p. 8; 16 July 1904, p. 6. 14 War Cry, Melbourne, 30 April 1904, p. 4.

January 1904, p. 9. 16 Ibid. 17 W ar Cry, London, 25 June 1 9 0 4 , p. 3: “International Delegates Arrive”. 18 War Cry, Melbourne, 2 July 1904, p. 7: “With The Congress Contingent” by P. Kyle. 19 Ibid.

12: “En Route to London on the Afric”.

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 See ref. (2), p. 254.

Age, Melbourne, 11 October 1904. 66 See ref. (60).

p. 11: “Panorama Points”. 35 Ibid; see also W ar C ry, M elbou rne, 8 October 1904, p. 8; 22 October 1904, p.

67 See ref. (65). 68 See ref. (60). Q ueensland Times, Ipswich, 27 October 1904, states that the review

film had been condensed to a quarter of an hour. 69 War Cry, Melbourne, 5 November 1904, pp. 9-10, quoting an unnamed Tamworth

1948, p. 21. 37 John Barnes (St Ives, UK), telephone con versation with author, 2 7 Novem ber

newspaper. 70 TH Q A ccounts B o o k , 1 9 03-4, pp. 174181: “Limelight Department Expenses”;

1995.

also pp. 3 1 7 -8 : “Dominion of Canada

38 See ref. (36).

Current Account” and “Brigadier M cM il

39 Ibid.

lan, Spokane, Canada”.

40 THQ Accounts B ook, 1903-4,

178.

71 C harles Urban T rading C om p an y F ilm

41 Ibid,

p. 180.

Catalogue, February 1905, p. 126 et seq.,

42 Ibid,

p. 182.

film number 1 3 7 6 : “The International

43 This was an average figure for the films of that time in Australia, as the Limelight Department purchase books indicate. 44 The Officer, London, March 1897, p. 82: “Animated Pictures”.

Congress of the Salvation Army General Booth Reviews the Army at the Crystal Palace, July 5th, 1 9 0 4 ” (400 ft). 72 Hugh Baddeley to George Ellis, Salvation Army A rch ivist, M elb o u rn e, 29 Ju ly 1987.

4j The O fficer, London, July 1898, p. 198: “Salvation Science”.

70 T he P ort M elbou rn e S tan d ard , 8 April 1905; 6 May 1905.

46 F. Hayter C ox, H e Was T here!, Salva tionist Publishing and Supplies, London, 1949, pp. 67-71. See also War Cry, M el

12 War Cry, Melbourne, 30 April 1904, p.

63 See ref. (60).

67> Argus, Melbourne, 11 October 1904; The

bourne, 23 May 1903, p. 9.

11 Ibid, p. 170.

62 THQ Accounts B ook, 1903-4, pp. 176-9.

32 Ibid, pp. 9-10.

office until 1 July 1909. 10 TH Q Accounts B ook, 1903-4, p. 169.

61 Ibid ; see also W ar C ry, 5 N ovem ber

64 War Cry, Melbourne, 20 August 1904, p.

p. 10.

T hey did not establish an A ustralian

21 W ar Cry, Melbourne, 6 August 1904, p.

CINEMA PAPE RS • FEBRUARY 1 996

31 War Cry, Melbourne, 22 October 1904,

G eorge Allen & Unwin Ltd, London,

next instalment.

University, who arranged the Australian

30 Ibid, p. 9: “The International Congress”.

to ry o f th e B ritish F ilm 1 8 9 6 - 1 9 0 6 ,

Sons, London, 1964, pp. 253-60.

60 War Cry, Melbourne, 22 October 1904,

1904, pp. 9-10.

Fighting Sunday”.

pletely film.

20 Ibid.

Financial support for this series has been provided by Pat Laughren of Griffith

29 War Cry, London, 25 June 1904, p. 8: “A

segments; the rest were mostly or com

vation Army Vol. TV, Thomas Nelson and

8: “International Contingent’s Return”.

pp. 9-10.

28 Ibid.

36 Rachel Low and Roger Manvell, The H is

2 Arch R. Wiggins, The H istory o f the Sal

7.8 War Cry, Melbourne, 20 August 1904, p.

7.9 THQ Accounts B ook, 1903-4, pp. 174-6.

April 1904, p. 5. 27 W ar Cry, London, 25 June 1904, p. 3.

The first two integrated slides and film

The popular flip-card peepshow nov elty, the Mutoscope, made its Australian début in O ctober 1 9 0 2 . The flip-card reels from these machines are, in many cases, the only surviving fragments of the films from which they were printed. M e lb o u rn e M u to sco p e e x p e rt Bob Klepner teams with the author to inves tigate this little-known novelty in our

A cknow ledgm ents

26 Ibid; see also W ar Cry, M elbourne, 30

33 Ibid. 1 The six features were S ocial S alvation

15 Ibid; see also W ar Cry, Melbourne, 16

N ext Issue

27> War Cry, London, 25 June 1904, p. 3.

47 War Cry, London, 26 December 1903, p. 9. 48 Ibid; see also F. Hayter Cox, loc. cit., p. 70. 49 As this funeral film is in the com pila tion G o d ’s Soldier, which was based on Howse’s archival film collection, it must have been exhibited by Howse, presum ably in the year of its production: i.e., 1903. War Cry, London, 9 July 1904, p. 13. 51 War Cry, Melbourne, 22 October 1904, pp. 9-10. 52 Arch Wiggins, loc. cit., p. 2 6 0 ; see also War Cry, London, 11 June 1904, p. 16. j3 W ar Cry, Melbourne, 22 October 1904, pp. 9-10. 54 Ibid. 55 W ar Cry, London, 16 July 1 9 0 4 , p. 6: “Australian Biorama”. 56 War Cry, London, 11 June 1904, p. 16 list of events, 5 July. 7,7 War Cry, Melbourne, 8 October 1904, p. 8: “The New Panorama”.

74 THQ A ccounts B ook, 1903-4, p. 180. 77> C o o k ’s staff record card in Salvation Army Archives, Melbourne, indicates a transfer to “N.S.W. & Qld. GBM Office” on 19 Janu ary 1 9 0 5 . W ar C ry, M e l bourne, 21 January 1905, p. 12, indicates that Cook left Melbourne for Sydney on 14 January 1905. Staff record card indi cates Cook’s resignation in July 1905. 76 C airns P ost, 7 April 1 9 0 6 , 9 April, 11 April, 12 April, 13 April, 16 April; R ock h a m p to n D aily R ecord , 11 May 1 9 0 6 ; Brisbane Courier, 13 March 1906, p. 5. 77 Ibid. 78 See our last instalment, ref. (50). ,9 W ar Cry, Melbourne, 4 March 1905, p. 10: “Zealandia Bound”; 11 March 1905, p. 8: “The Bioram a’s Send-Off in New Z ea la n d ” ; 9 D ecem ber 1 9 0 5 , p. 1 0 : “Home Again”. Although Perry’s pro duction in Australia was at a standstill in 1905, Clive Sowry has recorded 16 films shot in New Zealand between 27 Febru ary and 28 October 1905. Perry' returned to New Zealand in 1 906, shooting sev eral films for tourist promotion and an official film of the 1 9 0 6 Christchurch Exhibition. Details will soon be published by Sowry.

is s u e s released for public consultation in October 1995, with a dead" line for subm issions o f 30 November. The current classifications o f G, PG, M , M A, R and X are retained, and the guidelines to each clas sification are similar to the current ones, if a little more detailed and in language w hich Jo h n D ickie has described as “user-friendly” . He also says that the new guidelines take into account shifts in community standards that the Board has observed recently: “We think that community standards are less tolerant of violence, and particularly of sexual violence.” __

David Haines, former Deputy Chief C ensor, and now a consu ltant, dis agrees quite strongly w ith this. He believes that the general flow of inform ation th at the B oard has been receiving from consumer groups and surveys, and the dramatic drop in com plaints coming in to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, would indicate that the community was gen erally satisfied w ith the cu rren t practice. However, the OFLC has been lobbied heavily by the Senate Com mittee on Community Standards, an eight-member Senate Select Commit tee dom inated by three people who have found themselves in strong accord on censorship issues, despite their dif fering political backgrounds. Labor Senator Margaret Reynolds chairs the committee, her deputy is Liberal John Tierney, and their ally in moral issues is Independent Brian Harradine. This committee recommended the govern ment ban on R-rated material on Pay TV , and has condemned the decision to release the long-banned Pasolini film, S alo o le C en tiven ti G iorn ate di S o d o m a (S a lo o r th e 1 2 0 D ay s o f S o d o m , 1975), bringing up their criti cisms of the film on many occasions (although apparently none has seen it). Jo h n D ick ie insists th at the Senate C o m m ittee is only one o f a w hole range of people who give advice to the Board, but both the Senate Committee and John Dickie use their claims about com m unity standards becom ing less tolerant of sexual violence to justify shifts in attitude. The general principles applying to classification decisions are spelled out in the N ational Classification Code, which is now part of the C lassification Act 1 9 9 5 , and states that classification decisions are to give effect, as far as pos sible, to the following principles: (a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (b) minors should be protected from m aterial likely to harm or disturb them;

of Hector Babenco’s Pixote (1981), the year before. M uch behind-the-scenes lobbying followed, especially after the election of Labor federally, hi the agree (d) the need to take account of com ment, made between the federal and munity concerns about: state Attorneys-General, amendments (i) depictions that condone or incite were made to the C ustom s (C in em ato violence, particularly sexual v io g ra p h F ilm s) R eg u la tio n s , w hich lence; and established a procedure for organiza (ii) the portrayal of persons in a tions to apply to the Attorney-General demeaning manner. for approval as “approved organiza It's the interpretation of this last phrase, tions” and to screen films at “approved and particularly of the word “demean events”. Films would be exempt from in g ” , w hich should cause the m ost classification, providing the festival concern. It is obviously a phrase which com plied w ith sp ecific con d ition s can be given a very subjective reading, (admission to be limited to subscribers, and which could be used to cover a mul subscribers to be 18 and over, a limit of titude of examples. two screenings of any film at any one It may not have been the image of festival, and films to be exported at the the woman wearing a dog collar and on conclusion of the festival). The Attor a leash which appeared on the cover of ney-General, in determining whether to one of the more provocative of Aus approve an organization or an event, tralia’s tabloid weeklies several years ago would be obliged to take into account that actually brought about this change the nature of the organization’s pur in the regulations, but it certainly pose, the cultural or artistic quality of heightened the debate, and identified a the activities in question, and the gen particular type of image that was caus eral standing and rep u tation of the ing much of the concern which has been organization. Gareth Evans, in announc reflected in the in trod u ctio n of the ing this arrangem ent, said that he phrase “in a demeaning manner”. John believed the Sydney and M elbourne Dickie argues that this phrase is “some Film Festivals, in particular, had earned thing the lawmakers wanted in”, and the right to “be treated as responsible, that “a significant number of people self-regulating organizations, and that were concerned about images that were they can be relied upon to apply appro appearing on places like the covers of priate standards without government magazines”. censorship interference”. At a recent censorship conference, T his arrangem ent has now been Kathryn Paterson, New Zealand’s Chief swept out with the C u sto m s (C in e Censor, Films and Literature, talked m atograph Film) Regulations, which are about how difficult to apply were the to be repealed on introduction of the similar terms “demeaning, degrading new legislation. In the new, supporting and dehum anizing” , which are now state and territory legislations, there are included in New Zealand’s one-year-old provisions for approved organizations censorship régime. The completely-new to apply for exemption from the C las New Z ealand leg islation , aimed at sification Act, but the application is to increased consistency in a single and the state A ttorney-G eneral - and, in inclusive classification system, was ten fact, in most cases the state or te rri years in developm ent, and Paterson tory has passed this power on to the spoke of the balance between regulation Director of the Classification Board and civil liberties being hard to acquire thus placing the festivals back in the and to retain; she is looking forward to arena of government censorship. “We some of her recent rulings being chal won’t be looking at film festival films lenged before the New Zealand Court any differently to the way we’ve been of Appeal to see how they are in ter look ing at them since 1 9 8 3 ”, Jo h n preted there, and whether the Court Dickie has been assuring questioners, upholds or contradicts her decisions. but there are worries that without the conditions of the special arrangement, Film festivals and their matters may change for festivals down special status the track. In April 1983, the then federal Attor And the festivals may have reason to ney-General, Gareth Evans, announced be concerned. In February last year, a m ajor change in the relationsh ip John Dickie banned the Spanish docu between film festivals and the Censor mentary, Tras el C h ristal {In a G lass ship Board, in which films would be Cage), being imported by Queer Screen allowed to be screened at recognized for the M ardi Gras Film Festiv al, festivals without having to be classified despite the festival having been granted by the Board. This arrangem ent fo l approved event status. He refused to lowed years in w hich disputes over exem pt the film from classificatio n particular films had caused outrage and under New South Wales legislation, and much antagonism, the most recent being refused to register it under Common the banning, and the release on appeal, w ealth Custom s leg isla tio n ; it has,

however, been disputed whether, once an o rgan ization has been granted approved status, there is any provision for the Chief Censor to extract one film from the festival programme and make a specific judgem ent about it. Queer Screen, unfortunately, appealed against the Chief Censor’s decision, rather than against his right to make that decision, thus creating a precedent. And the Chief Censor has stated, in a letter to F ilm n ew s (M ay 1 9 9 5 ) on this issue, that festival films “will still have to meet State and Territory requirements relat ing to public exhibition”. David Haines, however, insists that the special arrange m ent m eant that public e x h ib itio n standards did not apply to festivals, that it had been set up specifically to take festival film s out o f the censorship process. The festivals and organizations which do apply for special event status, having only recently realized the impli cations of the changes in legislation, are currently examining ways in which they may apply to have the special arrange m ent restored , or the new situation amended, to give them the same safe guards as before.

Structural change The new Classification Act has brought with it changes in structure to the Office of Film and Literature Classification itself, aimed at making it a self-support ing, independent statutory body. These changes will have a major impact on the industry, with a substantial increase in charges over the next five years being foreshadow ed. The O FL C w ill be expected to become commercially-viable in relation to its classification activities, although not to its community infor m ation activities. A fter an initial doubling of fees on the commencement of the new legislation, there will be a two-stage process to look at ways of bringing its charges into line. A consul tant will look at the O F L C ’s pricing structure, to work out how much it actu ally costs to classify the films, videos, publications and computer games that are currently classified, and Mil draw up a list of proposed charges, probably a sliding scale taking various elements into consideration. The second stage will be a period of consultation with clients, aimed at arriving at an agreed-upon scale of charges and a calend ar fo r the increases until commercial viability is achieved. The structural changes which will stream line the classification process should be greeted with approval, but the quiet way in which other, more co n tentious, issues of great concern to the film community have been almost hidden beneath that process is to be deplored. L et’s hope it’s not too late to guard against this creeping conservatism. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1996

CINEMA PAPERS

Number 14 (October 1977) Phil Noyce, M att Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John Huston, Luke's Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady

Number 15 (January 1978) Tom Cowan, Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan film, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

Number I (January 1974) David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter W eir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that Ate Paris

Number 2 (April 1974) Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy Harbutt, Rim under Allende, Between the Wars, Alvin Purple

Number 16 (April-June 1978) Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The Africa Project Swedish cinema. Dawn!, Patrick

Number 17 (Aug-Sept 1978) Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert. Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront The Night the Prowler

Number 18 (Oct-Nov 1978) John Lamond, Sonia Borg, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy's Child

Number 19 (Jan-Feb 1979) Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thomas, Andrew Sarris, sponsored documentaries. Blue Fin

Number 20 (March-April 1979) Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French film, M y Brilliant Career

Number 21 (M ay-June 1979) Number 3 (Ju ly 1974) Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O'Brien, William Friedkin, The True Story of Eskimo Nell

Vietnam on Rim, the Cantrills, French cinema. M a d M a x Snapshot The Odd Angry Shot Franklin on Hitchcock

Number 40 (October 1982) Henri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray Barrett, M y Dinner with Andre, The Return o f Captain Invincible

Number 41 (December 1982) Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The Year of Living Dangerously

Number 42 (March 1983) Mel Gibson, John Waters, Ian Pringle, Agnes Varda, copyright Strikebound, The M an from Snowy River

Number 43 (May-June 1983) Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, Sumner Locke Elliott's Careful He Might Hear You

Number 44-45 (April 1984) David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lambert, a personal history of Cinema Papers, Street Kids

Number 46 (July 1984) Paul Cox, Russell Mulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka Stockade, Waterfront The Boy in the Bush, A Woman Suffers, Street Hero

Number 47 (August 1984) Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms

Number 48 (Oct-Nov 1984) Ken Cameron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim Dusty Movie

Number 4 (December 1974)

Number 49 (December 1984)

Bill Shepherd, Cliff Green, Werner Herzog, Between Wars, Petersen, A Salute to the Great MacArthy

Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch McGregor, Ennio Morricone, Jane Campion, horror films, Niel Lynne

Number 50 (Feb-March 1985)

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

7 Number 22 (July-Aug 1979) Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi. Albie Thoms, Stax, Alison's Birthday

Number 23 (Set-Oct 1979) Tim Burstall, Australian women filmmakers, Japanese cinema, Crawfords, M y Brilliant Career, The Plumber

Number 5 (March-April 1975) Albie Thoms on surf movies, Charles Chauvel filmography, Ross Wood, Byron Haskin, Brian Probyn, Inn o f the Damned

Number 6 (July-August 1975) Steve Spielberg, Glenda Jackson, Susan Sontag, Jack Thompson, Bruce Smeaton, The Removalist Sunday Too Far Away

Number 24 (D ec-Jan 1980) Brian Trenchard-Smith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, Harlequin

Number 25 (Feb-March 1980) David Puttnam, Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain Reaction. Stir

Number 26 (April-May 1980) Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, W ater Under the Bridge

Number 51 (May 1985) Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo, Winners, Morris West's The Naked Country, M ad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms

Number 52 (July 1985) John Schlesinger, Gillian Armstrong, Alan Parker, soap operas. TV news, film advertising, Don't Call M e Girlie, For Love Alone, Double Sculls

Number 53 (September 1985) Brian Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, NZ film and TV, Return to Eden

Number 54 (November 1985) Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, rock videos. Wills and Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster Miller Affair

Number 55 (January 1986) James Stewart, Debbie Byrne, Brian Thompson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, tie-in marketing. The Right Hand Man, Birdsville

Number 56 (March 1986) Fred Schepisi, Dennis O'Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, Dead-end Drive-in, The M ore Things Change.., Kangaroo, Tracy

Number 7 (Nov-Dec 1975) Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Winkler, Dusan Makavejev, Caddie, Picnic at Hanging Rock

Number 8 (March-April 1976) Pat Lovell, Richard Zanuck, Sydney Pollack, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Phillip Adams, Don McAlpine, Don's Party

Number 27 (June-July 1980) Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, obituary of Hitchcock, NZ film industry, Grendel Grendel Grendel

Number 28 (Aug-Sept 1980) Bob Godfrey, Oiane Kurys, Tim Bums, John O'Shea. Bruce Beresford, Bad Timing, Roadgames

Number 29 (Oct-Nov 1980) Bob Ellis, Uri Windt, Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, Cruising, The Last Outlaw

Number 30 (Dec 1980-Jan 1981) Sam Fuller, 'Breaker' Morant rethought Richard Lester, Canada supplement The Chain Reaction, Blood Money

Number 31 (March-April 1981) Number 9 (June-July 1976) Milos Forman. Max Lemon, Miklos Jancso, Luchino Visconti, Caddie, The Devil's Playground

Number 10 (Sept-Oct 1976) Nagisa Oshima, Philippe Mora, Krzysztof Zanussi, Marco Ferreri, Marco Bellocchio, gay cinema

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

Number 12 (April 1977) Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John S cot Days of Hope, The Getting of Wisdom

Number 13 (July 1977) Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search of Anna

Bryan Brown, looking in on Dressed to Kill, The Last Outlaw, Fatty Finn, Windows, lesbian as villain, the new generation

Number 32 (May-June 1981) Judy David, David Williamson, Richard Rush, Swinburne, Cuban cinema. Public Enemy Number One, The Alternative

Number 33 (June-July 1976) John Duigan, the new tax concessions, Robert Altman, Tomas Gutierrez Alea, Edward Fox, Gallipoli, Roadgames

Numbers 34 and 35 SOLD OUT Number 36 (February 1982) Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, Blow Out 'B reaker'M orant Body Heat, The Man from Snowy River

Number 37 (April 1982) Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama, Monkey Grip

Number 38 (June 1982) Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, Janies Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Far East

Number 39 (August 1982) Helen Morse, Richard Mason, Anja Breien, David Millilkan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema. National Rim Archive, We o f the Never Never

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1996

Numbers 57 SOLD OUT Number 58 (July 1986) Woody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story, The Last Frontier

Number 59 (September 1986) Robert Altman, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnes Varda, the AFI Awards, The Movers

Number 60 (November 1986) Australian television. Franco Zeffirelli, Nadia Tass, Bill Bennett, Dutch cinema, movies by microchip, Otello

Number 61 (January 1987) Alex Cox, Roman Polanski, Philippe Mora, Martin Arminger, film in South Australia, Dogs in Space, Howling III

Number 62 (March 1987) Screen violence, David Lynch, Cary Grant ASSA conference, production barometer, film finance. The Story of the Kelly Gang

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

Number 64 (July 1987) Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, M el Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian Trenchard Smith, chartbusters. Insatiable

Number 65 (September 1987) Angela Carter, Wim Wenders, Jean-Pierre Gorin. Derek Jarman, Gerald L'Ecuyer, Gustav Hasford, AFI Awards, Poor Man's Orange

Number 66 (November 1987) Australian screenwriters, cinema and China, James Bond: part 1, James Clayden, Video, De Laurentiis, New World, The Navigator, Who's That Girl

Number 67 (January 1988) John Duigan, James Bond: part 2, George Miller, Jim Jarmusch, Soviet cinema, women in film, 70mm, filmmaking in Ghana. The Year M y Voice Broke, Send A Gorilla

Number 68 (March 1988) Martha Ansara, Channel 4, Soviet cinema: part 2, Jim McBride, Glamour, Ghosts Of The Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean

Number 69 (May 1988) Sex, death and family films, Cannes '88, film composers, Vincent Ward, David Parker, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes

Number 70 (November 1988) Rim Australia, Gillian Armstrong, Fred Schepisi, W es Craven, John Waters, Al Clark, Shame screenplay part 1

Number 71 (January 1989) Yahoo Serious, David Cronenberg, 1988 in retrospect, film sound, Last Temptation o f Christ Philip Brophy

Number 72 (March 1989) Little Dorrit, Australian sci-fi movies, 1988 mini-series, Aromarama, Celia, La dolce Vita, women and Westerns

Number 73 (May 1989) Cannes '89, Dead Calm, Franco Nero, Jane Campion, The Prisoner of S t Petersburg, Frank Pierson, Pay TV

Number 74 (July 1989) The Delinquents, Australians in Hollywood, Chinese cinema, Philippe Mora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, Ghosts.. of the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay

Number 75 (September 1989) Sally Bongers, the teen movie, animated, Edens Lost PetSematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman

Number 76 (November 1989) Simon Wincer, Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok Hilton, John Duigan, Flirting, Romero, Dennis Hopper, Frank Howson, Ron Cobb

Number 77 (January 1990)

Number 95 (October 1993) Lynn-Marie Milbum's Memories & Dreams, Franklin on the science of previews. The Custodian, documentary supplement, Tom Zubricki, John Hughes, Australia's first films: part 5

Number 96 (December 1993) Queensland issue: overview of film in Queensland, early Queensland cinema. Jason Donovan and Donald Crombie, Rough Diamonds, Australia's first films: part 6

Number 97-8 (April 1994) 20th Anniversary double issue with New Zealand supplement Simon W incer and Lightning Jack, Richard Franklin on leaving America, Australia's first films: part 7

Number 99 (June 1994) Krzysztof Kieslowski, Ken G. Hall Tribute, cinematography supplement Geoffrey Burton, Pauline Chan and Traps, Australia's first films: Part 8

Number 100 (August 1994) Cannes '94, NSW supplement Bernardo Bertolucci's Little Buddah, The Sum o f Us, Spider & Rose, film and the digital worid, Australia's first films: part 9

Number 101 (October 1994) Priscilla, Queen o f the Desert Victorian sup plement, P. J. Hogan and Muriel's Wedding, Ben Lewin and Lucky Break, Australia's first films: Part 9

Number 102 (December 1994) Once Were Warriors, films w e love. Back of Beyond, Cecil Holmes, Lindsay Anderson, Body M e lt AFC supplement Spider & Rose, Australia's First Films: Part 10

John Farrow monograph. Blood Oath, Dennis Whitburn, Brian Williams, Don McLennan, Breakaway, "iCrocodile" Dundee overseas

Number 78 (March 1990) The Crossing, Ray Argali, Return Home, Peter Greenaway and The Cook.., Michel Ciment Bangkok Hilton, Bartow and Chambers

Numbers 79 SOLO OUT Number 80 (August 1990) Cannes report Fred Schepisi career interview, Peter W eir and Greencard, Pauline Chan, Gus Van Sant and Drugstore Cowboy, German stories

Number 81 (December 1990) Ian Pringle Isabelle Eberhardt Jane Campion, An Angel At M y Table, Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas, Presumed Innocent

Number 103 (March 1995) Little Women, Gillian Armstrong, Queensland supplement, Geoffrey Simpson, Heavenly Creatures, Eternity, Australia's Rrst Rims: Part 11

_ _

Number 82 (March 1991) The Godfather Part III, Barbet Schroeder, Reversal of Fortune, Black Robe, Raymond Hollis Longford, Backsliding

Number 83 (May 1991) Australia at Cannes, Gillian Armstrong, The Last Days a t Chez Nous, The Silence o f the Lambs, Flynn, Dead to the World, Anthony Hopkins, Spotswood

Number 84 (August 1991) James Cameron and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Dennis O’Rourke, Good Woman of Bangkok, Susan Dermody. Breathing Under Water, Cannes report, FFC

Number 104 (June 1995) Cannes Mania, Billy's Holiday, Angel Baby, Epsilon, Vacant Possession, Richard Franklin. Australia's Rrst Films: Part 12

Number 85 (November 1991) Jocelyn Moorhouse, Proof, Blake Edwards, Switch, Callie Khouri: Thelma & Louise, inde pendent exhibition and distribution, FFC part 2

Number 86 (Januaiy 1992) Romper Stamper, The Nostradamus Kid, Greenkeeping, Eightball, Kathryn Bigelow, HDTV and Super 16

Number 87 (March 1992) Multi-cultural cinema, Steven Spielberg, Hook, George Negus and The Red Unknown, Richard Lowenstein, Say a Little Prayer, Jewish cinema

Number 105 (August 1995) Mark Joffe's Cosi, Jacqueline McKenzie, Slawomir Idziak, Cannes Review, Gaumont Retrospective, Marie Craven, Dad & Dave

Number 88 (May-June 1992) Strictly Ballroom, Hammers Over the Anvil, Daydream Believer, Wim Wender's Until The End of the World, Satyajit Ray

Number 89 (August 1992) Cannes '92, David Lynch, Vitali Kanievski. Gianni Amelio, Fortress, film-literature connections, teen movies debate

Number 90 (October 1992) The Last Days of Chez Nous, Ridley Scott 1492, Stephen Elliott Frauds, Giorgio Mangiamele, Cultural Differences and Ethnicity in Australian Cinema, John Frankenheimer's Year o f the Gun

Number 91 (January 1993)

Number 106 (October 1995) Gerard Lee and John Maynard on All M en Are Liars, Sam Neil, The Small Man, Under the Gun, AFC low budget seminar

Clint Eastwood and Unforgiven, Raul Ruiz, George Miller and Gross Misconduct David Elfick’s Love in Limbo, On the Beach, Australia's first films: part 1

Number 92 (April 1993) Reckless Kelly, George Miller and Lorenzo's Oil, Megan Simpson, Alex, The Lover, women in film and television, Australia's first films: part 2

Number 93 (May 1993) Jane Campion and The Piano, Laurie Mclnnes and Broken Highway, Tracey Moffatt and Bedevil, Lightworks and Avid. Australia's first films: part 3

Number 94 (August 1993) Cannes '94, Steve Buscemi and Resenroir Dogs, Paul Cox, Michael Jenkin’s The Heartbreak Kid, 'Coming of Age' films, Australia's first films: part 4

Number 107 (December 1995) George Miller and Chris Noonan talk about Babe, New trends in criticism. The rise of boutique cinema

Look wiio’s limen as thejight source

ftg p Avenger

M a n fro tto

K5600 Inc

K A TA -B A N D

“i"

IN D U S T R IA F O T O T E C N IC A

FIRENZE |p p ¡j¡

G a m G o lo r ^ Deeo öyed pcrysste' cotof S a l

A w e s tc o tt

Mi Iler Prof essional Products

Ä H

jìT Iil

MILLER H P

a -L^G

Australia'sifihly single-point source for alt your lighting needs, including: Studio design, tuftgsten ENG lighting, fluorescent and PAR HMI lights, heavy duty and lightw eight s^nds, studio g rid systems, pantographs and hoists, grip accesories, hackgroupdsand carry cases. M iller P ro fe ssio n a l Prod u cts 30 Hotham Parade, Artarmon, NSW 2064 Tel: (02) 439 6377, Fax: (02) 438 2819

FGC Funding Decisions Documentaries Journey of Origin: Chile Fifteen Minutes of the Fire Didge and Drums

59 59 59

Television Water Rats 1

Production Survey Features Production The Phantom The Zone

59 59

Features Post-production ■ ■ I | ■ ! | j . 1 ■ • 1 | ■ j 1

Children of the Revolution Cosi Dating the Enemy David Williamson’s Brilliant Lies Dead Heart Fistful of Flies Floating Life Idiot Box The Island of Dr. Moreau Lilian’s Story Love and other Disasters Love Serenade Lust and Revenge My Entire Life The Quiet Room Race the Sun River Street

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Road to Nhill Shine The Story of C.I.A. To Have and to Hold (formerly The Small Man) Turning April Under the Lighthouse Dancing

60 60 60 60 60 60

Shorts Fly Peewee, Fly Laura Pact Unquiet Dreams

61 61 61 61

Television Drama Beast The Bite Blinky Bill’s Extraordinary Excursion Blue Heelers

61 61 61 61

I | ■ | I

Fire 2 Flipper G.P. Halifax F.P. Heartbreak High ’ House Gang ! Kline’s Bottle | Ocean Girl 3 j The Place of the Dead ! Police Rescue | The Silver Brumby j Sweat . Us and Them I Water Rats 1 White Lies

I i I

Vincent (Bill Hunter) and Ben (Aden Young). Tony Mahood's River Street.

R WALKER SAYS, "GHOST WHO WALKS IN AUSTRALIA.

FFC Funding Decisions The F F C approved funding for three documentaries at the 27 October 1995 Board meeting. Contract negotia tions were entered into with producers of the following projects:

been clo se d sin ce she em igrated to A u stralia as a child. She returns to reclaim a lost heritage and through the d iaries of her great grandfather will follow his path a s an explorer to gain an understanding of Chilean history, culture and the lan d scap e w hich are intertwined with her ow n se nse of identity as an Australian.

Documentaries)

FIFTEEN MINUTES OF THE

JOU RN EY OF ORIGIN: CHILE

R ymer B ayly W atson

(52 mins)

D: J udy Rymer Ps: J udy Rymer, Paul W arren W : J udy Rymer P re- sale : A B C

FIRE (57

O rana F ilm s D: R ichard Dennison P: Richard D ennison W: R ichard Dennison DIST: B eyond Distribution

e cilia A lfon so returns to Chile as an adult to re-open the book that's

MINS, ACCORD)

hell changed the w orld for three se ts of neighbours. Fire changed their lives forever. Th ese people had been clo se neighbours for nearly tw enty ye a rs. T h is docum entary is a frank, revealing portrait of how ordinary people cope with ad versity and loss.

DIDGE AND DRUMS

P P ro d u ce r

(55 MINS, ACCORD)

C o -P C o -P ro d u cer

Hi-8 Productions D: J ames Ricketson P: J ames Ricketson W: J ames R icketson P re- sale : A B C

A S A sso ciate P ro d u ce r L P L in e P ro d u cer D D ire c to r

C C a st

lan D argin travels the w orld playing didgeridoo. W ell know n in Europe but relatively unknow n in Australia,

Television Funding for the series, Water Rats 1, was approved by the FF C Board at a meeting held in July 1995. The FFC agreed to participate in financing the series by way of a secured production loan. WATER RATS 1

(13X1 HOUR SERIES) Q uicksilver P roductions Ds: Mark P iper , T im B urstall

EP: Hal Mc Elroy S upervising P: J ohn Hugginson C reator: J ohn Hugginson P re-sale : N ine Network Di s t : S outhern S tar PC: C olin Friels (F rank Holloway), S ophie Heathcote (F iona Cassidy ), Catherine Mc C lements (Rachel Gold stein ) he N S W W ater Police are nicknam ed the "W ater Rats". M urder, mayhem , kidnaps, bomb threats or burglary, if it happens on Syd n ey Harbour, it's the W ater Rats' job to solve the crim e and catch the culprit.

Production Survey

S E S to ry E d ito r

D I S T D istrib u to r

N O TE : Production Survey forrru now adhere to a revised form at. Cinem a Papers reg retd it cannot accept inform ation received in a differentform at. Cinem a Papers doed not accept redpondibility fo r the accuracy o f any inform ation dupplied by production companied. Thid id particularly the code when inforntat 'um changed but the production company maked no attem pt to correct what had already been dupplied.

Information is as supplied and adjudged as of 1/1/95.

Executive producer: R ichard Vane Associate producer: BONNIE A baunza Scriptwriter: JEFFREY B oam

B ased

Features Production THE PHANTOM VRP Production S ervices, Paramount P ictures Budget: $50 million Production: 2/10/95-24/1/96

Production co m pan ies:

Producer:

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

on the comic strip ,

C reated

The P hantom

by Lee Falk

Director of photography: David B urr Sound recordist: B en Osmo Editor: NICHOLAS 0. B rown Production designer: PAUL PETERS Costume designer: Marlene S tewart

P lanning

and development

Casting: Lynne R uthven - Gold C oast

P rincipal C redits

Casting consultants: MAURA Faye &

D irector: SlM O N W lN C E R

A ssociates

A lan Ladd J nr, Robert Evans J effrey B oam

Co-producer:

A s s is ta n t production co-ordinator: K im S t e b l i n a Production se cre tary: J o S

una

Production runner: S C O T T C R U S E Fina n cia l controller: E l t o n M a c P h erso n Production accountant: L y n n e P a e t z

Camera operator: L o u is I r v in g Focus puller: C o l in D e a n e Clapper-loader: N i c k W a t t 2nd unit D.0.P: A c a m e r a - P a u l T a y l o r , B Cam

P roduction C rew Production manager: B rian B urgess

e r a - B r ia n

rehen y

2nd unit focus: A C A M E R A -J o h n B R E S L IN , B

c a m e r a - L eah

2nd unit clapper: A S

teele,

sh en b u r st

cam era-R ebecca

c a m e r a - B en

asn er

Key grip: L e s t e r B i s h o p Gaffer: B r i a n B a n s g r o v e

On- set C rew 1st assistant director: B ob Donaldson 2nd assistant director: S imon W arnock 3rd assistant director: DEBBIE A tkins Continuity: J udy WHITEHEAD Boom operator: Gerry NUCIFORA Make-up: JUDY LOVELL Hairdresser: A rturo R ojas Special fx supervisor: A l L orimer Stunts co-ordinator: B illy B urton Stunts assistant: Danny Baldwin Still photography: ANDREW C0UPER Unit publicist: VlC HEUTSCHY

A rt Department Art director: LlSETTE THOMAS Set dresser/Decorator: A my W ells , L esley C rawford D raftsperson: J

P C P rin cip a l C a st

W D W rite r-d ire c to r

Production co-ordinator: C H R IS B A E R

C amera C rew

n 8 Ja n u a ry 1994, fifteen m inutes of

E P E x e cu tiv e P ro d u cer

S W S c rip tw riter

A lan is ackn ow le d ged as one of the best didgeridoo players in the world. In this film he con d u cts w orksh o p s and perform s in variou s parts of the world, w here young men and wom en have developed a p assion for A u stra lia's pre-em inent indigenous m usical instrument.

A rm ourer: A

a c in t a

lla n

L eo n g

ow bray

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: LlSA L0VAAS Standby wardrobe: SEAN CUNDLACH Wardrobe assistant: C hristelle C orones

C onstruction Department Construction supervisor: J ohn V illarino Scenic artist: Ray P edlar Construction manager: A ndrew Gardiner P ost- production Assistant editor: B ryan Carroll Editing assistants: B rett CARROLL, Gina C arroll, Geoff Lamb Laboratory: A tlab A ustralia - Gold C oast Laboratory liaison: Gary K eir C ast B illy Zane (T he P hantom), K risty S wanson (D iana ), J ames Remar (Quill), T reat W illiams (D rax), Cather ine Z eta J ones (S ala ), David P roval (C harlie Z ephro), Casey S iemaszko (Morgan), Patrick Mc Goohan (P han tom' s Father ), Cary T agawa (Kabai S engh). he Phantom mantle h as been handed dow n from father to son ever sin ce the founder of the line w itn esse d his father m urdered by

pirates 400 ye a rs ago. A s the latest heir to this proud tradition, Th e Phantom (B illy Zan e), is sw orn to fight greed, corruption and cruelty. Th e film is based on The Phantom com ic strip created by Lee Falk in 1936 and published in 500 n e w sp ap e rs w orldw ide by King Features Syn d icate.

THE ZONE Production company: M

e d ia

o rld

Featu res

Pre-production: 28/8/95-20/10/95 Production: 23/10/95-8/12/95 Post-production: 11/12/95-3/5/96

P rincipal C redits Director: J o h n T a t o u l i s Producer: J o h n T a t o u l i s Co-producer: C O LIN SO U TH Associate producer: P e t e r B a i n - H o g g Scriptwriter: D e b o r a h P a r s o n s Director of photography: P E T E R Z A KH A R O V Sound recordist: J im D uN W O O D IE Editor: P ET E R B U R G E S S Production designers: P H IL C H A M B E R S, S

tan

n t o n ia d e s

Costume designer: C LA R E G r i f f in Composer: B u r k h a r d D A LLW ITZ

P lanning

and

Development

Casting: G r e g A p p s (P R O T O T Y P E) Extras casting: B E R N A D E T T E R y a n (P

ro to type)

Storyboard artist: P A U L W IL L IA M S

P roduction C rew Production manager: YV O N N E C O LLIN S Production co-ordinator: M A N G U S M a n s i e Assistant production co-ordinator: K

r a v is

Production secretary: F r a n S h e p h e r d s o n Location manager: T im S c o t t Unit manager: M i c h a e l B a t c h e l o r Unit assistants: I a n L l o y d , M e r v T u c k e r Production accountant: J u d y M a l m g r e n Accounts assistant: F r a n S t p h e n s o n Insurer: H . W . W O O D Completion guarantor: F il m F i n a n c e s Legal services: M a r s h a l l s & D e n t Travel co-ordinator: S H O W T R A V E L Freight co-ordinator: S h o w T r a v e l Base-office liaison: LO U ISE C H E S LE T T

iriproduction Production Survey continued

Make-up assistant: T roy Follington Stunts co-ordinator: R ocky Mc Donald Safety officer: Rob GREENOUGH Still photography: Paul BuCKMORE Catering: Gypsy K itchen A

Cam

era

C rew

Camera operator: Harry PANAGIOTIDIS Focus puller: PETER SCOTT Claoper-loader: B runo D oring Aerial photography: P eter Z akharov Camera hire: Cameraquip Key grip: Freddo Dirk Grip: G ene Van Dam Gaffer: R ory T imoney Best boy: C hris S hanahan Electrician: ROBBIE HECHENBERGER Assistant electrics: ROBBIE HECHENBERGER Generator operator: R o b b i e HECHENBERGER 1st assistant director: B rendan Campbell 2nd assistant director: CHRISTIAN ROBINSON 3rd assistant director: Emma JAMVOLD Continuity: JULIE FEDDERSEN Boom operator: T ony Dickinson 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 Finnemore Stunts co-ordinator: A rch ROBERTS Safety officer: A rch R oberts First aid officer: J eanette Greenfield Safety report: P eter C ulpan Still photography: B rian Mc K enzie Unit publicist: S andy Kaye Catering: S tuart B rinkworth, Doug

D epartm

ardrobe

Wardrobe supervisor: SANDI ClCHELLO Standby wardrobe: Rachel Nott Designer glasses: PETER COOMBS A

n im a l s

Lizard wrangler: W arren B lake C

o n s t r u c t io n

D epartm

en t

Construction manager: B ob Hern

(W oomera), G erry P owderly (M elbourne) Foreman: PAUL POCOK Set finisher: Mark S tewart Studios: C rawfords P

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: PETER BAIN-HOGG Assistant editor: S am V enning Sound editor: Ian McW illiams, P eter Palankay (Labsonics ) Mixer: JAMES CURRIE Digital effects: David N elson (U nreal P ictures) Laboratory: ClNEVEX Laboratory liaison: l an A nderson Film gauge: 35mm Shooting stock: K odak Video transfers by: A A V Off-line facilities: T he Facility G o vern m en t A

gency

In v e s t m

en t

Development: S A F C Production: Film V ictoria, FFC M a r k e t in g

International distributor: BEYOND Films C ast

P eter P helps (L ieutenant L eo Megaw), Carolyn B ock (A nne/N ovan A nne), B rad B yguar (B oas), A lex Menglett (T ito), J eff K ovski (P agett). he Zone is a futuristic thriller. Lieutenant M egaw w orks for the Arm y (NTU) and is posted to the stark, barren salt-m ines of Zone 39. There he d isco ve rs that large tracts of land have

ardrobe

Wardrobe supervisor: W endy A sher Standby wardrobe: WENDY C oric A

CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION

n im a l s

Cam

Assistant editor: JEANINE CHIALVO Sound editor: L iam E gan Mixer: P hil J udd Laboratory: A t u b Negative matching: C hris Rowell Gauge: S uper 35mm Shooting stock: KODAK

previous issue for details ]

[S ee

previous issue for details ]

G o vern m en t A

DATING THE ENEMY [S ee

gency

In vestm

ent

Development: NSWFTO Production: FFC

previous issue for details ]

Cast

DAVID WILLIAMSON'S BRILLIANT LIES [S ee

previous issue for details ]

DEAD HEART previous issue for details ]

FISTFUL OF FLIES [S ee

previous issue for details ]

FLOATING LIFE [S ee

previous issue for details ]

IDIOT BOX Production company: C entral Park Films Budget: S2.5 MILLION Production: 30/10/95-15/12/95 Post-production: 16/12/95—May 1996 P

r in c ip a l

C r e d it s

Director: David C aesar Producer: Glenys Rowe Associate producer: NlCKl Roller Scriptwriter: David Caesar Director of photography: JOE PICKERING Sound recordist: LlAM EGAN Editor: MARK PERRY Production designer: K erith Holmes P

u n n in g a n d

D ev e lo pm en t

B en Mendelsohn (K ev), J eremy S ims (M ick ), Robyn Loau (La ni), Graeme B lundell (E ric ), Deborah K ennedy (L eanne), S usie P orter (B etty), J ohn Polson ( J onah), A ndrew Gilbert (G reg), S tephen Rae (C olin ), S usan P rior (L uce). he boys, M ick and Kev, are all revved up, with nowhere to go ... and unemployed. W ho isn't? Th ey are rebels w ithout a cau se, with testosterone to burn. They just don't w ant to be nothing, okay? Th ey have an idea: an armed hold-up. The problem is they have no experience, no guns, no idea. The end will probably be bad. It depends on w hich w ay you look at it.

THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU [S ee

previous issue for details ]

LILIAN'S STORY [S ee

previous issue for details ]

[No details supplied .]

LOVE SERENADE

C rew

A nn-M aree Hurley, Laura Morris Hairdresser : S tephanie Larman Assistant hairdresser: Heather R oss Stunts co-ordinator: J ohnny Halliday Stunts assistants: Paul Doyle, Debbie S anctis Stunts: C ollin Dragsbaek , Paul Doyle Safety officer: BERNADETTE VAN GUEN Unit nurse: S tephanie Castro Still photography: ELISE LOCKWOOD Unit publicist: Maria Farmer P ublic R elations Catering: Camera C ooks, C u ir e P ollard, Gino L opez Runners: Debbie A ntoniou, N igel Doyle A

D epartm

n im a l s

(A ustralian Movie L ivestock) Animal handler: CHRISTINE POWELL

Cam

era

C rew

Focus puller: A dam HAMMOND Clapper-loader: J ames T odd Key grip: Greg T ouhy Assistant grip: Ian Freeman Gaffer: Derek J ones Best boy: K en T albot O n -set C rew

1st assistant director: David L ightfoot 2nd assistant director: Karen Mah OOD 3rd assistant director: A ndrew T aylor Continuity: LINDA Ray Playback operator: Dave Eggins Boom operator: S teve Murphy Make-up: A n g eu C onte

Pun

n in g a n d

D ev e lo pm en t

Script editors: K eith T hompson, J an

C hapman Casting: A lison Barrett Casting Casting consultants: A lison B arrett Extras casting: S hirley Cameron Shooting schedule by: P. J. VoETEN Budgeted by: S ally A yre -S mith P

r o d u c t io n

C rew

Production supervisor: SALLY AYRE-SMITH Production manager: S ally A yre -S mith Production co-ordinator: LORELLE A damson Producer's assistant: L ee-A nne Higgins Production secretary: J an Edwards

previous issue for details ]

THE QUIET ROOM [S ee

previous issue for details ]

[S ee

previous issue for details ]

[S ee

previous issue for details ]

[S ee

previous issue for details ]

[S ee

previous issue for details ]

RACE THE SUN RIVER STREET ROAD TO NHILL SHINE THE STORY OF C.I.A. Production company: Golden Harvest C ast

alls C reek doubles for R u ssia in this Ja c k ie Chan actioner.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD (Formerly T he S mall M an ) Production company:

S mall Man P roductions Distributor: SOUTHERN STAR Production: 12/6/95-4/8/95 P r i n c ip a l C r e d it s

Animal wrangler: Evanne C hesson

[S ee

ardro be

Wardrobe supervisor: R obyn Elliott Standby wardrobe: N ina Parsons Wardrobe assistant: C heyne P hillips Cutter: SUZANNE Head A

previous issue for details ]

J ackie C han

Art director: T ony CAMPBELL Art department co-ordinator: Miriam J ohnson Art department runner: Katie S harrock Set dressers: JOANNA PARK, COLIN R obertson Props buyers: J oanna Park, C olin Robertson Props maker: T ristan Fitzgerald Standby props: Robert Moxham Assistant standby props: Katie S harrock W

[S ee

en t

P roductions Distribution company: B eyond Films Budget: S3.8 MILLION Pre-production: 2/10/95-8/11/95 Production: 9/11/95-21/12/95 Post-production: 6/1/96-April 1996

C lara V uletich Production runner: C lancy Mc Dowell Production accountant: JOHN B rousek Insurer: ROLLINS HUDIG HALL Completion guarantor: F ilm Finances Legal services: Michael Frankel & Co

LUST AND REVENGE

1st assistant director: P. J. VoETEN 2nd assistant director: JOHN MARTIN 3rd assistant director: JENNIFER LEACEY Continuity: KRISTIN VOUMARD Boom operator: PHIL STERLING Make-up: S tephanie Larman Make-up assistant: Heather R oss Special fx make-up: N ik Dorning,

Production company: J an C hapman

P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

et in the Riverina tow n of Sun ray, Love Serenade is the story of two sisters, V ick i-A n n and Dimity Hurley, aged 26 and 21, w ho are both b e set by the notion that som ehow the w orld is p a ssin g them by. V ick i-A n n , in particular, fee ls sh arp ly the lam entable lack of d e ce n t boyfriend m aterial in Sun ray. Dimity h as ap parently given up com pletely and given h e rself o ve rto her chief interest in life, fish. So, w hen Ken Sh e rry - m id-forties, thrice divorced, ex-drivetim e king of B risb an e radio - arrives to take over the tiny radio station, the siste rs respond by abandoning all sib ling loyalty and lau n ch in g into a fie rce battle for his affections.

MY ENTIRE LIFE

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Director: SHIRLEY B arrett Producer: J an C hapman Scriptwriter: SHIRLEY BARRETT Director of photography: Mandy W alker Sound recordist: Gary W ilkins Editor: Denise Haratzis Production designer: STEVEN JONES-EVANS Costume designer: A nna B orghesi

O n -se t C rew

Casting: S hauna W olifson (L iz Mullinar) Production manager: S ue W ild Production co-ordinator: VANESSA BROWN Production secretary: JASON B ath Location manager: A u s s i E Ismail Unit manager: JAMES HOPWOOD Unit assistant: S imon Holmes Production assistants: S andra S ciberras ,

S hevtsov (K en S herry), J ohn A u n su (A lbert ).

Fabian P oggendorf Gaffer: L es Frazier Best boy: T revor R ipper Electrician: W arwick Fry

LOVE AND OTHER DISASTERS Directors: Emma-Kate Croghan, Stavros Efthymlou

era

Camera operator: Mandy W alker Focus puller: Kattina B owell Clapper-loader: VIV SCANU Camera assistant: R ena Marnich 2nd unit D.O.P: J ohn WHITTERON 2nd unit focus: A ndrew B irbara Camera type: 35mm ARRI BL4 Camera maintenance: SAMUELSONS Key grip: T ony Hall Assistant grips: Paul R einhardt,

P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

COSI

en t

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: B rian Lang Action vehicle co-ordinator: J ohn C hase Action vehicle mechanic: B arry B ell

en t

Animal trainer: A ngela T owle

[S ee

C ostello (S ilver S creen ) Runner: Greg Capurso

D epartm

Art department runner: B rock S ykes Props buyers: Richie Dehne, Nicki Gardiner Standby props: HARRY ZETTEL Armourer: K en JONES Art department attachment: Rachel B esser

Feature j Podt-production and Awaiting Release

[S ee

O n -se t C rew

i been m ysteriously contam inated. A ■ m ystery unfolds as M egaw finds out [ w hat really happened to the Zone.

Location manager: Maude Heath Unit manager: B ob Graham Unit assistants: Laurie P ettinari, N ino N egrin, P hil B rown Production runners: Debbie A ntoniou, N igel Doyle Production accountant: Denise Farrell Accounts assistant: S tuart Mc P hee Insurer: H. W. WOODS (TONY Gibbs ) Completion guarantor: F ilm Finances , Inc . Legal services: T ress C ocks & Maddox

o n s t r u c t io n

D epartm

en t

Director: J ohn HiLLCOAT Producer: Denise Patience Associate producer: R ichard Hudson Line producer: S ally A yre -S mith Scriptwriter: Gene C onkie Director of photography: ANDREW DE GROOT Production designer: CHRIS KENNEDY Editor: S tewart Y oung Composers: N ick Cave , Mick Harvey, B uxa Bargeld

Scenic artists: C ecily Gatacre , Helen

Davies Construction manager: WALTER SPERL Leading hand: COLIN GEARMAN Carpenter: MARCUS SKIPPER Greensman: STEVE WRIGHT

O t h e r C r e d it s

Production manager: YVONNE C ollins 1st assistant director: C olin Fletcher Art director: Hugh BATEUP Gauge: 35mm G o vern m en t A

P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: David B irrell Assistant editor: David BlRRELL Laboratories: A tlab , ClNEVEX Laboratory liaison: Ian A nderson Negative matching: A tlab Grader: A T U B Gauge: 35mm Shooting stock: K odak Video transfers by: A A V A ustralia G o vern m en t A

gency

In v estm

en t

In v e st m

en t

Cast

T cheky K aryo , Rachel Griffiths. he story of an expatriate living in Papua N e w Guinea, w ho falls in love with a w om an w ho rekindles m em ories of his dead w ife. W hen he ta ke s her to his tropical home, she d isco ve rs that he h as a p a s t - a past that he can neither forgive nor forget.

Development: N S W FT O Production: FFC , N S W F T O , Film

V ictoria , B eyond Distribution M

gency

Production: FFC

TURNING APRIL [S ee

previous issue for details ]

a r k e t in g

International distributor: BEYOND Films Publicity: MARIA FARMER PUBLIC REUTiONS Cast

UNDER THE LIGHTHOUSE DANCING

Miranda Otto (D imity Hurley), Rebecca F rith (V icki-A nn Hurley), George

Production company: S ilver T urtle FILMS Production: 16/10/95 ...

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

r in c ip a l

C r e d it s

LAURA Production company: V C A S chool of Film

Rattigan Director of photography: Paul M urphy Editor: David S tiven Production Designer: LAURENCE Eastwood Finance: B acked by A sian investors Publicity: F iona S earson , DDA

& T elevision Distribution company: A FI Budget: $120,000 Pre-production: 1/8/95-4/9/95 Production: 5/9/95-12/10/95 Post-production: 20/10/95-1 /12/95

Cast

n uplifting rom antic com edy based on the true story of three couples w ho visit Rottnest Island to stage a m agical w ed ding.

Shorts

C am

C hiera, W al S aunders, Graeme Isaac . Scriptwriter: S ally R iley Director of photography: Kathryn Milliss Sound recordist: C hris B ollard Editor: W ayne L e C los Production Designer: Gavin Barbey di

C rew

Cam

era

C rew

Cast

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Assistant editor: Melanie Horkan Laboratory: MOVIELAB Laboratory liaison: Martin Hoyle, Eugene R oche Negative matching: C hris R owell

G o vern m en t A

gency

In v estm

en t

\ | i

a r k e t in g

Cast

S tan Dryden (B illy ), Duane J ohnston (R obbie ), Faye Montgomery (May ).

| i

Development: A.F.C.

International distributor: Film A ustralia P ublicity : Kaye W arren

hen six-y e a r-o ld Robbie ta ke s up re sid e n ce in his favourite tree, to be with his friend the P e ew ee bird, his

UNQUIET DREAMS Production company: INCUBUS PRODUCTIONS P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: A ndrew K otatko Producer: A ndrew K otatko Executive producer: Miroslav K otatko Co-producer: N icki R oller Scriptwriter: J ennifer L oicht Director of photography: W illiam Hall Costume designer: Donna van de

et in a co a stal town cara van park, Laura is a p sych o -se xu al thriller. Laura is a glam orous transvestite with a bizarre and deadly secret: a kind of Twin Peaks m eets N atural Born Killers type of gal. D etective Ransard is a ssign e d to catch a serial killer with a pe nchant for men with blue eyes. He and his boyfriend, M ark, get more than they bargained for during their w eekend aw a y at a cara van park.

W ijngaart

Cast

]

i !

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY

mins )

Production company: Calamari ProducPre-production: 2 9 /7 /95 -29 /9 /9 5 Production: 3/10/95-15/12/95

Budget: $175,000 Production: November 1995

P r i n c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: J eff B leckner Producers: Mike J oyce, T ana N ugent Executive producers: Dan WlGUTOW,

r in c ip a l

C r e d it s

Director: S cott PATTERSON

996

! i

TIONS

PACT

Mark Mc K inley Marine co-ordinator: PATRICK Nash

Television D ram a *i BEAST (mini- series; 2 x 95

en t

Kath B urton

uring the sum m er of 1816, a youthful quintette of creative thinkers pursue their d arkest d esires.

D epartm

Set dresser: L eaworth, Lon Lucin Draftsman: TONY WILLIAMS Assistant propsperson: TRISH T rin G Props buyer: L ea L ennon Props maker: RICHARD WEIGHT Standby props: Murray Gosson Assistant standby: A drienne Ogle Action vehicle co-ordinator:

| i

Art director: C olin GlBSON Assistant art director: Fiona S cott Art department co-ordinator: ROSE K eeOING Art department runners: MARTIN WILLIAMS,

Margarita P layoust (Mary ), A nthony Halas (B yron), P eter W alters (S helley ), Helen C onomos (C laire ), A ndrew C rabbe (P olidori).

Editor: Morgan Read Sound recordist: C hris B ollard Composers: A nthony L inden J ones, Gyan

Production: Film A ustralia Marketing: Film A ustralia M

a r k e t in g

Matt Carmody (D etective S teve Ransard ), B rett T ucker (Mark ), Pax (Laura/Fin ), S teve A dams (Danny ), Paul Farrell (Carl ), Megan C onnolly (S exy Girl ).

Film/Video gauge: 16 m m Shooting stock: K odak 7287, 7248

short film of a su icid e that definitely isn't p ainless.

International distributor: A FI Publicity: Catherine Oddie

N uttall P

R hett W alton (H e), V eronica N eave (S he).

Screen ratio: 1:1.85 Shooting stock: K odak 7248 Video transfers by: COMPLETE P ost Off-line facilities: A V ID

Animal trainers: Greg Michael, Diana

ent

Cast

Laboratory: C inemex & A tlab Laboratory liaison: IAN ANDERSON

n im a l s

1st assistant director: COLIN FLETCHER 2nd assistant director: J ames McT eigue 3rd assistant directors: Noni Roy, JULIAN Ryan Continuity: PAMELA WlLLIS Boom operator: Michael T aylor Cable person: EMMA BARHAM Make-up supervisor: LESLEY VANDERWALT Make-up: Cassie Hanlon Assistant make-up: B ec TAYLOR Hairdressing supervisor: LESLEY VANDERWALT Hairdresser: CASSIE HANLON Assistant hairdresser: B ec T aylor Special fx supervisor (Australia): T ad P ride Special fx: Monty Fieguth, Ray F owler, B illy A ziz , T aj T rengrove Special fx assistant: T aj T rengrove Stunts co-ordinator: S pike C herrie Safety officer: S pike C herrie Unit nurse: Patsy B uchan Mechanical fx: Norman Mc Geeoch, Mal Head Catering: S tudio Catering Runners: Lyn Henderson, J ulian Ryan

sion

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

O n -se t C rew

Production: A ustralian F ilm C ommission

ent

C rew

J ohnson, T im Duggan Gaffer: Ian PLUMMER Best boy: ROBBIE B urr Electrician: IAIN MATHESON Assistant electrics: S imon W illiam Generator operator: SlMON WILLIAM

Development: A ustralian Film Commis

Titles: Optical & Graphics

ardrobe

In vestm

era

Focus puller: L eilani Hannah Clapper-loader: J asmine C arugan Camera assistant: B randon B atten 2nd unit D.O.P: ROGER BUCKINGHAM 2nd unit focus: A ndrew B irbara Camera type: A R R I 35mm Key grip: SCOTT BROKATE Assistant grips: DAVID HANSEN, MARIN

Opticals: S pringett Optical S ervices Titles: Ma D House D esign Laboratory: Movielab Laboratory liaison: MARTIN HOYLE Negative matching: Neg C utting S ervices Gauge: S uper 16/35mm Screen ratio: 1:1.85 Shooting stock: K odak 7293 Video transfers by: VlDEOLAB

Mixed at: A V ID Opticals: A tlab

Wardrobe supervisor: R uth B racegirdle

Cam

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

gency

i i

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: JUDY Marlin Assistant editor (U.S.): SCOTT KELLY Editing assistants (Australia): KAREN

MCEVOY, VlDEOLAB Laboratory: A tlab Gauge: 35mm Shooting stock: K odak Cast

! | i

W illiam P etersen (W hip Dalton ), Karen S illas (K athryn ), C harlie Mar tin S mith (G raves ), Larry D rake (L ucas C ohen), Dennis A rndt (Manning ), R onald Guttman (T alley ), Missy C rider (Dana ), S terling Macer J nr (M ike ), Murray Bartlet (C hristopher ), R obert Mammone (R aines )

giant squid c a u s e s havoc to a co a stal fishing com m unity and its su b seq u en t pursuit and destruction.

THE BITE (mini - series; 2 x 90 mins )

J acques

en t

son

W oodruff Sound editor: T im S tobart Post-sync supervisor: T im S tobart

ent

Laguna, Rachel Lane

ardro be

G overn m en t A

D ev e lo pm en t

Director's secretary: S uzanne P earce Production runner: A nton D enby Production accountant: CHRISTINE Robson Accountant: Dianne B rown Insurer: A lbert G. RUBEN, FIU A Legal services: Mallesons S tephen

Mixed at: S oundfirm

ardrobe

l a n n in g a n d

Production manager: J ulia R itchie Production co-ordinator: R uth WATSON Production secretary: CASSANDRA SlMPSON Location manager: R obin C lifton Travel and accommodation: VlCKY ROPER Unit manager: W ill Matthews Assistant unit manager: Greyden L ebreton Unit assistant: PETER KODICEK Unit assistants: Laurie P etinari, A lex

Post-production supervisor: S cott Patter

Post-production supervisor: A llen

Art director: CHARLIE R evai W

Studios: V C A S ound stage #1

1st assistant director: A drian PlCKERSGlLL 2nd assistant director: Dan Roberts Continuity: A nna P otts Boom operator: J ason T routman Safety officers: W ayne P leace, K erry B lakeman Tutor: PETER CARMODY Still photography: C orrie A ncone Catering: Movie Meals D epa rtm

B east

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

C rew

D epartm

on the novel

Construction manager: P hil W orth | Foremen: Marcus S mith, A ndrew S taig i Carpenters: Dave S cott, R on Martin , J ody W illiams j Drivers: Hugh Devaney, W arwick Miller i S et finishers : Frank Falconer, i Dean Lewis | Studios: Homebush B ay

Liz Mullinar C asting (A ustralia ) Extras casting: Gabrielle Healey

Wardrobe supervisor: GENEVIEVE BLEWITT

en t

C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m

B ased

Written by: P eter B enchley Director of photography: GEOFF BURTON Sound recordist: Gunter SlCS Editor: T ed Feuerman Production designer: Owen PATERSON Costume designer: Margot WILSON Visual fx supervisor: Gene W arren P

Assistant art director: R ichard A lexander Armourer: PETER COUGAR

Wardrobe supervisor: S imon S etter Wardrobe buyer: S imon SETTER

On - se t C rew

Art director: LlSA THOMAS Armourer: J ohn Fox

Camera assistant: S imeon B ryan Key grip: P ip 'the Grip ' S hapiera Assistant grip: Darrin B allangarry Gaffer: JONATHON Hughes Best boy: N ick C ross Assistant electrics: Garth A llen

C rew

D epartm

era

Co-executive producer: J ulie COHEN Scriptwriter: J. B. W hite

Casting: B uck Edelman Casting (U .S.),

1st assistant director: Heather Oxenham 2nd assistant director: Habib Massad Continuity: A nna P otts Boom operator: Karen J ones Make-up: Michelle C ochrane Special fx co-ordinator: P eter C ougar Stunts co-ordinator: Rocky Mc Donald Safety officer: George Mannix Still photography: CORRIE ANCONE Catering: A lternative C uisine

Pax Make-up assistant: Kathleen R eynolds Special fx make-up: Michael Menegazzo , S teven Pax Wigmaker: S teven Pax Hairdresser: S imon S etter Still photography: LlSA T homas Unit publicist: Catherine Oddie

Production supervisor: Frank Haines Production manager: Kathy S helper Production assistant: Margaret S amai Production accountant: C arolyn J ohnson

C rew

O n - set C rew

en t

1st assistant director: N icholas B oselev 2nd assistant director: Melissa W hiting Continuity: Melissa W hiting Boom operator: Iva T ora Make-up: Michael Menegazzo, S teven

Director: S ally R iley Producer: A drienne Parr Executive producers: S haron C onnolly,

r o d u c t io n

Cam

O n- set C rew

C r e d it s

r o d u c t io n

era

1 i

Camera operator: (S teadicam ) Martin L ee Camera assistant: C hristoph S ettler Camera type: A rriflex 16 SR Key grip: Matthew A ndrews Gaffer: J onathon Hughes

Camera operator: Hernon B ornas Clapper-loader: A lex Y ule Camera assistant: A lex Y ule Key grip: Lou Higgins Gaffer: B rett Hull Best boy: B rett Hull

Pre-production: 9 /10 /95 -27 /1 0/95 Production: 30 /1 0 /9 5 -3 /1 1 /9 5 Post-production: 6 /11 /95 -18 /1 2/95

Production supervisor: C raig W elsh Production co-ordinator: JOSEPH RlNAUDO

A ssoc , with Indigenous Drama Initiative (A FC ) Distribution companies: AFI (A ustralian theatrical ), S B S I ndependent (A ustralian television ), Film A ustralia (world all media)

en t

Production manager: J oanne Mc Gowan Production accountant: Kari S cruby Insurer: ClNESURE Legal services: Hart & S pira

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production company: F ilm A ustralia in

D ev e lo p m

i !

C onsultants

Script editor: Kate SCHMITT

FLY PEEWEE, FLY

Franco

D ev e lo p m

l a n n in g a n d

P eter B enchley

Casting consultants: Liz Mullinar CASTING

Director: Robert L uketic Producer: Robert Luketic Line producer: JOSEPH RlNAUDO Executive producer: C hris Mc G ill Scriptwriter: R obert L uketic Director of photography: Louis Puu Sound recordist: Z orbey S afak Editor: ROBERT LUKETIC Production designer: LlSA T homas

r in c ip a l

P r i n c ip a l C r e d it s

J acqueline Mc K enzie , J ack T hompson, Naomi W atts , A den G illett , P hillip Holder, Z oe B ertram

Producer: HELEN LlNTHORNE & JOHN O'B rien Scriptwriter: J ohn O'B rien Director of photography: A llen K oppe Sound recordist: Ian S herrie Editor: K ristine Hurley Production designer: Igor Nay

fam ily is forced to see the w orld from his point of view .

Director: G raeme Rattigan Producer: David Giles Line producer: J ane S cott Scriptwriters: David Giles , Graeme

Production company: Palm B each P ic tures , W arner S isters Production: 21/9/95-30/11/95 Post-production: 1/12/95 ... P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: Michael Carson Producers: David E lfick, Lavinia W arner Executive producers: S ue Masters , Michael W earing Line producers: J ohn W arner, Helen Flint Scriptwriter: T erry J ohnson Director of photography: STEPHEN WlNDON Editor: B arrie Munro Production designer: Murray P icknett O t h e r C r e d it s

Production manager: LORRAINE ALEXANDER Production secretary: Lis GlLROY Art director: STEVEN CROSBY Underwriter: FIU A Pre-sale: IT E L

Finance: Palm B each P ictures, FFC, A B C Cast

L eslie Manville , Hugo W eaving, K eith A llen, R ebekah J ay

n international co n sp ira cy en m esh es several ordinary people.

BLINKY BILL'S EXTRAORDINARY EXCURSION (26 x 30 mins ) Production company: Y oram Gross S tudios Production: J uly -N ovember 1995 P

r in c ip a l

C r e d it s

Producer: Y oram Gross Executive producers: T im B rooke-H unt, S andra Gross Scriptwriters: J ohn Palmer, S ue B eak, David W itt , S ally Odgers, Y oram Gross , S hane P orteous Editors: C hristopher P lowright, S ally F itzpatrick Composer: Guv Gross O t h e r C r e d it s

Production manager: L ea Milic Gauge: 35mm Pre-sales: A B C , W D R V

o ic e s

Robyn Moore, K eith S cott ore stories about A u stra lia's prem ier koala.

ardrobe

Costume supervisor: Lyn A skew Costume buyers: Mary L ou da R oza,

L isa Dickson -B attye Standby costume: Barbra Z ussino Assistant standby: A ndrew Infanti Cutter: Marcia L idden Seamstress: S usanne Head C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m

ent

Scenic artist: Eric T odd

BLUE HEELERS (series; 26 x 60 mins ) Production company: S outhern S tar Films Production:... 12/12/95 Post-production: 13/12/95 ... P r i n c ip a l C r e d it s

Directors: Richard J asek , K evin

Carlin , S teve Mann , C hris Martin -

¿production Production Survey

Accounts assistant: JOANNE DRISCOLL Paymaster: Diane Gilbert Insurer: H. W. WOOD Completion guarantor: Film Finances Travel co-ordinator: SHOW TRAVEL

continued J ones, R ichard S arell, Gary C onway Supervising producers: RlC P ellizzeri Executive producer: Hal McELROY Line producer: PETER ASKEW Pun

n in g a n d

D ev e lo pm en t

Story editor: CAROLINE STANTON Script editors: JOHN Banus , P eter D ick Casting: Faith Martin & A ssociates Casting associate: ELLY B radbury Police adviser: P eter Hadoow

(J ulie W ibberley ) Freight co-ordinator: S how Freight (David Rabbitt )

Composer: R oger Mason O t h e r C r e d it s

Production manager: S haron Miller Production assistant: Nell W hite Production accountant: Eric S ankey Art director: P hilip Drake Art department co-ordinator: JENNIFER DES

C hamps Distribution guarantee: BEYOND Pre-sale: S even N etwork Finance: FFC, Film Queensland

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: Eva ORNER Production co-ordinator:

Megan W orthy Production accountant: T ony Nagle O n - se t C rew

Location manager: J ohn GREENE 1st assistant directors: DAVID C larke,

S tuart W ood

Cast

Production companies: VRP Production S ervices, T he S amuel Goldwyn C om

Distribution company: T he S amuel Golowyn C ompany

FLIPPER (series ; 19 x 60

m ins )

pany

P r i n c i p a l C r e d it s

FIRE II (series; 13 x 60

mins )

Production companies: BEYOND, LIBERTY Films Production: 10/9/95-March 1996 P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Directors: PETER FlSK, GEOFF BENNETT Producers: MICHAEL CAULFIELD, SlMONE

N orth, T ony Cavanaugh Executive producer: MlKAEL BORGLUND Scriptwriters: EVERETT DE R oche, P eter

S chreck, Graham Hartley , T ony Cavanaugh Director of photography: J aems Grant Editor: SUZANNE FUNNERY Production designer: PETA Lawson Costumes: Paul W arren

Laura (Pax). Robert Luketic's Laura.

Directors: Ian Barry, Donald C rombie,

P eter Fisk , B rendan Maher, Greg P range, Darryl S heen, Rob S tewart, C hris T homson, B rian T renchardS mith, B rian W immer Producer: Greg Prange Co-producer: R obert Florio Line producer: T om HOFFIE Executive producers: JEFFREY Hayes , Ernie W allengren Executives in charge of production: Dan S mith (U.S.), Michael Lake (A ustralia ) Associate producers: JULIA GILBERT, Ra ' uf Glasgow i Supervising producer: WILLIAM SCHWARTZ Based on the original television series created by R icon B rowning, J ack C owden \ Developed by: Ernie W allengren, Michael Nankin Writer assistant: S cott S tevenson Director of photography: J ohn S tokes Sound recordist: Paul "S alty " B rincat i Editors: David C odron, R egis K imble, Dennis C. V ejar Production designer: Eugene Intas Costume designer: A nna Baulch \ Comoosers: C orey Lerios , J ohn D'A ndrea P

l a n n in g a n d

D e v e lo p m en t

j Researchers: GREG SZULGIT, UNIVERSITY OF S an Diego Casting: MAURA Fay & ASSOCIATES (A ustralia ), S later/B rooksbank Casting (U.S.) I Casting consultants: Lynne Ruthven (A ustralia ), Mary J o S later , S teve B rooksbank (U .S.) Extras casting: J ulie KRIEDEMANN Dialogue coach: Margo LOSEY Storyboard artist: T ony S hort Budgeted by: TOM Hoffie P r o d u c t io n C r e w

;

Production manager: STOTTIE Production co-ordinator: K erry Callander Producer's assistant: J udy ALLEN Production secretary: Katie Nott Location managers: Mike Mc L ean,

C hris S trewe Transport manager: Phil Meurant Unit manager: BRENDON "M oose" B oyd Assistant unit manager: Garry B rennan Production assistants: Michael Bate ,

David Holmdahl, Drew Michel Drivers: Mick B raddock, T ony Edwards, J ohn Horrobin, K erry K ervan, A nnette Ruger, T im S tanley , Mick Van Moorsel Financial controller: LYNN PAETZ Production accountant: Elaine C rowther

Garland

S ervices

Gauge: video

J ohn W ood, Grant B owler, L isa Mc C une, W illiam Mc Innes, J ulie Nihill, Martin S acks , Damien W alshe -H owling

T roy R eichman

Mc Kay Gaffer: K en Moffatt Best boy: Nick A dam Electrician: Glenn Dawe Assistant electrics: Eric J ohnson Generator operator: Paul Van A rcken

P ieter A quilia Production manager: S am T hompson Gauge: 16mm

V ince P oletto, A da N icodemou, J on P ollard, Emma Roche, Deni Gordon, Diane C raig , T ara J akszewicz , Rupert R eid, S ebastian Goldspink

HOUSE GANG

M a r k e t in g

2nd unit D.O.P: Geoff C ox 2nd unit focus: S imon C hristidis 2nd unit dapper: S teve C ahill Camera type: ARRI 3 Camera maintenance: S amuelson Film Key grip: Grant N ielsen Assistant grips: B rett Marks , Maurice

P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Publicity: Cynthia Leiberman , T atiana

O t h e r C r e d it s

Story editor: VlCKI MADDEN-CUSTO Script editors: P hil McA loon,

Cast

(David S chubert) Video special fx: P hoton S tockman Video master by: Hollywood Digital

Camera operator: Henry P ierce Focus puller: T ony P olitis Clapper-loaders: A ron L eong,

Danny A dcock, A ndy A nderson, Liddy C lark, Debora-L ee Furness, T o m Goldsmith, T ayler Kane , Robert Morgan, Damian P ike, W ayne Pygram, Damien Rice econd se rie s about suburban firefighters.

(

Film gauge: 35 m m Screen ratio: 1:1.33 Shooting stock: K odak Video transfers by: VlDEOLAB GOLD COAST

C a m era C rew

C ast

Editors: R ichard Hindley, J ames B radley Production designer: J on Rohde Composer: T odd HUNTER

Post-sync recording: VlC KASPAR (A ustralia ) Music supervisor: Kathy Dayak | Recording studio: Lerios, D'A ndrea (U .S.) \ | Mixers: K evin B urns, C hristian Minkler, | J on T aylor | Mixed at: T odd AO S tudios W est (U .S.) j Optical titles: HOLLYWOOD Digital Laboratory»: ATLAB QUEENSLAND Laboratory liaison: Gary K eir

(series ; 6 x

C ast

B rian W immer (Dr K eith R icks ), C olleen Flynn (D r Pam B londel), Payton Haas (Mike B londel), J essica A lba (Maya ), L isa Lackey (A lexis ), S tephen Hornyak (C liff B ethers) he new adventures of Flipper, a wild dolphin who ch oose s to make con tact with his human friends at the Bal Harbour R e se arch Institute.

A lfred Road Films, A ccessible A rts Production: 9/10/95-8/12/95 P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: Ma NDY SMITH Producer: Gaby Mason Executive producers: CHRIS OLIVER,

T i

30 m ins )

Production companies: Film A ustralia ,

B arbara Mariotti

G.P. (SERIES)

Associate producer: K eith T hompson Scriptwriters: Roxxy B ent , A ndrew K elly Director of photography: BRENDON LAVELLE Editor: Marc van B uuren Production designer: David Mc Kay

O t h e r C r e d it s Production company: V illage Roadshow O n - set C rew Script editor: K eith T hompson P ictures, ABC | 2nd unit director: K evan "L oosey" L ind Production: 9/10/95-21/6/96 Production manager: S andra A lexander 2nd unit co-ordinator: GlNA BLACK 1st assistant director: Karan Monkhouse P r i n c i p a l C r e d it s 1st assistant directors: A rnie Custo, Peter i i Gauge: SP B eta CAM Directors: P eter A ndrikidis , R obert Fitzgerald Pre-sale: SBS INDEPENDENT K lenner , M arcus N orth , K ann K reicers \ 2nd assistant director: J ulie B urton Cast Producer: P eter A ndrikidis 3rd assistant director: S cott J ohnston i Executive producers: S ue SMITH, Matt i Ruth C romer, C hris Greenwood, Continuity': S ally Mann Carroll S axon Graham Boom operator: C raig WALMSLEY j Make-up: S ue K elly-T ait , R ick F inqlater, ; Scriptwriters: K risten Dunphy, T im Pye , C hris Mc C ourt, Katherine T homson j Kym S ainsbury KLINE'S BOTTLE (series ) i Directors of photography: Geoff Manias , i Hairdresser: S ue K elly-T ait Paul T urner Special fx supervisor: B rian Holmes Production company: TWENTY FIRST ClTY Production designers: Leslie T ierney, 1 Special fx: B ruce B right, Ric Mac C lure ; A ustralia , NHK Robyn W illiams, K errie R eay Stunts co-ordinator: C hris A nderson Distribution company: NHK Composer: Mario Millo Stums: Don Vaughn, Darko T uskan , Pre-production: 20/11/95-1/12/95 Lana Darby , S zumanl A nderson O t h e r C r e d it s Production: 2/12/95-17/12/95 Safety' officer: Don Vaughn Post-production: J anuary, February 1996 Story' editor: S helley BlRSE Unit nurse: Deidre Eagles Script editors: Robyn SINCLAIR, LOUISE P r in c ip a l C r e d it s Still photographers: Double P R C rane, Grant McA loon Director: K enji Matsumoto Photography, J ason B oland, S ean Production manager: A nnette Gover Producers: Georgina P ope, T etsushi B arnes, Paul B roben Cast Nakamura Catering: Eleets Catering, Line producer: ROSSLYN ABERNETHY S teve B isley , Z oe Carides , Melissa ; Kaos Katering, Quinelle' s Catering Scriptwriter: Kazunori Hagiwara J affer , Lenka K ripa I | A rt D epartm en t Based on K line' s B ottle : | ^ | ore of the m edical drama series. Art director: B ill B ooth Written by: Kazunori Hagiwara Assistant art director: Randy VELLACOTT i Directors of photography: T ony R ees , i i Art department co-ordinator: Kylie Dennis T eru I mai Art department runners: Lenny Holmdahl, Production designer: Michael Ralph HALIFAX F.P. (tele-features) Gary B onnar Costume designer: Davio R owe Production company: SlMPSON L e MESURIER Set dresser: Lisa "B litz " B rennan P r o d u c t io n C r e w F ilms Props buyers: Marks B rims, P rue Production: 11/9/95-15/12/95 Production supervisor: Rosslyn A bernethy S aunders Location manager: RlC Lawes P r in c ip a l C r e d it s Standby props: B en Bauer I | Production accountant: R ichard C oates Directors: Michael Offer, Paul Moloney, Armourer: A llan Mowbray Insurer: H. W. WOOD S teve J odrell Assistant armourer: W ade K rawczyk Travel co-ordinator: INGRID ROEBUCK Producers: ROGER L e MESURIER, ROGER Action vehicle co-ordinator: "T ruck" S how T ravel S impson Humphries Freight co-ordinator: Ingrid R oebuck Associate producer: Ros T atarka Boat co-ordinator: Gary Mc Namara S how T ravel Scriptwriters: David B outland, Katherine W ardrobe C am era C rew T homson, Mac Gudgeon Wardrobe supervisor: P hillip Eagles i Director of photography: C raig Barden i Camera operator: T ony Rees Standby wardrobe: PHILIPPA W ootten | Production designer: Otello S tolfo Key grip: B ob WATTERSON Wardrobe assistants: C eleste Franklin , Gaffer: T ony Gailey O t h e r C r e d it s Melissa W ilson, Glenn Francis Script editor: JuTTA GOETZE O n - s e t C rew A n im a l s Art airector: BERNADETTE W ynack 1st assistant director: Ric Lawes Animai trainers: Darryl "S pike " P earce, Gauge: 16 m m 1 2nd assistant director: Y oshiko T anaka W ayne P hillips Distribution guarantee: B eyond Stunts co-ordinator: C hris A nderson Animal handlers: Darryl "S pike " P earce, International Stunts: Ric A nderson W ayne P hillips Finance: N ine Network, FFC Safety officer: Greg S kipper C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t C ast Catering: S mokin' J esters Scenic artist: C hris Goddard Runner: A nne FLYNN Rebecca Gibney. Construction manager: J ohn Parker A

Leading hand: Dave W eston Trade assistants: S ez Parker , J ohn

O'B rien Carpenter: MICHAEL DEMPSEY Set finisher: Rohan DAWSON P

(series ; 26 x 60 i

o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: KlM SCHAFFER Post-production co-ordinator: DlANE M.

Papas Assistant editors: S andy Grubb , J ean W oods, Karen S harp Sound editor: WILLIAM ANGAROLA Assistant sound editors: KiMBERLY Lambert, T ony Cappelli, S teve B issinger

m ins )

r in c ip a l

ardrobe

P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

C r e d it s

Karl Z wicky , A ndrew P rowse, Ian Gilmour Producer: B en Gannon 1 Executive producer: Michael J enkins Scriptwriters: VARIOUS | Director of photography: LAURIE KIRKWOOD

en t

Wardrobe supervisor: Dawn D'OR Video transfers by: V ideo Lab , Gold C oast Visual fx: Dale Duguid, P hoton

Directors: CATHERINE MlLLAR, CHRIS LANGi

D epartm

Production company: Gannon TELEVISION P roduction: 26/6/95-22/12/95 P

Art director: A dam Head Standby props: B radley Campbell

HEARTBREAK HIGH

man,

S tockman C ast

Hiroshi K okubu (A kihiko). \

vil fo rce s push a te e n ager in a w orld of "virtual reality".

CINEMA PAPERS • FEBRUARY 1996

OCEAN GIRL 3 ( 2 6 x 3 0

m in s )

Production company: JONATHAN M . SHIFT P roductions Distribution companies: BEYOND Distribution , T ele I mages/ITI Budget: $7.8 million Production: 3/7/95-2/2/96 Post-production: ... 28/7/96 P rincipal C redits Director: Mark D e Friest , C olin B udds Producer: J onathan M . S hiff Executive producer: J onathan M . S hiff Line producer: V icki Popplewell Scriptwriters: P eter Hepworth (eps 1, 2, 26), N eil L uxmoore (3,12, 23), Michael J oshua (4, 18), David P hillips (5, 6 , 13), J udy C olquhoun (7, 8,15), A lison N iselle (9,17), A lison N eilson (25), C arole W ilkinson (10), J enny S harp (11), Lois B ooton (14, 22), Graham Hartley (16, 24), Maureen Mc C arthy (19), Helen Mac W hirter (20, 21). Director of photography: R on Hagen Sound recordist: J ohn W ilkinson Editors: P hilip W atts , ANDREW SCOTT, Ray Daley Production designer: GEORGIE Greenhill Costume designer: A lban FARRAWELL Composer: T he MUSIC DEPARTMENT (Garry Mc Donald, Laurie S tone) P lanning and Development Story editor: P eter Hepworth Script editors: PETER HEPWORTH, Michael J oshua Script co-ordinator: Naomi P owell Tutor: Maree Gray Tutor #2: C athryn W arren Casting: P rotoype Casting Budgeted by: Kay B en M'rad P roduction C rew Production manager: A manda C rittenden Production co-ordinator: Jo W arren Producer's assistant: A manda T rotter Production secretary: S usan C ombey Location manager: Karen J ones Unit manager: BRENDON B oyd Boat co-ordinator: KARL JESIENOWSKI Whale wrangler: Karl J esienowski Whale robotics: R obotechnology (C hris C hitty ) Financial controller: Kay B en M’rad Production accountant: Kay B en M'rad Accounts assistant: T im RENWICK Paymaster: Kay B en M'rad Insurer: W illis C orroon R ichard Oliver Completion guarantor: FACB Legal services: Michael B rereton & Co Travel co-ordinator: TRAVELTOO Freight co-ordinator: FlLMLlNK Distribution guarantees: BEYOND Distribution , T ele Images/ITL C amera C rew Camera operator: P hil C ross Focus puller: Gary B ottomley 2nd unit DOP: PHIL CROSS 2nd underwater operator: Ross I saacs Gaffer: R ichard R ees - J ones Best boy: A ndrew Moore Electrician: Darryn Fox Assistant electrics: K im J ohr Generator operator: Darryn F ox On- set C rew 1st assistant directors: J amie L eslie , Ian K enny 2nd assistant director: Rachel Evans Script assistant: MARIEKE Hardy C ontinuity: Paul K iely , T ara Ferrier Playback operator: J ohn W ilkinson Make-up: Maggie K olev Hairdresser: MAGGIE KOLEV Assistant hairdresser: DOUG Glanville Stunts: N ew Generation S tunts (M itch Deans ) Neri double: Z elie T hompson Safety officer: Eddy Mc S hortall Unit nurse: Gail C ousland Still photography: S teve B rennan , B ill B achman Unit publicist: A manda T rotter Catering: A nnie Harris (P ort Douglas) A rt Department Art director: A dele Flere Standby props assistant: PETER Lyon W ardrobe Wardrobe supervisor: A lban Farrawell Standby wardrobe: B ronwyn Doughty Wardrobe assistant: B ronwyn Doughty

P ost- production

Post-production supervisor: J ayne L uxton Assistant editors: P hilip W atts , A ndrew

, | | | | !

| i ! | i i

j I I

i i i i

| 1 i

| i i

i i i

1 i \

i i i

i i

i i i j i

i \

i i i

| \

Cast

! |

Greg W ise (B ritt ), S imon Dutton (N eill ), Dave N ellist (P age ), Ralph B rown (Mann ), Dougray Scon (Mayfield ), J ohn McA rdle (F oster ), P hil Mc K ee (S hearer), T imothy W est (W innerick ), A nna B olt (N icky ), C raig S hai Hee (K evin ).

i | | I !

POLICE RESCUE (series 4; 22 x 55

m ins )

Production companies: S outhern S tar , ABC Production: 7/8/95-8/12/95

P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

eri and the children from the underwater city of Orca set out in search of an alien device capable, when assembled, of controlling the very movement of the oceans. Butthe dark forces of UBRI have also stumbled upon its existence and the race is on. At stake is the Earth's salvation or its destruction.

Directors: S c o n Hartford-D avis , Paul

;

Faint , T ony T ilse , S teve Mann , Rowan W oods i Producers: S andra L evy, J ohn Edwards ; Executive producers: S ue S mith, Errol S ul livan

Associate producer: W ayne B arry Scriptwriters: R ick Maier , Glenda

Hambly , Debra Oswald , Deborah Parsons , P hil C ornford, C hristopher L ee, Daniel K ige Director of photography: R ussell B acon Editors: N icole la Macchia , B ill R usso , C hris S purr Production designers: C ol R udder, Karen 1 Land , A nnie Marshall, C hris B atson i Composers: Garry Hardman, Martin A rmiger

THE PLACE OF THE DEAD

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1996

n im a l s

Animal handler: Mark Gainford

(tele - feature)

Government A gency I nvestment Development: Film Queensland, Film V ictoria Production: FFC, Film V ictoria , Film Queensland Marketing International distributor: B eyond Distribution , T ele Images/ITI C ast Marzena Godecki (N eri), David Hoflin (J ason B ates ), J effrey W alker (B rett B ates ), K erry A rmstrong (D ianne B ates ), A lex P inder (W inston S eth ), Lauren Hewett (Mera ), J eremy A ngerson (K al ).

Production company: V R P PRODUCTION S ervices (M ichael Care ) Budget: $2,600,000 P rincipal C redits Director: SURI KRISHNAMMA Producer: J eff P ope L ine producer: A llison Malone Written by: JEFF POPE Scriptwriter: J eff P ope Director of photography: N ino MARTINETT! Sound recordist: Paul C lark Editor: LWT Production designer: Michael Ralph Costume Designer: David Rowe P unning and Development Casting: Maura Faye & Assoc Extras casting: Maura Faye & Assoc Shooting schedule by: A llison Malone Budgeted by: LWT P roduction C rew Production manager: R osslyn A bernethy Producer's assistant: K it Hopkinson Location manager: N eil Mc Cart Transport manager: David S uttor Unit manager: David S uttor Unit assistant: A u n L ong Production assistant: A nne Flynn Production accountant: R ichard C oates Travel co-ordinator: SHOW TRAVEL Freight co-ordinator: S how Freight C amera C rew Camera operator: N ino Martinetti Focus puller: David Elmes Clapper-loader: J ason B innie 2nd unit D.O.P: W arwick Field 2nd unit focus: CAMERON CURKE Key grip: R ichard A llardice Assistant grip: PETER STOCKLEY Gaffer: Graham Rutherford Best boy: S tephen Gordon Generator operator: Matt Fergus On- set C rew 1st assistant directors: B il l W estley , R ichard Mc Grath 2nd assistant directors: R ichard Mc Grath , Don L inke 3rd assistant director: J osh Hamill Continuity: C arolina Haggstrom Boom operator: Rod CONDOR Make-up: Margaret S tevenson Make-up assistant: P eter W oodward Hairdresser: PETER WOODWARD Stunts co-ordinator: A rthur Hoadley Unit nurse: LlZ POINTON Technical adviser: Hugh B ritian Runners: S tefan K ulka, Cameron A rt Department Art director: Michael Ralph Assistant art director: A dam Head Art department runner: Pr is c il u C ameron Set dresser: Mark Elder Props buyer: B radley Campbell

ardrobe

Wardrobe supervisor: David R owe Standby wardrobe: Dawn D'or Wardrobe assistant: S asha Drake

Scon, Ray Daley Gauge: 16mm Mixed at: S oundfirm Laboratory: ClNEVEX Printing stock: K odak

i i

) , )

Standby props: B radley Campbell

O t h e r C r e d it s

Story editor: AMANDA HlGGS Production manager: WAYNE Henry Stunt co-ordinator: R ichard B ove Post-production co-ordinator:

Cathy Forster Gauge: 16mm

Richard Franklin's David Williamson's Brilliant Lies.

C ast

Gary S weet, S onia T odd, S teve Bastoni, Frankie J. Holden, J ohn C layton, S al vatore Coco, Leah P urcell , B elinda C otterill

Other C redits Pre-sale: ABC, T en Network Finance: SCREEN WEST Distributor: Primetime

\ ^ h e fourth series.

P eter Gawler Director of photography: Danny BATTERHAM Production designer: Michael B ridges Composer: L es Gock

Other C redits

he lives of young athletes at a sports institute

THE SILVER BRUMBY (animated 1

series ;

13 x 30

P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Supervising director: J ohn T atoulis Animation directors: PAUL WILLIAMS, Maggie Geddes, S teve French ! Producers: C olin J. S outh, J ohn T atoulis Scriptwriters: J on S tephens, J udy Malmgren Composer: T assos Ioannides Sound: P eter Palankay , Labsonics O t h e r C r e d it s

Script editor: JOHN T atoulis Pre-sale: N etwork T en, BBC Distribution guarantor: DARO Film

Distribution Finance: FFC, Film V ictoria, AFC Length: 13 X 30 MINS Ca st

1 R ebecca Gibney , C harles T ingwell, R hys Muldoon, Michael Carmen, R ichard ; A spel , J ohn Higginson, J ohn S tanton, Doug T remlett, Marg Downey.

he adventures of the legendary Thowra, the magnificent silver I brumby and his youthful gang of High ! Country friends.

SWEAT (26 x 30 i

m ins )

Production company: BARRON Entertainment Production:

N O V E M B E R -D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 5

P r i n c ip a l C r e d it s

US AND THEM

m ins )

Production company: Media WORLD Features Production:.... J anuary 1996

Producers: Margot Mc Donald, Paul B arron

Story editor: J ohn HUGGINSON Script editor: Michaeley O'B rien Production manager: F iona KI ng Gauge: 16mm

(series ; 1 3 x 3 0

m ins )

Production companies: T elltale F ilms, Nine N etwork Production: November 1995-M arch 1996 P rincipal C redits Director: P ino A menta Producers: A lan Hardy, J ohn P owditch Executive producers:KRlS NOBLE, PHILIP Dalkin Production designer: Owen WILLIAMS Other C redits Story editor: PHILIP Dalkin Script editor: P hilip Dalkin P roduction managers: Kate Halliday , J enni T osi Gauge: VIDEO C ast Rhys Muldoon, Doris Y ounane, B rian Meegan, Kylie Hogart

modern look at love and relationships.

Distribution guarantee: S outhern S tar Pre-sale: N ine N etwork C ast C olin Friels , Catherine Mc C lements, S ophie Heathcote, B rett Partridge, A aron J effery, S cott B urgess, P eter B ensley , T oni S canlon

he NSW Water Police are nicknamed the "Water Rats". Murder, mayhem, kidnaps, bomb threats or burglary, if it happens on Sydney Harbour, it's W ater Rats' job to solve the crime and catch the culprit.

WHITE LIES

Producer: JOHN SEXTON Executive producers: C hris B rown,

WATER RATS 1 (series ; 1 3 x 60

m ins )

Production company: QUICKSILVER Productions Production: 23/10/95 ... P rincipal C redits Directors: Mark P iper, T im B urstall , C hris Martin - J ones, Scon HartfordDavis , R ichard S arell Executive producer: Hal Mc Elroy Supervising producer: J ohn HUGGINSON Line producer: STEPHEN JONES Scriptwriters: T ony Morphett, Denise Morgan, A nne B rooksbank,

(TELE-FEATURE)

Production company: RUTHERFORD F ilm Holdings Production: 20/11/95-16/2/96 P rincipal C redits Director: Pauline C han

V ictor G lynn Co-producer: JULIE FORSTER Scriptwriters: Henry T efay, K ee Y oung Editor: T im WELLBURN

Other C redits Gauge: 16mm Length: 96 MINS Internationa! distribution: PoRTMAN GLOBAL Pre-sale: N etwork T en

Finance : FFC, P ortman Entertainment Group political thriller about the public façade and private lives of an aspiring politician and his wife.

B A B E W I N S , THE U SU A L S 'U S P E C T S 'S C O K E S A F U L L HQ.USE.

T h e A m e r ic a n P re s id e n t

ise r

A s s a s s in s

ic h a r d

h r is

S èèêêèIÈË

o o s a s

dw ard

! 1 ! ! 1

.......

T h e B r o th e rs M c M u lle n

B & jB B p M B

o sse r

B abe

urns

6 3

(T h e C ity o f L o s t C h ild re n )

-P ie r r e J e

a s

u se t

, M

arc

Caro

JK Ê Ê Ê t

obert

o d r ig u e z

■

J H

rosbard

■

( H

G o ld e n e y e

a r t in

u l l iv a n

Ja d e

il l ia m

r ie d k is

|S| i

— ■

■' T V

4 ,

Jo h n n y M n e m o n ic

obert

arry

i i

lark

L an d and F re e d o m

oach

W KM

êê ê

L iv in g in O b liv io n

T o m D iC illo T h e M a d n e s s o f K in g G e o r g e

ic o la s

ytner

! 1

: i i

Rad

ic h a e l

ford

L es R o se a u x Sauvages (W ild R e e d s)

ndré

■ B

r '

__ «

é c h in é

Iggl

w - ,'9 ’ /

■

__ 1 i 1 : i

ang

T o y S to ry

o h n

L K

m ir

u stu r ic a

T h e U s u a l S u s p e c ts

ryan

Sin g

V ir t u o s i t y

rett

eonard

T. -.V p

îm

L T 8 ,o 3 Lÿ,.' '•;g\-

j É j M

r a j i

I( bh|B ¡g jjip

; ;

'SMi

B B S

__ #s

B f

.3-'

■J

. :

;3 S

0 \M

Ü§ 1'

m { K 11

> ¿ ’4

M eSfT

1 1 «'M

;

IfG «

¡V -

8 3

6 3

3 2

7 '8

'•'5 ' ■

■

4 3

6 ,8

7 3

■

7 .8

■

j- - -%

,; V

1 9

jlA jk

y j| 8 M §2 iÿ ?

9 B

1 V r v~l

. ‘

; » Ë

i i ! 1 i ! ! i ; i ! i i 1 j

I f t iS !

nb: T e n e b rio u s: a. 1594. [var. of tenebrous] Tenebrous, a. late ME. Full of darkness, dark, fig. Obscure, gloomy. 1599.

;

- 5

;

‘

■

7 J

5 .3

7 -

' | S

; r ." f ’

10 5

8 i

0T '¿#'2

H d1 m \ii il-

5 A iib

V l'V -M Ijj f8 p$ ff ËÉ II |L

lÿ

f tp Ç P J l || ^ i \ ^ ________________ t- ~ _r ~

fâi

Lui ffi frÿ ij. gg

R {fj iü S ' 10 IB ¡¡g g ¿ '.V f ''’

asseter

U n d erg ro u n d

ayne

in c h e r

Sm oke

jgg

8 ■

a v id

Seven

1.,| é

W Êm \i j " 1 # !

a v ie s

11 P o s t i n o

î* $ . m Wsmm

SÊ Ê Ê Ê

T M

■m

N e o n B ib le

f| f

i i

;f j

erence

Jj [Vf?

K id s

o n g o

: i

- ■' “ ■■■

am pbell

J a c k &c S arah

§g

(S. 1

it h

G e o rg ia

Uuu G

;

F a ir G am e

- .

m im

D e sp e ra d o

;

ijg

B B B B H

©i R » gg

Êâ

C lo c k e rs

S pik e L

;

L a C ité d es E n fa n ts P e rd u s

\ _____ 1_____ 1_____ M_____ 1______1_____ t_____ l _____ f

; 8

.4 "

1 6 3 *■ ■ 1 '’’

7 .8

6 .7

f f Ü

■

;

A panel of ten film reviewers has rated a selection of the latest releases on a ocale of 0 to 10, the latter being the optimum rating (a dmtb means not jeen). The entice are: B ill Collins (Daily ¿Mirror); B arbara Creed (The Age); Sandra H a ll (The Bulletin); P a u l H arris (JRRR; “The Green Guide ”, The Age); S ta n Janies (The Adelaide Advertiser); A d ria n M a rtin (The Age; “The Week in Film”, Radio National); Scott M urray; Toni R y a n (The Sunday Age); D avid S tra tto n (\7ariety; SBS); and E van W illia m s (The Australian).

THE

; 1U ltim ate R ESOILUTION ♦

♦

'.Dfilm fn 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.

Si,ico»,Gtop - Full film resolution scanning . and .recording I - Intelligent colour keying and . m atte production - Seam less multi-layer compositing - Im age restoration; dustbysttf^7 v scratch re m o v a J^ a in € sa lv a g e Izm g

Dfilm Services

- Film in - film,out bureau service

- O p tical effects and titles

- Motion tracking

- V ideo to film transfers with A C M E 's propriety im age enhancement system

- W id e range of filtering tools; ^ sim a g e blurring, sharpening, re-grain, de-grain - Com prehensive paint p ackage with full 10 bit per colour sampling

51A Hume Street Crows Nest

N S W 2065 Australia

- All format video and computer m edia transferred to slides - Im age stabilisation

Telephone (02) 436 1466

Facsimile: (02) 436 1833 BG&D Dfl 453

CinĂ¨on today?

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

Film: No Escape Director of Photography: Phil Meheux, BSC Work: Selective Tone Scale Enhancement Facility: Cinesite Europe

Client: C&A Director: Roman Kuhn Work: Tone Scale and Colour Alteration Facility: ARRI Digital Film

The quality and creative power to expand your imagination and your business from Kodak. For more information about the Cineon Digital Film System please call:

Russell Chapman Richard Krohn

Motion Picture & Television Imaging

(03) 9353 2437 (02) 870 4270 Kodak and Cineon are trade marks