Cinema Papers No.115 April 1997 by UOW Library

•fìtti MOTS*S ICGW.TC

pA lt P tB TS , W C U C ANI

¡a l t e n d e r l l ï l i ic a n d r a n ú n (P B

THIS n o il « U S A LTO p ç g A i l DtSTS , P O fU C ANC

GALTENDER UC AH 0 PRIVATE

4160309

HOTE fS U fiA L T D

Í0JTS.W 8UCAHO

EGALTENDER tUC AND PRIVATE

EGALTENDER IUC AHO PRIVATE

g 54160309

r**AL TENDER r » î AUD PRIVATE

EGALTENDER IUC AID PRÍVATE

64 ^ , 0. W .!* ashington

contents N U M B E R 115

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRIL 1 997

Focus BEY O ND EFFECTS DOP John Seale

M ary C olbert

W ith its e p ic lo v e story , e x o t ic lo c a tio n s , p ed ig ree a c to r s a n d a c c la im e d d irecto r, T h e English P atient w a s h igh o n J o h n S e a le ’s w ish -list

6 A CONFIDENT VISION DOP Ian Baker by

Scott M urray

Ia n B a k e r is in n o rush to tra d e h is light m e te r f o r a d ir e c to r ’s ch air. H e ta lk s a b o u t T h e Chamber* th e la test in a lu m in o u s career.

R O B E R T K R A SK E R A Filmography by

Scott M urray

H e h a s w o r k e d w ith V iscon ti, L o se y , C a ro l R eed , W illiam W yler, O liv ier ... T h e little-k n o w n story o f th e first A u stralian D O P to w in a n O scar.

NEWSFRONT Bob Gets His Dues by

I an Stocks

House is a Castle

N ew sfront is a g re a t A u stralian classic, b u t n o t a ll is as it seem s. Ia n S to ck s in v estig ates a n d d isco v ers th e f i l m ’s cred its h a rd ly beg in to te ll th e story.

Inbits

Festivals

Issues

Legal Ease

Inreview: films

Inreview: books

N ew Media

Technicalities

Inproduction

Nilom atic Nine

Diane Cook works part-time as a freelance writer and at Cinemedia; Mary Colbert is a writer on film; Ian David is an award-winning screenwriter whose credits include Blue Murder and Joh's Jury, Fred Harden writes on multimedia; his on-line 'zine can be found at www.mm.com.au/amm; Fincina Hopgood is is an Arts-Law student at Melbourne University; Lloyd Hart is a principal of Hart & Spira; Simon Lake is the Executive

TV’s Frontline team makes the bold leap to the big screen. P eter malone finds The Castle a seriously funny little gem. Self-financed, low-budget and very now, the film is an ingenious addition to a great tradition. PAGE 1 0

Director of the Australian Writers Guild; Peter Malone is Director of the Catholic Film Office; Brian McFarlane is an Associate Professor in the English Department at Monash University; Deborah Niski is a writer and director of the short, Hell, Texas and Home’, Tom Ryan is the Film Critic for The Sunday Age and Senior Lecturer in Media, Literature & Film at Swinburne University; Barry Smith is a Sydney director, writer and photographer; Margaret Smith is a scriptwriter and writer on film; Ian Stocks is a filmmaker and lecturer in film and television at Queensland University of Technology.

Dèai Editor, There is nothing like a bit of encouragement to create j confidence. I wish someone told Film Queensland that before the ^ October 1996 article in Cinema Papers about the state of the j film industry in Queensland.

NEWS,

VIEWS,

AND

GONSKI REPORT enator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications and the Arts, has received the Report of the Review of Commonwealth Assistance to the Film Industry (the Report), conducted by Mr David Gonski.

However, as the recommendations, particularly those concerning screen cul ture and the AFC's Marketing Branch, are under review, analysis of the Report has been held to a future issue, when things are clearer.

PEGASUS AWARDS FOR SHORT FILM EXCELLENCE Ansett Australia has launched the first "Pegasus Awards for Short Film Excellence". The Awards invite emerging filmmak ers to produce a short film of up to five minutes' duration. The top three win ning films will be broadcast to cus tomers on Ansett Australia flights around the country during August 1997. Ansett's Director of Marketing, Garry Kingshott, said the Pegasus Awards would enable Ansett to showcase home-grown talent through its inflight media to highlight original works which were at the cutting-edge of Australian entertainment. The Awards will be judged by a panel co-ordinated by the AFI. Prizes include: a $15,000 ten-night trip for two to the 1997 Tokyo International Film Festival; $10,000 worth of Kodak Professional 16mm motion picture film stock plus

NEWS,

ETC.

one day's use of AAV Digital Post Production Network's telecine facilities in Melbourne or Sydney; and a $5,000 Sony DV Digital Handycam. The closing date for entries is 29 May, 1997. Completed entries should be sent on VHS PAL format to PO Box 4444, Mordialloc, Victoria 3195. All sub missions must have been produced post July 1996 to be eligible for entry, and winners will be announced in July. Flyers, which contain specific details on terms and conditions, are available from Randall Crocker on behalf of the Pegasus Awards. Telephone (03) 9811 9958.

DIARY DATES • The St Kilda Film Festival will take place from 24 - 27 April at the Astor and George cinemas. The Festival will include a programme of new and retrospective short films curated by filmmaker Lawrence Johnston, short films from Britain, Dance For The Camera and Sound On Film. • A diverse selection of local and inter national documentaries screen at 7:15pm on Tuesday nights at the Victorian College of the Arts' Grant Street Cinema. For further information contact Peter Tammer on (03) 9685 9018. • Streetlight Screenings are held at 7:30pm on Friday nights at Melbourne's State Film Theatre. Programme information is available by phoning Paul Chandley on (03) 9696 9499. • Buster Keaton's 1923 Our Hospitality will screen with the live musical accompaniment of The Blue Grassy Knoll at Melbourne's Capitol Theatre from 29 March to 20 April, Saturdays and Sundays only. Bookings can be made through Bass Ticketing Agencies.

cover:

Jerry MaGuire (Tom Cruise)

in Cameron Crowe’s Jerry

MaGuire.

• SBS Television's Auteur 7Vis a 13-week series of early works by prominent Australian and interna tional directors, from Gillian Armstrong and Martin Scorsese to Jean Renoir and Agnes Varda. Amongst the rare offerings are Welles' 1934 Hearts of Age. George Miller and Byron Kennedy's Frieze: An Underground Film and Antonioni's 10-minute film, Noto, Mandorlie, Volcano, Stomboli, Carnavale from 1992.

m ? l l |

St r e e t !

I r r z R O ’i ^ ?

Mjwi§COTI

Jei^m a^m or: IS

¡¡stance:

'SAI.TON;

• Legal 1 1 MTV Board o f Directors: : p y p 1 mm 'ÊSIm- - M p m rs Patricia ÆMd lp jlks Dimseyv p lpA Grj^ K , JüIxAi-iE Miller ; I Founam fw m h ers:

¡Pë1|r Beilby, Scott M urray*! Philippe Mora m Ê

mm p || » K Wmm I ÜesiQÊmPiWctioniw^^M

P S cHOJgE ^UfLÎSFÎING PTYÆJDi Tri. (03 ) 9347 8882 Ü .: - ,î | PrinTGRAPHICS PTY LTD ; ^

Dear Editor,

I I l Film' B G©Æ)ôr,Group

I have to pass on the sad news that Edwin Scragg died at his home on Saturday 1 March as the result of an electrical | accident. Edwin was a past national president of the Australian . Cinematographers’ Society and was well known for his j enthusiasm, professionalism and generosity. I had known Edwin for almost thirty years, from when he : commenced work in the British industry, through years of ! collaboration and contact in Sydney and Brisbane production activity. Edwin was one of the relatively unsung pioneers of the Australian film revival - contributing through a wealth of s professional activities to raising his own and the industry’s standards:--His*passing*is-a*great.lossior the Queensland film industry and to his many friends and associates. He is survived by his partner, Jane, and two daughters, Emma and Sarah. Ian Stocks School of Media and Journalism Faculty of Arts

¡Distribution. Het"wdkk DisTRiBurïê* % 1Ê $ jK ¡©¿COPYRIGHT

19m

» T V f UBLISHING LIMITED. 'S io n e d |a r t ic l e s REPRESENT THF VIEWS*. T ^ t h e a u t h o r s a n d n o t n e c e s s a r il y H H k l i f e e F THE igDITOR AND 1 BU5HER 7H1LE EVER^CARE is t a k e n w it h

W t

«IjCRiPTS aS d m a t e r ia l s s u p p l ie d g r ® T # > U G A Z I if e , NEITHER n ig j$ D [T O R .4 § N ( ^ T ® PUBLISHER CAN A C C EPT® A BIU T®

: * *

. s

;• FOR K ft t LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY a r is e .

T h is m a g a z in e M i® | te § b e .T||

REPRODUCED IN tt'HOLE.OjCgART

■- H

WITHOUT TH&EXPRESS PEgMESION

A RME

ra s

OR THE efflBfRICHT OWNERS.

t'T

C lN E M A T P A P E S ^ ^ O B L B ia ffi^ R Y : TW O: i

Queensland University of Technology

The director of The Well is Samantha Lang, whose name was incorrectly listed in the "Inproduction" of Cinema Papers, No. 114, February 1997. The Well, which is produced by Sandra Levy, marks Lang's feature début In Peter Galvin's review of Idiot Box in the same issue (p. 39), a transcription error has the police talking to Kev (Ben Mendelsohn) and Mick (Jeremy Sims), rather than

f e

:M$istantmditor R

•They reveal that Queensland has quite a community of expe rienced writers, especially in television. It is always going to be harder outside the Sydney-Melboume nexus to get credits and recognition, but that does not mean that the experience of those lying outside of Sydney or Melbourne should be belittled. These writers are busting a gut in trying to obtain credits, and attitudes such as the one quoted above do not help in this quest ; to build a stronger Queensland industry. I hope that Film Queensland in its efforts to promote the industry remember that there is a swag of writers with hundreds of hours of television credits between them, living in the same time zone, in the same STD area and in the same state. The list is too long to go into in a letter like this, but is available for Film Queensland. A little read of the Encore directory would reveal the same story. A bit more encouragement and recognition' of the talent that is in Queensland would not go astray the next time the future of the Queensland industry is discussed. Simon Lake Executive Director, Australian Writers’ Guild

CORRIGENDA

| S | MOGy Vl^ RiA 3065; ■ I ÏEJ.:'<03ÿ4xf ^ 4 ^ ^ / Email: cp(« parkhouse.com.au ; | | 4 |:

I am not sure if this was a misquote; however, the impression i from a body which is supposed to both promote and nurture • film and teleyision makers is that Queensland is full of | inexperienced film and television makers. I can’t speak for the producers and directors, but, in regard ; to the writers, the Australian Writers’ Guild’s records tell a very . different story.

: ;

i l a i

aprii 1997 number 115

In this article, ironically called “Finding A Voice”, employees [ of Film Queensland were quoted as saying that “our problem ; here is that we don’t have any experienced producers, writers ( and directors”. Really?

; ’

MONTHS BY.jM

rl§M ITE D '‘

1 16 A r c t u 1 | |

M e r o RJA,

stalking them. The sentence should read: The boys' guilelessness is a stark contrast to the terror and efficiency of the Laughing Boy (Andrew S. Gilbert), a successful and prolific armed robber of suburban banks, who is stalked throughout the film by a pair of cops, Leanne (Deborah Kennedy) and Eric (Graeme Blundell), who are both ruthless and cynical (and amusingly self-aware). ©

fjCINKMA PAI ■ B oth fina! B É orth h

SRLIANFDLI I ne«

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Tom, Dick and Henry.

N ow with Henry V8 and Inferno on board, just watch Willy, Caro, M ark, Justin, Geoff, M ike, Warren and Michelle turn your job into a flaming Bobby Dazzler. For more information about our people or our machines phone us on 6 1 2 9 4 3 9 6600.

â&#x2013;Ąrnnicon http://www.omnicon.com.au

G ore Vidal and H ollyw ood M a r g a r e t S m i t h lists the major plot points of Gore

Vidal's recent visit to the Sydney Writers' Festival e came, he saw, he conquered. At least that was how most of us saw him when he talked in Syd ney's Town Hall. Here he was, the novelist, the screenwriter (who's almost credited with the screenplay for Ben-Hur: A Tale of the ChrisH), man of letters, the polemicist, the candidate for America's presidency, the friend to the Kennedys and the Whitlams, and the man who wanted to direct features.

Gore Vidal, despite the aristocratic demeanour and the villa in Italy, is a self-made man who earned his living the hard way. He's written twenty-four novels (the most famous and notorious was Myra Breckin ridge, about a Hollywood actor who undergoes a sex change), several screenplays, six plays, numerous works of non-fiction (including his autobiography, Palimpsest: A Memoir). Several of his novels have been made into films, and he spent ten years in Hollywood (19541964). His big regret was not directing his screenplay, "The Death of Billy the Kid", as a movie, which was made into The Left-Handed Gun and, later and better, into a television movie starring Val Kilmer. Even his friend Paul Newman let him down .2 Vidal told us he was in favour of Chaos Theory because it is more like life. He said he liked politicians more than people, and then answered questions from the audience.

What is your attitude to Hollywood? Washington and Hollywood have a symbiotic relationship. Politicians have to sell themselves to the public. I was the last contract writer in Hollywood. I worked for MGM and had an office in the Thalberg building. It was actually F. Scott Fitzgerald's old office. The building reminded me of something. Then I thought, "It's The White House."

There were all these long corridors with offices with names on the doors. There's a natural relationship between actors and politicians: they're both performers. During the First World War, even President Woodrow Wilson sent a rep to Hollywood to make sure we went into war on the side of the British. There was a lot of anti-British feel ing at that time. Wilson saw films as great manipulators. Today, if an actress like Barbra Streisand likes you, she can raise a couple of million dollars in one night! What did you think of Ronald Reagan as an actor? I auditioned Ronald Reagan for one of my plays. Reagan was like a boy

dressed up as a man, and I turned him down for the part of the Presi dent in my play! When Reagan turned up at a party, he was so boring that we'd all leave. What do you think of Bill Clinton? Clinton's the brightest man we've had as President for several years. But it'll be very hard for him in the next four years. The Clintons are scared to death of the power of American corporations. They've been neutered and don't be surprised what you w ill read in the press. What did you learn about screen writing? I learnt that to become a Hollywood hack you had to put a child in jeop ardy on page three. What's your advice to Australian feature film directors? You should stay home and do your movies. Don't go to Hollywood, otherwise you'll become part of the cartels. Have you been doing any acting lately? I was just in a movie with New Zealand director Andrew Nichol. He's a friend of Peter Weir and he's very talented. In America, we don't have any directors like N ichol-only Tim Robbins. It was a pleasure acting in Bob Roberts [1992], where I sort of played myself. Have you any theories on Kennedy's assassination? It was a mob killing. Kennedy's family was part of the mob, especially his grandfather, who was mayor of Boston. Oliver Stone's movie helped create more interest. There's a new book coming out by Seymour Hersh that's going to be very important.

When I met Jack Kennedy through Jackie, to whom I was related, he was very droll and about the best company I've ever had. P ostscript A few days after the Town Hall lecture, Bob Ellis was lucky enough to have lunch with Vidal, and wasn't surprised to find him a charming, erudite and entertaining man. Vidal admitted that the Hollywood "Wise Hack" that he wrote about in the American press was not a "Deep Throat" but a "convenient fiction" that Vidal invented for himself, so he could say anything! He still wants to write movies and, when Vidal heard Scorsese was doing The Age o f Innocence (WM), he phoned and told him, "I w ill write the script for nothing. You're going to get it wrong. I know those people." Vidal says, "Scorsese was in his no script stage, so he wasn't interested." Vidal had a little more success working with Fellini on Fellini's Roma (1972), though the shoot proved to be somewhat absurd. Ellis relates that Vidal called Fellini "Fred" to his face, and was always asking him on set for directions. Eventually, "Fred" said to him, "Take a deep breath before you speak!" Ellis adds that when Vidal asked Fellini, "Where are my lines?", Fellini answered, "Say anything." Vidal tried to say something appropriate, but no one on set took any notes. Then, "A year later I got a call to do some post-synching. I had to do it in three languages and had to try and remember what I'd said!" What an opportunity Hollywood missed by not letting Gore Vidal direct. He was friends with Orson Welles and the two lunched often. Now that would have been a conversation to overhear! © 1 Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (William Wyler, 1959). See Vidal's Palimpsest: A Memoir, Random House, New York, 1995, for a dis cussion on the script's authorship. 2 See Palimpsest: A Memoir, p. 296.

t e uring an interview sev eral years ago, Australian director of photography Jo h n Seale was asked about the kind of films still on his wish-list. “I would love to have done an In d ia n a Jo n e s , a big adventure like th at in e x o tic lo ca tio n s, or a David Lean kind of movie where I had three days to light every shot”, he said with the kind of boyish enthusiasm that, at 54, still pervades his work. T h e E n glish P a tie n t - which has brought him global accolades, including the prestigious American Society of Cinematographers Award (rarely accorded to ‘aliens’) and a nomination for an Academy Award, his third after Witness (Peter W eir, 1985) and Rain Man (Barry Levinson, 1988) - perfectly fitted the bill.

l i

b y

A war and espionage story, adapted from Michael O ndaatje’s Booker Prize-winning novel, not only delivered the adventure tale Seale craved, but in the same package espionage, a love epic (actually two love stories), e x o tic location s o f the A frican desert, Cairo and Tuscany in northern Italy, a brilliant screen play and highly communicative director, a cast of pedigree actors and an extraordinarily committed, talented crew. Seale: For a long time, people - audiences - have been hang ing out for a good old-fashioned love story set in magnificent surroundings that take them on an emo tional roller-coaster that makes them laugh and weep. It’s time for that sort of film to make a comeback. Instinctively, Seale knew it from the moment he began reading the book that had been left for him at a Los Angeles hotel by independent producer Saul Zaentz. From the time he started reading, Seale was hooked: I tried to respond as an objective observer but, invol

C d tb frl

untarily almost, those images started leaping out at me: geographical, geological, m eteoro lo gical, aesthetic. So taken was he w ith the b ook and the fact that Zaentz was asking him to come on board so early without a script, cast or director in place - that Seale even broke his own rule o f selecting projects: on the strength of screenplay and performers. Seale had worked with Zaentz on T he M osquito C oast (Peter W eir, 1986) and had enormous admi ration for his films: O ne Flew Over the C u ckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman, 1975), T he U nbearable Lightness o f B ein g (Philip K aufm an, 1 9 8 8 ), A m a d eu s (M ilos Forman, 1988). He was prepared to take a risk; he knew it would be an interesting project. Indirectly colouring his decision was a certain dis illu sionm ent w ith the status o f D O P on several projects, where merely a technician was required to execute directorial demands from a monitor, lacking the creative contribution on which Seale thrives: C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

derfu l, 1993), came into the equation, Seale wasn’t familiar with his work. He checked out his films. Impressed with the first, a lot less so by the second, he had faith in Zaentz’s judgement, confirmed when Minghella delivered a brilliant non-linear screenplay which fleshed out the book’s concerns and turned out to be an eager listener, balancing a strong vision with a deference to the experience of his team. Any film is a combustion of its talents and Zaentz had ensured the best in their respected fields: twotime Oscar-winner production designer Stuart Craig (<Gandhi, Dangerous Liaisons’); Academy Award nom inee Ann Roth and O scar-w inning editor W alter Murch (Apocalypse N ow 2). Seale maximized his brilliant use of natural land scape metaphors of em otional and psychological states, in the ju xtaposition of the dual narrative strands: warm glowing tones for the pre-war African passion-filled sequences, and a more sombre, bleaker look and lighting in the Italian end-of-war scenes when Count de Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), close to death, and cared for by a Canadian nurse, Hana (Juli ette Binoche), in an old Tuscan monastery, reflects on past passion and political intrigue. Seale: In America, people always want to know the tech nical reasons for achieving particular ends, but often it comes down to people sitting around the table communicating about the look, feel and rhythm of the film.

adding little touches - like a bright yellow plane — to make Tunisia a very bright place compared to the sombreness of Italy. How did you resolve the convoluted nature of the book, the connections between the pre-war African sequences and the Italian late-war sequences?

In the initial script, Anthony did have a lot of com plex cross-overs and I used to get twitchy, but as you can see we streamlined those. I believe the sim pler the tran sitio n , the m ore profou nd . The alternating colour scheme played a key role in estab lishing the past/present narrative strands. There were a lot o f long slow dissolves which are very old-fashioned, but they worked remarkably well in this film. This is where the beauty of the edit ing came into it. We were passing from one scene to another, but so slowly, almost by osmosis, as Almasy slowly went back to the past with his mind lingering back into the desert. That came out of preproduction and post-production discussions. I was very nervous and felt the story should roll along with the people, but they found places where these long dissolves worked brilliantly. The fragmented nature of the story, consisting of hundreds of short scenes, must have been one of your challenges?

It was a formidable task: the continuity of fight, con tinuity of cutbacks, shooting scenes out of sequence in the desert in winter, with its short days. How did shooting in the desert in winter affect your use of light?

Count de Almásy (Ralph Rennes). Anthony Minghella's The English Patient.\ Once a director relied on his technicians and you all got together and discussed the pace, rhythm, con tinuity. Now, so often a Hollywood director will tell you how to frame a shot from looking at the monitor, working on a momentary whim, and, if you question it, there’s trouble. It’s interesting to note how many big American studio films are nom inated this year. Maybe better pictures are coming from the independent sector because they haven’t abandoned the communication process. The English P a tien fs 3 3 -week shoot would push his ingenuity and creative resourcefulness to the limits. Seale, an enormous admirer of David Lean’s Lawrence o f Arabia (1962), which he saw six times, had encoun tered his own desert love epic. The book’s convoluted narrative (“though I loved it for that as well”), with complex time (flashback) and geographical cross-overs, challenged the adapta tion. A screenplay that distilled the book’s essence was crucial to the film’s success. This mosaic of images required a strong narrative structure at its core. When British writer-director Anthony Minghella, better known for his stage and television work than features (Truly M adly D eep ly , 1 9 9 1 , and M r W on C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

rucial to the success of the film is the creation of tw o contrasting worlds: past and present; the African desert and Tuscany. As in so many of your other films, you create a physical metaphor for psychological reality. How did you and designer Stuart Craig achieve this?

Part of the discussions with Anthony [Minghella] was how to make northern Italy look very different to Tunisia. We found out that Italy would be under the plough at the time, and we were concerned that crop-less it would look like the desert. Because of the convoluted nature of the story, there was a need in the visual sense to make the two places look different. We talked about using desaturation in Italy. It’s a bad time for Hana: friends dying around her, the English patient is dying, Caravaggio [Willem Dafoe] puts hard word on her. So, we thought it’d be lovely if this was black and white. Then, as the memory o f the English patient blossom s, colou r starts to seep in. It would have been much bold er to go black and white and a sensational way of doing it. I was going to desaturate 50 per cent, or take 5 0 percent of the colour out, but the studios don’t want to be as extreme, to be quite that bold. We used corals [coral filters] to enhance the colour of the sand in Tunisia - some copper-toned, much of it dirty-coloured ¡¡§ and a little b it o f w arm ing filters,

T hat was an advantage because it allowed early morning scenes to be shot at midday. During win ter in the desert, the sun is very low, which gives you a lovely crossfight. In summer, the topfight can produce awful shadows. A lot of your work is set on exotic locations: Beyond Rangoon [John Boorman, 1994], The Mosquito Coast, Gorillas in the M ist [Michael Apted, 1988]. Do you prefer location work and was that one of this project's drawcards?

The two locations —and the juxtapositions —were extremely appealing, but I try to vary my films all the time. I love location work, but I’ll often follow

it up with an interiors film to avoid being type cast, and to keep the challenges going. I like that mixture of control/lack of control. It’s important to go for those challenges to avoid complacency. It’s too easy to fall into set patterns. You often select films based solely on casting in order to w ork w ith good performers. You accepted Children o f a Lesser God [Randa Haines, 1986] because you wanted to work w ith William Hurt, for instance. How important was this choice of actors: Kristin Scott Thomas, Juliette Binoche, Ralph Fiennes and W illem Dafoe?

It was superb casting; I was delighted that they were pedigree actors, not just big-name Hollywood stars. But the studio, Twentieth Century Fox, objected: they w anted m ajor nam es. A n thony and Saul ad am antly stuck to th e ir guns and the studio dumped the project in pre-production. W e went home from Italy but three days later they asked us to come back. Harvey W einstein of Miramax read the script and was determined to save the project. But $U S 27 m illion is beyond the average M ira max budget, so he had to consult Jo e Roth at parent company Disney, who gave the nod for the rescue package. I have to say, Miramax really gave us total creative freedom. And now, of course, they’re smil ing all the way to the Oscars. N ot only were they superb performers but, from a lighting point of view, it was a joy to work with beauties like Juliette, who has the most opalescent skin; you don’t have to put a light on her and she

glows. Kristin has that beautiful English skin, also easy to light, but we gave her a desert glow with a touch of make-up.

ground and kept the story rolling along. There were times when it was tempting to weaken, but Anthony and I would rap each other’s knuckles.

To w hat extent did the people-first philosophy influ

W eren't you tem pted to use anamorphic lenses to

ence your compositions?

exploit the desert landscape?

Anthony and I discussed the fact that the desert, ulti mately, is not a performer in this picture. It is the proper - and colourful - stage for the characters. W e deliberately avoided the temptation to lapse into travelogue or picture-postcard photography. It’s not my role to be overpowering with these visuals. I never panned the landscape unless it continued the storyline. Each image was always connected to the story. Compositions kept the people up front. We didn’t want to keep sign-posting: “Look where we are. This is Tunisia and isn’t it beautiful”? It was to keep the audience running, to o . I ’ve always believed that the human eye can scan that frame very quickly. So why start on something distracting while the emotional threads are dying? I loved the way Anthony worked that in post-production with straight cuts, bold and lean, except for those long dissolves w hich suggest w e’re lingering on that moment. There was also a logistical reason for minimizing indulgence in the landscape. The script was running so long that we knew we shouldn’t waste any time panning across the desert, tilting from a sandhill or putting an aerial shot in for the sake of it. W e slowly evolved the visual look that would always be part of the background; we put characters in the fore

The desert with that beautiful flat horizon is per fectly suited to an anamorphic lens, but we opted for 1 .8 5 :1 . It’s better for final editing choices and you avoid some butchering of the film for televi sion. This was a film about people in the desert, not the desert with people. Anam orphic would have attracted too much attention to the surroundings. In your interview w ith Jean Oppenheimer for Am er ican Cinematographer, you commented on the fact that you don't like obvious camera movement. Is that a general trait of your w ork or particular to this film?

I love to work fast and I use the zoom as much as possible as a ‘fixed’ lens. I try to hide the movement of the zoom in a pan, dolly or track so that the audi ence is never aware of the movement. I prefer to think the camera is moving to enhance the physical positioning of actors within the scene or set, and is being used to heighten some move ment by the actor or machinery, not just to track around somebody for the sake of creating visual energy b ecau se m aybe the w ord s a re n ’t good enough. That worries me a lot: I’d rather the actors move. I th in k they ap p reciate th at freed om . R o b e rt Duvall came up to me at the end of T he P aper [Ron C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Cinema Papers n o w E v e ry

Month!ÂŽ

Subscribe now, receive Cinema Papers every month and save up to 20% off newsstand price, o f f e r e n d s 1 m a y 19 97.

J 21 a

issues at

2 2

issues at 15% Off! $129.9 5

1 0

% Off! $ 6 8 .8 (

)

(n o rm ally $76.45)

( /)

<>>L>

(norm ally $152.90)

33 issues at 2 0 % Off! $183.45 (normally$229,351

Renewal?

Back issues: $6.00 each Total no. of issues:

Issue Nos required:

Total Cost $

N a m e ....

-.....................................................

Enclosed is my cheque for $ ...................................... I.........—

T itle ........

.......................................................

or please debit myD Bankcard

Company

.......................................................

Card No............................................................................. ^ ....

Address .

........................................................

Expiry D a te ................................................................

Country ...

...............Post C o d e ....................

Tel (H )....

(W )................ ..............................

D M astercard

DVisacard — ■•■»

S ignature................................................................................

Cheques should be made payable to MTV Publishing Limited and mailed to P0 Box 2221 Fitzroy MDC Australia 3065. All overseas orders should be accompanied by Bank Drafts in Australian Dollars Only. Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. Phone or fax Cinema Papers for all overseas rates.

H ow ard, 1 9 9 4 ] and said: “Y o u ’re n o t bad, you know. Y ou never stopped me from walking any w here I wanted to w alk.” Actually, at the time I nearly died when he started to do it because he wasn’t lit at all. And then I realized he looked great in silhouette because the words he was saying at that m om ent - his daughter refuses to speak to him because of the way he treated his ex-wife - he’s iso lating himself in the world of the past, of old regrets. So I thought, “L et’s leave him in black-and-white silhouette.” Little things like that I call lucky mistakes. It’s not our job to stop the actors’ doing what they feel they want to do; our job is to follow them through. A lo t of great cinem atographers may disagree. M ichael Ballhaus, as in T he C o lo r o f M oney [M ar tin Scorsese, 1986], loves doing 360° [shots] around actors because he feels it creates visual energy. It’s a matter of personal taste. I actually find it boring. If the words are right, and the editor wants cut ting power, he’s got to cut into the tracking, which means you have to track on the person and the back grounds are just blurring. I honestly feel that sometimes it’s important to let the words drip off the screen. In a good script and per formance, there’s energy in the words. And if you’re cutting it correctly in your mind, and the performance is right, the audience will be transfixed. Moving the camera can distract both audiences and actors. Did you take any Australian crew with you?

For budgetary reasons I took only one American gaffer, with whom I’d worked on several pictures. Saul Zaentz asked me whether it would be possible to use Italian crew. By the time you bring in Aus tralians or Americans for hotel rooms, per diems, transport, etc., it’s a lot of money that’s not going on screen. I had worked with Italians before3 and agreed, ask ing to bring just one gaffer. Because I was lighting and operating, you need somebody beside you with whom you have an understanding, a shorthand, especially in more difficult conditions of night shoots and sand storms.

sounded like “calamari” - actually, it is “caminar li” - so, frustrated at being slowed down, I urgently yelled, “Francesca, calamari, calamari”, whereupon everyone just broke up. They thought I was giving them a lunchbreak signal. You love to w ork fast* Does that sense of urgency come from your early training in Australia?

I love to shoot fast because the director and actors have their energy up; producers love it because of schedules. W hen we shot Pain M an, we finished a week ahead of schedule, and had an extra week to re-shoot, came in US$1.5 million under budget and got nom inated. On W itn ess, we wrapped a day ahead of schedule. Our producer, Ed Feldman, just couldn’t believe it. W hen word got out it was, “Get those Australians!” It’s part of our heritage of working on low bud gets, sh o rt schedu les. W e had to m ove fast, otherwise we didn’t get it. And we had to shoot as much as possible in natural light. I operated for Russell Boyd and Don McAlpine and learnt from them. Bruce Beresford would say, “I want to do the reverse [angle]”, and, by the time I moved the camera, Don was over ready to shoot. I couldn’t even move my camera fast enough and he was still beating me on lighting. Richard Dreyfuss said on Stakeout [John Badham, 19 8 7 ]: “I can’t believe how fast you are: it’s only ten minutes in turn-around. On my last film, it was two hours. I’d go and have a sleep and couldn’t wake up when I came back. You’re so fast I’ve got to stay on set, and the buzz and energy o f the crew working is adrenalin-pumping.” But, generally, the trend now is to go slower. Cam eramen are taking their privilege, saying they need the full two hours. I don’t do that. Life’s too short. I’m not going to waste time deliberately trying to do the most perfect body shot, taking two-and-a-half hours to light it; you only do six shots per day maximum. Bugger that. On D ead Poets Society [Peter

W eir, 1 9 8 9 ], they had 21 set-ups a day, a lot by American standards. But then Steve Mason on Strictly B allroom [Baz Luhrmann, 1992] averaged 30. On T he English Patient, we had short days but we didn’t need more time. Because of the communica tions and our storyboards, we knew exactly what we were going to shoot. A lot of directors nowa days cover themselves with so many angles, just diffusing energy. Are you, like some other cinematographers, influ enced much by painting?

I look at art books and when I go to art galleries, dragged along by my wife Louise, I do look at the Hghting. Vermeer certainly was an influence on Wit ness. There’s a profile shot of Harrison Ford in bed with the bullet hole and the old men in black look ing down at him. We designed that so, at his worst, the curtains are lowered and come up as he recov ers to flood the room with light as a visual metaphor. But, generally, if you’re going to combine work with reality of light, then you have to throw all that out the door. Some of the guys do that and it all looks soft and beautiful, but it’s got no drama, no evil in it somehow. It can’t just be lovely pictures. It’s like using smoke. I haven’t used it since W itness, when Peter suggested we didn’t because everybody else does - and it ends up looking like a Ridley Scott movie. You directed Till There Was You4 and w ent back to photography. Are you still interested in directing?

Oh yeah, I’d be a liar if I said no. I get a lot of scripts, but unfortunately the ones I’ve received in the past 12 months are absolute crap. Since Jan de Bont did S peed [1994] and T w ister [1996], he opened the door for cameramen to direct action films, and the impression out there is that a cameraman as a director will inject visual energy into the film and make it a huge success. That may be true, but they’re not necessarily the kind ^ of films I’d be interested in directing. It’s very exciting to have control of a film. P ^ ^ -

T h e Italians w ere very good, but I tend to work fast and I’d tend to lose those guys very quickly, especially early in the shoot when they couldn’t under stand my Australian accent or idioms. Having to stop and explain was frus trating at times, but, once they caught on, things were fine. Some Americans are astounded at the results without using an English-speak ing crew . T h ey ca n ’t go anyw here without their guys. I believe deep down there’s a lack of confidence if you can’t go and work with other technicians. I understand your attempts at commu nicating in Italian led to some humorous situations.

After the first few days they came to me and said, “M r Jo h n , English we can understand. American we can under stand. But not Australian.” They asked me to speak slower and I tried to learn th e Ita lia n s ’ exp ressio n s fo r m ain marks, like “W alk forward, up, down, left, right”, etc. O n one occasion, I w anted an Ital ian actress to walk forward, and initially asked her in English. She obviously didn’t catch on, so I decided to try Ital ian. I remembered that the expression C I N E M A P A P E R S • A PR IL 19 97

Frontline forever changed the way we think of television curr enjfaffairs. Now, the Melbourneb%sed team hasjfurned its collective witSnd ^rhiTgies into the low-budget feature, The This time around, thé target is the sacred quartetacre and its place within the Constitution. P eter M alone reports. he old, exclusive-language dictum states that “a man’s home is his cas tle”. Hal David also wrote the lyric that “a house is not a hom e”, but was referring to a different kind of house from that o f the K errigan family of The Castle. Their house is theirs; they have built it, extended it (with or without council permits), filled it w ith th e ir stories and beloved kitsch knick-knacks, and have made it a home. A home is invaluable, priceless. Despite gov ernm ent or corporations making valuations of the

Kerrigan house, they can’t offer enough money in compensation or really appreciate what a home means to the ordinary Australian family. ' It is not a new concept for a film, but the F ron t lin e te a m have taken it and made it their own, an often hilarious com edy, a feel-good challenge of authorities by “little” Australians, “battlers”, with a final appeal to the Australian Constitution that pre serves our rights. Team-work is important for Jane Kennedy, Tom Gleisner, Santo Cilauro and Rob Sitch, a “strange dynamic” where the four of them never write the same script. The process for The Castle ran something

like this: discussion, sitting round a table, with a time limit of not more than two or three hours, throw ing up various ideas and, finally, choosing the idea of a family living near an airport; two people putting up their hands to write it, going away and w riting it for two weeks without consulting the other pair, so that they can listen with com pletely fresh ears and offer comment about directions, inclusions and omis sio n s; the o rig in al pair go b ack and fin ish the screenplay; and fine-tuning after that. Everybody then takes certain rile s: whoever feels closest to the per formance side of it says, “I’ll direct it”; someone else says, “I’ll shoot it”; the others say, “I can cast it”, or, “I can edit it”. Santo Cilauro did the shooting: You can call it the shooting. It was just basically holding the camera and getting the action. So, yes, if you call that doing the shooting. I don’t know what style it was. It was a storytelling style. The only thing that was important was the story. Therefore, “W hat is the simplest way to tell a story?” I don’t think there was a tracking shot. There wasn’t any thing; probably about two panning shots, a couple o f tilts or something like that. T h at was about as much as the camera moved. Rob Sitch was director. The team had taken it in turns to direct F ron tlin e. In the time constraints for T he

Steve (Anthony SìmcoèJ, Dale (Stephen Curry),

' »

C astle, Rob Sitch was considered by the team as a good and fast communicator, with a go'od eye for the clock, a good overview and som eone'w ho knows what is important or not. He is.not pedantic, or seems to be “the least pedantic of the so “it was the perfect thing for him to direct”. It seemed an obvious question: How long from initial idea to a rough cut? But the answer was not so obvious at all: five weeks, including two weeks writ ing, ten days shooting, five days for rough c u t... Cilauro: I The fact that we were putting in our own money | meant that we had to stick to that timetable. If we | were going to do it on our own terms, then we had to do it with our own money. So, we worked backinwards: How much money do we have? There are four of us, so we pooled as much money as we could. Basically, we were told by our fifth, silent and noncreative partner - who’s just as creative when it comes to money - “You can shoot for ten days, probably eleven, and that’s when the catering runs out!” F r o n tlin e has been one o f the great successes of Australian television comedy. T he C astle raises ques tions about the A ustralian sense o f hum our and Australian jokes. The team have been writing and performing comedy for radio and television for so long they know they are not going to get all of their C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

dramas and bush adventures (and “horse operas”), audie|gjl laughing at ifhc same jokes. The difficulty with Tmre C a stle, accdBling to Santo Cilauro, was Australians live on the fringe of the continent, in the pulliifflbut jokes. G iv m k a sense of the story was cities and, especially, in the suburbs. By the mid-’90s, important because, if the audience does not follow there is a strong line-up of suburban comedies which the storyi.they are not going to laugh at the jokes. The would include S p otsw ood (Mark Joffe, 1992), N ir audience has to believe in the characters and in the vana S treet M urders (Aleksi Vellis, 1 9 9 1 ), Strictly situations they find themselves in in order to laugh at B allroom (Baz Luhrmann, 1992), M uriel’s W edding the jokes. If the writers put in too many jokes, them : (Paul J. Hogan 1994), M alcolm (Nadia Tass, 1986), the audience will remove itself from the story. That T he Big Steal (Nadia Tass 1990), Mr R eliable (Nadia becomes counterproductive to the jokes and the audi Tass, 1997), Idiot B ox (David Caesar, 1997). If there ence will stop laughing. has been a formula for box-office success at home in T h e C astle works well from the opening, with Australia, it seems to be to show, humorously, the teenage Dale Kerrigan (Stephen Curry) beginning ordinary character, “the little battler”, somewhat on the narration as if he is in class telling the story of the margin, who is a “lovable O cker”, a rebel “agin’ what he did over his summer holiday. The tone is the government”, who gets the audience onside so O ck er deadpan - in fa ct, the w hole screenp lay that they can share the victory over the authorities. revels in deadpan understatem ent - suitable for This is definitely the case for the Kerrigan family’s introducing the home and its inhabitants (except for fighting for their castle against the corporations, the the oldest brother, who is in Pentridge). Idiosyn governments and the courts. crasies, speech patterns and accents, vocabulary (and, T h e film m akers wanted the film to be sim ple sometimes, its lack), class, w ork, family and rela (because of their resources), to be about home and tio n sh ip issues are all put b efo re th e aud ience family, which are the simplest things, “as basic as it quickly. Then, just as one fears that this style, funny gets”. They wondered how someone protects their as it is, might be the whole film, the plot begins with home and their family. By setting the film next to the arrival of the property valuer and the dramatic the airport, it meant the suburbs and interactions tensions are under way. with neighbours. The filmmakers are also conscious While there has been a movie tradition of period that family and friends in the audience remark that

Cilauro: %|| ' My father is a lawyer in Sydney R oad , ' Brunswick, so we used his office for Denis Denui j l t o ’s legal office. In fact, we used his office once, then the sun got in the way and it was too bright. I knew the chemist a couple of doors! down, so iaphd&Rocky if we could move the sign on fop of his window. So, if you watch, you’ll see it’s not the same place. When he crosses the road, it’s a different place. Depending where the sul| was, we kept moving down the road. W hile the plot might have a universality about it - and one remembers people fighting for their hom es in many a m ovie; recen tly the c o c k roaches helped Joe against venal officials in J o e ’s A p a r tm e n t - it is the d etail th a t m akes T h e C asSm distinctively Australian: the honeymoon cou characters remind them of the w riters’ parents, or that the writers have included stories told them about next-door neighbours. This means The Castle is based on ordinary experiences, from a quite mundane, lower-to-middle-class background. One of the difficulties with this kind of comedy is whether the audience is laughing at the characters or with them. Sitting at a preview in South Yarra and enjoying the comedy is a different experience from w atching it at the m ultiplex at Airport W est near where the Kerrigans live. The danger is that the film makers and the audience are patronizing the battlers. Cilauro: It’s a difficult thing, a fine line. Sometimes I look at the film and think, “I hope people don’t think that we’re laughing at the family.” Peo ple say th is, th a t and the oth er about the comedy in Frontline, but we like to think we’re all very mainstream in our senses of humour and our sensibilities. It doesn’t concern me w hether we are sit ting in Sou th Y arra w atching the film and wondering whether we are a bit judgemental. I’m more concerned about what we do in the film and I think it’s not that at all. Even if, at the beginning, you think you are laughing at the Kerrigans - “Look at this, look at the house .. . ” - by the m iddle you are barracking for them. It doesn’t matter where they||fg>me from. They happen to be a family from the northern suburbs near the airport. But they are a family who have principles and who are judged in those terms. Anybody tempted todSe patronizing will be drawn into the film by Lawrence Hammill (Charles (Bud) Tingwell), the degreed man who takes their cause and fights for them to the highest levels in the country. There is a strong difference between the charac ters in F ro n tlin e and in T h e C astle. The F ro n tlin e characters are into self-deception, whereas the Ker rigan fam ily is straightforw ard and sincere. The characters in F ron tlin e “believe their own promos, they believe their own image, they’ve drunk too much o f their own bathw ater’l ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g a n s have no I image of themselves - even if they contribute strongly I to the image Australians have of themselves and which ' many outsiders share. A lo t of the film ’s detail came from the simple experience of asking a family who lived near Tullamarine w hether they would like to live in a local motel while the film was shot in their house. As Rob Sitch, Santo Cilauro and the production designer Car rie Kennedy looked at the actual house, they got more and more ideas for the film, for particular sequences

ple telling stories about Thailand and the wonder of the meals and the movies on the plane (and the gen uine $15 Rolex watch that the bloke at the beach sold thenlland is going t<||send the w arranty by post), the mealsife h o m e if tie bargains from T h e T rading Post (from ergonomic chairs to an overhead projec tor), and the raffia and pottery that mother makes. T he film also highlights aspects of what it is to be Australian, especially the optimism and niceness, the lovable ocker, the larrikin, the rebel individual ist. It also takes shots at the greed of corporations and their disregard of the rights and feelings of individ

Cilauro: That’s a bit of an Achilles’ heel there. But we decii||g from the start to be unashamed. It was a test of nerve whether we kept that speech about the Aborigines in or not. W e’re not concerned whether it w orksite not. W e wanted.to be unashamed about the emo tion and what we think about a home. W e didn’j want to pull back and say, “That’s ¿ b i t cute.” W| knew we were going to come out of the film and sa| that we w ent a bit too far there. T he Aborigint speech is not the only place where we have gone tc preachy. In retrospect, there are a few other places' where we should have pulled back. Apropos of remarks and prejudices, Santo Cilauro says that, although he can’t remember when he saw it, the biggest influence on the film was T hey’re a W eird M ob (Michael Powell, 1966): It was so candid and straight, absolutely plain. I remember seeing plain shots of houses and people saying simple jokes, “Kings Bloody Cross” and. thqt kind of thflg. It felt like, “This is just a plain paint-1 ing, not cubism; it’s not anything.” And when.I think of Australianism, Tthink of Ned Kelly, not because of his rebelling and becoming a hero, but because of the words, “Stand and deliver.” I like the fact that the film is simple: here it is, and there’s nothing more com plicated than that. You eith er take it or you d o n ’t take it - and, as an audience member, I appreciate having that choice. Casting was done by Jane Kennedy. The team has a fascination for casting actors not seen much before, like the two sons, Dale and Steve (Anthony^ ), or for well-known actors doing so me-*'As thing that they have not done before, like Michael Caton, Anne Tenney and Sophie Lee. Cilauro:

uals, the atmosphere of ’90s econom ic rationalism and its consequences f<% the battlers. When it gets to usin^pie Constitution as a source for the case against the Kgrrigans’ being moved out of their home (with Tiriel M ora giving ap archetypal performance of a suburba^^nveyancing lawyer absolutely out of his depth), the screenplay becomes quite serious. The phrase from the Constitution (Section 5 1 , 31) that dealings with individuals must be “on just term s” becomes the keystone of the film’s “message”. (Had there been opportunity and time, there may have been a tracking shot along a wall with this phrase painted on it.) A serious,point is made about hom es and land, with a speech by Darryl (Michael Catón), which-'borders on the hom ily, about finally understanding how the Aborigines must feel; later M abo is mentioned desperately in a court scene |s a precedent. (But Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen used to talk about his peanut farm and his land at Kingaroy in language close to that used by Aborigines and never made the connection.) Dar ryl is a bit freer with politically-incorrect asides about later m igrants to the land, even to his

and set d etail: the pool room , the backyard, the granny flat that looked like a kid’s cubbyhouse (which eventually becom es hom e to the Kerrigans’ grey

Lebanese neighbour (who finds the Tullamarine

hounds).

ing raids over Beirut).

schedule congenial and quieter than the bomb- É i

1 thffli- Michael was just sensational. It wasrf’^ just the performance; it was a very difficult task.*: He was in almost every single scene, a pressure shoot because we had to do it in such a short time. It was important that the person who was there all the time got on well w||h everybody and was patient. He was inspirational. It was n’t as if it were a two-month shoot and he was really stretched. But he was stretched on the days, and they were long days. He was still chat ting with people at the end of the day. If he had been one of those actors who kept saying, “I can’t do this” or “This is not what I want to do”, the film wouldn’t have been made. With The Castle completed, the team is now in a ven ture with Roadshow for two more films, ; w hich is w hat we dearly love because this filnm« was not one we were sitting on for seven years. W e ll didn’t want to create the greatest film in the world.:';, with our first film. We want to build, to it and, the '1 do it, is just to get it done and don’t lookffl back. ©

"Domino has huge potential" says leading special effects supervisor Steve R. Rundell. Steve's credits include 'Dick Tracy', 'Last Action Hero', 'Coneheads' 'First Knight' and recent releases like 'Race the Sun', 'Mulholland Falls' and 'That Thing You Do'.

"With Domino, I have no creative limitations" says Steve. "It's a total foundation for visual effects and a real time-saver. Using Domino, we're finished in hours instead of days."

Playground, thesfirsl feature shot by Ian Baker and his f i r M fe j^ r ild ila b d r atlbfi with Fred Schepisi.

The D e vil's

an Baker is one of many Australian DOPs to find success both at home and abroad. Baker has n o t only shot all o f Fred S ch ep isi’s features, but he has also found time to work with some significant American directors, m ost n otably w ith Jam es F oley on the adaptation of John Grisham’s The C ham ber. W h ile G risham has publicly voiced a p re fe r ence for A T im e T o K ill (Joel Schumacher, 1 9 9 6 ), many readers consider T he C h am ber to be his finest, a sombre, unsettling account of how a young lawyer, Adam Hall, attempts to save his grandfather, Sam Cayhall, from the gas cham ber. W hat makes the b o o k , and the film , so co n fro n tin g is th a t Sam Cayhall (Gene Hackman) is a redneck member of the KKK, and guilty of much. Shot in Chicago and M issis sippi, T h e C h a m b e r is a fine example of a talented DOP at full com m and o f his skills, and o f a fru itful collab oratio n betw een d irecto r and cam era man.

How were you chosen for The Chamber?

Unlike most international DOPs, I don’t have an agent. I just wait for that direct call. I was chosen to do T he C ham ber, I guess, because somebody saw my work and the phone rang. I flew over to the States and had a bit of a chat to the people. Things worked out and I was working on the project. I hadn’t worked with the director, James Foley, before, but we talked a fair bit, he liked what I had done and we hit it off. W hile Jam es was interested in photography, he didn’t take a large part in it. I designed the style and the sequences, while James looked after the actors. It is a challenge working with somebody when you are not only photographing the picture but you are designing it fo r them as w ell. I like to be that involved in a project. A lot of directors design and structure what they want, and all you do for them is light the shots. Ultimately, the way I like to work most is when it is a collaboration. Whilst to do it on your own is good, it is not the way it should be. The style of set-up should be a collaboration between the director of photography and the director. The C ham ber was a very harmonious shoot and it

really flowed along. Some shoots are not harm o nious; there is a performer or a crew member who doesn’t fit in. But this was very smooth-going all the way, which was just as well because it was a hard, long, d ifficu lt sh oo t, particu larly w orking in a prison. How was it working in such an environment, near prisoners on death row?

It was tough. W hen we first went there to survey, our part of the prison was occupied. It was rather scary walking down the aisle next to real prisoners in the maximum security unit [MSU]. Then you got to the end of this row of cells and there was the gas chamber and the lethal-injection table. The reality of that hitting you in the face was quite intense. When we went back to film, the place was cleared out and we had the M SU to ourselves. But still it was pretty stark. Those tiny concrete cubicles with a metal bed and a metal toilet bowl, which these guys are locked in for 23 hours a day, are pretty scary. Certainly you don’t ever want to be in there yourself. W e worked at the actual prison for three or four weeks. It was pretty hard because there were all the

D O P Ian

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

restrictions on what we could or couldn’t do there. The security was tough on technicians, like grips, who need screw-drivers and knives and saws and that sort of thing to do their job. All of this stuff was confiscated and check-listed. The prison is a constrained location, particularly the interview room. This has led to some interest ing shot-making. In the first meeting between Adam Hall [Chris O'Donnell] and Sam Cayhall, you dramatically highlight the slightly out-of-focus mesh grill between them, and the camera stays on either side. At the next meeting, they move along to an open 'window'. In the third meeting, the cam era turns through 90 degrees at times to actually look down each side of the interview room. In other words, the room becomes less claustrophobic and divisive as their relationship begins to develop. Was that structuring something that you worked out?

Yes. T h e C h a m b e r is very much a talking-head movie. I calculated that we would spend 2 0 -2 5 minutes of screen-time in this one square, bland, characterless, paint-chipped set and was aware of the potential of its becoming visually boring. So, for each time we came back to the interview room, I designed a slightly different look. I used longer lenses and made it look more eerie, which helped you get more and more involved with the two players. But it is subtle. It couldn’t be too much or it would dominate the actors. There was quite a lot of discussion on removing the mesh grill so you got inside it, like you do with endless things that you photograph; you just cheat yourself inside of something. I had the set construction guys make the mesh ‘wild’ so we could shoot like that. However, before we started shooting, I decided we couldn’t do that because the reality was that the lawyer was always on one side of the mesh and the prisoner was always on the other. You have to feel the oth er person through that mesh. Fortunately, the director agreed with me. Because the mesh was ‘wild’, I could move it close to the camera or away from the camera to control its focal length. That way, you always sense it is there, but it doesn’t take away from focusing on the person on the other side. I’m very happy with the way that works in the film. You always know that you are looking at some body through the mesh, but it never detracts from the eyes, particularly Gene H ackm an’s. You are always right inside his eyes, even though you are looking at him through mesh. Apparently it was a bit tricky lighting Hackman's eyes, because they are so deep-set.

W hen we were shooting tests before we started filming, it became apparent that you had to see his eyes. Just about all of what Gene was doing was coming out of his eyes. He squints a lot deliberately in the film, and he always smokes prison-made cigarettes, which make him squint more.

I had to light his eyes, but I also always like to make actors feel comfortable. That is part of my job. For the first time ever, I had to constantly use a tiny high-powered light to get one pin-point of a glint coming out of his eyes. I asked him about it - he had obviously faced this thing before - and he was very good with this light. It must have been incred ibly annoying having it in his face all the tim e, because it is a quite powerful little light. You’d put it somewhere and you’d watch Gene feel his way into the light, which again is something I don’t like to have an actor do. You could tell if he was uncomfortable with it and you’d just move it a little bit. H e’d just nod at you and you’d know it was right. That is the great professionalism of somebody like Gene. They know what you are doing and they know why you are doing it, which is to make them look good. I’m really happy with that in the film. Constantly you are inside Gene’s eyes, which is so important. It would have been terrible if you couldn’t see his eyes. The colour scheme in the film is quite muted and stark.

The colours are real. About a quarter of the prison is the real prison in Mississippi, and about threequarters is a set, filmed on stage at Universal, where the colours match exactly the prison. But the colours are even muted when you go out side. Unlike a film like The Firm [Sydney Pollack, 1993], where the sumptuous lawyers' offices have a wood-panelled sense of security and calm, there is not a second in The Chamber of retreat from the harshness. Even when you are in the city, or

S c o tt M u rra y

C I N E M A PAPERS • A P R I L 1997

Adam's aunt's house, there is no escape from a very intense claustrophobic sense.

In the original script, there was quite a contrast between Chicago, where the young lawyer comes from, and Mississippi. He goes from a big, spacious, glass, high-rise city to the little towns of Mississippi, which is quite a different environment, and it is claustrophobic for him. But the Chicago part of the film got dissolved a little bit in the editing. The film is also real because those places are real. None of those places are sets, except for some of the prison. The rest of it is really what it is like in Mississippi. My aim was to make the movie real. In a sense, it is a documentary. Did shooting on location present many more difficulties than shooting in sets?

Well, it is always easier to shoot on a set, because you get a full 12-hour day, you don’t have to worry about the weather, you don’t have to worry about wind, rain, changing light, clouds m oving, continuity of anything, or noise. But there is a certain reality to shooting locations which I like. You can relate interiors to where the building is by seeing outside through windows and doors. W hatever movie I ’m w orking on, I try to get locations which have great looks outside. When we filmed in Chicago, I fought to get build ings w here you could see C hicago out o f the windows. There is a restaurant sequence, and there is an office sequence. Whilst you are in an office which could have easily been a set, there is a very successful “feel” for what Chicago is about. As for big locations, like the Capitol building in Jackson, you can’t build those things. They are too grand, too expensive, to build for a relatively small amount of screen-time. Both studios and locations have their place. I love

studio work, but, for the look of the film, I prefer actual locations.

and I ’ll ju st go through it .” I have to really love

You said it w as a happy shoot and you didn't have

the project, get on with the people and really know that everybody is working on the same level towards

a problem w ith any actors. How much does the per

a great project.

sonality of an actor affect w h a t you do as a DOP?

T h e really great actors know and understand the technicalities of filmmaking. They are really great to w o rk w ith . H o w ev er, you do get a lo t o f people who just don’t know about light, or where a light is, or what you are doing for them. They are quite often really nice people, but some are a bit difficult to work with. The real difficulty is when you are trying to make somebody look like they aren’t. There is always the inevitable brief from a director: “Oh, she has to look younger than she really is.” But that is what we do: we paint with light. I have quite a reputation for making women look pretty on film. I’ve lit a lot of stars, but you can only perform so much magic. It is the same with a lot of male actors. You are trying to make them different to how they are. It is difficult because it limits what you do and it limits what they can do on screen as well. Quite often you find yourself helping an actor with huge amounts of soft light, which inevitably slightly over-fights the set.

Which brings up the fact th at you have had a long and successful relationship w ith Fred Schepisi.

I’ve done all of Fred’s films. I get on with Fred really well and we are close personal friends. Fred is a demanding guy to work for, but he is very thorough. He doesn’t miss a beat. He knows every thing about what he is doing and what people are doing for him. Whilst it is a tough haul, it is very enjoyable in the end because nothing for him is a compromise, and he w on’t let there be a com prom ise in anybody’s area. You know it is going to be as good as you can possibly make it. Are you developing other such relationships w ith directors?

I’ve worked with six or seven other directors, but there is nobody else that I’ve worked with more than once. T h a t is n o t that they w o n ’t w ork w ith me again - 1 have been offered second pictures by some of them - but I always give priority to Fred’s pro jects. M urphy’s Law has it that I’ll sit around for

fortunately the style of the other part o f the movie was similar to the way I work. I didn’t have to dras tically change the way I would have done it. D o in g a re -s h o o t like th at is n o t so m eth in g I ever thought I would do. Fred was doing it for rea sons known to himself, and he asked me would I do it. O f course I said, “Yes.” It came at a nice time and it was fun working with all of those people. W e re-shot 4 0 percent of the movie, but we did it in some unbelievable amount o f time. W e shot at about twice the speed that we would normally shoot a feature film. But it all m atched really well. The main problem there was make-up and making sure that hair was correct to m atch the shoot the year previously. Looking back over your career as a DOP, do you have views on how you have evolved? Is that, in fact, something you ever think about?

Yes, though I’ve only really started to think about it recently. Some years ago, I felt I’d reached a point where I knew it all, but you never know it all. Each p ro ject is different and you have a different way _ _ _ o f thinking. Your mind tries to stay modemized. If styles change, your style naturally

The Chamber deals w ith controversial issues. H ow much does w hat a script is about affect w hether you do it or not? Would you have shot The Chamber if you w ere ideologically opposed to the position it was taking?

N o, I wouldn’t. I won’t work on violent movies, for instance. I ’m very anti-violence and anti-violent m ovies. Seeing as how p ro bab ly m ore than 5 0 percent of movies have inane violence in them, it cuts down my work choice quite considerably. I wouldn’t work either on a television commercial that advertised smoking cigarettes, although I have done them in the past. I’m quite conscious of the fact that cigarette smoking is not good and I won’t be involved. So, yes, if there is a political or moral issue in the script that I don’t agree with as a human being, I won’t work on that film. There are other types of films I avoid as well, espe cially if I feel they are ‘cheating’. Quite often you’ll get a script and you know they are shooting it in, say, Los A ngeles, but th ere is a sequence set in Boston. You ask them, “W here are you shooting the Boston sequence?”, and they will say, “Oh, there is a great spot in dow ntow n LA that w e’ll use for Boston.” W ell, I know that there might be the odd red brick wall that looks like Boston, but, if part o f the scrip t is ab ou t B o sto n , th en th ere is a reason for it and you want to see Boston. I know it has to do with budget, but I w on’t do a film if it means cheating on the integrity of the visuals. So, when directors ring you up about doing a film, you are as intent on discovering their true inten tions as they are on discovering yours?

Exactly. My involvement on a film is generally about five months. It is a long time to be w orking with somebody or a group that you are not on the same wave length creatively, who do ‘cheat’ by doing something easily or cheaply. I d o n ’t w o rk on m ovies to pay a m o rtg ag e, although sometimes I should do more movies as I run out o f m oney som etim es. It has to be a very enjoyable thing for me, because I give a lot to the movie-making process. I don’t work on it like a job. I d on ’t ju st tu rn up and say, “ O h, w ell, it’s n o t exactly what I want to do, but the money is good

sometimes up to a year and the phone doesn’t ring. But as soon as Fred gets up a project, for which I would always give first choice, the phone starts ring ing and other people want me to work. Actually, I’m on a bit of a campaign at the moment trying to let Australia know that I am Australian and that I five here. I’m constantly running across peo ple in the film industry who say, “Oh, hi. W hat are you doing back here?” People think that I live in A m erica or th a t I only w o rk in A m erica. I ’m trying to break that and let the world know that I’d love to do a movie here in Australia. W orking in Australia also gives me the opportu nity to w ork w ith som e o f the w o rld ’s greatest crews. So, if anybody wants to give me a call, they are welcome. One unexpected project w as the extra material Schepisi did for Fierce Creatures. It must have been challenging matching the tw o-thirds of the movie which already existed.

It wasn’t that hard. W e had a few little scenes that we had to m atch, but m ost o f w hat we did were clean sequences. W e had to keep up a style, but C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Frameworks, first in non-iinear in Australia, has once again taken the initiative in film editing. We are the only facility providing a dedicated non-linear assistant's room for syncing rushes which allows for true 24FPS cutting, providing frame accurate edl's, cut lists and change lists for feature films. Only this method of post for 24FPS film provides a one to one relationship with picture time code and film key code numbers, essential for frame accuracy.

Other methods such as 24FPS telecine transfers and tape to tape syncing cannot guarantee frame accuracy. The method of 24FPS telecine transfer and syncing tape to tape can contribute to errors occurring in positive conforms, neg matching and sync in sound post production.

(

For fu rth e r details, and a m ore com plete explanation o f the differences, please contact Stephen F. Smith at Fram eworks.

Frameworks Edit Pty. Ltd.

Suite 4,239 Pacific Hwy, North Sydney, NSW 2060

T el: 02 9955-7300 Fax : 02 9954-0175 Email : framewks@ozemail.com.au

)

ROBERT KRASKER A

F ih n o g r a p b y

obert Krasker was one of the world’s finest directors of photography. Several film books and periodicals list him as the greatest of his era, his work lauded for its atmospheric lighting and expressionist techniques. He worked with Carol Reed, Joseph Losey, John Ford, Luchino Visconti, Robert Rossen, Anthony Mann and David Lean, among oth ers. His credits include H enry V, O dd Man Out, The Third Man, Senso and Billy Budd. He won an Academy Award for cinematography in 1949. But in his home country he is hardly ever mentioned; there is no statue of him, no scholarship in his name, no wing of a film school dedicated to him.

A Brief Career Sketch Robert Krasker was born on 21 August 1913 in Perth of French and Austrian parents. After being educated in Australia, he went overseas, first to Paris to study art. Krasker then travelled to Germany to explore optics at Photohandler Schiile, Dresden, where he became fascinated with the lighting of German expres sionist cinema. He then returned to Paris and worked with Phil Tannura at Paramount Studios in Joinville. In 1 9 3 2 , Krasker went to England and worked under Georges Perinal at Korda’s London Films. There he was employed as assistant cameraman on many of the studio’s major films, including Things to C om e (William Cameron, 1935 ), Joseph von Sternberg’s unfinished/, Claudius (1937) and The T h ief o f Bagdad (Ludwig Berger, M ichael Powell and Tim Whelan, 1940). He was then promoted to associate photogra pher on Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s ... One o f Our Aircraft is Missing (1942). Krasker’s first films as director of photography were Maurice Elvey’s The Lam p Still Bums, Leslie Howard’s The G entle Sex and Paul L. Stein’s The Saint Meets the T iger (all 1 9 4 3 ). The n ext year he shot Laurence Olivier’s Henry V, with its glorious colouring. This was followed by his highly-atmospheric black-and-white work on David Lean’s B rief Encounter (1944). By now, Krasker had established his mark as a highly-talented and individualistic lighting cameraman. In 1947, Krasker teamed with Carol Reed to pro duce some of his most famous work: O dd Man Out (1947) and The Third Man (1949). According to Reed’s biographer, Nicholas Wapshott, Krasker’s most important contribution to the four films he made with Carol Reed was the power of the images he created by dramatic lighting, which came to be known as a Reed trademark. Reed enjoyed a reputation for versatility and competence, but he had

b y

S c o t t M

established no identifiable style [...] In O dd Man Out Krasker created such a distinctive ‘look’ that the dark, expressionist-lit scenes came to impose a style upon Reed, who denied any such personal intention.1 One aspect Krasker is known to have had a big input with was the unusual perspectives gained by using wideangle lenses and a tilted camera. On seeing The Third M an, Reed’s close friend W illiam Wyler sent him a spirit-level and asked that it be used on the next picture. Armand White in Film C om m ent writes: Robert Krasker’s delineation of noir for British films [...] shows an identifiable vision, serving directors as unlike each other as David Lean and Carol Reed.2 After a continuing stream of excellent work in Eng land, Krasker went in 1954 to Italy to shoot two films. The first was G iulietta e R om eo (Renato Castellani); the second was Luchino Visconti’s Senso, one of the most sumptuously photographed films in cinema, a brilliantly-controlled use of colour and light.3 Krasker continued to work till 1980, the year before his death. One film was Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s The Quiet American (1958), which led Pauline Kael to crack that Krasker’s photography “may explain why this Mankiewicz film has some camera movement”. Other major credits include Joseph Losey’s The Criminal (1960), Anthony Mann’s E l Cid (1961), Peter Ustinov’s Billy Budd (1962) and William Wyler’s The C ollector (1965; English photography only). Australia has produced several DOPs of real note since Krasker, but none is arguably yet of his stature. That Krasker is rarely if ever mentioned in his home country is to this country’s shame. The inevitable jus tification, as with writer-director John Farrow, is that “he was only born here and worked exclusively over seas”. So what? Krasker was born Australian and always called himself such. The definitive article on the degree to which Aus tralian directors of photography take an Australian vision with them onto foreign productions is yet to be written (see interview with DOP Geoff Burton4), but the dazzlingly atmospheric work of Robert Krasker might be an excellent place to start. © 1 T he Man B etw een : A B iography o f C arol Reed, Chatto & Windus, London, 1990, p. 185. 2 “Illum inations”, F ilm C om m en t, Septem ber-October 1989, p. 56. 3 Krasker left the film before the finish and was replaced by Giuseppe Rotunno. 4 “Geoff Burton”, interviewed by Leilani Hannah and Raffaele Caputo, Cinem a Papers, No. 99, pp. 43-51.

T h e As

u r r a y

F I L M O G R A P H Y 1949 The Angel with the Trumpet (Anthony Bushell)

1955

Alexander the Great (Robert Rossen)

1942 ... One o f Our A ircraft is Missing (Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger)-associate photography

1950 State Secret (U.S.: The Great Manhunt, Sidney Gilliat)

1956

Trapeze (Carol Reed)

1950

1956

The Rising o f the Moon (John Ford)

1943 The Lamp Still Burns (Maurice Elvey)

1957 1958

The Story o f Esther Costello (David Miller)

1943 The Gentle Sex(Leslie Howard)

1950 Entführung ins Glück(German-lanquaqe version of The Wonder Kid, Karl H a rt)-co -D 0 P

1943 The Saint Meets the Tiger (Paul L. Stein)

1951 Cry, the Beloved Country (U.S.: African Fury, Zoltán

¡9 5 3

Behind the Mask (Brian Desmond Hurst)

1944 Henry l/(Laurence Olivier)

1958 ^

The Doctor's Dilemma (Anthony Asquith)

1945 B rief Encounter (David Lean)

K0rda) 1951 Another Man's Poison (\rv\ng Rapper)

1945 Caesar and Cleopatra (Gabriel Pascal)-co-D O P

1953

1947 Odd Man Out (Carol Reed)

1953 Malta Story (Brian Desmond Hurst)

1947 Uncle Silas(U.S.: The Inheritance, Charles Frank)

1954 Giulietta e Romeo [Romeo and Juliet, Renato Castellani)

1948 Bonnie Prince Charlie (Anthony Kimmins)

1954 Senso ( The Wanton Countess/ The Wanton Countessa, Luchino Visconti)

ir e c t o r

1949 The Third Man (Carol Reed)

hotography

The Wonder Kid (Karl Hart) - co-D0P

Never Let Me Go(Delmer Daves)

1955 That Lady (Terence Young)

The Quiet American (Joseph L. Mankiewicz)

Libel (Anthony Asquith) ir i„ 1960 The Criminal (U.S.: The Concrete Jungle, Joseph Losey) 1960 Romanoff and Juliet (Peter Ustinov)

1961 El Cid (Anthony Mann) The Guns o f Darkness (Anthony Asquith) Billy Budd (Peter Ustinov) C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

1963 The Running Man (Carol Reed) 1964 The Fall o f the Roman Empire (Anth o ny M a n n) 1965 The Collector[W\W\am Wyler) - English photography only 1965 The Heroes o f Telemark (Anthony Mann) 1966 The Trap (Sidney Hayers) 1976 /?et/(Astrid F ra n k)-sh o rt 1980 Cry l/l/o/f(Leszek Burzynski)

As O t h e r 1934

Catherine the Great/The Rise o f Catherine the Great (Paul Czinner) - asst cameraman

1934 The Private Life o f Don Juan (Alexander Korda) - asst cameraman C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

1935 Things to Come (William Cameron Menzies) - asst cameraman 1936 Forget-Me-Not(U.S.: Forever Yours, Zoltán Korda) asst cameraman 1936 Rembrandt (Alexander Korda) - camera operator 1936 Men are not Gods (Walter R eisch)- camera operator 1936 The Man Who Could Work M iracles (Lothar Mendes) camera operator 1937 /, Claudius (unfinished, Josef von S ternberg)-cam era operator 1937 The Squeaker(U.S.: M urder on Diamond Row, William K. H ow ard)-cam era operator 1937 Over the Moon (Thornton Freeland) - uncredited exte rior photography

E 1938

R The Drum (U.S.: Drums, Zoltán Korda) - camera operator

1938 The Challenge (Milton Rosmer) - camera operator 1939 The Four Feathers (Zoltán Korda) - camera operator 1940 The Thief o f Bagdad (Ludwig Berger, Michael Powell, Tim Whelan) - camera operator 1941 Dangerous Moonlight(\J.S.: Suicide Squadron, Brian Desmond Hurst) - camera operator 1942 Rose o f Tralee (Germain B urger)-cam era operator 1960 Insight (Anthony Asquith) 1962

Birdman o f Alcatraz (John Frankenheimer) - began with original director Charles Crichton; replaced by Burnett Guffey; w ork uncredited

The history of the development of Newsfronthas been subject to much speculation, and there has been considerable debate as to whether the finat credits tor the writing adequately reflect the film’s origins. The key collaborators include Philippe Mora, who claims authorship of the original idea, screenwriter Bob Eltis, whose credit was removed before the film’s release, and producer David Etfick. Alt have their own version of the facts, and their accounts hint at creative conflict between producer, director and screenwriter. 20

he most detailed account of the claims for authorship of the original concept for the film is that provided by David Stratton, one of the most influential his torians and op inion-m ak ers o f the Australian revival. Stratton spends many pages of his T he L a st N ew W ave: T he A ustralian F ilm R evival (1 980) establishing the genesis o f the film idea and com paring these with the final credits which accompany the film.1 According to Stratton, the project emerged from discussions between David Elfick (then a publisher and surf film producer) and emigré Australian director Philippe Mora. Mora had commenced his feature career in London in the late 1960s with the low-budget film T rou ble in M on op olis (1969) star ring, amongst others, Germaine Greer and Richard Neville, and had made two com pilation films for G oodtim es Enterprises: S w a stik a (1 9 7 3 ), which had used newsreels and home movies of H itler to make a portrait of the dictator’s life, and Brother Can You S pare a D im e ? (1 9 7 5 ), which had com bined D ep ression-era footage and scenes from H o lly wood movies to portray the period. M ora returned to Australia in 1976 to make M ad D og M organ from his own script. Elfick, still in his early thirties and immersed in both the beach and rock-music cultures, discussed with M ora his own planned move into feature pro d uction. E lfick had con sid erab le exp erien ce in producing and distributing surf films, some of which had used material from diverse sources - notably Crystal Voyager (1974), a feature-length documen tary incorporating material by legendary American surfing photographer George Greenough. C rystal Voyager was a highly-successful production, earning good returns in Australia and the UK. Elfick made a documentary about the production of M ad D og M or gan, which was partly shot on location near Holbrook in New South Wales.2 This was Elfick’s first encounter with major feature production, and he began dis cussing with M ora a project he was planning, based on rock bands of the 1950s and ’60s. Stratton attributes the original concept of N ew sfr o n t to M o ra, who claims his idea was based on the 1938 M G M film T oo H o t to H an dle (Jack Con way, 1938), a film in which rival newsreel men, Chris Hunter (Clark Gable) and Bill Dennis (Walter Pidg eon), try to w oo Alma H ard ing (M yrna Loy).

D irecto r P hillip N oyce gave his version o f the script’s development in a C in em a Papers interview while the film was in production: The original idea was David’s, largely I think as a response to the success of Philippe M ora’s B rother Can You Spare a D im e? and the American film L et the G o o d Tim es Roll [Sid Levin and Bob Abel, rockum entary, 1 9 7 3 ]. In fa ct, David in itially had discussions with Philippe.3 Bob Ellis, whom Elfick eventually commissioned to write the screenplay, is certain that the original idea was M ora’s: Elfick was going to do a compilation documentary about rock groups o f the 1 9 50s and, as he went through the newsreels, he kept running into very interesting newsreel material [...] and he thought he might do it like B rother Can You Spare a D im e?, a documentary about the ’40s and the ’50s - a por trait of an era. M ora said, “Fine, but it would be much more interesting if you did it as a drama film. Maybe you could do it with newsreel camera men, and use the newsreel as inserts, but also have the private lives of the newsreel camera m en.” Elfick thought this was a really terrific idea, and that was the one he gave to me.4 N e w s fro n t would deal with the everyday lives of newsreel cameramen, located in a fictional company called Cinetone, which is in direct competition with an American-owned company called Newsco.5 The situation reflects the real life com petition between Cinesound and the American company Fox-M ovi etone, which is well documented in the reminiscences of Cinesound producer Ken G. Hall.6 In the last years before the introduction of teleC I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

STORY BY ¡AN STOCKS

vision, newsreel com panies com peted fiercely for scoops and the latest stories were rushed to special newsreel theatrettes.7 Elfick’s account of the genesis of the film dif fers substantially from Stratton’s, but includes M o ra and noted D O P M ike M o lloy in initial development. Elfick saw the possibility of com bining spectacle and high production values, while keeping the cost of the film to a modest level: There was a gathering at Palm Beach which had Philippe, M ike M olloy, Richard Neville and Andrew Fisher, and at that gathering we dis cussed the values that newsreel had. Perhaps newsreels in a movie might be good or something like that - you know - the fact that great events exist on film and that Australian budgets don’t really allow you to stage great events. So, from that, Andrew Fisher and I worked on an idea. I will maintain that I had the idea of creating fictional characters and putting them back into real events.8

want to be involved in it?”, and he said, “You must never associate my name with this film in any way. I am an extremely successful direc tor. You make surfing movies. You must never associate me with this film in any way.”11 Elfick commissioned the production of a chronological list of events for the period 193 0 -5 8 12, which was assembled by writer and lawyer Andrew Fisher. It is doubtful if any footage was viewed at this stage, and that the list was prepared from Cinesound’s

The aim in developing the screenplay was to create a narrative around the powerful newsreel images avail able from the Cinesound library. Some of the original Cinesound cameramen, notably Syd and Ross Wood, offered help in developing the film ’s content, and Elfick and Andrew Fisher engaged them in first-hand research. Elfick recalls these early meetings: Syd Wood got a gathering together in Mike’s house in Stew art S tre e t, P ad d ington. O ne very long drunken n igh t, we did tape recording after tape recording. Syd, from the early research, became the technical adviser for the film, and was on the set and was involved in the film right through to the end.9 M ora, according to S tra tto n 10, returned to the U.S. and was later amazed to find th at E lfick had proceeded with the project with out further consultation or credit to him . E lfick insists he had offered M ora a role in the film’s development, but M ora had not wanted to be identified with the project: I said to Philippe, “Do you C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

£en Maguire (Bill Hunter) and Chris Hewitt (Chris Haywood). Newsfront

own Release Sheets, which Syd W ood may have accessed during the making of a com pilation television series in the late 1 9 6 0 s.13 The potential of the era and the material was listed in a more than 40-page document pre pared by F ish er and E lfick . S ty listic inspiration may have also been provided by a series o f articles by R uth Park fo r T h e N ational T im es14 dealing with the Depression era in Sydney, which used documentary pho tographs of the period for illustration, and included working-class songs and traditions. Elfick and Fisher’s outline sets up the main characters as two rival brothers, one of whom works in the newsreel industry, and the other who becomes a radio and television entre preneur. The brothers were called James and Mackie Richards, and the very brief synopsis details their careers through the Depression, World War II and into the 1960s. James’ son, John, is killed in Vietnam, and Mackie sees this as a chance to destroy his rival, to r menting him with his son’s death until he has a heart attack (the exact methods are not e xp lain ed ). Ja m e s ’ oth er son, M ich a e l, b eco m es an investigative jo u rn a list and exposes his uncle’s corruption. The proposal document also contains onepage character biographies.15 Initial applications by Elfick to the Aus tralian Film D ev elop m en t C o rp o ra tio n (A FD C) evoked negative responses from assessors, who found the material too unde veloped to warrant investment. At this stage, assessm ents issued from the A FD C were anonymous. One assessment dated 21 Feb ruary 1975, which is almost illegible, states: It is almost impossible to visualise how it might work - the information as given poses many questions and answers none. The storyline is neat, perhaps glib, even naive. I should have thought that a character who is a composite of Damien Parrar [sic], George Heath and Ross Wood deserves a bet ter fate [...] Yet the idea has attractive possibilities if it can be made to work.16 This assessor found the storyline “weak, and trying to cram this in with 3 8 years of film clips would be mind boggling”17. The other assessor (form dated 24 February 1975) undertook a far more detailed analy sis, suggesting the “story was som ething H arold Robbins might dream up” but conceded: Som etimes, you know, these plots actually work quite well on screen. What I’m sure doesn’t work is the inter-related use of what appears to be going to be the inordinate interrelated use [sic] of newsreel camera stuff. This is the musical with songs thrown in that don’t advance the plot [...] While the mind is being asked questions of fact, it is then being dragged away and asked questions of fiction [...] this won’t do at all.18 This assessor suggested two alternatives. The first was that the applicants concentrate on the documentary elements and make a The W orld at W ar19 type narrated documentary. The second was that the story of the two brothers be developed with “maybe one major factual event, which is, itself, some kind of turning wheel for the plot”. This assessor may well have been Bob Ellis, given the fact that the simile of the “musical with songs thrown in that don’t advance the plot” appears later in this chapter in interview with Ellis. Elfick feels that the early rejections by the AFDC were due to his own limited track record in dramatic films: “The people who assess films couldn’t com prehend that somebody who had made surfing movies

could make a film with this kind of content.”20 The N ew sfront project did not appear to be very promis ing at first, and another Elfick project was offered support by the Australian Film Commission, as Ellis recalls: Elfick had a package which included [an uncom pleted project called] “Captain Good Vibes”, and it was going to star Reg Livermore in a pig mask pratfalling all around Calcutta. It was widely agreed among the AFC that this was by far the better pro je c t and th at N e w s fr o n t was the flip side and probably wouldn’t get made.21

Broadcasting Commission as a journalist (although he had been fired in the late 1960s.) Given Ellis’ pre vious experience with innovative theatre material such as T he L eg en d o f King O ’M alley24, he was an accept able choice. The theatre project had also given Ellis valuable experience in how to draft and structure a narrative around historical material: Michael Boddy and I [...] had to squeeze ninety nine years of colonial history into a mere two hours and we just managed it by inventing a new kind of the a tre, w ith songs and n arrativ e and vaudeville routines.25

T h e A ustralian Film C om m ission (A FC ), w hich replaced the AFDC in 1975, insisted on a writer with established credits, and, after some initial investiga tion, a short-list of writers was proposed to the AFC, on the understanding that they would fund script development if a writer was found to be acceptable. Richard Neville and Andrew Fisher were not accept able, since they lacked dramatic writing credits. Elfick had the choice of using an established film writer, or looking for new talent. Bob Ellis, ultimately the principal writer of N ew sfro n t, tells how he was approached by Elfick after som e o f his com edy m aterial was p erform ed by G raem e Blundell at the Australian Film Institute Awards in 1975:

With the aid of agent Jane Cameron, Ellis concluded a contract with Elfick and work commenced on the

Elfick approached me then to write N ew sfront. He had initially approached the AFC to fund the script, with R ichard N eville w riting it. T hey said they would be satisfied only with a person with some experience with dialogue.22

ch aracter [C hris H ew itt]. So H ow ard cam e in,

Ellis saw himself competing with an “old guard” of screenwriters with television credits for the assign m ent o f w riting N e w s fr o n t .23 Ellis lacked film or television credits, but he had worked in the Australian

screenplay. Ellis says that he accepted the N ew sfront assignment with some misgivings: Elfick had a script that he himself had written [...] He told me not to look at it, and I did not, but I look ed at ab ou t tw o pages, o f its own kind o f overtalkative endlessly-monologist style.26 Early in the development of the screenplay, director Howard Rubie joined in the story conferences, draw ing on his own experience as a Cinesound apprentice. Ellis recounts: Howard Rubie’s career started as a 14-year-old kid and exactly paralleled that of the Chris Haywood and w ith H ow ard I w rote the first d raft o f the script.27 The central conflict and focus o f the story was the struggle between the two brothers, Len and Frank Maguire, which Ellis responded to very positively: Either from Philippe M ora or from me, there came the idea of two brothers, based on Syd and Ross W o o d , w ho w ould go d iffe re n t w ays, and we C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

quickly came upon the notion that one o f them goes to A m erica and does well, and the other one stays in Aus tralia and sort of starves.28 How ever, it is clear that this concept existed before Ellis joined the project and that it was essentially contributed by M o ra. In the draft versions of the script produced by Ellis, a variety of credits pages appear. In these, Bob Ellis is always cred ited w ith “s c rip t” or “screenplay”, but technical consultants are variously listed as Syd W ood and Howard Rubie, and Syd W ood alone. Concept and research appears as David Elfick and Philippe M ora, and David Elfick alone. Anne Brooksbank is cred ited with additional dialogue.29 Despite this abundance of partici pants, the w riting o f the first drafts p ro ceed ed w ith few p roblem s, and David Elfick feels that Ellis was the right choice as writer for the film: Bob wrote the first-draft screenplay based on the storyline that Andrew and I developed. Bob was hired, like you hire any writer to do a job. You have given them an idea and that is the history of the project. I thought that Bob had a wonderful grasp of the Aus tralian character and wrote wittily, energetically and entertainingly.30 Ellis produced a new “selling” outline for the project, listing the range of tal ents w ho w ould be b rou ght to the project. A draft copy states that Philippe M ora “has agreed to research and direct it” and the words “and d irect” have been crossed out. A short draft promotional docu ment announces the project as the Fictionalised story of two brothers who are news reel cameramen. Archive footage is integrated into the film which covers the golden era of Australian newsreels 1948 to 56. First draft written. Screen writers Bob Ellis and Anne Brooksbank from an original idea by David Elfick and Philippe M ora.31 This document indicates the AFC had invested $4,000 in the screenplay, the Arts Council $2,500 for research (presumably for work done by Andrew Fisher) and that $ 4,750 will enable completion of the script. An outline (which, in fact, is what is known as a scene breakdown) also exists from this time. This doc ument, identified as N ew sfron t Outline (Parts 2, 3 and 4)32, summarizes the progress of the story in short synoptic paragraphs. Various exciting events involve Len Maguire and Chris Hewitt (the names used in the final screenplay), including a flight over the Mount Lamington volcano in Papua New Guinea. In Part 3, Len and Chris are filming the Maitland Floods and Chris is washed away and drowns, despite Len’s attem pts to rescue him. In Part 4 , television has arrived, Len is living with Amy McKenzie, and he is asked to film the Olympic Games. At the end of the outline, Amy goes off to work for television and Len wins an award for his Games film. But it is the end of an era. This document incorporates scenes which are basically similar to the script as it was filmed.33 The two brothers, Len (Bill Hunter) and Frank Maguire (Gerard Kennedy), both compete for the same w om an, Amy M cK enzie (W endy Hughes). Len’s politics are solid working-class Labor and his strong political beliefs, as well as his Catholic back ground, provide an ong oing com m ent to the historical events contained in the newsreel material. C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Brian McFarlane and G eoff Mayer comment on the desire in Australian films of the revival to “refur bish for local and overseas consum ption certain notions/myths of Australianness”34. Certainly, Bob Ellis wanted to make a political and a human state ment about the cameramen who worked through to the 1960s in “Australia and its unique, brave, broth erly working class civilisation in the dying years of innocence after W orld W ar II.”35 N ew sfron t, from these early drafts, has a strong political voice, and sets out to present a revised view of Australian social his tory in the 1950s and ’60s: I had called it “Buccaneers on Mortgages”36 - some thing like that, or “Heroes on M ortgages” - with these very ordinary men who did these brave, unlikely and im portant things or covered these important things. What I planned was a movie a bit like Yanks [John Schlesinger, 1 9 79], which was a portrait of an entire society at a moment in time.37 Like many Australian films which drew upon docu mentary sources for inspiration, N ewsfront had some similarities with British working-class films of the 1950s and ’60 s.38 But the documentary realism of British features did not provide a viable approach to the narrative of N ew sfront. The key to the structure of the film was provided by Ellis, who describes his insight into the best way to use the newsreel material: It was like constructing a musical, where you write the songs first. You know that you have got to get to the Maitland floods, Redex trials - these things have to occur at more or less regular intervals. The image has got to go black and white surrounding it, so you work backwards from what is inevitably going to be in there to what the filler is. Various setpieces have to occu r at certain points and the story must suit this evolution.39 N ew sfron t uses a similar structure to Singin’ in the Rain (Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, 1956), which required a storyline which would allow the use of a number of set-piece musical numbers owned by the producer. Betty Comden and Adolph Green describe this assignment in their introduction to the screen play, which became one of the most successful films of all time: Arthur was trying not to tell us something [...] he let it be known with a proud but sly chuckle that we had been assigned to write an original story and screenplay using songs from the extensive catalogue of lyricist Arthur Freed [the same] and composer Nacio Herb Brown.40

In the case of Singin’ in the Rain, a personal drama was constructed which carried the narrative forward. T h e fo reg rou n d story show s the e ffo rts o f the ingenue, Kathy Selden (Debbie R eynolds), to get recognition of her talents. She is helped by Don Lockw ood (G ene K elly) and C osm o Brow n (D onald O ’Connor). The back-story - that is, the setting - to the nar rative of Singin’ in the R ain is a significant change in the film industry: the transition to sound. In Newsfron t, the back-story is the transition to television, although the goals of the main characters cannot be so simply expressed as in the Hollywood model. A key figure in Singin’ in the R ain is the kindly, if rather naive, producer figure, who tries to steer the characters and the studio through difficult times. In N ew sfro n t, A. G. M arw ood (Don Crosby) has to often pull his unruly workers back into line. In Ellis’ early drafts, N ew sfront takes on its more monumental historical dimensions, and includes many historical events of the post-war period, such as the Olym pic Games and the Petrov affair o f the late 1950s. Early scripts evoke the style employed by John Dos Passos in his post-war novel, M id Centur, which uses “documentary” inserts to link personal stories which are functions of those historical events. Elements of the film were predestined by certain newsreel events selected as being integral to the visual appeal o f the film . T h e M aitland floods, one of A u stralia’s biggest natural disasters, causes the death of Chris Hewitt (Chris Haywood). Bob Ellis feels that the death of Chris was an essential element: I think it was always going to happen [... t h a t ...] somebody was going to die, because of the subse quent scene which showed ‘one of our men died making this film’, with a queue of people handing over money.41 Ellis and Howard Rubie developed the script using their areas of complementary knowledge. Ellis knew the political and historical details, and Rubie knew the m ode o f op eration at C inesound. E llis p ro duced a number of drafts, culminating in the first complete draft, which appeared as a long draft of about three hundred pages. This was printed with an elaborate illustrated cover to show to p otential investors. The size of this draft gave rise to the leg end that the original script was at least four hours long, but the whole printing exercise was probably a calculated effort to build up the status of the project. Stratton refers to the original script as “an epic panorama spanning more than ten years of Australian history, with a screenplay of about 380 pages”42, but Ellis denies the script was excessively over-long: It was quadruple spaced and it came out at 2 7 0 pages. It’s actually 140 pages and its probable length was 118-122 minutes. It is a myth about it being 4 hours long.43 At this stage, Howard Rubie expected to direct the film, but in the meantime Elfick had met recent Aus tralian Film and Television School graduate Phillip N oyce. N oyce was still in his tw enties, but had already established a high profile career in short filmmaking, before being accepted into the first year’s intake of the film school in 1973. On graduation from the AFTS, Noyce had directed a dramatized docu mentary, G o d K now s Why but it W orks (1974), for Film Australia on the radical doctor Archie Kalikerinos. T h e film m ixed docum entary and studio sequences, and was a useful precursor to the combi nation of archival and dramatized scenes written for Newsfront. Elfick liked Noyce’s short films, especially the dram atized docum entary C a s to r a n d P o llu x (1974): This was like a newsreel event, but he had created a fictional picture, and I thought that this ability to

A G uide to W h a t s in S to c k Sam Fuller, ‘Breakeri M orant rethought Richard Lester, Canada supplement The Chain Reaction, Blood M oney

Bryan Brown, looking in on Dressed to Kill, The Last Outlaw, Fatty Finn, Windows, lesbian as villain, the new generation David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Weir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that A te Paris

Censorship, Frank Moorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy Harbutt, Rim under Allende, Between the Wars, A lvin Purple

Judy David, David Williamson, Richard Rush, Swinburne, Cuban cinema. Public Enemy N um ber One, The Alternative

John Duigan, the new tax concessions, Robert Altman, Tomas Gutierrez Alea, Edward Fox, Gallipoli, Roadgames

Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O'Brien, William Friedkin, The True Story of Eskimo Nell

Bill Shepherd, Cliff Green, W em er Herzog, Between Wars, Petersen, A Salute to the Great MacArthy

Albie Thoms on surf movies, Charles Chauvel filmography, Ross Wood, Byron Haskin, Brian Probyn, Inn o f the Damned

Kevin Dobson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael Rubbo, B lo w O ut 'Breakeri M o ra nt Body H e at The Man from Snowy River

Stephen MacLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama. Monkey Grip

Geoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance. Far East Pat Lovell, Richard Zanuck, Sydney Pollack, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Phillip Adams, Don McAlpine, Don's Party

Milos Forman, Max Lemon, Miklos Jancso, Luchino Visconti, Caddie, The Devil's Playground

Nagisa Oshima, Philippe Mora, Krzysztof Zanussi, Marco Ferreri, Marco Bellocchio, gay cinema

Emile De Antonio, Jill Robb, Samuel Z. Arkoff, Roman Polanski, Saul Bass, The Picture Show M an

Ken Loach, Tom Haydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John S cot Days o f Hope, The Getting o f Wisdom

Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search o f Anna

Phil Noyce, Matt Carroll, Eric Rohmer, Terry Jackman, John Huston, Luke's Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Fire Lady

Tom Cowan, Truffaut John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan film. The Chant o f Jim mie Blacksmith

Gunnel Lindblom, John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The A frica P roject Swedish cinema. Dawn!, Patrick

Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert Brian May, Polish cinema, N e w sfro nt The N ight the Prowler

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

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

Ken Cameron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French film. M y B rilliant Career

Vietnam on Rim, the Cantrilis, French cinema. M a d Max, Snapshot The Odd A ngry Shot Franklin on Hitchcock

Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thoms, Stax, A lison's Birthday

Brian Trenchard-Smith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema. Harlequin

David Puttnam, Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain Reaction, S tir

Charles H. Joffe, Jerome Heilman, Malcolm Smith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter Weir, W ater Under the Bridge

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

Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Bums, John O'Shea, Bruce Beresford, Bad Timing, Roadgames

Bob Ellis, Uri W indt Edward Woodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema. Cruising, The Last Outlaw

Helen Morse, Richard Mason, Anja Breien, David Millilkan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema. National Rim Archive, We o f the N ever Never

Henri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy Hughes, Ray Barrett, M y Dinner with Andre, The Return o f Captain Invincible

Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tammer, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The Year o f Living Dangerously

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

Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, Sumner Locke Elliott's Careful He M igh t H ear You

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

Paul Cox, Russell Mulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka Stockade, W aterfront The B oy in the Bush, A Woman Suffers, Street Hero

Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms

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

Alain Resnais, Brian McKenzie, Angela Punch McGregor, Ennio Momcone, Jane Campion, horror films, N ie l Lynne

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

Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo, Winners, M orris W ests The Naked Country, M ad M ax Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms

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

Brian Brown, Nicolas Roeg, Vincent Ward, Hector Crawford, Emir Kusturica, NZ film and TV, Return to Eden

Robert Altman, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnes Varda, die AFI Awards, The Movers

Australian television. Franco Zeffirelli, Nadia Tass, Bill Bennett Dutch cinema, movies by microchip, Otello

Alex Cox, Roman Polanski, Philippe Mora, Martin Arminger, film in South Australia, Dogs in Space, Howling III

Screen violence, David Lynch, Cary Grant ASSA conference, production barometer, film finance, The Story o f the Kelly Gang

Gillian Armstrong, Antony Ginnane, Chris Haywood, Elmore Leonard, Troy Kennedy Martin, The Sacrifice, Landslides, Pee W ee's Big Adventure, Jilted

Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, Mel Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian Trenchard Smith, chartbusters, Insatiable

Angela Carter, Wim Wenders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Derek Jarman, Gerald L'Ecuyer, Gustav Hasford, AFI Awards, Poor M an's Orange Australian screenwriters, cinema and China, James Bond: part 1, James Clayden, Video, De Laurentiis, New World, The Navigator, W ho's That Girl

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 Martha Ansara, Channel 4, Soviet cinema: part 2, Jim McBride, Glamour, Ghosts Of The Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean Sex, death and family films, Cannes '88, film composers, Vincent Ward, David Parker, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes Rim Australia, Gillian Armstrong, Fred Schepisi, Wes Craven, John Waters, A1 Clark, Shame screenplay part 1 Yahoo Serious, David Cronenberg, 1988 in retrospect film sound, Last Temptation o f Christ Philip Brophy Little D o rrit Australian sci-fi movies, 1988 mini-series, Aromarama, Celia, La dolce Vita, women and Westerns

Cannes '89, Dead Calm, Franco Nero, Jane Campion, The Prisoner o f S t Petersburg, Frank Pierson, Pay TV The Delinquents, Australians in Hollywood, Chinese cinema, Philippe Mora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, Ghosts o f the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay Sally Bongers, the teen movie, animated, Edens Lost Pet Sematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman

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

Romper Stomper, The Nostradamus Kid, Greenkeeping, Eightbafl, Kathryn Bigelow, HDTV and Super 16 Multi-cultural cinema, Steven Spielberg, Hook, George Negus and The Red Unknown, Richard Lowenstein, Say a Little Prayer, Jewish cinema S trictly Ballroom, Hammers Over the Anvil, Daydream Believer, Wim Wonder's Until The End o f the World, Satyajit Ray Conjuring John Hughes' W hat I Have Written, Cannes '92, David Lynch, Vitali Kanievski, Gianni Amelio, Fortress, film-literature connections, teen movies debate

Cthulu, The Top 100 Australian Rims, Nicole Kidman in To Die For

The Last Days o f Chez Nous, Ridley Scott 149Z Stephen Elliott Frauds, Giorgio Mangiamele, Cultural Differences and Ethnicity in Australian Cinema, John Frankenheimer's Year o f the Gun Clint Eastwood and Unforgiven; Raul Ruiz, George Miller and Gross M isconduct David Elfick's Love in Limbo, On the Beach, Australia's first films: part 1 Reckless Kelly, George Miller and Lorenzo's Oil, Megan Simpson, Alex, The Lover, women in film and television, Australia's first films: part 2

Rachel Griffiths runs the gamut, Toni Collette and Cosi, Sundance Rim Festival, Michael Tolkin, Morals and the Mutoscope

Jane Campion and The Piano, Laurie Mclnnes and Broken Highway, Tracey Moffatt and Bedevil, Lightworks and Avid, Australia's first films: part 3 Cannes '94, Steve Buscemi and Reservoir Dogs, Paul Cox, Michael Jenkins The Heartbreak Kid, 'Coming of Age' films, Australia's first films: part 4 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

Rolf de Heer travels to Cannes, Clara Law's new home, Shirley Barretts Love Serenade, Richard Franklin

Queensland issue: overview of film in Queensland, early Queensland cinema, Jason Donovan and Donald Crombie, Rough Diamonds, Australia's first films: part 6 20th Anniversary double issue with New Zealand supplement Simon Wincer and Lightning Jack, Richard Franklin on leaving America, Australia's first films: part 7 Krzysztof Kieslowski, Ken G. Hall Tribute, cinematography supplement Geoffrey Burton, Pauline Chan and Traps, Australia's first films: Part 8

Scott Hicks and Shine, The Three Chinas, Trusting Christopher Doyle, Love and Other Catastrophes

Cannes '94, NSW supplement Bernardo Bertolucci's Little Buddah, The Sum o f Us, Spider & Rose, film and the digital world, Australia's first films: part 9 Priscilla, Queen o f the Desert Victorian sup plement P. J. Hogan and M uriel's Wedding, Ben Lewin and Lucky Break, Australia's first films: Part 9 Once Were Warriors, films we love. Back o f Beyond, Cecil Holmes, Lindsay Anderson, Body M e lt AFC supplement Spider & Rose, Australia's Rrst Rims: Part 10

Lawrence Johnston's Life, Return of the Mavericks, Queensland Supplement Part 1,

John Farrow monograph, Blood Oath, Dennis Whitburn, Brian Williams, Don McLennan, Breakaway, “Crocodile " Dundee overseas The Crossing, Ray Argali, Return Home, Peter Greenaway and The Cook.~, Michel Ciment Bangkok Hilton, B arlow and Chambers

Cannes report Fred Schepisi career interview, Peter W eir and Greencard, Pauline Chan, Gus Van Sant and Drugstore Cowboy, German stories

Little Women, Gillian Armstrong, Queensland supplement Geoffrey Simpson, Heavenly Creatures, Eternity, Australia's Rrst Rims

Sighting the Unseen, Richard Lowenstein

Cannes Mania, Billy's Holiday, Angel Baby, Epsilon, Vacant Possession, Richard Franklin, Australia's Rrst Rims: Part 12 Peter Jackson's The Frighteners, SPAA-AFI

Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorman, Menahem Golan, rock videos, W ills and Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster M ille r A ffa ir

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

Fred Schepisi, Dennis O'Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Smith, John Hargreaves, Dead-end Drive-in, The M ore Things Change Kangaroo, Tracy

Woody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story, The Last Frontier

lan Pringle Isabelle Eberhardt Jane Campion, A n A ngel A t M y Table, Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas, Presumed Innocent

The Godfather Part III, Barbet Schroeder, Reversal o f Fortune, Black Robe, Raymond Hollis Longford, Backsliding 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

James Cameron and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Dennis O'Rourke, Good Woman o f Bangkok, Susan Dermody, Breathing Under Water, Cannes report PPC

Jocelyn Moorhouse, Proof, Blake Edwards, Switcti, Callie Khouri: Thelma & Louiser, inde pendent exhibition and distribution, FFC part 2

CO o CO c CD o cr CD

supplement Lee Robinson, Sunday Too Far Mark Joffe's Cosi, Jacqueline McKenzie, Slawomir Idziak, Cannes Review, Gaumont Retrospective, Marie Craven, Dad & Dave

Away, Hotel de Love, Children o f the Revolution

r—f

Q- o CD C D2. Q ) i f

‘O mm a

Gerard Lee and John Maynard on A ll Men A re Liars, Sam Neil, The Small Man, Under the Gun, AFC low budget seminar

George Miller and Chris Noonan talk about Babe, New trends in criticism. The rise of boutique cinema

3 Tl O Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeare's Romeo and Ju lie t Dean Cundey, SPAA: The Aftermath, Idiot Box, Zone 39

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

turn fact into fiction is a filmmaking quality th at Phil has. I also realized that, having only made surfing movies, my credibility to snare a director like a Peter W eir or Fred Schepisi was not strong.44 Bob E llis saw the arrival o f N oyce as director in a completely different light, sin ce he had w o rk ed clo sely w ith Howard Rubie. It created major loyalty problems for him: Howard was going to direct it and he would have directed it very well. But then E lfick m et N oyce and How ard R u b ie w as o u t and N o y ce was in directing it. I was pretty disgusted by this.45 The draft script had not been written or edited with an eye to possible budget or logistical considerations. The narrative included much of the exciting material which had been identified in the Cinesou nd A rch iv es, in clu d in g a trip to Papua New Guinea and a flight over the 1 951 M ount Lamington volcano erup tion. In early versions o f the script, the core of the film is clear, but the exposi tio n is o v erlo n g and w o o lly . Som e severe script editing was required, and Noyce brought his own approach to the project.46 Elfick and N oyce viewed all of the relevant footage in the Cinesound Archives and began to base their ideas for the film on actual newsreel material. Elfick feels that this was a m ajor breakthrou gh in planning the p rod u ction, although the archives themselves required a great deal o f attention: “The archives were in a terrible mess and we were able to sort out a lot of the footage.”47 In 1 9 7 6 , Elfick and N oyce went to visit Ken G.

W e had to build a cage for this jetboat, [which was] quite dangerous. W e revved it up because what it did was suck the water in through the front of the boat and then spit it out the back. For wide shots it really looked like the whole river was flowing and that was very important for the water flowing down the main street, for example.51

Hall, who records in his memoirs his first contact with these earnest young filmmakers:

Ken G. Hall also provided another inspiration: he was the prototype for A. G. Marwood, who rules the

I took an immense liking to these two young men,

fictional Cinetone Productions with genial authority. A cco rd in g to E llis, H all was n o t pleased by the homage - especially when M arwood is shown cen

between Elfick and Ellis about the need to reduce the film ’s scope:

eyed in their approach to their immense problems, I could see w hat they proposed to do, and their

sorin g young film m ak ers w hen they a ttem p t to

enthusiasm was contagious. I responded and I ’m

zies:

and it was up to us to make the film. Bob was dif ficu lt to w ork w ith and I d o n ’t th in k even Bob would deny that. He w rote a very good screen

who had never made a feature film up to this point. Although they were frankly perhaps a little wide-

glad I did.48

ridicule the ruling Liberal Party leader, Robert M enHall didn’t like the film, but he really resented the

which Hall did not take to as kindly as he had to his

M arw ood character, who could have been none other than himself, and was played as a political

two visitors:

coward, which in fact Hall was.52

Elfick and Noyce left behind a copy of Ellis’ script,

the N SW FC ] were keen to tam per with the film , but Phil and I were a formidable team together.54 A decision had been made to make the film using a com bination o f black-and-w hite and colou r p h o tography, although this brought about the resignation of DOP M ike M olloy, who wanted to shoot the film entirely in black and white. Elfick knew that he could raise about $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 to make the film and that the bud get w ould be very tig h t. C o n flicts em erged

The buck stops with the producer and the director,

play th a t was to o lon g, and in som e ways was perhaps in some of the scenes a little sentimental, because of his love of ’50s Australia.55 Elfick was determined to complete N ew sfron t on the

I didn’t like the script - or to be more exact I didn’t

A third-draft screenplay was presented for possible

like a good deal of it. A film should build to a cli max. This script built to a climax [...] and anti-climax after anti-climax! [...] there were a good many other

produ ction funding. T h e new ly-constituted N ew South W ales Film Corporation (N SW FC), set up by the Wran Labor Government, was a potential source,

weaknesses and the script, as written by Bob Ellis and Anne Brooksbank, would not have made a good

although negotiations proceeded with the AFC as well. It was only in January 1 9 7 7 that Elfick could

W e couldn’t have made it a 140 minute film. A: it wouldn’t have been distributed; and B: every scene

film.49

write to Ellis that the screenplay had

would have been 3 0 percent less effective. Even as

budget he had stipulated. Many Australian films had succumbed to pressure from directors and other col laborators, and gone disastrously over budget. Elfick was not going to allow it to happen to him:

Hall also objected to the use of four-letter words in the script, and says that many were removed at his

three excellent assessments from the AFC, but they deferred their decision till their next m eeting on

it was we stretched everything beyond the limits any other production had ever done. W e virtually had

suggestion. He did, however, give Elfick and Noyce

February 2 0 [...] N e w s fro n t is also up before the New South Wales Film Corporation next week.53

no office staff: we had no location managers, no

Initially, Elfick felt that his control of the project was

Stresses and strains emerged between writer and direc

th rea te n e d by the d ire c to rs and o ffic ia ls o f the

to r, as m o re and m o re cuts to the scrip t w ere required. Elfick defends Noyce’s increasing influence

some useful tips for the Maitland floods sequence, as Ellis recalls: I think it was H all’s idea to actually rebuild [the town of] M aitland and sink it in Narrabeen Lakes.

N SW FC:

unit managers, scant catering, huge sets.56

H e gave good advice. E lfick said, “H ow do you

They wanted to become the ledgering organization

do floodwaters?”, and Ken Hall said, “Put an out

and wanted to becom e the m ajor partner, so that they controlled the marketing of the film. I think

It becam e clear that it couldn’t w ork having Bob telling Phil and I what to do. The thing is that the

will give a swirl past the frame - that’s all you need.”

they saw N ew sfron t was a good idea and were sup

That kind of thing, very clever.50

portive o f it, but they also wanted to control the

script was too long. I think it was som ething like 198 foolscap pages. The funds were raised on a script which was unmakeable, and it

board m otor just outside the range of the image; it

Elfick, however, claims that the solution to creating the effect of swirling floodwaters was his own: C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

film in some ways. I was under a lot o f pressure because both M ichael Thornhill and David Roe [at

over the script in pragmatic terms:

was up to me as the producer and Phil as

festivals

1997 Sundance Film Festival Fincina Hopgood reports from the hot centre o f independent film he 1997 Sundance Film Fes tival was all about size: from the largest-ever number of submissions and record audi ence attend ances in tiny theatres to the sm allest of budgets and the personal proportions of the (all-male) casts o f T h e F u ll M on ty (Peter Cattaneo) and L o v e! 'Valour! C om passion! (Joe Mantello). The picturesque ski village of Park City, Utah, played host to 127 features and 60 shorts on 9 screens over 11 days, and braved the onslaught of filmmakers, press, publicists, prospective distributors and film fans that followed. The demand for improved facilities was all too obvi ous: as well as the need for larger screening venues, there were problems with both projection and sound quality, most critically in the press screening room. This year, Festival organizers added a second screen in Salt Lake City and nearby Ogden. It is hoped that the 800seat theatre currently under construction for next year will alleviate some of the congestion and enable the Festival to con tinue in the intimate atmosphere of Park City, which many agree is still the most desirable location. While on the surface Sundance is all about which films have been picked up and “What’s the buzz?”, the combination of panel discussions and late-night parties, of shared bus rides between theatres and hour-long ticket queues, promotes a sense of community across all groups of the independent film industry, including the press and the pun ters. Sundance offers filmmakers the rare forum where both deals are done and friendships are formed.

The 1997 Festival featured the great the awards as a means of increasing pub est representation of Australian product lic visibility for all independent films, not at Sundance, with short film s from just the winners. Christina Andreef (Shooting the B reeze) This year’s runaway success in the and John Curran (D ow n Rusty D ow n , dramatic category was Morgan J. Free starring Noah Taylor), together with five man’s début feature H urricane, which features in the Premieres and World Cin claimed awards for direction and cine ema sections. Shirley B a rre tt’s L o v e matography (by Enrique Chédiak), as Serenade and Peter Duncan’s Children well as the Audience Award. H urricane o f the R evolution were two of the most spearheaded a trend of films concerned popular non-competition features, while with disaffected teens, confused about Fox Searchlight flew in director Emmasexuality and m orality in the urban Kate Croghan and cast members of L ove 1990s. H urricane evocatively portrays a n d O ther C atastrophes for the begin the lives of a group of teenage boys in ning of their North American publicity lower M anhattan, whose poverty and junket (Love and Other Catastrophes was preoccupation with shoplifting place slated for U.S. release late March). Both them perilously close to descending into M onica Pellizzari’s Fistful o f F lies and serious crime. The film focuses on M ar Steven Vidler’s B lackrock (which had its cus (a powerful performance by Brendan world premiere at Sundance) provoked Sexton III), his attempts to break the strong audience responses and fervent cycle of crime and violence, and his bud discussions that continued long after the ding relationship across racial lines with screenings. Melena (newcomer Isidra Vega). Other T h e Sundance Film Festival was features in the ‘teen angst’ sub-genre established by R o b ert R edford as a included Gregg Araki’s N ow here, Alex showcase of American independent cin Sichel’s All O ver M e, Hannah W eyer’s ema. In keeping with this founding aim, A rresting G en a , M atthew Carnahan’s only American features and non-fiction Black Circle Boys and Vidler’s Blackrock. films are eligible for competition. This Even before its sweep of the awards, year, 18 films were selected from some H u rrican e was picked up for interna 8 0 0 submissions (in comparison with tional d istribution by M ayfair 2 5 0 entries received just two years ago). International. At the awards ceremony, programming An even stronger trend in the 1997 director Geoffrey Gilmore spoke of “the Festival line-up was the question of qualities of distinctiveness [and] risk-tak female sexuality, and many films focused ing that define the independent agenda”. on adolescence in exploring this theme. He commented on the power of inde Pellizzari’s Fistful o f Flies found itself in pendent film to prom ote divergent good company with Julie Davis’ I L ov e voices, suggesting that “it is a more accu You ... D o n ’t T ou ch M e! (also picked rate barom eter o f society than up for distribution), Sarah Jacobson’s corporate-produced entertainm ent”. M ary J a n e ’s N o t a Virgin A n y m o re, Gilmore also stressed the importance of Lynne Stopewich’s Kissed, Su Friedrich’s

docum entary H id e a n d S e e k , Coky Giedroyc’s S tella D oes T ricks and the winner of the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary, Girls L ike Us. Produced and directed by Jan e C. Wagner and Tina DiFeliciantonio, Girls L ike Us continues the tradition of coming-of-age documentaries pioneered by Michael Apted’s 7 Up series and exem plified by G illian A rm strong’s B in go B rid e sm a id s & B ra c es . W agner and DiFeliciantonio follow four teenage girls from a range of ethnic and family back grounds over a four-year period as they grow up in the w orking-class neigh bourhood o f South Philadelphia. As these young women discuss their feel ings about sexuality and their hopes for the future, the viewer becomes inti mately involved with their lives and is profoundly affected by the turns that each g irl’s life takes over those four years. This trend filtered through to the tw enty-som ething generation, where women and bisexuality are explored with both trepidation and affirmation in Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy and Kristine Peterson’s Slaves to the Underground. The Grand Jury Prize for dramatic film was awarded to Jonathan Nossiter’s Sunday, which also collected the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award for Nossiter and co-writer James Lasdun. Based on a short story by Lasdun and with the bleak poetry of Queens as its setting, Sunday features strong performances by David Suchet and Lisa H arrow as a middleaged couple who meet one Sunday via a case of mistaken identity and cling des perately to the passion th at evolves between them as the last bastion of hope in their fractured lives. In addition to the C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

A rthur Dong's Licensed to Kill. Jury and Audience awards in both the dramatic and documentary categories, the competition filmmakers themselves award the Filmmakers’ Trophy for out standing achievement. Past recipients include Fresh (Boaz Yakim) and Clerks (Kevin Smith). This year’s award went to In th e C o m p a n y o f M en , “a black comedy exam ining the male ego run amok”. W riter-d irector N eil LaBute fash ioned an impressive début from a limited budget and rich screenplay, interrogat ing the politics of corporate culture and their influence on personal relationships outside the office. The award for Special Recognition in Latin Am erican Cinema went to Jose Araujo’s film, L an d scap es o f M em ory, with Arturo R ipstein’s D eep C rim son receiving an Honourable Mention. The dramatic jury awarded a Special Recog nition for acting to Parker Posey for her p erfo rm ance in M ark W a te rs’ T h e H ou se o f Yes, a black comedy about a dysfunctional fam ily adapted from W endy M acL e o d ’s stageplay. Posey plays the daughter, Jackie-O, who is so obsessed with the former first lady that she dresses like her and re-enacts scenes from her life, including that day in Dal las, Texas. During the Festival, Miramax Films acquired North American, UK and Mexican rights to The H ouse o f Yes from Spelling Films. The dramatic jury also recognized the work of production designer Therese DePerez in G oin g A ll th e W ay (M ark Pellington). DePerez’s previous work includes I Shot Andy W arhol and Tom DiCillo’s Living in O blivion. The awards ceremony capped off ten days of com edy, drama and politics, some of which took place off-screen. The Sundance Film Festival is both an exhausting and exhilarating experience, with several screenings of dramatic and documentary features up against press conferences, panel discussions and new technology demonstrations within any C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

given hour. Everyone is forced onto a level playing-field as they trudge through slushy snow or board crowded buses, all wearing baseball caps and long coats as shelter from the effects of winter. Only cell phones and the coveted yellow-shoestringed Festival passes distinguish the punter from the player. And, for once, it is easy to strike up conversation with a p erfect stranger: “So, w hat’s your favourite film so far?”

Shorts at Sundance The Shorts programme is traditionally one of the highlights at the Sundance Film Festival and the 199 7 selection 60 culled from 1,200 entries - did not disappoint. Whether screened before a feature or as one of six brought together in five different compilations, each short film demonstrated the diversity of styles and subject matter that can be explored through this medium. Liberated from the conventional pre requisites of plot and structure, some directors engaged with ideas and images in a non-narrative, impressionistic fash ion. O thers tested the bounds of narrative by recounting in less than thirty minutes an event or some aspect of a character’s life. The consequent demands of both detail and economy alternately coincided and conflicted, often produc ing innovative cinema. In these ways, the short film simultaneously constrains and lib erates, and the audience loves to watch. This y ear’s Shorts program m e included David Kaplan’s eroticized revi sion of Little R ed Riding H o o d , starring Christina Ricci, and several masterpieces of claymation (James Duesing’s L aw o f Averages, Mike Booth’s The Saint Inspec to r , and Sam F e ll’s PO P, from the Aardman team ). Literature provided insp iration fo r Gus Van Sant (Allen Ginsburg’s “Ballad of the Skeletons”) and Tina DiFeliciantonio and Jane C. W agner, who condensed D orothy Allison’s life story, T w o or Three Things

bu t N oth in g fo r Sure, into a haunting combination of Allison’s powerful nar ration and eerie black-and-white footage of rural poverty in the ’50s. Hollywood celebrities also figured in the shorts scene. Sandra Bullock made her directorial début with an off-beat, occasionally surreal, romantic comedy, M aking Sandwiches, starring herself and Matthew McConaughey as a young cou ple whose idea o f rom antic bliss is running a sandwich shop together. Bar bra Streisand’s son, Jason Gould, drew from life for his short, Inside Out, and cast himself as the son of an (unnamed) celebrity couple, who’s trying to deal with coming out of the closet and living in the celebrity spotlight. One of the most popular shorts was A m erica n R o a d by P eter Shapiro, a seven-minute road movie set to a song by cult band Phish. Shapiro travelled across 48 states, or 1 3 ,2 6 4 miles (20,000km ), in just 30 days, to create a kaleidoscope of images of American life: the cities, the stunning landscapes, the people, and, of course, the road. The short was picked up by IM AX theatres, which has commissioned Shapiro to pro duce a featu re-len g th version of A m erican R oad for its giant screens at tourist attractions across the country. T he Special R ecognition in Short Filmmaking Award went to Kris Isacsson’s Man a bou t T ow n, described as a humorous and frightening account of one m an’s en cou n ter w ith a lcoh ol, pickup lines, and some ‘Jersey guys’. The jury for this year’s award included Aus tralian film editor Kate Williams, who has worked on many independent films in the U.S., including Steve Buscemi’s Trees Lounge and Bart Freundlich’s The Myth o f Fingerprints, which screened in this year’s dramatic competition at Sun dance. H onourable M entions for the Sh ort Film m aking Award w ent to Richard C. Zimmerman’s Birdhouse and K. C. Amos’ Syphon-Gun. F or Australian d irector C hristina

Andreef and producer Helen Bowden, Shooting the Breeze may have been their third short shown at Sundance (E xcur sion to the Bridge o f Friendship screened in 1994, The G ap in 1995), but this year was their first visit to Park City. Based on their past experiences with Sundance and visits to oth er festivals, such as Cannes and the smaller, prestigious Telluride Festival in C olorado, Andreef observes: Sundance gives you an incredible pro file ; it goes wider than you ever anticipated. Sundance’s audiences are traditionally and currently much more excited about short films in general than any other festival I’ve been to. Every shorts programme has been sold out and lines of people turned away from every single screening. Not only that, the people who pro gramm e them , Jo h n C oop er and Trevor G roth, are true aficionados. They love short film, and they manage to create a w ond erfully resp ectfu l and solid atm osphere around the shorts here. It feels like you’re really doing some thing, being here. It’s not just a jaunt. Whereas when we went to Cannes, we had to do lot of interviews and talk to a lot of people, but no one had seen the short and so it was all about com modity and, “When are you going to do your first feature?” Here, they really love short films and anyone who talks to you about it has seen it, and days after screening people have been stop ping us in the street out of the blue, giving us their card and saying, “W e loved your short.” Bowden adds: And they com m ent in detail. They notice visual details like the colour of the wall, and psychological details like the mosquito ... things we put a lot of time and thought into. In Shooting the Breeze, Andreef set out wanting to explore two points of inter-

festivals

est: the contagious nature of violence and the im plicit support that lovers demand from each other. The result is a confronting and thought-provoking visualization of what occurs when these two issues collide. Andreef’s first short, Excursion to the Bridge o f Friendship, was a popular comedy that screened at sixty festivals worldwide and collected numerous awards; in contrast, The Gap was a tragedy, which she describes as “experimental, and technically flawed”. Andreef acknowledges that all three shorts are “entirely stylistically differ ent” from each another:

cervical cancer. She developed the con dition as a result of her mother having taken the synthetic hormone DES dur ing pregnancy to prevent miscarriage. H elfand is one of m illions of ‘DES daughters’ across America and her justreleased docum entary has already prompted other DES daughters to ask their doctors for check-ups. As well as its dramatic and immedi ate social im pact, H elfan d ’s documentary shattered the objectivity and distance between filmmaker and subject. Painfully documenting her emo tions and the tensions between herself

That’s not been any kind of conscious thing, it’s just been about trying dif ferent things at different times. Except that after Excursion was so successful, I was very keen not to becom e the song-and-dance lady. For me, short films have no business being safe. If you’re going to discover a formula and stick to it to be safe, and make little one-note anecdotes that have been myths or that you know are going to work, th at’s not the filmmaking I’m interested in. I’m much more interested in making a flawed film that tries to do something with a different voice from what you’ve done before.

afterwards regretting the decision. It is clear from other interviews that her par ents do not know she is sexually active. D iF elician ton io felt uncom fortable about including this “confession”, as she called it, in the film without first obtain ing Anna’s consent. Anna’s response to this concern was that she felt it was important for other girls to learn from her experience, and that, as far as her parents were concerned, “they have to find out sometime”. D iFelicianton io says her m otiva tion behind Girls L ike Us was to make a film which would hopefully disturb Greta (Andrea Moor). Christina Andreef's Shooting the Breeze.

Shooting the Breeze was released nation ally in theatres on 13 March, screening with Kathryn Millard’s Parklands, which Bowden also produced, and Richard Frankland’s N o Way To Forget. Andreef and Bowden plan to shoot their first fea ture, S oft Fruit, scripted by Andreef, in 1997.

Documentary at Sundance The Documentary Competition at the 1 9 9 7 Sundance Film Festival was a showcase of cutting-edge independent cinema, and demonstrated the power and influence of non-fiction filmmak ing. Documentaries have the capacity to influence attitudes and even change behaviour, effects that several non-fic tion filmmakers attested to at a panel discussion during the Festival. In recent years, the com bined efforts of these filmmakers have prompted viewers to volunteer their time as assistants for AIDS patients (Tina DiFeliciantonio and Jane C. Wagner’s Emmy award-winning Living with AIDS) and even changed the minds of legislative decision-makers (Gini Retticker’s The H eart o f the M at ter, dealing with women and AIDS). At this year’s Festival, Ju d ith H elfan d ’s autobiographical film , A H ealthy Baby Girl, caught the attention of the local Utah press and became a vehicle for the local community’s con cerns about pesticides and other chem ical pollution in the region. A Healthy Baby Girl documents Helfand’s past five years during which she battled

and her mother, Helfand’s home-video footage drew attention to the voyeuris tic, intrusive nature of personal documentary and made us mindful of the consequences of opening one’s life to the camera. Previously involved in many other non-fiction films, Helfand is now committed to using her docu mentary as the cornerstone for further grassroots awareness campaigns, con cerning both DES and other issues dealing with health and environmental safety. After her experience on the other side of the camera, she feels that she would not be able to make another per sonal documentary, either about herself or anybody else. This year’s Grand Jury prizewinner, Girls L ike Us, was also a personal doc um entary, and film m akers T ina DiFeliciantonio and Jane C. Wagner were acutely aware of the delicate nature of their material. Girls L ik e Us includes candid interviews with four teenage girls discussing sexuality and, at one stage, one of them - Anna, who is first-generation Vietnamese-American - admits to having had unsafe sex and

the audience, provoke them to discuss the problems raised and encourage them to listen to teenage girls, to begin work ing in partnership with them on unspoken issues such as safe sex and sexuality. Arthur Dong was motivated to make Licen sed to Kill after his experience as the victim of a gay bashing twenty years ago. He wanted to ask these men who assault and kill homosexuals, “W hy?” In conducting interviews with several men imprisoned for these crimes, Dong says he learnt, That killers are people my neighbours; they’re people like you, the audience. And that was my approach in making this film: to dispel the myth of gay bashers, men who go out and hunt hom osexual men, as psychotic, as Right-w ing fanatics. I wanted my neighbours and you all to see that. L ic e n s e d to K ill, w hich com bines excerpts from Dong’s interviews with police interviews and graphic footage of corpses and the crim e scenes, was awarded the Filmmakers Trophy, voted by other documentary filmmakers, and

won the Directing award, which was chosen by the documentary jury. The most popular documentary, as voted by the Sundance audiences, was M onte B ram er’s P au l M o n e tte : T he Brink o f Sum m er’s End, a touching por trait of the author of B orrow ed T im e: An AIDS M em oir and B ecom ing a Man.H a l f a L ife Story. The documentary combines footage of Monette during the last months of his life with home movies and photographs from his earlier years, and interviews with friends. The docu mentary jury also awarded a Special R ecog n itio n to Kirby D ick, fo r his graphic and yet humanizing portrait of sadomasochistic performance artist Bob Flanagan in the documentary Sick: The L ife and D eath o f B ob Flanagan, Super masochist. The Freedom of Expression Award, sponsored by the Playboy Foundation, is bestowed each year on a documen tary which informs and educates the public on an issue of social concern. Once again decided by the documentary jury, this year’s award was split between Macky Alston’s F am ily N am e, about black-and-white interrelationships in the A lston fam ily, and Laura A ngelica Simon’s F ear an d Learning at H o o v er E lem en ta ry . Simón is a fourth-grade teacher at Hoover and first-time docu m entary film m aker who wanted to document the effects of C alifornia’s Proposition 187 upon her students and the teaching staff. P roposition 18 7 , which is still caught up in legal chal lenges, would force state employees such as Simón to turn in her undocu m ented students to the authorities. Ninety percent of Hoover students are economic and political refugees from M exico, Guatemala and El Salvador. The documentary engages the audience through Simon’s use of the charming nine-year old Mayra, from El Salvador, who proudly acts as ‘tour guide’ through the school and provides invalu able insight into the living conditions of illegal immigrants. O riginally from M e x ico , Sim ón bravely exposes the deep-seated preju dices of m em bers of the H oover teaching staff and shows that, whatever comes of the legal case against Proposi tion 187, much of the harm has already been done. During the film ing, one teacher resigned after several years at Hoover; a close friendship between two staff members ended after one learnt that the other voted in favour of Propo sition 187; and Mayra’s mother suddenly took her out of school, in fear of being handed over to the authorities. Mayra and her mother have now returned to El Salvador. F e a r a n d L ea r n in g a t H oov er Elem entary powerfully reveals the personal fall-out behind a political issue. As a result, it is a profoundly mov ing and thought-provoking film. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

NAZA TITLE: NAZA PRODUCER: WONG DIRECTOR: SIM LI CUM STARRING: ANN MARIE, RUMTIEAN, WILSON LIE DISTRIBUTED BY: MASTER FILM CORPORATION Lead actor (Wilson Lie) rescues the actress (Rumtiean) from a sexual harassment and bring her to live with. They fall in love, but at the end he finds another woman.

MASTER FILM CORPORATION PRESENTS

MONOLISAA TITLE: MONOLISAA PRODUCER: WONG DIRECTOR: SIM LI CUM STARRING: ABILIE, JOHN ANN MARIE DISTRIBUTED BY: MASTER FILM CORPORATION Lead actor (Abilie) has his heart broken before he meets the actress (John Ann Marie) and falls in love again.

NINA TITLE: NINA PRODUCER: WONG DIRECTOR: SIM LI CUM STARRING: KORN, SIMLIE DISTRIBUTED BY: MASTER FILM CORPORATION Lead actress (Korn) is a living ghost who meets and falls in love with the actor (Simlie). Later, she is destroyed by a ghost buster.

A SECRET? TITLE A SECRET? PRODUCER: WONG DIRECTOR: SIM LI CUM STARRING: LESLIE, JACQULINE DISTRIBUTED BY: MASTER FILM CORPORATION Lead actor (Leslie) hires lead actress (Jacqullne) to be a travel companion and later separates and, because of love, they rejoin at the end.

C I N E M A P A P E R S â&#x20AC;¢ APRI L 1 997

M ASTER FILM CORPORATION

HEAD OFFICE 34 CAMPBELL LANE, SINGAPORE 209906. PH: 2954910 FAX: 2924792 REG. OFF: 30/81, SOL AMONPHANNIVAS 4, YIPAVADEE-RANGSIT ROAD, LADYAO, JAJUJAK, BANGKOK - 10900 29

issues

How Directors Contribute to the “Big Lie” of Filmmaking Simon Lake and Ian David take on directors over the ubiquitous “A Film by” credit bout two months ago we em barked on a silly project. We tried to get the Australian S creen D irecto rs Association to justify why Australian direc tors routinely get “A Film by” or, in North American parlance, a possessorycredit. We invited them to the annual SPAA conference to debate this point on 14 November 1996. Despite numerous approaches, no director wanted to put up his or her hand to justify what directors are now getting as a matter of course. We called the session “Taking The Credit” and ran it anyway, with screenwriter Mac G udgeon m aking a sp irited speech explaining why the possessory credit is both offensive and misleading. It was noted, after the session, that there were no dissenting voices from those present. One leading producer was heard to say, “It’s one of those issues where the more you think about it the more offen sive it becomes.” So, what are we to make of this? The venue was booked, the crowd was waiting, the chair dusted down and the microphone turned on ... and no tak ers. The country was scoured. The pick of our big-time directors (at least those who weren’t in LA) were asked and the answer was always the same: “It’s not our call. It’s the marketing and distrib ution people. They insist on it.” Pull the middle one. Can it be true that the cream of Australia’s directors are happy to take a possessory credit, but w on’t ju stify why it is that they assume authorship over the whole of a film? Under this artifice, in the public’s eye, it is the director’s film and bug ger any of the other contributors. We call it the “Big Lie” of filmmaking.

So w hat is possessory credit?

Before we can have any sort of debate on this issue, there must be an under standing o f the background and the purpose of the possessory credit. The possessory credit, according to the American W riters’ Guild’s credit manual, is a credit which attrib u te s, im putes and/or w hich cou ld be reasonab ly constru ed to credit a person with the authorship of a film. Examples of such credits are

“A Film b y _________ ”, “Pat Brown’s [title of the film]” or “A Robin Smith Film”. A possessory credit does n ot include a film which is made by a company, such as “A Kennedy M iller Production”. A possessory credit is only attached to a natural person. The history of the Big Lie is intrigu ing, involving an unpalatable mixture of guile and apathy. Possessory credits have been around in a limited form way before the ill-wind of Andrew Sarris’ essay, “Notes On the Auteur Theory”, in 1 9 6 2 . O riginally, the possessory credit was reserved for big-name direc tors such as John Huston, Frank Capra and Alfred Hitchcock, whose moniker sold tickets. Their names were put on slides outside the movie hall, or on the marquee, if it was thought that they had pulling power. It was extremely rare for a possessory credit to be put on a film. In 1 9 6 3 , the A m erican W rite rs ’ Guild had total control of the issuing of “A Film by” credit and only issued them to writers who were also produc ers and/or directors. In 1966, the Guild obtained control over the other per mutations: “A Jo hn Smith Film ” and “John Smith’s _________”. The result was that very few pos sessory credits were ever granted. The directors objected to this control; they fought in the courts and in the indus trial arena to get hold of the possessory credit. They maintained that filmmak ing is exclusively a directors’ medium and that writers and other above-theline co n trib u to rs a re n ’t necessary; th e y ’re ju st an oth er carriage being pulled along by the director. There was no shortage of Hollywood screenwrit ers who had seen this logic in action. Hollywood is littered with loco direc tors stuck in the sand without a script. The acrimony increased. Old scores were settled. Those who could remem ber (and there w ere lots o f them ) rem inded the d irectors they had no right to claim the high-m oral grassy knoll. Back in the bad old 1950s, only ten members of the industry refused to testify before M cC arthy’s House UnAmerican Committee and were sent to prison for their courage. Only one of them was a director and he ratted. In 1 9 7 0 , the A m erican W rite rs ’ Guild was stuck in some very tough contractual negotiations with producers,

when Lew W asserm an, the head of MCA, broke the contractual deadlock with the “Big L ie ” (Patrick Duncan, S creen W riters Q u a r te r ly , 1 9 9 5 ). Wasserman promised that, if the Amer ican W riters’ Guild gave up its control of the possessory credit, the studios would guarantee 1. The possessory credit would only be given in a lim ited number of instances and would not prolifer ate; and 2. Such credits would not be granted in any co lle ctiv e bargaining agreem ent, only in individual negotiations. The possessory credit, like the prickly pear, got out of hand and the Big Lie was soon forgotten about. The Direc to rs ’ Guild of A m erica, like its counterpart in Australia, showed no compunction or desire to stop or even justify the grow th o f the possessory credit, letting its unbending faith to auteurism do the talking. It appears that it is not enough to get one credit like the other above-the-line participants, such as the writer, the pro ducer, the actors or the cinematographer. The d irector must instead get what amounts to two credits: i.e., a director’s credit and “A Film by” credit. In effect, the director is saying to the audience: “Did you get it? It’s my movie. I made it happen. It’s all mine. All of it!” This type of rationale reminds us of the famous scene in Spinal T a p 1 when the rock star asks for an amplifier that goes up to the num ber 1 1 , when it makes no difference to the power sup plied by cranking the dial up to number 10. W ell, we believe that it is time to crank up the debate about why should directors claim they are the sole author in the most collaborative of mediums? After all, did they do two jobs for their two credits? ASDA has told us that directors did not seek the “A Film by” credit, but that it was the distributors and the market ing people who insist on it. Innocent victims? We think not. More like will ing participants. After all, Woody Allen and Clint Eastwood feel compelled to refuse the possessory cred it on the grounds that it is insulting to those they work with. In Australia, apparently top line directors such as Baz Luhrmann have similarly knocked back the offer

of a possessory credit out of respect for their fellow collaborators. The fact that the possessory credit has not been seriously questioned in the Australian industry leads to the situa tion when numerous first-time directors get a possessory credit, and they are identified in the public eye as being the sole author of the film . T o o bad for everyone else who made the film with them. The possessory credit is so ingrained in film culture that it dictates the way in which we talk about film. Industry papers such as E n c o r e and C in e m a P ap ers w ill refer to a film and then put the director’s name in brackets as though that is all you need to know. T im e O ut’s well-respected Film G uide does the same trick. It’s lazy and it’s an inaccurate way to discuss film. Even when a director does not get a possessory credit, the film is discussed and prom oted as though he/she did. One of many possible exam ples is a first-time director such as Emma-Kate Croghan getting attribution from the press for “Emma-Kate Croghan’s L ov e an d O ther C atastrophes”. Croghan did not claim a possessory cred it on the film, but that did not deter our film crit ics. I am not sure if Croghan would claim sole authorship of this film, and she has been the first to acknowledge that the film was based on a story by Stavros Adonis Efthymiou, it was co written by Emma-Kate Croghan, Helen Bandis and Yael Bergm an, and p ro duced by Stavros Adonis Efthymiou. It appears to us that this is a project born of co llab o ratio n , so why should the director be singled out by the press as the author? W ho is doing the attribu tion - the m arketin g p eop le, the distribution company - or does it just happen because no one is questioning it? T h e quest fo r sim p licity - to attribute one person (the director) as being “the hero” of the film, which the public can automatically identify with - has a long and not so distinguished history. It appears that film critics, dis tributors and m arketing whizzes are unwilling to countenance the collabo rative nature of filmmaking and would rath er sw allow razo r blades than attribute the contribution of anyone other than the director or the actors. Whereas critics are almost comfortC I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

able with the concept of w riter-direc tors, the lone writer is seen as a reject from literary ranks, hacks working for a tip on an iceberg deferral. W riters are integral to the filmmak ing process. T h e A m erican W rite rs ’ Guild put together a series of famous scenes from classic movies which were shot exactly as they were written. One of the most famous is L aw ren ce o f A ra b ia , where the burning match cuts to the burning sunset. Y es, the director and cinematographer had an important role in bringing this scene to the film, but it was shot as it was written. This small example is one of the rea sons why the possessory credit does not stand up to scrutiny. Writers do not just write text; they write scenes, sequences, characters! They describe the pictures, the im ages, because they’ve seen them. They fashion the dialogue because they’ve heard it. And the w hole lot is carefully put together with the glue of an idea: a story. There are numerous examples of the possessory credit with Australian directors, where in some cases the director has written the screenplay, and finally we have the case where the d irecto r has w ritten and pro duced the film. As yet, there are no figures on the possessory cred it use in Aus tra lia . It appears fro m a rough glan ce th a t th e re are A u stralian directors who either refuse to take the possessory credit or who have been unable to secure it. The general attitude in Australia is that directors get the possessory credit as a matter of right and this is recognized overseas. In fact, in the United States there is no automatic right to a possessory cred it, and, according to the American W riters’ Guild, the tide is swinging strongly ag ain st p o ssesso ry cre d its, w ith m ajor studios startin g to restrict

possessory credit with a moratorium on it until industry-wide agreement can be reached on this issue. In the interim agreem ent, which took effect from 2 M ay 1 9 9 5 , th ere was ag reem en t to “diminish the use of possessory cred its”. The studios agreed to review the incidence of possessory credits. There was also agreem ent that, if there was no m eaningful progress in dim inish ing the use of possessory credits in four years, then the studios would have to fund such measures as contributing for separate publicity for the writer, or for additional and special cred it for the writer.

in d iv id u al’s c o n trib u tio n . W ith o u t respect for fellow artists, collaboration is at risk of going out the window to fulfil directors’ egos. It is not just writ ers who should be annoyed, but actors, cinematographers, composers, editors and producers - in fact, anyone who contributed substantially to the making of the film.

Can the possessory credit ever be justified? Only if the one creative soul does every thing. W hat’s the problem in accepting film as a c o lle c tiv e , c o lla b o ra tiv e medium, like opera, theatre and ballet?

a p ossessory cre d it did n o t hold back the success or accolades for our most successful films: B abe, Strictly B allroom , M uriel’s Wedding or C roc o d il e D u n d e e and “C r o c o d i l e ” D u n d e e II. N or does it appear to have held back the ca re e r o f big nam e d irecto rs such as G eorge M iller, who apparently never takes the “A Film by” credit. Possessory credit denies others their due. O f course, directors will readily accept a possessory credit, but they will not justify it in public because it’s im possible to sustain logically, ethically and profession ally. W e w ould rem ind th o se who continue to propound their auteur theories, at least in private, that back at the dawn of the cinema age those who cran ked the hand le and squinted through the eyepiece were regarded as the true auteurs. T h e task o f the d irecto r, as the cameraman saw it, was to rehearse the actors for a scene until it was ready to be played; then the cam eram an w ould take over and determine the camera position, the lighting, the length of the shot, and all other m atters relevant to the finished film. (D. W. Griffith)

their use.

Why does the Australian Writers' Guild object to the possessory credit? Understandably, in the present envi ro n m e n t, w ith everyon e fro m first-timers to established directors get ting a possessory credit, the American W riters’ Guild has changed its attitude towards the possessory credit with its c u rre n t P resid en t, Brad R a d in tz , describing it as a “co lo ssal, divisive deceit”. The Australian W riters’ Guild agrees that the possessory credit deval ues others’ contributions to the creative process. In short, the possessory credit is an insult to other collaborators in the creative process. Industrially in A m erica, there has been an attempt to stem the flow of the C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

shots and angles, the power of editing, music and sound. It is interesting with the recentlyreleased W illiam Shakespeare's R o m eo & Ju lie t (which is prom oted as a Bazmark Production), there appears to be no reluctance from Baz Luhrmann to share the glory, and that in our view reflects well on him and well on the team that made the picture. There are numerous other examples of directors sharing the glory and highlighting the contribution of the team that made the film. The question must arise: W hy is this always not the case? The possessory credit is not essen tial for a film’s success. The lack of

N o one wants to see the prolifera tion of suspect credits, because, in the public’s eye, credits should mean some thing and they should be accurate. The continual proliferation of credits deval ues other people’s contributions and confuses the public. After all, are there many people interested in film who do not know what the directors do, so why do they need the extra credit? If there is a problem w ith under standing the director’s rôle, this should be dealt with as a separate issue rather than adding a false and misleading addi tion al cred it. N o one is denying the cru cia l rô le o f the d ire c to r and the many skills he/she can bring to a film. Our objection to the possessory credit is that it does not accurately reflect each

Any film or television work is the sum m ation of many talents and creative pains taken over a considerable period of time. The result does not belong to the director alone, or any of the other hopefully-gifted personnel, produ c ers, actors and crew , who expended every effort to make it. Is credit such a mean com m odity that th e re ’s only enough fo r one p erson? Isn ’t there enough to share around? T h e Aus tralian W riters’ Guild has never argued for writers to get a possessory credit. The writer will take credit for the script, the ideas, the dialogue, the story structure and flow, but he or she would have to take a step back when it comes to discussions on casting and p erfo r m ance, the ch o ice o f visual im ages,

Jo h n Ford to o k great prid e in announcing that he was first chosen to direct because he could yell loudly (from W illiam L uhr and P eter Lehman’s A uthorship an d N arrative in th e C in em a : Issu es in C o n tem p o ra ry A esth etic s a n d C riticism , C ap ricorn, 1977). Things have improved for direc tors since then, but that’s not saying a lot for getting to the truth. A u stralian d ire cto rs , w hen c o n fronted, will put themselves in the role of the victim and say that it is driven by the distribution and marketing people. It is time for this knee-jerk defence to be exposed for what it is. The original purpose of the possessory credit was a marketing tool and now it has been turned into an article of faith for Australian directors.

legal ease

“Don’t You Ever Listen?”

Lloyd Hart suggests ways o f improving the crucial filmmaker-lawyer relationship

awyers and filmmakers are in the business of communication. An optimist would expect this to surface in their mutual pro fessional relationships. In this article, I am suggesting some ways in w hich film m aker clients may communicate bet ter with their lawyer, or extract b etter com m unication from their lawyer. This in no way implies that as lawyers we can n o t im prove our understanding, motivation and ability to communicate with filmmaker clients. Lawyers have their own magazines and journals to ponder ways to lift their game (otherwise staying on the game may not be an option).

nature of the sacrificer’s actions result in both needless suffering for the lawyer (you care?) and poorer service than the lawyer can give. The client catches a whiff of the smoke but may be unable to distinguish W'hich m artyr is burning upwind. The following procedures can help: • Tell your ing

la w y e r

fro m ;

where you’re com

your

philosophical

Ask your lawyer to set out in writ ing what they can and wall do for you, including the options, their pluses and minuses, and cost benefits. The lawyer may only guess at cost bene fit, for philosophical and emotional issues impinge. It’s down to pleasure and pain, Jeremy Bentham. Examine your own priorities carefully and tell your lawyer. If you are a pro

approach to business and art; your

ducer and are instructing the lawyer

attitude to compromise; and, if you

to do the legal work on a film project,

wish to expose the full horror of

you obviously want to secure the

them, your aspirations. • Present to the lawyer your jottings of fact and w?hat you want. A lawyer friend of mine once asked his client, who was preparing to embark on

rights to make the film for the bud geted am ount, have w orkable distribution, financing agreements and agreements for services. You may or may not want to retain creative

Before you see the lawyer

some fun if you get on okay. Look for someone who is in service rather than sacrifice. The latter’s w'ork is painful for them. Their focus is on giving up some thing they have, free tim e, to make money in order to survive. In service, the lawyer’s motive is to meet the customer’s needs, with excellence. The grudging

lawyer has stuffed up, you may choose to sack them (ouch!) and get a new- lawyer. Satisfying as it might be, blaming seldom helps (except in dysfunctional politics.) Getting on and fixing things up does.

Understanding your lawyer (read Jung not R. D. Laing)

During the matter Here are some procedures, you can fol low: • Ensure your lawyer has your agree ment on all points, that you are aware of any downside. • Request your lawyer to diarize and copy you all significant meetings and telephone conversations.

When you see your lawyer

warding aspects of spending a fair bit of time with someone you hate or don’t like very much, there are the obvious practical benefits of having a lawyer you have confidence in; there may even be

• If things go wrong, ask yourself about your own responsibility. You may not have com m unicated all necessary information. You may have left your approach to the lawyer too late to redeem the situation. Ask your lawyer their version of what happened. If the

A significantly high p ro p o rtio n of lawyers doing ‘film law’ dream of doing something else, often in show business or the arts: acting, singing, dancing, wont ing, producing, anything. N ever encourage them.

Get as clear an idea as you can of the facts, what you want the lawyer to do for you and the outcome you desire. Jo t ting it down may help. It can be changed when you understand more about the relevance of the facts, commercial prac tices and the laws applying. This can save you time and therefore costs. Sometimes people are unsure w7ho to go to for help. They may not need a lawyer. You can clarify on the telephone what the lawyer proposes to charge you and whether you now want to see them. You may be able to negotiate a free initial consultation. The lawyer may agree that it is free but only if you engage them eventually.

In some jurisdictions, your lawyer must let you know how' they charge and, after any negotiation on that, enter into a cost agreement with you containing an esti mate of the number of hours the job wall take. They must inform you if and when the estimate changes. Insist on a cost agreement. Provide for regular billing. You may negotiate a fixed fee for finite services. In choosing your lawyer, ask around about the lawyer’s reputation. Follow your gut feeling. Apart from the unre

nars on intellectual property rights. The more you know about these, the better you can brief your lawyer.

• Ask your lawyer for written status reports at propitious times. • Ensure if possible that there is a hard copy record of key conversations between yourselves and your lawyer, and with the other side. It may be some particularly bitter litigation, what he really wanted. The answer could have been justice, to save face, revenge, or any of the other things in Hollywood’s panoply. But, no. This man wanted to restore the friendship which he once had wtith the defen dant. They talked. The other man wanted the same. Exit litigation. Ask your lawyer to repeat in summary form wfiat you have presented. This helps reduce misunderstandings. Lawyers will sometimes say the clients don’t know what the lawyers actually do. “Look how I’ve slaved, you unap preciative wallah.” Deny your lawyer this splendid opportunity. Ask what the lawyer is going to do. W hat it involves. Put a strict tim e-limit on these expositions. You’re not writing the lawyer’s biography - would it sell?

control to the exclusion of your co producer. You may want to retain a lot of points. You may be willing to share them around. You may be pre pared to compromise with financiers or distributors to get the film up. Or you may believe selling yourself cheaply never works. When you get oral or written advice from your lawyer, repeat it back to the lawyer to ensure you have under stood it. Your understanding and questions may uncover new aspects the lawyer had not considered because of oversight, new facts, your knowledge of the way things actually are, your different perception. Clarify that you will be copied with all correspondence. Bone up via publications and semi

asserted later that representations were made by one person or another. • Require the keeping of safety copies of signed documents.

Conclusion You may choose to modify a lot of the above to keep costs down. It really helps if both filmmaker and lawyer verify what the other is saying and intends to do each step of the way. Apart from what is contained in agreements, record in writing as much as possible of the infor mation on which decisions are based and the reasons for decisions. Bad commu nication occurs at all levels, sometimes with dire consequences. As God said to the Pope, “Don’t you ever listen? When they delivered those pizzas, I said, ‘Scan the bill’ not ‘Can the pill.’” © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Assetbuilder the flexible line of credit for Home Owners

You only pay interest < the funds you use ■ Turn your home equity into a tax-efficient line of credit ■ Costs less than overdrafts.

/ Invest in property / Improve your home / Invest in shares

■ Convenient and portable .You may never need a loan again ■ Visit your nearest branch or call 131 575

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

Bank 46944

New loans only. Conditions, fees and charges Full details available on application.

PAINT

layer* Version 5.5

Canvas

l| | p iQ MiMjmfy

AutoPan

Full

Throw away your crayons. CHYRON’s LIBERTY® Digital Design Studio allows you to go beyond your boundaries. Instead of painting out of a box, the LIBERTY family of tools offers a complete range of paint and animation solutions for Silicon Graphics® workstations. New version 5.5 software adds • Indigo2™ IMPACT™ Video Support © Real-Time Filter Processing €) Layering Mode • Multi-Level Undo • Internet Creation Support

SMcanGraphics Computer Systems

SYSTEMS S E N G I N E E R I N G

Q uality Broadcast Equipm ent A trading division of Silkiore Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 004 004 997

U n it 2 ,2 8 Sm ith Street, C h a tsw o o d NSW 2067. Ph o n e: 02 9 417 1111 Fax: 02 9417 2 39 4 E m a il: sa le s S > m a g n a s y s .c o m au

Love Resurgent Can a down-andout cellist and a five-yearJp J old Russian survive a revolution in Prague?

Personal Treasures Tom Ryan examines the recent batch o f the BFI’s mini books on m ajor film s

| \ | }

A Divine Judy B ob Rafelson is dividing the critics, again, in an over-the-top m elodram a starring the great Judy Davis

BRIDE OP FUANKRXSTKiN

— K

LMS ENFANTS DU

t 3x7^^ & ____ m

, L ira AKT» DEATH COLONEL BLIMP

ew re c e n t film s h ave b e e n

film sin c e sh e w a s lo a d ed w ith h o n

a w a ite d m o re ea g erly th a n , o r

o u rs fo r Th e Piano in 1 9 9 3 , a n d it

h a v e arriv ed tra ilin g su ch d iv erse

c o m e s in th e w a k e o f a sp a te o f lit

c r itic a l bag g ag e as, J a n e C a m p io n ’s

e ra ry a d a p ta tio n s w h ic h h av e fo u n d

The Portrait o f a Lady.

fa v o u r w ith c r itic s a n d so m e tim e s w ith film g o ers.

It is C a m p io n ’s first

C a m p io n is o n re co rd as fin d in g The Portrait

o f a Lady th e h a rd est H fiS g k

th in g sh e has ev e r

H S f jL

d o n e , a n d , if she

HfegL H

had any in te n tio n

Bardolotry In the bizarre world o f academ ic pennings on popular culture, a lecturer in French at Cambridge offers up his lustful thoughts on Brigitte Bardot

o f re n d e r-

V W

'.§ H | H P

in g in film by stan d ers. Ja m e s has c re a te d his

te rm s th e

h e ro in e , Isab el A rc h e r, in a g o o d

d ark co m p le x ity o f H en ry F

J a m e s ’ m a sterp iec e,

h e ro in e o f The Piano o r ev e n th a n th e J a n e t F ra m e c h a r a c te r in A ngel

th a t is n o t su rp rising.

at M y Table ( 1 9 9 0 ) , an d s o m e o f

W h a t it has in c o m m o n w ith h e r e a r lie r film s is its

th is d e tail w o u ld h av e h elp e d to give an a m p le r sen se o f th e e m o

in te r e s t in th e re p re se n ta tio n o f a w o m a n u n d er siege

tio n a l an d cu ltu ral w eb s in w h ich J a m e s ’ an d C a m p io n ’s y o u n g lady

o f v a rio u s k in d s - in te lle c tu a l, socia l a n d sex u a l - a n d d e te rm in

is cau g h t up. “I c a n ’t esc ap e m y fa te ” ,

in g to m a in ta in h e r o w n in teg rity , h o w e v er id io

¡jj -

d eal m o r e d etail th a n th e m u te

th e film ’s Isab el A r c h e r (N ic o le K id m a n , in a fin e , if u n c o m m a n d

s y n c ra tic o r perverse th a t m ay lo o k to

in g , p e rfo r m a n c e ) e x p la in s t o h e r lib e ra te d r e p o r te r frie n d , H e n r ie tta S ta c k p o le (M a r y L o u is e P a r k e r , in a ro le re d u ce d m o r e o r less to m ea n in g lessn ess), as th ey lin g e r

THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY Directed by Jane Campion. Producer: Monty Montgomery. i Scriptwriter: Laura Jones. Based 1 onthe novel by Henry James. I Director of photography: Stuart I Dryburgh. Production and I costume designer: Janet H Patterson. Editor: Veronika H Jenet Composer Wojiech H Kilar. Cast Nicole Kidman (Isabel Archer), John Malkovich H (Gilbert Osmond), Barbara ^ Hershey (Madame Merle), MaryLouise Parker (Henrietta Stackpole), Martin Donovan (Ralph Touchett), Richard E. Grant (Lord Warburton). Australian distributor: PolyGram. 1996. U.S. 35mm. 142mins.

Cameron Crowe's work [...] invites you to observe some of the peak experi ences of young white bourgeois America from the 1970s on, through the eyes of one eager to ana lyze middle-class existence and articulate enough to render it meaningful. p 38

review Films

n o r G o o d w o o d s h o u ld h a v e a m a jo r f u n c t io n in d e te r m in in g it. I f w e a re n o t m a d e m o r e fu lly

continued

a liv e t o th e b a c k g r o u n d t o Is a b e l’s d e c is io n s in th e s e m a tte rs , i t is c o n

a m o n g t h e e ffig ie s o f a n a ris to c r a tic

c o m ita n tly m o r e d iffic u lt t o a c c e p t

v a u lt. S h e r e fe r s s p e c ific a lly to

th a t s h e s u c c u m b s t o th e d u b io u s

w h y s h e h as r e je c te d t h e h a n d s o m e

a ttr a c tio n s o f th a t “s te r ile d ile t

m a rr ia g e p r o p o s a l o f E n g lis h

ta n te ” , th e e x p a tr ia te A m e ric a n

la n d o w n e r L o r d W a r b u r to n (w itty

G ilb e r t O s m o n d ( J o h n M a lk o v ic h ).

R ic h a r d E . G r a n t su b d u in g h is w it)

O n e c a n a c c e p t o n th e b a sis o f th e

a n d w h y s h e s till m o r e v e h e m e n tly

‘e v id e n c e ’ w h ic h th e film o ffe rs t h a t

r e je c ts t h e a d v a n ce s o f h e r v irile

th e r e is a n o p p re ssiv e q u a lity in th e

c o u n tr y m a n , C a s p a r G o o d w o o d

E n g lis h s c e n e s a g a in st w h ic h sh e

d eep ly e x c itin g to th e cu ltiv a te d ,

in trig u e , s y m b o liz e d as a w e b by

H e r c o u s in , R a lp h T o u c h e t t

d e v io u s M a d a m e M e r le (B a r b a ra

O s m o n d ’s tw ir lin g u m b re lla , in v o lv e his/their d a u g h te r P a n s y ...

re je c tio n s .

(V ig g o M o r t e n s e n ) . P e rh a p s b e c a u s e

re fu se s W a r b u r to n a n d th a t G o o d

(M a r tin D o n o v a n , m o v in g ly e x te n d

H e r s h e y ), w h o , f o r re a s o n s o f h e r

o f t h e c o m p re s s io n e n jo in e d by th e

w o o d ’s a g g ressiv ely s e x u a l a p p r o a c h

in g h is ra n g e b e y o n d th e m in im alism

o w n , p u ts Is a b e l in th e w a y o f m a r

c in e m a in ta c k lin g a lo n g , d e n se ly -

la c k s th e s u b tle ty E u r o p e h as

o f h is usu al d ir e c to r, H a l H a rtle y ),

ry in g O s m o n d , w h o fives in

te x tu r e d n o v e l, th e film n e v e r q u ite

a lre a d y ta u g h t h e r to v a lu e , b u t

g ives fa te a n u d g e by p e rsu a d in g h is

F lo r e n c e c o c o o n e d in h is e x q u is ite

m o v ie w h e r e e v e n ts a r e a ll, m a n y to

c la r ifie s w h a t Is a b e l m e a n s b y h e r

th e s e n o ta t io n s s e e m to o o n e

fa th e r (Jo h n G ielg u d ) to m a k e Isab el

ta s te a n d a re p e llin g a n tip a th y to fife

w h o m H e n r y J a m e s is n o m o r e

“ fa t e ” o r w h y n e ith e r W a r b u r to n

d im e n s io n a l to a c c o u n t f o r th e

r ic h . N e w s o f h e r in h e rita n c e is

a t la rg e . H is a n d M a d a m e M e r le ’s

im p o r ta n t th a n P . D . o r J e s s e m ay

T h e r e is a g r e a t d e a l o f p lo t in th is film a n d , as it is n o t a n a c tio n

cynicism- Ifelgpm uell, about t h S IIBB

chent-focuseci service’, prJjLciplech ‘goal orientation etc)just a little too :

^diiSl^earcIroMpS ^ O T i y w W a’sfms'earlier work, out here-Crowe'/jT

unforgiveable, and Jerry MaGuire's/;*

exafniMs the?cOTWwmw..clds!,elv ''

tf|TpgiyenitconcrbteVneamng Its fined His cockiness evá'porate's

He pJa|fslhi§prpag^m s^M m |§u. ,y

^momentarily as he,realizes just how Directed by Cameror^Crowe Producers James L Brooks, Laurenge MafjGRicharck ^-■ Sakai Cameron Crowe Scriptwriter Cameron Crowe Director of photoqraphy: L'Janusz Kaminski Production designer Stephen Lineweaver Editor Joe Hutshing ijostume designer Betsy<Heimann Cast Tom'Cruise (Jerry MaGuipejMEuba',Gooding, ' 'Jr (RodTidwell) Renee-Zellweger (Dorothy Boyd), Kelly Preston (Avery Bishop), . ’'Jerry O'Connell (Frank Cushman), Jay MohT (Bob Sugar) Australian^istnbutor Colum|jSiftt#llS 1997 35mm*138 mins

ston). initially, this is the same yessir, caffdo, hyp ^c% ip ltitive kiii%of winne aCruise'^’as placed many tim es-no roofffTprpelf-doubt-or.even reflection, naI^Brnqly?ifiW a ffb ut hisgla'cEin the;world anafhis ability totake on any \ challengers, and chaf-ming with it.. D ^ H K ’acking Cameron CrowetiL * ijaod the moral decay afflicting i nemTL. :4 ejiY;MaGuireJs everything a-gu1^. _ j s j p work 1 is stfmtithing like lookTolkm'.sipersp^cfyeâhd^lâre far g ’ouldihtipe to be, and he's widely con» ing th ro u g h cherished, - removed‘from Crowe's, far.more sorin-" 'gfatulated. He has niggling problems photograplalDum;» /tfre-arid sparse respectively But like" With intimacy*and solitude, butthen £wfie-music #ichunderscored the subj what guy doesn't? Tolkin's, part of Crowe's apptiai surely ' ■jeets' rit|s;of pa ssageffium plng'fro m lies in his knowing portraits of middleIt alffcollapses, h o w le r, w h e ifp pieaybytspeakers all the while It invites class Ame'ricafhis latestifilm is i »“Jerry MaGuire haTa '"breakdown, no yo&jtg.observesjo me of the peakexpe-' mainstpeamgin emaja't itsjrh ost intelli-' brea kfhroug/rllfdnia' ro uti ne business Jrjencesof-'yqun'grahite b‘6upg|ois , genttand entertaining, redolent with r tr,ip, and formulates a mission state||im erica from the 1970s on, through cffarm. nient which he's convinced will turn ..th'e eyes of one eager to analyze mid■ Jerry'MaGuire s'eesJCrowejijqve 1 SMI around -Thesjh’ings We Think 1 B S S s sfexistence and arti|uiaj|r';away from the small-scale scenarios • AntifDo NotjSay: The Future Of Our I enough to lender it meaningful of biffearlier work (spjtoof family Business It advocates fewer clients, Crowe is neither cymcain'or home, one-bedroom apartment) into more attentive and personalized ser ^ sentimental but rather candid and the broadfer, 'grown-up' arena dftcorvice, loyalty honesty and other such '•optimistic, and'Therein lie two offhe porate America His characters have VvafnFhtiarted€tra||g[|s#ilinihe -qualities which distin gui^J^^rrnTrom emerged into the world proper, and the ,name of corporate integrity 'others'who tread similar thematic't|rri slingând arrowsio^rpmane 4 mix it * Higlvon his creative juices, Jerry S ^ Mstinguishing him aboviLal), with the equally harrowing vagaries-of MaGuire copiesJhiLrhissiomstatement though are his craft skills and singular »professional life. and sendsjitto SMI foVTlfiinediate talent Growe'sfa wonderfully gifted Jerry MaGuipe (Tern |ruise)»Sa . circulation He subsequently fe'els ¿storyteller a writer deft with structure 35 year old hot-sh'ot lawyer turned uneasy, and, while|me;firm greets fiim /character and dialogue and a director^ sports agent working for SMI, a’ firm ,on his ietuTn with a standing ovation, who balances,style and content, per which hunts lucrative contracts for an Jerry MaGuire has gopd^ffefefon for ¿Tormance and pace with enviable .'extensive clientele of sports stars-He£ \ anxiety He knows his milieu well P m ’dothness ‘Most important, he actu200 calls%$ay, relish enoudlftonjnderstan^ ^ B M iBBula^ |allyh'as%omething to say. ing the adrenalin^ l^ R inq in the tiqn-ls raryjUg'pn u.ine;an d:th at w h a |||| |dp| a j l hLcamaraddriidftii :: : he’s written flouts'eyerydenet of late year2, Michael Tolkin spoke critically of The reluctance of American directors^,

affectionpraisic Iiept|) with t j w q ut • nowto deal with various issues, for w h o le ^m lfE fflP anrtqrinuS^S incIjjding^th”e!ml3flIe,and 'upper-rtlasses^ vyith publicist fiancee Avery (Kelly Pre

■'ti Lev He&ta ke mth'e pyfported 'etKosJof-^ current management theory (all that platitudinous, profi^sEeking pap.about

when4goo||iritentionsrKave been suj^’ | is umed-byambitTonfin a|cJountiy-thaf

big atransgression liéis made, how fnard he;ll have to work if he wants to st iy inthe qame and still maintaimtíis1 newly-articulateLph’ii|sqphy. 'He determiifesrto do it, ofco’urse v Anítie-hás tworemaining ajliesffllti-

sviicnia Jeriy M ffiuireyells at’h'jl/exicolleaguesfe^ jPeleayeySMI. AslWca meMpfnllpg laround the offi^ w T egtsfer ^ ^ p ank

mately: Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding,» Jr),precociousJ\1FlipIáy|T-íforthe Ati zona Cardinals, alone client bent'on a major contract to support himthrough and beyond his lastyears on the field;-'.-.and Dorothy Boyd (Renpggellwe'ger-),a young SMI accountant and widowed mother inspifeWy his mi: sion state ment and love-struck bythe m l she thinks she sees Togethentlfey offer » himprofessional and.pej-sqn'al redemption and fulfilment. ButjsiJerry MaGuire really interes^dfand aré such things attainable wifhlñ the patent amoralitysof corporate life? The filmtakes the questions seriously and comes up with affirmative answers Thisjlsjhardlysurp/ising. What-is'sur-

^ n | ^ t i l | S the‘ vapidnels of th i^ n d j .alltsuchiwbrkplaTes^ f, . 4drry

the next p io f^ ^ fe jS "d " B ra ^ e |,J Allows himftfiisrthe buzz of c o m j© itj^ and the joy 'S fsuW ess^H f^kis^in' V; obvio'usTc||light in tire NFL sceneiana understands what ,M aG tiire fto ftlW ^m y ifffi PE^ j s:a‘sMe.fry MaGuire falls and then tries to riste-.a'gain is/he c'onflicti^ between ambition and integrity 'jt'-'sfnot| 'sfi|stralgnfo‘rwa rd|fs4f seems|or5^ Jerry MaGuire, because, while'there s^ a wealth of noble)sentiment in-tfs lllS § | jSioFstatdfnent; he faItejSim e;a iid M again trying’ to pirt-it mto.jmafctic e jHe’s l

prismg and iipmensely satisfying is the

bjg^pKeaW-KbuySle^PilS

way inwhich Crowe handles the story

exa jfflM He's c apabl4

-Crowe'fs|quoted as depyiffg his

“ei$®iasm, butmpJiroyje.

ílÉ^^^Bí^^^aGuire'frnm sjf^^^

agents such as Lei§l4Steinberg,'and; •cbátacter^ilfe iCTyXurtis' Messrs a'gentin

(Alexander Ma'ckendrick, 1957).and v J ^ lQ ls M m o iv ^ ^ P ^ m B in g busin^^rtian in'The Apartment (‘Billy^-'-’ Wilder, 1960) anjd WiId^r,s.worklsfah

^ »Jerry [roGffire haWfglUy effective foils in-TidwelLand DorothyJH While they endorse hissta~ridfaiTdiatit^ . as.’solid comrades in a'dversity/Tidjf f ^ well's constant and rabcoustd'enisip^ ¿of Jeri^MaGuire's pro'mises-.(yyhl,c^M he.'greets-.with;fgh'ow1;M,e.‘The>iS ^ S M oney '))/apd Dorotliy's capabili^Jl

:.bbyjpuyprecurspr\jh^mfeiréVo

arid ’s’e a renes'sj^’onsjpemly

fobscurity.d'fqhe sou hwh ic h ^ vérta kes i hi’gFfa chievé rs?m‘Jh e c g rp jp ^ a W ^ ^ y

•qip s'lnn Jury-MaGuire s e-irnuM

•

rhetoric. He's a long time on the hook, tjliiblc millourm wjntjruj Tlw» iR o S

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

w e ll fin d th e m s e lv e s a s k in g q u e s

g lim p se d b r ie fly a s fig h t in d a rk

Is a b e l’s frie n d s lea v e Italy a n d sh e

Isa b e l’s tra v e ls, o r s o m e a rtfu lly an d

tio n s a b o u t m o t iv a tio n , a n d m a y

p la c e s , b u t th e r e is little sen se o f

tu rn s to ask M a d a m e M e r le , “W h o

p o in tle ssly a n g le d s h o ts (o f th e F lo

e s p e cia lly b e a t a lo ss to u n d e rs ta n d

lig h t a fte r sh e m a rrie s O s m o n d an d

are y o u ? ” (H e rsh e y , by th e w a y , is

r e n tin e d u o m o , f o r in s ta n c e ), a n d

w h y Is a b e l sh o u ld fin d m a rry in g

h e r o p e n n e s s to fife b e c o m e s c o n

w o n d e rfu lly ele g a n t an d h e a r tfe lt),

th e r e is a b a ll s c e n e w h ic h is a lm o s t

O s m o n d t o h a v e a p la c e in h e r fa te.

stra in e d .

a n d an eq u ally p o w e rfu l sen se a t th e

a d ir e c t ste a l fr o m M a r tin S c o r s e s e ’s

en d o f Isa b el, h a v in g tu rn e d d o w n

m a g iste ria l Th e A ge o f Innocence

T h a t sa id , th e r e is s till a g o o d

A ll th is is re n d e re d in a c o n tr o l

d e al t o a d m ir e in th e w a y in w h ic h

o f th e m is e -e n -s c e n e so e x a c t th a t

G o o d w o o d a g a in in a s n o w b o u n d

( 1 9 9 3 ) , w h e n th e c a m e ra m o v e s

th e film h a s s o u g h t t o k e e p th e issue

th e film g e n e ra te s a seriou s p o w e r

g a rd e n , c o m m ittin g h e r s e lf to th e

fr o m th e ro w s o f g e n tle m e n ’s to p

o f Is a b e l’s fa t e a t th e c e n tr e o f th e

fro m h e r e o n . T h e d a rk e n in g o f th e

rig o u rs o f h e r d isa stro u s m a rria ge.

h a ts to d a n c e rs w a ltz in g to Stra u ss,

film , a n d th e in te llig e n c e w ith w h ic h

d ra m a is c re a te d in th is c o n tr o l: th e

A n d th e p e n u ltim a te sce n e , in

th is fo llo w e d b y a n o v e rh e a d s h o t.

it av o id s c lic h é s a b o u t O ld W o r ld -

film ’s c o lo u r ra n g e seem s to be

R a lp h ’s b e d r o o m , w h e n Isa b el tells

T h e film is a t its le a s t im p re ssiv e

N e w W o r ld c o n f lic t o r ev e n o f

m a in ly a m a tte r o f b ro w n s and

h im b e fo r e h e dies th a t sh e loves

w h e n it seem s m o s t e a rn e stly s tra in

so d d en E n g la n d a n d su n -d r e n c h e d

b lu es, an d th e o fte n -c la u s tr o p h o b ic

h im , jo in s h im o n h is d e a th b e d an d

in g to b e ‘c in e m a tic ’. It is a t its m o s t

Ita ly . F o r a m o m e n t, in a su d d en

in siste n ce o n in te r io r s m a k es its o w n

kisses h im p a ssio n a te ly , is a triu m p h .

im p re ssiv e , w h ic h is o ft e n , w h e n it

b u rs t o f b r illia n t lig h t w h e n th e

p o in t a b o u t th e n a tu re o f th e film ’s

It is n o t Ja m e s e a n an d it is n o t n in e

a c c e p ts th e fa c t th a t th is is a d a u n t-

s c e n e s h ifts t o F lo r e n c e , it lo o k s as if

in te re sts. T h a t is, th ey are essen tia lly

te e n th -c e n tu ry , b u t its e m o tio n a l

in g ly p a in fu l s to ry m o r e lik ely to be

th e la tte r c o n tr a s t is to b e m ad e

in te r io r a n d p sy c h o lo g ic a l, to do

tru th co u ld n o t b e m o r e p ie rcin g .

valu ed by th o s e w h o re sp o n d e d to

w ith th e sa m e e a sy c e rta in ty o f its

w ith p a in an d m ista k e an d e n tr a p

T h e r e a re so m e d o w n rig h t silly,

KOLYA Directed by Jan Sverak Producers: Eric Abraham, Jan Sverak. Co-producer Ernst Goldschmidt Scriptwriter: Zdenek Sverak. Based on an idea by Pavel Taussig. Director of photography: Vladimir Smutny. Editor Alois Fisarek Production designer: Milos J. Kohout Sound designer: Zbynek Mikulik. Cast Zdenek Sverak (Frantisek Louka), Andrej Chalimon (Kolya), Libuse Safrankova (Klara), Ondrej Vetchy (Mr Broz), Stella Zazvorkova (Mother), Ladislav Smoljak (Mr Houdak). Australian distributor: Dendy. Czech Republic. 1996. 35mm. 102 mins.

e t in p re -V e lv e t R e v o lu tio n P ragu e, Kolya is a w arm an d g en

th e a u ste ritie s o f Ju d e (M ic h a e l

u ine film th a t brin gs a d o w n -a n d -o u t ce llist an d a R u ssian -sp eak in g fiv e-

b e in g an a n a lo g u e fo r in h ib itio n vs

m e n t, a n d th e film n e v e r m a k es th e

se lf-c o n s c io u s ly c in e m a tic to u c h e s,

W in te r b o tto m , 1 9 9 6 ) th a n by th o s e

e m o tio n a l fr e e d o m as it w a s in M ik e

m is ta k e o f d e sce n d in g in to th e p ic to -

su c h as th e use o f a series o f m o d e rn

w h o a re h o p in g fo r a n o th e r e x h ila

y ear-o ld to g e th e r fo r m o n e y , and

ria lism o f w h ic h th e Iv o ry -M e rc h a n t

‘p o rtr a its ’ o f y o u n g w o m e n ta lk in g

ra tin g Sense an d Sensibility (A ng

k eep s th em to g e th e r fo r love.

N e w e ll’s

Enchanted A p ril

(1 9 9 1 ).

In s te a d , C a m p io n m o v e s us q u ic k ly

te a m w e re so o ft e n g u ilty in th e ir

a b o u t ro m a n c e b e h in d th e cre d its (I

L e e , 1 9 9 5 ) . I t is a d e m a n d in g film ,

in d o o rs t o s h o w M a d a m e M e r le a t

d ealin g s w ith th e g re a t w o rk s o f

th o u g h t it w as an ad fo r th e A B C

u n lik ely to be p o p u la r, b u t fo r th o se

w o r k te m p tin g O s m o n d t o m a k e a

E n g lish lite ra tu re . T h e r e is a p o w e r

u n til th e first c r e d it a p p e a re d ), o r

w h o stay th e d ista n ce it h as its

play f o r Is a b e l. Is a b e l is o ft e n

fu l sen se o f n ig h t c lo s in g d o w n as

th e h o m e m o v ie tr e a tm e n t o f

rew ard s.

B rian M c Farlane

T h e film is th e re s u lt o f a c o lla b o ra tio n b e tw e e n th e fa th e r -a n d -s o n te a m o f Z d e n e k S v era k (fa th e r, w rite r, le a d a c to r) a n d J a n S v era k

.Casting is nigh,on perfect Cruise.,' throws himself into Jerry MaGuire with tangible glee, and who boiCruise-for / £ this role, for such an unstoppable achiever, irrepressible charmer7His

presence and his timing are faultle^Sg Cuba Gooding, Jr matches hirnfon. verve and intensity, rollickingthrough;. • Tidwell's, petulant tirades but aletpl delivering subtlety when Crowe

demands it, keeping.caricature well at bay. Zellweger builds Dorothy

thoughtfully, balancing wistfulriesi|?!if' and maturityto make her a credible female hero who's simply a selfassured young woman. The three display an effortless.chemistry, as does the rest ofthe cast Ifthere's aflaw, or rather an

. jj

irony here, it's inthe bleeding, obvious); discrepancies-between theme and' medium- largely, that Crowe's mes-.' «sage reaches us through a cinema arid, indeed a genre long-smce com- ' -t mandeered by corporate greed1and rife with feigned sentimenl But don't A letthat nurture your disdain; itis hardly», ’Crowe's doing, and it's a converse , irbny that he manages to use-the , ?:? mediumto sueh ends. Take Jerry

'give iiiman entree intothe kinriofrG;

rcharacters, each of whom enriches

entirely different light Then there's-?'

acters in just-ovfrlapping sequences -

intiroacyfie's assumed he doesn't

The drama arid the comedy. Among*

buddy-turned-nemesis Bob Sugar (Jay

action, poignancy, comedy- builds to

Maguire for what itisjl a clever and

frjiernafe Dorothy's sister. Laurel (Bon

Mohr), representative ofthe most

an emotional peak;then goes for a

richly funny romantic comedy-<and/-^fc

nie Hunt), who proffers consistent wisdoms,-cautionary butnon-judge- -

offensive aspects of SMI, and old men tor Dicky,Fox (Jared Jussim), who •

belly laugh a second later, while'the

you'll savounrare pleasures

sighs are still audible. Yettiie comedy

mental as she.}observesT)prothy's, /

ipterjects

doesn't detractfroip the d'ramaand

regularly straight!®camera with

.viceversa: Crowecnhances rather

decades-old business aphorisms B

than diminishes onewith the other. It

,-want;Jove, family and security are |l§jcamount for botfrand JeriyMaGuire .gradually realizes he might have :; feason to envythem. They need, to fiegoqdratwhat tfrey do, butinherent irrfriatis,caring for others, and this

deepening-attachment to Jerry f

ÉaGuire. Dorothy's 4-yéjarrold son, -

©-D iane Cook fe1 Crowe^wrpte Fust T 'lv e * j t RidgerrwnPHigh (Amy Hecker-

Jpforeign territory fopJerry MaGdjie

Bay (Jonaddirtipnicki)centrees yet

¿Sffrowe pla^s outtheir interactions

^& m u(riiJnbifferthemtoo,,,

repels Jerry MaGuire with his immedi

with the sharpest of dialogue^he

Bounds easy andjhemakes itappear so, but loojkat other recent American

;jtpyyever: discipline for Tidweji^and

ate devotion and his almost

cleverest of cuteTHis^structurejs y-

romantic comedies and you won't rind

||jaJe«sjona) prowess and|ove, finally,

insufferable cuteness Tidwell's wife ,

incredibly tight, any gaps unnoticeable

one even remotely close for emotional

Ljnson^1984),-’and wrote and directed S ayA nythn.q 11989) and S/ng/es(1992}

i|c|j}p(gthy Allthpee are heroic

Marcee (Regina King) while initially an

because of the film's pacing, wherein

impact or stylistic flair You IIfind cute,

S>je P jiil K ilina Live with the

obnoxious loudmouth gradually shows Jerry MaGuire what it is to love a part

Crowe turns narrative corners the

néras'oneself arid puts TidwelLin an

prop'elsthe story and fleshes out char

riig|re§who emerge with|i hard-won a plethora of secondary

C I N E M A P A P E R S $ APRI L 1997

instant he's through making a’pomt. He

10,111, nule ague ina,bi a chuckle here and there - but nothing sonhuhu'il/'-nllul ma .[feiting

. ding, 1982) and The W ild Life (Art

Question Michael Tolkin", Ciq t'n n P w P i'' No 109 April 1996 pp 16-9,52-3f ■ I

H i

wBm

in review =

Film s =

continued

time they spend together, and the

produced by Kolya producer Eric

of loneliness in Louka’s heart, the

Abraham. If it has half the heart and

two begin to make the most of their

warmth of Kolya, there will be a

time together and eventually even

new' voice in the English-speaking

panions. His life is neither exciting

come to cherish it. The language

world, quietly but confidently demanding attention.

nor glamorous, yet he struggles

barrier fades, as does the mutual

good naturedly through each day,

resentment. They become a team, a

believing himself happy.

wholly co-dependent nvosome.

The undertaker brings him an

BLOOD & WINE

Eventually, however, the events

(son, director), whose earlier collab

offer that amounts to an equation:

of the Revolution catch up with

oration, Elementary School, was

marry Russian woman to give her

them. Freedom reigns in Prague and

Jerem y Thomas. Co-producers:

nominated for an Academy Award

citizenship + spend one night with

for Kolya and Louka, as for the rest

Hercules Bellville, Noah Golden.

for Best Foreign Film in 1991. This

her = new car + extra money.

of the country, it represents the end

charming comedy brought both

Louka, hesitant but greedy, rakes

of an era.

Sveraks to prominence and Kolya, their latest feature, consolidates a

I i

the offer. Things proceed smoothly - a

D irected by Bob Rafelson. Producer:

S criptw rite rs: N ick Villiers, Alison Cross. D irector of photography: N ewton

The plot of Kolya is not devastatingly original. What makes the

Thom as Sigel. Production designer: Richard Sylbert. Costume designer: Lindy Hemming. Editor: Steven Cohen.

gentle, likeable style that is most

convincing wedding, a drunken

film the gem that it is is the genuine

remarkable for its emotional truth.

wedding night, a new7car and new

feeling and truth of emotion that is

Stephen Dorff (Jason), Je nnifer Lopez (Gabrielle), Judy Davis (Suzanne Gates),

Cast: Ja ck N icholson (Alex Gates),

Kolya begins as a portrait of

guttering for his mother’s house -

conveyed through each of the char

Frantisek Louka (Zdenek Sverak), a

until Louka discovers that his new

acters. The characters are truly

M ichael Caine (V ictor Spansky).

man in his fifties who once played

‘wife’ has run off to Paris and left

three-dimensional, displaying self

A ustralian distributor: Tw entieth

cello with the prestigious Czech

him stranded with his new' ‘son’,

ishness and disregard, as well as love

Century Fox. US., 1997. 35mm. 100 mins.

Philharmonic Orchestra. His life

Kolya (Andrej Chalimon).

and compassion. There is a reality', a

What follow's is the study of a

truth and depth of understanding

revolves around death: he has been

growing relationship between a man

that is rare to the cinema screen.

the first credits rolled, they were out

reduced to playing at funerals at the

and a young boy. Louka is initially

and livelihood now, however,

city crematorium, and restores

gruff and disinterested, Kolya miser

headstones in the local cemeterv for

i i able and resentful. Their language

The performances from Zdenek Sverak and Andrej Chalimon are

’ve never seen a preview' audience leave a cinema so fast. As soon as

the door and away. And what a strange Bob Rafelson film it is: a

near flawless. Obviously, Zdenek

mixture of thriller, black comedy

differences only help to cement the

has a unique understanding of the

and melodrama. It certainly has its

stepson to deliver some casks of

gulf between them. Louka tries des

script that comes from being its

moments and some great acting, but

w'ine to a rich man’s estate, we

short of cash, is best friends with an

perately to find an escape route

writer, while clearly being able to

it doesn’t come anywhere near

quickly find out that he has another

undertaker and cares for his ageing

from this unwelcome clause in his

take direction from his son on the

Rafelson’s earlier classics, Five Easy

agenda. He w'ants to seduce the

mother. He wishes for nothing

marriage contract, while Kolya cries

finer points of bringing his character

Pieces (1970), The King o f Marvin

beautiful young nanny, Gabrielle

more than a new used car and a

himself to sleep every' night.

to life on the screen. Jan Sverak can

Gardens (1972) and The Postman

(Jennifer Lopez), and make her an

also be credited for the consistent

Always Rings Twice (1981).

accomplice to his plan to steal the

additional income. A confirmed bachelor, Louka is

date with one of his regular com

Through the sheer amount of

and touching performance of his five-year-old lead, Chal

S I million necklace in the family

Blood & Wine starts with nventyish Jason (Stephen Dorff) doing an

safe upstairs. So while Jason is

imon, who is not only

Ernest Hemingway and battling a

unloading the crates, Alex is franti

adorable but focused and

giant fish with his friend on a

cally searching through clothes racks

ultimately believable.

deserted Florida beach. It’s a scene

so he can photograph the safe.

The script is a finely-

of stark opposites w'ith the violent

This turning point is amplified

honed piece of work. There

fight set against the superb red sun

even more w'hen we meet Victor

are few excess details that are

rise, and wre know' w'e’re in for an

Spansky (Michael Caine), Alex’s

not tightly woven into the

unusual ride.

dubious partner in crime. They’re

structure of the film, but each

the strangest odd couple, and almost

At home, Jason’s mother,

clue or piece of information

Suzanne (Judy Davis), has broken

completely out of their depth in

becomes a piece of the larger

her ankle and is finding life tough.

planning this robbery. Victor is a

jigsaw puzzle, adding further

She’s married to her second hus

chronically-ill, chain-smoking ex

to the strength of the charac

band, Alex (Jack Nicholson), and

convict who thumps his w'av

terizations.

they have a stressful relationship,

through life. But he wants to end his

The film is also beauti

fuelled by his violent temper. Jason

days in some kind of poolside man

fully paced. Enough time is

can’t stand his stepfather, and the

sion with room service, instead of in

spent on Louka before Kolya

exchange they have over breakfast is

some dreadful nursing home. He’s

is introduced, so that we see

one loaded comment after another,

coloured his grey hair into a creepy

him as a whole, an individ

with Suzanne trying to be the peace

black and Alex reacts with, “You

ual, before w:e see him as the

maker. The scene is overlaid with

look like a janitor!”. “Fine,” replies

disgruntled half of an unwill

Michal Lorenc’s tense, mournful

Victor, “as long as I don’t match my

ing twosome. The

music, and moody images from

mug shot.”

relationship between Louka

DOP Newnon Thomas Sigel.

and Kolya develops at a gen

Nicholson and Caine play their

The family’s dependent on Alex’s

scenes like some kind of black com

tle pace, neither so fast as to

wine business that’s going dowmhill,

be unbelievable nor too slow'

and a red BMW that’s part of his

meet, the scenario just gets worse,

as to be dull. Light, warm

mid-life crisis. Jason w'orks for his

with more and more things going

edy nightmare. Every' time they

humour smooths over any

stepfather, but the company finances

wrong and both of them headed for

bumps and adds to the film’s

are on the skid, and Alex’s feeling

a messy end. Victor’s probably some

flowing rhythm.

desperate. He’s almost like Robert

kind of pun on Victor Mature, and

(Jack Nicholson) from Five Easy

Alex is like all the roles Jack Nichol

alded as the arrow'head of

Pieces twenty-seven years later, and

son’s ever played rolled into one

the new' Czech cinema - the

it’s not a pretty picture.

ghastly character: they’re bad, sleazy'

Jan Sverak is being her

new Milos Forman. Sverak’s

next film will be his first in English,

w'armth that is hidden under layers

So when Alex sets out with his

and capable of mayhem.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING Directed by John Duigan. Producers: Nick Wechsler, SamWaterston. Co producer: Kerry Orent Scriptwriter: John Ehle, based on his novel. Director of photography: Slawomir Idziak. Editor: Humphrey Dixon. Production and costume designer: Patricia Norris. Cast Jason Patric (August King), Thandie Newton (Annalees Williamsburg), Larry Drake (Olaf Singletary), SamWaterston (Mooney Wright), Sara-Jane Wylde (Ida Wright), Eric Mabius (Hal Wright). Australian distributor (video only): Buena Vista Home Video. US. 35mm. 92 mins.

n re le a se d th e a tric a lly in A u s tra lia , J o h n D u ig a n ’s m o s t

re c e n t U .S . film is b ased o n a n ov el

a n d sp iritu ally b e r e ft s o u l s in c e th e d e a th o f his w ife an d th e force

m ajeur ru le o f a w e a lth y lan d an d slave o w n e r, O la f S in g le ta ry (L arry D ra k e ). W h e n th e e sc a p ed slav e, A n n a le e s (T h a n d ie N e w to n ), w ith w h o m A u gu st fin d s sa lv a tio n (b u t n o t b e fo r e b e in g s trip p ed o f his ev ery an d la s t m a te ria l p o sse ssio n , by n o th in g less th a n fire ), firs t ap p e ars sh e em e rg e s fro m th e w a te rs o f a m o u n ta in c re e k . T h is is n o t t o su g g est th a t th is film c a n , o r sh o u ld , b e re d u ce d to g e n e ric s c h e m a , b u t t o in d ic a te th e u n iq u e in fle c tio n D u ig a n an d w rite r E h le h av e g iven th e m a te ria l (as w e ll

by J o h n E h le . D ra fts o f E h le ’s

as t o signal so m e o f th e o b v io u s

scre e n p la y h av e la n g u ish e d fo r m o re

tra p p in g s, m o s t n o ta b ly slav ery an d

th a n 2 0 y ea rs (h a v in g b e e n o p tio n e d

ra c e re la tio n s , th e y h av e c h o se n to

a t v ario u s tim es by G e o rg e R o y H ill

d o w n p lay ).

a n d R o b e r t M u llig a n ) sin ce th e n o v e l’s p u b lic a tio n in 1 9 7 1 . It w o u ld in d e ed be cu rio u s to

M e a n w h ile , Ja s o n h as ta k e n

N o r th C a ro lin a m o u n ta in s, a lo n e ly

August K ing is a ly rica l, an d u lti m ate ly h e a rt-re n d in g , d ra m a o f s a c rific e an d sp iritu al re d e m p tio n ,

sp e c u la te h o w d iffe re n t d ire cto rs

w h ich m a rk s a m u c h -a w a ite d re tu rn

an d th e ir re sp e c tiv e Zeitgeists w o u ld

to w h a t is arg u ab ly D u ig a n ’s fo r te :

h ave in te r p re te d th is p o st-C iv il W a r

in tim a te , p e rso n a l d ram as in w h ic h tr o u b le d in d iv id u als em e rg e w h o le

to p scrip t. E v e n w h e n N ic h o ls o n

crim e d o e s n ’t pay. R a fe lso n says h e

sto ry a b o u t a w id o w e r w h o self

G a b rie lle o u t o n his m a te ’s b o a t,

and C a in e h a m it up an d ca u se re a l

c h o se F lo r id a an d K e y L a rg o fo r his

lessly re scu e s a slave o n th e ru n

an d h ea le d fro m th e in h o sp ita b le

and sh e te lls h im a b o u t h e r d e sp e r

b lo o d y c a rn a g e , a so rt o f p a th o s

s h o o t b e ca u se h e w a n te d “an u rb a n

fro m h e r v in d ictiv e ‘m a s te r’ a n d an

te rra in th e y a re fo r c e d t o in h a b it, in

ate flig h t fro m C u b a . G a b r ie lle ’s an

cre e p s in.

city w h e re th e m ain c h a r a c te r co u ld

a rm y o f b o u n ty h u n te rs.

th is life a t least.

illegal im m ig ra n t an d w arn s Ja s o n

R a fe lso n add s to th e h e a t w ith a

th a t s h e ’ll d o a n y th in g to g ain a

fast cu ttin g style th a t’s alw ays m o v

be a h u s tle r” . M a y b e R a fe ls o n ’s also

A s re n d e re d h e r e , The Journey

P a rticu la rly d e serv in g a b e tte r

in to C h a o s T h e o r y : th is m ig h t

o f August K ing sh a re s w ith sev eral

fa te th a n v id eo is th e c in e m a to g ra p h y o f D O P S la w o m ir Id ziak , w h ic h

fo o th o ld in A m e ric a , an d to g et

in g th e a c tio n o n w a rd s. I t ’s all

e x p la in w h y his m o v ie seem s to be

o th e r re c e n t A m e rica n film s a

so m e k in d o f fin a n c ia l in d e p e n

fre n e tic , an d th e se five c h a ra cte rs

sev eral film s in o n e .

p re d ile c tio n fo r th e B u d d h ist d ra

re n d e rs th e fa c e s o f Ja s o n P a tric an d

d e n ce. O f c o u r s e , th e a u d ie n c e

w o u ld h av e to b e so m e o f th e m o st

m as o n c e so lid ly re n d e re d (b u t n o w

T h a n d ie N e w to n w ith a g low in g ly sen su al b e a u ty , n o t to m e n tio n

T h e r e ’ll b e so m e p e o p le w h o ’ll

k n o w s th a t sh e m ea n s sh e w ill d o

d y sfu n ctio n a l p e o p le y o u ’ve ev e r

h a te Blood & W ine , so m e p e o p le

a lm o s t sh u n n ed ) by film m a k e rs in

a n y th in g w ith J a s o n ’s s te p fa th e r,

see n o n th e s c re e n . T h e y ’re w a y o u t

w h o ’ll lo v e it, a n d I ’m s o m e w h e re

K o re a a n d e lse w h ere. A u gu st K in g

sw ee p in g lan d scap e s o f p a sto ra l

b e cau se h e re p re s e n ts e v e ry th in g h e r

o f c o n tr o l, b u t all o f th e m fin d th a t

in b e tw e e n .

(Ja s o n P a tric) w o n d e rs th ro u g h th e

sce n e ry .

M argaret S m ith

Paul Ka lin a

fam ily c a n ’t h av e. S o , Blood an d

Wine is s e t up f o r m o r e tw ists a n d tu rn s th a n y o u c o u ld p o ssib ly e x p e c t in o n e m o v ie . A ll th e c h a r a c te r s a re n o w lik e o d d an g ry c o u p le s : t h e r e ’s S u z a n n e an d A le x , S u z a n n e an d J a s o n , A le x an d J a s o n , A le x an d V ic to r , Ja s o n an d G a b rie lle , a n d A le x an d G a b rie lle . I t ’s lik e a m o d e r n v e rsio n o f H am let, a n d s o m e th in g is d e fi n itely r o tte n in th e sta te o f A m e ric a . It’s all le a n an d m e a n a n d fa stp ace d . E v e r y o n e is an o p p o r tu n is t, an d ev e n S u z a n n e w ill d riv e h e r ca r lik e s o m e k in d o f m a n ia c to try a n d esc ap e. Ju d y D a v is says o f h e r c h a r a c te r: A ll th e c h a r a c te r s in th e film see m t o b e fo u n d a n d c a u g h t b y th e ir liv es, b y a c o m b in a tio n o f d e c i sion s th e y ’v e m a d e . E v e n w h e n th e m o s t d ia b o lic a l o f a c tio n s o c c u r re d in t h e s to ry , y o u c o u ld n ’t c o n d e m n th e p e o p le b e ca u se y ou saw th a t, in th e ir o w n th in k in g , th e ir b a c k s w e re a g a in st th e w a ll. C e rta in ly D a v is is a tr e a t t o w a tc h , a n d all th e a c to r s b r in g a s o r t o f a u th e n tic ity , d e sp ite th e o v e r-th e -

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

m review Bookà W

it is as a d e fin in g n o ir te x t, a la n d m a rk o n th e a rtis tic m a p w h ic h

“ d a rk p le a su re s ” to b e h a d fro m th e

film n o ir p ro v id e s to th e s o c ia l and

film , o n th e w ay s in w h ic h , like

h o w m a n a g e s to slip p a st th e se n tr ie s

to o u r m o r a lity , m a k in g us e n jo y

la b e l o f “ c la s s ic ” ; in c o r p o r a te y o u r

in m y v iew m o s t re p a y s a tte n tio n ,

Th e Term inator’s ra m p a g in g ev e n

o w n te x tu a l re a d in g o f it; p ro v id e a

[p. 1 5 ]

m o r e th a n w e sy m p a th iz e w ith th o s e

b u t d o n ’t c o m p ro m is e y o u r

A ll o f w h ic h a m o u n ts to an e n tire ly re a s o n a b le stra te g y , I w o u ld

d e sire to re m a in c r itic a lly re s p e c ta b le

re p re s e n t m o re o f a ca n n y m a rk e tin g

w h ile n o t n e g le c tin g th e k in d o f m a r

s tra teg y th a n a sig n ific a n t c o n tr ib u

k e ta b ility re q u ir e d to fin d a n ic h e in

tio n to ’9 0 s film c ritic is m . T h e first

th e film -p u b lis h in g a re n a . M o s t o f

deals w ith “ F ilm C la ssics” , w h ich

th e c o n tr ib u to r s th e y ’v e c h o se n w rite

h e ’s b e e n assign e d to te rm in a te .

b e tw e e n th e film ’s p ro d u c tio n h isto ry

A n d h e a rg u es p e rsu a siv ely th a t th e

(w h ich in clu d es th e w o rk d o n e o n

o rig in a l is b e tte r th a n th e se q u e l

th e scre e n p la y by th e th e n -b la c k lis te d

b e c a u s e th e la tte r sh o w s w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n [th e

tr a je c to r y ” o f its te x tu a l d e ta il and

film ’s d ir e c t o r a n d c o -w rite r]

its lively in te r s e c tio n w ith a ran g e

Ja m e s C a m e r o n [...] a ssu m e s a

o f g e n e ric m o tifs. A n d th e flu id ly-

c iv ic m a n tle a n d fo r g o e s th e d a rk p le a su re o f b e in g an e x p lo ita tio n

a c c o u n t o f h is 1 9 9 5 m e e tin g w ith th e

d ir e c to r, [p. 4 0 ]

a p p e a r to be m o stly film s m ad e

w e ll fro m th e ir v a rio u s v a n ta g e

b e fo r e 1 9 7 0 , th e s e c o n d w ith “M o d

p o in ts, w h ic h ra n g e fro m th e jo u r

e rn C la s s ic s ” , th o s e c o m in g a fte r

n a listic to th e a c a d e m ic , an d fro m

n o v e lis t w h o w rite s a w e e k ly co lu m n

(a lth o u g h it all g ets a b it c o n fu sin g

th e d e fia n tly o ld -fa s h io n e d to th e

(n o t a lw ay s o n film ) fo r th e N ew

w h e n 1 9 7 7 ’s A nnie H all is in clu d ed

p s y c h o a n a ly tic a lly -in c lin e d h eresies,

Statesman, is a jo u r n a lis t w h o (th e

as a “ film c la s s ic ” , b u t D o n ’t Look

w h ile th e m o n o g ra p h s as a w h o le are

a fo r e m e n tio n e d m issin g b ib lio g ra p h y

N ow , m ad e fo u r y ea rs e a rlie r, is

in fu sed w ith a g e n e ra l sen se o f

asid e) k n o w s h o w to b e sc h o la rly .

e n te re d as a “m o d e r n cla s s ic ” ).

en th u sia sm fo r th e e n te rp ris e .

K itse s is a s c h o la r w h o k n o w s h o w to c o m m u n ic a te . S e a n F r e n c h , a

F r e n c h ’s fin e m o n o g ra p h o n

A n d ev e n if th e c o m m e n ta rie s

Th e Term inator is in te llig e n t and

th ey c o m e up w ith o n ly o c c a sio n a lly

illu m in a tin g a n d , w h a t’s m o r e , its

th ese slim v o lu m es ce rta in ly lo o k

p ro d u ce a fresh in sig h t, th e se rie s’

s p a rk lin g p ro s e is fun to re a d . A side

attra ctiv e : th e y ’re w ell laid o u t and

w rite rs a p p e a r to h ave m o re o r less

fro m th e c h a p te r in w h ic h h e r a th e r

m ak e g o o d use o f th e B F F s e x ten siv e

o b ey e d th e d irectiv e s issued to th em

p o in tle ssly , an d a little p a tro n iz in g ly ,

(a lth o u g h , in fu ria tin g ly , d e sp ite so m e

trie s to e m u la te th e re sp o n se to th e

to be u n d ere stim a ted . B u t as p o c k e t-

e x te n siv e q u o tin g , th e re a re n o

film o f “a n o tio n a l firs t-tim e v ie w e r”

sized , 6 0 - 8 0 page ed itio n s d e v o te d to

fo o tn o te s o r b ib lio g ra p h y in

(w h o m h e trie s to d istin g u ish fro m

analyses o f s p e c ific film s, th ey on ly

S e a n F r e n c h ’s c o n trib u tio n o n The

a n “im a g in a ry , m id d le -a g e d [fem ale]

a m o u n t to slig h tly -lo n g e r-th an -u su a l

Term inator, a n d P e te r C o w ie ’s f o o t

S ta n fo r d E n g lish p r o fe s s o r ”), it has

m ag azine a rtic les dressed to kill.

n o te s fo r his m o n o g ra p h on Annie

a stra ig h t-a h e a d d rive th a t is th e

H all o m it page r e fe r e n c e s , w h ile his

c r itic a l e q u iv a le n t to w h a t co u ld

m o n o g ra p h s I re ad fo r th is re v iew ,

la z ily -p rep a red b ib lio g ra p h y is lim

b e d e sc rib e d as th e film ’s ta k e -n o

th e e d ito r ia l b r ie f to c o n trib u to r s

ited o n ly to b o o k s o n th e su b je ct,

p ris o n e rs n a rra tiv e m o m e n tu m .

a p p e a rs to h av e g o n e s o m e th in g lik e th is: c o v e r th e film ’s p r o d u c tio n h is to ry , its im m e d ia te c r itic a l r e c e p tio n

d esp ite th e re a d y av aila b ility o f an a b u n d an ce o f u seful m agazine articles). T h e b e s t o f th e re c e n tly -

F re n c h is especially p e rcep tiv e and precise o n A rn old S ch w a rz en eg g er’s c o n tr ib u tio n , c o m p a rin g h is p la c e in

an d an y m a jo r su b se q u e n t sh ifts in

p u b lish e d b a tc h o f m o n o g ra p h s is

H o lly w o o d w ith th e o n e e a r lie r

a ttitu d e to w a rd s it; e x a m in e its

u n d o u b te d ly J i m K its e s ’ lo v in g an d

o c c u p ie d by B o ris K a r lo ff, n o tin g

b r o a d c u ltu ra l s ig n ific a n c e an d th e

e x tre m e ly lu cid a c c o u n t o f Jo s e p h H .

b o th h is s tre n g th s an d h is lim ita tio n s

w ays in w h ic h a k n o w le d g e o f th e

L e w is ’s 1 9 5 0 lo w -b u d g e t, c o u p le -o n -

a n d e n d in g th e d iscu ssio n o f b ig

s p e c ific so c ial/ h isto rical c ir c u m

th e -r u n th rille r, G un Crazy. K itse s,

A rn ie w ith a n ice ly c r y p tic u n d e r

s ta n c e s u n d e r w h ic h it w as

a u th o r o f th e s e m in a l 1 9 6 9 b o o k o n

The newest titles in the BFI series.

s ta te m e n t:

fe m in is t re a d in g o f J o s e p h L. M a n k ie w ic z ’s Th e G host an d Mrs

\ i

i 1

M uir g o e s s o m e w ay to w a rd s m a k in g sen se o f w h a t, o n fa c e v a lu e , see m s lik e a v ery b iz a rre c h o ic e f o r a se rie s

i in to th e w o rk in g s o f “w o m e n ’s

\ i

film s ” (e sp e cia lly o n th e fu n c tio n o f “ th e ir e x c e s s iv e u se o f m u s ic ” ). P e te r W illia m E v a n s o ffe r s a th o r o u g h an d e m in e n tly s e n sib le

D iffe r e n t in to n e an d sty le , b u t n o

less p o te n t a c r itic a l w o rk , is th e

re a d in g o f P e d r o A lm o d o v a r ’s

W om en on the Verge o f a N ervous

m o n o g ra p h o n In g m a r B e r g m a n ’s

Breakdow n, s itu a tin g it in th e c o n

1 9 5 7 m e lo d r a m a , W ild Strawberries (,Sm ultronstallet), in w h ic h F r e n c h ’s p a re n ts , P h ilip (film c r itic fo r T h e

t e x t o f p o s t -F r a n c o S p a n is h c u ltu re , j

n o tin g th e in flu e n c e o f S irk in its use

Observer) a n d K e rs ti (a te a c h e r o f

o f c o lo r an d its b r e a k w ith th e

j c o n v e n tio n a l s tra te g ie s o f o th e r

m o d e r n la n g u a g es), sh ed m u c h lig h t

o n th e film , e x p la in in g its s p e c ific a lly

S c a n d in a v ia n re s o n a n c e s a n d

d is c o v e rin g an d d e ta ilin g stro n g

c o n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n it a n d

fe m a le -c e n tr e d film n a rra tiv e s , an d in c lu d in g an e x c e lle n t d iscu ssio n o f th e s c r e e n p e rs o n a o f th e film ’s sta r, C a rm e n M a u r a , a stu te ly d e s c rib e d as

th e q u in te s s e n tia lly A lm o d o v a r ia n

B e rg m a n ’s life an d w o rk .

‘c o m e d ie n n e ’ : c o m ic , tr a g ic , w a rm ,

“S m u ltr o n s ta lle t”, th ey e x p la in ,

stills c o lle c tio n . B o th are virtu es n o t

o ffe r a t le a s t re s p e c ta b le a c c o u n ts o f th e ir s u b je c ts. F r ie d a G r a f e ’s p lay fu l

d e liv e rs s o m e s tim u la tin g in sig h ts

w ritte n m o n o g ra p h ’s p o st-sc rip t, an

is a d eligh t.

s ta n d a rd s e t by th is tr io , b u t m o s t

o f “ C la s s ic s ” , an d in th e p ro c e s s

D a lto n T r u m b o ), th e “ ro lle r -c o a s te r

film ’s fe m a le lea d , Peggy C u m m in s,

a rtists E d v a rd M u n c h a n d C a rl L a rs so n . N o n e o f th e o th e r re c e n t ly -p u b

p o p u lis t id e o lo g y , th a t G un Crazy

K itse s th e n g o e s o n to jo in th e dots

W ild Straw berries), an d S c a n d in a v ia n

lish ed m o n o g ra p h s re a c h th e h ig h

w h y th is p a r tic u la r film d eserv e s th e

b ase d o n th e id e a o f “th e cla s s ic ”

T o ju d g e fro m th e d o z e n o r so

m u c h e x p lo ita tio n c in e m a , it s o m e

h a v e th o u g h t, re fle c tin g th e e d ito r s ’

s o m e w h e re b e tw e e n $ 1 5 an d $ 2 0 ,

F r e n c h is a lso p r o v o c a tiv e o n th e

e m o tio n a l to p o g ra p h y o f p o st-w a r

tu te ’s tw o series o f m o n o g ra p h s

G e n e ra lly av ailab le lo cally fo r

A m e ric a , c a p ita lis m an d A m e ric a n

c o m m e n ta r y e ith e r.

u se, th e B ritis h F ilm In s ti

\ a ro u n d th e tim e h e w a s w o r k in g o n '

c ia tio n o f it; p ro v id e c le a r re a s o n s

g e t to o a c a d e m ic in y o u r a p p r o a c h ,

h ile th ey c e rta in ly h av e th e ir

e n a b le d h im t o d e v o te h im s e lf to w h a t h e c a n ’t d o . [p. 4 6 ]

p r o d u c e d m ig h t e n h a n c e o u r a p p r e

b ib lio g ra p h y w h e r e p o ss ib le ; d o n ’t

BFI CLASSICS SERIES

S a n F r a n c is c o S ta te U n iv e rsity , b e g in s b y o b se rv in g th a t

n o t o n ly a ctu a lly tra n s la te s in to E n g -

sp irite d , re s ilie n t an d fla w e d , a

lish as “T h e W ild S tr a w b e r ry P la c e ”

h y b rid h e r o in e fo r e v e r p o ise d

b u t also c a r rie s a fig u ra tiv e re fe r e n c e

b e tw e e n c o m e d y an d m e lo d r a m a ”

to “a m o m e n t in th e p a st to w h ic h

[p. 5 6 ] ,

s o m e o n e lo o k s b a c k a n d w h ic h th ey w o u ld lik e to re v isit o r re c a p tu r e ”

M a r k S a n d e r s o n ’s c lo s e stu d y o f '

(p. 2 3 ) , an d th u s to th e circ u m s ta n c e s

o f th e film ’s p r o ta g o n is t (V ic to r

S jô s trô m ) an d to th e fla s h b a c k sty le

N ic o la s R o e g ’s in tric a te ly -d e ta ile d th rille r, D o n ’t L o ok N o w , is im p re s sive in its u n c o v e r in g o f rh y m e s an d re p e titio n s an d in c lu d e s a u se fu l

o f its n a rra tiv e . T h e y a lso p ro v id e

in te rv ie w w ith R o e g . B u t its w e a k

c o n v in c in g h y p o th e se s a b o u t th e v a rie ty o f cre a tiv e c u rre n ts w h ic h

n ess is S a n d e r s o n ’s a p p a r e n t in a b ility to re s is t an y o p p o r tu n ity to m a k e a

h av e flo w e d in to th e film : B e r g m a n ’s

re la tio n s h ip w ith his o w n fa th e r an d

w ith S jô s t r ô m , S jô s t r ô m ’s o w n w o r k

as a d ir e c t o r (esp e cia lly Th e Phantom

\ m o t if, fo r e x a m p le , lead s to h is c o n

Carriage), C h a rle s D ic k e n s (A Christ-

! c lu sio n th a t “ in ev e ry sen se th e film

p u n , m o s t o f th e m b ad (d iscu ssio n o f R o e g ’s u se o f b r e a k in g glass as a

i is a s h a tte r in g e x p e r ie n c e ” [p. 4 3 ] ) ,

mas Carol), p la y w rig h ts A u gu st

S tr in d b e r g , H e n r ik Ib s e n , T e n n e s s e e

1 o r to lay c la im to w h a t h e d e s c rib e s

th e W e s te r n , Horizons West, and

In Th e Term inator h e did w h a t h e

W illia m s, A rth u r M ille r a n d M o liè r e

j as “s p o o k y c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s ” (as

n o w P r o fe s s o r o f C in e m a S tu d ies at

co u ld d o ; his su cc ess in th e ro le

(fo u r o f w h o s e p lay s h e w as d ir e c tin g

\ w h e n h e b r e a th le ssly re v ea ls to us th a t “ th e le tte rs o f ‘R o e g ’, lo o k e d a t a n o th e r w a y , sp ell o u t ‘g o r e ’ ” [p. 3 2 ] ) . C h r is to p h e r F ra y lin g ’s m o n o g ra p h o n W illia m C a m e r o n M e n z ie s ’

H . G. W ells’ Things T o C o m e is n o t e x a c tly a sc in tilla tin g re a d . B u t its d o c u m e n tin g o f th e b e h in d -th e sc e n e s h is to ry o f th e film ’s p r o d u c tio n (e sp e c ia lly c o n c e r n in g W e lls ’ m e d d le s o m e , h a n d s -o n a p p r o a c h ) is so lid . A n d its s k e tc h in g o f th e v a rio u s in flu e n c e s o n th e film ’s v isu al sty le (fro m W e lls ’ im p re c is e d e m a n d s t o th e c o n tr ib u tio n s m a d e b y M e n z ie s , F e r n a r d

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

L e g e r , L a s z lo M o h o ly - N a g y , L e

Three shots, including tw o from the cut six-second sequence, from En Cas de Malheur.

C o r b u s ie r a n d o ffic ia l “ S e ttin g s D e s ig n e r ” V in c e n t K o rd a ) m a k e it a v a lu a b le c o n tr ib u tio n t o th e “ C la s s ic s ” s e rie s , e v e n if th e a c tu a l flo w o f th e fin is h e d film te n d s to g e t lo s t in th e p rocess. L e ss re w a rd in g is th e m o n o g r a p h o n Easy Rider, in w h ic h T e r r y S o u th e r n -b io g r a p h e r L e e H ill c a tc h e s s o m e th in g o f th e fla v o r o f th e film ’s d o o m e d ro m a n tic is m , b u t se e m s ill-e q u ip p e d to d e al w ith its s ty listic m ix . H is a tte m p t to lin k d ir e c t o r D e n n is H o p p e r ’s m e th o d s w ith K u b r ic k ’s f o r 2 0 0 1 : A Space

Odyssey m a k e s n o sen se a t a ll, an d h is an a ly sis o f th e film ra r e ly rise s fa r a b o v e t h e b a n a l. F o r e x a m p le , H ill o n its v isu al s ty le: T h e tra v e llin g s h o ts a re w o n d e r fu lly h y p n o tic , b u t th e y o ft e n g o o n t o o lo n g . M o r e sc e n e s o f W y a tt a n d B illy ta lk in g o r m e e tin g w ith p e o p le o n th e ro a d w o u ld h av e b e e n ju s t as v isu ally m o v in g as lo n g s h o ts o f su n sets a n d sk y lin e s.

W AITING FOR BARDOT ! ------------------------- ---- |

[p. 5 4 ] , E v e n w o rs e is P e te r C o w ie ’s critica lly -

d is e n fr a n c h is e m e n t o v e r w h y o th e rs

sessed us o n c e m o r e , it w as w ith th e

c a n h a v e s e x w ith it b u t n o t h im .

irre fra g ib le [sic] fo r c e o f sy llo g ism

Andy Martin, Faber & Faber, London, pp. \ 183, illus., pb, rrp S19.95

T h e “ i t ” is d e lib e r a te as M a r t in ’s

th a t th e u n d e rsta n d in g c a m e u p o n

‘B a r d o t’ is n e v e r m o r e th a n a

us th a t w e to o w e re c o n te n d e rs : w e

o m e o f th e m o s t n o to r io u s folies

re v e re d flesh c a p su le e n c a sin g th e

to o w e re in lin e fo r th a t c ro w n in g

d ’écrit h a v e b e e n b y a u t h o r s ’

h e a r t o f a tra m p .

m o m e n t o f ecsta sy - a sp ell in b e d

in e p t c o lle c tio n o f d isco n n e cte d

A nnie H all, w h ich ta k e s us la b o rio u sly

th ro u g h th e film sce n e -b y -sce n e . T h is

v o lu n te e rin g t h e ir s e x u a l in te r e s t in

m ig h t h ave a lm o s t b e en a cc e p ta b le

fa m o u s a c tre sse s. T h e m o s t n o t o r i-

1 w rite s a b o u t h o w h e a n d frie n d

h ad th e re b e e n so m e th in g a p p r o x i

o u s is N o r m a n M a ile r ’s s u g g e stio n

m a tin g an in sig h t g ain ed in th e

th a t th e b e s t fo r m o f c o f f in fo r

d itc h in g h u sb a n d G u n te r S a c h s fo r

p ro ce ss, bu t, b asically , C o w ie has

M a r ily n M o n r o e w o u ld h a v e b e e n

d ir e c t o r M ik e S a m e :

n o th in g o f in te re st to say a b o u t his

a sea le d s w im m in g -p o o l fille d w ith

s u b je c t an d spend s th e en tire m o n o

jism (to u se a te rm o f th e p e rio d ).

o b serv a tio n s a b o u t W o o d y A lle n ’s

A n d y M a r t in ’s Waiting fo r Bar-

g ra p h m ak in g th is cle ar.

O n p. 6 , fo r e x a m p le , M a r tin

G r iffo re a c te d to n ew s o f B a r d o t’s

w ith B r ig itte B a rd o t, [p. 8] T h e M a d o n n a -p r o s titu t e c o m p le x ru n s r io t h e re . O f c o u r s e , M a r tin c o u ld a rg u e th a t th e b o o k d e c o n s tr u c ts his d e sire

“ D o y o u fin d m y b o tto m lo v e ly ? ” -

O u r first th o u g h ts w e re o f v io la

w h ile s im u lta n e o u sly d e s c rib in g it.

in L e M épris (Je a n -L u c G o d a r d , 1 9 6 3 ) , M a r t in w rite s :

tio n , b la sp h e m y , sa crile g e. ‘T h a t

B u t th a t is a h a rd c o p , as th e t e x t is

p r ic k S a m e , p ro n g in g B B ! ’ m oa n e d

fu ll o f th e k in d o f b a d h u m o u r an d

S h e p lu n g e d b a c k o n th e b e d an d

dot is a lso a c o lle c tio n o f fix a tio n s

G riffo . ‘T h a t p ie c e o ’ p is s !’ B u t

lou sy p u n s th a t k e p t th e Carry On

p u lle d us o n to h e r a n d in to h e r ,

c a l, a lth o u g h s o m e th in g o f a sh a d o w

b e st le ft u n p e n n e d . It d e sc rib e s th e

w h e n S a c h s ra g e d a n d fu m ed an d

m e r c h a n ts in b u sin ess fo r d e ca d e s.

a n d m a d e us slav es t o h e r ev e ry

h a n g s o v e r w h e r e th e se rie s is n o w

a u t h o r ’s d e c a d e s -lo n g o b s e s s io n

spat in o n e o f h is B a v a ria n ca stle s, it

h e a d e d . L a s t O c t o b e r sa w th e re sig

w ith B r ig itte B a r d o t - o r , m o r e

w as c le a r th a t th e im p o ssib le had

firs t b e d sc e n e b e tw e e n C a m ille

sea an d w e c o u ld n e v e r g e t t o th e

n a tio n fr o m th e B F I o f th e e s tim a b le

s p e c ific a lly , h e r b o d y - a n d h is

in d e ed o c c u rre d . W h e n lo g ic p o s

(B a r d o t) a n d P a u l (M ic h e l P ic c o li) -

b o t t o m o f h e r . [p p . 1 1 8 - 9 ]

F o r tu n a te ly , his w o rk is u n ty p i

F o r e x a m p le , a fte r re w ritin g th e

d e sire . S h e w as as d e ep as th e

E d B u s c o m b e , H e a d o f P u b lish in g t h e r e , e d ito r o f th e “ C la s s ic s ” s e rie s , a n d a c r itic a n d t e a c h e r w h o s e c o n tr ib u tio n t o film e d u c a tio n in t h e U K r e a c h e s b a c k a lm o s t 2 5 y ea rs. A s a re s u lt, t h e fu tu re o f th e “ C la s s ic s ” s e e m s u n c e rta in . H o w e v e r , b e fo r e B u s c o m b e ’s d e p a rtu re , fu r th e r v o l u m e s h a d a lre a d y b e e n c o m m is s io n e d a n d sc h e d u le d fo r p u b lic a tio n in 1 9 9 7 - a m o n g th e m

B lue Velvet b y M ic h a e l A tk in s o n , Th e C rying G a m e b y J a n e G ile s , Th e Piano b y L izzie F r a n c k e , Th e Exorcist b y M a r k K e r m o d e an d O n ce Upon A T im e In A m erica by T h e A ge's a s tu te film c r itic , A d ria n M a r t in .1

T om Ryan

1 J u s t p u b lis h e d , b u t a r r iv in g t o o la t e f o r in c lu s io n in th is r e v ie w , a r e : L e s E n f a n t s d u P a r a d is , b y J i l l F o r b e s ; B ride o f F ra n k en

s te in , A lb e r to M a n g u e l; T h e L ife a n d D ea th o f C o lo n el B lim p , A .L . K e n n e d y , a n d T h e B ig S lee p , D a v id T h o m s o n .

Here is a sampling of some of the myriad books on Bardot, including the highlight from Editions Vade Retro (below far right).

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

In r e v ie w B ooké

6 6 , N ovem ber 1 9 8 7 , pp. 2 0 -5 ,

em a P a p ers, N o . 6 6 , J a n u a r y 1 9 7 7 , p p . 3 2 - 7 , f o r c r itic is m o f

O r e s t o d e l B u o n o a n d U m b e r to

by liftin g h e r d ress to re v ea l sh e is

E c o (E d s), T h e B o n d A ffa ir , M a c d o n a ld , L o n d o n , 1 9 6 6 .

w e a rin g n o u n d e rw e a r, M a r g u e r ite 2

te u r , P a r is , 1 9 8 4 , t r a n s la t e d b y

F r e n c h c e n s o r re m o v e d th e s h o t o f

p ro u d o f th o s e double entendres. In e s s e n c e , M a r t in ’s b o o k is a n o th e r in th e v ery lo n g list o f d isa stro u s a c a d e m ic fo ra y s in to th e w o rld s o f p o p u la r c u ltu re - fro m T o n y B e n n e tt a n d J a n e t W o o ll a c o t t ’s lu lu b o o k o n J a m e s B o n d 1 to th e in n u m e r a b le fe m in is t e le v a tio n s o f M a d o n n a as th e g re a t m o d e r n s e x s y m b o l (a v ie w n o w se e m in g ly a b a n d o n e d by all). In his d e fe n c e , M a r tin , w h o te a c h e s F r e n c h a t C a m b r id g e , b rin g s to h is b o o k a sin g u la r p a ssio n fo r h is s u b je c t th a t is a b s e n t in m a n y ‘a c -p o p ’ w o rk s. B u t is th a t p a ssio n , f o r all h is v o c ife r a tio n , re al? T h e re a d e r is a le rte d to s o m e th in g am iss early o n , w h e n M a r tin w rite s a b o u t E t D ieu .... Créa la

F em m e (R o g e r V a d im , 1 9 5 6 ) : A s V a d im said , ‘In th e film sh e w a s u n d resse d fo r n o m o r e th a n five m in u te s. Y e t p e o p le in sisted s h e w as n a k e d th r o u g h o u t.’ I w as th e o n e d e ce iv e d . I re m e m b e r h e r b o d y in ev e ry c in e m a s c o p ic d e ta il; a n d y e t se e in g th e film a g a in , I re a liz e sh e n e v e r o n c e a p p e a rs w ith o u t s o m e c lo a k in g d e v ice (c lo th e s , a stra te g ic a lly p o sitio n e d to w e l, a s h e e t, c lo th e s lin e , fo r c e fie ld ). In o th e r w o rd s , th e film o n ly e v e r allu d es to a sta te o f n a k e d n e s s; it says it w ith o u t s h o w in g , [p. 3 6 ] T r y th e fifth s h o t, M r M a r tin , w h e re

T h e n a g a in , o n p. 1 3 5 , M a r tin

(it c u ts o n c e t h e h e m p a s s e s th e k n e e ), th e C U r e a c tio n o f A n d ré

a c c id e n ta lly b u m p s o f f h e r lo v e r” .

G o b ille t (G a b in ) a n d a lo w -a n g le

H a s M a r tin see n th is film ? T h e T r u e

o f Y v e tt e ’s le g fr o m t o e t o w a ist.

F a n k n o w s th a t D o m in iq u e M a r c e a u

T h e l a c k o f u n d e r w e a r is o n ly

PANAFLEX USERS' MANUAL (SECOND EDITION)

HOWARD HAWKS AMERICAN ARTIST

David W. Samuelson, Focal Press, Boston, 1996, 300 pp, illus, index, rrp $60.00

f o r th e v ie w e r (o r D u r a s ) to

1 9 9 6 , illu s, in d e x , rrp £ 4 0 . 0 0 (h e),

k n o w w h a t Y v e t t e is o r is n o t

£ 1 3 . 9 9 (pb)

J i m H illie r a n d P e te r W o lle n

HIBAKUSHA CINEMA

see m s d riven by a rtific e , by false

Bardot an d the Lolita Syndrom e,

p r o c la m a tio n , a n im p re s s io n n o t

tr a n s la te d by B e rn a rd F r e tc h -

h elp e d by M a r tin ’s sp rin k lin g his

m an,

HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI AND THE NUCLEAR IMAGE IN JAPANESE FILM

t e x t w ith q u o te s fro m hip (o r o n c e -

W e id e n fe ld & N ic o ls o n , L o n

h ip ) p e o p le . O n e c h a p te r sta rts w ith

don, 1960.

a q u o te by L a c a n , a n o th e r fro m D e r rid a . O n ly D e le u z e a n d G u e tta ri a re m issin g , th o u g h ‘d e s ire ’ h a u n ts ev ery p age. S o m e tim e s , to o , th e s e q u o te s a re o f th e m o s t d u b io u s re le v a n ce .

THE PRACTICAL DIRECTOR (SECOND EDITION)

w e a rin g . S i m o n e d e B e a u v o i r , B rig itte

A n d ré

D e u ts c h

and

F r a n ç o is e S a g a n , Brigitte Bardot,

Mike Crisp, Focal Press, Oxford, 1996, 205 pp, illus, index, rrp $55.00

Mick Broderick, Kegan Paul International, London, 255 pp, illus, rrp $93.50 (he)

QUINLAN'S FILM STARS (FOURTH EDITION) David Quinlan, B.T. Batsford Ltd, London, 1996, 510 pp, illus, rrp $49.95

F la m m a r io n , P a ris, 1 9 7 5 ; tr a n s la te d b y J u d i t h S a c h s as Brigitte

IDIOT BOX

B ardot: A C lo seup by Françoise

THE SCREENPLAY

A BIOGRAPHY OF JIM THOMPSON

David Caesar, Text Publishing, Melbourne, 1997,185 pp, illus, rrp $16.95

Robert Polito, Serpent's Tail, London, 1997, 543 pp, illus, rrp $29.95

IN SIDESTO RIES

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY

Sagan, D e la c o r te P re ss, N e w Y o rk , 1 9 7 6 .

SAVAGE ART

O n p a g e 3 3 , fo r e x a m p le , M a r tin a p p la u d in gly q u o te s R o la n d B a r th e s ’ “p le a su re re sid es in in te r m itte n c e ” th e o ry , b u t th e re s t o f h is b o o k is

Booké Received

n o th in g i f n o t su g g estiv e o f a m in d

n u d e B a r d o t th a n fro m a slig h t gap

ACTION!

b e tw e e n g a rm e n ts, th e re b y re fu tin g

THE ACTION MOVIE A - Z

th e th e o ry . M a r tin d o es d o a g o o d jo b o f

B a r d o t w o u ld n ’t, b u t is M a r tin a

Brigitte Bardot fro m E d itio n s V a d e

Marshall Julius, B.T. Batsford, London, 1996, 240 pp, illus, rrp S24.95

BF 11997 FILM AND TELEVISION HANDBOOK Eddie Dyja, BFI Publishing, London, 1996, 414 pp, index

R e t r o (P a ris, 1 9 9 4 ) , su rely th e m o s t su m p tu o u s a n d tre a su re d o f all

DIARIES OF BRITISH FILM-MAKERS AT WORK

THE DIARIES

Edited by Duncan Petrie, BFI Publishing, London, 1996,205 pp, rrp £9.99

w h ic h gets m o r e p le a su re fro m a

THE BIG SLEEP

D e sp ite its p ro m ise an d th e odd am u sin g p a ra , M a r tin ’s b o o k is all to o

David Thomson, BFI Publishing, London, 1997,73 pp, illus, rrp £6.99

THE SCREENPLAY

A.L. Kennedy, BFI Publishing, London, 1997,73 pp, illus, rrp£6.99

‘c o o l’ ju n k is p re fe re n c e d o v e r seriou s ©

S cott M urray

STAR TREK MEMORIES LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY A GUIDE FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY Brian Fitt & Joe Thornley, Focal, Oxford, 1997,420 pp, illus, index, rrp $90.00

la c o tt, B ond an d B ey ond : The

P o litic a l C a r e e r o f a P o p u la r

de m a lheur [C la u d e A u ta n t-L a ra ,

H e r o , M a c m i l la n , B a s in g s t o k e ,

1 9 5 8 ] , in w h ic h B B p e rsu a d es a n

1 9 8 7 . S e e th is a u t h o r ’s “ T h e

a g e in g J e a n G a b in , p la y in g a

B o n d A g e ”, C in em a Papers, N o .

William Shatner with Chris Kreski, HarperCollins, London, 1996,411 pp, index, illus, rrp $14.95

TARANTINO A TO ZED THE FILMS OF QUENTIN TARANTINO

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN Alberto Manguel, BFI Publishing, London, 1997,68 pp, illus, £6.99

Josephine Langham, BFI Publishing, London, 278 pp, index, rrp £9.99

CASINO

THE MARX BROTHERS ENCYCLOPEDIA

PHOTOGRAPHY, CINEMATOGRAPHY AND TELEVISION

Glenn Mitchell, B.T. Batsford, London, 1996,256 pp, illus, rrp $34.95

Brian Winston, BFI Publishing, London, 1996,143 pp, index, rrp£14.99

Nicholas Pileggi & Martin Scorsese, Faber, London, 1996,232 pp, illus, rrp S17.95

Alan Barnes & Marcus Hearn, B.T. Batsford Ltd, London, 1996, illus, rrp $34.95

TECHNOLOGIES OF SEEING

1 T o n y B e n n e tt an d Ja n e t W o o l-

In 1 9 5 8 , s h o r tly a fte r se e in g E n cas

Jan Sardi, Bloomsbury, London, 1997, 176 pp, illus, rrp $16.95

LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION! WORKING IN FILM. TELEVISION& VIDEO (SECOND EDITION)

ty p ica l o f an a ca d em ic cu ltu re w h ere

th o u g h t.

Emma Thompson, Bloomsbury, London, 1996, 124 pp, illus, rrp $16.95

SHINE

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP

B a rd o t book s.

w o u ld also n e v e r o m it th e title ’s

Rosemary Curtis & Cathy Gray (editors), Australian FilmCommission, Sydney, 1996,310 pp, illus, index, rrp $29.95

s h o o ts h im sev e ra l tim es. G iv e n M a r t in ’s n u m e ro u s g o o fs ,

ONCE UPON A T I M E . . . THE PROPRIETOR Ismail Merchant, Bloomsbury, London, 1996,214 pp, illus, rrp $24.95.

GET THE PICTURE (4TH EDITION)

(e d ito r s ), B F I P u b lish in g , L o n d o n ,

o r in d e ed list in th e b ib lio g ra p h y

O n p a g e 1 3 2 , M a r tin also w rite s :

Jill Forbes, BFI Publishing, London, 1997, 78 pp, illus, rrp £6.99

a p p a r e n t in th e fir s t c u t s h o t.

o n e b e g in s to d o u b t h e is a fa n o f

NOVEL TO FILM AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THE ORY OF ADAPTATION Brian McFarlane, Oxford University Press, London, 1996,279 pp, index

LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS

W i t h o u t t h a t , t h e r e is n o w a y

p le st o f fa c ts w ro n g . A T r u e F a n o f

ellip sis, as M a r tin d o es.)

David Cronenberg, Faber, London, 1996, 65 pp, illus, rrp $16.95

o f f h e r lo v e r, b u t g o e s to his fla t and

to n o te F ra n ç o is e S a g a n ’s b o o k 5

m a il’s aw ay , i f n o u n c u t v e rsio n

CRASH

(B a rd o t) d o e s n o t a c c id e n ta lly b u m p

a c -p o p p e e rs , M a r tin g ets th e s im

w as av a ila b le a t h o m e . (A T r u e F a n

o n e w h e r e Y v e t t e lifts h e r s k ir t

G e o rg e s C lo u z o t, 1 9 6 0 ] “B a r d o t [...]

the Lolita Syndrom e 4, b u t h e fails

a T r u e F a n w o u ld g e t th e o rig in a l

T h e c u t is a c t u a lly t h r e e s h o ts .

c la im s th a t in La Vérité [H e n ri-

p r o fo u n d ly silly Brigitte Bardot and

v id e o fro m F ra n c e , an o v e rn ig h t

T h e firs t is th e s e c o n d h a lf o f th e

w ith o u t a sin g le “ c lo a k in g d e v ic e ”

h e h as s in c e re -s e e n it. R e g a rd le ss,

o f s k irt-ra is in g in D u r a s ’ a rtic le .)

re -re le a s e .)

an y d e s c rip tio n . T h e w h o le b o o k

i Neil Jordan, Vintage, London, 1996,165 ! pp, illus, rrp $14.95

( T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n , t h o u g h ,

(T h e s ix -s e c o n d c u t 3 w a s la te r r e

w ith in c o o -e e . L ik e to o m an y o f h is

s e e n a c e n s o re d v e r s io n , b u t h e says

L o n d on , 1 9 8 7 , pp. 1 9 9 -2 0 2 .

w o u ld h av e s e e n n o su ch th in g .

d e m o lish in g S im o n e de B e a v o ir ’s

O f c o u r se , M a r tin m ay h av e first

S e l e c t e d W ritin g s , F l a m i n g o ,

d ress, a n d th a t M a r g u e r ite D u ra s

a n u d e B a r d o t lies o n th e g ro u n d

T ru e Fan?

A r th u r G o ld h a m m e r as O utside:

Y v e tte M a u d e t (B a rd o t) liftin g th e

in sta te d in th e R e n é C h a te a u v id eo

Richard Schickel, Jonathan Cape, London, 1996, 557 pp, illus, index

FILM DIARY AND SCREENPLAY __________________________

M a r g u e r ite D u r a s , O u ts id e :

P a p iers d ’u n J o u r , P . O . L . E d i A T r u e F a n w o u ld k n o w th a t th e

S id n e y J a m e s w o u ld h av e b e e n

! i

t h is b o o k a n d t h e e q u a l l y lu lu

P a risia n la w y e r, to ta k e h e r ca se

D u ra s w r o te a n id y llic essay [ .. . ] 2

M ICHAEL COLLINS

CLINT EASTWOOD

a n d “ B o n d A g e W o m e n ” , C in

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Ac c oun t i n g for the Arts Actors Animators Architects Art Directors Artists Clowns Cinematographers Comedians Composers Choreographers

T h e b r o a d c a s t s u it e is f u l l y o p t io n e d

Film & Television Editors Festivals Galleries Graphic

A lan Dredge 8c Co Pty Ltd

Jugglers Landscape Architects Multimedia Artists and Producers Musicians Performers Painters Photographers Playwrights Film Television and Radio Producers Print

Chartered Accountants Tax Returns, Audits, Accounting & Financial Advice, Electronic Tax Lodgement

Makers Production Companies Publicists 16 Hill Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121 Telephone 03 9428 3855

Sculptors Sound Technicians Singers Stunt Persons Theatre Companies Writers

TO LAUNCH OUR NEW MEDIA 1 0 0 DIGITAL ONLINE EDIT SUITE P R IM E C U T IS OFFERING 3 HOURS FREE SUITE HIRE.*

Costume Designers Critics Dancers Designers Directors Designers Incorporated Associations Journalists

FREE EDIT SUITE

ELECTRIC SHADOWS BOOKSHOP

AND IS AVAILABLE FOR DRY HIRE OR WITH AN EDITOR.

T e c h n ic a l s u p p o r t , t r a in in g AND AN INHOUSE GRAPHICS STUDIO ARE ALSO AVAILABLE.

P r im e c u t - E d it in g & g r a p h ic s 2 5 5 P a c if ic H w y n o r t h Sy d n e y PH: 9 9 2 2 5 5 8 0 & ASK FOR GEORGE 'O F F E R A P P L I E S TO F U L L DAY DRY H IR E AND IS LIM IT E D . SO G E T TO IT!

w l i i l e h e r s e m u s ic a l t h e a t r e proudly presents

• F ilm /V ideo P roduction • Scripts • N atio nal C inemas • B iographies of D irectors /A ctors / P roducers • V ideos for Sale in c lu d in g F o reig h L anguage Special Orders/Mail Order Welcome

PHOENIX THEATRE, OEAKIN UNIVERSITY, BURWOOD CAMPUS

Join our free mailing list for a quarterly update of new books and videos

M ay 2 -1 7 ,1 9 9 7

OPEN LATE: MON-SAT 9-9PM. SUN I2.30-6.30PM City Walk off Akuna Street, Canberra City. Tel: (06) 248 8352 Fax: (06) 247 1230

Adulte $27. Concession $22. Family M a ts (2adults &2children) $85 Groups 15+ $22 each. Groups 20+ $21 each, for phone bookings: Fran Boyd 9878 2912 Rosemary McBride 9877 4214

ESP HAS

A VID FOR DRY HIRE

m o w n

CALL CHARLOTTE ON e p if

street

(0 2 ) 9956 7530

Post

• AVID MC 800 WITH 18GB STORAGE / REAL TIME EFFECTS / 4 CHANNEL AUDIO IN PU T/O U TPU T / MONITORING. SP BETACAM FEED VHS & CD PLAYER. • ALSO AVAILABLE: O N LINE FACILITY - GRAPHICS CAMERA & V /O BOOTH - UMATIC • EXPERIENCED EDITORS A N D SUPPORT STAFF - ROOMY AIR-CONDITIONED SUITE - SEPARATE CLIENT ROOM - CAR PARKING 10 HOUR DRY HIRE DAY - AFTER HOURS A N D WEEKEND AVAILABILITY

ESP,

107 WEST STREET, C R O W S

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

NEST N S W

2065

FAX: 9956

5444

Seale Dean Sender’s directing at the moment and I think that’s " fantastic. I had a go at it, but, just as I lit my first film, I got such a fright that I went back to operating for three features. Similarly, I directed one film, got a bit of a fright and went back to lighting. I still love lighting and oper ating, but w hat I love is the contribution. If I can’t have that, I find that films are very empty. On some films you think, in all hon esty, that you could have done the job better than the director, and then the n ext one you realize you cou ld n ’t because it’s working with actors and it’s so essential. I watched Anthony with our cast and realized that actors of that calibre are so demanding and there’s something you have to have. I think my son Derin [currently in final year of writing-directing course at Uni versity of Technology, Sydney] will have it, but it’s something I’m not sure I have. And I do prefer to w ork on films that are character-driven rather than action films. When I look back on my work, I seem to have chosen films that are emotion-driven. Did you encourage your son to follow in your footsteps?

H e’s been pretty enterprising at 2 0 , realizing the importance of computers, and has done an AVID course and is now doing freelance editing, even though he has his thoughts set on writ ing and d irecting. H e’s very imaginative and some of the stories h e’s shot on Super 8 are great. He bought some fantastic software in the U.S. and creates CGI images at home for a company that downloads into its computer. I’ve always pounded into him, “If you want satisfaction from the film indus try, don’t become a cameraman.” I’ve seen the kind of changes monitors have brought and pretty soon it’s all going to change. The monitor is denying the technician his creative abilities and soon it will all go digital. You’ll light off a monitor, which will become the most powerful piece of equipment on the set. I say to all young people, like the assistants on the camera side in the U.S.: “In ten years’ time you can throw away your Panaflex cameras, the neg ative and go digital. Y ou’re going to have to forget about the romanticism of film. As a recording artist and cameraperson, forget it.” I ’ve had discussions with George Miller about the future and he agrees we have to get rid of this archaic cam era that’s a hundred years old. Film can get scratched, lost or water-damaged in the lab overnight, and you have to wait 24 hours to get results. We can do

better than that. Everybody decries that film is the romantic side of filmmaking and I agree, but it’s time to move on. I ask young people if they’re using our expertise to enhance video. Are they using the filters we’re using? Or are they just standing there saying, “Oh, I’ve just got this bloody Betacam; th a t’s all I ’ve g o t.” Because you haven’t; y ou ’ve got filters, polar screens. They all work on those cam eras the same as they do on ours. I tell them to find a craft in the physically creative technical area. Ideally, if you're going to be totally satisfied in the film industry, think of the writer who cre ates the original material, because that’s where the biggest satisfaction is. From there to directing is a very small jump these days. Either that or it’ll be these smashingly-boring big-budget pictures which are just em otion-less roller-coaster rides. I d on’t do those. I ’ve been offered them plenty. I did The H itcher [Robert Harmon, 1986]: ten cameras on each stunt and a pretty empty busi ness. Nowadays, the computer does it. Even on The English Patient we used a lot more computer-generated effects than people realize. The opening scene, w here w e’re looking down on the desert passing by underneath and cran ing up, is a computer-generated image, although it’s blue-screen activated. A lot of films are so full of computer-gen erated images that pretty soon when they announce winners at the Oscars it’ll be like the sound departm ent, w here six people walk up. I t ’s not going to be long before the D O P, colour enhancer, the CGI person who created the images and a whole com m ittee will walk up there for Photography. It’s already starting that way. You make it sound a lot less interest ing and challenging.

As a DOP today, you have to know your negative. You need to know where your meter is in relation to your negative, so there’s no big shocks of over-exposure or under-exposure. You have to know exactly where it’s sitting. Whereas when you light off a monitor you see the background too. Even now for film th ey ’ve got this digitallyenhanced stuff that, if you have a bother seeing the background, you just stick it through the analyzer and pump up the background. And that’s on film, so DOPs are a dying race. M ore and more it will be m echanical, soulless work. It’s happening in other areas, too. A lot of editors who said they love the feel of film in their hands now swear by AVID because it’s so fast. Now that you've expressed an inter est in doing more low-budget and

independent movies, are you likely to consider coming back to w ork on Australian movies?

Every Christmas, Russell [Boyd] and I get together, and we say “We have to make an Australian film together again I’d love to, but then I’d be taking a job off an Australian technician and I find that’s another quandary. If I come back here to do a low-budget film, I’m actually taking the food out of another cameraman’s mouth and depriving him of experience. I prefer to contribute in other ways; I give all the time I can to AFTRS [the Australian Film Television & Radio School] and ACS, travelling around Australia doing lectures and passing on expertise [the AFTRS made a VHS videotape of one of these ses sions for international sales]. I’m happy to pass that on. On the subject of the ACS, it seems a pity that many of you guys working on big international pictures no longer enter your work into the national awards, though I understand that's a result of not wanting to jeop ardize the chances of smaller,

credit T h e ir agents are som etim es considered to have failed if they don’t get a possessory credit. C red it is im p o rtan t becau se it is about the assignm ent o f rights. The process is always going to be a woolly one. But possessory credit isn’t so much about assignment of rights as about ego and insecu rity. T h a t’s the issue and th at’s why directors adopt a retiring pose when they are asked to explain. W hy do directors take a possessory credit? Because they can. It gets a little arch when a director and producer decide to be generous in their cups at the awards’ night party, annou ncing to all and sundry the importance of the script, the w riter’s contribution and other creative contri butions to the film. O f course, not all directors are brave enough, or honest enough, to confess on stage that they need others to make a movie. Posses sory credit is not as much about taking the credit for the movie as it is about turning the lights out on those who should share the limelight.

low-budget Australian films. Surely there's scope for expanding the cate gories to include the full spectrum?

Years ago I entered film s. I had enquired whether international pic tures were eligible and I was told they could be. But it drew a bit of flak from certain people. I didn’t want to create waves and wasn’t entirely happy about entering an overseas-funded biggerbudget picture, so I haven’t entered anything since. Sadly, some of the people who cre ated the stir are now w orking on overseas films and entering them every year. I honestly think what they need is another category of overseas, inter nationally-funded films, something that designated a new category. ACS pre sentation night would be lifted into an international arena because people like myself working on the international circuit would be encouraged to enter. It could be another Golden Tripod cat egory and the Golden Milli could go to any one of the categories, but until that happens I don’t think I’ll compete against the Australian-based techni cians. I watched Steve Mason lose Strictly B allroom , on which I think he did a ter rific job, to a bigger-budget film. Therein lies the quandary. ® 1

G a n d h i (R ic h a r d A tte n b o r o u g h , 1 9 8 2 ) a n d D a n g ero u s L iaisons ( S t e p h e n F r e a r s ,

What to do in Australia? The Australian W riters’ Guild will be w riting to the film -funding agencies about the need to monitor this growing trend and asking them why they sup port the growth of possessory credits. It will also be writing to the distribu tors vo icin g its o p p o sitio n to the possessory credit. Internationally, it will be working in conjunction with inter national affiliates to place pressure on d istributors and studios to stop the granting of credits. Finally, the best chance is to appeal to Australian directors with this simple plea: If you do not understand the pos sessory credit, do no take it. Follow the lead of Woody Allen and respect your fellow collaborators. If directors do understand the pos sessory credit and continue to insist on taking it, we believe these d irectors should publicly justify their reasons. Silence is the worst response for such an im p ortan t issue. As a view er, an aud ience should ask: W hy did the director get the possessory credit? There are Australian directors who choose not to take a possessory credit. We applaud them. However, until the issue is given a good airing, the public will continue to be duped about author ship w h ilst many o f a d ir e c to r’s c o lla b o ra to rs w ill co n tin u e to feel ripped off. ®

1 9 8 8 ). 2 A p o ca ly p se N o w ( F r a n c is F o r d C o p p o l a ,

3 4

T h e C in e m a P a p e r s h o u s e s t y l e o f t h e

1 9 7 9 ).

d i r e c t o r ’ s n a m e a n d d a t e o f r e l e a s e in

L o re n z o ’s O il ( G e o r g e M i l l e r , 1 9 9 2 ) .

p a r e n t h e s e s a f t e r a f ilm t it le h a s n o t b e e n

1 9 9 0 ; n o t t h e a t r i c a l l y r e l e a s e d in A u s

a d o p t e d f o r t h is a r t ic l e f o r r e a s o n s t h a t

tr a lia .

w ill s o o n b e a p p a r e n t .

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Baker changes as well. Equipment changes, lighting equipm ent ”

changes, film stocks change, and that creates an evolution of what you are doing. I have reached a point that I think is a good point. I would love to do right now another big film , a really chal lenging film , like T h e R ussia H o u s e [Fred Schepisi, 1 9 9 0 ], which I could really give a great style and a great look to. I’m ready to do another big film. T h a t is w hat I ’m hop ing this year brings.

Has your relationship to the technol ogy changed over the years? Has there been an evolution in lights, stocks and lenses which has given you greater freedom to be the DOP you wish to be?

W ell, it must be easier today because we have faster film stocks and faster lenses and bigger lights available to us. I don’t know how we ever shot films like T he C han t o f Jim m ie B lacksm ith [Fred Schepisi, 1979], which we shot a n am o rp h ic w ith all those night sequences with 100 ASA film stock and tiny lights. We had 2kw and some 5kw lights, but no HM Is. Nowadays, you have these mega-powered H M I lights, which have countless times more out put than the lights you used in those days. And we now have 5 0 0 ASA film stock. All this makes your job easier, in that it enables you to do more and larger things more quickly. That is what the technology is doing for us. One reason for the question is that not all technological advances have been arguably good for the cinema. For example, super-speed lenses m eant DOPs could get scenes more easily onto film , w ith less light. But the quality of films dropped because some DOPs become lazy, under-light ing badly but still managing to get an image, albeit murky. N o w there seems to be a concerted return to higher standards and more thought fully photographed films.

I could never understand what super speed lenses were for, other than to occasionally get a shot where there simply wasn’t any light, or you could

w id e-open capacity because o f the look. Whilst they are technically sharp and crisp , the d ro p -o ff in focus is something that I don’t accept. Clearly, you w an t the look on the screen to be sufficiently natural that no m em ber of the audience will chal lenge it.

The films that I seem to work on are always trying to achieve a real/natural look. W hat cinematography is today, unless of course you are working on some special-effects deal, is imagery on screen that is really real. It is not the a trica l, although th ere are certain movies that require a theatrical look. The theatrically-lit, direct-lit H olly wood look isn’t acceptable any more. You can’t have multiple shadows and direct light. Things have to look real, or beyond real, to be acceptable. Do you feel film stocks are back on track after the problems of the 1980s?

I think stocks are great at the moment. I haven’t totally come to grips with the new Kodak Vision stocks, but I guess I will when I do an entire film on them. My favourite stock is the high-speed 5 2 9 8 stock, which I believe Kodak is phasing out now . If I did another movie, and I hope to be working on a movie soon this year, I would try to get 98 stock. That is what I use most of. W ith F ierce C reatu res, I shot some tests on the Vision 500 against the 98. It is a personal opinion, of course, but I like the look of the older stock better. But, yes, stocks are really good at the moment. They have a lot of latitude and certainly 5 0 0 ASA stock is pretty amazing. It is great when you are doing interiors, because you can light up and have sufficient depth of field, particu larly if you are working on anamorphic lenses, which most of the movies that I work on are. You need a certain stock to get what I call an acceptable depth of field. Having a 5 0 0 ASA stock on interiors makes it easy. Another advantage is that you can use super-soft light and not torture actors with excessive light. As I said earlier, it is one of my goals to make an actor feel comfortable. When they are in an envi ronment and being photographed, they don’t want to feel the light. The light is there, and it is lighting them the way that I want, but they are not over-con scious of it.

I’ve never used super-speed lenses to C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Australian DOPs have been highly applauded around the w orld. Have you any views on w hy th a t is so?

5 0 0 , I’ll probably love it, too, because I will learn to manipulate it to the way I like things to look.

I believe it is because, when we started out, we were doing movies in four or five weeks. We had to get it done, so

In a recent interview 1. Dean Cundey

we were brought up being fast and effi cient.

talked about how DOPs now have the unusual experience of their w ork

The other important thing is that we

being re-interpreted by the CGI [com

didn’t - well, I certainly didn’t - have

puter-generated image] wizards doing

years of coming up through the ropes,

the special effects. To w h a t extent

working as an apprentice and then an

have you become involved in the CGI

assistant and so on.

end, and is that an area of interest or concern?

I didn’t set out to be a DOP. I did n’t set out to do anything in particular.

I’ve worked on a couple of films with

I went to fine art school and studied

computer-generated images, but never m ajor films where the whole film is

painting and sculpture. Then I sort of

computer generated. So, I haven’t been that concerned about it. But I always make sure I get involved with the peo ple doing the work, so that they know

when it first began, when it was in its

what I am trying to achieve visually, then they can follow on w ith their technicalities. It is the same with grading prints. I always contract that I do the final print. I also try to do the telecine of the print when it goes to tape. But you can only do so much. They only do so many prints that are to the quality of the grade print, and then they start doing high-speed prints and cheaper prints for distant circulation. It is out of your control. Then, of course, you have the prob lem of how cinemas project the print. We work to the zillionth of a degree of light quality, exposing and final-print ing the film, and then the light level on the local cinema’s screen is maybe a stop down, or it fades across one side of the screen. It is all just thrown to the wind at that point, particularly a subtle scene where you want to just see the detail in one part, or it’s a night scene and you wanted it to be really dark because there was no justification for light. If you are in the cinema where the foot lamberts are down a couple of degrees, you might not have any image at all. It is crazy really th a t we w ork to this fine degree, with no absolute guar antee th at anyone is going to care about the projection in cinemas.

dabbled at the Swinburne film school heyday, when there was n o t much equipm ent and not much happened there. Then I was lucky enough to get a job as a shit-kicker with Fred Schepisi, doing some big commercial at the end of my schooling. There weren’t many freelance technicians around and I got a job carrying cam era cases. I stuck around in his studio for a little while. T h a t was when he started to shoot his films, and I was lucky enough, after only a couple of years in the business, and having shot quite a few television com m ercials for him, to do his first films. Has he ever told you w hy he chose you to take you up those steps so quickly?

N o. I was there and all of a sudden there was something to be done. The n e x t thing I knew I was grovelling around shooting something. I guess I never made mistakes, or not too many anyway, and the next thing I knew I was doing features. Perhaps there wasn’t a great deal of choice. You just worked for no money in those days. I guess that had a lot to do with it. Do you have any desire to direct?

I’ve directed television commercials for 2 0 years, but as for directing feature films, no, none whatsoever. I have been offered some, and I could do it, but I’m

Having interviewed DOPs for more

of the lowest on-screen light levels in

what I do now. There is no project that

the world. It makes a lot of films look

I step onto in the world that I don’t feel

murky.

totally at home doing. I wouldn’t like

almost everyone has a favourite stock

the depth of field below that point, and

can manipulate it to look really great. After I’ve churned through a couple of hundred thousand feet o f Vision

than 20 years, it is interesting that

aperture that you have no depth of field. But I believe there is a look on a

you d o n ’t a cce p t the im age on the screen.

it looks like there is nothing on the screen.

totally comfortable and confident with

that you are shooting with such a wide

field for it to look natural. You drop

a cinema where it is a tiny bit down and

it will be like. You just get used to it, and I guess that is why you like it. You

Especially in Australia, which has one

n’t light the scene. The point with super-speed lenses is

screen that requires a certain depth of

at it, I know to a 10th of a stop what

which is just being phased out.

You like what you get used to working with. I’ve shot millions of feet of 98 sto ck and I can stand on a set and know exactly what tone the various parts o f the set are going to be, and what will not expose. Just by looking

I’m a professional cinem atographer, and sometimes I’ll sit in a cinema and go, “What the hell is this about? It’s just too dingy.” A cinem atographer may

to be wading along as some second-

have really finessed a print to be just right in a particular screening room at

the film laboratory, and it comes in to

rate director; I’d rather stick at what I feel very comfortable doing. © L in d s a y A m o s , “ C i n e m a t o g r a p h e r D e a n C u n d e y : R e a l it y B i t e s ” , C in e m a P a p e rs , N o . 1 1 4 , F eb ru ary 1 9 9 7 , p p. 1 8 -2 2 , 4 6 .

Newsfront the director to make the film and not to make half a film.57 Ellis feels that the extra money could have been raised and the severe script cuts were unnecessary: The AFC actually wanted to give them another hundred thousand dollars. E lfick, believing it could not make money if it cost more than five hun dred thousand, refused the money, which was ridiculous.58 Various versions of the Newsfront script survive in the E llis archives at the N ation al D efen ce Force Academy Library in Canberra. The dating of these scripts is problematical, since often an identical cover sheet and list of credits is used for each new version of the script, and the numbering of the new drafts was not systematic. Minor changes occur on these cover sheets, such as the inclusion of Phil N oyce as script editor. Name changes to the production entity - from Voyager Films to Palm Beach Pictures and finally to Palm Beach Pictures Pty Ltd - give some guide to the sequencing of drafts, since Elfick incorporated his production company before making the film. One screenplay even carries the credit “from an original idea by Philippe M ora”59. T o shorten the film, and thus stay within the planned shooting schedule, Noyce began to rewrite Ellis’ material, with E lfick ’s approval. W ell-know n script editor and television writer Moya W ood was hired to help with the edit ing. Wood, although she did not do any actual rew riting60, produced a story analysis which was used to develop the shorter version.61 Noyce wrote a new version with W ood’s advice and assis tance. The shortened version was given to Ellis for comment. Ellis’ reactions to the rewrite are evident in a series of pen cilled comments on almost every page of this draft, comments of which “shit” and “useless” are amongst the kinder epithets used.62 This script in many ways warrants Ellis’ bitter attack. The story line is “boosted” to a heightened sense of action, with terse dialogue which is often clumsy and graceless. Many of the nuances of character and event are lost, and the action is forced along by brusque question and answer dialogue, mixed with gratuitous Am ericanisms. E llis’ comment, “vintage Skippy”6i, appears on a number of scenes, although the handling o f dialogue and ch aracter development (or lack of development) is also reminiscent of Australian televi sion police drama of the time. Noyce’s rewrite was undertaken for a number of reasons, including Elfick’s undisguised frustration with Ellis’ mode of work. Elfick defended the rewrite on the basis that Ellis was taking too long

to complete a draft: “Bob took an enor mous amount of time to write the film [...] because he is very slow at it and he would go off and do other things.”64 Ellis regularly took on more projects than he could complete in an attempt to cover his many financial commitments.6^ Elfick may also have seen it as a way of bring ing Ellis back into line and proving to him that he was not indispensable to the project. Another motivation could have been the need to work out story prob lems w ithout E llis’ in terferen ce, to restructure the project without having to deal w ith the w rite r’s already expressed intransigence towards changes to favourite scenes. In the rewrite, the character interac tions between the two brothers, Len and Frank MacGuire, and their contest for the affections of Amy McKenzie, often seems artificial and the emotional con flicts inconclusive. Scenes develop to near conflict or an emotional resolution of issues, and then cut abruptly. Perhaps some stylistic point about non-commu nication was being made, but it is also possible that these flaws emerged during the script editing process.66 In an impassioned letter to Noyce and Elfick, Ellis lists the losses in the red raft, trying to point out that the essential humour and drama of the script has been destroyed.67 Many of the points raised by Ellis are valid criticisms of this rewrite, and were used by Ellis as a plea that he should be reinstated as the writer. For a time, Ellis was once again back on the project. None of the rewritten scenes was used in further drafts, although the structural changes were retained. One major beneficial effect of this rewrite was that the depiction of the main events was tightened, and a clearer development of the dramatic line was achieved. The losses of this draft were a number of the m ore em otional and engaging scenes, and some of the scrip t’s political fire and commitment. Ellis feels that the script changes made in the final run-up to production were crucial: Elfick and Noyce, by cutting probably only 15 minutes out of it, maybe a bit more, [...] pruned it back to its politi cal backbone and lost a lo t of its sociological flesh.68 Elfick defends the director’s control over the final stages of script development: I had to let Phil shape the material in a way that would be able to be used in the film that he wanted to make. Phil was sticking to the story; he was not re-writing or adding new characters or anything. It is a 110-minute film; that is quite a long film in Australian terms. It’s a tight 110 minutes - it really zips along. It feels like a short film.69 Before the film went into production, with pressing problems of construction and financing, it was clear that more

scenes would have to be cut. Ellis found that further versions were being typed up without his knowledge, and was as upset as he had been when his casting suggestions were ignored. Open warfare developed and Ellis was banned from rehearsals. W hile the film was still in the early stages of production, Ellis drafted a let ter to the AFC, suggesting that Elfick had mismanaged and/or diverted funds for script development, and that Noyce was not qualified to rewrite his material/0 Ellis suggested that the integrity of the film was being destroyed by the efforts of Elfick and Noyce, and threatened to have the film stopped.71 The exchange resulted in a total cessation of commu nication between the two parties and Ellis was banned from the set of the film. The ending that Ellis had written was removed, and another substituted. Ellis feels that the film lost a great deal of its emotional and political strength through this change: There were about three or four scenes to be included at the end: the main characters were sitting fishing, watch ing the Sputnik go over, realizing that it was a new era. Len had got an award and he gave a speech that was based on something Syd Wood had said: “In the 1930s, I was a storeman and packer. I think I had lost my job and I walked down the street and a few hours later I got this job and I am still in it. When I think of the life we lead, and that the things we see, that we are part of, I’m glad I didn’t stay a storem an and packer.” And that was to be the end of the movie. Elfick didn’t like that.72 The finale of N ew sfron t instead con centrates on the effects of television on the newsreel industry, and the conflict betw een the two brothers is finally brought out into the open. Len, upset when he finds that his footage is being mixed with other material to help the newsreel compete with television news coverage, threatens to resign. His brother returns from America and offers him a job co-producing an American series to be shot in Australia. Len types up his resignation letter and walks into a meeting at Cinetone, only to find that the two com peting newsreel com pa nies are amalgamating. He is offered the job of shooting and directing the cover age of the 1 9 5 6 M elbourne Olympic Games. The Games coincide with the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and a waterpolo m atch betw een Russians and Hungarians becomes a bloody brawl. Frank pursues Len and offers him $50,000 for a reel of the film to be used as anti-Soviet propaganda. Len refuses and walks down a tunnel with his cam era on his shoulder. It is an enigm atic ending, and the scene of Len driving past the newsreel cinema, which is being readied to show

a Brigitte Bardot film, was intended to appear much earlier in the film.73 By the time the film was being read ied fo r release, E llis had long been excluded from any involvement, and was waiting to see what had happened to his script. After a preview screening, Elfick co n fro n ted E llis and asked simply whether his name was to be on or off the film. Ellis feels that he was pushed into a hasty decision: Elfick said, “Is your name on it or off?” I said, “O ff.” Had he not said that, it never would have arisen. I stormed out and then I came back with a formula saying “based on the script by Bob Ellis”. But I hadn’t divined the crucial thing, which was that it was a success. I thought it was a failure. It was just one of the silly things that happens in 20 sec onds that lasts a lifetime, and I got a whole reputation out of that which was only partly deserved.74 Elfick was annoyed by Ellis’ behaviour at the preview , w hich he sees as an attempt by Ellis to humiliate him, despite his own e ffo rts to make sure Ellis received due credit for his writing: I had a head credit made up for him [Ellis], W e showed the film like that and we had investors there. It was the first time that we had shown the film, apart from for the production crew. The film finished and Bob got up and said in front of everybody else that it was the worst film that he had ever seen, and the only satisfaction he got was that I would never work in the film industry again [...] w hich was embarrassing for me, because people who had put money in the film were there.7i Elfick nevertheless tried to work out an adequate formula for Ellis’ credit: Phil and I never negated Bob’s contri bution. I could have left him o ff so easily, but I wanted his name there, so I pleaded with his agent to leave his name on because he wrote the script and he deserved the credit for it. Time may have mellowed perceptions of those heated confrontations, but it is still clear that Elfick regards N ew sfront as the director’s film: It doesn’t say “A film by Phil Noyce”, but, to this day, I would be quite happy if it did. It was his film and he made a very good film that I was very pleased to produce.77 After it won a number of AFI awards, Ellis paid fo r advertisem ents in T h e N ational Tim es saying he would accept compliments for N ew sfront.7S Ellis now attributes much of the success of the film to N o y ce’s w ork on the casting and direction of actors, although he has scant regard for N oyce’s visualization, and feels the film would have been better directed by Howard Rubie. Ellis is par ticularly critical of the “look” of the film: C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Noyce never had any visual flair at all, actually. He is very good with perfor m ances; he is very good at sort of creating a kind of muscular energy in the actors. He is good at casting but he is barely a B-grader as a visual direc tor.79 W ith the passing o f the years, Elfick shows him self to be more tolerant of Ellis than the latter is of him: I didn’t hire Bob because he was the wrong writer. He wrote a very good script and he won an AFI award for it. T he bitterness that Bob poured out over the years came from the fact that, from the middle of pre-production to the time that he saw the finished film, he had nothing to do with it. I just did n’t want him near the thing.80 The innovative use of actual footage and the political sub-text won acclaim from contemporary analysts. Anne B. Hutton wrote N ew sfront exists as the most complete cinem atic allegory of the Australian nationalist dilemma [...] The film deals w ith actual p o litical and h istorical events in the use of newsreel footage (and excellent recreations), and the reactions of Cinetone employees to the content of their newsreels becomes the comment upon these events.81 The film’s effectiveness must be attrib uted to the contribution made by Ellis and his advisers, paying due credit to the writer’s sense of history and knowledge o f the Australian Labour movement. This was later to be expanded and given fuller treatment by Ellis in the television series T he True B elievers (1986). As in the case of many Australian feature pro ductions, the critical and financial success of the film did not lead to further col laborations on other projects of equal interest. H ow ever, E lfick is still very proud of the film: I still think it is the best film I have been involved in and the angst was in many ways unnecessary. I think Phil and I always did the right thing, and I think we were given our just desserts by the product we produced. But there was unnecessary tension and pressure put on us.82 Events during the development of Newsfr o n t d em onstrate the basic fa cto rs underlying Australian feature film pro d uction at the tim e. A sm all group, working out of a cottage industry situ ation, developed the project to the point where it could be funded by government funding mechanisms. W ith script fund ing, a lengthy script development process followed, culminating in the offer of prod u ction fin an ce. At this p o in t, the producer assumed full control and began working with the director on final script changes as the project went forward into production. Power therefore lay in the C I N E M A P A P E R S • A P R I I 1997

hands of the director via the empower ing strategies provided by the producer. The final result is the product of a sus tained e ffo rt by the produ cer, using input provided by the writer and direc tor. Such distinctions are largely ignored in the subsequent life of the film, as its successes and shortcomings are discussed in the context of the director’s contri bution. Seen with the perspective of ten years or so, N ew sfron t stands as a creditable effort by first-time producer, director and writer. In its historical settings and in its characterizations, Newsfront seems credible, even if the dramatic exposition is sometimes clumsy and halting. Strat ton wrote of the film in 1979: [ ...it recorded] how Australia during that period gradually eased away from its trad itional ties with B ritain and started to fall more and more under the influence of the US [...] This makes N ew sfront the most political film pro duced in Australia so far, and certainly it’s one o f the b est, w ith ju d iciou s inclusion of original newsreel excerpts and extremely skilful recreation of cer tain events [...] like the M aitland floods.83 The form chosen for N ew sfront and the authenticity invested in it by a well-han dled photographic style and attention to period detail enable it to stand as a major innovation in Australian film making technique.

a s s e s s m e n t, p o s s ib ly b y B o b E llis . E llis a r c h iv e s . 1 9 7 5 .

a r c h iv e s . N o d a t e .

17 O p c it.

54 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

18 O p c it.

55 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

19 T h e W orld at W ar (d o c u m e n t a r y , T h a m e s

56 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

T e le v is io n , 1 9 7 4 ) .

57 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

20 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

58 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

21 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

39 N e w s fr o n t d r a f t it e m . E llis a r c h iv e s . N o

22 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

d a te .

23 B o b E l l i s , i n t e r v i e w in C in e m a P a p e rs, N o. 29, 1980.

D a v id S t r a t t o n , T h e La st N e w W ave: T h e

Australian F ilm Revival, A n g u s & R o b e r t

e n d o f K in g O ’M a lley , c . 1 9 7 4 .

T o S h o o t a M a d D o g ( D a v id E l f i c k , P a lm

M a r y M o o d y , “ P h il N o y c e ” , C in e m a

P apers, N o . 1 4 , O c t o b e r 1 9 7 7 , p . 1 1 3 . 4

B o b E l l i s , in t e r v i e w e d b y a u t h o r , 1 9 9 2 .

N e w s fro n t c o n c e p t d o c u m e n t, E llis a r c h iv e s , N a t i o n a l D e f e n c e F o r c e A c a d

s c r ip t s , c . 1 9 7 2 .

27 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

64 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

28 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 . S e e M o r a ’s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e

63 B o b E l l i s : “ M y p r e s e n t m o r t g a g e p a y

C la r k G a b le - W a ite r P id g e o n film , T o o

m e n ts o f $ 1 5 6 0 a w e e k f o r fifte e n y e a rs

H o t to H a n d le ( J a c k C o n w a y , 1 9 3 8 ) .

h a v e b r o u g h t in t h e i r t r a in a n o m i n o u s

29 N e w s f r o n t s c r e e n p l a y t i t l e p a g e s . E l l i s

o n r u s h in g t r a in o f d e b t, t h a t o f w o r k p a id fo r an d o w ed b u t n o t y et d o n e , an d p e r

a r c h iv e s , c . 1 9 7 5 .

h a p s f o r e v e r o w e d , a s in a b a n k r u p t c y

30 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 . 31 N e w s fr o n t d r a f t o u t l i n e , s i g n e d D a v i d

d e c la r a t io n .” T h e Inessential Ellis, p . 1 9 9 .

E lf ic k a n d B o b E llis . E llis a r c h iv e s , c .

66 L a t e in t h e film L e n c o m e s b a c k t o h is f la t a n d g e ts in t o b e d w it h A m y . H e d is c u s se s

1975. 32 N e w s fro n t d r a f t p r o m o t i o n a l d o c u m e n t ,

t h e lip s , t h e n a s k s , “ A r e y o u a ll r i g h t ? ”

1975.

A m y , h o r iz o n t a l, d o e s n o t a n s w e r a n d t h e

33 N ew sfro n t o u t lin e , E llis a rc h iv e s , c . 1 9 7 5 ,

s c e n e c o n t in u e s in s ile n c e , t h e n c u ts t o a n

j 4 M c F a r l a n e a n d M a y e r , N e w A u stra lia n

e d it in g m a c h i n e s h o w i n g L e n ’s f o o t a g e

C in e m a : S o u rces a n d P arallels in A m e r i c a n a n d B r i t is h C i n e m a , C a m b r i d g e U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , M e lb o u r n e , 1 9 9 2 , p .

35 B o b E l l i s . T e x t o n t i t l e p a g e f o r o n e o f th e d r a f t s c r e e n p la y s . E llis a r c h iv e s , c.

j6 T h i s p h r a s e a p p e a r s o n o n e o f t h e t i t l e p a g e s w it h t h e i n s c r i p t i o n : “ I t is a ls o w e

n e w sre e l m en o f th e d ay , th o s e b u c c a

lit t le a n d h o w th e y liv e d , w o r k e d a n d c o p e d w it h t h e i r a d v e n t u r o u s , w e a r y in g

37 E l l i s ,

1992.

I t is w o r t h

n o tin g

th a t

S c h l e s i n g e r ’s f i l m w a s n o t r e l e a s e d u n t il

1 9 7 5 ) h a d c r e a t e d in t e n s e i n t e r e s t in t h e

175.

A u s t r a lia n in d u s tr y .

R e is z , 1 9 6 7 ) .

n e y , 1 9 8 3 , p p . 1 0 6 - 7 . T h is g iv e s a n

40 B e t t y C o m d e n a n d A d o lp h G r e e n , i n t r o

a c c o u n t o f t h e n e w s r e e l p e r i o d in A u s

d u c tio n t o Singin in the Rain, s c r e e n p la y ,

t r a lia .

V ik in g , N e w Y o r k , 1 9 7 2 , p p . 3 - 4 .

D a v id E l f ic k in te r v ie w e d b y a u t h o r , 1 9 9 4 .

41 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

E lfic k , 1 9 9 4 .

42 S t r a t t o n , 1 9 8 0 , p . 2 0 9 .

10 T h e L a st N e w W ave, p . 2 0 8 .

43 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

11 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

44 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

14 T h e N a t i o n a l T i m e s , J a n u a r y .

E llis

a r c h iv e s . N o d a t e . 15 N e w s fro n t t r e a t m e n t a n d c o n c e p t g u id e , E l l i s a r c h iv e s . 1 9 7 5 . 16 N e w s fr o n t A u s t r a l i a n F i l m C o m m i s s i o n

le tte r

th e

A FC

p o s s ib ly

a d d re s s e d to P e te r M a r t in , w h o w a s a f r ie n d o f E l l i s ’ . E llis a r c h iv e s . 6 S e p t e m b e r, 1 9 7 7 . 72 E llis , 1 9 9 2 . 73 T h e lin e s in t h e e n d s c e n e a r e : F R A N K : H e ’s w a lk in g t o w a r d s t h e

is b e in g p a s t e d u p f o r A n d G o d C r e a te d

W o m a n (E t D ie u C réa . . . l a F e m m e , R o g e r V a d im , 1 9 5 6 ) . A m o n t a g e o f c e l e

s h o t o f L e n a n d h is c a m e r a s u p e r im p o s e d .

76 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 . T h e f i n a l f o r m u l a e v o lv e d re a d s “ a s c r ip t b y P h ilip N o y c e ” (h e a d title ) , “ b a s e d o n a s c r e e n p la y b y B o b E llis ” (e n d r o llu p ) .

/8 E llis , d r a f t a d v e r t is e m e n t . E llis a ls o s e n t a t e le g r a m t o N e w s w e e k a b o u t t h e f i l m ’s

45 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 . 46 P h i l l i p N o y c e , i n t e r v i e w

io n e d , t h a t ’s a ll. L e n d r iv e s p a s t t h e c in e m a w h e r e a p o s t e r

77 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

c r e d it s , w h ic h w a s n o t p u b lis h e d . E llis in C in e m a

a r c h iv e s . N o d a t e . 79 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

47 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

80 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

48 K e n G . H a l l , A u stra lia n F i lm : T h e In sid e

81 A n n e B . H u t t o n , “ N a t i o n a l i s m in A u s

S to ry , p . 1 6 7 .

f r o m t h e M o v i e t o n e a r c h iv e .

71 E l l i s ,

75 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

P apers, N o . 1 4 , 1 9 7 7 .

F o o t a g e in th is s e r ie s m a y h a v e c o m e

69 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 . 70 E l l i s , u n p u b lis h e d l e t t e r . E l l i s a r c h iv e s .

74 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

39 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

13 A Y e a r T o R e m e m b e r (S y d W o o d , 1 9 8 9 ) .

E llis

b r a t e d n e w s r e e l m o m e n t s f o llo w s , w it h a

38 F o r e x a m p l e , T h is S p o rt in g L i fe ( K a r e l

A ngu s & R o b e rts o n -C u rre n c y P ress, S y d

to b e in c o m p le te .

le tte r .

A M Y ( a p p r o v in g ly ) : H e ’s ju s t o ld f a s h

S to ry , S u m m i t B o o k s , S y d n e y , 1 9 7 7 , p .

a r c h iv e s , c . 1 9 7 5 . T h e d o c u m e n t a p p e a r s

u n p u b lis h e d

e d g e o f a p r e c i p i c e w it h h is e y e s c lo s e d .

t r a d e .”

1 9 7 9 , w h e r e a s th e s p ra w lin g n a r r a tiv e

E llis

E llis ,

a r c h iv e s . N o d a te .

N o d a te .

e x p e r i m e n t N a s h v ille ( R o b e r t A l t m a n ,

12 N e w s f r o n t c o n c e p t d o c u m e n t .

o f a b u s h f ir e .

67 B o b

68 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

194.

K e n G . H a l l , A u stra lia n F i lm : T h e In sid e

tra lia n C in e m a : T h e F irs t E ig h ty Y ea rs,

h is p r o b l e m s a t w o r k a n d k is s e s h e r o n

p r o b a b ly b y B o b E llis , E llis a r c h iv e s , c.

em y, C a n b e rra , c. 1 9 7 5 .

G ra h a m S h irle y a n d B r ia n A d a m s, A u s

62 N e w s fro n t d r a f t it e m . E llis a r c h iv e s . 63 S k ip p y . M o y a W o o d w r o t e m a n y o f t h e

R o b e rtso n , Sy d n ey , 1 9 9 2 , p. 1 1 9 . 26 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

n e e r s o n m o r tg a g e s o f w h ic h w e k n o w so

B e a c h P ic tu r e s , 1 9 7 6 ) .

61 M o y a W o o d d o c u m e n t. E llis a rc h iv e s . N o d a te .

25 B o b E llis , T h e Inessential Ellis, A n g u s a n d

h o p e , a tr u e a n d lo v in g p ic tu r e o f th e

so n , Sydney, 1 9 8 0 , pp. 2 0 7 -8 .

60 M o y a W o o d , t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n w it h a u t h o r , 1 9 9 5 .

24 B o b E l l i s a n d M i c h a e l B o d d y , T h e L e g

1975. 1

33 D a v i d E l f i c k . L e t t e r t o B o b E l l i s . E l l i s

49 A u stra lia n F i l m : T h e In sid e Story, o p c i t ,

p. 167. 50 E llis , 1 9 9 2 .

t r a lia n C i n e m a ” , C in em a P apers, N o . 2 6 , A p r il- M a y 1 9 8 0 , p . 9 6 . 82 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 . 83 D a v i d S t r a t t o n , i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i l m

31 E l f i c k , 1 9 9 4 .

G u id e 1 9 7 9 , P e t e r C o w ie ( E d .) , T h e T a n

52 E l l i s , 1 9 9 2 .

tiv y P r e s s , L o n d o n , 1 9 8 0 .

WHEN

I N S P I R A T I ON

l \

/ h

AVID® m e d i a

i l l u s i o n AVID is a registered trademark and M EDIA ILLU SIO N is a trademark of Avid Technology, Inc. Image © 19 9 6 ChiselVision.

new m edia

[u l(y o ü ^ s Tex

opportunist who ma^ » %.&óore,ifí

Jd :s t y í e 7 ^ i

racing ; | | j f f n o st % y j : life. Ú the lM jswell,. W

®'í»

MI som«

IC f m

>xwr¿Hftl

I i y M chóicesj ■M i JK J'

offers a'« to helj>vyí

The Interactive Movie is Dead ... Long Live the Interactive Movie Fred Harden examines Adrian Carr's interactive career Interactivity is gam es - h ow hard is that to figure. E verybody said, “Y ou ’re going to have to have interactive movies. ” You d o n ’t h av e to h av e interactiv e m ovies. There’s gam es and there’s movies. M ovies a re sto ry tellin g ; y o u te ll s o m e b o d y a story. A g am e is interactive; you partic ipate in som e kin d o f an event with a lot o f o t h e r p e o p le o r y o u rself, o r w ith a m achine. T hose are tw o different things, a n d th ey ’ve been around forever. - George Lucas, W ired 5, 2 February 1997 hen Australian editor-direc to r A drian C arr first flew into Salt Lake City in early 1 9 9 5 , the only interest he had in com puter games was to hitch a ride on the still-hot trend of turning hit games into movies. Film s like S u p er M ario B ros. (Rocky Morton, 1993) and M ortal K om b at (Paul Anderson, 1995), while hardly the success of their game cartridge name sakes, had a form ula that Hollywood was interested in mining further. In his briefcase, C arr had a script based on the Utah company Access Soft ware’s Under a Killing M oon, at the time considered an innovative twist on the standard adventure game format. The latest in the series of games from Access, it again featured T ex Murphy, a classic hard-drinking gumshoe. The CD-ROM based game had a great storyline and a

clever user interface, but was uniformly panned for the acting in its live action sequences. W hen Carr sat down to talk to Chris Jones, the managing director of Access (who has played the part of and is the players’ guiding off-screen voice as T e x M urphy in all the games), he must have impressed him. Three days later, Carr was directing the movie sequences for a new Tex Mur phy adventure, T he P andora D irective, juggling an interactive movie script with multiple plot lines, a cast of middle-

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

weight and cult B-movie actors, with a virtual set that only existed in a com puter, in a small bluescreen studio on the airport flightpath. That he did it well you only need to look at the game and read the pages of awards that the game has received from PC games magazines, as tough and critical an audience as they

come. In its first three months of release, it had sold 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 copies in the U.S. alone and has been nominated for two Codie Awards, the multimedia games equivalent of the Academy’s Oscars. T h e P a n d o ra D irec tiv e w orks as a challenging computer adventure game, with clues to find and puzzles to solve. The player’s persona is T e x Murphy, who begins searching for a missing per son and becomes involved in a cover-up of the much-rumoured UFO crash at the Roswell military base. Along the way, there’s Mayan history, a few murders and rom antic interests (T e x ’s history of relationships with women hasn’t been good). It also has a lot of cleverly-staged movie scenes that work on the level of en terta in m en t, adding to ch a ra cter development in a way that com puter generated characters, no m atter how well animated, cannot do yet. Adrian Carr came to his craft, as many good film directors do, from being a suc cessful film editor. I worked with him briefly at Fred Schepisi’s The Film House in M elbourne. He worked on a string of Australian features such as the original T h e M an fr o m S n ow y R iv er (G eorge Miller, 1982), moved on to second-unit directing and finally into directing fea tures. Originally from M elbourne, he now lives in Los Angeles with his wife Rosemary, and, although he loves work ing in H ollyw ood, says he pines

sometimes for their house set in 29 acres of rainforest at Kuranda in Queensland. Adrian doesn’t see the move from editing to d irecting as one way. As I talked with him last, he was completing a promo, which he designed and edited, for Cinergi’s upcoming movie, An Alan Smithee Film , starring Sylvester Stallone, W hoopi Goldberg, Jack ie Chan, Eric Idle, Ryan O ’N eal, et al. As you read this, he will be heading back to Utah to direct the next T ex Murphy game for Access. Along with the talent, there’s some lovely serendipity in much o f C arr’s career. That his skills as an editor have helped him through times when other directors might have floundered is obvi ous. We started the following interview, which took place by phone, fax and em ail, on just such a point. T h e other details have been filled in from Adrian’s CV and the supporting reviews that piled feet-deep under my fax machine. Before w e talk about Pandora, I noticed that you'd worked as a director on M ighty Morphin Power Rangers [television]. That's a true case of some thing being so bad it's good, ft has become a pop classic. For the record, how did that happen?

My agent represented a writer who hap pened to be one of the writers on the show and knew they were looking for directors. He put my name forward and,

new m edia

after numerous meetings and telephone calls to check up on my credentials, Saban finally hired me. As you know, the show was originally purchased from Japan by Saban. As half of each show had the Rangers in full costume, it was impossible to see their faces and it was this footage that Saban retained. They replaced the bal ance o f the show w ith A m erican live-action shot here, and wrote new stories in order to marry the two halves together - a nightmare. T h ere are many directors on the show and each director is given four episodes to shoot in eleven days. Con sequently, you could find yourself

often include up to 65 set-ups a day a gruelling pace for any crew, but one which my group coped with admirably. I only shot one cluster for Saban, as I was called away to scout a location in Chile for a film entitled The C old Ju n gle, which I have been asked to direct by producer Robert Watts [Star Wars, Indiana Jon es, Alive]. You've said that you weren't a com puter game player. I'm not big on computer games, but I'm fascinated by a popular phenomenon that pushes along some of the best of multimedia. Preparing for this, I dutifully wasted days playing Pandora. I wanted to see how the interface worked and how the live-action was integrated. Compared to the awkwardness of the live-action in Under a Killing Moon, it seemed a big leap forward.

shooting scenes from different episodes on the same day, a scheduling night mare for the production manager and a logistic nightmare for the director. The young actors were keen but green, so I also found myself helping out [by] coaching on the side. W hen I started on the show, it had not yet been picked up by the netw ork, but Saban was apparently so im pressed by my episodes that he chose one to sell the series on. Fox picked it up and the rest is history. Having set the tone of the show with my pilot episode, I also found I had set the pace o f shootin g w hich would

They got slammed for that by most of the reviewers of the game. They liked the game play but not the acting. I don’t know how Chris Jones did it. I was run ragged. How he did it, work ing as a director, and lead actor, and running a company of 120-plus games developers as executive vice-president of Access Softw are, I d on ’t know. Obviously, he was sensitive to the crit icism and, when the time came to do The Pandora D irective with a budget that was up to $US 4 million, he called in some help. Chris Jones sounds fascinating. He also wrote and developed the plot lines and puzzles, and you said he was a real film buff.

W hen I met him, Chris said that on weekends he’d get into the studio with friends and rehearse and shoot scenes on video. They’d make their own ver sions o f film noir classics. The T e x character emerged from all that; these

were the stories they all loved. In the next one, we’ll go even further into that film noir area. The suburb address of Access has a wonderful name. Bountiful, and of course Salt Lake City is the home o C " the Mormon Church. Are the people at Access Software Mormons?

About 96 percent of them. It made it very interesting when Tex had to drink c o ffe e, toss down a bourbon and smoke. Chris would say, “W e don’t have to light the cigarette, we’ll digi tally put the smoke in” and I had to say, “Look, you can’t animate smoke! If you do make it work, your elders will see it and think you’re smoking anyway! So, why don’t you, for the purposes of the game, as Tex Murphy, smoke a cigarette.” By the end of it, Chris would say that after a few puffs in the morning he could see how peo ple got used to it. I hope we haven’t created a closet smoker! We were very conscious of it all the time. Similarly, we paid a lot of attention to our material and our general audi ence rating system. [In Australia, the game is rated by the Office of Film and Literature Classification “Mature: for 15 years and over with Medium level violence and adult themes”.]

Playing the Game In many ways, The Pandora Directive is a modern-day morality play. Set in the near future of 2 0 4 3 , it’s just futuristic enough for videophones and post-apoc alyptic enough for them not to work. The strange unreality given to the stag ing that comes from all the sets’ being computer-generated works to enhance this. Some are more realistic than others but, by using just the mouse, the player can move around quickly in totally fluid

3D environm ents. T h e liv e-actio n sequences, with actors matted into these 3D backgrounds, take over for short dra matic moments that you can precipitate, but not control. The rest of the time, in standard adventure gaming fashion, you choose from a menu of responses as to how you interact with the on-screen character, and what you do next. There are three main paths to the story that lead to one of seven differ ent endings. The first of the paths is described by the developers as “Mission Street”, where, if you are thoughtful and kind and choose the high road, you’ll get the girl and solve the m ystery. Carr describes this as the “do-gooder path”. T h en th e re ’s “Lom bard S tre e t”, where you stay neutral and perhaps a lit tle naïve. This was named after the twist and turns of the famous street in San Francisco. This path offers moral and ethical tests, such as when the totallybroke Tex finds an envelope with money in it. Should he keep it or return it? What he does will change the outcome later in the game. The final path is the “Boulevard of Broken Dreams”, where, if you choose to be antagonistic and selfish, you suffer the consequences, just as in real life. Peo ple and friends die and the game becomes much darker in mood. T o exam ine it all could take an accomplished game player 70 hours to explore, most of us much longer. It’s a big game, packed into 6 C D -R O M s, which means that there’s lots of swap ping them during the game.

Building Paths How do you feel interactivity changes storytelling?

When you sit down to write a feature film screenplay, you make a choice C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

Winning Post Film Editors 02 9439 4366

new m edia

about how you’ll take a character. You may try different ones but you have to decide on a linear path down which you direct the audience. In an inter active gam e, you can have all the paths, take the character down a dark side or try it as a lighter approach in the same story. If you’ve ever written dram a, you know that h alf way through you can decide, “I’ll kill this character off.” Someone else reading the script will often say, “Why did you do that? I liked them !” Now if you had the freedom to make a movie that was a comedy, remake it with a dark side and do a version that was a mix of both, then you’d have something like what Access has come up with. How did you keep track of the interactive branching sequences? Was it hard for the actors, as well?

I think it was my editor’s skills that helped me get through; it’s not for every director. You need a mix of being a technical director and an a c to r’s director. It gets very, very complicated. Sometimes when you are going down a path with high emotions, you have to shoot those scenes out, let the actor unwind, then go back and shoot the alternatives. Otherwise, your actors would be up and down like yoyos. As a director, did you think about the difference between the one-to-one experience of just me a foot away from my computer monitor. It is very different to the family watching the television, or to an audience in the cinema.

W e tried always to engage you as a one-to-one player. We worked hard to involve you with the actor’s perfor mance. There will be something in the next game that - and I can’t talk about it yet - will touch on just that experi ence. We were going to do it with this game but we decided to w ait until DVD [Digital Video Disc] came out. Okay, let's talk about the technology. You w ere shooting on video?

Pandora was shot on Betacam SP. To shoot Pandora as a feature film would have cost probably $ 3 0 m illion. There’s not one live set in any of the game. O ther than for a few action props, all the staging is computer-gen erated. T h e biggest lim itation to quality I found was the reduced colour palette. The next game will be in thou sands o f colou rs, n ot in 2 5 6 ! W e stayed at 10 frames a second and it’s not really evident other than on the high-speed action scenes. The successful W ing Commander series are probably A ccess’ biggest com petitor. They use a system that runs at a higher frame rate by drop ping frame lines, like interlacing. The image is poorer but the action is good. In the next game, we are hoping for a

real-time frame rate for dialogue and to still be full-frame. Access has a cus tom ized com pression engine that allows almost full-motion video off a standard C D -R O M . T his has kept them ahead and they’ve improved it even further for the next game. If they do the game in DVD, the market dic tates that there will probably still be a dual release as a standard CD-ROM . Your stage apparently left a bit to be desired?

I was surprised at first by the position of Access because it was near the airport. The studio wasn’t sound-proofed but it really was only a problem between 10am and 2pm if the wind carried the noise our way. However, they’ve just completed a new runway and it’s no more than a quarter of a mile away and in a direct path over the studio, so that will be interesting next time. The blue-screen stage is only about 20 x 2 0 ft by about the same height, and, when you look at the game and the expansive feel of it, even I ’m amazed how it came off. N ext time I’m going to be able to use a moving camera and I’ll have much more pre cision, so it will be even better. Did you have a video-split that showed the composite image of actors and set?

We started out working with the com puter backgrounds and keying the actors over the top. After about two hours, I said, “Forget this, guys. I’ll shoot it and you can match the sets to the action.” Once I understood how the 3D set worked I didn’t have to w ork with restricted angles. I had complete flexibility, just like on a real set. Once we gave them our lens width and heights, the computer artists could match it. We measured out the floor so that we had an idea of the right space, so that if the actors had to walk around a desk they w ouldn’t walk through it. Once we got going, the amount of set-ups and pages we shot a day was amazing. One of the interesting phenomena for me was having the set in a com puter. It was better when I started to understand how the grid w orked. They told me I had complete freedom where I put the camera, even 15 feet up in the air. They positioned a little icon on screen and, bingo, there was the set from that angle. That was still hard because you couldn’t see it while shooting. Matching the lighting was difficult, as well. I brought some props in, like the blinds and physical lighting things that you see in the promotional shots. They then matched computer-gener ated lights to them later. Not knowing how I worked as a film maker made it hard at first, because on a real set I’d be able to use a flyaway

wall to film from a position that you normally couldn’t. They said, “You can’t do that in a computer. If the lens is positioned inside a wall, that’s all you see.” I asked if we could get around that just for the movie scenes by delet ing a wall from the model, just while we filmed the scene, and then they could restore the computer model. It worked out just like a real set. Did you do a conventional edit of the takes?

I sat home with a tim e-coded VHS tape and logged it all on a computer, faxed it through to Utah and they did a compile based on my code numbers. T h ey sent me a rough edit th at I revised and, after those changes, I sat down again with the editor. For not being able to be there all the tim e, we found that was pretty efficient. W e did a com pile for each of the paths, dropping in some com m on shots, but little things that were dif ferent happened in each one, and that gave those scenes a whole new mean ing to each path. I t ’s fun enough playing the one path, but those peo ple who go through the game, and then choose another, discover new meanings. W hat other changes can w e expect on the next Tex Murphy?

The next game will be a revolution on what we did in Pandora. W e’ve been w orking on it fo r around eight months. It takes about a year to turn around a game. They play a lot of golf at Access, and the company’s big money-maker is a golf game. They were just ready to release a new Links game and all the Silicon Graphics computing power was being used up on that. But next time w e’ll be able to do a lot more high-end 3D rendering. So, the game will look different. N ext time, we’ll also be able to do more things like out-of-focus back grounds, and be able to marry camera focal lengths to the background images better, blurring the point where you can tell if it’s real or if it has come from a computer. It must be a good feeling to be w ork ing on a cutting edge?

I fell into the cream company. When I came to Access, I had to do basic training to understand even what a CD -RO M could do. That was really only a day’s preparation before start ing. People have asked me would I do interactive movies for other people, and I have to say I d on’t know . It would depend on the people and on the script. But I really enjoyed work ing with these guys. W e only had a crew of 8 to 10 people on any major day, so it became very family-oriented.

Brief Multimedia Filmography | | f | | | P andora D irec tive - ’^ c W is s Software?-] ' , Tidjtecfoq • TELEVISION The M ig h ty M o rp hin P o w e r R a n g e rs -

Sgiban Entertainment (director cf pilot a||l|ii|st 3 ppisol!® i)i§ TELEVISION-AUSTRALtftV: ^ f h e f a r C o u n try -

( ® ||§ ; fSr S o c i^ A w a id jfo r-J q itin f)^ Crawford m M o m ic id e -

FEATURffilLMS

|r ||? e S w o rd o m p s n m b - A tfg u ^ ii . E n te M m m e m i M M t M ) Perm anent Stays

G (^ fe ia r(S \C S foqBpst Shol&D ra ma)f L ’ Q uigley

director; ADR Director; Goldil^R^ejA w Ire 33est Sound R o u n d m e m e n d '^ M Ik m s tilw j m e tW ¡¡gagr

(2nd |un;itd ire cto | | | |

The marijjjjfom S n o w y R iver } /pSst-producdoh1st|^^ ^ O T ii^ The Ligdthorsem en (|ost-preduclon supeffi^;|ic(i|AFI Awards H ifest Im u s ic B S o ^ ^ B D.A.R. Y.L. - Param ouniffaitor-f y-

post-production supftyifor) H a rle q u in - Anthony I. Ginnane (editor-

post-production supervisor; SammyiAward Best Sound||FI Nomination - Best Editing) D a rk A g e - R K il(editor-2nd-iS dire ¥ ^ ^ B Thirteenth F lo o r - Broadstar E n te rta ilm ||tl'

(director (additionaTscenes) - co-editor) P riso ners -F o x (e dito r-2nd - uTiit director-

post-production supervisor) The S p id e rs -S h o rt Film 0 r||id s ta r/S '

(director-writer) Crocodile D u n d e e - P aram our® D R editor^; The A v ia to r - MGM (supervising editor) The D angerous - WestsideStudios (editor) U n v e ile d -< 3 \\v a r Productiohfjjjfditor)

They know my habits and I know theirs. I respect them and there’s no ego between us. Chris is the origina tor of the game and he handed the reins over to a total stranger. Along with the new Tex Murphy adven ture, Carr has another DVD interactive movie game to direct, scheduled for shooting in O ctober with a “very big name cast” and he is working on a num ber of feature film projects. If you’d like to talk further with him about his work or interactive movie-making, e-mail him at Tallorders@AOL.com Access Software has a web site with full details of its games at http ://www. accesssoftware, com . There are screen shots, downloadable movie trailers and a nice short pop clip, “T e x ’s Lam ent”, per formed by Richie Havens. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

For producers & directors who want it all. A complete post production facility with off-line suites from $200 per day. Avid & D/Vision. On line component suite with graphics station. Dubbing facilities. Shotlister with frED. 3 Studio sound complex. Parking. Call Barbara Waters at Winning Post Productions Level 2, 174 Willoughby Rd, Crows Nest, NSW 2065. Phone 02.9439 4366 Fax 02.9437 4871 winpost@ozemail. com.au

a me

serious

M o s t o f th e b e s t o f w h a t y o u see on

B u t t h is is o n ly t h e b e g in n i n g .

L e t 's

C o n ta c t F u tu re

â&#x20AC;&#x17E; ^

Â§

R e a l i t y . A u s t r a l ia

t e le v is io n , in

t a lk a b o u t t h e

a n d N e w Z e a la n d 's

c in e m a s o r e v e n o n

f u t u r e o f v is u a l

le a d in g d is t r i b u t o r

t h e w e b , in g a m e s

m e d ia c r e a t io n .

o f D is c r e e t L o g ic ,

â&#x20AC;˘

a n d in t e r a c t iv e s h a s

A lia s l W a v e f r o n t ,

b e e n c re a te d w it h

U S A n im a t io n ,

t h e s e r io u s ly h o t

S ilic o n G r a p h i c s

com bo of

a n d M in e r v a M P E G

S y d n e y (0 2 ) 9 9 0 6 5 4 5 5

D is c r e e t L o g ic

C o m p r e s s i o n is t .

A u c k la n d (0 9 ) 2 9 4 9 1 2 7

s o f t w a r e w it h S ilic o n G r a p h ic s h a rd w a re .

f u t u r e

re a lity

M e lb o u r n e (0 3 ) 9 8 7 6 8 3 5 5

E m a il i n f o @ f u t u r e , c o m . a u w w w ,f u t u r e ,c o m .a u

te ch n ica litie s

Rushes Beautiful one day, two stops under the next: Barry Smith reports on serious grumblings from the camera department about the practice o f rushes on VHS. aah, those were the days: shoot one day, see rushes n ext morning, in the the atre, on 35mm . Yes, the th eatre. M o st film studios in M el bourne and Sydney, even Brisbane, had a th e a tre , w ith p retty good 16 and 35m m projection. And only the direc tor, DOP and key crew were invited to see the previous day’s work. Today, there are virtually no stu dios any m ore. E verybod y’s gone freelance. So has the gear: hire it, don’t buy it. And rushes? The director, DOP and key crew still see rushes - now they arrive on set neatly transferred onto a V H S cassette. And, d em ocratically , everybody gets to see them: the client, the caterer, talent, the whole gang. So, aside from the to tality of the viewing audience, what’s wrong with VHS rushes derived from a 35mm Eastmancolor negative? A ccord ing to quite a num ber of DOPs, “heaps”.

Hazards Shooting in 35mm is not a matter to be taken lightly. Everything costs. Hire an Arri 535 and you reach $2,0 0 0 -5 3 ,0 0 0 a day, while DOPs now command nearly $ 2 , 000 .

You might shoot 3,000 feet of 35mm in a day. Processing? About $800. Like a rushes print? $1,9 0 0 . “Ooooh, don’t know about the rush print. Let’s get a VHS transfer.” So it goes. You shoot a big job, next day you see rushes - run from a $10 roll o f 1/2 inch VHS tape, shown with a $ 400 V CR deck, on a $600 television. That’s the way it is these days. And not only with commercials. Some docu mentary and even feature cameramen now suffer the indignity and hazards of seeing their carefully-shot footage eval uated on a sm all, p h o sp h or-coated screen ... with an audience looking on. Checking around with some DOPs, the mood is not good.

There was actually no intervention between what you shot and what you saw. But what’s happening now is you get someone doing their job as well as they can at 5 :3 0 in the morning in some post-house, whacking up a roll of neg and just sort of cranking up whatever they feel like they should have. It’s generally too bright and generally not contrasty enough, I find. Som e times you might be lucky enough to get an actual grader doing it, but I think it’s actually given to trainee people to do lots of the time. W hat DOPs get on their VHS dub is mostly a one-light grade, but, as Phillips says, it’s “their” light. And often they w ork on the first fram e they com e across, which may not be how things develop during the day. So, you just get one “lo o k ” to the w hole thing. Phillips: They don’t tell you what they’re doing because they don’t really have any idea. There’s just those little wheels you spin around. As far as I can work out, there are no empirical numbers that they can write down to say that they’ve done this or this. It’s just basically how it looks. The look can vary day to day, and from operator to operator. In a worst-case sce nario, the DOP might be shooting the same set-up three days running and experience this variation. Phillips:

Gary Phillips has been around for long enough to realize there are only two life lines when it comes to knowing where the hell you are on a sh o o t: the lab report and a good rushes screening. In the old days, Phillips wistfully recalls, you expected and got a one-light rush print from your previous day’s efforts: C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1 997

Phillips is also critical of the quality of neg reports ... when he gets them.

Blow-up The situation is not a happy one, and A ustralian DO Ps share it with their counterparts in the U.S. and the UK. Phillips: I have heard stories where it is hap pening in feature films, too. People have been caught out where they keep getting bright rushes and stopping down. At the end, when they go for the film grade, there’s hardly anything left! One grader finally admitted, “Sorry, I can’t bring this back any more, mate.”

Eye in Residence Ross Wood Studios, probably the last of the old-time studios, founded by Ross W ood Sr, survived for more than 20 years, mostly because of the skills of its m ulti-talented, on-staff crew and (by today’s standards) complete equipment inventory. Wood could do almost every thing in television commercials, and beat

And you’re looking at it on a [VCR/TV] machine on set which can be set up in any way as well. So, you sit there and play with it for a while and adjust it as best as you can. Examples?

On one job, the first day’s rushes came back and they were very light. I thought I might stop down a bit more. So, I stopped down half a stop the next day. Then, when we went to the final grade, it was a little bit under, because the guy had cranked it up in the first thing. There’s no consistency; no base. W hy isn't 35mm screening still

Your stop, their light

T h ere’s no changes or anything like that. Plus, what I also don’t like about this new system is you often don’t get the day’s rushes until m id-m orning or lunchtime the next day. M aybe you want to match something. You just don’t get it.

practical?

I think it’s the cost of the workprint. W e used to use the M oviola on set, which is perfect. That was generally a constant little beast. A little M oviola on wheels: I would prefer that. It’s a constant light. You’d have the same machine for the whole job. So, you can judge from that.

DOP and his crew have to assess a day’s shoot. He recalled that VHS rushes have been around “at least a couple of years”, but adds: B efore the to tal dem ise o f Ross W ood’s, we would always quote in to make a print. But, then, even that got down to agencies saying they weren’t prepared to pay for workprint and all that. So, it just goes straight from neg to tape. Is cost a factor?

Cost? Oh, I wouldn’t think so. But it is more convenient for editors because, with their systems, they just strike off an SP tape and whack it straight into the machine. Many use off-line and on line systems now. Is it difficult to judge from VHS?

Well, thank God, I’ve had the experi ence. You end up knowing what you want. You see your VHS rushes and it really isn’t there, but you know down deep that you have achieved it and you will be able to pull it back when you get to the grading session. Misleading?

Yes, when I first was involved in it [see ing V H S], p articu larly away on location. They’d send down the tape rushes and you’d see it and you’ d think, “Oh, G od .” And you’d get so depressed, hit the bottle, and have a hangover the next day. I just feel sorry for the young guys that are coming through. We used to take the old Moviola on location. But it’s just not on today. I would doubt that the labs print that many rushes at all these days. Even a lot of the mini-features: they’re all negto-tape transfer.

Help from VAD?

most of the opposition on price. And he had a 35mm theatrette, in which rushes screenings would be made. The shoot would take place one day, while the rushes could be seen any time after 6am the next morning. Problems or touch-ups in the lighting plan, or even hasty re-shoots, would be triggered by the all-important 35mm rushes. Graham Lind was, until the studio folded, the ‘eye in residence’ at the stu dio. Today, with bigger all-freelance crews and bigger budgets, low-cost VHS rushes remain as the only reference the

A development from two Sydney techni cians - Alan Hansen (form erly of O m nicon and now at Fram e, Set & Match) and Peter Simpson (Frame, Set & Match) - may ease the situation. Video Aim Density or VAD, as Hansen explains, is a video standard similar to what a lab uses for processing film around the world - like China girl. W e’ve been able to fit the entire contrast range of cinematography and film into the video system and lock it o ff so that, on a series, for example, Day One will look exactly like Day 25 or Day 100. In other words, the cameramen actu ally shoot their own charts, kind of like

a grey scale but a bit m ore. W e can supply them with the special chart or they can actually make up their own. It’s very simple to do: the chart has 90 percent white, 18 percent grey and 100 percent black. So, it’s not a Dmin situ ation. They shoot that chart on whatever film th ey ’re using - and need onlyshoot it once. What we do is lock it off in the system and, each day on the telecine if anything changes, it’s picked up straight away. So, even a one-third stop in exposure can be easily detected. The chart is shot in the normal man ner th at the cam eram an lights 18 percent grey, so it’s in normal light. They could shoot it [on a series] when make-up tests are done. They should shoot the chart for each different stock. There has to be one for each stock used on the production. It doesn’t m atter w hether the chart is shot in tungsten or daylight, as long as it is exposed the way they would nor m ally read a m eter and w ith the appropriate filtratio n . O nce those boundaries are set, the only person that would change them would be the cam eraman. The idea is that you take the artistic evaluation away from the telecin e operator and make him or her a tech nical assistant to the cameraman, until such time as he or she’s required to grade. The trouble with the industry is that people are being “artistic” on the rushes, whereas rushes are a technical thing. W e’re trying to get away from that, so that it’s just like in a lab where the cameraman’s got a one-light set-up and can technically see where he is each day. And he has the option to correct it if, for example, he decides to shoot without the 85 filter because he lost light or whatever. As long as he reports it to us and says, “I know for a fact that it will be blue, correct it out, it’s O K.” That’s fine by us. Or, he can do things like in tentionally under-expose or over-expose and see the results of it as it should be. There’s six different systems on the market at the moment. Ours is one of the six. W hat w e’ve discussed with people like Graham Lind was how they wanted to address the problem. The approach would seem to be sensi ble and workable. How ever, Hansen admits: VHS would be the most undesirable format on which to see your rushes. A m inim um of B etacam SP would be preferable. In spite of this, he believes two things should go on the VHS: W e discussed putting the chart onto the VHS rushes tape. Also, each day we would use the framing and focus

leader that was shot originally with the grey chart test. This would be actually looped each day onto the head of the tape, so the camera crew can always know if they’re out of focus or if the telecine chain is out. This would be a g reat help when the sh oo tin g uses exaggerated diffusion that would look soft on the screen anyway. These are things that make sense in the industry, but aren’t happening. W e’ve had this situation for about six years. W e ’ve actually used it a few times. One time was the Bryan Brown project for Channel Nine - T w isted T ales - and we got a letter of recom mendation from James Bartel, who was the DOP on that. He thought it was fantastic and highly recommended it. In conjunction with Kodak and the ACS, what we want to do is establish with all the cameramen what system they would like to use. We think ours is the best because it’s sim ple. But whatever they’d like to do is fine. The days of 35m m rushes projection may have already slipped away, but at least some heavy thinking is being applied to its replacement by the ‘unde sira b le ’ V H S. Could the cam era department ever hope for on-set Betacam SP replay, or even one of the new low-cost digital formats? ©

NEWS All Seven Academy Award Motion Picture Finalists Use Dis creet Logic Technology to Create Champion Visual Effects Discreet Logic, a leading developer of visual effects, editing and broadcast production tools, has announced that its effects products were used by digi tal artists in all seven of the finalists selected for the Academy of M o tio n Picture Arts and Sciences Oscars® Best Achievement in Visual Effects category. The final three nominations in this cat egory are T w ister, D ra g o n H ea rt and In d ep en d en ce D ay. Leading visual-effects artists used D iscreet L ogic’s FLAME™ , FLINT™ and INFERNO™ digital-effects systems in each of the seven films selected as fin a lists, w hich also inclu ded M ars A ttacks!, T he N utty P rofessor, M ission Im possible and Star Trek: First Contact. Richard Szalwinski, President and CEO of Discreet Logic, said: On behalf of Discreet Logic, we con gratulate all of the visual artists and facilities w hose w ork and talen t is being recognized by the Academy. We constantly strive to provide the digi tal to o ls necessary fo r visual innovators to expand the realms of realism . It is a com p lim en t to our efforts that Discreet Logic systems are consistently chosen to express such creativity and vision. In T w ister, an Amblin Entertainm ent

production, the crew relied on digital illusions created by the team at Indus trial Light & M agic. Je ff D oran used Discreet Logic’s FLIN T extensively to “change the w ea th er” and to create what is arguably the film’s most spec tacular scene. As two “storm chasers”, played by Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton, attem p t to get clo ser to one o f the larg est tw isters, a fu ll-size tan k er emerges from the dervish and hurtles tow ard the cou p le. T o achieve this effect, a full-scale model of a tanker, weighing in excess of 1 5 ,0 0 0 pounds [6,800kg], was suspended from a crane and swung directly at the actors. The sh o t to o k p lace on a sunny day, so F L IN T was used to take away the shadow of the tanker flying overhead, darken the sky and add all the flying debris. In the Universal production, D rag onH eart, Industrial Light & Magic used D iscre e t L og ic tech n o lo g y to bring the 18-foot [5.5m] high, 43-foot [13m] long digitally-created dragon, Draco, to life. The creature was digitally com p osited in to m edieval scen ery and sequences involving live actors. In the Twentieth Century Fox fea ture film , In d e p en d en c e D ay , Pacific Ocean Post’s team of visual effects wiz ards used Discreet Logic’s IN FERN O to create unbridled mayhem, providing a staggering 3 5 0 visual-effects shots in 144 minutes. In the “Wall of Destruction”, a 10minute sequence where the aliens begin burning cities, IN FERN O was used to attach flam es to the d estroy er, and make the fire look thick and dangerous in appearance. On top of that, 10 to 12 different layers of debris, model cars, trucks and blue-screen elements of peo ple running, were used. Pablo Helman, Pacific Ocean Post’s digital compositing supervisor on In d e pen d en ce D ay, recalled: W e did so m uch e ffe cts-in te n siv e work on In d ep en d en ce D ay that we simply could not have done without D iscre e t L og ic tech n o lo g y . W ith IN FE R N O and FLA M E, we had so many different ways to approach pro jects. We were always able to come up with something new. H elm an has since jo in ed Ind u strial Light & M agic. About T he D iscreet Logic Effects Line INFERNO is the pin n acle o f D isc re e t L o g ic ’s d igital production environm ent. IN FERN O supports high-resolution data handling for standard film and video form ats, w hile rem aining a valuable specialeffects to o l for com m ercials, music videos, broad cast, featu re film s and interactive media. IN FERN O provides up to 12-bits colour depth per channel along with high-spatial image resolu tion. The system also features tools for grain and noise management, wire and

scratch removal, colour calibration and enhanced I/O routines. Features, acces sible through an integrated, intuitive gestural interface, include a state-of-the art K eyer, W arp er, A ctio n m odu le, SoftClips™ Stabilizer, Tracker, Paint, Rotoscoping, On-Line 3D and digital audio capabilities. FLAM E is D iscreet Logic’s award winning on-line system fo r high-end visual-effects creation for commercials, music videos, television programming, featu re film s and in teractiv e m edia, in clu d in g the W o rld W id e W eb. FLAM E provides real-time interactiv ity enabling the im m ediate feedback required for true on-line experim en tation and client-driven design. F L IN T is D iscreet L o g ic’s visualeffects production system offering the co re featu re set o f the w ell-k n ow n FLAME visual-effects system but on the desktop. FL IN T runs on the Indigo2 IM PACT™ fro m S ilic o n G rap h ics, In c.® . The system offers burst-m ode input and output of non-com pressed D1 imagery and integrates easily into tape-based or non-linear, on-line or off line suites. FLIN T can also be used in c o n ju n ctio n w ith FL A M E and IN FERN O for offloading tasks such as colour correction, keying and complex effects creation.

About Discreet Logic Discreet Fogic, based in Montréal, Que bec, develops and supports non-linear, on-line, digital systems for creating, editing and compositing imagery, and special effects for film, video, audio and broadcast. The company’s systems are used by creative professionals for a vari ety o f ap p lica tio n s: fe atu re film s, television programmes, com mercials, music videos, interactive game produc tion and live broadcasting. Through direct contact with digital artists, edi tors, audio engineers, production and broadcasting specialists, Discreet Logic offers technology designed to meet the present and future needs of content cre ators. D iscreet Logic is pu blicly traded on Nasdaq under the symbol DSLGF. Media contact: Emma Shield, Discreet Logic. T e l: 5 1 4 9 4 8 7 1 2 7 . Fax: 5 1 4 2 7 2 8735. E-mail : emma_shield@discreet.com For more inform ation, please con ta ct D iscre e t L o g ic C o rp o ra te headquarters: 5 5 0 5 boul St-Laurent, M ontréal, Quebec, Canada H 2T 1S6. T e l: 5 1 4 .2 7 2 .0 5 2 5 . Fax: 5 1 4 .2 7 2 .0 5 8 5 . e-m ail: in fo @ d is creet.com . web: www.discreet.com D iscre e t L o g ic F L A M E , F L IN T , IN FERN O are trademarks of Discreet Logic Inc. Silicon Graphics is a regis tered trademark. All other trademarks are the properties o f their respective owners. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

¡JfjrajKL

8oos

monthly n«xt issu«?

22 2 3 2 4SZ

Subscribe Now

and save up to

20% off

newsstand price.

NEG MATCH YOUR FEATURES SAFELY WITH THE SPECIALISTS • Proven OSC/R Software • 2 Keykode Scanning Workstations in 16mm & 35mm - Saves Time & Money • 5 Staff with over 50 Years Collective Experience WE’VE GOT THE TEAM, THE TECHNOLOGY

N egthink

& THE TEMPERAMENT TO HANDLE YOUR FILM

PTY LTD

contact

Greg Chapman ph: (02) 9439 3988 fax: (02) 9437 5074 email: negthink@ozemaiI.com.au

1 0 5 /6 CLARK E S T R E E T C R O W S N E S T NSW 2 0 6 5

Virtual unreality

available on Quant el Henr y from Zer o 1 Zer o post p r o d uc ti o n,

design gr aphics and special effects. Pho ne (02) 9 4 1 7 5 7 0 0 . F ax (02) 9 4 1 7 5 8 7 9 .

Zero 1Zero 01

F F C Funding Decisions Features 59 59 59 59 59

Hurrah Head On James Justice Roosters

Adult Televisioni Drama 59 59 60

Halifax F.P. 3 The Violent Earth JNP Telemovies

I Documentaries I Mama Tina | Saint or Sinner | Wild Ones j Lillian’s Jungle : !

Love’s Tragedies (You Always Hurt) 1 The Ones You Love | Wool Princesses j Talking 1997

60 60 60 60 60

60 60 60

i i i

Production Survey

-------— Features in Production

— —

| A Breath ! The Alive Tribe j Fallen Eights • One Way Ticket • Pigeon 1 The Real Macaw | The Sugar Factory | Wanted

Features in Post-productiion 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63

1 Aberration 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61

i i

| The Big Red | Black Ice

j Four Jacks j Joey ■ Kiss or Kill ! My Blessing

j Out of the Blue 1 Paws | Scream | Siam Sunset

63 63

1 Sound of One Hand Clapping j The Well

Shorts 63

j Bum Magnet

63 • The Gas Stripping Tower ! Grahame Bond - The Volunteer 63 1 j Documentary |1 Your Move

'p ro d u c tio n H

A P RI N C E S S IN FIBRE • A NOISY HAND • AN ELECTRI FYI NG DERRIERE

FFC Funding Decisions Following Board meetings on IS I K u ’inln i l‘)’)t> ,tlie FKG'has entered into the producers of the Following projects-

Features HURRAH (95 mins)

H urrah P roductions D: F rank S hields Ps: J ulie M arlo w , J ohn W oistenholm e EP: D avid R ow e , Les L ithgow W s: J ohn W olstenholm e , F rank S hields Dist: T otal F ilm & T elevisio n , M ayfair E n tertain m en t

fter the tragic death of his fiancée, Raoul turns his back on everything he has known. In an attempt to exorcise his grief and to isolate himself from the world, he buys a dilapidated home on dry parched land in the middle of nowhere called Hurrah. When Julia arrives after crashing her car into Hurrah's gatepost, the layers of mystery surrounding her presence are slowly peeled away as she reveals her story she is on the run from both her husband and lover in the city. Unaware of anything except each other, Raoul and Julia begin a passionate affair. It turns to love, and it is then that Julia's true identity, and her mission, are revealed.

Ws: A ndrew B ovell , A na K okkinos , M ira R obertson Dist: P a la c e , S outhern S tar

ead On is a wild journey through an inner urban world of bouzouki clubs and gay pubs, wog cops and Turkish taxi drivers. Nineteen-year-old Ari doesn't work, doesn't study, and has no faith in the future. Drugs are his escape. Sex is where he loses himself. He's at war with his parents, hard working migrants peddling him their hopes and dreams of a better life. He's at war with his friends, they're getting jobs, getting married, going straight But Ari needs his disguises, he won't be committed to anything. He can laugh about being a poofter, but Ari wants to be a man and love a man, too. Sean could be that man. In twenty four hours Ari travels a long way from home - a journey to his own kind of freedom.

HEAD ON (95 mins);

G reat S cott P roductions D: A na K okkinos P: J a n e S cott

JAMES

(100 mins) Ca r m e lin a P ictures / B lackwood Film s D: Lynda H eys EP: Ross M a tth ew s Ps: M a r iel B eros , S haron K ruger , Lyn da H eys W: S tua rt B eattie Dist: REP, Ov er sea s F ilm G roup

ames Grant is the most admired School Captain ever bred at Lawley Grammar and the most legendary Rugby Captain to ever lead the First Fifteen. And the Dux of the school. James is on the path to success, and nothing is going to stop him ... except one small thing. James loves to dance ballet and is desperate to get it out of his system while he still has the chance. He secretly auditions for a small ballet performance of Romeo and

Juliet and wins a part in the production. The harder James works, the more he opens his heart to dancing - finally starting to realize just who he is. But James' other world is falling apart. His girlfriend wants to break up and his coach forces him to play in a rugby match that's scheduled on the same day as the performance. To make matters even worse, the ballet is now to be performed at the Opera House, in front of thousands.

tuckshop roof again, is haunted by the death of his father, hates his mother's new boyfriend and his bully son, and has just discovered that he has to spend Christmas with the lot of them down at their beach house by the Bay. All looks hopeless until Albert, Joey's long-lost great-grandfather, appears unexpectedly after a stint in prison. Joey soon finds himself a wonderful friend and a partner in crime.

Adult Television Drama

(95 mins)

est

hen you've been subjected to the lowest form of human indignity, a voice from within cries out for justice. Bobby Lewis, an alcoholic derelict is framed for the murder of Alison Warner, a female Internal Affairs officer. Bobby is bullied by police into confessing to the murder, and is held to stand trial. In a desperate attempt to prove his innocence Bobbytakes over his own defence. Using every trick that he learnt in his years on the street, Bobby applies his unconventional courtroom style to get to the truth behind the murder and to uncover the real murderers and bring them to justice.

(90 mins)

D: Da vid S w ann P: C hris W arner W: David S w ann Dist: B eyond F ilm s , S harm ill F ilms

oey Dredge is in trouble. He has blown up the science lab, been expelled after throwing himself off the

L P Line Producer D D irector;; C C a st' P C Principal C ast

**'

S E Story E ditor j v

HALIFAX F.P. 3

D IS T Distributor

B eyond S im p s o n L e M esurier Film s

N O T E . Production S u rvey fo rm s now adhere to a revisedform at;^ Cinema Papers regrets it cannot accept in fo rm a tio n received, in a. d iffe ren tfo rm a t. ■

(3 x 100 mins) Ds: TBA

Ps: R oger L e M esurier , R oger S im p so n , Ros T atarka Ws: J utta G oetz , Kath erin e T hom son , A lison N isselle Pre-sale: N ine N etw ork , T elec a st , T V N Z Dist: B eyond D istribu tio n

hese telemovies follow the adventures of Jane Halifax, a forensic psychiatrist retained by police, solicitors, and the medical establishment. Using her specialized knowledge of criminal behaviours, she helps unravel a series of mysteries involving a disturbed rock star, a serial killer, and a brutal double murder.

THE VIOLENT EARTH (3x2

ROOSTERS T rout F ilm s

AS Associate Producer' '

W D W riter-director

C oast P ictures

D: R on E lliott Ps; B ob R oget , Larry H irsch W: B ob R oget Dist: T rident R elea sin g , N ew visio n F ilm D istributors

P Producer Go-P Cor Producer-

S W Scriptwriter

JUSTICE W

E P Executive Producer ,

hours )

C rawford P roductions D: M ichael O ffer P: T B A EPs: C hristian C harret , David R ouse Ws: P eter G a w ler , T ony A yers Pre-sales: N ine N etw ork , A rte Dist: G aumont /M odicum

he Violent Earth is three stories. First, the story of a country, New Caledonia; second, of a pioneering

■

Cinema Papers docj not accept resp o n sib ility fo r.tb c accuracy t o f a n y in fo rm a tio n s u p p lie d ^ production com panies. T h is is p a rtic u la rly th e case when ’ info rm a tio n changes b u t the production com pany rhakes.no ^ a tte m p t to correct -w hat h a s ' alrea d y been supplied:,

Australian-lrish family who try to conquer it, and third, the story of people, the Kanaks, who are caught between the stone age and the tender mercies of French colonialism. The earth is called violent because as the settlers and the Kanaks work out their destiny on the shrinking land, many of them wind up underneath it This drama is more than just a pioneering story - rt is a saga of idealism and greed, passion and obsession, courage and death. The Violent Earth also concerns itself with the very contemporary themes of devotion and self-determination in Oceania, and Australia's ambiguous dual role of innocent bystander and interested party.

H H B PO R TA D A TTIM ECO D E P A T THE A U D IO SO U N D CENTRE C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

LOCATION DAT STANDARD FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 59

»■ production Documentaries M AM A TINA (52

m in s )

D ecember Film s D: S teve J effares Ps: S tuart M en zies , S teve J effares W: S teve J effares Pre-sale: ABC TV, RTE TV Dist: B eyond D istribution

ama Tina looks at the extraordinary work of this simple Irish woman who overcame a lifetime of neglect and violence to become a champion to the street children of Ho Chi Minh City. Punctuated by her flashes of humour and exuberance that are both hertrademark and her unique means of survival, Mama Tina will bring Christina Noble's outspoken, often angry, yet profoundly inspiring story to the screen.

the Wombat Finishing School documents the rescue of an orphan wombat by Gaylene Parker, a local wildlife carer and recognized wombat specialist. Battle Lines is built around the life of the Pied Currawongs of Mosman Bay in Sydney. Whimpey and the Malleefowl is based around selftaught naturalist Whimpey Reicheldt and his relationship with Australia’s unique inhabitant, the Malleefowl.

SAINT OR SINNER (55

m in s )

A n n a m a x M edia D: N icola W oolmington P: P enny R obins W: N icola W oolmington Pre-sale: ABC

aint or Sinner examines the complex moral issues surrounding voluntary euthanasia. Dr Philip Nitschke is fighting to maintain the momentum for permanent change to the euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory. Initially attracted to the arguments in favour of euthanasia on the grounds of freedom of choice, Nitschke continues the fight for the right to die. But at what cost? With the Euthanasia Laws Bill (1996) already in the Senate, intended to overturn the Northern Territory law, the right to legal euthanasia in Australia will stand or fall in the coming months.

LILLIAN’S JUNGLE (54

m in s )

V ue D: A lan L indsay P: A lan L indsay W: A lan L indsay Pre-sale: ABC

illian's Jungle is the story of a fascinating social terrorist, dogooder, gossip columnist, hairdresser and celebrity Lillian Frank who scorns retirement more than anything else, and is fighting against it by being more and more active. She is conscious that her good work, awards and dignity have been swamped by the caricature Lillian. She demands respect, yet cannot resist "the sheer outrageous fun of being Lillian". Lillian's Jungle will keep pace with the adrenaline rush that is Lillian Frank's life, but most of all it will be the story of a fascinating Australian woman which will leave the viewer amused, bemused, intrigued and exhilarated by Lillian and her unrelenting demand that "life delivers the goods".

LOVE'S TRAGEDIES (55

m in s )

P arham M edia P roductions D: D on Parham P: D on P arham

WILD ONES (4x28

B eyond P roductions Ds: T im N ichols , C atherine S outh , S tew art C arter , J udith C urran , B rian B eaton , C elia T ait Ps: T im N ichols , C atherine S outh , S tew art C arter , J udith C urran , B rian B eaton , C elia T ait EPs: K im D alton , D ione G ilmour Pre-sales: ABC, C anal + Dist: B eyond D istribution

ild Ones is four unique stories involving animals and people in distinctly Australian locations. The series has been developed by four filmmakers new to the area of natural history. Set in Bunbury WA, Dolphins' Bay is the study of dolphins living in total harmony with their aquatic environment Wee Willie Winkie and

W: D on Parham Pre-sale: A B C

m in s )

ove's Tragedies gives us a rich insight into the human side of adultery. But it will also do more than provide us with portraits and snapshots - it will examine the science and the ethics of the issue. There are huge forces compelling us in both directions-biological and cultural, individual and social. How do we choose? Why do we choose? Is it, in the end, a choice? Are we just biologically programmed to behave in certain ways or does our socialization win out? The structure of the film will move between case studies - people who've been through it, and analytical elements that locate the phenomenon of adultery in a wider historical, social and psychological context.

JNP TELEMOVIES (3x93

(YOU ALWAYS HURT) THE ONES YOU LOVE (55

working in a highly westernized nightclub whose liberty is at stake under Beijing's incoming Basic Law. The film includes the young Australian filmmakers and their own connection to Hong Kong. Together, both groups' perceptions of politics,multiculturalism, identity and displacement are examined.

Adult Television Drama

m in )

J N P I nternatio nal Ds: TBA Ps: J am es D avern , Ray A lchin

m in s )

Production Survey

W: P eter Y eldham

Livin g P ictures

Pre-sale: CHANNEL 9

D: David F latman

Dist: MTM INTERNATIONAL

Ps: D avid F latm an , S ue F latman

WITHOUT WARNING

Pre-sale: ABC

ou Always Hurt) The Ones You Love is a cinéma-vérité documentary about men taking responsibility for their violence in the home, and doing something about getting it under control. It starts with the meeting of a group of fourteen men from a range of social and ethnic backgrounds who, either voluntarily or by court order, attend a series of intensive weekly sessions led by two therapists - a male and a female. From there we accompany several of them as they take their new-found awareness back into their homes in an attempt to reunify their families and rebuild their lives. Some will succeed, some will not.

WOOL PRINCESSES (55

t was an ordinary day when successful film producer Megan Turner and her director husband David were flagged down by a good-looking highway patrol officer who seemed friendly. Without Warning is a story of sexual pursuit and intimidation that almost destroys the Turners’ marriage and, in the end, leads herto violence and murder.

ixteen years after returning home, three disillusioned Australian Vietnam conscripts use their army skills to plan and execute the country's biggest bank robbery. And they get away with it. Seven years pass and a petty criminal convicted as the driver in the heist is released from jail. When his body is fished out of the harbour the grim murder re-ignites the case.

W: S tephen Ram sey Pre-sale: ABC

he Bush once served as an icon of Australian identity. But when one sees home movies from the Bush domestic life of people on the land taken at the height of the wool boom, the images are powerful reminders of how much the Bush, as an Australian icon, has become outdated and irrelevant. What's become of the Bush? Through home movies, childhood memories and present-day observations, the film examines the changes in the landscape and lifestyle caused by economic decline and disastrous government decisions. The film focuses on one struggling community, Hannaford in South Western Queensland. We follow Jane Ramsey (who grew up there) returning and trying to understand what it was that caused her to leave and others to stay.

Following Board meetings on 7th February 1997. the F E C has entered into,contract negotiations with the producers of the following projects:

m in s )

D: C hristopher T uckfield Ps: C hristopher T uckfield , C olleen C lark W: C hristopher T uckfield Pre-sale: SBS

Breath is an account of the contribution of Chinese art to contemporary Australian culture and features the return of two older Chinese-Australian artists to their homeland. [As at 1 M arch 1997.]

Features THE ALIVE TRIBE Principal Credits

THE HOSTAGES

Ram sey F ilms P/L P: J ane Ram sey

(55

I n s o m n ia F ilm T elevision S oftware

REPRISAL

m in s )

D: S tephen Ram sey

A BREATH

olidaying in Asia, Australian backpackers Joanne and Richard are hauled off a train and taken as hostages by Cambodian rebels. A ransom demand is made on the Australian Government for their release. The Government refuses to pay. Also kidnapped is French couple Louise and Pierre who are confident a French mining company for whom Pierre works will pay the ransom. When Richard and Pierre are executed, Joanne and Louise know their days are numbered and plan their escape.

P eter J in k s , G reg J in k s , La w ren ce S ilberstein

Director of photography: D arrel S tokes Editor: R obert M urphy Production designer: P riscilla D a vies Music: J ohn P hillips

Production Crew Production manager: M yrlene B arr Production co-ordinator: RASA ZDANIUS Producer's assistant: MARLA A k RTITIS

Camera Crew Camera operator: STEVE WELCH Clapper-loaders: A rianne P eers , C h ristine B irman

Documentaries

Camera assistant: G ary S ott Key grip: S tephen Oyston Gaffer: B rett H ull Best boy: Ross ORR

TALKING 1997 (55

Director: S tephen A mis Producer: STEPHEN AMIS Line producer: S haron P eers Associate producers: H eng T a n g ,

m in s )

On - set Crew

Emerald P ictures

1st assistant director: M onique G rbec

Ds: Rachel P otter , R obert W ilkins P: S ally B rowning

2nd assistant directors: Jo T odd , N ad ia C ossich

W s :R achel P otter , R obert W ilkins

Pre-sale: SBS

alking 1997 explores the lives of three Hong Kong Chinese youths facing China's re-acquisition of Hong Kong on June 30,1997: a university student perceiving the change through the eyes of her parents who fled China's Cultural Revolution in the 1960s; a homeless boy, one of a deluge of refugees arriving from China to a city without state welfare; a gay man

Director's assistant: T am ara S chnapp Script editor: Y vonne PECUJAC Continuity: ANNA LlGHTFOOT Make-up: J ulia G reen , C lea S tapleton Stunts co-ordinator: PJ C hris P eters Safety supervisor: P eter C ulpan Stills: P eter M ilne

A rt Department Armourer:

JOHNFox

W ardrobe Wardrobe: Karen T ate

HHB PORTADAT HEADPHONE MATRIX

RETRO FIT TO ANY PORTADAT FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 A U D IO SOUND CENTRE

C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

-p ro d u c tio n Production Survey

_______ _____________________________________

t /

, «»td«»,

Artdirector: M ichael R umpf

M arketing

continued

Location manager: T om B inns Unit manager: E dward D onovan 1st assistant director: M ichael Faran da Continuity: ROYCE DUNN Stunts co-ordinator: G rant P age

A rt D epartment Armourer: JOHN B owring Special fx co-ordinator: JOHN BOWRING

P ost- production

Publicity: FIONA SEARSON, DDA

Government A gency I nvestment P ost- production Sound: M ichael K itson Mixing: M & E Telecine: AAV Laboratory: C inevex Film gauge: S uper 16 Track-laying services: La b s o n ic s

Director of photography: E llery Ryan

Finance: FFC, B ecker G roup , SAFC,

Editor: D avid P ulbrook

F ilm QLD, NSWFT0

Production designer: P addy R eardon

P lanning

and

Casting: M aura Fay & ASSOC

Length: 90 MINS Gauge: 35 mm

Production Crew

Cast

Production supervisor: EMANUEL M atso s

Cast

M arketing

C raig A d a m s , K ate A t c h eso n ,

Publicity: S ian C lement

Ian S cott , J ohn A rnold , S usie D ee , M aureen A n dr ew , S teve G ome ,

Cast

S ophie M oor , G ary G a r tsid e ,

P eter P h elps , Rachel B lakeney , C hris H aywood

J ohn C larke , P eter M oon , D avid J o hn ston , L illian F rank , B ernie Quinlan

he Alive Tribe is a wild bunch of hipped-out student radicals who fight for anything, from ecological Armageddon to the ozone layer and animal liberation. Set around the final days of the Fitzroy Football Club merger, the film explores the theme: evolve or die.

J ason R o bard s , J am ie C rofts , D eborra -L ee F u rness , J oe P etruzzi ,

he story of a female prison officer: married, reliable, trusted. Yet she planned the most spectacular gaolbreak in Australia's criminal history - for the love of a convicted murderer.

J ohn W a t e r s .

comedy adventure about a teenage boy and his grandfather's 150-year-old talking parrot who head off on a treasure hunt to save grandfather from being forced into a "pet-free" retirement home.

THE SUGAR FACTORY

Production company: SlLO

Production company: I m agine F ilms Distribution company: B eyond FILMS Production office: S ydney Production: 27/2-18/4/97

Budget: Less than $500,000

P rincipal Credits

Production office: MELBOURNE

PIGEON

BLACK ICE Production company: W edgetail

Cast

F ilm M a n a g em en t Ltd

young Korean actor is convinced by police to impersonate a gangster on a television show. What begins as an acting job becomes dangerous yet hilarious as both the police and the gangster have him continue the impersonation for their own ends.

Director: T im B oxell Producer: C hris B rown NZ producer: T im S anders Co-producer: SCOTT L ew Scriptwriters: D arrin O ura , S cott Lew Director of photography: A llen GUILFORD Production designer: G rant M ajor

Finance: FFC

On - set Crew

P ost- production

1st assistant director: C hris S hort Special fx: D avid R iley ,

[S till

c a s t in g .]

odern day sexual thriller set in the post apocalypse.

ONE WAY TICKET (t e l e - f e a t u r e ) Production company: G rundy T elevision Production: 15 /2/9 7 (FOR 5 WEEKS)

S u sann a M orphett , Da n iel P erry .

Principal Credits

M arketing

M a tt Day (H a r r is ).

Sales agent: V ictor F ilm C o. Publicity: S ian C lem ent (02) 9450 3650

Director: M athew George Producers: Robert Gough, Stephen

THE REAL MACAW Production company: B ecker FILMS P/L Location: B r isb a n e , A u stralia & B ali

ith his distinctive 'voice' and unusual view of life, Harris takes one through his story: a harrowing journey of humour, grief, resolution and redemption.

WANTED

Distribution company:

Production company: ClNE 2000 Production office: Sydney Production: 28/1-10/3/97

REP D istribution P/L

Principal Credits

Production: 10/2-18/4/97

Director: Hung-SOON "H ow ard " CHUNG Producer: S teven H eo Line producer: G lenda C arpenter Executive producer: In -T aek Y oo Associate producers: JOY J i -H ae P a ik ,

Budget: $5.5 MILLION Production office: B risban e

P rincipal Credits Director: M ario' A ndreacchio Producer: MARGOT M cDonald Co-producers: Rocky B ester, B ruce Han co ck , T im P rescott

J ulienne P ark

Scriptwriters: H ung - S oon "H o w ard "

P rincipal Credits

Executive producer: RICHARD B ecker Scriptwriters: B ruce H an co ck ,

Director: RICHARD FRANKLIN Producer: Ian B radley

M a th ew P erry Director of photography: D avid F oreman

Director of photography: GEOFF B urton Editor: JANE MAGUIRE Production designer: S ean C allinan Costume supervisor: T erri K ibbler

Location: MELBOURNE AND ENVIRONS

FOUR JACKS Production company: Pipeline Films Production: 20/1-21/2/97 Post-production: 21/2-30/4/97

Cast

M arketing

Cast

athan Vaughn, an enigmatic man, a coiled spring ready to explode, is recruited by Detective Andy Riddle to hand out his own form of rough justice. Vaughn begins working for criminal Curtis Starr which is his final journey to self-destruction.

K a te F isch er , G arry H illberg ,

he story of a man undergoing a strange breakdown who wants to become a pigeon and the journalist sent to cover the story.

M ike M c L eish (M ichael R ee v e s )

P roduction Crew

A nthony A rgino , T ony N ardella .

K udos P roductions

Cast J ohn Orcsik, T ony B onner, Ron V reeken, T onia Lee.

Length: 95 MINS Gauge: 35 mm

Cast

Publicity: D anny G insberg -

Post-production supervisor: Karl B ransten Choreographers: Ron VREEKEN, J ames W illiams Assistant editor: A dam W eis

P rincipal Credits

Length: 90 MINS Gauge: D igital B etacam

1st assistant director: A shley B ell

Rob Greenough Director of photography: Kevin 'L oosey' Lind

ABERRATION

Government A gency I nvestment

On - set Crew

Ron W illiams Associate producer: Ron V reeken Scriptwriters: JAMES RICHARDS,

Production company: Grundy Films Production: 25/11/96 - 6/1/97 (Wellington and Queenstown, New Zealand)

Other Credits

Production supervisor: Kathleen H utson Production secretary: STEPHANIE STONES

Producer: ROBERT GREENOUGH Executive producers: BILL MUTTER,

P roduction Crew

Production supervisor: B ridget B ourke Location manager: S cott D onaldson

Production Crew

Principal Credits Director: JAMES RICHARDS

Features in podt-productu?n

P rincipal Credits

Budget: $ 1 .5 M illion

Director: VINCENZO ÜALL0 Producers: La v in ia RAMPiNoj R obin J olly Scriptwriter: V incenzo G allo Production designer: B renton A ngel

Director: KRISTIAN I. CONNELLY Producer: D an n y G in s b e r g , Ryan G ibson Line producer: N athan S tones Executive producer: K r istia n I. C onnelly Scriptwriter: KRISTIAN I. CONNELLY Composer: ERICA H a j u

i i

Pre-production: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1997 Production: M arch 1997

he story of Teddy, a streetwise New Yorker, who finds himself out of his i depth Down Under, entrapped by a i sunkissed Outback Valkyrie.

Production company: KUDOS PRODUCTIONS

Production: F ebruary -A pril 1997

Length: 100 MINS Gauge: 35 mm

Director: ROBERT CARTER Producer: J enny WOODS Co-producer: A nthony B ickley Scriptwriter: R obert C arter Director of photography: A ndrew L esnie Editor: W ayne L e CLOS Production designer: NICHOLAS McCALLUM

FALLEN EIGHTS

i i

J oong H oon P a rk , R ebecca Lean

P ost- production

D evelopment

On - set Crew \

Production designer: OWEN PATTERSON Financed by: T he Samuel Goldwyn Company , FFC International Sales: T he Samuel Goldwyn Company

Executive producers: A ndrew B rooke ,

Editor: T ed M ason

K ris N oble

Production designer: ROSS MAJOR

C hung , T ony E gan , A rthur T an aka

Scriptwriters: M ichael B rindley ,

Production Crew

P roduction Crew

K aren A ltmann

Production manager: ROSSLYN A bernethy

Production manager: Glenda CARPENTER

Cast S imon B o ssell , P am ela G idley

chiller film in the tradition of Tremors. A woman on the run becomes trapped in a remote cabin with a local scientist during a blizzard.

Stanford Line producer: Gene Geoffrey Scriptwriter: M athew George Director of photography: JUSTIN B rickle Sound recordist: MARTIN K eir Editor: M ark Ellis Production designer: Ralph M oser Costume designer: RUBEN T homas

Pu n n in g

THE BIG RED (working

and

Development

Casting: Chameleon Casting Shooting schedule by: M onique Grbec

title )

Production companies:

P roduction Crew

S cala P roductions ; U nthank F ilms

Producer's assistants: HOLLY M ackay,

Production office: S ydney Production: 16/9-9/11/96

N ioue Riches, P ip Sa l u b a n k , N ina N ichols Location manager: A oinya Nl N u l u in Unit manager: Rohan J A nderson Production runner: David Pritchard

P rincipal Credits Director: S tephan E lliott Producer: F inola D wyer Co-producer: A ntonia B arnard Executive producers: N ik P owell ,

Camera Crew

S tephen W oolley

Scriptwriter: M ichael T homas Based on the novel: T he D ead H eart

D ouglas K ennedy

Director of photography: M ike M olloy Editor: M artin W alsh

Focus puller: CAMERON D unn Clapper-loader: SlNEAD BuHLER Camera type: A arton Key grip: Freddo Dirk Assistant grip: MARK B uzzcurrie Gaffer: Karl Engler Best boy: Darren Chou

H U B MASTERS Y NC PO RTA DAT

AATON ORIGIN C COMPATIBLE FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

production Production Survey On - set Crew 2nd assistant director: L inda Kane Continuity: G iula S andler Boom operator: CHRIS O 'S hea Catering: Fab FOODS

A rt D epartment Art director: RALPH MOSEK Propsperson: JlM L e V eque

Cast T ommy D ysa r t , S tephen P ea r se ,

our young men piece together their role in a murder gone wrong.

JOEY Production company: V illage R oadshow P ictures Production: 4/9 - 16/10/96

Principal Credits Director: IAN B arry Producer: M ichael Lake Executive producers: R obin B urke , G reg C oote Scriptwriter: S tuart B eattie Director of photography: D avid B urr Editor: L ee S mith Production designer: PETA LAWSON Costume designer: M arion B oyce

P roduction Crew Production office: G old C oast Unit production manager: B rian B urgess 1st assistant director: S tuart F reeman

Post- production

thriller set on the flat, treeless plain of the Nullarbor. Al and Nikki are lovers on the run from the cops. Heading across the Nullarbor, they stop for the night at a small motel. The following morning the motel owner is found dead. Second night out, two more people are killed in their sleep. Al begins to think Nikki is the killer. Nikki thinks it's Al. They have known each other for years, but do they really know each other?

MY BLESSINGS Production company: INNERSENSE P roductions Budget: $8,000 Pre-production: 12/8 - 22/9/96 Production: 23/9 - 11/10 /9 6 Post-production: 12/10 /9 6 - 1/3/97

P rincipal Credits Director: B ill MOUSOULIS Producer: B ill M ousoulis Scriptwriter: B ill M ousoulis Director of photography: Ka ttin a B owell Sound recordists: P hillip H ealy , C hris O 'S hea , J ennifer S o ch ackyj , E mma B ortignon , J ohn C umming Editor: B ill M ousoulis Production designer: D a n ica D.B.

P u n n in g

International sales agent: V illage R oadshow P ictures W orldwide Unit Publicity: F iona S earson , DDA

Cast J am ie C rofts , A lex M c K en na , R ebecca G ibn ey , E d B egley J r, R uth C racknell , H arold H opkins

hen a young Australian boy boards a train to Sydney to reunite a baby kangaroo with his abducted parents he begins an hilarious adventure through the city's mean streets and to the halls of government, finding a new best friend and justice along the way.

and

D evelopment

Casting: B ill MOUSOULIS, M ar ie -L ouise W alker

Production Crew Producer's assistant: S andi A ustin Production assistants: G eorgeia D earaugo , Louise S terling

Camera Crew

Animatronics supervisor: J ohn C ox

M arketing

Camera operator: Kattin a B owell Focus puller: A ndrew M c C ormack Clapper-loader: A ndrew B all Camera assistants: M att T oll , Tov B elling Gaffer: L iam A dam

On -S et Crew 1st assistant director: B ill M ousoulis Continuity: DANICA D.B. Still photography: R obert B all Catering: SANDI WISHES

B ruyn (a s

h im self ), h im self ).

diary film, chronicling six days in the life of a woman in her early

La ten t I mage P roductions P/L

Standby wardrobe: FIONA NlCCOLS

M eridian F ilms

Distribution company:

A nimals

Distribution company: Fox S earchlight Production: S eptem ber -D ecem ber 1996 Budget: S16 MILLION Director: G illian A rmstrong Producers: T im W h ite , R obin D alton Scriptwriter: LAURA JONES Government Agency Investment: FFC

P olygram F ilms (UK) Ltd

Animal trainer: L uke H ura

Production: 14 /10 - 9/12/96

Animal handlers: S ue B loom ,

ased on the novel by Peter Carey, a story about fate, love, gambling and faith.

W ardrobe

Sound transfers by: DlRK DE BRUYN

Scenic artist: F rank Falconer

Executive producer:

Labourers: M atth ew C ox ,

R ebel P enfold -R ussell

J ohn W illiamson

Screenplay: H arry C ripps Based on the novel: C hance

in a

S et

M illion

Sound recordist: G untis S ics Editor: N ick H olmes

Pre-production: 2/12/96...

Production designer: S teven J o nes -E vans

Production:10/1/97... Post-production:... 31/5/97

Costume designer: D avid R owe

Principal Credits

Casting: M aura Fay & A sso cia tes

Director: PHIL AVALON Producer: P hil A valon Executive producers: H ans P om eranz ,

Extras casting: M aura Fay & A sso cia tes Dialogue coach: NlCO LATHOURIS

P eter O'N eill , K erry D unn

P lanning

and

fin ish er :

G iles B radbury

Studios: M ax S tudio

Distribution company: N ew V ision

P ost- production

D evelopment

Casting consultants: A nn Fay

Shooting schedule by: J am ie C rooks

Assistant editor: A lison W heeler Laboratory: ATLAB Laboratory liaison: D en ise W olfson Film gauge: 35 mm Shooting stock: K odak Telecine transfers by: DIGITAL PICTURES Off-line facilities: F rameworks Video special fx: C0NJA Video to Film:D-FlLM Government A gency I nvestment Development: F ilm F inance C orporation Production: F ilm F inance C orporation

Associate producers: J ulian S a g ger s ,

P roduction Crew

J ason G ooden

Production manager: B renda P am

M arketing

Scriptwriter: PHIL AVALON Director of photography: L es P arrott Production designer: C athy F inlay Costume designer: J enny C am pbell Editor: M ike HONEY

Production co-ordinator: SANDY STEVENS

International sales agent:

Producer's assistant: Leoni S trickland

P olygram F ilms (UK) Ltd

Pu n n in g

and

Development

Production secretary: C a ssa n d r a S impson Location manager: R ichard M ontgomery Unit manager: ANDREW MARSHALL

International distributor: P olygram F ilms (UK) Ltd

Cast

Production runner: Lou A ustin Production accountant: J ohn M ay

N athan C avaleri (Z a c ), E m ilie F rancois C aroline G ilmer (S u sie ), Racha el B lake

Production manager:

Accounts assistant: SCOTT LOVELOCK Insurer: H.W. W ood - T ony G ibbs Completion guarantor: F ilm F inances

B ill M arsden

Legal services: A llen , A llen ,

Locations: HARRIET SCOTT Unit manager: T ony F ields Production runner: R on HOLBROW Production accountant: R on R heuben Assistant production accountant:

& H emsley

Script editor: GERARD MAGUIRE P roduction Crew

J ason G ooden

Focus puller: ROGER BOYLE Clapper-loader: L es S neal Gaffer: S teve C arter On - set Crew

Cast

P ost- production

M ar ie -L ouise W alker (J a n e ), Ian D ixon

Post-production supervisor: R ose D ority

(M ichael ), D ale S teven s (L is a ), E mma

Soundtrack: P a cific R im Music co-ordination: P acific R im

Film gauge: 16 mm

Construction manager: R ob RlCKETSON

V icki W atson

Director of photography: G eoff B urton

Shooting stock: 7248

Laboratory: ClNEVEX

Producers: A ndrena F inlay ,

OUT OF THE BLUE

Director: B ill B ennett

B ruyn

Construction Department

Production company: AVALON FILMS

Producer: BILL BENNETT

J oanne K ostuik

Director: K arl Z w icky

Written by: STEPHEN D ando -C ollins

Screen ratio: 1.33:1

Mixer: D irk

Principal Credits

Scriptwriters: H arry C r ip p s , Karl Z w icky

Camera Crew

Wardrobe supervisor: DANICA D.B.

W ardrobe

Production company:

Principal Credits

Scriptwriter: B ill B ennett

J ayne J ohnson

Armourer: J ohn B owring

OSCAR AND LUCINDA

Assistant art director: J ulie Raffaele

N ew V ision

Co-producer: CORRIE SOETERBOEK

Wardrobe buyer: C hristelle C oroneos

Insurance: TONY GlBBS Legals: O'N eill -O w ens

A rt Department

A rt Department Art director: Ian G racie Art department runner: EDMUND L evine Set dressers: J oanna P ark , R ichie D ehne Props maker: F iona W ilson Standby props: A ndrew P layford ,

PAWS

1st assistant director: CLINTON WHITE Continuity: S tew art Ew ing s Make-up: H ilary P earce Hairdresser: HILARY PEARCE Stunt co-ordinator: GRANT PAGE

Distribution companies: B eyond ,

(M aylen e )

Royal Commission into police corruption is announced. Three brothers from different walks in life and through pure circumstance collide with the underworld and authorities.

Production company:

Art director: D a n ica D.B.

Post- production

KISS OR KILL

B ill H unter (C ee T ee ), R ebecca R igg

30s.

A dam H addrich , A lan K in g , D ave S errifin , Lachy H ulme

D irk

continued 1st assistant director: M onique G rbec

B ill M ousoulis (as

Stunts co-ordinator: SPIKE CHERRIE Unit nurse: J acquie R o bertso n -R am say Unit publicist: M aria Farmer Catering: FEEDING FRENZY

Cast S imon W estaw ay (J ohnny A u sten ),

Cast

S trand (S ue ), M ark S hannon

F rances O'C onnor (N ikk i ),

(L in d sa y ), V ictory D ay (Ra ch el ),

Laboratory: MOVIEUB

M att D ay (A l ).

G raham P ages ( J effrey ),

Post-production facility: SPECTRUM

(S a m a n th a ), J oe P etruzzi (S tep h en ), (A m y ), S andy G ore (A n ya ).

aws is a family adventure film about a boy, his dog and their computer.

Camera Crew Camera operator: G eoff B urton Focus puller: L eilani H annah Clapper-loader: JASMINE Y uen -C arrucan Camera assistant: MARTIN GOOCH 2nd unit action director: G lenn BOSWELL

SCREAM Production company: T he F ilm Factory Production:... D ecem ber 1996.

2nd unit focus: C hris T aylor 2nd unit operator: S teve N ewman Camera maintenance: S am m y ' s

Principal Credits Director: G ary Y oung Producer: T. C. F ields Executive producer: G ary Y oung Scriptwriter: G ary Y oung

Key grip: SCOTT BROKATE Assistant grip: T im D uggan Gaffer: Ian P lummer Best boy: R obbie B urr Electrician: SlMON WILLIAMS

Cast D on B echelli , T ed M iller ,

On -S et Crew

A l B equette , R ich G oyet .

1st assistant director: J am ie C rooks 2nd assistant director: T om R ead

young man is arrested after the hold-up of a liquor store. During psychiatric examination, the young man regresses to Egypt 4,000 years ago as a mummified body. The psychiatrist learns that there has been a trail of killings of anyone who disturbs the mummy.

3rd assistant director: J ennifer R e es -B rown

Continuity: Karen M ansfield Boom operator: E mma B arham Make-up: R obbie P ickering Hairdresser: T eena M c C arthy Special fx supervisor: JOHN BOWRING

H H B PO R TAD AT& H H B D A T T A P E

YOUR PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS FREECALL 1 SOO 675 168 A U D IO SOUND CENTRE

C I N E M A P A P E R S â&#x20AC;˘ APRI L 1997

Production Survey continued SIAM SUNSET

RED HERRING

Production company: A rtist S ervices Production: 11/11-13/12/96 Scriptwriters: M a x D a n n ,

ROAD TO NHILL THANK GOD HE MET LIZZIE

A ndrew K night

TRUE LOVE AND CHAOS

SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING Production company: A rtist S ervices Production: 7/10-22/11/96 Producer: Rolf de H eer Writer: Richard FLANAGAN Script editor: D eborah Cox

Cast K erry F ox

THE WELL Director: S a m an tha Lang Producer: SANDRA LEVY Line producer: S tephen J ones Director of photography: M andy WALKER Production Designer: M ichael P hilips Costume designer: A nne BORGHESI Editor: D any C ooper Composer: S tephen Rae Sound recordist: BRONWYN M urphy

P lanning

and

D evelopment

Shooting schedule by: T ony D e P asüuale

Casting: LlZ MULLINAR CASTING

Budgeted by: C athy F raser

On - set Crew

Production Crew

Still photography: E lise LOCKWOOD

Production runner: M elina T rochoulias

A rt D epartment

Camera Crew

Art director: A nnie B eaucham p

Camera assistant: D an M c C arther

M arketing Publicity: T racey M air / J a n e Osborne

Cast P am ela Ra b e (H ester ), M iranda Otto (K a th e r in e ), P aul C hubb (H arry B ird ), F rank W ilson (F ra n cis H ar per ), Kati E dw ards (M olly ), S teve J a co bs (R ob B orden ), G enevieve L emon (J en B orden ), L uke H arrison (B orden T w in ), Da n iel Harrison (B orden T w in ), M iles S hanahan (B orden B oy)

n unsettling psychological thriller evolves as two mutuallydependent and manipulative women find their fragile world threatened when they accidentally run over a stranger near their isolated farm

S ee

ON THE FOLLOWING:

Post- production

DUST OFF THE WINGS HEAVEN'S BURNING THE INNER SANCTUARY

Government A gency I nvestment

DARK CITY DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE

K.C.

Director of photography:

M ark W areham A.C.S. Sound recordist: B ob Clayton Editor: M ark B ennett Production designer: A dam H ead Costume designer: NlCK HARTIGAN Planning

Production: F ilm Q ueensland

Cast

LOVE IN AMBUSH

I sla F isher (E m m a ), T odd M a c D onald

(FORMERLY ANGKOR/MIRABEAU)

(J udd ), J oseph K ennedy (M a t t ).

and

Development

Casting: S ue M anger

n the pilot, our intrepid volunteer, Grahame Bond, joins a team of volunteers and archaeologists in Pella, Jordan. He demystifies the rarefied world of archaeology with wit and wisdom. And proves digging up great tracts of Jordanian desert can be fun as well as hard work.

1 i

Documentary

P roduction Crew Production manager: Gareth Calverley Location manager: COLIN ODDY Unit manager: A ngus Baker Production assistants: KlM PRENTICE,

Rachel B agley Insurer: FIUA Camera Crew Camera operator: M ark W areham Focus puller: B ob Foster Clapper-loader: J uliet Z abik Camera assistant: Rowena M ollica Steadicam: Greg Gilbert Key grip: Dan M axwell Assistant grip: T om KAVANAGH Gaffer: STEVE B ruce Best boy: A ndrew Saul On - set Crew 1 st assistant director: ROSS ALLSOP Continuity: SlMONE B lanton Boom operator: S cott P iper Make-up: T ess N atoli Safety officer: Lana Darby Safety rigger: JOE SCHWAIGER Still photography: Paul B roben

YOUR MOVE Production company: H ealth & S aftey A u st .

Budget: $900,000.00 Production:11/11-19/12/96 Location: G old C oast

I |

S a lly F lynn & J en ny F itzpa tr ick

P hotography - P aul B roben

R obert D ickson

Catering: Q u in eles -G erard F ranzoni,

Executive producer: B ill WYLLIE Scriptwriters: R obert D ickso n , T im S mart Director of photography: TlM SMART Sound recordist: B a s il K rivoroutchko Editor: B ob B lasdall Music: S uzanne W yllie and

i \

| >

Film gauge: 35 mm

Cast J effrey W alker (P eter), S imon J ames (J ason ), Luke Robertson (S occer Ball M a n ).

W ardrobe Wardrobe co-ordinator:

Production co-ordinator:

A ureole M c A lpine

Post- production

S a m an tha W atson

Off-line facilities: Cutting Edge

M a c M illan

P roduction Crew

I nc - J enny W oods

Laboratory: A tlab - Queensland

B rendan S hoebridge Set dresser: J u stin e D unn

Casting director: T imothy C arter Script editor: G alia Hardy

Post- production Opticals: D film - Sydney

A rt Department

2nd art assistant: S harryn

D evelopment

Mixed at: S cope Films - B risbane

B ronw en F eachnie

Unit hand: B rendon H ole Assistant art director:

Chaperone: Rob BAILEY

Pacific Film Catering

1st assistant director: M a t t E nfield 2nd assistant director: SOPHIE STAWARUK Continuity: LlZA M c L ean Boom operator: G ary D ixon Make-up: R ick F indlater Make-up assistant: E liza W oodward Special fx: B rian C ox Stunts co-ordinator: JlM RICHARDS Stunts & safety assistant: G ordon W addell

Director: R obert D ickson Producers: T imothy C arter ,

P lanning

J on Luetke

On - set Crew

Stunts & safety: R ob G reenough Unit nurse: JO SCHELFER Still photography: D ouble PR

P rincipal Credits

Producer's assistant: HEATHER Kyle Production secretary: A nne M offat Location manager: Kathryn M etcalfe Transport: Orana - DAVID SUTTOR Film completion guarantee: F ilm F inan ces

Unit publicist: J ody Green Catering: M itch Carter -

A rt Department

Post-production supervisor: Ray C ooper Sound editor: A ndy P arslow Recording studio: SECRET LABORATORY Titles: O ptical & G raphics Laboratory: A tlab Film gauge: 16 mm Shooting stock: 7293 Video transfers by: VlDEOLAB Off-line facilities: E n -CUE PRODUCTIONS

DIANA & ME

Director: David Barker Producer: Gareth Calverley Scriptwriters: David B arker, Luke Robertson

1st assistant director:

Wardrobe supervisor: K ylie O 'B rien previous issu es for details

J ohn R ecording

Post facilities: E den S treet F ilms Format: D VC PRO

P rincipal Credits

On - set Crew

W ardrobe

P roduction Crew

Media services: F itz & F lynn P/L -

Sound facilities: DAVID AND

Gaffer: Ross POWELL

Art director: Laura E lkington Props buyer: C ath O'D onnell Standby props: N icole Lacy

i 1I

Production company: FIREBRAND FILMS & Liquid Fur P/L

Key grip: D ean R usso

T ony De Pasquale 2nd assistant director: KlMAYA KELLY Continuity: Liza M cLean Boom operator: Kerry T hatcher Make-up: K it CAMPBELL Hairdresser: K it Campbell Stunts co-ordinator: Steve M orris Still photography: Garratt Hughes Catering: SUNFLOWER CATERING

E lla T yler , S ally P aynter 1

Camera Crew

J unowot P roductions

D evelopment

O'D onoghue

Camera operator: P eter PESCELL Focus puller: MICHAEL KELLY Clapper-loader: M ichael K elly Camera assistant: Jo E rskine Video operator: DUNCAN BARRETT Autocue operator: Liz L inks Key grip: K erry J ackson Assistant grip: P hillip B row ning Additional grip:MARK WATSON Gaffer: T im T owers Best boy: JON L uetke Generator operators: W arren Y oung ,

Pre-production: 2-13 DECEMBER 1996 Production: 15 t -1 7 D ecem ber 1996 Post-production: 10-21 FEBRUARY 1997

and

1 i

Technical advisers: R ed C ro ss -

P ost- production

Production company:

P lanning

Scriptwriter: GRAHAME B ond Music: Grahame B ond, Rory

THE GAS STRIPPING TOWER

BUM MAGNET

Director: M ichelle W arner Producer: C athy F raser Co-producer: M ichelle W arner Scriptwriter: M ichelle W arner Director of photography: S teve Isaac Sound recordist: ROD HERBERT Editor: Ray C ooper Production designer: Laura ELKINGTON Costume designer: K ylie O 'B rien Composer: A ndy P arslow

Production co-ordinator: lONI DOHERTY

Short F LLms

P rincipal Credits

Principal Credits

oday is the last day that Emma will take Matt back. But will he call? Bum Magnet is a film about waiting by the phone.

Assistant editor: ROCHELLE S h ROJ

Film processing: A tlab

Shooting stock: 16 mm & B etacam SP Video transfers by: VlDEOLAB

Unit co-ordinator: A ndrew J ones Runner: J oe Z uber Accountants: B ernays B row n ,

M arketing Publicity writer: SHIRLEY Hardy -R ix

Cast C athy B order , R egis B roadw ay , A ndrew B u chanan , David C oom bs ,

R ichard C larke

Accounts: K en S hum

Su C ru icksha nk , E rnie D ingo ,

Insurer: H olland Insura nce B rokers P/L

P eter G w yn n e , T revor H endy ,

- B rian H olland

A llan J o nes , J ohn O r c sik ,

Legal services: R o berts & C ain -

M ichael P a te , H azel P h illips , J an e R owland , J a m es Scon,

G reg S ellars Auditor: G raeme Hadw in

Lyn T albo t , M onica T ruong

tth e end of an eventful school day, two friends retreat to the old Gas Stripping Tower to escape the flow of the everyday.

GRAHAME BOND -T H E VOLUNTEER ( p il o t ) Production company: Eden Street Films /N ilasu P rincipal Credits Director: GRAHAME B ond Producers: Stephen Prime, J ames Roberts Executive producer: GRAHAME B ond

H H B PORTA DAT TIMECODE DAT

THE LOCATION DAT STANDARD FREECALL1 8 0 0 675 168 C I N E M A P A P E R S • APRI L 1997

LONE STAR AND WILLIAM SHA'KESPEAR'S’S ROMEO & JULIET. TOP TH £ FIELD. J _ _ |^ -

Breaking the Waves The Celluloid Closet R o b E p s t e i n & J e f f r e y F r ie d m a n

Crash D a v id C r o n e n b u r g

DragonHeart R ob C o h en

The English Patient A n t h o n y M in g h e l l a

Evita A la n Parker

Fly Away Home C a r o l B a lla r d

The Frighteners Peter J a ckso n

The Ghost and the Darkness S t e p h e n H o p k in s

Grace Of My Heart

¡¡1 1 1

H S iP s

Ip iB lB

lilliJli

111

1 7 ‘ . '- - ‘ \i-A T'.,'Cr

;

Si®

6 -

¡Sgl

1 •• C.>; r-' ' 1 6

Le Hussard sur le Toit [Horseman on the Roof]

3 '

Lone Star The Long Kiss Goodnight R e n n y H a r l in

Looking for Richard A l Pa c in o

Mars Attacks! T im B u r t o n

Michael N ora E ph r o n

Mirror Has Two Faces B a rbr a S t r e is a n d

The People Vs. Larry Flynt M il o s F o r m a n

The Portrait of a Lady J a n e C a m p io n

■,8-

‘ p 7^'

K | B §g

Igsstgg^.-vr 1

7 9

P a t r ic e L e c o n t e

Scream C raven

Someone Else’s America G o r a n P a s k a l je v i c

■ ■ 1

8 9

■ H

6 /:C 'C

mKi

: 4):

Space Jam William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet

- 4

T-Y, 6

! - 4 • 1- . ; 1 ISS \ Ft OH

!§§|||gpjgg

|gs;v>71

3 '

¡¡IS

B B 9 9 i 4 .m

'SA' ' • 7.1

>. ;■\ i

\-:‘c:,c 7 \ i

¡llig

i i ! 1 1 1 1 1

“

4 - 4.5

8 H 1 1 9 j i-----------------

)

’ ‘ 7‘ 1jjB IP i j

p M

! 5 ■ 1 4-----------------

6.5

jB B B B

■

----------------- 1

p :- i

H 9 9

BBBM I

i .

6 ___________ !---- £*&______

te g Q ;

i 1 1;i-‘ 1 «§ ■ 9 ifli g H | illl

7‘

J o e P y tka

B az L uhrm ann

Fs -

(111

mm i

6 -

p -ir i

1 ! 1 1 1 I I

'■ ■

Ridicule

W es

6 .«

J e a n -P a u l R a p p e n a u

J o h n Sa y l e s

7 jj| j

Idiot Box

A l l is o n A n d e r s

D a v id C a e s a r

: _ _ J L

^ 6

L a r s v o n T r ie r s

J _

1 ■

-H

i i i

| | SJ p 1

3 ■’ ®

NB: "Nihil obstat [Lat., ‘nothing stands in the way’] Words appearing on the title page or elsewhere in the preliminary pages [...] indicating that it has been approved as free of doctrinal or moral error" A p a n el o f nine film reviewer,d had rated a delection o f the la ted t releaded on a dcale o f 0 to 10, the la tte r being the o p tim u m ra tin g (a dadh m eand n o t deen). The criticd are: B ill Collind (F x on F o xtel); B a rb a ra Creed (T he A g e); S an dra H a ll (T h e S ydney M orning H erald); P a u l H arrid ( “The Green G uide ”, The A g e); S ta n Janted (T h e Adelaide A dvertider);

A d ria n M a rtin (T h eA g e; “The W eek in F ilm ”, R adio N a tio n a l); S co tt M u rray; Tom R ya n (T h e S u n d a y A g e); a n d E van W iUiam d (T h e A u d tra lia n ). D avid S tra tto n id a t th e B erlin F ilm Fedtival.

New Technology, New Opportunities. You cannot afford to miss the premier Broadcast and Film industry forum in the Southern Hemisphere. Key players from around the globe will converge upon Sydney for the staging of this world class exhibition and conference programme. Join us for four days of invaluable information exchange and discover the latest ideas and technology in your industry. SMPTE '97 - Your competitors are coming .... You’ve got to be there! Visit the SMPTE '97 Web site: http://www.exevents.com.au/smpte97.htm For further information, phone, OR mail OR fax back this section YES! Please send m e fu rth e r inform ation on: □ visiting th e exhibition □ attending th e conference NAME:............................................................................................... POSITION:..................................................................... COMPANY:........................................................................................ ADDRESS:......................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................

TELEPHONE:................................................................ FACSIMILE:.................................................................. EMAIL:........................................................................... P/CODE:..........................

COUNTRY:.......................................................................................

Tel: +61 2 9977 0888 Fax: +61 2 9977 0336 E-mail: exhlbltlons@exevents.com.au

Organised by: e x p e r t . se

events

T racks A ustralia So u n d Pr o d u c tio n Pt y Ltd

46 A lbany Street, C rows N est N S W 2065 T el: (02) 9906 2960 Fax : (02) 9906 4128