Cinema Papers No.114 February 1997 by UOW Library

■ ■ ■ H i

i ^H

iW H

¡HHü H

M W H

M i

l * *

■^BHHH

■■■

■■ ,

-V V ^ ï

r:‘ H a‘' vi --,

„ _______ _

CI NE MA PAPERS

S E C O N D X A NGUA GE David Caesar's Idiot Box ' * W1 by M ark M ordub ^s?

So what really happens

lili

o u t in the ’b u rb sf W riterd irecto r D avid C aesar delves in to the m urky realities o f A ustralian jp rb an sub-cultures m

co te ts

FEBRUARY 1997

NUMBER

F O R W A R D M O M E N T U M? SPAA: The Aftermath I by

D iane C ook

W hile the g ov ern m en t gate-keep ers party, the Wj^sdustry nervously tip-toes ^ on w ards: sign-posting the way o f th e Au0raliait film industry

REALITY B IT ES «à*. , r

Dean Cundey , by L indsay A mos

THE SCI-FI ZONE

John Tatoulis' Zone 39 [ by M ichael H elms

DOP D ean C undey talks o f

A d esert-b ou n d soldier,

w orkin g w ith H o lly w o o d directors (Spielberg , Z em eckis, Carpenter, etc.) an d searches fo r a new cin em atographer’s language.

a^ijcnrdiedAizard an d 4 m u rd ered w ife ... T atou lis’ brave leap ifnto A ustralia’s leastex p lo red genre.

A Post-Modern Rose Baz AlggAânn - of Strict^^Mômfame - ¡sl|pe‘s?>it again! PAULii®i^Â3& talks to the directorand finds out how he aW his trusted team t o d « Shakepeseare on into the 21st centur^ PAGE 1 0

Inbits

Inreview: Books

New Media

Other Gauges

Festivals

Legal Ease

Documentaries

Technicalities

"49

Indiscussion

Inproduction

Inreview: Film

Nihil Obstat Nine 64

Pauline Adamek is a film correspondent based in Los Angeles; Lindsay Amos is a Sydney w riter with a particular interest in cinematography; Diane Cook works part-time as a freelance w riter and at Cinemedia; Ross Cooper is a painter and writer living in Sorrento; he co-authored (with Andrew Pike) Australian Film 1900-1974, Philip Dutchak is director of the research company. Colip Pty Ltd; Anna Dzenis is a tutor in Cinema Studies at LaTrobe University; Peter Galvin is a film reviewer at The Sydney M orning Herald Fred Harden writes on multimedia;

his on-line 'zine can be found at www.mm.com.au/amm; Lloyd Hart is a principal of Hart & Spira; Michael Helms is Editor of Fatal Visions. Paul McCarthy is director. Digital Media: Research and Design Pty Ltd, and addressed tl}e i-TV96 conference on “ Is the Global Content Rush Over"; Mark Mordue is a Sydney writer; Robert Nery is a filmmaker and writer; Deborah Niski is a writer and director of the short. Hell, Texas and Home, Barry Smith is a Sydney director, writer and photographer; Raymond Younis is a lecturer at the University of Sydney.

NEWS,

nbits VIEWS, AND

seven-person board has been appointed to oversee the opera

tions of the NSW Film & Television Office. Changes to the FO 's legislation puts the office on the same footing as the other institutions in the Arts portfolio. The board took up duties on 1 January 1997. Its members are Kerry Schott (chair), Geoffrey Atherden, Jan

ETC

1996 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION

NSWFTO

NEWS,

he AFC has released the 7th annual National Survey of Feature Film and

The survey records the total number

percent increase on 1994/95's figure of

and value of Australian production and

$54m sees a return to the investment

overseas production occurring in

levels of 1993/94 ($93m).

Australia. The total production value of

Overseas sources were the principal

feature film and independent television

investors in 22 productions (14 in 1994/95)

drama in 1995/96 was $478m, an

worth $238m ($164m in 1994/95). This is

increase of $144m over 1994/95. This

the highest value of foreign production

is the highest value recorded since the

shot in Australia since the Survey began

survey began in 1988/89.

in 1988/89. Overseas sources were major

In 1995/96,30 feature films were

valued at $56m and 14 foreign productions

of $221 m, a 96 percent increase over

valued at $182m.

Commenting on the improvement in the film production sector after the reductions recorded in the 1994/95 Robinson said, "These figures reveal a

of six short films produced under the

healthy, sustained growth in television

Indigenous Drama Initiative of the AFC,

increase in independent Australian fea

and a welcome injection of private

the Commission and SBS Independent

ture film and television drama produc

finance to the feature film industry."

are pleased to announce the Indigenous

tion from $205 million in 1994/95 to

Australian government funding sources

Drama Initiative II.

Over the next four years, the NSWFO

$297m in 1995/96. The main compo

were the principal investors in 43 pro

w ill allocate $350,000 per annum to

nents of the increase were Australian

ductions (38 in 1994/95) worth $140m,

establish the Young Filmmakers Fund.

feature film spending (up by $46m on

an increase of $25m over 1994/95.

¿ e g a M ^ w s e c -D A N P e a r c e .J | g

six ten-minute narrative dramas by Indigenous writers and filmmakers will be produced. The AFC is currently calling

expenditure which increased by $46m

sources were the principal investors

for applications. Indigenous involvement

over the previous year to $208m.

increased to $101 m. This figure, an 87

is encouraged in all areas of production.

■ B H i BMBMPPMMM

grants under the new programme.

ine new Australian screenwriters

Linder the second initiative, another

totalling $180,000 in the first round of

AFC FUNDS NEW SCREENWRITERS

"From Sand to Celluloid", the group

Chapman, Laurie Patton, Rachel Perkins,

Productions in which private sector

ollowing the remarkable success of

tion for the 1995/96 financial year.

1994/95 to $89m) and television drama

fa i l l i

survey, AFC chief executive Cathy

John Politzer and Errol Sullivan.

Nine filmmakers share grants

INDIGENOUS DRAMA INITIATIVE II

Independent Television Drama Produc In 1995/96, there was a 45 percent

fe b ru ary 1997 n u m b e r 114

ity investors in 8 Australian productions

produced at a total production value 1994/95 (20 features at $113m).

cinema

\ Dear Sir/' ''

Founding Publishers:

In response to '“The Return o f 10BA ?” (Cinema Papers, No. 113, December: 1 996), I fullycpnciir that the asSessn\ent-df 10BA an$J :v afious.pther'hjnding mecihanisms remains vital to our production/?'

have been given the opportunity to

develop feature film scripts by the AFC's New Screenwriters Scheme. The writers have received investment funding and each has been teamed with an experienced industry practitioner to act as a script editor and mentor. The selected writers and projects are: Damien Lovelock (Kev The Head); Rob de Kok (Moss); Grant Whitfield (Deep Drowned Land); Nick Kapetanios (Blondie and Redhead); Gabrielle Prendergast (Hildegarde); Cate Shortland [Feeling Better); Michael Esler (The Tomato Man); Sandra Sciberras (Walls and Bridges); and Anthony Bosch (Mortal Men).

Currently, I am engaged in research on the history o f lOBA’s impact on feature production fp'r a post-gfaduate degree. I was disappointed, but not-surprised, tofseeJin Catherine M unro’s. article the o^ltodox .eriticisms o f 10BA which emphasize investor preoccupation with tax breaks rather tHhh a film’s performance, the b lo w o u t in budgets and the cost to government revenue. Even ■d?fise5,q£ course, was FFC scepticism >of a return to 10BA. It is precisely-these narrow confines o f the that persist some eight years after the demise o f JOB A that'motivates my research. " In an effort to Broaden tHfpIraxrietefs o f this highly-controversiiipohc^ d 'ani attem pfhg to

l l &• Gf f i l i' É a or

roup

place TlOBA within a broader h i ^ o r i d ^ ^ i p ^ i t i f e ^ context. I will, be giving emphasis to" the defin•L98 characteristics .of the- era: the culture of'tax avoidance that propagated the notorious^Sliottorn of the harbour” abuses, the inhibiting consequences o f CAC regulations on smaller productions), the change in federal- government, thpderegulation o f the- fm andal’Sectbr;, the c©||^ate { ¿ ^ b o y

LIMITI 9 SRI IRIMM IH! VI1W«. ;

approach o f the 198.0s ... the list go.es on. Any accurate measure .of 10BA hasmxbe considered against such significant trends that inevitably contributed' to lOBA’s performance. Another area o f major concern accompanying 10BA assessment is the much-flouted data that m the eyesjof eommeritators continually spells “excess”. Statistics of 10BA and their margin for error have a tendency to multiply according to the nu m berof government agencies handling the data. T oo

R:y.he pubusi

often the result is highly-contradictory figures between different reports. It is a deficiency-SPAA has .-' correctly identified in its Gonskfjgubraission as-one of the industry’s primary failings {Encore, • December 4-17)>.This regrettably situation is compounded in. relation to 10BA by the National Secrets which prohibits access to countless volumes of data protected under corporate privacy codes. surrounding 10BA, makes a comprehensive approach to assessing 10BA possible arid well overdue It is a<history that acknowledges the complexity accompanying lOBA ’s rise,-dispelling those'assertions-that remain full o f transparent and predicably-alignei r h e to r ic ^ In short, it isltime.to,¿g.t away from the “avocado-plantation^ headlines that dominate 10BA

É É ÌÉ Ì

/.and delve deeper into the issues surrounding both indhect-and direct forms o f assistance. Only once this is achieved, which r hope W illbe assisted-by/formal. inquiries like the Gonski Review, can we move decisively forward. -Yohrs -sincerely Sean M aher PS. Although I have made considerable, headway uito^the research, and been generously assisted by various industry personnel, I, am still very lifterested to hear from anyone who had first-hand feature E f||

film experience under 10BA. Please contact me on (61.2) 931 5 8023 (AH) or (61.1) 9 3 7 2 5573-(B H );

COVER:

fax/ (^1.2) 9 4 1 2 3 3 1 7 ; -or e-mail: sean.m aher@reedbusiness.llim .au

Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio)

in Baz Luhrmann’s William

Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.

-EDITOR’S NOTE: For more and differing views on 1DBA in this issue, see Lloyd Ha Diane Cook’s round-up of SPAA and the brief review of Tunnel Vision In “Inreview”.

C I N E M A P A P E R S * FEBRUARY&997

T H E DOM INO E F F E C T a

THE ADVENTURES OF PINOCCHIO A llied P inocchio Productions Ltd US distribu tor - N ew Line C in em a / International D istributor - Kushner Locke International FrameStore The Magic Camera Company

JUDGE DREDD Buena V ista/C in erg i Pictures Cinema Research Corporation/ Digital Rezolution

OUTBREAK W arner Bros OCS/Freeze Frame/Pixel Magic

INDEPENDENCE DAY

THE UMBRELLA STORY

Twentieth C entury Fox Digiscope

G olden C entro Pictures Centro Digital Pictures

MULHOLLAND FALLS

WATERWORLD

MGM Cinema Research Corporation/ Digital Rezolution

U lP /U niversal OCS/Freeze Frame/Pixel Magic

c o mi n g

soon:

MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND W alt D isney Pictures Jim H enson Productions The Magic Camera Company

CUTTHROAT ISLAND C arolco Cinema Research Corporation/ Digital Rezolution

Das W erk Das Werk

THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS A llied F ilm m akers/Joh n G oldstone/Terry Jo nes The Magic Camera Company

THE CROW: CITY OF ANGELS UA/Eon P roductions The Magic Camera Company Title sequence: Lim elight Productions FrameStore

HAUNTED D ouble A Pictures/A m erican Zo etro p e for Lum iere FrameStore

M iram ax Film s Corp. Bad Bird P roductions Digiscope

Quantel Pty Ltd, 8/81 Frenchs Forest Road Frenchs Forest, NSW 2086 Tel: (02) 9452 4111 Fax: (02) 9452 5711 http://www.quantel.com

BATMAN FOREVER W arner Bros OCS/Freeze Frame/Pixel Magic

QUANTEL

C IN E M A P A P E R S P R E S E N T S A S E R I O U S AN D I R R E V E R E N T R O U N D -U P O F T H E Y E A R . 1

W illiam Shakespeare s Romeo e3 Juliet

W ORST FILM O F 1996

Most Puzzling Hollywood Theme

(Mike Nicholls)

The stress of making New York look like W arsaw in Ron Howard's Ransom (DOP: Piotr Sobocinski)

(Baz Luhrm ann) Composers ot the Year

Runners-up

Jerry Goldsmith for City Hall Tangerine Dream for Heat

The Day the Sun Heat Turned Cold (Michael Mann) (Yim Ho) ¿es Misérables Fargo de Victor Hugo (Joel Coen)

Victim reversal: Ransom and The Juror (Brian Gibson)

Best Love Scene

(Claude Lelouch)

Romeo meets Juliet

Most Under-rated

U.S. military servicemen [sic], bored in peace-time, become traitorous sociopaths (The Rock, Broken Arrow, Courage Under Fire)

Best reason to Buy Babe on Tape and Watch it Over and Over and Over

Most Tragic Scene

101 Dalmatians

Romeo realizes Juliet is a Capulet

Most Misogynistic Film ot the Year (Decade/Millennium)

City Hall (Harold Becker) Courage Under Fire (Edward Zwick) Les Patriotes (Eric Rochant)

Least-convincing Climax

Shanghai Triad (Zhang Yimou)

The "secrets and lies" scene in Secrets & Lies (Mike Leigh)

Most Over-rated

Robert de Niro's character in

Film Noir R.l.P.

Casino (Martin Scorsese)

Best Australian Film

Briefest Appearance by an Australian in a Foreign Film in Persuasion (Roger Michell)

"From Sand to Celluloid”: Black Man Down (Bill McCrow), Fly Peewee, Fly! (Sally Riley), No Way Out (Richard Frankland), Payback (W arw ick Thornton), Round Up (Rima Tamou), Two Bob Mermaid (Darlene Johnson)

Best Movie In-joke In Black Sheep (Penelope Spheeris),

"Mr Stone, you can start filming now.”

Worst Australian Film

Most Ludicrous Uses of a Body Double

Awaiting industry peer-group assessment

Chantal Contouri's nude double in

Immediate Entry into the Australian Cinema’s Hall of Fame

Offspring (Richard Ryan) Mel Gibson's stunt double in Ransom (Ron Howard) Rebecca de Mornay's nude double in

Jill Bilcock for her editing on W illiam Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet

Another Editor We Love

Devil in a Blue Dress (Carl Franklin) Diabolique (Jeremiah Chechick) Jade (William Friedkin)

Never Talk to Strangers

Thelma Schoonmaker (especially for her montages in Casino)

Joe Oueenan Award tor Maverick/I ndie/Low-budget Filmmaker Poorhouse Chic2 Love and Other Catastrophes (Emma-Kate Croghan)

Best DOP Theirry Arbogast for Le Hussard sur la Toit \ (Jean-Paul Rappeneau)

John Patrick Shanley Award for Scriptorial Somnambulance John Hughes for 101 Dalmatians

Pauline Hanson Award for Racial Tolerance The Arab property developer in Father of the Bride II

Nora Ephvon-Aiixed N utj Award for a D.O.A. Comedy

Most Ludicrous Non-use of a Body Double

Getting Away with Murder

Demi Moore in Striptease

Endless Love Award for Literary Mis-adaptation

(Andrew Bergman)

Best Surprise Twist The fate of Steven Seagal's character in

(Harvey Miller)

Jane Eyre (Franco Zeffirelli) The Scarlet Letter (Roland Joffe) Striptease

Executive Decision (Stuart Baird)

Best Reason for a Director to go ! Back to His/Her Original DOP j Darius Kondji's work on Stealing Beauty l (Bernardo Bertolucci) I

Most Hommaged Film

Mission Impossible

The Incredibly True Adventures of 2 Girls in Love

(Brian de Palma)

(Maria Maggenti)

Great Reasons to Boycott the Cinema

The Lumiere Cinema's 'special deal' on Cosi: a free ticket to see Cosi to anyone who didn't enjoy the film

Most Cynical Marketing Exercise 101 Dalmatians

Gary Busey, playing a crazed Vietnam Vet, steps out of his trailer as someone yells,

(Steven Herek)

An Offer you Can’t Retuse

Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee)

Best Australian Non-feature

101 Dalmatians

Least Necessary Attempt at Repeating a Winning Formula

Mission Impossible (Brian de Palma)

Ken Snodgrass, as a butler,

Desperado (Robert Rodriguez)

Breaking the Waves (Lars Von Triers)

Get Shorty (Barry Sonnenfield)

Shine (Scott Hicks)

Runners-up

Disney remakes Quentin Tarantino's acting Star-produced vehicles

Most Unlikely Survivor of a Car Bomb

La Cérémonie (Claude Chabrol) Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch)

The Birdcage

Great Reasons to Go to the Cinema

Chris Marker's La Jetée ( What I Have

Liv Tyler

Written and Twelve Monkeys)

Leonardo DiCaprio

Worst Uma Thurman Film of the Year A Month by the Lake (John Irving)

Best Uma Thurman Film of the Year We're still w a itin g ...

Best Decision by a Video Distributor To re-release Tombstone (George Pan Cosmatos) in Widescreen

Worst Decision by a Video Distributor Releasing any film un-formatted

Best Documentary News The box-office and critical success of Rats in the Ranks (Bob Connolly, Robin Anderson)

Worst Documentary News The AFI Awards pre-selectors' ignoring Rats in the Ranks

The Most Eagerly-awaited Story What actually happened... C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

2 S e e " B o o k s ".

BEST FILM O F 1996

Trendsetting

N a tu ra lly , n o t all film s re le a s e d in 1996 w e r e , o r cou ld b e, s e e n .

Best reason tor a DOP to go Back to His/Her Original Director

Kev (Ben M endelsohn) and M ic k (Je rem y Sims) David C aesar's Id io t Box.

C I N E M A P A P E R S â&#x20AC;¢ FEBRUARY 1997

the sounds of crossed phone wires, telecommunications babble, radio broad casts and sparse guitar slowly exploding into rock 'n ro ll, Id io t B ox op ens in flig h t over a nig h t-tim e m e tro p o lis. It lands on tw o young men playing chicken in the blinding headlights o f cars rushing down a highway. T h e one w ho goes suicidally close to speeding danger is Kev (B en M e n d elso h n ). T h e one w ho pulls him from the road is M ick (Jeremy Sims). “You b astard ”, M ick says. Kev roars laughing, ’till the sounds o f the cars swallow up his voice. M ick is smarter than he lets on, a grunge poet who w astes his talents amusing m ates w ith his cynical w it and b ru tal ly rics th a t read lik e to ilet-w a ll Bukowski. Slowly inspired by a new relationship with Lani (Robyn Laou), a Polynesian girl who works at the local bottle shop, M ick sees a chance for something better. W hen she and M ick stand on the highway overpass, he asks her to make up a story about some one in the cars zooming by below. She says, “See that man and woman. W ell, they’re happy.” M ick asks why. She tells him: “They just decided to b e.” But M ick’s loyalties continue to tie him back to his best mate, Kev. During an afternoon slacking around, watching crum m y videos and drinking beer, Kev fantasizes about the criminal life. M ick eggs him on and, for once in their lives, they both decide to act. A bank ro bb ery. Arm ed hold-up. “Piss easy !”, says Kev. “W e ’re not gunna shoot anyone, w e’re just gonna have some FU N .” Director David Caesar creates a montage of events and suburban impressions that move rapidly towards the bank-robbery climax.

Along the way, he ties together other parallel nar ratives: a couple’s struggling with heroin addiction; a com ic and nasty pair o f A bbott & C ostello-like speed dealers (John Poison’s Jonah is a knockabout character turn); a notorious bank robber known to the local media as Laughing Boy because of his clown mask; and two detectives with the stale and familiar crease of Homicide and Division 4 hovering over their personas (Graeme Blundell and Deborah Kennedy in a particularly-droll double-act). The ultimate meltdown feels like Dog Day After n oon (Sidney Lumet, 1 9 7 5 ) retold in an Australian grunge style, with a strong sub-textual critique of the media and the way we have let suburbia becom e a spiritual garbage dump for youth culture. F o r C aesar, I d io t B o x is a sharp , fa st change of gear. T h e d ire cto r is m ore usually renow ned fo r his social com m entary and docum entary w ork, in award-winning films like Bodywork (about the funeral industry), F en ces (the nature and organization o f

private and commu nity spaces) and Car C rash (A ustralia’s obsession w ith the car). Stylistically, they have defined and continually refined his approach: distilled, lingering, highly-framed takes and tracking shots that invite a cool and quiet intake of subject matter. Caesar’s début feature, Greenkeeping (1993), main tained that pace, sedately and ironically exploring the misadventures of a lawn bowls greenkeeper. Arche typal A u stralian su b ject m aterial (again) w ith a humanist political undercurrent (again) and a sharp trace of sardonic humour (again). Though Caesar continues this pattern with Idiot B ox , he has cranked up the amplifier considerably with a little help from Tim Rogers of You Am I, who worked on the soundtrack. He has also used his reg ular director o f photography (Joe Pickering)1, editor (M ark Perry) and sound designer (Liam Egan) with remarkably-new vigour, oscillating between glarey

outside light and dark interiors, wild camera angles, fast cuts and highly-dense, mediated soundscapes. In many ways, Id io t B ox feels like a first-tim e feature: brash, speedy, rule-breaking and jumpy in both pace and editing. Certainly it draws from the director’s experience jobbing for television (such as tele-features in the The Feds series). Caesar picks up on the stasis and b an ality o f te lev isio n cu ltu re , pulps it up for cinema-sploitation and continues his long-running obsession with suburbia to produce his finest burst of adrenalized and politicized filmmak ing thus far. Indeed, it is interesting that his long-time producer, Glenys Rowe, actually made her début as a producer with Dogs in Space (Richard Lowenstein, 1987). Idiot B ox might just catch the ’90s suburban rock ’n’ roll generation with the same attitude: from anger is an energy, to ennui is an enemy.

David Caesar, director of idiot BOX/ talks to Mark Mordue C I N E M A P A P E R S * FEBRUARY 1997

Ben Mendelsohn and Jeremy Sims give off a lot of energy. That funny edge between their characters is matey yet competitive; somehow nervous. I didn’t want Id iot B ox to be like so many other western-suburbs films that have been made over the years - films like Fast Talking [Ken Cameron, 1984] and T he F J H old en [M ichael T h o rn h ill, 1 9 7 7 ]. I actually think they are very good films, but they don’t have the energy of young men, that frustrated sexual anger, whatever you want to call it, that’s out there in the western suburbs. I’ve never seen it on the Australian screen; I’ve only seen something like it in a few American movies. It was something I wanted to get onto the screen here , where there is too much energy, and where there’s no purpose for this energy in the world they live in.

W hen it comes to filmmaking, playing it safe is a

propel the information forward. It’s about trying to

really big mistake. It’s much better to make some

say all we can say, and more than what a soap opera says, in film. Because people are getting more and more film literate, you can pack more information in. I think people are longing for it. I think they re hungry for it. N ot everyone. But a lot of people are looking for that experience of information overload

thing which is perceived to be a noble failure than to make something that’s just okay. Obviously, it’s better to make a film that people perceive is great, but, if you are over-ambitious and fail, the media and the film industry, and people generally, perceive it in a more positive light. If you have really strong ideas, if you can com municate them as clearly as possible, you can go all the way. You can be over-the-top; you can take those chances. And I think I have really strong ideas. Because I write these films as well as direct them, I actually see and feel and hear them in my head. I’ve always thought, “If I could make one of those films it would be fantastic. Just fantastic!”

- as long as the story isn’t trounced. The story you're talking about is still strongly connected to the authentic texture of the suburban Australian environment. Your script details all the locations: "Bottle shop", "Cop shop", "Lounge"... It’s the world that a lot of people inhabit. And it doesn’t get on the screen very often in this country. It doesn’t get on the screen very often anywhere.

A lot of people will say it s a film about the nature of peopledi Ben and Jeremy were great; they really got that. And it’s one of the things that brought a nervous cam era energy w ith it, always jum ping around and moving, adding tension. And in the music as well. Idiot Box is quite fast in terms of pacing, the intercutting of the television images, the use of rock ’n’ roll. I actually think the experience of watching a film can be much more exciting if it works like a roller coaster. A fast scene is much faster if there’s a slow scene before it; a quiet scene much quieter if a loud scene precedes it. I really wanted to get the audience on this rollercoaster where they’d come to a slow bit and think, “Oh, something bad is gonna happen!” The problem is you set yourself up with having to deliver the ‘something bad’ that’s gonna happen. But I think the delivery is pretty strong in Idiot Box. Robyn Laou was a teen pop star in Girlfriend before this and didn't have any acting experience. But her performance as Lani in Idiot Box is incredibly natural and easy. At first, I was dubious about the idea of using her. But when we screen tested her, she just understood it completely. I probably saw 50 people before Robyn. It was a really convoluted process. W e were trying to get a balance of innocence and toughness, and a certain life-force, as though she was just going to make it no matter what happened around her. That’s Lani’s character. And that’s Robyn. She comes from Blacktown. She knows that world in the western suburbs. How about Jeremy Sims and Ben Mendelsohn? W ith Jeremy, the main thing I was interested in was a certain intelligence. Mick needed to have an intel lect. I’d seen Jeremy in some plays and really liked him in Aftershocks. As for Ben, I’ve been a fan of his for a long time. If any Australian actor is going to be the one, it’s him. H e’s as good, if not better, than Jack Nicholson at his age - in that Jack Nicholson way where there’s someone on screen that you can’t take your eyes off. W hether you call it charisma or magnetism or star quality, he’s just got it. It’s easy for him, it’s natural. [Laughs. ] I don’t even know what it is about him. As one gets older and more interested in craft, there's a tendency to stop experimenting. But Idiot Box is a wild gear-shift for you. Your documentaries and your first feature. Greenkeeping, are character ized by a much more contemplative film style, a much quieter and distilled sense of watching a suburban world and its characters.

[Laughs.] I just find I’m having a renaissance in my wildness, and there’s a tangible reward for me now in that wildness.

Greenkeeping showed me you actually have to aspire to making a better film than that. Because of all the compromises that can occur - it rains on the day or the actor’s sick - by being overly ambitious you can end up with something that is still good. You have to keep pushing and go that extra bit further, and Idiot Box does. Some people have found the editing quite rough, and almost too crude to cope with. A couple of people, especially older people, have had problems with the aggression of the editing. W hen I thought about the editing before we even started work on the film, I wanted to make

doing it on televis it noticeable. It’s so aggressive it actually blows up in your face. It is like the experience of ran domly flicking on stations and coming in hard on things. I wrote Idiot Box to be filmed and edited this way. I knew that was what I wanted. So, there’s no lead-up to a conversation or preliminaries. You just get the event. The soundtrack pushes it even further, making it choppier and segmenting it into a lot of little pieces, a whole lot of information. W e wanted to get an abruptness between the four main strands of the story: the cops; the drug addicts; the dealer; and the boys themselves, Mick and Kev. W hat we were also trying to do with the edit ing was com press tim e. W e actually cut and shorten moves, so that when someone is turn ing, for example, you see them start, then there’s a cut, and they have turned. All the movement is accelerated and jarring. It’s like the m om ent in a blink, when there’s a sense of slight disorientation, which we push fur ther with the soundtrack. Do you think that disturbs people, or is it endemically Australian to somehow inhibit people going over the line? I think it’s the same anywhere. Look at a film like

Natural B om Killers [Oliver Stone, 1994], which is so far over the line in every way - from the story to the soundtrack to the camera, the performances and everything in-between. It’s been vilified for that But I don’t think there’s ever been a film like it. Peo ple will say negative things like that about Idiot Box, too, because of the way we’ve used television inserts or bits of violence within the scenes, or just intercut with cartoons and so on. People will criticize that. But I think Idiot Box is like that because it helps

And I think people get excited by it. I think it’s one of the reasons why MurieVs Wedding [P. J. Hogan, 1994] was so successful. A lot of people thought, “Oh that’s a world I know. That’s a world I under stand. They’re emotions I’ve felt.” It’s important for a film to do that. It’s essential it does it. Even if it just exists as a historical artefact that records parts of this world that people five in - and comments on it at the same time. I think that’s the point of any type of cultural form. Is that why the suburbs interest you? I grew up on the farm. Near the beach. [Laughs.] So I was milking cows in the morning and surfing in the afternoon, which isn’t really a suburban existence. All the early stuff I used to write was concerned with Australian bush m ythology, partly because that’s the world I lived in. Then I moved to Sydney thirteen years ago and was sort o f ... surrounded. I got caught up living in Chippendale and all that C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Subscribe to Cinema Papers now and save up to 20% off newsstand price.

6 issues at 10% off! $37.50 (normally $41.70) 12 issues at 15% off! $70.00 (normally $83.40) 18 issues at 20% off! $100.00 (normally $125.10) Renewal? B ack issues: $6.00 each Please list issue Nos required: Total no. of issues

Total Cost $

N a m e .................................................................................................... T it le ....................................................................................................... C o m p a n y.............................................................................................. A ddress ............................................................................................... C o u n try ............................................... Post C o d e ............................ Telephone (H )............................... ( W ) ............................................ Enclosed is my cheque fo r $ ......................................................... or please debit my D B a n k c a rd D M a s te rc a rd D V is a c a rd Card N o................................................................................................. Expiry D a te .......................................................................................... S ig n a tu re ............................................................................................. 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.

Save up to 20 % on International Rates. Discountofferends1April 1997

1 wish to subscribe for

drugs, drink, tfrat sort of world. 1 was w .riilg about that then. But as time went on. as I wasdrivolwBwfth other projects and people, I gradually got introduced to suburbia. And I thought, “That’s it! That’s the story. That’s the place.” Everything else is like the fringe stuff really. It’s important that films are made about the idea of the bush and the idea of the beach, but I think the real heart of the matter is the suburbs. The Americans cottoned onto the importance of the suburbs a couple of years before us. It’s logical [laughs]. There are so many more people thinking about stuff over there. The idea of ‘the suburban exis tence’ is the popular culture - things like Roseanne, even Seinfeld , and the idea of ordinariness.

^lt|f^waw®pn|lictds’used. I also e the way in Ithdse early M artin Scorsese films hejhas popular »Iramire re il^ g ^ p p m o th the nmsicfand the way he uses the camera to focus on thingsPH Did you have any ideas for the colour schemes you wanted to dominate the film? Well, Kerith [Holmes, production designer] and I did a lot of work on colours. I was very keen to get big shifts between my interiors and exteriors of blues and yellows - the saturated stuff. So it’s glary out side, and dark inside - an Australian summer feel. How about the sound? W e have a w hole lot of people doing music for the film: You Am I; Crow; Magic Dirt; and lots of

ity q^the stories - not the quahtyjpf thfgjmformatiowKlPMIre q u ali^ ® aP re way things are told. Everything ends up having a cheapness. And because of that inherent cheapness, nothing has an inherent value. And that’s what the film is about, from my point of view - not the fact that they get told stories about people robbing banks or killing people or whatever else. M ost fairytales and myths are about the same things, so I don’t think it really matters. I heard Silverchair got into trouble because some one played one of their songs and killed their family. Yeah, in America. They played “Israel’s Son” and killed their own family. But it’s like they could have played fucking “Do Re M i” from The Sound O f Music for all it mattered. I’m sure that’s not the rea son why they killed. I don’t think that’s the issue. I think it’s the fact there isn’t any real meaning behind anything. N o th in g has any m eaning. Whether you rob a bank or don’t rob a bank, there isn’t moral value in it. I t’s just a choice that you make, as opposed to it being a right thing or a wrong thing. It’s just about whether you do something or don’t do something. Did you have any hesitation that the film might be oppressive? Well, it’s not a Ken Loach film. It has a darkness to it, but there isn’t a victim mentality to the film by any means. And I think when people are respond ing to what is essentially an alienating culture with anger, it’s not necessarily a negative. And that’s what the characters do. They say I’m not going to accept this. I’m sure some people will say, “Oh, it’s going to get people to rob banks” - the Robert Doles of

want to say that/ this world and a whole lot of middle-class matrons - but I reckon at the end of the day that’s their prob lem. I don’t think people who actually understand Idiot Box will be critical of it in that way. There's also a definite warmth and humour in it. Yeah, it’s funny. I think there’s a range of emotions in it. T h a t’s why it was so im portant to get such good actors. It’s not like that dimension on which Tarantino’s films work: a monotone of style, char acter and performance. I actually think that people will care about the characters in Idiot Box, because their dilemmas are quite real; they’re not fantasy dilemmas.

i don't give a shit." It will be interesting to see where Idiot Box is posi tioned because of all that. It will be interesting to see if it’s positioned as a R om per Stom per [Geoffry Wright, 1992] film or a Muriel’s Wedding film, or a Bright Lights, Big City [James Bridges, 1988] film with its gaudy colours, because it is quite bright in terms of colours. People always want to position films within a movement. And I think audiences want a shorthand, as well in terms of knowing, “Oh, it’s like that, yeah.” Did you have shorthand ideas in terms of imagining the film? In terms of the references, it’s somewhere between

M ean Streets [M artin Scorsese, 1 9 7 3 ] and Barry Levinson’s Baltimore films. I think people will be confused by this, but it’s somewhere between Mean Streets and Tin Men [1 9 8 7 ]. T h ey ’re two o f my favourite films of all time. I just like the way character and dialogue is used, C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

others. They’ve all done covers of classic Australian underground songs, and a couple of originals. W e’re also going to have all these layers of sound as well. Because we’re mixing in digital, we have six channels, and we’re going to position things that are happening in the house next door, like some one w atching a game show on telev isio n , and someone else with a radio on. There’s a sense that these people are bombarded by information, and music and images, all the time. A lot of people will say it’s a film about the nature of people doing things because they’ve seen people doing it on television or w hatever. I don’t p er ceive it like that myself. But if people want to say that, they can say that. I don’t give a shit. Why don't you perceive it like that? Because I think it’s far more complicated than that. I don’t think it’s necessarily about the information in the stories they’ve been given. I think it’s the qual

From the script, I always perceived the film to be about how men, working-class men, are becoming increasingly redundant. They always had spaces for their heroism in the past, whether it was droving, the bush, or their labour to support their family. That energy and aggression could be a positive, but it is a major negative now. Yet people are attracted to it: women are attracted to it; men are; directors are; from Jesse Jam es to Ned Kelly, to now. It’s no coincidence Quentin Tarantino’s stuff is popu lar; it taps into all that. But you couldn’t say the characters in this film are rewarded in any way. It isn’t like American films, and the obsession over there with happy endings. There is always a consequence, whether you rob a bank or talk bad. For better or for worse, Idiot Box is a moral film. 1 Greenkeeping was shot by Simon Smith.

E M A P A P E R S â&#x20AC;¢ F E B R U A R Y 19 9 7

Leonardo DiCaprio, d ire c to r Baz Luhrmann and Claire Danes.

tìBSf

1MMS

m *

Juliet. W illiam Shakespeafè s Romeo & Juliet.

wentietirCenturjHFox is buzzing with the news. WlLliam Shakespeare’s Romeo c3 Ju liet is number one at the box office during its opening weekend, tak ing US$11.1 million on 1,277 screens and beating its closest contender (one of those comedian-withan-ejlephant buddy movies) by three times over. B a z L uhrmann is excited :

I thought it would stir up an interest, ittft we were told that y o u th ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ K e re ste d in Shakespeare and that they would not want to see Rom eo and Juliet. Some critics have come out and lid there are “bad films”, there are “worst films of a l l ^ ^ H H H H H I ^ p V a z L u h r m a n n ’s Ron^o & Ju liet^ ^ ^ lK S m /K n at bad and confronting, and I understand that, but we told it in our way. The “we” Luhrmann frequently refers to are his long

time collaborators, in particular production designer Catherine Martin and screenwriter Craig Pearce, with whom he studied at NIDA during the early 1980s. The creative team has grown since the Strictly Ball room days to include producer-art director M artin Brown, film editor Jill Bilcock and choreographer John ‘Cha-Cha’ O ’Connell. Hence, their company is now called BAZMARK Productions to incorporate the two Martins. W ith this, his second featu re, Luhrm ann has

shot a highly-stylized - at times frenetic - gang land version of the world’s most enduring tragic and romantic fable. His intention was to reveal the power of Shakespeare’s 400-year-old myth, which is not so much about young love as the b elief that the inheritance of hatred, anger and bitterness w ithin a culture or fam ily inexorably leads to 1 tragedy. To date, the film’s audience has been made up of a high proportion of teenaged girls and young women. The success of the film has proven that the two young leads, Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, have a strong enough following to open a film. Made for a sum between US$15 and $17 million, clearly Romeo & Juliet will have no trouble making its money back and possibly a decent profit, as proven by a healthy US$9 million take for the second weekend. Luhrmann maintains this is the first time a major studio has taken the chance on a Shakespearean adap tation, and that even independent productions such as Kenneth Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing only took $20 million domestically. Although the M exico City shoot was shut down due to illness, hurricanes and a kidnapping, Luhrmann says the hardest part of the job was convincing the studio to give the go-ahead to the film: It was very difficult to convince people, to convince Fox. It’s hard to believe that a studio made this film at the level at which it is financed, which is essen tially experim ental in its execution . People say C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Hollywood is in love with Shakespeare. That’s not tru e. W hy do you th in k m ajors d o n ’t both er? They’re not worth the biscuits. On the wings of the film’s strong opening weekend, 20th Century Fox has signed Luhrmann to an exclu sive, two-year deal that calls for him to write, direct and produce for the studio. With an office on the stu dio’s U.S. lot and another in Sydney, Luhrm ann will not start the developmental process for another two months. He has even turned down an invitation to stage an opera at London’s Covent Garden. Sev eral other studios were making offers, but Luhrmann decided to stay with the studio that had brought him to Hollywood. He felt that News Corp president and CEO Peter Chernin and Fox Filmed Entertainment president and CEO Bill Mechanic had taken a big risk when they gave the go-ahead to Rom eo & Juliet. If it was a gam ble, w ith an entire budget less than certain stars’ salaries, then it certainly has paid off. Surely the finest cinematic experience you could ask for is the pure magic o f watching fresh, young love unfurl before your eyes. In the scene when the lovers first meet, gazing through a gorgeous aquar ium, actors Leonardo D iCaprio and Claire Danes personify love at first sight, their faces suffused with delight and sweetness. It’s as if we are watching cin ema history, witnessing the emergence of a legendary screen duo for our time. If this were the 1940s, we could expect half a dozen more films starring this compatible pair. C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

How much of the success of the film is due to the casting? There’s no question that you have in Leonardo and Claire two fine young actors, remembering that when I cast L eo n ard o, tw o years ago, he was unknown. He had just been nominated for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Claire was just on television [in My So-Called Life]. They absolutely have a fol low ing and are resp onsible fo r people being interested, but remember this: Leonardo has not opened a film on his own. He has not even done vague box office. Claire has never opened a film. So are they alone responsible for the box office? Obviously somewhat, and also they’re good actors. Why did you choose them, when they weren't that big? Well, ‘D’ I just looked at and thought he looked like Romeo. Sort of like James Dean, and Romeo was your first ‘rebel w ith o u t a cau se’, your first Byronesque ‘I’m rebelling but have no political cause to rebel against’ character. So, I rang him up and he and his father came down to Australia, and spent their own money and flew econom y. They came down twice and we shot a workshop on video and finally convinced the stu dio to let us do it. Claire, I searched the world - 1 saw actors all over the world - and Jane Campion, who lives near me in Sydney, said, “Have you seen Claire on My So-

Called L ife}” As I hadn’t seen it, I went back to the US and Claire came in. I was looking who was sixteen but who had the a cter to deal w ith L eo n ard o , becaus formidable opponent in the acting stakes, of the young girls were like [Baz and heart fluttering], ‘My god, undermining, to work with someone you find five when you’re sixteen. She just walked to him and said, “Art thou not Romeo It is tague?” and kissed him. T hey were crucial because the film is so frenetic they get together, you need time to stand don’t expect everyone to get it but I think they achieve that. I think they do bring a stillness to film. There is an unusual rhythm to the film. From the frenzied energy of the brawls and the Bacchanalian excesses of the ball to the serenity of the romantic scenes between the young couple. Dispensing with formula on all fronts, Shakespeare’s text feels rushed. It is yelled, mumbled, whispered, bawled and bur bled. N o one, except possibly Pete Postlethwaite as an ornately-tattooed Father Laurence, seems to know how to find the m etre that underpins the poetry. Thus, what we lose, particularly in the first scene between the lovers, is the grace o f the poetry that spontaneously falls from their lips. T h ey m atch each other with witty epigrams and end up speak ing in perfect sonnets. T hat Luhrmann audaciously stages the balcony

scene w ith R om eo and Ju lie t treading water*is in keeping with his m o tif that these tw o'escape into

changing style, to keep clarity, to keep surprising the

Do you think love is the same now as j l was a t f helPF,

audience, to keep ahead of them. Is it more visual"

time the play was written? V

water. They use water for silence, for peace and, as L u h rm an n puts it, th e ir ‘th e r e ’s a p la ce fo r u s’ moments. Luhrmann deals with their world as if their parents are in a Busby Berkeley musical on acid, all mania and relentless hysteria. “That final image when they kiss under water - it’s just silence.” In a stroke of innovative genius, Luhrmann has used the device of television as the storyteller and shows the prologue and epilogue on a television screen in the .'centre of our movie screen. The two key speeches are ; uttered by a newsreader with just the right combina tion of newspeak intonation and solemn poetry. T o Luhrmann, television is the chorus of our lives. While the poetic force is diminished, the brash pre sentation' and sheer accessibility of one of the most treasured works of English literature more than makes up for the loss.

than Shakespeare? Absolutely. On the Elizabethan

Y es. I think everything hum an is the sam e atsall

stage, people wore last year’s fashions and got up

times. I don’t think the human SSndMdh chariges.: The conditions around us change, but what makls^ us human beings does not change. You see it in hisj other plays, i l i f e w H am let. I know so naifn^3Bi year-olds going round saying, “I don’t know. Whatf am I g on n a do, manif-'What’s the point of living; on past 33 ?” The genius o f Shakespeare j s .riot his' stories. He did not write R om eo and]uligtf%& s&yhgg it, a long poem that was based on an Italian novella., He stole it, but his genius ij* his understanding;of the hum an condition and fns’ ability; with WQfds;*^

Then there .is the film’s p a ce ijill Bilcock brings a tremendous energy to the film, with her rapid-fire editing and sculptural vision. Again, the television

mentality is present as Luhrmann frequently pounds his thumb firmly on the fast-forward button. “I wanted x.o zip through the city and through any boring bits.” As always with the creations of Luhrmann and his team, the stylistic excesses and visual flair of the piece take centre stage and dominate our attention. Catherg ine M artin’s showpiece set is the grand ballroom of the Capulet Mansion, a massive and opulent temple to the god of avarice. D om inating the room is an immense painting of the Madonna and Child, in hues of gold and crimson. Flanking the central marble stairif case are faux-Roman pillars, decorated with gilded cherubim and foreboding, eyeless masks, moulded into frozen, glittery smiles. Golden statues o f mer; maids serve as lamp fixtures at the foot of the stairs. A giant, gilded two-storey candelabrum, supported by a replica, of the Three Graces, illuminates the room. M irrors in ornate frames and elaborate oil paintings bedeck the walls and the Capulet herald, a baroque, stylized cat bearing the words ‘virtue’,, ‘honour’, ‘Dios’ and ‘fuerza’ is inlaid in the floor. T h e tw o gangs are resplend ent in th eir tribal colours: the Montagues in lush Hawaiian shirts, the Capulets dressed in ornamental and expensive Dolce & Gabbana-inspired haute couture and engraved jew-s ellery. All are adorned with ornate guns. W hen the. tw o gangs clash, hurling insults and brandishing weapons, the tempo heightens along with the heated exchanges. Luhrmann: Let’s talk about that cinematic language. You get a lo t o f p eople saying, “O h my god, you change ; style every 5 minutes. How M T V .” W ell, have you ever seeri a Hindi movie? Please. That idea of low comedy one minute, a song, then R ebel Without a

Cause, is aligned with Shakespeare’s need to keep

and declaimed. Two comic actors came ujSyT ’Allo;.;; ’alio, ’alio” - and got them laughing. Then a boy would come out in a dress as Juliet. It was funny. The play as meant to be funny. For that reason we cut a third of it, as'it is visual description. Things which you cannot see. “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?” There was no light break ing from yonder window, it was daytime. So you had to say it. Our cinematic language is just the way we tell it. That’s what changes, not the story, I hope.

~D espitjjf t he p ro b lem s qJ w o r ^ in g h h -M e k ^ ,^ ’Luhrmarihhmphatically statesjie yyouj^nollyrap-aff A lot of wild stuff doesn’t work; it becomes about day they spent in M exigpTohanythingin the-wpild^ being groovy for the sake of being groovy. The shoot lingered months longer than anticipated^ W e have in Australia somebody who I think is a H urricanes that wiped out the set. E veryone^u c^ genius, and that’s N eil Armfield. H e did a producrj cumbed to various illnesses. Shooting s h u t^ owfTF for a week while Luhrm ann had a tem peraturetriS . tion of Twelfth Night, which went on to be, sort of, 110. Then there was the kidnapping:' LuhrmanriitSK a film. I remember going to the theatre. I was at What was the wildest Shakespeare you've ever seen?

NIDA at the time, and I was, like, “Yeah, Shake speare’s good, but, hey, it’s hard work.” It was set in Club Med and there was a Latin band playing and champagne was being given out to the audience. I thought, “This is good already.” And the music was building, and suddenly bang! It goes dark. A door opens. There is a slash of white light, this guy conies out, Robert Grubb in a white suit, and he goes, “If music be.the food of life - play o n .” Bang - the band starts up again and, from that moment, I was focused. Then after two hours it fin ished. We were, like, “Let’s do that again!” It was" like people were speaking with th e ir own lan guage and p eop le used th e ir ow n a ccen ts aud brought the language to themselves. So, you just realized: take a great story and vert it into a way in which the audience recei it. That was absolutely influential on me. No tion. That had a sensational effect on me. Romeo & Juliet is the story about love. What is your idea of love? Is love not possible? I believe in love. Sounds like a song, but I do. Aljj my works have essentially been about some degr o f love. It may be a word, but in truth it’sTas found emotion th at is in your body and your chemical. D o I believe in the extraordinary, sionate mad things people will do for love?( Is young love a leth al and dangerous drug, in a world o f learned hate, where you-are being told to hate someone because of their name or skin colour? Then you’re gonna have a tragedy. «Do I believe in that primary myth? Absolutely I do. Am I telling it in a offhanded way to disarm people? Yes. But I do ultim ately hope th at you are m oved by that tragedy. ,

The hair and make-up person, Aldo Signoretti, who™ w orked w ith F e llin i, was kidnap ped . W e paid? $US300 to get him back; I thought rather a b ariam? The bandidos rang up and said, “For $U S300 yoif can have him back.” So M aurizio, who is about this high, goesfdowri-j clutching the money, to outside the hoteLdaoli-l-S« up, chucks them the bag and they threw Aldo-outof the car and brokj^iis leg. So, we had adventures^ It was an incredime quest. It wasn’t a walk in thjg park and the f a c ^ ^ the kids did what they did and ley did was amazing. The reason /Harney the film is like it is is that we embraced everything th e film. For example, Mercutio dies' in that storfh-S that came and ble w f d S e f l l mu could never g ft^ ke guys if the cameras could handle if[W e fnd did the wides and caught th e jt o r m ^ ’ ’cam eBack and did the close-ups witJvwihJP For a b u d g eto fo u rs, you canVachieve lat sx

C ffl^com pu tergraphics] . 3

Were there any aspects of your vision that weren't achieved? m

Yeah, .50 percent ofitfTknow a Ye^Tamous direfe" tor and hersaysyou get about SO percent of whatyou do. Mayhe not eySri SO percent»! think the exS* cutiqrt of that was rriaybedialf of what I was hoping" for. But that’sullways the way. You neveu g e @ ri^ •where near whafeyouTe^ut to dbr. Thett:i£|pfs kind“ of-taken away from you. :

You-never are happy. I don’t think you eveFsay^ “Oh, it’s'abso1utejy per feet. . frame.” I can’t even look at it.nbw. You.s€elt?a£llE »Kof times an_dyou just want ¿verythingto Btf betted That’s just thewaytt i ^ ® ;; C I N E M A P A P E R S g FE B RUAiFFS l A f f

F l a m e

Inferno

serious

M o s t o f th e b e s t

B ut this is o n ly th e

C o n ta c t F u tu re

o f w h a t you see on

b e g in n in g . Let's

R e a lity . A ustralia

television, in

ta lk a b o u t th e

and N e w Zealand's

cinem as o r even on

f u t u r e o f visual

leading d is trib u to r

th e w e b , in gam es

m edia creation.

o f Discreet Logic,

■^

♦

and interactives has

A lia sIW a ve fro n t,

been created w ith

U S A n im a tio n ,

th e seriously h o t

Silicon G raphics

com bo o f

and M in e rva MPEG

S ydney (0 2 ) 9 9 0 6 5 4 5 5

D is c r e e t L o g ic

C om pressionist.

A u c k la n d (0 9 ) 2 9 4 9 1 2 7

fu tu re

reality

M e lb o u rn e (0 3 ) 9 87 6 8 355

s o ftw a re w ith

Em ail in fo @ fu tu re .c o m .a u

S ilic o n G r a p h ic s

w w w .fu tu r e .c o m .a u

hard w a re .

eleventh annual SPAA Conference, Heirm Mel bourne in mid-Nove mbeiy ocusedasplanned on policy and marketplace issues relevant to local producers: what governs the Australian production environment, and how Australian product might best be handled in the international marketplace. &

JS hile SPAA had wanted the Conference to

m £ k M concentrate less on policy issues and more f| p | 9

on the craft and business of producing, Executive Director Michael Gordon-Smith pointed out that the swathe of current government reviews made this focus imperative.1 Beginning with SPAA President Steve Vizard’s opening address, the Conference consistently exhorted delegates to consider seriously the possible and prob able changes upon them as a result of technological innovation and policy/regulatory shifts. Vizard posited fulfilm ent of several needs as fundamental to the industry’s sustainability: a solid infrastructure which provides appropriate types and levels of funding; access to broad audiences via diverse communications channels, and ‘certainty’ via a consistent regulatory framework. His message was emphatically positive in its descriptions of the industry’s increasing sophisti cation and ability to meet current challenges, but also slightly cautionary in its recognition of the tenuous ness of the industry’s stability. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communi cation and the Arts, spoke on the rôle of government in the further development of Australia’s audiovisual industries in the next five to ten years. He reiter ated the rationale underlying government subsidy and the means by which it is delivered, but was not in a position to comment on the future beyond express ing the government’s belief in the timeliness of the various current reviews and their potential for facil itating a more cohesive audiovisual/communications policy (although he did mention the government’s intention to proceed with cuts to the ABC). However, he also flagged governm ent expectations that the industry would continue to respond effectively to local audience demands on domestic product, and to international demands and opportunities. And he asserted that the Gonski review, specifically, was “not a cost-cutting exercise”. David Gonski asserted this in person at a later session devoted entirely to the review of film fund ing over which he presides. While it was well-attended,

the session was remarkable for its relative apathy and the embarrassing number of delegates who failed to turn up, even though they’d gone to the effort of indicating on pre-issued forms their desire to ask ques tions. Maybe this was an indication of cynicism, rather than apathy, or of delegates feeling they’d already con tributed their ten cents’ worth to the review. In any case, it became not so much a Q & A as an opportunity for those who did attend to testify to the successes they’d enjoyed under the present fund ing system, and to the problems they’d encountered with tax concessions under Division 10BA of the Incom e T ax Assessment Act. Those who took the microphone almost unanimously supported the cur rent infrastructure and emphasized the diversity and quality of the product it has funded; they also stressed the importance of maintaining development funding and support for new talent. Gonski took several ‘straw polls’ which indicated that virtually all delegates present favoured direct subsidy over tax-driven subsidy and wanted Federal subsidy to be deliv ered through existing Federal agencies. While neither he nor Senator Alston could pre-em pt the review’s outcom e, both com mented on possible revision of the Income Tax Assessment Act with a view to the ways in which 10BA might better serve the industry’s needs. Their comments on 10BA suggested that any revamp of tax concessions for private investors would be geared to returns - for example, provision of higher retro spective concessions for investors in films attracting good returns, and for those who roll their investments over into other films.

and innovative projects, saying that under 10B A the p re-sale b en ch m ark w ould be much higher and creative risk-taking thus much less likely. Hughes also emphasized the FF C ’s ability to secure high levels of investment with each dollar outlay and said that the same ratio of subsidy dollar to genuine investment dollar (from ‘credentialled’ investors) would not be possible under 10BA. Daniel Scharf illustrated Hughes’ points by describ ing the different funding structures underpinning the five features on w hich h e ’s w orked, w hich have included low-budget features as well as international co -p ro d u ctio n s; he insisted th at the d istinction between the roles of the various Federal and State agencies is vital to the con tin u ed diversity of Australian product. Rounding off policy matters, M ichael GordonSmith, having presented a detailed overview of the environm ent, made four main points on the most effective approach the industry might take towards setting the government’s agenda. First, he stressed the

SPAA President Steve V i z a r d ’s of the industry’s i n c r e a s i n g so slightly cautionary in its recog^

In a later session on future trends in feature pro d u ctio n , C atrio n a H ughes, the F F C ’s Sen io r Investment Manager, outlined the FFC’s views on the benefits of direct subsidy versus the relative pitfalls o f 10BA . For exam ple, she said that the F F C has offered far greater opportunities than 10BA for pro ducers to develop their business skills. She added that the FF C ’s flexibility in acceptance of varied pre-sale levels enabled greater proliferation of new directors

need to maintain accurate and up-to-date data on the state o f the industry, then w ent on to stress the need for the industry to maintain a broad base (to sustain the independ en t p ro d u ction se cto r), for improved returns to copyright creators, and for the industry to present a clear and unified position. His botto m -lin e for the constitu ency: D o n ’t say you haven’t been warned, and don’t waste opportunities for input into policy development. N ot entirely removed from these concerns, but different in focus, were the ‘breakout’ sessions deal ing with marketplace trends and issues (others dealt with television drama and documentary product as well as audience demographics and technical issues). I attended most of the features sessions, and what emerged was a delicately-balanced confidence on the

amines key issues over the next few years

part of Australian producers, sales agents and dis tribu tors and a m ainly h earten in g response to Australian product from international guests, tem pered occasionally by cautionary notes. Beginning with Forecasting Futures, a forum which examined recent marketplace developments, delegates received a predominantly encouraging picture from overseas distributors. Panellists were: Craig Emanuel, Co-Chairman and Partner of Sinclair, Tenebaum Olesiuk and Emanuel; M ark Ordesky, Executive Vice President of Acquisitions for New Line; Maud Nadler, V ice President of C reative A ffairs, and R ichard Guardian, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Dis tribu tion , fo r O verseas Film G roup/First L ook Pictures; Graeme Mason, Vice President, Worldwide Acquisitions for Polygram International; and Clifford Werber, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Co-pro ductions and Acquisitions for Warner Bros. Ordesky, Nadler, Guardian and W erber all com mented on the potential of many Australian films to succeed well in niche markets, and to achieve good returns on relatively low budgets. Emanuel was less

In Critical Issues for the 1990s, panellists looked at the elements influencing the viability of Australian product now and in the near future. Kim Dalton, Manager of Acquisitions and Production for Beyond International, said that the issues of importance to the industry for the remainder of the decade will be determined by the outcome of the Gonski review. Flowever, he also said that, despite technological and structural change, feature production is still project/talent driven, and identified the ’90s as a period of consolidation. Echoing the comments prevailing throughout Forecasting Futures, he said that ideas are more important than cast or genre, and often a new director with a strong script and a modest budget will get up over other projects. He also spoke about the changes in the role taken on by Australian sales agents, who are now becoming involved in the investment process from development stage. O ther speakers at this session, including Kim Williams (Chief Executive, Fox Studios Australia), Daniel Scharf from Daniel Scharf Productions, John Tatoulis from Media World and Bob Weis from Gen

Later, Lindsay Law, President of Fox Searchlight, expanded on Williams’ points. He said that the U.S. m ajors had begun to realize the value o f sm aller “niche” releases and to acknowledge that they could recoup any losses on them via ancillary markets and larger films. So, in all the majors now, “there’s some one who speaks your language”. He described Fox Searchlight as having eclectic taste, and said it was seeking to support 10-11 projects per year. By way of illustrating the flexibility he sees as highly benefi cial to the industry, he described the com pany’s involvement in several films. El Norte, for example, was originally budgeted at around $US3 million but the director insisted on it being a Mayan/Spanish language film, and Fox Searchlight wouldn’t agree to this. They compromised; Law got a much lower budget (less than $1 million) and director Gregory Nava got a foreign-language film. It was successful and, while it might have made more as an Englishlanguage release, Law was satisfied it achieved good results. He used O scar an d L u cin d a as an oth er example of “how com merce and art have to walk hand in hand”, describing the need for care and patience in getting the film up because of its relatively-high budget. One of the most popular sessions was Hollywood B-king Roger Corm an’s con v ersatio n w ith R od Bishop, D irector of the Australian Film T e lev isio n & R ad io S ch o o l. An affable and entertaining speaker, Corman delighted his audi ence with stories of life as an independent which were at once delightfully funny, inform ative and encouraging. Outside the plenary and breakout sessions, dele gates to o k up netw orkin g op p ortu nities via the informal arena of Conference functions, as well as via the formal Face to Face sessions wherein delegates could schedule meetings with international guests. M any describe the networking as one of the most important aspects of the Conference, favourably com paring the relative ease of access with crowded and frenetic overseas festivals and markets. ©

[...] m e s s a g e was emphatically positive in its descriptions p h istic a tio n a n d ability to meet current challenges, but also nition of the tenuousness of the industry's stability. optimistic, pointing to the decreasing space on the American market for non-major product and saying that recognizable talent drives deals on many inde pendent film s, p articu larly when produ cers are looking to source 50-60 percent of their budgets from foreign markets when there’s little space on Ameri can screens for non-major product. Flowever, most indicated a belief that the international marketplace is becoming increasingly responsive to increasingly complex audiences, taking more interest in special ized product as more people become interested in non-mainstream product and markets consequently broaden. The distributors insisted they sought from Australia what Ordesky described as “distinctive mate rial executed distinctively” - local storytelling with

eration Film s, em phasized the im p ortan ce (for independent producers) of building strategic alliances with overseas entities and ensuring integrity of con tent rather than trying to tailor local product to suit any specific market. Williams said that the only for mula for success for any project was the strength of the script, the talent behind it and a suitable budget. Queried about F ox’s interests and countering specu lation about its effect on A ustralian product, he described the projects it has backed to date (Oscar and Lucinda, Paradise R oad ) as “risky”, and said he believed F o x ’s resources - investm ent in a fullyequipped studio matched by funding for development and production - and its intention to support a range of budgets and types of production would provide “a

breakout potential.

rich production mix”.

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

1 Cinema Papers, N o. 1 1 3 , December 1 9 9 6 .

Qm&dcan dncmatogdtaphm iDcan Cundey âaô a favourite eaypsteòóian: “Jn the aid dago — atout a yewc aga ...” 3 i chopped up, often in filò two-night (3/uune-ty-3/uim e’ ôeminwc at the Sydney 3ilm 3eativul. S'jieuiouô guelfa ( and tfievi filmò ) include 3taâây M ullen ( 3}ariô,y 3exaô,), Siuwtt iDxyhwtgh (3A e ifiana) and ¡Jluôôdl 3ìoyd ( White M en Can’t Jump,) 1 — a ll tough actò ta follow in what h, one of the 3eôtival’ô, ôell-aut event.a * ather than show and discuss only one film, as has been the format on past occasions, Cundey used excerpts from five films, all of which relied to a large exten t on visual effects at particular stages of their evolu tion. These included a showreel from his own tele-feature, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves/, and highlights from Who Fram ed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zem eckis, 1 9 8 8 ), Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1994), A pollo 13 (Ron Howard, 1995) and Casper

(Brad Silberling, 1995). Both three-hour sessions provided a fascinating insight into the work of a cinematographer who is pre-eminent in the application of digital computer technology to motion pictures today. As the speed at which this technology developed became evident, there was also the constant reminder of the irony in Cundey’s comment about “the old days”.

Like so many of his contemporaries, after gradu ation from UCLA film school Cundey spent years working in various areas of filmmaking on non-union films, including some for Roger Corman. In order to increase his m arketability as a cinem atographer, Cundey outfitted a van with camera and grip equip m ent - and h im self - in w hat was a com p lete filmmaking package. “It became my foot-in-the-door on a lot of low-budget films. I was able to provide a complete package of equipment and also myself to a producer. Having my own equipment meant that I could do a better job. So it was a win-win situation”,

Cundey used smoke to spread sparse amounts of light, and re-discovered the technique of subtracting light to create images which evoke powerful emotions. H allow een , The Fog (1980) and Escape From New York (1981) are prime examples of this style. It was 1 9 8 2 when d irecto r R ich ard Franklin (who’d also studied at UCLA) and Cundey worked together on Psycho II (1983). Franklin recalls:

says Cundey. In the late 1970s, Cundey and director John Car penter made the seminal horror film, H allow een (1978), becoming part of what was a relatively small group of emerging filmmakers who defined and pop ularized a new genre of reality-based suspense films.

Cundey progressed to the action-adventure Romanc ing the Stone (1 9 8 4 , Z em eckis), follow ed by the benchm ark visual-effects film , Back to the Future

Dean at that tim e had not done a m ajor studio picture. I’d seen Halloween [and II and III] and liked the look of them. I thought that he could work fast and give us the expressionistic look we needed.

(1985), plus two sequels, all with Zemeckis. In the Back to the Future trilogy, Death Becomes Her (Zemeckis, 1993) and H ook (Steven Spielberg, C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

1991), the boundaries separating reality and fantasy were erased. But Cundey’s most famous collabora tion with Spielberg, Jurassic Park (1994), representing another generation of already highly-sophisticated visual effects, is based on what Cundey likes to call “heightened reality”. Occasionally at the seminar, it was difficult for the uninitiated to keep up with Cundey. After being rep rimanded by one member of the audience for getting too technical for the average viewer, Cundey would impishly preface some o f his answers w ith: “T h at sounds like one o f those technical questions ...” N o, it’s not enough to be simply a cinematographer today; you have to be a computer expert, teacher, showman and diplomat as well. Cundey put it another way: O ne o f the things I found as I worked as a cine matographer was that I never limited myself to just “H ow am I going to light the scene?” or “W here C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

should the camera go?”, but also to the considera tion of “W hat’s the best place to put the camera to tell the story?” and “W hat’s the best place to put the actors for this particular sequence?” A lot of this shows the reflexes of a director. Cundey gives a friendly warning to directors: A director should be able to think on his feet. If you rely too heavily on storyboards, you can cut your self out of a lot of creative moments that you can take advantage of. It’s always im portant to leave those options open. Some guys I’ve worked with will use storyboards as a crutch because they aren’t as proficient at thinking on their feet. You have to be able to guide them on an optional path. Cundey sprinkled his sessions w ith anecdotes. He recalled a problem with NASA during the planning of Apollo 13.

NASA would not let the crew shoot in the aircraft which created weightless conditions for training astro nauts. Cundey recalled, “R on H ow ard called his friend Steven Spielberg, who called his friend Bill Clinton.” NASA, finally convinced it was going to be a PR plus, let them borrow the aircraft. Cundey’s directorial début, Honey, We Shrunk Our selves/, was digitally composited on three Apple Macs (with After Image and Ultimate software) at Cundey’s home before being sent to the effects company Dream Quest Images for “finessing”. His latest project is a rem ake o f the 1 9 4 9 M ighty J o e Young (Ernest B. Schoedsack). Now at the point where he can choose from any number of prestigious assignments, Cundey’s success didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen.

% jCind&ay, ClnuM, 19

ichard Franklin chose you to shoot what must have been a particularly tricky assignment: a sequel to one of the great suspense films, Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).

It was quite a lot of fun to recreate moments in a classic film. For us to be able to experience that, by virtue of looking at the old film and rebuilding the sets and talking to people who worked on the film, was kind o f a journ ey into film history. I guess you might say that while we kept a similar kind of approach to the film, as far as looking at the kinds o f shots, we wanted to evoke a similar response, knowing that the contemporary audience was also used to, other kinds of filmmaking techniques. It was one of those things where we thought that, hope fully, this is the way Hitchcock would have told his version of Psycho 2. Having worked on a couple of suspense/horror films and, because John Carpenter was very influ enced by H itc h c o c k , we had d eveloped those sensibilities. To me, one of the fun things about film is finding a visual style that is appropriate for each film - som etim es ap p ro p ria te fo r a p a rticu la r sequence. W e did a little bit of matte painting work [on Psycho 2] with Albert Whitlock [a former Hitch cock collaborator], so it was like continuing the tradition of H itchcock. If we were to do the same film now, it would be interesting to see if we would be obligated to use more visual effects. What do you consider your breakthrough film with regard to the new generation of visual effects? Would it be Back to the Future? Yes, Back to the Future really started my growth in visual effects films, while Roger Rabbit was the prob ably the greatest step in combining visual effects in a film for that time. I guess you might say I’ve always been interested in applying visual effects to film. Back

to the Future was one of those happy events where effects were a so-integral and fun part of the film that it piqued my interest, whereas Roger Rabbit was one of the most challenging visual effects films. It really was the greatest leap for me as far as what could be done in combining visual effects in a film. On Back to the Future and the films subsequent to that, it became less of a technique where special effects were an on-set use of mechanics - cables and wires, fog and rain machines and all. They really became more enhancements of the visual image. All of a sudden, the tools were available and the inter est of filmmakers, whether it was the producer or the director, was more towards combining visual effects into the storytelling to the extent that, instead of five or six shots in a film, you would find films that were made up of two or three hundred [effects] shots that were all part of the storytelling. Back to the Future is one of my favourite films because it is one of the m ost com plete audience experiences, you might say, besides the visual effects. It’s also a great, fun story. The look of it was to me one of the challenging things: how do you get an audience to believe that they are watching a look back in time without being heavy-handed? I think you always have to be very subtle. A cinematographer has to be careful not to become heavy-handed, not to draw attention to the photography. Everything you do, hopefully, is rel atively transparent to an audience, so they just get caught up in the story. To create the differences in the time periods was something that we did with a subtle combination of production design, wardrobe, little changes in light ing style, and careful selection of the colours of light we used for a warmer kind of feeling. All of these things add up to draw the audience in without mak ing them aware of how it’s being done.

I was fascinated by your use of the technique, which I think you pioneered on Roger Rabbit. You moved the camera during the shooting of the live action background in a way which predetermined the movement of the subsequently-added animated characters. It was a simple idea, but surely it required a flair for visualizing the composite shot?

Roger Rabbit proved to us that certain techniques were successful. One was to analyze - again - the way in which an audience expects a film to be told, and to create that, even if you’re doing it after the fact, or if you’re using visual effects to create that illusion. M oving the cam era [while shooting the background images] is something that we also used for C asper and Jurassic Park. Any tim e we p h o tographed something that isn’t there, we realized that the technique is a valid one that really creates the illusion for the audience. On Jurassic Park , for example, we would pan the camera, tilt it - with nothing in the frame - maybe move an object, and the animators would be oblig ated to have the creature move to accommodate the camera’s move. This is sort of a reverse of what is reality, where you pan and tilt the camera to follow the creature. The result is that the audience associ ates the camera movement with the creature being there; it believes that you had to move the camera to follow the creature. You often talk about "heightened reality". Could you elaborate? One of the things that visual effects do in films now is create a lot more of the illusion of reality than an audience would expect. In other words, you see a film and, as you watch, something that’s impossible or improbable happens. But in order to get the audi ence to accept that, you have to present it to them in a way that looks to them real. There has to be all of the visual cues they expect from a real event: the way objects react, the physics, the storytelling effects C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

o f the things we wanted to do prior to shooting

Director Robert Zemeckis.

A pollo 13 was to analyze how an audience had seen the space events of the 1960s. W hat were the tech n iq u es, w h at w as th e te ch n o lo g y th e y used to view it, and what were the aesthetics they watched on news broadcasts? So, when we decided to shoot A pollo 13, we ana lyzed a lot of those visual, storytelling artefacts. The perception that the audience had was that they were in fact w atching reality, and we wanted to recre ate that feeling so that they would have the same emotional response, so that the images were not the same as all the other space movies they had seen, where the camera was locked off and the lighting computer is that, besides expanding the kinds of things we can do, it has definitely im proved the quality that we can accomplish. W e are able to create the most amazing illusions and we can do it with much better technical quality. The end result of p ro jectin g it in a th eatre is that the images are cleaner; they don’t have a lot of the

they’ve seen in film all the time - all of these pro vide subconscious cues to an audience as to whether they’re seeing a real event photographed, or whether it’s completely impossible. Visual effects now allow you to create this illusion of reality. You can take a really improbable event say, the presence of a dinosaur - and, as long as you present it in a way that the audience accepts as real - the way the light hits the skin, the way it moves, the way the world reacts around it - they will accept the fact that the dinosaur really appears to be there. I think that one of the tasks of the visual effects person, and the cinematographer and director, is to create this illusion, using this sort of heightened real ity, using reality, but always expanded and stretched and twisted. You also talk about "making the unbelievable believable".

subconscious artefacts that an audience would look at and say, “Oh, this is a trick because this shot is grainer or the colour is somehow different.” W e’re able to overcome those kinds of things and present the stuff with much higher quality to an audience. Audience sophistication is growing exponentially with our technology. As we give them more amaz ing things at higher quality, they expect that the next step of illusion is going to be even greater. W e are constantly running to keep up with ourselves. What are some of the tricks you use to convince an audience that an interior-exterior (studio-shot exterior) is really exterior? W hen you see any kind of exterior shot in a film that’s not successful, it’s usually because it’s too well controlled. The lighting is always well-balanced. The reality of working outside is that you are working with extrem es of contrast. These are what tell an audience at some subconscious level whether you

If you look at film in general, even a strictly “real ity” film, as you progress you realize that it’s really been staged for your benefit; you’re watching actors,

are really outside. But besides ourselves learning the techniques of how to create the illusion, we have to be very sen

you’re w atching a situation w here a cam era was there photographing somebody’s perception of an event. I think an audience’s classic “willing suspen sion of disbelief” applies any time they go to a film. The film m akers’ obligation is to stretch that, and take them places that are completely improba ble, whether it’s dinosaurs or animated characters or even a flight through space.

sitive to all of the storytelling and image presentation that’s been done to an audience. M ore and more you are seeing things on television that come from moments as they really occur. The news takes us places that we could never have gone, instantly. One

was perfect, where the colours were perfect. W e wanted to create the illusion that the cam era was really present in space at the m om ent the actors w ere perform ing. I think that as film m akers we really have to constantly watch the way an audience is seeing a story told to them in real life. You're usually working with very experienced directors, but, as someone with so much experience yourself, you would surely be an asset to a novice director with plenty of imagination but no practical experience. W ell, Casper was directed by a young guy who had never directed a feature, never done animation or worked with visual effects! Spielberg [the producer] really guided him th ro u g h th e p ro cess by su r rounding him w ith people w ho had done R oger Rabbit, the Back to the Future films and Jurassic Park - not only myself, but production designers and the visual effects people. So, it was the case o f a film that worked successfully because so many collabo rators were there to contribute. O n th e “ raptors in th e k itch en ” seq uence in J urassic Pa r k -. It’s the sequence that blended the technical with the suspenseful and ended up being one of the overall successful uses of everything we had tried to do. W hen we got to that sequence, it was later in the schedule and we’d had a chance to see exactly what was going to happen with the computer-generated dinosaurs. W e had a lot of confidence in our ability to rely on what the computer was going to do for us. So, we wholeheartedly went into that sequence and the blend that was going to be necessary. One of the concerns at first with the computer and the physical effects being put together was how well

Stanley Kubrick, when he made 2001: A Space: Odyssey (1968), was careful to ensure his photo graphic effects were always first-generation. He would add each new element directly onto the original camera negative to avoid any loss in quality. The new computer technology makes this kind of thing much easier, doesn't it? I think so. O ne o f the good things about the

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Industrial Light & Magic could duplicate the look that we were going to get out of photographing the rubber animatronic dinosaurs. Stan W inston had built about three or four rap tors, w ith d ifferent types o f uses for them . The full-figure shots of the raptor involved the guy in a full suit. Stan also built a very com plicated unit which consisted of the raptor from the haunches up. T h at involved a very elaborate cable system which went back to ten or twelve puppeteers who gave the motion to the raptor’s head, face and neck. There were about twenty-five individual movements made by pulling the cables. T o get an animatronic puppet to walk - because it involves so many indi vidual operators who have to co-ord in ate their movements - is almost impossible, so the computer ended up being our saviour in that case. It became extrem ely im portant for that reason because you can then create a creature that walks. In this sequence, what appears to be two raptors stalking the kids is made up of many individual pieces chosen for what each individual puppet or technique could give us. There is a perception that all of the dinosaurs in the film are computer-gen erated, when in fact probably two-tbirds of the work is puppetry. The technique selected was whatever style accomplished whatever action was necessary. For overall lighting of the kitchen, we selected a m otif of a very warm, late afternoon sunlight com ing through very small windows. Another difficulty was that the kitchen was entirely stainless steel, which reflected literally everything in the room. Every time we put up a light, it would flare all over the walls, the counters. It took a great deal of time and effort to hide the camera and the lights. Reflections for the computer-generated dinosaurs had to be computer-generated, also. For that, the com puter was given inform ation about certain points in the room. It was then able to interpolate the move. O n STORYBOARDS: A storyboard can often have as many as 1500 draw ings for a film in which you are trying to plan some very tricky sequences. But sometimes the storyboard is drawn by an artist who is w orking in a sem i vacuum, because he doesn’t really know what the location or the set w ill look like. He draws the sequence based on thumbnail sketches from the director, who has a specific plan that he wants to follow, or certain shots he wants to include, with the rest filled in by the storyboard guy. They will sometimes do a drawing that will look good but is in fact almost impossible to do, like shots with a face in the foreground in focus with some body in deep background whose face is also in focus. So, you have to be careful that the storyboards don’t tell the story falsely, that they don’t actually mis represent what you can actually do when you’re making a film. In our case, we elected to do an “animatic” - an actual motion storyboard, a videotape. The advan tage o f th at is that you can have a w hole series o f storyboards. An ordinary drawn storyboard doesn’t give you a real indication of how long a scene will play. Steven was very intent that we complete the film on schedule. He knew it was a huge undertaking, and that we were going to be dealing with a lot of unknowns that could easily get out of hand on a film that was very tightly scheduled. Jurassic Park actually took about 7 0 days, about 12 days under schedule because of our planning that came out of our video storyboard. W e were able to look at our “animatics” on the set and each shot that had been constructed in a com puter as a 3-D bit

of action, panning and zooming on drawings. If they were just close-ups, we were able to construct a sequence that was maybe thirty-seconds or a minute long, made up of the exact shots we needed. W e were able to concentrate on each shot knowing how long it had to be and, as such, we were very efficient in the way it came together. The ‘animatic’ for the kitchen sequence is surprisingly like the final edited sequence in the film. Jurassic Park was probably a case where the sto ryboards were followed most religiously of any film I ’ve w orked on, partly because o f the technical aspects of it, and partly because of Steven’s concern that we stayed on schedule. There are a lot of other films which are differ ent. Bob Z em eckis is fam ous for having w hole sequences storyboarded and then getting to the loca tion and saying, “You know, I was driving here this morning and I had this idea ...”, and he’ll immedi ately re-stage a scene or set it in another location. The storyboards go out the window and you’re winging it. But, even if you throw them out, the sto ryboards have organized your thinking. Inside the capsule of A pollo 13, or “T hree guys IN A V W ” : The discussion that I had with Ron [Howard] before hand was that we wanted to figure out how to create the illusion of weightlessness. W e began testing all of the rigs, but to get objects to float realistically was almost impossible. We thought about doing bluescreen work on the artefacts that were inside the capsule, but that was going to be quite a tedious process. W e were never satisfied with all the tests. However, as part of the training prior to shoot ing, R on and the m ain acto rs w ent through Spacecamp in H ouston. Part of the course was a flight in the special aircraft, a K C 135, which flies in a kind of parabola, which at its peak gives the pas sengers about 23 seconds of weightlessness. The

actors took a video camera along with them to doc ument the fun they were having and, finally after viewing the result, said, “There’s no way to dupli cate that - it’s just incredible” ! So Ron said, “W hy don’t we shoot weightless”? Initially NASA refused, and it was not until they were convinced it was a worthy project were we finally able to shoot inside the airplane. I had our crew build a mock-up of the fuselage as well, so we could figure out how much space we had to work with between the set and the fuselage, where we were going to put lights, how we were going to duplicate the lighting that we were going to use inside the capsule. This lighting consisted of practical lights of various sizes and shapes, flu o rescent lights that w ere o ff-co lo u r [green], and sunlight that came through the window that was constantly moving. The problem was how to create that look first in the studio and then how we were going to accomplish it in the airplane. It took a while to work these things out because space was confined in the airplane, but in the studio we were going to have a great deal of flexibility. W hen we worked this out, the set was shipped down to Houston and the second unit guys set about actually shooting that stuff. They shot about 12 days’ worth which was very impressive. W hat you see on the screen is a mixture of weightless, a lot of trick ery in the studio with guys sitting on teeter-totters, hanging guys upside down while turning the cam era upside dow n so they always appear to be floating. W ith the camera always moving, the idea was to come up with sequences that kept the audi ence guessing which way was up and how they were floating. We simulated the sun by taking a theatrical light, like those moving lights you see at rock ’n’ roll concerts and in the theatre. We put that on the end of an arm and, by programming p 4 6

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Winning Post Film Editors 02 9439 4366

Lieutenant Leo M e ga w (Peter Pheips).

ear the end of a freeway

on an industrial estate in outer suburban M elbourne, a large wire gate hangs at 45 degrees, divorced from most of its hinges. At stage left, the grass grows wild around a seemingly long-deserted gatehouse. Beyond a seriously-potholed carpark, a group of large but inconspicuous buildings luxuriate in some sort of lazy post-depression haze. This is the entrance to Crawford Studios. Crawfords, of course, once ruled the airwaves, pro ducing more television drama over the span of nearly four decades than your average Australian is ever likely to view in a lifetime. But that’s another story entirely. For several weeks, Studio Three of the visibly-ageing complex hosted the filming of Zone 39, a sci-fi feature from the dynamic partnership of producer Colin South and director and co-producer John Tatoulis. To quote from the press release, Zone 39 is a “psychological action thriller ... with a love gone wrong”. At the mouth of the studio, I ’m greeted by the ebullient publicist and without further ado plunged into a world dominated by angst, despair, corruption, drugs and small spiky reptiles. No, I didn’t step into

the lunch-room ; instead, I am taken by the hand, literally, through the double safety doors and onto the fog-enshrouded main set. Surrounded by enough mechanically-produced vapour to fuel half-a-dozen heavy-metal concerts and/or video clips, it’s no won der Tatoulis is to be found in the furthest corner of the studio, firmly ensconced with a video monitor beneath a blanket. The softly-spoken ex-SBS journalist emerges from underneath his cover to joke that no aircraft will be landing here today. Crew members infrequently come by coughing. The fog lifts long enough to reveal suit ably punked-out lead actor Peter Phelps earnestly emoting in the direction of a four-legged thespian counterpart. W e’re inside an impressively grimy room of decay ing mortar where much of Zone 39 takes place. South later describes the look of Z one 39 as “designer grunge” . W hatever, it’s clear that this p ro ject is light years rem oved from the fam ily fodder that was their last film, The Silver Brumby (1993). Actu ally, the fake future they are constructing is truly oppressive, and I’m severely relieved to adjourn to a position just outside the studio door in a room next to the coffee machine, simply the best place to nab off-the-cuff interviews on any film set. Zone 39 has been a long time coming for Media World, the company Tatoulis began with South over 14 years ago. The bearded and affable director begins explaining: I started working on Zone 39 close to eight years ago. I was looking for som ething that was co n tain able. I have a strong in terest in science fiction/science fact, and am concerned with ques tions of technology and politics in their current state, and how they’re going to affect society as we know it - things like w h at’s happening in fo rm er Yugoslavia, parts of Africa, the Middle East, and even what’s brewing in the States in terms of race and political differences. Also, the advent of com munications that are getting so powerful.

W hat if, some day, an outfit like Kerry Packer’s gets together with a political organization and forms what could be seen as a commercial venture along the lines of the United Nations? W ith politicians and communication giants working together, you have an eerie sort of future looming, but at what cost? And that scenario is not too far off, because I think people who do control communications have a lot of money and will start to influence the polit ical system as we know it, if they don’t already. How that situation will affect the individual is the backstory of the film. The primary story is how an individual copes with his condition within such an environment and, espe cially, how an individual copes with a certain sense of loss and aloneness. Tatoulis goes on to cite some more specific influences and intentions for Zone 39: I’m interested in how different people handle grief, especially when th at grief fu rth er alienates an already-alienated person. It’s not necessarily influ enced by science-fiction films, but what I’m hoping to bring to this film is a sense of texture. I believe that a good filmmaker uses every element possible to tell a story. Directors like Bertolucci and Ridley Scott use texture or mood almost as another char acter. F o r them , the te x tu re they create is as important as an actor or the cinematography or any other specific elem ent. Films like B lade Runner [1982], Ridley Scott’s first film, The Duellists [1977], and all of Bertolucci’s movies have this strong sense of texture. Two of the science-fiction films that I’ve enjoyed immensely, besides the usual escapist fantasies of the Star Wars series, have been Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Alien [1979]. He gives you a sense of an organic environment. There’s always something that’s alive but dark in both of those films.

W ithout trying to imitate that style in producing

Zone 39, we’re trying to present an element that’s edgy, that makes you feel that little bit uneasy, where nothing’s quite what it seems. T h e re ’s a sense of foreboding, of denseness, that’s always around you. W e’re not just going for clean pictures - you know, crisp blue skies, beautifully-sharp images: product shots, essentially - w e’re going for a grunge feel, where the use-by date has definitely lapsed. Things that are utilitarian and practical have survived, but things that are glossy and gimmicky have really gone off into the background. T h ere’s rust everywhere and seepage, and you get a sense o f decay w ith everything just falling apart.

So, we’ve introduced the lizard as a means by which he can actually express him self. He talks to the

m ajority of her screen time as a dead person. First time feature star Bock concurs:

lizard; it’s just another character he confides in, and it becomes a companion.

It does get exaggerated a bit around the eyes, but I’m purely his [Leo Megaw’s] mind’s projection. Her rôle stays the same, as though she’s his support, his con fidante. They’ve been married for quite a long time. It’s kind of romantic in a sense. They’re very, very close before she dies and, even when she dies, they’re still extremely close, and then she comes back main taining that rôle of being a support for him and being there for him. It’s a nice through-line for the film, a nice balance to all the other stuff that goes on.

Our character is searching for companionship, he’s searching for em otional support, and the lizard becomes that emotional support, that ability to com municate with someone other than the computer. The lizard is, in fact, integral in terms of settling the character of Megaw. It becomes a companion and they strike up a relationship even though it’s a rela tionship that ends in tragedy.

T o corral his ideas into screenplay format, Tatoulis hired writer D eborah Parsons. The finished script earned the appellation “Blade Runner meets G host” from the script assessors at Roadshow, which com m itted to the film ’s Australasian distribution long before a lens was opened. Set in an unspecific futureworld after a protracted war, an uneasy alliance between the two powers of the Federated Republics and The New Territories Union has been achieved. Closely monitoring this sit uation and keeping it in check is Central Union, the organization Tatoulis alluded to, which employs both Lieutenant Leo M egaw (Phelps) and his wife, Anne (C arolyn B o ck ). W ith disastrously-tragic results, M egaw ’s com puter security expert (and pregnant) wife attempts to introduce an upgrade to the present security system by setting up a surprise practical dem onstration for her boss. Unwittingly, she gains access to forbidden information and is terminated in an “accident” for her intended innovation. W ith his family obliterated, Megaw takes a vol untary redundancy package, and is posted as a sentry to an isolated outlying bord er point. Living in a bunker, Megaw adjusts to the situation with the help of Novan, the hallucinatory drug of the future, that allows him to re-materialize his dead wife. Also by his side is his new companion, Alfie, the lizard. Sol d ierin g on, M egaw en co u n ters an enem y who becom es a friend and enough m ilitary/com pany secrets to reveal Central Union’s biggest scam.

"WHAT IF, SOME DAY, AN OUTFIT LIKE KERRY PA CK ER'S GETS TOGETHER WITH A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND FORMS WHAT COULD BE SEEN AS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE ALONGTHE LINES OFTHE UNITED N A T IO N S ? " You read correctly there: M egaw forms a bond with a lizard, a bearded lizard to be precise, definitely not to be confused with a frill-necked lizard as rep tile wrangler Warren Blake would like noted. Besides being a great incentive fo r a Japan ese sale (many Japanese are apparently infatuated with our native reptile), the lizard, Tatoulis explains, is an interesting character. The bulk o f the film is set at a very rem ote location both in term s of exteriors and also in terms o f interiors. Our lead character lives within the confines of a bunker and is alone. In order to bring out elements of human ity from that character, he needs to express himself. C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

The man with the most on-screen contact with Alfie the lizard is actor Peter Phelps, best known for his soap and mini-series appearances, but now on to his fourteenth feature rôle. Several of the titles in his everexpanding film ography are of a fantastic nature, including the little-seen Italian horror movie shot in Venezuela called M aya (M arcello Avallone, 1989) and the Richard Lynch-starrer, Merlin (Paul Hunt, 1992). The self-deprecating star says of his rôle: The character of Leo Megaw in Zone 39 is a career soldier who’s very much straight down the line. He has quite a few flaws, but he doesn’t fly any rightwing flags and gets.the bad guys in the end. It’s not a straight action picture. It crosses through a few genres, actually, and the way they’re shoot ing is very fluid in style. It’s n ot like slam-bam-killthat-bad-guy. A lot of it is a one-man show and my co-stars are a computer and a lizard. So, it’s a challenge to work with inanimate objects. The lizard’s great. You sort of tweak a little toe here or pusR'sqmething under its chin there. I’ve actually worked with more unco operative actors in the past’[laughs]. H e’s fine. The thing I’m really excited about is how -this film oper ates on a human le\ el and'the emotional journey of my character. Phelps radiates with good humour and enthusiasm as he accompanies a production assistant out the door and back to the set. In a mak<_-up 'chair in a nearby room, his less-relaxed fem al«| | n fiS M ie vivacious Carolyn B o ^ - attempts to sit still Jo r an application of M ax Factor. T t selon becomes obvious that there’s very littl e attention being paid to her post-death look regarding make: up, even though she does spend the

B ock adds a byte-size take on the film as “an ecothriller human love story”. Tatoulis explains the workings of Novan, a moviem anu factu red drug th at m ight even rival D avid Cronenberg’s Ephemeral: The other thing I’m interested in is investigating the different levels of reality that exist today. W e have the reality that exists now of you and me sitting across this table conducting this interview, and hope, fully We both understand the environm ent w e’re in {laughter all around ]. I’d call that the normal or average reality. T hen th ere’s the reality th at’s m echanically or scientifically altered, a virtual reality that’s coming to the fore at the m om ent. And then you have a : chemically-induced reality, the reality of psychosis. | A psychotic person hearing voices is as real as you 2 and I sitting across this room. W e ’ve i n t r o d u c e d d r u g th at takes v irtu al reality one step further. It falls into the realm of chemically-induced reality, the reality of psychosis, and enables you to conjure up a situation that you canrbring to the fo refro n t o f your mind. It then materializes for you and you get the sense that it’s actually there. And this aids our protagonist in his quest to bring back his wife. Through the use of the drug Novan, he is able to bring her back. Flis grief is so strong that he n eed sto have her back. W hen questioned how Novan sits with his sciencefact baggage, Tatoulis laughs: T h at’s an interesting one. I think it’s already hap pening in term s o f virtual reality. I think tr_ => there already is experimentation with a mixture o f mechanical manipulation of reality

n e w m ed ia

Interactive Television Made Easy Paul McCarthy and Philip Dutchak discover a myriad o f evolving forms nless you missed it, everyone is suppos edly on the Internet. It is people on the web, on the Intranet, or on some e-mail list. T here is even such a thing as webTV, though exactly what webTV is or means is open to cre ative interpretation. So what happened to the promise of 500 channels on your television set? Whatever became of interactive TV? Interactive television got rolled in the relentless hype and hug of the everwidening and -evolving on-line market. In the field of numbers, Frank Blount, at last year’s launch of Telstra’s on-line services “Big Pond”, stated that currently there were 60 million users of the Inter net scattered through 186 countries, with the total number of users expected to grow to between 122 million and 199 million Internet users by 1999. Against such large figures (both real and pre dicted), interactive television has died, right? Not exactly. Interactive television is still with us, but in a variety of forms. Its lingering can be traced to the historical precedent set by the medium back in the 1950s. Speaking at the “Í-TV 96 Con fe re n ce ”, held at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland 3-5 Septem ber 1996, John Carey, director of Greystone Communications, noted that interactive television had been around and evolving from more than forty years. A H istory of Platform s In 1953, a U.S. children’s programme,

Winky Dink and You, gave out clear

plastic sheets to be put over the television screens for kids watch ing the programme. At certain places in the broadcast, the chil dren watching were to help out the characters by drawing onto the plastic sheets. One common scene involved W inky D in k ’s approaching a broken bridge; the child was asked to draw a line to reconnect the bridge so Winky Dink could cross safely. Unfortu nately, some child ren fo rg o t about the plastic and drew directly onto the family’s televi sion screen. Attempts to link the television and the phone first appeared at the 1964 New York World’s Fair, where A T & T engineers demon strated a picture-phone - a forerunner of today’s video-con ferencing products. Interactive cable television trials, begun in the 1970s, became the fashion in the 1990s as telecommunications carriers using broadband cable worked with com puter and media com panies in numerous trials around the world. Ignor ing the fact that “technically” these trials were successes (even if you had to have a degree in nuclear fusion to understand how it all worked), consumer reaction was not wildly enthusiastic to a “ter abyte” of programming coming out of a super-charged television tube. And the com panies hosting these trials had become “nervous” by the high cost of the advanced consumer equipment they had assembled. Into this gap of “what next?” stepped the Internet and the worldwide web,

The ¡-TV96 Conference re-defined interactive television to include all the delivery means currently available, plus combinations thereof. driven by increasing numbers of homes with computers and the falling costs of computer hardware such as modems. The current bigger-than-W estern Australia development is the network computer: a pared-down, inexpensive version of the home PC which will be used to connect households and busi nesses to the Internet. No one is too sure what this thing will finally look like and cost (IBM and Sun Microsystems have just released the first versions of their

respective network computers), but it’s new, it’s shiny and it already has a crisp acronym: NC. In teractive T V C o n ten t The i-TV96 Conference redefined inter active television to include all the delivery means currently available, plus combinations thereof. Called “hybrids systems”, these incorporate use of the Internet, television, CD-Roms and tele phone. But it was more a conference

about ideas, content and visualization than a discussion about technology. Rosa Freitag, from the Royal College of Art, London, showed her interactive soap opera, Mixed Emotions, which lets viewers influence the outcome of the programme, or even find out the secret thoughts of the characters as they strug gle towards corporeal truths about love and fidelity. Julian Meadow, director of CyberCorp Ltd in New Zealand, came up with “lava-cam ”. Found at the worldwide web address http://www.cybercforp. co.nz/ruapehu, people can see a live pic ture of New Zealand’s active volcano, M ount Ruapehu, and, if it is dormant, you can leave an e-mail message to be informed to “tune-in” when it is active. Valkeiser Publishing, a Dutch new media and post-production firm, demon strated a live interactive quiz programme th at used ordinary television and a phone. Players at home could participate in the game show by phoning in during the broadcast. Moses Znaimer, president of the phenomenally-successful Toronto television broadcaster, CityTV, has said the sta tion’s philosophy is based on the axiom that, “The nature of television is flow, not show.” CityTV holds the largest television audience share in Toronto. It broadcasts much of its local programming live from the ground floor o f a T o ro n to office building. T h e studio opens up to the street, with removable panes of glass to allow presenters to report the weather, host live-music broadcasts and vox pop shows. C I N E M A P A P E R S « / FEBRUARY 1997

Citylnteractive, the new media com panion company to C ityTV working through its “web site”, is run like a com panion channel and provides CityTV with another avenue to attract viewers. Both the television and web channel work to cross-promote each other’s program ming. Competitions run on the web site are announced on-air and upcoming tele vision shows are listed on the web site. Last year, CityTV did a live-to-air interview with Microsoft head Bill Gates. Simultaneously, Citylnteractive allowed people to “log on” to its web site to type questions and comments about on-air

Gates’ interview, which appeared as text across the bottom third of the television screen. Jo sh R aphealson, ch ief executive officer Citylnteractive, said that the com pany was set up two years ago as a new media channel. It has since become cash positive based on web advertising, on-line subscriptions and merchandizing. It was left to M ichael Schräge, researcher and industry commentator for M IT Media Lab and Wired (we are not w orthy), to challenge the feel-good nature of the conference. Schräge said that “The information superhighway was

a fraud” and that “R elationships are where the real value lies.” To illustrate his points, he noted that Disney makes more money from licensing and m er chandizing than from its “content”, and that communities will always come before content. So, it was no accident, he con tinued, that the first book published from the Gutenberg press was the Bible and not an encyclopaedia. If Schräge is co rre ct, th en in the future watching interactive cartoons at 4 am in the m orning may lead some viewers to personal epiphanies with Bugs Bunny. ®

fe s tiv a ls

Postcard from Valladolid Scott Murray1reports on one o f Spain s major cinematic events p art from the big three festivals of Cannes, V enice and B erlin , there are a myriad smaller Euro pean festivals catering to regional audiences and specialist interests. O ne o f the finest is the Sem ana Internacional de Cine de V alladolid (“Vaya-doll-eeth”), held in the historic university tow n 2 hours n orth of Madrid. It is exciting to find a provin cial festival with such professionalism and atmosphere, this long-held event (now in its 41st year) not only servicing the interested filmgoers of Valladolid, but Spain itself. This year, the Festival held, in addi tion to many oth er events, a m ajor retro sp ectiv e o f m odern A ustralian cinema (“Ciclo Cine Australiano 19751 9 9 5 ”). After similar, major seasons at the Pom pidou C entre in Paris, the Museum of M odern Art in New York and UCLA in Los Angeles, Valladolid’s event was a heartening continuation of serious overseas interest in the develop ment of the Australian film industry. Valladolid selected 20 features and 20 shorts. [See box.] The selection was an interesting one, containing mostly long- and short-form classics, with a few modern (and more controversial)

features which have garnered interna tional critical interest over the years. To support the retrospective, the Fes tival translated into Spanish, and published in a handsome volume2, the three chapters of Le Cinéma Australien 3 written by Graham Shirley, Debi Enker and this author. This tome was released alongside excellent books on Spanish composer José Nieto (which included a CD selection of his scores) and Yugosla vian director Goran Paskaljevic. It is a slim hope that any Australian festival might emulate Valladolid’s superb pub lishing example. Valladolid also held a press confer ence on Australian cinema, where the questions w ere detailed and know ledgeable, and a gala presentation to the Australian contingent before Scott Hicks’ Shine (Sección Oficial), which, yet again, brought the house down. Australians present were Paul Cox (who was serving on the Jury and whose Man o f Flowers was selected for the ret rospective), Sue M urray (D irector, Marketing at the AFC), actors Rebecca Firth (Love Serenade; Competition) and David Field (G hosts ... o f the Civil Dead; retrospective), and this author (Devil in the Flesh, retrospective). Spanish-born Conchita Pina of the AFC’s London office was also on hand to assist and see how quickly the antipodeans fell in love with this charming town and festival.

aon

he Festival itself began with Lars Von Triers’ Breaking the Waves, winner o f the Ju ry Prize at Cannes in 1 9 9 6 . O ne could hardly select a more appropriate film for highlighting the many changes cinema is presently undergoing. Almost entirely shot on video, and then transferred to widescreen 35mm, the film is perhaps the ugliest to ever hit the silver screen, with its dog-shit brown, wobbly and blurry images. The film raises many other issues - not the least because it is arguably the most misogynist ever made4 - but discussing them would mean revealing the ending, and that should perhaps wait until a release in Australia is secured. Let it be said that Lars von T rie rs ’ description of him self to Andrew L. Foot-stamping was also the order of Urban as “the wanker of the silver the day for R olf de H eer’s The Quiet screen ” dem onstrates a rem arkable R oom , w hich was follow ing up its degree of self-perception. (Emily Watson, Cannes recognition with a Sección Ofi in the lead role, however, is outstanding.) cial screening at Valladolid. The film Breaking the Waves' screening did seemed not to be understood or liked, reveal an unique side of Spanish audi and the general post-screening view was ences: foot-stamping. Instead of the boos that the little girl (Chloe Ferguson) was and hisses common from Cannes to Syd such a pain that caring about her was an ney, foot-stamping is the Spanish option impossibility. It is certainly true she is a of choice, and it is unsettling at film’s end whinger par excellence, but it is a pity to have the centuries-old Lope de Vega the film’s other admirable qualities were theatre shake to its foundations with overlooked (though well discussed in audience displeasure. This did not deter another issue of this journal5). one solitary man who stood, clapped The other Australian film in the Sec frantically and yelled “B ravo” while ción Oficial was Shirley Barrett’s Love everyone else happily fled. S eren ade, w hich yet again drew an appreciative response at odds with its AFI Awards neglect back home. Most disappointing of those Sección

Unf Película de Lar¡ prácticas da la Esci Hoy comienzan las proyec( cas de los alumnos de Der

Teatro Lope de Vega- Vicenta 11 Caja España (Fuente Dorada):

PÍÍO k

EL MUNDO »-LU N E S 21 DE OCTUBRE DE 1996

cCme. L CTUnant!de f gue ocupa e las ycaracterfs a laqhüaeh r ' ¡ Zan ,0S alumn<

ñor í n 'Ua e" este tipo d m í« e ! ntum ^ o de títulos o " «e»oy. W s, «•MW ^ «Heder . Í , ESPana)’ 8 'aS de ^ (Imágenes

1982 y Que tiene u (Martes, 10.32) de Annette sesión tendrá t/a d u c S s todos los interesados oue s (MeJ n en

'B oca a b o ca', ’Gu¿ ¿No han sentido curiosidi d e rtra ? ? r QUÍé" Se esco

eos? Y Y, por otro f Uncios eró eos? lado, ¿nu ca han imaginado las múl Pies peripecias diferente ccortejo n L PUlfúnebre? dGn ocurrir|e a u drin primera cuestión p( drán responder si ven B<

«cenano d 7 t o 7 T Z * *1 d* ,egació" « « M » con la especial

ca a boca, película dirigid

Por Manuel Gómez Pereir. Que hoy se provecta o,

Cin

SECCION OFICI/lL/3

Audiard eleva el tono de la competición oficial con su mordaz y sarcástica desmitificación del héroe

CIOOS/«

El estreno de «Celuloide», de Cario Lizzani, permite recuperar el título clásico de Roberto Rossellini «Roma, ciudad abierta»

Guía para no perderse en la retrospectiva que el festival dedica al desconocido y arriesgado cine australiano

AUSTRALIAN RETROSPECTIVE FEATURES

Oficial films glimpsed was Bo W iderberg’s Lust och Fdgring Star, an extended look at an affaire between a 15-year-old schoolboy, Stig (Johan Widerberg), and his 37-year-old teacher, Viola (Marika Lagercrantz), during the latter part of World War II. Looking much like an old man’s nostalgic gazing back to his youth, the film is erratically structured with characters and sub-plots building before being abruptly abandoned, for an hour or for ever. The central affaire disap pears largely from the narrative, and fails totally to re-ignite interest when it briefly resurfaces. Strangest is the case of Stig’s brother, who is killed in a submarine. His funeral seems to take more screen time than all the scenes of his being alive put together. (The sinking looks as if it is a key moment in Swedish history, but Widerberg’s first responsibility, surely, is to his narrative.) It is tawdrily shot, with much look ing like bad 16mm . T o see a director who used to be so visual now make films with no visual interest, and of poor technical quality, is very disappointing. Film stocks are getting better, not worse, so where is the problem , excep t for disinterest? One feature which is well shot is Jan

SHORTS

Sunday Too F a rA w a y iKen Hannam, 1975),

We Should Call It a Living Room (Aleksander

P icnic a t Hanging Hock (Peter W eir, 1975),

Danko, Joan Grounds, David Lourie and David

Caddie (Don Crombie, 1976), The Chant o f

S tew art, 1975), Leisure (Bruce Petty, 1976),

Jim m ie B lacksm ith (Fred Schepisi, 1978),

Sydney H arbour B ridge (Paul W inkler, 1977),

N e w s fro n t(Phillip Noyce, 1978), M a d M a x

W e A im to Please (M a rgo t Nash and Robin

(George M iller, 1979), M y B rillia n t C areer

Laurie, 1977), Pussy Pumps Up (Antoinette

(Gill A rm strong, 1979), 'B re a k e r'M o ra n t

Starkiew icz, 1979), Pee/(Jane Campion, 1982),

(Bruce Beresford, 1980), Sum ner Locke

Dance o f Death (Dennis Tupicoff, 1983), The

Elliott's C areful He M ig h t H ear You (Carl

Huge Adventures o f Trevor, A C af(John Taylor,

Schultz, 1983), M an o f Flow ers (Paul Cox,

1985), Palisade (Laurie M clnnes, 1987), Pleasure Domes (M aggie Fookes, 1987), Hang Up (Pauline

1983), Fran (Glenda Hambly, 1985), B ack lash (Bill Bennett, 1986), Devil in the Flesh

Chan, 1989), N ig h t Cries: A R ural Tragedy

(Scott M urray, 1986), M a lcolm (Nadia

(Tracey M offatt, 1989), P up penhead(David Cox,

Tass, 1986), The Year M y Voice Broke 1989), G ho sts... o f the Civil D ead (John

1990), Cat's Cradle (Liz Hughes, 1991), Sexy Girls, Sexy A pp lia nces (Emma-Kate Croghan, 1991), J u s t Desserts (M onica Pellizzari, 1992), Sunday

Hillcoat, 1989), The Piano (Jane Campion,

(Peter M oyes, 1992), U niversal A ppliance Co.

1993), Bad B oy B ubby (Rolf de Heer, 1993),

(A ndrew Lancaster, 1994), Code Blue (M oira Moss, 1995), Redback (Robert Stephenson, 1995).

(John Duigan, 1987), Celia (Ann Turner,

A n g e l B aby (M ichael Rymer, 1995).

Other films on show in the Seccion Oficial (but missed) included Jacques Audiard’s Un Héros très Discret, Arthur Penn’s Inside, Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne’s La Promesse, Patrice Leconte’s Ridicule, André Téchiné’s Les Voleurs and Todd Solondz’s 'Welcome to the

Dollhouse. Troell’s Hamsun, about the great Nor wegian author who sided with Germany during World War II. Galvanized by a great performance by Max von Sydow, this long film carefully and fairly wades through the rumours and known truths of Knut Hamsun’s life during the late 1930s and up until his death in 1952. Given he is Norway’s greatest writer, H am sun’s siding with the Nazis has always been very hard for Norwegians to deal w ith, and has been left un resolved by many. And, it has taken a Swedish director and actor, and Danish actress and money, to finally bring this story to the screen. The film does lose its sense of balance towards the end when it gets sentimen tal about Hamsun’s marriage to M arie (Ghita N orby), whom he

had previously banished from his house and now lets back. As Troéll has failed totally to suggest this couple had any love or caring for each other, the rec onciliation is hardly the touching occasion the director wishes it to be. Valladolid is also, naturally, a venue for new Spanish cinema, and this year featured (among others) Vincent Pérez Herrero’s first feature, La Vida Privada. The film is a very atmospheric and beau tifully-shot story of a housekeeper’s relationship with an eccentric recluse and the isolated, isolating house she must tend. Tales of lost siblings and possibil ities of changed roles keep this most Spanish of narratives vibrant and inter esting. It deserves a wide audience.

In the Punto de Encuentro section was the “From Sand to Celluloid” selec tion of six films by Aboriginal filmmakers. These have been discussed in detail in an earlier issue6, but it cannot be said too often that this remarkable programme of shorts is one of the most exciting things to happen in the Australian cinematic renaissance. That Aborigines are making films at last might be enough for some, but these films, by and large, are stun ning irrespective of their d irecto rs’ origins. Opinions vary about the high-points, with Richard Frankland’s No Way to Forget winning the charge at Cannes and the AFI Awards, but this writer would opt for Rima

E L NORTE DE CASTILLA LU N ES, 2 1 d e o ctu b re d e 1 9 9 6

Australia en la Remana

La llamada del dólar ectores a Estados Unidos, la necesaria financiación pública de las películas de la industria americana integran la realidad del séptimo arte australiano

41 SEMANA INTERNACIONAL DE CINE DE VALLADOLID

s em dores, jt aborIredonlila de . Para |o coní

M u-

; de fission; jjr, crítiI del li gnei E l sde lebecca 1papel traban

s fuera I de cine tei sería romotor inda. partici

PERS I FEBRUARY

trailana unidos jesford). [plicó-, a

iste poco

Lo» participantes en la m esa redonda sobre U ne australiano.

d o c u m e n ta rie s

Documenting Australia Margaret Smith examines concerns in the documentary community t

he Australian Screen Direc tors Association has taken the unusual step of launching a campaign to save documen tary funding in Australia. Filmmaker Chris Hilton told the audience at Sydney’s Chauvel Cinema that, since the change of federal gov ernm ent, the industry had been under siege with funding cutbacks and numerous inquiries: T h ere’s the Mansfield review of the ABC, and the Gonski review into the F F C , the A FC , Film Australia, the AFTRS and the NFSA. Then there’s the Sixth Channel inquiry, the inquiry into Australian content on PayT V , and the inquiry into cross-media ownership.

as it happened, and have been in the frontline of shaping the nation’s his tory. In the main, these storytellers have told their stories not for profit, but with the public pound or dollar. But now this tradition is under threat by a m arket-driven government. IM A X filmmaker John Weiley told the audi ence that, w hilst he was in the U.S. exploring the market for his own films, he became conscious that Australian documentaries were being shown on the Discovery and Arts and Entertain

H ilton stressed the irony of so much gate-keeping whilst Aus tralians are being told “we are on the verge of a new age of com munications: the interactive online environm ent, the bright and shiny digital future”. The ASDA documentary com m ittee, which Hilton convenes, decided to make a short video to educate the viewer on the power of documentary images. The seven-minute video is nar rated by Ja ck Thom pson and features some of the seminal moments of docu mentary history: Back o f

B eyond, M enzies, The Q ueen in Aus tralia, K okoda Frontline , Lousy Little Sixpence, Out o f Sight, Out o f Mind, W hatever H appened to Green Valley, Bingo Bridesmaids & Braces , Stepping Out, Eternity, Billal, D em ocracy, etc.

ment channels: “There is a quality to all our films that comes from a strong doc umentary tradition in Australia.” Now Weiley is fearful that marketism is creeping into all documentary film funding:

[F]ilm bodies are slashing funding of documentaries in the current climate of political incorrectness. (Documenting Australia is available for anyone who cares to ring the Sydney office of AS DA.) H ilto n told the large audience of filmmakers and people who work in the industry that, for the past 1 0 0 years, Australian documentary storytellers have captured the Australian experi ence as it unfolded, recorded history

The market can be a dumping ground fo r docum entary film s. A sim ple m arket agenda has the danger o f subsuming us into one great big Disney World. ASDA’s manager, Ian Collie, worked with Chris H ilton to secure funding from Film Australia, Visualeyes, Filmsound, V ideo 8 Broadcast and other

bodies to produce the video and ASDA’s launch of Documenting Australia. Collie believes that Rats in the Ranks, Billal and Canetoads: An Unnatural His tory could be some of the last classic documentaries made in Australia: While public attention has focused on the continuing success of Australian feature films, documentaries are also making their mark. Australian docu m entaries regularly featu re in international film awards. Sales to

international markets have never been higher as our documentaries are seen by millions around the world. But while this is happening, at home the film bodies are slashing funding of doc um entaries in the current clim ate of political incorrectness. Collie believes that documentaries have been a low-risk training ground for creative and techni cal personnel: W ithout documentaries, some of our most famous filmmakers may never have had the opportunity to develop their talent. They include Dean Semler, Peter W eir, Scott Hicks, Gillian Armstrong and Chris Noonan, to name but a few. John Weiley stresses that, What is at risk is an Australian view of our identity and an Australian view of the world. The Australian docu mentary sector will continue to need some governm ent assistance in the same way as it does in the U.S., France, Canada and the UK. A healthy docu

m entaries sector is the m ark o f a healthy society. Filmmaker Pat Fiske has just found out what it’s like to try and get an unusual documentary funded today. She told me that her film, Follow ing the Fenceline, about a group of women who travel around Australia on motorbikes to edu cate the public about breast cancer, was made on a very low budget. The major funding bodies wouldn’t support her, so Fiske went ahead w ith a small grant from the NSW Cancer Council and Chris Rowell Productions. She put her own money into the project and became a one-per son crew trav elling w ith the w om en. Fiske cut back her expenses by camping out in her swag and only giving herself one meal a day! The editing was extremely tough, with Pat Fiske sometimes doing six jobs a week (as sound recordist, post-production script editor and other work) to keep the project alive. She had already made the fully-funded documen taries, Rocking the Foundations (the BLF) and For All the World to See (Fred Hollows), but, with her cur rent film , she found herself in a “very stressful situation”. She says, “I wouldn’t do it again.” She’s also worried that track records d on’t seem to mean anything any more. Social-issue documentary film maker Tom Zubrycki told me that there is now a crisis of confidence in film makers: “The budgets are dropping, and documentary filmmakers won’t be able to be so ambitious.” Zubrycki is worried that the markets we have established with the BBC and Channel 4 will disin tegrate because “the quality of work is now under threat”. Zubrycki stressed that financial cuts are damaging “the sale, profitability and cultural impact of our films”. He fears we won’t sell overseas under these new cutbacks, because they like good stories, im pact and strong ch aracters, all of which take time and money. David Goldie, who both works as an independent and as an ABC producer, told me that he’s also very concerned. Goldie has just financed the third part o f his O lym pic trilogy from private money and it was an exhausting process: It’s so short-sighted of the government to cut film-funding bodies as it is today. And it’s a pitifully small am ount of money that goes into docum entary filmmaking, anyway. © C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

T O Clarendon St., South Melbourne Victoria, Australia 3205 Tel: (03) 9699 3922 Fax: (03) 9696 2564

16 Conyngham S t, G iffls i South Australia 5065 Tel: (08) 338 2811 Fax: (08) 338 3090

82 Berwick St., Fortitude Valley Queensland, Australia 4006 Tel: (07) 3854 1919 fax: (07) 3852 1814

340 King Georges Ave Singapore 0820 Tel: (65) 291 7291 Fax: (65) 293 214ted l

The Finest Motion Picture Rental Equipment

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

C I N E M A P A P E R S â&#x20AC;˘ FEBRUARY 1997

l ¡ l l ?be

B e s t jp lx js

o f

R e c e

| Inte]

1 9.9 ...and A ustralian Features with guest speakers, a S uper 8 com petition and outdoor screenings at The Drive-In at the Edge of the W orld.

Edge of the World Film Festival the second coming... part of Fringe ’97. Presented by the Afterdark Cinema Society. For more information phone: (03) 6223 4930

WALK OUT OF ILAA WITH A SHOWREEL Direction, cinematography, 1st A.D., Sound Recording, Screenw riting, Camera Operation, Still Photography, Continuity, Editing, Video Production and Video Editing. Any or all of these can be on your showreel within the Diploma of Screen A rts programme at ILAA. Typically our students direct at least one film (16mm Synch) and crew on four or five other key roles. LEC TU R ER S p ra c tis in g p ro fe s s io n a ls A F T R S q u a lifie d

IN S T IT U T E OF LENS A R TS

THE V IA B L E A LTE R N A TIV E

P O B O X 1 7 7 K A L O R A M A V IC 3 7 6 6 T E L E P H O N E 9 7 2 8 1 1 5 0

l& r a p hie ® P t y L td

Titling design & g ra p h ic e ffe c ts • E xtensive ra n g e of ty p e fa c e s W o rd p ro cessin g files a c c e p te d • Flexible p roofin g s y s te m S ho oting in all fo rm a ts • Q uoting & s tu d e n t d isco u n ts 5 Chuter Street McMahon's Pt (North Sydney) 2060

Phone: 9922 3144 Fax: 9957 5001

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

in d is c u s s io n

Reviewing Film and Television Anna Dzenis spends Saturday night at the Malthouse e

very so o ften we - need to stop and ask ourselves what it is that we think we’re doing. How can we do better? What are the hopes and possi bilities for our practice? Thie W riters’ Festival held at M el bourne’s Malthouse presented an event of some significance for film culture and film criticism ; it was an event which foregrounded many current concerns. “Re-viewing the Movies” was the title of the panel convened to discuss issues about “writing film and television criti cism”. The fact that writers on film and television were being positioned in a high-profile literary event was important and needs to be marked. The ATI, in conjunction with Cinem edia, sponsored the panel of international guests as part of its cultural activities programme. The panel included Jonathan Rosenbaum, Trinh T. Minh-ha and Ja n e Feuer, and was chaired by Adrian Martin. Martin provided a focus for the speakers by putting forward a series of key questions: What can writ ing about film and television change? How can it be an active and activist prac tice? W hat intervention can it make in the traditional ways that films and tele vision program m es are discussed, consumed, circulated, taught and made? These questions provided a fram e work for the perform ance piece each panellist presented. Three very distinc tive voices each offered a context for their w ork and their own analysis of, as well as a vision for, criticism in all its diversity. They were loosely linked only by th eir shared in terests and b a ck grounds, being most distinguished by their differences. W hat they did have in com m on was that they are all active, prolific ‘producers’, each concerned with extending the boundaries and obligations of critical practice. Jo n ath an Rosenbaum spoke first. Rosenbaum has been resident film critic for the Chicago Reader since 1987. His publications include Moving Places: A Life at the M ovies , and Placing Movies: The

Practice o f Film Criticism, Greed, Mid night Movies and This is Orson Welles. His next book, Movies as Politics, will be pub lished in 1997. Rosenbaum estimates he has published over twenty-six hundred pieces in sixty magazines and newspapers. His passion is matched by his provoca tion. In an interview conducted by Adrian Martin for The Age, Rosenbaum described his approach in the following way: C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

I try to view the avant-garde from a mainstream position and the m ain stream from an avant-garde position. Similarly, I try to set up certain bridges between academic and journalistic dis course. Rosenbaum contextualized his life which has largely been ‘lived at the movies’ from idyllic beginnings involving the family’s picture palace business, his orig inal intention to become a fiction writer, to the timeliness of being a beneficiary of the French New Wave. But while criticism has energized and influenced, inspired and moved readers, w riters and film m akers, Rosenbaum (invoking Godard who once said that he awaited the end of cinem a with opti mism) cheekily added “I await the end of film criticism with optimism.” He sug

has the generosity to confront the prob lems o f his, and our, p ractice in the public domain. Trinh T . M inh-ha was the second speaker. She is currently Professor of W om en’s Studies and Film at the Uni versity o f C aliforn ia, Berkeley. H er books, Women, Native, Other, When the Moon Waxes Red and Framer, Framed, are regarded as key texts in feminist and post-colonial discourse. Her films, Surname Viet, Given Name Nam and Shoot for the Contents, have been described as complex experimental documentaries, and her recently com pleted w ork, A T ale o f L ov e, as a narrative feature. It is, however, such clas sifications that Trinh regards as reductive and limiting, instances of what is worst about contemporary critical practice.

cism, and she felt this was best illustrated by a num ber o f European art-hou se films. She invoked the Resnais-Duras film , H iroshim a M on A m our (1 9 5 9 ), D uras’ own In dia Song (1 9 7 5 ) and Tarkovsky’s Stalker (1979) as poetic con trad ictory spaces. She said th at to describe these films - to simply explain them - would be to empty them out, to offer the reader nothing more than the skin of the fruit. She proposed that the challenge for criticism was to write about the pow er and the p o etic fo rce o f a work, in a spirit of co-creation and co production, without closing it off. Jane Feuer, the final speaker, spoke about the niche she believes she occupies in television and film criticism as a ‘trash o lo g ist’. H er opening line was “Trash is my life.” She is Professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, where she teaches film and television. Feuer’s books include The H ollyw ood Musical and the recent Seeing Through

the Eighties: Television and Reaganism, and she is co-editor of MTM: “Quality Television”.

gested that the underlying premise of a lot of criticism is that people don’t know what they want or like, and need to be told how to think. But, for Rosenbaum, assuming a shared passion and a sophis ticated openness with his readers, rather than giving them an agenda, determines the way he writes. W hile he described his situation at the Chicago Reader as ideal, where he has the relative freedom to write what and how he wants, he highlighted a very real contem porary problem where so much criticism is often regarded merely as an adjunct to publicity. As for the pos sibility of criticism still playing an active political role, he suggested that, on the cultural front, we had lost the cold war. Y et the activism is always there in the words and thoughts of this critic who

Trinh began by assertively announc ing herself as a filmmaker and a writer not a film critic or film reviewer. In a very poetic performance, Trinh spoke of film criticism as a process of collaboration, sug gesting that we are all responsible for the way films are circulated and discussed. For Trinh, the work of criticism should not be about evaluation - judging what is good or bad, wrong or right - nor about categorizing - naming and reducing what is seen, felt and heard. She argued that most often what was compelling in a film were the gaps which escaped being read ily converted into meaning. Y et she suggested that all too often criticism only managed to engage in a totalizing quest, closing off the power of the cinematic, the poetic and the political. For Trinh, films can challenge criti

Feuer argued that if there was a polit ical content to her writing, a mission she felt as a critic, it was to write about the popular and the marginalized areas of culture in an academ ic co n tex t. She has argued that musicals were more than ju st pure en tertainm ent, and now is involved in making the same case about television. One of her most provocative claims in Seeing Through the Eighties is that the popular television series of the ’80s such as Dynasty and Thirty som e thing are the site of political critique complicitious critique which does not stand outside the object. Feuer dismissively said that many leftists still wrote about the cinema as if that was the only place you could discover political statements. Her con tention was that criticism needed to broaden its horizons. The opportunity to be in the presence o f w riters w hose w ork has long impressed you with its texture and mate riality offered another kind of experience that is not necessarily to be found in the passion, the languor and the provoca tion o f th eir prose. P erform an ce is another kind of place where ideas can be expressed and activated, where we have a chance to see and hear our heroes. In one o f his appearances, Rosenbaum commented that criticism at its best creates desire - the desire to see a film, to read someone’s writing, to find an elusive text. An event such as this, at its best, creates such desire. ©

A m ericas Tei: 1 8 0 0 8 6 2 ' 0 0 0 4 Europe + 4 4 1252 7 18300 A si a Pacific + 61 2 9 5 8 6 0991

Resolution Independent

I N D U S T R I A L S O F T W

A R E

Special Effects Digital Film Advanced Compositing Image Tracking Unlimited Layers Multithreaded Multiprocessor Optimized 64bit for Film DPS Hollywood, Perception WINDOWS NT VERSION for DEC Alpha Intel Pentium Pro

Please contact a dealer near you: Digital by Design Pty Ltd

(075) 532 9997

Digipix Pty Ltd

(02) 9417 3595

Bitstorm FX

(06) 249 7345

VideoBytes Australia Pty Ltd

(03) 9348 9177

S T R E N G T F N V I A G I C

F O R

V I S U A L

E F F E C T !

National Treasure I f every country had a Henri Langlois, there’d be a lot less lost films, as Ross Cooper explains

Suburbia Resurgent David Caesar’s Idiot Box ventures out West

in review BY A N Y O T H E R N A M E , I 0 S E F D Z H U G A S H V I L I

I S N O T A ROSE • LOVE I S I N T H E AI R cinematic boat. It is radical in

fibro shack to question Wally about

likeable and gently humorous.

the ornament, but, before they

Like David O’Brien’s Shotgun

MR RELIABLE \

The police arrive at the Mellish

neither form nor content, yet it is

reach the door, Wally’s indignation

Wedding (Paul Harmon, 1994)

leads to a blast from his shotgun.

before it, Mr. Reliable revisits the

That’s it - the siege is on. Beryl and

Australian summer of 1968, when

Leslie are thought to be hostages,

Wally Mellish gained folk-hero

while Wally assumes the role of gun-wielding maniac. A police and

Directed by Nadia Tass.

status by conducting an eight-day

Producers: Jim McElroy,

siege in a little known suburb on

media fiasco ensues that draws in

the outskirts of Sydney.

the Commissioner of Police, the

1 v

P 1 I if |

Terry Hayes, Michael Hamlyn. Scriptwriters: Don Catchlove and Terry Hayes. Director of

Iphotography: David Parker.

■

I Production designer: Jon

Dowding. Costume designer:

Tess Schofield. Editor: Peter Carrodus. Music: Philip Judd. Cast: Colin Friels (Wally), Jacqueline McKenzie (Beryl), Paul Sonkkila (Allan), Frank Gallacher (Fergusson), Lisa Hensley (Penny Wilberforce),

Aaron Blabey (Bruce Morrison), Geoff Morell (Sgt Campbell), Neil Fitzpatrick (Rev Clive Paton). Australian distributor: PolyGram Filmed Entertainment Australia. 1996. 35mm. 113 mins

he title of Mr.

As told by the writers, Don

Reliable describes

Catchlove and Terry Hayes, this

its form, style and

true story is an escalating comedy

content perfectly reliably. That is to say,

Premier and every news-hound in the state. Wally finds himself in a position

of errors. Mellish (Colin Friels) is

of power and negotiation com

an uneducated man who just wants

pletely foreign to the ex-Long Bay

to make a go of it with his new

inmate. His requests range from

live-in girlfriend, Beryl (Jacqueline

talking to a minister to obtaining

McKenzie), and her child, Leslie.

an M -16. The police, eager to undo

Beryl’s desire for a mantelpiece

recent bad press, are willing to

aims without

ornament is the first step in what

comply - to a point. While the

rocking the

becomes a marathon.

the film admirably achieves its

Commissioner, Allan (Paul Sonkkila), plays good cop, his Deputy, Fergus

Paternal Marxism Although the film [Children o f the Revolution] could have been a great one w ith a little more discipline and attention to coherence, it nevertheless remains a stim ulating, funny and provocative synthesis o f European styles and youthful flair. p

son (Frank Gallacher), plays bad cop. The dénouement is a comical piece of everyman justice that puts all the players in their rightful positions, no egg on face. For the leading rôles, director Nadia Tass cast actors with whom she has previously worked: McKen zie on Stark (mini-series, 1993), and Friels on Malcolm (1986) and Stark. Friels’ performance is strong and consistent. He endows Mellish

pop songs with Mozart thrown in that weave through the film. The soundtrack is patterned with spine-

filmmakers succeed in adhering to

tinglingly-loud crescendos that cut

the formal restriction of staying

to silence while the film seesaws

within the structure of the play and

between thrilling action and sweet

using nothing but words from it

emotion. But the film is often exhil

(give or take a few substitutions).

arating and sometimes moving, not

with a very human face and a

Australianness of its characters, the

simple likeability without which

warmth between them on screen,

the film would be at a loss.

the desire to see two battlers beat

Friels is understated and genuine

city (really Veracruz) in Mexico; the

aims are really simple and naive.

two rival gangs of youths associated

The film has no complicated ideas

with the two big-shot families carry

about the world, and it is always

guns instead of swords. The guns,

transparently literal when it is being

silver, with custom-painted handles,

over-the-top.

have the brand-name Sword;

When the makers of literary

drawing swords is drawing guns.

adaptations justify a particular inter

Shakespeare’s words for hot-tem

pretation of a classic, their usual

pered Renaissance youths, ready

claim is that they have sought to

to draw at the least slight to their

realize what is contemporaneously

honour, is surprisingly right for

relevant in the text; if they have

trigger-happy teenage gang members.

deviated from its letter, then any

There is much gunfire and gunplay

deviation was necessary to make a

given an exuberant Rococo

plausible or exciting enactment of

stylization: silver guns flashed and

its narrative. The classic text,

dangerously twirled; pointed simul

although agreed by all concerned

taneously at each other or fired

to be classic, is always in need of

while the shooter arcs through the

rescue from our boredom or

air; bullets erupting in fantastic

neglect. Restoration by the cinema

frenzy. All the scenes with the gang

as far from the beige good taste of Kenneth Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing (1993) as Memphis furni

We’ve had plenty of this sort of

members - the Montagues by them

film lately.

selves on the beach, and the fights

William Shakespeare’s Romeo

between Capulets and Montagues -

Baz Luhrmann and company deploy

& Juliet isn’t restoration. Instead,

sizzle with youthful exuberance or

in their contemporary adaptation of

Luhrmann and company have made

aggression.

Shakespeare includes things picked

a film about something recognizably

balcony scene and the wedding

spearean dialogue is felicitous in

night of Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio)

small stories, nicely told. Perhaps

up from David Lynch’s Wild at Heart (1990), Hong Kong action films, Martin Scorsese’s Cape Fear

contemporary to which Shake the way song and dance is in a

and Juliet (Claire Danes) are inven

with this oddly-endearing film, the

(1991) and Fellini: different visual

good musical. (Romeo & Juliet,

tively directed: funny and touching.

Wally’s house surrounded by SWAT

little legend that is Wally Mellish

tricks are used for different parts

like Strictly Ballroom [1992],

But the costume ball, however

teams and press, sans electricity.

and Australia’s first siege can be put

of the film. The beach scenes have

Luhrmann’s first feature, is a quasi

energetic, and the final chapel scene

From micro-minis to single mother

to rest.

the colours of Pierre et Gilles pho

musical.) There are two pleasures

seem uninspired. The lovers’ first

tographs with a yellow wash, the

in the use of Shakespeare’s words

meeting at the costume ball is let

night scenes have a gun-metal blue

in this film. One is the pleasure of

down by banal staging: flirting on

tint, the Capulet ball is Fellini-esque

contemporary emotions aptly

opposite sides of an aquarium of

in a golden way, the shots of the

expressed in extraordinary artifice.

fish and taking refuge to kiss in a

city that intersperse the narration

There is exhilaration in hearing gun-

brightly-lit elevator are effective but

are all rapid zooms, swish pans,

toting delinquents snarl and joke

unmemorable. Strangely, the shots,

helicopter swoops. All emotional

in great verse, just as there is seeing

mostly close-ups, that compose the

With modest aspirations, Mr.

in his performance, although the uneducated, straight nature of the character does not allow him to explore a large emotional range. McKenzie is alluring as Beryl, the forthright young woman whose ‘honeymoon’ is spent locked in

Reliable succeeds within its bound aries in a similar way to previous Tass-Parker collaborations, such as

The Big Steal (1990) and Malcolm-.

® D eborah Niski

hood, McKenzie well portrays the

W ILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S ROMEO & JULIET

modernity of Beryl. Far from her notoriously-tortured roles of the past, McKenzie brings a vitality and earthy believability to Beryl and her relationship with the man she

Directed by Baz Luhrmann. Producers: Gabriella Martinelli, Baz Luhrmann.

believes to be a good father for her child.

Scriptwriters: Craig Pearce, Baz Luhrmann. Director of photography:

Good performances are also

Donald M . M cAlpine. Editor: Jill

found amongst the support cast -

Bilcock. Production designer: Catherine

most notably Paul Sonkkila as the

M artin. Costume designer: Kym Barrett.

Police Commissioner, Norman Allan, the voice of reason amongst the chaos, and Frank Gallacher as the Deputy Commissioner, whose sweaty zeal is at odds with both Allan and Mellish.

Music: Nellee Hooper. Original score: Craig Armstrong, M arius de Vries, Nellee Hooper. Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo), Claire Danes (Juliet), Diane Venora (Gloria Capulet), Paul Sorvino (Fulgencio Capulet), Brian Dennehy

Mr. Reliable is slow and thin in parts, and depends almost entirely

(Ted M ontague), Christina Pickles (Caroline

on the simple question - Flow is

M ontague). Australian

Wally going to get out of this one? -

distributor: Fox Film

to hold the interest of the audience.

Distributors. US. 1996.35mm. 120 mins.

It is conservative in every aspect of its production, from sound to shot choices. The film’s attempt to capture the essence of the late ’60s is also

Romeo & Juliet is set in a seaside

draining or confusing, because its

is thus - it seems - to be applauded.

ture from IKEA. The bag of tricks

the odds.

The other pleasure is the ingenuity or ease with which the

illiam Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet is high-

energy, triumphantly vulgar, a gaudy bricolage. If you seek

wide of the mark, yet there is some

earnest reserve or understatement,

thing attractive about this film: the

you won’t find it here. The film is

stops are pulled by the almost

Astaire and Rogers break into a perfect tap-dance.

Apart from these scenes, the

final scene between Romeo and Juliet on her bier are perfunctory in framing,

carelessly lit: the cinematography seems to have run out of steam by this stage. Was there a directorial lack of interest, perhaps because movement or spectacle wasn’t the order of the day? In Pedro Almodovar’s The Law o f Desire, the final scene in which the homo sexual lovers immolate themselves cuts from their suicidal lovemaking to the baffled, awe-struck police and bystanders below. In this film, once Romeo gets in and shuts the door of the cathedral where Juliet lies, it’s as if a whole squadron of police cars and a helicopter had never chased him to the steps. They drop unaccountably away. Their curious neglect adds to the impres sion of a lack of director’s interest in the lovers’ final scene. All in all, Luhrmann’s direction of sound and image is surprisingly assured. But if precocious, it is also shamelessly magpie-like. That nice close-up of hand-tooled boots rub bing out a match comes from Wild at Heart. The mutual gun-pointing and the shooter who fires away with both hands while leaping come from John Woo. And so on. But it’s fun pointing out these

BBBBM BBI of

R e v o lu t io n

things. About the direction of the acting, firstly, I like the idea of speaking Shakespeare with different accents: Paul Sorvino as Juliet’s father with an Italian accent and

Directed by Peter.Duncan. ProducenTristram M iall. Scriptwriter: Peter Durtcan.

iour. In this respect, the film presents a

Director of photography: M artin M cGrath. Editor: Simon M artin. Production designer:

savage portrait of the obsequious and

attribute in people. The scene raises,

Roger Ford. Costume designer Terry Ryan. Composer: Nigel W estlake. C ast Judy

amoral'minions of the ty ra n t F. M urray

momentous and crucial questions only

Davis (d p fb T rase jT Richard Roxburgh (Joe), Sam Neill (Nine), Rachel Griffiths

Abraham 's Stalin is an imposing figure

to deal with them in a feeble and

and Abraham captures the conniving

cursory w ay . In this sense, another ^

/4 A p n a ), Geoffrey Rush (W elch), F. M urray Abraham (Stalin). Australian distributor: Roadshow. Australia. 1996.35mm. 102 mins.

Diane Venora as her mother with a Southern one. Miriam Margolyes, the matriarch in The Age of Inno cence (Martin Scorsese, 1993), is

hildren of the Revolution is a' 1distinctive Australian film by 1*— aneclectic.youngfilm m aker.lt

a dumpy Latin maid. Sorvino’s

com binesm ock-docum entary

m umbles something about an innate

and manipulative aspects of the man,

elem ent actually w orks ag a in s tth e .

dlscovèr.thathe is the son of Stalin?

although it must be said th at the portrait

film's otherwise praisew orthy concern

And so on. The secret is not divulged in

does lapse into caricature on a number

w ith the recording of th e truth behind

the film until very late.

of occasions. The use of stills in the

Stalin's reign of terror, behind the

narrative is effective but does not

m other's crisis, and behind the travail, of 1he fa ther-in-law .

indeed, much of the film is con?

character isn’t convincing and

techniques, drama, the use.of stills and

cerned with thé emerging crisis of

always work. Certainly, the strategy

becomes grotesque, but Venora’s

sa tirè/as yvellas pathos. The éléments,

M arxism from the tim e of Stalin's ter

reinforces the film's concern with mem

languid, out-of-it mother disturbingly

if-they d a not alw ays cohere, are never-

ror, and historical reconstruction of the

ory and the p a s t but a number of stills

also be said th e film is fo r th e m ost part

suggests more than the little dialogue

, theless=cpnsistentlystimulating, and the

am orality and corruption associated

do not actually add anything to the

a stylish and stimulating, if som ew hat

she has reveals about her off-screen

film is, a; clever and amusing exploration

w ith th a t terror, to the use'of Gor

film's discourses abo utthe persistent

derivative, concoction. It b orrow s'

life. Margolyes is fun.

o f th e nexus betw een Stalin, commu

bachev and the institutionalization of

traces and influences of the p a s t A

from , alludes to, or provides echoes of Dusan M akavejev's W.R..: Mysteries of

The interplay between gang members is impressively directed,

nism and Australian life. The fjlm exploreslhis nexus in a

Having said this, how ever, it must .

perestroika, the fall o f th e Berlin W all

number of stills seem gratuitous. In this

and th e collapse of M arxis t political

sense, the film could have been edited

the Organism [ W \ ) with its com bina-

in a ;more effective.and tight manner.

tion of styles and textures, Alain

and all the young actors -

highiy-jan'cifulway. In th e film, a young

systems in Eastern Europe, So, the film

Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes,

w om an, Joan Fraser (Judy Davis), is

is concerned with th ree levels of crisis,

John Leguizamo (Tybalt), Harold

taught Marxism) by her father. She

at le a s t first, the crisis faced by the

certainly magnifies th e interest in

stills inserted into the m ain narrative of films w hich are concerned w ith th e

The use of m ock-docum entary

Resnais' and Chris M arker's use of

Perrineau (as a black Mercutio),

becomes committed to the cause and

m other w hen she learns of Stalin's

reconstructing the past and the

among them - cut striking, vivid

travels toR ussia w here she m e é i f i l î

atrocities and the fall of M arxist sys

ineluctable, at tim es, imperious influ

persistent traces of th e p a s t and th e ’

figures. However, between Romeo’s

.Stalin (F. M urray Abraham ); sleeps with

tem s; second, th e crisis faced by the

ences upon th e p re s e n t But it does

surreal satires of Kubrick, Buñuel and

departure in exile and the final

him and becom es pregnant. Upon his

son once he discovers th e true identity

not alw ays reinforce th e film 's concern

Abuladze (especially Repentance). It is.

scene between the two lovers, the

death, she returns home and raises her

of his fa th e r and thè desire fo r pow er

w ith th e unveiling of the bankruptcy of

drfficultto think of an Australian film,-

film gave me the impression of

son, Joe (Richard Roxburgh), without

th at lie him self seem s to have inher

ideological systems such as Stalinist

though, w hich is quite like this one. For

being tacked together and jokey.

telling him th ^ S ta lin u s his father. The

ited; and, third, th e crisis faced by the

communism.

th a t reason, and because of th e im agi

The film seems patchy in the whole

film then Ixplores a number of similari-

w om an's husband, W elch (Geoffrey

last quarter or so, since the penulti

ties betw een fàtheîM nd-s’o n/evenaSïit>.i

Rush)/w ho realizes th a t his w ife "can

vivid but they do not cohere. A s a

mate scene is dully shot and the

raises a num ber ofjntriguing

not abandon M arxism and his son

:co n s|q u en c e, the film does not just

chase before it implausible though

questions Can the Son ofsuch a mon-

resem ble^S talin more and more.

m eander at a num ber of crucial

grandly operatic.

strous.or,cruel man cope with his fa te7

William Shakespeare’s Romeo

ethicaHf

The film is richly textured and it is

Overall, th e elem ents are often

native and exuberant approach to th e subject m atter, th e film deserves a w ide audience. Although th e film could Ih a v e been a great one w ith a little

more discipline and attentionTo coher

persistently concerned with the pas t

too much. A good exam ple is a brief

ence, it nevertheless rem ains a

& Juliet doesn’t have anything

w hen his father ^ a c k n o w le d g e d a s jM

The satirical scenes and sequences are

scene in w hich an imagined conversa

stimulating, funny and provocative

significant to say aboutthe world,

a tyrant and a mass killer? H ow will

often effective; especially in term s o f

tion takes place b etw een th e son and

synthesis of European styles and

unlike Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Medea

others see and tre a t th e son if they

"Stalin's tyrannical and amordl behav

Stalin. The son asks “W hy?” and Stalin

youthful flair.

rH o w can the son lead a 'norm alf life

? ,!

stages, the film m aker also tries to dp.

R a y m o n d Y o u n is

(1970) or his Edipo Re (Oedipus

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

in review Films

odd sound effects. The result is a frantic, highly-stylized movie, played out at break-neck pace that

continued

deals (at least on the surface) with

Rex, 1967) or Orson Welles’ Chimes at Midnight (1966): adapta

naturalistic setting, in a plot that is

tions that crystallize a view of the

pounding rock soundtrack.

crime and its proponents inside a pared to the bone, set against a

world. As a sort of musical, it is

Even the story set-up has the

unevenly controlled, also relent

kind of one-line pizzazz that distrib

lessly full on. I don’t know whether

utors highly covet; simply put, the

it won’t grate in the future. But now

movie deals with two young men,

it’s entertaining.

both unemployed, angry and bored, who plan, then execute, a daylight

IDIOT BOX Directed by David Caesar. Producer: Glenys Rowe. Associate producer:

armed raid on a suburban bank. The sense of humour here, dri ven by the unbridled machismo of

Nicki Roller. Scriptwriter: David Caesar.

its two antiheroes, Mick (Jeremy

Director of photography: Joe Pickering.

Sims) and Kev (Ben Mendelsohn), is

Sound: Liam Egan. Production designer:

rude, even crude, in its attitude to

Kerith Holmes. Editor: M ark Perry. Cast

sex, manners and the ever-so-polite

Jerem y Sims (Mick), Ben Mendelsohn

the kind of lazy citations that

lives of working-class people. So,

their actions as crushingly banal

which makes it perfect fodder for

bedevil film criticism of late: i.e.,

Idiot Box isn’t in crime or “genre”

and depressingly claustrophobic.

the midnight-movie crowd. But to

Idiot Box as Tarantino-esque

style at all (but it does use so-called

Detective). Australian distributor: Globe.

put this clever, funny and very good

crime/comedy transplanted to the

B-movie stylistics wisely).

Australia. 1997.35mm. 85 mins.

movie in such stark terms is to limit

arid suburbia of eastern Australia.

n its brash, energetic surface,

it. The above description may be

Namely, Sydney’s far west, with its

peculiar suburban culture - one that

maleness: its wanderings and

David Caesar’s fine second

true to the material experience of

neat lawns and empty streets, tidy

is steeped in resentment and bore

yearnings, its patter, its dreams

feature appears to be smartly calcu

the film, but, in the cold light of

red-roofed houses, austere pubs,

dom, that breeds a dangerous kind

and, finally, its tragedy.

lated in its attitude and effects. Idiot

day, it fails to capture the film’s

antiseptic shopping malls and a

of self-absorption and recklessness.

Box is playful but sincere, conscious

textual subtleties.

skyline marked out with television

But, crucially, this is not the dead

highway, dodging cars or in the

aerials.

end romanticism that seems to be

cruel taunting of a guard dog; or in

the stuff of so much “working-class”

the chaos of a car-park ringing with the sound of a hundred “whoops”,

(Kev), Robyn Loau (Lani), Susie Porter (Betty), Deborah Kennedy (Leanne the Detective), Graeme Blundell (Eric the

of movie traditions but with an

conventions of mainstream cinema

As Caesar demonstrated in his

But Idiot Box is much more of a

Caesar’s movie is really about a

specific image of mid-twenties

Fun here can be found on the

ambition that sneaks through the

1992 début, the gentle, modest

cracks of convention. For some crit

Greenkeeping, he is a writer-director

slippery proposition than that sum

cinema, which seems to be always

ics, it will no doubt appear as very

who shows an abiding interest in

mation indicates. It does not slide

finding something wholesome or

as Kev, looking for mischief, sets

much a “’90s movie”, full of quotes,

character and milieu, and that is

comfortably into any generic slot or

grandiose in the lives and environ

car alarms off one by one. Fun can

poses and irony delivered with high

finally what makes Idiot Box such

fashionable style clique and, perhaps

ment they depict, yet seems to end

mean stealing a car. But Caesar

an attractive and compelling project.

most significantly, the film’s politics

in disillusionment.

speed camera movement, strobe-like cutting, and a sound design that

But that doesn't get away from

don’t conform to the kind of

doesn’t have his characters take

Caesar’s characters are active,

their new prize anywhere; instead,

the central problem of what Idiot Box is (as opposed to what it does).

patronizing attitude that smears the

and conscious of who they are (they

they end up heading in circles on a

soundbytes from television and

“good intentions” of many a film

can’t help but be - their world is one

vacant lot (in a well-known game,

movies, snatches of dialogue and

One might be tempted to indulge in

that attempts to grapple with the

of the dole office and familial

favoured by “hoons” everywhere,

resentment). But they are not the

called doughnutting).

howls, roars, pops and grunts with

robotic, recessive, humourless hard-

Late in the film, the same car

cases of so much Australian

comes in useful for the bank

naturalist kitchen-sink drama; think

robbery (and then, at the last

of the jaded folk of Metal Skin

minute, it’s reclaimed by its original

(Geoffrey Wright, 1995), Fran

owner). Caesar is dealing with a

(Glenda Hambley, 1985), Fast Talk ing (Ken Cameron, 1984), and

particular kind of maleness here:

Michael Thornhill’s otherwise fasci

that doesn’t want to shake off

nating The FJ Holden (1977). Their

adolescence or the comfort zone

one that craves instant gratification,

listless energy (captured brilliantly

of male friendship. Kev and Mick

by Caesar’s ferocious visual-aural

bicker constantly, but it’s funny

stylings) is all about the search for

and full of self-delight, while their

fun and excitement.

conversations with women and

Here it is somehow fantastic,

adults (all some sort of authority

death-defying, as scary and enervat

figure) are fractured and self-con

ing as the spectacle of a movie hero

scious. Mick haltingly appraises

dodging bullets, violent videos and

the possibility of a meaningful

violent video arcade games, loud

relationship with women, but is

music and a bullying, testosterone-

drawn back into the easy role of

driven, head-slapping camaraderie.

j guardian/foil for Kev’s suicidal

But once Caesar breaks out of the

j mock outrages.

movie-bred, fantasy point-of-view of his characters, it’s possible to see

Inside his crime thriller plot, Caesar sets out to chronicle a

Caesar suggests that mateship ' (as it is played out here), while there

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Lani (Robyn Loau) and , - Mick. Idiot Box.

for the action to come (a whole

“I reckon if you say something’s a

review could be spent on the way

poem, then it is”, he says. For Mick,

Sims and Mendelsohn interpret and

language and its possibilities are a

enlarge their rôles; suffice to say

liberation - a promise and a path to

that they are energetic, immediate

re-invention. This isn’t exactly

and capture, powerfully, the contra

optimism, but it definitely isn’t the

dictions and possibilities of Caesar’s writing). The sense of danger and disquiet

Brenda Pam, Phillip Bowman.

cinema release and found its first audience on video two years later (yet another supposedly 10BA phe nomenon). It is yet one more in the

despair of, say, Metal Skin. For

designer: Phil W arner. Costume

endless flow of serial-killer movies.

example, there is hope: “Every

designer: Rosalea Hood. Editor: John

One can’t help but recall, and agree

second Thursday they pay the dole

Scott Composers: David Hirschfelder,

with, the words of James Ellroy:

about blokeism of Mick and Kev’s

key-card machine and I hope I can

drama - and their own misguided

remember my code.”

Idiot Box may seem undisciplined

Ric Formosa. Sound recordist John Schiefelbein. Sound editors: Karin Whittington (dia.); Peter Townend (fx). Mixer: Phil Heywood. Cast Patsy Kensit

I think the public’s fascination for serial killers is expressed as a means to, you know, avoid the

(Kelly W heatstone), Robert Reynolds

real social ills that are consuming

universe through the glamour of

in performance and over-stuffed

(Frank Yanovitch), Rebecca Rigg

America right now. Self-contained

crime - is confirmed in the film’s

with ideas at times. Its style may

(Helena Martinelli), Gary Day (Steve

two major subplots, which, in the

seem too active to some as if to

Docherty), Shane Briant (Detective

best tradition of narrative drama,

disguise some deficiency of plot (the

dovetail around the film’s climactic

camera is so restless in the opening

bank robbery.

moments it makes Oliver Stone’s visual hyperbole seem like Merchant

contrast to the terror and efficiency

Ivory). But such considerations are

of the Laughing Boy (Andrew S

easily dismissed. Idiot Box is an

Gilbert), a successful and prolific

accomplished piece of work.

armed robber of suburban banks, who is talked to throughout the film

Perhaps the only really valid criticism is that the film doesn’t

by a pair of cops, Leanne (Deborah

quite achieve the tragic dimension

is something wonderful in its

Kennedy) and Eric (Graeme Blun

that the script suggested by the

energy, breeds infantile fantasy and

dell), who are both ruthless and

blood-letting in its climax. Yet there

cripples maturity.

cynical (and amusingly self-aware).

is something grander here: a vision

Just as he did in the documen

of suburbia and its denizens that

that’s not quite right. Idiot Box con

taries Bodywork, Fences and Car

goes beyond cliché and an image of

stantly undercuts the melodrama

Crash, Caesar seems fascinated by language. Idiot Box is peppered with

Australian “unreconstructed” male

and sanctimoniousness at every opportunity with a comedy that

what one might politely refer to as

compassionate and deeply poignant.

might best be described as self-

colourful turns of phrase (e.g.,

deprecating (and one that is as

Kev inquiring of Mick

familiar and as warming as a chance

after the latter’s most

encounter with an old mate). For

recent sexual activ

instance, after Mick performs oral

ity, “You didn’t go

sex to the (surprised) satisfaction of

the growl on her

his new Polynesian girlfriend, Lani

when she was on

(Robyn Loau), who asks him as he

her rags, did

picks pubic hair from between his

ya?”).

teeth, “Where did you learn that?”,

Directed by Clive Fleury. Producer: Phillip Avalon. Associate producers:

photography: Paul Murphy. Production

into my bank account so I go to a

The boys’ guilelessness is a stark

But if that sounds solemn, then

Tunnel Vision was made in 1994, but missed out on a general

Scriptwriter: Clive Fleury. Director of

that flows underneath the knock

attempt to redefine their limited

TUNNEL VISION

Mick con

Mick says with embarrassment,

siders himself

“Videos”.

a poet:

The action of the film evolves out of the “idiot box” of the title (a droll piece of Australian vernacular referring to television and in this

ness that seems unsparing, heartfelt,

® P eter Galvin

Inspector Bosey), Justin Monjo (Craig Breslin). Australian distributor: Columbia Tristar Home Video. Australia. 1994.35mm. 90 mins.

he main virtue of Clive Fleury’s

Tunnel Vision is that it helps

serial killers that come out of nowhere, have dubious motivation [and] kill randomly and with great sexual panache are easy; they’re safe. They have nothing to do with anything important.2

Tunnel Vision’s only variant on the

dispel one of the great myths of

hackneyed conventions of the hack

Australian cinema: namely, that

neyed serial-killer genre is the

Australian-made American-style B-

hardly original “Is there one, two,

grade thrillers with imported lead

three or more killers?” This doesn’t

actors were a product of the much-

generate any tension, however,

reviled 10BA era. 10BA was killed off but the

because there isn’t a single character worth caring about, and, by the 10

shockers kept coming and, like Tun nel Vision, the money and moniker

minute mark, there wouldn’t be a

of the Australian Film Finance Cor

believe that the good girl isn’t, in

poration is evident.

fact, a very bad girl.

Spokespersons for the FFC are

single video-watcher who doesn’t

If Robin Wood was made

excellent at bagging 10BA, yet much

apoplectic by the lesbian villain in

FFC product is indistinguishable

Windows (Gordon Willis, 1980)J -

from 10BA days. Try the following

even calling for it to be banned on

list: Which are 10BA and which are

the grounds that it discriminated

FFC?

Blackwater Trail The Custodian Exchange Lifeguards Harbour Beat Mcl.eod’s Daughters Resistance Secrets Signal One Strangers Wendy Cracked a Walnut1

against a member of a minority group - what hope would this film have in his eyes? That said, there is little to be said. Patsy Kensit is a ‘face’, not an actress; Gary Day is wasted yet again; the production design is based on the worst conventions of the advertising industry; the sex is the now de rigueur up-against-thewall, slam-bang, post-Disclosure variety; and so forth. Clive Fleury, who also made in

case videos), which is the main

1993 the video-shelved Fatal Past

source of entertainment for Mick

(1996)4, shows more panache here

and Kev, who are kept poor by the

with some good camera movements,

dole and their own sense of useless

but mostly the film is made as if

ness. (Appropriate interruption:

everyone involved knows it is

Kev’s mum in the kitchen watching

rubbish. And they are right.

the television. Mick: “What are

doing?”. Mum: “Watching a show about you and Kev. The Young and

1 They are all FFC.

the Bloody Useless.”)

2 Spoken by Ellroy in the documen tary, James Ellroy (Reinhard Jud,

From watching yet another

1993).

crime movie in which the characters

3 At one of the most talked about

are captured or killed, Mick and Kev decide that they can do better.

film dinners in Melbourne, to

When they first rehearse their heist,

celebrate Tom Ryan’s birthday.

it’s in a drunken rumble in a living-

One of those who sided with

room, with a toilet brush instead of

Wood has not spoken since to one of those who didn’t.

a gun. The scene is funny but alarm ing: Caesar establishes with some finely-directed performances that these blokes are totally unprepared

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Helena Martinelli (Rebecca Rigg) and Kelly Wheatstone) (Patsy Kensit). T unnel V ision.

4 See Michael Helms’ review in

Cinema Papers, No. 112, October 1996, p. 12.

in review Bookd HENRI LANGLOIS Glenn M yrent, translated from the

discovered Raymond Longford

on Australian TV, made

(director of our film classic, The

by Edgardo Cozarinksy

Sentimental Bloke, 1918) in the

and Paini, who, according

1950s working as a nightwatchman

to Glenn Myrent, used

research into the history of the

some of his material

so-called “Australian Film Industry”,

discovered Georges Méliès selling

without acknowledging

I enquired at the National Library

toys and candy from a booth at the

the source. Serge Losique,

in Canberra to see a copy of what

Montparnasse train station in 1935.

the director of the

As Myrent says:

Montréal Film Festival, even sent a restraining

The 1896 Melbourne Cup. I was told

Although Louis Lumière’s first

by the staff in charge of the film

public film exhibition at the

order against showing

section then that, although the film

Grand Café dated back to 1895

the film in Canada over a

existed, it was being held as more

and one of his technicians, Boleslas

year ago because neither

or less the private property of this

Matuszewski, had suggested that

Myrent nor Georges

strange bower bird called Henri

films be safeguarded as early as

Langlois were thanked,

Langlois, who refused to let it out

1898, no national cinémathèque

let alone Losique, who came up

Akira Kurosawa, Twayne Publishers-

of his clutches at the Cinémathèque

had yet been established by the

with the phrase: “First Citizen of

Simon & Schuster, N ew York, 1995

Française, and that we would have

early 1930s. It was not until

Cinema”.

to wait until he died if we wanted

1934 that Berlin and Moscow

French by Lisa Nesselson, Foreword by

lenn Myrent, in collaboration

with Georges P. Langlois, has

written the definitive book about

to see a copy of the film. The book begins with an eulogy

BOLT FROM THE BLUE Sarah Miles, Orion, London, 1996,261 pp., illus., rrp $39.95

The book of 357 pages, with

created their cinémathèques, to

extensive notes and references, an

be followed, one year later, by

index, and many fine illustrations,

his is volume three in Miles’ startlingly frank and moving

that eccentric film genius, Henri

by Kurosawa, who thanks Langlois

cinémathèques in London and

also has a rather novel flicker picture

autobiography (A Right Royal

Langlois.

for encouraging him to make his first

New York. As late as 1936,

commencing on p. 213, which, over

Bastard and Serves Me Right precede

colour film.

France still had no such institution.

the next 118 pages, if you flick them

it). This book concentrates less on

fast enough, shows Henri Langlois

her film career and more on her

collecting more and more film cans

press-perceived involvement in the

Langlois founded the Cinémath èque Française and later the Federation of world film archives (FIAF), and will probably become

The opening chapters trace out Langlois’ early life. Born on 13 November 1914 in Smyrna, his father

After one spectacular saving of films destined for destruction, Langlois started personally to collect films

even more significant in the new

was French and his mother half-

and kept the rusty cans in his bath

millennia as students look back and

American. Langlois called himself the

tub! There the cans were scraped

thank him for systematically saving

black sheep of the family because he

clean before being taken down to

much of the world film heritage

loved the cinema too much.

the basement. At the age of 21, in

from the first 100 years of cinema.

One of the first films he saw was Le Compte de Monte Cristo

general of the Cinémathèque

(about 1917-8) and he gleaned his

Française. As the book points out,

who was acting as a very accom

first ideas of the cinema as a “time

the battle was just beginning.

plished French-speaking guide,

machine”.

when I toured the Cinémathèque in

As Smyrna burnt down in 1922,

The book traces the Langlois story over the next 41 years to his

July last year. He is a distinguished

he escaped with his family to France,

death from a heart attack on 13

American-born film historian who

and later he was to meet up with

January 1977. It is fascinating and

has lectured at many American uni

Georges Franju, and they made their

the particular strength of the book

versities about the Cinémathèque.

first film (about le Metro) together

is its evocation of the war period

in 1935.

when the high-ranking Nazi, Frank

It is a shame, therefore, that Glenn Myrent was recently fired from his job at the Cinémathèque

The Langlois apartment on rue Laferrière was only three blocks

and getting fatter and more addicted

death of David Whiting, and her

to nicotine. One can only imagine

troubled but special marriage to

Langlois being amused at this

Robert Bolt, the great scriptwriter

turning of a book into a film, but

who died in early 1995, not long

perhaps Paini didn’t think so.

after hearing that Oliver Stone was

1936, Langlois became the secretary-

conversation with Glenn Myrent,

I first met and struck up a

a rough trot, and Miles recounts his and their ups-and-downs with

Book,óReceived AUSTRALIA ON THE SMALL SCREEN 1970-1995 Scott Murray, Oxford University Press,

that boasted many movie houses in

Dominique Paini, found some

the 1930s. He and Franju would

the May 1968 student disturbances

trumped-up silly charge that Glenn

often watch films in the cosy 50-seat

when Langlois played a central if

had been soliciting bribes to speak

France International Films (FIF)

rather unwitting part. He was also

highly-successful Australian Film 1978-1994: A Survey o f Theatrical Features details the more than 450

in English in his work as a guide

screening room at 33 Avenue des

regarded by Truffaut and others as

Australian features from 1970 that

at the Cinémathèque. Indeed, the

Champs-Elysées, where they would

a type of godfather of the French

were not released in cinemas but

charge was subsequently thrown

savour such masterpieces as Fritz

New Wave.

went straight to television, video or

out of court by the Labor Tribunal

Lang’s Destiny and even Jean

(Prud’homme) in November 1996,

Cocteau’s Blood o f a Poet, and

finally cut down by the petty bureau

with the Cinémathèque having to

conduct vibrant discussions.

crats, which is a story that has often

as Australian Film, the book records,

occurred in Australia (see the story

where possible, the credits of the

Langlois’ maiden article

However, the great man was

films and mini-series as recorded on

rivalry was Paini’s main motive in

Française, a trade weekly, on 24

Commonwealth Cinematographer,

the actual productions. There are

sacking Glenn, and possibly fear

August 1935, and from then on he

and precursor of the Commonwealth

also brief plot synopses and one

because Glenn had been critical of

had a forum to mount his crusade

Film Unit in 1911, who was sacked

hundred stills. One can track down many a lost

the politically-inspired move of the

for the conservation of old films.

for being “too artistic”). Langlois

Cinémathèque to a new location.

He was soon to establish Save Every

was also perhaps his own worst

film, apprentice works by famous

thing as a fundamental principle,

enemy, but none can deny that his

filmmakers and small gems that

the Cinémathèque will be homeless

and considering the huge losses of

passion for film led to so much

have been forgotten in the rush to

by July 1997 unless they find

films, thoughtlessly melted down

being done world-wide for the

celebrate the new.

for nail varnish and boot polish at

medium - a fact which places us

various times in the years ahead - let

always in his debt. This book has not received the

always been as revered as he has in

alone to provide the ingredients for

many other countries. In 1965,

war explosives - it was fortunate that

attention it deserves, but it has

when I first started doing academic

he did. Like students at Melbourne

already been ripped off by a film

1996,192 pp., illus., index, rrp $45

Adopting the same methodology

of Joseph Campbell, the first official

In Australia, Langlois has not

Robyn Karney, Bloomsbury, London,

nowhere, and some 150 mini-series.

appeared in La Cinématographie

another location.

A SINGULAR MAN

his companion volume to the

It would seem that jealousy or

In a recent letter, Myrent says

BURT LANCASTER

Melbourne, 1996, 258 pp., illus., index, pb

away from place Pigalle, a quarter

Another interesting episode is

may not agree with all she says, to admire her.

for 12 years. The present director,

pillaging.

clarity and good humour. One but one would be hard pressed not

Hensel, protected Langlois and his Cinémathèque from the usual

not using his script for Nixon. For one so talented as Bolt, he sure had

where he had worked tirelessly

pay, but Glenn lost his job.

shown earlier this year

on the docks, Langlois and Franju

was then regarded as our “first film”:

FIRST CITIZEN OF CINEMA

University who, with Larry Lake,

BUSTER KEATON CUT TO THE CHASE Marion M eade, Bloomsbury, London, 1996,440 pp., illus., index, rrp $45

REPLICANT NIGHT

THE CARRY ON COMPANION

H. W . Jeter, Orion, London, 1996,309 pp.,

Robert Ross, B.T. Batsford Ltd, London,

rrp $29.95.

192 pp, illus, index, pb, rrp $34.95

BLADE RUNNER 3

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Can trill, Colin Crisp, Jean-Pierre

Arriving too late to be read for

Jeancolas, Amanda Macdonald,

this issue, this booklet seems an

Chris Mann, Adrian Martin, William

fascinating account of how religion

D. Routt and Deb Verhoeven.

and religious organizations have been represented in Australian

CUNT EASTWOOD FILM-MAKER Daniel O'Brien, B.T. Batsford Ltd,

cinema, as well as at how belief (and its official structures) have influenced content.

London, 1996,208 pp., illus., index

HAMLET DEREK JARMAN

Kenneth Branagh, Chatto and Windus,

DREAMS OF ENGLAND

London, 1996, 213 pp., illus., rrp $19.95

M ichael O'Pray, BFI Publishing, London, 1996,232 pp., illus., index, rrp £20

ncludes Branagh’s screenplay, an introduction and film diary,

accompanied by lavish colour pho

DIRK BOGARDE CARY GRANT A CLASS APART Graham M cCann, Fourth Estate, London,

tographs.

RANK OUTSIDER

HEAVENS PRISONERS

Sheridan Morley, Bloomsbury, London, 1996,192 pp., illus., index, rrp $39.95

James Lee Burke, Vintage, London,

1996,346 pp., illus., index

f the decline of the screwball genre

EASY RIDER

is the fault of any one man, blame

Lee Hill, BFI Publishing, London, 1996,

THE A U T O B I O G R A P H Y OF K L A US K I N S K I 80 pp., illus., pb, £6.99

THE HOTTEST STATE

review of the latest entries of

Ethan Hawke, Little, Brown, N ew York,

Cary Grant. With his death, screw ball shrivelled up and near died. Watching a minor but potentially interesting work like Too Much (with Banderas, Griffiths and

be published in the next issue of

Cinema Papers.

Archibald Leach was and how

EFFECTIVE AUDIO-VISUAL

much the cinema misses him. McCann’s biography is yet

A USERS HANDBOOK (THIRD EDITION)

another on the British-born star, 238 pp. of main text). The main

Robert S. Simpson, Focal Press, Oxford, 1996, 255 pp., illus., index, pb, rrp $65

hook for publicists is that the author

FIBRE OPTIC REFERENCE GUIDE

bisexuality. While he may be correct fair. He is quick to quote from any and all films as evidence of some

triking first novel by actor

triumph of cross-cultural writing,

visible reason, and he is enthralled

and theatre director Ethan

and, even if Caute’s view of Losey

by his own daring, which is nothing

Hawke about the coming and going

is a dark one, it is the finest in print.

but dilettantish innocence. [...] I’ve

of the first big love affaire in a young

All great directors deserve biogra

never in my life met anybody so

actor’s life. Crisply, oft poetically,

phers as careful and caring as Caute.

written, it is an excellent companion

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE TECHNOLOGY David R. Goff, Focal Press, Newton,

I SHOT ANDY WARHOL

rrp $16.95.

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF KLAUS KINSKI

ncludes the screenplay of Mary

festo’, Valerie Solanas’ notorious

1996,199 pp., illus., index, pb, rrp $65

FILM POLICY INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Harron’s film, plus ‘Scum Mani

which, viewed from one perspective, refer to the star’s sexuality.

THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU

Albert Moran (editor), Routledge, London, 1996,285 pp., index, pb

It is an easy read, but it is by no means the defining biography that

FLIRT

Grant deserves.

H. G. W ells, Orion, London, 1996,129 pp., rrp $12.95.

1996,95 pp., illus., pb, rrp $17.95

THE JAMES DEAN STORY

DARK ANGEL Geoffrey W ansell, Bllomsbury, London, 1996,192 pp., illus., index, rrp S49.95

A CENTURY OF CINEMA AUSTRALIA AND FRENCH CONNECTIONS Jane W arren, Colin Nettelbeck and

Melbourne, Parkville, 1996,117 pp., illus., pb, rrp $15

index, pb, rrp $19.95

before its original release because

about sleeping with his daughter, Nastassja. Disturbing echoes remain: “Catherine Burkett plays my daugh her in my hotel room, I really think I’m fucking my daughter.” This is a book where some of the

THE CHURCHES IN 100 YEARS OF AUSTRALIAN CINEMA

and sizes of girlfriends’ vaginas. As

index, rrp S9.95.

irst British paperback edition of

a biography originally published

in 1975.

illus., index, pb

JOSEPH LOSEY

his special issue of Compass has

A REVENGE ON LIFE

articles by, among others, Peter

Bentley (“Rites and Roles: Religion

collection of essays originating

in Australian Films in the Silent

from a conference on connec

Period, 1900-1929”), and Cinema

LOVE YOU TO BITS AND PIECES LIFE W ITH DAVID HELFGOTT Gillian Helfgott with Alissa Tanskaya, Penguin, 1996,337 pp., illus., index, pb, rrp $16:95

he true story of David Helfgott, his past and his life with wife

Gillian. Both a detailed background to Shine, and an extensive postcript, covering all that has happened since

for Werner Herzog, with whom he

Helfgott’s comeback concert, with

made his finest films, Kinski writes:

which the film ends. Co-written by

His speech is clumsy, with

Alissa Tanskaya, a former Cinema

a toadlike indolence, long-winded,

Papers assistant editor.

pedantic, choppy. The words tum

NICHOLAS RAY

ble from his mouth in sentence fragments, which he holds back as

AN AMERICAN JOURNEY

David Caute, Faber and Faber, London,

much as possible, as if they were

Bernard Eisenschitz, Faber, London,

1996,591 pp., illus., index, pb

earning interest. It takes forever

1996,599 pp., illus., index, pb

s stated when this book first

and a day for him to push out a

came out in hardcover, it is very

clump of hardened brain snot. [...]

biography.

tions between the French and

Papers regulars Jan Epstein (“Jewish

Australian film industries held last

Representation in Australian Films”)

rare that a novelist as significant as

I haven’t the foggiest idea what he

year at the University of Melbourne.

and Peter Malone (“Catholics -

Caute would write about a director

is talking about, except that he’s

Authors include Ina Bertrand, Arthur

Faithful, Lapsed and Hostile”).

as notable as Losey. The result is a

high as a kite on himself for no

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

about the mistakes in Oz titles.

of claims Kinski apparently made

greatest insights are into the shapes

of the Sacred Heart, Canterbury, 68 pp.,

York, 1614 pp., pb, rrp $14.95.

*** Above average. Pity, though,

his book created a controversy

Books, London, 1996,190 pp., illus.,

W allace Kirsop (editors), Dept of French and Italian Studies, University of

Neugroschel. Bloomsbury, 325 pp., illus.,

Ronald M artinetti, M ichael 0'M a ra

Peter M alone (Co-ordinator), Compass,

LEONARD MALTIN'S MOVIE AND VIDEO GUIDE, 1997 EDITION Leonard M altin (editor), Signet, N ew

FROM BACK PEWS TO FRONT STALLS

Australian Province of the Missionaries

compliment.

ter in the Golan flick. When I fuck

Hal Hartley, Faber and Faber, London,

CARY GRANT

Let it be known, Herzog is more than capable of returning the

Klaus Kinski, translated by Joachim

epistle to her self-proclaimed Society for Cutting Up Men.

swaggering [...]

Ditto, the James Dean biography!

KINSKI UNCUT

“the most self-conscious in its use quote the hundred-odd references

Anne Edwards, Orion, London, 1996,350

Bloomsbury, London, 1996,190 pp., pb,

of his own image”), but he fails to

A BIOGRAPHY

M ary Harron and Daniel M inahan,

character (North by Northwest is

thing about Grant’s persona or

JUDY GARLAND

piece to Baz Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. Love is certainly in the air.

dull, humorless, uptight, inhibited, mindless, depressing, boring and

pp, illus, index, pb, rrp $14.95.

rejects the rumours about Grant’s on this, McCann doesn’t really play

1996,19 pp, US$19.95

the BFI Film Classic series will

Hannah) reminds one how great

and it is one of the shortest (only

1996,276 pp., rrp $14.95

aperback re-issue of Eisenschitz’s acclaimed and award-winning

p47

o th e r g a u g e s

Naked 8 Heinz Boeck examines the state o f Super 8 eterminedly, the M el bourne Super 8 Film G roup (M S 8 F G ) re cently organized and presented “N aked 8, T h e 9th M elbou rn e International Super 8 Film F estiv a l”, in a straightforw ard p re sen tation o f five programmes. This feat was m ore daunting than usual with the Australian Film Commis sion denying this year’s Festival the support it had accorded on previous occasions. A bare-bones budget was raised from com m unity advertising sponsorship and a special benefit screen ing by Corinne and Arthur Cantrill. The M elbourne Cinémathèque offered to underwrite the cost of venue hire, which at the end of the day didn’t need to be taken up. Although the group has long sup ported a policy that filmmakers whose work is represented at events like this are en titled to a screening fee, the restricted budget precluded this. The accessibility and immediacy of Super 8 film m aking offers a certain amount of freedom that still makes it an attractive option to many practitioners - from those making their first films to the more seasoned veterans with a devel oped sense for the expressive range of the medium. Super 8 film has its own unique, idio syncratic characteristics: the beautiful luminosity of Kodachrome 40 reversal movie film; camera equipment is light and versatile (just aim and shoot); the sophisticated features built into many Super 8 cameras that would be much more difficult to access on more pro fessional film gauge cameras; and the graininess, to mention only a few. There are things you expect of other more mainstream moving-picture medi ums but can’t do very well in Super 8 : the slick, seamless finish of commercial cinema and television productions, for instance. Editing Super 8 sound syn chronized to image needs an 18 frame gap from where the sound occurs on the sound stripe and the image to which that sound corresponds, making for awkward pauses. Post-production, film printing and effects facilities are not readily avail able for Super 8 and only a small range of film stocks (all of them reversal films) are available on Super 8, and so on. So, to work within the parameters of what this small gauge allows, creates a certain kind of hybrid filmmaking con

ducive to creative, exploratory endeav our, to pushing the medium and trying things out. With this in mind, it has always been an important principle of the M S8FG to foster and encourage Super 8 film work in all its diversity. This is enshrined in an open philosophy - a preparedness to contemplate all work presented in the medium. Naked 8 bore testimony to the broad range of individual approaches to Super 8 filmmaking in a festival that was, for the most part, devoted to short works. Often, this can be very challenging for

an audience; no sooner have you devel oped an understanding for a particular kind of filmmaking than you’re onto the next film with a different set of formal prem ises. U ltim ately, this feature is also very rewarding by exposing the audience to som etim es im aginative visionary shifts and engaging attitudes and ideas. H om age, by W est Australian film maker John Harrison, at 30 minutes was one of the longer contributions to Naked 8. The film is his response, framed as a tribute, to the anarchist poet of the 1940s’60s, Harry Hooten. Beautifully shot in deep, grainy black and white, this darklylit brooding film lingers on urban and industrial vistas and backstreets. Periodi cally, the very measured flow of imagery

is interrupted by a roughly-inserted graphic of a skull and crossbones. T he somewhat gloom y, lan guid tone o f the film seems to contradict Hooten’s enthusiasm for the idea that advances in technology will lib erate us from to il. H arrison has paced this film well with slow, care fully-choreographed camera pans and tilts or movement within the frame. Although the images reek of solitude and alienation, the soundtrack is of a bustling crowd, which seems to sug gest the complicity of the masses in this state of things, but also creates a sur

real atmosphere, especially when this soundtrack occasionally includes Ger man m ovie dialogue. T he G erm an dialogue lends a ‘noirish’ quality to the film. Receiver, by Steven Ball, is the sort of film you could easily drift through. The images are like shadows, vague in sub stance and languishing in an ambient stasis, supported by a soundtrack that gives contextual nuances to each scene. The total effect is a kind of somnolent nostalgia, like the disconnected stream of consciousness one might experience in a dream in which you are forced to squint. Steven Ball uses a technique to reduce the detail and clarity of the image, turning it into a ghost of the original. In this way, he seems to draw attention to

the flimsiness of the cinematic illusion that confuses the projected image with real, three-dimensional substance. Irene Proebsting’s film, M ayana, is constructed of impressions that focus around her sister’s pregnancy and the stark outback landscape around Booligal, N SW , w here she lives w ith her young family. The images in this film are wonderfully pungent, iconic indices to the features of their everyday life and surroundings: the black-and-white ultra sound image, the kangaroo carcasses, the muddy river in which some monstrous fish lurks, a young, blond child playing in a dusty backyard. All the while, the soundtrack emphasizes the intensity of the landscape. Tawdry Sass, a film by Maeve Woods, is a lively and witty scratch-film. Here, the surface emulsion is worked on directly with scratchings and dyes. A remarkable range of very agitated, bright chromatic textures animate the screen, sometimes letting the underlying filmed image to appear, while the soundtrack delivers a capriciously-ironic word-play that inter rogates ‘the cut’ (of the emulsion) as an act with symbolic, socio-historical con notations. Arthur and Corinne Cantrill’s film, T id al R iver, at 38 m inutes was the longest film screened. This film evokes an intimate and replete sensuous expe rience of the landscape, of its moods and textu res. From broad seascapes and bush-covered hillsides, to paths that wind through the scrub, to the closeup nuances of a twisting branch in the bush or reeds by the river. H ere the landscape possesses a vitality like ner vous energy. This vibrancy is facilitated by the C a n trills’ use o f fastm otion photography (i.e., by using a slow speed on th eir C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Number 30 (Dèe 1980-Jan 1981)

Num ber60 (November 1986)

Number 87 (M arch 1992)

Number 31 (M arch-A pril 1981)

Number 1 (January 1974)

Number 86 (January 1992)

Number 59 (September 1986)

Number 61 (January. 1987) Number 32 (M ay-Juné 1981):

Number 88 (M ay-June 1992) Number 106(0ctober1995) Number 62 (M arch 1987)

Num ber 2 (A pril 1974)

Number 33 (June-July 1976)

Number 89 (August 1992) Number 63 (M ay 1987)

Num ber 3 (July 1974) Numbers 34 and 35 SOLD OUT

Number 90 (O ctober 1992)

Number 36 (February 1982) Number 4 (Decem ber 1974)

Number 64 (July 1967) Number 37 (A pril.1982)

Number 91 (January 1993)

[ O h, G m a t'a B a *» 1'-

ib e r 107 (December 1995)

Number 5 (M arch-A pril 1975)

Number 65(Septem ber 1987) Number 38 (June 1982) Number 92 (A p ril 1993)

N um bers SOLD OUT

Number 66 (November 1987)

Number 7 SOLD OUT Number 8 (M arch-A pril 1976)

Number 39 (August 1982) Number 93 (M ay 1993) Number 67 (January1988)

Number 9 (June-July 1976) Number 40 (O ctober 1982) Number 94 (August 1993) Number 68 (M atch 1988)

Num ber 10 (Sept-O ct 1976) Number 41(Decem ber 1982)

Number 69 (M ay 1988)

Number 11 (January 1977)

Number 95 (0ctoberl993)

Number 42 (M arch 1983) Number 70 (Novem ber1988)

Num ber 12 (A pril 1977)

Number 96 (December 1993)

Number 43(M ay-June 1983) Number 71 (January 1989)

Num ber 13 (July 1977)

Number 97-8 (A p ril 1994) Number 72 (M arch 1989)

Number 14 (O ctober 1977) Number 46 (July 1984)

Number 99 (June Ì994) Number 73 (M ay 1989)

Number 15(January1978) Number 47 (August 1984)

Number 74(July1989|

Number 16 (A pril-June 1916)

Number 1Q0 (August 1994) Number Í10 (June 1996)

Number 48 (Oct-Nov 1984) Number 17 (Aug-Sept 1916)

Number 75 (September 1989)

Number 101(0ctober1994)

Number 49 (December 1984) Number 18 (O ct-N ov1978) Number 76 (November 1989) Number 19 (Jan-Feb 1919)

Number 20 (M arch-A pril 1979)

Num ber 50 (Feb-M arch 1985)

Number 51 (M ay 1985)

Number 77(January1990) rer 111 (August 1996) Number 78 (M arch 1990)

Number 21 (M ay-June 19Í9) Number 52 (July 1985)

Number 79 SOLD OUT

Number 22 (July-Aug 1979)

Num berKB (M arch 1995)

Num ber80 (August 1990) Number S3 (Septem ber1985) Number 23 SOLD OUT Number 24 (Dec-Jan 1980) Number 54 (November 1985)

NumberOI:(December 1990) Number 112 (O ctober 19916)

Number 25 (Feb-M arch 1980) Number 82 (M arch 1991) Number 26 (A pril-M ay 1980)

Number 55 (January 1986)

Number 104:(June 1995) Number 83 (M ay 1991)

Number 27 (June-July I960)

Number 56 (M arch 1986) Num ber84 (August1991 )

Number 28 (Aug-Sept 1980) Numbers 57 SOLDOUT Number 58 (July 1986) Number 29 (Oct-Nov 1980)

Num ber85(Novem ber IM I)

Number 113 (Decem ber 1996

Hart examines the private raising o f film moneys and the law t

he C orp orations Law (the “A ct”), enacted in early 1 9 9 1 , further tightened the rules fo r the raising of finance fo r p ro fit-m ak in g enterprises (including film p ro d u ction) from private investors. T h e legislatu re abandoned any pretence of balancing the needs of com m erce to reduce red tape and adm inistrative expense against protecting potential investors from lies; the latter is para mount, full stop. All of the more honest, the more or less honest, the less than honest and the flatly honestless must lodge a prospectus unless they can come within certain exceptions to the rules. It is little wonder, you might say, after the scams of the 1980s and the disappointments of “10BA”, but read on.

surplus funds. In its final incarnation, the upward budget lim it on exem ption scheme films was $5 million. The AFC and the then existing state film funding bodies were required to approve the relevant documents before the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) would say okay. The scheme made offers simpler and cheaper. Nevertheless, under the old régime it was feasible, and within the law, for filmmakers so minded and well-connected enough to cobble together some or all of the budget for a low-budget film from people they knew, sans prospectus or exemptions.

the offeror corporation or their close relative. An executive officer is a per son who is “concerned or takes part in the management” of the offeror, whether a director of the company or not. A close relative is the (sometimes unfortunate) spouse, parent, sibling or child of the executive officer; • the offer is to become partners of a partnership or members of a jo in t venture. Here the offeror must not be in the business of raising money for filmmaking, so no recidivism; • the offer is to persons controlling $10 million or more;

T he L a w B efore 1991 Under the State Companies Code operating before late January 1991, an investor who acquired an interest in copyright, and shared in the prof its of a film in order to qualify for a deduction under 10BA, received a “prescribed interest”. Broadly, only a public com pany registering a prospectus and observing numerous legal requirem ents could offer, or invite an offer fo r, a “prescribed interest”, unless the offer was to the public or a sectio n o f the public, or was made by a virgin o ffe ro r for an interest in a partnership. If the offeror knew someone personally or had dealt with them in business before, they were unlikely to be “the public”. The courts pretty much defined who was the pub lic. As the result of one High C ourt decision, some thought it was lawful to address a private offer to a virtual stranger if it was addressed “to you and only to you”. Despite such oddities, in the halcyon days of 10BA, private placements were rare among those of pure intent. This was because of doubts about whether a pri vate placement was lawful, of healthier prospects for raising money in a wider market of strangers and also the ability to access an “exem ption schem e” for films. The AFC was a prime mover in establishing that “exemption scheme”, which provided for standard-form docu ments, including an “offer document”, in lieu of a prospectus. The offeror company had to have a dealer’s licence and it was not required to provide or have the usual performance bonds, net tangible assets or

scars from 10BA, the ASC is not yet of a mind to grant exemptions. But some exemptions were necessary because the definition of participation in terest (and investm ent co n tract) included in the definition of prescribed interest was so wide as to catch deals with distributors under which income from the film was shared, interests taken by the government bodies funding a film and the common sharing of points in a film between production company and artist. The overkill - c’est magnifique! This insistence that profit-sharing agreem ents be only allow ed if there is a prospectus had an unwelcome sid e -e ffe ct fo r the F F C . W rite r’s agreements assigning their rights to the prod u cer and providing fo r points to the writer could be avoid able at the option of the w riter, if there were no prospectus. The result would have the producer, and hence the FFC, having no effective rights in the film and being unable to grant distribution rights. N ot great, the government nobbling itself. The resulting exemptions apply where: • a person such as a w riter or an actor has provided professional services to the film for shares in the proceeds of the enterprise. That person must not pay for partici pating otherwise they would be like investors;

T he C urren t S itu a tio n applied to Film

• the offer or invitation is to someone outside Australia; and

When the Act came into effect, out went the exemption scheme and notions of private offers to non-members of the public. T h o se who offer or invite an offer for “securities”, which includes prescribed interests, must register a prospectus and meet the other require ments below unless the issue is excluded or exempted. Issues for prescribed interests are excluded where:

• the legislature can extend exclusions by regulation as was the joint venture exception above.

• each investor is asked to contribute $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 or more. This supposes that the well-heeled probably got that way by being better able to look after themselves; the notion of the sophis ticated investor, not anyone’s victim; • the prescribed interest is a gift. For those of us wanting protection from ill-chosen gifts, alas, there is no com fort here; • the offer is to enter underw riting agreements. Again, underwriters are assumed to be sophisticated; • the offer is to an executive officer of

A further exclusion that does not apply to prescribed interests is for a personal offer for subscription of twenty or fewer shares of a company where no shares of the same class have been offered for at least a year. M o st film investors are not too interested in this, for it means forgoing a 10BA deduction, as they own the shares and not the required interest in the copyright of the film. The com m ittee w hich made the recommendation to the previous gov ernment on this part of the legislation was asked to consider excluding pre scribed interests to fewer than twenty investors from the prospectus require ments. They rejected it, believing that this was where abuses had occurred, proba bly after having themselves invested in a scheme for prawn farming in Lake Eyre. The ASC has the power to exempt vast areas of endeavour down to a sin gle enterprise or part of it. Given the

• a person invites a government body to invest in development or produc tion fo r a share o f the proceed s. Government bodies include the AFC, the F F C , Film V icto ria , the N ew South W ales Film & T elev isio n Office and the Australian Children’s Television Foundation; and • the producer invites a film distribu tor or broadcaster to exploit the film. T he R eq u irem en ts Some of the basic requirements to the issue of a prospectus are: • the offering body must be a public corporation; • th ere m ust be an agreem ent (an approved deed) between the offeror company and a trustee or represen tative of the investors approved by the ASC. The approved deed must contain compulsory terms laid down in the Act; • the prospectus has a life span of twelve months from registration (still six months for prospectuses regis C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

tered b efo re 5 Sep tem ber 1 9 9 4 ), although this may be extended to 13 months by the ASC; • the offeror corporation must have a dealer’s licence to deal in “securities”, which include prescribed interests. The dealer’s licence can be restricted to particular kinds of securities. To get a dealer’s licence, the offeror must provide a p e rfo rm an ce bond of $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 , have $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 of net tangible assets or surplus funds between $20,000 and $50,000. Most producers cannot afford this and may look to an offeror management com pany w ith a d eale r’s licen ce. The offeror then engages the production company. Because it has real obliga tions to the investors’ representative under approved deed, the offeror m anagem ent com pany must insist that the production company accepts strict controls, controls that would normally belong to the investors’ rep resen tativ e. T h e o ffe ro r in effe ct charges a fee (sometimes immodest) for the risk and its management ser vices, which, as a rule, may not be that expert in the film area. Result: waste, the potential for unwarranted interference and no better supervi sion; and • if there have been at least 100 hold ers of prescribed interests at all times since they w ere issued, th en the tru stee m ust provide h alf-y early audited accounts (or accounts sub jected to a limited scope review) and h alf-yearly rep orts review ing the operation and results of the scheme. C o n te n ts of th e P rospectus P re-1 9 9 1 , the ASC was obliged to vet the prospectus and approved deed in detail. Under the Act, generally those who are responsible for preparing and issuing the prospectus are also liable for its contents. Such persons may include the directors o f the offeror company, promoters, lawyers and experts who give opinions. The prospectus must disclose all facts that can affect a potential investor’s deci sion. It includes details of the financial status of the offeror company, and the risks inherent in any distribution deals. All information has to be current at all material times, so that it would be nec essary to amend a prospectus if you had just lost the lead actor. In o rd er to p ro te ct p o ten tia l investors, the Act provides considerable means to punish persons involved in drafting inadequate prospectuses. The Act prohibits material statements which are false or misleading or material omis sions from the prospectus. T h e A ct, supported by the Trade Practices Act, also prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. In some circumstances, it is a criminal offence to make false or mis C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

leading material statements in, or mate rial omissions from, a prospectus. You can see why prospectuses lack the flamboyance you would expect from show business promoters - they know from watching the movies, if not from direct experience, what life could be like in the clink. C onclusion What the legislature has done raises issues of what is an acceptable level of govern m ent intervention in com m erce. The balance between protecting potential investors and prom oting individual responsibility is necessarily influenced by a heavily-populated investor’s graveyard. At the moment, few producers make pub lic offerings, as it is too costly. Private investors generally do not yet see the

of friendship and intrigue in the Crimean theatre of W orld W ar I loses its narra tive force in the second half. Tavernier brings great energy to the battle scenes, and his roaming camera fills the screen with his usual rich images and captures several remarkable performances. The Rochant is a real disappointment, a mysterious yarn about a girl (Charlotte G ainsbourg) who dreams of being involved in dark events in Venice. Shot by arguably the greatest of all DO Ps, Pierre Lhomme, it understandably looks stunning, and Gainsbourg does regain some of the spark she lost in Jan e Eyre (Franco Zeffirelli, 1996), but it seems on first viewing to be a very insubstantial work. Co-written with Gerard Brach, it has none of the edge that marked Brach’s earlier work with Roman Polanski.

financial potential of investing in individ ual Australian films. They have unhappy memories of 10BA. To most producers of feature films and documentaries seeking financing, direct government funding seems more feasible.

festivals ^___Tamou’s Round Up - the scene w here the w hite stockm an, Hugo Hutton (Ben Oxenbould), gives a feather to the aged Asian woman, Ester (Ella-Mei Wong), is about as telling an image of reconciliation as the cinema is ever likely to conjure - and Warwick T h o rnton’s Payback, which seems the most neglected of the series. This is sur prising as the prison scenes have an extraordinarily-deft economy, while the dramatic confrontation outside the gates, where two laws clash, and the media meddles, is an extremely-powerful col lage of opposing forces and tensions and readings. Payback is as rich a six minutes as cinem a can offer and a w ondrous example of modern Australian cinema to screen to the world. Paris N o te s

fte r V allad o lid , it was o ff briefly to Paris, which remains by far the best city in the w orld fo r cin éastes. A part from the many new foreign films on show, Paris was simultaneously screening the new films of Bertrand Tavernier (Capitaine C on an ), E ric R o ch a n t (Anna R ose), Jacques D oillon (P onette) and Claude L elou ch (H o m m es, F em m es: M odes d ’E m p lo i), let alone the h it pic (Le Jag u ar) o f F ran ço is V eb er, who has returned to home shores after a decade Stateside. In reprise were many French and A m erican classics, including the uncut La Bête of W alerian Borowcyzk, the European director most deserving of re-appreciation.

Capitaine Conan is a striking return to form for Tavernier after the disastrous La Fille de D ’Artagnan, even if this tale

Tim e was against catching the new Doillon, but some consolation was found in a new CD release of suites based on the seven scores done for Doillon by the great Philippe Sarde (Homage á Jacques Doillon, Georges Marie 8 5 4 6 8 4 2). For those less familiar with Sarde’s work, the jazz score for L e Petit Crim inel is indicative of his creative diversity, La T en ta tio n d ’ Is a b e lle and L a P irate represent Sarde at his most haunting, and Ponette is proof of his continuing mastery. © 1 The author was a guest of the Festival and was offered travel assistance by the AFC. 2 Debi Enker, Graham Shirley and Scott Murray, El Cine Australiano, translated by Denise O ’Keefe, 41 Semana Interna cional de Cine, Valladolid, 1996. 3 Le Cinéma Australien, edited by Claudine T horidnet [and Scott M urray], Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1991. It was later published in English as Australian

Cinema, edited by Scott Murray, Allen & Unwin in association with the Australian Film Commission, Sydney, 1993. 4 D isturbingly, other recen t films from the chilly North suggest that Triers’ views on the role of women - that they are there solely to help men, no matter how hellish their plights might be - are widely held. 3 Andrew L. Urban, “T he Quiet R oom ”,

Cinema Papers, No. 110, June 1996, pp. 6-9 6 Archie W eller, “Living in a Storm”, Cin

ema Papers, No. I l l , pp. 54-7.

other gauges movie cam era), and the vivid

P^2.

sou nd track th at captures the overall ambience of each scene

but includes the unique musical tones of various bird calls or the squeaking of a branch. An interesting selection of films from Canada included Diary o f a Housewife,

an E d ib le W om an by Alyosha D erry. Here, the filmmaker draws directly on her life to frame a wry look at the rôle of housewife. In household black and white, she breastfeeds her baby; makes sandwich lunches for her children and husband; is kissed and sucked on by her husband (in several possible permuta tio n s); prepares fo od ; and serves up dinner, in a continuous cycle of duties, until in the final black joke she, herself, is served up as a roast dinner. A Richard and Pat Larter retrospec tive programme of films screened only a little over a week after Pat Larter’s unex pected death. Richard Larter is renowned for his pop-montage paintings. His films are less w ell-know n and have never b efo re been shown publicly in M e l bourne. The five films presented were made in the period 1 9 7 4 -7 6 and are a tribute to the collab oratio n betw een Pat and Richard, with Pat’s performances being central to each film . T h e films are often frenetically-paced collisions of imagery, gleaned from Richard’s paint ings taken from various media, assembled picture collages, footage taken at a polit ical rally, etc., all woven around and through Pat’s performances to the cam era in d ifferen t guises and w earing assorted props. (In L a tex N ew s, she appears com pletely enveloped, from head to foot, in a latex body suit, while in Mascara Flic she wears wild make-up, vampire teeth and joke shop masks.) The overall effect is of a rich, com plex and iro n ic com m entary on our cultural wilderness with references that take in gender exploitation, commodity fetishism, advertising, politics and pop ular culture. The parody is extended into the soundtrack which usually features the primitive distortions, the wail and th rob o f the M ah o u ly U tzon U tzon Orgiastic Raga Band. Certainly, many more of the 4 4 films screened during N aked 8 are w orthy of notice. The above is merely an indi cation of the quality and inventiveness apparent in Super 8 film practice today. O f course, there will always be films one considers less agreeable, but that is all part of the experience, and one needs to keep an op en m ind. T h e ov errid ing impression left by Naked 8 is that these films project a fresh, lively and open dia logue within the context of the broader, controlled screen culture and inspire a taste for a m ore dynamically-diverse, cinematic régime. ©

Dean Cundey it so that it always aimed in through the [capsule] window, ” an operator could move the ‘sunlight’ up and down and keep it aimed through the window. Then we would plan the sequence so that the light would hit certain parts of the inte rior at the right moment. One of the benefits was the fact that they wore these w hite suits. T hey w ere very reflective and the sunlight would hit that and bounce around. It was always lighting the faces and the inside of the capsule so we could create the sense of movement, the sense of bright sunlight, without ever losing the detail of the faces. One of the concepts that we wanted to go for was keeping the camera close to the actors, as if we were inside the capsule, keeping that claustrophobic feeling. At the same time, we always employed scenes with three guys seated on couches. We were concerned with having a w ide-enough aspect ratio frame to be able to keep all that action in without having to back the camera up so that the audience thought they w ere outside the fo u rth w all. W e always wanted the feeling of being pre sent in the capsule with them. As we characterized it, it was the story of “three guys in a V W ”. Anamorphic lenses that allow you to do that have problems with how close you can focus. T h e depth o f field makes it very difficult to shoot that kind of aspect ratio and keep every thing in focus. Super-35 [enlargement of the Academy frame to include the soundtrack area] allows you to use con ventional spherical lenses which give you that greater depth of field and, by cropping the image to that aspect ratio, we would have the best of both worlds. The difficulty is that you are blowing up your image because you are using a smaller part of the negative, so there are limiting factors that come into it, like grain. You have to juggle those technical factors when you make the decision. In the Mission Control set, most of the overhead lighting was in place and this gave us the ability to move rapidly. But I had them put the little gooseneck practical light on all of the desks and we used boosted light in them, so there was always an opportunity to put a lit tle backlight, to bounce light off the desks. W e never had to worry about a situation where faces were not lit or we couldn’t add a little bit of model ling and that the faces would become too flat. They gave us the ability to cre ate a little m ore d ram atic lo o k on particular faces, if you need to. W e could put a backlight on somebody, and we could cut down the light from

overhead and use it just as light that bounces off the desk, which kept the mission control room from looking too much the same for every shot. O n th e cinematographer and the

COMPUTER: It used to be that I had no involvement between the last day of shooting and when I went back to time the colour and density of the answer print. But now I’m finding, on films like Apollo 13 and particularly Jurassic Park and Casper, that there is so much w ork being done by the visual-effects people which affects the image that I’m stay ing involved during the whole period. A lot of the time is spent just looking at and approving the visual effects as they are done, to know that they are going to all match into the rest of the film. For example, real shadows have a special quality that is very difficult to create with a computer. Sometimes on Jurassic Park it wasn’t possible to cre ate a real shadow because o f the position and angle of light. The computer gives you the ability to alter the image a great deal more than has been possible in the past. W ith the com puter, you can alter the contrast in just selected parts of a scene; you can bring up ju st the shadow areas or change the highlights. The temptation sometimes is for the computer guys at the console to try to “fix ” something you’ve done. They can do that in a way that is way past what is adjustable when you do the answer print, so you’ll end up with the shot that is done by them looking com pletely different to, and unable to be blended in with, the rest of the scene. It now behoves me and the production to keep that communication open so that I ’m able to look at and evaluate the work that is being done. It’s interesting that the computer and the people who run it are able to do a lot of the image-making that you for merly might say was the work of the cinematographer. More and more they are called upon to perform some kind of task that would be the domain of the cinematographer, like lighting virtual sets. I’m crusading for a common lan guage; the ability for me to explain in a way that they understand how I would light something, and for them to under stand the lighting process that I would go through, so that we can duplicate the look we want using common language and technique. At this point, there is no common vocabulary for expressing how we would create a particular lighting effect. I think it’s important that every body understands, not necessarily the exact procedures that are used, but the ¿esthetic intent. ©

Zone 39 _____

combined with the chemical

It was a very moody European type of film. I’m not ashamed of it. David

manipulation of your state of

Stratton loved it and gave us a fantas tic review, but the intention for the film

m ind. At the m om en t, i t ’s

was not even an arthouse release.

being used to heighten your sense of virtual reality, where in the future I feel that the chemical manipulation of your state o f mind w ill p robably be so refined in terms of what it specifically alters that it will take over from any

W e went to America with it and rang virtually every distributor. Paramount eventually took it and it did reasonable video business, but we’ve not sold it to television and we are thinking about hanging on to it for a while. Why not create a mystique for it?

mechanical alteration of your state of reality. It’s like some people can take

In Too Deep received a release from the

certain hallucinogenic drugs and spin out and see visions, but now w e’re quickly moving into a realm of sensory-

guishes on a few video shops shelves across the country. But the team had big

specific mind-altering drugs. I don’t think it’s very far away.

ger fish to fry with The Silver Brumby. Their second feature gained them inter

Colin South turns out to be the nuts-andbolts producer of Zone 39. Although he baulks at claiming any creative involve ment other than the ability to thrash out

n ation al cred ib ility , spaw ned a multi-season animated series and further

script ideas, it’s obvious South is a major motivating factor who really comes alive when given the opportunity to trot out

any Australian who didn’t actually view the film has at least heard of it.

his version of the genesis of Zone 39 and the Media World Features partnership. During the heady days of the mid-1980s, the ex-video camera assistant South and Tatoulis spent weekends frantically film ing rock concerts and sporting events for live broadcast around the country: Live stuff was our fo rte. W e had a period there in the ’80s where on a Friday night w e’d go to T h e Club in Fitzroy to do a band with a fourcam era set-up fo r SB S, then on Saturday m orning when Channel 7 had lost the rights to the footy w e’d do a contractual game. W hen all the interstate teams were hopeless, they’d have to broadcast a game interstate and we’d do it. On Saturday night, we’d move that OB to do the basketball, then on Sunday we’d do soccer. Then, during the week, we’d do our normal stuff, like documentaries and a lot of corporate work. We needed this expe rien ce because a featu re film was always where we were going. Coming from a television background rather than a film background, we had to go slow.

Home Cinema Group and currently lan

features deals, and, most memorably, a marketing campaign that ensured that

Unlike other fellow producers who see the production of Australian films epitomized by a few quick international sales with North America on top of the list, South counters with another view: I think North America is a bit of joke, to tell the truth. Going to America with cap in hand as the be-all and end-all is a bit of a fallacy. Talking from the experience of In Too Deep and The Sil ver Brumby, which did receive a minor theatrical release from Paramount, I think Americans treat an Australian film as if were a Romanian film. The only difference is that they can sort of understand the language. Europe, we think, is for us the stepping-stone that wall enable us to do what we want.

Z one 39 is actually the first part o f a three-picture deal with German com pany F oxton , which also bought The Silver Brumby and its animated sisters. South also stresses that Zone 39 really got ro llin g thanks to the help o f the South A ustralian Film C o rp o ratio n , which is where most of the cast and crew headed in the week following the com pletion of work at the Crawford Studios.

They did produce a feature which turned

M ost of the exteriors for Z on e 39 were shot at the hitherto rarely-filmed

out to be the loudly-hailed but straightto-video, In T oo D eep (aka M ack The Knife). South comments:

rocket ranges of Woomera, a fitting loca tion for a futuristic film concerned with decay. Although the tension regarding

W e did it w ithout any governm ent assistance or financial help. W e bor rowed the money and we’re still paying

the logistics of the final week of film ing in South Australia became palpable

it off [laughter], but it did achieve a couple of things. It got recognition for

production was unlikely to crash and burn on some lonely salt plain. Even

the cinematographer with the A.C.S., and it got good critical response. W e

w ith some 12 m inutes o f com p u ter generated effects to add (including a

didn’t and still haven’t sought a the atrical release for it, though. I suppose

dilapidated Melbourne skyline), and the problems of carting a cast and crew with

1 Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984), The

the values that we placed upon it were

Piano (Jane Campion, 1994), White Men Can’t Jump (Ron Shelton, 1992).

not the same values that a theatrical release would have required.

a few bearded lizards around the coun try, delivery of Zone 39 to its distributors was assured. ©

late in the afternoon, it was obvious this

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

in review MAKING MOVIES

Book C ontinued

from page

(the title associate producer was invented for this very purpose, the author assures), The Unkindest Cut is a take-no-prisoners piss-take on the hype surrounding maverick/ indie/low-budget filmmaking. Queenan is no Joe Bob Briggs.

Sidney Lumet, Bloomsbury, London,

His satire is brimming with scorn

1996,220 pp., pb, rrp $16.95

(“cheerful, life-affirming malice,

aperback issue, originally

not the noxious downbeat variety”,

reviewed in Cinema Papers,

as he describes himself in his first

No. 107, December 1995.

book) and makes no concessions at all for what many would consider

SLEEPERS

PROJECTIONS 6 Film-makers on Film-making

Lorenzo Carcaterra, Arrow, London, 1996, 373 pp., pb, rrp S14.95

txh&itz, z&et BoormansnaWtác?D&-etw

the artistry of filmmaking. Don’t bother trying to match wits about structuralist theory or auteurism with this survivor of the rat-infested,

STREISAND IT ONLY HAPPENS ONCE Anne Edwards, W eidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996,449 pp., illus., index, rrp $39.95

litter-strewn, gun-crazy mean streets of Philadelphia. For Queenan, filmmaking is nothing more or less than hype, bluff, blunder and ego. Queenan’s saving grace is his ruthless satire and skilled journalese:

ith perfect timing given the upcoming release of

Streisand’s The Mirror has Two

Sides, the prodigious Anne Edwards has added to her full shelf of star biographies with one on Hollywood’s feistiest

PROJECTIONS 6 John Boorman, W alter Donohue (editors), Faber, London, 1996,346 pp.,

female directors - or “greatest living performer” as the dust jacket has it, except Streisand hardly ever performs any more.

illus., pb, rrp $19.95

This is not a book for

iven the dearth these days of

cinéastes, because Edwards’

writings about actual film craft

interests lie elsewhere: the brief

(save coverage of special effects and

entry on Bogdanovich’s superb

small circulation craft-specialist

screwball comedy What’s Up

journals), the Projection series has

DocI covers the filming in a line

become essential reading for film

and moves quickly on to tell us

makers and filmgoers alike. The

Ryan O’Neal was too boring to

sixth edition is as eclectic as ever:

keep Babs interested sexually and

from Pulp Fiction producer

she dumped him. Yeah, whatever.

Lawrence Bender’s account of

THE TERMINATOR

attending creative channelling

ANNE EDWARDS No, I wanted Twelve Steps to Death to be a straightforward Hollywood black comedy, with a beginning, a middle, and an end

workshops (it worked for him, so

Sean French, BFI Publishing, London,

why knock it?), to a transcript of

1996, 72 pp., illus., pb, rrp £6.99.

Except for the fact that the protag

review of the latest entries of

onist of the film would be a cop

the BFI Film Classic series will

whose wife and two children

a wonderfully readable career interview with Stanley Donen. There’s a bulk of material in between, highlights of which are

and a plot that was easy to follow.

be published in the next issue of

had been killed in a hit-and-run

Cinema Papers.

accident by a schizoid anorexic

engaging and articulate interviews

recovering alcoholic with

with DOPs Vittorio Storaro and

Attention Deficit Disorder who

Freddie Young. Projections is testament that filmmakers can and should ‘talk’ to their audiences in print as well as in their films.

THEUNKINDEST CUT HOW A HATCHET-MAN CRITIC MADE HIS OWN $7,000 MOVIE AND PUT IT ALL ON HIS CREDIT CARD Joe Queenan, Picador, London, 1996,

SCREEN VIOLENCE Karl French (editor), Bloomsbury, London, 1996, 250 pp., pb, rrp $24.95.

his anthology has Martin Amis on violent films and

Michael Medved on “Hollywood’s Four Big Lies”; John Waters on “Why I Love Violence” and Mary Whitehouse on why she hates it; etc. It even has Oliver Stone and

310 pp., pb, rrp $16.95.

n this follow-up to the hilarious If

was fleeing an abusive chocaholic husband who used to beat her up whenever he had one too many of the nougat caramels, Twelve Steps to Death would be exactly like The Maltese Falcon.

Twelve Steps To Death finally

You’re Talking to Me Your Career Must Be In Trouble, Joe Queenan

premiered at the First Tarrytown

turns his irreverent wit to the much

Jelin Newmyer from Amblin Enter

vaunted genre of maverick/indie/low-

tainment has still not returned

budget filmmaking. Figuring that

Queenan’s calls.

International Film Festival. Deborah

6th/Iyiternatumal Short film/ fetttii/al NattonalTour, January -Marek Info: (02) 9211 7133

he can out-do Robert Rodriguez and really make a film for $6,998, Queenan takes us step-by-step down

WOODY

tJV. 4 'J .

MOVIES FROM MANHATTAN

the road of guerilla filmmaking.

John Grisham at loggerheads, in

From honouring the Syd Field bible,

case you missed Round 1.

to giving the investor’s son a credit

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Julian Fox, B.T. Batsford, London, 1996, 288 pp., illus., index

Level 10/1 Elizabeth Plaza, North Sydney 2060 PO Box 1155 North Sydney 2059 Telephone: (02) 9954 1477 Facsimile : (02) 9954 1585

Australia’s Leading Film & Television Insurance Specialists

Film & Television is our business and we specialise in providing insurance for: •Film Producers Indemnity (CAST) •Negative Films & Video Tapes •Props, Sets & Wardrobe • Cameras & Lighting • Sound Equipment •Errors & Omissions •Public Liability •Extra Expenses •Money

For advice regarding Film & TV Insurance or a Quote call: John Hennings Chris Thrift Megan O’Riley

introducing Australia's first gallery dedicated exclusively to the art & science of motion pictures

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANIMATION * THE 16MM CAMERA BOOK THE TOOLS OF SCREENWRITING * SCREENWRITERS BIBLE HIT & RUN * DEADLY CHINA DOLLS * STONE

magazines.,. AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER * FILM SCORE MONTHLY FADE IN * SCRIPT * MAKE-UP ARTIST * WIDESCREEN

scripts... CRASH * MARS ATTACKS * THE CHAMBER LONE STAR * GHOST AND I HE DARKNESS * SLEEPERS TITANIC * THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLYNT * LOLITA

opening December 1996

C H ei C d rio f

software... FINAC DRAFT I SCRIPT THING COLLABORATOR * STORYBOARD QUICK MOVIE MAGIC * TURBO BUDGET * FILM PROFIT

original models, sketches and photographs by leading Australian & international set designers from Gone with the Wind to Shine

and more

THE CINESTORE ~ L |a w r i t e r s

film m a k e r s

l/ r o c f iic iio n

b o o k s h o p

Liverpool StyRydn^r 30001 ph:(02) 9283 3049 fx: (02) 9283 3035 43 Bourke St . Melbourne 2000 ph: (03) 9654 3944 fx: (03) 9654 303

1st floor, 43 Bourke Street, Melbourne (above The Cinestore) open Tues-Sun

... and other stories by Fred Harden az Luhrmann’s 'William Shakespeare’s R om eo & Juliet is a Twentieth Century Fox film. Shot in Mexico, the first pic ture cut, sound lay-up and pre-mix were done in Melbourne. The fine cut and sound m ix were done at Skywalker Ranch, just out of San Francisco. Although there were a large number of Australian crew working on it, it was a feature planned as international and designed for a young American audience. Flow M elbou rne’s Com plete Post facility managed to snatch the bulk of the film’s digital visual effects away from U.S. com panies is a story that Chris Schwarze, Managing Director of Com plete Post, and Peter W ebb, its Visual Effects Designer, enjoy telling. It is also a story that typifies the way that technology has shifted the balance of U.S.-biased production power and of how home town rules OK!

there was a discussion thread that fol lowed up an article that asked if people felt ‘stoked’ or not about their work. Scrolling down I found the following: Oh, yeah! I love my job. I work as a visual effects designer-artist on feature films. Right now, I am completing the last three shots of about 35 that we are doing for Baz Luhrmann’s new film of Rom eo and Juliet. It truly is a gor geous movie and I am very proud to be involved in making it a reality. I love all the small parts of filmmaking. I love how they all come together to make a

asking if I could write up the story of Complete Post’s effects for the movie and there’s no such thing as coincidence. For what follows, I’m asking you to suspend your standard hard-and-cynical approach and allow a bit of what Chris Schwarze calls “the warm and fuzzies” to enter the story. This is about people passionate about film and film process.

Above: Romeo madly pursues Tybalt through the busy Verona traffic. The foreground of Romeo was shot on a bluescreen stage. The shot required that he be driving head-on against the traffic, so Complete Post animated light sources sweeping from side to side across his face and shoulders, and flares and highlights across the windscreen of his car. The background plate had to be tracked to the car's motion, then a wild-and-bumpy camera move digitally added to the composite.

Left: After Tybalt slays Romeo's comrade, Mercutio, the storm breaks. Throughout this sequence of 20 shots, Complete Post synthesized the stormy sky, replacing the existing sky. To enhance the stormy mood, Complete Post added moving shadows on the ocean, ground and buildings. Complete Post used digital matte painting techniques to remove inappropriate shadows, and all shots were digitally colour-graded for continuity.

he relationship that Chris Schwarze and Peter Webb and his team built with Luhrmann and the producers of Rom eo &

creatively and financially, and we got a great big credit on the end. It was great! The way that the project began also sug gests serendipity. Chris tells how he had a call from Martin Brown (co-producer with Gabriella Martinelli), before he left for the U.S., asking general questions about the cost of two minutes of special effects and about the role of the visual effects supervisor, with no specific pro ject mentioned. A few weeks later, it was Peter Webb’s turn to be quizzed in LA:

True, I talk o f dreams. One of my favourite copy-lines came from a food commercial shot here years ago, where producer Michael Cook, in a stand-up role in front of camera, says, “My name’s Michael Cook and I can’t.” That my contact with Peter W ebb should be rekindled because o f the worldwide web is only fitting. I’d inter viewed W ebb two years ago while he was in Australia to visit his family, and the resulting interview reached the press in an uncut (and u n-spellchecked ) version that abused the personal nature of a lot of the candid remarks that Peter made about his past and of his working relationships. N o apology seemed possible and we hadn’t talked since. A few months ago, on one of the small on-line magazines I have book-marked, C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

w ork that can be appreciated by so many people, over a long time. I espe cially love the craft of visual effects. It’s a dream job and I am definitely stoked. Peter Webb (tjebi@mpx.com.au). I immediately responded by email, beg ging Peter’s forgiveness and asking if he felt like talking about Rom eo & Juliet. The following day, Cinema Papers called

Juliet was special, well outside the usual relationship of an effects house with a produ ction. T h e reason, as Chris explained, was because We just loved this film to death. From the first time we saw the concept, we loved it, and we loved the people working on it. It wasn’t like a com mercial exercise. It worked out for us

I was working at Wunderfilm and they were doing some shots for [Batman] Forever and they said come to a meet ing. It was with M artin Brow n. He showed me some storyboard frames, asked some general questions about price, and about how shots might be linked. They w anted to create a cityscape that was a cross betw een Miami and Bangkok, with the Asian clutter, and yet the expansiveness of southern Am erica. He asked about shooting different cities and putting them together, and I made the usual

Above: Tybalt - an expert marksmen - clips a telescopic sight to his 9mm handgun. One sees his point of view through the gunsight as he takes aim at the fleeing Capulet boys. Complete Post generated this gunsight digitally, creating an optical look and hand-held feel. Below: As Father Lawrence explains his plan to Juliet, one sees his words pictured behind him in a moving montage. The background footage was taken from various sequences, treated, colour-graded and edited together by Complete Post, then combined with the bluescreen footage of Father Lawrence. Complete Post also digitally re-lit both the foreground and background to create a subtle separation of the elements.

comments about “Yes, it’s possible, as long as you pay attention to lighting, atmosphere, times of day”, etc. I said I’d get back to him with quotes. As I was getting into the lift some time later, I heard people talking in Australian accents. So I said, “You guys sound like you’re Australian”, and it was Jill Bilcock who, I think, was just finishing American Quilt. They had shot some stuff for Romeo & Juliet in Sydney and they were doing an edit for Fox. It was just the screen tests cut together to tell a story. Leonardo DiCaprio was playing opposite a girl who didn’t get the Juliet role and there were some other characters. It looked great, really interesting. I then said, Y o u should go and talk to Chris Schw arze in M e l b o u rn e”, and Jill scream ed, “I know Chris.” We had a little ‘Aus tralians abroad’ get-together in the hallway. I showed them the shots we were doing on [Batman] Forever. I said that I was coming back to Melbourne to work with Chris, and suggested we work together.

Jill agreed with me when I said that the visual effects should be at least workshopped before the initial cut, because the dynamics of the effects affect the cut. Fox was keen to keep everything in the States and didn’t even want Baz and Jill to edit here. Fox was hesitant about us doing the effects and eventually said, “Well, let them send some samples over.” They had their own people that they wanted to work with. We bombarded them with faxes and

too late!

treatments. W e broke all the effects into com ponents, gave them cost breakdowns and creative breakdowns, and concocted shotlists of what they’d have to shoot, even down to instruc tions to the cameraman. But we still didn’t get the gig! The initial six shots in the budget went to Hammerhead

From the beginning, Chris Schwarze had looked at their purchase of the Flame software, and the Onyx Silicon Graphics computer that it is running on, as a way of getting into film effects. Peter Webb had come back to Austraha when he first installed the system about a year earlier and trained M urray Curtis on it. (See Dominic Case’s “Tech

Productions in LA. Fox just didn’t know who we were. And if it had been me, I wouldn’t have wanted to do it in Melbourne, either. At that time, we were working on the effects for The Emperor’s Shadow and they w ere shooting R om eo & Juliet in M exico, so we just kept sub mitting and offering ideas. Because

Too early seen unknown, and known

nicalities” article on Complete Post and Flam e in C inem a Papers, N o. 1 0 2 .) Although the hardware is up with the fastest around, it wasn’t going to be easy to convince Fox to let Complete Post even quote on the project. Peter:

M artin Brown had relied on us for that initial technical advice, that rela tionship continued when they came back to edit here in Melbourne. Jill set up some Lightworks stations and, as they cut, they found that there were effects shots needed other than the ones that Hammerhead was doing. So, we started to work on the movie.

a PC with a video card that records JPEG-compressed video to a hard drive and manages the transmission over an ISDN link - was Chris Schwarze’s idea. It worked better than he or Peter had hoped. Chris had tested it in Melbourne and, although it meant that they had to install an ISDN line, at Skywalker they had existing lines. Peter:

Chris Schwarze: Jill really wanted to edit it here, because Roger Savage was doing the sound mix. But Fox was looking at a U.S. release and they wanted to have the edit there, so that they could do pre release testing. They also wanted to have Baz there for publicity purposes. So, it was a huge problem for them to even do what they actually did here.

W e would send them a real-tim e motion sequence and a few high-res stills along the line at the same time. That way, they could check one for m otion, the other fo r content. I remember a couple of times when we would send something, tell them to go and have a look, and they’d ring us and say, “N ah, too many cloud s” and, depending on how long it took me to

They were cutting on Lightworks and conforming the print and screen ing the work print to test audiences. We went ahead and did almost thirty effects at video resolution, which they kined and cut into the test screening prints. We were working very closely with them at this stage and, when Jill and Baz went back to the U.S., they started to refine the print and chang ing the look. T hings w e’ d done needed to be changed, and that was when we set up a video fax to send pictures back and forwards. W e had really good communications.

A fax on both your houses. The idea to use the video fax - basically

do the shot, within two hours I could send another test back to them and get the go-ahead for the finals. When I was talking to other facilities in LA, they’d say, ‘Y ou’re kidding. We can’t even get our director to drive across town from the cutting room”, so it sounded like it may have even been better being here than there. I couldn’t have predicted that the video fax was going to make such a d ifferen ce, or how m uch easier it would be to get things through. Chris feels that the process would be an advantage fo r productions w orking locally. Just getting across town to check things takes tim e out o f your day. C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

iforyW y

;P«r77^ S i s a •«¡¿aá^ i a a g g g E r r — = = 1 = ^ - 1 -a s » i A y i i T a c h n o io g , - -- ’ saasal

wtdDttvothageolutjo|é>5fe?iísci

prodwócmf a c a n s ;^ ^ ^ , J¡c

itaVevsxmawaons;

tea

I piodaaicmgrades ¿riendo«* -

AVg, o

■ ■

•--*

If you’re producing CD-ROMs, videotapes, Internet Web pages or interactive business presentations, Avid offers the hottest digital video editing solution for the coolest multimedia productions. Avid has the most powerful PCI-based systems in the industry, with ease of use, upgrade paths and functionality that sets the standard. Avid systems feature the industry’s highest picture quality from disk, built-in effects and compositing capabilities, seamless integration with popular third-party software applications and powerful import/export functions. Call (03 ) 9416 9688 today for a demonstration.

IBSaSi

ISMT 188 Plenty Road, Preston Victoria Ph: (03) 9416 9688, or Fax: (03) 9480 0352 email: ismtmelb@ozemail.com.au

psfs

AVID«

Visit Avid’s web site at:

http://www.avid.com or contact AVID on (02) 9937 1800 MATRIX A 13 4 0

Above: Tybalt pauses on the ruined stage, shocked by the consequences of his actions. Again, here Complete Post replaced the existing sky w ith its storm and colour-graded for continuity.

Though the quality is low, Bilcock and Luhrmann had confidence that Com plete Post could do the w ork at the proper quality. “W e’d say, ‘Is this the look you want?’ They’d say, ‘Yes’, and we could start w ork im m ediately”, Chris said. Peter: There were some drastic changes made to the cut of the fight scene because of the audience-testing. Baz made some revisions and video-faxed us back the locked-off cut that we needed for our timings. Because our shots were being cut into it as the storm advanced progressively, we didn’t want to have big jumps in the effects action. That was very useful. When Baz went over to London to do the music, we sent him stuff over there, as well as to San Francisco. There were a couple of significant rea sons that it all worked so well. We had contact with the creative people here at the right time when they were cut ting the work together. We were able to show that we could do the work and do it well. We were also able to suggest things while they were still able to shoot material. We could make suggestions and demonstrate simple things, like crash zooms, when we felt the scenes needed excitement. We were also able to demonstrate that we could do many things with Flame that would normally have to be done in-camera. We did a lot of work in the openingtitle sequence. We were encouraged to just throw ideas around and test it at video-resolution quite quickly. Jill could cut it in and see immediately if it worked. Because Baz was performancedriven, he shot really-long scenes with a lot of experim entation. I t’s n ot a wide-shot, mid-shot, close-up kind of movie. It was not as if they storyboarded the whole thing, shot it and cut it together. There was a lot of play ing around, a lot of MTV-type stuff.

Som ehow Baz convinced F o x to leave him alone while he was shoot ing, and they obviously had enough confidence in him to let him do it. Chris Schwarze: The producers obviously feel warm and fuzzy toward Fox for allowing them to do this film that way. W e heard stories of how when they presented the idea. F ox said, “You ca n ’t make m oney doing Shak e spearean films.” It was looked at like a little art film. They gave him US$15 m illion and then virtually left him alone. Baz is the suprem e salesm an, of course. He had a vision and he pur sued it. It was a really good team and they just pushed the boundaries, and pushed and pushed. It was a real creative process. Peter Webb: O riginally, there w ere some very ambitious shots planned. The setting was this m ythical V ero n a B each, a b it like V enice B each , a b it like Miami, with lots of drugs and guns looking festive, but with a threatening atmosphere. They found this great location in M exico with this big roundabout, a plaza, and they wanted to have the two houses, the M ontagues’ and the Capulets’, as two industrial commer cial giants, like Grollo or something. They wanted these two skyscraper buildings with the names on top and, in the middle of the plaza, a fifty-foot statue of Jesus - none of which existed. They wanted to do a helicopter shot that comes in over the statue and estab lishes Police Captain Prince’s offices. It was terribly ambitious. W e’d worked out how to shoot it with global positioning devices and altimeters, but those were the shots that H am m erhead got. In the end, they scaled them right down into a locked-off shot with what looks like 3D models of the buildings, arranged and lit to match the scene. Chris Schwarze: I can only comment on the Hammer

head effects as I see them in the film, but I think we did a wonderful job. People like Jill went way out on a limb for us saying, “Yes, they can do it.” They obviously had a rapport with Peter and I’ve known Jill for years, so I was n ot going to tell her that we could do som ething if we couldn’t. She had faith in us and we’d worked with Baz, so we understood his vision. The first shot we got involved in was adding storm clouds in the scene where Mercutio is killed. They really wanted to set up the idea that, when this approaching storm hits, something really bad will happen. Baz used to call this storm “M r Storm”. He said it was just like another character in the film, and he worked with Peter to develop the look of these storm clouds and to make sure that they didn’t just take over the scene, instead of looking part of the action. Because the film is so stylized, he didn’t want the style to take away from the performance, and he put a lot of trust in Peter to get that balance. Peter Webb: M ost people won’t see these effects. Things like the telescopic sight could be a practical or a digital effect, but most of it will run right past the audi ence, which is what we wanted. If the effect becomes noticeable, even if you think, “W ow, that’s a great effect”, then the audience’s attention has been derailed.

Technical considerations by any other name. F ox was apparently very concerned about the quality considerations before Com plete Post got the first ‘film in, film out’. After seeing the result, they then relaxed. Peter explained that he had recommended a scanning facility th a t he had w orked w ith, but they w ere to o busy, and F o x apparently chose someone else for financial reasons. This had led to some initial problems. Peter: All the scanning was done in LA. There were some start-up problems

with colour timing, but the ‘film in, film out’ was a Cineon process which is a guaranteed locked-off result, and ensured th at the negative we gave them had all the d etail in it. T he Cineon ensures that the neg you put in will be matched by the film you put out. Kodak, knowing film a bit bet ter than I do, claims that everything that is on the original will be on the 1 0 -b it digital file. If you lo o k at a histogram of the negative, there is headroom that I’ve never seen taken up. W hen we convert it to 8 bits for our system, we clip that headroom off specifically for each shot and put the digital information back in for 10-bit output. Chris Schwarze: The resolutions we are w orking at enable us to do very subtle things. In one shot, where Juliet is supposed to be dead, her eyelids flu ttered and senior Flame artist Murray Curtis was able to retou ch ju st that. W hen I watched the sequence in the theatre, I had to ask which shot it was, because you couldn’t tell it from the original film images on either side. In one of the fight shots, the dead M ercutio’s chest is moving, heaving with the exertion and the storm. That shot also had a big scratch on the neg ative right down the middle. So, as well as adding storm cloud s, we repaired the scratch, stabilized the camera movement from the wind and stopped his chest moving. The process is transparent.

But soft! What light from yonder matte painting ... Peter Webb: The signage and branding is just fan tastic. T h e y ’ve got advertising billboards. One is for a brothel with a neon woman on it called “Pound of Flesh”. There’s a Coke sign that says “W herefore l’amour” written in the Coke script. You can go to the service station and see ads for bullets - the violence is everywhere. One favourite billboard shows an giant b u llet head ripping its way C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

through the sign and says, “Put more thunder in your gun”, and there’s all this torn metal behind it. The graph ics are great. (The Post Haste courier company - “I’ll get a message to Romeo, post haste” is an example that almost overwhelms the scene with its cleverness.) Peter Webb: The locations are all named from the play. The ruined theatre proscenium on the beach was built by the produc tion and it’s called Sycamore Grove. There’s a reference to it being where Romeo goes in the play, and it’s where the Montague boys hang-out. The storm arrives, the lightning flashes and the fight scene ends. After all this violence, the scene fades to night. I synthesized the storm, replac ing the bright blue sky, and added the moving shadows on the ground. The night-time scene was a matte painting and I to o k the day-tim e fo otag e, removed the hard-edged shadows, and added the street light sources. Mercutio and Benvolio are popping off their guns into the water, shooting the breeze, and we can see the storm moving in as a threat, like the hand of God coming down, but they are igno rant of it. Eventually, when Mercutio gets slashed and dies and shouts, “A

plague on both your houses”, that’s when the storm begins to hit. There was a real storm during film ing. You can see bits of the set being blown away and the palm trees bend ing over. There was still the blue sky with the fluffy clouds and, although Baz was very happy with the performance, it didn’t have the impact he wanted. It wasn’t shot as an effects sequence. This brought up the discussion of ‘W e’ll fix it in post’, long the cry of the televi sion com m ercial producer who has moved on into film. W ill it just cover sloppy filmmaking or is it a new creative tool? Both Chris and Peter are heavily on the side of the creative. Chris: If you get post-production people on set and involved, you’ll save a lot of m oney. O bviously, when you are doing a shot th at is going to have effects, then you should make sure you have all the elements together. But it is now possible, even after the film is shot, to say, “We can enhance this.” W e do things with lighting that will change the mood. At one point, there was a dead spot in a high-energy scene and we added a crash zoom. It made an enormous difference.

Not stepping o ’er the bounds o f modesty. And of the future? Do Chris and Peter feel that we have minimized the prob

lems of distance enough to encourage more overseas production? Chris: I think there will be a certain amount of work that we could get from Fox now. They are happy with our work and a relationship is established. We could maybe even w ork on a film made entirely in the U.S. and finished th ere, but I d on’t hold out much chance of that and I don’t want to sell it on being cheaper because the gear costs the same. I think that we should work on the Australian connection: those films that are being finished here, even if they are shot somewhere else. I think the inter-city thing is irrele vant. It doesn’t matter if you are in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. There’s also the productions that are shot here and would be taken back: we could provide a production super visor on and be on-site to help. There’s great people like Roger Savage here, and our labs are good and a produc tion could really be finished here, even if they needed to take it back. There’s also a growing Asian connection and local work. Peter Webb: I’m so proud to have worked on Romeo & Juliet. Other films I worked on have been a technical challenge, but this one

Above: Tybalt flees and Romeo pursues him. Both the action and the storm move on; tran quility descends as night falls. Complete Post created this night scene from a day shot which involved removing all day-time shadows and people, animating light sources through the picture, and creating the pools of light that spill over the stage and onto the ground. Below: Complete Post created an iris-out transition between the night shot and Juliet in her bedroom.

is just a lovely emotional film. Although I’ve seen the completed film four times, I was really distressed when I came to Melbourne, because it wasn’t going to be released here until M arch [the release was changed to Boxing Day]. I know we were obsessively close to it, but it was like missing a friend! I told you this was a warm and fuzzy story, but maybe that’s what makes our movies so different. W hat is less fuzzy is that digital effects for cinema don’t look like they will just recreate the path of the video techniques we are used to at just higher resolution. Maybe it’s a function of bigger budgets or a bigger creative canvas that cinema offers, but expect to see visual effects credits on the tail of movies. Special effects have been around since M elies, but don’t co n fuse the two. Visual effects run parallel with the work of the cinematographer and the designers, and that’s new creative ground. If you put the right tools in the hands of people like Peter W ebb, add a pinch of talent like Lurhmann and Bilcock, one shouldn’t be too surprised at the results. I liked the movie, too. If you’d like a preview of William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, the official Fox website is at www. rom eoandjuliet.com . There are d ow nloadable m ovie trailers, screen-savers and postcards you can send be e-mail, and the more rocky bits of the soundtrack are there as well. Visual effects artist Peter Webb has some nicely-designed personal web pages at w w w .om nicon .com.au/peterw/. ©

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

te c h n ic a litie s

Digital Media World Barrie Smith discovers that visual effects in the film, television and computer areas will get the full treatment at a February 397 event racking the expo ice for ’97 is D igital M edia W orld Mark II. This second event, to be held at Sydney’s D arling H arbour C onference and Exhibition Centre, will run from February 2 4 -6 and brings with it immense street credibility from the ’96 show - as well as displaying great promise with its presenter line-up for 1997. The three days w ill see sem inars, hands-on w orkshops conducted by m ajor com panies, and an associated Effects & Animation Festival. Overseas speakers at the event w ill include Paul Y annover from Walt Disney Feature Animation, Ed Ulbricht and Mitch Kanner of Digi tal D om ain, as well as a delegate from Industrial Fight & Magic. Addresses by local identities will also be given, including Peter Doyle of Dfilm, G eoff Clow from Digital P ictu res, J e f f O liver o f G arner M cClennan, Zareh Nalbandian of Animal Logic, and representatives from Macromedia, Quantel, AVID and others. O bjectives

In bringing this event to Australia, the organizers of the February show have the same objectives: of arranging a plat form for eye-balling, yet at the same time providing inspirational demonstrations and high-value educational events. W orkshops A series of two-hour workshops should attract a wide audience. Subjects covered will include: •3D human and character modelling using Softimage 3D software. Creation techniques for realistic movem ent, facial expression and lipsynching will be explained.

be assembled by a Quantel operator while attendees watch. Buzz As many in film and television circles have discovered over recent years, the whole exhibition/conference industry has boomed, with some events being little more than hard-sell showcases for com pany wares. H ow ever, on asking around, it appears DMW deserves to become a reg ular - and popular - staple on the industry calendar. E x h ib itio n D irecto r Sean Young described the ’96 show as “very exciting

C om m ercials Best use,of c o m p u te r graphics, special h X in d o r u in m tio n In te ra ctiv e e ntertain m en t Best ust o l to m p im rgenerated graphics in

Feature film s h i lu iii- lin a r li film s p roduced fo r cinem a ancbjtele vision th a t inclu de c o m p u te rgenerated graphics, special h X a nd /o r a nim a tio n. M u s ic video's Best use o f com 'putergenerated graphics, special F X a n d /o r a nim a tio n.

Student im d t r n k u u i t t o ^ n i/ t d p rqg ra m m e o fis tu d y ir in i d i k v io n il i si ib lis h n u n i IS lm B a » ! Includes sim ulated m o lit iil n t n o d t lliiu

The aim of Digital Media W orld is a rchitectural to stage a festival of modern digital visu aliza tio n, etc m edia and com puter graphics to t. dem onstrate the awesome power, S hort film s T itle s , idents, stin g s creativity and affordability of the lat M a y be entirely o r M a y in clu d e titl'e | fro m the inte ra ctive est technologies. si q iiu it t s to i b io u lt ist i IH IIO Illlk lit p a rtly c o m p u te rD M W has hopes of creating an generated': Education & tra in in g outlet for high-level enthusiasm and Re'searc'h PC/M ac generated com m itm ent among today’s users w o rk a«.i k ra n d ai ip h its . W o rk s th a t develop, and to build upon that commitment tis t o i d tm o n s ii in s p it i ll 1 lllllU i W with the staging of the m ost com jj fo r education and prehensive event of its kind outside concepts. P C /M a c w orke rs. of SIGGRAPH in the U.S. and (nowcalled) D igital M ed ia W orld in •A compositing workshop: the course and very successful. It had a real buzz to Europe. The event should becom e a focal describes functions of animators, spe it.” This is backed up by participating companies’ comments: point for the industry to gather and be cial F X , produ ction and technical a catalyst for its future growth and devel support. Explanations will be given of “It’s a quality audience we haven’t found opment, as well as a forum to inform how elements are prepared and seam easy to reach before [...] this show has and educate the marketplace. It should lessly composited into sequences. helped.” (Belinda Hannah, AVID). also provide an outstanding opportunity •Studio Paint software will be demon “We were very impressed by the crossfor companies in the marketplace to find strated w orking w ith 3D models section of people. Our demos were new customers. from initial brief through storyboard crowded all the tim e.” (Peter Cham Occasions such as DM W are demon ing to final execution. The benefits of berlain, Techtel). strations of the visual application of CGI solutions, the processes and prob “ [...] a highly-targeted multim edia computers. Events such as the February lems, will be examined. audience which we don’t get at any ’9 7 event are dedicated not only to the •Film effects demystified: an ideal work other show. D igital M edia W orld demonstration of the technology but also shop fo r anyone involved in the was a trem endous success.” (M ark act as a mission to explain that tech Richards, Adimex). filmmaking process. Real examples will nology and to educate users about it.

is going to be the second event in Aus tralia, it has been running for quite a long time in the UK, and we’ve also run one in Singapore as well. The UK event is associated with SIGGRAPH in the U.S. Attendees to the ’96 Sydney event Young described as “mostly designers - either in graphics or film and television” as well as aspiring desktop m ovie-m akers or those already working in film and tele vision, m ultim edia departm ents, through to a lot of top executives at T V stations and film com panies in Australia. Did Sean Young see D M W ’s ability to attract speakers from Disney, Digital Domain and ILM as a coup?

A w a r d s C a te g < o r ig g A rt: E xplo rin g a rtis tic a nd /o r em otion a l idjeas 1(.(.link il s o p lm ik it ion n o t a re q u ire m e n t^

Young added that, while DM W

Oh, yes, it certainly is, in that we are associated with SIGGRAPH and the UK event. W e’ve been dealing with them [the speakers] for quite some time. W e were very keen to bring them out to Australia because the whole idea of this is to create a forum and platform for growth in the Australian industry. Our idea is to bring out the best practitioners in the world so we can inspire people and help them learn. The international people we certainly think are a coup and will create a lot of excitem ent, but we have a very strong line-up of local speakers as well. The conference addresses will be given in the 600-seat Pyrmont Room, sup porting the speakers with projection video display of th eir exam ples. Young: The speakers will be showing every thing from m ovies th at th ey ’ve actually worked on, through to inter active com puter displays. T h ere’s a mixture of interactive stuff as well as show reels and actual commercials and projects that people have made. Effects & A n im a tio n Festival T his event gives an opportu nity fo r industry operators to enter a competi tion dedicated to the use of CG I and special FX . There are twelve categories, including art, com m ercials, features, music videos, titles, etc. Young: A call for entries was sent to the post production houses in Australia, people making commercials, films, T V and all the special effects bureaux, etc., as well C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

particles

m m Ă&#x; istM m

Silicon Graphics Computer Systems

H M 3 d Graphics Systems 3 / I Ridge S tre e t N o rth Sydney N S W 2060 A u stralia

ph 02

% *

Â»

ss M i > r Je ;tr

Por e n q u i n e s and booking s call 2 9 9 5 4 0 9 0 4 fax 6 1 2 9 9 5 4 9 0 1 7 6 1 email i sm@i sm com a 2 Rid e Street Australia NSW 2 0 6 0 North S dne

FRAME. SET & MATCH

te c h n ic a litie s

as the animators out there, to send in show reels of their work. A judging day will be held at the end of January. Judges include Thea Carone (Head of TV John Singleton ad agency), Trudi McIntosh (The Australian), Gabe Christie (Head of Graphics at Channel Seven), Rebecca Coote (Creative Con trol Development M anager at Village Roadshow), Jason Harty (Technical Edi tor at Encore) and Geoff Clow (one of the senior operators at Digital Pictures). T he basis of judging is “prim arily on the basis o f creativ ity ” as Young explained it, adding a lot of people are using a mixture of different types of effects, in traditional style as well as mixing with computer generated effects. Our entry form says it has to be a major ingredient. He agrees with ’9 6 speaker Rob Cole man (ILM ) when he pointed out that what it’s really about is “smoke and mirrors, the suspension of disbelief”: So, yes, the idea is to make you believe that what you’re seeing is real. And it does run through from the obviously unreal through to the very, very subtle. And all of those effects are valid and we’ll judge them. C om prehen sive Digital Media World is Australia’s only com prehensive event addressing the growing markets for digital media tech nologies, including computer graphics, animation, simulation and visualization, film and television production, virtual reality, online graphics communication, interactive entertainment, multimedia, publishing and pre-press. D igital M ed ia W orld is an open event, presented in association with interested parties including local and international associations, universities, government bodies and the media. As DM W is a trade event, the general public will not be admitted. No person under the age of 18 will be admitted. Computer graphics students over the age o f 18 are invited to attend the show between 3 and 5 pm daily. Going? T he organizers strongly advise rapid advance booking fo r the festival, as places are strictly limited. To attend the exhibition only pre-register via the web site, or fax name and address to (61.2) 9 2 1 1 1 1 3 7 - or go along on the day. Booking options: Festival pass $ 2 9 5 ; Single day pass: $ 1 4 5 ; Festival Awards only: $50. For more information, phone (61.2) 9 3 6 0 6 3 9 6 , fax (6 1 .2 ) 9 3 6 0 7 6 5 4 or Em ail: acm p @ ozem ail.co m .au . W eb site: http://www.dmw.com.au. Failing that, there is always snail mail: PO B ox 2 5 0 , Bondi Ju n ctio n , N SW ,

t a time when film production seem ingly embraces a new technology every day, let us not forget about the bare necessities of film: processing and print ing. Although sometimes dismissed as crude 19 th century technology, the optics and photochemistry applied in the manu facture and use of motion picture film is quite astonishingly sophisticated. The basic chemical process used in film was established well over a century ago: silver bromide (as well as a few other related silver compounds), when exposed to light, begins to change to grains of metallic silver. Particular chemicals developing agents - accelerate this process, converting exposed areas of film emulsion entirely to silver, but leaving unexposed areas alone. The subsequent fixer solution dissolves the unexposed silver bromide away, preventing any further reaction. (This is important, otherwise the first attempt to view exposed film would effec tively expose the rest of the frame, producing a completely fogged image.) Unexposed areas (the shadows in the original scene) are thus clear film, while brightly-lit exposed areas are darker as a result of the developed silver grains. The original film, therefore, has a negative image. In a contact-printing machine, the processed negative is run through an illu minated gate in contact with a roll of unexposed (raw) print film. Light passing through the negative forms an image on the print film. After exposure, the print film is devel oped using a similar technique to negative processing (although the actual develop ing agent is different), and a negative image of the negative image is produced. This, of course, turns out to be a positive image, with black (silver grained) shadow areas, clear film in the highlights, and shades of grey in between. But no colour! Silver images record only the brightness of the light. To record colour, the technology must become cleverer. Colour films are all based on the Eastmancolor tripack process: particular developing agents have been found which, after developing a silver image, form by products which will go on to react with certain organic chemicals to form coloured dyes. In unexposed areas of film, there would be no silver development and, therefore, no dye formation. Cleverer still, the dyes are not just any

old colour: they have been refined to form exactly the best shades of yellow, magenta and cyan to produce the full gamut of colours in the final image. In colour negative and intermediate films, the unde veloped dyes - called couplers - already have some colour, built in to compen sate for slight imperfections in the colour of the developed dyes. This is the reason for the orange appearance of negative stocks. Developing up a colour-dye image is not quite the whole story, though: the first part of the development process still forms a silver image (the photographic process still depends on silver chemistry to cap ture the image at the time of exposure), although colour dyes are all that are needed to form the image. So, the colour process must include an additional stage - the bleach bath - which reconverts the silver grains to a soluble form, ready to be dissolved out by the fixer, leaving a pure and accurate dye image. Given the delicate nature of film - even the slightest marks on the negative are magnified many times when the print is screened - it is alarming to consider the sequence of colour film processing: pass ing it wet over several hundred rollers, past a series of scrubbing brushes, water jets and nylon wiper blades, through a sequence of heated chemical solutions, in a process that cannot be stopped once it has started without destroying the film itself. This is the fate of your original neg ative, once it reaches the lab. While modern film stocks are capable of reproducing a scene exactly as it appears to the eye, it is the cinematographer’s art and the laboratory’s science to enhance that reproduction so that it matches the imagination more than mere reality: chem istry is one of the tools to be used. In the so-called “bleach bypass” tech nique, colour film is processed without a bleach, and retains the silver image in addition to the dye image. The silver grains get in the way of the colour dyes, limiting the brightness of the colours, and adding to the density and contrast of the image. Processing takes place on long, con tinuous-running machines, in which the film is passed over many sets of rollers through each chemical solution in turn, before being dried in a hot air cabinet. Any special processing runs require the batch of normal processed film to be run com pletely out of the machine and replaced with dummy machine leader before the set-up is changed for the special run. In printing, the exact colour balance of the printer lamp can be controlled to give the required colour balance and density in the print. Well-exposed negative usually gives adequate results for a work print if it is printed at a standard or average set of red, green and blue values. However, it is necessary to smooth out the small varia tions in lighting and colour from shot to shot in an edited film, to maintain perfect

continuity in the “look” of the scene. In the laboratory, this is accomplished by pre viewing the negative on a colour video analyzer, in which the results of printing onto print film can be simulated in a video image. The settings, or “lights”, for each shot are then transferred to the printing machine during the actual printing run, providing a graded print. The consistency of colour depends on the uniformity of the emulsion coat ing. Modern negative film emulsions have thirteen or more emulsion layers: yellow, magenta and cyan dyes responding to var ious ranges of scene brightness. These layers are coated, simultaneously, onto the film base, a roll of acetate several feet wide prior to slitting into 35mm or 16mm rolls. Imagine a home decorator painting the kitchen door in a single brush-stroke; imagine a kitchen door several feet wide and ten thousand feet long; imagine each and every coat of paint maintaining a uni form thickness to an accuracy within one or two per cent over the entire coat ing. Finally, imagine applying primer, undercoat and several layers of topcoat simultaneously. Now consider the same operation, with light-sensitive emulsions, on a flexible film base. Any variation in any of the layers would cause random and unexpected colour differences from roll to roll, through the length of a roll, or even across the frame. Film manufactur ers assert that there is excellent consistency within each batch of film stock; and nat urally any slight difference between batches disappears as soon as graded prints are made. The so-called “answer print” is made from the final cut original negative, with colour grading corrections, and with an optical soundtrack, which is printed onto the print stock in the same printing pass as the image exposure. Where the nega tive has been subjected to even a modest amount of handling (i.e., during negative cutting), a wet-gate print is made. In dry printing, light would be refracted or scat tered by any scratches or abrasions on the negative, resulting in white spots on the print. In the wet-printing gate, the negative is entirely immersed, at the time of print ing, in an organic fluid (tetrachlorethylene). This has exactly the same refractive index as acetate film base, and so light is not scat tered, however uneven or scratched the surface of the negative. A further benefit is that the improved contact between neg ative and raw stock often results in a slightly sharper image as well as a cleaner one. The pioneers of cinematography Eastman, Dickson, Lumière, or Maurice Sestier, who probably shot the first film in Australia - would not recognize the film laboratory of the ’90s, but everything we see at the cinema today is still based on the same technology they developed a century ago: a technology that has supported an impressive degree of refinement. ©

4vU ^ l^ x v fc te . ¿ v $ v t 4 f d y ^ t ^ v n , &&vnW .vtf.vs$ t h e . V n 4$a $ t & ^ 4 $ e 'W i t h W

X W ev n e . im tu ¿ e s ¿ t H

^ ^ t^ e a s

e ^ e t v s e t^ ^ c K v V $ , e x t ^ e b i e f y ^ '4 a t vv n4$e

t^4v\a^er$, 4fld 4vs uVMn4t&Hei) ^e 4tu re aet th e

4 ¿v$K 4 ^ 4 Y

at^e4vnUvtfv*i$

« ^ ir i^ fe fte v s * 4v*i4(@ l

I/O ^

te + £ - + h e n r e +

fM tN s ftt/to l& te e t

U^t r 4

C ^ S l-i? (J^"tet ZQ

Accom

Techtel

Technology for Broadcasting

SYDNEY (02) 9906 1488 • MELBOURNE (03) 9899 3032 SINGAPORE • KUALA LUMPUR • JAKARTA www.techtel.com.au

F F C Funding Decisions Features The Real Macaw Dead Letter Office Kiss or Kill

59 59 59

Adult Television Drama Natural Justice 2 & 3

Documentaries Big Bag’s Japanese Adventure Little Brother, Little Sister The Rough Shed

59 59 59

Features in Post-production

Table for Six 60 i The Archibald 60 i Children's Television i Mirror Mirror 2 60 i j Production Survey i 1 Features in Production 1 Aberration 60 i Black Ice 60 j Out of the Blue 60 i The Well 60 i

The Alive Tribe The Big Red Dark City Diana & Me Doing Time for Patsy Cline Heaven’s Burning Joey Kiss or Kill My Blessings Oscar and Lucinda Paws Scream Siam Sunset

AduLt Televidioti Drama

F FC Funding Decisions Following Board meetings in O ctober ard N ovem bei, the F F C has entei ed into contract negotiations with the producers o f the following proie'cts:

Featured THE REAL MACAW (90 PRO

mins)

F i l m s - B e l l w e t h e r P r o d u c t io n s

D: M ar io A nd rea c ch io EP: R ich ar d B ecker P: M a r g o t M c D onald Co-Ps : T im P resc o tt , B ruce H an co c k W s: M a t t h e w P erry , B ruce H a n co ck Dist: B ecker G ro u p , REP

n 1870, a parrot is captured by a pirate in the Amazon jungle and taken aboard his ship along with priceless treasures. The ship is sunk in the South Pacific and the parrot w atches as the wounded pirate buries the treasure and dies beside it. In 1996, the same parrot, 'M a c ', is now 140 years old and living with an eccentric inventor and his 12year-old grandson, Sam. Their world is shattered when Sam's father discovers Grandpa is in serious debt and organizes to sell his home and move him into a pet free retirem ent centre. The prospect of being separated from Grandpa is too much for M ac.

DEAD LETTER OFFICE (95 mins) A r t is t S e r v ic e s

D: J o h n R u a n e EP: S teve V iz a r d , A n d r e w K n ig h t ' Ps: D e n is e P a t ie n c e , D ebo rah C ox ’

■ Exile ■ Nobody I Know

! Self Serve I Thump 1 1 Tele-Features 1 The Last of the Ryans

62 62

Television Series

| Cosmo Kids | Ocean Girl 4

62 62 62 62

i i ;1

j Skippy j 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea : ! J

Documentarled

Dist: P o lyg r a m , S outhern S tar

hen Alice W alsh lands a job at the Dead Letter Office, she has a motive - to find her dad. Using the penname "Bundle of Joy", Alice begins to w rite to her father via the office, placing her faith in her co-w orker, Frank, who seems dedicated to his role of delivering the mail. Frank, having tragically lost his children, decides to becom e a father to Alice - at least on paper. Coming face to face with her real father is enough to convince her th at he could never have w ritten to her about the precious moments betw een them and the pain of losing one another. She returns to Frank and together they salvage w h a t they can of the past and move into a more promising future.

P Producer

KISS OR KILL (93 mins) B il l B e n n e t t P r o d u c t io n s

W-D: B ill B e nn e tt

P: B ill B enn ett CP: CORRIE S0ETERB0EK Pre-sale: M o v ie V isio n Dist: B eyo n d , N e w V isio n

iss orKill\s a 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 - t h e following morning the motel ow ner is found dead. Second night out, tw o more people are killed in their sleep. Al begins to think Nikki is the killer. Nikki thinks it's Al. They've known each other for years but do they really know each other?

Co-P Co-Producer

BIG BAG'S JAPANESE ADVENTURE (52 mins)

B a r r o n T e l e v is io n

Ds: M

C a r so n a n d others tb a EP: P a u l B arron Ps: J a n T yrrell , P a u l B arro n W s: J ohn C u n d il l , D a v id P hillips Pre-sale: SEVEN NETWORK, RTL Dist: P earson T elevisio n I n t e r n a t io n a l , S outh er n S tar ic h ael

P a r t 2 : T he M ad Ha u e r s of M o u n t M a n ja r a

ravelling through outback Australia, Asta Cadell comes across M ount M anjara, a mining community totally dependent on a nearby nickel mine. On the outskirts of the town, a hit-and-run encounter with a 150-ton dump-truck leaves her unconscious. Recovering in hospital, Asta encounters dump-truck driver Dixie Lee who tells Asta she thinks it w as she who w as responsible for the accident. Asta starts to suspect the dum p-truck driver is suffering from heavy metal poisoning. Asta is convinced that the mine is to blame and sets out to prove i t It's a course of action which brings her into conflict with the M ount M anjara community and makes Asta the target of townspeople anxious to protect a guilty s e c re t

AS Associate Producer L P Line Producer D D irector

A c q u i s t o - W h it e

D: M

ichael

S W Scriptwriter

B uckley

P: J ack W h ite CP: Lu ig i A cq uisto

0 Cast P C Principal Cast

W: D e n n is K. S m it h

S B Story Editor

Pre-sale: ABC ig Bag is Australia's disabilitypowered rock band, a close-knit tribe of seven perform ers (three of whom have an intellectual disability). Big Bag has performed all over Australia and is now on the verge of its first international gig in southern Japan to promote a forthcoming disability arts festival. Far from a 'feel good' disability film. Big Bag's Japanese Adventure becomes the record of a group of idiosyncratic musicians reacting to the pressures of a particularly challenging tour.

LITTLE BROTHER, LITTLE SISTER

W D W riter-director. D IS T Distributor

NOTE: Production Surveyforma now adhere to a revised form at. Cinema Papers regreta it cannot accept information received in a differentform at. Cinema Papers doea not accept reaponaihilityfo r the accuracy of any information aupplied by production companies. Thia ia particularly the caae when information changea but the production company makea no attem pt to correct what baa already been aupplied. THE ROUGH SHED

(55 mins)

(27

A l f r e d R o a d F il m s

Pre-sale: ABC

sta Cadell is heading forTugina to attend her sister Debbie’s wedding and she's not looking forward to i t Debbie seems thrilled to see her kid sister and claims she and her fiancé, Steve, have 'really made it' this time. On the day of the wedding, the pressures begin to tell. The sisters are working hard to keep the smiles going but the old fam ily scars are just below the surface. On the big day, Steve disappears. W hen he is found drowned under suspicious circum stances the

n Little Brother, Little Sisterwe will come to know why Australian couple Ann and Steve Low chose to adopt Ethiopian children Eleni and Sisay. W e will see how Eleni and Sisay deal with the profound changes in their lives as they assimilate or reject the values of the Low fam ily and Australian culture. W e will explore w h at Eleni and Sisay bring into their new life from the world they leave behind - t h e i r sense of family, history of people, language, music, smells, events and myths.

mins )

W-D: J a n e t M c L eod

W-D: B e lin d a M a so n P: G a b y M aso n

P a r t 3 : D e v il a n d t h e D e e p B l u e S ea

B P Executive Producer

(2 X 90 MINS)

Pre-sale: BBC

63 63 63 63

j Ì i i

wom en rebuild their relationship and try to discover the reason behind the murder.

NATURAL JU STIC E2& 3

W: D ebo rah C ox

60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62

!j Sound of One Hand Clapping 1 Thank God He Met Lizzie ji Shorts jj

P: A ng ela B orelli Pre-sale: ABC

he Rough Shed focuses on a

shearing family: M ary (a shearers' cook), her son Young Errol (a shearer), his daughter Kyla (a four-year-old rouseabout) and Bugsy (their mate). W e follow their lives during a shearing "run" at a station in Far W e s t Queensland. Their personal stories candidly em erge, as do conflicts and dreams and the extrem es of th eir lives and the challenges w hich face them in the drama of the outback shed.

THE NEW HHB DAT TAPE T H E BEST GETS E V E N B ET T ER FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

inproduction TABLE FOR SIX

Production Survey

(27 mins ) V iv id P ic t u r e s

W-D: A n d r e w L e w is P: S u s a n M a c K in n o n Pre-sale: ABC

11 n e r m a n e n t monogamy is not a § realistic option for me": Andre, 37, astrophysicist; "M y only sex rule is I like men to undress in the correct order.... I don't w ant any socks left on last": Anna, 39, m ake-up artist. Table for Sixis about tw o single people on their quest for a mate through the phenomenon of singles' dinner party clubs. It is a film about being 30something, single and looking for love.

Information5is supplied as and adjudged as of 5 Decem ber 1-996

Features in production ABERRATION Production company: Grundy Films Production: 25/11/96 - 6/1/97 (Wellington and Queenstown, New Zealand)

THE ARCHIBALD (55 mins ) C o o l a m o n F il m s

D: R ichard M o r d a u nt Ps: R ichard M o r d a u n t , D ia n a M W: D ia n a M o r d a u nt Pre-sale: ABC

o r d a u nt

he Archibald Portrait prize, now in its 75th year, is Australia's most popular and controversial art prize. No other country has a portrait prize of similar magnitude w here every year its cultural heroes become the focus of a major exhibition drawing enormous crowds. Judged by the Board of Trustees of the Arts Gallery of N SW , the argum ent "W hat is a portrait?" in today's post-modern art world has been central to the history of the Archibald Prize and has kept it at the cutting edge of contem porary painting.

Childrens Television

Director: PHIL AVALON Producer: P hil A valo n Executive producers: H a n s POMERANZ, P eter O 'N eill , K erry D u n n

Associate producers: J u lia n S a g g er s ,

Ca st

n unsettling psychological thriller evolves as two mutuallydependent and manipulative wom en find their fragile world threatened when they accidentally run over a stranger near their isolated farm

J a so n G ooden Scriptwriter: P h il A valo n Director of photography: L es PARROTT Production designer: CATHY FlNLAY Costume designer: J enn y C a m p b ell Editor: MlKE HONEY

Features in post-production THE ALIVE TRIBE

P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Script editor: GERARD M ag uire

Budget: $ 1 7 ,00 0

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Production manager: B ill M arsd en Locations: H ar riet S cott Unit manager: T ony F ields Production runner: R on HOLBROW Production accountant: R on RHEUBEN Assistant production accountant: JASON

Director: STEPHEN AMIS Producer: STEPHEN AMIS Associate producers: LAWRENCE SlLBERSTEIN, GREG LINKS, PETER LINKS Scriptwriter: STEPHEN A m is Director of photography: D arrel S tokes Production manager: M yrlene B arr Camera operator: S teve W elsh Assistant director: MONIQUE GRBEC Film gauge: S uper 16

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

G ooden

Production supervisor: BRIDGET BOURKE Location manager: SCOTT DONALDSON

Insurance: T ony GlBBS Legals: O 'N eill -O w e n s

O n- set C rew

Ca m era C rew

1st assistant director: C hris S hort Special fx: D a v id R iley , S u s a n n a M or p hett , D a n ie l P erry .

Focus puller: R oger B oyle Clapper-loader: L es S neal Gaffer: S teve C arter

M a r k e t in g

Sales agent: VICTOR FILM Co. Publicity: S ia n C l e m e n t (02) 9450 3650 Ca st

S im o n B ossell , P a m e l a G idley

chiller film in the tradition of Tremors. A wom an on the run becomes trapped in a remote cabin w ith a local scientist during a blizzard.

BLACK ICE

( O f f ic ia l A u s t r a l ia n -

Production company: WEDGETAIL F ilm M a n a g e m e n t Ltd Budget: S1.5 M illion

N e w Z e a l a n d c o - p r o d u c t io n ) M il l e n n iu m P ic t u r e s

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

Director: J a m e s R ichards Producer: R obert G reenough Executive producers: B ill M utter , R on W il l ia m s Associate producer: R on V reeken Scriptwriters: J a m e s R ic h a r d s , R ob G reenough Director of photography: K evin 'L oosey ' L ind P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Post-production supervisor: Karl B r a nsten Choreographers: R on V reeken , J a m e s W il l ia m s Assistant editor: A d a m W eis

Ca st

J ohn O r c sik , T ony B o n n e r , R on V reeken , T o n ia L ee .

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 w hich is his final journey to self-destruction.

group of university students campaigns against the use of chemicals.

On - se t C rew

1st assistant director: C lin to n W hite Continuity: STEWART EWINGS Make-up: H ilary P earce Hairdresser: HILARY PEARCE Stunt co-ordinator: G r a n t P age P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: R ose D ority Soundtrack: PACIFIC RlM Music co-ordination: P a c ific R im Laboratory: M ovielab Post-production facility: SPECTRUM Ca st

S im o n W e sta w a y (J o h n n y A u s t e n ), B ill H unter (C ee T ee ), R ebecca R igg ( M aylen e )

Royal Commission into police corruption is announced. Three brothers from different walks in life and through pure circum stance collide with the underworld and authorities.

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

Director: S a n d r a Lang Producer: S a n d r a L evy Line producer: S teph en J ones Director of photography: M a n d y WALKER Production Designer: MICHAEL PHILIPS Costume designer: A n n e B orghesi Editor: D a n y COOPER Composer: STEPHEN R ae Sound recordist: B r o n w y n M urphy P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: Liz M u llinar C a st in g O n- se t Crew

Still photography: E lise Lockw ood

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager/Line Producer: B a r b a r a G ib b s 1st assistant director: S teve A n d r e w s

P a m e l a R abe (H ester ), M ir a n d a O tto (K a t h e r in e ), P a u l C hu bb (H arry B ir d ), F rank W ilso n (F r a n c is H a r pe r ), K ati E d w a r d s ( M olly ), S teve J acobs (R ob B o r d e n ), G enevieve L e m o n ( J en B or d e n ), Luke H a r r is o n (B orden T w i n ), D a n ie l H a r r is o n (B orden T w in ), M iles S h a n a h a n (B orden B o y )

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

(26 x 24 mins )

n MirrorMirror2the "m agic" mirror rem aterializes in the attic of a remote stone-house in the middle of the N ew Zealand goldfields of the 1860s, opening a gatew ay betw een a young girl, Constance, and the three children of a complex and slightly dysfunctional fam ily in the 1990s. The children travel backwards and forwards, and through the perils of each other's times. The mirror has a reason for having come into their lives, yet its real purpose remains a mystery until the end.

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

M a r k e t in g

Publicity: T racey M a ir / J a n e O sbo rne

Director: TlM BOXELL Producer: CHRIS BROWN NZ producer: T im S an der s Co-producer: S cott L ew Scriptwriters: D a r rin O u r a , S cott L ew Director of photography: A llen G uilford Production designer: G r a n t M ajor

MIRROR MIRROR 2

Ds: J ohn B a n a s , S o p h ia T u r kie w ic z EPs: PosiE G r a em e -E v a n s , D orothee P infold CPs: A n d r e w B la x l a n d , D ave G ib so n W s: G reg M il l in , K a th er in e T h o m s o n , S u sa n B o w er , K risten D u n p h y , A n th o n y E llis , D a n ie l K rig e , R ick M a ie r , D a vid M a r s h , S teph en M e as d ay , A n n ette M oore , B oaz S t a r k , T racey T r in d e r D o ig , M arg aret W il s o n . Pre-sale: N etw ork T en , T V N Z Dist: A lliance R e lea sin g , A lliance I n te r n a t io n a l

OUT OF THE BLUE Production company: A valo n F ilm s Distribution company: NEWVlSION Pre-production: 2/12/96... Production: 10/1 /97... Post-production:... 31/5/97

Editor: Dov H oenig Production designer: G eorge L iddle Costume designer: Liz K eogh

A rt D epa rtm en t

Art director: ANNIE BEAUCHAMP

THE BIG RED ( w o r k in g t i t l e )

Production companies: S cala P r o d u c tio n s ; U n t h a n k F ilm s Production office: SYDNEY Production: 1 6 /9 -9 /1 1 /9 6

M a r k e t in g

International sales agent: N e w L in e C in e m a Publicity: FIONA SEARSON, D D A Ca st

R ufus S ew ell , W il l ia m H u r t , K iefer S u t h er l a n d , J en n ife r C o n n ell y , R ichard O 'B r ie n , B ruce S pence a n d C o lin F r iels .

ohn M urdoch aw akens alone in a strange hotel room, accused of a series of brutal murders th at he cannot remember. Indeed, most of his memories have vanished altogether. He soon discovers th at his memories and reality as he knows it are in fa ct artificial creations controlled by a fiendish underworld of ominous beings collectively known as The Strangers.

DIANA & ME Production company: M a tt C arro ll F il m s Production: 2 8 / 9 - 16/11/96 Finance: A u str a lia F ilm F in a n c e C o r p o r a t io n , N S W F il m O ffice , V illage R o a d s h o w P ictures P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: D a v id P arker Producer: M a t t C arroll Line producer: G reg R icketso n Executive producers: G reg C oo te , A lan F in n ey Screenplay: M a t t F ord ( based on a screenplay by E liza b eth C o l e m a n ) Director of photography: K eith W ag staff Editor: B ill M urphy Production designer: J on DOWDING Costume designer: T eSS SCHOFIELD P r o d u c t io n C r e w

1st assistant director: V icki S ugars M a r k e t in g

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

Director: STEPHAN E lliott Producer: FlNOLA D w yer Co-producer: A n t o n ia B a r na r d Executive producers: N ik P o w ell , S teph en W oolley Scriptwriter: M ichael T h o m a s Based on the novel: T he D ead H eart by D ouglas K ennedy Director of photography: M ike M olloy Editor: M a r t in W alsh Production designer: Ow e n P atterso n Financed by: T he S a m u e l G o ld w yn C o m p a n y , FFC International Sales: T he S a m u e l G o ld w yn C o m p a n y

he story of Teddy, a streetwise N ew Yorker, who finds himself out of his depth Down Under, entrapped by a sunkissed Outback Valkyrie.

International sales agent: V illage R o a d s h o w P ictures W o r ld w id e Unit publicity: FIONA SEARSON

DDA (612) 9955 5800 Ca st

T o ni C ollette , D o m in ic W

est

romantic comedy, Diana &Me is the story of a young Australian wom an w ho shares the same name and birthday as the Princess of W ales. Obsessed with her royal nam esake, she wins a trip to London and comes close to shaking her hand, but is elbowed out of the w ay by a pushy paparazzo photographer.

DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE Production company: O il R ag F ilm s Production: 20/9 - 1/11/96

DARK CITY

P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Production company: D ark C ity P rod u c tio n s Production: 5 /8 -1 8 /1 1 /9 6 P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: A lex PROYAS Producer: ANDREW MASON Screenplay: A lex P ro yas , L em D o b b s , D a v id G oyer Director of photography: DARIUSZ WOLSKI

Director: CHRIS KENNEDY Producer: CHRIS KENNEDY Co-producer: JOHN WINTER Screenplay: C h ris K ennedy Director of photography: A n d r e w L esn ie Sound recordist: C hris A lderton Editor: K en S allo w s Production designer: ROGER F ord Art director: LAURIE FAEN

THE NEW HHB DAT TAPS T H E BEST GETS E V E N B ET T ER FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 60

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

^production continued Costume designer: Lo u ise W akefield Composer: PETER BEST Music researcher: C h r is t in e W oodruff

Standby wardrobe: N in a PARSONS Cutter: S u sa n H ead

P l a n n in g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

Scenic artist: D a ve T uckw ell Carpenter: L es S eaw ar d Painter: JOHN ORDEN

L iz M

u llin a r

echam,

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

J oe B e n n a t o , R o s ea n n e S carfo

Assistant editor: BASCIA OZERSKI Editing assistant: N a t a l ia O r tiz Sound post-production:

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: C a r o lin e B o n h a m Production co-ordinator: D e bb ie A t k in s Production secretary: M ir a n d a C ulley Location manager: M a u d e H eath Unit manager: SlMON L ucas Assistant unit manager: Ross B rid ek ir k Unit assistant: PAUL MESSER Production runner: L eah A bernethy Production accountant: \K e vin P l u m m e r Insurer: H .W . W ood A u s t r a l ia P/L Completion guarantor: FILM FINANCES Legal services: HART & S pir a Travel co-ordinator: J et AVIATION

A u d io L oc S o u n d D esig n

Editing room & post-production: S p ec tr u m F ilm s

Ca m p b e l l D r u m m o n d

Camera assistant: N ino T a m b u r r i Key grip: R o b in M organ Assistant grips: P a u l H a m l y n , D o n o v a n N orgard

Gaffer: P a u l B ooth Best boy: S t e ph en G ray Electrician: B en S teele O n - S et C rew

1st assistant director: C h ris W ebb 2nd assistant director: T anya J ackson-V aughan 3rd assistant director: JENNIFER L eacey Continuity: K r is t in V o u m a r d Boom operator: S t e ph en J a c k s o n -V a u g h a n M ake-up: P a u l P a t t is o n M ake-up assistant: A n n et t e H ardy Hairdresser: P a u l P a t t is o n Assistant hairdresser: A n n et t e H a rdy

Special fx supervisor: R ay FOWLER S P F X S ervices

Line dancing consultant: J ulie ÏALBOT Stunts co-ordinator: ZEV ELEFTHERIOU Safety officer: WAYNE PLEACE Still photography: PHILLIP L e MESURIER, E lise L ockw oo d Unit publicist: J a n e O s b o r n e , T racey M a ir Catering: CLAIRE POLLARD Action vehicles: A d a m PlNNOCK A rt D epa rtm en t

Art director: LAURIE Fa en Art department co-ordinator: C h r is t in a N o r m a n

Set decorator: K errie B r o w n Props buyer: A d r ie n n e O gle , G uy T u r nb u ll Standby props: C hris J a m e s Armourer: A m a n d a KlRBY W a rd ro be

Wardrobe supervisor: ROBYN E lliott

Production company: VILLAGE ROADSHOW

S tage & S creen Freight co-ordinator: TONY BORKOWSKI,

Director: I a n B arry Producer: M ic h ael Lake Executive producers: R o b in BURKE,

S un C ouriers

G o v ern m en t A g en cy In v e s t m e n t

FFC, N S W Film & TV O ffice M a r k e t in g

International sales agent: S o u th er n S tar S ales

Poster designer: H ar cu s D esig n Ca s t

R ic h ar d R oxburgh (B o y d ), O tto (P a t s y ), M a tt D ay (R a l p h ), G us M ercurio (T y r o n e ), B etty B o b b it t (C o n n ie ). M

Camera operator: B r ia n B reheny Focus puller: JOHN FOSTER Clapper-loader: COREY P iper Attachment camera assistant: R enee H a n n a Key grips: D a v id S h a w , P a u l M icallef (G r ip ) Assistant grip: J osh M oore Gaffer: G r a em e SHELTON Best boy: D a ve S m it h 3rd electrics: R oberto KARAS O n- S et C rew

Shooting stock: K odak

Cam era C rew

Focus puller: C o lin D eane Clapper-loaders: N ick WATT,

ir a n d a

w ry tale about a reluctant hero w ho sacrifies his dream s for love and desire.

1st assistant director: A d r ia n P ickersg ill 2nd assistant director: CHRISTIE M c G u in n e s s 3rd assistant director: M a t t h e w B e nn e tt Continuity: C hris O 'C onnell Boom operator: M arco A rlotta Make-up/Hair: BEVERLEY FREEMAN, C h r is t in e M iller Special fx make-up: B everley F r ee m a n Special fx supervisors: PETER STUBBS, J eff L ittle Stunts co-ordinator: R ich ar d B oue Safety officer: ROBERT SlMPER, R ic h ar d B oue Unit nurse: J e nn y BlCHARD Still photography: LlSA T o m a se tti Unit publicist: A n n ette S m it h Catering: D & M LOCATION CATERING A rt Depa rtm en t

HEAVEN S BURNING Production company: Duo A rt P r o d u c tio n s

Pre-production: 12/8 - 27/9/96 Production: 30/9 - 22/11/96 Post-production: 25/11/96 - 4/4/97 P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: C raig La h iff Producers: A l C lark , H elen L eake Executive producers: C raig La h if f , G e o r g in a P ope

Scriptwriter: LOUIS N o w r a Director of photography: B r ia n B reheny Sound recordist: TOIVO L em ber Editor: J o h n S c o n Production designer: VlCKl N IEHUS Costume designer: A n n ie M ar sh a ll Composer: C arl VINE P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: A n n a L e n n o n - S m it h , L iz M

W a rd ro be

Wardrobe supervisor: D a n ic a D.B. P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

F il m F in a n c e s Legal services: B ryce M e n z ie s , R oth W arren Travel co-ordinator: T o ny M iles ,

Ca m era C rew C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t

C a s t in g

Extras casting: DOMINIQUE M

G heo rg hiu (B o o r j a m ), C o lin H ay ( J o n a h ), S u s a n P r io x (S h a r o n ), Ka te F it z p a t r ic h (G lo r ia ).

A rt D epa rtm en t

Art director: DANICA D .B . Assistant art director: JULIE RAFFAELE

JOEY

Production Survey

Casting: C h r is K ing C /-

( M a h o o d ), A n t h o n y P hela n ( B is h o p ), M a t t h e w D y k t in s k i ( M o ffa t ), P etru

Co n s ult an ts Casting assistant: D a n ie l S h ipp Extras casting: Lyn P ike u llin a r

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: LESLEY PARKER Production co-ordinator: T rish FOREMAN Production secretary: JULIE BYRNE Location manager: M a u r ic e B urns Unit manager: MICHAEL G ILL Unit assistants: MICHAEL AlTKEN, S im o n T aylor Production runner: S c o n HEYSEN Production accountant: DEBORAH WiLDE Accounts assistant: S heryl M a u n g Insurer: R ichard H yde , W ebster H yde Completion guarantor: A d r ie n n e R ead ,

Art director: H ugh B ateup Art department runner: RlCCO PEARSE Set decorator/Props Buyer: S ar ah A bb ey , T ony C r o n in

Draftsman: BORGE FAABORG Standby props: L eroy P lu m m e r Armourer: DOUG CAMPBELL Action vehicle co-ordinator: P hil M c C arthy W a rd ro be

Wardrobe supervisor: Ka th y H a in W ardrobe buyers: CATHERINE H erreen , J enn ife r R a m o s Standby wardrobe: G w e n d o l y n S tukeley Wardrobe assistant: SANORA D on la n C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t

Scenic artist: JOHN H a r a t z is Construction manager: A rthur VETTE Carpenters: G ary Buss, K evin J arrett Brush Hands: M a t t h e w Fa r r u g ia , B en R esch P o s t - pro du c tio n Assistant editor: STRUTTS PSYRIDIS Sound editors: L iv ia Ruzic, C raig C arter Laboratory: A tlab Laboratory liaison: SlMON WlCKS Film/Video gauge: 3 5 m m Screen ratio: 2.35:1 G o v e r n m e n t A g en c y In v e s t m e n t

Development: S A FC Production: FFC, SAFC M a r k e t in g

International sales agent: BEYOND Ca st

R ussell C ro w e (C o l in ), Y ouki K udoh ( M id o r i ), R ay B arrett (C a m ), K e n ji I s o m u r a (Y u k io ), R obert M a m m o n e

Sound transfers by: DIRK DE B r uyn Mixer: DlRK DE B ruyn Laboratory: ClNEVEX Film gauge: 16 m m Screen ratio: 1.33:1 Shooting stock: 7248

P ictures

Production: 4/9 -1 6 /1 0 /9 6 P r in c i p a l C r e d i t s

G reg C oote Scriptwriter: S t u a r t B eattie Director of photography: D a v id B urr Editor: L ee S m it h Production designer: P eta La w s o n Costume designer: M a r io n B oyce P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production office: G old COAST Unit production manager: B r ia n BURGESS 1st assistant director: S t u a r t F r ee m a n P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Animatronics supervisor: JOHN Cox M a r k e t in g

International sales agent: VILLAGE R o a d s h o w P ictures W o r ld w id e Unit Publicity: FIONA S e ar s o n , D D A Ca st

J a m ie C ro fts , A lex M c K e n n a , R ebecca G ib n e y , E d B egley J r , R uth C racknell , H arold H opk in s

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.

KISS OR KILL (NO DETAILS SUPPLIED. SEE FFC FUNDING DECISIONS.)

MY BLESSINGS

Ca st

M a r ie -L o u ise W

alker

(J a n e ), I a n D ixo n

( M ic h a e l ), D ale S te ve ns (L is a ), E m m a S t r a n d (S u e ), M ark S h a n n o n (L in d s a y ), V ictory D ay (R a c h e l ), G r a h a m P ages ( J effrey ), B ill M o u s o u lis ( as h im s e l f ), D irk de B ruyn ( as h im s e l f ).

diary film, chronicling six days in the life of a wom an in her early 30s.

OSCAR AND LUCINDA Production company: MERIDIAN FILMS Distribution company: Fox SEARCHLIGHT Production: S e p t e m b e r - D ecem b er 1996 Budget: S16 MILLION Director: G ill ia n A r m s tr o n g Producers: T im W h it e , R o b in D a lto n Scriptwriter: LAURA JONES Government Agency Investment: FFC ased on the novel by Peter Carey, a story about fate, love, gambling and faith.

PAWS Production company: LATENT IMAGE P r o d u c tio n s P/L Distribution company: POLYGRAM F ilm s

(UK) Ltd Production: 14/10 - 9/12/96 P r i n c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: Ka r l Z w ic k y Producers: A n d r e n a F in l a y , V icki W

a tso n

Executive producer:

Production company; I n n er se n se

R ebel P enfo ld -R ussell

P r o d u c tio n s

Screenplay: HARRY C ripps Based on the novel: C h a nc e in a M illio n Written by: STEPHEN D a n d o -C ollins Scriptwriters: HARRY CRIPPS, Ka r l Z w ic k y Director of photography: GEOFF BURTON Sound recordist: G u n t is SlCS Editor: NlCK HOLMES Production designer: S t even J o n e s -E v a n s Costume designer: D a v id R ow e

Budget: S8,000 Pre-production: 12/8 - 22/9/96 Production: 23/9 - 11/10/96 Post-production: 12/10/96 - 1/3/97 P r i n c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: B ill MOUSOULIS Producer: B ill M o uso ulis Scriptwriter: B ill MOUSOULIS Director of photography: Ka t t in a B ow ell Sound recordists: P hillip H ealy , C hris O 'S h ea , J enn ifer S oc h a c kyj , E m m a B o r t ig n o n , J ohn C u m m in g Editor: B ill M ouso ulis Production designer: D a n ic a D .B . P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: B ill M

o u s o u l is ,

M a r ie -L o u ise W

alker

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Producer's assistant: S a n d i A u s t in Production assistants: G eorgeia DEARAUGO, L o u ise S terlin g Ca m era Crew

Camera operator: KATTINA B ow ell Focus puller: A n d r e w M c C o r m ac k Clapper-loader: A n d r e w B all Camera assistants: M a tt T oll , Tov B elling Gaffer: L ia m A d a m O n - S et Crew

1st assistant director: B ill M o uso ulis Continuity: D a n ic a D .B . Still photography: R obert B all Catering: S a n d i W ishes

P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: M a u r a Fay & A s so c ia tes Casting consultants: A n n Fay Extras casting: M a u r a Fay & A sso c ia tes Dialogue coach: NlCO La t h o u r is Shooting schedule by: J a m ie C rooks P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: B r en d a P a m Production co-ordinator: S a n d y S t evens Producer's assistant: L eoni STRICKLAND Production secretary: CASSANDRA SlMPSON Location manager: R ic h ar d MONTGOMERY Unit manager: A n d r e w M arsh a ll Production runner: Lou AUSTIN Production accountant: J o h n M ay Accounts assistant: S cott LOVELOCK Insurer: H.W . WOOD - TONY GlBBS Completion guarantor: F il m FINANCES Legal services: A llen , A llen , & H em sley Ca m er a C r ew

Camera operator: G eoff B urto n Focus puller: L e il a n i HANNAH

THE NEW HHB DAT TAPE T H E BEST G ETS E V E N B E T T E R FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Clapper-loader: J a s m in e Y u e n -C a r rucan Camera assistant: M a r t in G ooch 2nd unit action director: G lenn B o sw ell 2nd unit focus: C hris T aylor 2nd unit operator: STEVE N e w m a n Camera maintenance: SAMMY’ S Key grip: S cott B rokate Assistant grip: T im D uggan Gaffer: I a n P lu m m e r Best boy: R o b b ie B urr Electrician: S im o n W il l ia m s O n - S et C r e w

1st assistant director: J a m ie C rooks 2nd assistant director: T o m R ead 3rd assistant director: J enn ifer R ees - B ro w n Continuity: K a ren M ansfield Boom operator: E m m a B a r h a m Make-up: R ob b ie P ickering Hairdresser: T een a M c C arthy Special fx supervisor: J o hn B o w r in g Stunts co-ordinator: S pike C herrie Unit nurse: JACQUIE ROBERTSON-RAMSAY Unit publicist: M a r ia Fa rmer Catering: F eeding Frenzy A rt D epa r tm en t

Art director: I AN GRACIE Art department runner: E d m u n d Levine Set dressers: J o a n n a P ark , R ic h ie D ehne Props maker: F io n a W ilson Standby props: A n d r e w P layford , J a yn e J o h n so n Armourer: J ohn B o w rin g W a rd ro be

Wardrobe buyer: CHRISTELLE CORONEOS Standby wardrobe: FIONA NlCCOLS A n im a l s

Scriptwriter: GARY YOUNG

A rt D epa rtm en t

Ca st

Art department co-ordinator: S te f a n ie K le in h e n z Art department runner: B eth P ic k w o r th Propsperson: MICHAEL Lacono Props buyer: S a m COOK Standby props: C h ris D arvall

D on B echelli, T ed M iller , A l B equette , R ich G oyet .

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.

SIAM SUNSET Production company: A r tist S ervices Production: 11/11-13/12/96 Scriptwriters: M a x D a n n ,

G o v ern m en t A gen cy In v estm en t

A n d r e w K n ig h t

Production: AFC, NSW FTO

D e v e lo pm en t : A u str a lia n F ilm C o m m is s io n

Production company: A r tist S ervices Production: 7/10-22/11/96 Producer: R olf de H eer Writer: R ichard F lanag an Script editor: DEBORAH Cox Ca st

International sales agent: B ecker G roup R ichard R o xburgh (G u y ), C ate B la n c hett (L iz z ie ), F r a nc is O 'C on n o r (J e n n y ), L in d e n W il k in so n (P o ppy ), J ohn G a d en (D r O 'H a r a ), G enevieve M ooy ( M rs J a m ie s o n ), M ichael R oss ( M r J a m ie s o n ).

he romantic myth is exposed for Guy when he is plagued by memories of an old girlfriend on his wedding day.

K erry F ox

THANK GOD HE MET LIZZIE Production company: S t a m e n F ilm s Distribution companies: REP (A u s t r a l ia ); B ecker G roup ( I n t e r n a t io n a l )

S ee

previous issues for details

ON THE FOLLOWING:

K.C.

C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t

Director: C herie NOWLAN Producer: J o n a th a n S h t e in m a n Co-producer: C arol H ughes Scriptwriter: ALEXANDRA L ong Director of photography: KATHRYN MlLLISS Sound recordist: S teph en V a u g h a n Editor: SURESH AYYAR Production designer: CLARRISSA PATTERSON Costume designer: E die K urzer Composer: MARTIN ARMIGER

il l ia m s o n

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

Assistant editor: ALISON WHEELER Laboratory: ATLAB Laboratory liaison: D enise W olfson Film gauge: 3 5 m m Shooting stock: K odak Telecine transfers by: D ig ita l P ictures Off-line facilities: FRAMEWORKS Video special fx: C o n ja

Video to Film:D-FlLM G o v e r n m e n t A g en cy In v e st m e n t

Development: F ilm F in a n c e C o rpo ratio n Production: F ilm F in a n c e C o rporatio n M a r k e t in g

International sales agent: P olygram F ilm s (U K ) Ltd International distributor: POLYGRAM FILMS (UK) Ltd Ca st

N a t h a n C a valeri (Z a c ), E m il ie F r anco is (S a m a n t h a ), J oe P etruzzi (S t e p h e n ), C a r o lin e G illm er (S u s ie ), R achael B lake (A m y ), S a n d y G ore (A n y a ).

Paws

is a fam ily adventure film about a boy, his dog and their computer.

SCREAM Production company: T he F ilm Factory Production:... D ecember 1996. P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: G ary Y oung Producer: T. C. F ields Executive producer: G ary YOUNG

Camera assistant: MICHAEL PlCKELLS 2nd unit D.O.P: ANDREW BlRBARA Key grip: D a m ie n H eckendorf Gaffer: S h a u n C o n w a y Best boy: MOSES FOTOFILI

P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: Liz M ullin a r C a stin g P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production co-ordinator: R uth WATSON Production secretary: N a t a s h a B rockmeler Location manager: B evan C h il d s , R o b in C lifton Unit manager: B ob G r a h a m Production accountant: K ate D r in div ille Insurer: ROLLINS HUDIG H all Completion guarantor: F ilm F in a nc es Ca m e r a C r e w

Focus puller: A d r ian S effrin Clapper-loader: J a s m in e C a r rucan Gaffer: J o n a t h a n H ughes Best boy: DARRYN F ox Electrician: G arth A llen O n- se t Crew

1st assistant director: P. J. VOCTON 2nd assistant director: J ohn M a r tin Continuity: A n d r e w U pton Boom operator: B rent SHEPHERD Make-up assistant: C leac w izzyl M olin eau x Hairdressers: C h ia ra T r ip o d i , T rish G lover Still photography: P h ilip L e M esurier Unit publicist: T racey M air P u b l ic it y , M a r ia Fa r m e r P ublic R elatio ns Catering: C lare P ollard , C a m e r a C ooks

| 1

A rt D epa rtm en t

W a rd ro be

Wardrobe supervisor: J odee L e n a in e S m it h P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

On- se t Crew

1st assistant director: WENDY COHEN 2nd assistant director: SUSAN PRUGOVECKI Continuity: Jo C a r m ic h a e l Boom operator: KYLA WARD Make-up: C a r m e l W a t k in s Hairdresser: CARMEL WATKINS Still photography: B arry C ohen Catering: I rene Fr ee m a n

Props buyer: H eather CROALL Standby props: P h ilip 'S u n d a y ' H o p k in s

Sound editor: A shley K lose Music performed by: M el W a tso n Recording studio: M a x im il l io n S tu d io s Foley: Kate M a t h e w Mixer: T ony Y oung Mixed at: S o uth A u str a l ia n F il m CORPO RATION Titles: P a c h y d er m P r o d u c tio n s Film gauge: 16 m m Shooting stock: KODAK VISION 320T G o v e r n m e n t A g e n c y In v e s t m e n t

Production: S outh A u st r a l ia n FILM COR PORATION

Art department runners: E lizabeth H u g h es , M

elissa

L uke

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

Film gauge: 3 5 m m Screen ratio: 1:1.85 Shooting stock: K odak V is io n 500T Telecine by: D ig ita l P ictures Off-line facilities: F r a m e w o r k s

Ca s t

D r ew P roffit (T o m ), F ra nk R oberts ( M a t t ), Ca r m e l J o h n so n ( M u m ), R ebecca S tockley ( N a t a s h a )

om is on the threshold of sexual maturity, but he has yet to learn that the rules of childhood no longer apply.

Ca st

A n g ie M

illik en ,

SELF SERVE

C hr isto ph er G a b ar d i

generic Queen of the early 19th century is confronted by the dilemma of compassion versus her obligation to rule.

Production Company: S lats M ac & W

MIRABEAU

(FORMERLY ANGKOR)

RED HERRING ROAD TO NHILL TRUE LOVE AND CHAOS

Awaiting Release S ee

previo us issu es for details on the fo ll o w in g :

BLACK ROCK FIRST STRIKE (FORMERLY THE STORY OF C.I.A.)

LUST AND REVENGE A NICE GUY THE QUIET ROOM RIVER STREET UNDER THE LIGHTHOUSE DANCING ZONE 39

Shorts EXILE Production Company: S tin g P rod u c tio n s P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: E m m a F r eeman Producer: WENDY COHEN Scriptwriter: E m m a F reem a n Production designer: B r ia n H oy Costume designer: S t e w a r t Luke Editor: D o m in iq u e F usy Sound recordist: A lan S cott

NOBODY I KNOW Production Company: T ilney C o tto n P ro d u ct io n s

Budget: $54,705.00 Pre-production: 18/11-29/11/96 Production: 9/12-13/12/96 Post-production: 20/12/96 - 29/3/97 P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: A n d r e w P orter Producer: ANDREW PORTER Scriptwriter: ANDREW PORTER Director of photography: H ugh F reytag Production designer: P h ilip 'S u n d a y ' H o p

Pre-production: 10/96 Production: 11/96 Post-production: 12/96 P r in c ip a l C r e d it s

Director: C raig S lattery , J eff M ackay Producer: SARA WILLIAMS Scriptwriters: C raig S lattery , J eff M ackay Director of photography: A n n a H o w ard Sound designers: P a u l S m it h , C o w bo y K ate Sound recordist: R ichard S trang elo ve Ca m era C rew

Camera assistants: MICHAEL SCOTT, JUSTYN F ield P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Edit: VlSUALEYES Kine: DFlLM

kins

Costume designer: JODEE Le n a in e - S m it h Composer: M el W a tso n Editor: A n d r e w PORTER Sound designer: A shley K lose Sound recordist: T od S m a r t

ills

F ilm s

DUST OFF THE WINGS

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

G iles B radbury Studios: M a x S tu d io

Ca st

J o a n n e K ostuik

J ohn W

Ca m e r a C r e w

M a r k e t in g

SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING

THE INNER SANCTUARY

f in is h e r :

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

Budget: $2.25 m il l io n Production: 25/7/96 - 11/9/96

S et

W a rd ro be

Animal trainer: Luke H ura Animal handlers: S ue B l o o m ,

Construction manager: R ob R icketson Scenic artist: F r a nk Falconer Labourers: MATTHEW CûX,

Production manager: M a r ia n n e Ev a n s Production co-ordinator: BRIDGETTE G ow er Production assistant: N icole K o u m a n t a k is

Wardrobe supervisor: T racey R ic h ar d so n Standby wardrobe: N in a P a r so n s Assistant editor: N ick C ole Musical director: M a r t in A rm ig er Laboratory: MOVIELAB Shooting stock: K odak A ustr a lia

A rt Depa rtm en t

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

| |

Sound mixer: PAUL SMITH, D A T STUDIOS Duration: 8 MINUTES Video gauge: P a n a s o n ic D ig it a l V ideo Ca m e r a ;

kine to

35mm

Ca st P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Casting: SA CASTING Shooting schedule by: Leilah S hubert Budgeted by: A n d r e w P orter P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: J ulie B yrne Production assistant: V ictor B azaley Production runner: V ictor B azaley Insurer: W ebster H yde H eath Ca m era C rew

Camera operator: H ugh FREYTAG Focus puller: SCOTT VENNER Clapper-loader: SCOTT VENNER Camera assistant: SCOTT V enner Camera type: A a to n LTR7 Key grip: R ichard H yde Gaffer: R oberto K arras Best boy: R ichard H yde On- set Crew

1st assistant director: Leilah S hubert Continuity: K ate S m it h Make-up: J odee Le n a in e -S m it h Hairdresser: JODEE LENAINE-SMITH Still photography: S a m O ster Catering: EVANGELINE F eary CATERING

R o han M ichael ( N ic k ), W a d ih D o n a (F o rbsey ), D a v id O 'C o nner (S te ve ), H arold J ones ( M a n in S ervo ), C raig S lattery (2 nd R o b b er ), G ep B artlett (C u s t o m e r ).

orbsey convinces Nick and Steve to stage a robbery at the servo w here he works. The in-store security camera would record their defence. Things go terribly wrong when Steve hits an old man and the servo is robbed for real. The video decoy becomes their nemesis.

THUMP Production Company: VCA F ilm & T elevisio n S chool Pre-production: 3/96 - 7/96 Production: 29/7/96 - 6/8/96 Post-production: 8/96 - 10/96 P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: H ayley C loake Producer: VCA S chool o f F ilm & T elevisio n

THE NEW HHB DAT TAPE T H E BEST GETS E V E N BETTER FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 62

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

Supervising producer: A n n T urner Associate producer: H ayley C loake Scriptwriter: H ayley CLOAKE Director of photography: B en MlLWARDB aso n Production designer: VANNESSA CERNE Composer: R obert B urke Editors: H ayley C loake , C in d y C larkson Sound designer: JENNY S0CHACKY Sound recordist: S im o n T revaks P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Script editor: N eil F oley Casting: D in a M a n n , P rototype P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: L ib b y P orter Unit manager: N a r w e e n Otto Ca m era C rew

Camera assistant: TlM FULLARTON Key grip: G ary H allenen Grip: A d r ia n K orteus Assistant grip: A urther MANOUSAKIS Gaffer: C lay B ush Best boy: C hris S a d r in n a Steadicam Operator: I a n M c M illan

PRICK PURGATORY

\ i

\ \

Safety officer: BRETT ANDERSON Still photography: LORRIE GRAHAM Unit publicist: TRACEY M air Unit nurse: T ed G reen Caterer: K eith F ish

TALES FROM AFAR TITSIANA BOOBERINI YOUR MOVE

Television Production [S elected E ntr ies O nly .]

\ S ee

previo u s issu es for details o n :

KANGAROO PALACE SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR'S BABIES THETERRITORIANS 3-4 EVER SPELLBINDER II WHIPPING BOY

A rt D epa rtm en t

Art director: G eo r g in a C a m p b e l l Art department co-ordinator: A d a m M c C ulloch Set dressers: L is a T h o m p s o n , D enis e G oudy Stand-by props: C hris J a m e s Draftsman: J eff T horpe Props buyer: K ate MURRAY Armourer: J ohn F ox Vehicle co-ordinator: SlMON McCuTCHEON W a rd ro be

Costume supervisor: FRANCES H ogan Costume buyer: J e a n n ie C a m e r o n Standby wardrobe: E d m o n d S hea Costumier: ALISON F ow ler P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: B arry La n fr a n c h i Assistant editor: A n g ie C ox Film gauge: 16 m m Underwriter: F .A .C .B . Length: 90 MINUTES

O n - se t C rew

1st assistant director: R obert L uketic 2nd assistant director: V l in n y J ones Continuity: G iu la S andler Boom operator: C hris O 'S hea M ake-up: M ichael M eneg a zzo , T racy N eed h am Hairdresser: S im o n SETTER Still photography: D a v id HARRADINE Catering: C h r is t in e S u m m u t

Tele-Featured

M a r k e t in g

THE LAST OF THE RYANS Production company: C raw ford P ro d u c t io n s

Production office: CRAWFORDS AUSTRALIA Production: 25/11/96 - 3/1/97

A rt D epa rtm en t

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

Art department co-ordinator: P a u l M acek Standby props: A n it a K ing W ardrobe: S im o n S etter

Director: GEORGE O gilvie Producer: RICHARD B r en n a n Executive producers: B ruce G o r d o n , J ohn K earney , K ris N oble Associate producer: J a n n e D ennehy Scriptwriter: G r a em e Far m er Director of photography: J a e m s G r a nt Production designer: P a d dy R eardon Costume designer: C lare G riffin Editor: V icki A m bro se Composer: BRUCE S m ea to n Sound recordist: L loyd C arrick

C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t

Construction manager: J ohn M a lane P o s t - p r o d u c t io n

Post-production supervisor: D a v id P rice Sound transfers by: A d r ie n n e La v in n ia ADR: S im o n T revaks Foley: P a u l H u n t in g f o r d , A n d r e w R yan M ixer: N eil B ell M usic mixer: A n th o n y NORRIS Titles: D a n ie l C rooks Telecine: P eter H e n s h a w , A B C Laboratory: CiNEVEX Laboratory liaison: I a n A n derso n Grader: TlM MORGAN Film gauge: 16 m m Screen ratio: 1:1.85 Shooting stock: K odak 7293 M a r k e t in g

Poster designer: N ick KOSHER Ca st

T a n ia Lacy (N a t a l ie ), J ohn B r u m p to n ( M ic k ), C o lin La n e (D o u g ), P aul L iv in g s t o n ( J o n a t h a n ), N eil F oley (G a r y ), C hris S a d r in n a ( W a r r e n ).

atalie has to w ork late. M ick has some laying to do. Doug can't get the message. The noise is pounding in N atalie's head. Something has got to give ... thump! thump! thump!

S ee

previo u s iss u es for d etails o n :

BOY THE DALE DEVILS EXILE HOUSE TAKEN OVER INDULGENCE LEFT LUGGAGE OTHERZONE

Distribution Guarantee: Ea to n F il m s Ltd (U K ) Finance: COMMERCIAL T elevisio n P ro d u c tio n F und Publicity: P eter RITCHIE Network pre-sale: N in e N etw ork Ca st

R ichard R o x b ur g h , T o m Lo n g , I an M u n e , Z oe B e r tr a m , P a u l S o n k k ila , G erald L e pk o w s k i , M a t t h e w Q ua rt er m a in e , T ony B arry , J ulie H erbert , D ouglas H edge , I an S m it h .

onald Ryan was the last man hanged in Australia. He was executed in 1967 in controversial circumstances. This film explores those circum stances and the personalities involved.

P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Television deried

Script editor: J ohn R eeves Casting director: J a n P ontifex Casting Assistant: C a m e r o n H arris

COSMO KIDS ( 13 x 24 mins )

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production supervisor: CHRIS P age Production manager: YVONNE COLLINS Production co-ordinator: K im T ravis Production secretary: COLETTE BlRRELL Location manager: S teph en B rett Unit manager: ANDY PAPPAS Assistant unit manager: N in o N egrin Production runner: V ictor F u k u s h im a Production accountant: T revor B lainey Ca m era Crew

Focus puller: PETER S to tt Clapper-loader: KlERAN D oolan Key grip: T ony H all Grip: M a r in J o hnso n Gaffer: JlM H u n t Best boy: R obbie HECHENBERGER Gennie Operator: D a v id L ovell On - set C rew

1st assistant director: MONICA PEARCE 2nd assistant director: A n d r e w P ow er 3rd assistant director: L isa F erri Boom operator: M al H ughes Script consultant: J a n n e D ennehy Researcher: J a n n e D ennehy Continuity: K r is t in V o u m ar d Hairdresser: D a v id V a w ser Make-up artist: L eea n ne W hite Make-up assistant: F io n a R eaks Stunts co-ordinator: Z ev E leftheriou

Production company: NOVALIS E n t e r t a in m e n t P/L Distribution company: N in e N etw ork Producer: CARLOS A lperin

riendship when you are 13-years-old is never easy. Especially when you're trying to save your planet and cope with parents who just don't always understand. And when both of you are from different galaxies, you can sometimes seem worlds apart. And for Zenith and Daniel, they are! She is an intergalactic heroine determined to find a solution to her planet's problems. He is a typical Australian boy - more interested in surfing and hanging out than in girls. Together they will save their planets from greed and selfdestruction and in the process discover something even greater - friendship and real adventure!

OCEAN GIRL 4 Production Company: J o n a t h a n M . S hiff D e velo pm en t Ltd Distribution Company: B eyond DISTRIBUTION Budget: $9.1 MILLION

Pre-production: 1 4 /1 0 /9 6 - 2 0 /1 2 /9 6 Production: 3 /1 /9 7 - 3 1 /7 /9 7 Post-production: 3 /1 /9 7 - 3 1 /1 2 /9 7

Production: F il m V ic t o r ia , F il m Q u e e n s land,

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

International distributor: BEYOND

Directors: M ark D e F r ies t , C o lin B u dds Producer: JONATHAN M . SHIFF Line producers: VlCKl PoPPLEWELL, Y v o n n e C ollins Executive producer: JONATHAN M . SHIFF Story editor: K eith A berdein Director of photography: CRAIG B arden Production Designer: GEORGIE G r eenhill Costume Designer: A lban Far ra w ell Editors: R ay D aley , P h ilip W a t t s , A n d r e w S cott Composer: T he M usic D e pa r t m e n t Sound recordist: J o hn W il k in so n P l a n n in g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t

Script editors: MICHAEL JOSHUA, B a r b a r a B isho p Casting: Jo RlPPON - CHAMELEON CASTING Extras casting: INESE VOGLER Budgeted by: Kay B en M ' rad

D is t r ib u t io n

and

T ele I m a g e s , ITI

Ca s t

M a r z e n a G odecki ( N e r i ), D a v id H oflin (J a s o n ), J effrey W

alker

(B r ett ), L iz

B urch (D ia n n e ), A lex P in d er ( W B rooke M

ikey

in s t o n ),

A n d er so n (C a s s ),

La u r e n H ew ett ( M era )

eri discovers an underw ater pyramid, built long ago by voyagers

from her own planet. But when her home planet falls to rebels, Neri engages in a deadly struggle with a rival Princess for control of the mystical pyramid on Earth, which can save humanity or destroy it.

SKIPPY

P r o d u c t io n C r e w

Production manager: A m a n d a CRITTENDEN Production co-ordinator: H elen B o ic o v itis Producer's assistant: A m a n d a T rotter Production secretary: VICTORIA P ope Location manager: VIC - G a v in B eech / ÛLD - K aren J ones Unit manager: A nd y P a ppa s Financial controller: Kay B en M'RAD Production accountant: Kay B en M ' rad Accounts assistant: C arolyn S tevens Insurer: H.W . W ood A u str a lia P ty Ltd Completion guarantor: F.A.C.B. Legal services: M ichael B rereton & Co. Travel co-ordinator: T raveltoo

(A nimation Series, 26 x 24- mins ) Production company: Y o ram G ross F ilm S t u d io s Network presale: N in e Production 1 2/9 6 ... P r in c ip a l C r e d i t s

Director: YORAM GROSS Producer: YORAM GROSS Executive producers: SANDRA GROSS, T im B rooke - H u n t Scriptwriters: J o hn P a l m e r , D a v id W

it t ,

P a u l La c y , S ally O dgers Script editors: Y o ram G ro ss ,

Ca m era C rew

Focus puller: R o dney B olton Camera type: ARRI Gaffers: R ichard R ees - J o n e s , T o m M oody Best boy: A n d r e w M oore

M a lco lm M c G oo kin Animation director: R ichard S lapczynski Production manager: L ea M

ilic

Composer: G uy G ross

On- se t Crew

1st assistant directors: J a m ie Leslie , I an K enny 2nd assistant director: D a m ie n G rant Continuity: P a u l K iely , C a r m e l T orcasio M ake-up: D eborah L ester M ake-up assistant: Liz H arper Stunts co-ordinator: MlTCH D eans Safety officer: E ddy M c S hortall Still photography: S uzy WOOD Unit publicist: A m a n d a T rotter

20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA Production company: V illage R o a d s h o w P ictures

and

F rederick S. P ierce

Director: R od H ardy Executive producers: K eith

and

R ichard

P ierce , J effrey H ayes Screenplay: B r ia n N elson B ased

on the no vel by

A rt D epa rtm en t

J ules V erne

Ca st

Art director: A dele F lere Art department co-ordinator: Kate SAUNDERS Art department runner: A n it a K ing Set dressers: C olin R o b e rts o n , T oni F orsyth Draftsman: GODRiC COLE Props buyers: C o lin R o b e rts o n , T o ni F orsyth Props maker: SHANE A u m ONT Standby props: T im D isney W a rd ro be

Wardrobe supervisor: F rances H ogan Standby wardrobe: G a b riel D u n n - M oore W ardrobe assistant: M ichael D avies C o n s t r u c t io n D e p a r t m e n t

Studios: C r aw fo rds A u str a lia M elbo urne F ilm S tu d io s

FFC

M a r k e t in g

and

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

Post-production co-ordinator: J ayne L uxto n M ixed at: SOUNDFIRM Laboratory: CiNEVEX Post consultant: Ray D aley Film gauge: 16 m m Video special fx: PHENOMENA AT A A V G o v er n m en t A g en c y In v e st m e n t

ichael

Ca in e , P a tr ick D e m p se y , S a r a , B ryan B r o w n .

n 20,000Leagues Underthe Sea, a young scientist, haunted by his overbearing father, sets sail with an Am erican frigate in search of a monster

terrorizing the high seas. But after the ship is attacked, Arronax learns the m enace is in fa ct an astounding m an made vessel called The Nautilus, a ship of untold power guided by the brilliant, enigmatic man who built it - Captain Nemo. S ee

previo us issu es for details o n :

BIG SKY GOOD GUYS, BAD GUYS MURDER CALL RETURN TO JUPITER THE WAYNE MANIFESTO

THE NEW HHB DAT TAPE T H E BEST G ETS E V E N B ET T ER FREECALL 1 8 0 0 675 168 C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

1997 IS N 'T OFF TO A GREAT.START WITJt A HIGH "OF 7 AND A\LOW OF T ? Alaska F

rank

Blush

Bulletproof D

rn est

ic k e r s o n

Children of the R evolution Peter D

uncan

ung

ran

a rtley

Go N ow M

ic h a e l

in t e r b o t t o m

T he Grass H arp C

h a rles

atth au

e w is

il b e r t

■

r a ig

o sen berg

o la n d

I m m

m m e r ic h

I Just W asn’t M ade for These Times D

o n

r ia n

evant

■n

Jude M

ic h a e l

in t e r b o t t o m

Love Serenade Sh

Barrett

ir l e y

M ichael Collins N

e il

o n

Sleepers

e v in s o n

T h e Spitfire Grill L

a v id

lo to ff

Star T rek - First C on tact

J onathan Frakes

W elco m e to the D ollhouse T

od d

lo n d z

Peter M

! 1 1 ■

! 1

5 .8

6 .8

3 .5

3 .6

5 .5

6 .5

3 .2

6 .6

6 .5

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 3 -

1 1 1 1 l 1 1 ggpi 1 1 1 1 1 1 ___ | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i i i i i i ! 1 1 1 1 1

J #*1 1 I 1 1 1

1 1 1

•'; „1 1 1 1___ 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 jjjp'l

1 1 ___ !____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

5 .8

1 1 1

5 .5

5 .2

5 .4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

;

1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

4 .6

i I i

6 .8

i i i

5 .5

i i i ___ i___

6 .8

1 1 6 7 1 J 1 ____1___ ____ !________________ ____!___ a Applied to an image that revives an optical impression with hallucinatory clearness, or to a person having this faculty. 1

nb: E id etic

6.6

o la n d

6.5

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

5.6

1 1 1

Z e ro Kelvin H

1 1 1

urns

B arry L

i 1 i

-■

ow ard

She’s T he One E

1 i i

reen aw ay

R ansom R

1 1 1

erek

T he Pillow B ook Peter G

2 5

! 1 1

4 .5

ordan

1 0 1 D alm ations Steph

1 1 1

i i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6.4

1 1 1

Jingle All T he W ay

6.5

1 1 1

1 ! i

! 1 1 1

m s

Independence Day R

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

H o tel de Love

! i i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

--------------------------------- 1

H au nted L

1 1 1

Flirt H

1 -

Pa rso n s

ic k

1 ------ 1------------------------1 7 1

n h

D ead H ea rt N

1 1 1

Cyclo H

1 1 1

Ud a y a n P rasa d

1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 ----- 1-----1 1 : r -;c 1 -

1 1

o ah o n g

B rothers in T rouble

esto n

yl panel of eightfilm reviewers had rated a delection of the latedt releaded on a dcale of 0 to 10, the latter being the optimum rating (a dadh meand not deen). The criticd are: B arbara Creed (The Age); Sandra H all (The Sydney Morning Herald); P au l H arrid ( “The Green Guide’’, The Age); Stan Janted (The Adelaide Advertiser); A drian M artin (The Age); Tom R yan (The Sunday Age); D avid Stratton (Variety; SB S); and Evan W illiantd (The Australian).

C I N E M A P A P E R S • FEBRUARY 1997

V irtual unreality

availabl e on Q u an t e l He nr y from Zer o 1 Z er o post p r o d u c t i o n ,

design gr aphics and spec ial ef fects. P ho ne (0 2) 9 4 1 7 5 7 0 0 . Fax (0 2) 9 4 1 7 5 8 7 9 .

Zero 1Zero 01

HIE REPROUD

to have been a part of your yesterdays. Of the images you’ve created and the experiences you’ve had. Of the stories you’ve told. And the magic you’ve brought to the theatrical screen. But, like you, we also know there is more to be done. Much more we can accomplish together in a world where there will be fewer boundaries, more opportunities, and higher expectations. And now there is a new family of films on the horizon. Beginning with fast Kodak Vision 5001 and lower contrast Kodak Vision 320T film. These new color negative products take everything Kodak knows about making film and puts it in a golden can. They provide everything you depend on in Kodak films, but with sharpness and grain you’ll find incredible. Kodak Kodak Vision is the new gold standard in motion picture film. Uncompromising quality. Uncompromising consistency. Technology for the future. CAPTURE YOUR VISION. For Further Information Please Telephone 1 8 0 0 3 3 7 9 3 5 (Toll Free)

E A S T M A N ’“ C O L O R N E G A T IV E R L M