TEEN LOVE IN TORGeorge O g i l v i e ’s The

THE COOK, THE THIEFPeter G reen aw ay talks a r t i s t i c

RAY ARGALL'SA new A u s t r a l i a n g e m

REG

ISTE

RED

BY

AU

STR

ALI

A P

OST

PU

BLIC

ATI

ON

NO.

.V

BP 2

121

.

AGFAXT125 &XT320COLOUR NEGATIVE FILMS

A fìE A A g f a

AGFA-GEVAERT LTD. AUSTRALIA, 2 BYFIELD STREET, NORTH RYDE N SW 2 11 3 ,TEL. (02) 888 1444 - FAX (02) 887 1981.

I N C O R P O R A T I N G F I L M V I E W S

M A R C H 1 9 9 0 N U M B E R 7 8

C O V ER : JO H N N Y (R U S S E ll C RO W E) AND M EG

(DANIELLE SPEN CER) IN G EO R G E O G ILV IE 'S

THE CROSSING.

EDITOR Scott Murray

p u b l is h e r Gina Goldsmith

t ec h n ic a l ed it o r Fred Harden

LOS ANGELES CORRESPONDENT

John Baxter

MTV BOARD OF DIRECTORS

John Jost [CHAIRMAN],

Natalie Miller, Gil Appleton,

Ross Dimsey, Patricia Amad

le g a l a d v is e r Nicholas Pullen

d e s ig n Ian Robertson

a d v e r t is in g Gina Goldsmith

s u b s c r ip t io n s Paula Amad

f o u n d in g p u b u s h e r s Peter Beilby, Scott Murray, Philippe Mora

t y p es et t in g Ian Robertson

d is k p r o c e s s in g On The Ball

p r in t in g Photo Offset Productions

d ist r ib u t io n Network Distribution

CINEM A PAPERS IS PUBLISHED WITH

FINAN CIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN

FILM CO M M ISSIO N AND FILM VICTORIA

COPYRIGHT 1989 MTV PUBLISHING UMITED.

Signed articles represent the views of the authors and not necessarily that of the editor and publisher. While every care is taken with manuscripts and materials supplied to the magazine, neither the editor nor the publisher can accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the copyright owners. Cinema Papers is published every two months by MTV Publishing Limited, 43 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia 3067 . Telephone (03) 4 29 55 1 1 . Fax (03) 4 2 7 9255 . Telex A A 30625 . Reference ME ME 230 .

c o n t e n t s

3 BRIEFLY: NEWS AND VIEWS

6 THE CROSSING: Location ReportAndrew L. Urban

10 GEORGE OGILVIE: Directing The CrossingInterview by Andrew L. Urban

16 ASPECTS OF TECHNOLOGY The First 100 YearsDominic Case

20 TIMELINE: 1895-1930Fred Harden

26 RETURN HOME: RAY ARGALLInterview by Scott Murray

34 BANGKOK HILTON andA LONG WAY FROM HOMEIna Bertrand

38 BRITISH DIRECTORS1. Peter GreenawayInterview by Brian McFarlane

44 2. Jack ClaytonNeil Sinyard

48 DIRTY DOZEN

50 FILM REVIEWSThe Delinquents Adrian MartinDo the Right Thing Marcus BreenThe Abyss Jim SchembriThe Fabulous Baker Boys Hunter CordaiyA Sting in the Tale Paul Harris

58 VIDEO RELEASESReviews and NewsPaul Kalina

61 TECHNICALITIESFred Harden

62 BOOKSFrench Author Michel CimentInterviewed by Rolando Caputo

70 PRODUCTION SURVEY

79 CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

c o n t r i b u t o r s

INA BERTRAND is a lecturer in Media Studies at LaTrobe University; MARCUS BREEN is a freelance writer on film; ROLANDO CAPUTO is a lecturer in film at LaTrobe University; DOMINIC CASE works for Colorfilm; HUNTER CORDAIY is a writer, and a lecturer in Mass Media at NSW University; FRED HARDEN is a Melbourne film and television producer specializing in special effects; PAUL HARRIS is a freelance writer on film and contributor to The Age; PAUL KALINA is the video critic for The Sunday Herald, Melbourne; BRIAN McFARLANE is principal lecturer in Literature and Cinema Studies at Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melbourne; ADRIAN MARTIN is a Melbourne freelance writer on film; JIM SCHEMBRI is a film journalist at The Age, Melbourne; NEIL

SINYARD is a English writer on film who has published several books, including one on novels into film; Sydney-based ANDREW L. URBAN writes for several journals on film, including Screen International.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 1

There’s only one thing these films have

in common

Atlab Australia 47 Hotham Parade Artarmon NSW Australia 2064 Telephone: (02) 906 0100 Facsimile: (02) 906 2597

2 C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

epa n rm ef^C I N E M A P A P E R S : P A T R I C I A A MA D

CASE 1 : In 1965, Italian producer Dino de Lauren- tiis decided to make a film star out of Princess Soraya of Iran. He flew her to Rome to star in a compilation film, I tre volti (Three Times), with fictional episodes by Mauro Bolognini and Franco Indovina. He also chose to begin the film with a documentary account of Soraya’s arrival and subsequent grooming for stardom. The docu­mentary section, “II Provino”, was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni and photographed by Carlo di Palma.

Seymour Chatman in his book, Antonioni or the Surface of the World, talks about I tre volti as one of the ‘lost’ films. The negative has been destroyed and the one known print lies under lock and key at the Film School in Rome. What chance, then, any interested viewer seeing it in Australia?

CASE 2: In the early 1970s, Walerian Borowczyk was hailed as one of the world’s greatest anima­tors and feature directors (the best according to Phillip Adams). But after Blanche, his films be­came harder to see and his career ventured to­wards obscurity. Then, in 1984, Borowczyk made Ars Amandi in Rome. With its glorious and obses-

THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL is un­dertaking a review into advertising on televi­sion. The ABT’s research has found that viewer

tolerance of advertising has decreased in the two- year period since advertising time regulations were lifted. The number of commercials on the three networks increased by 8.6 per cent, though the number of programme interruptions re­mained fairly consistent.

As part of the review, the ABT will assess whether the amount of interruptions to feature films and drama has increased. Producers and filmmakers who are upset by such interruptions should make submissions to the ABT by 5 March.

Of particular interest here is the recent court case in Italy where it was ruled illegal under the Berne Copyright Convention to interrupt a film on television with advertisements. The Conven-

MARINA PIERO IN WALERIAN BOROWCYZK'S MASTERPIECE, ARS AMANDI: AVAILABLE ONLY IN AUSTRALIA FROM YOUR LOCAL ITALIAN VIDEO STORE.

sive plays of light, with its rhythmic and inverting patterns of cutting, this is a dazzling tale of love at the time of Ovid. With L Argent and ElSur, it is one of the great films of the 1980s. But how is anyone ever going to see it Australia?

CASE 3: And what of the films based on the novels of the late, great Sicilian author Leonardo Scias- cia. The Melbourne Festival tried to bring in the film based on his penetrating account of the Moro affair, but it never arrived. What hope of seeing it now?

The answer to all above dilemmas is in fact simple: go to your local Italian video store. All the above films are there, along with innumerable other, seemingly-impossible-to-see films. These video stores are a gold mine for Australian cin- ephiles, but how many are aware of it?

Alerted by Rolando Caputo, I ventured out to one in inner-suburban Melbourne and began the search through endless racks of lurid cassette boxes. If there is a sex scene in the film, it is

tion protects an author’s (and filmmaker’s rights) and quite righdy the court ruled that ads inserted into a film destroyed the integrity of that film and, thus, interfered with the maker’s rights. Variety, in covering the story, wrote that legal advice sug­gested the court ruling would hold in any country which is a Berne signatory, such as Australia and the U.S. Hopefully there will be a test case here soon and ads permanently banished from films and drama.

The approach of French national television is the ideal: ads appear only at the end of pro­grammes. The claim that people wouldn’t watch them is false, as it has often been alleged that the ads at the end of the evening news have the highest rating of anything on French television. But then, if one had ads the quality of those in France ... ■

It is with great regret that Cinema Papers announces Patricia Amad’s leaving us for Hoyts Media Sales, where she will handle the Glenn Wheatley account. Patricia had worked at Cinema Papers for eight years, beginning as Office Manager and be­coming the Publisher. She oversaw sev­eral changes of editorship and was instru­mental in seeing the magazine through its financial difficulties of 1983-84. She will be greatly missed. Fortunately, Patri­cia will remain on the Board.

certain to be depicted on the cover (or slick); if there isn’t one, the graphic artist will invent one anyway. So don’t be surprised if some PG-rated European classic has an image on the slick of a half-naked schoolgirl removing her lace stock­ings.

Italian copywriters also seem willing to bend the odd truth. The video slick for a film called Dressage claimed it had been produced by French photographer and filmmaker David Hamilton; the cassette label inside claimed Hamilton was the director; the film itself carried neither his name nor his imprimatur. So, one must be wary, butas the cost is usually $1 to S3 a week, it is really only one’s time and expectations that suffer from false leads.

But back to the successes. The other day was found Georges Franju’s La Faute de l’Abbé Mouret, screened at the Melbourne Festival in the early 1970s and never seen since. It is a ‘lost’ film, but there it was, scratched, dubbed and missing the odd minute. But purists shouldn’t complain when the choice is between seeing a classic film in some form or not at all.

Of course, some may find the whole idea un­tenable because the films are dubbed (usually crudely) into Italian. Don’t despair, study the images instead, the editing patterns, the use of sound - all far more important to the cinema than words. Dubbing does offend, but so do sub-titles: there is a sad irony in sitting in a darkened cinema busily reading words at the bottom of the screen. It is often so consuming a process that what is being told visually can be easily missed.

In Cannes and at other festivals, critics become used to seeing films without sub-titles. One soon realizes how much false importance is placed on words, as if the other senses can’t be trusted as much. An interesting verification of this was the screeningin Cannes in 1981 ofMarco Bellocchio’s Salto nel vuoto with Michel Piccoli and Anouk Aimée as lovers. Watching without sub-titles (it was in Italian), it became obvious within minutes that they were brother and sister in an incestuous relationship. This could be discerned from many visual things, such as the way they touched - there was a tentativeness foreign to normal lovers. How­ever, for an audience trusting only its ears, they sat unaware until all was revealed by dialogue near the end - occasioning loud gasps.

Dubbing in an unknown tongue forces one to trust other instincts, ones dulled by the word- bound American cinema. So, one way of regard­ing a visit to your local Italian store is as a chal­lenge, and also a lesson. Anyway, what is the choice, if one wants to follow the careers of Borowczyk (and all his films have made it via this route), Dino Risi, Claude Chabrol, Francesco Rosi, Luigi Comencini, Luchino Visconti, Elio Petri, Ingmar Bergman, .Antonioni, et. al.? The pleasures are great; the inconveniences small. ■

T E L E V I S I O N A D V E R T I S I N G

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 3

I EMS': D

F E A T U R E SWAITING (90 mins) Zarvvot. Executive pro­ducer: Penny C hapm an. A surrogate m o the r and an assortm ent o f friends converge on an iso lated farm house to await the b irth o f the baby. An irreverent comedy o f e rrors in which m any long-held beliefs are shattered .

T E L E V I S I O NHALF A WORLD AWAY (4 x 50-min m ini­series) Alchem y Films. Executive producers: Ross Dimsey, Penny C hapm an. It is 1934 and, with the grea t D epression reced ing and the era o f aviation p ioneers alm ost over, the greatest air race ever is announced : to fly to Australia, ha lf a world away.A RIVERMAN’S STORY (4 x 60-min m ini­series) Video Images. Execeutive p roducer: Zelda Rosenbaum . Growing up in poverty along the M urray River d u ring the g reat Depression, young Mick Kelsall com es to re-evaluate his life and values, and to take a stand for what he believes.SKY TRACKERS (90-min telefeature) ACTF P ro d u ctio n s. Executive p ro d u c e r: P a tricia Edgar. Two families live at a space installation in the outback. Mystery and high-tech adven­tu re follow.

D O C U M E N T A R I E SIN THE SHADOW OF A GAOL (60 mins) Pacold. P roducer: Ronald Rodger. A study of the un ique social and cultural life tha t is Dar- linghurst.SOLO WOMAN (50 mins) Soundsense. Pro­ducer: Brian M orris. Gaby K ennard, aged 45, becam e the first A ustralian wom an to fly a round the world solo in a single-engine plane. This is h e r story.

THE TOTAL VALUE OF FFC INVESTMENT WAS MORE THAN $9.6 MU T TO N.

r t m m r m t mD O C U M E N T A R I E SWHEN THE WAR CAME TO AUSTRALIA (4X 60 mins) Look Films. Producer: Will Davies. T he largely unknow n story o fjap an ese attacks on the A ustralian coastline as part o f the war in the Pacific. A total o f 97 raids were carried out, including the audacious subm arine attack on Sydney in 1943.ISLANDS IN THE SKY (55 mins) Sky Visuals. P roducer: Gary Steer. M ountain peaks pierce the clouds o f New G uinea - islands in a sea o f mist. D eep in the mossy forests o f these m oun­tains exists a lost world o f ancien t animals. DREYFUS A PORTRAIT (57 mins) C M Film Productions. Producer: M argaret Musca. At 10 years o f age, G eorge Dreyfus and his family fled to Australia from H itle r’s Germany. H e began to study music and was to becom e a leading m u­sician and prolific com poser.

THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE FFC INVESTMENTS FOR JANUARY WAS $ 1 MILLION, PART O FTH E $94 MILLION COMMITTED TO 39 PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR.

LETTER

WH A T B U D G E T ?

The following letter was received from Stephen Wallace, director of Blood Oath:

D E A R E D I T O R :In your article by Andrew L. Urban in the last issue of Cinema Papers, “Scrip ung Blood Oath”, there was a reference to Blood Oath's budget being $10 million. This is news to me. The film I di­rected had a budget of $7 million, which I had to stricdy adhere to. Where did the other figure come from?

YoursStephen Wallace

T H E E D I T O R R E P L I E S :As Stephen Wallace knows from past experience, every Australian interview in Cinema Papers is checked by the interviewee before publicadon. In this case, both Andrew Urban’s lead ardcle and his interview with Denis Whitburn and Brian Williams were checked by them. They did not query the budget figure. As they are joint produc­ers, with Charles Waterstreet, it was only reason­able to conclude that the widely-publicised figure of $10 million is correct.

That $7 million is most likely innacurate is also surely obvious from the fact the FFC invested $6,986,602. As is well known, the FFC, with the excepdon of the Trust Fund, does not invest more than 70 per cent of a budget. The resultant calculation is easy.

The inevitable question is: Why was Wallace told he had to work to only $7 million?

INDUSTRY STAFF CHANGESCATHY ROBINSON has been appointed Chief Execudve of the Australian Film Commission. Robinson had been acdng Chief Executive for the past six months. Originally from Adelaide, Robinson has extensive experience in the film industry, pardcularly in the area of film culture. She had been Director, Cultural Activities at the AFC for more than three years and was formerly Manager of the Media Resource Centre in Ade­laide. The Chairman of the AFC, Phillip Adams, said, “Cathy has been outstanding and the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to make her appointment [as Chief Executive] perma­nent. She will do a splendid job of steering the AFC through the period of change ahead.”

JOHN MORRIS has been appointed Chief Ex­ecudve of the Australian Film Finance Corpora­tion Pty Ltd (FFC), effective late January. Morris was previously a director, producer and Head of Production at Film Australia; a producer, Head of Production and Managing Director of the South Australian Film Corporation; and, most recently, a Director of the New South Wales Film and Tele­vision Office. Morris has also served as a Council member and Deputy Chairman of the Australian Film Television and Radio School, as Chairman of the Australian Education Council’s Enquiry into children’s television and as an inaugural member of the Board of the Australian Chil­dren’s Television Foundation. Morris said: “The industry has been through a difficult period for more than two years and the FFC is central to resolving those diificulties.”

C I N E M A P A P E R SREADERSHIP STUDYCinema Papers recently ran a Readership Study, funded by the Australian Film Commission and compiled by Newspoll. The main, simplified find­ings are:

- 27% of readers are employed in the film in­dustry. In addition, 12% are teachers or lecturers. A further 39% are employed in other white-collar positions. Hence, 78% of readers are white-collar workers.

- Readers are generally young: 67% are aged between 15-34. In Australia, of those over 15, 42% are aged 15-34.

- 59% of readers are male.- In the past 12 months, the average reader has

read 5 of 6 issues, showing a loyal base.- The average reading time per issue is 2 hours.- 66% would like to see the magazine pub­

lished more often.- Readers are relatively heavy viewers of the

ABC and SBS.- Readers prefer mainstream cinema and go at

least once a month; art-house and Australian films are also popular.

- Readers are active consumers of goods and services. In the past year, the proportion of read-ers doing the following is:

Travelling interstate 66Attending film festival 43Bought TV/video 34Travelled overseas 32Obtained loan 21Bought fridge/stove 19Bought computer/fax 17These values are high.- 87% of readers drink wine; 75% beer; and

75% spirits.- Only 22% of readers smoke (amongst film in­

dustry workers the figure was 28%).The results on contents basically mean readers

would like more of everything. However, one doubts there is much support for an even smaller type size. ■

A U S T R A L I A N F E S T I V A L I N P A R I S 1 9 9 1

The Australian Film Commission, in con­junction with the Pompidou Centre in Paris, will be mounting its most ambi­tious cultural programme to date with a two-month-long programme of Austra­lian films to be seen at the Centre in 1991. The programme will encompass a com­prehensive selection of films, from archi­val material to contemporary features and documentaries.

The Cinema Section of the Pompi­dou Centre has achieved international acclaim for its presentation of various national programmes over the past years. Given that the French public has had few opportunities to appreciate a diverse range of Australian films, this prestigious event should radically alter the percep­tion of Australian Cinema, not only in France but all over Europe.

4 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

ENCORE MAGAZINE

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 5

î ‘À '5 S î ï ï ' ,-> îâ ‘iWmÊÊÊÊËm,'fíi> Ts--V?

ffls É mM iH M

BSttB

WSÊÊÊm

w g g a

T HE CROSSING is a universal story, told within the perspective of a single Anzac Day, at a time when the 1960s revolution was but a stir in San Francisco and Carnaby Street, and not even contem­

plated in Sam’s home town.After some years of doing the rounds, Ranald Allan’s script was

picked up by producer Sue Seeary and offered to the Beyond International Group, which had been reading dozens of scripts in search of its first feature film. (Beyond had grown to prominence worldwide, first as producers of the television show Beyond 2000, and later of an expanded programme catalogue.)

Beyond’s head of film production and development, A1 Clark, chose to go with the project, though some re-writing was commis­sioned. Clark, as executive producer with Beyond’s managing direc­tor, Phil Gerlach, spent fifty per cent of his time on location with an enthusiasm only equalled by Gerlach, who is convinced The Crossing deserves to be in Competition at Cannes this year. They have reason: in director George Ogilvie, they have a guiding force that actors universally admire.

Ogilvie stays very close to the actors, coaxes and guides them privately, never shouts, never gets angry: his sensitivity builds trust, the trust builds confidence, the confidence generates effort and energy.

In the lead roles, the three young actors have very little track record, no instantly recognizable name, and no formal training from any major acting school. Yet, there is a buzz.

Adelaide-born Robert Mammone had been in Sydney for five years, where his most satisfying work was with Not Another Theatre Company. Says Mammone:

George gives you everything; that’s the beauty of it. But it’s a bit of a worry sometimes: you want to come up with something yourself, and he says it before you can. He’s steps ahead. He sees it all.

Mammone, with the classic dark looks that could earn him a place in Hollywood’s brat pack, speaks quietly but directly:

The most important thing George has said is that this character, Sam, comes from the heart. He loves. When most people are confronted by things, they block them; but he absorbs them and loves.

But what about Sam’s leaving the town? Why did he just up and go? Mammone replies:

We never actually setded on why he originally left. If we had, it would have taken away from it. So, there were different possibilities... Often in life you find yourself doing things without knowing why. He just had to go. His perception of what he wanted from life was so different to everyone else’s, he would have hated everybody if he stayed.

Playing Johnny, the childhood friend, Russell Crowe had just come from a smaller role in Blood Oath. He was anxious to work with Ogilvie. Asked what it’s like, now that he is, he grins and breaks into the verse of an old pop tune: “Heaven ... I ’m in heaven ...” (from “Dancing Cheek to Cheek”). The answer is indicative of Crowe’s other great love, music: he began professional life as a musician and songwriter: “I used songwriting to help prepare ideas about the character, to help set it down.”

Naturally mischievous and very alert, Crowe hangs on every word Ogilvie tells him:

FACING PAGE: DIRECTOR GEORGE OGILVIE AND ACTOR ROBERT MAMMONE,

DURING FILMING IN JUNEE. THIS PAGE, BELOW LEFT: SAM, THE BOY WHO RETURNS

TO HIS COUNTRY TOWN.

BELOW: JOHNNY, THE MUTUAL FRIEND OF MEG AND SAM WHO CROSSES

THE LINE AND FALLS IN LOVE WITH MEG. THE CROSSING.

He said something very interesting to me at the beginning. He wanted us all to read some poetry because it distils things. That’s what he wanted from us as performers. And you get essence through suffering. It just hit me when he said it.

Danielle Spencer, who plays Meg, is equally in awe of Ogilvie’s abilities:

He’s a genius ... He has the knack of pushing you to actually feel things, so, when you’re on camera, he talks about seeing it in your eyes. He actually brings the emotions out of you. It makes it easier to get you where you’re supposed to be.

Spencer, who trained as a dancer, is excited by the medium, having experienced some television, (“where you don’t get a chance to actually feel things”) and wants to continue:

I’m probably not the right ‘type’ for this role; I’m really a city girl, and very much of the ’80s. So yes, I have to act.

I’m not as innocent as Meg: can’t be, in this day and age ... And I’ve travelled a bit with my parents when I was younger, so I guess I’m more worldly. Meg is from a decent family, well brought up, with strict morals, yet very natural and down to earth. She is strong willed, with a foul temper if pushed. She is independent, and doesn’t need a peer group.

She was a little shocked at Johnny’s first approach, because they had been close friends. But it grew slowly and naturally - he’s a really lovely person.

The film was shot mostly in Junee and environs last November- December. The townspeople were most helpful and generous: the money spent locally was very welcome, and there was a genuine interest in the process. Nobody complained, even when the town was effectively shut down for the Anzac Day march, with 350 extras in 33- degree heat standing around until take 6.

O f particular interest to the people ofjunee was the way the crew manipulated time - both the micro-time of Anzac Day, and macro time of the era. Production designer Igor Nay, and costume designer Katie Pye, recreated a subtle blend of 1940s, ’50s and early ’60s, which is often seamless with the town’s reality. Says Nay:

We are saying the film’s set in the mid 1960s, but it’s an Australian country town, and a lot of the fashions and styles are still of the ’50s. Some of the cars are even from the ’40s. They haven’t rushed out to buy the latest models; country people tend to hang on to their cars a bit

But there is another reason: “It’s a style thing; there’s more of an austerity about the earlier eras”, says Nay. American painter Edward Hopper was a reference point, his expressionist style echoed in the uncluttered approach:

I wanted to give the town an attitude, which gave the characters strength. So the design’s strong but simple. I basically covered up all the advertis­ing hoardings, and made it plain and unspecific in place.

longer.Street signs were cut down, and the local hotels

used variously for interiors and exteriors. The Hollywood Cafe was refurbished, with black-and- white Hollywood pin-ups on the wall above the tables, and an aged look of the 1950s drifting into the ’60s.

Capturing it all on film (Kodak 5247 for exteri­ors, 5296 for interiors) was Jeff Darling, a laconic, inventive and respected professional who shot Ogilvie’s The Place at the Coast and Yahoo Serious’ Young Einstein. He is using black and white and colour prints mixed in varying percentages, echo­ing the time span of the film: “As it all takes place in 24 hours, we begin before dawn when it’s all dark ... black ... and of course it ends at night.”

Controlling the colour saturation will create a subtle visual effect. A similar process was used in Sophie’s Choice, for the Auschwitz sequences, but for different reasons and with different results.

The various elements are intended to come together, along with a good deal of music (directed by Martin Armiger), as an intense and emotional film, both satisfying and achingly real. ■

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 9

I N T E R V I E W B Y A N D R E W L . U R B A N

George O gilvie, one o f A u stra lia ’s

m ost regarded theatre directors, has m ade a

highly successful transition to film , fir s t on the

television m ini-series The D ismissal, then as co-director

on M ad M a x B eyond Thunderdome and,

perhaps m ost notably, as director o f The Shiralee.

The fea tures, Short Changed and T he P lace

a t the Coast, fo llow ed and Ogilm e is now

in postproduction on The Crossing.

an you remember the first time that a film made an impact on you?

It was a horror film, The Spiral Staircase [Robert Siodmak, 1946], with Dorothy McGuire as the innocent girl and George Brent as the murderer. The mom ent you asked that

question, I had an immediate recall of the girl’s rattling sticks along a pavement to make a noise because she was so scared. I will never forget it as long as I live.

How old were you?

Seven or eight. I remember because I had nightmares for a long time afterwards. I also never went to the cinema again without knowing thatjust being there could affect my life. It is a very powerful memory.

When I first went to London, where the film is set, it was a very bad winter. There was a lot of mist and fog around and as I walked past some English railings I vividly recalled that scene. That m om ent still affects me very much today. If I am alone at night, in a misty street, the mood and the image return to me.

What was the next thing that affected you about the p e r fo rm in g arts?

The “professional first” was as a performer. When ! was a small boy, I was at a school where the teachers were very drama and music conscious. I learnt the piano and was a boy soprano. Then I was discovered by the local repertory society and I began to play juvenile roles in their productions. From then on there was no question: I was going to be an actor. And I was for some ten years before I began directing.

Was this in London?

Yes. At that time, there was little theatre happening in Australia. There was no Melbourne Theatre Company or Sydney Theatre Company. One had to go to England to leant.

When I did return to Australia in 1955,1 became am em ber of the first Elizabethan Theatre Trust Drama Company soon after that.

From acting, you progressed very successfully to stage directing. What triggered the move?

While I was working in Melbourne as an actor, Wal Cherry, a director who is now dead, asked me whether I wanted to direct a play. I said no and that I was perfectly happy as an actor. But he persisted, so I chose the most difficult play I could think of to show him that I was no good at it; it happened to be Lorca’s Blood Wedding.

10 > C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

ABOVE: GEORGE OGILVIE. FACING PAGE: MEG AND SAM,

TROUBLED BY A LOVE RE-KINDLED IN THE CROSSING.

That experience absolutely capsized me, I couldn’t believe how much I enjoyed it, because I wrote the music, got the thing going and even choreographed the dances. I suppose to some degree my musical education helped, plus I had always been interested in dancing ... though never as a professional dancer, mind you.

All this I think had something to do with my parents being very broad Scots people from the north of Scotland. I had a very Scottish background: my brothers played the pipes, and three times a week at least the house would be filled with 40 people singing and dancing. That had a big effect, as you can imagine.

You then moved from stage to film.

I had always been a tremendous movie fan and, in fact, I preferred going to the cinema than the theatre. I have always found going to see plays I hadn’t produced or directed a very painful experience. I am much more nervous than the actors, always terrified the thing is going to fall apart. Butfilm I love:just to be able to go into a darkened cinema and fantasize.

It was George Miller who then approached you to workshop the actors on The Dismissal. H e also asked you to direct an episode, which must have been quite different experience to working in theatre.

Actually, it took me quite a while to give in to George’s constant request for me to direct an episode. As I’ve said, I love movies, but I had never thought about how they were made. So I asked George, “Can you possibly be on the set with me and tell me where I go wrong?”, to which he very generously said he would. To have such a generous m entor is amazing; he was constantly willing to show, to teach, to provide.

I knew also I was working with a fine group of directors and tech­nicians who, if I had a question, would answer it; I had a director of photography in Dean Semler of whom I could ask, “What do I do here?”

So, life was filled with questions and answers as I went along - it had to be, considering my first day as a director was with the entire Australian Senate!

Did you find a repeat o f that scenario when Miller then suggested you to work on the feature, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?

George said to me, ‘You will co-direct this film with me.” I said, “No.” But he finally convinced me.

Did Miller say what he sought from you?

That’s an interesting question; but I don’t think I have an answer to it. It never came to that, to summaries and conclusions.

Presumably one aspect was your experience with and understanding o f actors. Can you explain your approach in drawing performances from actors?

It seems to me that the essential quality required by an actor is the ability to be spontaneous. It is a very difficult skill in terms of art. We are all spontaneous as we go moment to moment in life, but when you are on a set, and you’ve had to wait 12 hours to be spontaneous about a scene that you’ve gone over and over again in rehearsal, it is a very difficult thing to achieve. It seems to me that everything I do in terms of workshopping is based on how to become empty and, therefore, ready to be filled up - the preparation in other words. I can’t teach actors to act; that’s impossible. I can only help them to prepare to be what they have to be.

Is there a technique an actor can learn to use on an on-going basis?

Yes, indeed. It is a form of meditation. That is a very broad word, but I think it’s the right one. In other words, it is preparation which involves trust, wherebyyou drive away all fear. After all, it is fear which produces those tensions.

I recall a workshop I did with some directors a few years ago and one of my first questions was, “Who is scared of actors?” There was a forest of arms. That showed a problem in the area of communication between an actor and director; and if there’s no trust, there will always be a barrier.

THE C R O S S I N G

You are now directing a film which is totally different from your television work. How would you summarize the story?

It is a story about loving, where the loving is an essential need rather than a game being played; where, in order to go on living, loving is needed.

The author [Ranald Allan] has put the loving into young people, 19 year olds, and he takes that sense of loving very seriously. The author says that it’s possible for three 19 year olds to love and to know that loving can then end in total disaster, unless it’s fulfilled. It’s not something that can be passed over or got used to; adolescent love is a traumatic experience which can last a lifetime.

So, in that respect, it is a serious film.

RIGHT: JOHNNY HAS A CONVERSATION

WITH NEV (PATRICK WARD), MEG'S FATHER. FACING PAGE: MEG AND HER MOTHER,

PEG (MAY LLOYD). THE CROSSING.

To what extent is passion and that energy specific to Australian kids, or is it a universal theme?

I think you have already answered it: it is much closer to a universal idea. But all the actors are Australian and the sentiments and attitudes are Australian.

At the same time, it is a very ‘vocal’ film and not many Australians talk. They generally keep their problems to themselves. In Paris, you see all of life being discussed in the local cafes, but not here. It is a bit of a British overhang, I suspect.

The film is set in the 1960s: is there a specific reason for that?

day, but every moment of that day is a critical moment in the life of somebody in that town. Being Anzac Day, it is highly explosive. Everything is filled with memories and the thoughts of those who have passed away. It’s also filled with the thoughts of young people looking towards the future and wondering if their future is what they see in their parents.

Simply to be able to concentrate on what we are doing and not be interfered with by influences from outside, such as television. The town has a certain isolation and when Sam [Robert Mammone] comes back after 18 months away, he finds things have not changed.

Do you think it will be an important film in that it gives a deeper view of the human condition?

Yes. I must answer this very simply, because it is very simple. I find the relationship that the young people have with their parents in this film is very true, and, when you are dealing with four families, you have quite a span of attitudes and reactions. People on the whole are terrified of change, because it’s mysterious, unnerving, unsettling - it’s better not to have it. Therefore, what the author is saying is that where love is needed to that degree, it can, if society presses a point, become compromised and end in tragedy. It’s a highly emotional film.

Was that the reason for setting it on Anzac Day?

Oh, very much so. The whole idea of ritual is a wonderfully filmic thing. The author loves ritual, and so do I.

The dawn service is a serious point in the day. I know what it means. Every time I have gone to such a service on Anzac Day - my father used to dragged me there when I was young - I was over­whelmed by the emotion. When you look at it, it is one of the few rituals this country has left.

Is that what attracted you to it?

Yes, and because it has to do with families. I am unmarried myself, but I have brothers and sisters who are all married. I have come from a large and warm family, one that supported me in everything I did. Therefore, the idea of family has always been very impor­tant to me.

Do you miss having a family?

Not in the slightest, because my bro ther’s family is my family. I feel sometimes a little like J. D. Salinger, who said that he couldn’t give up the window seat. I t’s that. My life has been with actors from the word go and I have never wanted another life.

Do you think that the film will have an impact on, or offer something to, those parents and adolescents who are at that moment in their lives?

I hope so. But I don’t think about such things; I’m just making a film. But it’s a film I believe in. It does suggest to parents that if a child is in love, then that child should be taken very seriously.

How do you turn these emotional subjects into images?

The film is filled with crises, not unlike in Chekhov. It spans just one

Is there anything special that you do in terms o f the way the film looks or in the way you are shooting it?

I’m not doing anything with the camera; Jeff Darling is doing that. As much as Jeff and I planned the film together, I couldn’t do it any

other way. I truly believe that a film belongs to the director and the director of photography. Je ff s equal understanding of the film pro­duces what we do.

So, we have a film which is filled with studies of people and faces: faces seeking, faces needing, faces wondering. It’s a film filled with those questions.

It seems destined to be what people somewhat glibly describe as an actors’ film.

Ah yes, it’s certainly that.

You have chosen three as-yet-unknown leads. Has working with them been a challenge?

Yes, for all of us. I love working with the three young people, but I also love working with the actors who play their parents. They too are fine actors, who, in five words, can do what I want.

You have two streams o f actons: the experienced and the novice?

That’s right, and to have them both is wonderful because one supports the other. It’s great to see the young people working with

"WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT AS HUMAN BEINGS

LOVE IS THE 'STRONGEST - AND ALSO THE MOST

ENNOBLING, IF YOU LIKE - THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN

LIFE. TO REACH THE HEIGHT OF THAT SENSE OF LOVE

IS A FANTASTIC ACHIEVEMENT."

12 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

the parents and to see them get so much from the experienced actors, to see Johnny [Russell Crowe] work in the scene with his m other [Daphne Gray] and to see in his face that sense of adoration for what that actress, is doing. T hat’s great.

What qualities were you looking for amongst the hundreds o f young actors that you saw?

Well, taking Meg [Danielle Spencer] to begin with: I was looking for someone who was a secret person, who was difficult to read, difficult to know what she thought or felt. There had to be a sort of depth within her, like a deep running feeling. She is a girl who on the surface seems fine, no problems at all, but with a disturbance below. She has been living with this fantastic need for a particular love that she has. She needed to be able to hide that.

Did you focus on a particular person or actress that you knew as a model?

film has to be a personal experience, even more than theatre, where you can put on the mask a little. In film, that’s very difficult.

I think the director’s attitude comes through all the time in film. That is why, I suppose, Renoir would have to be my most beloved filmmaker. I love what he does, because I love the man that comes through. That I find very strong: his humanity, his love of and joy in people; the fact that there is never a villain in any film he made.

Does the idea o f directing a film which you regard as important create any special needs? Is there special disciplines that you feel you have to impose on yourself?

That is a very good question. Once again, it is like meditation. Having decided it’s an im portant film, you throw that away. If I keep thinking of that while I was making it, the experience would be deadly. You have to throw all that importance away and just enjoy each day as it comes.

No, I must admit I d idn’t.The two boys are totally different, one from the other. In a sense,

I suppose I investigated my own life and wondered what part of me was Johnny and what part was Sam [Robert M ammone].

Johnny has a physical approach to life, although that is a fairly mundane way to say it. He has an explosive thing in him, that at times has to be released physically. At the same time, he had to be played by somebody with a very gende nature. There is that duality.

As for the other boy, Sam, the best word I have is “quiet”. He has a stillness inside and is somebody who has a long way to go, and knows where that is. But he is also somebody who loved this girl and discovered, to his surprise, that he could love no one else.

Is there an emotional direction in which you to move the audience?

And, o f course, there is the craft side, the day-to-day work. You seem a very controlled person in the sense that you know what you want.

Oh, it’s all worked out, yes, but it’s worked out so that when I walk on to the set I can change the whole thing. I believe in spontaneity, but that only comes about with great preparation - the same for actors. Do your homework, do it really well, and then throw it away. You will find that which works.

Do you always think that the film you are doing now is the most important one for you?

Oh, yes. It really is like getting on a ship and there’s no land in sight until you finish the bloody thing. Nothing else exists. I mean, I get a phone call from Sydney and it wrenches me. I can’t lift my head until we finish shooting. So you say to people, “Don’t ring m e.”

Absolutely. That obviously comes from my theatre background as _ . . _ . . . , .„ ' , , , . . . , . r . . Does this sort o f interview intrude?well: you don t direct a play without thinking about that part of it. AYes.

So, you are really immersed in the story and the emotions.

I have to be. I was up early this morning, on my day off, going through what was shot and chang­ing this and that. It never stops; it can’t stop. I go through as much as the actors go through; you have to. You go through such turbulent times when you question yourself and your own expe­rience when you are an adolescent. You have that constandy on hand. When they cry, I have to cry as well; if I don’t, then I ’m not involved in the right way. I would be just looking for an effect. I have to trust my actors to know that if they have the right feeling then the effect will be there.

It is a 40-day shoot. Do you find that draining?

It’s really exhausting and you need a good sleep. Every day is exhausting.

I believe that there is enough energy in a hum an being to allow that to happen as long as in the evening you can release it and let it go. But I don’t mean by that that I need distraction. That’s not necessary, but meditation is. It is something I believe in and do a lot.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 13

Love stories have been told on screen a million times, yet they always fascinate. Why do you think that is?

We truly believe that as hum an beings love is the ‘strongest’ - and also the most ennobling, if you like - thing that can happen in life. To reach the height of that sense of love is a fantastic achievement. Those who appreciate it are very close to the mythology of Tristan and Isolde and others; that’s where it stems from.

Is that because when we are occasionally fortunate enough to enjoy love, we do understand its powers?

We achieve a sense of knowledge.

Have you experienced this sort o f passionate love?

Yes.

And do you recall it with pain or with pleasure?

Both. It’s an almost insane time in life, where nothing else exists and you ricochet around hitting your head against walls; you’re not quite sure what direction you are going. It’s very painful at the time but, in retrospect, it’s a very wonderful thing. You realize that you have experienced some tidal wave of feeling, and you are very grateful for having had that experience.

How much o f the craft intrudes into the art?

I don’t know, really I don ’t. Every day of this film is the most extraordinary mixture of that.

So you can just concentrate on what you do best?

Exactly. I don’t subscribe to the auteur theory because I truly believe that a film cannot possibly be the work of one man. That’s preten­tious nonsense.

How important do you think film is socially to Australia?

Fantastically, unbelievably important. That’s why I am keeping on with it. It’s the very devil to do, but somehow or other ...

Mind you, I believe in both film and theatre; I can’t separate them. Take the play I have just done, Shirley Valentine, with Julie

LEFT: SAM COMES BACK TO TOWN ON ANZAC DAY.

WITH NEV, POP (LES FOXCROFT) AND SID (GEORGE WHALEY).

BELOW: SAM MEETS THE "OLD GANG" IN THE TOWN'S CAFE.

THE CROSSING.

Hamilton. It has been touring over Australia for the past 12 months, and Julie has received incredible mail from people everywhere. Some have been to see it five times and written to her, ‘T his has changed my life.”

So, if you really believe in the work you are doing, and the work is great enough, then itwill change people’s lives. And that’s the most extraordinary - the ultimate - experience.

Do you strive for that in this film?

No, I can’t. I can only make the film. I have absolutely no idea what the result is. If I thought about that, I would run away. I ’m just making a movie, working day by day. We have Scene 37 to do tomorrow, and so on. That’s all you can do; you have to throw away everything else. Obviously, you have time to think and consider and look: that’s when it becomes technical. You have to distance yourself and ask, “My God, what did I do with the film today? Is there anything there that has connection with what I did yesterday and will do tomorrow?” That is a very draining thing that happens at the end of each day. I t’s very im portant to say to Henry Dangar [editor], “What you saw today, is it still to do with the film? Does it seem connected?” Then it becomes a wonderful technical exercise and you can let your emotions drain away: that’s when you separate yourself from the work.

G E O R G E O G I L V I E

T H E A T R E

1953 Went to England and began acting in repertory theatre1955 Returned to Australia; joined Elizabethan Theatre Trust Company

(under Hugh Hunt)1957 Joined Union Theatre Repertory (under Wal Cherry)1958 Began directing at UTR1960 Left for Europe. Studied mime in Paris with Jacques le Coq1960-62 Formed “Les Comediens-Mimes de Paris” with others; made series

of television programmes in Switzerland; invited to make programme for BBC

1963 Created with Julie Chagrin mime programme for Edinburgh Festival; later had five-month run in London West End

1963-65 Taught at Central School of Drama, London1965 Returned to Australia and became associate director of the newly-

formed Melbourne Theatre Company (under director John Sumner)1965-71 Produced 23 plays at MTC, winning three Melbourne Critics’

Awards for Best Director of the Year1972 Appointed artistic director of the newly-constituted South Australian

Theatre Company1976 Left SATC to work as freelance director. Credits include: II Seraglio,

Falstaff, Lucrezia Borgia, Don Giovanni (Australian Opera), the latter two with Joan Sutherland; The Cakeman (Bondi Pavillion); Dusa, Fish, Stas and Vi (MTC); Widowers’ Houses (Old Tote); The Kingfisher (Mal­colm Cooke Productions)

1979 Coppelia (Australian Ballet), with Peggy van Praagh; No Names ... No Pack Drill (Sydney Theatre Company)

1981 Otello (AO), with Sutherland; The Hunchback of Notre Dame (AB)1982 You Can’t Take it with You (STC); revived Lucrezia Borgia and Falstaff

(AO); Death of a Salesman (Nimrod)1983 Re-directed Don Giovanni (AO)1984 Re-directed Coppelia (AB);1987 Pericles (STC); revived Don Giovanni (AO)1988 Shirley Valentine (STC and touring)

F I L M A N D T E L E V I S I O N1982 The Dismissal (mini-series) - director episode 31984 Bodyline (mini-series) - director episodes 3, 5, 61985 Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (feature) - co-director with

George Miller1986 Short Changed (feature) - director1986 The Place at the Coast (feature) - director1987 The Shiralee (mini-series) - director1987 Touch the Sun (series) - director “Princess Kate” episode1988 Willesee’s Australians (series) - director “Soldier Settlers” episode1990 The Crossing (feature) - director

14 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

Art & Technology of Make »Upincorporating Three Arts make-up Centre Pty Ltd • Film • Television • Theatre

One or two year full time courses in Theatrical Arts

Y e a r O ne:All aspects o f make-up Art class/design layout presentation Scupture class/special effects Theatrical hair styling Y e a r T w o:Prosthesis work/special effects Theatrical hair styling (advanced) Basic wig knotting

S p e c ia l co u rse s a lso a va ila b le T h e a tr ic a l A rts S h o p :• Make-up • Body Washes • Masks• Material for Mask Making and Sculpture • Professional Make-up Brushes • New Dawn Range of Cosmetics

For fu rth e r in form ation w rite or telephone D aw n Sw ane RAD A, ASM A, P rincipal and F ounder

Three Arts Make-Up Centre Pty Ltd (Est. 1966)

Cnr. Shepherd & Myrtle Streets, Chippendale, NSW 2 0 0 8

Telephone (02) 6 9 8 1 0 7 0

We are registered with the D epartm ent o f Employment, Education and Training, to offer fu ll fe e educational services to overseas students in the following course: Two Year Theatrical Arts Certificate (Stages I and II, 1 2 months each)

Congratulations to all our p a st and present students who are continuing with excel­lence the high standard in Make-up and Special Efects fo r our Film, Television, Theatre, High Fashion and Art!Sculpture, plus other related areas o f employment fo r make-up artists.

Courses fo r 1 9 9 0• Theatrical ArtsFull Time Course Stage I and II Film / TV / Theatre / Opera / Ballet / Special Effects Make-up 10.00 am — 4.00 pm

• Theatrical Arts Part Time Course One evening per week Stage I part one, first year Stage II part two, second year

• Scupltur el Special EffectsOne night per week, designed for professional / creative / revision/ expanding existing knowledge

• H oliday H obby CourseFor schools, amateur theatre or people thinking of a career in make-up

• Lecture DemonstrationAll aspects of make-up, for schools, amateur theatre and interested groups.

PRIVATE APPOINTMENT ONLY: Facial prosthetic and skin camouflage; Rem edial Techniques.DIRECT LIKENESS: H ead sculptures created in bronze, resin and plaster.

MOTION PICTURE GUARANTORS LTD.

Motion Pictures Guarantors are an international company providing completion bonds for more than 300 motion pictures and television series in North America, Europe,Australia and New Zealand, with budgets in excess of 350 million dollars. M.P.G.’s Australasian operations have bonded 25 motion pictures with budgets of over 45 million dollars.

Melbourne: 75 - 83 High Street Prahran Victoria 3181 Telephone (03) 529 8852 Facsimile (03) 51 6449

Toronto: 14 Birch Avenue Toronto Canada M4V1C9 Telephone (416) 968 0577 Facsimile (416) 960 0474

M.P.G.’S INTEREST IS ALWAYS TO MAKE THE DEAL WORK

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 15

Aspects of TechnologyIN THE FIRST 100 YEARS OF A U ST R A LIA N FILM

DOMI NI C CASE

The following article

is a revised version of

a paper Dominic Case of

Colorfilm presented for the

31st SMJPTE conference in

Los Angeles in late

October 1989.

To some Australian

readers, parts of this

history may be familiar.

But it is a story so often

ignored that it needs

constantly to be

re-researched

and re-told.

ABOVE: STILL FROM

"SOLDIERS OF THE CROSS" (1900);

AND, FRAME ENLARGEMENT FROM

THE TRUE STORY OF THE

KELLY GANG (1906).

LUMIERE FOOTAGE OF

MELBOURNE, C. 1896.

FILMING UNDER

THE AUSTRALIAN SUN.

N 1932, a young camera assistant was on his first newsreel as­signment with cameraman Frank Hurley, the Antarctic explorer and Cinesound’s chief cinematographer. The story they were covering was an ice-hockey game in Canberra. They set up the camera. There was no exposure meter; no one in Australia had seen one in those days. Hurley told his assistant, “Never mind the camera, just fix your eyes on the lake. D on’t look away for a second.”

The assistant stared steadily for about three minutes while Hurley fiddled with the camera. Then Hurley came back and said,“N ow -look straight at me, boy -in to my eyes. O kay... it looks like about f /8 !”

The assistant was John Kingsford Smith; he would be a leading player in the Australian film industry through many of its leanest years before the so-called revival of the 1970s.

But, despite the lean years, filmmaking in Australia has a history as long and rich as any in the world.

Motion picture film was first exposed in Australia as early as 1895. The story goes that Walter Barnett, a photographer from Sydney, was returning by ship from a trip to London. In Bombay he met Maurice Sestier. Sestier was in Bombay for the Lumière company of Paris, and, unable to test and process his film, had reports back from Paris that his film so far was quite useless. One account has him being reprim anded by the Lumière brothers. Barnett saw his chance, and shipped Sestier, his camera and raw stock back to Sydney.

On the 28 September, they opened their Salon Lumière showing the same programme that had been shown at the Grand Café in Paris ten months before. In late September or early October, they spent a day shooting scenes around Sydney Harbour. Back at Barnett’s studios, they unspooled 60 feet of film and tried to dunk it into a tray of developer. Whatever the pair were like as cameramen, they weren’t much good in the darkroom. Most of the film never got near the developer, and it was all ruined.

Arthur Peters, the darkroom supervisor, went home and thought the problem through, and spent the night building a wooden drum big enough to take a full roll of 35mm film. It worked, and so the first truly indigenous part of Australia’s film industry - the laboratory business - was born.

Although we have their titles, those first scenes of Sydney are lost, but the National Film and Sound Archive does have some of Barnett and Sestier’s film shot the following year, 1896, of the Melbourne Cup. Most of the film shows the crowd and glimpses of Barnett himself arranging celebrities for the camera - the race itself was too fast for the slow stock to capture.

Four years later, in 1900, came a multi-media event, at Melbourne Town Hall. It was entitled “Soldiers of the Cross”, produced by the Salvation Army under Herbert Booth - son of the founder of the Salvation Army - and shot byjoseph Perry.Its spectacular story of the early Christian martyrs used more than 200 lantern slides, sound effects, music and 13 rolls of 35mm motion-picture film, all mixed together, and ran more than two-and-a-half hours.

Much of this work was quite original, and pre-dates similar techniques in Europe and the U.S. by several years. Unfortunately,H erbert Booth left Australia the following year, taking the film with him, and it is now totally lost.

Filmmaking boomed in Australia faster than almost anywhere else. By 1905, feature

16 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

IMAGE FROM RAYMOND

LONGFORD'S THE SENTIMENTAL

BLOKE (1919).

TWO STRIPS FROM DE FOREST

PHONOFILMS' I'M IN LOVE AGAIN

(1926), WITH BROOKS JOHN AND

GOODIE MONTGOMERY.

films of 3 or more reels in length were being produced.In 1906, the five Tait Brothers made a six-reeler, The Story of the Kelly Gang. It was screened with hand colour­ing, sound effects and a narrator. Only part of one reel of the film survives today, but the story itself was to be reshot at least six more times over the years,

The big bright skies and long summers in Australia made photography on slow filmstocks easy and most of the companies boomed. Most photography was out­doors, and interiors were filmed on sets under enormous muslin awnings to soften the light. The stories were often rustic: so much so that in 1912 legislation was passed in an attempt to restrict the num ber of convict, bushranger and “country bump­kin” scripts.

Techniques, on the other hand, were quite advanced, and devices such as the close-up shot were in evidence perhaps earlier than corresponding work by the much more well-known American and European filmmakers, such as Griffith and Hepworth.

The pace d idn’t last. By World War I, exhibitors were locking in with the major American and British distributors. The war itself drastically slowed down produc­tion, and the stream of product from the U.S. increased steadily. By the 1920s, production had become very sporadic. Even so, Australia produced some excellent films: Raymond Longford’s The Sentimental Bloke of 1919 is arguably one of the great classics of the silent era worldwide..

O ther forms were also successfully developed in Australia, and Frank Hurley’s Pearls and Savages, made in 1923 in New Guinea, is a milestone in dramatic documentaries.

In 1927, the biggest production ever in Australia was released: For the Term of His Natural Life. Costing 60,000 pounds, it was directed by the American Norman Dawn

and the cameraman was Len Roos. The film was adventurous in its use of special effects. Dawn specialized in painted glass mattes, and he used this technique to “rebuild” a ruined Prison settlement at Port Arthur in Tasmania, with great success. It was to be the last big Australian silent film.

Sound films had been around since the early days, and the De Forest Phonofilm Company of Australia had started pro­ducing short films in 1926. Unfortunately, its sound-on-disc equipment ran into difficulties when its American technical operator returned home. The company did not last.

Warner Bros. ’ TheJazz Singeris usually billed as starting the talkies era. Certainly it caught the popular mood, despite its very limited use of sound, and within a few weeks cinemas in Sydney and Melbourne were packed out. Live theatre took a tumble, and on one Saturday night in Sydney not a single live stage was open.

Now it was a race to equip theatres for the talkies. But the cost was high - eleven thousand pounds for one unit. Several Australians had been experimenting with their own systems, and, before long, Raymond Allsop had produced the “Rayco- phone” system, for one thousand seven hundred pounds a unit. Many of the smaller theatres, unable to afford the imported equipment, and lacking the expertise to maintain it, were facing ruin until Raycophone arrived. Naturally his system did well. Even then, distributors blacklisted theatres that installed Raycophone, in order to protect the rights of Vitaphone and the other imported product. However, Rayco­

phone was vital in bridging a gap until sound-on-film became established.It took a couple of years before a complete sound feature was made in Australia.

Meanwhile, there was much experimentation with shorts and newsreel items. When the Duke of York opened the new Parliament House in Canberra in 1927, govern­m ent security intervened, and the speech had to be recorded from the official radio landline 200 miles away in Sydney, while the film was shot in Canberra. Close-ups were not allowed. This turned out to be a good thing, as the poor sync between image and sound was less obvious.

Apart from features, Newsreels have always been a mainstay of Australian production. Australasian Gazette had been in continuous production as a weekly silent newsreel since 1910, and was in fact the world’s longest running silent newsreel. In 1929, Fox Movietone imported a sound truck to produce talking newsreels, having already established similar set-ups in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. The silent newsreels disappeared, but other companies established

INSIDE SPENCER'S FILM STUDIO AT

RUSHCUTTER'S BAY.

THE OPENING TITLES

OF THREE FAMOUS AUSTRALIAN

NEWSREELS.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 17

TOP: SOUND PIONEER ARTHUR

SMITH; ABOVE, SMITH AND

SOUND CREW ON LOCATION.

themselves very quickly. Australasian went into part­nership with a record company, Vocalion Records, to produce Australian Talkies Newsreel. Soon production was to switch to a sound-on-film system, and the news­reel would become Cinesound Review.

Almost the entire collection of newsreel material shot throughout this period by Cinesound and by Movietone survives today and is in excellent condition; it forms an unparalleled visual history of our country for much of its life. The 1978 feature, Newsfront, drama­tized the story of the Australian newsreel companies, incorporating much of the genuine footage of the 1940s and 1950s.

Meanwhile, by 1931 several attempts had been made at sound features, using sound-on-disc. Various local systems had also been tried, and all had indiffer­ent results. One story tells how, one day, a young radio engineer from Tasmania arrived at the door of Union Theatres in Sydney, with the immortal line: “I can make your pictures talk.”

That engineer was Arthur Smith. He had a sound recorder built on the “glow-lamp” principle, an idea that had been around since 1919 in Germany, and which the American Theodore Case had developed into the Fox-Movietone system. Union Theatres took Smith on. U nion’s assistant manager of that time was Ken Hall. He was enthusiastic about the system, and in

no time found himself directing a feature with veteran writer and actor Bert Bailey. The Australian production company Cinesound was born. The film was On Our Selection, a remake of a classic silent film; its budget, 8,000 pounds. It was a smash hit.

Smith’s glow-lamp recorder was remarkably free of the ground-noise that was a bugbear for so many of the sound systems then being used. It was used on all of the Cinesound productions and continued to be used through the war years. In the 1950s, when magnetic recording was introduced, Arthur Smith was still at the forefront. He developed a portable location recorder for magnetic film which was smaller, lighter and better than any other. He obtained licences from both Western Electric and RCA to use his recorder in conjunction with their system. In Australia, the recorder was used by the visiting American crew to shoot On the Beach in 1959.

In Melbourne, Frank Thring Sen. started production with his company Eftee Films. His enthusiasm, flair for publicity and connec­tions with the Hollywood system were believed by many to be the greatest hope for the Australian film industry. But business wasn’t easy. Distributors were all American or British-owned, and naturally favoured their own product. A tariff was placed on imported prints in an attempt to support local production; it wasn’t much help directly, but it did encourage local release printing of imported product. It was this, more than anything, that kept local laboratories in business.Without them, the outlook for film production would have been even gloomier. Thring’s sudden death in 1936 brought production at Eftee to a halt.

Amidst the difficulties, the one shining light was Cinesound, and in the period from 1932 to 1940 Ken Hall directed upwards of 20 features: all but one of them showed a profit for the production company. But they were a brilliant exception, and, when Cinesound stopped producing fea­tures in 1940, the Australian feature industry would not flourish again until the 1970s.

Behind the scenes, technical developments continued. For example, in the 1960s Brisbane engineer Ronald Jones developed a new system of film transport, replacing the claw pull-down and the Maltese cross. This was the rolling loop system, in which the continuous movement of film from feed and take-up rolls is transformed to a static position in the gate by a sort of wave motion. The film moves along its path much as a caterpillar moves across a leaf.

Jones published his invention in the SMPTE journal, suggesting that, if it had an application, it might be in the field of medical technology.

ABOVE: FRANK THRING SEN., HEAD OF

EFTEE FILMS. BELOW, THE EFTEE SOUND

DEPARTMENT IN ST KILDA, 1934.

18 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

IMMEDIATE RIGHT: KEN G. HALL,

IN DIRECTOR'S CHAIR, DURING

THE PRODUCTION OF ONE OF HIS

CINESOUND FEATURES. AND FAR

RIGHT: HALL'S CHIEF DIRECTOR OF

PHOTOGRAPHY, GEORGE HEATH.

But the paper was seen by the Canadian inventors of Imax. At the time, they were stymied by the need to pull 70 mm film through a projector, 16 perforations at a time, without ripping it to shreds. The Australian rolling loop proved to be the answer.

In the mainstream of film production, with work fairly interm ittent and unreli­able, stability was provided by one studio, Supreme Sound Studios, and a num ber of small laboratories, including Supreme’s own lab, and another one called Filmcraft, owned and managed by Phil Budden.

Supreme was the first laboratory with a colour process, shortly after World War II. The process was a Cinecolor type. One of the stages of colour development involved floating the film on the surface of a red dye. At Supreme, this was done in a 14 foot length of roof guttering. The machine turned out about three thousand feet per day - mainly of cinema commercials, produced to accompany the Techni­color features being shown in the cinemas.

The first Australian colour feature was made in 1955, and used the new Gevacolor process. It was titled Jedda And directed by Charles Chauvel. The location, deep in the Australian outback, proved to be quite a challenge. Chauvel was shooting in sun temperatures of up to 60 degrees Centigrade in the Northern Territory. The negative had to be sent to Rank Laboratories, in England, for proc­essing.

The negative was shipped out to the location using a series of ice-boxes lodged in caves and under rock ledges, and some in native canoes covered in paper bark. Ice was flown out from Katherine, six hundred miles away, twice a week. Stock was exposed quickly, then shipped back along the same relay route, and eventually to the more temperate climes of the Rank labs for processing.

The results rewarded all the effort, and, for the first time, the incredible richness of colour of the N orthern Territory was shown to the world. Years later, disaster nearly struck when it was found that the early colour negative had faded to a single dye. Eventually, some old tri-colour separations were discovered in London and the original colours restored.

The first Eastmancolor process was set up in 1958, at Filmcraft laboratories. But still production limped along, unable to compete with the overseas-dominated distribution companies. Eventually, in the early 1970s, Prime Minister John Gorton introduced government assistance for the industry.

Filmcraft became Colorfilm and, needing to install more colour processing capacity, designed and built its own machines, rather than face the costs and delays of importing everything. This seemed like a good idea, and the engineering division became Filmlab Engineering, which now has supplied Australian-built processing equipm ent to every continent.

In the past few years, Australian filmmakers and technicians have found recognition that has eluded them for most of this century. The pattern that emerges is one of a country that has produced far more than its share of great film artists and technicians. With limited resources, Arthur Smith designed sound equipment that was world class. Ken Hall made pictures that never failed at the box-office. Frank Hurley excelled at documentary and feature photography for three decades. Australians are known as innovative, as resourceful, and they don’t give up easily. But there is only one film capital. In a business that has been led almost from the outset by Hollywood, filmmaking in Australia has been a constant struggle, with a lack of capital and with distribution geared almost entirely towards the overseas product. It is an irony that in this worldwide industry of communication, so little is known of how our part of the industry grew up.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Brian Adams an d G raem e Shirley, Australian Film - The First 80 Years, revised ed iuon , Currency Press, 1989.Jack Cato, The Story o f the Camera in Australia, Institu te o f A ustralian Photography, 1979. Eric Reade, The Australian Screen, 1975.Teresa De Lauretis (ed.),The Cinematic Apparatus,T he M acm illan Press, 1985. Steve N eale, Cinema and Technology: Image, Sound,Colour, BFI C inem a Series 1985.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 19

TIMELINE: 1895-1930B Y F R E D H A R D E N THE FOLLOWING is------------------ a timeline o f original

Australian developments in cinema technology, as well as o f Austra­

lian use o f overseas equipment and film stocks. Researching the

timeline proved difficult. American and British developments were

relatively easy to find , but die lack o f Australian material, and the

difficulty in tracing it, was sobering.

Listed below is w hat was gleanedfrom a few reference books

on the Australian cinema (with thanks to the Australian Film Insti­

tute Research and Information Centre). M ost books gave only

passing references to technology when writing about the film s

themselves.

There are large collections o f motion-picture and sound

equipment a t the National M useum in Canberra and the Power­

house in Sydney, as well as documents in the National Film Archive,

Canberra. As these are catalogued and made accessible, they w ill

become a vital part o f our cinema history (and self-respect). This

article, then, should be taken merely as a basis fo r more detailed

later work, and hopefully w ill inspire others to research and unrite

up new sources.

As the period from the early 1930s onwards is covered in

detail in industry craft journals, this project has been split a t the

beginning o f sound in 1930. A more detailed coverage from then on

w ill appear in a later issue.

TIM ELIN E OF A U STR A LIA N TIM ELIN E OF TEC H N IC A L D EV ELO PM EN TSC IN EM A T EC H N O LO G Y IN EU RO PE AN D THE U .S .

THE D ICKSON-EDISON KINETOSCOPE, 1891 .

THE EDISON-DICKSON "BLACK M ARIA" TAR-PAPER-COVERED

FILM STUDIO.

189430 November 1894James N. McMahon set up five Edison Kinetoscopes in Sydney and the first moving pictures were seen in Australia. When the public tired of the five different 40- foot peep-show udes, he moved the machines to Melbourne in March 1895.

Pre-18951885-87 Louis Aime Augustin Le Prince projected a short strip of moving pictures in New York. They were taken of Le Prince’s house in Leeds,' England.

1887 First public performances of Emile Reynaud’s ani­mated, hand-drawn films on the Praxinoscope film strip projector.

May 1891 First private demonstrations of the Edison- Dickson Kinetoscope. On 14 April 1894, the first models were installed at 1155 Broadway, New York.

1893 Eadweard Muybridge showed his sequential photo­graphs on glass discs with his Zoopraxiscope projector at the Chicago World’s Fair. His first sequence of 24 photos was taken in 1878.

1893 W. Dickson convinced Edison to build the “Black Maria” studio, a timber and tar-paper building that re­volved on tracks to follow the sunlight that came through its open roof. Dickson was the cinematographer of most of the early Edison films; the stock was Kodak. (See details in previous issue of Cinema Papers.)

1895 1895January 1895 Kodak Roll film in use by still photographers, one user complaining of the marks left by the creases around the spool. The Pocket Kodak was introduced in October 1895 and was an instant popular success.

1895 The Latham family gave a public demonstration of their projected pictures, which were filmed at forty frames a second. Their contributions to absorbing the effect on the filmstrip of the jerky pulldown and the intermittent projector movements were a bottom sprocket and the “Latham loop”. The Lathams were in patent litigation from 1902 until 1915, as the loop was used by Armat in Edison’s Vitascope, and in a number of other projectors.

1895 Demonstrations of projected moving pictures in Germany (Max Skladanowsky with a projector that re­quired two films and two lenses), and by C. Francis Jenkins in the U.S. (using a continuously moving film and revolving lenses).

20 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

FRAME BLOW -UP O F A FRENCH DEMENY 60M M FILM SCREENED IN AUSTRALIA IN EARLY

SEPTEMBER 1896.

1896August 1896 Carl Hertz projected the first moving pictures in Melbourne, advertising his projection equipment as Lumière’s Kinematograph. Apparently, it was actually one of the copies made by R. W. Paul. Hertz had to modify the sprocket holes to be able to project the films from the Edison Kinetoscope.

28 September 1896 Marius Sestier and Walter Barnett opened the first ‘Salon Lumière’ in Sydney. The programme was the same as the Lumière brothers’ first screening at the Grand Café in Paris. The Lumière equipment was designed as a camera-printer-projector. But Sestier had little experience in developing, so it was Barnett, who owned a photographic studio in Sydney, who supplied the expertise to make the first films around Sydney Harbour in September and October. The Lumières must have approved of Sestier’s partner, because they continued to provide films and film stock. The negative stock was almost certainly made by the Lumière factory, which at the time was purchasing the cellulose base material from the U.S.

31 October 1896 Sestier and Barnett filmed the A.J.C. Derby at Flemington, but the earliest surviving film material is their coverage of the Melbourne Cup a week later. The fragments provided were by the Cinémathèque Française to the National Film Archive; although from the original negative (?), they are contrasty and grainy. There is little evidence of the quality (or the scene of ladies’ alighting from the train) that was described by Arthur Peters, who developed it: “a splendid sho t... as good as any film you see today. To us who made it, it was magnificent.”

1897‘Early5 1897 Major Joseph Perry of the Salvation Army Limelight Department purchased a Lumière Cinématographe and a collection of films. (In 1900 his equipment included three Cinématographes.) When audiences tired of the films, the Army began (in October 1897) shooting its own, processing them in a laboratory and studio in Bourke Street.

1895 August and Louis Lumière owned a large photo­graphic materials factory and their projector, whilst not the first, was really the first workable design. They had seen the Edison Kinetoscope in Paris in 1894, and adopted the same film and picture width as Edison. But, at first, they used only one sprocket hole per frame instead of four, and they reduced the number of frames per second from Edison’s forty to sixteen. The Lumières’ basic model was light, hand cranked and, because electricity was not widely available, used an ether lamp for illumination. Their first demonstrations were to the Société d ’Encour- agement pour l’Industrie Nationale in Paris on 18 March 1895.

1895 Dickson left Edison in 1895 and with a friend started the Mutoscope Company, a different kind of peep show that avoided Edison’s patents by using a flip-book prin­ciple. Dickson designed a camera that took pictures 50cm high by 75mm wide. With partner Herman Casier, he went on to produce a projector late in 1896.

1895 Englishman Robert W. Paul described a rack-and- tank processing system with birchwood frames that held forty feet of negative.

18961896 Meliès offered the Lumières 10,000 francs (U.S. $2,000 at the time) for a camera. When they refused, he then made his own with parts supplied by Robert W. Paul. Paul acknowledged that the design of his camera, built that year, was based on one built in early 1895 by Birt Acres. Meliès immediately began making trick films that used superimposition, stop-frame substitution, mattes and other in-camera effects.

189717 March 1897 Rector used his Veriscope camera which used 60mm film for the Corbett-Fitzsimmons boxing match. Boxing films became major attractions in the early cinema. Artificial lights and multiple camera coverage became standard.

1898February 1898 After travelling the programme to Melbourne and Adelaide, the Salon Lumière returned to Sydney. But it was closed two weeks later. Sestier travelled back to Paris and there was an advertisement for his camera and 63 “magnificent” short films. One source says that John J. Rouse bought “two Lumière cameras” and that one was used by Albert ‘Mons’J. Perier of Baker & Rouse. Baker started the Austral Plate Co., manufactur­ing photographic dry plates in 1884. He was joined by photographic dealer Rouse in 1887. Baker & Rouse was later bought by Kodak (Australasia) and (son?) Edgar J. Rouse became chairman of directors at Kodak.

18991898-99 Alfred Cord Haddon, the British Anthropologist, filmed and made phonograph recordings in New Guinea and the Torres Strait Islands. TOP: K INESCOPE ARCADE, 1899 . AND, EDISON 'S VITASCOPE,

WHICH RAN 50-FO OT LOOPS OF FILM OVER BOBBINS INSTEAD

OF FROM REEL TO REEL.

1900June 1900 Advertisement appeared for “Robert W. Paul’s Animatographe” at the Tivoli.

1900 Impressed by the work of his friend Alfred Haddon, Walter Baldwin Spencer purchased from Charles Urban’s Warwick Trading Company in London a camera and 3000 feet of 35mm negative in twenty 150-foot rolls. In March 1901, he filmed a corroborée and made phonograph recordings of the songs on a 5-inch diameter wax cylinder machine. In his 1928 book, he describes the difficulty in operating the camera and of only being able to get a sideways view of the small focusing glass, and of using a blank spool for practice. The

19001900 Robert Paul counted 566 patents for motion-picture equipment in England, France and Germany alone. The Jenkins-Armat projector design was taken over by Edison and sold as the Edison Vitascope. Armat’s contribution was the use of a loop to allow the intermittent movement to be absorbed, and a star-wheel sprocket that helped a quick pulldown. Armat was the projectionist at the open­ing on 23 April 1896 at Koster & Bial’s Music Hall in New

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 21

camera is described in one reference work as a Warwick Cinematograph. The film was sent back to Baker & Rouse in Melbourne for processing, the exposed footage placed in card­board boxes sewn in a calico bag. (More than 2500 feet of this film is in the National Library collection.)

York. The system used an endless 50-foot loop running over bobbins. Unlike Edison’s efforts to control the Kinetoscope business, he sold the new projecting Kine- toscope outright

13 September 1900 “Soldiers of the Cross” premiered.

1900 Perth photographer Dennis Dease, using a second-hand Edison Kinetoscope(P), projected films from the balcony of the (now) Perth Hotel in Murray Street on to a screen across the street. The police tried to stop his mix of short films and advertisements, as they caused crowd problems on the street below. On 25 May 1901, Mr Higgins (one of the three famous Higgins brothers cinematographers?) of Elizabeth Street, Hobart, was warned by police for a similar disturbance of the peace with his “Electric Sight Advertisements”.

1900 Newspaper advertisement appeared for Gaumont Cinématographe “for limelight and electric light: cost 400 pounds ... will accept 160 pounds. Baker & Rouse Sydney.”

19041904 Mention made of “colored bio-pictures” being shown in Sydney. Perry had sent “Soldiers of the Cross” overseas to be hand tinted (at the Pathé plant?).

1904 William Alfred Gibson joined his brother-in-law, chemist Millard Johnson (who supplied chemicals for photography), and formed Johnson & Gibson. With the purchase of an “Englishmen’s magic lantern that projected moving figures”, they started showing films. They then employed a projectionist, before hiring out equipment, projectors and films. They were billed as the “best bioscopic operators in Australia”. With J. & N. Tait, they made The Story of the Kelly Gang in 1906.

1905April 1905 The Sydney Cyclorama announced it had imported a “professional Chrono Cinématographe”. Cyclorama proudly announced some months later that its cinémato­graphe machine didn’t flicker.

October 1905 At the Centenary Hall in Pitt Street, Sydney, J. S. Phelan used electricity to run his Big Biograph.

19061906 George Hubert Wilkins (later Sir Hubert) worked as an electrician for a film company in Sydney. Wilkins became an expert documentary cameraman. In 1912, working for the (now British) Gaumont Company with his camera on the front of his motor-bike, he took some of the first front-line pictures of the Balkans War. He was an official AIF photographer in World War I (his film is in the War Museum Canberra), he covered Antarctic expeditions and was another of the cameraman adventurers like Frank Hurley. As a pilot, he made many contributions to early aviation.

190829 December 1908 The Stadium screened a film of the Johnson-Burns Fight which had taken place three days earlier at the same venue. This film brought its cinematographer, Ernest Higgins, the compliment, “The greatest series of pictures since motion picture pho­tography became fine a r t” Higgins was a bioscope operator in Hobart when, in 1904, he purchased a motion-picture camera and began documenting his town. He moved to Sydney where Cousens Spencer was quick to recognize and employ his talents, as well as those of his two brothers, Arthur and Tasman, who also became cinematographers. The Higgins brothers’ credits include many of the Spencer features and newsreels, and others over the next thirty years.

1909January 1909 The Salvation Army erected what is acknowledged as the first purpose-built Australian film studio in Caulfield, Melbourne.

1900 The Lumières revealed their giant 70-by-53-foot screen for the Paris Exposition of 1900. They were also ex­perimenting with 75mm film, but didn’t exhibit it pub­licly. (At that Expo, Danish engineer Valdemar Poulsen demonstrated steel-wire audio recording.)

1900 Bausch & Lomb (also a Rochester-based company) supplied lenses for Edison’s Kinetoscope, Cinephor pro­jection lenses and Raytar & Baltar camera lenses.

THE LUMIERES' 70 X 53-FO O T SCREEN.

LEFT: 'SO LD IERS O F THE C R O S S '. RIGHT: FRAME ENLARGEM ENT FROM THE THUE STORY

OF THE KILLY G A N G . 1906 .

CINEM ATOGRAPHER ERNEST H IG GIN S HOLDS UP HIS FRAME

FOR DRYING FILM.

19071907 Donald J. Bell, a projectionist, and Albert Howell, a draughtsman and mechanic for a projector-parts manu­facturer, formed the Bell & Howell company. Their first product was a film perforator which set new quality standards.

1907 James Stuart Blackton’s The Haunted Hotel caused a sensation with its use of a stop-motion animation se­quence, among its other tricks. Edison films in 1905 had some animated title cards and Blackton had made a film in 1906 called Humorous Phases of Funny Faces which used blackboard and cut-out animation.

1907 Eastman Kodak still dominated with its orthochro- matic negative stock. Sold in 200-foot lengths, it was also available as a positive print stock. Lumière had a range that included its Blue Label, which was about 1/2 the speed of Kodak (20 to 25 ASA at that time), and Violet label, which was about the same speed as Kodak.

1910October 1910 Englishman Alan Williamson, son of James Williamson (who made the Williamson movie cameras?), reorganized Spencer’s darkroom on the fourth floor of the

1907 Pathe bought the English film manufacturer Blair and began a process of re-cycling all the developed stock it could get, stripping off the emulsion and re-coating. At this time, Agfa was manufacturing motion-picture film, but the stock was not widely available outside Germany.

22 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

Lyceum theatre. He then became a producer, first on the film Captain Midnight His recol­lections of this time tell of the haphazard nature of the filming, often with doubt about the camera’s having functioned properly forcing retakes of the five or six scenes daily: “The cameraman would develop the negative so that on the next day anything unsatisfactory could be retaken. This process would be repeated each day until it was considered that suf­ficient negative had been secured to be joined up into something approaching a consecu­tive story.” Then it was up to the tide writer to bridge the continuity gaps with a clever caption.

CINEM ATOGRAPHER BERT IVE O N LOCATION IN

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY.

19081907-8 Pathé introduced its stencil-tinting service for film.

1908 The Williamson slow-motion, hand-cranked camera became available. Emile Cohl’s Fantasmagorie used 700 animated drawings traced over a light box; at eight drawings photographed for two frames each, it was true fluid animation.

19091909 Charles Urban developed his Kinemacolor process, by photographing alternate frames through red and green filters then projecting them with a revolving colour wheel.

1909 The first Bell 8c Howell silent camera was sold; its steady pilot-pin registration built an industry reputation.

19111911 Australian Life Biograph established a glass-roofed studio at Manly.

19111911 Charles Urban produced a record of the crowning of George V in G. A. Smith’s Kinemacolor.

1911 Most of the eight features made this year for Amalgamated Pictures in Melbourne were photographed by Orrie Perry, son of Joseph Perry. Orrie and brother Reg worked from a courtyard studio behind Johnson and Gibson’s oxygen and boracic manufacturing factory in St.Kilda. The brothers did all the processing, titling and editing.

1911 Arthur Higgins, then nineteen years old, was cameraman on Raymond Longford’s directing debut, The Fatal Wedding. The studio was an artist’s studio in Bondi with its roof removed.

A CAM ERAMAN WITH HIS W ILLIAM SON CAM ERA IN 1 912 .

1912 19121912 Gaumont staff cameraman, Richard Primmer, photographed Francis Birtles’ bicycle journey for Across Australia with Francis Birtles.

September 1912 Cousens Spencer spent 10,000 pounds building an elaborate glass-roofed studio with its own laboratory at Rushcutter’s Bay. The event was significant enough for the Premier of NSW to open the complex; film coverage was screened at the Lyceum that night.

1912 Zeiss manufactured wide-angle lenses (35mm, 40mm), but most cinematographers preferred 50mm or longer.

1912 First sales of Williamson hand-cranked box camera, with internal magazine, single lens and internal 400-foot magazine.

19131913 Longford’s Australia Calls included an elaborate model shot of the attack on Sydney by the “Asiatics”. Cardboard planes swooped down wires over a large scale model of Sydney, creating, when intercut with actual Sydney locations, “a sea of fire where tower and spire come tumbling down”.

1913 Frank Hurley made his 4000-foot documentary, Home of the Blizzard, of Douglas Mawson’s Antarctic expedition. Hurley became famous for his actuality filming and still photographs. His 1917 film, In the Grip of Polar Ice, of the two-year Shackleton expedition, is his most famous. Hurley had to dive into the interior of the ice-trapped ship to retrieve his film negative. It was developed in the tent and dried over Primus stoves. He had to leave his movie camera behind and destroy “four fifths” of his glass plates. The film neg was saved because it was part of a 20,000-pounds advance for the film rights that helped fund the expedition.

Arriving safely in London at the start of World War I, Hurley reported to Australia House and was made an official war photographer. One report of Hurley’s carrying the movie camera at the front lines said it was some new type of machine gun.

Hurley took pictures of Ross and Keith Smith from the wing of their plane on their first England-to-Australia flight. In 1922, he photographed underwater scenes on the Great Barrier reef and, in 1929, returned to the Antarctic with Sir Douglas Mawson. He joined Cinesoundin 1936 and was again an official war photographer in 1939.In 1941,he received the OBE.

July 1913 W. J. Lincoln and Godfrey Cass formed Lincoln-Cass Films and produced eight features in a small, glass-roofed studio in suburban Elsternwick.

19131913 Leon Gaumont demonstrated a colour system.

September 1913 Eastman Kodak Panchromatic released but it was 1927 before it replaced orthochromatic stock. There was a big price reduction in 1926. It was revised in 1927; there was no identification name, but that stock later became known as Negative Film Pan Speed (Type 1201). Panchromatic film was almost certainly intro­duced to allow the experiments in colour-separation processes. It was slower, physically unstable and expen­sive.

THE PATHÉ CO LO R PRINTING RO O M .

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 23

1914 19141914 While travelling as cameraman with Birtles on Into Australia’s Unknown, Hurley processed and despatched the negative en route to Australasian Films and was paid l/6 d a foot.

October 1914 Cameraman Bert Ive filmed on-board the troopship taking the First Expeditionary Force to Egypt and Gallipoli. He was to extensively cover the war at home.

19171917 Australasian Gazette used the animation of Harry Julius in a series of propaganda conscription films. Animation sequences have been mentioned as early as 1912.

WIDE FILM FROM A PANORAMIC LENS. DEVISED BY FILOTEO ALBERINI, IT HAD A 2 .52 :1 RATIO.

122FILM PROJECTOR TYPICAL OF THOSE USED IN THE EARLY

1900S .

19211921 Ray Allsop made his first experiments with sound on a wax cylinder synchronized to film.

EDISON 'S KINETO PHO NE, W HICH ATTEMPTED TO LINK IMAGE AND SOUND.

19231923 Frank Hurley hand-coloured every frame of Pearls and Savages for his overseas lecture tour.

1914 Earl Hurd’s patent lodged for the use and process of cel(luloid) in animation.

19151915 Max Fliescher awarded patent for first rotoscope projector.

19181918 Bell & Howell automatic splicer released. Most editing had been done by scraping and cementing by hand, pressing the film (even negative) together with the editor’s fingers. The first ‘splicer’ was the Edison Film Mender, actually a splicing block mounted on the Edison Universal Kinetoscope Projector.

19191919 Prizma colour released a process that used different coloured filters (like Kinemacolour), but stuck the two tinted prints back-to-back in a single projection print.

19201920 A resin-backed version of the Eastman ortho stock called “X-back” was introduced for the colder East Coast filming conditions to help control the problems with static marks. Also released was a pre-tinted base print stock in a range of colours (blue for night, gold for sunset, red for fires, etc.).

1920 (?) Introduction of Kodak Reversal stock.

1920 First Moviola.

19211921 Mitchell’s first rack-over camera released. Its movement was potentially quieter than the Bell & Howell Studio.

19221922 First Williamson “Craftsman” slow-motion, hand- cranked camera with double-claw pull down.

1922-23 German sound on film system Tri-Ergon re­leased (the “work of three”: Joseph Engel, Joseph Massole and Hans Vogt).

1922 The two-colour Technicolor process used a similar double-thickness print to avoid the need of special pro­jection methods. It was expensive and the colour was often called “a one-and-a-half colour process”.

19231923 Bell & Howell released the Eyemo hand-held 35mm camera, with a 200-foot magazine and clockwork motor.

19241924 Moviola Midget, a table top editor, released.

24 * C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

1925September 1925 De Forest Phonofilms (Australia) was formed and the first sound-on- film shorts were made.

1925 Freelance cameramen Claude Carter and Ray Vaughan established Filmcraft Labo­ratories and began to process U.S. Fox News issues until Fox Movietone (Australia) was formed in 1929. Vaughan was sent to the U.S. for training in sound newsreels.

19261926 Norman O. Dawn, independent producer, cameraman and director, started filming For the Term of his Natural Life. Dawn was well known in Hollywood for the pioneering of special-effects techniques - miniatures, mattes and glass shots - and he used them all in the movie. His cameraman was Len Roos.

U SIN G THE G LASS-SHO T PRO CESS, IN TASM ANIA , IN 1908.

19271927 The Sydney Capitol theatre was the first of the ‘atmospheric’ auditoriums to use projected stars and drifting clouds on the roof of the cinema.

192829 December 1928 Sydney premiere of The Jazz Singer at the Union Theatres’ Lyceum. By March 1936, Australia’s 1334 cinemas were all wired for sound, and the travelling picture shows brought sound to many country towns. The Western Electric sound system cost 10,000 pounds to install and the contract included a weekly service charge bound for ten years. Australian engineers designed their own systems to break the monopoly.

192910 June 1929 Ray Allsop’s Raycophone system was first demonstrated.

8 August 1929 Filmcraft founder, cameraman Ray Vaughan, returned to Sydney from Hol­lywood with an American sound engineer Paul Hance, and Australia’s first Movietone sound truck.

2 November 1929 The first Australian issue of Fox Movietone News was released, featuring a speech by Prime Minister Scullin.

1930June 1930 Premiere of the first Australian Talkies Newsreel, initiated by Bill Lyall of Union Theatres Melbourne. This used a sound-on-disc system.

1930 Showgirls Luck premiered, utilizing an Arthur Higgins sound system. ■

DE FOREST PHONOFILM S (AUSTRALIA) LO GO .

19261926 The second Technicolor two-colour process intro­duced. This allowed mass production of a single dye-im­bibition print. The three-strip process would come in 1932.

6 August 1926 Warner Bros adopted the Western Electric sound-on-disc process, calling it Vitaphone. It was later abandoned in favour of Western Electric’s sound-on-film process in 1930. General Electric, another U.S. corpora­tion (it started RCA in 1919), developed a different system, using a variable area track known as Photophone.

1926 Eastman Kodak introduced Superspeed Negative, a 50 ASA, fine-grain, low-contrast duplicating positive which allowed better copy negatives to be made. This encour­aged film optical work.

Dupont de Nemours also began manufacturing stocks. American Lee De Forest invented the audion vacuum tube amplifier in 1906, which was widely used as a radio amplifier before making cinema sound a possibility. He worked loosely with Earl Sponable and Theodore Case, and each developed their own sound cameras, De Forest calling his the Phonofilm System. Fox was to adopt the Case & Sponable sound-on-film system and renamed it Movietone. It became Fox Movietone in 1926.

19271927 Mole-Richardson started making lamps.

1927 Abel Gance showed his giant 3-screen Polyvision process. ■

A HOME-MADE 35MM CONTACT PRINTER, BUILT BY CLARRY

THOM SON OF K IN G A RO Y , C .1 9 3 0 .

THE PROJECTION ROOM OF THE HOYTS REGENT, BRISBANE, WHICH W AS EQUIPPED FOR

SOUND O N FILM AND DISC, 1930 .

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 25

ìèjggÈt

One o f the great joys fo r any film -lover is to discover a new and prom ising

director. Inevitably, tha t resultant enthusiasm can lead to an over-rating o f

w hat appears to stand out from the rest. However, there is no danger o f fa lse

praise in heralding Ray Argali and h is firstfea tu re as writer-director, Return

H ome: quite sim ply, it is one o f the fin est Australian film s m ade in the 1980s.

A rgali is w ell known as the director o f photography on film s o f Ian Pringle

(W ronsky, Wrong World and The Prisoner of St Petersburg) and others

(M ary Callaghan’s Tender H ooks) . W ith Andrew de Groot and Sally Rangers,

he heads the new wave o f Aus­

tralian cinematographers. B ut

A rgali’s interests lie w ider than

that. H e has m ade several short

film s and edited others, includ­

ing three features. M ore impor­

tant, he w ill be remembered from

the start o f this new decade cis a

sure grasp o f technique.

For many, A ustralian cinema

had soured badly as the fla vo u r

film m aker o f real note, one w ith

an exceptional m aturity and a

s

■

o f the m onth, but in the last years o f the 1980s along came a batch o f film s tha t

g a v e hope a n d restored enthusiasm. R eturn H ome is yet another reason to

approach A ustra lia ’s cinem atic fu tu re zvith a renewed confidence.

C I N E M A P A P E R S -78 • 27

R A Y A R G A L L I N T E R V I E W

E A R L Y DAYS

In 19*73, Argali attended the Brinsley Road alternative school and was in the same film class as fellow directors Richard Lowenstein and Ned Lander. After graduating, he made several films in Super 8, before applying to the Experimental Film Fund and getting money for his first 16mm short, Morning Light. Says Argali: “All my Super 8 stuff, and I guess some of my 16mm, was pretty self-indulgent. Hopefully, I have worked it out of my system.” At the time, Argali supported himself by working freelance as a boom swinger and camera assistant. His next film was Parnassus — “a dreadful name”.

In all those early films, I used friends and people I knew. That means you get a certain dramatic style. It was really good training because you actually had to work a lot on the drama to get what you felt was dramatically right. It was quite amazing to work later on with profes­sional actors and see how much further you can go - not that I want to put down the others, because some people are naturals and do a terrific job.

But people who haven’t acted before on film don’t know about how to move, how to react to and work with a camera. I found this on a lot of the cinematography I have done. On Prisoner of St Petersburg, for example, Katya Teichman was a very experienced theatre actor, but she hadn’t done film before and didn’t have the technical experience. On a per­formance level, theatre people tend to go too large and it takes a while for them to setde down and discover what works well on film. They have to learn about eye-lines and what you can do in front of a camera, like the difference between a close-up and a wider shot, what you have to do to make the performance read. That is why I’ve always had, even on the earlier films, a long rehearsal period.

After debating whether to go to Swinburne or the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, Argali finally opted for Sydney:

I was there for three years and made one film, Dog Food, which I really like.It is one of the few films where I felt I’d achieved what I had set out to do. It was probably quite influenced by the fact that [later producer] John Cruth- ers and I used to watch a lot of Bresson and Ozu films.

Unfortunately, the Film School hated my film. They hated the way I made it and didn’t want to know about it. But I was still very happy with it.

Argali was not the only student to find his work less than enthusiastically received: many of staff at the AFTRS, for exam ple, d id n ’t w ant Jan e Campion’s Peel completed because they thought it was incompetent.

And there is this other guy, Mick Clarke, whose films were dramatically some of the best the Film School has ever produced. But he must have done something wrong - he was arrogant or he offended someone, I don’t know - because he had a very hard time of it.

The School can be so bureaucratic. At the time I was there, it had twice as many staff as there were students. It has changed a lot since then, however, and I have been impressed by a lot of the stuff that has come out of it. And the fact remains that a lot of good people go to the Film School; it is where I met people like John Cruthers, whom I’m still working with. In that sense alone, bringing good people together, the Film School has made a contribution to the film industry.

After the AFTRS, Argali came back to Melbourne and worked as

a sound editor, before moving into the then new field of rock music clips.

There were quite a few independent filmmakers around, and they tended to slip in and out doing them. There was Richard Lowenstein, Andrew de Groot, John Hillcoat, Paul Goldman and Evan English, all out of Swinburne and all working for absolute peanuts. I don ’ t know how many of them are still doing clips. I’m certainly not. Maybe the feeling is mutual - me and the record companies.

In 1982, Argali made another short film, Julie, Julie..., about a girl who has left home and is riding around Australia on a motorbike.

We didn’t have funding for that, so it was a matter of getting people together who were prepared to work for $100 a week. It was only a two- week shoot and I used some of the money we’d made out of rock clips.

I really enjoyed doing that film, but nothing really came of it. It is very hard to do anything with shorts.

At the same time, Argali had begun shooting features for some of Australia’s leading independent directors.

I did Ian Pringle’s second film, Wronsky, while I was still at Film School, even though they wouldn’t let me do it as an attachment. They didn’t think - what an irony - that it would be a learning experience. They wanted people to go and work with professionals, but, from my point of view, the best way to get experience was to go out and shoot 60 to 70 rolls of stock.

I have kept doing Ian’s films over the years: Plains Of Heaven in 1982, Wrong World in 1984 and Prisoner of St Petersburglast year. I also did Tender Hooks for Mary Callaghan. I was in a great position, because these were films I really wanted to do. From a cinematographic point of view, they were quite challenging.

Argali also worked extensively as an editor, cutting some of the Pringle features and also Brian McKenzie’s WithLoveto thePersonNext to Me. “Editing is a fantastic grounding, and that is mostly what I did at Film School.”

It was also there that Argali wrote his first feature screenplay, the still-unproduced “Dog Food No. 2”. It was his second screenplay, however, written in 1982, that would mark his breakthrough as a writer-director.

"I HAVE ALWAYS

BEEN CRITICAL OF

THE CLICHED,

STEREOTYPED WAY

AUSSIES ARE

PORTRAYED. IT IS

NOT TRUE TO MY

UNDERSTANDING

OF AUSTRALIAN

WORKING-CLASS

PEOPLE."

28 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

FACING PAGE: STEVE AND JUDY (MICKI CAMILLERI) WORRY OVER

THE ACCOUNTS AS FINANCIAL PRESSURES THREATEN CLOSURE OF THEIR GARAGE.

BELOW LEFT: MELBOURNE INSURANCE BROKER, NOEL (DENNIS COARD), RIGHT, SHOWS

BARRY (ALAN FLETCHER) HIS TICKET BACK TO ADELAIDE. BELOW RIGHT: NOEL, RIGHT, VISITS

HIS BROTHER'S FAMILY IN ADELAIDE: JUDY, STEVE, CLARE (GYPSY LOCKWOOD)

AND WALLY (RYAN RAWLINGS). RETURN HOME

R E T U R N HOME

Return Home is the story of one m an’s coming to terms with his past and the responsibility and rewards of family love. Noel (Dennis C oard), in his late thirties, is a successful insurance broker in Mel­bourne who returns hom e one summer to the Adelaide suburb of his childhood. There, he stays with his elder brother, Steve (Frankie J. H olden), wife Judy (Micki Camilleri) and their two children. Steve runs a garage in a shopping centre that is going backwards financially in the age of American franchises and a dearth of customer service. Steve is a gifted car mechanic with a real love for his job, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Both he and the ideals he stands for are on borrowed time.

Argali sets up this tale - of the negative forces of progress held tentatively at bay by one man ’ s inherent goodness - as a m etaphor for Australian society today. Values are changing in the face of altering consumer demand: local shopping centres are being replaced by impersonal supermarkets and a wasteland of drive-in food and video marts.

These ‘generations’ of Australian consumerism and service are linked with generations o f ‘family’. Argali begins his film with a brief scene of Noel, Judy and Steve in their late teens, when the local pa­perboy was a young Gary. Now Gary (Ben Mendelsohn) is an apprentice mechanic (when he is no t absent, fretting about his stalling relationship with Wendy [Rachel Rains]), Steve is his strug­gling boss and Noel the emigré who left family and home. But Noel soon senses within himself emotional changes set off by the eco­nomic and social changes around him. And when he returns to his M elbourne office, the once seemingly irrelevant family snapshots now resonanfiy imbued with meaning, one senses a stand will be made.

Simply but effectively shot (Argali cuts and tracks only when he really needs to), with a subtle and affecting screenplay, and an understated level of performance rare in Australian film, Return Home is deserving of every bit of praise it will undoubtedly receive. That is no t to say it is perfect - the otherwise carefully judged pace falters momentarily past the middle, some scenes drift a fraction too much and there is the odd gratuitous m om ent - bu t the flaws don’t detract significantly. Return Home is a significant achievement.

Before leaving for overseas, and, as it would later turn out, a visit to the Berlin Film Festival, where his film was screened in the Panorama section, Argali spoke with his former Brinsley Road film teacher.

One o f the unusual aspects o f Return Home is that you have written a first film with characters older than yourself. The Wild Strawberry-

like concept o f a man’s returning hom e and being affected by all the changes is generally associated with directors o f an older age group, ones who have perhaps reached a more reflective point in their lives.

[Laughs] Maybe I will go backwards and do kids’ films when I get old!When I first wrote Return Home, the characters were even older.

Maybe that came from observing a lot of people in that age group who had reached the point of not knowing where to go with their lives. I felt I was in the middle, between the young petrol-head apprentice and the older two brothers.

I had met some people who’d run a little service station in Bumie, Tasmania, and the stories they told were very colourful. That is probably where the original idea germinated.

In terms of what ended up on screen, the film is no longer based on them specifically, although the setting is. However, I did go back to them for more research, to find out how they actually operated, what sort of pressures they were under and so on.

Your film can be read as a metaphor o f econom ic and social changes within Australia. Most pointed is the scene where Steve says he doesn’t want to make money, he just wants to stay in business. H e stands for a work ethic that has been largely eroded by progress.

Exactly. Progress has a m omentum that cannot be stopped. It just rolls along, taking a lot of people in its stride. In the years to come, people will probably look back and say, “Gee, I miss that little garage that used to be on the com er. The people were always really nice to m e.” Maybe the garage has been replaced by a McDonald’s store. In fact, the site where we filmed - it was an empty service station - is now a H ungryjack’s.

It is sad that these people who were providing a service are pressured by diminishing profits into surrendering to a finance company. It is a major problem.

There is something noble about Steve’s resistance to progress, though he presumably adapts a little to it after film ’s end. Without being sentimental, you detail a fineness in the man that resists being crushed.

I’m glad that has come across, because it is difficult portraying something like that. One accepts that progress is inevitable, which is not all bad, but there are aspects which are, such as the effect on people like Steve. That is why others, particularly Noel, are trying to find ways to mix the two. Sadly, there may not be a point at which they can meet.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 29

R A Y A R G A U I N T E R V I E W

You do, however, end on a note o f optimism, which is unusual in that most films about the negative effects o f progress end on a sour note, as if believing it makes the point more forcibly.

Personally, I think there was no po in t being negative at the end of this film. The whole po in t is that Noel realizes that what he is doing in life has limitations, and that he could apply some of what he knows to help his brother. You do no t know what will come of it, bu t Noel has m ade the step to try and do something, no m atter how little, that m ight actually affect people for the better. And because it is with people he feels close to, it is probably m ore rewarding than pulling off a few really big insurance deals in M elbourne.

So, I went for an optimistic suggestion at the end, hoping that m ight make people think a little m ore about things. People like to be rewarded at the end of a film.

Another aspect that remains quite subde is the sense of generations passing. The film opens when Gary was a paperboy; you then cut forward to him as an apprentice, while a new paperboy rides his bike past the garage.

T hat stuff is touch and go, and again is really hard to get right. It was one of several things I was interested in showing about the shopping centre which surrounds the garage. But it’s very difficult to show the subtle changes progress imposes on the small group of shops without m aking the film look like a docum entary or a soap opera.

You mentioned earlier you always like to rehearse your actors exten­sively. Did you do this on Return Home?

Yes, we had nearly four weeks of rehearsals, which is quite a lot. I really w ouldn’t want any less, because that is where we ironed out all the bumps.

I have noticed from shooting o ther peop le’s films that actors tend to get rather frustrated if they d o n ’t have enough of the d irector’s time. If they do get a lot o f it in rehearsals and pre- production, most o f their questions will get answered.

To what extent did you rewrite the script during rehearsals?

Not a lot. It depended on w hether things were working or not, w hether actors wanted to re-phrase lines so as to feel m ore com fort­able with them , which sometimes works.

Q uite often, when you edit a scene after the shoot, you find that what you developed in rehearsals is the key to that scene. They are the m om ents you really, want to keep, and some of the stuff you previ­ously thought essential can be cut.

30 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

A good exam ple is the scene w here Noel and Gary are sitting on the beach, looking ou t to sea, with some kids playing in the distance. Gary is a kid trapped in this big country town, Adelaide, and h e’s interested in this guy who is m ore worldly. Noel has com e from where Gary is now and achieved som ething, even if that path isn’t one he wants to follow. Likewise, Noel is interested in Gary’s problem with his girlfriend, Wendy. H e ’s looking back to problem s h e ’s had in working ou t a relationship. Since leaving Adelaide, Noel hasn ’t been able to adjust, and he can see in Gary some of the things he is facing.

As originally scripted, that scene had a lot o f stuff that on the surface told you what the characters were thinking. But in rehears­als, the actors played around to see what they could come up with - the way to look at each other, how to work around the subject without going directly to it. In the end, a lo t o f the explicit dialogue I had writ­ten was cut.

O f course, it can go the o ther way. O ne scene I extended is where Gary goes to see Wendy and they talk on the verandah. T hat had stayed pretty m uch as it was written since the first draft. But when we came to shootit, the actress playing Wendy, RachelRains, d id n ’tfall under B en’s charm , which believe me can be quite substantial. That m ade Ben try even harder, which worked really well in the scene.

There is quite a lovely m om ent at the end where she asks, ‘W hat’s that stuff you’re wearing? ” Gary has pu t on too m uch after-shave, and he replies, “Oh, it’s one o f D ad’s.” She says, “I like the smell of petrol better.” The actors m anaged to carry the m om ent on a little, which works really nicely. I ’m no t one for extending scenes unnecessarily, but it had always felt a little b lun t the way I had written it. Now it is beautifully resolved.

T here are all sorts o f things you should look at in trying to get a roundness to a scene, in making sure it concludes effectively.

Why is Adelaide the hot-rod capital o f the universe?

I really don’t know, but it sure is. The car culture there is quite incredible. You may find it a little in Tasmania, but in Adelaide, with those wide open roads, it almost feels and looks like L. A.

I first went to Adelaide in the mid 1970s. The funny thing is that when you go back there now, whole slabs of the place are just as they always were. It is a wonderful sort of time warp. You can go back to a fruit juice bar in an arcade that you remember from 20 years ago, and it is still there. Maybe it is not run by the same people, but the new owners haven’t renovated it or changed the layout. It is like one generation grows up and the next follows. Look at the obsession with Elvis and spray-on pants, and ripple-soled shoes. It is still there. Quite incredible.

So, if the film had been shot, say, in Melbourne it would not have had the same generational aspects.

Yes. I don’t think I could have made the same film in Melbourne or Sydney, which are big cities. Adelaide has something very unique.

That is why it was fantastic to shoot the film there. We stayed out at Glenelg, where we were filming, and there were cars continually going by doing all the things that are in the script. That was great for the actors, because they felt and understood the integrity the script had.

Your editor is Ken Sallows, one of the under-appreciated talents in the Australian industry.

Working with Ken wasjust terrific. He is a very perceptive editor, who can look at a film as a whole. When I was an editor, I was good on individual scenes, but I always had trouble with directors and produc­ers actually getting the whole down to a workable length.

Return Home is a carefully structured film, both overall and within scenes. Did you go onto the set knowing precisely how you would shoot each sequence?

It varied. With some scenes, I thought it was best to wait until the editing stage to find out how to structure them. This was particularly the case when two characters were just talking to each other and there was not a lot of movement.

It is terrific to be able to go on to location with an editing back­ground, because you know how things are going to be put together. Without that knowledge, people can find eye-lines and things like that very frustrating.

FACING PAGE: TROUBLED LOVE: GARY AND WENDY (RACHEL RAINS).

RIGHT: NOEL IN THE GARAGE WORKSHOP, REFLECTING ON HIS LONG-AGO-

MADE DECISION NOT TO BECOME A MECHANIC.

BELOW: STEVE AND GARY AT WORK. RETURN HOME.

It is, on the whole, a precisely acted film. You detail aspects o f Australian behaviour without ever slipping into ocker caricature.

I have always been critical of the cliched, stereotyped way Aussies are portrayed. It is not true to my understanding of Australian working- class people. I don’t know if it comes from the television soaps, and it is actually found most often in our films.

Maybe it is the actors, maybe the directors. I don’t know if it’s the writing, but probably not as much as people think; after all, it is the directors and actors who interpret the script.

During rehearsals, all the actors on Return Home slipped into that ocker style. The swearing, for instance, wasjust incredible. Un­fortunately, I d idn’t pulled it back early enough, and during filming I had quite a few problems with the “bloody”s and the “m ate’s - “How ya bloody going mate?”, and that sort of thing. It sounds okay on the street, but not when you hear it all the time in a film.

In many Australian films, the language reeks o f affectation, as if the middle-class director is assuming a working-class pose.

I think you’re right. If you have been through the private-school system and university, you can easily gain a narrow view of the working classes. It is not as if such directors are not broad-minded, it is just that their understanding of others is sometimes limited by their upbringing.

Making our film in Adelaide certainly made it a lot easier for me, because that is where I went after leaving school. I got a car, hotted it up and did all those sort of things. Although I had been making films, they were almost a hobby. It wasn’t like I went to Adelaide to find out about this way of life. I went there because I wanted to have a car and do those sort of things.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 - 3 1

You use many long two-shots in the film, particularly at the garage doors, where N oel and Steve watch out over the shopping centre.

Generally we designed the two shots we were going to use, and choreographed them specifically. Quite often in the garage we would have a two-shot where one person was in the foreground and another in the background, then someone would walk over to the bench or a car. At that point, we would cut to another two-shot. That took quite awhile to set up, because it is no tjust as simple as having two people in frame. To cover ourselves, we would do a point-of-view cut-away or a close-up.

Mandy Walker, the director of photography, is very good on that stuff. She knows how to balance up a frame, which is a big help to me as a director; I can concentrate on everything else that is going on.

With some of the dramatic scenes, when two people are talking to each other, it is nice to cover it in just close-ups. Matching close- ups is just wonderful; you can really pick the moments and stretch diem. Take for example the scene with Gary and Wendy on the porch. We did a two-shot for the opening and the ending, but the rest is all close-ups. It is really nice to be able to hold, or play an off-screen line on an actor. You can maximize the whole performance from each of the actors.

There are several brief montages in the film, generally o f two or three shots, which set up the next scene. This is a technique Ozu uses and which Paul Schrader paid homage to in American Gigolo. Did you use them consciously in that way?

Probably not consciously, but certainly it is very nice to have those allusions.

Those little montages were very' hard to get right. We spent a lot of time shoodng them. Mandy and I went out on our weekends off and shot what we could, like the kids jum ping off the pier.

Which is one o f the m ost moving images o f 1980s Australian cinema.

T hat’s great, because that is exactly what we wanted to get out of it. It’s wonderful when you get a shot that works.

The opening o f your film is like an industrialized version o f the beginning o f The Year My Voice Broke, with the combination o f classical music and the evoking o f a time past.

The placing of the music was really tricky. Originally it was a pop song from the era, and for a lot of people it worked well. But it set up ex­pectations of a teen pic, which the film isn’t. Audiences may then have felt that what followed was a let-down.

ABOVE: BROTHERS, AND FAMILY FOUND: NOEL AND STEVE IN RETURN HOME.

I then thought of the Dvorak [Symphony No. 9] and I think it helped give the impression of its being a memory.

You get that with the sound mix, too, when the realistic sounds o f the carpark are faded in for a few seconds.

We wanted that slighdy subjective aspect to the soundtrack. I like to isolate sounds and play with them, bringing them up and down.

Dean Gawen, who did the sound recording and also mixed the film, did a really good job on that. Overall, and especially given the difficulties, the sound departm ent did a great job.

Which raises the question o f the film ’s very small budget [$350,000, from the AFC]. Despite what must have been inevitable production problems, the film never feels as if it suffered.

More people say that, which is good. I think the tag of low budget is really bad, and I avoid it at all cost. If people ask me what the film was made on, I say, “Under a million.”

In the end it d idn’t ham per things. The cast and the crew agreed to work under the conditions, which were basically union minimum. We had a fairly reasonable schedule: it was tight, but we had time to do what we wanted to do.

Also, Mandy and I d idn’t want a hand-held, graining look, but one that was really clean and sharp. That decision gready helped the overall look of the film.

There is very litde camera m ovement in the film.

I do not use a lot of tracking, but, when I do, it is good to have a nice long one. There are only two crane shots in the film.

We d idn’t have a grip on location, so we chose in advance the three or four scenes where I wanted to move the camera. We then hired a grip for those days. It was the same when we were doing the car stuff. We had trouble doing that, but we managed to get the extra people for it.

Most of the films I have done have been with small crews. In Europe, of course, they make their 35mm features with small crews. But out here we have the Hollywood attitude of big crews. On Return Home, we probably were a bit short in the art departm ent, and we d idn’t have continuity or make-up, except for one day, when we had to make the characters look a lot younger.

All the same, there is no reason why low-budget films have to look low budget. I certainly know that. ■

32 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

cuts the cost of personal banking

for Professional PeopleThe Personal Current Account

Do you work all hours and Saturdays to m eet your

deadlines? Are you sick of bank charges, bank hours and lack of bank service?

Then you should open a Personal Current Account at the Bank of Melbourne, and discover a more professional approach to costs, service and horns.

Free cheques, no fees.

Earn up to 13'5p°̂, daily interest

Open 9 to 5 weekdays*, 9 to 12 Saturday.

Helpful staff - personal service.

110 branches, over 600 agents.

H o w to a p p ly :To open your Personal Current Account, visit your nearest Bank of Melbourne branch. Or call522 7500‘Also late Friday, some branches. Saturday morning most branches.

Head Office: 52 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000.

Bank o f M elbourne cuts the cost o f banking

Bangkok Hiltona n d

A Long Way from Home:BARLOW AND CHAMBERS

B Y I N A B E R T R A N D

I t was inevitable that these two mini-series should

be compared: not only are they about the same subject

(Australians facing the death penalty in an Asian gaol fo r

drug running), but writer Terry Hayes made the connection

explicit by stating in an interview that his inspiration fo r the

story o f Bangkok Hilton (Ken Cameron, 1989) was his dismay

a t the dramatic deficiencies in the story o f A Long Way from

H ome: Barlow and Chambers (ferry London, 1988).1

H e went on to suggest that the latter was doomed from the

start ‘because how are you ever going to get audience sympathy

fo r a couple o f guys who are drug runners?”

ABOVE: BARBARA BARLOW (JULIE CHRISTIE)

IN FRONT OF AN IMAGE OF HER SON, KEVIN (JOHN POLSON).

JERRY LANDON'S A LONG WAY FROM HOME:

BARLOW AND CHAMBERS.

Ce r t a i n l y , Hayes was right to suggest that the key to the dramatic structure of both narratives is the guilt/inno- cence of the main characters, but the comparison between them is rather more complex than Hayes suggests, and deserves some more detailed examination.

To some extent, Hayes answers his own question, with the characters of Mandy (Joy Smithers) and Billy (Noah Taylor) in Bangkok Hilton. Both are technically guilty, but neither is entirely re­sponsible for his or her actions. The drug-dependence of their m other ensured that Mandy was bom addicted and Billy mentally retarded. Feeding her habit is, then, no t entirely voluntary or self- indulgent for Mandy: she cannot be simply condem ned for her weakness. Neither can Billy. His simple-minded cheerfulness led him to insist on carrying Mandy’s bag for her, so it is he who is caught ‘red-handed’, and is technically the guiltier o f the two.

Added to the plea of ‘diminished responsibility’ is the sheer likeableness of the characters, and the sympathy evoked by the strength of the bond between them. Mandy’s love for Billy is one of the reasons for her breaking the law in the first place (she was going to use the money to pay for a trip on an ocean-liner, his highest am bition), and it leads her to take great risks to protect him while

they are in jail and to bargain with her captors, offering her life for his. Viewers, therefore, are completely upon their side as the horror of the execution scene unfolds.

The writer of A Long Way from Home, William Kerby, did no t have the freedom to invent such circumstances, to play upon the emotions to gain the sym pathy o f an aud ien ce . T hrough the press reports, both of the trial and of the efforts of Barbara Barlow to achieve a reduction of the sen­tence, the Australian public

knew the end of the story before the series opened. Constrained (at least to some extent) no t only by the ‘facts’ of ‘history’, bu t by the public’s knowledge of these ‘facts’, the most Kerby could do was manipulate within certain pre-established boundaries. There are several strategies he chose to employ.

34 • C I N E M A P A P E R S . 7 8

LEFT: MANDY ENGELS (JOY SMITHERS),

THE HEROIN ADDICT IN KEN CAMERON'S

BANGKOK HILTON. BELOW: BARBARA VISITS

KEVIN IN A MALAYSIAN GAOL. AND. KEVIN

BARLOW. A GUARD AND GEOFFREY

CHAMBERS (HUGO WEAVING) IN A LONG

WAY FROM HOME.

The firstwas to apportion blame (and so, sympathy) between the two characters: in the mini-series version of the story, both are guilty, but Barlow (John Poison) is less so than Chambers (Hugo Weaving). Chambers is a seasoned drug courier; Barlow is a novice, forced into a life of crime by social circumstances (poverty, lack of rewarding work, persecution by the police for crimes of which he is innocent). Chambers is cold and calculating, entering willingly into the scheme; Barlow is ill, frightened and forced to participate against his will. Chambers takes a part in persuading Barlow to enter the project; when Barlow’s illness and fear lead to their capture, the audience is invited to sympathize with the weaker of the two characters.

The second strategy was to shift responsibility from the two young men to the women who have ‘let them down’. Barlow would never have done it if his girlfriend had not had an abortion against his will and left him shattered by her betrayal. Chambers was in shock after the death of his innocent girlfriend in an accident for which he feels responsible. The suffering of each is clearly presented (there is no attempt to suggest, for instance, that Chambers’ grief is anything but real and very painful), but the difference in these two stories also contributes to the apportioning of sympathy between them: again, Barlow is an innocent victim of the perfidy of others, while Chambers is suffering for his own stupidity.

The third strategy was to introduce an aspect of moral growth into the character of Barlow, while at the same time denying such change to Chambers. So Kevin Barlow, who till almost the end of the story had been shown as weak, easily-led and amoral rather than immoral, undergoes in prison a conversion to high moral principle, rejecting his m other’s offer of poison as a way to cheat the hangman on the grounds that it is his own problem which he must face himself, and learning to pray (just as Chambers refuses that comfort).

Finally, racism became a strategy for extracting sympathy from at least western audiences: the programme implies that even when westerners (whites) are guilty, they do not deserve to suffer at the hands of Asian legal systems, with their odd courtroom procedures, inhuman treatment of prisoners in gaols and barbaric penalties.

Clearly, all of the above are narrative, strategies, with no necessary connection to the ‘facts’ o f ‘history’.2 These strategies however, even at the narrative level, are never more than temporarily successful, because they are constandy underm ined in the interests of other threads of a narrative which cannot make up its mind whether it is a police story about a drug bust, a melodrama about a mother s fight to save her son’s life, or a polemic about the rights of westerners caught in Asian justice systems.

Take the question of Barlow’s guilt, for instance. The ‘police story’ aspect of the narrative always admits that Barlow did what he was accused of - in fact, in the opening episode the viewers actually see him do it. But in the ‘family melodrama’, Barbara Barlow (Julie Christie) maintains her son’s innocence to the last.

In the book which was ghostwritten for the real Barbara Barlow3, a story is told which explains her apparendy perverse insistence on her son’s innocence. In that story, Kevin did go to Malaysia to collect drugs, but he did not meet the courier, and was on his way home again, completely ignorant of the drugs hidden in the new suitcase by his casual companion Chambers, when he was stopped by Malay­sian Customs officials with a bag which he rightly insisted belonged to his travelling companion. No matter how far this story strains a reader’s credulity, it does provide Barbara Barlow with ajustification for her insistence on her son’s innocence. The mini-series, on the

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 35

other hand, does not allow this possibility, and so leaves the character of Barbara Barlow in an impossible position: despite Julie Christie’s best efforts, the Barbara Barlow of the mini-series appears shrill and shrewish and irrational, stubborn rather than brave.

There is a similar problem with the film Evil Angels [aka A Cry in the Dark]. In John Bryson’s book, the ultimate question of the guilt of the Chamberlains is left open, despite the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence which leads a reader inexorably to the conclusion intended by the writer. Fred Schepisi’s film, however, visualizes Lindy Chamberlain’s version of the story and, once the viewer has seen the dingo leave the tent, the rest of the film is almost superfluous: at this point, when we are shown ‘whodunit’, it shifts from being a mystery story and becomes instead a story of the wilful persecution of innocence.

Dramatic subtlety is lost along with moral ambiguity: the story is reduced to a simple confrontation between good and evil. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as in this case the film becomes a first-rate melodrama: the problem is rather with the denial by the filmmakers and by most of the critics that this is what they are actually dealing with now, rather than with realistic drama.

In the case of A Long Way from Home, the moral confusion leads not simply to a shift of register, but rather to unresolved contradic­tions between different threads of the story, preventing the narrative from settling down to be (family melodrama) fish, (courtroom/legal drama) fowl or good (whodunit) red herring.

It need not have been this way. True, the guilt of Barlow and Chambers prevents them from ever being any more than, at best, flawed heroes. And yes, by making their guilt so obvious, Kerby pre­vents the character of Barbara Barlow from functioning as a clear moral centre of the narrative. But despite all this, there is still one viable narrative perspective available: the debate around the legal aspects of the story. And it need not have had the racist overtones which it was in fact supplied with.

Once the narrative has elected to depict Barlow and Chambers as guilty, and to leave the viewer in no doubt of that, then the focus of dramatic interest inevitably shifts to the process of capture, trial and punishment. There were a num ber of possible routes through this area. The differences between national criminal codes, and the problems of the rights of foreign nationals within the legal system - the courts and gaols - of another country, are real problems. Equally significant are questions of the possibility of buying justice: Barlow

indicates that he has been offered a gaol break if he can raise the money. But the ultimate, and most important, question is capital punishment, and specifically the death penalty for drug running.

It is at this point that the mini-series sinks disappointingly into an emotional morass - dwelling on the horrors of the physical process of hanging and on the family’s pain - instead of confronting head- on these important moral and social issues.

Is society ever justified in claiming the death penalty? If so, which crimes is it to apply to? Is it intended as a punishment for the guilty party or as a deterrent to others? And is it an effective deterrent anyway?

How can crimes associated with the drug traffic be measured against other crimes considered particularly heinous - in our society, offences like child molestation. The

final credits say that 62 people have been hanged under this particu­lar Malaysian law. It is reasonable to ask: How effective, then, has that law been as a deterrent? How far are the drug couriers - the lowest ranks of the drugs industry - being made to act as scapegoats for society’s inability to deal with those who employ them as couriers and make the really big money out of the traffic?

36 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

FACING PAGE, TOP: BEFORE THE EXECUTION:

GEOFFREY AND KEVIN. A LONG WAY FROM HOME.

FACING PAGE, BELOW: KATRINA STANTON (NICOLE KIDMAN) IS TAKEN

TO LUM JAU G A O L AND, KATRINA WITH, UNKNOWN TO HER,

HER FATHER, HAL STANTON (DENHOLM ELLIOTT). BANGKOK HILTON.

BELOW: KATRINA AND THE DECEITFUL ARKIE REGAN

(JEROME EHLERS). BANGKOK HILTON.

These are significant moral questions that could have been (as they have been in other films and television programmes) the basis for great drama. And it is here that I disagree with Terry Hayes. He assumed that the problem was that Barlow and Chambers were guilty- and of a crime that has litde sympathy in the general community. I consider that, in fact, the story of Barlow and Chambers offers to a writer a limit case for confronting some of the issues surrounding capital punishment.

To once again draw on a film analogy: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (Stanley Kramer, 1967) has been frequently criticized for painting a sanitized picture of racism, by depicting the prospective son-in-law as Sidney Poitier - charming, handsome, well-educated and with a good income in a respected profession. But to have done anything else would have been to muddy the waters, to provide the prospective parents-in-law with some other excuse than racism for their reluctance to accept him into the family. If it is Sidney Poitier, then it is racism.

Similarly, to provide an innocent heroine facing the death pen­alty (Kat [Nicole Kidman] in Bangkok Hilton), or to create sympathy for the guilty through diminished responsibility (Mandy and Billy), is to allow the viewers an out on the moral issue: in these cases, the penalty is obviously unjust, and the viewers can come away feeling morally outraged. But the issue has been softened into a miscarriage of justice; it does not approach the core of the problem: the moral justification for such a penalty in the first place. O f course, it would have taken an expert writer (or writing team) to have coped with this issue without alienating a large section of the audience. So many Australians are fiercely committed to the support of capital punish­ment, or have so little sympathy with drugs that in the case of drug runners, they are willing to suspend their scruples over the death penalty. I can only regret that the story did not find writers equal to this challenge.

So, the dramatic impact of Bangkok Hilton is a result, not only of technical effectiveness (the skill of director, actors and technicians) but also of the fact that Hayes knew what he was doing: constructing a family m elodrama around the myth of persecuted innocence. And he did it well.

Unlike other narrative forms, the goal of the family melodrama is not necessarily the establishment of a heterosexual couple - certainly not in this case, where Kat’s parents allow themselves to be separated, and Arkie (Jerome Ehlers) turns out to be a con mer­chant, quite willing to sacrifice Kat. Instead, the narrative aims at the reconstruction of the damaged family, allowing the reconciliation of Hal Stanton (Denholm Elliott) with his brother after a break of more than twenty years, and the final reunion of Hal and Kat as father and daughter. This resolution of family crisis is even less ambivalent than in some of the other Kennedy Miller stories, including TheDirtwater Dynasty and Vietnam.

Myths explain the world to us. They not only describe what is happening around us, but also why it is happening - the gods are smiling, or they are angry and must be placated by a sacrifice. In Bangkok Hilton, the primary myth was that of persecuted innocence: the gods dem anded a certain am ount of sacrifice, but allowed the final restoration of justice, both through Kat’s escape and through the arrest of Arkie Regan.

The audience had seen this (family melodrama) form and these myths (of persecuted innocence) many times. They were also famil­iar, if no t through direct experience then indirectly through other representations (including film and television representations), with the aspects of the real world that were woven through the story- a world of drugs, of easy travel for westerners into Asia, of sexual

predation. History and myth fit comfortably together.A Long Way from Home deals with these myths and these realities

too, but less expertly, failing to recognize (let alone resolve) the conflicts it sets up between them. But, most significant, it fails to take advantage of the opportunity offered by its lead characters’ guilt to confront, at the limit case, some of the great social issues of our time: the death penalty, and the economic and social Base of the drugs traffic. Terry Hayes hasn’t done this either. I wonder who of our current crop of writers might be game to tackle it?

NOTES1. “Green Guide”, The Age, 2 November 1989, p.l.2. These arguments about narrative structure do not relate in any way to the other arguments around the programme, about its relation to the ‘truth’ of the events upon which it is based.3. Barbara Barlow (as told to Isobette Gidley and Richard Shears), A Long Way from Home: a Mother’s Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1988.4. The Weekend Australian, 17-18 September 1988, p.2.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 37

I N T E R V I E W E D B Y

Af t e r a c a r e e r as a painter and maker of obdu­

rately esoteric short films, British director Peter Greenaway leapt to prominence with that styl-

i ish jeu d ’esprit, The Draughtsman’s Contract.The stanchless loquacity of its dialogue and the exhilarating musical soundtrack worked in tandem with the flow of enigmatic visual im­ages to keep up an attack on its audience which was both seductive and minatory. Not, one might have thought, the stuff of commercial success, but that is exactly what it did enjoy.

Since then, Greenaway has gone on to make four more features: A Zed and Two Noughts, The Belly of an Architect, Drowning by Numbers and The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and Her lover. It is a production record more usually associated with the mainstream than with the art-house brigade.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Loveris, according to Greena­way: “...a melodrama. It is an extravagant but not impossible tale set in a restaurant where it is appropriate that all things should be eaten, if only experimentally ...

“It is a love story between the Wife [Helen Mirren] of the Thief [Michael Gambon] and H er Lover [Alan Howard]. The Cook [Richard Bohringer] owns a large restaurant called Le Hollandais after the large Dutch painting [ “Banquet of Officers of the St George Civic Guard Company” by Frans Hals, 1616] of a dining party that is hung on its walls and after whom the Thief and his gang model themselves. The cuisine is cosmopolitan French, the action is set in the 1980s and the restaurant could be situated in any large city in Western Europe or North America.”

Although it is a rich and com plex film , The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is also your most accessible. How do you feel it compares in narrative difficulty with your earlier films?

This is still very recognizably a Greenaway film: the same sort of metaphorical language, the same sort of exterior characteristics

B R I A N M c F A R L A N E

which make you feel as if you’re always watching a film and not doing anything else. It’s no t a slice of life, not a window on the world; it is certainly an artefact.

However, I can understand why the question is so often asked because the film has a lot more passion, more emotive association between an audience and a screen. There are many reasons for that. Basically, my cinema likes to address the fact that the only legitimate relationship between a film and its audience does no t have to be an emotional one. I started life off as a painter and I have always been very aware that when you stand in front of a painting you do not emote. You don’t fall around on the floor in laughter, crying your eyes out or jum ping up and down in anger. It is a different sort of approach, one much more to do with contemplation, with form and surface as well as with content. I have always tried to get those sorts of relationships into my cinema.

I have always enjoyed those artefacts which make me work, not only in terms of the cinema but also novel-writing, painting and all the other arts. I likewise believe that audiences have an attitude towards cinema which does not necessarily correspond to the dom inant Hollywood influence. So, I have always used all sorts of distancing devices - quite obvious things like no use of close-ups, very little editing, a concern with static frames and complex soundtracks, and so on. All those characteristics are still present in The Cook, the Thief, but what has happened is I have legitimized for myself a much stronger emotional use of the content in terms of the melodrama, the acting, the violence and the sexual passion. I have allowed these to well up through the other concerns to make a film which a lot of people have found contacts them in the traditional Hollywood fashion.

T here’s one major reason why I have done this. The film is a very angry one. The political situation that currently exists in Great Britain under Mrs Thatcher is one of incredible sense of self-interest and greed. Society is beginning to worry entirely about the price of everything and the value of nothing, and there is a way in which The Cook, the Thiefis an exemplumof a consumer society, personified in the

38 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

Thief, Albert Spica. He is a man who is thoroughly despicable in every part of his character. He has no redeem ing features, and is consumed by self-interest and greed.

However, I don ’t wish the film to be seen particularly as an anti- Thatcherite essay. It also has heroic qualities which can be under­stood from Tasmania to Tierra del Fuego, from Addis Ababa to Vladivostok. It is a film which I hope works on a more personal level, as well as in terms of late-1980s British politics and social conditions, which have much wider overtones.

What was your aim in establishing so firmly the connection between eating and sexuality, which is one of the film’s central motifs?

That is, of course, an old connection. On a really basic level, and in Darwinian terms, the reproduction facilities of the hum an body, and also presumably of the hum an spirit, have very much come from the digestive tract, as an anatomical examination of the facts will indi­cate. As well, sex and the hunger for food are, in a peculiarly metaphorical way, intimately related.

This film is a very physical one. It is based on a large series of ideas, one of the most im portant being a concern for Jacobean English drama, the dram a that came directly after Shakespeare. In fact, late Shakespearean plays are often described asjacobean. They examine very harsh realities, often taboo subject matters, which are

sometimes regarded as being on the edges of our experience. Western literature and cinema use at times extreme situations to throw light on more ordinary situations.

The extreme situation in this film is cannibalism. Very rarely do we come up against it any more: a small plane goes down in what’s left of the Amazonian forest, the pilot eats the passengers or vice versa. So, it is a peripheral event. We have no doubt some sense of frisson of horror at the idea, but it is forgotten quickly. And, by and large, the State and religion no longer penalize cannibals.

What I wanted to do was take that situation and use it both literally, for the ending of the film, and metaphorically. Imagine there is a huge m outh at the back of the screen into which everything is being pushed. Also consider the idea that all of us are very small children, exploring the world with our mouths. There is a way in which the ultimate obscenity of the consumer society, when we have eaten up everything, is that we turn and eat one another.

O f course, that idea is used with great irony. After all, the concepts of this film are absolutely preposterous, although nothing is really impossible or improbable, except perhaps for the ending. I don ’t mean the actual cannibalism, the putting of m eat into the mouth, but Albert Spica’s being killed: it isn’t possible to eradicate evil so easily.

The dialogue, which is no t particularly conversational bu t quite

40 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

S P E C I A L O F F E R

O F F N O R M A L S U B S C R I P T I O N R A T E

OFFER CLOSES 20 APRIL 1990

SUBSCRIBE N OW AT 25% OFF NORM AL SUBSCRIPTION RATE 1 YEAR AT $ 2 1 .0 0 [NORM ALLY $ 2 8 .0 0 ] 2 YEA RS AT $ 3 9 .0 0 [NORM ALLY $ 5 2 .0 0 ]

3 YEARS AT $ 5 8 .5 0 [NORM ALLY $ 7 8 .0 0 ]DISCOUNT OFFER APPLICABLE IN AUSTRALIA ONLY

FILL OUT THE SUBSCRIPTION FORM ON BACK PAGE OF THIS INSERT^ J l & c - L ' - -JTiA— . - '--v . • - - - -- ........................ ■ ------ - -

B A C K I S S U E S : C I N E M A P A

NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974):David W illiamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter W eir, A ntony Ginnane, Gillian A rm strong, Ken G. Hall, The C ars th a t A te Paris.

NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974):Censorship, Frank M oorhouse, Nicolas Roeg, Sandy H arb u tt, Film under Allende, Between The Wars, A lv in Purple

NUMBER 3 (JULY 1974):Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O ’Brien, William Friedkin, The True Story O f Eskimo Nell.

NUMBER 10 (5EPT/OCT 1976)Nagisa Oshima, Philippe M ora, Krzysztof Zanussi, M arco Ferreri, M arco Belloochio, gay cinema.

NUMBER 11 (JANUARY 1977)Emile De A ntonio, Jill R obb, Samuel Z. Arkoff, Rom an Polanski, Saul Bass, The Picture Show M an.

NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977)Ken Loach, Tom H aydon, Donald Sutherland, Bert D eling, Piero Tosi, John D ankw orth, John Scott, D ays O f Hope,The G ettin g O f Wisdom.

NUMBER 13 ( JULY 1977)Louis Malle, Paul Cox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search O f A n n a .

NUMBER 14 (OCTOBER 1977)Phil Noyce, M att Carroll, Eric Rohm er, Terry Jackman, John H uston , Luke 's K in gdom , The L ast Wave, Blue Fire Lady.

NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978)Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan cinema, T he Irishm an, The C h a n t O f J im m ie Blacksmith.

NUMBER 16 ( APRIL-JUNE 1978)Gunnel Lindblom , John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Jeffrey, The A fr ica Project, Swedish cinema, D aw n!, Patrick.

NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978)Bill Bain, Isabelle H uppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, N ewsfront, The N ig h t The Prowler.

NUMBER 18 (OCT/NOV 1978)John Lam ond, Sonia Borg, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, D im boola, C a th y’s Child.

NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979)A ntony G innane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thom as, Andrew Sarris, sponsored docum entaries, Blue Fin.

NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979)Ken Cam eron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharm an, French cinema, M y B rillia n t Career.

NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979)Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thom s, Stax, A lison ’s B irthday

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

NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980)David Puttnam , Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, C hain R eaction , Stir.

NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980)Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, D onald Richie, obituary o f H itchcock, N Z film industry, G ren del G rendel Grendel.

NUMBER 28 (AUG/SEPT 1980)Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, T im Burns,

John O ’Shea, Bruce Beresford, B ad Tim ing, Roadgam es.

NUMBER 29 (OCT/NOV 1980)Bob Ellis, U ri W indt, Edward W oodward, Lino Brocka, Stephen Wallace, Philippine cinema, C ruising, The L ast O utlaw .

NUMBER 36 (FEBRUARY 1982)Kevin D obson, Brian Kearney, Sonia H ofm ann, Michael R ubbo, Blow O ut, Breaker M orant, Body H eat, The M an From Snowy R iver.

NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982)Stephen M acLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter U stinov, w om en in dram a, M onkey Grip.

NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982)G eoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tonv Williams, law and insurance, F ar East.

NUMBER 39 (AUGUST 1982)H elen M orse, Richard M ason, Anja Breien, David Millikan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema, N ational Film Archive, We O f The N ever Never.

NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982)H enri Safran, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, W endy H ughes, Ray Barrett, M y D in n er W ith A n dre, The R etu rn O f C a p ta in Invincible.

NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982)Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tam m er, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins, The Y ear O f L iv in g Dangerously.

NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983)Mel Gibson, John W aters, Ian Pringle, Agnes Varda, copyright, Strikebound, The M an From Snowy R iver.

NUMBER 43 (MAY/JUNE 1983)Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, C arefu l H e M igh t H e a r You.

NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)David Stevens, Sim on W incer, Susan Lam bert, a personal history o f C inem a Papers, S treet Kids.

NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984)Richard Lowenstein, W im W enders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, H ugh H udson , Robbery U nder A rm s.

NUMBER 48 (OCT/NOV 1984)Ken C am eron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim D u sty M ovie.

NUMBER 49 (DECEMBER 1984)Alain Resnais, Brian M cKenzie, Angela Punch M cG regor, Ennio M orricone, Jane Cam pion, horro r films, N ie l Lynne.

NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985)Stephen Wallace, Ian Pringle, Walerian Borowczyk, Peter Schreck, Bill C onti, Brian May, The L ast Bastion, Bliss.

NUMBER 51 (MAY 1985)Lino Brocka, H arrison Ford, N oni H azlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh R uo, W inners, The N aked Country, M a d M ax: Beyond Thunderdom e, Robbery U nder A rm s.

NUMBER 52 (JULY 1985)John Schlesinger, Gillian A rm strong, Alan

Parker, soap operas, TV News, film advertising, D o n ’t C a ll M e G irlie, For Love A lone, D ouble Sculls.

NUMBER 53 (SEPTEMBER 1985)Bryan Brown, Nicolas Roeg, V incent W ard, H ector Crawford, Em ir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, R etu rn To Eden.

NUMBER 54 (NOVEMBER 1985)Graeme Clifford, Bob Weis, John Boorm an, M enahem Golan, rock videos, Wills A n d Burke, The G rea t Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster M iller A ffa ir .

NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986)James Stewart, D ebbie Byrne, Brian T hom pson, Paul V erhoeven, Derek M eddings, tie-in m arketing, The R igh t- H a n d M an, Birdsville.

NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986)Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Sm ith, John Hargreaves, D ead- E n d D rive-In , The M ore Things Change, K angaroo, Tracy.

NUMBER 58 (JULY 1986)W oody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, O rson Welles, the C iném athèque Française, The Fringe Dwellers, G rea t Expectations: The U ntold S to ry , The L ast Frontier.

NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980)Charles H . Joffe, Jerom e H eilm an, M alcolm Smith, Australian nationalism , Japanese cinema, Peter W eir, W ater U nder The Bridge.

NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)Paul Cox, Russell M ulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, R obert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka Stockade, W aterfront, The Boy In The Bush,A W om an Suffers, S treet Hero.

NUMBER 59 (SEPTEMBER 1986)R obert A ltm an, Paul Cox, Lino Brocka, Agnes Varda, T he AFI Awards, The Movers.

P E R S. Ill 1

NUMBER 60 (NOVEMBER 1986) Australian Television, Franco Zeffirelli, Nadia Tass, Bill B ennett, D utch Cinema, Movies By M icrochip, Otello.

NUMBER 61 (JANUARY 1987)Alex Cox, Rom an Polanski, Philippe M ora, M artin A rm iger, film in South Australia, Dogs In Space, H ow lin g III.

NUMBER 62 (MARCH 1987)Screen V iolence, David Lynch, Cary G rant, ASSA conference, production barom eter, film finance, The Story O f The K elly Gang.

NUMBER 63 (MAY 1987)Gillian A rm strong, A ntony G innane, Chris H ayw ood, Elm ore Leonard, Troy Kenned} M artin, The Sacrifice, Landslides, Pee W ee’s B ig A dven tu re , J ilted .

NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987)N ostalgia, D ennis H opper, M el Gibson, Vladimir O sherov, Brian Trenchard- Sm ith, C hartbusters, Insatiable.

NUMBER 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987)Angela Carter, W im W enders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Derek Jarm an, Gerald L ’Ecuyer, Gustav H asford, AFI Awards, Poor M an ’s O range.

NUMBER 66 (NOVEMBER 1987) Australian Screenwriters, C inem a and China, James Bond, James Clayden, V ideo, De Laurentiis, N ew W orld, The N aviga to r, W ho’s T h at G irl.

NUMBER 67 (JANUARY 1988)John D uigan, G eorge M iller, Jim Jarmusch, Soviet cinema- Part I, wom en in film, shooting in 70m m , filmmaking in G hana, The Y e a r M y Voice Broke,Send A G orilla.

NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988)M artha Ansara, Channel 4 , Soviet Cinema Part II , Jim M cBride, G lam our, nature cinem atography, Ghosts O f The C iv il Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean.

NUMBER 69 (MAY 1988)Special Cannes issue, film com posers, sex, death and family films, V incent W ard, Luigi A cquisto, David Parker, production barom eter, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes.

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

NUMBER 71 (JANUARY 1989)Yahoo Serious, FFC , David C ronenberg, T he Year in R etrospect, Film Sound - the sound track, Y ou n g Einstein, Shout, The L ast T em pta tion o f Christ, S a lt S aliva Sperm a n d Sw eat

F I L M V I E W S

V A I L A B L E I S S U E S

EWSW I MW E N D E R S

SOLVEIG DOMMARTIN JE AN -PIER R E GORIN NZ FILM ARCHIVE W ENDY THOMPSON ANTONIONI M ICHAEL LEE

F I LMVIEWS

NUMBER 123 AUTUMN 1985The 1984 W om en’s Film U nit, The Films ofSolrun Hoaas, Louise W ebb, Scott Hicks, Jan Roberts

NUMBER 124 WINTER 1985Films for Workers, M erata M ita, Len Lye, Marleen Gorris, Daniel Petrie,Larry M eltzer

NUMBER 125 SPRING 1985Rod W ebb, M arleen Gorris, Ivan Gaal, Red M atildas , Sydney Film Festival

NUMBER 126 SUMMER 1985/86The Victorian W om en’s Film U nit, Randelli’s, Laleen Jayamanne, Lounge Room Rock, The Story' o f Oberhausen

NUMBER 127 AUTUMN 1986AFTRS reviews, Jane O ehr,John Hughes, Melanie Read, Philip Brophy,Gyula Gazdag, Chile: Hasta Cuando?

NUMBER 128 WINTER 1986Karin Altmann, Tom Cowan, Gillian Coote, Nick Torrens, David Bradbury, Margaret Haselgrove, Karl Steinberg, AFTRS graduate films, Super 8,Pop Movie

NUMBER 129 SPRING 1986Reinhard Haufif, 1986 Sydney Film Festival, Nick Zedd, Tony Rayns, Australian Independent Film, Public Television in Australia, Super 8

NUMBER 130 SUMMER 1986/87Sogo Ishii, Tom H aydon, Gillian Leahy, Tom Zubrycki, John H anhardt, Australian Video Festival, Erika Addis, Ross Gibson, Super 8, Camera N atura

NUMBER 131 AUTUMN 1987Richard Lowenstein, New Japanese Cinema, Ken Russell, Taking a Film Production Overseas, Richard Chatawav and Michael Cusack

NUMBER 132 WINTER 1987Censorship in Australia, Rosalind Krauss, Troy Kennedy M artin, New Zealand Cinema, David Chesworth,

NUMBER 133 SPRING 1987Wim W enders, Solveig Dom m artin, The Films ofW im W enders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, M ichelangelo Antonioni, Wendy Thom pson, Michael Lee, Jonathan Dennis, Super 8

NUMBER 134 SUMMER 1987/88Recent Australian Films, Film Music, G roucho’s Cigar, Jerzy Domaradzki, H ong Kong Cinema, The Films o f Chris M arker, David Noakes, The Devil in the Flesh, How the West Was Lost

NUMBER 135 AUTUMN 1988Alfred H itchcock, M artha Ansara, New Chinese Cinema, Lindsay Anderson, Sequence M agazine, Cinema Italia, New Japanese Cinema, Fatal A ttraction

NUMBER 136 WINTER 1988Film Theory and Architecture, Victor Burgin, Horace Ove, Style Form and History' in Australian Mini Series, Blue Velvet, South o f the Border, Cannibal Tours

NUMBER 137 SPRING 1988H an if Kureishi, Fascist Italy and American Cinema, Gillian A rm strong, Atom Egoyan, Film Theory and Architecture, Shame, Television Mini Series, Korean Cinema, Sammy and Rosie Get Laid ■

NUMBER 72 (MARCH 1989)Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit, Australian Sci-Fi movies, Survey: 1988 Mini-Series, Aromarama, Ann T urner’s Celia, Fellini’s La dolce vita, W omen and Westerns

NUMBER 73 (MAY 1989)Cannes Issue, Phil Noyce, Franco Nero, Jane Campion, Ian Pringle, Frank Pierson, Australian films at Cannes, Pay TV.

NUMBER 74 (JULY 1989)The Delinquents, Australians in H olly­wood, Chinese C inema, Philippe M ora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, True Believers, Ghosts... of the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay

NUMBER 75 (SEPTEMBER 1989)Sally Bongers, The Teen Movie,Animated, Edens Lost, Mary Lam bert and

Pet Sematary, Scorsese and Schrader, Ed Pressman, Sweetie, Batman, Lover Boy, Dead Poets Society, New York Stories, Georgia

NUMBER 76 (NOVEMBER 1989)Simon W incer and Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok Hilton, John D uigan, Flirting,Romero, Dennis H opper and Kiefer Sutherland, Boulevard Films / Frank H ow son, Ron C obb, Island, Sex Lies and Videotape, Buried Alive, B lind Fury, Paris By Night.

NUMBER 77 (JANUARY 1990)

John Farrow, Blood Oath, Dennis W hitburn and Brian Williams, Don M cLennan and Breakaway, “Crocodile” D undee overseas. ■

BACK OF BEYONDDISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION

A LIM ITED N U M B E R o f th e b e a u t ifu lly d e s ig n e d

catalogue especially prepared for the recent season of

Australian film and television at the UCLA film and

television archive in the U.S. are now available for sale

in Australia. Edited by Scott Murray, and with exten­

sively researched articles by several o f Australia’s leading writers

on film and television, such as Kate Sands, W o m e n o f th e W a v e ;

Ross Gibson, F o r m a t i v e L an dscapes-, Debi Enker, C ro s s -o v e r a n d

C o l la b o r a t io n : K e n n e d y M i l l e r , Scott Murray, G e o rg e M i l l e r , Scott

Murray, T e r r y H a y e s , Graeme Turner, M i x i n g F a c t a n d F ic t io n ;

Michael Leigh, C u r io u s e r a n d C u r io u s e r ; Adrian Martin,

N u r t u r i n g th e N e x t W a v e .

The B a c k o f B e y o n d Catalogue is extensively illustrated with

more than 130 photographs, indexed, and has full credit listings

for some 80 films.

PRICE: The Catalogue price is $24.95, which includes postage and

packaging.

CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTIONSI wish to subscribe at the Special Rate o f 25% off (Note: offer ends 20 April 1990) for

□ 6 issues at $21.00□ 12 issues at $39.00□ 18 issues at $58.50

Please □ begin□ renew my subscription from the next issue

I originally subscribed to□ Cinema Papers□ Filmviews

Note: I f renewing your subscription please state your

record number__________________

N A M E ____

TITLE____

COMPANY

ADDRESS—

COUNTRY__________________ POSTCODE________

TELEPHONE h o m e___________ w o r k _______________

Enclosed is my cheque for $ or please debit my

□ BANKCARD □ MASTERCARD □ VISACARD

Total C o s t__________________ c a r d N o D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

Expiry Date----------------------------------------------------------

Signature-------------------------------------------------------------ADDITIONAL ITEMS

1. BACK OF BEYOND:DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION

I wish to order__________ no. o f copies□ $24.95 per copy

(Includes Postage)Total Cost $

2. BACK ISSUES

I wish to order the following back issues

□ CINEMA PAPERS Issue nos.

□ FILMVIEWS Issue nos.

□ 1-2 copies @ $4.50 each□ 3-4 copies @ $4.00 each□ 5-6 copies @ $3.50 each□ 7 or more copies @ $3.00 each

Total no. o f issues

Total Cost $

Cheques should be made payable to:MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED

and mailed to:MTV Publishing limited,43 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria 3067

NB. ALL OVERSEAS ORDERS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY

BANK DRAFTS IN AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS ONLY

« I N T E R N A T I O N A L

6 Issues 12 Issues 18 Issues Back Issues1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Add to Price

per copy

Z one 1: Surface Surface Surface SurfaceN ew Zealand 36.00 65 .00 97 .00 1.20N iu g in i Air Air Air Air

48 .00 90 .00 136.00 3.35

Z one 2: Surface Surface Surface SurfaceMalaysia 36.00 65 .00 97 .00 1.20Fiji Air Air Air AirSingapore 42 .00 77 .00 116.00 2.25

Z one 3: Surface Surface Surface SurfaceH o n g K ong 36.00 69.00 102.00 1.20India Air Air Air AirJapan 59.00 112.00 168.00 5.15PhilippinesChina

Z one 4: Surface Surface Surface SurfaceU S A 37.00 67.00 101.00 1.40Canada Air Air Air AirM iddle E ast 65 .00 125.00 187.00 6.20

Z one 5: Surface Surface Surface SurfaceU K /E u r o p e 37.00 68 .00 187.00 1.50Africa Air Air Air AirSou th America 71 .00 136.00 205 .00 7 .20

"Most cinema, and certainly the dominant American cinema, deals with people essentially as personalities, with psychological cause and effect.

I am very concerned to not only do that, but also concern myself with them as being a body, an object, a bulk, a form, a shape, something that throws light,

makes the floorboards creak, indicates volume."

literary and metaphorical, is also about extremes of hum an behav­iour. For exam ple, a small boy is tortured by being forced to put buttons into his mouth; there’s the grand guignolgesture of the fork that misses the woman’s m outh and goes into her cheek; and there’s the very strong beginning of the film when the man is forced to eat dog shit. There is also the suggestion that the apogee of sexual pleasure, in the conversations between the Wife and the Cook, is associated with fellatio. So constantly there are references to the m outh and its being fed with all sorts of objects, and not necessarily with those that are nourishing.

Another preoccupation your films have in common with Jacobean dram a is the connection between sexuality and danger. Is this som e­thing o f which you are conscious?

Yes, indeed. In The Cook, the Thief,. I was especially concerned with the great physicality of things. Jacobean drama is very physical: the body is at the centre, an object which bleeds and has bile, spit, vomit, shit and sem en. The body is seen very much as an image of an alimentary Canal wrapped around with flesh.

Most cinema, and certainly the dom inant American cinema, deals with people essentially as personalities, with psychological cause and effect. I am very concerned to not only do that, but also concern myself with them as being a body, an object, a bulk, a form, a shape, something that throws light, makes the floorboards creak, indicates volume. Consequently, the characters are choreographed very carefully in these big, fixed empty spaces of the restaurant, the kitchen, and so on.

There are several reasons for this interest in the physicality of these creatures. There have been 2000 years of image-making, and the centre of that image-making has always been the hum an figure. Painting doesn’t deal with personalities, it deals with figures. For exam ple, one of the central images of all European paintings is the bloodied, naked, very physical body of Christ. I want to get those sorts o f physicalities into my cinema practice.

There is a contrast between, on the one hand, the sheer beauties o f colour, lighting and composition, and, on the other, the ferocious ugliness o f much o f the story.

Again, that is a characteristic of all my cinema. There are lots of ways I could discuss that. Maybe the most banal is: Why should the devil have all the best tunes?

There is a mediaeval-like feeling in The Cook, the Thief about this rotten, worm-infested body which is covered in an extraordinary gloss of elaborate clothing, feathered hats and that sort of thing. It is as though there is an attem pt to try and hide the horror, the despair, the sense of violence and lust that’s contained only just underneath. The very title of the film indicates the mediaeval parable or fable, as does the very moral ending. And the four characters are set up to be easily representative of certain vices and certain virtues.

There is also the way in which I use colour coding to draw attention to the artificiality of the subject. The film opens with curtains and closes with curtains, as if saying, “You are about to watch a perform ance.”

One of the amazing characteristics of cinema is you can every now and again be sucked completely into the illusion, but I can’t

RIGHT: THE GANG OF LE HOLLANDAIS POSITIONS ITSELF ACCORDING

TO THE PAINTING OF FRANS HALS: MEWS (RON COOK), SPANGLER (TIM ROTH),

THE THIEF (MICHAEL GAMBON), HARRIS (EWAN STEWART), CORY (CIARAN HINDS) AND

TURPIN (ROGER STEWART). ABOVE: INSIDE THE THIEF'S RESTAURANT, WITH THE HALS

PAINTING IN THE BACKGROUND. THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER.

really use devices. For example, when the Wife walks from one room to another, her clothing changes, which immediately brings you up sharp. It’s certainly not reality; it is an artifice which I hope is well wrought, well organized and entertaining. Even though you are watching actors behaving like human beings, the film has a very allegorical, metaphorical sense which undermines the illusion and makes you realize you are sitting in a dark space, watching a beam of light project shadows on a screen.

I have often been accused by those people who do not like my cinema, and there’s a great many of them, of over-concerning myself with what might be described as large subject matters. English cinema is very parochial, often dealing with very local, political, an­ecdotal situations. My interests are much more to do with the European cinema of ideas, which is quite prepared, maybe arro­gantly, to take on ‘big’ ideas. And these ideas, which follow through from TheDraughtman’s Contract, and, indeed, from before, are to do with the questions of immortality and mortality.

Most cinema has basically two subject matters: sex and death. In the 1980s and ’90s, we think we have some knowledge of and control over sex; but we will never have any control over death. All my films address that situation, in terms of irony and black humour. Some­times they are facetious, sometimes very flippant, but always the central core is concern.

Another subject matter, which is a very local one, and which makes my films very much a part of the latter half of the 20 th Century, is the idea that the world is a most magnificent, munificent, amazing, varied place. The surfaces of my films, from The Draughtman’s Contract onwards, are very baroque. They use every device I can think of to indicate the richness and munificence of the world, but always with - and again I’m often accused of this - the central characters behaving in a misanthropic way. If you want to extract some meaning from this, it is that the world is a most magnificent place but people are constantly fucking it up. The Cook, theThiefis]\\st another example of that.

To go back to the colour coding and the W ife’s costume changes, is the notion o f the singing boy also a distancing device? It comes as a shock that the beautiful voice is not just on the soundtrack, but belongs to a character, as is revealed by the track through the kitchen.

Exactly. And there are many other devices like that throughout the

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 41

film. Mostly it is because I feel that the great works of European culture which I admire most are those which balance content and formal, which always acknowledge their own artificiality. For ex­ample, the Sistine Chapel is not just a magnificent examination of Christian and Jewish mythology but it’s also very much a painterly, artificial organization. Equally, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a play about the theatre, Rembrandt’s “The Night Watch” a painting about paint­ing.

That duality, between form and content, will always be part of my filmmaking. But it is something which can be self-indulgent, which can put people off with elitist knowledge and intellectual exhibition­ism.

Your features are beautifully composed and lit. What sort o f working relationship do you have with your superb director o f photography, Sacha Vieny?

Sacha, who has worked with me since A Zed and Two Noughts, is about 75 years old. He has a long history which goes back to associations with people likejean Cocteau. Probably he is most famous for having worked with Alain Resnais, whose movies I regard as the most impor­tant of European cinema. But Sacha has also worked with Luis Buñuel - they made Belle dejourtogexher. So, he’s a man of enormous cinematic experience.

Sacha is very modest and retiring, and would certainly shun any sort of public celebration. He puts an enormous amount of imagina­tion and excitement into his work. His English is not absolutely amazing and my French is even worse, but we do seem to be able to communicate very successfully.

Also very important are my Dutch collaborators in the art depart­ment, Ben van Os and Jan Roelfd. We have made three features together, and are about to embark on another. They have this tremendous excitement about what they do.

My films are made very cheaply. The Cook, the Thief was made for just over a million pounds, which is extraordinarily cheap. Apart from Sacha, Ben andjan, the most important figure is my producer, a Dutchman named Kees Kasander. He manages to draw the money together from various European sources. Then, through all sorts of cleverness and devices, he is able to make that money stretch so that we can make the very full, professional-looking and rich movies that you see on the screen.

Have all your features been European co-productions?

Yes. The Draughtsman’s Contract was a collaboration between the British Film Institute and the newly opened Channel 4. And every­thing that I have done since has been very generously helped and aided by Channel 4 - except, that is, for The Cook, the Thief. They drew the line on that one. After the first reading of the script, they got very over-excited and said they couldn’t possibly make a movie like this.

I feel The Cook, the Thief is very7 much in the European tradition which relates to Buñuel and Pasolini, of films which take risks, which try deliberately, and I hope not sensationally, because that’s cheap, to be provocative, in order to stir up sensibilities about areas which need to be aired. It is very adult cinema.

The violence, for example, is not related, I hope, to the American sense of violence. By and large, that is a very irresponsible, tomato ketchup sort of violence, where the characters get up the next frame and walk off. The violence in my films has a sense of responsibility. All of us know how appalling violence is; it must be shunned at every step. Of course, my approach can be misunderstood, and some people have accused me of being as gratuitous as Rambo. I strenu­ously deny that.

The Cook, tiie Thief is a film that sets out to shock, but with moral sanction for doing so. At the same time, it ravishes the senses. That makes it a provocative and exciting experience.

Quite. Responses are relative to that very thing; there’s a sense of the stretch mark to it.

Of course, the entire film could have been made with grubby characters in a transport café on some arterial roadway. It could belong much more to the realist milieu, without the use of ravishing cinematic language. Such a film, of course, would be completely different.

There is in my film a concern for picture making, for the formality and the artificiality of it, which energizes what is happening on the screen. This may be a little unusual in terms of the world cinema, but gives it an extra sort of savagery, an extra strength; it moves the whole air away from your transport cafe into some more grandiose and grandiloquent style of image-making, which again refers to that use of European painting.

42 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

Somehow in the imagery we know very well the appalling situ­ation could be changed and the world constantly look like this magnificent imagery. In a very positive sense, it does not have to be constantly dragged down by the appalling greed, lust and self- interest, which seem to be the norm of a lot of western consumer society.

And which is here embodied in the character o f Albert Spica. But why did you want to make Spica a figure o f such undiluted evil? Surelyyou risk alienating an audience with so unredeemable a presence at the centre.

This is the pleasure of evil, and goes right back to Shakespearean drama. When Laurence Olivier impersonated Richard III, he made that terrible, evil character peculiarly and dangerously attractive. Somehow we admire the evil.

It happens time and time again. We have clichés like, “love to hate”. J.R. Ewing in Dallas, for example, virtually made that pro­gramme, because people switched on the television in order to love to hate this appalling man.

On moral grounds, this is reprehensible. So I tried to create a character where this could not happen. Here is a Fascistic, sexist and mean-minded man, who tortures children and bullies women. All of us have come across people we feel are like this. They are extremely dangerous people, and ultimately must be emasculated and de­stroyed. Not that I think they should be killed, but there should be ways and means whereby we can combat this evil.

Does the feeling between the Wife and the Lover represent for you the one great positive in a nightmarish world?

The love affair does energize and organize everything else that happens in the film; even those appalling things towards the end of the film. But their affair is regarded in a very unsentimental, unro­mantic, undeodorized, un-Hollywood approach. The facts of the case are obvious: it is a very unsentimental love affair.

It begins very much as a sexual affair, rather than a romance.

Yes, and travels toward something much more valuable. Nonethe­

BOTTOM LEFT, FACING PAGE: THE WIFE (HELEN MIRREN) AND HER HUSBAND, THE THIEF.

LEFT: THE THIEF EXPERIMENTS WITH A NEW CULINARY SENSATION. BELOW: THE THIEF AND

THE LOVER (ALAN HOWARD). THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER.

less, there is no soft-focus feel to it, really or metaphorically. It is a hastily grabbed, rushed, difficult affair which, while obviously flour­ishing, rises and falls in the space of four or five days.

There are all sorts of ironies as well: a man who’s supposed to be passionately interested in literature, but never speaks until it’s too late; a woman doesn’t declare her affection again until it’s too late.

The Cook seems a wry, benign presence. Is there a positive feeling invested in him that the film needs?

Yes. He is the director in some senses, the organizing principle. He is the one who invites the diner to come and sit at the meal table, the same way a film director invites the audience to sit in the cinema. He is the one who tucks the table napkin in your shirt front, offers you the menu, suggests what’s to be eaten today and, ultimately, provides the stage for the actors - and the privacy of the kitchen for the lovers. He ultimately agrees to the Wife’s suggestion to offer the denouement, the final organization, of the film.

The Cook is also the figure which doesn’t take too strong a moral position. In the early part of the film, he could make arrangements to create trouble for the appalling Thief and for the restaurant, but

he doesn’t. He observes, constandy watching and occasionally nudg­ing the characters into certain sorts of situations.

He is also keen on his art.

Indeed, which again is reflective of this particular film director. The Cook is a perfectionist, a man who tries to find, in latter speeches of course, a metaphorical parallel between what he does as a cook and a philosophical examination of his particular art relative to every­thing else. When he describes the ways and means in which the food is cooked, he goes on talking about black being representative of this, and so on.

The most enigmatic character is Grace [Liz Smith]. What do you want to suggest with her?

She is rather strange. In terms of the written script, Grace had a much bigger part but, to make a film that is only two hours long, some of her lines have been cut.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 48

JACK CLAYTONB Y N E I L S I N Y A R D

Th e RELEASE last year of The Lonely Passion ofJudith Heame (1988) is a good occasion to take stock of one of the most enigmadc careers of post-war Brit­ish cinema, that of director Jack Clayton.

Thirty years ago, after the international success of Room at the Top (1959), he was being widely credited with bringing realism, the working class and even sex to the British screen. Twenty years ago, shortly after Our Mother’s House {1967) had gone down at the Venice Festival like a lead balloon, Andrew Sarris was writing him off, along with David Lean, as the epitome of academic impersonality in screen direction. Since then he has made only three films in two decades - The Great Gatsby (1974), Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983) and

Judith Heame - and has become one of those curiosities of British cinema, like Thorold Dickinson or Lindsay Anderson, whose career has never had any real continuity and who has never really seemed to belong. Perhaps this rootlessness and frustration was what at­tracted him to Judith Heame, with its rootless, frustrated heroine. ‘Things are going to be better here than the other places ... a new start...”, says the heroine near the beginning of the film. It could be Clayton himself talking, returning to the British cinema after a generation’s absence.

Sarris might have been contem ptuous of Clayton’s gifts, but he does fulfil one of Sarris’ basic criteria of a good director: namely, someone who has made a fair proportion of good films. O f Clayton’s seven movies, I think only one is the classic he aims for - The Innocents (1961) - but if the others fall short, some at least have cult movie status: The Pumpkin Eater (1964), for pum ping Antonioniesque angst into the pallid cheeks of English domestic melodrama; Something Wicked for reviving the terror of early Disney; Our Mother’s House for its belatedly bizarre attem pt at a British Forbidden Games (children’s fascination with the rituals of death). O f The Great Gatsby, I will only recall at this stage that no less em inent a judge than Tennessee Williams pronounced it to be greater than the novel. If Sarris could not grant Clayton the acco­lade of auteur, Williams was happy to describe him as an artist.

Clayton is not an auteurm the sense in which the term was used in the 1960s, though nowadays

that would no t disqualify him from attention. All his films have been based on reputable or classic novels, and his attitude to adaptation has been similar to that of John Huston (for whom he worked as associate producer on Moulin Rouge and Beat the Devil): a belief that the trick is to let the material dictate the style rather than impose your personal style on the material. This is no t to deny that Clayton has a distinctive style, or to suggest that there is a lack of recurring preoccupations in his work. But if the style is the man, then Clayton is an elusive character. Indeed, his main originality is in the idiosyn­crasy of his borrowings, from Jean Cocteau to George Stevens, from Rene Clement to Alfred Hitchcock.

If one examines his first decade as a director, from his Oscar- winning short The Bespoke Overcoat in 1955 to Our Mother’s House in 1967, the film that most looks like his odd man out is his most successful, Room at the Top. Clayton was never cut out to be the Angry Young Man of the British cinema - for a start he was balding, pushing 40, and had been working quite happily in the industry since he was 14 - so the fact that the film struck a contemporary nerve of rebellion and iconoclasm was entirely accidental. “I don’t believe in being fashionable”, Clayton was soon saying; ‘Try to be and you are usually out of date before you start. ” Ironically, Room at the Topma.de him very fashionable for the only time in his career, bu t it is also the film of his that has dated most badly. For all the fuss that was made at the time over the love scenes between Laurence Harvey and Simone Signoret, it was never that sexy, even in comparison with the fleshiness of Fifties H am m er horror, which was then acquiring a following. It was no­where near as daring or revolutionary a film as Michael Powell’s PeepingTom (1960), which was being made around that time and was to be greeted by the British press with unadulterated revulsion.

Although the film is a big im­provement on a tenth-rate novel, the portrait of the working-class hero, Joe Lampton, was scarcely authentic enough to cause D.H. Lawrence any twinges of envy, and Laurence Harvey’s strangu­lated perform ance was soon to be upstaged by the raw convic­tion of Albert Finney in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960). Also some of the direction - like the dissolve from the shot o f a key to a love scene, or the m o

44 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

ment when Lampton sees a toy car overturn and is reminded of his true love’s crash - made even Basil Dearden look subtle.

Yet it did have elements in it that were to become future Clayton fingerprints. One. was the theme of social class, which he was also to deal with in The Great Gatsby. Like Gatsby, Room at the Top is an enquiry into the reasons why rich girls should not marry poor boys. However, the immediate comparison prompted by the film was not Gatsby but APlacein the Sun (1951), the adaptation of Dreiser’s An American Tragedy made by the great George Stevens (who would have been the ideal director for a film of Gatsby). Room at the Top had the equivalent themes and even narrative events of the Stevens film: the attraction of rich girl and poor boy, the death of the golden- hearted woman, the cost of love and the eroticism of money. Equally striking was the similarity of styles.Clayton deployed two of Stevens’ most pronounced stylistic characteristics: the use of counterpoint on the soundtrack (forexample, thewayLampton’swedding celebration is counterpointed with an overheard conversation about Alice’s death); and, particularly, the use of the dissolve, a relatively uncommon device these days which has become Clayton’s main visual signature - for purposes of mood and atmosphere, and for the melting of past and present, or vice versa, into a continuum of felt time.

Around the time of Room at the Top, however, a fellow filmmaker was commenting mischievously that Clayton’s signature in the film was not the dissolve - it was Simone Signoret. It was her acting, not Clayton’s direction, that gave the film its heart. Certainly her poignant performance (as the wife who has an affair with Lampton only to be pushed aside for material ambition) is the aspect of the film that stands up best today, yet much of the credit for it should also go to the director. Signoret certainly thought so. In her autobiography, she described Clayton as a “marvellous” director who, without throwing his weight around, “knew exactly what he wanted” and what he wanted was “true and

FACING PAGE: DIRECTOR JACK CLAYTON, LEFT, ON THE SET OF

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES. LEFT: JOE LAMPTON (LAURENCE HARVEY)

AND SUSAN BROWN (HEATHER SEARS) IN CLAYTON'S ROOM AT THE TOP.

right”. (After working with Clayton on Our Mother’s House, Dirk Bogarde - never one to suffer fools gladly - was to be similarly appreciative.)

Signoret’s performance was to provide a clue to Clayton’s per­sonality as a director, notably as an acute psychologist of feminine feeling. Even on the evidence of his small body of films, one could still argue the case for his inclusion in the handful of great directors of actresses in the history of British film. In addition to Signoret, Anne Bancroft is splendid in The Pumpkin Eater and Maggie Smith’s subtle sensitivity as Judith Hearne reduces her performance in the Merchant-Ivory production A Room With a View (1986), by compari­son, to a ragbag of mannerisms. Deborah Kerr is simply sensational in The Innocents, unleashing her customary decorous repression in a torrent of emotion: the nun and the nymphomaniac of her usual screen persona have never seemed more closely aligned.

The thing that links all these heroines is the theme of frustrated passion. They are all emotionally generous personalities, outwardly stable but inwardly insecure, who commit themselves to a relation­ship that will be unfulfilled. Like David Lean, Clayton makes films about thwarted or unrequited love. Romanticism dashes itself against the walls of repression and the result is often breakdown and delir­ium. Myrtle (Karen Black) in The Great Gatsby belongs also to this gallery of vulnerable victims.

I am not one of those who sneer at Clayton’s film of Gatsby, although it is badly flawed. It is oppressively decorated and conveys the affluence of the period much better than its energy. For once, his gift with actresses deserts him: MiaFarrow’s Daisy is as nerve-jangling as Cybill Shepherd’s Daisy in Peter Bogdanovich’s film of Daisy Miller (1973). Fundamentally it does not seem very idiomatic. Francis Ford Coppola’s servile screenplay crams in everything to make it seem the ultimate American story: Gatsby is not only a precursor of Charles Foster Kane (a wealthy unhappy personification of the promise and

betrayal of the American Dream), of Rick in Casa­blanca (a mysterious, possibly murderous past, an in­extinguishable romanticism) but even of Coppola himself (dreams of money and success, achieved not through boodegging in his case, but through roman­ticizing the Mafia). But the fastidious frost of Clay­ton’s cool English temperament turns it all to stone.

Yet the selection of Clayton as director was not a foolish one and certainly made more sense at the time than the selection of other English directors for classic American subjects, like J. Lee Thompson for Huckleberry Finn (1974) or John Schlesinger for Day of the Locust (1975). I have mentioned the class theme that relates it to Room at the Top and gains some power here from the contrasting photographic texture de­vised for the Gatsby-Daisy romance and the Myrtle- Tom subplot, which is its grim flipside. Gatsby is about “living too long with a single dream” and the quality of the dream and the fate of the dreamer is a constant thread in Clayton’s films. Characters either sacrifice their dreams out of ambition or greed, like Lampton

or Daisy, or fulfil their deepest dreams and then have to confront their worst nightmares, as in Something Wicked This Way Comes. The timid librarian of Something Wicked is sneered at by Mr Dark for “dreaming other m en’s dreams”: i.e., immersing himself in books rather than in life, and which now sees him drowning in a sea of regrets. The faithful wife in The Pumpkin Eater is accused of “living in a dream world” when she is horrified by revelations of her husband’s supposed infidelity. Characters like her, and like Gatsby, and the

Visually and aurally,

one can pick up traces of

the Clayton signature:

the use of dissolves; a

fascination with hands;

[...] a Truffaut-like love

of the photographic effects

of candlelight; significant

use of pictures and

portraits; an amplification

of sound at moments

of high drama.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 45

J A C K

librarian in Something Wicked sometimes seem too trusting and idealistic for the real world, which makes the encounter between their essential innocence and the world’s corruption all the more shocking.

Visually, the most stunning m om ent of disillusionment in his work probably occurs in Our Mother’s House, when an impressionable young girl (Pamela Franklin) becomes an unwitting voyeur, her adoration of her ‘father’ is shattered and the screen is suffused with a hazy shade of sensual scarlet. This fascination with innocence and experience might explain Clayton’s capacity for conjuring remark­able performances from children in films like Our Mother’s House, The Pumpkin Eater, Something Wicked This Way Comes and, especially, The Innocents. “I adore working with children,” he has said, “seeing them embody my concept. It is totally ‘pure’ direction. It brings out the best in m e.”

The Innocents is the film that has so far brought out the best in Clayton. The ambiguity and suggestiveness of Henry Jam es’ ghost story, The Turn of the Screw, where the horror is conveyed through psychological implication rather than physical shock, are a real

challenge to the filmmaker’s imagination and Clayton rises to it magnificently, in a style that seems partly inspired by the haunted poetry of Beauty and the Beast (1946) by Cocteau. The ghosts are solid but eerie, the man first glimpsed briefly through mist on a tower, the lady (in perhaps Clayton’s most haunting single image) seen across a lake in an attitude that bespeaks unutterable sadness. The evidence of their visi­tations is limited to a single tantalizing trace: a tear-drop on a blotting pad that, like ‘Rose­bud’, disappears almost as suddenly as it mate­rializes. In Clayton’s reading, the story becomes a trenchant critique of Victorian attitudes, in which the preservation of ‘innocence’ (in this case, an authoritarian protection of children from sexual knowledge) is the product of a repression so severe that it could be twisted into

hysteria and hallucination. In a particularly telling touch, Clayton shows the governess’ reaction to the horror before the audience sees the thing itself, in this way suggesting that it is her imagination that is supplying these visions. It is a brilliantly effective way of being at once faithful to the spirit of Jamesian ambiguity whilst at the same time interpreting rather than simply illustrating the text.

No other film of his is constantly on that level but nearly all of them contain great things. In spite of the curiously misogynistic Harold Pinter screenplay for The Pumpkin Eater- as if he were intent on playing Strindberg to the novel’s Ibsenite themes - the art with which Clayton compels us to identify with the anguish ofjo Armitage (Anne Bancroft), as in the very Carol Reed-like use of animal imagery to underline her fear of hum an nature, makes this one of Britain’s finest ‘woman’s pictures’. Gatsby has some fine scenes - Clayton is very good at sweaty arguments - and some concisely eloquent images, like the dissolve from Dr Eckleburg’s all-seeing eyes to the broken, blood-stained headlamps of Gatsby’s car. Something Wicked cannot make the ending work - Clayton is no Spielberg when it comes to swallowing that kind of familial sentimentality - and Jon-

C L A Y T 0 FACING PAGE: TOP: FLORA (PAMELA FRANKLIN) IS WATCHED OVER BY

MISS GIDDENS (DEBORAH KERR). THE INNOCENTS. LOWER LEFT: JAKE (PETER FINCH)

AND JO ARMITAGE (ANNE BANCROFT). THE PUMPKIN EATER. LOWER RIGHT: CHARLIE HOOK

(DIRK BOGARDE), WATCHED BY MRS QUAYLE (YOOTHA JOYCE), POINTS ACCUSINGLY AT ONE

OF HIS CHILDREN IN OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE. THIS PAGE, TOP: DAISY (MIA FARROW) AND

GATSBY (ROBERT REDFIORD) IN THE GREAT GATSBY. AND, BELOW: MAGGIE SMITH

AS JUDITH HEARNE AND BOB HOSKINS AS JAMES MADDEN

IN THE LONELY PASSION OF JUDITH HEARNE.

athan Pryce is badly miscast as Mr Dark, offering lightweight menace when what is needed is the charisma of a Robert Mitchum in a Night ofthe Hunter mood. Yet there are moments that makes this the scariest film from the Disney stable since Pinocchio (1940): the fabulous opening shot of the ghost train; the tarantula nightmare; and a hunt for the children in the library that culminates in a terrifying shot of the boys as they peer out from their hiding place between the shelves, unaware of the two black-gloved, disembodied hands rising like the tentacles of an octopus behind them. Hitchcock would have relished the use of the fairground as a symbol of Dionysian chaos, as in Strangers on a Train (1951) or a small town’s craving for excitement releasing demonic forces, as in Shadow of a Doubt (1943). If the film was a commercial disaster, the reason might be that it discomfited its audience too effectively. Adults would feel the pain in the film’s exploration of the American fear of the ageing process. As for children, the film, like Mr Dark, like the governess in The Innocents, seems capable of frightening them to death.

In fact, the overall impression one has from a cursory survey of Clayton’s films is the sense of an unusually interesting cineaste at work. It m ight no t be that valuable but it would certainly be possible to offer a structuralist/ auteunsx. diagram of Clayton’s career to refute accusations of impersonality. Thematically there are the motifs of frustrated passion, feminine feeling, ghostly visitation, children, dream, the coalescence of past and present, and an undercurrent of religious hysteria that is particularly marked in The Innocents, Our Mother’s HouseandJudith Heame, but is also briefly felt in The Pumpkin Eater (when the heroine is visited, at a m om ent of crisis, by a religious fanatic). Visually and aurally, one can pick up traces of the Clayton signature: the use of dissolves; a fascination with hands, that are either clenched in tension or reaching for contact; a Truffaut-like love of the photographic effects of candlelight; significant use of pictures and portraits; an amplification of sound at moments of high drama and a pervasive use of echoes and whispers (the children in both The Innocents, and Something Wicked are picked on by their respective spinster teachers for being ‘whisperers’). The conjunc­tion of these elements across a wide variety of material adds up to a very distinctive world.

Why then has his career been such a faltering affair? Part of it has to do, of course, with a national film industry seemingly incapable of

sustaining continuity. Also Clayton’s sobriety has always been at odds with a popular cinema dedicated to the pursuit of happiness. His films invariably end on a melancholy note: not pessimistic necessar­ily but nearly always sad. Only Something Wicked contrives a happy ending and it is so embarrassed and awkward about the whole thing that it almost topples the entire narrative structure. There has never been much of a sense of play in Clayton’s cinema - an inability to relax is his main failing as a director - and none of his films comes over simply as entertainment. Philip French once said of Robert Rossen that “here was a director, one felt, who would rather be dull than frivolous - and frequently was”, and one m ight apply that, with modifications, to Clayton.

If he has had less than his due from the critics, I think much of that stems from bad timing. He came into directing movies at a time in the 1960s when his kind of well-crafted literary cinema was going out of style. He has never looked like catching up with the cinema of the present day. Contemporaries like Karel Reisz, John Schlesinger and Tony Richardson have made strenuous efforts to move with the times, but, Gatsby-like, Clayton has seemed to insist: “Can’t repeat the past? O f course you can!” Like many of his characters, he has waited for the past to catch up with him, to come into alignment with his present. Considering the reception given to The Lonely Passion of Judith Heame as a welcome return of the intelligently scripted, well- made, inter-relationship sort of movie, maybe his time at last, and deservedly, has come.

J A C K C L A Y T O N F I L M O G R A P H Y

1955 The Bespoke Overcoat - short. 1956 Three Men in a Boat - producer. 1959 Room at the Top. 1961 The Innocents. 1964 The Pumpkin Eater. 1967 Our Mother’s House. 1974 The Great Gatsby 1983 Something Wicked this Way Comes. 1988 The Lonely Passion o f Judith Heam e.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 47

C R I T I C S ' B E S T

A N D W O R S T

A PANEL OF FILM REVIEWERS HAS RATED TWELVE OF THE LATEST

RELEASES ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10, THE LATTER BEING THE OPTIMUM

RATING (A DASH MEANS NOT SEEN). THE CRITICS ARE: BILL COLLINS

(CHANNEL 10; THE DAILY MIRROR, SYDNEY); SANDRA HALL [THE BUL­

LETIN, SYDNEY); PAUL HARRIS (3LO; "EG ", THE AGE, MELBOURNE);

IVAN HUTCHINSON (SEVEN NETWORK; THE SUN, MELBOURNE); STAN

JAMES (THE ADELAIDE ADVERTISER); NEIL JILLETT (THE AGE); ADRIAN

MARTIN (TENSION, MELBOURNE); SCOTT MURRAY; MIKE VAN NIEKERK

(THE WEST AUSTRALIAN); TOM RYAN (3LO; THE SUNDAY AGf, MEL­

BOURNE); PETER THOMPSON (SUNDAY, NINE NETWORK); AND EVAN

WILLIAMS (THE AUSTRALIAN, SYDNEY).

CHRIS THOMSON'S THE DELINQUENTS: AVERAGE RATING: 3

B A C K T O T H E F U T U R E II

R obert Zemeckis

C A S U A L T IE S O F W A R

B rian de P a l m a

Bill Collins _ Bill Collins 8

Sandra Hall - Sandra Hall 6

Paul Harris 2 Paul Harris 5

Ivan Hutchinson 5 Ivan Hutchinson 7

Stan James 6 Stan James 4

Neil Jillett 5 Neil Jillett 2

Adrian Martin 8 Adrian Martin 5

Scott Murray 8 Scott Murray -

Mike van Niekerk 4 Mike van Niekerk -

Tom Ryan 7 Tom Ryan 9

Peter Thompson 6 Peter Thompson 4

Evan Williams - Evan Williams 4

B LA C K R A IN

Ridley S cott

Crim es a n d m is d e m e a n o r s

W oody A llen

Bill Collins 8 Bill Collins -

Sandra Hall 5 Sandra Hall 9

Paul Harris 2 Paul Harris 8

Ivan Hutchinson 6 Ivan Hutchinson 9

Stan James 7 Stan James -

Neil Jillett 8 Neil Jillett 6

Adrian Martin - Adrian Martin 1

Scott Murray 2 Scott Murray 1

Mike van Niekerk 6 Mike van Niekerk 7

Tom Ryan 5 Tom Ryan 4

Peter Thompson 1 Peter Thompson 9

Evan Williams 6 Evan Williams 9

BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULYO liver Stone

T H E D E L IN Q U E N T S

Chris T hom son

Bill Collins 9 Bill Collins -

Sandra Hall 8 Sandra Hall -

Paul Harris 3 Paul Harris 4

Ivan Hutchinson 8 Ivan Hutchinson 5

Stan James 8 Stan James 2

Neil Jillett 9 .5 Neil Jillett 5

Adrian Martin 1 Adrian Martin 1

Scott Murray - Scott Murray -

Mike van Niekerk 7 Mike van Niekerk 6

Tom Ryan 4 Tom Ryan -

Peter Thompson 8 Peter Thompson 1

Evan Williams _ Evan Williams _

48 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

J O H N N Y H A N D S O M E

Walter Hill

A S T IN G IN T H E T A L E

Eugene Schlusser

Bill Collins _ Bill Collins _

Sandra Hall 2 Sandra Hall -

Paul Harris 5 Paul Harris 3

Ivan Hutchinson 7 Ivan Hutchinson 3

Stan James - Stan James -

N eiljillett 1 N eiljillett 3

Adrian Martin 6 Adrian Martin -

Scott Murray - Scott Murray -

Mike van Niekerk - Mike van Niekerk -

Tom Ryan 7 Tom Ryan -

Peter Thompson 4 Peter Thompson -

Evan Williams

S EA O F L O V E

Harold Becker

Evan Williams

W A R O F T H E R O S E S

Danny de Vito

Bill Collins 6 Bill Collins 9

Sandra Hall 7 Sandra Hall 7

Paul Harris 6 Paul Harris 1

Ivan Hutchinson 7 Ivan Hutchinson 4

Stan James 5 Stan James 8

N eiljillett 6 N eiljillett 5

Adrian Martin 8 Adrian Martin 9

Scott Murray 5 Scott Murray 6

Mike van Niekerk 6 Mike van Niekerk 7

Tom~Ryan 6 Tom Ryan 5

Peter Thompson 7 Peter Thompson 7

Evan Williams

STEEL M A G N O L I A S

Herbert Ross

Evan Williams

N O W V O Y A G E R Russia

Irving Rapper

Bill Collins 5 Bill Collins 7

Sandra Hall 5 Sandra Hall 7

Paul Harris 1 Paul Harris 7

Ivan Hutchinson 6 Ivan Hutchinson 6

Stan James 7 Stan James -

Neiljillett 7 N eiljillett 5

Adrian Martin - Adrian Martin 8

Scott Murray - Scott Murray 5

Mike van Niekerk 6 Mike van Niekerk -

Tom Ryan 4 Tom Ryan ■ 8

Peter Thompson 4 Peter Thompson -

Evan Williams 6 Evan Williams -

SOUNDTRACKSNE W & B N D S B A L S B I N D T H A G K I E C 0 1 I I N C S F I B M BUR L A I E E I A N E E

Driving Miss Daisy • Zimmer CD $29.99 The Bear • Sard e CD $29.99

Victory at Sea - re-issue • Rodgers CD $29.99 War and peace • Rota CD $29.99

Sex, Lies, and Videotape • Martinez CD $26.99 Parenthood • Newman CD $26.99

Psycho • Herrman CD $24.00 Game, Set & Match • Harvey CD $26.99

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover • Nyman CD $26.99

Do the Right Thing • Lee CD $29.99 The Chase • Barry CD $29.99

A Zed and Two Noughts • Nyman CD $29.99 Vertigo re-issue • Herrman CD $18.99 The Time Machine • Garcia CD $29.99

The Terminator • Fiedel CD $29.99 The Ten Commandments • Bernstein CD $29.99

Last Exit to Brooklyn • Knopfler CD $26.99

R E A D I N G S . S O U T H Y A R R A1 S 3 T O OB AK ROAD • 2 8 7 1 8 8 5 • B OO K S / I P s / C B S / C A S S E T T E S

7 3 - 7 5 D A V I S A V E NO E • 2 8 8 5 8 7 7 • S E C 0 N B 8 A N D I P s & C A S S E T T E S M A I L ORDER • P . O . B O X 4 3 4 S OOT H Y A R R A V I C . 3 1 4 1

FINANCINGAUSTRALIANFILMS

The Australian Film Finance Corporation has been established to provide new impetus for the production of Australian feature films, television dramas and documentaries. In 1989-90 the FFC will aim to underpin production of approximately $100 million.

The FFC has offices in Sydney and Melbourne. Investment executives in each office are available to discuss proposals for funding.

The FFC welcomes funding proposals from the industry. Guidelines and application forms are available at the Sydney and Melbourne offices.

a

r r vTHE AUSTRALIAN FILM FINANCE

CORPORATION PTY. LIMITED(Incorporated in A.C.T.)

SYDNEY* Level 6, 1 Pacific Highway, North Sydney, NSW 2060.Telephone (02) 956 2555. Toll free: (008) 251 061. Fax (02) 954 4253.MELBOURNE: 11th Floor, 432 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004-Telephone (03) 823 4111. Toll free: (008) 333 655. Fax (02) 820 2663.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 49

R E V I E W E D :

THE DELINQUENTS, DO THE RIGHT THING, THE ABYSS,

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS, A N D A STING IN THE TALE.

ABOVE: LOLA (KYLIE MINOGUE) IN

CHRIS THOMSON'S THE DELINQUENTS:

"ASPIRING TO A VERY UNINVENTIVE LEVEL OF

'NORMAL' FILMMAKING". FACING PAGE: LOLA

AND BROWNIE (CHARLIE SCHLATTER)

THE DELINQUENTSA D R I A N M A R T I N

So m e t h i n g in the pre-publicity for The Delinquents kept suggesting to me that I should hire Grease from the video shop as

homework and preparation before the main event. Perhaps it was the hint of Kylie Minogue on a path similar to that of another beloved Aussie lass, Olivia Newton-John. For here, in the tantalizing spread of available pictures, was Kylie, debuting in a film seemingly carefully calculated to show off her ‘range’ by taking her from innocent coun­try schoolgirl to Madonna-ish vamp in black leather, being attacked lustfully at the neck by her guy (Charlie Schlatter). Whatever the flimsy story­line contrived to manoeuvre her from point A (in­nocence) to point B (experience), the film prom­ised to be a knowing ‘vehicle’ (an apt expression) for Kylie, driving her from one florid movie- image to the next. After all, there was also, loom­ing in the picture, her great character name of Lola activating memories of Lola Lola in The Blue Angel, or The Kinks’ Lola, or Fassbinder’s, or

Ophuls’ Lola Montes. Not to mention that won­derful title (taken from Criena Rohan’s source novel, which I have not read) - the perfect, the archetypal teen movie title, The Delinquents, with its connotations of rebellion, lawlessness, vice, craziness - promising a summation of the original teen movies (Altman made a film of the same name in 1957) and their modem, romantically charged variants (such as The Outsiders or Reck­less).

Dreamer, dream on. In the event, there is no vamp Kylie with a hunk at her neck appearing any­where in the film - only a girl meekly apologizing to her man for ‘indiscretions’ we never see. (Unless, that is, it’s a sin to catch the flu, which Lola is often guilty of in the film.) Nor is there much teen rebellion past a vaguely ‘daring’ point - an interrupted grope in a public dressing room, a fleeting evocation of Jerry Lee Lewis, an incon­sequential riot in a girl’s prison dorm to the sound of “Be Bop A Lula” - beyond which the film is determined to match Lola up not only with a reformed, tamed ‘wild one’, but an instant child as well, with Little Richard’s “Lucille” now trans-

50 > C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

formed from an anthem of wild youth to a cute, fun song suitable even for young marrieds. The film is no ultimate teen movie extravaganza either - although Brownie (Schlatter) keeps talking aboutwantingtobe “fast and free”, The Delinquents (unlike, say, Great Balls ofFirei) is clearly neither. Again (again!), a case of an Australian film too scared, or too precious, to become, in its very texture and movement, a knowing genre film, in a popular genre. (You can tell from the first languorous pastoral shots of the Bundaberg postie that this one really wants to be The Year My Voice Broke.)

Okay, maybe I came with the wrong bag of ex­pectations. Let’s try another paradigm, one cued by the appearance in the film of a poster for Rossellini’s Stromboli with Ingrid Bergman (that remarkable work about the fury and ecstasy of a trapped woman) and fortuitously nourished by the video I actually did happen to watch before The Delinquents instead of Grease, Vincente Min­nelli’s 1949 Hollywood version of Flaubert’s Madame Bovary. Is The Delinquents, in short, a ‘woman’s melodrama’? Like many star vehicles of old (Garbo’s, for instance, or Bette Davis’), it certainly conforms to the convention whereby the maximum of both screen time and dramatic character is invested in the female star - even to the extent of making the male ‘hero’ a bit of a blank (which is no fault of Schlatter’s acting: he does what he can). Performance-wise, Minogue proves herself equal to the challenge of this single- minded centring of the film on her. But, theme- wise, is anything going on?

The connection to Madame Bovary is notas ar­bitrary or crazy as it might sound. Like Bovary (Jennifer Jones) in Minnelli’s film, Lola is first seen performing the rigid task of practising piano scales—a sign of her gender imprisonment within a model of ‘refined’ behaviour (Lola, of course, would rather practise her boogie woogie). More profoundly like Emma Bovary, Lola is shown as the (arche) typical female victim of the dreams and images of romantic love circulated by patriar­chal society - she compares everything that hap­pens to her to Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet, much to the puzzlement of her less roman­tically inclined beau. If seen in this light, would not the tragic/ironic sting of Lola’s tale be in the fact that, as a romantic, she is unable to break through to a feminist independence, but, on the contrary, is doomed to depend on a man who is forever off on his own mythic gender trip, sailing the high seas with his symbolic ‘good father’ (incarnated with appropriate crustiness by Bruno Lawrence)? Is The Delinquents, as woman’s melo­drama, starting to resemble a sad, incisive film of old like Ophuls’ Letter from an Unknown Woman?

Tough luck, scholar. One cannot easily es­cape the fact that all interpretative roads, finally, must come to that crushingly conservative ending of the film already mentioned, from which even the slightest hint of irony or tragedy is singularly lacking. Even discounting the ending, the film can be seen as dashing its potential throughout. On the terrain of the woman’s melodrama, for instance, the film’s attitude towards romantic love, and how it wants to depict it, seems very confused. For perhaps a good half of its running time, The Delinquents takes a decidedly unroman­tic, distanced, ironic point of view on Lola’s romantic obsessions, counterpointing the first physical fumblings of the lovers, or the unglamor- ous environs of an interstate train, with sentimen­tally overblown rock ’n ’ roll romance ballads like “Only You” (used to far more withering effect in The War of the Roses) and “Three Steps to Heaven”.

At a certain point, however - when Lola is put

in the charge of her repressive aunt - the film changes its stance, and suddenly wants to start investing its positivity in Lola’s assertions of her romantic idealism and sexual intensity. Yet the film is unable, or unwilling, to really embrace all- stops-out romanticism; soon after Lola’s passion­ate declarations, the film starts making her the ‘practical’ one in the loving couple, more inter­ested in ‘setding down’ than in being fast and free. And as for the sex scenes - despite all the ‘heat’ which pre-publicity from the Minogue Machine assures us is being generated in these three brief and perfunctory trysts - the most arousing thing in The Delinquents is doubdess the sight and sound of Lola talking about how much she enjoys sex. And, whether teen movie or woman’s melodrama, mere talk is simply not enough - a bit of good old mise-en-scene energy is sorely required.

It is hard to avoid saying, ultimately, that The Delinquents is a weakly directed, weakly scripted, and thus insubstantial Australian film - which is, sadly, nothing new for mainstream Australian films. In the context of a film industry which (at least at the professional training and conference levels) throtdes inane scriptwriting and filmmak­ing prescriptions like ‘don’t say it when you can show it’ into impressionable young minds, The De­linquents.- which completely embodies the mind­set of that industry - illustrates almost every wrong or clumsy filmmaking move imaginable. Almost without exception, it ‘says’ rather than ‘shows’, and never to good effect - my favourite piece of over-earnest, over-explicative dialogue occurs when Lola says, as she falls with Brownie to the bed, “So you still want me?”. The film is also not short on puzzling ellipses (who’s her girlfriend at the bar who helps her bot meals?), scenes that go nowhere (like the prison riot), and minor charac­ters who have no clear thematic function in the overall sense of the piece (just what is the role of the couple Mavis [Desiree Smith] and Lyle [Todd Boyce] beyond, respectively, dying and disap­pearing so that Lola can be an instant Mum?). The film lacks a sense of structure, symmetry, rhythm, form, and it is full of those laboured colloquial touches- ‘literary ockerisms’, we might

call them - that one is only too painfully familiar with from the collected works of Ellis-Gudgeon-et devotees, enunciated with excruciating exactness by Angela Punch-McGregor.

The lack of conventional, normative filmmak­ing (and scriptwriting) virtues shouldn’t always immediately bother a viewer; after all, there’s always the chance that there might be, even inad­vertently, something stranger and more interest­ing going on in the absence of the achievement of such ‘rules’. The Delinquents, however, is just one of those failed films, aspiring to a very uninventive level of ‘normal’ filmmaking, which just progres­sively pisses itself away, vanishing from the screen well before the end credits. As such, it leaves me not with regrets over its failed potential, or its possible themes, but only nagging little ques­tions, of the kind that one is often left asking at the end of ‘commercially’ minded Australian films. Questions like:

- Why did David Bowie pull out of his (much advertised) involvement with the soundtrack? If he hadn’t done so, in what direction might his songs have taken the film? What function (the­matic, stylistic, etc.), if any, was envisaged for them?

- Had anyone involved in the making of this film seen Stromboli before deciding to whack a poster of it up on the set? Do small (but often crucial) decisions like this matter to mainstream Australian filmmakers any more? Did they ever?

T H E D ELIN Q U EN TS D irected by: Chris T hom son . P roducers: Alex C utler, M ichael Wilcox. Executive p ro ­ducers: G raham Burke, Greg C o o te jo h n Tarnoff. Screen­play: Clayton F rohm an, Mac G udgeon, from th e novel by C riena R ohan. D irector o f pho tography: A ndrew Lesnie. Sound: Paul B rincat. Editor: Jo h n Scott. P roduction designer: L aurence Eastwood. Com poser: Miles G ood­m an. Cast: Kylie M inogue (Lola Lovell), C harlie Schlat­te r (Brownie H ansen ), A ngela Punch-M cG regor (Mrs Lovell), B runo Lawrence (Bosun), D esiree Sm ith (Mavis), T o d d Boyce (Lyle), Melissa Jaffe r (A unt W estbury), Lynette C urran (M rs H a n se n ). A Village Roadshow Pres­en ta tion o f a Cutler-W ilcox (T he D elinquents) P roduc­tion , in association with Silver L ining E n terta inm en t. D istributor: G rea ter U nion . 101 m ins. 35m m . Australia. 1989.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 51

DO THE RIGHT THINGM A R C U S B R E E N

Th e r e i s a n e s s e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between filmmaking and marketing. It is generally taken for granted that major newspapers, radio and television interviews, complemented

by advertisements, will convey to consumers the necessary hooks whereby those very consumers will be attracted to pay to see the film in question.

In the case of Do the Right Thing, some of the most remarkable aspects of the film have involved its marketing, rising from the subject matter and the way it is treated on the screen.

But Do the Right 'Thing has had the rare pleas­ure of surpassing that market place activity and moving into a controversy zone that challenges the lazy conventions of media publicity.

But then again, as Americans are prone to say, this is an issues film - which is just another way of safely packaging it for the middle section of the great consuming audience.

“Fight the power, fight the power, fiffiit the powers that be“

When Spike Lee chooses a musical track like that to (repeatedly) lay over the small suburban world of Bed-Stuy he has created for Do the Right Thing, it is time to take note. But we are already taking notice, because our film journalists, for the most part, have told us that this is no ordinary film.

Indeed, it is not. It is undoubtedly one of the strongest, most idiosyncratic films to achieve major release in many years. Most strong films are idio­syncratic, but most films do not lead audiences into one of the major contradictions confronting the era. That contradiction is between the claim for racially based independence in a system that cannot offer anything as long as it exists in its present form. In other words, American blacks want to be free of the racist constraints of Amer­ica, while enjoying all the benefits of the liberal dreams to which they aspire.

What does the world do when race, ethnicity

and nationality begin to assert themselves like mushrooms popping up through pine needles? Be it Armenia, Bulgaria, Kurdistan, Lithuania or New York, there are major movements interna­tionally that herald potentially exciting and/or dark times ahead for the planet. They are move­ments which suggest that societies have advanced to the stage where independent ethnic groups can develop the economic, cultural and social coherence that will enable them to live “free” lives. (It should be noted that in the early 1930s, the Spanish Republic recognized the right of Basques to control their own destiny, while Franco scrapped that right as one of his first reactionary moves after his coup.)

Black Americans are in the mood for nation­hood and statehood. They are making waves that Malcolm X and Martin Luther Kingjun. could have only dreamed about. Some contemporary American blacks are laying claim to the intellec­tual territory of their radical parents, who wanted independent social, cultural and economic lives for their children, free of the constraints imposed by racist whites. They are making the moves within a contradiction that asks if it is to be done within or outside the existing white American system of capitalism; or will it even be a capitalist system?

“Fight the power, fight the power, fight die powers that be”

In an abstract sense, the issue looks hardly like a contradiction, but, to the people living at the lower end of the American system, it is indeed a complicated and complex issue (using “com­plex” here in its correct Freudian sense, where the conscious and sub-conscious worlds create unresolvable tensions that can often be violently expressed).

This is the beauty of Do the Right Thing. It tackles the problem of black politics within the context of black history and white antipathy to­wards blacks. It prods the subconscious of white paranoia about black revolt, and refuses to re­solve the puzzle that the opinions of Malcolm X and Martin Luther Kingjun. presented.

It is fascinating that producer-writer-direc- tor-actor Spike Lee selected a handsome, yet almost incomprehensible, stutterer to continu­ally present photographs of Malcolm X and King. Named Smiley (Roger Guenveur Smith), he parades through the film with his snapshots of the two black leaders, keen to sell them to whomever will pay. His colorations and decorations of the photographs are a telling subtext of the uncertain relevance of these men in the late 1980s, suggest­ing that you make your own interpretation of your history.

Selling and making money is a significant sideline of the film as well. Economic independ­ence has been an important debate among black American intellectuals for many years. It began as far back as the turn of the century when Booker T. Washington argued that, “Brains, property and character will settle the question of civil rights...”, while W. E. B. du Bois saw political power for blacks as being essential, regardless of how it was achieved.1 It is still a healthy debate.

Do the Right Thing is based around Mookie (Spike Lee), who spends his days and nights deliv­ering pizzas, calling to black brothers “Get ajob! ”, then counting his money, while putting off his girl friend because he has to work. It doesn’t seem much, but it is an important and disturbing trend suggesting that work will solve the race problems presented in this film.

While much of the publicity for the film con­centrated on its attempt to explain the racism of America and the problems faced by minorities, I do not believe it succeeds in this respect. It is too diverse, too successful in digging into the rich social psyche of its audiences to be bothered with simplistic reading.

Spike Lee has gone on record saying that the film did not win the Palme d’Or at last year’s Cannes Film Festival because, among other things, judges like German director Wim Wenders pre­ferred to award the prize to “a golden haired, white boy” like Steven Soderbergh for Sex, Lies, and Videotape}

Comments like these raise the racist spectre, but, in fact, merely express the frustration of

52 ' C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

LEFT: SAL (DANNY AIELLO), PINO (JOHN TURTURRO)

AND ML (PAUL BENJAMIN) IN SPIKE LEE'S DO THE RIGHT

THING: "A FILM THAT BRAVELY ENTERS INTO THE HONEST

LOGIC OF THE CONTRADICTION FACING ALL

PROGRESSIVE AMERICANS".

filmmakers who feel that they should collect the big prizes once they make a film that mixes in the top league. Of course, the mistake is with Lee. He does not need Cannes or Wenders.

More important, he does not need the con­ventional film industry machinery to promote his films because, as previously mentioned, his idio­syncrasy is his appeal.

The idiosyncrasy of Do the Eight Thingis quite incredible. There are risks taken here that could be used as examples of bad filmmaking in first- year film-school courses. The stage scenes and static sets, the incredible absence of method act­ing, the full-facial lighting, the overly articulated dialogue: it all suggests a healthy disregard for narrative film’s obsession with the story. More important, it suggests an ambivalence towards Hollywood’s dream machine.

There are no suspended states for Spike Lee, no suspension of belief and its ensuing seduction into narrative dream scapes and fast fictions.

Technically, the film stumbles and rolls like the aged drunkard Da Mayor (Ossie Davis), from one uncertain day to the next. Lee is determined not to allow any indulgence - herein is the nub of the difference between Do the Eight Thing, Sex, Lies, and Videotape and other conventional films. Spike Lee keeps his audience conscious. Soder­bergh (read Hollywood/conventional narrative film theory and practice) drives the audience into the back of its own sleepy brain to dream its fictions.

Spike Lee’s direction combines the following unlikely styles: theatrical stage performances, such as that by the three men in front of the matt red wall and their vaguely relevant, but deliberate, conversation; much of the silent action by Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) until he speaks; and the

dnema-verite camera work, such as that in the bedroom and in the home with Mookie’s girl friend Tina (Rosie Perez). All coexist in an un­gainly fashion within conventional, feature-film construction.

This mixture of styles makes the film awk­ward, often difficult to watch, but always idiosyn­cratic. Indeed, its appeal is in its treatment of the material not the characters, although the Italian pizza owners tend to perform character roles.

Where Eddie Murphy (e.g., Going to America, Harlem Nights) takes black characters and makes them parodies of the mass market’s experience of blacks, Lee carefully avoids such easy strategies. Even the opening titles incorporate a feminist assertion: black women dancing semi-naked in leotards to Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” rap, some wearing boxing gloves. There is nowhere to hide among the stereotypes when faced with this originality.

“Fight the power, fight the power, fight the powers that he”

Ultimately, Lee uses all the devices he can - short of experimental treatments - to throw up as many conflicting and contradictory messages on the screen as it is possible to do while maintaining the unsteady momentum of the film. When the momentum finally takes us into the climax, in a frenzy of fire bombing that leaves the viewer breathless at its rapidity and conviction, there is a sense that Lee has concluded his statement.

Radio Raheem is murdered by police in front of a mostly black crowd, and Mookie (who, as the good boy, finally breaks out to do the bad thing) makes the move that brings about the destruction of Sal’s Pizza and his income. He returns to the shop the next morning for his wages and there is Sal with enough money to overpay Mookie. Lee will not compromise. He will not resile from his belief that, regardless of what happens, the con­tradiction will remain: blacks will always be bought

out by the American free-enterprise system and almost nothing will be gained.

This is perhaps too rational aTeading of Do the Eight Thing. Two viewings of the film, however, convinced me that it is an intensely rational film constructed with love by Lee who sees the immen­sity of the problem for black Americans with exceptional clarity. His rationality will not be appreciated by many people, nor will his appeal to the two major streams of black American his­tory, as evidenced in the statements by Martin Luther King Jun. and Malcolm X that close the film.

It is unfortunate that Do the Eight Thing has been tarred with the media brush, whereby its appeal has been limited to the race/racist read­ing, because it is a much denser film than such marketing will allow. But it is a film that bravely enters into the honest logic of the contradiction facing all progressive Americans.

Because he takes that approach, many people may be unable to cope with Lee’s somewhat con­fusing attitude, but there is little doubt that his work is rapidly elevating him to a position along­side some of the great black American intellectu­als and activists. It is a position that accurately reflects reality for many people around the world and that is a major accomplishment.

1. N elson George, The Death o f Rhythm and Blues, 1966, pages 4-5.2. Q uo ted in “Do the R ight T h in g ”, Entertainment Guide

(supp lem ent o f The Age).

DO T H E R IG H T T H IN G D irected by: Spike Lee. P ro­ducer: Spike Lee. C o-producer: M onty Ross. L ine p ro ­ducer: Jo n Kilik. Screenplay: Spike Lee. D irector o f photography: E rnest Dickerson. Sound: Skip Lievsay. Editor: Barry A lexander Brown. P roduction designer: Wynn Thom as. Com poser: Bill Lee. Cast: Danny Aiello (Sal), Ossie Davis (Da M ayor), Ruby Dee (M other Sis­ter) , R ichard Edson (V ito), G iancarlo Esposito (B uggin’ O ut), Spike Lee (M ookie), Bill N unn (Radio R aheem ), Jo h n T u rtu rro (P ino ), Rosie Perez (T ina ), Paul Benjam in (ML). A 40 Acres an d a M ule Filmworks Production . D istributor: UIP. 120 mins. 35mm. U.S. 1989.

THE ABYSSJ I M S C H E M B R I

So w h a t w e n t w r o n g with the end of The Abyss'? How could James Cameron, director of such consummate action films as The Ter­

minator and Aliens, drop the ball just as he was going for the touchdown? How could a film that, for 95 per cent of its running time, is everything one could possibly want in an underwater action- adventure film (leaving two similarly themed cousins Deep Star Six and leviathan way behind) turn into a pseudo-mystical parable with a mushy mish mash of images torn living and breathing from 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E. T. the Extra-terrestrial and even Splash?

The answer is simple: the film was too eager for an answer. After spinning a great yam and setting up a fabulous mystique about an underwa­ter civilization, Cameron took that one step too far. Rather than leave one with the tantalizing suggestion as to what these creatures were, he gives us their address and a guided tour of the neighbourhood.

The Abyss, like most good action films, is struc-

LEFT: "EVERYTHING ONE COULD POSSIBLY WANT IN AN

UNDERWATER ACTION-ADVENTURE FILM ... [ONLY TO SEE IT]

TURN INTO A PSEUDO-MYSTICAL PARABLE": JAMES

CAMERON'S THE ABYSS.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 53

tured around a simple plot devise. After a U.S. nuclear submarine has an encounter with an unknown intelligent being it crashes deep under­water. The crew of Deepcore, a deep sea oil drilling rig, is pressed into service to assist a small group of special .navy divers (SEALs) in checking out the damage and to search for survivors.

Most of Deepcore’s crew enthusiastically approve (after being offered triple time) but their boss, Bud (Ed Harris), is not so pleased, partly because he is worried for his crew but mainly because his estranged wife, Lindsey (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), who designed the rig, is coming along for the ride.

It is from this narrative nucleus that Cameron cuts three ways like he did in Aliens: while explor­ing his favourite dramatic and moral themes, he turns in a ripping good action film, as well as indulging his obvious and very deep love of tech­nical hardware. Indeed, while the film unques­tionably - and primarily - pursues Cameron’s philosophy that humans are at their best as indi­viduals and at their worst as organizations, it is also an emotional and visual thrill. Like Aliens and The Terminator, Cameron has brilliantly split the difference between technical showmanship, ki­netic pacing and dramatic involvement.

Cameron has openly admitted that the values he likes to espouse are “healthily conservative”. Whereas in AliensYve had a film about the strength of the maternal instinct, as Ripley (Sigourney

Weaver) fought with the multi-dentured Mother Alien for the custody of a little girl, in The Abyss he makes a clear statement about the importance of m arriage, though he wisely opts for humour and action rather than sentimentality in impart­ing this.

After Bud and Lind­sey have their first con­frontation, Bud deposits his wedding ring into the septic blue depths of the toilet only to retrieve it seconds later. Shortly af­ter, the ring saves his life during one of the most compelling segments of the film when the hull of the rig is breached and sea water cascades in. As Bud hurries for a pres­sure door to escape the rising tide, it quickly shuts automatically. Instinc­tively, he tries to force it back open but the door pushes his hand against the side, the wedding ring keeping his hand from being crushed and ena­bling him to call for help. Later, when Bud is plum­meting into the abyss, it is the bond with his wife that keeps him going.

Interestingly, these “healthily conservative” values sit comfortably

alongside politically hip anti-nuclear and anti­cold war themes, suggesting that being conserva­tive does not necessarily mean being Right wing (a great topic for dinner parties, this).

The anti-nuclear and anti-cold war themes - so appropriate in this age of glasnost and nuclear disarmament - are beautifully embodied in the character of Lt Coffey (Michael Biehn), who is going ga ga because he is unable to adjust to deep pressurization. His devotion to nuking the alien underwater colony and his anti-Soviet paranoia are purely the results of mental dysfunction.

More dramatically enticing, however, are the childlike responses the underwater beings, re­ferred to as NTIs (non-terrestrial intelligences), elicit from the characters. Wide-eyed expressions of wonder and warmth deliberately ja r and un­dercut the very adult, no-nonsense world of deep- sea drilling they inhabit. After ‘Big Guy’ panics during the exploration of the damaged sub and encounters one of the NTIs, he goes into a coma. When he emerges, this big, burly, beef-eating macho man gingerly refers to the NTI as an “angel”.

Similarly, when Lindsey runs into a large NTI, her sense of scientific duty is suspended as she examines it with joyous curiosity. It is not until it leaves that her professional instincts kick back in and she tries (unsuccessfully) to photograph it.

But to keep this child-versus-adult motif from going over the top, Cameron tempers it with

LEFT: MARY ELIZABETH

MASTRANTONIO IN JAMES

CAMERON'S THE ABYSS.

some good, hard-nosed cynicism. When Lindsey tries to convince Bud that the NTIs are friendly and wise and want to help, she sounds like a Disney character and he responds with astringent disbelief and concern that she might be losing her marbles.

There is an important feminist aspect to The Abyss - as there is in Aliens and The Terminator— that deserves special note, but for which Cameron has not been given due credit. Cameron has a penchant for very strong female leads who can cut it in a genre normally dominated by men. Linda Hamilton played the reluctant hero in The Termi­nator and Sigourney Weaver showed brains and physical resilience in Aliens, which also features female combat marines - state-of-the-art hard­ware. In The Abyss, Cameron again has a strong, intelligent female lead in the character of Lind­sey, as well as an oil rig crew which includes a female who is not a cook or a cleaner or a clerk.

No apology or explanation is ever made for these characters, they are simply part of the dra­matic tapestry. And as these are films which have been very successful commercially (Aliens made more than $200 million), Cameron is surely re­sponsible for a major breakthrough in smashing sex stereotypes and opening up audiences to a new way of thinking about females on the main­stream screen. Surely one doesn’t have to wait for Marleen Gorris to make an art-house statement before we recognise what ground has been bro­ken.

The technical mastery of the film serves the soundest backhander to the video generation so far. As more and more so called “big screen” films seem to be shot with their video release in mind - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade being a prime recent example: it comes across more as a medi­ocre television series pilot - The Abyss is blessed with beautifully fluid camerawork, fabulous wide­screen compositions, revolutionary production values and some compelling production set pieces.

About 40 per cent of the film was actually shot underwater with Cameron spending more than 500 hours directing from inside a diving helmet. Special microphones and lighting rigs had to be developed, as well as special submersible vehicles. The matching of miniatures and live-action foot­age is almost impeccable and the major special- effects sequence, where an alien water tentacle slithers through the rig, is designed to make a lasting impression on the viewer, as opposed to the brilliant effects in films like Back to the Future II, where many are designed not to be noticed.

The only technical problem the film encoun­ters is that its setting sometimes looks a little too like Aliens. In fact, Cameron says he was conscious of not using too many actors from Aliens else the films look too similar.1

So what went wrong with the ending? After Lt Coffey deposits the nuclear bomb at the bottom of the abyss to destroy the NTI colony, Bud goes down, disarms it and then, with only minutes of oxygen left, lies there waiting to die. However, a multi-coloured reflection appears on his helmet showing that the NTIs have come to visit. It is here that Cameron could have, and should have, ended the film. Instead, he goes on to pay homage to the finale of Close Encounters and 2001 as the fluores­cent tinkerbells take Bud’s hand and show him around the house.

So what was Cameron’s intention? “I knew I wanted to meet and see the creatures”, he says: “I wanted to follow certain rules that made sense to me. But I did want to establish the very tenuous toehold of communication between man and this other species. I wanted to go further than the purely abstract meeting.”

54 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

G A M E R A Q U I P

M ASCARADE — a team of experienced, highly trained makeup designers and makeup artists geared to produce the face, the look, the feel you need . . . for film, television, theatre, video and still photography.

M ASCARADE — competent specialists in Period Makeup — very natural “ No-Makeup” look, Special Effects Makeup, Fantasy, Prosthetics.

M ASCARADE — the Makeup Agency in Melbourne for all makeup needs.

The agency has grown from the unique Metropolitan School of Theatre Arts, established in 1984 to ensure the highest standard of training for future makeup artists.

Enquiries for Agency and School: Shirley Reynolds on (03) 266 2087 or (AH) (03) 68 3435.

oo

If y o u 'v e g o t a cast o f

thousands a n d a c re w

7>

them all

to g e th e r a t the on e

p la c e a t the sam e tim e

can d r iv e you c razy .

K to m atch , gett ing

\%

\

\' ó

B ackstage Travel specialises

in the E n te rta in m en t Industry a n d ̂ j

has the e xp ertise a n d e x p e r ie n c e

f tin co -o rd m a t in g all y o u r ^

trave l a n d a c c o m m o d a t io n A

req u irem en ts , 2 4

hours p e r day .

o v

So, w h e th e r

O

J b VO you need to go

aro u n d th

just a ro u n d the c o rn e r

. . . go B ackstage.

e w o r ld o r

l? » *

1 $t Fl, Suite 40, 209 Toorak Rd, Sth Yarra 3141, Vic.

Tel (03) 824 0622 or Fax (03) 240 9976. Toll Free (008) 335 734 24-Hour Pager (03) 648 0494.Lie No 30098

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 55

Cameron, not surprisingly, has found that the ending has divided audiences:

You have to follow your own sense o f w hat’s right. W hat I have fo u n d is you certainly can ’t please everybody. F o r every person th a t fe lt it was too concrete, th e re w ere those who fe lt it rem ains too opaque an d enigm adc.I definitely w anted to have th e philosoph ical resolu- d o n th a t we, collectively, have b een ju d g e d a n d n o t fo u n d w anting, th a t w e’ve b e en ju d g ed an d fo u n d to b e w orthy o f being m e t in o u r world, o n o u r turf. Perhaps the problem with the film’s ending is

that these noble intentions simply could not find expression in cinematic terms that were truly original or distinctive. Hence, with a shortfall of ideas, Cameron ploughs ahead and echoes every film in the past 20 years that has dealt with a similar theme. It is a prime example of overreach­ing: in trying to achieve something mystical and mythical, he fell short and simply came up with something mundane. A major pity.

1. F rom conversation with au th o r, as are all q uo ted passages w hich follow.

T H E ABYSS D irected by Jam es C am eron. P roducer: Gale A nne H u rd . Screenplay: Jam es C am eron. D irecto r o f pho tography: M ikael Salom on. S ound designer: Blake Leyh. E d i to r jo e l G oodm an. P roduction designer: Leslie Dilley. C om poser: A lan Silvestri. Cast: E d H arris (Bud B rig m an ), L indsey (M ary E lizabe th M as tra n to n io ) , M ichael B iehn (L t Coffey), Leo B urm ester (Catfish de V ries), T o d d G raff (Alan ‘H ippy’ C arnes) J o h n B edford Lloyd (Jam m er W illis), J . C. Q u in n (‘Sonny’ Dawson), Kim berly Scott (Lisa ‘O ne N ig h t’ S tand ing), Capt. Kidd Brew er J u n . (Lew F in le r). A Gale A nne H u rd P roduc­tion . A T w entie th Century.Fox Release. D istributor: Fox Colum bia. 140 m ins. 35m m . U.S. 1989.

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYSHU N T E R C O R D A I Y

Th e f a b u l o u s b a k e r b o y s is a rare film from Hollywood. Its setting is not expansive horizons, or the large canvas with the symb­

olic struggle between good and evil super-heroes. Instead, it represents a cinema of interiors - hotel rooms, bars, clubs - and characters who live out their lives in the smoky light between dusk and dawn. It is a world, often, of brief encounters, shy confessions of ambition or regret at talent wasted in the land which seems to relentlessly suck all potential dry. Films such as these become por­traits of a society of minor characters, constructed from small gestures and shifting emotions, stories which re-define the hero/heroine as someone whose innocence, though gone, has not been totally replaced by the bitterness as defined by classical noir narratives.

A cynic might call these stories small-time, but they have a nobility about them because they give a sense of worth to the unfashionable and or­dinary while allowing enormous scope for quirky behaviour and humour. A short list of notable examples would include Fat City, Five Easy Pieces and The King of Marvin Gardens, to which writer- director Steve Kloves’ film, The Fabulous Baker Boys, should be added.

The credit sequence of The Fabulous Baker Hoys has all the codes which establish this as a film about the inevitable connection between per­sonal and city life. Outside is the city at dusk; inside, a woman and man are in bed. The man (Jeff Bridges) gets up and starts dressing. “Will I

JACK BAKER (JEFF BRIDGES) AND THE NEWLY-FOUND SULTRY

SINGER, SUSIE DIAMOND (MICHELLE PFEIFFER).

STEVE KLOVES' THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS.

see you again?” she asks. “No”, he replies. This is the first and last time. A brief encounter of two strangers in a room. He then walks out into the evening city, not in to mean streets so much as an urban landscape which is unremarkable, often fa­miliar, with neon signs, loan shops, a fish bar, a piano lounge, dull red lighting, more empty tables than customers. This will be a film of glances, melancholy chords, a recording of the spaces and silences between people.

The Fabulous Baker Boys of the film’s title are two brothers, Jack and Frank, played by Jeff and Beau Bridges. They have been playing piano together for 30 years, and while “Fabulous” has more wishful thinking than truth in it, “Boys” is a lingering reminder that their joint careers started back when, as Frank repeatedly uses in his show patter, their only audience was Cecil the cat. If their act is not scintillating, the casting of the brothers Bridges is inspired; though this is their first time together on screen, the rapport be­tween them brings a depth and tension to the tired musical platitudes of the piano act they take from lounge to lounge. How many times can they play ‘The Girl from Ipaneema” or “All of Me” before the words feel hollow, and fabulous falls into predictability?

Frank, the older brother, is the driving force in the act, though by now he has settled for playing to near-empty lounges on low wages, has a wife, kids and a mortgage. His professionalism

is small time (play and take the cash), his tunes safely out of date. Frank is also a compulsive talker, the opposite of Jack, who broods, deep in thought or boredom across the pianos, between the platitudes of how great it is to be back here once again. After 30 years, the Fabulous Baker Boys are behaving like a bored married couple. They have lost their ‘spark’ and Frank is the first to suggest a remedy: they should take on a singer. ‘Two pianos isn’t enough any more”, he says.

The magnitude of this change for the broth­ers is only matched by the traumas of auditioning singers worse than themselves, as seen in the montage of truly appalling renditions of songs from “Candy Man” to “My Way”. The entrance and subsequent successful audition of Susie Dia­mond (Michelle Pfeiffer) is the one predictable scene in an otherwise fine film. Naturally she has everything the other 37 candidates lacked. As she sings, the camera slowly closes in to alternating close-ups of Frank andjack to show their recogni­tion of her vamp-like talent. It is a crucial scene because the two brothers will now become a part of a threesome and much of the film rests on how difficult that adjustment proves to be.

As the relationship between the brothers waxes and wanes, Susie Diamond will be trans­formed from the rough-edged (un-cut?) singer at the audition to a silky smooth (polished?) enter­tainer sprawled on a piano in an expensive resort hotel. The close-up tells us what to feel, that Susie Diamond (even the name is a combination of soft- and hard-precious) is a force, and a presence to be admired. There is even a reference from the producer, Mark Rosenberg, in the press material issued with the film, which compares Susie to Sugar Kane Kowa (Marilyn Monroe) in Some Like It Hot. There are moments when Pfeiffer pro­duces a sultry voice reminiscent of Monroe’s (“10 cents a Dance” being a good example), but M onroe also had a naive innocence which was the basis for many of her characters in films such as The Seven Year Itch and The Mis­fits. Susie is the oppo­site of Sugar Kane: when asked at the audi­tion if she has any en­te rtainm ent experi­ence, she replies that she was once on call for an escort agency. Susie has already been around the block and The Fabulous Baker Boys is about Susie’s obtain­ing some measure of class and a glittering sort of purity, whereas Monroe’s films were very much about the tarnishing and despoil­ing of her childlike wonder at the world.

Susie quickly starts the Baker Boys on their climb to success on the circuit. Her strength of character in these scenes relies largely on Pfeiffer’s screen pres­ence and her timing which balances Jeff Bridges’ still brooding presence at the key­

board. His brother, while relishing their new­found fortunes, is concerned, tellingjack, “I hear trouble and its name starts with S.” This theme is well utilized by director Steve Kloves for comic sequences which allow Pfeiffer to be more than a voice and a face as she eventually teases Jack into bed. It is also to Kloves’ credit that he allows the story to follow the logic of the characters created up to this point and resists the temptation of a nar­rative that heads for the safety of a soft romance in club-land. Their affair cannot last because by this stage neither Susie nor Jack is capable of the feelings required and the ‘team’, only recently merged, begins to scatter.

With Susie moving off into the world of cat food jingles (‘There’s always another girl” is the bestjack can say to her), the brothers self-destruct with all the intensity that real-life brothers can bring to such confrontations. They confess to being cowards in life and whores to the business. Their act descends all the way down to a telethon, well after midnight, on cable channel 71.

After this, Jack abandons his brother in a last effort to be honest about his musical ambitions and accepts a spot two nights a week in a ‘proper’ jazz club. He meets Susie, who has now moved on to vegetable jingles, and, as they circle each other on the street like cautious animals, there is a grudging admission that they might see each other again. It is hardly a fanfare ending, but then the Fabulous Baker Boys were never in the big time, and the film relies more on nuance and subtle messages between characters than simple answers to the complexities of life.

T H E FABULOUS BAKER BOYS D irected by: Steve Kloves. P roducer: Paula W einstein. Executive p roducer: Sydney Pollack. Screenplay: Steve Kloves. D irector o f photography: M ichael Ballhaus. Sound: S tephan von

Hase. Editor: W illiam Steinkam p. P roduction designer: Jeffrey Tow nsend. C om poser: Dave G rusin. Cast: Je ff Bridges (Jack B aker), M ichelle Pfeiffer (Susie D iam o n d ), Beau Bridges (Frank B aker), Elie Raab (N ina) .Jen n ife r Tilly (M onica M oran). A M irage P roduction . D istribu­tor: Fox Colum bia. 113 mins. 35 m m . U.S. 1989.

A STING IN THE TALEP A U L H A R R I S

A STING IN T H E TALE is a home-grown po­litical satire, and one which announces it­self in the press material as concerning

itself with “how the full force of the male-domi­nated world of power tries to manipulate the life and career of one woman and how she turns the table on them”.

Screenwriter Patrick Edgeworth {Boswell for the Defence) deliberately uses caricatured charac­ters to make various telling points in his fable about the nature of political power, backroom party machinations and male sexism.

Diane Lane (Diane Craig) is the newly elected and naive backbencher, formerly a trade-union official, who enters parliament after winning the seat of Black Stump in a by-election. With a sense of heady idealism, she ascends the corridors of power and navigates a treacherous political mine­field, carrying some odd personal baggage with her along the way.

Not surprising, given the jaunty tone of the piece, she eventually becomes Australia’s first female prime minister. This occurs despite ob­stacles placed in her ascent by married lover, Barry Robbins (Gary Day), a corrupt (and chain­smoking) Minister for Health and the schemings of seedy media magnate, Roger Monroe (Edwin Hodgeman), a Rupert Murdoch sound-and-look- alike character, basically your standard media baron. Produced by the prolific Rosa Colosimo on South Australian locations to represent the federal capital, the film uneasily settles for a broad comedy style that lacks any real bite or venom with most of the characters trading quips that would seem more at home in the shorthand vocabulary of television sitcoms.

Director Eugene Schlusser, a former actor and theatre director with extensive television ex­perience, seems to be fighting an up-hill battle on obviously limited resources The low budget fre­quently strains dramatic credibility, particularly in any scene that takes place in the political arena. The soundtrack suggests the presence of dozens of people, but the recurring image is limited to the same half dozen or so extras traipsing across screen.

Intermittently amusing, A Sting In The Tale, amiable and relaxed in tone, lacks any real sense of passion or commitment to its subject matter, and seems content to straddle a dated twilight zone, which is perched uneasily between broad farce and glum earnestness.

A STIN G IN T H E TALE D irected by Eugene Schlusser. P roducer: Rosa Colosimo. Screenplay: Patrick Edge- w orth. D irector o f pho tography: N icholas Sherm an. Sound: M ichael Piper: Editor: Zbigniew Friedrich. Pro­duction designer: Lisa (Blitz) B rennan. Com poser: Allan Zavod. Cast: D iane Craig (D iane L an e ), Gary Day (Barry R o b b in s), L ynne W illiam s (L ouise P a rk e r) , Edwin H odgem an (Roger M onroe), D on B arker (Prim e Minis­te r Falcon), Jo n N oble (P. M .’s m inder), Tony Mack (P eter), Bob Newm an (P erm anen t secretary), G ordon G oulding (Wilson S incla ir), Gary B ishop (L eader o f the Opposition) J o a n n e C ooper (Barmaid) .A Rosa Colosimo P roduction . 96 mins. 35 m m (sh o to n 16m m ). Australia. 1989. •

DIANE LANE (DIANE CRAIG), SOON-TO-BE AUSTRAUA'S

FIRST WOMAN PRIME MINISTER, IN EUGENE SCHLUSSER'S

A STING IN THE TALE.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 57

V I E O

R E L A S E S

P A U L K A L I N A

A CASE OF HONOR

D irector: Eddie R om ero. Producers: D. H ow ard Grigsby, Lope V. Ju b an . Executive p roducers: A ntony I. G innane, Rod S.M. Confesor. Scriptwriters: Jo h n Trayne, W illiam H ellinger. D irec to r o f photography: José Batac ju n . Editor: T o to Natividad. D istributor: Film pac. Cast: T im o­thy Bottom s, Jo h n Phillip-Law.

Unpreviewed. Produced by International Film Management, A Case of Honor is described as an action-packed adventure story in the tradition of Rambo and Uncommon Valour.

DEAR CARDHOLDER

D irector: Bill B ennett. P roducer: Bill B ennett. Script­w riter: Bill B ennett. D irec to r o f photography: Tony Wilson. Editor: D enise H un te r. D istributor: H om e Cin­em a G roup. Cast: R obin Ramsey (H ec H a rris ) ,Jen n ife r G u f f (A ggie), M arion Chirgwin (Jo ).

“When Governments pass laws that aren’t good, people should just break them”, the fiery Aggie tells a 60 Minutes camera crew who have come to her egg farm to survey the destruction wreaked by the thugs of an industry board that Aggie has refused to join.

Hec, a timid and dreamy taxation clerk, is an unlikely but stalwart kindred spirit. His life is the stuff of an absurdist comedy. A taxation clerk instructed by his anally retentive boss (a brief and funny performance by satirist Patrick Cook) to reduce the government’s trade deficit, he dreams of escaping from his humdrum job by developing a computer programme. (The failure of a previ­ous project, an ioniser that unfortunately triggers car alarms, sets the tone for his grand dream.) He applies for a bank loan, but fast finds himself in a downward spiral of applying for more and more credit to pay off his escalating debts.

Writer-director Bill Bennett’s third feature is about people bucking the system, but, unlike the

previous A Street to Die and Backlash, the spirit of rebellion is tempered by a light-hearted comic tone. Here, the characters find themselves in an After Hours-style scenario with the characters caught in a series of events that defies logic or rea­son.

At the same time, the characters’ psychologi­cal make-up is always credible, allowing them to remain in control throughout the spiralling nar­rative. The finely-tuned comic tone neither un­derstates nor overstates the situations, many of which, comic as they may be, do not betray the human drama. Almost imperceptibly, Bennett moves from caustic satire of institutions and bureaucracies to touching drama in which the effects are measured in human terms, such as when Aggie realizes that she has lost everything she fought for, and when Hec’s daughter Jo is taken to live in a home after he finds it impossible to provide for her.

GLASS

D irector: Chris Kennedy. Producers: Patrick Fitzgerald, Chris Kennedy. Scriptwriter: Chris Kennedy. D irecto r o f photography: P ie te r de Vries. Editor: Jam es Bradley. D istributor: H om e C inem a G roup. Cast: Alan Lovell (R ichard Vickery), Lisa Peers (Julie Vickery), A dam Stone (P eter B reen).

Unpreviewed, Glass is described as “a thriller and a mystery of distortions and reflections, about friendship, flowers and shards of glass, and the illusions created by grease paint ... a haunting, stylized tale of escape”.

The story evolves around Richard Vickery, whose chain of retirement homes has made him a millionaire. The new board’s proposal to build a casino, coupled with the murder of Richard’s secretary, marks a turning point in the life of the old-fashioned and sentimental man.

His wife, however, has already taken bribes from underworld figures to use her influence to ensure that her husband delivers the casino into

JENNIFER CLUFF AS AGGIE IN BILL BENNETT'S DEAR CARDHOLDER.

ANN TURNER'S CELIA.

certain hands. Thus, when Richard decides to sell the corporation, she enlists the help of her lover, Peter Breen, a sharp lawyer who has also made promises to dangerous people.

I’VE COME ABOUT THE SUICIDE

D irector: Sophia Turkiewicz. P roducers: Jam es M ichael V ernon , J an Tyrell. Scriptwriter: Craig C ronin . D irector o f pho tography: M artin M cG rath. Editor: P ippa A nder­son. D istributor: H om e C inem a G roup. Cast: Barry O tto (G a rfie ld L aw son), R alp h C o tte r ill (M a n ), G osia D obrow olska (Genevieve Lawson).

Garfield Lawson is a best-selling author whose novels are based on his death-defying adventures in exotic places. Things aren’t looking too good for Lawson after he returns from a trip, realizes that his safari days are numbered and that his adulterous wife is scheming with his greedy pub­lisher to take control of his considerable wealth. His faithful servant, Man, tries to help Lawson over his menopausal grief. Meanwhile, Lawson learns of an organization, Cryonics Corporation, that freezes corpses for revitalization in the fu­ture. He is now ready to embark on his greatest adventure ever.

Originally made for television under the title Pigs Can Fly, the film is a messy and abortive attempt at wildly over-th e-top comedy. While parts of this hit-or-miss endeavour work better than others, it too often relies on tired jokes and lumbering situations, an under-written screen-

58 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

play and undynamic direction, leaving the actors with little more to do than slap each other and carry on regardless.

KANSAS

Director: David Stevens. Producer: George Litto. Script­writer: Spencer Eastman. Director o f photography: David Eggby. Editor: Robert Barrere. Distributor: First Release. Cast: Andrew McCarthy (Wade Corey), Matt Dillon (Doyle K ennedy), Leslie H ope.

JUDY DAVIS, WHO STARS AS NINA AND GEORGIA, IN BEN LEWIN'S GEORGIA.

Wade and Doyle rob a bank and, while hiding the stash, witness an accident in which a small child nearly drowns. Wade heroically rescues the child, but, not wanting to be identified, quickly disap­pears. As the search to find both the criminal and the hero intensifies, so too do the tensions be­tween Wade and Doyle, whose anger is ignited when he begins to suspect that Wade has hidden the money and will not give it to him.

Unfortunately, Kansas is a fairly lack-lustre, unengaging and hackneyed melodrama about the stigmatizing of two teenagers, one of whom is clearly destined to suffer, the other to thrive. The moral parameters are drawn early in the film when Wade’s selfless heroics supposedly absolve him from his part in robbing the bank and a house (he digs $20 from his pocket and leaves it in the kitchen - what a guy!). The characteriza­tions of the good and bad apples are shallow and one-dimensional, a situation exacerbated by the unimaginative casting of Dillon and McCarthy. Directed by David Stevens (A Town Like Alice, Always Afternoon) and photographed by David Eggby, the film features one of the worst filmed climaxes of all time.

O T H E R R E L E A S E S

BACKROADS

Director: Phil Noyce. Producer: Phil Noyce. Scriptwriter: Phil Noyce. Director o f photography: Russell Boyd. Dis­tributor: H om e Cinema Group. Cast: Gary Foley, Bill Hunter, Julie McGregor.

Incisive view of racism told through the story of Gary, a young Aboriginal, and Jack, a white man, who steal a car and set off for Gary’s home in the outback wilderness. Celebrated feature debut of Phil Noyce, who also produced and co-wrote the film.

CELIA

Director: Ann Turner. Producers: Gordon Glenn, T im o­thy W hite. Scriptwriter: Ann Turner. Director o f photog­raphy: Geoffrey Simpson. Editor: Ken Sallows. Distribu­tor: RCA-Columbia Pictures-Hoyts Video. Cast: Rebecca Smart (Celia), N icholas Eadie (Ray), Victoria Longley , Maryanne F ah ey .

The political, social and familial life of Australia in the late 1950s is reflected through the winsome eyes of 12-year-old Celia. Feature film debut of Ann Turner, which was reviewed in Cinema Papers, March 1989.

FEATHERS

D irector John Ruane. Producer: Tim othy White. Script­writer: John Ruane, based on a story by Raymond Carver.

Director o f photography: Ellery Ryan. Editor: Ken Sal­lows. Distributor: H om e Cinema Group. Cast: Rebecca Gilling (Fran) Jam es Laurie (Jack) Ju lie Forsythe (Olla), Neil Melville (Bert).

Raymond Carver’s wistful short story about the night a couple decide to have children is admira­bly treated in this short film written and directed byjohn Ruane. Set on a farm where two couples spend a strange and eerie night together, the film is a mannered and detailed study of transition, social values and relationships. The tense atmos­phere is punctuated by wry humour that is less cruel than Carver’s. There are strong perform­ances by Julie Forsythe, Neil Melville and a pea­cock.

A FORTUNATE LIFE

Directors: Marcus Cole, Henri Safran. Producer: Bill Hughes. Scriptwriter: Ken Kelso, based on the novel by Albert Facey. Director o f photography: Peter Levy. Edi­tors: Richard Hindley. Kerry Regan. Distributor: CEL. Cast: Bill Kerr (Old Albert), Dom inic Sweeney (Adult Bert), Valerie Lehman (Bert’s m other).

Yet another release from the ‘back catalogue’ of television mini-series. The complete 1985, four- part mini-series of Bert Facey’s novel sells for $59.95.

POSTER DETAIL, WITH TOM SELLECK (AS PHILLIP BLACKWOOD)

AND PAULINA PORIZKOVA (NINA). BRUCE BERESFORD'S AMERI­

CAN FILM, HER ALIBI.

GEORGIA

Director: Ben Lewin. Producer: Bob Weis. Scriptwriters: Ben Lewin, Joanna Murray-Smith, Bob Weis, based on an original idea by Mac Gudgeon. Director o f photography: Yuri Sokol. Editor: Edward McQueen-Mason. Distribu­tor: H om e Cinema Group. Cast: Judy Davis (N in a / Georgia), John Bach (Karlin), Julia Blake (Elizabeth).

The collective talent behind this mystery-thriller fails to ignite on screen. Reviewed in Cinema Papers, September 1989.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS - THE UNTOLD STORY

Director: Tim Burstall. Producers: Ray Alehin, Tom Burstall. Scriptwriter: Tim Burstall, based on the novel by Charles Dickens. Director o f photography: Peter H en­dry. Editors: Tony Kavanagh, Lyn Solly. Distributor: Filmpac. C astjohn Stanton (Magwitch), Sigrid Thornton (Bridget), Robert Coleby (Compeyson), Anne Louise Lambert (Estella).

This is the feature film version (not to be con­fused with the six-part mini-series made simulta­neously in 1986) loosely based on the Abel Magwitch character of Dickens’ novel Great Expec­tations. The premise sees Magwitch as a convict exiled in Australia, tracing his life until he made a fortune and returned to England.

HER ALIBI

Director: Bruce Beresford. Producer: Keith Barish. Script­writer: Charles Peters. Director o f photography: Freddie Francis. Editor: Anne Goursand. Distributor: Warner H om e Video. Cast: Tom Selleck (Phillip Blackwood), Paulina Porizkova (N ina), William Daniels.

Lightweight and frothy romantic comedy about an author of pulp crime novels who finds his life closely mirroring the far-fetched scenarios he invents after saving a Romanian beauty, arraigned for murder, by providing her with an alibi.

This relentlessly cute, occasionally charming but slightly old-fashioned romance was directed by Australian Bruce Beresford and photographed by veteran Freddie Francis.

AN INDECENT OBSESSION

Director: Lex Marinos. Producer: Ian Bradley. Script­writer: Denise Morgan, based on the novel by Colleen McCullough. Director o f photography: Ernest Clark. Editor: Philip Howe. Distributor: CEL. Cast: Wendy Hughes (H onour Langtry), GarySweet (Michael W ilson), Richard Moir (Luce Daggett).

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 59

GRAPHIC SCENE FROM GARY KEADY'S SONS OF STEEL.

This 1985 film adaptation of Colleen Mc­Cullough’s best-seller is released for sell-through at $29.95.

PHILIPPINES, MY PHILIPPINES

Director: Chris Nash. Producers: Chris Nash, Maree Delofski. Director o f photography: John Whitteron. Distributor: H om e Cinema Group.

A documentary which strips away the carefully fostered media image of Cory Aquino, and criti­cally questions the motives of allies like Australia and the U.S., while they pursue their own inter­ests behind the scenes. Reviewed in Cinema Pa­pers, July 1989.

SONS OF STEEL

Director: Gary Ready. Producer: James Michael Vernon. Scriptwriter: Gary Ready. Director o f photography: Jo­

seph Pickering. Editor: Amanda Robson. Distributor: Virgin Vision. Cast: Rob Hartley (Black A lice), Jeff D uff (Doctor Secta), Roz Wason (H op e).

Futuristic, sci-fi adventure about a hard-living, peace-loving rock ’n ’ roller destined to save the world from an impending nuclear disaster and the shackles of a fascist Government. Punk and heavy metal come together in this pastiche of comic-books, high-voltage rock clips, and envi­ronmentally /socially-aware consciousness.

WHERE THE GREEN ANTS DREAM

Director: Werner Herzog. Producer: Werner Herzog. Scriptwriter: Werner Herzog (additional dialogue: Bob Ellis). Director o f photography: Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein. Editor: Beatte Mainka-Jellinghaus. Distributor: H om e Cinema Group. Cast: Bruce Spence (Hackett), Ray Bar­rett (C ole), Wandjuk Marika (Milidjbi).

Two Aboriginal tribes come into conflict with the laws of modem Australia when a large company tries to mine uranium on a sacred site. This well- intentioned but completely misguided treatment of Aboriginal Land Rights fails to do justice to the controversial issues, and sees German director Werner Herzog wallowing in what is a hopeless mess of unimaginative imagery, cliched charac­ters, confused narration and tedious direction.

WITCHES AND FAGGOTS - DYKES AND POOFTERS

Director: ‘O ne in Seven’ Collective. Producer: Digby Duncan. Camera Operators: Wendy Freelord,Jan Renny, Jeni Thom ley. Editor: Melanie Read. Distributor: H om e Cinema Group.

An examination of the individual and collective oppression of homosexuals in Australia today against the backdrop of such oppression through­out history. The 45-minute documentary grew out of a videotape of a gay liberation protest in Sydney in 1978, the first of a series of clashes over two years between homosexuals and police in which 184 arrests were made.

WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD

Director: N ed Lander. Producers: N ed Lander, Graeme Issac. Scriptwriters: N ed Lander, Graeme Issac. Director o f photography: Louis Irving. Editor: John Scott. Dis­tributor: H om e Cinema Group.

Two days on the road with members of Aboriginal bands No Fixed Address and Us Mob. Playing themselves, the musicians ‘act’ out incidents from their lives and offer glimpses into their lives off­stage. Although the performers’ depiction of these ‘real-life’ incidents tends to be stilted and awkward, the film bristles with casual humour and moving insights into racism, prejudice and the ‘two laws’ of Australian society. ■

N E W P U B L I C A T I O N S

Two new publications from the Australian Film Commission are now available.

“G E T T H E P I C T U R E ”

This publication updates and expands “Australian Film Data”, first released in 1988, and contains comprehensive industry statistics, annual production listings and articles on produc­tion and marketing plus other valuable information presented in an easy to understand and convenient manner.

Order now and find out how many people went to the cinema in 1988-89, how many Australian films were released in Austra­lia and overseas, details on home video, the top mini-series broadcast, and information on the short films and documen­tary components of the industry. Price $17.00

“N O N - T H E A T R I C A L D I S T R I B U T I O N I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S ”

A guide to the lucrative yet difficult to access non-theatrical market in the U.S. This report is designed to explain the way this market operates and to assist Australian producers in identifying the most appropriate non-theatrical distributor for their programmes. It details over 50 distributors working in this area and the best methods by which to approach them. Price $8.00

ENCLOSE CHEQUE/MONEY ORDER (MADE PAYABLE TO THE AUSTRA­LIAN FILM COMMISSION) WITH NUMBER OF TITLES AND RETURN

ADDRESS CLEARLY STATED, AND MAIL TO:

A U S T R A L I A N F I L M C O M M I S S I O N G P O Box 3984, Sydney 2001 NSW

T e lephone (02) 925 7315 Toll f re e (008) 22 6615

SPECIALISTS T O THE FILM IN D U STR Y

__________ __

P R E M I U M !

1[ A

DESIGN TYPESETTING ARTWORK PRINTING

brochures posters flyers display advertising pre and post production

CAMPAIGNS INCLUDEKISS OF THE SPIDERWOMAN • DOGS IN SPACE

W OM EN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN THE BELLY OF AN ARCHITECT • GEORGIA BETTY BLUE • SEX, UES AND VIDEOTAPE

THE MUSIC TEACHER • MEPHISTO SLAVES OF N EW YORK • MYSTERY TRAIN

CAMILLE CLAUDEL • AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS LITTLE DORRIT • CARAVAGGIO

DROWNING BY NUMBERS

PREMIUM ADVERTISING PTY LTD 40 GREEVES STREET

ST KILDA VICTORIA AUSTRALIA PHONE (03) 525 4777

FAX (03) 525 3650

60 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

M u r r a y W i l l s , who made the un­derwater camera housing mentioned in the previous issue, has sent by mail (he works from Kaniva in rural Vic­toria) details of some of the smaller housings he is making for 16mm (Arri SRs, Bolexes) and video cam­eras. Murray has supplied , the C.S.I.R.O., Marine Science Lab, Department of Fisheries and the Victorian Archaeological Survey, among other government depart­ments.

The housings are made from 15- 25mm perspex and are tested to 35 metres. The video cameras come complete with power on/off, record on/off, two handles and a dome port for wide-angle converter lenses. An average price for a Video 8 or VHS-Q camera with rear-mounted viewfinder is ju st under $1,400. Murray can be contacted at 42 Commercial St, Kaniva, Victoria 3419. Ph: (053) 922294.

L o n g -t e r m s t o r a g e of videotapes, film and computer tapes is a balanc­ing act for most production compa­nies. They need access to the mate­

rial and usually are paying a pre­mium price for the storage space. There are now companies in most cities addressing the problem and the latest is Comcopy in Melbourne, which has formed a separate com­pany called Safe Tape and Film. According to Guy Howell, who runs the company, they took an all-or- nothing approach to the archive problem and built a sophisticated fire-proof facility with dust-free air conditioning and an humidity con­trolled environment with 24-hour monitored security. All tapes are computer logged and catalogued.

The approach seems to have impressed a number of advertising agencies, including George Patter­sons, and HSV 7 and GTV 9 Mel­bourne. GTV 9 has Safe Tape and Film handling its news footage stock library on a commission basis and expect that the return should go a long way to defraying the storage cost. For more details, call Guy Howell on (03) 696 6219.

O n e o f t h e d e m o r e e l s that has been much copied and spread

around the commercials producers is from South Australian Simon Carroll. His company, Communica­tor Video, has been doing some superb time-lapse 35mm photogra­phy that matches some of the best in Koyaanasquatsi. He uses a motion- control head that allows him to pan and move during the exposures. Some of the transitions to night skies with stars visible are beautiful and top cinematography.

C o m m u n i c a t o r V i d e o has now joined with Adelaide-based com­puter-animation company, Digital Arts, to form Digital Arts and Televi­sion Pty Ltd. Andrew Carroll men­tioned that they have attracted some off-shore investment, which will be used to further enhance the research and development of their transputer- based animation system, and to continue work on their multi-axis motion control camera head.

In other news, Carroll men­tioned that Peter Robertson from their Melbourne office was in the U.S. discussing the development of an interactive animated computer system for a science museum in Sili­con Valley (which is really taking coal to Newcastle!). It looks as if Adelaide is becoming a centre for high-tech film and effects (look for a future piece on Adelaide’s Fright company, which is doing world-class robotics). Contact the new Digital Arts in Melbourne on (03) 690 8857, or in Adelaide on (08) 223 2430.

In an up-com ing issue, “Techni­calities” will exam ine film stu ­dios in A ustralia. I f anyone has in fo rm a tio n re le v a n t to th is topic, p lease w rite to “T echni­calities” a t M TV Publishing, 43 Charles Street, A bbo tsfo rd3067, o r fax to (03) 427 9255.

ABOVE LEFT: MURRAY WILLS' UNDERWATER CAMERA HOUSING FOR A BOLEX (OWNER PETER

MCDOUGAL). BELOW: THE SONY V200 IN A WILLS HOUSING (OWNER JOHN MURRAY.)

WARDROBE • MAKE-UP VANS • CAMERA TRUCKS • CAST VANS • PROPS VANS • UNIT VEHICLES • TRACKING VEHICLES

FOR THE SUPPLY OF ALL FILM PRODUCTION TRANSPORT CONTACT DAVID SUTTOR ON (02) 436 3191

PROUD TO BE SUPPLYING:• 4 Day Revolution• Rainbow Warrior• Kokoda Crescent• A Long Way From Home• Australian Break

318 WILLOUGHBY ROAD, NAREMBURN, SYDNEY

STATION WAGONS • SEDANS • HI-ACE VANS » 4 X 4 TOYOTA LANDCRUISERS • ACTION VEHICLES • TRAY TOPS • BUSES

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 - 6 1

S A FE TA P E & FILMMELBOURNE’S ONLY SPECIALISED STORAGE FACILITY FOR:

• FILM STOCK • VIDEO TAPE • ARTWORK • COMPUTER TAPE • BUSINESS DOCUMENTS

NOW YOUR VALUABLE MATERIAL CAN BE STORED IN A TOTALLY SECURE AND CLIMATICALLY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT

111 THISTLETHWAITE STREET SOUTH MELBOURNE 3205 TELEPHONE (03) 696 6219

SELL USYOUR UNEXPOSED FILM STOCK

SHORT ENDS - RECANS - UNOPENED STOCK

Ring Nichola W hartonSTEADI SYSTEMS PTY LTD

405 Sussex St., Haym arket NSW 2000 Tel. (02) 281 6033 or (02) 438 1541

Fax (02) 211 5252

110 West Street, Crows Nest NSW 2065 Australia

Phone: [02] 922-3144) Fax: (02) 957 5001 ] Modem: [02] 9 22 7 642

35mm & 16mm Negative Cutting J §

\CHRIS ROWELL PROOUCTBNS i l s

Your complete Negative Matching Serviceincluding • Time Coding onto 8" Floppy Disc • Super

16mm • Syncing Neg or Pos Rushes • 16mm & 35mm Edge-Coding Service (“Rubber

Numbering”) • Tight deadlines our speciality • 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if required.

Contact Greg Chapman

m l AJ V Tel (02) 439 3988I |\| K Fax (02) 437 5074

_ 105/6-8 CLARKE ST.,

P J Y [ I 0 CR0WS NEST NSW 2065

DIGITAL m FILM AND T E L E V IS IO N ■

S U P E R C O M P U T E R A N I M A T I O N253a RICHARDSON STREET M IDDLE PARK VIC TELEPHONE 03 690 8857 • SUITE 2,60 HUTT STREET ADELAIDE SA 5000 TELEPHONE 08 223 2430

62 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

B O O K S

Michel CimentINTER V IEW ED BY R O L A N D O C A PU T O

M i c h e l C i m e n t is Associate Professor in American Studies a t the University o f Paris. H e is also a long-time editorial-hoard member o f the highly re­garded French film magazine, P ositif, and, o f recent, its Editor-in-Chief.

A prolific author, Ciment has w ritten books on, among others, E lia Kazan, Francesco Rosi,John Boorman, Stanley Kubrick and Jerry Schatzberg. H e has also directed a number o f fascinating documentary portraits o f film m akers: P ortrait of

a 60 per cent P erfect M an; Billy Wilder; Herman Mankiewicz; Francesco R osi,

Chronicle of a D eath Foretold; ; and his most recent, Elia Kazan, O utsider.

The follow ing interview , conducted in English, took place in Rome on the occa­sion o f a homage-retrospective-colloquim on the cinema o f E lia Kazan, organized by

the Ita lian film magazine, Filmcrttica, as p a rt o f their “M aestri del Cinema ” award events. Ciment was present to screen h isfilm on Kazan, and to chair papers and dis-

B O O K S

While a number of your books have appeared in English editions - such as Kazan on Kazan, Conver­sations w ith Losey,John Boorman and Stanley Kubrick- many have not. Can you speak about those not in translation?

There is one titled Conquerors of a New World, which is a collection of essays on the American cinema. It has three sections. The first is on the Viennese directors in Hollywood: Erich von Stroheim, Josef von Sternberg, Billy Wilder and so forth. The second section deals with auteunsm- what is an auteur? - dealing mainly with relation­ships between directors and producers, directors and writers. There is a piece on Howard Hawks and scriptwriting, and another on Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane and the Herman Mankiewicz contro­versy. The third section is about the Western genre. There is a big piece on Our Daily Bread, considered in light of the Western genre and its mythology, and also on Terrence Mallick’s Days Of Heaven.

A second book is Passport to Hollywood, which is a series of interviews with six directors. It again takes up the theme of people who have gone to work in Hollywood. The book deals with three older directors and three of the younger genera­tion. The older directors are Joseph Mankiewicz, Billy Wilder and John Huston, whom I don’t consider as typical Hollywood directors in the sense of ajohn Ford, Minnelli, Hawks or a Walsh. These directors are either of European origin, like Billy Wilder, an East-Coast director like Mankiewicz, or a maverick travelling around the world like John Huston. The three younger direc­tors - Milos Forman, Wim Wenders and Roman Polanski - are Europeans who have made films in Hollywood.

Another untranslated book is about Jerry Schatzberg. It is a rather particular book. It is a combination of essays and interviews very much like the Boorman and the Kubrick books, but its particular emphasis is the relationship between photography and cinema, since Schatzberg was a

MICHEL CIMENT, ROME 1989. (PHOTO B Y RO LANDO CAPUTO)

famous photographer in the 1960s. Half the book is made up of quite beautiful stills of his photo­graphic work and the rest a study of his work. It was published in 1982 but is now incomplete be­cause he has made a few more films. The book deals with his six first films: Puzzle of a Downfall Child, Panic in Needle Park, Scarecrow, Dandy, the All American Girl, The Seduction of George Tynan and Honeysuckle Rose.

Also not in English are my Francesco Rosi book and the one I published last year on the Greek director, Théo Angelopolus. It is co-au- thored and deals with Angelopolus’ nine features to that time.

You seem concerned in highlighting filmmakers whose work reveals a cross-fertilization between European and American cinema. In some cases, this is through directors who are themselves cul­turally transported - Losey, Kubrick and Boorman seem the most obvious examples. Is it an area you have consciously pursued?

It was not something I was really conscious of at the time, but was much more intuitive. It was more just liking their films and enjoying the complexity of their work. What I like about all these directors is that they are very visual, which is after all what cinema is about. At the same time, the images refer to ideas. It is how to make ideas

that shape images, which for me is the supreme goal of art.

That’s the first thing. Then, some years ago, a friend of mine said to me over lunch just what you said a moment ago. It was then that I realized it was absolutely true that I was interested in a particular kind of filmmaker. All my books are actually about people who are between two cul­tures. For example, Kubrick is an American Jew who emigrated to England. He has a kind of European sophistication, yet is aware of his Ameri­can origins. Joseph Losey was a WASP, upper- class American from the mid-West, a Communist who, because of the blacklist, came to work in England, where he made very refined European films. Nevertheless, he was very much an Ameri­can director, and his films are American in many ways. With John Boorman, half his films are American productions, the other half purely British. He is an Englishman who was educated as a Catholic by a band ofjesuits, although his family was Protestant. He is a man between two religions, two cultures.

My first really long piece of writing was a booklet which now is included in Conquerors of a New World. It was an 80-page study of Erich von Stroheim which I wrote when I was 29 years old. Von Stroheim is, of course, another example of what we are talking about. So, from the begin­ning, I was attracted to culturally pluralistic filmmakers. Maybe it comes down to the fact that my father was Hungarian and Jewish, and my mother French and Catholic. Probably I’m inter­ested in impurity. I don’t believe in purity. I’m afraid of purity. I think purity is ideological and dangerous, whether it be the purity of Commu­nism, the purity of Nazism, of race or of nation. I’m attracted by mixtures.

Within this sphere of cross-cultural influence, Francesco Rosi, to whom you devoted an early work, Le Dossier Rosi, becomes another rather unique example.

Francesco Rosi is a Neapolitan, a man from the South, who lives in Rome and is very much like a

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 63

Northern Italian - like a man from Milan, let us say. He seems a kind of embodiment of the two sides of Italian culture. He is very emotional like Neapolitans can be, but also very rational like Neapolitans. Naples is the place where all the great lawyers come from and it is also the place where the French philosophers of the 18th Cen­tury were very popular: Montesque and Voltaire, for example. There is a tradition of rationalism in Naples, combined with high emotionalism.

This combination is something I like in direc­tors. I admire filmmakers who are very cerebral

film - ‘film’ in the sense that it moves, has pace. The Mankiewicz documentary has the pace of his language. Like characters in his own films, he sits in an armchair and talks wittily and brilliantly. So, it is about the fascination of talk.

Mankiewicz is perhaps the most intelligent director I have met. He has an extraordinary wit and dialectical mind. But he was an old man, and we thought there was no way to get him out onto the streets. So we captured him in his library, sur­rounded by books, pipe in hand. He resembles an elder English statesman, who talks about cinema

CIMENT'S STUDY OF ITALIAN DIRECTOR FRANCESCO ROSI, AND TWO FILM BOOKS BY MICHEL CIMENT AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH.

and very emotional - after all, man is a combina­tion of the two. If he is only rational, he is very dry; if he is only emotional, he is very superficial.

Rosi is interested also in America. Some people in Italy call him “the American” because his early films, like La Sfida, I Magliari and Mani sulla Città (Hands over the City), are highly influ­enced by Kazan and Warner Bros. He is obviously a man who has a strong sense of dynamics and action combined with his highly artistic culture. He was a pupil of Visconti and worked with Antonioni. So he combined his kind of strong American action film with a highly intellectual approach to politics, a politics which is very differ­ent to the liberal school of Richard Brooks and even Kazan.

T HE D O C U M E N T A R I E S

The Billy Wilder film was made in 1979, and it was quite successful - it was selected for Cannes. So I thought of following that up with one on Kazan.

During the film, Kazan talks about being an outsider - culturally and artistically - so we thought it would make a nice title. It was shot in three days with a very small crew on location at the New York waterfront, the Actors Studio, his home in the country and his house in New York. It was quite a technical feat and the contributions of the cam­eraman and the editor were of paramount impor­tance.

The Mankiewicz film is a two-hour documen­tary which we could not edit down in length because Mankiewicz speaks for twenty minutes at a go. In that regard, the Kazan is much more of a

and talks fantastically well. Thus, the form of the film came out of the person, just as in architecture where form follows function. The man dictated the form.

S U R R E A L I S M

The publication some years ago of Robert Benayoun’s The Look of Buster Keaton was among other things a remarkable reminder of Positifs as­sociation with surrealism. Could you make men­tion of some of the other editorial members and their links to s u r r e a lism ?

I was once the head of a film book series, which has now closed down, that included 12 or 13 titles. One of these was a book on aesthetics by Gerard Legrand called Cinemania, which I found to be a remarkable book. In the last 15 or so years of André Breton’s life, say between 1950 and ’66, Legrand was one of Breton’s most important collaborators. He wrote a book with Breton called L ’Art Magic. Legrand, who is now sixty, has been writing for Positif for 25 years.

Ado Kyrou was a Greek partisan during the civil war and fought in the Communist ranks. He was an exile in Paris and became in the ’50s one of the most important spokesmen for Positif He was a close friend of Bunuel’s. Kyrou wrote two books in French, one of them is particularly im­portant, called Le Surréalisme au Cinéma. I think he published it in 1953, but it has been reprinted in rather beautiful editions.

Peter Krai, who has written two books on slapstick comedy, was a Czech who went into exile in Paris in 1968 and joined Positif then. Robert

Benayoun you have already mentioned.I could go on, but it should be obvious from

what I have said that there is a component of the magazine which is strongly a part of surrealism.

I’m not a surrealist, and a lot of people on the magazine are not surrealists. I would say that today the influence of surrealism is less prevalent, but it was very strong in the ’50s. Louise Brooks, slapstick comedy, films tike PeterIbbetson, Mumau’s Nosferatu and all the dream aspects of cinema - all the things Breton liked in the cinema were there in the magazine.

H O L L Y W O O D R E V I S I T E D :HAWKS AND WALSH

In the heady days of French auteur ism, many claims were made vis-a-vis the classical Holly­wood directors. With the passing of time, do you have revisionist thoughts about those directors, Hawks and Walsh for example?

The case of Walsh is very interesting. I think the average output of Hawks is superior to the aver­age output of Walsh. Hawks is more obviously an auteur than Walsh. Nevertheless, if you judge a director on the level of achievement, that is by the top of his work, not the average, then Walsh is the greater director.

What do you consider his peaks?

I would say White Heat, Gentleman Jim, Objective Burma, The Bowery and Pursued. For me, these films have a sense of exhilaration, a poetic dimen­sion which I find lacking in Hawks. I think that is why Hawks pleased the French more than Walsh; he is more French than Walsh. In Walsh there is a kind of romanticism, a kind of lyricism, in an expanding universe. Whereas Hawks is more in a garden, Walsh is in the jungle.

For those reasons, one could well understand Rohmer or Truffaut liking Hawks more than Walsh.

In your opinion, are there any other American directors who remain undervalued?

Leo McCarey certainly is an undervalued direc­tor. In the 1930s and ’40s, he was an extraordinary director. He had a very small output, but, nonethe­less, in every genre that he worked he left a

64 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

supreme mark. I think that Duck Soup is the best Marx Brothers film; I think Ruggles of Red Gap and The Awful Truth are amongst the best comedies ever made. In the realm of melodrama, Make Way for Tomorrow is a supreme achievement.

As for the silent cinema, though I haven’t seen many of his films, there is a tremendous director in Clarence Badger. He certainly de­serves to be reconsidered for films like Hands Up, It and others. These films are quite brilliant.

This maybe a generalization, but I get the sense that the French never really appreciated someone like Preston Sturges.

Positif did a special issue on Sturges five years ago. It was the first issue on Sturges anywhere in the world in the past twenty years.

I certainly like Sturges very much. The prob­lem with Sturges, however, was that his career could be summed up in five years. He made six tremendous films between 1940 and ’44 and was already highly considered and praised in Amer­ica. French critics didn’t feel like writing about him because a lot had been written already. There was no sense of discovering or re-discovering him. Also, when the young critical journals like Positif and Cahiers du Cinéma started publication in the early 1950s, his career was in total decline. His later films were very, very disappointing. There­fore, it was not the same as with Hitchcock or Hawks who were still making very good films.

A U S T R A L I A N C I N E M A

What is your opinion of what you have seen of the Australian cinema? Are there any Australian di­rectors who particularly interest you?

Certainly. I do appreciate Fred Schepisi. I like some of his films very much, such as The Devil’s Playground and The Chant offimmie Blacksmith, and even the recentfilms like Roxanne, which I thought was a very talented rendition of Cyranno de Bergerac.

I think Peter Weir is very good. I even like a film like Mosquito Coast, but more especially his earlier films like The Last Wave and Picnic at Hang­ing Rock- Gallipoli, less so.

I also like very much the film by Scott Murray, Devil in the Flesh, and Backlash by Bill Bennett.

Certainly I also like George Miller, particu­larly his Mad Max 2. Not so much his first one, or the third one. He is very much like Sergio Leone.

I have my reservations about the first George Miller, just as I have reservations about A Fistful of Dollars. But then Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West is like Mad Max 2. I really thought it was terrific. I liked Witches of Eastwick, too. Miller is a very talented man.

Of course, Jane Campion is absolutely terri­fic. Her short films and Sweetie are stupendous. In fact, Sweetie was for me the most original film in Cannes last year, although I also liked Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape. But if Wim Wenders [president of the Cannes jury] had wanted to be really original, he would have given the Palme d ’Or to Campion. Comparing the two first features, Campion’s reaches poetic heights which are stupendous. Soderbergh is wonderful, but within a narrower range.

The Soderbergh film is closer to a Wenderesque universe. It would appeal more to Wenders thanSweetie.

Well, it’s too bad for Wenders. It shows his limita­tions.

But you are an admirer of Wenders.

Yes, he is a terrific director. But directors are not always the best judges.

But to conclude on Campion: in the world cinema of the 1980s, she is one of the few really inspiring filmmakers. She makes you believe that in cinema there are still new and surprising things to come. Most films today are merely repetitions of things seen before, done less well.

CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT;

FRED SCHEPISI'S THE DEVIL'S PLAYGROUND;

PETER WEIR'S THE LAST WAVE; SCOTT MURRAY'S

DEVIL IN THE FLESH; AND BILL BENNETT'S BACKLASH.

BELOW: JANE CAMPION'S SWEETIE:

"THE MOST ORIGINAL FILM AT CANNES LAST YEAR".

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 65

C I M E N T c o n t i n u e d

P O S I T I F AND C A H I E R S DU C I N É M A

Positif and Cahiers du Cinéma have long been regarded as France’s most influential film maga­zines. Given your lengthy association with Positif, could you give us an overview of the differences that have historically marked their evolutions?

One was founded in 1951, the other in 1952. The differences between the two magazines vary ac­cording to the historical period. The differences between Positif and Cahiers today are very differ­ent from those in 1968, and very different from those in 1955.

The first period was the early 1950s. What they had in common was that they were both film- buff magazines. Today, it seems very obvious and simple being a film buff. But in the ’50s, though France has always been a highly cine-literate country, most of the press dealt with the cinema in a political or ideological way. The Communist influence was very strong in French criticism. They had 25 per cent of the vote, and a lot of in­tellectuals were Communist Their approach to art was highly ideological and they totally de­spised, with very few exceptions, American cin­ema. Those few exceptions were social films and

BELOW: THE AUGUST 1961 CAHIERS DU CINÉMA, AND THE

FAMOUS "NOUVELLE VAGUE" ISSUE OF DECEMBER 1962.

Charlie Chaplin’s - things of that nature. Most Hollywood entertainment was considered ugly, evil escapism - opium for the masses.

On the other hand, the Right-wing, bour­geois criticism in newspapers like LeFigaro consid­ered American cinema as naive and vulgar. Those critics looked down upon it from the stand-point of French high culture, as opposed to American popular culture.

Now Positif and Cahiers had something in common in that they took American films into consideration. They loved Westerns, thrillers and things like that. They spoke about them in highly intellectual terms, which made people on the

extreme Left indignant and provoked laughter on the Right.

Then came the very big split at the end of the 1950s. In part, there had already been an ideo­logical split. Cahiers was highly apolitical, which can mean conservative or Right wing. And it is not to be denied that Cahiers was rather Right wing. But rarely did it deal with the content of films. They would see films which were anti-Commu- nist, like Samuel Fuller’s, and not deal at all with the issues.

Also, Cahiers did not deal, as Positif did, with the censorship of films. Truffaut had a famous phrase: “Censorship exists only for cowards.”

66 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

BERGMANURSSSOLANASLARS VON TRIERHOU HSIAO HSIElilKIESLOWSKI

REVUEDEC IN EM A

POSITIFYONG-KYUNBAE REVUE A ASHOHEIIM AM URA n p * J A AE L I A KAZAN ^ / I / ICINEMA M U ET CINEMA U I I

REVUEDECINEMA

T2S62 M 3S.Cn il ! Il - v¿1 f ia i DECEMBRE 1988

Anyway, that’s what he pretended. This, of course, was a totally irresponsible position to take, as censorship was very strong in France at the time. A lot of films were banned, like Alain Resnais films, and certain films could not be made. So, there were points of divergence between the magazines from early on.

An other area of disagreement was auteur politics. Positif, say, lovedjohn Huston, but not all his films. Cahiers, when they chose a director, would like his films all the way through. For them, there was no way that Robert Aldrich could make a bad film; no way Hitchcock could either. Positif, on the other hand, could love Anthony Mann but not God’s Little Acre , could love Aldrich, but not like Autumn Leaves. So while the two magazines shared auteur theory, they did not share auteur politics. Also, Positifwas more interested in genre criticism. They appreciated a lot of musical come­dies that Cahiers was not keen on, because they could not put an auteur label on them. Positif would enjoy a film even if it were a great film be­cause of the contributions of many people and not automatically the creation of one auteur.

Cahiers was much more formalist: they paid at­tention to the way a film was directed and Positif perhaps, not enough attention.

There were also conflicts about directors. Cahiers favoured Hitchcock and Hawks, whereas Positif favoured Minnelli and Huston. With Ital­ian cinema, Cahiers favoured Rossellini; Positif preferred Antonioni. The first special issue of a magazine on Antonioni outside of Italy was pub­lished by Positif.

As well, Positif liked Buhuel, whereas Cahiers preferred Dreyer, which is understandable: Dreyer was a spiritualist, a Christian; Eric Rohmer was a devout Catholic and Cahiers’ tastes were Catholic. Positif on the other hand, was more surrealist oriented. A lot of people at Positif were members of the surrealist group and they naturally fa­voured Buñuel. He was anti-clerical, anti-estab­lishment, his cinema dealt with the power of dream.

I could go on, but those were the basic oppo­sitions between the magazines in the ’50s.

Now in the early 1960s, for the first four or five years, there were not so many differences, with the exception that Positif was much more reserved about the New Wave. They didn’t like Godard, but they liked some films by Rivette; they

Pourquoi Bodhi-Oharma est-il parti vers f Orient ?l l Î Î ^ l

OCTOBRE 1989

liked some films by Chabrol and loved everything by Resnais. But Resnais was not part of the New Wave.

Positif s reaction towards the Cahiers-ist New Wave films was obviously influenced by the con­flict between the magazines. But I was not really there at that time, so I’m not really a part of that. I came to Positif in 1964, when the New Wave had already made its mark.

Aside from the New Wave issue, there was much in common between the two magazines in the first part of the ’60s. That is, both magazines were very much part of the discovery of the ‘New Waves’ happening internationally. Both Positif and Cahiers defended new Brazilian, Czech, Pol­ish, Hungarian, British, and Japanese cinema. I myself interviewed a lot of the same people Cahi­ers was interviewing, such as Glauber Rocha, Ber­tolucci and Jerzy Skolimowski. So, there was a common interestin the international ‘NewWaves’. As a consequence, the two magazines were at that time rather close. However, Positif continued to be interested in American movies; Cahiers less so. The New Wave were making films and the Ameri­can cinema became an economic en­emy. They were trying to force the mar­ket.

Around 1968, when the May upris­ing took place, Positif which had been Left wing and remained Left wing and was very much part of the movement, never went overboard. We were not Maoist, we were not Communist, yet we were still anarchist, surrealist, socialist.On the other hand, Cahiersvery strangely became, first, orthodox Communist and then Maoist. They began to throw over­board the whole of cinema. They loved only some Maoist films of Godard and Jean-Marie Straub. If you look at the issues of the time, Cahiers almost didn’t speak of cinema any more, they were talking about Maoism and theory. Cahi­ers went from the Right, through the Centre to the extreme Left. But I don’t think what they were doing was Left wing; it was a kind of perversion of the Left. So, for a number of years, say from the late ’60s to the mid ’70s, the two magazines were very different. It was a time when Positif started to discover and

FAR LEFT: THE SEPTEMBER AND DECEMBER

1965 ISSUES OF POSITIF.

RIGHT: DECEMBER 1988 AND

OCTOBER 1989.

BELOW: CAHIERS DU CINEMA AS IT IS TODAY.

interview extensively a lot of new American direc­tors, such as Robert Altman, Bob Rafelson, Francis Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Brian de Palma and Terrence Mallick. You cannotfind a trace of these directors in the pages of Cahiers, which ignored absolutely this cinema. They even attacked it very strongly until 1976/77 when they started to come back into the mainstream. Posiiz/remained a film- buff magazine interested in cinema. Politics was always interesting for us, but in illuminating the films, not substituting itself for them.

Then, in the late ’70s and early ’80s, the dif­ferences between the magazines again started to diminish. Partly this was because Cahiers re-discov­ered the American cinema and began to talk about directors they had previously ignored.

So, in the ’80s, the magazines became a little closer. Then, during the past two years, Cahiers seemed to want to become more popular and produce a ‘magazine’ more than a ‘review’. In France, there is a difference between a review and a magazine. A magazine is more like Studio or Premier and a review is more elitist, has a narrower market. Positif has a 10,000 circulation and we have decided to keep that circulation. We don’t want to go mainstream and sell 100,000 copies be­cause we think that as soon as you print 100,000 copies you must sell 100,000, and in order to sell 100,000 copies there are things you cannot deal with any more because they don’t sell. Therefore, subject matter is influenced by circulation. For instance, in the last issue of Positif we had a South Korean film on the cover, whereas Cahiers is putting Batman and things like. Strangely, Cahiers is now much more Hollywood than we are. They are now starting to defend Hollywood in a very intense way, whereas we are more reserved about the new Hollywood films.

That, roughly speaking, is the evolution of the two magazines. ■

ROBERT KRAMER : ROUTE ONE L’AMERIQUEAPRES LA GUERRE CIVILECINEMA FRANÇAIS :L’ENERGIE DES MINORITES

DURAS: J’AI TOUJOURS DESESPEREMENT FILME...

PRESTON SIURGES CHABROL A BERLIN :

SUR LES TRACES DE MABUSE

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 67

C O N T I N U E D F R O M P A G E 4 3

In some ways, she is Spica’s confidante, in perhaps the only m om ent that somewhat twisted personal affection is directed to­wards her. She is very much against his wife too, which is strange. You would think, in maybe a more conventional set-up, there would be a solidarity amongst the females in this particular milieu, but there’s no sympathy at all between them.

There is something poised and invulnerable about Grace.

Given Spica’s sexist attitudes, she is no longer a character who has any sexual identity. She is a hanger-on, a part of his party, but doesn’t suffer or offer any sexual or antagonistic threat whatsoever. This is rather important, as Albert Spica’s sexuality, to say the least, is extraordinarily strange. This man is much more interested in the lavatory than he is in the bedroom. His sexuality is very adolescent, not only from what we have observed from his constant use of scatological imagery, his foul language and his appalling attitude towards women, but also in that big soliloquy the Wife delivers to camera when she’s lying down. We suddenly realize that his sexuality is decidedly peculiar and adolescent.

The set is brilliant designed and used. Did you see its juxtaposition o f rooms and alleyway as having symbolic importance? What, for in­stance, did you want to imply by the changing o f colours as the characters move from one room to another?

There has been in all my films a concern for the way in which I am the author of the product. I have total control of the plot and the characters. I can invent 50 characters or only three; I can kill off the heroine in the first act, or wait till the end of the film.

I have also always looked for other disciplines, other universal structures. In Drowning by Numbers, there is a num ber structure; in A Zed and Two Noughts an alphabet one; whereas The Draughtman’s Contract is very much about the 13 drawings.

What I wanted to do with The Cook, the Thief was find some other discipline which would help to complement the narrative, but which would obviously have associations with what I have been trying to do. These things do have to be related.

In 20th-Century painting, colour has become very disassociated from content. There is the famous anecdote about the young man who went up to Picasso, who was painting a landscape, and asked, ‘Why are you painting the sky red? ” Picasso rather facetiously replied that he had run out of blue paint.

Given the break-up of colour and content, colour became free to do anything. Largely that m eant colour became merely decorative, pretty. In Venetian art, there is the example of painters like Titian and Georgiani where colour became almost the sole organizing principle. Those sorts of potentials seem to have been lost. I want to bring colour back, to use it as a structural device, not merely as a decorative one.

Another aspect is that in Belly of an Architect, the secret protagonist is Sir Isaac Newton. That film is all about gravity - i t is fundamental to architecture - and, ironically, the man meets his death by falling. But we tend to forget that Sir Isaac Newton was the first person to organize colour theory, to break down the colour spectrum.

In The Cook, the Thief, the colour white represents the toilet. It is used with a great sense of irony, because the symbolic colour of toilets would certainly no t on the whole be white. But it is where the lovers meet for the first time and it represents heaven for them. A great irony is that even in the hellish confines with which we presumably associate toilets - with defecation and micturation - it takes a very opposite colour, becoming extraordinarily white.

Then you move into the main fulcrum of the film, which is the red, carnivorous, blood-covered, violent area of the restaurant.

Now, because of an optic phenom enon, when white comes on the screen after the dark red of the kitchen, it acts very strongly on the retina. If you look at your companions in the cinema, you will see that they are all lit up - the irony being they are lit up by the white toilet.

We have blue for the carpark, which represents the outside world, the world away from food, the world of dustbins and dogs and polar regions, if you like. Then we move through into green, the colour of safety, the colour of the m etaphoricaljungle from which all the food of the world ultimately comes. I think green is the colour for safety on traffic lights all the way throughout the world, apart from apparently China. I don’t quite know why that is.

The other two colours represented, in maybe a m inor way, are the yellow of the children’s hospital, which represents the yolk of an egg, the colour of maternity, the colour of children in some senses, and the gold of the book depository, which is for the golden age of literature, the colour of spines, pages, gold leaf and so on.

So, each area has its own colour association. Even in the tritest way you could say, “Ah, it’s red, therefore it must be the restaurant”, or “It’s blue, therefore it must be the carpark. ” In a way, it is a device for rem inding an audience that these are artificial structures, but also it has these probably quite successful emotional associations.

There is also the way the camera moves fluidly past the rooms, and the way compositions tend to be rather stately. Is this a conscious thing?

Indeed. I suspect in your question that there is a positive delight in this. A lot of people of course find ituncom fortable and they describe me as being a constipatory filmmaker, as though these things are happening without my knowledge.

Mine is a very conscious cinema. I try as hard as I can to have complete control over the organization of every single part of this discipline. This has to do with my own tem peram ent, my own cultural baggage. My films are very Apollonian; they are concerned with the classical ordering of the world. Some of my early films are about list­making, catalogues and encyclopedias. My framing is deliberately related to the Renaissance sense of a framed space, an organized space, a space which is deliberately selected in order to make use of composition.

There is also away in which the camera moves in an objective way. Although there is movement, and it does glide very gracefully through the various rooms, it holds itself steady. It does no t behave like a voyeur, darting about. It does not, for example, follow charac­ters. If an actor disappears behind furniture or goes into another room, the camera will deliberately not in terrupt its stately progress to follow him. The camera is acting as an inorganic eye. I t’s no t a subjective eye at all, which again is the way the painting behaves.

It is pretty well known that you are a painter as well as a filmmaker. One o f these activities is solitary and the other intensely collabora­tive. What kind o f different rewards and demands does each o f these offer you?

Sometimes I feel as though I ’m not a filmmaker at all, but a writer or painter who happens to be working in the cinema. This is sometimes a good position to be in, because it is like being an outsider. Almost without knowing it, I can take experimental risks, which maybe someone educated as a filmmaker would not. A lot of editors, for example, throw their arms up in horror at some of the editing devices I use, like crossing the line. I deliberately make these massive cuts of 180°, because, if you look in one direction and then completely change direction, you would in fact see the camera as it were in the real world.

This sort of risk-taking in all departm ents obviously throws the conventional filmmaker, who feels that there are rules and regula­tions that should be followed. I am constantly breaking them, not from being antagonistic to those rules, but rather from the position of outsider asking, “Are these rules and conventions really neces­sary?” I’m not a disciplinarian in that sense.

My films could be better appreciated, better understood, if people applied the aesthetics of painting to them. A great delight is a concern for surface, in using two-dimensional organizations of objects across the screen as though they are three dimensional, a concern for the way in which objects shine, for the difference in textures. The restaurant, for example, is red, but it is many different types of red and they all interact, balancing one another.

This concern for surface, by and large, is no t understand, is not

68 ' C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

a concern, for any other filmmaker. Their prime concern is getting performances down from actors and to hell with the picture making. This is gready under-selling the cinema.

As a painter, you must have an eye for colpur and composition. What sort o f transfer is there o f this faculty when you come to work for the screen? Do the roles o f painter and filmmaker feed into each other?

There are ironies here, because when I was at art school my painting was always described as being very literary. That is also a curse of English painting. We do not produce, never have produced, great painters, other than maybe Constable, Turner and Francis Bacon. Everybody else seems to want to tell stories. Yet, the greatest paintings are those which do not tell stories, but simply make philosophical statements about the world.

On the whole, my painting was and still is very literary, but that is useful for me in terms of filmmaking. Cinema is a narrative form and uses literary devices, so I feel quite at home. My scripts are extremely full and detailed. They describe all the concerns we’ve had so far in our conversation, as well as others, such as the use of flowers, which are absolutely impossible to manage.

For me, the most enjoyable parts of filmmaking are considering the idea, writing the script and then getting the film back into the editing room after shooting. I feel it’s mine again after the bit in the middle, where an army of nearly 300 people all add their pieces to the total film. O f course, their contribution is absolutely essential, but that is the time when the film gets furthest away from me. A lot of the time you’re not a film director at all, but a chaperon, an organizer of events, a psychologist... It can be a very frustrating, irritating period. But, I ’m getting better at that now, and I ’m actually enjoying that process a lot more.

You are one o f those filmmakers whose films look as if they know and care about other art forms. How important are these to you and your films?

Films are only a very recent entrant in the 2000-year continuum of the arts. That continuum is safe because, even if electricity is going to be switched off all over the world, people will still go on painting and making images, recording a philosophical point of view of the visual world. And if cinema entirely evaporated from the world tomorrow, it would be a cause of some regret and sadness, but it would not in any way stop my personal activities: I could still go on being a painter or a writer.

So, I am aware of the ephemerality of the film medium. However sophisticated we regard cinema, it is no more than a painter’s brush. It isjust a tool in which to organize things. Every single visual problem that comes up in film has come up a thousand times before in painting, and people have found solutions for them over and over again. If these solutions had not been successful, those artefacts, those paintings, would have disappeared long ago.

This is a very post-modernist concern, looking over our shoulders to see what other people have done to see what we can utilize and make valuable in our current situation. I want to be part of that tradition which, without embarrassment, can easily make compari­sons between Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane and Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, between Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin and Rembrandt’s “Night Watch”. There is an easy dialogue that can be utilized in terms of language, etc., between cinema and the rest of European culture.

When you talk about wanting to feel part o f a tradition, do you feel you have anything in common with other British filmmakers, past or present? One thinks particularly o f Michael Powell, whose films, like yours, mix the beautiful with the dangerous and disturbing.

The Michael Powell connection has been made many times recently in critical appreciations of English cinema. People have actually gone so far as to say, and I’m deeply flattered, that I’m his natural suc­cessor, that there never have been other filmmakers in Britain like the two of us.

Powell was very much outside the general trend and inclination of the British cinema - I say “was” because he is no longer making films. That is basically to do with realism and the documentary tradition, seen in the work of people like John Grierson and Caval­

canti. Adapting ideas taken from Italian neo-realism, that then became the British cinematic style of the 1960s, typified by the films of John Schlesinger and Lindsay Anderson.

That documentary tradition then moved into British television, where it remains very strong today. Most of the work supported recently by Channel 4 is part of that tradition, films like Letter to Brezhnev and My Beautiful Laundrette. It is a concern for a so-called naturalistic, realistic view and is often associated with the class structure of politics. I often find it frustratingly parochial. Obviously a movie like My Beautiful Laundrette has had enormous success around the world, but I see it very much as a small film, not only in terms of its concerns but also in the way it was made. It is essentially a television film.

I don’t feel particularly associated with that realist movement. It is a false god which cannot ever be realized. You put a camera anywhere and immediately you change the circumstances, however much you try and organize its ‘disappearance’ from the scene. There are so many people involved in the collaborative activity of filmmak­ing, so many filters, that naturalism and realism get pushed further and further back.

It is interesting to look again at those supposedly realist films of the 1960s; today, they look extraordinarily artificial. The same is true of 19th-Century novel writing. Zola, for one, pretended to be ex­traordinarily realistic, but his books don’t seem at all real now.

Most of my concerns for the cinema are to do with the European model, which readily uses metaphor, allegory and other story-telling methods with a considerable amount of freedom. It could be de­scribed as the cinema of ideas.

Which makes the success o f a fascinating, difficult, allusive film like The Draughtman’s Contract very surprising. What do you think made it so attractive to audiences?

I still ask myself that question, because everybody associated with the film was very surprised. I had made something like 30 movies before that, all of them with recondite, academic concerns,. They had their camp following, and some won prizes at the Melbourne and Sydney film festivals. And with The Draughtman’s Contract, I thought I was making yet another movie in that vein. So it did surprise me when it took off.

Someone suggested, again with extraordinary flattery in my direction, that the 1980s have been somehow suggested at the beginning and the end by two of my films. The Draughtman’s Contract is an introduction to the aesthetics which were very much a concern of early ’80s, whereas The Cook, the Thief indicates the concerns and anxieties in Britain at the end of the decade.

It is interesting that The Cook, the Thiefhas done even better than the first. It has been in the top five at the box-office in London for about eight weeks, and has earned more money than The Last Emperor. It has broken box-office records everywhere - in France, Germany, Holland and Belgium - and is about to open in Italy and America, where there is tremendous advance excitement. Again, I am very surprised. In some places in the world it has even become a succes de scandale, like in Germany where they seem to have taken it to their heart. There are people throwing coke bottles at the screen and threatening to burn down the cinemas; women are running out into the street to vomit. This is extraordinary, excitable behaviour for this comparatively modest little film to engender.

* Greenaway always referred to the film as ‘The Cook and the Thief.

PETER GREENAWAY: FILMOGRAPHY AS DIRECTOR

SHORTS 1966 Train; Tree. 1967 Revolution; Five Postcards from Capital Cities. 1969 Intervals. 1971 Erosion. 1973 H is for House. 1975 Windows; Water; Water Wrackets. 1976 Goole by Numbers. 1977 Dear Phone. 1978 1- 100; A Walk through H; Vertical Features Remake. 1981 Act of God; Zandra Rhodes. 1983 Four American Composers. 1984 Making a Splash; A TV Dante - Canto. 1985 Inside Rooms - The Bathroom

F E A T U R E S 1980The Falls (185 mins). 1982 The Draughtman’s Contract (108 mins). 1986 A Zed and Two Noughts (112 mins). 1987 The Belly of an Architect (105 mins). 1988 Drowning by Numbers (118 mins). 1989 The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (126 mins).

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 69

1 S T

P roduction Survey fo rm s now ad h ere to a revised fo rm at. Cinema Papers reg re ts it canno t accep t in fo rm ation received in a d iffe ren t fo rm at, as it regretfu lly does n o t have the s ta ff to re-process the in fo rm a­tion.

FEATURESPRE-PRODUCTION

ALM OST ALIENProd. co. E n ter ta in m en t P artnersP ro d u cer Jam es M ichael V ernonD irec to r Rolf de H eerScriptw riter P e ter LofgrenAssoc, p ro d u ce r Penny WallD.O .P. M artin M cGrath1st asst d irec to r D on C ranberryE dito r P ippa A ndersonCasting ForcastPubl. L ionel M idfordC as t [No details supplied]Synopsis: A television w eather forecaster goes th rough a mid-life crisis w hen he discovers, after 18 years o f m arriage and two ch ild ren , th a t his wife is an alien.

BACKSTREET GENERALP ro d u cer Phil Avalon

[No details supplied]

DEAD SLEEPProd. co. Village Roadshow ProdsD irec to r Alec MillsP ro d u cer Stanley O ’TooleScriptw riter M ichael RymerCast: Tony B onner, Sueyan Cox.

[No fu r th e r details supplied]

D IN G OProd, com pany Gevest A ustraliaC o-producers Gevest A ustralia

AO Prods SARL (Paris) D edra Prods (Paris)

Synopsis: A chance en co u n te r with a leg­en d o f jazz begins a life-long d ream for a young boy in the outback. Years later, he journeys to Paris to revive the dream .

[No fu r th e r details supplied]

HOLIDAYS O N T H E RIVER YARRAProd, com pany Jung le PicturesPrincipal C reditsD irec to r Leo BerkeleyP ro d u cer F iona C ochraneScriptw riter Leo BerkeleyD.O.P. B rendan LavelleA rt d irectors M argaret Eastgate

Adele FlereE d ito r Leo BerkeleyC om poser Sam M eletO th e r C reditsStory ed ito r D oug LingProd, m anager P e ter Jo rd a nScript ed ito r D oug LingB udget $425,000Dist. gua ran tee Film F inance Corp. G overnm ent Agency Investm ent P roduction AFC

Film VictoriaL ength 95 m insG auge 16m mCast: C raig Adam s, Luke Elliot, T ah ir Cam bis, Alex M englet.Synopsis: E ddie and Mick are out-of-work teenagers. They becom e involved with a

gang o f would-be m ercenaries w ho are h ead ing fo r Africa. W hat they h ope will be a g rea t adventure starts to go horribly wrong.

SENSAI[See previous issue]

Prod. co.W AITING

Filmside Prods- ABC

P re-production 2 9 / 1 / 9 0 - 1 /4 /9 0Production 2 /4 /9 0 - 2 5 /5 /9 0Post-production 2 6 / 5 / 9 0 - 1 /1 1 /9 0Principal C reditsD irec to r Jackie M cKimmieP ro d u cer Ross M atthewsExec, p ro d u ce r Penny C hapm anAssoc, p ro d u ce r Wayne BarryO riginal screenplay Jackie McKimmie W ritten by Jackie M cKimmieE d ito r Mike H oneyProd, designer M urray PicknettA rt d irec to r M ichelle M ilgatePlanning and D evelopm ent Casting Liz M ullinarExtras casting Iren e GaskellP roduction CrewProd, m anager Carol ChirlianProd, coo rd ina to r R oberta O ’LearyProd, secretary Lisa HawkesLocation m anager Paul VineyU nit m anager Jo h n DownieO n-set CrewC ontinuity R honda McAvoyA rt D epartm entSet dresser Sandra C arringtonSenior p rops Roy EagletonProps buyer Susan GlavichC onstruction D eptC arpen ters David HawkeSet fin isher Gary H anschPost-p roductionG auge 35m mScreen ra tio 1:1.85S hooting stock E astm ancolorCast: N on i H az le h u rs t (C la re ), J o h n H argreaves (M ichael).Synopsis: An assortm ent o f old friends converge a t an isolated farm house to await the b irth o f a baby. An irreveren t com edy o f errors.

F E A T U R E SP R O D U C T I O N

DEATH IN BRUNSW ICKProd, com pany M eridian FilmsP re-production 30 O ctober 1989P roduction 15 January 1990P ost-production 5 M arch 1990Principal C reditsD irec to r Jo h n R uaneP ro d u cer T im othy W hiteExec, p ro d u cer Bryce M enziesAssoc, p ro d u ce r Lynda H ouseScriptwriters Jo h n R uane

Boyd O xladeBased on novel by Boyd O xladeD.O.P. Ellery RyanSound record ist Lloyd C arrickE d ito r N eil T hum pstonProd, designer Chris K ennedyPlanning an d D evelopm ent Casting G reg AppsCasting cons. Liz M ullinar CastingP roduction CrewProd, m anager Lynda H ouse

Prod, coo rd in a to r C hristine H artP ro d u ce r’s asst Ju d ith H ughesLocation m anager Chris O dgersU n it m anager Leigh A m m itzbolAsst u n it m anager Tony YeglesProd, ru n n e r J o an n e A aronsProd, acco u n tan t M andy C arterA ccounts asst J an in e M artorejoIn su re r Steeves Lum leyC om pletion guar. P erfo rm ance

G uaran teesLegal services R oth W arren & M enzies Travel coo rd in a to r ShowtravelC am era CrewC am era o p e ra to r Ellery RyanFocus pu lle r Katina BowellC lapper-loader Gayle H u n tKey grip Barry H ansenAsst grips D arren H ansenG affer T ed N ordsvanBest boy J o h n B rennanG enerato r op. A dam WilliamsO n-set Crew1st asst d irec to r Jo h n W ild2nd asst d irec to r A ndrew M errifield 3 rd asst d irec to r Jo h n M artinC ontinuity A nne B eresfordBoom o p era to r Chris G oldsm ithM ake-up N oriko NeillM ake-up asst Nicky GooleySpecial fx P e ter StubbsU nit publicists M aria Farm er

M eredith King C atering Sweet SeductionA rt D epartm entA rt d ep t coord V ictoria H obdayA rt d e p t ru n n e r TBASet d re sse r/b u y er G eorgina C am pbell Standby props D ean SullivanW ardrobeW ardrobe super. Vicki F riedm anW ardrobe asst C heyne PhillipsPost-p roductionSound transfers E ugene W ilsonSound ed ito r D ean GawenM ixer R oger SavageM ixed a t S oundfirmL aboratory CinevexS hooting stock KodakG overnm ent Agency D evelopm ent D evelopm ent Film V ictoriaP roduction FFC

Film V ictoriaM arketingInt. sales ag en t Overseas Film G roup

Flat O u t Ent.Publ. F arm er & KingCast: Sam Neill (Carl F itzgerald), Zoe Carides (Sophie P apafagos),John Clarke (D ave).Synopsis: Carl Fitzgerald, the ch e f in a seedy rock ’n ’ roll club, struggles to m ain­ta in his d ign ity am id s t b ru ta lity an d squalor. H e sees a chance o f escape w hen h e m eets the voluptuous Sophie, b u t a nasty acciden t a t the c lub involving his k itchen-hand M ustafa leaves Carl feeling m ore th rea ten ed th an ever.

DEAD T O T H E W ORLDProd, com panyP re-productionProductionP ost-productionPrincipal C reditsD irec to rP ro d u cerC o-producer

H uzzah Prods 1 5 /1 /9 0 - 2 3 /2 /9 0

2 6 /2 /9 0 - 6 /4 /9 0 9 /4 /9 0 - 1 0 / 8 / 9 0

Ross Gibson Jo h n C ru thers A drienne P a rr

Scrip tw riter Ross G ibsonD.O .P. J a n e CastleS ound reco rd ist Bronwyn M urphyE d ito r A ndrew PlainProd, designer Edie K urzerO th e r C reditsProd, co o rd in a to r C hristine Jo h n so nProd, m anager A drienne P a rrLocation m anager P ip BrownProd, acco u n tan t L iane Colwell

(M oneypenny Services) 1st asst d irec to r C orrie S oeterboek2nd asst d irec to r E lizabeth LovellC ontinu ity H e a th e r O xenhamCasting Alison B arre ttKey grip G reg M olineauxA rt d irec to r Will S oeterboekC ostum e designer A m anda LovejoyM ake-up A ngela B odiniH a ird resser A ngela B odiniW ardrobe asst Kate G reenAsst ed ito r T an ia N ehm eM usical d irec to r Gary W arnerM usic perfo rm , by Jo h n n y W illsteed

Jo h n Howie P e te r W alsh

S ound editors A ndrew PlainA drienne P a rr

E diting assistants Shaun SeetBronwyn M urphy

Stunts coord . B ernie L edgerStill p h o tog raphy A nne ZahalkaBoxing coach J im BrownR u n n er Nikki M arshallU n it publicist Gayle LakeC atering T he S hooting PartyL aboratory A tlabLaboratory liaison Ian RussellL eng th 90 m insG auge 35 m mShooting stock FujicolorCast: R ichard R oxburgh (Johnny), Ag­nieszka P erepeczko (A lexander), T ibo r Gyapjas (M anny), Lynette C urran (P ea rl), Jo h n Doyle (M r Keats), G andhi M acIn­tyre (L ester), N oah Taylor (Skip), Kris Greaves (K ogarah), Paul C hubb (S g tjack G ran t), Paul G oddard (Bobby).Synopsis: A tale o f real estate an d revenge set in the om inous inner-city o f the im agi­nation .

T H E MAGIC RIDDLEProd. co. Yoram Gross Film Studio Dist. co. Beyond In te rn a tio n a l G roup P ro d u ce r Yoram GrossD irec to r Yoram GrossScriptwriters Yoram Gross

L eonard Lee J o h n Palm er

Assoc, p ro d u ce r Sandra GrossM usic Guy GrossS toryboard Ray Now landProd, supervisor Jea n n e tte Tom sProd, m anager R od LeeL eng th 80 m inutes G auge 35 m m

G overnm ent Agency Investm ent P ro d u ctio n FFCCast: Robyn M oore, Keith Scott Synopsis: A n e n c h a n tin g story w hich borrow s characters an d events from p o p u ­la r fairy tales an d weaves them in to one charm ing an d suspenseful tale o f love, mystery an d m irth .

T H E R ET U R N IN GProd, com pany M atte Box

70 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

David H annay Prods fo r Echo C am era type ARRI BL IV Electrician 2 G raham Crawford H aird resser Adele WilcoxP re-production 2 /1 /9 0 - 2 9 /1 /9 0 Key grip Ian Benallack Key grip P eter D eH aan Stunts coord. G lenn R eutlandP ro d u ctio n 5 /2 /9 0 - 2 6 /3 /9 0 Asst grip A rthu r M anoussakis Grip Tony W oolveridge Still pho tography Jim TownleyP ost-production 2 /4 /9 0 - 3 0 /7 /9 0 G affer Colin Williams L ighting console op. Nelson Heywood U nit publicists Shelley N ellerP rincipal C redits Best boy G reg Wilson A rt D epartm ent A nnie W rightD irec to r Jo h n Day G enerato r op. Roby H echenberge r Asst designer George Raniti Art D epartm entP ro d u cer T rish ia Downie O n-set Crew D esigner’s assist M em A lexander A rt d irec to r Kim DarbyExec, p ro d u ce r David H annay 1st asst d irec to r E uan Keddie G raphics designer Judy Leech Props buyers Jo ck M cLachlanScriptwriters A rth u r Baysting 2nd asst d irec to r Sonya Pem berton Props buyer 1 Sue V aughan Jan H urley

Jo h n Day 3rd asst d irec to r Tony G ilbert Props buyer 2 B ren t M acDonald W ardrobeBased on orig. idea Sim on Willisson C ontinuity V ictoria Sullivan Standby props David N orm an W ardrobe Susan Bowden

Jo h n Day Boom op era to r Gerry N ucifora Props m aker Jim Gellately W ardrobe assts Kate G reenD.O.P. Kevin Haywood M ake-up Kirsten Veysey Set dresser 1 Jo h n M cCulloch Kate RossS ound record ist Mike W estgate Stunts asst G len R ueland Set dresser 2 B rent M acDonald C onstructionE d ito r Sim on C loth ier U n it publicist Jerem y T hom pson O n-set Crew Set construction Phil W orthProd, designer Mike B eacroft (R onin Films) 1st asst d irecto r Bill Sm ithett Scenic artist Jan e M urphyC om poser Clive C ockburn Still pho tography Jen n ife r M itchell 2nd asst d irec to r Paul B rooke Post-p roductionO th e r C redits C atering Rudi Renz C ontinuity Em m a Peach Musical d irecto r M artin A rm igerProd, m anager Kate Curtis Keith Fish Sp fx designer A aron Beaucaire R u n n er Sean ClaytonProd, secretary Jackie Clark U n it publicist R ichard Payton Stills photog. Lindsay H ogan Publ. C atherine LavelleProd, accoun tan t Keith M cKenzie A rt D epartm ent W ardrobe Laboratory AtlabProd, assistant Jackie Clark A rt d irec to r Kris Kozlovic W ardrobe coord. Joyce Im lach G overnm ent Agency Investm ent1st asst d irec to r Stewart M ain Asst a rt d irec to r M erryn K Trim W ardrobe standby M arianne W akefield P roduction FFCC ontinuity Sue Wylie A rt dep t, run n ers Paul Macak M ake-up /ha ir Bill Jackson-M artin C ast Russell Crowe, R obert M am m one,Casting consultants Nevin Rowe M atthew Wilson Ian L oughnan Danielle Spencer.Focus pu lle r P e ter McCaffrey Props buyer D anae G unn C onstruction D epartm ent Synopsis: A rom antic dram a.C lapper-loader Sim on Roelants Standby props Chris Jam es Standby carpen ter Phil CostenzoKey grip Barry M cGinn W ardrobe Staging assistant Paul Stevens D EPTH O F FEELINGAsst grip Spotty C ostum ier Lynne H eal Rod B eaum ont P roducer Phillip Em m anuelGaffer M att Slattery W ardrobe sup. M argot Lindsay P ost-production [No details supplied]Boom o p era to r Steve Buckland Standby w ardrobe Bronwyn D oughty Supervising ed ito r David Luffm anA rt d irec to r R odger Guys C onstruction Assist ed ito r M ark S treet FATHERC ostum e designer C hristine West C onstruction H igh Rise Flats Superv. sound ed Karen Harvey [See previous issue for details]M ake-up M aijorie H am lin P ost-production Sound ed ito r 1 Rosie JonesW ardrobe C hristine West Asst ed ito r Jo h n Penders Assist sound ed 1 Steven Cook FLIR TIN GW ardrobe asst Christine Illingw orth Sound ed ito r Peter Clancy Assist sound ed 2 M ark S treet Prod, com pany K ennedy M illerSpecial effects Ken D rury Laboratory VFL N eg cu tte r 1 R ichard Carroll D irector Jo h n D uiganStill pho tog raphy P ierre Lab liaison Bruce Braun N eg cu tte r 2 Ruth W eller [See issue 76 fo r details]T ech, adviser Alec Gow Film gauge 35m m T ransfer op Steven RoachBest boy Eddie Simms S hooting stock Fuji VT ed ito r Wayne Hyett T H E GOLDEN BRAIDL aboratory NFULab L ength 96 m ins Senior audio op Ian Battersby Prod, com pany Illum ination FilmsL ength 90 mins G overnm ent Agency Investm ent T elecine op. P eter H enshaw Post-production Until mid-M archG auge 35m m D evelopm ent Film Victoria Post-prod, super Tony Stanyer Principal C reditsS hooting stock Eastm an Kodak P roduction Film Victoria ABC publicist M arian Page D irector Paul Cox

C olour FFC S outhern Star publ. Erin Jam eson C o-producers Paul CoxC as t Phillip G ordon (Allan S teadm an), Cast: Eri Ishida (Aya), Nicholas Eadie Cast: no details supplied. Paul Amm itzbollAlison R outledge (Jessica), Max Cullen (F rank ), C hris H aywood (M ac), Miki Synopsis: no details supplied. San thana K N aidu(D onahue), J im M oriarty (G eorge), T er­ Oikawa (Junko), Jo h n O ’Brien (Kato), Exec, p roducer William M arshallra n c e C o o p e r (A llan ’s fa th e r) , J u d ie M ayumi H oskin (N ancy), M arion H eath- BLOOD OATH Scriptwriters Paul CoxDouglas (M iriam ), G ran t Tilly (D r Pitts). field (L orna), Ju lie Forsythe (M andy), [See previous issue for details] Barry DickinsSynopsis: Som eone keeps m aking love to T im R ob ertso n (W illy), Tava S tra ton Based the story “La C hevelure”Allan. H e ’s trying to find o u t whom. (T ina), D.J. Foster (Barry). BLO O D M O O N W ritten by Guy de M aupassant

1 ¿synopsis: posL-war siory oi love, mar- L^ee previous issue io r aeiausj D.O.P. N ino M artinettiF E A T U R E S M riage and friendship , begun du ring the Sound recordist Jam es C urrie

P O S T - P R O D U C T I O N f l occupation o fjap an , and set in 1950s and T H E CROSSING E ditor Russell H urley’60s Victoria. H ere the cultural shift and Prod. co. Beyond In te rna tiona l G roup Prod, designer Neil Angwin

AYA new pressures force th ree peop le th rough Dist. com pany Hoyts P roduction CrewProd, com pany G oshu Films inevitable change. Principal C redits Prod, m anager Paul AmmitzbollDist. com pany R onin Films D irector G eorge Ogilvie Prod, coord ina to r Fiona EaggerB udget 11,800,000 T H E BLACK HAND P roducer Sue Seeary P ro d u cer’s asst Jo an ie Shm ithPrincipal C redits Prod, com pany ABC Exec, p roducers A1 Clark U nit m anager T errie W addellD irecto r Solrun H oaas Principal C redits Philip G erlach Production run. Andrew M arshallProducers D enise Patience D irector Ken C am eron Assoc, p roducer Jenny Day Prod, accountan t Antony S hepherd

Solrun H oaas P roducer Rod Allan Scriptwriter Ranald Allan Insu re r H olland Insurance BrokersAssoc, p ro d u cer K atsuhiro M aeda Exec, p roducers Errol Sullivan D.O.P. Je ff D arling C om pletion guaran M.P.G.Scriptw riter Solrun H oaas Penny C hapm an Sound recordist David Lee (C hristine Suli)D.O.P. G eoff B urton Scriptw riter Ian David E ditor H enry D angar Legal services M arshall, M arshall &Sound record ist Ben Osm o D.O.P. Chris Davis Prod, designer Igor Nay D entE dito r Stewart Young Sound recordist Ian C regan Costum e designer Katie Pye C am era CrewProd, designer Jen n ie Tate E ditor Peter C hua Planning and D evelopm ent C am era opera to r N ino M artinettiP la n n in g and D evelopm ent Costum e designer Paul C leveland Casting Faith M artin Focus pu ller Leigh ParkerScript ed ito r A nnette Blonski Planning and D evelopm ent P roduction Crew C lapper-loader R oberto RodriguezCasting consultants K atsuhiro Casting officer D ina M ann Prod, coo rd ina to r D ebbie Samuels Key grip P eter Kershaw

M aeda (Aya) Casting assist Jan e H am ilton Location m anager H ugh Jo hnston Gaffer P eter KershawP ru e ’s Zoo (Aust. supports) Research Robyn Smith Prod, accountan t Infinity Films O n-set Crew

D ialogue coach Ju lie Forsythe Film research M artin Brown Accounts asst D onna Wallace Continuity Sue H arrisonP roduction Crew Ju lie Grover C am era Crew Boom opera to r David RawlinsonProd, coo rd ina to r Jo -anne C arm ichael P roduction Crew Focus pu ller Gary Phillips M ake-up Kirsten VeyseyProd, m anager R obert Kewley Prod, m anager M arion Pearce C lapper-loader R ichard Bradshaw H airdresser Kirsten VeyseyProd, secretary Ros Jewell Prod, coord ina to r T rish Carney Key grip L ester Bishop Still pho tography P eter H ough tonLocation scout H ugh M acLaren Prod, secretaries Lyndal O sborne Asst grips Terry Cook Art D epartm entU n it m anager Leigh Am m itzbol Sandy Stevens S tephen Gray Asst a rt d irec to r M anuel BachetP roduction ru n n e r Tony G ilbert Prod, typist S tephanie Osfield Gaffer Reg Garside W ardrobeProd. acc. Sim one H igginbottom P rod designer Frank Earley Electrician Gary Hill W ardrobe supervisor Gail MayesIn su re r Steeves Lum ley Location m anager Neil P roud Best boy Allan D unstan C onstruction D epartm entC om plet. g u a ran to r M otion C am era Crew O n-set Crew C arpenters Takis Karanikolas

Picture G uarantors C am era op e ra to r P eter N eahros 1st asst d irec to r Chris W ebb Frank D rakopoulosLegal services Roth, W arren & Focus pu lle r M ark Lam ble 2nd asst d irector H enry O sborne P ost-production

M enzies C lapper-loader C am pbell M iller 3rd asst d irec to r M aria Phillips Edge nu m b ere r O liver S treetonC am era Crew Boom Chris Coltm an C ontinuity Jo W eeks Sound transfers Eugene WilsonFocus pu lle r D arrin Keough G affer Andrew H olm es Boom op era to r Alex Patton Sound ed ito r Livia RuzicC lapper-loader K athryn Milliss Electrician 1 Rob Pinal M ake-up W endy F reem an M ixer Jam es C urrie

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 71

M ixed atO pdcalsTitlesLaboratoryLab liaisonN eg m atchim gFilm gaugeShooting stockG overnm ent AgencyD evelopm entProduction

H en d o n Studios Cinevex

O liver S treeton Cinevex

Ian A nderson M eg Koernig

35m m Kodak

Investm entFilm Victoria

AFCFilm Victoria

Cast: Chris Haywood, Gosia Dobrowolska, Paul Chubb, N orm an Kaye, M arion H eath- field, M onica M aughan.Synopsis: Golden Braid is an erotic com ­edy, a tragi-comic love story, in w hich the characters com e to term s with th e ir idio­syncrasies, th e ir fantasies and the ir reali­ties. Ultimately, they find old-fashioned happiness in each o th e r’s arms.

H A RBO U R BEATProd, com pany Palm Beach Pictures

(H arbour Beat)Producers David Elfick

Iren e D obsonD irector David ElfickScriptw riter M orris Gleitzm anBased on orig. idea David ElfickD.O.P. Ellery RyanSound recordist Paul BrincatE dito r S tuart A rm strong

(M ighty Movies)Prod, designer M ichael BridgesAssoc, p ro d u cer N ina StevensonProd, m anager C atherine K napm anProd, coord ina to r Sharon M illerU n it m anager Ian F reem anAsst u n it m anager Geoffrey GuiffreLocation m anager P eter LawlessProd, accoun tan t Jill Steele

(M oneypenny Services)Asst accoun tan t K errin BegaudProd, assistant Rebecca Coote1st asst d irec to r Colin Fletcher2nd asst d irec to r Sarah Lewis3rd asst d irec to r N icholas ColeP ro d u cer’s asst Basia PlacheckiCasting Christine KingC am era op e ra to r David W illiamsonFocus puller Jo h n PlattC lapper-loader Barry Ido ineKey grip Ray BrownGrips Ian Bird

W arren G rieffGaffer Sim on Lee3rd electrics Greg Allen4th electrics V aughan OttawayA rt d irec to r Jen n ife r CarseldineA rt d ep t coord. Ju lianne W hiteCostum e designer Bruce FinlaysonCostum e superv. Sandi ChichelloM ake-up Lesley VanderwaltH aird resser Cheryl WilliamsStandby w ardrobe Ju lie B artonProps buyers M ark Dawson

Kristin R euterStandby props Jo h n O sm ondSpecial effects A pplied ExplosivesAction veh. coord. P eter Cashm anConst, m anager Bob PatonScenic artist Bill U nderyC arpen ters Frank Phipps

Alan A rm itageC arpen ters’ asst R obert M orrisonStage h an d 1 A drian KnowlesStage h an d 2 Bob H eathAsst ed ito r D eborah ReidU nit nurse Sue AndrewsM ake-up driver Paul NaylorStunts coord. Glen BoswellStill pho tography Brian McKenzieBest boy Peter BushbyP ro d .ru n n e r Lyndie M enkenC atering David & Cassie Vaile

(O u t to L unch Catering)Sound post-prod. SoundfirmLaboratory ColorfilmB udget $3.3 millionGauge 35m mShooting stock Kodak

G overm ent Agency Investm entP roduction FFCC ast:John H an n ah (N eal), Steven Vidler (L ancelo t), Gary Day (W alker), Bill Young (C im ino), Emily Sim pson (M ason). Synopsis: T he story o f two off-beat police­m an. O ne is Glasgow cop N eal M cBride who busts a co rru p t Glasgow alderm an with pro tection from people in high places. M cB ride’s po lice c h ie f tran sfe rs h im “down u n d e r” to Sydney, w here he is p a rtn e red with Lance Cooper. Rejecting the dull rou tine on offer, M cBride plunges the two o f them in to an undercover drug investigation in the harbourside suburbs.

A KINK IN T H E PICASSO[See previous issue for details]

MARK CLARK VAN ARKProd, com pany Cascade Films

In terna tiona lP roduction Post-production Principal C reditsD irecto rP roducers

C o-producer Assoc, p ro d u cer Scriptwriter D.O.P.Sound recordist E ditorProd, designer Costum e designer

6 /1 1 /8 9 - 2 2 /1 2 /8 9 January - April 1990

N adia Tass N adia Tass

David Parker T im othy W hite Bryce M enzies

David Parker David Parker

Jo h n W ilkinson P e ter Carrodus

Patrick R eardon Anje Bos

Planning and D evelopm entCasting consultants Liz M ullinar

Casting M ichelle NealExtras casting

P roduction CrewProd, m anager Prod, coord inato r P ro d u cer’s asst Location m anager U nit m anager P ro d .ru n n e r Prod, accountan t A ccounts asst In su re rC om pletion guarant.

Legal services

C atherine Bishop A m anda C rittenden

M ichelle Neal Paul Healey

M icheál B atchelor Fiona Greville M andy C arter

Jan in e M artorejo Steeves Lum ley

Perform ­ance G uarantees Roth, W arren &

M enziesC am era CrewC am era opera to r Focus pu lle r C lapper-loader C am era type Key grip Asst grips Gaffer Best boy G enerato r op.O n-set Crew 1st asst d irecto r 2nd asst d irecto r 3rd asst d irecto r C ontinuity Boom opera to r M ake-up H airdresser Special fx Stunts coord.Safety officer Still pho tography

U nit publicist C atering Art D epartm ent A rt d irecto r A rt d ep t coord A rt dep t ru n n e r Set dresser Props buyer Standby props Action vehicle coord W ardrobeW ardrobe supervisor W ardrobe buyer Standby w ardrobe

Rex N icholson Cathy Cham bers W arik Lawrence

Arri BL IV Robbie H ansford

Rod Short R ichard Rees-Jones

Chris H erzfeld A dam Williams

Tony M ahood A ndrew M errifiejd

Jo h n M artin Jen n i Tosi

Greg Nelson A m anda Rowbottom A m anda Rowbottom

P eter Stubbs G lenn R euhland

P e ter Culpin David Parker

Serge T hom ann Steve Mills

Eileen O ’Shea Sweet Seduction

H ugh B ateup Sharon Young

D ebbie T rentfie ld M ichael R um pf M ichael R um pf

Daryl Porter Rob Visser

Kelly Aitken Tracey A itken

Robyn B unting

P ost-p roductionAssist ed ito r Alan W oodruffEdge n u m b ere r P e ter T h o rn to nSound transfers Eugene W ilsonSound editors D ean Gawen

Rex W attsM ixer R oger SavageM ixed at Sound FirmL aboratory CinevexLab liaison Ian A ndersonScreen ratio 12:1Shooting stock 5294 / 5247G overnm ent Agency Investm ent P roduction FFCM arketingInt. sales agen t Overseas Film group

Flatout E n terta inm en t Publ. E ileen O ’Shea Publ.Cast: Ben M endelsohn (Danny Clark), C laudia Karvan (Joanna Jo h n so n ), Steve Bisley (G ordon Farkas), A ngelo D ’Angelo (V angeli P e trak is), D am on H e rrim an (M ark Jo rgensen ) M arshall N ap ier (Mr C lark), Maggie King (Mrs C lark), Tim R obertson (M r Jo h n so n ), Sheryl M unks (P am S h a e ffe r) , L ise R o d g ers (M rs

Jo h n so n ).Synopsis: Seventeen-year-old Danny Clark buys an old Jag u ar to try an d impress beautifu l Jo an n a Joh n so n . T he car blows up on the ir first date, so Danny has to devise an in tricate p lan to set things right.

N O CAUSE FO R ALARM[See previous issue fo r details]

QUIGLEY DOWN U NDER[See previous issue for details]

T H E SHER M OUNTAIN MYSTERYProd, com pany B udgetPrincipal C reditsD irector P roducer Exec, p ro d u cer Scriptwriter D.O.P.SoundE ditorO th e r C redits1st asst d irecto r 2nd asst d irecto r A rt d irector Costum e designer C om poser BandExtra music accom p. P roduction m ’ger U n it m anager Legal services Prod, accountan t M ake-up /ha ir C ontinuity G raphics

Gaffer Legals W ardrobe 2nd u n it photog .Key grip Best boy Electrician Assistant grip Boom Swinger A rm ourer P roduction coord. P roduction assistant Lab processing E diting facilities P roduction secret. C ontinuity Stunts coord.S tun t Team Special Effects C lapper U n it ru n n e r Assistant ed ito r D ubbing ed ito r 2nd asst ed ito r Caterers

In te rtro p o ic $1.5 Million

Vince M artin Phillip Avalon

P eter Taylor Denis W hitburn

Ray H enm an Bob Clayton

T ed O tten

R obin Newell David Lomas

Keith Holloway Sonja W ilder

A rt Phillips G ank

Allan Zavod V eronica Sive

P e ter Taylor M artin C ooper M ichael Boon H ilary Pierce

M adelaine M urry M ark Patterson

P e ter Jerg ins P e ter Stidocph P eter O ’Brien

M artin C ooper Sonja W ilder

M arianna M arusic G raham Young

M itchell Patterson Rob Sandifort

Brad M auer Chris H ilton

Barry Cockinos Edwina Hayes

Vicki W hite Colourfilm

Spectrum Tracy H ard ing

Liz Perry Rangi N ikcora

W ho Dares Neville Maxwell

Paul Spresial Gavin M ears

Garry Irik A nne M acinotty L inda Ljubricic A & B C atering

Stills co o rd in a to r Bob KingU n it m anager P e te r TaylorU n it publicist F iona SearsonCast: T om Richards (Alex C ordeaux), Phil A v a lo n (C a in e C o rd e a u x ) , A b ig a il (M urie l), Elizabeth M clvor (D ianne), Ron Beck (S o le), Jo e B ugner (T he R an g er), Jeffrey R hoe (Davy J o e ) , Steven Jacobs (Billy), Ric C arter (C o n rad ), A m anda Pratt (Secretary), David W heeler (W ocka). Synopsis: A wealthy business m an takes his h an d ic ap p e d b ro th e r to the S her M ountains. They becom e caught-up in a web o f mystery an d in trigue th a t involves th e ir en tire family and a m ysterious figure from the past.

STRANGERSProd, com pany Genesis FilmsDist com pany B udgetPre-productionProductionPost-productionPrincipal C reditsD irectorProducers

Assoc p ro d u cer O riginal screenplay Scriptw riter D .O.P.Sound recordist E ditorP rod designer

Beyond D istributors $1.2 m illion

4 /9 - 1 3 /1 0 /8 9 1 6 /1 0 -2 4 /1 1 /8 9

26 /11 - 1 0 /4 /9 0

Craig Lahiff Craig Lahiff

W ayne G room Ron Stigwood

Jo h n Em ery Jo h n Em ery

Steve A rnold Mike P iper

D enise Haratzis D erek Mills

P lanning an d D evelopm entScrip t ed ito r S tephan ie M cCarthyCastingP roduction CrewP rod m anager P rod coo rd ina to r U nit m anager P roduction ru n n e r

Jan Killen

Prod accoun tan t In su re r

C om pletion guarant.C am era CrewC am era op e ra to rFocus pu llerC lapper-loaderKey gripAsst gripsGafferBest boyAsst electricsO n-set Crew1st asst d irec to r2nd asst d irecto rC ontinuityBoom op era to rM ake-upM ake-up asstStunts coord.Safety officer Still pho tography C atering A rt D epartm ent A rt d irecto r A rt d ep t ru n n e r Standby props W ardrobeW ardrobe supervisor

Standby w ardrobe Animals

Ron Stigwood D iane S tuart

Gary Buss C hristine

M cG uinness S haron Jackson

Willis, Faber, Jo h n so n & H iggins

Film Finances

Steve A rnold R obert Agganis

M ichael Bam bacas J o n Goldney

T revor G ran tham G raem e Shelton

Keith Jo h n so n Scott B rokate

Soren Jensen M onica Pearce

Kristin W itcom be Scott P iper

Fiona R eesjones V eronica Bielby

G lenn Boswell Zev E leftheriou

Craig “Skeet” B ooth Food fo r Film

D erek Mills B runo Scopazzi

Jo h n Santucci

Chris W ebster

A nita Seiler

A phid w rangler Ron StigwoodPost-p roductionAsst ed ito r Sally FitzpatrickL aboratory Atlab (Australia)G overnm ent Agency Investm ent P roduction FFCCast: Jam es Healey (Gary), A nne Looby (A nna), Melissa D ocker (R ebecca), T im R obertson (K ing), J im H o lt (G rah am ), G eo ff M o rre ll (F ra n k ), M ary R egan (Jo an n e), Paul M ason (S ergean t), Jo h n Clayton (A gent).Synopsis: T h e story o f an am bitious young stockbroker who, after m eeting an attrac­tive stranger on a p lane, finds h im self

72 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

e n sn a red in a n ever-spiralling n igh tm are 2 nd asst d irec to r K aran M onkhousew eb o f com plications a n d in trigue w hich C o o rd in a to r Vicki Popplew elleventually leads to ru in an d death . Key grip W arren G rieef

S ound record ist G eorge CraigT IL L T H E R E WAS Y O U C ontinu ity Jen n y Quigley

Prod , com pany Ayer Prods U nderw ater U n itDist. com pany Sovereign P ictures C am eram an W olfgang K nochellB udget $13 m illion Assistant Jerem y RaynerP ro d u ctio n 6 /1 1 /8 9 - 1 9 /1 /9 0 Aerial U nitP rincipal C redits 1st asst d irec to r M ichael M cIntyreD irec to r J o h n Seale H e licop ter pilo t M ark R obertsonP ro d u ce r J im M cElroy A rt D epartm en tL ine p ro d u c e r T im Sanders A rt d irecto rs Ian AllenScriptw riter M ichael T hom as B rian E dm ondsD.O.P. Geoffrey Sim pson Asst a r t d irec to r M ichelle M cGaheyS ound reco rd ist Gary Wilkins A rt d e p t coord . W endy H uxfordE d ito r Jill Bilcock A rt d e p t ru n n e r Liam LiddleProd , designer G eorge Liddle Set dressers M ichael T o llertonC ostum e designer David Rowe M arta StatescuC om poser Tony M eillandt D raftsperson Fiona ScottP lann ing an d D evelopm ent Props m aker Jo h n M urchCasting M ike F en ton Standby props Jam es CoxCasting consultants Faith M artin A rm o u rer Brian BurnsExtras casting Siobhan H an n an W ardrobeD ialogue coach S andra Lee Paterson W ardrobe superv. Kerry T hom psonP ro d u ctio n Crew Standby w ardrobe Jo h n SheaProd , supervisor G ran t H ill W ardrobe assts H e a th e r L aurieProd, co o rd in a to r Jen n ie Crowley Susanne H eadP ro d u ce r’s asst L orelle A dam son C onstruction D eptP ro d secretary A m anda Selling Const, m anager Bill HoweL ocation m anager R obin C lifton Scenic artist P e te r ColliasU n it m ’g e r Tic C arroll (V anuatu) C onstruct, fo rem an Larry Sandy

H u g h Jo h n s to n (Syd.) L ead ing h an d Jo h n StilesU n it assts Alison R obb (Vanuatu) C arpen ters Steve Snow den

Ken Rule (Syd.) Andy T icknerProd, asst Jo G ibson (V anuatu) Ross CairnsProd, ru n n ers David H olm es L ab o u re r C laudia Goodman-Davies

J o h n M cD onald Set fin isher M att C onnorsFinancial cont. Kevin W right G reensm an P e te r H o rd e rnProd, a cco u n tan t C hristine Robson P lane construction W alter VanA ccounts asst A nnette Piggott V eem endaalPaym aster Gavan Davidson Studios W aterloo StudiosIn su re r H am m o n d Jewell P ost-p roductionC om pletion guar. Film Finances 1st asst ed ito r Jan e M oranTravel coord . H e len Francis 2nd asst ed ito r Jan e M aguireF reigh t coord . M ichael M cLean Assembly ed ito r Ju lia G elhardBase office liaison Fiona King S ound transfers AtlabC am era Crew L aboratory A tlabC am era opera to rs D anny B atterham Lab liaison P e te r W illard

M artin T u rn e r G auge 35m mFocus pullers Neil Cervin Shooting stock Kodak 5296, 5247;

Laurie Kirkwood AGFA XT320C lapper-loaders M ark Zagar G overnm ent Agency Investm ent

Kate D ennis P roduction FFC2nd u n it D .O.P. David B urr M arketing FFC2nd u n it focus Barry Ido ine Cast: M ark H arm on (Frank Flynn) J e ro e nC am era types A rriflex BLTV, BLIII K rabbe (Viv), D eborah U nger (A nna),Key grip Paul T hom pson S hane B rian t (R ex), L ech MackiewiczAsst grips G eorge Tsoutas (M uzza), Ivan Kesa (Snowy), R itch ie

Jo Jo h a n so n Singer (R obbo), J e f f T rum an (Nobby).G affer T revor T o u n e Synopsis: F rank Flynn, an A m erican jazzBest boy W erner G erlach m usician, com es to V anuatu in search o f2nd gaffer Sim on Lee his b ro th e r and finds m urder, in trigueAsst electrics D arren Bellangarry and rom ance - i t ’s a ju n g le o u t there.

Jo h n LeeG en era to r op Ron W are F o r details o f the following see previousO n-set Crew issues.1st asst d irec to r Steve Andrews BREAKAWY2nd asst d irec to r Toby Pease STRANGERS3rd asst d irec to r Em m a Schofield WENDY CRACKED A W ALNUTC ontinuity Pam WillisB oom o p e ra to r M ark W asiutak ■ S H O R T S 1M ake-up V iolette Fon taineH aird resser Pascal Satet F o r details o f the following see previousSpecial fit su p er Brian Cox issue:Special fx David H ard ie BOM B SQUAD

David Young ELVIS KILLED MY B RO T H ERBrian Pearce T H E SECRET CO DE

P ete r A rm strong 1Stunts co o rd in a to r G ran t Page ■ D O C U M E N T A R I E S 1Stunts asst Jan e n e R eadeSafety officers A rchie Roberts COVER T O COVER:

Chris H ession PAUL JEN N IN G SU nit nurse Jacqu i Ramsay Prod , com opany E ducation ShopStill p ho tog raphy Gary Jo h n sto n (M in. o f Education , Vic.)Publ. V ictoria B uchan D irec to r Lily S te inerC atering Kathy T ro u t (V anuatu) P ro d u cer Lily S te iner

M arike Janavicius (Syd.) D.O.P. P e te r D ohertyU n it ru n n e rs Sara Probyn S ound record ist G eoff Spurell

B rooke Sm ith E d ito r Lily S teinerS econd U nit Prod, designer A nn Grieve1st asst d irec to r Phil Patterson L ength 20 m ins

Synopsis: A n interview with award-win­n in g ch ild ren ’s a u th o r Paul Jenn ings.

F o r details o f th e following see p revious issue:

AUSTRALIA DANCES T H E SILIC O N IM PERATIVE

A U S T R A L I A N F I L M , T E L E V I S I O N A N D R A D I O

S C H O O L

T H E LAST NEWSREELProd, com pany AFTRSDist. com pany G rea ter U nion Org.D irecto r P ro d u cer Consult, p ro d u ce r Assoc, p ro d u cer Scriptw riter E d ito rP rod, designer R esearchers

B udgeted by P rod, assist Insurers

C am era opera to rs

C am era types 1st asst d irec to r M ake-up Tech, adviser Still pho tography U n it publicist Anim als Sound ed ito r M ixed at TitlesLaboratory Lab liaison N eg m atching G auge Screen ratio S hooting stock P rin t stock P roduction

K aren B orger Stewart B urchm ore

Tony Buckley Elisabeth K night

G race Barnes Paul Saunders

M arni R aprager K aren B orger

Jen n y W ard Paul Saunders

Stewart Jen n y W ard

AFTRS FAI

C inesure Brigid Costello

Josie Keys R ohan Sm ith

Frank V idinha ARRI III, BL IV

Paul Saunders Dawn M orrison Jo sep h D em ion

Astri Baker Ian Phipps

Sunny T he Surfing Dog Jen n y W ard

AFTRS H arrison M arni R aprager

Colorfilm W ayne Hayes

Colorfilm 35m m 1.85: 1

K odak B &W Kodak 5231, 5222

N ational Film & Sound Archive

Cast: A nnie Looby (M able), Patrick Falzon (Johnny), ex-C inesound and -M ovietone staff and the peop le o f Australia. Synopsis: The Last Newsreel is a sho rt black- and-white film th a t celebrates O pera tion Newsreel a n d is a fitting finale to the Newsreel era.

A PA RTING

C ontinuity B oom o p e ra to r M ake-upStill pho tog raphyU nit publicistC ateringStandby propsC onstruct, m anagerEditing asstM ixerM ixed atL aboratoryLab liaisonN eg m atch ingG augeScreen ratioShooting stock

Nicole Cassor N icole Lazaroff Dawn M orrison Iris W akalenko

Ian Phipps B read & Circuses

Chris Darvel Jake H ogges Leigh Elmes

C hristian Bass AFTRS H arrison

VFC T om A ngel

K aren Clark 35m m

1 : 1.85 AGFA 125 & 320

Cast: A nthony M artin , R atchel Szalay, Ralph Cotterill.Synopsis: A sh o rt film ab o u t love, m em ory an d isolation.

RETREATProd, com pany Pre-prod.Prod.Post-production P rincipal C reditsD irectorP roducerScriptwriters

D.O.P.S ound record ist E d ito rProd, designer C om poser

AFTRS1 6 /1 0 /8 9 - 1 0 /1 1 /8 91 1 /1 1 /8 9 - 1 7 /1 1 /8 9

1 7 /1 1 /8 9 - 2 3 /2 /9 0

T rish FitzSimons Bronwyn C oupe

T rish FitzSimons C atherine Zim dahl

Pascale Ferrad in i Leonie D ickinson

L inda K ruger Luigi P itto rino

Paul N eesonP lanning and D evelopm entCasting consultants Joy SargantS hooting sched. B udgeted by P roduction Crew Prod, m anager Location m anager Prod, assistant Prod, accoun tan t C am era Crew C am era o p e ra to r Focus pu lle r C am era type L ighting asst O n-set Crew 1st asst d irec tio r 2nd asst d irec to r 3 rd asst d irec to r C ontinuity Boom o p era to r Still pho tog raphy Post-p roduction Asst ed ito r S ound ed ito rM usic p e rfo rm ed by

Penny Fowler-Smith Bronwyn C oupe

Bronwyn C oupe M atthew D uchesne

Em m a Oakley Alison Baillache

Pascale Ferrad in i Josie Keys

A m SR Steve W arren

Penny Fowler-Smith J u d e Fowler-Smith

E m m a Oakley Liz Crosby

D ebbie Lee J u d e Fowler-Smith

H elen Lovecock Mary A nne H am ilton

Paul N eesonProd, com pany AFTRS M ixer Mary A nne H am iltonDist. com pany AFTRS L aboratory AtlabB udget $45,000 Lab liason Kerry Jenk insP rincipal C redits C as t D asha Blahova (P e tro ), Terry BradyD irector Jam es M iddleton (M artin).P roducer Stewart B urchm ore Synopsis: A film ab o u t travelling - ab o u tScriptw riter Jam es M iddleton outw ard and inw ard journeys. Briefly twoD.O.P. D ion Beebe p eo p le ’s paths cross.Sound record ist C hristian BassE dito r K aren W eldrick See p revious issue fo r details of:Prod, designer Luigi P itto rino JO U R N EY O F A LIFETIM EC om poser R obert Moss RIVOLTELLAO th er C reditsShooting sched. S tephen Prodes 1 F I L M A U S T R A L I A IB udgeted by Stewart B urchm oreProd, supervisor Elisabeth K night KOALASProd, m anager M arcella Hayward Prod, com pany FAP ro d .ru n n e r B elinda Mravicic Dist. com pany FAInsurers FAI D irecto r Paul Scott

AFTRS Exec, p ro d u ce r B ruce M oirC am era o p e ra to r D ion Beebe Scriptw riter Paul ScottFocus pu lle r Geoffery Downes D.O.P.s J im FrazierC lapper-loader R hoan Sm ith Lindsay C u p p erC am era Type A m BL David L ourieKey grip Tony Bosch S ound record ist Paul FinlayAsst grip S hanon B aughn E dito r David L ourieGaffer Ian Bosm an R esearcher Paul ScottBest boy Chris Cox B udgeted by Jo h n Russell1st asst d irec to r S tephen Prodes Prod, supervisors Jo h n Russell2nd asst d irec to r Priscilla T horley H ilary May

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 73

Prod, m anager Sally PriceP ro d u ce r’s asst Sally TysonU nit m anager Sally PriceProd, assistant Kathy G ran tIn su re r M arsh & M cL ennanA nim al hand lers C asper Pieters

P e te r M itchell Asst ed ito r Paula L ourieM ixed at FAL aboratory AtlabM arketing consult. M ichelle

WeissPubl. Lesna Thom asC as t [Details n o t supplied]Synopsis: Koalas is a hum orous and d ra­m atic look at the h id d en side o f koalas w hich reveals som e very in te resting and unusual behaviour. Using footage never before seen, Koalas h ighlights the ex ten t to which A ustralians will go to he lp these lovable creatures.

Synopsis: A video to educate peop le in strategies to h a lt d eg rad a tio n o f river m anagem ents.

SH O W IN G A LITTLE RESTRAINT Exec, p ro d u cer Lucy M acLarenScriptw riter D ennis K Sm ithL eng th 10 m insSynopsis: An en te rta in ing look at how a family copes w ith the d ifferen t restraints n eed ed by different-aged ch ild ren , and suggests how to keep them am used on long, b o ring car trips.

P R O D U C T I O N

T H E CRIMINAL C O U R T Prod, com pany Balcony Prods

TOYTIM EProd, com panyB udgetP roductionD irecto rP roducer

FA1600,000

2 4 /1 /9 0 - 2 /3 /9 0 Ian M unro

Ron Saunders

D irecto r P roducer Exec, p ro d u cer Scriptwriters

D.O.P.SoundMusic

L ength

Luigi Acquisto R ichard Jo n es Rachel D ixon

Rob Phillips Luigi Acquisto

Jaem s G ran t Chris Izzard

N ot Drow ning Waving Paul Kelly

27 mins

are each o f the tee th designed for? An en te rta in in g look a t o u r m ou ths fo r p ri­mary-school ch ildren .

M ELBOURNE DAWN T O DUSK Prod, com pany B roadstoneD irec to r Salik SilverstienP ro d u cer T erence M cM ahonExec, p ro d u ce r Rachel D ixonS ound G eoff W hiteL ength 10 m insG auges 16mm, 1" videotapeSynopsis: D esig n ed to p ro m o te M el­b o u rn e as a stylish, design-conscious city, as evidenced in its arch itectu re , fashion an d en terta inm en t.

T H E IR LIVES IN O U R HANDS D irecto r P roducer Exec, p ro d u cer Scriptw riter D .O.P.Sound L ength G auge

M ark Atkin Kathie A rm strong

Lucy M acLaren D ennis T upicoff

G raem e W ood Phillip Healy

10 m ins 1" m aster

Synopsis: A video th a t explains the p ro b ­lem s th a t pre-school ch ild ren have in

Prod, com pany Barry N ancarrowProds

Sponsoring body H u n te r D istrict W aterB oard

D irec to r Barry N ancarrowP ro d u cer Chris FordScriptw riter Bob PurserD .O.P. Barry N ancarrowS ound reco rd is t B rian GarveyE d ito r M artin A dnumProd, m an ag er B rian GarveyA nim ation M ered ith ProdsG raphics M ered ith ProdsN arra to r David PatersonL aboratory Barry N ancarrow

ProdsPost-prod Barry N ancarrow

ProdsL eng th 10.5 m insG auge BVUSynopsis: An archival reco rd o f the con­struction o f the project.

CLEAN W ATER, CLEAN SAND Prod, com pany Barry N ancarrow

ProdsSponsoring body H u n te r D istrict W ater

B oardScriptw riter Jo h n Patterson G auge Betacam SP coping with traffic, an d suggests strategies D irecto r Barry N ancarrowD.O.P. Kim B atterham C as t [No details supplied] fo r paren ts an d teachers to he lp children . P ro d u cer Chris FordE dito r R obin A rcher Synopsis: A docu-dram a to be screened to Scriptw riter B rian GarveyProd, designer R obert Dein all first-tim e offenders, w hich outlines ■ P O S T - P R O D U C T I O N ■ D.O.P. B rian GarveyC ostum e design C aroline Jones procedures of the co u rt to he lp them Sound record ist M artin A dnumP u p p e t design C aroline Jones form a realistic expectation o f what will FRESH EVERY DAY E dito r David PatersonC om poser Chris Neal h ap p en d u ring the ir case. D irecto r W ayne T indall Prod, m anager M ered ith ProdsProd, m anager Kin A nning P ro d u cer A nne T indall A nim ation Barry N ancarrowProd, secretary Sandie M orris D RINK DRIVING Exec, p roducer Lucy M acLaren ProdsProd, assistant Bronwyn T hom pson Prod, com pany Supervision E dito r W ayne T indall G raphics Barry N ancarrow ProdsProd, accoun tan t Rebekka Blackm an D irecto r Peter C am pbell L ength 8 m ins N arra to r David PatersonKey grip Tony Bosch Exec, p roducer Lucy M acLaren Synopsis: A video dem onstra ting the cor- Laboratory Barry N ancarrowGaffer Ian A nderson D.O.P. Jo h n C arter rec t p rocedu re o f den tal care fo r the dis- ProdsP u p p e t m aker Ross Hill Sound B rett Cocking abled. Post-prod. Barry N ancarrowProps m aker R ichard W eight L ength 8 mins ProdsStandby props M arcus Erasmos Gauge 1" m aster M ELBOURNE - T H E BIG EVENT L ength 20 m insSeam stress Construct, m ’ger L eading h and Set fin isher Studios Gauge

Kim Royle Rob Ricketson

G ordon M cIntyre Eric T odd

AFTRS 1" tape

C as t Gary Scales (Johnson the E lephan t), K atrina Sedgwick (M cDuff the C oncer­tin a ), B ruce W ed d e rb u rn (D iesel the T ruck), P e te r Browne (Alfred the H o t W ater B ottle), Kristen Lyons (Squeaky the R obot).Synopsis: T he adventures o f a g roup o f toys th a t com e to life in a ch ild ’s bedroom w hen th e ir ow ner is asleep. A im ed at 2 - 6 year olds.

F o r details o f the following see previous issue:

A IR FO RCE MYTHS BOOM ERANG

T H E GIRL FROM TO M O RR O W I START O N FRIDAY

IN N OVATIONS IN LOCAL GOVT KEYED U P

MUSICMAKERS: MICHAEL A TH E RT O N

W ORLD AIDS DAY

F I L M V I C T O R I A P R E - P R O D U C T I O N

T H E LAW DECIDES P ro d u cer Bronwyn EvansExec, p ro d u ce r Lucy M acLarenScriptw riter Jo h n McKayL ength 8 minsSynopsis: A video th a t alleviates any con­cerns th a t people may have abou t the o pera tions o f the S h e riffs office, and encourages m en and w om en to consider a caree r as a Field o r Special Officer.

RIVER MANAGEMENT P ro d u cer Jan in a CraigExec, p ro d u ce r Rachel DixonScriptw riter B ridget GoodwinL ength 30 mins.

C as t [No details supplied]Synopsis: G ino Tagiatelli explains the dangers o f d rink driving to a young m an who thinks he knows everything ab o u t it.

FO O D AND W INE IN M ELBOURNE Prod, com pany B roadstoneD irectors T erence M cM ahon

V enetia M cM ahon P roducer T erence M cM ahonExec, p ro d u cer Lucy M acLarenScriptw riter Salik SilversteinS ound G eoff W hiteL ength 10 minsG auges 16mm, 1" video tapeSynopsis: D esigned to p ro m o te M el­b o u rn e as a city o f taste an d style, as evidenced in its restaurants and wineries.

GRASS FED BEEFProd, com pany T he Film H ouseD irector R obert M ardenP roducer Phillip PappasExec, p ro d u cer ■ Rachel D ixonScriptw riter Glen Blackm oreD.O.P. R obert M ardenS ound Laurie R obinsonL ength 8 minsGauges 16mm, 1" videoSynopsis: This video will ou tline the Victo­rian grass-fed b ee f industry, includ ing all aspects from farm p roduction , process­ing an d packaging to local and export distribution .

ME AND MY B IG M O U T H Prod. co. T up icoff and H ubbardD irecto r Louise H ubbardP roducer D ennis T upicoffExec, p ro d u ce r Lucy M acLarenScriptw riter D ennis T upicoffD.O.P. Kevin A ndersonS ound M ark TarpeyM usic M ark F em e

Terr)' D oolan L ength 10 m insGauges 16mm, BetacamSynopsis: W hat is o u r m ou th fo r an d w hat

D irecto r P roducer Exec, p ro d u cer E d ito r L ength

[N ot given] T erence M cM ahon

Rachel D ixon P e ter C arrodus

8 m ins

G auge BVU

Synopsis: Melbourne - The B ig E vent is de­signed to p rom ote M elbourne as a vital cen tre o f arts and culture.

PROCESS O F GROW TH D iorec to r [N ot given]P ro d u cer G ran t GastonExec, p ro d u cer Rachel DixonE d ito r G eorge TosiL ength 8 m insSynopsis: A co rp o ra te video p ro filing V ictoria’s po ten tia l fo r in te rna tiona l in­vestors focusing on the food-processing industry.

N S W F I L M A N D T E L E V I S I O N O F F I C E

BETWEEN T H E LINES Prod, com pany V ector ProdsSponsoring body A dult Literacy

T h rough V ideo Cam paign D irecto r R oger H udsonP ro d u cer Jo n a th a n C lem ensScriptwriters Jo n a th a n C lem ens

R oger H udson D.O.P. G raem e RossS ound record ist Bronwyn M urphyE d ito r P e te r Somm ervilleProd, m anager S im eon BryanL aboratory Elliott S tree t ProdsPost-prod. Elliott S tree t ProdsL ength 16 m insG auge BetacamSynopsis: A series o f e igh t videos p ro ­duced as a learn ing resource fo r adults w ith low literacy levels. They are in ten d ed to b reak down feelings o f isolation and raise awareness o f the availability o f liter­acy tuition.

BURW OOD BEACH OCEAN OUTFALL

Synopsis: Illustrates the activities o f the H u n te r W ater B oard (NSW) to preserve clean w ater and clean sand fo r th e peop le o f the H u n te r Valley.

FRO M ST O P T O SLOW Prod, com pany EVSSponsoring body R oads an d Traffic

A uthorityD irecto r B rian FaullP ro d u cer T ony CoyteScriptw riter B rian FaullD .O.P. Jo sep h PickeringSound record ist Paul CollockProd, m anager Kevin PowellLaboratory EVSPost-prod. EVSL eng th 24 m insG auge B etacamSynopsis: D esigned as p a rt o f a tra in ing package for tra inee traffic contro llers. Traffic con tro llers are responsible fo r the flow o f traffic th ro u g h , o r a round , road ­works conducted by the Roads an d Traffic A uthority o f New South Wales.

G ET TIN G STRAIGHT Prod, com pany Albie T hom s Prods Sponsoring body NSW D ep artm en t o f

C orrective Services D irecto r Albie T hom sP ro d u cer Albie T hom sScriptw riter Albie T hom sD.O.P. J o h n LeahyS ound record ist G eoff Fairw eather E d ito r J o h n H ollandsProd, m anager Brigitta ZeizigN arra to r Tony BarryL aboratory Hoyts T ramPost-prod. Hoyts T ramL eng th 30 m insG auge B etacamS y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry -s ty le p r o ­g ram m e ab o u t th e d ru g rehab ilita tion schem e opera ting w ithin New South Wales prisons. T h e video follows th e story o f “Dave”, a young p risoner convicted fo r a

74 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

d ru g re la ted offence, over a twelve-m onth period . W e see his g radual progress from add ic tion to h ea lth a n d rehab ilita tion as a useful m em b er o f society.

H O U S IN G BY DESIGNProd, com pany G odfrey Payne ProdsSponsoring body NSW D ep t o f

P lann ingD irec to r C hristine GodfreyP ro d u ce r C hristine G odfreyScriptw riter C hristine G odfreyD.O .P. M ichael M iddletonE ditors Jerem y L in ton M ann

D ana H ughesA nim ation SonicvisionG raphics SonicvisionLab VisualeyesPost-prod VisualeyesL eng th 15 m insG auge B etacamSynopsis: A p rog ram m e designed to ex-plain , in laym an’s term s, how carefu l sit­ing an d design can p roduce sa leab le / acceptable villas an d tow nhouses, c reat­ing a lifestyle th a t is b o th p ractical and ap p ro p ria te to th e en v iro n m e n t

IM PO R TA N T PARLIAMENTARY O FFICE HO LD ERS

Prod , com pany A lfred R oad FilmsSponsoring body NSW P arliam ent

H ouseD irec to r N ed L anderP ro d u ce r R ichard M asonScrip tw riter R odney L ongD.O .P. Steve M asonS ound reco rd ist P a t FiskeE d ito r M argaret SixelP rod, m anager Joylon BromleyN arra to r Jo h n BellLab ColorfilmPost-prod. FilmworksL eng th 23 m insG auge 16mmSynopsis: A series o f fou r p rogram m es w hich give an insight in to the w orking life o f the P rem ier, the L eader o f the O pposi­tion , T h e P residen t an d the Speaker and P arliam en t H ouse itself.

LEARNING T O BE SAFEProd , com pany L um iere ProdsSponsoring body NSW D ep t o f

E ducation

Synopsis: This p rog ram m e exam ines the ro le a n d fun c tio n o f the P a rliam en t o f New South W ales and its M em bers. It opens w ith an h istorical overview o f the P arliam en t itself a n d moves on to survey the com position an d ch arac te r o f the two H ouses o f Parliam ent: the Lower H ouse o r Legislative Assembly and the U pper H ouse o r Legislative C ouncil, the H ouse o f Review.

RAINFOREST PARKS O F NSWProd, com pany Sky VisualsS ponsoring body N ational Parks &

W ildlife Services D irec to r P e ter HicksP ro d u cer Gary SteerScriptw riters P e ter Hicks

Steve PhillipsD.O .P.s Gary Steer

Ian M ardenE d ito r Phillip M cGuireN arra to r Guy B lackm oreL eng th 13 m insG auge 16m mSynopsis: In troduces the ra in forest parks in N orth -eastern New South Wales. Shows how the m anagem en t p rogram m e o f the N ational Parks an d W ildlife Service has m ade the parks accessible to visitors.

R IG H T ANGLESProd, com pany Silvergrass ProdsS ponsoring body NSW D ept o f

EducationD irec to r M ichael M undellP ro d u cer Saadia W interScriptw riter B arbara ChobockyD.O.P. Phil BalsdonS ound record ist Jo h n P arm en tie rE d ito r J u be H icksonProd, m anager Jo M alcolmL aboratory VisualeyesPost-prod. VisualeyesL ength 20 m insG auge B etacamS ynopsis : A d o c u m e n ta ry -s ty le p r o ­gram m e designed fo r secondary school teachers to dem onstra te how gender-in­clusive te ach in g p ractices can b en efit fem ale s tudents in gain ing confidence and skills in areas o f lea rn ing which have, traditionally, b een ‘ang led ’ towards male s tudents, such as Science, Industria l Arts, C om puters an d M athem atics.

L eng th 11 m insG auge 16m mSynopsis: T h is p ro g ram m e in tro d u ces th ree M em bers o f the P arliam ent o f New South W ales an d shows how they operate an d the types o f prob lem s they enco u n ­ter. H igh ligh ted is the fact that, a lthough M em bers may belong to political parties o r be Ind ep en d en ts , they are , above all, representatives elected by the peop le to give them a voice in governing the State.

A U S T R A L I A N C H I L D R E N ’ S T E L E V I S I O N F O U N D A T I O N

M ORE W INNERS (“Boy Soldiers” )

Prod, com pany ACTFDisc com pany Q uartie r Latin Int.B udget S4.5 m illion (series o f six

dram as)P re-production 6 / 1 1 / 8 9 - 9 / 1 2 / 8 9Prod. 1 1 /1 2 /8 9 - 2 3 /1 2 /8 9P ost-production 1 /1 /9 0 - 2 2 /2 /9ÓP rincipal C reditsD irec to r M ark jo ffeP ro d u cer M argot M cD onaldExec. prod . Patricia EdgarSupervising p rod . Ewan B urne ttScriptw riter Cliff G reenP lanning and D evelopm ent B udgeted by ACTFP roduction CrewIn su re r Steeves Lum ley

(Tony L eonard) C om pletion guaran í. Film Finances

(Sue M illiken)O n-set CrewU nit publicist Howie and Taylor

Publ.G auge 16mmG overnm ent A gency Investm ent P roduction FFCM arketingInt. sales agen t D iana Q u in tn e rPubl. Howie an d Taylor Publ.Cast: [No details supplied]Synopsis: In 1910, the Australian G overn­m en t passed a law requ iring all boys aged betw een 12 and 17 to register fo r com pul­sory military train ing . Between 1911 and 1915, m ore th an 30,000 boys were prose­cu ted for failing to obey this law. This story tells o f one such boy.

A ccounts asst Mary MakrisIn su re r Steeves Lum ley, Tony L eonard C om pletion guar ant. Film

Finances, Sue M illiken Legal Services ACTFC am era CrewFocus pu lle r Kattina BowellC lapper-loader Gayle H u n tKey grip Ian ParkG affer Lez FrazierBest boy Gary ScholesO n-set Crew1st asst d irec to r J o h n Powditch2nd asst d irec to r B rett Popplewell3rd asst d irec to r Ju lie B urtonC ontinuity A nn B eresfordBoom o p era to r C hris topher R olandM ake-up Nik D o m in gH aird resser L aura M orrisU n it publicist Howie 8c Taylor Publ.C atering Sweet SeductionR u n n er M arcus H u n tW ardobeStandby w ardrobe T an ia SloanPost-p roductionL aboratorv CinevexLab liaison Ian A ndersonG auge 16m mG overnm ent Agency Investm ent P roduction FFCM arketingInt. sales ag en t D iana Q u in tn e rInt. d is tribu to r Q u artie r Latin I n tPubl. Howie & Taylor Publ.C as t Jo sep h in e Byrnes (Pauline Jonas), W illiam G luth (Denzil Gwynne), Jack i Kelleher (G w enneth Keane) J o h n O ’H are (M ike N ow acek), S im on Grey (F lea),

Jo n a th a n H ardy (M r B re therton , care­taker) , Erica K ennedy (G reta T h o m se n ), S co tt M ajo r (M artin T a y lo r) , C athy G odbold (Sarah O ’Grady), David Presser (Jason Pengalli).Synopsis: A music cam p a t an old country estate brings to g e th e r a diverse g roup o f ch ild ren , n o t all o f w hom have music forem ost in th e ir m inds. T he estate has an air o f mystery ab o u t it and , w hen m ention is m ade o f a live-in ghost, som e o f the children , especially Flea, a practical jo k e r, becom e fascinated.

M ORE W INNERS (“M r E dm und” )

Prod, com pany ACTFD irec to r Shalagh M cCarthy M ORE W INNERS Dist. com pany Q uartie r Latin Int.P ro d u cer Lynne B road T H E R IG H T PERSO N (“Deadly Score” ) B udget S4 .5 m illion (series o f sixScriptwriters R oger H udson IN T H E R IG H T PLACE Prod, com pany ACTF dram as)

Jo n a th o n Clem ens Prod, com pany EVS Dist. com pany Q u artie r Latin Int. P re-production 2 2 / 1 / 9 0 - 2 3 / 2 / 9 0D.O .P. Jack Swart S ponsoring body Roads an d Traffic B udget S4.5 m illion (series o f six P roduction 2 6 /2 /9 0 - 1 0 /3 /9 0S ound record ist P e te r Read A uthority dram as) Post-production 1 2 / 3 / 9 0 - 2 7 / 4 / 9 0E d ito r M urray Ferguson D irecto r Brian Faull Pre-prod. 2 3 /1 0 /8 9 - 2 6 /1 0 /8 9 Principal C reditsP rod, m anager L aura Zusters P roducer Tony Coyte P roduction 2 7 /1 0 /8 9 - 1 6 /1 1 /8 9 D irector G eorge W haleyN arra to r N oni H azlehurst Scriptw riter Brian Faull Post-production 1 /1 / 9 0 - 1 6 / 2 / 9 0 P ro d u cer A nthony BuckleyLab Visualeyes D.O.P. Joseph Pickering Principal C redits Exec. prod . Patricia E dgarPost-prod. Visualeyes S ound recordist Paul Collock D irector Steve Jod re ll Supervising p rod . Ewan B u rn e ttL ength 20 m ins Prod, m anager Kevin Powell P roducer M argot M cDonald Scriptw riter Steve J . SpearsG auge B etacam L aboratory EVS Exec. p rod . Patricia Edgar Planning and D evelopm entSynopsis: A video showing paren ts the Post-prod. EVS Supervising prod. Ewan B urne tt B udgeted by ACTFNew South W ales’ D ep artm en t o f Educa­ L ength 22 mins Scriptw riter R oger Sim pson Production Crewtio n ’s ch ild-protection prog ram m e w hich G auge B etacam D.O.P. Jaem s G rant In su re r Steeves Lum leydevelops ch ild ren ’s in te rpersonal skills, Synopsis: D esigned as p a rt o f a tra in ing S ound recordist Jo h n Rowley (Tony L eonard)h e lp in g th em to recognize d angerous package fo r supervisors who are respon­ E d ito r Edward M cQueen-M ason C om p 'n guarant. Film Financessituations an d p ro tec t them selves from sible fo r se lec ting fo r tra in in g traffic Prod, designer Edie Kurzer (Sue M illiken)p o ten tia l sexual assault. contro llers em ployed by the Roads and C ostum e designer Rose C hong O n-set Crew

Traffic A uthority o f New South Wales. Com posers M ichael A tkinson U nit publicist Howie 8c Taylor Pubi.PARLIAM ENT AT W O RK Yuri W orontschak Post-p roduction

Prod, com pany Alfred R oad Films T H E R O LE O F A M EMBER O F Planning an d D evelopm ent G auge 16mmSponsoring body NSW P arliam ent PARLIAM ENT Casting Liz M ullinar Casting G overnm ent Agency Investm ent

H ouse Prod, com pany Alfred Road Films Extras casting Cam illa Gold P roduction AFFCD irec to r N ed L ander S ponsoring body NSW P arliam ent Shooting schedule ACTF M arketingP ro d u cer R ichard M ason H ouse B udgeted by ACTF Int. d is tribu to r Q u artie r Latin Int.Scriptw riter R odney Long D irecto r N ed L ander P roduction Crew Publ. Howie an d Taylor Publ.D .O .P. Steve M ason P ro d u cer R ichard M ason Prod, m anager A nn D arrouzet C as t [Details n o t supplied]S ound record ist P a t Fiske Scriptw riter Rodney Long Prod, coo rd ina to r Fran O ’D onoghue Synopsis: C herry W illiams befriends MrE d ito r M argaret Sixel D.O.P. Steve M ason Prod, secretaries Di Lynn E dm und, one o f the ra th e r im poverishedProd, m anager Joy lon Brom ley S ound record ist Pat Fiske N aom i Silver guests a t h e r m o th e r’s boa rd in g house.N arra to r J o h n Bell E d ito r M argaret Sixel Location m anager Jan in e Schepisi E dm und has a d ream th a t h e will one dayL aboratory C olorfilm Prod, m anager Joylon Brom ley U nit m anager M anuel B achet sing a t the Sydney O p era H ouse. CherryPost-prod. Filmworks N arra to r Jo h n Bell P roduction run . M arcus H u n t has a d ream too, th a t she will becom e aL eng th 11 m ins Lab Colorfilm Financial con tro lle r ACTF lawyer. C herry ’s m o th e r believes theyG auge 16m m Post-prod. Filmworks Prod, accoun tan t R obert T h readgo ld should bo th “grow u p ”.

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 75

M O R E W INNERS O n-set Crew Prod, m anager T ony Leach Ju lie Puglisi(“T h e Jou rney” ) M ake-up Lesley V anderwalt Synopsis: [No details supplied] Mai G regory

Prod, com pany ACTF H airdresser Lesley V anderw alt C as t [No details su p p lied ]. W ard robeDist. com pany Q u artie r Latin Int. Safety officer G eorge M annix W ardrobe superv. T herese R endleB udget S4.5 m illion (series o f six U n it nurse Sue Andrews ■ T E L E V I S I O N ■ Standby w ardrobe A m anda Bloom field

dram as) U n it publicist Howie & Taylor Pubi. 1 P R O D U C T I O N 1 Allan B um sP re-production 5 /2 /9 0 - 9 /3 /9 0 C atering O u t to L unch Lauryn F o rd erP roduction 1 2 /3 /9 0 - 2 3 /3 /9 0 A rt D epartm en t BEYOND TO M O RR O W C onstruction D ep tP ost-production 2 6 /3 /9 0 - 1 8 /4 /9 0 A rt d irec to r D eborah Eastwood [See previous issue fo r details] Scenic artists Kevin Sm ithP rincipal C redits Set designer Tim F errier N eil BeckD irecto r Jan e O eh r Props buyer T im Farrier BEYOND 2000 C arpen ters G lenn S hap terP ro d u cer R ichard M ason Standby props Igor Lazareff [See previous issue fo r details] M ax RiggExec. prod . Patricia Edgar W ard robe Post-p roductionSupervising prod . Ewan B urne tt W ardrobe superv. A ndrew S hort A CO UNTRY PRACTICE M usic perfo rm , by Mike PerjanikScriptwriters Jan e O eh r Standby w ardrobe Kate Rose Prod, com pany JN P Films C as t L orrae D esm ond, Kate Raison, Joyce

Ken C am eron Post-p roduction Dist. com pany Seven N etw ork Jacobs, J o a n Sydney, G eòrg ie P arker,P lanning an d D evelopm ent Asst ed ito r Pam B am etta P rincipal C redits G eorg ina Fisher, M att Day, J o h n T arran t,B udgeted by ACTF Laboratory Atlab D irectors P e te r Maxwell M ichael M untz, S h an e P o rteo u s , SydP ro d u ctio n Crew Lab. liaison P eter W illard Bob M eillon Heylen, G ordon P iper.In su re r Steeves Lum ley G auge 16mm Chris M artin jo n es Synopsis: Set in the ru ra l town o f W andin

(Tony L eonard) Shooting stock Kodak P ro d u cer D enny Lawrence Valley, this m edical d ram a follows theC om pletion guaran t. Film Finances G overnm ent Agency Investm ent Exec, p ro d u cer Jam es D avem lives o f its inhab itan ts an d featu res Austra­

(Sue M illiken) P roduction FFC O riginal screenplay Jam es lian countryside an d wildlife.O n-set Crew M arketing D avemU nit pubi. Howie an d Taylor In t. sales agen t D iana Q u in tn e r Based on p ilo t In General Practice T H E FLYING D O CT O RS

Pubi. Int. d is tribu to r Q uartie r Latin Int. W ritten by Jam es Davern (Series VI)P ost-p roduction Pubi. Howie & Taylor Pubi. Scriptwriters Ju d ith C o lquhoun [See previous issue fo r details]G auge 16mm Cast: C am ero n N u g e n t (C h ris to p h e r G raem e KoetsfeldG overnm ent Agency Investm ent W alter P ra tt) , J u s tin R ozniak (P rince David B outland G PP roduction AFFC W ilton), R ichard M oir (K ing), Rowena D.O.P.s David Alley Prod, com panies Roadshow C oote 8cM arketing W allace (Q u een ), M aggie D ence (Lady Patrick B arter C arrollIn t. d is tribu to r Q u artie r Latin Int. M ikeev il), P au l L iv ingston (G o b b o ), P e ter Youngm an ABCPubl. Howie and Taylor Publ. Sandra Collins (Yobbo), Caz L ederm an S ound recordists Russel T hom pson P rincipal C reditsCast: [Details n o t supplied] (M um ), Ebony Ricketson (K atie). Ross Boyer D irecto r V ariousSynopsis: In the 1850sJustus Z ukerm ann , Synopsis: In the E nchan ted Realm the H ow ard F licker Super, p ro d u ce r G reg Shearsa wealthy prospecto r, lives w ith his daugh­ faeries are in trouble. T hey m ust give away E d ito r G raem e Andrews Series p ro d u ce r Sue M asterster, Ada, and a housekeeper, M artha, and seven wishes to the hum ans every 100 A rt d irec to r Steve M uir Exec, p roducers M att C arrollh e r stepdaugh ter, Agnes. Before Justus years o r they will lose th e ir m agic powers. P lanning and D evelopm ent P enny C hapm andies, h e o rders A da to travel sou th to find T h e last wish was given away 99 years and R esearchers Jen n y Wilks Assoc, p roducers Kim V ecerah e r tru e inheritance. Agnes is to go with 364 days before. W hen P rince W ilton Lindy B arter Ju d y M urphyher. M artha, who has fo r years envied reaches earth , the only h u m an w ho will L inda M cGrail Scriptwriters V ariousJustu s’ wealth o rders Agnes to kill A da believe h im is C hristopher W alter Pratt. Script editors Bill Searle D.O .P. V ariousand steal h e r in teritance. Sue Ellis Prod, designer Ju lie Belle

M ORE W INNERS Robyn Sinclair Prod, designers S tephen GowM ORE W INNERS (“Second C hildhood” ) Casting S hauna Crowely Ken M uggleston

(“P ra tt an d th e P rince”) Prod, com pany ACTF Production Crew C ostum e designer Jam es M urrayProd, com pany ACTF Dist. com pany Q uartie r Latin Int. Prod, supervisor Allan M ewton C om poser Sim on W alkerD is t com pany Q u artie r Latin Int. B udget $4.5 m illion (series o f six Prod, m anager David Watts P lann ing and D evelopm entB udget $4.5 m illion (series o f six dram as) Prod, coo rd ina to r B arbara Lucas Story dept. M ichael M iller

dram as) Pre-production 1 5 /1 /9 0 - 1 6 /2 /9 0 Prod, secretary T oni H igginbottam K risten D unphyP re-production 3 0 /1 0 /8 9 - 3 /1 2 /8 9 Production 1 9 /2 /9 0 - 9 /3 /9 0 Location m anager P eter W arm an Script editors T im PyeProduction 4 /1 2 /8 9 - 2 3 /1 2 /8 9 Post-production 1 2 /3 /9 0 - 4 /4 /9 0 T ran sp o rt m anager G eorge C harlie S trachanPost-production 1 / 1 / 9 0 - 1 6 / 1 2 / 9 0 Principal C redits Varella fo r ATN Casting coord . H atice KanliPrincipal C redits D irector M ario A ndreacchio U n it m anager M argi M uir Casting consult. M aura Fay. ProdsD irecto r Esben Storm P roducer Jan e Ballantyne Prod, assistants P ip Spilsbury Extras casting Irem ne GaskellP ro d u cer A ntonia B arnard Exec, p ro d u cer Patricia Edgar Ju stin e Slater Script co o rd in a to r Kris WyldExec. prod . Patricia Edgar Supervising p rod . Ewan B urnett C am era Crew N urse consult. C arol LongSupervising p rod . Ewan B urnett Scriptw riter M orris G leitzm an C am era operato rs Glen Steer P roduction CrewScriptw riter Steve J . Spears B udgeted by ACTF P e te r Westley Prod, m anager W ayne H enryD.O.P. S tephen D obson In su re r Steeves Lum ley Jo h n de Ruvo Asst p rod , m anager TBAS ound record ist Paul B rincat (Tony L eonard) C am era assistants D ietrich Bock Prod, secretary G lenda GevertE d ito r Ralph Strasser C om pletion guaran t. Film Finances R oland Kaatz Location m anager Suzy ParkerProd, designer Larry Eastwood (Sue M illiken) C am era type varies O n-set CrewC ostum e designer Kerri B arnett U n it publicist Howie & Taylor Pubi. C am era m aint. ATN M aintenance 1st asst directors Gary S tephensPlanning and D evelopm ent G auge 16mm Key grip A ndrew B arrance Scott FeeneyCasting Forecast G overnm ent Agency Investm ent O n-set Crew Steve S tannardShooting schedule ACTF Production FFC 1st asst directors Ian Sim m ons Alan ParsonsB udgeted by ACTF Int. d is tribu to r Q uartie r Latin Int. M ark M oroney C onstruction D ep tP ro d u ctio n Crew Pubi. Howie & Taylor Pubi. R ichard M cG rath Studios ABCProd, m anager Ju lie Forster Cast: [Details n o t supplied] 2nd asst d irec to r A ndrew T u rn e r P ost-p roductionProd, coo rd ina to r C aroline B onham Synopsis: W hen a new family moves nex t Script assist V ictoria O sborne M ixed at ABCProd, asst C hristine Jo h n sto n door, M ark m eets A nnie who believes she C ontinuity DA’s K aren W illing G auge 1 ” videotapeProd, secretary C hristine Jo h n sto n is the re incarna tion o f P h ar Lap. M ark is K aren Mansfiels L ength 1 h o u r p e r weekLocation m anager Jo h n M eredith fascinated by the concep t and becom es Liz Russel M arketingU nit m anager Phil U rq u h art convinced th a t he is the re incarna tion o f Boom opera to rs Sean B urne tt In t. dist. T ham es Television Int.Prod, ru n n e r David H olm es J. E dgar H oover. His friends a t school also Phil Jones C ast: M ichae l C raig (W illiam ), J o h nFinancial con tro lle r ACTF get in to the act believing they were Q ueen Paul Lehm an M cT ern an (R o b e rt) , S a rah C hadw ickProd, accoun tan t M oneypenny Services Victoria an d A lbert Einstein. M ake-up Rachael Dal Santo (Cathy), M ichael O ’Neill (Steve), D enise

(L iane Lee) Kit M oore R oberts (Ju lie), Brian Rooney (M ichael).In su re r Steeves Lum ley ■ T E L E V I S I O N ■ J o an n e Stevens Synopsis: D ram a series d e ta ilin g th e

(Tony L eonard) ■ P R E - P R O D U C T I O N 1 Special fx Usually A ustralian com ings a n d go ings o f an inner-c ityC om pletion guaran t. Film Finances Effects D ept m edical practice.

(Sue M illiken) BOYS FROM T H E BUSH Safety officer see Key GripsLegal Services ACTF Prod, com panies E n ter ta in m en t M edia Still pho tography N etw ork Stills D ep t H O M E AND AWAYTravel coo rd ina to r E n terta in ­ C inem a Verity U n it publicist G eòrgie Brown Prod, com pany ATN 7

m en t Travel Services Dist. com pany BBC Enterprises C atering Taste Buddies P rincipal C reditsC am era Crew Producers Verity L am bert A rt D epartm ent D irector V ariousFocus pu lle r Nick Mayo Jan e Scott A rt d irec to r Steve M uir P ro d u cer A ndrew HowieKey grip Roy Mico Exec, p roducers P e te r Beilby Set d resser D oug Kelly Exec, p ro d u ce r Des M onaghanAssist grip Sim on S pencer R obert le T e t P ropsperson G erard Brown Assoc, p ro d u ce r M arcel Zam m itG affer W arren M eam s Fred Schepisi Props buyer Jan e P arker Scriptw riter V ariousBest boy D ean Bryan Scriptw riter Douglas Livingstone Standby props D irk Van d en D riesen C om poser Mike Perjanik

76 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

Planning and D evelopm ent E lectrician A nthony W aldron Post-p roduction 18 M arch 1990Scrip t ed ito r Sharyn R osenberg Asst electrics P ierre D rion Principal CreditsCasting c o n su lt Liz M ullinar Casting G ennie op. Bob W oods D irec to r R od H ardyProduction Crew On-set Crew P ro d u cer J a n M am ellP rod , m anager G raham e M urray 1st asst d irec to r Bob D onaldson Exec, p ro d u ce r Jo ck BlairP rod , coord . L ynda Burke 2n d asst d irec to r Karin Kreicers Scriptw riter D eborah CoxProd, secretary Bronwyn Cooksley 3 rd asst d irec to r R od Oliver D.O .P. David Forem anProd, ru n n e r D aniel H e a th e r 1st a.d. a ttach. T ony Tilse S ound record ist Toivo L em berOn-set Crew 2n d u n it d irec to r Paul Fain t E d ito r D enise H aratzisScrip t asst F iona H ile C ontinu ity Liz S teptoe Prod, designer T el StolfoArt Department 2nd u n it cont. S uzanne Brown C ostum e designer Jan e H ylandAsst a r t d irec to r G lenn T u rn e r B oom opera to rs G reg Rossi to r C om poser David H irschfelderWardrobe Chris Nilsen Planning and D evelopm entW ardrobe su p er L ucinda W hite M ake-up Garry Siutz Story ed ito r P e te r CawlerC ast R oger Oakley (T om Fletcher) Va­ Ron Bassi Casting consultants M aura Fay &nessa D ow ning (P ippa F le tch e r), N icolle Suzie C lem o Assoc.D ic k so n (B o b b y S im p s o n ) , S h a ry n M ake-up asst C hiara T ripod i Production CrewH odgson (Carly M orris), C raig M cLachlan Special fx sup. J o h n N eal Prod, m anager Ron Stigwood(G ran tM itche ll), D annii M inogue (Em m a Stunts coord . G lenn Boswell Prod, coo rd in a to r D iane S tuart

Jackson ), A dam W illits (Steven M athe- Safety officer R ichard Boue Location m anager M ason Curtisso n ), Ju d y N u n n (Ailsa H o g a n ), Ray Still pho tog raphy V irginia Speers U n it m anager Gary BussM eagher (Alf S tew art), N orm an C oburn U n it publicist V irginia Sargen t P roduction ru n n e r C hristie(D onald Fisher). C atering Jo h n Faithfull M cG uinnessSynopsis: A w arm family d ram a fea tu ring C atering asst M arc Ayre-Smith Prod, accoun tan t S haron Jacksonth e lives, loves a n d re la tionsh ips o f the A m enities driver G eoff McDowell A ccounts asst Val Sm ithersresiden ts o f S um m er Bay. Art Department In su re r Willis Faber Jo h n so n H iggins

A rt d irec to r Jo h n P ry ce jo n es C om pletion guam t. FilmHOWARD Asst a r t designers K errie Reay Finances

[See previous issue fo r details] M arc Ryan Camera CrewD esign asst Brian Nickless Focus pu lle r Jo h n Foster

THE PAPER MAN Set dressers R obert H utch inson C lapper-loader Liddy V an GyenProd , com pany Roadshow C oote & Jan in e R anford Key grip R obin M organ

Carroll- Scott Gray Asst grip R obert Van AmstellABC B ren t B o n h eu r Gaffer G raem e Shelton

DisL com pany G ranada Television Props buyers Paddy M cD onald Best boy Keith Jo h n so nIn te rn a tio n a l Cathy Young Asst electrics Scott B rokate

Pre-p roduction 7 A ugust 1989 Standby props D on Page On-set CrewP ro d u ctio n 30 O c to b er 1989 Chris Ryman 1st asst d irec to r Ed PrylinskiPost-p roduction 12 M arch 1990 Steve Pem broke 2nd asst d irec to r M onica PearceDelivery 30 Ju ly 1990 Wardrobe 3rd asst d irec to r H e a th e r je a n MoysType M ini-series W ardrobe coords W endy Falconer C ontinuity Judy W hiteheadPrincipal Credits Suzana Cako B oom o p era to r Des K enneallyD irec to r P e te r Fisk Standby w ardrobe Philippa W ootten M ake-up W endy Freem anProducers G reg Ricketson W ardrobe asst Cathy W allace H aird resser Tony M eredith

Sue M asters 2nd u. w /ro b e L orraine V erheyen C atering Steve M arcusExec, p roducers M att C arroll (RC&C) Lindy Wylie Art Department

Penny C hapm an (ABC) Asst costum e design T h eo B enton A rt d irec to r B ernie W ynackAssoc, p ro d u ce r Ray Brown Construction Department A rt d ep t coord T oni ForsythScriptw riters J o h n L onie Scenic artist Paul B rocklebank A rt d ep t ru n n e r Paul W inter

K eith A berdein C onstruct, m gr Laurie D orn Set dresser M ichael R um pfD.O .P. Ian W arburton Standby carp en ter Scott Patón Props M aster Daryl MillsS ound record ist N icholas W ood Standby set fin. Steve Burns Props buyer Brian D ustingE d ito r Tony Kavanagh Post-production Standby props Jo h n SantucciP rod , designer M arcus N orth Asst ed itors Fabian Sanjuijo WardrobeC ostum e designer A nnie M arshall N icole La M acchia C ostum ier S andra C ichelloC om poser Chris N eal S ound transfers Ian D onato W ardrobe coord. Phil C ham bersPlanning and D evelopm ent L aboratory Atlab AnimalsScrip t ed ito r Penny C hapm an Lab liaison Ian Russell Anim al h an d le r T im ea DicksonC asting /C onsu lt. M aura Fay & Assocs Government Agency Investment H orse w rangler Bill W illoughbyExtras casting Lucy M onge P roduction FFC Construcion D eptProduction Crew Marketing Studios Lips StudioProd, m anager F iona M cConaghy In te rn a tio n a l dist. G ranada Television Post-productionProd, coords Row ena Talacko Int. Asst ed ito r Sally Fitzpatrick

(RC&C) Cast: J o h n Bach (Phillip Crom w ell), O l­ Editing asst David BirrellM aureen C harlton (ABC) iver Tobias (Ian H arris), Rebecca Gilling M ixed at H en d o n Studios

Prod, asst Sarah M ilsome (Virginia M organ), R obertT aylor (Johnny L aboratory V ictorian Film Lab.Prod, secretary J a n e Sym onds C o a te s ) , O liv ia H a m n e t t ( I r e n e G auge 16mmLoca. m anager M aude H eath H a m p d e n ) , P e ta T o p p a n o (K a te V ideo transfers by AAVLoca. asst T risha R othkrans C rom w ell), R obert Reynolds (James B ell), Post-prod. N etw ork 8U n it m anager J o h n Downie A ngie M illiken (Joanna M o rg an ), J o n ­ L ength 2 x 2 hoursProd, ru n n e r Lucinda-Jane A shton a than Hyde (Tony D alton). MarketingProd , co n tro lle r H ow ard Parker Synopsis: A fictional, six-hour, mini-series Int. d is tribu to r Beyond In te rna tiona l

(ABC) dram a w hich traces the pa th o f an idealis- Cast: Jo sep h in e Byrnes, Je ro m e Ehlers,Bus. affairs m gr Kim V ecera (RC&C) tic young Australian new spaper p roprie- M arcus G raham , Robyn Nevin, Lisa H en ­Prod, acco u n tan t J en n ife r des C ham ps tor, an d the repercussions o f his personal sley, J a so n D onovan , N ad ine G arn e r,

(M oneypenny Services) and professional am bitions. Sherrie K renn, M ichael C aton, H aro ldIn su re r H am m o n d Jewell H opkins.

(Tony Gibbs) ROSE AGAINST THE ODDS Synopsis: Sum m er, 1927: D octor KateC om pletion guar. Film Finances Prod, com pany O nset Prods M unro arrives a t rem o te G an n et Island to

(Sue M illiken) Dist. com pany Beyond Dist. take u p a practice. T h e locals resist K ate’sLegal services M allesons S tephen P roducers Ross Close m odern m edicine as vigorously as they

Jaques Russell K ennedy oppose h e r storm y rom ances with the two(David Williams) Cast: Telly Savalas (G eorge Parnassus). H an lon b ro thers . She m ust call o n all h e r

Camera Crew Synopsis: M ini-series o n the life story o f courage before she wins acceptance andC am era op. Russell Bacon A ustralia’s g reatest boxer, L ionel Rose. finds happiness.Focus p u lle r B rendan Shaw [N o fu r th e r details supplied]C lapper-loader Sean M cClory SO UTH PACIFIC ADVENTURES2nd u n it op. Gary Russell SHADOWS OF THE HEART (“The Phantom H orsem en”)2nd u n it focus M atthew T em ple Prod, com pany S outh A ustralian Film Prod, com pany G rundy TelevisionKey grip G reg T uohy Cörp. Principal CreditsAsst grip A aron W alker P re-production 20 N ovem ber 1989 D irecto r H ow ard RubieG affer T im M urray-Jones P ro d u ctio n 2 2 Jan u ary 1990 P ro d u cer Philip East

R oger M irams David Phillips J o e P ickering

Phil T ipene Kerry Regan

Ken M cCann

Exec, p ro d u ce r Scriptw riter D .O .P.S ound record ist E d ito rProd, designer Other CreditsProd, m anager S andra A lexanderProd, co o rd in a to r Lori FlekserProd, secretary B elinda PribilU n it m anager R ichard M ontgom ery Prod, ru n n e r G rayden le B retonProd, asst D eborah G reenProd, accoun t G em m a Raw sthorne 1st asst dir. C arolynn C unn ingham2nd asst d irec to r Philip Roope3rd asst d irec to r R obert HelliwellScrip t super. Jack ie SullivanFocus P u ller Keith BryantG affer R ichard C urdsKey G rip G raham LitchfieldB oom o p era to r Cathy GrossProps buyers F iona Scott

Philip C um m ing Set dresser 1 Sam R ichardSet dresser 2 Judy KellyA rt d e p t co o rd in a to r Lee BulginStandby props Loroy P lum m erCost, m anager D anie Daem sW ardrobe super. A ndrea BurnsStandby w ardrobe H e a th e r L aurie

Cathy Jam esW ardrobe coord . T erri Lam eraS tun t C oord. C laude L am bertW rangler Tony JablonskiM ake-up /H a ir art. Cassie H anlo

W ayne P erro t C atering R obert H ow arthSafety officer Rangi N icoraStills p h o to g rap h e r J im TownleyPost p ro d u cd o n T h e E didng M aching Casting Inese V oglerCasting asst Kirstin T ruske ttL aboratory VFC (Colorfilm )T ape house Bob D og Inc.Cast: Beth B uchanan (C harlo tte ), B rian R ooney (T oby), Bryan M arshall (T re- m ayne), Jam es Coates (L ongw orth), Vi­o le ta Bravo Cela (R ita), J o h n B onney (M acA rthu r), A n to in e tte Byron (A ra­b e lla ) , M arsh a ll N a p ie r ( J o h n s to n ) , M ich a e l Gow (M a u lé ) , B ill C o n n (M arsden), M artin V aughan (C ross), Ken Radley (B lake), M arc Gray (M artin ). Synopsis: “T h e P han tom H o rsem en ” is an adven ture set in early Sydney. A mysteri­ous m asked horsem an is th e only defence the colonists have against co rru p t officials an d m araud ing soldiery a t the tim e o f the rum rebellion .

SOUTH PACIFIC ADVENTURES “Pirate’s Island”

Prod, com pany G rundy TelevisionD irec to r Viktors RitelisP ro d u cer Philip EastExec, p ro d u ce r R oger M iramsSynopsis: “P ira te ’s Is land” is a fantasy. A g ro u p o f ch ild ren are swept away in a h o t­air balloon an d land on an island o u t o f tim e, an island w here a g ro u p o f Spanish pirates have b een m arooned fo r a h u n d red years o r m ore.

SO UTH PACIFIC ADVENTURES “M ission T op Secret”

Prod, com pany G rundy TelevisionD irec to r H ow ard RubieP ro d u cer Philip EastExec, p ro d u ce r R oger M iramsSynopsis: In “Mission T op S ecret”, a g roup

F O R I N C L U S I O N

I N T HE P R O D U C T I O N

S U R V E Y C O N T A C T

C I N E M A P A P E R S O N

( 0 3 ) 4 2 9 5 5 11

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 77

o f ch ild ren from all over the w orld are linked th ro u g h th e ir com puters, an d in touch w ith C en tauri H eadquarte rs , which enlists th e ir a id to fight against a gang o f terrorists in a M iddle-eastern State.

P O S T - P R O D U C T I O N

JACKAROOProd, com pany Crawford ProdsPrincipal C redits D irector P ro d u cer Exec, p ro d u ce r Assoc, p roducers

Scriptw riterD.O.P.S ound record ist E d ito rProd, designer Costum e designer

M ichael Carson Bill H ughes

T erry O hlsson T errie V incent

V ince Smits Jo h n Cundill

J e f f M alouf D on Connolly

Dee L eibenberg David C opping

A nna SeniorP lanning and D evelopm entScript ed ito r B arbara BishopCasting Extras casting D ialogue coach P roduction Crew Prod, m anager Prod, coo rd ina to r Location m anager U n it m anager Prod, assist Prod, run n ers

J a n Pontifex Susan H aw orth R ichard Walley

T errie V incent C hristine H art

G raem e Nicholas P e ter Sim on

Susan H aw orth W illiam W ake

Prod, accoun tan t C om pletion guaran t.

Travel coord. C am era Crew1 C am era o p e ra to r Focus pu lle r C lapper-loader Aerial pho tog . C am era type Key grip Asst grips

G lenn Suter Vince Smits

Film Finances

Set In M otion

J e f f M alouf M arc E dgecom be M ark M uggeridge

Alex M cPhee Arri SR

Karel A kkerm an Kelvin Early

R ichard B lackadderGaffer Best boys

Asst electrics O n-set Crew 1st asst d irec to r 2nd asst d irec to r 3rd asst d irec to r 4 th asst d irec to r Continuity7

Boom o p era to r M ake-up

.Craig Bryant Steve Jo h n so n

Mike Ewan P eter Rasm ussen

Phil M ulligan

Jake A tkinson M ichael M ercurio

H eather-Jean Moves C olette M cKenna Chris O ’Connell-

Bryant Jen n y Sutcliffe

K aren Sims

H aird resser Special fx S tunts coord. Safety’ officer U n it nurse Still pho tography U n it publ. C atering A rt D epartm en t A rt directors

.Art d e p t asst A rt d e p t ru n n e r Props buyer S tandby props .Asst standby props

J u d e Sm ith T om Priem us

P e ter W est A rt T hom pson

Jo h an n es A kkerm an Skip W atkins

Susan Elizabeth W ood Big Belly Bus

Ken Jam es Ju lie an n e Mills Steve M anning

Louise G ran t P e ter Marlow'

M arcus Erasm us Kim Sexton

Patrick C am eronW ardrobeW ardrobe supervisor W ardrobe buyers

S tandby w ardrobe

AnimalsH orse m aster H orse w ranglers

A nna Senior Paula Ekerick D enise Goudy Paula Ekerick D enise Goudy

Rob G reenough Jo h n Fairhead

G lenn Suter Shayne Williams

Andy D olph in Jo h n Parker

David B oardm an Mick W ilkinson

DMG Will Davidson

Dee L iebenberg J a n L outh ian

M ovielab/V ic. Film Labs

16mm, 1" 7291

C om plete Post Crawfords A ustralia

C onstruction D eptScenic artist Const, m anager L eading h an d Set fin isher StudiosAsst constr. m an.Post-p roductionPost-prod, super.Asst ed ito r Laboratory

GaugesShooting stock Video transfers by Off-line facilities C as t A nnie Jo n es (C lare), T ina Bursill (M artha), David M cCubbin (Jack), D ot Collard (Jimby), Colin McEwan (M allory), Leith Taylor (Jo-ann), L eedham C am eron (M urraw am bah).Synopsis: A fou r-hour mini-series, Jacka­roo is the story' o f a wild Australian stock- m an, a part-A boriginal young m an w hose struggle to win the w om an he loves and claim the land he has in h e rited erup ts in to a saga o f family love, passion, pow’er and loyalty.

See previous issue fo r details of: ADVENTURES O N KYTHERA II

COM E IN SPINNER T H E PRIVATE WAR O F

LUCINDA SM ITH

78 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

S E P T E M B E R 1 9 8 9

G (GENERAL EXHIBITION)All Down the Line M. W itzig, A ustralia, 79 m ins, U ltra VisionEscape to Ski W. M iller, U.S., 86 mins, V ictorian Ski Association

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE)Erik the Viking J . G oldstone, UK, 102 m ins, Hoyts D istribution , A dult concepts a n d occasional vio lence, O (ad u lt con ­cepts) V(i-m-g)GhostbustersIII. R eitm an, U.S., 105 mins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, M ild H o r­ro r, 0 (m i ld h o rro r) L(i-l-g)H ow to be a Billionaire?...Without Really Trying (m ain title n o t shown in E ng lish ), C lifton C.S.K.O, H o n g Kong, 87 m ins, Yu E nterprises, A dult concepts, som e low- level language, vio lence, O (ad u lt con ­cepts) L(i-l-g) V(i-l-g)Karate Kid Part in J . W ein traub , U.S., 112 m ins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, Fre­q u e n t low-level v iolence, coarse language, V(f-l-g) L(f-l-g)Mr Fortune (m ain title n o t show n in E n g lish ), P ro d u c e r n o t show n, H o n g Kong, 93 mins, C hinatow n C inem a, O cca­sional low-level violence & sexual allu­sions, V(i-l-g) O (sexual allusion)

M (MATURE AUDIENCES)Black Rain S. Jaffe-S. Lansing, U.S., 122 m ins, U n ite d In te rn a t io n a l P ic tu res , Im pactfu l violence, coarse language, V(f- m-g) L(f-m-g)Casualties o f War A. Linson, U.S., 113 m ins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, Fre­q u e n t coarse language 8c im pactfu l vio­lence, V((i-m-j) L (f-m j)Driving Force H . Grigsby-R. C onfesor, A u s tra lia -T h e P h il ip p in e s , 89 m in s , Film pac H oldings, V iolence, V(f-m-g) Funny Ghost (m ain title n o t shown in English), S tep h en Shin, H o n g Kong, 96 m ins, C h ina tow n C inem a, O ccasional violence, ad u lt concepts, V(i-m-g) O (adu lt concepts)Heavy Petting O. Benz-C. N oblitt, U.S., 77 m ins, Film pac H oldings, Sexual them e, O (sexual them e)Innocent Man, An T. F ield-R C ourt, U.S., 110 m ins, Village R oadshow C orporation , F req u en t language, som e violence, ad u lt concepts, O (adu ltconcep ts) L(f-m-g) V(i- m-g)Island P. Cox-S. N aidu , A ustralia-Greece, 95 mins, Newvision Film Distributors, D rug use, som e coarse language, violence, L(i- m-g) 0 ( d r u g use) V(i-m-j)Let it Ride D. Giler, U.S., 90 m ins U nited In te rn a tio n a l Pictures, O ccasional coarse language, L(i-m-g) O (a d u lt concepts) Lock U p L. Gordon-C . G ordon , U.S., 108 m ins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, O cca­sional coarse language an d violence, V(i- m-g) L(i-m-g)Package, TheB. Cam he-T. H aggerty, U.S., 107 m ins, Village Roadshow C orporation , O ccasional coarse language and violence, L(i-m-g) V(i-m-j)Return from the River Kwai K U nger, UK, 100 m ins, Hoyts D istribution , Vio­lence, V(i-m-g)Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly H ills J . Katz, U.S., 102 m ins, F ilm pac H o ld ings , Sexual allusions, occasional coarse language, O (sexual allusions) L(i- m-j)Sea o f Love M. Bregm an-L. Stroller, U.S., 112 m ins, U n ited In te rn a tio n a l Pictures, V iolence, coarse language, V(i-m-g) S(i- m-g) L(f-m-g)

Soursweet R R andall-Cutler, UK-Hong Kong, 110 m ins, Film pac H oldings, O cca­sional violence, V(i-m-g) S (i-m-g) Terence Davies Trilogy, The P. S hannon- M. M aloney-C. Barwell, UK, 97 m ins, U rban Eye Releasing, O ccasional coarse lan g u ag e & sexual a llusions, L(i-m-j) O (sexual allusions)Triads T he Inside Story R C heung, H ong Kong, 92 m ins, C hinatow n C inem a, Fre­q u e n t violence, V(f-m-g)Try This O ne for Size S. G obbi, U.S., 105 m ins, V illage R oadshow C o rp o ra tio n , O ccasional violence, V(i-m-g)Vanishing, T he A. L ordon-G . Sluizer, N etherlands-F rance, 105 m ins, T rak Cin­em a, A dult them es, O (adu lt concepts) Vidiot from UHF, The G. Kirkwood-J. Hyde, U.S., 94 m ins, Village Roadshow C orporation ,occasional violence,V (i-m-g) W.B., Blue and the Bean M. Kleven-D. Hasslehoff-S. H am pton , U.S., 88 mins, V illage R oadshow C o rp o ra tio n , Som e vio lence, coarse language, d ru g re fe r­ences, L(i-m-g) V(i-m-g) 0 ( d r u g re fer­ences)

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION) Devil Hunters (m ain title n o t shown in English) J i a ’s M otion Picture, H ong Kong, 99 m ins, Yu Enterprises, F req u en t graphic violence, V(f-m-g)In the Line o f Duty 4 (m ain title n o t shown in English), S tephen Shin, H ong Kong, 93 m ins, C hinatow n C inem a, Fre­q u en t violence, V(f-m-g)Protector, The P roducer no tshow n, H ong Kong-U.S., 90 mins, Chinatow n C inem a, F req u en t violence, V(f-m-g)Punisher, The R K am en, Australia-U.S., 87 mins, Village Roadshow C orporation , F req u en t violence, V(f-m-g)

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Fox Tang Gi (m ain title n o t shown in English), P ro d u cer n o t shown, Taiwan, 66 m ins, Yu E nterprises, S(i-h-g)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS Blind Director, The A. Kluge, W est Ger­m any, 113 m ins, G oethe-Institut Candidate, The A. Kluge, W est G erm any, 129 m ins, G oethe-Institu t Children From N o. 67, The U. Barthelm - ess-Weller-W. M eyer, W est Germ any, 103 m ins, G oethe-Institu t City Pirates, The R Sieber, W est G er­many, 60 mins, G oethe-Institu t Fidget, The W. D eutschm ann , W est G er­m any, 70 m ins, G oethe-Institu t Master Eder and his Goblin Pumuckl U. König, W est Germ any, 84 m ins, G oethe- In s titu tM etinT. D raeger, W est Germ any, 84 mins, G oethe-Institu tRivertrip with H en A. A gthe, W est Ger­many, 105 m ins, G oethe-Institu t Star without a Sky O. Runze, W est G er­many, 86 mins, G oethe-Institu t T hree W eeks N ortheast D. G um m -H . U llrich, W est Germ any, 90 m ins, G oethe- In stitu t

O C T O B E R 1 9 8 9

G (GENERAL EXHIBITION) Composer’s Notes: Philip Glass and the Making o f an Opera, A M. Blackwood, U.S., 85 m ins, T h e O th e r Films Outside Chance o f Maximilian Glick S. F oster-R Davis, C anada, 95 m ins, Village Roadshow C orpora tion W hen the Whales Came Sim on C hann ing Williams, UK, 100 m ins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE) Dawning, The S. Lawson, UK, 97 m ins, Hoyts D istribution, O ccasional low-level violence, V(i-lj)Eddie and the Cruisers II - Eddie Lives! S tephane Reichel, Canada, 103 mins, Vil­lage Roadshow C orporation , Occasional low-level coarse language, L(i-l-j) Favorite, The G. Vuille, Switzerland, 103 m ins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, Occa­sional violence, V(i-m-j) O (adult concepts) G ods Must be Crazy.n, The B. Troskie, U.S.-South Africa, 96 mins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, O ccasional low-level vio­lence, coarse language, V(i-l-j) L(i-l-j) Happy Together (m ain title n o tsh o w n in English) S tephen Shin, H o n g Kong, 95 m ins, C hinatow n C inem a, Sexual allu­sions, occasional low-level coarse language, L(i-l-g) O (sexual allusions)Lost Souls (m ain title n o t shown in Eng­lish) G olden Harvest, H ong Kong, 89 mins, C hinatow n C inem a, Occasional low-level violence, V(i-l-g) 0 (m i ld h o rro r) Millennium D. L eiterm an , Canada-U.S., 105 mins, Film pac H oldings, Som e low- level violence, language, sexual allusions, V(i-l-j) O (superna tu ra l them e, sexual al­lusions) L(i-l-g)Miss Firecracker Fred B erner, U.S., 104 m ins, F la t O u t E n te r ta in m en t, A du lt concepts, O (adu lt concepts) V (i-lj) Rosalie Goes Shopping P. Adlon-E. Ad- lon, U.S., 91 m ins, D endy Cinem a, A dult concepts, O (adu lt concepts)W eekend at Bernie’s V. Drai, U.S., 97 mins, Film pac H oldings, Sexual allusions occasional low-level violence.

M (MATURE AUDIENCES) Avenging Trio (m ain title n o t in English) J ia ’s M otion Picture, H o n g Kong, 89 mins, YU E nterprises, frequ. violence, V(f-m-g) Delinquents, The A. Cutler-M. Wilcox, A ustralia, 102 m ins, Village Roadshow C orporation , Sexual allusions, adu lt con­cepts, O (sexual allusions) O (adu lt con­cepts)Empress Dowager, The (m ain title no t shown in English) Son C hang C heng Ma Fong Knok, C hina, 99 m ins, Chinatow n C inem a, Occasional violence, adult ;on- cepts, V(i-m-j) O (adu lt concepts)Fair Game M. O rfini, Italy-U.S., 81 mins, Flat O u t E n terta inm en t, V iolence, occa­sional coarse language, V(i-m-g) L(i-m-g) Goodnight, Sweet Marilyn L. B uchanan, U.S., 100 m ins, Film pac H oldings, A dult concepts, O (ad u lt concepts) O (nudity) L( i-m-g)H om er and Eddie M. B orm anJ. Cady, U.S., 98 mins, Film pac H oldings, F requen t coarse language, occasional violence, L(f- m-g) V(i-m-j)H oneym oon Killers, The W. Steibel, U.S., 103 mins, Potential Films, Occasional vio­lence, V (i-m-g)How I Got into College M. Sham berg, U.S., 84 m ins, Film pac H oldings, Occa­sional coarse language, L(i-m-g)I f I Were for Real (m ain title n o tshow n in E nglish) C hiang Jih -S hen , Taiw an, 87 m ins, C hina tow n C inem a, O ccasional violence 0 (a d u l t concepts) V(i-mJ)Live Hard (m ain title n o t shown in Eng­lish) N ot shown, H o n g Kong, 93 m ins, Yu E nterprises, F req u en t violence, V(f-m-g) 0 ( d r u g use)L oose C am ion A. Greisman-A. Spelling, U.S., 93 mins, Fox C olum biaT ri S tar Films, O ccasional violence, coarse language, V (i- m-g) L(i-m-g)My Dear Son (m ain title n o t shown in English) Rover K C. T ang, H o n g Kong,

96 m ins, C hinatow n C inem a, F req u en t violence, sexual scenes, ad u lt concepts, V(f-m-g) S(i-m-g) 0 (a d u l t concepts) Mystery Train J . Stark, U.S., 109 mins, P rem ium Films, C oarse language, occa­sional violence, sexual scenes, L(f-m-g)5 (i-m-g) V(i-m-g)Parenthood B. G razer, U.S., 119 mins, U nited In te rn a tio n a l Pictures, Sexual al­lusions, adu lt concepts, O (sexual allusions ad u lt concepts)Pink Cadillac David Valdes, U.S., 118m ins, Village Roadshow C orporation , D rug use, violence, O (d ru g u s e ) V(i-m-g) L(i-m-g) Shirley Valentine L. G ilbert, U K 108 mins, U n ited In te rn a tio n a l Pictures, Occasional coarse language, sexual scenes, L(i-m-j) S(i-m-j)Tightrope Dancer, The R Cullen, A ustra­lia, 58 m ins, R onin Films, O ccasional coarse language, d ru g references, L(i-m- j) 0 (d r u g references)Tracks H ow ard Z uker, U.S., 91 mins, R onin Film s,'Occasional coarse language, violence, sexual scenes, L (i-m-g) S (i-m-g) V (i-m-g)U ne A ffaire de Fem m es M. Karm itz, France, 107 mins, Sharm ill Films, A dult concepts, O (ad u lt concepts)Vampire vs Vampire (m ain title no tshow n in English) G olden Harvest P resen tation6 D iagonal Pictures, H o n g Kong, 86 mins, Chinatow n Cinem a, H orro r, violence, V(f- m-g) O (ho rro r)Vidiot from UHF, The G. K irkw oodJ. Hyde, U.S., 94 mins, Village Roadshow C orporation , O ccasional violence, V(i-m- g)Worth Winning Gil Friesen-Dale Pollock, U.S., 102 mins, Fox C olum bia Tri Star Films, A dult concepts, L(i-m-g) O (ad u lt concepts)

R (RESTRICTED EXHIBITION) Beyond the Valley o f the Dolls (ed ited version) R.Meyer, U.S., 108 m ins, Film pac H oldings, Som e graph ic violence, sexual activity, d ru g abuse, V(i-m-g) S(i-m-g) 0 (d r u g abuse)Beyond the Valley o f the Dolls (a) RM eyer, U.S., 109 mins, Film pac H oldings, Occa­sional g raph ic violence, ad u lt concepts. Killer Angels J ia ’s M otion Picture, H o n g Kong, 89 mins, Yu Enterprises, F req u en t g raph ic violence, V(f-m-g)Last Exit to Brooklyn B. Eichinger, W est Germany-U.S., 102 m ins, Hoyts D istribu­tion , Occasional g raph ic violence, sexual scenes, V(i-m-g) S(i-m-g) L(f-m-g)Mes nuits sont plus belles que vos jours (My Nights are More Beautiful than your Days) Alain Sarde, F rance, 110 m ins, Richly C om m unications, O ccasional sex­ual scenes, violence, S(i-m-j) V(i-m-j)

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Beyond the Valley o f the D olls (a) R.Meyer, U.S., 109 mins, Film pac H oldings, V(i-h-g) O (d rug abuse)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 19-Sai N o Chizu Y. M itsuo-N. Kenichi,

Jap an , 109 m ins, M urray Pope & Associ­atesAkira R Suzuki-S. Kato, Jap an , 124 mins, M urray Pope & Associates Cabinet o f Dr. Caligari, The Decla, W est Germ any, 80 m ins, G oethe-Institu t Chronicle o f the Grey H ouse UFA, W est Germ any, 108 mins, G oethe-Institu t Dogura Magura S. Shibata- K Shim izu, Jap an , 109 mins, M urray Pope & Associ­atesFrom Morning to Midnight Ilag Film, W est

C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8 • 79

G erm any, 72 mins, G oethe-Institut Gondola M. Sadasue, Jap an , 112 mins, M urray Pope & Associates Karumen Junjo Su T. Kokura, Jap an , 102 m ins, M urray Pope & Associates Kyojin to Gangu N. H idem asa, Jap an , 96 mins, M urray Pope & Associates Rikyu H iroshi M orie, Jap an , 135 mins, M urray Pope & Associates Sho O Suteyo, Machi £ Dayo Eiko Kujo, Jap an , 129 mins, M urray Pope & Associ­atesTetto M onogatariT akashile Ichise, Japan , 100 mins, M urray Pope & Associates Yuwakusha T. Kamata-K. Sasaki-S. Rawai, Jap an , 109 mins, M urray Pope & Associ­atesZulay, Facing the 21st CenturyJ. Preloran , U.S., 120 m ins, Australian N ational U ni­versity

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Beyond the Valley o f the Dolls (a) R.Myer, U.S., 109 m ins, Film pac H oldings, O ccasional g raph ic violence, ad u lt con­ceptsDecision reviewed.: Classify ‘RR 13 (1) (a) ’ by the Film C ensorship Board.Decision o f the B oard : D irect the Film C en­sorship B oard to Classify ‘R ’.

N O V E M B E R 1 9 8 9

G (GENERAL EXHIBITION)All Dogs Go to Heaven Sullivan Bluth Studios, U .S.-Ireland, 84 mins, Hoyts Dis­tribu tionMarriage o f Figaro, The Fritz B uttenstend, W est Germ any, 187 mins, Film pac H old­ingsPrancer R. De Laurentiis, U.S.-Canada, 103 mins, Village Roadshow C orporation

PG (PARENTAL GUIDANCE)Back to the Future II B. Gail-N. C anton, U.S.,107 m ins, U nited In te rna tiona l Pic­tures, Occasional violence, V(i-m-g) L(i-1-

g)Cheetah R. H alm i, U.S., 83 mins, Village Roadshow C orporation , A dult concepts, O (adu lt concepts, anti-social behaviour) V(i-m-j)

Erik the Viking (ed ited version) J. Gold- stone, UK, 93 m ins, Hoyts D istribution, A d u lt c o n cep ts , o ccasio n a l v io len ce , O (adu lt concepts) V(i-mJ)Retum-of the Swamp Thing, The B. M elni- ker-M. Euslan, U.S., 87 mins, Palace En­te r ta in m e n t C o rp o ra tio n , O ccasional violence, m ild J jo rro r , V(i-mJ) 0 (m ild h o rro r)Reunion W ang Ymg Hsing, Taiwan, 99 m ins, C hinese C u ltu ra l C en tre , A dult concepts, O (em otiona l stress, adu lt con­cepts)Roselyne et les Lions (m ain title notshow n in English) Jea n Jacques Beineix, France, 136 mins, Palace E n ter ta in m en t C orpora­tion, A dult concepts, O (ad u lt concepts)

M (MATURE AUDIENCES) Apartment Zero M. Donovan-D. Koepp, A rgentina, 121 m ins, R. A. Becker & Co, Occasional violence, coarse language, V(i- m-g) L(i-m-g)Baxter A. Zeitour-P. G odeau, France, 82 mins, Richly Com m unications, Occasional violence, sexual scenes, V(i-m-g) S(i-m-g) O (adu lt concepts) L(i-m-g)Big Man Little Affair (m ain title notshow n in English) D & B Films D istribution, H ong Kong, 88 mins, Yu Enterprises, A dult concepts, O (adult concepts)Buried Alive H. Towers, U.S., 90 mins, Village Roadshow C orporation , V iolence h o rro r, occasional coarse language, V(i- m-g) O (h o rro r) L(i-m-g)Chouans! Ariel Zeitour, France, 146 mins, Richly C om m unications, V iolence, V(f- m-g)Crimes & M isdemeanors R. G reenhut, U.S., 103 m ins, Village Roadshow C orpo­ration , A dult concepts, O (adu lt concepts) Dragon Fight H errick W ong, H o n g Kong, 96 mins, Chinatow n C inem a, O ccasional violence, coarse language, d ru g re fer­ences, L(i-m-g) V(i-m-g) 0 (d r u g refer­ences)Forever Young (title n o t shown in Eng­lish) C inem a City Film (said to be), H ong Kong, 94 m ins, Chinatow n Cinem a, Sex­ual allusions, O (sexual allusions)Harlem Nights (a) P a ram o u n t Pictures, U.S., 109 mins, U nited In te rna tiona l Pic­

tures, Occasional violence, very freq u en t coarse language, L(f-m-g) V(i-m-g) Hearts, N o Flowers (m ain title n o t shown in English) Sim on Ko, H ong Kong, 87 mins, Yu E nterprises, O ccasional sexual scenes, S(i-m-g)Iceman Cometh, The (m ain title n o t in English) J o h n n y Mak, H o n g Kong, 111 mins, Chinatow n C inem a, V iolence, V(f- m-g)In Country N. Jewison-R. R oth, U.S., 115 m ins, V illage R oadshow C o rp o ra tio n , Occasional coarse language, L(i-m-g) L aP etiteV oleuseJeanJose Richer, France, 109 m ins, Palace E n ter ta in m en t C orpora­tion, A dult concepts, occasional violence, coarse language, L(i-m J) V (i-m j) O (adu lt concepts)La Soule M arie-Christine De M ontbrial- M ichel Frichet, France, 96 mins, Richly C om m unications, O ccasional violence, V(i-m-g)Life Line (un titled , m ain title n o t shown in English) H ah M yung Jo o n g Film, Ko­rea, 88 mins, Yu E nterprises, O ccasional violence, sexual scenes, V(i-m-j) S(i-mJ) Lonely Hunter, The (m ain title no tshow n in English) G ruzia Film Studio, USSR, 137 m ins, Festival o f P erth , A dult con­cepts, O (adu lt concepts)National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation J . Hughes-T . Jacobsen , U.S., 95 mins, Vil­lage Roadshow C orporation , Occasional coarse language, L(i-m-g)N o Retreat, N o Surrender, Si Kumander M arisa F ilarm eo, T he Philippines, 131 mins, M arisa Filarm eo, Occasional vio­lence, V (i-m-g)Pedicab Driver (m ain title n o t shown in English) Bojon Film, H o n g Kong, 94 mins, Yu E nterprises, violence, V(f-m-g)Saxo Ariel Zeitoun, France, 117 mins, Richly C om m unications, Occasional vio­lence, coarse language, L (i-m-g) V(i-m-g) O (adu lt concepts)Sinful L ife, A D. Raskov, U.S., 91 mins, Hoyts D istribution, Sexual scenes, occa­sional coarse language, S(i-m-g) L(i-m-g) O (adu lt concepts)Steel Magnolias R. Stark, U.S., 117 mins, Fox C olum bia T ri S tar Films, A dult con­cepts, O (adu lt concepts)

LEFT: LUCAS (JACQ U ES DUTRONC) AND BLANCHE

(SOPHIE M ARCEAUX) IN AN DREZJ Z U LA W SK I'S FILM

ADAPTATION O F RAPHAELLE BILLETDOUX'S POST-

LACAN IAN FEM INIST N O VEL, M ES SUITS SONT PLUS

BEELES aUC VOS JOURS. RATED 'R '.

(a) WARNING : this film contains very coarse language.

R (RESTICTED EXHIBITION) Bloody Fight, A A ttraction Films, H o n g Kong, 90 m ins, C hinatow n C inem a, O cca­sional g raph ic violence, V(i-m-g)Fox Tang Gi (m ain title n o t shown in E nglish) (ed ited version) N o t shown, Taiwan, 65 m ins, Yu Enterprises, F req u en t sexual activity, S(f-m-g)Last Exit to Brooklyn (a) B. E ichinger, W est G erm any- U.S., 102 m ins, Hoyts D istribution, Occasional g raph ic violence, sexual scenesSeven Warriors (m ain title n o t shown in English) M averick Films, H o n g Kong, 96 mins, Yu E nterprises, Very f req u e n t vio­lence, V(f-m-g)

(a) See also u n d e r Films B oard o f Review.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS Camila (a) L .S tantic, A rgentina, 105 mins, School o f Spanish, UNSW Darse Cuenta (a) Rosales & Associados, A rgentina, 104 mins, School o f Spanish, UNSWEll Misterio d e Eva Peron (a) T. D em ich- eli, A rgentina , 117 m ins, School o f Span­ish, UNSWLos Chicos de la Guerra (a) K. T enen- baum , A rgentina, 110 mins, School o f Spanish, UNSWMade in Argentina (a) Ju an Jose Jusid C ine, A rgentina, 86 m ins, School o f Span­ish, UNSWTangos: El Exilo de Gardel (a) F. Solanas- E. El Kadris, A rgentina, School o f Span­ish, UNSWTiem po de Revancha (a) H . Olivera-L. R epetto , A rgentina, 112 m ins, School o f Spanish, UNSWVia Okinawa (b) B. Tsuchikawa, Jap an , 109 m ins, M urray P ope & Associates

(a) (i) T h a t the film will be exh ib ited only by the School o f Spanish an d L atin A m eri­can Studies a t the University o f New South W ales as p a rt o f its 1989 Festival o f A rgen­tine C inem a betw een 27 O ctober an d 29 O ctober (both dates inclusive) an d n o t otherwise.(ii) T h a t the film be screened no m ore th an twice d u ring th e course o f the Festi­val.(iii) T h a t the film will be exh ib ited only to persons aged 18 years an d over.(iv) T h a t th e film will be ex p o rted within the p e rio d o f six weeks after the conclu­sion o f the Festival.

(b) (i) T h a t the film will be exh ib ited only a t the A cadem y Twin C inem a, Padd ing­ton NSW, as p a rt o f the 1989 “Tokyo on F ilm ” season betw een 20 O c to b er an d 27 O ctober (bo th dates inclusive) an d n o t otherw ise.(ii) T h a t the film will n o t be screened m ore th an th ree tim es d u rin g the course o f the season.(iii) T h a t the film will be ex p o rted w ithin the p e rio d o f six weeks after the conclu­sion o f the Festival.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Last Exit to Brooklyn (a) B. Eichinger, W est Germany-U.S., 102 m ins, Hoyts Dis­tribution , O ccasional graphic violence and sexual scenesDecision reviewed: Classify ‘R ’ by the Film C ensorship B oardDecision o f Board: C onfirm the Film C en­sorship B oard decision to Classify ‘R ’(a) See also u n d e r “R (R estricted Exhibi­t io n )” ■

Films exam ined in terms o f the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as States’ film censorship legislation are listed below.

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying non-"G" films appears hereunder:

Frequency Explicitness/Intensity Purpose

Infrequent Frequent Low Medium High Justified Gratuitous

S (S ex ) i f 1 m h j gV (Violence) i f 1 m h j gL(Language) i f 1 m h j gO (Other) i f 1 m h j g

Title Producer Country Submitted length Applicant Reason for decision

80 • C I N E M A P A P E R S 7 8

VICTO RIAN FILM LABORATORIES presents a totally IN D EP EN D EN T production

Ctiairmarr p j j g j W A T S Q | y PETER WATSON JNR

LobS BRUCE BRAUN rÄ OEREK RICHARDS Ä PAMELA HAMMOND and LOUISE CHESLETT f t S STEVE MITCHELL and KEVIN WILLIAMS ¿ S g TONY CARR and PETER RUWE Ä MARK FREEMAN

8 S 3 PHILLIP GRACE Ä MALCOLM MARR and LIZ WALDRON and SHARON MARTIN Printing CHARLES BAYLISS and RICHARD DYMOND f i S g MEG KOERNIG oPS KEVIN WILLIAMS AUSTIN BARTOLO

SupeB i'„ tT p / SupeB ia w ™ KEVIN WILLIAMS PETER WATSON JNR ä / S t e PETER WATSON JNR .nd STUART BEATTY clÉ j GEOFF SHARDLOW t S S S S STAN HARDER

Accounts VflLC0RK Ea„d PAT MILO Delive,ie! VICTOR MITCHELL ietep,i°" LINDA MORPHY

□□DO Ddby is o Irodemarit of Dofcy Laboratories Licensing Corporation

DD D O LBY

4 G U EST STREET H AW TH O R N VICTO RIA 3 1 2 2 Telephone Q3 / 818 0461 h“™ " 6 03 / 819 1451

FOR lOOYEARS WE'VE CAPTURED IMAGINATION.

NOW WE'RE SETTING IT FREE.

After 100 years of m aking motion picture film, Eastman Kodak Com pany ushers in a new era of creative freedom.

Introducing the family of Eastman EXR extended-range colour negative motion picture films.

Films tha t offer exceptionally w ide exposure latitudes and increased range of speeds.

Films tha t offer you freedom to shoot in bright or dim lighting

conditions. From daylight to tu n g ­sten, HMI, or even fluorescent illumination.

Films tha t are not only more light sensitive, bu t provide better colour sharpness, and finer grain.

Films, in short, tha t extend the vision of every cinem atog­rapher and director. O pening new doors. Creating new possibilities.

Because at Eastm an we believe your imagination should know no bounds.

Now being introduced:EXR 5296 film: El 500 Tungsten in 35 mm EXR 7248 film: El 100 Tungsten in 16 mm EXR 5245 film: El 50 Daylight in 35 mm EXR 7245 film: El 50 Daylight in 16 mmKodak, Eastman, EXR, 5296, 7248, 5245 and 7245 are trademarks. - © Eastman Kodak Company, 1989

For further information please contact Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd

EastmanM o tio n P ic tu re F ilm s