Cinema Papers December 1980 - January 1981

Registered for posting as a Publication — Category B

incorporating television

Chris Atkins and Brooke Shields in

December-January 1980-81

The Blue LagOOĂŻl Issue 30 $2.85*

“ Film can take the smallest detail* dram atise it* and present it w ith impact* #

AA

“I am currently shooting a film on parasites. In one scene I have to isolate malaria in the blood. For this film to be any use for diagnostic or identification purposes what I see in thethe microscone hi has to be accurately microscope produced on film.

Reproduced with perfect resolution and color rendition. The reds and blues on the screen must be the reds and blues of real life. ' To achieve this you must know your film and trust it.

There are no pick up shots or second chances in micro-cinematography because Biology is constantly changing.

With each different day there is different drama.

Only with Eastman color film can I achieve the absolute resolution and rendition needed to capture the smallest detail of that drama, and present it with everlasting impact.’’

D ietm ar Fill

A C S.

Kodak M otion Picture Film KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. K7/9936/KSB

The way Bill G ooley sees it,the lab is part o f the crew Bill, in all the time that we’ve been doing these ads, I suddenly realised I’ve never known exactly what your title is.

I wear two hats, one of them is Sales Manager for Colorfilm, the other one is Feature Liaison.

Meaning?

Meaning that before a film is shot I talk to the production company, the D.O.E, I read the script, get the shooting schedule and the phone numbers which I couldn’t do without. So when they go to shoot the film, I know exactly what the D.O.P is trying to achieve.

H ow does that level of involvement help when the film comes into the lab?

Well, I’m the one who screens the rushes every morning, the one who’s in contact with the production office. And because I know what they’re shooting, know the script, I can turn around and talk to the production secretary daily about things that may alarm somebody just walking in to see the rushes. They might say something was under­ exposed, or blue, and I know it’s not wrong, it’s what the man wants. There’s nothing worse than to get a message on location saying you’ve left your 85 filter off or you’ve under­ exposed or overexposed a stop and a half or something. They tend to panic with that kind of thing.

Can you give me a specific instance of that happening?

Well, 'The Survivor’ Johnny Seale was the D.O.E There are sections that are deliberately overexposed three stops. It would have caused a lot of panic if we hadn’t known it was deliberate. It’s real communica­ tion. You can’t do without it.

H ow did you begin your career Bill, how did you get involved in film?

I grew up in the 40’s and 50’s, when films were big and wonderful, I spent all my time

at the pictures. Then I left school and went to work at Eercival’s. I’ve left the industry a couple of times since then, but once it gets to you, you can’t get out. I ended up at Filmcraft, which is now Colorfilm.

W hat have you worked as?

When I started off I used to go down the long developing tanks that were fifteen feet deep and scraped the sides clean. I did the whole bit, it was part of the life. I was on the dry end of a black and white processor, then I advanced up to driving it.

Then later when color came in, they asked me if I wanted to go into that area, which of course I did, that was where the future was.

W hat was the first color film made in Australia?

By Australians or outside?

By Australians in Australia.

It becomes difficult, ‘They’re a Weird Mob’ was processed here, but cut in England. There was ‘Adams Woman,’ processed here, cut in America. I guess ‘The Hands of Cormack Joyce’ which was one of the first films I was personally involved in, that was a film that was finished here. We cut the neg, made the prints, did all that here. So I guess it was the first color film finished in this country.

W hat should you look for in a laboratory?

Involvement as much as anything else. Most films are shot by producers and directors without much money, and they spend three years of their lives trying to get them off the ground. It’s not just a film, it becomes a part of their lives.

Unless you become personally involved, then it doesn’t mean as much. O f course we’re very lucky having people here like Roger Cowland, Maggie Cardin and Arthur Cambridge. And apart from them, we have a night shift here in this company that is remarkable. We can get negatives in here at 9,10,11 o’clock at night, process; take

out n.g.’s and they’re ready for me to screen at 8 in the morning. Without that night shift, we couldn’t do it. They’re a very close group, they work from 11 at night to 7 in the morning, they choose to go on that shift.

How often does this work?

If you shoot six days a week, we work six days a week.

We can give you reports on Saturday for what was shot on Friday. We usually have Sunday off. But while there’s a shoot on, we work. That’s the only way to survive. Nobody can afford to wait days for reports. And where people and machinery are involved, you’ll always have problems. It’s simple for us to say there’s 100 feet gone down the drain. But if we tell them quickly, they can shoot it again more easily.

D o you think that producers care enough about the involvement of the laboratory when they’re beginning to shoot a film?

Oh yes. The producers we’ve dealt with here know the importance of the lab. The producer must have confidence in everybody. I look at it this way, and I don’t know whether other people see it like this, but I feel we are a part of the crew shooting that film.

W hat’s going through Colorfilm at the moment?

‘Gallipoli’ is being shot. ‘The Yankee Zephyr’ is starting now, we have a film Don McAlpine’s shooting in Manila called ‘Don’t Cry It’s Only Thunder’ for a Japanese American company.

You’ve been to Cannes twice. W hat sort of impact do the Australian films make on such a huge market place?

This year people were talking about Australian films.

And they were looking at them as entertainment. Those people over there want to buy films, but you have to give entertain­ ment. One of the things that gets me, of course, is that you look at all the products from all

the countries coming up on the screen, and you realise without a shadow of a doubt that ours is as good as the majority, and that’s very gratifying. The year before, when we took ‘My Brilliant Career’ to Cannes, that was just remarkable for me.

Sitting in the Ealais de Festival, and watching our film up there, hearing the audience applaud it.

I’ll never forget that.

D o you see the day when private enterprise takes over entirely from government subsidy for the industry, I mean with the entry of Stigwood Murdoch?

I think they should work together. O f course private enterprise will invest more and more heavily in films. But some films have to be made that won’t make a profit. Erivate enterprise won’t make them.

But they have to be made.

Looking back over your involvement in the industry over the years, how do you feel about it?

The industry has been very good to me. It’s been interesting, exciting, I’ve made tremendous friends, it’s my life. I wouldn’t want to do anything else. It’s very gratifying to me, and I’m very grateful to the industry.

Finally, why Colorfilm?

Anybody with sense comes here. Apart from that, our technicians, our skills, our involvement. All these things make me look good. I don’t print the stuff, I don’t process it or neg match or make opticals, it’s all the people behind me.

And they’re experts, they’re remarkable people, it’s what ends up on that screen that’s the main thing. That’s what sells their films. That’s what makes them make another film.

35 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.

Telephone (02) 5161066 Telex AA24545

Leo Burnett 4.1113 L

Leo Burnett 4.1113 R

GEVAERT

: ■ ■ ■,■ .

Agfa-Gevaert have just released a new color negative camera film, available in 16mm and 35mm, that will positively enhance the creation of any masterpiece.

New Gevacolor 682 negative camera film.

This film passes even the toughest of tests with flying colours (if you’ll forgive the pun), reproducing skin tones to perfection.

And it doesn’t just offer a wide latitude that compensates for even the most severe exposure variations, but delivers such a fine grain that every frame can be appreciated as a work of art in itself.

B etter still, this new film can be processed without any of the problems created by climatic conditions. And it’s compatible with the process employed by m ost major

Australian laboratories.

So in summary, all we can say is that if you’ve got the creative know-how, and the will, w e’ve got the way. New Gevacolor Type 682.

AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITED

Head Office, PO . Box 48, Nunawading, VIC. 3131.

Melbourne 8788000, Sydney 8881444, Brisbane 3916833, Adelaide 425703, Perth 3615399.

Articles and Interviews Don McLennan and Peter Friedrich: Interview Rod Bishop Breaker Morant Rethought Stephen Crofts Sam Fuller: Interview Tom Ryan Directors Row Scott Murray The Films of Richard Lester Neil Sinyard Ira Wohl: Interview Tom Ryan

412 420 422 427 428 432

Canada

Canadian Cinema An Overview: 436

437 438 441 442 444 446

Introduction Michael McCabe: Interview Martin Knelman: Interview Bob Barclay: Interview Tom Hedley: Interview Alan King: Interview

Features The Quarter / Letters Adelaide Film Festival Noel Purdon Edinburgh Film Festival Geoff Gardner Forum Adrian Martin International Production Round-up Terry Bourke Production Survey New Products and Processes Fred Harden Film Censorship Listings Box-office Grosses

Sam Fuller Interview: 422

406 410 417 434 449 450 453 469 484 485

Television 459

News Water Under The Bridge Jill Kitson The Film and Television Interface Production Survey

Edinburgh Film Festival Reviewed: 434

460 462 466

New Zealand 487

News Alun Bollinger: Interview Scott Murray Freelance Directory Production Survey

Water Under the Bridge Reviewed: 460

488 492 495

Film Reviews The Shining Ken Mogg The Chain Reaction Rick Thompson The Blue Lagoon Scott Murray Hanover Street Geoff Mayer Blood Money Adrian Martin Brubaker Stephen Garton The Earthling Jim McCullogh

475 476 477 478 479 480 508

Book Reviews Don McLennan and Peter Friedrich Interview: 412

International Index to Film Periodicals 1978 and The Australian Film Industry and Key Films of the 1970s Judith Manning

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Editorial Board: Peter Beilby, Scott Murray. Contributing Editors: Antony I. Ginnane, Tom Ryan, Ian Baillieu, Brian McFarlane. Editorial Assistant: Maurice Perera.

Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Andrew Pecze. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Administration: Nimity James. Secretary: Lisa Matthews. Los Angeles Correspondent: David Teitelbaum. .

Advertising. NSW. Qld. ACT: Sue Adler (02)31 1221; Vic.. SA. WA. Tas.: Peggy Nicholls (03)830 1097 or (03)329 5983. Printing: Waverley Offset Publishing Group. Geddes Street.

Mulgrave. 3170. Telephone: (03)560 5111. Typesetting: B-P Typesetting. 7-17 Geddes St, Mulgrave. 3170. Telephone: (03) 561 2111. Distributors: NSW. Vic.. Qld. WA. SA — Consolidated Press Pty Ltd. 168 Castlereagh St. Sydney. 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT. Tas. — Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. •Recom m ended price only.

482

The Shining Reviewed: 475

Cinema Papers is produced with financial assistance from the Australian Film Comm ission.

Articles represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the editors. W hile every care is taken with m anuscripts and materials supplied for this magazine, neither the Editors nor the Publishers accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the permission of the copyright owner. Cinema Papers is published every two months by Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, Head Office, 644 Victoria St North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3051. Telephone (03) 329 5983. © C opyright Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, No. 30, D ecem ber-January, 1980-81.

Front cover: Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins in Randal Kleiser’s The Blue Lagoon. See review on p. 477.

Cinema Papers, December-January—405

_ FILM EXPO The New South Wales Film Corpora­ tion and the Feature Film Division of the F&TPAA pulled out all stops for the jointly-sponsored “ Film Expo 80” at the Sebel Town House, from November 10 to 13. The speakers included many of the “ stars” of the annual UCLA Enter­ tainment Symposium.

In general, seminars tend to preach to the converted, or to provide, for those who don’t need to be taught, les­ sons they don’t want to know or advice they are not in a position to follow. The organizers of Film Expo can claim credit for a symposium that was rele­ vant, informative and constructive — probably the most comprehensive week’s study conducted in Australia for 10 years.

Despite a relatively high entrance fee, the Expo attracted an average daily attendance of 140 to hear discussion on topics as wide-ranging as Mark Damon on territorial pre-sales, Mas­ simo Ferrara on the Italian industry and Michael Fuchs on the American cable market.

David White, who with Edna Wilson deserves most of the credit for organiz­ ing the Expo, announced that the seminar will become a biennial event.

Guest speakers were: Mike Medavoy (Orion Pictures), Barry Spikings (EMI), Harry Ufland (The Ufland Agency), Eric Weissmann (U.S. Attorney), Ashley Boone (Ladd Company), Barbara Boyle (New World Pictures), Arthur Abeles (Filmarketeers Ltd), Klaus Hellwig (Janus Film), Massimo Ferrara (Italian Attorney), Lois Luger (Avco Embassy), Rudy Petersdorf (formerly Universal and W arner Bros, now with the Australian Films Office), Sam Geifman (formerly Australian Films Office, now Independent Productions), Michael Fuchs (Home Box Office), Mark Damon (Producers Sales Organization) and Simon Olswan (British Lawyer).

(Cinema Papers will be publishing a full text of the seminar in January, 1981.)

OPEN CHANNEL WORKSHOP

Bud Tingwell has just completed his fourth film and television acting workshop at the Open Channel, Mel­ bourne. The workshop provides an op­ portunity for actors and actresses to familiarize themselves with a variety of situations pe cu lia r to p e rform ing before cameras.

Distinctions are made between dis­ tractions encountered during a tele­ vision studio performance and the theatrical habit of using spotlights.

Tingwell is particularly concerned that actors achieve a good rapport on screen. Resorting to “ naturalism” was

generally found to be a good method of overcoming that timeless state when actors stand high and dry, frozen in a bewildering blur of forgotten lines; and for maintaining a performance level, while battling with breaks in continuity and the confusions associated with shooting out of sync.

Workshops are held regularly at Open Channel, usually over a weekend, and cost $60. For information phone (03)419 5111.

WARDROPE HEADS NEW OPERATION

TIM AND A D R IEN N E READ John Mabey, chief of Film Australia, announced in November that a series of top-level management and industrial films would be made through a new production agency to be set up by the husband and wife team of Timothy and Adrienne Read. The programs will be tailored for Australian and international markets, and are hoped to contribute towards meeting the worldwide de­ mand for top-level management sub­ jects.

Tim Read was head of production at FA for five-and-a-half years and in an­ nouncing Read’s resignation, Mr Mabey said that Read had made a great contribution to FA’s work.

Read was responsible for direction and quality of all FA’s films. He was a prime negotiator for the Australian Film Commission in Moscow, which led to production of the successful television series The Russians, telecast by the Seven Network before the Moscow Olympics.

Read also actively encouraged a more socially aware role for FA’s National Program and contributed largely to the success of many of FA’s productions, including The Human Face of China, A Good Thing Going and Do I Have To Kill My Child?

Read said he thought that FA and the industry generally was faced with an exciting period ahead, anc^ that he w a n te d to ta k e a m ore d ire c t producer’s role. He looked forward to continuing as a consultant to FA’s clients.

AFC STAFF CHANGES Alan Wardrope, former marketing and distribution director of the Aus­ tralian Film Commission, will head a new ly-form ed film m arketing and production company. The company, California Connection, will be inter­ n a tio n a lly s tru c tu re d to p ro v id e producer support and representation.

Services will range from straight­ forward sales to all media and markets, to b a c k -u p m a rk e tin g , such as merchandise development and ex­ ploitation, preparation of investment prospectuses, and blueprinting of marketing and distribution strategies, in Australia and overseas. Offices are being organized in Los Angeles, Tokyo, London, Frankfurt and Auckland.

Another side to California Connec­ tion will be production of feature films, the company acting in an executive producer capacity, at least in the initial projects.

The first feature, a futuristic adven­ ture drama set in the midst of a fuel and power crisis with a breakdown of law and order, is now well advanced.

Wardrope says it will feature a mix of Australian and overseas talent, with the Australian input predominating.

The Australian Film Commission’s Melbourne representative, Murray Brown, will be taking up a new appoint­ ment as senior project officer with the C reative D evelopm ent Branch in Sydney at the end of 1980. A new ap­ pointment to the Melbourne office will be made early in 1981.

IN D IA N FILM FESTIVAL

The Directorate of Film Festivals, Ministry of Information and Broad­ casting, G overnm ent of India, is holding the 8th International Film Festival of India in New Delhi from January 3 to 17, 1981.

The Festival will have a competitive section of features and documentaries covering films of the past two years, ex­ cluding those already screened in com­ petitions anywhere in the world. There will also be an information section for films screened in international film festivals for the past four years, ex­ cluding those already screened In India. Other critically-acclaimed films and retrospectives will also be in­ cluded.

Interested parties could contact the Directorate of Film Festivals direct at the Consulate General of India, Caltex House, 167-187 Kent St, Sydney, NSW, 2000 .

F& TPA A PRESIDENT

Bud Tingwell (right) during an acting w orkshop at Open Channel.

406—Cinema Papers, December-January

Ray B e attie has been ele cte d national president of the Film and Television Production Association of Australia (F&TPAA). Beattie, chief ex­ ecutive of Atlab Australia, succeeds Grahame Jennings who has been national president for the past five years.

The F&TPAA is the production in­ dustry’s national employer organiza­ tion, and Beattie's election comes at an important time for the Australian film and videotape production industry.

Beattie said: “ The proposed new tax incentives for investment in Australian films and

THE QUARTER

m The announcement of the award was made at a memorial meeting for Jan Dawson, held in London on November 16. This was followed by a screening of Alexander Kluge’s Strongman Ferdi­ nand, the English sub-titles of which had been translated by Dawson.

Those wishing to donate to the award should make cheques payable to the Jan Dawson Award, C/- R. Shah and Co. Ltd, 25 Newman St, London W.1.

AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE Sue Murray, acting executive direc­ tor of the Australian Film Institute, will leave late 1980. She has been primarily responsible for the organization of the Australian Film Awards.

Ray Beattie, new president of F&TPAA,

television programs announced by the Prime Minister in his policy speech and recent Government in­ itiatives to expand the nation's tele­ communications services, including the introduction of pay television to Australia, have boosted producers’ confidence in the long-term future of the industry.

“The continuing economic health of the industry in Australia is vital not only to the future of our members but to that of all the writers, directors, actors, technicians and musicians involved in the production of feature films, television programs, commer­ cials, training films and documen­ taries. A unified approach by all independent producers is necessary to ensure that continuity.”

THE JAN DAWSON AWARD An annual award has been estab­ lished in Britain to commemorate the work of the late Jan Dawson as a film critic, writer and program adviser, and in recognition of her contribution to the development of British independent filmmaking.

MOVING PICTURES A program of films made with the as­ sistance of the Women’s Film Fund will be released through the Australian Film Institute cinemas early in 1981. Open­ ing on January 24 at the Opera House Cinema, Sydney, fo r a two-week season, the films will later play at the State Cinema in Hobart and the Longford in Melbourne.

The program shows a diversity of style and subject matter, from Rluka Hartman’s Chaplinesque silent comedy, Consolation Prize, to Genni Batterham's personal document of her struggle with multiple sclerosis, Pins and Needles. Climbers by Rosalind Gillespi, a dance film depicting the Japanese women’s team’s ascent of Everest, won a Silver Plaque at the Chicago Dance Film Festival, 1980.

Two documentaries complete the list. Clytie Jessop’s Flamingo Park shows how environment influences the work of two leading designers, through strong use of color, texture, sound and movement. Age Before Beauty is an in­ cisive look at what old age Is like for women in Australia today.

The Women’s Film Fund Is ad­

ministered by the Creative Develop­ ment Branch of the Australian Film Commission. It gives financial as­ sistance to the production of films of interest and usefulness to women, and assists women to gain production ex­ perience. Its aim is to promote new attitudes to women’s potential, as film subjects and as filmmakers.

The next closing date for applica­ tions is mid-February 1981. For more information, contact Vicki Molloy, AFC, 8 West St, North Sydney.

LABOR AND THE FILM CULTURE

Just before the 1980 Federal election in October, Senator Susan Ryan released a document on the Australian Labor P arty’s com m itm ent to an Australian film culture. Though the election result makes the paper’s recommendations unlikely to be imple­ mented for some time, several pass­ ages are of interest. A selection is printed below: “ In 1979 the AFC underwent a review of its activities in assisting the film In­ dustry. The review, Towards a More Effective Commission: The AFC in the 1980s, was carried out by Peat Marwick Mitchell, management con­ sultants, with a view to recom­ mending a strategy which would ensure commercial success for Australian films . . . “ Its major recommendations were that the AFC adopt a global strategy in its production and distribution ac­ tivities, that the criterion for AFC funding be a film ’s potential to s u cce e d in the in te rn a tio n a l marketplace, and that films with AFC in v e s tm e n t be p la n n e d and budgeted to earn 60 per cent of their net income from overseas sources from 1980/81. It was noted that this necessarily meant fewer films, but bigger films. Just how access to the global market is to be achieved was not made clear.

“This global strategy seems to have been largely accepted by the

Riuka Hartman, dire ctor and lead actress, and friends In Consolation Prize.

AFC and the Governm ent. The Australian Film Commission Amend­ ment Act, 1980, passed in May, embodied some of the report’s recom m endations and included provisions to enable the AFC to operate on a more commercial basis. The ALP, while also sup­ porting the establishm ent of a commercially-viable Australian film industry, takes issue with the Peat Marwick Mitchell strategy for achiev­ ing it. “ Not every film is going to be a blockbuster and it is unrealistic to expect this. While we agree that, in general, films should be funded commensurate with their potential earnings, to set an arbitrary figure of 60 per cent overseas earnings for all AFC productions is unacceptable.

Such a requirement completely rules out the production of low-budget feature film s for the dom estic market, thus excluding films that are w o rth w h ile In them selves and provide a valuable training ground for producers and directors.

“To aim all productions at the in­ ternational market puts at risk the Australian character of our films. At­ tempts to ensure that all Australian films have an international flavor, that characters speak in trans­ pacific accents and that issues c o v e re d are n ot s p e c ific a lly Australian will ultimately’destroy the unique character of A ustralian films . . .

"The Australian film industry can­ not be looked at solely in economic terms: its social and cultural benefits must also be considered. The facility for social criticism, cultural develop­ ment, the definition of a national identity and the projection of an Australian image overseas are im­ portant benefits of a local industry.

Subsidy to films can be justified on these grounds in the same way as can subsidy to the arts . . . “ Foreign domination of Australian distribution and exhibition networks, which led to the collapse of the original Australian film industry, re­ mains one of the biggest problems for the current industry. While these chains remain effectively controlled

by American film companies, there will be a predominance of American films shown in Australian cinemas, and a low level of investment in Australian production by exhibitors and distributors . . . “ An ALP Government would con­ fer with state Attorneys-General and state film corporations in order to arrive at a co-operative Australia­ wide strategy for regulating film ex­ hibition and distribution . . . “ It would also conduct a thorough examination of the use of Com­ monwealth powers with respect to the film industry. There is con­ stitutional scope for.Commonwealth action under the trade and com­ merce power s. 51 (i), the taxation power s. 51 (ii) and the corporations power s. 51 (xx). If necessary, a Labor Government would seek to use the power conferred upon the Com­ monwealth in the Constitution to regulate film distribution and exhibi­ tion . . . “ Several weeks before a Federal election, the Government announced a new taxation scheme involving a 150 per cent write-off on investment expenditure, in the year of the ex­ penditure.

“The new scheme is exceptionally generous and should give a boost to the industry. It is certainly heartening that the Government has seen fit to act to prevent the collapse of the film industry, a collapse which in itself precipitated. “ However the see-sawing attitude of the Fraser Governm ent has caused great instability in the film in­ dustry and investors once bitten will be cautious in future. There is nothing to suggest for instance that once the election is over, or once the Government realizes how much

Cinema Papers, December-January—407

THE QUARTER

Fritz

Lang's Metropolis. a print of which is in the Harry Davidson Collection at the National Library.

revenue will be lost through the new scheme, that another ‘crackdown’ will not be instigated.

“The ALP would seek to provide incentives that would ensure a stable source of private investment in films.

Whereas In the short term we recognize that attractive taxation in­ centives may be necessary, in the long term, the restructuring of the distribution/exhibition system in Australia may obviate the need for such measures . . .

“The new emphasis on commer­ cial values has affected all areas of the branch’s activities . . . The ALP agrees that any move back to com­ mercialize the Creative Development Branch [of the AFC] is shortsighted and would have a destructive effect on its ability to carry out its functions.

Budget cuts imposed on the branch are also limiting its effectiveness.”

NATIONAL LIBRARY ACQUIRES UNIQUE COLLECTIONS

The National Library of Australia has acquired the private film collections of Harry E. Davidson, an internationallyknown Melbourne collector who died in February. The collections — one of 600 Australasian Gazette, Cinesound and Movietone newsreels; the other of about 1200 reels of feature films, shorts and documentaries — constitute what was probably the biggest private holding of vintage 35mm films in Australia.

Most notable items in the collections are prints of Fritz Lang’s 1926 silent masterpiece, Metropolis; a famous German production of Faust by Friedrich Murnau; a 1944 sound feature, A Yank in Australia, no copy of which had been known to survive; several of a series of industrial documentaries; Made in Australia, produced in the 1920s; and footage from a 1915 Australian feature film with

408—Cinema Papers, December-Januarv

a World War 1 theme, A Hero of the Dardanelles.

The copy of Metropolis is an original tinted print, believed to contain footage not s u rvivin g in any copy held overseas.

The collections will be preserved in the Library’s National Film Archive in Canberra and known as “The Harry Davidson Collection” .

CUBAN FILM WEEK

Martha Ansara reports on the forth­ coming Cuban Film Week: A Cuban Film Week is to be presented by the Australian Film In­ stitute, from January 17-23, at the Sydney Opera House and at the National Theatre in Melbourne, from January 27-31. Three representatives from the Cuban Film Institute (ICAIC) will be present for discussions and to meet their Australian counterparts. The films will be shown by the National Film Theatre in the other states during the follow ing months.

cinema was attracting worldwide ac­ claim; while in Cuba itself, audiences addicted to North American formula films were being won over to their own cinema through the success of the in­ novative and political “ Latin American Newsreels” of Santiago Alvarez.

Today, Cuban filmmakers still work with slim material resources — a result of underdevelopment and the U.S. Blockade. Shooting ratios for feature dramas can be as low as 2.5:1; and while there is now one Arriflex BL at ICAIC. much of the equipment is more than 20 years old.

N evertheless, necessity is the mother of invention and adversity seems to have fostered a sense of film­ making that is varied, adventuresome and uniquely Cuban. While individual directors have a degree of creative freedom unknown to the Australian in­ dustry. members of ICAIC, like all cultural groups in Cuba, have a collec­ tive responsibility for the development

of its art form and the interpretation of its history, culture and society; and films that are made are responsive to this function. Internationally, their films give one more information about Cuba than one can get, short of going there.

In striving to express the reality of living in a political — and politicised — culture, ICAIC has developed the prac­ tice of a new political cinema, where ex­ periment is encouraged and dogmas are out of place.

Films for Australia The selection for the Film Week draws from films of the past seven years which have not been shown in Australia. They will include features and shorts demonstrating the wide range of form and subject matter.

Some of the features will be: Portrait of Teresa (Pastor Vega, 1979). This film rocked the island pop­ ulation of 9.5 million with its condemna­ tion of the unequal position of women and the double standard. About 800,000 people packed the cinemas in the first six weeks of release; argu­ ments over the film ’s contents still rage.

Teresa, the protagonist, attempts to combine sole responsibility for the ' home with her factory job and involve­ ment in a cultural group; her philander­ ing husband falls apart.

El Brigadista (The Literacy Teacher, Octavio Cortazar, 1977). Popular in Cuba for its subject matter and its Hollywood style, the film -follows the adventures of a young student par­ ticipating in the literacy campaign of 1961 in the small town of Maniadero Chiquito in the Zapata Swamp. Strug­ gling against the resistance of the peasants to a city kid who is inexperi­ enced and fearful of the bush, he becomes embroiled in local conflicts with U .S.-backed co u n te r-re vo lu ­ tionaries.

The Man from Maisinicu (Manuel Perez, 1972) is another film which makes use of Hollywood conventions.

Based on a true story set in the visuallystunning Escambray mountains, the film unravels the mystery of the death of Alberto Delgado sent by the revolu­ tion to manage a state farm in the 1964 struggles between the peasants and undercover counter-revolutionaries in their midst. It is fast-paced action in the Clint Eastwood tradition.

Giron (Manuel Herrera, 1973) deals with the counter-revolutionary problem in a different way. It is a gripping analysis of the Bay of Pigs battle, subtly interweaving newsreel material, inter­ views and re-enactments by actual participants. Herrera worked with his “ actors" to achieve performances based on psychodrama while using the dramatic conventions of a Western as well as elements of de-mystification of the cinema.

One Way or Another (Sara Gomez, 1974) is even more adventurous in

Continued on p. 411

Cuban Cinema Cuban cinema did not exist before 1959. Before the revolution, Cuba was virtually a colony of the U.S., its cinemas dominated by Hollywood product.

Rather like Australia in the post-war period, Cuban participation in film production was limited to the provision of colorful locations for overseas com­ panies employing locals in only the most menial positions. Unlike Australia, however, there was no government film unit and its only native film industry was the production of cheap pornography.

ICAIC was established in the first weeks of Fidel Castro’s new government.

While most of the filmmakers lacked experience, they rejected the idea of formal film training and took to the streets with their cameras, learning as they went. Within 10 years, Cuban

Pastor Vega’s Portrait of Teresa, one of the film s at the Cuban Film Week.

THE QUARTER almost as soon as the first smiles had cooled, some other guest — his turn having come to ring home — burst in with the news that Fraser was safe. Am­ b iva le n t fe e lin g s could now be resolved.

SORRENTO Scott Murray reports on the Aus­ tralian participation at the recent Sohrento Incontri: The Incontri Internazionali del Cinema 1980, held in Sorrento, Italy, in October, was the first world film event devoted to Australian cinema. Primarily a way of making the Italian filmgoing public more aware of Australian films, it was a considerable success.

The Italian press wrote extensively, and favorably, on the films, and a sale of 10 films to an Italian distributor on the last day was a further indication of the Incontri’s achievement. This was particularly so as the event is not a film market, and any film sales are inciden­ tal to the festival’s purpose.

Some 30 films were shown, from The Sentimental Bloke to Stir and Breaker Morant. Each was projected twice, once for critics and again for the public.

The public’s enthusiasm for the films clearly matched that of the press.

For most of the 30-odd Australians there, the Incontri meant a brief ap­ pearance at their films, a spirited press conference, an open table debate and innumerable cocktail parties. As the Incontri was sponsored by the Tourism office of Naples and the Campania Region, it was not surprising the Italian organizers were keen to expose its Australian guests to the best of Italian cooking and scenery.

Mayoral receptions were followed by tours of Pompeii and the Amalfi Coast, and Capri by those who escaped the official schedule for a day and adopted a freer one of their own. (The Italians do like a good attendance, however, and the next morning’s schedule included a pointed note at the bottom asking for a hearty turnout at that day’s luncheon.)

For some Australians, the sparsity of film-associated activities was a little bewildering. To the more experienced travellers at Cannes, it was to be ex­ pected. International film events — unlike, Australian ones — require a fair degree of self-motivation.

But even given that, many Aus­ tralians did regret the lack of contact between themselves and the Italians.

The efficient buses taking Australians from restaurant to press conference w e re lik e co n t a m i n at i o n -f ree enclosures of Australia, isolated from a bizarrely-different Italy.

The one major op p o rtu n ity of meeting Italian filmmakers was at the Tavola Ronda. Australians present were Stephen Wallace, Bob Jewson, John Heyer, Joan Long, Tim Burstall, Don Crombie, Esben Storm and David Roe. The Italians included Alberto Lattuada, Luigi Comencini, Pasquale Festa Campinale, Pasquale Squitteri and Luigi Zampa.

Unfortunately, the Tavola Ronda was beset by translator problems and was only saved by an Australian journalist who did an excellent impromptu job.

His skill in the situation gave one a glimpse of what had probably been missed at other conferences.

The translating problem is worth stressing because at least 70 per cent of any such multilingual event is spent in translating and rephrasing ques­ tions, or having people yell out that their answer was misrepresented, etc.

This can be extremely frustrating, but, more importantly, its stop-start motion makes it almost impossible to carry on a meaningful debate. The temptation is either to fall back into humor (Zampa describing working in Australia) or near silence (many of those present).

One director who made concerted efforts to answer questions — and even pose a few himself — was Tim Burstall.

Having already had a verbal alter­ cation with an immaculately-dressed Italian Marxist a few days before, Bur­ stall was ready for the duel. He was even debating whether to ask his Marx­ ist friend if he was familiar with Lenin’s

Barry and Diane Humphries, Tim Burstall and friend, outside one of the Sorrento cinemas.

Jewson, “ Here it’s at least five years.”

Another topic of interest to the Italian press was the Australian funding system, whereby filmmakers and in­ dustry personnel were involved in the selection process. The Marxist took particular offence at this, but Burstall, rallying to the cause, came back nice and strong: “And if you think some fascist sitting at the top deciding what should be made is better than a panel of 20 or so people, including film­ makers, then I reckon you need your head read!”

paper on the Australian Labor Party, written, I think, in 1917. Regrettably, the opportunity to pose that question didn’t eventuate.

When debate did sporadically sur­ face, it was mostly over the Italian critics’ equation of State-funding with ideological control. Given the Aus­ tralian and state governments were putting so much money into Australian films, most of the Italians were con­ vinced that only film s espousing government ideals would get made.

When some Australian replied with, “What about Stir?”, the film’s director, Stephen Wallace, said his film was more tokenism and that he doubted he would be allowed to make one like it again. That answer seemed to satisfy many Italians — but certainly not all the Australians.

The Italian critics were also intrigued (if not disturbed) by what they saw as a lack of social comment in Australian films. This they felt also indicated government control.

Burstall retaliated by denying any absence of social criticism, and cited several examples. This was quite a dif­ ferent response to Bruce Beresford, who, when asked a day before if he deliberately avoided social comment, only too happily, and satirically, obliged with a sharp, “ Yes” .

Burstall did say, however, that Australians were basically too tentative in their approach to subjects. Too often, he felt, the only censorship that existed in Australia was self-inflicted.

This could be seen in the way Australian filmmakers didn’t present controversial scripts to the funding bodies, generally arguing that such a proposition wouldn’t be accepted. “ But how do we know it won’t be, unless we try?” , Burstall asked.

Of course, what Italians regard as stinging social criticism is not neces­ sarily what Australians do. For ex­ ample, when Bob Jewson, at another conference, blasted the appalling judicial system in New South Wales for keeping someone in remand for up to 12 months, nearly every Italian present burst into laughter. “Twelve months!” , explained the translator to a bemused

On the closing Saturday of the Incontri many of the guests assembled for what turned out to be the “elec­ tion” lunch. Being nine hours behind Eastern Australian Time, news of the polls was reaching the inquisitive in Sorrento by mid-morning. As the early indications suggested a Labor victory, those at the lunch — by and large Labor voters — sat down to what seemed a victory celebration. ' After a few cheers had been uttered, however, someone asked if anyone knew what was Labor’s film policy, par­ ticularly in regard to tax incentives.

Errol Sullivan, chairman of the Film and Television Production Association of Australia, allowed his smile to weaken slightly and said he hoped that all the recent lobbying on the Treasurer, John Howard, to change the tax ruling hadn’t been in vain. Asked if Labor had also been canvassed, Sullivan said no — nobody had thought they’d get in. As well, he doubted if Labor was likely to be quite so generous, as Howard’s new tax benefits favored those in the upperincome area — hardly a Labor-type policy.

Donald Crombie then revealed that his investment contract on The Factor included a clause requiring a Liberal victory, and that the Labor swing looked likely to thwart, yet again, his and Tony Buckley’s attempts to float the film.

So, what started as a cheery affair soon was noticeable for its air of apprehension, if not concern. But

Elizabeth Alexander receives an award at the closing ceremony at the Sorrento Incontri.

Hilary Ryan (centre), Judy M orris and Don Crom bie at Pompeii.

The closing night of the Incontri was held at the San Carlo opera house in Naples. Ranking second to La Scala in Milan, this magnificent building was packed by a paying audience, who were presumably also there to see the firs t Italian screening of A kira Kurosawa’s Kagemusha (Shadow Warrior), dubbed, of course, into Italian.

Before the prize-giving, there was yet another cocktail party, this time in an adjacent reception hall. There, Stephen Wallace caused much furrowed con­ sternation by appearing without a tie. It looked, for a while, that Wallace would be banned from appearing on stage unless he found a tie. Whether the organizers relented or the issue was forgotten in the excitement, I don’t know — but he made it to the stage.

This incident had an amusing parallel half-way through the awards when actor Marcello Mastroianni was heralded onto the stage in the most casual of clothes, and no tie. The presentation was held up for several minutes as Incontri director, Gian Luigi Rondi, and an Italian official debated whether Mastroianni should be per­ mitted to remain on stage. Sanity won and he was, Mastroianni doing his best possible “What’s this all about?” shrug for a delighted audience.

The next most striking aspect of the evening was its extreme haste. Were the Italians given control of the Australian Film Awards, the whole telecast would not take 15 minutes.

They have solved, for example, the embarrassment of winners proving incapable of putting together an in­ telligent acceptance speech by keeping them well away from any microphones.

So, as soon as the dual presenters had announced an award, in Italian and English, a guest presenter would literally run onto centra! stage, where he or she would delay handing over the statuette to a bemused Australian until all the photographers had finished.

Comic actors like A lberto Sordi managed to play out this little joke with much style.

Ten minutes later and it was all over.

How Network 3 would make a television show of it (to be broadcast two hours later) was mystifying. Still, such a program would further place Australian films before the Italian public, and it did give a form of recognition to several deserving Australians.

One could be tempted to reflect on the evening as a comment on the dif­ ferences between Australian and Italian filmmakers. Without exception, the Italians were beautifully and similarly dressed, carried out their roles with humor and poise, and generally showed a great sense of style. They were clearly all of the same nationality, and shared dem onstrably sim ilar tastes.

The Australians, in contrast, were dressed in the oddest assortment of clothes, from jeans and corduroy jackets, to what I suspect were uninten­ tionally New Wave outfits. They showed a total lack of similarity or unity, and came across as what they were: a vaguely assembled disparity of in­ dividuals. And while to many their rather dishevelled appearance was un­ likely to rouse nationalist pride, their very individuality was refreshing.

Several associations and unions are attempting to control the range of options open to Australian filmmakers, possibly limiting creative choices in some key areas. If Sorrento is any ex­ ample. however, such efforts will be hard-pressed to make any indent on a largely individualistic industry. And, staring down on those Australians from the fourth row balcony at San Carlo, that seemed a good thing.

-k

Cinema Papers, December-January—409

______j

BOB ELLIS

Dear Sir, Bob Ellis’ rampant sexuality does strange things to his mind. At no time was he offered a week in Wales with Julie Christie. Indeed, the thought of the stoat-like Ellis alone with Ms Christie is positively pornographic. I can assure your good readers that Ellis’ place was, as always, in the garret and if anyone was to spend time alone with the lady, that person was me.

Donaid Crombie Dear Sir, One should never take the ravings and rantings of our beloved enfant terrible, Bob Ellis, too seriously, but a clarification of facts is warranted re his statements about me and the Christie project.

After careful consultation with Ellis’ agent, Jane Cameron, I made an offer of $1.000 per week for a base minimum of 3 weeks for a dialogue only rewrite.

That is, the script plot and structure were to remain as written. The initial offer was thought fair enough as a starting point to negotiations. Neither Jane Cameron nor I had dealt pre­ viously with this type of re-write.

Before those negotiations could com m ence Ellis rang me. It was probably the most offensive call I have received in a long time. Ignoring Ellis, I began negotiations upwards with his upset but highly reputable agent. In­ cidentally, he asked for $20,000, not $15,000 as told to [Richard] Brennan.

However, before we proceeded very far it was pointed out that Ellis had just signed an exclusive contract with David Puttnam and could not write for anyone anyway! I refrained from ringing him back. ., Anthony Buckley Dear Sir, It may have been simply a typo­ graphical error, but, lest it was not, I seek to correct the rendering of my name in your October-November issue.

Bob Ellis, in his interview, refers to his collaborators (all of whom are doomed to live in his shadow), among whom is my humble self.

The name you give me is “ Donny Lawrence” . It is, correctly, Denny with an “ e” . This may seem unnecessarily finicky to you, but with a name like mine it is sometimes mistaken for something else.

It seems I have already achieved the status of a “ non-person” , which, ac­ cording to Bob, it will take Gough Whitlam another three years to attain!

Thank you for your magazine (which has correctly spelled my name on at least two previous occasions).

D. (for DENNY) Lawrence

U R l W IN D ?

The followging is a letter to Uri Windt, of the Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia, from pro­ ducer-director Richard Franklin. It was sent to Cinema Papers as a reply, in

410—Cinema Papers, December-January

part, to remarks by Windt in the previous issue.

Dear Uri, Although we have never met or communicated directly, I read with interest your interview in the October- .

November issue of Cinema Papers.

While I must say that I admire the candour with which you express your views on the way in which our industry ought to be run, I note that at least in reference to my last three films several of your arguments are based on misinformation. I wish to set the record straight.

1. Your comments totally misrepresent my position and particularly my dealings with your organization on Roadgames. Although on Patrick we deliberately used our Australian setting in a “ non-specific” way (to use your words), Roadgames is a film of “ cultural exactitude” (again your words).

Our U.S. d is trib u tio n advance, without which we could not have raised our budget, was conditional on casting international "names” .

Unfortunately, no Australian actor is yet in this category and so, out of our cast of 10, we im p o rte d tw o.

Although I am given to understand that you had never heard of Stacy Keach, I assume his 30-odd film c r e d its g a v e h im s u f f ic ie n t “ distinction and merit” to escape the sniping you have done at my casting of Jamie Lee Curtis.

In casting Jamie, I was perhaps playing “ catch a rising star” . But first and foremost my decision had to do with believing she was the best person for the job. There is no 20 year-old Australian who could be called a “ name” (even with the A u s tra lia n p u b lic ). Jam ie had already appeared in two smash-hit th rille rs (H allow een being the biggest-grossing independent film of all time). She has since opened in the U.S. in Prom Night and Terror Train, both successful enough thrillers for Time magazine and The L.A. Times to have made references to eagerly awaiting her next film — ours.

I had no “ creative urges flying through my veins” unless one calls a business decision creative. But if that’s your idea of “ exceptional circumstances” , then I suggest that your rules bear no relation to the actual casting process, which is a slow and painstaking one.

2. You say that my consultation with your Melbourne office “was assumed to be the final answer” and that I then “went off” to sign my contracts and face you with the problem. This is completely untrue.

Barbi Taylor [production manager] and I kept all contracts in abeyance until we were told specifically by your Melbourne office that we could sign them. Being aware of the trouble over The Survivor, we even went out of our way to refer to this and to ask whether the matter needed to be referred to Sydney. We were told that, since The Survivor, the matter of jurisdiction had been clarified and that Melbourne could give final approval. We therefore instructed our lawyers in Los Angeles to execute our distribution deal, and Keach’s and Curtis’ contracts.

I never “went off” anywhere, as the rug was pulled out from under me two days later when your office attempted to reverse the decision. I have no doubt Melbourne would have buckled under your pressure, had we not insisted that they keep their word to us. (At that time I did indeed have c o m m itm e n ts of $800,000 and a crew of 15 already working.) We “ assumed” nothing. If an assumption was made, it was made within Equity. But no matter how carefully your reference to assumptions is worded in Cinema Papers, your implication of impro­ priety on my part has damaged my

reputation even with my fellow pro­ d u ce rs, m any of w hom , I am informed,think that by standing up for myself I have somehow made it harder for them to approach you in the future.

A lth o u g h such an a ttitu d e is incredible to me, the fact that not one of them has criticized me to my face is a sad comment on the back­ stabbing that goes on in our industry.

It is also, for me, proof positive that for the good of the industry you should use your power (which is in your own words “ awesome” ) more judiciously in future.

3. I was the joint producer, as well as the director, of Patrick and I believe your charge that the Australian Film Commission has “ lost a leg and an arm” from their investment in the film borders on libel. Tony Ginnane’s company holds the copyright in Patrick, so I do not have day-to-day figures. But I have spoken to the AFC on the matter and they are at a loss to know what you mean.

Patrick has not been handled in the U.S. by a multinational as you imply (no Australian film ever has). Its grosses do outweigh Its returns, but this is typical even within Australia.

Patrick is one of the few Australian features to have received overages from the U.S. and the AFC believes it will show a healthy profit from their point of view.

From the producers’ point of view, Patrick has certainly earned more in exports m arkets than it did in Australia, so whatever concessions were made to “ internationalizing” the film seem to have paid off.

Further to this last point, and to your general criticism of the internationaliz­ ing of our industry, I should like to make my position clear. I would also like to question your use of the term “ cultural exactitude” as relating to the sorts of films you believe we should be making.

I am in favor of the production of two types of films in Australia: (i) films aimed at the entire world market, with production values tailored to compete with the world’s best; and (ii) film s aim ed p rim a rily at the A ustralian audience which, of necessity, would either be of lower budget or heavily subsidized.

The only other type of film we could be making is the so-called “ personal film ” and, as I believe that films should communicate (and therefore the notion of audience or market is an integral part of the process from the outset), I can only endorse this approach in short filmmaking.

Although I believe that these two categories are not very far away from your own, I do not believe that either type of film need exclude the other as you seem to.

You further confuse this issue by arguing about “cultural exactitude” . For while you try to describe it as relating to specifics of Australian culture, you define it in relation to the broader context of My Brilliant Career “touch­ ing the lives and experiences of Ameri-

LETTERS

can audiences” . I believe you are really talking here about something called “ universality” , which is certainly my aim whether the location is specifically Aus­ tralia (as in Roadgames) or non-specifi­ cally Australia (as in Patrick). My Brilliant Career has universal story elements which could as easily .have taken- place in Yorkshire or Kansas, and perhaps this is its appeal. And are you seriously suggesting that non­ specific location films like Patrick or Mad Max do not a lso “ to u c h ” audiences, if only at a gut level?

Australia is a cosmopolitan country, and to depict only those elements of our culture that are uniquely Australian would not only be downright impolite to international audiences (and probably boring to our own), but downright culturally inaccurate.

Australian films are capable of “touching” any audience anywhere. In fact, we have-an advantage over the European waves of the '40s and ’50s, in that we speak the major language of the western world. This does mean that we have to compete directly with the U.S., even in our own market, but I for one believe we can make films equal to the world’s best.

But we won’t do it by nationalizing our industry, cutting ourselves off or being “ ockers” . However flippantly you suggest that we re-dub all overseas films with Australian actors, I remind you that the U.S. invented the mid­ atlantic accent out of deference to the rest of us who speak English. To try to assert our colloquialisms and not the universal elements of our culture is as culturally insignificant as asserting that we drive on the left. To become militant about this and try to thumb our noses at the international culture which we have imbibed so willingly in the past will ultimately be destructive.

Many of my fellow producers believe th a t you are being d e lib e ra te ly provocative and that your Sword of Damocles hovering over the industry somehow keeps us honest. But I had the experience of directing a major scene on Roadgames after my leading lady had been in tears because she had read an article about our little set-to, which can only have emanated from your office or mem bers of your organization (this sort of inhospitality is infectious and our directors are now following suit).

I have worked overseas and not encountered this sort of smallmind­ edness — I certainly don’t believe our young industry can afford it. We may need to be insulated in the short term, but we cannot afford to be insular.

I have been warned that I’ll make it harder for myself writing to you like this, but I believe that you cannot be allowed to go on unchallenged and it can’t be any harder to make films here than it is already. I can only assume that you have not had the facts before you, because as I intend no malice towards you personally I cannot believe that you intend any toward our industry as a whole.

Richard Franklin

TELEVISION SALES Dear Sir, Once again, I feel, A u s tra lia n independent cinemas are faced with good box-office Australian films being sold to television long before their potential is outlived.

Two recent examples are Caddie and Storm Boy which appeared on Sydney television on the same night.

Both films could have easily stood regular re-issue, had they not been sold. It seems crazy that a three-yearold film such as Storm Boy, which could have become the Wizard of Oz of A u s tra lia n film s , is now a lm ost impossible to re-use with any success.

Once their main feature-drawing c a p a c ity has been d im in is h e d , Australian films have the great potential — more so than many imports — of

becoming above average supporting features. For example, the receipts for Newsfront increased when Caddie was added to its remaining city bookings.

I have found in my own cinema, and therefore from my own experience, that Being There benefited from using Caddie as support, Eliza Fraser was helped enormously by The Picture Show Man (separately they failed, but together they worked), Death on the Nile would have been a sensation with Summerfield rather than okay with 39 Steps, and The FJ Holden could have gathered some last-minute revenue by supporting Life of Brian. We had repeated success with Bilitis plus The Getting of Wisdom, but alas not any more.

But why c a n ’t we have good A u s tra lia n film s as s u p p o rts as regularly as they are financially viable?

Try operating a theatre and asking for them. Everyone of the above doubles I had to fight for, and everyone took more money on their return visit with an Australian film than separately with non-Australian support films.

Perennially popular Australian films like Caddie, Storm Boy, Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Getting of W isdom are s im p ly w a ste d by outrageously early sales to television.

Who is to know — or, apparently care — that in two years a release may desperately need one of the above to ensure its lasting success and interest in our theatres? Each of the above had very long runs in the single city theatre in which they were released, and so didn’t reach the suburbs and inner country until a year after its first release date.

Who makes these decisions? How could they be so ignorant or careless (or both I think) to the needs of the cinemas these films are originally intended for? This isn’t the U.S. and we don’t have the population to sustain interest or success in films after their television release. After all, as patrons have said to me: “ Why should we pay out good money to see at your theatre what we can shortly see for free on television?” And suck-o to all those who, only two years ago, paid $4 to see Storm Boy. I bet many wish they had waited, like the other 12 m illion Australians who did.

No film in this country will ever have multi-million person attendance until films are allowed to enjoy at least a few years of success at the box-office. But no sooner do they hit the suburbs and country than their television sale is announced. My Brilliant Career is a perfect example. It played to 20 remaining Sydney suburbs after the television sale had been reported in the papers. Thanks a lot. Is it any wonder admissions drop off and a television sale becomes really necessary? What chance does the film or the theatre have to endure success?

It is increasingly obvious that those who produce and distribute films don’t pay to see them. If they did, they would start demanding and holding out for good double features that are value rather than vapid. There are enough bad films released here — Australian or otherwise — that are force-fed as supports to our box-offices which aggravate our paying custom ers enough to be wary if they visit again.

Supports don’t always have to be B- or C-grade, do they?

Incidentally, the same night Caddie, Storm Boy and Fiddler on the Roof were on television, I ran a session of Little Miss Marker and The Electric Horseman to 12 people. I am sure I wasn’t the only theatre with similar attendances.

I reckon if I had 24 people to an A u s tra lia n show, the p ro d u c e r­ distributor would arrange for this sale to television on the grounds that the show wasn’t taking much money. The fact that the television entertainment was overwhelming had nothing to do with it, of course.

Paul Brennan, Avoca Beach Theatre ★

The Quarter Continued from p. 408 form. It combines fiction, documentary footage and analytic graphics in a film that captures the rough realities of life in the Miraflores Housing Develop­ ment. There it explores the conflict between the old cultural habits of the former slum dwellers, who have built themselves this new housing, and the new concepts of life which society now expects. An analysis of marginalism and machismo is intertwined with the conflict of a man and a woman who must each overcom e a different heritage from the past.

Two feature-length documentaries are at the other end of the spectrum from the pure dramas.

Viva La República (Pastor Vega, 1972) is a compilation film presenting a d e v a s ta tin g p ic tu re of p re ­ revolutionary Cuba, especially the decade of the ’50s and the use of televi­ sion by the U.S. to create what Vega calls “a laboratory for the consumer society” . It is characteristic of the directly political films in Cuba that it aims at developing revolutionary con­ sciencia, but without pamphleteering or boring cliches.

The New School (Jorge Fraga, 1973) is a presentation of dozens, of new schools in the countryside where one sees the operation of such concepts as the integration of work and study and the role of criticism/self-criticism. It is all presented in a fast-moving and light­ hearted manner, with the frequent presence of Fidel, a playful man, and the spontaneous quips of the students.

The soundtrack for The New School includes a number of extremely effec­ tive songs from the Experimental Sound Group, organized by Leo Brouwer, classical com poser and guitarist. This group has brought together some of the best musical talent -in Cuba (e.g., Silvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanes) to work in close association with ICAIC’s film directors.

Other dramatic features will include A Man, A Woman and a City (Manuel Octavio Gomez, 1978), The Last Sup­ per (Tomas Gutierrez Alea, 1976) and The Strange Case of Rachel K (Oscar Valdes, 1978).

As well as filmmaker discussions, there will be an exhibition of posters from ICAIC’s poster collective. Cuban film posters are world renowned for their simplicity and beauty and are silkscreened by hand by a group of experi­ enced artists attached to the Institute.

Further information on the Film Week can be obtained from the AFI.

Phillip Adams, who with Kerry Packer and Greg Terry has set up a new film production company.

ANTIPODE PRODUCTIONS Film producer, author and advertis­ ing director Phillip Adams has formed a film production company with media businessman Kerry Packer and lawyer Greg Terry. Called Antipode Produc­ tions, the company will develop at least 12 projects, often involving new talent.

INCOME TAX Melbourne solicitor Ian Baillieu reports fu rth e r on tax proposals affecting the film industry: Since the report in the last issue of Cinema Papers (No. 29, p.313) on the difficulties caused, to producers trying to finance films, by the recent an­ nouncements of proposed legislation to curb “ tax avoidance schemes” associated with the production or marketing of films, there have been two more favorable developments.

The first was a further announce­ ment by the Treasurer, Mr Howard, on September 18, purporting to clarify his August announcement and to allay the fears of “genuine investors” in Aus­ tralian films. The second and more significant was a promise by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in his policy speech on September 30, that if the Liberal Government was re-elected it would legislate to give investors in Aus­ tralian films substantially increased tax benefits in respect of investments con­ tracted on or after October 1, 1980.

The Treasurer said on September 18: “ In a statement I made on 4 August 1980 l announced the Government’s intention to legislate against further sch e m e s of the ‘ e x p e n d itu re recoupment' type, including those that sought to exploit the availability of income tax deductions for expen­ d itu re on the p ro d u c tio n or marketing of a film or In the acquisi­ tion of a copyright, licence or interest in a film. Legislation against 'expen­ diture recoupment’ schemes already exists and it is proposed that these provisions be extended to apply in respect of the schemes subject of my August announcement. “ It has been put to the Govern­ ment that my announcement has created an atmosphere of uncer­ tainty that has resulted in a curtail­ ment of genuine investm ent in Australian films. If this is the case it can only be because of a misunder­ standing of the G o ve rn m e n t’s proposals. “ My statement In August made it quite clear that the proposals are directed only at tax avoidance arrangements and that they will not affect bona fide commercial transac­ tions. As in the case of the existing ‘expenditure recoupm ent’ provi­ sions, the proposed amendments will apply only where the particular expenditure is incurred as part of an agreement that has a significant pur­ pose of tax avoidance. “ The proposed amendments are directed solely at tax avoidance arrangements that involve expen­ diture which it is intended the tax­ payer will have recouped so that he or she makes no real outlay. For ex­ ample, a taxpayer might formally incur expenditure using loan funds that are not effectively repayable, the arrangements being otherwise struc­ tured so that the lender is not left out of pocket. The amount ostensibly lent to the taxpayer, plus the soughtfor tax saving from deduction of the expenditure, would exceed the amount formally expended.

“When employed In relation to films, such schemes were designed to achieve significant taxation benefits whether the films were successful or not. In these circum­ stances the long-term future of the Australian film industry could only suffer from a continuation of such practices. “ I want it to be clearly understood that genuine investors In Australian films have nothing to fear from the Government’s proposals. They can continue to invest in the knowledge that the special two year write-off concession in tro d u c e d by the Government in 1977 is available to them. “ In the light of this statement there

Concluded on p. 511 Cinema Papers, December-January—411

When did you make your first film, Don?

Liz Reed

I applied to the Experimental Film and Television Fund in 1973. I went into the assessment asking for $1200, but everybody felt mine wasn’t a very good idea and didn’t give me any money. Colin Bennett was one of the assessors and he was very negative. Mai Bryning was also on the panel, as was Fred Schepisi. In fact, they were the only ones who showed any interest.

A month or so later I got a letter saying, “ We had some money left over; we are giving it to you.” It was only $800. So I phoned Peter and said, “ Listen, they gave me $800 to make a film, do you want to shoot and cut it?”

The film was Point of Departure.

We had very little money and had to rely on our wits. The only reason we were able to make it was that everybody worked on it for nothing.

For instance, the Department of Army loaned us a 16mm BL for two weeks to shoot it — unoffici­ ally. We had a deal with some army guys and used to give them a dozen bottles of beer a day. We also got a lot of stock cheap and had much of the processing done on the side. It was the only way you could make a film in those days. You couldn’t pay for everything.

We spent the $800, and I did my famous trick of going back to the assessors and saying, “ We have shot half the film and we need some more money.” And the assessors said, “ Listen, you are not sup­ posed to do that.” But they gave me another $1500 to finish it.

At the 1980 Australian Film Awards Hard Knocks won the Jury Prize and Tracy Mann the Best Actress award. Only weeks later the film opened commercially in Melbourne, its release backed by a major advertising cam­ paign for its soundtrack album. And, with an ongoing arrangement with Andromeda Pro­ ductions recently finalized, things seem to be running well for director Don McLennan and director of photography-editor Zbigniew (Peter) Friedrich. But such has not always been the case, as both reveal in the following interview conducted by Rod Bishop. program on h o m o sex u ality , one laid on me a couple of times although Point of Departure isn’t and, at the recent Australian Film really about homosexuality. The Awards in Sydney, some bastard label was just a convenient way of came up to me and said, “ I heard filling up an hour-and-a-half you are bisexual.” I thought, “ What the fuck have I done?” program.

But the central character is gay . . .

How did your next film come about?

Don: True. He was somebody doubting whether he is homo­ sexual or heterosexual. It is more about sexuality than hom o­ sexuality.

Originally, I was going to make it about a woman. But I didn’t really know much about that, so I made it about a man. I was trying to get across the idea that it doesn’t matter whether you are a homo­ sexual or a heterosexual, for males or females. The same problems still arise, no matter what the issues.

I am not homosexual, although “Point of Departure” did reason­ everybody thinks I must be after ably good business at the Mel­ making that film.

Peter: Don’t commit yourself on bourne Filmmakers Co-op . . . that one.

Don: I am not committing Don: Yes. We coupled it with two other films and called it a myself to anything. I’ve had that

Don: I was still manager at the Playbox theatre when Peter was making Apostasy and I applied for money to make a film about King Island, where I grew up. But that fell on its arse at the assessment.

They said to me, “ Well this is all very nice, but how do we know you can direct?”

Gillian Armstrong was one of the assessors, and she said, “ But, what makes you think you can direct actors?” That totally floored me, coming from her. I sort of went out of the interview thinking, “Oh well, that’s it.” Nothing was going to happen. But I got a very favorable assessment.

I thought I’d persevere with it. I went in the second time and an assessor, who shall remain name­

Opposite: Don McLennan (left) and Peter Friedrich.

less, said, “ Look, you can’t make it for the money you’ve asked for.” I still maintain to this day that we could, but I got this line: “ If you can’t raise the rest of the money you are not going to get any money out of us.” I couldn’t raise the sort of money they were talking about, which was another $12,000 to $15,000. Where was I going to get bread like that?

I left the assessment and, about 10 minutes after I bad gone, the same assessor came up and said, “ I reckon I can raise the rest of the money if you do it with me as pro­ ducer.” I said, “Oh yeah” , and just left it at that. I never did get the money.

I had realized by this stage that the assessors weren’t going to let me do the King Island film as a feature. They wanted me to do a 50minute film. It was that old bullshit idea that one had to do a 30-minute film, then a 50-minute film and then a 70-minute film, before doing a feature. So I thought, “What am I going to do a 50-minute film about?” That’s how Hard Knocks got made.

Hard Knocks Did you ever have any intention of making a 50-minute film?

Don: No, never. I had to say I was going to make a 50-minute film. I had resigned myself to the fact that I was never going to be allowed to direct a feature unless I took matters into my own hands. If I went in to the assessment and said it was going to be feature length, I wouldn’t have got the money. I also felt that with the money they would give me for a 50-minute film we could make a feature, the way Pete and I made films. So, I blatantly Cinema Papers, December-January—413

Mc l e n n a n

and

Fr i e d r i c h

lied my way through the assess­ ment.

The whole 50-minute idea is stupid. Firstly, nobody wants to show the thing, because it is only 50 minutes. Secondly, it is going to be on 16mm, which means you have only the Longford or the Co-op as venues. Village, Hoyts or Greater Union — our illustrious leaders in the industry — aren’t going to show the thing.

Thirdly, arbitrary lengths don’t achieve much. I have always wanted to direct feature length films, not because I want to be a feature director, but because it takes that long to say something. A film should be the length the sub­ ject dictates, rather than assessors saying, “ Make a 50-minute film” , or, “You have to find something that fits into 50 minutes.” The whole line of thinking behind that is ratshit.

The C reative Development Branch has to accept some of the blame. They had an ideal op­ portunity three or four years ago to change this when people could have made feature-length, 16mm films for around $50,000. But they never allowed that; they always pushed that 50-minute thing.

The argument they used was the old money one: “ If we give some­ one $60,000, that is only $60,000 to one film, whereas we could give two people $30,000 and they can make two 50-minute films.” But they are the last people who should be saying that sort of thing, when they back into society. Then I started The script evolved from that, spend half a million dollars on one wondering, “What if it’s a girl?” though the only connection be­ feature film anyway. They don’t So, I started a draft about a girl tween that girl and the one in the think like that at the Project who has been in the can, and who film is the bit about her becoming a Branch, so why do they think like gets a job as a housekeeper for model. The rest of the material is that at the Creative Development some guy. His wife has left and they fictitious.

Branch? There’s something not become involved. Then I saw this quite right. I believe they actively article about a girl who had been in The script was written by you and discouraged feature length films, Winlaton and ended up doing some Hilton Bonner . . . although publicly they will deny it. modelling. I talked to her and then They will say no one came up with went to Winlaton to see the people Don: Yes, although it is really a feature length projects but then there. mish-mash of a whole lot of things. they didn’t fund many feature length applications. And everyone ASSESSORS’ COMMENTS wanted money to make a film, no matter how long.

Peter virtually wrote the scene in the restaurant with the cop, for example. I was having trouble with it, so I went to see Peter. We had a few beers and it just came in about half an hour.

Other scenes, like the guy at the piano, were basically Hilton’s. But I wrote a lot of scenes, like the one between Debbie, Tracy and Sam, where they have the argument in the flat. So, it was really a mish-

These comments were supplied by Don McLennan, not the AFC.

How did you get away with making a 90-minute film on a 50-minute budget?

Don: Eddie Moses was the project officer. Hilton and I just took the 90-minute script in and said: “This is the script, we are going to start shooting in two months.” Eddie read the script and said, “ Fine” . Nobody murmured; nobody said a word. Yet the script was obviously feature length. They had it for at least a month, so we didn’t exactly do it behind their backs; we gave them a chance.

Where did you get the idea for the film?

Don: I had been thinking about doing a film on someone who is on the outside, and that led me to the classic situation of the guy who gets out of gaol and tries to assimilate 414—Cinema Papers, December-January

1. The film is flawed. It is too long and would benefit from further editing. The performance of Sam is generally good, though suffers from the unevenness of the film. The scenes between her and her father are bad and should be cut. The two police and the model agency owner are heavy stereotypes well within, the one dimensional. The credit side is that it moves well, the dialogue is good and the portrait of young delinquents is accurate. There are some excellent cameos (Munch, his stuttering girl, the “ partner” and Raelene). The milieu they move in is well documented. The tragedy is that the applicant had ambitions beyond his brief and budget and the film suffers. I feel there could have been an excellent 50 mins film within the material.

The applicant seems unaware of the moral delinquency he has perpetrated in spending his funds on shooting. He seems to believe he’s done the right thing and expects to be funded to completion. I think it is vital that producer/directors be taught to stay on budget, particularly if they aspire to higher budget films where substantial sums are raised from the private sector. I recommend that this project be funded only to tape to enable applicant to seek funds from other sources.

2. I found the script most enjoyable. Need to see double head.

I was very disappointed with this film. I found the characters generally two-dimensional and the acting overall uneven to the point where it seriously interfered with my appreciation of the film. There are some good moments, especially from Sam after she is out of the reform home, and the general structure, etc., is okay, but I don’t think it holds as a feature, and I think it’s quite unsaleable in that form. A 50 mins version might be interesting. I think the applicant has abused his grant by extending the film and the final product does not warrant the spending of further large sums of money.

3. Great script. Really moves well, interesting situation. See double head.

Was quite disheartened to see Sam had failed to realize its potential through a series of rapidly cut scenes which did not develop Sam and had her through bad times and good with insight, but looked at her from the outside only. I found this lack of development impeded any deep response to Sam’s situation, a counter-productive effect. I felt that the filmmaker was more concerned to beat the system than attune himself to his material.

Mc l e n n a n

and

Fr i e d r i c h

Don: I phoned Lachie Shaw at the Creative Development Branch after we had finished shooting, be­ cause I still had $3000 to come, as a contingency. 1 said, “ We’ve fin­ ished shooting the film, and it is a bit longer than you thought it was going to be.” Naturally he said, “ Well, how did that all happen?” I just said, “ Well, it did.” Then they sent me a cheque for $3000, which was very kind of them, and a letter rapping me over the knuckles, saying, “ Well, what happens now?

When can we see a double-head?”

Perhaps I didn’t realize the full implications of what 1 was doing at the time but I thought the Creative Development Branch would have been impressed by what we had done. We had taken $33,000 and delivered a feature length film with a five-week shoot, 10-1 shooting ratio, 14 man crew and several top professional actors in supporting roles. We had deferments involved, of course, with the agreement of both Equity and the ATAEA. I guess I made a mistake.

So, we started cutting. We set up an editing room in my flat, which was next door to Peter’s. I was broke and on the dole and couldn’t get any work anywhere. I had to get someone else in to pay the rent. The editing room moved into my bed­ room, and that’s where we cut the film.

mash, though I wrote the final draft by myself. I think, in the long run, it was basically a 50-50 job be­ tween Hilton and myself.

Once we had the script finalized, we said, “Okay, how much is it going to cost us?” And, to make a long story short, I think we had $30,000 to start shooting.

Peter: We were $5,000 short. We knew, about a week before shooting, that we couldn’t finish

principal photography. I- re­ member sitting in the production office, with Sonny (accountant), Hilton, Don and Rod McNichol.

We just looked at each other for a while, trying to decide whether we should go on, or stop and try to find the $5000. We decided to keep going, knowing there would be no money left.

We finished shooting with 80 per cent of the crew not getting paid for

the last two weeks. But eventually the $5000 was raised and we man­ aged to pay everybody and have the stock processed.

Don: 1 had to get a $1000 ad­ vance off my Bankcard, which allowed us to get the last lot of workprint out of the lab. ■ So you had enough money to get the film to double-head. What hap­ pened after that?

SHAW AND CROMBIE REPLY Lachie Shaw, director of the Creative Development Branch of the AFC, and Don Crombie were both invited to respond to the remarks of McLennan and Friedrich.

1. Lachie Shaw The main point is that if you start off with a concept for a 40-50 minute film, it is probably going to stay that way. You might put in some extra bits here and there, but it does not become a feature unless you change the basic thinking.

Don has chosen to publish the final comments from our assessment panel. I think those comments are right on the ball. I deplore the remarks about Donald Crombie, Eddie Moses and others.

I think that Cinema Papers errs in the belief that the person giving an interview takes the main responsibility for what is published. The editors have the greater and the final responsibility.

2. Don Crombie This brings to me the first knowledge that I’m not likely to be invited to the McLennans’ home for a Christmas sherry. It also reveals a lot about Don. He was aware of the finite nature of the fund, and that had his documentary application succeeded it would have been at the expense of another filmmaker’s project His admission that he lied to his previous assessors and his evident pleasure (unsuccessfully) attempting to screw the system exposes him as lacking professional morality.

As to his comments about the assessment, I’m pleased of not having Don’s gift of recalling year-old conversations verbatim. But I stand by my written assessment printed here (Assessment 1). I am amused that Don favored the allegedly mute Ron Saunders. I trust that next time he flunks an assessment, Lachie Shaw can arrange for a blind assessor as well.

I hope that in the course of a long and successful career Don McLennan will consent to serve on the assessment panel, where he will face the challenge of sharing a limited sum of money among many talented and deserving applicants. He will then understand why there are guidelines for assessors, and how unpleasant and difficult the process becomes when an applicant wilfully breaks his agreement with the fund, then presumes the divine right to continuing support.

How long did it take to get to the first cut?

Don: Only about two months. Of course, that version changed quite a bit. We would take it down to the Longford cinema, have a look and then go back and re-cut it. Peter changed the structure around quite a bit: 1 virtually watched and learned. It was a great experience, because not only was Peter the editor, he was also the camera­ man. He knew the shots as well as I did.

People in the industry are mainly against one person performing both roles but 1 think it is fantastic. The old cry of “ objectivity” is always raised, but that’s their problem.

Just because it mightn’t work for them, doesn’t mean it won’t work. I think it worked very well on Hard Knocks. Peter cut for performance — not photography. I even had a battle keeping some things in, al­ though now I can see what he was on about.

The whole process took about nine months. Then we went back to the Australian Film Commission.

We asked for money to finish it on 16mm and, alternatively, the money to finish it on 35mm. It was rejected outright.

Who were the assessors?

Don: Don C rom bie, Ron Saunders and someone from Sydney, whose name I can’t re­ member. Ron Saunders was a great assessor: he didn’t say a word the whole time; just sat there. The Cinema Papers, December-January—415

Mc l e n n a n

and

Fr i e d r i c h

Andromeda appeared, we re­ instated footage to make an 85minute film.

Don: There is some distorted be­ lief that you can cut things back to 50 minutes if you want to. Perhaps you can with some films, but if a film is shot to a certain length, you can’t. Two of the top editors in Australia said the film wouldn’t work at 50 minutes. They both agreed with our cut. So, you wonder when people like Don Crombie, who is supposedly a veryexperienced director, can look at the film and honestly tell you it can be cut back to 50 minutes. You can only assume a couple of things from that: that the guy’s an idiot, or he is trying to make mischief.

You mean he was being con­ descending . . .

woman thought that Tracy looked so cute with her short haircut up against the brick wall that it could have been a Vogue shot. That was the assessment process.

Don Crombie said, “ Oh 1 love this actor. I would like to see more of him” , and “Oh, the fat man’s a bit overdone, isn't he?" Then he said. “ Why is it this long, instead of 50 minutes?“ Things went from bad to worse, though I must say I came away thinking we would get some money. I was devastated when they rejected it.

Did you feel you were rejected be­ cause they didn’t like the film, or be­ cause you had been a bad boy?

Don: Because I had been a bad boy. I am convinced of it. I don't think they rejected it because they didn't think it worked as a 90minute film. But then, they could have. I don't know. You never get to find out those things from the assessors, and I can only guess.

One of the things they said was, “ We wanted you to make a 50minute film, and unless you cut it back to 50 minutes, don't even bother re-applying, because we won't consider an application."

So, we sat around for a couple of months. I started talking to the Victorian Film Commission about it. but before anything eventuated in that area. Andromeda appeared on the scene.

How did you contact Andromeda?

Don: I had met Trevor Lucas in a pub at a reception for a film he had produced, called Beg, Steal or Borrow. He rang me a couple of weeks later and said, “Are you still looking for some money to finish your film?’’ When Fsaid, “ Yes” , he suggested we have lunch and talk about it. It took four or five weeks before Andromeda said, “ Okay".

416—Cinema Papers, December-January

Did they pay for the entire film?

And winning several awards . . .

Don: Yes. Andromeda bought the film off us and put up the money to finish it. They own the copyright, but we have a per­ centage of profits, as does Tracy.

Andromeda gave us the money to pay the AFC back — the entire $33.000. That was probably the first time the Creative Develop­ ment Branch ever got its money back. They didn't lose a cent and, on top of that, the film ended up being feature length.

Don: Yes, the Jury Prize and Best Actress award at the Aus­ tralian Film Awards and Best New Talent for Tracy at the Sammys.

Peter: The AFC saw a very honest 76-minute cut. I thought that's what the film should have been, but they insisted that it had to be 50 minutes. So we actually studied the structure of the film for about a week. What could we take out? If we took anything out, it d i d n ' t m a k e s e n s e . W hen

Don: He was playing the line of the establishment which, in this case, is the AFC, saying it has to be 50 minutes. I am damn sure that when the assessors met in Sydney to consider the application, Lachie Shaw said his two bob’s worth about it being a longer film than it should have been. I bet that had a lot of bearing on what the assessors decided. I would love them to tell me differently.

I think the problem was that sud­ denly they had a film on their hands that had escaped the system. It was a rogue film they had not given approval to.

Continued on p. SOS

1 9 8 0 ADELAIDE FILM

F E S T IV A L ^ ^ ^ ^ H Noel Purdon

On the last day of the Adelaide Film Festival the State Government initiated a law protecting historic shipwrecks, so maybe there’s some hope for the Festival yet. But let’s make it clear: saying that the 21st Adelaide Film Festival was not a dis­ aster would be like pointing out that the Titanic had lifeboats.

Moreover, it didn’t just sink, it was at­ tacked by the biggest iceberg the state had let loose in years: censorship. As the Attorney-General’s frosty hand gripped the vessel, and the passengers were scuttled, the band played to almost empty houses. The pleasant new venue in fre s h ly -la n d s c a p e d H indm arsh Square looked forlorn. The courteous staff of the Academy Cinema was as bewildered as the Keystone Cops sent to seize the filth film at the wrong screening.

And the Festival organizers, preoccupied with their running battle with Attorney­ General, K. T. Griffin, watched disheartenedly as films failed to turn up, were recalled for viewing by the Com­ monwealth Attorney-General, or arrived surrealistically with dialogue in Japanese and sub-titles in Portuguese.

The net result: four cancelled ses­ sions, two films prevented from being shown, five resignations from the Festival board, and a bewildered public staying away in their hundreds.

It had all begun promisingly, with almost 40 Australian premieres lined up, and films from Britain, the U.S., Asia, and Western and Eastern Europe. A Young Festival, a Television Section and a D ire cto r’s R etrospective had been carefully selected to complement the main body of films, all passed as usual by the Commonwealth Censor on the condi­ tions established for film festivals in this country. Then, disaster struck.

Without notifying the Board, the Chief Censor, Lady Duckmanton, informed Griffin that Melvin Van Peebles’ Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song might contravene the child pornography laws.

Griffin, with a discernment worthy of the Ayatollah Khomeiny, duly concluded that it did.

Griffin had seen only the opening of the film, in which a young black boy of about 12 and a black woman of about 20 simulate sex together (with not a genital in sight, incidentally). But that was enough to alert him to other "filth” as well. Why, one film was even quite shamelessly called Prostitute! The fact that this was a serious documentary by Ken Garnett, Ken Loach’s collaborator and respected social commentator, did It no good at all. Off It went and the Festival lost its validity and credibility.

Miraculously, the ban on the Festival films did not seem to affect films on com­ mercial release. The Tin Drum, which displays a boy much younger than Van Peebles jun. engaged in all sorts of fascinating oral activities with a naked adolescent girl, was wisely (but in­ congruously) left alone.

It should be made clear to Griffin that he banned a major film, a landmark In the history of black cinema praised by all serious critics. Since I saw it at a press show, I intend to review it anyway. It is a useful reminder that the rage of blacks is very great indeed, and it fits well into the

Europe Andrei Wajda’s Bez znieczulenia (Rough Treatment) has already been praised for Its political courage. I can merely add that Its visual style — tight composition, extraordinary reverse angl­ ing, use of video and big close-ups — is a superb demonstration of a classic direc­ tor’s continuing need to experiment.

The best single film In the Festival was fro m th e S o v ie t U n io n . A n d re i Tarkovski’s Stalker is a masterpiece.

Whether read as an allegory of the life of Intellectuals under a repressive system of State capitalism, or more broadly as an existential questioning of all modern culture, it is visually compelling and philosophically engrossing.

From Andrei Rublev through Solaris, Tarkovski has shown his mastery of epic scope, and his ability to weld the most in­ ternal images with the most external. Not even Stanley Kubrick achieves this, and Tarkovski’s criticism of civilization Is in­ finitely more searching and scathing than anything coming in similar science­ fiction films from the West. This is what should discourage critics from in ­ terpreting the film too narrowly as an at­ tack on a Soviet no-man’s land.

The zone through which the Stalker leads his scientist and artist is a recognizable one. We all live in it whenever we view a film, and the world into which the film returns, the world of drab waiting rooms and industrial waste sprawling round a waterway, is also horrifyingly familiar.

Tarkovski uses his familiar images of water bursting through interiors, and domestic human objects mysteriously tracked and flown over to create a destruction myth as haunting as the creation myth of Solaris.

context provided by the other Festival films on racial oppression.

Sweet S w eetb ack is a c le v e r manipulation of white stereotypes. It is also a strong political film whose closing title is “WATCH OUT: There’s a baad-aas nigger coming back to collect his dues.”

As the American critics Donald Bogle and Jam es M onaco p o in t out, it categorizes ghetto life precisely to purge fears and give morale to "All the Brothers and Sisters who have had enough of the Man” . It does this by a process of defin­ ing what it rejects in the way of white icons.

So, like Jean Genet’s niggers In The Blacks. It is not afraid of darkness (most of it is underlit), or of vibrant color (there are dazzling solarizations and optical step-printing in reds and yellows). It uses simultaneous narrative by means of mul­ tiple superimpositions and gives its in­ sets the quality of ragged blues notes. It is not afraid of a body style of non­ naturalistic acting. It is not afraid of the ordinary bodily functions which make white diretors, such as William Friedkin, believe that the devil must be about.

Conversations are conducted casually while people have a crap or a douche.

And it is certainly not afraid of fucking, and badass fucking at that.

Anyone who has any doubts about the political force of style as form should see this film. Their anger on behalf of blacks would certainly have been increased by seeing in addition the three documen­ taries: Jonathon Wacks’ Crossroads, Franco Rosso’s Dread Beat An’ Blood and Antony Thomas’ Six Days in Soweto, all of which would have been an impor­ tant feature of any festival. Together with Ross Devenish’s Marigolds in August, they added up to a vigorous indictment of white culture.

How the Athens of the South flinched when Devenish had to remind us, at a seminar afterwards, that not even South Africa would dare to ban a film passed for a festival! Moroever. he pointed out that Australians were still permitting their recent films to be shown under apartheid conditions when they exported them.

If there was any message to be gained from the whole sorry mess, it was about how cosily racism and sexism nestled under the liberal surface of Australian culture, and how valuable film could be as an active political force. All the best films in the Festival demonstrated this.

Also from the Soviet Union came Vladimir Menchov’s Moskva slyesam nyewyerit (Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears), a persuasive and quite false film which purports to show the changing social and sexual relationship of a group of women from the late 1950s to the pre­ sent. Despite the fact that present-day Soviet differences In class and sex are at least raised for view and discussion, the film falls far short of the honesty of either Tarkovski or Wajda, and retreats instead into the familiar territory of social realism (read the same code of urban pat-patpat on the back already familiar in the U.S. and Europe).

Here, it struggles daringly around for a while trying to keep Its ideological pants on, before giving up with a display of plot machinery unrivalled since the last piece of Soviet social realism. Moscow will clearly win through, with nary an eyedrop, and you can see why the Three Sisters wanted to make it there, because it looks so nostalgic.

Having read of the recent treatment of feminists in the Soviet Union, and been In Moscow during the period in which the film is set (at which time it bore a great resemblance to Chicago), this critic doesn’t believe In fairy tales.

Opname (In For Treatment) is a

Cinema Papers, December-January—417

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL

535323232323234848480000000101

Nikos P anayatopoulos’ Melodrama?, shot in the empty, som bre Corfu.

strongly-crafted film from the Dutch Het Werkteater. A dedicated ensemble and two-handed performances by Helmert Woudenberg and Frank Groothof give it rare naturalistic power.

As a film about people confronting out of the blue the nearness of their own deaths, it also showed great compassion and rationalism, resisting the temptation to present hospital staff as ogres, or un­ comfortable visitors as callous. Instead, strangely enough, it is touching as well as enormously funny.

If Opname recalls a stage play in its lim ited m ise-en-scene and camera angles, it does so to the advantage of our concentration on the actors and the script. And both are excellent.

Robbe de Hert’s De witte van sichem climaxes with one of those lugubrious kermesses which the Belgians have taken dourly to their hearts ever since Breughel. A grim film, despite its attach­ ment to painterly landscapes and careful creation of period, it exposes the mean­ ness of spirit of its dreary and spiteful characters.

De Hert is not-particularly strong on narrative, losing himself in some unpur­ sued byways. His epilogue points out that there will always be boys like Whitey, who will simply not fit into any society designed for them.

Sweden’s Linus, like a lot of Vilgot Sjoman’s films, starts out with a fine sense of period mise-en-scene and at­ m osphere, and ends in the same metaphysical mess that bedevils most novels turned by their fond authors into films shot by themselves.

Finland’s Korpinpolska (The Raven’s Dance), d ir e c t e d

by M a r k k u Lehmuskallio, begins with a beautifully still documentary account of the land­ scape and animals of the frozen north. In com position and telephoto it often creates a poetry reminiscent of Japanese ink drawings. And if its human story (that of bureaucracy gradually encroaching on those who live in balance with this world) fails to come through, it only reveals more clearly the director-cameraman’s obsession with meditation and sublime emptiness.

From France, Le coup de tete was an unexpected little winner. It concerns a star soccer player malgre lui, engagingly played by Patrick Dewaere, and droily directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud.

Though it skates at times over some pretty precarious sexist ice, the pace of the performance and direction always

418—Cinema Papers, December-January

keeps it moving, and on balance.

A F re n ch -S w iss c o -p ro d u c tio n , Claude Goretta’s Les chemins de I’exil (Roads of Exile), is an ambitious and very drawn out film about J.J. Rousseau and his long-term mate, Therese Levasseur.

It has two fine central performances by Francois Simon and Dom inique la Bourier.

The film ’s intention was apparently to show Rousseau as a precursor of Marx and Freud, but despite its frequent use of texts and quotes this isn’t what emerges.

Through its well-matched locations and slowly-paced editing, what comes out is a portrait of a whinging neurotic with whom it is impossible to feel sympathy.

Unlike Goretta’s earlier films, where the protagonist/victim is given both sub­ jective and objective confirmation (e.g., the cliff game and the poster in The Lacemaker), the book burnings and devious officials in Exile merely serve to explain Rousseau's deterioration.

Ventura Pons’ Ocana, retrat intermi­ tent (Ocana, a Gay Portrait) invites com­ parison with Shirley Clark’s Portrait of Jason, and it doesn’t come up well.

O cana, a h ig h ly -i.m p re s s iv e but blancmange-brained Barcelonan queen, has more than memories of under­ development. As the film reveals, h'^ lives in them. He is not sure whether he supports the gay movement (he doesn’t like labels), and he is not a transvestite (cousin of the Python Mounties, he just like to dress up in ladies’ clothing and hang around in bars) and he didn’t get on with the Fascists (because they only took the upper-class boys to the beach).

But, as he flounced through tavernas and cemeteries cawing our cante jondo, he certainly snapped a mean fan, and the d ire c to r obviously thought he was fascinating.

A great absence this year, missed not only by the considerable Italian popula­ tion who last year flocked to Tree of the Wooden Clogs, was anything from Italy.

The single Greek offering was a puzzle.

This was N ikos P a n a y a to p o u lo s ’s Melodrame? (Melodrama?), a film which appeared to have been scripted by Alain Robbe-Grillet, and shot by Samuel Becket in revenge for a bad encounter with the Greek Tourist Board.

In drizzling rain and Arctic spirits, its characters trudge through an empty, sombre Corfu. If it were one of Italo Calvino’s invisible cities, this would be the one that was on the point of not ex­

Jean-Jacques Annaud's Le coupe de tete, which “ skates over some pretty precarious sexist ice” .

isting at all. Its inhabitants have con­ tinually to test their reality with tape­ recorders, alternative versions of themselves and arias from the more florid Italian operas. Its core is occupied by a screaming mother, dying in horrible pain. Its angst and existential despair put hellonophile audiences off.

Melodrama? opens with a glorious dawn landscape seen through a window, and a title epigraph from Andre Bazin: “ Cinema opens a window onto the world.” This is followed in the same shot by an old woman's hand reaching into the frame and closing the window!

Perhaps the film contained more sub­ versive irony than its critics allowed it. A comparison with last year’s Girl with the Golden Hair, set on a similarly bleak Zanthe. might remind one of that black Byzantine strain in Greek culture which has closed windows in the country for centuries. .

Youth Festival and Tribute to Joseph L. Mankiewicz The Youth Festival consisted of films at least two years old, including John Carpenter’s Dark Star and John Duigan’s Mouth to Mouth, which have already been widely seen elsewhere.

The tribute to Joseph Mankiewicz was an attempt to imitate the retrospectives of larger festivals. It concentrated, for reasons of economy (you can get most of the films from the National Library), on his output between 1946 and 1950. There is no doubt that he was a brilliant s c rip tw rite r, one of the g re a te st American wits and, in All About Eve at any rate, a highly intelligent director in full control of some of Hollywood’s most difficult stars.

If a section like this is to become a feature of future Festivals, it must, as in Edinburgh, either be accompanied by seminars, or by the presence of the director in question. Edinburgh can af­ ford Douglas Sirk, Sam Fuller and Roger Corman. Adelaide might very wisely select an Australian director.

Australian Cinema It was good, though, to see the ex­ perim ental side of Australian film represented, with Mike Clark’s bitter ac­ count of heterosexual nihilism in Shift, Dave Woodgate’s collectively felt Cub­ bies and Philippe Mora’s Trouble in Molopoiis.

A team to be watched consists of Richard Michalak and Marc Rosenburg, who respectively directed and scripted the very professional and funny Gary’s

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL

compositions, harsh lighting and fierce juxtaposition of beauty and violence gave it, like its protagonist Enokizu, a tigerish and magical quality.

Documentary

Salmaan Peerzada as Hussain, with his baby son, in Jam il Dehlavi’s The Blood of Hussain.

Story, a highlight of this Festival and the Australian Film Awards.

Encouragement should also be given to David Muir, for his emerging series of “studies” of Australian paintings. Both the Whiteley Self Portrait in the Studio and The Lacquer Room on CossingtonSmith use panning and montage over single paintings with as much assurance as the established European traditions in this kind of filmmaking.

Asian Cinema Hong Kong’s The Legend of the Moun­ tain, directed by Hu Chin-ch’uan and King Hu, purports to be an elegant and romantic film about magic. It is, in fact, an interminable 186 minutes of mindnumbing silliness, with verbal and per­ formance codes based on the Western, and notions of magic derived from kungfu and a liberal use of colored smokep o ts. In c o m p a ris o n w ith K enji M lzoguchi’s Realizations of sim ilar mediaeval stories, it looked what it was: vulgar and half-witted. Any Taoists in the audience failed to take advantage of their

powers of flight and fell gently to sleep instead.

India’s Once Upon a Time had also caught the kung-fu bug, and had lots of scowling and heroics. At least it handled its narrative with flair, and its locations with economy.

It is significant that again the best film from this area, Jamil Dehlavi’s The Blood of Hussain, is also the most political.

Made in 1977, it uncannily foretold the military coup in Pakistan which took place one month after shooting was com­ pleted.

With splendid photography by Walter Lassally and some nasty caricatures of ;~ corrupt officials by Pakistani and Euro­ pean actors, it achieves an unusual mix­ ture of western-style documentary and dramatic narrative with Shi-ite myth. Its director now lives (of necessity) in London.

Shohei Imamura’s Fukushu sura-wa ware ni ari (Vengeance is Mine) was another deeply disturbing film from Japan. Reminiscent of Nagisa Oshima’s assault on the clash of ancient values and modern over-capitalism, its sinuous

Once again, it was revealed not only what an excellent medium film Is for biography, but how much the result de­ pends on the personality of the subject.

Harry Rasky’s Arthur Miller on Home Ground is the latest in a series of Cana­ dian bio-cinema, and promised well as a portrait of one of the great American liberals. But how phoney it all sounds, with its ponderous existentialism and home-grown boy complaisance. Rather than telling us anything deep about the man, Rasky allows Miller to do a beautiful snow job on himself.

As he intones various great scenes from the Opus, what comes over is the dreadfully-inflated quality of his philoso­ phical prose, like a group of people with hiccups giving alternate readings from the Bible and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Miller Is also less than honest about Marilyn Monroe, but you can see what a disaster they must have been for each other: the guilty, remorselessly articu­ late New York Jew, and the Middle American sex icon with the tied-up tongue, for whom the mere conscious­ ness of guilt was intolerable.

By contrast, in Chris Vernmocken’s lo sonno Anna Magnani (I am Anna Magnani), La Diva emerges as a woman real and admirably heroic. This model of a compilation film becomes virtually a history of Italian cinema, with excursions into Jean Renoir and Jean Cocteau, and interviews with her galaxy of directors, fellow actors and friends. It reveals the Identity of her sexuality and her politics, a great example of a woman who so ex­ pressed the historical consciousness of a city that she became Mamma Roma herself.

The film shines with Magnani’s beauty, the dark baroque beauty of Rome at night, and is a worthy tribute to her spirit, intelligence and honesty.

The U.S. Marshall Brickman’s Simon reveals how bland his scriptwriting would be without Woody Allen (his collaborator on Sleeper, Annie Hall and Manhattan) to give it that combination of visual austerity and quirky direction of dialogue which individualizes the latter films. Simon, about a quixotic college lecturer per­ suaded by a g roup of Pentagon brainwashers that he is an alien, comes across as smooth whimsical satire, whatever hard edges it develops in its plot.

One of the great delights was Gai Young Un, an astonishing first feature by Victor Nunez, using as cast and crew various students and teachers from Florida University. If ever proof was needed that the academic and the prac­ tical can lend strength and intelligence to each other, this film is it. With its muscular script, and fine camera work by Nunez himself, and its authentic score, it combines a brilliant central performance

by Dana Preu.

Gal Young Un revitalizes the American prohibition film as radically as Robert Altman. Its sense of mood, pace and location, and its powerful end-twist mark it as one of the best films to come out of the U.S. in years.

Anna Magnani in Chris V ernm ocken’s com pilation film, I am Anna Magnani.

A neglected section of the Festival revealed, to an audience of about 10 people, how high is the quality of the sort of American television one never sees here. Robert Geller’s acclaimed series of

short stories by James Thurber, Willa Cather, John Updike and Ernest Gaines provided a Sunday morning of sheer bliss.

The C ather sto ry, Paul’s Case, directed by Lamont Johnson, was es­ pecially impressive, with a tracking camera, cutting pace and mise-en-scene worthy of Luchino Visconti.

Where to Now? Finally, in a class of their own, must go Ken Loach’s The Gamekeeper and JeanLuc Godard’s Sauve qui peut la vie (Slow Motion). With The Gamekeeper, Loach keeps up his collaboration with writer Barry Hines to produce a film so perfect that it seems to have achieved the natural reality and rhythm of its sub­ ject matter. Loach is one of the great mimics of cinema. With protean deftness his films become what they are about, mixtures of nature and culture where the seam has become Indistinguishable.

In The Gamekeeper, Loach’s usual, In­ sistent concern with class, his focus on the family, and his love of the pre­ Norman speech of the provincial and the proletariat are set in a form of great beauty and sly, subversive power.

Organized round the seasons and the stages in the life of a pheasant — from egg to target for upper-class twit — it concentrates on the day-to-day reality of George Pruse, gam ekeeper for an absentee lordling. Subtly, through G e o r g e ’ s e c o n o m i c and s oc i al relationships, Loach creates a moral vi­ sion of an England where both nature and culture have been the care and product of the people.

The film’s conclusion is a game-hunt wort hy of Renoir. George and the villagers act as shooters and beaters for the returned Duke. While George’s wife Mary is “ helping out” in the kitchen of the Big House, and George is paid off with a patronizing and discreetly slipped hand­ ful of notes, His Grace and cronies, male and female nitwits, guzzle it up over their dead birds. George returns to his cottage alone.

As the final titles come up over a slow zoom on to his frozen pie and chips waiting on the kitchen table, it is imposs­ ible to repress a snort of indignant irony.

The Gamekeeper was well supported by another British feature by film school graduate Bill Forsyth. By the time it was screened. That Sinking Feeling might well have described the state of mind of the Festival organizers. Instead. It turned out to be a very funny farce from Scotland about a group of hapless would-be thieves, whose treasured targets are stainless steel sinks.

The acquisition of Godard’s Sauve qui peut would have done credit to any inter­ national Festival, and might have been acknowledged as such in anybody’s language. But not, apparently, to the godly of Adelaide. One of the board members on the other side of the cen­ sorship battle, together with his lady wife, was constrained to walk out of the screening because of the “ disgusting language” which he could read in the sub-titles.

This brings one back to the question: where now the Adelaide Festival? If peo­ ple like the above-mentioned have their way. we will be seeing films, as he promised, “ fit for the average subur­ banite". For the insulated and injured Claudine Thoridnet, who has sought to raise the intellectual and cinematic stan­ dard of the Festival to world level, such board-members must make work impos­ sible. From them, and from the reac­ tionary State Government, she and the people of Adelaide might expect an apology. From the determined and ongo­ ing president. George Anderson, one ex­ pects action. ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—419

BREAKER MORANT RETHOUGHT or Eighty Years On, The Culture S till Cringes

“A slice off a cut loaFs never missed.” Breaker Morant’s exclusion of women in any terms, other than the sexist, helps consolidate the Film’s One wonders what Breaker Morant would “Australian” values of mateship and manliness. have “been” (i.e., what it would have been con­ Breaker Morant’s other repression is structed as) had Jack Thompson not won that historical. The film represents three groups Cannes Award as Best Supporting Actor. For engaged in Fighting the Boer War: the Boers, the that European seal of approval seems to have it British and their irregulars, the Bushveldt Car­ set up as the Australian Film of the 1980s, the bineers. Yet the Boers, like the North Viet­ crowning glory of the 1970s’ film renaissance, namese in every Western fictional film about the celluloid proof of the industry’s “maturity” . Vietnam, are in effect absent from Breaker Hosannas of praise ran from critic to critic, and Morant. They may be glimpsed, but any view­ the Film went on to win nine out of 13 Australian Film Awards. And just as the Award ceremony played heavily on Breaker Morant’s “Australianness” — this during a pre-election, sabrerattling phase in which the Government deftly exploited the film’s imagery — so almost all Australian reviews of the film have hailed it in terms of that proud Australian image. Thus, the film must be analysed in these terms.

It should be made clear that I have no inten­ tion of decrying Breaker Morant’s real achieve­ ments: its being more historically accurate than the play on which it is based, its being virtually the First Australian Film to broach questions of the country’s colonial heritage and its being more likely to prompt intelligent thought about national stereotypes than, say, My Brilliant Career. But these achievements fall far short of many of the claims made for the film. It barely develops the national and historical issues out­ lined above, and rests content with trading political-historical analysis for dramatized point they may have — political, economic, moralities — moralities central to the Film’s ideological or even moral — is simply never made available. When they are shown, they are Australianness.

The Film is founded on a twofold repression. always bearded, scruffy and shifty-looking. Only The more obvious repression it shares with once is a Boer fighter ever heard to speak, and recruiting ads and most war Films: women. then in Dutch, denying having shot Captain Small wonder that the awards for best perfor­ Hunt (Terence Donovan). This marginalizing of mances by actresses in leading and supporting the Boers facilitates the rewriting of history in roles went elsewhere when Breaker Morant terms of a morality play.

The Boers once removed from the stage of offered nothing female beyond the decorous fig­ ments of ocker and poetaster fantasy: the con­ history, Breaker Morant structures audience sorts, respectively, of Lieutenants Handcock sympathies along very clear lines. While aligning (Bryan Brown) and “ Breaker” Morant (Edward one against the Kitcheners, it does not side Woodward). The film’s repression of women is one with the Boers, but with a counter-terrorist as natural as the sexual division of labor in con­ and largely Australian fragment of the British ventional warfare. As the film shows it, while the Army. The audience is invited to hate Boer men Fight, their wives lust after the odd Kitchener’s lies, hypocrisy and political oppor­ handsome Australian. Anecdotally: the loudest tunism from the standpoint of the men who laughs at both evening screenings I attended in become scapegoats for those politics. Our heroes central Sydney were raised by Handcock’s line: are honest, forthright, courageous, manly and

Stephen Crofts

420—Cinema Papers, December-January

stoic as they are betrayed by the British high command they have so loyally served. Especially when reinforced by the irreverence and ockerism of Handcock, these traits add up to something very close to the Australian self-image, to the “ Australian character” , to the “manliness, com­ radeship and sardonic dignity” noted by Bob Ellis (Nation Review, October 1980).

There are three problems with heroizing such characteristics. First, the obvious sexism.

Second, this is a negatively-deFined identity, constituted in terms of its opposition to the

British Imperials. Third, the promotion of the underdog, of the Aussie battler, brings the “Aus­ tralian character” perilously close to gallows humor. These are the traits which enlist sym­ pathy for our heroes, which ensure a good laugh at corrupt authority, but which do nothing to challenge the real bases of that authority. This is close to the philosophy of “ She’ll be right, mate.” To heroize the three lieutenants’ doomed deFiance is to make a jingoistic virtue out of a set of characteristics whose effect is to perpetuate the ruling order. Heroizing, after all, is predicated on identiFication with characters, and when these characters are shot or imprisoned the film can offer nothing more than a point­ lessly diffuse elegy. End of Film. Identification denies any consideration of alternatives and precludes analysis of situations in any terms, other than those the narrative sets for them.

The film’s marginalizing of the Boers has

BREAKER MORANT RETHOUGHT

political-cultural implications which argue a dif­ ferent conception of Australianness. Breaker Morant overlooks the political-cultural similarities between the Boer in South Africa and the Australian in Australia. Both cultures were colonized (imperialized for the Boers) by the British; both live with the aftermath of that oppression; both are in the Southern hemi­ sphere; both are Europocentric; both are — if differently — racist. A comparison between these two cultures, or just the sympathetic representation of the Boers for Australians, could be highly instructive.

Instead of examining or even broaching such

tion. And this in turn pre-empts any serious con­ sideration of the justice of shooting Boer prisoners or suspects, which is surely the major issue touched in the film. But the film’s morality tale gives no understanding whatever of how the next My Lai might be stopped. Such crucial issues of 20th Century warfare are safely tidied away as asides by the black-and-white moralism of the courtroom drama, a genre, moreover, which guarantees precise narrative resolution and a strong narrative drive towards that end: how can one imagine alternative (hi)stories when the film glides so irresistibly towards its foregone conclusion?

issues, however, Breaker Morant in effect invites one to view its representations of the Boer War from the political-cultural standpoint of the im­ perialists. Even if the film does quibble over their morality in the occasional show trial, it barely questions their right to be in South Africa; it mentions British concentration camps and their killing of civilians, women and children only in passing; it never shows, let alone analyses, what imperialism means for the every­ day life of its victims. The film’s nearest ap­ proach to this last issue is the travesty of Our Ladies in Waiting for our ocker hero, Handcock. Our heroes may bitterly resent their treat­ ment by the British, but insofar as they accept war as a job and articulate no critique of the im­ perialism they are fighting and dying for, they endorse the political-cultural values of the British.

But by what token can one, now, identify with that imperialist culture when Australians have themselves been colonized by the British? Does Federation, to which of course the film alludes., allow Australians suddenly to cast off their colonial mantle? Or does Australia’s gentle genocide of the Aboriginal qualify it for the Henry Kissinger Award for Services to Humanity? In view of the film’s subtext of cultural displacements, it is no mere irony that one of its paragons of the “ Australian character” is an expatriate Briton, Morant.

Breaker Morant’s denial of the Boers as any valid historical force is vital (or, more accurate­ ly, deadly) for the film’s conceptions of justice.

The shooting of Boer prisoners or civilians “suspected” of being Boer sympathizers is an issue, first and foremost, insofar as it affects the drama between irregular soldier and British high command, not as it affects the Boers (or others) they may kill. The questions are then two: Were our heroes right to follow orders? and: Were the British wrong to deny having issued those orders?

Given the film’s simpleness — compare Paths of Glory or King and Country — the moral sur­ face of these questions is barely scratched and more than ample time left for righteous indigna­

The justice theme is mythicized out of history by the predominant idealization of Morant and by the individualist justification of his shooting the Boer, Visser (Michael Procanin), along lines identical to the revenge moralities of many a Western: Visser is suspected of killing Morant’s close friend Hunt, to whose sister Morant is engaged. The execution epitomizes the procedures by which story supplants history: in­ stead of shots of the dying Boer, Morant is seen suffering his righteous fury in having him killed.

Similarly, the impact of Handcock’s killing of the German missionary, Reverend Hesse (Bruno Knez), is cushioned by the elegant introductory long-shots, by the comfortably composed dead Hesse and by the narrative context of killing as sexual hors d’oeuvre.

In the face of such personalized urgency, as that of Morant or Handcock, there is little room for logical argument, historical accuracy or political analysis. In the context of so heavily predestined a narrative, any alternative action to such killings is unthinkable. With justice so manifestly on Morant’s side, how could one ever see him as the prototype of Lieutenant William Calley?

How, then, does Breaker Morant manage

such votes for the warmongers, while appearing to be so pacifist and Australian? What, in other words, underpins the film’s cultural dis­ placements? The problem concerns Australian cultural identity. Bob Ellis is symptomatic of the problem when he writes: “ It’s not the Poms who should be kept out of our industry. They have a historical right to be there. They are a part of our society — as are the Greeks, the Italians and the Chinese. It’s the Americans who are not us and never will be.” (Nation Review, October 1980.) The assertions are engaging. But one might ask by what “historical right” Ellis can assimilate the British into his multicultural vision and exclude the Americans. This amounts to saying that British colonialism is okay, but American imperialism is not, when for Australia the latter is the recent counterpart of the former.

In between — if we are to believe the likes of Ellis — must lie a history of institutionalized amnesia.

Breaker Morant, like Ellis, contributes to that amnesia. The film tells nothing of the history by which Australia, having been effectively denied an indigenous white cultural identity by British colonization, has failed to come to terms with that experience and now still suffers from cultural cringe. The marginalization of the Boers in the film makes it difficult even to see the need to construct that history. The film’s anti-Pom jokes give no more access to that history than does the risible caricature of imperialism in Kitchener’s rueful comment about witnesses un­ favorable to his machinations behind the show trial: “ I daresay it’s too late to send them [after all the others] to India.”

Lastly, two caveats. It might be objected that it is the preserve of art (Breaker Morant appears to be deemed art, rather than entertainment) to create fiction, that it is the right of the artist to project his or her own “vision” of the world. I don’t, obviously, deny Bruce Beresford — if he be the lone artist concerned — the right to his views; I merely suggest that in Australia in 1980 — I write, moreover, on the day of Ronald Reagan’s election success — there are more progressive comments to be made about the Boers, about Australia, about war.

It might equally be objected that art can serve to relieve one of the drudgery of everyday reality, that one should not seek to know in art the unpleasant facts of life. I don’t, obviously, deny people the right to such views; but I do suggest that such views bury the head in artistic sand and deny the possibility of even thinking that society might be improvable. To maintain that Breaker Morant does not affect people’s ideas about war and about Australia is like pretending that children don’t want to see more television violence. What has then to be asked is: Why is this the situation? and then: How might it be changed? ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—421

Samu Fuller Survivor Tom Ryan Samuel Fuller’s is a cinema which tells stories only to abandon them. One takes from his 20 films a memory of faces, images, sounds and actions, brutally and beautifully juxtaposed in a strategic subversion of narrative coherence.

His characters exist as if in a comic book, stripped of their personal histories and thus of any psychological density, existing forever in a present tense, sketches, outlines, figures glimpsed and frozen in the m om ent of seeing, archetypes. They represent the struggle to stay alive, a battle waged according to a code whose only rule is survival, on a battleground which has no space for the death-in-life of social obedience.

They are characters whose existence depends on Fuller’s creative play, and the course of their time on the screen represents a defiance against the inevitable death of “ The End” . They smoke cigars (like Fuller), they are journalists (like Fuller), they are novelists (like Fuller), they are soldiers (like Fuller) . . . Their place within the films that own them is dwarfed by the absurdities that surround them, a legacy of the rubble of humanity. Their war is against

the image of the exploiter, the sign of whose power is the uniform, The Big Red One if you like, constantly resurrected from the debris of death. Their enemies are not the ones in the sights of their rifles, but the ones in whose name they fight for their lives.

Though they are Fuller, they do not see what his films show us. They can open doors on the horrors of the world, but they are shut off from the sight of the ideology that controls their minds and surrenders their arms and legs to the service of “ Right” .

To move through a Samuel Fuller film is to move through a minefield. A stream of sequences teases the audience with the possibility of The Story, charging it with well-learned expectations, only to explode them before its eyes. The business deal is detonated into fragments, the illusion is shattered, and cinema is restored.

It is a cinema whose images refuse to see in the forms of realism, declaring their fascination with that which is camouflaged by a facade of order: an underworld of passions forever on the brink of madness, a corridor lined with the faces of men and women twisted by the insanity which is the history of the world.

Cinema Papers, December-January—423

SAM FULLER

that you prefer “emotional vio­ lence”, and you talk about “the bul­ lets of emotion” . . .

There are many recurring concerns in your work, including your novels, from “ I Shot Jesse Jam es” onwards. For example, you seem always to have heroes and heroines (the heroines of films like “China Gate” and “Naked Kiss”) who live on the border-line of, or outside, the law and middle-class morality . . .

Frankly, I don’t cotton too much to physical violence, even though I use it a lot. It is good for films, and it is good for many melodramas.

That has been proven as far as theatre ticket-buyers are con­ cerned. They like action, but I pre­ fer emotional action.

A really emotionally violent situation, for me, is in an old film I love, written-by Noel Coward and directed by David Leah, called Brief Encounter, with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. It has more violence in it — emotional violence, which to me is pure violence — than an automobile chase, or a horse chase or a Fight in a saloon.

There is the violence inside a woman who is about to cheat on her husband, and the violence inside a man who is about to cheat on his

I think they make the best characters in any film or story — anyone that is involved in what we call the lower depths, whether it is Dostoyevsky with The Idiot, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, the Count of Monte Cristo or anyone who has been double-crossed by society. For some reason, these melodramatic characters seem to last, and have proven that they ensure much more interest, as far as the reader, and today the viewer, is concerned, than the typical, saintly do-gooder.

Are you deliberately confronting your audience by making them empathize with these characters?

No. I am only concerned that these people, whom I call “Gutter People”, have their own code of honor. Even though I may not agree with them, they have a code that interests me.

I met quite a few when I was a reporter. I found out that their way of thinking and living, ironically enough, had more solidity, as far as the unity of their camaraderie, than the saintly people. They are thieves, pimps and whores, and are very “ low” people, but they stick together in a way that the churches would like to have people in their congregations unite, though they never do. They do not secretly try to outlive each other, or live on lies — and we do.

I would rather tell the story of a whore than a sweet girl who comes to the city and meets a young good­ looking man, marries him and raises children. I don't see any­ thing dramatic about that. It may be dramatic to other writers, but I could not write that kind of copy.

filth as the journalist passed them, on entering the asylum. The Holly­ wood censor board refused me per­ mission. I produced photographs, from several mental hospitals, showing this was no fabrication, and still they said no. So I said, “The hell with it” .

I wanted to do a story of the mal­ treatment of patients — the insane people — by the sane people, where the sane people are really acting in­ sane. They have nothing but con­ tempt and impatience for anyone who is sick.

When a man breaks his arm or his leg, or has some kind of physical sickness, we say, “ Isn’t that too bad?” We don’t shy away from them. Yet we don’t want to have anything to do with people who are mentally sick. It is just like talking about corpses. People turn away; they don’t like it. I think we should try to help.

Almost as a counterpoint, there is the repeated intrusion of children into the action of your films. That seems to be a device that Sam This seems to tie in with the ele­ Peckinpah uses too, perhaps in­ ment of madness that recurs in your fluenced by your work . . . films. One often finds oneself inside Yes, and I love his films. You asylums (in films like “Shock Corridor” and “The Big Red One”), know, he called me — I’ve never but that madness is also linked with met him — and offered to do 2nd these characters who are the out­ unit on The Big Red One. I thought siders, who function on the it was a good idea, but it didn’t come off. I would have loved it. periphery of society . . .

Anyway, whatever has hap­ As far as I am concerned, we are pened with adults will reflect on one big wonderful asylum, though children. Wherever I went in the we always shake our heads and say, war, I saw many children, and they “Tsk, tsk, tsk” , when we see any­ always stayed in the back of my one who is abnormal, or sick mind. There is something that gets mentally. to me about a child trying to I have covered some insane emulate an adult. It is unfortunate asylums in my day, and the true for them that they grow up and be­ story I wanted to tell, I couldn’t come the same kind of sons-oftell. At the beginning of Shock bitches, and they presume to pass Corridor, for example, I wanted to judgment on a new generation of show naked men and women children. I laugh when I think of it. chained together on benches in a long corridor, sitting in their own But in “Shark” — and I know it is a 424—Cinema Papers, December-January'

film you are not happy with — there is a very positive relationship be­ tween the child called Runt, and Kane played by Burt Reynolds . . .

I thought it would be interesting to show an adult thief and a child thief working together. I wanted to show, very clearly, the attitude of the adult thief, where, instead of inviting the boy not to steal, he tells him the important thing is not to be caught. That to me is an editorial about how a lot of people raise children.

I have had the experience of seeing that in life. I have talked to young hoodlums, who told me when they were kids, that they were brought up by other hoodlums, who never tried to differentiate between right and wrong, because it would be ridiculous for them to even think at that level. All they try to do is control their means of thievery, so that they won’t be caught. I thought that was pretty funny.

In your films, there are very often characters who are named Griff (“The Baron of Arizona”, “House of Bamboo”, “Forty Guns”, “The Naked Kiss” and “The Big Red One”). Is there a story there?

No, it’s just that I write a lot of stories and I get sick and tired of trying to change the names. Once I was writing two stories at the same time, and the character of one appeared in the other book. I got all confused, so I said, “Whenever I can, I’ll use the same name.”

It’s easier for me to write that way; there is no real Griff. But I will have to stop it now because I have done it too often. It’s just mental laziness on my part.

In your films, there is a lot of physical violence, which might be connected with the fact that you have made Westerns, gangster films and war films. But you have said

wife. They are doing something they not only believe to be wrong, but something they both reject, even though they are accepting it at the same time. That to me is pure violence, and only once in a thou­ sand times do I find that in a film.

In “Pierrot le fou” you say: “The

SAM FULLER

film is like a battle-ground. Love, hate, action, violence, death. In one word, emotion.” . . .

Yes. That encompasses every­ thing, because that is all we can write or talk about. Even in the American presidential race, there was a violence towards the end, when they began to mud-sling each other. You don’t have to be violent with your fist; a voice can do it just as well. One word can cut the hell out of your heart. That to me is violence.

The one aspect of your career you haven’t really made a film about is filmmaking. Do you have any plans for such a project?

No, but if I ever did approach a story about Hollywood, I would do it about the censors. It would rip the hell out of them, and expose them for what they are: parasites, frauds and hypocrites. I would do a

the censorship office in Hollywood as an entree to selling scripts. That to me is a pretty good reflection of what the hell they represent.

In 1964 you wrote: “An artist’s hell will always be paved with the skulls of critics and the bones of censors.”

You politely avoided mentioning critics in your tirade against cen­ sors. Do you still feel the same way?

Yes. They have to make a living, but what is wrong generally is the way they use films. If they can write anything that will enlighten some­ one who’s done a book or a poem or a play, or made a film, I think that is worthwhile.

George Bernard Shaw used to be a critic. When he became a play­ wright he wrote a goddamn article about critics — and he tore them apart.

On the other hand, I have read some wonderful critiques by writers whose essays are a hell of a lot

nothing really wrong in all that, thing, and I would enjoy what he whereas I have little patience with wrote.

When I was in Germany, a new the critics who rip off publicity sheets or brochures on a film. They theatre opened in Cologne and they are not the major critics usually, asked me if I would review a film. I but they take the goddamn copy out said, “No, I don’t write reviews” , of the brochure and write it as if but they said, “ Do any film you they were writing a review. That’s want to see.” an example of taking money under Well, I had never seen The Ballad of Cable Hogue, so I said, if they very false pretences. ran that film for the opening, I’d write about it. When I saw the film, Ever since I first read that essay, I I realized it was a modern version have felt, “Hell, that’s a bit un­ of Moliere’s Tartuffe, done very grateful to those French critics-cum- well.

Above: Zab (Robert Carradine), cigar, uniform, insignia and rifle in The Big Red One. Left: The Sergeant (Lee Marvin) takes aim at Griff, number 9. in the run on Omaha Beach. The Big Red One

filmmakers who have always been very respectful of your work.” JeanLuc Godard, for example, dedicated “ Made in USA” to you and Nicholas Ray . . .

film about what makes a censor a better than what they were writing real blue nose — those pious sons- about. I would rather have them of-bitches who tell you what to do shoot what they wrote, than shoot and what not to do, and how to what they were covering.

But, there are those critics who think, and what to show. just want to get their own literary One reason I am pissed off with them is that, quite a number of guns off, who want to prove they years ago, I ran into one who was sleep with the Thesaurus and the trying to sell scripts. He was using dictionary. I suppose there is

I talked to some of them recently in France and we discussed what you just brought up. I think any man who wants to be a critic and review films must also love films and want to make them. That is perfectly logical and I am en­ couraging that. A number of ex­ critics have become writers and directors in the U.S., and it has happened on a grander scale in Europe, specifically in France, Italy and even in Britain.

I am very fond of Peter Wollen, for example. I met him in a bar in Edinburgh, in 1969. He had ideas, and I said, “Write them” . I was de­ lighted to hear that he did. He and another man wrote a story called The Passenger, for Michelangelo Antonioni. That makes me very happy. He did something about it.

Francois Truffaut and a few other Frenchmen were working in publicity departments and they wrote reviews. But their love for cinema was sincere, because what they wanted to do was to make a film; it was not just a job.

I have tremendous respect for a number of critics and writers. To me, a man like Cyril Connolly, or Edmund Wilson, can cover any­

The other reviewers in Cologne and Berlin were very upset with my review. They only wrote about whether they liked the film. I didn’t give a damn about that. I wrote about the cleverness of using Tartuffe'. a man with one hand under a girl’s skirt and the other holding a bible. I just loved it. I think the critics were scared of something different.

I assume from the fact that you ac­ cepted parts in films made by Godard, Luc Moullet and Wim Wenders that you admire their work . . .

Yes, very much. Wenders called me again recently and said, “ Would you do a walk-on for my new film Hammett?” And I said, “ Cer­ tainly” . I really enjoyed it. It’s not finished, but so far I am still in it.

You also acted alongside Nicholas Ray in “An American Friend” . . .

I have known him a bit for a long time, but we didn’t really work to­ gether. Wenders was making a film about him in New York, and he called me and he was crying. He was all choked up and said, “Nick Ray died.”

It seems to me that your stories seem less concerned with psycho­ logically complex characters, and Cinema Papers. December-January—425

SAM FULLER

more with the complexities of sit­ uations. You seem to deal with groups rather than individuals, the groups being defined by some com­ mon goal or set of rules. Are you consciously working against the idea of the ‘individual’ in your films?

Yes. It’s not a question so much of getting into the character’s history or weaknesses or strengths.

My hope is that somebody in the audience, seeing that character, will see his own weaknesses and strengths, and that there will be an empathy on that level.

Yes. I am highly conscious of the If I ran Pick-up on South Street way society can break up certain for 1000 priests, 1000 ministers and people into types. I am curious 1000 rabbis — I am talking about about whether the same thing hap­ religious people now — I would be pens among animals. I want to very interested to know if any of know if there is a lion who is a thief, them would have a reflection of a lion who is a marauder, and a lion what he did as a child. Did he steal? who is very gentle.

Did he lie? That’s what I am It is strange that society has cata­ interested in. logued people to such a point that I don’t like to pin-point anyone now, as we are moving towards in black and white. Most of us have another century, we still pin-point a hidden side: most of us get away everyone as black and white, as with it, some of us are caught out.

very difficult because I don’t want to get into anything futuristic.

When you go into a restaurant, you might say “ Hello” to some­ body you see, who says, “ Hello Do you ever fall in love with your Tom” . And even as you are saying characters, or do you see them “ Hello Pete” , in your mind there is simply as devices to be manipulated something that could have hap­ according to that color system? pened in the office three days ago, and on top of that is what hap­ Yes, I fall in love with characters pened in the car while you were that I know I am going to kill. In driving to the restaurant.

Generally, the average human Pick-up on South Street, for ex­ ample, I fell in love with the being has a thousand flashes that go character of Moe, played by through the mind in the time it Thelma Ritter. I knew many Moes. takes Pete to say “ How are you, She was a composite of men and Tom?” and you to say, “ I’m okay, Pete.” I’d love to get that on a women who are police informers.

Thelma’s dead now, but while we screen. were shooting I told her how much I loved the character she was In your films, your characters relate only through the way they bargain with each other, deceive each other, or else are forced together by some common purpose, rather than by any emotional commitment. That seems to represent a very cynical attitude towards the human animal . . .

stories, so I have to be very careful not to get my situations and characters mixed up.

No, on the contrary. I don’t believe I am a cynic. I am quite an optimist. I might get angry, but there is a big difference between cynicism and anger.

I am only a cynic when it comes to the hypocrites’ familiar bullshit.

They will tell you it’s bad to steal, or it’s bad to kill, or it’s good to show compassion, and then go ahead with their inquisitions.

That’s been happening for hundreds of years. Don’t forget the Spanish Inquisition, right through to those going on now in South America and Africa — or in Iran, in Khomeiny’s little backyard. There, one man says, “ I’m a good Moslem and you’re a bad Moslem because you do not pray on the right knee to Allah.” It goes way back to Socrates; nothing has changed.

I get the sense, from the way you talk and from “The Big Red One”, that you are dealing with the ab­ surdity of human behaviour over the ages. People supporting or killing each other according to a set of rules . ..

good and bad. It is just something that I can’t understand. I am no anthropologist.

It excites me to deal with how society breaks itself down. I try to reflect that on the screen. I didn’t make up stories about pick­ pockets, communists, radicals and reactionaries; they are just re­ flections of what has happened all over the world, in every country. I think that makes very good copy, because I am not making it up; I am just using them as tokens.

You never give much of a character’s history, but deal more with how a character acts in the present tense . ..

426—Cinema Papers, December-January

But I think all of us have to taste that same emotional reaction.

Would you explain what has been described as your “colored chalk system” of planning a film?

I have a blackboard and I sep­ arate it into three panels for Acts 1, 2 and 3. Naturally, white chalk just means my storyline. I introduce characters by using yellow chalk. If I have anything “ romantic” or “gentle” or “ peaceful” , I use blue.

And for “action” I use red.

If I am doing a melodrama, I look at the bottom of Acts 1, 2 and 3, and if the red does not increase from 1 to 2, and 2 to 3, then I don’t have a melodrama. I write a lot of

playing. And she said, “ Look, don’t fall in love with me too much, be­ cause I love the scene where they blow my head off, and I don’t want to lose it.”

There is a sort of violence in the way you put your films together. Often within the image you will juxtapose a romantic background with a violent foreground, and in a film like “Verboten” you are constantly cutting on speech, or cutting off a scene before it would be cut off con­ ventionally. Is that deliberate?

Yes. It’s a dream of mine to make a film that honestly shows on the screen the cuttings that go on in the mind of any man or woman. It’s

Exactly. I don’t feel cynicism, just anger. I tried to get it in one goddamn sentence in that film, where it is all right to kill sane people, but it is bad for your image to kill insane people. Now that is how low we have sunk.

Why did it take 30 years for “The Big Red One” to come together?

It was my fault. I had collected a lot of wonderful little mementoes in Europe during the war — many barns would be wallpapered with newspapers and magazines — but I didn’t do anything with them I would write something down and send it to my mother, giving her the name of the town, the country, the date and the action. I Continued on p. 498

Directors Row

Scott Murray reports on the issue o f whether foreign directors should be allowed to work in Australia. Other opinions have been sought for future issues, in particular Pom Oliver and Errol Sullivan, and Gillian Arm strong. Oliver and Sullivan declined comment in this issue, say­ ing they preferred to wait until the filming and the finance o f Hoodwink were finalized.

If Equity’s actions over the use of foreign actors in Australian films has been the big industry issue for several months, it has recently had to take a back seat to the related dispute over the use of foreign directors. The film in the hot seat is Hoodwink, produced by Errol Sullivan and Pom Oliver of CB Films.

Originally, Sullivan and Oliver approached four Australian directors, and the agents for several others, but all declined to do the film.

The decision was then made to go with Claude Whatham, a British director of four features (That’ll Be The Day, Swallows and Amazons, All Creatures Great and Small and Sweet William) and several television series (e.g., Elizabeth R).

The producers approached the relevant union, the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees’ Association, on July 16 for permission to employ Whatham and on October 8 approval was given. Damien Stapleton, federal secretary of the ATAEA, remarked, “The union is satisfied CB Films have made extensive efforts to sign a suitable Australian director. We . . . are satisfied Claude Whatham’s employment is justified.”

However, no doubt invigorated by the penumbra of Equity’s recent actions, a group of directors hurriedly set about forming the Australian Feature Film Directors Association, with Gill Armstrong as chairman. Meetings of directors wgre then held in Sydney, Melbourne and Sorrento, Italy, where several Australian filmmakers were attending the Encounter.

Two motions were put to the meetings: (1) Australian films with a majority of government funding must have an Australian director; and (2) Hoodwink must meet thèse requirements.

In a letter to Stapleton, James Ricketson, in­ terim secretary of the AFFDA, wrote: “There was unanimous support for the first motion (some directors feeling that the guidelines should be tougher), but a final close vote (20 to 16) went against taking action over Hoodwink at this late stage of production. The meeting was unanimous that Australian feature film directors had been ‘hoodwinked’ by the ATAEA, the New South Wales Film Corporation and CB Films.”

Firstly, the meetings were not unanimous over the first motion: at least one director openly op­ posed it. Secondly, at the time of calling for votes, no articles of association or constitution existed. This makes the AFFDA’s status, as to calling for a “vote” , rather dubious.

Thirdly, there is the issue of the way in which only certain directors were invited to attend. Did the AFFDA organizers actively select those it wanted to approach, or in its haste to be formed did names simply slip the collective mind?

In Filmnews, Gillian Leahy unquestioningly reports the AFFDA’s claim that it “circularized all 47 people who had directed features in Australia” . But at least 86 Australian directors have made a feature here since 1970. What hap­ pened to the other 39? ' On top of this, there was the attendance at the

meetings of five directors who had not directed a feature. Why, out of the countless short film­ makers, did only they appear?

Whatever the answers are to these questions, it is clear those directors in attendance did not represent, fairly or legally, Australian feature film directors. It wasn’t, and cannot be argued otherwise to be, anything more than an atypical sample.

Now, even though the second motion was lost, giving Whatham a reprieve, the AFFDA does not see the issue as closed. Armstrong, in a letter to The National Times, wrote: “ We hope in future no further permission will be granted to foreign directors without con­ sultation with its [the ATAEA’s] director membership.”

This, and similar remarks, raises the issue of whether the AFFDA intends all its members to join the ATAEA. If this is the aim, then several Australian directors will be unwilling, further reducing the validity of the AFFDA’s claim to being “ representative” . Richard Franklin, for one, has continually refused to join the ATAEA, despite occasional pressure. He points out that directors in the U.S. are not required to become members of IATSE, the ATAEA’s equivalent.

Now while such criticisms are easily levelled against the AFFDA, the issues raised by its members remain. One question is whether a producer has a right to appoint a director of his or her choice. If the film is more than 50 per cent government-funded (and the finance on Hoodwink is unfinalized), then many say, “No.” The justification for this stand is that taxpayers’ money should be used to foster an all­ Australian industry. However, the relevant parliamentary act, The Australian Film Commission Act 1975, makes no demands as to “ all-Australian” talent. In fact, the act deliberately caters and allows for a Hoodwinktype situation: “ 3.(1). In this Act, unless the contraryintention appears, “Australian film” means a film — (a) that has been made wholly or sub­ stantially in Australia, and that, in the opinion of the Commission, has a significant Australian content; or (b) that is to be made wholly or sub­ stantially in Australia, and that, in the opinion of the Commission, will have significant Australian content; or (c) that has been, or is to be, made in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement entered into between the government of Australia or an authority of Australia and the government of another country or an authority of the government of another country.”

Therefore, to claim, as some do, that the AFC was established with the responsibility of promoting all-Australian films is incorrect. Had that been the Government’s intentions, such wording would have been drafted into the legislation.

Of course, this is not to say the act should be immune from criticism. But while it remains in force, the AFC cannot be criticized for funding films which employ foreign talent and which contain “ significant Australian content” . In fact, if the AFC bowed to sectional pressure and funded only all-Australian films it could be charged with contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of the act.

So, while a ban on foreign directors cannot be defended legislatively, its proponents have chosen to argue along different lines — the most common tack being similar to Equity’s “ Defence of Employment” policy. This position maintains that Whatham’s working in Australia has deprived an Australian director of a job. His presence is, as one filmmaker put it, a “threat to my livelihood” .

Firstly, in reply, Sullivan and Oliver approached numerous directors without success.

Their list of acceptably talented directors ran out. Had they not been allowed to venture outside Australia, the film may not have been made. In such a case, Whatham’s employment cannot be seen as having deprived anyone of a job.

Secondly, had Sullivan and Oliver been compelled to employ someone who they felt was unqualified for the task, this may have resulted in a bad and. possibly, uncommercial film. One leading Melbourne scriptwriter, and former Victorian Film Corporation board member, when posed with that dilemma, replied, “ I would rather a bad all-Australian filmthan a good film that employed foreign talent.” Imagine if, throughout history, the champiofts of art, music and architecture had taken that stand!

As to the “threat” argument — i.e., the belief that a foot in the door leads to the floodgates opening — that has been used consistently for 10 years and there is still no evidence of its accuracy. Who are these foreign producers and directors out to rape and plunder our industry?

Where are they? They are conspicious by their absence.

Another curious aspect about many recent discussions is the willingness of people to defend an inconsistent stand, saying such tactics are justified because A ustralia’s is a small, defenceless industry. This is clearly evidenced in the argument of some directors that while no American directors should be allowed to work in Australia, Australian directors should be allowed to work in the U.S. This double twist of logic has interesting parallels with the attempts by some American gay groups to stop Cruising being made. When one protester was asked why he was attempting to deny director William Friedkin right of free speech, he replied: “ It’s absurd to argue the First Amendment in this case, because it presumes equality. There is no equality as long as we haven’t the power or the economic base that Hollywood has to make films on the scale of Cruising.”

The obvious answer to that, as pointed out by gay activist Edward Guthmann in Cineaste, is: “ How can one honorably defend the First Amendment without recognizing it as absolute. What justifies any group, however maligned, to claim themselves exempt from Constitutional imperatives.”

One can add: what gives any group of Australian filmmakers the right to take hypo­ critical stands which, in the attempt to secure personal gains, deprives the liberty of others to make creative choices.

Surely it is time for self-interest to be overcome in a concerted attempt to preserve the right of people to pursue artistic integrity, as they see fit. As John Rechy points out in his article on Cruising in The Village Voice, evoking the words of Thomas Paine: “ He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy against opposition . . . if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ★ Cinema Papers. December-Januarv—427

T W E N T Y Y E A R S OF R I C H A R D L E S T E R he stands aghast at human callousness and in­ sensitivity. From the way in which his characters are often passionately devoted to an ideal and ariety is the keynote of Richard the way in which some films seem consciously to Lester’s two decades of filmmaking. build towards a central image of romantic love His output comprises musicals, (The Knack, Robin and Marian), one senses a comedies, a musical comedy, war romantic strain in Lester that is awaiting full ex­ films, historical romances, a pression. Yet he is vexed by the problem of how to express modern romance, adventures both ancient and this romanticism without looking modern, political thrillers and a western. Some foolish in a world where sensation has taken the of his works have been immediately acclaimed place of feeling. So his films always seem to end as among the most likeable and enduring of in a more melancholy vein than was anticipated modern films (looking back with melancholy ad­ at the start, as if the romantic idealist has been miration on A Hard Day’s Night Richard overtaken by the rational realist.

Corliss commented: “ We have aged and it In Cuba, a shot of Alexandra (Brooke hasn’t.” Others (How I Won The War, Cuba) Adams), standing by the hero’s bed, looks have a forbidding, eccentric obliqueness which momentarily as if Filmed through a soft, at­ seems to delay proper recognition of their ex­ mospheric gauze, only for the material between us and the heroine to be revealed as a severely pressive skill.

With their sensitive, witty perception of con­ practical mosquito net. There is invariably a temporary anxieties, films such as The Knack, sting to Lester’s romanticism. The tempera­ Petulia and Juggernaut show Lester to be one of ment, then, is elusive but seems darker and more the sharpest chroniclers of our own times. But he complex than is traditionally associated with is also one of the current cinema’s most am­ him, or what one might have anticipated from bitious time-travellers, surveying, for example, the works of the early 1960s with which Lester mediaeval Britain in Robin and Marian, the rose meteorically to cinematic prominence.

The phenomena which particularly launched France of Louis XIII in the Musketeers films and the American West of the 19th Century in Butch and Sundance: The Early Days. His modern perspective combines with his historical enthusiasm to forge a link between past and pre­ sent, recognizing a common refrain of injustice, inequality and confusion and reflecting too that people throughout the ages have responded to adversity with similar kinds of stoical humor.

A further connecting thread across this diver­ sity of genre, style and period in Lester is the coherence of his vision of society and the consis­ tent intelligence with which this vision has been expressed.

At the heart of this impressive body of work lies a paradox. Lester is an entertainer, a come­ dian, who, as Jules Feiffer once remarked, has “ a way of making a film your friend” . But he has also made some of the most pessimistic, in­ tellectually-taxing films of the modern cinema.

He wants to entertain an audience, but — and this might be the same thing in Lester’s work — he also wants to provoke them, to make them work.

Although invariably approached as the products of a knockabout farceur with modest satirical aspirations, Lester’s films often offer a Richard Lester on the set of Cuba. scathing misanthropy, the director’s compassion for the bruised individual momentarily stilled as

N eil Sinyard

V

428—Cinema Papers, December-January

Lester’s career were, of course, his two films with the Beatles, A Hard Day’s Night and Help!

He seems to have been chosen for these films for two main reasons: the facility he had already dis­ played in shooting musical numbers in It’s TTrad, Dad!, and the Goon-like surrealistic humor evinced in his classic short, The Running, Jump­ ing and Standing Still Film, which, as it hap­ pened, was one of the Beatles’ favorite films.

In retrospect, the approach taken with A Hard Day’s Night is significant in mapping out various aspects of Lester’s style and future con­ cerns. What he does is to move behind the facade of the Beatles, not so much in terms of their characters but in terms of their situation. What he discovers is power without freedom: four people with an astounding effect on audiences and yet whose life is confined within cars and rooms; a potency which paradoxically has produced a claustrophobia so acute that one of them has to plan an escape as if from a prison, and their only relief is a quickly-snatched game in a field.

The theme of power without freedom is elaborated on a much larger scale in Lester’s masterwork, Petulia, in which he senses that America’s image of itself as an ideal of super­ power democracy is a conviction which is begin­ ning to wilt under the pressure of rapid and con­ fusing social change.

Another theme which emerged from A Hard Day’s Night was a fascination with figures of legend and the kind of situations this legendary status engenders. A number of Lester’s films have people who are, or are about to be, trapped by their own images and discover that the suc­ cess or security or ideal that they have striven for has suddenly gone sour. Ringo walks out on his situation for a while in A Hard Day’s Night; Robin Hood becomes disillusioned with the king to whom he has devoted his life in Robin and Marian; and, at the end of Butch and Sun­ dance: The Early Days, when Sundance shouts out, “ We’re gonna be famous!” , the film does not simply stop but freezes, marking the mo­ ment indelibly as the end of their freedom.

This concern with the limitations of legend can be seen to relate to several other aspects of Lester’s work. There is, as we have observed, his interest in history. It relates also to his frequent observation of the split between appearance and reality, the signals which his characters transmit to others rarely being an accurate reflection of what they feel themselves about their situation.

(Archie and his wife Polo might be a

DICK LESTER

Julie Christie in the title role of Petulia, “ Lester’s masterwork” .

Oliver Reed. Michael York, Richard Chamberlain and Frank Finlay in The Three Musketeers.

“ marvellous-looking couple” in Petulia, but the surface is deceptive, Archie being about to walk out on this marital materialism and comfort because he wants “ to feel something” .)

The complications of charisma also reflect Lester’s interest in the processes by which legends are created, which in his work takes the form of a meditation on film myths and the mechanisms and meanings of the media.

Lester’s films occasionally antagonize people because they are often reflections or satires on film genres and hence often disappoint expecta­ tions. His films display a certain irreverent at­ titude to movie conventions. How I Won The War trains its satirical weaponry not only on the obscenity of war but on the obscenity of war films, and indeed on the hypocrisy of anti-war films like Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory which, in Lester’s view, far from being pacifist, merely advocates a way of killing people more humanely. “ Let’s have the show right here!” , shouts John Lennon mockingly in A Hard Day’s Night, spontaneously sending up the artificiality of the traditional movie musical which is further undermined by the film’s “documentary” style.

The Beatles’ films finally introduced another theme which has surfaced more than once in Lester: the generation gap. Treated humorously in The Knack, with adults offering a disgruntled running commentary on the antics of the four young principals, it has been expressed more ferociously in other films when the elders seem to see such youthful behaviour as devaluing the sacrifices made by them as parents. “ I fought the war for your sort!” , exclaims the man on the train in A Hard Day’s Night when being an­ noyed by the Beatles. Lester clearly prefers the social attitudes of the young in films such as It’s Trad, Dad! and The Knack, and this early obser­ vation of the conflict between generations has been extended into a more general inquiry into authority, his films examining the trappings of power and various subversive attempts to under­ mine or displace it.

Lester’s anti-authoritarianism is seen in his frequent, incisive indictments of various forms of educational, religious or political indoctrina­ tion, and in the way in which his films sometimes convey an anarchic spirit, both formally, in their disregard for the orthodoxies of narrative realism, and thematically (his attitude to the terrorist in Juggernaut, for example, being strikingly more sympathetic than his attitude to the politician).

This sense of anarchy and conflict serves to reinforce a point made by Joseph McBride in a brief but perceptive survey of Lester’s career in the 1975 International Film Guide: that the im­ age of battle runs through most of Lester’s work, perhaps surprising in a man most instantly as­ sociated with comedy. Obviously there is a strong streak of violence in all slapstick humor,

via the television screens, Petulia is centrally about the theme of domestic violence. Archie (George C. Scott) returns to his apartment and switches Vietnam off the television screen, only to find Petulia (Julie Christie) at his feet, beaten almost to death by her husband. “Only a crazy man hits a woman,” says the husband (Richard Chamberlain) later, “ or a coward.”

The alignment between violence, madness and cowardice links Petulia directly with Lester’s preceding film, How I Won The War. It is a remarkable connection, since it implies the same potential in peace-time as in war-time for casual, uncontrollable violence.

Robin Hood (Sean Connery) supports the King (Richard Harris) with whom he has become disillusioned. Robin and Marian.

but a characteristic of Lester, in films like How I Won The War and The Four Musketeers, is to take it to a point where it no longer becomes fun­ ny, compelling a viewer to confront the tragedy beneath the farce. This interest might explain his frequent collaboration with the writer Charles Wood, whose work for film and theatre has often concentrated on the behaviour of the military man and whose play, Veterans (dedicated to Lester), extends this military im­ agery into the situation of the making of a film.

Lester has sometimes suggested in interviews that he sees filmmaking as a sort of military operation, in which the director is ultimate dic­ tator, although he has always maintained a clear distinction between necessary discipline and mindless discipline. Warfare is a recurrent event in his films, from World War 2 in How I Won The War, through the nuclear devastations in The Bed-Sitting Room, to the Castro revolution in Cuba. Even a film like Petulia, set in San Francisco in the 1960s, had a poster which proclaims: “The oldest battlefield in the world.

You know it by another name. Marriage.”

Melodramatic, perhaps, yet one feels that the imagery appeals to Lester and it is certainly reinforced in the dialogue (Petulia: “ I’m fighting for your life.” Archie: “ Who is trying to kill me?”). Against the background of the military and political violence of Vietnam and its increas­ ing impingement on the American conscience

David Hemmings in Juggernaut.

ester’s preoccupation with violence reflects his vision of society as an irrational, fearful force in which the fate of the individual is precarious.

His world is not one in which heroes prosper, for, as we have seen, even the potency of the famous is illusory. By surrounding his central character with a number of other characters of more or less equal significance, by placing him against a busy and closely-observed social background, and by questioning the ef­ ficacy of many of his actions, Lester diminishes the prominence of the conventional screen hero and offers a radical revision of his power and prowess.

Even in the Musketeers films, it is striking how d’Artagnan becomes progressively less in control of a series of events which culminate in tragedies he attempted to prevent. Robin and Marian is specifically about the death of heroes and heroism. Major Dapes (Sean Connery) in Cuba behaves like a 20th Century Musketeer, displaying a kind of gentlemanly courtesy learnt from old skirmishes and old films that looks ab­ surd and incongruous, in terms of his own mercenary values and in the theatre of modern warfare.

Lester’s offbeat approach to the usual heroic stereotype is most apparent in Royal Flash, in the discrepancy between the account offered by the headmaster at Rugby of Flashman’s legen­ dary valor at Afghanistan and the catalogue of ignominious surrender we actually see. The close-up adulation of the camera to introduce the coward Flashman contrasts vividly with the modest first appearance of a genuinely brave man, the bomb-disposal expert, Fallon (Richard Harris), in Juggernaut, who is framed slightly off-centre and visually dominated by the bright red background. The contrasting visual presen­ tation pinpoints the imperfect perception of both societies of what true heroism is, as well as the way in which the values of a society are implied in the people it values.

In Royal Flash, its blind admiration of a charlatan like Flashman becomes symptomatic of the hypocrisy at the heart of Victorian

L

Cinema Papers. December-January—429

DICK LESTER

Butch and Sundance: The Early Days and “the limitations of legend” .

society. In Juggernaut, its inadequate valuation of courageous professionals like Fallon is revelatory of the society’s impoverished, meanspirited soul.

The fate of Lester’s heroes invariably implies a judgment of the society in which they operate and, indeed, the contexts of Lester’s films usual­ ly impress themselves on the attention as much as any individual. To judge from interviews, Lester’s procedure in preparing a project is to begin by researching extensively the society in which it is set, establishing the general context for action and only gradually working his way inwards towards specific characters.

Inevitably, this method of procedure has an effect on the final film, influencing its structure and its meaning. Thus, films as seemingly dis­ parate as A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, The Three Musketeers and Cuba are alike in the way in which the physical characteristics of their societies are elaborated before the main action gets underway, and the way in which the hierarchical structure of these societies instigates and shapes this action.

Lester’s method is particularly striking in a film like Butch and Sundance: The Early Days where, despite the individualist implications of the title, the film seems as much preoccupied with the society around the characters as with the characters themselves (possibly one explana­ tion for the film’s commercial failure). Indeed, the film becomes precisely about the endeavor of these two men to push themselves to the foreground of the frame, about their difficulty in finding a romantic role in a society that has lost its need for heroes. “ Unhappy is the land that has no heroes” , said one of his disillusioned dis­ ciples to the eponymous hero of Brecht’s Galileo, who has recanted his heretical dis­ coveries before the might of the Catholic church: to which Galileo responded, “ Unhappy is the land that needs a hero.” It is an exchange often brought to mind in the process of watching Lester’s films, which are about societies either without heroes, or which place intolerable burdens on the heroes they espouse, or which worship people who are patently unworthy of their esteem.

If Lester’s films are without conventional heroes, they are also without traditional villains (not even the Sheriff of Nottingham, in Robin and Marian, qualifies). People are compressed into roles by the times and the society in which they live, being caught up in the vortex of often violent social change that swirls them around like corks on a tide and tests to the full the in­ dividual’s capacity for resilience and living by his wits.

430—-Cinema Papers, December-January

Lester’s interest in social complexes rather than psychological complexities clearly has an effect on his style. There is a feeling in Lester of pushing the expressiveness of film to the limits, of crowding images and soundtrack to bursting point. “ I like to stretch film, as I know it, to the utmost,” he once said, “to pack into it as much as possible on as many different levels as pos­ sible.”

As well as the exuberant, burgeoning visual imagery, there are mutterings over the soundtrack which become tiny particles of ad­ ditional wit, information and atmosphere crackling across the film’s surface. These mut­ terings enrich and deliberately deflect at­ tention, leading the audience away from the main figures as Lester seeks to intensify awareness of events and a society happening out­ side the film’s immediate field of vision.

As well as his impatience with the limitations of the film frame, the attention to decor and period detail gives a sense of Lester’s dissatisfac­ tion that film only operates on a visual and auditory level: he would, one feels, also like to give his work a sense of smell.

The emphasis on social totalities, rather than individual fortunes, also accounts for the narrative dislocations, since Lester’s films ar'e about interaction and collision more than linear development. What he relays is not plot but a sort of pointillism of accumulated social detail — an infinite number of colored dots that com­ bine to form a complete picture. There is also a creative counterpoint in Lester’s films between content and context. For example, while the quartet are performing the “ Everybody ought to have a maid” routine in A Funny Thing Hap­ pened on the Way to the Forum (with degrees of enthusiasm that vary according to their social status), the background is occupied by dowdy and ugly domestic drudges doing soul-destroying jobs. The tension between foreground and background not only undercuts the song but reinforces the main theme of the film: that nobody ought to have a maid, or slave.

In fact, tension is a key concept in Lester: one rarely comes across serenity, harmony or relaxa­ tion in his work. Often focusing on societies in stages of crucial transition or imminent breakdown, Lester’s style fizzes with a sense of crisis and excitement. There is a restlessness and nervous energy that take the form of packed im­ ages, fractured narratives, free leaps in time and space, perhaps reflecting Lester’s feeling of civilisation’s instability and that, to adapt T.S. Eliot, these are “ fragments shored against his ruins” . omparisons with Eliot might seem a little grandiose for a director who has worked with Helen Shapiro and Acker Bilk. But it is not too fanciful to spy a link between The Waste Land and The Bed-Sitting Room, both imagistic works of American emigres similarly responding to a London recently devastated by war, and with Eliot’s lines matchlessly projecting the at­ mosphere of Lester’s film, of a world made up of “ a heap of broken images” where “the sun beats and the dead tree gives no shelter” .

My feeling is that the esteem in which Lester is held by other directors is partly to do with his brilliant assimilation not simply of modern media techniques, but of modernist tendencies in the arts. In Lester’s work one can see a variety of influences drawn from advertising, television, the strip cartoon, pop art, the cinema, as well as methods that echo some of the key tendencies in modern literature (experimentation with time, narrative and point of view) and modern art (a Cubist sense of fragmentation, abstraction and multiple interrelated perspectives; a Surrealist

C

DICK LESTER

Cuba

Clockwise from top right: a trainload of Cuban soldiers is surprised by a Fidelista attack; Major Dapes (Sean Connery), centre. Gutman (Jack Weston) and Alexandra (Brooke Adams) are detained by Castro’s forces; General Bello (Martin Balsam) and Dapes discuss plans to kill Fidelistas; Juan (Chris Sarandon), the playboy, and his wife Alexandra; Juan gives his mistress (Lonttte McKee) one of his wife’s heirlooms as a gift; trapped between soldier’s and revolutionaries, Gutman and Dapes try to find their way back to safety.

delight in anarchy, adventurism and fantasy, with the normal as inexplicable and the inex­ plicable as the norm).

The method is flexible enough to engage directly with social and political issues of the present day by alluding to the methods of the media through which these issues are generally conveyed. It is also imaginative enough to trans­ form the usual modes of communication in a way that reflects a sense of inner crisis.

The film which most comprehensively con­ tains these diverse aspects of Lester is Petulia, which is probably the most advanced example of Lester’s cinematic syntax and the film in which his social perception is allied to an uncommon psychological depth. A good primer for an un­ derstanding of the method of Petulia would be Virginia Woolfs famous essay, “ Modern Fic­ tion”, with its call for a new kind of fiction con­ structed on psychology as much as on plot, and developing not only from a linear narrative about a character in society but from a process which faithfully reflects the mind in action. Both film and essay seek a different way of representing reality and a form of art which can give the impression of the randomness of life without sacrificing aesthetic construction and control, Petulia remains Lester’s major achievement of the 1960s, although one could also advance the claims of How I Won The War, whose struc­ tural and verbal richness seems to acquire a fresh stature on each viewing, and also The Knack, which, even away from its contemporary stylistic flourishes, remains a remarkably perceptive critique of power relationships and consumerist society. The 1970s’ work has been less generously celebrated, although Juggernaut expounds a brilliant moral and political allegory in which the suspense format gives especial urgency to the issues involved, and Robin and Marian impressively underpins wit and action with a tone of gnarled romanticism and an array of evocative imagery.

But Lester’s most striking film of the last decade is Cuba, summarizing in dazzling cinematic imagery his current thoughts on romance, revolution and Hollywood fictions.

The characteristic story of doomed love, expert­ ly acted by Sean Connery (integrity baffled by events) and Brooke Adams (dark practicality refusing to put romantic twinges before capitalistic comfort) is spiced by ironic allusions to the melodrama of Casablanca, and, by exten­ sion, to the depleted Hollywood fictions by which so many of the people here live their lives.

A remarkable array of supporting characters also fight for survival in a disintegrating society, the jovial incompetence of Martin Balsam’s General set against the suppressed despair of Hector Elizondo’s Captain, and Denholm Elliot’s cunningly-obsequious British exile counterpointing the portly opportunism of Jack Weston’s ugly American. Lester’s narrative ex­ pertise and political iconoclasm fix a vice-like grip on material which mixes the emotions of renegades, romantics, capitalists and prostitutes like an explosive cocktail, and offer ample scope for violent visual contrasts between lux­ uriance and sacrifice, between, for example, a blood-stained private swimming pool (the death of a way of life) and a blood-red sunrise (the revolutionary dawn).

For the moment, Cuba can stand as the definitive Lester vision of life as absurdist battle and reaffirms his position among the forefront of modern directors. The tension between his un­ abated radicalism and the caution of current popular cinema could strike some exciting sparks in the coming decade, as Lester pursues, through the wintry imagery of warfare, his un­ flinching and incomparable analysis of the Human Comedy. ★ Cinema Papers, December-January—431

B est Boy won a 1980 Academy Award in the cate­ gory of Feature Documentary. It has been screened at various film festivals around the world (including T o ro n to , N ew Y o rk , C an n es, S ydney and M elbourne),.winning almost unanimous praise and providing a focal point for much enthusiastic discussion.

Directed by Ira Wohl, the film’s title character is W ohl’s 52-year-old cousin, Philly, who is mentally retarded and who has lived all his life in the care of his elderly parents. The family home is, for him, a place where he is both loved and repressed.

B est Boy presents a record of Philly’s growth as a hum an being, there and beyond, as he gradually gains access to a wider world. It also examines the effect of his development upon his parents, in particular his mother.

It is in this balancing of sym­ pathies between a com mitm ent to Philly’s growth and a regret for his m other’s sense of loss that the film becomes so intensely moving (though it should be said that it is also often engagingly funny). Its emotional power is largely the product of this d ra ­ matic structure, and while its 432—Cinema Papers, December-January

form is certainly that of the docum entary it nonetheless has much in common with the “ family m elodram a” from Broken B lossom s to Kramer Vs Kramer. Yet, as a document of the events which occurred over the three years of W ohl’s direct involvement in the developments within this family, it raises issues which are quite alien to the fictional worlds of those films. The most imm ediate of these is the effect of the presence of the cam era on the course of these developments, a moral question discussed in this interview.

Ira Wohl has spent most of his 35 years in New York. His earliest film experience was as an editor for Orson Welles on Don Q uixote (which is still unfinished), after which he p roduced a n u m b er of short films (including one on The Band and another for John Lennon).

For the past five years he has been engaged as producer-direc­ tor-editor for the award-winning children’s television series Big Blue M arble. B est B oy, his “ labor of love” , was m ade during these years.

The interview was originally broadcast on 3 R R R -F M .

iRA WOHL

What made you work in docu­ mentary film?

It wasn’t a desire, it was an accident. The first film I made, Implosion, was not a documentary, it was a film of one of my dreams.

I’d had recurring dreams like it for a long time. I thought that for my first film I should do something fairly important to me, so I filmed that dream. There was a guy running around in his pyjamas all over the place trying to find a telephone, and trying to make contact with somebody — anybody — and he never quite managed to do it. iMy second film was, I suppose, a documentary. It is called Mary. I lived in an apartment building and there was an old woman there. I used to see her in the street and talk to her. Nobody paid much atten­ tion to her.

I just liked the way she expressed herself. So, I decided to do a film Shut up.” I wasn’t even looking in with her; just talking to her about his direction, but the remark whatever: the past, the present, the stunned me. I don’t think she future. Everybody said to me, intended to be nasty, but was just “Well, what’s special about this frustrated about whatever she was woman? What did she do that’s doing. I then looked at Philly. I saw special?” For me, the thing that was that he was hurt, although I knew special was that nothing was he would never express it verbally. special; she was just a woman.

I looked around the table and It started from there. I would get realized that nobody else noticed a interested in something from reality thing. I looked back at Philly and and then I would decide I wanted to said to myself, for the first time do a film about it. And that’s how it maybe, “There’s a person here happened. whom I have never really thought about.”

So, “Ira Wohl, documentary film­ I saw that my aunt and uncle maker” isn’t a label you attach to were getting old, and I began to yourself? wonder what would happen to Philly after they’d gone. I decided No, and I hate the word “docu­ that I was going to try and see if mentary” . It sends people stream­ there was something I could do for ing in the opposite direction from him, so he could become more the box-office. It implies that they are going to have to suffer through so m e h o r r i b l e “ le a r n in g experience” . Best Boy is not like that.

But it does take the form of a documentary, in the style of a diary of three years of your life, as well as of the lives of your aunt and uncle and their son. What was the initial impetus for it?

First of all, it didn’t start out to be a film. It just started with me wanting to do something for my cousin. The film was an after­ thought.

I had always taken Philly pretty much for granted, the way the rest of the fam ily did, as being somebody who was retarded. I never paid much attention to him.

Then one particular incident turned it around for me.

There was a family dinner and we were all sitting around the table. A meal was being served and Philly was talking about something which was obviously very important to him; I don’t know what it was; I don’t think anybody did.

An aunt was serving the food.

She suddenly turned to Philly and said, “Okay, Philly, that’s enough.

people tend to do that too. However, he moves from there to a much bigger space, geographically as well as em otionally. Was that a conscious structure that you imposed on the film, or did that just happen?

independent and get some respect from people around him.

I did some research and was told that the first step would be psycho­ logical and neurological examina­ tions. It was only about a week before I arranged the first of those. Then I woke up one morn­ ing, and it occurred to me that it might be something interesting to film. It was that simple. I got a crew very quickly, and it started from there: a step at a time, all along the way.

The experience you have described seems implicit in the scene where one meets Philly for the first time.

He is never allowed to finish a sentence in the interview with the sister. She is always cutting him off and giving him answers; other

I really didn’t have any pre­ conceptions, I didn’t know where the film would go, which is why, I think, there is a sense in which the audience discovers the film the way I discovered it as I was making it.

Even though it is a “ docu­ mentary” , it has a very strong narrative line, and I think of it as a kind of novel, one in which the pages are being written as you turn them. I hoped for that, but I didn’t know what would happen with Philly.

In a sense, I was taking a chance.

I thought that at the most I was wasting some film, some time and some money, but I hoped that if things did happen with Philly we would have a chance to be there as they happened, rather than needing some narrator to explain what had already happened. In that way we could let the film have its own dramatic construction.

I hoped he would become in­ dependent and, I think, I probably imagined that, at the end of things, maybe he would get to move out of his house. There was no specific design, but I probably saw it going that way at the end.

The film seems to work on an audience in a way that is usually connected with melodrama. Its emotional movement is towards Philly’s release at the end. Did you consider working against that, perhaps by putting sequences in a different order?

No, the situation of this family was ongoing. It started before I was born, and I saw myself as coming into it and trying to pick the best moments that would tell a story. I always had that in mind, in the shooting and the editing. My goal was always to tell a story, to stick to the spine of the story and tell it as neatly and as cleanly as I could. , Was there any particular reason for shooting so much of the film in tight close-ups?

No particular reason. I think a lot of the credit for the way the film looks has to go to Tom McDonough, the cameraman, who did a fabulous job.

You will have noticed that people who make docum entaries are relu c tan t to call them selves directors. They prefer to call themselves filmmakers. When you make a dramatic film, you know what is possible. You say, “ Let’s put the camera here” , and you tell that actor, “ Move like this, move like that.” But with a documentary, Concluded on p. 502 Cinema Papers, December-January—433

1980 EDINBURGH FILM FESTIVAL Geoff Gardner

The Desire For Cinema “ 1980 marks the beginning of the E dinburgh Film F e stiva l’s fourth period. The first period lasted for just over 20 years and had been dedicated to the continuation of a pre-war notion of art cinema formulated in the 1930s, primarily as the state’s response to the work of left independent filmmakers.

With the triumph of social democracy a fte r the war and the pervasive rhetoric about the welfare state, this civil service type of realism ossified into a rig id ly dogm atic form of hum anism that im m o b ilize d film culture in this country well into the 1960s. The joyless, relentlessly puritanical and moralistic approach to cinema proved difficult to dislodge because of its ability to combine a populist rhetoric with the defence of an aristocratic cult of personal taste (breeding). “ The se co n d p e rio d was in ­ augurated in 1969 by a small group of cinephiles, which included Lynda Myles, when they organized a Sam Fuller retrospective and accompanied this with the publication of a series of essays. The book not only aggressive­ ly celebrated the pleasures of popular cinema (as it was called then), it also showed that classic Hollywood cinema offered an ideal terrain upon which the literary approach to cinema could be challenged by counterposing the need to understand how film texts are struc­ tured. What was at stake in this shift was the politicization of the desire for cinema, the harnessing of cinephilia to an oppositional culture . . . " These are the opening words of an ar­ ticle, "The Edinburgh Film Festival and Joseph H. Lewis” , by Paul Willemen and they relate to much of what Edinburgh signifies to those British filmmakers, critics and cinephiles who attend.

The Festival is a melting pot for those in Britain interested in the cinema. As a result, the many program strands are there not just for any quality of any one film, but as indications of what future direction the British cinema, and the analysis of cinema, might take. This role, as Paul Willemen points out, has been developed largely under the eight-year directorship of Lynda Myles and whether the momentum can be continued with another director will remain unknown for a little time yet.

Myles is taking up an appointment with the Pacific Film Archive, and this year she put together a “ Director’s Choice” section which clearly indicates the range of new c o n ce rn s over w hich she presided. (The films were imitation of Life, Radio On, Dance Girl Dance, Rid­ dles of the Sphinx, Thriller, Pickup on South Street, Pursued, The American Friend and Mean Streets.)

But just as it explores the nether regions, big-budget American films still make more than token appearances In Edinburgh’s schizophrenic personality.

New films by Jerry Schatzberg (Honey­

American Independents

Simon (Alan Arkin) is brought back to consciousness, after being submerged in water for 200 hours, by some think-tank scientists (right). Marshall Brickman’s Simon. suckle Rose), Walter Hill (The Long Riders), Stuart Rosenberg (Brubaker), Samuel Fuller (The Big Red One), Marshall Brickman (Simon) and John Byrum (Heart Beat) may not have the same effect on the state of the art as the group culled by the director from her time in the job, but they at least indicate that there still remains in Hollywood a solid backbone of talent. And, sur­ prisingly, I was most affected by Brickman’s gentle comedy than by the items with bigger reputations up front. A se­ cond viewing of Hill’s film, for instance, made it even more pictorially bloody and psychologically bloodless than memory recalled. Its conceit of having outlaw brothers played by actual brothers seems even more to add an off-putting publicity dimension to the enterprise.

More emphasis was placed on the nether regions of American film and on the opportunity to discuss films with their makers. These are still the New Yorkbased independents and the discovery of lost traditions and/or minor contribu­ tions. With the battles allegedly won ("Auteurism was one, now dated, form of this productive mobilization of the desire for cinema” : Willemen), this year’s Festival could pay homage to Joseph H. Lewis, some 25 years after his last cinema film appeared, in what would seem to be a blatantly conscious effort to

reveal what Willemen calls "the desire for cinema, or, more familiarly, cinephilia” .

Thus the view is put that: "When cinephilia disappears Lewis' films will cease to have any function, their specificity will vanish along with th e s p e c t a t o r ’ s i n a b il it y to acknowledge a desire for cinema, the asocial, politically irresponsible joy of looking.”

But Joseph H. Lewis it was, including reverent looks at quite a number of his almost indistinguishable B-westerns (or was that the point?). Still this was only the most formal aspect of the desire for cinema and nothing could be further from the bloodless formulae work (which of course not all his films were) than the collection of several programs of films loosely grouped under the title “Super-8 Punk Films from New York” .

Here the technology and techniques are deficient, but the enthusiasm and energy are at a premium. A film like Poofol (directed by Cara Cooper, Ellen Pearlman and Kiki Smith, U.S., 1980), with its sense of amateur dressing up and its acceptance of the very same c o rn b a ll c o n v e n tio n s of p lo ttin g , suspense and dialogue that has served Lewis/Hollywood for decades, indicates that hidden here is the same desire for cinema which animated Lewis and the appreciation of his work.

434—Cinema Papers, December-January «

Putting aside the question of whether there is life after punk, there was sub­ stantial new work from Yvonne Rainer, James Bennlng, Victor Nunez, Mark Rapaport, Eric Mitchell, Les Blank, Joel de Mott and two collectives which both produced original short films.

Rainer s Working Title: Journeys From Berlin (1971) is a film of labyrinthine structural complexity which has been fortunate to receive the benefit of an ex­ cellent review by Jan Dawson in Sight and Sound (Summer, 1980). This “series of free-associative journeys from the topic of terrorism” is hardly suitable for further comment when viewed only once in a festival context, and it is to be hoped that the film receives wider distribution.

James Benning, a mathematician turned filmmaker (previous films include 8 V2 x 11 and 11 x 14), showed his film Grand Opera which turned out to be quite the wittiest film tossed up by the avant-garde in a long time. Again the technique was associative, starting with what turned out to be the final shot of his film, for which one is waiting with tan­ talized anticipation. Benning claims that the film tells the story of his life, of the way he perceives history, and signifies the end of his concerns with struc­ turalism. What made it grip were its leaps from subject to subject, its witty devotion to m athem atical form ulae and the suspense developed by the constant repetition of the description of its ending.

Less successful work came from Mark Rapaport and Eric Mitchell. Rapaport’s impostors is not as concisely complete as his earlier The Scenic Route, poss­ ibly because his script is too long-winded and too often the acting deteriorates into plain loudness in the effort to develop the hysteric humor for which the elaborate plot calls. Mitchell's Underground USA is a sub-Morrissey film returning once again, like a homing pigeon, to what ap­ pears to be the source of all film good­ ness for this particular strata, Sunset Boulevard.

Billy Wilder was actually present in An­ nie Tresgot’s interview/documentary, Portrait of a 60% Perfect Man, in which French critic Michel Ciment throws Wilder a succession of Dorothy Dix ques­ tions and reveals that great directors are not necessarily great interviewees.

However, all is not lost in this most bastard of all genres, the film about a film, for Joel de Mott’s Demon Lover Diary is possibly the best example ever to emerge. The fact that here we are not observing well-ordered sets, the solution of insoluble technical problems or witty repartee from those involved, but poverty, nervous breakdown and at­ tempted murder, undoubtedly has a lot to do with the film’s interest.

The attempts to make Demon Lover may have been the most amateur, pathetic and tragic of all time, and this diary unfolds a compendium of richlydetailed human ambition, misery and stupidity (the ‘star’s’ contribution to the

1 Australian Film Institute Established in 1958, the Australian Film Institute is a national non-profit organisation, dedicated to the promotion of an awareness and appreciation of film.

The Institute is governed by a seven member Board of Directors, which is elected annually by the members.

Membership of the Institute is open to the public and all members are eligible to stand for the Board of Directors.

Australian Film Awards The annual awards are conducted by the Institute w ith the support of the trade and industry.

The presentation, which is televised nationally, serves the important function of drawing the public’s attention to the achievements of the Australian film industry.

The awards have proved instrumental in increasing box-office receipts, thus boosting returns to filmmakers, distributors and exhibitors. Awards are given to feature, short fiction, documentary, animated and experimental films.

George Lugg Library

AFI Cinem as

The Library maintains an extensive collection of contemporary and historical material, which includes: • 6000 books • 70,000 newsclippings • 345 film periodicals • A variety of indices which allow full accessibility to these resources • An audio-cassette collection of contemporary reviews and programmes • Publicity material These resources which are available to the general public, also provide a back-up service to the industry.

AFI members receive a 25 % discount on research fees.

The AFI operates three public cinemas — the Longford in Melbourne, the State in Hobart and the Sydney Opera House Cinema.

These Cinemas provide an alternative exhibition circuit for Australian and imported films which would otherwise be unlikely to gain a commercial release. In addition the AFI provides a comprehensive marketing service for the product exhibited.

Thus the AFI cinemas serve the needs of independent filmmakers and distributors, w hile allow ing the general public access to alternative product.

AFI members receive concessions to these cinemas.

The AFI publications programme com m enced in 1978 with the release of A u s t r a l i a n F ilm P o s te r s 1 9 0 6 - 1 9 6 0 .

Vincent Film Library

Currently in preparation is a monograph series. Each work covers a specific aspect of the local industry.

Areas include: documentary film in Australia, Australian television drama, the role of government in the film industry in Australia, and women's involvement in film.

A major reference work, A u s t r a l i a n F ilm 1 9 0 0 — 1 9 7 7 , by Ross Cooper and Andrew Pike, will be published in collaboration with Oxford University Press.

AFI members receive discounts on publications.

cp 3

3 CL

o“ ■-I *0 P 3 o C L CL 3 Qrq _ _3 c 3 c cr (t (l»-1 rOj r-t- CoD Hr n O ‘-t 3 CL "O S

3 3 Cl 2

□ 3

S;

CT 3

3

o <5"3 3 > 3 3ÎQ 3

3 ^—t3>— l n '--1

C /5 cr

3 (JQ

O So rr so

cr CD

W x' .

3

CD

Pa O

-t O o

CD

~ » S 3 -• £“ c 33 r S s o 3 c 3 £

□

'< '

□

P O o 1-1 CL

o CL

□

p in

□

SO

The NFT is Australia’s national archival film exhibitor, presenting weekly programmes in A delaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Frem antle, Melbourne and Sydney. Programmes are designed to enhance the appreciation of cinem a art by presenting the careers of particular directors, studios, actors or writers; or by follow ing the developm ent of the industry in a particular country.

Most N FT screenings are open only to subscribers and a lim ited number of their guests, all of whom must be 18 years-of-age or over. An annual subscription costs $7.00 plus a levy of $3.00 per programme attended.

AFI membership includes an NFT subscription.

Publications

GTQ

National Film Theatre

Established in 1970, the library provides a marketing service for filmmakers and independent distributors.

The library supplies borrowers from throughout Australia. Rentals are reasonable and set by the filmmakers w ho receive 50% of the incom e generated by their films. W hile a balanced collection is m aintained, emphasis is placed on aiding Australian independent filmmakers. Assistance provided includes: identification of markets, preparation of publicity, theatrical releases and the negotiation of print sales.

Catalogues are available upon request.

2- nr 2S. p< in

o 3 in 3 2.

3 ^

3 3 O m

P.

S 3

3

so cr

3 3 3 SO 3 3 £ CL Mi m o M 5/5 O 3t & < Or 2L 3

r-t-

cr

3

r-t*

3*

3 ¡> O 2 ^ 3 3 io ^

3“ w

9< 2. * 32.

3 QTQ CrtT _ 2 M*

r-t-

..

3­

3 >

o

3 ^

g

cc cr

3

0Q

3 o 2 CL CL ~k_, 2 , o in 23 O 3 U B 3 cr So SO < 3 3

so cr 3 3 Dr CT“ 3 CLQrq O 3 M >—S X o 3' ’“*>O 3r-t2. < GTQ 2 rM 3 -M- 32 ?/5 3 2 c3 2< cr 3 M C , r-t- >— ^ (D O 2.

3 3 3 3 H hr] p" O cr 3 2^ " Dr 3 CL 3 r s ­ 3 3 S' q3 SO Q. 3 3 3 2 cr 3 3 cr c 'C 3 3cr ° cr 3 m cr. qtq 2 p ^D r CL so C L C L o o 3 in ^ S5 M p 3 3 > g in 0 -1 CT rr- 3 32 .

3 3 P ■ r-tn © 3 'C 3 3 ^ M 3 Bt p M P 3 * cr CL P 3 CL 3 CL 57 cr CL pj 3 3 3 M-, ■ O 'C 3 3 2 32 ?ft 3 o aE 3 ^ ^ 3 3 CL 3 M X 3 cr ^ ^ SO 2 . 0 Q 3 2 ^ Dr 3 cr. 2 2 i-1 p S3 3 rc ^ in 3 3 M M- O SO 3 P so ml 2 ¡T5 ^ r-t3 2 3 ÇA M ° n 2 ° 3 3 O' > tr Q 3 S-L 3 -< M ° r-tin C L o in CD >-_> in in ' 3 o3 cl -a * Lj 2 “ & & 3 ct> 3 Ml P - 3 *~t 3 2 H C L SO > °§ 51 3 CL cr 3 ^ c hr] m P BC r-t° 3 L w h V! 3 3 CD r-tCL M M­ 3 3 3 3 J h3 ' so cr 3 M Vi (T O O M . r-tvc 3 3 SO cr 3 a, 2 3 ¿, 3

c5 li

L in

2,

Û .Û </> = :

Û

\

Australian Film Institute

Australian Film Institute

Application for membership Surname . . . .

\

Mr Mrs Ms

Given Names Address........ ........................................ Postcode..............

I apply for membership of the Australian Film Institute, for the period to 30 June, and enclose the annual subscription of $ 12. 00.

Benefits of membership • Concessions to AFI cinemas • An NFT subscription • Voting rights in the Australian Film Awards • Voting rights for the AFI Board • Publication discounts • George Lugg Library research concessions • Regular newsletter

Australian Film institute

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

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

For the purpose of admission to NFT screenings, I declare that I have attained the age of 18 years, and that my guests shall also have attained the age of 18 years.

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

D a t e ..........................

Please send to: Executive Director Australian Film Institute P.O. Box 165 Carlton South, Vic. 3053

SFI

EDINBURGH FILM FESTIVAL

budget was the $8000 he received for deliberately chopping off his finger and feigning an industrial accident!). What starts as funny and ironic is finally crush­ ingly sad, for here the desire for cinema has become madness.

The two short films in this section were Sigmund Freud’s Dora, a superb struc­ tural film about Freud and feminism, and A Good Example, which wittily re-enacts Bertolt Brecht's ‘performance’ before the House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee.

The British Cinema Edinburgh’s British selection further revealed its schizophrenic interest in the commercial and the bizarre, with one or two films sitting somewhere inbetween and which will ultimately be tested in the m a r k e tp la c e . T he in d u s tr y w as represented by a new anthology of horror stories titled The Monster Club, directed by veteran Roy Ward Baker; a bigger budget crime film, The Long Good Friday, directed by John Macken­ zie; and by Franco Rosso’s Babylon, about which the highest hopes were held.

Babylon is a smoothly-constructed realist piece about life among young blacks in Britain. Directed with some ef­ ficiency and with yet another pounding score that will be sold as an album, it seems rather too-obviously derivative of The Harder They Come. And once the lashings of exotic atmosphere are put into the background, the film turns rather too far towards being just another routine melodrama complete with its misunderstood-boy-on-the-run plot. Its problem was that as these elements were introduced, the exotic quality of the lives on display is minimized and the grip is lost. Here too the insistentiy-sim ilar music starts to pall.

Even more dubiously effective is The Long Good Friday, and any appreciation of this film tended to be obscured by the debate instituted by its producer and director as to whether the film should get a theatrical release or be recut and sold

directly to television. Very much an at­ tempt to resuscitate the British crime genre, its plot, which I think wants to be taken seriously, is based on the fairly dubious premise that the IRA would use the underworld to launder money and then take time off to wreak elaborate revenge when they get cheated by a gang member. This member happens to be part of some conspiratorial corpora­ tion trying to redevelop a slab of inner London as the site for the 1988 Olympic Games and also trying to get some Mafia money for its project.

As a redeeming virtue, it plays a lot better than it reads and obviously every­ one involved took the enterprise serious­ ly. The dialogue fairly snaps and crackles with good one-liners delivered with relish by the lead actor, Bob Hoskins.

So, the British cinema may be alive, but it would, however, seem to be more lively in those areas of work being spon­ sored by the B ritish Film Institute Production Fund and a few other govern­ ment bodies which give independent filmmakers a chance. Highest aspira­ tions came from Richard Woolley with Brothers and Sisters which might break free from the coterie of festivals into wider commercial release.

Disguised as a thriller and based around the murder of a prostitute, the film very cleverly uses these forms to probe the sexist nature of British society and its basis in class. If it has a fault, and some objected to this aspect far more than I did, it is in its overly schematic presentation of the differences between the two upper-middle-class brothers who form the chief suspects as well as the major dialectic.

The other independent works will find it harder to surface. Amy is the third part of Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey’s trilogy of works. This one, however, is much more a thumbnail sketch than the previous films about feminism and representation (Riddles of the Sphinx and Penthisilea), for, having been denied the amount of assistance they requested from the production board, Wollen and Mulvey raised enough for a short from a local arts group and were able to make this little film on Amy Johnson. Its con­

Franco Rosso’s Babylon, a "realist piece about life among young blacks in Britain”. cern is with the public image of Amy “ in relation to Amy’s fem inity and the realities of her life following her down­ ward path from heroic aviatrix to female celebrity” .

Exchange and Divide, by Margaret Dickinson, did get full backing from the BFI, but its attempt to analyse the economic and class bases of marriage and divorce today is not wholly success­ ful, largely because it attempts to under­ pin its analysis by the realistic treatment of one failed marriage and never seems to blend positively its two lines of attack.

Additionally, some of the analytical material seems to drift too far from the point.

Two other short films are also worthy of mention. The Tom Machine, directed

by Paul Bamborough, is the most tech­ nically assured film I have seen from a film school student, and its narrative of a comically-boring, cineaste-inspired, technologicaily-replete future is in turn humorous and chilling. James Scott’s Chance, History, Art ... is a refreshing film about some of B rita in ’s more refreshingly original artists whose work is matched by Scott’s in presenting them as clearly as possible and with insight.

Three Oddities and One Disappointment

Rebecca Pauly in Claudia Alemann’s Blind Spot, a questioning of the nature of historical reconstruction.

One of Edinburgh’s basic attractions is its happy desire to take films straight from the lab, and two films this year were claimed by their directors to be going through a projector for the first time.

Most exciting was Claudia Alemann’s Blind Spot, made, after all funding sources dried up, by Alemann agreeing to guarantee the debts. The program notes on the film set it out in part as follows (I can’t do any better): “ In Blind Spot a woman historian fascinated by the diary kept by Flora Tristan (a 19th C entury utopian socialist feminist) during the last few months of her life, refuses the traditional way of ‘looking’ at history and gets caught up in a complex multi­ layered pattern of reverberations.

History and ‘her’ story becomes a net­ work of resonances. One life/voice im­ prints in another.”

Beyond this, the film is not just about Tristan and the m elancholy young woman’s searching for her, it is “ about” history and the processes of how history is made and recorded. It is, of course,

also about women, their neglect in history and the processes of recording history.

Alemann’s avowed aim was to ques­ tion the nature of historical reconstruc­ tion itself. One can only hope that this is one film that will rise from the ruck of 16mm independent filmmaking. For my own taste, I much preferred this vibrant and involving film to the more arid and obvious work of Chantal Akermann, to whose rhythms this film bears some resemblance.

Kieran Hickey’s Criminal Conversa­ tion is the second part of a planned triology exploring the reality of sexuality in Ireland. Hickey’s earlier films, Faithful Departed, A Child’s Voice and Ex­ posure, all delighted me and this one pursues the notions related to sexuality, the consumption of alcohol and truth begun in Exposure. It is a chamber piece for four actors that looks a little too like a television play; however, its sense of pre­ c a rio u s ly s h iftin g re la tio n s h ip s is remarkably well-judged and well-acted.

Hickey is now on the verge of a fulllength feature and one hopes that it will successfully com plete the planned trilogy and round out this group portrait of one country’s sexual proclivities.

Justocoeur, directed by Mary Ste­ phen, is an intriguing and softly grained look at a woman’s role in a slightly bizarre menage-a-trois. Its feminine view­ point gives it some originality and the overtly glamorous lives led by the group, especially at a satirically filmed party whose inhabitants wear only shades of white, makes for interest. Its chief fault would seem to lie in some fair­ ly leaden camerawork and editing, par­ ticularly in those sequences involving the heroine's dance rehearsals where the music and movement are quite awry.

Lastly to one of the hot films of this year’s festival circuit, Jacques Bral’s Ex­ terieur, Nuit, described by some as a 16mm classic. It is nothing of the kind and looks to me very much like a subEustache film with a dollop of Scorsese thrown in. Relentlessly shot with a grainy medium-shot, telephoto lens, this is ut­ terly charmless and qualifies only for having a score whose soundtrack album will probably sell well.

Australian Entry Australia was represented by Stir, Dirt Cheap, The Girl Who Met Simone de Beauvoir in Paris and Yap . . . or How Did You Know We’d Like TV. ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—435

D iscussion about Australia’s difficulties as a small film producing country inevitably invites comparisons with the Canadian film industry. Both countries have a shared history of British colonization, and both have, in the past two decades, become increasingly dependent on, and influenced by, the U.S. This cultural and economic tincturing has affected not only the films produced, but the very structures of the two industries.

Being closer to the U.S., trends in Canada often prefigure those in Australia. Canada’s attempt to divest itself of American influence in the 1960s and establish an independent, nationalistic industry has been mirrored by a similar drive in Australia in the 1970s. The role of government investment, the ploys by unions to determine industry policies, the enormous pros and cons of tax incentive schemes and the fierce desire by several groups to keep their industries free of outside influences are issues common to both countries.

While many are aware of the obvious parallels between the Australian and Canadian industries, however, few seem to have attempted an analysis of the causes behind Canada’s recent renaissance. One knows the statistics: eight films in 1977 to 70 films in 1979; and $6 million in 1977 to $150 million in 1979: but what really happened? And, if there are lessons to be learned by Australians, what are they?

Mark Stiles interviews Michael McCabe, head of the Canadian Film Development Corporation during the upsurge in product­ ion, Martin Knelman, film critic, Bob Barclay, president V . of the Directors’ Guild of Canada, Tom Hedley, a script­ writer, and Alan King, a filmmaker, in an attempt to ^ ™ find o u t.

Opposite: Jennifer Dale and Gabriel Arcand in Suzanne.

_______ AtìchaeLM.c@abe_______ FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR off thè CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION In 1977, about S6 million worth of feature films was made in Canada. In 1978, it was about $65 million, and in 1979, S150 million.

Of the 70-odd features made in 1979, 40 could be judged to be significant, or major, while the others are relatively small films.

Why is Canada suddenly making so many films?

The reasons are threefold. The first is the amendment of the Income Tax A ct, which allows an investor in a Canadian feature to write off 100 per cent of his invest­ ment in the year in which he makes the investment. The amendment effectively came into force in 1977, though 1978 was the first full pro­ duction year in which it was operative.

The second factor is that at the same time as the amendment was introduced a group of producers began to mature in the country.

They had made films before, some of which had done well, but most had done badly. But now they had learned things and were ready to produce more ambitious films.

The third factor is that in 1978 the Canadian Film Development Corporation changed its invest­ ment policies and orientation. In terms of the investment policies, the CFDC decided that it should use its relatively limited budget to trigger the capital cost allowance; that is, to provide development money, which is the toughest money for producers to get. This is for the development of scripts and budgets, market research, “ hold” money for a director, location scouting, and so on.

As for orientation, the CFDC decided film was essentially an export product and, since it was not normally possible to recoup the budget in the Canadian market, producers should make films that were capable of recouping their budgets in other markets.

This was a basic change for the CFDC because the previous management generally backed small films aimed solely at the Canadian market. The problem was that the Canadian public was not willing to see those films. Of the 225 films from 1968 to 1977, only 20 got suff­ iciently wide

Michael McCabe was appointed executive director of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in June 1978. Nearly two years later, in May 1980, McCabe resigned. His policies, as much as his departure, are still hotly debated.

Whatever the verdict, there is no doubt McCabe was an extremely influential force in the resurgence of film production in Canada, and in fostering an image for the CFDC. Here he speaks to Mark Stiles.

distribution to get their money back.

It was very difficult to run a g a in s t th e h ig h e r-b u d g e t American product, with their relatively universal themes and stars. Yet, that was what the people going to the cinemas wanted to see.

So, the CFDC opted for higher budgets, stars, etc., in the hope that Canadian films could make money on overseas markets.

How does the tax write-off actually work?

For a film to qualify for the tax write-off it must be an official co­ production, made under our co­ production treaties with Britain, France, Germany, Italy or Israel, or a certified Canadian film. The requirem ents for a certified Canadian film is that the producer must get six out of the 10 points (there are two points for the writer, two for the director, one for the cinematographer, one each for the two most highly-paid performers, one for the music, one for the set design, and one for the editing).

You must also spend 75 per cent of your budget, excluding your belowthe-line and p ost-production b u d g e ts , in C a n a d a or on Canadians.

Also, to be eligible for the write­ off, the feature film must have completed principal photography by the end of the year. If the film does not complete principal photo­ graphy by December 31, but does by the end of February, that is, roughly another 60 days, the investor can write off that pro­ portion of his investment that is equivalent to the proportion of the budget spent in that year.

If 80 per cent of the budget was spent in 1979, say, and the remain­ ing 20 per cent in the first two months of 1980, and the investor had put in $10,000, he would be able to write off $8000 in 1979 and $2000 in 1980. If principal photography is not completed by the end of February, however, then the whole of the investment has to be written off in 1980.

One of the downsides of this time qualification is that it tends to force a kind of bunching of films at the end of the production year. This distorts the production pattern in the country.

Does the CFDC still invest in films, or does it just provide bridge financing?

The CFDC still invests in small Films, particularly those where new producers or directors are involved.

This new talent has to get a chance and if it isn’t able to attract Financing, the CFDC is prepared to go in as an investor.

As for bridge financing — i.e., bridging the costs to the point where the producers have the main budget from investors who are going to take advantage of the tax shelter — the strategy is that we get our money into a film and then out with a profit quickly so that we can put it into another Film. This has meant that in 1978 with a budget of roughly $4 million we put out about $7.5 million; in 1979, we put out about $12 million.

We put between $100,000 and $500,000 into a film, and get interest at 14 to 15 per cent. We also charge a placement fee that covers our administrative cost; that varies from film to Film. And we retain somewhere between 1 and 5 profit points in a film, even after our money is out.

There also seems to have been a change from funding individual films to funding producers . . .

Yes. The aim is to try to build up some ongoing production houses with stable Financing, production and marketing systems. The hope at the beginning of 1978 was to see if we couldn’t provide some assurances to a number of groups, recognizing that there were some people with track records who might be potential winners in the long term. But there weren’t all that many, and we had to make some judgments. The question of putting our dollars on somebody, who over the long term wasn’t likely to be a successful production house, is an ongoing problem.

In 1980, we are continuing this trend but we will get tougher on producers and on scripts. We have p ro b a b ly o v e r-e m p h a s iz e d producers and sometimes, because we liked the producer, have gone with a script we shouldn’t have. But we are going to have to adjust this, and when projects come forward from relatively untried producers we will try to direct them to people with more experience to see if we can’t continue to build up product­ ion houses. In the long run, the industry is only going to work if there are stable, ongoing product­ ion houses.

Do you mean production houses making feature films solely, or also television programs?

Most of the English-language film m a k e rs, in T o ro n to in particular, work almost exclus­ ively in the feature film business.

In Montreal, both English- and French-language producers tend to be more diverse in their activities. I am not sure why, but it seems Montreal producers have tended to have a base in the production of

Clockwise from top left: Jennifer Dale in Robin Spry’s Suzanne; Lee Majors in George Kaczender’s Agency; publicity still for Claude Jutra’s Surfacing; Trish van Devere and George C. Scott in The Changeling.

commercials, short films and the production of television. In Toronto, there seems to be a real divorce between the film producers, producers of television commer­ cials, and producers of television programming.

Our view is that we should increasingly encourage feature film producers to move to television production. We have made it clear to the industry that although we don’t want to prescribe the format for them, or how they ought to go at it, we would be open to proposals for television production. We are interested in people who are prepared to propose a program of features for television, as opposed to single productions, or in the development of specials, mini-series and pilots for longer series.

We have said that initially we would like to stay clear of the actual production funding for a weekly series, because we would prefer to help in the development and pilot stages, and hope that the actual production financing would come from the networks.

We worked very hard with the Canadian Broadcasting Corpor- ' ation to get them to take indepen­ dent feature filmmaking more seriously, and in particular we were interested in their doing what many of the American networks are pre­ pared to do with our films, which is to buy them for use on the network after theatrical release. We are hopeful that soon the CBC will agree.

One of the avenues chosen by producers is to sell network in the U.S., pay-television and syndica­ tion in advance. Normally, you don’t get the full price at that stage — you get a contract. What you get when you sign is normally Five or 10 per cent of the contract, and then you get part of it on delivery to the network and the rest by the time of their last play. But what you can do

with a contract is discount it at a bank, which gives you the financing in your hand, or you can go to your investors and say you have this conditional contract. We have been able to do that with a number of films.

We have also been doing it with foreign sales contracts. You go off and get ICM, Caroco or another Los Angeles sales firm to sell Germany, France, whatever, and then you either discount those contracts or merely display to investors the fact that you have these sales. That has been quite an important factor in 1978-79 in our Financing of films. Unfortunately, Canadian banks won’t discount contracts at this stage, so you have to go to the Guiness-Mann Bank in Britain, or the Chemical Bank or Bank of America in the U.S. Do you offer producers marketing assistance?

What we do at major markets like Cannes and Milan is provide an u m b rella m a rk e tin g e ffo rt.

Secondly, we provide in tro ­ ductions to people in the major studios and sales agencies. Thirdly, we provide assistance to producers in development or marketing strategies. Finally, we keep a record of all sales, so that if a producer says he is going to sell his film to a distributor in Germany, we can tell him the record of that distributor and whether his price is any good.

So, we provide a consultative service. We are not in the selling business as such.

Of the $150 million spent in 1979, how much was Canadian?

All of it. But a lot of it happens without the CFDC’s involvement.

In 1979, we were in 25 English and 17 French Films, and $95 million of that $150 million represents films in

which we had put development funds, or an investment. So there were 28 Films with budgets totalling around $55 million in which we were not involved — a good third of the productions.

Then, you have to add the other features that are made in the c o u n try by p u re ly fo re ig n companies, which use Canada as a location. We don’t enter those in our figures because they don’t vastly interest us, though some­ times there is a problem if they rob our producers of crews, facilities, etc. On the other hand, there is an advantage, in that our crews get to work with highly professional people from American and other industries.

We made Films last year whose quality we aren’t too happy about because they were made with inferior crews. Our aim is that we ought to attempt to keep the lid on the growth in 1980. We think we can keep it at about $150 million, or a little lower.

At the beginning of last year, we were worried about whether we could Find $100 million. About half way through, it became clear that we were going to get to $150 million. There were some films that went down the drain and got a lot of publicity, but they were the exceptions: they weren’t able to get their money together, because investors felt management of the Film was bad,' or the package was bad, and thought they weren’t going to get their money back.

I think money will be easier this year and the problem will be to see if we can’t, as an industry, keep films that shouldn’t be made from being made. Sometimes Films get made just because the dollars are there, and they are crappy Films.

Given the vast number of films being made, how many are films by Canadians, for Canadians? Many seem suspiciously mid-Atlantic and awkward . . .

The purpose of the CFDC, when it was established by parliament, was a cultural one. It is reasonably clear, however, that in our view Film is a mass cultural instrument. In other words, we could not feel we were succeeding in our cultural role if we made Films that very few people went to see. And creators — that is, directors, writers, producers — surely couldn’t feel that they were succeeding if they were communicating with a limited number of people. Also, the cultural role we assume to be partly within Canada — that is, using Film to talk to Canadians about them­ selves — and partly outside Canada — that is, talking to the world about who we are and the way we live.

Clearly, it was not the intention of parliam ent that this mass medium should be forever sustained on the Government purse — at least by the CFDC. It may well be Cinema Papers, December-January—439

that organizations like the CBC and the National Film Board should be an ongoing cultural subsidy role, but it was clear to us that our Act required that we develop an industry. We assumed that to mean a self-sustaining industry.

So, we set out by saying, “We want activity, we want films made and we want filmmakers — be they w riters, d irecto rs, cin em ato ­ graphers, producers or actors — to practise their art.” We recognize that the result is that, out of the films produced in any given year, the majority will probably not be about Canadian themes. They will be made by Canadians and a significant number of them, we hope and expect, will be about traditional Canadian themes.

We .have a problem living next door to the Americans, in that they are our biggest market, and our similarities as a people are much greater than our differences. A film with an urban setting in Canada may not be vastly different from one located in the U.S. We have seen in the first couple of years of this policy a lot of films made which have this look of coming from nowhere. We have decided we are going to look at three categories of films: (1) films that really are about Canada, such as Suzanne, Surfacing and Fantastica; (2) films that are necessarily non-Canadian in their location and theme, such as Atlantic City USA, which Louis Malle is directing for Daniel Heroux; and (3) films like City on Fire, where the location could be anywhere, and you could make in Cleveland instead of Toronto. We will be announcing this year that we are not prepared to go into films where producers gratuitously choose non-Canadian locations.

I saw two or three films of last year’s productions where I was quite pleased with the fact that the producer had, even though the theme may be international, a Canadian basis to the film. In

Circle of Two with Richard Burton and Tatum O’Neal, Burton plays an artist living in Toronto. It is quite clear it is Toronto. Then I saw Final Assignment, with Genevieve Bujold, Michael York and Colleen Dewhurst. That film is set mostly in the Soviet Union, though it was shot in Montreal. It is about a Canadian television reporter who goes over to the Soviet Union to interview the Soviet Prime Minister and gets caught up with dissidents.

In 1978, people would have been tempted to say, “ Well, let’s make her an American reporter instead, and let’s have Richard Burton as an artist in New York.” It is that kind of situation on which we intend to clamp down. We just won’t invest if they use a non-Canadian location when it could, just as easily, be Canada on the screen.

I really don’t want to restrict the capacities of prod-ucers and directors to make films other than ones about Canada, but we will probably give special consider­ ation, if for no other reason than political, to people who have themes that are Canadian. We had doubts say, about Atlantic City USA, but I wanted Malle to work in the country, and liked John Kemeny and Daniel Heroux as

Jennifer Dale and Winston Rekert in Suzanne.

440—Cinema Papers, December-January

lo n g -term p ro d u cers in the industry. There were a lot of reasons why we should do it.

On the other hand, what do we make of a film called Incident at Northampton, written by Bill Fruett’s wife and directed by Bill, and is essentially a horror film?

Though set in Ontario, it could be set anywhere. So, do I call that a Canadian film? Every element in the film is Canadian — there isn’t an American or a non-Canadian near the goddamned thing — but it’s not Canadian in the sense that there are any beavers or moose or maple leaves around.

I always come back to Alan King, as he is surely the proto­ typical Canadian filmmaker. He says, “ I’ve been making films all my life, and if you asked me to make a Canadian film, I wouldn’t know how to do it: I wouldn’t know where to start.”

One thing I can say is that we certainly turn down productions where we believe the Canadian producer is a front for some Americans.

Has that happened?

I believe it has, but I am not prepared to name the films right

now. We try at the CFDC to make a judgment by examining the contracts and by talking to the people. The Secretary of State’s Department certified these - films and they do the checking, but I don’t believe that the certification office is sufficiently strong or tough.

I think some films made in Canada last year should be blown out of the water. In other words, we should have refused to give them certification as Canadian films. We have been conned a couple of times and we won’t go with those people again.

But, I want to qualify this on the other side: I believe it is important we not develop a “ F o rtress C anada” m entality. We must recognize that the film business is international, that we haven’t been in it for very long, and that there are a lot of people out there from whom we can learn. And when you bring in Louis Malle as a director, or indeed John Huston, John Guillermin or Jules Dassin, our producers and crews can learn from these people.

The Directors’ Guild is forever lan d in g on our neck a b o u t A m erican or n o n -C a n a d ia n directors coming into the country. I take a look and say, “ Last year we were involved in 42 films, and only on four of them were there non­ Canadian directors, and each was a d istin g u ish e d in te rn a tio n a l director.” I think we gained some­ thing, and it would be sad if the pressure from the Directors’ Guild, or whoever, forced them out of the country.

So, there is a balance you have to find. I want Americans to help us. I want Americans involved in a lot of aspects of our films. You need talented foreigners working with you, because you learn from them.

Too often, we hide behind our nationalism to protect mediocrity.

Too often, all it really means is we are afraid to get out there and compete. ★

Richard Harris and Jennifer Dale in George Kaczender’s Your Ticket Is No Longer Valid.

FILM CRITIC It has been argued that the chance of great films emerging increases when there is a big volume of production: i.e., a high level of production is a prerequisite for good films .. .

That is like the theory that if you put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, eventually one of them will write Hamlet. But surely it is possible to load the dice a little more so that the one who is going to write Hamlet has a better chance.

It is also argued that an industrial level of feature film production means that real money is available for filmmaking: you can spend more on films, you get more production value and you can make films for an export market, which tell more people about your country . . .

I don’t know that our films tell people about what is going on in Canada. We certainly have an industry and a lot of big-budget films are coming out. This means a certain number of people are employed and that the films are being seen in international circles — that is, the American market.

In terms of telling anybody w hat’s going on in Canadian society, I think it’s a bit of a joke.

Ninety-nine per cent of these films are not designed to do that and disguise the fact that they are made in Canada.

The films that have come out in the past two years, since this policy of gearing feature production to an ex p o rt m a rk e t has been in existence, are not those we can be proud of, in purely cultural terms. I think the quality of the films was better in the early 1970s, when we weren’t in the big league in terms of international, commercial films.

We have had some good films, particularly in our earlier stages of development. There was The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in 1974, Mon Oncle Antoine in 1971, and a cluster of things around 1977, like Why Shoot the Teacher?. Mon­ ique Mercure also won an award at Cannes that year for J. A. Martin Photographe, which was a Frenchlanguage film made at the National Film Board. Then there was Craig Russell in Outrageous, Bill Marshall’s first film.

There are also a couple of films which were made much earlier, such as Don Shebib’s Going Down the Road and Between Friends, and several films from Quebec in the French language. There were also

Martin Knelman is a well-known writer on theatre and cinema in Canada. He has written for numerous magazines, including S a tu rd a y ight, Toronto N , , C hatelaine and The , as well as being film critic for The Toronto S ta r and The Globe a n d M ail.

In 1977, he wrote a book on the career and character of Canadian cinema, entitled This is W here W e C am e In. In it, he wrote: “ Hollywood has stopped making films about Canada, and now we have a chance to do it ourselves. The irony, as things have turned out, is that when it comes to trashing Canada’s national image, Hollywood is no match for the Canadian Film D ev elo p m en t Corporation.”

In this interview, Knelman speaks with Mark Stiles. .

the feature documentaries of the late ’60s: Pour la suite du monde, for the National Film Board, and Alan King’s Warrendale.

If you tried now to select a film that you could send people to see, what would it be? Meatballs made a lot of money, but what else is there?

One of the things that has hap­ pened is that all the power is now in the hands of the independent pro­ ducers. That means throwing the dice in favor of the money and production people and not in favor of the talent people. It means that directors are now hired hands brought in by producers.

The problem in Canada, so far, has been all the people running around acting like Hollywood tycoons. All the excitement is about deals and none of it about films.

People who are in it for reasons that are clearly questionable will manage very quickly to burst the bubble.

Will this lead to withdrawing the tax loophole?

Yeah. A lot of films have been cancelled and there seems to be a loss of confidence in the invest­ ment community. People no longer seem willing to get on the band­ wagon and pitch money into some­ thing just on the basis of a tax shelter. People have started looking much more closely at the projects.

Then there were charges that the CFDC had over-extended; that they were offering money they didn’t have in the anticipation that money was coming back from something.

There were several cases where four or five films fell through in a very short time.

All of these things happening at once led to a general speculation that the bubble was about to burst.

Did people see these films before?

They did see them, in isolated cases, but there were a lot of films people didn’t see, that were non­ commercial and bad. I am talking about a handful of good films, and most of those films are successful on a small scale.

The films that we are talking about now are much slicker, with bigger budgets, and they all

Publicity still for Ivan Reitman’s run-away success, Meatballs.

Concluded on p. 502

/S

o

jtfS

a

x

c

L

s y

PRESIDENT of the DIRECTORS'GUILD OF CANADA While the Canadian Film Development Corporation may say, “Look what we did”, it is not responsible for the film activity in this country. All it does is monitor it. The person responsible is Garth Drabinsky who figured out a way of getting a film prospectus through the Ontario Securities Commis­ sion so that the investors could have their 100 per cent Capital Cost Allowance. That happened, I believe, in September 1978.

The first film through was The Changeling, and was followed by a whole rush of films. People who had been waiting in the lists suddenly got together and tailored their films to look like this one, and away they went, not stopping from that day ’til this.

Up to 1978, we only had so many people in the country — produc­ tion managers, first assistant directors — who knew what they were doing. They had been in the film business for 12 to 25 years, and on their productions things ran relatively smoothly. But some of these other productions were like the last bus leaving town in an evacuation, with everybody and his uncle on board — and 14 people who shouldn’t have been there.

A total of 70 films completed principal photography in 1979, whereas a couple of years before there were only three or four made a year — that’s a big jump.

The other aspect of making films in Canada, as opposed to any­ where else, is that we are next door to the U.S. Now, our dollar is 85c of the American dollar, so the Americans get 15 per cent on their dollar here. For an American pro­ ducer making a $2 million film, 15 per cent is a lot of money. So it makes sense for him, if he can find a certain level of competence, to come up here and make a film.

Another point is that Canada has co-production treaties with Britain, France, Germany and Israel. These countries have all been making films for years, but now their industries are in various states of collapse or disarray. So they say, “Okay, we have a treaty with Canada, so how can we con Canada into raising half the money? Then, we’ll send all the good technicians,

Bob Barclay is the president of the Direc­ tors’ Guild of Canada and a long-time lobbyist for a Canadian film industry. The DGC has been in the forefront of the struggle to keep a genuine Canadian involvement in the upsurge in feature film production, and is a continuing critic of the Canadian Film Development Corporation and the film policy of the Federal Government.

The DGC has recently been involved in trying to arrange affiliation with the Direc­ tors’ Guild of America, the Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Tech­ nicians (Britain), and the Producers’ and Directors’ Guild of Australia.

In this interview b.y Mark Stiles, Barclay begins by discussing the recent upsurge of filmmaking activity.

Bob Barclay (right) on a picket line with other union officials.

productions, there have been 10, with four Canadian directors being involved. Four out of 10 is not bad, and there is a balance,-considering how the British have been going a lot longer than we have. As for the French co-productions, the score is one Canadian director in 10 films, In terms whereas the Italians come in with 0 of the Brit­ out of three. Overall, you have five ish co­ Canadian directors out of 23 co­ productions, which is lousy.

But, if the directors are in bad shape, the writers are in worse shape. They have not been invol­ ved in co-productions anywhere near the extent as directors.

What kind of films are being made with the Capital Cost Allowance money?

They used to say you either played tennis to win or to practise.

At the moment, we are making features to practise. If you are a country that used to make five feature films a year and you are suddenly making 70, there is -the problem of people not understand­ ing all the mechanics of making features. So I wouldn’t be as harsh as some of the people are on the resulting films. We have been play­ ing tennis to practise, and hope­ fully we are going to start playing to win.

Does that mean making more films like “Meatballs”?

Meatballs is a winner. Producer Ivan Reitman has made several films, and doing Meatballs is no surprise — you can’t lose them all!

Ivan has been playing to win since he started, and he claims to be the only person of those who got money out of the CFDC to have put money back in profit.

How successfully have Canadian storytellers been telling their own stories?

We have been practising the craft of making films; we haven’t been making films that have a great deal with being culturally relevant. The films are made-for-television features, from scripts that come from everywhere in the world except Canada.

The other thing is that there has been a kind of a myth — and this is another dangerous development in Canada — that if you want to com­ municate to people, then you have to have some people with whom you can communicate. To the Canadian filmmaker, this means communicating not only with Canadians, but Americans as well.

There are so many similarities between Canadians and Americans, and people like Charlton Heston, Marilyn Monroe and Marlon Brando are stars to an ordinary Canadian. So, if a Canadian is trying to reach ordinary Canadians, he has to deal with their stars, their images — that is, American stars.

Canadians also think of their own market as being very limited, the way French Canadians, or Swedes or Danes, think of their market as being very specific.

The really dangerous thing in the development of any kind of Canadian film p e r se is the type of people involved in producing the films. These people, by and large, have a financial expertise, some of

them being chartered accountants and others lawyers. There are five large brokerage houses in Canada and when you go before them you need a package that the brokers understand. Say you have Glenn Ford in your package: well the guy you are dealing with, who may be in his fifties, probably remembers Glenn Ford from the time when he was in his teens and was going to films. Mind you, he hasn’t been to a film for 30 years, and he has no idea whether Glenn Ford is box-office or not. But he does remember him. So there are certain names who may be nowhere, who may not be able to get arrested in the contemporary film business, but there are brokers in Canada who have heard of them.

Now the problem there is a unique form of censorship. You don’t have people in this country who are working at producing, they are working at selling. It is a neces­ sary thing to make the financing happen, but it is not the whole story.

In Canada now, the directors — even the art directors and assistant directors — are saying they are not interested in working on films like those we have been working on; they want to work on something that has some meaning. You have directors saying, “ Do you know a good producer, because I have this neat idea that will make a great feature film?” , because they can’t find a producer in Canada who is interested in movies.

body is interested if you have a good idea that can be done cheaply?

Let’s come to an area which is the trickiest one of all. The Americans are making films for a market they know very well. We are not only not familiar with that marketplace, but we are not dealing with the Americans who do under­ stand it. We are making stuff that’s geared to an aspect of the market, the made-for-television features or B-pictures; we are not dealing with the main market in the U.S. Some people have suggested that it is what the Australian film industry should be doing: getting advance money from American television and making the “Movie of the Week”

Is it also possible that the scene is becoming very bunched up at the expensive end of the market and that there isn’t a low-budget stream?

That’s another aspect. If you have people who are primarily interested in financing, and if you have a situation where the down­ side risk of an investment is taken care of by the G overnm ent’s marvellous plan, the emphasis is not on putting the money on the screen, but on getting enough money out of the project before the whole industry falls apart so that you won’t ever have to work again.

People are working on percent­ ages, so the higher the budget, the higher your percentage. Take Midnight Matinee as an example. It is being produced now for $7.5 million and the director is being „paid $700,000. When that film was first written, 10 years ago, by a Canadian, there was a Canadian director who picked it up and said his entire budget was $700,000.

That was 10 years ago, but it would not have been more than $700,000 five years ago. That film does not require a budget of $7.5 million.

People inflate budgets for all the people involved in the financing to get their percentages up to what they see as a respectable amount.

marvellous thing: it has taken us from zero to 60 miles an hour from a standing start. I think it’s terrific.

But it does seem to have invited the wrong kind of response from the people involved . . .

Another thing, and it’s related to the inflated budgets, is that there are certain people walking around in this country saying there aren’t any Canadian directors who can handle a $6 million feature. The tru th is, there a re n ’t many producers who can handle a $6 million feature. As a result, you have an industry which — in terms -of the development of directors — is rather static: as the budgets go up, they cling to the guys who have done it before. They are not inter­ ested in bringing in guys who have never done it before, or the guys who have done television.

As far as the Guild is concerned, the country has a very good record of producing directors. Canadian directors have gone all over the Are you, therefore, against the 100 world, working on television, film, theatre — everything. It is not that per cent Capital Cost Allowance? we don’t have talent, but we are not No. The 100 per cent CCA is a geared to developing that talent.

We are geared to making money while the money lasts, and making “sure things” in a market where there is no such thing as a “sure thing” .

On films made for $6 and $7 million, what are the negative and the abovethe-line costs?

Take Midnight Matinee as an example. Why is it being shot for $7.5 million when it could have been shot with a first-class inter­ national star to head it up, for something like $2 million. In that $7.5 million, the below-the-line budget is $2 million.

So there is $5.5 million worth of high-priced help . . .

Yes. You take $700,000 for the director, which is a bit pheno­ menal, and $1,000,000 for the two stars, so you are up to $2,000,000 without really having said hello to anybody.

What is the effect of pumping up the budgets? Does that mean there is less money to go around, or that no­

But the Australians have proven that they can make good films that people want to see. You have films that have track records in theatres.

Sure there is the language problem, but that is solvable. It can’t be that much more difficult to translate from Australian than it is from Japanese!

To us, you have an industry which is making great films. But we only see the films, we don’t see the sweat, or the difficulties. The films have variety, whereas Canadian films all deal in a certain genre.

You had a Patrick White story (The Night The Prowler), which I saw here, and which was a very intellectual kind of film, and a knockout film like The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. Then there was an essentially entertainment film, which you wonder how the hell you got involved in, but you find you enjoyed the trip, and saying “Am I glad I’m off that ride!” That was Don’s Party.

As to the historical films, they look so much like the kind of thing we could do here. They are reminis­ cent of the colonial experience which we share with Australia, in the sense that we were looked upon as colonials and exploited for years.

In Australia, you make films over the whole spectrum or color band.

We never get off the red band!

Apparently there are moves to affiliate your Guild with the Directors’ Guild in Australia . . .

We are attempting to have a meeting where we discuss some kind of affiliation between the directors of the U.S., Britain, Canada and Australia, because we would like to know what’s working and what’s not as far as others are concerned. I am sure the Austral­ ian directors would be interested in finding out how things are going as far as we are concerned. And all of us would like to get to meet the American directors who have been living with the major English­ speaking market all their lives, and don’t have the kind of separation from the audience that you and we have. ★ Cinema Papers, December-January—443

SCRIPTWRITER You have to decide what is the function of Film. On the one hand, you have film as an indigenous art form, one which expresses the place and sensibility of a country. On the other, there are the various kinds of commercial Films. It is possible, though, to make strong commer­ cial films that have a lot of artistic merit. The problem in Canada is that there aren’t the directors and writers to carry this through.

Another problem is that our films tend to be too expensive for what they are. This is because of the high financing costs. As soon as you have a system that is based on any kind of tax dodge, you are forced to pay enormous legal fees and investors’ fees. The first film that I wrote, Double Negative, was made for $3,400,000. Of that, $400,000 went in investors’ and legal fees.

The next film was Circle of Two. It cost $5,800,000, of which nearly $800,000 went to investors’ fees.

The next one, Midnight Matinee, cost $6 million. Yet, all those films could have been made for around $2 million.

Tom Hedley is a Canadian scriptwriter and novelist. He is also the author of three r ecent l y- f i l med screenplays: Double Negative, directed by George Bloomfield and starring Susan Clark, Michael Sarrazin, Anthony Perkins and Kate Reid; Circle of Two, directed by Jules Dassin and starring Richard Burton and Tatum O’Neal; and M id n ig h t M atin ee directed by John Guillermin and starring James Coburn and Kate Milligan. Hedley talks with Mark Stiles.

What is the negative cost of a $6 million film?

In the case of Circle of Two, it was about $2,800,000. The abovethe-line costs included $750,000 for Richard Burton, $500,000 for Tatum O’Neal and about $350,000 for the director. So, Circle of Two became a very expensive film when basically it could have been made quite sensitively as a small Canadian film.

What this industry has to do is make a decision that it doesn’t want to make films that are bad versions of Hollywood films. There is no point in competing in that game, because Hollywood does those films better than anyone else.

My first film, which was an adaptation of a Ross MacDonald novel, doesn’t pretend to be any­ thing more than that. The other two films are attempts at serious, enter­ taining films. They evolved out of my preoccupation as a writer, and that is how I . x wish to continue. My next r P film, which I have — \ been researching for the past couple of years, is go­ ing to be a Hollywood film dir­ ected

by Bob Fosse. I think he is the best director for it.

There is something about this country that has a strange ability to erase its past. Whether it is a kind of colonialist shame, or something else, I don’t know. I was brought up as a Canadian believing that we were superior to Americans. There was that English indoctrination which said Americans were people with funny Bermuda shorts and cameras, who were loud on planes and ships. Then, when England declined, so did Canada. It became confused about itself.

So, it is not a question of nationalism, but of a realization that there is a tradition here which should be continued. There certainly is a tradition in literature, and there is one in films — a docu­ mentary tradition. The docu­ mentary film is essentially a primitive form, in the sense that you don’t allow yourself to create fictions, which are acts of the imagination and, therefore, have a psychological reality. There is a tendency to say, “This is true because it happened and therefore it must be good. This is how we must approach it.”

When the art of a country comes out of a tradition that is so funda­ mentally journalistic, based upon recorded files or what is there in front of your eyes, it suffers. One is forced to imitate. So there is this habit of imitating American action films and spy thrillers. It is a tendency to say, “This is com­ mercial; let’s do it” , rather than work with a project that has the chance of creating an atmosphere which will then create a commer­ cial response. We have spent the first two or three years of this par­ ticular boom imitating the Ameri­ cans to the point where there is a lack of credibility in the Canadian film industry.

Any country that wants to have an impact in the U.S. shouldn’t sell out to some imitative, commercial notion of what the U.S. wants.

Instead, it should concentrate on a kind of exotic expression that is universal and connects to an audience in the U.S. What is the situation like for Canadian writers in the film industry?

Richard Burton and a hidden Tatum O’Neal in Jules Dassin’s Circle of Two, scripted by Tom Hedley.

We have two kinds of writers.

There are those who have emerged out of the past 10 years of national­ ism, and who write basically

provincial stories about small towns on the prairies. They are stories of place and self-consciously documentary in their approach.

Then there is the generation of writers who are acutely aware of what’s going on in Hollywood and write Hollywood films.

Canada is in North America, but it is decidedly different to the U.S. There is a particular Canadian vision that has showed itself in writing and literature. Brian Moore, who says he is a Canadian — he is actually Irish — feels very strongly that his vision as a writer has been shaped by living in Canada. And people like Mordecai Richler and Morley Callaghan, who have been here for years, have produced something that is defin­ able as Canadian work. This hasn’t happened in film yet.

There is just not enough original work done here. The fact that we live in Canada and that Hollywood is only three hours away by plane is beside the point. It has nothing to do with Canada or Hollywood, it has to do with the work itself.

I really am a believer that the times dictate what the art is, and there is a kind of relevance which a writer must get down on paper, whether it is a story, a character, or an atmosphere. That is the thing that will really elucidate the piece.

So the choice of director becomes crucial, as does how the film is produced, how the music is done or how the film is designed. All those things come out of some kind of original atmosphere and character.

It doesn’t necessarily come out of a good story. It is a kind of magic that happens in films and is really creative work. We are missing that stuff.

There are three essential be­ trayals or failures in this country.

The first is the artist, for not creating on all sides, for not creating and articulating people in a place. The second is the academic community, for mystifying the national experience. It tends to do that because it doesn’t have the art to interpret; it tends to mystify.

there is a terrible shortage in writing and directing talent. There is no Ingmar Bergman, no Francis Coppola. Our directors become middle-ground, commercial Holly­ wood directors or they become, like the French Canadians, such as Giles Carle, sensitive, provincial directors. I have nothing against being provincial — Flaubert was a provincial and he is one of my favorite writers — but we haven’t had an artistic giant, in film or lite ra tu re , em erge from this country. Australia has a Nobel Prize winner.

A u stralia also had a real advantage, in that it isn’t so close to Hollywood, and you can’t easily be mistaken for an American.

In terms of film in Australia, much of the impetus seems to have come from playwrights, from the explosion in the theatre in the late 1960s and early ’70s . . .

We had the same explosion here, but the playwrights haven’t made the transition into film; they just stay in theatre, or go to Broadway.

It’s really an odd thing to be a writer in a film right now. I have been engaged in writing, one way or another, for some years, and to me it is a continuation of a certain process. I really believe that art is independent of its means of Donann Cavin as Smithy in Circle of Two. expression. In other words, I wouldn’t feel awkward writing a Even though Canada, is essentially can sell one’s work there, or even go novel, and I am doing one which an industrial, urban society, the there. I have two agents in the U.S.. will be published in New York next a r t i s t i c and th e a c a d e m ic one in New York and one in Los year.

But because of this kind of boom communities tend to dwell on land­ Angeles. Only in the past few years scape, on the strange epic nature of have they started to create an mentality in films right now, there are a lot of people running around the land. But it’s not the land at all. agency system in Canada.

One of the things that struck me who say they are writers who have This is an urban country.

The third failure is the media, the when we were doing this last film — “ ideas for films” . There is lots of newspapers and magazines which and Guillermin noticed it too, as money around, and they meet a have not created a platform for the did Jules Dassin — was the high producer who likes the idea and right kind of writers. Newspapers level of Canadian acting talent. It is says, “ Okay, I want the idea, we’ll and magazines are used as a sort of like the repertory system, and they get somebody else to rewrite it.” brokerage house for the powerful. have a lot of experience. They have Then four or five more writers will So, you have those kinds of to do Shakespeare, then beer be brought in. This is not the way failures, all of which are fairly commercials or whatever. It was so good films are made. Films are not central. And then there is the fact good that I was quite humbled by ideas; they are executed, creative acts. A film script is only a premise that the U.S. is nearby. If one is a it.

I read scripts all the time and for something else. ★ marvellous writer or painter, one

Falling in love: 16-year-old Sarah (Tatum O’Neal) and 60-year-old Ashley (Richard Burton).

Circle of Two.

Sarah breaks the news to Smitty that she has fallen in love with Ashley. Circle of Two.

Cinema Papers, December-January—445

• @

la

n

K

in

g

FILM DIRECTOR We started shooting Silence of the North on August 28, and finished just before Christmas. Our original estimate was 65 days, but we had to cut it because‘Universal felt the film’s potential audience wasn’t big enough to recoup $9 million; they felt it could only do $8 million.

Universal came into the film partly as a showcase for their establishment of a Canadian film operation, and partly because they thought it was an extremely good script. They were very proud of it and wanted to be associated in terms of the prestige.

The idea was developed by the

To many, Alan King is the quintessential Canadian filmmaker. Best remembered for his pioneering work in cinem a verite, in par­ ticular Warrendale, King has also made several features, including A M arried Couple and Who Has Seen the Wind?.

King’s latest venture is Silence of the North, produced by Bob Bayliss and starring Ellen Burstyn, Tom Skerritt and Gordon Pinsent. King begins by describing the location filming to interviewer Mark Stiles.

p ro d u c e r, a C a n a d ia n , who eventually lost control of it, and Ellen Burstyn, who also lost control — if, in fact, she ever had any.

There were three or four scripts done in the U.S., none of which worked. The final script was done in Los Angeles by an American writer [Alan Palmer] who had done many scripts but had not sold a great number. It is a terrific script, and when I saw it at first draft stage I was very excited about it. So was Universal.

Below: director Alan King on location for Silence of the North.

I found Universal, by and large, quite good to work with. They had a few anxieties about us shooting in the North — Would we get snowed in? How do you shoot in the snow?

What are those cold Canadians like anyway? — but it’s true we had a few anxieties on our side as well.

How did you become involved with Universal?

I had made a film called Who Has Seen the Wind? which was screened widely at Universal. The president liked it enormously and had all his production executives screen it. Also, the executive producer on our film, Murray Shostak, who is a Canadian, either suggested me as d irec to r or supported the idea.

It sounds like Universal were looking for someone to do this project . . .

Because it is the first film a major studio had done in Canada, Universal consciously set out to make a Canadian film. Even so, Silence of the North is not as Canadian a film as I would like to make. There are aspects to it that came from Ellen Burstyn and Tom Skerritt, the two American leads, which just aren’t Canadian.

Do you regret that?

Yes. I like a great deal of what Ellen brought to the film, but the flavor is different.

When Michael McCabe quoted me as saying I couldn’t set out to make a Canadian film, he was quite right. At the same time, I don’t think I could make a non-Canadian film. If I went to Los Angeles and did a big-budget, international film it would be a big-budget, inter­ national film, but that’s a different thing.

Is it hard to think “internationally”?

Yes. I have an unconsious, automatic sense of how to speak

A M a rried Couple, Alan King’s film on the Edwards family.

with a little more breadth, but I don’t think that means giving up your integrity. There is no point speaking Swahili in China, for instance. What language are you going to speak that is authentically your own?

A lot of it also comes in your choice of material: a lot of directing is taking tips that have been offered to you. I frankly find it easier to work with material that I have generated myself, not necessarily as the writer, but from collaborating with the writer. This tends to be a particularly acute problem in the U.S., as I have seen it. It is far more an industrial or factory process there than in any other country.

Which is the better system, 1 don’t know. Most audiences have responded to American films.

which have dominated the world, culturally. I happen to find films with more individuality much more interesting, and I don’t find many A m erican films p articu la rly interesting. Where they tend to fail is in their lack of character.

“Well, what are we spending all this money for?” And things will close down and everybody will be worse off than before. That certainly was the pattern of the British film industry, which went through this process before we did.

How are Canadians reacting to their own films?

Then came the massive state subsidies . . .

I don’t think they care very much, though they love the buzz of m eeting some of the people involved — especially the media, whose egos are enlarged by rubbing shoulders with the famous. How much of this has reached Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, I don’t know.

There were already things like the Film Finance Corporation at the end of the war. The Eady Plan drew a tremendous amount of American money into Britain, as did the Spanish lock-up of remittances into Spain.

Do you feel it has become increas­ ingly difficult for the ordinary person to identify with, or even feel pride in, the national product .. .

Yes. I don’t know that after a while local taxpayers won’t say,

Is it possible for films to do what literature has had so much trouble doing, in terms of developing nationalistic consciousness?

That is really tricky ground, because literature did not do its work under State direction, or as a

Two scenes from King’s break-through cinema verite documentary, Warrendale.

Cinema Papers, December-January—447

result of a conscious policy. There was no particular push given to Victorian literature to throw up Charles Dickens, who had a very large social effect. Above all, he was enormously popular.

We are having real difficulty publishing in Canada right now because, up until three years ago, publishers could do a number of serious books at relatively low cost.

We had a real explosion of writers, as we had in theatre. Publishers are now getting very pressed by inflation and are looking for bigmarket, mass-appeal books.

The anomaly, of course, is that the writers who really break out tend to appear because the activity is going on. It is an extremely Darwinian process.

I don’t know how it is in Australia, but here there is always somebody who wants to put the Canadian Broadcasting Commis­ sion, the National Film Board of Canada, the Canada Council and the Canadian Film Development Corporation in one big bureau­ cratic structure. It would be so much better to administer, but film­ makers have lived on the bureau­ cratic differences and attitudes of the four different organizations, with their divergent points of view.

One was also bound to be able to get something going.

How do you feel about the big budgets of Canadian films?

I think it is desirable for us to have big-budget films.

Do you mean $5 million or $6 million?

Oh, up to $12 million! It is getting enormously expensive.

How much of that is negative costs, and how much salaries?

money for two or three more, and also a tremendous amount of self­ there is no question that the indulgence and sloppiness. There investors are in profit on their tax was a lack of preparation of lines deferral from the outset. Without and lack of consistency in con­ that, they are not going to invest, tinuity, which was quite surprising. because who is going to invest in Yet the assumption is that they something where they are certain to know better than we do. lose money?

At the same time, I have never McCabe claims that he is trying to met one whose eyes didn’t glisten at build a Canadian star system . . . the thought of hitting the jackpot.

As they say in advertising, that Well, he hasn’t found the right jackpot is the sizzle on the steak. way. I don’t see any sign of it.

And you need sizzle on the steak, otherwise it doesn’t matter how Not even the insistence on equal nutritious the tax shelter is. They billing, pay and the number of roles could buy an oil well, but there is no sizzle in an oil well.

For that sizzle, do you need American stars?

It really is nonsense to say that you must have an American star.

They are not irrelevant, but close to it. Star Wars is the biggestgrossing film ever, but nobody went to see Alec Guinness, and he was the only recognizable name in it.

Superman had no names other than M arlon B rando, who had a peripheral role, and it has just topped $200 million.

So, such an argument is not valid. It is merely a security blanket for distributors and for people who want to beat you down on a deal.

Our actors, by and large, are also extremely experienced, and do more work on a professional level than most American actors. Here actors do television, theatre and film all the time, and are very hard to hire because they are so heavily booked. A major actor in the U.S., on the other hand, will only do two Are private investors sinking their or three television episodes a. year, money into films that they hope will and maybe a feature every two years. He will work eight or 10 fail? weeks each year.

I have worked on a number of I have never really bought that argument. I have sold shares in a films where the American actors couple of films and tried to raise may have had a certain flash, but A fair amount is salaries, and I don’t think you can cut them down significantly. The stars command that kind of money, and if you are running a $10,000,000 operation you are not going to get someone for $10,000.

At the same time, I don’t believe in a huge spread of incomes. I subscribe to the well-researched social theory that when you get a spread beyond the ratio of 7:1, you get a real sense of social deprivation by the guys who are getting one, compared to the guys who are getting seven. When you get that, you are going to have crime and social disorder.

We are trying to get people to give up the 7-on-up ratio spread, but right now I don’t think one can do an awful lot about it.

448—Cinema Papers, December-January

At the moment you can have two non-Canadians in principal roles, though there is trem endous pressure from producers to make it three. They say there aren’t enough Canadian actors, and it’s true. We are a little short of male leads at the moment.

There seems to be a world-wide shortage of leading men . . .

people don’t recognize its relation­ ship to others that have gone before or are going to come after.

The distributors, for instance, really don’t know what they want until it’s done and given to them.

When you are making a deal as a producer, it means satisfying certain criteria — evolved in Los Angeles and New York. There are many ways of slicing it and they always change. But American commitment does mean a heavy American involvement. If they have money in it, obviously they want a big say.

They also don’t know our experience, so they tend to be contemptuous of us, as the British and Americans are of Australians.

Furthermore, the colonial groups collude in this by feeling insecure and prone to failure, which is not so.

At the same time, involvement

by American producers can be very good. They do control the distri­ bution, and it is very hard to persuade someone to voluntarily give you a chunk of it. General Motors does not give Ford a break, even to protect itself from anti-trust suits. They are not particularly venal about it: they are just in the business of making money for their shareholders.

Have you had a lot of carpet­ baggers?

I am not sure, though I think it is probably a mistake on the part of the Government to have a structure that allows such people to operate.

At the same time, it is difficult to stop them without stultifying things. It is much more difficult than people realize: how to prime the pump well; how to spend money to stimulate activity in a really healthy, judicious and effective way. One tends to either mop up after disasters or plug loopholes in the tax system.

Are you in favor of the tax deferral system?

Yes. It is without question the instrumental factor in the increase in production. Until then it was Yes and you can’t correct it unless extremely difficult, if not im­ you spend money. I was never a big possible, to finance features. As fan of Stewart Granger, but in soon as the law came in, there was a some respects he was created by the great deal of activity. You just can’t British film industry. They spent a make film without the money, not hell of a lot of money promoting in a capitalist society. And, at the him, and, if you want a star system, moment, I’m not sure I would like that’s one way of doing it. to make them in Czechoslovakia.

However, I don’t think a star The difficulty with the tax system is particularly good. I don’t deferral system is that you then get think Stewart Granger’s contri­ an exercise in taste by the doctors, bution to the screen — other than in dentists and lawyers of the country, King Solomon’s Mines — was very because most of the money comes great. not from corporations or business, Film is an industry fraught with but from people who are highly insecurities and misjudgments exposed. The films are being made about what is going to work. It is for the prosperous upper-middlelike gambling and not like a lot of class: professional people, engin­ other industries where you can eers. You get a kind of film that predict trends easily. With films, reflects what they’ll go for — to the you are always looking for the degree that they can make an in­ unique, but not so unique that telligent choice. ★

Subscribe to and Save Save 1 year (6 issues) $15.70 2 years (1 2 issues) $30.00 3 years (18 issues) $42.30 Please enter a subscription for 6 issues D Please start l

l renew I

I

$1.20 on single issue purchase price $3.60 on single issue purchase price $9.00 on single issue purchase price 12

es □

18 issues

my subscription with the next issue.

Delivered to your door post free

Subscriber’s na m e ................

Address ............................................................................. Postcode............

Gift Subscriptions If you wish to make a subscription to Cinema Papersa gift, cross the box below and we will send a card on your behalf with the first issue. u

Gift subscription, from (name of sender) ....................................

Enclosed is a cheque/m oney order for $ ........................................... made out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Victoria, 3051, Australia

Office use only NP

The above offer applies to Australia only. For overseas rates, see below.

This offer expires on April 1, 1981

OK

r

BOUND VOLUMES ORDER VOLUME 6 NOW

BOUND VOLUMES

Volumes 3 (9-12), 4 (13-16) and 5 (17-20) are still available.

Handsomely bound in black s*. ith gold embossed lettering.

Each Volume contains 400 lavishly illustrated pages of • Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians.

• Valuable historical material on Australian film production.

• Film and bixik reviews.

• Production surveys and reports from the sets of local and international production.

• Box-office reports and guides to film producers and investors.

□

copies of Volume 6

EZIBINDERS Please send me □ copies o f Cinema Papers' Ezibinder at S l 5 per binder.

Total amount enclosed SAust.

N A M E ..........................................

AD D RESS Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that an

E/ibinder is now available in black with gold embossed lettering to accommodate your unbound copies. Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently, or detached if desired. This

S T R IC T L Y L IM IT E D E D IT IO N S

Overseas Rates

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a n d e i ^ w l K ic c o m m o d a t ^ ^ ^ o p i e ^ ^

..............................................P o stc o d e .............

For overseas rates, see below.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria. Australia 3051 Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

(All remittances in Australian dollars only) S u b scrip tio n s

Bound V olu m es

E zib in d ers

(each)

(each)

(to the price of each copy, add the following)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Sudacei

$ 6 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 9 2 .7 0 (Air)

$ 3 6 .5 0 (Air)

$ 1 9 .9 0 (Air)

$ 2 .8 0 (Airi

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Su facci

$ 3 6 .7 0 (Air)

$ 7 2 .0 0 (Air)

$ 1 0 5 .3 0 (Air)

$ 3 7 .1 0 (Air)

$ 2 0 .9 5 (Air)

$ 3 .5 0 (Ar)

3. Hong Kong India Japan Philippines China

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0

$ 4 0 .9 0 (Air)

$ 8 0 .4 0 (Air)

$1 1 7.90 (Air)

$ 4 0 .0 0 (Air)

$ 2 2 .0 0 (Air)

$ 4 .2 0 (A n

4, North America Middle East Canada

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Su lace)

$ 4 5 .1 0 (Air)

$ 8 8 .8 0 (Air)

$ 1 3 0 .5 0 (Air)

$ 4 3 .2 0 (Air)

$ 2 3 .9 5 (Air)

$ 4 .9 0 (Airi

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0

$ 4 7 .2 0 (Air)

$ 9 3 .0 0 (Air)

$ 1 3 6 .8 0 (Air)

$ 4 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 2 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 5 .2 5 (Ai' I

Zone 1. New Zealand Niugini

2. Malaysia Singapore Fiji

5. Britain Europe Africa Sth America

■

N

$30.00 (including post) per volume.

Please send me CDcopies o f Volume 3 □ copies o f Volume 4 □ copies o f Volume 5

(numbers 21-24)

PLEASE NO I E: Volume I (numbers I-4) and Volume 2 (numbers 5-8) ARE NOW IN AVAILABLE.

ORDER FORM

6 issues

12 issues

18 issues

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 3 2 .5 0 (Air)

NOTE: A “Surface Air Lift" (air speeded) service is available to Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy and North America. Subscriptions 6 issues Volumes (each) — $35.20. Ezibinders (each) — $20.75. Back Issues — add $ 1 1 0 per copy.

B ack Iss u es

$28 20; 12 issues -

$54 96: 18 issues - $79 '4

Bound

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce the publication o f

A n indispensable reference book for anyone working in, or dealing with, the A ustralian film industry

For the first time, a comprehensive guide to every major aspect of the Australian film industry.

In this first major work on the Australian film industry’s dramatic rebirth, 1 2 leading film writers combine to provide a lively and entertaining critique. Illustrated with 2 6 $ stills, including $$ in full color, this book is an invaluable record for all those interested in the New Australian Cinema.

208 pps, 28cm x 20.5cm ( 1 1 ” x 8") The chapters: The Past (Andrew Pike), Social Realism (Keith Connolly), Comedy (Geoff Mayer), Horror and Suspense (Brian McFarlane), Action and Adventure (Susan Dermody), Fantasy (Adrian Martin), Historical Films (Tom Ryan), Personal Relationships and Sexuality (Meaghan Morris), Loneliness and Alienation (Rod Bishop and Fiona Mackie), Children’s Films (Virginia Duigan), Avant-garde (Sam Rohdie).

Contents include ★ National listings of Producers, Directors, Production Companies, Organizations, Distributors and Exhibitors, Media, Festivals and Awards ★ Details on Film Investment, Tax, Trade Incentives, Copyright and Censorship ★ Profiles on two outstanding new directors — Gillian Armstrong and George Miller ★ A detailed round-up of recent developments in the Australian film industry.

320 pages, illustrated throughout, 25 0 mm x 1 7 6 mm.

Solidly bound with a laminated cover in full color.

Now reduced to $ 1 9 .5 0 Published by Cinema Papers Pty Ltd in association with 1he New South W ales Film Corporation

Order Form Please send me ......... copies oi the M otion P ic tu re Y e a rb o o k : 1980 @ Aust.S19.50. O u tsid e A u str a lia : A ust.Sis (surface mail); A u s t r o (airmail).

Please send me ......... copies of T h e N e w A u str a lia n C in e m a @ Aust.Si4.95.

O u tsid e A u s tr a lia : Aust.Szo (surface mail); Aust.Sos (airmail).

Name ...........................................................................................................

Address ..................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................. ( lode ......................

Enclosed: A u st.S ...................

Please make cheques/money orders out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 3051. Tel: (03) 329 5983 Note: Bank drafts only tor overseas orders.

Please allow up to 4 w eeks for processing.

FORUM

Final word in the Film and Politics debate Adrian Martin Within the conservatism of Australian film culture, provocation is an important and necessary weapon. For far too long, no one has seen fit to argue with anyone else. “ The music of Individual voices” is not always the best tune to hear. I wrote “ Film and Politics” to provoke and suc­ ceeded, thanks to the strong positions and commitments of Ken Mogg and Peter Hay. Provocation is an attractive, but dangerous tactic. It can lead one to over­ state what has been hitherto unspoken in film, politics, or any combination of the two. That is why I spoke of form rather than content, non-narrative rather than narrative, sexual politics rather than state politics.

I intend leaving the wider political argument open. Here, to provisionally conclude the Film and Politics debate, I think it would be most useful to make a few remarks about how each of us, in our arguments, has conceived and con­ structed the category of film, and the possible ideological implications of these positions.

Bertolt Brecht once said something like: things, are simple once you realize things are complex. And I would say to Ken Mogg: in film as in life. Cinema is, perhaps of all creative forms, the most heterogeneous, a technological and ex­ pressive hybrid. Because of its commer­ cial and industrial place, it is also the most open to ideological saturation.

Which is to say that I do not believe, like Mogg, in “ simple and obvious” filmic fa c ts , or “ c o m m o n -s e n s e , n o n ­ polemical” readings.

Films are, above all, acts of language, signifying practices. Meanings must be deciphered, not skimmed off the surface.

And meanings can be transformed — that’s what political struggle is all about.

Mogg lacks a cinema theory which is sufficiently rigorous to describe films in terms of logic, systematicity and textual relations. The curious thing is that the people he holds up as being the masters of free artistic expression, finally beyond political determination, are precisely the ones who initially inspired the semiotic study of literary and filmic language in France — James Joyce and Jean Renoir (what film is more logical, more con­ cerned with cultural connotations than La regie du jeu?).

For Mogg, the self is the principal social reality, the individual is “ the ul­ timate point of reference” . But he does not canvass the possibility that the whole obsession with self, one of the defining traits of modern Western culture (e.g., popular songs like “ My Way” , “ I Gotta Be Me” , “This Is My Life” ), could itself be caught within ideology, and have very precise functions of social control.

If “ most responsible art moves precisely in the direction” of universality, then I claim it is highly irresponsible and self-deluding art, able to be co-opted at any moment. After all, if all my problems are located in my “self” , there is no point in questioning anybody or anything else as to their cause.

I am similarly bothered by Mogg’s enshrining of the author as he/she who knows and controls the work, who can, with will and insight, shuffle off the political coil (e.g., "Kubrick’s ego” ). The politics of filmmaking is not a matter of “vested interests” or conscious deci­ sions. It is a question of the identity, the place that one unconsciously assumes in order to be a subject within a given society. Kubrick is only a cog in the cinema-machine, which further has its place in the larger machines of our culture.

Films cannot be “ reality-tested” , as Mogg claims, for reality is itself con­ structed in relations of meaning, places, positions. One gains insight only through working inside these relations, not im­

agining oneself to be situated at a mythical, transcendent “ beyond” .

On this “ humanist versus materialist” level of argument, Mogg and I may never meet. However, like me, he calls for a more comprehensive critical approach, in his pointing up the shortcomings of Andrew Britton’s analysis of Mandingo in Movie. But if all Mogg can come up with is a nod to “ superb visuals” and an “ engaging Maurice Jarre score” , then I suggest he peruse the rigorous semiotic film analyses of Thierry Kuntzel1 which really get to grips with the task of reading films at all their stylistic and connotative levels.

At a year’s distance from my original article, I am prepared to accept the criticisms of my position made by Peter Hay — that I was using a “ bad praxis” in w a n tin g to d e n ig ra te n a rra tiv e c o m m e rc ia l fo rm g ro s s o m o d o .

However, I must make an essential theoretical point: Hay and I are flounder­ ing on either side of an artificial and un­ productive form/content opposition.

Look, say, at Bo Derek in “10”. How can the message she embodies (beauti­ ful sex-object for the male gaze) poss­ ibly be separated from the way she is lit, photographed and placed within a par­ ticular narrative context? And if “10”, as I have argued in Cinema Papers No. 27, is actually politically a very progressive film, this is not because a liberal-feminist message is placed in the mouths of one of its characters, but because it disturbs the audience’s relation to cultural sexual fantasies as they are defined by the cinema and its representations (for ex­ ample, in the way the film plays on voyeurism).

And, to reply to Hay, I would hope that my commitment to discussing films like “10” or Cruising clears me of the charges of elitism and “ art-fetishism” .

I could not have invented a better mot­ to than the one Hay provides: “ It is the diet, not the meal, that is important.” But I imagine the meal to be more inclusive.

We learn to swallow not only themes and ideas in cinema, but also very specific

Bo Derek in “ 10” . “ How can the message she embodies (beautiful sex object for the male gaze) possibly be separated from the way she is lit, photographed and placed within a par­ ticular narrative context?”

I seemed, originally, to be extolling some imaginary non-narrative “ radical form” which would liberate the audience into new thoughts and new pleasures.

But one need only look at the film-clips of rock bands on Countdown, or any slick television advertisement, to discover how quickly and painlessly formal innovation can be put at the service of dominant ideology.

However, Hay is working under a sim ila r m isapprehension when he privileges content and reduces form to a mere support of the message. Film language, with all its connotative and signifying powers, does not carry mes­ sages; it creates them. This is why, rather than trying to keep the thoroughly dead form/content duo alive, I prefer to talk to­ day of representations, specific ensem­ bles of images and sounds in which the “ how” and “what” of meaning are indis­ soluble.

1. “ The Film -W ork” , Enclitic, Vol II, No. 1; “ The Film -W ork II” and “ Knowledge, Power, Vision" in the forthcom ing Camera Obscura, No. 5.

forms of language, discourse and filmic construction. It does well to remember the words of French critic and filmmaker Claude Brunei: “ It is important to work at least as much on language as on what is said.

It is important to work on the language of the image, because from birth we are bombarded by a language im­ posed by the ideological system.

When one makes films, the only way to struggle against this system is in fact to find a language which is not dominant.”

In a sense, my present concern is less to define politics, or the cinema’s political effect on reality, than to define film — what it is, how it works, how it speaks.

Only then, it seems to me, can we begin to pose the right questions as to the rela­ tions between film and politics.

If, as film critics or theorists, we wish to enter the cultural struggle, we can only do so from our most strategic position — we must know something about the cinema. ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—449

C o m p ile d by Terry Bourke

United States The 11-week long Screen Actors Guild strike ended late October and the almost-dormant Hollywood and New York production scenes quickly regained momentum as 22 feature films resumed shooting, with another five new projects getting underway within 10 days of the resumption.

Several planned films were cancelled because of the strike, including the bigbudgeted Marinium, to have been directed by Japan’s Hiroki Adashl with an American-Japanese cast.

O ther ca su a lties in c lu d e d John Byrum’s Mercyville, Jan earner’s Duel in the Stars and Burgess Meredith’s Return to Paradise.

Fred Schepisi got underway with his mythical western Barbarosa for Lord Lew Grade. Willie Nelson and Gary Busey play the key roles. Tragedy struck the Texas location in the fourth week of shooting when two crew members and a woman visitor were killed in a car crash after a Saturday-night party.

There is plenty of American produc­ tion activity preceding Christmas, with 14 features starting in November and December, and another 18 with January start-dates confirmed, 12 in February and nine in March.

Colin Higgins, (writer of Harold and Maude and Silver Streak and writerdirector of Foul Play) has started final mixing on Nine to Five (Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Dolly Parton) at Twentieth Century-Fox. The former Sydney MGM office-boy has been signed by Universal to direct the $22-miilion screen version of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.

Shooting starts next March.

Ron Maxwell is directing The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia; Arthur Penn, Four Friends; Sidney Lumet, Prince of the City; Alan J. Pakula, Roll Over; Greydon Clark, Earth Right; and James Komack, Foolproof.

Ron Satloff (directed The Night of the Shark episode of McCloud series in Sydney in 1977) will make his big screen debut directing Stealing Heaven.

John Boorman and Burt Reynolds’ D eliverance P ro d u c tio n s w ill film Sharky’s Machine, based on William Diehl's best-selling police novel.

Buzz Kulik (director of Steve Mc­ Queen’s final film , The Hunter) is directing Pursuit; Eric Karson, Dragon Maze; Sydney Pollack, Absence of Malice; Tobe Hooper, Venom; Robert J. Siegel. The Line: Robert Aldrich, All the Marbles; Richard Fleischer, Brenda Starr.

Frank Perry (The Swimmer) will direct Anne Bancroft in Mommie Dearest, based on Christina Crawford's con­ troversial biography of her mother, actress Joan Crawford.

Barbra Streisand is to direct Yentl for boyfriend-producer Jon Peters, with Michel Legrand scoring the music, and lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman. This is the third project announced in two years as Streisand's feature debut as director.

Robert Greenwald (Xanadu) is prepar­ ing Final Mix and Vida; Keith Merrill, Wind Walker II (again starring Trevor Howard as the legendary Indian); Sean

450—Cinema Papers, Decernber-January

Cunningham (Friday the 13th), Ridge Run; Peter Yates (Breaking Away), The Dragons of Krull; Steve Shagan, Playback.

Candice Bergen and Jacqueline Bisset have finished Rich and Famous with Robert Mulligan directing; Lawrence Kasdon has written and directed Body Heat: William Asher, Thrilled to Death; Frank Gilroy, Jackpot; Glenn Jordan, Only When I Laugh.

Ridley Scott (The Duellists, Alien) will direct Dune after he completes Blade Runner; Vernon Zim m erm an, who directed Wagga Wagga’s Linda Kerridge in Fade to Black, is preparing Kyle: The American.

Novelist-scriptwriter Max Rabinowitz makes his debut as a producer-director with the $9 million The Concrete Zoo, based on his 1976 award-winning novel.

Patrick Pitteili is directing Jambalaya for producer Elmo Williams (Darryl Zanuck's former right-hand man at Twentieth Century-Fox).

Australian director Philippe Mora has abandoned plans for Errol Flynn: The Untold Years, a film based on former Sydney journalist Charles Higham’s con­ troversial biography of the hell-raising Aussie actor, now that CBS has an­ nounced a m ini-series on Flynn’s autobiography My Wicked, Wicked Ways. Mora (Mad Dog Morgan) is preparing a horror-thriller, The Beast Within, to be shot in the U.S. Steve Gordon is directing Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli in Arthur for Orion Pictures-Warner Bros., with some in ve stm e n t backing fro m United American and Australasian Productions Pty Ltd. a Sydney firm headed by in­ surance broker David Thomas and Perth lawyer John Picton Warlow. UAAP was an initial investor in Orion’s Under the Rainbow (starring Chevy Chase, Carrie Fisher, directed by Steve Rash), but withdrew from the financing.

W arner Bros fin a lly announced cancellation of The Thorn Birds when “third" director Arthur Hiller (following Herbert Ross and Peter Weir) quit the production as the budget soared to an estimated $23.8 million. Warners will now make a four-episode mini-series around May-June next year. With locations set for California and Arizona, there will be no shooting in Australia. .

Paramount has shelved olans for a

sequel to Grease. Original stars John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John are not interested in returning: neither is director Randall Kleiser (The Blue Lagoon). The sequel was to be called Greasier.

Director C.B. Griffiths is shooting ex­ teriors for House of a Hundred Horrors in Spain and Germany, with interiors in Hollywood.

American director Sam Fuller (The Big Red One) plans to shoot his next film, The Tunnel, on location in Yugoslavia.

The World War 2 action-drama deals w ith the G erm an o c c u p a tio n of Yugoslavia, and the construction of a mammoth tunnel by prisoners under the orders of the German occupation forces.

Cinematographer Irv Goodnoff (The Van) is to direct The Littlest Billionaire, Donald Pleasence’s next assignment after his New Zealand work in Race to the Yankee Zephyr.

Wes Craven, who directed the cult horror film The Hills Have Eyes, is

preparing two new shockers, Deadly Blessing and The Swamp Thing.

William Graham directs Bruce Dern and singer Gordon Lightfoot in Harry Tracy — Desperado; producer Greg Blackwell (Take This Job and Shove It) has announced three new films: Barefoot in Babylon, The Long Afternoon of Earth and Brothers of the Head.

Russ Meyer (58) is making his 24th erotic feature, The Breasts of Russ Meyer (it may be re-titled Jaws of Vixen); Armand Weston, Blocked Exit; Ron Cobb, Night Stories; Tommy Chong, Cheech and Chong Riding High; Delbert Mann, Night Crossing; Michael Crichton, Looker; David Speilberg, Paternity; Peter Medak, Zorro — The Gay Blade; Ronald Neame, The First Monday in Oc­ tober; Michael Apted, Continental Divide; Robert Day, The Acts of Peter and Paul; Robert ToWne, Personal Best; and Jimmy Huston, Final Exam.

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ROUND-UP

B rita in Production on the British scene con­ tinues to be dominated by American finance, with no signs of any real infusion of'local funds.

One significant domestic contribution is the $4.6 million EMI-National Film Finance Corporation-M em orial Films Memoirs of a Survivor, starring Julie Christie and directed by David Gladwell.

The film is based on the famed novel by Doris Lessing, with ex-actor Michael Medwin acting as producer.

Milos Forman continues with Ragtime, while other American-financed con­ tinuances in Britain include Karel Reisz’ The French Lieu ten an t’s Woman; Norman J. Warren, Insemenoid; Steven Spielberg, Raiders of the Lost Ark; Peter Hyams, Outland.

Further American-financial input is im­ minent as George Lucas and Gary Kurtz start pre-production on the third film in the Star Wars saga, Revenge of the Jedda. Star Wars and its highly-successful sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, were filmed mostly in Britain, providing nearly four years of work for studios and tech­ nicians.

Influx of major special effects and in­ teriors for the new 007 extravaganza For Your Eyes Only (directed by John Glen) will help the London studio scene in early 1981.

Harold Orton is directing The 4D Kids and Jim Henson again helms The Muppets in their second film, The Great Muppet Caper.

C anada Canadian filmmakers will try to forget the big slump of 1980, and hope for better things in 1981.

In a year of bitter union and co­ production treaty wrangles, Canadian production dropped dramatically after the rapid gains in 1978 and 1979.

Two planned American-Canadian co­ productions — Lionel Marsden’s Ticket to the Ole Town and Pierre Marquand’s The Lady Says No — were axed as a result of the U.S. actors strike and in­ decisive investment attitudes.

Roger Vadim’s A Stroke of Luck was caught in the strike battle when starting locations in New York, after initial shooting in Canada. Since the strike ended, Vadim has completed shooting and is editing in Toronto.

One beneficial aspect of the actors’ strike was that the $9 million caveman epic Quest for Fire (directed by Jean­ Jacques Arnaud) switched from Twen­ tieth Century-Fox (U.S.) to Canadian funds, with International Cinema Cor­ porations (Montreal) taking over the

threatened operations. This will give about 12 weeks work to Canadian tech­ nicians and studio facilities.

The local industry was rocked when the $4.3 million action-dram a Pure Escape closed down midway through its eight-week shoot by w riter-director Stuart Margolin. Starring James Garner, the film now awaits American efforts to replace a last-minute pull-out of substan­ tial funds by an un-named Canadian investor.

Well-known financier and packager Robert Cooper has formed Robert Cooper Productions and plans a six-film program in Canada during 1981-82.

Cooper helped finance the recentlycompleted Bells and Harvey Hart’s Utilities (starring Brooke Adams), and was associated with earlier packaging of Running, Power Play and Middle-age Crazy.

Cooper says the first of his six new films will be the $6.2 million version of the novel The Chinese. He plans to sign a top scriptwriter and director to start work on the film in early January.

Now before the cameras in Quebec is Robert Menard’s A Day in a Cab, while four films are located in Montreal: Tzipe Trope’s Miri, Gilies Carle’s The Plouffe Family, Francois de Lucy’s Black Mirror and Bernardo Arrebel’s Odyssey of the Pacific.

In Vancouver, Daryl Duke (Silent Partner) is directing Hard Feelings, while Claude Jutra directs By Design and Richard Pearce, Passage.

Martyn Burke, who has just finished editing The Last Chase (Lee Majors, Burgess Meredith, Chris Makepeace), has sold his first novel Laughing War to Canadian and American interests and will direct an early 1981 screen version with Dustin Hoffman in the lead role.

Michael Anderson has finished Bells (starring Richard Chamberlain). Bells looms as Canada’s best prospect for competition in Cannes ’81.

Late starter, and hoping to wind-up a nine-week shoot before Christmas, is Clay Borris with his Toronto-based comedy Alligator Shoes. Also shooting in Toronto are Annette Cohen, Love, and Ron Clark, Comics.

F ra n c e

American import licences will be given the nod by the Government early in the New Year. Industry observers believe the initial cutback will reduce the 1980 total of 81 American films to 60 in 1981.

While there is considerable post­ production work involving 12 features, France’s only in-shooting films early December were Roland Magdane’s Cherchez l’erreur, George Kaczender’s Chanel solitaire and Daniel Mann’s The Arch of Triumph.

It has been confirmed in Paris by Board of T rade o ffic ia ls th a t the C a n a d ia n -lo c a te d Quest for Fire (directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud) has been designated a French-Canadian co­ production and will be eligible for regular film treaty tax rebates.

Ita ly Several late 1980 starters have added some encouragement to the Italian film scene, after it appeared this year’s crop of films would not have any end-of-year starters.

Franco Brocani has started Clodia; Aldo Lada, The Disobedience; Tonino Cervi, II Turno; and Mario Moncelli, A Woman Nude.

Lina Wertmuller has agreed to direct Sophia Loren in Tieta, and American ac­ tor Ben Gazzara signed for the lead in Marco F e rre ri’s Tales of Ordinary Madness. ’ Three provincial courts have thrown out nine obscenity charges against five films in the past two months, and Italian producers are hopeful the various provincial town councils will stop their vigilante activities against Italian films which contain religious, political or sex­ ual themes.

Jerry Goldsmith has been in Rome scoring The Salamander, directed by Peter Zinner from the book by Australian novellist Morris West.

Spanish producer-director Abel Gar­ cia is checking locations in Milan and Sorrento for his contemporary thriller The Dead Are Many. Garcia’s 1976 thriller The Killing Papers is still banned in Spain, but had good runs in Italian cinemas last year.

S p ain As 1980 draws to a close, there is grave concern among French producers that a rather barren year awaits their renewed efforts to initiate continuity of work for the industry.

One aspect of local problems is the stronghold gained over recent years by American films, which now constitute nearly 70 per cent of films shown throughout France.

It is obvious moves to cut down on

Spanish production levelled off towards early-December after what local producers term "an average year” , although they admitted several planned co-productions with England and France did not come to fruition.

Ita ly ’s in te re s t in S panish c o ­ productions continued with a lateNovember start on When Love is Poison, directed by Italian Stefano Rolla in Madrid with a predominantly Spanish cast.

Jorge Allimandro is shooting Caesar’s Ghost; Levre Manilla, Castaways; Alfredo Bombillia, The Nicest People are Bad; Nestor Allendro, Change of Skies; Nami Palanldro, Escape at Balania Point.

Juan Antonio Bardem’s Seven Days in January, one of Spain’s top box-office at­ tractions of 1980, has won the audience popularity award at the Brussels Inter­ national Festival of Young Cinema.

Exhibitors in Barcelona report a 25 to 30 per cent drop in cinema attendances after they raised admission price to 225 pesetas ($3); the old price was $2.40.

C uba Cuba has announced plans for its biggest-ever film, Cecilia Valdes, a $4.5 million costume adventure-drama which

will also have an input of Spanish funds.

Most domestic films in Cuba are made on budgets from $185,000 to $600,000, with some government backing through the Cuban Film institute (which is set up in much the same way as Film Australia).

A two-hour film, with six special half­ hour television promotions, is planned for Cecilia Valdes, based on a famous 19th Century novel by celebrated Cuban writer Umberto Solos.

Spain’s Impala Films will contribute one-third of the budget, and provide two of the four leading actors with top Spanish stars, Imanóle Uribe and Alfredo Mayo.

President Fidel Castro has approved the Cuban Film Institute's heavy com­ mitment to Cecilia Valdes.

In d ia Sir Richard Attenborough holds the limelight in India as he starts his longawaited historical epic Gandhi, with British stage actor Ben Kingsley in the title role.

A big British crew, backed by top technicians from several Indian studios, is in New Delhi preparing for the am­ bitious 28 weeks of shooting.

Attenborough (Oh, What a Lovely War, Young Winston) has chosen 29-year-old Marathi stage actress Rohini Hattangadi to play the wife of Mahatma Gandhi. Also in the cast as Sandar Patel is Indian stage actor Saeed Jaffrey, who has been based in Britain for 22 years.

T h e P h ilip p in e s Australia and its co-members of the Asian Film Festival will have to decide on either Singapore or Kuala Lumpur for the 1981 Festival now that The Philippines says it cannot afford to stage the annual event.

The Philippine Motion Picture Pro­ ducers Association held a meeting midNovember to examine its financial status and plans for the Asian Festival next March.

Assocation president Marichu Maceda said the local ailing industry was hard-hit staying afloat in times of heavy economy cuts and continued local censorship of “ modern themed” Filipino films.

Besides the new venue, next year’s event will have a change of title to AsianPacific Film Festival, and a special marketing program of screenings will be staged separately from the official com­ petition screenings.

Asian delegates said at a meeting several months ago they were styling the market aspect along the lines of Cannes.

The change to include Pacific in the festival title follows the increased roles being played by Australia and New Zealand during the past three years.

In Manila, local filmmakers still plan to hold their own Metropolitan Manila Film Festival (confined to local Tagalog films) at Christmas, and still hope to stage a March 1982 International Film festival in the capital city.

Don McAlpine, who was the cinema­ tographer on Breaker Morant and The Club for director Bruce Beresford, was in The Philippines recently shooting the Japanese-American financed Vietnam war film, Don’t Cry, It’s Only Thunder.

With American director Peter Werner in charge, McAlpine took two of Sydney’s leading technicians with him for the action-dram a, which stars Brooke Adams (Days of Heaven): gaffer Warren Mearns and key grip Merv McLaughlin.

It’s Werner’s feature film debut, but he comes highly regarded. He won the 1978 Short Subject Academy Award with In the Region of the Ice, starring Fionnuala Flanagan who has been touring Australia with her James Joyce’s Women. ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—451

A n international star’s Australian debut KEM the sophisticated German editing system has proved itself as a vital tool in Hollywood film pro­ duction.

KEM now introduces versatility and economy to the Australian film industry.

FILMWEST, the sole import agents in Australia and Asia can supply a full range of KEM tables, and provide interchangeable modules for S8, 16mm S16 and 35mm picture and sound editing as you need them.

The KEM RS8-16 8-plate twin pic editing table is available to pro­ ducers for a free demonstration and trial.

KEM & FILMWEST, the state of the art.

F or in fo r m a tio n a n d a p p o in tm e n ts contact-: FILM W EST E q u ip m en t P ty Ltd 7 B ow m an S tr e e t S o u th P erth W e ste r n A u stra lia 6151 P h o n e 367 7677.

C a b le ‘F ilm w e s t’ P erth T e le x AA 9 4 1 5 0 FILMWA

FILM W EST P te L td S u ite 1S5, R a ffles H o te l 1*3 B e a c h R oad S in g a p o r e 07 1 8 P h o n e 3 3 6 1509, 3 3 2 8041 C a b le ‘R a flo te l’ T e le x R S 2 1 5 8 6 R a ffles.

A t last, a 16mm double head projector at a

reasonable price How? Because you buy direct from the factory.

Yes, the all new HOKUSHIN SC10 DB series is modified and tested in Australia and exported to 20 countries.

3 models to choose from. Plenty of stock.

No more service problems. No more parts problems To buy or rent or have your SC10 converted phone Barry Brown on (02) 4382086 now.

Decibel International. 50 Atchison Street, St. Leonards NSW 2065.

HOKUSHIN

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS AND PRODUCTION COMPANIES To ensure the accuracy of your entry, please contact the editor of this column and ask for copies of our Pro­ duction Survey blank, on which the details of your production can be entered. All details must be typed in upper and lower case.

The cast entry should be no more than the 10 main actors/actresses — their names and character names. The length of the synopsis should not exceed 50 words.

Entries made separately should be typed, in upper and lower case, following the style used in Cinema Papers.

Completed forms should be sent to: P rod uction Survey, C inem a Papers Pty Ltd, 6 4 4 V ic to ria St, N o rth M e lb o u rn e , V ic ., 3051 T e le p h o n e : (03) 3 2 9 598 3

FEATURES P R E -P R O D U C TIO N

A BURNING MAN P ro d u c e r.................. McElroy and McElroy Based on the original idea by ....................................... K. Denton

DOCTORS AND NURSES Prod, company .. Universal Entertainment Corporation P ro d u cers.................................Brian Rosen, Maurice Murphy D ire c to r...............................Maurice Murphy Scriptw riters.....................Morris Gleitzman, Doug Edwards Robyn Moase, Tony Sheldon Based on the original idea by ...........................Maurice Murphy Synopsis: The story of the loves, the fears, tiie hopes and the dreams of the dedicated men and women in a large modern hospital.

The doctors and nurses are played by children and the patients by adults.

DRAGLINE S c riptw riter...................................Gerard Lee Based on the short story b y ............................................... Gerard Lee C o m p o ser............................... Brian Beamish Length ................................................. 60 mins Synopsis: Two men at a uranium mine find themselves faced with a situation of political and sexual repression.

HEATWAVE Producer ...............................Hilary Linstead Director ........................................ Phil Noyce Scriptwriters .............................. Mark Stiles, Phil Noyce Based on the original idea by ......................................... Tim Gooding, Mark Stiles Photography ........................... Vince Monton Editor ............................................. John Scott

PUBERTY BLUES Prod, company . . . . Limelight Productions Dist. company ............................... Roadshow P ro d u cers....................................Joan Long, Margaret Kelly D ire c to r............................... Bruce Beresford S c riptw riter.............................Margaret Kelly Based on the novel by .................................Kathy Lette, Gabrielle Carey

RELATIVES Prod, company .........................Archer Films P ro d u c e r..................................... Henri Safran D ire c to r................................Anthony Bowman S c riptw riter......................... Anthony Bowman Based on the original idea b y .......... Anthony Bowman Exec, producer ............ Freosi Productions Prod, manager ....................... Basil Appleby

C asting.............................Mitch Consultancy Length ................................................. 90 mins Gauge ...................................................... 35mm Progress ............................... Pre-production Synopsis: It’s a comedy . . . it’s a drama . . . it’s a family reunion.

2nd asst director . Chris Maudson Gauge ......................................................35mm 3rd asst director Marshall Crosby_ GALLIPOLI Shooting stock.........................Eastmancolor Continuity ............Jo Weeks Prod, company ..........Associated R and R Cast: Mel Gibson (Frank), M ark Lee Casting . M 8 L Casting Films (Archy). Bill Hunter (Barton), Robert Grubb Lighting cameraman .. .Dean Semler P ro d u c e r.................................Patricia Lovell (Billy). David Argue (Snowy), Tim McKenzie Camera operator .. .Dean Semler D ire c to r.............................................Peter Weir (Barney), Harold Hopkins (McCann), Bill Focus puller . Andre Fleuren Scriptw riter.......................David Williamson Kerr (Uncle), Ron Graham (Wallace Hamil­ Clapper/loader Andrew McLean Based on the original idea SAVE THE LADY ton), Robin Galwey (Mary).

Key grip Graham Mardell by .................................................. Peter Weir Synopsis: A film which follows the experi­ Asst grip . .. . Gary Cardin Prod, company ................... Tasmanian Film Photography............................ Russell Boyd ences of two youths who are inflicted with Gaffer .. Robbie Young Corporation Sound recordist .................... Don Connolly the spirit of Gallipoli.

Electrician .. Colin Williams Dist. c o m p a n y ........ Young Australia Films E d ito r........................................ Bill Anderson Generator operator . . . . Colin Chase P ro d u c e r....................................................Barry Pierce Design consultant...................... Wendy Weir Boom operator Scriptw riter.................................................JohnPalmer .. Mark Wasiutak Exec, producer .................. Francis O'Brien Asst to Based on a story by ............ Yoram Gross Prod, manager .......................Su Armstrong Length ................................................. 90 mins art department ....................John Daniell Unit m an ag ers.................Philip Hearnshaw, M ake-up ..........................................Jill Porter Synopsis: A children’s comedy about a Phillip Hurst.

P O S T -P R O D U C T IO N group of children who come to the city to Wardrobe .....................................Kate Duffy Tim Sanders save an old steam ferry from the ravages of Ward, assistant ............ Lesley McLennan Prod, secretary . . Carolynne Cunningham progress.

Props buyer ........................ Graham Walker Prod, accountant .................. Treisha Ghent Standby props .......................... John Carroll Assistant prod.

Special effects ................ Reece Robinson ROADGAMES acc o u n tan t...................Howard Wheatley STARSTRUCK Asst editor ............................ Duncan Taylor Prod, assistants.......................................... RonStigwood, Stunts co-ordinator ................Max Aspin Prod, c o m p a n y ........ Palm Beach Pictures Sue Parker Prod, company ........................ Quest Films Still photography .................. David Parker Dist. company .......................................Hoyts 1st asst director .....................Mark Egerton Dist. company ...............................GUO and Runner .......................................Peta Lawson P ro d u cers................................... David Elfick, 2nd asst director..................................... Steve Andrews Avco Embassy Unit publicist ...........................David White Richard Brennan 3rd asst d irecto rs............. Marshall Crosby, (U.S. and World) Catering ............ ..............Cecil B. De Meals Director ...............................Graham Clifford Robert Pendlebury Producer/director .......... Richard Franklin on Wheels Scriptw riter.......................................... Stephen MacLean Continuity .....................................Moya Iceton Co-producer .............................Barbi Taylor Length ............................................... go mins Based on the Producer’s assistant..............................DannyCollins Scriptwriter ...................... Everett de Roche Gauge ................................................... 35mm original idea b y ...........Stephen MacLean Casting..................................... Allison Barrett Based on the short story Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor 1st asst director ................Mark Turnbull Casting consultants ............ Allison Barrett by .................................... Richard Franklin, Cast: John Hargreaves, Judy Davis, Dennis Casting consultants .......... Mitch Matthews Casting Everett de Roche Miller.

B u d g e t......................................... $1.15 million Lighting cameraman ............ Russell Boyd Photography ........................ Vincent Monton Synopsis: A film based on the adventures Length ............................................... 100 mins Camera operator ........................John Seale Sound recordist .........................Paul Clark and exploits of a famous Sydney bank rob­ Gauge ..................................................... 35mm Focus p u lle r ................................. David Burr Editor .................Edward McQueen Mason ber.

Synopsis: A sentimental but gritty comedy Clapper/loader ............ Richard Merryman Prod, designer ......................... Jon Dowding rock musical about two teenagers and their Key g r ip .....................................Ross Erickson Composer ..................................... Brian May eccentric family, set in a fading, inner-city Asst grips ............................... Robin Morgan, Exec, producer. . . . . . . . Bernard Schwartz CENTRESPREAD pub.

Robert Verkerk Prod, manager ...............Greg Ricketson Prod, company ...................Australian Film G a ffe r...................................Brian Bansgrove Location manager .................. Helen Liston Productions Electrician.................................................. ColinChase Transport manager .......... Tim McMahon TIM E FOR DREAMING Dist. company ............................. Greg Lynch Boom operator ........................... Joe Spinelli Prod, secretary ........................ Helen Watts Film Distributors Art d irecto r...............................Herbert Pinter Prod, accountant .......................Lea Collins Director .....................................Ken Cameron P ro d u c e r................................Wayne Groom Asst art director ...................

Anni Browning Director’s assistant .................. Sue Parker Scriptw riters...................... Djuka O’Connell, D ire c to r................................. Tony Paterson Art dept, assistant ...............Annie Bleakley 1st asst director ..................... Tom Burstall Susanne Kalfus Scriptw riters.........................

Michael Ralph, M ake-up ........................................

Judy Lovell 2nd asst director ................... James Parker Based on the Robert Fogden H airdressers.................................. Liz Michie, 3rd asst directors ................Warwick Ross, original idea b y ............ Djuka O’Connell, Based on the original idea Sash Lamey Billy Baxter Susanne Kalfus by ..........................................Michael Ralph, W ardrobe co -o rd in ato r.............Terry Ryan Continuity .............................. Annie McLeod Length ................................................. 90 mins Robert Fogden, Ward, assistants .........................Phil Eagles, Visual co-ordinator ...................Bill Hansard Synopsis: The story of an unhappy farm boy Wayne Groom David Rowe, Camera operator ......................Louis Irving whose family is forced by economic circum­ Photography ....................Geoffrey Simpson Focus puller ........................... David Brostoff Graham Purcell stance (the 1930s Depression) to leave the Sound* recordist ......................James Currie Props b u y e r ................................ Harry Zettel Clapper/loader .............................Phil Cross farm and move into the town. His inability to E d ito r......................................Tony Paterson Standby p ro p s ..........................................ClarkMunroe, Key grip ............................. Graham Mardell cope with the crisis and his feelings of Prod, manager .............................Jenny Day Brian Hocking Asst grips ............................... Greg Wallace, alienation from the rest of his family lead Prod, secretary ................... Penny Harbison Special effects ........................Mont Fieguth.

Karel Akkerman him into a mystical adventure with an Prod, assistant......................... Anne Walton Chris Murray Gaffer ........................................Tony Holtham Aboriginal boy of the same age.

1st asst director .................. Chris Williams Set decorato rs........ Nick Van Roosendael, Boom operator ............ Raymond Phillips Casting .Arnold Bartlett, Dream Merchants Jenny Miles Art director .............................Jon Dowding THE YEAR OF LIVING Camera assistant ................... Martin Turner Scenic a r tis t.......................................... William Malcolm M ake-up ................................ Lois Hohenfels DANGEROUSLY Key g r ip ...................................................... JohnBrock Construction Wardrobe ....................... Aphrodite Kondos Asst grip ...........................................Roly Sims manager ........................ Peter Templeton Props ............................................ Harry Zettel P ro d u c e r.................. McElroy and McElroy G a ffe r.....................................Graeme Shelton Set construction ..................Rodney Callow.

Standby props ...................... Nick Hepworth D ire c to r........................................... Peter Weir Boom operator ....................... Toivo Lember Michael Chorney.

Special effects ...................Reece Robinson Based on the novel by .................. C. Koch Art d irectors..........................Michael Ralph, Anthony Lennon, Stand in ..................................... Heath Harris Robert Fogden Charles Camilleri Carpenter ...........................Ken Hazelwood M ake-up ...............................Trish McAuliffe Asst editor ........................... Jeanine Chialvo Set construction .................... John Morgan H airdresser.......................Clip Joint Salons, Sound editor ...................................Greg Bell Sound supervisor ............ Andrew London For complete details of the following films Adelaide Editing assistant .................... Karen Foster see Issue 29: Truck driver .............................Heath Harris W ardrobe ................................. Mark Holliday Mixer ......................................... Peter Fenton Stunts co-ordinator .................. Grant Page Still photography.....................................GrantMatthews Murder Most Fouled Up Stunts co-ordinator ................ Dennis Hunt Nurse .............................Sister Janne Dunn Publicity......................................................Terry Clark Untitled Still photography...................... Jim Townley Still photography ......................Suzie Wood, C atering.......................................Kevin Norton Tech, a d v is e r................................................BillGammage Jim Townley Laboratory ............................................. Atlab W ra n g le r.................................... Heath Harris Dog handler .............................. Heath Harris Length ...................................................84 mins Best boy .....................................Paul Gantner Mechanics ................................... Steve Wells, Gauge ..................................................... 35mm R u n n er.........................................Tony Winley Robert Rigon Scheduled release ............ February, 1981 Unit publicist ...............................Wendy Day Best boys .............................Colin Williams, PR O D U C TIO N Cast: Paul Trahair. Kylie Foster, Ivor Louis, C atering...................................................... KeithHeygate, Daryl Binnings Jack Neate. Mark Watson, Edson Annan, Cecil B. de Meals on Wheels Runners ............................... David Retailick, Paula C a rter, Sarah Collins, Deanne Mixed at ....................................United Sound Jim Richards Carsas, John Nobbs.

Laboratory ....................................... Colorfilm Publicity .................................Glen Crawford Synopsis: Set slightly in the future, the story Lab. liaison.................................................... BillGooley Catering .....................................Helen Wright BILLABONG HOUSE of a photographer’s struggle in the glam­ B u d g e t.......................................................... $2.6 million Catering ru n n e rs.....................Kim Doohan, orous world of nude modelling.

Length ............................................... 105 mins Prod, company ..........................Independent Duncan Campbell Studios ................................... Starch Factory Productions Laboratory ....................................... Colorfilm Prod ucer/d irector.................Gene W. Scott Lab. liaison ....................................Bill Gooley Scriptw riter.................................... Geoff Beak ......................................... S1.7 million Based on the original idea Length ............................................. 110 mins b y .................................................Geoff Beak Gauge ..................................................... 35mm Photography.................................................PhilPike Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Sound recordist .................. Russell Hurley Cast: Stacy Keach (Quid), Jamie-Lee Curtis Assoc, p ro d u c e r...................Russell Hurley (Hitch). Marion Edward (Frita), Grant Page 1st asst director .......... Matthew Flanagan ( S m ith /J o n e s ), Bill S ta c e y (C a p ta in Lighting cameraman ...................... Phil Pike C a re fu l), T h a d d e u s S m ith (A b b o tt), Camera assistant .................... Keith Bryant Steph en M illich am p (C o stello ), Colin Art director ...........................Klaus van Diet Vancao (Fred Frugal), John Murphy (Benny Length ...................................................85 mins Balls). Robert Thompson (Sneezy Rider).

Gauge .......................................................16mm Synopsis: Pat Quid, on a line-haul from Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Melbourne to Perth, finds out that one of his Synopsis: An adventure story for children. fellow travellers is a mass murderer.

THE SURVIVOR HOODW INK Prod, company Dist. company .

Producers ........

Director ............

Scriptwriter . . . .

Photography . . .

Sound recordist Editor ................

Prod, designer .

Composer ..........

Prod, manager Unit location . . .

Prod, secretary Prod, accountant Prod, assistant ..

1st asst director

................ CB Films .........................Hoyts ........ Errol Sullivan, Pom Oliver . .Claude Whatham .......... Ken Quinnell .......... Dean Semler .......... Gary Wilkins Nicholas Beauman ............ Ross Major . . . . Cameron Allan ............ Lynn Gailey Stephen Knapman .......... Fiona Gosse . . . . Penelope Carl ........ Ron Stigwood . . . . Mark Turnbull

Prod, companies

Centrespread

Producer .................

Director ...................

Scriptwriter ............

Based on the novel Photography ..........

Sound recordist ..

Editor .......................

Prod, designer . . . .

Composer ..............

Exec, producer . . .

Assoc, producer ..

Prod, manager . . .

Unit manager ........

Prod, secretary . . .

...............Tuesday Film Productions and Riaci Investments for F.G. Film Productions . . . .Antony I. Ginnane ........ David Hemmings .......... David Ambrose by . . . James Herbert .....................John Seale ....................... Tim Lloyd ............ Tony Paterson ............ Bernard Hides .....................Brian May .......... William Fayman ..................... Jane Scott ......................Jane Scott .................Tim Sanders ................... Jenny Barty

■ Cinema Papers, December-January—453

Prod, accountant ................ Cathy Barber Venetian blind Make-up ...................................Jacckie Herat 1st asst director .................. Mark Egerton operator ...........................Simon Brisbane Special effects 2nd asst director ................. Steve Andrews Studios...................................... Open Channel supervisor.........................John Cavallaro 3rd asst director ............ Marshall Crosby Length .................................................30 mins Special effe c ts ...................... Roger Mendis, Continuity ......................

Caroline Stanton Shooting ...............................BVU Videotape leuen Redllch, Producer’s assistant ........ Sylvia Van Wyk Progress ................................. Pre-production Ashley Gibson, Casting .................................. Michael Lynch, Cast: Richard Boulez (Leopard), Gary Iggy Paiva South Australian Casting Willis (Me).

Set decorato r........................... Roger Mendis Camera operator ................ Peter Moss Synopsis: A surrealistic look at the initiation Length ................................................. 20 mins Focus puller ................................Jan Kenny into urban survival.

Gauge ................................................. Super 8 Clapper/loader ................ Daro Gunzberg Scheduled r e le a s e ................ January, 1981 Key grip ................................... Ross Erickson Cast: Jacquelina de Bouzreac, Deborah BIRDSVILLE Asst grips ..............................Robin Morgan, Jones, Anil Herat, Woddy Acton, Craig Robert Verkerk Forbes, Ian Stavert, Lorraine Caudwell, D ire c to r.....................................Phillip Roope 2nd unit photography .............. Kevin Lind Peter Heywood, Phil Penlsl.

Based on the short Gaffer ........................................... Mick Morris Synopsis: A short comedy about a girl story b y .................................Phillip Roope Electricians ........................Graeme Shelton, being possessed. A spoof on the devil films.

Photography............................... David Perry Sam Bienstock Sound recordist .........................David Perry Gene operator ....................... Simon Purton E d ito r.....................................Kimble Rendall HSC Boom operator ..................Jack Friedman Asst editor .................................Gavin Malm Art director .......................... Bernard Hides Neg. m atch in g ................Negative Thinking P roducer/director...................... Paul Hellard Asst art director ......... Virginia Bleneman Sound editor ...................... Kimble Rendall Scriptw riter.................................. Paul Hellard Costume designer .....................Terry Ryan Mixer ...................................Laurie Fitzgerald Sound recordist .......................Paul Hellard M ake-up ......................................... Jill Porter O p ticals...................... Optical and Graphics E d ito r.......... ................................ Paul Hellard Hairdresser ................................ Sash Lamey Title d es igne r..................... Martin Simpson, Prod, assistants.......................................FrankHellard, Ward, assistant ............ Heather McLaren (Matilda Graphics) Adam Davidson Props buyer .........................Owen Paterson Mixed at .........................................Filmworks Lighting cameraman ................Paul Hellard Standby props .......................... John Carroll Laboratory ........................... K. G. Colorfilm Length ...................................................10 mins Special effects ........................Chris Murray, B u d g et................................................... $4,778 Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Monty Fieguth, Length ...................................................15 mins Shooting stock...................... B & W reversal Vic Wilson Gauge ....................................................16mm Progress . . . .*....................... Post-production Set decorator .......................Owen Paterson Shooting stock................... Black and White The Club S y n o p sis: A d ra m a tic stu d y of th e Scenic artist ...........................Billy Malcolm Reversal culminatlve distractions experienced by a Set construction ...................Herbert Pinter Progress .........................................In release student during the bulld-up to the final Asst editor ............................ Carmen Galan First released ..................... November, 1980 secondary school exams.

Sound editor ......................Bruce Lamshed Cast: Phil Latterly (fool), Molly (dog), Gary Laboratory ............................................... Atlab Continuity ......................

Caroline Stanton Mixer ..........................................Peter Fenton Dennison (man with glasses).

Lab. liaison .............................. Greg Doherty Casting .............................

M & L Casting THE JOGGER Stunts co-ordlnator ................ Dennis Hunt Synopsis: A street musician experiences a Length .................................................90 mins Casting consultants . . M & L Casting Still photography .................. Mike Giddens, brief glimpse of fame and riches, by the un­ Gauge ................................................... 35 mm Prod, company .......................Valhalla Films Lighting cameraman . . . Geoff Burton _ DavidSlmmonds expected talent his dog shows for singing.

Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Dist. c o m p a n y ................Hoyts Distribution Camera operator . . . .

Geoff Burton Best boy .................................... Reg Garslde The dog sings for the love of her master, but First released ............ September 18, 1980 P roducer/director................................... CraigLahiff Focus puller ...................... David Foreman Runner .....................................Janene Knight he abuses her talents and forgets that Bryson Cinema (Melbourne) Photography............................................. Peter Smith C la p p e r /lo a d e r ..............................Gil Leahy Publicity .............. Thorburn Steer Publicity people are responding not to him, but her.

Cast: Graham Kennedy (Ted Parker), Alan Key grip E d ito r..........................................................CraigLahiff ............................. Brent Collins Unit publicist ................... Lynette Thorburn The fall is great and they part. The lost souls Cassell (Gerry Cooper), Jack Thompson Exec, p ro d u c e r........................................Terry Jennings 2nd unit photography .

Vincent Monton Catering ..........................Hollywood Canteen are by chance reunited and their love is Prod, manager .................... Mardl Kennedy (Laurie Holden), Frank Wilson (Jock Riley), Gaffer .........................

Brian Bansgrove Studios ................................ South Australian reaffirmed.

Harold H opkins (D anny Rowe), John 1st asst director .................. Simon Bennets E le c tr ic ia n s ...............................................Paul Moyes, Film Corporation Howard (Geoff Hayward), Maggie Doyle Camera assistant ............ Graham Shelton Paul Gantner Mixed at ..................................United Sound (Susy).

Laboratory ........................................ Colorfilm Boom o p e r a t o r ...................

Mark Wasiutak A CHRONICLE OF CHANGE: Laboratory .......................................Colorfllm Synopsis: A probe Into the confrontations Art director Length ...................................................10 mins ............................... Kim Hilder LILYDALE Lab. liaison ................................... Bill Gooley and power struggles of Australian Rules M ake-up Gauge ......................................................

35mm ............................... Monica Brown Length ............................................... 100 mins b ac k ro o m boys. A tau t film ab o u t Prod, company ................... AVRB Film Unit Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Hairdresser ........................Monica Brown Gauge .....................................................35mm organizational power politics, laced with Dist. company .....................

AVRB Film Unit Progress ...........................................in release W ardrobe ................................ Edle Kurzer Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor David Williamson’s Incisive dialogue and P roducer/director................. Barbara Boyd Scheduled release .......... December, 1980 Ward, assistant . . . Leslie McLennan Scheduled release ...............January, 1981 humor.

Cast: John Saunders (the jogger).

Props buyer ..................... Ann!Browning Scriptwriters...........................Barbara Boyd, Cast: Robert Powell (Keller), Jenny Agutter Standby props ....................... Clark Munro Maree Teychenne Synopsis: A light, satirical comedy about (Hobbs), Peter Sumner (Tewson), Ralph the craze for jogging.

R e search................................... Barbara Boyd Special effects ..................... Chris Murray, Cotterill (Slater), Angela Punch-McGregor History consultant........ Warren O. Thomas Rob Morgan (Beth Rogan), Denzil Howson (Rogan), HARD KNOCKS Set c o n s tru c tio n .................. Herbert Pinter Sound R ecordist.................. David Hughes Adrian Wright (Goodwin), Joseph Cotton MISTER JAMESWAY IS SAFE Exec, producer .................... Ross Campbell Asst editor .........................Cathie Sheehan Producers...............................Hilton Bonner, (The priest), Lorna Lesley (Susan Goodwin), Prod, manager .............. Maree Teychenne Edge numberer . . . .

Carmen Galan Prod, company .............. Peter Smith Films Don McLennan Kirk Alexander (Dr Martindale).

Producer’s assistant___Maree Teychenne Stunts co-ordlnator . Peter Armstrong P ro d u c e r.........................................Jenny Day D ire c to r...................................................... DonMcLennan Synopsis: A pilot, the only survivor of a Lighting cameraman ........ Kevin Anderson Still p h o to g ra p h y ................................... Mike Giddens Scriptwriters .........................Don McLennan, D ire c to r......................................... Peter Smith plane crash, tortured with guilt and unable Camera assistant .................Rob McCubbin Catering ................................

Keith Heygate Scriptw riters..................................................BillEmms, Hilton Bonner to explain the reason for the disaster, sets Laboratory ................................................Atlab S t u d i o s ................................ Gladstone Gaol Photography................... Zbigniew Friedrich Henry Salter upon a course of discovery, desperately Length ..................................................

30 mins Laboratory ........................................

Atlab Based on the Sound recordist....................................... LloydCarrlck seeking to overcome his loss of memory, Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Lab. liaison ............................Jim Parsons original idea b y ....................................JohnEmery, Editor ................................ Zbigniew Friedrich Budget ........................................ $485,000 Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Prod, m anag er........................................... RodMcNIcol Peter Smith Length ............................................100 mins.

Progress ......................................... Production Sound recordist ........................ Rod Pascoe 1st asst director ....................... Rod McNIcol Gauge ...............................................35 mm Scheduled release ........................July, 1981 E d ito r......................................................... Steve Sneesby Continuity....................................Julie Cutler Shooting stock ......................Eastmancolor Cast: Mr Thomas Mitchell (Tom), Ms Louise Prod, designer..........................................ChrisWebster Camera operator .........Zbigniew Friedrich IN RELEASE Cast: Bryan Brown (China), Max Phipps Jonas (Louise), Mr Rob McCubbin (Robert), Prod, assistant....................................... SimonBennetts Focus puller ...............................Philip Cross (Norton), Dennis Miller (Redford), Gary Mr Charles Dance (Charles), Mrs Cecilia 1st asst director ......................... Craig Lahiff C lapp er/loader........................................GlnnyBrooke Waddell (Dave), Michael Gaw (Andrew), Dance (Cecilia), Perry Wendt (Perry), Ross Casting consultants ................. S.A. Casting Key g rip ...................................................... RodMcLennan Phil M otherw ell (Alby), Ray M arshall Campbell (Ross), Eugenie Teychenne Lighting cameraman , — Ross Berryman G a ffe r............................................. Gerry Lock (Eugenie).

(Chalmers), Ted Robshaw (Patrldge), Syd Boom operator......................................... Chris Goldsmith Camera assistant ........................Chris Cane Heylen (Old Bob), Robert (Tex) Morton (The Synopsis: A short film which charts the Key g r ip ........................................................ RobMorgan Hairdresser .............................Carol Devine THE CLUB Governor). birth, growth and development of a typical M ake-up ....................................Sasha Lamey W a rd ro b e .................................. Julie Cutler, Synopsis: A prison drama where the build­ country town, Lllydale, from Its lusty begin­ Laboratory .........................................Colorfilm Prod, company ................ South Australian Penelope Hester nings to its contemporary status as part of B u d g e t...................................................... $9000 up of tension between ‘crlms’ and ‘screws’ Film Corporation Props ..............................................Anne Molr the urban sprawl. leads to a large-scale confrontation.

Dist. company . . . . Roadshow Distributors Stills......................................................... Maxine Rosewall Length ............................................. 25 mins P ro d u c e r..............................Matthew Carroll L ab orato ry.................................................VFL Gauge ...................................................... 16mm D ire c to r...............................Bruce Beresford Length ................................................90 mins.

Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor COPING WITH DEAFNESS Scriptw riter.......................David Williamson G au g e.................................................... 16 mm Progress ................................Post-production Based on the play by .. David Williamson Prod, company ............ Swinburne College Cast: Henry Salter (Jamesway), Debbie Shooting sto c k ........................Eastmancolor Photography................................................ DonMcAlpine P roducer/director................Richard Dobson Little (Joanne), Jacqy Phillips (Alice), Paul Cast: Tracy Mann (Sam), John Arnold Sound recordist ....................... Gary Wilkins Scriptwriters.......................... Richard Dobson, Sonkilla (first thug), Leo Taylor (second (Wally), Bill Hunter (Brady), Max Cullen E d ito r................................ William Anderson (Newman), Tony Barry (Barry), Hilton Bon­ Pat Pengilley thug).

C o m p o ser...................................................Mike Brady Photography.....................Michael Wennrich ner (Frank), Jack Allen (Father), Penelope S y n o p sis: Jam e s w a y is p u rs u e d by Assoc, p ro d u c e r........................ Moya Iceton Sound recordists ...................... Marian Hill, Stewart (Raelene), Klrsty Grant (Debbie), terrorists. Joanne Is young, on the game Prod, co-ordlnator ..................Barbara Ring Craig Iskov and near death from heroin. She needs a bit Liz Stevenson (Joan).

Prod, accountant .............. Harley Manners THE ACTRESS AND THE FEMINIST E d ito r...................................... Richard Dobson of luck but gets Jamesway instead. They are Synopsis: A young girl, with a background 1st asst director ..........................Scott Hicks C o m p oser.........................................Dave Gray together for a few hours as the terrorists of urban poverty and juvenile crime, at­ P ro d u cer............................................ Kay Self Continuity ............................... Jude Hewitson move in.

2nd asst director___Christopher Williams tempts to become a fashion model. The Scriptwriter . . ...................................

Kay Self 3rd asst d ire c to rs ........................................BillBaxter, Lighting cameraman .. .Michael Wennrich hypocrisy and double standards of society Based on the Geoff Wright Camera operator ...........Michael Wennrich are juxtaposed against The confusion and NEW CITIES OF MACARTHUR original idea b y ............................ Kay Self Continuity .......................... Therese O'Leary Key g r ip ..........................................Gail Hannah frustration she feels as she struggles to B u d g et.................................................$13,440 Lighting cameraman .......... Don McAlpine Musical director ................ Richard Dobson Prod, company ............ Michael Robertson become part of a community that has no Length .................................................20 mins Camera operator ...................Don McAlpine Music performed by .................. Dave Gray place for her. Surrounded by people who Film Productions Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Focus p u lle r ................................... David Burr Sound editor .......................Richard Dobson Dist. c o m p a n y ..................New South Wales offer plenty of advice, but little under­ Progress ......................................... Production Clapper/loader .......................Paula Nichola Mixer ....................................... David Harrison standing and help, she soon realizes that Film Corporation Scheduled release .................... April, 1981 Key g r ip ................................Noel McDonald Title d esigner........................................LyndonPunshon she will be lucky to escape her past.

P ro d u cers.......................Michael Robertson, Synopsis: The short film explores the Im­ Asst g r i p ...........................Geoff Richardson Mixed at .................. Crawford Productions Richard Davis pact of feminism on the actress and the G a ffe r............ .................................. Rob Young Length ............................................... 8V2 mins D ire c to r................................................. Michael Robertson film m aker, as well as the connection Boom operator .................. Mark Wasiutak Gauge ..................................................... 16mm STIR Scriptw riter.................................Ian Freeman between the actresses’ performances and Art d ire c to r............................................... DavidCopping Progress ...........................................In release Photography...................... Frank Hammond their inner values.

M ake-up ........................................ Judy Lovell First re leased ............... December 1980, Sound recordist ........................Bob Clayton Prod, company .................

Smiley Films W ardrobe .......................Ruthe de la Lande State Film Centre E d ito r................................................Alan Lake Dist. company .................................Hoyts Props b u y e r .......................................Jill Eden (Melbourne). Exec, producer ...................... Richard Davis AND THE LEOPARD LOOKED LIKE Producer ......................Richard Brennan Standby p ro p s ............................................ KenJames Synopsis: Bob, Maree and Sadie have Prod, su p erviso r............Michael Robertson MEI Director ...................... Stephen Wallace Set d ecorato r..................................... Jill Eden hearing impairments. They have Illustrated, Prod, co-ordlnator .............. Julie Kennedy Scriptwriter ............................ Bob Jewson by means of their simple sketches, how Prod, manager .................... Julie Kennedy Asst editor ........................... Jeanlne Chlalvo P roducer/director...................... Gary Willis Sound recordist .................

Gary Wilkins Based on the deafness has affected their lives and how Unit m a n a g e r...........................Julie Kennedy Sound editor .................. William Anderson Editor .................................Henry Danger Edge n u m b e re r............................................ IanFowler original Idea b y .........................Gary Willis they cope with the disability.

Prod, secretary ...................... Julie Kennedy Mixer .................................................. Phil Judd Prod, designer .................. Lee Whitmore Photography................................................ JeffBusby Producer's assistant.............. Julie Kennedy Composer ...........................Cameron Allen Still photography...................... Jim Townley Sound recordist .............. Martin Lawrence Camera operator ............Frank Hammond THE DEVIL IN ME Prod, manager .................

Barbara Gibbs C o m p oser.............................Paul Grobowski Tech, adviser ................................ Tom Hafey Camera assistant ...................... Colin Deane Best boy .................................. Peter Maloney Unit manager .................

Barbara Gibbs Prod, assistant..................Steven Goddard Prod, company ............ Tridex Productions Electrician . . . : .......................................Chicka MacDonald R u n n er.......... ............................ John Wharton Prod, secretary ...................Barbara Ring Floor m an ag er..................Frank Bendenelll P roducer/director.............. John Cavallaro W ardrobe .................................Julie Kennedy Unit publicist ........................Barbara Harper Prod, accountant . . . . Dlgby Duncan Camera operator ............ Steven Goddard Scriptw riter...........................John Cavallaro P r o p s ......................................... Julie Kennedy Promotions 1st asst director ...............Mark Turnbull Tape o p e ra to r..................Frank Bendenelli Photography..................

David Mendis Props b u y e r .............................Julie Kennedy C a tering.......................................Frank Manly 2nd asst directors . . . Chris Maudson, Musical director ........ .. .Paul Grobowski Sound recordist ..................... David Mendis Neg. m a tch in g .....................Negative Cutting Arron Mansfield Studios.............. Colllngwood Football Club Mixer ............................................. Chris Wyatt E d ito r.......................................... David Mendis Services 3rd asst director ..................... Jenny Miles Mixed at ................................................... Atlab Video synthesis....................................... ChrisWyatt Art d irectio n .............................Roger Mendis Music performed by ............ Library Stock

SHORTS

454—Cinema Papers, December-January

Mixer ......................................... Peter Fenton Frontline N a rra to r...................................................... PeterGwynne Handling Baled Hay (Part 2) A n im a tio n .......... Raymond Lea Animation Horse Breaking O p tic a ls ..................................................... Acme Opticals Keeping up with the Joneses Title d e s ig n e r..............................................FranBurke Led Astray Mixed at ..................................United Sounds Making It Laboratory ................................................ Atlab Making Weekend of Summer Last Lab. lia is o n ................................ Karen Skelton The Mind Block B u d g e t....................................................$50,000 Piece of Cake Length ................................................... 17 mins Pleasant Milking Gauge .......................................................35mm Progressive Breeding Shooting sto c k .......................... Eastmancolor Q.V.B. Progress ................................Post-production Reclaimed Water Scheduled r e le a s e .......... Christmas 1980, Simpson’s Herd Village City Complex Tommy’s World The Use of a Ram Harness

For com plete details of the following documentaries see Issue 29:

DOCUMENTARIES

Mina Jebel Ali State of Change Takeover

building in New South Wales by members of the National Trust.

STEP BY STEP

Prod, c o m p a n y ........ University of Sydney Television Service Dist. company .......... University of Sydney FEATURES Television Service P ro d u c e r.................................. Jason Ollivier Sound recordist .......... Malcolm Devenish SHORTS E d ito r......................................... Amanda Field Camera operator ............ Mr Chris Willing AUSTRALIANS AT TALK Length ................................................... 50 mins Prod, company .....................Canberra CAE Gauge ..................................... 1” color video Media Centre Progress ....................................... Production COAL IS COAL NEXT TIM E ACID P roducer/director.............................Ian Hart Synopsis: A documentary on a community Scriptw riters...........................John Bernard, project, whereby a small group of previous­ Prod, company .................................. Galfilms Prod, company ............ Swinburne College Eric Burgstaller ly unemployed people, under the direction Producer/d irector.....................Gillian Leahy Film Department Photography...................................David Reid of an architect and an artist, set about Scriptw riters.............................Gillian Leahy, P ro d ucer/d irector.................................... TonyMcDonald Sound recordist ..............................Jim Wise reconstructing a park and painting two ian Milliss S c riptw riter................................................ Tony McDonald E d ito r..................................... Eric Burgstaller large murals in the Roselle/Leichhardt area.

Photography................................................ NedLander Based on the Prod, designer...................................Ron Jubb Sound recordist .............................Pat Fiske original idea b y .................................... TonyMcDonald C o m p o ser.....................Warren Bebbington E d ito r....................................

Jim Stevens Photography...........................Michael Bladen UNDERDOG Prod, manager .................... Helen Connell Assoc, p ro d u c e r.......................................... IanMilliss THE BLACK PLANET Sound recordist ...................... Adrian Brady 1st asst director ................. Eric Burgstaller Prod, manager .................... John Cruthers Prod, company ................ Illumination Films E d ito r ...........................................................TonyMcDonald Prod, company .............................Fable Film Continuity .................................Helene Walsh Camera assistant ....................... Erika Addis Dist. c o m p a n y .................. Illumination Films C o m p o s e r............................................. MichaelTrudgeon Productions Camera assistant ...............................Ian Fry Laboratory .........................................Colorfilm P ro d u c e r...................................Robert Colvin Exec, producer .................... Brian Robinson D ire c to r..................................... Paul Williams G a ffe r.............................................Don James B u d g e t................................................... $46,000 D ire c to r...............................................Paul Cox Unit m a n a g e r......................................Matthew Lovering Scriptw riter...............................Paul Williams Neg. matching . . . Aranda Post-Production Length ................................................50 mins Prod, assistant....................................Matthew Lovering Photography.......................................Paul Cox Based on the Services Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Focus p u lle r ............................................. DavidReyne Sound recordist .......... John Hollingshead original idea b y .................. Paul Williams Music performed by . . . . Bruce Ensemble Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Clapper/ioader ..........................David Reyne E d ito r...................................................Paul Cox Animation .................................Gus McLaren, Animation .......................................Ron Jubb, Progress ................................Post-production Camera assistant ......................David Reyne Prod, designer...........................................Jane Nichols Paul Williams Robin Redman Scheduled release ............ •.. .. April, 1981 Art d irecto r............................... Norval Watson Exec, producer .........................Chris Atkins Assistant animation .......... Maggie Geddes Mixed at ................................................... AAV Synopsis: A d o c um entary abo ut the Musical director ............ Michael Trudgeon Assoc, p ro d u c e r.................... Bryan Gracey Sound recordist .........................Wally Shaw Laboratory ......................... Cine Film Labs forthcoming expansion of the coal industry Prod, manager .......................Quentin Gray Music performed by ...M ic h a e l Trudgeon Rostrum c a m e r a .....................Terry Russell Length ...................................................60 mins in the Hunter Valley. It examines the Laboratory ...................................................VFL Prod, assistant......................................Joanna Wellington Ink and p a in t .................. Joanne Newman, Gauge ................................. 16mm and video benefits and possible problem s the B u d g e t................................... $1800 Continuity .................................Joanna Harris Nancy Batley, Shooting stock................Eastmancolor and changeover from farming to mining will Length ................................................... 10 mins Producer's assistant...................................JanLalor Roslyn Fiuck %” BVU bring to the area.

Clapper/ioader .................. Cathy Seiberes Gauge .......................................................16mm Track reading ................................ Julie Bird Progress .............................. Post-production 2nd unit photography . Steven Henderson Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Laboratory .................................................. VFL Scheduled release .............. January, 1981 G a ffe r............................................ Guy lacono Progress ..............................Post-production FLAMINGO PARK B u d g e t................................................... $74,000 Cast: John Bernard, John Beynham, Dennis Boom operator .........................Kym McHarg Scheduled r e le a s e .......... December, 1980 Length ...............................................47 mins Flannery, Angela Walliker.

Asst, e d ito r............................................. Wendy Rew Cast: Nigel Buesst, Marion Hill, James Prod, company ........................ Clytie Jessop Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Synopsis: An examination of the Australian Dist. company ................................ Roadshow Laboratory ...........................................Cinevex Reyne, David Reyne, Adrian Brady.

Shooting sto ck ..........................Eastmancolor accent: what is it? what causes it? how did it P roducer/director...................................Clytie Jessop Synopsis: A woman and her lover conspire B u d g e t................................................... $50,000 Progress ......................................... Production arise? are there regional or social dif­ to convince her husband that she has been Photography.......................... Martha Ansara, Length ...................................................30 mins Character vo ic e s .......... Carole-Ann Aylett, ferences? A film designed for secondary Jan Kenny, Gauge .......................................................16mm kidnapped, with disastrous results.

Terry Gill, school teachers.

Tom Cowan, Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Brian Hannan, Erica Addis Progress ......................................... Production THE PLANT Ed Rosser.

Sound recordist ...................... Dasha Ross Scheduled release ...................................1981 BOOTS AN’ ALL Ross Williams E d ito rs ...................................Sonia Hoffman, Synopsis: A documentary on the Australian Prod, company .....................Australian Film Synopsis: An animated action-adventure Prod, company ................ Bower Bird Films dingo.

Lindsay Frazer Commission about a planet running out of energy and Producer/d irector....................................... PatFiske C om p osers.................................. The B52s, P ro d ucer/d irector................................. Shaun Brown the characters who become involved in the Scriptw riter....................................................PatFiske Telex, S c riptw riter..............................................Shaun Brown UNTITLED X-19 space rocket project.

Photography.......................... Martha Ansara Mental as Anything, Based on the Sound recordist ............... Lawrie Fitzgerald Talking Heads, original idea b y ................................. Shaun Brown Prod, company ................Inma Productions E d ito r...........................................

Jim Stevens Dame Edna Everage THE DISC OF MAGALA Photography............................................Shaun Brown, Dist. company ..................inma Productions Prod, assistant.................... Sam Bienstock Mixed at .................................... Palm Studios Nigel Morley P ro d ucers..................................... Ned Lander, Prod, company ...................... Magala Films Camera assistant .............. Sam Bienstock Laboratory ....................................... Colorfilm Sound recordist ......................Shaun Brown Graem e Isaac Dist. c o m p a n y .....................T 6 Productions Neg. m a tch in g ...................... Jackie Gelling Lab. liaison......................................Bill Gooley E d ito r ........................................................ Shaun Brown D ire c to r.......................................Ned Lander D ire c to rs .........................Richard Chataway, Graphics .................................Lee Whitmore, Length .................................................20 mins C o m p o s e r................................................Shaun Brown Scriptw riters.................................Ned Lander, Michael Cusack Paul Rolph Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Script as s is ta n t.....................Ron Saunders Graem e Isaac, Scriptw riters....................Richard Chataway, R u n n e r.................................Carole Kostanich Progress ........................................... in release Camera operators ................ Shaun Brown, in collaboration with Michael Cusack Laboratory ...............................KG Colorfilm First re leased .................. October 16, 1980, Nigel Morley Us Mob, Based on the B u d g et................................................... $30,519 Ascott Cinema (Sydney) Asst g r ip s ...................................................JohnWorral, No Fixed Address original idea b y ........ Richard Chataway, Length ...................................................60 mins Synopsis: A documentary about two of Aus­ Nigel Morley and friends.

Michael Cusack Gauge ...................................................... 16mm tralia’s foremost young, fashion designers, Set construction ......................Shaun Brown Photography................................ Louis Irving Photography......................................... Richard Chataway Shooting stock.................... Black and White Jenny Kee and Linda Jackson of Flamingo Tech, a d v is o r.....................David Woodgate Sound recordist ...................... Lloyd Carrick Sound recordist ....................Susan Formby Plus X and Tri X Park. The film shows how environment B u d g e t....................................................... $1836 E d ito r............................................... John Scott E d ito rs .............................Richard Chataway, Progress ......................................... Production influences their creative process. It is Gauge ......................................... Super 8mm C o m p osers...........................................Us Mob, John Chataway Scheduled release ..................

March, 1981 designed to give pleasure to the senses Shooting stock............................. Ektachrome No Fixed Address Prod, d esigner...................... Michael Cusack Synopsis: An historical documentary about through strong use of color, texture, sound Prod, su p erviso r..................Martha Ansara Progress ..........................................Production C o m p o ser.................................... Tim Sexton the New South Wales Builders Laborers’ and movement.

Scheduled release . . . December 21, 1980 Prod, manager .................................Ian Page Exec, producer ........................... Roger Ford Federation covering the 1950s to the Unit m a n a g e r..............................Alec Morgan Ca»t: Mark Shears (Steve), Nigel Morley Prod, sup erviso r........................ Jim George present.

(Stony), Sue Horne (Sue), Shaun Brown Prod, secretary ......................Gayle Rankine LEARNING FAST Prod, co-ordinator ............ John Chataway (Roger), Kerry Birchenough (Angela).

(The Transition of Young People Prod, assistant...........................Mary Stutters Prod, accountant ...........................Lyall Aird Synopsis: Two maintenance men, Steve 1st asst director ........................ Phil Roberts HAL ALEXANDER REMEMBERS Script a ss istan t.......................... Jim George from School to Work) and Stony discover a man-eating plant 2nd asst director..................Cathy Elderton Camera operator .......... Richard Chataway Prod, company . . . Archival Film Program while working inside a drain tunnel. But un­ Camera assistant .............. Jeremy Robins Prod, company ................Gaylene Preston Clapper/ioader ....................Barry Baddams of the Australia Council known to them the plant hides itself in their Boom operator ................................ Pat Fiske Productions Key g r ip .........................................................RoyWebb Dist. company ................... Australia Council car and is taken back to Steve’s house. A Art d ire c to r................................... Jan Mackay P rod ucers......................... Gaylene Preston, Asst g r i p ...................................................OscarWebb P ro d u c e r....................................................PeterCampbell night of terror follows.

Asst art director ................ Mardi Kennedy , Craig McLeod Art d irecto r.............................Michael Cusack D ire c to r...................................... Paul Bugden Musical directors .................Graeme Isaac, D ire c to r................................ Gaylene Preston Asst art director ....................... Keith Baker Sound recordist .................. Fabio Cavadini Phil Roberts R esearch................................ Stephanie Beth Set decorato rs.................. Michael Cusack, E d ito r................................ Ronda Macgregor Music performed by ....................... Us Mob, Photography............................................... AlunBollinger Keith Baker, WATERLOO R e search................................... Lorna Lesley No Fixed Address Sound recordist .....................

Lee Tamahori Douglas Melville Lighting cameraman .............. David Perry P ro d ucer/d irector..................................... Tom Zubrycki E d ito r............................................................. DellKingEditing assistants . .. .Sheree Goldsworthy Scenic a r tis t..................... Barbara Brooksby Neg. m atch in g ..........................................Atlab Still photography...........................Carol Ruff Photography..............................................FabioCavadini Prod, manager ......................

Craig McLeod Neg. m a tch in g .................................. Colorfilm Mixed at .................................. Dubbs and Co Laboratory ................................................ Atlab Additional photography............. Louis Irving Prod, secretary ......................Anne Cornege Music performed by ........ Chris Chataway Laboratory ................................................ Atlab Lab. liaison .................................Peter Wilson Camera assistant ..................

Richard Bluck Sound recordist ..............................Pat Fiske Mixer ................................................Jim Currie Length ................................................90 mins Length ...................................................50 mins E d ito r ..............................................................JimStevens Key g r ip ...................................................... DaveBrown Animation ...........................Michael Cusack, Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Gauge .......................................................16mm Still photography.................... Jocelyn Carlin Original music and Richard Chataway Shooting sto ck................................. Fujicolor Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Length ...................................................50 mins lyrics ...................................Dennis Kevans, Tech, ad v is o r.............................Terry Jones Progress ................................Post-production Progress ................................Post-production Phyl Lobyl Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Mixed at .............................South Australian Synopsis: A film in the Australia Council's Scheduled release ...................... Early, 1981 Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Assoc, producer ........................ Jim Stevens Film Corporation archival series on Hal Alexander, the Cast: Carroll Karpany, Peter Butler, Ron Progress ......................................... Production Sound editor ........................... Rod Hibberd Laboratory .......... Colorfilm in association founder of Actors’ Equity.

Synopsis: A documentary about how a Ansell, Wally McArthur (Us Mob), Les Still photography.......................John Storey with Film Lab Services Graham. Ricky Harrison, Bart Willoughby, group of school leavers move into the world Length ................................................... 46 mins Length ................................................. 30 mins John Miller. Veronica Rankine (No Fixed of work.

PORTRAIT OF IVAN McMEEKIN Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Gauge ...................................................... 16mm Address).

Shooting stock...........................Ektachrome Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Prod, company . . . Archival Film Program Synopsis: Aboriginal bands Us Mob and No Progress .............................Awaiting release Progress ...................................... Production THE QUEEN VIC TO R IA BUILDING of the Australia Council Fixed Address, on the road.

Scheduled release . . . . ----- January, 1981 Scheduled release ........ September, 1981 Dist. company ................... Australia Council Synopsis: The film looks at now a group of Prod, company ........ University of Sydney Cast: Keith Gallasch (Raladin, Magala), P ro d u c e r....................................................PeterCampbell Television Service residents in the inner Sydney working class Geoff Revell (Snoz), Jon Firman (Glade), WAGERUP WEEKEND D ire c to r..............................

Paul Bugden suburb of Waterloo are able to mobilize Dist. company .......... University of Sydney Ron Hoenig (Draigel), David Kirk (Glom), Sound recordist .................. Fabio Cavadini support for policies that challenge those of: Television Service Christina Andersson (Oracle).

Prod, company .....................IF Productions E d ito r................................ Ronda Macgregor 1) The local Labor Party machine and 2) Producer/d irector....................................ColinHawke Synopsis: A fantasy for children in clay Dist. company Sydney Filmmakers Co-op Lighting cameraman .............. David Perry Scriptw riter............................................... DavidEarle State Housing Authorities. animation. Raladin, the good wizard, and Producers/directors........ Bryan McLellan, Neg. m a tch in g ..........................................Atlab Video ...........................................Chris Willing, his mutant-dwarf sidekick, Snoz, set out to David Noakes Mixed at .................................Dubbs and Co Michael Jacob destroy the evil Magala who, with his Scriptw riters.......................Bryan McLellan, Laboratory ................................................ Atlab For complete details of the following films Sound recordists ........ Malcolm Devenish, magical disc, threatens the world.

David Noakes, Length ................................................120 mins see Issue 29: Stuart Pointon, Bob Connolly Gauge .......................................................16mm Tim Segulin Photography...........................

David Noakes Shooting sto ck................................... Fujicolor Agaction E d ito r............................... Louise Hawthorne Sound R ecordists.................Terry Cordon, Progress ................................Post-production Blacking Out A Blonde H o st/n arrato r........................................... DavidEarle Bryan McLellan, Synopsis: A film in the Australia Council’s Blue W ater Challenge Length ................................................... 50 mins Diane Shaw archival series on Ivan McMeekin, a wellBreeds of Horses Gauge ................................. Broadcast Video E d ito r........................................

Bryan McLellan known and respected potter.

A Business Like Investment Progress ............................. Awaiting release C o m p o s e r...............................

Bruce Devenish Celebrations Synopsis: A documentary which looks at Assoc, producer ......................Bob Connolly The Coming the history of the Queen Victoria building, Prod, accountant .....................Eric Sankey Cuddly Pigs which was voted the most popular historic Prod, assistant...........................Diane Shaw Dirty Harry

ANIMATION

Cinema Papers, December-January—455

Pyral M agnetic Film 16mm, 17.5mm, 35mm

ACETATE OR

POLYESTER Available from:

MAGNA-TECH tronics (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED 14 WHITING STREET, ARTARMON, NSW 2064 TELEPHONE 438 3377

Wife piodi/cfiMM&tëisaatëot;

SOUND STAGE STUDIO 356 FOR HIRE

lA/ho's " liïM fô , w m te s œ

naí.pmstoipS p n i meonelite “ fôKMoerowi.l&iwMp $ m d (Wow

K r c2-çiq 65(8.

Scmgone-lîtà peBBRMOKCOM

L@ m M Ciimi# fc m ta te Arriflex 16 BC, 16 ST, 35 11C & Blimp • CP-16 Reflex • Eclair NPR • Beaulieu R16 * Bolex Reflex • Helmet Cameras • Wide Angle & Effects Lenses • Filters • Tripods and Cam era Mounts • Nagra Recorders, 4-2 & IS * Shot-Gun, Radio, Neck & Hand Microphones • Lighting • Generator • Portable Battery Lights • 4 & 6 Plate Flat Bed Editors • PIC Syncs. • 16mm Viewers • Sound Readers • Synchronizers • %” Umatic VTR Machines & Monitors • 16mm Projectors •

Suitable for video — stills — film clips or rehearsals for orchestras.

* 53' x 35' — 12' to 14' ceiling height $Moffori * Fixed m lighting grid with power points in ceiling * * * * * * * *

Fixed cyclorama (gyprock) Acoustically treated Air conditioned * Hot and cold water in studio Make-up room with hair washing basin and hot and cold water Kitchen, cafe-bar, fridge, stove and toilets Loading dock access to studio Drive-in ground level to studio floor Ample parking for trucks, semi-trailers and O.B. vans

Second sound stage egg: Roller door access suitable for truck commercials ready in February.

For bookings and information, please phone Sydney 799 3424, 798 6782, 798 5647. Telex - AA 27732.

237 Church Street, Richmond, Victoria. 3121 (0 3 ) 429 2992

CASH-MORE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

After Hours: (0 3 ) 25 7275

356 Liverpool Road, Ashfield, NSW 2131

Additional photography Peter Lettenmaier, Peter Strain Neg. m a tc h in g .............................Liz Rapsey Sound editor ...........................Liz Goldfinch Mixer .................................................. Kim Lord Animation ........................... Graham Burfoot Laboratory ....................................... Cine Film B u d g e t................................................... $34,000 Length ................................................... 46 mins Gauge .......................................................16mm Shooting sto ck............................. Ektachrome Progress ................................Post-production Scheduled r e le a s e ................ January, 1981 Perth Synopsis: The documentary covers the historical events that led to the confronta­ tions Involving the public, environmen­ talists, the Governm ent, and Alcoa of Australia, over the expansion of bauxite mining In the Darling Ranges, and the building of a new alum ina refinery at W agerup in Western Australia.

YOU HAVE TO START SOMEW HERE Prod, company ...........................Trout Films Dist. company .. Curriculum Development Centre P ro d u cers............................... Chris Warner, Maureen McCarthy D ir e c to r .................................... Chris Warner Scriptw riters...........................Chris Warner, Maureen McCarthy Photography............................... James Grant Sound recordist ...........................Ian Wilson E d ito rs ..................................... Chris Warner, Maureen McCarthy Prod, manager ...........................Chris Oliver Continuity .....................Maryanne Smrchek Camera assistant ................... Natalie Green Key g r ip ......................................Michael Horan Asst editor ................................. Alison Tilson Laboratory .........................................Colorfilm Lab. liaiso n ................................... Bill Gooley Length ................................................. 25 mins Gauge .......................................................16mm Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Progress ................................Post-production Scheduled release .....................April, 1981 Synopsis: A documentary, for teachers and educators, on the implications of the philosophy of education for a multicultural society for schools with few migrant stu­ dents.

For com plete details of the following documentaries see Issue 29: Familiar Places From Hiroshima to Hanoi The House Opening Women Break Out

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Projects approved at the AFC meeting in October, 1980.

Script Development Patricia Johnson, script development for a 2nd draft of Special Friends — $3500.

Helen M artin, script developm ent for Cleaner — $800.

Adam Bowen, script development for Rock Suicide to 1st draft — $1950.

Cynthia Blanche, script development for a 4th draft of Mirrors — $2820.

Jan Sharp, script development for Island of the Gods — $1600.

Elizabeth Mahon, script development to complete a 1st draft of Finishln’ up at Christmas — $2400.

Raymond Harding, script development for The Irishman and the Hitchhiker — $1000.

John Smythe, script development for a 2nd draft of Singled Out — $3250.

Genni Batterham and Kim Batterham, script development for research treatment on Parenting With the Disabled — $2500.

Forrest Redlich, script development for a 2nd draft of Desolation Row — $2500.

F a b r i z io C a la f u r i a n d G w e n d o ly n Castrikum, script development for an un­ titled treatment — $1200.

Ettore Siracusa, script development to take treatment of Italian For Travellers to scene breakdown — $500.

Mark McSherry, Helen Gaynor and Teresa Zolnakierw iecz, script developm ent for Sweet Love — $1000.

Margaret McClusky, script development to further draft What Kate Did at School — $900.

Geoffrey Wright, script development for The Sharpies — $100. ' Ray Argali, script development for research treatment of Pop Movie — $2200.

John Emery, script development to further develop Freedom — $1400.

Kevin Anderson, script development to bring Mirages to 1st draft — $2200.

Jinks Dulhunty, script development to bring One Ambitious Year to 1st draft — $2760.

Rolf de Heer, script developm ent for Brandy Alexander — $1200.

Bill Harding, script development to write first episode and 12 storylines of Maximum Thrust — $3600.

Andrew .Williams, script development for a treatment of Night Riders — $500.

Rosina O ’Casey, script development to research first draft and expand treatment of Fashion, Friend or Foe — $3000.

Production Martha Ansara, Out of the Land of Fire — $16,000.

Geoff Bardon, Caprices for a Foto Tim e — $28,534.

James Bradley, Memories of Icarus — $23,364.

Michael Hill and John Cruthers, Pre­ production for Two Lovely Young Girls in a Jam — $3185.

Gary Kildea, Manila — A Way of Life — $34,400.

Megan McMurchy, Margot Oliver and Jeni Thornley, The Women and Work Film — $58,532.

Michael Pattinson, pre-production for Mov­ ing Out — $10,000.

Sandra Holmes, Goddess and the Moon Man — $5200.

Debbie Glasser, Migrants in Australia — $5480.

Paul Winkler, Urban Spaces — $5230.

Darren Boyce, Marni — $2782.

Tony Cook, Shipwrecked — $10,503.

Steve French, Long Way Back — $1738.

Joe Dolce and Chris Lofven, Shaper — $14,128.

John Skibinski, Foxbat and the Mlmi — $1290.

Stuart Wood, pre-production for Reverend — $500.

Ray Bartram, Revenge — $21,955.

Richard Chataway and Michael Cusak, The Disc of Magala — $9139.

Lois Ellis, Women Climbing Mountains — $2773.

Margaret Dodd, This Woman is not a Car — $1191.

Post-production Peter Gray and Garry Lane, Know Your Friends, Know Your Enemies — $7496.

Peter Gray and G arry Lane, Freeway Fighters — $4786.

Chris James, Flights and Fantasies — $6000.

Tom Zubrycki, Waterloo — $6500.

Paul Leadon and David Poltorak, Weekend of Summer Last — $1650.

Solrun Pulvers, Hatoma — $3546.

Lyn Bugden, Jacob — $9657.

Women’s Film Fund Rosanna Licari, investment in Women Who Decided — $562.

Megan McMurchy, Margot Oliver, Jeni Thornley, investment in The Women and Work R im — $10,000.

Susan Lambert and Sarah Gibson, grant to produce a booklet to support their newly completed film, Age Before Beauty — $2170.

Christine Woodcock and Jacqui Fine, grant to develop script for Edith Murray — Pup­ peteer — $1290.

Lee Whitmore, investment in Ned Wethered — $6000.

Carole Kostanich, investment in Single Parents — $11,330.

Alison Tilson, Joan Rowlands, re-script of Pro Feminis a Femnis — $2000.

Mary Callaghan, investment in Greetings from Wollongong — $10,000.

Reel Women, Grant to aid in development of a local com prehensive distribution operation in Melbourne — $10,000.

Adele Sztar, grant to research material for docum entary A ustralian W omen C o m ­ posers — $1000.

Sandra Alexander, additional investment in The Sky Will Not Fall — $628.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Projects approved at the AFC meetings on O cto ber 2 (previously scheduled for September) and October 27, 1980.

Script and Production Development investment Stephen Measday, script development for 1st, 2nd and 3rd draft funding on The Time Bicycle, a children's television series — $5800.

Bigbridge (Pat Condon, Chris Bearde), script development for a 1st draft and pre­ production funding of Holiday, a cinema feature — $55,000 and script development for additional 1st draft funding for same — $5000.

Frank Moorhouse and Sophia Turkiewicz, script development for 2nd and 3rd draft funding for Tim e’s Raging, a 16mm cinema feature — $7700.

Mike Williams and Frank Gardiner, script development for a reinstatement of balance of 1st draft funding for Position 31, a cinema feature — $2000.

John Dingwell-, script development for a reinstatem ent of balance of 4th draft funding for Buddies, a cinema feature — $1708.

Bloodwood Films (David W addington), script and production development for a treatment and network presentation for Naked Under Capricorn, a television series — $9850.

Philip McLaren, script development for 1st d r a ft fu n d in g of A lb e r t , a c in e m a feature/telefeature — $4450.

Rowan Ayers Productions, script develop­ ment for concept presentation of Cedar Bay, a cinema feature — $4000.

Rocky Gattellari, script development for an extended treatm ent of The Dumm y, a cinema feature — $4000.

Michael Robertson Film Productions, script video development funding for two televi­ sion d o c u m en taries titled U nto Our Children — $10,000.

Grundy Organization, 1st, 2nd and 3rd draft funding for Runaway Island, a children’s television series — $9292.

Dudley Gordon, script development for a 1st draft of Die Hard, a cinema feature — $27,500.

B urbank Film s and A ssociates (Tom Stacey), script development for a VTR/ storyboard development of Oliver Twist — $19,800.

Colin James and Tom Burstall, script development for a treatment of Concrete Butterfly, a cinema feature — $2000.

Alastair M cDonald Productions, script development for a 1st draft of Chopper Cowboys, a cinema feature — $6750.

Venture Films Australia (Donald Philps and Martin Phelan), script development for a 1st draft of XPX-2, a cinema feature — $12,000.

AAV-Australia Productions (Jill Robb), script development for a 2nd draft and pre­ production of Silent Reach, a television series — $22,932.

John Crampton and Michael Pate, script development for a 2nd draft of Slade, a cinema feature — $6000.

John Weiley, funding to assist applicant to attend script development conference in the U.S. for The Coca Cola Kid. a cinema feature — $7600.

Sir William Keys and Jon Hutchison, script development for a 2nd draft of The Janus Conspiracy, a telefeature — $5000.

The Legend of Alaya (Wayne and Diana Young), additional presentation develop­ ment funding for The Legend of Alaya, a cinema feature — $15,000.

Nadira (Paul Harmon), script development for a 4th draft of Double Exposures, cinema feature — $ 2000.

Project Branch Package Development Investment Wilgar Productions (Mike Williams and Frank Gardiner), package investment — $26,220.

Robert Bruning Productions, additional in­ vestment for The Settlement — $1000.

Project Branch Production Investm ent (conditional approvals).

Voyager Films (David Elfick), cinem a feature: Conditional approval for Starstruck — $500,000.

Yenan Productions (Geoff Burrowes), cinema feature: Conditional approval for The Man from Snowy River — $400,000.

Richard Bradley and David Bross, 16mm cinema feature: Conditional approval for Southern Crossing — $23,500.

Michael Edols Films, television documen­ tary: Conditional approval and additional in­ vestment for Galangala — Flame of Light — $51,643 and $14,015.

SAFC and Aboriginal Culture Foundation Inc., Television documentary: Conditional approval for Corroboree — $50,000.

Project Branch Grants Howard Wheatley (Accountant), trainee grant for Gallipoli — $2150.

David Pride and Bob McCarron (Special ef­ fects and prosthesis make-up), travel grant — $ 10 , 000 .

WA Young Filmmakers Awards 1980 — $3000.

Project Branch Loans Endeavour Communications Corporation, package loan — $7000.

M ichael Edols Films, Limited overage facilities for Galangala — Flame of Light — $11,616. _ Michael Edols Films, Additional overage facilities for Galangala — Flame of Light — $2613. ' '

FILM AUSTRALIA

ARAGURA TO ALICE — THE NORTHERN TERRITORY IN 1980 Prod, company Dist. company .

Producer ..........

Director ............

Scriptwriter . . . .

Photography . . .

Sound recordist Editor ................

Assoc, producer Unit manager ..

. . . Film Australia . . . Film Australia .. Peter Johnson . . . .Nick Torrens .. David Roberts . . . . Andy Fraser . . . Howard Spry . . . .Nick Torrens . Rosemary Gow Michael Atkinson

Camera assistant ...................James Ward Length ................................................. 20 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting stock ....................... Eastmancolor Progress ......................................... In release First released ................... September, 1980 Synopsis: A short film promoting the Northern Territory.

AUSTRALIAN MYTHOLOGIES ...................Martin Williams Productions Dist. company ........................Film Australia Producer .................................Peter Johnson Director ............................ Jonathon Dawson Scriptwriter ......................Jonathon Dawson Photography .........................Ron Johanson Assoc, producer .................Rosemary Gow Unit manager ..........................John Stainton Narrator ................................Jack Thompson Length ................................................. 50 mins Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Shooting stock .........................Eastmancolor Progress ........................................ Production Scheduled release .....................June, 1981 Synopsis: A short film about the prolonga­ tion of the great Australian mythologies.

Assoc, producer ....................... Roy Bissell Camera assistant ..................James Ward Narrator ................................... Paul Ricketts Length ................................................60 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting stock ....................... Eastmancolor Progress .......................................In release First released ...................December, 1980 Synopsis: A film for the army, on some of the weapons in use by our armed services in the 1980s.

Prod, company

BARRA BUOY Prod, company .....................Film Australia Dist. company .......................Film Australia Producer ............................... Peter Johnson Director ...........................Michael Robertson Scriptwriter .................... Michael Robertson Photography ............................John Hosking Sound recordist .....................Howard Spry Editor ................................. Stuart Armstrong Assoc, producer ................ Rosemary Gow Unit manager ......................... James Parker Length ................................................. 20 mins Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ........................................Production Scheduled release .................. March, 1981 Synopsis: A film promoting an Australian invention in undersea warfare.

THE CAPITAL Prod, company ......................Film Australia Dist. company ........................Film Australia Producer .............

Peter Johnson Director ...................... Cameracraft Brisbane Scriptwriter .........................Michael Falloon Photography ...............................Jim Gilbert, John Hosking, Mick Von Borneman Sound recordist ...........................Alan Lake Assoc, producer .............. Rosemary Gow Length ................................................. 20 mins Gauge .....................................................35mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ..........................................In release First released .....................December, 1980 Synopsis: A film on our national capital — a look at the very real pictorial attributes of Canberra and its environs.

DISASTER PLANNING Prod, company ......................Film Australia Dist. company ........................Film Australia Producer/director ................ Peter Johnson Scriptwriter .................................Tony Horler Photography ............ Frederick Richardson Editor ...........................................Paul Bushby Assoc, producer .............. Rosemary Gow Length ................................................. 20 mins Gauge ..................................................... 1.6mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ..........................................In release First released .....................December, 1980 Synopsis: A film aimed to warn Australians of natural disaster problems and to advise of the agencies set up within the community to deal with such problems.

ELECTORAL PROCEDURES Prod, company ......................Film Australia Dist. company ........................Film Australia Producer .................................Peter Johnson Director .................................... Martin Cohen Scriptwriter .............................. Martin Cohen Photography ...............................Andy Frazer Sound recordist ........................Bruce Nihill Editor ........................................ Martin Cohen Assoc, producer .............. Rosemary Gow Unit manager .................Daro Gunzberg Camera assistant .................. James Ward Length ................................................. 25 mins Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Shooting stock .........................Eastmancolor Progress ........................................ Production Scheduled release ............ February, 1981 Synopsis: A film on the federal election, and the voting procedures entailed in the elec­ tions of M em bers of Parliam ent and Senators.

FIRE POWER Prod, company Dist. company Producer ........

Scriptwriter . . .

Photography ..

Sound recordist Editor ................

........ Film Australia ........ Film Australia . . . . Peter Johnson Cpt. Mark Maloney .. .Peter Viskovich, Andy Fraser, Kerry Brown . . . . Rod Simmons .......... Louis Anivitti

G Y M N A STIC S Prod, company ................................... Cinetel Dist. companies ...................... Film Australia and Shell Producer .................................Peter Johnson D ire c to r................................... Frank Helmans Scriptwriter ............................. David Barrow Photography ........................... Russell Boyd Sound recordist .................. Kevin Kearney Editor ......................................Frank Heimans Assoc, producer ................. Rosemary Gow Length ..................................................20 mins Gauge ......................................................16mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ......................................... In release First .released ................... November, 1980 Synopsis: A film to promote and publicize the sport of gymnastics.

HOCKEY Prod, company

........................The Moving Picture Company Dist. companies .....................Film Australia and Shell Producer .................................Peter Johnson Director .................................... Ivan Hexter Scriptwriter .............................Oliver Howes Photography .............................Dan Burstall Editor ............................................. Tim Lewis Assoc, producer .............. Rosemary Gow Length .................,............................. 20 mins Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ............................

Inrelease First released ...................November, 1980 Synopsis: A film to promote and publicize the game of hockey.

KEEPING UP W ITH THE JONESES Prod, company

............................. Bob Brow Productions Dist. company ........................Film Australia Producer .................................Peter Johnson Director ............................................Rob Brow Scriptwriter ..................................... Noel Field Photography .............................. Peter Sykes Sound recordist .................. Ian Jenkinson Editor .......... ................ „ ___ David Hopkins Assoc, producer ...............Rosemary Gow Length ................................................. 26 mins Gauge ............................. 16mm and 35mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ..........................................In release Release date ............................... June, 1980 Synopsis: The story of a couple living in the outback, who are doing som ething to alleviate the loneliness of outback life.

A MAN AND AN ORGAN Prod, company

.....................John Busheile Productions Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Producer .................................Peter Johnson Director ................................... John Busheile Scriptwriter ............................. John Busheile Photography ..................................... Phil Pike Editor ....................................... John Busheile Assoc, producer .............. Rosemary Gow Length ................................................. 26 mins Gauge .............................16mm and 35mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ........................................ Production Scheduled release ...................June, 1981 Synopsis: The story of Richard Shapre and the organ in the Sydney Opera House.

MEGALO MEDIA Prod, company ......................Film Australia Dist. company .......................Film Australia Producer ............................... Robin Hughes Director ........................................ Bruce Petty Scriptwriter .................................. Bruce Petty Photography ......................... Bruce Hillyard Sound recordist ................ Rod Symmons Editor .............................................. Tom Foley Assoc, producer ......................... Alex Ezard Camera assistant ........................Jan Kenny Narrator ..........................................Max Gillies Length ..........................................3 x 10 mins Progress ..........................................In release First released .....................December, 1980 Synopsis: This short series is in the form of a mock lecture by a man dressed as a town crier. It traces the history of the media from its origins of printing, through to present day television, radio, films etc.

THE NEVER NEVER LAND Prod, company . . . Kingcroft Productions Dist. company ..................... Film Australia Producer ............................... Peter Johnson Directors ................................... Harry Booth, Terry Ohlsson

Concluded on p. 501

Cinema Papers, December-January—45

THE

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SAB

THERESALWAYS SOMETHINGNEW AND EXCITING

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL STUDIES

ATSAMUELS0NS

MASTER OF GENERAL STUDIES (M G enS tud)

A Higher Degree in Interdisciplinary Study A pplications are invited from suitably qualified graduates interested in advanced interdisciplinary study. This higher degree is especially designed for students whose interests and experience relate to a num ber of academ ic disciplines and are not easily accom m odated by a traditional departm ent of learning. The Master of General Studies can be obtained by course-w ork a n d /o r research thesis, involving two years’ study (4 academ ic sessions) part-tim e. The degree by research may also be com pleted by full-tim e studies. Graduate course-w ork offered for 1981 includes: AMERICAN STUDIES: Structures, conflict and change in m odern USA. Emphasis in social history, political sociology, culture and society (literature, music, cinema, drama).

CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD: Factors relevant to the operation of Christian belief in the present through an interdisciplinary consideration of the works of certain philosophers, theologians, social and political theorists.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE CINEMA: M ajor issues in current film theory and criticism . Film history, aesthetics and criticism considered in the light of theoretical concepts derived from a num ber of related disciplines e.g. linguistics, sem iology, psychoanalysis, sociology.

The Departm ent of General Studies has a m ulti-disciplinary organisation unique in Australia, with 21 full-tim e m em bers of staff representing a broad spectrum of hum anistic and liberal studies as well as the social and physical sciences.

The Departm ent has an established tradition of interdisciplinary research and collaborative teaching.

NEW ADDRESS: Samuelson Film Service (AUST) P/L

Inquiries and applications should be addressed to Professor R. F. Hall, D epartment of General Studies, The University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, 2033. Telephone (02) 662 2091. ’

Applications for the degree close 2 January 1981.

Design, construction and hire of quality costumes for film, television and commercials.

282 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy 3068 (03) 489 7263

SALES • RENTALS • SER VICE -LIG H TIN G FILM • TELEVISION • STAGE

John B. Masson & Associates Pty. Ltd 78-80 STANLEY STREET, COLLINGWOOD VICTORIA, 3066. AUSTRALIA. Telephone: (03) 41 4245 A fter hours: (03) 850 2020

1 GIFFNOCK AVENUE NORTH RYDE N.S.W. 2113 Phone: (02) 888 2766 Telex: AA25188 • • •

Same Service First Class 24 Hour

INTERSTATE: MELBOURNE: 25 LOTHIAN STREET NORTH MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3051 Phone: (03) 329 5155 Telex: AA35861

C hannel 0 /2 8 Launched Bruce Gyngell, the first person to ap­ pear on Australian television in 1956, made it a double when he launched multicultural television, Channel 0/28 on United Nations Day, October 24.

At 5.30 p.m., the new station came to life, introduced by Gyngell, chairman­ designate to the new network, which is run by the Special Broadcasting Service.

Although officially a consultant to the SBS, Gyngell has tackled his new ap­ pointment enthusiastically, and has set about selling the new station. Full page press advertisements, radio commer­ cials, special inserts in television magazines are all part of the aggressive manner in which Channel 0/28 is ap­ proaching its emergence.

Gyngell seems determined to es­ tablish the new network as an enter­ taining and informative alternative to the ABC and commercial stations.

Judging by the quality of many of the programs, particularly the films and dramas, there should be a large audience across the board.

The first available ratings, in fact, show that Channel 0/28, in its first full week on air, captured 3.3 per cent of the Melbourne viewing audience. The same figures reveal that the ABC’s share of the viewing audience dropped, while those of the three commercial channels remained about average.

According to Gyngell, Channel 0/28 won’t rely solely on imported programs.

He says nearly $10 million could be spent on locally-produced shows.

These include Scoop, a current affairs program dealing with community is­ sues, which has a budget of $50,000 a week. There have been discussions with Professor Geoffrey Blainey for the rights to his book Triumph of the Nomads, to be adapted as a six-part series.

The firs t local productions for Independent M u lticu ltu ra l B road­ casting C om m ission, through the Special Broadcasting Service, were two Greek language features The Three Seawolves and A Shoe From Your Homeland. They were made at AAV studios in Melbourne and produced by Jill Robb.

world patents on a locally-developed system claimed to be more advanced than those used in other countries.

Television executives believe there is need for a combination of the meter and diary systems.

C hristopher Muir, executive producer charge of ABC drama.

in

N e w Head fo r ABC D ram a Oscar Whitbread, the head of drama production for the ABC in Melbourne, has left Australia bound for London.

Whitbread has taken 15 months leave to live in London and study the latest production developments and tech­ niques. He will also visit America to look at the same aspects of the industry there.

His replacement is Christopher Muir who has been with the ABC for 31 years and is one of its most experienced documentary producer/directors. He has recently been producing and directing the series Music Around Aus­ tralia.

Talking to the Melbourne Age about his new appointment, Muir said he believed in absolute accuracy In detail, though “ not to the detriment of the drama line” . “ Using the costume drama seems to me to be a little like looking at life th ro u g h th e w ro n g end of the telescope,” he commented.

M cN air-A n d erso n T ak eo v er ABG Research Ltd, the w orld’s second largest audience research organization after A. C. Nielsen of the U.S., has taken over Australia’s bestknown audience surveyors — McNairAnderson.

The takeover is likely to result in the introduction of meters fixed to televi­ sion sets to measure television ratings, as a supplement to the existing diary system. No time limit has been set for introduction of the meters, though they are expected to be in operation within three years.

Gary Morgan, of the Roy Morgan Research Centre, protested to the Foreign Investment Review Board over the takeover. The Morgan centre, the main riva l of M c N a ir-A n d e rs o n , claim ed M cN air-A nderson held a monopoly on television ratings in Australia.

The contracts to conduct audience surveys for television ratings, at pres­ ent held by McNair-Anderson, expire next year. The contracts are negotiated individually by each station.

Morgan pioneered the use of televi­ sion meter ratings devices in Australia more than two years ago, and holds

Phil de M o n tig n ie and Kent C hadw ick: Penguins for Do Not Pass Go.

Penguins F or VFC The Victorian Film Corporation took top honors in the 21st Annual Tele­ vision Society Penguin Awards.

The VFC took out two major awards for its highly-praised documentary Do Not Pass Go. A Penguin was awarded for Best Documentary, and the FISV Award for Best Television Documen­ tary and Best Direction went to VFC

producer Kent Chadwick and director Phil de Montignie.

But while the standard of entries in the documentary category was high, the quality of the programs in other categories was disappointing.

In the A dult T elevision Drama category, the judges ruled that overall production standards were “ not of a sufficiently high standard” , and In the Children's Drama Section, the quality of entries was “ disappointing” .

In the Program and Individual Achievement sections particularly, the judges noted that many nominees for awards were not presented to their best advantage by the nominating organiza­ tions — in these cases the television channels — and there were, in some cases, insufficient entries to justify an award.

This year’s Penguin awards for best programs were: Best Light Entertainment Series — Commendation to The Mike Walsh Show (Nine Network). Best Light Enter­ tainment Show — Commendation to the Royal Charity Concert Perfor­ mance (TCN-9). Best Adult Comedy Television Play — No award. Best Children’s Program — Commendation to Wombat (BTQ-7). Best Current Af­ fairs Program — Penguin to 60 Minutes (TCN-9). Best Documentary — Penguin to Do Not Pass Go (Victorian Film Cor­ poration). Best Live Sporting Telecast — Penguin to the 1979 Castrol 6 Hour Race (ABC). Regional Station Awards — No awards. Best Television Play or Telemovie Direction — Penguin to Kevin Dobson, for Young Ramsay, episode Dreamtime (Crawford Produc­ tions).

S ara D ane P ro d u c tio n w ill com m ence on January 26 of the South Australian Film Corporation’s eight-part series Sara Dane. The series, which has a budget of $1.2 million, is based on the novel of the same name by Catherine Gaskin.

Executive producer is Jock Blair, formerly of Crawford Productions.

Sara Dane, set in the late 18th Cen­ tury, Australia, tells the story of a con­ vict woman’s attempts to be accepted by society.

A m ockup of early Sydney is being constructed on the outskirts of Adelaide, and props used in the ABCTV series The Timeless Land have been purchased.

At the time of writing, auditions were still taking place for the leading role in the series. Among the names men­ tioned have been Helen Morse and Judy Davis. David Bradshaw, from the Seven Network’s The Last Outlaw, is expected to take one of the male leads.

C aroline Jones and Bert Newton: top honors at the Sammys.

Sam m ys Four Corners compere Caroline Jones and Channel Nine personality Bert Newton took top honors in the an­ nual Variety Club of Australia Sammy Awards, presented in Sydney.

The Awards ceremony was telecast live from the Seymour Centre by the Seven Network. The 1980 awards also C o n c lu d e d o n p . 5 03

Cinema Papers. December-January—459

Shasta (Robyn Nevin) and the young Neil (Bryan McQueen Mason).

Water Under the Bridge

Water Under the Bridge, the nine-hour, $1.5 million drama series based on expatriate author Sumner Locke Elliott’s novel, started on Chan­ nel 10 on September 25 to a fanfare of critical superlatives.

Brought here from New York to help promote the series, Sumner Locke Elliott told Age ‘Green Guide’ journalist Barbara Hooks that the series had moved him to tears; technically it was “ as good, if not better than BBC masterpiece theatre’’.

Three weeks later Brian Courtis headlined his Age column with the accusation “ Ratings Sink a Quality Series’’. The series had flopped and the blame was being laid on the viewers.

Was Water Under the Bridge too good for philistine ocker viewers, or was it simply too boring?

On the surface, Water Under the Bridge had a lot going for it. First the story itself: set in Sydney in the nostalgia-ridden years between 1932 and the late 1940s, it contrasted seedy Kings Cross boarding-house life with the seamy high life of Point Piper socialites, and pepped up the m ixture with doses of sen tim en tal melodrama and showbiz. Maybe not BBC, but certainly 1940s Hollywood, and few would com­ plain about that.

Then, a cast headed by three compelling actresses with star quality: Robyn Nevin, Judy Davis and Jacki Weaver; a producer, John McRae, with a string of quality British produc­ tions behind him; and a budget enabling McRae to make the series a nostalgia trip as authentic as money would allow.

So why did it fail?

The plain fact is that, in spite of all the series had in its favor, it was simply boring. It didn’t achieve what we expect of even B-grade Hollywood: the excitement that is generated by clearly-defined heroes and/or heroines propelled by a strong storyline and backed up by a con­ vincing cast and locations.

In Water Under the Bridge none of the three leading women — Shasta (Robyn Nevin), Carrie (Judy Davis), and Maggie (Jacki Weaver) — was focused upon in a consistently involving way. Instead, the fortunes of all three were dealt with in a curiously cursory fashion. Bits of their lives surfaced, but then each dropped from view: Carrie sank without trace in the second last episode; Maggie was brought to the screen only to display her romantic disasters; and the most important years of Shasta’s life — her fifteenyear struggle to raise the orphaned Neil (David 460—Cinema Papers, December-January

Cameron) — disappeared in a two-minute advertising break.

Of the men, only Neil’s fortunes were central to the story, yet even Neil was, in Sumner Locke Elliott’s words, “ a rotten part . ... such a dull character” . Nor did David Cameron bring to the role the affecting sensitivity and erotic.style that might have saved it, and which we had a right to expect. After all, Carrie and Maggie fell in love with him, he became a successful actor, and besides, he’d grown up in the Cross. David Cameron played him as though he’d grown up in a country seminary, when he might, for example, have modelled the part on the youthful Peter Finch. (Finch’s early career in Sydney and England roughly paralleled Neil’s in the novel.)

As well as lacking a hero or heroine, the script of Water Under the Bridge also lacked a coherent storyline. Here the departures from the book proved to be disastrous.

The book’s opening coincides aptly with the opening of the Harbor Bridge in 1932 and the Mazzini family’s celebratory harborside party, the event which brings together most of the main characters and introduces them as a cross­ section of Sydney society. The exception here is Shasta, who makes her appearance when Neil returns home after the Mazzini party. It’s at this point that Sumner Locke Elliott uses a flashback to explain how Shasta came to adopt Neil after his parents died in the flu epidemic of the 1920s.

The scriptwriters, Eleanor Witcombe and Michael Jenkins, opted instead to start the tele­ vision series with this story. The result was that The first hour or so of the series was about Shasta’s heyday as a showgirl in a touring theatrical company. By the time she had made the decision to raise three-year-old Neil, the audience was well launched into the familiar Hollywood showbusiness story. And it worked marvellously: the song and dance scenes, the backstage camaraderie, the stagedoor romances, the Damon Runyon-style chorus girls — es­ pecially Jan Friedl as VeeVee. It all had the magnetic Hollywood mix of sentiment, vulgarity and glamor. , Then came the dramatic blow from which many viewers probably never recovered. After establishing the gutsy and vivacious Shasta as our heroine, and grave young Neilie (Bryan Mc­ Queen Mason) as our infant hero, the script abruptly and monstrously transformed both of them. In the course of an ad break Neilie turned into a gauche adolescent, and when Shasta reap­

peared on our screens it was as a prematurelyaged harridan, stooped over a frying pan with a fag drooping from her lower lip. The result: instant viewer alienation.

The shock of this transition also deadened the dramatic impact of the crucial Mazzini party.

To viewers still drying their eyes over Neil’s parents’ deaths, the party came as an irritating and confusing digression. Why were we having to put up with new characters like the loathsome Archie Ewers (John Howard), and the Flagg sisters, 'Ila (Linden Wilkinson) and Geraldine (Jan Hamilton), who seemed constantly on the brink of a vaudeville routine? There were, in ad­ dition, the extraordinary Mazzini sisters, Honor (Rowena Wallace) and Carrie (Judy Davis), who seemed to have stepped out of an altogether more sophisticated Hollywood genre — The Big Sleep perhaps?

Sure enough, before the end of the seemingly endless first episode, there was a brutal murder and Honor and Carrie were behaving more like Raymond Chandler ladies than ever. But if this was where the plot was headed, where was Philip Marlow? Instead of Bogart, all they were offered were the floundering Neilie, the ineffectual T. C. Shallicott (Peter Whitford), and the psycho­ logically-troubled Ben Mazzini (Chris Milne) and Don Brandywine (Rod Mullinar).

Not even the wise-cracking Maggie McGhee (Jacki Weaver), the tough lady journo with a heart of gold in the Hollywood role played so often by Eve Arden and Betty Garrett, could compensate for the confusion of viewers’ expec­ tations generated by that first episode.

From there on, viewers who stuck with the series had to live with a script that meandered

Maggie McGhee (Jacki Weaver) and Neil (David Cameron).

Water Under the Bridge.

•

Jill Kitson through the characters’ lives like a drunk on a from her twisted mouth: “So long, kid” . pub craw). Arthur Dignam and Graham Certainly, Carrie is last seen with a husband, Blundell appeared in ‘cameo’ roles. Robyn but he’s so murderously threatening that her Nevin did two Judy Garland Harvey Girls future looks as bleak as Shasta’s. numbers, the first on a train bound for the Blue For this chain of events, Sumner Locke Mountains, the second on the Manly ferry; and Elliott, not the scriptwriters, was responsible. in true Hollywood style the passengers ap­ The script stuck faithfully to the storyline plauded. Ila and Germ (Geraldine) continued to almost to the end, even reproducing verbatim provide comic relief, helped sometimes by their most of the book’s dialogue. Only the book’s mad father, played, inexplicably, by the youthful coda, which brings Neil and Maggie together Ralph Cotterill (even one of the characters years later, was left out — a deletion approved remarked that he looked more like their by Sumner Locke Elliott, who dismissed his own brother). ending as “an anti-climax” .

This slowly-paced script was worryingly at This unlikely story was more credible in the odds with the bizarre events unfolding in the book, thanks to crisp writing and cross-cutting, story, where deaths were piling up at a Shakes­ and a style that reproduced perfectly the terse pearian rate. Flu had carried off Uke (Peita Sydney humor of the period. But stretched to Toppano) and Pete (Sean Scully) in the first nine hours of television, the story lost its punch hour, and they were followed by most of the men and turned into phony, labored melodrama. in the story: Luigi Mazzini (Frank Gallacher), Too often it seemed that the director (Igor murdered; Ben Mazzini (Chris Milne), in a car Auzins) and the scriptwriters were spinning out crash; T.C. (Peter Whitford), in a plane crash; scenes to fill in time or to give the actor or Don Brandywine (Rod Mullinar), by suicide. actress a big scene. This destroyed the pace and For the women who survived them, the lesson ruined the dramatic unity of the series. It was made clear. You were bound to end up on became a vehicle for a string of scenes from dif­ your own: Mrs Mazzini gurgling in a hospital ferent genres. If one scene was played like an allbed; Chauncey (Penelope Shelton), the Kings stops-out Hollywood musical, the next was like Cross character who runs Neil and Shasta’s a scene from a gangster movie. If Judy Davis boarding house, friendless in hospital; VeeVee, a seemed to be modelling herself on the young hypochondriac^ on her own, in the Blue Moun­ Bette Davis, nervily chain-smoking and brittle as tains; Ila, looking after Dadda, on her own; glass, then David Cameron seemed to have Mona (Anne Pendlebury), another ex-showgirl, wandered in from The Sullivans. Meanwhile on her own in boarding-house; even the adorable Robyn Nevin was giving a tour de force perfor­ Maggie is le,ft manless, and over-eating to com­ mance that veered from Garland to Tennessee pensate; and finally Shasta, paralysed by a Williams. stroke, is abandoned by Neil in a nursing home, So, was Water Under the Bridge ‘money down gamely spitting out the last line of the script the drain’ as some critics were heard to remark?

Not entirely. John McRae showed he can bring together an ambitious and stylish produc­ tion, helped by art director Logan Brewer’s ability to reproduce period settings with stun­ ning attention to detail. The clothes, hairstyles, furnishings, even Shasta’s lipstick stub, gave the series the verisimilitude we’ve come to expect of the best English series. And the three women stars confirmed that they have the talent and presence to warrant better-written and betterdirected television roles.

But perhaps there’s more to be learned from the mistakes Water Under the Bridge made: the episodes were too long; the repeated advertise­ ments for Cuddly jarred with the series’ dramatic pretensions; the script’s soap-opera meanderings deprived it of the dramatic verve of a quality drama series; there were no good male roles; there was no hero or heroine with whom viewers could identify throughout; over nine hours’ filming, the direction was too slow and lacking in tautness, the editing lacked style, and too many interior shots dissolved in a glowing romantic fuzz. As well, too little of Sydney was seen to establish it as the setting for the characters’ lives; a handful of shots of the har­ bor and one or two of the Bridge were not enough to give us the city’s ambience, let alone that of the Cross, which was, sadly, recognizably Carlton.

But it was brave of Channel 10 to break away from the First Fleet and bushrangers in its first big drama series. Here’s hoping all the ex­ perienced gained by cast and crew will be put to work on other series — preferably in a genre we all recognize as contemporary Australian. For Hollywood does Hollywood so much better. ★

Honor (Rowena Wallace) and Ben Mazzini (Chris Milne). Water

Neil abandons Shasta in a rest home: “ I will not leave you for long, Shasta darling.” Water Under the Bridge.

Under the Bridge.

Neil and Carrie Mazzini (Judy Davis). Water Under the Bridge.

Cinema Papers. December-January—461

A technical series prepared by K o d a k* in association with C inem a P apers There is evidence of the continuing entrance of new people and companies into the television in­ dustry and of the efforts by some of the existing facilities to provide better and more diversified programming. At the same time there is a need for information about the way television signals are derived, processed and used.

The purpose in this series is to answer some of the questions commonly asked by various television staff members: creative staff, technicians, engineers, filmmakers, processing personnel and closed circuit operators, among others. We have provided information that is as un-complicated as possible, consistent with the need to be technically accurate. By giving such simplified information, it is our intent, in this series, to promote and encourage a better understanding of basic television system information.

Other articles in this series will include: ☆ Making television pictures from films and slides ☆ Techniques of telecine video operation ☆ Film post-production on videotape ☆ Transferring videotape to film ☆ Film processing for television stations

P art 1: What is Television?

How Does it Work?

The basic requirements of a television system are: 1. A camera to convert patterns of light and shade into electrical (video) signals, varying in frequency and amplitude with time.

2. A transmitter to convert the video signals into radio frequency energy, and an antenna system for radiating this energy.

3. A receiving antenna to capture a portion of the radio frequency energy from the transmitter, and a receiver to convert this energy back into video signals.

4. A picture tube capable of displaying patterns of light and shade in conformity with the varying frequencies and amplitudes of the video signals. (See Fig. 1.)

The accompanying sound must be picked up with a microphone, transmitted, received and reproduced with a loudspeaker simultaneously with the video.

In color television, the camera converts patterns of light, shade and color into video * Compiled by the Motion Pictures Division of Kodak Australasia (Pty Ltd).

462—Cinema Papers, December-January

Figure 1 Television tra n sm issio n sy ste m sh o w in g c a m e ra a n d receiver with a p ic tu re co m p le te ly sc a n n e d .

signals. At the receiving end, these signals must be capable of producing black and white pictures on monochrome receivers and color images on color receivers.

Television System Fundamentals An ordinary scene consists of a great many picture elements or items of information. These elements are seen at the same time by the eye.

Fortunately, for television purposes, it is not necessary to transmit all the elements of a picture at the same time. Picture elements may be reproduced sequentially — that is, one after another — providing that the action is carried on at a sufficiently rapid rate.

This is the basic principle of the television scanning process.

The human eye is capable of receiving a partial image and interpreting it as a complete image. This is known as persistence of vision. By successively presenting picture elements to the eye at a rate within the visual persistence interval, the eye and brain interpret them as if

all of the picture elements were presented simultaneously.

A number of different methods may be employed to transmit television pictures. The method that has been adopted is known as horizontal interlaced scanning in which the images are broken up into horizontal lines traced out by a scanning beam travelling at a very rapid rate, (See Fig. 2.)

In Australia, a complete picture is transmitted 25 times every second. In the scanning process, the information in the picture elements is trans­ mitted in the form of a rapidly-changing stream of electrical variations known as the video signal.

Television Cameras

(See Fig. 3.)

A color television camera has three electron tubes to provide red, green and blue signal outputs. The lens forms an optical image on the photoconductive layer on the faceplate of each electron tube.

Inside each tube a sharply-focused beam of

THE FILM AND TELEVISION INTERFACE

Camera Control Unit

Figure 2 D ia g ra m sh o w in g in te rla c e d fie ld s .

electrons is driven back and forth in a scanning action, converting variation in light and shadows in the optical image into variations in the electrical output of the tube — i.e., video signals.

The video signal at the camera output falls to its lowest level as the scanning beam traverses picture shadow areas and rises to maximum in bright highlight areas.

Figure 3 A M a r c o n i television c a m e ra with A n g e n ie u x z o o m lens.

The electron beam is formed by a heated element which gives off electrons at the base of the camera tube. These tiny electrical charges are focused by an electro-optical lens into a fine spot at the faceplate. An electro-optical lens uses electrostatic and/or electromagnetic fields to cause the electron beam to diverge or converge in the same way that an optical lens affects light rays.

The electromagnetic fields are created by electrical pulses passing through coils of wire surrounding the camera tube. These electro­ magnetic fields cause the electron beam to be driven horizontally and vertically. By properly synchronizing and timing the electrical pulses, the electron beam can be made to scan a rectan­ gular pattern called a raster. (See Fig. 4.)

Figure 4

Vidicon tube.

Each camera in a studio must be connected by a cable to a camera control unit. Through this cable, horizontal and vertical driving pulses are fed to the camera from the station synchronizing generator, and the picture signal, along with the camera blanking pulses, is fed back to the camera control unit. (See Fig. 5.)

In the camera control unit, the picture signals are amplified to the standard distribution level and displayed on picture and waveform monitors.

The picture monitor in the camera control unit displays the pictures from the camera on a receiver-type tube, usually 10 inches (25.4 cm) in diameter. The circuitry for the picture monitor is Figure 6 W a v e fo rm m o n ito r (sh o w n w ith o u t sy n c p u ls e s or se t-u p ). similar to that found in a home receiver. Video signals are received by picture monitors directly from a video amplifier via co-axial cable, whereas in a home receiver the video signals synchronizing pulses appearing between the two must be extracted from a high-frequency picture traces. (See Fig. 6.)

When the waveform monitor is adjusted for modulated carrier before being applied to the horizontal or vertical display, the oscilloscope picture tube. beam traces out the w aveform s for a It is customary to underscan picture monitor considerable number of picture lines, and the tubes so that the entire rectangular raster traces for successive lines are superimposed to generated by the camera may be viewed on the make up the patterns. monitor. Usually, a rectangular mask is placed In the field display, all the lines making up a over the picture tube, with the raster area television frame are traced out by the beam, with appearing just inside the edges of the mask. the field of even lines on one side and the field of odd lines on the other.

To provide a means for evaluating the waveform displays, and to ensure that the video signals conform with industry standards, an engraved graticule is placed over the face of the oscilloscope tube. The scale is divided into 140 units, with 100 units above zero (blanking level) representing the picture portion of the video signal, while the remaining 40 units represent the sync pulses. By common usage the amplitude of video signals is normally expressed in terms of IEEE scale units, as read from the waveform monitor graticule.

A waveform monitor must be calibrated before it can be used. A standard of the Electrical industries Association — RS-170, November 1957, “ Electrical Performance Standards — Monochrome Television Studio Facilities” — specifies a total excursion in the video signal of one volt from tip of sync to peak white. By means of an internal calibrating voltage, the vertical deflection of the oscilloscope beam may be adjusted to fill the Waveform Monitor waveform graticule. When the reference voltage is replaced with a video signal, its amplitude can The pictures appearing on monitors in tele­ be estimated accurately from the location of the vision studios and control rooms are utilized various portions of the display in relation to the mainly to check for obvious picture faults and to lines engraved on the graticule. ensure that continuity is being maintained.

To analyze the electrical characteristics of the camera outputs, the video signals are displayed Picture and Waveform Evaluation on a special type of cathode-ray oscilloscope known as a waveform monitor. Normally a 5 inch (12.7 cm) oscilloscope tube is used for this .

When a television camera is directed toward a purpose, the display being viewed through an scene in a studio, the video signal output is not opening in the front panel of the camera control likely to be suitable for transmission until at unit. least some adjustments have been made, either Electrostatic deflection is usually employed in in the settings of the camera controls or in the oscilloscope tubes, with two sets of plates — one lighting of the studio set. (See Fig. 7.) for vertical and the other for horizontal The intensity of the optical image on the deflection of the electron beam. By: applying a photocathode of the camera tube has a marked sawtooth voltage to the horizontal deflection effect on picture quality. For a given'set lighting plates and the incoming video signal to the arrangem ent, photocathode illumination vertical plates, the variations occurring in the depends on the setting of the camera lens video signal may be displayed on the face of the aperture — the f-number. Generally, the lens tube. aperture is adjusted to locate scene” highlights Either one of two horizontal deflection slightly above the knee of the image vidicon frequencies may be employed — one equal to characteristic curve. half of the horizontal line scanning rate, and the A light meter is not needed in television other, one-half of the vertical or field rate. In practice to determine the correct exposure level this way two cycles of either the horizontal or for the image orthicon. The tube is, in itself, an vertical signal variations may be displayed, side unusually sensitive light meter, because as the by side, on the monitor, with the blanking and illumination on a scene increases, the video Cinema Papers. December-January—463

S

V

Cinevex

U

S

F O

Nl rMtr

Film

% /ili

ß lö M v p S a n } m u l - t i p l z

pr/rf-? for'firon't'ofshoi/sc,

Laboratories, Melbourne.

p re s s k f a

fr o m yo u r

M ÿ s t d ip t, a r h r o r k

E / %

M

O

V

¿ 0 ^^

A

l

S u p e rs ,

6 r o n ì iH s ; f i l m o v e rla y s e tc .

ih }

or f r cm oi/r phofaÿfophy.

JôHAiiWMHWfk AUOCIATÓI

2 3 UfJloH S r. SOUTH Aiex&CxJMZ,

3206. PHorJZ ( o z ) 6 1 0 l b ? # ) .

18-19 Horne Street Elsternwick Vic 3158 P.O. Box 238

Phone: (03) 528 1904 If you are going to produce a 35mm feature, a 16mm or 35mm documentary or a commercial originating on film, come and speak to us here at 15-17 Gordon St., Elsternwick, or phone (03) 528 6188.

Super-8 for Audio Visual Cassettes Direct from 16mm Eastmancoior to Super-8 prestriped Eastmancolor on polyester base.

Black and White Processing Ektachrome Processing ‘A’ and ‘B’ Roll Printing, Answer Prints and Release Prints

• Super 8 Duplicating —Super 8 Blow Ups to 16mm • 6 Plate Flat Bed Editing Table available For Hire

V ID I-M A G

A NEW SYSTEM FOR TELEVISION AUDIO POST PRODUCTION ® Color work picture recorded directly onto 16mm video film from video tape.

• Locked to editing machines for building sound tracks • Can be used with any existing synchronous interlock system

• A new solution for television dialogue and effects replacement with the "EL" looping system • Uses the perfected techniques of film mixing for television sound post production

For more information please contact

MAGNA-TECH TRONICS (AUST.) PTY. LTD. 14 WHITING STREET, ARTARMON, NSW 2064 TELEPHONE 438 3377

I E

S

T

ilm

S

jc

y

Q

o

ô

O

Seminar Papers In November the Film and Television Production Association of Australia and the New South Wales Film Corporation brought together 15 international experts to discuss film financing, marketing, and distribution of Australian films in the 1980s with producers involved in the film and television industry.

The symposium was a resounding success.

Tape recordings made of the proceedings have been transcribed and edited by Cinema Papers, and will soon be published as the Film Expo ’80 Seminar Papers.

Copies can be ordered now for $25 each.

Contributors

Contents Theatrical Production The Package: Two Perspectives Perspective I: As Seen by the Buyer

Arthur Abeles Chairman, Film arketeers Ltd (U S.)

Barbara D. Boyle

(i)

P artial versus co m p le te pa ckaging , or starting from scratch with an idea.

Evaluating for diffe ren t markets, different costs (budgeting).

Speakers: Barry S pikings; Mike Medavoy

Executive V ice-P resident, and C hief O perating O fficer, New W orld P ictures (U.S.)

(ii)

Ashley Boone W orldw ide M arketing and D istribution Head.

Ladd Com pany (U.S.)

Mark Damon

Perspective II: As Seen by the Seller

President, Producers Sales O rganization (U.S.)

The role of the agent in packaging.

Speaker: Harry Ufland

Michael Fuchs S enior Vice-President, Programming, Home Box O ffice (U.S.)

Theatrical Production Business and Legal Aspects

Samuel W. Gelfman

(i)

Sources of m aterials (published, original screenplays, etc.). (ii) Forms of acq uisition agreem ents a n d/or w rite r’s agreements. (¡ii) Talent agreem ents (“ pay or play" defer­ ments. “ going rates", approvals) (iv) Insurance. (v) Guild and union requirem ents (foreign and dom estic production). (vi) S u b s id ia ry rig h ts P u b lis h in g m u s ic , m erchandising, etc.

Speaker: Eric W eissmann

Independent Producer (U.S.)

Klaus Hellwig President, Janus Film Und Fernsehen (Germany)

Lois Luger V ice-P resident, Television Sales. Avco Embassy P ictures C orporation (U.S.)

Professor Avv. Massimo FerraraSantamaria Lawyer (Italy)

Mike Medavoy Executive V ice-President. Orion P ictures (U.S.)

Simon O. Olswang

Harry Ufland President, The Ufland Agency (U.S.)

Control, approvals, overhead, over-budget provi­ sions. total or partial financing. Negative pick-up.

Speaker Rudy Petersdorf

Financing of Theatrical Films Independent Studios Rise of independent financing Tax motivated and otherwise. Completion financing Speaker Sam Gelfman

Presale of Rights

Producer/Distributor Relationship

Chairm an and C hief Executive, EMI Film and Theatre C orporation (Britain)

Financing of Theatrical Films Major Studios

Separating rights by media Pay television, free television (network syndication).

Speaker: Michael Fuchs

Eric Weissmann

Barry Spikings

Television Production and Distribution Production for netw ork or syndication. Deficit financing. Tape versus film. Licensing "o ff-n e t­ w ork". United States and foreign. Comm ercial versus public broadcasting Speaker: Lois Luger

(i)

Partner, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Berkowitz and Selvin

Rudy Petersdorf President and Chief O perating Officer, Australian Films O ffice Inc. (U.S.)

D istribution terms. R elationship and terms with sub -distributors and exhibitors. R ecoupm ent of e xp e n se s. C ro s s -c o lla te ra liz in g te rrito rie s Dubbing, Censorship Speakers: Arthur Abels; Klaus Hellwig (Northern European perspective): Massimo Ferrara (Italian and European perspective)

Distribution in the United States Mapping the distribution sales cam paign When and where to open. How to allocate advertising budgets. Number of theatres.

70mm and stereo R eissues. A n cilla ry markets — hold back for pay and free television. (ii) Exhibition terms. Advances and guaran­ tees; split of box-office (90-1 0 with "floor", "house-nut", etc ); blind bidding; policing Speaker. Ashley Boone

S olicitor. B recker and Company (Britain)

Distribution Outside the United States

Terms: Differences where distrib utor financed p ro d u c tio n How d is tr ib u to r e xp e n s e s are recouped. D istributor fees. Advertising com m it­ ment, if any. Outside sales representative Speaker: Barbara Boyle

Please send .......copies of the Film Expo ’80 Seminar Papers.

For orders placed within Australia, Aust.S25 each.

Outside Australia. Aust.$30 each N am e....................................................................................................

Presale by Territory Advantages and problems. Interim and com ple­ tion financing. Term of distribution rights.

Speaker Mark Damon

Multi-National and Other Co-Productions A vailability of subsidies. Treaties. Tax incentives Governm ent investments.

Speaker Simon Olswang

Enclosed: Aust.S..............

Please make cheques/m oney orders out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. 644 V ictoria St, North Melbourne. Vic.. Australia 3051 Tel: (03) 329 5983

Company Address Code

Note Bank drafts only for overseas orders Please allow up to 6 weeks for processing

B A C K IS S U E S S A L E Take advantage o f our special offer and catch up on your missing issues. M u ltiple copies less than half-price!

Number 1 January 1974

Number 2 April 1974

Number 3 July 1974

Number 5 March-April 1975

Number 9 June-July 1976

David W illia m so n . Ray Harryhausen. Peter Weir.

Gillian Arm strong. Ken G. Hall. Tariff Board Report.

Antony I. Ginnane The Cars That Ate Paris

Violence in the Cinema.

Alvin Purple. Frank M oorhouse. S andy H a rbu tt.

F ilm U n d e r A lle n d e .

Nicholas Roeg Between Wars

John P a p a d o p o Io u s .

Willis O'Brien The McDonagh Sisters. Richard B re n n a n . Luis B u ñ u e l.

The True Story of Eskimo Nell

J e n n in g s Lang. B yron Haskin Surf Films. Brian Probyn. Sunday Too Far Away Charles Chauvel.

Index: Volume 1

M ilo s F o rm a n . M ik lo s Jancso. Luchino Visconti.

Robyn Spry Oz Mad Dog Morgan. Joan Long.

Index: Volume 2

Number 12 April 1977

Number 13 July 1977

Number 14 October 1977

Number 15 January 1978

Number 16 April-June 1978

Kenneth Loach. Tom Haydon. Bert Deling. Piero Tosi. John Scott. John Dankworth. The Getting of W is d o m J o u rn e y Among Women

Louise Malle. Paul Cox. John Power. Peter Sykes.

Bernardo Bertolucci. F.J. Holden In Search of Anna Index: Volume 3

Phil Noyce. Eric Rohmer.

John Huston. Blue Fire Lady S u m m e r f ie ld Chinese Cinema.

Tom C o w an. F ra n c o is Truffaut. Delphine Seyrig.

The Irishman The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith S Lankan Cinema The Last Wave

Patrick Swedish Cinema.

J o h n D u ig a n S te v e n Spielberg Dawn' Mouth to Mouth Film Periodcals

Number 19 January-February 1979

Number 20 March-April 1979

Number 21 May-June 1979

Number 22 July-August 1979

Ken C a m e ro n . French Cinem a. Jim S h arm an.

My Brilliant Career. Film S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . The Night the Prowler

Mad Max Vietnam on Film Grendel. Grendel, G re n d el D a v id H e m mings. The Odd Angry Shot Box-O ffice Grosses.

Snapshot

Bruce Petty. Albie Thoms, New sfront Film S tu d y R e s o u rc e s K o s ta s Money Movers The Aus­ tra lia n Film and T e le ­ vision School.

Index: Volume 5

A n t o n y I. G in n a n e .

Jerem y Thomas Blue Fin. A n d re w S a rr is . A s ia n C in e m a .

S p o n s o re d Documentaries.

Number 10 September-October 1976

Number 11 January 1977

Nagisa Oshim a. Phillippe Mora. Gay Cinema. John Heyer. Krzysztof Zanussi.

M a rc o F e rre ri. M a rco Bellocchio.

Emile de Antonio. Aus­ tralian Film Censorship.

Sam A rk o ff. R o m an P o la n s k i. The Picture Show Man Don's Party Storm Boy

Number 17 August-September 1978

Number 18 October-November 1978

Bill Bain. Isabelle Hup­ pert. Polish Cinema. The Night the Prowler. Pierre Rissient Newsfront. Film Study Resources.

Index: Volume 4

John Lamond. Dimboola.

In d ia n C in e m a . S o n ia B o rg A la in T a n n e r .

Cathy’s Child The Last Tasmanian

Number 23 September-October 1979

Number 24 December 1979 January 1980

Number 25 February-March 1980

A u s tr a lia n T e le v is io n .

Last of the Knucklemen W o m e n F ilm m a k e r s .

Ja p a n e s e C in e m a . My B rillia n t C a re er Tim Thirst. Tim Burstall.

Brian Trenchard Smith.

Palm Beach B ra z ilia n Cinema. Jerzy Toeplitz.

C o m m u n ity T e le v is io n .

A rthur Hiller.

Chain Reaction. David P u ttn a m . C e n s o r s h ip .

Stir Everett de Roche.

Touch and Go Film and Politics

Order Form 1 3 5 7 Number 26 April-May 1980

Number 27 June-July 1980

The Films of Peter Weir.

Charles Joffe. Harlequin Nationalism in Australian Cinema. The Little Con­ vict Index: Volume 6

The New Zealand Film In d u s try . The Z Men Peter Y e ldham . Maybe This Time Donald Richie.

G re n d e l, G r e n d e l, Grendel

or or or or

2 copies $4 4 copies $3 6 copies $2 more copies

each each (save $1 per copy) each (save $2 per copy) $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)

To order your copies place a cross in the box next to your missing issues, ana fill out the form below. If you would like multiple copies of any one issue, indicate the number you require in the appropriate box □

□

1

□ 2

□ 3

□ 5

9

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 1 5 16 1 7 18

Number 28 August-Septem ber 1980

Number 29 O ctober-Novem ber 1980

The Film s of Bruce Beresford. Stir M elbourne and Sydney Film Festivals.

Breaker M orant Stacy K each R oadgam es

Bob Ellis. Actors Equity D e b a te U ri W in d t C ru is in g The Last Outlaw. Philippine C in­ ema The Club

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Name No. of copies ordered .................at S . .

.

each.

Address

Total am ount enclosed S .................

(Note: num bers 4. 6. 7, and 8 are out of print)

Postcode Please make your cheque or money order payable to: Cinema Papers Pty Ltd

644 Victoria St, North Melbourne. Victoria, 3051. Australia

THE FILM AND TELEVISION INTERFACE

| operate a transmitter, and the licence holder is " obligated to conform with all applicable regulations.

The Television Receiver

”3

•

%

signal output, as observed on the waveform monitor, also increases.

At the dark end of the picture grey scale, blanking level corresponds to maximum black.

Television Transmitter Every television station must be equipped with a transmitter and an antenna to radiate program signals into space. The transmitter is made up of two sections — one for thp video signals and the other for the accompanying sound.

To conserve space in the radio frequency spectrum, a method known as vestigial sideband transm ission is utilized for the video transmissions. This method permits a greater amount of information in the form of picture details to be transmitted in a given bandwidth.

To obtain radiation of electrical energy into space, high-frequency currents are fed into the antenna, producing electrom agnetic and electrostatic fields known as radio waves. A high

Single Electron Gun Structure

frequency current is generated by an oscillator and the carrier is then amplitude-modulated with the signals to be transmitted.

In this process two sidebands are normally generated. These sidebands are separated from the carrier frequency by the frequency of the modulating signal. In the vestigial sideband transmission method, the greater part of the lower sideband is suppressed in the transmitter.

Since the sidebands carry identical information, this method has no adverse effects on the radiated signals, except to reduce the level of the energy.

Frequency Assignments In all countries, broadcasting activities are subject to regulation by government bodies. The frequencies that may be utilized for various services, as well as the manner in which these frequency allocations may be employed, are controlled by law. A licensee is required to

Integral Heavy Glass Protective Window

The basic functions of a television receiver are: Radiated signals available at the antenna are collected and carried to the input terminals of the receiver by a cable.

2. By means of a channel selector, the desired signal is separated from others that may be present in the antenna.

3. The selected signal is amplified to a usable level.

4. The video and audio signals are extracted from their carriers and separated from each other.

5. The audio signal is amplified sufficiently to drive the loudspeaker and reproduce the sound portion of the program.

6 . The synchronizing pulses are separated from the picture signal.

7. The vertical sync pulses are separated from the horizontal pulses.

8 . H orizontal and vertical saw tooth generators in the receiver are triggered by the respective sync pulses, driving the receiver scanning beam to trace out the scanning pattern in exact synchronism with the scanning beam at the originating television studio.

9. The video signal is applied to the control element in the picture tube, modulating the scanning mean as it traverses the face of the tube, to produce picture images. In this way, the patterns of light and shade formed on the photocathode of the television camera tube in the originating studio are reproduced on receiver viewing screens.

(See Figs. 8 and 9.)

The scanning action continues independently of picture transmission. So long as the station transmitter is operating and the receiver is tuned to that station, a stationary raster will be obtained on the receiver picture tube. This condition is maintained by the synchronizing pulses transmitted continuously by the station while it is on the air.

Basically, the television transmission system may be considered as a means of establishing communication between the station and all the receivers tuned to it. It is commonplace in modern television broadcasting for the originating camera and the receiver to be separated by thousands of kilometres. ★

Three Gun Structure

Tube Faceplate

Tube Faceplate

Figure 8

M o n o c h r o m e p ic tu re tube.

Integral Heavy Glass Protective Window

Figure 9 C o lo r p ic tu re tu b e .

Cinema Papers, December-January—465

FE A T U R E S

A SHOE FROM YOUR HOMELAND

2nd asst director .............. Philip Hearnshaw Costume designer .........Gunnars Jurgens 3rd asst director....................... Louise Johnson' M ake-up ............................... Jurgen Zielinski Continuity......................................... Julie Bates H airdresser.............................Jurgen Zielinski Casting consultants........ Mitch Consultancy W ardrobe ..................................... Betty Jacks Focus puller................................................HarryGlynatsis P r o p s ............................................................ CarlMiller, Key g r ip .................................

DavidCassar Nell Wilson Asst g rip .....................................................JamieLeckie Music performed by George Dreyfus and 2nd unit photography ...............Harold Hoch the West A u st Symphony G a ffe r...................................................... StewartSorby Orchestra Electrician .....................................Craig Bryant Mixer ........................................Johnny Parker Boom operator........................................ BruceLamshed N a rrato r.............................. John Higginson Asst art directo r........................................PeterKendall Still photography.............. Richard Durham, Costume designer ...................... Jane Hyland Murray Case M ake-up...................................Kirsten Veysey Cast: Rowena Wallace (Diana Von Flugel), Hairdresser .............................Fiona Campbell Tony Bonner (Russell Lockwood), Larry Ward, assistant..............................................PatMurphy Held (Woffle Von Flugei), Sigrid Thornton Standby props ...........................Robert Steel (A n th e a L a n g to n ), S u s a n n a h F o w le Special effects.............................Geoff Murphy (Cynthia Langton). Jackie W oodburne Construction supervisor ....................Ian Doig (Josie Von Flugel), Val Lehman (Mrs MonAsst e d ito r.................................................... KenSallows taubyn), Lewis FitzG erald (Capt. John Neg. matching............ ■>........................... Atiab Wyckham), Frank Thring (Arthur Langton), Ilona Rodgers (Miss Marcia Rockingham).

Sound editors ..................... Terry Rodman, Glenn Martin Synopsis: A light-hearted look at Mel­ bourne society in the year leading up to Editing assistant .....................Robert Grant Mixer ......................................David Harrison • World War I. Dialogue coach ................ Frank Gallacher Master of horse ........................John Baird PU NISH M E N T Publicity ...........................................Channel 7 Catering ...............................Catering Capers Prod, company .The Grundy Organization Laboratory ............................................. Atiab Dist. c o m p a n y ............ Channel 10, Sydney Length ........................................ 4 x 90 mins P ro d u c e r...................................................Bruce Best Gauge ................................................. *16 mm D ire c to r.......... •......................... Julian Pringle Shooting stock .......................Eastmancolor Based on the original Progress ......................................... In release idea by .....................................Peg Watson First released ................ October 21, 1980 Sound recordist ...................Lloyd Coleman (Seven Network) E d ito r....................................................... Frayne Dyke Cast: John Jarratt (Ned Kelly), Elain Cusick Prod, designer....................................... DarrellLass (Mrs Kelly), Steve Bisley (Joe Byrne), John Prod, su p erviso r.................................MichaelLake Ley (Dan Kelly), Lewis FitzGerald (Tom Prod, co-ordinator ................Carol Williams Lloyd), Peter Hehir (Aaron Sherritt), Ric Prod, manager ..........................Ted Jobblns Herbert (Steve Hart), Debra Lawrance Prod, secretary ......................Carol Williams (Maggie Kelly), Sigrid Thornton (Kate Kelly), 1st asst director .............. Eddie Prylansky Tim Eliott (Steele).

■ C o n tin u ity .............................................. Anthea Dean Synopsis: The story of Australia’s most Key g r ip ........................................... Bob Short famous outlaw, Ned Kelly.

G a ffe r........................................... Derek Jones Boom operator .......................Andy Duncan M ake-up ......................................Lloyd James W ardrobe ..................................... Ruth Munro OUTBREAK OF LOVE P r o p s .......................................................... DougKelly Prod, c o m p a n y .......... ABC Drama 1 Unit, Props b u y e r .............................Martin O’Neill Melbourne Publicity......................... Felicity Goscombe Prod ucer/d irector.............. Oscar Whitbread C atering.......................................................VickiRoss Scriptw riter.........................Howard Griffiths Studios...................................................Channel10 Based on the novel Length ....................................... 26 x 60 mins b y .............................................Martin Boyd Gauge ............................................Video Tape Sound recordists ...................Ian Battersby, Progress ................................. Pre-production Neville Kelly, Scheduled release ................ January, 1981 David Redcllffe Caat: Barry Crocker, Mike Preston, Anne Videotape e d ito r ..........Marianne Prodmore Haddey, Michael Smith, Kris McQuade, Robin Stewart.

Prod, designers ..................Paul Cleveland, Gunnars Jurjans, Synopsis: A study of the lives of Inmates Rob Waiters and warders at a large country prison.

Prod, company .....................AAV-Australia Productions Dist. c o m p a n y .......... Special Broadcasting Service P ro d u c e r........................................... Jill Robb D ire c to r......................................................Peter Benardos Based on the play b y ..........................................N. Tslforos and P. Vasslliladis Photography............................... Barry Cross, Phillip Bowler, Joe Battaglia Sound recordist ....................Rod Koetsveid E d ito r ................................................ John Cadd Prod, designer.....................Ian MacPherson Exec, p ro d u c e r.......................... Eric Fullilove Prod, manager ...................... Ray Hennessy Prod, s e c re ta ry ............................. Chris Herd Prod, assistant...........................................Sally Semmens 1st asst director .................... Ray Hennessy Continuity ....................................Anne Dutton Producer’s assistant.....................Chris Herd Key g r ip ........................................Greg Nelson Boom operators ...................Bruce Findlay, David Harrison Art d ire c to r...........................Ian MacPherson Make-up ....................... Marilyn Cunnington, Joan Patch W ardrobe ................................... Clare Griffin Set director ........................ Ian MacPherson Set construction .................... Karl Slotboom Music performed by ___George Zabetas Sound editor ..........................Rod Koetsveid Still photography....................... David Parker C a tering................................................ Trotter's Studios ...............AAV-Australia (Studio D) Mixed at ................................... AAV-Australia Length ...................................................70 mins Bellamy Shot .............................................................. VTR Progress .................. Awaiting transmission Cast: John Chrisoulis (Tony), Amalia Vassilliadis (Toula), Dennis Dragonas (Johnny), Sound recordists .....................Bob Clayton, Mixed at ............................................Videolab Harry Protopsaltis (Giusseppe), Mary Horti Rob Stalder, Laboratories ......................... Colorfllm and (Bianca), Lilika Moraitis (Rene), Eva Yianni George Weis, Videoiab (Argyro), Paul Loupis (Polycrates), Liah Roland McManls Lab. liaison .............................Peter Bowlay Tsilfidis (Helen), Dimitris Katsoulis (Bam­ E d ito r .......................................ian MacArthur Gauge .................................. 16mm/videotape bis), Mourikis Evagelos (Lakis).

Sup. e d it o r .............................Mick Chirgwin Shooting stock ........................Eastmancolor Synopsis: A contemporary comedy about a Exec, producer ...........................Peter Luck Cast: John Stanton (Bellamy), Tim Elston Greek family in Australia. To be televised in Assoc, p ro d u c e r..................................... Doug Paterson (Mitchell), Sally C onabere (Jane), Tex the Greek language.

Prod, manager .................... Cathy Flannery Morton (Daley), John Krummel (George), Prod, s e c re ta ry .......................Lindeii Arnott John Hamblin (Johnson), Adam Garnett Prod, accountant .............. George Spitzer (Ginger), Brian Young (Clem).

ROUND TH E BEND Camera operators ............. Tony Wilson, Synopsis: A police action series centred Paul Tait, around the activities of Detective Steve Prod, company ..................Tasmanian Film Richard Michalak, Bellamy, filmed primarily in the inner city Corporation Chris Hill areas of Sydney.

Dist. company .......................Nine Network Camera assistants ................. Peter Morton, Producer .................................Damien Parer Tony Galley, Director .............................Anne Whitehead Steve Dobson, Scriptwriter .......................Anne Whitehead BILLABONG Paul Glassetti Photography .....................Russell Galloway Sound editor ...............................Les Fiddess Prod, company .................... Michael Edgiey Sound recordist .......... John Schiefelbein Editing assistants ................. Claire O'Brien, International Editor .......................................... Kerry Regan Chris McCaul P ro d u c e r................................................. Simon Wlncer Art director .............................John Bowling Laboratory ................................................Atiab Scriptw riter.....................Eleanor Witcombe Composer ........................................ Ian Clyne Length ................ 30 and 60 mins episodes Based on the novel 1st asst director .......................Gerry Letts Gauge ...................................................... 16mm b y .................................. Mary Grant Bruce 2nd asst director .............. Daphne Crooks Shooting stocks.......................Eastmancolor, Exec, producer .................... Michael Edgiey 3rd asst director ......................Gaye Arnold Fuji color L e n g th .............................. — 8 x 60 mins Continuity ....................................... Jo Weeks Progress .......................................Production Gauge ................................................... 16 mm Focus puller ...................John Jasiukowicz Scheduled release ....................Early, 1981 Shooting stock..........................Eastmancolor Camera assistant ........ Gerald Thompson Progress ................................. Pre-production Key grip .................................Gary Clements Scheduled r e le a s e ...................................1982 M ake-up ..................................... Zena Bacon BELLAMY 8ynopsis: A family-orientated drama series W ardrobe ............................

Kath Grace based on the Blllabong books by Mary Props ...................................................Kay Alty Grant Bruce.

Asst editor ...........................Megan Purcell Prod, company ....... Grundy Organization Still photography .............. Jacqui Gardner Dist. company ......... Channel 10, Sydney Laboratory ..................................... Colorfilm Producer ...................................... Don Battye CORAL ISLAND Length ............................................... 60 mins Director .................................... Gary Conway Gauge ................................................... 16 mm Scriptwriter ............................... Ron McLean Prod, company . . . ABC-TV Aust.-Thames Progress ............................ Post production Based on the original Idea TV (London) Cast: Shane Porteous, Olivia Brown, Joy by ............................................. Ron McLean P ro d u cer....................................Geoff Daniel Hruby, Pamela Archer, Pat Harrison, Penny Dir. of photography .................. Kevin Lind Scriptw riter.................. James Andrew-Hail Downie, John Farndale. Monroe Reimers, Sound recordist ......................... Ross Linton Length .......................................10 x 30 mins Noreen le Mottee, Shane Gow. Editor ....................................Tim Wellburn Progress ............................... Pre-production Synopsis: A schoolteacher in his mid-30s.

Prod, designer ................... Owen Patterson (shooting May, 1981) an intelligent yet complex man, slips 'round Prod, supervisor .....................Michael Lake Synopsis: Based on R. M. Ballantyne’s the bend' into a void of insanity, as those Prod, co-ordinator ........................... Jan Lee novel of the same name. who could help him, fail to reach out to him Prod, manager ...............................David Lee or meet his needs.

Unit manager ............................. Date Arthur Prod, accountant .................... Roy Leeman Secret Valley THE LAST OUTLAW 1st asst director ................ Ross Hamilton 2nd asst director .............Grahame Murray Prod, company ___ Pegasus Productions For complete details of the following film 3rd asst director .................. Stephen Otton for the Seven Network see Issue 29: Producer ...................... Roger Le Mesurier Continuity ........................................Linda Ray A Shoe from your Homeland SCHOOL’S OUT Lighting cameraman ................ Kevin Lind Directors .................................George Miller, Tech, p ro d u c e r......................................... NoelQuirk Focus puller ....................... Jeremy Robins Kevin Dobson Lighting supervisor........ Peter Slmondson Prod, company ..........................Wise Street Clapper/ioader .........................Tracy Kubler Scriptwriters ........................ Bronwyn Binns, Prod, manager .........................Frank Brown Productions Key grip .................................Paul Thompson ian Jones Prod, secretary .....................Barbara Hewitt Dist. company ...................................... ATN-7 Photography .............................. Ernest Clark Gaffer ............................................Paul Moyes Prod, assistant............ Jo Anne McLennan S E R IE S Producers ...................................

Susan Wild, Sound recordist .................

LloydCarrick 1st asst director .................James Oastler, Electrician ...................................Peter Moyes Lindsay Hew son Editor ............................................ Philip Read Boom operator ......................... Dean Gawen Glenda Byrne Director .....................................

Ben Cardillo Art director .........................Owen Patterson Prod, designer .............................Les Binns 2nd asst director.......... James Llpscombe, Presenter ........................................ Tim Burns Composer ..................................... Brian May Asst art director ......................Peta Lawson Peter Troflmous Length ..................................... 26 x 60 mins M ake-up ................................. Michelle Lowe Exec, producers ......................... Ian Jones, Continuity ...................... Jo Anne McLennan THE AUSTRALIANS Gauge .. : ....................................... Videotape W ardrobe ...................................Edle Kurzer Bronwyn Binns Script a ss istan t.......... Jo Anne McLennan Progress ................................Pre-production Prod, companies . Peter Luck Productions Ward, assistant ..................... Rosalea Hood Assoc, producer .........................Tom Binns Casting...............................Toni Waddlngton Synopsis: A series of educational programs and Hanna-Barbera Props ..................................... Nick McCaJIum Unit manager ...............................P.J. Jones Senior cam eram en ......... Roger McAlpIne, for Higher School Certificate students Dist. c o m p a n y .....................Seven Network Sound editor .............................Dean Gawen Prod, secretary ...........................Trish Foley John Tuttle covering the year 12 curricula in the ma­ P ro d u c e r..................................... David Salter Mixer ......................................... Les McKenzie Prod, accountant ...........................Philip ConKey g r ip ......................................Steve Zorlcic jor subjects. The series includes special Stunts co-ordinator .................. Max Aspln D ire c to rs ......................................Curtis Levy, Accounts assistant........ Lesteigh Slmmonds G a ffe r..........................................Joe Mlsztal program s d ev o te d to increasin g th e Opticais ...........................Coiorfilm/Videolab David Roberts, 1st asst directors ..........................M ale Piper, Boom operators .................Harry Harrison, students awareness of the educational Kerry O Brian, Publicity ........

Felicity Goscombe Murray Newey system.

Ernie Everett Bill Bennett Catering ......................................... Ray Fowler

I 466— Cinema Papers, December-January

SECRET VALLEY Prod, company ....... Grundy Organization Dist. company ......... Grundy Organization Producer ..................................Roger Mirams Director ................................... Howard Ruble Scriptwriter .............................. Terry Bourke Photography ............................ Paul Onorato Sound recordist ........................... Phil Judd Editors .......................................... Alan Lake, Ron Williams Art director ..........................David Copping Prod, supervisor .....................Michael Lake Prod, m anager ....................Michael Mldlam Prod, secretary ................... Cathy Flannery Prod, accountant .................... Roy Leeman 1st unit directors ........................M ark Piper, Kate Westbury 2nd unit directors ...................... Paul Jones, Terry Bourke 1st unit continuity ........... Barbara Burleigh 2nd unit continuity ..................Anthea Dean Casting .......................................Kerry Spence Focus puller ...........................Steve Dobson 2nd unit photography . . . Frank Hammond Gaffer .......................................... Derek Jones Boom operator ......................... Rick Creaser M ake-up ...............................Pat Hutchence W ardrobe ..................................... Carol Berry Props ...................................... Annie Browing Props buyer ........................... Annie Browing Standby props .............................Ken James Runner ..................................... Kevin Scanlon Catering ..........................................Ray Fowler Mixed at ................................. United.Sound Laboratory ................................................Atlab Gauge ................................................... 16 mm Shooting stock ........................................... Fuji Progress ...............................Post-production Cast: Michael McGlinchey (Mike), Miles Buchanan (M ile s ), S im one Buchanan (Simone), Samantha Ashby (Samantha), Toby Churchill-Brown (Toby), Helen Haskas (Helena), Mark Spain (Beaver), Marianne Howard (Marianne), Kelly Dingwall (Spider), Warwick Poulsen (Wombat).

Synopsis'. A group of country children decide to help save an old man from being evicted from his gold-fossicking property, and turn a ghost town Into a weekend holi­ day cam p for city children.

Lab. liaiso n ............................... Greg Dogerty B u d g e t..............................................$1,250,000 Length ....................................... 6 x 50 mins Gauge ....................................................16 mm Shooting sto ck..........................Eastmancolor Progress ................................Post-production Scheduled release ...................................1981 Cast: Helen Morse (Jean Paget), Bryan Brown (Joe Harman), Gordon Jackson (Noel Strachan), Yuki Shlmoda (Sergeant Mifune), Dorothy Alison (Mrs Frith), Anna Volska (Sally), Pat Evison (Mrs Collard), Richard Narita (Captain Sugano), Hatsuo Uda (Captain Yoniata), Cecily Poison (Eileen Holland).

Synopsis: A World W ar 2 romance.

Mixed at ........ Film Soundtrack Australia Laboratory ......................................... Cinevex Length ................................................47 mins Gauge ..................................................16 mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Awaiting release Synopsis: A documentary on the 1980 Le Mans.

IT WASN’T MEANT TO BE EASY Prod, company

WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE

Prod, c o m p a n y ........ Shotton Productions P ro d u c e r.....................................................John McRae D ire c to r.......................................... Igor Auzlns Scriptw riters......................................... EleanorWltcombe, Michael Jenkins Based on the novel b y ............................... Sumner Locke Elliot Photography................................................ DanBurstall Sound recordist ..........................Phil Stirling Harry Butler’s Tasmania E d ito r .................. Edward McQueen Mason Exec, producer .................Andrew Wiltshire Assoc, producer ...............Jenny Campbell Laboratory ........................................... Atlab Prod, co-ordinator .................... Clare Griffin Composer ....................................... Ian Clyne Prod, s e c re ta ry ..................................... EvelynMaurirere Length ............................................... 50 mins Unit manager .....................Daphne Crooks Prod, accountant ..........................Patti Scott Gauge ................................................... 16mm Camera operator .......... Russell Galloway 1st asst director .......................Tom Burstall Progress ......................................... In release Camera assistant ........ John Jasiukowicz 2nd asst director....................................Stuart Beatty Caet: Simon Burke, John Waters, Arkie Key grip .................................Gary Clements 3rd asst d ire c to r.................................Andrew Morse Whiteley, Brian Young, Martin Harris, Gerry Length ............................................... 25 mins Continuity ................................Shirley Ballard Duggan, Jon Blake, Barry Pierce, Noreen le G au g e..................................................... 16 mm Focus p u lle r ......................Peter Van Santen Mottee, Maureen Gay. Progress ............................. Post-production Clapper/loader ............................. Chris Cain Synopsis: An examination of the relevant Synopsis: A short film which looks at the Key g r ip ....................................................... PaulAmmltzboll life experience of a boy and his sister who economic, political and social contribution by Asst g r i p .................................Peter Kershaw have gone through the “welfare” system as migrants, to the development and enrich­ G a ffe r.......................................................... BrianAdams neglected children, been given to foster ment of Tasmania.

Boom operator ........................... Ray Phillips parents and eventually, through a series of Art d ire c to r.............................................. Logan Brewer incid ents, the boy ends up in gaol.

Produced for the Department of Social Asst art director ........................... Roe Bruen HARRY BUTLER’S TASMANIA Welfare.

Costume designer .......... Bruce Flnlayson Prod, company .................Tasmanian Film Make-up ...............................Bob McCarron, Corporation Sally Gordon Hairdresser.........................Anne Pospischil Dist. company ...................... Nine Network Ward, ass is ta n t.........................................Julie Constable Producer ................................ Damien Parer Props buyer .. Nlcholaas Van Roosendael Director ...................................Don Anderson Asst props buyer ...............Paddy Reardon Sound recordist ........................Paul Clarke Standby p ro p s ..................... Sue Armstrong Editor ...........................................Kerry Regan Choreography .................................Tony Bart Composer ....................................... Ian Clyne A TOWN LIKE ALICE Scenic a r tis t.............................................Karen Trott Unit manager .....................Daphne Crooks Asst scenic artist .......................Ann Barlow Prod, assistant ............................Ian Berwick Prod, c o m p a n y ........................................ Alice Productions DO NOT PASS GO Set construction .................... Rowan Flude Camera operator .......... Russell Galloway Dist. c o m p a n y .......................Seven Network Asst editor .............................Mark McAuliffe Camera assistant ______Russell Galloway Prod, company ...............Phil de Montignie P ro d u c e r...............................Henry Crawford Still photography...........................Ray Hand and Associates Asst editor ................................ Kerry Regan D ire c to r......................................David Stevens Mixer ..................................... Peter McKinley Laboratory ......................................... Cinevex D ire c to r.............................

Phil de Montignie Scriptw riters.R osemary Anne Sison, Length ............................................... 48 mins Length ......................................... 9 x 47 mins S c riptw riter.............................Russell Porter Tom Hegarty Gauge ................................................. 16 mm Gauge ................................................... 16 mm Photography...........................David Haskins Based on the novel Progress ......................................... In release Shooting stock........................ Eastmancolor Sound recordist ...........................Ian Wilson b y ............................................................. NevilShute Progress ......................................... In release E d ito r ......................................David Pullbrook Synopsis: Harry Butler takes us on a Photography.......................................... RussellBoyd journey through Tasmania’s unique parks C a s t: Robyn N evin (S h a s ta ), D avid C o m p o s e r........................... Michael Drennan Sound recordist ___ ____ Lloyd Coleman Cameron (Neil), Judy Davis (Carrie), Jacki Exec, producer .....................Kent Chadwick and open areas highlighting the ease of get­ E d ito r ......................................... Tim Wellburn Weaver (Maggie), Chris Milne (Ben), Rod ting away from it all. Produced for the Special adviser ...................... Doris Liftman Art d ire c to r...........................Larry Eastwood Mullinar (Don), Linden Wilkinson (lla), Jan Department of Tourism.

Length ................................................. 48 mins.

C o m p o s e r...............j ............Bruce Smeaton Hamilton (G eraldine), Rowena W allace Gauge ................................................... 16 mm Prod, m anager ............................ Lynn Galey (Honor), John Howard (Archie).

Shooting sto c k ........................ Eastmancolor Unit transport m an ag er............ John Chase Synopsis: The story of a group of people 24 HOURS AT LE MANS Progress .............................. Awaiting release Prod, s e c re ta ry ..........................Fiona Gosse whose lives, through time and circum­ Synopsis: A documentary set in the streets, Business manager ................ Penelope Carl Prod, company ............ Phil de Montignie stance, are entwined in several ways — in the courts and In the prisons, which Prod, assistant........................................ Jenny Miles and Associates from love to murder. follows the story of two young people and 1st asst director .................. Mark Turnball Dist. company ..................... Canning Crane their confrontation with the law. An ex­ 2nd asst directo r......................................ChrisMaudson Productions amination of some of the problems faced by 3rd asst d ire c to r........................................ KimAnning Producer/director ........ Phil de Montignie young offenders and the support systems For complete details of the following series Continuity ............................... Joanna Weeks Scriptwriter .....................Phil de Montignie offered. Produced for the Department of see Issue 29: Extras casting ...............Mitch Consultancy Photography ...........................David Haskins Community Welfare Services.

Green Hill Casting consultants ............ M & L Casting Sound recordist .........................Ian Wilson The Sullivans Focus p u lle r ............................................. NixonBinney Editor ...................................David Pulbrook Skyways Clapper/loader ........................... Kim Anning Producer’s assistant . . . . Francois Bureau ETHNIC CONTRIBUTION Timeless Land Key g r ip ........................................... Ray Brown 2nd unit photography ___Michael Harris, Asst g r i p ................................................Stewart Green Prod, company ................ Tasmanian Film Paul Boocock G a ffe r................................... Brian Bansgrove Corporation 2nd unit sound recordist . .Gordon Swire ----- ' ------Tasmanian Film Asst editor ..........................Ann Beresford Boom operator ................... Andrew Duncan Corporation Neg. matching ........................ Film Negative Asst art directors .................... Clark Munro, Sally Campbell Producer ..

Cutting Services Director . . .

Costume design .....................Ron Williams . .Pino Amenta No. of shots .............................. 350 Scriptwriters M ake-up ................................. Rochelle Ford stine Schofield, Sound editor David Pulbrook H airdresser..............................................ChorylWilliams Andrew Butler Mixer .......... .David Harrison Sound recordist hn Schiefelbein Narrator ___ Standby p ro p s ............................... Bai'ry Hall .Rod Mullinar Carpenter ...................................Alan Fleming Editor ................ .. Kerry Regan Opticals ___ Cinevex Construction m a n a g e r........ Brian Hocking SLIPPERY SLIDE Asst editor ..............................Vicki Ambrose W / ^BSb 7 : Neg. m a tc h in g ........................Robyn Young .. .Tasmanian Film Prod, company Color g ra d in g ............................................. Tina Hutch Corporation Sound editors .......................... Dean Gawen, ........ Nine Network Dist. company Peter Burgess ........ Damien Parer Producer .

Editing a s s is ta n t.................Shirley Kennard Director ----.. Donald Crombie Mixers ............................. Julian Elllngworth, ........ Chris Morgan Photography . . .

Phil Heywood . John Schiefelbein Sound recordist .......... Kerry Regan Still photography..................................... DavidParker, Editor ...............

Steve Brack . . . .Michael Carlos Composer ........

Tutor ................................................Azhar Nik ............ Ian Berwick Unit Manager ..

1st asst director ___Steve Connard Location n u r s e s ........ Odelia Anthony (Malaysia), 2nd asst director .. . . . Daphne Crooks Liz Riley (Australia) .............. Linda Ray Continuity ................

Malaysian liaison.......... All Abdul Rahman ........ Chris Morgan Lighting cameraman Title d e s ig n e r............ Optical and Graphics .. Russell Galloway Focus puller ..........

Malaysian dialogue c o a c h ........ Azhar Nik . John Jasiukowicz Camera assistant Malaysian rep rese n ta tio n ............Producers Key grip . . . . ___Gary Clements Film Services (Kuala Lumpur) ........ Astra Palkovs M ake-up — Best boy........................................................ PaulGantner ___Peter Schmidt W ardrobe ........

R u nners........................................................Peta Lawson, .......... Gaye Arnold Ward, assistant .

Ailson Pickup Props ..................... . . . Nigel Saunders Unit publicist ............................... Wendy Day Asst editors .............. ___ Debbie Regan, C a terin g ................................... Keith Heygate Michele McCrea Production fa c ilitie s ..........................Fllmslde Neg. matching ............ .. Marilyn Delaney, Ron Delaney Post-production facilities..........................................Spectrum Mixer ...............................___Peter McKinley Laboratory ................................................ Atlab Still photography .......... ................ Ray Davy Salvation Army Christmas Variety Hour

DOCUMENTARIES

SHORTS

......................... Wise Street Productions Dist. company ................. Seven Network Producers .........................Lindsay Hewson, Susan Wild Director ..................................... Ben Cardillo Scriptwriter ............................... Robin Heaps Based on the original idea by .......... Wise Street Productions Photography .....................Frank Hammond Sound recordist ...........................Phil Judd Editor ......................................... Jas Shennan Laboratory ............................................. Atlab Budget ................................................ $45,256 Length ............................................... 60 mins Gauge ..................................................16 mm Progress ....................................... Production Synopsis: An entertaining look at the problems of stress in our society, and an examination of some of the alternatives available to help you cope with it.

SALVATION ARMY CHRISTMAS VARIETY HOUR Prod, company ........ Australian Zoetrope Producer ............................... David Halliday Director ................................... Des Robinson Scriptwriter ............................... Lyn Holman Photography .............................Peter Cooke Sound recordist .....................Mel Radford Prod, designer .............................Rod Baker Exec, producer ___ Major Wesley Kinder Assoc, producer .......... Captain Vic Bailey Prod, co-ordinator .............. Ross Stevens Prod, secretary ................ Prue Armstrong Prod, assistant .........................Gay Stratton Floor manager .........................Leslie Hicks Lighting ..................................... David Batch, Stan Pastuszka Studio camera operators .......................Maurice Roper, Tom Volmer, Kieran O’Sutlivan Camera assistant ...................David Moore Make-up .............................Mavis Ferguson Choreography .........................Lyn Holman Set decorator .............................. Glen Hogar Set construction ........................Glen Hogar Musical directors ...................... John Allen, Noel Brown Music performed by .......... Brisbane City Tem ple Band, Albion Songster Brigade Sound (Audio) .........................Rod Herbert Narrator .............. Geoff Whybird (Captain) Title designer ................... Phillipa Marshall Tech, director ...........................Neville Ross Studios ............ QTQ Channel 9, Brisbane Length ................................................30 mins Progress ........................... Awaiting release Scheduled release . . . . . .Christmas, 1980 (QTQ-9, Brisbane) Synopsis: The Brisbane Tem ple Band, Al­ bion Songsters, and young" people of the Salvation Army present the Christmas story in the traditional Salvation Army manner — through word, music, dram a and song.

WHISKY FATEH Prod, company

. Cornford Blackett-Smith Productions ...........................M.C. Stuart and Associates Producers .................John Blackett-Smith, Jerem y Cornford Directors ...................John Blackett-Smith, Jeremy Cornford Scriptwriter ........................Jeremy Cornford Photography ..............................David Olney, John Blackett-Smith Sound recordist ......................John Rowley Editor ................................. Guye Henderson Unit manager ...............................C. Steward Prod, secretary .......................... J. Richards Prod, accountant ........ Sherlock and Co. Special fx photography ............... Photonics Special effects ..........................Robert Conn (Photonics) Neg. matching .............................Rikky Main No. of shots ................................................ 168 Sound editor ...................Guye Henderson Mixer ...................................... David Harrison Narrator ...................................... John Waters Animation .......................................Photonics Title designer ............ John Blackett-Smith Mixed at ................. Crawford Productions Laboratory ......................................... Cinevex Lab. liaison ................................... Peter Lalor Length ................................................. 50 mins Gauge ..................................................16 mm Shooting stock ........................ Eastmancolor Progress .........................................In release Synopsis: This television documentary on the operations and activities of the PLO in Lebanon (their headquarters) as well as in Israel. An historically and factually accurate documentary featuring an in-depth Inter­ view with PLO, chairman Yasser Arafat and senior PLO officials, with actual war footage, i f Dist. company

Cinema Papers, December-January—467

CLIFFORD HAYES EDITOR

Tasmanian Film C orporation

Film and Videotape

9

Joint Winner of 1979 AFl Best Editing Award (Mad Max).

TV Series include: Homicide, Cash & Co., The Sullivans, Young Ramsay, Skyways.

Phone: (03) 592 3695

□ Film and Video Producers □ 16/35 Production facilities □ Broadcast quality video □ S till Photographers and

Mail to: 50 Warleigh Grove, North Brighton, Victoria 3186

FEATURE FILM

PRODUCERS — INVESTORS Offers invited for purchase of a new

audio visuals □ Studio and equipment hire

SCREENPLAY

1-3 BOWEN ROAD, MOONAH, TASMANIA 7009, PHONE: 30 8033 TELEGRAMS: TASFILM, HOBART

an uproarious, high-speed, fam ily com edy by Roger Vaughan Carr (A.W .G .)

DADDY GRAMPUS' 2 Inlet Road, Aireys Inlet, Vic. 3221 (052) 896 248

C i n e F ilm L a b o r a t o r y P ty . L imited 14 Whiting Street, Artarmon, NSW 2064 (02) 439 4122

(02) 43 2957

16 mm SPECIALISTS T he first and only lab in A ustralia to install th e latest advance in printing technology — th e fully su b m erg ed w etgate p rin ter, w hich has for th e last 18 m o n th s b een producing clean, scratch-free prints o f th e h ig h est quality.

-----SERVICE • QUALITY • PRICE-----For enquiries contact

J a c k G a rd in er — Quality Control/Sales.

G e o rg e F o ster — Administration.

P

h

o

t o

k

i n

a

\8

0

“N ew Products and Processes” w ill be a regular featu re in fu tu re issues. In the fir s t instalment, Fred Harden reports on the 1980 Photokina Trade Fair held bi-annually in The new A rrifle x 16 SR 11, quieter, an d with Germany. im proved m etering system.

With Photokina '80, the trade fair of the Photographic Industry Association is 30 years old. It has been held every second year since 1960, and to dealers in the photographic industry its importance as a m eeting place and showcase is undisputed.

This year, more than 1100 firms participated, spread through the 12 large halls of the Cologne Trade Fair buildings, requiring the 40,000-odd visitors to use maps and buses to cover the exhibition thoroughly.

Given the vast range of equipment on display at Photokina, this report reviews only new products and processes pre­ viewed at the fair. Items have been grouped together under the headings of cam eras, p ro d u c tio n a c c e s s o rie s , sound, editing systems, projection and transfer, and animation.

camera side cover. The camera is now 280mm wide and the extra space houses the electronics: a 24/25fps switch, fuse, signal tone adjusting screw, ‘blinking’ run lamp plus electrical accessory and battery connectors. All the standard 35 BL accessories can be fitted.

The new accessories are: a new camera door with quick change hinge and rigid viewfinder. A rugged-looking video viewfinder unit that replaces the rigid finder. There is a lightweight support guide rails set, a lightweight matte box, bellows matte box and a new follow focus unit that fits as well. The follow focus unit also works with the 16SR and with most of the fixed and high speed lenses, and Angenieux zoom, when fitted with a gear ring.

The Arriflex 16 SR 11 has also been re­ worked to take advantage of new sound insulation and material technologies.

Arriflex quote a noise level reduction to 26 _±_ 1 dB (A), with a weight of 5.8kg (body only). The m eter system is completely changed, and it now takes into account the camera speeds (5The Arriflex stand’s big attraction was 75fps) and the ASA range is extended the new Arriflex 35 BL 111. The good (16 to 1000 ASA). news is that this model is considerably Arriflex also announced two new zoom quieter, down to a quoted 2 5 ^ 1dB (A) lenses. For the 35mm cameras there is measured one metre from the front of the an Angenieux 25-625mm (f3.4-6.8) T4lens. The lens housing blimp cage has T8. It’s a wide range, and at its shortest been eliminated (Arriflex themselves9, focusing distance of 1.3m, and on full admitted it was a nuisance) and the telephoto, an area 20mm x 27mm fills the mirror shutter, magazine drive, and claw frame. It weighs 5kg. mechanisms have been reworked. The For the 16mm camera, there is a new most obvious difference is the enlarged Vario Sonnar f 1.8 (T-2) 10-100mm.

Arriflex are claiming superior optical 1. Fred Harden is a film and television performance for this Zeiss zoom with producer for the advertising agency John macro range and multi coating.

Clemenger Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Cameras

The A rrifle x 35 BL 111 with follow focus attachm ent. The lens housing has been eliminated.

Aspheron is a new Bolex trade mark for a wide-angle supplementary lens Arriflex have announced for the 9.5mm and 12mm high speed Zeiss Distagons.

Called the 5666, it gives focal lengths of 5.6mm and 6.6mm with the forementioned lenses respectively. I tried the Aspheron with the 12mm and was amazed by the lack offish-eye distortion and extreme depth of field. There is no loss of the f 1.2 apertures of the high speed lenses, and high resolution is claimed.

This year was the first time I’d seen the Arriflex image stabilizer. Although it wasn’t new for Photokina, they were showing a new swivel mount. It allows the stabilizer to be quickly swung to the side when it is necessary to change lenses or to use a wide-angle. On the 16mm, a 35mm wide lens is the maximum usable angle without vignetting.

Apparently a larger mirror size was tried, but it made the unit too large. To demonstrate the device, it was mounted to a 16SR with video finder and clamped to a vibrating board. The image was quite stable, with a strange “fluid” feel on the highlights (probably resulting from lag on the v id e o ). The tw o g y ro s c o p ic controlled mirrors smooth out vertical and horizontal movement and fit most film and video cameras. A dry battery runs the motors for about eight hours.

The Aaton 7 LTR 16mm camera is guaranteed quieter than 26 dB measured 1m from the film plane (not from the front of the lens as Arri quote from). As dB measurements are logarithmic, for each 3dB stepdown the sound level is twice as quiet (e.g., 23dB is twice as quiet as 26dB.) The Aaton is quiet, and appears to be one of those pieces of equipment

The qu ie ter 35 BL 111 with lightw eight matte box and 120m magazine.

that engenders fierce devotion from many camera users. The Aaton 8-35, also on display, features a 200ft (61m) magazine and weighs about 5kg.

The one new Aaton release is the Scribe, a microprocessor that provides time of day information for the 16LTR and tape recorder, and now runs any available commercial hard copy printer.

The system provides an hours, minutes and seconds figure on the film edge. It a lso e n c o d e s and d e c o d e s th a t information for the audio tape, which in turn feeds the information to a machine that edge numbers the times in ink on 16mm magnetic tape.

The Scribe also gives a hard copy paper printout of the complete day’s takes, arranged in various ways. It can give each take a number, as well as starting and stopping times for each camera run, or can be programmed for “go” takes only.

Eclair had their range of cameras displayed, but only announced a new 35mm high speed camera, the GV-150. It looks like a complete re-design of the GV35 and with a small modification will take the old magazines. It runs 25 to 150 p ic tu re s a second, and reaches maximum speed in two seconds with a precision of-±_ 1 per cent at any speed.

The new features on the Moviecam 3N (a much ignored camera in Australia) are a 1000ft (305m) magazine, a 12-inch (30.48cm) viewfinder extension and a high resolution video viewfinder. The noise level quoted is 18dB (A).

Bolex have updated the light metering system of the H16 EL, to handle up to 1600 ASA. This is to allow for the pushed processing speed of VNF. As the diaphragm ring is turned, two LEDs (light-emitting diodes) underneath the viewing frame are balanced in bright­ ness for the correct exposure. The camera is now designated H16 EL Series 3.

There is a new single frame animation unit that fits the external shaft spring­ motor camera and the H16 EBM Electric, and a power relay to switch lamps for time-iapse work in conjunction with the H16 EL Remote Timer. There is a new synchro unit that allows syncing of the EMB and EL camera or any equipped with ESM motors, to 50 or 60 Hz mains or a pilot-tone recorder.

I was particularly interested in a new mount that fits a small video camera against the eyepiece and gives a video viewfinder capability when the camera is on an animation stand, or attached to a microscope or other difficult viewing position. It uses the Eumig 571 Newvicon camera, a very small low light black and white video camera with a 16mm lens.

There is more carpentry than precision optics involved, but it works and would certainly be adaptable to other cameras.

For the first time at Photokina (and, I suspect, anywhere in the West), there was an e x h ib it fro m China. The equipment, however, looked as if was out of the 1950 Photokina.

The SKH 35 camera is a Mitchell hybrid, and the Red Flag 16mm looks like a spring-wound Bolex H16 machined from one block of cast iron. There is more than a passing resemblance to the Arriflex 35 BL in the Noiseless Newsreel 35mm Cinecamera S35-LB, but I was unable to verify if the quoted noise level

Cinema Papers, December-January—469

of 40 dB is accurate (or where in fact it is measured from.)

China also exhibited an extensive range of 35mm portable and theatre projectors, some with xenon arcs and full accessories, such as a 1.2kw petrol generator. There were 16mm projectors, magnetic and optical sound recorders, studio audio equipment, processing equipment for 35mm, 16mm and Super 8, contact printers, a 35mm optical printer, dual format moviola, and more.

There was a comprehensive list of 35mm lenses with Arri-type mounts, 16mm fixed and zoom lenses, projection lenses and a few telecines.

Production Accessories Many of the stands had dozens of new items, and each of the major manu­ facturers had their own variations. I have tried to select the most relevant items for review here, Hensel Studio T echn ik m ake professional studio flash equipment, and were showing a flash front projection unit for still photography, as well as a version for video front projection. I could see no reason, other than the possibility of 50cycle strobing, why it would not work with film cameras as well.

The system provides an alternative to chroma key backgrounds when used with a video camera, and the image on the monitor was excellent, even with the cheap color camera. For special effects work on 16mm, the 5ft (1.52m) wide screen would be restricting, but the flash unit has a wider background of the same material. There is a switchable bright­ ness control to balance the background-to-subject brightness, and the slide carrier takes two 35mm or 21A square slides.

R. E. Miller were one of the four Australian firms at Photokina. I had just walked from looking at the Sachtler tripods and asked how Miller could com pete ag a inst the b e a u tifu lly designed and lightweight gear available in Europe. After bemoaning the lack of machinable magnesium and other light­ weight alloys in Australia, the answer was: “ Match the features, if not the looks, and make it cheaper” .

Miller are now selling three times more in the U.S. and Japan than in Australia, with the increased sales in the video field. They have developed two new heads that will be in production early next year, and a multi-position clamp with a Miller ball cup attached, which is

470—Cinema Papers, December-January

available now. The new range of alloy-leg trip o d s has a b u ilt in /re m o v a b le spreader.

The CV/H fluid head has a built-in, v a ria b le c o u n te rb a la n c in g device designed for film and video cameras up to 23kg. There are six pre-set positions of fluid control that seem fast and fool­ proof. The CV/1 is a smaller head with the same six fluid settings and a quick release camera mounting plate but no counterbalance.

Vinten also displayed a range of tripod heads. The Cygnet type 89 post pan and tilt head is designed for lighter camera and ENG video gear, and swings the camera on its own centre of gravity, allowing a large angle of tilt. With the post turned 180 degrees, the camera can swing through a full 360 degrees.

The other item is the Vinten shoulder mount type 204. It’s a comfortable shoulder support intended for ENG cameras, but would also work with smaller flat-based cine cameras. The support hinges in two parts and will hold the camera safely when placed on a flat surface.

Minolta have added to their range of spot light meters and color meters. The Minolta Spotmeter M follows the Auto Spot 2 and Auto Spot 2-digital meters and according to the manufacturers, is the world’s first spot meter with liquidcrystal digital/analog readout, memory and d ire c t d ig ita l e xp o su re zone calculation capability.

The exposure zone control stores m axim um h ig h lig h t and m inim um shadow exposures and gives the option to choose a bias toward one or the other, or just average the two. The figures are stored in the memory and can be recalled or erased for new inputs. This helps one keep the subject brightness range within the film’s latitude.

Minolta have also added a digital display to the Color Meter 11, which has CC (color compensatory) and LB (light balancing) filter index readouts as well as a direct degrees Kelvin reading.

Horst Warta from John Barry (Sydney) has a new series of Barry Packs and Barry Chargers. The range of battery packs has many voltage configurations and they offer to make other voltages and capacities on request.

On a small stand from Film Technik Schweizer Ag., a Swiss group, I was surprised to see another wide-angle supplementary lens with features almost identical to the Arri 5666 Asperon. The price is almost the same as the Arri unit. As both lenses have the Bolex trademark I presume they are being marketed concurrently. The difference is that Film Technik are offering adaptor rings to fit a wide range of lenses.

I also saw the Kowa 16mm Cine 5.9mm f 1.8 (T2.2) wide-angle. With the wide-angle supplementary objective that would achieve a 3.5mm wide-angle (and probably your feet in shot as well).

Sante Zelli, the owner and designer of Elemack showed me the new Cricket dolly. Built on the Spyder wheels and legs, it is slightly heavier than the Spyder (136kg compared to 100kg) but looks like a complete re-design. Its triangular, electric hydraulic-driven column looks sturdier than the Spyder’s and its operation is faultlessly quiet and smooth.

The speed control has a soft stop at both ends of movement and has a maximum height from ground of 1.32m. The hydraulic will do multiple lifts before being recharged from mains, and there is a manual backup.

Not displayed at the Samcine Sales stand at Photokina, but for Australian delivery in January 1981, is the Samcine Louma. Paul Harris, from Samuelsons’ Sydney office, showed me a film taken with the boom on a crane, and the fluid movement and positioning of the camera was startling.

It is possible to place the camera in a scene, turn it 360 degrees and not show the support. When mounted on a cherrypicker, it can outmanoeuvre a helicopter, and adds 7.5m in height at its full reinforced length. The arm takes the Panaflex or other light-weight 35mm, 16mm. or ENG video cameras. A television viewfinder monitor is mounted on the operator’s console with handles, like a standard geared head. The camera head response can be electrically altered to suit a particular situation. When mounted on a regular dolly it can be tracked forwards and back or crabbed side to side.

Ross Lowell, the cameraman, director, and proprietor of Lowel Light Manu­ facturing, was at Photokina this year to unveil his latest equipment.

The largest item is the Lowel Grand Stand, a heavy duty, light-weight stand for big lights and reflectors, designed to take accessory casters for studio use and Lowel Anchors (wire pegs that are pushed into the gound for use on windy locations).

The Lowel Lightflector is a 15in x 24in x 3/8in (38cm x 61cm x 1cm) sheet of aircraft aluminium with smooth reflective Mylar on one side and textured on the other. There is a Tota-Tilter constant tension clutch device mounted in the centre allowing precise rotation. The Space Clamp is an updated version of a beam clamp, with two %in (16mm) mounting studs that take the rest of the

The new C ricket dolly from Elemack; heavier, bu t sturdier and sm oother.

Tota accessories. It’s available in 121/2in (32cm) and 25in (64cm) spans.

There was also a little Lowel Screw-in Stud, a 3/4in (19mm) screw with a standard 5/sin (16mm) diameter stud on the end for flat wooden surfaces, thick beams, trees and other wooden objects, where the use of a clamping device is impractical or undesirable.

Sound I saw very few new developments in the area of film sound at Photokina.

Nagra Kudelski had their full range of equipment on display, but showcased only one new item — the Nagra T1, a portable instrumentation recorder for technical and computer-controlled work.

When all the Nagra equipm ent is displayed it becomes clear that a large portion of their range is for technical applications.

NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES

Appearing under a couple of different names is the Broker S-200 sound film recorder. The basic machine is the Uher 4000 Report 1/4-inch reel to reel. Super 8 Sound market a version of their own as well as selling the Dakota Quartz, yet another variation. Broker was on the B eaulieu-R itter stand (the German distributors of Beaulieu). The recorder runs Super 8 magnetic fullcoat of split 16mm (8mm wide with 16mm perfora­ tions).

The recorder is switchable from 24 to 25fps, or from 18 to 24 to 25fps for Super 8, and will sync to 50Hz pilot tone, or has quartz control. It has a wide range of applications from location recording double system playback, and studio mixing. Any number of machines can be run together in sync, or slaved to a projector.

Super 8 Sound also announced the Dakota Quartz-16, a half-track mono Viinch reel-to-reel recorder with crystal or pilot tone cable sync, it will be sold with a resolver that matches sync with any A.C. line-locked 16 or 35mm dubber. The frequency response is quoted at 20Hz to 25kHz_±_3dB at 7ips, with a signal to noise ratio less than or equal to 66dB. Broker also showed their Split 16mm Editor 216. It consists of a Muray 16mm Viewer and a sound head unit for the split magnetic. There is a motor control unit for the motorized rewind arm and the film or tape can be shifted separately or inter­ locked. The audio head and picture aperture are accessible for marking. It needs a sm all s p e a k e r/a m p lifie r (available as an accessory). The unit would suit school, amateur or semi­ professional use.

Steenbeck had on display what their press release described as a number of novelties. Among these was the ST 1901 16mm editor, with six plates, 2 sound heads with a recorder for time-code, and a synchronizer to interlock a Sony Umatic VTR. It was also equipped with a Bosch TCX30 color video camera, so that it acts as a video transfer unit to give a rough double head facility on cassette.

There was also the new dual 16/35mm model ST 6001 (c), which has two integrated picture systems that eliminate the need to change the picture decks. It uses the 18-faced polygon prism, and the 35mm unit can be adapted to Cinemascope.

New at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers’ show in Los Angeles in 1979 was the ST1 16mm magnetic recorder/playback unit. It would seem to have excellent small studio possibilities. The ST1 acts as a transfer unit for pilot tone and EBU/IRT time coded tapes. The 24/25fps sync speeds are mains frequency or crystal controlled. It will Interlock with the usual synchronous projectors or editing tables and has a loop programming facility for studio use.

Kem showed a large range of four and six plate editing machines for Super 8, 16mm and 35m m . W hat to o k my attention, was an array of three machines in a semi-circle. The K800 system is designed as an interchangeable multi­ format machine that can be expanded with the volume or complexity of the work. The modules can be interlocked in

various configurations (e.g., two 16mm pictures and one 35mm, or three 17.5mm tracks and a 35mm and 16mm picture).

When I asked for a demonstration of the Kem PR 1000 16mm and 35mm dual format projector, its electronics system had decided that since it was the last day of the fair it needed a break. But before it did, I saw enough of the projector to be impressed by its simplicity and features.

Designed as an interlock projector for dubbing/mixing studios, it can be used in a “ rock and ro ll” mode with an electronic counter that can be pre-set for a certain frame. The projector will automatically run fast backwards and then forward at normal speed, as often as required. When running at 24 or 25fps it is possible to fast-forward at either 48/50 frames and 96/100 frames, or continuously variable Irom 0 to 100fps.

The machine uses the Kem Holoscope prisms which give a flicker free image at all speeds (but with a considerable loss in light output). The lamp house has a 1600w Xenon lamp, but the picture would be quite dim over a longer throw than the 6m displayed.

Sfat (Société Française Appareillages de Télécommandés) have been making editing consoles for Super 8 for some tim e , and th e ir 16mm e q u ip m e n t displays the hand-built look of their early tables. They consist, basically, of a viewer, a gang synchronizer, sound reader and motorized arms mounted on a box.

Of the various 16mm models offered, the EM 600 SR appeared to be fair value.

The unit has recording and mixing facilities from and to the two 16mm magnetic tracks. Each of the reels has a torque motor and the running speed is variable from 0-75fps, with crystal controlled 24 and 25fps positions. There is an inching knob, the three channels can be independently disengaged, there are tone controls, VU meter and a pilot tone sync signal output.

There is also a version of the deck without the recording facility, called the EM 400. It has a Muray 16mm viewer instead of the custom-made Sfat viewer that is standard on the other table.

The Oldelft Cinemonta tables all have an attractive clean design, and Oldelft’s version of the Polygon Prism — the Optical Crown. This consists of 24 small lenses set in a ring that Oldelft claim gives less light loss and aberration than a prism.

The Cinemonta 35mm Type 835 has eight plates and a bright two-screen viewer. It has an electronic multi-purpose counter that displays, at request, frames, minutes / seconds / frames, feet / frames, or metres / frames.

The 16mm version of the 835 is the Cinemonta 16mm Type 816. Again, it is an eight-plate table, with two film paths, one with a com posite o p tica l and

composite magnetic head and one mute.

The two 16mm magnetic tracks can be set to sync electromechanically. The electronic counter and 10 watt amplifiers are standard, and like the 35mm version it has a sound pitch corrector as an a c c e s s o ry w h ich g ive s (a lm o s t) intelligible speech when running at half to 2V4 times speeds.

Together with Magnasync / Moviola, CMX / Orrox Systems had on display their Computer-Assisted Film Editor / Controller. It takes advantage of the number of different editing tables with video capability. The machine being used was the Videola V-1000 (see the transfer section for details), and the system is designed to let an editor rapidly build a videotape assembly without cutting the film. It gives either a paper printout of the edge numbers for the negative cutter, or displays the edge numbers on the video image.

The system, as displayed, uses a BVU, but it could have been a number of Umatics or VTRs. It has an edit preview ability and a smooth forward and reverse control of film and video transport. The controller will handle NTSC, PAL or SECAM, and the Videola is 16/35mm interchangeable. CMX have attempted to make the system as film editor orientated as possible (the edit button is even marked “splice” !)

To demonstrate the,Controller there was an episode of M‘ A*S*H in double head for the visitor to edit. In about 20 minutes we had assembled a five-minute lip-sync sequence with cutaways and sound edits, and the quality from the BVU looked like off-air. It is possible to electronically reverse the negative and never have a work-print cutting copy, or from one work-print provide a number of clean edit variations for client or creative approval.

The image resolution is only limited by the quality of the camera on the Videola, or other tables, and the system could be broadcast standard as it can control the Rank Cinitel MK3 telecine and 1” and 2” VTRs. CMX also displayed The Edge, a lowcost computer assisted video-editing system that uses CMX 340X technology.

The system has a small table top editing console with two rotating knobs and a small display screen surrounded by a number of multi-function “smart keys” .

Anyone who has used a U-Matic editing system could grasp the basics. The Edge interfaces with the Ampex VPR-1 and 2, the Sony 2850 and 2860, the BVU-200 and 200A, and the Sony BVH-1000.

I am convinced there will be a shift to v id e o ta p e e d itin g fo r m o st film production for television, and that the cost saving of a film edit will be matched by tape. Post-production houses who are thinking about buying one of the new editing tables could easily add a cheap color camera to allow them to display a

Editing Systems A wide range of editing systems were on display this year. Steenbeck, Kern, Moviola, Sfat, Oldelft and Arriflex all had flat-bed editing systems in various configurations. It was impossible to do more than look at the new, eye-catching features.

A number of machines had a video­ monitor facility, and some had interlock with a VTR to allow sound editing in parallel with videotape. The key to this recent development is the ease with which the m ulti-faceted prisms now being used for flickerless viewers can be adapted. The prisms always display an image with one tending to “ dissolve” into the next. There were also a number of time-code systems.

The Kem PR 1000 dual form at (16mm and 35mm) projector.

Cinema Papers, December-January—471

“If you need a fast c o m m e rc ia l. . . o r a sho rt doco cut overnight . . . we’ll make sure it hits the lab on tim e . .

cinematic services ... THE PROFESSIONALS We are seeking a person with —

KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE IN FILM EQUIPMENT to join the Cinematics team. Their function will be to co-ordinate our presentation of the following agencies to the Australian Film Industry. .

VICTORIAN NEGATIVE CUTTING SERVICE P/L 388 Clarendon St, Sth Melbourne, Vic. (03) 690 4273

SUPER 8 SOUND HOME MOVIES Condensed versions of the top Hollywood productions are available for you to show in your own home. Tides include: Superman The Movie, The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars, The Rose, Jaws, Rocky Horror Picture Show, A Star is Bom, Emmanuelle, Grease, Saturday Night Fever, Muppet Movie.

Excellent cartoons, Walt Disney films, Elvis films and concerts, News, Travelogues, Documentaries.etc, etc.

16mm and full length features available. Hundreds of films kept in stock. All films offered at discount prices. Mail orders, Bankcard welcome.

Moviecam — The Ultimate 35mm Camera Audio — Radio Mies Century — Lenses and Accessories Palmer — Double Head Projector with Varisync B & W — Filters Image Devices Inc — Helicopter Mounts and Special Equipment Filmlicht — HMi Lighting Tram — Microphones Cinematic’ Carry Cases ‘Cinematic’ Light Stands ‘Cinematic’ Playback Systems Contact the professionals at:

cinematic services pty ltd 8 CLARENDON STREET, ARTARMON 2064

(02) 439 6144

Telex AA20149 att ST 102

Equipment Sales — Rentals — Services — Facilities

FILM PROTECTION TH A T DOES NOT C LEA N OFF. Lasting protection against Fungus Attack, Scratches, Oil, W ater, & Finger M arks.

FOR NEGS A N D PRINTS EVERYTHING ON FILM .

For list of prices, specials etc., write or phone: HOM E CINEMA CENTRE P.O. Box 7 7 , Glenside, S.A. 50 6 5 Telephone: (0 8 ) 3 1 2 3 2 0

\

s

VACUUMATE W

REDIM ENSION A new, exclusive Vacuumate pro­ cess, available in Australia, which enables prints to be taken off shrunken film.

This process is used by the National Film Board of Canada.

3 5 m m & 1 6 m m N é g a tiv e C u t t in g

Write or phone for a folder giving full details.

A ustralian Licensee

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street, y, NSW 2068 Téléphoné (02) 411 2255.

Vacuumate Australia Division of D erek H o oper and Associates

4 White Street, Windsor, Vic. 3181 Tel (03) 514469

NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES

The M agnasync/M ovioia Videola V-1000 film to tape tra nsfer system.

w o rk -p rin t double-head edit on a monitor.

This year, CIR announced some additional features for their range of splicers. There are three new M3 models in Super 8, 16mm and 35mm. The M3 16mm 2T Special has guidelines marked on the cutting plate, a pressure pad that rubs the tape flat (no greasy fingers), and moveable film registration pins next to the cutter for short end accuracy.

Also displayed was the Line Light 35, an accessory set of cutters with a built-in battery light to illuminate the frame line.

There was a 3” core dispenser for larger rolls of tape, and a "tape for two” holder (16mm or 35mm) which mounts another roll of tape on the diagonal for stronger splicing of magnetic, with the tape borders parallel to the cut.

A new firm was introducing a range of splicers called Zenon; the design is sim ilar to the CIR but with heavier castings and handles.

Cinecare International showed the Cinebug a bright orange dispenser for their perforation repair tape, available in 16mm and 35mm. The Cinebug also takes tapes for cross frame repairs.

L ip8ner-S m ith, who m ake film cleaning systems, introduced what they call their compact, low-cost model (CF200). It has been developed for small la b o ra to rie s and p o s t-p ro d u c tio n houses. At the other end of the scale, is the 160 feet per minute, CF 3000, a machine that redudes evaporation loss of solvent with a closed system.

Projection and Transfer The polygon prism has simplified the problems of producing telecines. By making the film movement continuous instead of intermittent, there are none of the strobing and frame synchronization problems of earlier systems. Equipment for transferring faster or slower than 25fps is available and without going to the expense and quality of a flying-spot scan, the new machines can give excellent results.

The one machine I examined in detail was the V ideola from Magnasync/ Moviola. In appearance, it is a twoplate flat bed table without the viewing screen. The prism (Moviola call theirs Scanscope) allows the film to run at virtually any speed, and at 2 or 3fps the image looks like a soft-edge wipe moving across the image. The maximum speed is 250fps for 16mm and 150fps for 35mm, and there is a crystal control for 24 or 25fps with an interlock mode for an external source.

The machine is supplied with or without a video camera, which is easy to

set up and remove. The image resolution is dependent only on the quality of the camera, and any of the new ENG cameras would be ideal. The color correction control consists of a lamp head from a color enlarger, which is simple but effective. The control is somewhat primitive for “ on the run” scene by scene grading, but if it was possible to transfer one scene at a time and e d it/a s s e m b le , it w o u ld be adequate.

There is a magnetic-optical composite head for 16mm sound (optical only for 35mm) and for the separate magnetic track there is a 3-track, 35mm magnetic head as an option. There is a digital display for the film speed, and a controlled stop and acceleration system for gentle film transport. The audio system has built-in mixing facilities for four audio tracks.

Peter Seagger, the international sales m a n a g e r of Dolby L a b o ra to rie s explained the intricacies of the new CP 200 multi-track magnetic and stereo optical cinema sound processor. The list of feature films with Dolby Encoded soundtracks has grown from one in 1972 to more than 70. Dolby Laboratories' involvement in a film’s production from original recording to mixing allows the greatest advantage to be taken of the processor. In Australia, Hoyts have about a dozen CP 100 units and the Greater Union O rganization has expressed interest in acquiring a number of CP50 and CP100 units.

animation stand and 16mm camera.

By far the most exciting development in the animation field was the Advanced Animation and Graphics system from Japan's NAC com pany. Under the banner of Knack Animatography, it consists of a videotape anim ation recorder, a film action tracer (rotoscope), a video-action tracer, a video-animation stand, a quick action recorder with solidstate frame store, and an electronic painter.

The system is designed as a support for conventional animation techniques, and only the electronic painter awaits a broadcast quality videotape animation recorder to become a complete video system. I asked NAC if they were developing a machine, but they said it was beyond their resources, and that they were awaiting an approach from a major manufacturer.

The Animation Recorder is a modified VHS cassette recorder with single-frame advance capability. It is designed for use with a video camera mounted on either the NAC stand or the animator’s existing stand, and gives an instant replay of pencil tests or a check of final cels.

The Video Animation Stand, has standard cel pegs, but is really a simple graphics stand with a pantograph arm and controls that allow the color video cam era to be panned or zoomed accurately over art work for storyboards provide or chroma key backgrounds for the electronic painter.

T he F ilm A c tio n T ra c e r is a conventional rear projection tracer using !6mm or 35mm, but the Video Action Tracer allows the animator to use a porta-pack video camera and recorder to provide, instantly, reference material to trace. The image can be changed in size or position.

The tracings can then be placed on the Quick Action Recorder, positioned face down, and scanned one at a time. The storage memory is solid state with the option of 30, 60, 120 or 240 picture capacity. The image is black and white lines. Once entered, the controls offer the option to change the speed of the action, repeat or delete frames, erase in d iv id u a l fra m e s and in s e rt new drawings, and interchange frames in the sequence. The images can then be transferred to videotape to edit into a longer sequence.

When final drawings are made they can be placed on the scanner of the Electronic Painter. The original line drawing is displayed on the monitor. The operator has a joystick lever that controls a cross-hair cursor, which becomes the brush. The width of the brush is variable and can be used to erase, fill in or draw new lines in black. One of the buttons on the control panel will display on the screen a color chart of 128 p re ­ programmed colors. There is also a color generator and the operator can create colors at his discretion.

The brush cursor is placed on an area, and the number of the color chosen is punched in. On the signal to paint, the color wipes across the area selected up to the surrounding black lines. There is an 8X enlargement display for small details, and colors can be changed repeatedly.

When painting is complete, another button will make any areas that have been missed or unpainted flash chroma key blue. If left blue they can be keyed through a mixer over a background video source. The frame is then stored and the next drawing scanned. The sequence is then transferred from the frame store and edited on tape.

T h e tim e - s a v in g in v o lv e d is considerable, but so is the cost, and the time involved in tape-editing would be an additional factor. The freedom from the d ru d g e ry of c e l-p a in tin g and the considerable creative freedom of the rest of the system is yet to be explored.

The next generation of equipment will link the quick action recorder to the electronic painter and combined with a broadcast animation VTR would radically change the production of conventional animation for television.

The futuristic NAC equipment seems an appropriate place to end this report. I am aware of the amount of material not included, but to cover it all would fill the whole magazine. And that’s without mentioning all the other activity at Photokina: photographic displays, film screenings, conferences, congresses, awards . . . and more.

Many of the new products and processes previewed here w ill be reviewed in detail in future issues, at which time information about local distributors, agents and prices will be published. ★

Animation The addition of computer control to animation stands is now accepted, but at a cost of around $150,000 for the complete Oxberry system, only a few studios in Australia have the volume to afford it. (David Deneen from Film Graphics in Sydney has taken delivery of the first one in Australia.)

The lower cost Oxberry Filmmaker Animation Stands now have the potential to be upgraded with the addition of the Master Camera 5420. The Master is the standard animation studio camera and takes a wide range of format options.

Neilson Hordell were showing a Canadian system for computerized control of a compound table that has a 4” x 5” (10.1cm x 12.7cm) field and precision holder for 35mm slides.

Designed for audio visual use, but no doubt adaptable to other uses, the Optical Art System 1 consists of the manual pin registered compound with an optical precision pantograph viewer and a 4” x 5” contact printer for making reverse mattes.

The System 2 adds a computer control with motorized east west controls. The System 3 adds a Neilson H ordell

Cinema Papers, December-January—473

The Bandit, Frog and Justice are at it again in the all new adventures of...

The Planefc Going to Chicago... ~~~~ The Pilot's Going to New York...

The Passengers are Going to Pieces!

M

BURT REYNOLDS JACKIE GLEASON -JERRY REED | DOM DeLUISE and [SALLY FIELD]

T h a n k G o d i t ’s o n ly a m o tio n p ic tu r e !

The most devastating team since nitro and glycerine, a «

JOHN BELUSHI DAN AYKROYD

Burt Reynolds Lesley-Anne Down « David Niven

To be

followed in 19by

CHRISTOPHER REEVE

O RDINARY # PEOPLE jte.v PHIL DAN IELS H A Z E L O CONNOR

MaryTyler Moore

Donald Sutherland

GEORGE C. SCOTT ■« m MARLON BRANDO

The Shining Ken Mogg When, at the start of The Shining, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) comes to the immense Overlook Hotel in Colorado to be interviewed for the posi­ tion of winter caretaker, something is already amiss. Sweeping helicopter views of Jack’s car crawling upwards through the Rockies are accompanied by a score which suggests first a Gregorian mass for the dead, then an impression of snake rattles and animal cries derived from a Navajo chant.

A casual remark at the interview by the all-American hotel manager (Barry Nelson) notes that the Overlook was erected in 1907 on the site of an Indian burial ground, the builders very probably having had to fight off Indian attacks. He also mentions, not so casually, how 1 0 years ago a previous winter caretaker got “ cabin fever” and killed his family and himself.

Although taken from a moderately gripping novel by Stephen King ( C a r r i e , ' S a l e m ’s L o t ) , S ta n le y Kubrick’s film eschews horror and settles for the grotesque. This may not have been altogether Kubrick’s intent — a common argument runs that the grotesque is failed realism, a product of social or personal inadequacies — but the result is nonetheless m a g n ific e n tly grotesque.

Visually and aurally, it is always stunning. Further, the grotesque genre has its own distinctive ingredients: it frequently exploits similarities between people and animals or things, and it usually exhibits “ unmotivated play­ fulness” . As Jack Torrance becomes demented and terrorizes wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their seven-yearold son Danny (Danny Lloyd), his reversion to infantilism echoes the mis­

fortune of ‘ Hal’ the computer in 2001.

Half admiringly, one notes that there is life in this Frankenstein’s monster.

But it is precisely the counterpoint with the active signs of Kubrick’s “ un­ motivated playfulness” (not least, his unflagging way with the Steadicam tracking camera) that implies an in­ cipient metaphysic of the grotesque.

Consider Ja ck ’s ambitions to write — which come unstuck with his obses­ sive retyping of the single sentence, “ All work and no play makes Jack a dull b o y.” Like earlier Kubrick protagonists, Jack finds himself caught between notions of glory and the fairly rigid demands of society and family; his particular reaction seems initially the classic one described by Erich Fromm in which puritanism allied with self­ hatred turns people into their own slave drivers.

These people put their master within — as witness one of Ja ck ’s tirades to Wendy about “ responsibility” . (It needs to be noted how the Torrances, for all that they exist primarily as part of a Kubrick theorem, are a very puritanical family, and that poor Shelley Duval as Wendy has very nearly as dispirited a role as the wife, Marisa Berenson. in Barry Lyndon.)

Even so. Wendy seems to be the person who really does the work around the hotel: preparing meals, calling the Forest Rangers on the radio for a weather report, tending the boiler in the basement; and Danny is naturally the playful one: on first arriving at the hotel he heads straight for the games room.

Jack hardly appears to either work or play, although one day while Wendy and Danny are outdoors exploring the hotel’s enormous maze, he takes the op­ portunity to pound a baseball (which sounds like cannon fire) against a Navajo wall-mural in the main lounge.

Jack sees himself as being a redblooded American like the next man.

(Danny with his gift of precognition

The Torrance family (Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd and Jack Nicholson) on the drive to the Overlook hotel. Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.

and telepathy — “ the shining” — receives warnings about that red blood; even Wendy, in her essentially repres­ sed state, finally shares her son’s vision of blood-dimmed corridors; but Jack never shares it.)

In one of several fantasies Jack has, he is a macho Westerner ordering drinks from a respectful bartender.

About here, things become complex.

Ostensibly, Jack is alone in the presentday Golden Room of the Overlook Hotel. But suddenly ‘ghosts’ of past guests appear, wearing period dress circa the 1920s. In turn, one senses behind this reality the earlier one of a pioneering age before the Overlook was built, a time when whites and Indians were at war — and when traditions were being shaped.

Clearly, some of this is present in Ja ck ’s mind, which explains why his image retains modern dress. Speaking of a time factor though, perhaps the most crucial element of the scene is the conceit whereby Jack simultaneously succumbs to alcoholic weakness and to other-directedness — when he orders “ White Man’s Burden” .

This “ synchronicity” has its Kubrick precedents, too. As ‘ Hal’ in 2001 ‘dies’ singing “ Daisy. Daisy” , the astronaut Bowman learns his cosmic mission (“ To Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite” ).

Equally, one recalls the crazed and obsessed Jack D. Ripper in D octor Strangelove preparing to die for McCarthyism.

Jack Torrance and Jack D. Ripper are blood brothers. Moreover, in both films everyone is implicated in a sort of “ madman’s flytrap” — Kubrick ap­ parently wanted no survivors at the Overlook Hotel.

In The Shining, he makes the media a Cinema Papers, December-January—475

THE SHINING

particular target. Not only do they feed Jack with his fantasies, but they colonize reality. (A rather cruel touch, one may think, is to make Wendy “ a ghost story and horror film addict” .)

On vacation in Miami, the black chef Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) switches on the television, to be informed, in quick succession, of a heatwave in Florida and blizzards in Colorado.

The banality is representative — and Hallorann’s own gift of “ the shining” , which is sufficiently strong to draw him back to the Overlook (his profile during the drive resembling an Indian’ s), significantly avails no one, because “ white man” Jack is waiting. As for Danny, fond of Bugs Bunny cartoons and given to wearing Mickey Mouse and ‘ Apollo U .S .A .’ sweaters, his con­ ditioning has already started. Or rather, de-conditioning — Danny’s imaginary friend ‘Tony’ , who is the medium for his “ shining” , isn’t' supposed to be talked about.

Fairly evidently, this sort of detail must be cumulative if it is to work; and probably not even Jungians (quite at home in 2001) may take ‘Tony’ very seriously. That it does work should prompt an observation on Kubrick’s principles of counterpoint and conflict.

The opening titles in cartoon-blue, which roll up the screen like television credits, deny and confirm the different order of reality of the landscape as brought out by the score. The opposi­ tion of ascending vertical movement to forward-travelling helicopter shots and then a rapid lateral track through the hotel foyer is exhilarating.

But some early notes of bathos (the cartoon lettering, the sense of end-ofseason blues as Jack enters the hotel to apply for a second-rate job) prefigure the later constant undercutting of Jack’s fantasies.

Contrariwise, the bravura moment when Jack’s frustration brings a table maze to life — but only to the extent that Wendy and Danny appear in it like tiny figures in a vast Skinner Box — is ‘placed’ by a cut to the real thing in close-up (and the ubiquitous Steadicam tracking shot).

In the context of the grotesque it isn’t usual to speak of nobility, but Kubrick’s spirited exploration of some inner and outer limits may justify it.

Decidedly, this is “ a Stanley Kubrick

THE CHAIN REACTION

film” . Jungians might see its director (‘ thinking’ ) and Ingmar Bergman (‘ feeling’) as facing each other from opposite ends of a continuum.

Strictly speaking, Kubrick’s films have about them more play than playfulness — one doesn’t easily shrug off having been a chess master at 16.

Y et The Shining gives plenty of evidence that Kubrick, while keeping his autonomy, is a master of strategy, and capable of playing to the gallery when appropriate (after all, he used to play exhibition chess in New York).

A scene in which Jack pursues Wendy up the O verlook’ s main stairway brings the action right into our midst. And Kubrick knows how to tease the audience in the sense that a maze teases.

The film ends on the biggest tease of all: a photograph dated Independence Day. 1921, of a crowded ballroom and (surely not?) a smiling ‘Jack Torrance’ .

After the nightmare the audience has been through, is Kubrick tempting it with some catch-all idea of reincarna­ tion? One can almost hear this most in­ dependent of directors demur to com­ ment further on his game of art.

The Shining: Directed by: Stanley Kubrick.

Producer: Stanley Kubrick. Executive producer: Jan Harlan. Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick. Diane Johnson. Director of photography: John Alcott.

Editor: Ray Lovejoy. Music: Bela Bartók. Art director: Les Tomkins. Cast: Jack Nicholson (Jack). Shelley Duvall (Wendy), Danny Lloyd (Danny), Scatman Crothers (Hallorann). Barry Nelson (Ullman). Philip Stone (Grady). Produc­ tion company: Warner Bros, in association with the Producers Circle Co. Distributor: Roadshow.

35mni. 119 min. U.S. 1980.

The Chain Reaction R ick T h om p son The Chain Reaction, despite its simil­ arities with M ad M ax, is not Mad M ax II. It is a busy, kinetic film with the image and editing skill of Mad M ax, but it shows the same mastery of the American action film without the same rhythm of specific quotation as Mad M ax.

An earthquake in Western Australia fractures a nuclear waste dumping ground. Heinrich (Ross Thompson), a

One of Jack Torrance’s (Jack Nicholson) fantasies: a “ macho” Westerner ordering drinks from a respectful bartender. The Shining.

476—Cinema Papers, Decernber-January

scientific technician, risks himself to prevent catastrophe and receives a terminal dose of radiation: he has three days to live. The administration and security forces of the (American) multi­ national corporation in charge of the facility wish to contain Heinrich — for study, and to avoid an information leak and ensuing panic. Heinrich escapes into the bush and is pursued.

At the same time, Larry Stilson (Steve Bisley). a small garage owner, and his nurse wife Carmel (Arna-Maria Winchester) head for a dirty weekend in a bush cabin in Paradise Valley. There they meet Heinrich.

All the other characters in the film orbit around this triad. An army of security men arrive, as does an anti­ nuclear energy activist. Eagle (Hugh Keays-Byrne, bizarre as ever), who poses as the couple’s only hope against the security men. The Stilsons run the gauntlet and escape with the body of the now-dead Heinrich (he had instruc­ ted them to use it as a visual aid for the media) to a rendezvous with Eagle under a Channel 7 Newscopter.

The specific problem, made clear economically and early, is that the liquid plutonium waste has reached the water table. The contamination is irre­ versible and will surface at random.

Action films set a personal plot in relation to the ‘larger’ plot. The groups here are Gray (Ralph Cotterill), the chief security officer (an Anglo-Australian version of George Peppard’s Tuxan in The Groundstar Conspiracy), and his mute, muscular ichi-ban, Oates (Patrick Ward), on the one hand, and Larry, Carmel and Heinrich on the

Carmel (Arna-Maria Winchester) nurses the injured Heinrich (Ross Thompson) as Larry (Steve Bisley) looks on. Ian Barry’s The Chain Reaction.

other. Carmel (because she is a nurse? because she is a woman? because she is more mature?) is immediately sym­ pathetic to Heinrich. She nurses him and draws him out in an attempt to understand his trauma.

Larry’s hostility to Heinrich draws rebukes from Carmel several times, goading him into escalating adolescent outbursts. When Larry is removed from the retreat cabin — locked up in the small-town gaol — Carmel and Hein­ rich share idyllic and personal moments while Larry rages about Heiririch being “ . . . up there in Paradise w ith m y w ife !’ ’ These two circuits are closed at the end of the film. Heinrich — a post­ Harrisburg version of “ D.O.A.” — is as good as dead all through the film, but at the time of his clinical death Larry kills Oates, triggering an unchar­ acteristic burst of reckless and fatal behaviour from Gray.

The two types of story — nuclear and sexual — are economically twined in an early scene, the morning after Hein­ rich joins the Stilsons at their cabin. In a scene pitched as comic frolic, a nude Larry walks down to the pool which serves as a water supply for the cabin.

He jumps in with a Tarzan yell, though, as the music makes clear, he should be screaming for the loss of his atomic virginity. He removes a grotesquelybloated fish from the pipeline.

Carmel arrives as Larry emerges

THE CHAIN REACTION

from the water, Venus-on-the-halfshell; she remarks that the monkey has lost his nuts, the first inflection of the film’s sexual imagery toward emascula­ tion. He asks her for a hand up and pulls her into the water instead, con­ taminating her. Then he feigns uncon­ sciousness. Carmel is alarmed and attends to him — but it’s a joke. It is also a childish counterfeit of the truly sick Heinrich, through which Larry competes for Carmel’s attention.

There are parallel childhoods in the film: Larry’s adolescence, and Hein­ rich’s rapid regression from his student days in 1957 to his childhood as the radiation poisoning advances (“ Why 1957?” , Carmel asks. No answer is forthcoming from Heinrich, although he mentions that it is the year he hopes to achieve his doctorate, and the year of a Marilyn Monroe film he likes. It is also the year of Sputnik.)

There is a clear play here with a time of innocence which extends to all the characters in the film, but the strategy also brings in a continuing literary (water) allusion: Heinrich’s view of himself as the Boy At the Dike.

The filmmakers are quite knowing about the site they have chosen for their film, although its hectic movement through various types of film causes problems. They have chosen not to make a The China Syndrome liberal exemplum: in so doing, they have simply assumed audience knowledge of many things The China Syndrome spent so much time developing. The Chain R eaction doesn’ t explain the sig­ nificance of plutonium entering the water-table at any length; nor does it investigate the motives for corporate cover-ups. The film stays in the area of the action film (its few moments of ver­ bal didacticism stand out the more so for this).

The conflicts of the story are pre­ sented in terms of physical power: bodies, violence, speed, technology, flight and pursuit. The companion process to this, which ups the ante from a simple action film, is an interlocking imagery of water. Water is specifically charged from its first appearance in the film, flooding Heinrich and the nuclear waste tank farm. It then contaminates everything — the entire continent.

The contamination L arry and Carmel receive from their water is explained to the audience abstractly, in assertions and aural geiger counter readings; in counterpoint, Heinrich, the visual aid, gives a progressive index of explicit bodily radiation damage.

THE BLUE LAGOON

Another significant line of imagery centres on white as the dominant color — the color of death. It is the color of the nuclear tank farm, of the security forces’ outer-space radiation suits, the color most often associated with Hein­ rich, and the color of the film’s long, static, final shot of a dam gushing millions of gallons of white water. It is posed against green and other natural colors for clear reasons: fertility/steril­ ity. life/death, and so on. Unlike The Exorcist, when Heinrich vomits (into the water) it is white.

Around this line, L arry’ s moral education is built. Heinrich, whose wife and family one sees in a photo, chooses a larger responsibility and commit­ ment stemming from his work: warning the nation.

At the outset, Larry’s concerns are selfish: his business, privacy (which Heinrich disrupts) and sexual grati­ fication. When Heinrich dies, his mission is formally passed on to Larry and Carmel. Dressed for the first time in plain white robes, they are cere­ moniously escorted by the security zombies to the decontamination cham­ bers, where they are stripped and sub­ jected to a painful healing shower which cleanses their outsides, but not their now-cancerous insides. The scene sug­ gests many things — a wedding among others — but is in fact their confirma­ tion into the world of roentgen death into which Heinrich has preceded them.

The Chain Reaction doesn’t have Mad M a x ’s gleeful, exploitation-film vulgarity (except in the juicy crudity of the scene introducing Larry, amid his garage full of mates, when he points a grease gun at the nagging mother-in­ law and asks, “ Want a lube job?” ).

Neither does it establish a kineticism so completely tied to in-frame movement by the subject of the image. Instead, The Chain Reaction sets up a style of brisk, pointedly-elliptical editing which often features succinct condensation.

Example: in gaol, Larry doesn’t want to know about any larger social res­ ponsibilities, so crusader Hugh KeaysByrne explains to him about the multi­ national corporation, the U-239 spill, etc., as the image shows the tank farm site, the industrial complex, a huge black C - 1 3 0 takin g off. E a g le winds up his moral explanation with, “ . . . and we are all on board” , as the plane blasts skyward.

Next quick shot: this plane, so asso­ ciated with photo-journalism of the Vietnam war, is shown flying over a deserted and crumbling industrial

village near the Stilsons’ cabin, a place where one has seen Heinrich and Carmel walking — one of the film’s preview images of the future.

Third shot: Carmel and Heinrich inside the cabin. Heinrich is at a table when we hear a rumble and bric-a-brac begins to dance; he panics, reminded of the initial earthquake and its con­ sequences. but Carmel quietens him, saying. “ It’s only a big airplane.”

In fact, one of the film’s short­ comings is at the Mad M ax level. It has two car-chase set-pieces. The first, in the middle of the film, is reassuringly good — these filmmakers know their moves. The second, which climaxes the film, is very nearly a re-run of the first.

This sort of elaborate repetition of a sequence can be made to work if the film establishes pointed comparisons; The Chain Reaction doesn’t.

Steve Bisley provides a nicely wiredup ocker with anti-authoritarian energy to burn and no inkling of what is going on around him, an appropriate central performance for the film. But the other Mad M ax veteran, Hugh (Toecutter) Keays-Byrne, is ubiquitous, in a con­ stantly changing series of costumes and hairstyles, and disturbingly arch.

The unusual tone of his performance (with its direct allusions to Stone and Mad M ax, and an indirect reminder of one other performance, Stanton Kaye’s version of himself as media baron in Brandy in the W ilderness) tan only be associated with the film’s subsurface antic sense which abruptly percolates to the surface — like plutonium water — in the film’s ironic, cold, final shots.

Chain Reaction: Directed by: Ian Barry.

Producer: David Elfick. Associate producers: George Miller. Ross Mathews. Screenplay: Ian Barry. Director of photography: Russell Boyd.

Editor: Tim Welburn. Music: Andrew Thomas Witton. Art director: Graham Walker. Sound recordist: Lloyd Carrick. Cast: Stephen Bisley (Larry), Arna-Maria Winchester (Carmel), Ross Thompson (Heinrich). Ralph Cotterill (Gray), Hugh Keays-Byrne (Eagle). Richard Moir (Piggott), Lorna Lesley (Gloria). Patrick Ward (Oates). Production company: Palm Beach Pic­ tures. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 92 min. Aus­ tralia. 1980.

The

Richard (Chris Aitkins) on the island.

The Blue Lagoon Scott Murray Randal Kleiser’s The Blue Lagoon is a refreshingly old-fashioned entertain­ ment about two children shipwrecked on a tropical island. Isolated from civilization and the traditional teaching processes of family and school life, they grow by experience, inventing their own wisdoms and forms of behaviour.

The film, which has been a major commercial success in the U .S ., belongs determinedly to the Hollywood tradition of island romances. It wilfully forsakes realism for a fantasy paradise, and abandons conventional story­ telling techniques in favor of a fragmented narrative lightly strung together by listless dissolves. Aus­ tralian producer Richard Brennan has favorably described the film as “ one long montage” , a description which helps convey its drone-like intonation.

The Blue Lagoon also derives from the little-discussed genre of teenage romances — particularly those where the lovers build a life outside a society inhabited by intolerant parents. Lewis Gilbert’s Friends and its sequel, Paul and M ichele, are rich examples, as is, to a lesser degree, the more recent A Little Romance.

In these films, though, the lovers are more-or-less obliged to flee civilization, whereas in The Blue Lagoon chance provides the means. Fate, of course, is a necessary part of much successful romance, and here it helps ensure the film is undemanding of audience in­ volvement. The film simply washes past, extracting, and expecting, no response except sim ple-m in ded pleasure.

Yet, while consciously keeping his film safely within tested boundaries, Kleiser is more openly explicit than most directors before him. When, for Cinema Papers, December-January—477

THE BLUE LAGOON

example, Emmeline (Brooke Shields) experiences her first period, the pool in which she is bathing turns a dark red.

As well, her numerous sexual in­ timacies with Richard (Christopher Atkins) are nicely suggestive of the pleasures sex can bring. The lingering dissolves from hands gliding across fair skin and through sun-bleached hair to lips pressed on a mouth, an ear, create a delightfully erotic .tinge.

Such scenes are, of course, con­ sciously pretty, and Kleiser side-steps any mention of fumbling or pain. But the point is not to realistically detail intercourse as much as to indicate the sensations of pleasure.

As Emmeline and Richard pass from sibling affection to apprehension over awakened physical needs, confusion up­ sets their balanced friendship. Thus, when Emmeline sees the pool water darken, she calls out in terror for Richard. By the time he arrives, however, Emmeline has sensed the private nature of the experience and brusquely sends him away. Not under­ standing why, Richard interprets her behaviour as girlish fatuousness.

Kleiser also raises the need for masturbation. Feeling rejected by Em­ meline. R ic h a rd m astu rb a tes in what he believes to be a private place.

But Emmeline finds him, and un­ thinkingly mouths the old adage that he’d better stop, otherwise it might drop off. Her remark is seen as in­ t o l e r a n t , and c o n t r a r y to the naturalness she will find in intercourse with Richard. This arguably aligns Kleiser with the view that a shared sex­ uality is better than a solitary one, but the form of Emmeline’s remark sides one clearly with Richard.

One problem does arise, though, and 478—Cinema Papers, December-January

HANOVER STREET

that is since Emmeline was only six when shipwrecked, it is unlikely she could have heard such a saying.

This lack of internal logic (a fault even in fantasy) is also seen in Emme­ line and Richard’ s conversations.

Often they use words they couldn’t have learnt before arriving on the island, and there is a surprising lack of ‘new’ words. For example, they would presumably not know a mango by name and would use either a composite (say, “ orange-fruit” ) or an invented one.

Ultimately, though, such considera­ tions are irrelevant compared to how successfully the film evokes a special world, and how appealing its young actors manage to be.

Aided by N e stor A lm e n d r o s ’ crystalline photography, a picturesque use of landscape and an obsession with filming at those times of day when light is most magical, Kleiser succeeds in making his fantasy land sufficiently seductive. One would certainly want to visit it.

As for the stars, Shields has a strong screen presence and she pouts and smiles well enough to cover any lack in acting craft. Atkins, by comparison, is a better actor, though his Los Angeles surfer appearance is more tied to American beefcake good looks than Shields’ timeless beauty. She is yet to give an altogether convincing perfor­ mance (except, perhaps, in P retty Baby), but her intelligent use of her image on screen suggests that one day she will.

The Blue Lagoon: Directed by: Randal Kleiser.

Producers: Randal Kleiser, Richard Franklin.

Screenplay: Douglas Day Stewart. Director of photography: Nestor Almendros. Editor: Robert Gordon. Music: Basil Poledouris. Art director: John Dowding. Sound recordist: Paul Clark. Cast:

Brooke Shields (Emmeline), Christopher Atkins (Richard), Leo McKern (Paddy), Elva Josephson (young Emmeline). Alan Hopgood (young Richard). Production company: Columbia Pic­ tures. Distributor: Fox-Columbia. 35mm. 102 min.

U.S. 1980.

Hanover Street Geoff Mayer Writer-director Peter Hyams’ latest film, Hanover Street, is the sort of film which is rarely taken seriously by reviewers. Certainly it is easy to ignore or relegate it to the “ guilty pleasures” compartment by outlining its plot and highlighting dialogue such as David Halloran’s (Harrison Ford) farewell to M argaret Sellinger (Lesley-Anne Down): “ Think of me when you drink tea.”

The highly-schematized narrative involving bomber pilot David’s love for Red Cross nurse Margaret, who is m a rrie d to P au l ( C h r is t o p h e r Plummer), a British Intelligence man, offers little that is new. A fte r discovering each other during a German bombing raid on London, the first half of the film traces their bitter/sweet affaire and the effect it has on each other: David’s transformation from “ gung ho” to ultra cautious pilot parallels Margaret’ s guilt as she frequently watches Paul play with their young daughter.

Eventually, the two men are brought together when they volunteer for a dangerous mission in occupied France, whereupon David learns that Paul is Margaret’s husband. At this point David must balance his need for Margaret against his respect for Paul and, appropriately, this decision is

Richard carries Emmeline (Brooke Shields) back to their hut. The Blue Lagoon.

made as Paul hangs precariously from the last rung of a partially-destroyed bridge as the Germans open fire on them.

The melodramatic qualities of the narrative obviously expose Hanover Street to ridicule, but it also exposes the difficulty of adequately dealing with a film which never attempts to appeal to an audience on an intellectual level.

H anover S tr e e t, like most other examples of popular culture, assumes that the main attraction of films is emotional, not intellectual.

For example, when David anxiously waits for Margaret at a pre-arranged spot, one is consciously aware that Hyams is manipulating the audience’s fear that Margaret’s conscience will override her love for David. However, when she finally appears, to the accompaniment of John B a r r y ’ s romantic string and piano score, the emotional dimension easily overrides any rational objections.

A structuralist analysis of Hanover Street could point to the film’s sub-text and the conservative ideological framework, which, in turn, generates the narrative structure. This conserva­ tism surfaces in many ways throughout the film: the different parameters of action permitted to the men (David and P a u l ) c o m p a r e d to M a r g a r e t (particularly in the last section of the film); the narrative movement to integrate the central characters into a certain type of society; the depiction of war as a great adventure (cf The Deerhunter, Apocalypse Now, etc.); the depiction of marriage and children; etc.

HANOVER STREET

Perhaps the only surprising aspect of this form of analysis is the confirmation of how few allowances Hyams has made to contemporary attitudes and values. It is as if he has made a conscious attempt to retain what would commonly be perceived as the value system of the period in which the film was set (1943).

An amateurist and generic approach to the film doesn’t help all that much e i t h e r — e x c e p t c o n f i r m the bitter/sweet and essentially romantic view of life consistently found in Hyams’ previous films, such as the underrated Our Time, Goodnight M y L o v e and even C a p r ic o r n O n e (remember the slow motion conclusion to the film involving James Brolin and Elliott Gould).

Hyams, as usual, complements his optimistic world view with a ‘ romantic’ use of the camera (fluid dolly and crane shots instead of zoom) and com­ position: e.g., Margaret and David’s passionate street embrace outlined against the fire and destruction of a London street.

A generic approach reveals that the only concession to the contemporary presentation of the war film is contained in Second Lt Jerry Cimino’s (Richard Masur) repeated anguish about the futility of his part in the war, and the rather tentative attempt to explore the possibility that the German people are little different from the British in their concern for Christmas shopping. However, dramatic con­ siderations in the last section of the film require that the Germans merely fulfil the position of “ the enemy” .

Perhaps the only helpful aesthetic perspective from which to view Hanover Street is to adopt the approach used by Robert Warshow in his defence of the gangster film (see T h e I m m e d i a t e E x p e r ie n c e ). Warshow suggests that with regard to this form of formula art, “ originality is to be welcomed only in the degree that it intensifies the expected experience without funda­ mentally altering it.” It is from this perspective that I found Hyams’ film most satisfying.

There are numerous examples one could cite, but two particularly “ intensified” my experience of what o t h e r w i s e co u ld be c o n s id e r e d predictable aspects of the narrative.

The first involved the treatment of the initial meeting between David and

BLOOD MONEY

Margaret at a crowded bus stop. A friendly jostling for position in the bus queue escalates into a series of outrageous antics (Margaret feigning childbirth pains, David a badly wounded leg, etc.), culminating in David’ s joyous leap as he finally prevents Margaret from boarding her bus.

The second example involves David and Paul’ s escape from the German headquarters in a captured jeep where Hyams generates a considerable degree of excitement with his subjective use of the camera (although it doesn’t quite match a street-chase sequence in Busting, one of his earlier films).

Finally, all one can suggest is that if you find the dramatic premise of films such as Casablanca, Brief Encounter and M r s M i n i v e r e m o t i o n a l l y satisfying, then there is a good chance you will enjoy Hanover Street.

Lovers Margaret Sellinger (Lesley-Anne Down) and David Halloran (Harrison Ford) in Peter Hyams’ Hanover Street.

Hanover Street: Directed by: Peter Hyams.

Producer: Paul N. Lazarus. Executive producer: Gordon L. T. Scott. Associate producers: Michael Rachmil. Harry Benn. Screenplay: Peter Hyams.

Director of photography: David Watkin. Editor: James Mitchell. Music: John Barry. Art director: Malcolm Middleton. Sound recordist: Robin Gregory. Cast: Harrison Ford (David Halloran), Le sle y-Anne Down (M argaret Sellinger), Christopher Plummer (Paul Sellinger), Alec McGowan (Maj. Trumbo). Richard Masur (Jerry Cimino). Michael Sacks (Martin Hyer), Patsy Kensit (Sarah Sellinger). Production company: Hanover Street Productions. Distributor: Fox­ Columbia. 35mm. 108 min. Britain. 1979.

Blood Money Adrian Martin For an Australian short feature with “ mainstream” ambitions, Blood Money is guilty of an impertinence by the

Pete Shields (John Flaus), an “ ageing criminal in a world that has changed drasti­ cally” . Chris Fitchett’s Blood Money.

prevailing standards: how dare one make a film that is, on one level, a lov­ ing patchwork of quotations from Hollywood crime films! Parody, it seems, is the only acceptable form for such introspection (as in Buckeye and Pinto and Terror Lostralis); no one “ seriously” takes genre formulas as models for cinematic excellence.

The Australian cinema, to be sure, is feverishly in the grip of such a men­ tality. The makers of any wellintentioned film must at least partly convince themselves that their product is sincere and original, untainted by­ cinema history, untouched by its codes and conventions. Thus an entire set of cultural oppositions come into play, shaping critical evaluation, and deter-

Margaret, who works as a Red Cross nurse during World War 2 Hanover Street

Cinema Papers. December-January—479

BLOOD MONEY

mining for filmmakers what goes and adventure about them: Curtis robs what doesn’t. goods from his own warehouses to If a film is not honest, if it does not claim on the insurance. efface its language and its form to Thematically, this terrain is familiar respect a noble human or social theme, enough. The important and impressive it is merely indulgent — or arty, vulgar, aspect of the film, however, is the trivial, formalist, whatever. precise, crisp way in which meanings Barry Jones once epitomized this are crystallized and conveyed. At the ideology rather vividly when he start of the film, Pete gets in the car demanded of the Australian cinema: “ I that is headed for the site of the rob­ want films to amuse, move and bery. The much younger driver has the stimulate. 1 want to know more about radio full blast, blaring rock music. the world and myself after leaving the Pete curtly orders it be turned off. In cinema . . . I just want films that are ex­ just these few seconds, the nature and citing, dramatic, funny, thoughtful, sad values of the new criminal scene, and or a combination of all these qualities.” Pete’s attitude towards it. are es­ Against such an enormous cultural tablished. totem, the note of protest, or qualifica­ Another example: a scene that shows tion, from a film like Blood M oney is the respectable facade of Curtis’ home barely audible. But it says something life begins with a shot of his daughter, like this; forget the world" and the self Lisa (Caroline Cassidy), playing tennis. for a while.

When one of Curtis’ men rings — an A film’s first duty is to place itself in unwanted intrusion of the sordid truth relation to the majority of films which — a deep focus shot sets up simultane­ have preceded it, to claim or disown the ously the phone call and the tennis dominant systems of film language and match going on behind, contrasting the narrative form. innocence and fragility of the girl with Blood M oney is a fine, sturdy piece of the corruption and secrecy of the crime fiction. Its shameless array of criminal operation. “ cliches” (meant descriptively, not The scene is also cleverly functional derisively) are put up to be recognized in a narrative sense — it subtly an­ and admired — for the memories they nounces the major part Lisa will play in conjure, and for the skill and economy the plot when Pete later kidnaps her. with which they are arranged on this The substance of the film is not con­ particular occasion. fined solely to these visibly dramatic Peter Shields (John Flaus) is an age­ crime-genre elements. Like so many ing criminal in a world that has Hollywood films, Blood M oney is based changed drastically. The young hoods also on an implicit, hovering scenario who assist him in the abortive robbery that arises from the exchanges between which opens the film are violent, the principal characters. bumbling, undisciplined amateurs.

In the “ past” time denoted by the When he revisits Melbourne — to film. Pete loved Brian’s wife, Jeannie “ relive his youth” as his brother Brian (Chrissie James). The nature and depth (Bryan Brown) puts it — he finds that of this affair is only ever alluded to, in a everyone had changed sides, that there deliberately uncertain fashion, primari­ are no more straight, tough crooks. The ly through the presence of the daughter, organization, run by Curtis (Peter Kathy — whether she is Pete’s or Stratford), has conscripted individual Brian’s is never made exactly clear. operators and police alike. And even Thus the relationship between the two the modern acts of crime have a brothers achieves at times an extraor­ meaningless, a mercenary lack of dinary resonance and complexity. One

BRUBAKER

is unable to attribute a fixed sense, or explanation, to their actions, which seem equally motivated by an intense love (Pete left Jeannie perhaps out of loyalty to Brian) and a constantly seething aggression (Pete gets Brian the sack; Brian demands to know whether Kathy is his child and punches Pete).

The narrative working-out of the film is poised between this enigmatic past and an equally mysterious future event which one sees Pete plotting and preparing. Only at the end can the film’s irony be appreciated, when all the pieces are put in place for the privilege of the audience — not for any other of the characters.

Pete never tells anyone that he is dy­ ing. The final assertion of his in­ dividualism and pride will be to methodically stage-manage his own death scene, once everything he has been involved with is settled to his satisfaction. In a sense — and this is a reflexive turn worthy of Fritz Lang — Pete is the author of a fiction whose vic­ tim he will finally be; the end of the story will be the end of a life.

Here, too, the underlying motiva­ tions are complex. Pete’s “ suicide” is, on one hand, intended as a parting gesture of glory, a homage to himself.

On the other hand, it is for the benefit of others — to write himself out of the domestic melodrama besetting Brian and Jeannie and thus restore their marriage, providing money for Kathy’s upbringing into the bargain.

But the ironies are not far below the surface, for this gift is “ blood money” in two senses: money raised from crime and murder, and a legacy for the child who may well be his daughter. And the fact that he carefully arranges for Brian to see him die suggests a final, bitter act of cruelty against the seemingly nor­ mal, respectable couple — and against the very clues of normality and respec­ tability.

The particularly good ending of the film shows its dramatic excellence, as

well as its intelligent assimilation of Hollywood conventions. Earlier, the audience has seen Pete and Jeannie arrive at a schoolyard to pick up Kathy; Jeannie remarks, “ Brian says she looks like you.” This immediately sets in play all the tensions that surround Pete’s in­ trusion into the family; he is a virtual “ return of the repressed” .

The final moments are a reworked repetition of this scene, with Brian now come to pick up Kathy. With Pete dead, and his memory and significance once more repressed, the words “ do you love vour daddy?” and “ we’re go­ ing home” voice Brian’s hold over his positions as father and husband. The film avoids a simple, facile “ happy en­ ding” by making these ironic under­ tones clear through the sce n e ­ repetition.

Blood M oney is most successful in such understated, suggestive moments.

The scattered attempts at action and pace (a robbery, a fistfight, a car chase) are neither particularly good in themselves nor blended well with the overall tone of the work. And for a genre film, Blood M oney is somewhat under-stylized in its use of lighting, composition and sound effects.

But, although thè film is entirely neither mood piece nor thriller, what it attempts, and the intefvention it makes in an Australian context, are perhaps more important than the final results.

Blood M oney is soaked in cinema history and does not hide the fact. It consciously and conspicuously places itself within a narrative tradition that most “ official” Australian filmmakers like to pretend does not exist — and their films are the poorer for it.

Blood Money: Directed by: Chris Fitchett.

Producers: Tom Broadbridge. Chris Oliver.

Screenplay: Chris Fitchett, John Ruane. Ellery Ryan. Director of photography: Ellery Ryan.

Editor: Emmil Priebe. Music: Mark McSherry.

Sound recordist: Lloyd Carrick. Cast: John Flaus (Pete). Bryan Brown (Brian), Chrissie James (Jeannie). Peter Stratford (Curtis), Peter Curtain (Dan), Sue Jones (Doctor), John Proper (Jack), Caroline Cassidy (Lisa). Production company: Lunar Productions. Distributor: Greg Lynch Film Distributors. 16mm. 72 min. Australia. 1980.

Brubaker Stephen Garton Stuart Rosenberg’s Brubaker is one of the most important prison films to appear in the past few years. Like the recent Australian film Stir, it tackles difficult and controversial issues, both films adopting a tough, “ no-holdsbarred” approach to the realities of prison life. Taking their inspiration from real events, they are excellent depictions of man’s inhumanity to man.

Brubaker is based on the experiences, in the late 1960s, of an American penal reformer, Thomas Murton. Here, the fictional prison farm is Wakefield, considered to be the end of the line, where the most intractable prisoners are incarcerated in appalling con­ ditions.

Brubaker (Robert Redford) is the newly-appointed reformist governor who enters Wakefield as a prisoner to experience the prison regime first hand.

He is shocked by the beatings, intimidation, bad food and chronicallypoor accommodation. Along with him, the audience experiences a growing awareness that here is a prison far worse than one’s liberal conscience ever imagined.

The situation at W akefield provides som e fascinating insights into certain

480—Cinema Papers, December-January

BRUBAKER

types of American prisons. Its accuracy is ensured by the presence of Murton as the film’s consultant.

W a k e f ie ld , unlike A u s t r a l ia n prisons, is run on the “ trustee” system.

This entails the selection of about 50 initiates, the “ trustees” , who take over the role of prison staff. The fierce antagonistic lines drawn between the “ trustee” , granted extra privileges, and the “ rank” prisoner, contained in horrific circumstances, ensure levels of extreme institutional violence. “ Trustees” maintain their tenuous status by effectively controlling the other prisoners, knowing that if they fail they risk being sent back to the “ rank” , and almost certain death. This is a peculiar variation of the “ divideand-rule” concept, and one that is economical a n d brutally effective.

In the process of Brubaker’s journey of discovery, the levels of local corruption are neatly etched. In the American system, local and state governments have tight control over the administration of prisons. Such a connection is particularly vulnerable to corruption.

In Brubaker, the interrelation of prison “ trustees” and local business clearly emerges. The “ trustees” provide cheap prison labor to local business­ men, and use prison stores to sell locally or offer as presents to influen­ tial locals. In return, the status quo in the prison is defended in the local councils.

The prison board is also dominated by local businessmen. In an important scene at a meeting of the board, its head, Deech (played by M urray Hamilton, by now wonderfully typecast as the archetypal corrupt small businessman), reveals that he hates all “ criminals” because his daughter was raped by one.

Another board member declares his antipathy to all “ criminals” because he has been the victim of armed robbery several times. Brubaker attempts to demonstrate that not only does local administration have a vested interest in maintaining Wakefield as it is, but also a personal interest in extracting the maximum possible vengeance on the prisoners.

Eventually, Brubaker is forced to reveal himself to the “ trustees” as the new governor. He quickly demonstrates his intention to reform and immediately upsets the established lines of power within the prison. He liberates a number of prisoners in solitary confinement, improves the food, repairs the prisoner accommodation, breaks up levels of “ trustee” /local business corruption, and attempts to set up lines of sympathetic communication with the prisoners through an elected inmate council. When questioned by Deech about his intentions, he says, “ Burn it to the ground and start all over again.”

Brubaker has been placed in the governorship by a high-level bureau­ crat, Lillian Gray (Jane Alexander), sympathetic to his reforming ideals. It is soon apparent that local business is angry, the prison board hostile and the “ trustees” fearful — Brubaker is treading too hard, on too many toes, too quickly. At one point, a bemused “ trustee” , Dickie Coombes (Yaphet Kotto), ambivalent in his attitude to Brubaker — fearful of his reforms and yet respectful of his undoubted integ­ rity — warns him to back off, for it will only get people killed.

Events then take an interesting twist.

Old Abraham, a long-time prisoner in Wakefield, almost incoherent from years of beatings, reveals to Brubaker

the existence of about 2 0 0 prisoners buried on the prison farm. Abraham used to make the small coffins, wherein the dismembered limbs of prisoners were placed for burial. Brubaker sets out to find the graves the next day, but during the night Abraham is tortured and killed by “ trustees” fearful of the consequences if the bodies are found.

Brubaker is determined to find the graves.

The government and the prison board, desperate to hush up the scandal, eventually offer Brubaker the power to implement his reforms if he stops the digging. Gray urges Brubaker to compromise for the sake of prison reform, but he refuses. The bodies are found.

In the ensuing scenes, a guilty “ trustee” escapes and Brubaker is forced to kill him in self-defence. These events result in the s ac k in g of Brubaker. The prison board sets up an inquiry to clear the administration of any guilt. in the final scenes, Brubaker pre­ pares to leave the prison by car.

Coombes rushes up and says that despite what he had said before, he now considers that Brubaker’s attempts at real reform were right all along. As Brubaker leaves, all the prisoners break rank and give a long slow clap of recog­ nition for his attempt, although failed, to restore their dignity.

On one level, Brubaker is very similar to Stir. They each explore the violence and corruption of penal institutions effectively and dramati­ cally. The underlying messages of the two films, however, are fundamentally different. The difference stems from the perspectives from which each film oper­ ates: Stir is filmed very much from the angle of the prisoners, Brubaker from that of a prison reformer.

While Brubaker exposes the violence of prison, its essential dynamic is that of reform and the problems reform entails. The crucial relationship in this regard is that between Brubaker and Gray, and their conflicts over what are the best strategies for reform.

Brubaker delineates the complexities

B rubaker (R obert R edford), the new warden, oversees a “ trustees" meeting.

Stuart Rosenburg’s Brubaker.

and contradictions of reform in a series of powerful confrontations between the two reformers. Brubaker, pushing a hard line, believes that the aim of reform should be the total eradication of violence and corruption. For Gray, reform can only be achieved in small incremental stages, because of the powerful vested interests opposed to any change. To her, any change is better than no change at all. To Brubaker, such an approach does not fundamentally change a corrupt system.

The film attempts to endorse the position of Brubaker. In an important symbolic sequence, Coombes and the other prisoners applaud the actions of Brubaker, despite his defeat. In a further endorsement, the film credits reveal that two years after the sacking of Brubaker, Dickie Coombes and 24 prisoners brought a criminal action against the prison board, resulting in the closure of Wakefield.

The strength of Brubaker is that it sensitively explores the ambiguities and difficulties of social reform and, in the end, presents a compelling case for the necessity of proper, not “ band-aid” , reforms. Its real testament, however, is to the courage of an individual who fought a corrupt system all the way down the line.

In essence, Brubaker continues a “ John Wayne” tradition in American films, where the “ good” individual fights the forces of vested interest and corruption and, more often than not, triumphs. Brubaker is a sophisticated post-Watergate variation of this theme, where the forces of evil are corrupt government and dishonest politicians.

This tradition has produced some interesting films in the past few years: for example, All the President’s M en,

Concluded on p. 508 Cinema Papers, December-January—481

The long-awaited A u s tr a lia n F ilm 1 9 0 0 -1 9 7 7 , by Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper, has just been published. This invaluable resource tome will be reviewed in detail in the next issue.

The Australian Film Industry and Key Films of the 1970s: An Annotated Bibliography.

George Lugg Film Information and Research Centre, $4.50

Judith Manning Apart from the bibliography com­ piled by Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper in the process of researching their recently published A u s tr a lia n F ilm 1 9 0 0 -1 9 7 7 (and soon to be made a v a ila b le by the N a tio n a l Film Archive), this is the only attempt to draw together a variety of available resources pertaining to the Australian film industry during the 1970s. To quote Ken Berryman in his introduc­ tion: . . the main emphasis is on the films themselves — the motivating forces behind them, details of their actual production, and critical responses to them.”

The bibliography lists dramatic features — that is, films made on 35mm or 16mm and 60 minutes or longer in duration. The number of references given for each of the 136 films comport with the critical atten­ tion each has received. For example, while 24 references are cited for News­ front, Scobie M alone receives only seven.

The references include film and non­ film periodicals, international news­ paper articles/reviews, books, book chapters, study notes and publicity material which the author considers of value. General books and periodicals which deal with more than one film precede the section.

As well, an introductory section on the Australian film industry, “ itemizes books and articles from periodicals, magazines and news­ papers which deal with Australian feature film production during the 1970s — its beginnings, develop­ ment, problems, national and inter­ national successes. Major issues affecting the film industry are covered, but specific articles on such topics as the income tax law and its application, unions, guilds, societies, festivals, associations, commissions, co-operatives and production com­ panies have generally not been in­ cluded.”

482—Cinema Papers, December-January

While many of these aspects of Aus­ tralian film would warrant their own bibliographies, there are a number of references to the financing of the feature film industry, even more on the A F C as a funding and marketing body, and innumerable which refer to discus­ sions and counter-arguments on the “ state of the industry” .

A section on interviews conducted with key figures of the industry, and articles concerning specific actors/ actresses, directors, producers, com­ posers, scriptwriters, etc., is included and arranged alphabetically by sur­ name for quick access. Any documen­ tation which pertains equitably to a film and specific person(s) is saved duplicated listings by generous crossreferencing. Thus an interview with R u s s e ll B oyd on f ilm in g T h e Last Wave is fully cited with a'description of the article’s content in the “ people” section and listed under the film in its section.

Anyone who has attempted to com­ pile an encompassing bibliography will know how difficult the task can become, yet Berryman has persevered further to provide one with descriptive, and sometimes comparative, annota­ tions of each item’s content. What is more, they are sufficiently comprehen­ sive to allow the user to select (and dis­ card) the most pertinent items without necessarily referring to the item proper.

While it doesn’t purport to be ex­ haustive, a successful attempt has been made to record the documentation which arose during a most significant 10-year period of the Australian cinema. No doubt, it will become a well-thumbed reference on the shelves of industry persons and producers alike. It also warrants more than a glance from teachers in a variety of dis­ ciplines who are using Australian film as a core to their approach. A longoverdue resource, one hopes it will serve as a precursor to a series of biblio­ graphies on the industry.

International Index to Film Periodicals 1978 International Federation of Film Archives, $63 or $52 (on standing order from the AFI).

Judith Manning The In te r n a tio n a l In d e x to F ilm P erio d ic a ls was initiated in 1972 (by the

International Federation of Film Archives) as a co-operative project in film documentation between major film archives throughout the world. The In d e x also originates as a card subscrip­ tion service, and the annual volumes are a cumulative record of these cards (usually subscribed to by libraries, in­ stitutions and archives), with additional cross references and three indexes to facilitate quick reference.

The 1978 volume has just been published. The 84 periodicals chosen for indexing (40 English language, in­ cluding C in e m a P a p e rs , and 44 foreign language) were selected as making a serious contribution to the literature in the field, containing material likely to be of lasting value from a historical, critical or aesthetic point-of-view.

The volume is arranged in chapters by subject, film title and biography. It has some 1 0 , 0 0 0 entries which not only include the bibliographic citation (detailing the inclusion of credits, a filmography, bibliography, statistics, photographs), but also provide a short synopsis of the article.

The first section (18 8 pages) embraces articles with a distinctive sub­ ject content. This is followed by a 296page (and. at a guess, covering about 2 0 0 0 films) section on individual films.

If an article or review has been written during the 1978 period, regardless of whether it was on a short, documentary or feature, produced in 1938 or 1978, one would find it listed here alpha­ betically. Each film title cited includes the country of production, director(s) and production date. A division is made in each entry between reviews, dossiers, etc.

The biography section, which covers everyone from animators to women filmmakers, is by alphabetical arrange­ ment and distinguishes between inter­ views. articles, special issues, reviews and dossiers. While articles about directors, generally and specifically, are included, a director index (to films ap­ pearing in the volume) is given at the end of the volume.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the leading U.S. trade paper V a r ie ty (where only the film reviews are ex­ tracted for indexing) does not receive the capacious indexing of other titles.

And for those interested in reading the

The January 1981 edition o f this handy reference book is now available. Aimed at low-budget filmm akers, it supplements those other volum es which have been pitched m ore at feature film ­ making. For those starting in Film­ making, this book is a valuable aid.

BOOKS

literature about the literature, book reviews are not included.

Nonetheless, of the various indexes to periodical content now available, this is unarguably the most scholarly and exhaustive work. The group of people behind the indexing project not only have a necessarily broad knowledge of film, but also work in the area of film documentation and research. The com­ bined experience allows each indexer to examine every article and make a decision on the kind of research needs it might answer, classifying it accordingly.

The quality and care brought to this work by archivists is apparent in the descriptive, rather than evaluative, an­ notations for each entry. They have been designed to indicate the subject of the article, the films on which the article concentrates and, where ap­ propriate. the critical methods used in the article. These descriptions (sadly p re c lu d e d from m a n y s im il a r publications) serve the user in efficient retrieval of the most pertinent informa­ tion. The annotations are particularly helpful in assessing the relevance of a foreign language article.

S p e c ia lis t film docum entation libraries are ever-reliant on a current and encompassing index: the I n te r ­ n a tio n a l In d e x to F ilm P e rio d ic a ls in card form provides a basic resource to the George Lugg Film Information and Research Centre, the State Film Centre in Melbourne, the Australian Film and Television School library and the National Film Archive. While an author index would be useful in further editions, I can only conclude that the I n d e x would be as valuable to film in­ dustry persons as it would be to teachers, researchers and librarians.

The Film s o f Charles Bronson

Recent Releases Mervyn Binns This column lists books released in Australia, between October and November 1980, which deal with the cinema or related topics. All titles are on sale in bookshops.

The publishers and the local distributors are listed below the author in each entry. If no distributor is indicated, the book is imported (Imp.). The recommended prices listed are for paperbacks, unless otherwise indicated, and are subject to variations between bookshops and states.

The list was compiled by Mervyn R. Binns of the Space Age Bookstore, Melbourne.

Popular and General Interest Glorious Technicolor

Fred E. Basten Barnes, $45 (HC) The full account of the dazzling Technicolor years.

Informative with a complete filmography from 1917 onwards.

Jerry Vermilye Citadel/Davis, $25.50 (HC) A new title in the popular ‘ Citadel’ series.

Finch. B loody Finch

Elaine Dundy Michael Joseph/Nelson, $22.50 (HC) An enthralling biography. It traces Finch’s life, from being a Buddhist boy in India, to a copy-boy on a Sydney newspaper, to his career as an award­ winning actor.

40 Days w ith M a rily n

Hans Jorgen Lembourn Arrow/Hodder, $4.95 Paperback edition of this tender story of a very special love, and an intimate portrait of a very special woman.

S tuntm an: A u to b io g rap h y o f Y akim a w ith O liver D rake

Canult,

Robson/Hutchinson, $21 .75 (HC) Exploits of a top Hollywood stuntman This L ife

Sydney Poitier Hodder and Stoughton/Hodder, $22.95 (HC) Story of the first black actor to break through the stereotyping and racism of Hollywood and emerge as a great star.

The Golden Turkey A w ards

Tyrone Power: The Last Id o l

Harry and Michael Medved Angus and Robertson/Angus and Robertson, $8.70 Nominees and winners for the worst achievements in filmmaking history.

The Great M o v ie Stars — The In te rn a tio n a l

Fred Lawrence Guiles Granada/Methuen Aust.. $26.95 (HC) A poignant portrait of a great personality.

G riffith — First A rtis t o f the M ovies Martin Williams Oxford/Oxford University Press, $19.50 (HC) Traces Griffith’s life and work from before 1912 through to the major films of the 1920s.

Years

David Shipman Angus and Robertso n^^gus and Robertson, $24.95 (HC) The second volume in Shipman’s history of the cinema, following the Golden Years. New revised edition covering 1950 to 1970.

Popcorn on Parade

John Robert Columbo Ed. Holt Saunders/Holt Saunders, $12.95 (HC) The wit and wisdom of Hollywood with more than 3000 quotes.

Biographies, Memoirs and Experiences in Filmmaking and Filmographies The A c to r's L ife : Journals 1956-1976

Charlton Heston Penguin/Penguin Aust., $5.95 Over a period of 20 years one of the screen’s leading actors has kept a record of his work. It makes fascinating reading.

FOCAL PRESS Publishers o f a complete range o f books on television and film techniques.

From TV Camera Operations to The Technique o f Film Editing, Adventurous Film Making to Multivision.

Your com plete communications library.

Jean R enoir (The French Film s 1924-1939}

Alexander Sesonske Harvard University Press/ANZ Books, $14.95 Authoritative book on the films of Jean Renoir.

The M o vie W orld o f Roger Corm an

J. Phillip di Franco ed.

Chelsea House/lmp.. $21.55 (HC) Movie-packed scrapbook of this talented film­ maker, who has about 150 films to his credit.

Peckinpah: The Western Film s

Paul Seydor University of 11linois/Imp., 820.95 (HC) Explores the unifying themes, ideas and feelings of a self-contained group of the director’s films.

Turtle Island/All Books, $11.9 5 Essays on the life and works of leading Hollywood personalities.

History A u s tra lia n F ilm — The Inside S to ry

Ken G. Hall Lansdowne Press/Lansdowne Press, $8.95 (HC) Revised edition o f Hall’s D irected by Ken G. H all.

The M u s ic a l fr o m Broadw ay to H o lly w o o d

Michael B. Druxman Barnes/Imp., $28.50 (HC) 25 musicals discussed with more than 200 photographs.

Reference A u s tra lia n F ilm 1900-1977

Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper Oxford/Oxford University Press, $75.00 (HC) A comprehensive guide to the production of A ustralian feature films. M or e than 400 illustrations with eight pages of full color photos.

Details of production team and cast, plot synopsis and descriptions of shooting and marketing.

W ho’s Who on Television

Alan Curthoys and John Doyle Eds Michael Joseph/Nelson. $7.95 An illustrated guide to 1000 of the best known faces on television and details about them.

Film Novels Bad Tim ing

Michael James Corgi/Imp. $3 .15 Grendel

John Gardner Penguin/Imp. $2.95 The novel on which Alex animated feature is based.

Stitt’s full-length

L ittle D arlings

Sonia Pilcer Ballantine/Tudor, $3.50 M o re Tales o f the Unexpected

Roald Dahl Penguin/Penguin Aust.. $2.95 S tir

Bob Jewson Unicorn/lmp., $3.95 A novelistic adaptation of the Stir screenplay.

Timeless Lan d T rilo g y

Eleanor Dark Arkon/Imp., $3.95 and $4.95.

Critical

The True H is to ry o f the Elephant M a n

Film Biographies

Michael Howell and Peter Ford Penguin/Penguin Aust., $3.95

Stan Brakhage

★

NEW SOUND TRACKS Recent additions to our large range CHAIN REACTION $8.99. MAD MAX $10.99. PATRICK $10.99. ONE MORE MINUTE (SNAPSHOT) $10.99. THIRST $10.99. DRESSED TO KILL $10.99. BLUE BEARD $10.99.

SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD $10.99. SHOGUN $10.99.

BLACK SABBATH $10.99. THE ROBE $9.99. SPARTACUS $9.99. A STAR IS BORN (G arland) $10.99, THE G ANG ’S ALL HERE $6.99. SPECTACULAR FILM WORLD — CHARLES GERHARDT HIGHLIGHT ALBUM $8.99. PADRE PADRONE $9.99.

Mail orders welcome; add $1.20 post/packing

--------REA DING S RECORDS & BO O KS--------132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885 VJe are open 7 days a week

CINEMA BOOKS

SPACE AGE GOGHS PTY LTD

Pitman Publishing

158 Bouverie Street Carlton Victoria 3053 Telephone (03) 347 3055

We have a very comprehensive range of publications on the cinema — everything from biographies, scripts and popular pictorials, to critical, historical and educational texts. We have a selection of old movie posters currently available.

Lists of new titles are available regularly.

WE ARE OPEN 7 DAYS A WEEK.

305-307 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Phone: (03) 663 1777

Cinema Papers, December-January—483

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS Films exam ined in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and S tates’ film censorship legislation are listed below.

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying n o n -"G ” film s appears hereunder:

Infrequent

Frequent

Low

Medium

High

Justified

Gratuitous

I I

f f f f

I

m m m m

h h h h

j j j j

g g g g

S (Sex) ....................................

V (V io le n c e )............................

L (L angu age )..........................

O (Other) ................................

AUGUST 1980 FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION “G” FILMS REGISTERED W ITHOUT ELIM INATIONS

Purpose

Explicitness/lntensity

Frequency

Title A1 Rajoul Al Mounasib (The Right Man) (videotape) Al Sa’alik (The Crooked Ones) (videotape) Bayah’al Khawatem (Rings For Sale) (videotape) Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (And Don’t Come Back) Gharam Fi Istanbul (Love In Istanbul) (videotape) Khayat Ul Sayidat (Ladies’ Tailor) (videotape) On Company Business (1 6mm) Raoni Simone De Beauvoir (1 6mm) Xanadu (revised version) (a) Ya Salam A’l Hubb (Sing a Song of Love) (videotape)

i i

I

I I

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

Producer

Country

Not shown

Egypt

94 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

Not shown

Egypt

11 7 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

Not shown

Egypt

91 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

L. Mendelson/B. Melendez

US.

2005.1 2

Cinema International Corp. P/L

Not shown

Egypt

103 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

Not shown Isla Negra Films Prod.

M. Gast/B. Williams GMF Productions Universal

Egypt US. France/U.S. France U.S.

11 5 mins 1941.69 2231.04 1184.76 2613.00

Nile Int’l Film Distributors Le Clezio Films Survival Films International Ronin Films Cinema International Corp. P/L

Not shown

Egypt

1 04 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

Egypt

11 6 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

Egypt

109 mins

Nile Int'l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Egypt

100 mins

Nile Int'l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Reason for Decision

(a) Previously shown in a version measuring 2537.81 metres (July 1 980 List)

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN “ NRC” FILMS REGISTERED W ITHOUT ELIM INATIONS

Al Azab Fawka Shifah Tabtasem (Suffering Behind Smiles) (videotape) Not shown Al-Chaytan Imra’a (The Devil is a Woman) (videotape) Not shown Al-hob Allazi Kan (Yesterday’s Love) (videotape) Not shown Al Luss Al Zarif (The Friendly Thief) (videotape) Not shown Al M ota’a Wal Azab (The Pleasure and the Pain) (videotape)Not shown Al-sukkareya (Name of a Town in Cairo) (videotape) Not shown Ana Fi Aynei (16mm) Not shown Ayna Aqli (Where is My Sanity) (videotape) Not shown Banat Akher Zam an (Modern Girls) (videotape) Not shown Battle Beyond the Stars Orion Pictures Christ Stopped at Eboli F. Cristaldi/N. Carraro Damie Wa Dumovie W abtisamati (My Tears and Smiles) (videotape) Not shown Fatinat Al Sahra’a (Charming Lady of the Desert) (videotape) Not shown The Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu Z. Braun/L. Nolan Flying High Paramount Haza Auhibuhu Wa Haza Auriduhu (This One 1 Want and This One 1 Love) (videotape) Not shown Ling Ping Kung Life and Death Lotus Triangle Liu Ching-Ye Main Tulsi Tere Aangan Ki Raj Khosla Films Feng Huang Co. Mud Child Oh Heavenly Dog Mulberry Square Pallieter .

Kunsten Kino

V (i-l-j)

Egypt

1 T4 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Egypt

100 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Egypt Egypt

143 mins 1036.32

Nile Int’l Film Distributors N. Avramides

V (i-l-j) O (adult theme)

Egypt

106 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Egypt U.S. Italy

100 mins 2816.69 4060.00

Nile Int'l Film Distributors Warner Bros (Australia) P/L Scopo Films

V (i-l-j) V (i-l-j) O (animal cruelty)

Egypt

114 mins

Nile Int’l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Egypt Britain U.S.

103 mins 2872.46 2413,84

Nile Int'l Film Distributors V (i-l-j) Warner Bros (Australia) P/L L (i-l-j) .

Cinema International Corp. P/L O (sexual innuendo)

11 2 mins 2565.70 2486.35 4028.00 2537.81 2816.69

Nile Int’l Film Distributors Comfort Film Enterprises Golden Reel Films P/L SKD Film Distributors P/L Chinese Youth League Fox Columbia Film Dist. P/L

2621.47 101 mins

Fiimways A'asian Dist. P/L Nile Int’l Film Distributors

V (f-l-g) V (i-l-j) V (i-l-j)

V V V 0 V L

(i-l-j) (i-l-j) (i-l-j) (adult concepts) (i-l-j) (i-l-g)

Paradise Under Her Command (16mm) Reggae Sunsplash The Return of Superbug (a)

A. Darwich Stephan Paul Productions Barbara Film

Sabreen (Patient Lovers) (videotape) Shayateen llal Abad (Devil Forever) (videotape) Shikka Wa Million Miftah (The Apartm ent of a Million Keys) (videotape) Snake Deadly Act Soultant (Princess) (videotape) Take Off

Not shown

Egypt Hong Kong Taiwan India Hong Kong U.S./Britain Belgium/ Holland Egypt U.S. W. Germany/ Spain Egypt

Not shown

Egypt

106 mins

Nile Int'l Film Distributors

Not shown Million Film (H.K.) Co. Ltd Not shown Mosfilm

Egypt Hong Kong Egypt USSR

106 mins 2593.29 86 mins 3716.16

Nile Int’l Film Distributors V (i-l-j) JS & WC International Film Co. V (f-l-g) Nile Int’l Film Distributors V (i-l-j) Commercial Counsellor for USSR V (i-l-j) Chinese Cultural Centre V (i-l-j)

2325.94 1316.00 2980.00

,

Belgian Chamber of Commerce V (i-l-j), O (nudity) O. Boutros/O. Caratzas O (adult theme) Rock Film Distributors O (drug abuse)

A Title Rewon (16mm) Vlad the Impaler or the True Life of Dracula Wholly Moses!

Ming Chi

Taiwan

1084.00

Romania Films Columbia

Romania U.S.

2956.13 2816.69

N.S. Productions V (f-l-i) Fox Columbia Film Distributors P/L L (f-l-j)

Ya Rabbi Tobah (God Forgive Me) (videotape)

Not shown

Egypt

11 0 mins

Nile Int'l Film Distributors

V (i-l-j)

Italy Hungary Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S. U.S. Hong Kong U.S. Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong Turkey Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S Turkey Taiwan

2928.24 2593.29 2673.50 2406.15 2677.25 2565.70 259358 2370.48 253982 2726.97 2914.1 1 2533.00 301 1.90 2928.24 2352.70 2720.00 3262.90 2370.48 2249.20 2780.44

Valhalla Films Brighton Film Distributors P/L Joe Siu International Film Co Comfort Film Enterprises Warner Bros (Australia) P/L Cinema International Corp. P/L W. Yau Hoyts Distribution Pty Ltd Comfort Film Enterprises Comfort Film Enterprises SLECC K Kounmos Golden Reel Films P/L Chinese Youth League Seven Keys Films P/L Australian Film Institute Warner Bros (Australia) P/L Fiimways A’asian Dist. P/L K. Kauisman Comfort Film Enterprises

L (i-m-g), O (adult theme) S (i-m-j) V (i-m-j), O (nudity) V (f-m-g) S (i-m-j) L (f-m-g), O (drugs) V (f-m-g) O (horror) V (f-m-j) V (f-m-g) V (i-m-g) V (i-m-j) V (f-m-g) V (f-m-jJ S (i-m-j) Ö (emotional stress) L (f-m-j) O (horror) O (adult themes) V (i-m-j)

Australia

2621.47

New South Wales Film Corp.

S ( i- m - j) , themes)

(a) See also under "Films Registered with Eliminations"

FOR MATURE AUDIENCES “ M” FILMS REGISTERED W ITHOUT ELIM INATIONS

All Screwed Up Angi Vera The Best Hustler Wins The Buddha Assassinator Caddyshack Cheech and Chong’s Next Movie Crazy Crooks The Day It Came to Earth The Dragon The Hero Duel in Gambling Den Duel of Death Endlse Filthy Guy The Golden Eagle The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood Heartland Honeysuckle Rose The Horror Show Izin Love in Chilly Spring . . . M aybe This Time

Euro International Hungarofilm Shaw Brothers Fortuna Film Co. Orion Pictures C & C Brown Warriors Film H Thomson T. Tang/J. Lai Hsin Ya Film Co. Sun Luen Films Guney Film K. Yong Film Co Not shown Cannon Filmhaus G Taft Universal/Heyday A Gar Film Chin Kae Cherry Wood Film/ New South Wales Film Corp.

O

(m a tu re

Continued on p. 499 484—Cinema Papers. December-January

B O X -O FFIC E GROSSES B re a k e r M o ra n t

Distributor

TITLE

RS HTS

T h e C lu b

RS

T o ta l

T o ta l

SYD.2

M LB.

PTH

ADL

BRI.

(5*/5*/5*)

(5*/5*)

(3*/3*)

(5*)

(3)

2 32 ,65 6

1 71,909

109,254

54,4 83

48,3 99

(5*)

T h e C h ain R eactio n

PERIOD 6.7.80 to 30.8.80

PERIOD 31 .a .80 to 4.10.80 R ank

SYD.

(8*/3)

(8*)

(8*)

616,701

1

243 ,55 5

196 ,52 6

87,541

9 7,975

2

39,473

3

12,795

4

3 9,473 (2 )

GUO

(1)

8789

4006

RS

3282

3282

5

(2 )

T h e E arth lin g

PTH

BRI.

$

R ank

5 27 ,62 2

1

(2*)

(2*)

9922

5971

1 5,893

4

(1/4/1*)

(2/3)

(2)

2 7,379

10,461

3705

4 1 ,5 4 5

2

280,856

247,834

3819

87,541

3705

623,755

4,878,281

2,727.638 2,392,520 1.214,603

641.911

794,381

7,771,053

5,648,507

3,008,494 2,640,354 1,218,422

729,452

798,086

8,394,808

109,254

54,483

48,399

770,226

F o r e ig n T o ta l0

1,631,314 1,545,950

759,001

471,090

470,926

G ra n d T o ta l

1,974,016 1,761,338

868,255 525,573

519,325

☆

Figures exclude N /A figures.

• Box-office grosses of individual films have been, supplied to Cinema Papers by the Australian Film Commission. o This figure represents the total box-office gross of all foreign films shown during the period in the area specified •Continuina into next nerind m o ci . .u , l, h ih „„ i u , i h n «iim h » NB: Figures In parenthesis above the grosses representweeks in release. If more than one figure appears, the film has been released in more than one cinema during the period.

> Australian theatrical distributor only. RS - Roadshow; GUO - Greater Union Organization Film Distributors; HTS - Hoyts Theatres; FOX

—20th Century Fox; UA — United Artists; CIC — Cinema International Corporation; FW — Filmways Australasian Distributors; 7K — 7 Keys Fi,mDistributors; COL - Columbia Pictures; REG — Regent Film Distributors; CCG - Cinema Centre Group; AFC — Australian Film Commission; SAFC — South Australian Film Corporation; MCA — Music Corporation of America; S — Sharmill Films; OTH — Other. (2) Figures are drawn from capital city and Inner suburban first release nardtops only. (3) Spilt figures Indicate a multiple cinema release, 3 r r ’ 1' v M K

BOX-OFFICE GROSSES

Cinema Papers. December-January—485

342,702

215,388

A u s tr a lia n T o ta l

M LB.

■

97,9 75 (2 *)

M an g an in n ie

ADL

$

Z E IS S West Germany

© f lu n

telecine equipment Sydney (Head Office): 114 Pyrmont Bridge Road Camperdown, N.S.W. 2050 Telephone 516 1333 (4 lines) Telex 27465 Telegrams “Zeisaoptic” Sydney

CARL ZEISS PTY. LTD. Melbourne: 396 Neerlm Road Carnegie 3163 Telephone 568 3355 Telex 34461

Brisbane: 269 Stanley Street South Brisbane, Qld. 4101 Telephone 44 7696 Telex 41602

Adelaide: 21 King William Road Unley, S.A. 5061 Telephone 272 1100 Telex 82989

Perth: 31 Malcolm Street Perth, W.A. 6000 Telephone 321 8559

New Zealand: 4 Frankmore Avenue Johnsonvilie, Wellington 4, N.Z. Telephone 78 4751

Telex 92921

Telex 31487

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at: F IL M S E T S

Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, MELBOURNE 3 16 6 88

Studio 7 $’ x

4 6 ’ with 1 4 ’ to

lighting grid.

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

Design and set construction service available.

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE: Alex Simpson, (0 3 ) (0 3 ) AH (0 3 )

568 0 0 58 , 568 2948 25 3858

C en so r A c tiv e

Compiled by Mike Nicolaidi

J a c k T h o m p s o n : to s ta r in T h e S h o o tin g .

Thom pson fo r Shooting Award-winning Australian actor Jack Thompson will star in The Shooting, a new feature film about the Graham murders on the West Coast of the South Island.

Backed by Southern Pictures of London, the film is the project of expatriate New Zealand producer Andrew Brown, who recently won an Emmy for his British television series Edward and Mrs Simpson.

The Shooting, so far a working title, will have an overseas director, although most of the supporting cast and crew will be New Zealanders. It will be shot on location on the West Coast early next year.

The film is based on the book by expatriate Australian Howard Willis, and tells the story of one of the most sensational chapters in the history of New Zealand crime.

It began on October 8, 1941 when Stanley Graham, a South Island farmer shot dead three policemen and gravely injured two other men. He was hunted by 200 armed police and soldiers, but the death toll reached six before he was caught.

Lean in N e w Z ea la n d D irector David Lean has again scouted out'the prospects of making a film based on the mutiny on the Bounty in New Zealand, but the problem still seems to be production finance at the Hollywood end.

On his latest visit Lean, accompanied

by Hollywood producer Denis O’Dell and his personal production manager Eddie Fowlie, re-inspected the new National Film Unit Studios at Lower Hutt and had discussions with a number of Government departments, including Customs, Inland Revenue and Tourism and Publicity.

In February last year Lean and United Artists top executive Lee Katz w ere in vo lve d in ta lk s w ith the Government on the possibility of Lean using New Zealand as production centre for the shooting of two films based on the Bounty story. However, the discussions foundered on the question of tax concessions.

It is understood that the director is now planning to make only one Bounty film.

D elicensing R o w Delicensing of New Zealand cinemas could make film censorship more haphazard and encourage an inflow of smut, according to the president of the

New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors’ Association, Bryan Jennings.

The association represents about 100 Independent cinema proprietors outside the main chains of KerridgeOdeon and Amalgamated Theatres.

Jennings says his association is “ very s o re ” about the legislation recently introduced in Parliament by Internal Affairs Minister Allan Hlghet, which abolishes the licensing of film exhibitors and renters.

In t r o d u c in g th e d e lic e n s in g measure, Highet said it was part of the Government’s program to encourage free and open competition.

Under the existing system, he added, the licensing a u th o rity provided protection for one small group in the community, not only from competition from other e xh ib ito rs who m ight provide better films and facilities, but also from the operations of communitybased organizations such as Church groups, parent-teacher organizations and schools.

Jennings claimed that one result of cinema delicensing in New South Wales had been a mushrooming of small, makeshift cinemas showing porn films.

“The fact that a cinema proprietor here must have a licence prevents this situation from developing” he said. “ Delicensing could lead to smut being show n, w hich w ould be a lm o st impossible for the Film Censor to control.”

T he n u m b e r of fe a tu re film s submitted to the New Zealand Censor during 1979-80 showed an increase, reversing the decline apparent over the previous two years.

According to the annual report of the Internal Affairs Department, recently tabled in Parliament, 1062 films were examined. Films approved totalled 1043, with 13 features, one short film and five trailers rejected.

The report says that as in previous years, the principal reasons for films being refused approval were the extent, degree and manner in which the film s d e p ic t vio le n c e , sex or a com bination of both. A n ti-so cia l behaviour, also, had becom e an increasingly relevant factor, particularly in association with violence.

Percentage of 35mm films cut was 16.5, while trailers cut amounted to 29.2 per cent of the total examined.

The report says adverse comment and reaction from overseas in regard to the films The Warriors and The Life of Brian stimulated similar developments in New Zealand, resulting in demands for both to be refused exhibition approval.

However, each was approved after the Chief Censor consulted a number of authorities, the classifications being R16.

Z e p h y r P rog resses

The biggest film venture to be produced in New Zealand, Race to the Yankee Zephyr is in the third week of a 1 0 -w e e k s h o o t on lo c a tio n in Queenstown.

Directed by David Hemmings, the film is p ro d u ce d by E ndeavour Productions’ John Barnett and Aus­ tralian Tony Ginnane. New Zealand’s m u ltim illio n d o lla r involvem ent is underwritten by Auckland merchant Film S ales Tax banks Fay Richwhite and Co Ltd. An action adventure film, Yankee There Is deep concern that the Zephyr stars H ollywood up-and40 per cent sales tax on film could comers Ken Wahl and Leslie-Ann seriously inhibit the development of a Warren. Wahl recently completed Fort largely domestic-based film industry in Apache — The Bronx opposite Paul New Zealand.

Newman. Warren appeared in the The tax, announced in the recent popular U.S. television series Beulah budget, has since been discussed by Land, Evening in Byzantium and th e C u s to m s M in is t e r , H u g h Templeton, with the New Zealand Film / Centennial.

Veteran actors Donald Pleasance Commission and the Auckland-based and George Peppard are co-starring, independent production house of Vidwith New Zealand supplying supporting Com Limited. actors and most of the crew.

Film industry sources say concern Yankee Zephyr is the story of a race centres on the future of the film for a $50 million cargo on board a small laboratories operated by the National DC3 aircraft that has crashed into a Film Unit and Vid-Com. The NFU lake somewhere in New Zealand’s processes both 16 and 35mm film, and mountainous South Island.

Vid-Com 16mm only.

The sources say that the 40 per cent tax will ensure that an ever-increasing amount of film is processed in overseas labs, particularly Australia, where cutprice warfare between processing houses is operating, and where the Government offers a 26 per cent export incentive for film processed and then re-exported.

Sources believe the matter goes further than just processing. “ It also means that other processes involved in putting a film together like editing and laying soundtracks are done outside the country.”

Vid-Com general manager Eric Price says that in terms of Australia, his company just cannot compete under current conditions. “ Australian labs Donald Pleasance (left) and Ken Wahl, in a were undercutting us even before the scene from Race to the Yankee Zephyr.

40 per cent tax was imposed. Film stock is also cheaper there.” , M eanwhile, the T elevision P ro­ ducers’ and Directors’ Association has P ie R ele a s e D a te S e t joined in expressing its concern about the effect of the tax on local film G eoff M u rp h y ’s new co m e d yproductions, production facilities and adventure Goodbye Pork Pie will open overseas saies. in Kerridge-Odeon cinemas throughout Industry sources maintain that even the country in February. though the Government has confirmed It stars Tony Barry, Kelly Johnson that the tax will be refundable for any and Claire Oberman and is already in locally-made film exported, actually the hands of distributors in West claim ing the refund w ill be “ an administrative nightmare.”

Concluded on p. 503

Cinema Papers, December-January—487

s

É¡§

y- '¿íc¿:-

í^í^íí-í;

**wmsh»»^sk»^

Television

The first job I had was as a trainee cameraman with the New Zealand Broadcasting Commis­ sion. I went along and applied with a whole lot of school leavers and, to my surprise, I got the job.

On the'second day there, they said to me, “Well, you better do something. Here is a camera and light meter.” It was like that then.

They had only just started employ­ ing people and were in the process of building up a camera depart­ ment.

So I shot a news item with 20 ft of film, editing it in the camera as I went along. Luckily, all my mistakes seemed to cancel them­ selves out and it turned out okay.

This surprised everyone, including myself, because the only experi­ ence I had before that was with a Brownie box camera when I was a kid!

New Zealand’s most experienced and highly-regarded lighting cameraman talks to Scott Murray about his career, which includes Paul M aunder’s Sons for the Return Home, Geoff Murphy’s Goodbye Pork Pie and most recently John Laing’s Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Are there any other dramatic shorts you’ve worked on, besides “Uenuku”, which stand out?

I did a little film before Middle Age Spread called State of Siege, which was based on a well-known New Zealand novel by Janet Frame. It was directed by Vincent Ward and produced by Tim White, and turned out very well. I am sure it was the one that put me in fashion.

What features have you done since “Middle Age Spread”?

What sort of camera were you using?

The first one they sent me out with was a little wind-up Bell and Howell — a beautiful, solid little Alun Bollinger takes a light reading on fan Watkin during the filming of John Reid’s Middle Age Spread. camera with about a 22-second run.

What came next?

The next thing I shot was some footage of the new Wellington freeway. It was just an exercise, but by coincidence they wanted a story on the freeway construction, and it ended up going to air. It was crazy really, because they were putting my stuff to air as I was tuning up my act! .

film’s finished once it’s shot, and rush through post-production too quickly.

At times it’s related to budgeting.

Producers tend to under-budget for post-production, or else use up their post-production allocation during shooting.

Freelancing What was your first major assign­ ment?

Tankbusters. It was produced by the Acme Sausage Company, an Were you always shooting news outfit I have been associated with from the outset. It was a 40-minute stories? black and white crime thriller No, there was also a lot of which surprised us all by selling to documentary work, and I got to television here, and in Australia. travel all over the country on different assignments. But there You were actually a part of the Acme Sausage Company . ..? was no drama at that stage.

time for a half-hour film was about five days.

Wild Man was the first ripple of activity on the New Zealand feature film scene. Straight after­ wards we worked on Sleeping Dogs, which I gaffered on. Michael Seresin was the director of photo­ graphy and Paul Leach the operator. At the same time, Tony Williams’ Solo was being shot.

The next feature I did was John L aing’s Middle Age Spread, produced by John Barnett.

I also worked on several shorts during that period. One, in par­ ticular, 1 feel was important. It was called Uenuku, which was based on a Maori legend, and produced by the Acme Sausage Company for television.

At that stage the company had moved to a remote area called Hawkes Bay, where we based the film, -and spent six months building the sets and shooting on weekends.

It’s a beautiful flm , although it had a very unfortunate .post­ production period — as a lot of New Zealand films do.

Yes, along with Geoff Murphy Did you get any experience with lighting while you were at the and others.

NZBC? Were you involved with Murphy’s No. It wasn’t until I left about “Wild Man”? two years later that I got into Yes, I shot most of it. John lighting. I started shooting bits and pieces for various people I knew, Barnett was also involved. He took and got into lighting because on the over as producer during the final low-budget documentaries and stages and supervised the post­ shorts I was doing, that was simply production. We also made a short part of the job. In fact, during that to accompany it called Dagg Day Why? period I was everything: lighting Afternoon, which starred Fred cam eram an, camera assistant, Dagg, whom Barnett was manag­ I think because nobody realizes camera operator, gaffer. You do it ing at the time. the importance of post-production In those days, the basic shooting here. Producers tend to think the all on small jobs.

Opposite: Alun Bollinger on the set of Beyond Reasonable Doubt. David Hemmings in background.

Paul Maunder’s Sons for the Return Home, Geoff Murphy’s Goodbye Pork Pie, and most recently John Laing’s Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

I have also shot a second film for Vincent Ward, an extraordinary documentary called In Spring One Plants Alone. It’s a very powerful and a very personal film. Usually I can be quite objective about a project I am working on, but In Spring One Plants Alone has such a haunting quality I am not really sure what sort of film it is.

Are you very selective about the projects you work on?

At this stage, yes. Originally I wasn’t going to do Beyond Reason­ able Doubt because at the time John Barnett approached me I was up to my neck with Goodbye Pork Pie. But the more I found out about the film the more I wanted to do it, and I ended up committing myself to it because of the social comment it was making.

But I am selective because of the amount of work I am offered. It’s strange really, because there are a lot of other cinematographers around who aren’t working as much, but should be.

I suppose it’s all a matter of ex­ perience. No one is prepared, these days, to give inexperienced people a break. Luckily I have done the rounds, and learnt how to run a department — which is one of the most important things to know, working as a director of photo­ graphy. You have to know how to work as a team.

How do you find the camera crews in New Zealand?

We don’t really have any sort of Cinema Papers. Decernber-January—489

ALUN BOLLINGER

Shooting Geoff Murphy’s Goodbye Pork Pie.

Lani Tupu (left) and Uelese Petaia in Paul Maunder’s Sons for the Return Home.

You can buy British stock, but it has to be imported. I don’t usually make any special requests, so the producer gets what’s available. I think most New' Zealand films are shot on Eastman.

I have noticed that the light in New Zealand seems to be softer than Australia . . .

Anne Flannery in Vincent Ward’s State of Siege.

hard-core crews that work together all the time. I have worked a bit with John Day, a focus puller, and Paul Leach, an experienced operator, but it doesn’t happen a lot. I have never w'orked with the same gaffer twice on a feature. In fact, I haven’t always w-orked with the people I prefer to work with.

Seyond Reasonable Doubt

We get less sunlight here. In fact we had a very bad summer, which was good for Beyond Reasonable Doubt because we were able to shoot the exteriors in overcast weather — reducing the need for filtering. Keeping the contrast down is very important in achieving a soft look.

When the sun is bright, how do you cut the contrast? Do you get rid of the shadows by using extra lighting?

I prefer to use a screen to knock back the sunlight rather than use lights. It can be very tricky though, particularly when the subject is moving from a wide-shot into a close-up. But for everyone’s comfort 1 try to avoid full light, because w'hile fill light softens the picture, it makes for a bright working situation.

There was a preference in Australia for a while for the British Eastman stock. Many cameramen felt it was softer than the American stock . . .

John Hargreaves and Diana Rowen as Arthur and Vivien Thomas in John Laing’s Beyound Reasonable Doubt.

Filmstock

Do you use Eastmancolour stock?

Yes, we use Eastm ancolour negative. It’s American stock.

Is that the only option available in New Zealand?

How would you describe the light­ ing stvle on “Bevond Reasonable Doubt?”

No. Middle Age Spread was done here. It was shot on 16mm and processed at the National Film Unit's lab. Goodbye Pork Pie was also processed there, but the work­ printing and release printing were done at Colorfilm.

Did John Laing want a realistic style, or a semi-dramatized docu-: mentarv look?

Basically, we were going for a softened-off realism. The story is current affairs, but most of the events have already taken place. It is 10 years since the murders took place, and Arthur Thomas only got out of prison last year. In the film we deal with the events leading up to putting him aw'ay; it’s concerned with something that has already happened, as well as something that is still happening. So, we didn't want a crisp, hard reality. Every­ thing is heavily filtered and soft on the edges.

What is the standard of the NFU’s lab work like?

Up and down. The real problem is communication, which is an important aspect of a lab’s opera­ tion. And it is not just the com­ munication between production •personnel and the lab; there also seems to be a communication problem within the lab.

They have all the equipment, and they have had considerable assistance over the past year from Colorfilm. But they still haven’t got it right.

For example, lab reports from Colorfilm are a lot more com­ municative than those from the NFU. And this is very important,

What sort of filters did you use?

490—Cinema Papers, Decern ber-January

Laboratories

Have all the films you have shot been processed outside New Zealand?

I am not very good at describing what I do. The way I work is mainly intuitive.

Just a net actually. I find that 35mm shot clean and projected up on a wall 15 ft high and 20 ft wide looks unreal, because it’s so big.

Every pore stands out. Filtering tends to knock the hard edges off.

I’ve heard that, but I haven’t had a chance to experiment myself.

Actually, a grader from Colorfilm came over here when we were doing Sons for the Return Home, and I had the opportunity to talk to him about processing the various stocks. He said he found that working in an Australian lab with the American filmstock that they always had to knock back the magenta, but with the British stock they were always adding a bit. It seems that the colors in the British stock are less intense.

The mother and son in Vincent Ward’s In Spring One Plants Alone.

Concluded on p. 511

New Zealand National Film Unit

WE HAVE EVERYTHING YOU’ll EVER NEED FOR IN FO R M A TIO N AND PR IC E S Contact: Douglas Eckhoff, Manager, National Film Unit, P.O. Box 46-002, Park Avenue, Lower Hutt, NEW ZEALAND. Telex: NZ3491 Telephone: Wellington 672-059

IF YOU WANT: * Low cost production and superb quality. * Fresh faces, clean air, lush locations offering the world’s most beautiful backdrops * Up to the minute facilities — all under one roof Contact us now for information on: * LA B O RATO RY SE R VIC E S:

From instant rushes to release prints at competitive rates both in 35mm and 16mm. * SO UND :

Superb sound recording and mixing facilities and the experts to go with them. We have 3 sound theatres — a dubbing theatre with a 12-track Neve Mixing Console, Music Stage large enough to record a full symphony orchestra, and special effects recording theatre. Our music library and music scoring facilities can also be made available.

* S O U N D STAGE:

Ours is unparalleled In the Southern Hemisphere. Its size is 58’ x 86’ x 22’ (to the lighting grid). Set design and construction, storage and all normal facilities offered. * ED ITIN G :

Furnished and equipped editing rooms and edge numbering service available. * E Q U IP M E N T:

The latest in camera and editing equipment for hire for location work. * DES IG N A ND R O STR U M CAM ERA:

Available for graphics, animation and special effects. * S TO C K SH O T LIBRARY:

Comprehensive collection of scenic, archival and other material available. * O FF IC E SPACE:

Two or three offices can be made available for your use.

Film Facilities Ltd. Com plete Camera and Lighting Rental Equipm ent Services Ami flex 35 BL, Arriflex16 SR, Super Speed Lenses, H.M.I. Lighting, Cranes, Dollies etc.

P.O. BOX 6698, WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND. TELEPHONE: 844-191. TELEX: INTCOM NZ31255 ATTENTION FILFAX. ■

:

' ■

'-

:iV:i

FREELANCE DIRECTORY A guide to freelance personnel in the New Zealand film and television industry.

Compiled by Lynette Gordon in association with the New Zealand Film Commission.

Dorthe Scheffmann

This list will be updated in a future issue. Please notify any additions or corrections to: The Editor, Cinema Papers, 6 4 4 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Vic., 3051, Australia.

Ph: (03) 32 9 5983.

AUCKLAND Producers David Blyth Lynton Butler Bill Gole Daphne Davison Denis Delaney Roger Donaldson Gordon Ell Malcolm Ferguson Michael Firth John Henry Owen Hughes Terry King Maggie Lewis Andy McAlpine Larry Marr lan Mune Sam Pillsbury Wayne SeIIwood Sigmund Spath Bill Thomas Richard Turner

545-848 762-746 600-585 769-756 372-995 795-836 492-667 493-631 53-66821 371-300 774-093 556-864 779-190 543-362 485-380 451-679 371-071 540-380 543-486 695-273 34-702

Directors David Blyth Lynton Butler Gerben Cath Bill Cole Denis Delaney Roger Donaldson Gordon Ell Michael Firth Bill Hardy Philip Howe Owen Hughes Terry King Andy McAlpine Bruce Morrison lan Mune Sam Pillsbury Derek Seabourne Wayne Sellwood Sigmund Spath David Tossman Richard Turner Andy Tyler

545-848 762-746 503-942 600-585 372-995 795-836 779-071 33-558 685-205 761-749 774-093 556-864 543-362 766-410 451-679 371-071 795-836 540-380 543-486 689-342 34-702 793-316 768-879 760-208

2nd Assistant Directors Jo Rayes

Sally Barile Elizabeth Croft Julie Cuthbertson TrishDownie * Priscilla Edbrooke Jo Hayes Susan Humphries Lyn Joyce Larry Marr Midge Meidrops Bill Thomas

.602-330 814-9508 767-727 688-266 767-651 764-466 766-188 438-187 795-836 543-418 695-273

Production Assistants Sally Bartle Liz Cooke Elizabeth Croft Julie Cuthbertson Trish Downie • Lynda Dye Priscilla Edbrooke Jo Hayes Sian Jones Lyn Joyce Jane McCartney Midge Meidrops Robyn Murphy Dorthe Scheffmann Richard Topp Kristin Witcombe

602-330 762-672 814-9508 767-727 688-266 773-950 767-651 764466 765- 202 438-187 607-820 messages 543-418 764-907 760-208 606-210 607-305

Continuity Jackie Sullivan

584-300

Crew and General Assistants Steve Bolter Susanna Burton Alan Camell Trevor Haysom Gary Helm Sian Jones Justine Lord Jeff O’Donnell

767-139 589-030 766- 102 452-115 762-287 765-202 796-1 25 767139

Casting Julie Cuthbertson Wendy Hoilyer

767-727 453-854

Directors of Photography and Lighting Cameramen James Barile John Earnshaw Malcolm Ferguson Paul Leach Leon Narbey Peter Parsons Sigmund Spath Graham Tidman

602-330 437-936 493-631 478-5018 605-316 444-3381 543-486 871-258 messages

Cameramen and Camera Operators Dene Johnson Terry King Paul Leach Andy McAlpine Leon Narbey Andrew Roelants Graham Tidman Rex Wilmhurst

764-466

492—Cinema Papers, Decern ber-January

Roland Carati Peter Day David Franklin Dene Johnson Gerd Pohlman Andrew Roelants

Tony Thompson lan Turtill

469-381 556-864 478-5018 543-362 605-316 597-550 TGN 8266 656-526 885-819 766-812 603-227 496-381 604-059 597-550

769-711 493-486

Clapper/Loaders Roland Carati John Spurdle Tony Thompson

885-819 452-718 769-711

Natural History Cameramen Geoff Moon

Warkworth 8463

Video Cameramen Dene Johnson lan Turtill

Camera Assistants

1st Assistant Directors Murray Newey Dorthe Scheffmann

760-208

Production Managers

496-381 493-486 797-777 767- 139 452-761 604-456 885-819 760-208 768-049 767-139 770-806 604-059 452-718

Sound Recordists Dale Farnsworth Craig McLeod Graham Morris Hammond Peek Diane Twiss Mike Westgate

768-895 373-631 482-795 656-073 594-981 589-715

Boom Operators Eric Briggs Stewart Main Hammond Peek Mike Westgate

373-631 769-546 656-073 589-715

Sound Effects Mike Westgate

589-715 589-715

Track-Laying Dale Farnsworth Hammond Peek Diane Twiss

768-895 656-073 594-981

Gaffers Kirke Campbell Stuart Dryburgh Don Jowsey Brian Norton John Spurdle

604-456 760-208 450-071 861-713 452-718

Electricians Simon Wyatt

762-964

Video and Television Lighting Directors James Bartle Brian Norton

602-330 861-713

Production Designers and Art Directors Lynn Bergquist Elizabeth Croft Reston Griffiths Kai Hawkins Chris Hoilyer Liz Mitchell John Roberts Michael Stockham

541-193 814-9508 765-630 53-66722 451-295 482-809 messages 589-943 814-9614

541-193 814-9508 760-309 452-115 451-295 799-150 482-809 messages 764-907 298-7158 589-943 760-208 814-9614

Location Scouts 762-672

Set Construction Tony Austin Bill Gruar

535-9178 768-049

Graphics and Titles Chris Hoilyer Fiona Kelly

415-295 Hamilton 493-703

Costumes'and Wardrobe 503-942 53-49243 482-809 messages 764-907

Tine^Mieke Cath Joan McGilp Liz Mitchell Robyn Murphy

On Camera Home Economists Jan Bilton Louise Doyle Val van der Kaay Justine Lord Naomi Smith Sheila Weight

546-492 779-271 546-820 796-125 548-307 595-837

Special Effects John Roberts

Videotape Sound Mike Westgate

Robyn Murphy Chris Paulger John Roberts Dorthe Scheffmann Michael Stockham Liz Cooke

Grips Trou Bayiiss Steve Bolter Mike Caldwell Kirke Campbell Roland Carati Stuart Dryburgh Bill Gruar Jeff O’Donnell Chris Paulger Gerd Pohlman John Spurdle

Props and Set Dressers Lynn Bergquist Elizabeth Croft Brian Derby-Wright Trevor Haysom Chris Hoilyer Justine Lord Liz Mitchell

'

589-943

Model-making Lynn Bergquist Brian Borland Michael Stockham

541-193 439-679 814-9614

Location Catering Lesley Crane Felicity Carter Louise Doyle Justine Lord

458-695 458-601 779-271 796-1 25

Production Stills Steve Bolter Susanna Burton Chris Lewis.

24 Crummer Road, Grey Lynn; Home, 7 Swift Ave, St Mary’s Bay John Miller Peter Molloy Jeff O’Donnell John Spurdle

767-139 589-030

773-885 764-234 767-139 452-718

Stunts Robert Bruce

31-403

Editors Gerben Cath Denis Delaney Dale Farnsworth Philip Howe Stewart Main

503-942 372-995 768-895 761-749 769-546

Assistant Editors Stewart Main

769-546

NEW ZEALAND FREELANCE DIRECTORY

Video Editors

Directors

Patrick Monaghan

763-667

Animation Lyndsay Whipp

873-114

Neg. Matchers Chris Bewley Peter Parsons

372-995 444-3381

Visual Effects James Bartie

602-330

Videotape Effects John Henry

371-300

Make-up GlenysDaly Julie D’Lacey

536-6212 495-837 ■4-6728 276 541 -586 676-155

NgaereMunro Bryony Murdcsr; Esme Smart

Hairdressers CammyHill

30-540

Research Liz Cooke Diane Fowler ' ' Green Colleen Hodge Jane McCartney

762-672 770-975 794-179 769-439 607-820 messages 773-885

Denys Trussell

Musical Directors Bernie Allen Tony Baker Murray Grindiey Andrew Hagan and Morton Wilson Bonnie Low David MacRae

687-836 534-6124 688-496 548-535 478-4945 602-330 messages 478-3064 768-127

Wayne Senior Clive Wilson

Still Photography Roy Emerson

793-762

Writers Arthur Baysting, Box 37352 Auck.

Bill Cole Piers Davies, 16 Crocus PI., Auck. 5 Daphne Davison Gordon Ell Jan Farr John Green David Hughes Roger McGill Brian McNeill Olwynne MacRae Ian Mune Grant Morris TimStarey David Tossman

600-585 769-756 779-071 439-914 794-179 479-5124 766-608 442-271 698-625 451-679 685-409 771-201 689-342

WELLINGTON Producers John Barnett Patrick Cox Norm Elder .

Dave Gibson Nigel Hutchinson Bob Morrow John O’Shea John Reid

■

859-421 838-254 846-626 845-367 ■ ,-766 13 'in 8 ’ -136 81 2-191 873-259

Producer-directors Keith Aberdein Nadoo Ballintine-Scott Helen Brew Graeme Cowley Chris Ghent Nigel Hutchinson John Keir John McKay John McKechnie Michael Nolan John Pettigrew Rod Prosser James Siers Michael Walker Tony Williams

769-236 720-898 889-231 844-191 758-652 850-766 858-751 759-905 850-382 327-311 757-797 725-259 843-699 Levin 87-136 842-350

Television Commercials Produce« Bob Barton Norman Elder fan Gibbons Nigel Hutchinson Tony Williams

843-591 894-461 339-219 848-626 858-513 845-367 850-767 842-086 845-367 844-648

894-461 843-290 846-626 850-766 842-350

646-067 857-305 849-470 758-513

Hermione Olsen Robin Outterside Irish Tennent

Set Construction Andy Grant Robin Outterside Graham Watkins

-

872-191 846-521 843-591 873-259 851-618 842-350

Graphics and Titles

Assistant Directors John Anderson Bob Barton £ ï "I Pat Cox ■ ’

843-591 894-461 725-259 838-254

Production Co-ordinators Norm Elder Jo Hayes

838-254 888-753 836-026 879-151 843-699 850-766

Sal Criscillo Miles Hargest Rod Jackways Trevor Ulyatt Jane Ussher

John Blick Graeme Cowley Rory O’Shea

846-626 844-191 872-191

Warrick Attewell Alister Barry Richard Bluck Donald Duncan Paul Fitzgerald Chris Ghent Michael Hardcastle Steve Locker Lampson John McKechnie Murray Milne Ian Paul 45 The Crescent, Roseneath

850-031 725-259 739-861 858-751 845-418 758-652 837-761 836-026 850-382 844-191 845-004

Camera Assistants, Focus Pulk and Loaders Richard Bluck John Day Paul Fitzgerald Michael Hardcastle Murray Milne

739-861 843-290 845-418 837-761 844-191

Key Grips Alister Barry Andy Grant Brian Kassler Andy Grant Brian Kassler Ian Miles Andy Reid

725-259 857-475 843-290 857-475 843-290 879-311 838-494 848-984 848-984 848-984 848-984 850-030 843-290 873-395 861-887

Production Designers and Art Directors Russel Gollins Barbara Coliinson-Smith Rick Kofoed Tolis Papazoglou Gaylene Preston

842-088 844-180 759-426 662-201 846-521

Make-up Jean Palmer Chris Reynolds Lesley Vanderwalt

674-614 720-112 847-886

842-886 758-887 888-753 838-825 726-448 850-382 858-986 883-693

Jay Berryman Bob Barton Jay Berryman Annie Collins Mike Horton John Kiley Dell King John McKay Simon Reece Jamie Selkirk

858-461 849-172

Alun Bollinger, Blacks Point PO, Reefton Rupert Glover Pierre Lods

Cedrick Heward

Graeme Clephane John Denton

Ross Beck John Denton

Paul Mallon

Geoff Murphy

Russell Campbell Pat Cox Annie Collins Mike Horton Dell King Simon Reece Jamie Selkirk

Pat Murphy

Keith Aberdeen Jay Berryman Jeff Browett Julian Dickon Paul Maunder J. McKitterick Michael Antony Noonan Simon O’Connor John O’Shea Reid Tom Scott Burton Silver Dean Hill Toni Okkerse

858-287

SOUTH ISLAND AND

ELSEWHERE

Christchurch 62-047 Nelson 86-620 Christchurch 65-477 Christchurch 798-828 Christchurch 585-215 Waimarama 854 Waimarama 854

Graphics and Titles Christchurch 65-477

Editors Rupert Glover Chris King Hamdani Milas Peter Read

Christchurch 266-642 Christchurch 62-047 Christchurch 39-676 Christchurch 556-787

Neg Matchers Christine Sobiecki

859-421

Production Nurse (Registered)

Christchurch 62-047 Christchurch 65-865 Nelson 86-620 Dunedin 54-629 Christchurch 32-676

Location Catering

Tony Brittenden 769-236 795-384 735-954 268-039 844-648 699-991 726-463 753-288 872-191 873-259 724-225 889-082

Christchurch 266 642 Christchurch 62-047

Special Effects

Post-production Supervisors 725-259 838-254 844-697 650-573 844-697 858-546 858-546

Christchurch 62-047

Sound

Michael O'Connor 848-984 848-984

Christchurch 62-047 Christchurch 287-361 Queenstown 1269

Camera Assistants, Focus Puliers and Loaders

Rob Brittenden 857-692 758-477

Waimarama (70-786) 854 Christchurch 287-361

Camera Operators

Hamdani Milas 894-461 795-384 844-697 650-573 872-191 844-697 759-905 858-546 858-546

Dunedin 88-240 Christchurch 65-865 Waimarama (70-786) 854 Dunedin 54-629 London 9606-212

Lighting Cameramen Ross Beck

795-384

Sound Mixers John van der Reyden Don Reynolds

Barbara Williams

Ross Beck

Assistant Editors Michael Knudson Rod Prosser

Christine Sobiecki

851-618 628-667 650-522 628-241 848-936 859-050 766-593

Neg Matchers

Christchurch 287-361

Animation Murray Freeth

Christchurch 62-047

Music Directors Dorothy Buchanan David Calder, Western Lake RD3, Featherston

Christchurch 516-919

Translations Rupert Glover

Producer-directors Rupert Glover

Set Dressers and Props Lee Bruce Rohesia Hamilton Metcalfe

Belinda Fahey

Production Accountants

Gaffers Dave Brown PavGovind Brian Norton

Production Assistants

Writers

Sound Recordists Malcolm Moore John van der Reyden Don Reynolds LeeTamahori Keir Welsh

Jack Body Clive Cockburn Terry Crayford Dave Fraser Stephen McCurdy Steve Robinson Craig Walsh-Wrightson

Christchurch 62-047 Waimarama (70-786) 854

Production Managers

646-067

Editors

Camera Operators

Derek Seabourne

Christine Sobiecki

Musical Directors

Lighting Cameramen

Cedrick Heward

857-475

Production Stills

845-084 844-654 848-341 845-367 850-766

Graeme Clephane

Pat Murphy

Location Catering Kathy Gibbons Robin McGhie Carmel Peters

Production Assistants Jane Gilbert Lyn nette Gordon Chris Short Ann Stevens Jeff Williams

Robin Brombie

Model-making Fred Kateiy

846-626 888-753

Production Managers Pat Cox' ’ Jo Hayes Steve Locker Lampson Sue May Judy Siers Jeff Williams

636-394 882-859 879-312

Special Effects Andy Grant

Geoff Murphy

Geoff Murphy 846-521

Wardrobe Christine Hansen GwenKaiser Julia Mansford

Pierre Lods

Directors 857-475 849-470 879-311

Gaylene Preston

Grips

■ .

.

John Anderson Bob Barton Michael Black John Blick Geoff Dixon Dave Gibson Nigel Hutchinson John Laing Yvonne Mackay Paul Maunder Eruera (Ted) Nia, 6 Footscray Ave John O'Shea Gaylene Preston Murray Reece John Reid Vincent Ward ■ Tony Williams

Alan Lindsay

Christchurch 266-642 Christchurch 793-857

Christchurch 266-642

Props Jonothan Barraud

Nelson 88-034

*

Cinema Papers, Decernber-January—493

H

p ro d u c tio n s W

T ltd

T H E O N L Y F IL M P R O D U C T IO N H O U S E B A S E D IN N E W Z E A L A N D ’S S C E N IC S O U T H IS L A N D

Film lighting problems in New Zealand?

FULL PRO D U CTIO N FACILITIES Film crew available. _ 35mm ARRI. 16mm Eclair N.P.R. 16mm AATON equipped with videcon tube.

6-plate Steinbeck.

%"J.V.C.camera&recorders.

Lights. Dollies. 4-W.D. vehicle Studio and office in Christchurch and Auckland . . . ideal bases for shooting throughout New Zealand.

Also sole NZ agents

AATON

for 16mm cameras

M

Gels Film Lighting Ltd Owner/Operator Pav Govind (Licensed electrician)

O lil

productions * limited

209 Salisbury St, Christchurch P.O. Box 2280, Telephone 62-047. Cable ORFIPRO, Auckland Office: 35 George St,-New Market Telephone 778-543

Operator experience includes: Features, documentaries, and commercials in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands.

New Zealand's Largest Indenendent Film Sound

Fully equipped truck includes * 2 x 2.5 H .M .I. * 4 x 6 lights * 4 redheads * 4 blondes

Sound Producers for New Zealand's best known independent documentaries, feature film s, and commercials.

* 2 x 2 . $ softlights * 2 inkies

Com plete facilities available include: 1 6 m m /3 5 m m mixing, transfers and double head screenings.

Location recordists and location equipm ent available for hire.

* and all accessories.

Credits include: "Beyond Reasonable D o u b t" ■ "Goodbye Pork P ie " - "Sons For The Return H om e" - "R o d e o " - "M iddle Age Spread" - "Skin Deep" and BASF Commercial.

Contact Don Reynolds fo r com plete price list.

QEMEMBER it pays to mix with the right people y b s o c iM

d S o u n d s b

im

it e

For 24 hour service Phone: 726-639 Wellington, N ew Zealand Private: 873-39$

iC

P.O.BOX 27371, UPPER W IL LIS S T.C W E L L IN G T O N S T U D IO : W O RLD TR A D E CEN TER , g Vi U ZN EE S TR EE T TELEPHO NE 848-984 Pvte 720-112

✓ '

'

.

’

■

.

■

..

' -

.

■

.

’ - :4 4

.

-7 ■'

FEATURES P RE-PR O D UC TIO N

THE LAST LOST HORSE Prod, company .................... Wil'co Films Producers .............................. Patrick Cox, Kevin Wilson Director ................................Geoff Murphy Scriptwriter ............................ Kevin Wilson Length ......................................... 100 mins Synopsis: Based on the true story of Colin Smith and a horse called Smart Pants.

Against impossible odds, Smith sets out to save 500 wild horses from slaughter by bounty hunters. Pitted against the law and big business interests, he is faced with defeat and becomes obsessed to save the last lost horse.

THE SCARECROW Prod, company ...................... Oasis Films Producer ........................ Rob Whitehouse Director ................................Sam Pillsbury Scriptwriter ........................ Michael Heath Based on the novel by ................... Ronald Hugh Morrieson Photography .......................... James Bartle Sound recordist .................Don Reynolds Editor ............................................. Ian John Prod, manager ............Grahame McLean Camera operator ....................... John Day Key grip ................................... Trou Bayliss Gaffer ........................................Don Jowsey Laboratory ...................National Film Unit Length ......................................... 120 mins Gauge ...............................................35mm Synopsis: A crazed murderer arrives in a small town where a young adolescent boy and his teenage sister are facing the challenges of growing up. The murderer chooses the girl as his next victim — only her brother can save her.

THE SHOOTING Prod, company

..........Southern Pictures, London Producer ............................. Andrew Brown Scriptwriter .........................Andrew Brown Exec, producer ...................... Mark Shivas Gauge .............................................. 35 mm Synopsis: In a farming community in the 1940s, three policemen are shot dead and two men are left gravely injured. A party of 200 armed men set out to track down the man who fired the first shots, but by the time the carnage ends, another three men die, in one of the most sensational chapters in the history of New Zealand crime.

SMASH PALACE Producer/director ....... Roger Donaldson Assoc, producer ...................... Larry Parr Scriptwriter ...................Roger Donaldson Synopsis: A man, separated from his es­ tranged wife, kidnaps their son and has to face the consequences.

IN PRODUCTION

RACE FOR THE YANKEE ZEPHYR Co-producers

. .. Antony Ginnane (Aust), John Barnett (NZ) Director .............................David Hammings Scriptwriter .................... Everett de Roche Exec, producer .................William Fayman Prod, co-ordinator ...................Jenny Barty Producers' secretary ....... Sylvia Van Wyk Length ..............................................100 mins Gauge ................................................... 35 mm Shooting stock ......................Eastmancolor Scheduled release ...............Cannes, 1981 Synopsis: Competing groups of adven­ turers race to a crashed DC3 airliner, the Yankee Zephyr, and its $50 million cargo.

Photography ...................... Alun Bollinger Sound recordist ................. Don Reynolds Editor ................................Michael Horton Exec, producer .................... John Barnett Prod, supervisor ......... Grahame McLean Prod, secretaries ........... Midge Meidrops, Jane Gilbert Prod, accountant ...................... Dean Hill PICTURES Prod, assistant .................. Trisha Downie 1st asst director ...............Murray Newey Prod, company ....................Pacific Films 2nd asst director ....... Jonothan Cullinane Producer ............................... John O’Shea Continuity .......................... Jacqui Sullivan Director ................................Michael Black Camera operator ...................Paul Leach Scriptwriters ........................... Robert Lord, Focus puller ................................ John Day John O'Shea Clapper/loader .......................... Ian Turtill Based on the original idea Key grips ............................. Jeff Jamieson, by .....................................Michael Black Vic Yarker, Photography ........................Rory O’Shea Trou Bayliss Sound recordist .............. Graeme Morris Gaffer ......................................

Don Jowsey Editor ..........................................John Kiley Electrician ...............................Simon Wyatt Assistant to producer ....... Craig Walters Boom operator ...................

Lee Tamahori Prod, manager ........... Dorthe Scheffman Art d ire c to r............................................... KaiHawkins Studio manager ................ Eric Anderson Make-up ...................... Lesley Vanderwait Prod, secretary ......... Barbara Jorgensen Make-up asst ................... Sarah Anderson 1st asst director . Steve Locker-Lampson Wardrobe .............................. Julie d’Lacey . 2nd asst director ....... Jonothan Cullinane Ward, assistant ...................... Sian Jones Continuity ......................... Jacqui Sullivan Props ....................................

Chris Paulger Camera operator . . . .Michael Hardcastle Standby props ...................Trevor Haysom Focus puller ........................Richard Bluck PICTURES Set decorators ...............Steve Sorensen, Clapper/loader ....................John Spurdle John Fisher Key grips ............................... Trou Bayliss, Set construction .....................Tony Austin Bob Curtice, Asst editor .................Christine Lancaster Chris Short Still photography ................... Trevor Utyatt Mixer .................................... Don Reynolds Gaffer .......................................Pav Govind Tech, advisors ........................ Mark Cribb, Still photography ................Philip Peacock Boom operator ........................ Eric Briggs Hardwicke Knight Catering .................................. Louise Doyle A W AITING RELEASE Art director ......................... Russell Collins Best boy ..................................... Ian Miles Catering asst .......................Robin Murphy Make-up .................... Lesley Vanderwait, Laboratory ...................National Film Unit Laboratory ....................National Film Unit Jean Palmer Lab. liaison ........................Christine Tyson (Processing) Hairdresser ........................... John Rilstone Gauge ................................................35mm Length .........................................120 mins Wardrobe .............................. Gwen Kaiser Shooting stock ......................Eastmancolor Gauge ...............................................35mm GOODBYE PORK PIE Ward, assistants .................. Joan McGilp, Cast: Kevin Wilson (Alfred Burton), Peter Shooting stock .................... Eastmancolor Ann Coombes, Vere-Jones (Walter Burton), Helen Moulder Prod, company .......Pork Pie Productions Cast: David Hemmings (Bruce Hutton), Louise Blackburn, (Lydia Burton), Elizabeth Coulter (Helen Dist. company ........ Pork Pie Productions John Hargreaves (Arthur Allan Thomas), Kathy Jorgensen, Burton), Terence Bayier (John Rochefort), Producers....................... Nigel Hutchinson, Diana Rowan (Vivien Thomas), Ian Watkin Matiu M areikura (N gatai), Ron Lynn Bernard Kaiser Geoff Murphy (Kevin Ryan), Tony Barry (John Hughes), (President), John Callen (Casey), Ken D ire c to r................................................ GeoffMurphy Props ................................ Trevor Haysum, Grant Tilly (David Morris), Martyn Sander­ B lackburn (O fficia l), Suzanne Furner Scriptwriters .........................Geoff Murphy, Chris Poulger son (Len Dernier), Terence Cooper (Paul (Charlotte).

Transport ..............................Ross Reader Ian Mune Temm).

Set construction ................. Dave Armour, Synopsis: Two brothers, Alfred and Walter Based on the original idea Synopsis: A search for two bodies and a Burton, their wives and their Maori and Ian Miles b y .........................................Geoff Murphy murderer, subsequent trials, a conviction Asst editor ..................... Adrienne Rogers European friends come to terms, in their P hotography......................... Alun Bollinger and an eventual pardon. A contemporary Sound editor ...................Geoff Shepherd different ways, with colonial New Zealand Sound recordist.....................Don Reynolds story of a fight against a judicial system.

Mixer .................................. Brian Shennan society and its prejudices.

Editor ................................. Michael Horton C om poser............................... John Charles For complete details of the following film Prod, m anager......................................... PatMurphy see issue 29: Prod, secretary ..........Veronica Lawrence Assistant prod.

Squeeze secretary ............................Shirley Dunn Prod, assistants...................... Kerry Robins, Jeff Williams 1st asst director .................. Sam Pillsbury C ontinuity......................Dorthe Sheffmann Camera operator ..............Graeme Cowley Focus puller .................................John Day C lapper/loader........................Murray Milne Camera assistant ........... Mike Hardcastle Key g rip .................................... Alister Barry 2nd unit photography...............Peter Reid THE MONSTERS’ CHRISTMAS G a ffe r................................ Stuart Dryburgh Prod, company .................... Gibson Film Additional lighting .................. Simon Wiat, Productions Don Jowsey Dist. company ...................... Gibson Film Boom operator.....................Lee Tamahori Productions Art directors .......................... Kai Hawkins, Producer ................................Dave Gibson Robin Outterside Director ............................ Yvonne Mackay Make-up ............................Chris Reynolds Scriptwriter .......................... Burton Silver Wardrobe ..............................Robin Murphy Based on the original idea Asst e d ito r........................... Cindy Bowles by ..................................... Burton Silver Musical d irector................... John Charles Exec, producer ................ Dave Compton Sound e d ito r........................ Jay Berryman Assoc, producers ............ Ross Jennings, M ixer..................................... Don Reynolds Doug Eckhoff Stunt d r iv e r..........................Peter Zivkivoc Gauge ...............................................16mm S tu n ts........................................Timothy Lee Shooting stock .....................Eastmancolor Best b o y ........................... Matthew Murphy Synopsis: A children’s fantasy drama telling Catering..........................Barbara Pillsbury, the story of a young girl's journey to help Robin McGhle mute monsters get their voices back from Mixed at .......................Associated Sounds the wicked witch.

Lab o ra to ry.................................... Colorfilm Lab. liaison .................................Bill Gooley Colour g rad in g ............. Arthur Cambridge NUTCASE Length ......................................... 109 mins.

Gauge................................................ 35 mm Prod, company ...Endeavour Productions Shooting s to c k ..................... Eastmancolor Dist. company — Endeavour Productions Cast: Kelly Johnson (G erry), C laire P roducer................................................ JohnBarnett Oberman (Shirl), Tony Barry (John), Shirley Director .......................... Roger Donaldson Gruar (Sue), Maggie Maxwell (Sue's sister), Scriptwriters ......................Keith Aberdein, Bruno Lawrence (Mulvaney), Ian Watkin Ian Mune (father in car), Marshall Napier (patrol car Based on the original idea driver). Bill Julliff (wrecker yard man), John b y .....................................Keith Aberdein, Bach (Snout).

Ian Mune Synopsis: A comedy chase film in which Sound recordist............................... GraemeMorris Gerry, John and Shlri attempt to drive from Editor ................................... Michael Horton one end of New Zealand to the other in a Prod, m anager.................................. WarrenSellers fraudulently rented Mini, pursued at every Prod, secretary ............Priscilla Edbrooke turn by the law.

Prod, accountant ......................... Dean Hill 1st asst director ................... Michael Firth C on tin u ity............................. Jackie Sullivan Lighting cam eram an........ Graeme Cowley Camera operator .......................... Ian Paul IN RELEASE Clapper/loader...................................... GaryHelm Camera assistant ...........■.. .John Mahaffte Key g rip ..............................Stuart Dryburgh G a ffe r.................................... Alun Bollinger Boom operator........................................ EricBiggs BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Art director .............................. Kai Hawkins Make-up ........................Lesley Vanderwait Prod, company .............. BRD Productions W a rd ro b e ..........................................MelvineClark Dist. company . . . Endeavour Productions Props ....................................... Louise Doyle Producer ...................................John Barnett Special e ffe c ts ..................................... GeoffMurphy Director .......................................John Laing Asst e d ito r........................................... RogerHyton Scriptwriter ...............................David Yallop Still photography.................................AlbertMcCabe Based on the book, P u rin e r............................... Rosslyn Dawson Catering................................. Melanie Bisley RACE FOR THE YANKEE ZEPHYR by ........................................... David Yallop Length ............................................. 5 0 mins.

P O S T -P R O D U C T IO N

SHORTS

Beyond Reasonable Doubt?,

Cinema Papers, December-January—495

IS THIS YOUR LOCATION M ANAGER? Has red tape once again snared your production in the abyss of permits and other location unknowns?

We can help!

W ere O n L o c a tio n , The Film & Videotape Production Magazine. We bring the most important aspects of location shooting to you every month. What the problems were, how they were solved and who cut the red tape. We show you how, where, when and why.

Send for your subscription today. Your location manager will thank you.

OnLocation PUBLISHING.INC. 6464 Sunset Blvd., Suite 570 Los Angeles, California 90028 (213) 467-1268

Please enter my Subscription to ON LOCATION The Film & Videotape Production MAGAZINE. □ SIX MONTHS (Introductory Subscription) @ $14.00* □ One Year @ $28.00* □ Two Years @ $56.00* N am e___________________________ T itle ________________ Company______________ _____________________ _________ Address __________________ __________________________ City___________ ____________________ State_________ Zip Signature_____________ _______________________________ Please Indicate the principal nature of your business.

Payable in U S currency

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT

WOMAN OVERBOARD

Prod, company .................... Reel Images Dlst. company ..................... Reel Images Producer ...................................... John Keir Director ................................. John McKay Scriptwriter ................................. John Kelr Photography .................. Donald Duncan Sound recordists ................ Ken Saville, Tony Keeslng Editor .................................... John McKay Narrator ........................................John Keir Opticals ....................... Colorfllm, Sydney Title designer ............... Gayiene Preston Mixed at ...................... National Film Unit Laboratory .................. National Film Unit Budget ............................................. $16,000 Length ......................................... 50 mins.

Gauge .............................................. 16 mm Shooting stock .................. Eastmancolor Progress ......................... Post-production S y n o p s is : The m o d e rn p r o h ib itio n m ovem ent In New Zealand staged a temperance revival during 1979. The film documents their progress as they re­ introduce temperance rallies, “The Pledge", and campaign for topgher liquor laws.

Prod, company ............ Beth Productions Dist. company .............. Beth Productions Producer/director ........... Stephanie Beth Photography ........................... Leon Narbey Sound recordist ......... Michael Westgate Editor ......................................... Dell King Composer .............................. Jan Preston Prod, manager .....................Nevan Rowe Prod, assistant ............... Johanna Kenkell Camera assistant .....................Lynda Dye Gaffer ................................Stuart Dryburgh Boom operator .....................Dianne Twiss Still photography ............................. Zusters Catering ...........................Penny Holmes, Sandi Hall Laboratory .................................... Vid-Com Budget ............................................. $33,000 Length ......... .'................................50 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Post-production S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry on th e personality and work of a young woman, who shares her laughter and joy with participants of her classes in improvisation and fantasy. Her life is art and her heart is open to all who respond to this risk.

FROM WHERE THE SPIRIT CALLS (TE OHAKI O TE PO)

GOODBYE PORK PIE

Progress ............................Post-production Scheduled release......................May, 1980 Cast: Aaron Donaldson (Crunch), Melissa Donaldson (Nikki), Peter Shand (Jamie), Nevan Rowe (Evil Eva), Ian Watkin (God­ zilla), John Gadsby (Cobblestone), Michael Wilson (McLooney).

Synopsis: New Zealand's biggest city is threatened by a gang of international villains, who hold the Inhabitants to ransom from a hideout on a submarine, and from a secret laboratory. The villains manage to keep one step ahead of the police, but three children ride to the rescue, with the help of some amazing electronic gadgets and several hundred helpers.

THE OTHER NEW ZEALAND P roducer/director....................... Jack Mills Scriptwriter ......................... David Tossman P hotography....................... John Earnshaw Sound recordist...................Mike Westgate Editor ................................... David Tossman Com poser.................................... Roger Fox Camera assistant ..........Andrew McAlpine Key g r ip .....................................Don Jowsey Music performed b y .................. Roger Fox N arrator.................................Paul Robinson L a b o ra to ry............................ Vic-Com/NFU Length ...............................................6 mins Gauge................................................ 16 mm Progress ............................ Post-production Introduced by: Brian Talboys Synopsis: A portrait of New Zealand as an Industrial as well as agricultural nation, producing efficiently for world markets.

Sponsored by the Export Institute and in­ dividual companies.

KESKIDEE-AROHA Prod, company ...............Scratch Pictures Dist. company .................Scratch Pictures Producer/director . . . . Martyn Sanderson Scriptwriters .......................... Merata Mita, Martyn Sanderson Research ................................ Merata Mita COTTON ON Photography ....................... Kevin Hayward Prod, com pany .............. Paint Pot Studios Sound recordist ................ Mike Westgate Dist. com pany ................ Paint Pot Studios Editors ................................. Annie Collins, P ro d u c e r/d ire c to r................................... David W aters Simon Reece S c rip tw rite r.................................................John G undry Assoc, producer .................. Merata Mita P h o to g ra p h y ........................................... David W aters, Prod, co-ordinator ............... Merata Mita Janey Dunn, Prod, manager .................... Nevan Rowe Lindsay W hipp Laboratory ...................................... Vidcom E d it o r ..........................................................David W aters Gauge ................................................ 16mm C o m p o s e rs ............................ A ndrew Hagen, Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor M orton W ilson Progress .......................... Awaiting release C haracter design .....................M ike T rebert Cast: Keskidee Theatre, local groups.

Layout ......................................... M ike Trebert Synopsis: A visiting London-based black Tim ing ...........................................Sam Harvey theatre troupe, Keskidee, performs plays A nim ators ........................................ Joe Wylie, with a theme of black consciousness and W arwick G ilbert pride at rural Maori settlements, gang In-betw eening .............................Janey Dunn headquarters, urban youth clubs and Painting .................................Shiree Reihana, community centres, and prisons through­ Lianne Hughes, out New Zealand. They are welcomed with Sharon Johnson, traditional Maori ceremony and dances, M arie Hughes jazz and poetry, ^and their visit provokes Backgrounds .......................... M ike T rebert discussion of urgent sociafissues.

ANIMATION

M usic perform ed by ........ A ndrew Hagen, M orton W ilson Laboratory ..........

Vid-Com Length .......................................... 1 3 x 6 mins.

Gauge ...................................................... 35m m Shooting s to c k .......................... Eastm ancolor Progress ......................................... Production S yn opsis: An e n te rta in in g e d u c a tio n a l series fo r children.

For complete details of the following docu­ mentary see Issue 29: Nambassa Festival

SHORTS

RIBINO Prod, company

...................... James Siers Productions Dist. company ...................... New Zealand Film Commission Producer/director .................. James Siers Scriptwriter ..............................James Siers Photography . . . . Steve Locker-Lampson, Ian Paul Sound recordist ..............Hammond Peek Editor ..............................................Ian John Exec, producer ......................... Judy Siers Laboratory ...................National Film Unit Budget ............................................. $66,000 Length .............................................50 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress .................................... Production Synopsis: An adventure story, about a young New Zealand boy who spends a sum­ mer vacation on the tiny atoll of Ribino in the Republic of Kiribati.

For complete details of the following films see Issue 29: Black Hearted Barney Blackfoot Lincoln County Incident

DOCUMENTARIES ASIAN SERIES Prod, company

FEATURES THE BRIDGE Producer/director .......... Gerd Pohlmann Scriptwriters ................. Gerd Pohlmann, Merata Mita Photography ....................... Leon Narbey Gauge ............................................... 16 mm Shooting stock .................. Eastmancolor Progress .............................. Production Synopsis: When carpenters and labourers stopped work on the Mangere Bridge construction project in Auckland In May 1978, they were not to know that they would become enmeshed in the longest running Industrial dispute in New Zealand history. A study in the effect of a crisis situation on workers’ lives.

.......... : ____Gibson Film Productions ...................... Gibson Film Productions Producer .................................Dave Gibson Directors ....... Murray Reece (Indonesia), Yvonne Mackay (Brunei, Hong Kong) Scriptwriter ................. Martyn Sanderson Sound recordist ........... Malcolm Cromie Editors ............................... Michael Horton, Simon Reece Asst editor .......................... Mike Knudson Exec, producer ..................Dave Compton Prod, manager ........... Grahame McLean Prod, secretary ....................... Jan Haynes Cameraman .........................Alun Bollinger Gauge ...............................................16mm Shooting stock .................... Eastmancolor Synopsis: Five children's programs shot in Indonesia, Brunei and Hong Kong, three of which are pact of a continuing series of Children Of . . . documentaries.

Dist. company

Prod, company .................. Pacific Films Dist. company .................... Pacific Films Producer .............................. John O’Shea Director ...................................... John Reid Scriptwriter ............................... John Reid Photography ............. Michael Hardcastle Sound recordist ...............Graham Morris Editor ......................................... Dell King Mixer .................................... Steve Upston Mixed at .............................. Pacific Films Laboratory .................. National Film Unit Length ........................................... 43 mins.

Gauge ............................................. 16 mm Shooting stock .................. Eastmancolor Progress ....................... Awaiting release Synopsis: A docum entary about the restoration of two historic Maori meeting houses, revealing outstanding decoration of the 1870s, and depicting the importance of meeting houses in contemporary Maori culture.

THE GREATEST RUN ON EARTH Prod, company

......... Sam Pillsbury Film Productions, in association with TVNZ Dist. company ........... Sam Pillsbury Film Productions Producer/director ................Sam Pillsbury Photography ...................... John Phillpotts Sound recordist ..................Bernie Wright Editor .....................................Jamie Selkirk Composers ........................ Andrew Hagen, Morton Wilson, Murray Grindley Exec, producer ............. Rob Whitehouse Assoc, producer ................... Doc Williams Prod, assistant .......................... Kay Darby Research ............................. Gillian Chaplin Additional research ................Beth Butler, Barbara Pillsbury Additional photography . . . Lynton Diggle, Warrick Atteweli, Brian Latham, Mike O’Connor, Dave Caldwell, Malcolm Ferguson, Jim Bartle, Leon Narbey, Andy MacAlpine, Ian Paul, Peter Thompson Boom operator ...............Don Mathewson Additional sound recording .................... Graeme Morris, Mike Westgate, Dianne Twiss, Jan Simm, Leighton Clapham, Raymond Moore Mixed at .......................... TVNZ Auckland Laboratory .......................................... Atlab Budget ............................................. $80,000 Length ...........................................50 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Post-production Synopsis: Once a year 50,000 converts in the city of Auckland join in a celebration of running. The film looks at running, what it means to people and how it changes their lives.

PSYCHOTHERAPY Prod, company .................... Vortex Films Dist. company .......................Vortex Films Producer ................................Chris Ghent Directors ................................Chris Ghent, Alister Barry, Margie Barr-Brown Script consultant ....... Margie Barr-Brown Photography .......................... Chris Ghent Sound recordist ...................Alister Barry Laboratory ...................National Film Unit Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Post-production Introduced by: Ken Mellor.

Synopsis: A documentary on the subject of parenting and re-parenting, and the use of this tre a tm e n t fo r schizo p h ren ia and patients with other serious personality problems.

SEAMEN Prod, company ............... Vanguard Films Dist. company ................ Vanguard Films Producers .............................. Rod Prosser, Alister Barry, Russell Campbell Directors ............................... Rod Prosser, Alister Barry, Russell Campbell Scriptwriters ......................... Rod Prosser, Alister Barry, Russell Campbell Photography ......................... Alister Barry Sound recordist .......... Russell Campbell Editor ..................................... Rod Prosser Prod, manager ......................Rod Prosser Laboratory .................. National Film Unit Budget ............................................. $15,500 Gauge ............................................. 16 mm Shooting stock .................. Eastmancolor Progress ......................... Post-production Synopsis: A documentary depicting the work of seamen and the history of the New Zealand Seamen’s Union.

UNTITLED Prod, company ............... Motion Pictures Dist. company ................. Motion Pictures Producer ........................ Nigel Hutchinson Director ............................ Graeme Cowley Photography ...................Warrick Atteweli, Steve Locker-Lampson, Rory O'Shea, Steve Payne.

Peter Reid, Jeff Williams Sound recordists .....................Ian Miller, Don Reynolds Editor ................................ Michael Horton Composer ..................................... Jim Hall Prod, manager .................... Jeff Williams 1st asst director . Steve Locker-Lampson Camera assistants ............Richard Bluck, Murray Miine Neg. matching ..................... Jay Berryman Mixer .................................... Don Reynolds Laboratory ..................... National Film Unit Length ........................................... 50 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Post-production Synopsis: A documentary on the recent World Jet Boat Championships held on nine rivers in New Zealand during August 1980.

For complete details of the following docu­ mentaries see Issue 29: Children of Samoa Day 507 Hunchin’ Down the Track In Spring One Plants Alone Jane: The Place and Paintings of Jaoe Evans Saddleback Thailand The Valley of the Sacred Fire «

Cinema Papers, December-January—497

SAM FULLER

and 20 mins. I cut this down to two little things. One, smoking the hours. Then we brought in another cigar. Two, writing a book before editor. I liked 90 per cent of his cut. he was in the army called The Dark Continued from p. 426 He put back some things I didn’t Page. I changed it to The Dark like, but I was happy to have it Deadline. Three, my mother did sent home all kinds of little under two hours. A four-hour film sell it to a publisher in New York, souvenirs and she accumulated is too much, if you want to get into and I did come across a paperback them over three years, in case I ever a lot of theatres. of it, an armed services edition, just wrote a book. But after the war I as you saw in the film. Also, I made did nothing about it; I just kept my Originally, the film didn’t have the that run on Omaha Beach, when two and half suitcases filled with voice-over narration by Zab, did it? the Sergeant tells them to find the the stuff. goddamn Colonel. Those parts of Then, in 1958, my agent said, That was brought in later. They the Zab character are me. “ Are you ever going to do a story brought in a writer who went on the Big Red One?” I said, through my book and took stuff out What amazes me is that “The Big “ Yes” . He told John Wayne, who of it. If the film is very successful by Red One” is a war film entirely called me. We had lunch. He said, the end of next year, Merv Adelson without heroics . . . “ I want to be in the film you are of Lorimar is very much taken with going to do'about the 1st Division.” the idea of re-releasing it in its full That was the whole idea. I He acted as my agent and he took length. wanted the four young men to be me to see Jack Warner. Then he symbols of those who lived. They gave the story on page one of Billy Wilder’s film “The Private are not miracle workers, they are Variety and The H oily wood Life of Sherlock Holmes” had an not John W aynes. They are Reporter. He even announced the hour cut out, which he believes certainly not smarter than anyone salary he was going to get, which defaced it. But you don’t think that’s else. They are the symbols of the was $77,777.77. happened with “The Big Red One”? hundreds of thousands of survivors I then left for Europe and when I got back the editor of Panther books- came to my office and said, “ I read in the trades that you are going to do The Big Red One with Wayne. Don't do it; don’t do the film, give me a book. I’ll get you a hardcover, and a year later Pan­ ther will come out with paper­ back.”

I liked the idea and told Wayne, but he said, “To hell with the god­ damn book, do the film.” And Oscar Dystel — he’s now the chair­ man of the board of Panther — said, “To hell with the film, do the book.”

I did n e ith e r u n til P eter Bogdanovich said, “ If you write the goddamn script, I’ll produce it.”

And that’s what happened. I wrote the goddamn thing and he said, “Who do you want?” I said, “ Lee Marvin.” He sent it to Lee Marvin, and Marvin phoned me from Tucson, Arizona, and said, “This is your Sergeant.” “ I’m one of you. I’m sane. I’m sane.” The Big Red One. Peter then took it to Lorimar, while I made three trips to Europe and Africa. In the interim, though, Peter had a commitment to make a No, it couldn’t hurt it, for the in every army who made it after the film called Saint Jack, about a simple reason that I am not telling war. lovable pimp in Singapore. So a story like the average storyteller.

In war stories, people expect Gene Corman became the pro­ I am telling the story of three years some of the main characters to get ducer and we made the film for of war, and people would never killed along the way. There is al­ miss sequences had I not written ways someone who gets a letter Lorimar. them. Lor every one sequence I did from his mother and then gets Why did it take so long for you to use, I could have used 12 or 15. killed. I said, “To hell with that.

There is a magnificent sequence My book will tell the story of work with Lee Marvin? He seems an that was cut with my wife. Christa four guys who made it.” They ideal Sam Fuller character . . .

Lang, who played the role of a represent all the survivors of the Yeah, he’s crazy. It’s lucky for German countess, and Siegfried war. him the son-of-the-gun is wearing Rauch who plays Schroeder, the pants, otherwise I would fall in love German soldier. We shot it in Ire­ You have described the film as “a story between the Sergeant and land, in a big castle. It was love with him. the four riflemen.” . . . beautiful, but it slowed down the Yes, but I didn’t want any Did you need to give him much tempo of the film. gushing molasses in there. You direction?

In 1942, you wrote a book called have no time to fool around like We worked together like two “The Dark Page”. In the film, the that in combat. And I tried my best goddamn horses pulling the same character Zab, which I am loosely to keep away from the develop­ stagecoach. reading as a nickname for Sam, has ment of young men turning into written a book called ‘The Dark men. That’s the normal thing in a war film — or in a Western, where The film was originally much longer Deadline’ . . . a young fellow joins a group than its present 113 minutes . . .

That’s legitimate. The character hustling cattle, and by the end of The original cut was four hours of Zab is me for about three or four the drive he has become a man.

Sam Fuller

498—Cinema Papers, December-January

I wanted to keep away from that, because when you are killing, or being killed, there is no time for development of anything, except the drive to live.

What do you see as going on inside Griffs head when he fires the gun repeatedly into the gas chamber? first of all, he is completely stymied: he is totally ignorant of what the hell he is looking at. I kept my camera on him just long enough for people to realize he has seen a human skeleton in that oven. And by the time he reaches the second and third doors, and sees the SS man, it is the first time he realizes what the hell he is fighting for.

Griff is fighting a very evil thing called Kill; that’s Hitler, in this par­ ticular case. And you cannot sit at a table with Mr Kill and discuss any deal — it is impossible. You have to resort to his goddamn level and kill his soldiers, and, if possible, kill him. You have to kill Kill, and the idiocy of it is, when it is all over, you can’t tell who really won, or who really lost.

The style of the film is really unlike any other war films I have seen, ex­ cept perhaps your own. It is more like the surrealism of somebody like Luis Buñuel . . .

I love his work, and what I try to do is get a very coherent and quiet approach to insanity. I didn’t want anybody yelling or screaming. I didn’t want any silly questions asked, with the exception of one: “ Is it alright to kill a sane man?” I wanted that done in a very off-theshoulder way.

I kept away from bloodshed, be­ cause I don’t like ketchup on the screen. I prefer to have an audience imagine what is happening.

There is a wonderful scene where a fellow in the asylum grabs a machine-gun and says, “I’m sane, I’m sane, I’m like you”, and pro­ ceeds to fire at random . . .

Well, that’s your whole theme of sanity and insanity. If they are copying us, who the hell is insane?

While that is a disturbing scene, it is also very funny. And “The Big Red One” seems to have a fuller comic sense than the rest of your films. It looks much more worked out . . .

I am glad you said that, because the 10 per cent of the last cut that I didn't like was the 10 per cent with­ out humor.

There is a crazy sequence where the Germans, who are fleeing from one unseen enemy — i.e., the navy — run into a cave and get mown down by the guns of another unseen enemy, the soldiers hiding there . . .

Yeah, it is funny. Half the time when people are taking a piss on the battlefield, they have no idea of the

SAM FULLER

CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

drama that could be taking place 15 feet away.

We once hid in an area where the Germans were standing above us.

They pissed on us, and we couldn’t do a thing about it. And one guy be­ gan to laugh. There was so much noise- that the goddamn son-of-abitch who was pissing didn’t hear this guy laughing. But imagine if he had heard him. Imagine the guy with his cock out shooting a riñe.

That would have been a hell of a scene, if you know what I mean.

In this film, the Germans and Americans are seen as reflections of each other. We see a lot of the Germans, and we get a sense of them being the same as the Americans, except on the other side . . .

It is so hard to explain to anyone how a goddamn war gets started.

All human beings are the same once they are on the line with a riñe. The difference here is that we were not brought up to go out and commit mass murder, nor were they in Australia, England or France. Hit­ ler’s was a dedicated, very precise plan, which he wrote about in de­ tail in Mein Kampf. The origin of the German and the American soldiers was different. But iron­ ically enough, once we were on that line with our weapons, we were the same.

Censorship Listings Continued from p. 484 Title

Producer

Country

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

Reason for Decision

Mourir a Tue-tete (A Scream From Silence) (16mm) The Night of the Strangler Ok Ketten (The Two of Them) 1 0 0 Rifies (a) Prova D’orchestra (Orchestra Rehearsal) Shaolin M artial Arts Soul of the Sword Spiritual Boxer Part II W illie and Phil

National Film Board of Canada Howco International Pictures Dialog Film Studio 20th Century-Fox Daimo Cinematografica Chang's Film Co Shaw Brothers Shaw Brothers P. Mazursky/T. Ray

Canada U.S. Hungary U.S. Italy Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S.

1031.18 2286.82 2593.29 3011.90 1952.16 3151.34 2482.83 2844.58 31 27.99

V V S V S V V V S

(l-m-j), 0 (rape theme) (i-m-g) (i-m-j) (f-m-j) (i-l-j), V (i-i-j) (i-h-j) (f-m-g) (f-m-g) (i-l-j), L (i-m-j)

S S S S V S V V S S V S S

(f-m-j) (f-m-g) (f-m-g) (i-m-j), V (f-m-j) (f-m-g) (f-l-g), V (i-l-g) (f-m-g) (f-m-g) (f-m-g) (f-m-g) (f-m-j), L (f-m-j) (f-m-g) (f-m-g)

(a) Previously registered in 1969 in a reconstructed version as “ Suitable Only for Adults" with cuts.

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Crazy Sex Deep Hunger Devil’s Due Eaten Alive Inferno Kiss Me Mate Mysterious Footwork of Kung Fu Night of Bloody Horror The Only House in Town (16mm) The Sexy Dozen (a) Stir The Sw eet Taste of Joy Wall Street Walker

Shaw Brothers P. Sweet/H. Flynn Nino De Roma Dania Film Intersound The Editing Production Co. Betty Ting Howco International URSI Films W. Kunz Film Productions Smiley Films Triumph Films Klrt Film International

Joe Siu International Film Co. 14th Mandolin P/L 14th Mandolin P/L The House of Dare P/L Fox Columbia Film DisL P/L 14th Mandolin P/L Golden Reel Films P/L Hoyts Distribution P/L Mutual Film Distributors 14th Mandolin P/L Hoyts Distribution P/L 14th Mandolin P/L 14th Mandolin P/L

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Corps a Coeur

Diagonale

France

3456.18

Canberra FilmFestival

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION “G” Circus (16mm)

Deletions: 0.6 metres (3 secs) Reason for deletions: L (i-l-g) Son of Superbug (a) (reconstructed version)

D. Grelg/ Australian Film Commission

Barbara Film

Australia

537.53

W. Germany/ Spain

Deletions: 26.7 metres (58 secs) Reason for deletions: V (i-l-g)

2509.90

David Greig

Filmways A'asian Dist P/L

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” Afternoon Tease

Yeah, except for this one. Some are dead and some are still living.

Get What You Pay For (1 6mm) Naughty Nostalgia Parts 1 and 2

Video Blue

U.S.

1533.84

14th Mandolin P/L

S (f-m-g)

(a) Original version titled The Return of Superbug classified "NRC"; reconstructed by applicant to obtain lower classification.

(videotape)

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Janus II

U.S.

625.30

Mutual Film Distributors

Not shown

U.S.

60 mins

Hollywood House

S (f-h-g)

Not shown

Britain

30 mins

Electric Blue (A’asia)

S (i-h-g)

S (i-h-g)

Untitled (Nude Wives Special)

(videotape)

Why does the Sergeant have no other name?

Continued on p. 500

2459.62 2370.48 2427.00 2342.59 2900.35 1684.30 2646.76 2192.97 559.47 2677.25 2770.43 1577.36 1562.73

Special condition: That the film will be exhibited only at the 1980 Canberra and Indian Ocean Film Festivals and then exported.

Deletions: 26.8 metres (58 secs) Reason for deletions: S (i-h-g)

What I liked about the film, though, was that it wasn’t didactic at all. It didn’t try to teach me a lesson; it just showed me absurdity . . .

Hong Kong U.S. U.S. Italy/Sri Lanka Italy U.S. Hong Kong U.S. U.S. Switzerland Australia U.S. U.S.

(a) Previously registered in a version measuring 2934.60 metres (May 1972 List).

Are the soldiers’ nicknames in your war films a reference to soldiers you knew?

Because he is a symbol of war. It doesn’t make any difference who he is, or where he came from; he’s Death. And without going into a big editorial, when Death does meet Death, when he meets the German in the end, nobody really wins or loses. The only reason the Sergeant wants to keep the son-of-a-bitch alive is because it will keep himself alive.

That definition of the thin line between ‘to kill’ and ‘to murder’ is important to him. And the hypo­ crisy of the whole thing is that a piece of paper with a scratch of a pen is what tells me when I am allowed to kill Tom Ryan, and when I am not. All because some son-of-a-bitch thousands of miles away signed a piece of paper.

If I was going to kill you, I’d want to kill you because I want to kill you, not because some son-of-abitch writes on a piece of paper, “ It’s okay, Fuller. Now you can kill Tom Ryan.”

National Film Board of Canada Hoyts Distribution P/L Brighton Film Distributors Magnetic Video (South Pacific) Scopo Films Joe Siu International Film Co. Joe Siu International Film Co. Joe Siu International Film Co. Fox Columbia Film DisL P/L

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW NIL

SE P TE M B E R

1 9 8 0

FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION “G” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Title

Producer

Country

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

The Aquanauts

Mosfilm

USSR

2175.26

Emilia Galotti (1 6mm) Five and Five Jabiru Safari (1 6mm) Joni Spider M an—The Dragon’s Challenge Soldiers (1 6mm) The Wobbfies (1 6mm)

L. Cremer Not shown D. & J. Gordon World Wide Columbia Mei Chang Ling Centre for Educational Productions

W. Germany Israel Australia U.S. U.S. Taiwan

1 219.00 2386.00 1206.70 2894.02 2593.29 1 151.00

Commercial Counsellor of the USSR German Embassy Kadimah Jewish Cultural Centre D. Gordon GUO Film Distributors Pty. Ltd. Fox Columbia Film DisL Pty. Ltd. Chinese Cultural Centre

U.S.

954.39

Quality Films

Reason for Decision

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN “NRC” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS L. Prasader Nariman Sabah Cannon Group D. De Laurentiis Lee Shuan Shang Not shownNot shown Columbia Albina Productions Dung Jian Ching Les Films Ariane

India India Lebanon Canada Britain Taiwan Turkey India U.S. France Hong Kong France

4200.00 4300.00 1283.49 2700.23 3074.52 2620.03 2000.00 3783.00 3290.80 2286.82 2593.58 2700.23

S.K.D. Film Dist. P/L S.K.D. Film Dist P/L N. Avramides Dudley Gordon Organisation Roadshow Dist. P/L R. Yu K. Kavurma S.K.D. Film Dist P/L Fox Columbia Film Dist. P/L Valhalla Films P/L Eupo Films Pan American Productions

Turkey Greece

914.40 2400.00

K. Kavurma Lyra Films Pty. Ltd.

The Return of the Crazy Bumpkin The Stalker

Acar Film Not shown Moscow Documentary Film Studios Shaw Bros.

Mosfilm

USSR Hong Kong USSR

1336.00 2940.85 4438.01

Super Love Why Should 1Lie?

Goldig Films M-G-M

Hong Kong U.S.

2352.68 2844.58

USSR Embassy Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. Commercial Counsellor of The USSR Comfort Films Enterprises Cinema Inf I Corp. P/L

Bidaai Don Dounia Nagam (16mm) Face-O ff Flash Gordon For Whom the Bell Rings Gelde Icme Gharaonda (The Nest) Gloria Hang-Ups Home From The Hili La Cuisse De Jupiter (Inspector’s Honeymoon) Mahpus (1 6mm) 0 Falakros Mathitis Plot About Republic

0 (emotional stress) V (i-l-i) V (i-l-j) V (i-l-j) V (f-l-j)

V (i-l-j)

V (i-l-j) V (i-l-j) 0 (adult theme) V (i-l-j) 0 (sexual allusions)

Continued on p. 500 Cinema Papers, December-January—499

SAM FULLER

CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

Sam Fuller

Censorship Listings

Continued from p. 499

Continued from p. 499

Ah, you’ve got it. I don’t have to spell these things out. I went out of my way to make sure that it would be an intimate and very quiet look at a rifle in action. Men in war don’t talk about the war. The only thing I remember in three years is not, “What are we doing here?” or “ Why are we fighting?” , but “Why the hell isn’t there somebody here to relieve us?” ; “ Where is K com­ pany and where is L company?”

It is a question of survival rather than comradeship . . .

You are right. “ I don’t mind if Tom Ryan and the 2nd Platoon gets killed. Why the hell should I be here? Where the hell is Ryan? Did you see Ryan?” I am using your name as an example, but that is exactly the dialogue. “Yeah, I saw him about an hour ago. Where is he? Why the hell isn’t his goddamn platoon here?” That’s survival! I don’t care if Ryan and his platoon got it. We would say, “ Fuck ’em, they got it. But we made it.” Now that is the story of infantry.

In the action of Omaha Beach, my real sergeant rattled off those numbers just the way Marvin does: number one, number two, number three, number four — just like that.

No emotion. And the overall thing 1 tried to get in this film — and, as far as women are concerned, I caught it — is the lack of emotion these men had. That they show a lack of emotion about so many things is to me the emotion of the entire film.

You have written a novel called ‘The Rifle’ about Vietnam but, un­ fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be available in this country . . .

It will be published in Flemish. If the goddamn book is slightly suc­ cessful, I think I will be able to get British, French and American pub­ lishers.

My approach was to tell it from the side of the U.S. in Vietnam — and they are right. And to tell it from the side of the Viet Cong — and they are right. And to tell it from the side of Flo Chi Minh — and he is right.

The important thing is that they all feel they are right when they . stand in Font of a mirror and look at the goddamn reflection of their eyes and do not blink.

So, the whole idea at the end is that they are not only all wrong, they are all full of shit. All of them.

Do China, or the Soviet Union, or the U.S. really give a goddamn about a little area called Indo­ China, that nobody ever heard about until 1954? One says, “ I want to give them their freedom” , and the other says, “ I want to give them their freedom” . But both want the crumbs, and then the whole cake.

That is the story of the book. A 500—Cinema Papers, December-January

FOR MATURE AUDIENCES “M” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Title

Producer

Country

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

Reason for Decision

The Big Brawl Blood R eincarnation Boardwalk Breaking Glass Chere Inconnue The Club

U.S. Hong Kong U.S. U.K. France

2593.58 2286.82 2760.91 2872.46 2816.69

Warner Bros. (Aust.) P/L Comfort Film Enterprises Everard Films (Aust) P/L Cinema Int’l Corp. P/L Brighton Film Distributors

V (f-m-j) V (i-m-j) 0 (horror theme) V (i-m-j) L (f-m-j) 0 (drugs) 0 (adult themes)

The Cunning Hustler Don’t Hate Me Dr. Heckyi & Mr. Hype The Elephant Man The Fearless Hyena Gaijin - The Roads of Freedom (16mm) Gas Pump Girls Havoc! (Videotape) The Hunter Island of Virgins The Jericho M ile The Kung Fu Instructor Love o f Charming Ghost

Welntraub & Morse F.Q. Yu G. Herrod Allied Stars Cineproductions S.A. S.A. & NSW Film Corporations Shaw Bros.

Vietnam Fllms/Tina Hoa Films Golan-Globus EMI-Brooksfllms Goodyear Movie Co. C.P.C. Co. D. A. Davies Videovisloin Rastar/Mort Shaw Bros.

T. Zinnemann Shaw Bros.

Hai Hua Cinema Co.

2633.28 2649.36 2844.58 2620.03 3374.45 2677.25 11 29.91 2339.00 43 mins.

2620.03 2509.92 2620.03 2872.46

Roadshow Dist. P/L Joe Siu Int’i Film Co. Hong Australia Seven Keys Films P/L GUO Film Dist. P/L Golden Reel Films Le Clezio Films Seven Keys Films P/L Electric Blue A’Asla Cinema Int’l Corp. P/L Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. Roadshow Dist. P/L Joe Siu Int’l Film Co.

L (f-m-j) 0 (drugs) S (i-m-g) S (i-m-j) 0 (adult theme) S (i-l-j) V (i-l-j) 0 (grotesque element) V (i-m-g) O (adult themes) S (I-m-g) V (f-m-g) V (f-m-g) V (f-m-g) S (i-l-g) V (i-m-j) V (f-m-g)

The M agnificent 3 Phobia Rue Haute (High Street) Shock Within Serenity Siberiade — A Siberian Saga

Goldig Films L. Spiegel/M. Bergman Cine Vog/Filmel Shuay Yuei Fong Mosfilm

Australia Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S. U.K. Hong Kong Brazil U.S. U.K. U.S. Hong Kong U.S. Hong Kong Hong Kong/ Thailand Hong Kong Canada Belgium Hong Kong USSR

2700.20 2733.02 2454.14 2593.58 2426.26 5881.70

V (i-m-g) V (f-m-j) V (i-m-j) 0 (suspense) L (f-m-j) V (i-m-j)

Stir (a) Suru (The Herd) Sw ordsm an & Enchantress

Smiley Films Guney Filmcilik Shaw Bros.

Australia Turkey Hong Kong

2770.43 3291.60 2509.92

The True Game of Death When Joseph Returns (1 6mm)

Not shown Hungarofilm/Mafilm

Hong Kong Hungary

2342.59 965.36

Hong Australia Comfort Film Enterprises Hoyts Distribution P/L Belgian Chamber of Commerce Comfort Film Enterprises Commercial Counsellor for the USSR Hoyts Distribution P/L Pan American Productions Joe Siu International Film Co. P/L Comfort Film Enterprises Australian Council of Film Societies

V (i-m-j) O (nudity) S (i-m-j) V (i-m-j) V (f-m-j) S (i-m-g) V (i-l-g) S (i-l-j)

(a) Valid for all States except Queensland; See also under “ Films Board of Review".

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS All About Gloria Leonard

(Reconstructed version) (a) The Avenging Eagle Bank Busters Delinquent Schoolgirls (Videotape) The Great Rock & Roll Swindle Illic it Desire Lip Service Otagon Starlets For Sale Struggle Sw inging Cheerleaders The T attoo Connection Tw inkle Tw inkle “Killer” Kane

Vice Squad

Howard A. Howard Shaw Bros.

Shaw Bros.

Alpha Productions Maxtrix Best/Kendon Films Shaw Bros.

Kirt Films International American Cinema Prods.

Shaw Bros.

Goldig Films J. Prizer First Film,Co.

U.S. Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S. Britain Hong Kong U.S. U.S. Hong Kong Hong Kong U.S. Hong Kong

1898.18 2537.81 2459.62 58 mins.

2816.69 2807,1 7 1550.63 2844.58 2760.91 2646.76 2432.88 2486.35

W. Blatty Francos Films

U.S. France

2894.02 2513.09

S (f-m-g) V (i-h-g) V (f-m-j) S (i-m-g) V (i-m-g) S (i-m-g) L (f-m-j) S (i-m-g) S (f-m-g) V (f-m-g) S (f-m-g) V (f-m-g) S (f-m-g)

1 4th Mandolin Pty. Ltd. Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. Videolink Pty. Ltd. Roadshow Dist. P/L Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. 1 4th Mandolin Pty. Ltd. Roadshow Dist. P/L Joe Siu Int’l Film Co. Comfort Film Enterprises House of Dare P/L International Cinema Organisation Roadshow Dist. P/L Filmways A’Asian Dist. P/L

V (f-m-g) V (i-h-j) L (f-m-j) S (i-m-g) V (i-m-g)

(a) Previously shown on May, 1980 List.

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Special Condition: That the film will be exhibited only at the 1980 Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Indian Ocean and/or Adelaide Film Festivals and then exported.

Aguila (Eagle) Bancom Audiovision Am erica Lost & Found (16mm) Media Study Anthracite Seawell Films Arthur M iller On Home Ground (1 6mm) . C.B.C. As If In A Dream LVN M. Duparc Avoir 1 6 Ans Aziza Satpec/Latif Blood o f Hussain Paridah Films The Butterfly Murders Seasonal Film Prods.

Cha Cha Black Tulip Film Prods.

Coup De Tete Gaumont/S.F.P. The Demise o f Herm an Durer Virginia Films De W itte Visle PVBA Encounter in July Film Studio Barrandov Essakam at Salah Abu Saif Every Man For Him self Sara Films/Saga (Sauve Qui Peut La Vie) F.E.N. Micra Film Funeral a t Bongo: Old Anai Les Films De L’Homme Gal Young TJn Nunez Films The G am ekeeper ATV Network The G reatest Man in the Learning In World (16mm) Focus Inc. 1 Am Anna Magnani Pierre Films Imposters (1 6mm) Tuxedo Films In For Treatm ent (Opname) Het Werkteatre Instant Pictures Sigma Films Jaguar Atienza Kafr Kassem Syrian National Film L’Amour Blesse — Confidences De La Nuit J-P Letebvre La Nuit De Saint-G erm ainFilmologies/Oriane/ Des Pres Peri ' Le Fils Puni Institut National (The Punished Son) De L’Audlovisuel Les Bons Debarras (Good Riddance) M. Couelle/C. Godbout Les Murs (The W alls) M. Jamil Les Servantes Du D. Letourneau Bon Dieu (16mm) M arigolds in August (16mm) Serpent (Southern) M ariiia E Marina Melodram a The Missing Link

Mountain People The Music School (16mm) The Nice Neighbour (A Kedves Somszed) Ocana, Retrat interm itent Once Upon A Tim e Ordnung Paul’s Case (1 6mm) Raices De Sarsgre (Roots o f Blood) Roads o f Exile The Secret Simone Barbes Ou La Vertu Sifting Ducks Six Days in Soweto

Prods. Pty. Ltd. Alter/T erra/Romar C. Mangos SND Kiat lamphungporn Learning In Focus Inc. Mafilm TEIDE G. Lakshmipathi/ K. Narayan Martin Taege Film Learning In Focus Inc. Conacine Prod.

Telecip Unique Films Diagonale Meira Attia Dor ATV

Philippines U.S. France Canada Philippines Canada Tunisia Pakistan Hong Kong Netherlands France Netherlands Belgium Czech.

Egypt/Tunisia Switzerland/ France Spain France U.S. Britain

576 2.70 71 9.00 2468.70 914.40 304 5.00 348 3.86 2468.88 301 7.00 2743.20 2743.00 2515.00 274 3.20 2907.00 2360.00 301 7.52

Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festval Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival

2414.00 3072.16 2880.36 2926.00 246 8.70

Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc.

U.S. Belgium U.S. Netherlands Netherlands Philippines Syria

658 .00 2900.00 1219.00 2715.77 2084.83 2468.88 2195.00

Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival

Canada

2139.00

Indian Ocean Film Festival

France

2633.47

Indian Ocean Film Festival

France

2468.88

Indian Ocean Film Festival

Canada Iraq Canada

3182.11 2578.61 1426.00

Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival

South Africa Brazil Greece France/ Belgium Thailand U.S.

993.64 2660.90 2551.00

Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide int’l Film Festival Inc.

2606.04 2962.66

658.00

Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc.

Hungary Spain

2798.06 2249.00

Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc.

India W. Germany U.S. Mexico France Hong Kong France U.S. Britain

3840.00 2633.47 658.00 2743.20 2000.00 2743.20 2112.26 2468.88 1645.80

Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc.

Concluded on p. 503

PRODUCTION SURVEY

Production Survey Continued from p. 457 Scriptwriter ............................ Harry Booth Sound recordist .......................Jon Marsh Editors ......................................Bill Stacey, Liz Irwin Assoc, producer ................Rosemary Gow Unit manager ........................ Patricia Blunt Length ............................................. 25 mins Gauge .......................... 16mm and 35mm Shooting stock .....................Eastmancolor Progress ..................................... In release First released ................... November, 1980 Synopsis: A montage of Australia and Its lifestyle, using the words of Henry Lawson to describe this unique continent.

Directors

..................................... Bill Stacy, Terry Ohlsson Scriptwriter ................................Geoff Pike Editor ......................................... Bill Stacey Assoc, producer ............... Rosemary Gow Mixer ..........................................Jon Marsh Narrator ............. ................. Paul Ricketts Length .............................................20 mins Gauge .......................... 16mm and 35mm Shooting stock ..................... Eastmancolor Progress ......................................In release First released ................... December, 1980 Synopsis: A film Illustrating why Australia needs a navy with footage of the Royal Aus­ tralian Navy In action. .

STOWAGE, CARE AND USE OF LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT, SMALL BOAT ENGINE MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY

Dist. company ......................Film Australia Producer ..............................Peter Johnson ON SACRED GROUND Assoc, producer ............. Rosemary Gow Length ........................................ 2 x 5 mins Prod, company ...................Film Australia Gauge ................................................ 16mm Dist. company .....................Film Australia Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Producer j ........................................... Robin Hughes Progress .................................... Production Director .................................. Oliver Howes Scheduled release ................... April, 1981 Photography ........................John Hosklng Synopsis: Two films on small boat safety Sound recordists .............. Max Hensser, procedures.

John Franks Editor ..................................... Louis Antivitti Assoc, producer ....................... Alex Ezard TERRITORY NEWSREEL Camera assistant ....................... Jim Ward Prod, company ....................Film Australia N a rra to r.................................. Ribnga Green Dist. company ......................Film Australia Length ........................................... 48 mins Producer ..............................Peter Johnson Progress .................................... In release Director .............................. Graham Chase Synopsis: This film examines the question Scriptwriter ........................ Graham Chase of oil drilling on Aboriginal sacred sites In Photography ................... Michael Atkinson the Kimberley and, In particular, NoonkanSound recordist ......................Bob Hayes bah stations.

Editor ..................................Graham Chase Assoc, producer ....... .

Rosemary Gow A PLACE OF YOUR OWN Camera assistant ..................James Ward Length .............................................30 mins Prod, company ...................Film Australia Gauge ................................................ 16mm Dlst. company .................... Film Australia Shooting stock ......................

Eastmancolor Producer ............................ Robin Hughes Progress ...................................In release Director ............................ Macek Rubetzki First released ................... December, 1980 Photography ...................Macek Rubetzki, Synopsis: A film for Aboriginals in the Chris Tlllam N orthern T e rrito ry e xplaining and il­ Sound recordist ...................Dascha Ross lustrating the work and lifestyles of other Editors ..................................Dascha Ross, Aboriginals In other parts of the Territory.

Chris Tlllam, Macek Rubetzki Assoc, producer .......................Alex' Ezard Length ..................................... 3 x 20 mins Progress ..................................... In release First released ............. November 1, 1980 Synopsis: A series examining the question of shelter for young people, and the prob­ lems connected with finding cheap accom­ modation for those with limited resources.

NEW SOUTH WALES FILM CORPORATION ANTI-SMOKING PROGRAM

PLAIN SAILING Prod, company ...................Film Australia Dlst. company .....................Film Australia Producer ............................ Robin Hughes Director ................................Martin Cohen Scriptwriter .................................... Bob Ellis Photography ........................ Kerry Brown, Jim Ward Sound recordist ............... Rod Symmons Editor ............................................ Greg Bell Assoc, producer ....................... Alex Ezard Unit manager .......................Susan Dorlng Camera assistant ....................... Jim Ward Length .............................................30 mins Progress ......................................In release Synopsis: A dramatized documentary made for the Department of Industry and Com­ merce for use as a training film for people starting up their own business.

PLEASE DON’T LEAVE ME Prod, company ...................Film Australia Dist. company .....................Film Australia Producer .............................. Robin Hughes Director ........................... Stephen Ramsey Photography ...........................Tony Wilson, " Dean Semler Sound recordists ................... Jeff Dorlng, Brian Morris, Tim Lloyd Editor ...................................... Nick Torrens Assoc, producer .......................Alex Ezard Prod, assistant ..................Macek Rubetzki Mixer ...................................... Nick Torrens Length ........................................... 42 mins Progress ......................................In release Synopsis: A documentary film which con­ trasts the emotional experiences of three young children In hospital. Made for the As­ sociation for the Welfare of Children In Hospital.

RUGBY Prod, company

.................. Motion Picture Associates Dist. company .................... .Film Australia Producer ..............................Peter Johnson Director ................................. David Barrow Scriptwriters ....................... Peter Johnson, David Barrow, Michael Robertson Photography ............................ John Leake Editor .................................... Peter Fletcher Assoc, producer ............. Rosemary Gow Unit manager ....................... Peter Fletcher Camera assistant ................. Steve Mason Length ............................................. 25 mins Gauge ...............................................16mm Shooting stock .....................Eastmancolor Progress ..................................... In release First released ................... November, 1980 Synopsis: A film on the game of Rugby Union in Australia.

SEAWATCH Prod, companies .. Kingcroft Productions and Film Australia Dist. company ......................Film Australia Producer ..............................Peter Johnson

Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Budget ............................................. $32,500 Length ....................................... 3 x 5 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: A short series to be used as dis­ cussion starters, each examining different aspects of teenage smoking. Sponsored by the Health Commission of New South Wales.

BREAKING THE SILENCE Prod, company ............................Iris Films Producer/dlrector ....... Elizabeth McCrae Scriptwriter ...................Elizabeth McCrae Photography ...................... Martha Ansara Sound recordist ................Jo Horsburgh Assoc, producer ....... Barbara Chobocky Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Prod, managers ....... Barbara Chobocky, Carol Kostanlch Camera assistants ..................Chris Eade, Susan Lambert, Wendy Brady Mixed at .............................Palm Studios Laboratory .......................................... Atlab Budget ............................................. $40,000 Length .............................................28 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ................... Eastmancolor Progress ........................... Post-production Synopsis: A short film that aims to change society's unsympathetic and hostile at­ titudes towards victims of sexual assault and rape, and to modify the shame and guilt they suffer. Sponsored by the Women's Co­ ordination Unit and the New South Wales Premier's Department.

CAPTIVES OF CARE Scriptwriter ........................ Chris Peacock Exec, producer ....................Richard Davis Length .............................................48 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress ..............................Pre-production Synopsis: A dramatized docum entary depicting the life and experiences of a handicapped person. Sponsored by the Department of Youth and Community Ser­ vices.

DRINK DRIVING EDUCATION PROJECT Prod, company

............................ Laughing Kookaburra Productions Producer .....................................Jan Sharp Directors ....................................Jan Sharp, Phil Noyce Scriptwriter . . . . ......................Phil Noyce Exec, producer ....................Richard Davis Budget ............................................. $38,000 Length ........................................ 3 x 5 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ............................ Production and Post-production Synopsis: A short series to be used as dis­ cussion starters for Secondary School stu­ dents. Each film examines different aspects

of adolescent drinking and driving. Spon­ sored by the Department of Motor Trans­ port.

NO SIMPLE SOLUTIONS Prod, company ............................. Fllmeast Director ..............................Bernard Vance Scriptwriter ...................... Lynn Tunbridge Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Budget ............................................. $18,000 Length ........................................... 10 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress .............................Pre-production Synopsis: A film designed to educate the community about the roles and activities of the State Pollution Control Commission.

The film will explain the nature of pollution, and encourage personal and community in­ volvement in pollution control. Sponsored by the State Pollution Control Commission.

NSW AUSTRALIA INVESTMENT BRIEF Scriptwriter ....................... Christopher Jay Exec, producer ....................Richard Davis Budget ................................................ $8500 Length .................... 10 mins and 20 mins Gauge ................................................ 35mm Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: A short series designed to highlight the State’s Investment potential, stressing location, economy, resources, lifestyles etc. Sponsored by the Depart­ ment of Industrial* D evelopm ent and Decentralization.

NSW MINING INDUSTRY Scriptwriter ............................ Ric Blakeney Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Length .............................................15 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: A film which seeks to establish community awareness and understanding of how the mining industry contributes to the material and financial prosperity of New South Wales. Sponsored by the Depart­ ment of Mineral Resources.

SAFETY IN PILLARS Scriptwriter .......................... Richard Jarvis Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Length ........................ .................. 10 mins Gauge ................................................ 35mm Progress .............................Pre-production Synopsis: A presentation on Safety In Pillars to accompany a booklet produced by the Department of Mineral Resources.

Sponsored by the Department of Mineral Resources.

Producer ........................ Anne Whitehead Director ................................Don Anderson Scriptwriter .......................... Don Anderson Sound recordist ......... John Schiefelbein Editor ............................. Mike Woolveridge Unit manager .......................... Ian Berwick Cameraman .........................Chris Morgan Assistant cameraman ............... John Jasiukowlcz Grip .....................................Gary Clements Mixei_ .................................. Peter McKinley Length ............................................. 15 mins Progress ........................... Post-production Synopsis: A feature in which Bryan Brown, as presenter, emphasises safety aspects In welding and cutting operations.

DELICATE BALANCE Prod, company

................ Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer ................................Barry Pierce Scriptwriter ............................ Maria Honey Photography ...................Russell Galloway Length ............................................. 20 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress .................................... Production Synops's: A long-term project aimed at raising social consciousness about the overuse of consumer products. In the quest for resources for these products we destroy animal habitats. Sponsored by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

TAFE INFORMATION A/V SERIES Prod, companies ................................Myad John Bushelle and Gadonya Productions Producers ............................ Adrian Payne, John Bushelle, John McNally Directors .............................. Adrian Payne, John Bushelle, John McNally Scriptwriter ..........................................TAFE Photography ...................Brian Mclnerney, Mike Giddons, John Bushelle, John McNally Exec, producer ...................Richard Davis Budget .............................................$23,685 Length ......................................14 x 6 mins Gauge ................................................35mm Progress ........................... Post-production and In release Synopsis: A short series illustrating various courses offered by TAFE. Sponsored by the Department of Technical and Further Education.

TASMANIAN FILM CORPORATION CRANE SAFETY Prod, com pany

.................Tasm anian Film C orporation P roducer .....................................Barry Pierce D irector .................................... Jack Zalkalns S c rip tw rite r ............................ Damian Brown P hotography ............................ G ert Kirchner Sound re c o rd is t .........................Tom G iblin Editor ...............................M ike W oolveridge Cam era assistant ........................Jan Dallas Length ............................................... 12 m ins Gauge ..................................................... 16mm Progress .............................. P ost-production Synopsis: A short feature designed to en­ courage safety am ong crane operators.

S ponsored by the D epartm ent of Labour and Industry.

CUTTING IT FINE Dist. com pany

.................. Tasm anian Film C orporation

PUFFED OUT Prod, company .................. Dennis Tupicoff Animation Dist. company .......................Victorian Film Corporation S c riptw rite r..........................Dennis Tupicoff Exec, producer .................. Kent Chadwick Sound editor .............................. Mike Reid Mixer .................................... David Harrison Animation ........................... Dennis Tupicoff Recording stu d io s.................................. AAV Laboratory ...............................................VFL Length .................................................6 mins Gauge .................................................. 16mm Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Progress ......................................In release Synopsis: An animated film , for early teenagers, about the Immediate short-term effects of smoking as a deterrent to early addiction. Produced for the Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation and the Anti­ Cancer Council of Victoria.

THROUGH THE EYES OF A CHILD

..................Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer ........................ Anne Whitehead Scriptwriter ........................ John Patterson Length .............................................25 mins Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: A dramatized documentary look­ ing at ‘the generation gap’ through a break­ down In communication within a family.

Dist. company ....................... Victorian Film Corporation S criptw rite r........................ Terry McMahon Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Length .............................................. 24 mins Gauge .................................................. 16mm Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Progress ......................................Production Synopsis: A look at the world of languages and their significance In new migrant com­ munities as seen through the eyes of children. Made for the Department of Im­ migration and Ethnic Affairs.

WORKING FOR A LIVING

THE UNSUSPECTING CONSUMER

LETTING GO Dlst. company

Prod, company

................Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer ................................Barry Pierce Scriptwriter ............................ Barry Pierce Length ............................................. 15 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: The short feature examines at­ titudes to unionism by three young people in different work — or out of work — experi­ ences. Sponsored by the Minister for In­ dustrial Relations.

Dist. company .......................Victorian Film Corporation Director .....................................Peter Green S criptw rite r............................... Peter Green Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Length .............................................10 mins Gauge ..................................................16mm Shooting stock ...................... Eastmancolor Progress ......................................Production Synopsis: An animated film on the pitfalls of the marketplace. Made for the Department of Consumer Affairs.

WESTERNPORT CATCHMENT AREA

VICTORIAN FILM CORPORATION

SEWERAGE — THE HEALTH PROTECTOR Scriptwriter ........................ Ted Hutchison Exec, producer ................... Richard Davis Length ...........................................15 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress .............................Pre-production Synopsis: A film Illustrating how essential a modern sewerage service Is to major cities.

Sponsored by the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board.

Synopsis: A prom otional docum entary about Melbourne for International release.

Made for the Melbourne Tourist Authority and the Victorian Government Tourist Authority.

AWARD SCHEME Dlst. company ...................... Victorian Film Corporation S criptw rite r............................John Sullivan Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Length .............................................17 mins Gauge ................................................ 16mm Progress ............................ Pre-production Scheduled release ........... February, 1981 Synopsis: The Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. Made for the Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation.

FORGOTTEN WATERS

Prod, com panies............................Victorian Film Corporation and ABC Dist. com panies..............................Victorian Film Corporation and ABC D ire c to r.................................... Harris Smart S criptw rite r.............................. Harris Smart Exec, producer ................... Kent Chadwick Length ....................................... 3 x 30 mins Gauge .................................................. 16mm Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Progress ....................................... In release First released...................November, 1980 Synopsis: A series of three documentaries on the effects of industrialization on a new community. Co-produced by the Victorian Film Corporation and the Australian Broad­ casting Commission for the Department of the Premier.

STREET KIDS

Prod, company .................The Film House Dist. company .......................Victorian Film Dist. company .......................Victorian Film Corporation Corporation S criptw riters...........................Adrian Tame, D ire c to r............................................. Gordon Glenn Kent Chadwick S criptw rite r........................................ RussellPorter Exec, producer .................Kent Chadwick Photography..............................Ellery Ryan Length .............................................48 mins Sound recordist ...................... Ian Wilson Gauge ..................................................16mm E d ito r................................Graeme Preston Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Exec, producer ................ Kent Chadwick Progress ............................ Pre-production Camera assistant .................James Grant Scheduled release ...................April, 1981 Neg. m a tch in g ....... Victorian Neg Cutting Synopsis: A feature documentary on the Services urban streetlife of homeless children.

Sound mixer ...................... David Harrison Laboratory .............................................. VFL WINNING Length .............................................. 20 mins Gauge ..................................................16mm Prod, company .......................Kestrel Films Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Dist. company ....................... Victorian Film Progress ......................................Production Corporation Scheduled release ........... February. 1981 D ire c to r..................................David Morgan Synopsis: A documentary on the native S criptw rite rs......................................... DavidMorgan, fishing resources of Victoria's rivers and the Kent Chadwick need to conserve them. Produced for the Photography...........................Alex McPhee Ministry for Conservation (Fisheries and Sound recordist .....................John Rowley Wildlife Division).

E d ito r......................................David Morgan Exec, producer ................... Kent Chadwick KEW COTTAGES Camera assistant .................Roger Bayley Neg. m a tc h in g ................................ WarwickDriscoll Dist. company .......................Victorian Film Sound mixer ....................... David Harrison Corporation Laboratory .............................................. VFL S criptw rite r.........................................WendyJackson Length ............................................. 24 mins Exec, producer .................. Kent Chadwick Gauge ..................................................16mm Length ...............................................17 mins Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Gauge ..................................................16mm Progress ....................................... In release Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor First released.................September, 1980 Progress ......................................Production Synopsis: Set against a background of new Scheduled release ............. January, 1981 care available for the mentally handicap­ Synopsis: A documentary about therapy ped, the documentary traces a week in the care for handicapped children, set In Kew lives of two young people — their history Cottages Children's Centre. Melbourne. and aspirations. Produced for the Health Made for the Health Commission.

Commission.

MELBOURNE — CITY OF THE SOUTH Dist. company ....................... Victorian Film Corporation Exec, producer ................... Kent Chadwick Length .............................................. 20 mins Gauge ..................................................35mm Shooting s to c k ........................Eastmancolor Progress ............................ Pre-production Scheduled release ................................1981

Cinema Papers, December-January—501

IRA WOHL

Martin Knelman Continued from p. 441 have American stars for the American market, and big ad cam­ paigns. Most of them are not very good. Running was a film Michael McCabe was very hot on — he was very offended when it wasn’t selected for Cannes — but it’s a dumb film. It’s a Universal film release and they are putting it into nearly 500 cinemas all over North America and have several million bucks to spend on it.

There is a tremendous reluc­ tance to deal with anything that is “Canadian” , for fear that it will not be commercial. In my view, a good film that is commercial is Breaking Away. It was made without stars and it didn’t disguise the fact that it

IraWohl Continued from p. 433 it is very vague. You have to trust an awful lot to your cameraman.

Tom and I only knew each other a bit. We spent a lot of time talking about how I saw it and how he saw it, and what we thought was going on. But I left it pretty much to him to put that together in terms of the shooting. Then I would look at it and see if I liked it; most often I did.

So, we developed a working relationship. I think he shot the film so that the visualization helps you understand what the rela­ tionships are. I cut it myself and tried to maintain as much of the integrity of the shooting as I could.

What sort of rehearsal time or explanation did you give before shooting particular sequences? Was there any sort of pattern, or did it depend on what you were shooting at that time?

There was nothing.

There is something about the film that disturbs me. It is to do with the feeling that your aunt was being manipulated into agreeing to send Philly to the institution, simply because the process of her choice, in the scene where you sit with her at the kitchen table and argue the case for sending him away, was being recorded on film. It is not a question, as far as I am concerned, of the wisdom of your advice, because I felt myself agreeing with what you were saying, but rather of the way in which it seemed to be imposed. When you say there was no preparatory explanation of rehear­ sal time, I am even more disturbed Okay. This comes up a lot, and I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble, or a certain amount of it, by having retained a voice­ over that I originally put in over 502—Cinema Papers. December-January

MARTIN KNELMAN

took place in Indiana. Yet, in the current climate, a Canadian equiva­ lent of Breaking Away would be impossible to make, and if you sent it to a Canadian film producer he’d say, “ God, no, you’d have to pretend it’s London or New York, and we’ll have to bring in Robert Redford” . By that time you would have destroyed the material.

My concern is that there should be some kind of opportunity for the talent that’s here. For instance, why . did they have to use Susan Anspach in Running. Nobody’s going to see Susan Anspach and there are 20 actresses here who could do better, but who didn’t get the chance.

bad idea. I don’t think you could have cast Duddy Kravitz in this country: Richard Dreyfuss was the right person. But there are a lot of cases where that isn’t true.

Of course what these regulations mean is that there is a tremendous demand for the handful of Cana­ dian people, like Genevieve Bujold, Donald Sutherland and Christo­ pher Plummer.

Is the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists approach self-defeating?

I think their approach is a bit boring: “No, we don’t want anyone to come here” is blindly nationalis­ There is pressure now to increase tic. The thing is, when Maggie the limit from two non-Canadians to Smith comes to the Stratford three, isn’t there?

Theatre Festival, she does great things for the company. At Strat­ I don’t think that is necessarily a ford you are working with an

that sequence. I think it clarified, in it. As soon as we started talking a sense, what my feelings were about it, it became apparent that it really wasn’t feasible or right for about that.

First of all I must tell you that I Philly to live with his sister.

Of course, my aunt would have really didn’t want to be the one to talk to her about it, and I tried to preferred that Philly would go to think of somebody else who could the residence the day after she died, — somebody from the organiza­ that he wouldn’t miss her anymore tion, somebody else in the family — and that all would be okay. But that but there really wasn’t anyone else. is not the way life is. A place was In the voice-over, I explained available for Philly, and there that I did feel very guilty and might not have been another one frustrated about talking to my aunt for five or 10 years.

As it worked out, my aunt died like that because, although I had a solution for Philly, I didn’t have only seven months later. I don’t any solution for her. And I wasn’t know what would have happened to unsympathetic about it. However, I Philly if he had been living at home took it out because I thought it when that happened.

When I first heard my aunt had would make me more a part of the scene as a person, and thus more died, I felt very guilty. That was my immediate reaction. I thought vulnerable.

That is exactly what has hap­ maybe she would have lived longer pened. I believe the film meant very if Philly had stayed at home. I little, in fact nothing, to my aunt talked to people about it, and they and uncle. It was not a part of their said to me, “ Perhaps, but it would consciousness. They never asked us have been the same problem a year to film or not film anything. They or two years later. Philly still would were only interested in Philly and have been stuck there, without what was happening to him. And I being able to make the transition.”

I believe he really needed to don’t believe that filming anything caused my aunt to feel that she make the transition while she was needed to agree on something that still alive. Somebody else said to she didn’t want to agree to already. me, “ Maybe she was just waiting to I set myself up as the defender of know that Philly was okay so that Philly’s rights at the beginning. I she could die.” She was 80 and guess if it came down to it and I was pretty frail. I only manipulated her making the choice, I would make in the way that I would if I wanted the choice for Philly. I loved my to convince somebody to do some­ aunt very much and I respected her thing I believed was right. But and admired her courage, but I knowing the relationship the crew honestly believed that this was what had to my aunt and to the family, I should happen. I did everything I don’t believe she was manipulated by the presence of the camera. could to persuade her of that.

She even says at that point, “ You But I must also say that, from the beginning, my aunt said she know, my life has ended. The boys wanted to know that there could be are here, they understand. Let me a place where Philly could be, so talk frankly to you.” By that time, that when she was gone, she would I, the cameraman and the sound know he was okay. It had always men were very much a part of the been assumed in the family that his family and, in a sense, a part of the sister would take him, but because decision-making process. What was of all the guilt and the pain sur­ happening to Philly was happening rounding the situation, it had never because we were all so involved in been discussed. Not between the such a special way. parents and his sister, and not even between his sister and her husband. Do you see the film as an analogy Everybody was afraid to talk about with a relationship that exists

institution that has been, and still is, very deeply committed to the problem of Canadian talent. A lot of our best actors come from there.

Now, that’s not the same thing as with some films where they bring in second-rate people.

Do you think distributors should have to show a quota of Canadian films?

I don’t think that’s a particu­ larly helpful approach. What might be helpful is a certain levy at the box-office, say 10 per cent, to go into a common pot for the produc­ tion of Canadian films. The big American film corporations have always treated Canada as a branch of the U.S.: they show all their films here and take all the profits out. It doesn’t cost them anything.

So, a tax is one answer. ★ generally between parents and children?

Sure. For me, the film is the classic story of any young person leaving home for the first time. And it has, as all those other situations do, all the loves, hates, jealousies, ties, controls, and all the things that go on in a situation like that. They stick out here very much more, because Philly is the age that he is, and because he happens to be re ta rd e d . T h ere is a little microcosm there, all the complexi­ ties: the desire of my aunt to see him go forward, and yet that reluc­ tance to let him go.

Somebody in the audience at Cannes asked, “ Did your aunt want him to leave home or didn’t she?”

And I said, “Yeah, that’s it, th a t\ the whole question. That is what is so complex about the situation — she did and she didn’t. I think it is the same with every parent.”

What has happened to Philly since the making of the film?

Philly is still in his training program at his school and is still living in his residence. He will have a home there for the rest of his life.

His mother has been dead for more than eight months. It was very difficult for him at the beginning and he was very upset about it a lot of the time.

I spent a weekend with him recently when he came to stay at my house. To me he just gets brighter and brighter every day. He takes a lot more in and he uses it much more to give other things out.

We took a walk in Greenwich Village on Eighth Street, after the film had been playing in New York.

About 50 people recognized him; they came up to him, talked to him, and shook his hand. He obviously enjoyed it. And I think he is in real good shape.

He still speaks about his mother, but it is much easier for him. And he has a good rest of his life to look forward to. ★

TELEVISION NEWS/NEW ZEALAND NEWS

Television News Continued from p. 459 mark the formation of the Society of Australian Film and Television Arts and Sciences, which will adjudicate future awards.

Judges for the awards represent Actors Equity, Australian Cinema­ tographers Society, Australian Writers Guild, Film Editors Guild, Designers Association Performing Arts, Musicians Union, NIDA and the Producers and Directors Guild of Australia.

Newton and Jones were awarded Gold Sammys for top male and female television performers. It was Jones’ second gold Sammy, the first being awarded in 1977.

Other television winners were: Chips Rafferty Memorial Award: Hector Craw­ ford. Best Actor, Single Television Per­ formance: Richard Moir — Players to the Gallery. Best Actress, Single Tele­ vision Performance: Robyn Nevin — A Toast To Melba. Best Actor, Television , Series: Peter Adams — Cop Shop.

Best Actress, Television Series: Sheila Florance — Prisoner. Best Variety Per­ former: Garry McDonald. Best Drama Series: Cop Shop. Best Short Drama Series: Players to the Gallery. Best C o m e d y P ro g ra m : K in g s w o o d Country. Best Television Play: Burn the Butterflies. Best Variety Program: The Royal Charity Concert. Best Current Affairs Program: 60 Minutes. Best Sports Coverage: Seven’s Big League.

Best Children’s Series: Young Ramsay.

Best Light E ntertainm ent Series: Parkinson in Australia.

Decision on A T V -10 Deferred A final decision on the fate of Rupert M urdoch’s ATV-10 takeover now seems certain to be deferred until February, 1981.

Murdoch’s News Limited has ap­ pealed against the ruling of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that the ATV-10 takeover was against public interest. The ABT refused to approve the takeover.

A preliminary hearing of the appeal, before the Adm inistrative Appeals Tribunal, indicated that the full hearing would not start until next year.

A further preliminary hearing was scheduled to be held on December 1 to determine the'standing of groups who have applied to give evidence at the hearing; the Federal and Victorian branches of the ALP, the Australian Journalists Association, Justice in Broadcasting, and the Rupert Public Interest Movement.

The A u s tra lia n B ro a d c a s tin g Tribunal has not yet indicated whether it intends to take an active role in defending its decision before the AAT. This is the firs t tim e the A d­ ministrative Appeals Tribunal has been called on to hear a matter from another Federal Government body which itself hears evidence. Its usual function is to act on procedural matters relating to implementation of government policy and legislation.

The delay in the ATV-10 case means that the channel will continue to pay dividends to Ansett T ra n s p o rt. In­ dustries, which is owned jointly by News Limited and TNT. In Canberra, there are moves to save the ABT further embarrassment of the kind suffered over the ATV-10 decision.

While the Tribunal refused to ap­ prove the News Group deal, it was powerless to order the Murdochowned company to make a share divestiture. This was because the deci­ sion was made outside the time limit allowed for such an order to be made.

The Post and Telecommunications Department is pushing for a procedure w hereby the trib u n a l notifies the Minister of allegations of contraven­ tions of the Broadcasting and Tele­ vision Act, so that prompt action can be taken. ★

CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

Censorship Listings Continued from p. 500 Title

Producer

Country

The Sky is Grey (16mm) Soleil Des Hyenes South Africa: The Nuclear File (1 6mm) Survivors The System Thongpoon Kokpo (Taxi Driver) Transit Trouble In Molopolis Une Semaine De Vacances Upcountry Teacher The Wedding of Zeln W inter-Bom Yuhuo Fen Quin (House of the Lute)

Learning In Focus Inc. Fugitive Film Prod.

u.s. •

P. Davis Kaic Cuba P. Yung Prince ChatriChalerm Yugal Transit Rim Productions P. Mora Sara Rims Kukrit Pramote K. Siddik A/S Panorama Hung Way Films

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

Tunisia

658.00 2743.20

Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival

U.S. Cuba Hong Kong

636.00 3577.00 2386.58

Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival

Thailand Israel Aust./Britain France Thailand Kuwait Denmark Hong Kong

2880.00 2500.00 2249.00 2965.00 2962.00 2606.04 2730.00 2606.04

Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival Indian Ocean Film Festival Adelaide Int’l Film Festival Inc. Indian Ocean Film Festival

Reason for Decision

Special Condition: That the film be shown only to Its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in its 1 980 "Aspects of German Cinema (Youth in German

Cinema)” Season.

At The End of the Rainbow (1 6mm) Bored Teenagers (16mm) The Delinquent Emden Goes to U.S.A. Parts 1 -4 (16mm) Halbe-H albe (1 6mm) A Hell o f a Good U fe (1 6mm) The Last Years of Childhood Love of the Land Pts. 1, 2 (16mm) The Main Actor (16mm)

Basis Workshop of München Rob Houwer Prod.

Norddeutscher/WestDeutscher Rundfunk DNS Sunset Mark Prod.

FFAT/Pro-Ject Norddeutscher Rundfunk Bioskop Film/WDR

W. Germany W. Germany W. Germany

1 228.00 975.00 2283.00

NFTA NFTA NFTA

W. W. W. W. W.

Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany

2657.00 11 55.00 660.00 2849.00 1642.00

NFTA NFTA NFTA NFTA NFTA

W. Germany

1120.00

NFTA

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Special Condition: That the film be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in its 1980 “Jazz and Blues" Season Along The Old Man River (1 6mm) Cecil Taylor (1 6mm) Good Morning Blues (16mm) On the Road With Duke Ellington (1 6mm)

Not shown Not shown Not shown

France France U.S.

987.00 600.00 638.00

NFTA NFTA NFTA

Drew Assoc.

U.S.

638.00

NFTA

Special Condition: That the film be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in its 1980 “ Text/Performance" Season.

The Song of the Shirt (1 6mm)

Film and History Project Royal College of Art

Britain

1485.00

Special Condition: That the film be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia Le Gai Savoird 6mm) Anouchka/ France/ Bavaria Attelier W. Germany 1001.00 Numéro Deux (1 6mm) Sonimage/Bella/SNC France 968.00 Pravda (1 6mm) CERT France 638.00 Vladimir and Rosa (16mm) Dziga-Vertov/ France/ WDR/Grove Press W. Germany 1133.00

NFTA in its 1980 “ Godard: Post '67” Season.

NFTA NFTA NFTA NFTA

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS The Hooker Convention (a)

F. Bordergerea

Deletions: 25.2 metres (55 secs.)

Reason for deletions: S (i-h-g)

U.S.

1868.50

14th Mandolin P/L

S (f-m-g)

W. Germany

2352.68

Biake Films P/L

S (f-m-g)

Die Liebesbriefe Erne Portugesichen Nonne

(Reconstructed version) (b) E. Dietrich Deletions: 11.6 metres (25 secs.)

Reason for deletions: 0 (sexual violence) (a) 16mm version previously shown on July, 1976 List (b) Previously shown on June, 1 980 List

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Danish Modern The Naughty Victorians

R. Mansfield J. Butterv/orth

U.S. U.S.

1431.20 2142.70

14th Mandolin P/L Regent Trading Enterprises

S (i-h-g) V (i-h-g) S (i-h-g)

U.S. U.S.

1857.90 1 794.80

14th Mandolin P/L Mutual Rim Distributors

S (f-h-g) S (i-h-g) V (i-h-g)

(Reconstructed version) (a) Pornography in Hollywood Taxi Girls

S. Cody J. Jaacovi

•

(Reconstructed version (b) (a) Previously shown on April, 1978 List (b) Previously shown on July, 1980 List.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Stir (a)

Smiley Films Australia 2770.43 Hoyts Distribution P/L Decision reviewed: “ R” registration by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Register “ M" for all States except Queensland (appeal lodged out of time for that State). (a) Previously shown on August 1980 List NOTE: Title of film shown as The Mountain of the Cannibal God (Reconstructed Version) May, 1980 List) has been altered to Slave of the Cannibal God

(Reconstructed Version).

New Zealand News Continued from p. 487 Germany and several other European countries following its market success at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.

It has also been se le cte d fo r screening at the London Film Festival next month. .

Trend to Small Cinemas The trend towards smaller more intimate cinemas in New Zealand’s main centres appears to be continuing, according to the annual report of the Internal Affairs Department.

In its report to Parliament, the department says there is evidence of re n e w e d in te r e s t in s u b u rb a n

'

operations, possibly as a result of increasing transport costs.

"N e v e rth e le s s , lo n g -ru n , w e llpublicized and widely exhibited feature films continue to draw the public to larger cinemas” , it adds.

The Government’s decision not to perm it the introduction of drive-in cinemas had removed the issue from the centre-stage position it occupied last year.

Independent Television Station Closer A bid will be made soon to establish New Zealand’s first private enterprise television network. A consortium of major New Zealand publishers and broadcasters announced that the move will be made within the next two months.

+

Independent Newspapers, New Zealand News and Hauraki Enter­ prises are members of the consortium, which hopes to replace one of the two networks currently run by the Broad­ casting Corporation of New Zealand with a private service. Each would hold 22 per cent of the shares in the network, with the remaining 34 per cent to be issued to the public.

The consortium’s company, to be known as A lte rn a tiv e T e le v is io n ­ Network, would have as its chairman Hamish Hay, the mayor of C hrist­ church.

A recent survey in Auckland showed that 74 per cent of people were in favor of a privately run television service.

With the weight of public opinion behind them the consortium is confi­ dent of obtaining a warrant to establish and operate a private television network. ★

Cinema Papers. Decernber-January—503

F ilm m a k e rs

The Vincent Film Library offers a comprehensive marketing service for Australian films.

We provide: â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1. Theatrical and non-theatrical distribution for shorts and features of all categories and styles.

2. Sale of films to specialized libraries and institutions.

3. Preparation and printing of brochures, leaflets and other marketing aids.

4. National preview screenings for educationalists, press and other potential users.

5. Assistance with print costs.

All activities are on a non-exclusive basis, consequently â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1. T h e library will accept any new film for distribution.

2. Film s which fail to rent will not be excluded from distribution but will be given special attention in search o f markets.

3. Film s exhibited at A .F.I. Cinemas will not be required to be lodged with the Vincent Film Library for exclusive non-theatrical distribution.

F or further information please write to Vincent Film Library, Australian Film Institute, P.O. Box 16 5, Carlton South, Vic, 3053, or telephone Matthew Percival or Nadia Lettoof on (03) 347 9 I 94-

The Vincent Film Library is a division of the Australian Film Institute which operates with the assistance of the A ustrahan Film Commission.

Mc l e n n a n

Don McLennan/Peter Friedrich Continued from p. 416 When you sold off the copyright, did you lose control of the final film?

Don: N o, A n d ro m ed a — particularly Tom Broadbridge and Trevor Lucas — were fantastic. We put in a budget, saying, “That was how much we needed to finish the film” , and they agreed. They didn’t question or hassle us in any way. Of course, they suggested things but we had the final cut. In fact, the only pressure on us was to get a print ready for Cannes, which was a bit of a nightmare.

How did you cast the film?

Don: We decided to stay away from well-known people, television actors and people like that. There were a couple of reasons. Firstly, there was the type of roles we had going. There weren’t a lot of young people around who were suitable.

Secondly, we felt television actors would do what they do in Skyways or Young Doctors. So we decided to go with as many fresh people as we could.

For the part of Sam, I re­ member sitting up at the Aus­ tralian Film Institute flipping through Showcast. Peter walked in and said, “ You poor bastard” , and walked out again. Casting a film from Showcast shows my limited working knowledge of actors.

But while flipping through, I noticed a shot of Tracy Mann and thought, “That’s just the way I see Sam.” So I traced her to Sydney and we had a, talk. She was on a short list of three and eventually got the role.

Bill Hunter, Max Cullen and Tony Barry played roles they were suited for. I had known Bill for quite a few years, but Hilton or­ ganized the other experienced actors.

The main idea behind the casting was to make it as realistic as poss­ ible. We wanted people who were prepared to try something dif­ ferent.

How did you decide on the visual style?

Peter: We talked it over and very early on decided on the style. But sometimes this was difficult. If we used a room and, let’s say, estab­ lished a window with outside light, we tried to maintain the quality of light all day. This is okay for four or five hours, but when you are shooting at eight o’clock in the evening, it is another story.

Take, for instance, the scene where Sam finds herself in the cell.

We started shooting at 10 a.m., with sunlight streaming through the window, and finished shooting at 9 p.m.

On average, it would take two hours to light a scene. Crews really

don’t kick off that quickly in the morning. But once everybody has had their three or four cups of cof­ fee, their shaves and shampoos and whatever, we would get into it and there would be minimum time be­ tween set-ups.

If Don had wanted back lighting, modelling, etc., it would take much longer. Also, when you have four or five actors moving around a room, it’s another story.

Don: The other good thing about our filming schedule was that we would start in the morning about nine or 10, and go through to four or five in the afternoon — some­ times six. We would just go, with no lunch or coffee breaks. People would grab a cup of coffee when they could. Everybody on a set has some time when they are doing nothing, and the cast and crew ap­ preciated this approach. Certainly nobody objected to it. If you take a one hour lunch break, it ends up being two hours before everybody is fully functional again.

Peter: When we finished we would go back to the production office, and the caterer would have a meal ready. This is an essential part of our filmmaking. Everyone could sit at the end of the day, face each other across the table and com­ plain, “Oh I didn’t have this” , or “ You didn’t do that” . In the mean­ time, they are eating and having a few drinks. Then we would have a bit of a party or smash up, which would get rid of all that accum­ ulated static electricity. Then we would be ready for the next day.

You chose very contemporary music for the film: rock’n’roll hits from the past couple of years . . .

Don: I always wanted to use music like that; I never thought of having a music score written. But I was at a bit of a loss because I hadn’t listened to music recently and had cut myself off. So Trevor Lucas put me on to Greg Pickhaver, who was working for 3RRRFM. I got together with Greg and he looked at the Film and we talked about it. He was fantastic. Greg is totally responsible for the music in the Film. He would offer me a choice of four or Five songs for a particular scene, and I would make the final decision.

We also arranged an excellent deal for the soundtrack album.

Hammard Records have released all the songs and backed it up with a huge television campaign which goes to every state in the country.

The release of the film has been tied in with their campaign which gives us a television back-up to the nor­ mal publicity, at no extra cost.

and

Fr i e d r i c h

independent distributor in this country, battling with a print here and a print there, trying to get it in that house, that theatre. We have the benefit of working with a small company. They also have the understanding of how it works.

With someone like Greg, we are the top Film he has at the moment.

So we get all of his efforts and energies, and those of the people working for him. We would never get that out of Village, Greater Union or Hoyts, because they have so many important Films running at the same time. Our Film would be­ come insignificant.

There are disadvantages going with a small distributor, however, such as not having access to all the cinemas you would like.

When was the first time you realized it was a good film, despite what everyone had told you?

Don: I always thought it was going to be good. No, that’s a lie.

At one stage I was a bit confused about it all, and the first time it

Did you have daily rushes?

Don: Not really. We had rushes when we could get them. It was a budget restriction we had to live with.

Peter: What happens with daily rushes is that the whole crew has an enjoyable time. It acts as a sort of booster for them. But many times the rushes are much funnier, far more amusing, than that. Es­ pecially as they are full of in-jokes: the clapper/loader falls over, the actors run out of frame, or they trip a light. It’s that sort of amusement which gives the crew a good feeling.

Now, as we didn’t have rushes, people weren’t seeing the results of their labor. But we did have these incredible sessions at the end of the day, which I think are much closer to life.

Don: The other good thing about those end-of-the-day sessions was that everybody got together. There was no hierarchical bullshit. Any­ one could talk to the director or. the cameraman. There were no secrets.

I mean, if the crew sees the director pissed out of his head and turning up with a hangover the next day, that’s really okay; it’s not a big problem. We got pissed together and everybody got the hangover to­ gether, or we blew a joint and everybody got ripped. The next day you just got on with the job.

The music is an essential part of the film although a lot of people reckon the music is mixed too loud.

started to become a little clearer was when Greg Lynch looked at it.

When he said he wanted to get in­ volved. I thought, “ Hello, maybe They always say that about it’s a little better than I thought.” rock’n’roll music . . .

We had a screening after it was finished, for the cast and crew and Don: Well, that’s their problem. their friends, at the Longford one You mix it the way you feel it.

Saturday. It went down very well.

People were coming up and saying, You are distributing the film “Gee, Tracy is really good, isn’t through Greg Lynch? she?” And then we went through this drama about the flashbacks.

Don: Greg is the other person Every time we showed Hard who helped get the film completed. Knocks to someone who worked in We showed him a double-head of one of the state corporations, or the the Film and he was very enthus­ AFC, or was involved in the film in­ iastic. T hat helped convince dustry, they all wanted to argue Andromeda to come in on it. about the flashbacks. But the mo­ One of the good things about a ment you show it to somebody who guy like Greg is that he has been in-' knows nothing about Filmmaking, volved with the big people — like who just goes and sees films, there UA, for instance. So he knows that is no problem. side of the business. He also knows Lachie Shaw looked at a double­ the lower side of the business, as an head and said, “ Well, I am a bit Cinema Papers, December-January—505

W a n te d ,&

Po^ddr

Wc are writing a Q U A LITY sci-fi/adventure/war/ car chase film and being perfectionists and award winners both (producer + director) wish to leave no stone unturned in our search for anything and anyone useful and FANTASTIC (e.g.: props, wardrobe, etc; consultants and/or suppliers of weapons, warfare, cars, heavy: vehicles, computer graphics, ELECTRONICS, servo motors, locations, etc; acting talent: human, animal or other; etc. etc.

If you think you have anything to contribute, or if you know of anyone who lias, please send fullest info (longhand OK)to Producer,PO Box 333,Bondi Beach, NSW 2026.Enclose sase if you want anything returned.

A P P R O X .2000 SQ.FT. U N IQ U E OFFIC E W AR EH O U SE FOR LE A S E CNR ROUSE & NOTT ST. PORT MELB PHONE 699 8382 B.H.

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY DIRECTORY SAVE A LOAD ON EXCESS FREIGHT CHARGES,

BY HIRING THE “ HEAVIES” IN THE WEST.

AUDIOVISION • LIGHTING TRUCK. Fully equipped with lights for most location assignments. Includes basic grip gear, 2 way radio, loud haiier, cam era platform, etc.

• TRIPODS Hi-hats, mounts, etc.

• ARRIFLEX 35 mm & 16 mm BL and Nagra etc. available for SELECTIVE HIRE.

EASTMAN COLOR EKTACHROME BLACK & WHITE 35mm -16mm - SUPER 8 SOUND TRANSFERS

• BUMPED GENERATORS. 31 & 70 kVA & battery Packs.

•LIGHTING HIRE. Mini-brutes, H.M.I's, Red Heads, Blondes, 5 K’s to Inkys, etc, etc.

• WA . DISTRIBUTOR “TUSCAN” .

Reels, cans, cores, etc.

• CREWS arranged.

for further in fo rm a tio n c o n ta c t DARYL BINNING a.c.s.

15 DENNY WAY, ALFRED COVE W.A. 6154 Ph 0<? 330 5070.

WESTCQAST FILMS P hotography b y

7 BENNETT ST., PERTH. (09) 325 5233 UNITED A U STR A LA SIAN FILMS

WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S GRIP SPECIALISTS • E lem ack Dolly w ith Tracks • J ib Arm ■ L im pet M ou nt • Tripods a n d S p re a d e rs • Platform Dollies ■ L o c a tio n Truck • H and-H eld C o m m u n ic a tio n System • G rips a n d Runners Phone Karel A kke rm a n (09) 342 2674 7 W interton Way, G irra w h e e n . 6064 Perth W.A.

RO. Box 199 Tuart Hill, WA 6060. Ph. (09) 367 1055 H ugh Kitson, Perth’s top film editor has >started Western Australia’s first post production com pany—FILMCUT. Film cut has a beautifully appointed and equipped 16m m cutting room and a 3 5 / 16m m negative cutting service. ' U -m atic tape preview facilities are available for tim e-code editing too.

Originally trained and brought up in the British film industry, Hugh has now served ten years of his life senten ce in the Australian industry.

He has more than sixty documentary and 'short film credits to his name plus three minor rawards and one significant international award.

Next tim e you are in town call on:

Pior Idrop m ineto 4u2 Dten is381 7813 Street, S u b iaco. ..(They m igh t ju st be ab le to help you with th e )ost-p rod u ction on your film).________

Perry S a n d o w Television Lighting Director 1 Film G affer

Perry Film¿Television lighting 42 Denis S treet Subiaco,6 0 0 8 W A . Phone (09)3817065 A /H rs .(0 9 )4 0 5 1340.

Mc l e n n a n

confused about all these flashbacks and I am a master at sorting this sort of stuff out.” He says that, and then some 16-year-old kid off the street sees the film and you ask him, “ Are you confused about the flashbacks?” , and he says, “ Oh no, that was fine. I understood •what was happening.”

Peter: The industry raised its ugly head back in 1970. Within two or three years there was a lot of money available to filmmakers. It was then that suddenly this in­ credible division came about be­ tween those who were going to make films and those who were not.

We found ourselves in the group who were not going to make films.

films? Ten feature films is no ex­ perience at all; it is just a begin­ ning.

In Australia, we do not have the B-grade training ground that American directors have. Here you have to struggle. And the struggle is against those who make the funding decisions. There are quite a few people who have made films of con­ siderable standard, but you never meet those people on the assess­ ment panels. There are also a lot of people with technical experience, but you never meet them either.

They are busy working.

Don: When you walk into an assessment, you look across a table at a group of people and you are lucky if there is one person there who has celluloid under his finger­ nails. I went into one assessment, for the King Island project, and the assessors said, “ G reat, great, great.” Donald Crombie gets up and says, “Yeah, it is about time you did a feature Don, you’ve just done Rainbow Farm.” And like it was you [Rod Bishop, the inter­

If we applied for a grant we could see that if we didn’t have the right names in the personnel depart­ ment, it would be impossible for us to make the film.

Don: If we had played the game, by applying for the money the way everybody wanted you to, we would never have made the films we have.

It is as simple as that. Apostasy would never have been made, or Hard Knocks, or even Made in Australia and Point of Departure.

We have refused to accept the wisdom of the judgments passed on by the assessors as to who gets the money and who doesn’t. That is what it boils down to. I don’t be­ lieve anybody in the film industry in this country is really in a position to make value judgments about who is capable of making a film and who isn’t.

Peter: What director in this country can claim more than 10

viewer]. You had been in before me. He didn’t even realize that I hadn’t made the film. Now if he can’t even make that connection be­ tween me and my script, and you and your film, where do I stand with the rest of the whole thing?

I went in once with Hilton for a script development assessment on Before Your Very Eyes, and one of the two assessors said, “ We’re very impressed, but you are not getting the money.” Now what is that sup­ posed to amount to?

When you start seeing people over the other side of the table who write television series, who are hack writers for Crawfords or Grundys, and they are assessing a feature script that you are working on, you begin to ask — and I don’t want to sound condescending to them — what do they know that I don’t?

If you are trying to do some­ thing a little different they get lost

Low-budget Films and AFC Assessment What are your thoughts on lowbudget feature filmmakers?

and

Fr i e d r i c h

ferently is having themselves on.

Peter: What was very important for me in the early stages of the in­ dustry was the fact that there was so much talent across the board.

Everybody could have been given a chance to make their two, three or four films. And then we would have seen who was better. But to give someone $1 million cuts out a lot of other talented people.

I think anybody who is in­ terested in films, who looks at films, even works in the industry, must be able to make a film. He must be able to make a film which holds together, with good angles, good shots. But the content of it, the heart of it, is not there. And that’s what we need. Building up the heart of the industry with ideas and concepts. And a lot of people were actually denied that oppor­ tunity.

What do you see as the future for Don: In fact, nobody even con­ low-budget filmmaking in Aus­ sidered how we should go about making films in this country. tralia?

People immediately inherited the Don: The most interesting films British/American idea of crewing a made in this country are those film, where you have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd made on low budgets. I don’t think and 4th assistant, and all the rest of there has been a big-budget film the paraphernalia that goes with it. made in this country that was other So suddenly, there are 30 people in than a safe, conventional film. But the crew. Ten people are working you can’t really blame the film­ and the other 20 are falling over makers; the blame must be spread each other, and getting bored and across the board. saying, “ What’s for lunch?”

When there is a lot of money in­ Now, I still refuse to believe that volved, like $600,000 or $1 million, you need that many people to shoot people tend to become very conser­ a feature. Sure, in some cases where vative about everything. What you have very complicated set-ups, people should do is take the chance or big scenes with special effects and use it — and low-budget film­ and lots of extras, you need extra making allows you to do that. You crew. But basically when you have a don’t get paranoid about the couple of actors talking to each money, you don’t give a damn other in a room, you don’t need 30 about it, apart from the fact that people. you hope you’ve enough to pay the They shot The FJ Holden on a bills. And by that I don’t mean you Panavision set-up. What the hell do waste money. Every cent has to end they need Panavision for on a film up on the screen, and on Hard like that? A 35 BL, a few lenses, a Knocks I’m sure it does. zoom, an elemac dolly, a few lights The AFC and the state corpor­ and away you go. ations all want to make profitable films of artistic merit, and build a New Project viable film industry in Australia.

Firstly, you are not going to build a viable film industry in this country What is your next project? without some sort of tariff pro­ tection from the Yanks, without Don: We are resurrecting the getting in and breaking up the King Island project. Andromeda monopoly that exists on the dis­ has given us some script develop­ tribution and exhibition level. ment money. I have also been asked Secondly, we are not going to to do another film for them. build a film industry by cracking All we ask for is the chance to the American film market. There is work. We don’t want to fight the no way we are going to do it. There establishment, but we refuse to wouldn’t be a film industry in the accept their ideas and decisions be­ world, outside the U.S., and the cause they control the purse strings. other indigenous areas such as I am more than prepared to admit India, where the film industry sur­ to mistakes but I don’t believe that vives without some sort of govern­ there are people who know what ment protection or subsidy. We just makes a good film. No one ever don’t have the population. has. You make them with common We are now seeing the end re­ sense, a little madness, obsession sults that came from the lack of in­ and more heartaches than many of telligence, courage, vision and them are worth. If the public determination in the film adminis­ responds to your ideas and your trato rs, filmmakers and dis­ means of communicating these tributors. Unless totally o u t­ ideas you are hailed as a success; if rageous tax shelters are set up we not, you are in trouble. I can only will always need government assist­ make films by gut reaction — any­ ance. I think anyone who says dif­ thing else is pointless to me. ★

and confused and fall back on that “ I don’t understand it but I know what I like” business. Ask these people what films they like and you begin to understand where you stand with them.

When you face that situation, time after time, you have to start looking at other alternatives. You start playing their game and swindling the money out of them, or you just don’t do it. Or you write crap they want to read.

I hope those days are past. I don’t want to go through it again.

There are people who want to make films — not for large amounts of money but because it is . in their blood. Everyone knows about films - having to make their money back — the famous “track record” . But I ask you, who has a financial track record in Australia?

Cinema Papers, December-January—507

BRUBAKER

THE EARTHLING

Film Reviews Continued from p. 481 Three Days of the Condor and Brubaker (interestingly Redford has been in all three).

While such a tradition has produced some fine dramas, the portrayal of the triumph of the individual, against almost insurmountable odds, glosses over some of the difficult social and political realities of these situations.

In Brubaker, particularly, the prob­ lem that is never considered is what happened to the prisoners at Wake­ field once it was closed? Presumably, the Wakefield prisoners would have been transferred to another institution with a similar structure of physical and psychological intimidation and cruelty.

This belief in individual solutions con­ trasts strongly with the tougher, cynical and ultimately more realistic analysis of prison life depicted in films like Stir.

Brubaker: Directed by: Stuart Rosenberg.

Producer: Ron Silverman. Executive producer: Ted Mann. Associate producer: Gordon Webb.

Screenplay: W. D. Richter. Director of photography: Bruno Nuytten. Editor: Robert Brown jun. Music: Lalo Schifrin. Art director: J. Michael Riva. Sound recordist: Charles Wilborn.

Cast: Robert Redford (Henry Brubaker), Yaphet Kotto (Dickie Coombes), Jane Alexander (Lillian Gray), Murray Hamilton (Deech), David Keith (Larry Builen). Production company: Twentieth Century-Fox. Distributor: Fox-Columbia. 35mm.

130 min. U.S. 1980.

The Earthling Jim McCullogh The Earthling is essentially an American film set in colorful Australian bush. This is not to say that using the picturesque Australian wilderness as a setting, and signing up two of the world’s best-known actors (William Holden and Ricky Schroder), isn’t sensible marketing. But for the sake of the Australian heritage, culture and atmosphere, which are sadly ab­ sent, a writer with some regard for Australia should have been used.

In his first original screenplay, American Lanny Cotier tells the story of Patrick Foley (Holden), who, after 40 years in the U.S. and facing an im­ pending death, decides to return to the place of his birth: a secluded farm deep in the Australian bush. Fate, however, couples him with Shawn Daley (Schroder), a suddenly-orphaned, helpless little boy, who also hails from the U.S. Together, they trek through the bush, Shawn learning how to survive in the wild, Foley supposedly learning how to love. They eventually reach the old farm where, after confessing the affec­ tion they each hold for the other, Foley dies. Shawn, having learnt the ways of the wilderness, thanks the old man and confidently sets out to rejoin civiliza­ tion.

Patrick Foley is portrayed with little verve by a miscast Holden and his character is given little substance by any of the supporting characters. At the beginning of the film, a pub-load of locals, in the township where Foley stops before his final journey, quickly accounts for his American accent and mannerisms, and mention his long friendship with another local, Christian Neilson (Alwyn Kurts). They talk of Foley’s father, his farm, and even com­ pare the two, and so establish, though all too briefly, their familiarity with the 508—Cinema Papers, December-January

Foley clan. But they say nothing about to the recent death of his parents. Foley Foley’s background, character, or pos­ calmly nods and says: “Yeah, I saw, I sible reasons for returning. In fact, they saw. But now they’re gone and you’re hardly bat an eyelid on first seeing him. not.” Then he suddenly yells, “What Foley’s interaction and conversations the hell are you doing here so young with Shawn as they trek through the and helpless”, as though Shawn is to bush also indicate a lack of any depth in blame for his plight. characterization. Foley never says This unsympathetic reminder of the anything which reflects the nature of a child’s sudden deprivation of his man. who. after so many years in the parents is on par with the cruel way outside world, returns to his home in Shawn was made to fetch his own wood the wild. for the campfire only seconds after he In Foley’s argument with Christian, staggered out of the bushes. Foley’s in­ for example, he scantily mentions some sensitivity for the condition of others, lack of true identity within himself, and especially towards young Shawn, seems that the essence of self-affirmation lies contrary to a person who has set out in in the uncivilized wilderness:. “You’re the decline of his life to finally define not me. This isn’t me. This place isn’t his identity as a result of understanding me.” But there are too few instances his own condition. This then, makes the where this idea is brought up, and then love Foley admits having for Shawn all too briefly. totally unrelated to any of the reactions At one stage, with Shawn abandoned or attitudes he had towards him during

by Foley, he shouts out in anger: “You their time together. wanna know my name? My name’s Cotier’s approach to Shawn is the God. G-O-D, God. I’m not gonna tell film’s other great downfall. Shawn’s you my name.” This is presumably trek through the wilderness is more like meant to indicate Shawn’s loss of iden­ a nature excursion, a walkabout tity without Foley by his side, and the through a wonderworld where his dead consequential intensifying of his deter­ parents hardly occupy any space in his mination to make it alone. mind, and where the animals are color­ The themes of survival, living off the ful and friendly (except for the incidents land, appreciating what one has and with the rats, snakes, and wild dogs: facing life’s hard realities are other un­ these should have been emphasized dercurrents in the script. All are more and shown to have a greater, touched upon, but never developed. lasting effect on Shawn, who comes out After their first meal together, of each sequence unharmed and un­ Shawn, temporarily incapable of disturbed). speech, uses oral sounds to refer Foley Just before their deaths, Shawn’s

father, Ross (Jack Thompson, whose role should have been given more bear­ ing in the film), and mother Betty (Olivia Hamnett, who was made to cover her British accent with an em­ barrassingly unconvincing American one) argue about the nature of bringing their son to the bush. Says Ross, “We brought him up here to enjoy his heritage — Australian not Califor­ nian.” It is odd this is said, because it makes the coupling of Shawn with an “American swagman” contradictory.

Rather, Ross’ angry statement should have been the opening for Shawn’s realization, through his ‘ordeal’ in the bush with Foley, that he is part of the heritage and culture of Australia.

But this never looks like happening.

There is one admirable quality about The Earthling and, thankfully, it is Australian: Don McAlpine’s splendid photography. Complemented by Don Connolly’s crisp sound recording, McAlpine imaginatively captures the color and picturesque (though almost angelic) beauty of the Australian bush and its creatures. Using slow zooms, pans, creative edits and fades, and some beautiful plose-up photography, he suc­ ceeds in giving a strong physical feel to the film.

In the scene at the stream where Shawn and Foley first meet, an im­ aginative sequence of fluent shots is used twice. During their conversation the shots cut from one set frame of the campsite to several different angles taken from various positions around the camp. The changing of shots occurs in between sentences and varies in dis­ tance from the camp, giving a clear, all round feeling of depth.

Probably the most memorable piece of direction is after Shawn’s first night alone. Shouting for help in a small pond, one sees a shot of a cliff ledge upon which the tiny figure of a man is discernible. With several flowing shots, each taken progressively closer, one realizes the figure is Foley. From this, the sequence is essentially reversed, but rather than cutting from one shot to another, fades are used and the angle is taken back until the impressive shot of the Figure on the cliff appears again.

The vastness of the bushland extending to the horizon would have been even more striking in wide-screen.

The Earthling is more a marketing exercise than anything else. With its guaranteed overseas release, the film relies on its photography and the names of the two leads to net its market. The fact that The Earthling captures the physical essence of Australia without its cultural fascination is a great pity, not only for Australians, but for those overseas who will only see one facet of Australia, namely the Barrington Tops National Park, where the film was shot.

This priority that the exploitation of the landscape takes over the involvement and development of human characters in The Earthling is perhaps best expres­ sed in one scene: as a colorful bird feeds itself on a tree-stump in sharp focus, a vague, ill-defined human figure shifts out of frame in the background.

The Earthling: Directed by: Peter Collinson.

Producer: Elliot Schrick. Executive producer: Stephen Sharmat. Screenplay: Lanny Cotier.

Director of photography: Don McAlpine. Editor: Mick Beauman. Music: Bruce Smeaton. Art direc­ tor: Bernard Hides. Sound recordist: Don Connol­ ly. Cast: William Holden (Foley), Ricky Schroder (Shawn), Alwyn Kurts (Christian), Jack Thompson (Ross), Olivia Hamnett (Betty).

Production company: Earthling Productions.

Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 99 min. Australia.

1980.

The Australian Film and Television School’s

Open Program would like to announce|some of the projects we shall be undertaking in the near future.

The Open Program conducts a wide range of courses, seminars, workshops and public lectures, for those working in the industry, including: —

• • • • •

PRODUCERS AND ASPIRING PRODUCERS PRODUCTION MANAGERS DIRECTORS LABORATORY TECHNICIANS VIDEO EDITORS, ETC. ETC.

We also produce films,videotapes and publications on many aspects of film and television production, marketing and financing.

If you would like more information about courses and resources - dates, costs, venue, etc. please write to: Open Program

A&J Casting Agency Casting and M odelling Consultants

Australian Film and Television School PO Box 126 N O R TH R Y D E N.S.W. 2113

Film Australians come from all over the industry

5 A x fo rd C rescent, Oakleigh Sth. 3167

Telephone (03) 570 4407

An average year for us at Film Australia sees the production of around 100 films and audio­ visuals.

As you can imagine, we couldn’t handle that volume of work or maintain our high standards without drawing upon the wide range of film-making talent available in the Australian industry today.

Directors, cameramen, grips, writers, composers and artists in fact everybody who gets into the act, both in front of the camera and behind.

With the help of freelance Film Australians, we’ve completed important films such as, Let the

Balloon Go, Who’s Handicapped?, WarWithout Weapons and award winners Hospitals Don’t Burn Down and Leisure.

When you next view a Film Australia production, remember that it’s also the production of Australians who work in film.

Right across the industry

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

F ILM A U S T R A L I A

MELBOURNE:

AT LAST!!

You can now find a quick and reliable service for all your . . .

ANIMATION ANIMATION ANIMATION . . . needs.

GATHERCOLE FILM PRODUCTIONS 35 Albert Road, South Melbourne 3205 (using the production facilities of C.P.L.)

---------------------- “

-----------” ---------------------------------------\

A film distributor’s lot isn ’t alw ays a hap py one, e sp ecia lly w h en it com es to v iew in g docum entary after docum entary. H ere, how ever, are som e recent docum entaries w h ich have som ething to say and say it in a fresh and in terestin g way: Glenn’s Story: the true and dramatic story of a juvenile delinquent.

Infernal Triangle: the Hill tribes of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand

and their exploitation by the opium traders.

Life Wasn’t Meant to be Radioactive: the painting of an alternate energy mural.

Oranges and Lemons: the education of Aboriginal children in a country town.

Sangham — Aid to Liberation: the organizing of untouchables into production co-operatives against landlord opposition.

Tools of Change — Introduction to Appropriate Technology: the technology that is appropriate for each society.

Working Up: there are many documentaries on women in the work force. This one is, unlike many of the others, interesting, informed and very well made.

Our other documentaries are on Antarctica, schizophrenia, motor car workers, Sincelejo and bullfighting, Chile, Cuba, filmmakers, Lithuania, Vietnam, Japan, living together, Minamata disease, and Uruguay.

C ine A ction P ty Ltd, 263 Adderley St, W est Melbourne Vic. 3003 Telephone: (03) 329 5422 Write or ring for our free catalogue.

We have feature film s on 1 6 and 35m m as well.

...

offer a fast and thoroughly professional neg cutting service to the film and TV industries. We have a fully equipped cutting room that can handle both 16mm and 35mm productions and is air-conditioned throughout.

We also have a prompt pick-up and delivery service. We promise total professional care for your film 24 hours a day.

Give ADAM BAHOUDIAN a call on (03) 568 2147 anytime and know that your film is in the right hands.

F IL M N E G C U T T I N G S E R V I C E S

edited by Peter Noble

ESSENTIAL READING FOR ALL FILM ENTHUSIASTS

Features, documentaries, commercials, industrial and short films.

650 Warrigal Road, Chadstone Victoria 3148.

TO ADVERTISE IN

Europe’s leading film industry paper keeping you informed with Reviews Reports from Film Festivals News of Films in Production Technical Developments

Available weekly Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen International, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

Ring Peggy Nicholls : Melbourne 830 1097 or 329 5983 Sue Adler: Sydney 31 1221

J

ALUN BOLLINGER

Alun Bollinger Continued from p. 490 because when you see the rushes, the lab report either explains what’s going on or it doesn’t. You need very experienced people viewing the rushes to be able to tell you where a scratch or a mark or a flare has come from.

Is it just a lack of experience?

No. It’s the fact that the NFU lab is part of the government bureaucracy. I have known good people who have come into the lab, but then leave, usually because they are not paid enough. I think that is probably what affects it more than anything. It doesn’t matter whether you know your job or not, unless you have a public service grading, you start on the bottom, and get paid peanuts until you work your way up.

Do you push stock much?

Not at all on Beyond Reasonable Doubt. On Sons we pushed quite a lot, because I found in the tests that Colorfilm was giving just as good results with the stock pushed one stop.

In fact, I concluded from those tests that the stock was actually quite capable of being used at twice the speed. But it’s more economic to shoot at 64 ASA because it goes through the lab quicker.

We also pushed one stop on Goodbye Pork Pie, but it was processed at the NFU lab and didn’t look so good. But there were times during the shoot when we couldn’t get our hands on enough light and just had to force it.

E q u ip m en t

What sort of cameras do you prefer to work with?

Funnily enough, for a lighting cameraman, I’ve had very little experience as a camera operator.

So, I haven’t been as involved in deciding what to use as I might otherwise be.

THE QUARTER

ment on the BL is unsatisfactory.

For Goodbye Pork Pie, we shot on an Arri 2C, occasionally using the 120S blimp. As a result a lot of the film was post-synced, which is rare for New Zealand.

Is all the lighting gear you would like to use available in New Zealand?

Yes, but what 1 use depends on the budget. On a Film like Middle Age Spread I had to use 16mm, and was very restricted in what gear I could use. In fact we only had a truck full.

It’s nice to be able to draw on whatever is available, and use the right light for the right occasion — but it’s rare.

How do you get on for power when you are on location?

The Acme Sausage Company have a nice little 100 amp generator which I use. Generally it’s enough when you feed it into the grid, with a little house power as well.

When I can’t use the genny, I just make do with what’s available.

Imported cameramen 1 have noticed recently that several Australian cameramen regularly work in New Zealand, particularly on commercials. How do you feel about that?

A lot of the commercial work in New Zealand is shot by Austra­ lians. Frankly, it puzzles me and it gets a lot of New' Zealanders’ backs up, because the agencies, and pro­ duction companies are importing c a me r a me n when t her e' are obviously talented and capable people here who can do the job.

I just don’t understand it. For­ tunately, New Zealand feature film producers haven’t adopted the same attitude. ★

Filmography Features

1977 Wild Man (Geoff Murphy) 1979 Middle Age Spread (John Reid) Sons for the Return Home (Paul

What types of cameras do you generally use?

Maunder) Goodbye Pork Pie (Geoff Murphy) 1980 Beyond Reasonable Doubt (John

Laing)

On Sleeping Dog, we used a Panaflex. Sons for the Return Home was mainly done with.

PVSR, which is a really beautiful camera. But we also used a hardfronted Arriflex for hand-holding, which wasn’t so good.

On Beyond Reasonable Doubt, we used an Arriflex BL — which was fine by me and the operator, but the camera assistant didn’t like it because the lens arrangement and focus marks aren’t too good. In fact the whole focus-pulling arrange­

Shorts

1972 Tankbusters (Geoff Murphy) 1973 Uenuku (Geoff Murphy) 1977 A State of Siege (Vincent Ward) D ocum entaries

1969 Faia Samoa (Jim Siers) 1973 Fool on a Hill (George Harris) 1979 In Spring One Plants Alone (Vincent Ward) Jane: The Place and Paintings of Jane Evans (John Reid) 1980 Learning Fast (Gaylene Preston)

The Quarter Continued from p. 411 ought not to remain any doubt on the part of people involved in the Aus­ tralian film industry about the tax position in particular circumstances of investors or potential investors.

However, if that is not so the Com­ missioner of Taxation is — as he has been all along — available to answer questions that these people may have.

“The Commissioner has advised me that some misunderstanding may have arisen from assessing actions taken by the Taxation Office prior to my statement of 4 August, and on the basis of the law as it then existed.

The Taxation Office has received many income tax returns in which deductions have been claimed for expenditure incurred under tax avoidance schemes and, where there have been indications of in­ volvement in such schemes, claims have been disallowed. In some of these cases information subsequent­ ly made available has made it clear that the expenditure was not in­ curred under a tax avoidance arrangement. In these cases action has subsequently been taken to allow the taxpayers concerned the deductions to which they are en­ titled.”

While this statement may have given some investors hope of salvaging tax deductions from their investments in Australian films during the past two years, it did not concede much legally.

There is still no draft of the anti­ avoidance amendments to look at, and the Treasurer did not say when it would be available. The Government evidently remains intent on making the amend­ ments retro-active from September 24, 1978. so that a large number of past investors are potentially affected.

A key legal issue is to draw the line between those arrangements that represent a “ genuine” attempt to take full advantage of the concessions of­ fered to film investors by the Income Tax Assessment Act and those that have a “significant purpose of tax avoidance” . Thus, limited-recourse loans have been a common, even necessary, means of attracting private investment in Australian feature films d u rin g the past two years. The Treasurer did not make clear what degree of limitation on a lender’s recourse would be regarded as a “ recoupm ent” disqualifying the in­ vestor from obtaining a tax deduction.

The Commissioner of Taxation may well differ from film industry represen­ tatives over what film investment prac­ tices should be regarded as bona fide commercial transactions.

New Concessions The Prime Minister’s promise, which was confirmed on October 15 by fu rth e r announcem ents from the Treasurer and the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, has been widely welcomed by film industry represen­ tatives.

The Government has promised to introduce amendments to the tax laws so that: 1. 150 per cent of the capital expen­ diture on the acquisition of the initial copyright in any new film certified as an Australian film will be eligible for write-off in the year of expenditure, provided the expenditure is incurred under a contract entered into on or after October 1, 1980; and 2. An investor whose expenditure qualifies for the 150 per cent write­ off will be exempt from tax on the net earnings or profits derived from the relative film, up to an amount equal to 50 per cent of the invest­ ment.

These amendments are to be coupled with “ appropriate safeguards . . . to prevent abuse of the concessions” .

The promised concessions reflect

the Government’s keenness to nurture the Australian film industry and to en­ sure its continued success. They strike a fine balance between subsidizing production investment and subsidizing the resulting income.

Investors will be encouraged to select films that appear likely to be profitable; however, the production in­ vestment subsidy alone should be generous enough to enable producers to find finance for worthwhile art films which have less chance of being com­ mercial.

There are, however, some important questions still to be answered: 1. At what point of time will an invest­ ment qualify for the 150 per cent tax deduction? One of the announce­ ments refers to the time of expen­ diture, but it also appears that the relative film copyright must be in existence. In practice, production investment monies are expended before the film is completed, which is when the copyright becomes identifiable.

2. How will “ initial copyright” be defined? Clearly the intention will be to prevent doubling up of the 150 per cent deduction in a case where an in te r e s t in c o p y r ig h t is transferred from one owner to another, but the concessions could prove to be limited to investors who become first owners of the copyright within the meaning of the Copyright Act. _ 3. Will the tax exemption on income apply to the first returns which the investor receives from the film proceeds, or only to income which the investor receives in excess of recoupment of the investment?

Some film packagers are assuming the former, but the reference to “ profit” in the Government’s latest announcement suggests the latter.

These questions cannot be an­ swered until draft legislation is made public.

It appears that notwithstanding the Government’s announced intention to apply the new concessions as from O ctober 1, 1980, most potential investors are waiting to see what the legislation actually say.s before they will commit their money.

OBITUARY Ross Wood, a leading film industry figure for more than 40 years, died in Sydney in October.

Wood started as an office boy at Movietone News in 1933. In the early 1940s he moved to Cinesound, where he spent several years as a war cor­ respondent.

In 1946, he joined Video Studios and began his career as a director of photography. Among others, he shot Cecil Holmes’ Captain Thunderbolt (1951) and Three in One (1956), and John Heyer’s Back of Beyond'(1954).

In 1963, Wood set up his own production house, Ross Wood Produc­ tions, which specialized in advertising work.

An interview surveying W ood’s career appeared in the March-April, 1975, issue of Cinema Papers.

N E W C O N T R IB U T O R S Stephen Crofts is a lecturer in the School of Drama at the University of NSW. Stephen Garton is a research stu­ dent in Australian social history at the University of NSW. Jill Kitson is a freelance literary editor.

Neil Sinyard is lecturer in film at Essex University.

Rick Thompson is head of the Divi­ sion of Cinema Studies at La Trobe University. ★

Cinema Papers, December-January—5ll

PRODUCERS Six top marketing events you should know about.

The following marketing events should command your attention:

1. MONTE CARLO TELEVISION FESTIVAL:

5. M IP -T V

Monte Carlo, 7th - 15th February 1981.

Cannes, 24th - 30th April 1981.

A market for television programs and feature films limited to 150 top sales organizations.

AFC represented by Ray Atkinson.,

The world’s biggest television marketing event.

The AFC will be providing full marketing facilities.

2. BERLINS FILM FESTIVAL:

6 . C A N N ES FILM FESTIVA L M A R K E T:

Berlin, 13th - 24th February 1981.

An expanding film market for features, documentaries and short films.

Entries close 12th January 1981.

(Marche International Programme du Television):

Cannes, 14th - 27th May 1981.

The world’s largest feature film market conducted in conjunction with Festival International du Film.

The AFC will be providing full marketing facilities.

3. NAPTE

(National Association of Television Programme Executives):

New York, 14th - 18th March 1981.

A major gathering of TV programming executives.

Program interest revolves around drama and entertainment series, childrens’ series and drama, cartoons, specialized documentaries and feature film packages.

AFC represented by Jim Henry.

Producers wishing to enter these events should contact the Marketing Branch of the AFC as soon as possible with full details of programs they would like to market.

yhistmlian firn Cmmissioto

4. ÂFMA

(American Film Market Association) :

Los Angeles, 21st - 31st March 1981.

The first event of its kind for feature film product from English-speaking countries.

AFC represented by Jim Henry.

Australian Film Commission, 8 West St, North Sydney, NSW 2060.

Tel: (02) 922 6855.

m i® Fith definitive to professional needs Introducing the new Fujicolor Negative Film, crowning long years.«* of development by meeting today’s needs with tomorrow’s technology, • Living, natural skin tones and greens.

• Ultrafine-grain high-definition images.

• A reliable performer under difficult conditions.

Data: Fujicolor Negative Film 35mm type 8517,16 mm type 8527

} \

• Tungsten Type 3200K • Exposure Index Tungsten Lamps 100 (ASA equiv.)

Daylight 64 (ASA equiv.) (with Fuji Light Balancing I Filter LBA-12 or Kodak Daylight ^ Filter No. 85) • Perforation Types ^ W 35mm N-4.740mm (BH-1866) 16mm 1R-7.605mm (1R-2994) • Packaging 35mm 200ft (61m),

m

16mm 1

122m, 4 0 0

m

H A IM I M E X

Industrial Division N A M E : ...............................................................................................................

O ld P i t t w a t e r R d ., B r o o k v a le , N .S .W . 21 0 0 . P h : 9 3 8 - 0 2 4 0 .

2 8 2 N o r m a n b y R d ., P o r t M e lb o u r n e , V I C , 3 2 0 7 . Ph: 6 4 - 1 1 1 1 .

4 9 A n g a s S t r e e t , A d e la id e , S . A . 5 0 0 0 . Ph: 2 1 2 - 3 6 0 1 .

2 2 N o r t h w o o d S t ., L e e d e r v ille , W .A ., 6 0 0 7 . Ph: 3 8 1 - 4 6 2 2 .

1 6 9 C a m p b e ll S t r e e t , H o b a r t , T A S , 7 0 0 0 . P h : 3 4 - 4 2 9 6 .

a

" n n R F _ss • .............................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................... P o s tc o d e : ...................................... T e le p h o n e : P lease sen d m e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n

Q

F u j i c o l o r N e g a t iv e F ilm

IS YOUR FILM A W O RK O F A R T? The w orld’s masterpieces are the result of creative flair, insight and mastery of a medium.

At Custom Video Australia, we are artists in our own medium —from correcting skin tones to even framing the picture.

So if yourfilm is a work of creative art surely we should finish it for you . . . you’ll love the reproduction.

CUSTOM T lD E O AUSTRALIA Television Centre, Epping NSW Australia 2121 Telephone (02) 858 7545. Telex: AA 20250

It’s the finishing touch that counts.

CVA/91/AK & A