Cinema Papers May-June 1983

Registered by Australia Post — publication no. VBP 2121

ik

r-'

n

A£&A CAVEZZA

~n\ç '

B .L .Z '&JSB>

sm M th£ ,

z o d ia c

KLa n n .

7 m Ra t KJ/sIG

S P IC K T

VOG

16.L. fS A Bocoy

PRj m Ro SC

B jt t e f c o P

, ^Lm ER C iT

aaavor

M R PIG

OûCTû/lcAÙAtMfS fa A ff/te ¿ € ,£ C C VC.

'iWHO HAS CAST

tttiMsei-f-

_

as a

/¿ //

T / IC C M / a I. H H

M houi

M/hôT/cA /S TO ߣ 7HF

TgM is ^R/éAT, FWPRHnc AND ON 5 ^

K /A < £ OF- m e

k g tC /AJ H $

fN a u n

iV o M C P .

&/4ce.

r p iF A'\ a / a .T A / aj'5 A P - i T U i / S -

ÏCoM\CTloN

HlS So/

C?f SofcSEAViTa-T \// CCA/VS-

■TWATevtX-Y ,CCCUD has : A SILVER C-tN/Kp.

B U < W A a T /W Ä P»Ä -

/ a / ORPiíH

TG ßoSS

TV

'AfloONV

M

:

it!in** SnilllliL

1:

C-

1 0 p 1 ^ »

TWe PACT THAT'

Mis successes Afií ¿/SUAUT ïti£ 1 a d ^jS T? hmPd wo£¿<

¿iM*

i/npfifl* vœ sï TkflK / r

Iy H/5 SoPMp CTT-S An/D

AtiVOfiW W ¿ iti T*t£

JLAtikS OS7HE pOpl€y

M W % y*

%

" sOF <T/C DDÉ5n T< uBSSeM G^uAury _ £>F MIS 6oop/HéAAT£P/\RSS. p£Sp/r£ HlS MAlve-T^, ycx/ü Ulíce 70 HAVE H/M AS A PíUfcAPpf5 Sglf"CO/vPiPgAGE STOIS __ fPT2£)A\ A doSAMC Ra/oiWoCPGE: ~OC/fSiPCCE HUaaA aJ êxpeR.ie^'se. me >s lA

doctor cacabea

S.l. BucclPS ?£DPi£ ì/EAÈagcy CTCc 0/ Ju On SA &uossg¿g¿^eu€cTv^ii^AA— ^/é lvCjej>^ fo£0£/m T E A S E S — T O A S S B ' û -7 M is ‘'-S c rP e H .io A íT y ; a w d B l x t /v t

A6os,e PAfcS

iNTfSWetrr

/>•

h //vu

Riami aspires

/ V A C lC

Tg 7MC £oc€ op

FMAftACTER.

VGlAiCcf thf

“

ó

G

M/HyiA " ¿ajc <ua> TTO O -

MM

■2ü V ) A C A a / P

,

^ t ö x A A igC ^ J & tA 'S /RA/W At/o

\ 1

-Bur rfs TVfcydÑc; PARrTH^r /aTERESt /

\

■/AI,

'C/OWr/MtOfSS* CAA»

C ¿Y«

RSAwS DF Sí PC iS 70

¿ASS R S C/y?v d a nc

AiCBiC Ma P

CouRTgT SíaCC HC tv.ASvT g<9Py\j '

¿v/ATv ei

A /O B tC

M C / MS¿^T PR e t o /D

TO T H F

G CASS

Tß/AiPoSF 'S i PRACTICA C -

i H",A- S^'yi

/

/

jät/

4¡r R ^5

N ow you outlive t Kodak introduces new Eastman Color Print 5384 and 7384 - simply the best color release print film available today.

Under normal storage conditions this new film will hold its color 10 times longer than its predecessors, and under carefully controlled conditions could well remain color-stable for generations.

K7/ÂŁ)%6LHP/Kutr Skinner Bennet

This dramatic breakthrough in color stability is due to a superior cyan dye stabilising process developed by the Kodak laboratories.

So you can be sure, that whatever you shoot, your brilliance will never fade. It might just give you the last laugh over the critics.

Kodak Motion Picture Film KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. (Incorporated in Victoria.)

KV9966RHP/Kuti Skinner Bennett

'\ mm Leo Burnett 4.4533R

Tb G ethin Creagh the ideal dubbing environment has no walls.

Gethin, I believe you started as a sound recordist in New Zealand. How did you get into the business?

Right from a young kid I wanted to be in radio, not in film at all. As a kid it was all white coated technicians that I saw at the radio stations. From secondary school I went straight on to a traineeship with the NZBG. I gravitated to an audio studio first of all, then on to outside location recording local news and current affairs.

Actually, when they first put me into TV I was quite upset.

I thought Id never get to sound.

You came to Australia in 1969. Is that right?

Yes, I didn’t think the horizon was big enough in New Zealand and I thought everything was bigger and better in Australia.

It took me another year to get into the Industry. They wouldn’t accept me at first. Finally I got a job as a sound engineer for 2GH. It was the days of “the snob mob radio’’ as they used to call it, with Phill Haider man.

Next came the ABC and I was into proper dubbing suites. A good friend, Norm McDonald, obviously saw something in the way I worked so he put me on the desk on dear old “Weekend Magazine” It was there I first cut my teeth on mixing.

Your primary interest at that stage, was it in the field or in mixing?

It was still in the field. I was transferred to Hobart in the field but also mixing a little bit.

Then I decided to go to London and I went freelance for the ABC, sound recording all over Europe. When I got back to Sydney a year later I needed a job. They said, “well the only one’s mixing. How about you mix for us for a year and we’ll see?” And so I did. I worked with Allen Allen, who’s the grandfather of mixers around town. I shared the number 2 dubbing suite at Gore Hill with him. After a year I said, “well, when am I going sound recording?” They said, “Gan you

do another year for us?” And so I did that. After a while I realised that I liked it where I was and I didn’t want to go out into the field.

When did you first start work on features?

It was three or four years later. The ABC had put in a new dubbing theatre, the old Artransa Park. When Allen retired he presented me with the keys to the place and I worked there for a year until I got a call from Peter Fenton at United Sound. Once again I’d run out of horizons so I left the ABC to work at United on feature movies, which is where I had wanted to head for some time.

D o you recall the first feature you did?

For my first two features I didn’t know what country I was in. The first one was called ‘Marebe! It was from New Guinea and it was in Pidgin English. The next one was Manganinme’ which had some English but was mostly Aborigine. Since that time I suppose I’ve done twenty five or twenty six features.

Which of those are especially memorable to you?

Oh, I think ‘Heatwave^ working with Phil Noyce. We had a great time doing that and I loved the movie. I think it’s fantastic and he’s particularly good fun to work with. He’s the sort of person who can draw it all out of you. You’re sitting there sweating away, giving your all and he's asking for more. You do it for him willingly but it’s exhausting work.

Is there any sound track you’re particularly pleased with?

The ones I’m really pleased with are the recent ones.

‘Goodbye Paradise! is an excellent track. ‘The Pirate Movie’ was another good track.

‘Dead Easy’ is another one, and ‘Captain Invincible’ is another good one. They’re all good fun.

How long have you been with Colorfilm?

Like the dubbing theatre I’m only new to Colorfilm. It was originally going to be a screening theatre, however, it was decided to go into sound.

We’ve only really been operating since just after Christmas.

What are you working on at the moment?

Our next Australian feature is W inds of Jarrah! directed by Mark Egerton which will be in stereo. There will be a Malayasian feature before that which will be the first one in stereo out of South-East Asia.

How do you define your role as a mixer?

I’ve always thought the actual technique of mixing is only half the job. I’ve watched other mixers at work and it always seems to be how you’re handling the director and the editors. You’ve got to get concensus in that room. You can’t come out with a grey decision and you’re the one they’re all looking to. You’ve got to produce the goods because very often they don’t know exactly what they want and you’ve got to invent it.

The dubbing theatre here at Colorfilm, what’s it like?

It’s fantastic. It’s one of the only properly installed dubbing theatres that I’ve ever seen. The equipment is first class and it’s put in the right way too. We can run more tracks than anybody else. We can lock in with time code interlock and are full hi-tech. We’ve got a Studer A800 24 track which is the Rolls Royce of multi track tape recorders which can lock into the system. We have one of the best dubbing suites around.

In your opinion, what is the ideal set-up and the ideal conditions to produce the best possible quality?

Plenty of feed back to the crew and your director and to your technical people. Lots of talking. No walls put up. A good technical backup is essential.

At one time the mixer knew how everything worked right down to the last transistor. He doesn’t anymore. You have to be too specialised so you’re always talking to your maintenance department to keep quality control up. And of course, talking to your director for artistic direction.

What about physically?

Good ergonomics. Well placed equipment so you can get to it otherwise you get fatigued. A good monitoring system otherwise you’re deluding yourself Also you can get aural fatigue if you’re working with equipment which is below par; you’re working blind, like the camerman not looking through the eyepiece, just guessing. And good coffee.

How close do Colorfilm come to providing you with those ideal conditions?

Well they’re pretty well there now.

Finally Gethin, Why Colorfilm?

I was waiting for that. I was going to say because Hollywood didn’t ring. Well, I’m most impressed with the technical back-up. If I ask for something to be done, a modification; like I did the other week when I was working on a feature, I wanted a Monitor Matrix system, and I had one within 24 hours. Which is pretty impressive. The technical back-up here is amazing. The company wants to get into the sound side. That’s been made clear to me. And if they get into something they usually make sure they’re the leaders in it. Their unofficial projections into the future are good. It’s an expanding company with good back-up and you get a fair deal. There’s no nonsense with them.

Colorfilm 35 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia Telephone (02) 5161066 Telex AA24545 Leo Burnett 4.4533 L

SOUND STAGES FOR HIRE In a busy production schedule we still have some spare capacity in our production department,undoubtedly one of the finest in Australia.

We have two air conditioned sound stages (30.5 m x 16.2 m and 24.5 m x 16.2 m) with full vehicle access, supplemented by production offices, make-up, wardrobe, laundry and green room. Our set construction department has produced some of the best sets seen in recent years. All facilities are to a fully professional standard.

FOR DETAILS PHONE: MICHAEL ROWAN GREER LEACH (08)452277 (08)452277

South Australian Film Corporation

•

DOYOU KNOW

VICTORIAN FILM LABORATORIES # A R E O PEN MON TO TH U RS................................. 7.30 — 12 midnight FRIDAY./................................................... 7.30 — 4.30 p.m.

SUNDAY.................................................... For Rushes Only

•

WE A L S O DO

Tape to Film Conversion Umatic to Umatic or Beta Super 16 Blow-up

# WE HAVE Sound Mixing 10 Track Rock & Roll with Synch Correction Full Immersion Contact Printing Two Optical Printers — one new Oxberry Aerial Image 4 GUEST STREET HAWTHORN 3122.

TEL: (03) 818 0461 (Five lines)

MIXING POST-SYNC RECORDING VOICE-OVERS We have a well equipped sound department with first rate staff and one of Australia’s most talented mixers. A t present we have some spare capacity and invite you to phone for details:— STUDIO MANAGER STUDIO SECRETARY MICHAEL ROWAN GREER LEACH (08)452277 (08)452277

South Australian Film Corporation

studio space available 68,383 square kilometres Shoot your next commercial in Tasmania. We offer full support facilities for mainland crews.

Alternatively, we can produce it, and you’ll reap the cost benefits.

Either way, you’ll benefit. By shooting stunning backdrops, in the world’s largest film set.

Call Peter Schmidt to discover the benefits of shooting your next commercial in Tasmania.

"RadioPictures

(0 0 8 ) 348846

■

OPTICAL

TITLES

'

Shooting in —

AIMAMORPHIC WIDE SCREEN TELEVISION and all

'-¡ri

•

GRAPHIC PTV. LTD.

MOTION PICTURE AUDIO VISUAL

a

shot using Rosco filters

, ,

60 WHITING ST..

ARTARMON, NSW, 2064

^

[02]

For further information on the

largest range o f ligh tin g filters in the w orld,

contact the sole Australian agents for Rosco.

439-5611

A/V FORMATS AUSTRALASIA LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN N.S.W.)

N.S.W. 8 D ungate Lne, Sydney 2000. Ph: 264 1981 VIC. 77 C ity Rd, Sth M elb o u rne 3205. Ph: 62 1133 QLD. 116 B ru n sw ick St, F o rtitu d e Vly 4006. Ph: 52 W.A. 110 Jersey St, J o lim o n t 6014. Ph: 387 4492 S.A. 239 Anzac Hwy, P lym pton 5038. Ph: 293 2692 N.Z. 5 Pollen St, A u c k la n d . Ph: 789 094 x85

Motion Picture Guarantors Inc. Motion Picture Completion (Australia) Pty. Ltd. BEVERLY HILLS (2 1 3 )2 7 1 9 8 8 0

SYDNEY AUSTRALIA MLC Centre,.

Level 36 (02) 2 3 5 2 7 3 6 Telex A A 23917

VANCOUVER Suite 3E, 1 11-18th St.* West Vancouver, B.C. (604) 2 2 4 0 5 2 0 (6 0 4 ) 9 2 6 0 3 9 2

MONTREAL (5 1 4 )2 8 6 40 2 2

TORONTO 4 3 Britain Street, ( 4 1 6 ) 3 6 1 166 4 Telex CA 0 6 5 -2 4 6 9 7 NEW YORK (2 1 2 )7 7 2 0944

is proud to have provided

COMPLETION GUARANTEES for th ese m otion pictures in Australia and New Zealand Phar Lap Producer John Sexton Director Simon Wincer Executive in Charge of Production Richard Davis Director of Photography Russell Boyd

Savage Islands Producers Rob Whitehouse, Lloyd Phillips Director Ferdinand Fairfax Production Supervisor Ted Lloyd Director of Photography Toni Imi WHEÃ&#x17D;S AUSTRALIAN

AUE DISCOVER!

The Settlement Producer Robert Bruning Director Howard Rubie Production Manager Irene Korol Director of Photography Ernie Clark

MMN6ED

Ginger Meggs Producer John Sexton Co-Producer Michael Latimer Director Jonathan Dawson Production Manager Jill Nicholas Director of Photography John Seale

Battletruck Producers Lloyd Phillips, Rob Whitehouse Director Harley Cokliss Production Coordinator Jane Gilbert Director of Photography Chris Menges

Motion Picture Completion (Australia) Pty. Ltd. Douglas Leiterman

Liz Butterfield

Brigitte Schneider

Chairman

Chief P roduction A uditor

Office M anager

William E. Hinkson

Gwen Iveson

Legat Counsel

P roduction A uditor

Lachlan S. Leiterman Associate Legal Counsel

Articles and Interviews Sydney Pollack: Interview Tom Ryan, Scott Murray The Dismissal John O’Hara Denny Lawrence: Interview Christine Cremen Moving Out: Casting and Scripting Marcus Breen Best (of) Friends Geoff Mayer Graeme Clifford: Interview Debi Enker

Dusty Reviewed: 157

98 106 112 116 123 126

The Dismissal Reviewed: 106

Features The Quarter and Letters Picture Preview: Careful He Might Hear You Manila International Film Festival Debi Enker, Tom Ryan Film Censorship Listings Box-office Grosses Production Survey Picture Preview: Molly Picture Preview: Undercover

96 109 118 131 133 147 170 172

Film Reviews DUsty Arnold Zable Une semaine de vacances Tom Ryan Gandhi Arnold Zable Fighting Back JimSchembri « An Officer and a Gentleman Brian McFarlane First Contact Barbara Alysen Monsignor Peter Malone

157 158

Graeme Clifford Interviewed: 126

159 161 163 165 167

3-D Supplement 3-D Supplement: 134

Stereoscopic Film Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema: Review Mike Browning: Interview Volk Mol: Interview Alex Stitt: Interview Fred Harden

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Publishers: Peter Beilby, Scott Murray. Contributing Editors. Tom Ryan, Ian Baillieu, Brian McFarlane, Fred Harden. Sub-editor: Helen Greenwood. Research: Jenny Trustrum. Proof-reading: Arthur Salton. Design and Layout: Ernie Althoff. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Administration: Patricia Amad. Secretary: Anne Sinclair. Office Assistant: Jacquelyn Barter.

Advertising: Peggy Nicholls (03) 830 1097 or (03) 329 5983. Printing: Waverley Offset Publishing Group, Geddes St, Mulgrave, 3170. Telephone: (03) 560 5111. Typesetting: B-P Typesetting, 7-17 Gedaes 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. U.S.: T. B. Clarke Overseas Pty Ltd. •Recommended price only.

134 140 141 142 144

Best (of) Friends Analyzed: 123

Cinema Papers is produced with financial assistance from the Australian Film Commission. Articles represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the editors. While every care is taken with manuscripts 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. ’ © Copyright Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, No. 43, May-June 1983.

Front cover: Alex Stitt’s Abra Cadabra (see p. 144).

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 95

•

AFC Policy Statement

*

The Australian Film Commission’s chief executive, Joseph Skrzynski, has announced the formation of an AFC Policy Secretariat. Skrzynski said, “ the Policy Secretariat will have three main functions: • to assist the Commission review, plan and define its policy; • to identify and research areas of concern for the industry, and initiate, collect and develop an industry data base; • to identify particular problems with a view to formulating solutions for implementation by appropriate bodies. “ We see the Policy Secretariat as an essential development for the AFC, augmenting our policy and research capability, and look forward to con­ tinued consultation with the industry in matters of mutual concern. “ Policy approval for AFC initiatives remains with its commissioners, while the Policy Secretariat is responsible for policy identification and research.”

The Policy Secretariat is headed by policy director, Michael Frankel (until recently the AFC’s senior legal officer), who has been involved with legal, finan­ cial and policy issues relating to film and company legislation. He will be assisted by information and public relations officer, Sue Murray; executive assistant, David Court; assistant to the Secretariat, Joy Holden; and various research consultants.

Unit Trusts Dear Sir, I noted with interest (confusion) the two articles in Cinema Papers, No. 42, March 1983, relating to legal matters in the film industry namely: “ Financing Australian Films: The State of the Art” (p. 22), and “ Prospectuses: A Possible Solution” (p.

46).

The latter article states: “ Therefore, the solution appears to be membership of a unit trust in which the members will obtain no interest in the trust property, or income from trust activity . . . ” However on page 38 of the volume of papers labelled “ Financing Australian Films” (released by the Australian Film Commission) it is stated:

96 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

Censorship Changes

• •

Various important modifications have been made to the handling of the censor­ ship of films entered in approved Austra­ lian film festivals. On April 17, the federal Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, issued this statement: “ Regulations will be gazetted tomorrow to provide that films may be screened at recognized film festivals and similar events without the need to be approved by the Film Censorship Board. “ The decision to take this action has resulted from my assessment of the high standing and reputation of the major Australian film festivals over many years. “ I believe, as do the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales, that the Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals, in particular, have now earned the right to be treated as responsible, self­ regulating organizations, and that they can be relied upon to apply appropriate standards without Government censor­ ship interference. “ The amendments to the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations will establish a procedure for organizations to apply to the Attorney-General for approval as ‘approved organizations’ and to screen films at ‘approved events’. “ In determining whether to approve an organization or an event, the Attorney­ General is obliged to take account of a number of matters, including: • the organization’s purposes;

“ If a trust were to be used as an invest­ ment vehicle in a film venture the investors would acquire units in the trust again, in proportion to their invest­ ments. A trust is an entity separate from the investors for taxation purposes and it would be the relevant investor and first owner of the copyright in the film.

The benefit of the New Tax Con­ cessions would be received by the beneficiaries only by way of additional distributions of the net assets of the trust. A trust cannot distribute a loss and, under the New Tax Concessions, film losses may only be realised against film income. Accordingly, an investor/beneficiary may be unable to take advantage of a film loss should it occur.

It may often be expected that a film may make a loss in the first year of income thus the investor/beneficiary is further disadvantaged by this structure.”

Moreover on page 23 of the Cinema

whether the proposed event is in keeping with those purposes; the cultural or artistic quality of the activities in question; and the general standing and reputation of the organization in question.

“ I believe that both the Sydney and Mel­ bourne film festivals, which are on­ going organizations planning their next annual ‘events’ in June, will be accepted as clearly eligible for exemp­ tion under these provisions. “ Applications from other organizations and in respect of other events will be considered on their merits as the occasion arises. “ The regulations make it clear that the new system will only operate in relation to a bona fide film festival. Holders of permission will be obliged to comply with a series of specific conditions, in­ cluding: • admission limited to subscribers; • subscribers to be 18 years and over; • a limit of two screenings of any film at any one festival; and • all films admitted under these condi­ tions to be exported at the con­ clusion of the festival. “ The regulations are drafted in such a way as to enable the Government to monitor closely the standards main­ tained by the festivals to which censor­ ship exemption is granted. The status of ‘approved organization’ or ‘approved event’ can be revoked at any time. It is anticipated that in practice fresh applications will need to be made by the major film festivals each year in respect of each annual ‘event’ . “ The regulations also provide for an

Papers March issue William Marshall is quoted as follows: “ . . . trusts whether unit or family discre­ tionary (. . . be very careful about using any form of trust; 10BA does not allow for them.)” .

The legal and taxation aspects of film financing have, for the past couple of years, been nothing short of a “ minefield” from which producers are only just start­ ing to successfully emerge. You may well have in these two articles unintentionally extended said “ minefield” yet again.

I believe that an article in your next issue which both rationalized and recon­ ciled these two apparently conflicting views should be of great benefit to all members of the industry.

Yours sincerely, John Kearney Acting Director Film Victoria

appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against any decision by the Attorney-General to either refuse or revoke approval.”

On the same day, Senator David Hamer issued a press release: “ Senator David Hamer, Liberal Senator for Victoria and chairman of the Austra­ lian Film Institute, said in Melbourne today that he welcomed the new regula­ tions from the federal Attorney-General for films to be screened at recognized film festivals and special screenings of the Australian Film Institute without the need for approval by the Film Censor­ ship Board. “ Senator Hamer said that he had been concerned for many years about the censorship of AFI special screenings and film festival films and the harm done to government-supported film organizations (such as the AFI) in the past when certain films had to be with­ drawn because of interference by the Film Censorship Board. “ Senator Hamer said that it was proper that the Film Censorship Board should continue to classify films to protect young people from unsuitable films and to act as a guide to parents so that they know beforehand whether a film is suit­ able for certain age groups. “ But in the case of AFI screenings and film festivals, membership is open to all people interested in the art of the film, who are over the age of 18 and there­ fore eligible to view ‘R’-rated films. In the past, the Chief Censor, Janet Strick­ land, justified banning certain films to the AFI and film festivals because she claimed that these organizations should not be able to show films that other

Brendan Archer (“ Prospectuses") replies: The extracts referred to in John Kear­ ney’s letter are not in conflict. Both Bill Marshall’s statement and the extract from “ Financing Australian Films” refer to the situation where an investment is made using a trust as the permanent investment vehicle. In my article, under the heading “ Stage 3” , I stated: “ the trustee would then vest the assets of the unit trust in the members . . . in proportion to their respective invest­ ments in order to ensure that the members secure the 150 per cent tax deduction.”

By vesting the assets, the trustee would drop out of the picture and the investment would be transferred to the individual members. This would ensure that the un­ desirable consequences referred to in the extracts quoted — i.e., the loss of the deductions by the investors (beneficiaries) — would not occur.

The Quarter

sectors of the adult population were not able to view on the ground that it was pandering to elitism. Since no one over the age of 18 was barred from member­ ship to the AFI and the film festivals, this was a very curious justification, said Senator Hamer. “ Senator Hamer concluded that he had been working for many years to have the regulations changed and had asked questions in Parliament, e.g., 25 August, 1981, and had made many representations on this matter to the former Attorney-General.”

The former Attorney-General in ques­ tion is Senator Peter Durack, now the shadow Attorney-General. Durack issued his press statement the next day: “ The Attorney-General’s decision to create a special new system of censor­ ship for film festivals is both unneces­ sary and elitist. Once again we have seen an over-reaction from Senator Evans. “ As far as censorship is concerned, the plain fact of the matter is that the exist­ ing system has been working quite satisfactorily. The facts speak for them­ selves. Out of about 2500 films shown at festivals around Australia, the Chief Censor has sought to view only five. Of these, only one was banned and that decision was overturned by the Films Board of Review. “ Senator Evans now proposes to approve organizations and then let them do what they like. We thus have two censorship systems and two different standards: one for people to attend approved film festivals and one for the rest of the community. This is a thoroughly elitist and unjustifiable situa­ tion. “ I am concerned about the standards which are to apply to the approved organizations and the extent of monitor­ ing of their activities which will prove possible. In New York, they have an annual festival of erotic films. Does Senator Evans intend approving an application for such a festival in Aus­ tralia? “ The present system of censorship has worked well and has moved more or less in line with community standards.

I believe it would be in the industry’s interests to investigate the possibility of providing that the members of a unit trust specifically formed for the purposes of film investment should be entitled to the Divi­ sion 10BA deductions as if they were members of a partnership. A unit trust structure would appear to be an ideal structure for film investment purposes. I understand Phillip Adams advocated the use of unit trusts at a meeting of the various state film commissions in 1981.

“Snowy” Box-office Dear Sir, I was amused by Jack Clancy’s “The Man From Snowy River: Parents and Orphans” in Cinema Papers (No. 42, March 1983, p. 50). First, it smacked of that ripe fruit produced by Parker Tyler and bottled for posterity by Gore Vidal in Myra Breckinridge. Even more diverting, Clancy chose to overflow out of a curious ignorance.

Pondering the “ contradiction” between the success of the film at the Australian box-office and the “ critical hammering” it received from Australian critics, Clancy mused: “ If one adds to the Australian suc­ cess an interesting corollary, that (as far as I am aware) the fiim has enjoyed

Letters

The statistics show that the Chief Film Censor has recognized the special requirements of festival audiences while maintaining a discreet watching brief. Retention of the present system is much more preferable to the carte blanche proposed by Senator Evans.”

AFTS and the Industry The following is an extract from the address given to the 1983 graduates of the Australian Film and Television School, on April 15, by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, Barry Cohen: “ It is almost 14 years since I became a member of the Federal parliament. In 1969, when I was first elected, there was no Film and Television School.

There was no Australian film industry and what passed for an indigenous Aus­ tralian television industry was at best mediocre and at worst an embarrass­ ment. It was so bad, in fact, that when the first Australian films were made in the early 1970s I was so deeply pre­ judiced against Australian television programs that I refused to go to the cinema to see them; I was convinced they would be the same appalling standard as the rubbish that was dished up on television. “ Today a new Australian film is an event eagerly awaited by Australian audiences and increasingly by inter­ national audiences . . . “ As a constant traveller abroad, in recent years particularly to the U.S., I have consistently been appalled at the universal ignorance of our country. The image, if we had one, was of a bunch of tennis players and lifesavers leading a flock of sheep over Sydney Harbour Bridge with koalas perched on their shoulders and kangaroos hopping behind. Not any longer. Today, often as not, the opening conversation with an American or a Brit will be about how much they have enjoyed the latest Aus­ tralian film they have seen. This may not be true of everyone but it is certainly,, common amongst the more educated

nothing like that success in other countries, the puzzle becomes greater” (P- 50).

Yet in Perth, Western Australia, The Sunday Times (March 27, 1983, p. 44) printed the following news-item under a New York, Saturday date-line: “The Man From Snowy River which had previously taken $14 million, has chalked up another $18.24 million in 472 U.S. cinemas in the past 23 weeks.”

Wait, old Clancy, old auteurist (a Clancy word) until the facts are in. But do, please do, give us lots more Tyler-ese.

Yours sincerely, Max Jones Editor’s note: Jack Clancy is presently overseas; he may wish to comment on his return.

A Letter of Complaint Editor’s note: The following letter is, in part, a response to Christine Cremen’s comment in the previous Cinema Papers that, “ One review of A Woman Like Eve in a local student newspaper enthused that she ‘was a sucker for a dyke romance’ . . .”

Dear Sir, I am writing in complaint to one of the in­

and those who seek something different and exciting in cinema. “ In more recent times there is evidence that Australia is now starting to crack the mass market with such films as Man From Snowy River, The Year of Living Dangerously, Newsfront and My Brilliant Career. There are well known films and graduates from this School have been associated with their making. Gillian Armstrong is a name that comes immediately to mind. Arm­ strong’s second feature, Starstruck, has been extremely well received in the U.S., getting rave notices from the Los Angeles critics. It has been on the Variety Top 50 chart now for over two months. James Ricketson contributed to Women of the Sun, the first Aboriginal television series. Christopher Noonan, with Captives of Care, Phillip Noyce, Graham Shirley: these are just a few names of outstanding graduates. “ Many more graduates have worked their apprenticeship in the television studios. It is significant to note that it takes about five years for a graduate to emerge to the forefront in Australia.

This compares most favorably with the 10 or even 15 years of hard slogging that has to be done by the graduates of the European schools of film and tele­ vision . . . “ Various governments have sought to find a system that both meets the needs of the industry and yet does not draw too heavily on taxpayers’ money. No system is perfect and the balancing act is a difficult one. Just how much should the taxpayer be expected to pay to help support the industry? It’s a ‘Meaning of Life’ type question to which there are many answers. However, one thing is certain: in spite of the ups and downs of the industry, there is no doubt at all that this is the industry of the future . . . “ I am proud of the work of the School and I am committed to its programs.

Now that the Economic Summit has met and Cabinet must begin the unenviable task of ordering far too large a number of priorities for our August budget, I will be pressing to get a fair share of funds for my portfolio. “ The construction of your new building

accuracies contained in C hristine Cremen’s somewhat delayed report in Cinema Papers (No. 42, March 1983, p.

30) on last October’s Women’s Film Festival in Sydney.

I refer to Cremen’s discussion of Nouchka van Brakel’s A Woman Like Eve in which she refers to review of the film which appeared in the October 1982 issue of Newswit (New South Wales Institute of Technology student news­ paper).

Cremen argues that women who see the film will “ feel obliged to react favour­ ably to it because so few films depict a lesbian relationship that is not automatic­ ally doomed” . This is a valid prediction but why did Cremen go to such lengths of misinterpreting and misquoting a review of the film to support her argument? ' Cremen was hard-pressed to find source material for her article and had to resort to using a film review in “ a local student newspaper” . By stressing the parochial source it is implied that the review is naively celebratory of the “ w orthy” subject m atter. Cremen described the reviewer as “ enthused” and then paraphrases a line of the review completely out of context.

The Newswit review of A Woman Like Eve is far from naively enthusiastic. It is critical of the melodrama, cliches and “ over-accessibility” and identifies its few constructive aspects.

on the grounds of Macquarie University is one project which I sincerely hope will get the green light. Not only will it pro­ vide jobs in its construction, but will enable the School to move from its present cramped quarters to continue its work of producing excellent practi­ tioners of the twin arts of film and tele­ vision. “ I cannot make any promises, but rest assured that I shall be doing my best to secure the funds needed for your School to continue with its worthwhile work . . .”

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Australian Film Commission Project Development Branch Projects approved by the Austra­ lian Film Commission, February 1, 1983 to April 18, 1983 S c rip t/P r o je c t D evelo p m en t Investm ents 35mm Features Silver City — Limelight Productions; prospectus and legal costs — $21,488 Below the Line — Mark Stiles; 3rd draft funding — $5800 Goodbye Adelaide — Petersham Pic­ tures; 1st draft funding — $10,000 Alone Together — Stormbringer Film Productions; 2nd draft funding — $9500 The Grasshoppers — Jane Oehr; 2nd draft funding — $11,504 Love on a Tourist Visa — Jan Sharp, Verite Film Productions; travel costs to Indonesia — $2396 The Umbrella Woman — Margaret Kelly Productions; towards preparation of pro­ duction budget — $500 Nightshade — Samson Productions; 1st draft funding — $13,000 Compulsion — Terry Jennings, Scott Hicks; 1st draft funding — $7250 Earth Versus the Globos — Ben Cannon, View Films; 2nd draft funding — $22,500

Concluded on p.168

The review has obviously made an impression on Cremen, for her critical appraisal echoes the Newswit review in a way which she refuses to acknowledge.

It adds insult to injury by misleading Cinema Papers readers to think that a par­ ticular critique of a film in another maga­ zine is amateurish and gullible, and then the author of the attack writes what is essentially the same review.

Newswit is glad to be of help with research of areas of film study which are ignored by the mainstream media. Just so long as we are correctly quoted and credited.

Yours sincerely, Greg Kenny Film Reviews Editor Newswit Christine Cremen replies: Really Newswit, be fair: either I am (in your opinion) a lackey of the “ mainstream media” who has been harshly critical of your reviewer’s remarks, or a sneaky plagiarist who has stolen her superior insights. You can’t have it both ways.

Nevertheless, where she and I do agree is in our interest in the subject matter of the film. However, even though I too am “ a sucker for a dyke romance” , I am un­ willing to praise everyone who appears on the screen with only the most tokenistic of damns.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 97

Interviewed by Tom Ryan and Scott Murray

The film s o f Sydney Pollack concern individuals going through a process o f learning, about themselves and their “roots”. Often they are helped in this process by their sexual partners.

Pollack's Bobby Deerfield is one example. Bobby (Al Pacino) is a racing car champion who is afraid o f life, too scared o f stepping outside his self-constructed shell fo r fear o f exposing himself emotionally. But through his relationship with Lillian (Marthe Keller), he is taught, as Lillian writes to him, “Life is made sweeter by taking a risk. ” By the end o f the film , Bobby has opened himself out emotionally, letting the more sensitive side o f his personality emerge. He has also realized that one cannot cut oneself o ff from one's roots, and that one is strengthened by under­ standing the part family plays in life. A moving example is when Bobby gives as his address (to some fellow American tourists) that o f his little-visited family home.

In many ways, Bobby's sense o f growth and increased sense o f personal freedom conveys Pollack's belief in the importance o f individual struggle. In Absence o f Malice, Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) fights the injustice o f a false newspaper item and takes on the newspaper itself. He does not allow himself to be daunted by the corporate's oppressive and impersonal might, and his victory is that o f the individual over the institution.

So, even if Pollack's film s often end in the parting o f lovers (through choice or death), there is always a strong sense o f each individual's having grown through the process.

Pollack is a fiercely optimistic filmmaker who sees nothing to be lost in taking a risk. A s Bobby says o f his brother, “He's kind o f a goddam fo o l . . . 'cept he tries. " S.M.

Left: director Sydney Pollack and actor Dustin Hoffman (dressed as Dorothy) during the filming o f Tootsie.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 99

Sydney Pollack

You have done a lot of work in television and in many of your films there seems to be a critical attitude towards it. Hubbell Gardiner (Robert Redford) in “The Way We Were” is shown to have copped out at the end when he has become a writer for tele­ vision, while “ Tootsie” is clearly a parody of certain kinds of tele­ vision. How much is this a product of your own experiences?

It is partially that, and partially an attack on the travesty I think television has become in the U.S. At one time there was real promise for television; now I don’t think there is. Apart from the public broadcasting system, where private stations and cable do some inter­ esting programming, series tele­ vision is pap.

At the time I was working in television it represented the ultimate compromise. You had to have commercial breaks, or the network had a different philo­

sophy from the star, or you couldn’t hire someone because he was too far to the left of the paper product that was sponsoring the show. You were always frustrated by something.

But even then good things were possible. On Ben Casey, I did almost every other show in the first two years and some of them were quite good. Given they were onehour shows done in five days, there is some pretty damn interesting stuff visually, and some nice per­ formances and writing. But tele­ vision has become silly now, and can’t help but be a little satirical in my attitude to it on film.

constantly threatening that notion of the individual which is clearly so important to you . . .

In stitu tio n s do co n stantly threaten and frustrate the indivi­ dual. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy and you can’t get around it. That disturbs me.

I am part of this institutionaliza­ tion now in the film business.

There isn’t any film business.

There’s Coca-Cola. There’s Gulf and Western. There’s the Trans America Corporation. The only one really left is Marvin Davis who owns Twentieth Century-Fox, for which he personally paid them $700 million in cash. He’s an oil Is it also connected to a broader man, but at least he is one man. If view of the problems produced by I wanted to, I could go and face institutions? You attacked the Marvin Davis and have the satis­ media in “ Absence of Malice” and faction of yelling at him, but you in “ The Electric Horseman” . can’t argue with an institution.

There is the CIA in “ Three Days It is like trying to argue with an of the Condor” and the ambiguity airline. There isn’t anybody who about ‘The New York Times’. It is can do you any good because they as if in your films institutions are are all working for somebody else.

Nobody takes any personal responsibility. “ But you don’t understand. I have my tickets.” “ Well, I’m sorry sir. Your tickets have been sold to somebody else.” “ But who do I see about that?”

That is a line I have often used in my pictures. It started in This Property is Condemned, and was in Three Days of the Condor, Bobby Deerfield and Absence of Malice.

When there isn’t anybody to see, you are in trouble, and there isn’t anybody to see with institutions because institutions aren’t any­ body. Yet global economics and politics fertilize institutions.

One might look for personal rela­ tionships to provide a refuge from those institutions. Yet in almost all your films you separate your lovers at the end, as if they have to go off alone and face the world again.

The exception is “ Tootsie” . . .

couldn’t quite bring them together as it was originally written, with them embracing and walking off together.

Basically, I don’t think there are any solutions. There is only the examination of alternatives. There is no end to a journey; there is always another journey starting.

But I do believe the alternative is personal relationships: they are the only refuge.

Personal relationships also have a dark side at their root because ultimately, and I hate to admit this, everyone is alone. The toughest things in the world you have to do alone: being born, dying, the gut-level choices you have to make in life, even in your career, even politically, to betray a friend or decide what is a moral move. There isn’t any real refuge for your aloneness.

I don’t mean to be as pessimistic as I sound, and I am very pro-rela­ tionships. I have been married for 25 years. I don’t believe it is an ideal solution, but it is the closest thing we have. I don’t know any other way to do it except to try. “ But if it doesn’t work, Sydney, why do you do it?” “ Because there isn’t anything else.” Finally, that is a good enough reason. “ Bobby Deerfield” is, arguably, your most complex treatment of the dangers and rewards of rela­ tionships . . .

I’m glad you think that. The core of it was the irony of a man who faces death every day but knows nothing about life. He is taught about how to live by a dying woman who had this compulsion to give some meaning to her death.

The metaphor for me was in the story Lillian (Marthe Keller) told about her father dying on the beach, and this hand sticking out underneath. They roll him over and find this child, and Lillian says, “ It was so strange because it was as if my father had died and in his dying had laid the child, like an

Hubbell (Robert Redford), after having sold out to television, meets Katie (Barbra Streisand) again at the end o f Pollack’s The Way We Were.

Yes, Tootsie is the most opti­ mistic film so far, but even there I

The soap opera in Tootsie: “I can’t help but be a little satirical in my attitude to [television] on film . ”

Bobby (Al Pacino) and Lillian (Marthe Keller) in Pollack’s Bobby Deerfield: personal relationships as refuge.

100 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

Sydney Pollack

Bobby, Lillian and Carlos del Montanaro, the salami-eating, balloon guy who “is precisely the opposite to Deerfield . . . He takes risks. ’’ Bobby Deerfield.

egg.” And, of course, that is what she is doing: giving birth to Deer­ field (A1 Pacino).

There is a wonderful sparking between Deerfield and Lillian par­ ticularly in their first meeting over dinner at the clinic . . .

Yeah, it is an extraordinary scene. I love it. I love the fact that they have their backs to each other, and she has to turn around each time she talks. And I love that whole thing with the magician and how Deerfield tries to find out how he does the con tricks. Deerfield can’t stand mysteries. He can’t stand anything that can’t be explained or understood. He has to know where every pebble is. That is why he picked a job that justifies so much carefulness. That is why the film opens with him walking the racing track; he previews every step he is going to take. That is why he always repeats a question before answering, to give himself as much time as possible. “ Where am I going? . . . I’m going over there.” “ How am I? . . . I’m fine.”

You must have been disappointed by the general failure of “ Bobby Deerfield” to win an audience . . .

It didn’t work anywhere; yet it is a favorite of mine.

I know you shouldn’t defend films that fail, but I am stubborn about it. Everybody seems to have thought I was trying to make a tear-jerker, but that’s not what I was trying to do at all.

It was important to me that people at least recognized the ways in which the theme of Bobby Deer­ field, one that I’m terribly inter­ ested in, and which has been in all the pictures, although to a lesser degree than in Deerfield, is about roots. By that I mean people wandering away from where they belong, culturally, emotionally or physically. Bobby was a guy who cut himself off and, for whatever reasons, tried to deny who and what he really was. He assumed a constructed identity, which a lot of people do.

There are very few people who don’t diverge from their roots. At some time they encounter a teacher, a piece of literature or something that makes them believe that they have been doing it all wrong, and that they have to change. They move to San Fran­ cisco or New York or London.

They start a whole new life. But it is like cutting a tree off and then re-planting it: it is never as strong as when the original roots are kept.

Most people find themselves returning to home base.

Coming to terms with one’s past, finding answers there, emerges as a major theme in most of your films.

In “ Absence of Malice” , Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) tries to do things independently of his father’s methods, but has to resort to them in the end. In “ The Elec­ tric Horseman” , Sonny Steele (Robert Redford) has betrayed his past and has to take a course back to it . . .

Exactly. It is in all those films — and very much so in The Yakuza — but for some reason it seemed to work more palatably for audiences in those films than in Deerfield.

For me, Deerfield was the more perfect expression of those themes, but people either found it boring to watch a film about a boring man, or were not prepared for Pacino in that kind of role after Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico; they expected more fireworks.

In fact, you originally had Paul Newman cast as Bobby Deerfield, which would have made it a very different film . . .

I don’t think it would have been as true a film, but commercially it probably would have been more successful. .

Newman was the first to try and get me to do it, because it was written for him by Alvin Sargent.

We had a meeting down at New­ man’s beach house, and he really wanted to do it badly. But I had just made The Yakuza, which was a failure, so I chickened out and did Three Days of the Condor. But

Lydia (Annie Duperey) and Bobby: “Personal relationships also have a dark side . . . But [they are] the closest [solution] we have. I d o n ’t know any other way to do it except to try. ” Bobby Deerfield.

as soon as Condor was successful, I dug Alvin’s screenplay out of my drawer and re-read it. I became totally fascinated.

You seem to have developed a very productive relationship with Sargent . . .

Alvin and I have worked together on many films. He and David Rayfield, whom I first met when I was working in television, are the two guys with whom I work all the time — sometimes credited, sometimes not. They worked together on The Way We Were, totally uncredited. It was the first time I had been able to work with two writers at once, in the same room. The same thing happened on The Electric Horseman.

Alvin is a man who thinks of himself as missing life, a cloistered man who is afraid to take a chance. He is about 54 years old, very youngish looking and very attractive. But he was locked for 27 years in a marriage. His wife was terrific, and he has great affec­ tion for her, but it was the wrong marriage for him. He knew it. He hid upstairs in a room and typed all day long.

Actually, he has just re-married and his life is opening up beauti­ fully. H e’s done Julia and Ordinary People, and won three Academy Awards. He is just blossoming.

Alvin writes very much out of his gut, but is disciplined enough as a craftsman to put it in a theatrical form. He writes fables about himself, but not narcissistic, autobiographical stuff. He also has a bizarre imagination. Only he could have written that crazy character, Carlos del Montanaro, the balloon guy eating the salami in Bobby Deerfield. Who is this guy who is racing balloons? I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense in the world, except he is precisely the opposite to Deerfield. He is not where he belongs. He takes risks.

He speaks to strangers, flies in the sky. He does all kinds of crazy things.

And in The Electric Horseman he came up with Gus (Will Hare),

that crazy guy who lived out by a trailer park. He is the salami character in another guise.

You know, it was an interesting experience making Bobby Deer­ field, because I was away from home, from my own roots. We shot it all in Europe, in strange, unreal places like Leichebad in Switzerland. Hospitals like that really exist, with elixirs, health spas and everything.

Then we followed their journey, down the mountain to Belaggio and Lake Como. We stayed at the Villa Serbaloni, a strange place out of some Baroque past. And here is this stylish American who is not connected to anything, and who is defined by whatever woman he is with.

The woman in the beginning, of course, was his mother, who insu­ lated him totally from the world.

And then there is Lydia, played by Annie Duperey, who was wonder­ ful. I love it when he comes back down the mountain and Lydia is waiting for him: “ I will make you an omelette.” “ I don’t want an omelette.” “ I will make you an omelette and I don’t give a damn if you want an omelette.”

I loved another line so much I used it again in Electric Horseman: “ Bobby, what will you do to­ morrow?” , which became “ What are you going to do tomorrow Sonny?” It’s the same question because that is finally the question. “ What has all this meant? What will I learn from all this?” And, of course, the characters in neither case can really give a definitive answer. Something has been learned, but nobody can say pre­ cisely what it is.

So all your films are positive inasmuch as the characters manage to grow because of their experi­ ences?

They do grow. They grow by leaving home base and then return­ ing different from when they started. T. S. Eliot in Four Quartets has a line which is the most significant line for me — it’s on my wall: “ The purpose of all our wanderings is to arrive at the CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 101

Sydney Pollack

point where we started and know it for the first time.” That is exactly what happens to people in life.

when I didn’t know what I couldn’t do. It is learning the limits that starts to cripple you. That is why filmmaking is a burn-out busi­ ness, oddly. There are not a lot of old directors. And you have careers like Elia Kazan’s and Billy Wilder’s, and you wonder what happened. Why is it great, great, great and then stops? It stops because you begin to define your­ self too much. You begin to ‘know’ or think you know. You can’t keep that sense of not knowing what you can’t do.

Many of your characters have difficulty making decisions alone, and in part this reflects the loss of a parental guidance or presence: Bobby D eerfield, Megan in “ Absence of Malice” , Hubbell and Katie in “ The Way We Were” , Julie in “ Tootsie” . . .

I think so. I have never thought of it quite like that, but you strike a note. You remind me of my past.

I had almost no parental guidance and probably spent an awful lot of my childhood involved in things with an ambiguous nature, like trying to figure out why there are so many contradictory things.

Why could it not be more simple?

My mother died when I was very young. My father was a certain kind of a teacher, but more in terms of physical survival than in moral or philosophical terms. He was a very physical guy and it was more about taking care of your­ self, of being an athlete. I could never speak to my father about anything philosophical.

One of the things 1 enjoy most in my life is sitting down and having long talks with my three kids — my two daughters particularly. They are very open with me, about everything — philosophical ques­ tions, moral questions, whatever.

My oldest daughter is a freshman in college now, and on the way to Europe recently I stopped in Denver just to take her to dinner and bullshit. It is something I missed when I was a kid.

The thing I am trying to teach her, if I can teach her anything, is that you don’t need to have answers to feel secure, because most of the time the people with the answers are in as much trouble as anybody else. As Yeats said, “ The best do lack conviction, the worst are full of passion and intensity.”

I am very suspicious of ‘know­ ing’. It is almost impossible to know anything. Yet all the time I run in to ‘experts’ and, forgive me, film critics who ‘know’. But who the hell knows? How do you know so fast that this is right and this is wrong, or this is good and this is bad? It is hard to know anything and it gets harder as you get older and learn more. You face more and more moral ambiguities all the time. It would be wonderful if it were easy, like the way John Houseman talks about the war he was in. He misses “ the certainty, the clarity” .

I am a Jew who took a great deal of pride in 1963 with the Israeli situation. Now I am in a very com­ promised moral position, given what is going on. It is very hard to know what is right. It would be w onderful to ju st have an allegiance to an idea and say that under no circumstances are we wrong.

102 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

In your work there seems to be a constant concern with the feminine side of the male personality, and vice versa. It is clearly there in “ Bobby Deerfield” , something Bobby has to learn about himself.

Was it this aspect that interested you in “ Tootsie” ?

Katie takes a stand on war in The Way We Were; the rest o f the students make a jo k e o f it, rationalizing their inaction.

That is a small example, but it happens in life all the time. It happens in pictures.

The problem with that, however, is that constant reflection prohibits action . . .

That is exactly right. That is the dilemma in The Way We Were — you’re so busy seeing every side that you take no side. What you are finally doing is rationalizing inaction. I get furious with myself for rationalizing inaction. It’s like a see-saw, and that is reflected in the pictures, too. That’s why there is never reconciliation, because each of the people usually repre­ sents one point of view. And if I mine to the fullest the existential long view that Hubbell Gardiner takes in The Way We Were, and then mine to the fullest the com­ mitted point of view that Katie

Morosky (Barbra Streisand) takes, ultimately I can’t ever keep them together. The differences are too great. They’re irreconcilable.

Given that quote from John Houseman, “ Absence of Malice” seems like a yearning for that kind of moral certainty because Michael marches in like a cowboy out of the West and rides off into the sunset at the end . . .

Yes. He’s the guy who isn’t morally ambiguous. He’s not paralyzed by weighing arguments. “ Hey, this isn’t fair” , he says. He doesn’t care whether it is an insti­ tution or not. He says the one great line: “ Did you ever try to talk to a newspaper?” I mean, he can’t talk to a newspaper, but he tries. It is naivety, but naivety is the only way you can do it.

I did the best work in my life

Megan (Sally Field), the reporter, and Michael (PaulNewman), the victim: “Hey, this isn’t fair. ” Pollack’s Absence o f Malice.

It was the only thing that inter­ ested me in Tootsie: the idea of a man growing and becoming a better man for having been a woman. I wasn’t interested in doing a drag comedy. I wasn’t interested in Dustin Hoffman put­ ting on a dress.

I think I have always been inter­ ested in this aspect without know­ ing it. It didn’t crystallize until Tootsie, when I realized that the similarities between men and women may ultimately be more important than the differences.

Friendship between men and women is tough, but it may ulti­ mately be the answer to reconciling all these revolutions and liberation movements.

We look around and some guy says, as though it is an incredible accomplishment, “ She’s my best friend.” And that’s not usually what happens. Usually a guy has a guy as his best friend, and a girl has a girl, and in the meantime the guy has a lover, a wife or what­ ever. That is a sad commentary on heterosexual relationships.

In the films I have done, particu­ larly the early ones, the wise one was the woman. She was strong and taught the man, starting with The Slender Thread, then The Way We Were, Bobby Deerfield and The Electric Horseman.

There is a wiser, feminine part in men that culture has repressed. But “ feminine” is really a misnomer.

If I asked any man to name the five most appealing qualities in a woman, not naming anything physical, he would probably say things like patience, sensitivity, understanding, an ability to nurture and kindness. Now there is no reason they should be feminine qualities, no reason they shouldn’t be in every man. They’re humane or human qualities.

Something very positive would happen if men listened more to that side of themselves and didn’t feel compelled to illustrate over and over the macho side. There is som ething very good about ambition, about personal strength,

about stamina and the ability to handle stress, and all the things that we think of as strong qualities.

But it is always better if it is tem­ pered with some sensitivity.

I have played around with that theme a lot. I remember Lillian saying in Bobby Deerfield that she had big hands like her father. It’s not wrong to have the qualities of a woman — nice hands, delicate hands — she’s saying to Deerfield.

And in Julia there is the relation­ ship between these two women, which was not a homosexual rela­ tionship but a closeness. It was a relationship possible between two people.

Some of this sounds as preten­ tious as hell, and I don’t mean it to, but global politics are too com­ plicated for me. I can’t deal with it. But I know as sure as I am sit­ ting here that the only way to deal with it is between two people, not between countries. Everything starts between two people, and it can be a man and a man, a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman. It doesn’t matter. If things are right there, then you can’t have wars.

You know, people say, “ Why don’t you make political movies?”

I do make political films. “ Why don’t you make moral, philo­ sophical movies?” Well, I do make very personal films, but in the form of big entertainment. That is the way to reach the maximum number of people — a lot more people than if I make a little tract picture with an essay in it, saying “ Don’t drop nuclear bombs. It’s not good for you.” Everybody knows it’s not good for you.

No, I can’t do it that way, but I can make somebody cry genuinely or laugh or be sad or root for better treatment of a person. Even in its own odd way in Tootsie, you see the truth when Ron (Dabney Coleman) says to Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) the same line that Michael (Hoffman) said to Jeff (Bill Murray) about, “ Listen, I never told her that.” You see the lying so clearly and you know it’s true. The audience laughs because they know it is the same damn thing that most guys say.

Now, you don’t think you are learning something there, but in an odd way, because you are not being lectured at, because you are not being moralized to, you recog­ nize for a split second the truth of it all. It moves some furniture around in your head a little bit; a little crack opens. And that is all that is necessary for starters.

We have debated various readings of that sequence when Michael delivers Julie’s (Jessica Lange) ‘line’ to her on the balcony. It seems to me that Michael wants to be uncovered, because she is likely to recognize the line . . .

All I meant at that point was that fantasies are okay when you are in control of them but nobody

Three couples from Tootsie: Dorothy and Les (Charles Durning), top; Sandy (Teri Garr) and Michael (Dustin Hoffman) at the television studio, above; Julie (Jessica Lange) and Dorothy in a publicity still o f the kiss, from which the film “holds back”, below.

WfMffi

¡Jg¡

' //•<i :

Sydney Pollack

wants all their fantasies acted out.

Women often have rape fantasies, but that doesn’t mean they literally want to be raped. So, I was just dealing with the truth of that.

But, psychologically, I think you are accurate. Unconsciously, Michael wants to be found out right from the beginning. It is a lot more work to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth.

There is another question about the male-female aspect, and it has to do with why you hold back from showing Julie and Dorothy kiss . . .

They never kissed because Julie wouldn’t permit it. Let’s go back to the beginning. Jessica was directed to flirt with Dorothy as if she were a man. If you watch closely, particularly in the scene where Julie invites her to the country, Jessica is playing it like she’s flirting with a man. The reason for this is that otherwise I would have no love story. There is only one scene where they are a man and a woman, other than at the party, and that’s when the whole film is over, and you are trying to wrap everything up. So somewhere they have to be in love with each other, even if the girl doesn’t know she’s in love with him.

So, I figure psychologically I can get away with a little twisting of the ball by saying that something in Julie senses the man in Dorothy.

She giggles, bats her eyes and flirts, to the point where some of the people who saw the dailies said: “ Hey man, you’d better be careful!”

Even in the scene where Dorothy almost kisses Julie, she waits till the last minute before pulling away, because, as she says, “ Obvi­ ously I had the same impulse too.”

“Jessica [as Julie] is playing it like sh e ’s flirting with a man . . . otherwise I would have no love story. ” Tootsie.

104 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

Now, I don’t want her to literally be a lesbian because this is not what the picture is about. I don’t want her not to be a lesbian, because that is not what the picture is about either. All I want her to do is be sensitive and vulnerable, and she is sweet at that moment. She doesn’t shout at Dorothy and say, “ How dare you!” or “ Get out of here.” She very sensitively says, “ No, it’s not your fault. It’s my fault” , the way you would if a m isu n d e rsta n d in g like th a t happened. But still something in her is drawn to him.

So, I think unconsciously the audience gets a sense of what it would be like if they were together, rather than if she reacted only towards Dorothy as a woman. I had to create some sort of sexual tension between them, even though it is bizarre in the sense that, in a way, it is coming through the dress.

Apparently, “ Absence of Malice” was originally written for two male leads and you wanted one role changed to a woman. Given the kinds of relationships you have mentioned in “ Julia” and pursued in “ Tootsie” , why did you see a heterosexual relationship as neces­ sary here?

father was Mafia, therefore he’s Mafia; his father was crooked, therefore he’s crooked.

How do you feel about the repre­ sentation of Megan Carter (Sally Field) in the film?

Megan is not meant to be a great journalist. Megan is an average journalist, and I think she is a fairly accurate representation, at least in the U.S. She follows symp­ toms instead of facts, sometimes. I know that a good journalist wouldn’t make a lot of the mistakes she does, but we have Pulitzer Prize journalists who have made these mistakes.

I was very careful before I did that picture: I sent people to the Columbia Journalism School to research every instance of journa­ listic malpractice I could find. I assured myself that there were precedents at least a hundred times over for every mistake made in that picture. And I documented it all. Plus, I had an excellent Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the Detroit Free Press as a writer [Kurt Luedtke].

As well as the question of whether or not she accurately represents journalists, there is the question of her function as a woman. When Michael beats her up after Teresa’s suicide, it is as if one has been manipulated into being hostile to her rather than to the institution

I don’t seem to be able to do a picture without a love story in it; it is the pencil with which I can write.

In Absence of Malice, it was never two men. However, we did think of switching the roles, the man being the reporter and the woman Fair enough. But my only point the victim. The reason we couldn’t is that finally the institution, and do that was that you wouldn’t this is the irony of it, is the people. believe a woman being suspected I don’t want to stop the free press of Mafia dealings. So I didn’t have and I don’t want to censure much choice, finally, except to journalists, but I want to say, make the victim the male so that “ Hey, you guys, you have to do it the misinterpretation of his con­ better. I’m sorry, but if you have nections would be believable. His that kind of responsibility, you

have to do it better.” The answer is to be a little more careful about whom you give the by-line to in a newspaper, because that’s a big forum.

It is the same as whom you let make the picture. If I made pic­ tures which were out and out propaganda, I think I would be doing a very immoral thing. It’s not a fair arena to give me $21 million, then spend $15 million more marketing this product and let me say anything I want, if I’m not a moral man. I had to watch like hell on Three Days of the Condor to let Higgins (Cliff Robertson) and Joubert (Max von Sydow) have their day in court.

Otherwise, it’s not fair. Higgins has to say, “ You can take this moral position because you’re eating, you’re not hungry and you’re not freezing cold. But when you’re freezing and your car won’t start and there’s no food in your stomach, what are you going to want then?” I have to leave you on that note because that’s another wrinkle.

Now, I very much want to say certain moral, positive things in pictures, but I can’t put my hand on the scale and overbalance it.

That’s cheating.

In “ Tootsie” , George Fields (Sydney Pollack) tells Michael why he hasn’t the part in a new play: “ Terry Bishop is in soap opera.

Everybody knows his name.” One could look at the casting of your films and say that you cast accord­ ing to that criterion. You have used Sidney Poitier, Redford five times, Burt Lancaster twice, Paul Newman, Robert Mitchum, Jane Fonda twice, Sally Field, Barbra Streisand, Faye Dunaway, A1 Pacino — all big names. To what extent do you have your eye on the box-office?

Megan and Michael in A bsence o f Malice: “I d o n ’t seem to be able to do a picture without a love story in it; it is the pencil with which I can write. ”

Sydney Pollack

The use o f big name actors: Robert Red­ fo r d as Sonny in P ollack’s The Electric Horseman.

This is a tricky point because it is very misunderstood. People believe that there are box-office guarantees with stars. That’s a bit of a myth because there are only one or two stars who are guaran­ tees: Clint Eastwood maybe as a man, and Streisand or Goldie Hawn as a female. Redford is not a guarantee of anything. Redford made The Great Waldo Pepper, The Great Gatsby, Brubaker — a lot of pictures that haven’t earned their money. So has Newman. He had made nothing but flops between 1970 and when I used him in Absence of Malice. But those people bring a history onto the screen with them, an unconscious series of associations from which you can’t disconnect them, and which can work very favorably for you.

Take the Megan character in Malice. I had to be very careful whom I cast as the lady. I wanted to be as ambiguous as I could, so I needed a sympathetic lady to do these unsympathetic things. I cer­ tainly didn’t want Faye Dunaway because it would have been a night­ mare.

Sally Field is a sympathetic lady the minute she shows her face on screen because of Norma Rae and because of the fact that she’s had to fight against the system to become recognized as a good actress.

Newman also has a past. You can believe him taking on that newspaper. There is something old-fashioned about him; he comes out of old-fashioned films. It would have been wrong for, say, Richard Gere.

The Way We Were would have been quite different if I’d had Ryan O’Neal instead of Redford.

As originally written, the film was

a vehicle for the woman. My work them, and it would be wrong to cut was to try to level that argument back and forth. What is happening out, and one of the ways was to is a growing awareness of how cast someone who could pull his touched Michael is by her story. In weight on screen with Streisand. a sense, Julie is undressing in front And when Redford walks on of him, and so, even though it is screen, you automatically know her talking, the camera loses her you are dealing with an intelligent and slowly pushes it on Michael, man. That is not necessarily true because he is the one that it is with Ryan O’Neal. He is a good happening to. actor, don’t get me wrong, but the Conventionally, you would say, immediate association is not “ I have to do a close-up of her intelligence. while she’s telling this whole story With Julie in Tootsie, a kind of about the wallpaper” , but that’s sexual shorthand lets you know not what the scene is about. It is right away that she is the leading about Michael falling in love with lady instead of Sandy (Teri Garr). her because she is more intimate I was very worried because you with him than she would be if they could be confused: Sandy’s is the made love. That lands on him, and better written part. That is the in order to see it land you have to closer relationship. Would people concentrate on him. think that the love story is Michael Then, once you are there, you and Sandy? Well, I had to cast it so can’t leave it until he forces you. they would know the minute the He takes his hand out of the two met that the love story belongs covers. What is he going to do? It to Michael and Julie. keeps pushing you back with the So, casting is very critical. It is camera. He is going to touch her not done so much for money, hair. And so it leads you to a visual although you have probably a lot style. better chance of financing if you cast Streisand and Redford instead What do you have planned next? of unknowns. But mitigated against that is you have today a Alvin is doing a project for me $30 million film with the two stars based on the life of Dashiell Ham­ as opposed to a $10 million one mett and Fillian Heilman. We did with unknowns. So you have to the script of Julia together, and ask: will I get $40 million back then I had a schedule problem. I with the two of them to pay for the extra $20 million? It’s a trade-off.

had committed myself to Deerfield because I didn’t think Alvin would finish Julia as fast as he did. Jane [Fonda] was ready to shoot right then, and Twentieth Century-Fox didn’t want to lose her, so they asked me if I’d let Julia go. I got paid off and I did Deerfield, while [Fred] Zinnemann took over Julia.

That is how Alvin and I became friends with Fillian Heilman. And over the years we have talked together about doing their life. We were finally able to convince her to sell the rights; that meant having to buy the rights to all her books: Pentimento, Scoundrel Time and An Unfinished Woman.

Alvin has been working for just about a year now on that story, and we should have it in the next couple of weeks.

It will be interesting to compare with “ The Way We Were” , because one can see possible con­ nections between the two . . .

Well, our ideal is the same cast: Streisand playing Heilman and Redford playing Hammett. That’s what it was designed for. Maybe it’s solvable; I don’t know. Some­ times pictures about real people are very tough to do. You have more freedom when they’re all imaginary. ★

In your previous ‘Cinema Papers’1 interview, you talked about visual style in terms of catching the per­ formance. We would like to shift the focus away from that. To what extent do you consciously tie visual patterns to thematic concerns?

You always try to. Visual style always works best when it comes out of some organic idea. Each scene has an idea if you want to push it to the wall. You ask, what is this scene really about? Eventu­ ally, that will lead you to behaviour, and to a visual style.

You always try to label a scene emotionally: “ This is the scene where Michael gets the worst news of his life.” You don’t try to explain the story as, “ This is a scene where Michael comes and talks to his agent and finds out nobody will give him a part.” That won’t give you anything. But “ This is the scene where Michael gets the final blow of bad news to an already bad life. He’s had his 40th birthday. He’s not gotten laid. He’s tried three girls. He’s lost the Tolstoy play. Now he’s told the worst news of his life.”

Now, that’s already starting to tell you how to play that scene.

Take the scene where Dorothy/ Michael and Julie are in bed and he touches her. It is shot in one long, slow push-in, and one long, slow pull-back. It is one of the very few lyrical love scenes you have with 1. Cinema Papers, No. 8, March-April, 1976, p. 320.

Jane Fonda and Jason Robards jun. as Lillian Heilman and Dashiell Hammett in Fred Zinnemann’s Julia, scripted by Alvin Sargent and Sydney Pollack.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 105

John O’Hara

The Dismissal is a confirmation ritual, a lengthy television re-enactment of the public record which celebrates the most controversial constitutional moment in Australian history.

The six-hour, three-part series opens by calling attention to its own status as a fiction, a film about political events. The opening credits unroll against a black background to the accompaniment of piano music and the voice­ over asserts the central reflective mood of the production: the attempt to order political events and understand them in the context of their time. The production also immediately establishes a level of abstraction for recollecting these events: “ Looking back there are so many things. So many threads that wove the fabric of our lives.” The opening shots, in black and white, are of Vietnam, Nixon, the Middle East and civil disobedience. The images of street violence dissolve to the Statue of Liberty, and to a satellite shot of the earth in color, with Australia picked out in red.

This introduction establishes the tone, mood and subject material of the film, and deliber­ ately draws the viewers’ attention to its own contrivance. The voice-over then makes the transition to Australia’s own political fortunes during this period of the early 1970s: “ But I want to tell you about our country and some things which happened then and nearly tore it apart.” The image dissolves to “ It’s Time” (the 1972 Labor Party campaign theme), shots in black and white of Gough Whitlam (Leader of

106 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

the Opposition) and the election of 1972, inter­ cut with color shots of crowds singing: history and its chorus.

The introduction takes one through a brief sequence of events until the second Labor electoral victory in May 1974. Then, on a note of impending confusion, and looming political and economic problems for the country, the cast of the production is introduced visually: pictures of the politicians together with images of the actors who play them. The contrast between newsfilm and its fictional reconstruc­ tion is made deliberately within the context of the film’s own narrative style, which includes elements of the silent film and television soap opera.

This style develops as the 1983 fictional representation increasingly takes over the recall of past events drawn from newsfilm. The past becomes the present as the film moves into longer sequences about Jim Cairns (Minister for Overseas Trade), Rex Connor (Minister for Minerals and Energy) and the opposition Liberal party. Deliberate notations indicate the context and progression of events: dates and place titles locate Canberra, parliament house, ministers’ offices; the slow unravelling of the loans affair.

The Dismissal is a restrained, terse and tactful historical reproduction. The program refuses to go beyond the historical record — at least the public record — in what it will depict.

Relations between Rex Connor (Bill Hunter)

and Tirith Khemlani (Harry Weis), or between Jim Cairns (John Hargreaves) and Junie Morosi (Neela Day), do not become specula­ tive or sentimental. The opening image of Khemlani is one of a seedy, dubious, small-time operator, as ingratiating as a branch bank­ teller who sees the chance for an unexpected promotion. The program dramatizes the character effectively while refusing to depict him in the more conventional cliches drawn from television, police or spy series.

A great deal of the critical attention given the series has concentrated on its supposed historical accuracy. How well or badly does Max Phipps play Gough Whitlam, how con­ vincing is John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser, how insinuating is John Meillon as Sir John Kerr? The central historical dynamic in the events of 1975 is taken for granted^ and critical attention focuses on the program’s supposed fidelity to the public record. Jim McClelland, former Minister for Labor in the Whitlam Government, wrote: “ As a participant in the events with which it deals, I can attest that it makes a pretty good stab at the truth.” (Green Guide, The Age, March 17, 1983.)

But perhaps the central critical problem in this series is to accept the'drama in the terms it establishes, and not to take it simply as a historical re-enactment in which the characters, plot and conclusion are already known. This is neither costume-drama nor simply spectacle.

The Dismissal sets up its own images,

The Dismissal

Max Phipps as Gough Whitlam: creating “a fictional world which depends . . . on the patterns o f meanings it establishes in its own dramatic terms”. The Dismissal.

John Stanton as Malcolm Fraser: “coldness, aloofness and persistence” . The Dismissal.

metaphors and explanations, and establishes, too, its own tone and point of view within which events can be considered, and general reflections about politics and democracy sustained.

Perhaps at the outset one should dismiss the question of whether the series represented politics in a way that contemporary viewers, who lived through these events, could find their depiction credible. It has been said, for example, that Fraser’s coldness, aloofness and persistence were well-represented, but that Whitlam was reduced to a strutting figure of pretension without dignity. But in terms of our approach to television criticism, the question is neither about the skill with which certain figures have been impersonated, nor about the ways in which the public record of the times has been reconstructed. This approach implies a constant comparison between images drawn from ‘real life’ ahd the representation of precisely these events and characters on the screen.

What in fact happens with television drama, and quite self-consciously with this one, is that it constructs a fictional world which depends for its strength and conviction not on how well it can steer a middle course between partisan political views, nor on the accuracy of its characterizations, but on the patterns of meanings it establishes in its own dramatic terms. These patterns involve the ways in which the program makes politics into drama, and the

broking in the absence of any concentration on the underlying dynamic; the recourse to con­ ventional notions of the naive idealism of Labor ministers and the cynical lust for power of their Liberal counterparts; and the theme that the destruction of political conventions endangers democracy. There is also a sense of the contrast established between government and people, stressing popular support for the Labor Government’s right to serve out its term of office.

An early interview sequence shows Whitlam responding to a question about NSW Premier Tom Lewis’ decision to replace a member of parliament with another member drawn from a different political party. “ A fundamental con­ vention of Australian democracy has been demolished” , warns Whitlam, “ and democracy itself is in danger.” The style of the program is to concentrate on this deliberate statement of political and constitutional facts, while the images reinforce an appearance of austerity, almost claustrophobic in their emphasis on the trappings of power, the cars, offices, confer­ ences and the parliament.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this series is the evenness of tone, the way in which it disperses anger, opposition and controversy in a lengthy development almost without melo­ drama. There is no contrived build-up to the dismissal: the suggestions of intrigue are care­ fully damped and, at the program’s conclusion, the images translate from the actors in their

historical explanation it proposes for the events that unfold.

The opening shots of the parliament establish the program’s interest in the mechanics and forms of power, rather than in its dynamic.

These are followed by lists of characters and actors in the production; the lengthy intro­ duction to the series is brought to an end with a freeze-frame of Khemlani arriving in Australia on November 11, 1974. A voice-over tells that “ exactly one year later the Labor Government will be dismissed from office.” The form suggests Greek drama — reflection and implication — rather than television realism with its suspense and intrigue.

The Dismissal is only briefly and sketchily set in context of world affairs, just enough to identify Australia on the map; the program is mainly interested in the accuracy of its own chronology. The Australian history of the time, as recollected and imaged on the screen, is a public record of events and issues drawn from the media agenda. Constant recourse to news­ papers, to credits about dates and places and to photographs of figures, such as Don Dunstan or Mick Young, reinforce the impression that the film’s reconstruction is indistinguishable from the real events of the time.

Nonetheless, certain dramatic images and themes are developed: the parliamentary rowdyism, with the Speaker shouting for order (the decision-makers become the dramatic chorus); the focus on the mechanics of power­

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 107

The Dismissal

fictional world to newsfilm of the original events, as if to confer a degree of authenticity on the production and, curiously, at the same time to distance the viewers from any illusion that the program has presented the truth of the matter.

The evenness of tone comes about partly because of the restricted visual presentation of the political context and partly because of the voice-over which proceeds in a sombre and melancholy, not to say funereal, register, as though the sequences have been stuck together in a thin layer of slowly-setting concrete. The voice-over persistently strives for the significant, the poetic, the universal statement (“ And so it’s done. This thing that can never be undone.” Or, “ And so it goes. The tide of events bears us ceaselessly into the future.” ).

The narrative reconstruction steers uneasily at times between a recognition that historical events have specific and traceable causes and development, and a kind of resignation to the inevitability of the past. This occurs in part because of the way in which the program struc­ tures its images: parliament as a set of competing larrikins; Sir John Kerr set in the lyrical grounds of Yarralumla, with their suggestion of English countryside: the local political system and the vice-regal inheritance imaged in a conventional and relatively static fashion.

So what historical dynamic is suggested? The images of politics are narrow, the notions of conflict literal; the program veers between trying to dramatize a constitutional conflict in terms of an opposition between the Liberal Party and the popular will, imaged in support for the Labor Government, and a personal tragedy centred on the figure of the Governor-

John Hargreaves as Jim Cairns: what is done cannot be undone. The Dismissal.

program’s refusal to entertain crass or polemical theories, while feeling that it may have limited appeal for viewers who did not live through the events.

In summary then, in terms of its fidelity to the surface of events, The Dismissal is con­ vincing in the detail and accent of some of its characterizations. Some appear to be drawn directly from life, and others, such as Lady Kerr (Robyn Nevin), are etched from Shake­ speare. However, these are not the terms in which the program needs to be assessed, and it deliberately calls attention to its own status as fiction. The program must be taken in its own terms, despite the pressure to accept it simply as a re-run of what everyone already knows. The Dismissal attempts to gloss over its authenticity by including references to incontestable traces of real life through newspapers, photos, television images and credits. And the relationship between its own fiction and the original events changes throughout the program series: i.e., the production does not establish an invariable relationship between its attempt to reproduce events and explain them by reframing them.

For example, its explanation of the power­ broking in the Liberal Party does not go beyond the the corridors and cubby-holes images of popular fiction.

The overall objective of imaging a his­ torical dynamic finally tends to collapse into the assertion that tides of history take people with them, but this surfing analogy is never a very convincing explanation. The final respect for the public record commits The Dismissal to a ritual function, with a sacramental status and a kind of deliberate transparency, of a similar though different order as the Anzac ceremony: Lest We Forget. ★

Bill Hunter as Rex Connor: borne forw ard on the tide o f events. The Dismissal.

General, usually depicted with a glass in his hand, and finally represented as a kind of reluctant clown, self-im portant, edgy, responsive to any small indications that he too could play a part at the centre of the stage.

One is also told, in the end, that “ those who forget history are bound to relive it” ; this epitaph stands, perhaps, as a statement of intention about the program. But what is in question is precisely what is forgotten: that is, as The Dismissal sees it, the unscrupulous behaviour of the Liberal Party in opposition, behaviour directed against the government, the people and the conventions that safeguard Aus­ tralian democracy. But the meaning of this behaviour, the roots and explanations of this constitutional clash, is not examined because the program does not attempt to reframe but to represent a set of events. This representation is clear in the conclusion when the drama collapses into film of Whitlam on the steps of parliam ent house, intercut with shots simulating the awaiting crowd.

Watching The Dismissal is to re-experience a slow, even, sombre representation of familiar events within a familiar frame. It is careful, respectful of the public record and unwilling to venture beyond it. This is its weakness and its strength, its concession to public affairs tele­ vision and its deliberate attenuation as drama.

It is an excellent representation of speeches, supplemented with sharp pen portraits but obscured in its larger view by its rhetoric: the voice-over, for instance, intones “ So silently the crisis nears its flood, sweeping Kerr on relentlessly into history.” But is Kerr the agent or the victim of this history? What is the rela­ tion of character to event? One can admire the

Whitlam in parliament, larrikins. The Dismissal.

108 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

playground fo r

competing

Set in Sydney in the 1930s, Careful, He Might Hear You is the poignant but nightmare story o f a boy caught in a bitter custody battle between two sisters. The boy is called PS, and he is seven years old.

Based on the novel by Sumner Locke Elliot, the film contrasts Lila, the anxious but tough suburban housewife, with her sister Vanessa, who is worldly, rich and beautiful, and who covets PS to fill the emptiness o f her past.

Careful, He Might Hear You is directed by Carl Schultz, from a screenplay by Michael Jenkins, for producer Jill Robb. Director of photography is John Seale, production designer John Stoddard and costume designer Bruce Finlayson.

Right: A unt Lila (Robyn Nevin) and PS (Nicholas Gledhill). Below: PS is surrounded by a team o f well-meaning aunts and Uncle George (Peter Whitford), his salvation.

jHgra|

Above left and right: PS, the centre o f a custody battle. Below: Lila, “the anxious but tough suburban housewife”.

Above left: Aunt Vanessa (Wendy Hughes), PS and Lila. Above right: PS and Vanessa.

Below left: PS plays cricket with some old chums. Below right: Vanessa.

Christine Cremen interviews the co-scriptwriter of “ Goodbye Paradise” You are best known at the moment for your co-authorship of “ Good­ bye Paradise” , but in fact you have worked more frequently as a director . . .

legitimate form of drama. And it is one that obviously appeals to a lot of people.

Guilty pleasures?

What films did you make before “ Goodbye Paradise” ?

I began as an actor, graduated from NIDA, and worked in radio and television. I then began direct­ ing in theatre, and writing for theatre and television. I found that it was directing that I liked doing most.

Then I decided, having always loved film, that film was the future, for this country and for me, so I got some money together and made a few short films. I applied to the Australian Film and Television School, which I saw as a good way to obtain all the neces­ sary technical background I lacked. I was accepted, and, at the time of my biggest success in the theatre, I went back to school.

Yes, guilty pleasures. Academics are very keen to analyze them and to find that there is no reason to be guilty about liking them. How­ ever, the unfortunate thing in this country is that they are produced far too rapidly, on quite unrealistic schedules. This results in story­ lines, which after all are pretty trite in any melodrama, always being exposed as trite. The plotline is in­ variably rather thin and, if it happens to be built on relation­ ships, then there isn’t anything much to distract. If there are car chases, or karate fights or some­ thing, there is a lot of action and people don’t really worry about the plot.

I made a number of short films before I went to the AFTS, and, of course, I made several while I was there. That was a great experience: all directors should have an oppor­ tunity to learn from mistakes. I would just as soon not have the films seen though, and generally they aren’t, distribution for short films being what it is.

Television is also a place where you can experiment because, although it is seen by millions of people, it has an ephemeral quality. It disappears quickly and people don’t have to look at your mistakes over and over. Better still, you don’t have to look at them.

How long ago was this?

Are you saying that there can be quality soaps?

I was in the second intake. We graduated in 1979 into a film industry that was already on a downward turn, until the tax boom of 1981-82.

Is that why you went into directing ‘soap operas’ for television . . .

Yes. I soon decided that rather than sit around trying to get one script off the ground, which I had done, I would be much better off working for commercial television and producing an enormous amount. That way I could gain experience in coverage, working with large crews and being a hired hand.

What do you think of soap operas?

Do you think you are ‘debasing your talents’ by working on them?

“ Soap opera” is an awful term; it is something that has come to us, in fact, from American radio, and it is slightly inaccurate. Soap operas are mostly melodramas, and melodrama is a completely Denny Lawrence, with two images from Goodbye Paradise, which Lawrence co­ wrote with Bob Ellis.

Short Films

An idea that is still current is that short films are what you avoid by arriving late at a cinema . . .

Well, I am talking about Austra­ lian fiction shorts which, unfor­ tunately, are not getting that kind of distribution by the major exhibitors. A few films from the AFTS have been released with features, but not always with films that did well. The shorts them­ selves were very good.

The short film is a fascinating and difficult form and it should be given more support. I am quite interested in it, just as I am in the short story as a literary form.

One of your films was a finalist in the Greater Union Awards . . .

Yes, The Outing, which is far from being the best I have done.

But it had a certain amount of style

There have been and will be, but only if it is realized that you can produce two hours of television a week without killing everybody off.

Do you think “ The Restless Years” , which you directed, or indeed “ Sons and Daughters” are quality products?

No, by definition, they are not.

In fact, by admission of the people making television, there is a dis­ tinction between soaps and socalled “ quality television” .

Do you mean adaptations of Aus­ tralian novels, such as “ Lucinda Brayford” ?

Yes. A Town Like Alice, Last Outlaw, Water Under the Bridge and A gainst the Wind are examples of “ quality television” .

What people really should be say­ ing is “ quantity television” , I sup­ pose. Against the Wind is a quality melodrama, but it is melodrama. It is just that they have a lot more time to do it. It is basically a good yarn. It worked a lot better than, say, Sara Dane, which somehow just didn’t seem to click.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 113

Denny Lawrence

and, because it was a period piece that was fairly well produced, it had lots of nice costumes, loca­ tions and vintage cars. These tended to please those of the general public who saw it. It was also a good story and people like it for that reason. But it was im­ mensely unpopular with the Sydney Film Festival audience, who don’t like decadent living dis­ played in film.

produce a package of scripts, so we submitted the idea to them. They liked it a lot and, presto, we had a bit of money to go up to the Gold Coast to try and write a script around my thin premise.

Is this the first time you have written a script with someone else?

No, I have been a frequent collaborator, as has Bob. I have always seen myself primarily as a director, and consequently have tended to collaborate, either in the theatre with actors, when I was writing, or in film scripting with other writers.

Do they prefer to go to the Film Festival and be filled with bour­ geois guilt?

Well, I didn’t say that . . . But there is probably an amount of truth in that, yes.

It was interesting that one of the Greater Union judges was from Hoyts, and he said that the only film he had seen in the finals that he would show at Hoyts was The Outing. Most people took that as a tremendous insult. I didn’t. It is very easy to classify a film that happens to look good or tell a simple story or be populist in some way as being necessarily bad.

But don’t you think this reaction against period films is somewhat refreshing?

Yes, we have for various reasons delved into our past a little too much. One reason is that it is easier to get away with things in period; you can tell a weak story more easily because the surroundings are much more pleasant to look at.

Another reason, which is quite legitimate, is that people have a need to find their roots to help explain where they are now. Aus­ tralia is probably overdue for the kind of nationalistic fervor that hit the Americans 150 years after the pilgrims reached Plymouth Rock.

But what about this rabid national­ ism? You were one of the people who agitated for preservation of the Amalgamated collection when it was threatened by destruction not so long ago. I remember you saying in the ‘National Times’ that people were interested in Aus­ tralian culture, but that they thought anything from any other country, especially from Holly­ wood, was not worthy of being saved . . .

Absolutely. Of course, I support totally the move to find and pre­ serve old Australian film because our cinema heritage is very impor­ tant. But it is hardly as rich, or, as I said in the National Times, as influential on the young Australian filmmaker, as the Hollywood product. Therefore, the seminal influence is undeniable. The fact that the paintings of some obscure Flemish old master are being destroyed ought to be of concern to an Australian painter today.

As the people who saw some of those films at the time realized, they were important films then — 114 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

How did you and Ellis get on? Do you see yourselves as Beaumont and Fletcher?

Anne Haddy and Rowena Wallace in the ‘soap opera’, Sons and Daughters, on which Lawrence has worked as director.

Yes. Being a genre buff and a important because they influenced other filmmakers. It is rather like fan of Raymond Chandler, I came being able to hang onto the plays up with a plot a fair while ago now of, say, Peele or some of the which involved an ex-cop on the obscure Europeans from whom Gold C oast getting into a Shakespeare pinched his plots. It is Chandler-esque situation. It is very interesting to read them and definitely a kind of decadent occasionally you unearth quite a Southern Californian territory up good one. It is just that people put there, and it seemed an ideal set­ things into slots, just the way that ting. Unfortunately, the plot I had they always show Shane and High involved a quasi-religious com­ Noon rather than other Westerns mune headed by a guy who turned in school classes. They are the ones out to be a charlatan, and a lot of that are talked about in the text­ them got killed off. So when the books. A lot more, and better Jonestown thing came along, I thought it would be in poor taste, films, tend to be ignored. or at least be seen as a rip-off, so I put it away.

Goodbye Paradise Then some years later, while talking to Bob Ellis, this idea I understand that the original con­ came up and it appealed to Bob. cept of “ Goodbye Paradise” was He was negotiating with the New yours . . .

South Wales Film Corporation to

I think Bob might have thought we were Johnson and Boswell. I won’t say it was easy, because no collaboration is. But film is a col­ laborative medium and this is something people don’t always understand. Very few people who make films understand the script­ writing process.

Some people have been critical of the conclusion of “ Goodbye Para­ dise” . . .

The criticisms have been valid.

In some ways we wrote two films in one. I was writing more of a genre piece and Bob was trying to incorporate some of his personal politics. Also, towards the end of the writing of the film, the rela­ tionship was becoming a little strained and I think the end of the script suffered as a result. And because the script we gave Carl [Schultz, director] had certain flaws, especially the end, it also allowed him, I think, free rein to push his tongue more firmly into his cheek.

The in-joke of the climactic sequence at the army base is some­ thing a lot of people enjoy, but many others find it slightly super­ fluous. I must say I think that sty­ listically it pushes the film over the brink. It also is the only occasion in which Stacey is not present at all events, and I think somehow that is a mistake. He has a sort of omniscient presence, in that his voice-over narration is still there at Tod’s death, but he is not physic­ ally present to witness it. This is the sort of opinion that people have expressed.

The voice-over in “ Goodbye Para­ dise” is rather anachronistic for a film of today . . .

Mike Stacey (Ray Barrett) is threatened by one o f his old police associates, Curly (Paul Chubb). Carl Schultz’s Goodbye Paradise.

Well, of course, it is the detec­ tive genre and it seemed to me most necessary to conform to that genre. An ‘updating’ of genre, in the way it is done in The Long Goodbye for instance, which is more of a satire anyway, is some­ how false, is somehow a betrayal of that genre. A film like Farewell

Denny Lawrence

My Lovely comes to terms with the

I guess that is how we first con­ genre much better. And that, of ceived the role. But what Robyn course, contains voice-over narra­ does is really good and it was prob­ tion, although it is admittedly set ably a mistake not to re-write the in period. part.

I note that there are a number of films around with this narration What about the role of the ‘Harry device; it was interesting to see that Lime’ character (Guy Doleman)? two of the films at the 1982 Aus­ That is another interesting one. tralian Film Awards contained it We hadn’t thought of Guy Doleand they were both fairly well man. Because Harry is an English­ liked. People seem to like aural man, we thought of somebody like complexity in film.

Anthony Quayle.

Ray Barrett is a very Chandleresque character. He has that livedin, Robert Mitchum-type face . . .

He certainly has. Of course, we wrote the film for Ray. When we did the research jaunt to the Gold Coast, Bob and I met up with Ray and spent a week there getting to know him. So we really did put a lot of Ray in that script. It is prob­ ably one of the few times this has happened in Australia and I think we were rewarded for that by a great performance. I know that Ray loves the character and is very keen to play Stacey again.

Was Robyn Nevin also an original choice?

No. We had a suggested casting page in our script and some of those suggestions we felt were very important. In some cases we were not necessarily right. Robyn wasn’t somebody we had thought of, but her performance is a great strength of the film. In fact, another thing that people are un­ happy with about the film is the death of the character played by Robyn Nevin. She does such a good job and makes the character so appealing that it really hurts when she is killed off. A slightly more insular, brittle performer might not have caused that kind of consternation.

As with Douglas?

the

casting

of

Kirk

instance, when we were research­ ing Goodbye Paradise, I went to the hinterland of the Gold Coast and discovered not only that it was adjacent to Canungra, the army installation and the retirement spot of a number of doctors and Queensland politicos, but it was also the largest rhubarb growing area in the country, which I thought very amusing and well worth mentioning in the film.

I know a lot of people enjoy the rhubarb. It becomes a symbol for something much more important that what it is.

No, that wasn’t our intention.

We hadn’t thought of his role as one that should be played by some­ body famous to put bums on to seats. It was simply a question of the kind of actor that we saw in the part.

Guy’s performance is really one of the highlights of the film. It is a character well worth watching for, too, and one we would certainly resurrect, since fortunately we didn’t kill him off.

People say a lot about the bright young directors and stars in the re­ emergent Australian film industry.

What observations do you have to make about the input of the writers of these films?

Are you and Ellis going to write the sequel?

history. When he left he asked me to take over that area. I felt it was important to incorporate a certain amount of the examination of con­ temporary cinema, particularly the Australian cinema, and also tele­ vision, because that is an area where graduates from the AFTS will find work. So I set about trying to widen the scope of that program.

I think the next few years will see a much more exciting time for the students. The teaching of direction is being approached in a more complete way, with emphasis on performance and content. That whole general studies area is some­ thing the AFTS is getting into much more than it has in the past.

Although it has always recognized its importance, it has been very hard to get people to teach it. So the AFTS has been accused of being a technical institution.

Indeed, it has produced very good crafts people, but it has yet to pro­ duce a lot of good ideas people. I think we’ll see this happening. The stimulus will be provided for that process to take place.

I believe the importance of studying what has gone before in the other arts and in film is absolutely essential. Students at the AFTS have come to me with As well as writing and directing, ideas that they think are highly you also teach at the AFTS. What original and, of course, somebody has done it before. The students is your province there? haven’t seen the work of D. W. I have been screen studies lec­ Griffith or Eric von Stroheim or Buster Keaton or whoever it may turer at the school. be, let alone more recent and prob­ ably more infrequently seen film­ What does this entail? makers. Somebody once said, The area of screen studies is one “ Nothing is original except what that is under review at the moment has been forgotten” , and I think and a new emphasis has been that an enormous amount has been placed upon it in the course. The forgotten about what has been history is that, to begin with, the done in film. It is very important director of the AFTS, Professor that we learn that before we can go Toeplitz, was the teacher of film forward. ★

Yes. In fact, Bob and I have recently been to South Australia which is the setting for the sequel of Goodbye Paradise. We are tending to call it “ Goodbye Adelaide” .

The script takes place at the Adelaide Festival of Arts and in­ volves various visiting Russians and Americans in the kind of plot that you would expect from the first one. We have spent a couple of weeks just going around South Australia looking at various inter­ esting locations. Things emerge from that kind of research trip which are invaluable to writing, and suggest that maybe such trips should be done a bit more. For

Director Carl Schultz and actress Robyn Nevin (as Kate), preparing the scene that ruled out K ate’s appearance in the sequel.

I think it has been a popular mis­ conception that Australia doesn’t have enough good writers. I am pleased that a lot of people are realizing now that perhaps what we lack most is good creative pro­ ducers — inevitable, of course, in an industry that has been going for a relatively short time.

There are a lot of good writers around, though they are not all necessarily working in film or even in drama. They may be writing advertising, journalism or fiction.

Writers like John Clarke, who co­ wrote Lonely Hearts, and Peter Carey are moving into film. That is a very important trend to cultivate.

Again there are misconceptions about the filmmaking process even by people in it. The filmmaking doesn’t start the day the cameras begin to turn over. That process begins with the idea and the writing of it, which may sound like a truism, but it is a fact people overlook. You are actually making a picture when you are writing it. It is very important that the creative input of the writer is recognized in the cinema.

I don’t think for that matter that the input of the actor has been appreciated enough either, and it has tended to be the case that directors have come from technical areas and production in our industry, and not from the ranks of actors and writers. The best directors, if you look at world cinema, have been actors or writers, or both.

Lawrence with his Australian Film Award fo r Best Screenplay, which he won with co­ writer Bob Ellis.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 115

Marcus Breen Two primary aspects of filmmaking, scripting and casting, are rarely, if ever, con­ sidered or challenged. But they never disappear from the filmmaking process, a process that is hidden from view. The illusion is intentional, as the tricks of light and sound which our culture presents as film rarely take one behind the illusion and into the process. The exceptions to this dichotomy include the work of Jean-Luc Godard — e.g., Vent d’est and his recent film Passion — and Francois Truffaut’s Day for Night.

Australian film, generally, is preoccupied with the illusion rather than the process. For example, Moving Out combines narrative with realistic images to produce superb illusion. But no clues are given to the audience about the unusual process involved in making this film.

For this, one has to go to the 24-year-old director, Michael Pattinson, whose idiosyn­ cratic approach to scriptwriting and casting challenged conventions within Australian film­ making.

Pattinson scripted Moving Out in order to investigate the particular reality of the stories of Jan Sardi. A second-generation Italian, Sardi wrote about his experiences as a teacher at an inner-city school in Melbourne. When Sardi was a student at that same school, 99 per cent of the children were Anglo-Saxon; today, the school is 99 per cent Italian. Says Pattinson: 116 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

“ The stories Jan Sardi had to tell were very funny. They were the sorts of stories we have all experienced as kids which, when you look back and see things in your childhood, were not terribly devastating or alarming. The interest was to focus the story around those things we all experienced as teenagers. At the time, those things were life and death issues: today, they are of little consequence. But a story from a kid’s point of view, highlighting those issues, was interesting dramatic material.’’

But while Pattinson found the stories “ humorous and poignant’’, he had no “ inherent passion for the subject matter” . The desire to investigate the issue of multiculturalism subsequently developed, but “ only through my involvement with the project” : “ You are dealing with characters in a conflict situation, in a dual identity crisis and so on.

On one hand, you have kids going to school and being Australians, and, on the other, these kids come home from school and have to be what their parents do not want to lose sight of. That is where they come from and what their heritage is.”

With a series of stories based on the every­ day conflicts of Italian adolescents, and with financial assistance from the Creative Develop­ ment Branch of the Australian Film Commis­ sion, Pattinson and Sardi worked towards

integrating the story scenes into a complete scenario, to finding a “ thread through the whole thing” : “ What we had to do was try and isolate a premise or theme. Well, that wasn’t hard. It is a story about change, about ‘moving out’, insofar as Gino’s family is moving from one suburb to another. Also, Gino is maturing and passing through adolescence. And it is about people coming from one country to live in another. “ Isolating that premise, we could then go through the material we had gathered in a very long draft, which probably was running to approximately 250 pages, and look at the material relating to that premise.”

The conflict, change and struggle for personal and cultural identity that permeates the characters in Moving Out is supported by a sub-theme of class issues. People who migrate from one country to another often do so because the “ other” , as opposed to “ mother” , country offers something better — improved socio-economic conditions and a concomitant upward mobility. And so, in Moving Out, Gino’s parents decide to move from Fitzroy to Doncaster.

The concept of change is the most notable aspect of Moving Out because it allows an examination of some of the factors that operate in a society like Australia. Pattinson has

Moving Out

worked this theme gently, avoiding the tempta­ tion to judge Gino’s family for its decision, while allowing the theme to become something of a cancer for the audience conscience: “ Gino’s father wants to get his kids out of what he regards as an ethnic belt into the Australian heartland. He believes, for better or for worse — I won’t make any comment on that — that his children will receive a better education in Doncaster than they will receive in Fitzroy . . . But I don’t think that’s real class consciousness on behalf of the boy’s father, however misguided you or I may think that to be. Basically, the father has all the best intentions.”

Gino is finally permitted to resolve the conflict of deciding whether he is Australian or Italian. The question in his mind, says Pattinson, is “ Well, what am I?” And the decision is made, in part, for him by the arrival from Italy of friends of the family, who reinforce his waning Italian identity. Gino reaches a final conclusion, yet it seems to be a dilemma that remains long after the credits have rolled past.

Certainly, no simple solutions are offered. It would be ridiculous to attempt to arrive at solu­ tions because what Moving Out offers is realist drama, tempered by sceptical optimism for the future.

Moving Out is not only interesting for its idiosyncratic style, but also for its unusual casting approach.

First, there was the problem of finding young people with acting ability: agencies had little to offer, especially when the second problem, ability to speak Italian, was considered. Third, Italian and migrant children — the children whom Pattinson was trying to find — are them­ selves caught up in cross-cultural conflicts.

And, furthermore, adolescence, the funda­ mental common denominator of the younger characters, was already a complicating element in their lives. It is criteria such as these that separate the gentle incisiveness of Moving Out from the raw uncertainty of youth seen in, say, Hard Knocks.

The casting techniques confirmed these points to Pattinson when, after researching the film and auditioning hundreds of boys for the lead male roles, it became clear that Gino’s concerns in the film are “ representative of an enormous number of boys I met” .

Gino (Vince Colosimo), Sandy (Sally Cooper) and Helen (Desiree Smith). Michael Pattinson’s Moving Out.

By casting “ off the streets” , Pattinson was able to identify the realist characteristics of his potential performers while devizing a screen­ play that would complement those character­ istics: “ I think that the way we decided to make the film, and it has been very successful, is to find kids whose personalities mirror and fuse very readily with the characters they are playing in the script; the only challenge for them, in order to perform, is to be them­ selves. “ My task as a director is to create an environment in which they are relaxed enough to be themselves. And there is only one way to do it: search for kids who really do mirror the characteristics of the players in the film. We certainly didn’t find that amongst the ranks of the average kid who may have been to elocution schools and all the best drama schools in the world.”

This oppositional approach to formal training and method acting inevitably invites criticism from the film and acting establish­ ment. But if Australian film is to mature, the hegemony of the star system mentality has to be challenged. Furthermore, Pattinson believes that the cast in Moving Out learnt very quickly that “ acting is being themselves” . Realist drama can only function adequately when people are encouraged to act as they really are.

Selecting the main characters was a lengthy process for Pattinson and associate producer Julie Monton. It was organized in several stages and based on the premise that Pattinson and Monton would have to look beyond the ability of children to deliver scripted lines into their personality. Taking this “ risk” meant that the outcome would depend on a workshop program which lasted almost 12 months.

The problem was to find the raw material.

Pattinson and Monton began by visiting inner­ city Melbourne schools. Having contacted Drama and English teachers at the schools, photographic sessions were organized and “ hoards” of shots were produced. Combined with this were sessions during lunch hours when the children were asked to tell jokes. With 10 minutes to learn a joke — something, insisted Pattinson, with a bit of a story to it, where you begin at the beginning — the line-ups began: “ There’s a lot you can tell about a kid from telling a joke: some kids would just stand up there and recite the joke as it has been told to them, while others would stand up there and you could see they had performing ability, because they would really try and sell you the joke.”

One practical reason for using this method was the illiteracy of many of the children.

The second stage in the casting process was to match potential characters with physical attributes. Then, with six or seven children being considered for each role, weekend workshops were organized under the direction of Peter Sardi (the writer’s brother). Scripted lines were not considered essential at this stage; rather, the children were taught to “ focus and channel” their performances into something akin to the role they would play. This allowed the full range of the expressive abilities of the children to be examined: “ We could start to discover what there was about this kid that is similar to the character.

Through the workshops we narrowed it down to a much smaller group of people for each part, and, ultimately, went through the formal process of starting to see how they would go with some of the script lines. Then, formal film screen tests were done to see how they would come up on camera.”

At least one long-term advantage resulted from this workshop process: the improvization

and spontaneity that developed among the actors was readily incorporated into the film.

And, after the lengthy workshop sessions with the final cast, their natural reservations about facing the camera were reduced.

Not only does this process involve a reappraisal of the traditional pressure upon actors to learn lines and characterizations in a short time, but it also suggests that patience and perseverance pay off: “ Much of the ability and rapport of the teenage group who formed the principal cast is the result of a very firm acquaintance they had built up with each other by the time they arrived on the set on the first day. I expect also, without being presumptuous, they had some sort of confidence in me, because I had got to know them very well.”

This process, particularly when it is success­ ful, will always involve some exploration. In fact, the more filmmakers explore new possibil­ ities for breaking free of anachronistic film mores, the more will Australia’s film culture improve. For film critics, viewers and makers, this is axiomatic. But the system of filmmaking, as established in this country, is too often a hare in rapid pursuit of easy glory. An example comes from Pattinson, whose work on Moving Out has been recognized by scriptwriters and investors as worthy of supporting: “ Some people have seen the film and liked it.

I’ve been offered different things to direct that have involved teenagers. [These people say] ‘Michael made Moving Out, got a few teenagers in it, that was a good film; here’s a script with teenagers in, can you have it ready by next week please?’ But, it just doesn’t work that way.”

Any lessons Pattinson has learnt from Moving Out will become evident as he con­ tinues to pursue a filmmaking career. At present he is working on pre-production for a new film, Street Heroes, again with Jan Sardi.

One can only hope that he manages to avoid the temptation to enter the ring with the quick sale and production release merchants of the estab­ lishment.

As long as healthy films come from young and creative Australians, Australian film culture can move freely into more incisive criticism of this society. Moreover, as long as the process is always challenged and refined, the illusion itself will reap its own rewards. ★

Sandy and Helen: making the most o f the limited resources o f inner-city life. M oving Out.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 117

■■■

H

sii

MM

:

WM

SÊ m

I

; ■' i

il

WÊÊÊÊ

'i;4P

j

■

v:.;v'

KlÉ

ISÉ mI .r;44tó ;;¡; ,

H H || H H H .

■

i!

IMS

j Manila International Film Festival 1983 Debi Enker and Tom Ryan Charting a brief history of the kinds of problems facing the development of Philippine cinema, Bienvenido Lumbero1 notes the constraining effects of U.S. colonial rule: “ As early as 1914, Hollywood had the Philippine market all to itself, its products monopolizing the best outlets in Manila.”

This kind of control produced an all too familiar chain reaction. A control of the market effectively means a con­ trol of audience tastes and, though this can be less readily verified, it would appear that only those local films which pursued the generic models born in Hollywood were likely to find viable outlets in The Philippines.

For Lino Brocka2, the best known of the new Philippine filmmakers, the roots of the problem do not lie with the audiences, to whom others contemp­ tuously refer as the “ bakya” (i.e., moronic) cinema-goers, but in what Lumbero identifies as “ the dynamics of cultural oppression” : “ What can one expect of an aud­ ience that has been fed nothing but secret-agent, karate fantasy, and slapstick movies since time immem­ orial? A child raised on rock ’n ’ roll would find classical music strange, discordant, unpleasant; an audience raised in an atmosphere of motion picture commercialism and escapism would regard a good film totally alien.”

The problematic separation of com­ merce and art aside, the current state of Philippine cinema can be produc­ tively understood in this historical context. Its future need not be fully determined by a past so recognized: the identification of the problem, together with an awareness of other developing national cinemas, become important factors in the initiation of the “ protracted struggle” necessary for the creation of an indigenous film culture. For Brocka, an important voice in The Philippines, it is not simply a matter of dismissing the cine­ matic tradition that has ruled in his country and providing his own sub­ stitute, but of creating an ongoing dialogue with his audience through his films: “ The only way one can elevate local cinema from its present ‘bakya’ status to an artistically acceptable level is to introduce gradual changes until one succeeds in creating one’s desired audience.”

In this context, one can readily appreciate the dismay of Philippine filmmakers at the terms in which the Manila International* Film Festival seems to have been defined. On the 1. R a f a e l M a . G u e r r e r o , e d . , Readings in

Philippine Cinema, 1983, pp. 67-79.

2. Ibid, pp. 259-62.

Opposite: K itty (Liddy Clark), Slugger (Paul Chubb) and Cyril (Gerard Maguire) during a shoot-out. Don C rom bie’s K itty and the Bagman.

one hand, there is the rhetoric, delivered with unintended irony by Madame Imelda Marcos, “ the first lady” of The Philippines: “ Art liberates Man. We, thus, cele­ brate his liberation. This Festival is a celebration. We shall have more celebrations — of magic, wit, and wisdom, the delight of the senses and the refinement of sensibility, without which survival and Time itself would be but a passing shadow on a plain of desolation.”

And there is the endorsement given to the Festival by the various luminaries who arrive to deliver their press con­ ferences, to sing the praises of the Marcos regime and its “ visionary judgment” 3, and to attend a banquet or two, at which, if they’re so favored, they may be presented with a Golden Eagle award “ for services to the Fes­ tival” , before returning home, usually across the Pacific. As the gathered press were informed on the opening day, “ This Festival isn’t about films at all; it’s about social activity.” The self­ congratulatory facade of the Festival thus becomes a lavish side-show pitched at gathering international attention and prestige for the reigning regime.

On the other hand, there is the organization and programming of the Festival itself. A convenient double­ think provides the terms of reference for this, identifying the Festival simul­ taneously as a “ living museum” and a “ commercial market-place” , thus bringing it into line with the “ major” European festivals. Clearly, it is the latter characteristic which dominates the schizophrenic personality of the event, and, in terms of the day-to-day activity, the market side of the Festival is, in the words of a visiting dis­ tributor, “ where it all happens” .

Perhaps as a response to French boycotts and the general unrest that accompanied the 1982 Festival, 1983 saw the introduction of a showcase of some Philippine cinema and of some hitherto unseen Asian cinema (though one of the two Burmese films, U Tu Kha’s Chit A Hymya (Parity Of Love) appeared minus the first reel4). Most of the attention, however, was focused on those films deemed appropriate for an international market; the aforementioned films, and others which may have created a “ dis­ cordant” note, generally were rele­ gated to secondary venues, or worse.

Given the need for the Festival to support itself, after the last minute withdrawal of government funding 3. J a c k V alen ti, P r e s i d e n t o f th e M o t i o n Picture E x p o rt Association o f A m erica.

H is su b s e q u e n t d i s a p p e a r a n c e f r o m the Festival se em ed to co in cid e w ith th e a n n o u n c e m e n t t h a t h e h a d m o v e d his A s ia n o ffices f r o m M a n i l a to S i n g a p o r e .

4. A sim ilar fate befell W i m W e n d e r s ’ Der

under pressure from the World Bank, it was argued that the programming needed to be pitched at capturing paying audiences. This, as well as the announcement that all proceeds from this “ Festival for a Cause” were to be committed to “ the mentally, physi­ cally and socially handicapped” , created a sense that any criticism of the rationale for or the organization of the

Festival could only be a product of petulance. What is camouflaged by all of this, however, are broader questions to do with festivals in general, the real­ ities of Philippine life, the develop­ ment of a Philippine film culture and a sense of national identity, and the possibilities for a productive move­ ment for change.

T.R.

The follow ing statement by Lino Brocka and screenwriter M ike de Leon provides its own perspective on the function o f film festivals and on the place o f the 1983 Manila Inter­ national Film Festival in the life o f The Philippines.

Press Statem ent February 3, 1983 In The Hollywood Reporter of January 18, 1983, copies of which have been distributed to the press at the Manila International Film Festival, it is reported that the Festival has been “ reorganized, so that Lino Brocka is now part of the Festival administration (for young Filipino cinema) as is Mike de Leon (for scenarists)” .

We would like to clarify our position with regard to the Festival.

We would like to make it clear that we are not “ part of the Festival admin­ istration” . We have co-operated with the Festival administration in areas beneficial to the production, preserva­ tion and promotion of serious Filipino films: Lino, by being a member (not chairman, as has been reported else­ where) of the evaluation committee which chose the projects to be pro­ duced by the Experimental Cinema of The Philippines; Mike, by heading the technical committee in charge of sub­ titling Filipino films.

Otherwise, we regret to say that we have serious reservations about the Festival.

At the outset we would like to state that we are not against the holding of an international filmiest per se. Any attempt to disseminate quality films, especially from Asia and The" Philip­ pines, can only be commendable. Like­ wise, given the severe constraints on freedom of expression in the country, any effort to counter censorship and expand artistic freedom is worthy of praise.

However, we believe that these redeeming factors are ndt enough to offset the negative aspects of the Festival.

We believe that in a Third World C o u n try w ith scant econom ic resources, the ostentation and extrava­ gance accompanying the Festival are completely unnecessary. We have been to smaller international filmfests in

other countries, and we have seen that it is possible to focus attention on quality films on a more modest budget, without lavish displays.

We also deplore the fact that the Festival has misled the public by claiming that the movies being shown in commercial Metro Manila theatres are basically the same Festival films being shown at the Festival site. This is simply not true. With two or three exceptions, the movies showing down­ town are not Festival films or quality films, but cheap sex-exploitation pic­ tures with little or no artistic merit.

We feel that under the guise of fos­ tering artistic freedom and raising funds for the disabled, the Festival is encouraging the kind of cynical com­ mercialism which is rampant in the movie industry but which a filmfest is supposed to combat. The deleterious effect of such a policy is even now apparent. Producers are drawing up plans to make, not serious films tack­ ling serious themes, but more sex­ exploitation quickies.

We fear that by succumbing to crass commercialism in this regard, the Fes­ tival has created a situation which makes a moralistic backlash inevitable — and which would ultimately justify the imposition of more restrictions on freedom of expression in the cinema.

No better proof of this can be cited than the press reports that the board of censors, far from being liberalized, has been given broader and more repres­ sive powers.

We hope that the profits now being raked in by the Festival will not blind the organizers to the fact that the primary aim of a film festival is to showcase quality films. All other aims, however worthy though they may be, are secondary.

Lino Brocka Mike de Leon

Stand Der Dinge (The State of Things), f r o m w h ich th e p e n u l t i m a t e reel m y s t e r ­ iously v a n is h e d .

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 119

Manila Festival

The Festival was divided into four basic sections — Competition, Exhibi­ tion, Market and Symposia — and, ironically, the most disappointing aspect of the Festival was also the most revealing. Despite the gushing praise and glowing assurances that reverber­ ated through the opening ceremony, the films entered in the allegedly presti­ gious Competition were generally uninspired. Although the 21 countries vying for the Golden Eagle Award seek representation at the Festival, most clearly reserve their major films for the accolades of the more celebrated arenas.

The Manila Festival may be in its second official year of existence, but any concessions that one was tempted to make because of the tribulations of infancy were soon overwhelmed by the sheer scale and pretension of the operation. The organizers’ aspirations of 1982 had become claims of achieve­ ment by 1983 and the prevalent official attitude was that the Festival had metamorphosed, not simply into the mouthpiece and focus of Asian cinema, but into an international festival of the standing of Cannes, Berlin or Venice. These premature claims were belied by both the stan­ dard of the Competition entries and the organization of films for public exhibition, which was at best hap­ hazard. However, the comparably efficient co-ordination of the Market leads to the conclusion that the Fes­ tival is primarily concerned with mer­ chandising. While this recognition is not intrinsically a criticism, it becomes an overpowering consideration, in view of the Festival’s assertions of cul­ tural stimulation and global achieve­ ment.

It is easy to be sceptical of any trophy that claims to be “ an attesta­ tion to the Festival’s soaring reputa­ tion for quality not only in physical terms but also in artistic excellence as well’’. It is just as easy to tire of the much-vaunted, entirely-inappropriate description of the Competition as a summary of “ the state-of-the-art’’.

However, it becomes totally unaccep­ table when the official entries of New' Zealand, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S. are submitted as representative of the best these countries have to offer.

The only positive observation one can make about the New Zealand entry, Wild Horses, is that visually and thematically it resembles a Western.

However, its clumsy attempts to grapple with familiar themes are mired in banal dialogue, tedious stereotypes and an unimaginative use of the spec­ tacular landscape of the Tongariro National Park.

When Don Mitchell (Keith Aberdein) loses his job as a result of the closure of the local lumber mill, he decides to realize his dream of a life as a horse-catcher. The dogged pursuit of his ambition not only alienates his family and friends, but also draws him into a fateful conflict with a deer­ hunting company. His energies are then inexplicably transferred to an obsession with the salvation of a silver stallion (presumably the film’s belated leap onto the lucrative The Man From Snowy River bandwagon). Though he manages to ensure the stallion’s survival, the film concludes with Mit­ chell abandoning his beloved high country in recognition of his power­ lessness to halt the onslaught of indus­ trialization.

The film half-heartedly attempts to convey a range of conflicts through its characterization of Mitchell as an idealistic anachronism. He is depicted initially as the pioneering cowboy pitted against a corrupt, profitoriented company, in a desperate attempt to preserve his lifestyle. As the situation deteriorates, he is coerced into a showdown with the company’s hired heavy, Tyson (Bruno Lawrence), and though he wins that battle he is ultimately forced to surrender his dream, and joins his family in the city.

With the exception of Lawrence’s wry performance as Tyson, the film has an inexorable predictability, punc­ tuated in the most objectionable terms by its use of violence. The truly horrific horse shooting scenes simply exploit the emotions of an audience that repeatedly has been made aware of the cruel and mercenary intentions of its perpetrators. The epilogue’s attempt to contort the film into a state­ ment about the need to protect the horses seems ludicrous when con­ trasted with its willingness to exploit its subject whenever there is the possibil­ ity of a gut-wrenching scene.

The postscript tacked onto the end of Jean-Claude Missiaen’s Tir groupe (Shot Pattern) is equally difficult to swallow, for it assumes that a justifica­ tion for the film’s simplistic and irk­ some prejudices may be found in its source material, the legal archives. Tir groupe poses another fam iliar

Derek M orton’s Wild Horses, the New Zealand entry at Manila.

120 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

scenario: a man’s quest to avenge the murder of his woman and, like Wild Horses, locates its troubled hero within a context of American cinema.

When Antoine (Gerard Lanvin) becomes obsessed with personally avenging the death of his girlfriend Carinne (Véronique Jannot), the film neatly avoids any relevant considera­ tion of his role as a vigilante by juxta­ posing him with Angry Young Man, James Dean, and Cowboy, Burt Lan­ caster. Rather than provide any incisive examination of a society in which the institutions of law enforce­ ment may be rendered ineffective, the film promotes the philosophy that a man has a right — indeed, a moral obligation — to rebel against the law in order to compensate his losses.

While tacitly approving Antoine’s transgressions, the film directs its outrage about the crimes plaguing French society squarely at the punk phenomenon. Middle-class life is depicted, through flashbacks of Antoine and Carinne’s romance, as a loving and nurturing existence. The venal thugs who destroy this ideal rela­ tionship are visually situated within a broad category of punks, generalized to incorporate any distasteful vermin who listen to abrasive music, dress in black or walk in the streets at night.

The movement is seen to exist exclus­ ively to destroy expensive cars, terror­ ize honest citizens and exacerbate the load of an over-taxed police force.

What Tir groupe finally poses is a disturbing and reactionary attitude to a manifestation which it can only locate simplistically. This criticism is not intended to exonerate the film’s villains, but simply to identify one of its numerous and invidious blurs on the origins of criminal behaviour. For while it lends validity to Antoine’s reprisal and shares the police inspector’s (Michel Constantin) lament that “ organized crime is ancient history’’, it assumes that modern criminals may be readily identified by their choice of clothing.

Kiez (Hell’s Kitchen), directed by Walter Bockmayer and Rolf Buhrmann, is an equally unappealing examination of the mechanics of crime. The film weaves a labored path through the seedy underworld of Ham­ burg, tracing the misadventures of Knut (Wolf-Dietrich Sprenger), a hapless sailor who tries in vain to become master of his destiny by graduating from pimp to petty thief

and small-time gangster. His relation­ ships with a motley assortment of miserable characters are depicted as transient and unfulfilling. The film’s conclusion with his murder is neither surprising nor particularly distressing.

Despite attempts to provide a perspec­ tive on a conceivably fascinating sub­ culture, Kiez lapses into a tedious succession of phlegmatic encounters, punctuated too rarely by Thomas Mauch’s evocative night shots of the Hamburg docks.

Completing a disagreeable trio of films concerned with crime was Robert Benton’s Still of the Night, a preten­ tious pastiche of the works of Alfred H itchcock, m asquerading as a homage. While it manages to duplicate scenes from a host of Hitchcock’s films, it is totally devoid of the wit, irony or inventiveness that dis­ tinguished them. Only the recreation of the classic auction room scene from North by Northwest sustains any level of tension without resorting to the cliched techniques of building suspense that blemish the remainder of the film.

Meryl Streep and Roy Scheider deliver uncharacteristically constrained per­ formances in roles better suited to the talents of Grace Kelly and Cary Grant.

It is simply impossible to accept that Sam Rice (Scheider) could become so obsessed with Brooke Reynolds (Streep) that he could risk his life to vindicate her. Although Streep conveys an enigmatic edginess, she falls far short of the tantalizing femme fatale ostensibly luring him into her web of deception and murder.

Marilou Diaz-Abaya’s Moral pro­ vided one of the Competition’s more surprising and laudable entries, with its compassionate depiction of four schoolgirls graduating into woman­ hood within the pressures and con­ straints of Filipino society. While its conventional narrative carefully avoids any overt challenge of existing insti­ tutions, the perceptive and often humorous account of life in Manila provided an engaging exception to an otherwise mediocre assortment of films.

Enduring bonds of loyalty and support are delineated between the spirited, middle-class girls, despite their diverse expectations of life.

However, the consistently admirable element of the film is its enlightened and sensitive depiction of homosex­ uality. While most of the male charac­ ters are transient, the homosexual

Walter Bockmayer and R o lf Buhrmann’s Hell's Kitchen, examination o f the mechanics o f crime”.

“an . . . unappealing

Manila Festival

couple provides the film’s only enduring and nurturing relationship.

Equally surprising is the sympathetic characterization of the members of the rebel forces, whose integrity and commitment to the improvement of the political and economic inequities in The Philippines pose a direct, if subtle, challenge to the existing regime.

Moral is scarcely a glaring attack on the Marcos government, yet it raises several issues that are actively sup­ pressed in other areas of the arts and media. Its exposition of Philippine society is a trait it shares with the Fes­ tival’s opening film, Ishmael Bernal’s Himala, also written by Ricardo Lee. While Himala’s depiction of the popular ascent and eventual assassina­ tion of a faith healer in the provinces is a radically different perspective on the country, the films are similar in their presentation of characters in trans­ ition. The dramatization of their attempts to relate constructively to their problematic society illuminates currents of popular thought and iden­ tifies a variety of diverse social and political issues. Lee’s vision of The Philippines encompasses components as disparate as the national obsession with celebrities, the role of religion, and a representation of Manila as a mecca symbolically comparable to Chekhov’s Moscow. Despite their unnecessarily long and occasionally rambling screenplays, both films pro­ vide thoughtful insights into their country.

While the scarcity of stimulating Competition entries proved dis­ appointing, the vast Exhibition cate­ gory supplied a range of films, in­ cluding Graeme Clifford’s powerful and disturbing Frances, Bob Brooks’ Tattoo, Richard Attenborough’s epic Gandhi and Rainer Werner Fass­ binder’s Querelle.

One of its gratifying highlights was The Escape Artist, the impressive directorial debut of cameraman Caleb Deschanel, whose credits include The Black Stallion and Being There. The film traces the exploits of Danny Masters (Griffin O’Neal), a lonely and highly resilient child determined to recreate the magical expertise of his dead father, “ the greatest escape artist since Houdini’’. Thankfully the film avoids making Danny another pre­ cocious brat of American cinema by balancing his confident resourceful­ ness with a vulnerability, thus making him more of a counterpart to E.T.’s

Brooke (Meryl Streep) in Robert Benton’s “pretentious pastiche o f . . . Hitchcock’’, Still o f the Night.

Elliot, no doubt a result of their com m on s c r ip tw r ite r, M elissa Mathison.

Like E.T., The Escape Artist evokes a child’s-eye view of the U.S. and presents a boy in search of recognition in an idiosyncratic adult world. Danny aspires not simply to prove himself by succeeding at his father’s vocation, but also to embody its primary function, which he described as the fulfilment of people’s wishes. While a lovable alien’s appearance on Earth answered Elliot’s fantasies, Danny employs his dreams to serve a comparable func­ tion, elevating himself to the focus of the town’s attention by astounding them with his creation of magic.

Aside from its similarities to E.T., The Escape Artist employs George De Lerve’s evocative score and Dean Tavoularis’ lush production design to create a glowing tribute to a bygone age, a sad reference to both Danny’s anachronistic skills and the time when vaudeville’s performers were granted the acclaim that their talents war­ ranted. The Escape Artist is not only distinguished by its visual style and stylish recreation of an era, but is also enlivened by an excellent supporting cast, including Joan Hackett as Danny’s wonderfully-talented fairy godmother, Raoul Julia as the town menace, Teri Garr as his dotty girl­ friend and Desiderio Arnaz sen. as his father, the corrupt mayor.

Deschanel’s The Escape Artist is a consummately assured and imagin­ atively realized debut which orches­ trates a joyous synthesis of elegant atmosphere and a group of eccentric and invigorating characters to convey both the spirit of the past and the defi­ ciencies of the present.

Deschanel’s obvious reverence for a vanishing lifestyle was also apparent in his black and white short, Trains, screened at a symposium on cinemato­ graphy. The short commemorates an era of unhurried elegance, rendered obsolete by the emergence of aviation, and its loving sketch of long-distance train travel seems to quietly mourn the passing of an epoch.

Unfortunately, by comparison, the opulent decor of Don Crombie’s Kitty and the Bagman only produces a romantic impression of Sydney in the Roaring Twenties; the shenanigans of its cops and robbers fail to materialize into anything more substantial. The film’s documentation of the rise of Kitty O’Rourke (Liddy Clark) from naive war-bride to notorious crime queen has a certain charm, resulting from its blatant, tongue-in-cheek cari­ catures: the imposing Big Lil (Val Lehman), the good-natured bar-girl, Doris de Salle (Collette Mann), and the stony-faced Bagman (John Stanton).

However, it is essentially an elabor­ ately-costumed romp through over­ exploited terrain and, when the set­ ups, double-crosses and gangland reprisals have run their obligatory course, an older and wiser Kitty heaves herself out of the mire to join her Bagman and live happily ever after.

The singularly distinctive asset of the film is its conscious refusal to take itself too seriously, an attitude under­ lined by the constant staging of seminal scenes in public arenas.

Whether it is a brawl on a nightclub dance-floor, a courtroom with a rowdy gallery or the film’s resolution on a crowded street, the central characters tangle before appreciative audiences, constantly drawing attention to the fact that their reputations are based on convincing performances. At this basic

Above: Marilou Diaz-Abaya’s Moral, “a direct, if subtle, challenge to the existing regime” . Below: Giorgio (Luciano Pavarotti), an Italian tenor: Franklin J. Schaffner’s Yes Giorgio, one o f the film s in the vast Exhibition section.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 121

Manila Festival

Wim Wenders’ The State o f Things, shown at Manila minus this shot o f Fritz (Alexander Auder) and Roger Corman, and the rest o f the penultimate reel.

Danton (Gerard Depardieu) in Andrzej Wajda’s Danton: “the existence o f free speech . . . is a gauge by which any society can~be judged. ”

level of caricature, the film operates as a qualified success.

The execution of an irresistible per­ formance is also a major concern for Sabine (Beatrice Romand), the pro­ tagonist of Eric Rohmer’s Le beau mariage (The Fine Marriage), when she impulsively decides to spurn her married lover by securing an ideal husband. She is encouraged by her friend, Clarisse (Arielle Dombasle), who not only adds emotional fuel to the quest, but supplies a suitable mate, in the form of her cousin, Edmond (Andre Dussollier). Undaunted by Edm ond’s apparent indifference, Sabine obstinately pursues her prag­ matic goal, only to discover that she has selected a man as determined to adhere to his master plan of life as she is, an obstacle that finally forces her temporary abandonment of her blue­ print for a fulfilling existence.

Le beau mariage again demonstrates Rohmer’s ability to create an engaging combination of characters who radiate an appealing vitality despite their often infuriating idiosyncracies. Sabine and Clarisse present the polarities of womanhood: dark and fair, married and single, impulsive and consistent, united in their propensity to indulge in desirable fantasy. The fact that the “ beau mariage” of the title never eventuates is hardly surprising con­ sidering the opening proverb, “ Can any of us refrain from building castles in Spain?” But what endures, beyond the film’s suggestion of the circular nature of life, is the predisposition of the individual to fabricate windmills to conquer.

The tone and structure of Le beau mariage reveal similarities to Rohmer’s previous film, La femme de l’aviateur: both are constructed around a circle motif that returns the central character to the film’s point of inception, after the enactment and resolution of a whimsical journey; both revolve around lengthy discussions between characters rather than action; and both elevate their graceful urban environ­ ments beyond the function of back­ drop, weaving them into the fabric of the film as inextricably as its char­ acters.

The domination of conversation is a subtle indicator, not only of Sabine’s mercurial temperament, but of the dis­

popular hero, forced into a clandestine return to Paris in order to challenge the dominance of the Public Safety Committee, controlled by a supremely haughty and humorless Robespierre (Wojciech Pszoniak).

Despite evidence of flamboyant excesses, Danton is portrayed as the quintessential Frenchman, passionate in his love of gourmet cuisine and fine wine, and cherishing an affinity with the people. Depardieu’s imposing physique is employed to its best advan­ tage as the bear-like Danton, a formid­ able contrast to Robespierre’s slight frame and wizened face, a reflection of his parsimonious lifestyle. A single, incisive shot of Robespierre, straining on tiptoe at the podium to address the convention, conveys the unmistakable impression of a man who lacks the stature to fulfil the requirements of a statesman. This perspective is later consolidated, when Danton’s struggle to avoid the guillotine is juxtaposed with Robespierre’s visit to an art school, where he has commissioned a massive sculpture of himself, pre­ sumably an attempt to immortalize his features and his place in history.

The film clearly shares Danton’s final denunciation of his rival, implying that the annals of history will record Robespierre only in its more accursed chapters. While the contrast of popular visionary and feared poli­ tician may be an apt reference to Lech Walesa and General Jaruzelski, the response of the Philippine audience suggested that the film’s analysis of the ramifications of authoritarianism was universal in its application.

Equally evocative is Wajda’s visual style, a constant reminder of the dreams of 1789 perverted to night­ marish proportions by December 1793.

The film is totally devoid of color and the grimy, lifeless greys evoke pessim­ ism and depression. Shot entirely in studios, the big, male cast and theat­ rical use of soliloquies enable the film to assume the dimensions of an Eliza­ bethan tragedy. C onfrontations between characters occur in claustro­ phobic rooms, shot mainly in close-up, emphasizing the irreconcilable rifts that have occurred since the landmark of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. When, at the conclusion of the film, a frightened child recites by rote

122 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

junctive nature of human communica­ tions. Telephones serve as either untimely intrusions or the focus of illfated expectations. It is only through the exchange of intimate conversation that characters reveal their emotions and inconsistencies. Rohmer accomp­ lishes a formidable task; he manages to identify the stupidities of his char­ acters and yet avoids making them vacuous, allowing the film to celebrate an aspect of human behaviour and simultaneously comment on its foibles.

Larry Peerce’s Love Child also conveys a disarming celebration of human spirit, and effectively over­ comes the numerous pitfalls generally associated with prison films. It docu­ ments the incarceration of Terry Jean Moore (Amy Madigan) and her sub­ sequent battle to overcome the reserva­ tions of the legal authorities in Florida and give birth to her child in the Broward Correctional Institution.

Madigan’s excellent performance com­ bines gritty bravado with fragility, resulting in a complex and involving character.

The absence of simplistic judg­ ments, in favor of sensitive and intelli­ gent analysis, is a virtue evident throughout the film, which also estab­ lishes the volatility of the environment without resorting to sensationalism.

Rather than rely on superficial cate­ gorization that arbitrarily places the blame for an inadequate prison system in the lap of heartless bureaucracies or reprehensible wardens and inmates, Love Child straddles a fine line and opts for skilful characterization. The prison hierarchy, including the man­ datory butch lesbian (MacKenzie Phil­ lips) and the child’s father, a prison guard (Beau Bridges), are depicted with a humanity that makes a gratify­ ing conclusion all the more rewarding.

Andrzej W ajda’s Danton is a masterful depiction of the arrest and trial of Danton (Gerard Depardieu) and his associates by the Public Safety Committee during the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution. Predic­ tably, the French-Polish co-production aroused speculation of Wajda’s inten­ tion to document the calamitous events of 1794 in order to symbolize the current political crisis in Poland. The film clearly delineates the opposing factions, characterizing Danton as the

passages of its contents, it is apparent that they have become meaningless words. The struggle for power by petty or misguided men has undermined the very principles that they were allegedly battling to preserve.

While the film may be historical in its basis, its indictment of the abuse of power by any government is unmis­ takable. The reigning Public Safety Committee is depicted as a motley clique of scared and corrupt men, manipulated by a clever strategist who recognizes that they will ignore any sanctions in order to quell a threat to their authority. The Convention deputies are similarly reduced to the role of compliant puppets, easily swayed by an emotive orator. It is within this forum that Danton and Robespierre rely on their convincing performances in a duel for power, for it is the success or failure of their speeches that seals their fates. Finally, Robespierre can only triumph by silencing his adversary.

Parallel to its penetrating depiction of a decimated city, reinforced by images of a pallid, miserable popula­ tion enduring appalling economic hardship and genuine fear of their government, is the specific link of social decay with the suppression of free speech. Robespierre’s initial reaction to Danton is not to execute him but to silence his mouthpiece, the only remnant of the free press left in Paris. This shifts their battleground to the floor of the Convention and, even­ tually, the courtroom, where Danton hopes to dominate the proceedings and arouse support with his impassioned oration.

There is a brief flicker of optimism as his tactics (not dissimilar to those of Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) in Mr Smith Goes to Washington), in adamantly refusing to relinquish the arena, begin to sway the audience.

Robespierre’s subsequent action, refusing to allow Danton to continue conducting his own defence, is the sign that he is doomed for the guillotine, If, as one of Danton’s compatriots states, “ Man only has the rights he can defend” , the film affirms that the most basic of these rights, the existence of free speech, is a gauge by which any society may be judged. 'fa D.E.

My initial intention in comparing the recent American film Best Friends with the 1981 Aus­ tralian romantic comedy The Best of Friends was to highlight the differences between two films which explore a similar theme, and then to point to the unique qualities of the Austra­ lian film. However, I soon realized that the two films were not only superficially similar but that the differences between them had little to do with any intrinsic national qualities.

For some reason, we often get nervous when an Australian film attempts to work within a well-established generic framework and neglects either to rework aspects of the Austra­ lian heritage (mateship or other elements of the ubiquitous “ bush myth” ), as in Gallipoli, or to localize the setting, as in Monkey Grip. The Man From Snowy River, on the other hand, unfortunately failed to camouflage its basic melodramatic approach to characterization and narrative sequence, which polarized into a simple tale of a young hero, Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson), having to overcome his orphaned highland origins. Also, the melodramatic device of twin brothers, Spur and Harrison (Kirk Douglas), separated by a distant feud and the “ mystery” surrounding Jessica’s (Sigrid Thornton) real father, combined with the pre­ dictable climactic sequence in which Jim brings in the herd and claims Jessica and the com­ munity’s acceptance as a reward, was sufficient to alert the critics that this is not Banjo Pater­ son but some alien narrative structure which can easily be dismissed with the tag, “ Wallaby Western” . The pain this provoked in Geoff Burrowes and George Miller is apparent in their Cinema Papers interview1: they apparently were aware of the popular conventions which appeal to a large audience but unaware that our critical establishment does not wish to inviolate the local industry by employing such conventions.

Similarly, John Duigan had the audacity to desert urban Australia and the “ delicacy of Mouth to Mouth (and) and the complexity of Winter of Our Dreams” 2 and the critics could 1. Cinema Papers, No. 38, June 1982, p. 212.

2. Debi Enker, “Far East’’, Cinema Papers, No. 39, August 1982, p. 363.

congratulate themselves on dismissing Far East as Casablanca revisited. Hence the failure of the film resulted from the decision to employ, “ a narrative structure popularized by Holly­ wood films of the 1940s, definitively in Casa­ blanca. The resulting combination produces a style so dependent on narrative drama that it constrains and dilutes the skills that have distinguished Duigan.” 3 Well, what is this pernicious narrative struc­ ture we are talking about? Could it be the redoubtable “ classical realist text” , also known as the “ mainstream narrative” or the “ Holly­ wood classical text” ? It must be, as we have all seen it on late-night television films. However, the fact of the matter is that this narrative system is not unique to the pre-1960s American cinema but has its roots in the development of the Gothic novel, and in 18th and 19th Century 3. Ibid.

French and British stage drama.4 It is part of the long evolution of that dramatic mode known as melodrama and, whether one likes it or not, it formed the basis of the narrative development of the Australian film, as well as the British, American and other national cinemas.

The problem is that the term “ melodrama” conjures a series of negative images in the minds of many people, instead of being a neutral term that describes a particular dramatic structure.5 Essentially, melodrama presents characters who are free of the internal dividedness which marks a tragic structure; the melodramatic protagonist is faced with an external problem (such as villains, natural disasters, race or class prejudice, etc.) which polarizes the world into victors, victims and villains. This dramatic mode provides the basis of most Australian films, from Mouth to Mouth and The Killing of Angel Street to Gallipoli and Breaker Morant.

John Tulloch has even demonstrated the melodramatic basis of the pre-World War 2 Australian cinema by using the methodology employed by Claude Bremond in his analysis of fairy tales. Tulloch concludes that Jungle Woman, The Breaking of the Drought, Romance of Runnibede and other films demon­ strate that, while there was a dominant struc­ tural concern with the bush/city dichotomy, it was expressed in a melodramatic framework emphasizing the “ remarkable trans-historical and cross-cultural survival qualities of basic narrative forms” .6 An aversion to or ignorance of the common ground shared by the Australian feature film and other popular cultural forms, from the past and from overseas, results in the surprise and indignation expressed at Pauline Kael’s descrip­ tion of the experience of watching a “ wellcrafted” Australian film as the same as “ reading an old-fashioned novel” .7 Similarly, 4. See

T.

E lsaesse r,

“ T ales

of

Sound

and

F u r y ’’,

M onogram, N o . 4, p. 2; also, J. Fell, Film and The Narrative Tradition, U n iv er sity o f O k l a h o m a P re ss,

Paula McCullen (Goldie Hawn) and Richard Babson (Burt Reynolds) pose fo r a wedding photograph in Norman Jewison’s Best Friends.

1974, C h . 2.

5. See R. H e i l m a n , Tragedy and Melodrama: Versions o f Experience, U n iv er sity o f W a s h i n g t o n P re ss , 1968.

6. J. T u ll o c h , Australian Cinema Industry: Narrative and Meaning, G e o r g e Allen a n d U n w i n , p. 202.

7. Cinema Papers, N o . 40, O c t o b e r 1982, p. 421.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 123

Best (of) Friends

Richard and Paula in the shower: “Reynolds . . and Hawn . . . are probably the closest one is going to get to [Cary] Grant and the comediennes who dominated the genre in the ’30s. ” Best Friends.

although working from a different basis, Sam Rohdie describes the Australian cinema as con­ servative, dull and conformist because “ at best Australian films demonstrate a skill and expertise in handling what are only rather familiar positions: established modes of narrative construction, established specifically cinematic codes, established social/commercial genres.” 8 While Rohdie longs for a local filmmaker who will break through this dull conformity, such as a Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Marie Straub or Miklos Jancso, and Pauline Kael waits for another Fred Schepisi, I would argue that such approaches tend to demean the achievements of the Australian cinema and fail to differentiate sufficiently among the many Australian films produced in this established narrative tradition. “ Skill” , “ expertise” , “ established modes of narrative construction” , “ established specific­ ally cinematic codes” and “ established social/commercial genres” become pejorative terms, and a muddled suspense thriller such as Crossplot, for example, is equated with a superb film like Roadgames, which demon­ strates a playful awareness of the conventions and techniques of the narrative strategies that generate suspense without alienating audience involvement in the film.

The Best of Friends belongs to another genre­ narrative strategy which goes back to the early 1930s at least, and a cycle of films popularized by the narrative framework established in It Happened One Night. However, it should be recognized that this genre is only one mode of a dominant narrative system which encompasses the whole of the mainstream narrative film; it is marked by a common process of transforma­ tion whereby the initial order is disrupted and the elements are dispersed, resulting in the pressure to establish a new equilibrium and the consequent closure of the narrative process.

There is within this system a generic specificity whereby each genre deals with this process in a different way.

It Happened One Night became known as a “ screwball comedy” and for the next seven or eight years many films were included under this rather vague umbrella term. However, only a

few films were consistent with the truly manic behaviour of protagonists who found the existing social conventions too restrictive for their natural development. For example, crazy films such as Bringing Up Baby propel helpless males, such as paleontologist David Huxley (Cary Grant), into a world populated by Freudian psychologists, effeminate big game hunters, drunken Irish gardeners, leopards and voracious society girls, such as Susan (Katharine Hepburn), who strip him of his trousers and dress him in a negligee while he searches for his missing intercostal clavicle, his “ bone” .

Bringing Up Baby was, commercially, the least successful film in the cycle, and most other screwball films were less frenetic, characterized by the struggle of both characters to bring their values and lifestyles into line with each other.

Several other recurring narrative situations differentiated this particular species of the mainstream narrative film from other types of comedy, although the parameters were never very clear. It Happened One Night itself belonged to a tradition developed in the early sound period (e.g., Trouble in Paradise, Design For Living and Reunion in Vienna).

Perhaps the most decisive element in the development of the screwball cycle was the resurgence of the censors in 1933 and ’34. The films produced after this time were, as Andrew Sarris has aptly described, sex comedies without sex.9 The tension and frustration in these films often derived from the repressive moral codes which acted as barriers to the fulfilment of desire, and the sexual frustration often leads to some oddball behaviour: Lucy’s (Irene Dunne) attempts to attract hus­ band Jerry (Cary Grant) into her bed before their divorce becomes final in The Awful Truth is testimony to this aspect of the genre.

Other recurring generic elements included the sardonic treatment of family and in-laws; the fear that the restrictions of marriage may inhibit the protagonist’s normal freedom; and the implied criticism of those social institutions which promulgate conformist tendencies in society. But aside from, or more correctly 9.

8.

Cinema Papers, N o . 39, A u g u s t 1982, p. 377.

124 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

See A.

Sarris ,

“ T h e Sex C o m e d y W i t h o u t S ex ” , American Film, M a r c h 1978, p. 15.

associated with, the screwball behaviour generated by sexual frustration, the most significant aspect of the genre was the degree of sex role reversal promoted by these films.

If, as has often been stated, the cinema has played a significant role in the construction and provision of images and definitions of masculinity and femininity, then the screwball comedy has played a part in redressing the con­ centration of films which deal only with the contradictions that haunt the hero in his choice between personal freedom and social commit­ ment. In the screwball comedy, this crisis is often transferred to the heroine, and her role as the “ civilizing force” of mother and domesticator is no longer assumed automatic­ ally; children are rarely, if ever, an integral part of these films. The ultimate appeal is the battle between two people who are fairly evenlypositioned to carry on an equal fight.

It is within this context that The Best of Friends and Best Friends can be examined from the point of view of changes from the pre­ World War 2 cycle, and the differences between the Australian and the American film. The most apparent, and crucial, difference is that the source of the sexual frustration can no longer be traced to the repressive social context: in Best Friends Richard Babson (Burt Reynolds) is living with Paula McCullen (Goldie Hawn) at the start of the film, while in The Best of Friends Melanie (Angela Punch McGregor) is soon climbing on top of her old friend Tom (Graeme Blundell) after earlier declaring, “ I like sex, I need sex.”

Sexual frustration now has to be invented by a peculiar situation: in the American film, Paula takes Richard back to Buffalo for a honeymoon with her parents yet prohibits him from sleeping with her and hence violating the room in which she grew up; also, Paula reasons, if her husband sleeps with her then her parents will think they are having sex. On the other hand, in the Australian film the intimacy of living together and the prospect of marriage is the cause of the hostility and frustration, and a pregnant Melanie is determined not to let marriage ruin her 20-year friendship with Tom. The males in both films, unlike the women, are eager for marriage.

Changed social attitudes, particularly with regard to sex outside marriage, have removed much of the basis of the genre and, conse­ quently, some of the traditional possibilities for humor. For example, in a church sequence

Tom (Graeme Blundell) and a girlfriend, Grace (Deborah Gray), before his marriage to Melanie. Michael Robert­ son ’s The Best o f Friends.

Best (of) Friends

revealed to be a studio prop. In The Best of Friends, Tom manages to get a reluctant

Tom interrupts Melanie (Angela Punch McGregor) as she is about to go to bed (hesitantly) with an old boyfriend, Bruce (Mark Lee). The Best o f Friends.

when Melanie explains to Tom that she doesn’t want to marry him, the film attempts to generate humor by intercutting between their remarks and the people in the church: when Melanie tells Tom that, “ It’s not your fault I got pregnant . . . I pushed you into it” , there is a reaction-shot of three nuns who look up at them. Or, after telling him that she plans to keep the baby, a relieved Tom exclaims, “ Thank God for that. Does it mean we can make love now?” , and there is a shot of a man who stops praying and looks back at them. In the social climate of the 1930s such explicit dialogue would not have been permitted and filmmakers would have been forced to be a little more inventive; nevertheless, the reactionshot was an important technique in highlighting the conservative concern at the ‘liberated’ behaviour of the protagonists. By the time of The Best of Friends, the attitudes conveyed in

the church and the reaction-shot technique had lost much of its impact.

The other major problem related to the different social context concerns the resolution of the two recent films. While the early screw­ ball films may have stretched audience credi­ bility with a resolution that assumed the couple’s crazy behaviour and ongoing battles would be magically solved by marriage at the end of the film and, given the changed attitudes to marriage since that period, this suspicion on the part of the audience may well have turned to outright disbelief, both modern films tacitly acknowledge this.

In the case of Best Friends, the self-conscious ending to the film occurs after a traumatic night when the hostile couple are locked together in a film studio office. After they have appeared to achieve an uneasy reconciliation, they walk out into a patently artificial studio sunset which is

The wedding o f Melanie and Tom in The Best o f Friends: “A nd They Lived Happily Ever A fter? ”

Melanie into church but she faints during the wedding ceremony. This would appear to be Tom’s last chance to get her to the altar, but, in a largely unmotivated change of mind, Melanie agrees to marry Tom when he appears to lose the wedding ring. An end title highlights the artificiality of the requisite “ happy ending’’ convention: “ And They Lived Happily Ever After?” The narrative progression from mutual antagonism to closing embrace appears less satisfying than ever, particularly since the modern variations are devoid of the class conflict, or even the rural-urban opposition, which gave the conclusions of the 1930s films a dimension lacking in these two recent films.

The changed social context has also reduced the impact of the role reversal: Cary Grant in a negligee is a lot funnier than Graeme Blundell vacuuming the house in an apron. Conse­ quently, the genre has been forced to move to a more extreme position to raise an audience’s eyebrows about the behaviour of the people in the film. To signify the screwball world of the family and in-laws, Best Friends shows Paula’s father disappearing into the bathroom to read his pornography, and his attack-cum-seduction of the cleaning lady evokes not so much humor as pathos; this is a long way from the supposedly eccentric behaviour of the Vanderhof household in You Can’t Take It With You (1938), in which Martin’s (Lionel Barrymore) harmonica playing was intended to signal his individuality.

The differences between The Best of Friends and Best Friends is qualitative rather than structural. The success of this type of film often depends on the ability of the performers and comments on this aspect must be rather sub­ jective. For example, I would argue that Cary Grant was nearly indispensable to the genre as was a small group of 1930s comediennes: Carole Lombard, Jean Arthur, Rosalind Russell and Myrna L oy.10 Angela Punch McGregor, on the other hand, does not appear entirely comfortable in her role and, although Graeme Blundell fits into the genre, his Alvin Purple persona of nearly a decade ago still haunts the film. However, in Best Friends the self-reflexive qualities of Burt Reynolds (particularly when telling a story to his dis­ interested dog) and Goldie Hawn (who tells Burt that she often kills her parents off in her mind so that she won’t be sorry when they die: “ That’s how much I love them” ) are probably the closest one is going to get to Grant and the comediennes who dominated the genre in the ’30s.

Films of this type also rely heavily on the quality of the dialogue, and David Mac­ donald’s script for The Best of Friends contains several funny, insightful lines: for example, Melanie’s mother (Ruth Cracknell) telling her daughter that she has settled for second best, “ a Catholic accountant” , or Tom’s remark that he “ knows nine couples that are getting divorced. Well five; the rest are Catholic.” The humorous treatment of religion in the film (Catholic versus Protestant) is one of the few differences between the two films. Both films, however, work within the conventions of a long-established genre and represent an attempt to explore the idea that marriage and its attendant responsibilities, such as dirty bath­ rooms and crazy in-laws, can destroy an other­ wise strong relationship. Certainly the Austra­ lian film does not deserve neglect because of its choice of narrative strategy. But then I could be wrong for I enjoyed The Man From Snowy River. ★ 10. Ibid.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 125

Interviewed by Debi Enker Sydney-born Graeme C lifford has worked with an impres­ sive medley o f the cinema's m ost innovative and exciting directors. His credits as an editor include Nicolas R o eg ’s D o n ’t L o o k N ow and The M an Who Fell to Earth, Bob R afelson’s The Postman A lw ays Rings Twice, Sam Peckin­ p a h ’s Convoy, Jim Sharm an’s The R ocky Horror Picture Show and Robert A ltm a n ’s Images. For A ltm an, he was also casting director on The Long Goodbye, casting and assistant director on McCabe and M rs Miller, and assistant director and assistant editor on That Cold Day in the Park.

C lifford’s directorial debut with Frances marks the emergence o f a new element in his range o f talents. While critical reaction to the film has been fa r fro m favorable, it m ust be conceded that this uncompromising portrayal o f the life o f Frances Farmer is a pow erful indictment o f H olly­ wood in particular and American institutions in general.

Irrespective o f any reservations one may harbor, Frances is a tribute to C liffo rd ’s assurance as a director and his steadfast refusal to compromise a vision.

What was it about Frances Farmer’s life that interested you?

Just about everything. She believed the same kinds of things I believe, she treated her work in the same way, she had the same feelings about authority, religion, Hollywood, Broadway, politics and life in general. I felt very much akin to her and was appalled by what had happened.

There are three major things I wanted to convey with the film.

First was the outrage and anger at what had happened: it was an anger that never subsided and kept pushing me on until I got the film made. No one wanted to make it, no one wanted to finance it because it was seen as non-com­ mercial, depressing. Second was the struggle that most people make to try to become individuals, which is really all Frances is trying to do in a world that is becoming increasingly repressive and de­ personalized. Third was that arb itrary distinction between madness and sanity. It has always been my opinion that some of the people in positions of authority, who supposedly are able to make

these judgments, are possibly less sane than the people they are con­ demning. I am not talking about the clinically insane, but about people whose behaviour is some­ how “ different” , who all seem to be covered by the amazing word “ schizophrenia” . When they can’t figure out what is wrong with someone, they call them schizo­ phrenic.

Does the fact that Frances existed make the film impossible to dis­ miss, forcing people to confront its intensity?

I couldn’t make this sort of film, I couldn’t say the things I am trying to say in this picture, with a fictitious story, because people wouldn’t believe it. We all ought to worry about what happened to Frances and make sure that it doesn’t happen again. I know that my film is not going to make a damn bit of difference, but sooner or later somebody is going to have to confront the problem of mental health and look at the appalling state of the institutions we have today. There are people in them who shouldn’t be there: patients

who have committed themselves because they felt they needed help, voluntary patients who are not released when they ask to be released, patients who have become unreasonable because of the drugs they have been given since they were admitted. To me it is shocking, and even more so is the fact that people don’t seem to want to know about it.

Why do you refuse to allow a sense of release at the end? The obvious comparison is with a film like “ One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” , where the Indian’s escape allows a qualified optimism . . .

It would have been phoney to have tagged on some kind of happy ending. The fact is that the institutional period of Frances’ life did destroy her. But the inspiring thing is the fact that she never gave in; I think that out of that sense of loss and sadness can come a kind of release. If it causes people to be a little more compassionate then it will have made some difference.

You have called the film ‘a triumph of the human spirit’ . . .

Yes, to me it is. It is wonderfully triumphant.

But the image of her at the end, with her face like a skeleton, makes her so lifeless. It seemed that a human being had been totally annihilated . . .

Well, I suppose you are right.

What I mean by a “ triumph of the spirit” is that, although they wrecked her life, they didn’t break her spirit. The fact that she stayed alive was a triumph; any normal person would have been dead after seven years in that place.

A recent edition of ‘Screen Inter­ national’ says that after you decided to make “ Frances” you returned to the U.S. to find three television networks wanting to make the story, three plays about to start production and several independent filmmakers interested in Frances Farmer’s life. Why did all those people respond to it at the same time?

I think it is because Frances Farmer had gone largely unnoticed prior to that. She appeared in one chapter of Kenneth Anger’s book, Hollywood Babylon, and a few people knew about her life, but not many people had bothered to research it. When they did, they discovered a fascinating story.

Coppola was interested, Noel Mar­ shall was going to do a picture of it and there were three Broadway plays in the works. But the first company to announce the project was Brooksfilm, the people I made the picture for, and they had announced it independently.

I was introduced to the pro­ ducer, Jonathan Sanger, and we both recognized that we wanted to make the same kind of film. We both respected the woman, and we both wanted to treat it with as much integrity as possible, even though the story itself was totally outrageous and shocking. So I per­ suaded Jonathan to hire me as the director. I knew that working with him would be a good experience because he had just produced The Elephant Man, which I love; Eric [Bergrenj and Chris [De Vore] were doing the screenplay, and, as I had loved their screenplay for The Elephant Man, I thought the set-up couldn’t be better.

Do you see similarities between “ Frances” and “ The Elephant Man” ?

I have never thought about that connection, but there is an obvious similarity between the emotional content of both films. They are about people who were extraordi­ nary, and both are rather sad.

They both deal with greatly troubled lives that came under a great deal of pressure from society at large. And neither of them had a happy ending.

The film credits a third script­ writer, Nicholas Kazan. What role did he play?

Chris and Eric finally burnt out, after six drafts. I needed some­ thing I wasn’t getting from them, so I brought Nick in. He wrote the final shooting draft of the screen­ play, and also contributed the CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 127

Graeme Clifford

Please don’t waste your money Altman, Nicolas Roeg and Bob Rafelson. How do you think they buying it. Will There Really Be A have influenced your work as a Morning? is a phoney autobio­ graphy, actually written by Jean director?

I could give you simplistic answers to that question, but dammit, you know, it is more com­ plicated than that. You learn all sorts of things from different people; one of the reasons I worked with those people was because they are all individuals, and all are self-destructive; they push their art to the limit. It is exciting to me, and I like to work with exciting people. They make films that I want to watch, films that make me sit up and listen, and make me feel something. I don’t feel as if I am wasting time. When I see a film, I want to find out something I didn’t know before.

How did you research the film?

Frances Farmer (Jessica Lange) and Clifford Odets (Jeffrey DeMunn). Graeme Clifford's Frances.

hitchhiker scene and the last scene of the film.

At what stage did you cast Jessica Lange?

I cast her before I was even hired

by Jonathan Sanger. I knew that if I was going to make this film, she would play the part. 1 knew that no matter how compelling the story was, I wouldn’t have a picture without Jessica’s performance.

She felt as strongly about Frances as I did.

What about Sam Shepard?

I have always loved Sam, ever since I saw Days of Heaven. I think he is a wonderfully enigmatic actor, and I wanted somebody like that for the role of Harry York.

Based on a man named Stuart Jacobson, his is a difficult role, inasmuch as he only crops up in the film from time to time in her life. There may be several years between one scene and the next, and you never know what he has been doing in the interim. I thought that he and Jessica would get along w onderfully well together and make a good pair on screen. I felt you needed to feel an immediate attraction between them so you didn’t need to spend time building up that relationship.

Why is Harry York the film’s narrator?

That was never meant to be part of the film and I wish it wasn’t. I allowed myself to be convinced to take scenes out of the picture in order to make it shorter. Most of the missing scenes were at the beginning. They set up a relation­ ship between Frances and her mother much better than it is at the moment. There was a good scene between the mother and the father which delineated their positions more clearly. You saw Frances 128 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

meeting her husband instead of his suddenly being sprung on you in Seattle, as he is now. I was per­ suaded to take those out; it was a big mistake and I will never let it happen again. I had to use the narration to cover for the loss of those scenes. Hopefully, when the film is shown on cable television in the U.S., those scenes will be reinstated and the film will be 15 minutes longer. At least somebody somewhere will see it in the form in which I want it to be shown.

Frances’ marriage seems to be symptomatic of a larger problem because, generally, when she acts or reacts she is being self-destruc­ tive rather than productive . . .

I think that is true, and that it is true of many people. I have to stop myself from being self-destructive; I find it very easy, almost easier than anything else in the world. It is a result of frustration with the stupidity that you see around you, and you just react irrationally.

Sam Peckinpah, for instance, one of the most brilliant directors in the U.S., is a terribly self-destruc­ tive man. So are a lot of great painters and musicians. It seems to go hand in hand with the creative process. You have to push yourself to the limit, look over the edge to see what is there, then go even further than that. So you push people, and you push situations to make people react. You drop something into a conversation, which is totally outrageous, just to get a rise out of them. Once that self-destructive mechanism is trig­ gered, it is difficult to keep in check. Frances couldn’t keep it in check and went that little bit further than most of us are pre­ pared to go. That is what made her very interesting to me.

You mentioned Peckinpah and you have worked with other simil­ arly innovative directors: Robert

We hired an independent researcher and then I spoke to as many people as I could: Stuart Jacobson; actors who worked with her; Edith Head, who did a lot of her costumes; Elia Kazan, who directed her; and her first husband, Leif Erikson. Even the dialogue from the doctor who performs the lobotomy is word for word, taken from first person accounts of his demonstrations. A lot of Odets’ dialogue was adapted from interviews he gave about his views on acting and writing.

This dialogue was my most valu­ able asset because it formed a personality in my head. Because her story is so fantastic, I had to concentrate much of my attention on emphasizing the fact that the film is based on a true story.

Did you use any information from her autobiography?

Ratcliffe, and to a large extent inaccurate and sensationalized.

The fact that it was attributed to Frances Farmer would make her turn in her grave. It is the ultimate insult. Ratcliffe wrote it after Frances had died, having lived with her during the last years of her life, and then, in an inspired piece of humility, dedicated the book to herself. I find it totally despicable that even after her death Frances is being exploited.

Brooksfilm bought the real autobiography which was unfin­ ished because she died before it was completed. She was writing that with a lady named Lois Kibby, who would never permit its pub­ lication because she didn’t feel it was complete. We bought the rights to it on the understanding that it would not be published.

The thing about Frances Far­ mer’s life is that all of the facts will never be known. There is room for different interpretations of what happened to Frances and why.

The film depicts Hollywood as being com pletely hostile to Frances. Yet Howard Hawks calls her the greatest actress with whom he ever worked . . .

Frances claimed that Hawks was one of the few admirable directors — he and Alfred Green. She men­ tioned both with fond memories.

The impression given in the film is that she doesn’t regard “ Come and Get It” very highly . . .

That is because it wasn’t fin­ ished by Hawks; he was fired half way through the shooting, by Sam

Frances, at age 42, on This Is Your Life, with Ralph Edwards (Donald Craig). Frances.

Graeme Clifford

Goldwyn, because he insisted on making a film that was faithful to the book. Goldwyn then hired William Wyler who followed the dictates of the studio and stuck a happy ending on it. Believe it or not, there were discussions during the making of Frances about tag­ ging on a happy ending, which totally appalled me. You are bound to have the subject come up in Hollywood because they always want to make people happy. They don’t want to make anyone unhappy — perish the thought!

There must be room in our film­ making community for films that don’t necessarily have happy endings because many lives don’t.

If everybody just made films with happy endings, then we would have just one kind of film. I don’t think Sophie’s Choice has a par­ ticularly happy ending. Frances is obviously one of that group.

attributed no intelligence to the audience. Film was still a relatively new medium and sound was par­ ticularly fresh. They could get away with anything. Frances attri­ buted more intelligence to the aud­ ience than the studios did, and she couldn’t justify giving them garbage.

Most of the characters who rep­ resent institutions in the film demonstrate really reprehensible attitudes . . .

Don’t you find that in life?

Anywhere you get a large bureau­ cracy, you get a slew of people who are just doing what they are told, mostly without questioning. I guess they are happy just to have a job. I wish we could go back to the days when people meant some­ thing.

In the U.S., they have this dis­ gusting phrase that they use at the The depiction of Hollywood, in end of every sentence: “ Have a fact of most of the institutions in nice day.” I find it totally appall­ the film, is very damning. Given ing. The phrase is meaningless. I that there were people in Holly­ have asked people in hotels and wood like Hawks who had some restaurants why they say, “ Have a respect for Frances as an actress, nice day” , and they tell me the why is it that you don’t get the management likes them to say sense of a single person being able that. I go away thinking, “ My to appreciate anything about her God, this person is being drained of any hum an th o u g h t or other than “ good tits” ? emotion.”

Organized religion does the I had to deal with Hollywood briefly, and, though there were same thing. I asked the same ques­ people in Hollywood who did tions at the same period in my life appreciate her, they were few and that Frances Farmer did. I left my far between. It is unfortunate and I church because I felt it had no rele­ know that it is probably not pre­ vance whatsoever to my life and senting a balanced view of Holly­ was trying to teach me to become wood, but you have to go with the another white sheep in an already general feeling, which was that all-white flock. As soon as you they were trying to force her to do asked difficult questions of the things she didn’t want to do. The ministers, they managed to evade scripts were terrible, they didn’t the answers. That is all Frances care whether the wardrobe was was trying to point out in her essay accurate or not: in short, they at the beginning of the film.

The way in which the film is cut seems deliberately jarring, parti­ cularly in sequences that cut from one city to another. For example, the cut from the love scene on the beach in Seattle to the Hollywood nightclub, or the cut from Odets’ apartment in New York to Frances on set in Hollywood, convey a sense of two completely different environments confronting each other. Did you intend that sense of dislocation?

Yes. There is no point in my elaborating on that, because you have just said it!

The impression of paths crossing seems central to the film. So many of its conversations take place in streets that it has the feeling of a long and harrowing journey . . .

I set some of those scenes in streets for that reason. I wanted to get the feeling of paths crossing but without any real connection, not just between Harry and Frances but also between her and the others. He developed one way and she developed in another way.

Their lives came together at various points, but they were never meant to be together.

The music seems to be used to reflect her state of mind, parti­ cularly the Mozart. Was that your intention?

Frances and Harry (Sam Shepard). Frances.

Yes. If you listen closely, there is also a theme for Harry. It is not very noticeable, but the flute is meant to be Harry and the har­

monica is meant to be Frances. I am sorry that the music hasn’t been recognized for what it is, because it is a brilliant piece of composing on John Barry’s part. I am a little upset that more critics haven’t mentioned him, Laszlo Kovacs, the cinematographer, Dick Sylbert’s production design, or John Wright, my editor. I am very happy that Jessica and Kim Stan­ ley have been recognized, but other people who contributed a huge amount to this film have gone totally unnoticed. As good as Jes­ sica’s performance is, it is only one part of the film.

Why didn’t you cut it yourself?

As an editor, I have always appreciated giving the director another point of view. Therefore, as a director, I would never deprive myself of that opportunity. I think an editor is the most valuable asso­ ciate a director has, and I would be a fool not to give myself that same association.

You have paid a great deal of attention to props, particularly mirrors and photographs . . .

Yes, I think you can embellish the story by placing certain things in certain positions in the back­ ground. The bust of Beethoven was in Clifford Odets’ apartment because he was once quoted as saying he thought he was Beet­ hoven reincarnated. He used to say that the world lost a great com­ poser when he decided to be a Concluded on p. 169 CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 129

!n

Sill

g ill l l l i l j l i l l

§ 111®

The Event Split The Nation.

T^e Telemovie Brought It Together

For 3 Nights Solid. like to coincidentally, happened to get around a 40 rating in Sydney alone, on each of ith th e those nights).

It was a real pleasure to be part of :er. such a great project - both on the postliller production and the audio mix. tctors.

“The Dismissal” is a true example talent, of the sort of standards Australians can le achieve when they all pull together.

tyW0&i „ '" 'S f r ''

November 1982

Films examined in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and States’ film censorship legislation are listed below.

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying non-“ G” films appears hereunder:

For General Exhibition (G)

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Alexander Junior: Defa G orky C entral Studios, Soviet Union, 2727 m, Soviet Embassy, V(i-l-j), 0(adult theme) Crystal Gazing (16mm): British Film Institute, Britain, 987 m, Australian Film Institute, L(i-m-j) The Dusk of W old-Pigeon: H.S. Films, Hong Kong, 2276.69 m, Golden Reel Film s, 0(emotional stress) The Escape Artist: Claybourne/H oughton, U.S., 2550.99 m, Hoyts Dist., Vfi-l-j) Goloc (A Voice): Not shown, Poland, 2441.27 m, Q uality Films, 0(adult concepts) The Gossips (videotape): National Film Board of Canada, Canada, 58 mins, National Film Board of Canada, 0(adult concepts) Happy Days in the Arm y (16mm): M ing Chi, Taiwan, 1064.09 m, E. Seeto, Ofadult theme) I Can’t Say Farewell: G orky Central Studios, Soviet Union, 2486 m, Soviet Embassy, Sfi-l-j), V(i-l-j), Ofadult

S V L O

(S e x ) ....................... ( V i o l e n c e ) ................

(L a n g u a g e ) ............ ( O th e r) ....................

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

Infrequent

Frequent

Low

Medium

High

Justified

Gratuitous

i

f f f f

1 1 1 1

m m m m

h h h h

/

9 9 9 9

/ / i

Once Upon a Rainbow: Cinem a City Films, Hong Kong, 2533 m, Grand Film Corp., Vfi-m-g), Ofdrugs) Passe ton bac d ’abord (16mm): M. Pialat, France, 946 m, French Embassy, Sff-l-j) Passion: Jean-Luc Godard, France, 2386 m, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, Ofnudity, adult concepts) Passion d ’amore: M assfilm /C ocinor, France/ltaly, 3209.31 m, AZ Associated Film Dist., Sfi-m-j), Ofadult

concepts) Perils of the Sentim ental Swordsman: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2468.70 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vfi-m-g) P4W: Prison for W omen (short version) (16mm) (b): Spectrum Films, Canada, 647.23 m, Australian Film Institute, L(i-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Second Thougts: EMI, U.S., 2633.28 m, GUO Film Dist., Ofadult concepts) Smash Palace (reconstructed version) (c): R. Donald­ son, New Zealand, 2852 m, Roadshow Film Dist.,

Vfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) The Sword Stained with Royal Blood: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 3022 m, Joe Siu Int'l FHm Co., Vff-m-j) Those Dirty Dogs: L. Bompari, U.S., 2413.84 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) Till Death Do W e Scare: Cinem a City Film s, Hong Kong, 2468 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vff-m-g) Tony Arzenta (8 mm): L. Martino, Italy, 680 m, Italian Embassy, Vff-m-g)

Twenty-six Days in the Life of Fyodor Dostoyevsky: Mosfilm , Soviet Union, 2221.83 m, Trade Representa­ tive of the Soviet Union, Ofadult concepts) The Verdict: Zanuck/Brow n, U.S., 3538.47 m, Fox C olum bia Film Dist., Lfi-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Wild Fires of Youth: Y. Jun/C. Chun, Taiwan, 2383 m, Golden Reel Films, Ofadult concept) The Woman Next Door (La fem m e d ’a cote): Les Film s du Carosse, France, 2880 m, Le Clezio Films, Sfi-m-j) (a) See also under "F o r Restricted Exhibition” and "F ilm s Board of Review” . (b) Previously shown on July 1982 list. (c) Previously “ R” (May 1982 list); reduced by im porter’s cuts to obtain lower classification.

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Blood on Satan’s Claw (videotape (a): P. Andrews/M. Hayward, Britain, 93 mins, GL Film Enterprises, Vfi-m-g) The Butterfly Murders: Seasonal Film Corp., Hong Kong, 2660.71 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) The Challenge (reconstructed version) (b): CBS, U.S./Japan, 2962.44 m, Roadshow Film Dist., Vff-m-g) First Blood (c): B. Feitshans, U.S./Canada, 2550 m, Roadshow Dist., Vff-m-g) Gambling for Head (videotape): Not shown, Hong Kong, 83 mins, Direct Video, Vff-m-g)

He Lives by Night: Cinem a City Films, Hong Kong, 2441.27 m, Grand Film Corp., Vff-m-g) Horror on Snape Island: G renadier Co., Britain, 2304.12 m, 14th M andolin, Vff-m-g), Ofnudity) How Sleep the Brave (videotape): E. Laurie, U.S., 87 mins, Filmways A ’sian Dist., Vfi-m-g), Lff-m-g) iron Swallow (videotape): Biansing Film Co., Hong Kong, 90 mins, Direct Video, Vff-m-g) I Shall Return: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2540 m, Com­ fort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Kill the Golden Goose (videotape): Video Gems, U.S., 91 mins, PBL Video, Vff-m-g) Madame O lga’s Pupils: Balcazar Prods, Spain/Britain, 2139.54 m, Film ways A ’sian Dist., Sff-m-g) Midnite Spares: T. Burstall, Australia, 2386.41 m, Roadshow Dist., Vff-m-g) Murder in the Orient: Not shown, Philippines, 2008 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) Mutant: New W orld Films, U.S., 2057 m, Hoyts Dist.,

Vff-m-g), Sfi-m-g) Playboy Video (videotape): Playboy, U.S., 95 mins, Twentieth Century-Fox Video (South Pacific), Sfi-m-g),

Ofnudity) Ugly George (videotape): Electric Blue, U.S., 57 mins, Electric Blue (A’sia), Sfi-m-g),-Ofnudity) (a) Formerly " M ” with deletions (February 1972 list). (b) Previously shown in April 1982 list. (c) See also under "F o r Mature A udiences” and “ Films Board of Review” .

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Mystique (reconstructed pre-censor cut version) (a): Sendy Films, U.S., 2119 m, Impact Films, Sff-m-g) Deletions: 2.2 m (5 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) Randy (videotape): Fast Forward Films, U.S., 74 mins, K. Gough, Sff-m-g) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) Too All a Good Night: J. Rasumay, U.S., 2331.55 m, International Film Dist. (Aust.), Vff-m-g) Deletions: 4.7 m (8 secs) Reason for deletions: Vfi-h-g) Wanda Whips Wall Street: Christian, U.S., 2112 m, AZ Associated Film Dist., Sff-m-g) Deletions: 17.3 m (38 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) (a) Previously shown on August 1982 list.

It Takes Two: Cinem a City Film s, Hong Kong, 2660.70 m, G rand Film Corp., Vfi-m-j), L(i-m-g) Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (videotape): L Rudolph, U.S., 122 mins, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd,

0(adult theme) The Kung-Fu Emperor: Kou Fei, Hong Kong, 2825.29 m, Golden Reel Film s, Vff-l-j) Remember or Forget: Riga Studios, Soviet Union, 2437 m, Soviet Embassy, S(i-l-j), 0(adult theme) Saturday the 14th: J. G orm an, U.S., 2063 m, Hoyts Dist., Vfi-l-g), O(horror) The Sixth: Gorky Central Studios, Soviet Union, 2306 m, Soviet Embassy, V(f-l-j) Trail of the Pink Panther: B. Edwards/T. Adams, Britain, 2649 m, United Int’l Pictures, L(i-l-g), O(nudity) The Vacancy: Mosfilm , Soviet Union, 2002.39 m, Trade Representative of the Soviet Union, Ofadult theme) War Games in North China: Not shown, China, 2057.28 m, Eupo Films, Ofadult concepts) Yo u’ve No Idea: Not shown, Soviet Union, 2518 m, Trade Representative of the Soviet Union, Ofadult

Films Refused Registration The Budding of Brie (reconstructed version) (a): Scope Picture Prods. U.S., 2051 m, Regent Trading Enter­ prises, Sfi-h-g) F: Gemini Films, U.S., 1872 m, AZ Associated Film Dist., Sfi-h-g) Hot Legs (videotape): G. Palmer, U.S., 74 mins, PBL Video, Sfi-h-g) The Mystery of Ming Lee (videotape): Not shown, U.S., 49 mins, Rahima Prods, Sff-h-g) Peaches and Cream (videotape): M. Corby, U.S.. 71 mins, Blake Rim s (Vic.), Sff-h-g) The Slum ber Party Massacre: A. Jones, U.S.. 2086 m, Hoyts Dist., Vfi-h-g) Small Town Girls (reconstructed pre-censor cut soft version) (b). W. Dancer, U.S., 1703 m, Cineram a Films.

concepts)

For Mature Audiences (M) Absolution (videotape): Enterprise Pictures, Britain, 92 mins, Film ways A ’sian Dist., Vfi-m-j), L(i-m-g) Cutting It Short: Barrandov Film Studios, Czecho­ slovakia, 2593 m, European Film Dist., Lfi-m-j), Ofadult

concepts) Diva: I. Silberm an, France, 3127.02 m, AZ Associated Film Dist., Vfi-m-j) First Blood (a): B. Feitshans, U.S./C anada, 2550 m, Roadshow Film Dist.

Fury in Shaolin Temple: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2570 m, Golden Reel Films, Vff-m-g) Gang Master: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2468.70 m, Joe Siu Int’ l Film Co., Vfi-m-g) Hammett: Zoetrope, U.S., 2660.71 m, Hoyts Dist.,

Sfi-h-g) Tangerine (videotape): M. Colby, U.S., 77 mins. Blake Films (Vic.), Sff-h-g) The Taste of the Savage: W allstein/G allivar. Spain, 2360 m, 14th Mandolin, Vfi-h-g) The W omen of Inferno Island: I. Dietrich, W. Germany, 2534 m, Film ways A ’sian Dist.. Sfi-h-g) (a) Previously shown on August 1981 list. (b) Previously shown on Decem ber 1981 list.

Vfi-m-j), Lfi-m-j) Heiratskandidaten (16mm): M. Durniok, W. Germany, 976 m, Germ an Embassy, Sfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) Jekyll and Hyde . . . Tog eth er Again: L. Gordon, U.S., 2370 m, United Int’l Pictures, Lff-m-g), Ofadult concepts) The Legend of Witch Hollow: W. Brown, U.S., 2677 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) Looks and Smiles: B lack Lion Film s, Britain, 2770.43 m, O ceania M edia Network, Lfi-m-j), Ofadult

Films Board of Review

concepts)

Ofadult concepts)

i i i

Films Registered With Eliminations

theme)

L’uomo che sfido I’organizzazione (8 mm): S. Grieco, Italy, 600 m, Italian Embassy, Sfi-m-g), Vff-m-g) The McMasters: Jay Jen Prods, U.S., 1892.67 m, 14th Mandolin, Vfi-m-g), Ofsexual violence) The Missionary: Handm ade Film s, Britain, 2304.12 m, GUO Film Dist., Ofadult concepts) M other (16mm): Shieh W in Lin, Hong Kong, 1118 m, Chinese Cultural Centre, Ofemotional stress) My Favourite Year: M. G ruskoff, U.S., 2468 m, United Int’l Pictures, Lfi-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Nest in the Wind: Tallinform , Soviet Union, 2605.85 m, Trade Representative of the Soviet Union, Vfi-m-g),

Purpose

Explicitness/lntensity

Frequency

Films Registered Without Eliminations The Atom ic Cafe (16mm): The Archives Project, U.S., 910.51 m, Sharm ill Films and Everard Films Baiju bawara: Prakash Pictures, India, 4300 m, SKD Film Dist.

The Black Hen: Alexander Dovhzenko Studio, Soviet Union, 1974.96 m, Trade R epresentative of the Soviet Union The Eighth W onder of the World: M osfilm , Soviet Union, 2329 m, Soviet Em bassy Just This Type of Music: Sverdlovsk Film Studios, Soviet Union, 2419 m, Soviet Em bassy La Bible (16mm): ARC Films, France, 990 m, French Embassy The Lovers’ Exile: M. Gross, Canada, 995 m, Ronin Films On the Undiscovered Paths: G orky Central Studios, Soviet Union, 1929: Soviet Embassy The Portrait of an A rtist’s Wife: M osfilm , Soviet Union, 2419 m, Soviet Embassy Resources: Mosfilm, Soviet Union, 2444 m, Soviet Embassy The Sowi: Mosfilm, Soviet Union, 2551 m, Soviet Embassy The Steeling of the Century: G orky C entral Studios, Soviet Union, 1863 m, Soviet Embassy

/ S '"''Ut' *' / ' '\

Rabbit (David Argue) and Wimpy (Bruce Spence) in Quentin M asters’ Midnite Spares: rated “R ” but changed to “M ” after an appeal to the Films Board o f Review.

Deutschland privât (a): Robert Van Ackeren, W. G er­ many, 2273 m, Australian Film Institute Decision reviewed: Refusal to register by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board.

First Blood (b): B, Feitshans, U.S./Canada, 2550 m, Roadshow Dist.

Decision reviewed: Classify “ R ” by the Film C ensorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Classify " M " . (a) Previously shown on O ctober 1982 list. (b) See also under "F ilm s Registered W ithout Elim ina­ tio n s ” (‘ ‘ For M ature A u d ie n c e s " and "F o r Restricted E xh ibition” ).

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 131

Film C ensorship L istin g s

The Sw eet and Sour Cops — Part 2: Seasonal Films, Hong Kong, 2300 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Vfi-m-g),

December 1982

Films Registered Without Eliminations For General Exhibition (G)

Ofdrugs) Sword of Justice (16mm): Y. Ching, Hong Kong, 1064.09 m, Chinese Cultural Centre, Vfi-m-g) The Tiger and the Widow: M. Fong, Hong Kong, 2514.94 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Sfi-m-g), Vfi-m-g) What Price . . . Stardom: Seasonal Film Corp,, Hong Kong, 2743 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Sfi-m-g) The“ Year of Living Dangerously: McElroy and McElroy, Australia, 321 1m , United Int’l Pictures,

Vfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) Adventures in Paradise (16mm): Scott D ittrich Films, U.S., 833.72 m, Hooley and M cCoy Films Racing Scene: B. Scholer, A. Sidaris, U.S., 2395 m, 14th Mandolin Superbug — The Wild One: Barbra Films, South Africa, 2441.27 m, 14th Mandolin Three Minutes Past Nine: Sun W ah Film Co., Taiwan, 2304.12 m, Golden Reel Film s Trap on Cougar Mountain: K. Larsen, U.S., 2649 m, 14th Mandolin

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Challenge to W hite Fang: C oralta C inem atografica, Italy/France, 2469 m, 14th M andolin, V(i-l-j) Desperate (16mm): RKO, U.S., 801 m. National Library of Australia, 0(adult concepts) Encounter W ith the Unknown: Centronics Int’ l, U.S., 2221.83 m, 14th Mandolin, V(i-m-j) Fantastic Invasion of Planet Earth: A. Oboler, U.S., 2496.13 m, G.L. Film Enterprises, 0(3-D horror effects) Fitzcarraldo: Herzog and Stipetic, W. Germany, 4251.65 m, PBL Video, Sfi-l-j), V(i-m-j) Gal Young Un (16mm): V. Nunez, U.S., 1184 m, Sharmill Films, Ofadult concepts) Goodbye Joey (videotape): Cunningham and Guilfoyle, Australia, 95 mins, Ceeque No. 15, P. C unningham , L. Guilfoyle, V(i-m-j), Ofanimal suffering) He Heals and Kills (16mm): H. King, Japan, 899 m, Chinese Cultural Centre, V(i-l-j) Hysterical: H. and W. Film w orks Prod., U.S., 2413.84 m, Roadshow Film Dist., L(i-l-g), ¿(nudity,

sexual allusions) Imperial Lady Mi: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2908 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, V(i-l-j) Legend of a Fighter: Seasonal Film , Hong Kong, 2860 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, V(i-l-g), L(i-i-g) My Young Auntie: R. Shaw, Hong Kong, 3236.74 m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V(f-l-g) The Narrow Margin (16mm): RKO, U.S., 779 m, National Library of Australia, V(i-m-j) The Ring of Death: Seasonal Films, Hong Kong, 2441.27 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, V(f-l-j) ' Six Weeks: Polygram Pictures, U.S., 2935 m, Road­ show Film Dist., 0(adult theme) Tender Mercies: Anton M edia Prods, U.S., 2468.70 m, G reater Union Film Dist., L(i-l-j), Ofadult concepts) The Toy: Rastar, U.S., 2797.86 m, Fox Colum bia Film Dist., Lff-l-g) Youth of Peter the First — Part 2: Not shown, Soviet Union, 3671 m, Trade Representative of the Soviet Union, L(i-l-j)

For Mature Audiences (M) Another Way: Mafilm, Hungary, 2935 m, Sharm ill Films, Sfi-m-j), Ofadult themes) Bad Blood: S o uthe rn P ictu res, New Z ealand, 3099.59 m, Hoyts Dist., V(i-m-j) Behind the Storm: South W ind Film Prod., Hong Kong, 2330 m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-m-j) Best Friends: N. Jewison, P. Palmer, U.S., 3017,30 m, W arner Bros (Aust), 0(adult concepts) Boat People: Blue Bird Film Enterprises, Hong Kong, 3127 m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-m-j) Crazed: J. Cassidy, U.S., 2386.41 m, Filmways A'asian Dist., V(i-m-j) Dance of the Drunk Mantis: Seasonal Film Corp., Hong Kong, 2600 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Vfi-m-j),

L(f-l-g) Death Journey: Po' Boy Prods, U.S., 2139 m, 14th Mandolin, V(l-m-g) Der bockerer (The Stubborn Mule). Bockerer Film, W. Germany, 2605.85 m, Festival Films, 0(adult concepts) Enigma: Film crest Int’ l, Britain/France, 2770.43 m, Hoyts Dist., V(i-m-j) Game of Death (a): R. Chow, Hong Kong, 2646.70 m, Filmways A'asian Dist., V(f-m-g) Ghostkeeper: Badlands Pictures, Canada, 2249 m, Int’ l Film Dist. (Aust), V(i-m-j) G inge r in the M orn ing: C. Paylow, U.S., 2633.28 m, 14th M andolin, Ofadult concepts) T he G ood, th e Bad and th e Lose r: Advance Films, Hong Kong, 2605.85 m, 14th M andolin, V(f-l-g), L(f-l-g),

Ofnudity) Grandison (16mm): G randison Film Prod., W. Ger­ many, 1120 m, German Embassy, S(i-l-j) A H eart B reaking W om an: T.C. Ching, Taiwan, 2305 m, Golden Reel Films, Ofadult concepts) Jis desh m ein ganga b e h ti-h a i: R. Kapoor, India, 4510 m, SKD Film Dist.. Ofadult theme) Jo u rn e y: P. Almond, Canada, 2386 m. 14th Mandolin,

(a) Previously ” R” (May 1981 list). (b) Previously " R ” (Novem ber 1982 list); see also under “ Films Board of Review” .

For Restricted Exhibition (R) The Awakening of Annie: L. Sulistrowski, Brazil, 1837.31 m, 14th M andolin, Sff-m-g) Bionic Heroes: C. Ming, Hong Kong, 2276.89 m, Mutual Film Dist., Vff-m-g) Blackenstein — the Black Frankenstein (videotape): F, Saletri, U.S., 84 mins, P. Arnold, Vff-m-g) Crimson Street: C. Sang, Hong Kong, 2578.42 m, Com ­ fort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Day of a Woman (U.S. m odified version) (videotape) (a): Cine-Magic Pictures Prod., U.S., 101 mins, Blake Film s (Vic.), Ofsexual violence) Deadly Chase for Justice (videotape): J. Shaw, Hong Kong, 86 mins, Direct Video, Vff-m-g) Delicious: Praxis Prod., U.S., 2029 m, A.Z. Associated Film Dist., Sff-m-g), Lff-m-g) A Dirty W estern (videotape) (b): M. Darrin, U.S., 70 mins, PBL Video, Ofsexual violence) Erotic Dream of Rad Chamber: N. Yuen, Hong Kong, 2482 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Sfi-m-g) Family of Lust: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2139.54 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Sff-m-g) Fringe Benefits (re-constructed pre-censor cut version) (c) : Pendulous Prods, U.S., 1892.67 m, Impact Films,

Sff-m-g) La grande bouffe: M. Ferreri, France, 3346.46 m, Valhalla Films, Sfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) Les fruits de la passion (videotape): A. Dauman, H. Govaers, France/Japan, 83 mins, PBL Video, Sfi-m-j),

Ofsado-masochlstic theme) M arking: IFD Films, Hong Kong, 2276.69 m, Golden Reel FiPms, Vff-m-g) Misty (modified version) (videotape) (d): Not shown, U.S., 90 mins, K and C Video, Sff-m-g) My Brother Has Bad Dreams: B. Emery, U.S., 2605.85 m, 14th Mandolin, Vfi-m-g) New York China Town: W ing Scope Prod., Hong Kong/U.S., 2496.13 m, Grand Film Corp., Vff-m-g) Ninja in the Dragon’s Den: Season Film Corp., Hong Kong, 2688.14 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, Vfi-m-g) Primitives (videotape): Rapi Films, Philippines, 86 mins, Filmways A'asian Dist., Vff-m-g) Project Kill: D. Sheldon, U .S./Philippines, 2565.70 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) Relations: C ineprodu ction/F orb es Film, Sweden, 2386 m, 14th M andolin, Sff-m-g) Shoelin Iron Swallow (videotape): Biansing Film Co., Hong Kong, 90 mins, Direct Video, Vff-m-g) The Summer Party Massacre (reconstructed version) (e): A. Jones, U.S., 2084 m, Hoyts Dist., Vff-m-g) Take Some Girls (videotape): M. Elam, Britain, 83 mins, Film ways A'asian Dist., Sfi-m-g) Tales of Ordinary Madness: M. Ferreri, U.S./ltaly, 2770.43 m, PBL Video, Sfi-m-g), Vfi-m-j), Lfi-m-j) Tiger Killer: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2770 m, Grand Film Corp., Sfi-m-j), Vff-m-g) ' Virgin Campus (Passion Flower Hotel) (videotape): A, Brauner, Britain, 94 mins, VCL Video, Sfi-m-j) W e’re Going to Eat You: Seasonal Films, Hong Kong, 2413.84 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) (a) Previously shown as I Spit On Your Grave (July 1982 list). (b) Previously shown on March 1978 list. (cj Previously shown on July 1982 list. (d) Previously shown as The Sexpert (February 1982 list). (e) Previously shown on November 1982 list.

Films Registered With Eliminations For Restricted Exhibition (R) China Sisters (pre-censor cut soft version) (a): A. Spinelli, U.S., 1951 m, Blake Films, Sff-m-g) Deletions: 1 m (2 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) Dirty Love Games: F. G ottlieb, W. G erm any, 2249.26 m, 14th M andolin, Sff-m-g) Deletions: 3.2 m (7 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) The Tiffany Minx (reconstructed version) (b): Sendy, U.S., 2194.40 m, Impact Films, Sff-m-g) Deletions: 2 m (4 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) (a) Previously shown on April 1982 list. (b) Previously shown on May 1982 list.

Sfi-m-j) Les re n d e z-vo u s d 'A n n a : Helene Films, Belgium, 1338 m, National Library of Australia, Ofadult relation­

ship) Lion vs Lion: M. Fong, Hong Kong, 2989.87 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co.. Vfi-m-g) L o o k in ’ to G et Out: R. Schaffel, U.S., 2872 m, Road­ show Film Dist., Lff-m-g) Mad Jo: Barbara Film, W. G erm any, 2441.27 m, Filmways A ’ asian Dist., Vfi-m-g), Ofnudity) M id n ite Spares (b): T. Burstall, Australia, 2386.41 m, Roadshow Film Dist., Vff-m-g) My D a rling My G oddess: Reel Films, Hong Kong, 2249 m, Golden Reel Films, Sfi-m-j), Vfi-m-j) N a tional L a m p o o n 's C lass R e union: M. Simmons, U.S., 2276.69 m. Roadshow Film Dist., Lfi-m-g),

Ofsexual allusions) The N ig h t of San Lorenzo : RAI/AGER Cinem ato­ grafica, Italy, 2880.15 m, A.Z. Associated Film Dist.,

Vfi-m-j) No W ay Back: Po’ Boy Prods, U.S., 2386.41 m, 14th M andolin, Vff-m-g) P ink M otel: Michael M cFarland Prods, U.S., 2386.41 m, Roadshow Film Dist., S(f-l-j), Ofadult concepts) The R eturn o f the P a nther: W. Hong, Hong Kong, 2358.98 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) R o v in g S w o rd s m a n : Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2413.84 m. Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., V(i-m-g) Seven B lack H e roines: Sum m it Film Co., Hong Kong.

2660 m, Grand Film Corp., Vff-m-g) So Sad A b o u t G loria: H. Thomason, U.S., 2386.41 m, 14th M andolin, Vfi-m-g) The S w eet and S o u r Cops: Not shown. Hong Kong, 2386.41 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Vfi-m-g), Lfi-m-g)

132 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

Films Refused Registration Exposed (videotape) (a): W. Emerson, 78 mins, Blake Film s (Vic.), Sfi-h-g) E xposed (a): W. Emerson. 2112 m, Blake Film s (Vic.),

Sfi-h-g) Love From Paris (videotape) (b): Harlequin Films, 55 mins, Intercontinental Video, Sff-h-g) Mary M ary! (videotape): B. Morris, U.S., 64 mins, Video Classics, Sfi-h-g) Peaches and Cream (videotape): M. Corby. U.S., 67 mins, Video Classics, Sff-h-g) Physical (videotape): J. Blackthorne, U.S., 90 mins, Video Classics, Sfi-h-g) R o sem a ry’s K iller: D. Streit, U.S., 2413.84 m, Video Classics, Vff-h-g) (a) Supersedes erroneous registration (May 1982 list); not identical with E xposed (March 1974 list). (b) Supersedes erroneous registration (Septem ber 1982 list).

Films Board of Review Midnite Spares (a): T. Burstall, Australia, 2386.41 m, Roadshow Film Dist.

Decision reviewed: Classify “ R” by Film Censorship Board Decision of the Board: Classify “ M ” , (a) See also under "F ilm s Registered W ithout Elim ina­ tions” (“ For M ature Audiences” ); previously shown on November 1982 list.

January 1983

Films Registered Without Eliminations For General Exhibition (G) Musical Mutiny: Recreation Corp., U.S., 1920.10 m, 14th Mandolin On the Road with Circus OZ (videotape): Ukiyo Films, Australia, 74 mins, Ukiyo Films Aust.

Stormbreaker: A Quest for Paradise (16mm): FWJ Prods, Australia, 1097 m, P.R. and N.T. W alker Topele: Baron Assoc., Israel, 2139.54 m, 14th M andolin Traffic (videotape): Les Film s Corona, France, 102 mins, PBL Video

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Burdens of Dreams (16mm): L. Blank, U.S., 987 m, Ronin Films, Vfi-l-j), Ofadult concepts) Burn Phoenix Burn: Superstar Motion Pic. Corp., Hong Kong, 2554.80 m, Grand Film Corp., Ofemotional stress) Death Driver: E. O wensby, U.S., 2686.81 m, PBL Video, Vfi-m-g) Five Days One Summer: The Ladd C om pany/W am er Bros, U.S./Britain, 2907.58 m, Roadshow Film Dist.,

Ofadult concepts) F ra n k e n s te in Islan d : C h ris w a r P ro d s ., U .S ., 2539.80 m, Filmways A ’asian Dist., Ofhorror) Happy Sixteen: Pearl City Films, Hong Kong, 2715.57 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Sfi-l-j) Journey Into Fear: New W orld, U.S., 2660.71 m, 14th Mandolin, Vfi-l-g) Kiss Me Goodbye: Boardwalk/B. Sugarm an/K. Barish, U.S., 2715.57 m, Fox C olum bia Film Dist., Lfi-l-g) Oliver Twist: T. Childs, Britain, 2816 m, Filmways A ’asian Dist,, Vfi-m-j) The Silver Cord (16mm): RKO, U.S., 823 m, National Library of Australia, Ofadult concepts) Smart W oman (16mm): RKO, U.S., 746 m, National Library of Australia, Ofadult concepts) Table for Five: R. Schaffel, U.S., 3235 m, Roadshow Film Dist., Ofemotional stress) Taipei My Love: Seasonal Film Corp., Hong Kong, 2320 m, Com fort Film Enterprises, Ofadult concepts) The 36 Crazy Fist: United Enterprises (H.K.) Corp., Hong Kong, 2355 m, Golden Reel Films, Vff-l-j),

Ofnudity) Yes, Giorgio: MGM /United Artists, U.S., 2962.44 m, United Int'l Pictures, Ofadult theme)

For Mature Audiences (M)

By Design: B. Fox/W. Aellen, Canada, 2496.13 m, Filmways A'asian Dist., Sfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) The Challenge (third reconstructed version) (a): Rosen and Beckman, U.S./Japan, 2962.44 m, Roadshow Film Dist., Vff-m-g) Creepshow: Laurel Film Prod., U.S., 3291.60 m, Hoyts Dist., Vff-m-g), Ofhorror) Don’t Kill Me Brother: W ing-Scope Co., Hong Kong 2989.87 m, Grand Film Corp, Vff-m-g) Dragon Force (English-dubbed version): Johnny Mak Prod., Hong Kong, 2563 m, Com fort Film Enterprises,

Vff-l-g), Ofnudity) Dragon Force (Chinese language version): Johnny Mak Prod., Hong Kong, 2563 m, Com fort Film Enterprises,

Vff-l-g), Ofnudity) El castilo de la pureza: Estudio Churubosco, Mexico, 2880.15 m, Hugo Barker Lee, Ofadult concept) Frances: Brooksfilm/EM I, U.S., 3730.48 m, G reater Union Film Dist., Ofadult theme, emotional violence) Friend Band: Verdull (Film Dept), Hong Kong, 2748.90 m. Grand Film Corp., Vfi-m-g) The Greatest Assisanate: Yue Films, Taiwan, 2335 m, Golden Reel Films, Vff-m-g) Handgun: D. Street, U.S., 2733 m, Greater Union Film Dist., Ofadult concepts) Head On: M. Grant, Canada, 2370.50 m, Roadshow Film Dist., Vff-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Homework: J. Beshears, U.S., 2359.98 m, Sun Classic Prods, Sfi-l-j), Ofdrug reference) Impossible Woman: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2398 m, Golden Reel Films, Sfi-l-g), Vff-m-g) Jinxed: United Artists, U.S., 2797.96 m, United Int’ l Pictures, Lff-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Lackey and the Lady Tiger: Seasonal Film Corp., Hong Kong, 2753.70 m, Com fort Film Enterprises,

Masked Avengers: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2578.42 m, Joe Siu Int’ l Film Co., Vff-m-g) The Night: Charlem agne Prods, Britain, 2413.84 m, 14th M andolin, Vff-m-g) Nomad: C entury Motion Picture and Dist. Co., Hong Kong, 2677 m, Golden Reel Films, Sfi-m-g), Vfi-m-g) Operation Cross Eagles: I. Panayotovic, U .S./Y ugo­ slavia, 2245 m, 14th M andolin, Vfi-m-g) The Plague Dogs: Nepenthe Films, U.S., 2770.43 m, Hoyts Dist., Vfi-m-g), Ofadult concepts) Play Dead: F. Rudding, U.S., 2331.55 m, Film ways A'asian Dist., Vfi-m-g) _ The Scarecrow: R. W hitehouse, New Zealand, 2386 m, Nilson Prem iere, Ofadult concepts) Scrubbers: Handm ade Films, Britain, 2468.70 m, G reater Union Film Dist., Vfi-m-j), Lff-m-j) Sophie’s Choice: ITC, U.S., 4224.22 m, United Int’ l Pic­ tures, Lfi-m-j), Ofadult concepts) Split Image: Polygram Pictures, U.S., 3017 m, Road­ show Film Dist., Lfi-m-j), Ofemotional stress) The Switch: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2633.28 m, Com ­ fort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Theerpu: Sujatha Cine Arts, India, 3456,18 m, Rainbow Int’ l/Pyram id Home Video, Vff-l-g), Ofemotional stress) Timerider: Jensen Farley Pictures, U.S., 2550.99 m, Sun Classic Prods, Sfi-m-g), Vfi-m-g) Tootsie: Colum bia, U.S., 3099.59 m, Fox Colum bia Film Dist., Ofadult concepts) W ar Brides (16mm): Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Canada, 1061.09 m, Publishing and Broadcasting Video Div., Ofadult concepts) The W omen of Pleasure: Box O ffice Int'l/G and S Prods, U.S., 1755.52 m, 14th Mandolin, Ofstriptease)

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Electric Blue 10 (videotape): A. Cole, Britain, 60 mins, Electric Blue A ’ asia, Sff-m-g) Expensive Tastes: Fotocine Film Prods., Hong Kong, 2468.70 m, G rand Film Corp., Vff-m-g), Ofsexual

violence) F (reconstructed version) (a): G em ini Films, U.S., 1782.95 m, A.Z. Associated Film Dist., Sff-m-g) Friday 13 Part 3 (3-D version): F, Mancuso, U.S,, 2578.42 m, United Int’ l Pictures, Vff-m-g) The Last American Virgin: G olan/G lobus, U.S., 2359 m, Fox C olum bia Film Dist., Sfi-m-g), Lfi-m-g) The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat (videotape): S. Krantz, U.S., 77 mins, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (Video Div.), Ofadult cartoon exploiting sex and violence) The Scavengers (b): R. Creese, U.S., 2513 m, 14th M andolin, Sfi-m-g), Vff-m-g) The Slayer: W. Ewing, U.S., 2194.40 m, A.Z, Associ­ ated Film Dist., Vfi-m-g) A Taste of Hell: J. Garwood, U.S., 2331 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) The Taste of the Savage (reconstructed version) (c): W allste in and G allivar, Spain, 2304.12 m, 14th Mandolin, Vff-m-g) W et Rainbow (pre-censor cut version): R. W ald, U.S., 1536.08 m, 14th Mandolin, Sff-m-g) (a) Previously shown on November 1982 list. (b) Previously shown on July 1971 list. (c) Previously shown on November 1982 list.

Films Registered With Eliminations For Restricted Exhibition (R) House of Hookers (2nd reconstructed version) (16mm) (a): Janus II Prod., U.S., 1261.78 m, 14th Mandolin,

Sff-m-g) Deletions: 3 m (16 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) Pandora’s Mirror (reconstructed soft version) (b): W. Evans, U.S., 2331.55 m, A.Z. Associated Film Dist

Sfi-m-g) Deletions: 13 m (28 secs) Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g) (a) Previously shown on August 1982 list. (b) Previously shown on July 1982 list.

Films Refused Registration

Vff-m-g)

Kama Sutra (videotape): T. Malik, U.S., 59 mins, Nilsen Premiere, Sfi-h-g) Lipps and McCain (videotape): R. Aldrich, U.S., 69 mins, Video Classics, Sff-h-g) No. 16 Park Avenue (videotape): J. Carr, Britain, 53 mins, D. Clark, Sfi-h-g) Sigmund Freud’s Dora (16mm) (a): A. M cCall and Ors, U.S., 385 m, National Library of Australia, Sfi-h-g) Woman in Love — A Story of Madam e Bovary: K, Horulu, U.S., 2068 m, Regent Trading Enterprises,

Love Child — A True Story: The Ladd Company, U.S., 2605.82 m, W arner Bros (Aust.), Lfi-m-j), Ofadult con­

(a) Previously shown on Septem ber 1981 list, 7 ^

cepts)

Sff-h-g)

The Australian Motion Picture Yearbook 1 9 8 3 ................................... p .

The Documentary Film in Australia ........................................................p .

The New Australian Cinema ..................................................................... p.

Australian TV: The First 25 Years.......................................................... p.

Film Expo Seminar Report ......................................................................... p.

Cinema Papers Subscriptions.................................................................... p.

Cinema Papers Back Issues ........................................................................ p.

Order Form ..................................................................................... pp* 7 and

2 3 4 4 4 5 6 8

Edited by Peter Beilby and Ross Lansell

AUSTRALIAN

MOTION PICTURE YEARBOOK

1983 The third edition o f the Australian M otion Picture Yearbook has been totally revised and updated.

The Yearbook again takes a detailed look at what has been happening in all sections o f the Australian film scene over the past year, including financing, production, distribution, exhibition, television, film festivals, media, censorship and awards.

A s in the past, all entrants in Australia's most comprehensive film and television industry directory have been contacted to check the accuracy o f entries, and many new categories have been added.

A new series o f profiles has been compiled and will highlight the careers o f director Peter Weir, composer Brian M ay and actor M el Gibson.

A new feature in the 1983 edition is an extensive editorial section with articles on aspects o f Australian and international cinema, including film financing, special' effects, censorship, and a survey o f the impact our film s are having on U.S. audiences.

$25

Reactions to the Second Edition an invaluable reference for anyone with an interest — vested or altruistic — in the continuing film renaissance down under . . . ” Variety

“Anyone interested in Australian films, whether in the industry or who just enjoys watching them, will find plenty to interest him in this book. ’’ The Sydney Sun-Herald

’‘The most useful reference book for me in the past year . . . ” Ray Stanley Screen International

“This significant publication is valuable not only to professionals but everyone interested in Australian film. ” The Melbourne Herald

“The Australian Motion Picture Yearbook is a great asset to the film industry in this country.

We at Kodak find it invaluable as a reference aid for the industry. ” David Wells Kodak

“May I congratulate you on your Australian Motion Picture Yearbook. It is a splendidly useful publication to us, and I ’m sure to most people in, and outside, the business. ” Mike Walsh Hayden Price Productions

“. . . one has to admire the detail and effort which has gone into the yearbook. It covers almost every conceivable facet of the film industry and the publisher’s claim that it is ‘the only comprehensive yellow page guide to the film industry’ is irrefutable. ’’ The Australian

“Indispensable tool of the trade. ” Elizabeth Riddell Theatre Australia

“The 1981 version o f the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook is not only bigger, it’s better — as glossy on the outside as too many Australian films try to be and as packed with content as many more Australian films ought to be .. . ” The Sydney Morning Herald “I have been receiving the Cinema Papers Motion Picture Yearbook for the past two years, and always find it to be full of interesting and useful information and facts. It is easy to read and the format is set out in such a way that information is easy to find. I consider the Yearbook to be an asset to the office. ” Bill Gooley Colorfilm “. . . another good effort from the Cinema Papers team, and essential as a desk-top reference for anybody interested in our feature film industry. ” The Adelaide Advertiser

NOW AVAILABLE p \ f|

111 1 9

Wf

lip

•IH &§i

Documentary films occupy a special place in the history and development of Australian filmmaking. From the pioneering efforts of Baldwin Spencer to Damien Parer's Academy Award winning Kokoda Front Line, to Chris Noonan's Stepping Out and David Bradbury's Frontline, Australia's documentary filmmakers have been acclaimed world-wide.

The documentary film is also the mainstay of the Australian film industry.

More time, more money and more effort goes into making documentaries in this country than any other film form — features, shorts or animation.

In this, the first comprehensive publication on Australian documentary film, 50 researchers, authors and filmmakers have combined to examine the evolution of documentary filmmaking in Australia, and the state of the art today.

The History of the Documentary: A World View International landm arks, key figures, major m ovem ents.

The Development of the Documentary in Australia A general history of the evolution of the docum entary film in Australia, highlighting key films, personalities and events.

D ocum entary Producers An exam ination of the various types of docum entaries m ade in Australia, and who produces them . A study of governm ent and independent production. The aims behind the production of docum entaries, and the various film form s adopted to achieve the desired ends. This part surveys the sources of finance for docum entary film here and abroad.

The M arketplace

Repositories and Preservation

The m arket for Australian docum entary films, here and abroad. This section examines broadcast television, pay television, theatrical distribution, video sales and hire, box-office perform ances and ratings.

A survey of the practices surrounding the storage and preservation of docum entary films in Australia.

Com parisons of procedures here and abroad.

The Future Making a Documentary A series of case studies examining the making of docum entaries. Examples include large budget docum entary series for television; one-off docum entaries for television and theatrical release; and educational and instructional docum entaries.

Each case study examines, in detail, the steps in the production of the docum entary, and features interview s w ith the key production, creative and technical personnel involved.

The Australian Documentary: Themes and Concerns An examination of the them es, pre-occupations and film form s used by Australian docum entary producers and directors.

A look at the future for docum entary films. The im pact of new technology as it affects production, distribution and marketing. A forw ard look at the m arketplace and the changing role of the docum entary.

Producers and Directors Checklist A checklist of docum entary producers and directors currently working in Australia.

Useful Inform ation Reference inform ation for those dealing with, or interested in, the docum entary film. This section will include listings of docum entary buyers, distributors, libraries, festivals, etc.

The f ir s t comprehensive book on the A ustralian f ilm revival

$ 14.95

In this major work on the Australian film industry’s dramatic rebirth, 12 leading film writers combine to provide a lively and entertaining critique.

Illustrated with 265 stills, including 55 in fu ll color, this book is an invaluable record for all those interested in the New Australian Cinema.

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).

A U S T R A L IA N T V The fir s t 25 years records, year by year, all the important television events. Over 600 photographs, some in full color, recall forgotten images and preserve memories of programmes long since wiped from the tapes.

The book covers every facet of television programming — light entertainment, quizzes, news and documentaries, kids3programmes, sport, drama, movies, commercials . . . Contributors include Jim Murphy, Brian Courtis, Game Hutchinson, Andrew McKay, Christopher Day, Ivan Hutchinson.

A U S T R A L IA N T V takes you back to the time when television for most Australians was a curiosity — a shadowy, often soundless, picture in the window of the local electricity store.

The quality of the early programmes was at best unpredictable, but still people would gather to watch the Melbourne Olympics, Chuck Faulkner reading the news, or even the test pattern!

At first imported series were the order of the day. Only Graham Kennedy and Bob Dyer could challenge the ratings of the westerns and situation comedies from America and Britain.

Then came The Mavis Bramston Show. With the popularity of that rude and irreverent show, Australian television came into its own. Programmes like Number 96, The Box, Against the Wind, Sale o f the Century have achieved ratings that are by world standards remarkable.

A U S T R A L IA N T V is an entertainment, a delight, and a commemoration of a lively, fast-growing industry.

$ 14.95

--------------------------------------------------— ------------------------------------------------------------- $ --------------------------

SEMINAR i In November 1980 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 Cinem a Papers, and published as the Film Expo Seminar Report.

Contents

Contributors

• • • • •

Arthur Abeles

Theatrical Production The Package: Two Perspectives Theatrical Production Business and Legal Aspects Distribution m the United States Producer/Distnbutor Relationship

S a in u

n

Chairman, Filmarketeers L td (U .S .)

Barbara D. Boyle Executive Vice-President, and Chief Operating Officer, New World Pictures (U .S .)

Ashley Boone

$25

I Lois Luger

Vice-President, Television Sales, Avco Embassy Pictures Corporation (U .S .)

Professor A w . Massimo FerraraSantamaria Lawyer (Italy)

Mike Medavoy Executive Vice-President, Orion Pictures (U .S .)

Worldwide Marketing and Distribution Head, Ladd Company (U .S .)

Simon O. Olswang

O Television Production and Distribution

Mark Damon

Rudy Petersdorf

• • • • •

President, Producers Sales Organization (U .S .)

Distribution Outside the United States

Financing o f Theatrical Films Major Studios Financing of Theatrical Films Independent Studios Presale of Rights

Michael Fuchs Senior Vice-President, Programming, Home Box Office (U .S .)

Samuel W. Gelfman

Solicitor, Brecker and Company (Britain) President and Chief Operating Officer, Australian Films Office Inc. (U .S .)

Barry Spikings Chairman and Chief Executive, E M I Film and Theatre Corporation (Britain)

Independent Producer (U .S .)

Eric Weissmann

Presale of Territory

Klaus Hellwig

M ulti-National and Other Co-Productions

President, Janus Film Und Fernsehen ( Germany)

Partner, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Berkowitz and Selvin

Harry Ufland President, The Ufland Agency (U .S .)

4

"...one of the most richly informed and reliable of film periodicals". p e t e r c o w ie INTERNATIONAL FILM GUIDE

1 year ( 6 issues) $18 2 years (12 issues) $32 3 years (18 issues) $46 S a v e $ 8 S u b s c r ip tio n s 6 is s u e s

Zone

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

NOTE

N e w Z e a la n d N iu g in i

M a la y s ia S in g a p o re R ii

H ong K ong India Japan P h ilip p in e s C h in a N o rth A m e ric a M id d le E a s t Canada

B rita in E u ro p e A fric a 9 th A m e ric a

12 is s u e s

18 iss u e s

Bound V o lu m e s

E z ib in d e r s

B a c k Is s u e s

(e a c h )

(e a c h )

(to th e p r ic e o f e a c h c o p y , a d d th e fo llo w in g )

$ 2 5 .2 0

$ 4 6 .4 0

$ 6 7 .7 0

$ 3 3 .3 0

$ 1 9 .0 0

$ 1 .2 0

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

$ 3 2 .5 0

$ 6 5 .0 0

$ 9 2 .7 0

$ 3 6 .5 0

$ 1 9 .9 0

$ 2 .8 0

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

$ 2 5 .2 0

$ 4 6 .4 0

$ 6 7 .6 0

$ 3 3 .3 0

$ 1 9 .0 0

$ 1 .2 0

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

$ 3 6 .7 0

$ 7 2 .0 0

$ 1 0 5 .3 0

$ 3 7 .1 0

$ 2 0 .9 5

$ 3 .5 0

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

$ 2 5 .2 0

$ 4 6 .4 0

$ 6 7 .6 0

$ 3 3 .3 0

$ 1 9 .0 0

$ 1 .2 0

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

$ 4 2 .6 0

$ 8 0 .4 0

$ 1 1 7 .9 0

$ 4 0 .0 0

$ 2 2 .0 0

$ 4 .1 0

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

$ 2 5 .2 0

$ 4 6 .4 0

$ 6 7 .6 0

$ 3 3 .3 0

$ 1 9 .0 0

$ 1 .2 0

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

$ 4 8 .9 0

$ 8 8 .8 0

$ 1 3 0 .5 0

$ 4 3 .2 0

$ 2 3 .9 5

$ 5 .1 5

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

$ 2 5 .2 0

$ 4 6 .4 0

$ 6 7 .6 0

$ 3 3 .3 0

$ 1 9 .0 0

$ 1 .2 0

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

(Surface)

$ 5 3 .1 0

$ 9 3 .0 0

$ 1 3 6 .8 0

$ 4 5 .0 0

$ 2 5 .0 0

$ 5 .8 5

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

(Air)

®t

. :-

A Surface Air Lift (airspeeded) service is a v a ila b le to B rita in , G e rm a n y , G r e e c e , Ita ly and N o rth A m e ric a S u b s c rip tio n s : 6 issues — $43.80; 1 2 issues - $83.60; 1 8 issues — $1 23 40 B ou n d V o lu m e s (each) - $ 35 .20 E z fc in d e rs (ea ch ) - $20.75. B a c k Is s u e s - add $4.30 per copy

BOUND VOLUMES ORDER VOLUMES 7, 8 and 9 NOW

EZIBINDERS

$15

(7: numbers 25-30; 8: numbers 31-35; 9: numbers 36-41)

Vol Volumes 3 (9-12) and 4 (13-16) are also available. available.

STRICTLY LIMITED EDITIONS Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering. Each volume contains 500-odd pages, lavishlyillustrated, with Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians Valuable historical material on Australian film production « Film and book reviews e Production surveys and reports from the sets of local and international production Box-office reports and guides to film producers and investors

■v '. '. . A ; A ,

'

$40

p e r v o lu m e

Ezibinders fo r C in e m a P a p e r s are available in black with gold embossed lettering to accommodate your unbound copies.

Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently, or detached i f desired. This new binder will accommodate 12 copies.

5

BACK ISSUES Take advantage of our special offer and catch

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 s o n . Ray H arryhausen. Peter Weir.

G illian A rm strong. Ken G. Hall. Tariff Board Report.

Antony I. G innane. The C a r* That Ate Paris

Violence in the Cinem a.

Alvin Purple Frank M oorhouse. S a ndy H a rb u 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 .

W illis O 'Brien. The McDonagh Sisters. Richard B re n n a n . L u is B u ñ u e l.

The True Story o( Eskimo Nell

J e n n in g s L a n g . B y ro n Haskin. Surf Film s. 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 S co tt. John D ankworth 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 B ertolucci. F.J. Ho lden In S e arch 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 a n , F ra n c o is Truffaut. Delphine Seyrlg.

The Irishman. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith Sri Lankan Cinem a. The Last Wave.

Patrick. Swedish Cinem a.

J o h n D u ig a n . S te v e n Spielberg. Dawn! Mouth to Mouth. Film P e rio d ­ icals.

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 . F re n c h C inem 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. V ietnam on Film Grendel, Grendel, G re n d e l. D a v id H e m m ings The Odd Angry Shot. B ox-O ffice Grosses.

Snapshot

Bruce Petty. Albie Thoms.

N ew sfront. F ilm S tu d y R e s o u r c e s . K o s ta s .

Money Movers. The A u s­ tra lia n F ilm and T e le ­ vision School.

Index: Volume 5

A n to n y I G in n a n e Jerem y Thom as. Blue Fin. A n d re w S a r r is . A s la n C in e m a S p o n s o re d Docum entaries.

Number 24 December 1979 January 1980 Brian Trenchard Sm ith.

Palm B each. B ra z ilia n Cinem a. Jerzy Toeplltz.

C o m m u n ity T e le v is io n .

A rthur Hiller.

Number 10 September-October 1976

Number 11 January 1977

Nagisa Oshim a. Phillippe Mora. Gay Cinem a. John Heyer. Krzysztof Zanussi.

M a rc o F e rre ri. M a rc o Bellocchio.

Emile de Antonio. A u s­ tralian Film C ensorship.

Sam A r k o ff. R o m an P o la n s k i. The P ic tu re Show Man Don’s Party.

Storm Boy.

Number 17 August-September 1978

Number 18 October-November 1978

Bill Bain. Isabelle H up­ pert. Polish C inem a. The Night the Prowler. Pierre Rissient. Newsfront. Film Study Resources.

Index: Volum e 4

John Lam ond. Dimboola.

In d ia n C in e m a . S o n ia B o r g . A la in T a n n e r .

Cathy’s Child. The Last Tasmanian

Number 25 February-March 1980

Number 26 April-May 1980

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.

The Films of Peter Weir.

Charles Joffe Harlequin.

Nationalism in Australian Cinem a The Little Con­ vict.

Index: Volum e 6

GMEMA

.aiHLft-__ i-----1_____ Z.___

Number 27 June-July 1980 The New Z ealand Film In d u s try . The Z M en.

P eter Y e ld h a m . M aybe This Time. Donald Richie.

G re n d e l, G r e n d e l, Grendel

Number 28 August-September 19 8 0

Number 29 October-November 19 8 0

Number 33 July-August 1981

The Films of Bruce Beresford. Stir. M elbourne and S yd ney Film Festivals.

Breaker M orant. S tacy Keach.

Roadgam es.

Bob Ellis. Actors Equity D e b a t e . U r i W in d t C r u is in g The Last Outlaw. P hilippine C in­ ema The Club

John Duigan on Winter of Our Dreams G overnment and the Film Industry Tax and Film C hris Noonan Robert Altm an Gallipoli Roadgames Grendel

Number 36 January-February 1982

Number 37 March-April 1982

Number 38 June 1982

Kevin Dobson, Blow Out, W om en in D ra m a , M ichael Rubbo, Mad Max 2, Puberty Blues.

S te p h e n M a c L e a n on Starstruck, Jacki Weaver, Peter Ustinov, W om en in Drama, Reds, Heatwave.

G e o ff B u r r o w e s a n d George M iller on The Man F ro m S n o w y R iv e r , James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine.

1 3 5 7

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)

Overseas rates p. 5 Number 39 August 1982

Number 40 October 1982

Number 41 December 1982

Number 42 March 1983

Helen Morse on Far East, Norwegian Cinema, Two Law s. M e lb o u rn e and S y d n e y F ilm F e s tiv a l reports, Monkey Grip

Henri Safran, Moving Out, Michael Ritchie, Pauline Kael, W endy Hughes, Ray B a r r e tt, R u n n in g on Empty.

ig o r A u z in s , L o n e ly Hearts, Paul Schrader, P e ter Tam m er, L ilia n a Cavanl, We of the Never Never, Film Awards, E.T..

Mel Gibson, Moving Out, John W aters, Financing Films, Living Dangerous­ ly, The Plains of Heaven.

Note: issues number 4, 6, 7, 8, 23, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35 are out of print.

■

. ■ ■■ ' :

. .. , ;?.... 7 __________

.

'

' - ■'

-

7 , - ' >:,• - ■:-:■■■ ■ . . v '■ • 7 '‘ ’ . .

■' 'V77.7 i f ? ; ,m ’-rii.

• .

' -

; y;'

. z

.

-

;

•

"

•'

V f '

•• •

..... .

' V ■. ■ ' '

' ■■. ?

-

L Cinema Papers Subscriptions

.

re n e w

□

M r/M s:.

1 2 is s u e s ($ 3 2 ) C l 1 8 is s u e s ($ 4 6 ) □

m y s u b s c r ip tio n w ith the n e xt is s u e . If a ren e w a l, D e liv e re d to yo u r d o o r

p le a s e sta te R e c o r d No. (D e ta ils)

post free

G iv e n N a m e :.

S u rn a m e :.

T itle :_____ Com pany: A d d re s s:^ .

Country:_

P o stc o d e :

$

T e le x :.

T e le p h o n e s fZ jfy J

If yo u w ish to m a k e a s u b s c r ip tio n to C in e m a P a p e rs a gift, c r o s s the b o x b e lo w a n d w e will s e n d a c a r d on yo u r b e h a lf with the first iss u e .

Subscriptions

EU G ift s u b s c r ip tio n from

Office use only

Order Information:

(n am e of s e n d e r ) ...............................................................

D elivery m ethod:

First Issue No.:

A m o u n t Paid:

S ta n d in g O rder:

Last Issue No.:

O rd e r Date:

R enew al code:

C o m p lim e n ta ry code:

Coded Information: C a te g o ry code:

S u b -a g e n t code:

M e m be r sta tu s

A rea code: A lp h a b e tic:

Back

O v e rs e a s ra te s p. 5 1 3 5 7

or or or or

2 copies $4 each 4 copies $3 each (save$1 per copy) 6 copies $2 each (save$2 per copy) more copies $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)

T o o rd e r yo u r c o p ie s p la c e a c r o s s in the b o x n e xt to y o u r m is s in g is s u e s , a n d fill out the form belo w .

If yo u w o u ld lik e m u ltip le c o p ie s of a n y o n e is s u e , in d ic a te the n u m b e r you re q u ire in the a p p ro p ria te box.

SHI

□

□

□

□

1

2

3

5

□

□

□

□

26

27

28

29

w

□

□ 9

□

□ 33

□

□

10

11

□

□

36

37

□ 1213

□ 3839

□

□

14

□

□

15

□

40

□

16

7 ( is s u e s 2 5 -3 0 )

□ 17

□ 18

□ 19

□ 20

□ 21

□ 22

2425

a 4142

$

f

O v e rs e a s ra te s p. 5

P le a s e s e n d m e b o u n d v o lu m e s of □

□

□

D

1 ( is s u e s 1-4)

8 ( is s u e s 3 1-35)

□

D

4 ( is s u e s 1 3 -1 6 )

9 ( is s u e s 3 6 -4 1 )

at $40 per volume.

Volumes 2, 3, 5 and 6 out of print.

4.

Ezibinde P le a s e s e n d m e D

$ O v e rs e a s ra te s p. 5

$

c o p ie s of C in e m a P a p e rs ’ E z ib in d e r at $1 5 a bin d er.

ib -to ta l Please turn overleaf -•.>•:<

,■

:

• .

.

• ' .

____________________________

■

O v e rs e a s r a te s p. 5

P le a s e e n te r a s u b s c r ip tio n for 6 is s u e s ($ 1 8 ) □ P le a s e start □

' ' •,,

$

l RM

A B 1 W D 5 ,

E A D H

i

A ustralian Motion Picture Yearbook

1983 Please

send me EH copies of the 1983 Y earbook at $25 a copy (Foreign: $35 surface; $45 airmail).

1981/82 Please send

me EH copies of the 1981/82 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface;

$40 airm ail).

1980 Please send

me □

copies of the 1980 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface; $40 airmail).

$

6. The D ocum entary Film in A ustralia P le a s e s e n d m e

7 ,

EH c o p ie s

of

The Documentary Film in Australia

at $ 1 2 .9 5 a c o p y (F o re ig n . Y I8 s u rfa c e ; $ 2 4 a irm a il).

$

The N ew Australian Cinema

P le a s e s e n d m e

8,

EH c o p ie s

of

The New Australian Cinema

at $ 1 4 .9 5 a c o p y (F o re ig n : $ 2 0 s u rfa c e ; $ 2 6 a irm a il).

Australian

P le a s e s e n d m e

EH c o p ie s

of

$

TV:TheFirst 25 Years

Australian TV: The First 25 Years

at $ 1 4 .9 5 a c o p y (F o re ig n :

$20

s u rfa c e ;

$26

a irm a il).

$

9» Film Expo Seminar Report P le a s e s e n d m e

EH c o p ie s

of the

Film Expo Seminar Report

at $ 2 5 a c o p y (F o re ig n : $ 2 7 s u rfa c e ; $ 3 2 a irm a il).

C a rry fo rw a rd s u b - t u la ! fro m pa 7

$

Total

$

................................................................................. Postcode........................

A ll foreign orders should be accom panied by bank drafts in Australian dollars only.

A ll quoted figures are in Australian dollars.

A llo w fo u r weeks f o r processing. ||g j

B a n k c a rd No.

E x p ir e s

/

/

EHEHEH

EHEH

DEHE]

□ □ □ □ □ □

S ig n a t u r e ...........................................................

NB: Please make all cheques to:

$

© iT v i c t o d a s fr e e V Ltd ’ N o rth M e lb o u rn e , 3 0 5 1 .

T e le p h o n e : (03) 3 2 9 5 9 8 3 T e le x : A A 3 0 6 2 5 a n d q u o te “ C in e m a P a p e r s M E 2 3 0 ”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•

-----------------------------------------------------------------------1

|

■ - - - •••—• -

-

We of the Never Never The Year of Living Dangerously The Man From Snowy River The Clinic Kitty and the Bagman

Distributor

TITLE

-

ADL.

BRI.

(10)

(10*)

(10*)

(5/2)

(7)

(9)

147,693

46,728

47,833

122,311

(7)

(10*)

(2/3)

(1)

74,777

24,176

4266

(6*)

(2)

RS

93,967

6183

GUO

(4)

(3)

(2)

(2)

(2)

27,483

11,410

3762

7711

8041

(3*)

Ginger Meggs

Hoyts

Midnite Spares

RS

30,878 (2)

(2)

(D

(1)

18,623

7280

2125

2563

(3)

(2)

22,811

2475

CINEMA PAPERS

Australian Total

(2)

(1)

7688

1866

503,401

408,952

215,787

(no* 22.2.83 as listed in previous issue)

Total

$

Rank

616,139

1

311,073 277,584

533,173

2

230,794 154,418

174,127

3

140,714 138,929

100,150

4

58,407

5

30,878

6

30,591

7

25,286

8

SYD.

MLB.

(10*)

(10*)

(5*)

(10*)

(5*)

(10*)

PTH

ADL.

(2*)

(2*)

52,628

55,444

(5*)

(6*)

74,942

97,754

BRI.

$

(10*)

(5)

(4)

66,264

33,535

35,472

Rank

696,729

1

557,908

2

414,914

3

141,773

5

157,058

4

'

(5*)

(5*)

(5*)

(6*)

(5*)

58,187

31,514

8377

16,145

27,550

(10 */1) 90,503

(3)

(3*/1)

(3)

(3/2*)

4931

34,408

17,333

9883

N/A

N/A

OTH RS

-l a -c -< o o ^ OO 1 4 . 1 1 . 0 2 lO ¿ 2 . 1 . 0 0

Total PTH

168,608

Hoyts 70,908

RS

Monkey Grip

MLB.

(10*)

Fighting Back

Goodbye Paradise

SYD.2

(10*) (10) (9) Hoyts 116,124 114,103 130,338 104,702 150,872

UIP

PERIOD

PERIOD 23.1.83 to 9.4.83

9554

N/A

287,356

N/A

N/A

1,755,912

N/A

4,983,095 4,155,170 2,423,421

Grand Total

5,486,496 4,564,122 2,639,208 1,987,980 2,043,268

16,721,074

t Not for publication, but ranking correct.

— 133

Figures exclude N / A figures.

B o x-office grosses of individual film s have been supplied to Cinema Papers by the Australian Film Comm ission. o This figure represents the total box-office gross of all foreign film s shown during the period in the area specified. ‘ C o ntinuing into next period NB Figures in parenthesis above the grosses represent w eeks in release It more than one figure appears, the film has been released in more than one cinem a during the period

•

(1 ) Australian theatrical distribu tor only. RS — Roadshow; GUO — G reater Union O rganization Film D istributors; HTS — Hoyts Theatres; FOX _ 20th Century Fox; UA - United Artists; CIC - Cinema International Corporation; FW - Film ways Australasian D istributors; 7K - 7 Keys Film D istributors, COL — Colum bia Pictures, REG — Regent Film D istributors, CCG — Cinema C entre G roup, AFC — Australian Film C om m ission; SAFC — South Australian Film C o rpo ratio n; MCA — M usic C o rpo ratio n of Am erica; S —• S h arm ill Film s; OTH — Other. (2) Figures are drawn from capital city and inner subu rba n first release hardtops only. (3) Split figures in dicate a m u ltiple cin em a release,

Box-office

M a y -J u n e

Foreign Total0

Do you want a good movie, or a lion on your lap?

The peculiar history and uncertain future o f th ec

Fred Harden

I c a n c o n fid e n tly p red ict (a s o th e rs ju st a s e n th u s ia s tic a n d im p ro p e rly q u a lifie d c o n fid e n tly p re d icte d in 1 973 a n d 1953) that 1983 is the y e a r w hen 3 -D film will fin a lly fulfil the p ro m ise that no le s s a film m a ke r a n d th e o re ticia n th an S e r g e i E is e n s te in p re d icte d for it in 1949.

In an e s s a y on s te r e o s c o p ic c in e m a (p re s u m a b ly written after s e e in g th e 1 9 4 7 R u s s ia n 3-D film Robinson Crusoe by A n d re e v s k y ) E is e n s te in sa id , “ Not in a n y other art — th ro u gh o u t the w h o le of h istory — c a n th ere be an in sta n c e so d y n a m ic a n d p e rfe ct of vo lu m e b e in g tra n s fu se d into s p a c e , a n d s p a c e into vo lu m e , both p e n etratin g into e a c h other, e x istin g sim u lta n e o u s ly , and th is w ithin the p r o c e s s of real m ovem en t. “ T h e re is no n e ed to fe a r the a d v a n c e of th is new e ra. Still le s s — to la u g h in its fa c e , a s our a n c e s to rs la u g h e d , th ro w in g lu m p s of m ud at the first u m b re lla s. “ A p la c e m ust be p re p a re d in c o n s c io u s n e s s for the a rriva l of new th e m e s w h ich , m ultiplied by the p o s s ib ilitie s of new te c h n iq u e s , will d e m a n d new a e s th e tic s for the e x p re s s io n of th e se new th e m e s in the m a rv e llo u s c re a tio n s of the future. “ T o o pen the w a y for them is a g re a t and s a c re d ta s k , a n d all th o se w ho d a re to d e sig n a te th e m s e lv e s a s a rtists a re c a lle d upon to c o n ­ tribute to its a c c o m p lis h m e n t.’’1 In co n tra st to th is e x p re s s io n of the c a p a b ilitie s of a th re e -d im e n sio n a l c in e m a a s a fine art is the fact that a b a d ly -a cte d , te c h n ic a lly -p o o r so ft-co re porno m ovie, The S t e w a r d e s s e s , is the top g r o s s in g 3-D film , h a v in g c o st le s s than $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 to m a k e in 1968 an d g r o s s in g m ore th an $26 m illion.

H e re lie s the p a ra d o x of the s te re o s c o p ic c in e m a . N inety-tw o per ce n t of u s p e rc e iv e the w orld in three d im e n s io n s , yet w e h a ve e vo lve d a so p h istic a te d w orld w h e re ou r art an d c o m m u n ic a ­ tio n s a re d o m in a te d by print, film an d te le visio n im a g e s that a re s a fe ly co n ta in e d on a flat p la n e of two d im e n s io n s .

T h e re a p p e a rs to be so m e th in g fa s c in a tin g in the p e rce p tio n of s te r e o s c o p ic im a g e s that k e e p s film m a k e rs e xp e rim e n tin g a n d 3-D film s b e in g m a d e in a p p ro x im a te ly te n -y e a r c y c le s for a u d ie n c e s new to the e x p e rie n c e . T h e fo llo w in g article is an attem pt to distil the h istory an d nature of 3 -D film s from m a n y s o u r c e s , an d to find the re a s o n s for the rise a n d fall of a c in e m a that p ro m ise d n o th in g le s s th an “ a lover in yo u r a rm s and a lion in yo u r la p s ” .

I h a v e draw n h e a v ily from two im portant b o o k s that h a v e b e e n re le a s e d rece n tly: © L e n n y L ip to n ’s F o u n d a tio n s o f the S te re o s c o p ic C inem a — A s tu d y in d e p th , p u b lish e d in 1982

by V a n N o stra n d R e in h o ld , an d d istrib u te d by T h o m a s N e lso n A u stra lia . T h e re c o m m e n d e d retail p rice is $ 2 9 .9 5 . (S e e review below .) ® A m a z in g 3-D by D a n S y m m e s an d b oo k d e ­ s ig n e r H al M o rgan is p u b lish e d by Little, Brow n a n d C o m p a n y . My c o p y w a s $ 1 8 .8 5 from S p a c e A g e B o o k sh o p , M elb o u rn e . T h e b oo k is a h e a v ily -illu stra te d (in tw o-color 3-D with g la s s e s su p p lie d ) look at the p o p u la r p h en o1. Film as Art, Penguin, London, 1977.

134

—

M a y -J u n e

CINEMA PAPERS

m e n a of 3-D m o vie s, still p h o to g ra p h y and c o m ic s , with fu ll-co lo r re p ro d u ctio n s of p o ste rs of m an y of the e a rly 3 -D film s.

3-Dimentia, The Peculiar History of 3-D T h e fact that o n e s e e s o b je c ts in d epth — the re a so n b e in g that our two e y e s s e e differen t im a g e s w h ich a re fu se d by our b rain into a v e ry u sefu l an d co h e re n t w h o le — h a s b e e n noted an d often in co rre c tly th e o rize d about by m an y, in clu d in g E u c lid , P la to , G a le n , A g u ilo n iu s , and Le o n a rd o d a V in c i. Jo h a n n e s K e p le r, w ho w a s m yo p ic an d su ffe re d from d o u b le v isio n , offered h is th eo ry in 1611; G io v a n n i B a p tis ta d e lla P orta, a N e a p o lita n p h y sic is t, w rote in 1593; and the Flo re n tin e p ain ter J a c o p o C h im e n ti h a s left painted ste re o p a irs w ithout a n y id e a of h is v ie w in g syste m .

T h e ir th eo re tica l w riting or illu stratio n a llu d in g to the p roblem of “ d o u b le n e s s of v is io n ” left the problem u n so lve d until 1838, w hen p h y sic is t C h a r le s W h e a tsto n e e xp la in e d that th is retinal d isp a rity a ctu a lly g a v e p e o p le ste re o v isio n . H is C o n trib u tio n to the P h y s io lo g y o f Vision — P a rt the F ir s t: O n s o m e re m a rk a b le , a n d h ith e r to u n o b se rve d , P h e n o m e n a o f B in o c u la r Vision

in clu d e d the first p u b lish e d ste re o d ra w in g s an d an e xp la n a tio n of the m irror ste re o sc o p e that he inven ted in 1833. A b o u t s ix m on th s after his ‘m e m o ir’ w a s p u b lish e d in the P h ilo s o p h ic a l T rans­ a c tio n s of the R o y a l S o c ie ty of Lo n d o n , F o x T a lb o t a n n o u n c e d h is e a rly p h o to g ra p h ic p r o c e s s that p ro d u ce d p a p e r p rin ts c a lle d T a lb o ty p e s . T a lb o t w a s a sk e d by W h e a tsto n e to m a k e so m e ste re o ­ s c o p ic T a lb o ty p e s a n d o b lig e d with a n u m b e r of ste reo portraits, an d p ictu re s of b u ild in g s and sta tu e s.

W h e a tsto n e w e lco m e d the c a m e ra a n d the d is ­ c o v e rie s of N ie p ce , D a g u e rre an d T a lb o t w h ich co u ld a c c o m p lis h g re a te r ste re o re a lism than w a s p o s s ib le by a n y artist, but he did not s e e m o verly e a g e r to p u b lish h is further d e v e lo p m e n ts of h is e q u ip m e n t ( P a rt the S e c o n d a p p e a re d in 1852). H is m irror ste re o sc o p e is illu strate d below . T h e s e e arly p h o to g ra p h ic ste re o p a irs w e re take n with a s in g le

c a m e ra that w a s m o ve d tw o -a n d -a -h a lf in c h e s (6.5 cm ) for the s e c o n d e x p o s u re , that b e in g the a v e ra g e d is ta n c e of the s e p a ra tio n betw een p e o p le ’s e y e s.

S ir D a v id B re w ste r took W h e a ts to n e ’s id e a a n d d e s ig n e d a c a m e ra w ith two le n s e s a n d a s te re o ­ s c o p ic vie w e r that a ls o u s e d le n s e s to allo w the v ie w e r’s e y e s to fo c u s m ore e a s ily on a s m a lle r ste reo pair. Q u e e n V ic to ria w a s a m u s e d b y the new in vention at the 1851 Lo n d o n E x h ib itio n a n d

B re w ste r w a s q u ic k to m a k e her a gift of o n e of his s te re o s c o p e s a n d so m e ste re o “ v ie w s ” . T h e n e w s p a p e rs repo rted th is sh re w d g e s tu re , m a k in g the new in ve n tio n im m e d ia te ly a c c e p ta b le to m illio n s of V icto ria n fa m ilie s.

T h e p o p u la r s u c c e s s of the s te r e o s c o p ic v ie w s (w hich w e re often h a n d -co lo re d ) w a s a p h e n o ­ m en o n that la ste d m ore than a d e c a d e until, a s one histo rian s u g g e s t s , the p h o to g ra p h ic rep ro ­ d u c tio n s in b o o k s a n d m a g a z in e s took o v e r the p h o to -jo u rn a listic role that the s te r e o s c o p ic v ie w s of the a rts a n d o u tp o sts of the E m p ire had p ro vid e d . T h e e v o c a tiv e q u a lity of th is p r o c e s s is e vid en t in m a n y of the p h o to g ra p h s that e x ist to d a y an d there a re still m a n y a m a te u r s te re o -p h o to ­ g ra p h y e n th u s ia s ts w o rk in g with m o d e rn c a m e r a s an d film sto ck s.

T h e c h a n g e from still im a g e s to ste re o m otion p ictu re s w a s m a rk e d by a n u m b e r of in v e n tio n s that u se d s e q u e n tia lly -p o s e d still p ic tu re s , sh o w n in “ flip -b o o k ” fo rm s or in d ru m p e e p -s h o w fo rm ats.

Stereoscopie Film

E d w a rd M u y b rid g e p ro d u c e d m a n y th re e -d im e n ­ sio n a l p h o to g ra p h s b e tw ee n 1 868 a n d 1 8 7 4 b efore h is fa m o u s s e r ie s of se q u e n tia l p h o to g ra p h s of a g a llo p in g h o rs e sta rte d h is c in e m a e x p e rim e n ts.

It is W illia m F rie s e -G r e e n e w h o is cre d ite d with a d a p tin g E d is o n ’s in ve n tio n of the m otion p ictu re c a m e r a to m a k e rea l-tim e ste re o film s in 1889.

E d is o n a n d h is tale n te d a s s is t a n t D ic k s o n filed jo int p a te n ts for s te r e o s c o p ic m otion p ictu re c a m e r a s in 1 8 9 1 , a n d D ic k s o n a lo n e did so in 1893. E d is o n ’s initial in s is te n c e that c in e m a w a s a p e e p -s h o w d e v ic e w a s in k e e p in g with the ste re o vie w e r, but it m e a n t that it w a s up to o th e rs to w o rk out how to s h o w th e s e im a g e s s u c c e s s f u lly to a la rg e a u d ie n c e .

A u d ie n c e s in F ra n c e h a d b e e n a b le to w a tch still im a g e s p ro je cte d u s in g a n a n a g ly p h ic p r o c e s s (from the La tin a n a , up, a n d g ly p h e in , to cu t out, or e n g ra v e ; h e n c e , to m a k e in relief) s in c e 1858.

Jo s e p h d ’A lm e id a in F ra n c e h ad p ro je cte d two p ic tu re s s u p e rim p o s e d on a s c r e e n th ro u g h an o ra n g e a n d a b lu e filter re s p e c tiv e ly a n d the a u d ie n c e vie w e d th em th ro u g h o ra n g e a n d b lu e g la s s e s . T h e p r o c e s s is th e s a m e a s o n e u se d to d a y w h e re the im a g e for o n e e ye is co lo re d red a n d is co lo re d g re e n for the other. T h e red co lo re d im a g e is not v is ib le w h e n v ie w e d th ro u g h the red le n s but the g re e n co lo re d im a g e a p p e a r s b la c k .

T h e g re e n im a g e w h e n v ie w e d th ro u g h the gre e n c o lo re d le n s g o e s th ro u g h a s im ila r effect, m a k in g o n ly the red im a g e v is ib le to that e ye . T h is s u c c e s s f u lly p re s e n ts s e p a ra te left a n d right im a g e s that co n fo rm to the dep th c u e s the brain e x p e c t s for p e rce p tio n of 3 -D . (F o r an e xp la n a tio n of the c o m p le x p r o c e s s of p e rce p tio n of depth s e e “ F u rth e r R e a d in g ’’ at the e n d of th is article .)

It is difficu lt to d e te rm in e th e first p u b lic 3-D p re se n ta tio n but th ere is a n e w s p a p e r report of a s c r e e n in g at the A sto r th eatre in N e w Y o r k , on J u n e 10, 19 1 5 , of an a n a g ly p h ic p ro g ra m of s c e n e s of the s tre e ts of N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y ta k e n b y W illia m E . W a d d e ll a n d E d w in S . P o rte r (a c a m e ra m a n for E d is o n w h o tu rn ed d ire cto r a n d is b e st know n for h is film The Great Train Robbery in 1901).

T h e other typ e of vie w in g m eth od p ro p o se d at the tim e (an d o n e of th e 3 -D te c h n iq u e s p re se n tly b e in g d e v e lo p e d u s in g so p h istic a te d e le c tro n ic te c h n iq u e s : s e e the s e c tio n , “ T h e fu tu re in d e p th ’’) is the id e a of an ‘e c lip s in g ’ sh u tte r. T h is is w orn or h eld b y the v ie w e r a n d s y n c h ro n iz e d to the p ro jecto r so that w h e n th e left e ye im a g e is b e in g sh o w n the sh u tte r is o p e n on that e ye a n d c lo s e d on the other, a n d v ic e v e r s a . T h is id e a d e p e n d s on the p e rs is te n c e of v is io n a n d w a s q u ite s u c c e s s fu l for still im a g e s but it h a d a c u rio u s rip p lin g effect w h e n sh o w in g m o ve m e n t. It d id , h o w ever, allow full co lo r p re se n ta tio n , a lth o u g h it w a s so m e y e a rs before it w a s a c h ie v e d s u c c e s s fu lly . It w a s d e m o n ­ stra te d a s T e le v ie w , in a s p e c ia lly -e q u ip p e d th eatre in N e w Y o r k , on D e c e m b e r 27, 1922, a n d w a s w e ll-re c e iv e d . H o w e ve r, th e c o m p le x e q u ip ­ m ent w a s im p ra c tic a l to in sta ll.

T h e in tro d u ctio n of m o d e rn trip a c k co lo r film s m a k e s p o s s ib le s y s te m s lik e the T r ia n g le tw o-filter p r o c e s s (se e b elo w for M ike B ro w n in g ’s d e s c r ip ­ tion of th is p r o c e s s ) but it still is re stricte d in the u se of a full c o lo r sp e c tru m , re d u c in g it to th o se p o s s ib le from a m ixtu re of the two c o lo rs. T h e a d v a n ta g e of th is m eth od of a n a g ly p h ic s te re o ­ s c o p y re m a in s th e e a s e of s in g le -le n s p rojection .

T h e s iz e of the e a rly tw o -c a m e ra s y s te m s (se e the illu stratio n of the h u g e N a tu ra l-V is io n c a m e ra ) w ould a p p e a r to be a m ajo r d is a d v a n t a g e . T h is d o e s not s e e m to h a v e p re v e n te d m o st p ro d u ctio n te c h n iq u e s a n d , a s 3 -D often re q u ire s m ore ca re fu l se t-u p s to g e t full im p a c t from the im a g e s , the la c k of h a n d -h e ld p o rtab ility w a s re p o rte d ly not a p rob lem .

Polarizing Filters and Adding Color

The Films and the Filmmakers

B e c a u s e th e m o st fre q u e n tly u se d 3-D p r o c e s s to d a y is a p o la riz e d o n e , the a ss u m p tio n is that it is a rece n t in ve n tio n . In fact, th ere is an 1881 A m e ric a n patent for the u s e of p o la rize d ligh t in s e le c tin g im a g e s for s te r e o s c o p ic p ro jectio n . B ut th e p o la riz in g m a te ria ls w ere all too c ru d e or e x p e n s iv e until E d w in H. L a n d , a n d w h at is now the P o la ro id C o rp o ra tio n , m a d e h ig h -q u a lity sh e e t p o la riz e rs a v a ila b le in 1935. In a d e m o n stra tio n for the S o c ie ty of M otion P ic tu re E n g in e e rs in 1935, L a n d a n d h is a s s o c ia t e s s h o w e d 16 m m b la c k an d w hite a n d fu ll-co lo r s te r e o s c o p ic film s tak e n on the e a rly K o d a c h ro m e film that K o d a k had re le a s e d in the 16 m m form at le s s th an a y e a r b efore. U n lik e e a rlie r c h e m ic a l c ry sta llin e p ro d u c ts, the La n d p o la rize r is m a d e “ by a b so rb in g io d in e in a s h e e t of thin p o ly vin yl a lc o h o l that h a s b e e n s tre tc h e d to a rra n g e the m o le c u le s in lo n g p a ra lle l c h a in s ’’ .

T h e s e p a ra lle l c h a in s o n ly p a s s ligh t orien tated in the s a m e p la n e , a fa m ilia r p r o c e s s with the u se of p o la rize d s u n g la s s e s an d c a m e ra filters.

T h e intro d u ctio n of p o la riz e d s te r e o s c o p ic film s did not m e a n the e n d of a n a g ly p h ic p r o c e s s e s . F o r re a s o n s m en tio n e d a b o v e , it w a s a s im p le and e ffe ctive p r o c e s s , but the w orld of co lo r 3-D w a s w a itin g for a s u c c e s s f u l p o la riz e d s y s te m . F ilm ­ m a k e rs w ho h a d u se d the e a rlie r p r o c e s s had few p ro b le m s in c h a n g in g to the p o la riz in g m ethod .

F re d e ric k E u g e n e Iv e s a n d J a c o b L e v e n th a l, w o rkin g from a stu d io in Fort L e e , N e w J e r s e y , had p ro d u c e d five a n a g ly p h ic s h o rts that had lim ited re le a s e in 1 925 u n d e r the c o lle c tiv e title, Stereo-

T h e sta n d a rd orien tation for p ro jectio n is with the left a n d right e ye im a g e s p o la rize d at 90 d e g r e e s to e a c h other but on an a n g le of 45 d e g r e e s to the h o rizo n ta l. T h is e ffe c tiv e ly p re se n ts th e s e p a ra te im a g e s to a vie w e r w e a rin g g la s s e s sim ila rly a rra n g e d . T h e p o la riz in g m ate rial is a neutral g re y a n d , a lth o u g h it r e d u c e s th e a m o u n t of tra n sm itte d light, it m a k e s full co lo r p re se n ta tio n p o s s ib le .

T h e first (an d m a n y s u b se q u e n t) p o la riz in g s y s te m s u se d two in te rlo cke d c a m e r a s in a sid e b y -sid e c o n fig u ra tio n or with o n e c a m e ra sh o o tin g th ro u gh a se m i-silv e re d m irror a n d the other sh o o tin g the refle cted im a g e from its s u rfa c e (se e d ia g ra m ). B y a d ju s tin g the a n g le s slig h tly , the two c a m e r a s ’ fie ld s of vie w c r o s s over, or a re m a d e to c o n v e rg e , s im ila r to w h at h a p p e n s w h e n on e lo o k s at an o b ject. T h e oth er im p ortan t a d ju stm e n t is the d is ta n c e b etw ee n the c e n tre s or a x e s of the le n s e s . T h is “ in te ra x ia l” d is ta n c e is m od ified to alter the “ d e p th ” b etw ee n p la n e s to su it d ifferen t le n s e s a n d e n h a n c e d is t a n c e s b e tw ee n s u b je c ts .

scopiks.

W h e n the p a rtn e rsh ip d is s o lv e d , Le v e n th a l jo in e d with Jo h n N o rlin g to m a k e s e v e ra l u n re la te d sh o rt s e q u e n c e s w h ich th e y so ld to M GM . P e te S m ith w a s in c h a r g e of s h o rts at the tim e and p a c k a g e d them into an a n a g ly p h ic sh o rt, Audioscopiks, in 1936. Le v e n th a l a n d N o rlin g then m ad e The New Audioscopiks, re le a s e d in 1938, an d th eir s u c c e s s c o n v in c e d M GM to allo w S m ith to d irect h is a n a g ly p h ic F ra n k e n s te in sp o o f, Third Dimension Murder, in 1941.

N o rlin g th an m a d e one of the 3 -D film s that s e e m s to h a v e had the m ost im p a c t at the tim e.

T h e C h r y s le r M otors C o rp o ra tio n c o m m is s io n e d a 15-m inute pro m o tio n al film for its d is p la y at the 1939 N ew Y o r k W o rld ’s F a ir. W ith te c h n ic a l a s s is ­ ta n c e from P o la ro id , the h ig h -q u a lity b la c k and w hite film , In Tune with Tomorrow, w a s s e e n by m ore than a m illio n -a n d -a -h a lf p e o p le and w a s s u c c e s s fu lly re m a d e in co lo r to attract further a u d ie n c e s at the 1 940 W o rld ’s F a ir.

In E u ro p e , p o la rize d film s w ere m a d e in Italy (Nozze Vagabond in 1936) a n d G e r m a n y ’s first 3-D co lo r fea tu re Zum greifen nah (You Can Nearly Touch It) w a s sh o t with a Z e is s s in g le -b a n d p ro c e s s and re le a s e d In 1937. T h e S o v ie t U nio n had b e e n e x p e rim e n tin g with a n a g ly p h ic , e c lip s in g an d p o la rize d p r o c e s s e s s in c e the m id -1 9 3 0 s and had d e c id e d that the d isc o m fo rt to the vie w e r of g la s s e s c o u ld be so lv e d b y a le n ticu la r s c r e e n p r o c e s s (s e e illu stra tio n ). T h is s u c c e s s f u lly p re se n te d a lim ited-depth im a g e that d e p e n d e d on

From Foundations Of The Stereoscopic Cinema'. L. Upton.

F o r m a n y y e a rs the a n a g ly p h p r o c e s s d e p e n d e d on s y n c h r o n iz in g two in te rlo c k e d p ro je cto rs, but the in te rlo c k e d m u lti-sc re e n w o rk of A b e l G a n c e sh o w e d that the te c h n o lo g y w a s a v a ila b le . In fact, G a n c e sh o t p o rtio n s of h is 1 925 th re e -c a m e ra e p ic Napoleon in a n a g ly p h ic ste re o , but c h o s e not to in c lu d e them in the fin al v e rsio n . (T h e re w a s an e a s ie r a n a g ly p h ic s in g le p ro je ctio n m eth od m a d e p o s s ib le b y p rin tin g b la c k a n d w hite im a g e s on to o n e film strip with e ith e r a d ye -to n in g or m atrix p r o c e s s . O n e id e a u se d a d o u b le -sid e d print film with e m u ls io n on the b a c k . It is now d o n e e a s ily , by p rin tin g on to co lo r s to c k th ro u g h filters.)

a p ro p e rly -p o sitio n e d a u d ie n c e k e e p in g their h e a d s p e rfe ctly u p righ t to s e e the effe ct. S o v ie t ste re o c in e m a h a s b e en a c o n s is te n t in n o va to r and its cu rre n t 70 m m p o la riz e d p r o c e s s Is p re se n te d in e x c lu s iv e ly 3 -D th e a tre s, with a re g u la r p ro d u ctio n rate of at le a st one fea tu re a ye a r.

T h e a u d ie n c e for 3 -D film w a s often co n te n t to put up with b a d ly re g is te re d , tw o -p ro jecto r fe a tu re s an d u n co m fo rta b le g la s s e s to vie w the novelty.

W o rld W a r 2 s to p p e d 3 -D p ro d u ctio n e x c e p t for s tra te g ic u se In a e ria l r e c o n n a is s a n c e a n d tra in in g , a n d p u b lic in te re st in 3-D tu rn ed to still p h o to g ra p h y .

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 135

Stereoscopie Film

The War is Over, the Battle Begins T h e s lu m p in c in e m a a tte n d a n c e s after th e w ar, in the p e rio d 1 9 4 6 to 1 9 5 2 , h a s b e e n attributed to H o lly w o o d ’s ig n o rin g th e grow th of te le v isio n (w h ich had tu rn ed c o m m e rc ia l in 1948). In the p o st-w a r boo m y e a rs , with th e im p o rta n ce of a g ro w in g e c o n o m y a n d h o m e in c o m e s , th e A m e r ic a n s lo o k e d to te le v isio n for e n te rta in m e n t for th eir g ro w in g fa m ilie s . H o llyw o o d s tu d io s h ad fo rb id d e n th eir c o n tra c t p la y e rs to a p p e a r on te le ­ v is io n , a n d re fu s e d to a d v e rtise th eir new p ro d u c ­ tio n s or to a llo w th e ir b a c k lo g of film s to be so ld for te le v isio n v ie w in g . T h e re w a s a fe e lin g of co n te m p t for the tin y flic k e rin g b la c k a n d w hite im a g e s that c o u ld not c o m p e te with th e co lo r a n d g la m o r of the m o v ie s, a n d it to o k the im m in e n t c o lla p s e of so m e of the la rg e film s tu d io s b e fo re the m e s s a g e of the ne w m e d iu m w a s u n d e rsto o d . T e le v is io n w a s re p la c in g the c in e m a a s the re g u la r s o u r c e of e n te rta in m e n t for th e m ajo rity of the p u b lic.

T h e re w a s a fall in c in e m a a tte n d a n c e w o rld ­ w id e b e tw ee n 1 9 4 6 a n d 19 5 2 , of b etw ee n a h alf a n d tw o -th ird s d e p e n d in g on the s o u rc e of o n e ’s fig u re s . T h e a v e ra g e c in e m a a tte n d a n c e in 1 946 w a s a b o u t 8 0 m illion p e r w e e k , a n d in 1952 it had d ro p p e d to le s s th an 50 m illion . T h e H o u s e C o m m it te e on U n - A m e r ic a n A c t iv it ie s h a d e ffe c tiv e ly p re v e n te d m a n y of the top c re a tiv e film ­ m a k e rs from w o rk in g , a n d the n u m b e rs of a cto rs a n d a c t r e s s e s u n d e r c o n tra c t w e re b e in g re d u ce d .

T h e s tu d io s fin a lly h ad to fa c e th e s m a ll s c re e n a n d try to w in b a c k th e a u d ie n c e .

T h e re w a s a ru sh for the file s w h e re the te c h ­ n ica l p a te n ts had b e e n kep t a n d a co lle c tio n of new p r o c e s s e s w a s p ro p o se d to m a k e c in e m a s c r e e n s la rg e r, a n d film s b righ te r, s h a rp e r a n d m ore co lo rfu l — that is, a s d iffe ren t from the sm a ll hom e s c r e e n a s p o s s ib le . T h e re w a s no d ifficu lty in a ttra ctin g a u d ie n c e s to th e e x p e n s iv e s p e c t a c u la r type of film ; w h a t w a s n e e d e d w a s a w a y to b rin g the a u d ie n c e b a c k to a re g u la r c in e m a a tte n d a n c e , a n d s te re o v is io n s e e m e d to p ro vid e so m e h op e.

M ost a c c o u n t s of th is p e rio d s e e m to ign o re the e a rlie r la rg e s c r e e n e x p e rim e n ts a n d talk a b ou t 3 -D a s b e in g in tro d u ce d for the first tim e to an a u d ie n c e new to the p h e n o m e n o n .

T h e re is c o n s id e r a b le e v id e n c e to s u g g e s t that the p u b lic h a d n e v e r re a lly forgo tten the 3-D p r o c e s s b e c a u s e of th e c o m m e rc ia l s u c c e s s of d e v ic e s s u c h a s th e s te re o still p h o to g ra p h y V ie w ­ M aster a n d ta k e -it-y o u rse lf 3 -D c a m e r a s , s u c h a s the D a v id W h ite C o m p a n y ’s 35 m m S te re o R e a lis t c a m e ra . D a n S y m m e s in A m a z in g 3-D te lls the sto ry th is w ay: “ B y the fall of 1 9 5 2 3 -D h ad sw e lle d to a p r e s e n c e the m o vie in d u stry co u ld no lo n g e r ig n o re . T h e re w e re s ix d iffe ren t ste re o c a m e r a s on the m arke t, two p ro je c to rs, at le a st s e v e n d iffe ren t v ie w e rs , a ste re o a tta ch m e n t for P o la ro id L a n d c a m e r a s , a n d e ve n a ste re o w e d d in g a lb u m from H o lso n . R e a lis t c a m e r a s kept sh o w in g up u n e x p e c te d ly in tra ve l a d s , not to m ention a ro u n d the n e c k s of m o vie s ta rs an d P r e s id e n t ia l c a n d id a te s [E is e n h o w e r], A n d s te re o s lid e s w e re b e in g u se d e x te n s iv e ly in a d v e rtisin g a n d s a le s . . . E v e n F o re s t La w n C e m e te ry go t into the act; th e y p re p a re d a c o m ­ plete se t of s te re o s lid e s illu stra tin g th eir s e r v ic e s .”

At th is tim e K o d a k o ffered a s p e c ia l e xte n d e d , ste re o -le n g th film a n d a ste re o m o u n tin g s e rv ic e a n d , in 1954, in tro d u ce d th eir K o d a k S te re o c a m e ra . B o le x h ad a ls o re le a s e d the B o le x S te re o a ttach m e n t in 1 952 that m a d e two ve rtic a l form at p ictu re s s id e by s id e on the 16 m m fram e .

“ Depthies” and “ Flatties” — the Films of the 1950s F o r the 1951 F e s tiv a l of B rita in , b ro th e rs N ige l an d R a y m o n d S p o ttisw o o d e w e re a s k e d to d e s ig n an d p ro g ra m a s p e c ia l T h e a tre of the F u tu re . T h e th eatre w a s e q u ip p e d for p o la rize d 3 -D , a n d had an op tio n al le n ticu la r 3 -D s c r e e n a n d a vid e o p rojecto r. T h e ir p ro g ra m of five film s in clu d e d two a n im a te d s h o rts from N o rm a n M c L a re n at the N a tio n al F ilm B o a rd of C a n a d a : Around is Around an d Now is the Time (to put on yo u r g la s s e s ).

T h e s e w e re re le a s e d later in the U .S . a n d critic R u d o lf A rn h e im d e s c r ib e d the a b stra c t film s “ a s th o u gh Art w a s stre a m in g from the s k ie s ” 2.

T h e S p o ttisw o o d e s sh o w e d two p o la riz e d b la c k an d w hite s h o rts an d so m e h o w m a n a g e d to get two of the g ia n t T e c h n ic o lo r , th ree film strip p r o c e s s c a m e r a s to m a k e Royal River, a co lo r film a b ou t tra v e llin g dow n the T h a m e s . T h e c a m e ra sy s te m that w a s u se d for th eir other film s c o n s is te d of two 35 m m in te rlo cke d NewrmanS in c la ir c a m e r a s m o u n te d with the le n s e s p oin tin g at e a c h other. T w o m irro rs se t at a 4 5 d e g re e a n g le a llo w ed a la rg e d e g re e of con tro l o v e r the refle cted im a g e .

T h is a rra n g e m e n t w a s v irtu a lly the s a m e that w a s u se d in 1 953 for the G u n z b e r g ’s N atu ral V isio n sy s te m , e x c e p t for the u se of M itchell N C c a m e r a s with a la rg e a n d h e a v y s o u n d b lim p . T h e N atu ral V isio n c a m e r a w a s u se d to film Bwana D e v il, re le a s e d on N o v e m b e r 27, 1952, in L o s A n g e le s . It g r o s s e d $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in o n e th eatre in its first w e e k, a lth o u g h it w a s u n ifo rm ly p a n n e d b y the c ritic s. H e re th e s tu d io s s a w a c h e a p ly -m a d e Bg ra d e film m a k in g reco rd p rofits w ithout the m a s s iv e c o s ts in v o lv e d in th e oth er re c o rd ­ 2. Lipton describes the stereo effects as "fu n ” but the graphics as “ terribly dated” , when viewed at a screening in 1977.

b r e a k in g p r o c e s s : th e t h re e -c a m e r a , th re e p ro jecto r Cinerama w h ich h a d p re m ie re d in N e w Y o r k two m o n th s e arlie r.

T h e first C in e r a m a p ro g ra m , This is Cinerama (d ire cte d b y d o c u m e n ta ry film m a k e r R o b e rt F la h e rty ), h a d a u d ie n c e s a n d c ritic s d e lig h te d ly c lu tc h in g th eir s e a ts a s the c a m e r a sw o o p e d dow n ro lle r-c o a ste rs a n d up N ia g a r a F a lls . T h e s u c c e s s of the e ffe ct w a s d u e to the s iz e a n d c u rv a tu re of th e s c r e e n that u s e d the s id e s or p e rip h e ra l a re a s of v isio n to a d d to the im p re s s io n s of m o ve m e n t a n d in vo lve m e n t. A lth o u g h the p r o c e s s w a s s im p ­ lified later to a s in g le c a m e r a a n d p ro je cto r s y s te m , the c o m p le x in te rlo c k e d e q u ip m e n t w a s an e x p e n s e that th ea tre o w n e rs w e re re lu cta n t to in cu r with no g u a ra n te e of a co n tin u e d p ro d u ct.

W a rn e r B ro s w a s the first m ajo r stu d io to co n tra c t the N a tu ra l V is io n s y s te m for th re e fe a tu re s. Ju lia n G u n z b e r g b e c a m e t e c h n ic a l c o n ­ su lta n t a n d J a c k L. W a rn e r a p p o in te d A n d re de T o th 3 to d ire ct w hat w a s to be the first of the 3 -D c la s s ic horror film s. U n lik e m a n y of th e m o v ie s ru sh e d into p ro d u ctio n , House of Wax s h o w s ca re fu l u s e of 3 -D p ro d u ctio n v a lu e s . F ilm in g b e g a n on J a n u a r y 19, 1953, a n d w a s c o m p le te d 28 d a y s later at a c o st of $ 6 8 0 ,0 0 0 . B u t the s p e e d of p ro d u ctio n w a s not e n o u g h to sto p H a rry C o h n at C o lu m b ia from ru sh in g a b la c k a n d w hite 3 -D fea tu re, Man in the Dark, on to the N e w Y o r k m arke t two d a y s b e fo re the p re m ie re of House of

Wax.

T h e C o lu m b ia film w a s sto p p e d in p re -p ro d u c ­ tion a s a flat film , rew ritten to a d d so m e ste re o e ffe c ts a n d its s h o o tin g co m p le te d in 11 d a y s .

A lth o u g h the e ffe c ts w e re in te re stin g , it b e c a m e the first of m a n y p o o rly -sc rip te d , b a d ly -a c te d , Bg ra d e film s that w e re to g iv e 3 -D the rep u tatio n of so m e th in g m e re ly s e n s a tio n a l. C o lu m b ia ’s s e c o n d film w a s a W e ste rn film e d in co lo r, Fort Ti. It w a s o n ly s lig h tly better th an the first effort, but the n o velty w a s still e n o u g h to m a k e it a to p -g ro s s in g film for a few w e e k s .

T h e s tu d io s m u st h a v e b e e n in an u p ro a r a s e a c h 3 -D fea tu re w ent on to b re a k re c o rd s . F ro m A p ril until m id -S e p te m b e r 1953, the 3 -D boom s e e m e d the a n sw e r to all th eir p ro b le m s. House of Wax to o k m ore th an a m illion d o lla rs in the first th ree w e e k s of A p ril. Fort Ti, a c c o m p a n ie d by W alt D is n e y ’s 3 -D c a rto o n Melody4, w a s th e to p ­ g r o s s in g film in late M ay a n d e a rly Ju n e . U n iv e rs a l, with its ow n e q u ip m e n t, ru sh e d a R a y B ra d b u ry sh o rt sto ry into p ro d u ctio n a n d It Came From Outer Space w a s the t o p -g ro s s in g film for J u n e and J u ly . T h e film w a s sh o t in b la c k a n d w hite but re le a se d tinted in brow n in w hat w a s b ille d a s “ s c ie n tific a lly p e rfe cte d e y e -re s tin g F u ll S e p ia M o n o -C o lo r” .

P a ra m o u n t re le a s e d a T e c h n ic o lo r c o s tu m e d ra m a , Sangaree, in J u n e 1 9 5 3 a n d , in sp ite of poor re v ie w s, it g r o s s e d a b o u t $2 m illion b e fo re the end of the y e a r. M G M , a g a in w ith its ow n e q u ip m e n t, offe re d a c ru d e ly -s h o t ro d e o sto ry, Arena, that b a re ly s u rfa c e d in the b o x -o ffice , a n d A llie d A rtists re le a s e d a horror film , The Maze, that did g o o d b u s in e s s . W a rn e r B ro s retu rn e d w ith a W e ste rn , Charge at Feather River, that th re w a s m an y diffe ren t o b je c ts a s the sto ry w o uld a llo w at the a u d ie n c e , a n d it too w a s a b o x -o ffic e s u c c e s s .

In J u n e 1953, v ie w e rs in the m ajo r c itie s c o u ld h a v e c h o s e n from five 3 -D fe a tu re s a n d a n u m b e r of s h o rts a n d c a rto o n s . W a rn e r B r o s a n n o u n c e d that all its future p ro d u c tio n s w o uld be “ d e p th ie s ” , in c lu d in g E lia K a z a n ’s East of Eden, a n d the J u d y G a rla n d v e rsio n of A Star is Born. T h e a n n o u n c e ­ m ent w a s m a d e m ore to c o n v in c e c in e m a o w n e rs it w a s w orth in sta llin g the s y n c h r o n iz in g e q u ip m e n t, p a y in g for the e xtra p ro je c tio n ist the union d e m a n d e d for 3-D s c r e e n in g s , a n d p a y in g the h ig h 50 per ce n t of the profit the d istrib u to rs a s k e d for the 3-D film s, th an it w a s to attract a u d ie n c e s . T h e c in e m a o w n e rs a ls o had to in sta ll s p e c ia l re fle ctive s c r e e n s but m a n y th e a tre s p a in te d inferior m e ta llic p a in ts on th e ir c o n v e n tio n a l s c r e e n s . T h e s e w e re 3. Much comment was made at the time of the fact that Toth had only one eye, and so could not see 3-D. His retort to the Time reporter was, "Hadn’t Beethoven been deaf.”

4. This was billed as the first stereo cartoon but there had been a number of earlier releases. Woody Wood­ pecker, Popeye, Bugs Bunny and Casper the Friendly Ghost all appeared in some form of stereo depth cartoons at this time.

SegeaS every 3,r'

\ eve^

witt she’* I in th* ofrns

/ I rO*^ ) wutcHum

kissinS

UHOA 0ARt»t*-U ¿kRHUl plkLM*tt ,N lC O L O R

CH ftR Lß B M g J }

KftTHLEER HJ6HES ______ « ^ w U W t B D - M « 1*

Stereoscopie Film

the fa c to rs that c o n trib u te d to th e r e s is ta n c e to co n tin u e d 3 -D p ro d u ctio n a n d m a d e th e stu d io s lo o k for a s im p le r w a y to re a c h into the p u b lic ’s p o ck e t. If th o se two q u a lity film s h a d b e e n m a d e in 3 -D in ste a d of the c o n tin u in g ru sh of e xp lo ita tiv e p ro d u ct, the sto ry m a y h a v e b e e n differen t.

S o m e q u a lity film s w e re m a d e in 3 -D , ste re o ­ s c o p ic film s c o n tin u e d to be m a d e 5 a n d the p r o c e s s c o n tin u e d to im p ro ve . S o m e of th e s tu d io s then o ffered the film s in 3 -D or 2 -D v e r s io n s a n d , a s in the c a s e of M G M ’s Kiss Me Kate, h a d tro u b le c o n v in c in g e x h ib ito rs that th e y w o u ld do better b u s in e s s with th e 3 -D v e rsio n . Kiss Me Kate w a s sh o w n flat at its N e w Y o r k p re m ie re . A lfre d H itc h ­ c o c k ’s Dial M for Murder w a s a ls o sh o w n flat for its p re m ie re (but h a s re c e n tly b e e n re v iv e d in de p th to a m ixe d re a ctio n from c ritic s w h o h ad b e co m e u se d to th e flat v e rsio n ). T h e re h ad b e e n m ore than 2 0 0 0 th e a tre s in the U .S . that c o u ld s h o w 3 -D film s but the s tu d io s n e e d e d s o m e th in g that c o u ld be a d a p te d to all th eir th e a tre s. B y the end of 1953, the s ta g e w a s b e in g s e t for “ T h e new d im e n s io n a l m a rv e l yo u s e e w ithout g la s s e s ! — C in e m a s c o p e ’’ .

D e v e lo p e d b y F re n c h le n s d e s ig n e r H en ri C h re tie n , a n d offe re d o rig in a lly to the H o llyw o o d s tu d io s 30 y e a rs e a rlie r, C in e m a s c o p e w a s the first of s e v e r a l a n a m o r p h ic p r o c e s s e s 6. T h e s y s te m w a s d e v e lo p e d for T w e n tie th C e n tu ry -F o x but th e y m a d e the le n s e s a v a ila b le to the other s tu d io s in an a ttem p t to c re a te a sta n d a rd .

T h e first C in e m a s c o p e fe a tu re w a s T h e R o b e : it had its p re m ie re at the R o ly T h e a tre in N ew Y o r k a n d took $ 2 6 7 ,0 0 0 in its first w e e k . T h e a d v e rtisin g s tr e s s e d the “ d e p th ” 7 of the im a g e a n d F o x prom oted the fo rm a t’s a b ility to c a rry m a g n e tic s te re o s o u n d t r a c k s , but few th e a tre s to o k a d v a n ta g e of the im p ro ve d a u d io . P ro m is e s of future 3 -D fe a tu re s w e re c h a n g e d to p ro m ise s that all future p ro d u c tio n s w e re to be in C in e m a s c o p e , a n d H o llyw o o d tried to fo rge t that th ere had e ver be en a third d im e n s io n .

2 0 t h C e n tu ry - F o x p re se n ts

THE BIG-TIME, GRAND-TIME, GREAT-TIME S H O W OF ALL TIME IN

THE NEW D1MENSÎONAE MARVEL

O n l y Onem oScope surrounds you vrsth the world's most beautiful women in such wonderful and glamorous entertainm ent. . , transports you from gay intimacy to breathtaking p a n o ra m a ,., from swank Manhattan penthouses and foshion show$ to ski slopes ond Lthe great

YOU SEE WITHOUT GLASSES!

O n f y Cìnem oScoi» con bring you such on exfrovagaflzö . of glitter, rom aace oiwT uproortûui looghfer, H«ra h the wOfl<WM love story o f ifcree fascinating .. females who pooled llll&v. their beauty to the funnteif plot against the op» x ever

Above: CinemaScope promised to ‘embrace the audience, without spectacles’, but the audience d id n ’t believe it was 3-D. Below: the top grossing 3-D film to date was a badly made skin-flick that started another B-grade 3-D boom in 1968.

THE U NPUBLISHABLE N O VEL IS N O W A M E R IC A ’S M O ST CO N TRO VERSIAL F ILM !

Features from the Black Lagoon A m o n g the B -g ra d e 3 -D fe a tu re s in p ro d u ctio n after the in tro d u ctio n of C in e m a S c o p e w e re a few that e xp lo re d new t e c h n iq u e s a n d s u b je c t m atter.

T h e re w a s a d o c u m e n ta ry d ra m a of th e K o re a n w ar, C e a s e F ir e , a n d , u s in g a c a m e ra rig built by its c a m e r a d e p a rtm e n t, W a rn e r B ro s w a s a b le to a d d s u b tle tie s to the Jo h n W a y n e W e ste rn Hondo (so o n to be re -re le a se d by W a y n e ’s so n ). C o lu m b ia u se d a rig of its ow n d e s ig n to film R ita H ayw o rth in a lu sh tro p ica l se ttin g in M is s S a d ie T h o m p s o n and d ire cto r J a c k A rn o ld built a c o m p a c t u n d e r­ w ater h o u sin g for U n iv e r s a l’s C r e a t u r e fro m th e B la c k L a g o o n . T h e im p o rta n c e of C r e a t u r e , other than a s a w e ll-m a d e horror film that h a s b een sh o w n fre q u e n tly in its 3 -D form s in c e 1953, w a s its re le a s e a s a s in g le -s trip print with the d o u b le im a g e s printed s id e by s id e , but ve rtic a lly . T h is req u ire d a se t of m irrors a n d p rism s to rotate the im a g e s a n d s u p e r im p o s e th e m ( s e e th e d e sc rip tio n of fo rm ats below ).

T h e P o la ro id V e c to rg ra p h s y s te m w a s an o th er s in g le -s trip p r o c e s s that w a s to h a ve b e en a joint ve n tu re with the T e c h n ic o lo r lab a n d w ould h a ve s o lv e d m a n y of th e tw o -im a g e re g istra tio n p ro b le m s. P o la ro id w a s intent on c o n tro llin g the 3 -D la b o ra to ry m arke t but w aited too lo n g to s e e if the vo lu m e of w o rk w a s to c o n tin u e . Its a n n o u n c e ­ m ent c o in c id e d with the en d of the boom .

T h e V e c to rg ra p h p r o c e s s d e p e n d s on prin tin g two a lre a d y -p o la riz e d im a g e s b y a d y e -tra n sfe r p r o c e s s in s u p e rim p o s itio n on a s in g le strip of film .

5. There is a fairly comprehensive list up to the 1981 releases Cornin’ at Ya and Parasite in Amazing 3-D, and the American Cinematographer April 1974 issue has a more thorough listing of films to that date.

6. These lenses take a wide-angle image and optically compress the image so that it appears squashed vertically. This image will then fit the standard ratio 35 mm frame and can be ‘stretched’ back to its wide screen format using a lens similar to the camera lens but rotated through 90 degrees.

7. In a promotional booklet for CinemaScope, Fox declared “ Actors seem to walk into the audience, vehicles roar into the front rows . . . audiences are made to feel part of the action — the goal of the earliest Greek dramatists — instead of merely watching it.”

138 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

T h e im a g e d e p e n d s on the c r o s s p o la riza tio n to g iv e the ligh t a n d s h a d e to the im a g e in ste a d of the u s u a l s ilv e r g r a in s . It w a s d e m o n stra te d a s a b la c k a n d w hite film p r o c e s s but w a s c a p a b le of co lo r im a g in g . T h e a d v a n ta g e w a s that it c a n be sh o w n on a s in g le p ro jecto r with th e o rd in a ry le n s e s an d is a lre a d y in re g iste r. It re m a in s on e of th e m ost e le g a n t so lu tio n s to the e a s y p re se n ta tio n of 3-D .

T h e perio d from 1 954 until 1960 w a s o n e of fru stration for the d e s ig n e r s w ho w ere b u ild in g c a m e r a s a n d p ro jectio n s y s te m s that w o u ld h a ve m ad e the p r o c e s s s im p le r a n d better. T h e s tu d io s had fin a lly re le a se d th eir lib ra ry of a lm o st 9 0 0 0 film s for p ro fitab le te le v isio n s c r e e n in g a n d had started th eir ow n p ro d u ctio n u n its for te le v isio n p ro g ra m s. T w e n tie th C e n t u ry -F o x s u rp r is in g ly re le a s e d a tw o-strip C in e m a S c o p e 3 -D fe a tu re an d two sh o rts, a n d a n u m b e r of film s in clu d e d sh ort 3-D s e g m e n ts a s part of the plot. F r a n c is Fo rd C o p p o la d ire cte d a sh o rt s e g m e n t for a s k in flick, T h e B e llb o y a n d th e P la y g ir ls , re le a s e d in 1962, a n d A rc h O b e le r retu rn ed with h is so m e w h a t b o rin g but t e c h n ic a lly in n o va tiv e T h e B u b b le in 1966. T h e p r o c e s s w a s a s in g le -s trip with the two im a g e s printed h o rizo n ta lly , o n e a b o v e the other.

T h is w a s to be the m ost often u se d form at for the next 10 y e a rs , an d , after the s u c c e s s of T h e S t e w a r d e s s e s , m a in ly p orn o film s w ere re le a se d in that form at. W ith titles like H e a v y E q u ip m e n t , R a m R o d , L o v e in 3 D a n d e ve n T h e N e w S t e w a r d e s s e s , th e y c o n tin u e d the im a g e of poorq u a lity 3-D a s a c h e a p g im m ic k . A n d y W a rh o l’s F r a n k e n s t e in , d ire cte d by P a u l M o rrisse y , w a s re le a s e d in 1 9 7 4 a n d h a s b e co m e the s e c o n d b ig g e s t g r o s s in g 3 -D film .

T h e re w e re so m e th e a tre s that sh o w e d 3 -D film s a s re g u la r re v iv al s c r e e n in g s to an a u d ie n c e of e n th u s ia s ts , a n d s o m e tim e s h a v e p a id to h a ve fre sh p rin ts m a d e to p re s e rv e the m e d iu m . T h e re h a s b e e n e n o u g h ste re o still p h o to g ra p h y b u s in e s s for K o d a k to c o n tin u e its ste re o s lid e m o u n tin g s e rv ic e , an d the V ie w m a s te r v ie w e rs h a v e b e en p rom oted stro n g ly by G A F to a new a u d ie n c e with so m e s u c c e s s . L e n n y Lip to n d e s c r ib e s h is e a rly fa s c in a tio n with 3-D a s b e in g d u e to th e 3 -D c o m ic

The Terrytoon’s Mighty Mouse was the first mass market 3-D comic success, going through two printings o f over a million. strip s that h a v e b e e n a v a ila b le o v e r the y e a r s .8 A m a z in g 3-D in c lu d e s m a n y e x a m p le s of the b e st

of th e s e a n a g ly p h ic d ra w in g s a n d a n u m b e r of the sci-fi a n d fan m a g a z in e s h a v e h a d a rtic le s on 3-D film s a n d c o m ic art.

The Future — In Depth T h e in tro d u ctio n of c a b le te le v isio n in the U .S ., a n d the s u b s e q u e n t o p e n in g up of p ro fitab le p ro g ra m m in g for a m inority a u d ie n c e , h a s a llo w ed the s u c c e s s f u l p re se n ta tio n of 3 -D film s on te le v isio n . T h e b ro a d c a s tin g of 3 -D te le v isio n h a s b e e n re stricte d b e c a u s e of the n e c e s s ity to h a v e s p e c ia l g la s s e s . T h e re h a v e b e e n re la x a tio n s of th e se re stric tio n s re c e n tly in the U .S . a n d G e rm a n y , a n d a n u m b e r of n e tw o rk s a re p la n n in g fu rther e x p e rim e n ts . F o r s p e c ia l e ve n t p re s e n ta ­ tion, s u c h a s s p o rts, p a ra d e s , v a rie ty s p e c ia ls a n d m o v ie s, the a u d ie n c e s e e m s w illin g to p u r c h a s e the s p e c ia l g la s s e s or c o lle c t th em a s an a d v e rtis e r’s s p e c ia l offer with c o u p o n s or b o x to p s.

T h e re a re a n u m b e r of the o ld e r 3 -D film s d u e for re le a s e on v id e o -c a s s e tte , a n d P h ilip s h a s d e m o n ­ strate d a v id e o p ro jecto r a rra n g e m e n t p la y in g from a 3 -D v id e o d is c . T h e re h a v e b e e n te s ts d o n e on 3-D te le v isio n in M elb o u rn e u s in g th e T r ia n g le p r o c e s s (s e e the c o m m e n ts b y M ike B ro w n in g , below ) a n d A u s t r a lia n s will p ro b a b ly s e e s e c tio n s of A le x S titt’s a n im a te d 3 -D fe a tu re , Abra Cadabra, on te le v isio n a s part of a d o c u m e n ta ry that B ro w n in g m a d e e a rlie r th is ye a r.

T h e re a re a ls o new 3 -D fe a tu re s in re ie a s e or p ro d u ctio n : the s e q u e l to the s e q u e l, Jaws 3-D, an d Friday the 13th 3-D w h ich w a s re le a s e d in 1982 in w id e -s c re e n p o la riz e d fo rm at. T h e p ro b le m s of light lo s s with the p o la riz in g p r o c e s s , re q u irin g s p e c ia l s c r e e n s or in c re a s e d light output from the p ro je c to rs, c a n be s o lv e d with s p e c ia l th e a tre s for e x c lu s iv e 3 -D p re se n ta tio n . T h is is p o s s ib le for e n te rta in m e n t p a rk s a n d e x p o s itio n s ; on e p ro d u ctio n of note is the w e ll-re c e iv e d Sea Dreams, m a d e by M u rra y L e rn e r for the F lo rid a M arin e la n d p a rk . T h e late st of th e s e p ro d u c tio n s is the K o d a k -s p o n s o re d Magic Journeys at the E P C O T c e n tre at D is n e y W o rld , a ls o in F lo rid a .

F u tu re d e v e lo p m e n ts a p p e a r to be re stricte d to im p ro vin g e x is tin g te c h n iq u e s . T h e lim itatio n s of the h o lo g ra p h ic p r o c e s s a re s u c h that the s c r e e n s iz e will be lim ited; if th e re is no d e v e lo p m e n t in th is a re a it w o uld be d ifficu lt to im a g in e h o lo g ra p h s a s a n y th in g other th an a return to a p e e p -s h o w form at. T h e e a s e with w h ic h c o m p u te rs c a n m a n ip u la te the m a th e m a tic s of p e rs p e c tiv e h a s s e e n a n u m b e r of p ro g ra m s re le a s e d for ho m e c o m p u te rists to m a k e s im p le w ire -fra m e typ e 3 -D im a g e s . T h e m o re s o p h is t ic a t e d f u ll-c o lo r co m p u te r a n im a tio n in film s, s u c h a s Tron, c a n be

8. Lipton was the technical adviser on a 3-D feature, Rottweiler, released in 1982. There is a good description of his involvement in the stereophoto­ graphy in the October 1982 issue of American Cinema­ tographer.

Stereoscopic Film

This ‘wire-frame’ computer generated image is from a U.S. television commercial produced by Bob A bel and Associates, one o f the innovative computer graphics companies experimenting with 3-D animation. a d a p te d for 3 -D v ie w in g at a c o s t a n d c o u ld be a d a p te d for h o m e or a rc a d e v id e o g a m e s . T h e u se of e le c tro -o p tic a l m a te ria ls that b e co m e in sta n tly o p a q u e w h e n an e le c tric c u rre n t is a p p lie d g iv e s a s im p le so lu tio n to the o c c lu d in g sh u tte r p r o c e s s ’s p ro b le m s. S y n c h r o n iz e d with the te le v isio n s c re e n or p ro jecto r, the p r o c e s s re q u ire s w ired g la s s e s or a b ro a d c a s t s ig n a l. T h e g la s s e s w o u ld be e x p e n s iv e but th e re a re m a n y a d v a n ta g e s .

T h e d e v e lo p m e n t of s p e c ia l s c r e e n s that vib rate or rotate to p re se n t two or m ore d iffe ren t im a g e s , w h ich c a n be vie w e d w ithout g la s s e s , s e e m s a g o a l that, w h ile d e s ira b le , will c o m p lic a te the p ro d u ctio n p r o c e s s c o n s id e r a b ly . T h e q u a litie s of the le n ticu la r s c r e e n s h a v e b e e n a p p lie d in a s im p le fa s h io n in the N im slo still c a m e r a (that is b e in g p ro d u c e d at th e T im e x fa c to ry in B ritain ).

T h is c a m e r a u s e s fo u r le n s e s a n d the fou r v e rtica l im a g e s , w h e n p r o c e s s e d , a re printed in narrow s trip s on to c o lo r p h o to g ra p h ic p a p e r w h ic h is th en b o n d e d to a le n tic u la r p la s tic s u rfa c e . T h e e ffe ct is s im ila r to the c h e a p 3 -D p o s tc a r d s of a n im a ls an d re lig io u s s c e n e s , but, in the e x a m p le s I h a v e s e e n of ty p ica l h o m e s n a p s h o t s , it g iv e s a g o o d 3-D de p th with o n ly a s lig h t lo s s of d e fin itio n . If it c o s ts no m ore, a s p ro m ise d , th an a s ta n d a rd co lo r print, then it will be a n o th e r s u c c e s s f u l ste p in e x p a n d in g the 2 -D e n viro n m e n t.

a. Standard 1.3:1 ratio, used in twin projection systems. b. Anamorphic “ squeezed” vertically, projects as Standard 1.3:1. c. Stacked “ Scope” format, projects 2.35:1. d. Anamorphic rotated 90 degrees, projects as 1.85:1. e. 70mm with two standard 35mm size left and right images. These could be anamorphic. The brightest screen image makes this a desirable future system.

Stereo presentation formats.

T h e a rg u m e n t that th ere is o n ly n o velty v a lu e in 3-D to be e xp lo ite d w a s e x p r e s s e d by an in d u stry s p o k e s m a n P e te r V la h o s in 1974: “ E v e ry ten or fifteen y e a rs a new a u d ie n c e h a s grow n up, o n e that h a s not s e e n 3 -D . T h e re are s e v e ra l m illio n s of y o u n g v ie w e rs w h o will p a y to s e e a few 3 -D p re se n ta tio n s. A fte r s e e in g them the n o velty is g o n e . . . O n e c a n e n jo y a go o d 3-D p re se n ta tio n , or a g o o d m ovie, but it is u n lik e ly o n e c a n p ro d u c e both at the s a m e tim e .”

T h is a rg u m e n t is u n d o u b te d ly b a se d on the e x p e rie n c e of the B -g ra d e film s of the tim e. It is not difficu lt to th in k of a n u m b e r of favo rite film s that w ould h a v e h ad g re a te r m o m e n ts of im p act or in vo lve m e n t if th ey h ad b e e n m a d e in 3-D .

T h e re a re m a n y film s that d e p e n d on the p re m ise of the a u d ie n c e a s v o y e u r that w o uld g a in c o m p le x ity from b e in g a b le , like G r a c e K e lly ’s h a n d , to re a c h to w a rd s th e a u d ie n c e in Dial M for Murder, a s s h e tried to find the s c is s o r s to kill her a tta ck e r. U ntil d ire c to rs of a b ility a re g iv e n the

c h a n c e to s h o w the q u a litie s of the m e d iu m , w e will o n ly h a v e the c o n v ic tio n of w rite rs like M ich a e l K e rb e l9 w ho p le a d s for the p ro c e s s : “ Im a g e s in de p th ra is e q u e stio n s a b o u t re a lism v s e x p r e s s io n is m , m ise en s c e n e v s m o n ta g e , a n d th e a u d ie n c e ’s re la tio n sh ip to the s c r e e n — in sh o rt, a b o u t the v e ry n ature of the film m ed iu m . T h a t 3 -D h a s n ’t a lw a y s b e e n u se d w ell, a n d d id n ’t b e co m e a c c e p te d the w a y so u n d a n d w id e sc re e n did, s h o u ld n ’t be of c e n tra l im port­ a n c e to s o m e o n e c o n c e rn e d with c in e m a ’s p o s s ib ilitie s . Im a g in e a th e o ris t’s ig n o rin g s o u n d ju st b e c a u s e the e a rlie s t so u n d film s w ere te c h n ic a lly a n d a rtistica lly c r u d e .”

A u d ie n c e s will s o o n be p re se n te d with the o p p ortu nity to a c k n o w le d g e or ig n o re the s te re o ­ s c o p ic c in e m a a s o n c e a g a in H o llyw o o d p re s e n ts them with lo v e rs w h o re fu se to s ta y on the s c re e n an d lio n s (or s h a r k s ) that le a p into yo u r lap . ^ 9. “ 3-D or not 3-D” , Film December 1980.

Comment,

November-

TRIUMPH OF THE FAT PEOPLE — The Aesthetics of 3-D “ In w h a t is the d ra m a tis m of the situ a tio n e n ric h e d b y m e a n s of th is te c h n ic a l d is c o v e ry ?

D o e s a t h r e e - d im e n s io n a lly r e p r e s e n t e d c o m e d ia n find s o m e a d d itio n a l m e a n s of e x p r e s s iv e n e s s in th is s te r e o s c o p y ? A p h y s ic a l ro u n d n e s s ? W ill th is be a triu m p h of the fat p e o p le ? “ W h a t c a n a n g e r, je a lo u s y , h atred g a in from the fa ct that th e y will o c c u r in th re e d im e n s io n s ?

A n d la u g h t e r . . . I c a n n o t b e lie v e that o n e co u ld in d u c e m ore la u g h te r th an is in d u c e d by a c u s t a r d p ie h ittin g M a c k S e n n e t t ’s fla t p e rs o n a g e s . A n d in trig u e ? C o m e d y ? “ Is th ere a n y n e e d of fu rth e r proof that ste re o ­ s c o p ic c in e m a is a fru itle s s, ste rile in stru m e n t? ” E is e n s te in q u o te d th e s e lin e s from L o u is C h a v a n c e , w ritten in 1946, a s a ty p ica l a rg u m e n t in h is e s s a y on 3 -D . M ost of th e g re a t film m a k e rs h a v e a d d r e s s e d th e m s e lv e s at so m e tim e to the s te r e o s c o p ic c in e m a . D . W . G riffith s a id , “ It will a d d a m ig h ty fo rce to m otion p ic tu re s . . . m a k e them b e yo n d a n y c o m p a ris o n the m ost pow erful m e d iu m of e x p r e s s io n of w h ic h a n y o n e h a s d r e a m e d .” T h e re h a v e e v e n b e e n c ritic s w h o h a v e c o m p la in e d that 3 -D m a k e s film s to o lifelike.

E n g lis h film c ritic R o g e r M an vell w a rn e d a g a in s t the tre n d of m a k in g film s into “ the th re e d im e n s io n a l, a ll-ta lk in g , a ll-s m e llin g , a ll-ta s tin g , a ll-fe e lin g c h a o s w h ich is the in a rtistic a ffa ir c a lle d th e e x p e rie n c e of life . . . It is w ro n g to try to m a k e art too life -lik e .”

Until a print marked ‘left’ and ‘right’ was found at Warner Bros in 1979 most people had forgotten that this 1954 Hitchcock film was shot in 3-D.

CINEMA PAPERS May-Jurte — 139

Stereoscopie Film

Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema: a study in depth Lenny Lipton Van Nostrand Reinhold, distributed in Australia by Thomas Nelson Australia.

Rrp: $29.95 “ It was 1952 and I was twelve years old. I bought a 3-D comic book about a Stone Age hero who used an axe to clobber dinosaurs. I wore cardboard goggles to see the illus­ trations in proper 3-D. The goggles had red and blue filters. After looking at the pictures for some time I noticed that I was seeing the world bluish in one eye and reddish in the other. This occurred when I took off the goggles and looked around the backyards and vacant lots of my youth. Even now, years later I will blink one eye to see if the world is tinted red and the other to see if it is tinted blue. Sometimes it happens! Could Mother have been correct? Did those comic books really ruin my eyes?”

In the same way as Lenny Lipton describes it in this paragraph taken from the preface to his new book, I shared his childhood fascination with 3-D comic books (although the one I remember best was Mighty Mouse), and I also tried (with little success) to make my own 3-D drawings with colored pencils. After reading Lipton’s book, I have a renewed interest in 3-D and have been inspired to repeat the experiment and try some 3-D still and film photography.

This inspiration is not just the result of Lipton’s usual friendly and informative writing

style that made a success of his previous books, Independent Filmmaking and The Super 8 Book (which are still recommended, even though some of the equipment informa­ tion is now in need of revision).

Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema is a more technical work, with dozens of formulae and charts that illustrate the work of many different 3-D experimenters, with Lipton’s own valuable conclusions from his work over many years. He acknowledges and deals with the expectations of readers of his earlier books in this way: “ Readers of my other books may be in for a surprise. This is a more difficult book, and a warning is in order. Although this has certain aspects of a how-to-do-it book, the major portion is, by its nature, a monograph presenting original research.

Readers seeking a more simplified approach are referred to Lipton on Filmmaking (Simon and Schuster, 1979), which contains a how-to-do-it section devoted to some of the tools used in this study. “ The early portions of the book are tutorial and historical. It was necessary to discuss some of the fundamentals, since stereoscopy is an interdisciplinary art, yet lines had to be drawn. For example, trig­ onometry is used to obtain some results, but obviously this is not a handbook on basic trigonometry. The mathematics are on an advanced high-school, or perhaps freshman college, level. Some readers will thumb through the book and challenge that con­ tention. For them and for the reader in a hurry, the results of mathematical deriva­ tions may be accepted at face value, and I have striven to explain all concepts in simple English. “ I admit that I have had a difficult time

Although polarized 3-D will be the standard require­ ment for presentation in theatres, broadcast television, which requires a compatible picture for those viewers who don’t have or choose not to wear glasses, has to find a different method. The system that seems to have been most successful in overseas experiments was developed

by Jim Butterfield and Bud Alger of the Hollywood company 3-D Video Corporation. Their system was used in the British experiments in November 1982, and they have been arranging live broadcasts in the U.S. The 3-D Video process has been used to transfer many of the mid-1950s 3-D films to videotape for video­ cassette and cable presentation. The system uses a pale blue and dark red color combination for the glasses which gives an almost full color view from one eye and a monochrome image from the other. That, apparently, is enough to block the slight fringing encoded in the picture and convince the brain it is seeing a 3-D image.

The effect has been reported to be excellent.

It is interesting to see references in the articles appearing overseas to the successful broadcasts of 3-D

140 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

deciding on the proper tone or level of difficulty of this book. It has been my desire to reach the greatest number of readers; I am hopeful that filmmakers will take up the call so that stereoscopic filmmaking will proliferate. Yet the state of the art is such that large chunks of basic information have not until now existed. I had to invent or discover what the reader now has in hand.

This book, like my others, contains the information that I needed to know in the years before I wrote it.”

I can recommend this book as the only complete overview of stereo motion picture techniques, and it will certainly help make the principles in 3-D easier to apply for film­ makers involved in 3-D film production.

Lipton dismisses the anaglyph process as limiting and unsatisfactory, and has an obvious preference for full-color, polarized systems. He has not mentioned the hybrid anaglyph Triangle system described below but the book has, given its publication date, probably the best bibliography of articles and books on stereoscopy.

Not included in that list was the recent piece Lipton has written for American Cinema­ tographer (October 1982) discussing his involvement in filming the 3-D film, Rott­ weiler, and the article by his business partner Michael Starks, “ The rebirth of 3-D” . The section in the book on 3-D television is very short and does not mention the considerable amount of activity in Europe, Japan and the U.S. since 1981.

So, use the book as an important intro­ duction to the principles of 3-D photography and for its charts and formulae but watch other sources for up-to-date developments as yet another 3-D boom continues, ^r

F.H.

television in Australia, the result of press reports of experiments carried out by Mike Browning and Volk Mol in Melbourne. The overseas reports have been premature as the system is yet to have its first (acknow­ ledged) broadcasts. The industry gossip about their Triangle 3-D system had almost been forgotten until the announcement that Alex Stitt’s new animated feature Abra Cadabra was being filmed in the process. With the arrival of the Lenny Lipton and Amazing 3-D books, the feature Cornin’ At Ya, and the announcement about Abra Cadabra, my interest in 3-D film and television was aroused.

The following interviews are with Volk Mol, a respected Melbourne cinematographer, Mike Browning, who has been directing documentaries and television commercials for two decades, and Alexander Stitt, who moves from animated commercials to full-length features with equal success. They explain the differences and unique qualities of their 3-D system and Phillip Adams adds the news that soon we will be able to judge the results for ourselves.

Film V ictoria is currently updating

The Complete Guide to Film and Video Production in Victoria.

If you wish t o be included in the follo w in g Categories, could you please fill in this fo rm and re tu rn it to :

Sue Chamberlain, Film Victoria.

409 King Street, Melbourne Victoria, 3000. (03)3297033

DETAILS:

• PREPRODUCTION: □ •PRODUCTION: □ •POSTPRODUCTION: □ •MISCELLANEOUS: •DISTRIBUTION:

□ □

•PRODUCER: •WRITER: •DIRECTOR:

□ □ □

C O M P A N Y N A M E :-____________________________________________________________ N A M E :_________________ ________________________________________________________ A D D R ESS:_____________________ ________________________________________________ ______________________ _____________________________________________ P O S T C O D E : T E L E P H O N E :_________________

• Please attach any further details you may feel are relevant

colors because the eye that has been seeing one color sees the world more in the opposite shade for a while. You don’t realize the two color bias until you have been wearing the glasses for 10 minutes and taken them off. “ Correct color” is very subjective: there are many cues one depends on for the correct perception of color which are almost as subtle as the cues for perceiving depth . . .

Yes, things like diminishing lines, and perspective. Take Alex Stitt’s Panavision cartoon as an example. Because the actual characters and scenery are two­ dimensional and because they are drawings, the system is pressed to its limit; it has to rely entirely on the distances between the planes.

In live action, I can frame it for the best 3-D, and there is movement in the frame or lighting to take advantage of the effect, but with a cartoon it must be constructed.

Does the name Triangle have any special significance?

It is three dimensions, three angles, and there were three people involved in the patent. It seemed as good a name as any other.

The three people were yourself, Volk Mol and . . .?

Can you explain the technical requirements of the Triangle 3-D process?

The only special equipment required is a modification of the camera lens; the rest of the process remains the same. Once the image is on film or tape, you can pro­ ject or transmit it normally.

It is essentially an anaglyph pro­ cess dependent on two speciallycolored filter elements fitted inside the lens. There is a module, con­ sisting of a white keyway and two filters, but no circular iris; instead, there is a horizontal light valve which moves like a Venetian blind.

When the image is sharp and in focus the colored light from the filters is mixed evenly with the natural (white) light coming through the lens, and all the points of focus are on the film plane.

Obviously, when you change focus, you move those points of focus to different positions, and the result is a color fringe on the out-of-focus parts of the image.

There is a blue fringe on one side and a red fringe on the other. They

are not true blue and red, they are a mild peacock-turquoise and the red is almost magenta. By wearing glasses with those two colors you are blocking and counteracting the fringes and, unless you are slightly color blind, you see an image in depth.

Although the images are quite normal in color without the glasses, the system does depend on that “ blocking” of some of the natural color to be able to see the 3-D. Yet the reduction in color with the glasses on seemed accept­ able. The flesh tones in particular were very good . . .

Because the colors are so mild, within a matter of 10 seconds you forget the glasses, and the eyes seem just to click into seeing normal color. It is like watching a pale pastel picture, or a print in Hollywood MGM Metrocolor, it looks unnatural at first but you get used to it. You are okay as long as you don’t keep taking off the glasses; when you do, you realize that you have been looking at two

John Taylor. When I sold Studio Corporation to John, I became executive producer on con­ tract to John’s company, River­ side. Volk was lighting camera­ man, also under contract.

John’s share of the patent was bought out by Phillip Adams, who later bought out our shares in exchange for a percentage of the action. We now have to wait for the action! The holder of the patent is Television Digital Systems.

What are the differences between the Triangle system and the Video West patent?

Their system was very basic. The patent only says that the process depends on two filters fitted inside the lens, but that was enough to prevent us from patenting ours in the U.S. The examples I have are CinemaScope tests, a workprint of Julie Andrews walking around her backyard and swimming pool. One side of the screen is red and one side blue, and there is a heavy fringe. Our system uses carefullyshaped filters and has our special light valve.

Does the fringe disappear as you stop down?

The advantage of the horizontal iris is that you can stop down and the fringe remains the same. Even at f:22 you get the fringes at the sides of the object.

How complicated is it to get good 3-D results?

It is much simpler, of course, on tape because you can see the effect immediately and build up what you want. With careful art direc­ tion it should be possible for any director to get good 3-D results — it is so easy to use. On the sample tape with Don Lane it was very simple. We taped it at 2 a.m. at Channel 9, and the camera operators easily worked out what focus pulling was required and were very excited by the system. It is the simplest and I feel the most natural of the 3-D systems.

I still remember Phillip’s com­ ment after seeing the original tests.

We were standing in the control room and everyone was watching the banks of monitors, wearing their glasses and jumping up and down. But he just turned to me and said, “ Do you take Diner’s Club?” * mi

Unfortunately, Phillip Adams was ill and not able to comment on the applications of the process and the story of the development of the Triangle system. He did dictate the following information in reply to an early request: All I want to say is that we’ll be going to air with a series of 3-D specials during the latter part of 1983 and I have, this week, solved the last remaining problem, that is, how to mass-distribute glasses. I can’t reveal the Machiavellian methodology, but I will be able to put a pair of classes into the hands of 13 million Australians in time for the telecast. Quite a tall order.

I’ve been a 3-D buff since child­ hood. As a kid I invented a system that didn’t require glasses and was astonished to discover that the Russians had come to exactly the same technical conclusions. And had made a film in “ my” system. So 30 years later, when I bought the rights for Mike and Volk’s process, I

iiiiM imiM i i i <Mi11 h

im

iilim n-i

1

in » mn

should have been ready for the shock that confronted me in the U.S. — that a virtually identical system had been invented at exactly the same time by an American scientist. Although the American system didn’t work as well as Mike and Volk’s, the patent effectively blocked ours. It was owned by Blake Edwards and Julie Andrews and I had to buy their patent out!

The invention that will go to air is very largely Volk and Mike’s but with modifications created by a team of scientists I gathered together in New York and at Berkely. These include a vertical [sic] iris device that increases depth perception while minimizing ‘fringing’ and more subtle, balanced tints for the special glasses. All in all, over 300 scientists, technologists and “ visual psycho­ logists” contributed to the program although Volk and Mike certainly deserve credit for 90 per cent of what is, I believe, a remarkable breakthrough.” (December 16, 1982.) * CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 141

Mike Browning mentioned that your first experiments with 3-D were in 1977 while you were both working at Riverside Studios. Can you remember what prompted those experiments?

It was a combination of things. I like to tinker around with lenses and I was fascinated by what is described as the nodal point of the lens, where the aperture is. I found that it was like a mixing chamber. I did a bit of fiddling around with color and things to see what would happen. I also had an enlarger that had a focusing system with, I think, red, blue and green filters in it. I don’t have it any more, but when it was out of focus the colors would shift a little. If it were in focus, it would be white.

At that time, I was reading something about the red and bluegreen 3-D process and I thought, “ That’s interesting; maybe that is a way to build up the principle.” I used an SX-70 camera and some filters from a Rosco sample book, and took some pictures that I thought were interesting, which I showed to Mike. We live in the country only about a mile from each other. He looked at them and at me and said, “ I think you have something here.” I thought he might have been joking but he was serious, so I pulled an old Schneider lens apart and shot some film with it. He was thinking more of the technical aspects, such as colors of the filters and glasses, while I was concerned with perfect­ ing the module. If you only use two colors in the mixing chamber it is not as good as when you use white light as well. It took a while to discover that.

Fortunately, I had worked for years with Mike and he saw com­ mercial applications that I hadn’t given much thought to. This is why we have worked together over the years. There was money available to develop it a bit further, so we did a lot of tests on film and 35mm stills, and at this stage Phillip Adams became interested.

Phillip is probably a genius in his own band of the spectrum. He certainly has a very active mind about marketing, and at that time 142 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

he was probably the perfect and only man to get the thing off the ground. He made lots of the early arrangements.

There was another partner, John Taylor . . .

John was the managing direc­ tor of Riverside. This project was only a sideline, something we did when there was nothing else.

Admittedly it cost him a fair amount of money — $10,000 to $20,000 — but the arrangement was that his share would be paid off. So, although we didn’t make any money out of it then, he did!

I think you know the story about the expert from the U.S. who came to judge the value of the system.

He was wearing glasses that looked like clear marbles cut in half and had to stand a foot away from the monitor. He thought it was a great thing: he had the contacts in the U.S. and concluded that although it was a simple system and working it could always be made better.

So, a lot of money and three years were spent by the Americans to make it better, which didn’t work. Mike and I knew it wouldn’t work and, if you place the module as it is today in Alex’s lens beside our first one, you would see it is virtually the same.

What about the horizontal iris?

That was actually one of the only worthwhile ideas they came up with. It was very primitive but sound. It was hardly worth all the money. We actually perfected the idea mechanically, so that instead of a slot in the lens with two hori­ zontal slides moving vertically up and down they are connected to the rotating aperture ring. This meant that we would contain the new iris inside the lens. It works exactly like a normal round iris except that it eliminates, or reduces to an acceptable extent, the fringing on the top and the bottom of the objects. Any fringing for our purpose should be on the verticals.

Does it alter the speed of the lens, or make it harder to use?

Yes, it reduces the speed by about one-and-a-half stops, and the different mechanical system means the settings have to be re­ calibrated. The shapes of the filters have been worked out mathematic­ ally to mix in the right amount with ordinary light. You need very little fringing and it is only with experience that you know when you have gone too far. Stopping down may bring other things into focus which you might not want.

With a still camera you can easily change the shutter speed but with film you would have to add ND filters. There is no question about

it: if someone wanted to shoot something tomorrow, you would need some assistance to get the best result. The effect would be there but we have done hundreds of experiments to determine the best results.

To my knowledge, with all the stuff I have read, this system is still the best for television, for the simple reason that it is compatible for viewers without the glasses.

Although polarized 3-D comes pretty close to being perfect, there is no simple way to use it on a single television screen using polar­ izing glasses. I have seen an elec­ tronic glasses system that you would plug into the back of the set, but the glasses cost about $300 each. It is very clever and the expertise behind it is probably many times greater than ours, but it is hardly a commercial proposi­ tion.

You have to remember that the television monitor is a small pic­ ture and with any system you will still have the effect of looking out a window with some depth in it. It is specifically the size that has the impact. If you have a cinema screen that is 2.2:1 screen ratio or even smaller still (e.g., an academy ratio) it is still quite big, and you have the effect in the theatre of being physically moved by the image. If you go smaller to a slide projector and then to a television set, you end up with what is just

Stills from the Triangle 3-D presentation videotape with Don Lane gesturing into the audience.

Stereoscopie Film

Some of the colors that they came up with in the U.S. were quite bizarre. One I remember was a greenish, light green and purple, color, probably scientifically per­ fect but objectionable to look through. The color has to be strong enough to eliminate the fringe image but subtle enough to allow the other colors to come through. Mike and I have always had a fight about the glasses. I have always felt that the colors should be heavy because the effect is so good; Mike says there is too much loss of color and make them lighter. So we have a compromise.

Apparently people were very dis­ appointed: the films were very old and not in color.

I remember the first time we demonstrated the two lenses we had converted at Channel 9. The chief engineer there was absolutely fascinated. He had the glasses on and all the monitors had 3-D images. He said, “ Now I know how Marconi must have felt.’’ He was very enthusiastic but after a couple of months he got cold feet and his opinion changed. I can understand why, although I don’t accept the logic of it. He was trained to transmit perfect pictures with perfect sharpness and skin tones, etc., and suddenly the pic­ ture he was viewing didn’t have perfect color. There was Don Lane standing there and the colors were perfect, but the moment you put your glasses on the colors were reduced. That was what worried them. The engineer said, “ But the color is reduced.” We said, “ Yes it is reduced to about 85 percent but so what!” They were afraid, frightened.

Just imagine, for example, you sold this idea to Holden or Ford or Toyota. One of them is bound to pick it up, not because it is great 3-D but because it would make people look more carefully at their In his article on 3-D television in car ad than the others. Yet no one the December ‘American Cinema­ has taken it up! tographer’, Daniel Symmes talks in the language that I am sure would The suggestion has been that it be convincing to Kerry Packer. It might be used for special events speaks about increased rating such as the Moomba parade, or shares and an incredible public sporting or variety specials . . . interest in the older 3-D films.

They are scrambled pictures: you Our point is that it is not special. have to wear the glasses, and It looks almost perfectly normal people went to considerable until you have the glasses on, then trouble to collect them. The it is 3-D. You can follow it equally Americans found that the FCC did well. It is simple, cheap and not care about the compatibility immediately applicable to tele­ problem of viewers without glasses vision. Tomorrow it might be saying that “ as long as the video superseded, but today it is the sync and reference signals were most effective television system. It ‘normal’ it was up to the local is patented around the world; in station what it broadcasts’’ . . . the U.S. it is patented in conjunc­ tion with Sanger at Video West.

I don’t know if you know much So, why aren’t we rich? about the experiments in Germany in February last year. It was You said that the colors were scien­ a Philips broadcast television tifically worked out. How accept­ experiment and they sold some­ able do you feel the choice is thing like four million glasses. aesthetically? the same as a good photographic en larg em en t. This certain ly doesn’t help you give the effect of 3-D, even with the most perfect system.

Depth is partly dependent on the size. With the polarizing system you will get a better perception of depth because of the varying stages. Our system has only three: foreground, middle and back­ ground. It is like the comic strips in the [Amazing 3-D] book which I showed to Alex as a suggestion as to what some of the titles could be.

Our system was designed for live action, not for the flat planes; Alex doesn’t draw lines around his flat planes anyway. I said some time ago you can actually enhance it by artificially putting some of that comic strip effect in.

Our system remains the simplest and cheapest to introduce now.

Mike and I could go into produc­ tion tomorrow. There is a 10 to 1 zoom already converted; we could do a film, we could shoot some tape. The ironic thing, for which I have no answer, is that it is not being used. Mike may understand the reasons better than I, but when you see the magazines and all the current interest in 3-D, it should be used now! Especially on television.

Since seeing some of the scenes from “ Abra Cadabra” , I have been conscious of the limitations of the effect with its three distinct planes. What happens when, in live action, someone walks toward you and you pull focus with them?

The fringing in the background would just get more obvious, but it is not a real problem. One of the things we found out very early was that that the mind of the viewer has to ‘click’ onto the effect. It is an almost audible click. Some people cannot see it at first and we say walk around a bit and stand at the back, then suddenly they see it.

Once their minds are conditioned to it, it works every time. You can put a 9.8 mm lens on an Arri — there would have to be objects touching the lens before there was any out-of-focus fringing — and people feel that they can still see depth because the brain thinks it’s there, especially when cut between two shots with a stronger effect.

One of the grips at Riverside was looking at some still photos with the glasses while it was still top secret and he thought it was wonderful. He then looked at the front cover of the telephone book and said, “ These glasses are terrific, I can see 3-D here.” He was sure the effect was in the glasses. That is a fringe benefit that works for any system using glasses.

Lenny Lipton quotes a figure of between 5 and 8 per cent who either can’t see polarized stereo (stereo blind) or experience dis­ comfort. You would have the added red-blue colorblind prob­ lems.1 Do you have many people who say they cannot see the effect?

1. Mol’s story about the U.S. expert and his glasses reminded me of a story from Lipton’s book which tells how Brewster, who made one of the first stereoscopes, was trying to obtain endorsement for his invention from the French Academy of Sciences: “ He had incredibly bad luck with the men he visited. A rag o n , Savat, Becquerel, and Poillet, were all stereo­ blind and had, respectively, diplopia, some sort of serious defect in one eye, only one eye, and strabismus. A fifth, Boit, failed to observe a stereo effect, although no reason is given for his in­ ability.” Finally they found a member with normal vision.

There was some research done in the U.S. to find if there were any viewing problems. I think there was something like one person in ten who had problems seeing the effect.

If you had control of the applica­ tion of the system, how would you approach it? Are there improve­ ments that could be made?

Our system might have some further fine tuning coming from its use and experiments but it would be minor, using different colors. I don’t think you could take it much further technically; you would have to go to a different system.

I think that lenticular screens might have some future, especially when they make solid state screens where each dot is in a fixed posi­ tion. With a lenticular screen on top of that, nothing can move and you could have television viewing without glasses.

As far as applications of the system, if some supernatural power gave me control, I would find the most competitive market and approach the individuals with the proposal of a half-hour show, at the most, or a segment in a show like The Don Lane Show. Then I would say, “ Put on your glasses.

Let’s go to 3-D” , and have a pro­ gram with some commercials in 3-D. Millions of dollars could be made from that intense viewer involvement. It is perfect for tele­ vision where the viewers’ attention is fragmented: they get up and go to the fridge, and you never have their full attention. In a cinema you might find the limitations of the system more obvious, because people have to stay put for a few hours.

I don’t really want to make the programs, but as a commercial application I can see a wasted opportunity. When you ask how much gimmick value there is, I would say some but that it has a perfectly valid commercial use. We are not cheating, there is a valid depth effect. It also works for magazines and printing, as you saw from that early Australian Playboy (although there were problems with that),2but its time is now because tomorrow it could be old hat. ★

2. Mol: It’s a long story but I was asked to supervise the photography and although the editor John Jost thought it was okay, I found it difficult to explain to the photographers that they couldn’t do everything as they were used to. They didn’t want to be restricted. I am used to studio lighting and found their flash lighting too flat. There was dis­ agreement about the model and it was left to the last minute and it had to go in because the Marlboro ad was booked.

So what you saw was the result of a day and a half shooting and we had no time to change. The color reproduction was another problem and the paper surface needs to be carefully selected because the shine draws the brain’s attention to it.

There are lots of things that need thinking about.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 143

Why 3-D, when your first feature, “ Grendel, Grendel, Grendel” , was in a conventional form?

We had the option of doing Grendel in 3-D. We had just

finished the soundtrack when Mike Browning told me about the pro­ cess he and Volk Mol had in­ vented. I thought he was pulling my leg, but a couple of days later he carted us off to Riverside Studio and showed it all to us on the Moviola.

We thought very seriously about it but decided against using the process because we were so far down the line. To build the equip­ ment would have added about $100,000 to the budget and, as the budget for Grendel was only $500,000, it meant a lot of extra money. It also meant gearing up to make the glasses and so on. We had already raised the money for Grendel so we decided to let it go as it was.

From that moment, however, I wanted to use the process in my next film, and so Abra Cadabra was written specifically with it in mind. That is why it is called Abra Cadabra; we are using the process as a part of the film.

We are doing little bits of new film grammar, and re-thinking the process. We are not thinking of it as a ‘round’ 3-D film but as a series of planes. The analogy is toy theatre: instead of doing a cross dissolve, as you would in a regular film with one flat plane, you dis­ solve out only the back plane. For instance, we can dissolve out a forest and dissolve in to space, with the characters remaining in the foreground doing what they were doing.

We are also using a lot of tricks; for example, curtains that drop down and pull up again. The cur­ tains have funny words written on them and give the film a theatrical, pantomime feeling. We are calling the film “ an animated rock-panto­ mime” . There is a lot of music but it is well-known nursery rhyme and Christmas carol-type music that has been embroidered on, fiddled with and to which new words have been added. It is all recognizable at once.

144 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

When you decided to go to 3-D and multi-plane, what decisions did you have to make about choosing the new equipment? Was it a standard, “ off the shelf” pur­ chase?

It had to be because it takes for­ ever just to get an animation rostrum off the shelf. We chose the Neilson-Hordell unit because it was available; they had one on the production line at about the right stage. The one big feature we needed was that the column that supports the camera be in the back left hand corner instead of the back centre. P eter N eilson designed it so that when the table is turned to vertical, it will accommo­ date long, roll-up titles. This is great because normally you roll up the titles as far as you can until you hit the column at the back, and then you have to bend them up or cut them off. The corner column suited us because we had to install another column anyway to support the multiple planes that hang up in the air.

We also have an intricate light­ ing problem because we have to light every plane individually. The sides immediately would have been taken up with lights and we needed the space at the back to hang the planes.

We made some modifications to their unit, mainly because we are shooting it anamorphic, in Pana­ vision. We needed a much larger hole for the back projection in the table; instead of the usual 12 inches (30cm), we wanted a hole that was 18 inches (45cm) across.

This meant revising the table design because the rods that hold the winders and controls had to be moved out and changed. All of the focusing system had to be altered.

Normally the follow focus system operates on a bellows, so that the lens is moving up or down in rela­ tion to the focal plane. However, the Panavision lens has its focusing system within it, so a cog system that meshed into the lens had to be built.

In the meantime Ian Scott, of Scott Animation in St Kilda, who builds the devices to animate signs and turn cars in showrooms, built everything to Mike Browning’s original designs for the planes.

That meant a couple of columns so that the planes could be moved vertically, independently of the rest of the gear. Each of the three planes needed a platen to hold the cells flat, and moveable peg bars so that we could pan cells in and out, which is an essential part of the 3-D effect. Being able to pan the scene across is one of the things that really give you the effect of depth, so the cells had to be move­ able. It was a lot of work getting those things done.

So your work is restricted to those planes . . .

It has four planes: the basic camera plane and three up in the air. We can shoot eight planes without any trouble by introducing the back projection system — that was my contribution to the system.

We have a thing called a Zoptic screen, invented by Zoran Persic, which is a smart bit of back projec­ tion material and works well optic­ ally. We put it in because the four planes were a long way apart. It is about a metre from the table to the

top plane and if you were to go to eight planes you would be up to two metres, which would mean that the camera would be six metres up in the air instead of the four metres it is now. Also, on the bottom plane we work to a draw­ ing 17 inches (43cm) across while the top plane is 7 inches (18cm) across, so you can imagine on eight planes the top one would be an inch-and-a-half wide (3.8cm), Or conversely the bottom one could be five feet (1.52m). Painting the cells, let alone trying to change them under the camera, would be horrific.

By breaking the system in half we shoot background material which can contain animation four planes deep, process it and put it in the background projector, which gives us, in effect, four planes below our base plane.

How do you control the color fringe on that many planes?

We have the color fringe from our shooting of the original material, which is projected onto the Zoptic screen. The only trick is that we make that back projection plane the one in focus, which means that there is no further effect on the fringing. It works brilliantly: we can run scenes that have back projection and scenes that do not and no one can detect a difference in quality on a big screen. We are delighted by it all.

The only problem with the Zop­ tic screen is that we have had to shoot at a very slow speed because of the low light level coming through the screen. In fact, we are on about a two-second exposure per frame instead of the normal quarter of a second.

Does the computer save you any time in controlling those planes?

The computer is essential when you are doing a pan and you have four planes moving. The camera­ man has to stop and wind the first plane across one-hundredth of an inch (0.25mm), then the next one and so on, and put all the drawings down and take the picture. How­ ever, the computer controls all the planes. While it doesn’t make the shooting any faster it eliminates a lot of human error, and frees the cameraman to think about the d ra w in g s r a th e r th a n th e mechanics. I think it is even more essential for this film because look­ ing at the drawings is hard enough.

The operator can be changing cells on all levels because we are doing a lot of atmospheric stuff, such as rain cycles, on all the planes.

If that is hard for the operator, how do the animators approach the multiple planes?

Although it certainly is irregu­ lar, all the animators have handled it well; there are a couple of tricks to it. It is difficult to get your mind

Stereoscopie Film

around the change of size and the fact that something in the fore­ ground is drawn smaller than something in the background is peculiar. It is due to the focal length of the lens we are using and the size of drawings.

I solve most of the problems when I am doing the layouts. I do a basic layout of the scene at the major field size, say 17 inches (43cm) across. I draw all the elements at that size, then put .them into the copy camera and make reduction drawings of the appro­ priate elements. The animator then has a basic layout that shows him how the whole thing looks and a series of separate pieces of paper with items drawn to scale. Once that is provided, it is all clear and understandable. But the tricks such as jumping from one plane to another and having a character move out of frame on one plane and in on another, which happens quite often, certainly test their con­ centration.

These are the kind of problems to which animators are accus­ tomed anyway. There are many things that only make sense to an animator who is solving the mechanical problems associated with these sorts of tricks.

In live action you can have a person move from background to foreground easily, but in anima­ tion you are limited to a few planes. How have you handled these movements?

Originally we thought we could have that kind of movement because the planes are capable of discrete vertical movement. We can do it if we have just one plane but if we are using all the planes, which we do more often than not, we can’t get them close enough because of the lighting and the reflection problems when they get close together. So we have had to abandon that idea.

We get around it using tricks you don’t really notice. You can cheat when objects move quickly towards you, because you don’t really perceive them in dimension.

It takes a while for you to decide where things are and, if they come hurling at you, you can’t decide anyway. Even the Cornin’ At Ya effects depend on the fact that you duck instinctively when something has been thrown towards you, rather than thinking that the object is actually leaving the screen.

How have you handled the limited color palette that the process in­ volves?

The only limitation is that you can’t use the precise colors of the glasses. If you do, you see the color but it takes on a certain fluorescence and won’t sit in fore­ ground or background. We have actually used the effect early in the film when a big curtain comes down to signal the beginning of

Early character designs fo r Abra Cadabra.

“ The Naughty Song” . We have painted the words “ Naughty Song” on the curtain and when it comes down with a great big thud, the impact is terrific. We have kept vermilion off all the characters but the blue isn’t as bad: it just tends to be recessive, it doesn’t ‘vibrate’; so we have used it judiciously. But there are lots of blues; you don’t have to use the same cerulean base.

The reduction in available colors is actually part of your own style, so you don’t feel it is restrictive?

Not at all. Instead of using every color in the world, stylistically I use a reduced palette. In choosing colors for the characters I select those that work well together, which means staying within a limited range. We designed all the characters, colored them as I thought they should be, shot some of them and looked through the glasses to see if there was any prob­ lem. There were one or two colors that looked a bit odd so we changed them. There was no feeling of restriction.

To what extent have you con­ sidered the possibility of the film being viewed in 2-D?

I haven’t really considered it at all; it would be like making things for color television and worrying about black and white. We see it in 2-D most of the time on the workprint; you don’t bother sitting at the editing bench while wearing glasses, so you watch it as 2-D

immediately tell which part of the scene is going to move! There are two ways to go: one is to put lines around everything, which is not silly. Disney has been doing that recently in The Animal Book and a couple of others.

The other way, also used by Disney, is to paint soft, colored lines around everything; when they went to the Xerol process, which has solid black lines, they began putting black lines around things in the background.

Although in Grendel the lines were left off for stylistic reasons, in Abra hard lines around things would become messy when thrown out of focus. Now, the flat areas of color just become soft at the edges, which looks acceptable. The same thing happens in real films when a dark foreground shape is against a dark background. There are many scenes where you can’t see any­ thing, and it looks okay. It has never been done in animation; people draw lines around the shape to make it stand out all the time. It means that in a strange way Abra is coming very close to real cinema­ tography: colored shapes on characters tend to merge with colored shapes on backgrounds, and things in the foreground and background tend to move out of focus. In that regard it is all getting ‘real-er’, but our drawing style is so stylized it takes the film away material; looking at it that way from reality: in that way it is ambi­ there are no problems. If there was valent. a scene that didn’t work you would consider doing something about it, Do you find the creative aspects of but so far it is working fine. the 3-D process attractive enough to consider another 3-D film?

One is immediately aware of the In the case of Abra Cadabra, it out-of-focus foregrounds, not so much as an intrusion but as some­ happens to work with the magic thing one is unaccustomed to elements of the story. One of the seeing in hard-edged cartoon things I find limiting is the restric­ animation . . . tion on the amount of movement of the new camera, which other­ Yes, and it is very interesting wise has the potential to go from a that The Secret of Nimh (Don full wide frame down to a close-up Bluth Productions), while looking an inch across. With the multiple like a nice Disney film with little planes you would go crashing animals and things, was shot on a through three sheets of glass! two-plane system. They built the There are many other things that camera rostrum especially, and, put aesthetic limits on your work judging from the photos in Ameri­ with 3-D, but ask me again when can Cinematographer, it is huge, we complete this film.

They built two animation benches and stacked them on top of each other, with giant lights and com­ Camera details: the Neilsonplete controls on each, just to get Hordell camera is operated by soft focus material. If you have John Curtain and Kim Hum­ little animated characters sitting on phreys. Curtain was a camera a background, they are always as operator at Filmgraphics in Sydney sharp as the main characters, so . and then at Raymond Lea. you are stuck with that as a style, Although he did not work the especially when you cut to close- Oxberry computer stand at Filmups. But if you can throw the back­ graphics, he has watched its opera­ ground out of focus it looks tion and considers the NeilsonHordell operation is much simpler terrific.

On Grendel, and again on Abra to use and program. The pro­ Cadabra, I have adopted an idea grammer of the animation stand of mine, which is to take all the computer-control program was lines off and leave flat shapes of Mark Roberts who came out from color. I did it on Grendel purely Canada for the installation with for stylistic reasons because I hate Peter Neilson. He then travelled to the backgrounds being painted Britain where the BBC has recently shapes and all the characters in sta lle d a N eilso n -H o rd ell having lines around them. You can computer-controlled stand. ★ CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 145

(ÜIhhhíc d a r dmiaulfcmta

AUSTRALIAN

BMMBj

FILMS, DOCOS’. ^ TV SERIES, PILOTS ETC.

1

Whether it’s wardrobe or props it’s important to have the details correct.

Classic Car Consultants have thirty years experience and extensive research facilities. Their professional advice ensures complete authenticity for vehicles in any period or situation.

A complete range of vehicles is available for films, promotions, etc.

R olls R oyces • V in tag e C a rs # S p o rts C a rs

•

Max H ouston

Scpatr Eestaration ÜHnôtftrattfln Snteraattunal Procurement (Eranaport Prouiôeô

®

PHUNL

-WANTED FOR AMERICAN CABLE DISTRIBUTION

REEL MEDIA ON (03) 690 5800

A A TO N

dlasmc (Har dons altante (02) 89 1613 Sydney (043) 73 1277 Workshop

®

•

Motor Cycles Buses Fire Engines

... The Silent One [Always seen but never heard] • Favoured by directors of photography all around the world for feature and commercial applications.

• The incredibly low sound level of 23 dB allows the use of camera-mounted microphones and unblimped operation. ® 16mm, super 16mm and video options.

• Easy-loading magazines.

• Patented fibre-optic viewing system offering bright and acutely-sharp image.

• Excellent balance and steadiness.

Australian distributors:—

*

A U S T R A L A S IA

fJ J M IT E D

i i S r TtD

N .S .W . 8 D u n g a te Lne, S y dney 2000. Ph: 264 1981 V IC . 77 C ity Rd, S th M e lb o u rn e 3205. Ph: 62 1133 O LD . 116 B ru n sw ick St, F o rtitu d e Vly 4006. Ph: 52 8816 W .A . 110 Jersey St, J o lim o n t 6014. Ph: 387 4492 S.A. 239 A n zac H w y, P lym p to n 5038. Ph: 293 2692 N .Z. 5 P o llen St, A u c k la n d . Ph: 789 094 x85

FOR LOVE ALONE

FE A TU R E S

PR E-P R O D UCTIO N

Prod, co m p a n y................M argaret Fink Film s P rodu cer......................................M argaret Fink D ire c to r..................................Stephen W allace S crip tw riter............................Stephen W allace Synopsis: The story of a young g irl’s passionate search for love and sexual fulfilm ent, and the men who help her find it.

FUNNY BUSINESS Prod, co m pany........................... Crystal Prods.

P ro d u c e rs ...............................Colin Eggleston, Ron M cLean D ire cto r..................................... Colin Eggleston Executive p ro d u c e r..................David W illiam s S c rip tw rite r.................................... Ron M cLean Synopsis: Karbin, a cool, tough, profes­ sional soldier, signs up for training at the Academ y — an institute so secret that none of its graduates ever discuss the training th e y und e rg o . Run by a d an gerous psychotic, the Academ y has training tests designed to kill. Karbin fights for his life but turns killer when the colonel m arks him as expendable.

Prod, com pany.................. Seven Dimensions P roducer................................................ Eve Ash D irector........................................ Ted Robinson S c rip tw rite rs............................. Ian McFadyen, Patrick Cook, Ted Robinson Script e d ito r ..................................John Clarke Exec, p ro d u c e r............................ Jim McElroy Assoc, produce r.................................Eli Sutton Prod, co-ordinator......................... Nancy Peck Len gth....................................................90 mins G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm Synopsis: We have seen how the people with qualifications m anage the business of running the world . . . now we see how the unqualified manage in the world of running a business.

DAISY

GETTING ON

ACADEMY

Photography....................................John Seale ONE NIGHT STAND Prod, m anage r............................... Irene Korol Prod, com pany..................................Astra Film Cast: Scott Burgess (Denny), Nicole Kidman Productions in assoc, (Maddy), Barry Otto (Ralph), Marianne with Michael Edgley International Howard (Chrissie), Chris Connelly (Harry). and Hoyts Theatres Synopsis: The film explores the relationship P rodu cer................................................. Richard Mason between Denny and Maddy, a boy and girl D irector........................................... John Duigan from opposite sides of the track. Strangers S c rip tw rite r....................................John Duigan who find som ething as innocent and Assoc, p ro d u c e r..........................Julia Overton inspiring as love in a world that is rapidly Length......................................................93 mins going to hell.

G a u g e ........................................................35mm B udget................................................................$ 1 million THE WRONG WORLD Cast: Cassandra Delaney, Saskia Post, Tyler Coppin.

Prod, c o m p a n y .....................Seon Film Prods.

S yn opsis: Set in the Sydney O pera House, P rodu cers................................ Bryce Menzies. the film follows the fate of four young people Ian Pringle on the first night of W orld W ar 3.

D irector..............................................Ian Pringle S c rip tw rite rs .................................... Doug Ling, Ian Pringle OVERSEXED, OVERPAID, OVER Photography......................................Ray Argali Prod, superviser......................... Daniel Scharf HERE Producer’s a s s is ta n t............ Cristina Pozzan Prod, co m p a n y............. M cElroy and McElroy Musical d ire c to r..........................Eric Gradman P ro d u c e r.........................................................Jim McElroy Length..................................................... 90 mins S crip tw riter................................................Trevor Farrant P rogress................................... Pre-production S yn opsis: A crazy com edy set in Sydney in Cast: Richard Moir.

1942. At the beginning of the year the Am ericans were welcom e saviours. By Septem ber the mood had changed. Before long a saying was going around that there were three things wrong with the Yanks: “ overpaid, oversexed and over here’ ’ .

P R O D U C TIO N

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS AND PRODUCTION COMPANIES To ensure the accuracy of your entry, please contact the edito r of this colum n and ask for copies of our P roduction S urvey blank, on which the details of your p ro d u c­ tion can be entered. All details m ust be typed in upper and lower case The cast entry should be no m ore than the 10 m ain a cto rs/ a ctre sses — th e ir nam es and character names. The length of the synopsis should not exceed 50 words.

Editor’s note: All entries are supplied by p ro d u c e rs /p ro d u c tion com panies, or by their agents.

Cinema Papers cannot, therefore, a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility fo r the correctness of any entry.

Prod, c o m p a n y.................................. GO Prods Prod, co m pany............ Argus Motion Pictures D irector......................................... le d Hamilton THE PERFECTIONIST Producers..................................... Hugh Kitson, Scriptw riters................................Ted Hamilton, Colin Borgonon Producer.................................................. Patricia Lovell ABRA CADABRA David Sm ilow D ire c to r................................Richard McCarthy D irector..................................David W illiamson G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm S c rip tw rite r............................................ Anthony W heeler Prod, com pany ..................... Adam s Packer S c rip tw rite r...........................David W illiamson W ardrobe m istre ss ...................Leslie Turnball Shooting stock...........................

Eastm ancolor Based on the original idea Film Prod.

Ward, assistant.............................. Jenny Miles S yn opsis: An incisive and humorous look at S yn opsis: The story of four ageing classical b y ..........................................................Anthony W heeler P r o d u c e r ...................................................Phillip Adam s buye r............................. Derrick Chetwyn the pressures inherent in a two-career Props m usicians who by accident become the Line p ro d u c e r..................... Pamela N. Borain Director ...................................A lexander Stitt marriage.

Standby p ro p s ............................ Igor Lazareff hottest rock’n’ roll group in Australia. The Prod, acco u n ta n t.....................Marie C. Brown S c r ip tw rite r .............................A lexander Stitt Special e ffe c ts ........................... Chris Murray, scenario unfolds around a ten-day concert Script e d ito r.................................. John Smythe Based on the original David Hardie RAZORBACK tour during which they are exposed to a Art d ire c to r..................................................... PhilM onaghan idea by ...............................A lexander Stitt Asst e d ito rs ...................................Jim W alker, lifestyle they have only read about, now L e n g th ...................................................... 90 min.

Prod, c o m pany............. M cElroy and McElroy Sound recordist .............. Brian Lawrence, Sue Blaney they’ re part of it.

G a u g e .........................................................35mm Producer......................................... Hal McElroy AAV Australia Stunts co-ordina tor....................... Bob Hicks Synopsis: A sim ple, unpretentious story D irector...................................Russell Mulcahy C o m p o s e r..................................... Peter Best Stunts/riding d o u b le s..................Craig White, about two people: an obese, cantankerous THE LAST REUNION Scriptw riter............................Everett de Roche Exec, produce r ....................... Phillip Adam s Jim O 'Neill, elderly Australian countrywom an and a Based on the novel Assoc, producer ................... Andrew Knight Robbie Moreton Prod, c o m p a n y ..................................... Reunion Films sensitive English school-teacher in his b y .............................................................. Peter Brennan Prod, secretary ........................... Janet Arup Still pho tograph y.............................

Bliss Swift Producer......................................David Hannay thirties. The story reveals the very special G a u g e ........................................................35mm Anim ation d irector ................. Frank Hellard BMX tech, ad vise r...........................Dos W hite D irector...........................................Brian Jones relationship that grows between these two, B udget.............................................. $3.5 million Key a n im a to r s ..........................................Anne Jolllffe, R u nner..................................

Kimball Anderson S crip tw riters................................................Brian Jones, who m ight never have m anaged without S yn opsis: After the disappearance of an Gus McLaren, Publicity.....................

Jan Crocker, Bernard Davis each other.

American woman cam paigning against the Steve Robinson, International Public Relations Sound recordist........................................... John Rowley sla ughter of kangaroos, her husband Ralph Peverill C a te rin g ....................................... Kaos Catering E d ito r......................................................... Robert Martin attempts to avenge her death.

Painting supervisor ............ M arilyn Davies S tudios................................... Mort Bay Studios Consultant e d ito r.................... Tony Patterson DEATHWATCH D irector special fx Laboratory............................................Colorfilm Prod, d esigner...............................................NeilAngwin p h o to g ra p h y .................... M ike Browning Lab. lia is o n .......................................Bill Gooley Com poser........................................................LeeHobber THE SENTIMENTAL BLOKE Prod, c o m p a n y ................ Deathwatch Prods.

A rt d ir e c to r ..............................A lexander Stitt G auge..........35mm, Panavision, Anam orphic Exec, p ro d u c e r.....................................

Bernard Davis — Virgo Prods.

M usical director ............................Peter Best Prod, c o m p a n y ....... Universal Entertainm ent Shooting s to c k ..........................................Kodak Prod, m a n a g e r............................. John Chase P ro d u ce r......................................... Judith W est Tech, a d v is e r s .....................M ike Browning, Corporation Cast: David Argue (Whitey), John Ley Asst d ire c to r.............................Alan McKenzie Director........................................ Peter Maxwell Volk Mol Producer..................................................M aurice M urphy (Moustache), Brian Marshall (Boss), Angelo Lighting cam eram an...................................Tom Cowan S crip tw rite r....................................... Peter W est S tu d io s .....................................................Al et al D ire c to r...................................................

Maurice Murphy d A n g e lo (PJ), Jam es Lugton (Goose), Focus puller/steadicam op ...............Ian Jones Based on the original Laboratory ...............................Victorian Film Scriptw riters........................................ Bob Ellis, Nicole Kidman (Judy), Brian Slom an (Creep), Boom operator......................Bruce Lamshead idea b y .....................................M ichael Ralph Laboratories M aurice Murphy Peter Browne (Fearsome Police Constable), M ake-up................................. Deryck De Niese P h otography...............................Ray Henman Length ................................................... 90 rnins Based on the book of Bill Brady (Police Sergeant).

Special e ffe c ts ........................................ Conrad Hilton Sound recordist..............................Bob Clayton Gauge .............................35m m Panavision, verse by.......................................C. J. Dennis S yn opsis: The adventures of two 15-yearSet construction................... Ken Hazelwood Exec, p ro d u c e rs ..................... Brock Halliday, Triangle 3D Prod, d e s ig n e r...........................George Liddle olds living in Manly. Goose and PJ really Sound e d ito r......................... Bruce Lamshead Peter W est Shooting s to c k .........................Eastm ancolor Costume d e s ig n e r...........................Jan Hurley wish the area had its own BMX track M ixer.......................................... Tony Patterson Prod, m a n a g e r.......................Victoria Christie Scheduled release .........................Late 1983 because there is nowhere they can ride their Cast: Philip Quast (Bloke), Jackie WoodR u n n e r....................................................

Vic Bell Prod, a ccou ntan t............. N. G. Prabsch & Co bikes at speed and do the stunts they enjoy. burne (Doreen), Linda Cropper (Rose), John V o ices: J a c k i W eaver, John Farnham , P ublicity........................................... W endy Day Art d ire c to r...............................Owen Patterson Hayes G ordon, Gary Files, Jim Smilie, Howard (Ginger).

A series of incidents leads to the pair getting S tu d io s......................................

Port M elbourne W ardro be........................................ David Rowe just what they wish for.

S yn opsis: A romantic com edy based on C. Hamish Hughes.

B u d g e t..................................................$880,000 Fight c horeography..................... Jim Richards Synopsis: W ill A bra Cadabra thw art the J. Dennis’ book of verse In which a roughLen gth.................................................. 100 mins Stunts c o -o rd in a to r.........................Peter West tough Australian is unafraid of sentim ental plans of rotten B. L. Z 'B ubb and nasty Klaw, G a u g e .................................................. Super 16 Studios...................................................Artransa BULLAMAKANKA the Rat King, to control all of the known and feelings.

Shooting s to c k ..........................................Kodak Laboratory....................................................Atlab unknown universe? Of course he will, with Cast: Max Fairchild (Chris), Rod M ullinar Prod, c o m p a n y ......................... Bullam akanka C om pletion gua ra n to rs........................H aliday the help of beautiful Prim rose Buttercup, (Robert), Chris Hallum (Allan), Jim Sm illie Film Prods. and Nichollas SHOULD AULD ACQUAINTANCE Mr. Pig and Zodiac the space dog, am ong Dist. com pany.............................................. Lone Star (Jeff), Stuart Faichney (Richard), Ian Scott Len gth................................................... 100 mins others. But not until the end.

BE FORGOT (Alistair), David Cameron (David), Trevor Pictures International G auge....................................35mm Panavision P ro d u c e r......................................David Joseph Kilgour (Ken), Harold Baigent (Jackson), Cast: Hugh Keays-Byrne (Quin).

P roducer.................................... Jane Ballantye D ire c to r.........................................Simon Heath Moira Claux (Mrs Jackson).

Director ................................................Paul Cox S yn o p sis: One of the great terrors is being BMX BANDITS S crip tw riter...................................Simon Heath S y n opsis: A contem porary ghost story of S criptw riter........................ Anne Brooksbank caught in an arm y tank when a bullet pene­ Prod, c o m p a n y ........................... BMX Bandits Based on the original powerful and terrifying suspense, set in the Assoc, pro d u c e rs........................ Patric Juillet, trates and richochets about inside.

Dist. co m p a n y........................Nilsen Premiere alienating isolation of the Australian outback. idea b y ...................................... Simon Heath Andrew Martin It is that concept of confined m ayhem that P roducers........................... Tom Broadbridge, P h oto g ra p h y.............................................. David Eggby Casting d irector.................................. Bob Ellis will have viewers gasping with terror!

Paul Davies Sound re co rd ist.......................................... Ross Linton Cast: W endy Hughes (Jenny) They will be gently led into the fam iliar D ire c to r....................... Brian Trenchard-Sm ith LOVE ON A TOURIST VISA E d itor................................................. John Scott S y n opsis: A contem porary psychological non-threatening environm ent of a depart­ S crip tw riter......................... Patrick Edgeworth C om poser.....................................Clive Pascoe thriller. ment store, and then subjected to an Prod, com pany...................................Laughing Based on a screenplay Exec, p ro d u c e r........................... David Joseph inexorable build-up of tension and suspense Kookaburra Prods. b y ................................................ Russell Hagg Assoc, producer.......................................M urray Francis which explodes into all-out warfare — from SILVER CITY P rodu cers....................................................... Jan Sharp, Photography..................................... John Seale Prod, supervisor.............................. Irene Korol which there is no escape.

Barbara Gibbs Sound re c o rd is t....................... Ken Hammond Prod, c o m p a n y ....................................Limelight Prods Prod, co-ordinator....................................... Sally Ayre-Smith D ire c to r......................................... Phillip Noyce E d ito r................................................... Alan Lake P rodu cer..........................................Joan Long Prod, m anage r.................................Irene Korol S c rip tw rite r........................................ Jan Sharp Prod, designer..................................Ross Major D ire c to r................................Sophia Turkiewicz Unit m anage r............................................. Steve Johnston THE DIRTY HALF MILE Photography................................................ Dean Semler C om poser.........................................Colin Stead S c rip tw rite rs......................Sophia Turkiewicz, Prod, se cretary............................................Sally Ayre-Sm ith Sound re c o rd is t.......................................... Lloyd Carrick Prod, c o m p a n y ............ David Hannay Prods., Thomas Keneally Assoc, producer................... Brian D. Burgess Prod, a c c o u n ta n t............................ Peter Dons E d itor............................................................. John Scott Unit m a n a g e r...........Carolynne Cunningham Underworld Prods.

G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm Prod, assistant ....N atalie W entworth-Sheilds Art d ire c to r............................. Norma Moriceau Prod, s e c re ta ry ................. Rosslyn Abernethy Shooting s to ck............................Eastm ancolor P ro d u c e rs ....................................Lance Peters, 1st asst d ire c to r........................ Peter W illesee C o m poser............................................. Cameron Allan Prod, acco u n ta n t.................. Candice Dubois David Hannay 2nd asst d ire c to r........................................... PhilRich Len gth................................................................

90 mins Prod, assistant....................... Joanne Rooney D ire c to r...................................... Hayes Gordon 3rd asst d ire c to r......................................... Geoff Barter G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm SIMPSON 1st asst d ire c to r............................................Bob Howard Executive p ro d u c e r................. Bob Sanders, C o n tin u ity.....................................Daphne Paris B u dget............................................... $ 1 .5 million Cinecorp Producer’s assista n t................................ Diana Davison Producer......................................... Lynn Barker 2nd asst d ire c to r............................................. Ian Kenny Synopsis: The story of a woman who must 3rd asst d ire c to r......................................M urray Robertson S crip tw riter....................................Lance Peters C a sting......................................................... Nene Morgan D ire c to r...........................................

Adrian Carr choose between her children in Sydney and C o n tin u ity ...........................................Linda Ray Synopsis: Set in the ‘dirty 30s’ , this is the Lighting cam eram an................................. David Eggby Executive pro d u ce r................................W illiam Sterling her love affair with a Balinese dancer.

Producer’s assistant................................. Libby Thomson saga of a deadly rivalry between an under­ Focus p u lle r.............................. Kim Batterham S crip tw rite r............................................... Jam es Mitchell C a s tin g ........................................................Susie Maizels cover detective and m aster of disguises, and C lappe r/loa der........................................... Steve Arnold S y n opsis: A film inspired by the roving life of the biggest underw orld madam in town.

Key g rip ................................. Graham Lichfield John Simpson — the man with the donkey — Casting c o n s u lta n ts ..........Mitch Consultancy THE NOSTRADAMUS KID Camera o p e ra to r........................................

John Seale Asst g rip .......................................................... Roy Mico one of the heroes of the Anzacs in W orld War Producer.................................. Jane Ballantyne Focus p u lle r................................................Steve Mason G affer............................................... Roger Wood D ire c to r.......................................................... PaulCox C lapper/loader........................................... Derry FieldAssistant e le c tric ia n .................Douglas W ood FACES IN THE WATER S c rip tw rite r.................................................... Bob Ellis Key g r ip ........................................Peter Mardell Sound re c o rd is t.......................................... Ross Linton STREET STORY Based on the original idea Asst g rip s ..................................... Gary Carden, Producer..........................................Lynn Barker Boom o p e ra to r...................................... Graham M cKinney b y ..................................................................Bob Ellis Prod, c o m pany.................. Helen Boyd Prods.

Executive p ro d u c e r................W illiam Sterling Phillip Shapiera, Art director................................................... Terry Stanton P ro d u c e r......................................... Helen Boyd Exec, pro d u ce r......................... Andrew Martin Synopsis: The harrowing yet deeply m oving Boris Janjic Asst art d ire c to r...................................... M arcus Skipper D ire c to r.......................................Howard Rubie Assoc, produce r............................ Patric Juillet G a ffe r..............................................................RegGarside story of a young teacher who suffers a M a ke -u p ........................................................ Rina Hofm anis S c rip tw rite r..............................Forrest Redlich E le c tric ia n .....................................................Sam Blenstock Cast: Robert Menzies (Elkin). nervous breakdown and finally m anages to W ardrobe.....................

Lyn Askew Based on the original idea Synopsis: A gentle com edy about the end of Boom o pe rator............................................Steve Miller claw her way back to a new life after eight Ward, a s s is ta n t.......................... Sandy Beach b y ........................................... Forrest Redlich the world.

Art d ire c to r................................................... RossMajor years in a mental institution.

Props b u y e r.................................Richard Kent

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 147

Production Survey

Sound e d ito rs .................................... Greg Bell, Standby p ro p s ............................................Harry Zettel Prod, m a n a g e r...................................... Barbara Gibbs Standby unit ru n n e r.................................Jam ie Egan Prod, secretary........................... Lynda House Helen Brown, Special e ffe c ts ...........................Monty Feiguth Unit m anager....................................... Adrienne Read C arpenter..................................................W ayne Allen Prod, accountant....C raig Scott-M oneypenny Ashley G renville Asst edito r...........................Frans Vandenburg Prod, a c c o u n ta n t........................ M oneypenny Stunts co-ordinator.......................................Bob Hicks 1st asst d ire c to r......................... Colin Fletcher M ix e r...................................................Phil Judd Services, Music perform ed b y ................. Various Artists Editing asst............................. Leslie Mannison 2nd asst d ire c to r........................................... Sue Parker Still p ho tograph y.............................. Carol Ruff Anthony Shepherd Stunts co-ordina tor........................Grant Page Still pho tograph y......................................... Bliss Swift 3rd asst d irector.......................... Tom Blacket Additionalp h o tograph y.............................. M ark Manion Still p ho tograph y............................Bliss Swift, 1st asst d ire c to r.......................... Mark Turnbull Elecs best boy....................... Philip G olom bick C o ntinuity...................................................... Pam W illis W ra ngle r.........................................................Don Tregear 2nd asst d ire c to r.................................Ian Page Jim Townley P u blicity...........................................Ken Newton Producer’s a ssista n t................. Judy Hughes Best b o y ...................................................R ichard Curtis Best b o y .................................Philip G olom bick C o n tin u ity .........................................................Liz Barton Media Consultants C a sting.................................................... Forcast R u n n e r.....................................Duncan Stem ler R u n n e r........................................Kerry Jackson C a s tin g ........................................................Susie Maizels C a tering........................................ Ken Sharpies Lighting cam eram a n.................................. John Seale C a te rin g ......................................... Plum Crazy, Focus p u lle r.............................................Jerem y Robbins P u blicity..............................International Public Unit n u rs e .................................. Rhonda Arthur Camera o p e ra to r........................................ John Seale C hristina Norm an C lapper/loader...........................................

Derry Field Relations (Bruce Glen) Length................................................................97 mins.

Focus pulle r.................................Steve Mason Mixed a t .....................................................United Sound C a te rin g ....................................................... Plum Crazy Key g r ip ...................................................... Stuart Green Cast: Colin Fuels (Mike), Harold Hopkins C lapper/loader........................................... Derry Field Lab oratory.............................................Colorfilm G a ffe r............................................................. Reg Garside Mixed a t ..................................... United Sound (Johnny), Kris M cQuade (Stella), Simon Key g rip ....................................... Ross Erickson Lab. lia is o n ....................................... Bill Gooley Boom o p e ra to r......................Andrew Duncan Lab ora tory............................................ Colorfilm Chilvers (Alfred), Norman Kaye (George), Asst g rip s ....................................................... Roy Mico, Length......................................................88 mins Costume d e signer................................Anthony Jones Lab. lia is o n ...................................................... BillGooley Dennis M iller (Andy), Lisa Peers (Jennifer), Robert ver Kerk G a u g e .........................................................35mm M ake-up...........................................................

Viv Mepham B udget............................................... S '. 2 million Andrew Sharp (Peter), Bruce Spence (Ted), G a ffe r............................................. Reg Garside Shooting s to c k ............. Kodak 5247 and 5293 H a ird re s s e r.....................................................Viv Mepham Dinah Shearing (Merl).

Len gth................................................... 105 mins Best b o y ..................................... Sam Bienstock Scheduled relea se............................C hristm as 1983 G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm Standby w ardrobe.....................................Roger Mork Synopsis: An action dram a based on two E le c tric ia n ............................ Jonathon Hughes Oast: C la u d ia Karvan (M axie), G arry Standby p ro p s ...................... Jock McLachlan Shooting s to c k ......................Kodak ECN5247 miners digging for sapphires. Filmed on Boom o p e ra to r............................................ NoelQuinn McDonald (Jones), Molly as herself, Ruth Scenic a r tis t................................................David McKay Cast: Steve Rackman (Rhino Jackson) Mark location in Emerald, Queensland.

Art d ire c to r..................................... John Carroll Cracknell (Mrs Reach), Reg Lye (Old Dan), Arm ourer.......................................... Brian Burns Hambrow (LD Jones), lain G ardiner (TM), Asst art d ire c to r........................John W ingrove Mellissa Jaffer (Jenny), Slim de Grey Editing assistan t...................Josephine Cooke Alyson Best (Clare Hampton), Kristoffer BUSH CHRISTMAS Costume d esigner..................Bruce Finlayson (Tommy), Leslie Dayman (Bill Ireland), Robin Stunts c o-ordina tor................................... Grant Page Greaves (Sausage Johnson), David Bracks M ake-up/hair............................................... Anne Pospischil Laurie (Stella), and m embers of the Flying Prod, c o m p a n y ...........

(Lionel), Jam es G. Steele (Mole), Garry .Bush C hristm as Prods Motorbike stu n ts........................................... Guy Norris H airdresser/m ake-up..........................Rochelle Ford Fruit Fly Circus.

P rodu cers................................. G ilda Baracchi, Kliger (Waldo Jackson), Norm an Coburn Best b o y .........................................................Sam Bienstock Stand-by w a rdrobe................. Julie Constable Synopsis: A fairy tale adventure about an R unner...........................................................Judy Rymer Paul Barron (W alter W illiams), Debbie Matts (Maureen).

W ard, assistants............................................. Liz Keogh, 11-year-old girl who inherits a dog that sings.

D irector......................... ..................Henri Safran C a te rin g .................................DJ & CJ Location Synopsis: Three days and nights of anarchy Linda Mapledoram, Catering, S crip tw rite r.................. ...................Ted Roberts in the life of Bullamakanka.

Chris Klingenberg, John W elch Based on the novel by .................Ralph Smart, PHAR LAP M iranda Skinner Mary Borer P o st-production..................... Studio Clip Joint Props b u y e rs............................................ Sandy W ingrove, FAST TALKING Prod, c o m p a n y ................John Sexton Prods/ P h otog rap hy....................... Malcolm Richards Laboratory................................................... Atlab Clarrissa Patterson, Michael Edgley International Prod, co m p a n y ...........................O ldata Prods.

Loc. sound recordist................... Don Connolly Lab. lia is o n .................................................. Greg Doherty Jock McLachlan P rodu cer................................... Ross M atthews E d ito r..............................................Ron W illiam s P ro d u ce r.......................................................John Sexton Cast: Tom Lewis, Hugo W eaving, Katrina Standby p ro p s .............................. Igor Lazareff D ire cto r...................................... Ken Cameron Prod, designer............. .................. Darrell Lass Foster, Mark Lee, Ralph Cotterill.

Special e ffects................................... Brian Cox D irector....................................................... Simon W incer S crip tw riter................................ Ken Cameron Exec, pro d u c e r........... .................... Paul Barron S yn opsis: The story of a strange love affaire Scenic a rtis ts ............................Brian Nickless, S c rip tw rite r.................................................David W illiam son Photography..............................David Gobble Prod, m anage r............ ..................Kevin Powell in a world of young outsiders living on the G illian Nicholas Photography............................................ RussellBoyd Sound re c o rd is t................................ Tim Lloyd Prod, secretary............ ................... Penny Wall edge.

C arpenters....................... Michael Fearnhead, Sound recordist........................................... G ary W ilkin E d ito r............................................David Huggett Loc. m anager.........................David Aderm ann Grant Ford, Prod, d e s ig n e r........................ Larry Eastwood Prod, designer............................................... NeilAngwin Prod, acco u n ta n t....... ..................Marie Brown Steven Volich, Prod, supe rvisor........................ Richard Davis MOLLY Com poser..................................Sharon Calcraft 1st asst d ire c to r............................David Munro Ian Day Prod, co-ordinator................... Cathy Flannery Prod, co -o rd in a to r...........................Liz W right 2nd asst d irector......... ......................Ian Kenny Prod, com pany......................................Troplisa Construction m a n a g e r.................Ray Elphick Prod, m anage r........................................... Paula Gibbs Prod, m an a g e r.................................i_ixie Betts 3rd asst d ire c to r................. M urray Robertson Dist. c o m p a n y .................. G reater Union Org. Asst e d ito r................................... Marcus Darcy Unit m a n a g e r....................................Philip Corr Location m anager/unit C o n tin u ity ....................................Jenny Q uigley P ro d u c e r................................... Hilary Linstead Neg. m atch ing............................................Atlab Prod, se cre ta ry.................................... Elizabeth W right m anager.................................................... Peta Lawson Camera g r ip .................................. Paul Holford D ire c to r............................................Ned Lander Sound e d ito r........................... Andrew Steuart Prod, accountant...... M oneypenny Services, Prod, accountant......... M oneypenny Services C lappe r/loa der.............................. Gene Moller S criptw riters............................... Phillip Roope, Editing ass is ta n ts ....................... Robin Judge, Androulla Prod, assistant..........................Carol Hughes Camera a ssista n t....... .................. John Ogden Mark Thomas, Louise Innes Asst prod, accountant............... Jill Coverdale 1st asst d ire c to r............................ John Rooke Asst g r ip ............................................Tom Hoffie Ned Lander Supervising sound Prod, assistan t.............................................Julia Ritchie 2nd asst d ire c to r................................... Tim othy Higgins G a ffe r.............................................Derek Jones Based on a story m ixer....................................................... Roger Savage 1st asst d ire c to r.......................................M urray Newey 3rd asst d ire c to r................Anthony Heffernan M ake-up...........................Vivienne Rushbrook ......Phillip Roope, Sound m ix e r....................... Julian Ellingworth b y .......................

2nd asst d ire c to r.................................... MichaelBourchier C o n tin u ity.........................................................Liz Barton W a rd ro b e .......................................Fiona N colls Mark Thomas, Still p h o tograph y............................. Tony Potts 3rd asst d ire cto r...................... Deuel Droogan C a sting........................................................ M & L Standby p ro p s ............................... Mike Fowley Hilary Linstead Title d e s ig n e r............................. John Stoddart 4th asst d irector.............................. C hristopher W alker Focus p u lle r........................Peter Menzies jun.

Set dresser.................. ................ Martin O ’ Neill P hotography......................... ...Vincent Monton R unners................................. Elizabeth Symes, C o ntinuity..........................................................

Jo W eeks C lappe r/loa der...................................G eraldine Catchpool Sound a s s t.................. ....... Graham Ademann Sound re c o rd is t................... ....... Lloyd Carrick Richard Hobbs Producer’s a s s is ta n t....................................... DiHolmes Key g rip ...................................... Lester Bishop Editing assistant........ ...........Pippa Anderson Unit publicist................................................Chris DayEditor...................................... ....Stew art Young C a sting........................................................Alison Barrett Asst g r ip ............................................. G eoff Full Horse m a s te r.............. ............... Graham Ware Composer/m usical director .....Graeme Issac C a te rin g ....................................................... John Faithful Camera o p e ra to r....................................... Nixon Binney Special f x ...................................................Reece Robinson Best b o y ....................... ................. Ted W illiam s Exec, p ro d u c e r................... .Richard Brennan Studios.................................................. Supreme Focus p u lle r................................Peter M enzies G affer..........................................Miles Moulson R u nner......................... ................... Steve Often Assoc, producers....................... Phillip Roope, Post-production fa c ilitie s ..................Spectrum Clapper/loader.................... G eoffrey W harton Boom o p e ra to r......................... Jack Friedman Location ru n n e r............................Craig Bowles M ark Thomas Mixed a t ....................................................... Atlab Key g r ip .......................................................... Ray Brown Costume designer......................................Terry Ryan C a te rin g ....................... .................. Frank Manly Prod, s u p e rv is o r.................. .....Barbara Gibbs Laboratory....................................................Atlab Asst g rip s ................................................G eordie Dryden, Standby w a rd ro b e ....................................... Rita Crouch Laboratory................... ................................ Atlab Location m anager....................... Phillip Roope Lab. lia is o n .................................................. Greg Doherty Stuart Green M ake-up/hairdresser................... Viv Mepham Length......................................................96 mins Prod, s e c re ta ry ................... ....Adrienne Read Length....................................................1 10 mins G a ffe r............................................................Brian Bansgrove Props buyer/set d re s s e r.........David Bowden G a u g e ................................................... Super 16 Prod, ac c o u n ta n t................ Howard W heatley G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm Electrician.....................................................Colin Chase Standby p ro p s ..........................Nick M cCallum Shooting s to c k ............................................ 7247 1st asst director................... ..Tony W ellington Screen ra tio ....................................Anam orphic Boom o p e ra to r..........................Mark W asiutak Construction m a n .................... Brian Hocking 2nd asst d ire c to r................. ............... Ian Page Shooting s to c k ...................Kodak 5247, 5293 Cast: John Howard (Sly), John Ewart (Bill), Art d ire c to r................................ David Bowden Editing assistants..................................Danielle W iesner, C o n tin u ity ............................. ..........Ann W alton Scheduled release.......................................Late 1983 M analpuy (Aboriginal boy), James W ingrove Asst de sig n e r..................................... Lisa Elvy Glen Auchinachie Producer's assistant........... .........Jean Bevins Cast: W endy Hughes (Vanessa), Robyn (Michael), Mark Spain (Jonn), Nicole Kidman Costume d esigner......................................A nna Senior Safety and stunts C a sting.................................. .....................M & L Nevin (Lila), Nicholas G ledhill (PS), John (Helen), Vanetta O ’ Malley (Kate), Peter M ake-up........................

Lesley Lam ont-Fisher co-ordinator............................................. Peter W est Focus p u lle r......................... ....Kim Batterham Hargreaves (Logan), G eraldine T urner Sumner (Ben), Bushwackers Band (Band).

H airdresser................................................CherylW illiam s Best b o y .....................................Richard Curtis C lappe r/loa der............................. Steve Arnold (Vere), Isabelle Anderson (Agnes), Peter W ardrobe supervisor............................

Graham Purcell Synopsis: A re-make of the film made in Asst best b o y ...............................................Hugh W orrell Key g r ip ........................................ Bruce Barber W hitford (George), Colleen Clifford (Ettie).

W ardrobe sta n d b y ....................................... Rita Crouch 1947 s ta rrin g C h ip s R a ffe rty , Bush R u n n e r.......................................Claire O 'Brien Asst g rip .....................................Graham Young S yn opsis: Set in Sydney in the 1930s, this is Asst wardrobe standby..............................

Leah Cocks Christmas is an adventure involving a group C a tering...................................................... Fillum G affer.................................... .....Miles Moulson the poignant story of a small boy caught up Props b u y e r.................................................C lark M unro of teenagers in pursuit of two would-be horse T u to r............................................................ G rant McDonald E le c tric ia n ............................ ...Richard O ldfield in a bitter custody battle between two sisters.

Standby p ro p s ..................

Karan M onkhouse thieves.

B u d g e t................................................. $900,000 Boom o p e ra to r........................Andrew Duncan Set d eco rator........................... Sally Campbell Length................................................................ 95 mins Art d ire c to r........................... ..........Robert Dein THE CITY’S EDGE Scenic a rtis t................................................ Peter Harris G a u g e ..................................................Super 16 CAREFUL, HE MIGHT HEAR YOU Costume d e s ig n e r.............. ........ Laurel Frank Asst p a in te r................................................. Tony Babicci Cast: Rod Zuanic (Steve Carson), Toni (form erly R u nnin g Man) Make-up/ Prod, c o m pany............. Syme Entertainm ent Carpenters......................... Errol Glassenbury, Allaylis (Vicki), Chris Truswell (The Moose), hairdresser....................... .Elizabeth Fardon P roducer...........................................................Jill Robb Prod, co m p a n y....................................Eastcaps Peter W atson, Gail Sw eeny (N arelle), Dave G odden Ward, assistant.................... Lesley M cLennan Producers...................................... Pom Oliver, D ire c to r...........................................Carl Schultz Christopher Reid (Warren), Peter Hehir (Ralph Carson), Steve Props b u y e r......................... ............... Ro Bruen Errol Sullivan S c rip tw rite r.............................Michael Jenkins Set co n stru ctio n ..........................................Brian Hocking Bisley (Redback), Tracy Mann (Sharon), Standby p ro p s ...............................C lark Munro D ire c to r......................................... Ken Quinnell Based on the original idea D ra u g h tsm a n .................... Marc Schulenberg Denis Moore (Yates), Gary Cook (Al Carson).

Special effects..................... ..Reece Robinson S crip tw riters.............................. Robert Merritt, b y .................................Sum ner Locke Elliott Art dept runner....................................Geoff Full S yn opsis: A contem porary com edy. The Circus c o n s u lta n ts ............. ....... Tim Coldwell, Photography................................................ John Seale Ken Quinnell Still photography........................................David Parker story of a young urban “ bushranger’ ' Bomber Perrier Based on the novel Sound recordist..................... Syd Butterworth W ra ngle r..................................................... Heath Harris fighting for survival in Sydney’s oppressed Asst e d ito r..............................Lesley Mannison E d ito r........................ Richard Frances Bruce b y ......................................... W. A. Harbinson Best b o y......................................................... PaulG antner western suburbs.

Music performed b y ........... ...... M ick Conway, Prod, d e s ig n e r...........................John Stoddart Photography................................... Louis Irving P u b lic ity .......................................................Suzie Howie Jim Conway, Sound recordist..............................Noel Quinn C om poser.......................................................Ray Cook C a te rin g .........................C hris Sm ith “ Feast” Dave Clayton, E d ito r............................................. Greg Ropert Prod, m anage r.......................Greg Ricketson (Sydney), Jim Niven, Art d ire c to r.................................... Robert Dein Unit m anager/location Helen W right Geoffrey Hales Assoc, p ro d u c e r....................... Barbara Gibbs m anage r...............Carolynne Cunningham (M elbourne) Budget............................................................... $5 m illion

POST-PRODUCTION BUDDIES

Prod, c o m p a n y ...................................J D Prods Producer....................................................... John Dingwall D irector..........................................................Arch Nicholson S c rip tw rite r.................................................. John Dingwall Based on the original idea b y ................................................................John Dingwall P h oto g ra p h y..................................David Eggby Sound re co rd ist.............................Peter Barker E d itor...........................................................Martin Down Prod, d e s ig n e r............................Phillip W arner Assoc, p roduce r......................................... Brian Burgess Prod, co-o rd in a to r.............Rosslyn Abernethy Loc. m anager...........................................Narelle Barsby Prod, s e c re ta ry ......................................Rosslyn Abernethy Prod, a c c o u n ta n t.......................................... Lea Collins Asst, a c c o u n ta n t..................................... Candy Dubois Loc. asst.............................................Jane Cook 1st asst d irector.................. Phillip Hearnshaw 2nd asst director..........................................Keith Heygate 3rd asst d ire cto r...................................... M arcus Skipper C o n tin u ity ...........................................Linda Ray C a sting........................................................Alison Barrett Camera o p e ra to r........................................ Clive Duncan Focus puller............................................Algenon Sucharov C lappe r/loa der........................................... Leigh McKenzie Key g r ip ........................................................Peter Mardell G rip's best b o y ....................................... MichaelNelson Asst, g r ip ................Colin Livingstone-Pulloch Standby ca rp e n te r....................................Jam ie Egan Special fx s u p e rviso r.................................Chris Murray G affer...............................................Roger Wood Boom o p e ra to r.............................. Keir Welch Art director......................................................RonHighfield Asst art d ire c to r.........................................Phillip Chambers Costume d e s ig n e r......................................Jane Hyland M a ke -u p ........................................................Sally Gordon H a ird re s s e r................................................... W illiKenrick Stand-by w a rd ro b e ..................................M argot Lindsay Props b u y e r................................ Alethea Dean Standby pro p s...........................................Shane Rushbrook Set c o n s tru c tio n .........................................Peter Tem pleton Unit runner...................................................Fiona Sullivan Stanley

148 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

Cast: Tom Burlinson (Tom my Woodcock), M artin Vaughan (Harry Telford), Judy Morris (Bea Davis), Dave Davis (Ron Leibman).

S yn o p sis: The story of the w o rld’s greatest racehorse, set against the backdrop of the Great Depression of the 1930s. It tells of Phar Lap’s sudden rise to national fame and the controversies surrounding his career, in­ cluding attem pts on his life before the 1930 M elbourne Cup. The story moves to the U.S. with Phar Lap’s success at the w o rld’s richest horserace, and his untim ely death in mysterious circum stances.

PLATYPUS COVE Prod, co m p a n y ................ Independent Prods P ro d u c e r........................... .........Geof Gardinei D irector.............................. .........Peter Maxwel.

S crip tw rite r....................... ....... Charles Stamp Photography..................... ......Phil Pike A.C.S. Sound recordist................ ..........Don C onnolly E d ito r................................. ............. Bob Cogger Exec, p roduce r................ __ Brendon Lunney Prod, co -o rd in a to r.......... ...............Dixie Betts Prod, secretary................ ...............Fiona King Prod, accountant............. ........... Peter Layard 1st asst director................ .....Tony W ellington 2nd asst d ire cto r............. ....... Paul Callaghan 3rd asst d ire c to r............. ....M ichael Faranda C o n tin u ity ......................... .........Jenny Q uigley C a s tin g ............................. ..Mitch Consultancy C lappe r/loa der................ ..........Sean M cClory Camera a ssista n t........... ............ Keith Bryant Key g rip ............................. ...Graham Litchfield 2nd unit pho to g ra p h y..... ...........Greg Hunter, Garry Maunder G a ffe r................................ ............ Derek Jones Boom ope rator................ ..............Steve M iller Art d ire c to r....................... ............... Ken Jam es M ake-up........................... ..........Fiona Spence W a rd ro b e ........................ ..........Fiona Spence W ard, a s s is ta n t............... .....Kerry Thom pson Props b u y e r..................... ....... Brian Edmonds Standby p ro p s ................. ............ Igor Lazareff Asst e d ito r ....................... .........M ichelle Cattle

Production Survey

D irector...........................................Henri Safran G a ffe r............................................John M orton Based on the play Best b o y ........................................ C raig Bryant b y .................................................Henrik Ibsen E le c tric ia n .............................. W ayne Simpson P hotography.................................. Peter Jam es Genni o p e ra to r............................... Dean Bryan Sound recordist...................... Syd Butterw orth Boom o p e ra to r..................................Keir Welch E d ito r...............................................................Don Saunders Art d ire c to r........................................Herb Pinter Asst art d ire c to r......................................Stewart MayProd, designer................................Darrell Lass C o m po ser...................................Simon W alker Costume d e signer........... Kristian Fredrikson Exec, p ro d u c e r..........................................Phillip Emanuel M axe-up............................ Lesley Vanderwalt C o -produ cer................................................. BasilAppleby Asst m ake-up...................................................Jill Porter Prod, m a n a g e r................................Susan W ild H airdresser..............................Cheryl W illiam s Unit m anager.........Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Asst hairdresser..................... Penny Morrison Prod, s e c re ta ry ................Suzanne Donnolley W ardrobe supe rviser...............Anthony Jones THE SUNBEAM SHAFT Prod, accou ntan ts.....M oneypenny Services, Standby w ardrobe.......................Kathy Jam es (working title) Valerie W illiam s Ward, assistan ts......................... Jenni Bolton, 1st asst d ire cto r..........................................David Munro Anna French Prod, c o m p a n y........... .............. TRM Prods 2nd asst d ire c to r...........................................

Kim Anning Art dept, m a n a g e r.............Sandra A lexander P ro d u c e rs................... ..........Miranda Bain, 3rd asst d ire cto r.......................................Steven Otton Timothy White Set dressers/props b u y e rs....... Jenny Green, C o n tin u ity ......................................................

Sian Hughes Larry Meltzer, D irector........................ .Richard Lowensteln P ro d u ce rs a ssista n t......................Debra Cole David McKay S criptw riter.................. .Richard Lowenstein Casting c o n s u lta n ts ..................................

M itch M athews Standby p ro p s ....................

Karan M onkhouse Based on the original Lighting cam eram a n................................. Peter Jam es research b y ............. ..Wendy Lowenstein C h ore ography....................... Leigh Chambers Camera o pe rator..............Danny Batterham P hotography................ .... Andrew de Groot Construction a s s is ta n t........... Derek W yness Focus p u lle r............................................ A ndrew M cLean Sound re c o rd is t.......... ........... Dean Gawen Scenic artist............................ Michael Chorny C lappe r/loa der........................................ Conrad Slack E d ito r............................ ................Jill Bilcock C arpenters.............................. Paul Vosiliunas, Key g r ip ...................................Graeme Mardell John Miles, Prod, d e s ig n e r............ ............... Tracy Watt Asst g r ip ....................................................... G ary Cardin John Parker, Exec, p ro d u c e rs ......... .............. Erik Lipins, G a ffe r............................................................. M ick Morris Stan Ruch, Don Fleming, E lectrician......................................................Matt Slattery Ian Day, Miranda Bain Boom o p e ra to r................................Noel Q uinn Michael Patterson Prod, consultant..... ...Michael Bourchier Art d ire c to r............................................ Igor Nay Prod, co-ordinators ..............Julie Stone, Construction m anager.......... Ron Sutherland Costume d e s ig n e r .................. David Rowe Art dept, assistan ts..................Juliette Otton, Chris Warner M ake-up.......................................................Helen Evans Nick Reynolds Prod, a c c o u n ta n t... ..........Mandy Carter Liv U llm ann’s Sound e d ito r.........................

Marc Van Buuren 1st asst d ire c to r..... .........Robert Kewley hairdresser...............................................Mara Schiavetti 2nd asst d ire c to r.... ......Brendan Lavelle Assistant e d ito r.........................Vicki Am brose H a ird re sse r................................................ Suzie Clem ents 3rd asst d ire c to r..... .........Mandy Walker Asst sound edito r........................................Karin W hittington W ardrobe s u p e rvise r................................ Terry Thorley C o n tin u ity ............... .........Andrea Jordan M ix e r............................................Roger Savage W a rd ro b e ....................................................Fiona Nicolls Camera operator.... ..................Paul Eliot Dialogue e d ito r................................Tim Jordan Props b u y e r.................................................Brian Edmonds The Sunbeam Shaft Focus p u lle r........... .............David Knaus Asst dialogue e d ito r ....... Annabelle Sheehan Property m aste r...........................................M ike Fowlie C la p p e r/lo a d e r...... ..... Steve McDonald Still p h o to g ra p h y..................... Patrick Riviere Asst standby p ro p s ................................Carolyn Polin R u n n e rs..................................

Annie Peacock, .............. Jack Lester Set d eco rator......................... Ken M uggleston Henry O sborne .........Colin Williams Tech, adviser ........................Greg Newbold Stunts c o -o rd in a to r....................................Peter W est Set dresser.............................

O livia Isherwood Unit n u rs e s .............................

Michael Brooke, Boom o p e ra to r............. ............Jacquie Fine Unit n u rs e ................................ Toni O kkerse Still photography....................... Bruce Haswell Scenic a rtis ts ................................................. Ray Pedlar, Sue Cowan Art d ire c to rs ................. ............ Nell Angwln, Best boy ............................................Ian Philp Billy M alcolm Best b o y..........................................M att Slattery Publicity...........................................Annie Page Harry Zettel Construction Publicity: P u b lic ity ....................... Rea Francis Company Asst, art d ire c to r.......... ...... McGregor Knox Unit p ub licist................Rea Francis Company Unit p u b lic is t...............................................Annie Page W o rld w id e ...................... Dennis Davidson c o -o rd in a to r..............................................Stan W oolveridge C a te rin g .........................................John Welch Costume designer....... .............. Jenny Tate C a te rin g ..................................... Jem s Catering Associates Construction fo re m a n ............. Dennis Donelly M ake-up........................ ........Deryk de Neise Post p ro d u c tio n ..................... Spectrum Films L a b o ra to ry.....................................................CFL A u s tra lia .................................Carlie Deans C arpenters....................................................Errol G lassenbury, Assistant M ake-up...... ..........Nick Seymour Mixed a t .....................................Film Australia Lab. lia is o n ....................................Cal G ardiner New Zealand ...C o n s u ltu s New Zealand W ayne Allan Hairdresser................... ........George Huxley Laboratory................................................. Atlab Unit p u b lic is t............................... Tony Noble Len gth.............................................................. 100mins Construction assistant............G eorge Zam m it Lab. lia is o n ....................................Jim Parsons W ardrobe...................... .........Frankie Hogan C a te rin g ............................... David W illiam s, Art departm ent ru n n e r.................. Fiona Mohr G a u g e ........................................................16mm Ward, a ssista n t............ Lynn-Maree Milburn Len gth................................................... 100 mins Location C aterers Asst edito r.............................................Marianne Rodwell Shooting s to c k ....... Eastm ancolor 7247/7293 G a u g e ........................................................35mm Props supe rvisor.......... ...... Paddy Reardon Edge n u m b e re r........................................ Simon Sm ithers Cast: Tony Barry (Frank W ilson), Allen Bick­ S tu d io s ..........................N orthern Television, Props b u y e r................. .......Harvey Mawson Screen r a tio .................................. Anam orphic A uckland, New Zealand Transport m anager..........Clark Film Services ford (Ted Finch), Aileen Britton (Gran Standby p ro p s ............. .......McGregor Knox Shooting s to c k ..............................5293 & 5247 L a b o ra to r y ..........................................C olorfilm Mason), Simone Buchanan (Jenny Nelson), T utor/cha perone.............Johanna Kauffmann Scheduled release.................December 1983 Special e ffe c ts ............. .............. Clive Jones Lab. liaison ................................Dick Bagnall Dubbing e d ito r....................................Tim Chau Carm en Duncan (M argaret Davis), Bill Kerr Special effects asst..... ........... David Hardie Cast: Genevieve Picot (Libby), John W alton Length ................................................ 95 mins Still photography............................................ Jim Townley (Mr Anderson), M artin Lewis (Peter Nelson), (Fred), Michael Pare (Max W ylde), Sandy Set d e c o ra to r............... ...... Andrew Mitchell G a u g e ........................................................ 35m m Dialogue c o a ch ...........................................Mitch M athews John Ley (Leo Baldwin), Paul Smith (Jim Construction manager. ........... Bill Chandler Gore (Nina), Peter Phelps (Theo), Andrew S hooting s to c k ..........................Eastm ancolor Anim al han dler................................Dale Aspen Mason), Henri Szeps (Winston Bell).

Sharp (Arthur Burley), Caz Lederman (May Asst e ditors................... ..........Robert Grant, Cast: Tatum O’Neal (C hristie W ilkens), Best b o y ..........................................................Reg Garside Synopsis: Saboteurs, attem pting to cripple Jaqui Horvath Burley), W allas Eaton (Mr Breedlove), Sue Colin Friels (Nick Skinner), Shirley Knight Generator o p e ra to r.............Jonathon Hughes the tug-boat, Platypus, and put her owner Leith (Alice).

Sound e d ito rs ............... ..........Dean Gawen, R u n n e r..................................................... Roxane Delbarre out of business, are thwarted by young deck­ ( V ir g in ia W ilk e n s ), D a vid H e m m in g s Frank Lipson S yn opsis: A romantic com edy set in Sydney (S u p e rin te n d e n t W ilk e n s ), B ru n o Law ­ D riv e rs .........................................Jam ie Barnes, hand, Jim Mason, who is anxious to clear in the frenetic, energetic 1920s.

It Is about Stunts co-ordinator/ rence (Peeky), Ralph C otterill (Holmby), Tracy Lock him self of suspicion of the sabotage. com ing of age; about a girl Libby McKenzie, safety o ffic e r.......................Chris A nderson John Bach (Bodell).

P u blicity............................................

W endy Day a man Fred Burley and his business — The Still p h o to g ra p h y................. Steve McDonald, Synopsis: Romeo and Juliet: R-rated and Receptionist/ Vladim ir O sherov Berlei Undergarm ent Company — and an PRISONERS updated to a New Zealand prison. te le p h o n ist...................................Vicki Traino O pticals................Victorian Film Laboratories Australia em erging from the sedate tradi­ C a te rin g .......................................Kaos C atering tions of Edwardianlsm into a period of Prod, com pany ....................Endeavour Film Tech, a d v is e r........................................Bill Hall Cast: Liv Ullm ann (Gina), Jerem y Irons dram atic change.

M anagem ent (No. 2) STANLEY Best b o y .................................. Adrian Cherubin (Harold), Lucinda Jones (Henrietta), John — Lem on Crest R unners.......................................... Serge Zaza, Prod, c o m p a n y .........................................

Seven Keys M eillon (Old Ackland), A rthur Dignam Dist. com pany ...................20th C entury-Fox THE WILD DUCK Daniel Scharf, G roup of C ompanies (Gregory), M ichael Pate (Wardle), Colin Croft Film C o rpo ratio n G eoff Smith Prod, c o m p a n y ............................ Tinzu Pty Ltd (Mollison), Rhys M cConnochie (Dr Roland), P r o d u c e rs ......................... A n tony I. Ginnane, P ro d u c e r...................................... Andrew Gaty Unit d o c to r.....................Dr C hristopher Brook Dist. c o m p a n y .................................. Roadshow Marion Edward (Mrs Summ ers), Peter de John Barnett D ire c to r.........................................Esben Storm Unit p u b lic is t...................................Julie Stone S c rip tw rite r...................................Esben Storm P ro d u c e r.................................. Phillip Emanuel Salis (Peters).

D ir e c to r ..................................................... Peter W erner C a te rin g ....................................Kristina Frolich P hotography.................................Russell Boyd S crip tw rite rs ........................... M eredith Baer, Post-production.............................. Mike Reed H ilary Henkin Sound recordist...........................................Mark Lewis Post Production Based on a story b y ........... M eredith Baer E d itor................................................................ BillAnderson Lab o ra to ry .....................................................VFL Prod, d e s ig n e r...........................................Owen W illiam s P h otog rap hy ......................... Jam es Glennon Lab. lia is o n ...............................

Bill Harrington, Exec, p ro d u c e r...........................................Brian Rosen Sound r e c o rd is t......................................... G ary W ilkins Steve Mitchell E ditor ..............................................A drian C arr Assoc, pro d u ce r................................... W arwick RossL e n g th ................................................... 100 min.

Prod, d e s ig n e r ........................ Bernard Hides Prod, m anager...................... Antonia Barnard G a u g e ........................................................ 35mm Location m an a g e r...................... Tony W inley Exec, p ro d u ce rs .............David Hem m ings, Screen ra tio ...............................................1:1.83 Prod, s e c re ta ry ........................... Julie Forster Keith Barish, Shooting stock.............................Eastm ancolor Prod, accountant........................ Kevin W right Craig Baum garten Scheduled relea se......................... June, 1983 1st asst d ire c to r.....................Steve A ndrews Assoc, p ro d u ce r .......................... Brian Cook Cast: Chris Haywood (Wattie Doig), Carol Unit m anager .......................... M urray Newey 2nd asst d ire c to r........................... Chris W ebb Burns (Agnes Doig), Hugh Keays-Byrne 3rd asst d ire c to r........................Richard Hobbs Prod, secretary ........................... Jenny Barty (Idris W illiams), David Kendall (Edward 2nd unit d ire c to r......................................... Colin Fletcher Prod, accou ntan t ....................Stanley Sopel Birch), Nik Forster (Harry Bell), Rob Steele C o nan tin u ity.............................. Therese O ’ Leary Asst a c c o u n ta n t.........................................Tony W hym (C h a r lie N e ls o n ), A n th o n y H a w k in s Executive producer's Prod, a s s is ta n t................. Barbara W illiam s (Sergeant), Marion Edward (Meg), Reg assistan t..........................................Rosie Lee Prod, tra in e e ....................... Tim C oddin gton Evans (Ernie).

C a s tin g ....................... Michael Lynch, Forcast 1st asst d ire cto r ................ Terry Needham Synopsis: In 1936, the miners in the small Camera o p e ra to r........................ Nixon Binney 2nd asst d ire cto rs ...................Kevan O ’Dell, South G ippsland town of K orum burra Focus p u lle r................................................Geoff W harton Jonothan B arraud barricaded them selves in the main shaft of C lappe r/loa der.......................Robyn Petersen 3rd asst d ir e c t o r ..............................G eoff Hill the Sunbeam colliery, dem anding better pay Key g r ip .......................................................... Ray Brown C o n tin u ity .....................Jacqueline Saunders and conditions. Their story is that of the Asst grip s...................................... Stuart Green, D ire cto r’s a s s is ta n t...................... Cass Coty Australian Labor M ovem ent of the 1930s.

G eordie Dryden P rodu cer's assistant: 2nd unit p h o to g ra p h y ..................Louis Irving Asst to M r G innane __ Sylvia Van W yk UNDERCOVER G a ffe r..................................... Brian Bansgrove Asst to M r Barnett ...........Frances Gush Prod, com pany............................. Palm Beach Electrician.......................................Colin Chase C asting: Pictures Boom ope rator...............................Steve M iller A u s tr a lia __ M & L Casting Consultants Art d ire c to r...............................Owen Paterson P rodu cer....................................... David Elfick New Zealand .........................Diana Rowan D ire c to r........................................................David Stevens Make-up designer...................................... Lloyd Jam es C am era o pe rator ........................ David Burr S c rip tw rite r............................................ M iranda Downes Make-up a r tis t........................ Robin Pickering Focus pu lle r ......................M alcolm Burrows Based on the original idea Hairdresser..............................Jan Zeigenbein C la p p e r/lo a d e r.......................................Roland Carati by..........................................................M iranda Downes W ardrobe d e signer................ Robyn Richards Cam era dept, t r a in e e ......... W illiam G rieve Photography................................. Dean Semler W ard, a ssista n t.......................Cheyne Phillips Key g r ip ............................... G raham e M ardell Sound re c o rd is t........................... Peter Barker P ro p s ..............................................

Lissa Coote Asst g r ip s .................................................... G ary Carden, E d itor............................................. Tim W ellburn Props b u y e r............................................... M artin O ’ Neill Richard Scott Exec, p ro d u c e r.......................Richard M. Toltz Standby props.............................................

Colin Gibson G a ff e r .......................................................W arren M earns Prod, s u p e rv is e r............................ Lynn Gailey C h o re o g ra p n y............................ Robyn Moase E le c tric ia n s ..............................................M urray Gray, Prod, co-ordina tor..............................Catherine Phillips Set d e c o ra to r..............................

Blossom Flint Ian Beale Knapman Scenic a rtis t...............................Len Arm strong Lighting dept, t r a in e e ..............................John Kaiser Location m anager......................................Steve Knapman C a rp e n te rs.................................. Les Seaward, Boom o p e ra to r.......................................... M ark W asiutak Unit m anager................................ Chris Jones G ordon McIntyre, A rt d ire c to r .................... V irginia Bienem an Paul Fawdon, Prod, s e c re ta ry ............................Julia Ritchie C ostum e designer ....... A p h ro d ite Kondos Prod, accou ntan ts.....M oneypenny Services, Kieron O ’Connell, M ake-up ..........................................Jose Perez Debbie Eastwood, Paul McKey M ake-up a s s is ta n t......... R obern Pjckering Asst e dito r................................ Cathy Sheehan Alan Marco H a irdre sser ....................................Joan Petch S o u n d .........................................Transfers Film Assistant unit W a r d ro b e .................................................... Julia M ansford Production Services m a n a g e r............................... Hugh Hamilton W ard, assistant ...................G lenis Hitchens, 1st asst d ire c to r.......................................... Mark Turnbull Stunts co-ordinator................................... G rant Page Elizabeth Jowsey 2nd asst d irector......................................... Keith Heygate Still photography...................... Carolyn Johns W ardro be dept, tr a in e e ......... Jude C rozier Best b o y ..................................... Paul G antner 3rd asst dire c to rs ........................................ Judy Rymer, P rops b u y e r................................................. PaulDulleu R u n n e rs..................................... C hris Barnum, Lisa Hennessey S tandb y p r o p s ....................................... T revor Haysom, C o ntinuity........................................... Jo W eeks M o rris Q uinn Catherine Bishop P u b lic ity ....................... Rea Francis Company Producer’s assistan t.................................Basia Plachecki Dressing props ......................... M ike Becroft C a te rin g ....................................... Kevin Varnes C a sting.................................M & L, Liz M ullinar A rt dept, tr a in e e s ................ Francey Young, S tudios........................................................ Seven KeysExtras casting Jerem y Chunn co-ordina tor................................... Jo Hardie Lab ora tory............................................C olorfilm Scenic a rtist .................................. Ray Pedler Lab. lia is o n ....................................... Bill Gooley Lighting c am eram a n................................. Dean Semler P a in te r ........................................ Paul Radford B udget............................................................... $4 million Focus p u lle r............................................... Steve Dobson S tand-by stage hand ...............A d rian Lane Len gth................................................... 106 mins C lappe r/loa der........................................ Felicity Surtees Set co n stru ctio n ......................T revor M ajor Cast: Graham Kennedy (Norm Norris), Nell Key g r ip .................................Merv M cLaughlin Asst e d i t o r ..............................V irg inia M urray Cam pbell (Amy Benton), Peter Bensley Asst g r ip s ........................................... Pat Nash, Editing dept, trainee . .. V icky Y iannoutsos (S tanle y), M ichael C raig (S ir S tanley Ric Bartsch Still p h o to g ra p h y ...........................Rob T ucker Dunstan), Max Cullen (Berger), David Argue (M orris N orris), Lorna Lesley (Cheryl Benton), Betty Lucas (Lady Dunstan), Susan W alker (Doris Norris), Jon Ewing (Reg).

Synopsis: The film is about an eccentric young m illionaire whose one aim in life is to become normal. To achieve this goal, he seeks out the most norm al fam ily in Australia and moves In with them. It is not long before he discovers that the fam ily is not all it appears to be.

doirf know

Did you know that the Tasmanian Film Corporation has a full 16 mm and 35 mm dubbing suite, 60 ft. x 46 ft. studio, broadcast quality 1” video control room, video O.B. van, cameras, lights, all grips gear including elemac dolly and crane? And crews with features, docos and commercials experience under their belts?

If you didn’t know What we can do for your next production, you’ll understand why the Tasmanian Film Corporation has been AUSTRALIA’S BEST KEPT SECRET — until now.

Call us TASMANIAN FILM CORPORATION PTY. LTD, 1-3 Bowen Road, Moonah, 7009 Phone: (002) 30 3531

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 149

Preproduction Announcement.

MOTION PICTURE SERVICES specializing in

AATON • ARRIFLEX • BELL & HOWELL • C.P. • • ECLAIR • CANON & ZEISS LENSES • • CUSTOM MODIFICATIONS •

A

Lens collimation & repair facilities for all film & video lenses as well as still photographic repairs.

17 LOCHINVAR PARADE CARLINGFORD 2118 PHONE PERCY JONES ON (02) 871 2253

^

'

SWAN STUDIOS AUSTRALIA ACTORS’ AGENCY VIDEO PROMOTIONS SWAN STUDIOS AUSTRALIA SUITE 1, 186 MOUNT ALEXANDER RD FLEMINGTON VIC 3031 PH (03) 376 1595 (Reverse charges STD or ISD)

Boulevard Films Pty. Ltd. proudly announce that they are currently in preproduction of the movie LES DARCY, screenplay by Frank Howson and Jonathan Hardy. Shooting to commence late *83.

Boulevard Films Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 66, South Melbourne, Vic. 3205.

Australia. Telephone: (03) 699 6190.

Telex: AA 135028.

Legal Representation, Mr. Peter Zablud. Zablud, Maughan, Wolski & Co., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Telephone: (03) 63 9111.

Telex: AA 38046. )T Y LTD

INCORPORATING SWAN VIDEO PROMOTIONS

Studio One Dimensions

• Flooded floor size 7.3 m wide 13 m deep Dry floor size 8.3 m wide 15 m deep • Height 4.3 m with roof in 7.1 m with roof out Facilities include

• • • • • •

Full cyclorama Floodable floor Removable roof 14' high x 12'wide roller door access Make up rooms • Showers Overhead lighting gantry and catwalk

Hire price on application 36 Howe Crescent • South Melbourne • Victoria • Australia 3205 Telephone (03) 6907711

Production Survey

Sound e d ito r........................... Tom as Pokorny THE WINDS OF JARRAH M ix e r............................................................. Peter Fenton Prod, co m pany...................... Film Corporation O p tic a ls ............................... O ptical & G raphics of W estern Australia P u b lic ity .................................H elena W akefield P ro d u ce rs.....................................M ark Egerton, (International M edia M arketing) M arj Pearson S tu d io s .................. Yoram G ross Film Studios D ire c to r......................................... M ark Egerton M ixed a t ..................................................... United Sound S crip tw rite rs......................................... Bob Ellis, L ab ora tory.............................................C olorfilm Anne Brooksbank Lab. lia is o n ...................................................... BillGooley Director of p h o to g ra p h y............ G eoff Burton B u d g e t...................................$1 m illion approx.

Sound re c o rd is t............................G ary W ilkins Len gth...................................................... 81 mins E d ito r.............................................Sara Bennett G a u g e ......................................................... 35mm Prod, d e s ig n e r....................... G raham W alker Shooting s to c k ...................... E/Col neg. 5247 C o m po ser................................Bruce Sm eaton Scheduled re le a s e ................C hristm as 1983 Assoc, produce r........................... C ara Fam es C h a ra c te r v o ic e s : Drew Forsythe, Barbara Prod, s u p e rv is o r.........................Su Arm strong Frawley, Ron Haddock, Anne Haddy, Ross Loc. m anage r........................................ Phil Rich Higgins, Robyn Moore.

U nit m a n a g e r................................P eter Gailey S yn o p s is : The adventures of Dot as she Prod, s e c re ta ry ........................... Carol Hughes continues her search for the m issing joey, Prod, a cco u n ta n t........................ Peter Sjoquist am idst the native flora and fauna of the Aus­ 1st asst d ire c to r.....................M ichael Falloon tralian bush. During the course of her search 2nd asst d ire c to r.................................. Phil Rich she is constantly confronted by a little rabbit 3rd asst d ire c to r.........................M ark Lam prell who is desperately trying to be recognized as C o n tin u ity .................................... Daphne Paris a kangaroo in order to be a protected Extras c a s tin g ............................. Klay Lam prell species. D ot’s encounters with the rabbit Casting consu ltants................... Alison Barrett prove to be highly am using.

Cam era o p e ra to r................. David W illiam son Focus p u lle r.............................. David Foreman THE SETTLEMENT C lappe r/loa der............................. G illian Leahy Film school attachm ent/ A revised listing of inform ation as it appeared cam era as s is ta n t..............Nick M cPherson in the previous issue of Cinema Papers is as Key g r ip ........................................... Rob Morgan follows: Asst g r ip ..................................G raham Shelton U nderw ater p h o to g ra p h y ..........David Burr & Production Divers Prod, c o m p a n y ........... Robert Bruning Prods.

G a ffe r.................................G raham R utherford P rodu cer....................................Robert Bruning Boom o p e ra to r.............................................M ark W asiutak D ire c to r.................................................... Howard Rubie Art d ire c to r.............................Steve A m ezdroz S c rip tw rite r..................................................... Ted Roberts C ostum e d e s ig n e r........................ David Rowe Based on the original M a ke -u p .........................Lesley Lam ont-Fisher idea b y ....................................

Ted Roberts Standby w a rd ro b e ........................Jenny Miles Sound re c o rd is t............................................ Max Bowring W ard, assistan t..........................Penny G ordon E d ito r............................................................Henry D angar Props b uye r................................Anni Browning C om poser......................................................Sven Libaek Standby p r o p s ...................................Tony Hunt Assoc, producer.......................................... Anne Bruning Special e ffe c ts ............................................ C hris Murray, Prod, superviser.............................. Irene Korol David Hardie The ithFranklin Adventure Prod, co-ordinator....................................... Sally Ayre-Sm P a inter.............................................................. Len Arm strong Unit m a n a g e r.................................................. BillAustin C a rpe nte rs......................................John Rann, Prod, a c c o u n ta n t............................Rob Prince Keron Stevens, Prod, a s s is ta n t................................Debra Cole Bob McLeod, P ro p s ..............................M embers of T.R.E.E. 1st asst d ire c to r............................................. Les Currie EXERCISE GREEN STATIONS Brian Childs C horeography.....................Ronaldo Cameron 2nd asst d ire c to r........................................... PaulHealey Set c o n s tru c tio n ...................................... Dennis Sm ith, Prod, com pany..................................... Kingcroft Prods.

Prod, c o m p a n y ................Hawkins M cKim m ie M usic performed 3rd asst d irector....................................... W ayne Moore Dist. com pany................................................Film Australia Bill Howe Producers............................ Jackie McKimmie, b y .................................M artin W esley Smith, C o ntinuity..................................................... Anne M cLeod Asst e d ito r...................................................Lynne W illiam s Producer.......................................................Terry O hlsson Trevor Hawkins Ian Fredericks Lighting c a m e ra m a n ....................Ernest C lark Edge n u m b e re r.......................................... Kathy Cook D irectors...................................................... Philip Bond, D ire c to r..................................

Jacki M cKim m ie Mixed a t .......................................... Dubbs & Co. Focus p u lle r................................................M artin Turner M usical d ire c to r .........................................Bruce Smeaton Terry O hlsson S c rip tw rite r............................

Jacki M cKim m ie Laboratory.............................................Colorfilm C lappe r/loa der........................................... Garry Phillips Sound e d ito r.................................................. PaulMaxwell S P h otog rap hy........................................... Andrew Lesnie Len gth................................................................ 60 mins c rip tw rite r.................................................. Terry O hlsson Key g rip .......................................................Lester Bishop Dubbing e d ito r.............................. Peter Foster Based on the original idea Sound re c o rd is t............................................

Max Bowring G a u g e .........................................................

16mm Asst g rip .......................................... W ilfred Flint b y.............................................. Terry O hlsson Editing a ssista n ts.......................................Anne Breslin, E d ito r............................................................ G eoff Bennett Shooting s to c k ..............Kodak Eastm ancolor G a ffe r.......................................................G raham Rutherford Em m a Hay Prod, de s ig n e r...................... C hris M cKim m ie Scheduled re le a s e .................................... June, 1983P h otog rap hy.............................. M ichael Kings Boom operator............................Bruce W allace S ound re c o rd is t............. David M cConnachie Stunts c o -o rd in a to r....................................Peter W est Prod, m anager........................... N ickO u ghton Cast: Participants and perform ers in Theatre Art d ire c to r................................................... John W atson Still pho tograph y.......................................... C hic Stringer E d ito r.................................................. Bill Stacey Prod, s e c re ta ry .......................... Jenny S talker Reaching Environm ents Everywhere.

M ake-up.............................. M argaret Lingham Anim al w ra n g le r.........................................Steve Phillips C o m po sers.......................... Rim sky-Korsakov, 1st asst d ire c to r......................Trevor Hawkins S yn opsis: T.R.E.E. is a large com m unity W ardro be............................................Ron Reid Best b o y .......................................................... Ken M offatt Billy W eston Lighting a s s is ta n ts .................Jam es Henson, perform ance group, which brings together Ward a s s is ta n t............................................Anne W atson R u n n e rs ....................................................... Peter Brown, Exec, p ro d u ce r.................. v Peter Johnson G ary Silk more than 100 people to create and perform Props b u y e r............................................Graham Blackm ord Prod, su p e rviso r.................

Terry Slack Shane W alker Camera op e ra to r....................

Andrew Lesnie a visually-spectacular m ulti-m edia event, in Standby p ro p s ................................... Barry Hall Prod, m a n a g e r............................................Terry Slack C a te rin g ..................... Take One Film C atering Camera assistant................... John Andersen the natural environm ent of The Royal Special e ffe c ts ...................... Conrad Rothm an M ixed a t .................................................C olorfilm Unit m a n a g e r..............................................

Terry Slack G affer........................................................... Jam ie Egan National Park, south of Sydney. Audiences Asst edito r.............................. Pamela Barnetta Prod, secretary.........................................M arina Seeto L ab ora tory............................................. C olorfilm Boom o p e ra to r..........................................Kieran Knox of s e v e ra l th o u s a n d s a tte n d th e s e Neg. m a tc h in g ........................................... Karen Clarke Lab. lia is o n .......................................................BillGooley Lighting cam eram an..............................M ichael Kings Art d ire c to r............................ Chris M cKim m ie perform ances. This is T.R .E .E .’s sixth such Musical d ire c to r.......................................... Sven Libaek Len g th .............................................................. 100 mins.

Camera o p e ra to r....................................M ichaelKings Asst art d ire c to r...........................................Ross Pullbrook event, since it was established in 1979.

Sound e d ito rs ........................Ashley G renville, G a u g e ................................. 35m m anam orphic Focus p u lle r.............................................. Martyn Goundry M ake-up.........................................................Gian Fluckiger Anne Breslin Shooting s to c k ...........................................Kodak C lappe r/loa der......................................... M artyn G oundry W a rd ro b e ................................................. M erilyn Fairskye THE VOYAGE OF THE BOUNTY’S Editing assistants.......................................... PhilDickson, C ast: Terence Donovan, Susan Lyons, Key g rip ................................................ Peter Doig Art d e p a rtm e n t...........................Kelvin Baker, Glen Lockington CHILD H arold H opkins, S teve Bisley, M artin Asst g r ip .......................................................Kerry Besgrove Andrew Massie, M ixer............................................................ Julian Ellingworth V a u g h a n , Is a b e lle A n d e rso n , D o rothy Prod, c o m p a n y ............................................Look FilmMusical d ire c to r............................ Billy W eston Richard van Luyn Asst m ix e r..............................M ichael T hom as Productions Alison, Steven Grives, Em il Minty, Nikki S tudios...........................Kingcroft (Melbourne) M u s ic ......................................The Lam ingtons Stunts c o -o rd in a to r..............Peter Arm strong G em m ell, M ark Kounnas.

Dist. co m p a n y........................ Look Film Prods Mixed a t............................ Film A ustralia/D olby Sound m ix e r............................. G raham Tardiff Title designer................................... Fran Burke in association with Bounty Films Lab ora tory.............................................C olorfilm S y n o p sis: A young Englishwom an finds Still photography.................. M erilyn Fairskye Best b o y ........................................... Ken M offatt and J & J M arketing Length....................................................... 20 m ins herself in Australia at the end of W orld W ar Title d esigner.........................Chris M cKim m ie R u nner.........................................T onti C onnolly P ro d u c e r..........................................W ill Davies G a u g e ......................................................... 35mm 2. A rom antic dram a unfolds as she takes C a terin g..........................................Jenny Stuart C a te rin g .................................................... Smoko D irector........................................ M ichael Edols w ork as a governess to the children of a Screen ratio.................................... W ide-screen Lab ora tory.............................................Colorfilm S tudios................................................... Jum buck S criptw riter.................................. Cecil Holmes Shooting stock............................. Eastm ancolor tim ber baron in NSW. Len gth................................................................ 22 mins Mixed a t ........................................................Atlab P h otog rap hy...............................Michael Edols Scheduled release............................April 1983 G a u g e .........................................................

16mm Laboratory.................................................... Atlab Sound recordist.............................. Bob Hayes S yn opsis: A film show ing the story of a Shooting s to c k ......................................Eastm an 7222 Lab. lia is o n ...................................................G reg Doherty Exec, p roduce r....................... Capt. Ron W are m ilitary exercise.

P ro g re s s ...................................

Post-production Length...................................................... 95 mins Scheduled release.............................. Mid-1983 R e se a rch e r.................................Bee Reynolds G a u g e ......................................................... 35mm Prod, a s s is ta n t............................................Rose Wise Cast: Noni H azlehurst (Dora), Tim Burns Shooting stock............................. Eastm ancolor Camera assistan t.......................W ayne Taylor (D ic k ), E la in e C u s ic k (D o ra ’ s M um ), THE FRANKLIN ADVENTURE Cast: Bill Kerr (Kearney), John Jarratt AW AITING RELEASE 2nd unit ph o to g ra p h y............... W ayne Taylor Bronwyn Naylor (Judy).

(Martin), Lorna Lesley (Joycie), Tony Barry Prod, c o m p a n y ......................A dventure Films Expedition photography....R ory M cGuinness S yn o p sis: Dora thinks she has met the man (Sgt Crowe), Alan Cassell (Lohan), Katy W ild Dist. com pany...............................de M ontignie Laboratory....................................................Atlab of her dream s when she falls in love with (Mrs Crowe), Elaine C usick (Mrs Lohan), M edia Enterprises Dick at a ballroom . However, reality for a Length................................................................ 90 mins DOT AND THE BUNNY Babetta Stephens (Mrs Gansm an), Neil Fitz­ Producer.........................John Blackett-Sm ith woman in Brisbane in 1953 is quite different Shooting s to c k ............................................. ECN 7247 patrick (Carter), D ennis G rosvenor (Reilly).

D ire c to r............................................ Joe Connor (animated on live action background) P rogress..................................... Pre-production from the myth of Hollywood romance, as S yn o p s is : Two men and a girl set up house S c rip tw rite rs ................. John Blackett-Sm ith, Prod, com pany..................................... Yoram Gross First re le a s e d ......................................... O ctober Dora soon finds out. in an abandoned m ining shack on the Joe Connor Film Studio S yn opsis: A film about the re-enactment of outskirts of a sm all country town in the P hotography................................Zenon Sawko Dist. company...............Young Australia Film Capt. W illiam B ligh's open boat voyage from m id-’50s. The scandalized tow nsfolk resolve Sound recordist...........................George Craig Producer............................................... Yoram Gross Tonga to Java in 1789 after the m utiny on the to move them on, but the situation gets out of E d itor.................................. Rebecca G rubelich “ Bounty".

Director..................................................Yoram Gross hand.

C o m p o se r.....................Burkhard von Dallwitz Director of animation...............................AtholHenry Camera a ssista n t....................... John Ogden Scriptwriters.............................. John Palmer, Neg. m a tc h in g .........Victorian Neg. M atching Yoram Gross For full details of other films awaiting Services Screenplay............................................... JohnPalmer Still pho tograph y........................ John Ogden, release, see Cinema Papers issue Based on the original Joe Connor idea b y............................................... Yoram Gross number 41.

L a b o ra to ry.............................................Cinevex Photographs used............................DouglassBaglin Length................................................................ 50 mins Sound recordists........Black Inc. Recorders, G a u g e .........................................................I6 m m Sound on Film Shooting S to c k ............................ Eastm ancolor 7247 Editor.......................... Christopher Plowright and 7293 THE BUSH BEYOND YOUR M usic..............................................Bob Young THE UNFOUND LAND Scheduled release....................................... April1983 Exec, producer..................................... YoramGross GARDEN Prod, c o m p a n y .................. G ittoes and Dalton S yn opsis: A group of four men and two Assoc, producer..................................SandraGross Prod, com pany...............................................Sky Visuals Productions women in solo rafts take up the challenge of Prod, co-ordinator.....................................MegRowed Producer........................................... G ary Steer P roducer.................................. G abrielle Dalton the Franklin River and the w ilderness of Prod, m anager.................................. Jeanette Toms THE HARD L!FE D irector..............................................Gary Steer D ire c to r....................................

George Gittoes south-west Tasm ania.

Prod, secretary.......................... Trish O’Neill S criptw riters..................................... Gary Steer, Based on the original idea Prod, c o m p a n y ...... S h adow play Productions Prod, accountant....................... Penny Lang Roland Breckw oldt b y ...........................................................

George Gittoes, Producer........................................ Rod W aym an Prod, assistant..................................... Narelle Hopley P h otog rap hy.................................... G ary Steer G abrielle Dalton D ire c to r..........................................Rod W aym an THE MARATHON MEN Animation camera Sound recordist............................... G eoff Grist P hotography............................................ George Gittoes, S c rip tw rite r................................... Rod W aym an operators........................................... Jenny Ochse, (Working Title) E d itor....................................................Peter Butt David Perry P h otog rap hy..................................

John D ’Arcy Graham Sharpe Producer’s a s s is ta n t....... M onette Lee-Smith Ross Myers, Prod, com pany.............................................John Blackett-Sm ith Sound re c o rd is t.......................................... Anne Johnston Asst editor............................ Angela Zivkovic W ardrobe....................................Rosaiea Hood Simon Smith, Prods E d ito r............................................................. John W aym an Neg. matching.......................................Miriam Cortes P ro p s ................................... M onette Lee-Smith M ichael Balson, Dist. com pany...................................................de M ontignie Prod, m a n a g e r...................... Jacqui Robinson Animators..................................................... TyBosco, Neg. m a tc h in g ...............................Chris Rowell W alt Deas M edia Enterprises Neg. m a tc h in g ..........................Richard Carroll John Burge, N a rra to r......................................Robin Ramsay Producer........................................................John Blackett-Sm ith Sound re c o rd is ts .................................... M arsha Bennett, Sound e d ito r.................................................Tony Paterson Ariel Ferrari, Peter Lipskin O p tic a ls ....................Springett O ptical Service D irector............................................................ Tim Kupsh M ixer...............................................................Tony Paterson Murray Griffin, Title d e s ig n e r....................

M yriam Kin-yee E d ito rs ......................................................

G eorge Gittoes, S crip tw riters.................................. Tim Kupsch, O p tic a ls................

V ictorian Film Laboratories Nicholas Harding, Mixed a t ........................................................ Palm Studios G abrielle Dalton Bob Leamen Title d e s ig n e r...................................... Bill Owen Eva Helischer, Lab ora tory.............................................Colorfilm C o m p o s e rs ....................M artin W esley Smith, P h otog rap hy.............................................Dennis N icholson M ixed a t ........................................................

Tony Paterson Athol Henry, Len gth......................................................16 mins Ian Fredericks Sound recordist...........................................Geoff W ilson Post-Production Lianne Hughes, G a u g e ......................................................... 16mm E d ito r...................................................... Rebecca G rubelich Exec, p ro d u c e rs ..................................... G eorge Gittoes, L a b o ra to rie s ...................G roup C olor Cinevex Victor Johnson, Shooting s to ck.............................Eastm ancolor O riginal m u sic..............................................Tony Hatch, G abrielle Dalton Len gth...................................................... 34 m ins Cynthia Leech, P ro g re s s...................................

Post-production Prod, m a n a g e r.....................................

G abrielle Dalton Jackie Trent G a u g e .........................................................16mm Chris Minos, C ast: Robin Ramsay, M onette Lee-Smith.

Lighting c am eram a n..............................George Gittoes Prod, m a n a g e r.......... Bernadette O ’ M ahoney P ro g re s s ................................................ Aw aiting release Pere van Reyk, S yn o p s is : The value of bushland in urban Special fx p h o to g ra p h y ..........George Gittoes Neg. m a tc h in g .........V ictorian Neg. M atching C ast: Cathy Fewster (Marie), Rod W aym an Laurie Sharpe, areas as a source of aesthetics, recreation E lectrician....................................................... Bob Bleach Service (Bill).

Eva Szabo, and habitat for native animals. Made for the L a b o ra to ry............................................. Cinevex Art d irectors..............................................G eorge Gittoes, S y n o p s is : A docu-dram a about a jo urnalist Szabolcs Szabo, Ku-ring-gai M unicipal Council.

G abrielle Dalton G a u g e .........................................................16mm assigned to report on the destitute in her city.

Andrew Szemenyei

D O C U M E N T A R IE S

FE A TU R E S

SH O R TS

S H O R TS

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 151

SUPER-a 5ERUICES

Australian Film and Television School

PTY. LIMITED

A PROFESSIONAL SUPER-8mm LABORATORY N ow available! High quality Super 8 or Regular 8 transfers to video tape.

• Reduction Printing — 16mm to Super-8mm • Super-8mm to Super-8mm Duplication Blow-ups Super-8mm to 16mm • Magnetic Striping ® Pre-striped Prints • Cartridge Loading • Sound Transfers For further details contact

SUPER-8 SERVICES PTY LIMITED Suite 4 870 Pacific Highway Gordon NSW 2072 Phone (02) 498 7668, (02) 498 7835

Fulltime Program Training Courses Applications are now being called for full time courses beginning in February 1984 T h re e -y e a r d ip lo m a c o u r s e Training in C a m e ra Sound P ro d u c tio n M a n a g e m e n t

E d itin g W ritin g

for film and television S c re e n w ritin g c o u rs e

Maximum term 12 months

Applicants for both courses must b e .........

• • •

resident in Australia able to submit a portfolio of work with their application mature, dedicated, knowledgeable and creative.

The AFTS is a statutory authority funded by the Federal government.

Full time AFTS students are paid a living allowance while training, plus dependants’ allowances where applicable.

All applications must be on the appropriate official application form, available (with Fulltime Program course brochures) from: AFTS Students Officer, PO Box 126 (02) 887 1666

North Ryde

NSW

2113

AFTS Melbourne representative, PO Box 373, North Melbourne 3051 (03) 328 2683 (Monday and Thursday) C lo sin g D ate:

W ed n esd ay 1 J u n e 19S3

Before you own one, you earn one.

Hire it • Lease it • Buy i t ...

You've earned it.

6 to 54 FPS 16mm and Super 16 23dB (±ldB) Filmwest Equipment Sales Pty Ltd. importers and distributors of Aaton cameras throughout Australia & South East Asia.

PERTH Filmwest Equipment Sales Pty Ltd 75 Bennett Street, East Perth, 6000 Western Australia.

Phone (09) 325 1177, 325 1423.

Telex AA94150.

SYDNEY

ADELAIDE

Percy Jones, Edwin Scragg, Phone (02) 871 2253. Phone (08) 389 1091.

SINGAPORE

FILMWEST B for A A T O N

Filmwest Pte Ltd Suite 172, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road.

Phone 337 8041, 336 1509.

Telex RS36389.

Production Survey

Executive produce r......................Peter Abbott Asst g r ip ...................................Kerry Besgrove Script e d ito r............................... Hugh Stuckey S tudios...........................Kingcroft (Melbourne) Music c o n su lta n t................Robert Bickerstaff Post Prod.............................Kingcroft (Sydney) Length............................................. 13 x 28 mins Mixed a t.................................... Sound On Film Synopsis: Two children, sceptical about Lab ora tory............................................ Colorfilm things operatic, become caught up in the L e n g th ...............................................2 x 60 mins Gauge.........................................................16mm world of a group of eccentric, would-be opera stars.

Shooting stock.............................Eastm ancolor Progress..................................... Pre-production Scheduled release........................... Decem ber 1983 POOR FELLOW MY COUNTRY 8 y n o p s is : Two television specials about an Prod, com pany........................... Crystal Prods exchange visit between children from China P rodu cers....................................Ron McLean, and Australia.

Colin Eggleston D irector.................................... Colin Eggleston DESCANT FOR GOSSIPS Executive p ro d u c e r.................David W illiam s Prod, co m p a n y............................................ ABC S c rip tw rite r................................... Ron M cLean P ro d u c e r......................................................Erina Rayner L e n g th .................................................... 10 parts D ire c to rs .........................................................Tim Burstall, Synopsis: Based on the aw ard-winning Erina Rayner novel by Xavier Herbert, it is the story of one Based on the novel m an’s great love of northern Australia and of b y ..................................................Thea Astley the anomalies and contradictions of the Aus­ L e n g th ...............................................3 x 50 mins tralian people.

G a u g e .........................................................16mm Cast: Peter Carroll, G enevieve Picot, Karin VOYEUR Fairfax.

(Tele-feature) S yn opsis: The story of a young girl who becomes a victim of circum stances.

Prod, com pany........................... Crystal Prods P rodu cers....................................Ron McLean, Colin Eggleston EDEN’S LOST D ire cto r.................................... Colin Eggleston Producer......................................Margaret Fink Executive p ro d u c e r................ David W illiam s S crip tw riter............................. Helen Hodgman S c rip tw rite r................................... Ron McLean S yn opsis: Young Angus W eeks is plucked Synopsis: A suspense thriller about an from his work-a-day world into the colorful American girl whose husband is a mass orbit of the St Jam es fam ily and the Ritz slayer out to get her when she discovers his Hotel in the Blue Mountains. The spell of it secret. She flees to Australia and safety, but remains, and over the years it proves to be the voyeur is watching. one from which he is unable or unw illing to escape.

Shooting s to c k ................. Eastm ancolor 7247 and 7293 P rogress.............................................Production Scheduled re le a se ............................ May 1983 Synopsis: W hat makes the m arathon men push their bodies beyond hum an endur­ ance? An exam ination of the m otivational and training techniques of Robert de C astella and Alberto Salazar.

G O V E R N M E N T FILM P R O D U C T IO N

A U S T R A L IA N FILM A N D T E L E V IS IO N SCHOOL

The Marathon Men

VIDEO EFFECTS

Haxby’s Circus — John McRae; cinem a Progress.................................... Pre-production feature.

Synopsis: A series of program s intended to provide motivation, inspiration and tech­ Family Matters — Roger Dunn, Maggie Millar; cinem a feature; scripting. niques to assist prisoners avoid a return to Everybody’s Talking — Adrian Tame, Philip crime.

Askman; television special; scripting.

Naked Under Capricorn — David W ad­ VICTORIA’S 150TH ARCHIVAL dington, Bloodwood Films; television mini FILMING series; scripting.

Exec, p ro d u c e r.................. Vincent O ’ Donnell Gordon — Hugh Stuckey, Sue W oolfe, NAKED UNDER CAPRICORN Prod, c o -o rd in a to r...............Sue Chamberlain television mini series; scripting.

Prod, c o m p a n y .....................Bloodwood Films Progress.................................... Pre-production Nemesis — Glen Crawford; cinem a feature; P ro d u c e rs......................... David W addington, Synopsis: Film ing that documents a range scripting.

Geof Gardiner of projects planned for com pletion in PROD UCTIO N The Phantom Treehouse — Paul W illiams; D irector..........................................Don Crom bie 1984-85 as part of V ictoria’s sesquicentenanimated feature; scripting.

S crip tw rite rs.............................................. Dieter Chidel, nial.

Survival Camp — Serge De Nardo and Everett de Roche Andrew Colem an; cinem a feature; scripting.

P hotography.................................Ernest Clark THE BOY IN THE BUSH Fit for Heroes — Cliff Green; television mini Sound recordist........................... Ned Dawson series; scripting.

Prod, c o m p a n y ..................................... Portman Prods Prod, supe rvisor............................. Tom Binns The Whale Savers — Laurie Levy, Neil — ABC Prod, m an a g e r.......................................... Frank Brown Bethune; television special; post-production P ro d u ce r..................................................... Geoff Daniels Loc. manager/ underway.

S crip tw riter............................Hugh W hitem ore Unit m a n a g e r..............................Phillip Corr Demons Rising — Ivan Hexter; cinem a Based on the original idea THE AGE OF CHANGE Prod, s e c re ta ry ....................Pauline Malone feature; scripting. b y ............................................D.H. Lawrence (W o r k in g title ) Prod, acco u n ta n t..................Spiros Sideratos Snowy and The W hale — Tim Burstall, and Molly Skinner 1st asst d ire c to r.................... Sheraton James Sonia Borg, cinem a feature; scripting.

Prod, com pany......................L.AVRB Film Unit Exec, produce r.................................Ray Alehin 2nd asst d ire c to r.......................................Stuart Wood The Living Canvas — George Mallaby, Dist. co m pany.................................. C urriculum Branch L e n g th ...............................................4 x 50 mins PRE-PRODUCTION Focus p u lle r...............................................Martin Turner Lindsay Foote; television special; scripting.

— Ed. Dept, of Vic. G a u g e ........................................................16mm Camera assistant/ Crow On A Barbed W ire Fence — Edward Producer.........................................................Ivan Gaal Cast: Sigrid Thornton, Steve Bisley, Jon C lappe r/loa der........................... Chris Cain McQueen Mason; television mini series; Director........................................................... Ivan Gaal Blake, Celia de Burgh, Ken Branagh, Key g r ip .........................................................NoelMudie Curriculum C o n s u lta n t............................ Helen Konscripting.

Bunney Brooke, Richard Morgan, Paul ASIA UNLIMITED G rip ............................................................... Barry Brown Tooradin — Russell Hagg; cinem a feature; P hotography................................................Kevin Anderson Smith, Kim Deacon, Ralph Cotterell.

Lighting gaffe r........................................ Stewart Sorby pre-production.

Prod, com pany................Tem ple Parer Prods Sound recordist............................................. PhilStirling Synopsis: An 18-year-old boy is sent from E lectrician...................................................

Peter Malone Buckley’s Hope — Tom Haydon; television P rodu cer................................................. Damien Parer E ditor............................................................... Ivan Gaal England to live with distant relatives in Aus­ Boom operator/ mini series; scripting.

S crip tw riter...................................John Temple Prod, assistants......................... Steven Radic, tralia in 1882. He falls in love with a distant Asst sound recordist.............. Grant Stewart Slim Dusty — The Movie — Kent Length........................................... 13 x 30 mins M ichelle Morris cousin and sets out to win his fortune on the Art d ire c to rs .................................. Trevor Ling, Chadwick, feature scripting.

Synopsis: A series which captures the Sound e d ito r.............................. David Hughes Australian goldfields.

Josephine Ford Return From Paradise — TV mini series, excitement, color and m agic of Asia.

M ixe r.........................................David Harrison W ardrobe m a s te r.......................................Terry Ryan Laboratory.............................................Victorian FilmR oger S im p son, R oger Le M esurier, PRETTY PETROL .Props m aste r........................... Richard Francis scripting.

CHASE THROUGH THE NIGHT Laboratories Construction m a n ................. Gerry Powderley A Handful of Sun — Paul Cox, Norman Prod, c o m p a n y ............. Grundy O rganization L e n g th ......................................approx. 25 mins Prod, c o m p a n y................

Independent Prods Musical d ire c to r....................

Ray Rivamonte Kaye, feature scripting.

Producer......................................................David Cumm ing G a u g e ......................................................... 16mm P ro d u c e r..........................................Jim George Design d raugh tsm an................................ Peter Tyers D irector.................................... Peter Bernardos Shooting s to c k .............................................ECN D ire c to r................................................... Howard Rubie Mixer and sound S crip tw rite r................................................. David Cumm ing P ro g re ss................................... Post-production Executive producer..............................Brendon Lunney supe rv is o r............................... Roger Savage L e n g th ..........................................30 mins (pilot) Scheduled relea se..................................August 1983 S c rip tw rite r......................................Rob George Best boy/Genni operator.......... Garry Scholes AUSTRALIA’S HIDDEN WEALTH Cast: Victoria Nicolls (Lucy), W illie Fennell S yn o p sis: Technological changes in the Script e d ito r................................ Phillip W. Pike Runner..........................................................Brian G ilm(Everett our Quince), Diana Davidson (Olivia newspaper printing industry, its effect on the P ro d u c e r...............................................M argaret M arshall Production m a n a g e r....................... Jan Tyrrell P u b lic ity......................................... Barbara Von Quince), Lance Curtis (Jerry). quality of service and the changes it brings D irector........................................................ David Copping L e n g th ...............................................5 x 24 mins Post-production s u p e rv is o r.....John Leonard Synopsis: Jerry Q uince’s parents buy him a to the lives of people who are directly Scriptw riters.................................. Roger Dunn, Synopsis: An adventure/thriller for all the Post-production fa c ilitie s ...........................AAV petrol station. He hires two girls to help out involved in the process.

Gary Hutchinson family.

Lab ora tory............................................ Cinevex and them the fun begins.

Prod, supervisor......................................... Brian Douglas Length.............................................3 x 100 mins TANDBERG ON PAGE ONE Progress.................................... Pre-production Cast: Keith M ichell (Davis Mariner), Judy CHILDREN OF TWO COUNTRIES RUNAWAY ISLAND Synopsis: A two-hour television special Davis (Monica), David G ulpilil (Activity), Tony Prod, com pany........................AVRB Film Unit Prod, com pany................ ....... Kingcroft Prods u n e a rth in g the c h a ra c te rs , lo ca tio n s , Prod, c o m p a n y ............. G rundy Organization B a rry (B lu e y D a lla s), B ru ce S p ence Dist. com pany....................C urriculum Branch (Australia) methods, facts and figures on the pursuit of P roducer.....................................Roger Mirams (Cummings), Gus M ercurio (Harris), Gerard — Ed. Dept, of Vic. Producer........................... .............. Philip Bond treasures that for centuries have fascinated D ire cto r.......................................David Stevens Kennedy (Edrington), Richard Moir (Perrin), Producer.........................................................Ivan Gaal Director............................. ..........Terry Ohlsson people of all nations. A contem porary view of S crip tw riter............................. Paul W heelahan Jim Sm illie (Watkins), Sean Kram er (Mission Director........................................................... Ivan Gaal S c rip tw rite r...................... ..........Terry Ohlsson A u s tra lia and its gold and precio us Mo).

Len gth........................ 1 x 96 mins, 8 x 72 mins Curriculum consu lta n t..............................Helen Kon P h otog rap hy................... ..........Michael Kings gem stone deposits. ' Cast: Miles Buchanan, Simone Buchanan, S yn opsis: Robbed and left for dead, naked Photography............................ Kevin Anderson E d ito rs .............................. ...............Bill Stacey, Julie Tyler, Julian Gilespie, Rodney Bell. beneath the Capricorn sun, Davis M ariner Sound recordist...............................Phil Stirling Liz Irwin Synopsis: Set in Sydney in the 1830s, two embarks on a remarkable adventure span­ E d itor...............................................................IvanGaal Exec, producer................ ............ Neil Ohlsson children are on the run from corrupt govern­ ning more than 30 years from the turn of the C o m po ser................................. Laurie Balm er Prod, m a n a g e r................ ...............Terry Slack ment officials. century, to his establishm ent as one of Aus­ Prod, m anage r......................... Rob M cCubbin Unit m a n a g e r.................. ...............Terry Slack tra lia ’s richest cattle barons. It is a story of Prod, assistants....................... Steven Radic, Prod, secretary................ ...........Marina Seeto great success, exacted at an awful price.

WATERFRONT M ichelle Morris Lighting cam eram an...... ..........Michael Kings Neg. m a tch in g ...................Victorian Negative Camera o p e ra to r............ ..........Michael Kings Prod, com pany ........ W aterfront OPERA HOUSE C utting Service Focus p u lle r..................... ...... Martyn Goundry Producer........... ..........Bob W eis M usic perform ed b y ................ Laurie Balm er C lapper/loader................ ...... Martyn Goundry D irector............

Prod, c o m p a n y................. Independent Prods .Chris Thomson Sound e d ito r............................ David Hughes Key g rip ..............................................Peter Doig Photography....

P ro d u c e r.................................... Geof G ardiner .....Dan Burstall M ix e r.......................................... David Harrison Title designer............................Ron Tandberg CYSTIC FIBROSIS Mixed a t .................................. Film Soundtrack Prod, co m p a n y ............................Just Another Australia Production Company Lab ora tory...........Victorian Film Laboratories D irector......................................... John Hughes Length......................................................28 mins R e search.................................John Tredinnick G a u g e ........................................................16mm Exec, p ro d u c e r................. Vincent O 'D onnell Shooting s to c k .........................................ECN Prod, c o -o rd in a to r..............

Sue Cham berlain P ro g re ss................................... Post-production Scheduled re le a se .......................................May 1983P rogress..................................... Pre-production S yn opsis: Many countries turn their backs S yn opsis: Ron Tandberg is A u stralia’s best on sufferers of cystic fibrosis, the most known political cartoonist. This film follows common genetic disorder of our species.

Tandberg's work for the front page of The The th e ra p e u tic approach in V icto ria Age, on one particular nig h t’s edition. stresses engagem ent in the com m unity and living life to its full potential.

P rodu cer...................................... Eric Halliday D irector.........................................Mark Sanders S crip tw riter/P resenter............ Stephen Jones C a m eras.........................G eorge Petrykowski, John Agapitos Technical d ire c to r..........................Bob Forster Len gth......................................................40 mins G auge..........................................1 in. videotape Synopsis: How to set up and explore the artistic possibilities of a video system, including lum inance keying, feed-back, colorising and com puter graphics.

AVRB FILM U N IT

TE L E V IS IO N

«

D O C U M EN TA R Y D IV ISIO N

OLDER ADULT SWIMMING

FILM V IC T O R IA Feature Film and Television Development Ballet TV Series — Film Victoria is currently developing a m ajor television series to be produced for the Australian Ballet, the series 13 x half-hour episodes on an action/adventure form at highlighting the essentials of dance capability; scripting and pre-pro­ duction underway.

Breakfast Creek — Ben Lewin; cinem a feature; scripting.

The Last Star Model — Forrest Redlich; cinem a feature; scripting.

Prod, c o m p a n y .......................................... Ukiyo Films D irector......................................Don M cLennan Exec, p ro d u c e r................. Vincent O 'Donnell Prod, c o -o rd in a to r.............. Sue Cham berlain Camera o p e ra to r.............. Zbigniew Friedrich M ixer...........................................Tony Patterson P rogress..................................... Pre-production S yn opsis: A film to prom ote swim m ing as an appropriate activity for older adults and m otivate them to join special learn-to-swim programs.

RECIVIDISM (AND HOW TO AVOID IT) D irector..................................................... Juliana Focht S crip tw riter..............................................Jerem y Press Adviser..........................Simon Brown-Greaves Exec, p ro d u c e r................. Vincent O ’ Donnell

QUEENSLAND HIM CORPORATION

In future all applications for assistance to the Queensland Film Corporation will close three weeks prior to the following board meeting.

The next Corporation meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 9th June, and the closing date for submissions will be 5.00 p.m., Thursday, 19th May, 1983.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 153

A NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION AIMED AT IMPROVING YOUR SKILLS IN:­

® ® 9 ®

ACTING FOR TELEVISION STUDIO TECHNIQUES SCRIPT WRITING PRODUCTION PLANNING

CALL SYDNEY (02) 356 1820 FOR WORKSHOP DETAILS

CLIFFORD HAYES EDITOR Features: Mad Max, W e of the Never Never TV Series, Film and Videotape

■4 step drag pan and tilt •fu lly variable counterbalancing • quick release camera plate

R.E. Miller Pty. Ltd. Ph. 02-439 6377

Telex AA23655

Phone: (03) 592 3695 Mail to: 50 Warleigh Grove, North Brighton, Victoria 3186

Over 15

units sold in the last 6 months

Without doubt the highest quality, lowest cost editing machine available today.

4 Plate from $ 6 ,5 0 0 Model M.D.1 6 Plate from $ 1 3 ,7 5 0 Model D.3

There are many fíne Film Editing Machines available today BUT: Only SCHMID can offer the following facilities in what is the best value package available in Australia today. © 4, 6, and 8 plate designs. ©Super 8, 16mm and 35mm capabilities, as well as dual format combination units readily available. ©Studio Quality, Sound Transfer, Re-recording.and Mix facilities.

These features release you from the frustrations and delays you have experienced and enable you to have

total in-house control over your Sound and Editing functions.

There is an extensive range of models and options to suit every need.

Call us for further information.

FILMTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

33 HIGGINBOTHAM ROAD, GLADESVILLE, N.S.W. PHONE: (02) 807 1444. TLX: AA25629

Production Survey

Stewart (Alicia Dunne), Tom Burlinson (Father Smythe).

S yn o p s is : Based on the 1854 incident which became known as Eureka Stockade when the citizens of Ballarat took up arms against a tyrannical and corrupt colonial adm inistra­ tion.

THE FIRE IN THE STONE (Tele-feature)

L e n g th ...............................................6 x 30 mins G a u g e ........................................................16mm Shooting s to c k ...............................................Fuji8527/28 Scheduled release............................ April 1983 S yn opsis: A wildlife series of six program s which explores the im pact of certain intro­ duced species on Australia’s ecology and environm ent and the future, should their spread not be kept in check.

RETURN TO EDEN

Prod, co m p a n y.......................................... SAFC Prod, com pany......................... Hanna-Barbera P rodu cer...........................Pamela H. Vanneck and McElroy & M cElroy Director..........................................G ary Conway P roducer.......................................................... HalM cElroy From the novel b y ......................... Colin Thiele D irector........................................................Karen Arthur P h otog rap hy...........................Ross Berryman C o-producer Sound re c o rd is t.......................................... Lloyd C arrick and S crip tw riter...............Michael Laurence E d ito r...............................................................PhilReid Exec, p ro d u c e r............................................ Jock BlairBased on the idea Script e d ito r.................................................Peter Gawlerb y ....................................... M ichael Laurence P hotography................................................ Dean Semler Prod, co-ordinator........................B arbara Ring Sound re c o rd is t.............................................Tim Lloyd Prod, m anager.................................. Jan Tyrrell E d ito r............................................David Huggett 1st asst d ire c to r..................Philip Hearnshaw Prod, d e s ig n e r........................................... Owen W illiam s C o n tin u ity .................................................. Jackie Sullivan Prod, co-ordina tor..................... Carol Hughes P ro d u c e rs se c re ta ry .......................Ros Smyth Prod, m a n a g e r...........................Tim Sanders Dialogue c o a c h .............................Audine Leith Unit m a n a g e r..........................................M ichaelFuller Casting consu ltant........................Audine Leith Prod, s e c re ta ry .................. Fiona M cConaghy Cam era assistan t........................Martin Turner Location consu ltant..................................Jenny Fox Asst g rip ..........................................Jon Goldney Location m anager G a ffe r................................................................IanPlum mer (D arw in)............................Gerd Jakubowski Boom o p e ra to r....................... Chris Goldsm ith Art d ire c to r................................................. Derek MillsFinancial controller....................................... Rob Fisher Business m anage r................................ M ichaelW ilcox H a ird re s s e r................................................. Sash Lamey Prod, accountant...................................... Elaine C row ther W ardro be............................. Louise W akefield st asst d ire c to r.........................................Steve Andrews Art d e p t........................................................Anna Senior, 2nd asst director..................... ^....T ony Llnley Graham Purcell 3rd Special e ffe c ts ............................................ Brian Pearce asst d irector......................Lisa Hennessey C o n tin u ity................................................D aphne Paris Asst e d ito r............................... Denise Haratzis C a s tin g ......................................................... Faith M artin Asst sound e d ito r.................................... Robert G rant Focus p u lle r.......................Richard M errym an M ix e r..........................................................Jam es Currie C lapper/loader............................................ Colin Deane Stunts c o -o rd in a to r..........................Vic W ilson Key g rip .................................. Paul Thom pson M echanic.................................... Mark Alan Bott Asst Best b o y ....................................................... Keith Johnson g rip ................................. Brendan Shanley 2nd unit photography................................. M ike Atkinson Studios.........................................................SAFC G a ffe r..............................................John M orton Mixed a t ...................................................... SAFC Length................................................................ 90 m insAssistant E le c tric ia n ................................Jason Rogers Boom o p e ra to r.............................................Jack Friedman G a u g e ......................................................... 16mm Art d ire c to r..............................Steve Am ezdroz Undercover Shooting s to ck.......................................... Kodak 5432 Art departm ent S yn opsis: Teenage Ernie Ryan and his noassistant........................... David T rethewey hoper dad scratch a living in the tough W ardrobe d esigner.................................. Robyn Richards m ining town of C oober Pedy. During one M ake-up..............................Leslie Vanderwalt, scorching Christm as, Ernie and his mates EUREKA STOCKADE Sound recordist............................ John Phillips 2nd asst d ire c to r..................Tony McDonald Liz Fardon strike it lucky — they find a rich vein of opal!

E ditor....................... Edward McQueen Mason 3rd asst d ire c to r................... M ichael M cIntyre Prod, c o m p a n y ........................................Eureka Stockade W ardrobe co-ordina tor..............

Helen Hooper But their dream s are short-lived. The hoard Prod, d e s ig n e r...........................................Tracy W att C o n tin u ity ...........................................Jenni Tosi Film Partnership W ard, a s s is ta n t..........................................CarolBogard is stolen.

In tracking down the thief Ernie Assoc, pro d u ce r........................ Mac G udgeon C a s tin g ......................................Bunney Brooke P rodu cer.....................................................Henry Crawford Props b uye r........................................Billy Allen finds himself plunged into a ruthless adult Prod, supe rviso r................. Margot McDonald Lighting cam eram an.............. David Connell D irector.............................................. Rod Hardy Standby p ro p s ..............................................PaulJones world. Before his adventure is over he falls in Unit m a n a g e r............................. Jake Atkinson Focus p u lle r.................................................Greg Ryan S crip tw rite r................................... Tom Hegarty Special effects m ake-up.......... Bob McCarron love a little, grows up a lot, and ultim ately Asst unit m an a g e r........... Michael McGennan C lapper/loader............................ Bruce Phillips P h o to g ra p h y ................................................Keith W agstaff Asst e d ito r ..................................................Claire O ’ Brien makes the toughest decision of his life.

Prod, secretary...................... Elizabeth Symes Key g r ip ........................................Ian Bennalick Sound recordist............................. Phil Stirling nd assistant editor and Prod, accountant................................... Carolyn FyfeAsst g r ip .......................................................Kerry Boyle E d itor............................................................David Pulbrook assistant dubbing edito r...... Rosemary Lee INTRUDERS 2 Prod, assistant....................... M ilanka Com fort G affer........................................................... David Parkinson Prod, d e s ig n e r.............................. Leslie Binns Dubbing e d ito r.................................. Tim Chau Trainee E le c tric ia n ..................................................Laurie FishC om poser................................................... Bruce Smeaton Prod, co m p a n y............................ Nomad Films Stunts co -o rd in a to r................................ Dennis Hunt prod, assistant.....................................Kattina Bowell Boom o p e ra to r....................... Steve Haggetty Exec, p ro d u c e r............ C arnegie Fieldhouse International S tu n ts ..........................................................Jam ie Hunt, 1st asst director..........................................David Clarke Art director..................................................O tello Stolfo Prod, supe rvisor................................David Lee Dist. c o m p a n y ............................. Nomad Films Billy Deanes 2nd asst d ire c to r.........................................John Titley Asst art d ire c to r.........................................Frank Jakab Prod, co-o rd in a to r..................... Janine Kerley International Still p h o to g ra p h y............................................ IanW hittaker 3rd asst director.................................... Stephen Saks Costume d e s ig n e r..................................... Clare G riffin Prod, m a n a g e r.............................................. Jan Bladier D irector................................... Jerem y Hogarth Best boy............................................................ Ian Plum mer C o n tin u ity................................................ Andrea Jordon M ake-up...................................................... Fiona Campbell Location m a n a g e r.........................................PhilMcCarthy S c rip tw rite r............................ Jerem y Hogarth R unner.......................................................... M ark Clayton Focus p u lle r .............................................Natalie Green H a irdre sser..................................................Joan Petch Prod, a ccou ntan t......................... Carolyn Fyfe Based on the original idea P u b lic ity ...........................................C hristopher Day C lapper/loader....................... Brendon Lavelle W ardrobe a s s t...............................................Sue Miles Accounts a s s is ta n t.................Jennie Crowley b y ....................... Nomad Film s International C a te rin g ....................................................... John Faithful Key g r ip ...................................Paul Am m itzboll W ard, s ta n d b y ............................................... PhilEagles 1st asst d ire c to r........................................ Stuart Freeman P h otog rap hy................................ David Olney, S tu d io s................................................Mort Bay Asst g rip ...................................................... Peter Kershaw Props b uye r.............................Bernie W ynack 2nd asst dire c to rs.................................. M ichaelFaranda, Terry Carlyon, C onstruction m a n a g e r.................... Bill Howe G a ffe r........................................................... Brian Adams Standby props.........................G ary Bottomley Ian Kenny Gary Smith Laboratory............................................C olorfilm Sound assista n ts .................. Bruce Lamshed, Special e ffe c ts ............................. Brian Pearce 3rd asst d ire c to r......................................M urray Robertson Sound re c o rd is ts ........................................Sean Meltzer, Lab. lia is o n ......................................................BillGooley Ray Phillips Set c o n s tru c tio n ........................................... Ray Pattison C o n tin u ity ...................................................Jenny Q uigley Eric Briggs, B u d g e t.............................. $2.5 m illion approx.

Asst art d ire c to r........................ Bryce Renzow Asst e d ito r................................................... Peter Burgess Producer s a s s is ta n t........... Vicki Popplewell George Craig L e n g th ...............................................6 x 60 mins M ake-up....................................................Kirsten Veysey Musical d ire c to r.........................................Bruce Rowlands Casting........................... .....Vicki Popplewell, Editor...............................................................PaulHoward G a u g e ........................................................ 16mm H a irdre sser..................................................Joan Petch Stunts co-ordina tor....................................Grant Page M & L Casting C om poser....................................................... Bob Starkie Shooting s to ck ......................................E/C Neg W a rd ro b e .....................................................Rose Chong, Still photography.................. David Sim m onds Casting consu ltants............. Loretta Crawford Exec, p ro d u c e r..................... Douglas Stanley Cast: Rebecca G illing (Stephanie Harper, Karen Merke W rangler....................................................... John Baird — Los Angeles, Prod, co-ordina tor................ Judith Anderson Tara W elles), Jam es Reyne (Greg Marsden), Standby w a rd ro b e ....................................... GailMayes B oats..........................................Scott Rawlings R esearch..................................................... Peter Copley, Sheila M cIntosh — London W endy Hughes (Jilly Stewart), Jam es Sm illie Props buyer/ Best b o y ...................................................Richard TumCamera m el o p e ra to r........................................Barry W ilson Noel Douglas-Evans (Dan Marshall), O livia Hamnett (Joanna set d e co ra to r.........................................Paddy Reardon R u nner......................................................... Craig Dusting Special fx p h o to g ra p h y ................................Jim Frazier Focus p u lle r................................................... Rob M urray Randall), Patricia Kennedy (Katy Basklain), Asst buyer/decorator.................... Chris James P u b lic ity ...........................................C hristopher DayC la p p e r/lo a d e r..............................................Rex Nicholson Asst e d ito r.................................................. Karen Harvey Peter G wynne (Bill M cMaster), Bill Kerr (Old Standby p ro p s ............................................... PhilEagles C a te rin g ............................................... W olfgang GrafKey g r ip .................................................. Ian Park Neg. m atching...............C inevex Laboratories D a ve), C h ris to p h e r H a yw o o d (Ja so n Art dept, tra in e e ..............................Tara Ferrier S tudios....................................................... HSV 7 Sound e d ito r.............................M ichael M inter Asst g r ip s ................................................... Jam ie Leckie, Peebles), John Lee (Phillip Stewart).

Construction m anage r.............................. Colin Burchall Laboratory.............................................Victorian Film M ix e r.......................................... David Harrison Peter Kershaw S yn opsis: A story of m urder, love and ven­ Editing assistan t.................................. W arwick Crane Laboratories G a ffe r............................................................Tony Holtham N a rra to r........................................................ John Stanton geance set in Sydney and outback Q ueens­ Still p h o tograph y.................Vladim ir O sherov Length............................................. 4 x 120 mins A n im a tio n ..................................... M odelmation E lectricians....................................................Guy Hancock, land. Tara W elles is the beautiful model who Best b o y ........................................................John beaver G a u g e .........................................................16mm O pticals........................................................Acm e O pticals Jim Hunt hau n ts G reg M arsd en, a W im bledon R unner.......................................................... Colin Tudhope Shooting s to c k .............................................7247 Mixed a t .................. Film soundtrack Australia Boom operator.................................Ray Phillips cham pion who believes his wealthy wife is P u b lic ity ....................... Rea Francis C ompany Cast: Sigrid Thornton, John W aters, Bud Lab o ra to ry............................................. Cinevex Asst art d ire c to r............................Peter Kendall dead.

C a te rin g ......................................................Helen W right, Tlngwell, Dinah Shearing, W illiam Upjohn, Costume d e signer......................................Anne Fraser Beeb Fleetwood Diane Craig, Adrian W right, Gus Mercurio, M ake-up.......................................................Terry W orth, Lab ora tory............................................. Cinevex Darius Perkins, Frank Gallacher.

Patricia Payne Cast: Jack Thom pson (Maxey), Greta S yn opsis: An action-rom ance film ed on H a irdre sser................................... Terry W orth, Scacchi (Anna), Frank G allacher (Paddy), location on the M urray River at Echuca.

Patricia Payne Tony Rickards (Snowy), Mark Little (Allan), Philadelphia G ordon survives a shipwreck Make-up and hair Jay Mannering (Davo), Ray Barrett (Sam), and becomes the first wom an licensed riverass is ta n t...................................Leanne W hite Chris Haywood (Ernie), W arren Mitchell boat captain. She also finds Brenton W ardro be....................................................Jenny Arnott (Les), Noni Hazelhurst (Maggie).

Edwards, a man to match her passion, her W ard assistan ts..............................................Viv W ilson, S yn opsis: An im possible love story set com m itm ent and her zest for life . . .

Jam es W atson, against a background of political and social Judy Ann Fitzgerald, violence. A story full of bitterness and of the Lea Haig BREAKTHROUGH racism that form ed the early days of Props b u y e r................................................ David O ’G rady migration in Australia.

Standby props.............................................Barry Kennedy Prod, c o m p a n y........................... Nomad Film s Special e ffe c ts .............................. Brian Pearce International Set d e c o ra to r..............................................David O ’G rady Dist. c o m p a n y ............................ Nomad Films C a rpe nte r..................................................... John Moore International Set construction.......................... Bruce M ichell P ro d u c e r................................ Douglas Stanley Asst e d ito r...............................................Annette Binger S c rip tw rite r...............................................Gerald Lyons Sound e d ito rs ......................Stuart Arm strong, Based on the original idea POST-PRODUCTION Penn Robinson b y .............................................. Gerald Lyons Editing a s s is ta n ts .................................... Phillip Dixon, P h otog rap hy............................... David Olney, Hugh W addell Alex McPhee M ixer..................................... Julian Ellingworth Sound recordists.......................................... Bob Clayton, ALL THE RIVERS RUN Stunts co-o rd in a to r........................................ BillStacey Rob Cutcher S tu n ts ...............................................................BillStacey, E d ito rs............................................................PaulHoward, Prod, c o m p a n y ....................................Crawford Prods Lou Trifunovic Jerem y H ogarth Dist. com pany......................................Crawford Prods Still photography........................................David Parker Prod, co-o rd in a to r.......................................

Pam Howard P ro d u ce r....................................................... Alan Hardy Dialogue c o a c h ..............................................Jim Norton Asst e d ito r.................................................. Karen Harvey Directors.................................................. George Miller, W rangler....................................................... John Baird Neg. m atching.............. Cinevex Laboratories Pino Am enta Best b o y ........................................Bruce Towers Sound e d ito r.............................M ichael M inter S crip tw rite rs............................................... Peter Yeldham, R u nners.......................................................Peter Culpan, M ix e r.......................................... David Harrison Vince Moran, N a rra to r........................................................ John Stanton ' G. J. Carroll Colin Free, Mixed a t ................................. Film Soundtrack P u b lic ity ....................... Rea Francis Com pany G wenda Marsh C a terin g........................................................ Gem Catering Based on the novel b y ............................ Nancy CatoL a b o ra to ry.................... Cinevex Laboratories S tudios..................................HSV 7 M elbourne P h oto g ra p h y.............................. David Connell Length.............................................. 13 x 30 mins G a u g e ........................................................ 16mm Mixed a t ....................................................... Atlab Sound re c o rd is t........................................... PaulClark Laboratory....................................................Atlab E d ito r...............................................................PhilReidShooting s to c k ............................................... Fuji8527/28 Lab. lia is o n ............................................. Andrew Mason C o m p o se r.................................................. Bruce Rowlands Scheduled release............................ April 1983 B udget............................................................$2.5 m illion S yn opsis: The series reveals in com pelling Exec, p ro d u c e rs ......................................Hector Crawford Len gth..............................................................192 mins human term s some of the am azing advances Ian Crawford G a u g e ......................................................... 16mm Prod, supe rvisor.................................... MichaelLakein science, m edicine and technology which Shooting s to ck.......................................... Kodak 7247 are rapidly changing the shape of our Prod, m anage r...........................................Helen W atts Cast: Bryan Brown (Peter Lalor), Bill Hunter physical world and the way we work, love Location m a n a g e r................... Stewart W right (Tim othy Hayes), Carol Burns (Anastasia and live. It explores, and dem ystifies, some Prod, s e cre ta ry...................................... Venetia Taylor Hayes), Amy Madigan (Sarah Jam ieson), of the m ysteries and staggering im plications Prod, acco u n ta n t.......................................Vince Smits Brett Cullen (Charles Ross), Penelope of high technology.

1st asst d ire cto r........................ John Powditch

1

2

uuj'j'Ja d 35m m & 16mm N egative C utting

CHRIS ROWEL PRODUCTIONS 24 Carlotta St Artarmon N.S.W. 2064

(02) 439 3522

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 155

‘Snowy River’s ’ got $18.5 m illion to say Cinema Papers is wrong

JACK CLANCY WRITING IN CINEMA PAPERS, March 1983 -

"As m uch as I applaud Jack Clancy’s motives in taking a 'Sec­ ond Glance’ at the popular suc­ cess of THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER, a correction of fact is in order. Snowy River is enjoying spectacular success overseas.

"It is the second of only two Australian films to be considered a hit in the American market (the first w as Road Warrior —but that didn’t rate a m ention either). At the time of writing Snowy River has grossed $ 18.5 million in U.S. and Canadian theatres alone. It has appeared several times on the U.S. top ten weekly grosses list, it is still in the top 30 — the third longest run on the list (after 28 weeks of release).

It has played in as m any as 700 theatres at any one time. As well, it w as nom inated by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for a Golden Globe as best foreign film. And it w on for director George Miller the m ost popular film award at the Montreal World Film Festival.

'With American free and pay TV to come, with the rest of the world about to start, I will go on record as saying that Snowy River PRODUCER THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER will gross at least $35 million overseas”.

Dusty Arnold Zable Dusty is something of a surprise as a film. With its unpretentious style, this gently-paced feature emerges as a significant contribution to the growing number of films that tackle aspects of Australian bushlore. The director, John Richardson, remains faithful to the spirit of the book upon which it is based, and the film should rekindle interest in the works of the novel’s author, Frank Dalby Davison.

Davison’s short stories and novels have been placed in the literary tradi­ tion of the work of Henry Lawson, A. B. “ Banjo” Paterson and later authors such as Vance Palmer. Like them, Davison sets many of his stories in the context of outback life. Several of his best works use animals to portray the struggle between domes­ ticity and freedom, between con­ formity and rebellion, and Davison pays particular attention to the inter­ play of the instinctual behaviour and tame discipline of the domesticated animal. These themes are also applied to humans who are seen as being sub­ ject to the same conflicts. In his novel, Dusty, Davison touches on other uni­ versal themes: the relationship between man and animal, and man’s attitude to the environment.

Davison had a deep empathy for his animal and human characters. He spent a lot of time on the land as a farmer and his works are full of detailed observations about the countryside and its inhabitants. In Dusty, as in Man-Shy, much of the story is told from the animal’s point of view: Davison detected in animals an intelligence and sensitivity that com­ bined with instinct to create vibrant creatures. Richardson’s major achieve­ ment in the film adaptation is to create Dusty as just such a creature. In doing so, he makes full use of his solid back­ ground as a documentary filmmaker and his experience in filming animals and wildlife.

The film’s prologue condenses Davi­ son’s rich opening chapter, which depicts the mating of homestead kelpie and dingo bitch, the union of a domes­ ticated working dog and a creature of the wild. The film recaptures in visual shorthand the scene’s primordial quality. The dingo makes her first brief appearance as a creature with rare links to an ancient land; a creature of mystery who, thousands of years ago, as the narrator states, “wandered without fear or restraint over a vast continent” .

The dingo bitch is killed by a youth who stumbles on her lair of pups. The surviving pup, in appearance a kelpie, is sold to Tom Lincoln (Bill Kerr), a former drover who now works as a hired hand for sheep-farmer Harry Morrison (Noel Trevarthen). Tom trains the pup into a fine, prize­ winning sheep dog, highly sought after

by the farmers in the district. But it soon becomes apparent that Dusty has also retained the hunting instincts of his dingo mother: he becomes a sheep killer, a menace to the local farmers who must now remove him. Tom’s great attachment to the dog sees him leave the Morrisons and his secure job.

Richardson introduces a range of characters into the film version to enable him to deal with several sub­ themes that are less apparent in the book. Harry Morrison’s son Jack (Nick Holland) is portrayed as a young man with a love for the land, and a desire to break out and explore other aspects of life. Although he is tied to the domestic life he is to inherit, he is also drawn to the wisdom and free nature of the ageing Tom. Harry Morrison respects Tom as a reliable worker, but measures success in terms of property and family; for him Tom is essentially an outsider and an example of failure in life. The crisis caused by Dusty affects the relationships among all the central characters: it brings to the surface tensions between father and son, husband and wife (Carol Burns), farmer and hired hand.

A highlight of the film is Bill Kerr’s beautifully-controlled portrayal of Tom Lincoln. Kerr creates a character of great integrity, relying on the subtle language of gesture and movement, with a minimum of words, to create an aura of brittle strength; a character who is self-contained, yet lonely, with

a great love and knowledge of the bush, and a warmth that he pours into his relationship with Dusty. Richard­ son has said that in earlier drafts of the script Tom was more verbose, but by the final draft there is an economy of language as the director came to realize, “ the more we gave him to say for himself, the more we lost him.”

The sparing use of words is also more true to the writing of Davison; his characters move in a world of unstated feelings, suppressed emotions and feelings expressed by action rather than words.

After a long career that included vaudeville, comedy, broadcasting and theatre, Kerr showed his ability to act out a very different character in the opening sequences of Gallipoli. He had a special presence and depth; a man who could convey private drama, introspection and strength of charac­ ter. As Tom Lincoln, Kerr creates the type of bushman that was so sadly missing in Kirk Douglas’ portrayal of Spur in The Man From Snowy River.

Spur was a caricature that owed more to Walt Disney than it did to the Aus­ tralian bush.

John Stanton as Railey Jordan, the professional dog-hunter, creates another complex character of the Aus­ tralian bush. Part of Railey is as wild as the dingoes that he tracks and kills.

He is of a dying breed in the modern world of technology, a man who is closer to the basic primordial reality

where hunter and hunted are locked together in a game of survival. He therefore possesses an understanding of the cycle of life and a respect for the quarry he stalks out of necessity. In a sense, Railey Jordan is a younger ver­ sion of Tom Lincoln: a loner, with a deep knowledge of bushcraft and a feeling for the delicate balances in nature. Again these characteristics are conveyed with a minimum of words.

An interesting sidelight is the development of Railey’s relationship with Clara Morrison, her early antagonism giving way to a growing admiration. There is a hint of deep passion in Railey’s free ways; he repre­ sents a striking contrast to her husband and her life of domestication and self­ control. In keeping with the approach of the film this relationship is acted out at a physical distance, through sugges­ tion rather than statement.

But the film belongs mainly, as it should, to Dusty. He is brought to life in a way that does justice to Davison’s account. The Dusty of the film was specifically prepared for the role for more than 18 months by skilled dogtrainer Mary McCrabb. He was developed as a working dog — he actually won one of the sheep trials in which he participated — and was allowed to retain a very appropriate flaw: a tendency to bring down sheep.

Richardson used his knowledge of documentary filmmaking to create authenticity: none of the dogs was CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 157

Une semaine de vacances

Dusty

trained as actors; the dingoes were brought from their natural habitat in the Simpson desert to interact with true working-dogs; the animal scenes were shot in a 30-acre paddock with a rabbit-proof fence; and a small crew did the filming, with a minimum of disturbance to the natural movement of the dogs.

Dusty’s authenticity can be seen in his working of the sheep and, more dramatically, in his nocturnal forays into the bush where he gives way to his hereditary traits as a hunter. The sheep trial that establishes Dusty’s great skill is particularly powerful in its delicate interaction between man, dog and sheep. The scene has the quality of a subtle dance, with cameras using wide angles and close-ups to pick up the tension between the three focal points.

Several scenes were shot from low angles to capture Davison’s effort to relate the story from the dog’s point of view: for example, scenes of home­ stead life are shot from inside the wire compound in which Dusty is kept as a pup. Although this approach runs the risk of audience disorientation, it is more than justified in its intent to remain true to Davison’s novel.

Above all, the audience is able to feel Dusty’s joy in his work; his delight in running loose and exploring his environment; and his curiosity about the homestead, and life in the open fields and forests. This is almost as close as the medium of film can come to translating Davison’s vivid descrip­ tions: “ His senses were rich with retro­ spective satisfactions; breath of free­ dom, sight and smell of night-bound paddocks, scent of warm flesh and fur and feather, wool in his eyes, smell of sheep in his nostrils, the tug of flesh between his teeth and the taste of blood on his tongue.”

Richardson’s documentary skills are also in evidence in his portraits of country life: close-ups of country folk at the sheep trials, a barn dance and in the pub. Once again he uses economy and restraint. The authentic feel of these scenes was enhanced by setting them up as genuine happenings: the local Red Cross ran the dance and the sheep trials were open to the local farmers and town residents. Camera­ man Alex McPhee, also working on his first feature, was able to employ the patience and experience gained from his previous work in current affairs and documentaries to capture the atmosphere.

Although the film is shot in a con­ temporary setting, it sometimes has a period feeling and, in the animal scenes, a timeless quality. Richardson finally decided on the 1980s setting because it would highlight the relevance of the themes to present day audiences and avoid the glut of period films about the Australian outback.

Yet, as he says, the bush settings and the scenes of the homestead (which has not been essentially altered since the present owner’s family acquired it almost 50 years ago) are as they were in the 1930s. Tom leaves the Morrisons in a sulky, establishing a link with the not-too-distant past of Davison’s novel; his room on the homestead is without electricity and he wears the clothes of an earlier time.

This emphasizes him as one of a dying breed, the loner bushman, self­ sufficient and still deeply bound to a semi-nomadic existence.

It would be an injustice to the film and the novel if Dusty were to be seen as only for children. It is an indication

158 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

of our alienation from them that films about animals are labelled as mainly suitable for juvenile audiences. In Dusty, Davison wrote about the inner impulses that govern people’s lives; he tackled universal themes based on a knowledge born out of experience in the world of humans and animals. He often stressed that “ there is a bit of the kelpie and the dingo in all of us” and the connection between man and nature, or as he put it, “ the fellowship of all flesh” and “ the oneness of all life” . Davison also has been described as “ the artist of the inarticulate” . The film brings out those aspects of Davison’s work, bringing to life ordinary households as well as the reticent men of the bush.

Finally, Richardson has made a film within his means and values. He avoids using the violence of some of Davi­ son’s descriptions, such as the brutal killing of the dingo pups or the more ferocious attacks between animals.

The book can afford to be more graphic; Richardson, instead, relies on understatement. In reading the book one is also struck by the descriptions of the interplay between man, animal and the elements. When Tom battles the storm that leads to his fatal illness one is reminded of scenes in Akira Kuro­ sawa’s magnificent Dersu Uzula, with its sub-arctic blizzards and Dersu’s heroic struggles to survive. Dersu Uzula is a testimony to the heights a director can reach in depicting the battle between human beings and the environment. Dusty is a more modest venture which, nevertheless, shows that these themes can be presented in an Australian setting without resort to contrived situations. It is a film of understanding, patience, restraint and deep commitment; it touches on the spiritual intimations that lie just beneath the surface of human beings.

Laurence (Nathalie Baye): “her private anguish, the product o f the conflict between institutions and the idealistic quest that challenges their foundations”. Bertrand Tavernier’s Une semaine de vacances.

the winter of 1980 (the year in which the film was made), its central char­ acter, Laurence Cuers (Nathalie Baye), constructed in the terms of a moral confusion: her personal dismay, the heritage of the social upheaval of 1968; her private anguish, the product of the conflict between institutions and the idealistic quest that challenges their foundations. She is a character af­ flicted by history, yet also an in­ dividual who has to come to terms with her condition.

As in other Tavernier films (L’horloger de St Paul, Des enfants gates, Death Watch), Une semaine de vacances produces the sense of a

journey, even if it is a moral rather than a geographical one. A recurrent image in the film is that of a restless Laurence, wandering the streets of Dusty: Directed by: John Richardson. Pro­ Lyon, travelling to visit her parents in ducer: Gil Brealey. Executive producer: Beaujolais, constantly in motion and John Richardson. Associate producer: in search of comfort. Aged 31, a child David Morgan. Screenplay: Sonia Borg. of the ’60s, she is a teacher committed Based on the novel by Frank Dalby to the values of a liberal education, but Davison. Director of photography: Alex frustrated by the way in which those McPhee. Editor: David Greig. Production values seem to have no relevance to her designer: Robbie Perkins. Music: Frank experience of working in a school and Strangio. Sound recordist: John Phillips. teaching a class. She finds the children Cast: Bill Kerr (Tom), Noel Trevarthen in her charge unable to accept the kind (Harry), Carol Burns (Clara), John Stanton of liberation she wants to offer them: (Railey), Nick Holland (Jack), Dan Lynch “ The more freedom of expression we (Ron), Kati Edwards (Mrs Muspratt), Will allow them, the less they have to say Kerr (Jim). Production company: Dusty . . . Only their spelling is original.”

Prods. Distributor: Filmways. 35mm. 88 One of the direct concerns of the mins. Australia. 1983. film is the problem of education and, though it is secondary to the problems of the characters and of Laurence in particular, it nonetheless is an aspect of the post-’68 malaise which seems to Une semaine de shroud their lives. “ Teach maths, not vacances literature. It’s stable. Not even the communists can make parallels meet.

Even after ’68, a right angle is still 90 Tom Ryan degrees” , her doctor (Philippe Leo­ tard) observes as he signs her week’s release from teaching. The comment, though spoken in jest, does point to “ . . . for me the characters are very the lesson Laurence has to learn, deeply rooted in and related to their sounding a warning: in the arena of social context . . . ” human relations there can be no fixed Bertrand Tavernier1 solutions, no certainties.

The week off from teaching, which Perhaps the defining characteristic gives the film its title and its temporal of Bertrand Tavernier’s Une semaine framework, finds her faced with a de vacances is its evocation of an era of crucial decision about her future and, uncertainty. Its tale is set in Lyon in in the absence of the distraction that her work provides, a crushing aware­ ness of her uncertainties. Her struggle 1. Quart, Leonard and Lenny Rubenstein, “ Blending the Personal with the Poli­ to make sense of her environment and tical: An Interview with Bertrand Taver­ of her relationship to it becomes a nier,” Cineaste, Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 25. problem which the film’s structure in­

vites the viewer to share. Its construc­ tion of characters and of the exchanges or conflicts between them is pervaded by an ordered ambiguity, simul­ taneously demanding an empathy with Laurence’s plight and a critical distance from it.

In response to Laurence’s con­ tinuing ambition to urge her students to seek out complexities rather than take refuge in stereotyped views, her lover, Pierre (Gerard Lanvin), notes to her with a sense of assured finality, “ Doubting is a luxury. Kids need cer­ tainty first.” The thrust of the film reveals no inclination to invite the viewer to endorse this view and cer­ tainly not the perspective from which it is coming (regardless of how sym­ pathetic the character with whom it is linked may be), for its practical con­ sequences seem doomed to produce the kind of education against which Laur­ ence is struggling. Yet it is this kind of certainty that Laurence lacks, the abili­ ty to situate herself in relation to her environment and to relate construc­ tively to it.

The Lyon in which Laurence lives with Pierre and through which she roams, immersed in her reflection, is a wintry, urban landscape scarred by repetitive apartment blocks, leafless trees, graffiti and an aimless vandal­ ism. Its life is that of the disillusioned and the lonely, those who seem to have lost control of their lives. Their com­ munal bitterness is suggested in the lyrics of the reactionary pop song on a juke-box in a café Laurence visits briefly, “ You plant a tree and let it be, And then you call it ecology . . .

You vote left because it’s done, Now you’re in the revolution.” or in the sense of impotence that underlies the comments of the father of one of Laurence’s students, Man­ cheron (Michel Galabru), as he reflects on his son, “ Kids no longer resemble their parents. They resemble their time. Jean’s not a Mancheron, he’s a 1980” , or expresses his frustration at the changing face of the city itself, its modern road system with its complex system of one-way entry routes.

Yet the loving camera-embrace of the city in the aerial tracking shot behind the opening credits and Pierre­ William Glenn’s beautifully misted images of its panorama suggest there is another way of seeing Lyon. Similarly, the energetic appearance in the film of

Une semaine de vacances

Michel Descombes (Philippe Noiret) points to the possibility of coming to terms with the forces that seem beyond the characters’ control. His ability to grow through crisis, to refuse the terms of a given order, provided the moral centre of L’horloger de St Paul, at the beginning of which his belief in the rightness of that order had been such he had refused to cross a deserted mid­ night street against a red light. In Une semaine de vacances, he is character­ ized as one who has come to terms with his life, advising Laurence after they have shared a dinner at Mancheron’s and as they walk to his car, parked by a ‘No Parking’ sign, “ You must go on.

You can’t stop, otherwise the rot sets in . . .” Descombes offers a wisdom born of his own experience. It would seem that Tavernier uses him as his own voice as he has Descombes respond to Laurence’s doubts about her teaching, directing her attention away from her immediate problems and towards a need to locate them in a broader context: “ Maybe it’s not you or them. It’s what’s around us.’’

Descombes is shown as one who has come to terms with his pain, who can openly discuss his son’s imprisonment and wryly recognize the irony of the prison being situated by a railway station. He provides a sharp contrast to Mancheron’s sustained bitterness about his past, a childhood tormented by “ sadistic teachers” (“ I still dream of spitting in their faces” ) and a failed marriage (“ There are people you love so much, it hurts to remember” ), and with the kind of confusion or unproblematic certainty that afflicts most of the other characters in the film. Their unfulfilled dreams and continuing fears weave a tapestry of adolescent and adult dissatisfaction around Laurence whose dismay extends beyond her professional occupation, making it a symptom of a broader discontent.

An immensely appealing character, Laurence is admirably gentle in her dealings with others. She handles Man­ cheron’s distress at his son’s progress in an exemplary fashion and, later, delicately refuses his awkward sexual advances. With an excessively shy student, Lucie (Genevieve Vauzeilles), who comes to visit during her absence, she is understanding and supportive, urging her to find a self-confidence by not making so many demands on herself: “ Cats play and birds fly, but imagine if a cat wanted to fly . . .

Happiness is all that’s important really.” There is a sense in which Lucie represents a young Laurence, not just in terms of their physical features but in the way Laurence’s advice to her could equally be directed at herself.

Again, in the context of the film’s ordering of ambiguities, Laurence’s counsel has a constructive aspect, but it also creates a framework for a creeping self-satisfaction, a resistance to the potential for change and to the growth it is possible to achieve through straining to discover a more productive way of dealing with the world.

And it is precisely this kind of stasis that threatens Laurence. A voice on the radio smugly reassures her of the advances of modern education, of its ability to help those with socio-cultural handicaps. Her friend, Anne (Flore Fitzgerald), with whom she seems most comfortable, appears not to share her dissatisfaction with teaching, content to work within its limitations. Pierre, who sells real estate, seems uncon­ cerned at the kind of deceptions entailed in his daily work, at his verbal

Gandhi

transformation of drab houses into dream homes. He dismisses Laurence’s challenge to this by refusing to deal with it: “ I thought problems of con­ science were only for intellectuals.”

Everyone seems to refuse to see the need for change or else is helpless to effect it. .

Thus alienated from those around her, Laurence is also confronted with the penultimate terror, the logical con­ sequence of her existence, the inevitab­ ility of old age. She obsessively watches the old woman confined to a wheelchair in the apartment opposite, an image for her of human stagnation, a mirror of her own fate. Early in the film, as she leaves the doctor’s rooms, she is faced with the sight of an old man stumbling on the sidewalk, unable to bend down, to retrieve his walking­ stick, Tavernier’s camera tracking an arc behind Laurence as she watches, the framing evoking the empathy she feels as well as her inability to act to help. Later, she visits her father, immobilized by a stroke, but leaves earlier than she had promised, excusing herself on the grounds of the pile of untouched essays that await her. It is true, the essays are piled up on her desk at home, but the sugges­ tion is, again, her inability to face her father’s condition, scarcely able to communicate with those around him.

As she farewells him, his whispered parting echoes her own frustrations, of a knowledge that cannot be passed on: “ I know so many things.”

Her fears of isolation find her seek­ ing comfort in the mere fact of com­ panionship, her fragile sense of her own worth strengthened by the love and warmth she is offered. Through­ out the film, and despite their differ­ ences,' Pierre is represented as a positive force for Laurence in his humor, personal drive and patience.

His function for her is as a kind of paternal presence (Descombes and Mancheron become variations of this), providing her with at least a domestic security and challenging her attempts to avoid coming to terms with her problems. She gains similar support from Anne, and their empathy is beau­ tifully caught in the sequence when, with Anne staying with Laurence in Pierre’s absence, Laurence’s anguish finds its outlet in nausea. Anne comes upon her in the bathroom, tentatively moving to comfort her at the wash­ basin. A cut to the two women, reflected in the mirror and watching each other, is marked by a shift to a longer lens, flattening out the image, emotionally binding them together.

Anne seems to provide a distinct contrast to Laurence, giving the impression that she is well-adjusted to her world, professionally at ease and personally clear-headed, even if she remains unsure of her romantic liaison (“ I’m not sure whether I can tell the difference between wanting to be in love and being in love” ). But, in a neat irony, the end of the film reveals that Anne has resigned her teaching post as a result of the doubts awoken in her by Laurence’s agitation at the frustrations of teaching, no longer able to live with teachers who are more like “ lab scien­ tists” imposing their will on the students who become their “ guinea pigs” . Laurence, on the other hand, has chosen to return to her role as teacher, the context of her choice ambiguous.

In one way, teaching provides a refuge for her, a retreat from the realities of adult life and from the inevitability that she will grow old. She

says of the students, “ They make me feel alive . . . In a world of only adults I’d be lost.” Yet, in another, Laur­ ence’s can be seen as a productive choice. She is clearly a good teacher, even if she only sees that in negative terms: “ For them, I’m less rotten.”

Her return to the classroom sees her draw increasingly insightful and poli­ tically alert responses from an enthus­ iastic class about the works of Molière and, despite her dissatisfactions, she has made the choice to “ go on” . The option Anne has taken up, writing for television, is scarcely likely to relieve her of doubts, as Descombes’ experi­ ence with the medium in L’horloger de St Paul suggests, though she too has made a choice, has committed herself to a course of action.

However, Laurence’s closing con­ versation with Anne creates a further perspective on the kinds of problems that remain for her. Her reaction to Anne’s question about the old woman opposite, whose apartment windows are now boarded-up, is illuminating in terms of the fact that it seems to signify and which she refuses to con­ sider: “ I don’t know. One day she was gone. Maybe she moved. No one ever visited her. She was alone.” Laur­ ence’s deepest fears are constantly represented in the film, but she is never able to speak of them in any clear way.

Her actions seem designed to construct a refuge from them, attempts to rationalize them in other terms, to keep them below the level of her consciousness. As Pierre watches a recital of Purcell’s “ Solitude” by Alfred Deller on television, she insists that he turn the channel to a series program that she says she knows her class will be watching. Her declared motive is her desire to familiarize herself with the elements that make up their lives and thus to become better equipped to deal with them. Such an aspiration is admirable, but behind it lies the implication of a deeper incen­ tive: the retreat from the kind of exper­ ience dealt with by the song. And, earlier, she bought a plant for her apartment, drawn by the guarantee that it has “ a long life” , as if to create for herself an environment whose con­ tinuing survival will ensure her own.

Laurence complains to Pierre that no one takes her crisis seriously, “ coddling” her and implying in their treatment of her that they believe “ it’ll pass” : “ I’m allowed to dream, but no more . . .” But she is the one unable to satisfy the demands she makes of her life. It is the fears that oppress and obstruct her, not the emotional support system she has around her.

Une semaine de vacances ends with her crisis having receded, but the range of problems it entails clearly remain unresolved. Her moral journey, like that of the history to which she belongs, is far from over.

Gandhi Arnold Zable

Ghandi is a film of great vitality and commitment, a moving account of the Mahatma, “ Great Soul” of the Indian independence movement.

As the scriptwriter (John Briley) points out at the outset, “ No man’s life can be encompassed in one telling” : this is particularly the case in the life of a man who was so complex, long-lived and m ulti-faceted as Gandhi. It is a daunting task portray­ ing his life in three hours of film. But to some extent the film succeeds in showing, through a succession of key episodes, the evolution in Gandhi’s life to the mature leader who created a new vocabulary in the methods of political struggle. It also succeeds, to some extent, in its stated intention, “ to try and find one’s way to the heart of the man” . But there are inevitable problems and gaps; and there are dis­ tortions.

The film is prefaced by a haunting prologue, and framed at both ends by the assassination of the 78-year-old Gandhi (Ben Kingsley). The intense opening sequence demonstrates the film’s blend of restraint and under­ statement: an almost surreal effect is created as one follows the movements of the assassin, with Ravi Shankar’s score slowly emerging from the silence during Gandhi’s final moments. A funeral dirge then amplifies this mood, as it accompanies the body of the slain Gandhi, on its final procession through the wide thoroughfares of Delhi, packed with countless mourners and dignitaries from many nations.

The audience has caught a glimpse of the man, of the aura of sainthood which surrounded him, and of the deep grief experienced by both the Indian and international community.

An American broadcaster covering the funeral quotes the words of Einstein: “ Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”

This emerges as director Richard Attenborough’s view of Gandhi: the film is, essentially, a gentle ballad in praise of the apostle of non-violence.

With a few significant exceptions, the more controversial aspects of Gandhi’s personal and political life are glossed over or avoided.

Given the time constraint, the aud­ ience’s first view of the young Gandhi is a wise choice by Briley. Gandhi is seen, barely a week after his arrival in South Africa, preparing to take up a legal position for a firm in the minority Indian community. While travelling from Durban to Pretoria, he is ejected violently from the train for having insisted on his right to travel first class.

Une semaine de vacances: Directed by: This was, as Gandhi wrote in his auto­ biography, a fundamental turning Bertrand Tavernier. Screenplay: Bertrand point, when he first experienced the Tavernier, Colo Tavernier, Marie-Francoise humiliation of racial prejudice.

Hans. Director of photography: Pierre The South African period is handled William Glenn. Editors: Armand Psenny, well in a series of succinct episodes that Sophie Cornu. Music: Pierre Papadiamandis. Cast: Nathalie Baye (Laurence), show the gradual evolution of Gerard Lanvin (Pierre), Michel Galabru G a n d h i’s unique and creative (M ancheron), Philippe Noiret (Des­ approach to political struggle. One combes), Philippe Leotard (Sabouret), sees his first physical confrontation Flore Fitzgerald (Anne), Jean Daste with the police in a scene that fore­ (Father), Marie-Louise Ebeli (Mother). shadows the qualities of the mature Production company: Sarafilms-Little Gandhi: an iron-willed determination Bear-Az. Distributor: Richard Walberg. and a courage that enabled him, and 35mm. 102 mins. France. 1980. later his trained followers, to face the blows of their armed opponents.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 159

Gandhi

physical dissimilarities by employing a range of subtle gestures, and recreating the gradual changes in accent, posture and inner conviction of the maturing Gandhi. The change in accent is almost im perceptible, from the refined English that Gandhi picked up as a young law student in London, to the shades of Indian lilt that creep in during his later years. At the same time, one sees Gandhi move from the opulent bourgeois surroundings of his early years in South Africa, through a process of continual simplification, until he emerges as that “ half-naked fakir” , as the enraged Winston Churchill labelled him.

There are several memorable glimpses that capture the legendary profile: his solitary figure setting foot on the steps of the Vice-regal palace, a frail dwarf taking on the might of an empire; or striding vigorously in front of mass marches, his bent figure clutching his staff, his followers barely able to keep pace; or sitting beside his spinning wheel, the famous symbol of his aspirations for an independent India based on peasant simplicity.

In many respects Gandhi was a Touring the Indian countryside: Kasturbai (Rohini Hattangady), Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) and Charlie (Ian Charleson) Richard loner, who deliberately conducted his A ttenborough ’s Gandhi. politics outside the mainstream. His home base was the ashram. Politicians In another m emorable scene, his communal farms, subject to his Patel and Jinnah are simplified or cari­ had to meet him on his home territory Gandhi finds his voice as a leader radical ideas on the virtues of non­ catured. and they frequently motored or capable of arousing and disciplining a academic education and self-reliance.

The most interesting portrayal is trekked out to convey their news and mass movement to adopt his unorth­ Harilal pointed out that Gandhi that of Nehru, very well acted by hold vital discussions. Gandhi is seen odox tactics of non-violence. There is himself had received legal training in Roshan Seth, although one misses to interrupt them occasionally to also a fine portrayal of his relationship London and that many of his skills had some of the elegance and style noted attend to his ashram chores — tasks as with Jan Smuts (Athol Fugard), one come from formal education. None of by his biographers. There are glimpses basic as feeding his goats. He held fast of the first of many such encounters this is shown in the film and, in a of that mixture of deep love and to this view of political life from the with powerful political opponents who sense, it detracts from its integrity and veneration, tinged with moments of time of his arrival, as he set out to dis­ were at first furious at this obstinate from its avowed aim of getting at the deep frustration, that characterized his cover India and to touch the pulse of little Indian, but who gradually were heart of the man. relationship with Gandhi, but what some of those 700,000 villages that seduced by his curious blend of gentle It should be added that the relation­ one does not see are the major differ­ made up the scattered backbone of his strength, self-possession and unbend­ ship between the ageing Kasturbai and ences in their outlooks. Gandhi had a country. ing commitment. As Gandhi and his Gandhi is very well portrayed. It did deep and lasting impact on Nehru, This Indian journey is a lyrical inter­ followers face the head-on assault of mature into an enduring and sensitive steering him in the direction of greater lude in the film, set to the rhythm of galloping horses, one is left in no marriage and their conflicts did not simplicity. But, whereas Gandhi clung Ravi Shankar’s music and synchron­ doubt about the immense dangers of necessarily detract from Gandhi’s to a vision of a peasant-based Utopia, ized with the beat of trains bearing the the ways of non-violent resistance. stature. He never tried to hide an India of revived cottage industries Gandhis in their third-class carriage, Gandhi’s first attempt at ashram life anything: his life was a deliberately- and village co-operatives, Nehru was a catching an overview of that vast is also shown: the Phoenix settlement open book in line with his constant passionate believer in modernization complexity in landscape and lifestyle which was to become the forerunner of search for deeper truth. In fact, he — material progress based on socialist of India. However, this interlude could a succession of ashrams in which credited Kasturbai with teaching him principles. Perhaps more important have been extended. Gandhi’s autobio­ Gandhi experimented with various many lessons in the arts of patience was Nehru’s secular outlook as com­ graphy contains several chapters on forms of communal living and self­ and non-violent resistance, and he pared with Gandhi’s insistence on the this journey, and described how it reliance. became an advocate for women’s links between religion and politics. challenged his religious and political But, with one striking exception, rights in a society in which a deep Sardar Patel (Saeed Jaffrey) is the views. He was very critical of some of one sees little of one of Gandhi’s repression of women was sanctioned most misrepresented figure in the film. the more regressive aspects of Hindu­ major problems at this time: his rela­ by both the orthodox Hindu and He was, by most accounts, a hard­ ism and upset by the lack of awareness tionship with his family. The exception Muslim faiths. headed and shrewd political organizer. about the basics of hygiene, sanitation is a scene with his wife, based on When Gandhi finally resettled in Often described as a Tammany Hall­ and self-reliance. He also developed a Gandhi’s disarmingly frank account in India in 1915, he was in his mid­ style boss, Patel, under Gandhi’s deep antipathy towards the treatment his autobiography. Kasturbai Gandhi, forties, and an acclaimed leader for his guidance, built the Congress party into of the millions of outcastes, whom he acted with subtle grace by Rohini Hat­ work in South Africa. The film tends an impressive national machine that renamed the Harijans, “ the children tangady, confronts her husband when to overplay his humility and innocence reached every province of India. One of God” . His relationship with the he orders her to do her share in raking of Indian politics at the time. He had, sees little of his peasant pragmatism Harijans became an important aspect and covering the latrines. The darker in fact, made several journeys back and his distrust of intellectuals which of his Indian crusades, but is barely shades of Gandhi’s aspirations to home and had become acquainted with helped bring him into conflict with touched on in the film. Furthermore, perfection appear here. He momen­ many of the key figures in the Indian Nehru. the grinding poverty that he so fre­ tarily loses control and castigates her struggle for home rule. He was very The portrayal of Jinnah (Alyque quently referred to is underplayed. The for not living up to his demands. As firm in his ideas of non-violence, the Padamsee) seems closer to the mark. film presents, at most, a distanced and Gandhi has pointed out, this was one links between spiritual development He was suspicious of the ascetic brief view of poverty, rather than the of many confrontations between two and politics, and on the virtues of com­ Gandhi and apparently repulsed by his harsh realities that persist to this day. strong personalities, thrown together munal living. It was largely at the insis­ close identification with the peasantry.

From this initial journey one sees the in marriage at the age of 13. tence of Gopal Krishna Gokhale Jinnah believed in the leadership of an rapid growth of Gandhi as a unique But the audience does not see any (Sheeram Lagoo), who appears briefly educated city-based elite. In his private national figure with the capacity for other instances of this turbulence or of in the film, that Gandhi undertook to life he enjoyed the trappings of his mobilizing people to action, and for the conflict between Gandhi and his refrain from trying immediately to affluence and took pride in his profes­ gathering a group of devoted fol­ sons, particularly Harilal, the first apply his methods to the Indian scene, sion and the good life that went with it. lowers. Attenborough focuses on the born. While Harilal was an active par­ and to travel the country for a first­ These differences are depicted in the campaign of the Champaran farmers, ticipant in Gandhi’s South African hand view of its conditions. film in subtle ways that suggest that who had been reduced to subsistence campaigns, and was gaoled on several Attenborough is not, however, con­ similar nuances could have been level by the exploitation of the British occasions for up to six months, he cerned with the intricacies of Indian brought out in other characters indigo planters. Once again time-limits eventually rebelled and challenged his politics and social conditions. Alter­ without detracting from the film’s enable only a brief view of this father. He felt deep resentment at native viewpoints, the spectrum of necessary concentration on Gandhi. campaign during which Gandhi estab­ having become a pawn in his father’s ideas and tactics in the independence Despite these limitations, there are lished schools in the villages, lectured political and spiritual experiments, and struggle, and some of Gandhi’s major many fine scenes of key events in the on sanitation and provided medical was extremely angry at his refusal to conflicts with other leading members Indian independence struggle and a facilities. grant him a formal education. Gandhi of the movement are overlooked. As masterly performance by Ben Kingsley The turning point for Gandhi in insisted that his children grow up on well, the characters of Nehru, Sardar as Gandhi. Kingsley makes up for any India came with the brutal actions of 160 — May-June C IN EM A PAPERS

Gandhi

the British in Amritsar. Attenborough does not avoid the callous brutality of the massacre. One sees General Dyer’s soldiers line up and fire point blank into the crowd of thousands that had assembled in Jallianwala Bagh to protest at British oppression. 379 people were killed and 1139 wounded in 10 minutes of non-stop firing. There were no exits for the trapped crowd.

After this action Gandhi lost his respect for the British in India and became an uncompromising supporter of total independence.

The film captures this hardening of attitude. Although he may have glossed over a number of crucial aspects of Gandhi’s life, Attenborough confronts head-on the most critical challenge to Gandhi’s non-violence campaigns, the ironical tendency to violence. Gandhi had the capacity to set the Indians alight with his calls to civil disobedience. But he also was faced with situations that got out of control. In some of the film’s finer moments, Attenborough focuses on Gandhi’s anguish at the bloodshed he had indirectly triggered. On several occasions he called off his campaigns or fasted to end their violence, much to the exasperation of other leaders of the Congress party, eager to capitalize on an aroused mass movement. Those moments revealed Gandhi’s intense commitment to his overriding concerns: unlike many freedom fighters, he always felt that the means were as important as the ends.

The finest hour for Gandhi’s doctrine of non-violence came with the inspired Salt March of 1931. Atten­ borough does full justice to this campaign. He touches on the initial British response of ridicule. The audience sees the march gaining momentum, with thousands of people witnessing Gandhi’s first handful of illegal salt gathered from the sea, the mass arrests of enthusiastic followers and finally the dramatic raid on the

Fighting Back

Dharamsala salt works. This was a telling display of the power, as well as the courage, involved in disciplined civil disobedience. Row upon row of Gandhi’s disciples walk up to the savage blows of the police batons and, while the wounded are dragged away, the next row advances. In this sequence the naked force of an era of Imperialism was dramatically exposed by the “ soul force’’ Gandhi had spent a lifetime developing.

But another enemy virtually destroyed Gandhi’s dream of the triumph of non-violent revolution.

The Hindu-Muslim conflict was based on a history of violent confrontation deeply etched into the Indian con­ sciousness. This is another instance where Attenborough confronts realities without pulling many punches. There are telling scenes of a people gone mad in an orgy of killing and destruction. A despairing and almost desperate Gandhi is shown trying to avoid partition as he uses drastic means to placate Jinnah’s insis­ tence on a separate Muslim state.

While the nation celebrates its inde­ pendence, Gandhi is in Calcutta, fasting in a bid to bring the violence to an end.

In these concluding scenes Atten­ borough is able to bring out the com­ bination of loneliness, anguish, dis­ illusion and finally the greatness of Gandhi in facing what seemed to be the destruction of all he had fought for.

Mahatma Gandhi lived a long and active life. For more than half a century he immersed himself in poli­ tical struggle, constantly sought to evolve and develop his creative approach to life, openly expressed his views to countless friends, followers, journalists and comrades, and wrote prolifically on a wide range of ideas and on his “ experiments with truth” .

Such a life is impossible to confine to three hours of celluloid: Attenborough

could only expect to create an impres­ sion. He succeeds in his intention to inspire the viewer with what he regarded as the greatness of Gandhi’s remarkable life.

However, the film does not adequately convey the most important aspect of his achievements: the under­ lying consistency that ran through all work and struggle. Gandhi viewed all his many activities as part of a unified endeavor, a struggle to find the ulti­ mate truth that some call God, others call spirit, or any one of countless names. He drew on many sources, but always, when something appealed to him, he was compelled to try and put it into practice, immediately.

The mature Gandhi appears from most accounts to have been a man of great energy, warmth and humor, an inspired tactician, and a shrewd and infinitely patient politician. Gandhi touched a chord in his people that was deep and personal. His appeal lay in the fact that he was a living embodi­ ment of what he preached. Perhaps this is one of the major reasons why the film is proving so popular with both Indian and Western audiences.

Gandhi: Directed by: Richard Atten­ borough. P ro ducer: Richard A tte n ­ borough. Executive producer: Michael Stanley-Evans. Co-producer: Rani Dube.

Screenplay: John Briley. Directors of photography: Billy Williams, Ronnie Taylor. Editor: John Bloom. Production designer: Stuart Craig. Music: Ravi Shankar, George Fenton. Sound: Simon Kaye. Cast: Ben Kingsley (Gandhi), Candice Bergen (Margaret), Edward Fox (Dyer), John Gielgud (Irwin), Trevor H o w a rd (B ro o m f ie l d ) , J o h n Mills (Viceroy), Martin Sheen (Walker), Rohini Hattangady (Kasturbai), Ian Charleson (Charlie), Athol Fugard (Smuts), Saeed J a f fre y (P a te l), G erald in e Jam es (Mirabehn), Alyque Padamsee (Jinnah), Amrish Puri (Khan), Roshan Seth (Nehru).

The Viceroy (John Mills) and sta ff are concerned by news o f Gandhi’s increasing power. Gandhi.

Production company: International Film Investors-Goldcrest Films . International­ National Film Development Corporation of India-Indo-British Films. Distributor: Fox­ Columbia. 35mm. 188 mins. U.K.-India.

1982.

Fighting Back Jim Schembri

When a film starts with the words, “What follows is a true story” , the audience is in effect being assured that what it is about to see will be realistic, possibly startling and, presumably, important. Such a pre-claimer also suggests a “ warts-and-all” approach to the subject matter.

Thus Fighting Back begins and, initially, it does demonstrate remark­ able conviction and power. Through some strong performances and grainy, documentary-style photography, it quickly establishes the difficult environment of a hyperactive, psycho­ logically-disturbed, 13-year-old schoolboy, Tom (Paul Smith), and the valiant attempts by his compassionate teacher, John Embling (Lewis Fitz-Gerald), to bring him back to normality.

The opening shots of the local teen­ agers in their industrialized, suburban environment directs the audience towards Tom, who, while riding a motorcycle at high speed, has mental flashes from his past. These mental disturbances cause Tom to crash into a wire fence, the viewer becoming aware of the boy’s deep social and psycho­ logical problems. During the film, these brief glimpses into Tom’s past will be exposed at length and, to some extent, reconciled.

Tom is truculent, abusive and defiant. At home he bashes his sister, and hits and swears at his mother, who, while vainly chastizing him, insists that, “ I took enough of that from your father.” At school, after being unable to complete a test, he angers his teacher with irritating shrugs before throwing desks and bags, making bizarre stabbing gestures in the corridor, and running out of the school. When Tom is found and returned to school by the police, he is sent to Mr Payne (Wyn Roberts) for punishment. In this scene, Tom’s entrapment in an institution which can neither recognize nor deal adequately with his problems is strikingly conveyed.

As Payne straps the increasingly hurt and resentful Tom, he makes the weak, pedagogical assertion that, “You must learn, and you’re going to learn.” When Tom bursts out scream­ ing and tosses things around, Payne’s only recourse is to unlock the door so Tom can run out. The similarity to an unsuccessful trainer releasing an untamed animal from a cage is telling.

When John Embling arrives at the school, he discusses Tom with Mary (Robyn Nevin), the lone, haggard­ looking remedial teacher at the school.

John recognizes Tom as a problem child, and briefly succeeds in winning his confidence by offering him the choice of participating in a class activity, rather than forcing him to.

Their subsequent walk to the shops, and Tom’s honesty in returning John’s change, suggests the possibility of a rapport between teacher and student.

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 161

9

HCE REE BOORS

THE CINEMA & SCIENCE FICTION BOOKSHOP A wide range of popular and critical Cinema books always in stock, including:

THE 1983 INTERNATIONAL FILM GUIDE Edited by Peter Cowie (PB) $18.95

tY i%

Current lists sent on request.

Open seven days a week. Phone 663-1777 305/307 Swanston St., Melbourne, 3000

FILMWORKS

FILM SETS 88 Warrigal Road, Oakieigh, Melbourne 3166

28 Pine St, Chippendale, NSW 2008 • Comfortable 16mm editing rooms • Latest model Steenbecks • Syncing-up room

Studio 75' x 46' with 14' to lighting grid.

OUT OF HOUSE RENTALS:

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

• Steenbecks, motorized pic-syncs • 4.2 nagra and mikes • Benches, trim bins etc.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

Best rates

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

Design and set construction service available.

EDITORS: Jim Stevens, Gil Serine

PHONE: (02) 698 3700, 698 4214

FOR STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE: Alex Simpson,

(03)568 0058, (03) 568 2948

MAGNA-TECHTRONICS (AUST.) PTY. LTD. T h e C o m p lete Professional Film Sound C om pany M A G N A -T E C H E L E C T R O N IC S C O . IN C .

The Australian standard: High-speed Reversible Projectors, Recorders and Dubbers in High-speed electronic interlock and electronic looping.

D O L B Y L A B O R A T O R IE S IN C . S T E R E O A N D MONO SOUND Our offices are open to all producers and their executive, for direct liaison with Dolby in any aspect relating to Dolby film productions in Australia. All types of Dolby professional Noise Reduction Units are available ex stock Sydney and information on new systems for VTR etc.

W E S T R E X C O . IN C . O P T IC A L FILM E Q U IP M E N T Complete Westrex Mono and Stereo 16 and 35 mm Optical Recorders, also for older equipment, Solid State Light-Valve or RCA Galvanometer type Electronic Updates are now available and the superb new Optical Sound Track Analyser and Cross Modulation Test Sets.

A U D IO K IN E T IC S L TD .

Q-Lock Time Code Synchronisers for interlock of Magnetic Film Reproducers, Video Recorders, Multi-track Recorders and other machine control computer applications.

N E V E E L E C T R O N IC S IN T E R N A T IO N A L LTD .

N A G R A -K U D E L S K I S A

Consoles for Film, Television, Recording and Radio. New 51 Series now available and DSP, the world’s first all digital audio console.

The world standard in location recording. Pilot tone models include the 4.2, IV-S Stereo, Compact IS and miniature SN. For the Studio, the Model TA Mono and Stereo Transportable Editing Recorder.

Q U A L IT Y M A G N E T IC FILM Super 8-16, 171/2, 35mm Fullcoat and 3 Stripe Polyester and Acetate available ex stock. Contact for bulk buy prices.

For further information, please con tact:

MAGNA-TECH

tronics (Aust.) Pty, Limited 14 Whiting S treet Artarmon, NSW 2 0 6 4 Telephone: 4 3 8 -3 3 7 7 Cables & Telegrams: “ M A G N A " Sydney, Telex 2 4 6 5 5

Fighting Back

This atmosphere of tentative friend­ ship is soon shattered when, during a class, Tom erupts into violence. John manages to contain Tom but, rather than use the strap so thoughtfully pro­ vided by Mr Payne, he tosses it to Tom’s side of the room. Tom, des­ perate for a new target, begins swearing, smashing windows and tipping over lockers.

Eventually, John calms him down and they start cleaning up the room in an act of emerging, though still fragile, friendship. John later vents his feelings of frustration and powerlessness onto Mary, angry at the futility of his university training, In contrast to this sympathetic portrait of John, most of tire teachers in the film are absurdly-contrived, sadistic caricatures. When John is introduced to the staff, one teacher proudly lectures him about the need for a strap. He shows John his strap, relishing the quality of the leather, its durability, and even recalling with affection the time when he adminis­ tered three cuts apiece to a class of 30 students.

Equally important as the school environment in Tom’s life is that of friends and home. Unfortunately, the depiction of Tom’s restricted social world is sensationalized and incred­ ible. He and his mates, for example, swill beer constantly without bothering to get drunk and like to indulge in a little “ wog bashing” on the spur of the moment. They also exhibit exceptional survival and driving skills for 13-yearolds as they steal a high-powered car, perform some professional-looking skids and crash at high speed into a shop without injury.

On the other hand, the portrait of Tom’s mother (Kris McQuade) is a moving evocation of a truly pathetic, frustrated parent. But, although shown in a sympathetic light, she is presented as at least partly responsible for Tom’s continued neglect. Spiritless and ignorant, she has no authority over or communication with her son.

Her despondency reflects her broken

An Officer and a Gentleman

spirit and resignation to Tom’s fate.

And her ignorance is exemplified by her blind faith in the archaic school system. John pleads with her to write a letter to the principal forbidding cor­ poral punishment being inflicted on Tom, but she resists saying, “ I can’t interfere with what his teachers think is best.” ‘‘But I’m one of his teachers,” John insists. ‘‘Yes,” she replies, ‘‘but you’re only a young one, aren’t you.” 1 Another person who shares John’s desire to develop close ties with these youngsters and help them is Rosemary (Caroline Gillmer), the coffee-shop owner. It could be argued that the desire of both to help these children appeals to and fulfils the assumed moral sensibilities of the viewer. But whatever their role, their lack of motivating background renders them both incomplete characters. Ulti­ mately, what the film seems to be saying is that the only hope for children like Tom is with the Good Samaritans of the world.

Tom’s salvation is argued in the film to be dependent on the developing bond between he and John. And this in part is dependent on Tom coming to terms with the nightmarish visions that disturb him. The first revelation, which Tom recalls in graphic, mono­ chrome images, is of his violent, wife­ beating father (Barry Branson). This is the dramatic and emotional high point of the film, showing, in one scene, the tortured mix of emotions within Tom as he switches from anger, violence, sadness, hate and self-reflection. After this outburst, Tom begins to trust John, asking him to help him at school, almost seeing him as a sur­ rogate father for the one who deserted him.

But what follows is a saccharine montage of them together, skipping stones, learning and enjoying each other’s company, all to an angelic 1. It is interesting to note that the level of awareness Tom ’s mother has of her child’s activities is on par with that of the parents in Puberty Blues.

score (by Colin Stead). This sentimen­ tality is typical of the rest of the film and at odds with the realist, documen­ tary style that had been maintained until then. The film even degenerates into slapstick comedy. During a church camp, children on motorcycles leap into the lake, chase naked campers and wage flour raids at night while a Jesus freak (Michael Cove) helplessly tries to control the con­ fusion, appealing mutely for help from the Almighty — all to a silly banjo score.

Tom’s second revelation to John is of his time in a boys’ home where he was locked up with a deranged young boy. But the scene lacks impact, appearing from nowhere. Even the effect of the stark images of the home is nullified by an over-dramatic sound­ track.

More detrimental to the film, however, is the film’s increasingly unquestioning view of John’s char­ acter and attitudes. His attitudes are clearly sincere and he exhibits his admirable resolve in trying to help these teenagers. As he explains to a school principal, ‘‘In order to help them, you must take on their whole lives, not just school . . . physical reassurance is very important to these kids.” But the effectiveness and prac­ ticality of these methods are never questioned or explored.

For example, John’s all-consuming interaction with and attention to Tom is generalized into a philosophy of child care which John sees as applic­ able to all troubled teenagers. The film doesn’t acknowledge or deal with the possibility that, while these methods may be effective on an individual basis, a methodology requiring total devotion of one person to one child (Tom is the only beneficiary the viewer sees of John’s dedication) may not be practical on a larger scale, and may lead to the neglect of other needy children.

Equally, when John resigns from the Education Department, he is shown as quite unworried by the fact that he has

no regular income and is facing life on the dole. He and Rosemary then talk of setting up an independent house for children in the area, leaving the viewer bewildered as to how they would manage with such limited finance — let alone whether such a house would work effectively. As this scene is shot at the seaside, in the optimistic hues of the setting sun (giving Rosemary and John a rather heroic gleam), such basic considerations seem out of place. But they aren’t, and shouldn’t appear so.

The final segment of the film has Tom and John trekking about the Murray River in glowing, picturesque compositions reminiscent of a tourist bureau travelogue. Tom makes a final revelation about a pet horse his father slaughtered, a perfunctory, histrionic gesture to ‘‘fill us in” on the images in Tom’s head, and to signify John’s success in reclaiming Tom. The trium­ phant music swells as a title informs the viewer that John and Rosemary did set up their independent house and are continuing to help children such as Tom. The film’s closing at this point is most unsatisfactory, denying the viewer any opportunity to assess whether John’s decision to leave the education system, rather than remain within it and try to effect reforms internally, was a sensible one, or, indeed, whether it proved effective in helping him to tackle the undoubtedly widespread problems.

The subject matter at the heart of Fighting Back is far too important to be treated in such a superficial, blindly-optimistic manner. Surely, if the film claims to deal with particular contemporary social problems that have their basis in reality, then the viewer, in order to be able to take the film seriously, deserves a much more balanced picture.

Fighting Back: Directed by: Michael Caulfield. Producers: Sue Milliken, Tom Jeffrey. Executive producer: Phillip Adams. Screenplay: Michael Cove, Tom Jeffrey. Based on the novel, Tom, by John Embling. Director of photography: John Seale. Editor: Ron Williams. Art director: Christopher Webster. Music: Colin Stead.

Sound recordist: Tim Lloyd. Cast: Lewis Fitz-Gerald (John), Paul Smith (Tom), Kris McQuade (Tom’s mum), Caroline Gillmer (Rosemary), Robyn Nevin (Mary), Ben Gabriel (Moreland), Wyn Roberts (Payne), Barry Branson (Tom’s father), Michael Cove (Jesus freak). Production company: Adams Packer-Samson. Distributor: Road­ show. 35mm. 100 mins. Australia. 1983.

An Officer and a Gentleman Brian McFarlane

In a season more than usually crammed with solid box-office suc­ cesses, all of them thoroughly crafted — Tootsie, Gandhi, The Verdict, for example — none is more satisfying than Taylor Hackford’s An Officer and a Gentleman. And despite its modish and mimetically authentic foul-mouthed dialogue, it is essentially an old-fashioned entertainment. It offers a well-made story, with an upbeat ending, and some fine perforCINEMA PAPERS May-June — 163

An Officer and a Gentleman

mances which effortlessly enlist audience rapport.

The film begins with Zack Mayo (Richard Gere) looking at two nude people, his father and girlfriend it transpires, on a bed in a squalid room, and as he recalls his past the screen is suffused with a yellow' glow. His father, a sailor (Robert Loggia), had deserted Zack and his mother when Zack was a child. His mother had sub­ sequently suicided and Zack was passed on to his reluctant father. In the film’s last scene, he strides into the factory where his girl Paula (Debra Winger) works, picks her up in his arms and carries her off into a sym­ metrically yellow glow. He has come to terms with his past and the sense of reconciliation is underscored by the film’s final color effect, which matches the sheen of the flash-backs in which Zack’s chip-on-the-shoulder has been created. It is appropriate to recall those scenes at this final moment when the chip has been dislodged, through a sense of mutual caring and commit­ ment.

Within this frame, Zack, in search of the kind of orderliness and purpose that have been missing from his life, enlists in a naval training camp as an aviator cadet. What follows has echoes of those war films in which raw young recruits are shaped into a crack unit by a brutal-seeming sergeant who proves to have had their interests at heart all along; of crossing-the-tracks romantic dramas; and of those studies of selfish loners (“ I don’t need anyone” ) who must learn to be their brothers’ keepers.

This probably does not exhaust the film’s references to classic Hollywood narrative. However, what needs to be stressed is that new director Taylor

Hackford has taken some well-tried ingredients, shaken them up, and made them over into something which both belongs to a recognizable narra­ tive tradition and has the look and feel of contemporary filmmaking.

The opening scene in the training camp at once creates that sense of order that Zack craves, even when it gives way to the ritual abuse of the line-up as conducted by the black ser­ geant Foley (Louis Gossett jun.). This abuse is meant to humiliate (“ You from Oklahoma? Only two things come from Oklahoma — steers and queers. Which are you?” ) but, even without the shot near the end of a new set of recruits subject to the same assault, it is clear that Zack accepts it as part of a predictable pattern.

The training scenes themselves are convincingly rigorous. As Richard Price has written: “ His [Zack’s] education is so linear you feel like you’re sitting through a training film” 1; and part of the film’s appeal is in the way it trusts its audience to be interested in the learning processes. In this respect, it recalls Carol Reed’s 40-year-old The Way Ahead which puts its rookies through comp -able paces, even if the tone was consider­ ably more genteel than in An Officer and a Gentleman. William Hartnell, Reed’s sergeant, sounds like Ronald Colman compared with Louis Gos­ sett’s line in abuse and obscenity.

The film acknowledges the ritualistic aspects of the cadets’ lives but allows these a goal of personal satisfaction which is absent from the assembly-line 1. Richard Price, ‘‘Mister Richard Gere: The A m e ric a n G igolo Becomes America’s Sweetheart” , Rolling Stone, September 30, 1982, p. 13.

routine of the factory in which the girls, Paula and Lynette (Lisa Blount), earn their living. This is numbing work and the point is not just to make a qualified parallel with the naval trainees’ lives, but to provide a motiva­ tion for the film’s romances.

Foley warns the men against the local girls who are then presented against, and driving away from, an utterly dreary urban landscape. Their only hope of escape is to marry an officer and a gentleman. Lynette tries to trap Zack’s buddy Sid (David Keith) into marriage by pretending to be preg­ nant. When Sid, who has planned to marry a girl back home, decides to desert and marry Lynette, she makes it plain that it’s an officer she wants. If Sid is not to be an officer then it’s all off as far as she is concerned. Anyway, since this morning she knows she’s not pregnant. The film measures the glamor of an officer’s uniform by standards of drabness with which it forces one to sympathize.

This tracks-crossing romance is the final narrative nudge Zack needs to complete the emergence from his loner’s shell. He and Paula race to the motel Sid and Lynette have frequented only to find he has hanged himself.

Zack fights it out with Foley in a final effort to prove he doesn’t need anyone, but the film’s penultimate scene shows him restored to the culmination of the training program: the passing-out parade. As the graduates file out, they shake hands with Foley and Zack assures him, “ I never could have made it without you.”

Sid’s death has given Zack the impetus he has needed to complete the course — and to retrieve his relation­ ship with Paula. As much as Lynette,

she wants to get away from her shabby home (complete with mother who had loved a naval cadet), but unlike Lynette she will not resort to tricks to catch the man she wants. There is a very touching dignity and reticence in Debra Winger’s performance as Paula and the film discriminates sharply but humanely between this role and Lisa Blount’s shrewdly-judged Lynette.

Part of its contemporary treatment of some well-tried situations is in the film ’s acknow ledgem ent of its heroine’s sexual liberalism. Paula would have had to reform or, better still, die 40 years ago.

Given the generally down-beat mood of Hollywood films in the past decade or so, with their conventional unhappy endings, An Officer and a Gentleman is quite audacious in the way it builds up audience enthusiasm for its hero’s success — in both of the film’s eponymous roles. Early on, Gere’s cocky performance, spiked with cynicism and a solipsistic guardedness, epitomized in that oddly cat-like walk, has recalled William Holden s oppor­ tunist hero in Wilder’s Stalag 17. But Hackford doesn’t want the audience to stay at that kind of admiring remove from Zack.

Taunted by Foley for his incapacity to “ mesh” , for his solitariness (“ You should be good at this [water training] — you can do it alone” ) and for the shyster opportunism of his “ deals” , he breaks down as Foley intends he should do. As he sobs “ I got nowhere else to go” , the importance to him of the camp and its life is made clear to the audience — and to Zack himself. It is truly an old-fashioned moment but, played as it is by Gere and Gossett, it undeniably works.

So does the moment when Zack helps the one woman (Lisa Eilbacher) in the training squad over an obstacle wall; and so do two others already mentioned — the passing-out parade and the gathering up of Paula. Zack Mayo’s emergence as an officer and a decent hum an being carries a surprising emotional punch that derives partly from literate scripting and partly from Gere’s performance.

He has given several remarkable film performances before — in Days of Heaven, Yanks, and, above all, in American Gigolo. Here, for the first time, encouraged by a role that invites him to approach an audience, he looks like an actor and a star. As a result there is a warmth and an invitation to empathy that belong to the role but which are also part of a star’s equipment.

Everyone else is convincing too, especially David Keith as the vulner­ able, good-natured Sid, Gossett in his Oscar-winning virtuoso display as Foley, and Robert Loggia (non-star leading man of the 1950s and ’60s) in an accurate display of moral sloven­ liness as Zack’s crummy Dad. Backed by a splendidly stirring score, An Officer and a Gentleman is a film that clicks: that is, it evokes in its playing and mise-en-scene the kinds of emotional response the elements of its screenplay seem to be seeking. I hope it won’t usher in a batch of “ heart­ warming” films but there is no denying the way the old formulas can be brought up to date and made to work again when professionalism and honest feelings are brought to bear on them.

An Officer and a Gentleman-. Directed by:

Sid Worley (David Keith) proposes marriage to Lynette (Lisa Blount). Taylor Hackford’s An Officer and a Gentleman.

164 — May-June C IN EM A PAPERS

Taylor Hackford. Producer: Martin

First Contact

Highlanders o f Papua New Guinea react to contraptions o f an intruding white society. Bob Connolly and Robin A nderson’s First Contact.

Elfand. Associate producer: Douglas Day Stewart. Screenplay: Douglas Day Stewart.

Director of photography: Donald Thorin.

Editor: Peter Zinner. Production designer: Philip M. Jeffries. Music: Jack Nitzsche.

Sound: Jeff Wexler. Cast: Richard Gere (Zack), Debra Winger (Paula), Louis Gossett jun. (Foley), David Keith (Worley), Lisa Blount (Lynette), Lisa Eilbacher (Casey), Robert Loggia (Byron), Tony Plana (Emiliano), Harold Sylvester (Perry­ man). Production company: Lorimar. Dis­ tributor: UIP. 35mm. 126 mins. U.S. 1982.

First Contact

Barbara Alysen

The success of Spielberg’s E.T. is proof of just how appealing is the story of initial, friendly contact between two different worlds. First Contact also has that appeal.

In 1930 three Australian brothers, Mick, Tim and Dan Leahy, trekked into the until-then unexplored high­ lands of Papua New Guinea looking for gold. Like other colonists, they assumed the mountains were un­ inhabited. Similarly, the million residents of the valleys behind the mountain walls believed they were the only people in the world.

The Leahy brothers’ excursions were one of the last times Europeans would intrude on an ‘undiscovered’ people.

Certainly it was the last time so large a group would be found.

What made the Leahys’ trips unique was that the brothers were amateur photographers. They captured their first meetings with, and subsequent life among, the highlanders on photo­ graphs and 16mm film.

In 1980, Robin Anderson was in Papua New Guinea researching a planned film on Australian colonial­ ism in the former territory. In the course of her enquiries she was told about some old film held by the son of one of the Leahy brothers. What he had was 2200 feet of disintegrating material. The restored film, and photographs taken by the Leahys, form the basis of First Contact. The images are fleshed out with interviews with the two, then-surviving Leahy brothers and with many of the high­ landers who recall the strangers’ arrival and who, by their recollections, establish a context for these old images. Their memories are presented as a mixture of fear, wonder, curiosity and, in retrospect, cynicism.

The highlanders tell their story matter-of-factly, revealing an excep­ tional concern for minute detail. How they first interpreted the white men’s arrival (plus the arrival of contraptions such as phonographs and planes) and how they worked to reconcile the obvious differences and similarities between themselves and the strangers are part of the film’s magic. This is no place to reveal details. What is striking, however, is their apparent lack of anger at the intrusion. There were some fights in which the Leahys killed natives (in self-defence they said, though it does not square with a villager’s story of how a man was shot after the theft of a lap lap), yet there is little sign of resentment. Did the high­

to the white explorers. First Contact’s landers take the fighting for granted?

When relations were friendly, the success is in recreating a mood rather Leahys conducted a busy trade with than chronicling events.

First Contact is one of several recent them: shells, knives and axes in exchange for food and women. Again Australian-made documentaries on the tone of their recollections is Papua New Guinea. The other most matter-of-fact. Women who bore significant such film is Angels of War, children to the Leahy brothers explain directed by Andrew Pike, Hank how they were traded for “ good Nelson and Gavan Daws. The story of things’’. The brothers clearly didn’t how Papua New Guinea and its people were treated during World War 2, disturb paradise.

Robin Anderson came to film­ Angels of War inevitably is an angry making from an academic background film, one which deals with the continu­ and from work as a television ing neglect of one-time service men researcher; Bob Connolly is one of the and women and one which invites old-hands from ABC current affairs; analysis and judgment of events.

First Contact doesn’t dwell on and Stewart Young is one of the most respected documentary film editors in analysis, beyond confirming that for the country (with credits that include the Leahy brothers, and some native Frontline, Public Enemy No. 1 and men, self-interest played a big part in Angels of War). What the three have their relations. And although judg­ produced is an entertaining film about ments of the European intrusion on a series of historic meetings — selec­ life in the highlands could be made, tive, as most accounts are — that is as First Contact does not invite them. much drama as conventional docu­ What it does do is juxtapose white plans with black naivete. Because the mentary.

Stylistically, First Contact contains latter is novel and amusing it is that a little of everything. The narration is which is the more memorable.

The sombre side of First Contact, by the Leahy brothers, highland villagers and a narrator. Sometimes and what followed, is another story. the faces on the screen talk to an (unseen and unheard) interviewer behind the camera, sometimes to the camera itself. Some events are re­ First Contact: Directed by: Bob Connolly, enacted for the camera, others for an R o b in A n d e r s o n . P r o d u c e r s : Bob audience of children with the camera Connolly, Robin Anderson. Associate pro­ ducer: Dick Smith. Directors of photo­ as observer.

Tony Wilson, Dennis O ’Rourke.

The mix of styles enhances the graphy: Editors: Stewart Young, Martyn Down. story’s appeal, but produces its own Music: Ron Carpenter. Sound recordist: frustrations. The sequence of events, Ian Wilson. Narrator: Dick Oxenburgh. for example, becomes rather jumbled Production company: Arundel Prods. Dis­ and, without a detailed explanation of tributor: Ronin Films. 16mm. 53 mins. relations between the highland Australia. 1983. villagers, it is difficult to understand the different reactions of the villagers CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 165

Wereworkingonit film service Australiapty.ltd.

1 Giffnock Avenue, North Ryde, Sydney 2113, N.S.W. Australia.

Telephone: 888 2766 25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051, Australia.

Telephone: 329 5155

24 hours a day. • 7 days a week.

Around Australia. «Throughout the world.

WHAT HAS 2001SUPERM AIM AND FOCAL PRESS IN COMMON?

.. . Zoran Perisic, inventor of the Zoptic System, which gave the special effects for “2001” and “Superman”!

"

Perisic details in his book Special Optica! Effects, an exhaustive treatment of Special Effects which he has discovered during his career (over 500 film credits) and reveals those he perfected himself.

Other media manuals in the Focal Press Series are written by experts in the state of the art like Zoran Perisic. These books, above all, are easy to use and learn from as they are made up of double page spreads and inter-related text and illustration. «m rig’IPIWl'WWa— » ■ ! ! I Ill »«W ilgH IIN H M »

I

The Media Manual Series

16mm Film Cutting - Burder 166 pages $14,50, The Animation Stand - Perisic 168 pages $15.00, Basic Film Technique - Daley 160 pages $17,95, Basic TV Staging - Millerson 176 pages $14,95, Creating Special Effects for TV & Films -Wilkie 160 pages $15.00, Effective TV Production - Millerson 192 pages $19,00, The Lens in Action - Ray 202 pages $17,95, The Lens and All Its Jobs - Ray 160 pages $14.50, Local Radio - Redfern 164 pages $14.00, Motion Picture Camera Data - Samuelson 172 pages $19.50, Motion Picture Cam era Techniques - Samuelson 200 pages $19.50, Motion Picture Cam era & Lighting Equipment - Samuelson 220

pages $19.50, Script Continuity and The Production Secretary Rowlands 160 pages $15.00, Scriptwriting for Animation Hayward 160 pages $19.00, The Small Television Studio - Equipment and Facilities - Bermingham et.al.

164 pages $14,50, TV Camera Operation - Millerson 160 pages $14,50, TV Sound Operations - Alkin 176 pages $14.50, The Use of Microphones - Nisbett 168 pages $19.00, Using Videotape 2nd Ed. -

Robinson/Beards 172 pages $19.00, Your Film & The Lab - Happe 208 pages $19.00.

Order from your local bookseller, or in case of difficulty from: FOCAL PRESS: A Division of BUTTERWORTHS PTY LIMITED, 271-273 Lane Cove Road, North Ryde, NSW 2113 Telephone (02) 887 3444

FOCALPRESS

Monsignor

Monsignor Peter Malone

A facile but not unfair thumbnail review of Frank Perry’s Monsignor could be The Cardinal meets The God­ father via The Shoes of the Fisherman.

But that would omit a topical and expensive cousin, The Thorn Birds.

As with so many films with a religious theme, Monsignor tends to assume that religion is a phenomenon of reverential probity (heavenward eyes and pious gestures backed by strings and choirs) and that any devia­ tion takes on solemnity requiring open-mouthed wonder or disgust or both. Monsignor (Christopher Reeve), not unlike the Cardinal (Tom Tryon) 20 years ago, is a pleasantly stolid cleric who is tried in the international as well as internal forum. Reeve uses some of his Superman style and mannerisms — and even changes his clothes for disguise quite often. Things being as they are in the 1980s, prurient curiosity about the temptations afflict­ ing, and falls from, celibacy is soon answered, if not satisfied. From the opening, which parallels ordination and marriage in a Mafia-business wedding-reception (echoing The God­ father’s wedding, baptism and mas­ sacre), to the Brotherhood’s black­ market deals and to the ‘clean’ arrangements of post-war Mafia activ­ ities, The Godfather and Godfather II are not far from the memory. Jason Miller as the Don seems particularly to relish his melodramatic role. But Mafia business and violence are only a part of the film.

Perhaps Monsignor is an example of that ever-popular genre: the over-ripe melodrama. This is a suitable descrip­ tion of Frank Perry’s previous film, the high-pitched portrait of Joan Crawford as Mommie Dearest. By and large, this kind of film is easy to enjoy while it is on the screen, easy to rubbish afterwards. The screenplay takes on so much (too much?) that it cannot do justice to all the issues. In this case, it is the Catholic church, its administration during World War 2 and its financial organization since; interconnections with Italian crime and international banking; the Papacy and its Italian dominance; U.S. influence and religious politics; chap­ lains in action in war; vocation to priesthood and integrity; celibacy; emotional betrayal — and more. A film like Monsignor is ambitious but

generally can rely on surface treatment — the sensational, the simplistic and the glib — to achieve an effect.

But, while the exploitive elements can be criticized, it does not mean that the scenario and the details are neces­ sarily untrue. Vatican finance is topical enough: in 1982 American Archbishop Paul Marcinkus was under investigation about his high finance connections; banking director Roberto Calvi was found dead under Blackfriars Bridge in London — murder or suicide? Fraud, embezzlement and criminals serving gaol sentences made headlines. Monsignor thus raises ques­ tions that echo reality as well as raising eyebrows.

But the screenplay also attempts to offer a philosophy, perhaps a ‘spirit­ uality’, of the Catholic church. The screenwriters are veterans Abraham Polonsky and Wendell Mayes, noted for hard-hitting dramas of action and corruption; their picture of almost­ absolute power in the Vatican (much ring-kissing, even Byzantine kissing of the Pope’s foot) suggests power cor­ rupting — and fairly absolutely.

Yet, the writers seem to be pre­ senting sincerely, through Cardinal Santoni (Fernando Rey), what they see as the Catholic church’s religious belief. The penitent Monsignor is advised that, “Where you have Peter [the Pope], there you have the Church” : the principal virtue is obed­ ience. Cardinal Santoni seems to believe this and Christopher Reeve acts the sequence of Monsignor’s hearing this sentiment as a repentance and salvation scene.

Obedience, it seems, also will atone for every sin and grant the sinner res­ pectability. Monsignor’s (later Car­ dinal’s) long, financial, power-hungry and unscrupulous career seems almost justified. Although the Pope finally quotes St John’s Gospel to say that the Church must be in but not o f the world and, although Monsignor will spend time in a monastery soul-searching, his quest seems doomed to be less a dis­ covery of self in any spiritual sense than a reinforcing of the “ right atti­ tude” to obedience. Many Catholics may believe this and act accordingly; many people outside the Catholic church may see it as projecting this image. However, this is not the trad­ ition of the church, with its focus on Jesus Christ, personal religious com­ mitment and the primacy of love and charity. In Monsignor, Christ is reduced to a crucifix figure, an icon or part of the ornamental pageantry.

Audiences who are not of the opinion that obedience is the key virtue will be

more sympathetic to Genevieve Bujold’s disillusioned Clara, whose condemnation of the betrayal by her lover is heartfelt and savage. Mon­ signor seeks God’s forgiveness. Clara says that it is not God that has to forgive. She does; and she never will.

However, according to the screenplay, obedience will justify Monsignor’s actions despite Clara’s not forgiving him.

As melodrama, Monsignor takes on a vast best-seller range of issues and characters, and offers a purplepassage, two-hour film, entertaining enough of its kind. Underlying the film is a topicality with some plausibility and definite fascination. It pre­ supposes a view of the Catholic church which highlights its worldliness and over-stresses obedience to make a virtue of the veneer of respectability.

That means that the bases of Mon­ signor are as simplistic as its surfaces.

Monsignor: Directed by: Frank Perry. P ro­ ducers: Frank Yablans, David Niven jun.

Screenplay: Abraham Polonsky, Wendell Mayes. Based on the novel by Jack Alain Leger. Director of photography: Billy Williams. Editor: Peter E. Berger. Produc­ tion designer: John de Cuir. Music: John Williams. Sound: Roy Charman. Cast: Christopher Reeve (Flaherty), Genevieve Bujold (Clara), Fernando Rey (Santoni), Jason Miller (Appolini), Joe Cortese (Varese), Adolfo Celi (Vinci), Leonardo Cimino (Pope), Tomas Milan (Francisco), Robert J. Prosky (Bishop). Production company: Twentieth Century-Fox. Dis­ tributor: Fox-Columbia. 35mm. 122 mins.

U.S. 1982. ^

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 167

The Quarter

The Quarter Continued from p.97 The Witness — Jeff Peck; 1st draft funding (commitment due 1.7.83) — $7500 Turtle Beach — Polygon Pictures; bank guarantee in lieu of investment — $17,829 The Lesson — Richard Cassidy, Allied Talent; bank guarantee in lieu of invest­ ment; 3rd draft funding — $11,500 Taipan Negative — Anthony Buckley Films; bank guarantee in lieu of invest­ ment to cover project development funds — $52,327 Razorback — McElroy & McElroy; bank guarantee for six weeks — $75,000 Funny Business — Eve Ash, Seven Dimensions; bank guarantee in lieu of investment; 3rd draft funding — $17,000 Oversexed, Overpaid, Overhere — McElroy & McElroy; bank guarantee in lieu of investment; 2nd draft funding — $15,000 A Grave for a Dolphin — McElroy & McElroy; bank guarantee in lieu of invest­ ment; 2nd draft funding — $26,800 The Man with the Donkey — Lynn Barker, Barker Productions; bank guarantee in lieu of investment; 2nd draft funding — $12,000 Street Heroes — Michael Pattinson, Julie Monton; 2nd draft funding — $20,320 Daisy — Argus Motion Pictures; final draft funding — $8477 Documentaries Australian Poets on Film — Richard Tipping; treatment/research funding — $1750 I’m Floating on Top of the World — Richard Dennison, Orana Films; treatment/survey costs — $6322 The Bridge — Lesley Stevens; treatment/storyboard funding — $1700

m

Television Series The Garbos — Terry Bissaker; 1st draft funding (commitment due 1.7.83) — $8000 In Like Flynn — Russell Hagg; treatment funding (commitment available 1.7.83) — $7000 Eden’s Lost — Michael Edgley International/Margaret Fink Films; bank guarantee; 1st draft funding — $23,500 The Lancaster Miller Affair — Nilsen Premiere; bank guarantee; 2nd draft funding — $23,000 Packages Pavilion Films Package No. 2 — Pavilion Films; revised treatment development for Clean Straw for Nothing — $9000 P rodu ction In vestm en t Fast Talking — Zarwot; underwriting facility — $79,500 G rants Travel grant — Alan Maxwell, Peter Evans; to travel to Los Angeles to study special effects techniques — $5743 American Dreams, Australian Movies — Hamilton/Mathews Associates; grant which includes $1000 contributed by Fenchurch Insurance Brokers and $1000 to be contributed by NSWFC — $5000 N o m in a ted W riters Silver City — Sophia Turkiewicz, Thomas Keneally Below the Line — Mark Stiles Goodbye Adelaide — Bob Ellis Alone Together — Genni Batterham The Grasshoppers —- Debra Oswald, Jane Oehr Love on a Tourist Visa — Jan Sharp The Umbrella Woman — Peter Kenna Nightshade — Brian Hannant, John Baxter

o

v

i E

C

Compulsion — Terry Jennings, Scott Hicks Earth Versus the Globos — Stephen Maclean, Lyndall Hobbs The Witness — Jeff Peck Turtle Beach — Laura Jones The Lesson — Richard Cassidy Taipan Negative — Philip Cornford Razorback — Everett De Roche Funny Business — Patrick Cook Oversexed, Overpaid, Overhere — Trevor Farrant A Grave for a Dolphin — Peter Clifton The Man with the Donkey — James Mitchell Street Heroes — Jan Sardi Daisy — Anthony Wheeler Australian Poets on Film — Richard Tipping I’m Floating on Top of the World — Richard Dennison The Bridge — Lesley Stevens The Garbos — Terry Bissaker In Like Flynn — Russell Hagg Eden’s Lost — Helen Hodgman The Lancaster Miller A ffair — Peter Yeldham Clean Straw for Nothing — Laura Jones

Creative Development Branch Projects approved by the Austra­ lian Film Commission, December 1982 to January 1983 Production Liz Alexander (NSW); projection invest­ ment for Memento — $30,960 Bruno Annetta (Vic.); post-production grant for Balanced (revoked monies re­ instated) — $729 Michael Glasheen (NSW); production grant for Atomic Landscape — $4713 Debbie Glasser (NSW); production grant for Migrants in Australia (revoked monies reinstated) — $2740

A

/

Ros Horin (NSW); additional investment for Tissue (to cover rehearsal costs) — $2000

Gary Kildea (NSW); production invest­ ment in Celso and Cora — $27,600 Red Heart Pictures (NSW); former distri­ bution guarantee converted to production investment for On Guard — $33,750 Dennis Tupicoff (Vic.); production invest­ ment in Dance of Death (revoked monies reinstated) — $3794 Robert Wyatt (Qld); production grants for Land (revoked monies reinstated) — $7756

Marketing Matt Butler (NSW); marketing loan for Cityscope — $6020 Margaret Dodd; marketing loan for This Woman is Not a Car — $4863 Helen Grace (NSW); marketing loan for Serious Undertakings — $6391 Clytie Jessop (NSW); marketing grant for Flamingo Park — $137 Philip Roope (NSW); supplementary marketing loan for The Applicant — $43 Antoinette Starkiewicz (NSW); marketing loan for Pussy Pumps Up — $84

Grants Come Out Media Activities Group (SA); grant for Come Out Festival — $1080 Fringe Network (Vic.); grant for Melbourne Artists Festival — $3000 Manly Warringah Media Co-operative; grant for 7th National Youth Film Festival — $1500 Metro Television Ltd (NSW); grant for the Television Committee of the Public Broad­ casting Association of Australia — $7000 Perth Institute of Film and Television (WA); grant for artist-in-residence, Michael Edols — $2400 South Australian Media Resource Centre (SA); additional grant for equipment — $500 +

n

Recent International Credits “MEPHISTO”

Latest Complete Camera System

“V E R O N IC A VO SS”

Competitive Hire Rates

Australian & N.Z. Credits

Location Back-up Production Incentives Technical Production Consultancy m

“ BROTHERS” “THE C L IN IC ”

^

“C O N S TA N C E ”

Worlds largest Moviecam Rental House

“FAST TALKING” “ FIND ING KATIE”

Australian Company

“LADY STAY DEAD”

cinematic services pty ltd 8 C la re n d o n S treet ARTARMON NSW 2064 Phone: (02) 439 6144

168 — May-June CINEMA PAPERS

“MOLLY”

Call Don Balfour or Oscar Scherl to improve your "Below The Line" costs

“THE WILD DUCK”

Graeme Clifford

Graeme C lifford Continued from p. 129

testing her, and she was allowing herself to be tested. But she also swings it around and challenges writer. He wasn’t exactly filled him. I saw it as a little duel with humility. between them. I wanted to indicate to the audience that there was an The scene where he first meets immediate attraction and competi­ Frances, in her dressing room, is tiveness. shot using cuts to her reflection in the mirror, suggesting that he is You also get a very strong element talking to her reflection . . . of competition between Frances and her mother, Lillian . . .

Yes, he was and she was talking to his. I felt that they were con­ Yes, that was the major com­ fronting one another indirectly.— petition in her life. That again From the minute these two people brings up the scenes that were saw one another, there was an taken out. There was more use of instant attraction, an electricity the scrapbook, which you now jumping between them. It seemed only see once in the film: you don’t logical that Frances would talk to see Lillian thumbing through this him in the mirror because it put book of all those images that she that much more distance between held so dear, images of herself them. Then, when she looked at juxtaposed with Frances on the opposite page. him directly, there was silence.

It seemed that he was relating to Frances Farmer the film star whose name could bring big audiences to his play . . .

Why did you depict Lillian as the monster of the film? ,

That is a bit unfortunate because I don’t think she was a monster. In No, I think Odets was more con­ the scenes that I removed, she cerned with putting her on; he showed great compassion towards wanted to get a rise out of her. He Frances and it made for a much dropped those things in to make better balanced relationship. It her react. It goes back to what I made it a little more understand­ said about probing people to make able as to why Frances kept them react. The most honest reac­ coming back home. tion you will get out of someone is when you get them unexpectedly. You construct the home at the He was sitting on the couch, beginning as a shining letter box, a

I was trying to indicate that Frances was in fact keeping the mother and the father together.

Once she left, there was no family, no home. There was no reason to keep up the house and it just disin­ tegrated along with her.

could appreciate the good times.

You live in perennial sunshine for six months and you get bored stiff.

After the film’s depiction of the conditions in the asylum, the dis­ claimer at the end seems ironic . . .

I am glad you used that word; that’s exactly the way I wanted it to appear: ironic. The reason I pre­ faced the disclaimer with my own disclaimer was because I don’t believe it. We were forced to put it there in return for the use of certain facilities. The producers agreed to the disclaimer and I was hoping to imply that I didn’t.

The contrasts in weather con­ ditions, particularly the use of rain and snow, also seem to reflect Frances’ disintegration . . .

After the obvious commitment you have had to this film, what do you do next?

Yes. It comes back to the elements, which have a great effect on me and I know they had a great effect on Frances. One of the first things I discussed with Laszlo Kovacs was the weather. Unfor­ tunately, it didn’t rain in Seattle as . much as I wanted it to, and I had to use rain machines. I wanted to contrast the rain of Seattle with the endless sun of Hollywood.

The sun in California has an effect on you. You get very de­ pressed. There’s all this sun, sun, sun, sun — everything is perfect every day. You just wish for some­ thing to go wrong, so that you

It is very difficult for me to find something that I feel as passionate about. Before Frances, I was very keen on making the story of Burke and Wills. I have just to rekindle my enthusiasm for it. There are other stories I am interested in making. Jessica and I are going to make the story of Amelia Earhart, sometime in the future, and there is another book called Out o f Africa that I am very interested in.

I am also very interested in Charlie C haplin, another astounding person whose life story has fascin­ ated me since I could read. I am talking to a producer about th a t^

H ow to g et the k it w ith o u t thecab oo dle.

1920s a n d 30s C O S T U M E S from the film, Phar Lap, avs

well-kept house that is all clean and nice. There is a wonderful daughter and it looks like the ideal nuclear family. When you see the house at the,end, it has fallen apart, and the letter box is rusty.

The whole ideal has gone into decay. Do you see that as a parallel to Frances’ deterioration?

)le for hire

Striped suits, glamorous gowns, wide range of hats etc. etc. '

John Sexton Productions Pty Ltd (02) 927 101 & 927 550 ^

:

H ■ B'B M g —------------------- ------------------------- -— ---- —— ------- —----Ü

W ANTED

The last thing you need on loca­ tion is equipment that won't he used. But what's useless to one J professional is indispensable to another. That's why we have more than twenty kits-ranying from v very basic to extremely sophisti­ cated. And if none are exactly right—we 'll help you create your own kit. : Minus the caboodle. And minus the caboose. . \

[ Western Electric Tubes, Amps, Networks, Mixers, ■ Consoles, Tweeters, Drivers, Horns, Speakers, B others.

■ Westrex (London) Amps, Drivers, Speakers, etc.

B | n |

B a David Yo * PO Box 832 Monterey Pk, Ca. 91754 USA | Tel: (213) 576 2642 ................................................ ..................................................... B B I H l

m ®

Australian distributors: —

B

AUSTRALASIA LIMITED S r ™

i

N .S .W . 8 D u n g a te Lne, S y d n ey 2000. Ph: 264 1981 V IC . 77 C ity Rd, S th M e lb o u rn e 3205. Ph: 62 1133 Q L D . 116 B ru n sw ick St, F o rtitu d e Vly 400 6. Ph: 52 8816 W .A . 110 Jerse y St, J o lim o n t 6014. Ph: 387 4492 S .A. 239 A n zac H w y, P ly m p to n 5038. Ph: 293 2692 N .Z. 5 P o llen St, A u c k la n d . Ph: 789 094 x85

CINEMA PAPERS May-June — 169

jgBH

WÊiÊÊÊÊËÊÊm MËÊËËm

A contemporary fairy tale about Maxie, an 11-year-old girl, who befriends Molly, a dog that sings.

Molly is directed by Ned Lander, from a screenplay by Phillip Roope and Mark Thomas, for producer Hilary Linstead.

Director o f photography is Vince Mon ton.

Opposite top: Maxie (Claudia Karvan) washes her new friend Molly. Opposite bottom: Maxie is alarmed by the threatening behaviour o f a strange ‘nun’ (Garry McDonald). Right: Old Dan (Reg Lye) and Molly on a country road. Below: Maxie is saddened by the disap­ pearance o f Molly.

i p t 1lililí

I¡111

Undercover Undercover is a romantic comedy set in Sydney in the frenetic, energetic 1920s. It is about the coming o f age; o f a girl like Libby McKenzie, a man like Fred Burley and his business — the Berlei undergarment company — and o f Australia emerging from the sedate traditions o f Edwardianism into a period o f dramatic change.

Undercover is directed by David Stevens, from a screenplay by Miranda Downes, for producer David Elfick. Director o f photo­ graphy is Dean Semler.

Opposite top: the staff at Berlei have mixed feelings about the newest, ‘chic’ undergarment from New York. Opposite bottom: Nina (Sandy Gore), Berlei’s chief designer, tells some Australian women: “In the great battle o f the bulge, we are all undercover agents.’’ Right: Libby McKenzie (Genevieve Picot) learns the first laws o f corsetry: “Displaced flesh must go somewhere. ” Below: Fred Burley (John Walton) defends “Australian made” at a public meeting.

'v v.v

A IM /A ■ IP

m

STAGE & STUDIO GROUP What a Great Cast!!

Agency for . . .

Actors Models Dancers

Magicians Singers Bands

Performers Comedians Stunts

STAGE &

STUDIO GROUP

(03)3291033 196 peel street, north melbourne, 3051

EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN.

• «

IS OUR BEST

CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES Telephone: 5286188. Telex: 38366

’

3185'

C in e F ilm L aborato ry P ty. L im it e d

For C .P . 16 in e x c e lle n t c o n d itio n ..

C a n o n 12-120 m a c r o le n s, 3 lig h tw e ig h t m a g s , C r y s ta s o u n d a m p , 3 b a tte r ie s , 3 c h a r g e rs , c a se , d u m m y h e a d s , filte rs a n d tr i p o d .

(Incorporated in N.S.W.)

14 WHITING ST. (P.O. BOX 361) ARTARMON, 2064, TELEPHONE: (02)439 4122. TELEX AA 73035.

Tel: (03) 383 1967

SERVICING THE MOTION PICTURE FILM INDUSTRY

KEHOE A U STR A LIA 18 Cahill Street, Camperdoum 2050.

Teh (02) 519 4407.

16mm

★ ★ ★ ★

Suppliers of professional Film,Television and Special Effects M ake-U p for the Industry. — R .C .M .A .(U .s.a.)

VISIORA (France) KRYOLAN(Cjermany)

SUPER 16

Quickest possible work turn around Beautiful quality Personalised attention Realistic prices

HOURS: N ig h t S h ift:

'fuRLeyï—-Believe It orDon't/ 7y e

a o s t r a u a n

f il m

TtlW/SION SCHOOL ffd fral

d

was

G ovew m cN T/

¡S O COURS6& A N O

a

since OYER

I £ ,0 0 0

PEOPLE, HAve attended

w

1 '

the school 's

OPEN PROGRAM cohort-rem

a

in t e n s iv e c o u r ses in film , t e l e v is io n ahd r a d io !

Seminars -throughout AUSTRALIA, ONLY • / OFMHicH m R Ï in ST d n e y [

y

& ■ l

last year rue OPEN PROGRAtA conducted OV6&

D a y S h ift:

10.30 pm to 8.00 am Sunday to Thursday inclusive 8.00 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday inclusive

For After Hours or Weekend requirements please contact either Kelvin Crumplin or Calvin Gardiner.

a h d

ESTABLiSHBD IN tP13J AND IS FON pep BY THE AOSfRAPAM

ISSSt

tpe r e s o u rc e <, u n it

Of rHF OPEN PROGRAN] HAS

A

HOGS

PAN G S

OF Fi l m , TELEVISION AND r a d io t r a in in g B o o k s , FILMS. & VIDEOTAPES a v a i l a b l e FOR H i RE OR PURCHASE /

CRÇÇ C A TA L06U & Obi OPEN PROGRAM COURSES AND TRAINING MATERIAL INILL BE ÌFAJT To You IF YOU CONTACT; CARMEN COUTTS, O P i t i PROGRAM /AUSTRALIA N FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL P.O. & 0 / I2 .G , NORTP PYPE NG.uJ P I 13. TELEPHONE(oz) é>é>F>*

35mm

, C in e F L

il m

abo rato ry

NIGHT RECEPTION IN CURRY LANE

TO ADVERTISE IN

CWF.MA

A&J Casting Agency Incorporating

Ring

TOP 10 M ANAGEM ENT

Casting and Modelling Consultants

Peggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 1097 or 329 5983

5 Axford Crescent, Oakleigh Sth. 3167

Telephone (03) 570 4407

Soundtrack Albums

Melbourne Theatre Company 699 *9122 Costumes to Order Full productions and Individual • Thousands to choose from

New Sound Tracks and Cast Recordings

129 Ferrars Street South Melbourne 3205

FORBIDDEN PLANET (ELECTRONIC MUSIC BY LOUIS & BEBE BARRON) $16.99; THE KING OF COMEDY $9.99; THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN (DELERUE) $14.99; I COULD GO ON SINGING — JUDY GARLAND $12.99; NICHOLAS NICKLEBY (OLIVER) $14.99; CHOICE OF ARMS (SARDE) $13.99; THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE — JULIE ANDREWS $12.99; THE SECRET OF NIMH (GOLDSMITH) $13.99; HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD (HARRY WARREN ETC) $18.99.

Mail orders welcome; add $1.50 post/packing

---------- R E A D IN G S R ECO R D S & B O O K S ----------132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885 We

are open 7 days a week

KEM 800 SERIES: EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE When you edit with KEM, you're editing with the best of them! From 16mm to Super-16 to 35mm—even videotape! Full picture and sound editing, transfer to video with SMPTE and EBUCode processing. With KEM as part of your editing team, sophisticated German engineering and totally versatile, totally flexible, totally variable editing makes every editing job possible. From a low budget commercial to a winner at Cannes. For further details, call us.

FILMWEST G

PERTH Film west E q u ip m e n t Sales Pty. Ltd. 75 B enn ett Street, Western A ustralia 6000.

Phone: 3251177, 3251423.

Telex: AA94150 FILMWA. C a b le s "Film west" Perth.

ADELAIDE

Edwin Scragg Scope Films Forreston South Australia 5233 Phone: 3891091

SYDNEY A la n Lake Film P roduction 102 C h a n d o s Street, St. Leonards, N ew South W ales 2065.

Phone: 439 7102.

SINGAPORE Filmwest Pte. Ltd. Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 B each Road, S ingap ore 0718.

Phone: 337 8041, 336 1509 Telex: RS36389 FLMWST C ables: "R aflotel".

At Fuji Film, we’re proud to have won a 1981 Academy Award o f Merit for our new A250 film.

The first color negative film for motion pictures with an exposure index o f 250, it delivers ultra-high speed, fine grain, and natural colors.

Which is why the Academy called it “a significant step forward in providing the cinematographer and director with the means o f achieving new levels o f artistic, technical, and economic advantages.”

Fujicolor A250. The Academy gave it an Oscar. And the many people who have used it successfully have proved it deserved one.

?,!rvE/AVi§©

FUJICOLOR 7a\

35mmTYPE 8 5 1 8*1BmmTYPE 8 5 2 8

Distributed in Australia by

m

HANIMEX

SYDNEY • MELBOURNE • BRISBANE • ADELAIDE • PERTH • HOBART

THE4 0 0 0 METRE SYSTEM

Constant Colour Control

Rank Film Laboratories, at North Orbital Road,Denham,Uxbridge, M iddlesex UB9 5HQ, Tel.0895 832323,Telex934704