Cinema Papers No.88 May 1992 by UOW Library

ยกPIM H

“ GILLIES & COMPANY” AN ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA/ABC-TV PRODUCTION

Produced with the assistance o f

Film Victoria

The Film House Pty Ltd

Thank you for yo ur support

E ntertainment * m ed ia Entertainment Media Pty Ltd 159 Eastern Road South Melbourne Victoria 3205 Australia Tel: 61 3 690 1044 Fax: 61 3 696 2533

M A Y - JU N E

1 9 9 2 N U M B E R 8 8 IN C O R P O R A T IN G FILMVIEWS

BRIEFLY

CANNES INTRODUCTION

BAZ LUHRMANN’S STRICTLY BALLROOM INTERVIEWS BY RONNIE TAYLOR

COVER:'PAUL MERCURIO IN BAZ LUHRMANN'S STRICTLY BALLROOM. SEE ARTICLE P. 6.

LOCATION REPORT BY ANDREW H URBAN

EDITOR Scott Murray ADMINISTRATIVE

ANN TURNER’S HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL

KATHY MUELLER’S DAYDREAM BELIEVER LOCATION REPORT BY EVA FRIEDMAN

MANAGER Debra Sharp

TECHNICAL

AUSTRALIAN FILMS AT CANNES

NEW AUSTRALIAN CINEMA: SOURCES AND PARALLELS IN AMERICAN AND BRITISH CINEMA

EDITO R

Fred Harden

DESIGN Ian Robertson EDITORIAL

Raffaele Caputo MTV '

BOARD

BRIAN McFARLANE, GEOFF MAYER

ASSISTANT

DIRECTORS

BERLIN AND ROTTERDAM FILMFESTIVALS REPORT BY PAUL KALINA

John Jost [Chairman], Patricia Amad,

Ross Dimsey, Natalie Miller, Robert Parsons

Chris Stewart LEGAL

INTERVIEW BY ANA MARIA BAHIANA

ADVISER

Nicholas Pullen

Debra Sharp

BREATHING UNDER WATER PAULINE ADAMEK

Raffaele Caputo

BUGSY RAFFAELE CAPUTO

PUBLISHERS

HOMICIDE KARL QUINN

Petér Beilby, Scott Murray, Philippe Mora DISK

FILM REVIEWS TURTLE BEACH RAYMOND YOUNIS

SUBSCRIPTIONS

FOUNDING

SATYAJIT RAY AN OVERVIEW BY KERSTIN ANDERSSON

Holding Redlich, Solicitors A D V E R T I SING

WIM WENDERS’ UNTILTHE END OF THE WORLD

BACKSLIDING PAUL SALMOND GARBO JIM SCHEMBRI

PROCESSING Wltchtype

PRINTING

BOOK REVIEWS PROJECTING AUSTRALIA: GOVERNMENT FILM SINCE 1945

Jenkin Buxton

STUART CUNNINGHAM

DISTRIBUTION

THE FILMS OF MERCHANT IVORY BRIAN McFARLANE

Network Distribution

THE LOGIC OF IMAGES: ESSAYS AND CONVERSATIONS PAULINE ADAMEK

TECHNICALITIES FRED HARDEN, DOMINIC CASE

CINEMA PAPERS IS PUBLISHED WITH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

PRODUCTION SURVEY

TENEBRICOSE TEN

AND FILM VICTORIA V, :, © COPYRIGHT 1992 MTV PUBLISHING LIMITED A.fc.N. 006 258 699 •Signed articles represent the views of the authors and not necessarily That of the editor and publisher. .While every care is taken withmanuscripts and materials' supplied to-the magazine, neither the editor

Los Angeles; STUART CUNNINGHAM is a Senior Lecturer in Communications at Queensland University of

nor the publisher can accept liability for any:loss or

Technology; EVA FRIEDMAN is a freelance journalist who often writes for The Age's EG; PAUL KALINA is a

damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or part without the express

freelance writer on film and video; GEOFF MAYER is lecturer in film at Phillip Institute of Technology; BRIAN

permission of the copyright owners. .Cinema Papers is i

PAULINE ADAMEK is a Sydney-based freelance writer on film; KERSTIN ANDERSSON is a Swedish journalist who writes for Folkets Bio-Bladet; ANA MARIA BAHIANA is a Brazilian film writer based in

published (approximately) every two months by MTV Publishing'Limited, 43 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria. Australia -3067. • Telephone (03) 429 5511. Fax (03) 427 9255. Reference ME ME 230.

McFARLANE is an Associate Professor in the English Department at Monash University; KARL QUINN is a freelance writer on film; PAUL SALMOND is a tutor in Classical Studies at the University of Melbourne; JIM SCHEMBRI is hoping Hawthorn won’t win this year; RONNIE TAYLOR is a Sydney-based actor, writer and filmmaker; ANDREW L. URBAN is the Australian correspondent of Moving Pictures International; RAYMOND YOUNIS is a lecturer at the University of Sydney and a passionate lover of films.

CINEMA

PAPERS

FILM FUND UPDATÉ Th e Australian Film Finance Corporation an nounced in February that applications for the Third Film Fund had been re-opened, due to one of the six short-listed productions having withdrawn. Re-subm issions were not accepted and some fifty projects were submitted. Th e F F C has also announced that a Fourth Fund will be held in 1992-93. Th e F F C ’s Chief Executive, John Morris, said that the Fourth Fund would seek to have a mixture of budgets, with up to five projects and an anticipated tptal budget of $16 million. He indicated that $4.5 million would be the maximum budget, although he hoped some of the projects would be in the $2-2.5 million range. He em phasized that the F F C was adopting a flexible approach to the Film Fund to ensure the best scripts possible were received.

Apart from the acclaim brought to the Victorian film com m unity with the local and international success of films like Jo h n Ruane’s Death in B ru n sw ick and Joce lyn M oorhouse’s Proof, the spotlight hit home once again with “Viva Victoria” , a celebra tion w hich marked the anniversary of Film Victoria. A gala evening at the Victorian Arts Centre Concert Hall kicked off a week-long celebration that included retrospective screenings of major w orks Film Victoria have been involved in over the years, and culminated with a televised tribute on Channel 7. T h e special night saw the screening of director Michael Pattinson and writer Jan S a rdi’s Secrets. (T h is was claimed to be a world premiere screening, but that had occurred in Santa Monica in February.) Appropriate for such events, the evening was opened by the Deputy Premier and Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Jim Kennan, and was hosted by local television celebrities Ivan Hutchinson and Jennifer Keyte. On hand were Film Victoria’s Chairm an, Jo h n Howie, and Director, Jenifer Hooks, running through the achievem ents of the organization in the past decade and the challenges to be met in the future. T h e cham pagne flowed and enlivened the evening, and so did salutations from film m akers of past and present generations - Fred Schepisi, Paul Cox, David Parker and Nadia Ta s s, Jo ce lyn Moorhouse - whose successes certainly w ould not have been possible w ithout the support of Film Victoria.

Morris expects that applications will be ac cepted from 1 to 30 September.

NEW SOUTH WALES FILM AND TELEVISION OFFICE Sydney has just been confirmed as the 1994 venue for the annual Asian-Pacific Film Festi val. Th e Festival, which is held in a different country each year, was held last year in Taipei, where it attracted a television audience of 20 million. This year the Festival is to be held in Seoul, 1993 in Kyoto, before coming back to Sydney, where it was last held in 1978. Th e Sydney decision results from a pro-

ABOVE: DANNII MINOGUE (LEFT) AND WILLA O'NEILL, TW O OF THE Y O U N G STARS OF MICHAEL PATTINSON'S SECRETS, WHICH HAD ITS AUSTRALIAN PREMIERE AS PART OF FILM VICTORIA'S 1OTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS.

C O R R I G E N D U M Dear Sir,

BERLIN FILM FESTIVAL AWARDS

I would like to draw your attention to a factual error in the article on Jewish

J U R Y

P R I Z E S

Golden Bear, Grand Prix: Grand Canyon (Lawrence Kasdan, U.S.) Silver Bear, Special Jury Prize: Edes Emma, Draga Bobe (Sweet Emma, Dear Bobe,

Cinema [by Jan Epstein] published in the March 1992 edition of Cinema

Papers.

Istvan Szabo, Hungary)

This article mentions the film The Gulf Between and refers to the mayor

Silver Bear, Director: Jan Troell, for II Capitano (Sweden-Finland-Denmark)

that features in the film as Tom m y

Silver Bear, Actress: Maggie Cheung, for Ruan Ling Yu (Hong Kong) Silver Bear, Actor: Armin Mueller-Stahl for l/fz (UK-Germany-ltaly) Silver Bear, Cinematography: Pilar Mira, for Beltenbros (Spain)

Kolleck. However, the mayor in the film was Chich Lahot, the notorious mayor

Silver Bear, Outstanding Debut Film: La Frontera (The Frontier, Ricardo Larrain, Chile-Spain)

of Tel Aviv who was involved in con

Alfred Bauer Prize: Infinitas (Marlen Chuziev, Russia)

troversy during the Gulf War, and who

Special Mention: Barbara Thummet in Gudrun (Germany)

was included In the film for that reason.

(Jury: Annie Girardot, Charles Champiin, Sylvia Chang, lldiko Enedyi, Irving Ivers, Wolfgang Klaue,

is hp mayor in Israel called Tom m y

Further, foryour information, there Fernando Lara, Eldar Schengelaya, Dahlia Shapira, Michael Verhoeven, Susanna York.)

Kolleck, but there is Teddy Kolleck, the well-known mayor of Jerusalem.

F I P R E S C I

P R I Z E S

International Film Critics Award: Conte d’Hiver(Er\c Rohmer, France) Young Cinema: La Vie de Boheme (Aki Kaurismaki, Finland) and Edward //(Derek Jarman, UK) Special Mention: Trys Dienos (Three Days, Saruna Bartes, Lithuania)

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Yours sincerely Monique Schwarz ■ Director-Producer M The Gulf Between

FILM FINANCE CORPORATION FUNDING DECISIONS 20 February 1992

posai delivered by the New South W ales Film and Television Office’s Script and Project M an ager, John M cQ uaidè. M cQ ualde says the N S W F T O has increasingly come to realize the need to develop Asia-Pacific relationships and believes thè Festival, with its 4G0 delegates

G R O SS

RED RAIN (100 mins) Rosa Colosimo. Producers:

Rosa Colosimo, Will Spencer. Co-producers: Leo Pescarolo (Italy), Ronald Cohen (Canada), Arthur Syin (Japan). Director: Jim Kaufman. Writer: Rosa Colosiriio. A brilliant young professor and a beau tiful, enigmatic woman strike a macabre pact to

opportunity for filmmakers - and for Sydney.

avenge the deaths of their love partners in this

Th e N S W F T O believes it is a natural part

(100 mins) R. A. Becker &

Company. Executive producer: Richárd Becker.

FEATURES

from all countries in the region, will be a great

ner for involvement with Asia. It has been in

m is c o n d u c t

psycho-sexual thriller set against a stylish Italian backdrop.

Producers: Richard MacClure, David Hannay. Di rector: George Miller. Writers: Lance Peters, Gerard McGuire. Dramatic story of the ill-fated affaire between an American Professor of Philosophy at an Australian university, and his 19-year-old stu dent. An Unnatural infatuation turns to disaster when rape and assault charges áre layed. T H E H E A R TB R E A K KID (100 mins) View Films. Pro

ducer: Ben Gannon. Director: Michael Jenkins. Writer: Richard Barrett. Nick is a Greek-Australian

creasing links with Japan over the past few years, and has began to increase its contacts

DOCUMENTARIES

with Korea.

B E FO R E IT ’S

to o

high-school student with ambitions to become a

L A T E (60 mins) Storyteller Pro

world-class soccer player. Christina Papadopou-

ductions. Producer: Mike Searle. Director: Peter

los, the attractive new Greek teacher, takes up his

full support of state and local government, and

Du Cane. Writer: Mike Searle. This documentary

cause against the school’s racist sportsmaster.

is receiving generous and practical assistance

about the battle to save thousands of endangered

Their liaison leads Christina to break free from thè

from the Australian Film Commission.

species examines the work of international zoos

cultural repression of her background in this warm

and other organizations which have become mod

hearted, sexy comedy set in Melbourne.

An N S W F T O initiative, the Festival has the

ern-day Noah’s Arks, providing sancturies for

• • •

animals and a life-line for many rare species. (60 mins) Juniper Films.

PRODUCTION PACKAGE ANNOUNCED

THE WIDENING

Portman Entertainment, John Sexton Produc

winning, young, urban Aboriginal artist Gordon

tions and Network T E N have put together a

Bennett. His paintings break away from estab

production and distribution package for six

lished images and concepts. The programme shows

feature films to be produced in Australia. It is the

how his perspectives are shaped by many cultural

v is io n

Producer: John Tristram. Director: James Wilson. Writer: Nadine Amadio. The film focuses on award

most significant Australia-UK partnership yet

influences in Australia and Europe.

realized.

PERSEPHONE’S JOURNEY (60 mins) Aeriel. Pro

19 March 1992 FEATURES T H A T EYE T H E SK Y (100 mins) Entertainment Me

dia-Working Title Films. Producers: Peter Beilby, Grainne Marmion. Director: John Ruane. Writer: Jim Barton. When Ort Flack’s father ploughs the ute into a roadside tree, the world goes out of kilter. Things are terribly wrong in Ort’s family. This film, based on a novel by Australian writer Tim Winton, is the story of the miraculous power of love and a

Victor Glynn, Chief Executive of Portman, a

ducers: Christopher Tuckfield, Patricia L’Huede.

leading U K independent production company,

Writer-director: Christopher Tuckfield. A young

comments that

deaf and blind woman travels alone through Ja

TELEVISION

pan, communicating with an elaborate system of

H A LFW A Y A C R O S S T H E G A LA X Y AND TU R N L E F T

Leading Australian writers have produced world-class scripts for the internationally-rec ognized Australian directing talents and actors. Although low-budget, these are all high-quality psychological thrillers. The first two films, Best of Friends and Crimebroker, will be distrib

young boy’s visions of the supernatural world. DRAMA

touch. She has made several journeys before

(28 x 30 mins). Crawfords Australia. Executive

using this extraordinary way of “seeing” the world.

producer: Terry Ohlsson. Producer: Jan Marnell.

Taking the namesake from Greek mythology, this

Directors: Rod Hardy, Paul Moloney, Brendan

documentary will examine Persephone’s world and

Maher. Writer: John Reeves. The Jackson family

reflect on the nature of human communication.

has come halfway across the galaxy to Earth from

uted in Japan by Sogo Vision, Japan’s leading

THE KIDEO! (13 x 30 mins) Kideo Productions.

the planet Zyrgon. They’re in exile. The family’s

independent distribution and production company, which has a strong relationship

Executive producer: Rupert Cattell. Producer: Ian

highly-trained organizer, X, is 12-years-old and

Iveson. Director: John Clark. Writers: John Clark,

she’s having trouble fitting in. The kids at school

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. This television documentary

think she’s weird - and they’re right.

with Portman. Producer John Sexton says, “Th e se proj ects all offer exciting opportunities for Austra lian talent to be seen around the world, particu larly in the emerging dynamic markets of Japan and Asia.”

programme for children aged 6-12 years presents general knowledge and science in an entertaining and humorous way. The series uses two young presenters, a renaissance clown called Questionman, The Empty Pockets comedy duo and Mrs Nobel, a gossipy Albert Einstein. The Kideo! en

Development of the series is being sup ported by the Australian Film Commission, the

courages children to think for themselves, ques tion everything and form their own ideas.

New South W ales Film ànd Television Office, Network T E N

and Portman Entertainment.

Network T E N will license the films in Australia and New Zealand. Budgets will average $2.5 million.

DOCUMENTARIES globo cop

(90 mins) Beyond Productions. Execu

tive producer: Peter Abbott. Producers: Andrew Waterworth, Bill Bennett. Director-writer: Bill Bennett. Information has become the lifeblood of the modern world. The systems of collection, analysis and transmission of electronic data now form the planet’s nervous system, brain and mind.

Since the previous Board meeting, following a special meeting of the FFC directors, the FFC has entered into contract negotiations with the producers of these projects:

Globocop will take the viewer on a journey through the information technology web and beyond to discover who controls it, what is its power and what effect it will have on the future.

TH E A V O C A D O P LA N TA TIO N P an M acM illan P u b lish ers A u stralia, a division o f P an B ooks (A ustralia) P ty L td , w ishes to ap ologise to M r C h risto p h er R o ach e, th e d ire cto r o f th e A ustralian film “T h e T h irteen th F lo o r” , fo r statem en ts co n cern in g th at film m ad e in th e book by M r D avid S tratto n , and published in th e M acM illan A ustralia im p rin t, “T h e A vocado P lan tatio n ” . N eith er M r S tratto n n o r P an M acM illan P u b lish ers A u stralia in ten d ed to im ply th e re was any fau lt on th e p a rt o f M r R o ach e w hich cau sed th e p ro d u ce rs o f th e film “T h e T h irteen th F lo o r” to re p la ce M r R o ach e o r in cu r delay and fu rth e r exp en se in com p letin g th e film . P an M acM illan P u b lish ers A u stralia ap ologises fo r any co n trary in feren ce w hich m ight be draw n in this re g a rd .

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 3

| n many ways Cannes represents a critical

changed when the government altered the taxation act and film

and cultural divide between those with a

financing passed into the hands of lawyers and investment brokers

preference for mainstream American cin

(to somewhat predictable results).

ema, and wish Australian films better copied

Whether intentionally or not, the government regained the

it, and those who feel that a national cinema is made immeasurably

beachfront by watering down the tax benefits, and by supporting

richer by the efforts of those directors whose work aspires to the

federal film bodies as the major controllers of destiny. In particular,

individuality and originality traditionally associated with festivals

it created the Australian Film Finance Corporation, a sort of film

such as Cannes.

‘bank’ (see below).

Last year was a bonus year for the latter school: Jocelyn Moorhouse’s Proof ( Quinzaine des Réalisateurs) and Leo Berkeley’s

Inevitably, such changes altered the A F C ’s role and, in some ways, the AFC is still defining its new one.

Holidays on the River Yarra (Un Certain Regard) won considerable

Apart from a range of important cultural activities, and the

praise, the former also going on to commercial success back home.

support of short films and documentaries, the AFC is at the forefront

They are first features by filmmakers well attuned to the dark

of low-budget (less than $2 million) feature filmmaking. It either fully

currents and styles of modern cinema. Their work is as different from

funds such productions, or finances them as the principal partner in

the films of the 1970s revival as those films are from the preceding

associations with state funding bodies.

efforts of Ken G. Hall, Charles Chauvel and Raymond Longford.

By concentrating in this area, the AFC has ensured that new

This year, there is again a number of Australian films going to

filmmakers are given that vital first go at making a feature. The

Cannes, some in events, others to market screenings. In many ways,

results, while understandably varied, are also startling. Apart from

these films represent the changing face of Australian cinema. They

Proof and Holidays on the River Yarra, there is Ray Argali’s Return

also reflect, in their very approaches and content, dramatic changes

Home, Geoffrey Wright’s RomperStomper, Susan Murphy Dermody’s Breathing Under Waterand Laurie Mclnnes’ Broken Highway, to name

in film financing. For those readers less familiar with local mores, there are four principal (and inter-related) ways of getting a film financed in

If the one true axiom of the film industry is that a nation’s cinematic culture is made vital by the number and talent of its young

Australia. 1.

but a few.

THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION: In the 1970s renais filmmakers, the AFC has succeeded admirably. The critical, and

sance, the AFC (and its predecessor, the AFDC) carried the torch of

sometimes commercial, success of these films has been cited by

film financing. A quasi-government body, the AFC had the awesome

many as a post-New Wave revival.

responsibility of deciding what and who would be backed in a feature film industry almost totally dependent on government money. That CINEMA

PAPERS

STATE BODIES: The state film-funding organizations, such as

Film Victoria, the New South Wales Film and Television Office and

the Queensland Film Development Office, play a complementing role

The ten completed (or near-completed) Film Fund films are the

in developing film projects. They finance scripts, often seeking out

commercially successful Spotswood( Mark Joffe), The Last Days of

new writers, and, to the limit of their more constricted budgets,

Chez Nous (Gillian Armstrong), which premiered in Competition at

invest in features supported by the AFC. Such bodies also play a key cultural rdle.

Berlin, Daydream Believer (aka The Girl who Came Late, Kathy

Mueller), Deac//y( Esben Storm) and Garbo (Ron Cobb); Love in Limbo AUSTRALIAN FILM FINANCE CORPORATION: The FFC is the (David Elfick), Hammers Over the Anvil (Ann Turner), Say A Little major player in the film industry, with by far the largest investment Prayer ( Richard Lowenstein), Shotgun Wedding (Charles Hannah) 3.

budget. Filmmakers go to the FFC with a pre-sale of at least 40 per cent

and The Nostradamus K id (Bob Ellis). 4.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR: This is the smallest area, though some

of the film’s budget. The FFC then decides if its investment of up to

companies, such as Boulevard Films, continue to make films with

60 per cent is recoverable from the unsold territories. What is less

little or no government support. Recent examples include Frank

commented on is that the FFC also goes to considerable lengths not

Howson’s Hunting and Pino Amenta’s Heaven Tonight.

to be an impersonal ‘bank’ and actively helps producers finesse deals on films that are almost financed.

There is also the continuing involvement of the Village Roadshow group, which has pre-bought Australian distribution rights to, among

In 1990-91, the FFC invested in eight features: Backsliding

others, George Miller’s Over the Hill and Yahoo Serious’ Young

(Simon Target), Eight Ball (Ray Argali), Fatal Bond (Vincent Monton),

Einstein and Reckless Kelly( all having substantial FFC investment).

Over the Hill (George Miller), Redheads (Daniel Vendramini), Re

Hoyts, too, pre-bought local rights to Bruce Beresford’s Canada-

sistance (Paul Elliott, Hugh Keays-Byrne),

Australia co-production, Black Robe.

Strictly Ballroom ( Baz Luhrmann) and A Woman's Tale ( Paul Cox). The average budget was about $5 million.

Also included in this private sector are those adventurous individuals who go about it largely on their own, such as Virginia

Given that most FFC-backed films cost $4 million and above,

Rouse with Seeing Red, and the teams behind the “no budget" Mad

and that the AFC-state bodies upper limit is around $2 million, a

Bomber in Love (James Bogle) and Bloodlust (John Hewitt and Richard

“black hole” in production appeared. The FFC quickly stepped in to

Wolstencroft).

rectify that by establishing a Film Fund, for quality films in the $2-4

The net result of all these AFC, FFC and state body initiatives

million range which might have trouble raising a 40 per-cent pre-sale.

has been a new burst of activity. This is cause for real celebration.

Two sets of Film Fund films have so far been made; a third group is

Even more so, there are signs that local audiences are once again

being considered at the moment; and a fourth will open in September.

returning to the cinema (as with John Ruane’s Death in Brunswick)

A second target of the Film Fund is to develop a public investor

and the future of this indigenous cinema is looking brighter than it

base for film production under existing taxation benefits.

has for some considerable time.

s .m

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 5

S t r i c t l y B a llr o o m is a r o m a n t ic c o m e d y in t h e v e in of the c la s s ic d a n c e film s o f t h e ± 9 4 0 s . S e t in the g la m o r o u s w o rld o f b a llro o m d a n c in g , it is the s t o r y o f a y o u n g m a n ’s s t r u g g le a g a in s t the s y s te m . S c o t t H a s t in g s (P a u l M e r c u r io ) u p se ts ABOVE: DIRECTOR A ND CO-WRITER BAZ LUHRMANN.

t h e c o n s e r v a t iv e e le m e n t s o f t h e B a llro o m

OPPOSITE: SCOTT HASTINGS (PAUL MERCURIO), THE DANCER W H O W O N 'T PLAY BY THE RULES.

D a n c in g F e d e ra tio n b y d a r in g t o d a n c e his own

BAZ LUHRMANN'S STRICTLY BALLROOM.

s t e p s . H e is im m e d ia te ly d u m p e d b y h is part n e r, L i z (G ia C a r id e s ), a n d h is h o p e s of w in n in g t h e P a n P a c ific G ra n d P rix a re d a s h e d . A ll s e e m s lo s t w h e n o u t o f t h e s h a d o w s e m e r g e s F ra n ( T a r a M o r ic e ), a b e g in n e r and t h e u g ly d u c k lin g of t h e d a n c e s tu d io . An u n lik e ly p a rtn e rs h ip is b o rn , o n e t h e Fe d e ra tio n is h e ll-b e n t on s to p p in g . B u t c a n th e y ? S tr ic tly

B a llr o o m

began

1 9 8 4 a s a w o r k -s h o p p e d p ie c e at N ID A , w h e n c o -w r it e r -d ir e c to r Baz

D IR E C TO R B A Z LU H R M AN N AN D A C TO R PAUL M ER C U R IO IN TE R V IE W E D BY RONNIE TA Y L O R

L u h rm a n n w a s a s t u d e n t t h e r e . T h e p la y w e n t o n t o a h ig h ly s u c c e s s f u l s e a s o n a t S y d n e y ’s W h a r f T h e a t r e . A f t e r a n o th e r ru n a t E x p o in B ris b a n e , it w e n t t o B r a t is la v a , C z e c h o s lo v a k ia , w h e r e it w o n B e s t P la y a n d B e s t D ire c tio n a t a n in te rn a tio n a l c o m p e t it io n . T h e re vie w e r fo r V e c e r n ik w r o t e t h a t it w a s “ a n u n fo rg e tta b le a r t is tic e x p e rie n c e . T h e ir p e rfo rm a n c e w as lite ra lly b r e a t h t a k in g . T h e e c s t a t ic a p p la u se m a d e t h e y o u n g a r t is ts re tu rn fo r m a n y cu rta in c a lls .”

Strictly Ballroom

Luhrmann: “Ultimately, the l it doesn't alw ays happenr in yo u r beliefs. "

Th e film was produced through M&A films, run by Tristram Miall and T ed Albert. Miall is an established documentary filmmaker, a form er executive producer and general m anager at Film Aus tralia. W hile there, he executive-produced the tele-features Cus tody (Ian M unro, 1987), Prejudice (Bill Bennett, 1989) and M al practice (Bill Bennett, 1989), and the documentary Cane Toads: An U nnatural History (Mark Lewis, 1987). Albert has a background in rock music. Strictly Ballroom is the first feature from M&A and was partfinanced by the FFC.

BAZ LUHRM ANN Baz Luhrm ann made his acting debut opposite Judy Davis in Jo h n Duigan’s Winter o f Our Dreams (1981). Since then, he has been involved in many aspects o f the film industry, from acting in film and television, to directing rock video clips and to devising, directing and perform ing in the Willesee documentary, K ids o f the Cross. O n graduating from NIDA, Luhrm ann becam e Artistic Direc tor o fT h e Sydney Theatre Company’s special bicentennial project. After the subsequent success o f Strictly Ballroom , he devised and directed the award-winning L ake Lost fo r the Australian Opera. In 1990, he directed to great acclaim the Australia O pera’s produc tion o f L a Bohème. Strictly Ballroom is his first feature.

Strictly Ballroom was produced by M&A films. How long does the association go back? A bout two years. It started when T ed Albert came to the second production o f the play by T h e Sydney Theatre Company. Ted felt it would make a terrific film, which was great because I ’ve always thought o f it as a film from the beginning. It was a very brave decision on the part o f Ted Albert and Tristram Miall to back som eone who hadn’t directed a feature before. It’s n ot only a big leap to get a film up about ballroom dancing, but even m ore so to hire a first-time director.

director David Hirschfelder has composed. H e’s probably best known for his work on the last twoJo h n Fam ham albums. He has also done several mini-series. I chose David because o f his classical training, and his ability to produce pop tracks and scores for a musical soundtrack. I ’m very happy with his work.

So art can trium ph in Australia?

Was casting a dance film difficult?

I f it didn’t, we’d all leave, wouldn’t we? Ultimately, the positive thing about this country, although it doesn’t always happen, is that you can win, that you can actually stick to your beliefs.

Well, casting is always interesting, whatever you do. Madonna’s now got the lead in E vita over Meryl Streep. I think Meryl should have got it, but som eone else m ight say, “No, M adonna’s perfect for it.” As with any decision in film, no one makes a casting decision, particularly a director, unless he or she thinks someone is best for the rôle. I cast Gia Carides as Liz. Now Gia is naturally dark and from a G reek background; she is almost everything that this character Liz isn’t. Liz is a blonde, blue-eyed and slightly fickle character. Yet I wanted to cast Gia because I felt she could create that rôle. And the transformation is remarkable. O ther than Paul M ercurio, who has an acting background but is primarily a dancer, ju st about everyone else is an actor first. I cam e down heavily on the side o f acting. O ne thing I ’ll tell you about Paul, and it’s som ething I ’m finding m ore and m ore, is that it’s very rare for any perform er in this country to work five days a week, every week o f the year. Yet in T h e Sydney Dance Company, where h e ’s from , they’re used to getting up every night in front o f thousands o f people. Even the best film actors only do two six-week shoots a year, certainly not every day.

W hat is the style o f the film? T h e “telling” style is the key thing. Som e people may be shocked because it uses a structure utilized by many Am erican films. A lot o f those stories are about great myths, like the David and Goliath story o f a young outsider trying to overcome a repressive régime. T h at is a basic myth. W hat’s unique to this film is the way in which we’ve taken that myth and retold it. T h e film draws upon 1940s Hollywood musi cals and is an amalgam o f a lot o f elements. T h e thing about style, though, is that it exists; it’s n ot some thing that you chase - that’s fashion! T h e difference between the two is that one you set out to acquire, the other actually evolves. W hat sort o f music have you used? T h e soundtrack is very eclectic, from 1930s 78-masters o f Happy Feet and old jazz classics to contem porary pop, which musical 8

• CINEMA

PAPERS

positive thing about this country, although $ that yo u can win, that you can actually stick to

T h at background gave Paul a terrific lack o f the fear that even experienced actors have, that “I ’m doing film and it’s my next big ch oice.” He was relaxed because it wasju st another perform ance. Paul’s used to breaking down choreography on a daily basis, absorbing inform ation and turning it into steps. He was very attentive in being able to say to himself, ‘T h is guy’s coming into this room and the reason is ...” While he may not have read Stanislavski, he has a great understanding o f the basics o f acting. Everyone is surprised by the quality o f his work. He is one o f those fortunate people who can have a cam era placed in front o f their face; his eyes literally think. H e’s very lucky in that regard. A dance instructor I spoke to felt that while the play» and no doubt the film , is bitchy, one couldn’t make a film about ballroom that isn’t. Right! Although th ere’s a lot o f dance in the film, it’s not a dance perform ance film. I only made decisions based on ‘W ill this piece o f dancing tell the story?” I often say to people that it’s not, strictly speaking, about ballroom dancing; it’s about all o f us. T h e ballroom world is a m etaphor, or a m icrocosm, o f the world at large. Th e thing is that people’s desires are so passionately expressed. They’re so passionate about winning, losing, loving - all those things. You have had critical and artistic success with your award-winning production o f La Boheme at the Australian O pera. Australians seem to go further in their pursuits than they would if they lived in New York and were surrounded by artists working in a similar field.

LEFT: S C O n AND HIS FIRST PARTNER, LIZ HOLT (GIA CARIDES). S C O U AND HIS NEW PARTNER, FRAN (TARA MORICE). LUHRMANN WITH ACTOR PAUL MERCURIO. STRICTLY BALLROOM.

T h at’s very true. We have to think o f our isolation as a positive th in g -an d it is. Having been around the world recently, the things that my team and I have been able to do are inconceivable in other countries, particularly in terms o f doing a classic opera on the main stage in the main opera house o f the country. It’s totally unheard o f anywhere else You have used the same opera design team for Strictly Ballroom.Was it hard persuading M&A to go with non-film people? Very early on in the piece, when M&A came to me, I said to Tristram, “Look, I work with these people. W e’ve developed a working relationship. It’s extremely im portant that they design the film .” Very bravely, M&A backed that, where a lot o f other people were saying, “Ooh, they haven’t done a film befo re.” T h e upshot is that they’ve now been offered other films! I am very proud o f the way the film looks. In terms o f costume, I d on ’t think there has ever been such elaborate work done in this country. NolaLowe cut the gowns. Sh e’s worked with Edith Head, so the gowns definitely have that classic look. Have you used Jill Bilcock the editor on your previous films? No. T h e thing I liked about Jill was h er background in music clips. She also cut E vil Angels, which I thought was well edited. But, to be honest with you, in deciding on an editor it ultimately came down to personal chemistry. Jill’s som eone I can com m unicate with clearly and easily. T h at was the main criterion. CINEMA

PAPERS

• 9

Strictly Ballroom W hen you’re a first-timer in the industry and you d o n ’t know the politics or the ins and outs o f different people, the strongest thing to go by is your instinct for personality. T h e chemistry o f the two personalities is what’s going to sustain you. Q uite often I find myself, n ot ju s t in the film world but in the opera and theatre worlds too, working with people whom you want to kill. You want to physically beat them to death. I f som eone is totally opposed to you artistically and aestheti cally, it w on’t work. I f I personally d o n ’t get on with som eone, but their expertise is such and they’re generally going in the same direction, that’s num ber one above everything else. W hat I ’m interested in is to be taken in different directions by people. T h e jo b o f a director, ultimately, is to synthesize many points o f view into a singular direction, so that you’re m aking a very fine line with a great many elem ents. W hether som eone is right for the jo b is based on the fact that they’re as passionate about realizing the end product as you are. W hat about d irector o f photography Steve Mason? T h e great thing about Steve is that n ot only is he brilliant with natural lig h t-w h ich is an advantage - he is phenom enally fast. No m atter what I threw at Steve, he cam e up with a solution. You can ’t underestim ate what that m eans to a director. Steve’s trained with Jo h n n y Seale and th at’s rubbed off. T h ere were some shots that would have taken other DOPs all day, but Steve did them in two hours! T h ere are lots o f pressures, but at the end o f the day you want im age potency. W hat are your hopes fo r the film? T h a t Strictly Ballroom will be a success and that Australians in particular will com e to see it, because it is about Australians. Everyone booed Scott Hastings out o f the race, but he cam e back as an outsider and won!

P A U L M E R C U R IO M ercurio started training as a dancer at the age o f nine and eventually left school to take up a full-time ballet scholarship with the W estern Australian Ballet Company. From there, he was accepted into the Australian Ballet School. Today, M ercurio is one o f Australia’s best dancers and chore ographers, and has been perform ing with T h e Sydney Dance Company since 1982. His principal works as a dancer include The Selfish Giant, Some Rooms, A fter V eniceand KingRoger, and as a choreographer D ancing with I an d W aiting. O th er highlights include the acclaim ed SDC productions o f C afe and In the Company o f Women. Strictly Ballroom is his first feature. H ad you done m uch acting before Strictly Ballroom? It was mainly theatre; I had some big roles in a few plays. T h ere was awom an called H elen O ’Grady who had akids showin Perth. She used to com e and teach us, and we’d go onto h er show and do student forums. It wasn’t film, m ore television and chat. W ith film, you’re always aware o f the cam era: it is right in fron t o f your face. W hen you’re trying to do a very intim ate scene, and th e re ’s a huge boom whizzing past your head, it can be difficult. O n stage, you usually have enough space to stay in your own little world. You can choose to play out beyond the proscenium , if you want. W ith a cam era close by, you can ’t. How did you get the p art in Strictly Ballroom ? Did your agent call? 10

• CINEMA

PAPERS

No, I didn’t have an agent! Baz approached m e about eighteen m onths before he cast me to explain the film and the styles. After seeing Cafe, the dance I created with Kim Walker, Baz wanted m e to choreograph his film. Ayear later, he rang and said, “It looks like we have the money. Will you com e and read for me? ” So I did. Six m onths later, he did m ore casting, and then offered m e the rôle. T h a t’s when I got an agent! W hat attracted you to Strictly Ballroom from a dance point o f view? Initially, the idea o f ballroom dancing was a bit threatening because it’s n ot a style I get o ff on. I was nervous and scared o f looking stupid in some o f the Latin styles. Som e o f the com petitors are m ore famous for what they haven ’t got on than what they have ! T h e prospect o f doing flam enco was the m ain attraction. I ’ve had fantasies o f living in Spain and becom ing aflam enco artist! So, I ’ve had a bit o f a fantasy fulfilled in this film. I ’ve never thought o f myself as a big “hip m over’”. I ’m trained classically, where you hold everything from the belly button up. W hen you move, it’s on the ball ofyour foot. In ballroom dancing, everything moves from the hips down; your upper body hardly moves. It’s all hips, knees and ankles. How m uch o f Scott Hastings is Paul M ercurio? Itwasn’t hard for m e to understand Scott. H e ’s a little bit o f a rebel trying to do his own thing, develop his own style, follow his own creative streak. It’s a good rôle for me. It didn’t require a total personality change. For a first film rôle, I ’ve been very lucky. Learning ballroom was the challenge; learning flam enco was the reward. But I paid for it! Two weeks before shooting began, I was in A ntonio Vagus’ studio rehearsing flam enco. I was wearing Cuban-heeled flam enco boots and doing double twist ju m ps when I landed straight-legged and twisted my ankle. T h ere was internal bleeding up to the knee. It was a bit ugly and probably the worst injury I ’ve ever had. I ’ve broken both my feet, but this sprain was worse. I was on crutches for nine days and made a lot o f potato poultices to get the swelling down. How do you think a cam era can help choreography and dance? You need to choreograph with the cam era. T h ere are times when you can ju st lock the cam era o ff and dance within its fram e; that can say a lot. I f you go for close-ups and detail, you can lose a lot o f the movement. I f you try and travel with m ovem ent, you make the dancing look still and, if that’s n ot the effectyou ’re after, then you’re wrecking the dance. It has to be a mutual relationship. In the stylized Hollywood num bers, whom are you influenced by? G ene Kelly. I ’d like to think I brought a touch o f G ene Kelly to the film. Fred Astaire was pretty amazing in what he did, but G ene had faults, though n ot real faults you could see. He was really mascu line about it, but still a hum an being. I feel m ore compassion towards G ene Kelly than Fred Astaire. This film ’s got a bit o f both. W hat is the appeal o f this film to you? Ballroom crosses so many boundaries o f class and culture. I think the audience base will be broad. It’s going to be great for dance, in that it has ballroom style, flam enco and contem porary dance. In that sense, it’s not strictly ballroom . And th at’s the point o f the film really: it’s n ot ju s t about ballroom dancing, it’s a film about a set o f wonderful characters, ju ggling with life. Being in this film has helped m e realize the possibilities o f com bining dance and film, my two favourite mediums. I ’d love to continue in that vein. Baz and M&A films have done a terrificjob ; they had a vision. You should com e and see it. ■

films from The Australian Film Commission congratulates the Australian films In the Official Selection at Cannes and is delighted to be associated with their presentation at the festival.

C o n ta c t the Austra lia n Film Com m issio n at Cann es

C a rlto n H o te l, Ground Floor, Desk PB 08 or

A u s tra lia n Sales office 8th Floor, R eside nce du F e s tiv a l, 52 La C ro is e tte Te h 92 99 00 63 for c o m p le te s c re e n in g s c h e d u le s , previe w fac il it ie s , c o p ie s of our new c a t a lo g u e s and c h e c k lis ts on new Australia n film and tele vis ion program s, info rm atio n on in te rnatio nal c o - p r o d u c t io n s and Austra lia n f in a n c in g m ech an is m s.

Australian Film Commission SYDNEY

LONDON

MELBOURNE

M AIN PICTURE: ALEXANDER OUTHRED AS ALAN MARSHALL IN A N N TURNER'S HAMMERS OYER THE A N V IL BELOW: GRACE McALISTER (CHARLOTTLE RAMPLING) A N D EAST DRISCOLL (RUSSELL CROWE). HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL

A N N T U R N E R ’S

A n d re w L. Urban

M a rs h a ll c o u ld h a v e c a lle d it “ G r a c e , A la n a n d E a s t ” , a fte r th e th re e c e n tra l c h a r a c t e r s , b u t he w r o t e m tm

h is s to r y w ith th e m o ra l v e ry m u c h in m in d . L ik e a

h o rs e s h o e t h a t ’s h a m m e re d o v e r a n a n v il, t h e b lo w s t h a t life d e a ls us m a k e us s tr o n g e r — o r d e s tro y u s. It is a t h e m e n o t to o d is s im ila r fro m t h a t in h is p o p u la r s to r y , “ I C a n J u m p P u d d le s ” , a n d is a g a in to ld th r o u g h th e e y e s of a y o u n g b o y .

Grace McAlister and her husband are English gentry, a childless couple gendy roam ing the world to satisfy G race’s resdess spirit. They end up in a big house in a small community in the South Australian bush. T h ere she causes a terrible stir by having an affaire with the local horse breaker, East (Russell Crowe). He becom es the hero figure for a crippled, motherless young boy called Alan (Alex Outhred) and it is n ot G race’s eccentric old husband who proves to be the problem, but G race’s conscience.

W hen she tries to leave and end her affaire with East, it leads to a tragic accident. Grace, for the first time in her life, takes direct responsibility for h er actions. W hen it came to adapting the story, the film ’s makers had to first solve the casting riddle o f Grace. Producer Ben Gannon explains, “She had to be English and beyond child bearing age, but she also had to be extremely attractive and sensual, so that her relationship with East would be workable.” CINEMA

PAPERS

• 13

Hammers over the Anvil

ABOVE: GRACE McAUSTER AND ALAN. BELOW: GRACE McALISTER AND EAST DRISCOLL. HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL.

;

T o say the choice was limited would be an understatem ent, and casting C harlotte Ram pling as Grace was m ore or less un avoidable, although it was by no m eans a foregone conclusion. Ram pling had withdrawn from film making, closeting h erself in the peace o f h er large hom e in Paris with h er husband, Je a n M ichel Ja rre , ever since m aking P aris By N ight (David H are) three years ago. She felt the need to take stock: I was playing with fire ju st a bit too much. It was becoming more and more difficult to get back to some kind of semblance o f reality after filming. I would put myself too much into another mode, and I needed to try and work out how it would be easier, because it was causing me too much difficulty and suffering. Dirk Bogarde, with whom she co-starred in that rem arkable late 1974 drama, The N ight Porter (Liliana Cavani), has said o f Ram pling that she was one o f those actresses capable o f being a character, n ot ju st acting it. Was that it? She nods and grins wryly: That was the problem. And I thought to myself that if there were other ways to act, I must try to find out if they’re possible for me. I found that it’s not really possible but it’s ju st ... I have to find different techniques to protect me, that’s all. Ram pling was attracted to the film by the wellcrafted screenplay and by the character o f Grace McAlister: She’s a woman over 40, she hasn’t had children, she’s married somebody whom she’s obviously terri bly fond of, but who is a rather eccentric older man. When she meets up with East, at first it’s a very physical passion, then it becomes something else by the end. And then when terrible things happen as a result, she has to accept what she has brought about, and makes a very brave decision.

» CINEMA

PAPERS

D irector Ann T u rner, whose debutfeature, Celia, so impressed The G uardian's D erek M alcolm that he announced it was the m ost prom ising new work from Australia in a long time, rewrote the original screenplay by Peter Hepworth, and m ade som e special adjustments for Rampling. G annon and T u rn er were both excited when Ram pling accepted. G annon says, “Charlotte has a slightly exotic quality which is unique and it works brilliantly.” Tu rn er, thrilled when she heard o f Ram pling’s acceptance, says, “S h e ’s always been a favourite ... the key scenes are working ju s t as I im agined them. T h e r e ’s chemistry between h er and Russell, and th at’s ju s t som ething you had to guess.” B u t if casting Grace was dem anding, casting Alan, the young crippled boy, was crucial. T u rn er searched all over Australia for som eone who could n ot only play a cripple, but who was the exact right age. T u rn er says, “He sees a highly charged sensual world and is on the cusp o f realising what is sex.” T u rn er and G annon found 14-year-old new com er A lexander O uthred, who has had no acting experience, but quickly acquired it on location - and enjoyed the process, and found it instructive. With a tutor standing by, he m anaged to continue his m ore form al education, too. T u rn e r’s vision o f the film dramatically altered the original vision; where the original script had a Disney family movie feel, as G annon puts it, T u rn er gave it a grittiness which appealed to him. It was dark and com plex, and charged with sensuality. T u rn er elaborates: I saw it always aimed at adults. It’s a gritty look, not a soft look, and we are using special lighting and exposing the film in a special way ... I wanted a “Modigliani” feel to it, with rich colours ... I am making a sensual film. T u rner, weary and dusty between shots, is focused and intense, though far from tense or agitated. T h e logistics o f a difficult shoot are additional burdens to the dram atic and creative ones. As G annon points out, even with a $4 m illion budget, it is a tight affair. T h e seven-week shoot in South Australia’s wine district was very com plicated. T h ere was hardly time for wine tasting. ■

N E W

S O U T H

W A L E S

Head Office to the Australian Film Industry The best of everything you need is here, both in the picture and behind the scenes; the deal makers, internationally renowned crews and facilities and spectacular locations. What's more, you can expect all the help you need from the New South Wales Film & Television Office. Complex or unusual requirements? No problem, no charge!

WÊÈËMm.

B M H B I■

o 0

e x *, j N

F I L M

A N D

1 S

O F

C E

THE STATE G O V E R N M E N T FILM AG EN C Y Level 2,10 Quay Street, NSW 2000 Australia. Box 1744 GPO Sydney NSW 2001. Australia. Telephone (612) 281 8711. Facsimile (612) 281 8710

CINEMA

PAPERS

88*15

111^^11111

l&plpfc

Kathy Mueller’s i O in ce th e m u c h -v a u n te d re n a is s a n c e of th e A u s tra lia n film in d u s try in the' ± 9 7 0 s , fem ale

d ire c to rs have s o u g h t to m a k e th e ir m a rk in th e m a le -d o m in a te d e n c la ve of

| i| jim a k in g . Gill A rm s tro n g first raftlefi th e s ta tu s q uo w ith her firs t feature,

REPORT BY EVA FRIEDMAN

M y B rillia n t C a re e r. H o w e v e r, it has been d u rin g th e s e c o n d sp a sm of c re a tiv ity in th e late ± 9 8 0 s th a t w o m e n ha ve m a d e s ig n ific a n t inroads into film m a k in g in th is c o u n try . D ire c to rs s u c h as Ja n e C a m p io n a n d , more re c e n tly , Jo c e ly n M o o rh O u se ha ve e x p lo re d th e p a ra m e te rs of fem ale e x p e rie n c e on s c re e n and h a ve m a d e s ta rtlin g , in n o va tive film s th a t have tra ve lle d beyo nd n a tive shOres* K a th y M u e lle r h o p e s n o w to jo in th e ir ranks.

• C l NjE.M A

8 8

Since graduating from die Swinburne Film and Television School in 1983, M ueller has been quietly making a name. In 1984, her powerful film Every Day, Every N ig h t- about the psychological war wounds o f a Vietnam War veteran - successfully travelled the international film circuit, winning a host o f prizes, most notably the Grand Prix at the M ontrĂŠal Film Festival. Since then she has worked principally in television. T h ere were the ABC tele-features B reaking Up and Em erging (both 1985), the mini-series Tracy (1986), Stringer (1987) and the six-part The M agistrate (1989), for which she received m uch praise. T h ere is also the acclaimed childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s series, The Girl From Tomorrow, and the yet-to-be-seen tele-feature, Unit 64. And now M ueller is about to release her first feature, D aydream Believer (formerly The Girl Who Came L ate).

Daydream Believer, written by Saturday Rosenberg, was one o f the five films financed by the FFC Film Fund in 1990. It spins on an outlandish premise. Nell Tiscowitz (Miranda O tto ), an aspirÂ ing actress, believes she is a horse. Abused by her father, who used to lock h er in the stables as a child, Nell sought refuge in the gentle company o f horses. As an adult, during times o f stress, Nell resorts to braying like a horse and em itting guttural whines that perplex the people around her. N ell, who is something o f a loner, lives with the vivacious and sexually adventurous Wendy (Gia C arides). In contrast, Nell is naive and sexually inexperienced on account o f the fact that she frightens m en away with h er marish behaviour that is, until she meets and falls in love with Digby (Martin K em p), a wealthy rock prom oter whose disastrous attempts at stud farm-

Daydream Believer

male strip show, which is very frightening for her because it’s about male sexuality and she hasn’t dealt with that yet. It’s a very challenging film because it deals with sexuality and the fear of sexuality. It is, I might add, also very funny. A ccording to M ueller, it is precisely the blend o f hum our and the m ore com plex questions about identity which m ake the film work: The film deals with a psychological issue but it doesn’t do it in a heavy handed, angst-ridden way. Butifyou don’tgetthe rightlevel of humour, you drag people down. So, it must be a delicate balance. Nell is M iranda O tto ’s second m ajor role, after playing the lead in E m m a’s W ar (Clyde Jessop, 19881). She has subsequently ap peared in Gillian A rm strong’s T heL astD ays o f Chez N ous a n d B ob Ellis’ The N ostradam us Kid. A ccording to M ueller, the search for the fem ale lead was an arduous one, with no less than 200 girls being auditioned before O tto was cast: The key was finding someone with great innocence, so that the audience would believe Nell hadn’t quite integrated herself into the world. Miranda was absolutely right for the role. She has an innocence and purity that was ju st what we wanted. As for the role o f Digby, the wealthy rock prom oter, the search went as far as Los Angeles and London. W hen M ueller m et Martin Kemp, the founder o f the rock group Spandau Ballet who appears in the film The Krays (Peter Medak, 1990) with twin b rother Gary, she knew she had found h er Digby. We didn’t have a clue whom we were going to get for the role until we saw Martin and went, “Oh, that’s Digby.” At that point, in the script Digby was a theatre entrepreneur. The minute I met Martin and found he was a little laid back, I thought, ‘Let’s change it to rock and roll and everything will fall into place.’ DIGBY (MARTIN KEMP) A ND NELL IN A PADDOCK. DAYDREAM BELIEVER.

ing are ruining his fortune. M ueller describes Daydream B eliev ers a rom antic comedy which gestures in many directions: ‘T h e r e ’s a lot in it, in the way o f hum our. T h e r e ’s burlesque, farce, some black comedy and m uch gentle whimsical h um our.” T h e film also glimpses at m ore poignant issues. Says Mueller: It’s not a heavy film but it has truth in it, and that truth is quite heavy. It’s about a girl reverting to being a horse, about how people revert to what they were raised as. It’s a film that deals with being oppressed, about how people can become dysfunctional in certain ways. Nell needs to be a horse: it is the animal in her that allows her to survive. Ahorse represents freedom of spirit, the part o f her that cannot be tamed. A ccording to actress M iranda O tto, who plays Nell, there is a great deal going on beneath h er ch aracter’s quirkiness: Nell is a loner. She isn’t used to people and finds it hard to be intimate with them. She also thinks she’s a horse. ... Well, she doesn’t think she’s a horse, it’s ju st that she has this side to her which she withdraws into when she becomes threatened. T h e film also charts N ell’s sexual growth. Locked away from society, the character o f Nell is very pure. Says Mueller: It is also a jo u rn ey o f sexual in nocence. Nell is a complete in nocent caught in a sexual wilderness. She ends up working at a 18

• CINEMA

PAPERS

M ueller cites K em p’s charism a as part o f his appeal as Digby: “Martin is the first person I ’ve seen upstage an animal. H e ’s so m agnetic on screen. Hardly anyone can upstage an animal, but h e ’s done it.” Defying the old Hollywood axiom which cautions against working with children and animals, the film required the actors to work closely with horses over the period o f the eight-week shoot. A ccording to D aydream Believer’ s producer, B en G annon, the horses were the most difficult aspect o f the filming. B oth O tto and Kemp spent a great deal o f tim e with horses, learning to ride and feeling at ease around them . T h ere were five m onths o f horse training involved and a com plex polo m atch scene to shoot. Explains Gannon: The horse trainers [Evanne and Murray Chesson] were excep tional. Everything worked. We didn’t have to abandon any scene. On the day you’d think the horses might want to do something twice, no, they’d get bored. We soon realized horses won’t do multiple takes. So we had to get the actor’s performances right, then quickly bring in the horses. M ueller believes D aydream Believer is h er m ost challenging p roject to date. “It touches an area that has always interested me. T h e film deals with a dysfunctional hum an being. T h e re ’s plenty o f us around, but n on e o f us admits it.” ■1 1. Though made in 1986.

FilmVictoria AYA

PROOF M ALCO LM RETURN HOME

TH E BIG S TEA L DEATH IN BRUNSWICK THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER

HOLIDAYS ON THE RIVER YARRA

CINEMA

PAPERS

â&#x20AC;¢ 19

THE BOULEVARD GROUP

The Quiet Achievements___ During the past four years we have undertaken the production of 12 feature films. We have successfully sold these films to such companies as Paramount, Miramax, Disney, Skouras, Am erican Broadcasting Corporation, Warner Brothers, RCA-Columbia, J&M Entertainment, Academy, August Entertainment, Filmstar, Hoyts and numerous theatrical, video and television sub-distributors in over 50 countries. Our product is now screening in the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, USSR, Singapore, Andorra, New Zealand, Israel, Hungary, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Greece, Cyprus, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, South Africa, Turkey, Denmark, South Korea, Taiwan, P hilippines, Puerto Rico, G ibraltar, Thailand, Portugal, Venezuela, Malaysia, Panama, Peru, Yugoslavia, Hong Kong, Canada and, of course, Australia. Film Festivals from London to Cairo, Berlin to Washington, Quebec to Essen have applauded our productions. We have been honoured with International and local awards, including 11 nominations and 3 major Australian Film Institute awards. We have provided employment for over 1000 crew members, 1000 cast members, 3000 extras, 200 musicians and 3000 suppliers. Major Australian and international recording artists such as John Farnham, Randy Newman, Tom Waits, Stephen Cummings, The Cars, Wendy Matthews, Dan Hill, Renee Geyer, Marc Jordan, Beeb Birtles, Kim Gyngell, Guy Pearce, Venetta Fields, John Waters, John Paul Young, Ollie Olsen, Warren Zevon, Richie Havens and Bill Miller have participated on our soundtrack albums. Boulevard soundtracks are distributed worldwide through such companies as Festival Records and Sony Music. Our Head Office may be in Melbourne, but our market is the world. P.S. Forgive us, we normally donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like to blow our own trumpet. Melbourne 110-114 Errol Street, North Melbourne Vic 3051 Phone: 61 3 329 2399 Fax: 61 3 328 3762 Sydney 14 Moore Park Road, Centennial Park NSW 2060 Phone: 61 2 332 4900 Fax: 61 2 361 5761

The Boulevard G ro u p ___ From Down Under To All liver.

â&#x20AC;˘ CINEMA

PAPERS

» .Y b F T H ID O ®

DAYDREAM

EIGHT BALL

FATAL BOND

GARBO

BBBBM M I

EXCHANGE LIFEGUARDS

'%*••*

'•

AT THE TIM E OF GOING TO PRESS, THE FOLLOWING AUSTRALIAN FILMS WERE THOSE THOUGHT M OST LIKELY TO BE AT CANNES, EITHER IN AN OFFICIAL SELEC-

TION OR REPRESENTED AT THE MARCHE. GREENKEEPING

HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL

, a- »V ¡É

THE NOSTRADAMUS KID

ROMPER STOMPER

DAY OF THE DOG

cordist: Guntis Sics. Composers: Todd

Russell, the complete opposite, has just

D irector: Jam es Ricketson. Producer:

Hunter, Johanna Pigott. Cast: Miranda

been released from prison. Theiir paths

David Rapscy. Executive producers: Paul

Otto (Nell), Martin Kemp (Digby), Anne

cross when Russell is employ ed to work on

D. Barron. Scriptwriter: Jam es Ricketson.

Looby (Margo), Alistcr Smart (Ron), Gia

Charlie's latest project: die construction

Based on the novel Day o f the Doghy Archie

Carides (Wendy), Bruce Venables (Stu).

of agiantM urraycodasatourist attraction

Weller. Director o f photography: Je f f

Synopsis: The story o f a loving, stable

for a small Victorian town.

Malotif. Production designer: Bob Ricket足

relationship and how to get one.

son. Editoi : Christopher Cordeaux. Sound

EXCHANGE LIFEGUARDS

recordist: Kim Lord. Composei: Merv

EIGHT BALL

D irector : Maurice Murphy: Producer: P i^

Graham Cast: Jo h n Moore (Doug Dooli足

Director: Ray Argali. Producer: Timothy

Avalon. Associate producer:DennisKiely.

gan), David Ngoombujarra (Pretty Boy

White. Executive producers: Jill Robb,

Scriptwriter: Phil Avalon. Director o f pho-

Floyd). Jay lene Riley (Poll)- Yarrnp), Johu

Bryce Men/ies. Scriptwriters: Ray Yi gall,

tography: Martin McGrath. Production

Hargreaves (Detective Maxwell), Ernie

Harry Kirchner. Director o f photography:

designer: Richard Hobbs. Costume de足

Dingo (Percy), Ju lie Hudspeth (Mrs

Mandv Walker. Production designer:

signer: Jenny Campbell. Editor: Allan

Dooligan), Jack Charles (Carey), Judith

Kerith Holmes. Costume designer: Jane

T rout. Sound recordist: Bob Clayton.

Margaret Wilkes (Nanna), Michael Watson

Hyland. Editor: Ken Sallows. Sound le-

Com poser: Jo h n Capek. Cast: Elliott

(Hughie), Atdla Ozsdolay (Silver).

cordist: Ian Cregah. Composer: Philip

Gould, Julian McMahon, Christopher

Judd. Cast: Matthew Fargher (Charlie),

Atkins. Ric Car ter, Mark Hembrow, Chris-

Synopsis: A voung. Aboriginal ex-convict is tom between die bad influence o f old friends, the love o f awoman and the threat ol gaol if he returns to his old ways.

Angie Millikcn (Julie), Paul Stcvn (Russell),

topher Pate, Lois Larimore, Brian Logan,

Lucy Sheehan (Jacqui), Frankie J . Holden

VanessaSteele.AmandaNewman-Phillips,

(Mai). Matthew Krok (Dougie). Ollie Hall (Biggs), Desmond Kelly (Bert).

Synopsis: Bobbv McCain, the environ足

DAYDREAM BELIEVER

Synopsis: Charlie is a young architect with

mentally-conscious son of an American

(aka THE GIRL WHO CAME

seemingly' everything going fo r him.

developer, finds himself on an Exchange

Director: Kathy Mueller. Pioducci: Ben G an n o n .

S c iip tw rite r:

Saturday

Rosenberg. Director o f photography: Andrew Lesnie. Production designer: Roger Ford. Costume designer: Roger Ford. Editor: Robert Gibson. Sound re-

ABO VE (LEFT T O R IG H T): PRETTY B O Y FLOYD (D AV ID NGOOM BJARRA) M AN (KELTON PELL) TIN Y (TREVOR PARFITT) A N D D O UG DOO LIGAN (JO H N M OORE) JAMES RICKETSON S DA Y O F THE DO G DIGBY (MARTIN KEMP) A ND NELL (MIRANDA O TTO ) KATHY MUELLER 5 DAYDREAM BELIEVER (AKA THE GIRL W H O CAME LATE) JACQUI (LUCY SHEEHAN) DOUGGIE (M AT THEW KROK) A ND RUSSELL (PAUL STEVN) RAY ARGALL S EIGHT BALL

ELLIOTT GOULD IN MAURICE MURPHY S EX

CHANGE LIFEGUARDS. RIGHT (LEFT TO RIGHT) JO E T MARTINEZ (JEROME EHLER5) AND LEONIE STEVENS (LINDA BLAIR). VIN CENT M O N TO N S FATAL B O N D STEVE (STEPHEN KEARNEY) A ND NEILL (NEILL GLADW IN) RON COBB S GARBO G IN A (G IA CARIDES) A N D LENNY (M ARK LITTLE) GREENKEEPING

DAVID CAESAR S

Lifeguard programme. Not knowing what

Synopsis: Jo e and Leonie, drawn together

Synopsis: G arbo is the story o f two very

to expect, he arrives via a two-day cab ride

by fate, set o ff to Springvale to begin anew

unlikely garbage men seeking love and

to an isolated Australian coastal fishing

life. Two murders happen in their wake.

justice in an inner-cits suburb ol Mel

village called Mullet Beach.The lot al surf

The father o f one o f the suspects, Anthony

bourne. Their quest leads them through

club, fighting for surviv al, hopes that Bobby

Boon, tracks the suspects,Jo e and Leonie.

trial, tribulation, physical abuse, madness and mayhem, until finally justice is done.

will help rescue them from the imminent takeover by the nearby and wealthy rival

GARBO

Red Beach club, which is assisted by an

Director: Ron Cobb. Producer: Hugh Rule.

GREENKEEPING

Associate producers: N eill , Gladwin,

Director: David Caesar. Producer: Glenys

Stephen Kearney. Line producer: Margot

Rowe. Scriptwritei: David Caesar. Direc

FATAL BOND

McDonald. Scriptwriters: Patrick Cook,

tor o f photography: Simon Smith. Pro-

Director: Vincent Monton. Pi oducer: Phil

Stephen Kearney. Neill Gladwin. Direc tor

duction designer: Kerith Holmes. Cos

Avalon. Associate producer: Gary Hamil

of photography: Geoff Burton. Produc

tume designer: Tess Schofield. Editor:

ton. Scriptwriter: Phil Av alon. Based on

tion designer: Richard Bell. Gostiime de^

Mai k Perry. Sound rec ordist: I iam Egan.

the story Kidnappers. Director of photog

sign er: .• R ose C h o n g .. E d ito r: N eil

Composers: David Brodie, John Phillips.

raphy: Ray Henman. Production designer:

Thum pston, Sound reco rd ist: Joh n

Cast: Mark Little (Lenny), Lisa Hensley

Keith Holloway. Costume designer: Lyn

Phillips. Composer: Allan Zavod. Cast:

(Sue), Max C ullen (Tom ); Syd Conabeie

Askew. Editor: Ted Otten. Sound record

¡Stéphen Kearney (Steve), Neill Gladwin

(Milton), Gia Carides (Gina), Rob Steele

ist: Bob Clayton. Composer: Art Phillips.

(Neill), Max Cullen (Wal), Simon Chilvers

(Manager), LeighRussell (Dave), Kazuhiro

Cast: Linda Blair (Leohie Stevens),Jerom e

(Detective), Gerard Kennedy (Trevor),

M utoyam a (Rikyu), David W enham

Ehlers (Joé T . Martínez), Stephen I eeders

Moya Sullivan (Freda), Imogen Annesley

(Trevor), Frank Whitten (Dad), Robyn

(Jànè ), John Brumpton (Troy), Robin

Nevin (Mum).

Jo e Bugner (Shamus Miller), Gaz Leder-;

Cuming (Councillor), Michael Veitch

Synopsis: A film about sex, drugs and lawn

man (Detective Ghenka).

j(T6wh clerk).

bowls.

(Anthony Boon). Donal Gibson (Rocky),

TRESS

COCKS

M A D D O X

L A W Y E R S

MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LAW Australian & International Entertainment Industry Lawyers

We advise on all the complexities of the film and related industries ▲ Project Development ▲ AFC and FFC ▲ Film Funding A Distribution Deals A Securing the Rights A Cast and Crew Deals A Bonds and Insurances A Soundtrack Deals A Documentaries and Videos

A A A A A A A A A

Merchandising Negotiating Deals Business and Tax Planning Broadcasting Immigration and Work Permits Export Grants Government Assistance Copyrights Litigation and Disputes

Contact at Cannes Film Festival: Peter Thom pson, M ajestic H otel, Telephone (16) 92 98 77 00 Contact in Sydney: Peter Thom pson • Randall Harper • A listair Little • loanne Court • Jennifer Huby TRESS COCKS & MADDOX Level 20, 135 King Street, Sydney NSW 2000 A ustralia Telephone 612 221 2744 Facsim ile 612 221 4988

Synopsis: Beth, a writer, invites her lively

ABOVE (LEFT TO RIGHT): A N N TURNER'S HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL. BETH (LISA HARROW), VICKI (KERRY FOX) A ND ANNIE

Director: Ann Turner. Producers: Ben

red-headed sister, Vicki, to jo in her hectic

(M IRANDA O TTO ) GILLIAN ARMSTRONG'S THE LAST DAYS OF

Gannon; P eter Haryey-Wright. Executive

household, which already contains a hus

CHEZ N OUS. BELOW- JENNY (MIRANDA O TTO ) AND ELKIN

producers: Jan et W orth; Gus Howard;

band^ P, a lodger, Tim, and Beth’s daugh

P eter G aw ler. Scrip tw riters: P e te r

ter from a previous marriage, Annie. Is

sor: Laurie Faen. Editor: Henry Dangar.

Hepworth, Aim Ttim er. Based on the sto

this the last straw? Could it be the last days

Sound recordist: David Lee. Composer:

ries H am m ers Over the Anvil by Alan

o f “chez nous”?

(N O A H TAYLORj. BOB ELLIS THE NOSTRADAMUS KID.

Chris Neal. Cast: Noah Taylor (Ken Elkin).

Marshall. Director o f photography: Jam es

Miranda Otto (Jennie O ’Brien), Jack

Barties; Production designer: Ross Major;

Cam pbell (M cA lister), E rick Mitsak (Wayland), .Mice Gamer (Esther), Lucy

Costume designer: Ross Major. Editor:

Director: \ ^ te n t ^ ^ d . Producfers: Tim

KenSaHows. Sound recordist: PhilTipene.

Sevan, V incent W ard. C o-producer:

Bell (Sarai), Arthur Dignam (Pastor

Composer: Alan Joh n. Cast: Charlotte

Tim othy W hite. A ssociate producer:

A nderson). Loene Carm en (M ervl).

Rampling (G race McAlister), Russell

Redmond M orris. Scriptwriters: Louis

Jeanette Cronin (Christy), Peter Gwynne

Crowe (East Driscoll), Alexander Outhred

Nowra, Vincent Ward. Director of photog

(Shepherds Rod), Ile c McMillan (Pastor

raphy: Eduardo Serra. Production de

Dibley).

signer: John Beard. Costume designer:

Synopsis: A gentle romantic comedy about

(Alan Marshall), FrankieJ. Holden (Alan’s Jake Frost (Joe Carmichael).

Renee April. Editor: John Scott. Sound

the end o f the world. The religious and

Synopsis: A funny; moving, inspirational

recordists: Pierre Camus, Andrew Plain,!

sexual coming o f age o f a 1960s Sexenth

losskif-innocence story set in the early

Composer: Gabriel Yared. Cast: Patrick

Day Adventist boy, who acquires a taste

days of this century. Twelve-yearsrold and

B erg in

Parillau d

for drink, women and philosophy, and

crippled with polio, Alan dreams of be

(Albertinc ),Jason Scott-Lee (Avik ),Jeanne

believes the end is nigh during the Cuban

coming a great horseman. He must learn

Moreau (Sister Banville), Ben Mendel

Missile Crisis, even though the much

sohn (Faim boy); John Cusack (Clark),

longed-for apocalypse seems to keep get

Annie Gulipeau (YoungAlbertine ), Robert

ting postponed.

that life is not necessarily what he wants it to be, but it is worth living anyway.

(W alter),

Anne

Joam ie (Young Avik); Clotilde Courau

THE LAST DAYS OF CHEZ Director: Gillian Armstrong. Producer: Jan Chapman. Associate producer: Mark TumbuB. Scriptwriter: Helen G am er. Di rector o f photography: Geoffrey Sirupson; Production designer:Janet Paterson. Cos

(Rainée). Synopsis: Alove story spanning thirty years

Director: G eoffrey Wright. Producer:

about an Eskimo who ventures into the

Daniel Scharf. Associate producer: Phil

world o f the white man to find his child-

Jones. Scriptwriter: Geoffrey Wright. Di

hood sweetheart and is swept up in the ferocity of

World War II.

tume designer:. Jan et Paterson. Editor: Nicholas Beauman. Sound recordist: Ben Osmo. Composer: Paul Grabowsky. Cast: Lisa Harrow (Beth), Bruno Ganz (JP), Kerry Fox (Vicki), Miranda Otto (Annie),

Director: Bob Ellis. Pro

'Kiri Param ore (Tim ), Bill Hunter. (Beth’s,

ducer: Terry Jennings, Ex

father), Lex Marinos (Angelo), Mickey

ecutive producers: Roger

Camilieri (Saliy), Lynne Murphy (Beth’s

m other), Claire Haywood (Janet), Leanne

Simpson. Scriptwriter: Bob

Bundy (Susie), Wilson Alcorn (Cafe dero ),

Ellis. Director of photog-

M esu rier,

R oger

raphy: Geol f Burton. Pro EvadiCesare (Washing up girl), Tony Poll

duction designer: Roger

(Waiter with tattoos).

Ford. W ardrobe super* i-

’R H

rector oi photography: Ron Hagen. Pro

Synopsis: Five teenagers are trapped in

duction designer: Steven Jones-Evans.

the basement ol Melbourne’s Southern

Director: Baz Luhrmann. Producers: Trist

Costume designer: Anna Borghesi. Edi

Cross I lotel wher e the Beatles are staying

ram Miall, Ted Albert. Executive producer:

tor: Bill Murphy. Sound recordist: David

durmgthe local leg of their Australian tout

Popsey Albert. Line producer: Jane SCott.

Lee. Composer:John Clifford White. Cast:

in June, 1964. is the night unfolds, they

Scriptw riters: Baz Luhrm ann, C raig

Russell Crowe (Hando), Daniel Pollock

tentatively begin to reveal their deepest

Pearce. Director o f photography: Steve

(Daveyj, Jacqueline McKenzie (Gabe),

secrets, hopes and dreams.

Leigh Russell (Sonny Jim ), Eric Mueck (Champ), Daniel Wyllie (Cackles), Jam es

SEEING RED

McKenna (Bubs), Frank Magee (Brett),

Dir ector: Virginia Rouse, Pi oducers: Tony

Mason. Production designer: Catherine Martin. Costume designer: Angus Strathie. Editor: Jill Bilcock. Sound recordist: Ben

Christopher McLean (Luke), Alex Scott

Uewellyn-Jones, Virginia Rouse. Execu

Osrrio. Com poser: David H irstifelder. Cast: P a u lM e rc u rio (Scott Hastings), T aTa

(Martin).

tive producer: William T. Marshall. Asso

Morice (Fran), Bill Hunter (Barry Fife),

Synopsis: The story o f the disintegration

ciate producer: Trish Carney. Scriptwriter:

Barry Otto (Doug Hastings), Pat Thom

o f an urban street gang.

Roger Pulvers. Based on the story R ed

son (Shirley Hastings), Peter Whitford

H erring by Virginia Rouse. Director o f

(Les Kendall), Gia Carides (Liz Holt),

SECRETS

photography: Ian Jones. Production de

John I human (Ken Railings), Sonia Kruger-

Director: Michael Pattinson. Producer:

signer: Virginia Rouse. Costume designer:

Tay lor (Tina Sparkle ), Pip Mushin (Wayne

Michael Pattinson. Line producer: I ynda

Meg Gordon. Editor: Mark Atkin. Sound

Bums)* Leonie Page (Vanessa Cronin). :

I louse. Executiv e producers: David Aniell.

reco rd ist: Phillip H ealy. C om poser:

Synopsis: Strictly Ballroom is a romantic

Michael Caulfield, William 1' Marshall.

Andrew Yencken. Cast: Zoe Carides (Red),

comedy borrowing from the classic Holly

Scriptwriter: Jan Sard!. Director of pho

Anne Louise Lambert (Amanda), Peta

wood dance films o f the 1940s. When 21-

tography: David Connell. Production de

Toppano (Vivien), Tony Llewellyn-Jones

year-old ballroom champion Scott Hast

signer: Kevin Leonard-J ones. Costume

(Duncan), George SparteLs (Mark), 1 lenri

ings commits the cardinal sin o f dancing

designer: Paul Sayers. Editor: Peter Car-

S/eps (Louie), John Mulock (Frank #1),

his own steps, retribution is swift. But help

rodiLs. Sound recordist: Ken Saville. Mu

Da\ id Wenham (Frank #2), David Field

comes f rom an unexpected quarter.

sic: Dave Dobbyn. Cast: Beth Champion

(William), Anthony Wong (Nguyen).

(Em il)), Malcolm Kennard (Danny), Dan-

Synopsis: W riter Duncan and his son are

nii Minogue (Didi), Willa O'Neill (Vicki),

pursued from Sydney to Canberra and

Noah Taylor (Randolf), Eddie Campbell

back by Red, Amanda. Vivien and the two

(Eddie's father). Joan Watson (Randolf s

Franks. A 1inal coincidence foils the stock

motlrer). Joan Reid (Sister Annuzia), Pe

broker, the thugs, the politicians and the

ter Vere-Jones (jock).

editor - and hopefully ends the madness.

ABOVE: H A N D O (RUSSELL CROW )

■

GEOFFREY W RIGHT'S

ROMPER STOMPER VICKI (WILLA O NEILL) A N D RANDOLPH (N O A H TAYLOR) MICHAEL PATTINSON S SECRETS BELOW NG U YEN (A N TH O N Y W O N G ) A M A N D A (ANNE LOUISE LAM BERT) A ND FRANK #2 (DAVID W ENH AM ) VIRGINIA ROUSE'S SEEING RED SCOTT HASTINGS (PAUL MERCURIO), RIGHT PRACTISES W ITH RICO (A N TO N IO VARGAS). BAZ LUHRMANN'S STRICTLY BALLROOM.

r O F F IC IA L S E L E C T IO N * C A N N E S FILM F E S T IV A L

1992

• A RONIN FILM S R E L E A S E o f a n M &A FILM P R O D U C T IO N

PAUL MERCURIO •TARA MORICE •BILL HUNTER •PAT THOMSON GIA CARIDES • PETER WHITFORD •BARRY O TTO d ir e c t e d b y

BAZ LUHRMANN • p r o d u c e d

TRISTRAM MIALL • e x e c u t iv e

producer

ANTOINETTE ALBERT

LINE PRODUCER JANE SCOTT • CINEMATOGRAPHY b y STEVE MASON • MUSIC b y DAVID HIRSCHFELDER • s c r e e n p l a y b y BAZ LUHRMANN a n d CRAIG PEARCE • e d it e d b y JILL BILCOCK • PRODUCTION DESIGN CATHERINE MARTIN a n d BILL MARRON

RELEASING NATIONALLY IN A U G U S T I HWM MUSIC

Love, \ >■ WiS-* Wimt’s a lesson, \

SOUNDTRACK ALBUM AVAILABLE THRU ALBER T PRODUCTIONS AND SONY MUSIC

New Australian Cinema

DOLBY STEREO IN SELECTED THEATRES

NEW AUSTRALIAN CINEMA

Sources and Parallels in British and American Film BRIAN McFARLANE Department of English, Monash University GEOFF MAYER Department of Film and Media Studies,

Brian Mcranon©andG«offMayer

Phillip Institute of Technology

CA M BRID G E

■tW^.jTj

¿ M

A Y E IJ^ A W

A T ^ "

S P enholm E lliott I J ames E arl J ones ^Emily L loyd t . J exVmfer T illy j

The institutions and products o f the Australian film industry have been extensively surveyed, yet few analyses consider the sources of the film revival that took place in the 1970s and 1980s. New Australian Cinema represents a new way of thinking about Australian cinema as it asks where the origins of the new films lie. This book will increase the scope of the discussion about the revival of Australian cinema and help us to make cultural sense of the films themselves. c.June 1992 228 x 153 mm 0 521 38768 X 0 521 38363 3

c. 272 pp 28 halftones Paperback c. $25.00 Hardback c. $59.50

Return to: PO Box 85,Oakleigh, Victoria 316 6 Please send me New Australian Cinema O Hardback O Paperback 1 wish to pay by □ Bankcard □ Mastercard □ Visa □ Cheque

TOTAL

________________ CARD NO___________________

EXPIRY D A T E _____________ N A M E____________________ ADDRESS_____________________________________________ ____________________________________ PO STC O D E______ Cambridge University Press, the style under which The Chancellor, M asters, and Scholars o f the University o f Cambridge print and publish, is a charitable enterprise and die oldest press in fee world. The University has printed and published since 1584. It is incorporated in the U nited Kingdom. A JLB Jfu 007 507 584

jS O JP.Ö. BOX 130, ST. LE0NARDS NSWjSMHf ^iNvÆiNà./WTONE (02) 4 3 8 3377 F\X (02) 439 1827

C ambridge U N IV ERSITY PRESS CINEMA

PAPERS

• 27

New Australian

SOURCES AND PARALLELS IN AM ERICAN AND Brian McFarlane and Geoff M ayer*

y now the new Australian cinem a’s progress - through the ‘o cker’ com m ercialism and tasteful literary adaptations o f the 1970s to the blockbuster-oriented thinking o f the 1980s and its concom itant casualties1—has been pretty thoroughly canvassed. T h ere have been chronological and them atic, indus trial and critical, accounts o f these crucial years in the building o f an Australian cinem a. And what “Australian cinem a” m ight m ean rem ains as elusive as ever. Does it m ean a sturdy industry turning out a regular stream o f m arketable products? Is it a cinem a which can com pete internationally with what is being produced in other English-speaking (or, for that m atter, non-English-speaking) countries? Does it refer to a body o f work which represents aspects o f recognizable Australian experience in terms o f narrative cin ema? How does it accom m odate what a recen t writer has called “the paradox that for a cinem a to be nationally popular it must also be international in scope?”2 O n e o f the functions o f [New Aus tralian Cinem a] is to try to place new Australian cinem a in contexts which may help to illum inate its nature as an art form and, to a lesser extent, as an industry.3 [...] T h e book aims to consider the feature-film revival o f Australia in the 1970s and 1980s in relation to two com parators which may shed light on its nature as an art form and/or as an industry. First, we want to consider the persistence o f the Hollywood narrative m odel. By this we m ean those form al and them atic paradigms that have been identified and explored by film scholars such as David Bordwell and Kristin Thom pson.4 O ur concern is to trace ways in which the conventions o f classical Hollywood narrative cinem a have becom e inflected in their translation to the Australian scene, while still showing the profound influence o f their Am erican prototypes. T h e nature o f our interest in British cinem a is somewhat different. W e do n ot m ean to suggest that British cinem a had no form al effect on new Australian cinem a. In its refusal to carry through the m elodram atic implications o f its narratives, in its rejection o f traditional closure, in the way the dividedness o f its characterisation can im pede narrative drive, there is am ple sug gestion o f the contrary. Above all, though, it seems to us that an interesting, perhaps illuminating, parallel can be drawn between what may now be seen as two ‘b o o m ’ periods: that is, between Australian cinem a o f the 1970s and 1980s, and British cinem a o f the 1940s and 1950s. Given that both were, in turn, distorting reflections o f the classical Hollywood cinem a, both were, equally strikingly, cases o f Englishspeaking cinem as striving for and, in a limited sense, achieving a sense o f national identity. At no other time, certainly n ot in the history o f the talking film, has either British or Australian film established such impressive claims to be taken seriously. [T he] nature o f our interest in the com parisons, in the contextualizing exercises, is different in each case. It is n ot that we regard the form al and the ideological/tonal as totally discrete categories; rather, it is a question o f emphasis. By the form al aspects o f Hollywood cinem a, we m ean such matters as the following: its structural properties as a purveyor o f pictorial

*Editor: This article is edited from extracts from the same-tided book to be published by Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. 28

• CINEMA

PAPERS

narratives (including its use o f parallelism and contrast, repetition and variation); its continuity editing (and the so-called ‘invisible’ or ‘zero’ style in which this plays so im portant a r o le ); its preoc cupation with the individual-centred, causally-connected narrative (in which, for exam ple, cam era movements and elem ents o f miseen-scène are dramatically m otivated); its firm sense o f closure. These form al aspects have so persuasively accustom ed u s—as they had British audiences o f the 1940s and 1950s - to what cinem a is that it would require a m uch m ore revolutionary approach than either British or Australian has ever shown to challenge such models. W here those two cinem as have diverged from classical Hollywood, it has n ot always been in their interests [...]

CLASSICAL HOLLYWOOD CINEMA T h e Hollywood narrative style is synonymous with the classical narrative system, even if there is an in h eren t danger in reducing a cinem a that produced m ore than 15,000 feature films between 1915 and 1960 to a single narrative paradigm. However, the basic principles o f the classical narrative - the emphasis on continuity, motivation, goal-oriented protagonists, and the om niscient narra tion form that subordinates spatial and tem poral considerations to the dem and for narrative logic - characterize the great bulk of Hollywood films, particularly those that are com m ercially success ful. [...] T h e Australian film industry, at least since the second decade o f this century, has, like other small national cinemas, sought to distinguish itself from the Hollywood cinem a whilst remaining com m ercially viable. Most Australian films are also produced within the context o f the classical system and the melodramatic tradition, although there are noticeable variations in the way these narrative and dramatic principles are used. [...] T h e popularity o f Am erican films in the British market, argues Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, “was never ju s t eco n om ic”5 the “basic reason for Hollywood’s dom inance was artistic and cultural”. The same argum ent also applies to Australia. T h e com m ercial appeal o f the classical cinem a resides in its ability to emotionally involve a larger num ber o f people. This is partly achieved through character-centred, goal-oriented stories, but it is also a product o f the specific narration process that encourages the successive form ation o f hypotheses concerning future developments, hy potheses that are essentially based on audience expectations that have been form ed, or learned, through repetitive narrative con ventions. Central to these expectations is the role o f the climax, the em otional and/or physical pivotal m om entwithin the narrative structure that occurs ju st prior to the resolution. T h e Australian cinem a in the 1970s and 1980s [...] is characterized in a great many cases by its inability, or refusal, to exploit or develop these crucial aspects o f the classical cinem a. [...]

AUSTRALIAN CINEMA SINCE PICNIC A T HANGING ROCK A continuing debate within the Australian film industry, particu larly since the critical acclaim accorded P icnic at H anging Rock (Peter W eir, 1975), has focused on the type o f films the industry should be producing and how to com pete with foreign, notably

Cinema BRITISH CINEMA

Hollywood, films. O ften the terms o f the debate have been constrained within an artificial dichotomy: an ‘indigenous’, lowbudget, ‘neo-realist’ cinem a versus a ‘mid-Atlantic’, international cinema. M arcus B reen , in his review celebrating the Australian film Return H om e (Ray Argali, 1990), provided a representative exam ple o f the limited context invoked by this ‘debate’: There’s an historical fact that seems to be have been grossly overlooked in the current Australian preoccupation with making films for the international market. These often formularized films made for the lucrative but unpredictable American public fail because they do not connect with living beings [...] Ray Argali’s first feature is a treasure because it lacks any semblance of what might be termed money-motivation. It is so Australian in subject matter, style and content and it connects with the Australian experience with such nerve tingling confidence that it is destined for a place in our film history.6 W hile Return H om e is a fine film, and represents a continuing strain o f ‘realist’ films in the Australian industry, it cannot be seen as a prototype for the entire industry. M ore important, the pejorative concepts invoked by Breen, the notion o f “form ula”, “international”, “money-motivation’’are juxtaposed with “Austra lian”, “subject m atter, style and con tent”. W hat exactly is an “Australian subject m atter, style and co n ten t”? Im plied within this ‘debate’ is the assumption that m elodram a, and its ability to generate strong em otions in the audience, together with the strong narrative drive and tight causality o f the classical system, is somehow alien to the Australian cinema. It is this confusion between ‘Australian content/them es’ and formal structure that has confined the debate to the em otional level o f the international and form ulaic (‘bad’) cinem a versus an overtly ‘Australian con tent’ ( ‘good’) cinem a. T h e content can be ‘Australian’ no m atter what form al system is chosen. Yet the pejorative param eters o f pseudo-American ‘B grade’ stories ver sus ‘adventurous’ Australian stories are constantly repeated.7 Im plicit in these polarized positions is a vague conception o f a ‘pure’ Australian cinem a that is not tainted by formal presentation o f the classical system and the m elodram atic tradition. In 1979 Phillip Adams vigorously condem ned M ad M ax (George Miller) in The Bulletin8, calling it the “dangerous pornography o f death”. What Adams was reacting against was n otju st the overt violence o f M ad M ax but also the narrative structure and its strident use o f melodrama. At a time when Picnic at H anging Rock seemed to have indicated the ‘true path’ for an industry desiring aesthetic prestige coupled with viable financial returns, the com m ercial success o f M ad M ax threatened this orthodoxy. T h e classical narrative paradigm and the m elodram atic tra dition aire normally associated with Hollywood, as the Americam film industry has bjeen the most effective industry to develop its wide audience appeal; yet, it is by no means unique to Hollywood. Both the Am erican and Australian film industries evolved from the aesthetic norm s that dom inated the popular theatre and literature in the late 19th Century, and Uncle Tom's Cabin was as popular in the Australian theatre in the last century as Phantom o f the Opera is today. This tradition was evident in pre-World W ar II

Australian c in e m a [,...] Australia’s most expensive silent film, F or the Term o f H is N atural L ife (Norm an Dawn, 1927), and the Cinesound features o f the 1930s, together with the work of, arguably, Australia’s most im portant pre-1970 film maker, the director Charles Chauvel. Since its re-em ergence in the early 1970s, particularly after the critical success o f Picnic at H an ging Rock in 1975, the Australian cinem a has m aintained an ambivalent attitude to this narrative system, rarely fully em bracing it or alternative systems. Picnic at H an ging R ock is a rarity in that it was the only Australian film to clearly reject the narrative conventions o f the classical system in favour o f the European art-film and at the same tim e gross m ore than $A5 m illion in domestic rentals. W ithout pushing a cause and effect argum ent too far, the form al legacy o f this film was apparent for, at least, the n ext few years following its release. [...]

TOWARDS A NATIONAL CINEMA In both Britain and Australia, in the periods o f our interest, there is a discernible m ovem ent towards a cinem a which m ight lay claim to a national identity, whatever kinds o f indebtedness it clearly owes. In neither case is this a smoothly continuous process: there are times in each when direction, w hether towards nationalism , or indeed any goal, seems to be lost; there are, however, key points in each when we feel it is true to say this is a peculiarly British or a peculiarly Australian cinem a. For better and for worse, some would say. It is worth considering where each stood at the beginning o f the two crucial decades before looking at what made them crucial. [...] T h e period leading up to the British film boom , the later 1930s, is unlike the 1960s in Australia in many ways: British feature films were at least being made in large num bers even if their popularity was limited. W hat the two precursor decades do have in com m on is a continuing strain o f documentary production. In Britain, the documentary m ovem ent was dom inated by Jo h n Grierson who, in director Pat Jack so n ’s words, “having been a great educationalist himself, and having a great b elief in educa tion, [...surrounded] himselfwith young academ ics”.9 G rierson’s influence was, perhaps in consequence, often rather schoolmasterish, but he attracted for a time such filmmakers as Humphrey Jennings, Cavalcanti and Harry W att who, in their diverse ways, later brought new impulses into British cinem a. These impulses fed documentary and feature film making alike. A num ber o f these directors, including the three ju st m entioned, as well as Pat Jackson an d Jack L ee, eventually broke away from (in L e e ’s terms) Grierson’s “bureaucratic theories”and didacticism; deciding that, “instead o f chimneys against the sky, cranes, bricks and mortar, [they] would like to do films about flesh and blood, about people”.10 It is their effect on the feature film that is our primary concern here: the prestige won by British cinem a in the 1940s derives from several key elem ents, but one o f them is undoubtedly the new infusion o f ‘realism ’, o f a documentary-like observation, into the feature film. It cannot be said that the documentary m ovem ent in Australia, especially as m anifested in the 1960s, the decade before the CINEMA

PAPERS

• 29

feature-film revival, had a com parably profound effect on those features. Nevertheless, it was docum entary film m aking which was largely responsible in the quarter-century following the war for m aintaining any sem blance o f a film industry in Australia. T h ere were private com panies m aking docum entaries - for exam ple, Ken G. H all’s C inesound Productions and the Shell Film U nit which, u nd er Jo h n Heyer, m ade the fam ous feature-length work, The B ack o f Beyond { 1954); and there was the Com m onw ealth Film U nit (C F U ), which had a m ajor success with The Queen in A u stralia (1 954). By the 1960s, even though the CFU continued to m ake plenty o f films and though it could be argued that these kept the wheels o f the industry going at a tim e when feature films were at their lowest ebb, the CFU becam e increasingly bureaucratic in its approach and the films less m em orable. Ross Lansell, writing on 1960s Australian cinem a as “T h e Dark A ge”, claims that ‘Televi sion, n ot the CFU, was the seed-bed o f the 1970s film industry”11, drawing attention n ot only to popular fictional series but also to cu rren t affairs and docum entary program m es such as A B ig Country. I f there is a legacy o f the docum entary m ovem ent in the 1970s feature-film revival, it is perhaps m ost present in the emphasis on the landscape, which one finds at work in such films as Sunday Too F a r Away (Ken H annam ) and P icnic At H an ging R ock (both 1975), or on bush values which surface variously in such films as “W ake in F right” (T ed Kotcheff) and Country Town (Peter Maxwell, both 1971) or The Irishm an (Donald Crom bie, 1978). Perhaps, too, such films as 27A (Esben Storm , 1973) and P u reS ... (B ert Deling, 1976) owe som ething to the docum entary tendency o f television jou rnalism , but the influence can be m uch less confidently placed in Australia than in British cinem a. British critic G eo ff Brown has said: [In] the ’30s people had really wanted to see American films in the cinemas, and the British companies were trying to compete with the Americans by importing American stars. That didn’t come off but in the ’40s, because o f the war situation and the camaraderie that people felt people did want to see British films because, for the first time, British filmmakers had a su b ject- the war front, the various campaigns - a subject which the Americans couldn’t handle. For the first time they had a subject which had a sort of national feeling built into it.12 I f Britain was to have a cinem a o f its own, a national cinem a that m ade a genuine appeal to local audiences at the very least, then it seems to have waited for, in Brow n’s terms, “a subject [...] which the Am ericans cou ld n ’t h and le”. O r in Dilys Powell’swords, “It took a war to com pel the British to look at themselves and find themselves interesting. ”13T h e success o f a new kind o f British film in the early 1940s is not, o f course, ju s t the result o f “a subject” but has to do with the way British film makers handled this subject. This returns us to the im portance o f the docum entary influence m aking itself felt in the feature films o f the war years. This influence has by now been very thoroughly discussed by critics and scholars [...] For whatever reasons - m iscalculation, the failure to respond creatively to the threat o f television, misguided attem pts to woo A m erican exhibitors - it was clear that the British film industry was running out o f creative steam towards the end o f the 1950s (cf. R ichard A ttenborou gh’s words about exploiting a “history o f success”) . In the last three m onths o f 1958, 36 British films were released;14 o f these, it is at least arguably true that only two - Pat Ja c k so n ’s Virgin Islan d and Seth H o lt’s Nowhere To G o - show any real freshness or inventiveness. [...] T h ese three m onths have been quoted because they precede a b rie f bu t im portant resurgence at the end o f the decade, with the social-realist films ushered in by the January 1959 release o f Room at the Top (Jack C layton). This was followed by a batch o f notable 30

• CINEMA

PAPERS

films by directors new to feature films, m en such as Karel Reisz, Lindsay A n d erson,John Schlesinger and Tony Richardson. T h eir films (for exam ple, L ook B ack in Anger, Saturday N ight an d Sunday M orning, This Sporting L ife) showed a new willingness to move away from tired stereotypes, to explore working-class lives and life as it was lived away from the technicoloured purlieus o f the H om e Counties. They brought new actors into British films, the likes o f A lbert Finney, T o m Courtenay and R achel Roberts. [...] T h e last years o f the decade also saw the start o f H am m er Film s’ reworking o f the G othic myths o f Frankenstein and Dracula, producing films that were often critically disregarded at the time and are now seen to have had at their b e s t-fo r exam ple, The Brides o f D racula (T eren ce Young, 1960) - a verve and style rare at the time in British films. I f British cinem a received a shot in the arm at the end o f the 1950s, the same can scarcely be said for the new Australian cinem a at the end o f the 1980s. However, the two preceding decades offer som e quite striking parallels with the general tendencies o f the British cinem a in its m ostnotably productive period. Even allowing for crucial historical differences, in both social terms and in the changed industrial situation in which a film industry m ight be located, it may still be instructive to com pare the distinguishing characteristics o f the two ‘b o o m ’ periods. W here the pre-war British cinem a was a largely lustreless, often snobbish affair, the Australian revival o f the 1970s grew out o f “a virtual vacuum ”15 in which almost the only feature films were m ade by overseas filmmakers, both Am erican and British. T h e Am ericans, includ ing Stanley Kram er {O n the Beach, 1959) and, d irect from Holly wood’s poverty row, Lesley Selander {T h e K angaroo K id, 1950), essentially used Australia “as an exotic backdrop for the sorts o f films which, with m inor adjustments, m ight have been m ade anywhere”.16 T h e British, from Harry W att’s Ealing films - The O verlanders (1 9 4 6 ), E ureka Stockade (1949) and The Siege ofP inchgut (1959) - t o M ichael Powell’s They’re a Weird M ob (1966) and TheAge o f Consent (19 6 9 ), were m ore con cern ed to understand the Aus tralian ethos as a place distinct from their hom e territory. These films were often well-liked in Australia ( They ’re a Weird M ob w as a great box-office success), but m ade little im pact overseas. G ordon Jackson, im ported star o f E ureka Stockade and Bitter Springs (Ralph Smart, 1950), felt that both were very “indulgent” productions “films which could easily have been made in a couple o f m onths took six or seven m onths”17 and that the finished films reflected the lack o f tightness in planning and schedule. Betw een the end o f W orld W ar II and 1970, there was scarcely any truly Australian feature film m aking - n o t m ore than a couple o f dozen features altogether, and n ot m ore than ten o f these had even the m ost m odest com m ercial success. T h e talents o f potential film makers survived (barely) on docum entaries, com m ercials and television. T h e British and the A m erican films m ade in Australia are scrutinized by B ru ce Molloy in his recen t study, Before the In terv al8, which makes new claims for them as offering inter esting perceptions o f Australia in a period often cinem atically written off. W hatever the m erits o f his case, it is hard to feel that these films or the other stray local productions o f the period (for exam ple, the Chips Rafferty-Lee R obinson collaborations o f the 1950s) offered either Australians or the world at large the sense o f a thriving film industry. No m ore than was the case in Britain in the 1930s could the Australian film industry o f the 1950s and 1960s be said to be significantly in touch with the national life; the visitors were, on the whole, co n ten t to exploit their new setting rath er to explore it. In the periods im m ediately preceding what we have claim ed to be the m ost significant in term s o f a national cinem a in the two countries, there is little sense in which the cinem a m ight be said to have existed in eith er as a m outhpiece fo r the national life, in all its variousness and its recognizability. W hatever is happening in the cinem a in these two lead-up periods is about to be dramatically

superseded. In the films that follow, the sights and sounds and attitudes o f their country o f origin will be reflected, represented, scrutinized as never before in the film m aking history o f either. If it was the war which gave a new impetus to British cinem a, it is at least arguable that the m id-1970s flowering o f Australian cinem a may be seen as deriving from the new national pride and confi dence inculcated by the W hitlam Governm ent, which cam e to power at the end o f 1972. Australian nationalist feeling asserted itselfwith anew maturity (in withdrawing troops from the Vietnam War, for instance) in international affairs; at hom e, Labor-voting had becom e socially acceptable am ong younger people previ ously of, or from backgrounds of, m ore conservative orientation. Allegiance to Britain and British institutions was waning; royal visits no longer induced huge crowds o f enthusiastic monarchists, “God Save the Q u een ”was supplanted by “Advance Australia Fair” as the national anthem (except in the presence o f the Q ueen or h er representatives) and im perial honours were dropped feder ally in 1972. Interestingly, when the Liberal (that is, conservative) Party returned to power (1975-83), these honours were not restored and various Labor-governed states also dropped them in favour o f indigenous honours.

TAKING ON THE OPPOSITION: GOVERNMENTS INTERVENE O n a legislative as distinct from an artistic level, the attempts at creating a national cinem a in Britain and Australia have both required considerable governm ent intervention to prop them up. O n e hears o f President Roosevelt’s encouraging this or that U.S. film m aker towards an anti-isolationist stance - for exam ple, his praise for such films as Lady Ham ilton (Alexander Korda, 1941) and Mrs M iniver (William Wyler, 194219 - during the early days o f W orld W ar II, and in the late 1940s and early 1950s, o f course, the American governm ent (through the House UnAmerican Actitivies C om m ittee) intervened in dramatically negative ways in the Hollywood film industry. However, there is no com parable history o f the U.S. governm ent’s being besought or required to support the film industry. T h e governm ent was perfectly well aware o f the power and influence o f cinem a; but Am erican cinem a had es tablished its hegem onic position internationally long before W orld W ar II. B oth Britain and Australia, in the periods o f our concern particularly, have required regular intervention by governm ent or its instrum entalities, and no doubt those involved in the industry would claim that governm ent support has never been enough. Governm ent rhetoric in regard to cinem a has been partly cultural, partly econom ic in its emphasis. In Britain, although many o f the govem m entutterances had to do with the need to secure American markets and to impose taxes on Am erican film imports, one also finds cultural arguments [...]

(perhaps Great Expectations, 1946, and Picnic at H anging Rock, 1975, can serve as classic exam ples), A m erican films have b een able to tell stories that are both intelligible to uneducated audiences and richly textured enough to interest the educated. T h e class-bound theatrically-inclined films o f high British cinem a had a limited appeal for Am erican audiences, and the literariness o f m uch o f both British and Australian cinem a is well-removed from the consensually-aimed Am erican product. At their best, too, both high British and new Australian cinem a have offered films obvi ously ‘national’ in their orientation, which can som etim es give them a distinct appeal to limited audiences, whereas, in T om O ’R egan’s words, “Hollywood appears to be the only ‘national cinem a’ which is n ot a national cinem a. ”20T h e kinds o f Am erican films that have dom inated world markets have been powerfully narrative-driven, films organized on em otionally infallible m elo dramatic lines. In both Britain and Australia, there has always been contention about whether local films should rem ain rec ognizably indigenous or w hether they should consciously aim for the international. Attempts at the latter have usually failed. [...] As long as distributors and exhibitors rem ain - as they were in Britain in the 1940s-1950s and in Australia in the 1970s-1980s businessmen rather than artists or philanthropists, so can we expect them to rem ain deeply com m itted to box-office returns. If U.S. films continue to be the staple o f the com m ercial cinem a, there will continue to be relatively m eagre chances for local producers (and this situation is m uch worse now than it was for British producers in the 1940s and 1950s) either to win satisfactory local releases or to get their products shown on m ainstream U.S. screens. ■*1 NO TE S

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

W HY CAN’T BRITAIN OR AUSTRALIA COMPETE WITH HOLLYWOOD? T h e answers to this endlessly recurring problem are com plex and it is n ot our intention [in the book] to attem pt an exhaustive reply. However, what does seem certain is that the answers are both industrial and aesthetic: it is partly a m atter o f money, population and distribution; it is also a m atter o f what audiences have wanted to see. [...] Perhaps it is above all a m atter o f m oney for production and prom otion, m oney which is available in Am erica to launch and sell massively expensive enterprises. Lack o f money, and the inade quacy o f the local markets to sustain the local industry, may be crucial, but there is also a sense in which the U.S. industry has shown a m ore conscious awareness o f the m ixed nature o f its own population. W hereas British films o f the 1940s and 1950s, and Australian films o f the 1970s and 1980s, at their m ost visible, most prestigious, seem to be catering to a middle-class intelligentsia

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

For example, B u rk e & W ills (Graeme Clifford, 1985) and T h e L ighthorsem en (Simon Wincer, 1987). Andrew Higson, “The Concept of National Cinema”, Screen, Vol. 30, No. 4, Autumn 1989, p. 40. Recent books - such as Ina Bertrand (ed.), C in em a in A u stra lia : A D ocum entary History, University Press, Kensington, 1989, and Susan Dermody and Elizabeth Jacka, T h e S creen in g o f A u stra lia : Anatom y o f a Film In d u stry : Volum e 1, Currency Press, Sydney, 1987 - have given valuable accounts of the ‘industry’ aspects of Australian cinema. See David Bordwell, Jan et Staiger and Kristin Thompson, T h e Classical Hollywood C inem a, Columbia University Press, New York, 1985. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, “But Do We Need It?”, in Martin Auty and Nick Roddick (eds), British C inem a Now, British Film Institute, London, 1985, p. 152. Marcus Breen, LlR etu rn H om e", M etro, No. 83, Winter 1990, p. 11. Chris Noonan, from the Australian Film Commission, reiterated this context in a reply to a question on the Today show, broadcast on Channel Ten, 29 October 1990. T h e B ulletin, 1 May 1979. Interview with Pat Jackson, London, October 1989. Interview with Jack Lee, Sydney, October 1990. Ross Lansell, ‘T h e Dark Age”, in Lansell and Peter Beilby (eds), T h e D ocum entary F ilm in A u stralia , Cinema Papers in association with Film Victoria, 1982, p. 43. Interview with Geoff Brown, London, September 1989. Dilys Powell, “Films Since 1939”, in S in ce 1 9 3 9 , Readers’ Union and British Council, London, 1948, p. 83. See Denis Gifford, T h e B ritish F ilm C atalogue 1 8 9 5 - 1 9 7 0 , David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1973. Susan Dermody and Elizabeth Jacka, T h e S creen in g o f A u stra lia : A natom y o f a F ilm In d u stry : Volum e 1, Currency Press, Sydney, 1987, p. 77. Brian McFarlane, A u stra lia n C in em a 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 5 , Seeker and Warburg, London, 1986. Interview with Gordon Jackson, London, September 1989. Bruce Molloy, Before the Interval, The University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1990. See Colin Shindler, Hollywood Goes to W ar: F ilm s a n d A m erica n Society 1 9 3 9 - 5 2 , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1979, for a fuller treat ment of Roosevelt’s relations with cinema. Tom O ’Regan, “Bringing Together Text and Context: Why is Holly wood So Popular?” (unpublished paper), Murdoch University, June 1989.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 31

films from The Australian Film Commission offers a unique service to established international festivals seeking advice on new Australian film and television. From the latest in Australian feature film to documentary, short film, experim ental or video work, the AFC can provide information on individual titles including contact details for the rights holders and programming advice within specified subject categories and genres. The AFC also runs an international program of special Australian film and television events including critical overviews of Australian cinema, such as Le Cinema Australien organised in conjunction with the Centre Georges Pompidou in 1991, the Focus on Australian Cinema — Verona 1992 and a series of forthcoming Australian television events in selected Asian territories. For further information contact the Australian Film Commission at Cannes

Carlton Hotel, Ground Floor, Desk PB 08 or

Australian Sales office 8th Floor, Residence du Festival, 52 La Croisette Tel: 92 99 00 63

Australian Film Commission SYDNEY 8 Wèst Street North Sydney NSW Australia 2060 telephone 61.2. 925 7333 Facsimile 61.2.954 4001 EUROPE 2nd Floor Victory Flouse 99-101 Regent Street London WIR 7HB Telephone 44.71 734 9383 Facsimile 44.71.434 0170

• CINEMA

PAPERS

8Ì8

B ER LIN A N D R O TTE R D A M FILM F E S TIV A LS R E P O R T

BERLIN

PA U L

K A L I N A

poverished East. The Berlin Film Festival

seater shuttle buses and standard Berlin

hasn’t emerged unscathed; mutterings

buses. Located in the middle of the

Berlin gears itself to

about budget cuts and limited resources

Tiergarten, the Congress Centre is not

become the proud

were, for the first time perhaps, to be heard

reachable by Berlin’s highly efficient U-

capitol of the reuni

around the traps of this year’s Festival.

Bahn.

fied Germany, it is somewhat ironic that its Nonetheless, the most obvious com

Far more important, however, this year’s

cultural and artistic institutions face then-

plaints at this year’s Berlinale concerned

programme did litde to quell the growing

most crucial moment. For decades, both

the quality of the films and, to a lesser

criticism over the quality and standard of

parts of the divided city thrived on special

degree, the policy (first introduced last

films selected for the Berlin Competition.

privileges, the West German government

year) that sees the press corps of more than

The predominance of big-budget, main

having pumped billions of deutsche marks

3000 exiled to the Congress Centre. For the

stream American films has long been a

into the city in a bid to lure business to the

press, the move has many advantages, from

contentious issue, and this year’s inclusion

isolated outpost. Cultural organizations

less crowding (a benefit to the rest of the

of ten American films, including Barry

were similarly gladhanded, Berlin being

festival guests, too) to the convenience of

Levinson’s Bugsy, Nicholas Meyer’s Star Trek

home to generously-funded film, music

not having to queue for tickets. The prob

VI - The Undiscovered Country and Martin

and theatre festivals. A system of grants

lems, however, begin with the fact that

Scorsese’s Cape Fear (which had already

also ensured that many filmmakers and

while the Competition is screened in its

been released throughout Europe bar Ger

artists from various parts of the globe came

entirety here, only a selection of Panorama

many, where it opened within days of the

films are screened and the Forum pro

Festival closing), drew the expected pro

An immediate effect of reunification

gramme had some inexplicable omissions,

tests. Festival director Moritz de Handeln’s

has seen a cut of 11 per cent in Berlin’s

such as Luc Moullet’s latest film, La Cabale

response relied on the standard explana

cultural budget (according to a recent arti

tion that the inclusion of these films re-

to work in the city.

cle in A rt In America), the result not only of

des O ursins, and David and Judith MacDougall’s Photo Wallahs. The problems

more ‘rationalized’ allocations, but also the

continue when the screenings end, when

THROUGH LIFE W ITH O U T A DESTINATION. PAUL SCHRADER'S

considerable costs of revitalizing the im

hundreds of people try to pile into nine-

LIGHT SLEEPER.

ABOVE: JO H N LETOUR (WILLEM DAFOE), A LONER DRIFTING

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 33

BELOW: JP (BRUNO G A N Z ) AN D VICKI (KERRY FOX) IN GILLIAN ARM STRONG'S THE LAST DAYS O F CHEZ N O US , W HICH WAS S H O W N IN COMPETITION A T BERLIN. LEFT: FÉLICIE (CHARLOTTE VÉRY) IN ERIC ROHMER'S CONTE D'HIVER.

trait of fhi-desiècle America looks back nos talgically and disappointedly at the failed hopes of the 1970s and early ’80s. Rohmer, too, is one of those directors finely cued into the fabric of contemporary life, though his characters’ search for fulfil ment usuallytranspires somewhere between the ‘impossible’ ending of a fairy-tale and an equallyimpossible meeting on a crowded Paris street. The second instalment in the “Contes des Quatre Saisons” (Tales of Four Seasons) centres on a young woman, Félicie (Charlotte Véry), who singlehandedly raises Elise (AvaLoraschi), alove child from her brief affaire years earlier with Charles (Frédéric van den Driessche). Though she is still obsessed by Charles, she whiles away her solace in the arms of her fleets the public’s longing to see well-crafted

Gas Food Lodging.

two well-meaning but inadequate lovers -

American films. On the other hand, the

In many ways, Light Sleeper is a re-in

echoes of the unforgettable Louise (Pascale

critics seem to be quite unable to distance

vention of Schrader’s script of Scorsese’s

themselves from a brand of outdated,

Taxi Driver, reprising in to to whole se

Ogier) of Les nuits de lapleine lune {FullMoon In Paris). Counting down the days to the

vaguely left-wing and decidedly anti-Ameri

quences from that seminal film of 1970s

newyear, the film indelibly motions toward its obvious and inevitable ‘moment of truth’,

can politics that equally evades the key

urban life. The garbage has still not been

issue; after all, does it necessarily matter if

cleared from the streets, and John LeTour

a contrivance as plainly obvious as it is

a lousy film selected for the high-profile

(Willem Dafoe, in a marvellously-controlled

tantalizing and wondrous. Rohmer buffs

Competition is American, American-but-

performance), like Travis Bickle, contin

are certain to find this among the most

shot-in-Canada or a Europudding?

ues his search for a purpose, a body to

beautiful films of the master (though arti

Australiaheld a reasonably high profile

inhabit, a scheme that will reveal to him

san is maybe a better word).

throughout the Festival. Three films were

life’s elusive meaning. Anxiety and quiet

Perhaps the closest audiences came to

in the official programmes: The Last Days

desperation, rather than guns and para

discovering new filmmaking talents was

O fChez Nous (directed by GillianArmstrong

noia, are the names of the game this time

with Gas Food Lodging (along with Tom

from a script by Helen Gamer) in Compe

around. Though the lyrics of Michael Been’s

Kalin’s Swoon in Forum ). Based on the novel

tition; and Dennis O’Rourke’s The Good

moody ballads lend the film an all-too-

Don’tLook audit Won ’i/TwribyRichardPeck,

Woman O f Bangkok and David and Judith MacDougall’s overlooked Photo Wallahs in

obvious literalness (Schrader originally

the film is an account of the trials of three

hoped to use songs of Bob Dylan), it is a

women, a mother and her two teenage

Foru m . Beyond In tern ation al took

gentle yet powerfully affecting journey to

daughters, in their search for intimacy and

Spotswood, The Girl Who Came Late (now

the inner life of a character who is as

companionship amid a world of men who

Daydream Believer) and Deadly to the mar

sympathetic as he is tragic. As in his best

generally cause more problems than they

ket. Although Australian films failed to win

work, Schrader really knows howto tap into

solve. It is set in Laramie, New Mexico, a

any of the official awards, the unofficial

the Zeitgeist of contemporary life; his por-

dreamy, timeless zone somewhere between

prize for the Festival’s most heavily mar

the 1950s and the ’90s, the hard reality of

keted film was surely won by Cynthia Con-

truck-stop diners and the other-worldliness

nop’s documentary Sacred Sex, which was

of an Anthony Mann film. The film depicts

conspicuously promoted byway of posters

American working-class life with a frank

and press advertisements. So strong was

ness and authenticity that avoids self-pity

demand that additional market screenings

and typically middle-class ‘concerns’, all

were scheduled; female nudity coupled

the while opting for a somewhat romanti

with the suggestion of ‘respectable’ soft-

cized view of the ‘sensitive ’80s man’. The

pom obviously go a long way in the market

film’s greatest triumph, despite some rough

ing of films.

edges, is its adherence to the perspectives

Overlooked by the Festival jury were a

of its female characters, and its loyalty to

few of the more interesting Competition

the ‘space’ of women’s stories and experi

films, such as Eric Rohmer’s Conte d ’H iver

ences (unlike, say, afilmlike Lizzie Borden’s

(A Winter’s Tale), Paul Schrader’s Light

Love Crimes, which addresses the perspec

Sleeper and Alison Anders’ feature debut,

tive of its female protagonist in a singularly

• CINEMA

PAPERS

masculine language). Not unexpectedly, the Forum pro gramme provided the Festival’s more excit ing moments, most notably so with Leos Carax’s dazzling Les amants du Pont-Neuf. This is cinema at its most extreme: obses sive, daring, passionate, unrestrained and excessive (the very words that most review ers have used to damn it; funny how these same reviewers nostalgically revere a figure like Orson Welles for these very tenden cies. ) Carax situates his tale of amourfou at the extremities of human behaviour. In this case, the desperate longing of a derelict, Alex (Denis Lavant), to possess the near blind Michele (Juliette Binoche) turns to cruelty and violence when it becomes evi dent that Michele’s blindness is reversible.

ous Leopold and Loeb. For those new to

their ‘performance’), and disregarding

Carax recreated the massive Pont-N euf

the topic, Nathan Leopold and Richard

completely psychological explanations or

and river Seine outside Paris (it is easy to

Loeb were the brilliant, precocious Jewish

historical verisimilitude. In this way, Kalin

see where the film’s rumoured budget of

teenagers who in 1924 kidnapped and mur

questions the whole notion of history, how

U.S.$20 million was spent), which serve as

dered Bobby Franks, a friend of Loeb’s

it is interpreted and the representation of

more than a mere backdrop to the fanciful

young brother (they originally intended to

‘deviancy’. The implicit suggestion that

follies that Carax delivers. Rarely seen in

kidnap the brother). The investigation and

Leopold and Loeb’s ‘condition’ cannot be

contemporary cinema (or any other era for

subsequent trial proved even more sensa

grasped through traditional, patriarchal

that matter) are montage sequences as fe

tional than their crime; it evolved that the

rationalism is as potent as it is challenging

verish (and terrifying) as those here. Not

pair had a bizarre relationship where sexual

and provocative.

since the prime of Samuel Fuller has a film

favours were exchanged for criminal activi

Also screened in Forum was Chen

traded in such raw, undistilled energy and

ties, and that they had a near symbiotic

Kaige’s spectacular Bian zou bian chang (Life

primitive emotions, the ultimate purpose

telepathic rapport. Their defense lawyer,

on a String). A seamlessly bound, timeless

of which seems not so much to seduce the

the infamous Clarence Darrow (whom Or

parable of love, wisdom, sacrifice and age

audience but to confront, surprise, shock.

son Welles impersonated in Richard

- a blind sage’s young apprentice must

Sadly for local audiences, the word

Fleischer’s Compulsion, 1959), failed to dis

choose between his master’s prophetic vi

around the traps is that a hefty asking price

tinguish between their homosexuality and

sion and his own, more humble aspirations

(no doubt aresult of the costly production)

pathological abnormality. Rather than ‘fry

- this is epic and spectacular filmmaking in

will possibly make it commercially unviable

ing5, they were sentenced to 30-year gaol

its truest sense. Chen’s precise and fluid

for a market the size of Australia’s; let’s

sentences. Loeb died in gaol, but Leopold

direction foregrounds the touching human

hope, however, that an enterprising dis

survived.

story, refusing to allow the grand-scale of

tributor will take a gamble with this one.

Kalinhas bravely chosen to ‘reconstruct’

the narrative to dwarf the intimate human elements.

Directed and co-produced (with Poison

the event in non-conventional cinematic

producer Christine Vachon) by Tom Kalin,

forms, relying on moody, sensuous black-

Swoon is a stylish and fanciful, though at

and-white photography, looping and

ABOVE: IONE SKYE, FAIRUZA BALK AND BROOKE ADAMS IN

times somewhat amorphic, recreation of

arhythmic performances (it is as if he uses

ALISON ANDERS' GAS FOOD LODGING. BELOW: (LEFT) THE NEAR

the events surrounding two of Chicago’s

the part of the take where the actors were

favourite lovers and murderers: the notori

getting ready for, or coming down from,

BLIND MICHELE (JULIETTE BINOCHE) AND ALEX (DENIS LAVANT) IN LEOS CARAX'S LES AM ANTS DU PONT-NEUF. (RIGHT) TOM KALIN'S SW O O N , BASED O N THE CASE OF LEOPOLD AND LOEB.

Also in Forum, The Party - Nature Morte

It was also possible at Rotterdam to

BARRY SHILS' ENDLESSLY INVENTIVE ROAD-MOVIE, M OTORAM A

is a loosely-knit, elliptical chamber-piece

take a crash course in the filmmaking ca

that uses the occasion of a cocktail party to

reer of Kitano Takeshi. He is a media

already lends Nikaloi Dostal’s superb

recount the tenuous relationship of its hosts,

superstar in his native Japan (where he is

Oblako-raj (Cloud Heaven) a poignant nos

played by Féodor Atkine and the marvel

known as “Beat” Takeshi) and has acted in

talgia. An exemplary instance of parabolic

lously tempestuous Tilda Swinton. Directed

many films, most memorably playing the

storytelling, this ‘light entertainment’ about

by Cynthia Beate, it is Elfi Mikesch’s sensu

role of the gruff, sadistic Sergeant O’Hara

a young man who dreams of one day leaving

ous and moody black-and-white photogra

in Nagisa Oshima’s Merry Christmas, M r

his home in the dull, depressed suburbs of

phy that really makes this film memorable

Lawrence. In only three films, he has carved

Moscow is a touching, moving and deeply

in spite of its many self-consciously ‘arty5

out a highly individualistic set of thematic

affecting portrait of that unbridgeable gap

moves.

concerns and a striking directorial style.

between what is and what might be.

ROTTERDAM

His first film, Sono otoko kyobo ni tsuki

If there’s a film that stands out in the

( Warning! Thus M an Is Wild', aka Violent Cop),

rarified, ‘sophisticated’ aura of a film festi

is a variation on the standard vigilante cop

val, it is Bany Shils’ endlessly inventive

it were a less-than-optimum

movie, with Takeshi in the main role as the

road-movie Motorama. Based on a neuroti

year for new films at Berlin,

violent, wild-card cop whose uncomprising,

cally restless screenplay by After Hours' Joe

the Rotterdam Film Festival

if unorthodox, moral principles ostracize

Minion, it is an irreverent, hilarious yet

compensated with a host of overlooked him from his colleagues. He played only a

bleak trip through the dark recesses of

and underplayed recent films from around

small role in his next film, 3 4 x Jugatsu

American consumerism. Shils’ apprentice

the globe. Judging from the fact that only

(Boiling Point, though it is in fact a thor

ship in the rough and tumble of Larry

one Chantal Akerman film has played in

oughly untranslatable title that refers to

Cohen filmmaking is clearly evident in the

Australia during the past fewyears (.Histoires

baseball scores), disappearing completely

kooky journey of a ten-year-old boy who

d ’A mérique, screened at the 1990 Sydney

behind the camera for his latest film, A Scene

sets out in a stolen car to collect “Mo

Film Festival), one could be excused for

at the Sea. The story here of a mute boy’s

torama” tokens. Like an episode from the

thinking that she had stopped making films.

obsession for surfing is an ideal vehicle for

life of a not-too-distant Bart Simpson, Mo

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Takeshi’s continuing fascination with char

torama?s frame of reference is largely that

Her latest film, N uit etJour (Night and Day),

acters whom society considers to be ‘un

of pop culture: the wild energy of heavy

is one of the most sumptuous, visually

derdogs’, who nonetheless overcome the

metal, the anything-goes of cartoons, the

refined and sensuous films of Akerman’s

cruel obstacles they find in their paths. As

hilarious violence o f ‘Itchy & Scratchy’, the

career. A glorious chronicle of young lov

well, the subject particularly suits the lei

characters o f long-forgotten television

ers, the ingenuous plot centres on a woman

surely, casual rhythms of Takeshi’s direc

shows (see if you can identify the nuinerous

living two half-lives or one complete life. By

tion, which prefers to use action, long takes

walk-in cameos). Would it be crass to sug

day, and then by night, she meets with her

and deep frames to convey meaning.

gest that film festivals today need a few

two lovers, who work alternative shifts as

cinema in what used to be the Soviet Union

taxi drivers. 36

• CINEMA

Grim speculation about the future of

PAPERS

more films like this?

°"

toi ^>aZ

A\sAerC "TÔ°s

. . ** • > & * <

3 x0^ ^

;

» o '* "

CONTACT:

•••" p U^g

« 5k S ^ , rrVOQ

^M a jestic Hotel Arcade ♦ 53 -55 Brisbane Street The y^jëétic HotéF2f|àf^§URRY HILLS La Croisette 11 Sydney NSW 20$f, CÂNNES Ph: (33) 93 94 53 95 or (33) 93 94 53 96 Fax: (33) 93 94 53 98

PH: (612) 281 1266 Fax: (612) 281 9 2 »

♦ 1875 Century Park East Suite 1300 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 Ph: (1)310 785 2255 Fax: (1) 310 785 2260

♦ Orchard House Adam & Eve Mews 167-169 Kensington High Street LONDON W8 6SH Ph: (44) 71 937 7337 Fax: (44) 71 938 3162 CINEMA

PAPERS

• 37

WIM W EN DER S INTERVIEWED BY ANA MARIA BAHIANA

cross fifteen cities in eight countries and four continents, a woman chases a man* The woman, Claire (Solveig Dommartin), is both fascinated, intrigued and irritated by the man, Sam (W illiam H urt), who apparently is On industrial spy and who may or may not have robbed something that she had — and that, after all, she didn’t own. They finally meet In the Australian outback, while the rest of the world Is, apparently , in the throes of apocalypse, thanks to a stray nuclear satellite. In the outback there is a new world to replace the dying one: a world of images and dreams, conjured by a scientist (M ax Von Sydow ) in his life-long quest to offer the gift of sight to his blind wife (Jeanne Moreau). There, Claire and Sam must proceed on a journey of their own, through a dream world, a world more awesome and dangerous than the moribund Earth of 1999. “It’s the ultim ate road m ovie”, says Wenders with a broad smile. “I always wanted to make one like th is.”

Until the End o f the World

enders was briefly in Los Angeles in early D ecem b er to help launch Until the E n d o f the World, a film that, besides the presence ofW illiam H u r t- a sure fire asset with Am erican au d ien ces-h as the added bonus o fa n astonishingly hip soundtrack, to which th elik eso fU 2, P eter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Lou Reed and REM , am ong others, have contributed their talents. T h re e m onths later, though, true to Hollywood’s prophecy o f W enders as a “difficult” and “artsy” director, Until the E n d o f the W orldhas amassed an unimpressive am ount o f n ear U .S.$700,000 at the Am erican box-office, its delicate, com pelling visions crushed by the mega-bucks battle between holiday godzillas like Hook, Prince o f Tides and Beauty an d the B east N ot that W enders really cares: after five “exhausting years in Los Angeles ”, he ’s back in Germ any for good, and defines himself, unmistakenly, as “an European film maker. Better yet, I ’m all over the p lace”, h e says. “I travel a lot. I like to travel, and n ot only for the sake o f this film. A big part o f my life is reading and listening to m usic and travelling. It’s still a big world out th ere.”

Was the primary springboard for your film the deep-rooted fear people have always had, but which seemed to grow in the 1950s, that the end of the world is imminent? Risking to disappointyou, I thought that if this story o f the nuclear satellite were happening, and generating anxiety, it was because the people had no inform ation and ju s t im agined a worldwide catastrophe. B u t yes, I think we have been so m uch afraid, especially since the 1950s and all through the ’60s and ’70s, that nuclear disaster may be in our future. And maybe the m ore dangerous disaster is one that happens n o t with n uclear weapons bu t inside our minds. In away, these people [in the film ] survived that nuclear disaster rath er well, bu t they do n o t survive the nuclear bom b which is going into their brains.

What kind of bomb is that? 40

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Images. W hen I thought o f doing a science-fiction film, I saw it in the really-near future. T h e aspect that I was m ost interested in was what will happen to our whole visual culture. W e are all so aware o f the fact that we’re living in a tim e where the imagery around us is ju s t exploding. O ur lives over the past ten to twenty years have been so m uch taken over by the developm ent o f all the images around us. N obody’s going to stop this avalanche o f images and I felt that I wanted to translate it into som e sort o f m etaphor. W e’ve gotten used to all the violence getting out o f hand. W e’ve gotten used to even our m ost intim ate life, which is our sexual life, being exposed on images. W here would they go in the future? W here can they go? W hat is the last fron tier for images? W ith all the technology at their disposal, I thought that the last territory they could gain was the characters’ minds, their m ost interior images, their dreams and m em ories. I took that m ore or less for a m etaphor.

Given that images and dreams were the primary trigger, how did you evolve the project from there? Until the E n d o f the World had two different beginnings, the first in 1977 when I travelled to Australia. I en countered an incredibly ancient, gigantic empty land and an Aboriginal people who have been living there for 4 0 ,0 0 0 years in a m ore or less u nchanged way. I started to write a story that only took place there. It basically dealt with the nuclear catastrophe and an underground laboratory where this m an was trying to show these images to his blind wife. T h e movie started a second time when Solveig and I wrote a story that was vaguely based on the idea o f what would happen if The Odyssey, the oldest story known to m ankind, were seen from a wom an’s point o f view. I m ean, P enelope would certainly n o t stay hom e and wait for Ulysses to com e back; she would get on the n ext plane. So we tried to tell a love story that was the reversal o f The Odyssey, where Penelop e followed Ulysses, trying to get him back hom e. And while we were thinking about this, and writing a love story and road movie, we also returned to Australia, where the whole other

â&#x2013; . .:

FLOOR

12,

8 NAPIERSTREET,

BACK ISSUES:

CINEMA

PAPERS

NUMBER 1 (JANUARY 1974):

NUMBER 22 (JULY/AUG 1979)

NUMBER 42 (MARCH 1983)

David Williamson, Ray Harryhausen, Peter W eir, Antony Ginnane, Gillian Armstrong, Ken G. Hall, The Cars that Ate Paris.

Bruce Petty, Luciana Arrighi, Albie Thom s, Stax, Alison’s Birthday

Mel G ibson, John Waters, Ian Pringle, Agnes Varda, copyright, Strikebound, The

NUMBER 2 (APRIL 1974):

Brian Trenchard-Sm ith, Ian Holmes, Arthur Hiller, Jerzy Toeplitz, Brazilian cinema, H arlequin.

Censorship, Frank M oorhouse, Nicolas R oeg, Sandy H arbutt, Film under Allende,

Between The Wars, Alvin Purple NUMBER 3 (JULY 1974): Richard Brennan, John Papadopolous, Willis O ’Brien, William Friedkin, The True

Story O f Eskimo Nell. NUMBER 10 (SEPT/OCT 1976) Nagisa Oshima, Philippe M ora, Krzysztof Zanussi, M arco Ferreri, M arco Belloochio, gay cinema.

NUMBER 24 (DEC/JAN 1980)

Man Prom Snowy River. NUMBER 43 (MAY/JUNE 1983) Sydney Pollack, Denny Lawrence, Graeme Clifford, The Dismissal, C areful He Might

H ear Ton. NUMBER 25 (FEB/MARCH 1980) David Puttnam, Janet Strickland, Everett de Roche, Peter Faiman, Chain Reaction,

Stir.

The Bridge.

Stockade, Waterfront, The Boy In The Bush,A Woman Suffers, Street Hero.

Picture Show Man. NUMBER 12 (APRIL 1977)

NUMBER 28 (AUG/SEPT 1980)

Ken Loach, T om Haydon, Donald Sutherland, B ert Deling, Piero Tosi, John Dankworth, John Scott, Days O f Hope,

Bob Godfrey, Diane Kurys, Tim Burns, John O ’Shea, Bruce Beresford, Bad

Timing, Roadgames.

Paul C ox, Russell Mulcahy, Alan J. Pakula, Robert Duvall, Jeremy Irons, Eureka

NUMBER 47 (AUGUST 1984) Richard Lowenstein, Wim Wenders, David Bradbury, Sophia Turkiewicz, Hugh Hudson, Robbery Under Arms.

NUMBER 48 (OCT/NOV 1984) Ken Cam eron, Michael Pattinson, Jan Sardi, Yoram Gross, Bodyline, The Slim

Dusty Movie.

The Getting O f Wisdom. NUMBER 29 (OCT/NOV 1980) NUMBER 13 ( JULY 1977) Louis M alle, Paul C ox, John Power, Jeanine Seawell, Peter Sykes, Bernardo Bertolucci, In Search O f A nna.

NUMBER 14 (OCTOBER 1977) Phil Noyce, M att Carroll, Eric Rohm er, Terry Jackm an, John H uston, Lu ke’s

Kingdom, The Last Wave, Blue Lire Lady.

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

NUMBER 49 (DECEMBER 1984) Alain Resnais, Brian M cKenzie, Angela Punch M cG regor, Ennio M orricone, Jane Campion, horror films, N iel Lynne.

NUMBER 36 (FEBRUARY 1982) Kevin D obson, Brian Kearney, Sonia Hofmann, Michael R ubbo, Blow Out,

NUMBER 50 (FEB/MARCH 1985)

Breaker Morant, Body H eat, The Man Prom Snowy River.

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

NUMBER 15 (JANUARY 1978)

NUMBER 37 (APRIL 1982)

NUMBER 51 (MAY 1985)

T om Cowan, Truffaut, John Faulkner, Stephen Wallace, the Taviani brothers, Sri Lankan film, C hant O f Jim m ie Blacksmith.

Stephen M acLean, Jacki Weaver, Carlos Saura, Peter Ustinov, women in drama,

Lino Brocka, Harrison Ford, Noni Hazlehurst, Dusan Makavejev, Emoh Ruo,

Monkey Grip.

NUMBER 16 ( APRIL-JUNE 1978)

NUMBER 38 (JUNE 1982)

Gunnel Lindblom , John Duigan, Steven Spielberg, T om Jeffrey, The A frica Project, Swedish cinema, Dawn!, Patrick.

G eoff Burrowes, George Miller, James Ivory, Phil Noyce, Joan Fontaine, Tony Williams, law and insurance, Par

Winners, The N aked Country, M ad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, Robbery Under Arms.

NUMBER 17 (AUG/SEPT 1978) Bill Bain, Isabelle Huppert, Brian May, Polish cinema, Newsfront, The Night The

Prowler. NUMBER 18 (OCT/NOV 1978) John Lam ond, Sonia B org, Alain Tanner, Indian cinema, Dimboola, Cathy’s Child.

NUMBER 19 (JAN/FEB 1979) Antony Ginnane, Stanley Hawes, Jeremy Thom as, Andrew Sarris, sponsored documentaries, Blue Lin.

NUMBER 20 (MARCH-APRIL 1979) Ken Cam eron, Claude Lelouch, Jim Sharman, French film, My B rillian t

Career.

NUMBER 52 (JULY 1985)

East.

John Schlesinger, Gillian Armstrong, Alan Parker, soap operas, T V News, film advertising, D on’t C all Me Girlie, Lor

NUMBER 39 (AUGUST 1982)

Love Alone, Double Sculls.

Helen M orse, Richard Mason, Anja Breien, David Millikan, Derek Granger, Norwegian cinema, National Film Archive, We O f The Never Never.

End Drive-In, The More Things Change, Kangaroo, Tracy. NUMBER 58 (JULY 1986)

NUMBER 46 (JULY 1984)

Randal Kleiser, Peter Yeldham, Donald Richie, obituary o f H itchcock, N Z film industry, G rendel Grendel Grendel.

Fred Schepisi, Dennis O ’Rourke, Brian Trenchard-Sm ith, John Hargreaves, Dead-

Woody Allen, Reinhard Hauff, Orson Welles, the Cinémathèque Française, The

Charles H. Joffe, Jerom e Heilman, Malcolm Sm ith, Australian nationalism, Japanese cinema, Peter W eir, W ater Under

NUMBER 27 (JUNE-JULY 1980)

NUMBER 56 (MARCH 1986)

David Stevens, Simon Wincer, Susan Lam bert, a personal history o f Cinema

Papers, Street Kids.

Emile De A ntonio, Jill R obb, Samuel Z. ArkofF, Rom an Polanski, Saul Bass, The

H an d Man, Birdsville.

NUMBER 44-45 (APRIL 1984)

NUMBER 26 (APRIL/MAY 1980)

NUMBER 11 (JANUARY 1977)

Thom pson, Paul Verhoeven, Derek Meddings, tie-in marketing, The Right-

NUMBER 53 (SEPTEMBER 1985) Bryan Brown, Nicolas R oeg, Vincent Ward, H ector Crawford, Em ir Kusturica, New Zealand film and television, Return

Fringe Dwellers, Great Expectations: The Untold Story, The Last Frontier. NUMBER 59 (SEPTEMBER 1986) Robert Altman, Paul C ox, Lino Brocka, Agnes Varda, T he AFI Awards, The

Movers. NUMBER 60 (NOVEMBER 1986) Australian Television, Franco Zeffirelli, Nadia Tass, Bill B ennett, Dutch Cinema, Movies By Microchip, Otello.

NUMBER 61 (JANUARY 1987) Alex C ox, Roman Polanski, Philippe M ora, Martin Armiger, film in South Australia, Dogs In Space, Howling III.

NUMBER 62 (MARCH 1987) Screen Violence, David Lynch, Cary Grant, ASSA conference, production barom eter, film finance, The Story O f

The Kelly Gang. NUMBER 63 (MAY 1987) Gillian Armstrong, Antony Ginnane, Chris Haywood, Elmore Leonard, Troy Kennedy Martin, The Sacrifice, Landslides,

Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Jilted. NUMBER 64 (JULY 1987) Nostalgia, Dennis Hopper, Mel Gibson, Vladimir Osherov, Brian TrenchardSm ith, Chartbusters, Insatiable.

NUMBER 65 (SEPTEMBER 1987) Angela Carter, Wim W enders, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Derek Jarman, Gerald L ’Ecuyer, Gustav Hasford, A FI Awards, Poor M an’s

Orange. NUMBER 66 (NOVEMBER 1987) Australian Screenwriters, Cinema and China, James Bond, James Clayden, Video, De Laurentiis, New W orld, The

NUMBER 40 (OCTOBER 1982)

To Eden.

Henri Safran, Michael R itchie, Pauline Kael, Wendy H ughes, Ray Barrett, My

NUMBER 54 (NOVEMBER 1985)

D inner With Andre, The Return O f C aptain Invincible.

Graeme Clifford, B ob Weis, John Boorm an, Menahem Golan, rock videos,

NUMBER 41 (DECEMBER 1982)

Wills A n d Burke, The Great Bookie Robbery, The Lancaster M iller A ffair.

Igor Auzins, Paul Schrader, Peter Tam m er, Liliana Cavani, Colin Higgins,

John Duigan, George M iller, Jim Jarmusch, Soviet cinema- Part I, women in film, shooting in 70m m , filmmaking in Ghana, The T ear My Voice Broke,

NUMBER 55 (JANUARY 1986)

Send A Gorilla.

The T ear O f Living Dangerously.

James Stewart, D ebbie Byrne, Brian

Navigator, Who’s That Girl. NUMBER 67 (JANUARY 1988)

BACK OF BEYOND DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION

LIM IT ED N U M B E R o f th e b eau tifu lly

designed catalogues especially prepared for

the 1988 season of Australian film and

television at the UCLA film and television

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

Australia. Edited by Scott Murray, and with exten sively researched articles by several of Australia’s leading writers on film and television, such as Kate Sands, Women o f the Wave; Ross Gibson, Form ative NUMBER 68 (MARCH 1988)

NUMBER 80 (AUGUST 1990)

Martha Ansara, Channel 4 , Soviet Cinema, Jim M cBride, Glamour, Ghosts O f The

Cannes report, Fred Schepisi career interview, Peter Weir and Grecncard , Pauline Chan, Gus Van Sant and Drugstore Cowboy, German Stories.

Civil Dead, Feathers, Ocean, Ocean. NUMBER 69 (MAY 1988) Special Cannes issue, film composers, sex, death and family films, Vincent Ward, Luigi Acquisto, David Parker, production barom eter, Ian Bradley, Pleasure Domes.

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

NUMBER 71 (JANUARY 1989) Yahoo Serious, David Cronenberg, The Year in Retrospect, Film Sound , Young

Einstein, Shout, The Last Temptation o f Christ, Salt Saliva Sperm and Sweat NUMBER 72 (MARCH 1989) Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit, Australian Sci-Fi movies, Survey: 19 8 8 Mini-Series, Aromarama, Ann Turner’s C elia , Fellini’s La dolce vita, W om en and Westerns

NUMBER 73 (MAY 1989) Cannes Issue, Phil Noyce’s D ead Calm, Franco N ero, Jane Campion, Ian Pringle’s The Prisoner o f St. Petersburg, Frank Pierson - Scriptwriter, Australian films at Cannes, Pay T V .

NUMBER 74 (JULY 1989) The Delinquents, Australians in Holly wood, Chinese Cinema, Philippe Mora, Yuri Sokol, Twins, True Believers, Ghosts... o f the Civil Dead, Shame screenplay.

NUMBER 75 (SEPTEMBER 1989) Sally Bongers, T he Teen Movie, A nim ated , Edens Lost, Mary Lambert and Pet Sematary, Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader, Ed Pressman.

NUMBER 76 (NOVEMBER 1989) Sim on W incer and Quigley Down Under, Kennedy Miller, Terry Hayes, Bangkok H ilton , John Duigan, Flirting, Romero , Dennis Hopper and Kiefer Sutherland, Frank Howson, Ron Cobb.

NUMBER 77 (JANUARY 1990) Special John Farrow profile, Blood Oath, Dennis W hitburn and Brian Williams, D on M cLennan and Breakaway, “Crocodile” Dundee overseas.

NUMBER 78 (MARCH 1990) George Ogilvie’s The Crossing, Ray Argali’s Return H om e , Peter Greenaway and The Cook...etc, Michel Cim ent, Bangkok H ilton and Barlow an d Chambers

NUMBER 81 (DECEMBER 1990) Ian Pringle Isabelle Eberhardt, Jane Campion An Angel A t My Table, Martin Scorsese Goodfellas, Alan J. Pakula Presumed Innocent NUMBER 82 (MARCH 1991) Francis Ford Coppola The Godfather Part I I I , Barbet Schroeder Reversal o f Fortune , Bruce Beresford’s Black Robe , Ramond Hollis Longford, Backsliding , Bill Bennetts, Sergio Corbucci obituary.

NUMBER 83 (MAY 1991) Australia at Cannes, Gillian Armstrong: The Last Days a t Chez Nous, Joathan Demme: The Silence o f the Lambs, Flynn, D ead To The World , Marke Joffe’s Spotswood, Anthony Hopkins

NUMBER 84 (AUGUST 1991) James Cameron: Term inator 2: Judgm ent Day, Dennis O ’Rourke: The Good Woman o f Bangkok, Susan Dermody: Breathing Under Water , Cannes report, FFC. NUMBER 85 (NOVEMBER 1991) Jocelyn Moorhouse: Proof, Blake Edwards: Switch ; Callie Khouri: Thelma Louise, Independent Exhibition and Distribution in Australia, F F C Part II.

NUMBER 86 (JANUARY 1992) Overview o f Australian film: Romper Stomper, The Nostradamus K id , Greenkeeping, Eightball; plus Kathryn Bigelow, H D T V and Super 16.

NUMBER 87 (MARCH 1992) Multi-Cultural Cinema, Steven Spielberg and Hook, George Negus filming The R ed Unknown, Richard Lowenstein Say a Little Prayer, Jewish Cinema. ■

Landscapes; Debi Enker, Cross-over and Collaboration: Kennedy M iller, Scott Murray, George M iller, Scott

Murray, Terry Hayes; Graeme Turner, M ixing Fact and Fiction; Michael Leigh, C uriouser and Curiouser;

Adrian Martin, N u rtu rin g the N ext Wave. The Back o f Beyond Catalogue is lavishly illus trated with more than 130 photographs, indexed, and has full credit listings for some 80 films. PRICE: $ 2 4 .9 5 , including postage and packaging.

CINEMA PAPERS SUBSCRIPTION

^INTERNATIONAL RATES

I wish to subscribe for □

6 issues at $ 2 8 .0 0

□

1 2 issues at $ 5 2 .0 0

□

Zone 1:

18 issues at $ 7 8 .5 0

my subscription from the next issue

Price per copy

Surface

3 6 .0 0

6 5 .0 0

9 7 .0 0

1 .8 0

Air

4 8 .0 0

9 0 .0 0

1 3 6 .0 0

3 .3 5

Surface

Malaysia

3 6 .0 0

6 5 .0 0

9 7 .0 0

1 .8 0

Fiji

Air

Singapore

4 2 .0 0

7 7 .0 0

1 1 6 .0 0

3 .2 0

Surface

Hong Kong

3 6 .0 0

6 9 .0 0

1 0 2 .0 0

1 .8 0

India

Air

Japan

5 9 .0 0

1 1 2 .0 0

1 6 8 .0 0

5 .1 5

China Zone 4:

□

Add to

Philippines

1. BACK OF BEYOND: DISCOVERING AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION I wish to order

Back Issues

3 Years

Air

Zone 3:

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

18 Issues

2 Years

New Zealand

Zone 2:

Total Cost

12 Issues

1 Year

Niugini

Please □ begin □ renew

6 Issues

no. o f copies

$ 2 4 .9 5 per copy (Includes Postage)

Surface

USA

3 7 .0 0

6 7 .0 0

1 0 1 .0 0

2 .4 0

Canada

Air

Middle East

6 5 .0 0

1 2 5 .0 0

1 8 7 .0 0

6 .2 0

Surface

Total Cost $ Zone 5:

2. BACK ISSUES

UK/Europe

3 7 .0 0

6 8 .0 0

1 8 7 .0 0

2 .4 0

Africa

Air

South America

7 1 .0 0

1 3 6 .0 0

2 0 5 .0 0

7 .2 0

I wish to order the following back issues □

CIN EM A PA PERS Issue nos.

FILL OUT AND MAI L NOW □ FILM V IEW S Issue nos. N A M E ____ □

1 -2 copies @ $ 4 .5 0 each

□

3 -4 copies @ $ 4 .0 0 each

□

5 -6 copies @ $ 3 .5 0 each

CO M PA N Y

□

7 or more copies @ $ 3 .0 0 each

AD D RESS-

T I T L E _____

Total no. o f issues Total Cost $ C O U N T R Y ____________________ TELEPH O N E

Cheques should be made payable to: M TV P U B L IS H IN G L IM IT ED

h o m e _____________ w o r k

_________________

Enclosed is my cheque for $ or please debit my □

and mailed to: M TV Publishing Limited, 4 3 Charles Street, Abbotsford, Victoria 3 0 6 7

P O S T C O D E _________

BANKCARD

□ MASTERCARD

□ VISACARD

Card N o ____________________ _________________________ Expiry Date______________________________________

N B . A L L O V E R SE A S O R D E R S S H O U L D B E A C C O M P A N IE D BY B A N K D R A F T S IN A U S T R A L IA N D O L L A R S O N L Y

Signature.............. .............................................................. .............

Wenders: “Dreams are our greatest source of inspiration. Everybody who is doing something creative has to rely on his dreams. Dreams are very sacred. They are at the base of our identity. They are more of a mystery than even people who have figured them out want to admit.”

story cam e back. Suddenly, the two stories got m arried, so to speak, and from then on they stayed together. How did your deep impression o f Aboriginal culture finally make its way into the script? T h e Aborigines play a crucial part in the story. T h ey’re the first ones to say, “H old it, d o n ’t go any fu rth er”, and they are the first ones to pull out. They are the only ones who really understand right away that this [dreams] is a territory that should not be entered. In away, the whole film and the whole story started when I first m et these people. So, to m e, the first part o f the movie, all the travelling, is really a trick to get to Australia. It was crucial for the film that you did this trip around the world before entering this other world in Australia. You have to go through the first act to get to the second and into the third, which is the dream territory. Both Dommartin and Peter Carey share the screenplay credit with you. How did that work relationship evolve? Solveig and I developed the story together, but the actual screen play was written by Peter, based on the story that Solveig and I developed for over a couple o f years. W e travelled with the story, in a way. W e found the itinerary, we prepared the story together, then P eter cam e in when we had a 50-page story but no script. How did you decide on the casting? At what point did you cast William Hurt, fo r instance? T h e casting was sort o f predeterm ined by the script, in which all these people had different nationalities. From the beginning, Claire was French, while Sam was Am erican with French-G erm an parents. Eugene, the writer, was supposed to be Irish, and there was a G erm an detective and an Australian bounty hunter. So those were the givens when we started casting. Bill cam e in very quickly and without any problem s whatso ever. H e read the script and im m ediately said, ‘T h a t’s the next film I want to do and I ’m going to give it as m uch time as it needs.

LEFT TO RIGHT: DAVID (DAVID GULPIUL) AND SAM (WILLIAM HURT) IN THE AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK. PARTY GIRL AND BANK ROBBER CLAIRE TOURNEUR (SOLVEIG DOMMARTIN). CLAIRE AND SAM. SCIENTIST HENRY FARBER (M A X V O N SYDOW ), RIGHT, AND HIS BLIND WIFE, EDITH (JEANNE MOREAU). W IM WENDERS' UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD.

I will n ot plan anything else until I finish this.” Bill was very generous. Dreams are central to this film. Do you pay attention to your own dreams? Do they inspire you? Very, very m uch so. I think dreams are the m ost precious thing we have. Som e time ago, there were experim ents made by keeping people from dream ing. They went insane. Dreams are our greatest source o f inspiration. Everybody who is doing som ething creative has to rely on his dreams. Dreams are very sacred. They are at the base o f our identity. They are m ore o f a mystery than even people who have figured them out want to admit. Dreams are our minds at work, but on their own. They are an in-built healing m echanism that enables us to deal with the difficulties we encounter. Have you ever been analyzed? Some filmmakers, like Steven Spielberg, shy away from analysis fo r fear it will disrupt their creativity. W hen I was young, I made for seven years a very classic Freudian analysis based mainly on dreams. I got very disciplined about it. I f I woke up in the middle o f the night, I would write the dream down instandy. T h at really helped m e becom e a very experienced dream er, so to speak. After a while, I realized I was able to learn to rem em ber the dreams, and able to grab hold o f them . You have said very often that a film is a life of its own. That is why you like to shoot chronologically and use very small crews. How could you do this with a film o f such large scale as Until the E nd o f

the World? CINEMA

PAPERS

• 41

Until the End o f the World

Yes, o f course. I wouldn’t want to have missed that experience. I learned m ore in the time I was here than I could have possibly learned if I had stayed hom e. W hat survived mostly was my friendship with Francis and the m utual respect that we built. Also, on the technical side, I learned a lot because h ere you work with the finest professionals you can possibly find on the planet. W ithout that, I wouldn’t have been able to m ake a film like Until theEnd ofthe World, which was, as far as a piece o f logistics goes, a really extrem ely difficult shoot in ten different countries, with ten different crews. Y our films have always been critical favourites and award winners. Do you think they have found an audience?

ABOVE: EUGENE FITZPATRICK (SAM NEILL) AND PHILIP WINTER (RÜDIGER VOGLER). BELOW: EUGENE A N D SAM AT A N OUTBACK AUSTRALIAN POLICE STATION. UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD.

I still very m uch believe that, whatever story you want to tell, you have to be willing to live the experience o f that story. T h a t’s why I insist on being able to shoot a film in chronological order so that in the course o f m aking it we realize that the truth is n ot as we im agine it while we were writing it. W e can react to, and the actors can really live through, the story and n ot shoot the ending in the beginning and the beginning at the end. T h at approach is only possible if you try to reduce the m achinery o f the crew, because it would be very difficult to carry a Hollywood crew through a shoot that goes in continuity. For this film, for instance, we considered going with one crew all around the world and that would have been 50 people. But then we thought it was the wrong approach and that we’d rather have the smallest basic unit we could think o f and be jo in e d by local people in each country. So, the basic crew for Until the E n d o f the World was ju s t 20 people, but in different countries we were jo in e d by 50 or m ore. In Am erica, 80 people jo in e d us; in Australia, m ore than a hundred. This turned out to be the right approach because our basic crew was so exhausted after awhile by the gruelling schedule and all the travel - in each country we started a new film, so to speak —that, had we done the whole trip with only one crew, we wouldn ’t have survived. M eeting enthusiastic and fresh people each time carried us through. This, o f course, is the exact antithesis o f the Hollywood approach. Would thatbe one o f the main disagreements between you and the American system? It was m ore than that. It was a very difficult tim e for m e as an European film m aker working outside the studio structure. I was h ere in Los Angeles from 1978 to ’84, basically because I was hired by Francis Ford Coppola to do Hammett for Zoetrope Studios. H am m ettwas its first picture and, as you rem em ber, Zoetrope had a very rocky time. In a way, we were guinea pigs. Hammett took five years to m ake and I m ade two other films in between, because there were long breaks due to the fact that Fred Forrest, who played H am m ett, was also in One From the Heart. Did you learn anything from your American experience? 42

‘

CINEMA

PAPERS

Internationally, yes. Wings o f Desire, for instance, was the m ost successful European film ever in Ja p a n - m ore than a m illion people saw it there. In Am erica, it did quite well, better than Paris, Texas, for instance. T h ree m illion people saw Wings o f Desire in France, and m ore than two m illion in Italy. So, all over the place, I think th ere’s a very good audience for my films. Even the older films, the ones that at the time were n ot very successful, are today in constant dem and. M ine is n ot a small art audience, after all. What is, in your opinion, the role o f film: to awaken, to educate, to entertain? Education is n ot a part that movies play well. Films can try to open the world for the people to see it, but movies should n ot teach, and movies should n ot try to force the audience to think in any particular way. I think a film should stay open so that everybody who sees it can create their own film in their mind. At least, th at’s my approach to filmmaking. But this film, as you’ve said at the beginning, is denouncing our image culture, our image avalanche. Shouldn’t film be included in that? This is n ot a film that in any way discourages film m aking - quite the opposite. At the end, when Eugene tells the story o f Claire, if h er story is saving her, then I think th at’s what films should do. T h e films I make are able to tell stories. In a certain way, I ’m d enounc ing the im age culture, but it’s the sort o f image culture that is n ot linked to stories. I think movies as such, by being able to tell a story, are still the m ost powerful thing to keep a certain morality in the im age culture. ■

ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD ACN 000 025 123 Melbourne: Head Office: 206 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC, Australia 3000 Box 1411M, GPO Melbourne 3001 ■Telephone (03) 667 6666 •Fax (03) 663 1972

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 43

Prior to Satyajit Ray’s recent illness, Kerstin Andersson talked with India’s most famous filmmaker, and one of the most sensitive depicters of that country’s social and cultural reality. They discussed several of his 36 films, including the latest, Agantuk(The Stranger). OPPOSITE:SATYAJIT RAY AT THE TIME OF HIS VISIT TO MELBOURNE IN 1968.

• CINEMA

PAPERS

atyajitRay spends m ostofhis time in the study ofhis home on Bishop Lefroy Road in the centre o f Calcutta - that is, except when he is out making his films. The room is crammed with scripts, books and papers. “I was writing on a story when you cam e”, he explains. In addition to his filmmaking, Satyajit Ray also writes novels and short stories, and does sketches. The stories are published in Sandesh, a magazine that his father started, and which Ray now edits. Although written for a children’s magazine, they are equally read and loved by adults, and are also published in book form.

TH E P R O D U C T OF E A S T AN D W E S T EQ U A LLY Satyajit Ray belongs to the intellectual élite in India and he has his roots in Bengal and the Bengali tradition. His family was active in the intellectual movements o f 19th-century Bengal. During the colonial era, Calcutta was the main port and the centre o f the British adm inistration. T h e interaction between the British and the Bengali culture initiated an intellectual m ovem ent known as the “Bengali R enaissance”. It was influ enced by W estern liberal philosophy and was the source o f such cultural forms as the Bengali novel, jou rnalism and new forms o f theatre. This cultural interaction also gave rise to social reform movements towards which the social élite took the first step. Th e Brahm o Samaj, founded by Raja Ram m ohan Roy, fought against social and religious customs such as sati - the tradition o f burning the widow on the husband’s funeral pyre - ch ild ren ’s m arriage and the caste system. Roy was well aware o f the im portance o f propaganda and education in efforts to achieve social change, and started the first Bengali newspaper.

-M/'^P

¡|§¡p

■ fl»

§«

¿¡gäf|§

•Satva lit R a v

T h e Brahm o Sam aj was supported by rich, in flu en tial B en galis, such as the T ag o re fam ily. A fter R oy’s d eath , D ebendranath Tagore becam e the leader and incorporated a religious mysticism into its dogmas. T h e Ray family was closely con nected with the m ovem ent, and both Ray’s grandfather and his father were good friends o f the Tagore family. Satyajit Ray was brought up in the Brahm o tradition, and he com bined his studies at the W estern-influenced Presidency College with studies at Santiniketan, the university run by Tagore. During those years, Ray developed a profound interest for both Indian art and music, and classical W estern music and literature.

“ W e s t e r n p h ilo s o p h e r s g i v e th e id e a o f fr e e d o m . . . ” India was a British colony for a long time. How did that affect the Indian people and their culture? T h e British did good things for the Indian culture. T h e Bengali novel was introduced by the British, and it was the British rule and British philosophers such as Locke, Mill and Bentham , as well as philosophers like Garibaldi and Maxini, who showed the im portance o f freedom . This is ironical: the British rule giving the idea o f independence and freedom . We had som ething called the “Bengali R enaissance”. It was an intellectual m ovem ent criticizing bad social customs like sati and religious dogmas. It was inspired by the French Revolution and Ram m ohan Roy, who was the leader o f one o f those movements. Through writing in newspapers, people criticized society, the colonial rule and the exploitation o f the farm ers by the landowners. What do you think about the interaction between India and the West today? Ideas travel fast today and the W estern influence is great. We are no longer isolated. But the new ideas only reach some. Large parts o f the population do n ot get access to it. This is partly due to poverty. But you must also have in m ind that India has produced its own technology, independent o f the West.

“in m y f ilm s I a m d e a lin g w it h In d ia n s u b j e c t s ” You grew up in a strong Indian tradition, but were also influ enced by European culture. How has this affected you? I am the product o f East and West equally. I have studied European art and literature. And when I was a child, I enjoyed celebrating Christmas, with Father Christmas and Christmas gifts and all that. I know m ore about the West than many Europeans do. This is due to colonialism* We were forced to learn English in school, for exam ple. This is the case only am ong educated people, n ot am ong rural peoples - they are illiterate and uneducated. O ne excep tion is Kerala, where ninety p ercen t o f the population is literate. How has your cultural background influenced your films? In my films I am dealing with Indian subjects. T h e co n ten t is Indian, and the style and the form is dictated by the content. My education as a film m aker was influenced by Hollywood. During the 1940s and ’50s, we could see a lot o f Am erican film here in Calcutta. In the ’50s, I was also influenced by French anc Italian filmmakers: for exam ple, R enoir and de Sica, and late: on Bergm an and Japan ese filmmakers such as Kurosawa. 46

• CINEMA

PAPERS

FACING PAGE (TO P T O B O TTO M ): RAY (CENTRE) D UR ING THE M A K IN G OF HIS FIRST FILM, PATHER P AN C H A LI.THE APU TR ILO GY: APU (SUBIR BANERJEE) IN PATHER P AN C H A LI; APU (SM ARAN G H O SAL) IN A PA R IJITO (THE U N V A N Q U IS H E D ); APU (SO UM ITR A CHATTERJEE) A N D A P A R N A (SARMILA TAGO R E) IN A PU R SANSAR ( THE W ORLD O F A PU ). BELOW: GH ASH IR AM (M O H A N A GASH E) A N D DUKHI (O M PURI) IN RAY'S SA D G ATI (DELIVERANCE). THE CALCUTTA TR ILO GY: KEYA (JOYSREE ROY) A N D SIDDHARTRHA (DHR ITIM AN CHATTERJEE) IN PR A TID W A N D I (THE ADVERSARY); SYAM AL'S WIFE (PARUM ITA C H O W D H U R Y) A N D TU TU L (SARMILA TA GO R E) IN SEEMABADDHA (C O M P A N Y LIMITED); S O M N A TH (PRADIP MUKHERJEE) A N D MR MITTER (RABI G O S H ) IN J A N A A R A Y N A (THE MIDDLE M A N ).

H IS F IL M S During the 1940s, Ray’s interest in film and film making, dating back to his childhood, grew stronger. In the mid ’40s, he started to write filmscripts, while working as an illustrator for an ad vertising company, Keymers. In 1947, Ray and a num ber o f intellectuals started the Calcutta Film Society to prom ote good cinem a. W hen R enoir came to Calcutta in 1949 to shoot The River, this was an opportunity for Ray to learn practical filmmaking. Ray decided to make his first film, PatherPanchalli, after having seen de Sica’s L adri di Biciclette (Bicycle Thieves). This was during his stay in London, where he was working at Keymers local office.

P a t h e r P a n c h a li, th e f i r s t f ilm Father P anchali broke com pletely with the tradition in Indian film. It was influenced by Italian neo-realism , and the film deals with social issues. T h e film was made on a shoe-string budget. Most scenes were shot on location and the majority o f the cast were amateurs. Ray had difficulties in finding financial support for this controversial project. At one point while shooting, Ray pawned his wife’s jew ellery to be able to continue. Pather P anchali is based on a novel by B. B. Bandyopadhyay, a famous Bengali author. T h e story is about the childhood o f Apu (Su b irB an n erjee) in a poverty-stricken Bengali village. The realistic perspective gives a sensitive depiction o f Indian cultural and social reality, without the so-common tendencies to exploit the bad conditions. This realistic perspective is also what charac terizes Ray’s films. They have psychological themes while deal ing with social and m oral problem s, and hum an relationships.

“S o c ia l p r o b le m s a re p o l i t i c a l ” You call yourself a humanist. Could you elaborate? I d on ’t call myself a humanist. It is the critics who call me that. Since they ca n ’t give me a political label - they can ’t call me a socialist or a com m unist - they call me a humanist. I am interested in hum an beings and in relationships be tween them . I am observant o f hum an beings and their relations. This is a quality that I have developed over the years. I also am interested in psychology. Do you think o f your films as political? In Sadgati ( Deliverance ), for exam ple, you express a strong social critique against the caste system and the oppression o f the lower castes. Yes, Sadgati is a strongly political film, as are, for exam ple, Pather Panchali, Ganasatru, Branches o fa T ree and the film that I have ju st made, Agantuk. They are all political films. My earlier films were n ot political. But in the 1960s, due to some events in Calcutta, I started to make political films. I d on ’t use any political characters; my films d o n ’t revolve around a political leader or figure, but they have a political background. T h e films deal with social problem s, and that is political.

T h e C a lc u t t a T r ilo g y T h e 1960s and ’70s were a revolutionary time in Calcutta. A weakening o f the city’s position as a principal port, political centre and industrial base provoked a severe econom ic crisis. Riots, student strikes, rebellions and governm ent repression followed. T h e revolutionary Naxalite movement, with roots in one o f B en g al’s western districts, spread to Calcutta and the city becam e a battlefield. T h e situation was aggravated by the BangCINEMA

PAPERS

• 47

S a tya jit Ray

ladesh crisis and the exodus o f migrants com ing to Calcutta. This led to the em ergence o f the com m unist governm ent in the state in the ’80s. Ray, who shot the Calcutta Trilogy (Pratidw andi, Seemabaddha and J a n a Aranya) during this period, found it impossible n ot to get involved in the political events, although he d id n ’t make any explicit political statem ents. In the Calcutta Trilogy he explores the turbulent situation in the city, dealing with subjects such as unem ploym ent, corruption and the contem porary political situ ation. Later films like Sadgati, Ganasatru and Branches o f a Tree deal with problem s o f oppression, and social and political corruption. Branches o f a Tree, his second m ost recen t film, de picts a father discovering that his sons are into corruption arid dealing with black money.

C U L T U R A L D IF F E R E N C E S T h e cultural differences between India and the West is a factor that m ight give foreign audiences problem s in understanding Indian works. This raises questions o f a philosophical nature, concerning relativism. Are differences in cultural forms really so big or is there a congruence between the overt differences in cultures? W hat is cultural specific and what is universal? Are there any possibilities for cross-cultural com m unication? Is it possible for a W esterner to understand Indian works?

“Is i t p o s s ib le f o r e v e r y o n e t o r e l a t e 7 ” You are Indian and in your films you use a lot of Indian cultural symbols and codes. How do you think this affects a foreign audience? My films are about hum an beings, hum an relationships and social problem s. I think it is possible for everyone to relate to these issues. On a certain level, foreign audiences can appreciate Indian works, but many details are missed. For exam ple, when they see a woman with a red spot on her forehead, they d o n ’t know that this is a sign showing that she is m arried, or that a woman dressed in a white sari is a widow. Indian audiences understand this at once; it is self-evident for them. So, on that certain level, the cultural gap is too wide. But on a psychological level, on the level o f social relations, it is possible to relate. I think I have been able to cross the barrier between cultures. My films are made for an Indian audience, but I think they have bridged the gap. At least those are the reactions I get in a lot o f letters from foreign admirers.

“H u m a n p r o b le m s a re c o m m o n " Do you think there are human universals or are people culturally specific? T h ere are certain universals. Human problem s are com m on on a psychological level. Social customs are different. For exam ple, the relationship between man and woman exists everywhere, but in India you never see a man and a woman kiss in the streets, even though this m ight happen in the very trendy groups. In your country, this is a norm al social practice. In India you can ’t show intim ate relations or things like sex. Sexual freedom is impossible to show; it is a very un-Indian thing, although it appears in contem porary literature. As a m atter o f fact, I was the first to include a scene where two people kiss in Indian cinem a. And the audience accepted it. 48

• CINEMA

PAPERS

FACING PAGE (TO P TO B O TTO M ): RAY W ITH PAT G O R D O N A N D ERWIN RADO OF THE MELBOURNE FILM FESTIVAL. UM APRASAD (SO UM ITR A CHATTERJEE) A N D D OYAM O YEE (SARMILA TAGO R E) IN RAY'S DEVI ( THE GODDESS). THE POSTER, D ONE BY RAY, FOR DEVI. BELOW (TO P TO B O TTO M ): RANEN (V IS W A G U H A TH A K U R TA ), DR A SO K G U P TA (SO UM ITR A CHATTERJEE), INDRANI (M A M A TA SH AN K A R ) A N D HARIDAS (D IPANKAR DEY) IN G A N A S A TR U {A N ENEM Y O F THE PEOPLE), RAY'S A D A P TA TIO N OF THE IBSEN PLAY. UTPAL DUTT A N D M A M A TA S H ANK AR IN RAY'S LATEST FILM, A G A T U K {THE STRANGER).

“ Y o u s h o u ld h a v e a n o p e n m in d ” In India you see many Western films, but in the W est we see very few Indian films. What do you think about this? In India, people know what happens in the world. They are inquisitive, curious. But the West has a very weak knowledge o f India. This is insolent, because you should have an open mind. I have, for instance, made a film based on an Ibsen play, but when Father P anchali was first shown in Am erica some people found it so disgusting to see people eating with their hands that they left the auditorium. T h ere are some people in the West who learn Bengali and study Indian culture, but not many.

“ Th e r o le o f th e f ilm c r i t i c ” Am open mind, and a profound knowledge o f the country and its culture are what Satyajit Ray thinks any serious film critic reviewing Indian cinem a ought to have. In Andrew R obinson’s biography o f Ray, The Inner Eye, Ray says that “the cultural gap between the East and West is too wide for a handful o f films to reduce, and it can happen only when critics back it up with studies on other levels as w ell.” Ray is also critical o f a tendency in India today o f trying to make films for festivals in the West, and n ot for the Indian audience. Th e prospects, however, for Indian cinem a to reach a larger audience in the West seem to be very small. In W estern film distribution today there is a total domi nance o f Am erican film, and even European cinem a faces the same kinds o f problem s that Indian cinem a does. A G A N T U K , A N D S O M E R E F L E C T IO N S A B O U T IT

Satyajit Ray’s latest film is Agantuk ( The Stranger). Th e film is about M anm ohan, an anthropologist who has spent the past 35 years studying tribal peoples in India, and South and North America. He com es back to India for a short visit, and writes to his niece that he will visit her family. T h e niece is his only living relative, but, since she was only two-years-old when M anm ohan left India, she doesn’t rem em ber him. T h e family, unsure o f M anm ohan’s identity, becom es suspicious and thinks he is trying to cheat it to get part o f the inheritance left by his father. T o be sure about his identity, the family engages a barrister. During the encounter betw een M anm ohan and the barrister, it is revealed that M anm ohan has very high thoughts about savage societies and their ways o f living, their science, arts and crafts. As tribal peoples are usually disregarded by Indians, the barrister thinks that M anm ohan is a dupe and insults him. M anm ohan disap pears, and finally the family finds him in a small tribal village. W hen M anm ohan leaves India, he gives his niece his share o f the inheritance.

“ Th e m a n w h o e a t s h u m a n f le s h is b e t t e r th a n th e m a n w h o d r o p s th e n u c le a r b o m b ” RAY: My latest film is dealing with the urban civilization. The main character is an anthropologist. T h e anthropologist thinks that the man who eats hum an flesh is better than the man who drops the nuclear bom b. He studies and wants to be an artist. T h en he runs into a painting o f a bison, made by a prehistoric people. W hen he sees this painting, and realizes that it has been done by those people, he thinks that he can never learn as much as they did. He realizes that savage people are b etter than the civilized.

Th e main character is taken by wanderlust. He leaves hom e and comes back after 35 years. He studies tribal peoples around India for five years. He gets a jo b on a boat and stays for a time in London. He starts writing about his experiences and studies anthropology. T h en he goes to Am erica, where he stays for 25 years. He studies an Indian tribe that is almost extinguished by civilization. W hen he comes back to India, he lives with his niece.

U R BA N C IV IL IZ A T IO N C O N T R A S A V A G E S O C I E T Y RAY: T h e film puts the urban civilization contra the savage society. I filmed near Santiniketan, am ong a tribe called “Santals”. But the film is mostly about urban people. It is very argum enta tive, putting ideas against ideas, and contains m uch dialogue. T h e end, though, is m ore visual. At the same time, it is a suspended story, since the niece doesn’t know if he really is her uncle. T h ere is a contradiction between simple life and m odern life. I am interested in this contradiction between the savage and the m odern. I am influenced by simplicity. Even in a barbaric state you can learn and develop technology. For exam ple, the Eskimos, when making igloos, use two kinds o f snow: one is transparent, which they use for windows, and the other they use to make walls. This they have discovered by themselves.

A n t h r o p o lo g ic a l in f lu e n c e s In this film, Ray is influenced by anthropologists such as Mal inowski, Mead and Lévi-Strauss, and he says that he likes LéviStrauss’ Triste Tropiques and The Savage M ind very m uch. TradiCINEMA

PAPERS

• 49

m. w,

y aj ix, rCa y tionally, anthropologists studied primitive peoples. Today the focus has changed, and anthropologists are equally interested in their own societies, urban problem s and problem s con cern ing m igration, etc. Malinowski, Mead and Lévi-Strauss criticize the predom inant 19th-century view that puts other cultures and societies on an evolutionary ladder, with the W estern society on the top, and with the scientific worldview regarded as a m ore developed m ode o f thought than, say, magical and religious thinking. Lévi-Strauss’ studies con cern the contradiction be tween the m odern and the primitive societies. He wanted to show that there is no difference in modes o f thinking between the m odern and primitive societies in terms o f development. They are different, but equally good, ways o f handling reality.

S C I E N C E A N D R E L IG IO N This contradiction between m odernity and tradition is a recur ren t them e in Ray’s films - Ganasatru and Devi, for exam ple. Devi is deeply rooted in the Hindu culture. A woman is living with her father-in-law while h er husband is studying in Calcutta. O ne night the father-in-law gets a revelation that the young woman is an incarnation o f the Hindu goddess Kali. T h e woman is treated as a goddess and finally is convinced about her holiness. W hen the son returns hom e there is a confrontation between the father, with his traditional religious beliefs, and the son, who has a m odern scientific worldview. W hen the son finally convinces the father that his views are wrong, it is too late. A sick girl dies in the arms o f the woman-goddess, denied m edical help.

“ T h e re a re t h in g s t h a t y o u c a n 't e x p la in s c i e n t i f i c a l l y " B o th Devi and Ganasatru explore the contradiction between sci en tific thinking and religious beliefs. Do you think it is possible to explain everything scientifically? T h ere are some things that you can ’t explain scientifically, or at least ca n ’t explain scientifically yet. Ju st before my father died, for exam ple, he had a psychic experience. He was giving a lecture when he suddenly started to sweat and get a fever; he knew that his death was close. Last year in Varanasi I m et a brahm in, well educated, who drank Ganges water. You know there is som ething special about the water from the Ganges. I f you keep it in a container, it doesn’t get muddied as water usually does when you keep it for a long time. In my latest film there are other mysteries that you can ’t explain: for exam ple, this bison painting, so delicately painted. How could they do that? T h en there is the interplay between the sun and m oon. W hen the sun and the m oon are in eclipse, they are equally big. My main character is convinced that no other planet can have hum an life, since they d o n ’t have this interplay between sun and m oon. W hat is your opinion on this contradiction between m odernity and tradition? T h e doctor in Ganasatru, th at’s me. T h a t’s what I believe in. In my latest film, the anthropologist is my spokesman. I am happy to have found a very sensitive actor. In Agantuk, there is a cross-exam ination by a barrister. O ne question is, “W hen you get ill, do you call a doctor or a witchdoc tor?” T h e answer is, “I should call both, but where do I find a doctor in the ju n g le ?” I am not a savage, the intellectual tradition is part o f me. I regret that I am n ot a savage, because they are in sympathy with what they are doing. In Ganasatru, an adaptation o f Ib sen ’s The Enemy o f the People to contem porary Indian cultural reality, a doctor discovers that 50

• CINEMA

PAPERS

the holy water in the tem ple tank is contam inated and spreads severe illness. People drink this water since they believe that it is holy. T h e doctor, trying to stop people, is called “the enemy o f the p eop le”. Finally, however, he m anages to convince people that the scientific research o f the tem ple water is m ore reliable than the taken-for-granted holiness.

F IL M S C A N ’T C H A N G E T H E W O R L D RAY: I d o n ’t believe in m odern life. I am disappointed, disillu sioned. Take, for exam ple, the Iraq war, what has happened to com m unism and socialism, and how the «two Germanys have united. I try not to both er about it. I only try to work. I f you start thinking about all this, your head will becom e full o f it. I express myself through my films. But film ca n ’t change the world or society. You ca n ’t give people new ideas through films. It affects people, but only for a short while. In 1939, R enoir made a film, The River. It was against war. O ne year later, the war broke out. In Ganasatru I show that it is dangerous to drink holy water in the tem ple tank, but people still drink it.

F I L M O G R A P H Y 1955 Father Panchali (Song o f the Little Road)', 1956 Aparajito ( The Unvanquished); 1958 ParashPather (The Philosopher’s Stone) ,falsaghar ( The Music Room) ; 1959 Apur Sansar ( The World o f Apu) ; 1960 Devi ( The Goddess) ; 1961 Teen Kanya ( Three Daughters) ; 1961 Rabindranath Tagore - short; 1962 Kanchenjungha; 1962 Abhijan (TheExpedition)', 1963 M ahanagar (The Big City) ; 1964 Charulata ( TheLonely Wife), Two - short; 1965 Kapurush-o-Mahapurush ( The Coward and the Holy M an); 1966 Nayak (TheHero)', 1967 Chiriakana (The Zoo) ; 1968 Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (The Adventures o f Goopy and Bagha); 1969 Aranyer Din Ratri (Days and Nights in the Forest)', 1970 Pratidwanda (The Adver sary)', 1971 Seemabaddha (Company Lim ited), Sikkim- short; 1972 The Inner Eye- short; 1973 Asani Sanket (Distant Thunder) ; 1974 Sonar Kella ( The Golden Fortress) ; 1975Ja n a Aranya ( The Middle M an) ; 1976 B ala - short; 1977 Shatranj Ke Khilari (The Chess Players); 1978 Jo i Baba Felunath (TheElephant God); 1980 H irak RajarD ese (The Kingdom o f Diamonds); 198 0 P ikoo-short; 1981 Sadgati (Deliverance); 1984 Ghare Baire (The Home and the World); 1987 Sukumar Ray - short; 1989 Ganasatru (An Enemy o f the People); 1990 Branches o f a Tree, 1991 Agantuk ( The Stranger)

B I B L I O G R A P H Y N O N -F IC T IO N

Bisoy Chalachchitra ( On Cinema), 197 [?]; Ekei Bole Shooting ( We Call it Shooting), \979;Jakhan Choto Chilam (When I Was Small), 1982; Our Films Their Films, 1986. F IC T IO N

Feluda novels: Badsahi Angti, 1969; Gangstoke Gandagol, 1971; Sonar Kella (The Golden Fortress), 1971; B aksa Rahasya, 1973; Kailase Kelenkari, 1974; Royal Bengal Rahasya, 1975; Jo i B aba Felunath (The Elephant God), 1976; Feluda and Co., 1977; Gorasthane Sabdhan, 1979; ChinnamastarAbhisap, 1981; Hatyapuri, 1981; Ja ta K anda Katmandute, 1982; Tintorettor Jesu, 1983; Feluda One Feluda Two, 1985; Darjeeling Jam jam at, 1987 Professor Shonku novels: Professor Shonku, 1965; Professor Shonku Kandokarkhana, 1970; Sabash Professor Shonku, 1974; M ahasankate Shonku, 1977; SwayangProfessor Shonku, 1980; Shonku EkaiAkso, 1983 Other Novels, stories and screenplays: Ek Dozen Gappo, 1970; Aro Ek Dozen, 1976;Fatikchand, 1976; TeenRakam, 1979; AroBaro, 1981 ;Ebaro Baro, 1984; M ulla Nasiruddiner Galpa, 1985; Pikur Diary o Ananya, 1986; Sujan Harbola, 1987; Eker Pithe Dui, 1988

ART & TECHNOLOGY OF MAKE-UP IN CO R PO R ATIN G TH R E E A R TS M AKE-UP C E N TR E PTY LTD ACN 002 820 533 FILM TE LE V IS IO N TH E A TR E E S TA B LIS H E D 1966

★

: ' ssr. ' ■. EUROPEAN FILMS IN AUSTRALIA ★

A showcase of new European Cinema

June 1992 at > The 41 st Melbourne International Film Festival (June 5—20) > The 39th Sydney Film Festival (June 4—19)

One or two year fulltime courses in Theatrical Arts YEAR ONE All aspects of make-up Art class/design layout presentation Sculpture class/ special effects Theatrical hair styling YEAR TWO Prosthesis works/special effects Theatrical hair styling (advanced) Basic wig knotting Special courses also available Theatrical Arts Shop Make-up • Body Washes • Masks • Material for Mask Making and Sculpture • Professional make-up Brushes • New Dawn Range of Cosmetics For further information contact Dawn Swane RADA, ASMA, Principal and Founder Three Arts Make-Up Centre Pty Ltd Cnr. Shepherd & Myrtle Streets, Chippendale NSW 2008 Telephone: (02) 698 1070 Facsimile (02) 319 1950

• Theatrical Arts Part Time Course One evening a week High Fashion Make-up, Photography, Catwalk, Video

• Holiday Hobby Course For schools, amateur theatre or people thinking of a career in make-up Monday-Friday (every school holiday) 1 week only (except Easter) • Lecture Demonstration All aspects of make-up for schools, amateur theatre and interested groups. Private appointment only: Facial prosthetic and skin camouflage. Remedial techniques. Direct Likeness: Head sculptures created in bronze, resin and plaster. We are registered with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, to offer full fee educational services to overseas students in the following course: Two Year Theatrical Arts Certificate (Stages I and II, 12 months each)

Congratulations to all our past and present students who are continuing with excellence the high standard in Make-Up and Special Effects for Film, Television, Theatre, High Fashion and Arts/Sculpture, plus other related areas of employment for make-up artists.

including new films by Rivette • Angelopoulos • Konchalovsky • Jarman Kaurismaki • Rohmer • Varda • Loach • C arax a n d su rp risin g new talents

plus

“STORMING FORTRESS EUROPE" a series of industry forums during both festivals with visiting Euro producers, filmmakers, sales agents, representatives of E.F.D.O. and European funding agencies focussing on the prospects for Australian co-production with, and sales to, the new European Community

for further details : Sydney Film Festival phone: 02 Ó60 38 44 M elbourne Film Festival phone: 03 4 1 7 201

Presented by European Film Distribution Office Friedensallee 1 4 -1 6 2 0 0 0 Hamburg 5 0 fax: 4 9 -4 0 -3 9 0 6 2 4 9 phone: 4 9 -4 0 -3 9 0 9 0 2 5

A V A I L A B L E O N CD T H R O U G H GOOD MUSIC R E TA I LE RS MARKETED BY E AS T W E S T RECORDS A DI VI SI ON OF W A R N E R MUSIC A U S T R A L I A A TI ME W A R N ER C O M P A N Y

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 51

BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL a o

a S

□

o o

O J3 J3 -S -S -

19-23 AUGUS T 1992 Wo r l d Ci nema Consultant - David Stratton

As i an Paci fi c Focus Consultant - Tony Rayns To be held at

Hoyt s Regent Showcase For further information Anne Demy-Geroe Phone (617) 224 4029 Fax (617) 229 7538 PO Box 185 North Quay Q 4002

W hat We Do We Do Best. Motion Picture Cameras and Accessories. For Personal Service and Quality CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES

MelbourneAustralia 52

• CINEMA

PAPERS

CAMERAQUIP

Film Equipment Rentals & Service 64-66 Tope St, South Melbourne 3205 Phone: 0 3 /6 9 9 3922 Fax: 0 3 /6 9 6 2564 330 King Georges Ave, Singapore 0820 Phone: 65/291 7291 Fax: 6 5 /2 9 3 2141

FILM

RE V I E W S

TURTLE BEACH; HOMICIDE; BREATHING UNDER WATER; BUGSY; BACKSLIDING;

ABOVE: JUDITH WILKES (GRETA SCACCHI) A M O N G M ALAYSIA-BOUND REFUGEES IN STEPHEN WALLACE'S TURTLE BEACH.

AND , GARBO

TU R TL E B E A C H RAYMOND

YOUNIS

fter mysterious silence, long delays and

Th e time-context is crucial. Racial hatred is pervasive and striking. In fact, the film opens with a racial clash between Indian and Chinese people, and it is clear even at this stage that

much political brouhaha, Turtle Beach has

barbaric acts are not prevented or even shunned.

appeared. And we have it on good (political)

One of the earliest images which is brief but not

authority that the film is “manifestly a work of

fo rg e tta b le

fiction” (to which one may well reply: “There

kltchenhand who, with no apparent trace of

In vo lve s

a C h in e s e

chef or

needs no senator, my friends, come from the

emotion, pummels the carcass of some animal

upper chambers to tell us this.”). But all brow

as the riot continues. This image proves, in

beating, soul-searching and brouhaha aside,

hindsight, to be a crucial signifier: human bodies

the film does explore a topic of great importance

and the carcass of unidentified animals are

and, forthe most part, tackles it earnestly, though

subjected to the same brutality, the same violent

not always in a convincing manner. Th e film explores various responses (and reactions) to the problem of the refugees in

acts (the only major difference, perhaps, is that the animal will be served up in some gastronomical creation to an appreciative epicure).

Malaysia in the 1970s. Som e characters see the

Th e image also provides an omen and sets

arrival of the refugees as an opportunity of

the tone in general. Kuala Lumpur, the seething

expressing their aggression or as an opportunity

urn, it seems, is characterized by blind hatred,

to shed blood; some remain largely indifferent

prejudice, intolerance and savagery. And into

and distant; some see an opportunity on the

this environment, Judith (Greta Scacchi), a re

black market; others (a few, one must say) show

porter, is thrust. She takes photographs and is

some concern, some compassion and actually

ushered away by a friend before she is trampled.

try to improve the situation; still others claim to

Te n years pass. She is separated and has

be compassionate and understanding but quite

custody of the children. She learns that the

powerless to act.

Vietnamese refugees are being treated “like CINEMA

PAPERS

• 53

dogs” -t h a t is, like the animal mentioned earlier,

tive it is. It is also effective when

perhaps - and that the authorities have been

it focuses on the plight of the two

trying to conceal the facts from the world. Such

women who (re)discover what it

people, we are told, are not only brutal but

means to be a mother, and who

corrupt, too. W hen Minou (Joan C hen), the

become aware of the sacrifices

president of a committee which is devoted to

that are required by their bond

helping refugees, disappears, Judith leaves the

and in order to affirm the extent

children with her ex-husband and returns to

of their love and commitment.

Malaysia to report on the problems.

Th a t something positive em

Th e central issue -t h e plight of the refugees

erges in such a harsh land is

- is examined in relation to the lives of Judith and

cause for some hope, certainly,

Minou, Hobday (Norman Kaye), Ralph (Jack

but Judith’s new-found happi

Thom pson) and Kanan (Art Malik), with whom

ness at the end seems to stress,

Judith has an affaire. But there are a number of

by contrast, the plight of the

sub-plots and other issues, too, though they are

refugees, whose fate without

not highlighted as much and do not always

people such as her is even more

contribute positively to our understanding of the

uncertain, more precarious and

central issue. Th e y involve adultery and infidel

more troubling.

ity, Hindu purification rites (and ecstatic danc ing), the prospect of an anti-royalist revolution, and hints of perverse games in which taboos are broached (though, it must be said, in ways that are provocative rather than illuminating). Th e images of the authorities are negative, in general. These authorities are corrupt and seem to be fond of money; they are brutal and repressive (not just in relation to the refugees); they humiliate, punish and benefit. Even worse, the villagers are bloodthirsty killers who seem to have no qualms about hacking refugees to death in the surf, nor are they averse to celebrating the discovery of a drowned refugee’s body. Th e death of these “aliens”, violent or otherwise, is a thing to be exalted. Th is may seem somewhat extreme to some viewers, but it is the prevalent image of the villagers. Th e lack of reasons for such actions only

B E A C H Directed by Stephen Wallace. Producer: Matt Carroll. Executive producers: Greg Coote, Graham Burke. Scriptwriter: Ann Turner. Director of photography: Russell Boyd. Production designer: Brian Thomson. Costume designer: Roger Kirk. Sound: Ben Osmo. Edi tors: Lee Smith, Louise Innes. Com poser: Chris Neal. Cast: Greta Scacchi (Judith Wilkes), Joan Chen (Lady Minou Hobday), Jack Thom pson (Ralph Hamilton), Art Malik (Kanan), Norman Kaye (Sir Adrian Hobday), Victoria Longley (Sancha Hamilton), Martin Jacobs (Richard), William Mclnnes (Minder), George Whaley (Bill), Andrew Ferguson (David). Roadshow, Coote & Carroll. Australian dis tributor: Village-Greater Union. 35 mm. 90 mins. Aus tralia. 1992. TURTLE

everyday life but also the unconscious, height ened consciousness and the world of the soul. Th e realm of the unconscious represents for

makes the killings even more horrific (we are given one, rather briefly, and it is not examined

meaning both concrete and abstract, represent ing not only what is beneath the surface of

B R E A TH IN G U N D ER W A TE R

Dermody the depths of the mind, the world of intuition, emotions, dreams and memories, all of

in a critical light by the filmmakers). And though

which are explored in various ways.

the film presents a number of powerful images the massacre at Turtle Beach, the state of the refugee camp with its enclosure for “unaccom

While a voice-over of actress Gillian Jones

usan Murphy Derm ody’s first feature is re markable for its combination of a drama

panied minors”, a bureaucratic term for children

tized narrative with archival footage and ani

whose parents drowned, did not make the trip or

mated sequences to give a poetic and symbolic

were murdered by the villagers - there is much

tale of a search for meaning in a world of chaos.

that detracts from the cogency of the whole.

Based on a journey of descent into an imaginary

narrates the journey, we hear Lambert describe Beatrice’s dreams, memories and nightmarish childhood fantasies which are beautifully illus trated by animation sequences under Lee W hitmore’s sensitive direction.

Th e screenplay includes unnecessary dia

underworld land, we follow Beatrice in her quest

As their journey passes through many stages

logue, though Greta Scacchi in particular and

for clues to an understanding of human nature

and mysterious places, each visit is peppered

Joan Chen perform creditably in the central

and the suicidal preparation by humankind for its

with black-and-white images ranging from the

roles. O n a number of occasions, characters

own nuclear annihilation.

bizarre or humorous to the monstrous and hor rific.

merely state what is obvious (for example, Judith

Beatrice (Anne Louise Lambert) takes her

awakens after a nightmare and Kanan says,

daughter Maeve (Maeve Dermody) to include

One memorable stage of their travels is the

“You had a nightmare”; Judith and Minou are

her in this education of the heart, soul and mind.

ninth circle of Pluto’s republic which is entered

seen together at the beach, and the police chief

Th e y are accompanied by Herman (Kristoffer

by night across water. This final world is starkly

says to Minou, “You have a friend”; etc.). A

Greaves), who acts as their guide and can be

white and ice - a freezer of multitudinous meat

tauter script would have been of great benefit.

seen to represent Hermes, the Greek god who

carcasses -

could travel to and from the underworld with

hatred” and the place where our deepest fears

At other times, dialogue offers little more than platitude (“corruption at all levels”) and the

ease.

representing the “permafrost of

reside. Cut in is graphic and distressing footage of a person’s deliberate self-immolation followed

consequence is unfortunate: it seems that there

Th e three travellers, who for the most part

is no real effort to get below the surfaces. And it

communicate with an easy pantomime of ges

by visions of a cadaver being scalped and his brains removed. What the latter sequence is

is notable that the most forceful scenes are

tures and meaningful looks, quickly establish a

those where the images and music are allowed

sense of trust and camaraderie - the thrill of a

intended to allude to it is hard to know except,

to convey the meanings. Another problem, es

shared and mystery-propelled adventure into

perhaps, our fear of death.

pecially in the earlier sections, is an awkward

the dark recesses of the netherworld rich with

Dermody explains that the archival material

ness in handling the many transitions. Th e se

mandalas, mazes and maps. Dermody places

is not strictly illustrative but used to trigger the

sections seem disjointed; the connections are

great emphasis on faith in the map Beatrice has

spectator’s train of thought based on their own

abrupt, even jarring.

borrowed, so to speak, from Dante’s Inferno,

associations with the subject matter.

Th e film is most effective when it concen

opining, “With a map how can you truly get lost?”

Th is creates a tension between the text and

trates on the plight of the refugees - and effec

Th e underworld is invested with layers of

the imagery, and frequently it is difficult to

‘

CINEMA

PAPERS

LEFT: BEATRICE (ANNE LOUISE LAMBERT) A N D HER DAUGHTER

and trusting bond with the underworld of your

MAEVE (MAEVE DERMODY). SUSAN MURPHY DERMODY'S BREATHING UNDER WATER.

concentrate on both the voice-over and the ar chival footage as they seem to be at odds or distracting from each other. Beatrice descends into the underworld in

consciousness. Herfilm is directed with a loving

not take kindly to the bill, drops a coin on the bar

eye incorporating beautiful and compelling im

and says, “H ere’s half-a-buck, split it between

ages of water in every form possible - light and

ya.” Soon enough, Johnny knocks the manager

watery reflections, waves, surf, ripples, cas

down, picks up a chair and breaks it over one of

cades, puddles and droplets - enhanced by a

the club’s goons. Now armed with just the chair

curious and interesting score.

order to face the terrifying evidence of human atrocities. This is supposed to be an em power

Although intriguing and provoking, this elu sive film is not for all tastes.

ing act, both for Beatrice and for us, to excite an active response rather than the usual cowardly tendency to close our eyes with a paralyzing apathy to the horror around. Dermody believes that “to allow greater ac cess to unconscious states is to live more con sciously [...] to be more alive and active and interconnected with everything”. Beatrice ar ticulates a list of that which has been relegated to the underworld: the feminine, the irrational, matter, things, the com pany of gods, myth as a

against the drive towards destruction and

horror while delighted with amusing discoveries.

whacked, then another, and then a third as on the edge of frame by the exit door, stands a young woman alarmed by the commotion and unsure of what to do, Johnny turns to her and hands herthe club with the line, “Here, take this in case I want to come back.” End of scene. Th e woman on the edge of frame in Man power is an extra played by Virginia Hill, Hill (Annette Bening) being the other half of Bugsy. She is rather inelegantly dressed for the occa sion, is indistinguishable from any of the other extras, has no lines of dialogue and is on screen

BUGSY RAFFAELE

for no more than a few seconds. She would be CAPUTO

probable extinction. Th e child remains untouched by visions of

leg, Johnny backs his way to the exit, knocking down each successive pursuant - the first is Johnny approaches the exit. In the background,

Directed by Susan Murphy Dermody. Producer: Megan McMurchy. Scriptwriter: Susan Murphy Dermody. Director of pho tography: Erika Addis. Production designer: Stephen Curtis. Costume designer: Amanda Lovejoy. Sound: John Dennison, Tony Vaccher. Editor: Diana Priest. Composer: Elizabeth Drake. Cast: Anne Louise Lambert (Beatrice), Kristoffer Greaves (Herman), Maeve Dermody (Maeve). Periscope Productions in associa tion with Channel 4. Australian distributor: Ronin. 35 mm. 78 mins. Australia. 1992. B R EA TH IN G U N D ER W A T E R

form of knowledge - largely abstract concepts which, if reclaimed, may assist humankind to act

priced drink bill in the meantime. Johnny does

invisible were it not for John n y’s departing ac tions. Unlike Annette Bening’s portrayal of her in

here is a scene In Bugsy which takes place

Bugsy, she looks something like a ‘plain Ja n e ’.

on a Hollywood sound stage, and re-enacts

Yet this is Virginia Hill. This is the real Virginia

Th e preservation of the future generation’s faith

the filming of a scene between Johnny Marshall

Hill. One says it repeatedly, half-heartedly,

and innocence seems paramount.

(George Raft) and Fay Duval (Marlene Dietrich)

quizzically, in disbelief, as though sadly the ad

Dermody treats her subject matter with a

from Raoul W alsh’s Manpower (1941) on the

line for B u g s y - “Glam our was the disguise” - is

light and careful touch, and her characters un

occasion Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegal visited the

really a cold and hard fact meant to lessen the

earth facts without being shocked into catatonic

set. It is odd watching the scene from Manpower

delicious enchantment of the cinema, rather

immobility. She defuses her heavy subject matter

after having watched the scene re-enacted for

than a hackneyed cue into the figure of “Bugsy”

with sometimes whimsical footage, such as that

the purposes of Bugsy. It is as though one has

Siegal.

of people dining under water or members of the

inadvertently been let in on a secret. Th e scene

It’s a fascinating exercise to begin to read

Bauhaus movement posing as human skyscrap

in Manpower is set in a “clip joint” where Fay

ers.

Duval works. Johnny, aware of her dubious past,

Bugsy through the image of Virginia Hill in Manpower, and not for any comparison with theme, narrative structure, stylistic design and

Early in the film the Intrepid trio examine one

and concerned over his best friend’s proposal of

of the museum exhibits, “the ancestral bombs”,

marriage to her, has turned up to buy her off. But

being the infamous nuclear devices which an

Fay does not take kindly to the offer, and the

VIRGINIA HILL (ANNETTE BENING), THE EXTRA IN M ANPOW ER

nihilated cities such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

manager and bartender intervene with an over

AND N O W A CHARACTER IN BARRY LEVINSON'S BUGSY.

W e see they are a living display of small boys in bomb suits, yet in this way Dermody does not trivialize the reference but rather complements the bom bs’ ridiculously inoffensive appellations of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”. At times the symbolism is heavy-handed; parallel references of Dante’s descent into the inferno are clearly indicated not only by the main protagonist’s consultation of the book at the start of the film but also by her name, Beatrice, who in the book represents the wisdom of faith. At other times the symbolism is refreshingly simple, as when the travellers emerge from the deepest stage of their journey and Maeve bal ances on a see-saw. This can be seen to signify purgatory, the place which is neither heaven nor hell. Lambert is well cast as Beatrice, offering a strong and natural performance as well as an other-worldly aura of wisdom and keen intelli gence. In Investigating human nature, Beatrice and the viewer are faced with scenes of atroci ties, destruction, self-hatred and the road to human extinction. Th e challenge is to face the question of survival in a world driven to selfdestruction. For Dermody, “breathing underwater” means learning to breathe under the suffocating pres ence of nuclear threat and the intense pressure of possible extinction through forging a strong CINEMA

PAPERS

• 55

so on. Rather, precisely because there is som e

unmistakeably narcissistic. Bugsy is a film which

H O M IC ID E

thing at stake in B ugsy- m id-way between fiction

invokes a world set between two mirrors, and

and f a c t - in saying “Th is is the real Virginia Hill.”

Warren Beatty’s Bugsy is like an image of him

KARL QUI NN

What is so odd about seeing the image of Virginia

self hypnotized by his own image. Bugsy is often

Hill In Manpower, after now having experienced

seen checking himself in the closest available

the re-enactment in Bugsy, is the half-imagined

mirror. O ne of the most intense moments,

York City police detective Bobby Gold. Th e idea

n David Mamet’s third feature as director,

regular collaborator Joe Mantegna plays New

but pervasive sense that here is a woman aware

however, is when he beats up fellow gangster

of an Italian-American actor playing a Jew ish-

that she is being watched. Th e first appearance

Jo ey Adonis (Lewis Van Bergen): catching him

American cop may seem a little strange - pre

of the Virginia Hill character in Bugsy is like her

self in the mirror, Bugsy proceeds to re-adjust

sumptuous even - yet the gesture could well be

extra’s appearance in Manpower, but certainly

his hair as he simultaneously lays his boot into

construed as a deliberate attempt to bring a little

not as a prop for the actions of George Raft, for

Joey, realizing the image of what he is has him

extra-diagetic weight to play in this tale of mis

the camera in Bugsy serves both itself and the

caught in the image of what he wants to be,

taken and misguided (racial/cultural) identity.

film-within-the-film.

wanting to return his image to that of a princely

Like the off-screen relationship of Annette Bening

movie star.

and Warren Beatty apropos of Barry Levinson’s

Th e scene on the Hollywood sound stage opens

in m id -s c e n e

b e tw e e n

Raft (J o e

On the wider scale, Bugsy employs the

Bugsy, Mantegna’s identity serves not so much

Mantegna) and Dietrich (Ksenia Prohaska); it is

usual trajectory of thegangsterfilm, and particu

to imbue another layer of meaning, or even to

only a second or two later, when another take of

larly in Robert W arshow ’s sense of a rise and fall

contradict the obvious one, as it does to rein

the same shot props up, that one realizes this

- the gangster who is doomed because of the

force the reading towards which the director

scene is being staged for a camera. Bugsy

obligation to succeed. It is only on the surface

apparently wishes to guide us.

(W arren Beatty), meanwhile, is seated on the

that Bugsy is a chronicle of the factual life of

sideline obsessively miming the dialogue with

Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegal from the point he de

M a n te g n a the a c to r as n o n -J e w is h ,

each retake: “Here’s half-a-buck, split it between

parts New York until his death oh the West

Mantegna’s Gold sees himself as non-Jewish.

T o this end, just as the audience recognizes so

y a ... Here’s half-a-buck, split it between ya.” By

Coast. Th e factual life is really a mere prop, in a

His primary point of identification, and hence

the time Raft is backing his way to the exit,

similarfashiontothe way that Virginia Hill serves

self-definition, is through his (metaphorical) uni

Bugsy has bundled together the cam era’s view point from Manpowerwfth Siegal’s point-of-view

as a prop for George Raft in Manpower.

form (he is a plain-clothes detective); first and

But what is intriguing about the reflexive

foremost, Gold is a cop. His special function

as he watches from the sideline engrossed in the

asides in Bugsy is that they are never made

within the force is as a “negotiator”, talking

filmmaking process. Then, va-voom , there is the

directly to the audience (as in direct address) but

dangerous characters out of potentially explo

appearance of Virginia Hill within the scene

through the agency of an imagined being im

sive confrontations with the police.

staged, attired in a long, glittery evening dress,

agining another being. In this respect, Bugsy

W hen the film opens, Gold and his partner

beautiful and elegant. Th e camera’s follow-shot

engages the audience in a reflexive mode by

Sullivan (William H. Macy, also a third-time

of Raft whacking his way out of the club becomes

doubling up W arshow ’s dictum on the essence

Mamet collaborator) are on the brink of closing

a shot which suddenly zeroes into the figure of

of the gangster - “even to himself [the gangster]

the long-running pursuit of a black man wanted

Virginia when Raft steps out of frame. Th e cam

is the creation of the imagination” - but through

for murder. Th e case has become a cause

era’s movement in this instance, rather than

the presence of an (authorial) persona. Its most

célèbre, with the Mayor’s office determined to

capturing a brief appearance, is like an an

telling moment is in Bugsy’s death scene. For

ensure that it does not provoke yet another issue

nouncement, “Ladies and gentlemen ... Virginia

one thing, Bugsy knows he is going to be killed,

of inter-racial Bensonhurst-style violence. But

Hill.”

and he does so because of a code violated by

when Gold stumbles across a straightforward

another. It’s a sacrificial death; he takes the

case of murder -

Bugsy (and Bugsy) to claim a stake in the nature

place of his lover. It’s romantic, nostalgic and it’s

woman who ran a corner store in the heart of a

of the viewing experience of film. Th e delicious

the stuff of movies. But, as well, when he arrives

black neighbourhood - his vision of glory re

enchantment of the cinema is not lost as one

at his Los Angeles home on the night of his

cedes. Despite his attempts to divert authority

would expect in a relationship of the ‘real’ to the

death, he motions as though he hears a voice

for the discovery of the murder to two uniformed

‘real as imagined’. That is, the Virginia Hill of

calling him. There is a voice, it is his own and it

Bugsy does not pretend to be the ‘real’, nor does the ‘real’ challenge the imagined: Bugsy presents

is imagined. Th e voice is his own movie image which unreels before his eyes while Bugsy, in a

Virginia Hill from within an imagined world (of a

sense, witnesses his prolonged death as each

film set), stepping into its own imagined world.

bullet expectedly travels through his body.

Saying “This is the real Virginia Hill” is for

In the end, it is a movie image watching

a desire. T o take something of a distant but

another movie image. Th e final sequence of

related example, there is a well-known story

Bugsy recalls the words “There are two lives

about the FBI secretly recording a conversation

here” from the book by David Thomson on Warren

between leading Mafia figures back in 1971, and

Beatty - one life is Warren Beatty’s, the other is

in which partofthetalkincludedtheirconcern in

that of an imagined other which possibly can be

whom would be bestto play themselves in Francis

named “Warren Beatty”.

Ford Coppola’s 1972 The Godfather. (Fo r the Newman as the favourite contender for the role of Don Corleone.) Th is suggests, at the very least, a level of self-consciousness about their own theatricality which falls somewhere between identification and narcissism. André Bazin once wrote that with the lan guage of the cinema the Western found its true aesthetic dimension. If this assertion is an apt one, then perhaps it is just as apt that the em ergence of the Gangster results from under standing of a “condition of cinema” - what Roland Barthes termed the prehypnotic - a condition

• CINEMA

PAPERS

BOBBY GOLD (JOE M ANTEGNA) AND SULLIVAN (W . H. M ACY). DAVID MAMET'S HOMICIDE.

From this angle, glamour is not a disguise, it is

reader’s interest, the tapes revealed Paul

that of an elderly Jewish

B U G S Y Directed by Barry Levinson. Producers: Mark Johnson, Barry Levinson, Warren Beatty. Co-producer: Charles Newirth. Scriptwriter: James Toback. Director of photography: Allen Daviau. Production designer: Dennis Gassner. Costume designer: Albert Wolsky. Sound: Willie D. Burton. Editor: Stu Linder. Composer: Ennio Morricone. Cast: Warren Beatty (Bugsy Siegal), Annette Bening (Virginia Hill), Harvey Keitel (Mickey Cohen), Ben Kingsley (Meyer Lansky), Bill Graham (Charles “Lucky” Luciano), Elliott Gould (Harry Green berg), Joe Mantegna (George Raft), Wendy Phillips (Esta Siegal), Richard Sarafian (Jack Dragna), Lewis Van Bergen (Joey Adonis). Mulholland ProductionsBaltimore Pictures. Australian distributor: Hoyts. 35 mm. 135 mins. US. 1992.

officers (in order to avoid having the murder

“Fuck them, they’re not my people.”

from the U .S . which attempts just such a proble-

placed on his casebook), Gold is not only sad

Th e second scene comes toward the end of

matization - and I am thinking here of the work

dled with the case, but officially removed from

thefilm, as the long-awaited capture of the black

of Spike Lee, John Singleton and Joseph

the manhunt.

murderer is about to be realized. Gold, having

V a squez’s recent Hangin’ with the Homeboys,

While G old’s removal from the case ostensi

clandestinely maintained his presence in the

among others - seems of great importance pre

bly flows from the need to assign a Jewish cop to

operation, is set to be at the scene of the raid at

cisely because it refuses to grant us the ease of

the Jewish murder case, it also follows hot on the

5 am. He is central to the success of the operation,

identification, the salve to our liberal consciences

heels of a major confrontation with the black

and has a further moral imperative to be there,

that most American cinema does. Difficult though

Deputy Mayor (Paul Butler), which degenerates

having promised the mother of the wanted man

it may sometimes be, there is much in this strand

into racial abuse. This scene is crucial to the

that he would talk her son into coming without a

of filmmaking, and in Homicide, from which our

development of the film’s major subtext. Th e

fight - and hence, alive. Instead, at 5 am Gold Is

own melting pot can learn.

depiction of the New York City melting pot at

Involved In a spot of terrorism, helping destroy in

boiling point is deftly handled so that, on one

his new-found Jewish zeal what he has been led

hand, the racial hysteria of the black politician

to believe is the headquarters of a neo-Nazi

gives rise to a similarly hysterical response by

paramilitary organization responsible for the

Gold. On the other, the potentially explosive

murder of the old woman, and presumably

racist undertones of the confrontation are de

countless others.

fused when a black cop offers support to Gold

Th e film’s ending is ambiguous, with Gold

and condemnation of the politician’s pat espousal

positioned as morally culpable for having be

of race-conspiracy theory. In a swift movement,

trayed his duty to the force as well as the black

Mamet establishes the tensions which threaten

gunm an’s mother. Yet, in the scene which is

to tear New York apart, then offers a vision of

pivotal to G old’s redefinition of himself as com

interracial harmony which might yet save the city

mitted Jew , we clearly see evidence of the ex

from its inherent drive to self-destruction.

istence of, at the very least, a collection of Nazi

Yet once Gold is displaced from this frater

memorabilia. G old’s Jewishness, however, is

nity based on work rather than race, and im

only defined in terms of a paramilitary allegiance,

mersed in the ‘alien’ world of Jewish culture, his

for the worlds of Hebrew, faith and learning are

HOM ICIDE Directed by David Mamet. Producers: Michael Hausman, Edward R. Pressman. Executive producer: Ron Rotholz. Scriptwriter: David Mamet. Di rector of photography: Roger Deakins. Production de signer: Michael Merritt. Costume designer: Nan Cibula. Sound: John Pritchett. Editor: Barbara Tulliver. Com poser: Aerie Jans. Cast: Joe Mantegna (Bobby Gold), William H. Macy (Tim Sullivan), Natalija Nogulich (Chava), Ving Rhames (Randolph), Rebecca Pidgeon (Miss Klein), Vincent Guastaferro (Senna), Lionel Mark Smith (Olcott), Jack Wallace (Frank). Edward R. Pressman-Cinehaus. Australian distributor: Hoyts. 35 mm. 100 mins. US. 1991.

B A C K S L ID IN G PAUL

SALMOND

affiliations begin to come unstuck. At first scep

still as alien to him as they were at the film’s

tical of the Klein family’s claim that the old

outset. He has travelled far from his initial sense

woman (their grandmother) was murdered as

of illusory self-knowledge, but only towards a

during which convicted felon Jack Tyson (Jim Holt), who has arrived complete with police es

imon Ta rge t’s Backsliding opens promis ingly, with a backyard baptism ceremony

part of an on-going campaign of anti-Semitic

point of virtual self-ignorance. Th e final scene of

terrorism, Gold is gradually seduced by a series

the film has another police officer handing Gold

cort, is born again. As Jack is welcomed into the

of images -

the innocent solution to the puzzle upon which

flock, this seemingly benign affairquickly adopts

half-glimpsed clues to his own

id e n tity-to the point where he no longerdefines

he has mistakenly built his entire case for the old

an obsessive, threatening character, and imme

himself as a “cop” but as a “Je w ”.

wom an’s murder as signifier of widespread anti-

diately the viewer is thrown off balance. Unfortu

This shift of identification is Mamet’s chief

Semitism. But even as Gold is revealed as

nately, Targetfailstocapitalize on this prologue,

narrative and thematic concern in the film, and

having been blinded by his zeal, the suggestion

and his film quickly does a backslide of its own,

the extremes of G old’s shifting subjectivity are

lingers that he may have been onto something.

emerging as a fairly tepid attempt at a psycho

captured most effectively in two scenes. In the

Mamet is a clever writer-director, and dis

first, Gold Is talking to another police officerfrom

plays a good deal of courage in resting much of

Th e term backsliding is one employed by

a telephone in the Kleins’ massive apartment. In

the impetus of the narrative in Homicide upon a

born-again Christians to describe the process of

logical thriller.

response to the suggestion that he should un

misread clue. It is, perhaps, a subtle use of

a repeat descent into sin. Tw o of the children of

derstand what is going on because the Kleins

psychoanalytic theory which is strangely appro

God who use this term with alarming frequency

are “his people”, Gold, taking in the obvious

priate to this tale of shifting subjectivity and

are Jack, now on parole and a self-professed

display of wealth around the room, responds,

search for identity, But at the screening I at

new man after his conversion, and his wife,

tended during the Jewish Film

Alison (Odile le Clezio), who first met Jack at his

Festival, many amongst the

baptism. Th e y run a power station in remote

crowd in attendance com

central Australia, with only their pet goat, Lilith,

plained that the story didn’t

and occasional visits by the flying pastor for

make sense, that the film

company.

w asn’t as good as Mamet’s

As one would expect, the illusory harmony

House of Games (1 9 87 ).

of their solitary existence is irrevocably dis

Perhaps the problem here

rupted by the arrival of a stranger, Tom Whitton

was one of Identification;

(Tim Roth), a drifter who has been hired by

presumably, this Jewish au

Ja ck ’s company to work as a handyman at the

dience suffered no problems

station. It soon becomes cleartoJackand Alison

of cultural identification, and

that Tom is not what he claims to be, and

perhaps read the film as be

brooding sexual tensions among this isolated

ing specifically about Jews. Th e y may be right; but I think it is more fruitful in the

ménage à trois eventually lead to an explosion of violence, and a brutal confrontation between Jack and Tom .

light of recent events in New

One of the main flaws in this film is the

York - both on the streets

manner in which the director handles the build

and on film - t o read Homicide

up of tension between the trio. While it is initially

as an attempt to problema-

unsettling to witness a couple in outback Australia

tize the whole issue of race

wandering about muttering inspirational mes

identification within a society

sages like agents of the Inquisition, Target soon

purportedly aspiring to multi-

enters the realm of cliché. Jack, for example,

culturalism. Th e filmmaking

signals his obsessiveness to Tom by sitting at

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 57

Negative Cutting Services (Australia) Pty Limited

SPOT ON!

1/85 Longueville Road Lane Cove NSW 2066 and

COMPUTAMATCH Limited 1/71 Dean Street London W1V 6DE Ph (071) 287 1316 Fax (071) 287 0793

A MESSAGE TO ALL FILM PRODUCERS Save 25-40% of your post-production budget by using COMPUTAMATCH®. In 1981 we had already created what is called in 1991 the "latest technology". COMPUTAMATCH®, our unique and highly developed system of computerized negative cutting, has been operat ing for years in Australia, England and New Zealand. COMPUTAMATCH® has already been used on 13,000 commercials, 100's of documentaries, 100's of hours of mini series and 17 cinema/television features. COMPUTAMATCH® is compatible with all linear and non linear editing systems ie. Ediflex, Touchvision, Montage, Shotlister, etc. COMPUTAMATCH® is 100% Australian designed and developed. CONTACT MARILYN SOMMER

PHONE (02) 428 4022 FAX (02) 427 7919

EXHIBITION

DISTRIBUTION

CANNES

19 MARTIN PLACE, SYDNEY,2000, AUSTRALIA. TEL: +612 2338166 FAX:+612 2323841

34 LOUSIA ROAD BIRCHCROVE, 2041 AUSTRALIA TEL: +61 2 8108733 EAX:+61 2 8183228

RESIDENTIALE TEL: 93 38 4747 FAX: 43 99 5429 lyn

M cC a r t h y

GRAEME TUBBENHAUER

S tay on t h e B ay

Station Pier Condominuims welcomes the film industry with special rates to stay at our luxury, modern, resort-style complex. We are 4 kms from the city, 2 kms from the Melbourne International Film Festival's main venue, and on the edge of Port Phillip Bay. The complex has 60 superbly designed one and 2 bedroom suites with fully equipped kitchens and private spas. Our swimming pool, tennis court, sauna, jacuzzi make it the ideal retreat. Call for special industry rates today 008 331 911 (Toll Free Australia-wide) Station Pier Condominiums 15Beach Street, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 3207 Australia Tel: (03) 6479666 Fax: (03) 646 3539

D I S T R I B U T I N G

TH E

W O R L D ' S

RECENT ACQUI SI T I ONS MI SSISSI PPI THE

S S

T T

• CINEMA

W A T ER DA N CE

MY O WN P R I V A T E I DAHO R

N E WV I S I O N FILM DISTR P/L Tel 6 4 6 5 5 5 5 Fax 646 24 1 1

MASALA

PAPERS

NIGHT

C ANNE S

EA RT H

C ONT AC T

Fr ank Cox Hot el Car l t o n

ALISON TYSO N (ODILE LE CLEZIO) TALKS TO THE STRANGER, TO M W H ITTO N (TIM ROTH). SIM ON TARGET'S BACKSLIDING.

the breakfast table denouncing the violence and filth that he believes permeates the local news magazines. This is straight out of American situation comedy. Alison appears to be as zeal ous a believer as Jack (on her relationship with Jack she tells Tom that “What I really wanted was a man who loved me but loved God more.”), but she is apparently less repressed. We know this because she wears sexy silk lingerie to bed, plays the flute and appears to be sexually aroused whenTom pours bucket-loads of water onto her. Jack, on the other hand, is aroused by fire, and water only seems to fuel his accelerating mad ness, as we witness in a scene where he takes a shower while listening to inspirational tapes, psyching himself up in his war against Satan. The problem is that Jack and Alison are treated as cartoon characters by Target, assumedly so we won’t be surprised when they begin to accuse Tom of all manner of betrayals. Nevertheless, the transformation from cheery fanatics to avenging archangels is far too abrupt and unconvincing, and Target has to rely on props, such as the Playboy centrefold that Tom has attached over a sign in his locker stating that “God’s love shines on us all”, to express the underlying tension. Backsliding appears to be an attempt to recycle a theme used in another recent Austral ian production, Phil Noyce’s Dead Calm. Both movies rely on a family with an unhappy event lurking in its past (in Noyce’s film it is the death of a child, while in Target’s it is the husband’s

savage attack on a young man) confronting the violence brought on by the arrival of a stranger. However, on this occasion it is the husband, not the interloper, who turns out to be the crazy member of the party. The film is let down badly by its script, written by Target and Ross Wilson (who is also credited as creative consultant), which fails to establish any sense of motivation among the characters apart from Jack’s madness. As Alison, le Clezio is called upon to deliver lines such as “No man is an island” and “Life can be cruel” as well as accusing Tom of being a “spiritual sissy” . Assumedly, this is so as to convey the regi mented way in which her church has forced her to think, but the end result appears laboured and silly. Target and Wilson have also opted for some fairly obvious symbolism, such as when Jack, increasingly suspicious that Tom may be an agent of the devil, asks him not to stand in his light while he repairs the power generator. There are also various scenes incorporating the fami ly’s pet goat, just in case we should forget, at least in Jack’s increasingly demented view of things, that the devil is afoot. The three central performances don’t really assist the proceedings. Jim Holt has angular, vulpine features which prove helpful in convey ing his rapid passage into lunacy, but basically his performance is a curious hybrid between Robert Mitchum’s sinister psychopath preacher in Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter (1955) and Jack Nicholson’s manic Jack Torrance in Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). (Is it a coincidence that both the Holt and Nicholson characters, who go off the rails and

stalk their wives, are named Jack?) Holt fails to show any of the restraint that would be neces sary in making such a difficult role even remotely convincing. Englishman Tim Roth, last seen in Austral ian cinemas in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantzand Guildenstern are Dead (1990), turns in a fatally lazy performance. At least Holt is clearly trying to be persuasive, while Roth saunters through his role, apparently confusing a look of enig matic brooding with one of bored constipation. It literally takes the use of a blowtorch for Jack to galvanize Roth’s character into any form of ac tion. Odile le Clezio’s Alison looks suitably terri fied when faced with her husband’s murderous pursuit, but Target has failed to elicit any audi ence sympathy toward her character prior to this, so we don’t really care when Jackthreatens to do her in. However, to be fair, le Clezio is seriously restricted by the aforementioned dia logue which she is required to deliver. On the plus side, some of the camerawork isn’t bad. Though Target’s direction swings be tween broad expressionistic techniques and those which would be typical of an old episode of Crawford’s Matlock Police, Tom Cowan’s pho tography adequately depicts the lonely fate of a group of characters dwarfed by their oppressive surroundings. The conflicting use of fire and water imagery is also nicely handled, until, as with so many other aspects of this film, it is overdone and eventually becomes tiresome. Backsliding borrows so many of its themes and images from other sources that it seems to have no coherency of its own. The setting is CINEMA

PAPERS

8 8 • 59

JANE (IM OGEN ANNESLEY), STEVE (STEVEN KEARNEY) AN D NEILL (NEILL GLADW IN). RON COBB'S GARBO.

straight out of classic American film noirand one only needs to supplement the isolated power station with a dilapidated gas station to have an identical opening scenario to that of James M. Cain’s The Postman Always Rings Twice. The ethereal image of an aeroplane as an angelic visitation was employed by Spielberg in his Empire of the Sun (1987), and the final, brutal confrontation between hero and homicidal loony underwater was seen most recently in Martin Scorsese’s remake of Cape Fear, as well as in J. Lee Thompson’s 1962 original version. Target seems to have tacked these vignettes together in the hope that they will amount to an entire coherent narrative and, quite simply, they don’t. Target has at least attempted to avoid over staying his welcome in Backsliding. He wisely realizes that a film centred on the interaction between three inhabitants of a remote station in the South Australian desert should not be ex tended beyond 90 minutes. He also handles the violent conclusion with reasonable slickness (apart from a ludicrous and self-consciously apocalyptic false finale), and the violence, when it arrives, is well staged. But in revealing Jack to be a religious lunatic way too early in the tale’s unfolding, any chance at achieving a compen sating level of genuine sweat-producing tension is lost. Essentially, Backsliding consists of a couple of stylish set-pieces at either end of its story, and an overdose of tedium in between. B A C K S L ID IN G Directed by S im on Ta rg e t. P roducer: S u e W ild. E x ecutive produ cers: C h arles Ta rg e t, Sim on T a rg e t. Scriptw riters: S im on Ta rg e t, R oss W ilson. D i rector of photography: T o m C o w a n. Production designer: R oss M ajor. S o u n d : R oss Linton. Editor: Nicholas H olm e s. C o m p o s e r: Nigel W estlake. C ast: T im Roth (T o m W hitton), Jim Holt (Ja c k T y s o n ), O dile le C lezio (Alison T y s o n ), R oss M c G re g o r (T h e Pastor), Michelle Fillery (Je rry ), Patrick D u g g a n (P olicem a n 1), Jim M orlock (P olicem a n 2 ), A dria n Shirley (R a d io Officer 1), Brian Knott (R a d io O fficer 2 ), Ern est Ellison (R adio O fficer 3 ). Ta rg e t Production in association with Film F o u r Inti. Australian distributor: P alace. 35 m m . 91 m ins. A u s tra lia -U K .1 9 9 2 .

• CINEMA

PAPERS

GARBO JIM

SCHEMBRI

here’s comedy, and then there’s comedy. Garbo, unfortunately, is neither. There is nothing wrong with the “stumbling dills” school of comedy. Neill Gladwin and Stephen Kearney have made an astonishingly successful career out of it as live-comedy duo Los Trios Ringbarkus for well over a decade. And given their stage success here and overseas, film seemed a natural progression. But what’s that saying about things getting lost in the translation? The second you see Steve and Neill, who are garbos, stumble around in someone’s pris tine flower bed in the opening scenes of Garbo, you know what you’re in for. Fine. But it is hard to sustain a whole film where the tone of the humour is set by bumping into doors, walking through plate-glass windows, spilling drinks, falling down stairs, falling off piers and getting pissed. In this case, very hard. Too hard. The basic comedy situation set-up is this: Steve and Neill, and their Czech driver Wal (a poorly-accented Max Cullen), do a garbage run that is in danger of being taken over by a much more efficient, hi-tech garbage contractor. They express their disapproval but don’t actually do anything to fight it. Neill falls for an academic, Jane (Imogen Annesley), while cleaning her office. Neill and Steve go on holiday and leave Steve’s mum at a caravan park as collateral while they return home to try and raise money to pay the bill. They confrontthe new garbage truck in their old one, have a chase, and eventually win the day when the mayor (Jane Clifton) sud denly, and for no good reason, reverses her decision and decides to keep the garbos instead of taking on the new service. There seems a lot here to be getting on with, but the affair is deadstick. The film has no narrative drive, is sloppily constructed and lacks an emotional core to relate to. In other words, it

is slow, stupid and boring. The premise of new technology replacing human beings falls into an irrelevant heap pretty quickly. The cliché of the big, impersonal new technology is established by means as subtle as someone saying about the new garbage truck, “It looks pretty impersonal.” And, of course, we know they are baddies because all the people associated with the new service are either cor rupt or snivelling little pen-pushers (Michael Veitch does a good turn at this, but his perform ance is mercilessly brief). In any case, the theme fades away as Neill and Steve set about on holiday, and end up having to try and bail Steve’s mum out of the caravan park. Worse, though, the central characters of Steve and Neill are simply idiots. How are you supposed to have any sort of sympathy with anyone stupid enough to sell a garbage truck for $300? Their characters are not distinct or defined enough to have any substance. They are just neurotic, muttering dorks, which may be okay when juggling chairs on a comedy stage, but not much use when trying to hold 100 minutes of feature film together. Admittedly, one should not expect a high degree of sophistication in a film of this sort, but a bit of style, a touch of imagination, a skerrick of invention would have been nice. This is not an example: Steve wants to holiday at the beach with Neill, but does not want to take his beachloving mum, who wears a box on her head because she is agoraphobic (yuk, yuk). They are packing to leave and she appears, with box on head, ready to go with them. Says Steve firmly: “No way!” Cut to front shot of car, with box headed mum wedged in between Steve and Neill. Boy, didn’t see that one coming! The verbal humour isn’t much better. There is a sparse smattering of good lines but most are desperately unfunny, and do nothing to enhance some pretty lame attempts at visual humour.1 Take Neill’s first encounter with Jane. She talks on the phone about going to the beach, but Neill thinks she is talking to him because she is looking straight at him. Now, this kind of “ain’t this funny because one person is misunder standing something someone else is saying?” schtick was done to death by American sit-coms in the mid-1970s. So, what’s it doing here? (Don’t answer. It’s rhetorical.) Another instance: Steve gathers a handful of computer print-out paper from a university and tosses it out a second-story window. Cut to high-angle shot of paper falling down near the garbage truck, making a pretty inevitable mess. Says Wal, a former Prague intellectual, “I vish you hadn’t done that.” Hey, me neither bud, but he keeps repeating the line, even until the very end of the film, as if it is supposed to be some sort of magnificent catch-phrase that the legions of people around the world who are presumably going to flock to see this film will gleefully recite to friends and loved ones, secure in the knowl edge that the response will invariably be a warm “Ah, so you’ve seen Garbo, too? Top film, huh?”2 Excuse me. I’m rambling.

Even lines that one presumes are supposed to be one-liners fall flat. But maybe I’m misread ing something. Help me out here, folks. As Steve collects garbage from a university philosophy department, he muses to Neill: “Do you reckon the amount of philosophy in the world goes up with the number of people thinking about it, or are there just more and more people having the same ideas?” Obviously I’m missing something, so if anyone out there knows the joke here, could you please write to me care of the address at the front of this magazine and fill me in. I’d appreci ate it.*1 3 2 The film is incredibly pretentious, which may be a ridiculous charge to level at a film as lame brained as this, but something must be said when pseudo-radical lefty clichés get bandied around with as much sincerity as a Nazi manning a stall at a synagogue fund-raiser. On the one hand, the film makes these leftwing platitudes about the evils of big business and how technology encroaches on jobs for humans. A pretty right-thinking thing to think, you’d think. Yet the role of Jane is insultingly sexist. The character is supposed to be an intellectual, yet she has absolutely no emotional range or depth. She is merely an attractive piece of scenery for Neill to do pratfalls around. She is bland and without charm, form or substance. The performance is terrible, and the dialogue, such as herdeep and meaningful exchange with Wal on the university lawns, is embarrassing to listen to. It is tokenism at its worst.

S h a r m

i l l

Director Ron Cobb missed the boat with this. A designer of enormous talent, an artist and cartoonist of great wit and perception, he has misfired in a major way. Surely, someone with great visual flair should have at least made the film look interesting. As it is, the film has no shooting style. The only real contribution Cobb appears to have made is in the design of a garbage truck. But I don’t know. I could be wrong about all this; probably am. After all, I liked Almost an Angel. Maybe Garbo will capture the world’s imagination - which would say a lot for my imagination, but not the world’s.

d o e s , he gets $ 1 0 , a kiss on th e fo re h e a d an d an invite to the p re v ie w . If it d o e s n ’t, just re m e m b e r, y o u read it h e re first. 3 . 1 a ctu a lly h a d a s w a g of e x a m p le s of d u d d ia lo g u e from the film that I w a s g o in g to q u o te at le ngth , but I th o u g h t it be st to s a v e s p a c e a n d s p a re y o u . B ut I did note the tim es th e y o c c u rre d . T w o e x a m p le s are at 3 7 :4 0 an d 4 0 :5 0 , w h ich yo u can z a p to w h e n this film fulfils its d e stin y an d b e c o m e s a $ 1 -a -w e e k v id e o rental.

G A R B O D irected by Ron C o b b . P rod ucer: H ugh Rule. A ssociate produ cers: Ste ph en K e a rn e y, Neill G lad w in. Line producer: M argot M cD o n a ld . S criptw riters: Patrick C o o k , S tephen K ea rn ey, Neill G la d w in . Director of p h o to g ra p h y : G e o ff B u rto n .

P ro d u ctio n d e s ig n e r:

R ichard Bell. C o s tu m e de sign er: R ose C h o n g . S o u n d : Jo h n Phillips. Editor: Neil Th u m p s to n . C o m p o s e r: Allan

N O TES

Z a vo d . C a st: Ste ph en K ea rn ey (S te v e ), Neill G lad w in 1. P e rh a p s the best line is w h e n S te v e ’s m u m recovers

(N e ill), M ax C ulle n (W a l), Im ogen A n n e s le y (Ja n e ),

from h er a g o ra p h o b ia at the c a ra v a n park an d boasts

T o m m y Dysart (B a g p ip e s ), David G la z e b ro o k (F ra g ile ),

to the o w n e r (G e ra rd K e n n e d y ) that sh e has re m o v e d

Rod W illiam (T h e P o p e ), M ax Fairchild (B ig Feral), Ron

the box from h er h e a d . H e s a y s he k n o w s; h e ’d had

B in g h a m

c o m p la in ts.

O ’S ullivan (F re d a ), G e ra rd K e n n e d y (T re v o r). Eclectic.

2. B y the w a y, this re v ie w a p p e a rs co u rte s y of w ishful

Australian distributor: H oyts. 35 m m . 100 m ins. A u s tra

thinking on th e part of th e e d itor of this o rg a n . H e

lia. 1992.

(T u b s ),

E lle n C re s s e y (R a e le n e ),

M o ya

■

p re s u m e s G arbo will get a theatrical re le a se . If it

TO A D V E R T I S E CONTACT

F i l m

IN C I N E M A P A P E R S

DEBRA SHARP

(03)

4 2 9 5 513.

SUITE 4 , 200 TOORAK RD, SOUTH YARRA. VICTORIA 3141. AUSTRALIA PH (03) 826 9077 FAX (03) 826 1935

SH A D O W PLA Y T H E U L T IM A T E S T O R Y O F T H E A U S T R A L I A N F IL M I N D U S T R Y

"P O W E R H JL .

-ferrosi intelligently is film since TVie gorgeous bast Emperor

A N O VEL BY ROD W AYM AN A V A I L A B L E IN H A R D B A C K $ 3 4 .9 5 + $ 5 P O S T A G E CHEQUE/MONEY ORDER TO SCORPIO MEDIA ENTERPRISES

For Bookings Phone THE OTHER FILMS (03) 4 8 9 1741 OR FAX (03) 481 5 6 1 8 IN C A N N E S : REPRESENTATIVES FOR SHARMILL FILMS A N D LO N G FO R D C IN E M A AT THE GRAY D 'A L B IO N HOTEL

P.O. BOX 572 FREEMAISJTLE WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6160

Personalised distribution o f connoisseur films

I N

44 FITZROY STREET ST KILDA TELEPHONE (03) 536 3000 FACSIMILE (03) 525 4571 TOLL FREE (008) 033 786 MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA

- S S , ,

Special industry rates: $75-125 per night, $395-790 per week. All apartments feature usual luxury appointments, separate livingroom/bedroom(s), very fully equipped kitchen, full size bath/shower over. In-house laundry, sauna, spa. In-house movies; direct dial-in phones; answering service, video machines, and facsimile on request. Full business service. Individual washing and drying machines are in most apart ments, and many apartments have dishwashers. Continental breakfast on request (in apartment), 24 hour reception. High security building. We are the film and entertainment specialists, attentive to your special needs.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 61

ENJOY THESE MOVIES AGAIN.. MY FATHER’S GLORY MY MOTHER’S CASTLE

SOUNDTRACKS NEW & UN U SU A L SO UN DT R AC K RECORDINGS F R O M OU R L A R G E R A N G E

A r t ic le 9 9

• Danny Elfmann • $30 • Jerry Goldsmith • $30

B a s ic In s tin c ts

CDSBL12604

A ROOM WITH A VIEW

S e v e n B rid e s fo r S e v e n B ro th e rs

CD5BL12588

T ill The C lo ud s R o ll B y

CYRANO DE BERGERAC

Complete Scores • $30 N a k e d L un ch

CDSBL12602

SALAAM BOMBAY CDSBL12595

CINEMA PARADISO

Lee Holdridge Themes, plus Miklos Rozsa Violin Concerto • $30 B e a u ty a n d th e B e a s t •

JFK

...WITH THESE SOUNDTRACKS ON CD

• $30

Symphonic Hollywood

Bugsy •

CDSBL12598

•

• John Williams • $28

The P rin c e o f T id e s

•

The F is h e r K in g Com a

Oscar Winning Best Score • $30

Ennio Morricone • $30 James Newton Howard • $28 • George Fenton • $30

• Jerry Goldsmith • $30

L o g an 's Run

• Jerry Goldsmith • $30

RE A DI N GS • SOUTH YARRA OPEN 7 DAYS A WEEK 153 TOORAK ROAD • 867 1885 • BOOKS /LPS/ CDS/CASSETTES 73-75 DAVIS AVENUE • 866 5877 • SECONDHAND LPS/ CDS/CASSETTES

AVAILABLE THROUGH GOOD MUSIC R ET AI LER S M ARKETED BY E A S T W E S T RECORDS A D IV IS IO N OF W A R N E R MUSIC A U S T R A L IA A TIM E W A R N E R C O M P A N Y

S e c

m /sC a

OTHER STORES 366 LYGON STREET CARLTON 347 7473 • 269 GLENFERRIE ROAD MALVERN 509 1952 710 GLENFERRIE ROAD HAWTHORN 819 1917 MAILORDER • P 0 BOX 482 SOUTH YARRA VIC. 3141

e Ji

e J . " to ^ n ^ o A ^ c M i

GRADUATE SCREENINGS

AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION & RADIO SCHOOL Tuesday April 28 & Wednesday April 29 7.30-10.30pm State Film Theatre, East Melbourne (plus information session about the School 6 -7pm, Wed April 29) Monday May4 7.30-10.30pm State Cinema, North Hobart Wednesday May 6 7.30 - 10.30pm Village Cinemas, Launceston Wednesday May 13 7.30 - 10.30pm National Library, Canberra Monday May 18 7.30- 10.30pm Lumiere Cinemas, Perth 7.30 - 10.30pm Academy Cinemas, Adelaide Thursday May 21 (plus information session about the School 6 -7pm) ThursdayMay28 7.30-10.30pm Museum of Arts and Sciences, Darwin Tuesday June 2 7.30 -10.30pm Araluen Centre, Alice Springs Griffith Duncan Theatre, University of Newcasde MondayJunel5 7.30-10.30pm Wednesday June 17 &ThursdayJune 18 7.30 -10.30pm Classic Cinema, East Brisbane MondayJune22 7.30-10.30pm Warrina Cineplex, Townsville

ADMISSION FREE - ALL WELCOME

• CINEMA

PAPERS

B O O K

R E V LE W S

PROJECTING AUSTR ALIA: GOVERNMENT FILM SINCE 1945 Albert Moran, Currency Press, Sydney, 1991, 192 pp., pb, rrp $25 STUART

CUNNINGHAM

The prolific research output of Griffith University scholar Albert Moran continues unabated with the publication of Projecting Australia: Govern ment Film Since 1945, the first book-length his tory and discussion of the films made by the Commonwealth government film unit (variously titled over 45 years, but best known as the production arm of the Australian National Film Board, then the Commonwealth Film Unit, then Film Australia) since World War II. The book is published by Currency Press “with the kind as sistance of Film Australia”, but it is not an inhouse company history. The overall very posi tive valuation offered by Moran of the work and significance of Film Australia (I will refer to the film unit as Film Australiafrom here, for economy and recognition value) does not come at the price of anodyne celebration or lack of critical analysis. It is a study about w hich the co rp o ra tio n should feel quite chuffed, having attracted to its work an independent film histo rian of mature accomplish ment, careful but not heavyhanded scholarship, and considered judgement. Based on Moran’s PhD thesis, “After Grierson: The Australian Governm ent Documentary Film Unit Since 1945” (Griffith Uni versity, 1989), Projecting Australia is the result of extensive interviews with many of the principals in the organization, a wellhoned and sim p ly-p u t theoretical framework, and a great deal of viewing labour (and - it shows enjoyment) at the film projector, VCR and Steenbeck. The interviewees range from the 24year generalissimo, Stanley Hawes (in whose memory the book is dedicated), to the most recent managing directors, Robin Hughes and Bruce Moir, and include producers, directors and other major production personnel. Moran always gets the most from his oral interview research; many anecdotes and insights are in cluded verbatim and at length, lending texture and variation to the prose. Moran’s theoretical and historical architec ture is always informative and invites immediate understanding. The time from the formation in 1945 of the first predecessor of Film Australia is divided into four periods. Each period is marked primarily by changes to the overall ethos and style of the films (and these are correlated loosely, or what in historiography would be called nondeterminatively, with changes in Australian so

ciety), although there are organizational and personnel changes that figure in the periodizing also. The first, a period of nation building (large visions of social justice and renewal, innovative filmmaking within the still-fresh classical British documentary format, post-war reconstruction, the formative establishment phase of the organi zation), runs from 1945 to 1953. The second, from 1954 to 1964, is a time of what Moran calls “hegemony”, meaning that an orthodox, “consensual monolithic view of Aus tralia” (p. 109) predominated in films with a conspicuous lack of experiment and innovation. This correlates neatly with the Menzies era, and represents a phase when classical documentary was becoming somewhat sclerotic. The third period, from 1964 to 1976, sees Film Australia’s filmmaking becoming more pluralistic, both in style and content, reflecting the international influence of stylistic innovation and diversity (cinéma vérité, dramatization in documentary) and social liberalization. The final period, from 1976 to the present, are “Hard Times”, with the social complexity and pluralism of the earlier period rem aining, but hardening into “a darker, diverse society in conflict” (p. 110). Film Australia searches for stability, rec ognition and a place in a rapidly-chan ging film scene. Overall, there is a heu ristic grid placed over the wide field covered, with axes of history, society, organizational structure and change, and film style and content fitted together in a productive way. There is meat here for students and teachers of film his tory, Australian history and society, and government and organizations, while film and television industry people wanting to reflect on one of the central long-term produc tion units in Australia, and the general-interest reader wishing to know something about one of the central repositories of Australian social his tory, will quickly devour the pellucid prose. And there is the sweet labour of viewing: the output of Film Australia numbers more than 2,500 films (a rough calculation would put the time on screen at the equivalent of between 600 and 700 feature films). Moran, in the space of a short book, manages to cover a representative sample of the routine as well as the more contro versial, high-profile or time-honoured work of Film Australia, including among the latter Mike

and Stefani, The Queen in Australia, From the Tropics to the Snow, “The Unknown Industrial Prisoner”, Annie’s Coming Out, Cane Toads: An Unnatural History and Prejudice. There are perhaps three aspects which led me to wish more of the book. Projecting Aus

tralia is less than half the length of Moran’s original study, so it is inevitable that a lot has had to be omitted and condensed. While the book contains a filmography, listing titles of all films and series produced from 1945, there is no information about their availability to viewers for study and other purposes (such as film societies, universities and schools), and underwhat condi tions they might be available. The thesis offered another extensive appendix listing short biogra phies of the principal personnel of Film Australia over the years, which would have been a valu able addition to the book, giving another way into the long history covered. Also missing through condensation is some interesting theory, principally about notions of classicism and inno vation in documentary practice as it applies to the output of Film Australia, as well as consider able texture relating to the actual working unit overtime, which is a substantial organizational analysis in its own right. For this material, the reader wanting to delve deeper will need to borrow the thesis through the library system. Perhaps the most significant ‘missing link’ in the analysis is attention to the modes of distribu tion, exhibition and reception of the films. While it is pointed out that most of the output of Film Australia has been for strictly limited purposes as training, promotion and in-house activities of the commissioning government departments, it is hard to get the big picture of how, over time and in multifarious contexts, it has succeeded or otherwise in reaching, motivating, reflecting or otherwise influencing its audiences. If the cor poration has “projected Australia”, to whom has it projected it, with what resonances, results, and implications? The book could also have put Film Australia into a wider perspective, principally by compar ing it more extensively to its nearest, and more famous, cousin, the National Film Board of Canada. To hark back to the previous point: Is it only because of the very limited distribution enjoyed by the great bulk of Film Australia’s work that it has suffered from a relatively low profile internationally and, indeed, inside Aus tralia? Or does it have to do with the type of films made - their quality, saleability, entertainment values, or vision, in comparison to similar or ganizations elsewhere? And are these ques tions the most pertinent ones, in the light of the fundamental role Film Australia has played, that of servicing the needs of commissioning govern ment departments? Like the ABC, that other government-funded audio-visual institution with a long and laudable heritage, Film Australia is structurally stretched between two alwayscontending aspects of its mission - in-house servicing versus wider exposure, creativity and innovation in the national and international film community. On balance and over time, has it achieved all that it could? But undoubtedly, without Albert Moran’s book, these questions could only be posed on a much more slender foundation.

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 63

TH E FILMS OF M ERCHANT IVORY Robert Emmet Long, Harry N. Abrams Inc., New York, 1991, 208pp, hb, rrp $79.95 BRIAN

McFARLANE

“I can’t do another period picture. I can’t do another literary adaptation”, said James Ivory in 1980. This was his response to being more or less forced into making A Room with a View in 1986, the film which proved to be the biggest popular success for the producer-director-writer team of Ismail Merchant, Ivory and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. It is curious that, as the team has become more commercially successful, it seems to have lost some of the critical favour it enjoyed in its earlier, more idiosyncratic days of the 1970s. One nowadays hears their work’s being de scribed as too literary, too decorous, as if it were destined for the over-refined tastes of those to whom, say, Cape Fear, would be anathema. And there is perhaps some truth in such judgements. The Merchant Ivory films bespeak enormous care in their attention to physical detail of time and place, whether it is a case of 19th-Century Boston or Florence in 1907. Sometimes one feels the films dawdle over their exquisite sur faces (and in a failed Ml film such as Quartet there is little else but these to admire); and sometimes one is aware of an over-respect for their literary sources. The episodes of A Room with a View, for instance, actually foreground their literary origins by using the novel’s chapter headings to introduce them. However, there is no compelling reason why either a literary adaptation or a period film - or a production which combines both - should be any less relevant or exciting in contemporary terms than any other sort of film. At their best, the Merchant Ivory films tackle issues of human relationships and cross-cultural conflict with a sensitivity and perceptiveness, with a cosmo politan imaginativeness, that enable them to bear comparison with the significant literary sources they have chosen. Robert Emmet Long judiciously suggests that, Comparison with [Henry] James ought not to be carried too far. Neither Ivory nor anyone else has the shattering power of James’s psy chological imagination, his ability to create characters from the innermost depths of their consciousness. But Ivory [does have] his abil ity to enter into different cultures with detach ment and discernment. And Ivory shares E.M. Forster’s “concern with personal relationships in the context of the cultures to which the characters belong”. If they are not greatly daring as adaptors, Merchant Ivory are invariably intelligent, draw ing heavily on Jhabvala’s skills as their recurrent screenwriter. Whatever reservations one may have about their choice of subjects in the past decade, Long is surely right to celebrate their tenacity as filmmakers. Few - any? - independ ent filmmakers have persisted so long. It is now 25 years since Ivory’s first film, a documentary called Venice: Theme and Variations, and, in the face of some intransigently uncommercial sounding enterprises, it is a remarkable ach

‘

CINEMA

PAPERS

ievement. Those who have come to know the Merchant Ivory films only since Heat and Dust, The Bostonians and A Room with a View can scarcely be aware of how surprising is the team’s longevity. In the 1970s they made films full of quirky charm, wit and sophistication, but these films were so idiosyncratic, their appeal so firmly outside the mainstream, that it is a great wonder that the team ever made it into the 1980s at all. And yet, as Long suggests, some of their most interesting work belongs to this period, when budgets were smaller and the anticipation and need for commercial success were corre spondingly less exigent. Many of the films of this period are set in Merchant’s native I ndia (Ivory is American, Jhabvala a Polish-German Jew, mar ried to an Indian). They include Shakespeare Wallah, the tribute to a travelling theatrical com pany in India, led by the father of the actresses Jennifer and Felicity Kendall; the very engaging Bombay Talkie, which, Long tells us, remains “one of Ivory’s own favourites despite its poor reception”; and the two masterly films made with television backing, Autobiography of a Princess and Hullabaloo over Geòrgie’s and Bonnie’s Pictures. These latter two anticipate the soonto-be-evinced interest in Forster and James re spectively: the former film presents an elderly Englishman (flawlessly played by James Mason) reflecting over tea with a Kensington-based In dian princess on his life as tutor to her Maharaja father; and the latter is reminiscent, as Long notes, of such a Jamesean tale as “The Aspern Papers”, In which the predatory “think of art in terms of possession”. Personally, I would settle for these two films and Jane Austen in Manhattan in exchange for all the latter, prestige-laden successes, despite the many attractions of the latter. The earlier films could not have been made by anyone else. They are all - perhaps not coincidentally - origi nal works for the screen, and the wit and pathos in them cut sharper than anything in the hand somely upholstered later versions of Forster and James. I have no objection to literary adaptation, not even much objection to “literary cinema” as such, but the Ivory adaptations are not notably

different in tone from Charles Sturridge’s work for film and television or the many discreetly tasteful BBC clas sic serials. Autobiography and Hulla baloo are the sorts of oddities that may never find more than a small devoted following; that does not mean, how ever, that they are anything other than masterpieces. And Jane Austen in Manhatten, not so much an adaptation as a film about adaptation, must be one of the most esoterically aimed films of recent years. Via Jhabvala, Jane Austen and Samuel Richardson, this stylish jeu d’esprit affectionately captures various aspects of New York’s theatrical scene. An avant-garde theatre group and the traditional theatre (epitomized in Anne Baxter’s charismatic star performance) vie for the rights to stage Austen’s childhood play based on Richardson’s novel, Sir Charles Grandison. Without relinquishing re spect for either, Ivory makes sly fun of both: it is surely one of the most under-valued films of the ’80s in its warmth, elegance and feeling for its milieux. Long’s book is really not much more than a coffee-table celebration of a team which has stayed the distance and, against the odds, made a niche for itself. If it is short on critical insights, there is no denying its enthusiasm for its subject. Like the David Lean book by Stephen Silverman, it is handsomely produced and will please ad mirers of the films, at least on the level of an enjoyable “read”. Long is shrewd enough in recognizing recur ring themes in the Merchant Ivory canon, though some will wish his insights were articulated in more detailed relation to the films. He is inter esting on the nature of the relationship between the ebullient Merchant and the more retiring Ivory and Jhabvala, and the book is useful about the problems of setting up the productions about the securing of financial backing and the way in which major stars (from Lee Remick in The Europeans to Vanessa Redgrave in The Bostonians and the forthcoming Howard’s End to Newman and Woodward in Mr& Mrs Bridge) gradually came to trust themselves to the team. For, perhaps above all, Merchant Ivory have persistently offered marvellously detailed acting roles of a kind increasingly rare in contemporary cinema. They offer a novelistic care for the minutiae of character development. If they achieved nothing more than James Mason’s eloquent study in gentle disillusion in Autobiog raphy of a Princess, they would have earned their place in the story; as it is there are perhaps a dozen other notable star performances and a • whole gallery of sharply drawn, perfectly under stood character roles. Perhaps nothing will ever make Merchant Ivory into box-office giants. Perhaps they have already gone far enough in that direction to imperil their particular excellences. As It is, one is grateful that they have been enabled to achieve so much - and to Robert Long for so lightly and readably recording the achievement to date.

TH E LOGIC OF IM AGES: E S S A Y S AND CO N V ER SATIO N S Wim Wenders, translated by Michael Hoffman, Faber & Faber, London, 1991, 113pp, rrp $40.00 (hb); $14.95 (pb). PAULINE

ADAMEK

Although The Logic of Images: Essays and Conversations was first published In 1988 in German, the English edition, translated by Michael Hoffman, was not available until late last year. Discussing the complete body of Wenders’ work, the book comprises letters, lectures, replies to questionnaires, essays, seminars, interviews and conversations, with pieces as early as September 1971 and as late as 1988. Wenders’ words (and Hoffman’s coherent and contemporary translation) provide us with the insights into and inspirations for his films. We see his simplicity of expression yet the depth of ideas and a wealth of vision and talent behind his work. On the first page, Wenders describes his first impulse: to point the camera and capture reality until the film ran out. He cites the influ ence of Bela Balazs’ paraphrased words: “the ability (and the responsibility) of cinema ‘to show thing as they are’ [...] that cinema can ‘rescue the existence of things’.” Wenders is a filmmaker who doesn’t have a burning story which yearns to be told. He is more obsessed with presenting life, capturing (and later creating) images, pictures. He describes his work as “more documenting than manipu lating”, yet his later films gain sophistication of ideas and indicate a development of narrative influence on his audience. Wenders becomes more sure of his material and this is reflected in his style of presentation. Paris, Texas is indicative of his maturity of vision. Wenders says, “From the outset, Paris Texas had a much straighter trajectory and a much more precise destination. And [...] it had more of a story than my earlier films.” Wenders frequently states: “A lot of my films start off with road maps instead of scripts.” The book describes in detail his poring over maps, his scripts based on favourable sites in Germany and the U.S., and his location hunts. With Paris, Texas, for example, Wenders initially intended to travel all over the U.S., both for the location reconnaissance and the shoot, but his screen writer, Sam Shepard, persuaded him otherwise, claiming everything he needed could be found in Texas: “America in miniature” . What is most enjoyable is his straightfor ward and unpretentious honesty. Sometimes his opinions or observations strike a clear note of truth. His almost naive yet astute observation on p. 4 describes that surprisingly irrational anger people can have in response to a film or a scene which they don’t understand: “They im agine there has to be some other (deeper) reason, and when they can’t find it they get mad.” The chapter entitled “Chambre 666” is about a project based on his attendance of the Cannes Film Festival in 1982. Wenders set up a video camera in room 666 and invited the directors

attending the Festival to individually come to the room and switch on the video recorder and, at their leisure, tape their response to his set ques tion. The question was along the lines of cinema being infected by television culture: “It looks as though a television ethic has supplanted film ethic [...] Is cinema becoming a dead language, an art which is already in the process of de cline?” Wenders elicited responses from luminaries of the cinema including Jean-Luc Godard, Werner Herzog, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Susan Seidelman, Mahroun Bagdadi, Steven Spielberg -fifte e n directors in all. The best responses come from Godard, Seidelman and Fassbinder. Godard describes the concurrent history of film and television to put his argument, and the question in context. Seidelman opines “films are about passion [...] When the passion goes out of cinema, then it’ll start to die, just like any art form.” Fassbinder refutes the posed question, as do most of the directors surveyed, arguing that many directors manage to make a film using television money and maintain their artistic vi sion without “kowtowing to a television aesthetic.” The most astute observation comes from Turkish filmmaker YilmazGuney who was unable to present his views directly to the screen as his government had demanded his extradition and he chose refuge in Cannes, of all places. I could think of more pleasant and less hectic places to be in hiding. Guney succinctly de fines the cinema as having two symbiotic entities industry and art - opining that “Art tells stories to the public, industry wants to make its profits from the storytelling.” On reading the fifteen responses to W enders’ question you find yourself agreeing with almost all of them. Each director con centrates on one aspect of the im plications of the question and thus reveals some of his/her bias and place within the industry. Spielberg, for example, chooses to focus on budgets and schedules. His most interesting observation is of the old problem that the studio bosses are the ones with the deciding power, the ones who hold the purse strings, ratherthan the filmmakers themselves. He emphasizes that es calating costs are due to greedy executives: “They say I want to get my money back on this project, and I want it back tenfold.” Wenders presents their views but declines to offer his own comment or interpretation - again the documentary style of a recorder of history. It would be interesting to hear more recent responses to such a question, from directors like Peter Greenaway who is incorporating the tech nology of HDTV more and more into his films.

One brief chapter which lovingly describes the location hunt and impulse for Paris, Texas is abruptly followed by a description of the lawsuit which delayed the screening of Paris, Texas in his own country. The chapter on p. 68, “The Growth of a small dependency” , details the lengthy litigation he has had with Filmverlag der Autoren, a commer cial distribution company. In this savage, in sightful and detailed account of their dispute, Wenders highlights the ramifications of this company’s alleged exploitative dealings and broadens his argument to accuse Filmverlag of destroying the New German Cinema. “ In the courts at last”, is Wenders’ biting riposte to the distributors’ triumphant yodel, “On the screen at last” - as if they weren’t to blame for the delay. It is a fascinating chapter which highlights the other, more ugly, side to filmmaking: the distribution battles and the lawsuits. It covers a stage in the battle, over three months until early 1985, and ends on the ominous note: “The dis pute is as yet unresolved." I would have liked an auxiliary chapter with the outcome or next stage of the proceedings. Surely with the book being published three years later that would have been feasible. There is almost a child-like ingenuousness to his discovery-based approach to the experi ence of filmmaking. It is fascinating to see the basic filmmaking lessons learnt as W enders progresses from film to film. In the chapter on Der

Scharlachrote Buchstabe ( The Scarlet Letter), he expresses concern with the restrictive nature of his subject matter, a reaction to the imposed limitations is a yearning for total free dom. Thus the next chapter concentrates on the mak ing of Im Lauf der Zeit (Kings of the Road) - from the impulse to make an un scripted, utterly free-form film, to the location hunt through to the complete chaos of the shoot: how, at first, the key people, the two actors (Rudiger Voglerand HannsZischler), the camera operator, Wenders and his assistant, would be up all night - often until 3am - working out the next day’s shooting schedule; how sometimes they would appear on the set with no idea and sit around trying to work out the schedule for that day; how Wenders, and the team, found this process draining and exhausting. What is most illuminating about this chapter is the lesson learnt by Wenders how film ideas equals money. That a lack of organization, planning and skill to achieve the logistical ap plication of the idea leads to loss of money: “Normally when you’re filming you aren’t aware that ideas carry price tags.” This hard lesson is applied, in varying degrees, to his later projects, though perhaps not to Until the End of the World,

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 65

the shooting of which ran 18 months over sched ule. Does the adoption of unrestricted freedom to the shoot of Kings of the Road necessarily mean a compromise in effiqjent organization? Judging from his words there appears to be no clear direction. In the following chapter, Wenders writes, “After my last film [...] I felt like working within the solid framework of a story provided by someone else.” Small wonder his approach to shooting his following film, Der Amerikanische Freund (The American Friend), is more structured, solid and script-based. Unfortunately, in some instances, we are not given the context of the extracts, such as the final chapter “Le Souffle de I’Ange” (left for us to

decipher as “The Breath of the Angel”). Almost a summary of the book, this chapter touches on aspects of each film in their chronological order. Throughout the book there are times when Wenders gives examples but doesn’t give expla nations, and, because they are out of context, it is difficult to interpret their meaning. Apart from the occasional inane observation, The Logic of images is an enjoyable book offering a vividly personal and accurate understanding of Wenders’ ideas and passions, and their bearing on his films. Those who are seeking to adopt an aca demic or semantic approach to analyzing Wenders’ films may be disappointed by the straightforward simplicity of expression - not to be mistaken for a lack of complexity of ideas.

BOOKS R ECEIVED C O M P IL E D B Y R A F F A E L E C A P U T O A N D S C O T T M U R R A Y

M Y LIFE W ITH GROUCHO: A SON’S EYE VIEW Arthur Marx, Pan Books, London, 1991, 344 pp., pb, rrp $15.95 Not a book if you want a heavy dosage of the comic genius of Groucho, but it is still apprecia tive of his talent. This biography is largely anec dotal and centres mostly on matters of their family life. It is not as candid as one might expect, though there is some good personal insights into the relationship between the Marx Brothers when off camera. It is a book that is warm and senti mental, and makes good as a light read.

GARBO ON GARBO Sven Borman, Bloomsbury, London, 1991, 266 pp., hb, rrp $39.95

HUMPHREY BOGART: TAKE IT & LIKE IT Jonathan Coe, Bloomsbury, London, 1991, 192 pp., hb, rrp $39.95

THE BIRTH OF MARILYN: THE LOST PHOTOGRAPHS OF NORMA JEAN BY JOSEPH JASGUR Jeannie Sakol, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1991, 103pp., hb, rrp $39.95 These books are mostly notable for the candid photographs of three of Hollywood’s renowned stars. The written texts are typically lacking of intriguing material, but are not without a few charming reminiscences and amusing anecdotes. Of the three, Garbo on Garbo is the one which organizes its material most lovingly. But, all in all, the reproductions always steal the limelight; on this score, all three are commendable.

CORPORATE SCRIPTW RITING: A PROFESSIONAL’S GUIDE RayDiZazzo, Focal Press, Boston-London, 1992, 209 pp., pb, rrp $75

CREATING SPECIAL EFFECTS FOR TV AND VIDEO Bernard Wilkie, Focal Press, Boston-London, 1991, 184pp., pb, rrp $49 66

• CINEMA

PAPERS

DIRECTING THE DOCUM ENTARY Michael Rabiger, Focal Press, Boston-London, 1992, 382 pp., pb, rrp $75

A DIRECTOR’S METHOD FOR FILM AND TELEVISION Ron Richards, Focal Press, Boston-London, 1992, 257pp., pb, rrp $65 Another selection of ‘how to’ publications by Focal Press which clearly point to students and would-be professionals of visual media. These books are highly readable, and do not merely dish out elementary information; the authors provide firm and essential background that takes the reader chronologically through the mechan ics of each field. There is always considered explanation of technical terms throughout, and an abundance of useful hints based on experi ence.

THE VIDEO M AKER’S HANDBOOK Roland Lewis, Pan Books, London, 1991, 224 pp., hb, rrp $29.95 A guide to the basic techniques of video produc tion tailored for amateur and home video enthu siasts. Explains some of the essentials of visual literacy such as continuity, shot sizes and types, as well as details on how best to apply the basics in certain situations - like a wedding, or family gathering, etc. A handy sourcebook to have for a firm beginning with video as a hobby.

DINGO

though, is some detail on the divergences from the scripts in the progression to the screen. R.c.

VARIETY MOVIE GUIDE Derek Elley (ed.), Hamlyn, London, 1991, 704 pp., hb, rrp $34.95 The one value of this thick book is that it presents, in ambiguously shortened form, the original Variety reviews of 5,000 of the 50,000 films reviewed since 1914. Being Variety, naturally most of these films are American and, with few exceptions, the inappropriately nameless reviewers have a preference for Hollywood narrative modes over all else. In the small print on p. ix, editor Derek Elley claims “the selection has been limited to films made in the English language”. This is incorrect (for one, Sergio Leone’s C ’era un volta ¡I West, which was shot with Italians speaking Italian, Spaniards Spanish, et al, is included) and gives hint of the many problems to come. The selection of Australian films is equally puzzling: no Stork, The Naked Bunyip or Proof, though the book is said to include 1991. Elley claims the value of sourcing reviews written at the time of a film’s release is “to escape the bane of film writing, received opinion”. Now, while this approach has some interestfor historical reasons (but only if reviews were printed in full), it is ultimately annoying. Why should the critical ignorances of the past be so lovingly regurgi tated? Take an example dearto this author’s heart: Robert Rossen’s Lilith (1964). The condensed Variety review opens with a silly and inaccurate plot synopsis (a common problem here). The anonymous reviewerthen staggers through some Inept criticism of the “because I don’t understand it, It must be bad” school (so beloved of some Australian newspaper ‘reviewers’). He/she also adopts Variety’s annoying habit of using actor names when character ones are required: Vin cent (Warren Beatty) “finds himself falling in love with Jean Seberg”. A film character In love with a real woman? Very post-modern. As annoying is the sloppiness found in most areas. On p. ix, the book states that the film title given here is the “original title in country of origin” . Quite untrue: Visconti’s Gruppo di Famiglia in un Interno ( 1974), for one, while made in Italy, is rendered only as Conversation Piece. Also, many English (and Australian) titles are incorrectly given. The facts, too, can be wobbly, as in the review of Mad Max where George Miller is described as a lawyer. In every important sense, this is a very dis appointing book. Look elsewhere, s . m . .■

Marc Rosenberg, Currency Press, Sydney, 1992, 75 pp., pb, rrp $14.95

SPOTSW OOD Max Dann and Andrew Knight, Currency Press, Sydney, 1992, 82 pp., pb, rrp $14.95 IN C I N E MA The screenplays of two recent Australian fea tures, modestly received if not modestly pro duced. Brief essays are included by the direc tors, as well as by the scriptwriters, which survey the scripts’ development. Also included are prin cipal cast and crew credits. Most important,

PAPERS

CONTACT DE B RA S H A R P (03)

42 9 5511

optical & graphic 5 Chuter Street, McMahon’s Point N SW 2060 Phone: [0 2 ] 9 2 2 - 3 1 4 4 )

Fax: [02] 957 5001 ] M o d em : [ 0 2 ) 9 2 2 7 6 4 2

• Ampex Vista Vision Mixer • ADO digital effects generator • Ampex Ace 25 Edit Controller A ll this together with all the old tried and true tricks make this facility an impressive production and post production facility^ So if it's a complete production package or a single piece of equipment you require, then call Kirsty Officer on (03) 419 5111.

STOCK FOOTAGE LIBRARY CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD

Production, Equipment & Facilities, Training

SUITE D 172 FILM AUSTRALIA BUILDING ETON ROAD LINDFIELD NSW 2070 TEL: (02) 416 2633 FAX: (02) 416 2554

OPEN CHANNEL CO-OP 14 VICTORIA ST FITZROY 3065 TEL 03/419 5111 FAX 03/419 1404

PROFESSIONAL NEGATIVE MATCHING MATCHING to TAPE EDIT or CUTTING COPY,

CM CO

<0 CO

o o

USING ‘EXCALIBUR’.

O <

The latest technology in COM PUTERIZED NEG ATIVE MATCHING: SCANNING BARC O D E

>* CL. C

IS o 4> z

C ONT A C T GR E G C H A P M A N P HONE : (02) 439 3988 • F A X : (02) 437 5074

Softwarefo r Film/Video • S crip to r™

V■ ■

• M o v ie M agic™ S c h e d u lin g • M o v ie M agic™ B u d g e tin g • T he E x e c u tiv e P ro d u ce r™ (A Time Code Management package sim ilar to Shotlister,

Subscribe to Cinema Papers now for a chance to win Jonathan Coe’s "Humphrey Bogart: Take It & Like It” Published by Bloomsbury

yet has more features.) See Subscription insert

S . F a. S . P .O . B O X 20, B O N D I J U N C T I O N 2022 P H : (0 2 ) 365 1504 F A X : (0 2 ) 3 6 5 1504

centre pages

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 67

C O M PILED

BY FRED HARDEN

I n 1986, I w a s lu c k y e n ough

in t e r v ie w th e

n o w le g e n d a r y C o lo r f ilm la b o r a t o r y lia is o n B ill G o o l e y ( C i n e m a P a p e r s , N o . 5 0 , p p . 5 0 -5 5 ,8 6 ). B ill d ie d o f c a n c e r la te r t h a t y e a r a n d I g u e s s w e b o th k n e w th a t th e in t e r v i e w w a s b e in g c o n d u c t e d w it h in a b la c k b o r d e r . O n e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s th a t s e e m e d t o o e m o t io n -la d e n to p r in t at th e t im e w a s a b o u t h o w h e s o m e t im e s c r ie d o v e r h is lo v e f o r t h e p h y s ic a l n a t u r e o f film — th e la b o r a t o r y s m e lls a s t h e film c a m e f r o m th e d r ie r a n d e v e n th e w a y th a t it b u r n t y o u r h a n d s w h e n w in d in g th e re e ls . T h e r e w a s a p r e s e n c e , a s o lid it y to th e im a g e f o r m a t . T h a t p h y s ic a l q u a lit y o f th e film im a g e n o w s e e m s to b e h e a d in g f o r a c o llis io n o f a m o r e e p h e m e r a l, d ig ita l o n e , a n d it m a y b e th a t th e c la p p e r -lo a d e r s a n d th e la b o r a t o r y t e c h n ic ia n s (a n d m a y b e th e t e le c in e o p e r a t o r ) w ill b e t h e o n l y p e o p le w h o w ill t o u c h th e film a s a n o b je c t — a t le a s t u n til th e th e a t re p r o je c t io n is t jo i n s th e re e ls o f r e le a s e p r in t o n t o th e c o n t in u o u s p la te n f o r s c r e e n in g . T h e r e w ill b e s o m e lo s s e s , t h in g s w e w ill h a v e to a c c e p t , b e c a u s e it a p p e a r s th a t it w ill b e fa s t e r a n d m o r e c o s t -e f f ic ie n t to u s e th e v a r i o u s m e t h o d s o f v id e o a n d d ig it a l e d it in g a n d n e g m a t c h in g t h a n h a n d lin g w o r k p r in t . A n d in t h is w o r l d w h e r e t im e a n d m o n e y a re k in g , o n e o f o u r t a s k s a s t e c h n ic a l jo u r n a lis t s is to m a k e s u r e th a t t h e k in g is r e a lly p u t t in g o n a g r a n d n e w s u it o f c lo t h e s a n d w o n ’t b e left s t a n d in g n a k e d in t h e p a r a d e . D o m i n ic C a s e ’s a r t ic le o n t h e w o r k -p r i n t is o u r firs t c o n t r ib u t io n . T h e s u b je c t is s u r e to b e f o llo w e d u p in f u t u r e is s u e s . 68

• CINEMA

PAPERS

FR ED H AR D EN 88

N e v e r

m i ni

High Definition Television has

been on the agenda for all of the 1980s. In thattime, we have seen waves of technology come and go: in the pro duction sphere, one-inch tape, component, composite, digital; in the domestic sphere, VCRs of various formats, the compact disc. Somehow, High Definition is always just around the corner. What’s the hold-up? Cost is one very good answer. Even in the big-spending 1980s there was a reluctance to embark on such an expensive and all-encom passing revolution. But perhaps an even greater hold-up has been the debate over standards. Which system? From what was once seen as an opportunity for the world to rid itself of the great PAL/NTSC dichotomy, the years of High Defi nition development have led to the growing certainty that there will be not one, not two, but probably three different systems established and those in addition to the existing broadcast systems. In a lavish presentation at the Australian Film Television & Radio School in March, Philips and BTS presented their view - the European approach - not just of the technology of high definition, butto the applications of satellite, Pay TV, and interactive video. This was a truly multimedia event: television monitors of all shapes and sizes, a videowall, slides, multi-track audio, a light show, and fog machines set the stage for a well-presented strategy. In the recession-bound 1990s, Philips offers a rationalist viewpoint. High definition is still a goal, but one to be achieved gradually, in sev eral steps, each one less painful, and some even profitable. At the heart of the system lies not one but a series of television transmission technolo gies: the MAC family. The first step for Australia could be bound up with Pay TV. Countries that already have Pay TV operate it in a variety of ways: terrestrial, cable or satellite transmission: single or competing networks, owned by or separate from the con ventional channels. Australia is normally a fast adopter of innovations, and Philips believes its system could be “running by Christmas”. The

the

q u a l i t y ,

f e e l

the

w i d t h

P H IL IP S ' H D -M A C , A H IG H -D E F IN IT IO N T E L E V IS IO N W IT H A N SP E C T R A T IO O F 1 6 : 9 .

1250-line wide-screen system will deliver muchimproved picture quality on larger, wide-screen receivers equipped for high definition, but will also be viewable, with the appropriate tuner, on existing sets. These will only deliver 625 lines of course, giving pictures of the same standard as today. Thirteen BTS high-definition cameras cov ered the Winter Olympics at Albertville, sup ported by a rapidly-developing range of produc tion gadgets such as slow-motion action replay recorders. The Barcelona Olympics will follow. Philips expects regular high-definition transmis sions by 1994. But it predicts that even by the year 2000 most viewers will still be watching terrestrial television on PAL. Is this the way television will develop? If so, we can look forward to a long transition period, with a number of formats and systems abound ing. The huge stock of movies and television series that broadcasters must rely on - in part to fill the inevitably greater number of channels will be quite acceptable in the mixed-definition environment. The greatest stride forward for most viewers - this decade - will not be the definition, but the width of the image. A footnote: Above and beyond all present and proposed high-definition analogue televi sion systems, but already this side of the horizon is the next stage: an all-digital television system. At least one speaker on the night referred to digital as “a great hope for a single unified world standard for television” ... signal would be broadcast by satellite using 02MAC, and with an encryption system that would require the viewer to use a “smart-card” in the receiver, D2-MAC is an analogue system that offers soirie Improvements over PAL. In particular, it eliminates the “Moire” effect of shimmering striped shirts, but it is still compatible with PAL. With a special tuner connected to a 30cm dish, the signal can be viewed on today’s television sets.. Better, it can be viewed in wide-screen ratio ¡16:9 on a new television set. And the new sets vyilI still be able to receive PAL signals from

the existing broadcasters, either cropping top and bottom or black-lining the sides of the screen. So, therels the rub. The most significant change we will see will be in the shape of the screen. Of course, a Pay TV network needs a selling point; and a screen to fit the shape of the movies sounds like a good one.

"By the year 2000 most viewers will still be watching terrestrial television on PAL.” Meanwhile, the stage is set for the next step: high-definition production facilities, producing programmes to be broadcast in HD-MAC. This

finitive buzz-word in technology marketing for many a long year. But what does a digital system really deliver? This question was posed - and answered recently in Sydney, when Dolby presented the Australian launch of its digital sound system for the cinema: Dolby SR-D. Dolby’s is not the first. Kodak and Optical Radiation Corporation have been promoting their system (CDS), and Sony recently announced CINEMA

PAPERS

• 69

DOLBY STEREO SR-D, W ITH THE TRACKS BETWEEN THE SPROCKET HOLES AN D

T h e W o r k p r in t: A n En

THE IMAGE.

plans as well. Do we need it? Two thirds of cinemas around the world still operate in mono; not all the rest rise to the reproduction standards required; but a well-mixed Dolby SR track played in a wellbalanced theatre does give very impressive sound. With the Dolby encoding system deliver ing not two but four channels of stereo, and a dynamic range of up to 80 dB, it’s hard to find a theatre quiet enough to test the limits of a con ventional soundtrack. Dolby’s demo reel showed exactly where the improvements were. A clap of thunder rum bled and echoed around the theatre, and then five people, all talking at once, could be pin pointed in the four corners of the room and in screen centre, making it easy to concentrate on one person’s speech. How quiet were the quiet bits? I don’t know. All I could hear was a conversation going on in the projection booth. Distortion? You need good ears to fault an analogue track. But the separa tion: now there was a real improvement. Conventional analogue stereo soundtracks, running alongside the image, carry four chan nels encoded into two tracks. On replay, they are split out again to left, centre, right and surround channels. But the tracks never sepa rate completely, resulting in a somewhat col lapsed stereo image, with the surround track noticeably poor in the higher frequencies. As Dolby points out, these are minor complaints analogue tracks have become very good over the past 15 years - but they could still sound better. After trying various parts of the film, includ ing the frameline, Dolby has placed the new digital soundtrack in between the perforations, alongside the analogue track. Six months of test runs have apparently shown this to be the area of film that gets least damage on projectors. The digital track consists of six discrete sound channels (left, centre, right, left surround, right surround and sub-woofer), as well as a data track for theatre automation control. The read head on the projector is placed - at present before the gate, in the pentaprism area, but it is likely to finish up adjacent to the analogue track head. Digital techniques allow the track to be delayed if necessary to obtain correct synchro nization. 70

• CINEMA

PAPERS

Each patch of data between two perfs contains one ninetysixth of a second’s worth of sound, encoded into a “cross word puzzle” pattern of binary data. Thanks to data compres sion techniques, the bits are much larger than those on the Kodak system, making printer slip, projector sound focus and print damage much less critical. There is even room for a repre sentation of the Dolby “double-D” logo between every perforation. Because every print carries both digital and analogue tracks, the projector can automatically switch over to the analogue track if there is a problem in the digital one. During mixing, the output is fed into a com puter which digitizes the signal and records it onto a magneto-optical disk. Typically, one disk would carry sound for one spool. The sound camera (Dolby has modified a Westrex) ex poses both a conventional analogue track and the checkerboard digital signal in one pass. What does this mean for sound recordists and mixers? To take full advantage of the sys tem, techniques will need to change. Typically, at present, dialogue is recorded in mono and placed in the centre channel, while music is recorded in 2-track stereo. Now it is suggested that dialogue can be successfully placed any where in the theatre, and music should be re corded in 4-track. Naturally, Dolby recommends recording and mixing using SR noise reduction throughout. The different characteristics of analogue and digital channel separation, as well as different dynamics, suggest that slightly different mixes would be needed for the two tracks, and, of course, a mix-down for television would be even more necessary from six channels than from four. Inevitably, this means a longer time for mixing. The temptation to use the full 3-dimensional sound image will be a strong one: off-screen dialogue could emerge from any corner of the room. This opens up new options - and con straints - in picture editing and even direction as well, as the soundtrack gains a new mobility previously reserved for camera and editing de partments. Dolby hopes to see a major release using their system in May or June, but won’t suggest a title at this stage. Will their system succeed? Like Philips and the Eureka TV project, Dolby faces the struggle of selling higher quality to an audience often (and rightly) more concerned with content than technicalities. Like Philips, it has eschewed the simple revolutionary approach, “out with the old - in with the new”, in favour of more cautious backward-compatible steps, and that puts the onus back onto the programme - or filmmakers. If the product warrants the technol ogy, you have it. If not, why change? ■

ld laboratory hands claim to re member the days when workprints were supplied with a green stripe down the middle to make sure that they couldn’t be used for a final sc ing. Now that really was in the old days. have changed, and they are changing even faster now.

The move towards video editing, acceler ated by non-linear systems such as Avid and Touchvision, has seen a lot of flat-bed editing machines packed off to the auction rooms. And these days it’s hard to find an editor, whatever the preference, who isn’t equally adept atfilmor video editing. One casualty of this change is, of course, the film “work-print”, rapidly becoming an en dangered species. Laboratories find more and more of their production work is “develop only”, with the processed negative sent straight to telecine for transfer. Peter Willard at Atlab estimates that nearly two-thirds of its 16mm nega tive is transferred direct to tape, with 35mm not far behind. Two years ago, only 20 per cent went this way; the great majority of negative was work-printed. If we continue to follow the U.S. trends (which seem to have been fairly accurate in these matters), we can look forward to as little as 15 per cent of 16mm negative going to workprint within a year, and about 30 per cent of 35mm footage. The debate over the relative merits of edit ing on film ortape has continued for some years, and with increasing familiarity it seems that the practical or creative differences are diminishing, and the argument is largely an economic one. But less attention has been given to the fall-out in other areas. How does the lack of a work-print affect the various players? There is an immediate effect in the lab. Peter Willard expects to see a reduction in staff num bers on the night shift, which is when most rushes processing and printing is done. It might go further: “We could see one of the major tape houses like Apocalypse putting in its own negative processor, to pick up all the commer cial footage.” Eventually (and that isn’t very far off), Willard sees laboratory services splitting to two simple functions: developing camera nega tive, and printing bulk release prints for theatri cal distribution. So, if there’s no work-print, what goes out for the crew to see? Usually a VHS dub from the telecine transfer. Producer Richard Mason tried that when Redheads was shot last year, and admits that it was a big mistake. “The quality of the rushes has a significant effect on the morale of the crew”, he said. “By the end of the first week of shooting, there was no one at rushes except myself, the director and the DOP. The rest of the crew couldn’t see any value in it.” He says that it is important to get the best possible quality up on a big screen, “so that everyone can feel they’re

da ngere d S p e c ie s ? involved in a professional production”. In his next film, Broken Highway, rushes will be of firstgeneration tape quality, with a decent video projector-and, interestingly, there will beaworkprint on film once a week. On the other hand, Mason does see an advantage in video rushes for the cast. “A lot of actors aren’t worried. They don’t want to see their rushes anyway. But those who do take the tape away to their own room and study their performance.” However, cinematographers have always looked to the work-print as the best measure of their work. Australia is almost unique in provid ing one-light (ungraded) work-prints for most feature productions. Cinematographers used to the Australian system can judge their exposures and lighting from the print, relying on absolute day-to-day consistency from the lab. For some cinematographers, the day can’t start properly until the overnight report has come through from

THE FEATURE OF THE FUTURE Now, don’t blame the

differences are in how

labs, but in the not-too-

S T E P H E N F. SM ITH

distant future it will take

M A N A G IN G D IR E C T O R F R A M E W O R K S E D IT P T Y L T D

longer and longertoget

they record the time

your rushes back for

code. Desktop non-linear editing: As I mentioned

viewing. Well, that’s actually not true,

in our previous piece, the best con

but that’s what it will seem like in com

tenders at the moment are the Avid and

parison to the length of time spent edit

the Lightworks. I believe the Avid has

ing. In fact, you will be able to see the

the edge because of its on-line use of

day’s edit before viewing the day’s

optical disks and the 24-track CD qual

rushes, due to the portability of desk

ity sound for track laying.

top non-linear editing systems and lo

D A T: Why Sony ever developed DAT

cation digitizing video-assist systems

without time code is beyond me! It

with time-code origination on film.

seems that their audio people don’t

The following is a possible scenario

talk to the video people. You can now

for a feature film shoot in the not-too-

get DATs with time-code ability on

distant future.

portable recorders.

You would be using a 35mm camera

Video Assist Digitizing: Real-time

the lab, and the question of “how do yesterday’s rushes look” is settled.

which generates time code on every

digitizing onto optical disks already

film frame. You would be taking an au

exists within the non-linear systems.

For most, the nail-biting is quite unneces sary. The one-light work-print system has led to (and can only work because of) the superb standards of cinematography that we have in Australia. In the same way, if a DOP has a good relationship with the laboratory, then a phoned

dio split of the location sound from the

On the Lightworks, you digitize onto

DA T and digitally recording it all with

the hard drive and transfer files to the

the images from the colour video assist

optical. The Avid can treat the optical

onto optical disks. As the sound and

disks as on-line storage. Both systems

vision are digitized in sync, you will

can digitize directly from any video

spend less time syncing the rushes and

source such as a video tap. But instead

orfaxed report is quite enough to go by until the work-print arrives.

this will speed up the final mixing

of tying up the computer you will be

process because they will all carry iden

using for editing, a more cost effective

But what if there’s no work-print? Tradition ally, the lab has viewed all work-prints prior to sending them out, and written a comprehensive report on every roll. Many problems only show up on the print, which can then be cross-matched with the negative to identify the cause. It simply isn’t possible to inspect the negative alone and get the same amount of information. Problems pf focus, exposure-even emulsion scratches or negative dirt - can’t be seen. Some telecine houses now provide a written report by the telecinegraderortransferoperator, but it’s much harder to relate any problems to the negative that way.

tical code. Because you are also logging

method is now available. Video Assist

How does the tape-editing approach affect the budget? Richard Mason’s answer is very straightforward. “With work-print costs, I’d have to shoot on 16mm. If I edit on tape, I can afford to shoot on 35mm. And that’s becoming the only way for a lot of low-budget producers to get a film into the cinema.” Grant Millar at Cinevex agrees. Although he sees a steady reduction in the amount of pro ductions that go to work-print, he feels that the lab will not be seriously affected. “If they’re not |?ork-printing, often they can shoot more film. That cushions the effect for us.” As the majority of television drama production is in Melbourne, tf^:labs there have been accustomed to “de velop only” work for some time. However, Millar does see a definite shift in laboratory services to meet the new trends, ©injeyex is now equipped for negative matching

takes onto the computer on location,

P/L. offers the service of recording the

this will act as a database of all your

output onto S-VHS and then digitizing

source material allowing instant access.

the tape image. There is certain to be

The portability of the desktop non

editor resistance to the lack of quality

linear system will see it used on loca

of the video tap for editing. Video As

tion in a trailer or hotel room, providing

sist will certainly be forced to improve.

easy access for the director and pro ducer.

Electronic Clapper Boards: The Deneke time-code slate will generate

With this method, I would estimate a

its own code and also jam sync to an

final edit to picture lock-off stage com

external source (e.g., the camera). It

pleted approximately three weeks after

also has the ability to transmit time

the final wrap.

code to a receiver mounted with the

How far is the “not-too-distant fu ture”?

sound recorder. Pilot II is a hand-held computer (available from Lemac) which

Without having to do more than the m inim um crystal ball gazing, the “future” is

allows you to set time-of-day code as

f * AMt

well as enter scene and take information.

within the next eighteen

As you can see there

months to two years. A

are a few gaps which

better indication is where

need to be filled before

the technology is at the

we are ready to shoot the

moment.

“Feature of the Future”,

The Camera: Aaton

but size, cost and qual

and Arriflex have both de

ity are all factors that

veloped cameras with

have always improved

time-code capability. The

over time

lO f t f c

CREATI VE TECHNOLOGY YOU COMMAND 82 W E S T S T R E E T N O R TH S Y D N E Y 2060 P H O N E (02) 954 0 9 0 4 FAX (02) 954 9017

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 71

to a video edit, and, while fewer people will be

It doesn’t say that he has seen the writing on the

producing some terrific ‘morphing’ work, the

needed for screening rushes, they will be able to train in the computer negative-matching system,

wall for Larry’s film opticals work, but if it keeps

current advertising fad fuelled by the computer

him around as an independent opticals house then I’m happy to mention theirtwoSP Betacam,

generated changes of the creature in Termina tor 2: Judgment Day. I know “Technicalities” is

four Ampex 1" machine, ADO 3000, ACE editor, Chyron RGU2, Paintbox 7001, Ampex 4100

trying to keep to a ‘film’ brief, but I found a lot of the stuff Zareh mentions exciting to see hap pening in Australia. It has made extensive

logging the negative before it goes out of the lab. At Movielab, recently moved from Perth into the Film Australia facilities in Sydney, Kelvin Crumplin believes there is another way. “Workprint is the cheaper way to go. Producers often find there are hidden costs in tape editing and

•

finishing - for example on-line edit costs often make it more expensive than film.” Crumplin found that telecine costs made his lab unviable in Perth, and the Sydney operation will be un

I watched the VHS demo tape for Mastercast with an agency creative director and it was interesting to see her positive response to the

compromisingly oriented towards traditional film work-prints. He will offer a competitively priced develop and work-print service, provided without a night shift. “Quality is important, and you can’t get that on night shift. People simply aren’t at their best in the middle of the night. We won’t work past midnight, but we’ll start pretty early. Customers will get their print only a couple of hours later than normal.” Before the feature revival of the 1970s, there were half-a-dozen labs in Sydney alone. That was in the days of the mythical green-striped rushes. Now it seems that the fate of the workprint may well determine the ultimate fate of the labs. ■

Briefly Missed from last issue were a few notes. The first was to thank Stephen Smith who allowed us to hold over the Frameworks column so that we could hear Bob Weis on the Llghtworks. Bob was anxious to reply to Stephen’s concerns about that system in the December piece. You will have judged by now if the questions were an swered. That kind of dialogue helps us all. The other was a missing caption. I promised Ivan Johnston, who talked about the CineKinetics jib, that I’d mention that he was a partner in the Melbourne company Kinegraffiti. • •

•

Time and Tide wait for no person and, joining the trend to acquiring terms we use every day for soap powder and non-linear editing companies, there’s the name for Melbourne’s newest AVIDbased shop, The Non Linear Company. Chris Weir and Ian Wilson have the latest Mac-based system strategically placed within transferring distance of AAV at 175 Bank Street, South Melbourne (tel: 03 696 2212). Even closer to the source are John Leonard and Barry Minster, who will have taken delivery of their Lightworks system long before you read this. They are set up as “edit advise” at POST! at 18 Kavanagh Street. South Melbourne (tel: 03 686 8888). Happy lathering customers! •

•

Barrie Smith wrote a long involved piece for Larry Wyner and Calvin Gardiner at Acme Photo Video, which, if I understand it, was to tell us that Acme’s new video suite was open for business. 72

» CINEMA

PAPERS

mixer equipped suite is open for business at 47 Herbert Street, St. Leonards (tele: 02 438 2199). •

•

concept. Jason Radich and Kara St Clair (who directs the short talking-head sequences) have come up with what is basically a “moving S h o w c a s t ’ on tape. For a very reasonable $100, an actor can have a short head and shoulders framed performance recorded for inclusion in a series of cassettes that are circulated to people making casting decisions across the television and advertising industry. Not as good as a proper screen test, but certainly better than a still head sheet and heaps cheaper, I was just left wanting more (full length, short visual resumé, etc.). The concept succeeded within the con straints of the idea so it is worth asking Mastercast for more information. It is Sydney-based only at the moment. There is a bigger issue in the background that could prove controversial judging from one of the testimonial letters in the press release supplied. One of the bigger Syd ney artists agency welcomes Mastercast for “neatly circumnavigating the ever-present and prejudiced casting agencies”. As a producer, I’ve heard that cry from actors before. I’ve followed the attempts at on-line data bases of ‘artistes’ and it may be that we will have to wait for the next logical step: an annual nation wide CD-ROM version which could surely be produced for the cost of the current print-based formats. For the moment, a fast-forward scan on a Mastercast VHS tape may find the face you are looking for. The Mastercast Group is at 3rd Floor, 259 Clarence Street, Sydney (tel: 02 264 2456). • •

•

• •

BASF is calling for entries to a joint BASF and UNICEF competition for a video-mastered pro duction about children on the theme, “Children of the world: Meeting their basic needs”. In a press release which tells us that they have already “targeted all possible sources of talent” (I’m sorry if you un-talented lot didn’t get asked), BASF calls for broadcast-quality programmes produced since January 1989 that you think might fit the theme. The international competi tion has a U.S.$15,000 prize and competition entries close on 31 May 1992. For more details, contact BASF in Melbourne on 03 212 1500. • • •

• •

On the subject of demo tapes, Zareh Nalbandian at Animal Logic in Sydney sent along its latest with a press release. It has taken over the VPB Sydney facilities and hardware (Harry, Paint box, Silicon Graphics computers, etc.) and is

commitments to some new hardware and soft ware, but of wider film interest is its purchase of a Solitaire film recorder which will allow Animal Logic to put the high-resolution 3D computer images onto 35mm film. There are a few Solitaire machines already in Australia and they are used at Lucasfilm in the U.S., but I believe that Animal Logic has the software expertise to make its do some clever tricks. It could make a few waves in special effects in the local cinema. • • •

•

While you are sitting there in the dark, spare a thought for dirty movies. Film dirt on projected prints will be one of the distractions that you will miss in the future at the 75 Greater Union Cin emas across the country. We have mentioned the elegantly-clever Kodak Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) in previous issues. It is a cheap polyurethane roller that rolls across the film surface and can pick-up 90 per cent of dust particles as small as 10 microns. At the end of the day, you just wash them under running water. Filmlab Engineering designed the fourroller assembly specially for GU, and Graham Codd, GUVT cinema division manager, said he was sceptical before the first test of the PTR installed at the new multiplex in Adelaide. He pointed out that, “The dust content of a new building is high for quite some time after it opens. The amount of dirt that came off the print before the first screening was amazing.” Besides en hancing the movie-going experience, the cleaner prints should save costs by lasting longer. •

•

Also on Kodak was the news of Kodak’s sixth Oscar for technical innovation. On 2 March this year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave its Award of Merit for the devel opment of T-Grain emulsion technology in the new EXR range of Eastman colour negative films. Two retired Kodak employees, Dr Fred Kolb, Jr., and Paul Preo, also received a technical achievement award for development of the SMPTE RP-40 test film that is used to test projected image quality on theatrical screens. The test film has been in use for almost twenty years. The previous list of Oscars and technical achievement awards that Kodak has received covers a full page of the press release, but if you are interested to know the first, it was in 1930-31 for high-speed black-and-white camera film. TO IN

ADVERTISE

TECHNICALITIES

CONTACT

(03)

DEBRA

429

SHARP

5521

WE TOOK A FOUR LETTER WORD AND CLEANED IT UP AGAIN. Since the development of the Acmekine over 4 0 0 TV Commercials have been transferred from Video Tape to Film for Cinema Release from D l, 1", Beta SP, Beta Std, Hi 8 and VHS formats. With the final development of the 2nd generation Acmekine machine we would like to thank all those Producers of Features, Special Events, Trade Shows, TV Series, Documentaries and Television Commercials who have used this unique service. Among the Productions using Acmekines in 16MM or 35M M format are “ Good Woman of Bangkok”, “ Breathing Under Water”, “Phoenix”, “Valencia D iary”, “Flirting”, “Hangups”, “A 1000 miles from Care” and the AFTRS Award winning Documentary “Plus Ca Change”.

ACME PHOTO VIDEO W here the only four letter words are in the production office. 47 PO

PHOTO/ V ID E O

HERBERT BOX

ST. A R T A R M O N

851

PH (02) 4 3 8 2 0 0 0

N.S.W.

2 0 6 4

FAX (02) 9 0 6 4 8 2 9

Film and Video Production Facility including Online and Offline Edit suites, Paintbox, Animation Stand and Studio.

ADWDSE A CUT ABOVE THE REST EDIT A D VISE and LIGHTWORKS Non-linear editing at home or on location - anywhere world wide Hire dry or with skilled editors ready for your direction

G e t o f f th e c u ttin g ro o m flo o r Visual Images Pty Ltd A.C.N. 006 850 148 18 Kavanagh Street South Melbourne 3025 Telephone (03) 686 8888 Facsimile (03) 682 6736

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 73

O F F E

C U S T O M

R S

without cash when you bank on us. IT ’S USUALLY A hassle to have to get cash out o f the bank before you go shopping. B u t we can show you how to be a smarter shopper simply by using your W estpac Handycard and the Handy way N etw ork. It’s not like using

credit card. Instead o f carrying cash w ith you, it is drawn straight from your account at the checkout. So you don’t have to be constantly visiting the bank to get cash. Use your Westpac Handycard to buy petrol or shop in thousands o f stores displaying the EFT P O S symbol. And there’s

% /y

no extra charge for using it. Call into your nearest Westpac branch for advice or a copy o f our free booklet to see how banking smarter also makes shopping smarter. P

Westpac Banking Corporation Westpac Savings Bank Limited 74

CINEMA

PAPERS

You can bank on Westpac L

I N E

1 3

HW001/92

P R O D U C T I ON

U R V E Ÿ

IN F O R M A T I O N IS C O R R E C T A N D A D J U D G E D A S O F 1/4/1992

to a revised format. C in e m a P a p e rs regrets it cannot accept information received in a dif ferent format, as it regretfully does not have the staff to re-process the information.

FEATURES PRE-PRODUCTION ALEX Prod, company Dist. company

Total Film & Television Isambard Productions Total Film & Television

Principal Credits Director Producers

Megan Simpson Philip Gerlach Tom Parkinson Ken Catran Tessa Duder 90 mins

Scriptwriter Based on the novel by Length Cast: [No details supplied] Synopsis: Winning has always been easy for Alex, a 15-year-old swimmer from the wrong side of the tracks. Then comes love and tragedy and the loss of innocence. In 1959 she faces her toughest challenge - qualifying for the Rome Olympics.

BEYOND THE RIM Prod, company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

Pocketmoney Productions $ 20,000 10/3/92 ... 15/4/92 ... 22/4/92 - 30/5/92

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Line producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Prod, designer Composer

Craig Godfrey Craig Godfrey Mark Tomlinson Scott Goodman Craig Godfrey Mark Tomlinson Perry Dwyer Jon Boling Tony Francis

Prod, company

TH E KANGAROO KID Prod, company

Village Roadshow

Principal Credits Dean Semler Robyn Burke Michael Lake Doug Yellin Maxwell Grant Assoc, producer Graham Burke Exec, producers Gregory Coote Maxwell Grant Scriptwriter Andrew Lesnie DOP Martin O ’Neill Prod, designer Susan Bowden Costume designer David Hirschfelder Composer [No other details supplied] Director Producer Co-producers

Visual FX Australia

Tovefelt Avalon Films 10/2/1992- 13/3/92

Prod, company

Principal Credits

Production ShaneWinter Principal Credits Joanne George Maurice Murphy Director Shane Winter Phil Avalon Producer Exec, producer ShaneWinter Dennis Kiely Scriptwriter IanHolder Assoc, producer Martin McGrath DOP Gauge 35 mm Bob Clayton Cast: [No details supplied] Sound recordist Allan Trott Synopsis: The story of Ronald Ryan: the man, Editor Richard Hobbs Prod, designer his escape, his trial and eventual death by Jenny Campbell hanging, a death which caused a social and Costume designer John Capek Composer political furore. The execution of Ronald Ryan Production Crew put an end to hanging in Australia, but even now Michael Davis Prod, manager there are rumours of a conspiracy and the Glenda Carpenter Prod, co-ordinator debate still rages. Susan Johannesen Prod, secretary John Meredith Location scout RED RAIN Phil Urquhart Unit manager Prod, company Rosa Colosimo Productions Steve Browne Production runner Dist. company Angelika Films Inti. Michele D’Arcey Prod, accountant May 92 ... Pre-production Hammond Jewell Insurer Sept - Oct 92 Production Completion guarantor First Australian Principal Credits Completion Bond Company Jim Kaufman Director Martin Cooper Legal services Rosa Colosimo Producers Camera Crew Will Spencer Ian Phillips Leo Pescarolo Focus puller Co-producers Brett Mathews Clapper-loader Arthur Syin Roger Buckingham 2nd unit camera Ron Cohen (underwater unit) Cast: [No details supplied] Brett McDowell Key grip Synopsis: A brilliant young professor and a John Tate Asst grips beautiful, enigmatic woman strike a macabre David Parkinson Gaffer pact to avenge the deaths of their love partners On-set Crew in this psycho-sexual thriller set against a stylish Dennis Kiely 1st asst, director Italian backdrop. Jenny Couston 2nd asst, director Heather Oxenham Continuity Greg Rossiter Boom operator Hilary Pearce Make-up April Wallar Make-up asst Hilary Pearce Hairdresser George Mannix Safety officer DAWN OF THE DMF’S Peter Carette Still photography Prod, company Black on Black Out to Lunch Catering $30,000 Budget Director Producers

FEATURES PRODUCTION

Art Department

Principal Credits Director Producers

Other Credits Craig Godfrey Casting Scott Goodman Prod, manager Janis Lee Prod, secretary Nigel Rowe Unit manager John Hurd Prod, accountant Cinesure Insurer Paul Di Benddetto Camera operator Peter Cass Focus puller Peter Cass Clapper-loader SP Betacam Camera type Jo Continuity Brendan Boom operator Liz Goulding Make-up Leonie Godfrey Still photography Drunken Admiral Restaurant Catering Cast: Bill Conn (Jerome Ryan), Les Windspear (Jack), Kerry Laws (Lisa Ryan), Pamela John (Fenella Bailley), Ken Short (Henry Bourke), Anthony Boden (Dr Courtney Godfrey). Synopsis: A suicide turns out to be a murder uncovered by unsuspecting hero who has vi sions through the deceased man’s glasses.

EXCHANGE LIFEGUARDS

MAKE IT QUICK

NOTE: Production Survey forms now adhere

Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Composer

Chris Summers Darrell Martin Chris Summers Chris Summers Darrell Martin Rick Chandler Chris Summers Stephen Radio Ian Kitney

Other Credits John Heinz Syd Manson Helen Rabel Sharon Bliss Grace Piscioneri Michael Kamperman Camera operator Michael Kamperman Clapper-loader Jason Raftopoulos Grip Jason Raftopoulos Gaffer Aaran Creece 1st asst director Keltia Lindsay Continuity Richard Goffin Boom operator Helena Sawchak Make-up Fiona Adams Adam Szchech Special fx make-up Lloyd Finnemore Special fx Caaren Engelhardt Wardrobe Super 8 Gauge Beta SP Master on video Cast: Greg Christie (The Soldier), David Whiteley (The Businessman), Chris Summers (The Punk), Bemie Rhodes (Agent No. 1), Sharon Murakami (Madam Director), Martin Egan (Dr Ezakiah Yoyo), Ian Cann (General B Bender), Greg Pryor (Professor H Schraube-Locker), Rick Chandler (Ed Jobber). Synopsis: 1950s style science fiction, paranoia comedy. Aliens invade planet Earth with the plan of turning the entire population into inco herent, babbling Ediots. A soldier, businessman and punk are set the task of saving the human race from extinction. Production asst Unit runner Prod, secretaries

Richard Hobbs Cathy Finlay Cathy Finlay Murray Gosson

Art director Asst art director Props buyer Standby props

Unit manager Production runner Unit runner Prod, accountant Insurer Completion guarantor Legal services

Camera Crew Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera equipment Camera truck Key grip Asst grip Gaffer Best boy Generator Gennie operator MU/WR van Greenroom

Spectrum Film Post-production Julian McDonald Asst editor Peter Townend Sound editor Robert Sullivan Mixer Film Australia Mixed at Atlab Laboratory Distributor Beyond Inti. Group Lionel Midford Publicist Cast: [No details supplied] Synopsis: [No details supplied]

FRAUDS Prod, company

Latent Image Productions

Principal Credits Director Producers Exec, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer Composer

Stephan Elliott Andrena Finlay Stuart Quin Rebel Penfold-Russell Stephan Elliott Geoff Burton Ross Linton Frans Vandenberg Brian Thomson Fiona Spence Guy Gross

Planning and Development Casting Dialogue Coach Storyboard

Alison Barrett Alison Barrett Casting Carrie Zivetz Dan Potra

1st asst director 2nd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Make-up asst Hairdresser Special fx co-ord Stunts co-ordinator Unit nurse Stills photographer Unit publicist Caterering

Keith Heygate John Martin Sue Wiley Jack Friedman Wendy Freeman Rebecca Simon Wendy Freeman David Young Bemie Ledger Sue Andrews Jim Townley Fiona Searson, DDA Marike Janavicius Marikes Catering Co.

Art Department Art director Asst art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Art dept assts Set dressers

Standby props Armourer Model maker

Robert Dein Angus Tattle Frances McDonald Andrew Howard Genevieve Blanchet Dan Potra Ro Bruen-Cook Kathy Moyes John Pryce-Jones Peter Savage Grant Lee Robert Coleby Carson Andreas

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe

Kerry Thompson Mary Lou da Rosa

Animals Goose wrangler

Graham Ware

Construction Dept Scenic artist Painter 2nd painter Construct, manager Carpenters

Greens dept

Eric Todd Frank Falconer Greg Commerford Danny Burnett Dean Steiner Brad Dunlop Nigel Boyle Tom Parsons John Rega Yvonne Gudgeon Greg Thomas Loretla Shelton

Post-production Asst editor 2nd asst editor Editing rooms Studio Laboratory Gauge Shooting stock

Stella Savvas Priscilla Thorley Spectrum Films Mentmore House Atlab 35mm Kodak Eastman Colour

Government Agency Investment

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator Prod, secretary Director’s asst Mr Collins’ asst Location managers

David Williamson Kathryn Milliss Lani Hannah Samuelsons Kathryn Milliss Simon Quaife Paul Smith Ian Plummer Grant Atkinson Flowers Film Lighting Viking Generators Robbie Burr Ric Petro Artists’ Van Empire Production Services

On-set Crew

Draughtsmen

Post-production

Lori Flekser Will Milne Grayden Le Breton Grayden Le Breton Jenny Pawson Jardine’s Australia Motion Picture Guarantors Paula Paizes Blake Dawson Waldron

Sandra Alexander Deborah Samuels Esther Rodewald Sally Browning Danny Gillen David Joyce

FFC liaison

Moya Iceton

Marketing Inti, sales agent

J & M Films

Cast: Phil Collins, Hugo Weaving, Josephine Byrnes.

Synopsis: A surrealistic black comedy of an

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 75

insurance investigation that goes haywire. A seemingly defenceless couple are ensnared in a nightmare game of fraud and blackmail by an insurance investigator extraordinaire. The only chance they have to retain their sanity is to fight back, thus beginning a chilling, hair-raising adventure.

NO WORRIES Prod, company

Palm Beach Pictures Initial Film & Television Southern Star Group Channel Four 6/1/92 - 15/2/92 17/2/92 - 16/4/92 21/4/92-18/11/92

Dist. company Pre-production Production Post-production

Principal Credits Director Producers

David Elfick David Elfick Eric Fellner John Winter Kim Williams Nina Stevenson David Holman

Line producer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter Based on the novel Written by DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer

No Worries David Holman Steve Windon Guntis Sics Louise Innés Michael Bridges Clarrissa Patterson

Scenic artist Construct, manager Carpenters

Richard Baldwin Bob Paton Brett Bartlett Alan Armytage

Post-production Asst editors Sound editor Lab liaison Gauge Screen ratio Shooting stock

David Gurosvin Andrew Upton Karen Whittington Ian Russell 35mm 185. Kodak

Government Agency Investment Development AFC Cast: Amy Terelinck (Matilda), Geoff Morrell (Ben Bell), Susan Lyons (Ellen Bell), Geraldine James (Ann Marie O ’Dwyer), John Hargreaves (Clive Ryan), Steven Vidler (Gary Hay), Bob Baines (Mr Drew), IRay Barrett (Old Burkey), Harold Hopkins (John Burke), Judy McIntosh (Mrs Gregg). Synopsis: In the midst of the drought and rec ession of 1992, 10-year-old Matilda and her family are forced off their property in Western New South Wales, and move to Sydney. There they are 'foreigners’.

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinators

RECKLESS KELLY

Planning and Development Christine King Lucy Goodman Dean Carey Robert Alcock

Anne Bruning Basia Plachecki Julie Sims Producer's asst Lucy Chapman Location manager Maude Heath Unit manager Will Matthews Asst unit manager Dennis Huim Unit assts Noelene Maxwell Russell Jeutral Production runner Simon Cox Prod, accountant Lyn Jones Accounts asst Lyndal Magnusseson Insurer Hammond Jewell Completion guarantor Film Finances Legal services Allen, Allen & Hemsley Base-office liaison Elli Bradbury

Camera Crew Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Key grip Asst grips

Mark Spicer Steve McDonald Annie Benzie Ray Brown Ian Bird Warren Grieef Ken Pettigrew Gary Hill Jonathan Hughes

Gaffer Best boy Electrician

On-set Crew 1st asst director Chris Webb 2nd asst director Maria Phillips 3rd asst director Geoffrey Guiffre Continuity Daphne Paris Boom operator Fiona McBain Make-up Lesley Rouvray Hairdresser Jan Zeigenbein Special fx co-ord Steve Courtley Special fx Allied Explosive Technology Stunts co-ordinator Zev Eleptheriou Safety officer Zev Eleptheriou Unit nurse Jacquie Ramsay Stills photographer Brian McKenzie Unit publicist Victoria Buchan Catering Kollage Katering

Art Department

Standby props Armourer Action vehicle co-ord

Jenny Carseldine Amanda Selling Tim Disney Mark Dawson Bill Booth Mark Dawson James Cox Robert Colby Peter Cashman

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst

Jane Johnson Gabrielle Dunn Jacqueline Saaine

Animals

Animal wrangler

Stephen Bilson Noonbarra Kelpie Stud Evanne Cheeson

Construction Dept

CINEMA

Stunt co-ordinator Safety officer Safety report Nurse Stills photographer Caterers

PAPERS

Rocky McDonald Bernie Ledger Grant Page Annie O ’Halloran Vivien Zink Kollage Katerers: Kerry Fetzer Sylvian Vincent Jamie de Haan

Art Department Prod, company Dist. company

Serious Entertainment Village Roadshow (Greater Union Dist.)

Principal Credits Director Producers Co-producer Line producer Exec, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer

Yahoo Serious Warwick Ross Yahoo Serious Lulu Serious Tim Sanders Graham Burke Yahoo Serious Kevin Hayward Tim Lloyd Robert Gibson Graham ‘Grace’ Walker Sally Campbell

Planning and Development Casting co-ord. Casting

Judith Cruden Alison Barrett (Australia) Janet Hirschenson Roger Mussendon Casting (U.S.) Extras casting Judith Cruden

Production Crew

Art director Asst art director Art dept co-ord Art dept administrator Set dressers

Props buyers Standby props Props asst Armourer Armourer machinist Vehicle co-ord Wardrobe supervisor Asst designer Wardrobe buyer Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst Cutters Machinists

Prod, manager Prod, co-ordinator Producer’s asst Director's asst Prod, secretary Location manager Location scout Unit manager Unit assts

Julia Ritchie Rowena Talacko Kerry Sloane Tanya Jackson Maureen Burns Ken Moffat Michael Davis Tic Carroll Will Milne Alison Robb (Pt Stephens) Drivers (Sydney) Joe Wilkinson Jeremy Hutchinson Production runners Scott Gray Lyn Henderson Financial controller Lea Collins Prod, accountant Dianne Brown Accounts asst Donna Wallace Camera operator Focus puller Clapper-loader Camera asst Video split Attachment Key grip Rigging grip Grip Asst grip Gaffer Electricians Asst electrics Generator operator

John Mahaffie Colin Deane Frank Hruby Tonti Connolly Simeon Bryan Simeon Bryan George Tsoutas Rourke Crawford-Flett Ian McAlpine Jo Johanson Craig Bryant Alan Dunstan Gary Hill Matt Inglis Tim Slattery

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director

Keith Haygate P J Voeten

Ian Gracie Michelle McGahey Brenda Vincent Kevin Wright Tim Ferrier Kerrie Brown Michael Tolerton Faith Robinson Andrew Short Colin Gibson Chris Darvall John Bowring Rjchard Hurst Tim Parry

Wardrobe

Armour maker Asst armourer Armour painter

Margot Wilson Lisa Meagher Lyn Askew Suzy Carter Lyn Askew Gary Jones Marcia Lidden Cheryl Pike Helen Head Sally Molineaux Celinda Alvarado Warren Beaton Guido Helmstetter Eric Todd

Animals Animal trainer Animal handler Animal wrangler

Evanna Chesson Cody Harris Murray Chesson

Construction Dept Scenic artist Construct, manager Leading hand Carpenters

Camera Crew

Art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Set dresser Props buyers

Animal handler

Trudi Latour Alison Goodwin Mark van Kool Wendy de Waal Kirsten Vesey Kelly Taylor Hairdresser Wendy de Waal Hair artist Kirtsen Vesey Kelly Taylor Hair attachment Steve Courtley Special fx co-ord Special fx manager David Roach Mechanical fx co-ord Monty Fieguth FX model co-ord John Murch Special fx dept, co-ord Tom Davies Pyro fx Pauline Grebert Ray Fowler Model technician Pauline Grebert Mechanical fx Albie Hastings Blair Maxwell Rodney Burke Keron Hansen Conrad Rothman FX Labour Stuart McNaughton (Pt Stephens) FX bike wrangler Lyall Beckman FX buyer Kylie Gaskin Model maker Sue Maybury Cablemaker Walter van Veenendaal

PIANO LESSON Director Jane Campion Producer Jan Chapman Scriptwriter Jane Campion Cast: Holly Hunter, Sam Neill. Synopsis: A mute woman’s love for her piano and another man provokes the jealousy of her husband. Set in Victorian times on a remote part of New Zealand’s coastline. [No further details supplied.]

Casting Extras casting Dialogue coach Storyboard artist

3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up

Set finishers

Painters Construct, runner Greensman T rades assts

Bill Malcolm John Rann Andrew Chauvel Mark Oliver Cameron Craig Jon Stiles Errol Glassenbury Peter Coy Gordon Finney Garth Croft Chris Goddard Nick Walker Martin Bruveris Andrew Mulvey Nick Goddard Peter Forbes Gregg Thomas David Sams Andy Strutt

Post-production Asst editors

Maureen Rodbard-Bean Phillipa Harvey Edge numberer Maureen Rodbard-Bean Inti. dist. Warner Bros Cast: Yahoo Serious (Ned Kelly), Melora Hardin, Alexei Sayle, Hugo Weaving, Bob Maza, Anthony

Ackroyd, Adam Bowen, Russell Cheek, Steve Cox. [No other details supplied] Synopsis: Adventure comedy based on con temporary issues with Ned Kelly as a modernday international bank robber who rides a pow erful, home-made motorbike.

THE SILVER BRUMBY Media World Features Village Roadshow Skouras Pictures

Prod, company Dist. company

Principal Credits John Tatoulis Colin J. South John Tatoulis Brian Burgess William T . Marshall John Tatoulis Jon Stephens Elyne Mitchell

Director Producers Line producer Exec, producer Scriptwriters

The Silver Brumby

Based on the novel Written by DOP Prod, designer

Elyne Mitchell Mark Gilfedder Phillip Chambers

Other Credits Prod, manager Yvonne Collins Judy Malmgren Prod, accountant Stephen Saks 1st asst director Harry Panagiotidis Camera operator Peter Zakharov 2nd unit DOP Horsemaster Evanne Chesson Length 90 mins Gauge 35mm Cast: Russell Crowe (The Man), Caroline Goodall (Elynp Mitchell), Ami Daemion (Indi). Synopsis: The story of the trials and triumphs of Thowra, the magnificent silver stallion, as he contends with the alpine elements, the battle for supremacy of the Cascade herd of brumbies, and Man. [No further details supplied]

FEATURES POST-PRODUCTION BLINKY BILL Prod, company Dist. company Production Post-production

Ypram Gross Film Studios Beyond Intl. Group 7/1/91 -31/1/92 1/2/92 - 30/5/92

Principal Credits Director IProducer IExec, producer Scriptwriters

Yoram Gross Yoram Gross Sandra Gross Yoram Gross John Palmer Leonard Lee

The Complete Adventures of Blinky Bill

Based on Written by

Dorothy Wall

Other Credits Animation director Composer Prod, supervisor Prod, manager Producer’s asst Prod, assistant Prod, accountant Insurer Completion guarantor Legal Services Laboratory Gauge Shooting stock

Robert Smit Guy Gross Robert Smit Jeariette Toms Jane Bamett Sarah McDougall Jan Egger FIUA Film Finances Martin Cooper & Co. Atlab Australia 35 mm Kodak

Government Agency Investment Development Production Marketing

NSW Film & Television Office FFC Beyond Inti. Group

Marketing Marketing consultant Tim Brooke-Hunt Inti, sales agent Beyond Inti. Inti. dist. Beyond Inti. Publicity DDA Voices: Robyn Moore (female voices), Keith Scott (male voices). Synopsis: Animated feature film of the adventures of Blinky Bill, the mischievous koala, and his friends, Splodge, Flap Platypus and Nutsy Koala,intheAustralianbush.Theybattleagainst illegal loggers who destroy their homes and attempt to destroy the bush, but Blinky Bill rallies his friends and together they fight to preserve their homes.

COME BY CHANCE Prod, company Budget

Self-financed $10,000

Pre-production Production Post-production

July 1990 - Aug 1990 Aug 1990 - Mar 1991 Apr 1991...

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editors Composer

Budgetted by

Production Crew Prod, supervisor Prod, manager Location managers

Transport manager Production runner Prod, accountant

John Cumming Becky Locke Becky Locke Lara Dunston Tracy Dunston Raife Stokes Raife Stokes Tracy Dunston

Camera Crew Clapper-loader Camera asst Camera type Gaffer

Kathleen O ’Brien Kathleen O ’Brien Arri BL & Bolex Raife Stokes

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director Script assistant Continuity Boom operators Make-up Hairdresser Safety officer Still photography Unit publicist

Terry Carter Kathleen O'Brien Becky Locke Sharon Cunniffe Becky Locke Sharon Cunniffe Kathleen O ’Brien Sharon Cunniffe Sharon Cunniffe Becky Locke Loie Guezzennec Terry Carter Lara Dunston

Art Department Art director Props buyer Standby props Action vehicle co-ords

DAY OF THE DOG

Lara Dunston Lara Dunston Sharon Cunniffe Terry Carter Raife Stokes Simon Hann

Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production

Davis Entertainment Village Roadshow Greater Union Dist. Twentieth Century Fox (U.S.) $15 million ...20/10/91 21/10/91 ...

Director Producers Co-producers Line producer Exec, producers Scriptwriters

Wardrobe buyer Standby wardrobe

Becky Locke Sharon Cunnife Lara Dunston Becky Locke Sharon Cunniffe Raife Stokes Becky Locke

Post-production John Cumming Lara Dunston U TS Media Terry Carter Sound editor Rachael Beck Music performed by Terry Carter Filmplus Opticals U TS Media Lara Dunston Titles U TS Media Filmplus Laboratory Bill Harrington Lab liaison Negthink Hot splicing Gauge 16 mm (Super 8 & video) 3:1 Screen ratio 90 mins Length Kodak 7276, 7278 Shooting stock U TS Media Video transfers by U TS Media Off-line facilities Annabel Stokes Marketing consult. Lara Dunston Publicity Terry Carter Poster design Cast: Annabel Stokes (the Girl), Simon Hann (the Boy), John Murphy (as himself), Mick James (as himself), Terry Carter (the stranger, farmer & yobbo), Raife Stokes (the hitchhiker). Synopsis: A hip, young inner-city couple’s lat est obsession is country ’n’ western music. Yearning to experience the Wild West, they trade in their moped for an old Holden and head west. Along the way they meet some true bush characters and discover what the west is really like. They learn more about each other, and we find that things are not as nice as they appear on Post-prod, supervisor Sound transfers by

Art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Props buyers Standby props Asst standby props Armourer

Standby wardrobe Wardrobe asst MU/wardrobe vans Green room/Star van

Michael Chorney Derek Wyness John Parker Andrew Gardiner Greg Hajdu David Duffin Mark Jones Kim Howard Noel McCartney Graydon Le Breton Martin Scurrah Wayne Porter Michael Dempsey Warner Roadshow Movie World Studios

Driver Labourer Welders

Travel co-ord Freight

Doug Yellin Sharon Miller Justina Cattell Silla Childs Brian Burgess Neville Mason Todd Fellman Lyn Paetz Tricia Mclnally FIUA The Completion Bond Co. Show Travel Showfreight

Camera Crew Camera operator Focus pullers Clapper Loader Key grip Asst grips

Gaffer Best boy Electricians Camera dept attach Video split operator Visual consultant Camera equipment

Philip M Cross Derry Field Laurie Balmer Adrien Seffrin Andrew Conder Pat Nash Mark Abraham Gary McNamara Cary Vignal Tony Holtham Trevor Ripper Murray Head Ian Mathieson Matthew Meyer Andrew Conder Simon Murton Samuelson Film Service

On-set Crew Charles Rotherham Nikki Long Adam Spencer Sophie Fabbri Jackson Craig Walmsley Tim Towers Karla O ’Keefe Margaret Archmen Carla Vincenzino Karla O ’Keefe Hairdresser Bob Clark Prosthetics Jason Baird Prosthetics asst Tad Pride (Aust) Special fx supervisors Paul Gentry (U.S.) Robbie Blalack (U.S.) Special fx co-ord. Trisha Wallace Special fx secretary Arthur Spinks Jr Special fx technicians Kent Miklenda David Pride Mechanical effects Bob Hicks Special fx assts Kevin Bratovic Alan Maxwell Pyrotechnics Paul Jennings Pyrotechnics asst Glenn Boswell Stunts co-ord Josef Schwaiger Stunts asst Johnny Hallyday Safety officer Susan Burke Unit nurse Fiona Searson (DDA) Unit publicist

1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Cable man Make-up supervisor Make-up assts

Phil Eagles Peter Bevan Helen Mather Paul Warren Sally Marshall Australian Film Sets Orana Film Transport

Construction Dept

Production Crew Studios

On-set Crew Angela McPherson Gareth Calverley Cathy Thomas Heidi-Jayne McCann Heidi-Jayne McCann Brad Greenwood Adam Head Brad Greenwood Special fx make-up Adam Head Unit publicist Nicks Publicity & Promotions

1st asst director 2nd asst director Continuity Make-up Hairdresser Special fx

Art Department Art dept runner Set dresser Standby props

Mel Chavez Dirk Vanden-Driesen David Bunic

Post-production

Costume supervisors

Planning and Development

Exec, in charge prod. Prod, co-ord Prod, asst Prod, secretary Location manager Unit manager Production runner Prod, accountant Accounts asst Paymaster Completion guarantor

Diaan Wajon Rosslyn Abernethy Lizzi Dulieu Paul Dulieu Derrick Chetwyn John Daniell Michael lacono Phillip Moritz

Wardrobe

Casting director Maura Fay & Assoc. Casting Mike Fenton Casting (U.S.) Storyboard artists (U.S.) Tim Burgard David Russell Chris Buchinsky

DOP Sound recordist Editor Production designer Costume designer

Construction Department Drivers

Stuart Gordon John Davis John Flock Neil Nordlinger Michael Lake Irene Dobson Graham Burke Gregory Coote Troy Neighbours Steven Feinberg Terry Curtis Fox David Eggby Paul Clark Timothy Wellbum David Copping Terry Ryan

Art Department

Scenic artist Asst scenic artist Construct, manager 2nd in command Leading hand Brush hand Carpenters

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor

Catering asst

FORTRESS Prod, company

Principal Credits Terry Carter Lara Dunston Lara Dunston Terry Carter Lara Dunston

Jim Townley Kathy T routt Kaos Katering Denise Ward Paula Sproul Linda Sproul

Still photography Catering

[See previous issue for details] Lara Dunston Lara Dunston Terry Carter Lara Dunston Lara Dunston Terry Carter Lara Dunston Terry Carter Terry Carter

Planning and Develpoment Script editor Casting Shooting schedule by

the surface.

Musical director Music performed by Recording studio Laboratories Gauge Shooting stock Screen ratio Off-line facilities Video special fx Video master by

Shane Bryzak Shane Bryzak Hoyts-Jumbuck Atlab Cinevex Super 16 Kodak 1:1.66 Hoyts-Jumbuck Hoyts-Jumbuck Hoyts-Jumbuck

Marketing Publicity Nicks Publicity & Promotion Michael Simms Poster design Cast: Derek Rucker (Dougle), Kim Denman (Molly), Michael Julian Knowles (Christian), Evelyn Taylor (Rachel), Scott Webb (Doctor), Graham Furness (Policeman). Synopsis: Cat-and-mouse game between Molly, the young wife of Dougle who is still mourning the sickness of her new-born baby, and their neighbour, Christian, a deranged killer out to be rid of all women because of his beliefs.

Post-production Jeanine Chialvo Andreya O ’Reilly Roger Garrod Atlab Hoyts Jumbuck Intercity Hire

1st asst editor 2nd asst editor Projectionist Laboratory Tape transfers Video playback

MAP OF THE HUMAN HEART [See issue 86 for details]

THE NOSTRADAMUS KID [See previous issue for details]

THE NUN AND THE BANDIT

Marketing IAC Film Sales Inti, sales agent Twentieth Century Fox Inti, distributor Release publicity Greater Union Distributors Cast: Christopher Lambert (John Brennick), Kurtwood Smith (Prison Director Poe), Loryn Locklin (Karen Brennick), Lincoln Kilpatrick (Abraham), Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez (Nino), Jeffrey Combs (3D-Day), Tom Towles (Stiggs), Vernon Wells (Maddox), Denni Gordon (Lydia), Alan Zitner (Camper). Synopsis: Set 45 years in the future, human kind’s population has increased tenfold. A new law has been created to preserve the stability of society. Anyone who breaks the law will be sent to a remote maximum security prison known as ‘Th e Fortress”.

HAMMERS OVER THE ANVIL [See previous issue for details]

LIVING COLOR Prod, company Pre-production Production Post-production Budget

Cinergy M.P.E. 11/11/1991 -5/1/92 5/1/92 - 25/1/92 27/1/92 - 18/4/92 $2.5 million

Principal Credits Neal Taylor Rene Nagy Summer Nicks Neal Taylor Nick Paton Geoff Lamb Kent Sherlock Shane Bryzak

Director Producer Co-producer Scriptwriter DOP Editor Art director Composer

Planning and Development Casting Casting consultants Extras casting Budgeted by

Jacqueline Jones Sheridan-Champs & Assoc. Studio-A-Casting Rene Nagy Jr

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, assistant Location manager Legal services

Kerry Mulgrew Jacqueline Jones Gareth Calverley Naralee Withnal

Camera Crew Camera operator Camera asst Gaffer Key grip

Nick Paton Margaret McClymont Ian Withnal Geoff Lamb

Prod, company

Illumination Films

Principal Credits Director Producers Exec, producer Scriptwriter Based on the novel by DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer

Paul Cox Paul Ammitzboll Paul Cox Wiliam Marshall Paul Cox E. L. Grant Watson Nino Martinetti James Currie Paul Cox Neil Angwin

Other Credits Don Lowe Paul Ammitzboll Meaghan Smith Rochelle Oshlack Nathan Orbach Meg Caraher Prod, accountant Antony Shepherd Unit manager Andrew Marshall Completion gauarantor Motion Pictures Guarantors Insurer Brian Holland & Assoc. Focus puller Harry Glynatsis Clapper loader Tibor Hegedis Camera equipment Cameraquip Key grip Peter Kershaw Continuity Margot Wiburd Boom operator Craig Carter Gaffer Nick Payne Best boy Anthony Tulloch Still photography Tibor Hegedis Caterer Anne Weiler Catering asst Kris Coad Starbus Andrew Marshall Brian O'Grady Script consultant Prod, manager Prod, co-ord. Prod, assistants

Art dept supervisor Wardrobe advisor Standby wardrobe Construct, manager Leading hands Asst editor Mixer Mixed at Sound editor Sound transfers Technical advisor Laboratory

CINEMA

Santhana Naidu Aphrodite Dowding Frances O ’Donoghue Declan Hallinan Kevin Winiata Andrew Chakka Rochelle Oshlack James Currie Hendon Studios Craig Carter Eugene Wilson Russell Hurley Cinevex

PAPERS

• 77

Title design Oliver Streeton Neg matching Meg Koernig Shooting stock Eastman Kodak Cast: Chris Haywood (Michael Shanley), Gosia Dobrowolksa (Sister Lucy), Charlotte Haywood (Julie Shanley), Norman Kaye (George Shanley), Tom E Lewis (Bert Shanley), Robert Menzies (Richard Shanley), Victoria Eagger (Maureen), Scott-Michael Stephenson (Frankie Shanley), Eva Sitta (Eve Shanley), Tony Llewellyn-Jones (Clerk), John Flaus (Policeman), Meg Caraher (Maid). Synopsis: An outlaw's kidnapping plan takes a surprise twist when he falls in love with an nun and so begins a battle between the spirit and the flesh in the isolated beauty of the Australian bush.

Traffic stopper M/U-W/R vehicle Tutor vehicle Unit publicist

Warwick Fry Empire Reel Wheels Fiona Searson (DDA)

Art Department Art director Art dept co-ord Art dept runner Art dept trainee Props buyers Props dresser Standby props

Hugh Bateman Victoria Hobday Paul Macek Rebecca O ’Brien Georgina Campbell Murray Gossan Georgina Campbell Murray Gossan

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor Standby wardrobe Cutter

Jacqui Everett Cathy Hereen Catriona Brennan

Construction Dept REDHEADS [See previous issue for details]

Construct, manager Carpenter

Walter Sperl Robin “Syd” Hartley

Post-production ROMPER STOMPER [See previous issue for details]

SAY A LITTLE PRAYER Prod, company Production Dist. company

Flying Films 14/10/91 ... Beyond Inti. Group

Principal Credits Director Producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Production designer Costume designer

Richard Lowenstein Carol Hughes Richard Lowenstein Graeme Wood Lloyd Carrick Jill Bilcock Chris Kennedy Lynn-Maree Milburn

Planning and Development Casting consultants Extras casting Drama coach

Liz Mullinar Casting Kelly O'Shea Kaarin Fairfax

Production Crew Catherine “Tatts” Bishop Prod, manager Prod, co-ord Jackie Mann Prod, accountant Juanita Parker Location manager Michael McIntyre Unit manager Simon Hawkins Unit asst Phil Taylor Production runner Carl Conti Insurer Steeves Lumley Completion guarantor Film Finances Legal services Philip Luca Travel co-ord. Set in Motion

Asst editors

Jane Moran Nick Cole Sound transfer Soundfirm Laboratory Vic Film Lab Stock Kodak Rushes screening Film Soundtrack Stills processing Color Factory (col) Di Keller (b&w) Vanbar Photographies Polaroid stock DDA Publicity Finance FFC Inti, sales Beyond Films Cast: Fiona Rutelle, Sudi de Winter. [No other details supplied] Synopsis: A skinny, introverted eleven-yearold meets the young effervescent but drugaddicted Angie and enters her fantasy world. It is a relationship that offers strength to each, and through the highs and lows of a long hot summer they both gradually learn to face the truth about each other and themselves.

SHOTGUN WEDDING Prod, company Dist. company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Stunts co-ord Safety officer Still photography Tutor Catering

Toby Pease Emma Schofield Mathew Bennett Jan Plantoni Craig Beggs Vivienne MacGillicuddy Neill Timms Vivienne MacGillicuddy Mark Hennessy Eddie McShortall Jennifer Mitchell Lynne Klugman Sweet Seduction

David Hannay Prods Beyond Films $4,141,485 19/8/91 -11/10/91 21/10/91 -6/12/91 9/12/91 - April 1992

Principal Credits Director Producers

Camera Crew Harry Panagiotidis Steadicam operator David Lindsay Steadicam asst Robin Plunkett Focus puller Bryn Whitie Clapper loader Camera equipment Samuelson Key grip Ian “Pear Head” Benallack Grip Arthur Manousakis Rory Timoney Gaffer 2nd electrics Steve Price Battista Remati 3rd electrics

Casual unit assts

Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer Costume designer Composer

Paul Harmon David Hannay Charles Hannah David O ’Brien Kim Batterham Ross Linton Wayne Le Clos Michael Philips Clarrissa Patterson Allan Zavod

Planning and Development Script editor Casting consultant Extras casting Additional casting Baby casting

Paul Harmon Alison Barrett Cathering Griff Catherine Griff Meredith Fleming

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, co-ord. Producer’s asst Prod, secretary Location manager Location security Unit manager Unit assts

Brenda Pam Sam Thompson Kim Sterlina Kriselle Baker Chris Jones Russel Fewtrell Peter Simon Chris Jones Rick Komaat David Holmes

Production runner Prod, accountant Accounts asst Insurer Completion guarantor Legal services Police liaison

Angus Harrison Nick Watt Ross Bridekirk Toby Church-Brown Greg Garry Stuart Trewan Denise Ingham Michelle D’Arcey Cathy Smith Neil McEwin (FUIA) Sue Milliken (Film Finances) Martin Cooper & Co. Bruce Nelson

Camera Crew Camera operator

Danny Batterham Focus puller Martin Turner Clapper-loader Kate Dennis Camera attach. Anna Townsend Steadicam operator Martin Lee Camera equip. Samuelson Film Services Graeme Litchfield Key grip Mark Ramsey Grip Michael Vivian Casual grip Gaffer John Morton Mathew Hoile Best boy Ken Cooper Electrician Electrics attach. Steve Byron 1st asst director 2nd asst directors 2nd 2nd asst director 3rd asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Casual make-up/hair

Special fx co-ord Stunts co-ord Stills photography Unit nurse Unit publicist Catering Catering asst

Philip Hearnshaw Henry Osborne Vicky Sugars Sarah Lewis Kim Steblina Kristin Voumard Jack Friedman Lesley Vanderwalt Paul Williams Jan Zeigenbein Bee Simon Karen Johnson Lesley Rouvray David Young Grant Page Veronika Sive Meredith Fleming Fiona Searson (DDA) Robert Jang Anne Fearle

Art Department Art director David McKay Art dept co-ord Tracey Hyde-Moxham John Riley Art dept asst Art dept attach. Michael Burge John Riley Art dept runner Alicia Walsh Set dresser Alicia Walsh Props buyer Dallas Wilson Standby props Asst standby props Robert “Moxy” Moxham Robert Colby Armourer Tim Burns Action vehicle co-ord Martin Brown Action vehicle asst Glen W. Johnson Set decorator Graphic artist Nick Bonham

Wardrobe Costume supervisor Costume buyer Standby costume Costume asst Wardrobe asst Pattern maker

Jane Johnston Marilyn Brent Gabrielle Dunn Jackline Sassine Sam Cook Emmanuel Kostoglou

Construction Dept Construct, manager Carpenters

Bob Paton Geoffrey Staker Angus Harrison Ron Martin Nigel Boyle Daniel Gray Ron Martin Daniel Heather Greg Commerford Frank Falconer Greg Thomas

Post-production Asst editor Edge numberer Editing room Sound transfers by Mixer Mixed at Laboratory Gauge Screen ratio Stock Length

Wayne Hayes Simon Martin Spectrum Films Audio Loc Sound Design Phil Heywood Atlab Australia Atiab Australia 35 mm 1:1.85 Agfa-Gevaert 95 mins

Government Agency Investment Production

Marketing

• CINEMA

PAPERS

RECENTLY COMPLETED See previous issues for details on: EIGHT BALL THE GREAT PRETENDER GREENKEEPING SECRETS SEEING RED

On-set Crew

Standby carpenter Construct, runner Brush hand Set finisher Greensman

Inti, sales agent Beyond Films Publicity DDA Cast: Aden Young (Jimmy Becker), ZoeCarides (Helen Llewellyn), Bill Hunter (Godfrey Andrews), JohnWalton(DetFrankTaylor),MarshallNapier (Det Dave Green), John Clayton (Sam Church), Warren Coleman (Ben Quill), Paul Chubb (Geoffrey Drinkwater), Yves Stenning (Peter Bingham), Richard Healy (Brian Alcott), Sean Scully (Det Craig Haker), Vince Sorrenti (Det Mario Bonelli), Jeff Truman (Det Ted Jones), Andrew S Gilbert (Bruce Llewellyn), Bruce Venables (John Tyke), Bill Charlton (the Sergeant), Max Cullen (Rev. Arthur Hickey). Synopsis: Set in the late 1960s, Shotgun Wedding is a bizarre drama, a love story and a comedy of errors. Jimmy Becker, fresh out of gaol, and pregnant girlfriend Helen leave Kings Cross to seek their dream of a normal life in the outer suburbs of Sydney. However, their dream is quickly shattered with the arrival of a ‘bent’ cop, Taylor, and an arsenal of weapons left by Helen’s schizoid brother. A siege begins which captures the attention of the nation, during which the Police Commissioner acts as best man at Jimmy and Helen’s wedding.

FFC

■

DOCUMENTARIES THE TENTH DANCER Prod, company Singing Nomads Productions 3/4/92 -11/5/92 Production

Principal Credits Sally Ingleton Sally Ingleton Denise Patience Paul Finlay Ken Sallows Lucy MacLaren Jenni Meaney ABC BBC FFC 52 mins 16mm

Director Producer Exec, producer Sound recordist Editor Prod, manager Camera operator Pre-sale

Finance Length Gauge Cast: [No details supplied] Synopsis: At the end of Pol Pot’s reign of terror only one in ten classical dancers of Cambodia's Royal Court had survived. This is the story of two of the survivors and their efforts to rebuild a destroyed culture.

WILD Prod, company Pre-production Production Post-production

Huzzah Productions 24/9/91 -15/10/91 16/10/91 -6/11/91 20/1/92 - 15/5/92

Principal Credits Director Producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter Based on the book Written by DOP Sound recordist Editor Art director Composers

Ross Gibson John Cruthers James Manché Ross Gibson

A Million Wild Acres Eric Rolls Joel Peterson Bronwyn Murphy James Manché Edie Kurzer Gary Warner Bill Seaman

Other Credits Nicky Marshall Researcher Prod, manager Kristin Sanderson Prod, accountant Jenny Pawson Insurer Hammond Jewell Completion guarantor Film Finances Legal services Roth Warren & Menzies Location liaison Eric Rolls Camera assistant Anne Benzie Matt Butler Special fx photography Camera maintenance Mike Kelly Still photography J. Van Loendersloot Asst editor Pat Mackle Sound transfers by Soundage Gethin Creagh Mixer Soundfirm Mixed at Animation Andi Spark Laboratory Cinevex

Lab liaison Gauge Screen ratio Shooting stock

Principal Credits

Ian Anderson 16 mm 1.33:1 Fuji Colour

Director Producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editors

Government Agency Investment Development A FC Synopsis: What can we learn from the human settlement of Australia - about our relationship to the land, our sense of place, ourselves? Wild is a documentary film which asks these ques tions through a study of the stories, myths and legends of one small area, the Pilliga Forest in Central Northern New South Wales

Prod, designer Composer

SHORTS ANTONIO’S ANGEL

Prod, company Budget Pre-production Production Post-production

In Posse $177,000 Oct 91 ... 13/11/91 -22/11/91 Dec 91 - Feb 92

Principal Credits Director Producer Based on a story by Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Art director Composer

Polly Watkins Trish Carney Rose Clemente Tobsha Learner Dion Beebe Laurie Robinson Paul Healy Steven Jones-Evans Paul Schutze

DRIVE [See previous issue for details]

SOMETHING WICKED Red Movies 10/2/92 - 28/2/92 29/2/92 - 13/3/92 16/3/92 - 15/5/92

Planning and Development

Principal Credits

Casting Shooting schedule by Budgeted by

Director Producer Assoc, producer Original screenplay by DOP Sound recordist Art director

Maria Efthymiopoulos Trish Carney Trish Carney

Production Crew Prod, manager Producer’s asst Unit manager Prod, accountant Insurer Legal services

Trish Carney Antigonne Radunovich Warwick Fry Belinda Williams Tolley and Gardiner Chris Lovell Holding Redlich

Camera Crew Rosie Cass Arri SRII John Cummings Greg Wilson

Focus puller Camera type Key grip Gaffer

On-set Crew 1st asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Stills photography Catering

Mark Chambers Cate Lapham Stephen King Georgia Michael Georgia Michael Gillian Pedder Sheila Buzza Standby Catering

Art Department Jasmine Wrigley

Propsperson

Wardrobe Wardrobe person

Rosa Gaetano

Post-production James Harvey Asst editor Oliver Streeton Edge numberer Soundage Sound transfers by Rex Watts Sound editor Ronny Reinhard Asst sound editors Peter Clancy Foley Dean Gawen Mixer Film Soundtrack Mixed at Ian Anderson Lab liasion 16mm Film gauge 1.85:1 Screen ratio Cinevex Laboratory Kodak 7248 Shooting stock Complete Post Video transfers by Cast: Hose Clemente (Anna), uosepn òpano (Antonio), Laura Lattuada (Camilla), Caroline Gillmer (Maria). Synopsis: On his birthday Antonio discovers that Anna has forgotten to light a candle for Saint Anthony. When temptation appears in the form of Maria, a sexy forty-year-old at the shoe fac tory, his loyalty is tested. Learning of her hus band’s unfaithfulness, Anna contrives a trick to win him back.

CRIMINAL DUES Prod, company Budget

Camera Crew

Sharon Tonge Craig Rossitor ARRI 16BL Phillip Hore Patrick Gallager 1st asst director Sharon Tonge Make-up Cindy Hereth Damian Heffernan Sound transfers Sound editors Robert St Clair Damian Heffernan VFL Titles Laboratory VFL Gauge 16mm Screen ratio 1:1.88 Cast: Edward Gallager (Jake), Gary Walbrook (Father). Synopsis: High impact documentary-drama presenting rape statistics over a domestic violence backdrop.

Prod company Pre-production Production Post-production

FI-TE C H Productions $2,500

Bruce Redman Bruce Redman Debra St. John Debra St John Gene Moller Ian Grant Susan Acton

Other Credits Script editor Casting Casting consultants Shooting schedule by Budgeted by Prod, manager Prod, runner Camera assistant Camera type Key grip Gaffer 1st asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Unit nurse Still photography Catering Asst art director Titles Laboratory Lab liaison

Carol Williams Sue Manger Casting Elaine Holland Bill McCrow Wade Savage Bruce Redman Bill McCrow Danny Maxwell Monica McGuire 16 Arri SR Mai Evans Vaugn Ottaway Wade Savage Karen Mansfield Paul Jones Carla Vincenzo Anne Redman Steve Rhodes Colleen Dewhurst Marcia Gardner Optical & Graphic Atlab Simon Wicks

Government Agency Investment Development Old Film Development Office Production Old Film Development Office Cast: Veronica Neave (Hattie), Joss McWilliam (Michael), Jenny Congram (Fiona), Brian Moll (Lecturer), Lorna Longston (Psychiatrist), Elizabeth Williams (Nell). Synopsis: Something wicked happens when love becomes obsession. '

■ AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION ■ & RADIO SCHOOL

Tom Van Donkelaar Julian Capmeil Lisa Wood Alison Baillache

Prod, manager Producer’s asst Prod, assistant Prod, accountant

Prod, manager Camera operator Camera type Key grips

■

Joy Sargant Tom Van Donkelaar Tom Van Donkelaar

Production Crew

Other Credits

For details of the following see previous issue: BAREFOOT STUDEN T ARMY BLACK MAN’S HOUSES OOH IT HURTS

1 I

Casting consultant Shooting schedule by Budgeted by

Damian Heffernan Damian Heffernan Damian Heffernan Damian Heffernan Robert St Clair Aquinia Van de Zandt Damian Heffernan Gabrielle Jones Robert St Clair

Josie Keys Michelle Duval Clifford Lord Tony Mandel

Camera operator Camera assistant Asst grips Gaffer

On-set Crew 1st asst director 2nd asst director Continuity Playback operator Boom operator Make-up Tech, advisor Catering

Tom Van Donkelaar Karen Borger Cindy Mikul Ian Anderson Leonie Dickinson Lynda West Rod Bower Corner Kitchen

Art Department Bruno

Standby props

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor

Tamara Hammond

Alicia Slusarski Sound editor Alicia Slusarski Mixer AFTR S Mixed at SP Betacam Film gauge Fuji Shooting stock Cast: Ben Gabriel (Jim), Maree D’Arcy (Mary), Andrew McDonnell (Harvey). Synopsis: It is almost too late for Mary to start a new life. She has cared for her decrepit father for too many years. He is trapped by his age and she is trapped by his selfishness. Mary finds an unusual way of escape.

FILM AUSTRALIA For details of the following see previous issue: THE COLOURED CAMPAIGN DIAMONDS ARE A GIRL’S BEST FRIEND ON THE NOSE

FILM VICTORIA URBAN MYTH Swinburne Institute $12,500

Prod, company Budget

Principal Credits Angelo Salamanca Scottie Walker Peter Tammer Jenny Sabine Angelo Salamanca Stephen Amis Andrew Ferguson Anny Mokotow Piero Colli Paul Carland Janine De Lorenzo

Director Producer Exec, producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordists Editor Prod, designer Composer

Planning and Development Script editors Casting

Peter Tammer Jenny Sabine Australian Cinema Ensemble

Production Crew Prod, manager Prod, adviser Prod, runner

Scottie Walker Rosa Colosimo Ingrid Wilkie

Camera Crew Camera operator Camera assistant Camera type Camera maintenance Key grips

Gaffers

Stephen Amis Joanne Donahoe ARRI SR Swinburne Institute Dean Stevenson Luis Da Silver Liam O'Hara Christine Rogers Luis Da Silva

AFTR S A FTR S

Principal Credits Director Producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriter DOP Sound recordist Editor Prod, designer

Virginia Murray Tom Van Donkelaar Ian MacArthur Virginia Murray Josie Keys Leonie Dickinson Kevin Collar Tamara Hammond

Planning and Development

Government Agency Investment Production Film Victoria Cast: Suzy Cato (Bea), Joseph Spano (Eric), Peter Stratford (Spencer). Synopsis: Bea finds herself pregnant for the first time at the age of forty-four; she does not know whether her husband or lover has fa thered the child she is carrying. Bea has impor tant decisions to make.

1st asst director Continuity Boom operator Make-up Hairdresser Still photography Catering

Steve Middleton Jacinthe Springer Andrew Ferguson Gina Weidemann Gina Weidemann Kym Schreiber Paul Walker Veronica Stute

Art Department Art director

Paul Carland

Wardrobe Wardrobe supervisor

Post-production

TELEVISION PRODUCTION HALFWAY ACROSS THE GALAXY AND TURN LEFT (series) [See previous issue]

LATE FOR SCHOOL (series) Network Ten 9/12/91...

Prod, company Production

Principal Credits Ricardo Pellizzeri John Holmes Peter Askew Rob Caldwell Rob Menzies Scott Bird

Director Producer Assoc, producer Scriptwriters Prod, designer

Other Credits Jenny Draper Director's asst Kathleen Burns Prod, co-ordinator Mark Collins 1st asst director [No further crew details supplied] Cast: Sarah Chadwick (Kathy Price), Ross Higgins (Stan Funnell), Melissa Thomas (Lily Price), Matthew Newton (Dennis Price), Frankie J. Holden (Mr Lavery), Harry Cripps (Mr Dicks), Stephen Curry (Tim Hickey), Scott Major (Oats), Anthony Engleman (Sefton). Synopsis: Late for School is a half hour situa tion comedy which follows the exploits of Kathy Price who returns to her old school after sixteen years, much to the embarrassment of her two teenage children, particularly Lily, who is in the same class as her mother.

THE MIRACULOUS MELLOPS - SEQUEL Prod, company Dist. company Budget

(mini-series) Millenium Pictures Film Australia $3.19 million

Principal Credits Director Producer Co-producer Line producer Exec, producer Scriptwriters

DOP Prod, designer Costume designer

Karl Zwicky Posie Graeme-Evans Andrew Blaxland Terrie Vincent Ian Fairweather Anthony Ellis Ray Harding John Hugginson Peter Kinloch Maureen Ann Moran Sharyn Rosenberg Alister Webla David Scandol Andrew Blaxland Margarite Tassone

Other Credits

On-set Crew Prod, company Dist. company

Angelo Salamanca Angelo Salamanca Piero Colli Angelo Salamanca Janine De Lorenzo Peter Frost Al Mullins Film Soundtrack Cinevex Zoe Chan Cinevex Tim Morgan Meg Koernig Tim Morgan 16 mm 1 : 1.88 7245: 7292

Post-production

DEAR MARY

Asst editor Sound transfers Sound editor Asst sound editor Music performed by Mixer Music mixer Mixed at Opticals Titles Laboratory Lab liaison Neg matching Grader Gauge Screen ratio Shooting stock

Paul Carland

Script editor Greg Haddrick Jill Coverdale Accountant Art director John Pryce-Jones Finance FFC Presale Network 10 Film Finances Dist. guarantee SP Betacam Gauge Length 10 x 30 mins Hoyts Television Studios Studio Cast: Sally Warwick, Troy Beckwith, Davud Walters, Bill Conn, Julie Godfrey, Max Phipps, Kim Walsh, Drew Forsythe. Synopsis: Miracles and mayhem continue. ■

CINEMA

PAPERS

• 79

T e n

C r i t i c s

9 B e s t

a n d

W o r s t

TEWEBRICOSE TEN A PANEL OF TEN FILM REVIEWERS HAS RATED A SELECTION OF THE LATEST RELEASES ON A SCALE OF 0 TO 10, THE LATTER BEING THE OPTIMUM RATING (A DASH MEANS NOT SEEN). THE CRITICS ARE: BILL COLLINS (CHANNEL 10; HARRIS (FROM THE RECENTLY CLOSED-DOWN

MELBOURNE; “SCREEN”, 3RN); TOM RYAN (3L0;

STAN JAMES

NEIL JILLETT

ADRIAN MARTIN

TOM RYAN

DAVID STRATTON

EVAN W ILLIAMS

AVERAGE

SYDNEY).

IVAN HUTCHINSON

(TH E AUSTRALIAN,

THE SUNDAY

FILM TITLE D ir e c t o r

BLA C K R O BE B ru ce B e re sfo rd

7.2

B U G S Y B a r r y L e v in s o n

6.4

D E A D A G A IN K e n n e t h B r a n a g h

4.8

D E L IC A T E S S E N J e a n -P ie rre J e u n e t, M a r c C a r o

7.5

D E P E R A T E H O U R S M ic h a e l C i m i n o

3.6

E U R O P A E U R O P A A g n ie s z k a H o l l a n d

7.2

T H E F A M IN E W IT H IN K a t h e r in e G ild a y

4.5

FA TH ER OF THE B R ID E C h a r le s S h y e r

3.8

F R A N K IE & JOHNNY G a r r y M a r s h a ll

6.3

Geoff Murphy

3.6

6.5

5.1

7.4

6.5

Xavier Roller

6.4

John McTiernan

4.4

Gus van Sant

6.9

FREEJACK

F R IE D G R E E N T O M A T O E S AT THE W H IS T L E S T O P C A F E T H E G O O D W O M A N OF B A N G K O K

H O M IC ID E

Dennis O ’Rourke

Fax Bahr

H E A R T S OF D A R K N E S S

David Mamet

JO U R N EY OF H O P E M E D IC IN E M A N

M Y P R IV A T E ID A H O

Jon Avnet

P R IN C E OF T ID E S

Barbara Streisand

5.7

R A M B L IN G R O S E

Martha Coolidge

7.3

7.2

8.2

7.3

2.3

2.8

4.6

R O M U A L D & JULIETTE

Coline Serreau

S N O W W H IT E A N D T H E S E V E N D W A R F S TOTO LE H É R O S

TU R T LE B E A C H W HORE

Anthony Mighella

Stephen Wallace

Ken Russell

YO U N G S O U L R E B E L S

Isaac Julian

CINEMA

Walt Disney

Jaco Van Dormael

TRU LY, M A D L Y , D E E P L Y

MELBOURNE); STAN JAMES ( THE

JOHN HARRIS

SBS, SYDNEY); AND EVAN WILLIAMS

SYDNEY); JOHN

SANDRA HALL

(VARIETY;

REVIEW WEEKLY,

HERALD-SUN,

BULLETIN,

BILL COLLINS

MELBOURNE); DAVID STRATTON

SYDNEY); SANDRA HALL ( THE

IVAN HUTCHINSON (SEVEN NETWORK;

NEIL JILLETT (T H E AGE); ADRIAN MARTIN (BUSINESS

ADELAIDE ADVERTISER); AGE,

THE ADELAIDE NEWS);

THE DAILY M IRROR,

PAPERS

■9

i m& z

Bank of Melbourne Bank of Melbourne

The Bank of Melbourne Personal Current Account

Free Cheques! N o Fees! (Even on balances below $5 0 0 ) ■ Free Cheques No Fees, regardless of account balance size.* ■ Earn good in terest ■ Receive a free VISA Card or Bank of Melbourne Card and a free cheque book. ■ Bank on Saturday from 9 to 1 2 (most branches). On W eekdays from 9 to 5 * Only government duties apply.

BANK 42052

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

M elbourne 's N ew est ,

utiqueH otel is n o w open , of the

Cinema a n d Theatre D istrict .

Intimate , S tylish , Ch ic .

TIC CIISSLC1 T H E C R O SS L E Y H O T E L

51 LITTLE B O U R K E ST R E E T M E L B O U R N E V IC A U STR A LIA 3000 P H O N E (03) 639 1639 FA X (03) 639 0566 T O L L F R E E 008 33 7476