ÈÉÉIÈ - UOW Archives Online

Registered by Australia Post — publication no. VBP 2121

H MÈÉÉIÈmm

“Now you can start introducing depth without

introducing ten Arcs?“The new Kodak 5293 stock opens up so many doors.It’s given us depth of field for big night exteriors,

particularly with anamorphic pictures where the depth is normally limited, especially on super speed lenses.

Now it’s possible (using the same light sources) to achieve a good healthy stop, and therefore a lot more depth to carry action or artists through a set

Another great advantage with the new stock is lighting location rooms or small sets.

Now much smaller light sources can be used, and therefore hidden more easily, in ceilings, on doors, curtain rails.

I shot a scene, for the W hitlam Years, of Sir John Kerr and Jim McLelland having a chat by an open fire - lit with real fire!

I had the propsman adding firelighters to the fire until I achieved the stop and depth w anted- the key light finished up being shot into a tight two sh o t-th e effect is fantastic.

It’s firelight and it’s real.W ithout the new stock the actors would have been

toasted, in order to get the same effectI think the new stock is great.A whole new ball game!”

Dean Semler, CinematographerMad Max II, Kitty &. The Bag Man, The Whitlam Years.

* Eastmancolor 5293. K odak M otion Picture FilmKODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD.KT/WI/KSB/RHH

Film Corporation of Western Australia Pty Ltd.Eighth Floor, Guardian Royal Exchange Building, 248 St. George's Terrace,

Perth, Western Australia.Telephone: (09) 3217469, Telex: AA93179

Sensational newtheatre opens off-Broadway

Just up Missenden Road, immediately below the site of the old Movietone theatrette, Les McKenzie, Ron Gubbins, John Heath and the team have built an extraordinary preview theatre.

Sporting the same projection and magnetic transport equipm ent as the top W arner Brothers room, Dubbing 5. Modelled largely on the Alfred Hitchcock Theatre at Universal.

Featuring the kind of fanatical attention to detail and questing for perfection that could only have been achieved by dedicated professionals of the calibre of Les and his team.

It may give you some idea of the m ans powers of persuasion when we tell you that the theatre is built where, until quite recently, the Colorfilm executives had a suite of very comfortable offices.

We finally justified it this way. You people are spending increasingly larger numbers of millions of dollars to produce your films. The very least we should do is provide you with a world class theatre to view rushes and finished product in as near to perfect conditions as we can manage.

For those of you interested in the finer details of acoustics and projection, ring Les McKenzie. He will answer your questions in far more detail than we can, and will be only too happy to run you a reel so you can see and hear the results of his labours for yourself.

Bring your own popcorn

C olorfilm !^Australias Leading Film Laboratory V 35 Missenden Road Camperdown NSW 2050 Australia Telex AA24545 Phone (02) 5161066

Leo Burnett 4.3810

»li.'

t i t o *

t L ,

THE MUSIC BUSINESS (0 2 ) 27 1715 P.O. Box H244 Australia Square Sydney 2000

\

Across the Tasman the quality and

^costs are so muchbetter..

*A$.07 PER FOOT 7247 *A$.12 PER FOOT 7383

If your profit and your markets are being eroded by rapidly rising costs . . . and whose aren’t these days, then Vid-Com is the Laboratory you need. We’re part of New Zealand’s largest privately owned Video and Film Facility and only maintain our growth by providing a reliable quality product. A purpose built controlled environment together with the latest Film Lab Engineering Pty Ltd., processors flatter even the best exposures.

For the Australian film maker and producer of longer footage 16mm shoots or requiring bulk 16mm release prints a copy of our rate card is essential. Our established links and experience with Custom’s Agents quicken turn around.

Return the reply coupon now for a mail copy of our rate card but for urgent information contact David Calderwood or Bruce McArthur on Tel 796-466 Auckland, N.Z.

Geoff Burrowes and George Miller: 206

The Recent Films of James Ivory: 214

Phi! Noyce Interview: 220

Articles and InterviewsGeoff Burrowes and George Miller: Interview

George Tosi 206The Law of Making Movies

Daniela Torsh 213James Ivory’s Later Films

Brian McFarlane 214Phil Noyce: Interview

Arnold Zable 220Joan Fontaine: Interview

Brian McFarlane 232Film Insurance

Mike Channel, David White 236Tony Williams: Interview

Scott Murray 242

FeaturesJoan Fontaine Interview: 232

The Quarter LettersBerlin Film Festival 1982

Mari Kutina, Lesley Stern Picture Preview: Far East Film Censorship Listings New Products and Processes

Fred Harden Production Survey Box-office Grosses

Film ReviewsThe Man From Snowy River

Arnold Zable Mephisto

Brian McFarlane A Most Attractive Man

Keith Connolly Absence of Malice

Debi Enker Angels of War

Curtis Levy Union City

Susan Tate Freedom

Jim Schembri Quartet

Les Rabinowicz

Book ReviewsThose Fabulous TV Years, Australian TV: The First 25 Years and Turning On Turning Off: Australian Television in the Eighties

Dave SargentInternational Film Guide 1982

James Manning Recent Releases

Mervyn Binns 274Freedom

Reviewed: 269

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Associate Editor: Peter Beilby. Contributing Editors: Tom Ryan, Ian Baillieu, Brian McFarlane, Fred Harden. Editorial Consultant: Maurice Perera. Proof-reading: Arthur Salton. Design and Layout: ARTetc. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Administration: Patricia Amad. Secretary: Anne Sinclair. Office Assistant: Jacquelyn Town.

Advertising: Peggy Nicholls (03) 830 1097 or (03) 329 5983. Printing: Eastern Suburbs Newspapers, 140 Joynton Ave., Waterloo, 2017. Telephone: (02)662 8888. Typesetting: B-P Typesetting, 7-17 GeddesSt, Mulgrave, 3170. Telephone: (03) 561 2111. Distributors: NSW, Vic., Qld, WA, SA: Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, 168 Castlereagh St, Sydney, 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas.: Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. U.S.: T. B. Clarke Overseas Pty Ltd.

^Recommended price only.

Cinema Papers is produced with financial assistance from the Australian Film Commission. Articles represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the editors. While every care is taken with manuscripts and materials supplied for this magazine, neither the Editors nor the Publishers accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the permission of the copyright owner. Cinema Papers is published every two months by Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, Head Office, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3051. Telephone: (03) 329 5983.

© Copyright Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, No. 38, June 1982.

Front cover: Christina Marshall from Tony Williams’ Mext of Kin. Composite image by Alex Stitt.

CINEMA PAPERS June - 203

Strickland StrikesScott Murray reports:

As predicted in previous censorship items, the Commonwealth Chief Censor, Janet Strickland, has finally achieved her ambition of removing the censorship privileges of film festivals. Not only has she effectively overridden the 1975 Film Festival Agreement, which gave festivals certain censorship exemptions, Strickland has also banned one of the 1982 entries at the Melbourne and Sydney festivals (Pixote, winner of the 1981 New York Film Critics’ Award for Best Foreign Film).

On hearing of the banning, Melbourne Festival director, Geoffrey Gardner, said

“The film has been shown at more than 12 major film festivals, and has been commercially released, uncut, in the United States. To suppress it is a decision grossly out of touch with what is happening in the best of modern cinema.”

Gardner then went on to call for Strickland's resignation.

The Sydney Film Festival director, David Stratton, said the ban was,

“an outrageous intervention in the selection of programming. Mrs Strickland has placed the festivals in jeopardy, in total foreknowledge of the consequences . . . I cannot see the film festivals surviving without the im m ediate in te rvention of the [federal] Attorney-General.”But perhaps the m ost d ire c t

response came from the Premier of Victoria, John Cain, who opened the Melbourne Festival:

“ I thought we had stopped all that nonsense 15 or 20 years ago. I believe it should not have happened and will do all I can to ensure it does not happen for next year’s festival.”

The History

Trouble began soon after Strickland’s assumption of office two years ago. Regarding the 1975 censorship agreement for film festivals as “elitist” , she vowed to bring festivals in line with regulations governing commercial importers of films.

The 1975 agreement says in part, “(b) Every film will be registered

without screening with ‘Festival Conditions’ except:— Registration will not be made of any film which has previously been re jected for commercial use.”

Clearly, any film not already classified by the Censor can be shown in a film festival. This is the very basis of the 1975 pact. But Strickland has, without consultation, abandoned that agreement.

Strickland’s action in banning a festival film has long been feared and is part of a long campaign. Her first move came in the 1980 Annual Report of the Film Censorship Office:

“ By 1977 it had become obvious that the new system [the 1975 agreement] . . .¡breached . . . provisions of the state film censorship Acts . . .” This is nonsense, in 1975 the then

Chief Censor, Richard Prowse, was only too aware of what constituted a “ breach” . The 1975 agreement was a “gentlemen’s agreement” , in its most correct sense, and found a way of being tolerant instead of insipid adherence to the letter of the law. Strickland knew this and her remark merely reflects her desire to abandon the agreement, y

The next move came from the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, on August 25, 1981. In answer to a question from Senator Hamer about the need to amend regulations in favor of festivals, Durack said he was having discussions on the matter. His full reply left no doubt about his ultra-conservative views. These were spelt out even more explic itly in the Senate in

October, referring to “ absolutely ghastly material . . . produced by obviously sick minds” , and other Fred Nile-like asides. He concluded with, “ the test of obscenity is that of the [Censorship] Board” .

Durack also said (in August) that the Censor “always reserved the right to call in a film which might have difficulty obtaining commercial registration” . Clearly that contradicts the section of the 1975 agreement quoted above.

Strickland’s next move was in May 1982 when she called in films from the Melbourne Film Festival for approval (The Order, The Babysitter, Red Love, 1922). In his reply of May 7, director Geoffrey Gardner wrote:

“ I must protest at your action as I feel it threatens the very basis of the film festival. I am, quite frankly, astonished to receive these requests as it appears to me that you have either forgotten or overlooked the terms of the agreement negotiated by the festivals, with you present, in 1975, an agreement which, up to now, has worked quite smoothly as Tar as we are concerned .. .

“ . . . it is obvious that you are unilaterally disregarding the terms of the agreement and rendering it worthless. If you are of the opinion, as you seem to be, that the agreement should not be honoured by at least one party to it, then surely it is up to you to notify the other parties concerned of this so that all are aware of your actions and representations can be made to the various responsible Governments for discussion.”Strickland replied on May 10, saying

. . you state that you are ‘astonished’ to receive such a request and charge me with having ‘either forgotten or overlooked the terms of the agreement negotiated by the Festivals’ in 1975 . . . I draw your' attention to sub-para, (ii) in the second paragraph of that letter in which I stated,'. .. that Festival films are processed on receipt of applications and synopses without censorship screenings provided they are not called in for screening by the Chief Censor . . . ’ In the light of this advice, your astonishment is a little difficult to understand.

“ None of the conditions as set out in the 1975 ‘agreement’ to which you refer affects the Chief Censor’s right to require that the Film Censorship Board screen any film before registration may occur. Moreover, if the Film Censorship Board is of the opinion that Regulation 13(1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations is applicable, the Board has a statutory obligation to refuse the film’s registration.

“ No ‘agreement’, including the 1975 ‘agreement’, can invalidate the legal responsibilities of the Chief Censor or the Film Censorship Board, as laid down in the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations.”Gardner has also raised the issue of

time delays caused by the Censor calling in films. Strickland replied,

“ . . . you claim that the Film Censorship Board has held a film (which you have failed to identify) for a lengthy and unreasonable time. Our records would indicate that you are referring to the film The Order which was received for screening on April 27, 1982, screened five working days later and your office informed by telephone the following day of the decision to register. I enclose the Certificate of Registration.”Despite Strickland’s protestation,

Gardner was given to reply:“ I must confess to having little confidence that this [getting films processed] can be done quickly especially in the light of the experience with the previous film, The Order, which I would point out has still not arrived back at this office, 17 days after it was received in your office.”Gardner continued,

“ I believe strongly that it is time that the regulations were re-written into some m ore se n s ib le fash ion whereby recognised international film festivals and such organisations as the National Film Theatre of Australia, who I believe act responsibly at all times, should be given the same freedom of operation as is given film festivals in other countries around the world including such bastions of democracy as the Philippines and the USSR.”On May 17 Gardner issued a state

ment of concern over Strickland’s actions, and on May 20 issued a second release. In it he said,

“We remain strongly of the opinion that the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations should be immediately amended to a position similar to that which applies in Britain whereby British Customs and Excise Regulations permit the direct im port of film s for showing at approved Festivals.

“The Shadow Attorney-General, Haddon Storey, has sent a telegram to the Commonwealth Attorney- General, Senator Durack, which endorsed the view taken by the [Victorian] Premier, Mr Cain, on Festival censorship. Mr Storey’s telegram reads as fo llow s: ‘ I am concerned at the decision of chief film censor to examine four films for M elbourne Film Festival. This appears to depart from previous practice over many years and to be contrary to spirit of last Ministers’ meeting. I urge maintenance of longstanding position pending resolution at next meeting. Haddon Storey, Shadow Attorney-General.’ ”But the matter didn’t rest with Strick

land’s action on these four films (two of which are now cleared; decisions are awaited on the others). Late in May, S trickland called in the Brazilian film, Pixote. Then, on June 3, she announced she had refused to register the film and that it couldn’t be shown (on a Board vote of 8 to 1). Not only has Strickland done the Festival incalculable harm (the prestigious International Federation of Film Festivals has said it will expel Melbourne and Sydney if Strickland continues to impose censorship on festival films) she has also achieved her long-term ambition. ■*' *Stop press: On June 9 the Films Board of Review upheld an appeal against the banning of Pixote and released it for the festivals. As well, the remaining two films of the four called in by Strickland (Red Love and 1922) were cleared for screening. So, a few, small victories have been won. But the issue of festival censorship — and censorship in general — is unresolved.

Archive Crisis

Graham Shirley reports:Grave concern at news that the

National Film Archive of Australia may have to stop providing filmmakers with footage that it holds set the scene for a dinner held in Sydney by the Documentary Division of the Film and Television Production Association on May 4. Special guests were Harrison Bryan, director-general of the National Library, and Ray Edmondson and Mike Lynskey, both from the National Film Archive.

During an evening of discussion, p roducers mixed praise fo r the Archive’s hard-working staff with alarm at the drawbacks of its paltry funding ($400,000 per year, nearly half of which is basic operating cost) relative to the film activity it is supposed to preserve, its philosophical isolation within the National Library and its geographic remove far from nearly all film production. Speakers including Tom Haydon, Peter Luck, David Salter, Bob Conally, Malcolm Smith, Brian Morris and Albie Thoms all agreed that the industry would have much to gain from closer ties with an upgraded Archive, not only

204 - June CINEMA PAPERS

The QuarterfLetters

for the provision of archival services but for the nurturing of an Australian film culture.

One initial hurdle is that the Archive’s isolation conceals evidence of its potential, not to say its plight, from most of the industry. Demands for Archival access have doubled since 1979, yet the staff has remained at its 1972 level of seven.

^ Considering the previous tendency of the Council of the National Library to dismiss any question of the Archive’s autonomy, director-general Bryan’s admission that he had no opinion one way or another on the subject came as something of a surprise. He doubted, however, that the Archive could survive outside the National Library. When this was disputed by most producers present, he added that it was up to the FTPAA to inform the Minister for Home Affairs (responsible for the Library as well as film matters) of its members’ unhappiness at the Archive’s status.

From discussion on what action the FTPAA could take, it was agreed that the body should inform politicians of the desperate and immediate need for increased funds and staff, and should develop a policy on such issues as the Archive’s future location, its organizational structure and what it needs to preserve the industry’s current output.

Meanwhile, the industry-based National Film Archive Advisory Committee established by the National Library has met regularly with the aim of improving communication between the Archive and the industry. The Library has also received a report on the Archive written by Clyde Jeavons, deputy curator oMhe British National Film Archive, who visited Australia in m id -1 9 8 1 . T h is re p o r t, w h ich corroborates the concern felt by producers, will be published in the next issue of Cinema Papers.

Television Renewal Hearings

Peter Morris reports:The chairman of the Australian

Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), David Jones, gave an assurance at the renewal hearings that he would approach the. Minister for Communications, Neil Brown, about holding an inquiry into a caption service for the deaf.

A lexandra Hynes, the deputy executive director of the Australian Caption Centre, put a submission to the ABT at all the stations’ hearings on behalf of the Deaf Council and the Centre. Jones rejected the applications but said he would ask the Minister to call an inquiry “ in the near future” .

The Caption Centre was established last year (with a $627,000 Federal Government grant) to provide a closed cap tion se rv ice fo r A u s tra lia ’s estimated one million hearing-impaired people.

The ABC has announced it will begin broadcasting captions in December but the commercial stations have been arguing over which system should be used. They had said that whichever system was chosen would influence their choices when the new general data technology becomes available.

In one of his last decisions while holding the Communications portfolio, Ian Sinclair opted for the British Teletext system. (The caption service will not be received by all sets, but only those equipped with a decoder.)

The only group which was allowed to put a submission to the Tribunal was the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee (ACTAC).

The ACTAC ’s v ice cha irm an , Marjorie James, told the Tribunal that despite the improvements in children’s viewing times by the requirements of the “C” certificate much of what they see is “ harmful, ugly, frightening, confusing or inane” .

Their criticism of all the stations was based on these themes and provoked some spirited rebuttals by each station’s counsel.

All the stations had more Australian content than the regulations required; in fact, the 10 most popular programs in Melbourne last year were all produced in Australia.

For ATV-10, in particular, this policy had proven to be very profitable. Under its new ownership (Thomas Nationwide Transport and Rupert Murdoch’s News Group) the station has reported much better figures, largely through the ratings success of its Australian productions.

But while Australian product seems to be “hot” , most of the stations are depending on their “ big brothers” in Sydney to provide material. Although ATV-10 told the ABT a studio is being built specifically for drama production the trend is continuing for most productions to come from Sydney.

The ATOM A wards for Educational Short Films

Arnold Zable reports:On April 27, the Australian Teachers

of Media (ATOM) held the inaugural presentation of Awards for Educational Short Films. The audience that attended the presentation at the Victorian State Film Centre viewed the winning films in four categories: the Arts, the Social Sciences, Special Award for innovation in the area of Educational Short Film, and the award for the Best Australian Educational Short Film.

A fifth award for the Best Science Film was not given this year because the judges felt that none of the films in this area was of sufficient standard. But certainly all the other award winners proved, yet again, that there are many talented Australian filmmakers producing high quality short films: three of the four winners and the five films that were highly commended were made by Australians.

Explaining the procedures for judging, Helen Kon, president of ATOM, and Bernadette O’Brien, the convener of the Awards, pointed out that only films produced in 1980 or 1981 were eligible. All the films entered were first assessed for their relevance to specific areas of curriculum by practising classroom teachers and curriculum consultants working within the Victorian Education Department. More than 200 entries were narrowed down to 25 and then viewed by a panel of five judges, which included experienced filmmakers with a special interest in the short film and documentary. Maximum length for entries was 60 minutes.

Children’s television producer and board member of the newly-formed Austra lian C h ild ren ’s Television Foundation, Jennifer Hooks, spoke of the hazards involved in producing programs for children: finance is difficult to obtain, since children’s audiences fall short of the number in other areas of television, there are many varied views as to what is suitable for the audience, and government regulation seems inevitable (with approval required from the Children’s Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal).

Jennifer Hooks commended ATOM on the work it is doing in media education, and in its encouragement of the production of better quality educational films through the ATOM awards.

The award for the Best Educational Film in the Arts went to A Puppet Pudding, produced and scripted by Michael Creighton and directed by David Perry.

A Puppet Pudding combines a number of educational objectives in the area of arts education, and provides an introduction to the work of artist Norman Lindsay, especia lly his paintings and drawing of Australian animals in their bush setting. An interview with his niece gives an insight into the circumstances under which Lindsay

Continued on p. 277

Critical Indigestion

Dear Sir,For several years I have been

engaged in a noble pursuit. Like many serious minded people, I have been attempting to discover the meaning of life.

Everything seemed to be going a treat, in fact I damn near had the answer when, regrettably, I became aware of interference. A strange, insidious counter force invaded my thought waves, distracting my finest efforts, tearing me away, as it were, from the problem.

it oecame increasingly apparent that the cause of this diversion was your film reviews. How can I devote my sole attention to discovering the meaning of life when it is now demanded of me that I discover the meaning of your film reviews?

Naturally, it occurred to me that your film reviews are, in the general scheme of things, far more important than life. I even began to wonder (as they seem not to relate to the kind of life I have come to know) whether, in fact, they have actually replaced life.

However, I quickly banished such thoughts from my mind because if it were true it would mean that your film critics are playing God and I know this simply isn’t so.

Nevertheless, the puzzle surrounding the meaning of your film reviews has now attained cosmic proportions and your reviewers will be pleased to know that their mysterious works now command my full attention. I hope to get back to the meaning of life after I’ve had breakfast.

Robert Kersey

Token Ghettos

Dear Sir,Geoff Gardner’s gratuitous refer

ence to “ token 16mm Creative Development Fund ghetto films” in his review of Heatwave (Cinema Papers, No. 37, pps 163-4) cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

I suppose that, as a film festival director, Gardner would know all about cultural ghettos and what causes them. But his remark Is strangely at odds with his reputation as one of the most enlightened champions of the short film in Australia. His record of 120 short films (nearly half of them Australian) at last year’s Melbourne Film Festival deserves to be emulated elsewhere.

It is also ironic that his sideswipe should occur within the context of a review of new work by a director who has himself been lured into the “ghetto” for the production of his early work, Backroads. I assume that the fact that this film has an honored place in Australia’s recent film history will not wash with your reviewer. The implication that Phil Noyce shares with some of our most esteemed creative talent (Peter Weir, Gillian Armstrong,: John Duigan, Ken Cameron, Bruce Petty, Stephen Wallace, etc.) the dishonor of “token ghetto” productions in his filmography will also no doubt be regarded as proof that the ghetto’s influence is all- pervasive.

Geoff Gardner should know better. This type of wisecrack slips easily out of the typewriter, but only serves to confirm prejudices that people less enlightened than him are happy to see propagated. Isn’t he aware that the Creative Development Fund is fighting for its financial survival at this very moment, suffering from the body blows of rising film budgets, an inequitable tax scheme and progressive cuts in the Creative Development Branch’s budget over the past 5 years, owing to inflation?

The reason for my dismay is that terms like “token” and “ghetto" are not only misleading, but also the source of

self-fulfilling prophecy. There are enough commercial barriers against the short film without Gardner erecting cultural ones. The “token” films about urban renewal which he appears to despise were in fact made with care and love and great personal risk over long periods of time. They didn’t have the luxury of budgets which could buy top stars, advisers and art directors. But they did tackle the subject from the grass roots, by enlisting the help ofthe people actually caught up in the battle for their homes. They have since won awards and been seen by thousands of people in non-theatrical viewings. In fact, Pat Flske and Denise White’s Woolloomooloo, a film about the BLF and citizens’ struggle for inner-city Sydney housing, is one of t|pe 10 most rented titles from the Sydney Filmmakers’ Co-operative’s library.

Like your reviewer, I am delighted to see these issues being taken up by feature directors, but I totally reject his assumption that features are ipso facto the real thing, not some inward-looking piece of self-congratulation made on a government grant for a film society of mutual masturbators.

Do I need to emphasise the point by listing the CDF-funded films which have gone on to commercial success in Australia and overseas? Start with Bruce Petty’s Australian History, then The Singer and the Dancer (Gillian Armstrong), Love Letters From Teralba Road (Stephen Wallace), Frontline and Public Enemy Number One (David Bradbury ) , My Survival as an Aboriginal (Essie Coffey), Wrong Side of the Road (Ned Lander and Graeme Issac), Stepping Out (Chris Noonan)

Token ghetto films, Geoff? As token as some of the D-grade tax-avoidance features that have sunk without trace? Or are there some ghettos that we prefer not to see?

Murray Brown, Creative Development Branch


“The Man From Snowy River" is one of the most successful films to be released in Australia. In its first eight weeks it grossed faster than Australia’s biggest money earner “Star Wars”, returning more than 3 million dollars in box-office.It is producer Geoff Burrowes and director George Millers' first feature. Both began their careers at Crawfords. Burrowes has also worked as a press secretary for Moss Cass and in advertising with Monahan Dayman Adams. Miller has been directing television series for more than 10 years. His credits include the historical series “Against The Wind" and “The Last Outlaw".

Top: executive producer Simon Wincer, producer Geoff Burrowes and director George Miller. Above: “Thankyou, Spur": Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson) and the horse given to him by Spur. Left: the chase across the river. Far left: Clancy (Jack Thompson) and Spur (Kirk Douglas).


Dav

id P

arke

r

TwoM en B ehindNOWYScripting

When did you get the idea to film ‘Snowy River’?

Burrowes: I was talking to a publisher friend about various projects when his wife said, as a bored aside to the wine-soaked conversation, “Why doesn’t someone in the film industry do something that is central to Australia’s heritage rather than always dealing on the edges of it?” I asked what she meant, and she said, “Take, for example, The Man From Snowy River. Why doesn’t someone do that?” I jumped down her throat and said, “Oh, get out. It’s too well- known. It’s almost a cliche. Anyway, it’s too short; it only runs five or seven minutes. How can you make a film out of that?”

Then, as I drove home that night, I wondered why I had rejected her idea so strongly. That’s when I got the idea that the poem wouldn’t make a film in itself, but what a superb end to a film. So I flew around to George’s place, raced in the door and said, “Guess what? I’ve got a great end! All we need is another 90 minutes!” So, we sat down and plotted it out that weekend.

Miller: The idea came first from


Rut

h M

addl

son

George Miller and Geoff Burrowes

Geoff’s love of the mountains. I had also filmed there — probably more than anybody else — and had this rich, residual feeling about the place. Certainly, I had very strong feelings about how the film should look.

So, we applied what we knew of our craft to that concept. That is to what Snowy River owes its great success.

You had the ending, but how did you evolve the beginning and middle?

Burrowes: We looked at the poem, but that gave us almost no clue as to what story might have preceded it. All one has is the gathering of a certain number of horsemen, and a wild and moving horse chase.

came into money when Pardon won the Cup. But that’s all we know.

The one we know least about is the Man from Snowy River. The only clue is that he is a “lad” and a “stripling”. That, I guess, was the breakthrough. Hitherto, every single artist’s rendition of the Man was that of a hirsute, 30-year-old, mature man with a heavy beard. For some reason, no one, or very few, had picked up that he was a young boy, barely capable of growing bum-fluff.

Miller: He is referred to as a lad in the early part of the poem, and at the end as “the man” . What does that tell you? That the ride is his passage into m anhood, the definitive act of growing up.

Burrowes: Once we had those three characters, we decided we

much of Clancy in the film. He is too legendary, too big, and we felt he would eat Jim. If we brought him on too often, it would become a film about Clancy.

At the same time, we wanted to keep him as that legendary character, the catalyst who exercises not only a psychological prerogative on Jim but also a metaphysical influence throughout the film — sim ilarly with Spur. It was important that Spur motivate Jim at exactly the right times.

Equally, the action with the brumbies and the colt is important in relation to what’s happening to the characters . . .

Burrowes: The horses aren’t just simply there because they look cute

that third level gets out of control, it wrecks your film entirely; but if you haven’t got it, it makes it slight. It is these aspects and attitudes in the characters which help one understand a little more about the milieu. What values do these characters stand for? Or in its simplest expression: What are the values of a hero?

Is it fair to draw a comparison between Jim and the leader of the brumbies?

Burrowes: No, I don’t think so. Some mad reviewer got off on that particular bike, but that’s just wank.

Miller: The brumbies are Jim’s nemesis. Jim represents civilization, and the brumbies the moun-

There are only three characters mentioned in the poem: Clancy of the Overflow, Harrison and the Man from Snowy River. Frankly, we know everything we need to about Clancy from the poem. He is already a legend, the consummate horseman. As for Harrison, he is “the old man with his hair as white as snow, but few could ride beside him when his blood was fairly up” . We also know that he fortuitously

needed to know a lot more about the Man from Snowy River, whom we called Jim Craig. We gave him that name because he is a fictional character. Paterson created him as a composite character, based on no one individual. So we built the character of Jim Craig as Paterson had — from our observations of a number of mountain horsemen.

Another decision we took early on was that we would not show too

and make for nice visuals. They had to be characters in the same way that Jim or Jessica is a character.

If you like, there are three basic levels: an up-front, dramatic level which works at the simplest level of understanding; behind that are the various psychological underpinnings of the characters, for those who care to look; and then, over and above that, is the metaphysical level, which is the most difficult. If

Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson) makes the leap and races "down the mountain like a torrent down its bed”. The Man From Snowy River.

tains in their original state. The conflict between the two, which is the pivotal line in the film, is that people have to earn the right to live in the mountains. Even people who know the mountains on a superficial level understand that. It has its own truth.


George Miller and GeoffBurrowes

Every time the brumbies appear, it is at a major junction in Jim’s life. Was that deliberate?

Burrowes: Absolutely. The role of the brumbies, apart from the visual and specific plot aspects, is those second and third levels. We felt the horses had to exercise a malevolent and metaphysical influence on Jim’s life. They are great harbingers of change. Whenever we see the brumbies, something goes wrong, like Jim’s father dies, or the situation with Jessica is fouled up.

That brumby stallion is not meant to be a lovable character. Otherwise, how the hell would you sustain the end of the film, which is a kid removing horses from their native freedom. You would alienate your audience altogether if the final scene is Jim locking up a bunch of nice horses that are going to end up as glue.

So, Jim becomes a man because he can control the stallion . . .

Burrowes: Because he can beat the stallion. But, even that, I suspect is taking things too far. It’s not as if Jim, too, is a young stud and he goes to fight the old stallion for the mares. That’s a bit of your Meaghan Morris type stuff.1 It is simply that the brumbies are the epitome of a wild and free spirit which unfortunately mitigates against man’s efforts to control an environment. And, since it’s people who go to films and not horses, we decided to come down rather squarely- on the side of people winning, not horses.

How long did it take to write the screenplay?

Burrowes: It took us a weekend to get the first rudiments of our character outlines and plot. Then we spent a year in plotting and developing characters. This is before we .even went to a script. We wrote about 12 treatments, many of them 40 to 60 pages.

One of the key things was that it was unhurried. We didn’t try and force a treatment or plot by a deadline. It would have been foolhardy. Deadlines have to be considered a moveable feast, if the object of the exercise is to make something worthwhile. So, we just kept working at it.

In the meantime, I would go up to Merrijig and refer what we had talked about to Jack Lovick and the other mountain horsemen, and ask them for character insights. Jack used to take me around and introduce me to people whom I could use as character bases, drawing from the history and the traditions of the mountain people.

For example, the character of Jessica, Jim’s paramour, is drawn largely from a lady who died in the early part of the century, in the most remote and beautiful valley of1. Meaghan Morris is film critic for The

Financial Review, Sydney.

the mountains. She is overlaid by aspects of character that stem from my wife’s sister-in-law. Then, there are the purely inspirational elements. All the time, we were looking for historical models, life models, and then adding one’s perception of the qualities of the characters.

Miller: Geoff looked after the authenticity of the mountainmen, while I looked after the overlay of character, the historical authenticity. This is why Jim is a very sexist person. It is historically accurate.

Burrowes: Now came the time to have a screenplay written which conformed to our view of the film. There was no point having a writer do something that didn’t suit us. I’m not interested in the writer as auteur; that’s a total waste of time. That is not to belittle a writer. It is putting him on the appropriate pinnacle, but not on a pinnacle in a different mountain range to you.

Why didn’t you take screen credit for your contributions to the script?

Burrowes: We have credit in our own right; we don’t need it. Those stupid, bloody credits of “Story by . . . ” or “Concept by . . . ” often sound like a pitiful cry for recognition from the wilderness. Screenwriters get screen credits.

Why did you shoot in Mansfield and not on location at Mount Kosciusko?

Miller: It is more beautiful in the Mansfield area and it is home ground. They are very much our people. Geoffs father-in-law lives there, and he helped take us into those mountains.

Also, from a director’s point of view, Kosciusko doesn’t look like a mountain —just a feature on a high plateau. When I went to look at it, I droye right past. I genuinely missed it.

Finally, Mansfield is logistically very convenient.

Burrowes: Even before we went to a treatment, we were drafting in terms of what we knew and understood of the mountains in that district. To some extent, the film conformed to what we knew existed around the Mansfield area. Then, as we got on to the fourth or fifth draft of the script, we went there again on a round trip through the mountain area. We wanted to prove to ourselves that we weren’t being emotionally drawn to Mansfield, that we weren’t being a bit lazy and going for somewhere we knew would be safe. But we couldn’t get within a bull’s roar of Mansfield on many, many scores.

ActorsHow did you choose your actors?

Burrowes: Sigrid Thornton was cast as Jessica the day we decided we needed a romantic interest for Jim.

Miller: Sigrid and I have a long history; the first time I worked with her she was about 14. I also worked with her on The Last Outlaw. She is somebody whose ability I have watched grow as she matured — though, of course, she’s still very young. I just knew that she was the right person, and Geoff was convinced fairly readily.

Burrowes: Kirk we had to work on a lot. Originally our idea was to have two Australian actors play Harrison and Spur. We tested about a dozen actors, but we just couldn’t get what we were after. There are good reasons why, particularly in the case of Harrison. He needs to have an extraordinary physical presence, with an overwhelming, immensely-powerful personality on screen.

Miller: He is Jim’s protagonist, so the more powerful he is, the more powerful Jim becomes by overcoming him. Again, it is an application of craft to casting.

Burrowes: Harrison is in an enormous number of scenes, so we needed a very competent actor. There are competent actors in Australia, in that age bracket, but we

As for Jack Thompson, as soon as we came up with the idea of Clancy, we knew it had to be him. It was fairly obvious.

The most important thing about the cast was that they had to have fantastic ability as actors. I didn’t really care what they looked like. Sigrid is fantastic and she is beautiful — well, that’s great. I probably would have cast her even if she weren’t beautiful.

The same goes for Tom. We were looking for an actor who would appeal to women; that was terribly important. Sigrid was the first person we cast, so we took her on all the auditions for Jim.

Burrowes: Sigrid sat through 45 screen tests and read a scene with each of the young guys we tested. And that 45 had been narrowed down from about 2000, who had been checked by casting agents. Well, Tom just cast himself. The relationship that sprung between Tom and Sigrid was absolutely magic. It required no rational appreciation of the screen test, no discussion or intellectual strain.

Miller:. Again, an excellent television training showed through.

What about Kirk Douglas?

Top: Clancy, “the consummate horseman", and Spur. Above: Jessica and Jim after Jessica's rescue. The Man From Snowy River.

did not find that physical presence, that strength Kirk brings to a role.

With Spur, we had a lot of difficulties in the reads. We just didn’t get close to what we wanted. So, at that stage, we decided to look overseas. That immediately raised the question of lifting the budget, but we felt it would enhance the marketability of the film at the distribution level overseas. It evens out in the end.

So we had a clear choice: we could thump the nationalist tub and


George Miller and Geoff Burrowes

take recourse in the fortress mentality of “Let’s do this all- Australian because we are little Aussie bleeders” and end up with a second-class product, not through anyone’s fault, but simply because of availabilities. Or we could do what we’d always intended, which was to do the best bloody thing we could and think outside of the fortress mentality.

When we started to think of Harrison, setting aside the question of a dual role, there are few actors in the world with that amount of power who can play a 60-year-old. You can think of George C. Scott, Sean Connery, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, then you start to hiccup, close your eyes and cough. There’s not many that you can get. The possibilities of the dual role restricted it even further.

play was that he didn’t want Harrison to be a . cipher of a character. John wanted to make a statement about the kind of men who made Australia what it is today, irrespective of whether they were attractive or not — and most of them weren’t. We were looking for the kind of person who laid the basis for the great agrarian industry upon which Australia depended for so long, and to a large extent depends upon now. We wanted someone analagous to the Duracks and the Kidmans, the men who, at whatever cost to themselves and those around them, forged empires and built Australia.

Are you happy with Douglas’ performance?

Miller: Absolutely. It’s stunning. I can truly say Kirk was not

Filming in the high country.

When did you decide to make it a dual role?

Burrowes: While we were talking to Kirk in Los Angeles. At that stage, we had drafted Spur and Harrison as friends, not brothers. Then we thought it would become richer as drama if they were brothers.

Miller: Conflict is where drama comes from.

Harrison seems in conflict with just about everybody in the film . . .

Miller: Most especially himself.Burrowes: Yet he is not intended

to be a mean mongrel. He’s not mean-minded, he’s just single- minded.

One of the many contributions John Dixon made to the screen

an easy man to work with, but I don’t know anybody in the whole world who could have given us a better Harrison. He is such a powerful Harrison that when Jim overcomes him, by Jesus, you know he has become a man.

The filrft was made the way we wanted ana, despite a tremendous input from Kirk, the film is our film. That meant some clever footwork on our part. In many ways, handling Kirk was my passage into manhood. Nothing scares me now, like nothing.

Burrowes: The important thing is to determine whose film it is, and then you must make sure the film conforms to that vision. You must never allow the film to take its own life and run. That is a recipe for self-indulgence and disaster. So, we had to extract from Kirk his contribution — and it wasn’t a question of extracting it: Kirk gives it to you — while all the time fighting to keep the perspective.

What was Michael Edgley’s involvement in the production?

Burrowes: Michael’s forte is not at the coal face. He’s not a working producer in the sense that he gets involved in the actual production. What Michael brings to the production, firstly, is an extraordinary credential. People like George and I ostensibly have no track record — which, I take to mean, we have not failed five times in the film business. We lacked credentials.

So, about a year-and-a-half into the project we decided to get into bed with someone a bit heavier than us, who could give us some credibility and whose involvement would help to justify the need to spend several million dollars.

Up to this point, we had had the whole range of idiocy purporting to be sound advice thrust at us, like “Why don’t you boys do it as television” or “I think this is a great film as long as you keep the budget under $750,000.” Can you imagine the fatuity of that advice? We kept getting it from so-called senior figures in the industry — fatuous, infantile reactions, like “Is it a musical?” from the head of one of the corporations. Holy Christ!

After a while, we realized these guys were playing in a different world. They’re idiots. You can’t discuss, articulate or advocate against that kind of crap.

Miller: We cured the problem with geography; we went around them.

Burrowes: So, the key thing was to involve someone with the right credentials.

Then, Simon Wincer, who is an old friend of George’s, rang us and said he’d been working with Michael Edgley for about three months. Michael wanted to get into film and television in a big way and they had looked at a lot of projects. But none had excited them and they were keen to find a good project. This was at the very moment I had my finger poised over the dial to ring people like Michael Edgley.

So, Simon and Michael came down, we talked, and in half-am hour we had a deal. We also had seeding finance, and an expanded core group, with Simon joining George and I to make up the production team.

M arketingAnother aspect of Michael’s in

volvement, and this is really critical, is promotion. The film industry in Australia knows little about promotion. There had never been a film made in this country

which had been tho roughly marketed. Marketing is a multifaceted and esoteric operation. Marketing is not just selling, not just promotion, not just advertising — it is all those things and more.

I have a good background in marketing but not in promotion and selling, and tha t’s where Edgleys are phenomenal. They have a promotional infrastructure which is without a doubt thé best in this country. We were not dealing with an ad hoc publicist. The notion of a unit publicist as the only sop to marketing is a joke. You make a $3 million film and you spend $10,000 on publicity ! What kind of mistake is that?

Edgleys worked full-time dreaming up ways of publicizing and promoting this film. We were able to position the film. We were able to develop a merchandising and licensing stream, an advertising stream, a publicity stream and all the other attributes of marketing.

Marketing is the difference between accepting that a;'certain number of people will see your film no matter what, and taking the attitude that you are going to get millions of people to see the film for particular reasons. It has to do with the very nature of the product itself. If we had not made a product that was eminently marketable, then it wouldn’t have mattered how erudite our marketing strategy was. Marketing practice goes right back to what you’re making and how you go about making it.

M ichael Edgley and his organization was intrinsic to the development of our marketing approach.

So, you tailor the film to a particular market . . .

Burrowes: Absolutely.

And what is that market?

Burrowes: All Australians — the whole 15 million of them. As broad and as unabashedly as that.

Now, the way we sought to achieve that was to segment the market and to provide aspects of the film which would suit different audience segments. So you say, “Let’s make this film comprehensible to kids.” That’s important. Then, “Let’s make it appealing to people who don’t go to cinemas.” The cinema market is undergoing enormous pressures and there are vast numbers of people who do not go to cinemas. Right, we have to get them.

By the same token, there is the very volatile and effective centre of the cinema market: the youth market. We must have something in it for them. Also, something in it for the cinéastes and the family groups. You want a film that a mother and father can take their children to, not enduring what they think is going to be good for their children but enjoying it them-


George Miller and Geoff Burro wes

selves. And their kids will go along with a view to enjoying it and not being forced to watch something that their parents think is good for them.

All this means.you multi-layer the proposition. That’s where the script comes in.

Miller: Again, these things were resolved at day five. This is where our background in television was a tremendous help. Television is a popular, medium. You sink or swim in television. You don’t have five flops in a row; you have one flop and that’s it.

We have a very good track record in television — again, Crawfords training. It is amazing the number of people from that place who come up trumps. They just keep coming.

People who decry television do so at their own expense and out of profound ignorance. I would defy 90 per cent of people who are making feature films in Australia to go and direct an episode of a cop show, or The Sullivans. That would sort them out so fast their feet wouldn’t touch the ground.

Burrowes: One of the main things we are lacking in the feature business is an ability at the narrative levels and television is narrative. It has to be to survive. People like George emerge from the ruck because they are adept at narrative; they can tell a story and tell it quickly.

Today’s audiences, and particularly kids, are visual rather than literate. They can take in an entire lifestyle message in 30 seconds off the box. Commercials set the standard by which we have to judge what the audience can perceive. The old days of taking 10 minutes to play a scene no longer apply. After 30 seconds, the audience is scratching its bum. It knows what’s going to happen, and you insult them by dragging it out.

Miller: When I was shooting Snowy, I was very conscious that the visual literacy of young people especially is very high. That is reflected in the pace of the film. I would say, “Okay actors, read it through.” Then 10 seconds into it, I’d say,/‘Too slow, too slow! This is giviqg me the shits. It’s boring.”

Burrowes: We had a big disagreement about this one day. G eorge was going th rough rehearsals for the dinner scene and I thought, “Oh Christ, this is,a gallop.” I told George he was going too fast, but' he said, “Too fast, be buggered. I’m not going fast enough.” Well, when we looked at the rushes, I realized I was wrong. The lesson is get on with it, never hang around.

Take the scene where Jessica is on the cliff and Jim comes along to rescue her. Everyone knows how he is going to rescue her. They have seen it a million times before. They know he is going to climb down to her, that they are going to climb nearly all the way to the top and they’re going to slip and, “Ohhh!,

they’ve gone, oh no they haven’t’.’ They know that.

Miller: The instant Jim claps eyes on Jessica, end of story. Move on to the next point.

Burrowes: If this film is a testimony to anything, it is to two things: (1) craft over indulgence, and indulgence can be expressed in many terms, like intellectual wanking, and (2) the vast, untapped talent that lies out there which has been passed over by the feature industry. This film is a first for George, for me, for Michael Edgley, for Simon "Wincer as an executive producer, for John Dixon the scriptwriter, for Bruce Rowland the composer, for Keith Wagstaff the cinematographer, for Tom Burlinson the actor and for the guys that handle the horsework — and so on down the line. We so often found that the people we wanted were those who worked without any preconditioning as to how good they were, who hadn’t been slapped on the back and told by their peers how brilliant and insightful they were. The ones who were best happened to be ones who had been passed over.,

ola and scream “Boring!” , and 30 seconds later the stuff was out.

Burrowes: On the cutting room floor is some of the most exquisite, exciting and beautiful footage, but it had no place in the structure of this piece of entertainment.

Do you think the film has significance on a nationalistic Level . . .

Burrowes: Yes. That was something that we set out to manipulate, to achieve. But it is not as simple as having, for example, “Waltzing Matilda” played in the end credits music.

Miller: I first heard the fully- orchestrated version of “Waltzing Matilda” when I had been away from home for eight weeks in the U.S. I nearly wept.

For me, Snowy is a love letter to Australia and, for Geoff, a love letter to the mountains. We can’t understand why any filmmaker would want to depress an audience. If you want to get depressed, turn on the television and watch the news.

Burrowes: The film has been out now for six weeks and we have had

That seems unique about the film. Most Australian films tend to have very passive central characters . . .

Miller and Burrowes: That’s because they don’t apply their craft!

Burrowes: They don’t realize what turns an audience on. The feeling we wanted to generate in the audience, when Jim beat those horses and “alone and unassisted brought them back” , was that similar to a team winning the grand final. When Carlton wins a grand final, 20 players don’t win it — hundreds of thousands of people win it. When Jim beats the horses, everyone in the audience wins.

Another thing is that we avoided the pitfall of Ockerism, which too many people fell into in the early days of the A ustralian film industry, and indeed even in television. Nobody likes Ockers. They are detestable characters. They have never worked in drama, and are box-office poison. So, it is important to maintain an Australian character in an attractive, not unattractive, light.

Another thing is that there are

What do you think the public is getting out of the film? Why is it so attractive?

Miller: One word: entertainment,

Burrowes: That’s what this film fundamentally set out to achieve. Anything that, mitigated against entertainment was thrown out, without pain.

Miller: We’d stand at the Movie-

a tremendous audience response. In Adelaide, they clapped Jim when he was bringing the horses back. Unbelievable. They weren’t clapping the film, they weren’t saying, “Good job, boys” , they were clapping Jim, the hero, winning and bringing the horses back. And because the film is intrinsically Australian — it is socially and culturally specific to Australia — when Jim wins, Australia wins.

Filming the wild bush brumbies: harbingers o f change.

many ways in which you can address the Australian character. A number of people in Perth and Adelaide articulated this to me in a way I hadn’t thought of before. A couple of girls came up to me in Perth after the premiere and I asked what they liked about it.


George Miller and GeoffBurro wes

They said, “Oh, it made me so proud to be Australian.” I asked why, expecting Waltzing Matilda or Jim beating the horses. “No,” they said, “it was the elements of honesty in Jim, the honesty in the script. For example, when Spur gives him the horse, and he said, ‘Thank you, Spur’, you obviously felt he meant it. He wasn’t a smarty arse.”

How do you feel about the critical reaction?

Burrowes: I think it is time for a man-bites-dog story. It is time the

Jessica and Jim: “One can say, I think authoritatively, that most o f the critics who slammed us are wrong."

These, incidentally, are the very lines that bur erudite friends, the critics, leapt on and said, “How banal.” They just don’t understand! They have no comprehension of what makes successful drama, successful entertainment. They are the lines that really flesh Jim out. When he is chopping the wood, and he is serious about it, you can see there is a fundamental honesty and integrity in the guy.

That’s one thing that Australians have always had in them, a sort of open-faced naivety, an ability to survive gotterdammerung but still profess an openness, a lack of cynicism. Australians have traditionally not become cynical, although I think we’ve taken a bit of a course in it of late. Our knocker syndrome is very cynical and bordering on the old cultural cringe.

But there are many aspects to an audience’s response, like the scenery being so beautiful. It makes people proud to belong to a continent that is so pretty.

Miller: We rejoice at just being able to zoom out and see, as one critic put it, half of Victoria. That critic mentioned this as a negative thing, but my heart leapt when I stood on top of that mountain. One person sees beautiful scenery as a cliche; I see it as a national treasure.

filmmakers got up and started to dish back to the critics what we have taken supinely for too long.

A lot of filmmakers — oh, that’s a stupid term — a lot of producers and directors don’t market their films. They rely entirely on the critics and, to that extent, they have to bear the blame when their films die if they get bad crits.

We decided early on that this film would probably get a critical panning. It didn’t matter to us because we’d taken the decision to market it properly. So the critics meant nothing to us.

One can say, I think authoritatively, that most of the critics who slammed us are wrong. Not because their taste is different to ours — that would be valid — but because they are provably awry in their assessment of the craft elements in the film, and the criteria by which the film was intended to be judged.

But it’s not all critics, incidentally; the majority of critics have dealt very favorably, and some too favorably, with the film.

Miller: For me, it simply reflects badly upon the newspapers they work for. If a critic sees a film to which the general public gives a standing ovation, and then goes away and slams it, then that says something about the accuracy, veracity and honesty of the critic, and about the integrity of the paper. How must the editor of The Age feel when the most popular film in Australian history is given

such a heavy canning by his critic? It reflects badly on the paper because the critic is simply inaccurate. Not only inaccurate but untruthful.

Burrowes: And one suspects, too, improperly motivated. Reviews in many cases have probably been attitudinally constructed before the film has been seen. That is the most perfidious aspect.

It is an unfortunate by-product of the situation that we remember the cannings, not the praise — and so, unfortunately, do other journalists.

Do you think that Australian critics are too critical of Australian products . . .

Miller: They’re ignorant, they’re low-grade. They pick up the Bluffer’s Guide to Movies and use about a dozen words out of it. When they talk about the script being slight, they’re talking bullshit.

Burrowes: They haven’t a clue as to what a script does. They are talking about lines of dialogue, not about the script. The script is what generates structure, pace, flavor, feel. The film is frankly the script with pictures. The notion, as some have said, that the film’s okay but the script stinks is stupidity and ignorance. It is an impossibility to make a good film out of a bad script.

Miller: If it is a successful film, it is so because the script is right. People who say the script is bad are wrong.

Burrowes: You can’t have full house after full house applauding a film six weeks into its commercial release unless they are powerfully moved by the story — that is, by the script. There is no room for the audience and the critics who slammed us (such as Neil Jillett, John Hindle and Sandra Hall) to be right, when there is such flagrant disagreement. The critics are conducting an intellectual appreciation, but that is applying a judgment to us to which we never chose to be a party. We have not gone out to make high-blown artistic statements. We have not gone out to philosophize. We have not gone out to change the way in which people think about the world. We have gone out to entertain.

There is one clown up in Sydney whom I honestly cannot believe saw the film. He even gets the character names wrong; he called Harrison “ Hamilton”, and he — and his sub-editor — can’t even spell Banjo Paterson.

Miller: And he called me Dr George Miller!

Burrowes: Yet that man is still employed by the paper, Christ! If we were that bad in our business, we’d never make another film. Thank Christ the audience has enough bloody sense not to be swayed by him.

Miller: The first function of any journalist is to communicate accur

ately and clearly. So I would commend anybody who wonders what the hell’s going on journalistically in Australia to read the review of Duet for Four in Cinema Papers.2 I’m an intelligent person, but I couldn’t figure out what the fuck he was saying. Do people actually read that? It’s very strange.

Burrowes: Not many films made in Australia have been made — and this is going to sound a bit pompous, but it’s not intended to be — with the craft levels that this one has. This film breaks new ground in Australia in the way it intends to entertain. Most of the Australian film milieu, both in the making and in the critical appreciation of it, has been more in the area of film as culture, film as art, than film as popular entertainment.

What has grown up among the critics is a reluctance to depart from traditions. Hence, you have the rantings and the renderings of the Melbourne critic who protested, methinks too much, that Australian audiences aren’t flocking to see such and such a film, which he thinks should be compuU sory viewing. That is indicative of the depth of idiocy in a critic. I mean, who is the jury: him or the audience?

It is also unfortunate that he and his predecessor have fallen into the trap of simply viewing Australian film purely as culture, not industrial entertainment. The fact of the matter is, this is our daytime job. We don’t have a paper round. We have to make it pay. We had $3.5 million of other people’s money wrapped up in this, and it’s not for us to make profound statements. The only statement they want to see is in black ink.

Miller: One of my proudest moments was when Ken G. Hall said he thought the film was great. I don’t think anybody has addressed himself to entertaining the public as much as Ken G. Hall.

Burrowes: George Lucas is the guy who, most of all, has it right. He knows intuitively where to apply his craft.

Miller: I think the most damaging thing to the Australian film industry has been the auteur theory of the director, which is just consummate bullshit. A director is a part of a team.

Directing in Australia has attracted the wrong sort of people. Everybody sees the director as the pinnacle of the creative thrust of a film, the auteur. So it attracts people who have ego problems. Instead of “je suis un rock star” , it is “je suis un film director.” They are people so inextricably wound up in their own egos that they start telling their own stories.

By the same token, you can do both . . .

Concluded on p. 283

2. Sam Rohdie, Cinema Papers, No. 37, pp. 169-170.


T H E A AWo f______

Making M oviesDaniela Torsh

A one-day seminar for lawyers sponsored by the Australian Film Commission and the College

of Law in Sydney recently had to turn people away. More than 160 applications for the seminar, “The Law of Making Movies” , were received.

At the seminar, the general manager of the AFC, Joseph Skrzynski, told the lawyers he expected more private investment in future in development of film projects and in marketing. These two areas had in the past been largely supported by government Finance. He said,

“We would not expect that to continue. In early 1981, 23 features went into production between January and May. They had a total budget of about $36 million. We expect this financial year, 1981/82, to be about $35 million [budget total].

“On the basis of that figure, allowing about 10 per cent as development costs, $3 to $4 million [is] spent annually on developing projects. In the past, this has been met 95 per cent by government funding. We expect in future only 50 per cent government funding for development, with directors, writers and producers carrying the cost in deferreds, and investors picking the costs up down the line.” In his historical analysis of the Film industry,

Skrzynski described the current tax incentives as “an introductory offer” with the hope of attracting investors to the Film industry and keeping them. He said, “We are in Phase Two — trying to Find the right relationship between private industry and government.”

The certiFication system administered by the Department for Home Affairs was designed to avoid the problems of tax-based support, as seen overseas, especially in Canada where there was no regulation. “We don’t want to be a bit parts industry with offshore operators who don’t leave much behind” , he said. It may be appropriate to introduce foreign elements, such as an actor or writer, into a Film, but the litmus test of certification was creative control: is it Australian?

The certiFication system was “not set up to have overseas producers come in, put up a front of Australian control, write in the Opera House and kookaburras . . .” (laughter).

Skrzynski foreshadowed a review by Federal Treasurer, John Howard, in June this year of the tax incentives. With the news published in the Australian Financial Review the day prior to the seminar that the incentives have so far cost Treasury an estimated $24 million, 12 times the original costing by the then responsible Minister, Mr Ellicott, the promised review could be an unpleasant event for the industry.

Sydney commercial lawyer David Gonski explained the difficulties of using traditional ways of structuring investments to get the beneFits of the new tax advantages. He said he was disappointed that the same approach had not been used in the film industry as in the mining industry, where the person who invests in company shares is eligible for the tax deduction. In the Film industry, because usually a company is the First owner of the copyright, it is the company which is eligible for the tax advantages.

Because of the problems under the New South Wales (and other states’) Companies Act of forming an investment structure with more than 20 investors (commonly known as the “section 14(3) problem”) many Films are using the Queensland Mercantile Act circa 1867 to set up their investment company. Gonski said it was upsetting and expensive to have to fall back on this out-of-date act in order to take advantage of the tax incentives. The problems he cited were:

• the limit of seven years’ life for the company;

• the high costs of advertising to conform with the act;

• lack of provisions for assignment; and• doubt as to where liabilities and protec

tion occur.The general feeling among the lawyers present

was that the Corporate Affairs Commission would not act on section 14(3), but having more than 20 investors could mean legal problems with contracts with third parties.

This session was clearly of most concern to the lawyers present, who included Ian Baillieu and Leon Gorr of Melbourne, both “Film lawyers” of some experience and co-authors of the Cinema Papers’ The Australian Film Producers & Investors Guide. A guarded exchange of information ensued over rulings by the Taxation Department and the Corporate Affairs Commission, as well as over the meaning of an association under section 14(3). Gonski

pointed out that, “One can be associated without being an association under 14(3).” As one of the signiFicant criteria for an association was mutual rights and obligations, to avoid 14(3) problems one should avoid mutual rights and obligations in the investment structures in Film production.

The other topical question discussed by Gonski’s associate, Phillip Christensen, dealt with prospectus provisions which cover offering Film investments to the public. All those vaguely- worded advertisements, appearing lately in the press, may not escape the severe penalties of the companies acts, he warned. The court looks behind the cover of the vague invitation at the whole process, of what is given to people who reply to such ads, and even to letters to select groups purporting to be an offer not to the public but to friends, say, of the promoters — even though they may never have heard of them. Stamping “ConFidential” across the top, or even saying. “This offer is not available to the public”, is not going to fool a court either, Christensen said.

Concluded on p. 281

17 Contractual Steps to a Motion Picture by Tony Buckley

Step 1. The Option Step 2. Writer’s Contract Step 3. Contract with AFC* for Development

FundsStep 4. Contract with AFC* for Production

FundingStep 5. Contract with AFC*, Distributor and

Production CompanyStep 6. Contract with AFC*, Investor and

Production Company Step 7. Contract with Actors Equity Step 8. Contract with Completion Guarantor Step 9. Contract with lead cast Step 10. General cast contract Step 11. Contract with composer Step 12. Contract with crew Step 13. Marketing loan contract Step 14. Contract with appointed agent Step 15. Contract with purchaser of Film Step 16. The one you’ll never see!**Step 17. Errors and Omissions policy

* Or a State Film Corporation.** Between distributor and exhibitor. Buckley challenged

anyone present to a bottle of French champagne if they could produce such a contract. Apart from amused murmuring, no one did.


IVORY, A t ST E N, R II Y S A N I) 0 T II E R S

0 M 0

A M EV O

L A T E ii: F I I M SBrian McFarlane It would be a pity to write James Ivory off as a “ literary”

director. He has, somewhat daringly, a novelist’s interest in and capacity for quiet, subtly-observed characterization; but he has none of the stiffness and self-

conscious wordiness that are often the negative aspects of directors seen as having a literary bent. However, I would very much like to see Ivory (and his usual collaborators) address themselves to such disparate works as Jane Austen’s Emma, E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India and Martin Boyd’s “ Langton” novels. He has shown himself unusually sensitive to the infiltration of one culture or class by another, and to the phenomenon of transition within a culture. This would not be enough reason for wanting him to have a go at two classics of the language or at the homegrown pleasures of the Boyd chronicles of a vanishing class in a situation of conflicting cultural mores. The fact is that Ivory has exhibited a sensibility sufficiently acute to the nuances of others without losing his own distinctive voice in the process.

A with the local filmmaker Ismael Merchant whos one speaks of Ivory in this way, it is has produced almost all of Ivory’s subsequent important to draw attention to the films, and a perhaps even more important colla- team which has been responsible for boration with Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. Jhabvala, most of the films he has directed, a German-born author of Polish-Jew extrac- With a fine arts background from the tion, became Indian on marriage, and she is the

University of Oregon and as a graduate of the author (or, with Ivory himself on several film department of the University of Southern occasions, co-author) of all but two of his California, he had some brief experience as a feature films.maker of short films before going to India in The Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvala team not sur- 1960. He formed there an enduring partnership prisingly has access to a good deal of inter-


James Ivory

cultural understanding — not just, say, of Anglo-India, but of the phenomenon of cultural inter-penetration or of the impingement of one culture upon another. They seem to me as convincingly at home in Henry James’ New England, under siege to European sophistications, or the conflicting theatrical coteries of present-day New York, as in the echoing palaces of dispossessed Indian princes.

So much about their films is so attractive that there is a temptation to over-value them. There is something reassuringly civilized, perceptive and kindly about most of their films — or most that I have been able to see, and I regret distribution-imposed gaps. Unclamorous auteurs, their work remains persistently small-scale (I am idiotically and punningly reminded of that remark of Jane Austen’s about working with “the little bit (two inches wide) of Ivory”1), and it is hard to imagine its ever reaching a large popular audience. I am not suggesting that all their films are delicate little artefacts born to blush unseen, only that they seem less concerned with gratifying audience expectations than most people currently — or at any time — involved in commercial filmmaking.

In their 12 feature films, there have been miscalculations: no one seems to have much liked The Wild Party (1974) set in Hollywood in 1929, an end-of-era account of a silent film comedian’s decline, and Quartet (1981) offers little scope for the team’s usual felicities. Nevertheless, even a failed Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvala film will not be vulgar, crass, glib or foolish. This isn’t intended wholly as praise; I’d rather see a lurid Vincente Minnelli ‘failure’ or a generous, sloppy piece of latter-day John Ford well below the master’s best than an Ivory failure. He and his partners have the kind of quiet intelligence and good taste that look sterile and centre-less when the enterprise as a whole seems outside the range of their sensibilities and temperaments.

The two latest Ivories have slunk into Melbourne, for fleeting visits, within weeks of each other. The newer film Quartet, a British-French co-production, was finished in early 1981, and had a deservedly brief season here at the Rivoli Camberwell in February 1982. The earlier — and, appetites whetted by overseas reviews, more eagerly awaited — Jane Austen in Manhattan, a British-American co-production which opened in London in September 1980, has been given a two-^eek Melbourne airing at the enterprising and pleasant Brighton Bay Twin Cinemas. Prior to these latest arrivals, The Europeans (1979) had a solid season of several months at the Rivoli — the best Melbourne innings so far for an Ivory film — whereas Hullabaloo over Georgie and Bonnie’s Pictures (1978) and, the team’s masterpiece, Autobiography of a Princess (1975) comprised a week’s double bill at the Universal Theatre Fitzroy in early 1980. Not exactly Star Wars treatment as to distribution and rightly not, but it is a little sad to think that such attractive work as the best Ivory seems doomed to be peripheral to mainstream cinema.

In one way or other, within or between cultures or coteries, Ivory’s films have shown a persistent interest in exploring some of the subtler — and sometimes not- so-subtle — forms of exploitation and manipulation that can color and muddy the waters of human relationships. Eugenia Munster

(Lee Remick) and her brother Felix (Tim Woodward) set out consciously, and with a variety of motives, to woo their New England cousins the

1. Jane Austen’s letter to her nephew J. Edward Austen, December 16, 1816.

Wentworths in The Europeans. Cyril (James Mason), the English tutor in Autobiography of a Princess, knows that he was played upon by his master, the Indian prince. The three theatrical producers (Anne Baxter, Robert Powell and Michael Shawn) in Jane Austen in Manhattan are professional manipulators of other people, sometimes in the latter’s interests, sometimes not. These films seem to understand that a degree of acquiescence on the part of the “victim” can make the latter an inappropriate word for those being manipulated.

Quartet, the most recent film, is clearly interested in this theme, and in other recurring motifs in Ivory’s films. In recording a scene of transience, it is a triumph of decor, mood and atmosphere. There is nothing permanent in this 1920s Paris where the cast spends most of its time at cafes and nightclubs. It is no more likely to survive intact than the British raj or New England rigidities under an invasion by Europeans.

But in Quartet nothing works except on the level of glittering surfaces. Unlike those earlier examinations of societies in late autumnal glory, Quartet offers essentially an example of the embalmer’s art. No flicker of real life, no vigor

or passion threatens to disturb its exquisite art direction. It may be that the Ivory-Jhabvala sensibility is simply at odds with Jean Rhys’ original. I have not read Quartet (and feel strongly undrawn to it), but those Rhys novels I do know, angular explorations of put-upon waifs, depressed and depressing, sharp and grim, seem to have little in common with the perceptive, witty, quietly civilized works of the Ivory team.

The latter may have been drawn to the exploitative triangular relationship at the centre of the work. The husband of Marya Zelli (Isabelle Adjani) goes to gaol for trafficking. She then is taken up by, and becomes waif-inresidence with, H. J. Heidler (Alan Bates) and his wife Lois (Maggie Smith). Each of these plans, in his or her way, to exploit her — he to seduce, she to paint Marya — but Marya’s plight seems almost purposely drained of feeling. She is not so much an enigma (that could be tantalizing) as a cipher. Perhaps Adjani is simply too lushly sensual to suggest Jean Rhys’ autobiographically-based orphan of the storm. There is certainly more interest in the suppressions and deceptions that flutter between Heidler (said to be based on Ford Madox Ford) and Lois and the wary opportunisms they practise.

Yet, even there, the film suggests lacunae that one suggests the novel fills in with those unfilm- ables of tone, of authorial description and analysis. There is something humanly sparse and under-textured in this authentic-looking and elegant evocation of times past.

In theory, perhaps, there was the opportunity for an interesting tension between the muted glitter of Paris 1927 and the emotional violence of its heroine. A tension, that is, recalling that between the autumnal beauty of New England and the restless, disruptive emotions at work in The Europeans. In fact, it doesn’t work that way at all. The serenity/disruption dichotomy was as organic to Henry James’ original as it is to Ivory’s film; and the film kept finding cinematic ways of expressing the novel’s central tension.

In Quartet, one’s attention is constantly fixed on the muted tastefulness of the decor, and the expectation roused by the piercing score heard


James Ivory

over the opening discretions of the camera is never gratified. The film remains more interested in its lovingly photographed mise-en- scene, the camera dwelling on artefacts which resist revealing psychological and emotional states. For example: whereas Joseph Losey made a tea-pouring scene in The Go-Between imply a comment on the decorum of a way of life, a decorum at odds with its emotional instabilities, in Quartet a coffee-pouring scene is just — and exquisitely — about coffee-pouring. It is ««resonant.

Everything then in Quartet is superb to look at. Nightclubs, restaurants, apartments, hotels, streets, costumes, hats, make-up: all are as perfectly conceived and executed as art direction can manage. (This is a characteristic Ivory virtue, by the way.) But as the camera lingers over a breakfast table laid with jugs and cups and croissants prior to cutting to the gaol where Marya’s husband is detained, one is aware of the stylistic effect of the contrast without having been made emotionally concerned about anyone. The film’s subdued grey-blue look catches, in a general and superficial way, Rhys’ usual bleakness of mood, but Ivory and Co. have not been able to persuade us — perhaps not themselves — that there is any cause for pathos, let alone tragedy, in the aimless, dislocated life of Marya Zelli.

Though it seems to me his least successful, Quartet is still recognizably an Ivory film: thematically it is concerned with contrasting ways of life, with evanescence, with manipulative relationships; stylistically, it has the usual accurate sense of place and period; and, as usual,

it elicits some subtly-effective performances (from Smith, particularly), largely through Ivory’s reliance on his actors’ faces, captured typically in close-ups and two-shots. That it doesn’t work may be due in part to a too-stately, not to say lethargic, rhythm, but mainly, I believe, because the film’s makers appear uninterested in the lives they put before us.

In the team’s penultimate film, Jane Austen in

Manhattan, a year-and-a-half late reaching Australia, all these elements fuse seamlessly to make a witty and elegant entertainment. The arena here for the manipulative games is the off- Broadway theatre scene and the McGuffin is a recently-discovered piece of juvenilia by Jane Austen — a melodramatic play, Sir Charles Grandison, based on Samuel Richardson’s novel. The play is bought at auction by George Midash (Michael Wager), a mother-ridden bachelor and chairman of a family art foundation which decides to give the play and a grant to stage it to Pierre Cartier (Robert Powell), charismatic leader of the Manhattan Encounter Theatre Laboratory.

The film’s central conflict is that between Pierre and his former teacher and lover, Lilianna Zorska (Anne Baxter), who also wants the play and the grant to stage her own operatic version of it. A young girl, Ariadne (Sean Young), is drawn into Pierre’s group — “kidnapped” by Pierre from her husband Victor (Kurt Johnson), a rising young musical comedy star. Ultimately, Lilianna entices off all Pierre’s acolytes except Ariadne, and, werunderstand, her production is to be performed.

The Austen fragment is about kidnapping, about the forcible manipulation of lives. “You shall be mine. Your fate is determined. I won you from my rivals” , sings Pierre as the abductor in an imaginery episode from Lilianna’s production. At the first rehearsal of Pierre’s modernist/absurdist production, Pierre urges Ariadne as the victim to “think of a kidnap scene in your own life” , and he pushes her to recall that he “forcibly took [her] away from home” . Manipulation and exploitation are not the same thing but they are related, and here Pierre manipulates Ariadne by exploiting a painful memory in her own life to achieve the response he wants in his play. As Ariadne recalls their first meeting, the day he “forcibly took (her) away” from Victor, a flashback reveals Pierre conducting a workshop session in which the actors, miming relationships, were then “split” apart at Pierre’s command. He then asks with a smile, “How does it feel to be split from your other half?”

Marya and Lois Heidler (Maggie Smith), who desires to paint Marya. Quartet.

Ariadne (Sean Young) and Pierre Cartier (Robert Powell), student and leader o f the Manhattan Encounter Theatre Laboratory. James Ivory’s Jane Austen in Manhattan.

A certain degree of Svengalism is no doubt not merely acceptable but necessary in a producer, but the film shows Pierre’s influence going well beyond the rehearsal room. His young company, for instance, passes over its variously earnt wages to him “to teach us how to give” and because “He needs it for all of us.”

Yet, the film does not fall for the cliche of making Pierre a mere stock figure — mesmeric theatrical eon-man seducing the young with modern nonsense. First, there is the teasing way the film winds among the three layers of exploitation: within the play (and within Lilianna’s imagined production); in the rehearsal scenes where Pierre enforces his will (e.g., through his reading all the lines while the actors, miming, assume a puppet-like status); and in the “abduction” of Ariadne into his troupe and in the constraints he places on the others (“I thought we weren’t supposed to have personal attachments” , says Jenny (Nancy New), as she kisses her boyfriend hungrily). Second, the actual performance by the laboratory group (staged in fact by avant-garde New York producer, Andrei Serban), while painful to some sensibilities, is clearly inventive and lively, perhaps as viable a treatment of a jejune melodrama as any other. Third, the film frustrates schematism in relation to Pierre by having him surprisingly seem to lose interest, in the conflict with Lilianna and to advise his players to work for her.

Lilianna herself (Anne Baxter, 30 knowledgeable years on from All About Eve and back in roughly the same territory) manipulates her students quite as firmly as Pierre. One of the film’s strengths — specifically a strength of the Jhabvala screenplay — is that it shows both Lilianna and Pierre in action with their followers, and neither of them is caricatured. She is seen observing and influencing a student trying to act out an emotional moment and, shortly after, talking with former student, Victor, who suspects a conspiracy to keep Ariadne from him. Claiming that “Pierre is a devil . . . the most destructive person I ever knew” (and the film does not give evidence for this), Lilianna urges Victor with, “We must help each other. We’ll have to fight him” (to get Ariadne back). The point is that Lilianna is motivated by a wish less to help Victor or Ariadne than to get back at Pierre who has


James Ivory

Powell as the chief theatrical gurus and manipulators. She has all the style and sharpness — and, it must be said, warmth — that 40 years of Hollywood stardom might be expected to bring, and she uses them to dazzling and sometimes touching effect. On a bare dark screen, her head rises up from the bottom of the frame as if from bowing to an imaginary audience, and in this gesture, and in the way she walks across the empty stage and surveys the auditorium, one feels that those 40 years have not been wasted. The older woman in love with the young man, who uses then finishes with her, is a character ripe for sympathy, but while Anne Baxter achieves this it is not at the expense of Lilianna’s more calculating elements.

Powell is equal to the challenge of this performance and it is important to the film’s multilayered tensions and conflicts that he should be so. W hereas Lilianna is all expansive “theatrical” gestures, Pierre’s charisma is a matter of the eyes, of a holding stillness, and Ernest Vincze’s camera knows exactly how to

accused her of “doing shabby third-rate plays” and drawn out her love for him while his dim protege Billy (Charles McCaughan) is listening. Pierre has thus insulted her both as a professional and as a woman.

The only manipulation that no one seems to mind — and it is part of the film’s generosity about the theatre, and its variety, to include this — is that illustrated in the rehearsals for Victor’s musical comedy, Here We Are Again. In the brief scenes devoted to this there is a convincing air of devotion to the routines devised by the choreographer, played by Michael Shawn as a satirical sketch of Bob Fosse (or of Roy Scheider as Bob Fosse). It is during the party following the successful opening night of Here We Are Again that Pierre, through the agency of Ariadne’s gloomy folk-singing friend Katya (Katrina Hodiak), manoeuvres Ariadne away from Filianna and Victor.

Filianna’s methods are less mesmeric than Pierre’s but they are just as calculated. They are seen at their most successful in a scene with George, which begins with her saying, “Utter rubbish and nonsense” , in close-up, in response to George’s feeble defence that, when he is with Pierre, he is convinced that Pierre is right. In a virtuoso shot, the camera executes an almost 360° pan which dramatizes the idea of Filianna’s encircling of George, as she, replying to his anecdote about a childhood seaside bully, lulls him with a promise to “help him fight bigger boys” . At this point the fantasy opera sequence denotes that Filianna is a stage nearer her goal, the suggestion of her imminent victory over Pierre signified by his singing the abductor role in this imaginary performance. She has won George by playing mother to him, in contrast to her denial of any maternal element in her former feeling for Pierre.

One by one she woos Pierre’s followers to her purpose: as she washes Ariadne’s hair, she complains that Pierre is using and ruining her, whereas “ I could make something of you if you’d let me”; seeking out Katya in the cafe where she sings, Lilianna seduces her with “ I’m sure, so sure, you could be a great dramatic actress” and “I can’t pretend I wasn’t like you at one time” (an in-joke here since the actress is Baxter’s daughter by John Hodiak).

Part of the film’s success is the superbly- assured playing of Anne Baxter and Robert

deal with each. But though the two stars properly dominate, the entire cast — mostly youthful, mostly unknowns — is a pleasure to watch and listen to. The young ones are touching as they try to sort out their goals and allegiances; the older ones amusing, without resort to caricature, as they wince from Pierre’s production.

In fact, nobody emerges as a caricature. There is a pervasive warmth and generosity about the writing, the direction and the playing that resists stereotype and simplism, and scene after scene resonates with intimations of real experience. There is, for instance, a beautifully-played scene between Victor and Jamie (Tim Choate — Clifford in The Europeans), in which we rightly laugh at Jamie’s line, “Pierre wants me to play this clergyman as a 10-year-old” , but can still see there might be a satiric point to Pierre’s interpretation. And we can feel for Jamie as he tries to work out the way “Pierre has that effect on people” as Victor recalls how Ariadne had come so wholly under his spell. This gets a deeper emotional toning from Victor’s recollection of how they had first come to New York together, determined to make it in the theatre; she had been so “ardent” and, “The way she is about this [the play] is how she used to be about me.” The film is suddenly very affecting about young lives and plans gone awry.

Like all the Ivory films I know, Jane Austen in Manhattan has a very sure sense of place. This is not Woody Allen’s Manhattan we are given here but it is just as real and, in its own way, just as romantic. Avoiding the usual Brooklyn-side view of the Manhattan skyline, Ivory and Ernest Vincze’s extraordinarily-delicate color photography creates images of rubbish-strewn streets, backstage entrances and alleys, late-afternoon skyscrapers glimpsed through studio windows, that are a constant ravishment of the eye. Inside, camera and art direction (Jeremiah Rusconi) combine to discriminate precisely among the Laboratory’s rehearsal rooms, Lilianna’s studio and apartment, George’s elegant dining-room, his loft nonchalantly stuffed with valuable artefacts, and the low-lit cafe where Katya sings. The way places look in this — and other Ivory films — is part of the way the film means: contrasting lifestyles are suggested through the film’s unobtrusive, utterly confident attention to details of the mise-en-scene of which the characters are convincingly both extensions and producers.

Tim Woodward as Felix in James Ivory's The Europeans.

that 40 years o f Hollywood stardom might be expected toAnne Baxter as Lilianna Zorska: “all the style and sharpness . . . bring”. Jane Austen in Manhattan.


James Ivory

Shashi Kapoor and dancers in James Ivory’s “lively satire o f India’s commercial cinema’’, Bombay Talkie.

As the camera tracks through and above Bombay streets, western music is heard on the soundtrack. The credits for Bombay Talkie, Ivory’s 1970 film, are announced on a series of huge film advertising boardings stuck up in

these city streets — and a red London bus arbitrarily appears. The recurrent thematic interest in the impingement of one culture on another is thus announced at the outset, visual and aural signifiers explicitly, but also unobtrusively, preparing the ground for the film’s intersocial emotional intimacies.

“You want too much . . . but you must have had a lot of difficulties”, a fortune-teller replies to Lucia Lane’s (Jennifer Kendal) questions about her future. Lucia, a best-selling American novelist with four husbands behind her, has just written a book about Hollywood and has come to Bombay to write her next. Self-centred, vain and restless, Lucia is drawn to Hari (Zia Moyheddin), an impoverished aspiring writer (his play is “symbolical of present-day India”), and to Vikram (Shashi Kapoor), the handsome, conceited star of a series of foolish-lookrng films.

Hari is the most sympathetic of these three central characters but even he, in his soulfulness and apparent idealism, wants Lucia’s interest in and support for his work, and his sexual intentions towards her are not much different from Vikram’s: he simply wraps them up in more poetic utterances. Vikram can never resist a mirror, especially a triptych model which offers three views of his film star’s face. Used to women’s adulation, he has stopped offering anything durable in return. -He embarks on what seems a passionate affaire with Lucia but it amounts to no more than “playing Consenting Adults” .

In the end, he tells Lucia, “the party’s over”: his vanity has been gratified but she has not been able to touch him emotionally, and she taunts him about going back to his “nice little, dumb little wife” . Vikram is caught between a false notion of western sophistication (gleaned from the movies and from women like Lucia) and the marriage to Mala which has not yet yielded a son “to light [his] funeral pyre” . His concern is

characteristically for himself and his status, not for another person.

But the centre of the film is Lucia, and Jennifer Kendal takes a superbly-written role by the throat and never lets go. She understands perfectly the compulsive predatoriness of this woman who regards other people — Hari, Vikram, even her daughter at school in Switzerland — and, indeed, India at large as being there for her gratification. She teases the besotted Hari by, for instance, asking him to zip up her dress or by twice asking him about the “very handsome” actor whom he jealously despises; and she has no intention of responding to Hari’s passion for her. She exploits this, just as she exploits Vikram’s supposed love for her, because it suits her inclination at the time.

Jennifer Kendal spares us nothing of Lucia’s exploitativeness, or her romantic superficiality about either India or the “decadent West” , or her vanity. Equally, though, she ensures that the audience will see the film’s chief drama in her crumbling composure. Clearly aging, extravagantly dressed and coiffed, she is increasingly a pitiable figure. Both love and the serenity she has romantically supposed she may find in India elude her. She is at odds with the middle-class Indian ladies who have found a mild bland peace with their guide: her failed attempt to join in their chanting signifies how at odds she is with their ceremony. As for the two men, she all but

wrecks the foolish Vikram’s career and his marriage, and she leads Hari to the unexpected violence of the film’s ending.

Ivory has always chosen his actors with careful regard to faces and Jennifer Kendal is equal to the demands the camera makes of her. Lucia is aware that, she is still attractive, but in fleeting moments of despair the awareness of encroaching middle-age is there. Elsewhere, Kendal responds with wonderful accuracy to Ivory’s — and the camera’s — demands for suggestions of triviality, falsity, superficiality and sudden anger and haggardness. It is a performance of remarkable detail and amplitude that owes as much to the actress as to her director and writer.

In spite of this exceptional central performance, Bombay Talkie is not one of Ivory’s major successes. At 105 minutes, it is perhaps a quarter-hour too long, but its chief fault is its tonal and structural uncertainty. It begins as a lively satire of India’s commercial cinema, with its Hollywoodian aspirations to Busby Berkeley production numbers or Venetian melodrama, but doesn’t subsequently capitalize on this. That is to say, the film fails to pull together tightly enough the foolish romanticism of the Indian cinema (influenced by a misunderstood notion of Hollywood) and the romantic triangle in which a much tougher, more insidious western influence goes disastrously to work on two Indian lives. It needs a more rigorous structuring for these two chief concerns to be seen as deriving from the same perception and therefore as offering a commentary on each other. Further, the tone wobbles from the amusingly satirical to what is, for this team, a rather strained seriousness: what is needed is a more pervasive bite.

Bombay Talkie is by no means a failure; it is just less sure-footed and less resonant between its levels of interest than one expects of an Ivory film.

Mad her Jaffrey as the Princess in James Ivory’s “indisputable masterpiece”, Autobiography o f a Princess.

The indisputable masterpiece to have emerged so far from the Ivory- Merchant-Jhabvala stable is Autobiography of a Princess (1975). In just under an hour, a whole life and a whole vanished way of life are revealed with understanding, compassion and economy.

Behind the credit titles, the camera gracefully spans and tracks up and down, to left and right, through the halls of an Indian palace, noting here a portrait of Queen Victoria, there some traditional dancing. The scene cuts to the cluttered interior of a Kensington apartment, dominated by a too-large chandelier and a large portrait of a decorated Indian prince; there are


James Ivory

also a laden tea-table, and — curiously — a film projector and screen. An Indian lady finishes dressing, and a denim-clad youth, talking to her with a cigarette in his mouth, re-arranges the equipment. The Indian scene is echoed by the narrow windows which here give on to other apartment blocks, these contrasting with the palatial spaces of the Indian scene. In narrative terms, the obvious question is: What is the connection between the two opening sequences? Ah, one feels confident, this is to be a tale of transition and decline — and so it is, but it is also more than this. The other narrative question is: What are these preparations (the tea, the screen) for?

In the third sequence, an elderly visitor in western dress arrives to be met on the stairs by the Indian lady whose hand he kisses. She is “My dear Princess” , he is “Cyril Sahib” , and in her servant-less flat they drink a toast in tea to her father. A pervasive air of ritual is confirmed when she says “Everything’s ready for the annual treat.” The annual event is a sharing of the memories of the old days in India, memories nudged by home movies of life in the Princess’ father’s palace where Cyril was tutor, and, this year, further kindled by wittily-contrived “BBC interviews” with disinherited Indian aristocrats, peevishly describing the loss of their power and position.

The Princess maintains a running commentary during the home movies (“Papa loved parties and fun. He never spared expense” , etc.), and her commentary and the movies recreate a luxurious and hedonistic past. But, as she chatters on, we are aware of waiting for some further tension to develop. Cyril, mouth slightly open, ready to laugh to please the Princess, kind, deferential, at first seems no more than an audience, a catalytic presence for the revelation of the glory that was India. Increasingly though, it is clear that the camera is evenly divided between their two faces (and the movies), and a new tension enters the film as the Princess urges him to write about her father and their way of life.

From this point, it is apparent that the film is as much — more? — concerned with Cyril Sahib’s lost life as with the Princess’. He has spent years in patient unexciting research for a book on one Denis Lever, “an Englishman in India” , but a different sort of Englishman who knew a different India from Cyril Sahib’s. At the Princess’ prompting, he begins to reminisce and his memories provoke pain as well as nostalgia: “I knew Lwas living in undreamt-of luxury” , and the picture he calls up is criticism as well as evocation.

This is a film which tempts one to describe it in detail in the hope of making its pleasures vivid to more than the small audience one fears has actually seen the film. It is not possible here to do more than suggest that gradually Cyril Sahib emerges as the chief character; that his quiet watchfulness and growing agitation are at the heart of the film; that, as we watch him stirred, politely at first and then uneasily, by the home movies, we realize Ivory’s Chekhovian skill in sensing the drama of scenes where nothing much seems to be happening; and, perhaps above all, that James Mason as Cyril Sahib is giving the performance of his career and indeed one of the great acting performances of the cinema. Faintly shabby, without any driving purpose, with a deference still for the Princess, Cyril Sahib is a relic trying now to live with dignity in quiet retirement. The annual treat means something different for him from what it means to the Princess.

For him, it recalls the perplexity of his Indian life, not just the luxury and status he no longer enjoys and which is what it means to the Princess. For Cyril, the movies create a montage

Cyril Sahib (James Mason) and the Princess prepare to look at old films o f India. Autobiography o f a Princess.

of India: of appalling heat, of omnipresent crowds, of mystifying and mysterious ceremonials (weddings and burials now all mixed together in his mind), of the sadness of dancing girls no longer in their first youth, of the transience of so much within the life of an Indian principality and of the painful transition from that tradition-ridden way to the harsh facts of the new. But above all, the movies force Cyril — gently but inexorably — to evaluate his life in India and his association with the Princess’ father, the Maharajah.

As the camera pulls back to show Cyril wholly surrounded by artefacts belonging to the past, the Princess asks him why he did not speak up for her father when he was involved in a London hotel scandal. (A flashback showing this is the one clumsy note in the film.) Cyril’s plea that he “was only an Englishman who had stayed in India too long”, and was therefore powerless in the crisis, is only part of the answer. The truth lies in the complexity of his relationship with the Maharajah: recognizing his hanger’s-on status, he had nevertheless let himself be seduced by the offered luxury; humiliated by the Maharajah in front of the English (for being no good at games, for being a “degenerate”), he has also received “the most delicate personal attentions from the Prince” (e.g., at the time of his mother’s death). In the end, it doesn’t matter much to us what the Maharajah was like; what does matter is that Cyril Sahib’s life was wholly manipulated by him as he moved unpredictably between generosity and cruelty. In the process, Cyril has been irrevocably reduced, until now he has his “research, writing, and walks by the sea” .

What has been revealed is not so much the autobiography of a princess (wonderful though Madhur Jaffrey is in the role) but the reluctant biography of an Englishman who had stayed in India too long. Ivory and Jhabvala have achieved a subtle triumph in making us aware of the texture of the life behind this grey-suited, elderly man for whom the Princess packs cakes for him to take home. It is his western life, more than hers, that has been utterly shaken up, and Ivory and Jhabvala, with flawless precision and tact, dramatize the manipulation by his friend/master/perhaps lover, and his sober acceptance of the transitoriness of all experience.

The persistent Ivory concerns are all here and, as Cyril Sahib walks off into the grey English twilight, one is left to re-arrange one’s views on film narrative and film art. An elderly man visits a younger Indian woman, has tea, chats, watches home movies, recalls what was and adjusts to the disillusion of what is — and the result, as I began by saying, is a masterpiece, certainly one of the most nearly perfect films of my experience.

When I first saw The Europeans(1979), it was my introduction to Ivory and Co., and I concluded my review2 by saying: “The sensibilities.are clearly in

tune with what they are doing and the result is a civilized pleasure indeed.” Having seen most of the other Ivory films since, I am happy to stand by that judgment: it was meant to suggest that James’ range of interests — in individuals and cultures — is very congenial to Ivory. In fact, these interests in the way people exploit each other, in the way one culture works on another, are, as I have shown, endemic in Ivory’s work. In the case of The Europeans he has met the challenge of a master and emerged with credit, because he (and Jhabvala) are emotionally in tune with the original, whereas they appear to be not so in the case of that minor idiosyncrat Jean Rhys in Quartet.

A great author’s tone, the most intractably individual aspect of his achievement, tends not to be susceptible to visual translation. It would be surprising if it were. Other film versions of James’ novels — William Wyler’s handsome adaptation of Washington Square as The Heiress, Jack Clayton’s The Innocents (from The Turn o f the Screw), and Peter Bogdanovich’s Daisy Miller — have all been intelligent and stylish films. Nevertheless,,they have not found it easy to strike a visual equivalent for the fine ironic exactness of James’ prose, and, in consequence, the subtlety of his discriminations sometimes eludes them. Ivory, Jhabvala and Merchant in The Europeans have come nearer

Continued on p. 2872. Cinema Papers, No. 25, February-March, 1980, pps 67-

68.


How did “Heatwave” develop as a film?

The film Was originally conceived by two architecture graduates, Tim Gooding and Mark Stiles. When I got to the script it was called King’s Cross, Tim Gooding was no longer working on it and Mark Stiles had done several drafts by himself. That was in December 1979 and, at that stage, it wasn’t set in a heatwave or around Christmas.

Although the central character was an architect, a consideration of the dilem m a facing a contemporary architect was not as important to the screenplay as the political elements. For better or worse, I encouraged the screenplay to take the directions we see in the final film.

Mark Stiles worked with me on a number of drafts, and then Mark Rosenberg came into the project and worked with us. Eventually, Mark Stiles felt that the screenplay reflected more of our taste, that is of Mark Rosenberg and myself, so we decided, amicably, to take the principal responsibility for it.

To what extent was the film inspired by recent political events in inner urban conflicts, particularly the disappearance of activist Juanita Nielsen in the mid-1970s?

Many elements provided inspiration for the screenplay. The disappearance and alleged murder of Juanita Nielsen is perhaps the most controversial and well-known element. But just as important were such disparate events as the Hilton bombing, the crash of the Nugan- Hand bank, the death of Frank Nugan and discussions I had with dozens of people.

Originally, Mark Stiles set out to make a comment on the disappearance of Nielsen and the destruction of one particular street, but I felt that the film had the potential to be about a whole city.

This is reflected in the film by the emphasis on creating the atmosphere of the city. These stylistic and atmospheric concerns seem to be just as important as the issues. . .

In Sydney, we are constantly scandalized by stories of alleged corruption, big business wheelerdealing and deals that are allegedly being done between politicians, unionists, sportsmen, entertainers, ad infinitum. It is always going on; it is a very paranoid city. People are always looking over their shoulder and wondering who is up to what. And nobody, throughout all this maze of almost paranoid rumors, has been able to put it together. I didn’t want to put it all together either, because I thought, if no one else has been able to, why should I presume that I could?

What I find interesting about all this is the atmosphere that seems to be so prevalent in Sydney, the paranoia of contemporary Sydney, where everyone has a little piece of information, but nobody has all the pieces that make up the jigsaw.

The film attempts, therefore, in its structure of almost clipped montage and in its visual style, to move cinematically from social realism — that is, a realistic interpretation of characters and events — through to a much more disjointed type of surrealism.

The surrealistic aspects, created by elements such as the music and the camera movements, seem to be part of your attempt to emphasize a city sweltering in a heatwave . . .

Yes, the music plays a very important part in the evocation of atmosphere; so do the camera movements. A number of pieces of music were recorded as guide tracks before the film was shot, and played to the crew and myself while we were shooting so we could sort of get into the same rhythm as the music we had planned.

Eighty-five per cent of the film is underscored by music of one sort or another, and the com poser, Cameron Allan, the sound designer, Greg Bell, and myself had a very close relationship. We considered all the elements together in planning the whole soundtrack — that is music and sound effects — rather than one team working independently of the other.

I suppose one of the chief means by which a mood is created, and again it is tied up with an attempt to create this feeling of paranoia, is the creeping camera, which is almost like someone tip-toeing through a place he is not meant to be in.

You may have noticed that one of the visual motifs is a converging camera, but it is not a fast converging camera: it creeps forward slowly, which of course culminates in the final shot of the film.

These effects are apparent. The film has an almost hypnotic rhythm and a lot of care has been taken in the structure. Australian filmmakers have had, I think, quite a deal of trouble with structure, a difficulty in sustaining a rhythm . . .

This is something about which I am well aware. One of our original ideas, conceived in conjunction with our director of photography, Vince Monton, was that with every minute of the film the size of each of the characters in the frame should change. The film should start out quite loose — and, of course, a loose frame doesn’t communicate tension — and then slowly creep in. This way the tension builds up, until the last section of the film, which was to have been shot on long telephoto lenses that isolated the characters from their background.

I eventually shied away from that because we had gone to a lot of trouble to short-circuit charac

terization by using decor and visual elements within the frame to tell our story. I felt that if we started to isolate the faces from the background, we would lose another thing we had been aiming for: to convey the idea that people’s actions are influenced by the decor and architecture of the rooms in which they live and think. So, in fact, we didn’t follow those original ideas through as far as we could have.

By those visual elements I take it you are referring to settings, such as the head office of Hausman’s empire, which had tiger rugs, and Kate Dean’s flat . . .

Yes, and her clothes, which may not be so readily recognizable to an audience outside Sydney. The T- shirt she often wears, with the Waratah emblem, comes from a very exclusive boutique. Although she has set herself up as a savior of the lower classes, there are visual hints in the first half of the film that she is in fact from a middle-class background. Viewers who are conscious of a costume would realize that she was not wearing a $1 T- shirt, and could not have, therefore, been genuinely a part of that working-class milieu.

Although those visual clues are present, on the other hand they are offset by the fact that she actually seems to be very uncomfortable in middle-class settings. In this respect, I was struck by the similarity between Judy Davis’ performances in “Winter of Our Dreams” and in “Heatwave” — this feeling of her being out of place in more wealthy surroundings . . .

Yes, but she is playing a character who is caught in a class vacuum. She has rejected her middle-class background and is trying to identify with the working class, which she would like to adopt. She is trying to change her spots, and a leopard can’t do that.


Phil Noyce

So her chief characteristic would be her alienation . . .

Yes, very much so. In fact, they are the very words that finally provided the basis for Judy’s performance. Judy said to me, “I take it that what you are aiming for is to show my journey in this film as a journey towards total alienation.” She summed it up better than I could have.

That puts the relationship between her and Stephen West in a interesting perspective . . .

Well, he is on a very different journey. He is, in a sense, an opposite, an upward mobile. They collide at Christmas, then everyone goes back to their real homes, whether they are living in a luxurious Harbour-side apartment or a tenement house in the inner city.

1 often meet people who come from quite opposed backgrounds, and I am attracted to them for all kinds of reasons: they tend to have a certain magnetism.

To what extent does an actress like Judy Davis assume autonomy for the role? How strongly does the force of her own personality and acting style come through?

Judy Davis is a star. She will always be different, but she will always be Judy Davis. I think that

when we look at her, we suspend our disbelief. For me, Bryan Brown is similar.

But the real question you are asking is: how much autonomy does an actor have? Under my direction, an actor has as much autonomy as I can give them. No one director, as far as I am concerned, is ever going to be able to come up with more ideas than any two actors. An actor studies his or her character, tries to work out a logic for the behaviour as detailed in the script, and tries to communicate, perhaps, a lot that is not written in the dialogue. Actors try to make sense out of the progression or journey they are asked to undertake from the First to the last frame.

The director sets up the facility for actors to study the background of their characters — talking about where they would have come from, where they will be in 10 years, what school they come from, their religion, what they have studied, the jobs they have done — all those sorts of things. If it is a professional interest, such as in Richard Moir’s case, in acting the role of an architect, I would encourage him to undertake a fairly detailed study of architecture, and meet a lot of architects.

Still, you would like all your actors to take flight — that is, to inhabit the role, to take it over — and I guess Judy is more posses

sive than most actors. It is not that she is more dedicated, but that she almost becomes the character. She goes through a metamorphosis as she approaches a role. You can feel that the tensions running through her body are quite different as she approaches each film.

Richard Moir had a much more subdued, passive role in comparison to the one played by Davis . . .

Richard is playing a character that is the antithesis of the macho lead man we have come to expect in cinema. Most of his action takes place in his mind. He is not a strongly physical person. The experience of working with Richard was a very pleasant one.

Peter Hausman seems to be a character for whom, despite his materialism, you have quite a deal of sympathy. He has a likeable larrikin aspect . . .

That is deliberate. It was written for Chris Haywood. In Mark Stiles’ First screenplay the developer had been conceived as 55, balding and Jewish — the stereotype of a real- estate developer. But it is certainly not true of the Sydney scene. Most of the real-estate developers, some of whom I know quite well, are under 40. They are extraordinarily likeable people, and very dynamic.

What we didn’t want was for the

film to become a predictable goodies versus baddies television episode — the bad real-estate developer and the good lower- income workers who are his tenants. Life is a lot more complex than that — although finally, perhaps, it boils down to black and white. But there is hell of a lot of grey in between.

We deliberately set out to make the character most of the audience would identify as the bad guy as the most attractive character in the Film. The audience then would be uncertain in their reactions to this character. So, although they might like to hate him, they cannot help but like him.

There were a couple of characters who did seem stereotyped: Barbie Lee, the King’s Cross prostitute, and Dick Molnar, the shady strip- club owner . . .

I suppose these characters could have been more developed, but they deliberately weren’t. Molnar, the strip-club owner, is a mythical Figure in Sydney. Stories of Mr Bigs and Mr Sins are always around in that scene. We are always hearing stories that such and such a guy runs the brothel scene, and such

Judy Davis, Richard Moir and director Phil Noyce on location for Heatwave.


Dav

id P

arke

r

Phil Noyce

and such a guy runs the drug scene, or that this guy is the king of crime and vice. And all the kings of vice are shadowy figures about whom the public knows very little. We sometimes see their pictures in the paper, and there are allegations made about their associations with people.

We tried to make the character of Molnar a stereotype, inasmuch as he reproduced the average Sydneysider’s relationship with a Mr Sin — a man who comes and goes, but about whom not much is known.

Barbie Lee is the one character we inherited from the original draft Tim Gooding worked on. Is she a stereotype? Well, I live in King’s Cross, and I think I have met a lot of Barbie Lees. They are stereotypes because heroin does strange things to people, in that heroin addicts tend to act in similar ways. I am not suggesting that heroin leads people to commit murders; but there is a uniformity about their characters, their obsessions and their speech patterns. So, I would say that she is a justified stereotype.

Why have you chosen to live in King’s Cross?

Most of my friends live there. I am a bit like Kate Dean; I covet a close neighborhood relationship with people, rather than the separateness of suburban living.

I have lived all over Sydney, and in some beautiful places like Palm Beach. But I really like being a pedestrian and living an inner-city life where people can meet and talk, and get to know each other. Also, I find that King’s Cross is a source of enormous energy. It is the place where everyone in the country goes to get their rocks off in one way or another, whether they come from Broken Hill or Darwin. It is the focal point for a certain type of energy — it is all focused on. that strip in King’s Cross. I live just over the hill from there, which means I don’t have to encounter it — I live in a quiet street — and yet I can draw from it.

Did you actually grow up in Sydney?

I grew up in Griffith, in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, which is not your average country town, in that more than 50 per cent of the town is of Italian origin. The town is also surrounded by small landholdings of 8 to 20 hectare lots. So, it is a much more European setting than a normal Australian country town.

I moved to Sydney when I was 12. My father was a lawyer and a farmer; he grew up on a farm, but made most of his money as a lawyer.

Are you drawn towards a subject set in an area like Griffith?

Not particularly. Sometimes you think of an idea and you want to

make it. At other times someone gives you a script and you can’t put it down. The next film I am going to do is called The Umbrella Woman and it was just such a script. It was given to me by Margaret Kelly, who wrote the screenplay for Puberty Blues, and it was written by Peter Kenna, the Australian playwright who wrote The Hard God.

In many ways, it is a sort of Antipodean Madame Bovary, it is about a woman’s need to attain sexual fulfilment in what she perceives as being a void or a gap. She fixes her attention on a philanderer who woos her and then rejects her. She pursues him recklessly and relentlessly.

It is set in 1938 in a small northern New South Wales logging town, but of course the emotions it depicts are universal. So, it is going to be quite a different film to Heatwave, Newsfront or Backroads.

In the films you have made, despite their different styles and structures, there has always been a fairly significant political content. You seem to be trying to get across certain social values. Do you find a conflict in the ways in which you have to commercialize and dramatize issues to make a marketable product?

Yes, of course. It is a conflict, and it makes films on these subjects difficult to finance and, to a lesser extent, to get audiences to see. Whether we like it or not, cinema, as opposed to television, is primarily used by the audience as an escape device. People want to escape the mundanity of their lives and buy a ticket to their dreams; they want to go somewhere else, and don’t want to see their dirty linen. Therefore, films that are*in any way confronting, but particularly when they deal with contemporary political or social issues, are even more difficult.

So, there is a conflict. Perhaps if we had a state-financed film industry, such as in a socialist country, and a socialized distribution industry, Heatwave might have turned out to be quite a different film, with different elements. Of course, we would all like to rewrite the Hollywood rules, but unfortunately we can’t just do it overnight — you can’t change audience expectations. And if you attempt to do it too radically, you find that you have no audience, which defeats your whole purpose because you are communicating to no one, and I guess that in Heatwave there is an uneasy tension between those elements.

However, there is a lot to be said for the discipline of having to communicate to an audience.

You have said in a previous interview that, “carbon copies of American films will not work. Australian cinema will only succeed in telling Australian stories in a style that reflects the national character.” In

what ways does “Heatwave” fulfil these aims?

Stylistically it doesn’t obey that quote, in that it owes as much to film noir as it does to Film Australia. But then it does owe something to Film Australia, in that the cinema verite or documentary school of filmmaking, from which a lot of the feature film directors emerged, has had an influence on the sort of humanism that Australian directors have brought to their films.

However, it is not true to say that there is an Australian film style. Rather, there is a style adopted by individual Australian filmmakers, which, because of their experience and preoccupations, hopefully will not just be a carbon copy. If it draws on elements, whether they are genre elements or whatever, from earlier times, or from the cinema of other countries, hopefully it will be a valid reworking and extension of these elements.

What I was really talking about

there was the need for originality in general, and not necessarily the establishment of a national style, because I think that is impossible.

It is interesting to list the films that the cast and crew studied for months before the film. They were: Chinatown, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, The Conformist, Parallax View, Big Sleep, Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, The Fountainhead and a documentary made by Pat Fiske in Sydney called Woolloomooloo. You draw inspiration from many sources.

A striking feature of your work is its editing. “Newsfront” was in a sense an editor’s film, full of sharp cuts and a sustained rhythm. In “Heatwave” there is also a certain rhythm you try to get throughout the film — co-ordinating the music, soundtrack, editing and cinematography. How much influence did you, as a director, have on the editing and those other elements?

Once again it is a case of trying to encourage everyone I work with to feel I . have given them their wings, so that they can contribute as much as their imagination allows. A director is like a circus ring-master, in that he or she is coordinating the whole performance. And each of the contributors to the night’s entertainment has a little segment and comes on and does it with as much finesse and originality as can be mustered. I guess that is what a director is like, too. Someone has to be the arbitrator of when to say yes and no.

I worked quite closely with John Scott, the editor. Each one of us became, in a sense, an extension of the other; often John would be the starting point for my comments, negative or positive, and that would be the springboard for another approach to the scene.

Film is a great community art. It is one big collaboration, and more successful when harmonious. Any film is not really the director’s film, but is, or should be, the result of

Kate Dean (Judy Davis), “a character . .. caught in a class vacuum . . . She is trying to change her spots, and a leopard can’t do that. ” Heatwave.

many people’s work. The director" provides the common element, the overall direction, and is the creator of the atmosphere conducive to creative collaboration.

You have often used Vince Monton as your cameraman. Is this a collaboration that will continue?

Yes, as much as possible. It is really quite hard doing a film because you can be working with more than 100 people. The relationship you can have with any one person is severely limited by your time and energy; you have to split yourself up into so many areas of collaboration. So you tend to have a fragmented relationship with people. This is especially the case when you are working with actors.


Phil Noyce

The actor-director relationship is based on trust. It is unlike on the stage where the actor has the audience as a litmus paper to guide him in the effectiveness of his communication and performance. On a film set, the actor has himself — and the director, who for better or worse is the person that the actor primarily turns to for guidance and assistance. And for an actor to really give all, to go out on a limb, to try the impossible, you need to have quite a close relationship.

In general, when I find people with whom I have a profitable relationship, I like working with them as much as possible — because the creative relationship develops over time. You can get to the stage when you can communicate in shorthand, and with cinematographers, editors and composers you start to know what hidden tricks they haven’t yet pulled out, and you can encourage them to draw them out.

Of course, this could change on different types of projects where you want a fresh input, a different perspective. But generally you keep some collaborations going. Why should Peter Weir change Russell Boyd or Bruce Beresford change Don McAlpine as their cinematographers when together they have done their best work?

There are some similarities between “Heatwave”, and Peter Weir’s “Last Wave”. In both films

there is a concentration on creating atmosphere, and using the elements, such as water, as a recurring physical theme . . .

I wasn’t consciously aware of it; but I must have been aware, because there are some similarities, as you have pointed out. One is influenced by all the films one has seen, especially by Australian films in my case, because they have more direct relevance to my work. If one wants to create an eerie feeling, one of the main methods is music. I guess a major similarity of both films is the electronic scores. But it was never conscious.

How did you arrive at the futuristic Eden design?

We invited a couple of architects to submit designs and, quite by accident, the one to which we responded best was designed by a man whose experience paralleled that of the film architect, Steve West. The designer, Paul Pholeros, became the alter ego for Steve West. He walked into our office, as Steve West may well have done, with a series of crazy drawings and a futuristic design for a building, and within a short time he had convinced us that this was the one for us. So we gave him his blank cheque to build his 3-metre by 6- metre model, and he set to work with a team of model builders. It

took them many months to build. Of course, the building could be built; it is practical.

Pholeros remained on the set to give advice on arch itectural matters. The character of West was also helped along by advice from other architects, and by Richard Moir’s interpretation.

The overall feeling to the film, and this may fit in with your view of Sydney, is that ultimately everyone is locked into a game. No one really knows the solution — you can’t pinpoint the real villain to the piece — and one can’t come to grips with what is going on, even though there are some short-term resolutions. Do you see Sydney as some sort of interlocking set of power relationships?

To a degree. Of course, there is some sort of conclusion in the end; the strip-club owner is shot dead. But the story, in more ways than not, is open-ended.

Do you see any major responsibility on behalf of the Housing Commissions and state authorities that have been involved in so many housing conflicts and scandals in recent inner-city politics?

I couldn’t have brought in any more elements. We tried to deal with so many as it is, although we do refer briefly to the Housing

Noyce instructs Davis during a break between takes.

Commission. Mary Ford says at the residents’ meeting that if they can stall this a little longer Hausman will go broke, and the Government will take over, which is a reference to public housing, the only real solution to the problem of Edens being built. Edens are going to continue to be built, and that means lower-income earners, people who are disadvantaged for whatever reason, will continue to suffer without some form of intervention.

Violence is one form of intervention, which has been mainly practised, at least in the Sydney experience, by people who have wanted to build the buildings rather than those who have opposed them. But I think public housing is a more practical solution. We canvassed this only briefly.

Do you see a certain progression in your work, through the early documentaries to “Backroads”, “News- front” and “Heatwave”?

I don’t see it, but inevitably there must be, because things happen by chance and they give rise to other events. But I just make them. I leave it to others to draw conclusions. ★


Dav

id P

arke

r

THE AUfTRMMA BEGinmnGThe change starts with discovering ‘The Australian Beginning’. It is a whole new world of information.

Right now, The Au your home or offic communication to

Subscribers can nc Over the next few the cost of a local exactly what to do.

The Australian Beç efficient visual dis| no huge investmer

Change your whole of the low cost ‘EsAt very small cost, the Australian Beginning gives you access to a vast range

of computer services wherever you have a telephone... and you don’t have to be a computer whiz to use it. All the instructions are in everyday English. Even young children will enjoy operating this system.

In the home or in the office, just run your fingers over the keyboard. Within seconds, you can get the news before it is printed, you can shop, check airline timetables, obtain sports results or share prices, order the latest books, check a company’s financial status, compare supermarket ‘specials’, obtain farm reports, view weather bulletins and so much more.

For only a few dollars a day, you can be linked into a large, powerful computerised storehouse of information with nationwide communication.

The Australian Beginning can help you in your business. It can keep your stock records, run your accounts and help you with budgeting.There are thousands of programs available for your use. The Australian Beginning is also a valuable educational tool.

The Australian Beginning’s unique telex feature — you can send messages to any telex user, and receive messages back from anywhere in the world.

These features can save you a small fortune.

The Australian Beginning provides its services Australia wide. The list of services is enormous... and it is getting bigger day by day.

Australian Beginning is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For iffice, The Australian Beginning provides you with information and i to help you survive and prosper in the 80’s.

n now access this service through a Melbourne ’phone number, ew months most other Australian capital cities will have access for »cal call. Anyone can use this service. A simple guide explainsdo.

Beginning and Sigma Data Corporation will put a proven, reliable, display terminal in your hands for a low monthly charge. There is nent to be made.

* Additional computer time available for $8 per hour Monday to Friday 8am - 6pm... but only $3.60 per hour throughout the rest of the day and anytime weekends.

VISUAL DISPLAY TERMINALS SUPPLIED AND SERVICED NATIONWIDE BY SIGMA DATA

hole life today. Be a part of the computer revolution. Take advantage ‘Early Bird’ membership and equipment package... it has everything

you need to start using the system, including:• Permanent membership of The

Australian Beginning.• A modern, sculptured, desk

top Sigma Data visual display terminal that is as easy to use as a typewriter.

• An acoustic coupler, which links your equipment to any standard telephone.

• An initial package of 60 hours of computer time*.

• 90 days parts and labour warranty throughout Australia.

• A simple step-by-step instruction manual and access to a round-the-clock telephone ‘Help’ service.

All this is available for only $20 a week for 60 months or for a special one-time payment of $2495 for the ‘Early Bird’ package. Also, if you use the equipment and services for producing an assessable income, your payments may be tax deductible.

Corporation,

This is incredible value... and your visual display terminal is backed by the full service facilities of Sigma Data

with its offices in the capital cities ■

TheAustralianBeginningAccess to information services■ News■ Weather■ Share indices and prices■ Airline schedules■ Government statistics■ A wide range of research

data

Nationwide Communication to other Australian Beginning members

Electronic shopping (24 hours a day — 365 days a year), including■ Books■ Video tapes■ Office supplies■ Educational supplies■ Many other business and

consumer products

Telex services■ Send telexes with our

equipment to telex owners

■ Receive telexes from telex owners

Access to software for■ Business■ Financial planning■ Educational■ Entertainment and games

Information on■ Appliances■ Business equipment■ Consumer goods■ Sporting goods■ and many more goods

and services

THE AUJTRRimn BEGIflflinGThe Australian Beginning is changing every aspect of Australian life... in the office and in the home. You will need The Australian Beginning to stay out in front.

Subscribe now! No obligation!

To: The Australian Beginning (Vic) Pty. Ltd. 364 Latrobe St, Melbourne, Vic. 3000 Phone: (03)329 7533

Yes, I think the Australian Beginning is great. I want to take advantage of the ‘Early Bird’ membership and equipment package today.I understand that, if I am not completely satisfied, I can (anytime within 7 days of receipt) return ail of the equipment intact for a full and unconditional refund.□ I enclose $2,495 for the ‘Early Bird’ full

package.□ I prefer to pay on terms. Please send

me a weekly payment contract ($20 a week over 60 months).

□ I also want a low cost, quality printer. I enclose an additional $749.

□ I want the low cost printer and prefer to pay on terms. Please send me a weekly payment contract for both the ‘Early Bird’ package and a low cost printer. (Total of $25 a week over 60 months).

□ Please charge my credit card (tick one)□ American Express □ Diners Club□ Bankcard Card No.............................Expires...........Signature..........................

Name_____________________________Address___________________________City_______________________________

PostcodeBus.

State _______Phone: Home Signature__________________________□ I would like more information before I

join. Please ring me.□ I do not want to join right now, but

please keep me on your mailing list for future information.I already have computer equipment.

Through your own telephone, The Australian Beginning gives you direct access to this huge computer system. Be linked directly to this vast source of up-to-the-minute information... and all for just a few dollars a day.Today, take advantage of The Australian Beginning’s incredible introductory offer.Sigma Data Corporation’s engineering services support your visual display terminals Australia wide. Sigma Data engineers are located in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra.

Your Sigma Data

terminal.

A range of quality printers is available from $749.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing^T^yny^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

F ILM FESTIVAL 1982Mari Kuttna and Lesley Stern

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM im iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMany verbal brickbats were hurled

towards Moritz de Hadeln In his third year as the director of this expensively- mounted, but artistically disappointing, Festiva l. However, he cannot be expected to run the Festival and make films for it. The brickbats should be directed at the Festival jury: in 1982, the grand prize, the Golden Bear, ought to have been withheld. But who could be nasty to gracious Joan Fontaine, who presided, or to ebullient Mrinal Sen, or to Sydney’s David Stratton? All the same, they should not have given such a prestigious award to Rainer Werner F a ssb in d e r’s Die sehnsucht der Veronika Voss, a clever-enough pastiche of 1950s melodrama, which offered little beyond its visual flair in glittering black and white.

The characters in Veronika Voss are inexcusably one-dimensional. Their loveless passions or greedy cunning are the staple ingredients of all Fassbinder works, re-Sirkled once again. One wet night in the park a youngish man (Hilmar Thate) offers his coat to a drenched woman. She scatters hints of mystery as if she were setting up a beagle trail, and the young man (he closely resembles James Mason when young) tracks her down in convoluted ways. Next time they meet, she is dolled up like a pantomime dame, in garments and make-up which spell allure. The reporter is duly allured, and the lady (Rosel Zech) turns out to be as tiresome as only an ex-filmstar who has taken to drugs could be.

There is some by-play about a broken vase, concerning a sad old couple who are probably the blonde star’s Jewish parents. Whether they are blackmailed, or whether the daughter has mortgaged them for drugs, they are also in the power of the sinister dark-haired woman, somewhat like an up-market beautician, who turns out to be a rapacious doctor ‘treating’ the addict, and whose ethics make the Mafia seem like the Girl Guides. The reporter checks her credentials with a leading specialist who, not surprisingly for a Fassbinder film, turns out to be the lady doctor’s chief accomplice.

Some of the shots, like diagonal streaks of light in a dark street, or of creamy women in creamy interiors, linger in the memory, and the soundtrack, too, is used with Fassbinder’s usual thumping-home skill. Besides, Fassbinder is very fashionable: his films seem to sell the largest number of tickets, and his secretary arranges the largest number of inevitably-clashing interviews. So giving him a main prize may be an inducement for him to keep finishing his films in time for festivals.

In a better year, the stilted acting and drama-school accents of The Killing of Angel Street may have been embarrassing. But, at least, Donald Crombie does deserve the ju ry ’s honorable mention for touching on a social problem of intense contemporary relevance.

In setting up as Australia’s Frank Capra, or even Sydney Pollack, Crombie was somewhat handicapped by competing a longside the real a rtic le : Pollack’s Absence of Malice, which

reminded those who may have forgotten that there can be a valid excuse for onedimensional characterization: namely, to accommodate the larger-than-life personality of a star. Supported by Sally Field and Melinda Dillon, who are far from being mice, Paul Newman still towers as a star, the like of whom tends to be seen only in the retrospectives.

The Berlin retrospective was devoted to James Stewart, whose handsome, though ageing, presence still radiates stardom; and it was reassuring that even in Berlin The Philadelphia Story attracted crowds as easily as Fassbinder’s camped-up film noir.

Almost every film in Competition above the level of just-p la in-aw fu l received a Silver Bear for something or other. For instance, Wojciech Marczew- ski’s Dreszcze (variously mistranslated as Creeps, Shivers or Shudders) received its mantelpiece ornament for “originality” , a quality which, in this case,

seems to have been confused with sincerity. Its subject has the hallmark of personal experience: it is about the indoctrination of a teenage boy in the Poland of 1955-56. His father is arrested, and his bookshelves reduced to rubble by the secret police just before the boy is chosen for a special training camp of Young Pioneers. The brainwashing is so powerful that, at a publicly-staged confessional session, the boy betrays his closest friends, who have all been listening to Radio Free Europe.

Authentic as it is, to everyone who has seen Pal Gabor’s Angi Vera, Marczew- ski’s Creeps will seem a more diffuse, less dramatically-accentuated version of the same story. Even the preponderance of golden afternoon light, overhead shots of courtyards and stairs, and the film’s end with a journey away from the summer camp seem to stress the resemblance.

Similar, not particularly original, but

w e ll-m ade and m oving, Hermann Zschoche’s Bürgschaft fur ein jahr (On Probation), from East Germany, is pleasingly intelligent and well-acted. The film’s heroine is a commonplace phenomenon: a pretty good-time girl who finds, in her late twenties, that she must start living like a grown-up woman if she wants to retain control of her children. To protect them from being taken into care, she should conform and be a good citizen. She wants her children, though with the same inchoate, impulsive emotion which characterizes her love affaires; but she begs for another chance.

An honest case of "please God make me good but not just yet” , it is touch-and- go throughout the film whether she reforms fast enough to be judged a responsible parent. Although she is living with a nice, reliable young man, she falls headlong in love with someone else; when he too leaves her, she goes on a bender; but she does bounce back.

As with most good films, the audience is left to decide whether her final compromises mean a happy ending, or a defeat of hope and high spirits. If, as society presumes, the children must come first, then all is w e ll. ..

Anyway, Katrin Sass more than deserved her prize for the best actress.

Once in a while, an off-putting synopsis and equally off-putting publicity stills are redeemed by the film itself, which deals with the unpromising story with stylistic consistency, and has an uncompromising integrity of script, direction and acting.

Hans A lfredson’s Den enfaldige mordaren (The Simple-minded Murderer) is such a film, with a story that sounds simplistic no matter how cleverly any synopsis would try to summarize it. However, the relationship between the clumsy hero, branded an idiot, but fully capable of learning useful skills, is sketched in a period setting of the 1930s. The unscrupulous villain of a landowner and the boy’s clever, amoral sister end as Nazis; the w e ll-m ean ing , honest peasants, who are the family of a paraplegic girl who befriends him and accepts his love, are presented with tenderness.

Stellan Skarsaard in the title role deservedly shared the prize for the best actor with the leading Eurostar, Michel Piccoli.

Piccoli plays the enigmatic, entrancing businessman who distracts a young advertising accountant from his wife, his friends and even his gambling in Pierre Granier-Deferre’s Une etrange affaire (A Strange Affair), and lifts him to the dizzy pinnacles of retail management. Nathalie Baye as the wife tries to fight back, then sensibly decides not to bother. The poor young man (Gerard Lanvin) is left not high and dry, but low and wet.

As a parable on worshipping alien gods, the film works with smooth, not to say slick, French savoir-faire.

Another Silver Bear, for the best script, was given to Zoitan Fabri’s Requiem. I am hand ica p p e d in appreciating this work by understanding every word of the Hungarian dialogue


Above: Wojciech Marczewski’s Dreszcze (Creeps): the brainwashing o f youth. Left: Zoltán Fabri’s Requiem, the love-life o f a beautiful Hungarian woman (Edit Frajt) during the 1950s. Below: Stig Ramsing in Christian Braad Thomsen's Kniven i hjertet (A Stab in the Heart), about a lonely, introverted postman.

Berlin Film Festival 1982

Esben Hoilund Carlsen’s Slingre valsen (Stepping Out), a “lightly-handled comedy about couples re-pairing after the damages o f divorce”.

without being able to believe a syllable.The story, set in the early 1950s, raises

some expectation of political interest. However, it is about the love-life of a beautiful young woman (Edit Frajt) whose first great love, possibly husband, was an underground Communist even before 1944, but he died in prison. It is only subtle signs which reveal that his imprisonment and death occurred after the Communists came to power.

The woman is now married to an older lawyer who had helped the left-wing youngsters under Fascism, but who was powerless when their own comrades arrested them in the 1950s. One night a young man whose speech and gestures remind her of her first love arrives, fresh out of prison. The resemblance is not coincidental: the two were cell-mates, and the younger boy admired his friend to the point of copying his gestures, adopting his thoughts and quoting his favored poets. The lady is unsettled, and decides to pack up and leave her husband, though whether to go with the boy, or just anyway, is not made clear. And it does not seem to matter.

As a love affaire, their brief conjunction had every cinematic cliche, and not a single glimpse of mutual understanding. However, Requiem has been highly praised as stylish and stylized.

This expectation, of seeing personal relationships handled with credibility and care by directors, and conviction by the cast, was satisfied by two Danish films, presented in the market.

Stepping Out, directed by Esben Hoilund Carlsen, is a lightly-handled comedy about couples re-pairing after the damages of divorce. The dialogue is like vintage Neil Simon, with non-stereotyped characters. There is a sensitive, intelligent but shy taxi-driver, who can offer tenderness and affection, but not the showier achievements of a competitive society; and a highly-inteiligent lady doctor who needs to develop and mature sufficiently to value him, after the depredations to her self-esteem by her ex-husband, a flashy, philandering university lecturer. The children involved are charming, without being cute: the driver’s 10-year-old daughter is cynically knowing, while the doctor’s little son still has an unrepressed, unmanipulated Oedipal dependence. Woody Allen could not have done it better, or be so little patronizing.

A Stab in the Heart, by Christian Braad Thomsen, is about a lonely, introverted postman who opens other people’s letters, to warm himself at other people’s love. He is picked up by a part- time barmaid, who is a psychology student. Deeply touched by his needs, she offers him an intimacy which she cannot keep up for very long. After being emotionally relaxed and released by her, he has no defence mechanisms against the inevitable ending of their affaire. Step by step, the light romance changes into the portrayal of his emotional disintegration, and eventual, terrib le tragedy. Nonetheless, the film is not depressing: truthful as it is, there is a final glimpse of kindness, and grace.

The rest of the interesting films were in the Forum of Young Films, reviewed elsewhere, and the only big discoveries of the New German Films series were prizewinners from other festivals, like Margarethe von Trotta’s marvellous Die bleierne zeit (Dark Times), which carried off the Golden Lion at Venice last year.

But the short films, neglected by most critics, had come up with one perfect gem of animation, virtually worth the journey to Berlin: Le ravissement de Frank N. Stein (The Ravishing of Frank N. Stein), by Georges Schwizgebel, from Switzerland. In nine-and-a-half minutes, it sums up the magic of cinematic tension, and the almost post-coital sadness when it is over.

MariKuttna

W ho S p ea k s o f R ea lism H ere?

Every day, at the Berlin Film Festival, someone asks, “Seen any good films today?” It is a moment of terror; you are under interrogation and have no answer, no alibi. You (I) cannot remember which theatre you were in, what films you have seen and what gossip you have overheard. The context frames the films, and the way one responds to them in a particular way. There is so much on offer that images become detached from films; films run into and out of each other and the frenzied critic runs into and out of films. The most vivid memory one has, once it is all over, is of hysterical amnesia.

One way of accounting for this is to posit a festival like Berlin as a super- deluxe-market where items offered for instant gratification are rendered instantly perishable. If looks could kill, the look, in this context, kills the cinema and the cinema erases the viewer (as constituted by memory) in a gesture of visual overkill. All that would remain would be a black screen, a blank page and a critic with nothing to say.

But looking on the brighter side (the other side of the black screen), it is possible to perceive memory as not simply blocked by the plethora of films but provoked into a different kind of functioning. Memory works to screen the abundance of images, in a process of projection, of superimposition, whereby images structured by the logic of memory are traced over the logic of techno-projection. What remains then is a memory screen, a blank page and a critic wondering how to say what remains to be said.

It is difficult to give an overall picture, to review what was on view, to answer the question which provokes this writing: seen any good films at Berlin? So what is offered is not a balanced picture, a realistic assessment; rather a superimposition, something between an imposition and an afterthought.

“Vous oublierez. Vous oublierez” : the voice of Marguerite Duras speaks. The screen is black. There is an incongruity between the voice and the image, for at the very moment the warning/injunction is uttered, the moment that forgetfulness is voiced, memory is summonsed, the screen invites a projection, and a superimposition of memory traces over the black leader.

The film, Duras’ L’homme Atlantique (The Atlantic Man), takes off from other films, other memories. Later in the film,

once again over black leader, the voice pronounces: “Vous etes reste dans I’etat d’etre parti. Et j ’ai fait un film de votre absence.” Who is the you that the film addresses? Is it T the viewer, or an other ‘you’, the you that is always elsewhere, the lover addressed in absentia? If this is a lover’s discourse, it articulates a love story that revolves around the cinema as much as around two characters, I and You. The magic of the cinema is that it brings into presence that which is out of touch; the tyranny of the cinema is that •the image asserts its presence so insistently. How to make a film about absence, how to trace the elsewhere in the here and now?

Between segments of black leader in this film there are images — of cold wintry seascapes, of a deserted hotel. The images recall another Duras film, Agatha ou les lectures illimitées. L’homme Atlantique is in fact composed of off-cuts from the earlier film in which two voices retell, in various versions, their love, their memories. Although there are no characters as such in either film, actors do appear: in Agatha, predominantly Bulle Ogier, and in L’homme, Yann Andrea. On one level, the figures on the screen can be read as a tracing of absence: the you addressed on the soundtrack is represented only by an image. But, on another level, the languid, melancholic elegance of the actors anchors the words, insisting on the supremacy of presence, on the embodiment and personalization of absence. But the questions remain: Is ‘you’ personal or impersonal? Is it a capital or small T?

Babette Mangolte’s The Cold Eye, framed in the same context as the Duras, can be seen to explore similar issues of address. The film opens with a naming and brief written description of the main characters. As the film develops, the practice of description itself comes under scrutiny, and the gap between scriptural and cinematic writing is explored. The central ‘character’ is never depicted, only given in her voice and her point of view.

The opening image is of a pair of hands s o rt in g th ro u g h p a in te d canvases, while a voice muses on the colors, tones, combinations. It is not as though an identity is being posited between our point of view and that of the camera, so that the audience sees what the artist sees; rather, it is the space between that is marked out, for the different processes of painting, of filling up the canvas and of filling the frame are seen as disjunctive. What is left out as it were, what is absent in this study in black and white, is color, and it is the memory of film colors, of reproduced paint, rather than paint itself that is called into play.

The absence of the protagonist (absent from the screen, present offscreen) seems one way of responding to or reacting against the sovereignty of the present, the immediacy of the image. Yet in The Cold Eye, even though the voice is disembodied, a process of substitution seems to be effected whereby the voice and look of the camera take the place not just of the represented body, but also of the character. So that the film is structured around a singular consciousness, and, paradoxically, although the other characters appear as actors, acting out a scenario, the central character becomes very central as character.

If there is an attempt to effect a distance between the filmic voice and the voice of the artist-as-heroine it doesn’t really work. What the audience is given is a very phenomenological exercise in point of view. But if the insistent self- consciousness of the artist becomes irritating, pretentious, the attempt to develop a new kind of narrative is certainly intriguing — the intrigue having less to do with a formulated mystery and more with the articulation of space and place.

If it can be said of narrative cinema that events take place (adherence to the rules of continuity giving a place to the viewer as well), what takes the place of events in a deviation from orthodox narrative? Avant-garde cinema has a long history and short reply to this question: dispense with the human figure, dispense with all elements of plot so that place and story are replaced by an abstract articulation of space and time.

If, however, there is some concern with the way in which the human figures in the cinema, the modalities of I and You, both personal and impersonal, a different way of figuring out space, of spacing figures, has to be found. Place, in such a scenario, becomes not just the grounding for action, but a space of performance. It is the performance of the camera, speech as performance, and the performance of actors (as opposed to an acting out of the story) that is foregrounded.

The ideally lugubrious location for such explorations has emerged as semi- empty hotels, decaying colonial mansions — from Last Year at Marienbad to Chantal Akerman’s Hotel Monterey and the Duras repetitions. The appeal of such locations would seem to lie in the fact that they represent places of impermanence; like transit lounges, they locate the in-between times rather than the trajectory of a journey and thus provide a way of representing empty space, of transforming space into place in a way that is not diegetically motivated, where the human figure is often to be read through traces rather than immediate presence.



Somewhere between the Duras films of the Festival and The Cold Eye came a surprise hotel-film, Robina Rose’s Night- shift, described as lying “somewhere between vaudeville and Last Year at Marienbad”. The’-film, in color, has a strange look, as though it has been filmed in Super 8 and blown up. While this suggests a certain mood or atmosphere, it also works in with the discourse on looking. A night receptionist watches the comings and goings in a hotel foyer, while we watch her watching.

What is refreshing about the film is that it manages to avoid the underline of moralizing with which such filmic discourses are often imbued. The film not only catches the tedium of suspended time, of empty space, but acknowledges the curiosity and superimposition of phantasy that such tedium provokes. The nightshift is punctuated by happenings: banal, bizarre, theatrical. Rather than characters, there are performances, a projection of phantasy and the fantastic.

Another film concerned, more overtly and in a more essayistic way, with the specifically-cinematic modalities of performance was Jon Jost’s Stagefright. Or perhaps it was Stagefright that traced the question of performance over the other films. If there is an image that suggests the tenor of the film it is that of the custard pie frozen as it splatters over a performer’s face — the actor’s fear of performance, the audience’s retaliation. But in the cinema the audience does not throw custard pies at what is, after all, only an image, and in the theatre the gesture cannot be frozen. If stagefright implies a panic, a fear about forgetting lines, about acting out of character or being reduced to silence, Stagefright has, in part, to do with the way in which speech and gesture, sound and movement are produced by the cinema in the service of character construction. The performers in Stagefright are never situated in a realistic place, and space is rigorously defined by the constraints of the frameline, which can also exclude the human form and reform it, reformulating a figuring out of the human.

I found Stagefright frequently mystifying, difficult, but also demystifying in a way that was humorous rather than didactic. The humor is provoked largely by a subtext on entertainment, on the relation between magic and the cinema and politics. The magic of the cinema is double-edged: if it’s often a case of manipulation, the hidden magician, the film itself delights in manipulating sound and image, in exploring new cinematic possibilities in a modestly virtuoso way, the notion of new constrained by tongue- in-cheek, visually-punning references to other filmmakers (Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Marie Straub and Danielle Huillet, Donald Sharits) — an inflexion of image/homage.

Other films which foregrounded performance and theatricality in different ways were Rosa von Praunheim’s Unsere leichen leben noch and Rote liebe (RedLove), and Ulrike Ottinger’s Freak Orlando. The von Praunheims use ‘real’ situations and actual people who act out versions of themselves in an extravagant display of exhibitionism. The interest of the films lies in this theatrical dimension as fed by the flamboyancy of the ‘characters’ and a utilization of shock tactics and tactics of seduction. While the films are fascinating (and attracted a cult audience of Berliners at the Festival) there is also a naivety in the let-it-all-hang-out- on-the-road-to-liberation sentiment that informs them.

Unsere leichen features five gutsy women in their sixties, and Red Love combines a melodramatic dramatization of a Kollontai novel and video interviews with a contemporary woman who has found sexual liberation in her sixties. “Red Love is dedicated to the radicalism of two women” the program notes, but

from certain feminist perspectives the reading of radicalism given by the film is at least ambivalent.

Perhaps Freak Orlando could be similarly chastized, but It is a film far less weighted with a message, far more bizarre; a film which is literally all over the place, littered with images and peopled with actors who appear as images rather than characters. The film takes off from Virginia Woolfs novel, Orlando, yet doesn’t attempt the impossible of a faithful and literary adaptation (as does Anette Apon’s The Waves, alas). Orlando, played by Magdalena Montezuma, metamorphoses into five identities:

“ in Orlando Zyclopa’s skin, with and without a moustache, as a Fie and a She, as a lover and as a murderer of the Siamese twin Lena, who sucks the marrow out of her twin sister Leni’s bones; as a corpse of the Spanish inquisition and as an entertainer in a Playboy club” .Delphine Seyrig as the love object, the

locus of desire, also turns in a variety of delightfully-improvized performances, in part parodying her own image, disintegrating it into a number of phantasms — from vampire victim to Playboy bunny. There is a wonderful scene where Montezuma, half her face sheathed in a scaly mask (suggestions of a creature arisen from the sea, but definitely no Aphrodite), gazes into Seyrig’s eyes (Seyrig in pink tutu) and attempts to take her into her arms for a romantic waltz. The dance becomes an orchestrated comedy of errors as they are restrained by Seyrig’s attachment, a very miffed and obstructive Siamese sister, played by Jackie Reynal — the eternal triangle.

This is not a film about absence, but it elaborates a kind of lover’s discourse, an implication of you and I and the cinema where there is always a body too much.

Most of the other German women’s films were set apart from Freak Orlando by a more overt feminism rendered in more orthodox narratives and dealing with the German experience. They included Flelma Sanders-Brahms’ Die beruhrte (No Mercy, No Future), Margarethe von Trotta’s Die bleierne zeit (Dark Times) and Helke Sander’s Der subjektive faktor (The Subjective Factor). But the most interesting narrative film of this kind came from Flolland: The Silence Surrounding Christine M., a first film by Marlene Gorris. A murder gets the story going and an investigative framework is established. Flowever, the framework soon emerges as precisely that — a recognizable structure from which deviations, an exploration of mis- recognition, can proceed.

A man, the owner of a boutique, has been killed by three women who, it emerges, did not know each other before the event, before shopping or shoplifting on the same day in the same place. A woman psychiatrist is summonsed to investigate motivation, to establish the psychological condition of the three women. They refuse to comply and what is interesting here is that the film similarly refuses complicity with psychological interpretation (thus differing markedly from Dark Times which, despite a complex discourse on the obsessions of sisterhood, has some facile psychological observations on the relations between em otiona l and po litica l terrorism).

The three women are given characteristics, but not filled out as characters. There is a shift from the investigation of the crime to an investigation of the main female character, a pattern familiar from film noir. But here the familiarity ends for the woman is also psychiatrist/investigator, and it is neither her psychology nor her sexuality that comes under scrutiny, but her way of seeing. Similarly, the viewer is caught up less in a process of identification, more in

Top: Robin Rose’s Nachtschicht (Nightshift): “a night receptionist watches the comings and goings in a hotel foyer. "Above: Ulrike Ottinger’s Freak Orlando, inspired by Virginia Woolf’s ‘Orlando ’.



Marlene Gorris’ De stilte rond Christine M. (The Silence Surrounding Christine M.): ways o f seeing under scrutiny.

processes of recognition and mis- recognition.

Women and crime and detection figured elsewhere in the Festival. I did not see Angela Summereder’s Zeich- meister, but by selected accounts it is a film to look out for. It is based on an actual case of a woman who in 1949 was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her husband:

“The text of the film predominantly consists of excerpts from the official record, summary positions of the attorneys, petitions, statements of witnesses and material which the participating witnesses, as well as Frau Zeichmeister, added anew as a result of their work with the ‘historical’ texts.” Melvie Arslanian’s Stiletto uses flash

backs and. flash-forwards and a fragmented voice-over narration to piece together clues and evidence as blonde bombshell Nadja Vidal arrives in New York City to take revenge on the killers of her sister Sasha. The film is stylish, but hovers uneasily between avant-garde chic, film-feministo-no/r and the underground. It is clearly from the same milieu as Amos Poe’s Subway Riders, a more popularly-acclaimed film but one that is more decidedly offensive in its underground recreation rather than transformation of the 1940s femmes fatale (though superbly shot by Johanna Heer).

Chris Petit’s new feature, An Unsuitable Job For a Woman, has a young woman detective who gets caught up and carried away by a very British oedipal drama. The material is promising, the film disappointing, caught as it is between the impulse of a new narrative and the constraints of an old imperative: box-office returns.

An international film festival, by its very name, functions in part to denationalize films, to present a continuum of images; but at the same time it serves to juxtapose ‘examples’ of national cinema. Although there are problems in conceptualizing a national cinema as a homogeneous entity, it is equally dangerous to ignore the specific historical and cultural contexts from which films are produced.

Festivals like Berlin tend to register the national in a way that collapses the different production contexts and filmmaking practices of a given country into each other.

There was an attempt to break out of this dilemma in an event organized within the framework of the Forum of Young Cinema — a conference on Independent Cinema, the first session dealing with questions of production, distribution and exhibition, the second with Infermental, an international video magazine of independent and experimental cinema, and with the role of critics and educationalists. Such a conference was a useful intervention, but in the context could only skate the surface. Mostly, the bewildered viewers/voyeurs have to figure out for themselves the cultural determinants of any given film, and to engage in this figuring-out process against the stream of images, of films that flow in and out of each other, against the amnesiac drive.

One can easily figure out that there is a substantial difference between New German Cinema and what is called the New Australian Cinema. Different funding policies, forms of state support (which implicate distribution and exhibition as much as production) and climate of film culture make all the difference between the German films and those like Gallipoli, Winter of Our Dreams and The Killing of Angel Street. In Australia, at present, the production of experimental feature films like Heinz Emigholz’ Normalsatz and Harun Farocki’s Etwas wird sichtbar is inconceivable.

Though the New German Cinema is not simply a paradise of heterogeneity, it has a history of organization, struggle, dissidence, a reminder of which was the new Straub-Huillet, Zu fruh, zu spat (an Italian/French/German co-production). But there is another Australian cinema that is positioned outside the category of the New and which, in terms of exhibition at Berlin, becomes not an ‘other’ cinema but a pale shadow of the ‘real’ thing, the averted gaze of the public face of Australian cinema. That the

independent and more experimental cinema should be thus positioned is less the fault of the Berlin organizers than of the Australian Film Commission.

The one independent film which was highlighted in programming was Corinne and Arthur Cantrill’s Second Journey to Uluru, stills of which were used for the poster and program cover of the Forum. It is a telling indictment of Australian film culture, in its broadest aspect, that such cinema can only gain recognition else-

‘where (though its screening at the Melbourne Film Festival paved the way for Berlin)1. It was also the only Australian film shown at Berlin that was produced without any subsistence from the AFC.

In Britain, there is a much stronger tradition of independent cinema, of a political filmmaking practice informed by theoretical considerations and supported by the British Film Institute Production Board. Out of this tradition comes So That You Can Live, made by Cinema Action over a five-year period. It is set in South Wales and, through a particular family, explores the interlocking histories of country, industry, family, work, education and learning.

On first glance, it has the look of what is now a recognizable and established mode of the British alternative mise en scene. But what marks its difference is something that makes it simultaneously very British and also complicates notions of nationalism, of a national cinema, even if it be of an alternative variety. In paying attention to “a region first ruthlessly exploited and then deliberately discarded by market forces and a dominant metropolitan culture” , the film tentatively breaks with a practice of rigorously but austerely privileging the notion of filmic discourse, where discourse as a theoretical issue (generated in the metropolis) subsumes all other issues. The film listens, and the viewer too has to listen very attentively to the Welsh voices, where it is not just a matter of tuning into a strange tongue but of listening to a different speech, a

1. See review, Cinema Papers, No. 35, p. 497.

different mode of story-telling, one which affects the telling of history.

This applies too to Traveller, a film made in Ireland by Joe Comerford. It is an elliptical narrative made about and with the co-operation of travellers or tinkers — outcasts in an already divided society. There is no synchronized sound, snatches of dialogue ‘appearing’ in voice-over, and the film is prefaced by a quote from Hans Magnus Enzenburger: “There is a dark and intimate connection between murder and politics.” It is a fascinating film, quite unlike anything else in contemporary British cinema.

From India and Japan there were two particularly exciting films, which though differing from other films from the same countries were nevertheless strongly informed by their cultural context.

Ketan Mehta’s Bhavni bhavai is based on an ancient folktale which tells of the exploitation and oppression of the Harijans or outcasts. It utilizes forms of folk drama with a Brechtian slant, juxtaposing the past and the present through forms of parody, musical pastiche, spectacle, dramas of intrigue and newsreel footage. The story concludes with two endings, the viewer left not so much with a simple choice but with an ending that is open without being empty.

Suzuki Seijun’s Kageroza was one of the most stimulating and provocative films I have seen in years: a rapturous unfolding of images, an elastic elaboration of fictionaiity. I cannot remember the story (for the story is constantly being lost, revolving around the persistence of vision, the projection of phantasy and the treachery of memory) but images remain burnt into the mind’s eye, an eye left far from cold. The film is very much about representational modes, Western and Japanese (where the Japanese is seen not as a singular or pure system), yet it avoids being labored or didactic, it expands the boundaries of fiction rather than hovering guiltily on the edge as so much contem porary experim ental cinema does.

This is a very selective and impressionistic account of the Festival, juxtaposing and pulling films in and out of their structured contexts. Berlin is in fact highly structured, providing a number of sections: the main Competition, the Forum of Young Cinema (which included screenings of Infermental, the conference and a Super 8 screening), a market section, an Info section, New German Cinema, Women Making Films, a Retrospective of Curtis Bernhardt, a Homage to James Stewart and a Festival of Children’s Films. It would be possible to confine oneself to one section, one place, thus ensuring clear vision and a clear conscience as regards critical judgment. But categories are always problematic, always posited on exclusion and absence. What is absent in one place may be present in another where presence is figured out differently by a different space.

Though amnesia and panic seem endemic to festival-goers, whose eyes are bigger than their memories, there is som eth ing e xh ila ra tin g in being propelled by the tide of images, in the screening process not just of the Festival but of one’s memory as it works in this context. Though it does not have a great deal to do with reality, I am reminded of a sequence towards the end of Kageroza: the hero is in a makeshift theatre which has provided the space for a kabuki play performed by children, a bunraku play in which characters perform as puppets, and a site of flashback and prophecy. As props disintegrate, as costumes float away, they are transformed by cinematic magic into the backdrop (or superimposition) of the next scenario. The hero exclaims to no one in particular (or in particular to the audience), “Who speaks of realism here?” ★

Lesley Stern


A romantic dram a set against a panoramic South East Asia background. I t is the story o f M organ K eefe (Bryan Brown), proprietor o f the Koaht Club, who meets again Jo Reeves (Helen M orse), a form er lover and wife o f the am bitious Australian journalist Peter Reeves (John Bell).

Far East is . written and directed by John Duigan, for producer Richard Mason. It stars Bryan Brown, Helen Morse, John Bell, Sinan -Leong, Raina McKeon, Henry Feist, Bill Hunter and John Gaden . z , ! ..."

Clockwise from right.Former lovers Morgan Keefe (Bryan Brown) and Jo Reeves (Melen_ Morsel meet again; Peter Reeves (John Beil)', a successful, ambitious, Australian journalist in South East Asia, and his wife Jo; Peter puts his life on the line to help political activist Rosita Constanza (Rama McKeon); Peter Rosita and Morgan; Morgan at his Koala' Club, part girlie club, part watering hole for Australians in South East Asia' Morgan and Jo.

Col

lage

bas

ed o

n a

Lux

adve

rtis

emen

t In

Bet

ter

Hom

es a

nd

Gar

dens

, M

ay 1

956.

SHE: "Wasn’t Joan Fontaine wonderful . . . and she looked so lovely.’

HE: "She always does— and so do you!”

oan Fontaine’s career as a Hollywood star of the so-called “golden age” follows an almost archetypal pattern: brief apprenticeship in the 1930s; instant, secure stardom after a major popular success (in “Rebecca”); a range of rewarding roles with some notable directors in the ensuing decade; and a gradual tailing off in the 1950s and ’60s as the old Hollywood declined. Unlike some major stars, she did not have or seek a career as a character actress but chose to pursue a highly successful stage career — among a variety of other accomplishments. As a film star, she gave several of the most sensitive performances of the 1940s. Today, at 63, she is articulate and outspoken about the Hollywood system. She talks with Brian McFarlane.

In the pre-“Rebecca” days, it seemed to me there were three high spots: “A Damsel in Distress” with Fred Astaire, “Gunga Din” with Cary Grant, both directed by George Stevens, and “The Women”, directed by George Cukor. How valuable did you find it, at that very early stage in your career, working with such directors as Cukor and Stevens?

I learned nothing from George Stevens, except I was madly in love with him, as everybody was — Elizabeth Taylor, Shelley Winters. We all fell madly in love with this one-fourth American Indian.

He was inscrutable, but he was God, and I suppose God is pretty inscrutable.

George Cukor had been a stage director and taught me much, much more than almost all the directors I have ever worked with. He was wonderfully warm and a person who was entirely for you and not in any way what we call front-office. He didn’t give a damn about billing or contracts or anything, but cared about you as a performer. He would bring out things in you that

The above interview was conducted when Joan Fontaine was in Australia as a guest of the Parkinson show. The Editor gratefully thanks the show’s producers for giving permission for the interview.

you didn’t even know you had. He gave you such confidence.

So his reputation, of being a great actors’ director and very sympathetic with women, is really deserved . . .

“Women’s director” ! He was removed, if you will remember, from Gone With the Wind because Clark Gable and Leslie Howard went to David [Selznick] and said, “We can’t work with him, he’s primping the ladies all the time and bothering about their crinolines; we are not getting anything.”

The ladies then went for Sunday afternoon lessons with him, I understand . . .

True. But you can understand why Clark Gable and Leslie Howard wouldn’t understand him, or he them.

I particularly liked your performance as Peggy in “The Women”. How did you feel about playing that part among so many more flamboyant roles, with people like Rosalind Russell, Mary Boland, Joan Crawford and Paulette Goddard?

I hadn’t come out of the egg yet; I didn’t know what it was all about.


Joan Fontaine

It was devastating, apart from anything else, to be with all these great people — not that I really knew they were great. How could I? I had been at school in Japan and never saw films or heard much about them.

I was not impressed by Hollywood, because in Japan you have lovely houses and servants and all that, and parties were much nicer in Tokyo than Hollywood. So I didn’t really know who these people were; nor did I understand that it was a very important industry. It seemed to me something lovely to do, which gave me moderate independence, and the ability to express myself in some way. But I had no idea it was an international obsession, because it wasn’t in Tokyo, where Kabuki was much' more important than a local cinema.

You were really being thrown in at the deep end, in a way, with “The Women” . . .

“ My God, he looks like a monkey!” Do you remember that? “ Do something to his eyebrows.” Mr Goldwyn didn’t think Laurence Olivier was anything particular.

Do you think playing that role in “The Women” was influential in David Selznick’s decision to cast you in “Rebecca”?

I know that it was George Cukor who said, “ I have a young girl; take a look at her.” But I had met David anyhow. He was looking for a little, young, terribly naive English girl, which is exactly what I was. It was a case of absolutely the right place, right time, with the right sort of look and equipment, and everything else.

It must have been very striking because you were chosen in preference to, say, Margaret Sullavan, who was, at that time, a more established star . . .

Above: Joan Fontaine (second left) with Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Godard and Mary Boland in George Cukor’s The Women. Below: Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier, Gladys Cooper and Reginald Denny in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca.

I had known them socially; we were part of that British colony in Hollywood and, my God, they all seemed older than the world. You know, when you are 20 and somebody is 35, they have had it as far as you are concerned. They shouldn’t have been taking up room on the earth. I was surprised they could walk!

But was it an agreeable atmosphere?

No, because Hitchcock and Selz- nick made it very clear to me that Olivier wanted Vivien Leigh in the role, and that they were taking me on some sort of tolerance. I understand that in her book Gladys Cooper refers to “this little American actress” ; well, I was English. So there was that kind of condescension before we had even met, because they wanted Vivien.

Vivien was in the club, but I was not in that special club. That’s a very interesting aspect of the English — they are cliquey. So are the Germans and the Japanese. They made it very clear that I, at 21, was an outsider, an interloper, who had stolen this role from Vivien.

Well, whatever forces were at work, it gave you that marvellous impression of being overawed, vulnerable, shy . . .

Yes, but I really never knew about it. It didn’t hit me. For instance, when I did Rebecca I really didn’t know who Laurence Olivier was. He wasn’t anybody at that stage, was he?

On the stage, his reputation was something, and he had made “Wuthering Heights” by that time, which I suppose had made him a matinee idol . . .

He was not deemed by Goldwyn as being anything special; he said.

But she was not English and she was much older.

You know that legendary remark of Hitchcock’s about actors needing to be treated like cattle. What do you think about his methods of handling actors? Did you find him helpful?

Absolutely, though he was inclined to tear people down in front of others. As I say in my book, No Bed o f Roses, he divided and conquered; he had that habit of

saying “this silly old actor over there” or “that idiot” or whatever it was, and probably did the same about me. But it was a very clever device. On both films I did for him we all ended up hardly civil because of these tactics.

You were very young and acting with his distinguished cast of British actors: Olivier, Gladys Cooper, Nigel Bruce, George Sanders and so on. Did you feel overawed by this?

. . . and self-effacing and apologetic. All these things they actually did to me over and above the demands of the characters they were playing.

What about playing the role of Mrs De Winter when you must have known it was an immensely popular novel and everyone had ideas about this “lovely and unusual person with the lovely and unusual name”?

You are taking a lot for granted there because it was just another


Joan Fontaine

Joan Fontaine as Ivy in Sam Wood’s film o f the same name, ‘‘the sort o f woman who gives wickedness a good name”.

book that was out. It wasn’t at that time anything better or worse than Frenchman’s Creek or whatever else Daphne did. It was simply one of the many romantic novels of that period, and remember they were coming out pretty fast. Forever Amber was to come soon, and so on. No, it wasn’t a particularly over-exciting moment for that studio. All the other studios were grinding out other things.

It wasn’t, for instance, of the order of playing Scarlett O’Hara, where everyone had an image of the heroine?

David made them as important as possible because he was a very good showman. But, other than that, he didn’t think it was particularly special.

You got your Oscar the next year for “Suspicion”, again with Hitchcock. Did you think you won partly because of your performance in “Rebecca”?

Yes, I think so. It’s often the case, isn’t it; Elizabeth Taylor and darling Ginger Rogers got it. You know there was a lot of sympathy in Ginger’s vote. She had separated from Fred Astaire and everyone was rooting for her because she had made a success as an actress. It was done with affection. We were rather enraged that Astaire’s wife had said Ginger really wasn’t quite the social image she wanted for Fred. That instantly changed the vote.

In the post-“Rebecca” period, were you in a strong position to choose your roles?

Not at all. I was under contract to David and that meant I had no opinion or choice whatsoever. As a matter of fact, as I look back, I am appalled he didn’t give me some of his other roles that were there to be had. David, having hired me for very little, was standing out for the most money he could, so he turned down all the other offers and kept me in a vault, as it were, until he got the price. He didn’t help my career. I only made one film for him.

Yes, because you then went on to make quite different sorts of films. Up until “Frenchman’s Creek”, you seemed to be developing this onscreen image of a shy, unworldly, touchingly-restrained young woman

I hated Frenchman’s Creek and I went on suspension for months, but David had sold me to the studio for such an enormous amount that he wasn’t going to let me work in anything else. And he was enough of a psychologist to know that, if actors aren’t working, finally they burst at the seams. So, one day I called him up and said, “All right, I’ll do the picture.” But he didn’t give me a raise, He didn’t do anything.

So I just hated seeing in the papers that I was difficult and I was refusing roles that were offered to me. I had nothing to do with it.

He used the press, which was a common thing in Hollywood, to beat down the actor/writer/producer/director, whoever it is, but that was part of the studio system, and he didn’t care if I had made six other films. He wanted that amount of money, and he got it from Paramount. I think he got $500,000, or something like that, for me and he

was paying me $500 a week, if that, so his profit was enormous and he was going to wait for that.

David didn’t care about the consistency of my career because he had also signed Dorothy Maguire, Jennifer Jones, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten and the young actor married to Jennifer at the time [Robert Walker] — I think even he was under contract. He had the stable of actors and he was playing chess with us. He wasn’t doing any more than that.

And yet, as producers go, he does seem to be one of the few who left some kind of imprint of quality on his films . . .

Now look, how many films did he make?

Not enough. He spent a lot of time on them and wrote a lot of memos about them . . .

That’s right; but Gone With the Wind, Rebecca, Duel in the Sun —what else?

The 1950s “Farewell to Arms”, with Jennifer Jones and Rock Hudson

Oh yes, but I am talking about this period. Oh, he later became Jennifer’s manager and put her in films like Love is a Many Splen- doured Thing and Tender is the Night. But I mean at this time. It was Jennifer who got him back to working — for her.

In that period he was such a success, and a social success as well. He had all that Long Island- Virginia push behind him, and I think he entirely rested on his laurels. He became a petty potentate, and he was determined

to have his way with us and tell us what we would do.

Was he responsible for putting you into films like “This Above All”, “The Constant Nymph” and “Jane Eyre”?

No, he didn’t put me into Constant Nymph. I did that on my own. I met Eddie Goulding one day and he said that he was looking for some little, flat-chested, frecklefaced, 14 year-old girl who had also to be a star, because that was what Warner Bros wanted. I said, “Well, how about me?” and he said, “You?” Well, I had just won an Academy Award, but I was in pigtails without make-up and he said, “You’re perfect!” That’s how I got that.

Goulding always sounded like a man of real culture . . .

I loved him, and he bucked the Hollywood system. His was one of the great tragedies — and there are many of course in Hollywood — where he told somebody off and, because of that kind of nepotistic thing that happens in Hollywood, he was barred from working anywhere. He died a very sorrowful man. It was a terrible system in many ways, good in others.

I’d like to take up your remarks about the studios because I am interested in your relation to them. Unlike some actresses, like Bette Davis at Warner Bros, Claudette Colbert at Paramount and Rita Hayworth at Columbia, you never

Continued on p. 297

Louis Jordan and Joan Fontaine in Max Ophuls’ Letter From an Unknown Woman,“one o f the high-spots o f all Hollywood”.


Film insurance is a subject usually taken for granted; rarely does it invite controversy or debate. But its importance cannot be ignored.

The Adair Insurance Broking Group was the first local broker to specialize in local films; Cinesure is the most recent. While only two of

several important and experienced companies, they provide a good base for this first look at the state of film insurance in Australia and the issues

facing film producers and investors.In future editions, the range of topics covered will expand to include

completion guarantees, and representatives of other local and overseasbroking firms will be interviewed.

ADAIR

Ronald S. Adair, founder and chairman o f Adair Insurance Broking Group.

The Adair insurance Broking Group was established in 1961, when A ustralian insurance broking companies were only beginning to consolidate their position.

In 1972, Adair entered the Australian film industry as the first local broker to specialize in insuring local films, at a time when the film specialists were noticeably absent from the local scene.

In the past decade, Adair has insured dozens of Australian films. Beginning with Wake In Fright in 1972, the company has watched the insured value of Australian films jump from around $200,000 to in excess of $7 million per production. In the past few months alone, the company has insured more than $35 million worth of Australian film product. The stakes are high.

As the first A ustralian brokers to specialize in Australian film, Adair has recently expanded its base considerably through its appointment as sole representative in Australia and New Zealand for Albert G. Ruben and Co. of Los Angeles and The Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. The Fireman’s Fund, founded in 1863, is the largest entertainment underwriter in the world today. More than 70 per cent of all insured films are covered by Ruben and The Fireman’s Fund.

Mike Channel talks to Ronald S. Adair, founder and chairman of Adair Insurance Broking Group.


Film Insurance

FILM INSURANCEUp to the time of entry by the Adair Insurance Broking Group into the Australian film business, what had been your personal interest in the development of the local industry?

I have been involved with the Sydney Film Festival for more than 20 y ears and been on the committee. There was a personal interest in Australian Film, and the opportunity to become involved in the insurance side of the business was welcome indeed.

At the time, of course, film insurance didn’t mean much in terms of premium income — and would not do so for some time. However, I decided to make the Film business my specialty at a time when our company structure — and the Film industry generally — was growing considerably. I personally handled all Film matters for several years and remain directly involved today, although the division team has enlarged nationwide.

At that stage, how confident were you that ultimately there would be a reasonable premium income from the business, and that Australian film product would become a viable international commercial proposition?

There was no confidence in particular, and no real lack of confidence. At the time, it was something new for me, and at that time we were seeking many new areas of development in the insurance business. After all, our business as brokers was to develop any areas of insurance which were being neglected by other brokers — and few were interested in Australian film then. Naturally enough, we were also interested in our own growth.

Our philosophy was, and remains, that whatever a client’s needs — particularly if they are specialized needs — it is worth our delving into the business to learn what it is all about, hopefully obtaining a piece of that market through the growth of our own expertise. Belief in the product was, and is, paramount to that commitment.

Were there many other Australian brokers operating in the business at the time?

No, except for one or two overseas-owned brokerages. Certainly, there were no specialist Film insurance brokers in Australia. Overseas brokers such as Sedgewick Collins and Hogg Robinson were doing some business here, but the sphere was very limited.

What was the level of awareness of

the need for comprehensive insurance coverage in the early 1970s?

As the needs arose, I think the industry was finding out for itself, as much as anything else, what it was all about. Australian investors were not conscious of the types of insurance packages which were available for their protection — at First.

Remember, in the early 1970s, it was all such a new market for Australia. As our film producers became involved with ' overseas interests — just as Lloyd Martin, then managing director of NLT Productions, had linked with U.S. connections — the international parties were requiring full insurance protection as part of the arrangement.

As Adair began to grow in the industry, began to understand these insurances and develop the market accordingly, we encouraged producers to approach a local broker such as ourselves for quotes, thus taking advantage of our local knowledge of the area. By the way we could word proposals, providing information for the underwriter that would not normally be given by an overseas broker, we were able to obtain competitive rates. And that was a recognizable benefit.

In today’s terms, was such early insurance coverage relatively “superficial”?

It was not quite so sophisticated as today’s insurances, but basically it was similar. Film Producer’s Indemnity, Negative All Risk — the blueprint was available from the working model overseas.

How did you develop the capacity to provide these competitive insurance rates?

There were no specialist brokers around until I began developing our facilities through the Lloyd’s brokers in London. I was surprised to discover, upon my first examination of the London market, that a number of the old, established English insurance companies carried specialist film divisions.

All international film business, however, had to go through London. Affiliates in Australia and elsewhere could not establish their own rates, or even quote on the business. The specialist offices in London kept direct control of the market; their own people outside London couldn’t touch the business.

However, we found that once we established connections with the Lloyd’s brokers to effect the neces

sary introductions in the London market, we could reap the benefits of their accumulated claims experience and specialist facilities for our own marketplace. And that was the way we went.

I also visited the U.S. on that first exploratory trip and continued to do so each year. I knew all about Albert G. Ruben and Co. in Los Angeles and their underwriter, The Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, which is the largest entertainment and film underwriters in the world. It would be many years, however, before they moved into the Australian market.

Apart from differing rates for productions, is there a percentage formula relating to the overall cost of a production which dictates the allocation for insurance expenditure?

Yes. A rule of thumb is two per cent as a costing on film insurances. This includes all insurances to be placed, including Worker’s Compensation and Public Liability, alongside the total protection coverage.

At what stage are you generally called in to consult on insurance

Continued on p. 284

Ted Kotcheffs Wake In Fright, the first Australian film handled by Adair Insurance.


Top: Terry Lipman, chairman o f Terence Lipman Pry Lid, and Neil McEwin, head o f Cinesure. Above: Alan Arkin in Philippe Mora ’s The Return o f Captain Invincible, which was handled by McEwin before joining Cinesure.

Cinesure, a new Australian underwriting agency, was launched in April to act for the first Australian insurance market to provide the full range of insurance coverage for the film and television industries. Cinesure is a division of Terence Lipman Pty Ltd, a Sydney-based insurance consultant.

The companies involved in the new m arket are the C om m ercial U nion Insurance Co. of Australia, QBE Insurance Ltd, AMP Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd, and the Insurance Co. of North America (Australia) Ltd.

The following interview, with Terry Lipman, chairman of Terence Lipman Pty Ltd, and Neil McEwin, head of Cinesure, was conducted by David White.Specialist insurance has been avail- What advantages, if any, are there able to Australian film and tele- in dealing with an underwriting vision producers for some years. So agency directly rather than dealing what is the difference between Cine- with a broker? sure and those that currentlyoperate in the film and television Lipman: There are not neces- insurance field in Australia? sarily any financial advantages,

because the terms from an under- . Lipman: There are two major writing agency would be similar if

differences. First, Cinesure is an negotiated directly by the client or i underwriting agency, which means indirectly through a broker. But, in we negotiate and write our own practice, the client would probably insurance policies. In contrast, have better communication and those already operating in this field more flexibility in dealing directly in Australia are not underwriters because there would not be an inter- but insurance brokers, which means mediary involved and this would they act as intermediaries between leave less room for errors and mis- clients and the insurers. understandings. I would also make

The second major difference is the point that there are very few that Cinesure is an Australian brokers in Australia who are agency which acts for four of Aus- proficient in the handling of film tralia’s most substantial insurance and television business. Therefore, companies, all of which are licensed there would be d istinct dis- under the Commonwealth Insur- advantages in dealing with an in- ance Act. This is the first time there experienced insurance broker, has been an Australian insurance McEwin: Looking at the experi- market to meet the full range of enced brokers, Terry has made the specialist needs in the film and tele- point that they have had to place vision industries. The contrast here virtually all specialist film and tele- is that, until now, Australian-based vision insurance with overseas corn- brokers have had to place almost panies, simply because, until we all of this kind of insurance with came along, there was no Aus- overseas companies, which are tralian insurance market in this generally not licensed under the area. Now, a broker’s job is to shop Commonwealth Insurance Act. around to ensure he gets the best ar- The Insurance A ct exists to rangements and deals for his client, regulate the Australian insurance So, from this point on, any con- industry in the interests of the Aus- scientious broker would have to tralian public. So, until the estab- check with us and not automati- lishment of Cinesure, most film and cally place his client’s business with television insurance coverage for a foreign company. In fact, already Australian producers has been we have been delighted by the interoutside the ambit of this Act. ested response by brokers.


Film Insurance

FILM INSURANCEAt present the leading insurance brokers deal with some of the world’s biggest insurance companies. Can Cinesure match the security that must flow from using such huge companies with enormous assets?

Lipman: Absolutely. The combined assets of the four licensed Australian companies for which we are acting are astronomical. The companies are the Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Australia; QBE Insurance; AMP Fire and General Insurance Co.; and the Insurance Company of North America (Australia). As everybody knows, the AMP is a household name in Australia. However, it is not just a big Australian company; it is a big international company. The Commercial Union is one of the largest insurers in the world. QBE Insurance is one of the major Australian companies, represented all over the world. And the Insurance Company of North America (Australia) is a subsidiary of probably the largest single insurance company in America.

How many of the four companies for which Cinesure is acting are overseas-owned?

Lipman: Out of the four, only one is overseas-owned. That’s the Insurance Company of North America (Australia). The other three are all Australian companies, substantially or entirely owned by Australians. The AMP is by far the largest life assurance society owned by Australians. The Commercial Union, which is listed on the stock exchange in Australia, has a substantial ownership by the National Mutual, which is the second biggest Australian mutual life insurer. The QBE, as one of the largest general insurers, is also listed on the stock exchange here.

Doesn’t a degree of overseas ownership of these companies somewhat dampen your claim to being Australian insurers?

Lipman: Not at all. Cinesure is a wholly Australian-owned agency. And the important thing about the companies for which it acts is that they are all licensed to operate in Australia by the Federal Insurance Commissioner who is there to regulate all local insurance companies on behalf of the Australian public. They are, by the Commissioner’s exacting test, Australian licensed insurers.

McEwin: They are also all Australian-based and this gives us a closer rapport than we would have if we were dealing with somebody sitting 15,000 or 20,000 km away.

Lipman: I think that’s the point. If a bloke has a claim and he wants a quick settlement of a loss, which is after all what we are talking about, he could go to the office of all of these companies if he chose to. They are right here. He could thump on the counter and say, “I want my cheque.” Not that he’d need to, of course, as Cinesure would be paying his settlement as quickly as possible. On the other hand, he would not have that sort of access with an insurer on the other side of the world.

Cinesure has only just been established. So how can it match the experience of firms already operating in this field?

McEwin: Cinesure certainly has only just been established but, as with any company, the experience comes from the individuals operating within the company. All people in Cinesure have had long experience within the film industry and have experience not only in underwriting but in understanding the needs of production companies.

Lipman: Neil is being modest. There wouldn’t be anybody in Australia who is more expert and qualified in handling film business than he is. Some of the films with which he has been associated before he joined Cinesure are Heatwave, My Brilliant Career, The Pirate Movie, Mad Max, Mad Max 2, The Year of Living Dangerously, Winter of Our Dreams, Far East, Puberty Blues, Starstruck, The Return of Captain Invincible, Now and Forever, Fighting Back and so on.

We would be the first to acknowledge that the major overseas groups who have been providing film and television cover until now are experienced and reliable insurers. But we believe our people have just as much sophistication and knowledge in this area. I think this country has developed to a point where we can offer services of this kind equal to anything in the world. If you want to insure your car, you don’t go to an insurance company in Los Angeles. Now there’s no necessity to take film and television insurance overseas.

You say in your literature that dealing through a broker with overseas insurers can mean delays in receiving documentation, settlement of claims and the like. Has this really been a significant problem for Him and television producers in Australia? | f

Lipman: I believe it has and this is one of the reasons we established Cinesure in the first place. There had been in some cases substantial delays in getting documentation, which was embarrassing to people who were waiting for investment moneys from financiers. Claims payments had often been held up for two or three months, which brought a situation about where films were put in jeopardy.

McEwin: And there are natural delays. Brokers here have had to use overseas brokers who then have to place their business in overseas markets. When you make a claim here, you go to your broker who

to go to an overseas broker who

has to get the money out of the insurance market and it then comes back via the overseas broker to your broker here. Add mail and paperwork delays and all of that takes time.

Lipman: We are not accusing anyone of inefficiency or negligence in any way. But there just are natural delays because of the insurers being so far away. One problem, for example, can be currency exchange delays.

Your literature has mentioned “competitive rates” and “keener” prices. Will Cinesure actually cost less for film and television insurance?

McEwin: Not necessarily so. Being an Australian underwriting agency means that at Cinesure we know the producers. We know their experience and what their capabilities are and certainly we’ll be looking at rewarding people who have a very good track record. Not everyone is going to get a cheap rate. We are not here to give cheap rates. We are here to use our experience and expertise to make sure our clients receive the right protection at a fair price, which is the most important thing. A policy only becomes a correct policy when claims are made.

Lipman: With insurance, the price is obviously a very pertinent consideration but it is certainly not the most essential consideration. I mean, when one buys insurance, one is buying protection. If you are

Concluded on p. 284

Bryan Brown and Helen Morse in John Duigan's Far East, also handled by McEwin.


The AustralianAlternative

Until now, Australian film and TV producers have had to place almost all their specialist insurance coverage with remote foreign insurers.

That’s where the business has generally ended up, even when they’ve dealt with Australian-based brokers.

That can mean delays, withholding taxes pushing up costs, as well as insuring with foreign companies which are often not authorised under the Commonwealth Insurance Act.

Now there is an Australian alternative

CINESURE is an Australian underwriting agency, backed by four of Australia’s most substantial licensed insurers. CINESURE provides complete coverage for film and TV productions—as extensive as that offered by any insurer in the world.

It can protect everything from major feature films to documentaries and commercials.

Because it is based right here in Australia, producers can expect speedier and more personal and flexible service.

Its rates are competitive and it rewards deserving clients.

Next time you want film and TV insurance, call us at CINESURE yourselves or get your broker to call.

The Australian Film & Television Insurance Specialists

A Division of Terence Lipman Pty Ltd,Bridge House, 127 Walker Street, North Sydney.PO Box 111, North Sydney, NSW 2060.Telephone (02) 929 0611. Telex AA24696 (TELIP).

HLM CENSORSHIP LISTINGSJanuary 1982

Films Registered Without EliminationsFor General Exhibition (G)The Breaking of the Drought (16mm): F. Barret, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia The Cheaters (16mm): M.C.D. Prods, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia The Far Paradise (16mm): M.C.D. Prods, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia Girl of the Bush (16mm): F. Barret, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia (In Search of) Stallion of the Sea (16mm): J. Fairfax, Australia, 1371 m, J. FairfaxKidstakes (16mm): Coyle-Ordell Prods, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia K rim hilde’s Revenge (16mm): UFA, Germany,987.3 m, Valhalla FilmsThe Man from Kangaroo (16mm): Carroll-Baker Prods, Australia, 900 m, National Film Library of Australia Nic nie stoi przeszkodzie (Nothing Stands in the Way)(16mm): Profil, P o la n d /950 m, Polish Consulate- GeneralOn Our Selection (16mm): Southern Cross Films, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia Passion (16mm): UFA, Germany, 990 m, National Library of AustraliaThe Sentimental Bloke (16mm): Southern Cross Films, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia Siegfried (16mm): UFA, Germany, 987.3 m, Valhalla FilmsSilks and Saddles (16mm): J. Wells, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of Australia Sunshine Sally (16mm): Austral Superfilms, Australia, 900 m, National Film Theatre of AustraliaNot Recommended for Children (NRC)A Brotherhood of Heroes: Progressive Trading Co., Flong Kong. 2780 m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-l-j)Ke xana pros tin boxa trava: C. Carajopoulos, Greece, 3050 m, Apollon Films, Sfi-l-j)L’age d’or: Vicomte De Noailles, France, 1657.57 m, Newhart Diffusion/Sharmill, V(i-l-j)The Spy in the Palace: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2850 m, Golden Reel Films, V(f-l-i)Super Fool: R. Ng/K. Ip, Hong Kong, 2685 m, Grand Film Corp., O fadult concepts)Swimteam: J. Polakoff, U.S., 2203 m, Reid & Puskar, L(f-l-g), Ofsexual innuendo)Taps: S. & H. Jaffe, U.S., 3430 m, Fox Columbia Film Dist.. V(i-m-j), L(i-l-g)Wyrok smierci (Sentence of Death) (16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 1020 m, Polish Consulate-General, V(i-m-i)For Mature Audiences (M)Breakfast in Paris: J. Lamond, Australia, 2593.29 m, Roadshow Dist., Lft-j^g), O(nudity)Butterfly: M. Cimber, U.S., 2956.13 m, Roadshow Dist., S(i-m-i), Ofadult concept) ~Chciatbym sie zgubic (I Would Like to Lose Myself)(16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 1020 m, Polish Consulate-General, 0(nudity, em otional stress)CMA (The Moth) (16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 1000 m, Polish Consulate-General, 0(em otional stress)The Deadly Sword: C. Ming-Show, Hong Kong, 2541 m. Golden Reel Films, V(i-m-g)Dzien wisky (The Day of the Vistula) (16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 980 m, Polish Consulate-General, V(i-l-j), 0 (adu lt concepts)The Emperor and His Brother: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2905.49 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., V(i-m-g)The End of August (videotape): Jaconson/Sharp, U.S., 105 mins, TCN, Ofadult themes)Hired Guns: Golden Harvest Prod., Hong Kong, 2679 m, Grand Film Corp., V(f-l-g)The Imp: Century Motion Pictures, Hong Kong, 2880 m, Golden Reel Films, O(horror)Kung Fu of Dammah Styles: Wei Kuen Film Co., Hong Kong, 2632.32 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., V(f-l-g)La battaglia dei mods: Ultra-Roxy, Italy, 2521 m, Cinema Italia, V(i-m-j)Magnificent Ruffians: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2893.29 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vfi-m-g)Modern Problems: Twentieth Century-Fox, U.S., 2459.62 m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., L(i-m -g), Ofsexual allusions)Neighbours: Zanuck/Brown, U.S., 2621.47 m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., O fadult concepts)The Notorious Eight: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong,2899.08 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Sfi-m -g)A Notorious Ex Monk: Projections Ltd, Hong Kong, 2439 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, Vff-l-g)Olimpiada 40 (16mm): Zespoe Filmowy, Poland, 1190 m, Polish Consulate-General, O fadult concept) Pit of Loneliness: Arthur Davis Prods, France, 2325 m, Australian Film Institute, Ofadult concept)Reds: Paramount, U.S./Britain, 5186.59 m, Cinema Int'l Corp., Sfi-m -j), O fadult concepts)Rollover: Orion/Warner Bros, U.S., 3154.45 m, Warner Bros (Aust.), Sfi-l-j)The Shaolin Temple: Ghung Yuen Film Co., Hong Kong, 2729 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Shoot the Moon: A. Marshall, U.S., 3393.17 m, Cinema Int’l Corp., Lfi-m -i), O fem otional stress)A Slap on the Face: Armen Film, Armenia, 2533 m,Ararad Enterprises, Ofem otional stress)line semaine de vacances: Sara Films, France,2788.8 m, G.L. Film Enterprises, L(i-m -j), O fadult con-CGptS)Union City: Kinesis, U.S., 2219 m, Rock Film Dist., Ofsexual allusions)The Unseen: A. Unger, U.S., 2370.48 m, Star Video, Vfi-m-g)W bialy dzien (In Broad Daylight) (16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 1091 m, Polish Consulate-General, Vfi-m-j) Wizja lokalna 1901 (Inspection of the Scene of Action)(16mm): Film Polski, Poland, 1061 m, Polish Consulate-General, Vfi-m-j)

Films examined in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and States’ film censorship legislation are listedbelow. 3-

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying non-“G” films appears hereunder:Frequency Explicitness/lntensity PurposeInfrequent Frequent Low Medium High Justified GratuitousS (Sex) ................ i f I m h j gV (Violence)......................... i f I m h~ j gL (Language) ..................... / f I m h j gO (Other) ............................ ; f I m h j g

For Restricted Exhibition (R)Bewitched: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 3017.38 m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., Vff-m-g), O(occultism)Cherry Hill High: Cannon Int’l, U.S., 2370.48 m, Video Classics, Sff-l-g)Electric Blue 007 (videotape): Electric Blue, Britain, 60 mins, Electric Blue (A’asia), Sff-m-g)Flush (videotape): The Honey Co., U.S., 92 mins, Pacific Telecasters (Aust.), L ff-m -g ), O fsexua l allusions)Forced Entry (videotape): J. Sotos/H. Scarrell, U.S., 84 mins. Pacific Telecasters (Aust.), Vfi-m-g)Great British Striptease (videotape): Amaranth Prod., Britain, 59 mins, Videocraft, Ofstriptease)Grocery Boy (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 548.6 m, 14th Mandolin, Sff-m-g)H.O.T.S.: Great American Dream Machine Movie Co., U.S., 2593 m, GUO Film Dist., Sfi-m-g), Ofnudity) Jeilo Wrestling (videotape): Scripglow, Britain, 60 mins, Electric Blue (A’asia), Sfi-m-g)Kill Squad : Summa Vista, U.S., 2249 m, Roadshow Dist., Vff-m-g)Lady Stay Dead: Ryntare Prods, Australia, 2523.56 m, Ryntare Prods, Vfi-m-g), Ofnudity)Latex Slaves (videotape): Centurian Publishing Co., U.S., 60 mins, G. Mecak, Ofbondage equipment)The Leather Mistress (videotape): Centurian Publishing Co., U.S., 60 mins, G. Mecak, Ofbondage equipment)Not a Love Story — A Film About Pornography(16rhm): National Film Board of Canada, Canada, 756.93 m, National Film Board of Canada, Sfi-h-j), Ofadult theme)122 Rue de Provence (French language version) (videotape): Orffie Arts, France, 96 mins, Star Video, Sfi-m -j)Paul Raymond’s Erotica (videotape): Paul Raymond Organization, Britain, 85 mins, Electric Blue (A’asia), Sff-m -g)Pay Off: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2775 m, Grand Film Corp., Sfi-m-g), Vff-l-g)Penelope’s Education (16mm): E. Everett, U.S., 592.38 m, 14thMandolin, Sff-m-g) fRevenge in Hong Kong: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2539.82 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, Vff-m-g) Revenge of the Corpse: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2659.45 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vff-m-g)Sensual Pleasure: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2778.96 m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., Sfi-m-g), Vfi-m-g)Sharky’s Machine: Orion Pictures, U.S., 3319.03 m, Warner Bros (Aust.), Lff-m -g), Vff-m-g), Ofdrugs) Sweeping Call Girls: Lomar Prods, Hong Kong 2298 m. Golden Reel Films, Sff-m-g), Ofnudity) Visiting Hours: C. Heroux, Canada, 2807 m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Vff-m-g)

Films Registered With EliminationsFor Restricted Exhibition (R)The Caper (16mm): Billboard, U.S., 658.32 m, 14th Mandolin, Sff-m-g)Deletions: 18.8 m (1 min. 43 secs)Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g)Teenage Swingers (16mm) (pre-censor cut version) (a): T. Taylor, U.S., 603.46 m, G.L. Film Enterprises, Sff-m-g)Deletions: 1.3 m (6 secs)Reason for deletions: Sfi-h-g)(a) Previously shown on December 1981 list.

Films Refused RegistrationChopstix (pre-censor cut version): W. Dancer, U.S.,2097.3 m, Cinerama Films, Sff-h-g)I Feel It Rising (videotape) (a): D. Eagle, U.S., 79 mins, Anjohn Int’l, Sff-h-g)Ladies Night (videotape): H. Lewis, U.S., 65 mins, Star Video. Sff-h-g)The Master and Ms Johnson (pre-censor cut version): Belladonna Films, U.S., 1852.8 m, Cinerama Films, Sff-h-g)One for the Money (16mm): Tudor & Taylor, U.S., 610.5 m, 14th Mandolin, Sff-h-g)Sensual Fire (pre-censor cut version): Diamond Films, U.S., 2345.8 m, A.Z. Associated Theatres, Sfi-h-g) Splendor in the Sack (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 592 m,

_14th Mandolin, Sff-h-g)'Upright Action (16mm): Venus Prods, U.S., 598.5 m, 14th Mandolin, Sfi-h-g)White Shadow Episode 33 Gonna Fly Now (16mm): M. Tinker, U.S., 585 m, Columbia Pictures Television, Ofdrugs)(a) Previously shown on October 1981 list as

Temptations.

Films Board of ReviewTeenage Sex Kitten (a): Superbitch Prods, U.S.,1716.4 m, A.Z. Associated Theatres Decision reviewed: Refusal to register by the Film Censorship Board.

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

(a) Previously shown on December 1981 list.Note: Length of the film Roadgames shown as 2482.03 m (February 1981 list) should read 2715.57 m. Length of the film Scanners shown as 3374.45 m (April 1981 list) should read 2743 m.

February 1982

Films Registered Without EliminationsFor General Exhibition (G)Evening Rain: Shanghai Film Co., China, 2387 m, Comfort Film EnterprisesLand of the Brave: Ming Chi, Taiwan, 2660 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co.Night Crossing: T. Leetch, U.S., 2880.15 m, GUO Film Dist.Sunrise: A Story of Two Humans (16mm): Fox Film, U.S., 1283.49 m, Australian Film Institute Vanessa (16mm): New Part Film, Britain, 650 m, Parra- booksWhat 80 Million Women Want (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 734.99 m, Glenys Rowe Film Dist.Not Recommended for Children (NRC)The Adventure of the Heaven Mouse: Kelly Film (Hong Kong) Co., Hong Kong, 2459.62 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, V(f-l-j)Aolei yilan Parts I & II: Shanghai Film, Hong Kong, 5480.67 m, Comfort Film Enterprises, Vfi-l-j)The Battle for the Republic of China: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2905.49 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vff-l-j)The Flower, The Killer: Lon Sun Film Co., Hong Kong, 2379.41 m. Comfort Film Enterprises, Vff-l-g) Gregory’s Girl: Osprey Films, Britain, 2504 m, GUO Film Dist., Lfi-t-j), Ofnudity)Impetuous Fire: E. Chang, Hong Kong, 2818 m, Golden Reel Films, Vfi-l-j)Maedchen in Uniform (Girls in Uniform) (16mm): Not shown, Germany, 910.51 m, Australian Film Institute, Ofemotional sfressjOccupied Palestine (16mm): D. Koff, Britain, 921.48 m, Parrabooks, Vfi-l-j)Security Unlimited: M. Hue, Hong Kong, 2441 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vfi-l-j)Wedding Bells, Wedding Bells: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong. 2667 m. Grand Fiim Corp., Ofadult concepts)A Wife for Toto: R. Laurenti, Italy, 2029 m, Cinema Italia, Ofadult theme)For Mature Audiences (M)Buddy Buddy: MGM, U.S., 2621.47 m, Cinema Int’l Corp., Lff-m -j), Ofsexual allusion)Cute Foster Sister: S. Hsiao-Ying, Hong Kong, 2788 m, Lilond, Vff-m-g)Empty Suitcases (16mm): B. Gordon, U.S., 548 m, Australian Film Institute, Vfi-m-g), Lfi-m-g)Flesh on Glass (16mm): I. McLaren/Swinburne Institute of Technology, Australia, 460.74 m, Victorian Film Corp., Ofadult concepts)Freedom: Endeavour Communication, Australia,2788.8 m, Roadshow Dist., Vfi-m-g), Lff-m -j)Hard Country: D. Greene/M. Bing, U.S., 2788.8 m, Hoyts Dist., Vfi-m-j), L fi-m -j)Hello Late Homecomers: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2905 m. Grand Film Corp., Vfi-m-g), Ofsexual allusion) The Informer: Bang Bang Film Co., Hong Kong, 2491 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vfi-m-g), Ofnudity) Lonely Hearts: Adams Packer, Australia, 2621.47 m, Adams Packer Film Prod., Sfi-m -j), Ofadult theme) Making Love: A. Adler/D. Melnick, U.S., 2967.58 m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., Ofadult concepts)Mephisto: Hungarofilm, Hungary, 3932.21 m, Rock Film Dist., Sfi-m -j)Mr Big: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2797 m, Grand Film Corp., Vff-l-g), Ofnudity)Return of the Secaucus Seven (16mm): J. Nelson, U.S., 1173.79 m, Valhalla Films, Lfi-m -j), O fadult concepts)Sitting Ducks: M. Dor, U.S., 2352.63 m. New Horizon Films, Sfl-l-j), Lfi-m-g)For Restricted Exhibition (R)The Beast Within: United Artists, U.S., 2620.03 m, United Artists (A’sia), Vff-m-g), Ofhorror)Blonde Velvet (modified version (videotape): D. Eagle, U.S., 49 mins, Anjohn Int’l, Sff-m-g)Channel X (videotape): Red Tape Prods, Britain, 58 mins. Electric Blue (A'sia), Sfi-m-g), Ofnudity)The Club: Verdull Ltd, Hong Kong, 2237 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., Vff-m-g)Confessions of a Sexy Photographer (videotape): Not shown, W. Germany, 72 mins, Photape, Sfi-m-q), Ofnudity)Devil Killer: Golden Sun Film Co., Hong Kong, 2 4 8 2 .0 3 m, C o m fo r t F ilm E n te r p r is e s , Sfi-m-g), Vff-m-g)The Erotic Three (videotape) (a): C. Dewey, U.S., 86 mins. Video Classics, Sfi-m-g)Exoristos stin kentriki leoforo (videotape): Not shown, Greece, 61 mins, Special Broadcasting Service, Sfi-m-g), Ofdrugs)

Concluded on p. 281


Tony W illiam s ta lks about

NEXT OF KIN■ Interview by Scott Murray ■

Next of Kin was originally going to be a horror film in the genre of Texas Chainsaw Massacre — quick turnaround and quickly financed. Michael Heath [scriptwriter], Tim White [co-producer] and myself had been influenced by what Tobe Hooper did with Texas Chainsaw and enjoyed the genre. But when John Carpenter started to make his films, and there was the deluge of Carpenter imitators, the whole thing got very sickening. By the time Friday the 13th had set the

formula for the genre, we had turned completely off that style of film. We were faced with the decision of whether to drop the film completely or go off on another tangent.

It was about that time we were making contact with the U.S., and every time we submitted another draft to contacts over there, we would get replies requesting more violence, more shock, more horror. Finally, an American genre writer said to us, “Look, why don’t you do

what you want to do and make a European-style film. Forget about the U.S. market, because if you are going to make an American horror film, you would be better off to go to the U.S. and use American actors.”

Was your first version a violent film or a send-up?

The original treatm ent was tongue-in-cheek, just like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But something

happens when committing a black comedy idea on paper to the screen. People recoil in horror, and the thought of having to out-do Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is virtually what people were saying we must do, was too much. I just wanted out.

When you say more European than American, how would you define that in terms of genre?

The sort of films I used to enjoy


Tony Williams

When you decided to change directions, did you change scriptwriters?

No, we struggled through ourselves. Maybe my only regret would be that we didn’t completely bury “Sticky Ends” , rather than try to retain elements of it.

What aspects of ‘Sticky Ends’ remain in “Next of Kin”?

in the suspense genre were Les diaboliques, Blood and Roses and The Innocents — in other words, a more subtle, mysterious film, with little explicit violence and more teasing suspense.

Our film has gone through three phases. When we started off as “Sticky Ends”, with money from the New Zealand Film Commission, it was about a catering company of madmen that went around the country poisoning people’s 2 1st birthdays, weddings and such. It was quite funny and violent. Then, it became- slightly more respectable as “Before the Night is Out” , but still definitely Carpenter territory.

By that time, we had approached the New South Wales Film Corporation for funds and their American advisers were trying to force us to become more violent. Finally, we ended up with Filmco, making Next of Kin. Even then, we have been under a lot of pressure to keep the action going, to get more violence into it.

Basically, what I wanted the film to be was a trip, a voyage, where you sat back and got sucked into the mystery, the suspense.

what is working until you see it in a darkened theatre with an audience. Even now, I am quite amazed if someone happens to suddenly jump out of his seat at a point where I had forgotten there was supposed to be a fright.

Some directors, like George Miller, have said that they view this type of film as a kind of cathartic experience. You take the audience close to death, they don’t die, and they feel relieved afterwards. Do you see it in those terms?

I really don’t want to be involved in making genre films, though the attraction of doing one was the manipulative force of the suspense film. It is fun to wave the wand and manipulate the audience, to see whether you can have them falling off their seats.

This type of genre film can be either terribly easy to make — if you just stick with the formula laid down by Friday the 13th, with a violent murder every seven minutes — or an extraordinarily difficult film, if you choose to ignore the formula, the cliches. This is the

I don’t think you can test it until all the elements are together, and by then it is often too late. If I ever do a similar type of film again, which I doubt, I would build into the budget a period of testing after the film is mixed, with enough flexibility to go back and re-cut some areas. When we did test- screen the film to ourselves, people didn’t really get involved because there wasn’t any music and it didn’t have the right effects.

What we did find was that it was very finely balanced. If we put one shot in front of another, a scene would come to life. If we reversed the order, the scene would go flat. It is very hard to gauge what makes the goose-pimples rise.

Perhaps this is the sort of film that is largely made in the editing. You can arrange all the pieces until it creates the right effect, whereas with a straight dramatic film you can’t change the linearity that much . . .

That is true; we spent hours on the editing, and it was interesting

pet fantasies, as if it is their right because the film is “genre” . You feel you are under quite a lot of pressure, not from individuals necessarily, but from groups of people all wanting to go in different directions. I am sure now that it is better to leave the filmmaker alone and encourage personal vision against committee vision.

By “group” do you mean Filmco?

Filmco or anyone. We were calling in script advisers. At one stage we had people who had worked at Crawfords looking at it. They wanted to go towards the logical all the time, and the investors were pushing for more traditional genre elements. But I don’t think audiences want this type of film to be logical. They want to escape, to take an amazing voyage. This is why I realized there was potential to go off into other, bizarre dimensions. By the end of the film, where Linda (Jackie Kerin) is sitting in a cafe, building enormous towers of sugar cubes, and there are ballroom dancers on

Director Tony Williams behind the Arri on location fo r Next o f Kin. It is his second feature, and follows Solo.

I suppose the final revealing of Rita (Bernadette Gibson). I think it is going to work all right, but I would have liked, at that point, to have taken off and gone either totally supernatural or totally schizophrenic. Until the denouement, we avoided all the cliches of the shoulder coming into frame, or the hand with the knife quivering in the shadows. The aim was to create a claustrophobic atmosphere, in which you didn’t really know if things were real or whether the whole thing was imagined by the girl. Then, all hell breaks loose.

It is a very strange kind of film to make because it is not until you get all the elements together, until the effects tracks and the music tracks have been laid, that you really know if the film works 100 per cent. When I saw Halloween the first time, I was on the edge of the seat and had goose-pimples up and down my spine. When I saw the film again at home on 16mm, I thought it was appalling. Suddenly I could see all the tricks and the games, and it had no interest for me beyond that.

In a way, there is a similar process with Next of Kin. We are dealing with people’s fears and frights. And once you have made the film, you really don’t know

hardest film I have been involved with, because you are dealing with something that is supposed to be a mystery, supposed to be suspenseful, but without a strong plot or strong dialogue. You really have to use all the resources of the filmmaking technique to move the audience.

To help determine that audience reaction, are you audience-testing the film?

because Max Lemon, who cut this film, also cut Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave. Lemon said he had gone through similar processes with those films — namely, they really didn’t know what they had until they got into the mixing theatre, and added the atmosphere, pan pipes and so on.

A funny thing about genre films is that because they are fantasy based, people who can influence a production all want to include their

television dancing to Strauss’ “Kaiser Waltz” , the whole world has gone a bit crazy. So, it was a pity anything needed to be explained at all. Maybe the whole thing could have been in her head.

How would you rate other Australian attempts at the suspense genre?

I c a n ’t sp e a k wi th any knowledge, because I don’t think I


Tony Williams

Toby Phillips lines up the Steadicam- mounted camera fo r a shot o f Christina Marshal. Next o f Kin.

have seen any, except Nightmares, which I thought was dreadful. I may be speaking out of turn, but I felt that was an example of the e a s y - t o - m a k e h o r r o r f i lm. However, if you are going to make a film to fill a gap with a certain kind of an audience, then that is probably the way you should go.

I don’t know if our film is going to be successful commercially, because we broke all the rules.

Were you tempted during the shooting to play it safe and show the needle go into Rita’s eye, or have a bit more sex in it?

No. By that time we were aboard the train and going in the direction we wanted to go; we weren’t prepared to deviate.

One thing your commercials and this film have in common is an element of black comedy, such as in the cafe or the talking koala . . .

I believe it is an important part of the whole process of making films and I can’t escape it. In whatever I do, I always have to see the other side of the coin. Steven Spielberg is excellent in this because if he is doing a big spectacular entertainment film, he is brilliant at dropping in the belly laugh at the moment you are least expecting it. It relieves tension and then you rock on again in the direction you were once travelling.

I don’t think there is nearly enough bizarre humor, particularly in Australian films. Sometimes we take ourselves far too seriously.

PRODUCERS

You have mentioned the involvement of Filmco. When did you become involved with a producer?

I was originally involved with Michael Heath and Tim White when it was just going to be a fast turnaround horror film and a bit of a laugh. Then it became obvious it

was going to involve special effects and stunts, and it was going to be bigger than something that could be shot in four weeks. Because Tim, at that stage, hadn’t produced a feature film, one of the conditions of my being involved was that we had another producer who had experience in the finance and legal side. So Tim agreed to involve Robert Le Tet. Robert then became executive producer as well, and really looked after that side of things. He was the strength behind keeping the production together.

How do you see the relationship between a producer and a director?

It changes on every film. Essentially, there are two types of productions; a producer’s film whereby the producer has the inspiration, owns the property, cont ract s the di rec tor and essentially dictates what he wants; and a director’s film where the director has the creative control, which is the way I prefer to work. This is not to say you don’t respect the views of your producer, but

ultimately the film becomes one erson’s vision. I would hate to ave a film re-edited against my

wishes or behind my back.But whatever approach you

adopt, it is essential the director and producer are sure they are making the same film before they start.

It is like a love affaire; you meet, get into bed together, then end up at each other’s throat. You have to survive the highs, the lows, the disasters, the critics, the box-office and so on. It can certainly put a friendship to the test.

One of the problems working with a finance company, when you don’t have your own money, is that you can find yourself getting i nvo l ve d wi th c o m m i t t e e viewpoints. The ideal situation is to be able to work with one producer who understands the needs of the creative side of the business and also has a very good grip on the financial and contractual side. The moment you start to involve more and more people, you begin to dissipate the personal time. I’ve seen too much of that in television


Tony Williams

when I worked at the BBC, and in making commercials, dealing with agencies.

MUSIC

The music is being written by Klaus Schulze and one of the greatest buzzes of the film has been working with him. He saw our film totally in terms of sound, and immediately understood what we were trying to do. He wants to take effects that have been recorded for the film and turn them into music through a computer synthesizer he uses in Germany. It is an experiment, in that we don’t know what we will have until the tapes arrive in the mail.

Why did you choose Schulze?

When we were wrestling with the problem of writing the last version of the script, we found that when we tried to analyze the structural problems but came up against dead ends, a Klaus Schulze record would suddenly dissipate the problems and the way ahead seemed clear. The atmosphere of the music was

what the film was all about. But even at that stage we didn’t consider Klaus writing the music. There were quite a few Australian composers we were interested in, but they weren’t available.

During the shooting of the film, we used Klaus’ music as playback for Jackie Kerin as motivation. Even so, it really wasn’t until we went to post-production that we thought of approaching Klaus. We felt he would be too busy, but he leapt at the chance of doing a suspense genre film.What other films has Schulze done?

Apart from his own recordings, he has done a lot of documentary work. He also worked on The Man Who Fell From Earth and a film with Rainer Werner Fassbinder. He is about to do the music for Paul Mazursky’s The Tempest with John Cassevetes.

What sort of machine does he use?

Basically it is a digital computer. It is the only kind in the world, because it has been specially built for him. Among the electronic composers, he is considered by many to be the most advanced.

aaobi

WwTwnrWWj'

Composer Klaus Schulze at his digital computer.

Linda (Jackie Kerin) walks tentatively up the stairs. Who knows what evil hides at the top? Next o f Kin.

How does he score a film?

The same way as a normal composer. We went througli the film; decided what themes were going to be used and where each theme should begin and end. We then transferred the film to videotape and, at his studio in Berlin, he will project the videotape on to the wall.

In computer music, nothing is written down. He can recall any sound he wants if it is stored on his floppy discs. Once he has found the theme, he can put that into his computer, recalling it later and doing variations of it.

So, from the timings that we have decided, and from having viewed the film, he will then compose a score on the keyboard which will be recorded on tape. In some cases, he will take a sound effect, and from that make a beat. This is then synthesized. When the effect is repeated over and over again, and it eventually becomes a tone, the tone can be stretched into chords. Then, all of a sudden, you can have a Wagnerian chorus — and all you actually started with was the sound of a water-hose splatting on and off.

It h as been so fascinating working with Klaus, and I would really like to do another film, only this time start with his involvement

during pre-production. All too often we leave the soundtrack until the film is shot. But you can consider the soundtrack from the start. And with computers, it is just amazing just what the possibilities are, because you don’t necessarily need an orchestra. All you need is one man and his machine. You can spend more time playing with ideas.

In fact, if we do another film, there is no reason why Klaus can’t travel with his computer. As long as he can lock into a s tudio somewhere along the line, he can just sit in front of the film and create any effect or sound you want.

LIGHTINGSTYLE

The film has a distinctive visual style, particularly in the lighting . . .

Yes. Well, the other buzz on the film was working with Gary Hansen, who shot it, Toby Phillips, who was the Steadicam operator, and Noel MacDonald, who built the special crane rig for the end shot. On the visual side of the film, those three people did

Concluded on p. 291


THE JOHN BARRY GROUP...is pleased to announce that as from June 1,1982 their appointment as exclusive importers/distributors throughout Australia of all Arri

products manufactured by Arnold & Richter of Munich.

GROUP • AUSTRALIA

Head Office:105 Reserve Road, Artarmon NSW 2064. Sydney Australia.Telephone: (02) 439 6955 Telex: 24482

_ Cable Address: Barrysydney

Rental Only: John Barry Group Pty. Ltd.82 Reserve Road, Artarmon Also in Melbourne (03) 699 9055 NSW 2064. Adelaide (08) 211 8444Telephone: (02) 439 6955 Perth (09) 325 5233

Interactive Video DiscThe future use o f video disc, and producing m ateria l fo r the L aser-optical system in Australia.

The Sony advertisement above that appeared last year in various U.S. magazines and newspapers stated more than just Sony’s decision to put its efforts behind the promotion of video cassette (although Sony had considerab le development money involved in producing optical video-disc players). The advertisement reflected the video-disc systems’ promoters’ main problem in gaining the widespread sales that they had gambled hundreds of millions of dollars upon, which was an inability to convince the public of the superiority of a replay-only video system that could only show a limited catalogue of software consisting almost entirely of entertainment movies.

Combined with a confusing battle for market share by three different systems (see inset boxes), there seemed little hope of any of the systems surviving based on home sales alone. All the manufacturers were involved in applying the v ideo-d isc research and development towards what seemed a surer market of industrial and other applications. Philips, which developed the laser-optical technique, has worked with Sony to produce a high-quality Compact Digital Audio Disc (CDAD), and the proponents of the VHD system have announced a decoder that allows digitally-encoded audio discs (AHD) to be played on their video players. IBM has taken its experience in the Discovision partnership into the rapidly-growing area of computer storage.

With the unstable consumer market and no sign of a release of PAL standard

equipment suitable for Australian use, the announcement last year that Melbourne video production house AAV- Australia was producing, in quantity, video discs for General Motors-Holden dealers around Australia seemed like just another example of out-of-step technology. When a growing body of information from overseas pointed the way toward the educational and instructional use of interactive video systems, I asked Andrew Pittendrigh, the manager of the Communications Group at AAV, for a demonstration of the system.

The story of how AAV came to produce the first Australian video disc also gives some idea of the rapid change in video technologies . . .

When AAV started in 1975, the idea was to impress everyone with a display of the latest state-of-the-art equipment. We introduced the first video projection equipment, the Advent machines; we promoted the laser tape to film transfer system at Image Transform, which is still an industry standard; and we introduced the first video-disc system to be released commercially, the Teldec. This was a joint venture of Telefunken and Decca, hence the name. But the system didn’t survive.

There is not a lot of difference between the Teldec and the system RCA has used in its system. RCA uses a needle-in-the- groove type disc that has to be enclosed in a protective cardboard sleeve, because if you touch it with your fingers it

eventually won’t play back. Also, the Teldec played 15 minutes a side, while the RCA plays an hour.

The Teldec only lasted six months on the market in Germany, and we had a machine here at that time to show the direction That electronics was headed, although we knew the Teldec had serious limitations. One of the people we had here was Theodore Konat, an American communications expert, who gave a talk about the future developments of optical video disc, which have since come true.

We were pushed into our involvement with optical discs by GMH, although we were keeping a watching brief on it. Bob Fine, who was brought out as a temporary chief executive when we first set up, and whom we still retain as a consultant, was keeping us informed with developments. Our own engineering people also go overseas regularly to keep up with developments, but we didn't believe that we would really be involved in video-disc production for a number of years yet.

In September 1980, Kevin Hoolihan, the GMH sales promotion manager, came and looked around at what we were doing in audio-visual and video, and he seemed particularly interested in the frame-accurate computer editing, i didn’t realize what was going on in his mind at the time, when he said he was investigating a project and he would be back. He went over to the U.S. to Disco- vision and had a look at how General Motors was using video disc, because GM was the first big network user in the world.

As I understand it, Pioneer was by contract not allowed to sell its players to the public until it had filled the GM order. GM was after a training and information medium that would allow it to leap ahead of the old Super 8 system it was using and leap ahead of video cassette. GMH here said, “Yes it is working, it does have more to offer than video cassette, and if a way could be found to get over the problem of producing in PAL and finishing on NTSC then it is a goer.”

Kevin Hoolihan came to us then and asked if we could do it? We sent two of our engineers over to the U.S. to study the process, and when they came back we went into a huddle with GMH and said,

“ If you give us some real indications of

Andrew Pittendrigh with a video-disc player.

your intentions, we believe we can do it. We would then be prepared to invest in the considerable amount of equipment to allow us to be able to verify, once we have gone through standards conversion, all the frames and write a computer program for it and then play back on tape what we have programmed into it.”It took us about six months to solve

that problem and early in 1981 we said we could go. From the time GMH said go ahead, it was less than a week before we were shooting.

What was on the first disc?

Virtually a straight consumer disc. On one side George Paterson’s had produced a film of the Repco Round Australia Rally. It was a really nice production. Side two was made up of a number of sections of existing material on light commercial vehicles, and we shot a segment on brake pad replacement on the Commodore. So, you had all three uses on the disc: a straight consumer presentation, a general salesman’s product information arrd technical training.

GMH then used that as a sell-in disc to get the-dealers to invest in the equipment, with a demonstration of actual use and not just a promise. GMH hoped to get about 250 dealers in the network, but they are in the area of about 300 in the first year, which makes GMH the biggest single network of users outside of the U.S.

Some of the networks in the U.S. are enormous — for example, Avon has a 26,000 player network, IBM also has a pretty big network — and for a lot of industries it has become a way of life, it is not expensive when compared to the other available technologies and, once you get into the three to four hundred disc order, they are considerably cheaper than video-cassette copies.

Most of the comments I have heard about the laser discs say that the major problems are in the pressing of the discs

Yes. The original partners in Disco- vision were IBM, Music Corporation of America (MCA) and Pioneer. Quite recently Pioneer bought out its partners, and IBM has gone off to use the technology for use as storage for computer data. Pioneer has upgraded the facilities considerably, if you can take the discs we get now as an example. They started by producing discs in their factory in Japan at Kofu, which were considerably better than the U.S. product. They shut down the U.S. factory for a short period and installed new equipment, which is now running.

One of the problems of the early video-disc production was to improve the yield of good discs as against rejects, even after they had launched it on the market. That was where some of their financial problems came, because they couldn’t get the yield of acceptable discs that the Japanese have been able to.

The audio quality as demonstrated is excellent. Do the GMH discs use stereo tracks?

All the GMH discs are produced with


New Producís and Processes

mono audio, although we are capable of producing stereo tracks. The reason is the NTSC conversion at ATN-7 in Sydney doesn’t have the capacity to handle dual audio tracks. If stereo is required, we would have to send film to the U.S. with stereo double-head soundtracks to be transferred to tape there. In that case, we would lose some of the control, which GMH doesn’t want to do.

Does AAV produce all the material for the GMH discs?

We don’t necessarily produce all the individual segments, but all the mastering is done here.

Are all the GMH discs for use by the dealers?

Yes, but they are often a mixture of material for showing to consumers and for sales training, or technician workshop training. They try not to mix them up too much to reduce the risk of consumers seeing something that they shouldn’t be or are not interested in.

For cost effectiveness, you have to mix them up a little bit to make maximum use of disc space. Almost all the discs are double-sided. I can remember one where the material for the second side was not ready in time and was released single-sided.

Some of the specific functions of the keys could be confusing to the average user, but most of the usual video cassette recorder (VCR) functions operate the same way. I noticed there was sometimes a “jitter” on the freeze frame . . .

The reason that the freeze frame is unstable is a result of the two video fields that are interlaced to make the image. The machine has trouble deciding which field to choose for a stable picture, but it is a true still frame.

One revolution of the disc is one frame with two fields. The VHD disc, I think, reads four frames in still mode and is very distracting if there is movement in the picture. On the later' model optical machines in still frame, you have “still field” which stops any of that jitter.

As for the other keys, there is a detachable plastic cover that can prevent the inexperienced user from accidentally hitting the wrong keys. If you hit the Index frame in conjunction with other keys, it will give a different result, but by pressing Index alone you will go straight to the Index on that disc.

The latest disc players have the maximum search time down to one-and-a- half seconds; this player takes about four-and-a-half seconds. The training

psychologists tell us that there is a decided down curve after eight seconds; if the function takes longer than that, people lose interest. Nothing on this machine takes as long as that.

When you are in Play mode and you hit Scan, you see the material at about 60 times the normal speed. If you hit the Stop button first, then Scan, it goes slower at about 6 times normal,

Does the need for a short response time affect your programming?

Formatting the disc does not always involve putting the main Index at the head and questions at the end. The questions are often put amongst the material so that if it needs to be reviewed there is no pause, and the disc is programmed to skip over these areas until all the material is finished.

As an alternative, instead of repeating the section when a wrong answer is given, you can have a routine that says, “You have chosen number two but you will see that if you do that such and such will happen.” On an IBM example we have, they have actually programmed a 30-second piece for each of the answers given. If you have say six questions with say three alternatives, you could have 18 little half-minute segments.

It is a fairly extravagant way to do it, because it uses up disc space, but it allows you to give everyone a different response pitched at the level of their misunderstanding of the question.

AAV is setting the standards for the final master, but, on some of the material you have shown me, there is some poor quality 16mm footage that was obviously included because of its information content. Without the restrictions of complying to the set broadcast standards, would this open the way to cheaper disc program production on low -band cassette form ats, for example?

Our responsibility to GMH is for overall quality control, and if you have the capacity on the disc for high-quality images then you try and make sure that your base material is good. It is a fine and arguable line that you have to draw; you have to be familiar with the degradation that the NTSC standards conversion will make, and from that point on there is not much you lose on the disc, even though you do go through another process at the end.

What we are likely to say to other people is what we said to GMH: “ If you have other material you have produced but not necessarily for video disc, let’s look at it first to see if it’s suitable.” There were some training slides that Isuzu had

done in Japan that we have used after a bit of playing around, while some of them we had to re-do. So you can often adapt existing audio-visual material. You couldn’t discard out of hand U-matic material, for example.

The material that is assembled at this stage, according to the needs of the client, then undergoes a standards conversion. You mentioned the difficulty that the different frame rate of 30 frames a second causes. How do you check that you haven’t lost or gained frames?

From the NTSC conversion we produce a VHS-NTSC dub that has all the frames identified. This lets us at least check it, even though we can’t actually run the program. The ability to see every frame through allows us to write the program for Pioneer video to incorporate in the final microprocessor information stamped into the final-disc. We write what should happen at each frame, whether it should’ stop for 10 seconds or branch off to a different section, or repeat, etc. Once we have made up that chart, it is almost like typing in the details at Pioneer. All it requires of us is a knowledge of computer programming techniques, while they do the actual electronics.

When Kevin Hoolihan went to Disco- vision and said that he wanted to produce here and end up oh an NTSC disc, and be able to verify the result before going into production, the Discovislon people tried to talk him out of it, saying it couldn’t be done. They said he would have to wait for PAL systems. Kevin is a fairly persistent fellow and was determined to get on to it, knowing it was so much better for the GMH applications.

I think GMH has been amazed that we have been so successful. GMH has problems dealing with the NfSC customers in an NTSC market and to worry about being frame accurate with the added problem of a conversion from PAL, they just didn’t think it would work.

Do you have any information about a PAL video-disc introduction?

Nine images from a GMH training video disc.

The people at Pioneer say that they can’t see it happening here inside two years, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t under that. We know the plant in Kofu is now capable of producing PAL discs and is doing so for the introduction; secondly, the consumer response to purchase of video-disc players has been poor, due to the economic climate and the acceptance of VCRs. This has been balanced by the growth in industrial areas and for data storage, so they are reorganizing their energies into those areas.

This whole technology has given rise to many things. You might have seen details recently of the new Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) audio discs, which use the same technique of a laser reading small pits pressed into the disc. In the computer applications, they can store more information and read it faster than on floppy disc.

The gas lasers used in these players are expensive to produce and I have read that the manufacturers are subsidizing the cost of these in the hope of

Laser-opticalPhilips developed the system and released it through its U.S. affiliate Magnavox in 1978. It uses a low-powered gas laser that is aimed by servo- controlled mirrors and tracked across the underneath surface of a reflective metal-coated disc. Small pits in the surface alter the reflection of the laser which is read by a photoconductor and the digital signal is then converted to a television signal. The disc has a protective plastic coating that allows it to be handled, and dust and scratches on the surface do not affect the image. The speed of the discs used for long playing films, etc., changes from the outside to the inside spirals, and the discs used for interactive programming run at a faster speed with one frame per revolution and have a 30-minute capacity. The discs can store more than 14 billion bits of information, or about 48,600 separate frames. They carry high-quality stereo audio tracks and, because there is no stylus contact, can hold a freeze frame indefinitely. Manufacturers who have shown prototypes or produced laser machines include Philips, Pioneer, Sanyo, Sony (some industrial models) and Hitachi.


Publicationsfrom CINEM A PAPERSSOON FOR RELEASE ORDER NOW

The Documentary Film-ri 1 nr» r» r\ o n it m r o pw om nl oni'nDocumentary films occupy a special

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

The documentary film is also the mainstay of the Australian film industry. More time, more money and more effort goes into making documentaries in this country than any other film form — features, shorts or animation.

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

ContentsThe History of the Documentary:A World ViewInternational landmarks, key figures, major movements

The Developm ent of the Documentary in AustraliaA general history of the evolution of the documentary film in Australia, highlighting key films, personalities and events.

AustraliaDocumentary ProducersAn examination of the various types of documentaries made in Australia, and who produces them. A study of government and independent production. The aims behind the production of documentaries, and the various film forms adopted to achieve the desired ends. This part surveys the sources of finance for documentary film here and abroad.

The MarketplaceThe market for Australian documentary films, here and abroad. This section examines broadcast television, pay television, theatrical distribution, video sales and hire, box-office performances and ratings.

Making a DocumentaryA series of case studies examining the making of documentaries. Examples include large budget documentary series for television; one-off documentaries for television and theatrical release; and educational and instructional documentaries.

Each case study examines, in detail, the steps in the production of the documentary, and features interviews with the key production, creative and technical personnel involved.

The Australian Documentary: Themes and ConcernsAn examination of the themes, pre-occupations and film forms used by Australian documentary producers and directors.

Repositories and PreservationA survey of the practices surrounding the storage and preservation of documentary films in Australia. Comparisons of procedures here and abroad.

The FutureA look at the future for documentary films. The impact of new technology as it affects production, distribution and marketing. A forward look at the marketplace and the changing role of the documentary.

Producers and Directors ChecklistA checklist of documentary producers and directors currently working in Australia.

Useful InformationReference information for those dealing with, or interested in, the documentary film. This section will include listings of documentary buyers, distributors, libraries, festivals, etc.

Published by Cinema Papers in association with the Victorian Film Corporation.

Please send me [....I copies of The Documentary Film in Australia @ $9.95.Cheques, money orders or Bankcard only.

Name

Address

Postcode

Bankcard No. [ZI d i ED di CH CZ EZ CH I II II II II If IExpires / /

Total amount enclosed: $

Signature

Make cheques or money orders payable to Cinema Papers, 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne 3051 Telephone: (03) 329 5983.Allow 4 weeks for processing.

1

AUSTRALIAN

MOTION PICTURE YEARBOOK

1981/82

AUSTRALIAN

MOTION PICTUREf y ea r b o o k

AU STRA LIAN

MOTION PICTURE YEARBOOK

1983Edited by Peter Beilby

and Ross Lansell

",.. an invaluable reference for anyone with an interest — vested or altruistic. — in the continuing film renaissance down under . . . ”

Variety

“The most useful reference book for me in the past year. . . ”

Ray Stanley Screen International

“The Australian Motion Picture Yearbook is a great asset to the film industry in this country.- We at Kodak find it invaluable as a reference aid for the industry. ”

David Wells Kodak

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

The Australian

“Anyone interested in Australian films, whether in the industry or who just enjoys watching them, will find plenty to interest him in this book. ”

The Sydney Sun-Herald

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

The Melbourne Herald

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

Mike Walsh Hayden Price Productions

“The 1981 version of the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook is not only bigger, it’s better — as glossy on the outside as too many Australian films try to be and as packed with content as many more Australian films ought to be . . . ”

The Sydney Morning Herald

“I have been receiving the Cinema Papers Motion Picture Yearbook for the past two years, and always find it to be full of interesting and useful information and facts. It is easy to read and the format is set out in such a way that information is easy to find. I consider the Yearbook to be an asset to the office. ”

Bill Gooley Colorfilm

.. another good effort from the Cinema Papers team, and essential as a desk-top reference for anybody interested in our feature film industry. ”

The Adelaide Advertiser

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

The third edition of the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook has been totally revised and updated.

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

As in the past, all entrants in Australia’s most comprehensive film and television industry directory have been contacted to check the accuracy of entries, and many new categories have been added.

A new series of profiles has been compiled and will highlight the careers of director Peter Weir, composer Brian May, distributor/exhibitor David Williams, art director David Copping and actor Mel Gibson.

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

OUT OCTOBER — ORDER NOWPlease send me *— 1 copies of the 1983 Motion Picture Yearbook @ $19.95 plus $1.55 postage and handling — total: $21.50.Outside Australia: $35 (surface mail); $45 (airmail).

Name ........................... ..........................................................

Address............. ................................ ..................................

Enclosed Australian $.............. ..............Note: All Remittances in Australian dollars only.Please make cheques or money orders out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 644 Victoria Street,North Melbourne, 3051.Telephone: (03) 329 5983Telex: AA 30625 and quote “Cinema Papers ME230”

ifl Bankcard No. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Postcode Expires Signature

2

Fill out order form fo r Australian TV on page 8 o f this specml insert,

CINEMA PAPERSin association with Thomas Nelson

AUSTRALIAN TV The firs t 25 yearsrecords, year by year, all the important television events. Over 600 photographs, some in full color, recall forgotten images and preserve memories of programmes long since wiped from the tapes.

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

AUSTRALIAN TV takes you back to the time when television for most Australians was a curiosity — a shadowy, often soundless, picture in the window of the local electricity store. The quality of the early programmes was at best unpredictable, but still people would gather to watch the Melbourne Olympics, Chuck Faulkner reading the news, or even the test pattern!

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

$14.95Then came The Mavis Bramston Show. With

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

AUSTRALIAN TV is an entertainment, a delight, and a commemoration of a lively, fastgrowing industry.

3

2o8 pps, 28cm x 20.5cm ( i i" x 8”)

In this major work on the Australian film industry’s dramatic rebirth, 12 leading film writers combine to provide

a lively and entertaining critique. Illustrated with 265 stills, including 55 in full color, this book is an invaluable record

for all those interested in the N ew Australian Cinema.

The chapters: The Past (Andrew Pike), Social Realism (Keith Connolly), Comedy (Geoff Mayer), Horror and Suspense (Brian McFarlane), Action and Adventure (Susan Dermody), Fantasy (Adrian Martin), Historical Films (Tom Ryan), Personal Relationships and Sexuality (Meaghan Morris), Loneliness and Alienation (Rod Bishop and

Fiona Mackie), Children’s Films (Virginia Duigan), Avant-garde (Sam Rohdie).

$14.95

4

ù

Ù lkIn November last the Film and Television Production Association of Australia and

the New South Wales Film Corporation brought together 15 international experts to discuss film financing, marketing, and distribution of Australian films in the 1980s with producers involved in the film and television industry.

The symposium was a resounding success.Tape recordings made of the proceedings have been transcribed and edited by

Cinema Papers, and published as the Rim Expo Seminar Report.Copies can be ordered for $25 each.

ContributorsArthur AbelesChairman, Filmarketeers Ltd (U S.)Barbara D. BoyleExecutive Vice-President, and Chief Operating Officer, New World Pictures (U.S.)Ashley BooneWorldwide Marketing and Distribution Head, Ladd Company (U.S.)Mark DamonPresident, Producers Sales Organization (U.S.)Michael FuchsSenior Vice-President, Programming, Home Box Office (U.S.)Samuel W. GelfmanIndependent Producer (U.S.)Klaus HellwigPresident, Janus Film Und Fernsehen (Germany)Lois LugerVice-President, Television Sales, Avco Embassy Pictures Corporation (U.S.)Professor Avv. Massimo Ferrara-SantamariaLawyer (Italy)Mike MedavoyExecutive Vice-President, Orion Pictures (U.S.)Simon O. OlswangSolicitor, Brecker and Company (Britain)Rudy PetersdorfPresident and Chief Operating Officer,Australian Films Office Inc. (U.S.)Barry SpikingsChairman and Chief Executive, EMI Film and Theatre Corporation (Britain)Eric WeissmannPartner, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Berkowitz and Selvin Harry UflandPresident, The Ufland Agency (U.S.)

ContentsTheatrical ProductionThe Package: Two PerspectivesPerspective I: As Seen by the Buyer(i) Partial versus complete packaging, or

starting from scratch with an idea.(ii) Evaluating for different markets, different

costs (budgeting).Speakers: Barry Spikings: Mike Medavoy

Perspective II: As Seen by the SellerThe role of the agent in packaging.Speaker: Harry Ufland

Theatrical Production Business and Legal Aspects(i) Sources of materials (published, original

screenplays, etc.).(ii) Forms of acquisition agreements and/or

writer's agreements.(¡ii) Talent agreements (“ pay or play” defer

ments, “ going rates” , approvals).(iv) Insurance.(v) Guild and union requirements (foreign and

domestic production).(vi) S ub s id ia ry righ ts . P ub lish ing m usic,

merchandising, etc.Speaker: Eric Weissmann

Distribution in the United States(i) Mapping the distribution sales campaign

When and where to open. How to allocate advertising budgets. Number of theatres. -70mm and stereo. Reissues. Ancillary markets — hold back for pay and free television.

(ii) Exhibition terms. Advances and guarantees; split of box-office (90-1 0 with “ floor” “ house-nut", etc.); blind bidding; policing.

Speaker: Ashley Boone

Producer/Distributor RelationshipTerms: Differences where distributor financed production. How d is tribu to r expenses are recouped. Distributor fees. Advertising commitment, if any. Outside sales representative. Speaker: Barbara Boyle

Distribution Outside the United StatesDistribution terms. Relationship and terms with sub-distributors and exhibitors. Recoupment of expenses. C ross-co lla te ra liz ing te rrito ries Dubbing. CensorshipSpeakers:Arthur Abeles: Klaus Hellwig(Northern European perspective); Massimo Ferrara (Italian and European perspective).

Television Production and DistributionProduction for network or syndication Deficit financing. Tape versus film. Licensing “ off-network". United States and foreign. Commercial versus public broadcasting Speaker; Lois Luger

Financing of Theatrical Films Major StudiosControl, approvals, overhead, over-budget provisions, total or partial financing. Negative pick-up Speaker: Rudy Petersdorf

Financing of Theatrical Films Independent StudiosRise of independent financing. Tax motivated and otherwise. Completion financing.Speaker: Sam Gelfman

Presale of RightsSeparating rights by media. Pay television free television (network syndication).Speaker. Michael Fuchs

Presale by TerritoryAdvantages and problems. Interim and completion financing. Term of distribution rights. Speaker: Mark Damon

Multi-National and Other Co-ProductionsAvailability of subsidies. Treaties. Tax incentives. Government investments.Speaker: Simon Olswang

Fill out order form fo r the Film Expo Seminar Report on page 8 o f this special insert

5

BACK ISSUESTake advantage o f our special offer and catch up on you r missing issues. M ultiple copies less than half-price!

Number 1 January 1974David Williamson. Ray Harryhausen. Peter Weir. Gillian Armstrong. Ken G. Hall. Tariff Board Report. Antony I. Ginnane. The Cara That Ate Paris.

Number 2 April 1974Violence in the Cinema. Alvin Purple- Frank Moor- house. Sandy Harbutt. Film U n d e r A ftertd e. Nicholas Roeg. Between Wars.

C M

Number 3 July 1974John P a p a d o p o lo u s . Willis O’Brien. The Mc- Donagh Sisters. Richard Brennan. Luts Bunuei. The True Story of Eskimo Nell

Numbers March-April 1975Jennings Lang. Byron Haskin.-Surf Films. Brian Probyn. Sunday Too Far Away. Chartes Chaovel. index' Vokime 1

Number 9June-July 1976Miros Form an. Miktos Jancso. Luchino Visconti. Robyn Spry. Oz. Mad Dog Morgen, jean Long, index: Volume 2

Number 10September-October1976Nagisa Oshima. PHIlippe Mora. Gay Cinema. John HeySr. Krzysztof Tanusst. M arco Ferreri. M arco Bellòcchio.

Number 11 January 1977Emile de Antonio. Australian Film Censorship. S am A rk o ff . R o m an Polanski. The Picture Show Man. Don’s Party. Storm Boy.

. ill

'Wm* wNumber 12 April 1977Kenneth Loach. Tom Hay- don. Bert Deling. Piero Tosi. John Scott. John Dankworth. The Getting of W is d o m . Jo u rn ey Among Women.

Number 13 July 1977Louise Malle. Paul Cox. John Power. Peter Sykes. Bernardo Bertolucci. F.J. Holden, in Search of Anna.Index: Volume- 3

c h u c j m a

Number 14 October 1977Phil Noyce. Eric Rohmer. John Huston. Blue Fire L a d y . S u m m e r f ie ld . Chinese Cinema.

Number 15 January 1978Tom Cowan, Francois Truffaut. Delphirte Seyrig. The Irishman. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. Sri Lankan Cinema. The Last Wav’s.

Number 16 Aprii-June 1978Patrick. Swedish Cinema. John D uigan. Steven Spielberg. Dawn! Mouth to Mouth. Filrrr Periodicals.

Number 17 .Aug ust-September 1978Bill Bain. Isabelle Huppert. Polish Cinema. The Night the Prowler. Pierre Rissient. Newsfront. Film Study Resources.Index: Volume 4

Number 18October-November1978John Lamond. Dimboola. Indian Cinem a. S o n ia ' B o rg . A la in T a n n e r . Cathy’s Child. The Last Tasmanian.

Number 19January-February1979A n to n y I. G in n a n e . Jeremy Thomas. Blue Fin. A ndrew S a rris . Asian C in e m a . S p o n s o re d Documentaries.

Number 20 March-April 1979Ken Cam eron. French Cinema. Jim Sharman. My Brilliant Career. Film Study Resources. The Night the Prowler.

Number 21 May-June 1979Mad Max. Vietnam on Film. Grendel, Grendel, G rendel. David Hem - mings. The Odd Angry Shot. Box-Office Grosses. Snapshot.

Number 22 July-August 1979Bruce Petty. Albie Thoms. Newsfront. Film Study R e s o u rc e s . K o s ta s . Money Movers. The Australian Film and Te le vision School.Index: Volume 5

m a ß c e s i» «

M

Number 23September-October1979A ustra lian Televis ion . Last of the Knucklemen. W o m en F ilm m a k e rs . Japanese Cinem a. My B rilliant Career. Tim . Thirst. Tim Burstall -

i

w .

Number 24 December 1979 - January 1980Brian Trenchard Smith. Palm Beach. Brazilian Cinema. Jerzy Toeplitz. Community Television. Arthur Hiller.

Number 25 February-March 1980Chain Reaction. David P uttnam . Censorship . Stir. Everett de Roche. Touch and Go. Film and Politics.

Number 26 April-May 1980The Films of Peter Weir. Charles Joffe. Harlequin. Nationalism in Australian Cinema. The Little Conv ic tIndex: Volume 6

fftffÿs/flf

Number 27 June-July 1980The New Zealand Film Industry. The Z Men. Peter Yeldham. Maybe This Time. Donald Richie. G r e n d e l , G r e n d e l , Grendel.

Number 28Augu st- September1980The Films of Bruce Beres- ford. Stir. Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals. Breaker Morant. Stacy K e a c h . R o a d g a m e s .

Number 29October-November1980Bob Ellis. Actors Equity D e b a te . U ri W in d t. C ru is ing .. The Las t Outlaw. Philippine Cinema. The Club.

f

Note: issues number 4, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31, 34 and 35 are out of print.

Number 32May-June1981Judy Davis. David Willipm- son. Richard Rush. Cuban Cinema. A Town Like A lice . F lash G ordon. Channel 0/28.

Number 33 July-August '1981John Duigan on Winter of Our Dreams. Government and the Film Industry. Tax and Film. Chris Noonan. Robert Altman.^Gallipoli. Roadgames. Grendel.

Number 36January-February1982Kevin Dobson, Blow Out, W o m e n in D ra m a , Michael Rubbo, Mad Max 2, Puberty Blues.

1 or 2 copies $4 each 3 or 4 copies $3 each (save $1 per copy)5 or 6 copies $2 each (save $2 per copy)7 or more copies $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)

Number 37 March-April 1982Stephen M acLean on Staratruck, Jacki Weaver, Peter Ustinov, Women in Drama, Reds, Heatwave.

F ill out order form fo r Cinema Papers back issues on page 8 o f this special insert

Lose the burden of lei time and subscribe to

1 year ( 6 issues) $182 years (12 issues) $32 Save $4 on single issue purchase price3 years (18 issues) $46Save $8 on single issue purchase price

% B o u n dS u b s c r ip t io n s ■ V o lu m e s E z ib in d e r s B a c k Is s u e s

6 1 2 sC 18 (to the price of eachZone issues issues issues (each) (each) copy, add the following)

1 . New Zealand $25.20 $46.40 $67.70 $33.30 $19.00 S1.20Niugini (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) p (Surface) (Surface) (Surface)

$32.50 $65.00 $92.70 $36.50 $19.90 S2.80(Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air)

2. Malaysia $25.20 $46.40 $67.60 $33.30 $19.00 $1.20Singapore (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface)»

$36.70 $72.00 $105.30 $37.10 S20.95 $3.50(Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) -

3. Hong Kong $25.20 $46.40 $67.60 $33.30 $19.00 , $1.20IndiaJapan

(Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface)

Philippines $42.60 $80.40 $117.90 $40.00 $22.00 $4.10China (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air)

4. North America $25.20 $46.40 $67.60 $33.30 $19.00 $1.20Middle East Canada

(Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface)

$48.90 $68.80 $130.50 $43.20 $23.95 $5.15(Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air)

5. Britain $25.20 $46.40 $67.60 $33.30 $19.00 $1.20EuropeAfrica

’ (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface) (Surface)

Sth America $53.10 $93.00 $136.80 $45.00 $25.00 $5.85fAir) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air) (Air)

NOTE: A "Surface Air Lift" (air speeded) service is available to Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy and North America. Subscriptions: 6 issues — $43.80; 1 2 issues — $83.60; 18 issues — $1 23.40. BoundVolumes (each) — $35.20. Ezibinders (each) — $20.75. Back Issues — add $4.30 per copy.

BOUND VOLUMES ORDER VOLUME 7 NOW

(numbers 25-30)Volumes 3 (9-12), 4 (13-16), 5 (17-20)

and 6 (21-24) are still available.Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering

Volume 7 contains 5 12 lavishly: illuslrated pages of• Exclusive interviews with

producers, directors, actors and technicians.

• Valuable historical material on Australian film

. production• Film and book reviews.• Production surveys and

reports from , the sets of local and international production.

• Box-office reports and guides to film producers andinvestors. ^ < 3 jp k

• Includes IZpp Index per volumeS TR IC TL Y

L IM IT E D E D IT IO N SPLEASE NOTE: Volum e I (numbers I -4) and Volum e 2

(numbers 5-8) ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE.

EZ1BINDERS

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that an Ezibinder is now available in black with gold embossed lettering to accommodate y.our unbound copies. Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently, or detached if desired. This new binder will accommodate 12 copies. -

Fill out order form overleaffor Cinema Papers Subscriptions G ift Subscriptions, Bound Volumes and Ezibinders.

Subscriptions

G ift Subscriptions

Please enter a subscription for 6 issues ($18) □ 12 issues ($32) □ 18 issues ($46) □

Please start O renew □ my subscription with the next issue. If a renewal,

please state Record No. (Details) Delivered to your door post free

Subscriber’s name

Address ............ .

Postcode

Office use only

NP ok

If you wish to make a subscription to Cinema Papers a g ift cross the box below and We will send a card on your behalf with the first issue.

□ Gift subscription from (name of sender) Overseas rates overleaf $

Back issues 1 or 2 copies $4 each 3 or 4 copies $3 each (save $1 per copy)5 or 6 copies $2 each (save $2 per copy)7 or more copies $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)To order your copies place a cross in the box next to your missing issues, and fill out the form below.If you would like multiple copies of any'one issue, indicate the number you require in the appropriate box.

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □1 2 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 I V 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23^ 24 25

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Note: issues number 4, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31, 34 and 35 26 27 28 29 32 33 36 37 are out of print. OVERSEAS RATES OVERLEAF $

Bound volumesAllow four weeks fo r processing.

Please send me bound volumes of □ 3 (issues 9-12) D 4 (issues 13-16) D 7 (issues 25-30)

at $30 per volume. Volume 5 (issues 17-20) and Volume 6 (issues 21-24) out of print. $

Ezibinders Please send me □ copies of Cinema Papers’ Ezibinder at $15 a binder. $

2. Australian M otion Picture Yearbook(a) Please send me O copies of the 1981 /82 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface; $40 airmail).

(b) Please send me □ copies of the 1980 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface; $40 airmail). $

3. Australian TV, The First 25 YearsPlease send me □ copies of Australian TV at $14.95 a copy (Foreign: $17 surface; $26 airmail). $

4. The New Australian CinemaPlease send me O copies of The New Australian Cinema at $14.95 a copy (Foreign: $17 surface; $26 airmail).

5. Film Expo Seminar ReportPlease send me d copies of the Film. Expo Seminar Report at $25 a copy (Foreign: $27 surface; $32 airmail).

$

$

Name.....

Address

.............. ....... ................... ................ ............. Postcode.................... . T o ta l a m o u n t e n c lo s e d :A ll foreign orders should be accompanied by bank drafts only. A ll quoted figures are in Australian dollars.

NB: Please make all cheques to: Cinema Papers P/L, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne 3051.

Offers close July 31, 1982

New Products and Processes

developing an inexpensive, solid-state laser. Philips has just announced the successful development of a solid-state laser that also has the power to provide a strong-enough burst to provide a burn in. for a record disc system.

I have no doubt that ail the manufacturers are working on record discs. A newsletter we subscribe to in the U.S., which has a pretty good track record, claims also that there is a company in Florida that says it has the investment to set up a disc-pressing plant. If that is the case, although I have my doubts, it indicates the direction that things are moving.

The optical video disc is such an obvious answer to many audio-visual needs, and its ability to store frame-by- frame information that can be accessed faster than you can shuttle tape, gives it immense value for data storage. What are your feelings about the future consumer use of these discs?

My feelings are different to a lot of the

advocates of home video disc. I honestly think that the interactive disc has a greater future than they are currently predicting for discs as a replay-only source of entertainment. The sound quality of disc is superb and with the quality of the pressings coming out of Japan, added to speed of search compared to tape, discs have tremendous advantages.

But I have doubts if that is enough to put discs ahead of tape at this stage. Though once people have had their tape machines for a few years, and have got a little bored with them as toys, maybe they can be persuaded to buy interactive disc. Tape machines are still being bought at a great rate, and they are still a novelty to consumers, so in the current market it is hard for video disc to try and penetrate unless it has something unique to offer, and that’s where the interactive disc has something to offer.

People will be looking for self- improvement programs, which disc is perfect for, with its ability to test you. We are in the so-called Information Age, and

Grooved Capacitance Disc (CED)RCA wanted to release a low-cost (less than $500) player that is being sold in discount stores for less than $400. The savings were made by using a grooved, conductive vinyl disc to track the stylus accurately. The stylus is diamond with a thin metal rear surface that detects the difference in capacitance between the flats and hollows on the floor of the groove. The disc has to be loaded and removed while inside a protective plastic jacket, and the disc and stylus are subject to wear. This prevents holding still frames for long periods and the still frame Is actually a sequence of four frames. Although low cost and lacking special effects, It provides image quality superior to 1/2 -inch video cassette. Manufacturers are RCA (SelectaVision), Sanyo and, probably, Tandy.

A number of alternative answers are given. Select your answer by the response number and enter that number by pressing %fm// matching number on your touch pad.

the disc can store a hell of a lot of information that you can retrieve very quickly. Kids are growing up today with interactive video games and are used to that technology as part of their entertainment. I think they are going to demand that in their own homes. ★

Software and Soft PornThe marketing of the various disc systems has often depended on what and how many film titles could be offered compatible with the system. Without the discs to play, the public is not interested. The video-cassette market successes are still based on a large percentage of soft-core porn and R-rated films. The disc manufacturers must have regretted their stand to reject any such unsavory material from their releases. When Pioneer launched the LaserDisc players in Japan recently, the best-selling disc was a Japanese-made (very) soft core disc, and the U.S. market will probably follow. The sales of the sophisticated Philips/Pioneer systems

St Howof th e ob&pressor achieved ?

(O) By re frigerant R12(D B y th e special

; ©if carried by R12fSr^By th e special oil

could soon be matched by exclusive material aimed at the type of consumer who wants hi-fidelity sound and superior image quality. This, and special discs like the just-released interactive disc for children that contains games, cartoons and interactive learning segments, will be necessary if the home consumer market is to eventually become a reality.

Q P fo \ 'e e i

Video High-Density, Grooveless Capacitance (VHD)This was introduced by the Japan Victor Corporation (JVC) and combines the electrode stylus of the CED with a grooveless surface that allows the freeze frame, fast-forward and reverse scanning and slow-motion modes of the laser disc. The stylus is wider, which reduces wear and disc pressure. The audio is stereo and with an optional decoder can become an ultra hi-fi AHD (Audio High Density) system that can carry three channels and lower-resolution still images. Manufacturers include JVC, Sanyo (again), National Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba and the Super 8 manufacturer, Elmo. There is a possibility of some compatibility as laser techniques are used to read the CED and VHD discs in the laboratory.


INTERCINE

Electronic control of motor speeds forward and reverse Transistorised amplifiers give high quality sound reproduction

six-plate for 16mm and 35mm film

Double size 16mm and 35mm sprockets for track

• VARIOUS FORMATS AVAILABLE• ATTRACTIVELY PRICED• BROCHURES SUPPLIED ON REQUEST

six-plate for 16mm film

Film loading in a straight pattern

NOW REPRESENTED BY

Studio Sound SystemsSOLE AUSTRALIAN AGENTSFOR FURTHER INFORMATION RING JOHN FARMER (02) 8 8 8 1746 13 KEPPEL RD RYDE 2112

FEATURES

PRE-PRODUCTION

ABRA CADABRAProd, company ......................Adams Packer

Film Prod.P rod ucer...................................................Phillip AdamsD irec to r....................................Alexander StittScriptwriter..............................Alexander StittBased on the original

idea by ................................Alexander StittSound recordist .................Brian Lawrence,

AAV AustraliaCom poser........................................Peter BestExec, producer ....................... Phillip AdamsAssoc, p ro d u cer................................. Andrew KnightProd, secre tary .......... : ..............Janet ArupAnimation director ..................Frank HellardKey an im ators.......................................... Anne Jolliffe,

Gus McLaren, Steve Robinson,

Ralph PeverillPainting supervisor ............ Marilyn DaviesDirector special fx

photography........................................ Mike BrowningArt d irector..............................Alexander StittMusical director . . . . . * ..............................Peter BestTech, adv isers...........................................Mike Browning,

Volk MolStudios.....................................................Al et alLaboratory ................................Victorian Film

LaboratoriesLength ........................................... . . 90 minsGauge .......... ...............35mm Panavision,

Triangle 3DShooting stock.........................EastmancolorScheduled release .........................Late 1983Voices: Jacki Weaver, John Farnham, Hayes Gordon, Gary Files, Jim Smilie, Hamish Hughes.Synopsis: Will Abra Cadabra thwart the plans of rotten B. L. Z’Bubb and nasty Klaw, the Rat King, to control all of the known and unknown universe? Of course he will, with the help of beautiful Primrose Buttercup, Mr. Pig and Zodiac the space dog, among others. But not until the end.ANGEL CHASEProd, company . . . . Sheldon Marvin FilmsDist. company .....................Columbia FilmsP rod ucer...........................................................Al RubanD irec to r............................... John CassevetesScriptwriter .....................John Cassevetes,

Freyer ThomasBased on the original

idea by .............................Freyer ThomasPhotography................................. TechnicolorSound recordist ...........................Sil GordonE d ito r............................... Michael DeveridgeProd, designer...................................... Martin FranksCom posers...................................................Eric Breit,

Ros HawardExec, producer ................................Al RubanAssoc, p ro d u cer....................................... Dick FrankenProd, supervisor............ Emmett RichardsUnit m anag er................................................ Bill FranklinProd, secretary .........................Kathy KellettProd, accountant .....................Roy Winson1st asst, d irector....................................... Jack Peters2nd asst, d irecto r........ Collyn ZimmermanContinuity .....................................Sheila DunnScript assistant....................................Marsha MerrillProducer’s assistant................................Andy HollickCasting..............................Faces International

Inc. — Tim DoyleCasting

consultants........ Faces International Inc.Lighting cameraman ................. Wiliam JestCamera operator .............Michael ZabrettiClapper/loader ...........................Sean OakesCamera assistant ...................... Miffy CollinsKey g rip ......................................................... Rex HuntlyAsst, g rip ...................................................... Fred Thacker2nd unit photography ..................Alan RolleG affe r.........................................................Chuck PalgaminBoom operator .................... Mel GibsthorneArt d irector.................................................Kelly HongAsst, art d irector...................Vince ZedrettiCostume designer ............ : Kathy BinhamMake-up ..........................................Joy RocheHairdresser................... Mary Lou SimmonsWardrobe ............................. Maggie WheelerWard, assistant......................Ziff HendrennProps..........................................Morrie DraperStandby props.........................................Mabel RonghettiSpecial e ffects ...................Roberto GrimaldiSet decorators.........................Jo Harwood,

Alain CalebSet construction .............. Horizon Sets Inc.Asst, e d ito r .................... Elizabeth BergeronMusical director .......................Phil CurnowMusic performed by ...............Bo Harwood

& OthersSound editor .......................Dave ArmstrongEditing assistants .................Tom Cornwell,

Toy ViselMixer .......................................... Merv HarrageAsst, m ix e r ...... .............................Wes NevilleStunts co-ordinator ............ Robert MarleyStill photography.....................Erich KollmarBest boy ............................ Michael EdwardsR unner........................................Tom Gadden

Publicity...................................... Blast Off Inc.,Los Angeles

Unit publicist .............................Blast Off Inc.Studios................................................ ColumbiaMixed at ................................................HorizonLaboratory ........................................ DefinitionB u dget............................. $8,000,000 approx.Length ................................................126 minsGauge ........................................ 16mm SwankShooting stock..........................EastmancolorScheduled re le a s e .......... September 1982Cast: Ali MacGraw (Carmen Fuller), John Cassevetes (Bull Ballard), Aleck Sheckter (Burke Fuller), Kelly Collins (Lee Mills), Christina Grisanti (Tina Joyce), Ellie Kandor (Samantha Joyce), Graeme Orr (Hugh Morgan), Holly Kidman (Georgia Semmler), David Rowlands (Police Officer Irish), Elizabeth MacRae (Beth).Synopsis: Modern day smugglers attempt to land a boat-load of Cocaine on the West Cost of U.S.A. from their base in Hawaii. A sea-based adventure to be shot in Sydney, Hawaii and Los Angeles.BUSH CHRISTMASProd, co m p a n y___Bush Christmas Prod.Dist. company ..........................Barron Films,

United ArtistsProducer.................................Gilda BarrachiD irector....................................Howard RubieScriptwriter.................................Ted RobertsBased on the novel ..................Ralph SmartExec, producer ...........................Paul BarronB u dget...........................................................$1.1 millionLength ....................................................96minsGauge ....................................................35mmScheduled release ......................Dec., 1982Synopsis: A re-make of the Australian cinema classic. An adventure involving the manager and lead singer of a band that goes bust. Four teenagers set off to pursue the two rogues who, “stranded" without funds, are forced to turn to a life of crime and steal a valuable racehorse.THE PERCY GRAINGER STORY(working title)Prod, company ...............Trifilm/Artis FilmsD irecto r........................................................Tom HaydonScriptwriter .............................Tom KeneallyExec, producers .....................Barry Merton,

Tim SmartCo-producer ..............................Tom HaydonB u dget........................................... $4.5 millionSynopsis: The life of the eccentric and volatile composer, Percy Grainger.PHAR LAPProd, co m p a n y.......... John Sexton ProdsProducer.................................................... John SextonScriptwriter.......................... David WilliamsonB u dget................................................$3 millionScheduled release ...........................June ’83No further details supplied.RIMAU(working title)Prod, company ..................................... SAFCScriptwriter ....................... Thomas KeneallyTHE SUNBEAM SHAFTProd, company ....................... R.M.L. ProdProducer....................................Miranda BainD irector...........................Richard LowensteinScriptwriter.................... Richard LowensteinPhotography...................... Andrew De GrootSound recordist ......................Lloyd CarrickE d ito r................................................. Jill BilcockExec, producer ...................... Chris OliverAssoc, p ro d u cer.................................... Jenny CaddProd, manager ......................Robert Kewley1st asst director ................Tony McDonaldScript assistant.................................. Barbara MazelLighting cameraman .................... Paul ElliotClapper/loader ..............................John ElliotCamera assistant ............ Steve McDonald2nd unit photography..............Dave CollyerBoom operator ...........................Jacqui FineArt d irector............................ Josephine FordWardrobe ......................................Rose StoneSpecial effects......................................Conrad RothmanSound ed ito r,.................. Terry RodmanMixer .......... David HarrisonR unner.....................Michael Clayton-JonesLaboratory ............................. ............ V.F.L.L en g th .......... .................................................100 minsScheduled release ............ February, 1983Synopsis: In 1936, the miners in the smali South Gippsland town of Korumburra barricaded themselves in the main shaft of the Sunbeam Colliery, demanding better pay and working conditions. Their story is that of the Australian Labour Movement in the 1930s.

PRODUCTION

THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLYProd, company .................. Wayang Prods. „Dist. company ....................................... MGMProducer.................................... Jim McElroyD irector.......................................... Peter WeirScriptwriters..................... David Williamson,

Peter VVeir, Christopher Koch,

with additional material by Alan Sharp

Based on thenovel by .................................... C. J. Koch

Photography.............................Russell BoydSound recordist .......................Gary WilkinsE d ito r......................................... Bill AndersonArt d irector.............................Herbert PinterMGM rep............................ John HargreavesProd, supervisor......................................Mark EgertonProd.

co-ordinator . . . Carolynne CunninghamProd, manager .....................Tim SaundersLocation m anager................. John Wiggins

(Syd.)Unit manager ....................... Murray Francis

(Syd.)Prod, secretary .....................Lynda House

(Syd.)Prod, secretary .................. Sally Blaxland

(Philippines)Business manager ............ Michael WilcoxProd, accountant ..............Elaine CrowtherProd, assistant.................... Ken Richardson1st asst director ....................Mark Egerton

(Syd.)1st asst director .....................Wayne Barry

(Manila)2nd asst director......................................Chris Webb3rd asst d irector.......... Michael Bourchier

(Syd.)3rd asst d irector................Ken Richardson

(Philippines)2 nd unit

1st asst d irec to r...................Ian GoddardContinuity ................................... Moya IcetonProduction a s s t..................Ken Richardson

(Syd.)Producer's secre tary .........Wilma SchinellaCasting.......................................Allison BarrettExtras casting consultant........ Sue ParkerExtras casting a ss t.........................Jo HardieCamera operator .................. Nixon BinneyFocus puller ...................Peter Menzies jun.Clapper/loader ..................... Geoff WhartonKey g rip .........................................................Ray BrownAsst g r ip .................................... Stuart Green,

Geordie DrydenG affer................................ Brian BansgroveElectricians................................. Colin Chase,

Paul Moyse (Syd.), Peter O’Brian (Manila)

Boom operator .................... Mark WasiutakDesign consultant................................ Wendy WeirAsst art director ................ Annie BrowningCostume designer ...................... Terry RyanCostume supervisor.............Anthony JonesMake-up ........................................ Judy LovellMake-up ass t............................................ Joan MostynQuan make-up design......... Bob McCarronHairdresser..............................................Cheryl WilliamsWardrobe mistress................................. Jenni BoitonStandby wardrobe ..................... Phil Eagles,

Roger MonkProps buyers .............................Stewart Way,

Paddy Reardon, Mark Statescu, Sally Campbell

Standby props..........................................Clark MunroStandby props asst ...................Jenny MilesArt dept asst ..........................Alan DunstanScenic artis ts .........................Billy Malcolm,

Michael ChorneyCarpenters ...........................Paul Vosilianis,

Ron Sutherland, Derek Wyness,

Geoffrey SpenceSet construction .............. Peter TempletonAsst editor ......................... Jeanine Chialvo2nd asst editor .............................. Lee Smith3rd asst ed ito r............................ Karin FosterEdge num berer........................................Peter ErskineSound editor ..........................Andrew StuartSound editing a s s t................... Robin JudgeStill photography.........................Jim TownleyNSWFC prod. man.

attachm ent..................Sandra AlexanderTech, adv iser............................ Pudji WasesoBest boy .....................................Paul GantnerRunner................ Monica Petellizzari (Syd.)Unit publicist ...........................Babette SmithCatering .....................Joh and Sue FaithfulStudios..................................................ArtransaPost-production.............................F.P.S.-Alan LakeCamera/lighting equ ip ............ SamuelsonsMixed at ....................................United SoundLaboratory .........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison.................................................... Bill GooleyLength ............................................. 105 mins.Gauge ...................................................... 35mmShooting stock..........................EastmancolorScheduled release ...........................Late '82Cast: Mel G ibson (G ary H am ilton ), Slgnourney Weaver (Jill Bryant), Phipps Hunt (Billy Kwan).

Synopsis: Guy Hamilton, an Australian Broadcasting Service journalist, arrives in Jakarta during a time of political upheaval. There he is befriended by an enigmatic Australian Asian, Billy Kwan, and they profoundly influence each other’s destiny. He becomes increasingly involved with the politics of the country and with Jill Bryant, an English Embassy secretary. Eventually, as these interests diverge, he must choose between them.

POST-PRODUCTION

BROTHERSProd, company .................... Areflex ProdsDist. company ............................IMC-ISRAMProducer .................................Terry BourkeDirector ...................................Terry BourkeScriptwriter .............................Terry BourkeBased on the novel by ........Roger WardPhotography .............................Ray HenmanSound recordist .....................Bob ClaytonEditor ....................................... Ron WilliamsComposer ................................Bob YoungExec, producers .................Brock Halliday,

Frank WilkieAssoc, producer .....................John HipwellProd, managers .................. Ken Metcalfe

(Philippines), Judith West (NZ/Aust.)

Unit manager .............................Tim HigginsProd, secretaries .....................Mitch Griffin,

Victoria Christie (Aust.)Prod, accountant ........................Ross LaneCompany accountant ............ Neil DrabschProd, assistant ............ Roy Harries-JonesInsurance/Completion

guarantors .............. Halliday & Nicholas1st asst director .............Bosie Vine-Miller2nd asst director ............ Andrew Williams3rd asst director ...................Peter KearneyContinuity .............................Jenny QuigleyDirector’s secretary . Jennifer WoodwardCasting ..............................Roger Ward (NZ)Casting consultants .................... Eric CookCamera operator ....................... David BurrFocus puller .................. Malcolm BurrowsClapper/loader .....................Conrad SlackKey grip ...................................Lester BishopAsst grips . . . . Nicholas Reynolds (Aust.),

Dennis Cullen (NZ)Gaffer ......................................... Pav GovindElectricians ..........Mark Friedman (Aust.),

Johnathan Hughes (Aust.), Neil Campbell (NZ)

Boom operator ..........Graham McKinneyArt director .............. Paul TolleyAsst art director .................. Rachel RovayCostume designer ................... David RoweMake-up .........................Robern PickeringHairdressers ............Willi Kennick (Aust.),

Trish Cohen (NZ)Ward, assistant .......................... Rima RoweStandby props ........David Findlay (Aust.),

Chris Paulger (NZ)Special effects ............... Reece RobinsonAsst editor .................. Annabelle SheehanMusical director .........................Bob YoungMixer ..........................................Peter FentonStunts co-ordinator ............ Frank LennonStunts .......................................Frank Lennon,

Grant Page, Peter West,

Zenda Graves, Jade Clayton,

Kerry Blakeman, Marty Takarang,

Rangi Nikora, Chris Hession

Still photography .......................David MillerTransport supervisor ........ Barry BransonOpticals .................................. Acme OpticalsTitle designer ...........................Larry WynerTech, adviser ...............................Hine Grey

(Maori songs)Best boy ..............................Graham Mulder1st unit runner .............................Chris Cole2nd unit runner .......................Stuart MillerLocation nurse . . . . Glenise Brady (Aust.),Catering .......... David Williams (NZ, Aust.)Mixed at .................................United SoundLaboratory ...............................................AtlabGauge .....................................................35mmScreen ratio .......................'...................1:165Shooting stock ........................ EastmancolorCast: Chard Hayward (Adam), Margaret Laurence (Lani), Ivar Kants (Kevin), Alison Best (Jeanine), Jennifer Cluff (Alison), Les Foxcroft (Jim), Joan Bruce (Maureen), James Elliot (Rev.), Moira Walker (Connie), Ricky May (Bill).Synopsis: Two brothers escape the massacre of five fellow Australian newsmen in Asia, but their lives are still charged with emotion and futility in a small New Zealand town as^hey try to escape the holocaust of their nightmares.THE CLINICProd, company ................ The Film House/

Generation FilmsProducers............................... Robert Le Tet,

Bob WeisD irector................................... David StevensScriptwriter .................................Greg Millen

P R O D U C E R S ,DIRECTORS

ANDPRODUCTION

COMPANIESTo ensure the accuracy of your

entry, please contact the editor of this column and ask for copies of our Production Survey blank, on. which the details of -yeur production can be entered. All details must be typed in Upper and lower case.

The cast entry should be no more than the. 1 0 main actors/actresses — their names and character names. The length of the synopsis should not exceed 50 words.

Editor's note : A ll entries are supplied by producers/production com panies, o r by their agents. Cinem a Papers ca n n o t, th e re fo re , a ccep t responsibility for the correctness of any entry.

Based on the original ideab y................................................Greg Millen

Photography ...................................Ian BakerSound recordist........................................ John RowleyEditor .................. Edward McQueen-MasonProd, supervisor.................... Michael LakeProd, co-ordinator...................................Trish FoleyProd, accountant ....................... Groliss Fyfe1st asst director ..................... David Clark2nd asst director......... Hamish McSporran3rd asst directors..................................Alister Binger,

Jonathon BalmfordContinuity.............................................Caroline StantonProducer’s assistant__ Margo McDonaldCasting................................ The Film HouseCasting consultants__ M & L ConsultantsFocus puller ..............................Clive DuncanClapper/loader....................Leigh McKenzieG rips ......................................................... Barry Hansen,

Ian BenallackG a ffe r ......... ..................................Brian AdamsElectrician.............................................. Michael TannerBoom operator.......................................Steven HaggartyArt director .................................... Tracy WattMake-up ................................... Kirsten Vessy,

Di BiggsW ardrobe......................................Rose ChongWard, assistant ............................ Gail MayesProps buyer.................................... Cliff KelsallStandby p ro p s ....................Andrew MitchellCarpenter........................... Danny CorcoranConstruction m anag er.............Ray PattisonStill photography.............. Vladimir OsheronTitle designer ...................................Alex StittBest boy ...............................Michael AdcockCatering........................... Anne DechaineauxStudios........................Melb. Prod. FacilitiesLength ............................... .’ ................ 90 minsG auge.......................................................35mmShooting stock........................EastmancolorDESOLATION ANGELSProd, company .............Winternight ProdsProducer ..................................... Chris OliverDirector ...................................Chris FitchettScriptwriters ...........................Chris Fitchett,

Ellery RyanPhotography ...............................Ellery RyanCast: Karen West, Kim Trengrove, Kerry Mac.No further details supplied.DUSTYProd, company .......Dist. company .........Producer....................D irector......................Scriptwriter ...............Based on the novel

by.............................Photography.............Sound recordist.......Editor ..........................Prod, designer.........Exec, producer .......Assoc, producerProd, m anager.........Unit manager ...........Prod, secretary .......Prod, assistant.........1 st asst director __2 nd asst director__3rd asst d irector__Continuity..................Casting........................Lighting cameramanFocus puller .............Clapper/loader.........Key grip ......................Asst g r ip ....................Gaffer . . ....................Boom operator.........Art director ...............Make-up ....................W ard ro b e..................Props ..........................Asst e d ito r .................

.............Dusty Prods.

. Kestrel Film Prods....................Gil Brealey.......John Richa/dson.................Sonia Borg

Frank Dalby Davison.............. Alex "McPhee.............. John Phillips..................David Greig.........Robbie Perkins....... John Richardson.............David Morgan..................Mark Ruse.. Michael McGennan.........Elizabeth Syme...............Jan Tourrier.............Colin Fletcher.............Jake Atkinson...............Gaye Arnold...........Andrea Jordan....................Lee Larner...............Alex McPhee...........Brendan Ward.................. Chris Cain........... Ian Thorburne...............Terry Wilcox...............Ian Dewhurst..................Ray Phillips.............Ivana Perkins.........Deryk De Niese..................Mary Harris.............Nick Seymour.........Warwick Crane


Sound editors....................Louise Johnson,Steve Lambeth

Still photography.................. Bruce HaswellDog tra iner........................... Mary McCrabbW rangler........................................ John BairdBest boy ..................................Bruce TowersRunners.................................Mary Sdraulig,

Amanda WalkerCatering.................................... Wolfgang GrafMixed at .....................................United SoundLaboratory....................................................VFLLength ............................. ....................90 minsG auge.........................................................35mmShooting stock...........................................5247Cast: Bill Kerr (Tom), Noel Trevarthen (Harry), Carol Burns (Clara), John Stanton (Ralley Jordan), Nick Holland (Jack), Dan Lynch (Ron), Kati Edwards (Mrs Muspratt), Will Kerr (Jim).Synopsis: The story of a sheepdog in the Australian outback, based on the classic novel by Frank Dalby Davison.FAR EASTProd, company .............Alfred Road FilmsP rod ucer................................. Richard MasonD irecto r........................................ John DuiganScriptwriter..................................John DuiganBased on the original

idea by ....................................John DuiganPhotography.............................................. Brian ProbynSound recordist ....................... Peter BarkerE d ito r....................................................... Henry DangarProd, designer............................. Ross MajorExec, producer ......................................FilmcoAssoc, p ro d u cer........................ John MasonProd, manager ........................ Julia OvertonUnit m anag er................Corrie SoeterboekProd, secretary ..........................Julie ForsterProd, accountant .................Peter Sjoquist1st asst director ..................Michael Falloon2nd asst director.................................. Sabina Wynn3rd asst d irector.................Gerald BostockContinuity ....................................... Jo WeeksProducer’s assistant............Michael FalloonCasting......................................Mitch MathewsCasting consultants.............Mitch MathewsCamera operator ........................Peter MossFocus p u lle r ............................................ Andre FleurenClapper/loader ...........................Colin DeanKey g rip ......................................................... Ray BrownAsst grip/s ...................... Stuart GreenG a ffe r.......................................................Warren MearnsElectrician.................................................Alleyn MearnsBoom operator ...........................Keir WelchAsst art director ...............................Igor Naycostume designer .......................Jan HurleyMake-up .........................Margaret LinghamWardrobe .............................Robina ChaffeyProps buyers .................................... Ian Allen,

Peta LawsonStandby props...........................................John DanlellCarpenter ....................................... Terry LordSet construction .....................Danie DaemsAsst editor ................................Pam BarnettaNeg. matching ................................... ColorfilmSound editor .......................Andrew SteuartEditing assistant .......................Robin Judge2nd sound a s s t .........................................Julie GelhardStill photography......................David Parker,

Carolyn JohnsTitle designer.............................. Fran BourkeW rang ler.....................................Elaine MasonR unner............................. Anthony HeffernanPublicity.....................: . . . . Rhonda GalballyCatering.......................................................Peter DruryStudios...................................Supreme SoundMixed at ................................... United SoundLaboratory .........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison......................................Bill GooleyLength ................................................100 minsGauge .............................................-. .. 35 mmShooting stock..........................EastmancolorCast: Bryan Brown (Morgan Keefe), Helen Morse (Jo Reeves), John Bell (Peter Reeves), Slnan Leong (N ene), Ralna McKeon (Rosita), Henry Feist (De Cruz), Bill Hunter (Walker), John Gaden (Talbot). Synopsis: A political thriller which exposes the violent and exploitative realities of multinational companies in a South-East Asian country. Against this background, three Australians ricochet between stability and desperation. FLUTEMANProd, company .......... Independent Prods.P rod ucer.............................................. Brendon LunneyD irecto r.................................. Peter MaxwellScriptwriter............................ Charles StampPhotography.........................Phil Pike A.C.S.Sound recordist .......... Rowland McManisE d ito r................... Tim WellburnC om poser.................... John SangsterExec, producer ...........................Gene ScottProd, manager .............................Jan TyrrellProd, co-ordinator .....................Dixie BettsLocation m anager...................Michael FullerProd, secretary ........................... Fiona KingProd, accountant ...................Peter Layard1st asst, d irector.......................................Tony Wellington2nd asst, d irec to r..................................... Paul Callaghan3rd asst, director . . . . Hamish McSporranContinuity ............................Caroline StantonCasting.............................Mitch ConsultancyClapper/loader .....................Sean McCloryCamera assistant .....................Keith BryantKey g rip ............................ Grahame Litchfield2nd unit photography ..................Phil DorltyG affer...................: ......................Derek JonesBoom operator .......................... Jan McHargArt d irector........ ............................Ken JamesCostume designer ................. Fiona SpenceMake-up ....................................Fiona SpenceWard, ass istant....................................... Kerry ThompsonP ro p s ........................................ Brian EdmondsStandby props.............................................Igor Lazareff

Carpenter ........................Geoff ThomlinsonAsst, ed ito r...................................Judy RymerNeg. m atching..........................................Chris RowellStill photography....................................... Alan HowardBest boy ...................................Richard CurtisPublicity...........................Michael HohenseeCatering............................... AM /PM CateringLaboratory ..............................................C F LLab. liaison.............................Jack GardinerLength ............................................. 100 mins.Gauge ...................................................... 16mmShooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247Cast: John Jarratt (Fluteman), Emil Minty (Toby), Aileen Britton (Beatrice Peachley), Michael Caton (Oswald Snaith), Patrick Dickson (David Hanson), John Ewart (Clarence Quint), Ron Graham (Frank Timms), Peter Gwynne (Mayor Cooper), Sheila Kennelly (Myra Hanson), Debra Lawrance (Sally Cooper).Synopsis: Fluteman is a modern day Australian version of the Pied Piper of Hamelin interspersed with incidents to delight family and children.GINGER MEGGSPlease see previous issue for details.GOING DOWNProd, company ................................ . X-ProdsProducer.................................................. Hadyn KeenanD irector.................................................... Hadyn KeenanScriptwriters..................................Julie Barry,

Moira Maclaine-Cross, Melissa Woods

Photography........................................ Malcolm RichardsSound recordist .................... Lloyd CarrlckAdditional record ist.................Peter BarkerE d ito r..............................................Paul HealeyAssoc, producer .........................Julie BarryProd, manager ........ Mitou PajaczkowskaLocation m anager.................................. Julian RussellProd, secre tary.......... ...................Gai SteeleProd, accountant .......... Andrew Snedden1st asst, d irector....................................... Peta Lawson2nd asst, d irector....................................Chris MaudsonCasting.............................................. Tim Burns,

Ian GilmourCamera operator ................. “Race" GalleyFocus p u lle r...............................Paul GiasettiKey g rip ...................................Nick Reynolds2nd unit photography ......... "Race” GaileyG affer............................................. Peter GalleyBoom operator .................Chris GoldsmithArt d irector..........................Melody CooperAsst, art directors............. Steven Teather,

Christine Flin, David McKay

Make-up ................................... Karla O'KeefeAsst, ed ito r......................................Gai SteeleSound editors ............................Paul Healey,

Ashley GrenvilleMixer ...........................................Peter FentonStunts co-ordinator ............ Frank LennonFights co-ordinator....................... David BraxStunts...................................Reece Robinson,

Ian LindStill photography.......... Robert McFarlane,

“Race” GaileyRunner...................................Greg StephensCatering..................................Merle Keenan,

Donna SimsMixed at ....................................United SoundLaboratory ............................................... AtlabLength ...................................................90 minsShooting stock.........................EastmancolorScheduled release ........................June 1982Cast: Tracey Mann (Karli), David- Argue (Gregg, Trixie, the Hood, the Sprooker), Verra Plevnik (Jane), Moira Maclaine-Cross (Ellen), Julie Barry (Jackie), Esben Storm (Michael), Ian Gilmour (Shadow), Henk Johannes (Ian), Mercia Dean-Johns (Ned), Ian Nimmo (John).Synopsis: “The Iron tongue of midnight hath toll’d twelve. Lovers, to bed; 'tls almost fairy time, I fear we shall outsleep the coming morn As much as we have this night o’er watched. This palpable gross play hath well beguiled The heavy gate of night. Sweet friends, to bed.”MIDNITE SPARESProd, company .........................Wednesday

Investments, A Filmco Presentation

Producer ................................... Tom BurstallDirector .............................Quentin MastersScriptwriter ................................Terry LarsenPhotography ..............................Geoff BurtonSound recordist .................... Lloyd CarrickEditor .................................... Andrew ProwseProd, designer .......................George LiddleComposer .......................... .Cameron AllenExec, producer .................John FitzpatrickProd, co-ordinator . . . . . . .Cathy FlanneryComposer ............................. Cameron AllenProd, manager ...........................Jenny DayUnit manager ........................... John WarrenFinancial controller .......... Richard HarperProd, accountant ....................Karen Volich1st asst director .......... Derek Seabourne2nd Asst director .............. Peter Willesee3rd Asst director ........................... Ian KennyContinuity ....................................Ann WaltonProducer’s assistant . . . Margaret RobertsDirector’s assistant .......... Mardi KennedyCasting consultants .......... Michael Lynch,

Rae DavidsonFocus puller .......................David ForemanClapper/loader ....................... Gillian LeahyKey grip .....................................Lester BishopAsst grip ...............................Nick Reynolds2nd unit photography ___Bill Grimmond

Gaffer ...........................Graham RutherfordElectrician ................................... Mark VerdeBoom operator ..................... Toivo LemberArt dept co-ordinator ........ Janene KnightAsst art director .......... Richard HoughtonMake-up ...................................Carol DevineWardrobe ...................... Ruth de la LandeWard, assistant .......................Kathy JamesProps buyers .......................David Bowden,

Geraldine RoydsStandby props .................... Nick McCallumSpecial effects . . . . ............ Alan Maxwell,

Peter EvansChoreography ...................Elizabeth BurtonCarpenter ................................Robin Warner

% Set construction ..................Denis DonellyAsst editor ............................. Robert GrantDubbing editor .............................Greg BellAsst dubbing editor .............. Helen BrownStunts co-ordinator ....................Vic WilsonStill photography .......... Geoff McGeachlnDialogue consultant ............ Jack RozyckiMechanic ........................... David ThomasBest boy .................................Alan GlossopRunners .................................... Janet Mclver,

Paul ArnottPublicity .......... Brooks White OrganizationCatering .....................................Mark Neylon,

Robyn HartiganMixed at ..................................United SoundLaboratory ....................................... ColorfilmLab. liaison ................................... Bill GooleyBudget ................ $2,583,924Length ............................................. 100 minsGauge .....................................................35mmCast: James Laurie (Steve), Gia Carides (Ruth), Max Cullen (Tomas), Bruce Spence (Wimpy), David Argue (Rabbit), Tony Barry (Howard), John Clayton (Vincent), Graeme Blundell (Sidebottom), Jonathan Coleman (Wayne), John Godden (Chris the Rat). Synopsis: The story of young people, their Sunshine City car ‘culture’, the motor speedway and the criminal world of car-part stealing.

MOVING OUTProducers...........................Jane Ballantyne,

Michael PattinsonDirector ..............................Michael PattinsonScriptwriter...................................................Jan SardiBased on the originalIdea by ..............................................Jan SardiPhotography........................ Vincent MontonSound recordist .........................Geoff WhiteE d ito r........ ............................. Robert MartinProd, designer............ , .............Neil AngwinComposers.......................................... Umberto Tozzi,

Danny BeckermanAssoc, produ cer.......................................Julie MontonProd, consultant......................................Rosa ColosimoProd, secretary ......................Beverley FrostProd, accountant .......... Natalie Hammond1st asst, d irector...................................Robert Kewley2nd asst, d irector............... Alan Mackenzie3rd asst, director .........................Ian FowlerContinuity .................... Catherine SauterFocus p u lle r...........................................Robert MurrayClapper/loader .................Christopher CainKey g rip .......................................................Greg WallaceAsst, g rip ........................... Michael MadlganG affer.......................................... Trevor TouneBoom operator .........................Grant StuartCostume designer .............. Frankie HoganM ake-up /hair............ Amanda RowbottomStand-by wardrobe : ........... Frankie HoganProps buyer ................................Harry ZettelStand-by p ro p s .................................... Harry ZettelSet fin isher.............................Nick HepworthCarpenters ...................................Baz Props,

Dennis LeeSet construction

m an ag er...................................................Ken HazelwoodAsst, ed itors ..............................................Craig Carter,

Mark AtkinSound editor ............................. Martin JeffsMixer .........................: . . . Julian EllingworthStill photography..........................Suzy WoodTitles....................................Optical & GraphicDialogue c o a c h ....................................... Peter SardiBest boy ..............................Werner GerlachCatering................................................Chavelle ExquisiteStudios........................................... Soundstage FitzroyMixed at ....................................................AtlabLaboratory ................................................AtlabLab. liaison ............................Greg DoughertyL en g th ........ .............................. 91 minsCast: Vince Colosimo (Gino), Kate Jason (Mrs Condello), Peter Sardi (Lino Condello), Sylvie Fonti (Mrs Simonelli), Luciano Catenacci (Mr Simonelli), Brian James (Mr Aitken), Ivar Kants (Mr Clarke), Sandy Gore (Miss Stanislaus), Sally Cooper (Sandy), Maurice de Vincetis (Renato).Synopsis: Two turbulent adolescent weeks In the life of a teenage migrant Italian boy living in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. For this fortnight two families live In the one crowded terrace: the recently arrived family from Italy who will take over the house, the current family who are preparing to leave. Gino must come to terms with giving up his hard-won inner city life, accept his Italian background, and start a new kind of life, hopefully one more step towards maturity.ON THE RUNProd, company ............... ..Pigelu Pty LtdProducer .................................. Mende BrownDirector ....................................Mende BrownScriptwriters ....................... Mende Brown,

Michael FisherPhotography ............................ Paul OnoratoSound recordist ..................Ken Hammond

Editor ....................................Richard HindleyArt director ............................. Richard KentComposer .................................Laurie LewisProd, co-ordinator ........................Catherine

Phillips KnapmanProd, manager .............................Irene KorolUnit/location manager ...........Roger WylieProd, accountant ...........Graeme Dowsett1st asst director .................... Martin Cohen2nd asst director ....................... John RookeContinuity ................................ .S ian HughesCasting .........................................Felippa PateCamera operator .........David WilliamsonFocus puller .........................Jeremy RobinsClapper/loader ......................... Tracy KublerKey grip ................................Graeme MardellAsst grip ...................................Garry CardenAddn unit

cameraman .............. Matthew FlanaganGaffer ...........................................Alan WalkerAsst electrician ........................Alan WalkerBoom operator ................... Andrew DuncanMake-up .............................Rina HoffmanisWardrobe ........................................Liz KeoghProps buyer ............................ Jamie MiramsStandby props .............................Jon FabianTransport manager ................... Tim SayersEditing assistant ...................Christine SpryStunts co-ordinator ...................Grant PageTutor ...................................Victor McKeownAnimal handler ....... Bernadette HamiltonHelicopter pilot ......................Alan EdwardsBest boy ................................. Alleyn MearnsRunners .......................................... Ric Bower,

Monica PellizzariUnit publicist ..............................Felippa PateCatering ...............Take One Film Catering

(Anne Harris)Laboratory ...................................... ColorfilmCast: Paul Winfield, Rod Taylor, Beau Cox, Ray Meagher.THE PLAINS OF HEAVENProd, company ...............Seon Film Prods.Producer................................. John CruthersD irector......................................... Ian PringleScriptwriters................................... Ian Pringle,

Doug Ling, Elizabeth Parsons.

Photography................ Ray ArgaliLocation sound ................ Bruce EmeryE d ito r............................................................. Ray ArgaliCom poser...........................Andrew DuffieldAssoc, p rodu cer.................Brian McKenzieProd, supervisor.......................Mark ThomasProd, assistants...................Crjstina Pozzan,

Daniel Scharf, Robbie Ashhurst.

1st asst, d irector..................... Mark ThomasContinuity ................................ Chris JohnsonCamera assistant ................. Renee RomerilG a ffe r......................................John WhitteronBoom operator .............James DunwoodieArt d irector.........................................Elizabeth StirlingElectronic design ................David DuranceSet construction .................David Durance,

Anthony Bignall, Peter Kulesa,

Mars McMillan.Asst, e d ito r.............................................. Daniel ScharfSoundtrack des ig n ................................ Bruce EmerySound editors ...............................Ray Argali,

Bruce EmeryMixer ........................................... Bruce EmeryStill photography.......... Tom PsomotragosR unner........................................Julian DarlingPublicity.....................................................Jenny DarlingCatering.................................Kristina FrohlichMixed at ...................... Tony Paterson

Post-ProductionLaboratory ....................................... ColorfilmLab. liaison................................................Kerry JenklnLength ....................................... 80 minsGauge ..................................................... 16mmShooting stock.................................Fuji 8527Cast: Richard Moir (Barker), Reg Evans (Cunningham), Gerard Kennedy (Lenko), John Flaus (Landrover owner), Jenny Cartw right (Nurse), Adam Briscom be (Soldier on train):Synopsis: Two men work in a satellite relay station on the Bogong High Plains, one of Australia’s most isolated and haunting landscapes. Each is obsessed in his own way, and the film follows the working out of these obsessions in the men’s responses to the vast and elemental landscape of the plains of heaven.RUNNIN’ ON EMPTY (working title):>rod. company ................Film Corporation

of Western AustraliaProducer .....................................Pom OliverDirector ......................................... John ClarkScriptwriter .............................Barry TomblinBased on the original idea

by ................................................John ClarkPhotography ............................David GribbleSound recordist ...............Syd ButterworthEditor ................................. Stuart ArmstrongExec, producer ...........................David RoeAssoc, producer ....................Mark EgertonProd, manager ................ Barbara GibbsUnit manager ................. Michael BourchierProd, secretary ................... Adrienne ReadProd, accountant ...................... Craig Scott

NSW Film Corp. attachment (trainee 1 st asstdirector) ...........................Deuel Droogan

1st asst director ....................Mark Egerton2nd asst director ............. Tony Wellington3rd asst director ................. Richard HobbsContinuity .........................Therese O’Leary

Casting .......................................Susie Maizels(Mitch Consultancy)

Camera operator ............ David BurrFocus puller ........ j .................Ben SeresinClapper/loader .............................Derry FieldCamera grip .............. Graham LitchfieldCar grip .................................... Wally WilmottGaffer ..................................... Miles MoulsonElectricians ............................Stephen Dean,

Richard Oldfield• Boom operator ...........................Noel QuinnArt director ................................. Greg BrownMake-up ............................... Monica FetzerHairdresser __ John Woodhouse-WayneWardrobe ................................. Roger MonkStandby wardrobe ............ Jenny MilesStandby props ................... . .Colin GibsonSpecial effects ...................Reece RobinsonScenic artist ............................. David McKaySet construction ..................Kieran HansonAsst editor .................................Doug FraserStunts co-ordinator ............Frank LennonMechanics ..............................Barry Moore,

Steve CourtneyBest boy ................................. Richard CurtisRunner ....................................Annie PeacockCatering ..........................................Ray FowlerLaboratory ............................Atlab AustraliaLab. liaison ...............................Greg DohertyLength ................................................104 minsGauge ....................................................35mmShooting stock ......................................KodakBudget .............................................. $2 millionCast: Terry Serio (Mike), Debora Conway (Julie), Vangellz Mourikis (Tony), Richard Moir (Fox), Max Cullen (Rebel), Grahame Bond (Jagger), Geoff Rhoe (Ram), Kris Greaves (Starter), Jerry Sont (Victor), Penne Hackforth-Jones (Dave),Synopsis: A young factory worker, Mike, and his obsession with cars and someone else’s girl, Julie. The film follows Mike’s struggle to win Julie and survive the challenge of her vicious boyfriend to a series of illegal street races.A SLICE OF LIFEProd, company .......................John Lamond

Motion Picture EnterprisesDist. co m p a n y ...............................Roadshow

Distributors AustraliaProducer....................................Jo(in LamondD irector......................................John LamondScriptwriter.............................. Alan HopgoodSound recordist ..........................Paul ClarkeE d ito r................................. ...............Jill RiceC om poser....................................... Brian MayExec, p ro d u cer............Cinema EnterprisesAssoc, p rodu cer................................. Michael HirschProd, supervisor.......................................John ChaseProd, secretary .............................Ann Mudle

; Prod, accountant ................ Graeme WrightProd, assistant....................................Deborah Hanson1st asst director ...................Ross Hamilton2nd asst director..................... Euan Keddie3rd asst d irector......................Stuart WoodContinuity .......................................Julie BatesCasting........................................................Helen WattsLighting cameraman ..........Ross BerrymanFocus p u lle r...................................................Ian JonesClapper/loader .....................Brian BrehenyKey g r ip ........................................................ Noel Mudie

;Asst grip ...................................... Barry BrownG affe r..........................................Lindsay FooteBoom operator .................Chris GoldsmithArt d irector..................................................Paul JonesMake-up ........................................Jose Perez,

Joan PetchHairdresser................................................. Jose PerezWardrobe .....................................Anna JakabWard, assistant................................... Melanie VelinosP ro p s .....................................................Matthew CummingsStandby props...................Helen KavanaghSet decorator......................Ashley LeightonSet construction ___Phlummup Film SetsSet designer .................... Geoff RichardsonConstruction manager ................ Ian DoigStunts — ........................................Phil BrockAsst editor .............................Peter CarrodusStill photography.......................David ParkerBest boy ...................................Gary ScholesRunners...................................................... Brian Gilmore,

Mike McIntyreCatering....................................... Helen WrightStudios...................Port Melbourne StudiosLaboratory ..........................................CinevexLength ................................................100 minsGauge ......................................................35mmCast Robin Nedwell (Toby), Juliet Jordan (Wendy), John Ewart (Hughes), Jane Clifton (Fay), Caz Lederman (Sally), Dina Mann (Barbara), Amanda Muggleton (Eva), Julie Nihill (Pam), Lulu Pinkus (Addy), Gwen Soares (Mei Linn).WILDE'S DOMAINProd, co m p a n y .......... Independent Prods.Producer........ ...................... Peter BenardosDirector .................. Charles “Bud" TingwellScriptwriter.................................Ted RobertsBased on the original

idea by ...............................Marcia HatfieldPhotography.........................Phil Pike A.C.S.Sound recordist .......... Rowland McManisE d ito r...............................................Bob CoggerCom poser..................................Simon WalkerExec, producer .................. Brendon LunneyProd, co-ordinator .....................Dixie BettsProd, manager .............................Jan TyrrellProd, secretary ...........................Fiona KingProd,« accountant .................. Peter Layard1st asst, d irector........ Charles Rotherham2nd asst, d irector.............. Paul Callaghan3rd asst, director ..............Hugh McLarenContinuity ....................................... Pam Willis


Casting.............................Mitch ConsultancyClapper/loader .......................Sean McCloryCamera assistant .....................Keith BryantKey g r ip ...................................Robert Verkerk2nd unit photography .................Phil Dority

Garry Maunder Hans Heidrich

G affer............................................Derek JonesSound editor ............................. Bob CoggerMixer ...............................Andrew McFarlaneStill photography.......................................Alan HowardTech, adv iser........................ Stafford BullenAnimal trainer ...........................Jules BullenBest boy .....................................Matt SlatteryCatering......................................................Jems CateringBoom operator .......................... Jan McHargArt d irector.................................................... Ian McGrathCostume designer ................. Fiona SpenceWard, assistant................ Kerry ThompsonP ro p s ..................................... Brian EdmondsSpecial effects...........................Allan MaxwellC horeography............. ...... Tanis Pierson,

Sydney Youth BalletAsst, ed ito r.......................................... Michelle CattleNeg. m atching.......................... Chris RowellLaboratory ...............................................C F LLab. liaison................................................. Jack GardinerLength ................................................. 72 mins.Gauge .......................................................16mmShooting stock..........................Eastmancolor 7247Progress ................................Post-productionCast: Kit Taylor (Dan Wilde), June Salter (Hannah Wilde), Lenore Smith (Alex Wilde), Steven Grlves (Yuri), Jeannie Drynan (Liz), Henri Szeps (Shenko), ivar Kants (Curtis), Alan Lee (David Wilde), Martin Vaughan (Tom), Tim Eliot (Andrew Wilde).Synopsis: Drama about the entrepreneurial Wilde circus family involved in everything from lion parks to live theatrical promotions. Alex Wilde’s love affaire with visiting Russian ballet dancer becomes a matter of concern to the family when it has a dramatic effect on several of the business enterprises.

WITH PREJUDICEProd, company .....................Sirocco Visual

ProgrammingDist. company .......................Sirocco Visual

ProgrammingProducer ............................... Don CatchloveDirector ......................................Esben StormScriptwriter ......................... Leon SaundersPhotography .................................Peter LevySound recordist ...................... Mark LewisEditor ....................................Michael NoonanExec, producer ......................... Jim GeorgeProd, manager .................. Carol WilliamsProd, accountant .............. Connie DelliosProd, assistant ...........................Juliet Cobb1st asst director ................ Mark Turnbull2nd asst director ................... Keith HeygateContinuity ..................................... Jo WeekesCasting ....................................-._____ ForcastLighting cameraman ...............Peter LevyClapper/loader .......................Gillian LeahyCamera assistant ......................John BrockKey grip ................................. John WhitteronGaffer ...........................................Reg GarsideBoom operator ......................... Steve MillerArt director ..................................... Bob HillMake-up .................................... Lloyd JamesWardrobe ...................................... Lyn AskewStandby props ....................Jock McLachlinSet construction .......................Dick WeightAsst editor ............................ Duncan TaylorNeg. matching ........................................ AtlabTech, adviser ................................ Irina DunnBest boy ................................Sam BienstockRunner ...................................Greg FitzgeraldCatering ................................Rosie Van EwykStudios ..............................................Mort BayMixed at ...................................................AtlabLaboratory ...............................................AtlabLab. liaison ............................ ..D onM oselyBudget ................................................$250,000Length ................................................. 72 minsGauge .......... 16mmShooting stock .................... 7247, 7293Cast: Max Cullen, Richard Moir, Paul Sonkila, Chris Haywood, David Slingsby, John Ley, Terry Serio,-Scott Burgess, Tony Barry, David Downer.Synopsis: A dramatized reconstruction of the trial, in February, 1979, of Tim Anderson, Ross Dunn and Paul Alister, the three Ananda Marga members charged with conspiracy to murder Robert Cameron.

AWAITING R ELE A SE

CROSSTALKProd, company .........................Wall to WallProducer ....................................Errol SullivanDirector .....................................Mark EgertonPhotography ....................... Vincent MontonSound recordist ......................John PhillipsEditor ..........................................Colin WaddyProd, designer .................. Larry EastwoodComposer ...................................... Chris NeilExec, producer .................. Ross MatthewsProd, manager .........................Julie MontonUnit manager ............................Tony WinleyProd, secretary ........................ Cara FamesProd, accountant ......................Penny Carl1st asst director ................ Steve Andrews2nd asst director ........................... Phil RichContinuity ........................................ Jo WeeksCasting .................... .......Mitch ConsultancyCamera operator .........David Williamson

Focus puller ...........................Steve DobsonClapper/loader .................. Robyn PetersonKey grip ................................Geordie DrydenAsst grip ....................................Terry JacklinGaffer ............................................ Pav GovindBoom operator ............................Ray PhillipsMake-up ..........................................Liz MichieHairdresser ....................................Liz MichieWardrobe .................................... Jenny MilesWard, assistant ................ Miranda SkinnerProps buyer ..........................David BowdenStandby props .............Karan MonkhouseSpecial effects .......................... Ivan DurrantAsst editor .............................Christine SprySound editor ........................ Vicki AmbroseStill photography ..........................Bliss SwiftBest boy ........................................Andy ReidRunner ...................................Mark LamprellCatering .......................... Cecil B. de Meals

on WheelsStudios ..............................................Mort BayCast: Gary Day (Ed Ballinger), Penny Downie (Cindy), Kim Deacon (Jane), John Ewart (Mr Stollier), Jill Forster (Mrs Stollier), Peter Collingwood (Mr Hollister).A DANGEROUS SUMMERProd, company .......... McElroy & McElroyProducer ...............................James McElroyDirector .............................Quentin MastersScriptwriters ......................David Ambrose,

Quentin MastersBased on the novel by ............ Kit DentonPhotography ............................Peter HannanSound recordist .................... Don ConnollyEditor ........................................ Richard ClarkProd, designer ...........................Bob HilditchComposer ...............................Groove MyersProd, co-ordinator ............ Terry FoghartyProd, managers ................Peter Appleton,

Greg RicketsonUnit manager .......................... David FindlayProd, secretary ................. Wilma SchinellaProd, accountant ............ Elaine Crowther1st asst director ............ Michael McKeag

,2nd asst director ..................... John Rooke3rd asst director ...........................Ian KennyContinuity ...........................Roz BerrystoneCasting .....................................Rae DavidsonCamera operator ................... Keith WoodsFocus puller ............................. Steve MasonClapper/loader . i .................... Stuart QuinKey grip .................................... Don AndrewsAsst grip ........................ Phil ShapieraElectrician .................................Derek JonesBoom operator .......... Graham McKinneyAsst art director ...................... John CarrollCostume designer ............ Marta StatescuMake-up .......................................Jose PerezHairdresser ...................................Jose PerezWard, assistant ............ Catriona BrownProps buyers .................................. Ian Allen,

Sue HoyleStandby props .............................Paul JonesSpecial effects ........Conrad Rothman,

Chris Murray, Alan Maxwell,

Peter Armstrong, Jonathon David

Set construction ...................... John ParkerAsst editor .................................Doug FrazerSound editor ............................. John FosterStunts co-ordinator ............ Frank LennonStill photography .......... Geoff McGeachinBest boy ....................................Matt SlatteryRunner ....................................Richard HobbsUnit publicist .......................Babette SmithCatering .................................Nene Morgan,

Christina NormanLaboratory .....................................ColorfilmCast: Tom Skerritt (Howard Anderson), Ian Gllmour (Steve Adams), James Mason (George Engels), Wendy Hughes (Sophie McCann), Kim Deacon (Maggie Anderson), Ray Barrett (Webster), Norman Kaye (Percy Farley), Guy Doleman (Julian Fane), Martin Harris (Curly Chester), Michael Petrovitch (Joe Laliniei).THE DARK ROOMProd, company .................... Nadira Pty LtdDist. company ......................Filmco LimitedProducer ....................................Tom HaydonDirector ..................................... Paul HarmonScriptwriters .....................Michael Brindley,

Paul HarmonBased on the original idea

by ........................................... Paul HarmonPhotography .............................Paul OnoratoSound recordist ................. Ken Hammond

»Editor .....................................Rod AdamsonProd, designer ..................... Richard KentComposer ............................. Cameron AllanAssoc, producer ............ Michael BrindleyProd, co-ordinator ....................liana BaronProd, manager ................ Michael McKeagUnit manager . .........................Ian KennyProd, secretaries ........................ Lyn Morris,

Terry FogartyProd, accountant.....Moneypenny Services,

Androulia1st asst director ................David Bracknell2nd asst director , ...................................John Rooke3rd asst director ............... Ken RichardsonContinuity .............................Roz BerrystoneCamera operator .......... David WilliamsonFocus puller ......................... Jeremy RobinsClapper/loader ................. Robyn PetersonKey grip ................................... Robin MorganAsst grips ..........................Graeme Shelton,

Robert VerkeckGaffer .....................................Warren MearnsElectrician ................................. Doug WoodsBoom operator ................. Andrew DuncanArt director .............................. Richard Kent

Asst art director ............ . David BowdenMake-up ...................................Viv MephamWardrobe .....................................Liz KeoghWard, assistant .....................Fiona NichollsProps buyer .................................Jeff BruerStandby props .....................Nick McCallumSpecial effects ................Conrad RothmanCarpenters ...................James Thompson,

Max Feutrill, Michael Patterson

Set construction .........................Fred Kirk,Ian McGrath

Additional editing .......................Alan LakeAsst editor ............................. Julia GelhardNeg. matching .......................................AtlabMusical director ................ Cameron AllanSound editors .......................Paul Maxwell,

Anne Breslin, Jeff Bruer,

Peter Foster, Julia Gelhard,

Elizabeth HaydonMixer .............................Julian EllingsworthStunts co-ordinator ............ Frank LennonStill photography ................ Carolyn JohnsOpticals .................................Rick Springett,

Optical & Graphic Pty LtdTitle designer .............................Mike BerryBest boys ..............................Alleyn Mearns,

Geoff MaineRunner ...........................i .. .Richard HobbsPublicity ........................ .Elizabeth JohnsonCatering .................. .. Fillum CateringMixed at .................................................. AtlabLaboratory ...............................................AtlabLab. liaison .............................. Greg DohertyLength ...............................96 mins 46 secsGauge .....................................................35mmShooting stock ........................ EastmancolorCast: Alan Cassell (Ray Sangster), Anna Jemison (Nicky), Svet Kovich (M ike S an g ster), D iana Davidson (M arth a Sangster), Rowena Wallace (Liz Llewellyn), Ric Hutton (Sam Bitel), Oriana Panozzo (Susan Bitel), Sean Myers (Peter), Sally Cooper (Sally), Jon Darling (Bob Henning). Synopsis: A contemporary story of sexual rivalry and obsession: of lost youth and false manhood. A triangle which leads to disaster. DEAD EASYProducer............................. .........John WeileyD irector........................................Bert DelingPhotography........................................ Michael Molloy,

Tom CowanEditor ..............................................John ScottComposer...............................................William MotzingLength ................................................. 92 minsG auge........................................................ 35mm (1.85:1)Cast: Scott Burgess, Rosemary Paul, Tim McKenzie, Tony Barry, Max Phipps, Jack O’Leary, Joe Martin, Barney Combes.

DOT AND SANTA CLAUS (Further Adventures of Dot and the

Kangaroo)

Prod, company .......................Yoram GrossFilm Studio

Dist. company . . . Satori Productions Inc., New York

Producer .................................Yoram GrossDirector ...................................Yoram GrossScriptwriters........................... John Palmer,

Yoram GrossBased on the

original idea b y ...................Yoram GrossPhotography.......... Bob Evans (animation),

Chris Ashbrook (live action) Sound recordist for

character vo ices ..........Julian EllingworthCharacter design ...................Ray NowlandCom poser............................... Mervyn DrakeAssoc, produ cer...................Sandra GrossProd, manager .......................Virginia KellyProd, secretaries/

Administration....................... Meg Rowed,Margaret Lovell

Prod, accountant ................ William HauerProducer’s assistant................Kelly DuncanCasting...........................International Casting

ServicesCamera operator .....................Bob EvansCamera assistant .......... Lynette HennessyArt d irector...............................Ray NowlandScenic a rtis t...........................................Amber EllisNeg. m atching...................Margaret CardinChief anim ator.........................Ffay NowlandAnim ators............................... Paul McAdam,

Andrew Szemenyei, Athol Henry,

Cynthia Leech, Nicholas Harding

Asst anim ator...............................................Kay WattsBackground artis t.................................Amber EllisPainters................................... Ruth Edelman,

Kim Marden, Steve Hunter,

Nerissa Martin, Margaret Butler,

Kim CrasteIn betweeners .....................Vicki Robinson,

Astrid Brennan, Brenda McKie,

Paul MaronAnimation ass istant........Robert MalherbeCheckers and cleaners .. .Animation Aids,

Bruce Warner, Jan Carruthers'

Laboratory .........................................ColorfilmLength ................................................. 80 minsGauge ...................................................... 35mmShooting stock..........................EastmancolorScheduled release .................. March, 1982Cast: Drew Forsythe (Santa Claus).

Character voices: Barbara Frawley (Dot), Ross Higgins.Synopsis: The continuing adventures of Dot and her search for the missing joey. Dot meets with a hobo in her outback home town, the hobo becomes Santa Claus, and takes Dot on a wonderful adventure witnessing various Christmas ceremonies around the world.DOUBLE DEALProd, company ................ Rychemond Film

ProductionsDist. company .......................(overseas)

Hemdale Leisure Corp.Producers..................................................Brian Kavanagh,

Lynn BarkerDirector ..................................Brian KavanaghScriptwriter................., . . . . ' .Brian Kavanagh.Based on the

original idea b y ....................................Brian KavanaghPhotography.............................................. Ross BerrymanSound recordist .......................John PhillipsE d ito r.............. ................................ Tim LewisCom poser........ > .................Bruce SmeatonExec, producer ............................. John DalyAssoc, produ cer.......... .. Carlie DeansProd, supervisor .........................John ChaseProd.

co-ordinator . . . Carolynne CunninghamProd, accountant ......................Lynn BarkerProd, assistant...............................Lyn Devine1st Asst d irec to r.................. Ross Hamilton2nd Asst director ..........................Bill Baster2nd unit d irector......................................Brian KavanaghContinuity ................................Shirley BallardProducer’s assistant........ Helen KavanaghFocus p u lle r ..................................... Fan JonesClapper/loader ..............................Phil CrossSpecial fx ...........................Conrad RothmanG affer......................................... Lindsay FooteBoom operator ........................... Ray PhillipsArt d irector..................................... Jill EdenAsst art director .......................... Phil EaglesMake-up ..............................Deryck De NieseHairdfesser...............................................Pietra RobinsWardrobe ................................ Anna JakabProps b u y e r...........................Nick HepworthStandby props............................................ Ken HazelwoodSpecial effects...................Conrad RothmanConstruction.....................Geoff Richardson,

Ian DoigAsst editor .................................. Ken SallowsStill photography...................................... Suzy WoodBest boy ...................................Gary ScholesRunner..........................................Stuart WoodPublicity......................................................Carlie Deans.Unit publicist ...........................Peter MurphyLaboratory .........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison.................................................... Bill GooleyBudget..............................................................$1 millionShooting stock..........................EastmancolorCast: Angela Punch McGregor (Christina Stirling), Louis Jourdan (Peter Stirling), Diane Craig (June Stevens), Warwick Comber (young man), Bruce Spence (Doug Mitchell), Peter Cummins (Detective Mills), Patty Crocker (Christina’s mother), Kerry Walker (Sibyl Anderson), Danee Lindsay (jun ior s ec re ta ry ), June Jago (M rs Coolidge).Synopsis: A psychological thriller, its plot is a mystery of manipulation and doubledealing about the elegant, beautiful Christina Stirling, her urbane, successful m an-of-the-w orld husband, Peter, a daunting, sensuous young man and Peter's efficient, devoted secretary.EARLY FROSTProd, company ......................David Hannay

ProductionsProducers .............................. David Hannay,

Geoff BrownScriptwriter .........................Terry O’ConnorBased on an original

idea by ...........................Terry O’ConnorPhotography ..............................David EggbySound recordist ........................Mark LewisEditor .............................................. Tim StreetProd, designer ...........................Bob HilditchComposer .................................Mike HarveyExec, producer ................ John Fitzpatrick

(Filmco)Prod, manager ...................... Julia OvertonUnit manager .............................Di NicholasProd, secretary .................. Belinda MasonProd, accountant. ........Howard Wheatley1st asst director .............. Stuart Freeman2nd asst director .......... Michael Bourchier3rd asst director .................Annie PeacockContinuity ............ Margaret Rose StringerProducer’s assistant ........Vanessa BrownLighting cameraman ............ David EggbyCamera operator ....................David EggbyFocus puller ........................... David ConnellClapper/loader ..........................Erika AddisCamera assistants . . . . . Salik Silverstein,

Sally EcclestonKey grip ...........................Merv McLaughlinAsst grips ...........................Brett Robinson,

Robert Verkerk2nd unit photography ............ Peter Levy,

Sam BienstockGaffer .......................... Roger WoodElectrician ........ ' ........................Peter WoodBoom operator ......................... Steve MillerArt director ...........................:. Bob HilditchAsst art director .................... Robert JonesMake-up .................................Rina HofmanisHairdresser ............................ Rina HofmanisWardrobe .......... Bob LloydWard, assistant .................Robina ChaffeyProps .......................................... .'.Tony HuntProps buyer ..................................... Ian Alien

Standby props............................... Tony HuntSpecial effects ......................Brian Olesen,

Alan Maxwell, Peter Evans

Carpenters ........ ..................Russell Jones,Morris Evans, Adrian Storey

Set construction ..................... John Parker,Michael Osborne

Asst editor ..................Catherine SheehanNeg. matching .........................Gordon PeckMusical director ...................... Mike HarveyMusic performed

by ................................... Doug Parkinson,Naomi Warne,

Malcolm McCallum, David Spall, Steve Kiely

Sound editor ..............................Klaus JaritzEditing assistant ................... Terry MooneyMixer ............................................... Phil JuddStunts co-ordinators .. .Peter Armstrong,

Herb NelsonStunts .............................................Glen Davis,

Bev Teague, Matthew Hessian,

Dee James, Chris Hessian,

Rocky McDonaldStill photography .....................Chic StringerOpticals ..................................Andrew MasonTitle designer............................................. Mike BerryBest boy ......................................Peter WoodRunner ................................... Mardi KennedyPublicity .....................Carlie Deans Pty LtdUnit publicist .................Elizabeth JohnsonCatering ................................... Paul Sargent,

Eric Larsen, Shelleys,

Plum CrazyMixed at .................................United SoundLaboratory ............................ Atlab AustraliaLab. liaison ...........................James ParsonsLength ............................................... 90 minsGauge ................................................... 35mmShooting stock .......... Eastmancolour 5247Cast: Diana McLean (Val Meadows), Jon Blake (Peter Meadows), Jan Kingsbury (Peg Prentice), David Franklin (David P ren tice ), Daniel C u m erford (Joey Meadows), Guy Doleman (Mike Hayes), Joanne Samuel (Chris), Kit Taylor (Paul Sloane).Synopsis: A suburban community is blissfully unaware that a killer stalks the streets. A mother and her two sons survive in a disintegrating relationship. These two elements come together to form the basis of this mystery-thriller.FIGHTING BACKProd, company ___Samson ProductionsProducers ..................................Sue Milliken,

Tom JeffreyDirector ......................... .Michael CaulfieldScriptwriters .......................Michael Cove,

Tom JeffreyBased on the novel by ___John EmblingDirector of

photography ...........................John SealeSound recordist ....................... Tim LloydEditor ......................... Ron WilliamsExec, producer ......................Phillip AdamsProd.

co-ordinator .. .Carolynne CunninghamProd, manager ................. .Su ArmstrongLocation m anager..................Tony WinleyProducers’ secretary .......... Mary WilliamsProd, accountant . . Moneypenny Services

(Craig Scott)1st asst director .................Steve Andrews2nd asst director .................Chris Maudson3rd asst director ...........................Phil RichContinuity .......................... Caroline StantonCasting consultant ...............Helen Rolland

(HR consultant)Extras casting ............................. Dina MannFocus puller ................ Richard MerrymanClapper/loader ...........................Derry FieldKey grip ................................ Paul ThompsonAsst grip ............................Brendon ShanleyGaffer ......................................... Reg GarsideBoom operator ....................Jack FriedmanArt director .............. Christopher WebsterMake-up ..........................................Jill PorterWardrobe ...................Robyn SchuurmansWard, assistant .........................Jenny MilesProps buyer ...................... Michael TolertonStandby props ............ Colin GibsonSet construction .......................Hans TheileAsst editor .........................Cathy SheehanNeg. matching ...................Margaret CardinStunts co-ordinator .............. Heath HarrisAction vehicle

manager .............................Barry BransenStill photography .....................Jim TownleyActors tutor .............................Wilfred FlintMechanic .................................. Dave ThomasBest boy ................ .......... Sam BienstockRunner .................................Richard UssherPublicity ..................................... David White

(Brooks White Organization)Catering ................................... Nene Morgan,

Christina NormanStudios .......................John Morten StudiosMixed at ............................ United SoundLaboratory ..................................... ColorfilmLab. liaison ....................................Bill GooleyLength ................................. ............100 minsGauge ....................................................35mmShooting stock .............Eastmancolor 5247Cast: Lewis Fitz-Gerald (John), Paul Smith (Tom), Kris McQuade (Tom's mum), Caroline Gillmer (Rosemary), Catherine Wilkin (Mary), Ben Gabriel (Moreland), Wyn Roberts (Payne).Synopsis: A remarkable relationship be-


N A G R ATwin capstan

A brilliant new transportable audio recorder from the world leaders in film location sound recording.

FEATURES -• Interchangeable head unit.• Servo-controlled tape tension.• SMPTE sync, system.• Pilotone sync, system.• Four speeds.

CINEMA TRAILERS 'T V TRAILERS * PRODUCT REELS A DIVISION OFSUSANNE TURNER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD.

26 SERPENTINE RD., GREENWICH POINT NSW 2065 AUSTRALIA PHONE (02) 438 2213

____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ /

• Servo-controlled editing.• Full remote control.• AC/DC operation.

The Nagra T-Audio is available from Rank Electronics, the Australian distributors of Kudelski recorders for the film industry.

• Nagra 4-2L Full track• Nagra IV-S Stereo• Nagra IS-L Compact• Nagra SN Miniature

RankElectronics

SYDNEY ROY RUDDER (02)4495666MELBOURNE PAULBROOKER (03)5418444BRISBANE JOHN SULLIVAN (07) 440251ADELAIDE LES NEWBERRY (08)2950211PERTH TREVOR JANSEN (09)4431811

RE 106

IF IT MOVES WE'LL

SHOOT ITTasmanian Film Corporation,

1 -3 Bowen Road, Moonah, Tasmania, Australia 7009 Telephone (002) 30 3531

Telegrams: Tasfilm Hobart Telex: Tasfilm 57148.

tween a young teacher and a deeply- disturbed 13 year-old boy. "Pom is written off as a delinquent by most adults until. John, the teacher, fights against all odds to straighten out his life.GOODBYE PARADISEProd, c o m p a n y .......... Petersham Pictures

Pty Ltd' P rod ucer......................................... Jane Scott

Director .........................................Carl SchultzScriptwriters...................................Bob Ellis,

Denny LawrenceBased on original idea '

by ..................................... Denny LawrenceSound recordist ...............Syd ButterworthE d ito r.......................Richard Francis-BruceProd, designer......................................George LiddleC om poser.......................................Peter BestProd, co-ordinator ............ ...F io n a GosseProd, manager ...........................Jill NicholasT ransport/

Unit m anager..................................... Peter LawlessProd, secretary ........................Lyn GalbraithFinancial controller..............Richard HarperProd, accountant .....................Karen VolichLocation m anager..................Janene Knight1st asst director ............... '.Neill Vine-Miller2nd asst director......................................Peter Willesee3rd asst d irector......................................Peter KearneyContinuity .............. ........................ Pam WillisCasting....................................................Michael LynchCasting consultants .. Forcast Consultants Camera operator . . . . . . Danny BatterhamFocus p u lle r............................... Steve MasonClapper/loader .......................Russell BaconKey grip ...............................Paul ThompsonAsst grip ...........................Brendan Shanley2nd unit photography ................Jan Kenny,

Frank HammondG affer.......................... Graham RutherfordBoom operator ............................ Noel QuinnArt d irector.................................................John CarrollArt dept, c le rk ................................. Geraldine RoydsMake-up ..................Lesley Lamont-FIsherHairdresser.............................................. Jenny Brown

/„Wardrobe ....................................... Kate DuffyWard, assistant......................................Lesley McLennanProps assistant ............................... Igor NayProps b u y e r..................................... Ian AllenStandby props............................................ Igor LazareffSpecial effects ..........................................Chris MurraySpecial effects assistant . . . . David HardieChoreography .......................Ross ColemanScenic a rtis t................................................ Ned McCannCarpenter ................................ Robin WarnerSet construction manager ..Denis DonellyAsst editor ....................................Mark DarcySound editor ......................Andrew StewartEditing assistant .............. Ashley GrenvilleStunts co-ordlnatOF ..................Dennis HuntStuntmen........................................................ Vic Wilson,

Mike Read, Ian Lind.

Dog handler ....................Dennis HuntStill photography......................Jim TownleyBest boys ....................... .Jack Kendrick,

Alan GlossopRunner * - ................ . Meryl CroninPublicity.......... Brooks White OrganizationUnit publicist ...............................David WhiteCatering..................................... John FaithfuilStudios............................................. 5 .ArtransaMixed at .................................. United SoundLaboratory .........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison.................................................... Bill GooleyB u dget.......................................................... $1.8 millionLength ............................................... 110 minsGauge ......................................................35mmShooting stock . . . Eastman Color NegativeScheduled release .........................Mid 1982Cast: Ray Barrett (Stacey), Robyn Nevin (Kate). Janet Scrivener (Cathy McCredie), Kate Fitzpatrick (Mrs McCredie), Lex Marinos (Con). John Clayton (Bill Todd), Guy Doieman (Quiney), Paul Chubb (Curly).Synopsis: She was all any old fool could ask ■for— a beautiful masochist with an Electra complex. She knew her life was a great predestined adventure, and, if it ended like Bonnie and Clyde, so be it. It was for girls like this that old fools like Agamemnon died

Agamemnon and Mike Stacey. Ex- D.eputy Police Commissioner, Michael Stacey QBE. § . ,KITTY AND THE BAGMANProd, company . . . Forest Home Films for

Adams Packer Film Prods.Producer.......... ...............Anthoriy BuckleyD irecto r______ ________Donald CrombieScriptwriters.................... -. Phillip Cornford,

John BurnieDirector of photography . . .Dean Semmler Sound recordist . . . . . . . . . . . . John PhillipsEditor . . . . . . . ___ . ..Timothy WellburnProd, designer................. . .Owe'n WilliamsExec, producer .................... .Phillip Ad&msAssoc, producer Jacqueline IrelandProdl m anaaer................ Lynn GaileyProd, secretary ............... . Antonia BarnardProd, accountant . . . . . . Howard Wheatley1st asst d ire c to r............ .... Stuart Freeman2nd asst director...................Colin Fletcher3rd asst d irector___. . . . . . . . .Chris ShortContinuity . . ’¿p§.............................. .'"Jo WeeksCasting................. ........... . . .. .Mitch MatthewsCamera operator ...........Danny, BatterhamFOCUS p u lle r ............ .. Steve DobsonClapper/loader . . . . . . . . , Andrew McLeanKey g r ip ...... .. . . ...............* Merv McLaughlinAsst grip/s ..................................... Pat Nash,

Brian Edmonds* Gaffer .....................John Morton

Electrician............................ .. .Jason RogersBoom operator ........................... Ray PhillipsArt d irector................................................John CarrollAsst art d ire c to r...... ........ Judith RussellCostume designer ............Judith DorsmanMake-up..................... Lesley Lamont-FisherHairdresser.................................Willi KenrickWard, assistants ..........................Lyn Askew,

Kerri BarnettProps buyers . . . . ___Stephen Amezdroz,

Billy Allen, Sue Hoyle

Standby props.............................Paul JonesSpecial e ffects........ Almax Special EffectsChoreography .......................Anne SemmlerScenic artis ts ..............................................Ned McCann,

Joyce MacFarlaneCarpenters .........................Len Metcalfe,

Hannes FingerSet construction .................. Richard WeightAsst editor .....................Annabelle SheehanNeg. m atching.....Margaret CardinStill photography.................................. Patrick RiviereBest boy .......................................Ian PlumberRunner................................ Annie PeacockPublicity.........................................................Rea FrancisLaboratory .......................................ColorfilmLab. liaison.................................................... Bill GooleyProgress .......................................ProductionCast: Liddy Clark (Kitty O’Rourke), Val Lehman (Lil Delaney), John Stanton (The Bagman), Gerard McGuire (Cyril Vikkers), Collette Mann (Doris de Salle), Reg Evans (Chicka Delaney), Kylie Foster (SarahJones), Ted Hepple (Sam), Danny Adcock (Thomas), John Ewart (The Train Driver). Synopsis: A period comedy drama set in Sydney about two crime queens, Kitty O’Rourke and Big Lil Delaney. Together, these two remarkable women ruled the underworld of sly-grog shops, gambling houses, prostitution and hold-up merchants in the rip-roaring 1920s, playing, laughing and fighting with a gusto the city has never known since.LADY, STAY DEADProd, com pany........ Ryntare ProductionsProducer................................ Terry BourkeD irector......................................................Terry BourkeScriptwriter........................... Terry BourkeBased on the original idea

b y ............................................................Terry BourkePhotography............................. Ray HenmanSound recordist ........................Bob ClaytonE d ito r.............................................................Ron WilliamsCom poser....................................Bob YoungExec, producer ............Alexander HopkinsAssoc, producers .................. John Hipwell,

Eric CookProd, supervisor...................................... John HipwellProd, secretary ..........................Pam BrownProd, accountant ......................... Ross LaneProd, assistant................Mary-Anne Halpin1st asst director .................. Eddie Prylinski2nd asst director.............. David TretheweyContinuity .................................June HenmanCasting................................................ Eric CookCasting consultants ...................... Eric Cook

ManagementLighting cameraman ............ Ray HenmanCamera operator .......... .. Ray HenmanFocus p u lle r..............................................Peter RogersClapper/loader .................. Robert MarriottCamera ass istant........ ..........Peter RogersKey g rip .....................................Peter Mardell,

Film UnitAsst grip ...............................Michael NelsonG affer...................................Chick McDonaldElectrician o n e ........................ Alleyn MearnsElectricians tw o ..........................................Bud Howell,

Douglas WoodBoom operator .............................Keir WelchArt d irector.........................................Bob HillMake-up ...................................Sally GordonHairdresser...........................Jan ZeigenbeinWardrobe .............................Catriona BrownProps b u y e r............................................Sandy WlngroveStandby props........................Bevan Childs,

Nick McCallumSpecial effects........................................Reece Robinson1st asst e d ito r ............. Antoinette Wheatley2nd asst editor ....................Moira McLaineNeg.„ m atching.........................Gordon PooleMusical director .......................... Bob YoungMusic performed by ..................Bob Young

OrchestraSound editor ...........................Paul MaxwellEditing assistants ......................Peter FosterMixer .........................................Peter FentonStunts co-ordinator ............ Frank LennonStunts.........................................................Grant Page,

Dee Jones, Chris Hession

Still photography.....................................David MillerTitle designer................ Optical & GraphicsDog .wrangler...........................Evanne HarrisCamefa g a ffe r ......................................Conrad SlackRunner............ Alex PoliakPublicity ....................................... Liz JohnstonCatering...................................Kaos KateringMixed at ...................................United SoundLaboratory ....................... AtlabLab. liaison.........................Greg DoughertyBudget ......................... $610,000L en g th ........ ................■....................... 92 minsGauge ...................................................... 35mmShooting stock.............. 5247 Eastmartcolor

EktachromeSchedul.ed re le a s e ...........December, 1981

(Japan)Cast: Chard Hayward (Gordon Mason), Louise* Howiff (Jenny NoJan), Deborah Coulls (Marie Colbey), Les Foxcroft. (Billy Shepherd); Roger Ward (Officer Clyde Col- lings),; Jam esvEllio tt (Patrolm an Rex Dunbar).

Synopsis: A young woman, looking after her sister’s house while she is away on location, is unaware that her sister and the caretaker have been murdered. The murderer returns to kill the woman, and so begins a battle of wits.LONELY HEARTSProd, company .................... Adams Packer

Film ProdsProducer................................ John B. MurrayD irector..............................................Paul CoxScriptwriters...............................John Clarke,

Paul CoxBased on the original

idea by ......................................... Paul CoxPhotography...................................Yuri SokolSound recordist ...................Ken HammondE d ito r............................................... Tim LewisProd, designer............ .......... Neil AngwinCom poser.............................................Norman KayeExec, producer ......................Phillip AdamsAssoc, produ cer........................... Erwin RadoAsst producer ...................... Fran HaarsmaProd, manager ...................Jane BallantyneProd, accountant .......... Natalie Hammond1st Asst director ...................Bernard EddyContinuity ...............................Joanna WeeksCamera operator ................ Barry MalseedFocus p u lle r.......................... Nino MartlnettiClapper/loader ............................. Chris CainKey g rip .......................................David CassarG affer.......................................... John EngeierBoom operator . . . - .................................Grant StuartMake-up .....................................Viv MephamHairdresser..................................Viv MephamWardrobe ...............................Frankie HoganProps b u y e r..............................Phillip EaglesAsst editor ...............................Peter McBainNeg. m atching...................Margaret CardinMusic recording .......... Alan Eaton SoundSound editor .........................Peter BurgessAsst sound e d ito r............Chris RatnarajanMixer .........................................Peter FentonStill photography..................... Robert ColvinTitle designer........................................ Al Et AtBest boy ........................... Michael MadiganRunner.........................................Tom BacskaiCatering......................................................Kerry ByrneSound transfers......................... Gary WilkinsPost-production facilities . . . . The JoineryMixed at .................. United Sound StudiosLaboratory ........................................ ColorfilmLab. liaison....................................................Bill GooleyLength ...................................................95 minsGauge ................................................ ,..35m mShooting stock..........................EastmancolorCast: Wendy Hughes (Patricia), Norman Kaye (Peter), Jon Flnlayson (George), Julia Blake (Pamela), Jonathon Hardy (Bruce). Synopsis: A tragi-comic love story about Peter Thompson, a middle-aged bachelor, and Patricia Curnow, a 30-year-o ld spinster.MYSTERY AT CASTLE HOUSEProd, company ........................ Independent

ProductionsProducer.............................Brendon LurineyD irector................................... Peter MaxwellScriptwriters...........................Stuart Glover,

Michael Hohensee Based on the original idea

b y ...............................................Geoff BeakPhotography.....................................Phil PikeSound recordist .......... Rowland McManisE d ito r............................................................ Bob CoggerExec, producer ...........................Gene ScottAssoc, produ cer.....................Russell Hurley-Prod, co-ordinator ...................Peter AbbottProd, manager ........ Christopher GardinerProd, secretary.............. Wendy ChapmanProd, assistant............ ..........Sean McLoury1st asst director . . . .Christopher Gardiner2nd asst director....................................... Paul CallaghanContinuity ........................... Catherine SauterCasting.............................Mitch ConsultancyCamera assistant ......................Keith BryantKey g rip .............................Merv McLaughlin2nd unit photography ................ Phil Dority,

Garry MaunderG affer.................................................. Ray AngBoom operator .......................... Jan McHargArt director ............................... Jakob HorvatW ardrobe.................................................. Fiona SpenceP ro p s .......................................Brian EdmondsAsst editor ........................Mickey O’SullivanNeg. m atching......................................... Chris RowellStill photography.....................................Fiona Spence,

Garry MaunderPublicity...................................................Wendy ChambersLaboratory ................ Cine Film LaboratoryLab. liaison....................................................Cal GardinerLength ................................................ 85 minsGauge ...................................................... 16mmShooting stock..........................EastmancolorCast: Aifeen Britton (Miss Markham), Henri Szeps (M r Wilberforce), John Cobley (Morris), Ray Meagher (Stakovich), Simone Buchanan (Kate), Scott Nicholas (Ben), Jeremy Shadlow (Spider), Robert Geammel (Rocco), Tony Lee (Ah Leong).Synopsis: When three children cross the harbor to explore Castle House — a strange, unoccupied mansion — they encounter sinister baddies, a kidnapping and a hilarious, eccentric lady. Excitement, mystery and non-stop action and roll-in- the-aisle comedy for children.NEXT OF KINProd, companies....... . The Film House,

S.I.S. Productions

Dlst. company ...................................... FilmcoProducer..................................Robert Le TetD irector.......................................................Tony WilliamsScriptwriters ..........................Michael Heath,,

Tony WilliamsBased on the original idea

b y.............Timothy .White, Michael HeathPhotography..............................Gary HansenSound recordist.........................................Gary WilkinsEditor .............................................Max LemonCo-producer........................... Timothy WhiteProd, supervisor.................... Michael LakeProd, co-ordinator........................Trish FoleyUnit manager , ..................................Marcus SkipperProd, accountant .....................Wendy Miller1st asst director .............Philip HearnshawAsst directors........................... Paul Healey,

Tony McDonaldContinuity.................................................. Anne McCleodCasting..........................,. Mitch ConsultancySteadicam operator................Toby PhillipsCamera operator ....................Gary HansenFocus puller ............................. Phillip CrossClapper/loader................ John JasiukowiczKey g rip ...................................Noel McDonaldAsst g r ip ................................Wayne Marshall2nd unit photography........... Toby PhillipsG affe r..........................................Mick MorrisGen. op........................................Gary PlunkettBoom operator..........................................Mark WaslutakArt directors ........................Richard Francis,

Nick HepworthMake-up ..............................Elizabeth FardonSpecial prosthetic

m ake-up...............................Bob McCarronHairdresser ......................... Suzie ClementsW ardrobe....................................Jenny ArnottWard, assistant ............................Gail MayesProps buyer........................................... Harvey MawsonStandby props.......................................... John PowditchSpecial e ffects......................... Chris MurraySpecial effects

assistant..................... David HardieSet decorators..................Harvey Mawson,

Ken HazelwoodConstruction m anager...........Ray PattlsonAsst

construction manager Danny CorcoranConstruction services....... Domenic VillellaAsst ed ito r.................................Ken SallowsNeg matching...................................FilmsyncSound editors....................Louise Johnson,

Frank LipsonDubbing assistant.....................................Ross ChambersM ixer.................................. Julian ElllngworthFight co-ordinator....................Gus MercurioStunts........................................................... Paul Alexander,

Archie Roberts, Matt Burns

Still photography..........................Suzy WoodTitle designer.............................................Alex StittBest hoy .................................. Alan GlossopCatering..................................... Helen WrightStudios.........................Cambridge, York St.Mixed at .................................................... AtlabLaboratory...................................................VFLLength .................................................. 95 minsG auge........................................................35mm 1.66Shooting stock......................... EastmancolorScheduled release.......................June, 1982Cast: Jackie Kerin (Linda Stevens), John Ja rra tt (B arney ), C h arles M cC allum(Lance), Gerda Nicoison (Connie), Aiex Scott (Dr Barton), Bernadette Gibson (Mrs Ryan), Robert Ratti (Kelvin), Vince Deltito (Nico), Debra Lawrence (Carol), Tommy Dysart (Harry).

NORMAN LOVES ROSEProd, com pany___Norman Films Pty LtdDist. company .........................................GUOProducer’ .................................Henri Safran,

Basil ApplebyD irector.......................................Henri SafranScriptwriter.................................Henri SafranBased on the

original idea b y .................... Henri SafranPhotography............................ Vince MontonSound recordist .......................Ross LintonE d ito r............................................................ Don SaundersProd, designer...........................Darrell LassCom poser...................................................Mike PerjanikExec, producer .........................Max WestonProd, supervisor.......................................Basil ApplebyProd, co-ordinator .....................Susan WildUnit m anager.............................Kim AnningProd, secretary ........... Suzanne DonnoileyProd, accountant . Moneypenny Services,

Alan Marco1st Asst d irec to r.................................... Steve Connard2nd Asst director ...........................Ian Page3rd Asst director......................................Mark ThomasContinuity............................................ Therese O’LearyCasting........................................................Mitch MatthewsLighting cameraman ............ Vince MontonCamera operator .....................Nixon BinnyFocus p u lle r................................................ Kim BatterhamClapper/loader ................... Robyn PetersenKey g rip .......................................................Greg WallaceAsst grip/s ................................ Phil ShapeiraG affer............................. Miles MoulsonGenerator operator ___. . . . Dick OldfieldBoom o p e ra to r............Graham McKinneyArt d irector.................................Darrell LassMake-up ................................... Tricia CunliffeHairdresser......................... Jan ZeigenbeimWardrobe ...........................Jenny CampbellWard, assistants.....................................Helen Hooper,

Cheyne PhillipsP ro p s .........................................John Daniell,

Tony HuntProps b u y e r...............................Martin O’NeillSet decorator.................. Martin O’NeillSet construction ............ .. Stan WolveridgeAsst editor ..................., ................Ian MunroSound editor .................................. Ian Munro

Editing assistants .....................Diana Priest,Marianne Rodwell

Mixer ......................................... United SoundStill photography.....................Chic StringerO pticals...............................................ColorfilmBest boy ............................... .. Richard CurtisRunners.......................Geraldine Catchpool,

Julie PlummerPublicity.........................................................Rea FrancisCatering...................................Lisa HennessyMixed at .................................... United SoundLaboratory ......................................... ColorfilmLab. liaison ....................................Bill GooleyLength ............................................... 98 minsGauge ................ 35mmShooting stock ........................ EastmancolorCast: Carol Kane (Rose), Warren Mitchell (Morris), Myra De Groot (Mother), Tony Owen (Norman), David Downer (Michael), B arry O tto (C h a r le s ) , S a n d y G ore (Maureen), Virginia Hey (Girlfrield). S y n o p s is : N o rm an is a s e n s itiv e , precocious 13 year-old preparing for his Bar Mitzvah. Sister-In-Law Rose, the object of his passion, becomes pregnant to the great surprise of husband Michael (for years unable to satisfy her desire for" children), to the delight of parents-in-law who at last can bask in the m any exclamations of “Mazeltov!”, but Norman’s response raises a preposterous question who is the father?NOW AND FOREVERProd, company ...............Now and Forever

Film PartnershipProducer ................................. Trelsha GhentD irector........................................Adrian CarrScriptwriter ..........................Richard CassidyBased on the novel

b y ...........................................Danielle SteelPhotography...........................Don McAlpineSound recordist......... ..........Kevin KearneySupervising editor .................. Adrian CarrComposer ..............................Bruce RowlandProd, designer.................Rene & RochfordExec, producer ......... Carnegie FieldhouseAssoc, producer.........................................Rea FrancisProd, co-ordinator.................. Lyn Galbraith1Prod, m anager__ , ............... Carol WilliamsUnit m anag er.............................................Tom BlacketProd, secretary ....................... Carol HughesProd, accountant ...........Spyros SideratosAsst accountant.................................... Connie DelliosProducers’ assistants ............... Neil Green,

Lee Walker1st asst director ................ Stuart Freeman2nd asst director........................Chris Short3rd asst d irector................ Bob DonaldsonContinuity............................................... Shirley BallardNSWFC continuity

attachment ..................................Liz BartonProducer’s assistants.........Maggie Scully,

Jaana CassidyExtras casting.................... Miriam FreemanCasting consultants........................... ForcastLighting assistant....................Guy HancockCamera operator ...........Danny BatterhamFocus puller .......................... Andrew LesnieClapper/loader....................Robyn PetersenKey grip .......................................................Merv McLaughlinG rip .....................................................Pat NashAsst g r ip .................................... Erik PressleyCamera dept

attachment .............Geraldine CatchpoolG affe r............................................................ Rob YoungSecond

sound recordist .................... John FranksBoom operator.................................... Graham McKinneyArt director ........................Rene & RochfordArt dept co-ordinator...........................Penny LangMake-up .....................................Sally GordonHairdresser ........................... Jan ZeigenbeinW ardrobe............................ Rene & RochfordWard, assistant .............................Lyn AskewBuyers/dressers ...............Sandy Wingrove,

Bob Hill, Ken McCann

Standby props...........................................Alan FordSet decorator.....................Rene & RochfordScenic artist ............................. Ned McCannAsst scenic artist ............. Helen HooperSet construction .................... Digby StewartArt dept runner .................... Sherre VolichAsst e d ito r........................Louise B. JohnsonDubbing editor.................... Bruce LamshedDubbing assistant...................... Craig CarterStill photography...................................Patrick RiviereDialogue coach ........... Alice SpitvakBest boy .................................Colin WilliamsLaborer .........................................Sean KillenUnit runner............................................. Murray FrancisProduction runner ....................Jenny SharpUnit publicist............................................ Annie PageCatering....................................Kaos KateringStudios............................................... Mort BayUnit doctor..................................... John HiltonPost-production .......................Sound senseLaboratory..........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison ....................................Bill GooleyGauge .......................................................3 5 mmStock .......................................... EastmancolorCast: Cheryl Ladd (Jessie Clarke), Robert Coleby (Ian Clarke), Carmen Duncan (Astrid Bonner), Christine Amor (Margaret Burton), Aileen Britton (Bethanie), Kris McQuade (Spencer), John Allen (Martin Harrington), Tim Burns (Kent), Henri Szeps (York).Synopsis: The story of a stylish Sydney boutique owner and her husband, a promising writer who has not as yet achieved financial success. On the surface, they appear to have a perfect relationship. However, their marriage is shattered when he is accused of rape after a casual indiscretion one afternoon with another woman.


Their relationship disintegrates as they struggle to prove, and for her to continue to believe in, his innocence.

THE PIRATE MOVIEProd, company ................JHI ProductionsProducer .................................. David JosephDirector ......................................Ken AnnakinScriptwriter ...........................Trevor Farrant.Photography ........................ Robin Copping’Sound recordist ..........................Paul ClarkProd, designer ...................... Jon DowdingComposer .................................Terry BrittenExec, producer ......................Ted HamiltonAssoc, producer ..............David AndersonProd, executive .................... Richard DavisProd, co-ordinator ............ Renate WilsonProd, secretary ......................Anne O'LearyProd, manager ...........................Tom BinnsLocation manager .....................Helen WattsProd, accountant ........ G&S Management

ServicesAccounts assistant .................... Peter DonsProd, assistant ................Michael McIntyre1st asst director ................ Murray Newey2nd asst director ................ Andrew Morse3rd asst director ................ Murray FrancisContinuity .............................Jenny QuigleyProducer’s secretary .. Ginny MuldowneyCasting ...................................Helen RowlandCamera operator .......................David BurrFocus puller ........................ Barry HalloranClapper/loader ...................... Ben SeresinKey grip ..............................................Ian ParkAsst grips ................................ Kerry Boyle,

Richard Tummel, Jaime Lechie

Gaffer .....................................Stewart SorbyElectricians .............. .. David Parkinson,

Geoff Main, Phil Golomdick,

Tex FootePlayback operator ...................Greg SteeleBoom operator .............. Chris GoldsmithArt directors .......................... Tony Wollard,

Nic HepworthArt dept manager ......................David SearlCostume designer ...Aphrodite DowdingMake-up .................... .. Lois HohenfelsMake-up assistants ................Patty Payne,

Nick Doming, Robyn Pickering

Hairdresser .................................Joan PetchAsst hairdressers ................... Kerrie Davis,

Amanda RowbottomWardrobe ...................................Pam-MalingStandby wardrobe ...................Davjd RoweWard, buyer ..................................Viv WilsonStandby props ...............................Barry HallSpecial effects .................R. J. Hohman,

John Egget, Conrad Rothman

Special effects asst .....................Rick CliseChoreography ..........................David AtkinsAsst choreography ........Camille EdwardsSet dresser ....................................... Jill EdenScenic artist .......................... Billy MalcolmCarpenters ................................ Dennis Lee,

Alan Fleming, Rory Forest,

llmar Kgruso, Hodges & Richter

Construction managers .......... Phil Worth,Ken Hazelwood

Ships liaison officers .......... Ian Goddard,Gordon Kirby

Musical arrangers ................ Peter Sullivan,Roger Savich

Dubbing editor .................... Terry RodmanStunts co-ordinator .."............ Grant PageFencing instructor ................ John FethersStill photography ......................Barry PeakeBest boy ................................ Peter MoloneyBest boy (2) ...........................Colin WilliamsRunner ............ ................Keith HanscombePublicity .......................................David White

(Brooks White Organization)Catering .......................... Harold Jene KochCast: Kristy McNichol, Christopher Atkins, Ted Hamilton, Gary McDonald, Bill Kerr, Maggie Kirkpatrick.Synopsis: Loosely based on Gilbert and Sullivan's “The Pirates of Penzance". Film includes five Gilbert and Sullivan songs, and six new ones. Story has a contemporary beginning and end; most is a long fantasy sequence.THE RETURN OF CAPTAIN INVINCIBLEProducer...............................................Andrew GatyD irector................................................ Philippe MoraScriptwriters........................................ Andrew Gaty,

Steven de SouzaBased on the original

idea by ...................................Andrew GatyPhotography.............................. Mike MolloySound recordist ...................Ken HammondEditor ............................................. John ScottProd, designer.........................................David CoppingM u s ic .................................................Bestall &

Reynolds ManagementAssoc, producer...............Brian D. BurgessUnit m anager..................................... Warwick RossProd, secretary............ Rosslyn AbernethyNSWFC prod, a s s t............ Joanne RooneyProd, accountant ......................Lea CollinsAsst accountant.................. Kate Highflefd1st asst director ...............Bosie Vine-Miller2nd asst director......................................Keith Heygate3rd asst d irector..................................... Peter KearneyContinuity .......................................Linda RayTelephonist.......................... Marguerite GreyProducer's secretary . . . .Sandra Wheatley Casting............................................................ Liz Mullinar

Camera operator ........................ Lou IrvingFocus p u lle r............. ...............Peter RogersClapper/loader .......................... Stuart QuinKey g rip ................................ Graeme MardellGrip ..............................................Gary CardinFront projection operator . . . Paul NichollaFront projection a s s t.................Ken ArlidgeG affer......................................................... Brian Bansgrove1st electrics ................................Colin ChaseBoom operator ..................Andrew DuncanArt directors........................Owen Paterson,

Ron HighfieldAsst art director ................ Robyn CoombsArt dept asst ........................ Vivienne ElgieArt asst .................................. Phillip ColvilleCostume designer ...................... Kate DuffyMake-up ............................Robert McCarronMake-up ass t............................Robyn AustinHairdresser................................ Jenny BrownAsst hairdresser ................ Cheryl WilliamsWard, assistant................Jenny CarseldineStandby wardrobe ........................Lea HaigProps b u y e r...................... Derrick ChetwynStandby props........................... Igor LazareffSpecial effects supervisor . Monty FeiguthSpecial effects asst ............... Steve CourtlySpecial asst . . . . . ' .................Robert HilditchScenic a rtis t............ Elizabeth LeszczynskiAsst set finisher .................. Brian NicklessConstruction manager........Danny BurrettAsst construction manager .. Roger CloutCarpenters .......................... Paul Vosiliunos,

Roger Briggs, Gordon McIntyre, Philip Chambers

Stage hands........................ Stephen Volich,Timothy Higgins

Asst editor .............................. Linda Wilson2nd asst editor......................... Helen ZivkovicMusic consultant................ Lance ReynoldsStunts co-ordinator ....................Max AspinProjectionist...................................Jim JonesStill photography...........................Bliss SwiftStills processing ..................... Color ControlBlack and white .........................Dark RoomModel m akers .............................Tad Pride,

David PrideAsst model maker ........................ John CoxArtists’ transport.......................... CabchargeUnit c a rs ........................ Thrifty Rent A CarBest boy .................................. Paul GantnerRunner...................................... Meryl CroninUnit publicist ......................... Sherry StummCatering....................................... John FaithfulAsst catering .............................. Sue FaithfulSecurity.................... Wormald InternationalEquipment supplies..................SamuelsonsInsurers.....................................................AdairSound transfers.................. Film Production

ServicesLaboratory ........................................ ColorfilmCast: Alan Arkin (Capt. Invincible), Christopher Lee (Mr Midnight), Kate Fitzpatrick, Bill Hunter, Graham Kennedy, Michael Pate, Hayes Gordon, John Bluthal, Maggie Dence, Norman Erskine.Synopsis: A madcap, musical comedy- adventure where the flying super hero crushes Nazis, threatens bootleggers, helps boy scouts and battles Moscow.RUN REBECCA, RUN!Prod, company ...................... Independent

ProductionsProducer .......................... Brendon LunneyDirector .................................. Peter MaxwellScriptwriter ........................... Charles StampBased on the original

idea by .................................Gary DeaconPhotography .................................. Phil PikeSound recordist .........Rowland McManisEditor ........................................ Bob CoggerComposer ...............................Simon WalkerExec, producer ........................ Gene ScottFeatures manager . . . . Wendy ChambersProd, supervisor ................ Chris GardinerProd, manager ....................... Peter AbbottProd, secretary .............. Wendy ChapmanProd, accountant ...................Peter LayardProd, assistants .................. Sean McClory,

Fiona Marks1st asst director ..................... Kevin Powell2nd asst director ................Paul CallaghanContinuity ..........................Catherine SauterCasting .......................... Mitch ConsultancyCamera assistant ....................Keith BryantKey grip .............................Merv McLaughlin2nd unit photography . . . .Gary Maunder,

Phil DorityGaffer ................................................ Ray AngBoom operator ...................... Jan McHargArt director ........................ , . Jakob HorvatMake-up .................................Fiona SpenceWardrobe .............................. Fiona SpenceWard, assistant ................Kerry ThompsonProps .................................. Brian EdmondsAsst editor .............................. Gina LennoxNeg. matching ..........................Chris RowellSound editor .............................Bob CoggerMixer ................................ Julian EllingworthStill photography ..............Garry MaunderAnimals arranged

by ........................ Animal Talent Pty LtdCatering ....................Sally Greville-SmithMixed at .......................................: . . . . AtlabLaboratory ..............Cine Film LaboratoryLab. liaison ........................ Calvin GardinerLength ............................................85 minsGauge .....................................................16mmShooting stock ....................................... 7247Scheduled release ................January 1982Cast: Henri Szeps (M anuel), Simone Buchanan (Rebecca), Adam Garnett (Rod), Mary Ann Severne (Mrs Porter), John Stanton (Mr Porter), Peter Sumner [Mr Dimitros), Ron Haddrick (Speaker of Parliament), John Ewart (Minister for Immigra

tion), Martin Vaughan (Cranky Member), Cornelia Francis (Member for Southdown). Synopsis: A young girl taking photographs of her pet cockatoo is prevented from leaving a lonely island by an illegal immigrant, who fears deportation. After a widespread search, she manages to escape with the help of a boy scout. Sympathetic to the immigrant’s problems, she pleads his cause in Parliament.THE SEVENTH MATCHProd, company .Yoram Gross Film Studio

in association with Sarah Enterprises

and the AFCProducer.................................................Yoram GrossD irector...................................................Yoram GrossScriptwriter...................... Yoram GrossPhotography . . . Lloyd Freidus (New York);

Jenny Ochse, Bob Evans (animation)

Sound recordist . . . Gary Rich (New York)E d ito r............ ............Christopher PlowrightDirector of animation.............................Athol HenryM u s ic .................. Vivaldi's “Four Seasons”Assoc, producer................................. Sandra GrossProd, co-ordinator .................... Meg RowedProd, managers ..........David B. Appleton

(New York); Jeanette Toms,

Kelly Duncan, Yolanta Plllich (animation)

Location manager......... Mitchell Klebanoff(New York)

Prod, secretaries..............Margaret Lovell,Janelle Dawes

Asst directors...................... Jan Carruthers;John Palmer (New York)

Script ed ito r.............................. John PalmerStory editor/dialogue.......... Elizabeth KataDialogue editor .......................... Moya WoodCasting............................ Mitch ConsultancyCamera assistant .................Neil Haynes

(New York)Grip .......................................... Bob Shulman

(New York)Electricians................................ Raffi Feruci,

Tom Drake, Harvey Rich (New York)

Make-up ..................................... David Forest(New York)

Hairdresser...............................................David Forest(New York)

Wardrobe .............................. Marsha PatterM odels.................................... Phillip Einfield,

John HullAsst editor ................................ Linday TrostNeg. m atching....................Margaret CardinMusic performed by ...................... I MusiciClarinet music

played/performed ..........Giora FeidmanDubbing editor ......................Denise HunterMixer ................................................ Phil JuddStill photography................Mike Burnhaut

(New York)Principal animators ................. Athol Henry,

Cynthia Leech, Andrew Szemenyei

Sarah's character design . . . . Athol HenryAddit. animation ............ Irena Slapczynskl,

Ty BoscoAsst animators.................... Astrid Brennan,

Maria Brinkley, Marian Brooks,

Diane Farrington, Eva Helischer,

Brenda McKie, Paul Marron,

Kaye WattsColor design............................ Susan SpeerPainters/tracers................ Margaret Butler,

Kim Craste, Pari Dounis,

Ruth Edelman, Lynette Hennessy,

Steve Hunter, Ellen Jackson,

Kim Marden, Narelle Miels,

Krystyna Mikita, Charmaine Shelton Price

Backgrounds ............ Zbigniew Dromirecki,Amber Ellis,

Kolorkraft Lab.Recording studios.................................. AtlabRecorded by ................Julian EllingsworthSound recording

(New Y o rk )........................ Magno SoundMixed at .................................. United SoundLaboratory .......................................Colorfilm;

Movielab (New York) Cast: Mia Farrow (Sarah).Voices: Joan Bruce, John Faassen, Ron Haddrick, Shane Porteous.Synopsis: The poignant story of a young child, orphaned by war, and her struggle to survive. It is representative of the plight of children in war-torn countries and acts as the voice of all children against the suffering and hardships imposed by all wars.

Prod, secretary ......................... Angela ReaProd, assistant........................Yvonne Visser1st asst director .................... Andrew Jones2nd asst director....................David CollyerCamera assistant ....................Murray WareKey grip ...................................... Ian Thorburn2nd unit photography.............Butch SawkoAerial photography ....................Tim SmartBoom operator.............................Tom LoweCostumes......................................Alpine Ski,

Casa AlpinaW ardrobe.................................Yvonne VisserSpecial effects.................. Peter ArmstrongScenic artist/carpenter .............Paul CaseyAsst ed ito r..........................Bruce ShipstoneNeg. matching ..................Warwick DriscollMusic performed b y .............Aspen Flyers,

contemporary Aust. musiciansSound editor...........................Steve Edwards-Editing assistants........................Tom Lowe,

Yvonne VisserM ixer......................................... Steve EdwardsStunts co-ordinator.............Andrew JonesNarrator..................................................... Geoff KelsoStill photography..........................Sue HelmePublicity............................................. Eve Ash,

Sue HelmeCatering.................................. Sundance Inn,

Falls CreekMixed at ..................................Tony Paterson

Post Production ServicesLaboratory......................R.G. Film ServicesLab. liaison ........................ Andrew JohnsonBudget................................................ $420,000Length ................................................ 85 minsShooting gau ge....................... Super 16mmRelease gau ge....................................... 35mmShooting stock......................... EastmancolorCast: Lance Curtis (Wayne Simpson), David Argue (Darren Kernox), Geoff Kelso (Uncle Jack), Peppie Angliss (Pepi), Jeanine O’Donnell (Pam), Eddie Zandberg (Hamish McAlpine), Peter Moon (Bruno Schiezen- hausen), Tom Coltralne (Bruce Braun), Ian McFadyen (Ian), Scott Fullmer (skier). Synopis: Darren and Wayne, two likeable larrikins, decide on a ski holiday when they win a “cash and car” competition. They head off for Falls Creek ski resort, where they create havoc among the other skiers during a carnival weekend.SOUTHERN CROSSProd, company .............................. Southern

International Film, Shinnihon Eija

Producer................................. Lee RobinsonD irector.................................. Peter MaxwellScriptwriters.................... .. Lee Robinson,

Suzaki

SNOWProd, company ....... Snowfilm ProductionsProducer.............. ........................... Eve AshD irector...................................Robert GibsonScriptwriters ...............................Geoff Kelso,

Lance Curtis, Robert Gibson

Based on the original ideab y ..........................................................Robert Gibson,

Eve NashPhotography.......................................... Martin McGrathSound recordist...................................... Steve EdwardsEditor ......................................Robert Gibson'Prod, m anager......................Andrew Jones

SQUIZZY TAYLORProd, company Simpson Le Mesurier

FilmsDist. company .............................. FilmwaysProducer ....................... Roger Le MesurierDirector ..................................Kevin DobsonScriptwriter ......................... Roger SimpsonBased on the original Idea

by ......................................Roger SimpsonPhotography ..............................Dan BurstallSound recordist ........................ Phil SterlingEditor .................................. David PulbrookProd, designer ..................... Logan BrewerComposer .............................Bruce SmeatonExec, producer .................. Roger SimpsonProd, supervisor .............Brian D. BurgessProd, manager ....................... Christine SuliLocation manager .............. Warwick RossProd, secretary ........................Ann O'LearyProd, accountant ........................ Patti ScottProd, assistant ........................ Wendy Miller1st asst director ...........Philip Hearnshaw2nd asst director ......................Paul Healey3rd asst director ................Marcus SkipperContinuity ..............................Anne McCleodLighting cameraman .............. Dan BurstallCamera operator ....................Dan BurstallFocus puller ....................... Barry HalloranClapper/loader ......................Warwick FieldKey grip ......................... . Paul Ammitzbol

•Asst grip ................................ Peter KershawGaffer ........................................Brian AdamsBoom operator ........................Geoff WilsonArt director ...........................Logan BrewerAsst art director .................... Frank JakabCostume designer .................. Jane HylandMake-up ................................ Lois HohenfelsHairdresser ......................... Suzie ClementsWardrobe ...................................Jane HylandWard, assistant ................ Margot LindsayProps ................ Nicholas van RoosendaelProps buyer Nicholas van RoosendaelStandby props ...........................Harry ZettelSpecial effects .................Konrad RothmanSet decorator .....................Patrick ReardonSet construction .....................Rowan FludeAsst editor ......................... Brett SouthwickSound editor ....................... Louise JohnsonEditing assistant ..................Ann BeresfordStill photography ......................Susy WoodsBest boy .................................. Gary PlunkettRunner .....................................Jake AtkinsonPublicity ........................... Lynette ThorburnCatering ........................... Ann DechaineauxStudios ...................................................... AAV,

Open Channel, Port Melbourne Studios

Mixed at .................................. United SoundLaboratory ..........................................CinevexLab. liaison .............Stanely LopuszamskiBudget .................................................... $1.7mLength ..............................................105 minsGauge ......................................................35mmShooting stock ........................EastmancolorCast: David Atkins (Squizzy Taylor), Jackie

Weaver (Dolly Grey), Kim Lewis (Ida Pender), Robert Hughes (Harvey), Steve Bisley (Cutmore), Cul Cullen (Stokes), Alan Cassell (Brophy), Michael Long (Piggott), Tony Rickard (Dutch), Simon Thorpe (Paddy).Synopsis: A film based on the life of the notorious Melbourne gangster of the 1920s, “Squizzy" Taylor.TURKEY SHOOTProd, company ......................Second FGH

Film ConsortiumDist. company (foreign) ...............Hemdale

Leisure CorporationProducers ......................Antony I. Ginnane,

William FaymanDirector ................ Brian Trenchard SmithScriptwriters .............................Jon George,

Neill HicksBased on story by ....... George Schenck,

Robert Williams, David Lawrence

Photography ........................... John McLeanSound recordist ............................Paul ClarkEditor .................................... Alan LakeProd, designer ....................Bernard HidesComposer ......................................Brian MayExec, producers ....................... John Daly,

David HemmingsAssoc, producer ........................Brian CookUnit manager ........................Michael FullerProd, secretary ........................Jenny BartyFacilities manager ....................Chris ShortProd, accountant ......................... Dean HillProd, assistant .................Barbara Williams1st asst director ................ Terry Needham2nd asst director ......................John Rooke3rd asst director ......................Mark JaffeeContinuity ........................... Therese O'LearyProducer's assistant ....... Sylvia Van WykCasting .................................Carmen DuncanCamera operator ........................ David BurrFocus puller ......................... David BrostoffClapper/loader .......................... Ben SeresinPublicity ....... ...........Carlie Deans (Aust.),

Dennis Davidson & Assoc. (L.A.)Unit publicist .............................Ben MitchellCatering .................................. David WilliamsLaboratory ........................................ColorfilmLab. liaison .................................. Bill GooleyLength ........................................94 minsGauge .............................35mm Anamorphic

PanavislonShooting stock .........Kodak EastmancolorCast: Steve Railsback (Paul Anders), Olivia Hussey (Chris W alters), Noel Ferrier (Mallory), Carmen Duncan (Jennifer), Lynda S toner (R ita ), M ichael Craig (Thatcher), Roger Ward (Ritter), Michael Petrovich (Tito), Gus Mercurio (Red), John Ley (Dodge), Bill Young (Griff).Synopsis: The year 1995 — the world is run by a strict regime. If you step out of line you are labelled a “Turkey”. Further failure to conform means you are a candidate for the “Turkey Shoot”.WE OF THE NEVER NEVERProd, companies ..................Adams Packer

Productions, Film Corp. of W.A.

Producer.................................................... Greg TepperD irector........................................................ Igor AuzinsScriptwriter.............................Peter SchreckPhotograph................................................ Gary HansenSound recordist .............. Laurie RobinsonE d ito r............................................................ Cliff HayesProd, designer..................... Josephine FordExec, producer .......................Phillip AdamsAssoc, p rodu cer..................................... Brian RosenProd, co-ordinator ................ Janet MclverUnit m anager............................................. Paul ArnottProd, secretary ........................Toni BarnardProd, accountant ...................... John FosterProd, assistant.............. Michael BourchierTransport manager ............ Gary RebergerConstruction m anager............. Ray PattisonAsst construction

m anag er............................................. Danny Corloran1st a6St director ...................... Tim Higgins2nd assist d irector.......... Brendan Lavelle3rd asst d irector.......................................Jess TapperContinuity .............................. Christine LipariCamera operator .................... Gary HansenFocus p u lle r.................... Peter Van SantenClapper/loader ..............................Phil CrossKey g rip .................................. Noel McDonaldAsst g r ip s ...........................Wayne Marshall,.

John JasiukowiczG affer...........................................................Mick MorrisGene operator...........................................Tom RobinsonBoom operators ....................... Greg Steele,

Malcolm CromieAsst art d ire c to r.......... Graeme DuesburyCostume designer ........ Camilla RountreeMake-up .................................... Sally GordonMake-up assistant . . . . . Robern PickeringHairdresser..................................................Willi KenrlckSeamstress 1 .............................................Ruth TickleSeamstress 2 ...................... Ruth MunroeWardrobe assistant ............ Fiona NlchollsStand-by p ro p s ...........................: .Ro BruenStand-by props assistant___Greg NelsonSpecial effects........................................Reece RobinsonAsst special effects ...................Peter GlossArt department assistant . Steve FullertonArt department animals ............ Earl GanoHorse m aster........... ............ Ray WlnsladeAsst editor ...... : ......................Karen WhiterStill photography.................. Penny TweedieW ranglers.............................Jim Willoughby,'

Barry GrovesWranglers' assistant.......... , Jan Mitchell -Best boy Richard CurtisUnit runners.................... Antony Shepherd,

Ian Billing


Unit n u rse ................................................... Sally WalkerAboriginal adviser. . . ..............Vikkl ChristieD riv e r...........................................................Peter BourneLaboratory .........................................ColorfllmLab. lia ison....................................................Bill- GooleyLength .............................................. 90 minsGauge .......................................................35mmShooting stock.......................... EastmancolorCast: Angela Punch McGregor (Jeannie Gunn), Arthur Dignam (Aeneas Gunn), Tony Barry (Mac), Martin Vaughan (Dan), Lewis Fltz-Gerald (Jack), John Jarratt (Dandy), Cecil Parkes (Cheon), Danny Adcock (Brown), Tommy Lewis (Jackaroo), Donald Blitner (Goggle Eye).Synopsis: A story of the hardship faced by newly-married Jeannie Gunn which recalls the courage, vitality and humor of early cattlemen and Aboriginal stockmen In a harsh, but memorable Northern Territory environment.

SHORTS

Sound recordist ___Scott Hartford-DavisE d ito r............................................. Craig WoodCom poser.......................................Peter MillerCamera assistant .......... Josephine PhillipsAppliance make-up ...............Lewis MorleySpecial props........................... Jennifer HaleSound editor .....................Andrew McPhailMixer .......... .'................................ Peter MillerStill photography................Hugh HamiltonO pticals ...................................................... AtlabLaboratory ................................................ AtlabBudget.......................................................$3000Length ..................................................15 mins.Gauge .......................................................16mmShooting stock..........................EastmancolorProgress ................................post-productionCast: Andrew McPhail (Tim)Synopsis: A young man is shown the details of his own death.

DOCUMENTARIES

■ THE PERMANENT BOOKINGDist. company ................................ RoadshowD irecto r................................................ Anthony BowmanScriptwriter..........................................Anthony BowmanPhotography...................... Hans J. HeidrlchSound recordist ......................... Ross LintonE d ito r................................................. Gil SerineAssoc, producer .....................Chic StringerProd, manager .. Margaret-Rose StringerProd, assistant...........................Nigel AbbottCasting consultants . . . Mitch ConsultancyCamera assistant ............Peter LlpscombeBoom operator ...........................Allan BevenMixer ..................................... Brett RobinsonTitle designer..............................Rei De HaanCatering............................................. HomechefMixed at ...............................Sound On FilmLaboratory ................................................ AtlabLength ..................................................15 mins.Gauge .......................................................16mmProgress .............................awaiting releaseScheduled release ...........................June ’82Cast: Robin Bowerlng (George), Sean Scully (Rlc), John Cobley (Harvey), Alfred Bell (Rob), Belinda Grose (Jane). Synopsis: A comedy Involving the “social game”. REFLEXProd, company ...................Woodbee FilmsD irecto r......................................... Craig Wood

SHORTSAGEING — SOME PROBLEMS, SOME ANSWERSProd, company .............. Metro TelevisionProducer ...................................Kelly DonlonDirector ...................................Tom ZubryckiPhotography ...........................Tom ZubryckiSound recordist ...................... Nick PowerExec, producer .....................Peter DlmondLength ............................................... 17 minsGauge ...........................%” color videotapeSynopsis: Describes some of the problems encountered by old people and some of the services provided by the Department of Youth and Community Services to try to meet the needs of the aged.THE BASKING SHARKProd, company ................... Seawest ProdsProducer .....................................Walter DeasDirector .............. Walter DeasBased on the original Idea

by .............................................Walter DeasPhotography ..............................Walter Deas,

Eddie McConnellSound recordist .................. Louis KramerExec, producer ....................... Larry FreelsAssoc, producer .....................Monty PriedeProd, supervisor ..........................Jean DeasProd, accountant .....................Doug Harris

Producer’s assistant ................ Jean DeasCamera assistant ............ Andy Falrgrleve2nd unit photography ............ Jean Deas,

Andy Lucas, Jim Buchanan

Narrator .................................Dr I. G. PriedeStill photography ...................... Walter DeasTech, advisers ...................Dr I. G. Priede,

Walter DeasPublicity ..................................Seawest ProdsLaboratory ................ Studio Film & VideoLab. liaison ..................................... Jim TibbsLength ................................................. 56 minsGauge .....................................................16mmShooting stock ........................ EastmancolorProgress ........................................ProductionScheduled release .......... December 1982Synopsis: The basking shark of Scotland, Ireland and Japan is the second largest fish in the world. The douementary examines the sharks, observes their lifestyles, works with the scientist who knows them, and Interviews the people who depend on them for their livelihood.THE FRIGATE DARTMOUTHProd, company .......... Walter Deas ProdsProducer .....................................Walter DeasDirector .......................................Walter DeasBased on the original idea

by .......................................Jim Buchanan,the Bristol Undersea

Archaeology GroupPhotography ..............................Walter Deas,

Jim BuchananSound recordist ...................... Walter DeasProd, accountant .................... Doug HarrisProducer’s assistant ................... Jean DeasUnderwater cameramen . . . .Walter Deas,

Jim Buchanan, Crawford Grier

Tech, advisers ........................ Colin Martin,St Andrews Institute of

Maritime ArchaeologyLaboratory ................ Studio Film & VideoLab. liaison ................................. Jim TimmsLength .................................................27 minsGauge .....................................................16mmShooting stock ....................................... 7247Progress ........................................ProductionScheduled release ................... March 1983Synopsis: A documentary about the survey and excavation of the frigate HMS Dartmouth, wrecked October 9, 1690, on Eilean Rudha an Rldlre, near the Isle of Mull, Scotland.THE HIDDEN LANDProd, company .................... Nomad Films

International

Dlst. company ...................... Nomad FilmsInternational

Director .....................................Casey JonesScriptwriter ......................Frederick FolkardBased on the original Idea

by .................. Nomad Film InternationalPhotography ...................... Martin McGrathSound recordist ....................George CraigEditor ..........................................Paul HowardExec, producer .................Douglas StanleyFTod. co-ordinator .................. Pam WilsonSpecial fx photography .......... Jim Frazier,

Mantis Wildlife FilmsNeg. matching ........ Cinevex LaboratoriesSound editor ...................... Michael MlnterMixer .....................................David HarrisonStill photography ................ Kathy AtkinsonMixed at ...........................Film SoundtrackLaboratory .......................................CinevexLength .................................................46 minsGauge ................................................... 16mmShooting stock .........................Fuji 8527/28Progress ..........................................In releaseFirst released ................................June 1982Synopsis: Documentary feature about the Dai people, a minority nationality living in the farthest corner of Yunnan Province, in the south-west of China on the borders with Burma and Laos.THE INTRUDERSProd, company .................... Nomad Films

InternationalDist. company ...................... Nomad Films

InternationalProducer ............................ Douglas StanleyDirectors ...................................Casey Jones,

Jeremy HogarthScriptwriter .................... Frederick FolkardBased on the original idea

by ................ Nomad Films InternationalPhotography ...................... Martin McGrathSound recordists ................ Sean Meltzer,

Michael Minter, George Craig,

Steve EdwardsEditors .............................. Jeremy Hogarth,

Paul HowardProd, co-ordinator ...................Pam WilsonSpecial fx photography .......... Jim Frazier,

Mantis Wildlife FilmsSound editor ...................... Michael MinterMixer .....................................David HarrisonStill photography ................ Trevor Pinder,

Daryl PinderNeg. matching ........Cinevex LaboratoriesMixed at .......................... Film SoundtrackLaboratory .......................................CinevexLength ........ .-..............................6 x 24 minsGauge ...................................................16mmShooting stock ........................ Fuji 8527/28

Progress ......................................... In releaseFirst released ................................. May 1982Synopsis: Six programs which explore the history and impact the horse, camel, goat, rabbit, donkey and cow have had on Australia’s ecology and environment since being introduced to the country in the 19th Century.LAND OF THE DRAGONProd, company .....................Nomad Films

InternationalDist. company .......................Nomad Films

InternationalDirectors .........................Jeremy Hogarth,

Joe ConnorScriptwriter .....................Frederick FolkardBased on the original idea

by ................ Nomad Films InternationalPhotography ...........................Alex McPhee,

David OlneySound recordists ................ Sean Meltzer,

George CraigEditors ...............................Jeremy Hogarth,

Paul HowardExec, producer ................ Douglas StanleyProd, co-ordinator ...................Pam WilsonProd, manager .......................Bob AshfordCamera assistants ................ John Ogden,

John HallNeg. matching ........ Cinevex LaboratoriesSound editor ................Michael MinterMixer .....................................David HarrisonStill photography ................ Martin Pollard,

Steven KennedyMixed at ...........................Film SoundtrackLaboratory .......................................CinevexLength .........................................4 x 24 minsGauge ................................................ 16mmShooting stock .........................Fuji 8527/28Progress .............................Post-productionScheduled release .......................July 1982Synopsis: Four programs for television which, for the first time, look at the people and country of Bhutan, "Land of theDragon”. The series, through the eyes of a Monk, Yak-herder, farmer and wildlife ranger, travels from the Himalayas to the jungles of the south.THE OUTBACK AUSTRALIANS — A Harder Way Of LifeProd, company ..MacDonald Hunt ProdsDist. company ........ .................... Australian

Outback ProdsProducer ............................... Ian MacDonaldDirectors ...............................Malcolm Hunt,

Tim ParsonsScriptwriter ...............................Tim ParsonsPhotography ..........................Malcolm Hunt

rIt makes COMMONSENSE To contact SOUNDSENSE

For All Your Production Requirements

Complete film or video documentary productions Fully equipped 35mm & 16mm editing rooms for hire

Off line video editing suite Sound transfers

Production offices for hire Daily rushes syncing service

CUTTING CONTACTS . . .An answer and availability

service to more than 40 of the top freelance Editing personnel.

343 Sailors Bay Road C A I I M n C C M C C Noithbridge Sydney NSW 2063 O U U ÌH L /O C IN O C p .o . Box 97 Notlhbridge NSW 2063 Film P roductions Pty. Ltd. Telephone (02) 958 1088 (3 lines)

□ Chappell m u s ic M INTERSONG MUSICCHAPPELL 4 CO. (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.

9 9 p q r b ES ST. WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011 PHONE 3563322

,0 . A l l . C O M P O S E R S 01 JTOre 1982

. , JENNIFER WRIGHT ow»»

y rK rA T J filA E A M D C R E A T IV E A D V A N T A G E S

You don’t need us to tell you about the change s in Australian Films over the last few year s but maybe we can fill you in on the changes in music publishing, which can help you

There are many FINANCIAL and ^ CREATIVE advantages in using a pubhsher for film scores, so why not give us a call and find out how you can get some real


c s I M J T M FOOD FOR BUSINESSOn-site film and television catering

FOOD FOR PLEASUREProduction parties

FO O D FO R E V E R Y OCCASIONPhone (02) 981 1622

(02) 997 5 1 7 1P.O. Box 269 , Newport Beach, 210 6

SALES • RENTALS • SER VICE -LIGHTING-

FILM • TELEVISION• STAGE

John B. Masson & Associates Pty. Ltd78-80 STANLEY STREET, COLLINGWOOD

VICTORIA, 3066. AUSTRALIATelephone: (03) 41 4245 After hours: (03) 850 2020

■ Fully variable counter-balancing system

■ Three pre-set drag positions plus “ free” positions in pan and tilt actions

■ Two camera platforms (quick release and/or sliding)

■ Positive built-in disc locks in pan and tilt actions

■ Handles, left and right, vertically and horizontally adjustable

■ Weight 81b 8oz

R.E. Miller Pty. Ltd. 30 Hotham Parade, Artarmon 2064, NSW. Telex AA23655 Phone: (02) 439 6377

Cat. 114

MILLER 50For cameras weighing up to 50 lb(22.68 kg)

Sound recordist ...............Maurie AkinsonEditor ....................................Ian MacDonaldExec, producers ...................John Hegarty,

John Elmgreen2nd unit photography -----Andre BlundenNeg. matching ................... Marilyn DelaneyMixed at ...............................Sound On FilmLaboratory .....................................Cine FilmLength .............................................60 minsGauge ................................................... 16mmShooting stock ................................7247Progress .............................Post-productionScheduled release .................... June 1982THE RUNNING GAME

(working title Room To Move)

Prod, company ...........Smart Street FilmsDist. company .............Smart Street FilmsProducers ...........................Hadyn Keenan,

Peter FentonDirectors .................................. Peter Fenton,

Hadyn KeenanPhotography ...........................“Race” GaileySound recordist .....................Dean GawenEditor .....................................Denise HasiemComposer .......... Andrew Thomas WilsonProd, manager .....................Julian RussellProd, secretary ........ Mitou PajaczkowskaProd, accountant ........Andrew SneddonCasting ...................................Bob TempletonAsst editor ......................... Leslie MannisonMixer ........................................ Peter FentonNarrator .................................... Gordon BrayMixed at .................................United SoundLaboratory .....................................ColorfilmLength ............................................... 48 minsGauge ................................................... 16mmShooting stock ................ Fuji 8528 (A250)Progress .............................Post-productionScheduled release .......................May 1982Cast: The Australian Rugby Union Touring Party, Britain, 1981-82.Synopsis:There’s a spirit in the Wallabies mere words cannot describe,It’s as if they had descended from some legendary tribe;There’s a kinship, a tradition, as in days so long since past,Of crusades, of knights in armor, and of men before the mast.There’s a thrill you can’t appreciate, a pride you cannot tell,Lest you wear a golden jumper and you wear it really well;When you mark before the forward rush, so doing turn the tide,When' you make that vital tackle and your line is open wide.But it isn't just the winning, nor the scoring,nor the cheers,It’s the friendships and the memories that last you through the years;It’s the cameraderie that’s born of valor, not of fame,It’s the striving for your colors that makes the running game.SUN COMES UP

(working title)

Prod, company ...........................Jotz ProdsProducer ...................................Ursula KolbeDirector ...................................Tom ZubryckiScriptwriters ...........................Ursula Kolbe,

Michael AthertonPhotography ........................ Fabio CavadiniSound recordist ................ Russ HermannEditor .......................................Jim StevensComposer .........................Michael AthertonExec, producer .....................Peter DimondBoom operator .........................Jackie FineLength .............................18 mins (approx.)Gauge ................................................... 16mmShooting stock .......................EastmancolorSynopsis: The Institute of Early Childhood Studies demonstrates that while listening, singing, dancing and playing instruments to given music are all important activities, the process of discovering, exploring and playing with sound forms are an essential part of the early childhood music education program.TOMORROW’S CHILDProd, company ...................... Nomad Films

InternationalDist. company ........................ Nomad Films

InternationalProducer .............................Douglas StanleyDirector ...............................Douglas StanleyScriptwriter .............................. Gerald LyonsBased on the original idea

by .......................................... Gerald LyonsPhotography ............................. David Olney,

Martin McGrathSound recordist .................Michael MinterEditor ...................................Jeremy HogarthCamera assistant ....................John OgdenSpecial fx photography .......... Jim Frazier,

Mantis Wildlife FilmsNeg. matching ........ Cinevex LaboratoriesSound editor .......................Michael MinterMixer ..................................... David HarrisonNarrator ................................. John StantonStill photography .............. Gianni MarzellaOpticals .................... Cinevex LaboratoriesMixed at ...........................Film SoundtrackLaboratory .......................................CinevexLength .............................................45 minsGauge ................................................ 16mmShooting stock ...............................Fuji 8528Progress .......................................In releaseFirst released ...............................April 1982Synopsis: A film special on the human and scientific aspects of the latest test-tube

baby breakthroughs, in particular the freeze-thaw, human embryo research.TOWER ONEProducer .........................New South Wales

Institute TechnologyDirector ....................Post-production only:

Garry LaneScriptwriters ...............................Garry Lane,

Peter GrayEditor ................ Garry LaneComposer ...............................Janie ConwayExec, producer . . John Corderoy (NSWIT) Assoc, producer . . Les Cridland (NSWIT)Prod, supervisor ___Dr Saulkes (NSWIT)Neg. matching .............. Negative ThinkingNo. of shots ...............................Approx. 90Music performed by .......... Janie ConwaySound editor .......................... . Garry LaneMixer .............. .....................Palm StudiosNarrator .....................................Tracy HardieMixed at .................................Palm StudiosLaboratory .............. CFL, Artarmon, NSWLab. liaison .............................Cal. GardinerBudget .....................................................$4000Length .................................................13 minsGauge .................................................... 16mmShooting stock ........................... EktachromeScheduled release ......................June 1982Synopsis: Technical documentary on a comprehensive and unique study of the changes, due to concrete creep and shrinkage, in a modern concrete skyscraper. The School of Civil Engineering at NSW IT has built into the structural members of the NSWIT “Tower" building a series of strain gauges, to m easure distortions in the building over a large number of years. (Production of this film was started in 1972, and post-production, late last year.)

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

Project Development BranchProjects approved at Australian Film Commission meeting on April 28, 1982Script and Production Development investmentsScript DevelopmentCopycat — Eureka Productions, Cinetel Productions; cinema feature; funding to write new 1 st draft — $ 10 ,0 0 0 For Love Alone — Margaret Fink Films; cinem a feature; final pre-production funding — $30,000Heat Haze in Half Life (Approaching Midnight) — Leslie Murray, Vic Hunter; cinema feature; script development funding — $3350Mark Twain Upside Down — Cecil Holmes; television feature; 3rd draft funding — $4500Pals — Tasmanian Film Corporation; television series; script development funding — $3250Pearl Fever — Polygon Pictures, June H arley; c inem a feature; survey and treatment — $5401The Ridge and the River — PNG Ridge River Films; cinema feature; script/project development funding — $21,612 Shame — Beverly Blankenship (Dramatic Services); cinema feature; 2nd draft funding— $9000Vocations — Samson Productions; cinema feature; 3rd draft funding — $6000Production InvestmentFor Love or Money — Flashback Films (Jeni Thornley, Megan M cMurchy, M argot Oliver); television documentary; production funding — $35,929

Creative Development Branch Projects approved at Australian Film Commission meeting on December 16,1981 (not listed in previous issue)Script DevelopmentTerry Downs (NSW); grant to complete 2nd draft of Yoke — $3100 Clem Gorman (NSW); grant for further treatment of A Night in the Arms of Raeleen—$400Una Clarke (NSW); grant to script edit The Young Trappers — $400 Dean Taylor, John Martin, Tony Sanderson (NSW); grant to bring Gee Force to first draft — $3000Phillip Roope (NSW); grant to develop 1st draft of New Guinea-Niugini — $2400 Surresh Ayyar (NSW); grant to redraft treatment of The Defector A Confession —$400Walter Cerquetti (WA); grant to further draft The Legend of Varischetti — $1600 Madelon Wilkins (WA); grant to further draft You a Me — $2000Ian Mortimer (NSW); grant for a revised treatment and script edit of Buttered Buns— $1200Shannon Leigh (NSW); grant to bring RisinOver to 2nd draft — $4000Michael Moses (NSW); grant to revise

treatment of Po’s Way Home — $1000 Richard Tipping (NSW); grant to bring Lassetter to 1st draft — $3200 Antoinette Wheatley (NSW); grant for script edit on When Early Winter Comes — $400 Karen Hughes (NSW); grant to research Mystery People — $2000 Robert Fodgen (NSW); grant for revised treatment of Jimmy Rush — The Bully it Took a Town to Kill — $400 Melissa Woods (NSW); grant for treatment on untitled script — $400 Stephen Johnston, Kenneth Matthews (NSW); grant to bring Dirty Money to 1st draft — $4000Melissa Mitchell (NSW); grant to research and scrip t a docum entary entitled Survivalist Down Under — $1500 Jan S h a rp (N S W ); g ra n t fo r s tory conference for Island of the Gods — $400 Bruce Pederson (NSW); grant to develop and storyboard Murrai — $3000 Julia Featherstone (NSW); grant to revise treatment of Sheila — $400 c Neil Pritchard (NSW); grant to revise The Gandalph Syndrome — $400 Susan Midgeley, Oliver Strewe (NSW); grant to research and write a documentary entitled Ashes of Death — $800 Jeff Ansell (Vic.); grant to further draft Transmission — $1500 Robyn Walton (Old); grant to revise treatment of The Beco Rodeo — $1000 John Stephenson (Qld); grant for a revised treatment of Private O’Hara Is Dead — $700 Dr Paul Memmot (Q'ld); grant to further research The Conflict of the Kalkadoone — $5000Richard Lowenstein (Vic.); grant to further draft Wonthaggi — $3000 Henry Tefay (Vic.); grant to further draft White Fire — $1400Miranda Bain (Vic.); grant to further draft Hera & Other Refugees — $1200 Russell Porter (Vic.); grant for further draft of Intelligent Life — $2450 John Hillcoat (Vic.); grant to further draft Jungle of the Cockatoo — $2100 Ray Bartram (SA); grant to attend writing seminar — $700David Harris (SA); grant to attend writing seminar — $700Stephanie McCarthy (SA); grant to attend writing seminar — $700

FILM AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN MYTHOLOGIESProd, company ..........Martin Williams P/L

BrisbaneDist. com pany........................................... Film AustraliaProducer................................................... Peter JohnsonD irector............ .............Jonathon DawsonS c rip t................ ......................Ron JohansonEd itor............................................................Bob DawsonUnit m anager............................................John StaintonLength ................................................ 50 mins.Gauge .....................................................16mmShooting stock.................. .. EastmancolorProgress ............................. Post-productionRelease date ..................... December 1982Synopsis: A film to show how the great Australian myth — “the Sunbronzed Anzac”, “the beautiful rural bush settings”, etc. — is being prolonged through Australian advertising in an attempt to create a truly Australian image.BETTY VIAZIMProd, company ............ ; ___ Film AustraliaDist. com pany........................ Film AustraliaProducer .......................... Elisabeth KnightD irector................................Daro GunzburgPhotography...................... Peter ViskovitchSound recordist ...........................Leo PolliniE d ito r.......................................... Sue HorsleyAsst, producer.............................. Pam EnnorLighting.......................................Bruce GaileyLength .................................................60 mins.Gauge .....................................................16mmProgress ................................ ..........ShootingRelease date .............................. June, 1982Synopsis: A one-hour program sponsored by the Australia Council for its archival program recording, Betty V iazim , a Milliner.INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT CENTREProd, company .......................Film AustraliaDist. com pany........................................... Film AustraliaProducer...............................Elizabeth KnightD irector.....................................Sue CornwellPhotography.............................Kerry Brown,

John HoskingAsst, producer............................ Pam EnnorLength .................................................10 mins.Gauge .....................................................16mmProgress .............................. Pre-productionScheduled re lease .................August, 1982Synopsis: A film sponsored by the Dept, of Trade and Resources to inform overseas tra d e rs ab o u t the fa c ilit ie s at the International Trade Development Centres in Sydney and Melbourne.LOOK ALIVEProd, company ...................... Film AustraliaProducers.......................... Macek Rubetzki,

Gerry Letts

D irector.................................... Sue CornwellScriptwriter...........................Ian McFadyenPhotography..................... ...... Kerry BrownSound recordist .................... Howard SpryE d ito r.................. ■...............Peter SomervilleAsst, producer................ ... Nigel SaundersLighting.....................................Bruce GaileyAsst, d irector...................................Judy FoxLength ............................................... 10 mins.Gauge ...................................................... 16mmShooting stock......................................... 7247Progress .......................................ProductionRelease date ...............................June, 1982Synopsis: A dram atized training film produced for Telecom to encourage an awareness of on-the-job safety.THE MIGRANT EXPERIENCEProd, com pany........Australian institute of

Multicultural Affairs, Film Australia

Producer................ Malcolm SmithD irectors.................................. Ben Lewin,

Karl McPheeScriptwriters................................................Ben Lewin,

Karl McPheeAsst, producer...........................................Pam EnnorProd, asst.............................Patricia L’HuedeProd, accountant .................... Neil CousinsLiaison ....................................Richard Brown,

Josef SzwarcKey research ........................Heather ForbesFilm research.............................................Tom ZubryckiResearch......................................................Sue Cram,

Judith LevineLength ..........................................6 x 55 mins.Gauge .................................... 16mmProgress .........................................ProductionScheduled re lease .................................. 1983Synopsis: The 200-year history of migrantsin Australia.

FILM VICTORIA

ANIMATED MUSIC FILMProd. Company..........................................Film Victoria

in association with Grahame Jackson Animation

Dist. com pany........................................... Film VictoriaCom poser................................ David HertzogExec, producer ............. Vincent O’DonnellMusic adviser..................................... Lorraine MilneLength .................................................. 16 minsGauge ......................................................16mmProgress .........................................ProductionSynopsis: An animated film about music for educational distribution. Made for the Victorian Education Department.CRIME DETECTIONProd, company ......................... Film VictoriaScriptwriter.....................................Lyn OgilvyExec, producer ..............Vincent O’DonnellProd, co-ordinator ................... Don DennettLength .................................................. 25 minsGauge ...................................................... 16mmProgress .........................................ProductionScheduled re lease ............. November 1982Synopsis: A training film on the technique of crime detection. Made for the Victoria Police. HAIR OF THE DOG

(working title ALCOHOL ABUSE)

Prod, company ......................... Film Victoriain association with

OCP LtdDist. com pany............................................Film VictoriaD irector...........................Michael O’ConnellScriptwriter...................... ...-Russell PorterPhotography...............................................Alan ColeSound recordist ...................Ian JenkinsonEditor ...................... David HipkinsExec, producer ........ Vincent O’DonnellProd, co-ordinator ............ Joanna Stewart

(Film Victoria)Prod, assistant

(OCP L td ).......................................... Marion CrookeCamera assistant ............ Brendan LavelleG affer.......... .......................... .. Stewart SorbyMake-up ...................................Carla O'KeefeNeg. m atching................................... Warwick DriscollMixer .............................................. Peter FrostMedical adviser.................... Dr Jan FraillonLaboratory . . . Victorian Film LaboratoriesLength .................................................. 20 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress .................. ................ ProductionSynopsis: A short film about the early detection of alcohol abuse. Produced for the Health Commission.THE 1934 LONDON TO MELBOURNE AIR RACEProd, company ...................... Film Victoria,

Outrider Films LondonDirector (British un it)................ Mike HarrisScriptwriter...............................Jeremy PressExec, producer ............ ;Vincent O'DonnellProd, co-ordinator ................. Don DennettLength .................................................48 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ...................................... ProductionSynopsis: A dramatized documentary about the classic air race being filmed in Australia and England for Victoria’s 150th Anniversary celebrations.

STREET KIDSProd, company ........................ Film Victoria

in association with York Street Films

Dist. company ............ ............Film VictoriaProducer........................... Kent ChadwickDirectors...... .............................. Leigh Tilson,

Rob ScottScriptwriters...............................Leigh Tilson,

Rob Scott, Kent Chadwick,

Adrian TamePhotography...............................Leigh TilsonSound recordist ...........................Rob ScottE d ito r.............................................. Rob ScottResearch adviser ................Alex McDonaldResearch assistant.................................Linda JosephLength ............ ....................................72 minsGauge ...................................................... 16mmProgress ............................... Post-productionScheduled re le a s e ......................June 1982Synopsis: A documentary on the urban street life of homeless children in Melbourne. Made for television release.THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS — A FILM ABOUT DRAMAProd, company ..........................Film Victoria

in association with Vincent O’Donnell Productions

Dist. company ........................... Film VictoriaD irector................................................. Vincent O’DonnellExec, producer .....................Kent ChadwickLength .................................................20 minsGauge ...................................................... 16mmProgress .................................,___ In releaseSynopsis: A film for drama teachers about the elements of drama. Made for the Education Department.THE UNSUSPECTING CONSUMERProd, company .............. ...... Film Victoria

in association with Red Nose Revival

Dist. company ...........................Film VictoriaD irector.......................................Peter GreenScriptwriter.................... ............Peter GreenExec, producer ..............Vincent O’DonnellLength .................................................12 minsGauge .................................... .................16mmShooting stock.........................EastmancolorProgress ...............................Post-productionScheduled re le a s e ...................... June 1982Synopsis: An animated film on the pitfalls of the marketplace. Made for the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Feature Film and Television DevelopmentBallet TV Series — Film Victoria is currently developing a major television series

i to be produced for the Australian Ballet; the Series: 13 x V4 hour episodes of an action/adventure format highlighting the essentials of dance capability; concept and scriptwriting in progress

; Slim Dusty — Chadwick McMahon Film j Productions (Kent Chadwick, Terence

McMahon); cinema feature; scripting Breakfast Creek — Ben Lewin; cinema feature; scriptingThe Last Star Model — Forrest Rediichcinema feature; scriptingThe Caravan Park — Brian McKenziecinema feature; scriptingYour Place or Mine — Patrick Edgeworthcinema feature; scriptingHaxby’s Circus — John McRae; cinemafeature; scriptingBlockbuster — Adams Packer Film Productions (Phillip Adams, John Clarke); cinema feature; scripting Family Matters — Roger Dunn, Maggie Miller; cinema feature; scripting Everybody’s Talking — Adrian Tame, Philip Ackman; television special; scripting West Side Brief — Channel 0/28, Film Victoria; television mini-series; scripting Camel Train Downstream — Highland Productions (John McIntosh); television documentary; post-production The First Fleet — First Fleet Films (John- athon King); television mini-series; scripting The Sunbeam Shaft — see surveyDocumentariesThoma st own — a docum entary on Thomastown School, its special structure and relation to established educational procedures

TASMANIAN FILM CORPORATION

“ALIVE”Prod, company ....................................... TFCDist. company ........ .............................TFCProducer ................................ Don AndersonDirector ...................... Don AndersonScriptwriter .............................Don AndersonPhotography .................... Russell GallowaySound recordist ...................... Ian SherryEditor ...............................Mike WoolveridgeProd, assistants ........................ Peter Cass,

Joel Peterson

Concluded on p. 277


< yromy Blacksmith The Chant Of Jimmy Blacksmith The Chant o f J im m y B lacksm ith nO .^ h y 's C h ild The Picture Show Man The Picture Show Man The P icture Show M an

" ^ e Mad Max II Mad Max II M ad M ax II Puberty Blues Puberty Blues P ube rty Blues O ^ Town Like A lice My Brilliant Career My Brilliant Career M y B rillia n t C areer

ydtty And The Bagman K itty And The Bagman Mad Max Mad Max M ad M ax

These productions had one thing

in common!

ADA RTHE AUSTRALIAN

INSURANCE BROKING GROUP

1982 marks the tenth year of service by Adair Insurance Broking Group to the Australian Film Industry. It has been a decade of growth in imagination, professionalism, expertise and international commercial stature for Australian film product. A decade in which Adair is proud to have participated.

Adair remains THE specialist insurance brokers to the Australian film industry. Adair's close affiliations w ith the world's premier entertainment underwriters, including L loyds and London M a rk e ts and as sole representatives for A lb e r t G. Ruben & Co Inc of Los Angeles (in association with the F irem an 's Fund Insurance Co), ensures the finest global connections and facilities are available to Adair clients.

In 1981, Adair was appointed sole correspondent in Australia and New Zealand for Ruben a nd th e F irem an 's Fund — the largest entertainment underwriters in the world — considerably broadening Adair's servicing base to the industry. Ruben's 20 year association w ith film , TV and general entertainment insurance, coupled with Adair's Australian experience, places Adair clients at the forefront of the latest developments in effective protection.

The Adair team of film and TV specialists knows how the business works. Knows the pitfalls and omissions which can leave crucial gaps in your coverage. And knows how to plug those gaps w ith rates that keep your budget looking healthy.

Adair Insurance Broking Group looks forward to its next decade of successful involvement w ith the Australian Film Industry. As our list of client productions shows, we've been w ith you all the way.

SYDNEY Ron A d a ir

Tom Laskas Jam es C. A llard iceAdair Insurances Pty Ltd

GPO Box 3884 Sydney 2001 Phone (02) 290 1588

MELBOURNE W ayne Lewis

Adair Insurances (Vic) Pty Ltd GPO Box 74B Melbourne 3001

Phone (03) 61 2485

BRISBANE Bob Cook

Adair Insurance (Old) Pty Ltd GPO Box 1371 Brisbane 4001

Phone (07) 229 2494

PERTHNoel C lairs

Standfast Insurance Brokers (WA) Pty Ltd

44A Kings Park Rd West Perth 6005

Phone (09) 321 8791

AUCKLAND NZ Brian M ahony

Mahony & Associates Insurance Brokers

GPO Box 676 Auckland NZ Phone 773 766

The Man From Snowy RiverArnold Zable

The Man From Snowy River has received the thumbs down from many Australian critics. John Hindle o f The National Times called it a “ tragedy, a costly awful mess” . N eil Jillett (in The A ge ) scathingly referred to it as a “ Wallaby Western” , and went on to dismiss the film with the terse statement: “ The horses are good, the scenery is great, and that is all that can be said about The Man From Snowy River.” The film has been ridiculed as soap opera in a bush setting, and as a crassly commercial venture, aimed at creating an Australian equivalent to the American Western, with a little help from overseas actor Kirk Douglas. Other critics have preferred to stay clear o f it completely.

Yet* much can and should be said about this film, not only about its faults, but also about its virtues, for there are more positive aspects than m ost critics have been willing to acknowledge. But, above all, there is a need to probe its weaknesses because, failure or not, this is an important film in terms o f the future o f Australian films on historical themes. One needs to ask, for example, whether it is possible to create an Australian genre, based on local myths and environment, with a distinctive style and themes, th,at sets it apart from the dominating American genre o f the Western.

The film’s best moments come in the climactic chase after the wild brumbies. This realization of the Banjo Paterson poem almost makes it all worthwhile. The remarkable skills o f the horsemen are matched by the skills o f the film crew. A t times man, horse and environment seem to weld' together into a flowing stream o f stunning action. Even the most hardened heart leaps to the mouth as the hero battles his way across rivers, steep ravines and treacherous pitfalls.

These scenes are only marred by som e abrupt cutting, which severs the

flow at times, and there is an all-too- brief glimpse o f the daring downhill leap that leaves the Man from Snowy R iver in lone pursuit o f the wild brumbies.

There are some other fine moments to do with horses — especially the magnificent colt from old Regret, a proud and fierce thoroughbred — and two of the actors: the little-know n Sigrid T h o rn to n as J e s s ic a , and T om Burlinson as Jim Craig, the Man from Snowy River. Both actors are able to transcend the banalities o f the script — Thornton through her quiet passion and intensity in the role o f a spirited and strong-willed young woman born and reared at the foot o f the high country, and Burlinson as the raw mountain man, who gradually evolves into a man o f independent strength and resourcefulness, not easily cowed by the more sophisticated lowlanders.

The photography is at all times adequate, and at times quite stunning in capturing some o f the vast variety of terrain, and the atmospheric' changes that see the mountains change from glorious sun-bathed scenes of idyllic beauty to treacherous storm-lashed slopes barely visible through cloud, mist and hail. Those more familiar with the many moods of the high country may be a bit disappointed at the range of clim atic change — one sees little of the extremes, such as the blizzards and snowstorms that have claimed victims over the years, and fiery heatwaves that have become raging bush infernos.

But, despite these virtues, and the inspired idea of taking a great ballad of Australian folklore and using it to give a glimpse o f the rich tradition o f the high-plains cattlemen, the film- goes w rong. T he m ajor p rob lem s are obvious. The scripting is riddled with cliches and soap opera banalities, except for some welcome moments of local humor, and the direction is unadventurous and lacking in drive. And one can add the music to this list o f woes.

The soundtracks o f films such as Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Last Wave and Heatwave have employed music and sound effects to emphasize aspects o f the Australian environment.

Clancy o f the Overflow (Jack Thompson) and Spur (Kirk Douglas). George Miller’s The Man From Snowy River.

M ost recently, for example, Cameron A llan’s experimental score in Phil N o y ce’s Heatwave highlighted the mood o f oppressive, relentless midsummer heat. This was augmented by a subtle soundtrack that allowed the occasional shriek o f the cicada, or crackle of a radio broadcast, to float in and add to the sense o f atmosphere. But in The Man From Snowy River, one does not get a chance to hear the mountains speak. Instead, there is what some composers call “ musical wallpaper” . The music is concocted to a Hollywood formula. It lacks a subtlety and, instead o f com plem enting or emphasizing the formidable grandeur and mystery of the high country, words and music tend to pollute the atm osphere — the mountains recede behind the melodrama, and, when the grandeur is all too obvious, the words appear redundant.

Apparently, a lot o f work went into the scripting — a year o f plotting, and two dozen drafts over a period o f two years — before Fred Cul Cullen and John Dixon settled for their final script. Using clues provided by the poem, and aiming to structure the film to climax with the epic ride, the plot centres on the fate of two American brothers, the H a rr iso n s (b o th acted by K irk Douglas).

One brother makes a fortune when, as the poem put it, Pardon won the Cup, thereby winning the hand o f local belle Matilda, and becoming a wealthy cattle dealer. The other brother. Spur, has unsuccessfully looked for his fortune as a prospector. After 20 years he is still up in the mountains looking for gold.

Spnr is something o f a ‘character’, a well-intentioned, likeable old chap who hobbles around, having had one o f his feet shot off by the jealous brother who had suspected an affaire with his wife Matilda many years earlier. This is the grim secret, held from rich Harrison’s daughter Jessica, born to Matilda who d ied at c h ild b ir th . H a rr iso n is


The Man From Snowy River Mephisto

torm ented by the possib ility that Jessica is Spur’s daughter.

This is obviously a very contrived script based on well-worn formulas with an eye to the commercial market. But even within this plot there is a lot o f potential. The two Harrisons could be seen to represent two different views of the land, and man’s relationship to it.

The rich cattle dealer and station owner, with his hardened views on development and exploitation o f the land for profit, can be seen as the genesis o f the type o f man that formed and continues to form the nucleus o f the N ation a l C ountry Party, and the powerful graziers that have dominated so much o f Australian politics and econom ics. This is the line that leads to the D oug A nthonys and M alcolm Frasers o f today.

Spur can be seen as the m ore environm entally-conscious man — a man that lives in harmony with, rather than trying to tame, the land. Clancy of the Overflow, who occasionally appears for a bush muster, and the Craigs also have this deeper respect, although they are also inevitably part o f the world of cattle econom ics — as skilled horsemen available for mustering.

These themes emerge in the scripting, but all too briefly. Som e o f the potential is eroded with the use o f Kirk Douglas as Harrison and Spur. He does a competent enough job in both roles, but surely Australian actors could have been found at much less expense and with much more potential at creating truly Australian characters. Spur sits too uneasily close to a Disney concept o f ‘character’, and Harrison takes one into the territory o f the Texan rancher.

The raw material for a great film lies at the source. Just as the text of Paterson’s poem provides the basis for the most authentic and enthralling scenes o f the film, the source of a script with dialogue, characters and situations that could create an Australian genre can be found in the poems, ballads and sto r ies o f w riters such as Banjo P a terso n , H enry L aw son , Joseph Furphy and Frank Dalby Davison. A lso, it can be seen in the considerable collections o f oral and local histories, and in the living traditions o f high- plains cattlemen who still continue their annual musters, and hand on their skills to the next generation of mountain men.

The filmmakers are to be congratulated in seeking the advice of legen

dary mountain men, such as the Lovick brothers, in finding suitable horses, and horsemen, and giving som e indication o f their enormous skills and resource in bushcraft. It is a pity that the Lovicks’ skills as yarnspinners, and their insights into the character o f the mountain men, were not used to provide the model for the roles o f Spur and Clancy, and to provide the basis for the dialogue. It is also regrettable the filmmakers did not use som e o f Paterson’s other writings as a guide. Take for example this Paterson d escr ip tio n o f the bushm an, and compare it with what one sees o f Spur:

“The eyes wgre . . . very keen and piercing . . . deep set in the head; even when he was looking straight at anyone he seemed to be peering into endless space through the man in front o f him. Such eyes men get from many years of staring over great stretches o f sunlit plain where no colour relieves the blinding glare — nothing but dull grey clumps o f saltbush and the dull green Mitchell grass . . . When he spoke he used the curious nasal drawl o f the far-out bushman, the slow deliberate speech that comes to men who are used to passing months with the sam e com panions in the unhurried Australian bush. Occasionally he lapsed into reveries, out of which he would com e with a start and break in on other people’s conversation, talking them down with a serene indifference to their feelings.”The great potential is also evident in

two recent collections of stories of the exploits o f the cattlemen: Tor Holth’s Cattlemen o f the High Country and Harry Stephenson’s Cattlemen and Huts o f the High Plains. Both books were published in 1980, well before the film ing began . T h ey provide the m aterial out o f which myths and legends are made.

Holth records stories of men such as Billy Faithful, ‘the Critter’, who died in 1975. He is described as a “bushman, vagabond philosopher, local vet, and one time rodeo rider . . . with the pioneer’s spirit and humour he was characteristic of the type.”

N um erous characters em erge in these accounts, such as the mountain bard Don Kneebone from Milawa and the legendary Bogong Jack, who is said to have haunted the mountains with his band o f horse rustlers, making their home base in the rugged ranges near Omeo. John Sampson, alias Bogong

Jim (Tom Burlinson) and Jessica (Sigrid Thornton) at Spur’s hut. The Man From Snowy River.

Jack, is described as “ a great writer and singer o f comic songs and a consum mate horseman” .

Stephenson records the life o f John Riley, the man said to be the direct inspiration o f the poem The M an fro m Snow y River.

These accounts also give an insight o f the extremely broad range o f skills that the cattlemen and bushmen possessed. N ot enough o f them is shown in the film. The visual medium calls for more scenes where the landscape is revealed through action. Rather than having people gushing out how beautiful or terrifying the landscape is, there could h a v e b e e n m o r e s c e n e s o f th e mustering, and a greater range o f situations revealing the skills o f survival and bushcraft. Kurosawa’s classic Dersu Uzala is an example o f how character and environment are revealed through a minimum o f words and a maximum o f confrontation between a bushman and the mysterious elements.

In a sense, the shortcomings o f the film reflect a deeper problem. There has always been a tendency o f the urban A ustralian to over-rom anticize the bush. The early European colonists were essentially afraid o f the A ustralian outback and bush. With the exceptions of som e of the more daring squatters, explorers, overlanders and bushmen, the early settlers quickly built replicas o f the European city and huddled in the urban areas. Very soon, in terms o f the percentage of population, Australia was the most urbanized country in the world.

The essence of the Australian bush experience is one o f remarkable dichotomy between city people and the handful o f true bushmen that confronted the environment. U nlike the American experience, there was no continuous frontier and, instead of Indian nations, the Australian pioneer faced a more subtle nomadic people in the Aboriginals — a confrontation that ended in shameful massacre, except for the few bushmen who gained som e insights into the enormous skills that these nomads possessed.

The European in the Antipodes was much more drawn towards radically taming the land, towards clearing and burning and fencing off. But in the process a bushlore did emerge.

When the city dweller ventured out into less-tamed areas he came across people with tremendous skills and a love-hate relationship with the land. The bushman had his peculiar brand o f humor — dry, sardonic, detached — and his code of ethics between people based on co-operation in adversity. This is the essence of the writings of Banjo Paterson and other Australian writers, who at the turn o f the century spent so much time trying to capture and portray this.outback tradition for the ears o f the city dweller. Paterson wavered between city and bush, trying to comprehend the rugged realities of areas such as the high country.

These are som e o f the themes that could lie at the heart o f an Australian genre o f cinema about the bush and outback experience. These are themes that have a continuing relevance in an age when the forces o f unchecked developm ent and conservation are facing a confrontation with very high sta k es . T he resu rrection o f bush legends, such as the Man from Snowy River, can act as a mirror for selfunderstanding and a deeper understanding o f our contemporary reality. I also suspect that, in the long run, such them es will also find an audience in other cou n tr ies — for th ey are

universal. But to haye any integrity and any pretensions towards being a truly Australian expression o f these themes, a bit m ore courage, thought and research is necessary.

In his Epilogue to Cattlemen o f the High Country , Tor Holth, who spent a number o f years talking to the cattlem en, im m ersin g h im se lf in their environment and observing som e o f their skills, reminds one o f the rich, source that the high plains hold as a repository o f legend and mystery:

“ . . . They have been the liveliest of places and seethe with the doings o f the mountain cattlem en. Old past imagining too . . . mighty ghosts ride the tops, spurs, valleys and plains which echo still to the events they enacted. N o one could be indifferent to them; they are the m ost wonderful o f places and som etim es the most awesome.“The mountain cattlem en’s abiding affection for the Bogongs leaves undimmed the memory o f times when they m ust have assuredly detested them. With calm indifference the Bogongs have known all there is to know o f the mountain cattlem en’s heart.“They are the repository o f secrets . . . They hold theirs . . .”

The Man From Snowy River: Directed by: George Miller. Producer: Geoff Burrowes. Executive producers: Michael Edgley, Simon Wincer. Screenplay: John Dixon, Fred Cul Cullen. Director of photography: Keith Wagstaff. Editor: Adrian Carr. Production designer: Les Binns. Music: Bruce Rowland. Sound recordist: Gary Wilkins. Cast: Kirk Douglas (Harrison, Spur), Jack Thompson (Clancy), Tom Burlinson (Jim), Sigrid Thornton (Jessica), Lorraine Bayly (Rosemary), Chris Haywood (Curly), Tony Bonner (Kane), David Bradshaw (Paterson), Gus Mercurio (Frew), Terry Donovan (Henry). Production companies: Michael Edgley International, Cambridge Films. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 100 mins. Australia. 1982.

Mephisto

Brian McFarlane

It may suit one’s purposes to believe that any right-thinking — that is to say, left-thinking — artist must have wanted desperately to leave N azi Germany. Istvan Szabo, working from Klaus M ann’s novel, M ephisto, suggests a more complex reading o f the situation than that in this brilliant Hungarian- West German co-production.

The film ’s protagonist is Hendrik Hofgen (Klaus M aria Brandauer), an actor loosely based on Gustav Grund- gens with whom Klaus Mann was c lo se ly a sso c ia te d . H o fg en is an ambitious actor in Hamburg in the 1920s and, along with left-wing colleagues, he visualizes a “theatre that w ill involve everyone” . “ W e m ust prove,” he urges, “ that theatre has a politica l fu n ction .” F ollow ing his marriage to Barbara (Krystyna Janda), the daughter o f a liberal Jewish professor, he jo in s the S ta te T heatre Company in Berlin, and when N azi influence begins to be felt he is wholehearted, it seems, in his denunciation o f “ these murderous thugs” .

Having left the comparative security o f Hamburg behind, Hofgen is seen signing contracts in Berlin, edging his way around a theatrical party until the London Times' critic (played by the Times' critic, David Robinson) notices him and warns him to “beware o f Bolshevism ” , singing an anti-bourgeois song in cabaret, and signing his allegiance, as Comrade Hendrik Hofgen,


Mephisto

with the proletariat. The film builds up his leftist sentiments very skilfully, shows how he wins the Berlin workers’ hearts, and disturbs all this careful preparation by a marvellous montage o f self-preening performances in all o f which he looks identically pleased with himself.

H ofgen’s egoism and egotism have, of course, been adumbrated from the start: he is forever considering him self in mirrors; his black dancing teacher girlfriend Juliette (Karin Boyd) tells him he can’t even order a beer without being actorish about it and taunts him during love-making by saying he only loves himself; in an ovation after a performance, the camera insists on a contrast between the faces o f the dour director and of Hofgen glowing with pleasure; and Hofgen sums up these touches by saying, “ The future o f the Hamburg Art Theatre is m e."

Hofgen declares his love for Barbara in a tranquil forest, but by now the film has suggested his capacity to love is dubious. He wants “ an end to passive watching” in the theatre because the workers should see “total theatre” , not just a peepshow; but, nevertheless, he' wants to be observed all the time. He rages against thé N azis (though His chief rage is for an actress who forgets her lines because, he claims, the N azis have “ put her up to it”); but his obsession with him self as an actor is so great that we wonder whether he is capable of political commitment.

It is, therefore, not an unprepared shock, not just a crude plot device that his playing o f Mephistopheles in Berlin should mark the turning point in his career and his life. The staging o f the scenes from Faust is superb; Szabo films the actors from behind so as to keep the audience in sight, so as to make clear that their approval (in a standing ovation) works hand in glove with the actor’s egoistic need for it to reduce everything else in his life to a secondary place. An actress who tells him “ You were born to play M ephisto” is leaving Germany and urges him to do so. “ Why?” he asks, “There’ll always be th ea tre w hatever happens in Germ any.”

Hofgen’s performance o f Mephisto is greatly admired by a leading Nazi General (R o lf Hoppe) and now, on the verge o f major success, he must try to persuade him self that the opposition parties will keep Hitler in order. His wife, anxious that people will say he does not “ care about life beyond the footlights” , urges “ a definite stand” , but the definite stand he arrives at — and it is wholly convincing and at the heart o f the film ’s meaning — is “ I am an actor in Germany always.” When we imagine that any real artist, anyone of integrity, m ust have left Germany at the rise o f Nazism , we perhaps haven’t adequately considered the force o f a remark like that. When the political 1 crunch com es, Hofgen is an actor first, a political activist second.

In Budapest, making a frivolous film when the N azis actually take over in j 1933, he is persuaded to return to Berlin ' (rather than join his wife in Paris) on the understanding that the N azis will tolerate a famous actor. With his return in grey morning light and his dealings with authorities over, he has thrown in his lot with the new regime, and with the intercession o f the G eneral’s mistress, Lotte (Christine Harbort), he plays Mephisto again.

The symbolism o f the choice o f play is obvious, but in no jejune way: it works, its resonances are powerful and this is partly due to its placement at this

Klaus Maria Brandauer as the ambitious actor, Hendrik Hofgen. Istvan Szabo’s Mephisto.

stage o f Hofgen’s compromise with his erstwhile political principles and o f his estrangement from his wife.

The whole sequence is superbly done, ‘ with its opening shot o f the theatre’s interior with the lights going down; the top N azis arriving and receiving deference from others; the General inviting Hofgen to his box in a scene which, by its adroit use o f alternate close-ups, creates the sense o f confrontation and incipient complicity. The General talks o f “ foreign elements poisoning German culture” and asks, “ Isn’t there a bit of Mephisto in every German?”

As Hofgen stands beside him, his red Mephisto cloak outspread and seeming to embrace the General, the irony is that the roles are really reversing themselves. There is certainly more than a “ bit” of Mephisto in the General. The film suggests that, if this is so, there is more than a bit o f Faust in every actor, that the need to act (in his own language, in his own culture?) may well be his most irrepressible impulse — his price, in fact. The need to act and the need for approval, even against a background o f N azi flags prom inently displayed, is stronger than any attachment to political views.

When his old co lleague M iklas (Gyorgy Cserhalmi) tells him to go to the Devil, he has o f course already done so. He now talks of having “ flirted with the left” and he is powerless to save an other old friend , O tto (P eter Andorai), from the N azis. He allows the General to tell him that his background with the Revolutionary Theatre

is to be forgotten — and that his wife is “ working against the fatherland” . In professional and personal matters he has passed the point o f compromise and given him self over to the one enduring role o f his life.

“ How can you live in Berlin?” Barbara asks him, and his answer, “ I live in the theatre” , carries its own weight. It may not do for most o f us, but Szabo and his great star actor, Klaus Maria Brandauer, force us to consider it for Hofgen. It is their achievement never to let Hofgen totally lose audience sympathy. His quarrel in Les Deux M agots with Barbara, who has lost her country but kept her principles, is, like the film as a whole, toughly and intelligently written. She can’t see what he is achieving by staying in Berlin and his reply — that he must interpret his country — detains us because we can’t be sure whether this is sincerity or just self-delusion.

The Times' critic turns up again and slaps his face, but when Hofgen asks, “ What could I do in Paris?” — that is, as actor — there can be no easy answer, if his commitment to his profession is allowable.

This commitment is not, the film makes clear, a matter o f high-minded dedication. Hofgen is as he is because it is all he can be: that is, it is a matter of im pulses that go beyond political loyalties that have been arrived at either cerebrally or emotionally. When he makes his vain attempt to save Otto by going on his behalf to the General, the latter tells him to “ stop meddling” , and screams at him “ Get out actor.” As an actor he may have some political importance in interpreting the classics so as to suit the prevailing climate (.Hamlet as “ a populist work”), but

direct political intervention is another matter.

In other words, having put his career as an actor before his integrity as a human being he has become a puppet for the N azis and the film ’s last episodes pull all this together with effortless power. The opening night of H am let is followed by wild applause and then a party in the theatre’s foyer, where the architectural grandeurs are dwarfed by huge red N azi flags. Lajos Koltai’s camera pans and tracks, zooms in and out, as it fastens on close-ups o f the gossiping crowd or pulls back in stunning overhead shots that reveal the dominating swastikas. Hofgen makes a speech o f thanks to the General as his patron and master, who removes him from the crowd to the top o f the Berlin Olympic Stadium. Here Hofgen is caught in the dazzling crossplay of powerful lights while the General cruelly taunts him with, “ How do you like this limelight?” H ofgen’s reply is plaintive but consistent: “ What do they want of me? After all, I am only an actor.” .

It is difficult in reviewing a film which is so densely textured in its writing, direction and playing to give a satisfactorily full sense of its richness. One wants to detail scene after scene, whereas all I have been able to do is to give (I hope) an account of its irresistibly-involving narrative, and its use of its central symbol — the stage and the Mephisto role — to illuminate a life and a response to life.

The film is perhaps still too long (its 160 minutes have been reduced to 142), but it is hard to single out specific scenes for pruning. The camera is sometimes carried away by the bravura possibilities of the scene, and, just as one is admiring some marvellous effect, one occasionally wonders what its point is. These are, however, captious nig- glings in the light of what Szabo has achieved.

Mephisto is simply the most intelligent film in a long time. Szabo has the advantage o f a superb screenplay by Peter Dobai and treats it with the respect it deserves. That is not to say that Mephisto becomes a matter of talking heads, but that Szabo trusts his cast to deal with the sustained argument the screenplay offers. In Klaus Maria Brandauer, he has found an actor equal to the complexities of the role of Hofgen, a man in whom moral choice is increasingly threatened and ultimately supplanted by ambition and by his actor’s needs. It is a great film perform ance in which Brandauer’s physical presence works with his em otional and intellectual control o f the role to create a sense of a whole life.

The rest o f an internationally chosen cast supports him admirably: R olf Hoppe, as the Goering-like general, is almost as remarkable as Brandauer, exact in suggesting the man’s tastes and pleasures and the brutal power held in reserve. The three main women in Hofgen’s life — Barbara, Juliette and N icoletta (Ildiko Bansagi), Hofgen’s second wife, an actress who shares his life’s priorities — are sharply and subtly defined by their attitudes to political matters and their relationship with Hofgen.

In the end, Mephisto is less a political drama than a drama of conscience (and its defeat). Part of its fascination is in the way it raises the question of whether an artist, perhaps especially an actor — given the nature of his vocation — is capable of political involvement on any but a superficial level.

Perhaps the film’s chief image is its


A Most A ttractive Man Absence o f Malice

first one. It begins with a musical comedy singer (Nicoletta) singing of “love’s sweet song”, and an adoring audience responding to the star who bathes in their approval. The camera pulls back to suggest the enclosed-ness of the theatre world: it is a darkened box, lit at one end with characters moved around, in stylized patterns, to provoke applause. Nothing could look more insulated from the real world and Szabo contrives to make the audience appear as accomplices in creating this insulation. In doing so, he reduces our capacity for complacency in considering Hofgen.

Dorian, who calls himself a “presentation stylist”. Some of them even make a good living. Dorian, however, scrapes along somewhat poorly on the dole and on his good looks. Reminders that even this meagre capital is starting to fade provoke him to catty, and even violent, protest.

Hartman illustrates this nicely in the opening sequence, when Dorian tussles playfully, but petulantly, with Frances (Carole Skinner), the homely unmarried mother upon whom he battens. (One presumes that they had been lovers, but the relationship is now merely one of bludging convenience on

of her thwarted needs is the remark, during a bout of playful teasing by Dorian: “It’s just like the good old days.” Dorian may be the more pitiable character, but Frances is to be pitied, too.

The extent of Dorian’s insecurity is plumbed tellingly when he confronts Frances’ supportive male friend Mick (Dennis Miller) in the latter’s music- store. His bluff called when he claims to be a pianist, Dorian is reduced to utter puerility. He is a “nothing”, presumably a would-be gigolo with a florid technique but a lean batting average.

Frances probably gets more from life

leave on a wave of indignation so intense that he mistakes Frances’ distress over an accident to one of her children for regret about his departure, there is an apparent last-minute reconciliation. But the final shot is of Dorian walking away from the house.

The implication, however, is that he will be back, and sooner rather than later. For a variety of reasons, most of them outside society’s accepted tenets, the pair needs each other. But there is a further implication — that, though the sexes are more or less equal in emotional needs, one still has the clout to demand more of the other.

Mephisto: Directed by: Istvan Szabo. Supervising producer: Lajos Ovari. Screenplay: Peter Dobai, Istvan Szabo. Based on the novel by Klaus Mann. Director of photography: Lajos Koltai. Editor: Zsuzsa Csakany. Production designer: Jozsef Romvari. Musical arranger: Zdenko Tamassy. Sound recordist: Gyorgy Fek. Cast: Klaus Maria Brandauer (Hofgen), Ildiko Bansagi (Nicoletta), Krystyna Janda (Barbara), Rolf Hoppe (General), Gyorgy Cserhalmi (Miklas), Peter Andorai (Otto), Karin Boyd (Juliette), Christine Harbort (Lotte), Tamas Major (Oskar), Ildiko Kishonti (Dora). Production company: Mafilm (Studio Objektiv), in association with Manfred Durniok Productions. Distributor: Frank Cox. 35mm. 142 mins. Hungary. 1981.

A Most Attractive ManKeith Connolly

Rivka Hartman’s A Most AttractiveMan has an unmistakable feminist theme, be it overt or covert. It is also subtle and moving, a little (47'/2- minute) gem of which its director may take great pride . . . and others should take even greater notice.

On an obviously tiny budget, Hartman makes excellent use of limited means and a capable cast. If, occasionally, cramped settings dictate a certain repetitiousness of movement (an impression heightened by some rather mannered editing), Erika Addis and Paul Tait’s lighting tends to make a virtue of it.

A Most Attractive Man is a short- feature fiction debut comparable to Gillian Armstrong’s The Singer and the Dancer and Stephen Wallace’s Love Letters from Teralba Road, films with which it shares some common ground.

Similarities with Teralba Road are the more obvious. Both are about estranged couples, even though Wallace’s film deals with a broken marriage and Hartman’s pair is near the end of a very tenuous relationship. Though more oblique, the affinities with Singer and Dancer (which also features a couple on the verge of breakup) are, in a broad sense, feminist. In both films, female characters who have been put down by men receive solace and support from other women.

But the main reason I read Attractive Man as feminist, even though the titular character is a rather pitiable male, is that it points up how their conditioning — social, psychological, emotional, educational — prompts women to evaluate themselves in the eyes of men. The other side of this thematic coin is that the “attractive man” has “value” only to the extent that others, most of all women, accept his ludicrous, false front.

That this front, as conceived by Hartman and conveyed with vulnerable bravado by Grigor Taylor, is so artificial, in keeping with the film’s jocularly poignant tone, detracts not a jot from its pertinence. We all know real-life parallels to Taylor’s posturing

Dorian (Grigor Taylor), the “presentation stylist”, and Frances (Carole Skinner), “upon whom he battens". Rivka Hartman’s A Most Attractive Man.

his part and resentful resignation on hers.) Dorian injures Frances when she replies to his taunts about her appearance with a jibe about his own. She is less concerned about the injury, which requires hospital treatment, than his inability and unwillingness to contribute to the household expenses (“Gas bill!” she hisses whenever their verbal wrangles deadlock).

They live in a decaying tenement in Sydney’s Ultimo, where Frances battles to bring up three children (“not mine, all different fathers”, claims Dorian) on a single-mother’s pension. Dorian occupies the best room in the house and gives little' in return, other than unflattering comments on Frances’ inadequacies. He is truculently defensive, however, in the presence of her friends.

For her part, Frances — while knowing full well how she is being used — needs the vestigial comforts of Dorian’s presence, in spite of his slights and insults. An indication of the extent

through her children, friends and rose- colored ambitions of a legal career. But, in the odious words of a television commercial of a few yeqrs back, she lacks “the thing that matters most” — the attentions of “an attractive man”, even a peanut like Dorian.

When the dogged Mick diffidently suggests that she needs someone like himself, Frances replies with an irony that belies her self-exasperation: “Ah, but I love another!” Yet, earlier, she can’t bring herself to mouth that magic Mills’n’Boon password when Dorian demands it — even though she has just covered up for him over what could be grounds for a criminal action. And when, after an interlude that briefly rekindles their old sexual camaraderie, Frances goes to Dorian’s room only to find his bed already occupied, she is furious with herself.

Finally, as her friends urge, she gives him the boot and, surprisingly, he goes — to shack up with the simpering Sue (Anne Tenney), an even more pitiable example of sex-role conditioning.

The film’s somewhat abrupt end (did Hartman have other ideas that were curtailed by limited means?) is wryly ambivalent. When Dorian begins to

A Most Attractive Man: Directed by: Rivka Hartman. Producer: Gillian Coote. Screenplay: Christine Stanten. Directors of photography: Erika Addis, Paul Tait. Editor: Denise Haslem. Production designer: Jeff Bruer. Sound recordist: Pat Fiske. Cast: Grigor Taylor (Dorian), Carole Skinner (Frances), Julie McGregor (Judy), Anna Volska (Vija), Dennis Miller (Mick), Cathy Downes (Merryl), Morgan Lew (Billy), Jane Weir (Jane), Bradley Miller (Toby), John Stone (Clerk). Production company: A Most Attractive Man Prods. Distributor: Sydney Filmmakers Co-op. 16mm. 47'A mins. Australia. 1982.

Absence of MaliceDebi Enker

The title of Sydney Pollack’s film refers to a legal defence which protects the news gathering media, in this case a newspaper, when a story that they have published is challenged and a law suit is threatened. The defence is based on the time-honored, illusory concept, so effectively employed by the media, to suggest that isolated facts, even those gleaned by the most unorthodox and often dubious methods, can be objectively and dispassionately stated and produce a form of truth. The entire


Absence of Malice

process of news gathering and publication, its ambiguous motivations, its unlimited licence to edit information that is deemed superfluous and even the fallacious notion of objectivity become irrelevant if the newspaper can prove that a questionable article was printed without malicious intent.

The title also delineates a number of relationships constructed by the film. Its. examination of professional ethics, private motivations and their potentially destructive consequences underlies a narrative where even the most malevolent situations are the product o f con fu sed a lleg ia n ces rather than malicious resolutions.

Megan Garter (Sally Field), a senior reporter em ployed by The M iam i Standard , believes that she has discovered a leak from an FBI Strike Force team, led by Elliot Rosen (Bob Balaban). We becom e aware that Rosen has actually engineered the leak in order to publicize the investigation and h a ra ss its ta r g e t , M ic h a e l G allagher (Paul N ew m an). M egan knows that for the past six months the Strike Force has been exclusively involved in an investigation o f the disappearance o f Joseph Diaz, leader of the Longshoreman’s Union in Miami. She learns accidentally that they are viewing a surveillance Film shot at the funeral o f D iaz’s major rival, “ Big T om ” Gallagher. When a fruitless interview with Rosen concludes, she notices a file on G allagher’s son, M ichael, on Rosen’s desk and assumes that he is a suspect in the Diaz case. Her subsequent article on the investigation of Michael Gallagher and casual dismissal of the possible motivations behind the leak, with the support of her editor McAdam (Josef Sommer), provide the narrative trigger for a film that examines and questions som e of A m erica’s most powerful organizations: the legal system, the media, the mafia and two of its revered icons, the cowboy and the career woman.

In a style that is characteristic of the director, and his ability to work simultaneously within and around traditional genres, the central narrative deals obliquely with the variety of themes that are evident in his previous Films: the role o f the past in Bobby Deerfield; the importance of loyalty and trust in Three Days of the Condor; the anachronistic cowboy in Jeremiah Johnson and The Electric Horseman; the dislocated society, dominated by self-serving political and legal institu

The cowboy and the journalist: Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) and Megan Carter (Sally Field). Sydney Pollack’s Absence o f Malice.

tions in The Way We Were and Three Days of the Condor; and the sensitive, yet unsentimental love story, occurring in a host of disparate environments, that concludes in separation or with death.

In Pollack’s Films, characters not only struggle against powerful, oppressive institutions, including the family in This Property is Condemned, but are simultaneously caught in relationships where one partner possesses a clear perspective on him self and his society, while the other contends with the ‘com plexity o f issues that lead to self-awareness. The skill and subtlety with which Pollack enables his characters to interact within the love story allows these distinctions to establish themselves, and then to overlap, resulting in the type of endings that are on one level ambiguous, or fatalistic, yet clearly deFining a resolution of the doubt and

confusion that has plagued one of thecentral characters throughout the Film.

Gallagher is thrown into a situation comparable to his predecessor, Turner (Robert Redford), in Three Days of the Condor, the unsuspecting victim of an action initiated by a seemingly omnipotent, unknowable organization that purports to perform a positive social function. Yet Absence of Malice begins at the point that Condor concludes, a newspaper office, and Gallagher is not simply reacting against a duplicitous agent of the FBI, but against a situation in which the law, the media and the maFia become synonymous. They are the powerful, well-organized, essentially self-regulating hierarchies with the resources and lack of scruples to deFine their own rules.

Ironically, in Absence of Malice, it is the law enforcement agency and the press which become partners in crime, by initiating the spurious campaign against Gallagher, while the maFia, personiFied by Gallagher’s corpulent uncle, M alderone (Luther Adler), e m erg es as th e o n ly in f lu e n tia l character with sufFicient knowledge and insight to perceive the situation ’s ramiFications, and supply his nephew with information necessary for effective retaliatory action. When the film concludes, the law and media are discredited while the maFia sits amiably by, cognizant of the entire situation, yet untarnished by its outcome.

From his First entrance, Gallagher’s retaliation surpasses the blind, reactive pursuit o f revenge that dom inates Turner (in Condor) and his contemporaries in a series of films examining institutional crime (The Parallax View, Blow Out, Nightmoves). He strides purposefully through The Standard's ofFice, clad in Levi’s and boots, toward his First showdown. His demeanor and his direct, assertive questioning of Megan immediately throw her offguard. Our confidence in her capability as a journalist is eroded as she becomes cocky and defensive. Shielded by her status as a reporter and supported by her lawyer and editor, she is nevertheless threatened and disoriented when a confrontation is initiated in circum

stances beyond her control.This is a pattern duplicated in scenes

throughout the Film. Gallagher ceases to be the innocent victim as he systematically identiFies his well-camouflaged accusers, adopts their tactics and, in the Final showdown, triumphs morally and professionally. Virtually singlehanded, he discredits The Standard , forces Rosen’s dismissal and the resignation of the District Attorney, Quinn (Don H o o d ), w ho had g iven R o se n ’s campaign tacit support in the hope that pressure on Gallagher would result in a solution to the Diaz case, and improve his public image. Throughout the Film, Gallagher takes people unaware, acting with independent strength and determination, resourcefully initiating action and forcing reaction on his own terms.

In attitude and appearance, he is the classic cowboy, transported to modern Miami, yet operating according to the values of a Western; challenging corruption, prematurely terminating the reign of unprincipled officials, and, in the Final shot of the Film, riding out alone at sunset. H e is a man who “ goes hunting” for information, who has rejected marriage and family life, yet as a result of his family and its past conn ection with the m afia finds it necessary to re-estab lish fam ily contacts, in an effort to clear his name.

Gallagher’s single concession to the past is a boat called Rum Runner, owned by his father and previously used to ferry bootleg liquor into Miami. When he takes Megan to lunch on the boat, we witness a^facet of his character that makes him a truly formidable opponent: skilful control balanced by- alert awareness of his environment. He knows when his conversations are being slyly recorded, when he is being followed, yet his responses are controlled. The cowboy closely observes his en v iro n m en t and resp o n d s w ith econom ical, effective action when required.

Our glimpses of his personal life complete the image. As his relationship with Megan develops, he admits to being in the “ Stone A ge” on the sexual frontier, feeling comfortable only when he takes the initiative. Her allegation

Gallagher and his ‘‘single concession to the pas t . . . a boat called Rum Runner’’. Absence o f Malice.


FILM FOR SALE53,000 feet of raw 5247 in 1,000 foot

rolls for sale.PRICE NEGOTIABLE

PhoneThe Year of Living Dangerously

Production Officeon (02) 888 3408 or (02) 887 3578

C ine F ilm L aboratory Pty. Limited

14 WHITING ST., ARTARMON, 2064, TELEPHONE: (02) 439 4122

SERVICES PROVIDEDNIGHT

FOR SALE_______16m m -35m m Animation Stand$42,500.00_________________________Double columns stand with four track tabletop. Panning & double rotation rings — Rotoscope projection.ENQUIRIES: Animation Stand

P.O. Box 49 Brookvale 2100 Or Phone 93 5536

QjUM EQUIP/MENr SERVICE

A Repairs to all 16 & 35mm Cinecameras, Projectors, Exposure meters, Splicers, Rewinders, Tripods, Synchronisers. Repairs to all fixed & Zoom lenses, Collimation & Testing, Special custom-built NI-CAD

Batterypacks & Chargers. Moderate hourly Rates, weekend service, many parts stocked.

G. F. K. LIEDTKE1 Oravel Street, North Balwyn, 3104 Australia.Telephone: (03) 857 6543 All hours

7247/FUJI/AGFA PROCESS &WORK PRINT7240/50 PROCESS & WORK PRINT

DAYFull 16mm service:-

7247/FUJI/AGFA PROCESS &WORK PRINT.7240/50 PROCESS & WORK PRINT.B/W NEG. POSWET GATE (AT NO CHARGE), ANSWER PRINTING ON E/COLOR & EKTACHROME.WET GATE (AT NO CHARGE),CRI, 1/NEG, 1/POS,INTERDUPE.BULK RELEASE PRINTING.SOUND TRANSFERS,MAGNETIC TO OPTICAL.SOUND RUSHES 1/4 in. TO 16/17.5/35 mm. NEG MATCHING.

For enquiries contact one of our experienced directors:Jack Gardiner — Quality ControlCal Gardiner — Production/Customer Liaison.

f DAY > RECEPTION1 14 WHITING

^STREET )

Absence of Malice Angels of War

that he prefers his women nice and quiet seems accurate and perceptive. In the scenes between Gallagher and his childhood friend, Teresa (Melinda Dillon), he is at ease with a woman. Paternal and protective, he stubs her cigarettes with distaste, cooks her spaghetti with gusto and clearly adopts the role of guardian in a relationship based on mutual loyalty and respect.

Teresa is the epitome of the vulnerable, passive woman; repressed by religion and family obligations, she is a vivid contrast to Megan’s assertive career woman image. Her unquestioning loyalty to Gallagher and her willingness to trust Megan in an effort to clear Gallagher, by providing a legitimate alibi that would end the FBI investigation and media speculation, make her the film’s true victim. Her suicide as a result of an article Megan publishes, announcing her abortion in Atlanta and Gallagher’s presence there, supporting his childhood friend through a crisis on the day Diaz vanished, are occurrences that spur Gallagher’s subsequent revenge. He seeks not simply to clear his name, but to force an admission of responsibility for her death.

His relationship with Megan, while more emotionally complex, begins with the precept of career woman encountering cowboy, and it is clearly the cowboy who defines the moral core of Absence of Malice.

Sally Field’s performance as Megan recreates the archetypal portrait of an ambitious career woman. Her passionate dedication to her work masks a series of naive, simplistic values that Gallagher identifies and exposes. She sincerely believes that accurate facts provide the public with the impartial truth of a situation, that news serves an indispensable social function. Her instinct for newsworthy occurrences, her energy in the pursuit of a story and her ability to manipulate contacts are balanced by the alert, attractive, jaunty aggression that has typified newspaperwomen since Rosalind Russell’s depiction of Hildy in His Girl Friday.

Unfortunately, the contemporary career woman cannot exist without the mandatory implication that her ambition and determination have taken their toll on her private life. For most of the film Megan appears to live exclusively in The Standard's office, or in bars frequented by her colleagues. When finally shown in her apartment, she has surrendered her suits and high heels for jeans, but is hunched over a typewriter in a neat, modern flat that suggests a hollow existence with its clinical decor.

In many films (e.g., Woman of the Year, June Bride, My Brilliant Career, Private Benjamin), the career woman is forced to examine her professional commitments and forfeit either her private life or her ambitions after a process of evaluation involving the man she loves. In Absence of Malice the process is internalized, as Megan’s most serious confrontations arise from her inability to divorce professional ethics from private values and desires. Her relationship with Gallagher provides the catalyst, but the cause is not simply her involvement with him. He represents a more substantial perspective on society; a type of morality involving loyalty and trust and a definition of truth that shows her to be fatuous. It is his attitude to the law, his cynicism about the media and his concept of truth, involving subjectivity

and emotion, that we recognize as valid.

When his retaliation necessitates an adoption of nefarious tactics and he resorts to illicitly taping telephone conversations, implicating District Attorney Quinn, whose only miscalculation has been to trust Rosen’s discretion, he is vindicated by the values that he represents. The film makes it acceptable, even laudable, for Gallagher to select a weak link in the Justice Department, as he had been selected as target in the Diaz investigation, and manipulate it to his advantage. His duplication of Rosen’s techniques is viewed as commendable from the single righteous character in the film.

In the climactic scene, where Teresa meets Megan in an effort to clear Gallagher, Megan is faintly contemptuous of Teresa, ignoring her obvious distress, misinterpreting her vulnerability and even resorting to the type of bullying for information that experience has obviously proved effective. In her zealous quest for the exclusive scoop, she callously negates any personal responsibility for publication of the story, flatly informing Teresa that she is not confiding in another woman, or even talking to an individual with a personal sense of evaluation. By stating, “I’m a reporter. You’re talking to a newspaper right now. Do you understand?”, she conveniently renounces any personal obligation for her actions, and defines a conception of herself, as individual and journalist.

Megan is not simply willing to repress personal convictions when professional gain is at stake, but finds her role synonymous with the ability to seek out and process details in a moral vacuum. Her priorities and attitude to herself are contrasted to the sensitive, vulnerable Teresa, a woman motivated by loyalty and love, baring her most acute, private fears to another woman so busy scribbling notes that she fails to see what we recognize as a character disintegrating before our eyes.

The scene forces a perspective of Megan as remorseless and insensitive, using her position as a shield from the most basic, humane considerations, diminishing any sense of personal responsibility with the rationale that publication of the story will clear Gallagher of suspicion. Even in this extreme case, she believes a revelation of Teresa’s abortion is performing a useful social function.

In this confrontation of polarities, Megan’s attitude refers to the film’s title. Her reprehensible actions are more the product of confused allegiances to Gallagher, and to her function as a reporter, than to any malicious intention toward Teresa. By reducing Teresa to the category of reliable source, she simply ignores the implications of her actions in the pursuit of a story.

While the opening titles usher us through the mechanical production of a newspaper, and Megan supplies this distasteful depiction of the press in action, the film provides two additional characters to represent the mental processes that lead to news publication. The least sympathetic is The Standard's lawyer, Davidek (John Harkins), an imposing, unemotional figure, to whom questions of truth are irrelevant. A veneer of fairness can substitute for impartiality, and his sole concern is that facts are defensibly accurate, or that legal recourse is

possible when they are not.The editor, McAdam, is more genial,

but ultimately more insidious. He personifies the rational, dispassionate ethics of news. Unlike Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) in All the President’s Men, his concern with factual accuracy is superficial. He is prepared to casually dismiss the motivations of his sources, and the political and social ramifications of the articles that he publishes. While Bradlee relentlessly pressures his reporters to examine and question their sources, and the implications of their work, McAdam carelessly encourages Megan to submit stories that he recognizes may destroy innocent people, without the preliminary research and analysis for which he is responsible. His approach to his work, and his implicit faith in its value, are comparable to Rosen’s.

Both editors belong to organizations that purport to exist as guardians of the democratic system, yet their improper decisions affect individuals who are blameless. Hiding behind the rationale of merely doing a job, protected by their status in enormously powerful institutions, both are able to diminish responsibility for and accountability to their victims. Both demonstrate a willingness to ignore ethics and correct procedure when deemed necessary and compound such dangerous action with the belief that it is somehow inherent in the nature of their work. McAdam’s pleasant disposition and apparent worldliness conceal a series of erroneous assumptions: that isolated facts can be strung together and create a form of truth, and that a blatant disregard of motivation and social consequence is necessary in news compilation. When challenged, McAdam’s feeble defence is that transgressions are an inextricable hazard of the news process.

The chain of events commencing with Rosen’s unfounded suspicion of Gallagher, his manipulation of Megan, and her publication of stories that cast doubt on Gallagher, provoke Teresa’s suicide, and finally associate him with the District Attorney, weaves a web of ambiguous information, misguided loyalties and deception. American society is reduced to a number of institutions, dominated by objectionable individuals with dubious intentions, who are eventually exposed by the actions of a single man.

Towards the conclusion of the narrative, James J. Wells (Wilford Brimley), senior Justice Department Attorney, an avuncular, tobacco-chewing figure, reminiscent of the Western’s wise old judge, arrives in town. With grudging respect for the cowboy who has diverted the law into his own capable hands, he efficiently censures his wayward officials and reprimands the media. It is a traditional, yet simplistic solution to a film that has depicted a decaying society, populated by misguided professionals, whose decisions dominate the destinies of the public under the guise of performing essential social functions.

Even the reference to legal actio'n suggested by the title is left redundant. Despite the media’s irresponsible decisions, none of its victims has ammunition for legal recourse within the system. Only Gallagher triumphs, as a result of his ability to adopt the tactics of his accusers. He rides out of the film, and his relationship with Megan, alone and untarnished, carrying with him most of. our sympathies, and deflecting our hostility

towards Megan and the organization that she has naively discredited. Her belated humility and awareness cannot indemnify the rash, reckless actions that have blemished a presumably intelligent, capable woman. Finally, Wells’ ability to admonish the press and censure the negligent, manipulative members of the Justice Department provide an orthodox, yet inadequate, solution. We are encouraged to believe that a deadlocked society, victim of its own institutions, devoid of effective legal and moral guidance, finds its savior in the anachronistic, retributive symbol of past glories.

Absence of Malice: Directed by: Sydney Pollack. Producer: Sydney Pollack. Executive producer: Ronald L. Schwary. Screenplay: Kurt Luedtke. Director of photography: Owen Roizman. Editor: Sheldon Kahn. Production designer: Terence Marsh. Music: Dave Grusin. Sound: Bert Hall- berg. Cast: Paul Newman (Gallagher), Sally Field (Megan), Bob Balaban (Rosen), Melinda Dillon (Teresa), Luther Adler (Malderone), Barry Primus (Waddell), Josef Sommer (McAdam), John Harkins (Davidek), Don Hood (Quinn), Wilford Brimley (Wells). Production company: Columbia. Distributor: Fox-Columbia. 35mm. 116 mins. U.S. 1981.

Angels of WarCurtis Levy

“The people of Papua New Guinea don’t make things for fighting war with other countries. We just grow our own food and have sing-sings and beat our drums, that’s all. We don’t know how to make warships or submarines, bombs or bullets. We just live our own lives, that’s all.”

These words are spoken by Sergeant- Major Yauwiga in Angels of War, a documentary Film about the people of Papua New Guinea in World War 2.

Yauwiga’s life was tragically changed by his participation in the war, when, like many young warriors, he joined up with the Aussie diggers. After many heroic actions in which he killed several Japanese soldiers, he ended the war with one arm blown away and blinded in both eyes. The doctors who cared for him in a Brisbane hospital replaced one of his eyes with the eye of a young man who had just died in a motor-bike accident, but the European eye failed him. The doctors made a hand for him, a hook, and when he went to meet the Queen they gave him a new hand, one with two hooks. Now he tells us, “I’ve lost the key and the hooks don’t work properly.”

Young Papua New Guinea men from the age of 14 or 15 were forced into the war effort by one side or the other. They had no choice but to obey whoever held the gun. Angels of War is a film which documents the contribution made by these men as soldiers and carriers.

The sacrifice of Australian, American and Japanese soldiers in Papua New Guinea is recorded in our history, but little recognition has ever been given to the enormous sacrifices made by local people. To this day, the Australian government refuses to give just compensation to the men who carried ammunition to the front lines and wounded diggers back along the jungle trails to safety. These “angels of war” were paid a princely 10 shillings a month during the war, and since then some small token payments have been made. For the men who joined in the field without formally signing up, there is no bureaucratic means of compensa-


Angels o f War Union City

A Papua New Guinea “angel” escorts a wounded Australian soldier during World War 2. Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson and Gavan Daws ’ Angels o f War.

tion. As one old Sepik man, Wamanari, told the filmmakers:

“The Australian government said, you work and later you’ll be like us. But it hasn’t happened. They said, you work for us and then we’ll sit down at the same table and eat the same food with the same spoon. But it hasn’t happened . . . Old men like me are dying without getting anything.”Although Angels of War documents

the exploitation of innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place when war broke out, the story is not without its humorous side. Somehow in telling their stories, these “angels” are able to entertain the audience with real theatre. As storytellers they have an incredible ability to act out in a humorous way the most tragic events. So, although the film adds up to a strong indictment of the abuse of the local people by the Australian and Japanese forces, one cannot fail to be impressed by the vitality and spirit of the people. Possibly the filmmakers, Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson and Gavan Daws, have encouraged this vitality to come through in the film by deliberately using a relaxed and informal interviewing technique. Instead of the usual straight current-affairs approach, they have enlisted the services of a Papua New Guinea historian, John Waiko, who chats with the interviewees in their language. As a result, one feels one is sitting in on personal conversations.

Waiko is able to dissipate all awareness of the camera, and the casual outbursts of laughter and the often poignant personal stories are a testimony to this technique.

The filmmakers sifted through thousands of feet of film stored in the archives of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and came across some unique and sometimes bizarre sequences. There is propaganda footage made by the Japanese to justify their attempt to widen their “sphere of coprosperity”, and a bizarre American offering to the war effort, in which Gary Cooper and two swim-suited starlets are seen entertaining the troops in the steamy jungles. The archival sequences are skilfully entwined with the contemporary footage to create an effect of immediacy, and an involvement in events long past. The editor, Stewart Young, has created a strong unity of old and new footage, juxtaposing the material in such a way that the film never bogs down in over- indulgent reminiscences.

Perhaps the reason why Angels of War is such an effective film is that it is not just a story of war experiences; Angels makes a strong statement about the phenomenon of colonialism and, in particular, provides a telling portrayal of Australia’s relationship with Papua New Guinea. Obviously this relationship will be far more healthy in the future, if Australia is to recognize the contribution made by the Papua

New Guinea “angels of war” and pay those men who are still alive a proper form of compensation.

Angels of War: Directed by: Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson, Gavan Daws. Producers: Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson, Gavan Daws. Screenplay: Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson, Gavan Daws. Director of photography: Dennis O’Rourke. Editor: Stewart Young. Sound recordist: Gary Kildea. Narrator: John Waiko. Production company: Robin Films. Distributor: Ronin Films. 16mm. 54 mins. Australia. 1982.

Union CitySusan Tate

After an earnest introduction that places the film firmly in the 1950s, by the use of shots that act as cultural references of ladies’ beauty products and period furniture, and sets the film noir-ish tone with its cloying low-key interior and subjective photography, worked in the crimsons and purples of passion, the action crawls to a start. Like the overworked indicators of period and tone in the introductory shots, the opening action makes all-too- blatant attempts to create notes of suspense. The paper-boy stops Harlan (Dennis Liscomb) on his world-weary way home; he has forgotten to deliver his paper. He suggests it must be interesting for Harlan “working with blades”. It is a solitary reference, not part of a body of imagery as such a device should be.

The boy also remarks to Harlan, “Say hello to your wife”. Other references to Harlan’s wife Lillian (Deborah Harry) are built up throughout the film. All the main male characters ask after or make reference to her: the bartender at Taty’s reminds Harlan, “You should be nice to her (a comment which is later reflected in Lillian’s own expression of wishes for herself: “I want a man who will be nice to me”).

Their references create an undercurrent of the potential for Lillian’s imminent affaire by building up a profile of her desirability and an index of male recognition, which is matched throughout the film by her own direct and indirect expressions of need for sexual recognition and attention.

More successful than the attempts to create a dramatic tone for the film, the opening scene also introduces the motif of Union City. A hobo slouches on a street corner. He sees one of the tenants from Lillian and Harlan’s apartment block coming home drunk. The drunk gives his cab driver a $25 tip. The hobo approaches the driver for a share in the tip, but is given the drunk’s hat instead. He tries it on with a grand gesture, paralleling the action of the character portrayed on the billboard above him advertising the development site of Union City — Mr Middle America stretches his arms wide suggesting the prospects of such a site. He sports a hat similar to the one the hobo tries on, the symbolic dress of respectability and linked with the values of Middle America — the aspiration to and respect of private property and privacy that the advertisement suggests and which will eventually bring about Harlan’s downfall through his indignation at the violation of these ideals he feels he has suffered.

The combined shot of the hobo and the billboard suggests the disparity which exists between the American dream and the American reality. In reality the hobo can never aspire to be a property owner like the Union City advertisement suggests.

The billboard also functions in the final scene after Harlan jumps to his death, believing his ‘secret’ to have been found out. He falls to his death under the sign. An objective long-shot of the crowd which gathers around the corpse suggests the irony of the fate of one who has made inroads into achievement of property ownership and surface respectability being driven to suicide in his paranoic attempts to preserve both. The entrance of the hobo onto the scene, the man Harlan believed himself to have killed in defending his milk supply, happily free of property and position, compounds the irony.

The elements of private property and respectability suggested by the Union City development site billboards are developed through the film in the nature of Lillian and Harlan’s sterile marriage and in Lillian’s boredom, with its at-once attendant and causative sexual and emotional frustration. But most important, it is crucial to the central drama of the film, in Harlan’s hysteria at the invasion of privacy and violation of personal sanctity that the stealing of his milk each morning represents, leading to his determination to catch the thief and his belief that he has killed him in the accident that follows.

The sociological interest of the themes represented by the Union City billboard and developed via the plot add a substance to the film which it fails to achieve in its dramatic elements. The film fails to live up to the film noir pretensions suggested in the introduction, leaning more towards the American television sitcom style of drama, with its slapstick circumstances and the domestic trappings of married life which surround the “murder”.

Despite attempts to add suspense and build tension before the murder, through such devices as the blade reference and the introduction of several suspects for the milk theft and potential lovers for Lillian’s inevitable affaire (a further violation of Harlan’s property), the action is flat and lacklustre. More suspense is created after the murder in the psychological sense through the anxiety that besets Harlan in his fear of being found out and which manifests itself in his nervous behaviour at work, particularly when his secretary spills some milk, and his insistence that he and Lillian move house.

Further tension lies in the more existential anxiety Harlan suffers as a result of having committed a thoroughly anti-social act that will alienate him from his known world. To assuage this fear he begs for expressions of love from Lillian and considers her with a tenderness that springs from the divorce from her his crime will bring about. He watches enviously and longs to join her in her nightmare-free sleep.

While. Harlan anguishes at his attempts to step back into the safe confines of the world from which he has alienated himself by his act, Lillian sets out on a path of fantasy to escape from the reality of the same world. It is ironic that the role of Lillian is played by Deborah Harry, lead singer of the rock group Blondie, herself a symbol of sexual and glamor fantasy.

The possibility for a subtle dialectic between the Harry/Lillian character is set up by the audience’s and director’s awareness of the fact that the famous rock star is being used in the leading female role. In the film, Lillian bleaches her hair platinum “to look like Marilyn”. She also transforms herself into her own familiar image as Debbie Harry by ttte color change. Larry asks


Union City Freedom

Lillian to sing a popular tune about coffee but she begs incapable, another amused nod at the dual role of the performer as star playing ordinary housewife.

For Lillian, at the beginning of the film, her fantasy world extends to buying exotic shoes and going to the Friday matinee with Larry, with whom she will eventually have an affaire and plan a movie-style life. Her fantasy life develops into the donning of the trappings of sexual and glamor fantasies which remain of an indeterminate nature, and which are partially and tentatively directed towards Harlan and specifically and directly towards Larry.

While Lillian develops a workable and eventually realistic outlet for her fantasy world outside Union City, characters like the Contessa have gone quietly crazy; with her spouting theories of reincarnation and draping herself in oriental silks. Harlan’s escape from his pre-crime frustrations and post-crime anxieties is found at the bottom of a bottle.

While the theme of Middle American respectability and the role of fantasy in it is an interesting one, it is not fully developed in the film or very complex. The drama which surrounds it lacks suspense. Characters like the Contessa (Irina Maleeva) don’t work well in their dramatic function (it is the Contessa who first makes Harlan believe his secret has been discovered through her garbled messages of understanding his suffering), although they are quite effective in providing a glimpse of the other side of the American dream and the underbelly of Union City. The large Negro family who come to look at the spare room in the apartment block parody the American ideal of one room per person as Harlan tries to point out the apartment would be far too small for them. On the other hand, the couple who eventually do use the room, precipitating Harlan’s leap to his death, epitomize in a two-dimensional way the

young American couple of the 1950s with their shy-cute sexuality.

Dennis Liscomb’s excellent portrayal of the twitchy neurotic Harlan highlights Deborah Harry’s acting inability and it would seem the two have wandered in from entirely different films to come together in an uneasy duo. The disparity in acting talent is not helped by an inadequate script with too many empty moments which result in Harry appearing to have forgotten her lines at times. The music by Chris Stein is undistinguished.

Despite these shortcomings, it is an interesting film for its sociological content and some of the cinematic devices it uses, such as the billboard (similar to a device used in Badlands) and the star/housewife dialectic which adds an interesting twist to the fantasy elements.

Union City: Directed by: Mark Reichert. Producer: Graham Belin. Executive producer: Monty Montgomery. Screenplay: Mark Reichert. Based on the story “The Corpse Next Door” by Cornell Woolrich. Director of photography: Edward Lachman. Editor: LanaTokel. Production designer: George Stavrinos. Music: Chris Stein. Sound recordists: Jack Cooley, Bob Prewitt. Cast: Dennis Liscomb (Harlan), Deborah Harry (Lillian), Irina Maleeva (Contessa), Everett McGill (Larry), Sam McMurray (Hobo), Terina Lewis (Evelyn), Paul Andor (Ludendorff), Taylor Mead (Walter), Cynthia Crisp (Wanda), Pat Benatar (Jeannette). Production company: Kinesis. Distributor: Frank Cox. 35mm. 87 mins U.S. 1979.

FreedomJim Schembri

It is perhaps thankful that, in spite of its symptomatic fast vehicles, highspeed chases, beautiful women and excellent stuntwork, Scott H ick s’ ironically-titled Freedom does not subscribe to the car-film syndrome. R egrettably, however, the energy,

The lovers: Larry (Everett McGill) and Lillian. Union City.

interest and promise initially associated with its central concern are subsequently betrayed.

Ron Matheson (Jon Blake) is an unem ployed youth w hose dom estic tension and dismal prospects on the job market nourish an increasingly-bewildering and engrossing fantasy, which he later realizes. The section of the film before this realization is not only a well- drawn, involving (though flawed) character study, but also serves as a commentary on what is probably the s e n t im e n t o f m an y o f t o d a y ’s unemployed.

Although occasionally ostentatious, some well-directed scenes in the early part o f .Freedom align viewer empathy with Ron as they depict the gnawing frustrations, the inability to fulfil m odest am bitions and the stunted

Harlan (Dennis Liscomb) and wife Lillian (Deborah Harry). Mark Reichert’s Union City.

opportunities that combine to nurture his corresponding desire to escape these pressures.

The film’s opening credit sequence clearly conveys this juxtaposition of R o n ’s d esire for escap e and his thwarting reality. Throttling through an electronic racetrack in an amusement parlor, Ron is absorbed at the wheel as he weaves through the field of other cars. A semi-circular shot around the racing booth effectively encloses Ron in his concentration, accentuating close shots of his taut face and eyes as they guide him precariously through the video racecourse. His friend Phil (Chris Haywood), having lost at Space Invaders, throws Ron’s gears, causing him to ‘crash’ and land a narrow second placing on the m achine’s top five scores. Ron looks up at Phil, his face registering anger — and helplessness.

A slow pan across a stretch of working-class suburbia, which stops on Ron’s home, asserts his plight o f frustrated opportunity as being fairly typical in today’s economic climate. It is in this portrait of his daily ordeals that viewer sympathies and concern for Ron polarize — temporarily.

Ron expounds to his employment officer (John Clayton) that he is a faceless, powerless victim of a ruthless money-saving attitude by employers who see fresh apprentices as mere comm odities to be hired, fired and manipulated at their convenience. His recent sacking from the engine plant exem plifies this, and is sharpened further by his employment officer’s subsequent advice that, “ You must tailor your aspirations to job opportun ities” because “ em ployers can afford to be choosey these days.”

Indeed, the degradation Ron suffers at this is apparent as he first rejects, then reluctantly accepts, a manual labor job at a cement works.

Arriving there early next morning, a brief incident deftly suggests Ron’s modest ambitions and his inadequacy to fulfil them as he accidentally bumps into another early arrival. A quick exchange of glances links the tattoo on the man’s arm with a printed facsimile o f a tattoo on the sleeve of Ron’s T- sh ir t. T h is c o n tr a s ts th e m a n ’s significant level of personal achievement and Ron’s deficiency of any such attainment as he subsequently dwells on the man’s thankful wife and child while closing their car door.

This sensibility is pained with frustration when, due to his act of politeness, Ron is the 21st applicant for the 20-man vacancy. Upon insistence that he is desperate for work, the employer


Freedom

(Max Cullen) cordially takes down Ron’s name in the deceptive air that he will try and help him out, only to inform him never to turn up again, that “We don’t employ your type here.”

Ron’s frustrations and inadequacies are well encapsulated by his disparity with the over-contrived, underdeveloped, yet functional character of his friend Phil. Owning a shocking-red panel van (complete with fur-lined interior, Star Warsian mural and “Machismo” proclaimed gaudily on the side) that symbolizes his material wealth through conformity, Phil explains to Ron the virtues of “shit eating” and how “this great country of ours was built on the smiling little shit eaters.”

During this advisory deluge, Ron envisions Phil’s van being progressively crushed into a cube. Despite a surface impression of rejection, these images most probably represent Ron’s inability to succeed, and the according envy he feels toward Phil’s accomplishments in the system.

The anger infused by these relentless batterings of rejection and frustration is highlighted by Ron’s stagey, yet powerful outburst at the CES office, and forces him to erect a metaphorical fortress against these pressures. His softly-lit bedroom, embellished with pop art images and centred on the sentinel of his sound system, provides him with a psychologically plausible niche into which he withdraws from his depressing reality.

Donning headphones and crouching embryonically against a wall, Ron

displaces the ego-crushing frustrations of his reality with a corresponding ego- enforcing fantasy. Dressed in the height

Ron (Jon Blake) “wrenches Sally (Jad Capelja) from her baby to flee the police". Scott Hicks’ Freedom.

of fashion at the wheel of a Porsche, he glides effortlessly along a country road, a beautiful woman (Candy Raymond) by his side. These symbols of success, companionship, power and control counterpoise the absence of these elements in his life (though, carelessly, Ron’s interaction with girls is never established).

As the fantasy develops, Ron’s gratification is marred by an obtrusive black vehicle that weaves portentously in front of him, before careering off the road and down a hill. As he stops to examine the wreckage, his companion drives off, leaving him stranded.

Though the Porsche in Ron’s fantasy has its basis in reality (he fixates on it early in the film), the woman presents a jarring note. At first she seems to be imaginary, but later she is revealed to be both the owner of the Porsche and Annie Martin, an old friend of Ron’s. This implies that Ron deliberately placed her in his fantasy, and results in an inexplicable lack of recognition when he meets her while caressing her car.

Arriving at Annie’s apartment for a date, Ron overhears her phone conversation with her lover, Cassidy (a minuscule, meaningless role for Bud Tingwell), and is angered to learn that she plans to use him to tease her lover. In response to yet another scheme to exploit him, Ron steals her keys and speeds off with her car to no place in particular.

It is from here that a combination of elements effectively inhibits taking the film seriously and, indeed, provides some unintentionally laughable moments as Ron hits the round- Australia highway.

Ron’s unsavory character reversal into his fantasy image, his association with Sally, a thinly-drawn, thick-set runaway mother in search of her child (played by a promising, betterdeserving Jad Capelja), a squad of incapable, moronic policemen and the ultimate pointlessness of Ron’s trek through the countryside sap the subsequent developments in Freedom of

Ron and Sally uncover the Porsche hidden in the hay shed. Freedom.

the slightest tension or concern.Some obscure, nihilistic statement

relating to how our society alienates the inadequate, rendering them powerless, and then hounds after them when they are compelled to escape their useless existence in the system is vaguely apparent. But viewer interest in Ron is destroyed. He becomes an unthinking, aimless fool who, after picking up Sally in a roadhouse cafe, forces a car off the road and has the long arm of the law — complete with five thumbs — after him.

Persuading Sally that he is a millionaire secret agent, Ron’s unconvincing, uninteresting persona is supplemented by many incidents where he displays a remarkable lack of intention or destination. Indeed, he seems to agree to help Sally in the search for her baby in want of any other purpose.

Yet even this potentially involving concern is stultified by the lack of depth in Sally’s character. Having located her baby’s foster home, Sally leaves Ron sleeping to retrieve her child. When Ron wakes to see an approaching police car, he races down and, in a clumsy scene of screaming emotion, wrenches Sally from her baby to flee the police.

Having just been separated from the one meaningful thing in her life, Sally expresses no remorse whatsoever about the incident for the rest of the film. Soon after, in fact, when the pair seek assistance from a helpful, elderly farm couple, Sally is cheerfully critical of Ron’s rude manners and positively joyful at the way the farmer’s wife prepares a thermos of tea and a bag of sandwiches for them in about ten seconds flat.1

This dismal lack of emotional reflec-

1. This is only one of the film’s many lapses in continuity, which include another sample of geriatric alacrity — an old lady walking a half kilometre in as little time as it takes Ron in the Porsche.


Freedom Quartet

tion is promptly displayed again when, having hidden the Porsche in a shed, Sally and Ron embrace for a giggling roll in the hay.

Constant reminders of Ron’s aimlessness echo his capsized character, from being one of color, substance and purpose to one of vacuous disorientation, and leads to an astonishingly meaningless anti-climax.

When Ron and Sally go ‘shopping’ after visiting her sister, Ron demands that they “get some things straight”, referring to the threat of her obsession to get her child imposing on what Ron wants. Yet he quickly agrees to ‘steal’ some baby items for Sally, because he clearly doesn’t know what it is he wants to straighten out.

In a well-evoked shot of aimlessness (with the Porsche parked roadside at the bottom of the frame, Sally looking at a map on its hood, while open sky and country fill the rest of the frame), Sally defends, with some fairly abysmal dialogue, the search for her baby. Ron calms her, insisting that he’s on her side and that he’ll help her get the child, but that as soon as that’s done, “It’s my trip” — whatever that is. As they prepare to continue, Sally asks “Do you know of somewhere to go?” to which Ron aptly replies, “We’ll find somewhere . . .”

The futility of Ron’s escapade is painfully stated toward the end of Freedom. Having left Sally sleeping on a hill, Ron tries to outrun the police through countryside which he soon recognizes as the locale of his fantasy. Predictably, he comes across a snapped railing, stops the Porsche and stares down at the wreckage of the ominous black car. Realizing nothing, he heaves the empty shell of his dream car over the edge and down the crevasse.2

Finally, in an incredibly unconvincing denouement, a little van, proclaiming that “ Jesus Saves” , conveniently chugs up to Ron’s rescue. “Where are you headed?”-the driver asks. Ron’s reply is a precise: “I don’t know.” Nor does the viewer know — or indeed care.

The film’s insufferable concept of the police as the ‘henchmen’ of society is reflected in many unsubtle representations, including a lack of common sense and basic driving skills, arguments with sheep and even a symbolic truckload of real pigs. One scene in particular summarizes the police image in Freedom. Waking after a rest in a hay shed, Ron and Sally see a motorcycle patrolman searching the area. They frantically run to the concealed Porsche and drive off. Giving chase, the brave patrolman runs to his bike, deliberates for a moment, then oddly decides to continue on foot. Hoping to cut them off, he pounces off a small rise, lands in front of the speeding Porsche, and winds up on the critical list.

It must be acknowledged that Freedom is a technically proficient film, with clear, sharp pictures and exposure, some acute editing, fluent, imaginative cinematography and an atmospheric soundtrack by Don Walker. Impressive packaging, however, cannot compensate for the manner in which Freedom disregards the promise and interest cultivated in its early developments in the pursuit of ideas that are rendered sterile

2. One knows it is an empty shell as it rolls down in slow motion, because the differential, engine, and petrol have all been removed. This, perhaps, is meant to be symbolic, but is more indicative of a salvage operation necessitated by budget restrictions.

by a lack of coherence and ultimate purpose.

Freedom: Directed by: Scott Hicks. Producer: Matt Carroll. Screenplay: John Emery. Director of photography: Ron Johanson. Editor: Phillip Reid. Production designer: Herbert Pinter. Music: Don Walker. Sound recordist: Tim Lloyd. Cast: Jon Blake (Ron), Candy Raymond (Annie), Jad Capelja (Sally), Charles “ Bud” Tingwell (Cassidy), Max Cullen (Factory clerk), Chris Haywood (Phil), Reg Lye (Old farmer), John Claytor (CES officer). Production companies: South Australian Film Corporation, Endeavour Communications Corporation. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 95 mins. Australia. 1982.

QuartetLes Rabinowicz

The heroines of Jean Rhys’ novels — whose first, Quartet, has now been brought to the screen by the accomplished team of James Ivory, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and Ismail Merchant — are often passive figures, inevitably hurt by the men with whom they are desperately in love. And James Ivory’s fascination with the story of one of these, Marya Zelli, whose aimless existence is shattered when she is taken up by a middle-aged couple following her husband’s imprisonment, has much to do with the objectivity of Rhys’ prose.

Quartet also reflects another preoccupation. Merchant-Ivory productions, despite their wide range in subjects, have often been explorations of the.tensions which spring when one culture encroaches on another. They are meditations on decay set against a confrontation between a new, confident and youthful order and an insidious older one. To be sure, these themes, prominent in their earlier films, have receded in their more recent ones, though without diminishing in significance. In Quartet they are echoed in the personal differences between Marya (Isabelle Adjani), a young Creole, her Polish husband Stephan (Anthony Higgins), and the middle-aged British couple, H. J. Heidler (Alan Bates), an arrogant art dealer of German ancestry, and his artist wife Lois (Maggie Smith).

Set in the famous Montparnasse district of Paris in 1927, Quartet charts with uncanny precision the emcticn- ally-numbing and bewildering iences that Marya suffers through becoming involved in a menage a trois with the Heidlers.

At first, Marya finds Heidler repul- ‘ sive but succumbs to his advances in the hope of finding comfort from the excruciating household tensions. Later, realizing the extent of the couple’s connivance, but still financially dependent on Heidler and clinging precariously to his affections, she allows herself to. be kept in a hotel at his expense. Heidler, however, begins to lose interest which is only reawakened by Stephan’s release from prison.

But in transposing this story to the screen, Ivory and scriptwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala have created a film that is lacking in feeling. Its tone is too subdued, its reverberations too muted. Part of the problem is that they have superimposed their preoccupations on Rhys’ feminist ones, producing a vague admixture of oblique references and suggestions. It is as if their overly- careful balancing of the film’s competing thematic and stylistic intentions has cancelled out its emotional texture.

Perhaps what is lacking is Jean

Rhys’ own voice. In Quartet one meets, for the first time, the stunningly beautiful heroine whose life Rhys was to follow, under different names, in her first four semi-autobiographical novels. Though Quartet is written in the third person, this works to create a highly- subjective drama by focusing largely on Marya’s responses to Heidler’s duplicity — his desire to keep both women, and Lois’ complicity — due not to her broadmindedness but to her shrewdness in identifying a way of holding on to her husband.

The film, however, moves the focus away from Marya and follows the shifting relationship between the central quartet, but without involving one in the fate of the characters. Ivory, possibly out of fear of clouding the intricate machinations at play, has avoided bringing one closer or adding to an understanding of them beyond their immediate motivations toward each other.

Adjani’s Marya, who is overwhelmed by circumstances with which she can’t cope, lacks a presence that even this petite femme should possess. And if Ivory was concerned about creating a sympathetic portrait of her, the opposite holds for Lois whose nastiness extends further than using Marya as a butt for her cruel jibes and taunts. It. is on reflection, prompted by praise from one of Lois’ friends, inserted late in the film, that one is reminded that her hideous behaviour is an index of her love of Heidler. It is here that the drama comes unstuck, as the film does not intimate anything of this otherwise temperamental and lecherous dilettante that would inspire such single-minded devotion. What, in the novel, is a source of perplexing incomprehension for Marya, becomes a glaring fault in the film.

Lois and Heidler are bound by their efforts in “keeping up appearances” in the face of the sordid state of their private lives, which is encapsulated in Lois’ “You aren’t going to tell anyone in Paris about this, are you?”, following a stormy row, and Heidler’s protest that Marya “isn’t playing the game”. This is given an unexpected twist. Rather than dwelling on the hypocrisy involved, Quartet almost becomes a study of the Heidlers’ removal from their own feelings, by juxtaposing their behaviour with Stephan and Marya’s more intuitive and emotionally-respon- sivc actions. And much of the film’s

strength lies in this: its deft, if not diffident, handling of the subtle contours of personality and motivation.

Quartet’s most enjoyable virtue is its marvellous recreation of bohemian Paris. Ivory, his cinematographer Pierre Lhomme and art director Jean- Jaques Caziot have evoked this milieu witn an aesthete’s passion for artefacts and decor. At times, their enthusiasm almost crowds what there is of the drama. This is the case when three half- naked, dance-hall girls, who Lois mistakenly describes as undernourished, do their routine, and during a nightclub party, where a jazz singer, a large Negress (Armelia McQueen), wades through two scintillating numbers.

The most interesting scene into which all the film’s carnal intricacies are woven and tragically resolved is a dinner following Stephan’s release, which brings the quartet together for the first time. Heidler attempts to reclaim Marya, while Lois overplays her hand by telling Stephan what has one bn in his absence, in the hope that e will take Marya away. Marya,

however, clumsily invites Heidler to dance, to ask him for money so she can leave Paris with Stephan, unaware that he has misconstrued her leave-taking. Revulsed by the whole affair, Stephan leaves without her.

If Quartet ends ambiguously by leaving one to guess about Marya’s future, it closes on a note of sombre disquiet, poignantly captured in its last lines of dialogue. And if this has been foreshadowed from the start, Ivory and Jhabvala have also succeeded in capturing something of Marya’s (and, for that matter, Lois’) feverish instinct for self-preservation. ★

Quartet: Directed by: James Ivory. Producers: Ismail Merchant, Jean Pierre Mahot de la Queran- tonnais. Executive producer: Hubert Niogret. Associate producers: Humbert Balsan, Connie Kaiserman. Screenplay: Ruth Prawer jhabvala, based on the novel by Jean Rhys. Director of photography: Pierre Lhomme. Editor: Humphrey Dixon. Production designer: Jean-Jacques Caziot. Music: Richard Robbins; “Arabesque Valsant” by Luther Levitsky. Sound recordist: Bernard Bats. Cast: Isabelle Adjani (Marya). Anthony Higgins (Stephan), Maggie Smith. (Lois), Alan Bates (Heidler), Pierre Clementi (Theo), Daniel Mesguich (Pierre), Virginie Thevenet (Chardin), Suzanne Flon (Mrs Hautchamp), Sebastien Floche (Hautchamp), Sheila Gish (Anna). Production company: Merchant Ivory Productions, Lyric International. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 101 mins. France. 1981.

Alan Bates as H. J. Heidler, an ‘‘arrogant art dealer o f German ancestry”, and Isabelle Adjani as Marya Zelli, who shelters with him. James Ivory’s Quartet.


| His Life and film s ;¡8 Barbara Learning

A revealingr j¡gg§? and authoritative-

- biography of th e man behind C ul de Sac, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby,

Chinatown, M acbeth and Téss. -

No modern film director creates more instant reactions

' tharr Roman Polanski.He attracts controversy and violence

as if the évents of real life have em eiged from his films.

Barbara Learning is a professor in

the Department of Theatre and Cinema at Hunter College,

New York City | |^ - -Paperback,

¡1 . 16 pages of illustrations \I 515:95* W êi} * -

\ «, 'recommended retail price '

' ' ' ; ' A Hamish Hamilton book from f \

§ f i l S i n e l s o n «m

8 PAGE AGE GOGHSPTY LTD

CINEMA BOOKS, MAGAZINES, POSTERS & RECORDS

THE HISTORY OF MOVIE PHOTOGRAPHY by Brian Coe $29.95

An Illustrated History of Equipment and Techniques. Mention this advertisement for a 10% discount.A FREE MOVIE POSTER WITH EVERY SALE.

Write now for a free current list of titles available.WE ARE OPEN 7 DA YS A WEEK

305-307 SWANSTON ST, MELBOURNE 3000 Phone: (03) 663 1777; 662 3040

Soundtrack AlbumsNew Sound Tracks and Cast Recordings

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (BURGON) $9.99; RAINTREE COUNTY (GREEN) $16.50; HALLOWEEN II (CARPENTER) $11.99; MAD MAX (MAY) $11.99; MAD MAX II (MAY) $13.99; BOY ON A DOLPHIN (FRIEDHOFER) $11.99; MAN OF A THOUSAND FACES (SKINNER) $11.99; THE DEVIL AT 4 O’CLOCK (DUNING) $11.99; BARABBAS (NASCIMBENE) $11.99; THE WAR OF THE WORLDS — ORIGINAL RADIO BROADCAST WITH ORSON WELLES — 2 DISCS $14.99.

Mail orders welcome; add $1.50 post/packing

------- READINGS RECORDS & BOOKS--------132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885

We aré open 7 days a w eek

c i n e a s t e

Published continually since 1967, Cineaste is today internationally recognized as America’s leading magazine on the art and politics of the cinema. ‘‘A trenchant, eternally zestful magazine,’’ says the In te rna tiona l F ilm Guide, “ in the forefront of American film periodicals. Cineaste always has something worth reading, and it permits its writers more space to develop ideas than most magazines.’’

Published quarterly, Cineaste covers the entire world of cinema — including Hollywood, the independents, Europe, and the Third World— with exclusive interviews, lively articles, and in-depth reviews. Subscribe now, or send $2 for a sample copy, and see what you’ve been missing!

Here’s $7 ($12 foreign) for 4 issues □

Here’s $12 ($20 foreign) for 8 issues □

NAME____________________________

ADDRESS___________________________ _

CITY______________ STATE________ ZIP________

Cineaste419 Park Avenue South

New York, NY 10016

Those Fabulous TV YearsBrian Davies, Cassell Australia, 1981, $14.95.Australian TV: The First 25 YearsEdited by Peter Beilby, Nelson in association with Cinema Papers, 1981, $14.95.Turning On Turning Off: Australian Television In The EightiesSandra Hall, Cassell Australia, 1981, $11.95.Dave Sargent

Last year marked the Silver Anniversary of television in Australia. In many ways the occasion was promoted, as well as constructed, as a major event by stations and other media.

In the area of book publishing, Cassell Australia and Thomas Nelson, in association with Cinema Papers, took the opportunity to produce three “coffee-table” books of the 1980s — glossy cardboard-covered volumes with inexpensive price tags (in comparison with today’s outrageously high, standard paperback rates). Yet, although they have been similarly packaged with a wide range of consumers in mind — “eat a book with your daily cuppa” — they do vary in objective, scope and substance.

Those Fabulous TV Years by Brian Davies and Australian TV: The First 25 Years edited by Peter Beilby make claims to historiography. In the “Introduction” to Those Fabulous TV Years, Bruce Gyngell sweepingly describes the book as “the history of an industry”, while Peter Beilby, in the “Editor’s Note” to Australian TV, cautiously writes: “Australian TV . . . is not a definitive history; a great deal more research remains to be done before that is a possibility.”

Both books are histories; Those Fabulous TV Years presents a subjective and descriptive text by someone who has first-hand knowledge from working for the ABC and commercial television, while the Beilby book brings “together a group of writers who have made different aspects of television their special interest”, records “key developments within TV” and highlights “significant programme types, leading personalities and the most popular programmes of the last 25 years”. Both volumes also supplement their written history with pictorial representation.

However, there is little effort to make sense of these descriptive histories in complex social and political contexts (although Beilby does acknowledge that, “No understanding of the nature and effect of TV is possible in the absence of an adequate historical perspective”). As a result, both books (especially Davies’) are little more than unabashedly nostalgic trips through a quarter of a century of television programming.

Sentimental pleasure (reminding people of “what life and past times were like, coinciding with a favourite programme recollected”) can be derived from flipping through pages of photographs of cherished and long forgotten programs, performers and personalities, and skimming through rapidly- flowing personal and detailed writing. But in our society an emphasis on nostalgia usually works as a diver

sionary device; it displaces our attention away from the important economic, social and political events amidst which Australian television emerged and developed. It also obscures the complex role that television plays in the perpetuation of ideologies and discourses.

It is not that the books don’t acknowledge that television has a social function. For instance, Davies writes:

“Arguably, one of the biggest single factors underlying the social changes of the past twenty-seven years has been television . . . Like the un- resolvable chicken-and-egg argument about Hollywood and America’s lifestyle, as to whether life imitates art or vice versa, television led or reflected the way to the society, rightly or wrongly, we thought we wanted to be. And because in the Menzies years from 1949 onward we wanted to be a consumer society without end, all that we aspired to was reflected on our television screens, or could it also in part have been dictated by them?” But that is as far as Davies (or his

publisher?) allows himself to go. His text shies away from getting involved in anything but the most perfunctory commentary about television; after a while, this, the anecdotes, and a steady stream of mentions of programs and people begins to bore.

Similarly, Jim Murphy, Brian Courtis, Garrie Hutchinson, Andrew McKay, Christopher Day and Ivan Hutchinson in Australian TV duplicate these shortcomings, though their styles are less emotionally nostalgic in tone.

In addition to pieces by these authors, Australian TV presents an opening section entitled “The Passing Parade” which, from 1956 onward, offers yearly National Top 10 programs, Logie Award winners and historical tidbits about the industry and the world at large. This is straightforward “facts and information” with no interpretation, but it does provide abstract indexes to the ever-changing relationship between television and society as it has developed over the years.

There is also a disappointing, uncritical end section entitled “Commercial Break” that reproduces “some memorable moments in the last 25 years of Australian TV commercials, highlighting the changes TV advertising has undergone”. The major interest of this section is to suggest that “commercials are often more entertaining and more professionally made than the programmes they accompany” rather than assessing the impact of commercials in promoting a consumer-oriented society, or analysing the relationship between commercial interests and the development of television.

Therefore, both books (especially Australian TV) are more attractive and impressive for their photographs than texts, and neither comes close to Sandra Hall’s Supertoy: 20 Years of Australian Television (1976), which may have lacked visual pizzazz, but more than made up for it with a substantial text.

Hall has achieved the same standard in Turning On Turning Off: Australian Television In The Eighties, and this time the text is complemented by some nicely reproduced, if unmemorable, photos.

The intention behind this book is criticism rather than historiography (though in the future I am sure the book will greatly assist the latter). Her criticism transcends the usual “gut response” variety which so many of this country’s film and television reviewers still pridefully acknowledge as the sort of critical writing they do.

Hall’s writing reflects an appreciation for theories of different media, and an understanding that television is far more than.a source of entertainment or recreation. She writes from a liberal perspective, but unlike most liberal writers she does not present society as being transparent, and makes a noticeable effort to place her comments in firm contexts. Thus, her commentary is carefully created so as not to threaten readers who are put off by up-front “serious criticism”, but this does not undermine the impact of what she has to write.

So, in Turning On Turning Off Hall sets out to do two things:

-“by reviewing programmes and analysing trends, I have discussed what television is providing already; and by putting into perspective the main broadcasting issues, I have talked about the service we could see

, in the future.”The strongest chapters are “News”,

“Public Affairs”, “Documentaries” and “Sport”, and in these she makes


Book Reviews

some astute observations. For example, her brief analysis of different station approaches to news coverage, and public affairs programs such as 60 Minutes, helps to deconstruct programming that is often accepted by television viewers as “the truth”:

“Sixty Minutes [sic] is not interested in anything as abstract as an issue. It is interested in specifics, in personalities and in narrative. If a story doesn’t have a hero and a villain preferably, though not essentially, a beginning and an end, it’s not worth telling.”Also in these chapters Hall slightly

shifts general critical discourse that we are used to reading in dominant press publication, thus opening a space for discussion of some important issues. For instance, in “Sport” she does more than lead the cheer squad for all that television has done in upgrading the auality of sport presentation. She also dons a football boot and gets stuck into the television stations for their transformation from transmitters of sporting events to “expansive entrepreneurs”. However, she never fully tackles the implications of this in a culture such as ours where sport has distinct ideological functions.

The weakest chapters of the book are “The Future”, in which she deals with satellites, cable, teletext, video disc and the video-cassette recorder, and “The Implications”. But then maybe this is to be expected because as Hall writes:

“It will probably be some time before Australians come to terms with all that their television sets can do for them. Undoubtedly, many people will find it more comfortable to ignore the whole issue, rather than plunge into the mess of complicated questions that has characterised the debate so far — and they may be right, because the only certainty about the next ten years of broadcasting is that Australians are going to be offered a lot of technology they may well be better off without.” Nevertheless, Hall doesn’t “ignore

the issue”. In Turning On Turning Off she plunges into a “mess of com

plicated questions” dealing with the most important medium of our era, and in the long run Hall demonstrates how she has remained one of this country’s most consistently readable film and television reviewers in the dominant press.

international Film Guide 1982Edited by Peter Cowie Tantivy Press/Space Age Books $17.95James Manning

This annual reference work is now in its 19th year of publication. A valuable work, it summarizes film production in all film producing countries and gives a good general view of cinema throughout the world. It does not focus just on English language output, as do other available yearbooks.

An important feature every year is the five directors of the year. The most astonishing thing about this section is how it reflects the strong grip that men have on film direction. So far there have been 95 people nominated as directors of the year, and only two of these have been women: Marta Meszaros and Lina Wertmuller.

This year the five men are France’s Maurice Pialat, .Britain’s Karel Reisz, West Germany’s Volker Schlondorff, India’s Mrinal Sen and Hungary’s Istvan Szabo. Each winner of the award gets a short essay detailing his career, which is followed by a comprehensive filmography. And the IFG is often the only place a complete filmography can be found on a particular director.

Roy Armes writes a fine essay on Reisz calling him “very much the mainstream director, picking his own project (though with what seems at times an almost perverse logic) and uncomplainingly filling the gaps between feature films with television productions and work on commercials” . Morgan, A Suitable Case for Treatment is called “a disparate work: part analysis of the ways in which society

tames its rebels, part chic mid-sixties comic caricature”. Although a bad film, Dog Soldiers is given only five lines and dismissed with “it did little to resolve the contradictions of Reisz’s career.”

The next (and largest) part of the book is the world cinema survey taking up 279 pages and covering every country between Afghanistan (with the cryptic sentence, “Afghan Films is now in a position to make a film together with the U.S.S.R.”) and Yugoslavia (with a report on the most spectacular festival I have ever attended at the amphitheatre in Pula).

The Australian chapter is, as usual, written by David Stratton. He says that the Australian industry is “for the time being” experiencing a boom. He says Harlequin got what it deserved (poor box-office) but “it seems to have done better in more credulous overseas markets.” He comments on the fact that a number of films have not yet achieved commercial release. What ever did happen to David Hemmings’ The Survivor? Surveying the year’s output, Stratton says, “After Gallipoli, there’s not much to write about.”

A chapter on animation follows the world round-up. This is a much overlooked field (viz the non-release locally, at the time of writing, of Heavy Metal) and it is good to see so much space (33

Vic Gordon, Princess Panda and Happy Hammond in HSV-7’s Happy Show (from Australian TV: The First 25 Years).

pages) devoted to the subject. But the absence of a color supplement means that this section lacks some of its usual visual splendor.

Included in the animation section is a five page summary of animation in Australia and New Zealand. Written by Bruno Edera, it covers everything from Dot and the Kangaroo to the work of the Cantrills.

There are also short informative chapters on festivals, 16mm, film archives, film schools (an ever- expanding chapter), film bookshops and reviews of books and magazines.

In 1983 there will be the book’s 20th anniversary. I just.hope they don’t change format or content to celebrate.

Recent ReleasesMervyn Binns

This column lists books released in Australia, as at April 1982, which deal with the cinema or related topics. All titles are on sale in bookshops.

The publishers and the local distributors are listed below the author in each entry. If no distributor is indicated, the book is imported (Imp.). The recommended prices listed are for paperbacks, unless otherwise indicated, and are subject to variations between bookshops and states.

The list was compiled by Mervyn R. Binns of the Space Age Bookstore, Melbourne.

Popular and General InterestT he B ig B o o k o f B M ovies: H o w L o w W as M y B u d g e t Robin CrossFrederick Muller/ANZ Book Co., SI4.95 A survey of cheapie films including thrillers. Westerns, science fiction, war films and historical epics, and the people who made them.B ring O n th e S tu n tm a n Ian B. Jamieson Rigbv/Rigby. SI2.95 (HC)An illustrated book about stunts, how they are done and the people who do them. By a practising stuntman. C o n fessio n s o f an E x-F a n M a g a zin e W riter Jane WilkeDoubleday/Doubleday Aust., S19.50 (HC)The author of this book tells how she got her inside stories about such leading stars as Elizabeth Taylor. John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe.C u lt M o vies Danny Peary Delta"/Imp.. SI6.75One hundred films from the silent era to present day that have remained ever popular with filmgoers. Gives plot outlines and other details.D ream Palaces Charles LockwoodViking/Penguin Books Aust., $19.95 (HC)The homes of the 1920s and 1930s film stars. 150 photographs of their mansions from the glamorous, lost era of Hollywood.T he G olden A g e o f ' B ' M o vie s Doug McLelland. new edition Bonanza/lmp., $7.50 (HC)Fifty low-budget films are covered, giving credits, stills and story outlines." G ra n d m a 's S c r a p b o o k " o f S i le n t M o v ie S ta rs Produced by John M. Kaduck Wallace Homestead Book Co./Dymocks, $3.95 A collection of old photographs of American silent film stars.G rea t F ilm Epics: S to rie s B e h in d th e S c e n es o f Mike MunnArgus/ANZ Book Co., $19.95An illustrated book of behind-the-scenes events during the making of dozens of epic films, from Ben Hur to T he Great Race.

T he H is to ry o f th e W o rld P a rt O n e Mel BrooksVirgin Books/Thomas Nelson Aust., $6.95 A fully-illustrated book of Mel Brooks’ crazy comedy film.T he I llu s tra te d M o v ie Q u iz B o o k Rob BurtSevern House/Dent Aust., $3.95An illustrated collection of quiz questions about films and film stars.J a m e s B o n d in th e C in em a Steven Jay Rubin Talisman/LSP/Imp.. $14.95An account of the making of the James Bond films, including the behind-the-scenes problems, the personalities and the drama.T h e M o v ie A d B o o k Malcolm Vance Control Data/Imp., $1 1.95An illustrated history of the Hollywood film advertisement. from science fiction and horror through drama. Westerns, musicals, comedy and more.M o v ie M em o rie s John BrookerPatrick Stevens Ltd/Imp., $17.50 (HC)A book of film Tacts and memorabilia published in conjunction with a British television series.T he M o v ie S ta r Elizabeth WeisViking/Penguin Aust.. $25 (HC)A collection of essays, reviews and personal interviews that give an insight into the role of the film star, on and off the screen.R o c k on F ilmDavid Ehrenstein and Bill Reed Delilah/Imp.. $14.95A comprehensive survey of films featuring rock V roll music, with photographs and posters.


Book Reviews

S c re e n S ta r s o f th e ’70s David Castell LSP/Imp., $9.95An illustrated, popular survey of the film stars of the 1970s, by the editor of F ilm s Illu s tra te d .W a lt D isn e y 's T re a su ry o f S i lly S y m p h o n ie s Walt Disney Studios Abrahams/Macmillan Aust., $35 (HC)A beautiful collection of stories and illustrations, in full color, from some of Disney’s best work.W in g s o n th e S c ree n Bertil SkogsbergBames/Tantivy/Oaktree Press, $33.95 (HC)A pictorial history of air films from 1928 to 1978. The actors, the directors and the films from the silents to the 1,970s.T h e W it a n d W isd o m o f M a e W est Edited by Joseph Weintraub Perigree/Imp., $3.95Numerous photographs of Miss West along with quotes from her films and other sources.

Biographies and FilmographiesA n n M a rg re tNeel Peters and David Smith LSP/Imp., $19.95A photo extravaganza and memoir. Illustrated- with numerous personal photographs, publicity stills and magazine covers.B ette : A B io g ra p h y o f B e tte D avis Charles HighamNew English Library/Hodder and Stoughton Aust., $19.95 (H C )The biography of one of Hollywood’s greatest stars. The story of her rise from mediocre roles to some of the screen’s most memorable performances.B ogart: A D e fin itiv e S tu d y o f H is C areer Terence Pettigrew Proleus/Doubleday Aust., $12.50An illustrated, critical survey of all of Bogart's films. An excellent study of his film career.C a ry G ran t“ In the Spotlight” series Gallery Press/Imp., $9.95 (HC)An excellent collection of photographs along with a brief text on Grant’s illustrious career.A D re a d fu l M a n Brian Aherne Berkley/Imp., $3.75A personal and intimate biography of George Sanders by a friend and fellow actor.E liza b e th Taylor: T h e L a s t S ta r Kitty KellyMichael Joseph/Thomas Nelson Aust., $19.95 (HC)The tumultuous personal history and career of the screen’s most publicised actress. A most detailed and unabashed biography.T he F ilm s o f B u r l R e y n o ld s Ian StreebeckCitadel/Davis Publications, $28.95 (HC)A complete, illustrated survey of the career of Reynolds, with full details of all his films.T h e F ilm s o f C lin t E a s tw o o d Boris Zmijewsky and Lee Pfeiffer Citadel/Davis Publications, $28.95 (HC)A complete survey of Eastwood’s career, with full details of all his films.T he F ilm s o f C h a rlto n H e s to nJeff Rovin, new editionCitadel/Davis Publications, $11.95A complete, illustrated filmography. New in paperback.T h e F ilm s o f P a u l N e w m a nKenneth Thompson, new revised editionCitadel/Davis Publications, $25.50 (HC)An updated, new bound edition of the complete filmography of Paul Newman.T he F ilm s o f S u sa n H a y w a rdEduardo Moreno, new editionCitadel/Davis Publications, $11.95The complete filmography of Susan Hayward. New inpaperback.The F ilm s o f T y ro n e P o w erDennis Belafonte with Alvin H. M aril, new edition$11.95The complete filmography of Tyrone Power. New in paperback.F inch , B lo o d y F inch Elaine Dundy, new edition Magnum/Methuen Aust., $4.95The life and career of actor Peter Finch. New in paperback.F loraKenneth BarrowHeinemann/William Heinemann Aust., $29.95 (HC)An appreciation of the life and work of Dame Flora Robson.F onda: M y L i feHenry Fonda as told to Howard TeichmanW. H. Allen/Hutchinson Group Aust., $17.95 (HC)Two hundred hours of taped reminiscence by Fonda, plus interviews with his family and friends, make this a personal outpouring of feelings about his life and career.F ro m a L i fe o f A d v e n tu re : T h e W ritin g s o f E rro l F lynn Edited by Tony Thomas Citadel/Davis Publications, $14.95 (HC)A collection of articles and fiction written by Flynn, who claimed he always wanted to write a bestseller, an ambition that was not realized until after his death and the publication of his autobiography.G o n e B u t N o t F o rg o tte n Patricia Fox-Sheinwold Bell/Imp.. $9.95 (HC)Illustrated biographies of Bing Crosby, Joan Crawford, Walt Disney, Betty Grable, Alfred Hitchcock, Rosalind Russell, John Wayne and Mae West.H o lly w o o d in a S u itc a seSam my Davis jun., new editionStar Wyndham/Gordon and Gotch, $4.95Personal anecdotes of time spent in Hollywood — the starsand the films.I A in 't D o w n Y e t Gale StormBobbs-Merrill/Imp., $14.35 (HC)The autobiography of the film and television star of the 1940s and '50s.J a c k O a k ie 's D o u b le T a k e s

Strawberry Hill Press/Imp., $13.4)4One of Hollywood’s most likeable supporting actors.

reminisces about his 60 years in the film business, with anecdotes about many other famous stars from Chaplin to Temple.J a m e s C ag n ey“ In the Spotlight” seriesGallery Press/Imp., $9.95 (HC)A great collection of photographs with brief text, covering the career of one of Hollywood’s greatest stars.K a th a r in e H e p b u rn “ In the Spotlight” series Gallery Press/Imp., $9.95 (HC)An excellent collection of photographs covering the career of one of America’s best-loved actresses, with a brief but

. enlightening text.L o u ’s o n F irstChris Costello with Raymond Strait St Martins Press/Imp., $19.95 (HC)The tragic life of funny man Lou Costello, warmly recounted by his youngest child.T h e M a n W ith N o N a m e Iain JohnstonePlexus/Doubleday Aust., $11.50The career and personal life of Clint Eastwood. Illustrated. M e th o d in M a d n ess Maurice YacowarSt Martins Press/Imp., $15.55 (HC)The comic art of Mel Brooks, from his television work to The Producers and Blazing Saddles. Although hated by the critics, his films have outgrossed those of the much-praised Woody Allen,O livier: T he L i fe o f S ir L a u ren ce O livier Thomas KiernanSidgwick and Jackson, $18.95 (HC)The biography of one of Britain’s greatest actors.P eter Se lle rs: T he A u th o r iz e d B io g ra p h y Alexander W alker, new edition Coronet/Hodder and Stoughton, $4.95 R ic h a rd B u rto n Paul FerrisWiedenfeld and Nicolson/Hodder and Stoughton A u st, $24.95 (HC)A new biography which attempts to generate more respect for Burton’s acting career.S h e lle y : A lfO K n o w n as S h ir le yShelley Winters, new editionGranada/Gordon and Gotch, $6.95The outspoken memoirs of Hollywood star ShelleyWinters.S o l id G old ie Connie BermanFyreside/Simon and Schuster/Ruth Walls, $13.50 An illustrated biography of the popular film and television actress, Goldie Hawn.S u s a n 's S to ry Susan HampshireSidgwick and Jackson/Hutchinson Group Aust., $19.95 (HC)English actress Susan Hampshire narrates her personalstory including a battle with dyslexia, which she overcameto make a successful career in film and television.S w a n so n on S w a n so nGloria Swanson, new editionHamlyn/Thomas Nelson Aust., $5.95The inside story of Hollywood, from the silents to the1970s, through the career of one of Hollywood’s brighteststars.T he T h ird T im e A r o u n d George BurnsStar/Wyndham/Gordon and Gotch, $4.95 Intimate memories, zany anecdotes, private moments and public triumphs of the man they say is older than Hollywood itself. Told as only he can tell it.U p in th e C louds, G en tlem en P lease John Mills, new edition Penguin/Penguin Aust., $5.50The autobiography of British actor John Mills. New in paperback.T he W a lt D isn ey B io g ra p h y Bob Thomas, new editionNew English Library/Hodder and Stoughton, $6.95 A critical biography of the phenomenon of W alt Disney, the greatest animated filmmaker.

Directors and ProducersA b e l G anceJames M. Welsh and Steven P. Kramer Twayne/Remal, $21.50 (HC)A title in the Twayne Theatrical Arts series. An appreciation of the work of the French director, whose epic film N apoleon is currently in revival.A n th o n y M a n n Jeanine Basinger Twayne/Remal, $21.50 (HC)The life and career of the director of such films as W inchester '73 and The Glenn M iller Story.A n th ro p o lo g y -R ea lity -C in e m a Mick EatonBritish Film Institute/Gaumont, $5.95 A study of the films of Jean Rouch.A r tif ic ia lly A rra n g e d S cen es: G eorge M elies John FrazerTwayne/Remal, $55.95 (HC)A comprehensive survey of the work of the French film pioneer and master of special effects, George Melies, with a synopsis of each of his films.B illy W ilder Bernard F. DickTwayne/Remal, $17.95 (H C )^ „A complete survey of the life and work of the successful Hollywood director.B la k e E dw ardsPeter Lehman and William LuhrOhio University Press/Harper and Row, $11.20,- $22.97 (HC)A critical survey of the films of Blake Edwards, including “ 10” , The Great Race, the Clouseau films with Peter Sellers, D ays o f W ine and R oses and others.C lose-U p: T he C o n te m p o ra ry D irecto r Jon TuskaScarecrow/James Bennett, $31.70 (HC)A survey of the work of Sydney Pollack, Samuel Fuller, Sam Peckinpah, George Roy Hill and others.D ouglas S irk Michael SternTwayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)The life and work of the German-born director of such films as W ritten on the Wind. •*F ilm s a n d D ream s: A n A p p ro a c h to B ergm an Edited by Vlada Petrie

Redgrave/Hippocrene/Imp., $ 14.20 A collection of essays on the work of Ingmar Bergman. T he F ilm s o f R o b e r t A l tm a n Alan KarpScarecrow/James Bennett, $13.50 (HC)A critical assessment of the films of Altman including M * A * S * H , N ashville and Quintet.Francois T ru ffa u t Annette Insdorf Twayne/Remal, $17.95 (HC)The life and career of the film critic turned director. F rank C apra Charles J . Maland Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)The life and career of one of America’s most respected film directors, whose filmmaking began in the 1920s. F rederick W isem an Liz EllsworthG. K. Hall/Remal, $49.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide, with biographical details, lists of films with synopses and other details, critical writings, research details and indexes.G rigori K o z in tse n Barbara Leming Twayne/Remal, $25.95 (HC)The life and work of the Soviet film director, whose most notable effort, based on Shakespeare, is King Lear. In g m a r B ergm an: T h e C in e m a as M istress Philip MosleyMarion Boyers/T. C. Lothian, $20.95 (HC)A critical history of Bergman’s films.J e a n L u c G odard John Francis Kreidl Twayne/Remal, $22.50 (HC)A comprehensible survey of this director’s life and work in the Theatrical Arts series.Je a n L u c G od a rd Ju lia LesageG. K. Hall/Remal, $84.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide with biography, full film list, critical writings, screenplays and related activities. Je a n R e n o ir Christopher FaulknerG. K. Hall/Remal, $79.95 (HC)A complete reference guide to the work and films of Jean Renoir, with interviews, reviews and other details.J o r is Ivens: 50 Years in F ilm m a k in g Rosalind DelmarBritish Film Institute/Gaumont Books, $8.95 A study of the work of one of the most important contributors of political films including Song o f the Rivers. J o sep h L o sey Foster HirschTwayne/Remal, $22.50 (HC)A comprehensive survey of this director’s work.K arel R e isz Georg GastonTwayne/Remal, $24.95 (HC)A survey of the work o f the director of-Saturday N ight and Sunday M orning, Isadora and other films.K e n R u sse ll Gene D. Phillips Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)The iife and work of the director of such films as The Devils and The Boyfriend.L aurence O livier Foster HirschTwayne/Remal, $21.50 (HC)The life and career of Britain’s most celebrated actor and director.L e n i R e ife n s la h l Renata Berg Pan Twayne/Remal, $24.95 (HC)The life and work of the German filmmaker, the director of the famous Nazi propaganda film. The Triumph o f the W ill, and the film of the Berlin Olympic Games.L u is B u ñ u e lVirginia HigginbothamTwayne/Remal, $21.50 (HC)A survey of the work of the Spanish director of such films as Belle de jour and The Discreet Charm o f the Bourgeoisie.M a rtin S corsese: T h e F irst D ecade M ary Pat Kelly Redgrave/Imp., $14.95A critical survey of the work of one of the most successful of the new directors of the 1970s.M ik e N ic h o lsH. Wayne Scath'Twayne/Remal, $21.50 (HC)A critical assessment of the work of Mike Nichols, including Catch 22 and W ho’s Afraid o f Virginia W oolf?. O f W a lk in g In Ice Werner HerzogTanam Press/Gaumont Books, $6.20 A personal memoir by the German film director.P eter W a tk in s Joseph A. Gomez Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)A critical survey of the work of the director of The W ar Game.P ier P ao lo P asolin i Stephen Snyder Twayne/Remal, $24.95 (HC)A survey of the work of the director of such films as Oedipus R ex and The Decam eron.R e n e C lair Celia McGerrTwayne/Remal, $22.50 (HC)A comprehensive survey of the work of this famous French director.R o b e r t A ld r ic hAlain Silver and Elizabeth Ward G. K. Hall/Remal, $29.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide including a complete films list, critical writings, reviews, related activities and interviews.R o m a n P o la n skiGretchen Bisplinghoff and Virginia Wright Wexman Twayne/Remal, $29.95 (HC)S a m P eck inpah Doug McKinney Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)A survey of the work of the controversial American director of The W ild Bunch and other films.S h o c k Value John Waters Delta/Imp., $11.95The memoirs of filmmaker John Waters, whose notorious bad taste films included Pink Flam ingos and Polyester.

S id n e y L u m e tStephen E. BowlesG. J . Hall/Remal, $29.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide with a complete guide to this director’s films, plus critical writings, reviews and other details.S ta n le y K u b r ic k W allace CoyleTwayne/Remal, $47.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide with biography, critical survey of films, critical writings, books adapted for films and much more.W illia m W yler Michael Anderegg Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)A reference and resources guide with biography, critical survey of films and critical writings.

CriticismA n a to m y o f th e M o vie s David PirieWindward/Imp., $ 19.95 (HC)A look at the inner-workings of filmmaking: the financing, the directors, their craft, and the finished film. Illustrated throughout.T h e C in e m a tic A p p a ra tu sEdited by Teresa De Lauretis and Stephen HeathSt Martins Press/Imp., $23.95 (HC)An exploration of the relationship between the technical and social aspects of film.C rim e M o vies: A n I llu s tra te d H is to ry Carlos ClarensSeeker and Warburg. $19.95 (HC)The story of the gangster genre in film, from D. W. Griffith to The Godfather and beyond.C ultures on C ellu lo id Keith ReaderQuartet Books/Australasian Publishing Co., $28.25 (HC) A discussion of the films of four countries — the U .S., France, Britain and Japan — and the effect of their films on their cultures.T h e D a rk S id e o f th e Screen : F ilm N o ir Foster HirschBames/Tantivy/Oaktree Press, $19.95 (HC)An exploration of the film genre that captured America’s dark mood in the 1940s and ’50s.F ilm N o irEdited by Alain Silver and Elizabeth WardSeeker and Warburg/William Heinemann Aust.. $37.50(HC)A discussion of the film genre that many film critics consider the symbolic touchstone of American films.F ro m S c a r fa c e to S ca rle t Roger DooleyHarcourt Brace and Janovich/LSW Imp., $29.95 (HC)A critical history of the Hollywood films made in the 1930s. An outstanding volume that is sure to become a classic in cinema literature.Genre: T h e M u sic a l Edited by Rick AltmanRoutledge and Kegan Paul/Cambridge University Press Aust., $24.95 (HC)First in a new series sponsored by the British Film Institute. This volume contains 14 articles on the film musical, from relatively inaccessible sources.H e m in g w a y a nd F ilm Gene D. PhilipsFrederick Ungar/Ruth Walls. $8.95 A discussion of the difficulties encountered in translating Hem ingway’ s novels into screenplays, with detailed criticism of the attempts that have been made.T he H o lly w o o d S o c ia l P rob lem s F ilm s Peter Roffman and Jim Purdy Indiana University Press/Imp., $24.95 How Hollywood interpreted the Depression, war and postwar periods.T he Im a g in a ry S ig n ifie r Christian MetzIndiana University Press/Imp., $39.95 (HC) Psychoanalysis and the cinema — an exploration of various psychological and sociological aspects of the cinema.T he M o v ie S ta r Edited by Elizabeth Weis Viking/Penguin, $25 (HC)A collection of essays, reviews and personal interviews on the role of the film star, on and off the screen.T h e M o vie s G row Up Charles ChamplinSwallow/Harper and Row, $15.55, $31.15 (HC)A new edition of W h a tever H a p p e n e d to A n d y H a rd y , first published in 1977, to which a new chapter has been added. Now available in paperback also. A critical history of over four decades of filmmaking in the U .S.O n M o vie s Dwight MacDonaldDaCapo/Plenum/Holt Saunders, $15.95 A collection of critical articles on the cinema, by a leading American critic.Q uestions o f C in em a Stephen HeathIndiana University Press/Imp., $18.50 A collection of essays on film from the magazine Screen, by a leading critic and film lecturer.R e a lism a n d th e C in em a Christopher WilliamsRoutledge and Kegan Paul/Cambridge University Press Aust., $24.95 (HC)A BFI Reader in Film Studies. A collection of articles on the long-standing debate on realism in the cinema.R e v e rse A n g le : A D ecade o f A m e r ic a n F ilm sChristopher WilliamsClarkson Potter/Imp.. $21.55 (HC)Film reviews from such diverse sources as E sq u ire and T he N e w Y o rk e r , by a critic who clearly states his reasons for loving or hating a film.S p r in g T im e in I ta ly : A R e a d e r in N e o -R e a lism David Overbey Archon/Imp.. $29.95 (HC)A collection of articles by directors, producers and critics on the Italian neo-realism films.Theories o f A u th o rsh ip Edited by John CaughieRoutledge and Kegan Paul/Cambridge University Press $14.95 (HC)A BFI Reader in Film Studies. The articles collected in this volume are arranged in three sections: auteurism. fiction of the author/author of the fiction and auteur-structuralism, including articles on John Ford.

Concluded on p. 283


W HAT HAS 2001SUPERMANAND FOCAL PRESS IN COMMON?. . . Zoran Perisic, inventor of the Zoptic System, which gave the special effects for “2001” and “Superman”!Perisic de ta ils in his book Special Optical Effects, a n exhaustive tre a tm e n t o f Specia l Effects w h ich he has d iscovered during his ca ree r (over 500 film cred its) a n d reveals those he pe rfe c te d himself.

O ther m e d ia m anua ls in th e Focal Press Series are w ritten by experts in the sta te o f th e a rt like Zoran Perisic. These books, a b o ve all, a re easy to use a n d learn from as th e y are m a d e up o f d o u b le p a g e spreads a n d in ter-re la ted tex t a n d illustration.

The Media Manual Series

16mm Film Cutting - Burder 166 pages $14.50, The Animation Stand - Perisic 168 pages $15.00, Basic Film Technique - Daley 160 pages $17.95, Basic TV Staging - Millerson 176 pages $14.95, Creating Special Effects for TV & Films -W ilk ie 160 pages $15.00, Effective TV Production - Millerson 192 pages $19.00, The Lens in Action - Ray 202 pages $17.95, The Lens and All Its Jobs - Ray 160 pages $14,50, Local Radio - Redfern 164 pages $14,00, Motion Picture Camera Data - Samuelson 172 pages $19.50, Motion Picture Camera Techniques - Samuelson 200 pages $19,50, Motion Picture Camera & Lighting Equipment - Samuelson 220

TheAnimationStand

M o te l Picture Camera Data

Motion Picture Camera & l i ghtingEquipment

QaviáW. Umashaa David WSaaawâswi

pages $19.50, Script Continuity and The Production Secretary - Rowlands 160 pages $15.00, Scriptwriting for Animation - H ayward 160 pages $19.00, The Small Television Studio - Equipment and Facilities - Berm ingham et.al. 164 pages $14.50, TV Camera Operation - Millerson 160 pages $14.50, TV Sound Operations - Alkin 176 pages $14,50, The Use of Microphones - N isbett 168 pages $19.00, Using Videotape 2nd Ed. -

Robinson/Beards 172 pages $19.00, Your Film & The Lab - H a p p e 208 pages $19.00.

O rder from your loca l bookseller, or in case o f d ifficu lty from: FOCAL PRESS: A Division o f BUTTERWORTHS P7Y LIMITED, 271-273 Lane C ove Road, North Ryde, NSW 2113 Te lephone (02) 887 3444

FocalFress ;

■ Studio 75' x 46' with 14' to lighting grid.■ Large three sided paintable fixed eye.■ Good access to studio for cars and trucks.■ Design and set construction service available.■ Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

FOR STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE: Alex Simpson, (03) 568 0058,(03) 568 2948

e r i c f u 111 l o v e producer-director

television productions pty ltd 6th floor,56r62 berry Street, north Sydney, n.s.w. 2060 (02) 922 4066

producers of fine tv programs and films

Production Survey The Quarter

Production SurveyContinued from p. 259

Camera assistant ...............Gary ClementsElectrician ........................... Rod TherkelsenLength ................................................20 minsGauge ....................................................16mmProgress ......................................... In releaseCast: Allen Harvey, Noreen LeMottee, David Pidd, Jerry Burns, Don Butler. Synopsis: Jack Austin Is a conscientious storeman for a building company. He fixes electrical equipment, although he Is not licensed. Because of his lack of knowledge, a workman Is killed. Produced for the Hydro Electric Comm ission and the Department of Labour and Industry.CHILD DEVELOPMENTProd, company ....................................... TFCDist. company ......................................... TFCProducer .................................. Jack ZalkalnsDirector .................................... jack ZalkalnsScriptwriters .........................Rob McKenzie,

Jack ZalkalnsLength ................................................ 1 5 minsGauge ............................... 1-inch videotapeProgress ................................Pre-productionSynopsis: A discussion documentary for children and parents to look at the Interrelationship between home and school environments on the development of the 8- 12-year-o ld child. Produced for the Tasmanian Education Department.DANGEROUS FUMES AND DUSTProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company .......................................... TFCProducer .................................Don AndersonDirector .............................Phillip Mark LawScriptwriter .......... C. Douglas ColquhounPhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist .........................Ian SherryProd, secretary .........................Pat CaspersProd, assistant ........................... Peter CassContinuity .................................... Liz ArnottCamera assistant ................. Joel PetersonKey grip ...................... Gary ClementsElectrician .......................... Rod TherkelsenLength ............................................... 15 minsGauge ..................................................... 16mmProgress ..............................Post-productionCast: Phillip Sabine, Claire Williams. Synopsis: The story, of Peter who works in a furniture factory and, because of poor safety precautions, develops industrial asthma. Produced for the Department of Labour and Industry.

FLY/DRIVE HOLIDAYProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company .......................................... TFCProducer ...................................Barry PierceDirector ........................................Anne DunnPhotography ............................Chris MorganSound recordist ......................Jeff JacksonEditor ...............................Mike WoolveridgeProd, assistant ................... Adam KropinsklCamera assistant ............ David HudspethMixer ......................................Peter McKinleyNarrator ........................................Anne DunnLength ................................................. 15 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ..........................................In releaseSynopsis: Anne and her family take a fly/drive holiday around Tasmania andsuggest to potential tourists places to stay and things to do, and gives a close-up glimpse of the beautiful Holiday Isle.Produced for the Tasmanian Department of Tourism.GULLIBLE’S TRAVELSProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company .......................................... TFCProducer .................................... Barry PierceDirector .................................. Damian BrownScriptwriter ........................... Lindsay ArnoldPhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist .......................... Ian SherryEditor .......................................... Kerry ReganContinuity ....................................... Lin ArnottCamera assistant ........ John JasiukowlczKey grip ..................................Gary ClementsElectrician ..........................Rod TherkelsenMake-up ...........................Felicity NewmanSet decorator ...........................Jon BowlingMixer ..................................... Peter McKinleyLength ............................................... 1 0 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ..............................Post-productionCast: Phillip Priest, Susan Weldrlck, Guy Dow Sainter, Richard Lawrence.Synopsis: Actors describe Incidents Involving drugs and young Australians travelling overseas. Produced for the Department of Health Services in association with the National Drug Education Program.NORTHERN TASMANIA — PHOTOGRAPHIC WONDERLANDProd, company ...................................... TFCDist. company ........................................ TFCProducer ...................................Barry PierceDirector ...................................Jack ZalkalnsScriptwriters .......................Lindsay Arnold,

Jack Zalkalns, Barry Pierce, John Honey

Photography ......................Russell GallowayEditor ............................... Mike WoolveridgeProd, manager .................. Damian BrownProd, secretary ................ Pat CaspersProd, assistant ...........................Peter CassContinuity ....................................... Di HeddleCarrera assistant ........ John JasiukowlczKey grip ..................................Gary ClementsElectrician ...................... Rod TherkelsenMake-up ............................ Margaret PierceWardrobe ....................................... Di HeddleMixer ..................................... Peter McKinleyNarrator ..........................................Bert WicksLength ............................................... 23 minsGauge ................................................... 35mmProgress ......................................... In releaseCast: Berrie Cameron-Alien (Madge), John Smythe (Archie).Synopsis: An unsubtle tilt at the verbosity and stylistic blunders of many travel documentaries. Produced for the Tasmanian Department of Tourism.OUTDOOR RECREATIONProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company ..........................................TFCProducer ..................................Jack ZalkalnsDirector ....................................Jack ZalkalnsPhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist .......................... Ian SherryEditor ...............................Mike WoolveridgeProd, secretary .....................Peter CaspersProd, assistant ...........................Peter CassCamera assistant ............... Gary ClementsElectrician ..........................Rod TherkelsenMake-up ............................Margaret PierceWardrobe .......................................DI HeddleProps ............................................... DI HeddleStill photography ............ Jacquie GardnerLength ............................................... 20 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ..............................Post-productionCast: lain Lang, Noreen Le Mottee, Joan Green, John Lavery, Brian Ervin, Don Gray. Synopsis: A cartoon-style comedy which looks at facets of leadership In bush walking and other group outdoor recreations. Produced for the Tasmanian Education Department. PALSProd, company ........................................TFCProducer .............................. Don AndersonScriptwriters .........................Ron Saunders,

Bob George, John Patterson

Exec, producer ....................... John HoneyLength ........................................5 x 25 minsProgress ................................Pre-productionSynopsis: Sammy lives with his grandparents. His father, Oscar, Is a stuntman and Sammy runs away from home to be with him. The series Is about two friends

who are on the run but out to enjoy themselves.PERILOUS JOURNEYProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company ..........................................TFCProducer ...............................Don AndersonDirector ........................ Phillip Mark LawScriptwriter ................................ Phillip BlakePhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist ........................ Ian SherryEditor ...............................Mike WoolveridgeProd, assistant .............................Peter CassCamera operator .............. Gary ClementsElectrician ............................Rod TherkelsenMixer .....................................Peter McKinleyLength ................................................. 15 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ..............................Post-productionSynopsis: A film for parents, teachers and children to show the "perilous journey” a child faces while travelling to and from school. Produced for the Tasmania Police, Division of Road Safety.PLANET EARTH — A QUESTION OF EXPANSION?Prod, company ........................................ TFCDist. company ..........................................TFCProducer ....................................Barry PierceDirector ..................................Damian BrownPhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist .......................... Ian SherryCamera assistant ................. Joel PetersonKey grip ..................................Gary ClementsTech, producer video . Peter RichardsonLength .................................................20 minsGauge .................................1-inch videotapeProgress ..............................Post-productionSynopsis: Professor Carey of the University of Tasmania talks about his theory of an expanding earth.SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASESProd, company ................ TFCDist. company ..........................................TFCProducer ....................................Barry PierceDirector ...................................... Barry PierceScriptwriters ......................John Patterson,

Barry PiercePhotography .................. Russell GallowaySound recordist .................Peter McKinleyContinuity .......................................Liz ArnottCamera assistant ................. Joel PetersonKey grip ..............................Gary ClementsMake-up ...........................Felicity NewmanTech, producer video . Peter RichardsonLength ...............................................20 minsGauge .............................. 1-inch videotapeProgress ..............................Post-production

Synopsis: A documentary on sexually- transmitted diseases for the 15- to 25-year- old age range. Produced for the Tasmanian Department of Health Services.TOXIC CHEMICALSProd, company •....................................... TFCDist. company .................... TFCProducer ...............................Don AndersonDirector .................................Don AndersonScriptwriter ................................ Phillip BlakeLength ................................................. 15 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ................................Pre-productionSynopsis: A specialized documentary on the correct use of pesticides. Produced for the Tasmanian Department of Health.THE UNSEEN ENEMYProd, company ........................................ TFCDist. company .......................................... TFCProducer .................................Don AndersonDirector ................................. Damian BrownScriptwriter ....................Christine SchofieldPhotography ......................Russell GallowaySound recordist .................Peter McKinleyEditor ...............................Mike WoolveridgeProd, assistant .............................Di HeddleLighting ...............................Rod TherkelsenCamera assistant ............... Gary ClementsAsst editor ...........................Debbie ReganLength ................................................. 15 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ............................ Post-productionSynopsis: A look at safe food handling in industry, and the common mistakes people make handling food. Produced for the Tasmanian Division of Public Health.“WHAT’S COOKING?”Prod, company ........................................ TFCDist. company .......................................... TFCScriptwriter ....................Christine SchofieldPhotography ..........................Chris MorganSound recordist .......................... Ian SherryEditor .......................................... Kerry ReganProd, assistant .................. Paul ChampionContinuity .........................Felicity NewmanCamera assistant .................... Peter CassKey grip ..................................Gary ClementsElectrician .......................... Rod TherkelsenAsst editor .............................Debbie ReganLength ...............................................15 minsGauge .....................................................16mmProgress ..............................Post-productionCast: Robin Moase.Synopsis: A young mother thinks she is efficient in her home but discovers her kitchen can harbor germs due to ignorance of safe food handling. Produced for the Tasmanian Division of Public Health, -jfc-

The Q uarterContinued from p. 205

conceived his children’s classic, The M ag ic Pudding , written in 1917.

The emphasis of the film is on the adaptation of this classic as a puppet play by the Marionette Theatre of Australia. One sees how the play is scripted, how the puppets are made, and the behind-the-scenes work of the theatre company in rehearsing the play, culminating in its live performance at the Sydney Opera House. The camera moves from the stage to the audience reactions, and behind the scenes, to create a montage of insights into the creative process at work.

Angels of War, a documentary produced and directed by Andrew Pike, Hank Nelson and Gavan Daws, received the award for Best Educational Short’Film in the Social Sciences. This film provides a model for ways in which a wealth of historical material can be brought to life on the screen.

Between 1942 and 1945, the Papua New Guinea campaign raged throughout the islands that make up that country. An estimated two million American, Australian and Japanese forces invaded, bombed and fought their war through dense tropical rainforests, humid mangrove swamps, up steep mountain slopes and across remote tropical atolls.

Caught in the middle of this advanced form of civilized madness was the Papua New Guinea villager. The men were forced to work for whatever army happened to get to them first. They carried the dead and wounded, bore heavy loads of ammunition to the front line, and were trained as infantrymen and guerrilla fighters.

Angels of War is based on detailed historical research (the directors are primarily historians), and combines dramatic footage shot by American, Australian and Japanese cameramen, with interviews of present-day survivors who vividly recall some of the episodes

of the campaign. The film focuses on the viewpoint of the villager — the emphasis is on oral history, recounted by a people that still have a close tie with their oral traditions. These villagers also speak angrily of the many promises made by the occupying armies of compensation and reward after the war. They are still waiting for the fulfilment of these promises.

A special award was given to Sally Heckel’s A Jury of Her Peers. According to the citation, this film received the award because of its unique approach to a number of social issues, as well as its translation of the short story form into film.

Set in 1905 rural America, A Jury of Her Peers stresses the vast difference between the world of the male farmer and the sensibilities of the farmer’s wife. She lives in lonely isolation, condemned to a strict division of labor which has her confined to the household.

This is a subtle film, emphasizing the private hell of one woman’s world through images depicting her lonely domestication, and her efforts at creating some color and sensitivity in the spartan environment of the türn-of- the-century rural household.

Gillian Armstrong’s 14’s Good, 18’s Better gained the award for the Best Australian Educational Short Film. The focus is on three Adelaide women, filmed at 14, and, four years later, at 18. This longitudinal view provides unique insights into the lifestyles, expectations and living environment of three contemporary working-class women, and their growth over the crucial late adolescent period.

At 18, their lives had changed considerably. Diana, for one, is already married, pregnant and living with shift worker Keith, who faces a potential jail sentence for assault. There is a moving quality in the attempts of this couple to create a life together, as they unconsciously move into a replica of their parents’ lifestyle, seemingly prisoners of their environment.

Josie’s 14-year-'old optimism and energy has been severely undermined by her life as a single mother. At 18, she has two children, and a broken marriage behind her. She has attained an impressive maturity at a very high price.

Kerry, at 18, has broken off an engagement and looks forward to a period of greater freedom. She works in an office, lives at home and is saving up for a trip around Australia.

Armstrong continues to impress with her ability to look at the world of teenage women, as well as her ability to create a documentary that is sharply edited, with an energy that reflects the energy of her subjects. 14’s Good, 18’s Better highlights the immense value of film as an educational device, and should provoke a lot of se lfunderstanding and examination when shown to teenage school audiences as well as adults.

The ATOM Awards for Educational Short Films is a valuable addition to the Australian film culture, providing much needed encouragement for this often neglected area of Australian filmmaking. Valuable assistance was provided by the sponsors: The Children’s Television Advisory Board (TCN-9 Sydney), the Australia Council, Hoyts Theatres Pty Ltd and the Australian Film Commission.Films Highly Commended:Captives of Care, Australia, 1981, produced by Don Catchlove, directed by Stephen Wallace.Public Enemy Number One, Australia, 1980, produced and directed by David Bradbury. . . . No Such a Place, Australia, 1980, produced by Peter Butt.Stepping Out, Australia, 1980, produced and directed by Chris Noonan.Film Work, Australia, 1981, produced and directed by John Hughes.

Mid-Pacific

Ross Lansell reports:Various taxation incentive measures

have been devised in recent years to support the Australian feature film industry. There was, for instance, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act 1978 (No. 4), with its 100 per cent write-off over the first two years’ copyright. This is generally considered not to have been a roaring success: a “fizzer”, says Joseph Skrzynski, the Australian Film Commission’s general manager.

The legislative turning point was the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act 1981 (No. 111), with, in particular, its new Division 10BA, quite specifically entitled “Australian Films” , and Section 23H, “Exemption of Certain Film Income”, with namely 150 per cent write-off in the year of expenditure as well as another 50 per cent off returns, if any. This new measure has had more than its fair share of attendant controversies, before and after its enactment, and has not been generally considered to be a complete success, either.1

Some large-scale film investment companies, such as Perth-based United American and Australasian Film Productions — created in late 1979 by E. John Picton-Warlow, a solicitor with some international experience, together with his business associates — have reverted to the old Section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, with its more general principles of “ordinary business dealings” and concomitant legitimate taxation deductions, in conjunction with the old West Australian Limited Partnerships Act 1909 (No. 17).

Despite the fact that UAA has such industry heavyweights as Jim McElroy and Peter Weir doing Christopher Koch’s The ~ Year of Living Dangerously and Patricia Lovell doing Shirley

Concluded on p. 295

1. [Danny Collins and Pom Oliver], Interim Report on the Australian Film Industry, AFC and FTVPAA, Sydney, [January 1982], pp. 6-10 for a summary of criticisms.


uWhy are most

Hollywood films shot using

Rpsco filters and gels?

~ For further information on the largest range of lighting filters in the world, V

contact the sole Australian agents for Rosco.P IC S A u s tr a la s ia P ty L td :v \Ü NSW: 8 Dungats Lana, Sydney 2000 Tel: 264 1981 Telex:AA26664.

VIC: 77 City Rd; Sth Melbourne 3205 Tel: 62 1133 Telex:AA30912 OLD: 28 Baxter St., Fortitude Valley 4006 Tel: 52 0816 Telex: AA42054 WA: 172 Railway Pde., Leederville 6007 Tel: 381 7707 Tetox:AA93625 SA: 239 AnzOc Highway, Ptymptsn 5038 Tel: 293 2692 Tetex:AA8985?.

In Singapore, Malaysia, the Far East, Indonesia and Australia . . . you’re in

FILMWEST COUNTRYSince 1967 we've been making films that promote and entertain. Cinema and television commercials that sell. Also, we make films and documentaries for sale.We are fully equipped, fully staffed with the best equipment and some of the most creative people in the business, capable of handling everything from scripts to music, shooting to screening. Along the way we've won many awards. So if you'd like to win an award for your next film or commercial, call us, in Perth or Singapore.We'd like to show you what we can do.

Here's w here you 'll fin d us:

FILMWEST BFILM WEST Pty Ltd75 Bennett Street, East Perth 6000, Western Australia. Phone 3251 i 77, 3251423. Cables "Filmwest” Perth Telex AA 94150 FILMWA

FILMWEST Pte LtdSuite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, Singapore 0718. Tel: 3361509, 337 8041. Telex RS 36389 FLMWST. Cable Raflotel

Importers & distributors of AATON cam eras, Sachtier Tripods, KEM Editing Machines and other famous nam e equipm ent.

TH E OPEN P R O G R A M

... A u stra lia n F ilmo f theand T elevision S c h o o l

FREE!* Information on our short-term, specialized courses conducted

throughout Australia for film, television and radio professionals* Catalogues for our training materials available in print and on

film and video tapeGet irt for your chop now. Drop us a line or call us at:

The Open Program, Australian Film and Television School PO Box 126, NORTH RYDE NSW 2113

Telephone: (02) 887 1666

For further information contact the sole Australian distributo PICS Australasia Pty Ltd

NSW: 8 Dungats Lane, Sydney 2000 Tel: 264 1981 Telex:AA26664 VIC: 77 City Rd. Sth Melbourne 3205 Tel: 62 1133 Telex:AA309l2 OLD: 28 Baxter St., Fortitude Valley 4006 Tel: 52 8816 Telex:AA42l WA: 172 Railway Pde.. Leederville 6007 Tel: 381 7707 Telex:AA93( SA: 239, Anzac Highway, Ptympton 5038 Tel: 293 2692 Telex AA89

micron™ “y are the world’s

technicians usingn o ic ro ir

microphones?

DRIVE” one and find out!

CIN

EM

A P

AP

ER

S June -

279

BOX-OFFICE GROSSESTITLE

0(1)5P■nEr S $

4.11PERIOD

0.81 to 20.3.82PERIOD

14.6.81 to 3.10.81

SYD.2 MLB. PTH ADL BRI.Total

$ Rank SYD. MLB. PTH ADL. BRI.Total

$ Rank

Gallipoli RS(20V6/6)723,543

(20V11/2)553,453

(19V8/10)607,723

(20V3)459,680

(20V12)428,295 2,722,694 1

(7*/2*/2*)615,613

(7*/2*)322,909

(2*)72,095

(2V2*)110,564 1,121,181 1

Mad Max 2 RS(8*)N/A

(8*)N/A

(8*)N/A

(8*)N/A

(8*/3)N/A

tN/A 2

Puberty Blues RS(10V6/6)464,030

(10V2/1)264,955

(6*)141,697

(7*)121,783

(6/1*)149,582 1,142,047 3

Winter of our Dreams GUO

(10/10)266,799

(19)134,382

(8)44,234

(12)63,346 508,761 4

(9*)111,901

(2*)24,704 136,605 2

The Killing of Angel Street GUO

(2)16,095

(4)21,528

(1/1)2813 40,436 5

Hoodwink Hoyts(3)

30,668(1)

3031(1)

1578 35,277 6

Race to the Yankee Zephyr GUO

(3)11,644

(2)19,459 31,103 7

Breaker Morant RS(1)

2308(1)

3268 5576 8 (4)12,404

(1/3/4/1)35,816 48,220 4

My Brilliant Career/ Picnic at Hanging Rock GUO

(1)4964 4964 9

(2*)7482 7482 • 7

Grendel,Grendel,Grendel

Hoyts(1)716 716 10

(7)34,827 34,827 5

Australian Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 660,161 N/A 51,924 83,670 117,002 N/AForeign Total0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,470,095 3,703,749 2,938,854 1,633,380 1,600,048 15,346,126Grand Total 9720,615 6,912,835 4,300,682 3,927.965 2,435,059 6,130,256 N/A 2.990 778 1,717,050 1,717,050 N/A

t Not for publication, but ranking correct.

• Figures exclude N/A figures. n . (1) Australian theatrical d istributor only. RS — Roadshow; GUO — Greater Union Organization Film D istribu to rs 'H TS — Hovts Theatres'FO X• Box-office grosses of individual film s have been supplied o Cinema Papers by the Australian Film Commission. _ 20th Century Fox; UA - United Artists; CIC - Cinema International Corporation; FW - Fllmways Australasian Distributors; 7K - 7 Keys o This figure represents the total box-office gross of all foreign film s shown during the period in the area specified. Film Distributors; COL — Columbia Pictures; REG — Regent Film Distributors; CCG — Cinema Centre Group; AFC — Australian Film• Continuing into next period Commission; SAFC — South Australian Film Corporation; MCA — Music Corporation of Am erica; S — S h arm ilf Films; OTH — Other, (21 NB; Figures in parenthesis above the grosses represent weeks in release. If more than one figure appears, the film has Figures are drawn from capital city and inner suburban firs t release hardtops only. (3) Split figures indicate a m ultip le cinema release, been released In more than one cinema during the period.

Box-O

ffice

IT’S FRUSTRATINGTo have a good Doco idea but no resources to finance

and produce it.We are presently finalising our 1982-83 Production

Schedule.Your subject may fit our Australian TV Documentary

Package.

Call or write to Brian Morris fo ra confidential Interview.

SOUNDSENSEFilm Productions Pty. Ltd.

343 Sailors Bay Road Northbridge NSW 2063 PO Box 97 Northbridge NSW 2063 Telephone (02) 958 1088 (3 lines)

PRODUCTIONOFFICESpace Available!ALBERT PARK Vic 3206

Phones, parking, adjacent to Preview Theatre.

Contact Tim Lewis,The Joinery Pty Ltd,

(03) 699 6666

NeiLSQN- Animation Camera H O H D C LL for sale

Neilson Hordell animation stand JS 25-02 with animation camera 16mm 86-04; fixed pin registration, manual fade and dissolve, reflex viewfinder, and many other features. This quality equipment is in excellent order.

For complete details, write or phone

Pinnis Freeman Films P.O. Box 249 G.P.O. Ballarat 3350 (053) 31 6768

ACTORS and EXTRASA R E Y O U D ISSA TISFIE D W IT H

Y O U R A G E N T ? ? ?

A s a new, enthusiastic Agency — we can offer you an efficient

and confidential service.

P H O N E N O W for a personal discussion.

C O G H L A N a n d H A R V E Y A G E N C Y( 0 3 ) 6 9 9 1 3 2 5

Equipment and Operator Specialising in FeatureEx Gary W ilkins Sound Film & DocumentaryServices with recent Sound Transfers atfeature credits of: Special Rates, 16mm,

17.5mm or 35mm. AfterLONELY HEARTS Hours Service AvailableNEXT OF KIN Discount Rates for StudentTHE PIRATE MOVIE Films.

THE CLINIC

Magtrack'518963

A m em ber o f the U nited F ilm Services (A ustra lia ) G roup 75 H igh St. Prahran 3181 Telex A A 37472

The Law o f Making Movies/Censorship Joan Fontaine

The Law o f M aking MoviesContinued from p. 213

After lunch, the session on industrial issues and policies was marked by a solid statement of opposition to foreign writers, actors and film technicians from the unions, and a tense interchange between producer-director Mike Thornhill and Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia organizer Janette Paramore.

David Williamson, president of the Australian Writers Guild, told the seminar that negotiations with the Film and Television Production Association of Australia over a standard writers agreement had broken down over the issue of assignment versus licensing. The producers want an assignment of all rights, the writers want to license specific rights only. Williamson predicted that the breakdown meant that producers will end up paying more for scripts and that there will be less good product around in future.

On foreign writers, Williamson said that the AWG’s opposition was unashamedly a defence- of-employment policy. “Many of us in the Guild will go beyond a defence-of-employment policy. I believe that films which have a high percentage of Australian creative talent are the ones most likely in the long run to succeed, here and abroad. The Americans make much better American genre films than we ever will” , he said. He then cited the British Industry’s recent Oscar success with Chariots of Fire to back him up.

Paramore explained Equity’s policy on foreign artists and how it was arrived at as a result of members’ pressure. A review is currently underway to tighten the policy. “ Historically, actors have always had to fight for employment. I wonder how many other pro

fessions have had to fight so hard for the right to employment in their own country?” she queried.

Lyn Gailey, recently-elected NSW vice- president of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, spoke of the need for a standard crew agreement which would supersede the verbal agreem ent commonly used to engage crews.

Thornhill then attacked Equity over a misrepresentation of the process of obtaining work permits for foreign artists, arguing that Equity members were able to work overseas so should permit a reciprocal flow of artists here. The dispute appeared to be about whether Equity had the right to bar foreign actors or only the right to consultation with the Department for Employment and Youth Affairs. Paramore insisted that not one film which had been built around overseas actors had done well or won critical acclaim, and anyway seven Australians working overseas was not a significant number.

At this point, the apparently trouble-free nature of the film industry evaporated for the legal audience and the complexities of the producer’s job of “walking on water” , in the words of one participant, became clear.

Producer Tony Buckley had spent the first session outlining the 17 steps to producing a feature and the necessary contracts to be drawn up at each stage (see box). With his calm manner and heavy, black-rimmed spectacles, Buckley could have passed for a lawyer himself and did an excellent job of explaining the process of going from an option agreement to the last contract of his 17 steps, the errors and omissions policy.

Buckley described the difficulties experienced in obtaining the latter for his last released film, Killing of Angel Street, because of last minute doubts about the fictional names used. The film began in 1976 with a first draft screenplay and in

the next year became “The Juanita Factor” . It was their intention to base the film on facts but make a fictional film. In 1978, the script was called “Not in the Public Interest” and, in its next version, which was completely Fictional, it became “Hot Property” . Buckley said,

“We had been making period films and we wanted to get into contemporary Australian cinema, not to make a bland film but a look at social issues.”

On advice from one lawyer, a Queen’s Counsel engaged all the way through the film, this was exactly what they had done. They even had one scene which was a disclaimer that the film was about Juanita Nielsen. Buckley told the seminar that certain property developers in the Kings Cross area had made heavy demands on their lawyers to check the script, but these demands were always refused.

The seminar, which had been planned for 40 lawyers, was initiated by the AFC as part of its industry training scheme. To quote the foreword to the reference materials,

“The continuing.education of lawyers in film law was considered an important part of film production, so an approach was made to the College of Law, an arm of the New South Wales Law Society, which specializes in continuing education. The AFC and the College felt that the seminar should increase the number of legal practitioners having some knowledge and experience of the legal problems and some of their solutions in the creative business of film production.”Future seminars for Melbourne and perhaps

Perth are under consideration by the AFC, as is the creation of a film law society. The reference papers, which include a valuable glossary of terms, a bibliography and index to cases, as well as examples of key contracts, will be available from June at the AFC and the College of Law.

Film Censorship ListingsContinued from p. 241Exoristos stin kentriki leoforo (videotape): Not shown, Greece, 81 mins, Sinbad Overseas Trading Co., S(i-m- g), 0(drugs)Ghost Story: B. W eissbourd, U.S., 2940.85 m, Cinema Int'l Corp., S(i-m-j)The Godfather Squad (16mm): P. Ming, Hong Kong, 921.48 m, Video Classics, V(f-m-g)I, the Jury: R. Solo, U.S., 2940.85 m, Warner Bros (Aust.), S(i-m-g), V(f-m-g)Je tu ¡1 elle (16mm): Paradise Films, France, 910.51 m, Australian Film Institute, S(f-m-g)Monkey Grip: P. Lovell, Australia, 2788.8 m. Pavilion

' Films, S(i-m-g), L(f-m-g)Murderer Pursues: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2626.52 m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., V(f-m-g)Oriental Blue (m odified version) (videotape) (b): Lolas Films, U.S., 59 mins, Anjohn Int'l, S(f-m-g), L(f-m-g) Porky’s: D. C a rm o n d y /B . C la rk , U .S ./C anad a , 2620.03 m, Roadshow Dist., S(i-m-g), L(t-m-g) Prodlissy (v ideo tape): A. Fonson/E . Anoussaki, Greece, 100 mins, Sinbad Overseas Trading Co., S(i-m-g)

Quest for Fire: Belstar-Stephan, Canada, 2646.76 m, Hoyts Dist., S(i-m-j), V(i-m-j)Schizoid: Cannon,. U.S., 2352.68 m, Video Classics, V(f-m-g)Sexomania (videotape): M. lounidou/S . Farmakis, Greece, 81 mins, Sinbad Overseas Trading Co., S(f-m-g)The Sexpert (modified version) (videotape): Poseidon Films, U.S., 90 mins, Anjohn Int’l, S(f-m-g)Shades of Blue 001 (videotape): Astra Video Ltd, U.S., 59 mins, G.L. Film Enterprises, S(i-m-g), O(nudity) Shogun Assassin (videotape): New World Pictures Inc.. Japan, 86 mins, TCN, V(f-m-g)Shogun Assassin: New World Pictures Inc., Japan, 86 mins. Star Video, V(f-m-g)Sometime Sweet Susan (soft version) (videotape): TCX Prod., U.S., 72 mins, Star Video, S(f-m-g)Tango of Perversion (modified version) (videotape): Carar Films, Greece, 84 mins, Anjohn Int’l, S(f-l-g), 0(sexual allusions)VIP — The International Men’s Video Magazine Vol. 1(videotape): Not shown, U.S., 50 mins, Electric Blue (A'sia), S(i-m-g), O(nudity)(a) Previously shown on January 1971 list as Scratch

Harry.(b) Previously shown on October 1981 list.Special condition: That the film be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in

its 1982 "The Celluloid Closet" season.I Led Two Lives (16mm): Edward D. Wood jun., U.S., 812 m, National Film Theatre of Australia Olivia (16mm): J. Audry, France, 987.3 m, National Film Theatre of Australia

Films Registered With Eliminations For Restricted Exhibition (R)The Godson (videotape) (a): Global, U.S., 89 mins, K & C Video, S(f-m-g)Reason for deletions: Ofsexual violence)Night of the Vibrator (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 548.5 m, 14th Mandolin, S(f-m-g)Deletions: 24.5 m (2 mins 14 secs)Reason for deletions: S(i-h-g)(a) Not identical with The Godson shown on March

1973 list.

Films Refused RegistrationBound to Please (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 628 m, 14th Mandolin, S(f-h-g)Emanuelle Queen of Sardos (reconstructed version) (a): Androm eda & Othello Prods, Greece, 2291 m, Apollon Films, Ofsexual exploitation of a minor) Horny Vampire (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 578 m, 14th Mandolin, S(f-h-g)

Look No Staples Vol. 1 (videotape): Club Video, Britain, 60 mins, Videocraft, S(i-h-g)Look No Staples Vol. 2 (videotape): Club Video, Britain, 60 mins, Videocraft, S(f-h-g)The Lusty Ladies of Capitol Hill: J. Skintges, U.S., 2684 m, Greg Lynch Film Dist., S(l-h-g)The Stimulant (16mm): Not shown, U.S., 656 m, 14th • Mandolin, S(f-h-g)Teenage Swingers (soft version) (16mm) (b): T. Taylor, U.S., 657.5 m. Landmark Films, S(l-h-g)Temptations (reconstructed pre-censor cut version)(c): D. Eagle. U.S., 2063 m, A.Z. Associated Theatres. S(f-h-g)(a) Previously shown on August 1981 list.(b) Previously shown on January 1982 list.(c) Previously shown on October 1981 list, and on

January 1982 list as I Feel It Rising.

Films Board of ReviewSharky’s Machine (a): Orion Pictures, U.S., 3319.03 m, Warner Bros (Aust.)Decision reviewed: Classify “ R” by the Film Censorship Board.Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board.(a) Previously shown on January 1982 list. i f

Joan Fontaine

Continuedfrom p. 299

degenerate grandmothers. I would rather not work in films and do stage work than do that kind of thing. And they have a terrible habit of putting a sharp lens on you and making you look like Bette Davis turned inside out. I don’t want that. I don’t want to play those parts.

It was a good part — one that I understood. It was Hedda Hopper, and all those journalists I really knew. I knew how they behaved, so it was not difficult for me to do it. And, again, it was a political thing. I certainly understand the politics of the press in relation to films and film people, and what it’s like — society as well.

Do you regret not having worked with any particular directors?

I don’t think so.

The last thing I saw you in was a television film, “The Users”, with Tony Curtis and Darren McGavin, but I didn’t greatly enjoy it. Were you attracted to the part there or did you just feel like working?

How about Billy Wilder and Nicholas Ray, with whom you made one film each?

They were so foreign to me in their natures. Nick Ray was just a

nice stuttering guy from Brooklyn and Billy Wilder had been a piano player in a whorehouse in Vienna. So, I really did not have a lot in common with them.

Was there any role you didn’t play that you would love to have done?

# _Oh, lots. I never saw From Here

to Eternity, but I was offered a role. I had family problems at the time and custodial problems with my daughter, so I had to turn it down. Several I had to turn down because of trying to be a mother, wife and money-earner, as well as actress. It is a very difficult road to follow.

Looking back on your career, for which roles would you most like to be remembered?

I think I am remembered for Rebecca, The Constant Nymph, Jane Eyre and Letter From an Unknown Woman.

Are you happy with that?

Pretty good. Take a writer: how many books can you remember of Ernest Hemingway’s? If you have four you are remembered for, that’s pretty good.

I would like you to add “Ivy” to the list actually, but those four you mentioned are enough to establish you as a major actress . . .

Yes, they are all distinguished roles. That’s why I don’t really want to do anything tacky. I really don’t. ★


KEM 800 SERIES: EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE

When you edit with KEM, you're editing with the best of them! From 16mm to Super-16 to 35mm—even videotape! Full picture and sound editing, transfer to video with SMPTE and EBU- Code processing. With KEM as part of your editing team, sophisticated German engineering and totally versatile, totally flexible, totally variable editing makes every editing job possible. From a low budget commercial to a winner at Cannes. For further details, call us.

SYDNEYAlan Lake Film Production

102 C handos Street,St. Leonards,New South Wales 2065. Phone: 439 7102.

SINGAPO REFllmwest Pte. Ltd.Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, S ingapore 0718.Phone: 3386044, 3361509.Telex: RS36389 FLMWST Cables: "Raflotel".

FILMWEST BPERTHFilmwest Pty. Ltd.75 Bennett Street, Western Australia 6000. Phone: 3251177,3251423.Telex: AA94150 FILMWA C ables "Filmwest"Perth.

MELBOURNEDoug Stanley N om ad Films International Pty. Ltd.71 Palmerston Cres., South Melbourne, V ictoria 3205.Phone: 6997244 Telex: AA31290 NOMFIL.

You may be looking for script development money, selling a script, enticing investors or wooing the general public.

In each case you are selling a product, and like any product it must be packaged properly if it’s to be a success.

THE INVESTMENT DOCUMENTIn the constant struggle to get

finance for your project you must outshine the others. If your image is unprofessional, you’ll miss out.We will help you get above the rest with an effective, well designed and well written investment document.

THE SCRIPTYou’ve written a great script and

have mailed it off to producers and investors. It sits on their desks in its manilla cover, indistinguishable from the other ten that arrived in the mail that morning. Something as simple as a special cover or folder will make your script noticed and read.

THE LOGOWhether it’s for a script or for the

title of a film, we’ll design a logo that will enhance your product and demand attention.

GET YOUR ACT

TOGETHER

THE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNYou’ve made your film and now

you want to tell the theatre-going public about it. The idea of a large impersonal advertising agency is daunting. We are small but have five years’ experience in the promotion of new Australian films. We handle everything from press ads through to cinema trailers.

THE PRESS KITThe media is swamped with

stapled, typed scraps of paper.An interesting informative press kit will be noticed and will make the media’s job of promoting your film so much easier.

D. Worland & Co. is not a public relations firm. We specialise in designing, writing and marketing.

So if you want your script or movie to be shown in the best light, call Diane Worland or Omar Sehic at D. Worland & Co. They’ll give you an audience.

D. WORLAND & COMPANY PTY. LTD. The Basement, 4 1 8 S t Kilda Rd., M elbourne 3 0 0 4 Tel: (0 3 )2 6 6 12 4

______________________ ________________________ WAC 174

Book Reviews George M iller and G eoff Burrowes

Geoff Burrowes and George M illerContinued from p. 212

Burrowes: The two are intrinsically interwoven. I don’t believe it’s possible in this business, unless you are absolutely cynical, and we wouldn’t be in this position if we were, to separate the pursuit of excellence from one’s objective appreciation of the situation. The pursuit of excellence is as intrinsic to you as putting on your underpants in the morning.

We’re not talking about entertainment in lieu of art, we’re not talking about entertainment in lieu of craft. It is art and craft disciplined, orientated, targeted and controlled.

It is not because we are dopey that we make something simple. To

arrive at the result, we had to have a greater comprehension of art and craft, -and • to have more assiduously pursued excellence than the auteurs who eschew the implicit disciplines, who don’t recognize the heights to which one can take one’s craft. Simplicity and clarity of statement can only be arrived at after complex consideration — ask Albert Einstein or George Bernard Shaw!

What do you mean by “auteur”?

Burrowes: Well, its meaning is apparent, isn’t it?

Miller: “A film by . . . ” is almost a guarantee. There is only one person that ever did that well, and that was Alfred Hitchcock. v

Burrowes: He was, not coincidentally, a consummate crafts

man. That’s why his reputation is as it is, not because he made artistic films or great statements.

But don’t you agree that a film or book can have meaning that even the director or author doesn’t see?

Burrowes: If something happens in a film that you don’t intend, then fuck, what were you doing? Where was your mind? That’s facile.

That’s not to dismiss moments of magic, when something happens that just lifts a performance or changes slightly the way in which you see the scene.

How will people in 50 years view “Snowy River”?

Miller: People will be able to say, “That is what Australia looked like

Book Reviews

Continued from p. 275

FilmmakingT h e P h o to g ra p h s o f C h a ch a ji — T h e M a k in g o f a D o c u m e n ta ry F ilm Vad MehtaOxford University Press, $24 (HC)The story of the making of an Indian documentary film entitled Chachaji, M y Poor R elation, a memoir by Vad Mehta which was awarded the Du Pont Columbia Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.

History of the CinemaT h e A m e r ic a n N e w sre e l 1911-1967Raymond Fielding, new editionUniversity of Oklahoma/Imp., $9.95, $21.55 (HC)The history of the newsreel. First published in 1972. A u s tra lia n C in em a : In d u s try , N a rra tiv e a n d M e a n in g John TullochAllen and Unwin/Allen and Unwin, $9.95 A historical study of film in Australia in the silent and early sound period. A detailed documentation of the struggles of the Australian industry to establish itself from within the Hollywood empire, and numerous problems the industry faced.F o rever E aling George PerryPavillion/Michael Joseph/Thomas Nelson Aust.. $25 (HC)The illustrated history of the great British film studio, which produced some of the best thrillers, comedies, adventures and dramatic films seen on the screen.G o v e rn m e n t a n d F ilm in A u s tra lia Ina Bertrand/Diane CollinsCurrency Press/Cambridge University Press, $14.95 The second book in this series of critical studies in the history of Australian film and television. This volume covers tiie story of thè early struggle of the industry to survive against continuing government restrictions and the Hollywood Goliath, up to the gaining of the government assistance that has now set the Australian film industry on its feet.T h e H is to ry o f M o v ie P h o to g ra p h y Brian CoeAsh and Grant/Hodder and Stoughton Aust., $29.95 (HC) The illustrated history of film cameras and projectors, from the earliest crude machines to the sophisticated equipment of today.H o lly w o o d G enres Thomas SchatzTemple University Press/Imp., $29.95 (HC) .The development of the genre film as the mainstay of Hollywood filmmaking in the heyday of MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers and others studios.T he J a p a n e se M o v ieDonald Richie, new revised editionKodansha/Bookwise, $36.50 (HC)An expanded and updated edition of this book covering the colorful history of Japanese filmmaking in all its aspects. Well illustrated.K in d e rg a rte n o f th e M o v ie s Anthony SlidesScarecrow Press/James Bennett, $18.30 (HC)The history of the early American film studio, The Fine Arts Company, where films were made by D. W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks and others.T h e L o v in g D arkn ess: T h e C in e m a a n d S p a n ish W riters 1920 to 1936 C. B. MorrisOxford University Press/Oxford University Press, $40.95 (HC)A period of controversy, when writers in favor of the cinema were against those who saw it as a threat to the theatre, good writing and moral standards.M o tio n P ic ture: T h e D e v e lo p m e n t o f a n A r t A. R. FultonOklahoma University Press/Imp., $17.95 (HC)A history of filmmaking showing how the makers learned and interpreted their ideas and developed the art. Illustrated.T he M o vie sRichard Griffith, Arthur M ayer and Eileen Bowser, new revised editionSimon and Schuster/Ruth W alls, $34.95 (HC)A comprehensive history of American motion pictures, the filmmakers and the stars from the silents to the 1970s.

T h e P h e n o m e n o n o f th e S o v ie t C in em a Yuri Voronstov and Igor Rachuk Central Books/Imp„ $19.95 (HC)A comprehensive history of the cinema in the Soviet Union. A P ic to ria l H is to ry o f In d ia n C in em a Firoze Rangoonwalla, remainder Hamlyn/Dymocks, $6.95 (HC)This book was not imported into the country by the publisher when first published in 1979. It is now on sale as a remainder and is a fascinating insight into the most prolific film industry in the world.S o u n d a n d C in em a Evan William Cameron Redgrave/Imp., $10.95The technological developments leading up to the birth of sound in the cinema and later events in the cinematic art. S u rrea lism a n d A m e r ic a n F ea tu re F ilm s J . H. Mathews Twayne/Remal, $19.95 (HC)A history of surrealism in films from the Marx Brothers to the Last Rem ake o f Beau G este.

ReferenceA u s tra lia n F ilm 1900-1977 Andrew Pike and Ross CooperOxford University Press/Oxford University Press, $37.50 (HC)This very comprehensive reference to all (?) films made in Australia up to 1977 was published in 1980 at $75. It has now been re-issued in the original edition at half the price, which is more realistic.C inem a: A C ritica l D ic tio n a ry Richard Roud, two volumesSeeker and Warberg/William Heineman, $6.95 (HC)An encyclopedia reference to all the world’s major filmmakers and their films, which are discussed in detail. More than 200 articles by leading film critics. One of the most important reference works on the cinema published to date. F ilm R e v ie w 1981-82 Edited by F. Maurice Speed W. H. Allen/Hutchinson, $27.95 (HC)The 38th volume in this long-running series which surveys the British film scene, covering all films released in Britain plus articles and reviews.H a lliw e ll’s F ilm G uide Leslie Halliwell, third edition Granada/Methuen, $44.95 (HC)An updated edition — 2000 complete new entries, plus additional information on B films of the 1930s and '40s and the film awards.T h e I llu s tra te d D ire cto ry o f F ilm S ta r s David QuinlanBatsford/Oxford University Press, $37.50 (HC)Concise career details and complete film appearances of more than 1600 film stars. Illustrated.In te rn a tio n a l F ilm G u id e 1982 Edited by Peter Cowie Space Age Books, $17.95The annual guide to the cinema industry throughout the world. Reports from each film producing country, awards, film schools, services, books, magazines, reviews and other information.M o vie s M a d e f o r T e lev is io n ¡964-1979 Alvin H. M anill, new edition Da Capo/Holt Saunders, $23.95A comprehensive coverage of telefeatures and mini-series, with casts and credits. An excellent reference volume.T h e N e w M u sic a l E x p ress G u id e to R o c k C in em a Fred DellosHamlyn Paperbacks/Thomas Nelson Aust., $5.50 An alphabetical listing of film titles with performers and their music tracks.S c re e n W o rld 1981 V o lu m e 32 Edited by John Willis Crown/Imp., $23.95 (HC)The annual listing of every film released in the U .S. during the year, with casts and stills from each film, plus details on new faces and an “ in memoriam” section of film personalities who have left us.

ScriptsT h e A s p h a lt J u n g leBen Maddow and John HustonSouthern Illinois University Press/Imp., $8.70, $18 (HC) A film directed by John Huston, starring Sterling Hayden and Louis Calhern.B es t F ilm P lays 1945Edited by John Gassner and Dudley Nichols Garland/Imp., $52.80 (HC)Includes Lost W eekend, Spellbound, D ouble Indem nity, A Tree G rows in Brooklyn and seven other screenplays.

F o u r S ta r S c r ip ts Edited by Lorraine Noble Garland/Imp.. $33 (HC)Actual shooting scripts and how they are written, including It Happened O ne N ight and The Story o f Louis Pasteur.G one W ith th e W in d The Illustrated Screenplay Lorrimer/LSP/Imp., $12.50The complete screenplay and detailed history of the making of the film, with illustrations.I A m a F u g itive F ro m a C hain G ang Edited by John E. O’Connor University of Wisconsin/Imp., $7.45 The complete script of the Paul Muni films.L itt le C aesarEdited by Gerald PearyUniversity of Wisconsin/Imp.. $7.45The full script of the Edward G. Robinson film.The N a k e d C ityAlbert Malz and Malvin WaldSouthern Illinois University Press/Imp., $6.20A Mark Hellinger film starring Barry Fitzgerald andHoward Duff, directed by Jules Dassin.O n th e W a te r fro n t Budd SchulbergSouthern Illinois University Press/Imp., $7.45 A film directed by Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden.The P ublic E n e m yEdited by Henry CohenUniversity of Wisconsin/Imp., $7.45The script of the film starring James Cagney.T he R o a d to G lory Joel Sayre and William Saroyan Southern Illinois University Press/Imp., $9.95 A Daryl F. Zanuck film directed by Howard Hawks, starring Frederic March.S c ree n p la y sWerner HerzogTanam Press/Imp., $7.45Includes Acquire, the W rath o f God, Everyman for H im self and God A gainst All and Land o f S ilence and D arkness.T he S c ree n p la y o f th e F rench L ie u te n a n t 's W o m a n Harold PinterJonathan Cape/Australasian Publishing Co., $13.95 (HC) The complete screenplay adapted from the book by John Fowles.Y a n k e e D o o d le D andyEdited by Patrick McGilliganWisconsin University Press/Imp., $7.45The script of the classic musical starring James Cagney.

Television

S ta y Tu n edRichard LevinsonSt Martins/Imp., $14.35 (HC)An inside look at the making of prime time television by two television producers and filmmakers.Telev is io n 's T ra n s fo rm a tio n : T he N e x t 25 Years Stuart M. DelucaBarnes/Tantivy/Oaktree Press, $13.95 (HC)An illumination of American television today and a view of the future by a relevant examination of the past.W a tch in g T V : F o u r D ecades o f A m e r ic a n Telev ision Harvey Castleman and W alter J. Podrazik, $22.75 A year-by-year history of television in the U .S. with facts and figures, plus behind-the-scenes details.

Cinema TechniquesA d v e n tu ro u s F ilm m a k in g J . David BealFocal Press/Butterworth, $27.95 (HC)A description of more ambitious and interesting techniques for amateur filmmakers.B asic F ilm m a k in gDana H. Hodgson and Stuart M. Kaminsky Arco/Prentice Hall, $10.75A Guide to fundamental filmmaking techniques and technology.T h e F ilm S c r ip t Roland Giustini Spectrum/Prentice Hall, $8.95A step-by-step approach to writing professional film scripts from concept to shooting.K n o w in g th e Sco re: N o te s on F ilm M u sic Irwin Bazelon Arco/Prentice Hall, $13.50Views and anecdotes about producers, directors and other occupational hazards facing those who make music for films.

in the 1880s.” If the film contributes anything to Australian history, it is a freezing of what the 1880s and 1890s looked like.

It is also the culmination of 20 years’ research on the part of the art director, Les Binns. People don’t realize that now, but they may in 50 years’ time.

Burrowes: I think people will look back on Snowy as a rather quaint and amusing little film made by a bunch of funny people in the same way as one looks back on films that Ken Hall made, which were brilliant successes in their day and have stood the test of time.

Miller: If the Australian public looks upon our film as fondly as they looked upon Ken Hall’s, then I’ll be a happy person. He really knew his craft. ★

S c r ip tin g f o r V ideo a n d A u d io v isu a l M ed ia Dwight V. SwainFocal Press/Butterworth, $49 (HC)A realistic approach to the art of film scripting.T h e T h a m es a n d H u d so n M a n u a l o f F ilm E d itin g Roger CrittendenThames and Hudson/T and H, $13.50 A comprehensive introduction to the techniques and skills of film editing.T he M o v ie B usinessDavid Lees and Stan BerkowitzVintage/Doubleday Aust., $6.20How film deals are made, the studio system, budgeting distribution and much more.W ritin g f o r F ilm a n d Telev ision Stewart Bronfield Spectrum/Prentice Hall, $6.75 An introductory text.W ritin g th e S c r ip t Wells RootHolt Rinehart/Holt Saunders, $8.95A practical guide to scriptwriting for films and television.In F ron t o f the C a m eraBernard Sandler and Steve PosnerDutton/Bookwise, $9.95How to make it and survive in films and television.

Non-Cinema Associated TitlesA B e tte r C lass o f P erson: A n A u to b io g ra p h y 1929-1956 John OsborneFaber/Penguin Books, $22.95 (HC)The autobiography of playwright John Osborne, who writes about his early life and early success in the drama scene. D iana R o ss Geoff BrownSidgwick and Jackson/Hutchinson Group, $15.95 (HC)A biography of singer-actress Diana Ross. Illustrated.I m a g e -M u sic -T e x t Roland BarthesFontana/William Collins, $6.95Essays on the structural analysis of narrative and issues on literacy theory relating to literature, image, film, song and theatre.P a rk in so n 's L o re Michael ParkinsonPavillion/Michael Joseph/Thomas Nelson Aust., $13.95 (HC)Autobiographical reminiscences and anecdotes by the popular television interview show compere.P ia fMonique LanceSidgwick and Jackson/Hutchinson, $17.95 (HC)An illustrated biography of the French singer.S id e E ffe c ts Woody AllenNew English Library/Australasian Publishing Co., $16.60 (HC)Woody Allen’s third collection of comic writing on a range of topical subjects.Ten D a ys T h a t S h o o k th e W o rld John ReedPenguin/Penguin Books, $4.95The book by the writer whose life and experience is the basis for the film Reds.

Film FictionH u m p Y o u r B lu ey to H o lly w o o d Alan VeitchQB Books/Gordon and Gotch, $3.95 A humorous novel about an Australian actor trying his luck in Hollywood, by Graham Kennedy's ex-scriptwriter. N ig h t C rossing Jurgen PetschullCoronet/Hodder and Stoughton, $3.95 S e c re t A r m y John BrasonBBC/Hodder and Stoughton, $2.95 T e n k oAnthony MastersBBC/Hodder and Stoughton, $4.95 T ru e C on fessio n s John Gregory Dunne Futura/Doubleday, $4.95 W hose L ife is it A n y w a y ?David BenedictusSphere/Thomas Nelson Aust., $3.95 W ings O ver E n e m y L ines Barry ThomasBBC/Hodder and Stoughton, $2.95


Film Insurance

Film Insurance/Adair

Continuedfrom p. 23 7

requirements for an upcoming production?

Hopefully, one would like to be called in quite early, when the budgets are being put together, and even before the final decisions about casting. Often, before finance has been arranged — by providing detail for the provisional budget — one can assist by indicating a rating structure according to the script. Obviously, a film bearing a degree of hazard — with a number of stunt operations and exploding props — will carry a different rating structure to a film being principally shot in a studio. Use of helicopters and locations for filming, for example, also affects this.

So, the earlier we are called into the project, the better. Unfortunately, until recently, insurance was often the last thing considered by some film producers. Quotes were sometimes required in two days, with shooting scheduled to begin in three. The days of such productions have certainly gone by the board. Thankfully, solicitors, accountants, investors and especially producers now realize that the earlier a broker becomes involved, the better.

It doesn’t matter whether you are dealing with a film insurer in Australia or overseas, the important thing is that the more information

you can provide the underwriter, the more detail you collect, the more you can display an intimate knowledge of the script, the greater the chances of obtaining a better rate. If you can’t provide the underwriters with such complete details, they will quote a rate which builds in the possibility of risk. The more you tell them, the more accurate the rate will be and the better it will look on the overall budget figures being prepared for investors and producers.

Provided we, as brokers, have all the information at hand, we can successfully advise our underwriters of the suggested rate. And it is very rare that we have that rate queried by them. In the event that there is any altera tion , the producers will know about it within 24 hours. Distance between broker and underwriter is of no commercial consequence with this style of relationship.

How many types of insurances are there with which the film producer — and his investors — must be concerned?

There are two basic types of insurance, covering a wide range of implications. There are the Special Film Insurances, appertaining to the filming of the production, protection of the artists, of the negative, props, sets, wardrobe, equipment, etc. Then there are the Company Insurances, which comply with various requirements of state law. These insurances are

the domestic types which apply to any com m ercial op era tio n : Worker’s Compensation, Public Liability, Motor Vehicle, Comprehensive, Payroll and so forth.

In the category regarding film production insurances, we initially cover certain key people, such as the director, perhaps the director of photography, and all important artists involved during the pre-production period. If any mishap befalls those key people, it may affect the outcome of the project.

Next comes Film Producer’s Indemnity (FPI), or Cast Insurance, which insures various actors, director of photography, the director, sometimes even the producer; those people who, if they become ill or were injured during production, could affect the continuity of the shooting schedule. Remember, the daily cost of production in Australia could be from $15,000 to $100,000.

Let’s say it is $30,000, and our example production works a 10- hour day, six-day week. If something happens to a nominated person and production around a certain situation cannot continue for several days, all wages, hiring costs, rentals and so forth must continue to be paid. That $30,000 a day is still outgoing — and that is the basis of Film Producer’s Indemnity. Six days’ delay at $30,000 a day is a helluva lot of money. Think about a budget of around $100,000 a day . . .

Then we have Negative All Risk, or Negative Film Risk (NFR). This

protects the film until answer print stage, during the period from raw stock through to the editing, mixing and marriage of music tracks. If anything happens to that material during this stage of production, the film may have to be reshot. Or, if sufficient of it is damaged or destroyed, abandonment may have to be considered.

This insurance is particularly vital. The FPI lasts only the period of the actual shoot, after which the artists go their various ways. The Negative All Risk could go on for six months or longer after completion of the' shoot. This is why the budget figure for NFR is often the greater, because it is covering a greater piece of the overall production budget.

The next type of risk is called Props, Sets and Wardrobe, and covers .the replacement of these items, which may run into several hundred thousands of dollars. Also insured is the hiring of miscellaneous items of equipm ent — cameras, booms, lighting gear and so on — which are equally expensive to replace or rehire.

Next, there is Extra Expense insurance. This covers the daily cost of the production company against something happening to the sets, causing the halting of the schedule. If a particularly important set is destroyed and must be rebuilt, everyone must continue to be paid during that reconstruction. The set is covered, and so too is the extra expense incurred through its destruction or damage. With large

Film Insurance/CinesureContinued from p. 239

buying cheap, nasty insurance, there is very little benefit when a claim comes along.

McEwin: I would mention that we do have one financial advantage over foreign insurers: we don’t have to pay any withholding taxes and, as a result, we don’t have extra costs of this kind to pass on to clients.

How will your idea of rewarding producers with good track records work?

McEwin: On an individual basis for individual producers. It may mean rewarding them with keener rates because of their previous track record, or it may mean rewarding them at the end of a production with some sort of no-claim rebate.

Does Cinesure offer any services or advantages that aren’t already available for film and television producers?

McEwin: As a starting point, we can offer coverage as wide as that offered by any insurer in the world and that includes Errors and Omissions, Producers’ Indemnity

and Negative Film Insurance, for example. The fact that we are in Australia means that we are able to discuss fully with any producer his or her policy needs, which can’t be done with overseas insurers many thousands of miles away. We are therefore better able to devise tailor-made policies to suit every producer. We think our service will prove to be more personal, as well as being speedier and more flexible.

Lipman: That’s right. We are here in Australia. We can discuss their insurance needs and problems directly with our clients and give them immediate decisions, which can’t be done when you are dealing with overseas insurers. More important, if there is a loss, we are here on the spot to pay it. We are authorized to pay losses up to $10,000 immediately to any film producer who has a justified claim. And larger claims will be processed quickly ^here in Australia. Finally, there is the advantage of the protection of the Commonwealth Insurance Act.

Does the ‘Insurance Act’ make that much difference?

Lipman: I believe it does. It is always being updated to meet Australian needs. Only this week, the Parliament has before it an amend

ment for the further protection of the Australian public.

An interesting thing about the Act, by the way, is that it demands a solvency margin with Australian insurance companies — that is, a substantial differential between assets and liabilities — whereas overseas companies don’t have to meet this criterion because the Insurance Commissioner has no authority over them.But the ‘Act’ does not offer protection in the event of a dispute over a claim, does it?

Lipman: No it doesn’t involve procedures for the settlement of disputes but it aims to make sure that the insurance company*writing the business is financially sound. Another important point here is that, if anyone has a legal dispute with an Australian insurance company, it can be settled in Australian courts. The policy holder would not have to take his case to a court in, say, Los Angeles, which could happen with an overseas insurer. And it’s obvious what an expensive proposition that would be.You are aiming to service the film and television industry throughout Australia. Yet Cinesure’s only office is in Sydney, while a few of the brokers have offices in all the major

State capitals. So how will you service clients outside Sydney?

Lipman: At present, Cinesure itself has only an office in Sydney, although its parent company (Terence Lipman Pty Ltd) is represented in all parts of Australia and throughput the world. The four companies for which we act have offices in every city and major town in the country. Nevertheless, we believe it is best that Cinesure itself operates from a single, centralized office. This is because we know from previous experience that specialist insurance is most efficiently handled by senior experts at a single point.

So, the existence of extra offices would only cause delays as any business would have to be referred to the central office anyway. After all, if you go to a broker’s office in, say, Perth, that office is going to have to refer your enquiry to its head office in Sydney and, until now, of course, it would then have to be referred to an insurer overseas. At Cinesure, we are ready to hop on a plane at any time to do business with a client in any part of Australia. And, frankly, that’s also cheaper than maintaining offices throughout the land. Those offices would only mean extra costs which ultimately would have to be passed on to the clients. ★


Film Insurance

productions, Extra Expense may cover up to $1 million worth of additional expenditure.

Then, there is Third Party Property Damage and Loss of Use. Hiring of cameras and equipment is often a significant slice of the production budget. If something happens to that equipment and it must be repaired, the hiring costs must continue to be paid until that equipment is back in operation. The hiring company will, of course, supply another camera, but will insist that hiring charges be paid on both cameras until the first is fixed, and is therefore hireable again. This covers loss of revenue from loss of use to the hiring company, and is a typical example of this type of insurance cover.

There are two other areas of cover which were not always considered essential, but appear to have become so recently. The first is Errors and Omissions, which protects the production company — and thus the investors — against lawsuits involving libel or defamation, plagiarism and so forth. This insurance may be taken from one to three years from the date requested, and continuously - renewed if required.

The other area is not an insurable risk, but a financial risk, and is now becoming a necessary part of the business. It is called Completion G uarantee. We are not involved in this area, but it basically guarantees that, if a project goes over budget, the film is completed and paid for by the completion guarantor. Investors are insisting more and more upon this type of agreement, often on their behalf by solicitors. If called upon, we will advise the names of companies that are in this business.

How has the introduction of the Federal Government taxation concessions in the film industry affected your brokerage?

The concessions have meant a great deal to the production companies of Australia, attracting bigger budgets and a greater volume of production generally. In that respect, it has enabled us to have greater involvement in the business. And as the budgets have become larger, the whole area of business has become much more sophisticated. In light of international interest in our product today, that’s timely.

Apart from Adair’s insurance connections with the industry, has the company ever been an investor in Australian film?

As Australian brokers for more than 20 years, we have always believed we should put our money where our mouth is; that whatever

investments we make with any profits should be in the areas of business with which we are principally concerned.

We have invested in several Australian theatrical and film productions over the years — in fact, in eight films to date. All our investments were made in the preconcession era; it was purely risk money. We will continue to invest in films on a selective basis.

As an Australian company with substantial international connections and access to their facilities, what do you consider the overall benefits of such connections to your clients?

We have a wide range of facilities available, from local, to Lloyd’s and other London markets, to Ruben and The Fireman’s Fund in the U.S. These cover the best list of contacts in the business, contacts we utilize to our best abilities to the advantage of our Australian clients. Hence, good rates.

It is significant that last year Albert G. Ruben and Co. and The Fireman’s Fund made a conscious decision to enter the Australian market. Ruben is the sole worldwide underwriter for The Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, and in 1981 Scott Milne, Ruben president, came to Australia to investigate the market. It is, naturally, a matter of great pride to ourselves that Adair was appointed sole rep re sen ta tiv e for the companies in Australia and New Zealand. Such connections — considering The Fireman’s Fund is the biggest in the business — are not inconsequential to our clients. Our servicing base to the industry in Australia and New Zealand has broadened considerably. We now have client production companies shooting as far afield as the South Pacific, Greece, Yugoslavia and Germany, and using various overseas laboratory facilities.

It is also important to underline that this recent liaison, in particular, has brought into Australia a long and established list of industry connections, and lines of often personal contact with industry marketers, distributors, financiers, lawyers and producers. These connections are invaluable to any exporting industry, particularly in Australia.

For example, let’s say a client of Ruben and The Fireman’s Fund visits Australia on a project. The logical conseqence is that he will be requested to contact Adair upon arrival. If he doesn’t already have the contacts, we will put him in touch with the right people in the Australian market: solicitors who may specialize in fund-raising, the media, distributors, PR people, even other insurers. Conversely, these benefits and introductions are available to our Australian clients during visits to the U.S. or Europe.

The greatest benefit of such a liaison, however, is the strength of

experience on both sides. The better the quality of information provided and assessment given, the better the premium rate from the beginning. And that is the key issue affecting the bottom line.

What actually happens in the event of a claim? How simple is the settlement procedure?

There are claims all the time in the Australian film business. Fortunately, to date, there has been no dramatic claim of the Natalie Wood variety, where the actress met her death at a vital stage of a project. One of these days, however, I believe it will happen.

In the event of a normal claim, assessors familiar with the piece of business are available to investigate and assess the claim. With much of the small claim business, such as the breakdown of a piece of equipment, the information is already at hand and it is often unnecessary to send an assessor to the site. The information is simply gathered and despatched to the underwriter. Once we receive advice that the claim has been accepted and that official confirmation of payment is to be made, we can settle the claim on behalf of the underwriters.

A claim may arise, however, which can be assessed but not finalized in its value until the film is completed. There may be a great deal of detail to be sorted out with the production accountant and others involved, and final cost often cannot be established until processing is completed.

It is important to note that we have a network of experienced executives able to advise on claim procedure on the spot.

What business does Adair have at present?

Over the past few months, we have handled something in excess of $35 million worth of insured value of feature films, as well as a continual run of documentaries, commercials and small productions. Today, our client budgets range from $20,000, for the filming of four two-minute commercials in Fiji, to a $7 million feature.

When feature films are tailing off toward the end of the financial year, film production crews become busy handling documentary and other commercial business, which carries them through until July/August when film productions start again.

We are currently quoting on nine Australian feature films as the industry gears for the new financial year, and four major productions in New Zealand.

From your standpoint, what changes have you seen in production values over the past decade of close involvement?

The budgets in the early 1970s

went as low as $200,000 for a feature film, and now we are dealing with $7 m illion and upwards. Back then, $500,000 was considered large.

Over the past 18 months, in partic u la r , local budgets have increased dramatically in line with the increased number of films in production. Values have been rising steadily over the years as film crews become more experienced, and wages and inflation take their course. One of our clients, for whom we insured a film worth $293,000 in 1977, is now producing a film worth $3.5 million. That is indicative. It is difficult to produce a worthwhile feature film for less than $1 million today, considering the quality of sets, locations, crew, actors and equipment necessary to ensure a good chance at local and international commercial success.

Given your own and your company’s experience in Australian film, what is your opinion of the current state of the industry, and its likely future?

Perhaps only the Treasurer can prophesy the future of the industry; he is the only one who knows what is going to happen in regard to investment.

However, over the years I have seen the quality and expertise exhibited in A ustralian film improve out of sight. The interchange of experienced people — Australians going overseas and internationals coming here — has been of tremendous value to the development of our producers, writers, directors, crews and artists. Our writers, I believe, could use a little more of that interchange to polish the edges.

The experience has made an incredible difference to our growth, That is probably one of the reasons so much interest is now found in Australian film.

There must be a very good reason why Australians can secure good acting roles in foreign films, why Australian directors, cameramen and other professionals are being sought internationally. It is because they are very good at their craft.

Generally, the Australian industry is becoming a very sophisticated operation. And this will continue, providing we don’t get into the area of, how shall we say, featherbedding, as we have seen occur in the U.S. and Europe, provided we don’t develop the type of temperamental artists who will walk off the set, thereby causing inflated costs through production holdups.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of our industry today is the level of dedication inherent in our artists and production professionals. If we can continue to work that way, with dedicated people working hard and being fairly remunerated, I can see nothing but a good and solid future for Australian product. ★

CINEMA PAPERS June - 2S5

mviWpiD>/fVJilSfPHi

^ o o o y % Z °nlr< * « * Bm *

?pi SsS"5£Sf* «on Saches, Tshi%adsf°r frodP* « « * ond

te%®*6o*s ^ s r ^ r ^ s s * ? o ' o c ^' - lmandteiJ, , * P re ssa li • s/m ,n '“ res

James Ivory

James Ivory


than their predecessors in achieving a genuine richness of emotional texture and a satisfying sense of the reaction of one nature, and of culture, upon another.

That they render as much of James’ vision as they do is not due just to the dialogue’s fidelity to the original or to the intelligence with which it is spoken. It is essentially a matter of the sure, unobtrusive building of relationships as the “ Europeans” (actually Americans returning home) and the New Englanders feel their way into and around each other’s understanding. Eugenia (Lee Remick), the Baroness Munster, morganatic wife of a German princeling, and her brother Felix (Tim Woodward), an artist manque, approach their American cousins, the Wentworths, in different frames of mind. Each wants something from the visit: Eugenia wants a fortune (“That’s always interesting”, is her reply to learning that the Wentworths’ neighbor Robert Acton has one); Felix is determined to be entertained and, though he will be pleased if his cousins are rich, it is not a condition of his entertainment. Eugenia, with her clearer sense of purpose, loses her chance with Acton (Robin Ellis) whose Yankee shrewdness is a match for her sophistication. Felix, ironically, finds in his love for Gertrude Wentworth (Lisa Eichhorn) the seriousness that has been missing from his life.

By somewhat surprisingly omitting the novel’s opening chapter which so skilfully establishes the different approaches of brother and sister to America, Ivory and his collaborators have undervalued the importance James places on the cultural gap between them and their New England cousins. The novel is far from being a schematic treatment of Old World sophistication exploiting American innocence — or of the latter effecting moral regeneration in decadent Europeans — and the film certainly avoids any such simplistic sense of representativeness. However, it also loses a pressure that would make the finely-achieved individual relationships mean more if set more firmly in a context of cultural differences.

The American setting is exquisitely realized in Larry Pizer’s glowing images of autumn brilliance declining into wintry bleakness, of the solid, simply-elegant Wentworth house, and in a series of lovely tracking shots along streets, across fields, up staircases and over bridges. The European influence has to make itself felt in less tangible ways. It is hinted at in the opening shots of European statuary, which quickly give way to watercolors and sketches of sailing ships and New England scenes, all of these behind the credits. But it is more importantly to be felt in differences of dress (cf. Eugenia’s blue-black ballgown contrasts with the pastel sameness of the Boston ladies), in ways of standing and sitting, of looking and walking.

Nevertheless, our sense of these differences would have been strengthened by retaining James’ opening scene. To begin as Ivory does, with Gertrude Wentworth’s undefined discontent, certainly establishes her life as waiting for an experience that will give it direction, and Felix appears on the scene as if in answer to her unspoken need for a fresh impulse in her life. This is all played with delicacy and exactness, and the girl’s restlessness is sharply and dramatically at odds with the film’s visual and aural imagery — a serenely lovely setting and “Shall we gather at the river” on the soundtrack. Fine as this is, this scene works against the centrality the book gives to Eugenia — a centrality the film also wants to insist on — and slightly undermines Lee Remick’s effectiveness

in the role. Without seeing her earlier, bitterly unhappy response to America, we are less moved than we might be by her sudden access of genuine emotion when she says to her uncle (Wesley Addy): “ I should like to stay here . . . Pray take me in.”

This is my one serious complaint about the Jhabvala adaptation. The film is not perfect James: there are some inevitable coarsenings, particularly in comic moments like that in which Felix asks Mr Wentworth if he may marry Gertrude; and Mr Brand (Norman Snow), Gertrude’s other suitor, a charcoal sketch among watercolors, belongs to a darker New England tradition. It is not perfect Ivory either: it does occasionally linger when it ought to move on as if it could hardly tear itself away from the beauty of New England in the fall. However, The Europeans is an immensely attractive film, exhibiting Ivory’s preoccupations and strengths at their most distinctive and distinguished. The cross-cultural tensions previously examined in the context of East-West relations in modern India, or in the allegoric situation of forestdwelling savages in a deserted mansion in Savages (1972) (a film I have not been able to see and one which sounds tantalizingly typical), are here explored in a lovingly-recreated corner of America a hundred years ago. Essentially, though, meticulous as Jeremiah Rusconi’s art direction is, it is Ivory’s characteristic trust in his actors, in their faces above all, that allows him to approach the subtle shifts of James’ prose.

The cast, especially Remick, Ellis, Eichhorn, Addy, and Helen Stenborg (as Mrs Acton), show a striking capacity to speak dialogue of a subtle resonance unusual in films. Perhaps even more significantly, I mean to draw attention to the faces — to the marvellous rightness with which they have been chosen, to their flexibility as instruments of meaning, and to the way Ivory trusts them with so much of the film’s meaning. The film’s grammatical staple is the centre- screen medium shot of one or other of these eloquent faces, and Ivory is right to trust them. The tracking shots, the beautifully and naturally composed two-shots and groupings around tables, in doorways, or by hearths, all make their points with quiet rightness, but again and again we are drawn back to the faces. The confident directness of Robin Ellis’ Acton set against the worldly knowingness of Lee Remick’s Eugenia

to create the proper sexual change; or the two kinds of goodness reflected respectively in the gentleness of Helen Stenborg’s Mrs Acton and the stern rectitudes of Wesley Addy’s Mr Wentworth: these are discriminations achieved by a director and cameraman who know what a camera can make the right face reveal.

T he Europeans has been the most popular of Ivory’s films to*be shown here; short without being slight, it is also complex without being obscure. Its emotional territory has points of

contact with many of his other films but the approach to it has been accessible to larger audiences. Certainly there was scarcely an audience at all for Hullabaloo over Geòrgie and Bonnie’s Pictures made the previous year (1978) for British television. Its story is seemingly slight: two western art-collectors, Lady G. (Peggy Ashcroft), a buyer for a London museum, and Clark Haven (Larry Pire), an independent American collector, are bent on acquiring the priceless Tasveer miniature paintings, held in a Maharajah’s palace. Western opportunism exploits what it erroneously takes to be Indian naivety, as Lady G. woos “Geòrgie” , the present Maharajah whose grandfather collected the miniatures, and Haven sets out to charm “Bonnie” , the Maharani.

From this slender thread, Ivory and Jhabvala weave a texture of remarkable richness. The recurring preoccupations of one culture impinging on another, of people exploiting each other, are brilliantly served by Jhabvala’s screenplay. In this case, Jhabvala has gone further, concerning herself with other issues of large significance, such as the purpose of art in life and the ways in which works of art mean and matter. These issues — and this is true of all the best of the team’s films — are not thrown up as matters for discussion or as captions to scenes; they arise organically from the particularity of scenes, from script and playing. John Pym, reviewing the film for the Monthly Film Bulletin (May 1979), sums up and exemplifies the way “the cases are put for both art and life. When the collection is shown for the second time in silence (on the first occasion, the picture’s ‘meaning’ is glossed by Haven’s comments), the succession of tranquil images effortlessly reduces the


THINKING OF FILMING IN CENTRAL OR NORTHERN AUSTRALIA?

THEN CONTACT US FOR ADVICE ON LOCATIONS,

EQUIPMENT, PERMITS,CREW, PRODUCTION SUPERVISION AND A

MILLION OTHER THINGS THAT CAN DRIVE YOU

NUTS WHEN FILMING IN REMOTE AREAS. "CHECK

WITH THE LOCALS," THEY SAY WE'RE LOCALS AND

USED TO FILMING UNDER DIFFICULT CONDITIONS.PO BOX 3552, DARW IN, NORTHERN TERRITORY.

TELEPHONE: (089) 851093

STUDIO FOR SALEModern Sound Stage Studio

and Offices.LOCATION: 354-356 Liverpool Rd., Ashfield N.S.W.SITE AREA: 2,042 m2BUILDING AREA: (a) Main Building 2nd Studio Part Completed

Office & Amenities 234 m2Factory 468 m2Total 702 m2

‘ (b) New Section Sound Stage Studio Showroom, Office, Amenities 125 m2Studio 245 m2Total 370 m2Total Building Area 10272 m2

ZONING: 2 (a)CONSTRUCTION: Attractive Brick buildingACCESS: Two dock loading plus three roller shutters

3.7m x 3.4m eachWALL HEIGHTS: 3.8m to truss rising to 4.9m centre AMENITIES: 5 W.C. with hand basins and showerPOWER: Ample power as presently being utilised for heavy

electrical Hi-Fi equipmentPARKING: 10 off-street car spaces or more if requiredOFFICES: Mezzannine plus ground floor fully carpeted with air

conditioningINCLUSIONS: Two 1000-gallon under ground fuel tanks plus one

150-gallon above ground fuel tank

W ANTEDAn essentially non-legal position within the film industry for a highly qualified young and ambitious lawyer with experience in licensing, contract and

copyright.Contact Y .A .L .C /- 7 Belgrave Street, M A N L Y N .S .W . 2095

WARWICK’S BACK!FREEMAN: (Creative consultant) ... “Channel 0/28 has

been a most rewarding and stimulating two years of my life. I t’s not often that one gets an opportunity to help

initiate a whole television network!”

W A R W IC K F R E E M A N“Now doing what he does best!”

PRODUCING and DIRECTINGTelevision — Film — Theatre

SUITE 5, 1st FLOOR, 182-186 BLUES POINT RD.

NORTH SYDNEY 2060(02) 929 7589 (02) 921 896

James Ivory

characters’ squabbles and discontents to insignificance.”

Hullabaloo has been an unmitigated disaster in the cinema-, even more than most Ivory, it is an utterly uncommercial venture. And yet, I can’t help feeling that it is really best suited to television: it is essentially a small-screen subject, intimately and lovingly treated, even if one rejects Sight and Sound's fulsomeness in describing it as “an exquisite little rondo” . (In spite of this praise and three stars in its Film Guide, Summer 1979, Sight and Sound did not bother to review it, though appearing to rate it as one of the most impressive films of the quarter.) With its impeccable sense of place, discreetly evoked by Walter Lassally’s camerawork and acting beyond praise from Peggy Ashcroft, Aparna Sen (“Bonnie”), Victor Bannerjee (“Geòrgie”) and Saeed Jaffrey (Shri Narain, in charge of the collection), it would surely have elicited the sort of audience and appreciation recently accorded Staying On, that other touching and funny tale of the end of the Raj. Jhabvala, interviewed in Sight and Sound, Winter 1978/79, has said, “Essentially, I think a television play is people closed up in a room talking.” “Essentially” , that may be the case; rarely, though, are they given such resonant and witty things to say as they are in Hullabaloo.

The two Ivory-Merchant short films I have been able to see — Mahatma and the Mad Boy (1973) and Helen — Queen of the Nautch Girls (1973) — have their points of interest and touches of charm. Mahatma and the Mad Boy (produced and directed by Merchant) is a

parable shot on Bombay’s Juhn beach, focusing on a little beach boy (Sajid Khan) who scavenges for food and, perhaps improbably, has a monkey for company. He engages in conversation with an at-first-unseen audience which proves to

be a statue of Gandhi. Around the statue, a prosperous, complacent audience gathers for a sermon about “godly love” , followed by an alfresco meal during which the boy is pulled out from under the table and sent away hungry. So much for Gandhian principles, as the film ends with the boy walking solitarily on the beach that night and the camera moves in for a sad final close-up.

A summary makes it sound triter than it is, but there is no denying a certain sentimentality in the concept and some schematic touches in Tanveer Faruquei’s screenplay (a woman feeding a dalmatian refuses the boy food). It nevertheless offers some telling ironic observations on the way one cultural group can ignore another’s needs, not wishing to be discomposed by signs of real deprivation. Perhaps in counterpoint to its sad little story, it is always lovely to look at in Subrata Mitra’s gentle images.

Helen — Queen of the Nautch Girls, written by Ivory, produced by Merchant and directed by Anthony Korner, had a brief “supporting” season at Melbourne’s Longford Cinema. Though it is a documentary and not even directed by Ivory, it is a useful film to note in conclusion. The film’s commentary (spoken by Korner) records — laments? — the unpopularity of traditional Indian dances, long since superseded in the public taste by inordinately long (3 to 4 hours) musical films whose success depends on the superstar Helen. The film offers highlights from Helen’s films, much influenced, if often bizarrely so, by Hollywood, and they recall variously Ann Miller, Vera-Ellen, Jessie Matthews and Cyd Charisse, though Helen herself has real charm and character. These latter are seen as she sits at her make-up table, talking about her difficult early years, her English father and Burmese mother, and her shrewd assessment of her future — “probably character roles” , and perhaps “a boutique in the Sheraton Hotel — something groovy” .

A dance performance at the Maharajah’s palace. James Ivory’s Hullabaloo Over Geòrgie and Bonnie’s Pictures.

The film’s irony is that, genuinely attractive and talented, and hugely popular, as Helen is, her films represent a western debasement of an art form with a long history. Against this view, and perhaps more insidious, the fact is that, “Even intellectuals call these escapist fantasies a new folk art” , when they are clearly no more than camp. Helen’s films offer glimpses of luxury and exotica, and of an otherwise unview- able eroticism. They are frequently set in cabarets which allow the producers scope for the fantastic and which bring a note of forbidden luxury, liquor and western decadence. The big dance number — and the documentary makes generous use of Helen’s films — is always the film’s top spectacular moment and, a further irony, in its mindless, pretty way, is also the pinnacle of professionalism in Indian film.

Helen — Queen of the Nautch Girls intercuts a scene from Ivory’s Bombay Talkie in which Helen and the film’s star, Shashi Kapoor, dance on the keys of a huge typewriter. A scene from a film about filmmaking and an absurd sub- Hollywood production number is a good metaphor for the recurring preoccupations of human beings (no film could exist without this) and it is the result of one culture having collided with another.Postscript:

At the time of writing, I have just learnt that the next Merchant-Ivory production, begun in February 1982, is a film version of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s novel, the remarkable Heat and Dust, adapted by the author. The film stars Julie Christie, Christopher Cazenove and Shashi Kapoor who seem ideal casting for the central roles of Olivia Rivers, wayward wife of the District Officer, her husband Douglas, and the local Nawab with whom Olivia has an affaire which alters her life.Acknowledgments:

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Andrew Pike of Ronin Films, Canberra, in making several of the Merchant-Ivory films available to me, and for providing photographs and other information relating to them. In particular, since I wrote the above article, he has supplied the following comments on the release history of the Merchant-Ivory films distributed by Ronin.

Autobiography of a Princess was screened extensively in Melbourne as a supporting feature in “ art” and repertory cinemas and received excellent reviews. It was never adequately released in Sydney but had great commercial success as a main feature in Canberra. It has been rejected repeatedly by ABC television, though it has been heavily used by film societies.

Bombay Talkie had universally hostile reviews in Australia, except in The Canberra Times. It had minor, commercially-disastrous first-release seasons at the Universal, Fitzroy, and the Walker Street Cinema, Sydney, and slightly better commercial results in Canberra. In general it has been “seldom screened and widely detested” .

Hullabaloo over Geòrgie and Bonnie’s Pictures had minor theatrical releases in Sydney (at Walker Street) and Melbourne (at the Silver Screen), with excellent reviews and very poor results. Again, it had some commercial success in Canberra and very heavy demand from film societies.

Jane Austen in Manhattan suffered a commercially very poor season at Melbourne’s Brighton Bay Twin3, but had fair commercial results in Canberra. Its reviews ranged from respectful to positive, but it has so far attracted no interest from film societies or repertory cinemas.

Ronin Films is comfortably in profit with Autobiography and Hullabaloo but there seems little prospect of this happening with Bombay Talkie or Jane Austen. ★

3. The cinema’s co-manager, Michael Walsh, told me that the meagre audiences were not just indifferent but downright hostile to the film.


A SPECIAL OFFER ON AATON FROM FILMWEST...

WeVe ‘stopped -doun’ the asking price o n x ¿current model AATON’S!

You know a b o u t cam eras. So you know AATON. Because it's th e best. And you 've heard to o m any w ho use one, say so. .So here's an offer you'll find hard to refuse. A t Filmwest w e 've g o tY 2 current m ode l AATON 16mm a n d Super-16 cam eras th a t w e 're x p repared to ta lk turkey on, to c lea r our stocks. It's a g re a t oppo rtun ity to g e t in to the best a n d qu ie test Super-16 on the m arke t to d a y (23db±1db).There are m any reasons for choosing AATON. Our specia l d e a l is just one more! Call us today.PERTHFilmwest Fty. Ltd.75 Bennett Street,Western Australia 6000.Phone: 3251177,3251423.Telex: AA94150 FILMWACables "Filmwest"Perth.

Importers and distributors ofAATON cam eras throughout Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and M alaysia.

MELBOURNE Alex McPhee Filmwest Fty. Ltd.Cl- M edia Specialists 71 Palmerston Cres. South Melbourne 3205, Victoria.Phone: 6999677.

SYDNEY Percy Jones Motion Picture Services 17 Lochinvar Parade, Carlingford,New South Wales 2118. Phone: 871 2253.

FILMWEST G

SINGAPO RE Filmwest Re. Ltd.Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, S ingapore 0718.Phone: 3386044, 3361509Telex: RS36389 FLMWST. Cables: "Raflotel".

Film Script CompetitionThe Parkstone Trust is conducting a

competition for film scripts.S u b je c t: A f i lm t r e a t in g

h o m o s e x u a l i t y ( m a le o r f e m a le ) in a p o s i t iv e w a y .

T y p e : E ith e r f ic t io n o r d o c u m e n ta r y .L e n g th : 2 0 to 5 0 m in u te s .

C lo s in g D a te : F or S ta g e 1 e n t r ie s — A u g u s t 31,1982.

Prize Money:S t a g e 1: T r e a tm e n t .

A p r iz e o f $ 1 0 0 e a c h to th e b e s t lO t re a tm e n ts . T h e se p r iz e -w in n e rs w ill th e n b e e l ig ib le to su b m it e n tr ie s fo r

S ta g e 2.

S t a g e 2: S c r ip ts .

1st Prize $2,000 2nd Prize $1,000 3rd Prize $500

Enquiries and Entries:The Parkstone Trust,

P.O. Box 459, Nth. Adelaide, SA 5006.

SUPER-A SERVICES

PTY. LIMITED

A PROFESSIONAL SUPER-8mm LABORATORY

Now offering high quality video duplicating as well as our regular services.

• Reduction Printing — 16mm to Super-8mm• Super-8mm to Super-8mm Duplication• Blow-ups Super-8mm to 16mm• Super-8mm to Video Transfers• Magnetic Striping• Pre-striped Prints• Cartridge Loading• Sound Transfers

For further details contactSUPER-8 SERVICES PTY LIMITEDSuite 4870 Pacific HighwayGordonNSW 2072Phone (02) 498 7668, (02) 498 7835

Tony Williams

Tony Williams


extraordinary work within the time and budget available. I must admit I never believed we were going to pull off a lot of the shots that we did.

Gary Hansen is a true D.O.P. [director of photography] and is wonderful at pulling his team together and very supportive to the director. Having just seen Bad Blood, which he shot in New Zealand, I think Gary will soon be recognized as one of the finest lighting cameramen in Australia.

Next of Kin is a stylish film and, before we started shooting, I storyboarded every frame of film, with a floor plan of each scene. And I think it was the first time Steadicam had been used in Australia where it was totally part of the film equipment and not something called in for a special day. We used an Arri BL mounted onto the Steadicam, which Toby set up with the help of John Barry. John and his assistants were fantastic and really got the whole system going.

Toby had just come back from a week’s course with Gareth Brown in Los Angeles, so he knew exactly how The Shining had been shot and what systems they had used. He felt it was not really worth doing Steadicam unless we did it totally. I wanted to use Steadicam all through the film, but not in such a way that people would know it was Steadicam. Also, I was worried it might take longer to set up than laying tracks and using a dolly.

A lot of Australian directors have found, including myself on commercials, that while it may look a simple machine to use, it can take so long to set up — particularly if you use an inexperienced operator — that you might as well use a dolly or a crane. So we decided that if we were going to use it, we would do so according to Toby’s conditions and requirements.

It was fantastic because Gary and I were in a position to say, “ Right, here is the shot, as storyboarded. How best can we achieve it?” We would spend a couple of minutes on the decision, and th e n sa y , “ L e t ’s go Steadicam.”

Toby then had five minutes to strap-up, wheel on the monitors and plug everything in. We found that he could move just as fast as it takes grips to lay tracks. In fact, a lot of scenes in the film you wouldn’t realize were Steadicam because they weren’t designed to be tricky Steadicam shots; it was easier than using a dolly. And in many scenes we used a combination of a crane, tracking shots, Steadicam and hand-held shots. Even some static wide-shots were shot Steadicam because it was easier to shoot it that way than take the Steadicam off Toby.

I am totally convinced this is the

only way to use Steadicam.

What were some of the things Toby brought back from the one-week course?

Mainly the experience of being an operator. You find a lot of Steadicam people who say that unless you are running through a forest, or moving it about, it is very hard to keep it rock steady. You can’t do the sort of things you could with a crane on a dolly. In some cases, that is still true. You wouldn’t try to shoot a 180-degree track on an 85mm lens around somebody on Steadicam; you would use curved tracks and a dolly.

Against that, what Toby had sweated over and practised hard was being able to operate the Steadicam rock steady as if the camera were on a tripod. So, you could start with a frame that was totally static and well framed, and, on a given signal, track in with someone as if the camera were on a dolly. At the end of the movement, you could stop rock steady, again with a pleasing composition. And then if the actors moved, you could tilt or pan again. So there was this feeling that the camera was on a dolly.

On the hardware side, Toby brought back a way of mounting the Steadicam so that the BL could be put on it and also a transmitter, rather than cables. We had a master control monitor set with a video recorder, so that we could videotape the takes. There were also hand-held, battery-operated receivers for the sound man, continuity girl and the director of photography to see what was being shot.

The system worked so well that we ended up using it even if we weren’t shooting on Steadicam. We would videotape scenes and then play them back. We found we were making decisions faster as to whether to go with a take or continue working for a better one.

Is there a limitation in the lens you can use on the Steadicam system?

Y es. Y ou w o u ld n ’t use Steadicam if you were trying to shoot a very exact long lens shot: for example, an 85mm tracking shot around somebody in the bed, as we had in our film. It would be easier for focus control to shoot on tracks. One of the problems is the focus puller has to see in 3 dimensions; he can’t make marks on the ground as you would with a dolly, because there is always variance with the Steadicam operator. The focus puller has to learn a whole new system.

I have heard, for example, that the Steadicam is best suited with a 32mm lens, which is fairly wide angle. . .

Longer lenses do create problems from a focus point of view and they

are harder to operate. But we did shoot some scenes with an 85mm lens, and quite a lot of scenes with a 50mm. G enerally speaking , however, if you are going to do tracking shots across broken ground, you would want to stay 35mm or wider.

The film has an unusual light quality, such as the slightly surreal silvery light when Linda and Barney (John Jarratt) run across the paddocks. . .

Yes, it is typical Hansen lighting.I discussed light at some length

with Garry, and we looked at a lot of tapes together. One was Last Tango in Paris, which is a film I enjoy very much technically. It is a sumptuous film — particularly from the point of view of lighting.

There are a lot of scenes in our film where we had worked out the lighting long before we had started shooting. All the scenes with rain reflected in the bedrooms and on the girl’s face, for instance, were designed to be part of the lighting. Beyond that, Garry used a lot of quarter blue filters to give the film a bluish look, and prayed for overcast weather — very European. This was carried right through the props and the whole design of the film.

I would have liked to have done more than we had the facilities to do. The film was late starting and the art department just about had pups. They couldn’t start until the finance came through, and, by the time they jwere given the word to go, their pre-production time had been halved. But we had made use of the hiatus by having an enormous number of discussions. Gary said it was the most prepared film he had worked on, as did most of the crew, because of all that discussion time. We locked down virtually every shot in the film.

I discussed with the art director the sets and what we could afford to build. Then I storyboarded and shot-listed the film. We even rebuilt a set to accommodate certain shots. If we knew we were going to be shooting at 10 cm from the floor, or on an 18 mm prism lens, we altered the sets to accommodate. In that sense, it was very well planned.

Do you have a few prism shots? You seem to get pretty close to walls . . .

We used combinations. On some scenes we shot with Steadicam in the reversed modes. Some scenes we shot with prisms on elongated arms, and some dolly shots were actually rigged from the ceiling. The camera was dropped onto the floor and operated remotely.

The last shot looks rather intricate. How was it done?

It involved starting on a crane shot about eight metres in the air and dropping into a close-up of Linda. While that was happening, the camera then had to be attached

onto the back of the truck. Linda got into the truck and drove off with the camera crew in the back. The camera crew then had to execute a 180-degree pan and, instead of seeing the lights, the camera crew and the crane, they had had to see an entire building being blown up. It took the grip, Noel MacDonald, three months to build the equipment to make that possible, and it took us three days just to rehearse that one shot.

Probably the person who had had the hardest job on that day- was Jackie Kerin, because there wasn’t tim e to w o rry a b o u t her performance. If she had stalled the car it would have blown the day’s shoot. There were 14 people at one stage rushing around behind the cameras screwing bolts, laying charges, pulling pins out, releasing jacks and throwing sandbags on cranes, all while she was in front of camera.. The shot had to be taken at exactly 8.30 p.m. when the sun was just dipping behind the hill. It took six hours to line the crane up for the shot, so if we missed it, by the time we came back to reshoot it, it was too dark. Also, Chris Murray had to lay charges in the building so that the moment the truck took off and the crane drove out of shot, the set was made hot so it could then, when the camera turned around, start blowing up. He was pretty tense, too.

Everyone was amazed that the shot worked. No one really believed we were going to pull it off. In fact, at 10 a.m. we were told we couldn’t shoot because there was a fire ban. The producers had to chase up the CFA all day for permission. Finally we did get permission, but only if we had eight fire appliances on hand before we were allowed to shoot.

What have you lined up at the moment?

It is back to commercials and starting to look for another property.

How do you rate the commercials as part of your filmmaking output?

I thoroughly enjoy them. They are well paid and I don’t decry them at all. People like to say commercials are stepping stones to features, but commercials are stepping stones to commercials. There is a great shortage of good scrip ts for com m ercials in Australia and there are not that many people making the ones I like to make, which are dramatic, humorous and subtle, I hope.

Equally, features are stepping stones to features. Solo was a stepping stone to Next of Kin, and now I don’t want to cover that territory again. Next time I would like to have a stronger property, some name actors, a bigger budget and more time. *


Barron films chose Gevacolorlype 682 negative film to achieve outstanding results

in the newTVseries‘Kicking Around!W hen Paul B a rro n decided to p roduce a

ten p a rt m ini-series called ‘K ick ing A ro u n d ’ he had a n u m b er o f decisions to m ake abou t the p roduction .

A fter choosing the cast and locations, the cam eram an and the crew, the final decision w as w h a t so rt o f negative stock he w o u ld use: he chose G evacolor Type 682.

H e used it, and the results have been^ 9 ) ou tstand ing .

B A R R O N F IL M S ^ T h e p roduction ,16 Thomas St., West Perth. ab o u t a b u n ch o f

y o u n g inner-city soccer en thusiasts in W estern A ustralia, has tu rn e d o u t brilliantly.

I t’s ac tion m ixed w ith em o tio n , a d ream m ak in g itse lf reality., A tr ib u te to A ustra lian p ro d u c tio n expertise.

Paul B a rro n w as deligh ted w ith the results. H e ’s sure you w ill be to o w h e n you see ‘K ick ing A ro u n d ’ o n the A B C in Ju n e .

Incidentally, the film s ‘T h e F rench L ieu tenan t’s W om an’ and ‘C h ario ts o f F ire’ w ere fin ished o n G evacolor Type 982 positive film .

Here’s why you should choose Gevacolorlype6 8 2 negative film

for superb results on your next creative venture.

Gevacolor Type 682 negative film will positively enhance the creation o f any masterpiece.

It’s a film that passes w ith flying colours as far as skin tones are concerned.

It also offers a wide exposure latitude that caters for even the most severe variations.

But, none-the-less, it gives a very

fine grain. And it’s compatible with the processing employed by all Australian laboratories.

So if you’ve got the creative know-how, and the will, we’ve got the way. Gevacolor Type 682.AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITEDMelbourne 878 8000, Sydney 8881444,Brisbane 3525522, Adelaide 425703, Perth 2779266.

E325

TO ADVERTISE IN

w jp t M )

RingPeggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 10 97 or 329 5983

V ideo images pty. ltd. ¡sseeking Australian films for overseas

distribution. Entertaining features, shorts, documentaries and animation

required.Telephone (03) 347 0074 or write to

51 Drummond St, Carlton 3053

(t> ----- ---------------- /T. f-s ,.

TITLES&

I EFFECTSfor

M O T IO N P IC TU R Eand

; I

i A U D IO V IS U A L!

!

Shooting in — ANAMORPHIC WIDE SCREEN

TELEVISION and all y

____

____

_

A/V FORMATS

i l ----- JO« W V

OPTICAL &

GRAPHICPTY. LTD.

60 WHITING ST., ARTARMON, NSW, 2064

[ 0 2 ]

4 3 9 - 5 6 1 1

MIXINGPOST-SYNC RECORDING

VO ICE-O VERSW e have a well equipped sound departm ent w ith first rate staff and one of Australia’s m ost

talented m ixers. A t present w e have som e spare capacity and invite you to phone for details:-

STUDIO M AN AG ER STUDIO SECRETARY M IC H AEL ROW AN GREER LEACH

(08) 452277 (08) 452277

South Australian Film Corporation

The Quarter

Motion Picture Guarantors IncW e try harder . . . because . . .

We are not the largest, but we are proud to be one o f the m ajor international com pletion guarantors in the world. M o tion Picture Guarantors Inc., together w ith its associated companies, has guaranteed com pletion o f more than 200 film s since 1970, including feature length movies w ith tota l

budgets in excess of $40,000,000.Our policy is to assist the producer in every possible way w ith counsel and expertise. We

conceive our job as helping the Production Team maintain its objectives: M O V IE F IN IS H E D — O NTIM E - O N B U D G E T !

Frequently producers have to ld us that we were o f material help in spotting d ifficu lties earlyand assisting in their solution.

We are able to o ffe r bonding fo r the largest-budget film s as well as smaller, at strictly com petitive rates. O u r no -c la im bonus is the m o s t a ttrac tive in the industry.

We w ill be pleased to consider bonding your next movie and invite enquiries by telex ortelephone (collect).

In Australia: In New Zealand:SYDNEY: Film Services (02) 2901588. Telex AA 24771 WELLINGTON: 859-049. Telex 31337MELBOURNE: (03) 699 9077. Telex AA 30900

Motion Picture Guarantors Inc43 B rita in S treet, Toronto , O n ta r io M 5 A 1&7 te le p h o n e : (4 1 6 )3 6 1 - 16 6 4

jjpelex: |0 6 5 -2 4 6 9 1

The QuarterContinued from p. 277 Hazzard’s Transit of Venus for them, this legal resort has earned it a fair amount of flak — within the industry and more so, surprisingly, without— for UAA’s alleged un-Australian activities in favor of a filmic multinationalism and for its aforementioned ordinary business dealings which some politicians and editorializes regard as extraordinary (as the spirit of McCabe and Lafranchi moves across the face of the land).

UAA’s first major venture in this respect was that ill-starred (in several senses of the word) zoological fantasy, The Earthling, starring the late William Holden and directed by the late Peter Collinson. It will break even, according to UAA; it has had the longest aviation run in history (critics would suggest that this was because it put so many people to sleep); but, more importantly for UAA, it gained considerable access to the U.S., through Fllmways, now part of Orion which in turn is under Warner Bros’ umbrella, and perhaps more “ market penetration” than any other “Australian” film to date.

Such arguably mid-Pacific films, up until then more the preserve of such operators as Antony I. Ginnane in Australia (and also perhaps Lord Lew Grade of Raise the Titanic fame in Britain, not to forget Canadian vicissitudes in this area), aroused more than a passing glance from Liberal Senator Chris Puplick — at the time of the passing of the Income Bill in the Senate— who claimed that UAA’s activities, in particu la r its quite consideradle borrowing facilities with U.S. majors such as MGM, now MGM-UA, and Warner Bros, were seriously detrimental to the Australian film industry.2

Australians should be making films about Australia for Australians and

2. Senate, Hansard, June 11, 1981, pp. 2889-3119.

nobody else, the argument goes. It is irrelevant whether they make money or not; they are performing a significant cultural service. Why should, critics of UAA ask, Australian money be pumped into the financing of smash-hits overseas, such as Arthur, starring those typical Aussies, Dudley Moore, Liza Minelli and Sir John Gielgud — under the auspices of Section 51 — when the money should rightly go to really dinki-di Aussie films — under Division 10BA?

The fortnightly magazine Australian Business has already twice this year laid into UAA on these grounds3; the South Australian Opposition leader, John Bannon, has performed a similar service, presumably at the behest of the South Australian Film Corporation; The Age summarized Bannon’s attack in a front-page story article, followed by an editorial the next day4; and more recently Labor Senator Susan Ryan has seemingly sided with the now ex- Senator Puplick, claiming a loss to Australian taxation revenue of something in the order of $64 million5.

UAA, in response, says that it has not “ in any way inhibited the flow of money into the subsidized 10BA type of scheme” , and that it does not attract the Division 10B sort of investor: “we just don’t compete” ; they leave that to, say, Sydney solicitor Carnegie Field- house, business adviser to Lang Hancock and Mad Max 26, another very Australian effort.___________________3. Maximilian Walsh, “Film Scheme Yields

Tax Bonanza” , Australian Business, Vol. 2, No. 8, February 4, 1982, pp. 12-14; and Alan Jury et al., “New Rules in the Tax Game” , ibid., Vol. 2, No. 16, May 27,1982, pp. 16-21.

4. David English, “ Investors in foreign films claim millions in tax relief” , The Age, May 12, 1982, pp. 1 and 4; and “Tax lurks for film investors” , ibid., May 13, 1982, p. 13.

5. Senate, Hansard, May 26,1982, pp. 2437- 2439; reported in The Age, May 29, 1982, p. 5.

6. See Craig McCarthy, “The Money Men Behind the Film Boom” , Australian

Picton-Warlow concedes that there is “sharp philosophical difference of opinion between ourselves and that sort of point of view” , as outlined above, between the “backyard garage films” , the “ bad films for tax reasons” supposedly spawned by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act, and films resulting from several years’ planning, the short exploitation haul as opposed to the longe quality haul.

Picton-Warlow’s comeback in the face of this continuing flak has two prongs: theoretical and practical. Australian films have to crack the U.S. marketplace in a head-on manner, not just flirt coyly on the perimeter on the off chance of having some peanuts thrown their way from time to time. This means mass release, preferably by a major U.S. distributor, which in turn means one of the major U.S. production companies and their “quite substantial” pre-production input; this doesn’t mean a fairly limited, quasi-art house-come-college circuit release on just the east and west coasts (far from the nitty-gritty boondocks) as with Breaker Morant or Gallipoli. The novelty value of Australian films is, arguably, wearing thin; Australians are in danger of believing their propaganda and wishful thinking (and Time cover stories that never make it to the U.S. edition)7.

Critical acclaim notwithstanding, are the so-called generous tax provisions of Division 10BA — even though quite considerably hamstrung by the timing provisions — going to be there forever? The industry itself suspects a limited life span. Besides, if Senator Ryan is any indication, Labor would be less sympathetic to the present imperfect scheme than the Liberals.

The choice is clear-cut, if equally

Business, Vol. 2, No. 10, March 4, 1982, pp. 38-45.

7. Jay D. Palmer, “A Boom Down Under” , Time, Vol. 118, No. 13, September 28, 1981, pp. 36-44.

expensive. The first is continuing, fairly massive support via the taxation system for specifically, “uniquely Australian” films that have only a remote chance of recovering their production costs, much less their release costs (the latter can quite often exceed the former in the U.S.); that is, in effect, for an artistic if money-losing and hence permanently state-subsidized industry, an “ industry that hangs on to the government’s purse strings in order to exist at all” , in Picton-Warlow’s words. The second ls-a ‘pragmatic’, ‘realistic’ Australian-U.S.' partnership, the basis, Picton-Warlow believes, for a “viable, economic” , money-making, if not exactly highly artistic, industry.

The choice is either small, personal, lo w -b u d g e t f ilm s of lim ite d or specialized appeal or big, even blockbuster, films made in ardent pursuit of the almighty dollar, that rock the marketplace. UAA says that it’s putting its money where its mouth is, with — as a result of its inability to find suitable back-to-back studio facilities in Australia for its much-postponed television mini-series, The Thorn Birds (in conjunction with Warner Bros) — its $35 million attempt to outdo Pinewood Studios (the home of James Bond, Star Wars, and Superman) with a mammoth state-of-the-art facility in Canberra, as well as its training scheme for Australian production personnel written into its U.S. distribution contracts. As Steven Spielberg said recently, “ Everybody is aiming for the rightfield stand”8, for the great home run, for the megabuck smash-hit, including UAA.

If, for argument’s sake, a couple of million Australian dollars was invested in Arthur, then that represents a considerable loss to taxation revenue. But the real question is: how much more came back to Australia in overseas revenue?

8. Richard Corliss, “ Steve’s Summer Magic” , Time, Vol. 119, No. 22, May 31, 1982, pp. 48-54.

June CINEMA PAPERS - 2 9 5

STAGES FO R HIRE

In a busy production schedule we still have some spare capacity in our production department,undoubtedly one

of the finest in Australia.We have two air conditioned sound stages (30.5m x 16.2 m and 24.5m x 16.2 m) with full vehicle access,

supplemented by production offices, make-up, wardrobe, laundry and green room. Our set construction

department has a comprehensive collection of props andflats for hire.

The studios are close to downtown Adelaide and we can help with locations and all other services.

FOR DETAILS PHONE:MICHAEL ROWAN GREER LEACH

(08)452277 (08)452277

yW South Australian Film Corporation

The quiet revolution continues

® cinematic services pty ltd■ 8 Clarendon Street, w ARTARMON NSW 2064

Phone: (02) 439 6144

35mm & 16mm Negative Cutting

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS1QQ Rpnchi irtf trppt

\W oughby, N.SW 2068 Telephone (02) 411 2255^

Joan Fontaine

Joan FontaineContinued from p. 235seemed to be associated with one particular studio . . .

No, Selznick rented me out all the time, and took the money. It was brilliant of him: instead of risking capital by putting me in a film, and, after a lot of work, the film may or may not be good, he would just hire me out and keep 95 per cent of the money. It was brilliant tactics.

Which of the studios did you enjoy working at best?

You don’t care about the studios; you care about the film. One studio looks like the other; it doesn’t matter. You don’t see anybody; you just go to the set and back to the dressing room or make-up department.

But the films seem to emerge with a particular kind of quality or sheen that stamps them as MGM, Paramount or whatever . . .

Accidental.

Well, were the roles of Lady St Columb in “Frenchman’s Creek”, which you obviously hated, or Susan in “Affairs of Susan”, part of a deliberate policy to play more sophisticated roles, to get a more sophisticated image?

I wanted to do Affairs of Susan— it was fun playing four different characters — but, as for Frenchman’s Creek, I was forced to do it. There was no plot, no plan, no design. I was a serf and my producer, Mr Selznick, a czar. So what could I do? Just stand still and freeze, or go his way.

And you like to keep working. Actually, I enjoyed your four “roles” in “Affairs of Susan” very much. I wondered why you didn’t play more comedy . . .

They didn’t give it to me, dear, that’s the whole point. You seem to think I had some ability to guide my own career. I had none — none whatsoever. They told you what you were going to do, they selected the property. How could I go up to the head of a studio and say I want to play comedy? I was just sold to RKO for the role.

Coming to what I see as a couple of high spots, when I saw “Ivy” in 1947, at the age of about 12, I became your devoted follower. That was the first film I saw you in, and I thought you played the sort of woman who gives wickedness a good name. I’ve seen it several times since, and it’s a great decorative melodrama. How do you see it?

I see the political background. I was under contract with Universal, and it was very hard to say, “Here I

am. I want to work.” So they send you some scripts and you say, “That one, A not B, or C, give me that.” That’s all it is. There isn’t any lovely plot, you don’t have anyone reading scripts for you or coming to you and saying, “Now that’s for you!”

You are thinking of what agents once did. Good agents once had four or five clients. They would buy stage plays or scripts for their clients and see that these films were produced. That was the day of the great impresario, that kind of thing. It didn’t exist in my time. It had just been before when Jimmie Stewart, Hank Fonda, etc., had as their agent Leland Hayward, a man of great skill and charm. He was Maggie Sullavan’s husband, and he only handled clients, and followed their careers. He would see that they had stage plays, would be there during rehearsal, would confer with the writers. That is what you have to have in the theatre.

Let’s take Katharine Hepburn. She found Spencer Tracy and, regardless of their personal life, they worked as a marvellous team. That meant they conferred with the writers and the producers, and, if one studio wouldn’t have them, they would see that they were backed and went to another studio. You really need two people to make a career, not one. It’s very hard to do it alone. Bing Crosby had his entire family working for him; Everett Crosby was his business manager, etc. Bob Hope worked the same way. Two have an ongoing, continuous career; you need a team.

What do you remember about playing Ivy? Did you enjoy being a wicked woman for the first time in your career?

I didn’t care. I was a little sick of what I call “the girl on the piano bench” , sitting there making moony eyes at the man who is very boring. So it was kind of nice to be aggressive to some extent. The costumes were fabulous, I must admit, and the song by Hoagy Carmichael was nice. But I knew, by this time, that it was a “B” picture; you could smell that.

A “B” picture directed by Sam Wood and produced by William Cameron Menzies?

Sam Wood was not a very good director and William Cameron Menzies was a set designer.

Which probably accounts for its being one of the best-looking Hollywood films of the 1940s . . .

Yes, but it was not the Lincoln, it was the Ford. One was quite aware of that.

I am a great devotee of this film, so I am fascinated to hear this because its credentials are extraordinary. It

had a marvellous cast all down the line, including character actresses like Lucille Watson, Isobel Elsom and Norma Varden, and all those other English actors . . .

But they were all low-priced. Patrie Knowles was not a star. So they used a star, which I presume I was, and they mounted me with inferior actors — not inferior in acting but in price — and a producer who had not done a great deal (he was principally known for Gone With the Wind and David was the almighty one in that). I instinctively knew that this was one step backwards.

I wonder about the next film, which seems to me not merely the high- spot of your career, but indeed one of the high-spots of all Hollywood filmmaking: “Letter From an Unknown Woman”. In it, you give, what seems to me, one of the two or three best performances in an American film . . .

That was political, and was shelved by the studio. There were intra-mural problems and it was produced by my husband [William Dozier]1, who was one of the vice- presidents at Universal. However, Selznick’s brother-in-law had married Louis B. Mayer’s daughter, Edie Goetz, and he was striving to own the studio. He had a great deal of power on his side; my husband didn’t. Billy Goetz eventually took over that studio and other people’s work was shelved. They weren’t given a publicity budget behind them, or anything like that, and that lovely film got caught in a political shuffle.It seems to have had very limited release . . .

Exactly and that is why; they weren’t prepared to spend money on it. It wasn’t a William Goetz film.

You will be heartened to know that it is generally considered to be a great classic of filmmaking . . .

Oh, I couldn’t agree with you more and it’s a tragic thing that anything as lovely and as beautiful . . . They just thought it was corny — and said so!

Were you aware that you were working on a masterpiece?

Oh, absolutely. [Max] Ophuls was brought over by us to make it; it was made with my company. We had a marvellous man called John Hambleton2 who did the sets and oversaw the costumes. We were the first to have an overall visual integrator who worked with the cameraman on every single detail.

1. Fontaine and Dozier had formed Rampart Productions in 1947, with Universal to release their product. John Houseman is actually listed as producer.

2. Hambleton is listed as co-ordinator of production.

My clothes were worked out very carefully, step by step, the blacks and the whites, and all that was one. He kept me in all this black and white, which was a lovely thing to do. It was all very clever and it was masterfully produced, masterfully thought out, the kind of thing that Selznick had done on Rebecca and Gone With the Wind but ceased to do. He was then playing baccarat in the south of France.

One of the marvellous things about “ L etter From an Unknown Woman” is the way all the elements are integrated. For instance, you can trace what is happening to Lisa through the changes in the costumes

And more than that. Starting at 14 and going through up to 40 all in one film had never been done before. When you think that the film was not even up for an Academy Award! It is all political and that’s why I am always impressed when people think they are involved in great film enterprises, but it is only (as Hollywood has now become) a political, financial accident. It really is.

I am interested in what you said about the studios not really seeming to you to have any special personalities at all. But did you think the studio system had anything going for it?

It had continuity for an actor — if you had a producer who believed in you. Let's just take Hal Wallis. I was working for him in Affairs of Susan when I saw [Dean] Martin and [Jerry] Lewis one night at a nightclub. I went to Hal and said I had just seen two marvellous comedians, so he signed them and dedicated the next five years to doing their films. So they had the partner they needed. You have to do that, but it was the kind of thing I was certainly not prepared to do. Being a woman, you don’t want to find a producer like that, because it becomes an emotional, personal thing and I don’t believe in mixing those two together, if I can help it.

As a matter of fact, my husband was involved in the production of Letter From an Unknown Woman and it probably was rocky for our marriage because you can’t go home and say, “Look, I don’t like the rushes.” He would say, “Look, I am your husband, and you do what I tell you”, and the balance was gone. You are no longer a person able to talk about your character and say, “ I don’t want to do it this way or that way” to the man who is a husband at night and a producer by day. You are caught between those two and there is no way out.

At the beginning of the 1950s, you worked again for George Stevens in “Something to Live For”, which is a film I am very fond of but I gather it wasn’t big at the box-office . . .


Already many in use in Australia by TV Stations, Production Houses and Government Departments

Without doubt the highest quality, lowest cost editing machine available today. 4 Plate from $6 ,500 Model M.D.16 Plate from $13 ,7 50 Model D.3

There are many fíne Film Editing Machines available todayBUT: Only SCHMID can offer the fo llow ing facilities in what is the best value package available in Australia today.• 4, 6, and 8 plate designs.• Super 8, 16mm and 35m m capabilities, as well as

dual form at com bination units readily available.• Studio Quality, Sound Transfer, Re-recording and

Mix facilities.These features release you from the frustrations and delays you have experienced and enable you to have

total in-house control over your Sound and Editing functions.There is an extensive range of models and options to suit every need.Call us for further inform ation.

FILMTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD33 HIGGINBOTHAM ROAD,GLADESVILLE, N.S.W.PHONE: (02) 807 1444. TLX: AA25629

A&J Casting AgencyIncorporating T O P 10 M A N A G E M E N T

Casting and Modelling Consultants

5 Axford Crescent, TelephoneOakleigh Sth. 3167 (03) 570 4407

E L E C T R O N I C F I L M S Y N C H R O NIZER S 16MM counts hours, mins, secs, frames and feet. RD 80, bench type, $495.00; RD 360, for editing tables, cine- tech, inspection and preview machines, $675.00.ELECTRONIC CUE DETECTORS 16 or35mm film with counter, beeper, and light indicators, $275.00.Time Calculators for adding up hours, mins and secs, $31.50.Blooping tapes 16 and 35mm, for sound track or picture, 50 ft from $3.25.

FAST AND VERY ACCURATE FOR TV PROGRAMMING AND FILM EDITING.OXFORD FILM SERVICES,

SALES, SERVICE AND TRADE ENQUIRIES: ph (02) 331 5702 441 Oxford St., PADDINGTON NSW 2021

ACMETITLES

OPTICALS

GRAPHICS

ANIMATION

QUALITY

SERVICE

3 4 Punch Street, A rtarm on, 2 0 6 44 3 8 2 9 9 3

Joan Fontaine

He was having studio problems and he took a very long time; he was adamant. He later became pretty much his own producer without using a studio. His idea — and it worked for him; I can’t tell you how political this is — was to take as long as possible. I always used to accuse him of having a lot of Kodak film stock. He was punishing the studio and they would come on the set and say we would have to finish in two weeks. He would say nothing at all, drag on his pipe and he’d take a month. If they sent somebody back and said we would have to finish the day after tomorrow, he would take another month. By gosh, it worked for him. He became an all-powerful man by doing that.

He took six months to do I Remember Mama, in 1947. Deliberately. Getting his way with the front office, teaching them a lesson. And those poor actors got made up every day and sat there and he would not shoot.

In the 1950s, many of the big women stars of the 1930s and 1940s became considerably less active. For example, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Claudette Colbert and Merle Oberon made very few films in that decade, but you made as many in the 1950s as in the 1940s. . .

Oh, but I didn’t. In 1954, I went to New York to do a play. I wasn’t getting roles.

But in terms of numbers of roles, you played as many in the 1950s as in the 1940s —- 14, in fact, though many were bunched around the early years of the decade. You continued to work for some very interesting directors and one whom I would describe as great. What can you tell me about working for Fritz Lang in “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”?

Not very much. He was pretty much a beaten man by that time. He was told that he had to be on his best behaviour. He was a very Prussian man, as was Ophuls: “You vill do vat I tell you.” Well, he was bn his best behaviour and perhaps that didn’t help.

The le ad in g man [D ana Andrews] was getting over having drunk too much for years and he was on the wagon, so there was a lacklustre performance there. The eyes were blank; the film wasn’t anything at all. It was a step backwards for me.

What about working with Anthony Mann in “Serenade”, not to speak of Mario Lanza?

Oh, my God! Mr Mann had fallen in love with the Spanish girl [Sarita Montiel] and they were holding hands in the projection room when you went in the evening to see the rushes, which I don’t really think is cricket. He never

paid any attention to anybody but her. They did marry I believe.

As for Mario, he was always trying to commit suicide. Oh, it was too awful! If it had not been for Vincent Price and marvellous costumes done by Howard Shoup, it would have been awful. I knew it was not going to be a good film. Again, this was a studio commitment.

I have never seen it . . .

No? I haven’t seen half the ones you are talking about.

One I am particularly fond of and wanted to ask you about was Robert Wise’s “Until They Sail”. . .

He tried to fire me because one day I realized in the poem that when somebody — Jean Simmons, I think — recites, “How do I love thee” , they left out a whole quatrain. I told Bob Anderson [screenplay], but he said, “No we haven’t.” I said, “Yes you have” , and he found that I was right. I don’t think that endeared me to them exactly.

Also, they were all sitting around and drinking after the day’s work was over. I never drink and drive, and I had to get home to my family. There was a little cliquey thing, too. No, I didn’t like it at all.

It comes over in a low-key intelligent way; it is really quite moving . . .

Well, Robert Wise was a cutter, and during rehearsal he literally took a stopwatch and timed a scene. When I saw that, I knew he really could not be a creator of any kind. He was a mechanical man.

Of course, he had cut his teeth on Orson Welles’ and Val Lewton’s films at RKO . . .

That’s right. Imagine somebody taking a stopwatch and timing a scene. You are not even playing it. He was just timing, doing camera moves. Well, they can get stand-ins to do that, but it’s heartbreaking when that takes place. I had no respect for him after that.

What about Jean Negulesco, for whom you worked in “A Certain Smile”?

He was a dear man. He had been best man at my wedding years ago. He had been in the Cads’ Club in Hollywood. Always a professional cad. By political manoeuvring, he got where he did and he also had a great deal of artistic talent. He was a very good painter, and was intelligent, but nobody, as you know, is trained to be a producer or really trained to be a director. It is all accidental, experimental. You make a couple of good films and you are a genius like Orson Welles; you make a couple of bad films and you are box-office poison. There is

no consistency here whatsoever. There isn’t even the consistency in talent. It’s a nerve-racking profession; very chancy. You are lucky one day, unlucky the next.

You only played one character role on the screen, and it was so good I wonder why you have never done any more. I mean Baby Warren in “Tender is the Night”, where you were the one who had obviously read the book . . .

It’s odd that you should say that, because I was reading an article on me by John Russell, the New York critic, and he described my career as “From Soft Girl to Tough Girl” , and he said that, as a soft girl, I related to the audience so it could understand me; as a tough girl, I was only run of the mill. Well, I don’t think Baby Warren was run of the mill. But that’s his opinion.

Did you enjoy doing that film? A lot of the things don’t seem to me right about i t . . .

I never saw it, but when we were on location in Switzerland, Jennifer Jones was calling David Selznick every day in Hollywood. He was not allowed to produce it, but was actually the producer. Here again you have the producer-married-to- the-leading-lady thing. He had found this film for her and she was too old for it. She was not right and neither was Jason Robards, but he had to cast somebody of her age. I am not saying anything against Jennifer and I am very fond of her, but she was not quite right for it. She was 10 years too old at least.

I think this is one of the very finest performances you ever gave — this at one end of the spectrum and Lisa at the other . . .

It’s a pity there aren’t many chic tough roles. That’s a special thing in itself — well dressed and blase attitude and all that. Leopard skin and long cigarette holders.

“Tender” was one of Henry King’s last films. Did you enjoy working with him?

Henry=_King! Somebody brought out the fact that these two, before their marriage, were not going in and out of each others’ bedrooms and they asked why not. I mean, it was obviously so in the book. He said, “ It may be obvious in the book, but in my film they don’t, until they are married!” Now, rewriting Scott Fitzgerald — and the essence of Scott Fitzgerald, moreover. I mean, here we are. Ridiculous.

I am fascinated to hear that. Your last film, on big screen that is, “The Devil’s Own”, as far as I know, has never been shown in Australia and I can’t imagine why. It got good reviews and has an excellent cast:

Gwen ffrangcon-Davies, Alec McCowan, Kay Walsh . . .

And Cyril Franklin directed.

Did you enjoy working in Britain again, for the first time since “Ivan- hoe”?

I had a lot of union problems. I just did not understand the unions. Right in the middle of a scene at 11 sharp, they would pull the light plugs on the set and say, “ It’s our tea-break” . I found this very hard to accept. It seemed very difficult for the director and absolutely murderous for the actors and the whole idea of acting. You cannot, as Mr Wise did, use a stopwatch on it.

Recently, as you said, you worked more on the stage in between golfing, ballooning, flying, cooking and writing. What difference do you find in preparing a role for the stage or in relationship with the director on the stage? Do you find it a notably different experience from working on a film?

I love being able to have a consecutive go at it. With acting for the screen, as you know, it’s bits and pieces, out of chronology, whereas in the theatre you have this lovely ability to rehearse a character, let it grow and then to do it. I really get rather bored with a character after about six weeks of playing it, because the audience has taught me a great deal and then it becomes a matter of doing it really without any of your creative instincts. You really can’t rebake the cake as it were, so it’s just rote; it becomes tedious.

I would have thought, for an actor, the stage, in a very major sense, is more an actor’s art, whereas the film is more a director’s art. Would you agree with that crude distinction?

The trouble with films is the director is right over the camera and he tells you when to lift your eyebrow and that’s very difficult, unless you have a director like Cukor. He is there milking your performance, and you can see him and you are pleased. You find you are doing things you never thought you could do before. Eddie Gould- ing was the same, but it’s very seldom you find a director with whom you could feel his creativity.

What do you think of contemporary American cinema; would you like to be part of it?

Oh, yes, but to find a role is very difficult — one that I could be proud of. It sounds vain, but I do have a certain following, like you, God bless you, and I don’t want to disappoint these people. I really don’t want to play old hags and

Concluded on p. 281


1

FILMAUSTRALIA

in the world’s top 3 DOLBY STEREO

mixing studios

Mad Max Z wasn't so

Mad...The producers w ere at the head of

the queue to use FILM AUSTRALIA for their mix.

‘Mad Max 2 ’ w as first to use our Dolby Stereo facilities — first

in Australia.Delighted w ith the results

and our service, other producers have been quick

to m ake bookings at FILM AUSTRALIA.

Your feature should be next!Contact Barry Bowden

or Gordon Wraxall at Film Australia, Eton Road,

Lindfield, 2070. or phone (02) 467-0111, Telex 22734.

Now w e’ve m ixed FREEDOM, STARSTRUCK,

GOODBYE PARADISE, DEAD EASY, THE PIRATE MOVIE, THE RETURN OF

CAPTAIN INVINCIBLE.

EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN.... IS OUR BEST

CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES Telephone: 5286188. Telex: 38366

Nothing dampens your creative energy more than film that can’t capture the scene you want. But now there’s a film that’s as sensitive as you are.

It’s Fujicolor A250 ... the world’s first high-speed tungsten type color negative movie film with an exposure index of 250.

Imagine the possibilities. Now you can capture the soft facial features of a woman in a dim room. Or the misting greys of a gentle rain at dawn. Or even the kaleidescope of colors at a night-time festival. All in natural light. All without coarse grain. All on Fujicolor A250.

So the next time your film is too slow, try Fujicolor A250.It’s just your speed.

35mmTYPE8518*16mmTYPE8528

P | FUJICOLOR NEGATIVE FILMD is tribu ted in A ustra lia bym HANIMEX Industrial DivisionOld P ittw ater Rd., B rookvale , N .S .W . 2 1 0 0 . Ph: 9 3 8 -0 2 4 0 .2 8 2 N o rm an b y Rd., Port M e lb o u rn e , V IC ., 3 2 0 7 . Ph: 64-111 1 17 Dover S treet, A lb ion , O LD ., 4 0 1 6 . Ph: 2 6 2 -7 5 5 5 .H indm arsh A venue, W e llan d , S .A ., 5 0 0 7 . Ph: 4 6 -9 0 3 1 .22 N o rthw ood St., L eederv ille , W .A ., 6 0 0 7 . Ph: 3 8 1 -4 6 2 2 .1 6 9 C a m p b e ll S tree t,’ H obart, TA S., 7 0 0 0 . 3 4 -4 2 9 6 .

NAM E: ..............................................................................................................................................................

ADDRESS: ......................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................... Postcode: ..........................................Te lephone:

So we do it that way

Rank Film LaboratoriesNorth Orbital Road, Denham, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB9 5HQ Telephone 0895 832323 Telex 934704

ÈÉÉIÈ - UOW Archives Online

Documents

Transcript of ÈÉÉIÈ - UOW Archives Online