Cinema Papers no. 42 March 1983 (2025)

OCR

Kodak introduces new Eastman Color Print
53 84 and 7384 ~ simply the best color release print film
a[...]its color 10 times longer than its predecessors,

and under Carefully controlled conditions Coul[...]

So you can be sure, that whatever you shoot,
your brilliance will never fa[...]Film

KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. (Incorporated in Victoria.)

KV x Skinner Bennm

' A ',—,_,, ,__;_ s _
1 Giffnock Avenue, North Fiyd[...]: (02) B88 2766. * _ ‘~:_'~’ —-'- ‘fiwa, A‘
_.\ _

' ' n‘. , -T 4
25 Lothian Street, No[...]ING
PO51‘-SYNC RECORDING
VOICE-OVERS

We have a well equipped sound department
with first rate staff and one of Austra|ia’s most
talented_ mixers. At present we have some spare
capacity and invite you to ‘phone for details: —

STUDIO MANAGER STUDIO[...]N GREER LEACH

(08) 45 2277 (O8) 45 2277

W South Australian Film Corporation

picture negative matching perception in alertness,

service a freshness and comfort.

Now, to celebrate their tenth Negative ionisation has always
anniversary of service to the V been an important factor in
industry, they have moved to brand es maintaining their high,

new premises in the Sydney suburb . professional standard of matching.
of Neutral Bay. The move ena les It not only produces a clean, dust-

them to introduce the very free environmentfor 7’fl6ltCbi7lg but
latest air purification "99 i’?Ui8Q7”“ti”g 9/? 951.‘ Of Charging

technology to negative the air with negative ions keeps the
mat[...]lean air” 0* “- .
premises have been designed to
integrate dual electronic air
filtration into their custom air-
conditioning system to prevent
atmospheric pollutants entering
the 2,000[...]Filler S)-slent.

i F""e.fb""'8 4¢’:"'w Their Data General computer and
their Norand hand-held terminals

on the matching benches operate

A series of mobile ionic air cleaners “I-1, fij best in these conditions, too! . ..
support the master system with - \1;ll|€°,"7L+” ”' and that consolidates the world-
highly sensitive filter b[...]3 microns ‘?/Wag I -3-— — matching service as the fastest,
raised by the slightest air movement ‘ ',*‘.‘,*,\*+’-».?€' + most eflicient and economical

in the room. - - ~ ~ . available today!

Powerful environmental pyramid- — Here’s how to arrange for your
styled Negative Ion Generators Om, electrostatic mats welcome latest film to be matched under
appear on the matching benches to you at the door! these atmospherically controlled[...]ive on enerators i ter sta e,

gbeg-itepleted air and restéres the :‘ 0’ 5”” P?’ 50775111)’ fmd 99529?’ 197109
natural ionic condition, which is .4 the 719"’ Clea” ‘"7" 59"5‘m0" for
idea[...]rself’

I56 MILITARYROAD, NEUTRAL BAX NSW 2089

a Marilyn and Ron Delaney service
sydney ° aucleland

Computamatcb is a registered name of Negative Cutting Servic[...]

successful ‘feature’we’ve
worked on to date.

Colorfilm is the leader on
most of Australias leading feature
films, but we’ve worked on a few
features of our own to make sure
we keep on top.

.Colorf1lm’s new dubbing,

mixing and viewing facility is one
of the best in the business, now

you can view your film and mix
down the highest quality sound
in real comfort.

Colorfilm has Full Dolby
sound, which is why the
producers of Mad Max H came
to Colorfilm to produce their I.
sensational Dolby optical sound A r i 1 4'
track (Australias f1rst)~ Under the s ‘F
title Road Warrior’ it is getting rave reviews in London and New York.

Colorfilm has 20 tracks, the fastest rock and roll system available in the
world plus all the film expertise that has kept Australias best film people
walking through our doors.

Vx/hether you want to make a special feature or feature something
s ial[...]

to be a Hoyts Distribution Release

Produced by John Sexton.
Directed by Simon Wincer. Executive in Charge of Production, Richard Davis.
Director of[...]Picture Completion i(AustraIia) Ltd
invites all Australian and New Zealand producers to visit us at thegfimerican ' .- . 1 1

Film Market in Los Angeles and at the Cannes Film Festiyajl, \ ; - '

Los ANGEL[...]l 36 MLC Centre (02) 235 2736 Telex M23917

Dougl_as.Leiterman. Chaimian. Liz Butterfield. Chie[...]

Articles and Interviews

ISSN 0311-3639

Margaret Smith 1 2
John Waters: Good Bad Taste
Mark Spratt 18
Financing Australian Films
G. R. Lansell 22
ian Pringie: Interview
Mar[...]interview
Jennifer Sabine 34
All Creatures Great and Mostly Small:
the Biography Industry. Part Two
Br[...]anging the Needle
Barbara Alysen 43
Prospectuses: a Possible Solution _ _ _
Mel Gibson C Brendfin Ar[...]l Rickards 48 y
Features
The Quarter 8
Letters 10
Sydney Women’s Film Festival
Christine Cremmen 30
Pict[...]lancy 50
Film Censorship Listings 53
New Products and Processes
Fred Harden 55
Production Survey 57
Box[...]ook Reviews
Sexual Stratagems: the World of Women
in Film
, . Sue Tate 73 .
Film Biographies gecem Reg[...]ed Harden. Sub-editor: Helen Greenwood. Research: Jenny
Trustrum. Proof-reading: Arthur Salton. Design and Layout: Ernie Althoff. Business Ccmsuttant:
Rober[...]:
Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, 168 Castlereagh St, Sydney, 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas..:
Cinema[...]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[...]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
ublished every two months by Cinema Papers Pty Lt[...]No. 42, March 1983.

Front cover: Vince Colosimo as Gino in Michael Pattinson's Moving Out.

CINEMA PA[...]

On January 13, the Minister for Home
Affairs and the Environment, Tom
Mcvei h, announced proposed changes
to the ncome Tax Assessment Act, as
relating to investment in film production.
This is covered in full on p.25 of this
issue.

McVeigh also announced new, more
restrictive guidelines as to what con-
stitutes an eligible Australian film (see
p.24). These guidelines, which reek of[...]lready been labelled “xenophobic
protection”. In The Australian of January
24, 1983, an editorial stated:

“By removing some of the sillier con-

ditions of the previous tax con-

cessions to the film industry, the
government seems to have gone
overboard to the other extreme.

“There are good reasons for
objecting to the tax concessions
which the government offers the film
industry, not least of which is they
favor the better-oft . . .

“The new guidelines, which apply
under a different part of the Act, might
be easier for local producers and
investors but they are very stringent
about foreign talent appearing in any
ray in the production of an eligible

ilm.

‘‘In fact, the conditions outlined by
Mr McVeigh are almost xenophobic.
He says, for example, the ‘producer
and director would normally be
expected to be Australians, as would
the writer and the principal actors’.

“In effect, the government is trying
to turn the film industry into a closed
shop -— unless Mr McVeigh decides to
bend the rules.

“The best chance the Australian
film industry has to grow is to make a
name for itself in other countries. The
new guidelines help actors, producers
and investors but they do not
guarantee a better film industry."
What McVeigh, in his hurry to please

the industry by acting quickly, has not
done is to canvass industry opinion. All it
seems he did was to listen to various
interested parties (from Sydney) which
visited him and whose opinions clearly
affected his final decision.

One may argue that if other groups or
members of the industry wished their
views to be heard, they should have
made representation to Canberra. But
that ignores a basic principle of demo-
cratic government: that it is the govern-
ment’s responsibility to solicit opinion,
not the voters to proffer it.

Actor Activity

Scott Murray reports:

Actors Equity has announced a new
“defence of employment policy on
im orted actors in motion pictures”.
E ective as from January 1, 1983, the
policy states (in part) that:

“Imported artists will not be con-
sidered for films based on literature
which is considered part of Austra|ia’s
national culture heritage or films
based on Australian historical fact . . .
unless the character as written
originally in the case of literature L] or
in fact in the case of history, is of an
ethnic background which cannot be
cast within Australia."

1. It is hard not to see a racist overtone
in the above statement (otherwise,
why single out people with an “ethnic
background” from those classed
as “Australians”?). Not only un-
pleasant, such a view ignores the
very history ofthe European foun[...]one the original
settlers. _

“Ethnic” groups are singled out

again when the policy states a
producer cannot go overseas to cast
“on racial or ethnic grounds" unless
he “has attempted to cast the part
through the Multi Cultural Artists
Agency".

2. A second major concern of the new
policy is the inherent incentive to
inflate production budgets. The
policy states that,

(i) No imported actor is allowed in a
film budgeted at under $3
million, except in “most excep-
tional circumstances";

(ii) There is a maximum of one
imported actor in a supporting
role for a $3-$5 million film; and a

(iii) Maximum of one imported co-
lead or two supporting actors in
films budgeted at more than $5
million.

This means a producer of, say, a
$2 million film who wants a foreign
actor in a supporting role will have to
up the budget to $3 million. If he
wants a foreign co-lead, he will have
to increase the budget to $5 million.

This inflationary hike is not hypo-
thetical; several producers have
already increased their budgets
solely to become eligible to use
foreign talent (subject to additional
criteria, naturally).

Of course, one may be tempted to
question what a budget-and-foreign-
actor formula has to do with
“defence of employment”. Does
Equity hope some producers won't
inflate budgets to get what they
want? If so, the film may not be made
and people will be out of a job.

Does Equity hope producers will
inflate budgets? If so, the strain on a
limited amount of private money will
mean less fi[...]earning
experience of acting with Edward
Woodward in Breaker Morant. More
recent is Mel Gibson's experiences
with Michael Murphy, Linda Hunt and
Sigourney Weaver in tThe Year of
Living Dangerously. “I learnt a lot
just by working with a whole range of
people —— Asian, American . . ."

3. A third problem of the new policy has
been the reaction of actors here and
overseas. There is already talk of the
Screen Actors Guild of America
bringing in a similar policy in protest
at Australians keeping out Americans
and then using the U.S. industry to
promote their own fortunes. Such a
move by the Americans, while as
deplorable as Equity‘s stand, would
at least bring home to supporters of
the present hypocritical policy that
embargoes can work both ways.

But if there is dissent among
American actors, there is even more
in Australia, where a rival Screen
Actors Guild has been formed
recentl[...]y actor-producer
Ted Hamilton, the new guild aims to
give actors a choice of union
philosophy. Unlike the Actors and
Announcers Equity Association of
Australia, it only includes actors, and
is intent on forming policies in con-
junction with producers and
directors. The SAG feels the present
union problems should be suffused,
and actors and filmmakers brought
together to concentrate on pursuing
the growth and betterment of the
Australian film industry.

Naturally, Equity spokesmen have
attacked the SAG on all sorts of
grounds and a stand-off is inevitable.
This will lead to problems of
demarcation ("You can't use any of
my members if you use any of
theirs", and other childlike
nonsense).

No one knows how important the
Screen Actors Guild will become, and

many feel it is only short-lived. No
matter, it is at least the start of a
dissension about policies that many
people see as unnecessarily
restrictive, if not counter-productive.

To Market, To Market

G. R. Lanse/I reports:

In the U.S., the marketing budget for a
feature sometimes can exceed the pro-
duction budget. In Australia, there may
not even be financial provision made —
or, more likely, any money left in the kitty
— for this crucial marketing push.

The basic problem is that the other-
wise generous terms of Division 10BA
(“Australian films”) of the Income Tax
Assessment Amendment Act 1981 (No.
711) are not very generous when it
comes to marketing expenses. Market-
ing moneys are regarded as revenue
expenses and accorded the usual 100
per cent tax deduction, not the 150 per
cent accorded production or capital
costs. Yet, unless the film is marketed
properly, investors are unlikely to
receive their 150 per cent deduction.

It would be “madness” for investors
not to provide proper marketing moneys
(a bare minimum of, say, $100,000) in
the initial investment deed, to “protect
their investment”, advises Mike Harris,
ex-Sydney Variety bureau chief and now
the Australian Film Commission's repre-
sentative in North America, the world’s
biggest marketplace[...]her with Ray Atkinson,
the AFC’s representative in London,
David Field (ex-international publishing),
their local marketing and distribution
director, and Rob Webb, their film
festival expert, blitzed Melbourne and
Sydney on January 12 and 13 respec-
tively. Their marketing seminar covered
the cashing in (or at least the attempt) at
major international marketplaces and
festivals such as AFMA, Asia (in Seoul
this year), Berlin, Cannes (still No. 1),
L[...]nila, MIFED,
MIP-TV, Monte Carlo, Moscow, NATPE,

and Vidcom — each with its own
character, advantages and disadvan-
tages.

In the early- to mid-1970s, Australian
films lived off their festival reputation;
the sales came later. These days, there
is a cross-over between festival and
marketplace (the former, incidentally,
being much[...]greatest bunfest of them all. The main
emphasis, in these hard times, seems to
be increasingly and understandably not
on garnering cultural laurels but on
making money and getting into the black
— tax breaks notwithstanding.

Australian films are still riding high
overseas. They are presently a generic
brand for tasteful art-house product
(hav[...]rris. However,
corny Australiana, presumably such as
Alvin Purple and The Adventures of
Barry McKenzie (as well as current
affairs in documentary material), is
another — and unwelcome — kettle of
fish. But, if the momentum has been lost
because of an unacceptable product, it
is going to be a long, hard haul to regain
it.

Bad Australian films, with no “rele-
vance” or with “inter[...]evolving around the producer's
fantasies of being an unrecognized
Irving Thalberg, are just like "tainted
fish" in this cut-throat- international
market. Basically, the producer has only
one chance anyway: he can’t recut a film
because the bad word gets about swiftly.
And, the naive producer can't possibly
hope to manipulate one potential buyer
against another. T[...]nt market-
ability". They crave “acceptability" and
don’t want any bother. As Harris color-
fully puts it, “They do know shit from
Chopin." (Perhaps the distinction

Americans will make certain
demands, according to Field. Though
they can easily cope with the potpourri
of American accents, they are still not
attuned to the fairly slovenly Australian
drawl. And Australian colloquialisms,
such as the use of the word “fag" in an
anti—smoking documentary, present
certain problems in an American con-
text. Such problems can be remedied
effortlessly at script level rather than
expensively in post-production.

Pushing this pre-production point
further, the AFC’s overseas representa-
tives say that, though they cannot
resurrect a turkey, they can help before-
hand. This can be done by fielding out
scripts to studio executives and istri-
butors, by “pre-packaging” and "pre-
selling” films (especially features) —[...]policies of Actors’
Equity notwithstanding? — and by
creating a “market awareness" of a
forthcoming product through stills,
videotapes, “proper publicity material”
(not photocopies or roneos, Atkinson
stressed), as well as targeting potential
audiences (documentaries that editorial-
ize and seek to impose themselves on
any audience come-what-may are one of
their particular banes).

Back home, official financial[...]eting takes basically two
forms: marketing loans (not grants or
investment) from the AFC, and export
incentives from the Export Development
Grants Board (EDGB). The former are
available at current rates, and are
deducted off the top — that is, before the
investors’ return.

As for the latter, the EDGB returns 70
per cent of all eligible expenditure, to a
maximum of $200,000 per claimant. it is
a complicated bureaucratic, procedural
system, to be worked out in conjunction
with specialist lawyers and accountants.
But, in Webb’s words, the grants are
‘‘substantial'’ and can make a great
difference to the profitability of a film. In
fact, export incentives should be taken
into account when framing the above-
mentioned marketing provision in the
initial investment deal. As Field advised,
a mistake at this point could cost
investors a lot of money. The film
industry is no longer a cottage Industry:
it is now big-time investment.

Yet, unfortunately, all this is still a
piecemeal marketing approach and
(except for Mad Max 2/T he Road
Warrior) one with fairly modest returns
that pale into insignificance against the
American majors. The reason is prob-
ably more simple: Americans want main-
stream American films, not off-centre
Australian curios.

As a matter of interest, in Variety‘s
annual "Big Rental Films of 1982 (U.S.-
Canada Market Only)" list, Mad Max 2
has made $10.5 million, The Pirate
Movie $4.5 million, and Gallipoli (re-
issue) $2.6 million. The Man from
Snowy River in their “50 Top-Grossing
Films” list for the week ending January
5 has made $1.3 million.

Mad Max 2 and The Pirate Movie are
the only Australian or, rather, semi-Aus-
tralian films that also figure on Variety’s
“All-Time Film Rental Champs (of U.S.-
Canada Market)” list, which has anot get into this all-time list, nor did it
appear in Variety's alphabetical listing of
1981 successes in mid-May 1982.

The above figures and more can be
found in the 77th Anniversary Edition of
Variety (New York[...]Francesco Rosi’s
Tre fratelli (Three Brothers) IS Rosa
Colosimo and not as listed in the review

Obituary: Syd Wood

The death in January of Syd Wood

has severed another link wit[...]etone News for
34 years, from 1931, when he began as
an office boy, until 1965 when the
newsreel had come to an end as a form
of weekly news and entertainment.

Syd and his brother, Ross, were the
basis for the film Newsfront and Syd
acted as a technical adviser on the film,
teaching actors Bill Hunter, Chris
Haywood, John Ewart and P. J. Jones
how to function as two Newsreel camera
teams. Hunter modelled his character
on Syd using photographs from Syd’s
albums as reference and bore an
uncanny resemblance in the film to Syd
as a younger man.

Syd volunteered for service in World
War 2 and as a cameraman photo-
graphed the New Guinea and South
Pacific theatres of the war. He returned
to New Guinea after the war to photo-
graph the first color documentary for
Movietone on the Trobriand islands.

In the 19505, Syd, a man who loved
adventure, covered all of the major[...]als, the Mount Hagen
volcano, flying over the top as it erupted,
and, what I consider to be his finest
story, the Maitland floods with his[...]his fear of bushfires, where “the
bastards have a nasty habit of jumping
over the top and surrounding you”, Syd
had no fear of floods.

Syd, like his brother Ross, was a
member of the Bronte Surf Club, and a
swollen and flooded river was to Syd like
the rip in a surf on a big day. His footage
of Maitland, much of which is used in
Newsfront, took the viewer into the
middle of a flood, not merely observing
from the edge.

Syd was the driving force in setting up
and organizing the Cinesound Movie-
tone Archive and has left it his
photographic albums.

Syd Wood was a man of great humor
and courage who has captured on film
some of the great events of our past.

David Elfick

credits in the previous issue (No. 41,
p.563).

On the first[...]Ellingworth (No. 41 ,
p.545), the photo credited as being of
Ellingworth is of an AAV technician. The
error was made by Cinema Papers and
not Wilson. Cinema Papers apologizes
to Ellingworth for the error.

in the article, “What is a Documen-
tary?” (No. 40), Stanley Hawes, former
producer—in—chief at Film Australia, is
quoted as to his views on what con-
stitutes a documentary (P.443). Hawes
feels the subbing of his quote altered the
meaning and has requested his supplied
quote be reprinted:

“Documentary seeks the dramatic
pattern in actuality. A documentary film
has a theme, which it dramatizes not
necessarily by actors and a story, but by
appropriate camera and sound
technique. It should be interesting, able
to hold the attention of the audience for
which it is intended; it must have
integrity and not distort reality; and
desirably it should make some social
comment.

"Basically a documentary film is
made in the service of the community, in
the belief that the responsible spread of
information between the people of
different countries and between the
people of different parts of the same
country cannot but improve the human
condition.

“Note: This is a personal definition of
the original concept of documentary.
Documentary in this sense describes the
method of approach to the material of
the film, not the material itself. The word

is widely used now in a less precise
sense to include any film which deals
with actuality rather than fiction.”

AFI A GM

The 22nd Annual General Meeting of the
Australian Film Institute was held at the
Longford Cinema, Melbourne, at 77 a.m.
on December 18, 1982. Scott Murray
reports:

The Build-up

in October 1982, a group of con-
cerned AFI members met to discuss
various aspects of the AFl’s policies. in
particular, the group felt:
1. That films cut by the censor should
not be screened by the AFI;
2. That concern be expressed over the
“apparent destruction of the National
Film Theatre”; and

1. The National Film Theatre of Australia
used to be independent of the AFl, running
three nights a week in Sydney and two in
Melbourne. Attendances at their peak
averaged 100 people a session. Then
during a period of rationalization, the Aus-
tralian Film Commission (which funded
both bodies) instructed the Nl-"TA to merge
with the AFl.

The NF‘|'A managed to continue with more
or less its own identity and, after a difficult
period, had nearly regained its early 1970s
attendance in 1980. The AFI then changed
the NFT, both in programming and pro-

The Quarter

3. That there was a lack of confidence
in the Board of Directors? and the
executive director, Kathleen Norris.
In order to ensure these and other

issues were discussed at the AGM, one
of the group contacted the AFI to find out
the correct procedures for having
motion[...]told by the then
business manager, Keith Lumley, that
business at the AGM was determined by
the AFl’s Articles of Association. A copy
of the Articles was subsequently posted
to the group.

When the Articles arrived, however,
they were found to have the pages on
the conduct of the AGM missing. This
meant another call to the AFI, after
which the missing pages were sent.
From these, the group learnt that all
motions to be put at the AGM had to be
approved by the Board of Directors,
which had the power to veto any

motions.
Concluded on p. 86

motion (no more Ni-‘F bulletins, but
posters, etc). When Norris became execu-
tive dir[...]firstly
becoming the National Screening Circuit, a
seemingly unnecessary change of name,
and then taking the form it has today: three
one-week seasons in capital cities. Once
150-odd days of screening in Sydney, it is
now 21. in Melbourne, the NSC has been
relocated from the State Film Centre to the
Longford, where it will be seen as just
another part of that cinema's multi-
structured programming.

2. The B[...]Edmondson, John Flaus, Don
McLennan, Michael Pate and Albie Thorns.

CINEMA PAPERS March — 9

Screenplay by . . .

Dear Sir,

I refer to your December 1982 issue
(Cinema Papers, No. 41), featuring a
preview of The Year of Living Danger-
ously, and to articles on the same film in
The Motion Picture Yearbook 1983.1

In both places, the credit for the
screenplay reads “from a screenplay by
David Williamson, based on the novel by
Christopher Koch and on additional
material by Alan Sharp". This is entirely
incorrect. The screenplay credit formally
agreed to by all parties, and appearing
on the screen, is one shared equally by
Williamson, Weir and myself? Alan
Sharp’s name has been dropped, since
so little was left of his version of the
screenplay in the end that a credit could
no longer be justified.

I assume that your information came
from the producers during t[...]film’s production. Publicity put out by
them at that time, before the final credits
were decided, constantly and ungener-
ously referred to David Williamson
alone, so that an impression was
created that he was producing an
entirely new screenplay. That this was
not so is made clear by the final credit,
but the misapprehension persists. I
hope that you will give me space to set
the record straight once and for all, since
the matter has some professional
importance to me, and has attracted a
certain amount of comment in the press
and in the industry.

The article on Peter Weir by Brian Mc-
Farlane (MPYB 1983, p. 236) makes
reference to a rift between Weir and
myself over the development of the
script. Clarif[...]y of this project may be of some
interest. I have not made specific
comment on it until now.

Peter Weir, when I originally
approached him to direct the film, asked
me to write a screenplay from my novel,
collaborating with him in re-structuring
the material. This I did, going through a
number of drafts, in 1979-80. Weir at
that stage was proposing that he and I
take the script through to its completion,
although this proposal tended to wax
and wane. I was always prepared for
another writer to take over, provided he
respected the material; although I have
slowly become convinced that the ideal
situation for a great film is one where a
single writer and director, working in real
harmony, see the film to its completion.
This was not to be in our case.

Weir pronounced himself satisfied
with my screenplay, and in 1980 took it
to CBS in America. They wanted Peter
Weir; they wanted the novel; but not the
script. As Americans so often do, they
plainly had plans to debauch the prop-
erty along commercial lines. Weir
informed me that Alan Sharp, a Los
Angeles writer of Scots origin, was to do
a “polishing job”, at the request of CBS.
This polishing job turned out to be a total
rewrite. It left nothing of my original
novel but the names of the characters,
and in my opinion it resembled a comic
strip.

I believe I am a professional in my
approach to writing, and I am not your
sensitive novelist who thinks his book
ought to be preserved in toto, as a film.
Weir asked me for a new opening and a
new end, for example, and I gave them
to him: they remain intact. I say all this to
put things into perspective when making
the comment that the Sharp script was a
total, talentless betrayal of the book, and
of the film I had envisaged. When I pro-
tested, however, my protest was dis-
missed in a telegram, and Weir has ever
since refused all contact with me: a
situation not of my choosing.

1. Peter Beilby and Ross Lansell (eds), Aus-
tra/ien Motion Picture Y[...]ding: "Screenplay by David
Williamson, Peter Weir and C. J. Koch."

What apparently happened next was
that Weir reworked the Sharp script, put-
ing back int[...]ped the project.
Weir then hired David Williamson to
rework the material. Only a few lines of
Sharp now remain; and by my estimate
the final proportions are about 55 per
cent Williamson/Weir, and 45 per cent
Koch. I was happy, after the Sharp
horror, to see an Australian writer take
over, and that David did so was particu-
larly gratifying. I had[...]of the voice-
over material taken from my novel: a
request from Weir conveyed via David
Williamson. For this I received no thanks
from the Master, but I was happy with
the result. David and I had unofficial con-
tact throughout his term of duty, and I
believe he did a fine job under trying
circumstances. He would be the last to
wish the erroneous impression of some
of the publicity to continue.

It remains to be said that the finished
product, despite what I see as dialogue
deficiencies, has all the imaginative and
visual power I always knew Peter Weir
would bring to it. I remain an admirer of
that aspect of his talent.

Yours sincerely,
C. J. Koc[...]Code

Dear Sir,

The government's recent decision to
extend the time period for completion of
qualifying films to be an effective three
years, and to allow tax deductions
to be claimed in the year in which the
investment is made, has alleviated one
of the local film industry's biggest
problems. That is not to say that those
investors who flocked to U.A.A. and
others will now flock to the local pro-
ducers; I believe their motives were pre-
dominantly of a tax nature rather than
one of investing in films. Nevertheless,
serious investors will now find an added
attraction in local films, and producers
will have more time in which to produce
a quality product. Coupling these factors
should result in a greater number of
quality productions in the months/years
ahead. One wonders why the Treas[...]e rigidities of
the Income Tax Assessment Act has not
eliminated the industry‘s financing
problems.

Certainly, as far as the smaller pro-
ducer is concerned, amendments to the
Act will not provide much of a benefit at
all. Why? Because he/she isto invest in any
“prescribed interest", a term defined in
the Code, and which includes the pro-
duction and marketing of films.

My concern is not for the larger pro-
ducer who has, by now, established the
necessary public company and formats
for the trust deed and prospectus, and
who is seeking anywhere from $1 million
to $5 million from the public, although
they certainly had my sympathies in the
early days. No, the persons most
affected are those looking for smaller
amounts in the order 0 $50,000 to
$250,000.

While such amounts could probably
be obtained by setting up a syndicate of
10 to 20 people, such a syndicate is pro-
hibited by the Code. In fact, if a prospec-
tive producer required $50,000 and
found one investor prepared to front up,
and if that investor went beyond the
range of the producer's[...]of the Corporate Affairs

. Commissions indicate that, in the

absence of any guidelines, definitions
are being drawn as widely as that. _

What is required, in my.op_inion, is a
change to the Code or in its interpreta-
tion. At the moment, there is a_numerical
test to separate public and private com-
panies; why not create a number of
investors, below which the Code would
not apply? For example, the Code could
exempt, from i[...]umber of investors (counting
"associated persons" as separate) in
any scheme is less than 50 (or 100, or
whatever). '

Alternatively, or perhaps in conjunc-
tion with the foregoing, schemes which
involved amounts below a certain thres-
hold would also be exempt from the
Code’s application. Or perhaps, in these
circumstances, the requirements are
relaxed.

The industry has shown itself capable
of responding to a need. Is this a need?

Should there be a response? _
Yours faithfully,
Brian Tucker

Not Registered
Dear Sir,

I refer to the Quarter Item, “The
Travelling Film Festival" (Cinema

Papers No. 41, p. 503), and desire to
advise that I registered "The Travelling
Film Festival" in Victoria as a business
name in October 1981 without any inten-_
tion to create difficulties for the Travel-
ling Film Festival established in New
South Wales. The fact is that party
hadn’t registered their name in Victoria.

Subsequently, following an approach
from the Travelling Film Festival, I
elected to transfer the name I had regis-
tered to them. The decision was taken
primarily because there was no intention
on my part to deprive that organization
of their name in Victoria.

That action does not mean that there
shall not be a touring Film Festival
throughout the State of Victoria in 1983.

Yours faithfully,
Graeme Orr

The Efftee L[...]reading Chris Long's article
"The Efftee Legacy" in the December
issue (Cinema Papers, No. 41, pp.
521-23, 582-83). I agree with Chris that
we are indeed fortunate that the prolific
output of Efftee has survived nearly
intact. These films form a precious and
fascinating part of Australia's film
heritage and Chris is to be congratulated
for his efforts over many years in
chronicling the Efftee story.

I would like to amplify Chris’ com-
ments on the technical quality of viewing
prints of Efftee titles in the National Film
Archive. Like other material fr[...]to three
main groups:

1. 35 mm nitrate negatives and/or

release prints;

2. 35 mm acetate preservatio[...]from these (master positives
or dupe negatives); and

3. acetate viewing copies, mostly 16
mm, and usually struck from pre-
servation copies.

One of the besetting problems faced
by all film archives, but especially by the
National Film Archive, is how to appor-
tion a limited budget across the com
peting demands of preservation and
access. The more one spends on
making viewing copies the less is left for
making preservation copies of films in
imminent danger of decay. Inevitably,
one economizes on viewing copies,
making them as cheaply as possible
with a minimum of technical fuss. Often
the answer print made to check the

As regular users know, much material
in the National Film Archive is in-
adequately listed and inaccessible
(indeed viewing copies exist for only
about 15 per cent of its 50,000 titles),
topics which are dealt with in the August
1982 Cinema Papers and in a recent
book, The Documentary Film in Aus-
tralia.

The Efftee output is a good example
of a collection which was saved from dis-
persal, or w[...]rms of acquisition copyright, all Efftee
material is vested in the National
Library. All of the features and some of
the shorts are also distributed on 16 mm
through the National Film Lending
Collection to non-theatrical film users.

Yours sincerely,

Ray[...]Dear Sir,

Inspired by the reading of the article in
Cinema Papers No. 40, pp. 442-45, 487,
489, "What is a Documentary”, and
further convinced by the publicity cam-
paign, I[...]latest publica-
tion titled, The Documentary Film in Aus-
tralia.1 This book is the first of its kind in
Australia and it is an excellent combina-
tion of historical background, theoretical
papers, and of case studies from
different areas of the functioning film
and television documentary industry. It
will give both the layman and the profes-
sional some new and valuable insights
into documentary filmmaking in this
country.

As an educational documentary film-
maker for the past[...]l documentary filmmaking
has always been regarded as a "poor
relation" or as outside the mainstream
of serious and entertaining documentary
films. Filmmakers used it as the first
stepping stone and, once confident,
went into bigger and more lucrative film-
making. Not many people took it
seriously; only a few with dedication and
altruism stayed and produced/directed
films for this very important purpose.
Naturally, I was hoping that the Robert
Rothols, Ross Campbell interview/article
would at last demystify, explain, define
and put in perspective the true role of
educational document[...]es made by the AVRB Film
Unit. I was disappointed that this did not
happen. Under-researched and partly
inaccurate information presented further
confuses the role of educational docu-
mentary films and filmmaking.

As an active member of this Film Unit
since 1972, I am compelled to extend

1. Floss Lansell and Peter Beilby (eds), The
Documentary Film in Australia, Cinema
Papers-Film Victoria, Melbourne, 1982.

the article and its content. As the title of
the article suggests, it was to explore the
working of a Film Unit, which means a
group of people, not just one individual.
The people who are working in this Film
Unit are all filmmakers. Their films are
mentioned and talked about in the
article, yet they did not receive any
credit for their work.

It is a standard practice right through
the book to credit people with their own
productions. Why is it conspicuously
absent in this article? To be fair to the
members of this Unit, I would like to list
their films in order of appearance:

Graphic Communication — A[...]n Gaal

Schools Out — Alex Rappel

Anyway . . . What is an Australian?

— Barbara Boyd Anderson

The Making of Anna — Robert

Francis
Naturally, these films represent only a
small fraction of the output of the Unit.
The people mentioned above and others
before them have made many more suc-
cessf[...]e varied sub-
jects.

Besides being entertaining, as is men-
tioned in the article, what other special
qualities should a good educational film
possess? If the meaning of the word
education is to “draw out”, then a good
educational documentary film should do
exactly that. First, it should draw the
subject matter into yo[...]e you aware of your ignorance or
knowledge of it, and then it should
motivate you to get up and start your
learning process by yourself or in a
group. While watching it, you should
comment, think, analyze, experience
and learn. The voice-over, or the “voice
of God", is no longer necessary under
these conditions. It must create a suit-
able mood and mental environment for
an ongoing learning process. This
cannot be done by presenting facts and
figures alone, it must be achieved by
using strong images, comprehensive
sound effects and suitable music. It
must never lull the mind but stimulate it.
It must play a role in the intellectual,
spiritual and emotional growth of the
individua|’s attitude t[...]cannot cover everything about
its subject matter, and it must not appear
to talk above people’s heads or to be
overly long, yet it cannot be superficial. It
must never lie. Ideally, true learning
should begin in the classroom when the
film stops and the experiences are
relived during the discussion conducted
by the teacher.

When an educational film pretends to
have all the knowledge augmented by
wonderfully “distracting” film tech-
niques and pretentious editing, then it
might have a chance of winning film
awards but this certainly is not a guaran-
tee of success in the classroom.

Many of our short documentary films
in the past were made for primary school
age children as language stimulus, and
they were experimental in style. How-
ever, one of our latest documentary films
in the making is on The Age cartoonist,
Ron Tandberg. This film is using more
conventional techniques like some of
our other earlier productions, such as
Schools Out: i.e., non-interventionist,
observational techniques, emphasizing
sensitivity to events, and producing a
“being in the right place at the right
time" type of film.[...]clients — i.e., for
curriculum consultants, who are also the
subject specialists — can be difficult
sometimes. To convince these people
that films educate differently to the
written word can be difficult. They may
want to include too many diverging
messages and issues in a film, which
can be detrimental to the overall effec-
tiveness of the project.

It is essential to educational film-
makers that the rest of the industry
understand the conditions we are work-
ing under and the aims we have to
struggle to achieve. Ultimately, the real

judges are the kids in the classroom and
the teachers in the schools, who choose
to show our films. It has been said in the
article how the borrowing record of our
films through the AVRB Film and Video
Collection stands up against commercial
documentaries. In fact, our films are
very popular indeed in Victorian schools
and the latest figures indicate this order
of preferences in borrowing and in popu-
larity:

1. Zoo (Gerry Hudson)

2. Lost in the Bush (Peter Dodds,
drama)

3. Broken Down Bus[...]hes)

6. Circus Nomads (Ivan Gaal)

All our films are also dubbed on to %”
and 1/2" video cassettes and distributed
to schools on request. HSV Channel 7
also telecast them during school terms
as part of their Educational Access Tele-
vision program (EAT), making it possible
for anyone to record them.

With such a large audience at hand
our responsibilities are enormous.
Knowing that children and young adults
watch hours of commercial television a
day and already have built up an intui-
tive or intellectual critical view of what is
good or bad, and knowing that we must
produce something with a message
which is exciting, involving and not
boring, is certainly not an easy task. It
requires a fair amount of experience on
behalf of the producer and a happy
coincidence between the assignment
and the interests of the director.

Yours faithfully,[...]roducer/director,
AVRB Film Unit

(acting officer-in-charge)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Recognize Documentaries

Dear Sir,

We would like to raise for discussion
with the Australian Film Institute and its
directors, and with the film community,
the position of documentary film within
Australian film culture, both in general,
and as represented at the Annual AFI
Awards, including the Jury Awards.

The documentary film and many non-
theatrical release films are aare admirably served by narra-
tive films, and our concern here is not to
place them in opposition -— i.e., docu-
mentary versus narrative — but simply
to highlight the unique contribution
documentary film makes to film culture
and to Australian society.

Documentaries often address them-
selves directly to the role of education
and the exchange of information. In this
historical time, when literacy increas-
ingl[...]eracy, documen-
taries can help our understanding and
knowledge of society and the world.
They can encourage as well as satisfy
curiosity about our history, our lives and
the lives of those around us. They can
help develop a higher social conscious-
ness and social responsibility.

We would like to see the Australian
Film Institute take a significant initiative
in encouraging the recognition that
documentary film deserves. To some
extent the AFI does this already through
exhibition, distribution, its publications
and through the Film Awards. Yet this
most public, mass media event, the
Awards, appears to uncritically imitate
the Hollywood model, both by the nature
of the event itself and by the priorities
emphasized.

Film awards, film judging and film
reviews have a definite influence in the
shaping of a film culture. In some other
countries the compulsion to culturally
imitate the U.S. is less pronounced than
in Australia. At West Germany‘s

Letters

prestigious and acclaimed Berlin Film
Festival, significant status is given to
non-narrative, non-feature length film. In
fact, Australian documentary filmmakers
often have to seek meaningful recogni-
tion of their works overseas, at events
such as Berlin's Film Forum, before
receiving acknowledgement in their own
country.

We feel that the preeminence given
to the narrative fiction film in the Austra-
lian Film Awards, where a film produc-
tion and its personnel can receive
recognition in 13 categories, is too
heavily weighted against the documen-
tary film, which can receive recognition
in only three categories, and in two of
those it is competing against experi-
mental, short fiction and animation films.

One of the consequences of the small
number of categories is that the films are
unfairly pitted against one another. This
year, for example, the unique merits of
films like Angels of War and Two Laws
were lost within the one broad category.

Widening the range of categories that
documentary film would be eligible for
would serv[...]umentary form;

0 it would grant more recognition to the
contribution made by documentary
film to Australian film culture; and

0 it would stimulate production and
higher quality documentary film.

In the AFI News, December 1982 (No.
25), a small article comments on some
of the problems in the structure of the
Jury Awards. We would like to add our
support to the changes to the Jury
Awards recommended by the panel.
However, we would further propose that
the AFI consider the position of the
documentary film within the Awards as a
whole, with the view to increasing the
number of categories. We propose that
the following cate ories be considered
for documentary fi ms: best screenplay;
best achievement in editing; best
achievement in sound; best achieve-
ment in cinematography; best music
score; best achievement in direction;
and best documentary.

Jeni Thornley and Martha Ansara,
filmmakers

Tina Kaufman, editor,[...]distributor

Consider Canada

Dear Sir,

Could it not be said that if there were
one country in the world where people
do not automatically lump Canada and
Canadians with the U.S. then that
country might be Australia?

Could it not be also said that Austra-
lian film or video producers would desire
to make the maximum amount of money
out of the North American market for
their product?

Then please tell me why these pro-
ducers give the non-theatrical, educa-
tional, television and cable rights to their
product in Canada to American distri-
butors.

I understand giving Canadian theat-
rical rights to American distributors in
that the theatrical distribution in this
country is controlled by the majors. But
by denying them the other rights, Austra-
Iian producers are not going to lose or
lessen their deal. If they are told they
will, it is nothing but bluff.

I would be interested in hearing from
any Australian producers looking for an
expanded market.

Yours sincerely,

George Christ[...]ssociates Ltd,
Edmonton, Canada

CINEMA PAPERS A-{arch — II

T’

I

bson

You have a shyness about you but
also a sort of cocky bravado. Do
you play on that in your work?

I think so. You can’t play on
just one thing when you are play-
ing a character. The more levels
you work on, the better. So you
combine certain things, even things
that are seemingly opposed.

For example, there is a very fine
line between comedy and drama. If
possible you should try to achieve
both. If you bring out the comic
aspect, then serious stuff works
much better.

Look at Romeo and Juliet, the
first half of which, if it is done
well, is hilarious. It is all fun and
lightness. Even Romeo’s plight is
laughable; he is such a kid. But
then the play takes on a hard edge
of real violence in the middle; it
becomes quite heavy. It wouldn’t
work nearly as well if one hadn’t
learnt to like and laugh with
characters first. That is the dra-
matic effect Shakespeare figured

out.

What does it mean to you to be an
actor?

Basically that I enjoy what I am
doing.

Why did you choose it as a profes-
sion?

I didn’t choose it; that is the
weird point. It was set up_ for me
by a member of my family who

Opposite: Mel Gibson, as Guy Hamilton, in
Peter Weir’s The Year of Living Danger-
ously.[...]star of
The Year of Living Dangerously, Gallipoli
and the Mad Max films.

did all the applying, sending my
request form into a place which
handled auditions. When she told
me that she had done it, I didn’t
really go for it much, but then I sat
down and said, “Well, why not?
Why not two days out of my life?”
But I felt I was going to make a
jerk of myself in front of a lot of
people.

But part of your personality does
enjoy entertaining people . . .

Of course it does. I have been
doing that since I was little, stand-
ing up and telling jokes. You know
how little kids do it. They love the
attention — especially if they come
from a big family, and I have 10

Mel Gibson, Wayne Jarratt and Warren Mitchell in the Nimrod production of Death of a
Salesman.

brothers and sisters. I used to get a
kick out of affecting people, no
matter what sort of effect. That is
what drives you on.

An actor lives other people’s lives

and dreams. Does that enrich your
life?

Yes, because you have to delve
into things you otherwise
wouldn’t. Things I never picked up
at school, for instance, are easily
assimilated when I suddenly find a
reason for them. I wouldn’t be
interested in what a journalist does

unless I was working on a play or
film in which the characters were
journalists.

So there is that and also, in-

directly, creating the dream to hide
behind. When you have a mask on,
you can do almost anything — pull
down your pants in public, what-
ever. It doesn’t matter, if you have
a bag over your head.

So you can be more reckless in life
generally . . .

Yes. But it is really phoney.

Have your American origins
helped you to increase your aware-
ness of culture and of people?

Yes. I was brought up in one
environment until about the age of
12 and understood it. Then I was
suddenly shifted to another. I
could immediately sense the differ-
ence in, for instance, the extent to
which people expressed them-
selves. Americans, you know, are
very expressive, which I think is
better than the up—tight reserve
Australians have. It is a sort of
hang-up from the English. But as
with everything, it has its good and
bad sides.

Which actors do you admire?

I was an avid film watcher when
I was young, but I can’t single out
names and say, “Gee, I took a lot
from him.” But, subconsciously, a
lot would have registered, just
from observation.

I used to look very closely at
guys like Spencer Tracy, Myrna
Loy and Clark Gable. Tracy and
Loy had a modern acting style, 20
or 30 years ahead of what Clark
did. He was still doing that
wooden, 1930s stuff. But he was

CINEMA PAPERS March — 13

great because he had an appeal
that just used to shine out of him.

I take little pieces from every-
where. It is pass the ball, isn’t it?

Some drama teachers, especially
those from the Stella Adler Con-
servatory in New York, say that to
act you have to know yourself
first; you have to know your
vulnerability and be willing to
expose that. Is that process hard?

Yes. But it is hard for anyone to
know what they haven’t experi-
enced. So, the older you g[...]ough having
lived more.

However, I also think it is poss-
ible to fake it — to go into some-
thing you don’t know about and
get away with it — provided you
do your groundwork.

Have you at times had to fake
it?

Sure. Christ, I am only 26! I
can’t compare with Sir Laurence
Olivier’s experience — he has been
around for years — or a guy like
Warren Mitchell. He is a bloody
good actor and he draws a lot of
his acting just from having been
around for so long.

You are young and working in the
post-feminist era, where you can
play a man in a less rigid way. You
are not restricted by stereotypes of
what a man is . . .

I think that whole women’s
superior thing is really contrived.
If I were trying to fit in with it, I
would be really sick in myself.

But all it has done is open up
options, I think, for all of us . . .

Yes, for an audience.

As an actor, you can express that
feminine part, that softness . . .

r.V,..,.M " . . :¢.,.;.. . .»

Mel Gibson as Max: “a close! human
being”. George Miller’: Mad Max.

But that is the way I was raised.
Had there been no feminist revolu-
tion or whatever, I would have
been the same. As Edmund says [in
King Lear], “I should have been
that I am had the maidenliest star
in the firmament twinkled on my
bastardizing. ”

Your own life is reasonably stable:
you are a family man and you
aren’t going through crises or in
and out of relationships. Can you
explore that vulnerability more
easily in your work when you
aren’t in the midst of it . . .

In the midst of vulnerabilities? I
have done that number already. I
remember it. But it certainly stops
you from thinking about yourself a
lot, so it can’t be all bad. It also

opens up other, really basic human
emotions — a whole boatload of
them.

And forms of love:
family . . .

parental,

Certainly, if you think of it that
way. But acting is really prostitu-

Director of photography Paul Onorato takes a light reading on Mel Gibson ’s profile.

Michael Pate ’s Tim.

I4 — March CINEMA PAPERS

Max in his pursuit vehicle. Mad Max.

tion, isn’t it? Using your know-
ledge of those things . . .

That is the motivation. You can
use those things without it being
exploitation . . .

You are exploiting them. But I
don’t see anything morally wrong
with it. That’s why I do it.

I am sure some people see it that
way; I certainly have felt funny
about it. Some people call that a

hang-up, I suppose. But it is okay
now.

Surely it is good to keep evaluating
what you are doing . . .

It certainly is. Every time you do
it, you become more or less keen.

Your final training was at NIDA.
How much did you learn there?

I remember the tutors[...]rnalize enough.”

Have you changed since or was
that a misinterpretation?

I think it was a misinterpreta-
tion.

Actually, NIDA was very val[...]which
you have never come across
before. You have to go in with the
understanding that you try every-
thing, even if you don’t like the
look of it: “What do we have to
fence for? Why do we have to do
gymnastics?” — all that sort of
thing. Honestly, once you start to
get into it, you enjoy it. You begin
to appreciate that side of it,
because it brings out new skills.

Did NIDA teach
Method?

They advocated Stanislavsky,
but what is that other than just
plain old commonsense —
commons[...]ay of acting was
more emotional. He taught people
to look at mannerisms, responses

Mick (David Foster), Tim (Mel Gibson) and Ron (Alwyn Kurts). Tim.

Your self—awareness. That is
what we were talking about earlier:
to know yourself first. If you don’t
know who you are, and if you
don’t know what you externalize,
then how can you control and
bring these things back to a
neutrality, and try to bring some-
thing else out of it? It is very diffi-
cult.

What do you think about the state
of acting in Australia?

The stage acting I see is as good
as acting anywhere. In film, it is
completely different. You are not
necessarily watching acting as
much as watching what is being
done to the performers on cellu-
loid. You should never judge
whether a person is a good or bad
actor on film because often they
can be a real pain in the arse and
come out looking great. Some-
times they can be great and come
out looking ordinary. Film is a
funny thing. So I would reserve
judgment on that question.

What acting jobs have you most
enjoyed doing?

Fran[...]s. Gallipoli.

I don’t enjoy any of them! It is
always a headache at the time you
are doing it. You are always tear-
ing your hair out. It is a little bit of
a trial, a little challenge. Later, you
enjoy it.

What about “Mad Max”?

Oh, that was fun, because you
have your cardboard guy there.
The story is comic—book style and
everyone is ready to laugh at it.
The images are graphic and car-
toonic, so, to slot into that mould,
you have to slip into that style.
You can’t do something totally
different[...]Then you have this problem of
the character being a closet human
being. He has to interact with
other characters and yet not
appear to. It is a little tricky.

Was it easier for you in the sequel?

All that stuff with the boy, for
instance, and the dog, even? To
be sort of remote, and detached,
almost not human, and at the same
time betray something of yourself.

To make him human, to make
people think, “Oh, the poor guy”.
That sort of stuff is interesting.

Will there be another sequel? Is
that why they left him in the
desert?

I think so, but I don’t think the
director wants to do another one.

Frankly, George [Miller] is one
of the few people who handles that
genre well. There is no one who
can surpass him in that style.

George is great, and a real
gentleman. He is the antithesis of
what you see on the screen.

Was it a time of living out
fantasies?

Yes, it is George’s fantasy.

Miller was the one who gave[...]ared with
“Tim”, “Mad Max 2” was the
film that made the U.S. look at
you . . .

Yes.

Mel Gibson

Was there much
“Tim” overseas?

response to

Yes, they liked it. But it wasn’t a
great seller.

I quite enjoyed Tim. It was a
pleasant experience, and I learned
a lot quickly. At other times, it has
been a battle all the way. The Year
of Living Dangerously was a
battle. Hopefully, it looks as if I
can handle it.

What about “Gallipoli”, where
you play an almost mythical
character?

I enjoyed that, too. You had a
situation based on fact, but re-
created with modifications. It is
more than just a straight doco; it is
a fiction within a real story. That
gives you a lot of room to play
with.

Another aspect is the stigma
attached to a coward. You are try-
ing to make people understand
that everyone is scared to death,
and not having people say,

“Coward, I hate you.”

Above: Archie Hamilton (Mark Lee), "uncomplicated and pure”, and a property owner’s
daughter (Robyn Galwey). Botto[...]arges through the trenches. Bottom right:

Archie and Frank in Cairo. Gallipoli.

ax

3'14‘

CINEMA PAP[...]

Vision of the future: Max (Mel Gibson) in
George Miller’s Mad Max 2.

But Frank Dunn (Mel Gibson) was
more a pragmatist than a coward

Exactly. It is that mixture of
things. You add that on to make
him more believable. That is often
the way it is: the most unlikely set
of characteristics spring up
together.

You mean, that is why Frank
lived?

Yes. That survival instinct is
really strong. There are guys who
say, “I’m no coward; I’d go out
and die for the country”, and do.
Frank didn’t. He had flashes of
bravery but only when there was
no other choice. If you are backed
into a corner, you have to punch
out. Frank had the ability to punch
out.

Were you disappointed that a lot
of Australians wanted to see a film
about Gallipoli and not about Aus-
tralian youth?

Some people obviously want to
see the whole campaign. They are
interested in something closer to
documentary style, which Gallipoli
isn’t. Gallipoli is about the first
great war, which changed the
world and people’s ways of think-
ing forever. It was the death of
innocence.

The amount of evil in the world
today is just phenomenal, and it
all started then. People talk about
the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages,
like it was some horrible time, but
in the old days they used to go out
and fight a battle like a chess
game. Those guys in Gallipoli were
like the last knights in shining
armor.

People say “Bullshit. I don’t
believe that. That’s unreal. No one
would do that.” But they did! It is
the old world, and people today
are too complex to understand

I6 — March CINEMA PAPERS

Max and the feral child (Emil Minty), under siege. Mad Max 2.

that. That is what bothers the
critics, not that I give a fuck what
the critics think — it is just their
observance of life. Frank Dunn is a
guy who survived, the person you
see around today[...]le Archie Hamilton
(Mark Lee) who isn’t stupid, but is
just uncomplicated and pure. He
went out and died because he
believed in something.

The Year of Living
Dangerously

In “The Year of Living Danger-
ously”, there wasn’t a tremendous
development in the character you
played . . .

Guy Hamilton (Mel[...]tish Consul (Bill Kerr), Billy K wan (Linda Hunt) and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver). Peter Weir’s The
Year of Living Dangerously.

Guy had to be a journalist first,
but he also had to act like a
member of the audience. It is not
one of those films which assaults
the senses, like Mad Max or Star
Wars. It actually asks you to think
a little bit. And to help you along
as an aid or a crutch to this pro-
cess, you had Guy Hamilton, who,
like a member of the audience,
keeps asking, “What’s going on
around here? What’s with this
dwarf? Things are happening to
me, but what?”

Guy is like an alien person
coming in to a situation, where he
is manipulated by this dwarf, Billy
Kwan (Linda Hunt). He seldom
initiates anything except in a few
instances where his masculine
instincts take over. But that’s

about it. It is his journey through
this strange place and around all
these unusual characters in the
place.

Apart from that, the film works
on so many levels. There is his
striving for a journalistic career
against his desire for a woman — a
very old theme. It is also about
manipulation. There is the
Wayang sacred shadow puppet
plays and the way the country was
run, neither left nor right but in a
delicate balance controlled by
Sukarno, the king god. Then there
is the same story on a smaller scale
with Kwan balancing his puppets:
Hamilton, Jill (Sigourney Weaver)
and whoever else is around. He is
ultimately destroyed by his own
weaknesses.

P
»
5
K
\-
n
0
o.
t
u
C
K
as
5

makes‘ revolutions and wars.” The Year of Living Dangerously.

Billy’s reliance on other people to
live his life for him really . . .

Yes. It is one of those films I
don’t think people can fully
appreciate the first time, unless
they are really up to it. It is fairly
cleverly done because the politics
don’t beat you over the head. It is
well intertwined with the human
relations stuff, with that small
group of people there, which, for a
two—hour film, is a large group of
people.

In a way, Guy is an extremely
masculine man: the careerist, try-
ing to operate in the world, and yet
understanding so little . . .

Sure. He is really green and in-
experienced in life. He had been in
the newsroom in Sydney and all of
a sudden he is in the middle of a
situation that is dangerous. He is
in a strange place where people
don’t like what he is, involved with
his woman. He has to have the
dwarf there to remind him. It is
very strange. Everyone has a
character like that in their life -—
somebody who is sort of watching
them. Not saying, just watching. It
is weird.

Even though Guy comes through
at the end, it is still a very pessi-
mistic film about Westerners. All
of them except for Jill are very sick

They wouldn’t be there unless
they were like that in the first
place. It takes a certain type of
person to go out and survive in
exotic foreign places. In a way,
they have to be unbalanced; that is
what I picked up from those guys.
Who drives through road blocks?
They used to do that. Who gets
shot up the back of their cars?
They’d do that, because they
wanted to.

It takes all types, doesn’t it?
Most people who report from these
war—torn places — and you
wouldn’t catch me doing it — have
to get some kind of kick out of it
before they can really do it well.
And there is a lot of guys around
who do it well.

One of the things I liked about the
film is that it does have an almost
epic quality in what Guy has to
lose in order to gain some sort of
knowledge. He has to lose Billy
and he almost loses Jill . . .

He has to lose his eye before he
can earn the right to jump on the
plane. He just goes that one step
too far, instead of thinking,
“What the fuck.” He screws up
somebody’s career just for a story.
He really likes her and doesn’t see
it. She’s crazy about him. But he
does learn that he just can’t step on
people for his own reasons. That’s
what makes revolutions and wars.

But Guy does grow. That is the
good thing about the character.
But even then, he is not totally
converted. He has just gained
enough insight into things to
figure, “Yeah, why not do this for
a change?” It is a very subtle pro-
Cess. It happens through the death
of Kwan and through his own
feelings.

What things did you learn from
working with director Peter Weir
on that film?

Peter always gives you the right
dope. He would die for a friend,
but he is also a pragmatist. People
almost keel over about what he
says at times; he doesn’t mess
around. Once he told me, “You
were 15 per cent of what you
should be in that shot. You’ll get
away with it, but be aware of it!”

How did you get on with
Sigoumey Weaver?

Above: Guy and American Pete Curtis
(Michael Murphy). Right: Guy during a
radio broadcast. The Year of Living
Dangerously.

We had a close friendship. It is
almost impossible to work with
someone you don’t get on with.
Linda Hunt and Michael Murphy
were different in their approach; I
was watching them and they were
really up to it, energy-wise. They
had tons of it. I usually come in
from underneath some place,
whereas they sort of[...]— which
can be good. It all depends on who
you are; I can’t work with that ten-
sion. If there is tension, I try and
push it out and, I suppose, channel
it. They handled it; if they hadn’t it
would be very obvious.

What sort of role would you like to
do next?

Impossible to say.

I wonder too if this film might
create all sorts of offers from over-
seas that could change your life.
Does that worry you, the prospect
of your life taking off and
changing?

No; not that change. It probably
opens up another little avenue.

Can you see yourself going back
and working in the U.S.?

I have set up base here. As far as
anything else is concerned, it is
good to get away at times.

What about the tinsel-town nature
of the film-world, where people
might talk to you one day and not
the next?

That happens everywhere, in all
careers.

Do you find you have to be careful
in deciding with whom you work?

Very. I am getting more selec-
tive.

Mel Gibson

Naivety can be an appealing
quality, but not in the business
world . . .

Yes. You have to keep it in basic
ways, but not in business. And I
ain’t no business head.

What about the loss of privacy that
the nature of your work entails? Is
that hard for you to accept?

You can expect to get your head
blown off in the U.S. but not here.
It is quite easy to remain anony-
mous here if you choose to —
unless you have some really weird
physical characteristics that single
you out. I have never suffered
from it that much.

How do you stay realistic in your
sort of work?

Maybe I won’t! It depends on
your upbringing, and whether you
hang on to what you were taught.
It is good to have little reminders
along the way — things that put
you back in touch with what you
have learnt. There is nothing like a
good stretch of not working to do
that to you, or somebody whom
you know very well being brutally
truthful in their criticisms. Just
reminders along the way like that,
and knowing yourself. It is fairly
easy. ‘A’

CINEMA PAPERS March — 17

ohn Waters’ status as a contemporary filmmaker is certainly not

so much as a technician as an observer of and commentator on

the seamier and freakish side of lower middle—class America. His

films are not for those who demand the meticulous shooting and

editing of a Stanley Kubrick, the serious social drama of
Ordi[...]c-strip escapism of George Lucas. Waters’
films are low—budget, with shaky camerawork, garish color, rough
editing and sound recording, and a slack control over the shrill and
histrionic performances of the mainly untrained casts.

his needs no apology. Anything else

would be a concession to Gulf + Wes-

tern aesthetics and would destroy the

authenticity of Waters’ comic-horror

view of America. His films are self-pr0-
claimed “exercises in poor taste”, depicting the
kind of material found in The National
Enquirer. Ham-Kiri or True Confessions. In his
autobiography, Shock Value‘, Waters flaunts
outrage and bad taste as devices to attract his
audience, not repel it.

Before examining ‘bad taste’ it is necessary
first to pinpoint what is ‘good taste’ in cinema.
As practised by the major film studios, at least
unt[...]taste encompasses:

1. John Waters, Shock Value: A Tasteful Book About Bad

Taste, Delta, New York, I981.

18 — March CINEMA PAPERS

family entertainment and inspiring stories (bio-
graphies especially); upholding law and order
and democracy; avoiding social or sexual
problems, and even facts of life such as birth
and death; and definitely avoiding unmention-
able bodily functions. Good taste is not neces-
sarily untruthful. It does not try to make us
believe in the stork, just that babies appear,
usually in happy, prosperous households, and
never need their nappies changed.

MGM was perhaps the studio specializing to
the greatest degree in good taste, and that
reached its apogee in the 19405 when Mervyn
LeRoy was at the studio. The 1941 Blossoms In
the Dust serves as a good example. This film
stars Greer Garson (a better example than Julie
Andrews of a lady who never went to the bath-

room) who, seeing the social injustice meted out
to children with the stigma of illegitimacy,
founds an orphanage and campaigns for the
removal of the illegitimate lab[...]for-
tunate victims’ birth certificates. Death, suicide
and tragedy punctuate the story, yet the surface
gloss and characters’ emotions are not per-
mitted to be disturbed for more than a few
seconds. The continual, light music score
bre[...]stress
without emphasizing or complementing them in
a genuine, melodramatic fashion.

Waters’ equivalent of all this is Pink Flam-
ingos, which involves, in part, the kidnap-
ping of girls who are artificially inseminated so
their offspring can be sold to lesbian couples;
each stage of the process is depicted luridly. This
is not to suggest that Waters’ bad taste in pre-
senting this unpleasant scheme as entertainment
is more laudable than LeRoy’s good taste, but it
does represent a hellish View of the human con-
dition that may correspond to the situation of
more people than Garson’s sunny nurseries.

Good taste is the domain of the middle class,
the nuclear family, Christian ideals and conser-
vatism. The subjects of poverty, crime, drug
addiction or alcoholism can only be admitted
into the good taste film in small doses as sub-
plots: they then must be shown to be solved or
overcome by decent, right—t[...]

ad language is another important

factor that has driven away the older

audience from the cinema in English-

speaking countries during the past

decade with complaints of bad taste.
Censorship boards are a good guide to what
constitutes good or bad taste. These bodies aim
to protect themselves from the wrath of the
middle c[...]ss the type of anti-
social or bad taste material that middle—class
adults feel will have a deleterious effect on their
young. Thus, the censors always have treated
viol[...]the
attractions of crime, delinquency, bike gangs
and restless youth as a serious threat.

Major studios found ways of dealing with the
problem film within the bounds of good taste,
but the product of companies such as American-
International, Crown International and New

World, and directors such as Roger Corman and
Russ Meyer, have consistently affronted censors
in Anglo-Saxon countries.

These are precisely the influences on which
Waters has drawn in his own films. He trium-
phantly relates in Shock Value the admission of
the British Board of Film Censors in its decision
to reject Desperate Living: “We do not know
how to deal with intentional bad taste.” Indeed,
Waters would have to admit failure if his work
was approved easily by a group of middle—class
bureaucrats.

As Robin Wood and other critics have noted,
the increasing success and importance of the
horror film through the 1970s is due partly to its
location being shifted to the family. Long the
sacrosanct throne room of go[...]e
family began paying for its years of repression
and guilty secrets by becoming cauldrons of the
supernatural and evil in Night of the Living
Dead, The Exorcist, It’s Alive, It Lives Again,
Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and
many more.

The darker side of the American family and
repression had been explored before in such dis-
parate examples as John Cromwell’s The Silver
Cord (1933), Vincente Minnelli’s Meet Me In St
Louis (1944), Douglas Sirk’s No Room For the
Groom (1952) and a key work, Nicholas Ray’s
Rebel Without A Cause (1955). The latter was
another film that gave headaches to censors by

creating a credible teenage world of pent—up
violence and frustration directly linked to
stresses within the home. There was no coming
back for Andy Hardy and his family.

The 1950s have been explored by filmmakers

as an extraordinary watershed period for
American youth, fast becoming independent,
mobile and breaking away from the family. Sig-
nificantly, W[...]50s with teenager Dawn Davenport
(Divine) tossing in high school and her family to
embark on a life of crime.

Subtle attacks on the family in the 19505 also
came from unexpectedly good taste sources such
as the Universal—Ross Hunter films by Sirk
which g[...]wer—era
middle—class, occasionally delivering a jab at its
deepest fears of the break—up of hearth, home
and respectability. Waters’ Polyester, while not
self-consciously a Sirkian film, nevertheless is
located in respectable suburbia, uses an icono-
graphic ’50s star (Tab Hunter) and is directed
with an emphasis on the decor that surrounds
housewife Francine Fishpaw (Divine) who[...]Above: Dawn Davenport (Divine) during the [rial in Female
Trouble. Right: Divine at her most alluring.

aters grew up in a pleasant suburb
of Baltimore, a city he describes as
teeming with eccentrics and
lunatics. Shock Value reveals
contradictions in his personality.
He is pleased that his work has made him “sort
of famous” but appalled that people expect him

to be like his creations.
Educated by nuns who, of course, forbade

their charges to see violent, sexual or trashy
films, Waters soon developed a taste for lurid B

movies and other condemned material ranging
from Baby Doll to Love is my Profession.
Repressive authority undoubtedly s[...]of bizarre manifestations of American
fanaticism and eccentricity, such as those
photographed by Diane Arbus, as well as by
pictures of accidents, disasters and atrocities.
Later came the discovery of his cinem[...]ycat, Kill!
Kill! (the best ‘bad taste’ title in cinema

John Waters

history?) and Herschell Gordon Lewis, a one-
time prolific director of obscure exploitation
and gore films: unfortunately he is unknown
in this country due to censorship and the good
taste of distributors.

There is another side to Waters’ artistic
appreciation. He listens to opera, claiming to
know nothing about it, and confesses an
admiration for the New German Cinema. Only
one who is well-attuned to the European Art
Movie could dream up and appreciate the
notion of a Marguerite Duras triple bill at the
drive—in in Polyester. This is quite a cunning in-
joke. Only those film buffs caught slumming at
a Waters’ film will enjoy it.

Using what became his repertory company —
mostly friends and acquaintances from Balti-
more — Waters began making short films in
1964 with Hag in a Black Leather Jacket. In
1966, inspired by Andy Warhol’s Chelsea Girls,
he made Roman Candles, a film composed of
three 8mm reels projected simultaneously.
Then, in 1968, came a 45-minute featurette, Eat
Your Makeup. Descriptions by Waters make
these early works sound like home movies: a
collage of dressed—up antics with an emphasis on
drugs, costume and make-up, blasphemy and
sado—masochism.

lot development came with his first

feature, the 1969 Mondo Trasho, shot

on 16mm, in black and white, with a

post-synchronized soundtrack con-

sisting of roughly—edited music cuts,
mostly rock and roll, and some voice—over.
Although too long and technically poor, Mondo
Trasho does have a structure that anticipates the
later films, and some witty use of the musical
accompaniment to the action.

The story involves an odyssey through the
gutters of Baltimore with Mary Vivian Pearce
who, after an encounter in the woods with a foot
fetishist, is run over by Divine (whose bombshell
Jayne Mansfield image is emerging) in her red
Cadillac convertible. Divine and the semi-mori-
bund Mary have a series of adventures in a
laundromat and a mental institution where
Mary is operated on by the Frankenstein—like Dr
Coathanger (David Lochary). Mary Vivian
Pearce does a very passable Elsa Lanchester
performance in this sequence. The film ends
with most of the cast meeting their death in a pig
pen.

ultiple Maniacs (1970) is an

advance on this. Partly inspired by

the Tate—LaBianca killings, the

film is a deliberate attempt to con-

front the bourgeoisie with its
greatest fears. (The original plan to have Divine
admit to the real—life murders in the film was
abandoned after Manson and his followers were
apprehended.)

Lady Divine (Divine) and Mr David (David
Lochary) run a “Cavalcade of Perversion”
which roams the outer suburbs, enticing normal
members of society to view displays of drug
addiction, homosexuality, fetishes and distaste-
ful acts. The voyeuristic public is both attracted
and repelled by this deliberate bad taste and
then robbed by Divine’s gang.

Divine goes to pieces when her relationship
with David breaks up. She experiences a
powerful blend of sexual and religious ecstasy
and visions when attacked in a church by the
Rosary Rapist (Mink Stole), who aids Divine in
her plan of vengeance on the fickle David.

Divin[...]complete dementia
during her acts of mass murder is quite
frightening — one of the few cases where one
feels actual death may be about to occur on
screen. Like some dens ex machina, a gigantic
lobster bursts into the scene of carnage and
rapes Divine who, accompanied by Holst’s
“The Planets” on the soundtrack, rampages
through the streets and is hunted by the
National Guard.

ink Flamingos (1972) is Waters’ most

notorious film and his first in color. It

relies on the presence of the now titanic

Divine, and some outrageous acts of

physical disgust in her battle to retain
the title of the filthiest person alive, to leave the
audience with the taste of excrement in its
mouth and a grin on its face.

Like most headline-grabbing criminals,
Divine becomes a media—freak, a theme devel-
oped further in Female Trouble (1974). This is
Waters’ most savagely satirical film and his
masterpiece to date. Its success lies in its case-
history format of a bad girl’s rise through the
tackier levels of society to fame. It is a crime-
does—not—pay film turned on its head.

In mock biopic fashion it presents the career
of Dawn Davenport (Divine) from high—school
dropout (1960) to public enemy number one
(1974). On this ascent to stardom, bourgeois

20 - March CINEMA PAPERS

morality and normality are undermined and
rejected at every opportunity.

Incensed by not receiving cha-cha shoes for
Christmas, Dawn toppl[...]top of her mother, tramples her father
underfoot and takes to the road in search of
cheap thrills and glamor. She is raped immed-
iately and consequently gives birth on her own
to a daughter whom she will abuse, starve,
throw out and eventually murder in the pursuit
of her career.

A life of petty crime leads her to modelling for
the Dashers, owners of a beauty parlor that
auditions its clients (anybody vaguely respec-
table is rejected). The Dashers believe that crime
enhances beauty and photograph Dawn com-
mitting various felonious acts. They promote
her public debut as a nightclub attraction during
which she will shoot at the audience, encour-
aging the victims to “die for art”. Dawn
becomes ‘more beautiful’ after her face is dis-
figured by acid.

After a trial in which all of her friends testify
against her and which places her activities within
the larger soc[...]Dawn joyfully
arrives at the peak of her fame — in the electric
chair.

If this sounds appalling, it is also appallingly
funny; an anarchic nightmare for the bour-
geois of the lower orders, overthrowing con-
sumerist good taste and ‘right behaviour’. For
all its exaggeration there is a disturbing ring of
accuracy to Dawn’s ill-treatment of her

daughter and something prophetic in her desire
for the maximum publicity of her final wish to
execution. There is an awesome purity to this
vision of the sleazy side of American society,
which also finds sex (or the notion of sex as rep-
resented by advertising) as
ridiculous.

repellent and

Divine and friend in Pink Flamingos.

_ esperate Living (1977) is, by compari-

‘ son, a disappointment. It is a rather

‘ repetitious and indulgent Wizard of Oz-
like parable of a fantasyland of crimin-
. ality (a Rancho Notorious, in fact) to
where felons and a highly—stressed housewife,
Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole), escape. They live a
fairly miserable existence there in a garbage
dump landscape under the despotic reign of the
Hitler and Idi Amin-worshipping Queen Car-
lotta (Edith Massey). A successful revolution is
one of several subplots. Peggy’s inability to
cope with suburban pressures points towards
Polyester and the happy ending reflects Waters’
basic optimism.

Waters admits to a certain mellowing and a
realization that efforts to exceed previous levels
of outrage will lead nowhere. Polyester (1981)
represents a move towards reaching a wider
audience for the Waters’ brand of humor.[...]dards) budget of $300,000 by Michael White, a
speculator in cult material (The Rocky Horror
films, Rude Boy), and shot in 35mm, Polyester
looks handsomer than the previous films
although Waters’ technique still is ragged and
the acting unrestrained.

olyester charts the downward course of
Francine Fishpaw (Divine), a house-
wife obsessed with the bad smells that
seem to assail her acute olefactory
sense and suffering her family’s mis-
demeanors. Husband Elmer (David Samson) is
a porno-theatre owner carrying on an affaire,
daughter Lulu (Mary Garlington) is a next
generation Dawn Davenport in the making, and
son Bo Bo (Stiv Bators) is a glue-sniffing punk
and also the notorious “Foot-stomper”, the
latest in Waters’ line of ludicrous perversions.

Francine is driven to alcoholism and divorce
proceedings before apparently being saved by
romance with Mr Right, Todd Tomorrow (Tab
Hunter), only to be betrayed once more. A
happy ending is contrived by freeing Francine
and reuniting her with her born—again children.
Lulu is reformed and discovers macrame after
spending time in a concentration camp for
unwed mothers run by nuns. This horror
sequence is reminiscent in purpose of the mock-
Hammer ‘Wagner’s Castle’ sequence in LiszIo-
mania in which the cartoon exaggeration and
costumed fantasies have some point of contact
wit[...]ns.

Polyester also used scent cards, distributed to
the audience to sniff at appropriate moments in
the story. These are introduced by a bogus pro-
fessor at the outset of the film with the frame
widening as he gleefully exclaims ‘This is
Odorama’ in tribute to Lowell Thomas and This
is Cinerama of 30 years earlier.

A bone of contention among spectators at
Waters’ films is the acting style — hopelessly
amateur or carefu[...]view. Having seen the over-the-
top performances in six Waters features, one
realizes there is an audience complicity in this

style of_pantomim_e acting. The characters are
outlandish — creations of both Waters’ and the

audiences’ id. They have to be recognized as
role—playing on an exaggerated level so as to
understand and accept their satirical nature and
their parody of reality. The films are in the
nature of a Punch and Judy show where some

ghastlyotruths are perceived behind the ‘funny’
screaming and violence.

The “scratch ’n sniff”[...]

Few filmmakers (Ken Russell springs to mind,
although he may not welcome the comparison)
can polarize critics andin Baltimore
in laundromats and bars to attract the type of
audience expected to be most appreciative. For
anyone who always has found a Sunday School
vision of life to be impossibly blinkered and
unrealistic, and who is drawn to black humor, a
first encounter with a Waters film could be the
artistic bombshell awaited all one’s life. (The
author confesses that Female Trouble is the only
comedy ever to cause him to fall off his seat with
laughter. This reveals as much about the author
as the film.)

ad taste in Waters’ films does not rest

solely on displays of filthy deeds and

outrageous acts. More importantly

Waters focuses on characters and

types totally ignored or repressed by
mainstream[...]ugly, criminals, perverts, the mentally
retarded and the just plain nasty populate the
films in a milieu of derelict dwellings, old cars,
run-down shopping areas and various, illegal
businesses.

The twist is that Waters celebrates their lives
by making them funny, even endearing. Social
deviants are not perceived generally as having
lives to be tolerated (let alone depicted as fulfill-
ing or entertaining), which accounts for[...]ers’ films by the comfortably-
off middle class as sick trash, and perhaps the
rejection by others as not radical enough.

Fifty years ago, Tod Browning’s daring
revelation in Freaks that freaks were human
beings resulted in the film being banned in many
parts of the world as bad taste. Waters’ films,
with more scurrilous intentions than Freaks, are
in a similar position.

Waters’ films grow from a recognition that
popular taste and social movements do not
speak for everyone. He writes in Shock Value of
his feeling of alienation and bewilderment at
‘flower power’ in the 1960s; he could not wait
for punk and the ‘hate generation’, so he began
to lampoon hippies and glorify violence in his
films.

Successful exploitation depends on taking a
popular or controversial subject and pushing it
beyond the shock threshold. Thus, in a world
shocked by the Manson family’s exploits,[...]about mass murder. When

campaigns for ecology and conservation reach
popular levels of community awareness, he has
Peggy in Desperate Living deliver an anti-nature
diatribe, expressing her wish for all forests to be
turned into housing estates.

The liberating humor lies not in the expecta-
tion that we believe this is Waters’ message but
in the recognition that there might be alternative
points of view to ‘normal, right-thinking’.

The most interesting chapter of Shock Value
is ‘‘All My Trials” in which Waters describes his
long—standing hobby of attending all the most
celebrated criminal trials in America. Appar-
ently, this is a minor cult for the initiated, with
on-the-spot fa[...]press deplores
these trial fans, describing them as ghouls.
Waters regards these court proceedings as the
best entertainment in the country. Typically, the
worst in the daily parade of atrocities is reported
in the bad taste gutter press. Cases such as that
of the child murderer Freddie Goode make
Waters’ own concoctions seem pale.

Waters has the intelligence to realize that “to
understand bad taste, one must have good
taste”. To make films that are simply revolting
or disgusting is hardly creative, so Waters pokes
fun at the standards of good taste by flying the
flag for their opposite. If his films are popular
with middle—class youth and the protest genera-
tion it is because they recognize that the
vigorous trampling on middle—class sensibilities
and ideals represents a more honest, if anarchic,
artistic protest than running away to live in a
commune.

However, the films are not nihilistic. The
characters are achievers, usually of catharsis or
notoriety, but achievers nevertheless. It is the
American dream turned upside down for the
socially undesirable to triumph. In addition, the
characters are making, to borrow the title of a

Ken Jacobs film, “Little stabs of happiness”.
Divine fulfils her dreams in Pink Flamingos and

Female Trouble, and in Polyester goes through
purgatory to eventually find normal family-life.

espite his boast that his work has no
redeeming social value, Waters is
coming across as some sort of humani-
tarian, and one who at least examines
the freakish, hidden and ignored side
of American society and decides he likes it. He
does not sneer at kitsch decor, tacky costumes
and beehive hairdos, he marvels at them. If he
really wanted to make nasty, worthless films

John Waters

then he would be in the Friday the 13th market.

The recent multitude of teenagers and
women-in—peril films too often fall back on sim-
plistic insanity or revenge formulae to explain
the apparently motiveless butchery of colorless
characters. Waters’ dabblings in similar areas
(Multiple Maniacs, Female Trouble) have at
least created a setting and extravagantly bizarre
characters to mirror 21 world whose boundaries
are those of a very real trash culture: game
shows, pulp literature, kitsch, domestic violence
and the lure of the underworld with its illusion
ofindependence and liberation. If his characters
achieve a transcendence of hell on earth, then
some understanding of the human condition is
apparent.

It is the independent, home—made quality of
Waters’ films as much as their extreme content
that distinguish them from mainstream
attempts at black humor. It is possible to
imagine, say, The Producers as a Waters film
with Divine in the Zero Mostel role or even a
John Waters’ Life of Brian.

Waters’ next step after Polyester — finding
that wider audience —— may be a difficult one.
The soap—opera parody of Polyester is a fruitful
direction to take (it is more interesting than a
safe and weak spoof like Young Doctors in
Love) but whether Waters could work within the
system, even for two films as Russ Meyer
managed to do, is debatable. Better perhaps that
he documents America, its violence and absurd-
ity, in his own way. He may never create a
picture of suburban loneliness as refined and

desperate as The Honeymoon Killers, but he
certainly will have a lot of fun trying. ‘Ir

Filmography

1964 Hag in a Black Leather Jacket 8mm, black and white,
17 mins.
1966 Roman Candles 8mm (three con[...], 40
l'1'11l'lS.
1968 Eat Your Makeup 16mm, black and white, 45 mins.
1969 Mondo Trasho 16mm, black and white, 95 mins.
1970 Multiple Maniacs 16mm, black and white, 90 mins.
1972 Pink Flamingos 16mm and 35mm, 93 mins.
1974 Female Trouble 16mm and 35mm, 92 mins.
1977 Desperate Living 16mm and 35mm, 90 mins.
1981 Polyester 35mm, 86 mins.

Queen Carlotta (Edith Massey) in Desperate Living.

.- '5 ’

DINEMA PAPER[...]

Ned Tanen, MCA vice-president‘

In the early developing days of the industry, the
federal and state governments were the major
investors in Australian films. Their financial support
led to a considerable industry infrastructure. In
effect, this has meant a “good return” from the
federal government’s point of view, according to the
Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (and
the film industry), Tom McVeigh, who opened the
recent seminar, “Financing Australian Films”. He
cited spin-offs such as employment, balance of pay-
ments and the “enhanced image of Australia
overseas”.

The turning point in government support and its
major commitment was the Income Tax Assessmen[...]its highly significant
tax support or relief for Australian films. Since then,
more than 50 feature films have been made. This
upsurge represents a “clear demonstration” of
federal government support, continuing “in tandem
with growing private sector support”.

What follows is a virtually verbatim summary of
this seminar on the guidelines for the investment,
taxation and funding of Australia’s film industry,
held by the Australian Film Commission as part of
its “professional development” program, this time
in conjunction with the Institute of Chartered
Accountants (Victorian Branch) and the Australian
Society of Accountants (Victorian Division), in
Melbourne on December 2, 1982. The program’s
general aim is to increasingly involve the private
business sector in the intricacies of the industry, and
to demystify these at the same time; and to increase
contact between the professions and the industry.
The second to fourth sessions are planned to be made
available in transcript (in some cases in a more tech-
nical form than actually delivered on the day) by the
AFC and the ICA.2

The lawyers3 and the accountants are moving in.
The financial nuts and bolts are becoming just as
important as artistic aspirations, though we are not
at the stage where the deal has become the art-form,
where, as some erroneously believe, tax is the be-all
and end-all.

Insight from a Practising

Producer

Speaker: Jill Robb

Filmmaking is hardly a matter of just putting pen
to paper in some Bohemian garret; from initial con-
cept to release print it is a complicated, protracted,
industrial process with an overriding “paramount
need” for professional accounting services, accord-
ing to film and television producer Jill Robb. The

1. Variety[...]l. 294, No. 1 (February 7, 1979),
p. 41.

2. Note that the volume of papers, etc., labelled Financing
Australian Films [Australian Film Commission, Sydney,
1982] is in fact a collation of some papers from a
previous AFC legal seminar in Sydney. See footnote 3.

3. See for instance The Law of Film and Television Pro-
duction [AFC, Sydney, and Leo Cussen Institute for
Continuing Legal Education, Melbourne, 1982], a mish-
mash of nonetheless useful material, which[...]nscripts of some papers delivered at the
previous Sydney presentation of this legal seminar. See
also Dani[...]es”,
Cinema Papers, No. 38 (June 1982), pp. 213 and 281, for
an all-too—brief account of this Sydney presentation.

22 — March CINEMA PAPERS

role of the specialized production accountant in par-
ticular (as opposed to, say, the more normal
company accountant) is “very important and
senior”. Daily and weekly financial reports, especi-
ally in the midst of actual production, are absolutely
essential, so it should go without saying that fully
qualified accountants.are also essential these days.

The case history of R[...]er Locke Elliott’s 1963 novel of
the same name, is instructive as are the figures dis-
closed.

The production process, from start to finish, can
last up to seven years (as was the case with Bruce
Beresford’s Breaker Morant). In the case of Careful,
He Might Hear You, it was two years. This period is
broken down below into seven separate stages,
though these can and do overlap. First, the establish-
ment of the concept, acquisition of rights and the
first-draft script stage. One has to work out what the
project is all about (in an absolutely crystal-clear
manner, it should be added), perhaps acquire film or
television rights to a novel or a play, work out a
schedule of deadlines and probably apply for script
or project development moneys from the govern-
ment film bodies. It is possible to pay anything from
$500 to $20,000 for rights. Already some $50,000
may have been spent.

Then, once the first-draft script is ready, inevit-
ably everyone begins to have second thoughts about
it. One may apply for provisional Australian
certification on this basis if one also has a firm idea
of the above-the—line personnel. As the second-draft
script gets under way, a preliminary budget may be
framed and key personnel provisionally signed — a
difficult situation in that their ultimate employment
is entirely predicated on factors in the future. In the
current economic situation pre-sales may also be
attempted, locally and overseas, and, similarly, a dis-
tribution guarantee obtained; the lawyers and the
accountants start to get into the act. There may be
more government money forthcoming; indeed, Robb
is insistent that such funding is “absolutely crucial”
for this pre-production stage. Perhaps another
$50,000 has been spent, making a total of $100,000.
And one year has passed.

The third stage can be called colloquially “coming
to the crunch" (not Robb’s term): finalizing the
prospectus and the various contracts and, most
important, getting one’s hands on the cold hard
cash. Robb says that at this stage she may even bring
in a part-time accountant to help keep her financial
house in order.

The fourth stage is actual pre-production. Need-
less to say this stage is crucial and, if too short, can
lead to major problems later on, or fatal compromise
in the final product. It takes about 12 to 14 weeks,
and perhaps another $700,000, making a total of
$800,000.

As for stages five, six and seven, briefly: the pro-
duction or actual shooting period in the case of
Careful, He Might Hear You was nine weeks, and
cost about $1.5 million (total so far $2.3 million).
The post-production stage took four months and
another $700,000 (making a grand total of $3
million). Robb recommends test runs at this stage if
possible, as is done in the U.S. Finally comes
flogging thefilm (again, not her term) in which there
is an involvement for many years to come. “You
never really stop” were her parting words.

Putting tau in the Picture

Joseph Skrzynski

Part of the AFC[...]development
of this professional infrastructure (not to be con-
fused with McVeigh’s industrial infrastructure); the

FINANCING AUSTRALIAN FILMS

AFC is more than just a sponsor of tax concessions.

Australia has a significant history of indigenous
filmmaking that dates back as far as the late 18905.
For some time, the local product was more popular
than the imported product, but it was killed by the
introduction of sound and by overseas interests
pushing their own, more polished wares. Any
significant local activity was sustained by the intro-
duction of television in late 1956, with the legislative
insistence on “Australian content”, at first just in
commercials (to be 100 per cent locally made), and
then later, to considerable effect, in drama. In 1969,
the maverick prime minister, John Gorton, decided
that once again Australia should have its own film
industry, as it did in the silent film era, and accord-
ingly set up the Australian Film Development
Corporation; the AFDC became the AFC in 1973.
Various state governments followed suit sho[...]m body procedures.

Phase Two, from the mid-1970s to the present
day, saw the production of approximately 150
feature films, in what Joseph Skrzynski, the general
manager of the AFC, characterized as a “very Aus-
tralian” manner: i.e., on low budgets and fuelled
more by enthusiasm than anything else. It was a
“tremendously cost-effective” period and there were
some great successes and some resounding flops. The
role of the government film bodies was nonetheless
not a strictly commercial one — i.e., to assess every-
thing in cold hard profit and loss terms —— but,
rather, to develop the industry further, and to
“balance between talent and experience”. As new
methods of film financing were also devised in this
second phase, the government film bodies also
demystified the procedures for professional people,
up to the present day.

The current view of the AFC is that as long as
there is private money available for production, its
role should be more developmental. This is definitely
an area of high risk and wastage: only about one in
10 projects that get into development actually go
further on into[...]is considerable
attrition rate, actual production is still big business,
running into tens of millions of dollars each year;
and, if one includes television, into the hundreds of
millions.

There are now, Skrzynski concludes, “signifi-
cant” opportunities for lawyers, accountants, etc.,
in this now “sophisticated” business. There has been
a “complete revolution in the Australian image
abroad” as a direct result of Australian film, tele-
vision, and music penetration especially into the U.S.
“The conditions are right, the doors are wide-open
for Australian product . . .”

The present situation is not just one of generous
tax breaks, but of a “whole business venture”, of
involvement with film from its inception to its distri-
bution. (Nor perhaps is it a question anymore of
Australianness winning through.) Normal business
practices and dealings apply: the industry is no
longer “haphazard” but highly regulated. Accord-
ingly, hard-headed deci[...]films” must be every-
body’s primary concern; and potential investors
must see that film people are not Hollywood
fantasies incarnate but responsible individuals.

Haw pick

John Morris

High budget means high risk (and, of course, vice
versa). Until recently, there wa[...]. The Income Tax Assessment
Amendment Act of 1981 and, in particular, its

Division l0BA were meant to increase the odds for
success, but John Morris, the managing director of
the South Australian Film Corporation, believes
there will always be a need for some sort of leverage
or subsidy. An indigenous film industry is a “Good
Thing” (to use Sellar and Yeatman’s term) in
promoting Australia’s image abroad (McVeigh and
Skrzynski’s line again) and in defining an Australian
on the home turf.

Well, how do you increase the odds of successful
investment in the first place? How do you distinguish
between George Miller’s The Man From Snowy
River and the majority of unsuccessful Australian
features? Morris concedes that it is like buying a
lottery ticket, but certain factors — especially, the
track record, the credits and the financial back-
ground of the above-the-line people in particular —
should be borne in mind as ways of minimizing the
risks. Under the present tax arrangements, if one is
in the top 60 per cent bracket, there is a “very good
chance”, if one chooses sensibly,[...]ne’s investment, within one or two
years. Above that is the high-risk region, the big
gamble; below that, the gamble on unknowns. One
may well have a P. T. Barnum instinct and be able to
pick out the original Mad Max (George Miller) from
the dross, but that is unlikely.

There are other pertinent questions one should ask
before making a financial commitment. How long
does it take for the money to come back? With films,
it is hard to say, but, with television, perhaps 50 per
cent within one year, and another 25 per cent within
two. If the film is successful (most aren’t), will the
investor get his share, or will it be siphoned off?
Again, it is a matter of track record, in particular the
producer’s financial track record rather than his
press book of rave reviews. Exactly how much from
the producer’s previous films was returned to the
investors? How often, over what period, and on
what budgets, did these films make their returns?

With regard to budgets, note that not every item of
film production is available for tax deduction. The
SAFC has been able to achieve approximately 96 per
cent deductibility; Morris regards 92 per cent as
“reasonable”. He also notes that the “watering
down” of the much mooted 150 pe[...]rite-
off can be “quite marked” (one presumes that the
producer has already provided a statement of
guarantee of Australian certification).

Another safeguard is the method and frequency of
previous investment reports. Has the producer
looked after his investors in the past? The SAFC
releases reports at least once a month during produc-
tion and post-production periods, and, during subse-
quent marketing, every time there is a significant
sale, certainly never less often than once every two
months. The producer, not the director, bears the
“prime responsibility” for this as for everything else.

Another area to scrutinize carefully is the pro-
posed marketing plan and its time span. Often the
quick sale may not necessarily be the best sale; it may
even be advisable to retain the film for anything
from six to 24 months. How much can be expected
from each territory? International marketing possi-
bilities must be explored. The Australian film
industry no longer can afford to be “so parochial
(especially as in Ken Hannam’s Sunday Too Far
Away) that it is not understandable overseas”. By
what process is the money returned? Who actually
gets what? And, a critical question, what moneys are
available to market the film? Examine any agent’s
track record as well, comparing what he has achieved
in the past against what he is claiming to do in the
future. Marketing fees may well come out before
investors’ returns. The investor needs to be well-
informed beforehand on all manner of suc[...]William Marshall

Basically, three groups are involved behind the
scenes in the determination of who owns what or, in
other words, the copyright in “cinematographic
films”: the originator of the concept or author, the

entrepreneur or producer, and the latter’s investors
(with perhaps a finance broker as intermediary). In
order to obtain the much vaunted Division IOBA 150
per cen[...]investors must be first
owners of the copyright; but the copyright in a film,
unless otherwise agreed, belongs to the producer of
the film (see Copyright Act 1968-1976 S984).4

Therefore, it is essential that the type of invest-
ment structure used achieves this result. There is no
reason why the producer cannot share in the first
copyright but it is unusual for an author. Copyright
is created usually upon the completion of the answer
print.

Some considerations to bear in mind when invest-
ing in a film are: “Limitation of liability”; income
tax consid[...]form of structure; the number of people involved (Is
it more than 20? If so, this may be an offence
(S36 Companies (Victoria) Code); the source of
financing; and the place of activity. These considera-
tions can lead to “a variety of structures”: for
example, the sole producer (the simplest case); an
ordinary proprietary limited company (Marshall
sa[...]em under any circumstances”
because the company is the only person who can
claim the 150 per cent, not its shareholders); trusts,
whether unit or family[...]eful about using any form of trust; the IOBA does
not allow for them”); partnerships, whether simple
or limited, available in Queensland, Tasmania and
Western Australia but can be difficult and expensive,
(of Section 51(1) fame or notoriety); and finally what
Marshall calls the “acquisition of a share in first
copyright as tenants in common” (which also raises a
host of problems in a “very complex area of law”).5

Investment str[...]other major
problem has been controls over offers to the public,
especially the requirements for prospectuses, not-
withstanding previous and various disclaimers.
Penalties are $20,000 or five years in gaol or both.
New South Wales, in particular, has been very strict
recently. Such assiduity can “lead to a nightmare”
and represents a “big, big spoke in the Australian
film industry”, in Marshall’s opinion. Three months
can be spent, as well as between $15,000 and
$20,000, in complying with these requirements.
Eventually, a simple standard form of documenta-
tion will be worked out; there may be limited
relief in due course under an exemption procedure,
and government film bodies may become trustees of
projects. (Almost as Marshall spoke, the AFC
became the trustee of producer Ross Matthew and
director Ken Cameron’s proposed contemporary
co[...]fieaeuntiag‘ at

lnesteaz

Penelope Carl

An accounting package is essential for the pro-
ducer (picking up Robb’s theme), according to
Penelope Carl, managing director of Moneypenny
Services Pty Ltd, Sydney, and recently The Aus-
tralian—Veuve-Cliquot Busines[...]r specialized computer program has
been developed to function on a daily, weekly or
monthly basis, in terms of reporting against the pro-
duction budget and the cash flow. It also leaves a
marvellous audit trail. Such frequency is vital for the
volume and detail involved. As a measure of the
amount of information involved or, rather, coped
with in terms of paperwork, the recent production of

Phar Lap involved some 1500 separate entries a
week, ranging in cost from 50 cents to $50,000.
Needless to say, the package-cum-program must be

4. For a simplified legal explanation, see William T.
Marshall, “Copyright”, in Peter Beilby and Ross
Lansell (eds), Australian Motion Picture Yearbook
1983, 4 Seasons Publicati[...]ining further references.

5. See The Law of Film and Television Production
seminar, particularly Sessi[...]trained for film
accounting.

The first question that a film accountant must ask
is: on whose behalf is the information being pre-
pared? The producer or[...]the investor or broker? Obviously the person who is
most closely involved requires the most detail for the
control of day-to-day activity and immediate
exploitation of the information, while the latter
person just needs a broad overview.

The budget must be “realistic and therefore pessi-
mistic”. There are several important areas to look
for, such as the contingency (10 per cent of the pro-
duction budget) and the completion guarantee (six
per cent); the latter protection must be there.

As for above-the-line costs, the budget must
reflect the contracts, and exchange rate fluctuations
must be borne in mind with overseas contracts.
Below-the-line, cast and crew are covered by various
Actors’ Equity and Australian Theatrical and
Amusement Employees Association agreements and
minimums. Insurances, such as Film Producer’s
Indemnity or Cast Insurance and film negative
cover, are essential. In cases where marketing is
budgeted, a beneficence to look out for is the 70 per
cent export incentives allowance!’

Some further points to note are that there must be
no “robbing Peter to pay Paul” through the shoot (a
“dangerous situation”, according to Carl), watching
the use of underages for overages, and no buy—back
estimations until the cash is in hand. All major varia-
tions in cost, both over and under, require explana-
tion: it is just as bad to be under-budget as over-
budget; all the money should be up on the screen.
Finally, a matter of etiquette: Carl prefers to work
through a producer to an investor, even though the
latter may have originally hired her: “It’s very much
a team effort, anyway.”

Managing lattes!-mien!

Euan Pizzey

According to Euan Pizzey, a partner in the inter-
national accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, “the
name of the game is a data-based accounting
system”, a “computerized film reporting package”
based on the AFC’s pro forma set of accounts
— an “excellent system of schedules to work
within” — as well as its guidelines for the produc-
tion chart of accounts and report formats. “Once
you have established the data base, you can finesse
reports in any number of ways with the computer”,
whether[...]ors’ reports” or the
usually “more frequent and detailed management
reporting requirements” (the former is an “auto-
matic by-product” of the latter). The[...]y’s paper pro-
vides all the technical minutiae as well as various
specific examples):

Investors ’ Information
Reports

It is very important to keep investors onside, to
make them “feel part of the action”. If they are dis-
appointed with their first involvement in films, then
they probably won’t participate a second time. If
they are satisfied, however, a “ready-made invest-
ment bank” has been established. In more formal
terms,

“As good business philosophy, a producer who
intends to produce more than one film in his life-
time should nurture his investors and communi-
cate informatively and regularly to them, in order
that he has their continued confidence and loyalty
which, in turn, will result in their continued finan-
cial support for his future productions.”

Regular investor reports should include a brief
progress report from the accountant or accountants

6. For a concise summary, see Michael S. Roseby, “Export
Incentives”, in Beilby and Lansell (eds), Australian
Motion Picture Yearbook 1983, pp. 276-78.[...]

for the production, a set of equally brief short-form
accounts (including, for example, the summarized
project balance sheet and production cost report),
plus some producer’s “hype” (not Pizzey’s term).
The point of this, preferably monthly, exercise is that
the investors “can feel some comfort that things are
being controlled properly”.

The reporting of expenditure variances and net
project expenditure variance to budget is a control
feature for investors, particularly when compared
with the contingency allowance and the balance sheet
which shows the gross investment loss amount
expended.

Auditing Requirements

There is obviously a need for an audit for various
people such as the Minister for Home Affairs and
Environment, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxa-
tion, government film bodies (if they are financially
involved), the manager or managers for the private
investors and the investors. As for the objectives of
the audit, the AFC has guidelines in this respect.
Pizzey notes that it is a “verification audit”, which
“essentially attests that the investors’ money has
been properly expended, as reported in the financial
statements, and in accordance with the budget”, not
a “systems-based audit”, which involves an

“appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the

internal controls, checks and procedures, which,

in turn, establishes the degree of reliance on the
accounting reports generated and the degree of
protection the system provides over the assets of
the enterprise”.
Pizzey adds that “possibly films that do run into
these problems — it may be that the systems aren’t
adequate”. He also agrees with Carl that a computer
system provides “excellent detail” for the compli-
cated audit trail and documentation.

Claiming Taxation
Deductions

As far as investors’ claims for tax deductions (pro-
ducers’ claims are another, more complicated,
matter, though, again, the former is derived from the
latter), Pizzey believes that investors should be pro-
vided with pro forma claim sheets to be inserted in
their personal taxation returns at the end of the
finan[...]nvestors should be
made aware of the identifiable and probable in-
eligible expenditure, and its effect on their tax
claims. They also should be provided with automatic
pro forma letters of objection to their personal
assessments: “Only if you have properly covered
yourself can you go back and have a go at the Com-
missioner for the lot.” Finally, ineligible expenditure
may still be claimed, pursuant to Section l24 ZAO
(“Limitation on deductibility o[...]per
cent deduction.

The procedures for producers are a little more
complicated in that they revolve around Section 124
ZAF (“Deduction[...]on the basis of various information,
ranging from a list of all investors down to details of
various pre-production cost funding, t[...]sionally, allowable eligible
expenditure, subject to final accounting. The final
allowance is determined on the basis of more various
information, ranging from a copy of the final
certificate (as a “qualifying Australian film”) right
down to the catch-all of any other relevant docu-
mentation. The figures may go up; they may go
down.

Receipts and Disbursements

of Revenue

Though the film may be finished, as Robb noted
previously, the producer’s work is definitely not.
Hopefully, the money is coming in, at least in dribs
and drabs, if not surges, for the next 10 years. A
system has to be devised to cope with it all, one that’s
“economical”, “organized” and “functioning prop-
erly”. Someone has to operate that system, whether
manager, managers or management c[...]March CINEMA PAPERS

Taxation Incentives for
the Australian Film
Industry

From the Joint Statement by the Treasurer, John
Howard, and the Minister for Home Affairs and
Environment, Tom McVeigh, Canberra, January
13, 1983.‘

Modifications to the Present Tax
Incentive Scheme

. . . deductions [equal to 150 per cent of the invest-
ment] will be available in the year in which amounts
are expended by an investor by way of contribution
towards the production of a qualifying Australian
film subject to:

O the film being completed and the copyright
interest being used for income prod[...]n two years after the close of the
financial year in which contributions were first
made;

a production agreement securing all funds neces-
sa[...]n entered into
by the close of the financial year in which contri-
butions are first made;

moneys contributed towards the production
being held in an appropriate non-interest bearing
account and . . . being applied only in the pro-
duction of the film, those moneys being required
to have been contributed before the production
costs are incurred . . .

System of Formal Declarations

Under this system an appropriate person (normally
the producer) will be required to lodge with the
Commissioner of Taxation within one month after
the close of the financial year in which moneys are
first expended by the investor by way of contribu-

this, one needs an investors’ register, operating in
conjunction with a management agreement as well as
a bank account or accounts. Yet again, the value and
cost-effectiveness of computerizing the whole ope[...]nnot be overestimated.

Obviously, if all of this is any guide, “There is
going to be more of an interface between the creative
element and the financial element”.

Finance and L e

Ennsitleratinns

Joseph Skrzynski

Initially, a lot of expenses are incurred by the pro-
ducer just in setting up his production. In broad
terms, he may spend, say, two years as well as
$100,000 to $250,000 just to get his project to the
stage where he can offer it to investors; this consider-
able figure may also include a possible $100,000, say,
for the so-called “pay or play” items whereby big-
selling names (whether in front of the camera or
behind it —— more so the former) cannot otherwise be
attached to the project for investment consideration.

As for the big problem — sources of finance —
these are diverse (to say the least), but obviously fall
under two major heads: government and private.
Until fairly recently, some 60 per cent[...]overnment sources, some 20 per cent
from the film and television industry and the other
20 per cent from “angels” (original[...]of theatrical fare). There has been
something of a turnaround lately as a direct result of
Division 10BA, in that some 95 per cent of film
money is now direct private equity investment
(together with s[...]he other five per
cent coming from the government and the industry.
Equity is “the most popular whilst there is a tax con-

tion to the production of a film a declaration con-

taining:

O a statement to the effect that: a production
agreement has been executed in relation to the
making of the film; the production agreement
secures the funds required for the making of the
film in accordance with the budget prepared for
the film; an appropriate non-interest bearing
account has been opened and that all funds
contributed by investors towards the co[...]lm have been, or will be,
deposited directly into that account . . .;
an undertaking that funds expended by investors
by way of contribution to the production of the
film will be applied only to that purpose — a
summary of the budget of the film identifying
those amounts to be expended in the production
of the film will be required — and will not be
invested or made available for use or otherwise
used so that the taxpayer or the filmmaker or any
persons asso[...]tain the benefit
from such funds before the funds are expended
in the production of the film;
an undertaking that if funds, or some part of
such funds expended by investors by way of con-
tribution to the cost of producing the film are not
required to be expended in the production of the
film, the filmmaker will forthwith upon becom-
ing aware that such funds are not required:

notify the Commissioner of Taxation of such
fact and pay to the Commissioner 90 per cent
of such funds (69 per cent in the case of a cor-
porate investor); and
pay to the investor the balance of such funds;
and
an undertaking to notify the Commissioner
immediately in the event that it becomes
apparent that the film will not be completed in
the two year period . . .

cession”, though loans, pre-sales and deferments
also figure (for details, see below).

Note, by the way, that there is no bar against
internal gearing or leverage in the sense of bringing a
loan concept together with equity financing (as
opposed to other recent schemes of ill-repute such as
a round robin with pre-sales), provided that it is a
full-recourse loan (as opposed to a non-recourse one)
and provided that all of the investor’s money is fully
“at risk” (the key phrase). This is a common enough
business practice elsewhere.

Furthermore, the cash does not have to be all up-
front at the outset: there can be a cash flow. For
instance, Careful, He Might Hear You operated
initially on a down payment of about 10 per cent,
balanced by a letter of credit for the other 90 per
cent. “There are many more sophisticated ways of
financing a film than just putting cash right up the
front”, concludes Skrzynski.

There are three other major sources of finance
besides equity:

0 Loans against collateral — either in the form
of investors’ commitment (secured by letter of
credit) or a firm contract for sale together with,
say, the completion guarantee (a “safe lending
position”) — are an uncommon film finance
tool in Australia. There are no “full-risk
lenders for film in Australia”, says Skrzynski.

0 Pre-sales, however, are an “increasingly
important tool”, and can take three forms: a
cash contribution during production, which is
typical of television rather than feature films
and corporations such as Home Box Office in
the U.S.; the “more typical” cash on delivery
(“Provided you deliver a film in line with this
script, and you’ve spent not less than the
budget, and you’re using those people — then I
will pay ‘X’ on delivery”); or a “guarantee of
minimum return” (say, $2 million after 18
months of marketing).

0 Deferments are also an important form of
financing —— essentially a “negative form” —
and were in fact a major feature of the Austra-
lian film industry before the introduction of
Division IOBA, and latterly in such films as

Richard Mason’s production of Far East
(indeed, the idea harks back to the “Holly-
wood on the Thames” era of Sir Alexander
Korda).

Brief mention, at least in this particular instance,
should also be made of the potential scope for the
underwriting of Australian films, particularly in view
of the previously-mentioned “enormous risk” finan-
cially that the producer makes at the outset, and the
need to apportion that risk. So far, “there is nobody
currently in business in Australia, that we are aware
of, who has actually done a full, commercially
realistic underwriting deal rather than a ‘best
endeavours’ deal”, because there is no secondary
market to fall back on, as with, say, the more con-
ventional underwriting of debenture issues or
government loans. But, Skrzynski anticipates,
explaining the possibility in some detail, ‘‘If the
underwriting market does develop in Australia, it
will be on the basis of pre-sold fi[...]em all may well be
actually raising the money for a film; but, presuming
all goes well, there must also be certain precautions
or safeguards attached to all that money, namely, the
previously—mentioned contingency, for production
budget overruns, and the completion guarantee, a
specialized form of insurance. Note that, if there is
any significant departure from the production plan
that the completion guarantors guaranteed, they may
well not pay for the costs involved in such a
departure. In other words, the insurance only covers
the “overage” (the additional costs of the original
plan) and does not cover “enhancements” (depar-
tures from the o[...]so
be made for emergency finance at the end, such as a
stand-by letter of credit or a loan facility; in any
case, there should be flexibility in documentation, to
allow for unforeseen and untoward events.

Skrzynski rightly says that it is “quite wrong to
look at the film as a production investment oppor-
tunity to get a tax deduction”, ignoring the “concept
of a total business venture”. He also recommends
that no less than five to 10 per cent of the production
budget should be al[...]uity
or by loans, with the additional observation that
nothing must be stinted or cut-rate. The producer
should not be expected to drag his finished film
around the world on a bus ticket: “He has to go first-
class if you want a first-class result, quite frankly.”

On the rel[...]of the film must be the claimant; this
regulation is a “bit of a stuff-up”, what with the
some 250 separate investors—owners in The Man
from Snowy River, but hopefully such problems will
be satisfactorily re[...]rants Board shortly.

The final matter of concern is Division 10BA
itself, not to be confused with either the still extant
old Divi[...]tellectual Properties” 22-year write-
off. Note that eligibility for certification as a qualify-
ing Australian film comes in two stages: provisional
and final. There must be no “slippage in the details”
between the two.7

, / / / r I ' I[...],. ,,
I V -/ 7/ / i v V .’ - , 1’
Iflifil A 3% 5 £5

1. ,, . . , 2, , ., z /. 2 ’ ' 7

, ,[...]Z /. _. , 7, , V 7/
/ ’ /' V ' / '3 75'’ '1 - a
l E; 3 It ‘ / ’ ./
it A ,, ; , / . . ,. 4

John Harvey

Division IOBA (“Australian films”) of the Income
Tax Assessment Amendment Act 1981 (No. 111),
according to John Harvey, a partner in another large
accounting firm, Price Waterhouse,[...]ns of 150 per cent for direct capital
expenditure and possibly another 50 per cent of net

7. See Greg Bright, “No happy returns for Captain Invinc-
ible”, Australian Financial Review, No. 5531 (Decem-
ber I3, 1982), pp. 1 and 4.

New Guidelines for
Certification of Qualifying
Australian Films

From “Explanatory Notes to Assist Applicants for
Certification of Qualifying Australian Films”,
released by the Minister for Home Affairs and

Environment, Tom McVeigh, Canberra, January
23, 1983:

The objective of the taxation incentives is to encour-
age the development of an economically viable Aus-
tralian film production[...]establishes Minis-
terial discretion with respect to certification to
ensure the spirit of the incentives can be flexibly
applied and abuses minimized . . .

The development of a truly Australian film industry
depends on the retention of creative control by
exclusively Australian production entities, and the
utilization of a high degree of Australian creative
sources. While it may be necessary or desirable to
draw on foreign services or elements from time to
time, all non-Australian elements or services should
be identified and assessed in terms of their impact on
the film concerned. The inclusion of such elements
should not result in the film appearing to be within a
foreign rather than an Australian cultural tradition

“Significant Australian Content”

The determination of “significant Australian
content" is a matter of judgement by the Minister
based on consideration of all the elements of a
particular project. Where there are non-Australian
elements in a particular section, the applicant should
provide justification for these elements and it is
expected that there would be reliance on strong Aus-
tralian elements in other sections.

(i) The Subject Matter (S.124ZAD(a))

The overall concept of a film, including the
characters and events portrayed therein can be
expected not to be alien to the Australian multi-
cultural experience. Documentary programs
dealing with non-Australian subjects and to be
filmed overseas should demonstrate that an Aus-
tralian perspective will be evident in the film and
could be expected to be based on Australian
scripts.
A drama work could be expected to be based on an
Australian source. Any non-Australian services
should be identified and the impact of those services
should be assessed. Where the source is non-Austra-
lian the scriptwriters would be expected to be Aus-
tralian and the subject matter should be demon-
strated to be in accordance with the above criteria.
“Australianized” versions of foreign scripts would
not normally be acceptable.

(ii) Location (S.124ZAD(b))

Where overseas location shooting is required by
the script, other production elements should be
carried out in Australia.

income, is “by any measure, very generous”; indeed,
the Australian Taxation Office regards it “as incom-
parable by comparison to other areas of investment
in Australian industry”. On a 60 per cent tax rate,
one needs to recover only 10 per cent not to be out of
pocket (on the 46 per cent tax rate, 31 per cent; and
on the lowest 30 per cent rate, 55 per cent to break
even). This 10 per cent loss is, none the less, a “real
loss”. Also, the gap between the time of investment
and the time of return must not be discounted.

For details of the ITAA, refer to Sydney solicitor
Andrew Martin’s “Tax” and to his “very useful”
“Summary of Film Tax Legislation”3 (bearing in
mind the legislative improvements officially fore-
shadowed by Treasurer John Howard and the
relevant Minister Tom McVeigh on January 13,[...]50 per cent deduc-
tion at the time of investment and the two years after
that tax year for completion of production). Particu-[...]m Subdivision B — “Deductions for capital

8. In Beilby and Lansell (eds), Australian Motion Picture
Yearbook 1983, pp. 269-70 and pp. 271-73 respectively.

There are some further references on p. 273.

(iii) Film-Makers (S.124ZAD(c)(i))
The character of a film is the result of the origin of
the property and the inputs by all persons involved
in the making of the film. The key roles in the
development of a script and the production of a
film should therefore be normally undertaken by
A[...]e of non—Australians must be
closely identified and explained in terms of their
impact on the Australian content of the film. In
particular, the producer and director would
normally be expected to be Australian. The writer

and principal actors also would be expected to be
Australian, unless special circumstances warrant
otherwise.[...]wnership of the entity would
normally be expected to be exclusively Australian.

(v) Owners of the Copyright in the Film
(S.l24ZAD(c)(iii))
Since the beneficial owners of the copyright in the
film may often be in a position to exercise ultimate
control over the film they should normally be

Australians. Non—Australian owners of the copy-
right must be clearly identified together with

details of their rights, particularly in relation to
creative control.

(vi) Source of Finance (S.124Z[...]elated financiers loan or
otherwise advance funds to investors or pro-
ducers, then some elements of c[...]olved. Any film industry—related financiers
who are non-Australian must therefore be identi-
fied and their rights, conditional or otherwise,
clearly detailed, particularly where there are other
foreign elements in the film. Special allowance
may be made for non-Australian suppliers of
completion guarantees.

(vii) Production Expenditure
Production and post—production would normally
be expected to be undertaken in Australia. Non-
Australian suppliers of facilities and services

should be clearly identified.

The statement of expenditure should be
sufficiently detailed to identify all payments to
non-Australians regardless of where settlement is
made.

(viii) Other Matters

This will largely depend on whether there are any
areas requiring further investigation. For
example, in some cases details of non-Australian
distribution agreements may be required, while in
other cases details of agreements with non-Austra-
lian directors and/or actors, especially with
respect to script and other creative approvals, may
be most relevant.

expenditure”), which are supplemented by a number

of anti-abuse sections:

0 the investor must be a resident of Australia at the
time of the investment (otherwise it can be done
through an Australian vehicle such as an Austra-
lian resident company or trust);

0 he must be one of the first owners of the copy-
right in the film;

0 there must be provisional certification as a
“qualifying Australianto
“exhibit” the film; and finally

0 the investment must be expended “directly” in
producing the film.

Harvey makes the point that the 150 per cent
deduction is rarely that, because of ineligible non-
capital expenditure, but more likely 146 per cent or
some such figure. It applies only to capital — not
revenue — expenditure. (The investment may be in
the film’s production account, but not necessarily
expended directly on production costs.)

What constitutes eligible capital expenditure? In
most cases, above- and below-the-line production

Concluded on p.[...]

An interview
with director

Ian Pringle

The Plains[...]of the Jury Prize at the
Mannheim Film Festival, is the new feature of director Ian
Pringle. Here he talks with Mark Stiles.

“The Plains of Heaven” has a
tremendous feel for landscape. Is
that something that has always
interested you?

It is not a conscious decision to
look for a particular landscape. It
is more an interest in setting the
characters in motion and then
finding the right environment for
them to pass through.

With “The Plains of Heaven”, did
you imagine the location you
wanted, and then find it at Falls
Creek?

First, I thought of the satellite
station and of the two men, Barker
(Richard Moir) and Cunningham
(Reg Evans). By the nature of the
story, they had to be in an isolated
environment, but it could have
been the desert or the Antarctic.[...]ations would
have been difficult.

Before I could take the script too
far, I had to know whether what I
wanted was a feasible place for
filming. I knew about the Bogong
High Plains in Victoria and that it
would be possible to film there.

It is a tantalizing idea, shooting in
the Antarctic . . .

Yes, being locked in for six
months. But if you overshoot you
are in trouble!

People talk about the use of land-
scape in “The Man from Snowy
River” but there it seems more
decorative, like a painting on a
suburban wall. You seem to be
interested in the tension between
people and landscape. Are you

influenced by directors such as
John Ford?

I am not sure how much you are
influenced by films that affect you.

Certainly you never forget a film
like Fo1_'d’s The Searchers: it stays
there, like a good piece of music,

and rises up at unpredictable
moments.

The idea of the satellite station in
the wilderness is appealing — the
contrast between this super-high-

tech outpost of mankind and the
empty landscape . . .

I wish I could have brought that
out more visually; for instance,
when I was working on the script, I
saw the interior of the console
room as being much larger.

In defining this contrast, you also
make it hard for[...]ly
having people express things
through dialogue. What dialogue
you use is not important, even
when some very subtle things
happen. Why is that?

The things that are unsaid
interest me more than the things
that are.

It is a hard balance to achieve,
because a scene either works
totally or it doesn’t. In Wronsky,
there are moments when it doesn’t
work.

It is difficult to explain. I think
of a situation and what should be
going on, looking for the things
that are important. I then try to
highlight them.

I don’t think of myself as a
writer, I am just someone who puts
the idea down: that is the only way
I have ever approached it. I don’t
think I am a very good writer, but I

know that my ideas are strong
enough .to make films about.

What do you see “The Plains of
Heaven” being about?

To me, the most important thing
is the relationship between the two
guys, Barker and Cunningham.
The situation is critical: two com-
plete opposites in an isolated situa-
tion, playing off each other.

I wondered if there wasn’t also an
inner and an outer journey in the
film. Your other films are journey
films . . .

There are lots of things working,
and that is one of them. But
Barker can never come to under-
stand them in an intellectual way.
He is more instinctive.

The central axis of the emotions
of the film is that only when some-
thing has gone do you often realize
how important it was to you. All
the other things in the film work
around and complement that.

So it is not the men themselves
against the environment that is the
primary thing, but their relation-
ship . . .

It has to be. That is where the
energy and the focus lie. You get
to know the type of people they are
through what they do. It was a
matter of using devices or vehicles
as exposition to get this across
visually: Barker with his console;
Cunningham going outside.

But the film is about many other

things as well. It is about satellites
and their importance. They are
becoming more a part of the way
we are. It is also about television
and how it has changed our society
— particularly American tele-
vision. The impact has been just
phenomenal, and so pervasive.

It is funny, though, because I
have mixed feelings abou[...]tching
gridiron. Yet, at the same time, I
can see what is happening. As
[collaborator] Doug Ling says, he
can remember our society when it
was very English, just 20 years
ago. Now, we are like another state
of the U.S.

Then, there is the other aspect
about the landscape, the environ-
ment. It is the nature of civilization
to expand and take over the land-
scape. It will always be the same; it
is a constant process.

[Pause] Oh, it is an impossible
question to answer: what is your
film about? It sends me into a mild
state of neurosis, just to work out
where to start.

Have you always been interested in
films?

I have always liked films and,
since I was about 15, always
wanted to make them. At that
time, it was an impossible thing to
want to do. There was very little
being done here; television was the
only way of being involved in film,
and television is the pits. I worked
at Channel 2 for a couple of years
and it was like working in a

Cunningham (Reg Evans) out ferreting in the high plains region of North-East Victoria. Th[...]. So I saved all the money I
could, went overseas and travelled
for a while.

You don’t have a film school back-
ground . . .

No, and I don’t think that is a
bad thing. You can learn all you
need to know about writing and
directing just from watching films
and the experience that comes
from working on shorts — from
getting out there and doing some-
thing.

Actors

One of the actors in “The Plains of
Heaven” is Richard Moir, who I
thought gave a better performance
than he did in “Heatwave” . . .

Richard is certainly one of the
best actors in Australia, but I don’t
think he has yet done something
that is worthy of his talents ——
though he is tremendous in In
Search of Anna and The Depart-
ment [ABC tele-play].

Richard is someone who doesn’t
need a lot of direction; if you give
him latitude, he will work the part
out for himself. He just needs to be
guided. At times I told him specific
things I wanted him to do, but that
is my job. It is then a matter of
how much you trust actors to give
you what you want.

The actors must have trusted

y[...]

They were fairly committed to
the project, for different reasons.
Reg Evans liked what Cunningham
was about, and I think Richard
had a bit of sympathy for poor old
Barker.

Reg became very involved with
what he was required to do. For
instance, I had intended to have
someone show him how to use the
ferret equipment, but he did it
himself. It was great.

It is an interesting situation —
giving actors what they need or
giving them too much. With each
actor you have to work out the in-
between ground from the start. I
look for certain qualities in an
actor to begin with, so, if I cast
them, it is because I think they are
right. Reg was very much like that:
he just had the right body for
Cunningham — an interesting
body, very muscular.

Did Moir bring specific things to
the part?

There is a lot there that is
Richard’s. He constantly made
suggestions. There are several
shots in the film that were his idea
— one very important one is where
he is sitting on the rock towards
the end.

One thing Richard was able to
feel intuitively was that in the
second half of the film, when
Barker leaves the station and goes
to the city, there was not much to
be said. That is very hard for an

28 — March CINEMA PAPERS

actor to accept. When we headed
off to Melbourne to do most of
those scenes, I think he began to
realize what he was in for.

I now understand more how
much actors can carry a film. I try
to write parts so they are accessible
to whoever reads for them. But it is
only once you start filming that
you become aware of what is going
to happen or what is expected of
them.

Initially. I wanted the character
of Lenko (Gerard Kennedy) to be
more of a Denholm Elliott type, a
blustering sort of person. But it
wasn’t possible to get who I
wanted. So I had to change Lenko
into a more stoic, officious com-

pany person who was a little sad
around the edges.

Low-budget
Filmmaking

How long was the shoot?

Four weeks. That was basically
determined by our budget. We
were s[...]e been the lowest
budget of the films at the 1982
Australian Film Awards . .

I would be surprised if it
weren’t. The money we had to pay
was around $100,000. Including

deferrals and a $20,000 marketing
loan, the true budget is $160,000.

It is still very low . . .

We actually shot the film on the
$60,000 that came from the Aus-
tralian Film Commission [Creative
Development Branch]. It was only
because of the type of crew we
had, and because we had done our
homework, that we were able to do
it. But, even given that, we still had
a lot of problems. For example, I
had been shooting for a week
before the set was built and I had
to shoot around things. Even the
satellite dish still wasn’t up.

It was tight, but it all came
together in the end.

Do you have an ideal crew size in
mind?

No. I think it is dictated by the
production. I don’t think you
should stick to a number and say,
“That’s my ideal crew”, and
forget about everything else.