UNDER THE RADAR

Australia, 2004, 95 minutes, Colour.
Nathan Philips, Clayton Watson, Steady Eddie, Chloe Maxwell, Robert Menzies, Syd Brisbane.
Directed by Evan Clarry.

Under the Radar is a mixture of thriller and comedy – a kind of lowest common denominator Aussie flick. It focuses on a surfer who works in a home for the mentally impaired and takes two patients out – with all kinds of bizarre results including robbery and violence. The film is tongue-in-cheek with its irony.

The film was directed by Evan Clarry who made a rather similar kind of surfing lowest common denominator feature, Blurred (2003).

The main reason for seeing this film is seeing Nathan Philips. In 2005 he made a big impact in Wolf Creek. However, he had done some time in Neighbours, had appeared in the award-winning Australian Rules as well as the films Takeaway and One Perfect Day as well as the amusing Australian Dumb and Dumber film, You and Your Stupid Mate. These led to an international contract and his appearing with Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane.

1.Australian comedy? Thriller? Combination? Quality – or lack?

2.The Australian countryside, beauty, the setting, the musical score?

3.The title and the references?

4.The tone: Adrian, his running, his being caught, the two thugs? Ched, the torture? His heart attack and dying?

5.The flashbacks, the institution, Adrian, his friend? Brandon and his life? Maxine and the interview? Brandon and his attitudes towards his job?

6.Brandon, the car, the incident, negligence – and his sentence? His doing social work?

7.The trip, Jo, the pickup?

8.The detour, seeing the number of the vehicle, the effect? Running?

9.Brandon, his being caught, the attack?

10.The criminals, the drugs, murderous, the deaths?

11.Mario and co, the plan, Jo, the violence, her boyfriend?

12.The plan, the fire, saving the diary?

13.The happy ending?

RUSSIAN DOLL

Australia, 2000, 90 minutes, Colour.
Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Rebecca Frith, Sacha Horler, Helen Dallymore, Natasha Novak.
Directed by Stavros Kazantzidis.

Russian Doll could be described as an ethnic romantic comedy. Set in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, it focuses on Jewish characters and uses Temple Emmanuel in Woollahra as its synagogue setting. It seems quite authentic. However, the central character is played by Hugo Weaving who describes himself as a Catholic atheist.

Hugo Weaving is a private detective, is asked by his best friend (David Wenham) to take in a Russian immigrant whom he is having an affair with. The reluctant Weaving does so, gradually falls in love – and we have one of these offbeat romances. Natasha Novak is the vigorous Russian immigrant. Rebecca Frith is the injured wife – who is more aware of what is going on than her husband thinks.

The cast is very strong, Hugo Weaving has won many Australian Film Institute awards (Proof, The Interview, Little Fish) and has starred in a range of international films including the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Matrix trilogy and V for Vendetta. David Wenham has also won awards (Gettin' Square) and has appeared in a number of international films including Van Helsing as well as Lord of the Rings.

The film was written and directed by Stavros Kazantzidis. Born in Cyprus, he moved to Australia and wrote a number of screenplays and directed films: True Love and Chaos and Horseplay. He and co-writer Alison Zitserman won the Australian Film Institute best screenplay award in 2000.

Nothing particularly new – but done with some verve.

1.An ethnic romantic comedy? The Australian flavour? The Sydney flavour? The international tone – especially with Russia?

2.The Sydney locations, the streets, homes and cafes, ordinary, attractive? The musical score and its Russian tones?

3.Australians and Russians – differences in temperament, behaviour, traditions? Some demonstrative, some not? Russian immigrants in Australia? And the ending with Harvey visiting Russia?

4.Religious themes: the Jewish them, Ethan and Miriam, the strict celebration of prayer at meals, visiting temple, the role of the rabbi, Jewish morality? Harvey and his Catholic background? Calling himself a Catholic atheist? His high sense of responsibility, high expectations, feelings of guilt?

5.The device of having Harvey talking to his therapist throughout the film, the explanations, the self-analysis? Sometimes astute, sometimes not?

6.Harvey and his ambitions to write? Getting experience by going into surveillance, detective work, his taking photos, the range of clients? Max Davenport and Eve? The news and the murder, its effect? The comments of Miriam and Ethan?

7.Harvey and Alison, their relationship, his being in love, her going to her exams, his surveillance job, finding that he was photographing Alison, his being upset? Her leaving him? The later meeting at the shop and her cavalier attitude? He left bewildered and grieving?

8.Ethan and Miriam, their love for each other, their daughter? The meals, talk? Miriam in control? Wanting to fix everything up? Fixing up Harvey for girlfriends, the awkwardness and comedy of the meal with Phaedra? Eve and the information?

9.Katia and her arrival, her finding her contact dead, her sadness? Her ringing Ethan? The relationship? The development into an affair? His promises to her? Her exuberance? Ethan’s infatuation, the lies, confiding in Harvey and drying up? Harvey’s reaction, judgments?

10.The plan, Katia to move in? Her being loud, smoking? The fights with Harvey? Harvey as nervous, trying to do his writing? The wedding plans? The visit to the rabbi and Miriam organising everything? The Russians? The meeting with Liza? Her friendship with Katia? Her advances on Harvey? Katia and taking her out to dinner? The effect on Harvey? The coffee? The sexual encounter?
And the explanations to Ethan? The angst? The wedding dress? The wedding – and Katia running?

11.The aftermath, Harvey and the success of his novel, the irony of Miriam knowing and having hired a private eye? The bar mitzvah celebration? Ethan getting over his affair, reconciling with Miriam?

12.Harvey, going to Russia, the two years’ search, finding Katia, the happy ending?

13.The title, the Russian dolls, the dolls within dolls – and appearances and reality?

MONSTER’S BALL

US, 2001, 112 minutes, Colour.
Billy Bob Thornton, Halle Berry, Heath Ledger, Peter Boyle, Mos Def.
Directed by Marc Forster.

Monster’s Ball was a surprise dramatic, critical and award-winning success in 2001. Halle Berry won the Oscar for best actress.

Marc Forster is a Swiss director who has worked mainly in the United States and in England. He made a film in 1995, Loungers, and then a small-budget film about pregnancy with Radha Mitchell, Everything Put Together. After Monster’s Ball he again had critical and award-winning success with his story of J.M. Barrie, Finding Neverland. His supernatural thriller Stay, was rather less successful.

This is a prison film. It focuses on several generations of men who acted as prison wardens. Peter Boyle is the older generation, a bigoted old man, racist in his attitudes, harsh and macho. Billy Bob Thornton, the central focus of the film, is the next generation – a good man, but tired, looking after his father and exasperated with him, impatient with his son. Heath Ledger is the younger generation, following in the family footsteps, but not comfortable with the work in the prison – and ultimately, killing himself.

Halle Berry is the wife of a condemned prisoner. She meets Billy Bob Thornton at the café where she works and there is an attraction leading to an affair. She becomes somewhat disillusioned when she discovers who Billy Bob Thornton really is. However, in her desperation, she stays with him, even after the accidental death of her rather obese young child.

The racist plot is also a subtext of the film, not only with Halle Berry, but with the neighbours to the warden family and the old man’s prejudice as well as the kindness of the young man.

All in all, a strong but grim drama, straightforward and frank in its representation of capital punishment, of violence, of verbal abuse, sexual relationships.

1.The impact of the film? Not a studio production? Independence and assertion by the director for his vision? Acclaim and awards?

2.The perspective of a Swiss-born director? His attitude towards the United States, capital punishment, relationships, racism?

3.The authenticity of the locations, the family house, the town itself, the streets, the café? The atmosphere of the prison, the cells? The musical score?

4.The range of issues and how they were treated: prison and imprisonment, the death penalty, executions, family generations, marriage, grief, children, sexuality, suicide?

5.The death penalty and the stance of the film, the preparation for the execution, the attitudes and behaviour of the staff, the role of the chaplain, the immediate preparation of the prisoner, the rehearsal, Sonny and his making a mistake? The execution, Sonny and the accident? Hank and his work, dedication? Sonny and his work, his not wanting to be there? The memories of his mother? His relationship with his father? His reaction to his father’s taunts? The visit of the prostitute? His killing himself? The theme of death, execution, suicide? Sadness and tragedy?

6.The title, the prison references, prisoners, the execution? The stances of staff and authorities?

7.The prisoner, whether he had committed a crime or not? The sketches? His relating to Hank and to Sonny? The drawings? The visits of his wife, his son? His getting ready for death, talk, his experience of death?

8.The family, the three generations, the generations of men? Tough, macho and sexist attitudes, the submerging of feelings, the lack of communication? The racism of Buck? The taunts? The ugly Americans? The attitude towards women, the women in the family, the mother, defeated? The father and his inability to change? Sonny and his inability to change – and killing himself? Hank and the possibilities of a different kind of life?

9.The portrait of Hank, going about his routine, the memory of his wife, the relationship with Sonny? The details of home life, meals? Prison? Relationship with the guards? Keeping an eye on his son? Morose, not reflective? His angers with his son? Especially at the execution? The theme of death, his father and his getting old, cantankerous? His going for the ice cream, the enjoyment, the meeting with Leticia? At the diner? The orders for ice cream? The accident to Leticia’s son, helping to get him to hospital, taking her home? The beginning of the relationship?

10.Leticia, her son, his size, hiding the sweets, eating them? Her relationship with her husband? The visits? The sadness? The experience of marriage? Her job, lack of money, the customers? Her being evicted from her home? At home, her reaction to the death? Work at the diner, meeting Hank? With her son, his death? Her grief, Hank helping? The accumulation of grief, her going with Hank, her breaking down emotionally?

11.Hank and Leticia, together, the common bonds, the emotional needs, the sex and the explicit and graphic presentation? How comprehensible was this unusual relationship? Based on needs?

12.Buck, boorish, his attacks, his attitude towards Leticia and her visit, the insults? With the black neighbours? Hank and his decision to put his father in a home? His desperation? Was any other alternative possible?

13.The sketch of Sonny, his life, his work, his friendliness with the neighbours, with the black children? The prostitute? The mistake at the execution? His father’s taunts, the graphic killing himself?

14.The sketches, Leticia discovering them, the truth about Hank and his work, the effect?

15.Hank and his decisions, to move out of the prison, the garage? The house, the job, his loneliness? The possibility of sharing and building a new life with Leticia?

28 DAYS LATER

UK, 2002, 114 minutes, Colour.
Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccleston.
Directed by Danny Boyle.

28 Days Later is a blend of science fiction and futuristic speculation. It was written by Alex Garland who wrote the novel, The Beach, filmed by Danny Boyle. Boyle made an impact in British television with a range of telemovies including some of the Inspector Morse series. His breakthrough in films was with Shallow Grave and Trainspotting followed by the very American A Life Less Ordinary and then The Beach. After 28 Days Later he returned to television but also made the delightful children’s religious film, Millions.

The setting is London, an infection has destroyed many of the inhabitants and turned others into zombies. There are very few survivors and they have to make their way to Manchester where they hear a radio broadcast calling people in for safety. However, this refuge is not as it seems.

Cillian Murphy portrays a cycle courier who wakes up in hospital twenty-eight days later and has to discover what has happened to the city. There are powerful scenes as he walks through a deserted London. He meets several survivors and, after some struggles, joins with a father and daughter (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns) to drive to Manchester. Christopher Eggleston portrays the military chief who takes in the refugees – but has plans for using the women for reproductive purposes for a future civilisation. Needless to say, mayhem ensues.

The film uses the tradition of many films, especially those of the Living Dead. It also has echoes of such stories as I Am Legend and The Omega Man where a few survivors remain at the end of the world. However, by giving the film a contemporary setting and filming in an authentic London and the British countryside, it gives the film more impact and seems more realistic even as it uses the horror devices of zombie attacks.

1.The impact of the film as drama, as science fiction, as apocalyptic, as horror and using the conventions of zombie and Living Dead films? A successful combination?

2.The imagination about the future, about infection, plagues and viruses, about animal experimentation, about the consequences for humans? Infection and madness? Violence and destruction? The irony of the city remaining the same, the peace of the countryside – and people transformed?

3.The opening: the animal rights, the activists, the chimps, their being freed? The irony of their being infected with rage? The activists attacked, killed? The unleashing of the virus?

4.The mystery as Jim wakes up, the cycle courier, in hospital, abandoned? His wandering the hospital? The wandering of London, empty London, the familiar landmarks? The rescue by Celina and Mark?

5.Celina, her background, the confrontation with Jim? Saving him? Mark and his character, the explanation of the plague?

6.The plague, infection, the blood, transmission by blood, the rapidity of the victims’ succumbing?

7.Jim and the group going to his parents’ house, discovering his parents, their deaths, the note? The pathos? Mark and his being infected? Celina killing him?

8.Wandering London, Celina and Jim defending themselves? The picture of ordinary citizens transformed into monsters? Behaviour, aggression? Going to the flat after seeing the light, finding Frank, Hannah’s resistance, their getting into the apartment and being saved? The radio broadcasts, Frank and his picking them up? The decision to go to Manchester?

9.The drive through the countryside, the tranquil beauty and green of the countryside contrasting with the city? The group going to safety?

10.Stocking up on food, going to the supermarkets? The danger of infection? The pursuit? At the service station, getting the petrol, Frank and his being attacked, bitten? His wanting to save his daughter? His death?

11.Listening to the broadcasts, going up the highways, the military and their attack? The roadblock? The rescue of Jim, Hannah and Celina? Henry and his role, militaristic, welcoming the group?

12.In the mansion, the squad of soldiers, being made to feel at home, the meals? The soldier in the locked room, his being studied for the effects of the infection, his madness and desperation?

13.The truth about the women, their being attacked by the men, their being used for reproduction? The contrast with Jim, the confrontation, his going away for rescue? His return, the fight?

14.Jim, resilience, courage and ingenuity? Freeing the infected soldier? The other soldiers being infected? The mayhem as they destroyed each other? The attempt to escape, Henry and the truck? His being infected? The havoc? The three leaving – and going to find help?

15.The land, the landscape, the survivors, the search plane – and a hope for the future?

16.The particularly British tone of this film, its using the genre and conventions – and the contrast with the more upfront styles of the equivalent American drama?

THREE FACES WEST

US, 1940, 79 minutes, Black and white.
John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters, Russell Simpson.
Directed by Bernard Vorhaus.

Three Faces West is one of the films made by John Wayne immediately after his breakthrough role in John Ford’s Stagecoach. This film has a contemporary setting – although it moves to the west. It is interesting to see John Wayne out of the 19th century west.

The film focuses on the refugee situation from Hitler’s Europe, opening with a group of doctors who have fled Germany and Austria and who are available for doing medical work in the small towns in Midwest US. Charles Coburn is an expert from Vienna who volunteers and he is accompanied by his daughter, played by Sigrid Gurie. When they go out west, they find themselves in the dust bowl and immediately want to return. However, like all good doctor films, the screenplay has the kindly doctor looking after a child and becoming involved with the townspeople, despite his daughter wanting to return.

John Wayne is the leader of the farmers in the dust bowl, trying to find ways of irrigating the dust bowl as the topsoil blows away. Eventually, they are defeated and have to move west to Oregon where there is a revolt during the trek and Wayne has to take further charge.

The film was made at the same time as John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath, from John Steinbeck’s novel about the Okies and the migration from the dust bowl to California. The theme was “We, the people” – and this is also the theme of Three Faces West.

The film is slight, more than a touch sentimental, but interesting to see a fit and lean thirty-two-year-old John Wayne in a central role. Charles Coburn is, as usual, very genial.

The film was directed by Englishman Bernard Vorhaus who fell foul of the black list and had to return to England. He was skilful in making a number of B-budget films in England and the United States.

1.A popular story for 1940? An acknowledgment of what was happening in Hitler’s Germany? The plight of the refugees? The focus on troubles in the dust bowl of America and the need for farmers to migrate? Topical in its time – historical interest now?

2.Black and white photography, the western town, the special effects for the dust storms, for the rain? The trek through the Rockies to Oregon? The musical score?

3.The beginning: the doctors on-stage, the explanation of their plight, refugees in the United States, the radio broadcast and the volunteers for the American towns? Dr Braun and his speech, his daughter’s support? The telegram from John Philips? The trip in the train?

4.The dust storm, the special effects to show how drastic the storm was? The dust covering everything? The station, the roads, the cars? Dust inside the house? The quarters for the doctor and his daughter? John and Nunk, the vet, living upstairs? Lenchen and her wanting to return immediately? The initial appeal of the woman with her son and her wanting him to walk again?

5.Dr Braun, the initial visits to those stricken with the flu, Lenchen’s exhaustion? His attention to Nunk and Nunk’s collaboration after criticism? Settling in?

6.Lenchen, her background, devotion to her father? Wanting to leave? The appeal by John? Her father’s change of heart? Her having to stay? Making good in the town? Going to the church, the minister and his praise of the doctor? The people’s interest and support? Her being resigned to staying? Her admiration for John, falling in love with him? The background of her previous fiancé and his disappearance, their gratitude for his help in their escape? Her being resigned to staying, the proposal, the planned marriage?

7.Dr Braun, the operation, the success with the boy? Nunk and Dr Braun? and their work?

8.The farmers, the meetings, the attempts at irrigation, John Philips explaining the Department of Agriculture plans? His going to the city, his plans being turned down? The hope for the rain? The experience of the rain? The decision that they must leave, Philips drinking, going to Oregon? The meeting, the discussions? Those in revolt – and their criticisms of the doctor?

9.The trek to Oregon, the convoy of cars? The criticising group, their going off, taking the food, squabbles? John and his leaving the group? The appeal for him to come back, the car pursuit, the crash?

10.Dr Braun and his decision to go? The news from San Francisco, Erik’s arrival? The doctor and Lenchen going to meet Erik, the discovery that he was a Nazi, their disgust? The return to John and to Oregon?

11.The farmers, the hopes for settling in Oregon? The film’s comment on the agricultural disasters in the dust bowl of the 30s?

BANDOLERO

US, 1968, 105 minutes, Colour.
James Stewart, Dean Martin, Raquel Welch, George Kennedy, Andrew Prine, Will Geer, Clint Ritchie, Denver Pyle.
Directed by Andrew V. Mc Laglen.

Bandolero is yet another western made by Andrew V. Mc Laglan. He made many westerns in the 60's and the 70s, often with James Stewart or John Wayne. Examples are Mc Lintock , The Rare Breed, Shenandoah, Chisum, Cahill.

Bandolero is quite a standard material material but enhanced by beautiful colour photography, a sprightly score by Jerry Goldsmith and the clash dramatically between James Stewart and Dean Martin as two brothers. Raquel Welch provides the glamour. Many of the standard western themes are presented and it is quite enjoyable average western entertainment.


1.A popular western of the 60s? Routine themes? Treatment? The stars and their impact?

2.The settings, the Texas towns, the deserts, the Mexican border, Mexico? The colour photography? Jerry Fielding’s atmospheric score, the whistling, the melodies?

3.The title, the reference to bandit country in Mexico? The fugitives, the posse, the pursuing bandits? The culmination in the attack of the bandits?

4.The focus on the Bishop gang, Dee (and Dean Martin’s credibility in this role)? Pop Chaney and his son? Babe, Robbie? Their arriving in town observed by the sheriff? The robbing of the bank, the Stoners entering, the upset, the shooting, Stoner’s death? The sheriff arresting them all? Imprisoning them? Sending for the hangman?

5.The establishing of the character of Dee Bishop, riding with Quantrell, leaving home, his grief for his mother? Riding with robbers? The other members of the gang, Pop and his leering attitude, greedy? His son and his devotion to him, his son’s personality, aggressive? Robbie as genial Irish? Babe and his going along with the group?

6.Mace Bishop, riding into town, the bath, the news about the hanging? His listening to the hangman? His following him, taking over his clothes and role? Coming into town, meeting the sheriff, persuasive? The frockcoat and top hat? The plan to rescue Dee and the others? The gallows, the gun, the town unarmed? The escape? His decision to rob the bank because it was there?

7.July Johnson, his personality, integrity? Roscoe as the apprentice? His looking after him? Their work together? July Johnson and his attraction towards Maria Stoner, the visit to the hotel? The motivation and the pursuit?

8.The flight, the fugitives? Cantankerous? Their overtaking Maria Stoner, abducting her, taking her supplies? The leering attitudes and Dee’s stance against them? Mace’s arrival? His not telling them about the money?

9.The sheriff, the pursuit, the shoot-outs? Mace and his shooting from the top of the ridge and helping the group escape? The decision to pursue into Mexico, the sheriff’s determination for Maria? Roscoe’s warning? The bandits pursuing, taking and killing the tailenders? The members wanting to go back? The surprise taking of the posse in the deserted town?

10.Mace, Dee and their being tied up? The decisions by the sheriff? His courtesy towards Maria? Her rejection of him?

11.Maria, the treatment by Dee, Mace as gentlemanly? Dee and his love for Maria? His being shot defending her against the bandit leader? His death? Her grief? Mace and his support?

12.The attack of the bandits, everybody joining in the defence? Pop and his trying to get the money, his death? His son following him? Mace and his being wounded? The memories of family with his brother, two sides, issues of legality, justice? The issue of robbing the bank, giving the money back? His support of Maria?

13.The finale, Roscoe dead, the sheriff taking Maria back? A future?

SWEPT AWAY

UK, 2002, 89 minutes, Colour.
Madonna, Bruce Greenwood, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Beattie, Jean Tripplehorn, David Thornton, Jorgo Voyagis, Adriano Giannini.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.

Swept Away is a remake of the Lina Wertmuller film of the 1970s, Swept Away By An Unusual Fate Of Destiny. The original film starred Giancarlo Giannini and his role is taken this time by his son, Adriano. (The older Giannini performance is much stronger and more impressive than that of his son.) Mariangela Milato took the role of the rich woman who was stranded with a sailor on a Mediterranean island. This time the woman is played by Madonna.

The screenplay was written and the film directed by Guy Ritchie, Madonna’s husband. He had also directed her in a number of music videos. Madonna has a screen presence but in this film she is very harsh, lacking in any warmth so that the transition from arrogant rich woman to slave of the sailor and falling in love with him is not credible. The supporting cast has little to do and does not make much impact at all.

The film was made in Italy, has exotic locations, but is rather tedious to watch. It becomes rather absurd when there are some imaginative interludes in the mind of the sailor where Madonna has the opportunity to sing songs like ‘Come On a-My House’.

Guy Ritchie came to fame with his gangster films Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. Swept Away was critically mauled and got very little release. The mauling continued with his imaginative gangster drama, Revolver (2005).

1.Audience interest in seeing Madonna? Directed by her husband?

2.The film as a remake? The classic status of the original? The director and stars? The plot? The social and class issues? The emotional struggle? Master and slave? Romance?

3.The traditions of people stranded on islands: Robinson Crusoe, the Swiss Family Robinson, The Admirable Crichton? How did this influence this film?

4.The setting of the scene: Amber and her husband, arriving, the friends? The boat? The captain and the crew? The Mediterranean cruise? The rich on holidays? The crew seen as servants?

5.Amber, Madonna’s screen presence, severity, arrogance? Attitude towards her husband? Her friends? Making demands on the captain? On Peppe? Her seeming to pick on him? The criticisms? The voyage, her behaviour, criticism of the meals, making people do her will? The criticisms of Peppe? Her going on the boat, her being stranded with him?

6.Tony, his relationship with his wife, her criticisms of him? His fulfilling her wishes? His concern when she was lost?

7.The other characters, Debi, Todd, Marina? The chatter at the table? The idle rich?

8.The trip, the accident, no petrol? Drifting? The flare gun and the struggle, the waste of the flare? The rescue boat not seeing them? Their drifting?

9.The island, Peppe and his character, Mediterranean, arrogant in himself, his imagining throwing Amber overboard? His discussions with the captain and the crew about her? On the island, her response? His making the rules, being master, making her a slave? His relaxing, swimming, getting the fish? The time passing? The bond between the two, master and slave, sadomasochistic? His love for her, her falling in love, the passionate scenes together?

10.Amber, her character, her arrogance, her wilfulness on the island, being made a slave, her needs, food and thirst, her subservience? Watching Peppe? Falling in love with him or not? The passion?

11.The rescue? The repercussions for both? Peppe and his being in love, buying the ring? Amber and her return to her friends, the family, the message for Peppe?

12.The finale, the ring, her sending it back to him, his spending the money she gave him on the ring? His tossing it in the air, its sinking into the ocean?

13.Audience interest in the plot, the characters, the themes? The social themes, the criticism of the wealthy? Class struggles?

NADIA TASS






You began work in the theatre and still direct many plays.

Communicating the message of a work is the reason why I choose to do comedy. I grew up in the theatre. Coming from overseas, coming from Europe to Australia, the thing that I experienced most profoundly was that in Europe theatre was very much for the populace.

I went straight into primary school here. I liked reading poetry and reading plays and picking out little excerpts from Chekhov which, as a 10-year-old, were really important to me. I grew up with them. And it was very strange to find people in the school not really responding to this at all. Obviously it's not strange now but, as a 10-year-old, I found it strange because we were used to theatre being very much a part of people's lives - something that the people made, entertaining and communicating some sort of message during the course of the play. And doing Chekhov as a 10-year-old was fun!

For a long time I think I kept theatre and literature for myself and my family (but at school I became a follower of the Collingwood Football Club, wagging school, going to buy fish and chips and Coke...). Then I continued with theatre through my Pram Factory days and, when my mother owned the Playbox, I found that I was getting right back into or being consumed by a type of theatre that was part of the so-called elite. And that just doesn't suit me. It was the main reason why I decided to move into film. I felt that through film I could communicate with and entertain the populace and, by myself, put a stop to this highbrow, `I'm going to the the-ayter', concept!

You established the Melbourne Film Studio.

At the Melbourne Film Studio we have a lot of people, several Australian producers who are operating out of that space. It's a really good space to be in because we tend to support each other. If one person goes out into the corridor to get a cup of coffee, there are usually quite a few people who will come out. Someone might need coffee but others are being supportive or congratulating. I'm finding the celebration of other people's work is something that actually takes place there.

Of course, there's a degree of healthy competitiveness as well, but a collaborating with other people is something that I had always wanted in creating this studio. I saw it operating with Robert de Niro's company and I would like to do that here. I saw situations or places like this as a young child in Europe as well, mainly within the theatre. So I was thrilled to actually make buckets of money in America, bring it all back here and create the Melbourne Film Studio.

Are you disappointed in Australian audiences and the way they support Australian films?

Well, you can't really force people to go when they don't want to go. What we can do is highlight the good things about certain films so that audiences can be attracted to go. We are competing against American product - which is very entertaining in its own genre - plus we're competing with major stars that our audiences do want to go and look at. Disappointed? I can't say that I'm disappointed in the audience. I'm disappointed in the situation.

I'll go back to Malcolm and use it as an example. As soon as I finished Malcolm, I showed it to a couple of houses. The regular people really, really loved it. A lot of people from the industry came out and said, `Oh, you'll have to recut it' or, `You'll have to do this' or, `You'll have do that'. I think I had the worst review ever from one of the Sydney critics. So I decided that I wasn't going to release Malcolm here until I took it overseas. For one, I saw that the film worked with a regular audience. Now, what I wanted was normal people coming to the cinema, enjoying the film. It's a very, very special film for me because it's about my brother - and I didn't want that message, which is about special people, to go unnoticed and so I took it overseas.

It had a totally different reaction to what it had here. The distributors loved it so much that they paid a heap of money for it - it cost us $1,000,000 to make it and they were paying very close to that just for America. And this was for a limited release so that, in fact, after a time we negotiated a second fee. It was quite astounding.

The critiques were just brilliant. There was one that was bad, and that was from the New York Post, on the grounds of morality, the fact that Malcolm and Frank had robbed a bank and got away with it. This critic felt that this was immoral. But he didn't really talk about the actual production in terms of production qualities.

Now, it had the stamp of approval from overseas, from Japan and from England. It screened at the London Film Festival. The Projectionists, a small group of special people, when they feel that a film in the Festival deserves their recognition, they give it the Golden Sprocket Award. For seven years before that no film had received one, and they gave it to Malcolm - which I was thrilled about. Now, it was only after that sort of recognition that we released Malcolm here. If I had released it at the time that I showed it to the two different full houses that were orchestrated, both from the industry and outside the industry, I feel that Malcolm, would have really not worked, would have died, because we really do cringe at our own product. So there is a major problem. How do we overcome this?

My confidence comes from the fact that I grew up with this sense, that when something works for me on the screen or on the stage, I know that it works in the area that I expect it to work. There's nobody who can tell me that comedy and tragedy can't be put together, because my forefathers told me otherwise and they've proved that over the generations.

I've seen Aristophenes done by peasants in a Greek village.

Australian films tend to be offbeat. They're more challenging than formula films but a lot of people don't want to be challenged, they want to be entertained.

Yes. If they're offbeat, if they're quirky and they're entertaining, if they genuinely are entertaining, I don't think they need to be supported. I think they need to be reviewed for what they are. If they are entertaining, then I think it's important to communicate that to an audience, so that the audiences knows that they are going to be entertained when they go.

My cousins, who are not in film or theatre, they're very normal people, for them to leave the comfort of their homes and go to the cinema, they expect to see something that they're going to be - they use the phrase - `blown away' by.

I'm not saying films have to be comedic in order to entertain. To be really absolutely honest with an audience about what the film achieves is important, so that when the audience comes into the cinema, they have expectations which are real and when they go out, they feel that they have seen what they were told they were going to see and they're satisfied that they have got their money's worth. If we tell them that they're going to be seeing something as powerful as William Shakespeare and it turns out to be Louis Nowra - and I adore Louis, I love his work, - then their expectations are different.

Stark?

It is wonderful. So was working with Ben Elton. I really liked the message of saving the world and of conveying the message via comedy. The BBC received many calls. If an audience enjoys Stark, the underlying message comes across and the point is made.

Pure Luck?

Pure Luck was made in 1991 and I can still live off it. I'm still getting cheques. It did fantastic business in America. It's an American film, it's a studio film. It was successful in a financial sense but not in a satisfying sense. It was congenial doing a Martin Short comedy but American comedy is different from Australian comedy. It is broader. American audiences enjoyed Pure Luck, but audiences in other countries did not enjoy it so much with the exception of the Germans. I wanted to do something else with the comedy and so did Danny Glover. I would like to have put a lot more pathos and pain into it. But they wanted a comedy for America.

It was just a `pure fun' comedy?

Yes.

One of the producers of Mr Reliable says you are the best director of comedy in Australia. Would you prefer to be considered a director of broader range of films?

Well, to get the comedy right, you've got to have all the other elements right, and if you haven't got the other elements right, it's not going to work, especially in the type of humour that I have in my films. It's not your regular sort of farce or slapstick. I use, I borrow from those genres at given moments where I stretch and push the concepts to the edge, but I love comedy. I don't mind being called a comedy director. People probably have all these connotations that it's easy to be a comedy director - you make people laugh. That's the hardest thing you can do.

You hit on the quirkiness in Australian experience. It lights up the screen and audiences smile.

People and situations really amuse me. I'm not a funny person. I don't make people laugh by myself - in fact, everybody knows how serious I am - but it's my observation of the human condition and situations that I really love to re create because I see them as so funny, and then I want to share that perception with the rest of the world.

You show how funny ordinary people are, but not in any put down kind of way.

No, I love people. I love people so much. I think there's so much goodness in people around the world. It's not just one place. I travel so much and I love relating to everybody.

Malcolm was your first feature film and you invested a great deal of yourself in it.

Everything. It's my celebration of my relationship with the most special human being in my life, my brother. You see, he could be perceived as such a useless person, shunned on the outskirts of society, but what I'm pleading for people to do is reassess, look at this human being and see this human being's talent and what he can contribute. Let's embrace these people.

There's a simple goodness in him, which Colin Friels portrays again in a different kind of way in Mr Reliable. It's a simplicity, an earnestness. They might be on the fringes but there is still a kind of - naivety is the wrong word - but there's a kind of nice simplicity which is endearing and which you communicate.

Yes. I look at the world we live in today and we are so sophisticated, or we think we have made it sophisticated. Yet if we just peel off those layers of sophistication, what we'll find underneath is that simplicity that we all come out with.

From Malcolm through Rikki and Pete and The Big Steal to Mr Reliable, you're often on the wrong side of the law, so to speak.

Yes, I know. I'm just a constant questioner of authority. It's not so much that I want to be a rebel. No, I don't. But when rules are set, I want to find out why those rules are there. And I think my brother used to do that, too. We both did it together. Why? What was wrong before? Sometimes, as in bureaucracy and in the establishment, we create rules for the sake of simplicity - for the sake of what? More harmonious bureaucratic functioning? Right. But not for people. It's at the expense of the individual. It's at the expense of human nature, and that's where my bane is. And I think, let's not do this. Let's find another way.

The only newspaper in the world that found Malcolm immoral was the New York Post and that man was the only person who said, `This is an immoral film'. Now I understand where that man is coming from, and that's fair enough. He was 70 years of age, but it's not the age, it's just that the man was totally and utterly set in obeying the rules that were set for him in the American states.

He didn't see the funny side of the film?

And couldn't actually see the humanity of it. This is what's sad. I don't mind, but it gave me an insight into how sad some people are. He couldn't see that Malcolm, before he was introduced to this criminal and his girlfriend, was so lonely, so isolated, so unable to communicate. And through his liaison with these two other human beings who were criminals - or one was a criminal and then the other one joined - this man started to blossom internally. What I'm saying is it's because he was rejected that he wasn't able to blossom.

Now, in this situation, we have a criminal befriending him. In the situation where we, as a society. embrace this man, he's going to blossom again.

Have people made comparisons between Malcolm and Forrest Gump?

Yes, they have. Forrest Gump is a story told in the American way. In sentiment I think it's very similar.

Then you moved to Rikki and Pete. They're not quite outside the law but there's a kind of larrikinism there. There's a distinction between larrikin
and hooligan. Hooligans are vicious but larrikins are lovable. Is Rikki and Pete a comedy of Australian larrikins?

Yes, and they were again questioning, questioning authority. But what they were questioning initially was their father. It was through their father that the system was represented very strongly. Rikki says to the father about Pete, `You made him what he is. You're the one that's to blame', because the father was so immovable, not prepared to see Pete as a person who had individual needs, as a person who needed love. That's what the father never gave.

Pete became a radical and destructive. He was a passive-aggressive. He was demonstrating his anger in the most obtuse way because of this inability for him to be angry over so many years toward his father, for not getting what he needed from the father figure.

A significant Australian theme?

It is. But, you know, I believe that if Rikki and Pete had come out first, before Malcolm, it would have been recognised a lot more in Australia than it was. Rikki and Pete was the one that was recognised most in America. The reviews there were glowing - I was so embarrassed - and I think it's because it deals with the middle class platform.

The dysfunctional family?

Yes, which is very, very common in America, and they were able to identify with that so much more than Australians.

What about the nice larrikins in The Big Steal?

Oh, love 'em. I love them.

The two families are quite different. Is it still the middle-class platform?

It's still that pursuit of middle-class values. Claudia Karvan's father actually gets there. He establishes himself as a middle-class person and imposes all these middle-class values on his family. We can juxtapose the purity of Ben Mendelsohn's parents. It's my constant pursuit of finding the purity of the real human being.

The purity of the real human being?

Because when we deal with other cultures and with other social platforms, we're dealing with a lot more sophistication. We have to unravel so many more layers in order to get to the essence of the human being.

Mr Reliable.

Terry Hayes was absolutely brilliant. He gave me a script to read which was written by somebody else and I said, 'Okay, I love the story, I love the concept, the characters. I can see making a movie based on this concept, but it needs to be rewritten', and he said, 'Okay. How do you want it rewritten?' and I said, 'Like this and I want you to rewrite it'. And he said, 'Fine, I'll do it.' He rewrote it and then, basically, he just left it with me. He was one of the producers. I was three weeks into my shooting in Queensland when he arrived and he said, 'This is so different to what I saw, but it's fantastic.'

The original writer is still credited as one of the writers but he was not a writer while I was working on the film. It's because I felt that I could get what I needed from Terry, and if I was going to make the film, I needed to know that the script was going to be what I wanted. Otherwise I wouldn't know how to direct it. Not that he had to give me the stamp of approval, but he was my producer and I guess he
really had to give me some sort of confidence in my work.

There was a story about the promotion of Mr Reliable?

One of the other producers on board was playing with the money via Polygram. Now, that producer was loosely attached to Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Michael Hamlin came on board as well because he is also Polygram and he was the one who responded to the script and said, 'Okay, we'll go into this'. So he is one of the producers, as he was with Priscilla. I saw the trailer for Mr Reliable and it said, 'From the producer of Priscilla'. Now, if an audience hears that on the trailer and they go to see Mr Reliable, they're going to be so damned disappointed, because it's not a Priscilla. It's a film that's made by me. I'm talking about people's emotions, I'm talking about people's pain and pathos and then allowing the audience to laugh, pushing them to laugh at certain moments and then pulling them back into the drama and into the pain of life, whereas Priscilla doesn't do that. Priscilla is a different genre.

So my point is that we, by saying to the audience, by luring the audience into the cinema with the idea that Priscilla worked, made X number of dollars, and that the producer of Priscilla produced this - we're deceiving the audience; we're giving the audience different expectations of what they are going to see in Mr Reliable. It's the morality aspect for me. It's really that I don't want to lose my audience. I want the audience to know exactly what they're coming into to see with my work.

In Mr Reliable we get the sense that writer and director have been upset by the events, the effect on the victims and the stupidity of the bureaucracy. Yet
so much of the film is funny celebrating the genial side of life. But there is some edge with Barry Otto portrayal of the premier, the villain of the
piece, machinating.

Barry plays the Premier, who is Askin. I did a fair bit of research to find out about this character. I couldn't find too much that I liked there. Hence the sort of character that you saw in Barry Otto. I was thrilled with what we arrived at with Barry - and I needed that sort of stand from this political figure in order for the rest of the characters to play against him.

A question about religion. There is almost no religion in your films except for Mr Reliable. At one stage, Colin Friels as Wally Mellish asks Beryl
whether she had got religion and is relieved when she says, `Oh, no, no, I haven't', and yet the clergyman chaplain played a significant role at the
wedding, as a witness and at the end. Is religion significant?

Me? I'm a Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox from my father, and my children are Greek Orthodox. They've both been christened and some years ago we went to church in my village. Every time my children go into the church they say, `We're going to get that wine again, Mummy', and then I explain, `Well, this is what that wine means', and they go, `Oh, but we hate the taste'! So my position with religion? I want my kids to have religion as something they can use when they need it, something to fall back on when they need it.

Perhaps the film shows the Ocker attitude, `Religion we don't need, yet the minister we do'?

Yes. What is in the film is really a reflection on the society that I'm working with and the opinion of the characters in that situation.

One of the major themes of Amy is grief. You say that grief is all-powerful.

It's insidious and immovable to some people and they're the very people who are less likely to seek help.

Rachel Griffith's performance exuded tension even during the scenes when she was happily married.

Yes, because, as a rock and roller's wife, she was always going to have those moments where she questioned how long she was going to last. That's part of the deal really. The fact that her husband was just such a loving person for her and for Amy is almost irrelevant from the individual insecurities that a rock and roller's wife would have. She tells us that "there's only one of me," when that very thing is questioned by the Kym Gyngell character. The reason I felt a need to put that in there was because that is a question that's always in the fore of wives' mind when they know that their husband is so incredibly popular, that there are screaming girls around him all the time. It's inevitable. It's a bit like Mel Gibson wherever he goes, and it takes a really special type of wife to be able to deal with that situation.

So the suddenness of his death made the grief all the more profound?

It makes it incredibly profound because those times that could have been completely and utterly full, she was spending being worried whether was she going to stay there forever.

We are reminded of Malcolm with the suburban street. You certainly create very interesting inner Melbourne suburban streets peopled by
interesting characters

I think it's mainly because I grew up in that type of environment and I find myself incredibly comfortable in bringing back all those characters that were so familiar to me as a child. The wonderful thing about a working-class environment is that as soon as they embrace you as a community or as being a part of the community, it really becomes a support system for when you need them.

Initially they're hostile because that's how it works. To have, as one of the boys says, aliens come into your street - it's not something they're going to be happy about. You can imagine the criticism so many times with someone like the welfare officer coming through in the suit. They look down their noses because it's as if they have to be at the beck and call of everybody in a suit. Well, the question is why should they.

You didn't cover over any of the domestic abuse there. That was very powerful as well.

It's pretty obvious in our society. That was the reason, plus the couple of swear words that are very, very background, that gave us the M+ rating, which doesn't quite make sense to me.

Are we supposed to not show the public or not show children the very thing that they know about? So many children have seen the film now, and they come out and feel relieved - one comment I had was, "I didn't know that it happens to other people."

That character of the little boy who befriends Amy dramatises that.

And that was a tangent that I really wanted to bring into the film because, if we're going to be working on a canvas like the street, we can't avoid it. Not to include it is ludicrous and it's dishonest.

It's a blend of the sadly serious side with the humorously eccentric with the fellows fixing the car, and also the strange character of Ben Mendelssohn's sister.

She clearly had a very big problem. That's exactly what it was meant to be, that blend of different genres, because life is a blend. Life doesn't just go on in just the drama or just the tragedy or just the comedy. It's fascinating to see how much of all these different aspects actually creep into any one of our days and to what degree. Most of the time, what we do is homogenise our stories, because we are at the beck and call of Hollywood, a Hollywood which says if we create a very simple throughline that's linear, then we will be able to appeal to the majority of people out there who will come and see the film. Which means more money. So it becomes the product. I'm not interested in "the product". I'm interested in actually saying something about the world I live in.

Helping people to have the experience?

The experience and then to actually see in Amy, for example, that, because the mother couldn't deal with her problem, the little girl was not able to deal with her problem. That's why she developed elective mutism. If she was able to talk to her mother about her incredible pain inside and the fear that she had, not just fear but the conviction that she herself was responsible for her father's death, it would never have escalated to such magnificent heights or pain.

It was effective that the solution wasn't revealed until towards the end, so that while we had a hunch that something like that had happened, we
weren't actually sure until we saw it.

I think it was necessary to take the audience through the searching before giving them the solution.

The search for Amy and the surrealism of the singing - how have people responded to that?

Usually audiences erupt in applause and exhilaration, it being the favourite scene of the majority of the people who have seen the film. Filmically, the reason I put it in that position, and the reason I wanted that, was to open up the audience even more, to give them relief from the pain that had accumulated inside them, the sadness up until that point, just before I come in with Amy's revelation which means, hopefully, it's going to hurt a lot more.

Screenings I've been at, both in Australia and in New York, have been absolutely amazing. It actually unifies different ends of the world, because it's something we all experience. Whether we like it or not, grief is a part of our living state.

It's interesting that you've moved, say with Malcolm who was more than a bit on the edge of society, and then Amy who puts herself - unwittingly,
I suppose - through the experience on the edge of society, and that you've moved in a sense from the celebration of the comic to the
celebration of the comic but with grief. That was just one of those observations.

Thank you. When you put it that way - I mean, that's absolutely intentional; however, it is bizarre. I understand how quite ridiculous I must seem in some situations because people don't normally talk about things like this.

I thought that Ben Mendelssohn actually made the whole thing credible with the way that he acted, with the way that he sang and listened to her,
and I thought that was one of the great strengths of the film, that you could believe him and so you could respond to Amy through him very well.

That's great, because that's his position in that story. He's a voyeur, he's a facilitator for what the other characters need to actually develop or unfold the story, and one step back is the audience as the voyeur. Now, I've never actually seen Ben better.

I thought he had a deeper humanity about him in this one than you often see in others. I mean, he's very skilful and clever, but I thought he had
some very nice touches in this.

He's a very, very deep, sympathetic human being, but the characters that he usually is given to play or he accepts don't have these layers in them.

No, it's his skill of being cheeky or something like that.

Yes, the larrikin, whereas in actual fact Ben is incredibly intelligent and he's sympathetic and he's got an amazing ability to be empathetic with the outcasts of society, really.

I thought that came through very strongly. The collaboration with David Parker over the years has seemed to strengthen and I was just wondering
if you'd like to comment on how you work with him in the various capacities each of you has.

We still basically work in the same way we started off, which is - he created this idea, the idea of actually telling a story about this condition, and I responded to it very strongly. So then he went off and wrote the script, came back and I looked at it, then we talked a lot about what he had written, and then he went off and started writing again because we need to keep refining the script. This went on for eleven years. So during that period we were trying to find finance. The finance was not easy to come about. People do not want to know about grief, and financiers want to know even less about grief. Financiers also are told by Hollywood that a mixing of genres stylistically on the screen is more than likely not going to give them their money back. So this is why it took such a long time to actually make this film, but in that time David and I had the opportunity really to keep refining and reflecting on the type of society or the canvas we wanted to create. We used it in a positive way and I think the fact that we did take such a long time to find the money has actually helped us in the maturity of the project. We did go back to David's original draft - by that I mean over the years people would say, "Well, what if you simplified it, then we'll give you the money," and our reaction to that was, "Well, how do you think we should simplify it?" One response to that was, "Well, maybe you should take out Tanya's huge breakthrough outside the cafe," which just doesn't make sense to me. It's totally like the guy didn't get it. Another thing was, "Well, maybe you should take out the singing."

Then you've lost the particular characteristic.

Exactly. What are you left with? You've got no reason to tell a story. Then another person said, "Well, take out all the comedy." Okay. Then what we're dealing with is a drama tragedy. Then it doesn't make sense.

No, I think that point we were talking about with the street and all the people and the support after the hostility gives a great quality to the appreciation of the grief.

And also the fact that this little girl - the power of the little girl's purity of spirit and how it can actually change people's lives in a street. By the time she is actually lost, she has created those wonderful relationships, opened up these people's hearts through her singing and they're all out there searching for her.

Even the lady watering...?

Exactly. Doing the absolute unthinkable, which is singing to find her. I mean, how ridiculous is that? In my way of thinking, it's totally ridiculous, yet these people are out there doing it, which is what I'd be doing if that was a condition that a little girl down the street had and she was lost. So it's the very condition that actually both touched people and opened them up as human beings and actually created the musical aspect of the movie.

Making films in the United States?

Just to do a film and then come back home again.

Better experience than for Pure Luck?

I hope so too. I'm taking every necessary precaution to make sure it is. Another thing I realised is it's absolutely not necessary to be aggressive at all about these things; it's just a case of negotiating, which probably is a lesson that comes with maturity anyway. I think I was just hotheaded and young then.


Interviews: 31st May 1996, 31st August 1998, 3rd-4th November 1998

INTERVIEWS WITH AUSTRALIAN DIRECTORS


These interviews were conducted during the 1990s. This means that the films discussed were released up to the time of the interviews. Many of the directors have gone on to longer and even more interesting careers. The taped interviews were all typed by Phyl Coffey - with great thanks.


Davida Allen

Mario Andreacchio

Christina Andreef

Martha Ansara

Ray Argall

Gillian Armstrong

Bill Bennett

Bruce Beresford

James Bogle

Tim Burstall

David Caesar

Frances Calvert

Tahir Cambis

Ken Cameron

Pauline Chan

Santo Cilauro

Tom Cowan

Paul Cox

Jerzy Domaradski

Donald Crombie

John Curran

Rolf de Heer

John Duigan

Peter Duncan

David Elfick

Bob Ellis

Richard Flanagan

Richard Franklin

Yoram Gross

Jon Hewitt

Scott Hicks

John Hillcoat

John Hughes

Tom Jeffrey

Michael Jenkins

Steve Joddrell

Mark Joffe

Lawrence Johnstone

Ana Kokkinos

Chris Kennedy

Craig Lahiff

Samantha Lang

Clara Law

Ray Lawrence

Baz Luhrmann

Brian McKenzie

George Miller

Scott Murray

Chris Noonan

Cherie Nowlan

Phillip Noyce

David Parker

Nick Parsons

Kay Pavlou

Monica Pellizzari

Rachel Perkins

James Ricketson

Craig Rosenberg

John Ruane

Howard Rubie

Fred Schepisi

Roger Scholes

Monique Schwartz

Esben Storm

David Swann

Nadia Tass

John Tatoulis

Michael Thornhill

Sophia Turkewicz

Ann Turner

Stephen Wallace

Simon Wincer

Rowan Woods

Geoffrey Wright

GIRL CLOCK

Australia, 2010, 83 minutes, Colour.
Veronica Neave, Queenie van de Zandt, Catarina Hebbard, Tarah Carey, Sean Dennehy, Steven Tandy, Jamie Dunn, Hari Jago, Adam Couper, Carol Burns.
Directed by Jennifer Ussi.

Many audiences are going to enjoy this film. It is a modestly budgeted film from Queensland with a fine cast who are probably not so well-known outside Brisbane (and that is a pity). It is a film from suburbia with people you might know but not know so well.

Not that the plot is without its problems for audiences to think about, some complex issues of relationships, sexuality and fertility. Not all audiences are going to necessarily agree with some of the attitudes and behaviour. But that is what drama is all about. (An American archbishop once said that he could not write a pastoral letter to the people of his diocese on a bioethical issue without consulting widely and listening to the experiences of people with a range of viewpoints. I watched this film – on principally women’s issues – in this vein.)

Girl Clock (probably more accurately, Middle Aged Woman’s Clock because the clock for pregnancy seems to be ticking faster and louder for the central character, Christine (Veronica Neave)). She is a career woman, a photographer, conscious of the approach of menopause but who feels an overwhelming compulsion to conceive a child. She has no partner. Much of her dilemma throughout the film is how to find one when she does not want and can’t commit to a permanent, let alone temporary, relationship. (Whether it is the writing or the skill of Veronica Neave or both, Christine does give the impression that, despite what she says, deep down she does want some lasting relationship.)

There are some funny episodes in her search for a partner which leads her to an ex-lover (who does not want to be used), a dating site with the expected group of eccentrics, to IVF. The finale is not what the audience is expecting and there is a scene which may/will have us thinking twice – to which another reviewer reminded us of deceased people’s wish to be organ donors and the question of where the limits are.

But, the film is not just about Christine and her ticking biological clock. She has two best friends, much her own age, and we share something of their stories. Mikki (Caterina Hebbard) is a researcher, aged an unwilling 42, whose obsession is her appearance and the feeling that people look through her. There is fine scene where her partner, wordlessly and sensitively, makes a gesture that affirms her as a person, a woman, and enables her to break through the obsession. (The partner, Tom, is played by Adam Couper who co-wrote the screenplay.)

And then there are Margot and Keith who have two adult children. They are the rock of the film, the reassurance to those who cannot commit that years of a happy, contented, marriage are more than possible. Queenie van de Zandt is a wonderful earth mother with a wry sense of humour. Jamie Dunn’s Keith is balding and certainly not thin, a wonderful, common-sensed father with a wryer sense of humour.

While the film is one of female sensibilities (co-written with a man to ensure no male-bashing, produced and directed by a woman who has drawn on her own life experiences), most of the male characters in the film are quite sympathetic.

There are lots of funny moments, lots of sad moments (and a wonderful cameo by Carol Burns as a lonely old woman whose dog Christine has accidentally run over).

The issues are real, especially for women, and an alert for male viewers. As has been said, not everyone will agree with the women’s decisions and the consequences but, because the film is human and humane, their actions ask for humane consideration.

1. The title, the middle-aged woman clock? The biological clock ticking?

2. The Australian perspective, the city of Brisbane, the suburbs, homes, parks and the river? Authentic? The musical score?

3. The characters from suburbia, ordinary, relationships, problems?

4. The introduction to the three central women? Establishing them and their personalities? Christine, from Africa, photographer? Mikki, her relationships, concern about her appearance? Margo and her family? Their talk, friendship, the beauty treatment, Christine smoking, the ease amongst the three?

5. Christine as focus, her age, her past relationships, cleaning the car with Bob, his strict focus on the car, Christine being upset with him? The later meeting with him, his wanting her back, her proposal about the pregnancy, his refusal to be used? The background of her travel to Africa, the photos, anticipating going to Tibet, the offer – and her turning it down? Her photographing children? Her sympathetic boss, his diabetes, the injections and the syringes in her purse? At home, alone, with the other woman, their advice? Running over the dog, the sympathetic talk with the old lady, her loneliness, helping her bury the dog? The overwhelming urge to have a child, its becoming obsessive? Her decisions, Bob refusing her? Her seeing the various men, the phallic symbol at the market, the IVF enquiry, the computer dating service and the eccentric men, their manners, ventriloquist, questionnaires? Going home with the man, his sexual behaviour, his wife turning up? Giving Tony a lift, the encounter in the car, his keeping himself for his wife? Going back to the IVF, meeting Paolo? The decision, neither wanting a commitment?

6. Paolo and the dinner, the possibilities of a future relationship despite their denials, getting ready, Christine in the bathroom, discovering Paolo dead, the effect?

7. Ringing her friends, the dead man, the syringe, the issue of sperm donor, hurrying, the ice and preserving the sperm?

8. The pregnancy, the end, the humour, the friends together with Christine?

9. Mikki’s story, research, her partnership with Tom, sympathy, her looking in the mirror, concerns about her appearance, facelift, feeling that everybody looked through her at the age of forty-two? Tom taking the photo, her anger, smashing the camera? Making up? The scene in the bathroom, Tom gently with the moisture, removing her makeup – and enabling her to be herself, to bee seen as herself?

10. Margo’s story, Karla going to university, moving out of home, cooking the meals? Simon and his relationship with his wife, moving out, his mother giving him money for the hotel? His later coming to stay? The long marriage with Keith, his playing golf, coming home, the naked dancing, the bedroom sequences and their ease with each other, chat, reading, jokes? Helping each other? Margo as the wise earthmother?

11. The sympathetic portrait of the men, Bob and his single-mindedness yet his resenting being used? Christine’s boss, wanting her to have a career, the help with the diabetes? Tom and his kindness? Keith as a good man? Paolo, nice, playing the violin, saving the man’s life in the park? Simon and his relationship with his wife?

12. Simon, the dinner at home, the wife, her making a pass at Karla, the reactions?

13. The important fertility issues, the ethical questions, the moral stances, in a non-religious society? The treatment of Paolo’s dead body?

14. The human perspective of the characters in the film – enabling audiences, unsympathetic to the moral stances, to watch and listen and understand?