-thumb-260x191-11485.jpg)
I always try to find at least one film at Toronto that's way off the beaten track. I rarely stray further afield than I did Tuesday night, when I found myself watching "Wake in Fright," a film made in Australia in 1971 and almost lost forever. It's not dated. It is powerful, genuinely shocking, and rather amazing. It comes billed as a "horror film," and contains a great deal of horror, but all of the horror is human and brutally realistic.
Donald Pleasence in "Wake in Fright"
The story involves a young school teacher in the middle of the desolate wilderness of the Outback. The opening overhead shot shows a shabby building beside a railroad track, the camera pans 360 degrees and finds only the distant horizon. and then returns to find a second building on the other side of the tracks. One building is the school. The other is the hotel. To get to either, people must have to travel a great distance.
It is the end of the school year. The teacher (Gary Bond) takes the train to a small town where he plans to get a flight to Sydney. He loses his money gambling, and is swept up in the vortex of a group hard-drinking, hard-living, crude, vicious men. His "vacation" descends into drunkenness, brutality, rape and a gruesome moonlight hunt where they massacre kangaroos.
This was the second feature by the Canadian director Ted Kotcheff ("The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz"). It was received with hostility in Australia, flopped at the box office there, did well overseas, was an official entry at Cannes, and then seemed to disappear. It became known as "Australia's great lost film." Its editor, Anthony Buckley, began a search for it, and found one surviving print just as it was scheduled to be destroyed. It has been restored by the Australian Film Archive, and will be available on DVD on Nov. 4.
Jack Thompson in "Wake in Fright," his first film
According to Australian critics, the film was originally reviled because it painted such a horrifying portrait of life in the isolation of the Outback -- life making our own Old West look positively civilized. "Deliverance," made a year later in 1972, is mild by comparison. Kotcheff's film is raw and uncompromised, well acted, brilliantly photographed and edited. Animals were certainly "harmed." Footage of an actual kangaroo hunt was seamlessly edited in by Buckley, and a "producer's note" says this documentary footage was included with "the participation" of animal rights organizations, whatever that means. It's rare to find a film that goes for broke and to hell with the consequences.
I've viewed 20 of the films playing at Toronto this year, give or take a few, not counting those I saw at Cannes. Here are a few more I want to tell you about:
¶ "Applause," from Denmark, centers on an extraordinary performance by Paprika Steen, as it follows a divorced alcoholic actress in her spiral down into her addiction. She plays a great actress but a damaging wife and mother; the looks on the faces of her children when they unexpectedly see her tell the whole story.
The director, Martin Pieter Zandvliet, seems to know much about alcoholism, and shows Thea, the actress, yawning through a single AA meeting and then trying to quit cold turkey on her own. Will power is a dangerous thing for an addict to depend upon. Zandvliet uses a creative strategy for depicting Thea's married life; he shows her in close and medium shots playing the heroine Martha in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." Sometimes she's drunk onstage, sometimes not, but she always plays Martha well. It's a role, you could say, Thea was born to play.
Viggo Mortenson and Kodi Smit-McPhee in "The Road"¶ "The Road" adapts Cormac McCarthy's bleak novel of post-apocalyptic despair into an equally bleak film, as a father and his son trek across the wasteland of a destroyed America. John Hillcoat's direction expertly reproduces the desolation described by McCarthy, although Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee, as his son, don't look quite as starving and lice-ridden as probably they should.
I can't imagine a different way of approaching this material. If the film lacks the impact of the novel, it may be because McCarthy resists being adapted. With him, it is all in the language -- the poetry of the language. With a writer like Shakespeare, you can use the language, because it's spoken. But McCarthy's dialogue, distinctive as it is, fails to represent the complexity and beauty of his descriptive passages. And with him it is never about what happens, but how he describes it. I question whether his Suttree and Blood Meridian can be filmed at all.
¶ "The Joneses" is a film as superficial as it is deep. I intend that as a compliment. If you're not aware of the premise, skip to the next film. We meet an attractive American family as they move into their expansive new suburban home. The parents are played by David Duchovny and Demi Moore, and their teenage children by Amber Heard and Ben Hollingsworth. The Jonses are not real people. They're a highly-paid "unit," chosen for their attractiveness and charisma, and intended to influence the consumer lifestyles of those they come into contact with.
Hi, we're the Joneses!
In a way, this is the ultimate product placement movie. Every consumer product in the film, from golf clubs to sports cars is branded and extolled as desirable. The Jones have all done this gig before and will do it again; Duchovny is Moore's sixth "husband." The dilemma is, can you live with someone and not run the risk of falling in love with them? And what is it worth someone to live this lifestyle? What responsibilities come along? Sure, they pay you well. But no one knows better than you that all money can do is buy you...stuff.¶ "Coco Before Chanel" stars Audrey Tautou, who is rather amazing. Yes, she was loved in "Amalie," but we had no idea. Here she plays Coco Chanel in many of the years also covered in the forthcoming "Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky" an excellent biopic selected for Cannes 2009. To compare the two films should be interesting.
Audrey Tautou as Coco
Coco Chanel, as is widely known, invented herself out of whole cloth before starting on her fashions. Abandoned to an orphanage by her father, she was singing in cabarets in her early teenage years, became the underage mistress of rich man (who really did love her), and determined to become a fashion designer when an independent woman doing such a thing was unheard of. The director, Anne Fontaine, made the considerable films "How I Killed My Father" (2002) and "The Girl from Monaco" (2008), and shows a particular feel for women making their own way in the world. Here she uses Tautou to show Chanel over a span of 20 years, from urchin to icon. Even someone like me, uninterested in fashion, found it engrossing.¶ "The Hole." Now forgive me if I bring up once again the tiresome subject of 3-D. Of the content of Joe Dante's new horror film I will write nothing until it opens. Of the choice to use 3-D, you can't stop me. The 3-D process in this film is the best I've seen in live action, and that includes the preview footage of "Avatar." It's technically impeccable. It makes no contribution to the overall experience.
Now that I've see live action 3-D done as well as it's likely to be done for some time. I realize more than ever this truth: The 2-D process creates a perfect illusion of depth. The 3-D process interferes with that achievement by adding additional information that reduces the illusion of depth, creating distinct planes within the image which our minds are forced to recognize and process. If there is a future for 3-D, and I hope there isn't, it's in animation, which isn't supposed to look real in the first place, and not in live action, where it's a distracting abomination. If you're a director with something to say, don't let your process interfere.
¶Australian TV story on "Wake in Fright"
¶
"Applause" trailer
¶
Trailer for "Coco before Chanel" (in French)
¶
I'd never heard of "Wake in Fright" and now I'm curious to see it. Thanks for taking the time to post after full days of film going.
I'm having a little trouble understanding your description of Wake in Fright's opening. Is it a 360 pan with two buildings on opposite sides of a train track? Does one building replace the other over the course of the pan? How are they so distant?
I'm confused and probably overthinking this.
Ebert: They face each other at some distance across the track. I'll rewrite this.
WAKE IN FRIGHT (or OUTBACK, as it was called when Westinghouse and United Artists released it in the U.S. back in the '70's) is one of the pivotal movies mentioned in Mark Hartley's cheerfully gruesome documentary on Australian exploitation films, NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD. I don't know if you got a chance to review it, or if it even played Chicago, but if you have not yet seen it I highly recommend it. Even though many of the films mentioned likely received "Dog of the Week" status when they first arrived in America, I think you would enjoy the recollections and enthusiasm of the actors, writers, and directors who made them, as well as the defenses mounted by the ever-manic Quentin Tarantino. Wait until you hear his description of how Australians shoot car chases.
The story of WAKE IN FRIGHT's rescue is a little puzzling to me, in that while UA likely lost their rights to the movie after the initial release, they were usually good about keeping negatives. Sources tell me there was a perfectly good negative still sitting in MGM's vault all this time, though of course they themselves could not do anything with it until the original producers came forward to claim it. I suppose the U.S. rights would be a bit wonky; since Westinghouse was a partner, it could be owned by CBS now. But I won't quibble; the point is that the film is available to see again. Glad you caught it.
Good God, to see Bill Collins interviewed is a blast from the past: he used to give lengthy and informative introductions to films on Australian television, especially Hitchcock films. Also strange to meet Kerry O-Brien (with his red hair and judge-like manner) and the 7:30 report, here. The film itself I have never heard of, but the harshness of the outback culture is a common theme in Australian art, most recently in the lamentable "Wolf Creek".
I'm still nursing the wish to read Suttree. That was an exquisite passage describing the cold peddlar and his Golgotha on a winter morning.
Do you suppose Australians ever get annoyed at how many movies about their country are set in the Outback? I understand its cultural significance and all, but there aren't that many American films that take place in the Great Plains or the Badlands of Wyoming and Montana. Most movies in our country are set in either the city or the suburbs. I wonder how Australians feel about the stereotypical, "Mad Max" depiction of their land.
Sir, completely agree with you on the usefulness of 3-D, though not because of the darkness(I don't know about the reason you give here - I'll only know after I've watched a 3-d film with this in mind).
My main problem is what happens at the edge of the screen. See, the edges can't be kept at any depth except that of the screen, and any character outside the screen in a shot that's not full-body ends up looking like a living torso.I wanted to be as cool as the other people and find some grammar error in the post, but I couldn't. BUT, I did notice that "Guidelines" is still "Guidlines" at the bottom of the screen. So, hopefully that makes me cool.
Omer M
Ebert: Very cool. On what URL?
I agree with you about 3-D to a point. I agree that it is unnecessary for the most films and a distraction. However doesn't it assist with anti-piracy? Isn't this just a 'macrovision' for the cinema so to speak?
If so, and I think it is, then isn't it worthwhile on that level?
I only became aware of "Wake in Fright" (originally released in the US as "Outback") when it featured in the (excellent) 2008 documentary film on Australian genre movies, "Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!" Thanks to the discovery/remastering of the original film print, "Wake in Fright" received a limited theatrical run in Australia - I'm glad to see it's getting rescreened overseas too. I saw the movie a few weeks ago, and I'm still unsure of what to make of it. In many ways reminiscent of "Straw Dogs," it's one of the most bleak and horrifying movies I've ever seen (the kangaroo slaughter scene is tough to take). You can practically smell the beer and sweat and feel the heat in almost every frame (there's an excellent reappraisal of the movie at the following link: http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-kate-jennings-home-truths-revisiting-039wake-fright039-1779).
By the way, Roger, that's Jack Thompson, not Gary Bond, in the second "Wake in Fright" picture you have uploaded.
Ebert: Corrected.
"Straw Dogs," yes.
When I read "The Road", I wondered how they would make child actor looks starving. Well, it seems they could not after all. By the way, I begin to read "Suttree", and it looks 'unadaptable' from the beginning. I have some problems with reading confusing opening paragraphs, but somehow I got vague idea of barren streets, closed factory, and the river with dirty delta. Is it Suttree's stream-of-alcoholic consciousness?
I saw "Coco Before Chanel", release in August in our country. It looks good and Audrey Tautou is good as Chanel, but I asked myself whether whole story deserves the ending. Yeah, Two men were important in her life and she loved them. And so what? She seemed to love her work more. At least, it is never boring. I think we will agree on some points and will disagree on overall opinion, like "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex"(I found it fascinating while I saw them as dangerous idiots. And I liked Bruno Ganz's performance a lot)
I experienced live action 3-D for the first time with "My Bloody Valentine" this year. Even though the sun is shining in one scene, the image looks strangely dim. And things do not look real. Moreover, I had to watch unpleasant murders and sex scene in 3-D. After watching it, I lost much interest in watching "Avatar" in 3-D.
Can't wait to see "Wake in Fright" (assuming a DVD becomes available in the U.S.)
I totally agree about 3-D, and hope it's a passing fad (again). True, I may be prejudiced since I lack stereoscopic vision and so 3-D doesn't even "work" for me. But, I don't see how it can add to the experience of a well-photographed film. Even if truly holographic movies became practical, it would still be a distraction, not an enhancement -- and terribly visually confusing, given the rapid changes in apparent size of figures on the screen.
Good, clear 2-D projection is a continuation of a millennia-old artistic convention; it's survived for a reason.
(Actually, I can think of one use for truly holographic projection: showing a theatrical stage performance, life-size. But, you'd have the limitations of live theatre without the great virtue of immediacy. So just forget I even mentioned it.)
"Each of us must seek to discover the particular theme or motif that will characterize our life. An attitude of intense, undaunted seriousness toward each fleeting moment can open up a whole new life for us."
Any movie making 'Deliverence' seem less violent or savage will have to get a pass for me. It's interesting that as we move closer to using hugs, apologies and gold stars to combat terrorism we still turn to films who's prevalent themes are horrific violence. Am I wrong to wish we could still torture the bejeezes out of those plotting the next 9/11 yet make movies like Groundhog Day and Shawshank Redemption?
3 d visuals are like the distractions a color film might bring to a film best done in b&w; such as 'Citizen Kane', or a film more suited to silent and expressive action, such as Nesfurutu done in talkies'.
I saw this annoying horror/comedy film last night; 'Planet Terror', done in this cheesy but memorable rendition of a scratchy film from the fifties ( the most likely audience never did see such films though) -- talk about annoying winks from the movie maker! Yea, I laughed, but the movie was kind of a pretentious -- and a disgusting waste of time.
I think 3d is here to stay though, particularly as you say, in the children's animation and graphic novel type movies.
But once the technology reaches a certain stage: is there any going back? You are right about the interference of processing required with 3D that isn't the same as color, but I wonder how much that's a factor of our bias from so much satisfaction coming from prior good movies -- being adjusted in the 'less' sophisticated art. The Byzantines thought their style great.
People used to applaud in theaters when a film happened to be in color; and color TV was a very big selling point -- wouldn't a device that surrounded you in a fictional visual environment 'seamlessly' promote suitable movies and inspire a good director to mastery of the form?
I'm not so sure that the best of 3d is already upon us. Holographic technology too, could bring a whole new experience to the visual experience of movies, even if it would have to be seen with no audience.
A person could applaud in 'the audience of thousands' just as one could chuckle with 'laugh tracks'.
Eyweh! Perhaps it'll eventually be as the futuristic movie 'Existenze[?] with Jude Law portrayed.
Excellent posts on the 3D issue, and Roger, you hit the nail on the head. I have nothing further to add concerning that.
However, Matt makes an interesting point... and I have to laugh. It's true!
:)
Forgot to mention -- the best thing about movies based on Cormac McCarthy books is that you can get the (usually pretty good) story without having to plow through McCarthy's God-awful pretentious overwrought prose.
Ebert: Same with "West Side Story." Why read Romeo and Juliet?
You sound like those folks who thought that adding color to films only robbed them of their artistry...
I'm glad you managed to catch "Wake in Fright". It's one of my favourite films from this country, alongside John Hillcoat's early "Ghosts...of the Civil Dead".
A previous poster mentioned the "Straw Dogs" connection, and it doesn't seem like this is a coincidence. There seems to be numerous references to it throughout the movie, most explicitly the shot of the shattered pair of glasses towards the end of the film.
Another one also asked how Australians felt about the majority of our films being set in the Outback. The reality of it is that this probably isn't really true. Certainly, many of the more famous ones are but mostly Australian films are gritty, low-budget, urban social dramas that sell half a dozen tickets at a couple of arthouse cinemas then fade away.
The Australian industry has been on quite a steady decline for awhile. A brief history from memory, if you're at all interested. The Australian film industry was actually quite successful back in the early silent days, with "The Story of the Kelly Gang" (1906) often being regarded as the first full-length feature film in cinema. After a few successes, the industry died off as American and British films came in during the 1920s. Movies were filmed here and we had our exports (Flynn, etc) but nothing important was being made. "Jedda" in 1955 was a big deal; the first Australian colour film, also the first to feature Aboriginal actors in lead roles. In the late 60s, one of the state premiers decided to start up the South Australian film commission. A few years later, the Victorian film commission sprung up (essentially out of jealousy) and more states joined in over time. This led to a production and box-office renaissance, thanks mostly to the successful "Ozploitation" films being made (wonderfully detailed in the recent documentary "Not Quite Hollywood").
Lots of sex-comedies and horrors and such were being made and making a great deal of money. Eventually, the audiences started dwindling, critics were getting angrier and the funding bodies tried to put an emphasis on creating "quality" pictures (think "Picnic at Hanging Rock") with social value, so the industry died off again.
There was one final breath of life in the early 80s where a tax loophole was exploited so that EVERY movie production resulted in a profit for the producer, even if it was never released. This meant a lot was being made, but little was good and even less was ever released. When this was shut down, things slowed up again.
And since then the Australian film industry hasn't been in a good place.
There are exceptions, certainly. "Priscilla" was a huge success, "Crocodile Dundee", "The Castle", "Muriel's Wedding", "Lantana" etc all make money and make critics happy. Despite your distaste for it, "Wolf Creek" did big business here and has become fairly iconic.
There are plenty of talented actors, writers, directors and technical crews in this country, it's just that little is getting approved by the film funding bodies. "Saw" was turned down and subsequently the creators took it to American producers. No matter your opinion on it, it cannot be said it has not done terrific business.
It's a tough situation to figure out. Everyone agrees something has to be done, but no-one knows what. The depressing urban dramas do no business, the comedies have mixed success and the attempts to pander to teenagers flop the worst (the gangland adaptation of "Macbeth" a few years back comes to mind).
This year has been the best in as long as I can recall. "Samson and Delilah" is a great film that did respectable business here, "Van Diemen's Land" is a tense, bloody ride, "Mary and Max" was a curiously dark claymation piece and more keep coming. I'm 18 now and have followed the industry for a few years, but the problem still lies in the consistency.
Since "Not Quite Hollywood's" release, there's been a re-release of many of those Ozploitation flicks, with restrospectives at the major film festivals around the country but that interest appears to have passed again too.
I've long since gone off-topic so I'll wrap it up here, and just say I'm glad to see you managed to catch one of this country's cinematic treasures, thousands of miles away from where it was first produced.
I just hate 3-D for the simple reason it costs me more $$$ at the box office.
I am blind in one eye. 3-D is lost on me. My heart sinks a little every time I hear that 3-D is the future of film. Keep up the fight, Roger!
If people want to see a story told in three dimensions, they should do what I do; go see a play.
I love it when a lost movie is found again. "Wake in Fright" sounds like something I'll glom on as soon as it's available here.
I'm again dismayed that 3D has become the Big New Gimmick to save the movie industry. Presumably refitting all those theaters and cameras is cheaper than finding someone who can tell an interesting story.
The only "3-D" effect worth the name is achieved by the multiplane camera--invented by Ub Iwerks? (with a nod to Lotte Reiniger's dreamlike cutout/silhouette feature, The Adventures of Prince Achmed back in the late '20s)--that gives depth to animated scenes, allowing the camera to move "past" foreground objects. Beautiful in Pinocchio and many shorts.
@David O'Brien
It only seems that way because our most commercial films feature the outback. To tell the truth most of us are probably more tired with the relentless stream of blokey/matey comedies set in suburbia. Fortunately it seems to have given way to a set of darker dramas.
We may yet get to find out how unfilmable Blood Meridian is. Ridley Scott apparently gave up, but according to IMDB there's a new director and a tentative 2011 release. Topping the book would be impossible. Maybe even doing justice to the book would be impossible. But I think it's at least possible that a good film could be made of the material, even if it's not 100% true to McCarthy's vision and style.
(Actually, I can think of one use for truly holographic projection: showing a theatrical stage performance, life-size. But, you'd have the limitations of live theatre without the great virtue of immediacy. So just forget I even mentioned it.)
I could see a holographic "concert film" of Shakespeare plays or stand-up comedy working, particularly if 3DTV can be made to work well at home.. 120-240hz home screens (5x to 10x film speed) plus super-bright LED backlighting could bring this home using electrochromic glasses, and research continues to try and widen fields-of-view for glasses-less LCD 3D.. Not to mention that home gaming drives display development as much as home theater..
Most interesting of all would be a theater 'cave' with projection on all walls, so that there's no 3D border shearing.. Theoretically with full coverage you could have folks "walking off the screen" ala _Purple Rose of Cairo_.. video caves are in use in scientific research and engineering today, though on a smaller scale..
Ebert: Very cool. On what URL?
At the very bottom of all the Suntimes blogs is a link for "Submission Guidlines."
My request is that it is not changed, so that I can feel smart every time I see it.
Omer M
I agree on the issue of depth in 3-D. I saw the 3D Avatar preview, and while interesting, I was distracted by the "planarity" of some of the characters. The different planes actually made some of the characters seem flat, as it they were just flat pieces of painted paper moving past one another. I recently watched Coraline (in 2D) and there is an amazing sense of depth. One can easily determine that these are fully dimensional characters moving through space. In my opinion, the notions of space and depth are defined capably in the hands of the right directors, cinematographers, etc. Think of the depth of movement in some of Welles' Citizen Kane shots (yeah, overused example, but it is the example). The viewer can readily determine the depth of this space without the aid of fancy technology and cheap glasses. I can imagine the depth of the 2D space, the 3D process just looks too artificial and until it can actually make me believe I am seeing 3-D characters in a 3D plane (like a shadowbox), then Ill probably ignore it. (Note, I havent seen anything on IMAX 3D, so I cant judge how having one's entire field of vision consumed works).
One other point on 3D that really distracts me: the focus of objects. For the most part, our eyes will focus on a particular aspect in space, usually in middle space, but often distracted by up-close objects. For most films, the camera becomes a substitute with our eye, its focus telling our eyes what to focus on. With 3D, this seems to fall by the way side, and becomes somewhat distracting. I'm watching the screen, focusing on the characters, when something "apparently" moves closer to my face--my eyes are drawn to it, attempting to focus on this object even if ever so quickly, but they cannot because the camera is not focused on that. What I guess I am trying to say is that we navigate a 3D world in a particular manner that the camera can not yet produce, making that supposed realism of 3D that much more of a distracting illusion.
Not that movies themselves are not illusions, but that's a whole other topic and I won't Debord it now.....
In "The Road", I believe they are not lice ridden, because there are no lice left. Starving is another story, although there may be laws against asking a child to go on the Christian Bale Machinist/Rescue Dawn diet for a movie role.
It may be that for Roger Ebert and some others, 3-D adds nothing to (and may detract from) their enjoyment of a movie. However, if a 3-D movie is good, why continue to criticize the 3-D any more than you would praise an otherwise-terrible movie for not being in 3-D ("I gave this unbearable, unwatchable movie 1/2 star because at least it wasn't in 3-D...")?
I've seen some 3-D movies were I thought the effect added to the experience ("Journey to the Centre of the Earth" was enjoyable enough in 3-D, it would have been far less so otherwise), and some where I don't think it added (e.g. "Up", though I did notice the 3-D image was slightly less bright as the review suggested, I didn't notice that "fault" while watching the film; I simply didn't think the 3-D necessary). A prior poster notes a lack of stereoscopic vision which makes it useless to him. I like 3-D films but almost never can I see the image from those 3-D pictures (the ones with dots where you hold it close to your face and gradually push it away). That doesn't mean I denigrate those images, because since I can't appreciate them, it's not really fair.
When Roger Ebert points out e.g. that a particular live-action film might have been better if animated, or a noirish film would have been better in black and white, that makes sense to me. So obviously pointing out that 3-D adds nothing or detracts from the experience is fair comment for a reviewer. I just don't think every review needs to again point out the perceived issues with 3-D itself (in fairness, this is the journal, but reviews mention it frequently).
As a purist, I'd actually like to see "Dial M for Murder" in its original 3-D version; I'd almost certainly prefer the "normal" version of that film, but I would like the option.
My stereoscopic vision is poor due to a weak eye, but I thoroughly enjoyed Caroline in 3-D, and I don't know if I got the full impact of the 3-D process. The new method of 3-D doesn't use the red lens and blue lens model of the past, which always gave me eye fatigue and occasional headaches.
I haven't seen any non-animated films in 3-D, so I wouldn't know if the darkness mentioned is because the movie is made in 3-D or if the process is just so new that some filmmakers haven't yet adjusted their color saturation.
I've been very curious about the adaptation of The Road. And wary. I think you've explicated my vague feelings very well. The magic of McCarthy is in the words. As a friend put it to me after reading The Road: "Each paragraph is like its own poem." That poetry can be lost in the translation from our inspired imagination to the bold realism of the screen.
And of course, for all its beauty, The Road is one of McCarthy's easier reads when it comes to the language! Blood Meridian tells a story, but with a torrent of words, skipping stones across an ocean of metaphors, building up on themselves until the imagery threatens to suffocate the reader. It's an experience unlike any other, and while the movies can certainly evoke similar emotion, how would Blood Meridian escape being reduced to merely its story?
Like you, I've found Suttree the most rewarding of McCarthy's books. I've never smiled and laughed, or stopped and pondered quite so much during a novel. With its rambling storyline and episodic structure, I could envision a television series more than a film. No laugh track though, please.
I wonder if "Not Quite Hollywood" discusses "The Howling III," the only werewolf film in history with marsupial werewolves, to my knowledge. It also boasts a bizarre performance from the actor who played John the Baptist in "Ben Hur."
And so then I saw...
LOL! (laughing with, not at)
Ebert: I'm missing something here. Is that headline funny?
I completely agree with the poster who called McCarthy's prose unbearably purple. McCarthy writes adventure stories for boys that come to a dead stop every ten pages so he can "write" something that's obviously intended to seem artistic. Recall Elmore Leonard's classic quote: "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." If you think McCarthy's a great writer, it calls into question your judgment on all things. To compare him with Shakespeare is just blasphemy. He's become a cult figure to people who apparently never read anybody better.
Ebert: I've read better.
And I didn't compare him to Shakespeare.
I saw this film in 2008 when it was uploaded onto Youtube and I must say that it is pretty damn good to say the least. However, I am left with less of an impact on the brutality and shocking scale which your semi-review implies that I would have taken away from a viewing of the said psychological-horror film.
SPOILER ALERT:
Of course there is a number of kangaroo slayings (tame compared to crazy-ass Mississippi boys in the Delta forest); the drunken porch fight; the suggested drunken, sexual escapade between the main character and the Doc character; the desperation and (far too easy)descent into suicidal insanity that the main character experiences....but....I would not call any of that "rather amazing" or "genuinely shocking." It is, of course, a case of "to each his own," but I do admire the film and do not regret experiencing it.
Cormac McCarthy is unbearable? I admit it takes awhile to get used to, and yes it can be a bit ostentations(as opposed to pretentious, which is unwarranted), but I've rarely had the same experience I had with Blood Meridian with other books. Every page or two there was a new paragraph or phrase I had to re-read and digest because it's beauty(or horror) stopped me in my tracks. Like this:
"The colt stood against the horse with its head down and the horse was watching, out there past men's knowing, where the stars are drowning and whales ferry their vast souls through the black and seamless sea."
Ebert: A great writer can take some getting used to. You find the bones beneath the skin. When I was forced so read Henry James in college I began by despising him, then tolerated his style, then began to love it.
Cormac haters, such as Mr. Wheel:
Recall this classic quote, "If you write something for which you got a check that did not bounce, and then paid the light bill with the money, then you are talented."
Say what you will about McCarthy, but those checks aren't bouncing. I think he will get by with a few people thinking he's pretentious, and won't lose any sleep over it. I'm lukewarm on the guy myself, but how about a little respect for the body of work he's put together?
I like how a guy is slamming Ebert's judgement (a Pulitzer Prize winner) for liking McCarthy (another Pulitzer Prize winner). I guess if they're just handing those things out to anyone, you and Rob Schneider can take a number and wait.
Ebert: I can understand how someone could find his prose difficult.
Shakespeare, now, is an interesting case. Long before I encountered him in school, I decided I'd heard so much about him I should read him. I read Julius Caesar and muchly enjoyed it. Of course that was a good one to start with.
I guess my last comment was considered spam. Oh well. I'm still wondering if there is any info on if/when "Wake in Fright" is coming to dvd as it's certainly not going to show up in my local theater.
I saw a preview for "The Road" when I went to see Inglorious Bastards at the Castro theater in San Francisco. It reminded me of I Am Legend, not the movie but the book, but with all of the humor stripped out and replaced with more bleakness and violence. It also seemed a bit melodramatic or maybe that was just the effect of the preview itself.
Jay Faulcanor: "Am I wrong to wish we could still torture the bejeezes out of those plotting the next 9/11 yet make movies like Groundhog Day and Shawshank Redemption?"
Yes, you're wrong to wish that -- but only if you pretend your desire to inflict pain has a moral basis. Desire it without hypocrisy.
Roger -- I enjoy reading Shakespeare. Reading the plays is often better than seeing them performed (unless it's a truly great performance). Cormac McCarthy ain't no Will Shakespeare. We both love reading, Roger; there's just an obvious difference of opinion about this particular writer. But you're not running a literary criticism column, so I'll bow out.
(At this point I hesitate to mention it, but it looks like Donald Pleasence's name is misspelled in the photo caption. One of my favorite actors.)
Ebert: I'm missing something here. Is that headline funny?
ah, well you see, in my world, yes.... Since it followed in the wake of the previous blog (which I recall didnt go well), this headline sounded a bit like -- whew! ok folks, moving right along then....
Ebert: Yeah then, it is sort of funny..
Dear Mr Ebert
Thank you for reporting on the Australian film "Wake in Fright". I remember it well and saw it in 1972 at the theatre on the campus at Sydney University when I was a first year undergraduate. It was simultaneously shocking and thrilling. Shocking because of the violence, but thrilling because of its realistic plot, good acting and the early emergence of an authentic Australian artistic expression. Many of the students who sat in the movie theatre with me were living on the campus colleges and from the outback. They knew that it told a hard truth. This film and Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock were seminal films not just in artistic terms but culturally as well, because up until that time Australia had always regarded itself as an outpost of the British Empire and such bad language and offensive behaviour was ignored in our media.
But all that changed very rapidly, because later that same year Australians voted in a truly revolutionary government under Gough Whitlam. Before Barack Obama, we in Australia experienced real liberal change, not the false dawn we see here in the US and our new government dragged us into the late twentieth century kicking. We returned land to the native aborigines, gave women equal pay with men, provided pregnancy leave, enlarged citizenship, strengthened unions, instituted universal health care, invested in Australian science, recognised China before Nixon and made tertiary education free. All this in less than 3 years. Eventually it was too much for the reactionaries and the Queen's representative, the Governor General, dismissed the democratically elected government and replaced it with the backwards opposition.
So this film brings back memories of when Australia was on the precipice of change. When it left its untrue myths behind and started to see itself as it truly was. Because only then could it change itself for the better.
Ebert: Could the Governor General actually do that?
Jack Hawkins I like how a guy is slamming Ebert's judgment (a Pulitzer Prize winner) for liking McCarthy (another Pulitzer Prize winner). I guess if they're just handing those things out to anyone, you and Rob Schneider can take a number and wait.
Well, you have to watch those Pulitzer Prize boys. They can be an obstreperous bunch. Speaking of that, why doesn't Dave Barry show up here? Jealous? His blog isn't as good.
I mentioned awhile back about a soldier in Iraq wanting a "care package" of novels and McCarthy's were the only ones he wanted by an author who wasn't long dead. Noticed the same in the coffeeshops I hung out in for 10 years.
Honest to Pete, "The Joneses" sounds scarier than "Wake in Fright." Not that the latter may not be scary... but I am terrified that one day I might discover a list of ingredients stamped on my butt.
"Wake in Fright" dvd. Roger, will this be out in the USA or try to find an import on the internet? Take care
Ebert: Coming out here, yes.
In answer to your question:
Yes the Governor General (GG) not only did it then, but he can still do it now, because Australia quite stupidly rejected the opportunity to become a republic back in the late 1990's. Our constitution has not been changed to reduce the powers of the GG. Gough Whitlam, though he is now quite old, still champions complete independence from England's royal interference. Another of the changes that the Whitlam government introduced was instituting our own supreme court, because until 1972, the supreme court of Australia was actually the British High Court, ruled by the Law Lords.
Another reason Australia looked for change in 1972 was an intense hatred for the Vietnam war and our unnecessary involvement in it. The Whitlam government within the first 3 weeks of coming to power pulled Australian troops out. So you can see why they were so hated by the reactionaries.
Best regards
Michael
Ebert: Good gravy! And who decides what the GG does? The Brits?
Ebert: Good gravy! And who decides what the GG does? The Brits?
No, the Governor General is the Queen's representative in Australia, and as she is our Queen and he represents her then he can do whatever he wishes. In other words we live under the British monarchy. Its not something I am particularly proud about but Australians suffer from such apathy that is hard to get them to do anything, even declare their country as a separate entity.
The Governor-General is the Queen's representative but essentially acts independently of the monarchy. The GG that sacked Whitlam, John Kerr, set out his reasons in a book called "Matters for judgment", which argued that it was a matter for his considered, personal discretion. Though it happened before I was born, my understanding is that the senate, controlled by the opposition, was blocking supply, meaning the government was unable to function.
"If I did not act, very great suffering on a nation-wide scale would follow. I was not prepared to gamble with the future of the Constitution, the economy, and the financial security of very great numbers of people, indeed directly and directly the whole nation. I did not believe that I had to wait until this suffering occurred. I concieved it to be within my discretion to take action in time to avoid them.” p 335
The dismissal meant that the opposition, led by Malcolm Fraser, was put in as a caretaker government until the election. Whitlam led a campaign called "maintain your rage" for the election but lost. I'm sympathetic to Kerr (who writes of his love for Somerset Maugham's "Of human bondage", and whose wife died prior to his notoriety), but listening to my Father I get an indication of the bitterness over the Whitlam dismissal. He speaks fondly of Whitlam despite being cynical about almost every other politician. He narrowly avoided being conscripted to fight in Vietnam (and says he would sooner have gone to prison than gone to war).
Ebert: To think the Australian people voted to give him that power. The way democracy works is, if Whitlam screws up, then he's voted out of office. Did you think Fraser was wrong in accepting the job?
This past year, I have seen several animated films in 3-D, and with the exception of "Bolt", the 3-D did not really add anything to the film. I would often advise friends not to pay the extra $ for the glasses (and why can't we re-use the ones we've already purchased?) and just the film in regular 2-D. I did watch Journey to the Center of the Earth on cable last week, and it was soooo obvious when something had been simply done for the 3-D effect (i.e., the tape measure). A very weak film held up by some FX. (why do I continue to go see 3-D films when they're not worth the extra cost? My boyfriend wants to go and hey, he pays for the tickets! LOL).
Ebert: If you're thinking of gettins serious, keep that in mind. :)
In reference to Mr Wakeling's comment:
I would have been surprised if John Kerr found himself guilty of abrogating for himself and the crown the democratic powers of the Australian people. So that his discussion of this matter must be viewed as somewhat biased and not a valid manner for assessing the problem. Much better is to read the historians of the day, like Manning Clark, whose appraisal is far less kind if not downright damning. There is also the obvious point that Ebert makes: the "way democracy works is, if Whitlam screws up, then he's voted out of office." This is such an obvious article of democracy, that to reject it like Kerr then defines Australia as clearly part of a monarchy.
Also Kerr mentions in his book that another reason for dismissing Whitlam was that he might otherwise lose his job and be first dismissed by the Prime Minister. His actual phrase was: It all depended on who got to the Queen first. This does not seem too noble a sentiment as a basis for jeopardizing the rule of law of a country. Lastly the reason is disingenuous: the hung senate rejected the finance bills because the "Liberal" premier of Queensland, a very racist Joe Bjelke Peterson, rejected the people's choice of a Labor representative after the death of a Labor senator in office and replaced him with a toady for the opposition - a man who had no political knowledge and was formerly a cabinet maker, but a friend of the premier. So the whole procedure was also predicated on the basis of denying basic democratic rights to the people of an entire state. It would be like the Massachusetts governor replacing Ted Kennedy with a staunch Republican. This was a political problem and it had a simple political solution: to deny the right of the senate to reject an elected government's right to rule. After this episode even Great Britain passed legislation forbidding their House of Lords such powers and in fact no other Westminster parliament accepts such illegitimate power.
Liking a politician such as Kerr because he admired a great novel is no basis to agree with him on constitutional issues, otherwise you might as well admire Hitler because he like Wagner.
The bottom line is that Whitlam has a world recognized stature as a great politician that introduced major social reforms for his country that benefited the common good and especially the plight of the poor and disaffected. Whereas Kerr only helped himself and was eventually rejected by most Australians for kowtowing to unelected power.
Thank you so much for this.
I've been a big fan of australian cinema for years and wanted to see Wake in Fright for a good portion of those years. As soon as I read the fourth paragraph I ordered the Blu-ray Disc, and now I'm sitting on hot coals, as we say in Germany.
Can you say anything about the picture quality? I guess this film is a treasure for the Australian Film Archive and was probably taken care of as well as was possible. I'm just curious if a Blu-ray version will actually make sense.
Ebert: It looks good enough in the cinema; we're not talking the picture quality of "Baraka" here.
Roger-
It just occurred to me that perhaps they are thinking about 3D the completely wrong way. Going off of what you said-
Ebert: "The 2-D process creates a perfect illusion of depth."
Don't you think 3D should be something that the viewer looks INto rather than an experience that POPS out? Maybe the "3D" experience should pop "in." Stay with me here.
The best couple of visual examples I can think of are:
1. A mirror, but a real mirror as it offers real 3D depth.
2. Shoe box dioramas that kids used to make in the old days for book reports.
3 The other way I can think of it is are how those chintzy silver holograms that you buy at Navy Pier have that "depth" feel that we're looking for.
From an audience point of view it's the difference between being "invited" to an experience to view INto vs. being force fed 3D imagery that is crammed down your throat (pops out). Walter Murch's book In the Blink of An Eye, relates how the filmed experience mimics the brain. Where, in real life, do objects jump out at us and hang out 2 inches from our noses? However, we are often looking into things (books, TV screens, mirrors)
As a teacher, I think about the learner (the audience). The difference between engaging the student (the audience) with knowledge (having them reach in) vs. spoon-feeding them information (cramming it down their brains). I'd rather be engaged. I want to reach in.
Can Jim Cameron change this before December?
Thanks-
Daniel
Re 'Wake in Fright'...having seen it years ago on Australian TV plus having a fairly decent knowledge of where main filming took place plus how Australia's cultural cringe in the 60s and 70s shaped our film industry, the re-release is going to open many people's eyes to what should be always considered a classic. The brutality shown in sequences such as the kangaroo shooting as well as the intimidating power of what Australian males worship as 'mateship' are in some ways still part of our society today. However what Kotcheff did was bring this to light at a time where Australia was emerging from self-imposed ignorance cinematically. We actually looked to overseas film makers to interpret our landscape, our lifestyle, our country (e.g. 'They're a Weird Mob', 'Walkabout') and in some ways I think 'Wake in Fright' was the antithesis of what we wanted to see about us then (and maybe even now). And this film did have ramifications on other later Australian films (e.g. the metaphor of the bush as enemy as seen in so many pics such as 'Picnic in Hanging Rock', 'Mad Max' etc).
I'd suggest as an interesting comparison watch 'Wake in Fright' and then 'The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert'; both were partially filmed in and around Broken Hill and Silverton (perhaps Australia's answer to John Ford's use of Monument valley) and yet each have a vastly different interpretation (no doubt due to the distance of time) of how Australians react to and with the outback and its inhabitants.
Ebert: Do they ever.
Responding to David O Brien - I'm Australian (living in NY). I (we) don't necessarily get bored with outback films probably because it's an area we don't really experience. And some really great flicks have come out of their - "Walkabout" and "Rabbit Proof Fence" are two of my favourites. But there are a fair share of stinkers too. You have a good point. BTW - the first Mad Max was filmed near Lara, close to where I lived in suburban Geelong. The area is just scrubby grassland. About 12 hours drive to the 'outback'.
there was an incredibly fascinating australian mini-series called "the dismissal" written & directed by both george miller ("mad max" & "babe") and phil noyce ("patriot games" & "rabbit proof fence"), it came out in '83, just a few years after the actual events when it was still quite fresh in our consciousness. a slew of wonderful australian actors portrayed the protaganists of this real-life political drama including my favourite australian actor john hargreaves, along john meillon, ruth cracknell, bill hunter & robyn nevin. dean semler was cinematographer so it looks better than many tv mini-series of the time & it was released just a few years ago on dvd, i doubt that it would be available in the states but i'm sure could be imported without too much hassle, well worth viewing......
I was travelling around Australia about a month ago, and saw Wake In Fright in Melbourne (coincidentally I arrived there on the last day of the MIFF, and so managed to see Fish Tank and The White Ribbon (which was an amazing film). It was the first time I've seen a re-released film in the cinema, and it was a good one to start with. What struck me about it was how the film could have followed John Grant with any of the characters we meet in the town.
Take, for example. the receptionist at his hotel. I got the impression that something more was going on with her. Maybe it was the way the camera lingered on her longer than necessary, which, for me, gave her more than two dimensions. Or maybe we could have followed the police officer and found him less than savoury. I just felt that we could have followed a number of characters, and found different facets of the same illness. Do you see what I mean?
Rob said -
"The Australian industry has been on quite a steady decline for awhile. A brief history from memory, if you're at all interested."
I am interested, actually. It sounds like there are a lot of parallels with the Canadian film industry, with all the complexities of government funding and the impossible economics of creating movies for a domestic market of under 40 million.
Still, you guys seem to have had far more success exporting your films than we have, and don't seem to have the same peculiar self-loathing attitude towards your own films that we do. I would bet money that your average Canadian has seen more Australian movies than Canadian ones, and I'll also bet that your average Australian would be hard pressed to name a single Canadian film. It puzzles me.
But hey - at least Canada got hired to shoot all those Saw movies!
You can watch the whole movie ,,Waking in Fright" on YouTube. It's divided in 11 parts because of limited time frames.
You thought The Hole had better 3D than Avatar? I was at both The Hole and Avatar Day and I really find that statement quite shocking.
"Photography of the hunting scenes in this film took place during an actual kangaroo hunt conducted by licensed professional hunters. No kangaroos were expressly killed for this movie. [sic, "killed expressly for this movie."]
Because the survival of the Australian kangaroo is seriously threatened these scenes were included with approval of leading animal welfare organizations of Australia and the United Kingdom."
That's the full disclaimer at the end of "Wake in Fright", which I just watched.
It's a fine film, but I don't see why it was classified "horror." Those who think it is ought keep away from just about any rural barroom in the United States. I saw more drinkin' and scrappin' in any one of them then I did in this movie.
As far as shootin' stuff for fun goes, my dad once jumped in his car over to a hillbilly neighbor's, yanked one of the drunks out of his lawn chair and off his feet and shouted in his face "if you EVER shoot in the direction of my house again I'll kill you!" They'd been putting holes in our roof.
They ceased their funnin'. That was rural Ohio in 1965. I'd say those Ozzies were a comparatively decent lot.
Hi Roger,
I so enjoy the intelligence of your Journal, your writing and the comments therein. I especially want to thank you for your work. I rarely see a movie at the theater anymore, but you make it easy to choose films from Netflix.
I read through your reviews and put many of them on my list, I am rarely disappointed. Thanks for sharing your time and opinions. Truly, you are a gifted man in your field, thanks for sharing your gift.
Quote ...and I'll also bet that your average Australian would be hard pressed to name a single Canadian film. It puzzles me. End Quote
I would agree that the average Australian would be hard pressed to name one, although I doubt that the average Australian would not have seen one. From an enthusiast point of view, I think Canada has produced some of the great films. I also think Canadian films have a certain unique quality about them that is instantly recognizable.
In Australia, Egoyan & Arcand are recognizable enough to 'market' the films on the strength of their rep's, rather than the actors that appear in their films.
Thanks! Wake in Fright is on my list for November. Donald Pleasence is one of my favorite actors, especially after his performance in the original Halloween.
Jennifer: I would bet money that your average Canadian has seen more Australian movies than Canadian ones, and I'll also bet that your average Australian would be hard pressed to name a single Canadian film. It puzzles me.
Or perhaps it's a variation on the 'grass is greener' idea... As an Australian cinema lover, I'm fascinated by stories, ideas and landscapes that are unfamiliar and so I'm drawn to films from other places. Not to say we haven't done some terrific work here ('The Proposition', 'Little Fish', 'Candy'), but somehow much of it it all seems...familiar.
For the record, 'Jesus of Montreal' remains one of my favourite films ever.
To Jennifer Smith;
Haha, but at least you have Cronenberg. Also, thanks for reading my longwinded post!
It is a tricky situation though. On the one hand, a director must make it overseas to get any consistent directorial work because our industry is too small, but the funding bodies also demand that a film must be "Australian" enough to be sold here. I have no idea how they quantify this ridiculous concept but it certainly doesn't help Australian films push past 1% of the total annual box office in this country.
Actually, mostly Australians (well, the ones who give a damn) are really quite angry at the industry here in general. The films we export tend to be the cream of the crop, and I think we only send away one or two every year. Usually they're not particularly representative of the films being produced. As I mentioned in my last post, they tend to be grimy urban dramas about broken marriages, drug addicts and/or low-rent criminals or crappy underdog comedies.
Our TV industry is pretty good, though. Even though there are a lot of ripoffs of American reality shows ("Australian Idol", "SYTYCD", "The Biggest Loser" etc), there's a decent amount of quality shows especially on our government funded channel and SBS, a channel mostly devoted to non-American material. These shows, especially the comedies, tend to do better in the UK, I believe, whose sense of humour is probably closer to ours than the US'.
It does surprise me that you say Canadians would probably know more Australian films than Canadian ones. I didn't expect anyone was getting them outside of DVDs anymore.
Ebert: What about the invaluable Paul Cox?
>>there was an incredibly fascinating australian mini-series called "the dismissal" written & directed by both george miller ("mad max" & "babe") and phil noyce ("patriot games" & "rabbit proof fence"), it came out in '83, just a few years after the actual events when it was still quite fresh in our consciousness.
...Yes! Now, when will this be re-released on DVD? I think it's one of Philip Noyce' best works, myself.
Ebert: What about the invaluable Paul Cox?
Ah yes, there a few exceptions, though Cox isn't a name I hear too frequently in discussions about Australian film.
I've perhaps been a bit harsh. There a few really great movies every now and again, and as I said in my first post this has been a quality year so far. The exports are still going strongly too; Hillcoat and Dominik (if one is to continue the great Australian tradition of claiming successful New Zealanders as our own) have both been producing quality works, and a new Weir is always worth seeing. There's a good chance Warwick Thornton will go on to even greater things too.
The talent's there but the audience, and thus often the moneymen, aren't.
Ebert: And Rolf de Heer.
I can see why the appointment of the Fraser government as caretaker would be a sore point. It would be the equivalent of someone (lets say the Queen of England) sacking Obama and installing McCain as the new government. Such a state of affairs is, of course, unimaginable in the USA.
Even the Republic referendum would not likely have resolved the issue, as the model proposed would leave the reserve powers vested in the President. Many Australians voted "No" not because they oppose a Republic but because they opposed the specific model, which didn't involve the direct election of a President.
Roger,
So right you are about The Road.
How can one adapt Poetry to the Screen?
I was certain from the start that there could never be a completely successful adaptation of McCarthy's masterpiece, the most powerful and beautiful book that I have read.
Even if the story, the dialog, the atmosphere - every thing - is spot on, it is still impossible to capture the essence of "poetry."
A picture is NOT worth a thousand words. Not it this case.
Craig
One could make a quality case for Rolf de Heer being perhaps the most interesting director produced here, in fact. Even his failures are innovative and intriguing on some level.
Fred Schepisi, who I don't think has made a theatrically released movie for some time after his Vietnam film with Guy Pearce fell through, made some minor classics too. His version of Thomas Keneally's "The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith" is one of the best adaptations of a novel I've seen.
In response to Jennifer Smith's and Matt's comment that "your average Australian would be hard pressed to name a single Canadian film".
I feel it is a challenge and as an average Australian would readily nominate "The Silent Partner" as one of my favourite Canadian films. The acting of Christopher Plummer in portraying a diabolical psychotic was chilling.
Ebert: And not to neglect Celine Lomez.
I just discovered my 3.5-star review is not online, and have asked Jim to add it forthwith. Check it out in a few hours. If you're still up... you are in Australia, right?
Hello Roger--one of the later comments for this thread.
You may be interested to know that Anthony Buckley discovered not a print but all the original elements for "Wake In Fright" in a warehouse (in Pittsburg, I think), marked for demolition.
Yes, the warehouse and all the original elements for all the movies contained within it! (This story would make a great documentary and I hope Mr. Buckley and co detail this as part of any dvd release)
The company that made "Wake In Fright", Group W Productions, was part of Westinghouse and I fear that their entire production output went with that imploding warehouse. Certainly it may not be significant for anyone outside Australia, but Group W made a number of films that were hits in the very early 70s down here featuring a sea of our great character actors and one or two international stars.
Two movies come to mind, "Squeeze A Flower" starring Walter Chiari who had starred in Michael Powell's classic Australian comedy "They're A Weird Mob", and Jack Albertson who had just won an Oscar for "The Subject Was Roses".
The other notable comedy was "Sunstruck" starring Harry Secombe (from "The Goon Show" and the movie version of "Oliver!") with John Meillon, the climax filmed around the then unfinished Sydney Opera House.
The possibility that these films, not seen for decades anywhere in any format, are now lost is truly depressing. They weren't classics, but they certainly did have some cultural significance--and above all, they weren't bad.
The dvd set of "Wake In Fright" is out here in Australia in the first week in November, don't know who has picked it up for the US and beyond (the movie is not connected to United Artists any more)
I would urge everyone not to even look at the washed out version on YouTube. The restoration of the movie was digitally frame by frame--it is eyepopping and must to be seen in a theatre, although a stereo makeover of the soundtrack would have hightened the impact in my opinion.
The movie features one of the great performances of Donald Pleasence, who returned to Australia to make "Barry McKenzie Holds His Own" and in the late 80s, "Ground Zero". It also features the last performance of one of the great Australian actors, Chips Rafferty, who plays Jock and had appeared in many classic Australian movies (including "Bush Christmas" and "Forty Thousand Horsemen") and a few notable movies in the US.
Many suspect the reason "Wake In Fright" flopped at the box office was because it had followed soon after the release of "Walkabout", a hit but also another very downbeat outback odyssey.
I look forward to nothing more than a great movie being rescued from destruction and restored -- sadly I fear that the costs of restoration and the dwindling fan base for these movies may halt this trend for good one day.
I'm sure you have thoughts on this and have no doubt mentioned them continuously over the years. Perhaps your thoughts on this situation as we head into the 2010s would be a welcome addition to your blog journal -- the indie production industry is rooted, or 'blown to the shisenhausen' (as we say down here), but any chance or hope on the film preservation front?