By Other Voices voices@moviecitynews.com

TEN BURNING QUESTIONS With Mark Hartley (Not Quite Hollywood)

At one point in Not Quite Hollywood,Mark Hartley’s primer on the history of Australian exploitation films or Oz-ploitation, Quentin Tarantino states that if you grew up watching some of those films that you would believe that there was a desert everywhere and that those deserts were filled with marauding packs of bullies in cars they could never afford just looking for women to rape and guys to beat up.

Whether you know first hand what Tarantino is talking about or whether this is all shiny new information, Hartley’s film is just a flat out fun ride. Soft core films like Australia After Dark matched local box office totals with Jaws, films like Next of Kin, Patrick, Long Weekend, and Mad Max inspired more than a few members of the next wave of filmmakers, and the stories of how those films were made will often leave you astounded that several stunt people didn’t lose their lives in the process. But the proof of Hartley’s convincing “argument” as to the viability of the genre is this: you can not help yourself but make a mental list of film titles to add to your movie library while watching the film. It’s Not Quite Hollywood, but it’s more than entertaining.
1. Why did you feel the 40 year history of Ozploitation films deserved such a thorough and arguably “loving” documentary?

Mark Hartley: It seemed to me that this was really the last bastion of genre cinema in the world that hadn’t been explored in any way. We’ve had fevered examinations of genre films from many other countries – American Grindhouse, English horror, Italian Giallo etc… but “Ozploitation” had never been documented because I don’t think anyone – within or outside of Australia – had ever connected the dots and realized that a wealth of genre films had been made down-under by a select number of prolific individuals (including Brian Trenchard-Smith, Antony I. Ginnane, Richard Franklin and John Lamond).
2. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Greg Mclean, James Wan and Leigh Whannell speak enthusiastically about the influence films like PATRICK, LONG WEEKEND, ROAD GAMES and MAD MAX had on them and their films. Was there someone you spoke to that surprised you with their reaction or even respect for those films?

The thing that I think is really interesting is that in Australia the general public never heard about the success of our genre films because they we’re considered “American Films” and embarrassments to our film culture. We heard about Picnic at Hanging Rockreceiving a standing ovation in New York – but what we weren’t told was that Picnic was screening in one cinema and Trenchard-Smith’s The Man From Hong Kong was screening in the same city on 15 screens! So, it was important in Not Quite Hollywoodto have people like Tarantino inform us that these films found enthusiastic audiences all around the world. It was also important to hear from Whannell, Wan, McLean and Jamie Blanks that these films were inspirational to their generation of Australian filmmakers (maybe more so than our more lauded big screen exports like Picnic at Hanging Rockand Breaker Morant).
3. What is the best thing about having your film at AFI FEST?

It will be great to introduce Hollywood to group of maverick gonzo antipodean filmmakers who followed their insane instincts, broke every rule in the book (even though at the time there was no book – or no rules!) to get their own style of high-energy (and high-risk) entertainment on the big screen. These guys are the film industry’s best- kept secret and it’s time to acknowledge their undeniable passion for film, gung-ho approach and startling results. But, is the AFI FEST audience ready for 100 minutes of non-stop cinematic money shots? I believe so.
4. In your opinion, what is the most singular contribution Australia has made to the cinematic art form: The vomit shot or the nuns on fire shot?

I think it’s the mouse in the werewolf fetus suit. To understand what I’m talking about, people will have to see the film.
5. Let’s pretend you’re directing the movie about a comatose guy with evil telekinesis powers. Are his eyes open or closed while he controls objects in his vegetative state?

Screenwriter Everett DeRoche and Director Richard Franklin decided that they should be open when they made Patrick (1978) – the Italians obviously agreed when they made their own unofficial spaghetti sequel, Patrick is Still Alive (1980) – so who am I to argue with visionaries of their caliber!
6. Would you agree that a young Nicole Kidman “isn’t werewolf enough?”

I think the key word here is “young”. Our Nic (as Aussies affectionately like to call her) is so versatile now that she’s added rubber noses to her repertoire that I’m sure she could play a werewolf in her sleep (but possibly quite easier, a Vampire!).
7. What should every director remember to do before it’s too late?

Set him/herself on fire to prove to your lead actor that he/she should do the same for the sake of your film… and cast Ozploitation’s greatest heavy, Roger Ward, in your film.
8. Of the various legends of Oz-ploitation you spoke to (John Lamond, Anthony I. Ginnane, Brian Trenchard-Smith, etc.) Who was the most entertaining interview for you personally?

To be honest, all of the interviewees were entertaining. Certainly the most emotional interview I conducted was with director Richard Franklin (Patrick, Roadgames). I first met Richard soon after he directed Psycho II. I was in my early teens and I invited him to give a talk at my high school. I stayed in touch and we became friends. Richard was incredibly supportive during the 10-year period it took to get Not Quite Hollywoodfinanced. Just after we finally raised our money he told me that he had cancer. He said that he would not live to see my film – but he would not let me down. True to his word, Richard allowed us to interview him. He was paralyzed from the waist down and in excruciating pain, but he put on a brave face and struggled through his final on-camera interview. Sadly Richard passed away less than three weeks later. It was at this point I realized that Not Quite Hollywood was more than a rag tag bunch of maverick filmmakers telling funny anecdotes – it was going to be the final word on this extraordinary period of filmmaking in Australia told by the guys (and girls) who were there in the trenches. Not Quite Hollywood is fondly dedicated to Richard.
9. Tarantino says that, “No one shoots a car the way Aussies do.” Why would you agree with that statement?

If you look at the car chase films that were coming out of Hollywood at the time of MAD MAX and MIDNITE SPARES they were slapstick demolition derby pictures like SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT and THE CANNONBALL RUN. The Australian car chase films certainly were more dynamic – tougher, grittier and I imagine a helluva lot more dangerous in their derring-do stunt work. The cars were shot wide angle with the camera close to the ground and with the lens inches away from the bumper. Throw in a hostile environment like the outback and you have an iconic shot that Australian cinema can proudly claim as it’s own.
10. Popcorn or candy?

Hot dogs.
11. Since you are now as much of an authority of Ozploitation as anyone after completing the film: Name your five favorite films in that genre and explain why.

THE MAN FROM HONG KONG (1975)
Asia’s Steve McQueen, Jimmy Wang Yu, and Australia’s very own James Bond,George Lazenby, go head to head in director Brian Trenchard-Smith’s down-under kung fu classic. I dare any audience to find a car chase with more camera rigs or a martial arts sequence with more kicks to the groin!

LONG WEEKEND (1978)
A bickering couple on vacation discover what happens when you disrespect the Australian bush in this taut, atmospheric “mother nature goes ape-shit” thriller from prolific Ozploitation scribe Everett DeRoche and journeyman director Colin Eggleston.

MAD MAX (1979)
Doctor turned amateur filmmaker, George Miller, battled a non-existent budget and a weary non-believing crew on the outskirts of Melbourne to bring his post apocalyptic revenge thriller to the drive-in screen. On release, cars quickly became stars – and in my humble opinion, the level and style of automobile action featured in MAD MAX has never been equaled.

ROADGAMES (1981)
Rear Window set in a truck! US imports Stacy Keach and Jamie-Lee Curtis play a deadly cat-and-mouse game with a serial killer across the desolate Nullarbor desert in this smart, suspenseful and finely crafted thriller from director Richard Franklin (affectionately dubbed by Curtis “Australia’s Alfred Hitchcock”).

TURKEY SHOOT (1982)
What started out as a serious (but action-packed) Orwellian cautionary tale was pushed into high-camp overdrive by director Brian Trenchard-Smith and producer Antony I. Ginnane when a large chunk of change vanished from the financing a week before shooting. “Stunts are expensive – but blood is cheap” – so Turkey Shoot transformed into a blood and thunder splatter spectacle that 25+ years later still has to be seen to be believed.
Not Quite Hollywood screens at 7:10PM November 1 @ ArcLight 14
Mark Hartley will attend the screening and will participate in a Q&A afterwards.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon