Letter to Australian Film Commission from
The Sydney Super-8 Collective, 8 June 1982
8 June 1982
Distribution officer
Creative Development Branch
Australian Film Commission
Dear Sir,
We write in application for financial assistance in staging the Third Super-8 Film Festival. It is our aim to promote an artistic medium which has not yet received the attention and support it deserves. In recent years an upsurge of interest in super-8 has commenced with: successful film festivals in Sydney in 1980 and 1981; The Australian Film Institute’s “Super-8 Phenomenon” and “Local Colour” seasons which bring films from afar as field as New York to the National Film Theatre; the super-8 section included in this year’s Melbourne Film Festival; and the screening of super-8 productions in the “Studio Access” section of this year’s Sydney Biennale. Also, many recognised artists are now working in the medium (eg. the Tch, Tch, Tch collective, Tim Burns, Juan Davila and David Chesworth), and theoretical writings related to super-8 is appearing more regularly in journals such as Art and Text, Film News, New Music, Australian Journal of Film and Screen Studies and Cinema Papers.
Until now one has been expected to go on the defensive when discussing super-8 film. Critics have automatically badgered enthusiasts with (uninformed) talk of limited versatility of the medium and with denouncements of the (presumed) poor quality of the image and the sound in comparison to the proven capabilities of the wider gauges. Such objections trace back to the inception of super-8 at a time when even 16mm film was considered merely a hobbyist’s medium; by extension, the tiny 8mm gauge was seen virtually as a child’s toy, like those miniature sewing machines that imitate the original.
Nowadays, however, super-8 film-makers have no reason to be defensive about their medium. The arguments for its use become stronger with time, especially now that professional super-8 lab facilities exist and technological advances ensure great versatility of equipment and the highest quality of manipulability of image and sound. As usual it is basically a question of money. Because the price of super-8 equipment and stock is so low compared with 16mm and 35mm and video technology, super-8 film-makers are able to operate to [a] large extent outside the system of “investment entertainment” and government institutions (such as the A.B.C., the universities and the C.A.E.s) which dictate the terms of most of work produced in film and video. Because there are no investors demanding safety of return for their money, and because super-8 is not yet burdened with a history of styles, concerns with expectations, super-8 film-makers can take a few more risks. They can “experiment”. And because a super-8 film-maker does not need to be particularly wealthy, or part of a media industry or educational institution, or behoven to business interests, s/he can come from a much wider range of social milieux than is normally the case with film, video and television production. A super-8 film-maker thus has a considerable freedom of expression. The extent of possibilities for work in super-8 is barely hinted at in a resume of some of the work being produced in the medium in Australia: there are animated “doll films” which utilize “studios” and “acting troupes” in miniature (physically and financially) and which explore the idea of the actor as icon/sign with analytic humour, as in David Nerlich’s Son of Apocalypse Returns in which Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando are supplanted as the “stars” by G.I.Joe and skeleton mannequins; there are abstract films such as Marie Larkin’s Exploration of a Candle or Debra Petrovitch’s Death by Drowning which explore possibilities in line, rhythm, light, colour and sound; there are ”second degree” popular features such as Stephen Harrop’s Iteth Bound to be Baskervilleth (a translation of The Hound of the Baskervilles into a suburban thriller) which analyse, deconstruct or subvert the dominant codes of film and television; there are films such as Janet Burchill’s Voice-over this but what which takes advantage of the lack of history and expectation accruing to super-8 film practice by calling into question the politics of representation; and there are documentaries such as Gary Patterson’s History of Australia in which the unobtrusiveness, low cost and portability of super-8 equipment has enabled the film-maker to produce a ten-hour cine-verite of Australian past and present.
An interest in super-8 has amplified with each festival, it has become necessary to locate the Third Festival in a venue which can cater for a larger audience and for the planned seminars. Within the expanded format of the Festival our preconceived aims are: to make public the questions relating to siper-8; to encourage discussion on the topics of film viewing and production; to gauge the possibility and/or desirability of forming a super-8 film-maker’s co-op. Discussion about the possible co-op will occur in Saturday’s matinee session (the third session of the five-session Festival). As it is envisaged at this stage the co-op would serve as a distribution unit similar to the Film-maker’s Co-op, and additionally it could operate as a production studio where members of the co-op would have access to super-8 hardware. It is proposed that the co-op be funded by membership subscription, by proceeds from distribution and screening, and initially by some form of government funding. At this stage, however, we request financial assistance solely for mounting the Film Festival.
We attach a budget sheet for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
The Sydney Super-8 Collective
Deirdre Beck
Janet Burchill
Ross Gibson
Lindty Lee
Mark Titmarsh (Ph 660 3003)
Note: The projected dates for the Festival are November 3, 4, and 5. We are currently negotiating with the A.F.I. to stage the Festival at the National Film Theatre in Paddington Town Hall
