CASE
STUDY OF THE BOYS
FILMNET 1.17
Volume 1 Issue 17,
THE FREE ONLINE WEEKLY AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY NEWSLETTER
[Stephen Sewell (Writer), Robert Connolly (Producer), Rowan Woods
(Director), David Wenham (Actor, Co-Producer)]
Robert started by telling us how the play, `The Boys’ was a sellout play
back in 1991. From there Robert Connolly and Rowan Woods went to film
school and started looking for a writer and found Stephen Sewell. SS
thought it looked impossible but he is a gut writer and once in the
groove wrote the first draft in 10 days and liked the fact that he was
given organised notes and that no-one yelled at him.
He wrote from
instinct and said he doesn’t need the cards anymore. The film is very
different from the play as the structure has changed, the crime scene is
unshown and the women don’t remain in the house
although the fundamental
landscape remains the same. The FFC turned the film down for funding but
the AFC chipped in at post production stage but an assessment called the
film-makers “morally reprehensible for putting this on the screen”.
They didn’t like the unhappy ending, the non-stop structure or that the
main character was irredeemable and that the film was seen from his
point of view. Political correctness at work yet again.
Funding was initially rejected by most companies and funding bodies but
a few committed individuals managed to steer it through the hurdles. The
original sponsor was a rich stock trader who loved the original play and
ended up getting paid back double his investment. RC felt that rather
than merely looking at the script in isolation that the funding bodies
should consider the strength, vision and commitment of the team
attached. One assessor called them “fools” but they ignored this and
most of the comments which tended to be negative.
Rowan detailed how the very low budget was carefully spent on lots of
quality rehearsal time on a completely finished set. This he said added
to the believability of the performances and meant the actors had plenty
of time to prepare for the shoot in their own different ways. RW didn’t
want vagaries so all scenes were very well prepared with all angles,
lens, blocking etc even though they looked real and loose.
David Wenham mentioned that he felt the character he
portrayed in the original play was too one dimensional so he tried
(successfully) to surprise the audience and make the character more
eerie. His childhood growing up in
know the part enormously. Rowan saw the film as “Australian naturalism”
and a type of horror/ thriller. An audience member impressed
by the
authenticity of the film why they wanted to do it. SS said he wanted to
expose the oppressive types of men he saw in
and are bad role models. RC wanted to show some element of the human
condition, that he hated moralisation and that it was
all a very complex
area. RW needed to understand more and explore the relationships of the
3 boys with women and felt a curiosity and search for meaning. DW wanted
to express the impact it had at the theatre and make it available to all
those who missed out on tickets.
Stephen then talked about how the play was more a portrait and not a
narrative and that Brett got a kick out of pissing everyone off and
wanted to be king of the (house) empire. SS said all he contributed 3
drafts and revised a few bits but wasn’t exploited and once he was
committed he “would have died for the guys”. RW then added there were
8-9 drafts but 7-8 in conventional terms. All were disappointed it
wasn’t more successful at the box office but expect to at least get
their money back. They felt that having a happy ending would not suit
the story as the boys kept making the wrong choices and there was no
escape