Critical review of the film and its literature
Author’s note:
Lust and Revenge reviewed and researched in 2001 for the Murdoch film unit Australian Cinema and this article has not been updated since. K. Jakobsen 2010
Please acknowledge / reference me if you use any of the material below.
Outlining research ‘tactics’ was a requirement of the assessment and is included at the end of this page.
Plot Synopsis
Lust and Revenge (Cox, 1996) is about marriage on the rocks, life modelling, counselling, new age self-reflection, and money. Its main focus is the financial and corporeal excesses of the Australian art industry. George Oliphant (Chris Haywood) commissions a sculpture from the scupltor Lily (Eva Hamburg) for the opening of a new wing of the art gallery. The wing is dedicated to George Olliphant’s late wife and his daughter Georgina (Claudia Karvan) oversees the commission.
The model for the sculpture is Karl-Heinz Applebaum (Nicholas Hope) and his wife mistakenly believes he is not modelling nude. Celia Applebaum (Gosia Dobrowolska) works in a new-age shop and is very devoted to her work; although now seemingly not devoted to Karl and ‘their’ dream of owning a cottage in the country. The Applebaums’ marriage difficulty is exacerbated by Celia’s discovery that Karl is a life-model. Celia’s spiritual mentor Baba Charles (Norman Kaye) has ‘orders’ to pressure her for money for their cause and as Nicholas knows (has met) the wealthy George Oliphant, they both decide to make Karl ask Oliphant for a large donation to the Centre for Synchronic Awareness.
Georgina’s psychiatrist ‘prescribes’ her an experimental drug to calm her down.The drug is an (initially) potent aphrodisiac and this plot element largely contributes to Lust and Revenge being a movie with much lust and little revenge.
Paul Cox notes this in his autobigraphy:
Lust and Revenge is a satire about art, money and sex. We could have taken it further but my desire for revenge had almost evaporated by the time we refined the screenplay.
(Cox, 1998: 185)
Stylistic elements
In addition, the sympathetic characterisation was not conducive to all-out revenge. By the end of the film the characters all achieved major change in their lives; both internal and external. This was more due to lust acting as a catalyst for character change than revenge being the motivation. On saying that, aspects of the script used destruction of material objects to represent shifts in relationships between the characters and of individual psyches. Georgina Oliphant shifts from harrassing her ex-husband by vandalising his property to desiring life model Karl-Heinz. Celia Applebaum smashes the bronze sculpture that is a false representation of the Applebaums’ love; with it she discards the empty promises of her marriage and her new-age religion. In their place she embraces independance from both institutionalised happiness and institutionalised spirituality.
There is an honesty in this film’s characterisation, but also a subtle life lesson: money doesn’t make you happy. George Oliphant finds out that an actual aphrodesiac is more potent than money as an aphrodisiac. The only seemingly content character throughout is the sculptor Lily (Eva Hamburg). When her art is compromised her boundaries shift but she never succumbs to the lust or revenge that subsumes the others- her love of her work and her partner is enough. It is not internal factors that threaten this love; external factors like bureaucracy do.
Generic elements
Lust and Revenge seems to adhere to a form of realism. Martinetti carefully frames the shots to emphasise the emotion of a particular scene and particular characterisation. To show togetherness the shot of the National Art Gallery Board congregating in the new wing is a mid-shot from just before the arch; this gives the audience a perception of the Board as united – just before conflict is introduced.The increasing fragmentation of the Applebaums’ relationship is realised when they argue in their house: Celia is behind the lead light window and Karl-Heinz is in front left frame, the shot physically divides them in separate rooms and figuratively fragments Celia’s image on screen with the window’s lattice work.Paul Cox is renowned for his love of light and the scene where Baba Charles arrives to expectant ‘disciples’ is simultaneously well-crafted and ironic. Baba launches into a touching anecdote about his journey from his old life as a rich man to his enlightenment when he met Master Baba Thomas. He tells the group that a Great White Light shone from Baba Thomas’ eyes to his. At the end of the group meeting Baba Charles is positioned under a stained-glass lampshade; the light envelopes him as he says “We must have more money!! Thank you for your love”.
Critical Uptake
Overall, Australian critics do not view this film favourably. I could not find any film criticism dated at the time of the film’s release but subsequent reviews either presented a confused or overly critical view of the film (Martin, 2000; Ausfilm, 2000).
Cinephiles and critical intellectuals also tended to criticise all Cox’ work when reviewing one of his films. When Innocence (Cox, 2000) was shown at the Melbourne International Film Festival Adrian Martin criticised it for its:
Clumsy narrative exposition, clunky dialogue… flat jokes, dreary staging (mise en scene, where art thou?), faux-poetic Super-8 inserts (I personally volunteer to smash that camera), empty exhortations to “love the world”, veteran actors (Julia Blake and Charles Tingwell) all at sea – yes, it’s the latest Paul Cox movie. [my emphasis]
One of the reasons for this particular criticism would be that Cox’ films are neither overtly commercial or easily categorised as ‘quality’ or prestige cinema. As Martin is a self confessed popular culture advocate his repertoire tends to prioritise American popular culture most of all (Phantasms, 1994: 7-17).
Circumstances of its production release and festivals
Paul Cox’ rich international reputation is not reflected in his film budgets. Phillip Tyndall comments on Cox’ “incredible energy, persistance and vision….which is almost always achieved with comparatively small budgets of about [one] million [dollars]” (Tyndall, 2000).
In 1996 at the Hof International Film Festival in Germany two of the other Australian films chosen were the highly lauded quality film Shine (Hicks, 1996) and the ockeresque Mr Reliable (Tass, 1996). Heinz Badewitz, Festival Director of the 2001 Hof Festival is interested in Australian films made for international release that “aim to convey to international audiences an authentic Australian touch and the spirit of ‘down under’ “. Cox films seem more cosmopolitan than this ocker or quality pronouncement and local film agents find Cox difficult to ‘rope in’ to their prioritised repertoires of more commercially viable or more high quality films.
However, Cox films are still extremelly well received internationally and the list of festivals that Lust and Revenge was screened at include Cannes where it was launched in the Marche; the commercial marketplace (AFC, 1996).
It is obvious that Cox is held in high regard on the International festival circuit. In an open invitation to Australian filmmakers the Programming Coordinator of the Toronto International Film Festival in Canada, Steve Gravestock, includes Paul Cox as in illustration of directors who could appear in the ‘Masters’ section of the festival “while the masters section showcases internationally acclaimed filmmakers like Paul Cox…”(AFC, 2001).
General position of Australian film and its value: Multiculturalism and Representation
Many Australian films of the 1990s reflected government policy of the time; there was a prioritisation of the positive representation of multicultural Australia. Two out of the three films in the book Long Shots to Favourites: Australian Cinema Successes in the 1990s (Reid, 1993) have a strong theme of multiculturalism. Strictly Ballroom (Luhrmann, 1991) celebrates it and Romper Stomper (Wright, 1991) problematises it. One of the themes of Proof (Moorhouse, 1990), a film also discussed in Long Shots, is diversity. In an interview Cox compares Australian national cinema to Iranian cinema and “that what Australia lacks in repression-induced soul, it makes up for in diversity” (Bunney, 2001). Lust and Revenge does not foreground the theme of diversity but it is present. Examples are the sculptor Lilly’s lesbianism and Cecelia’s non-English speaking background.
Another similarity between Proof and Lust and Revenge is the two-tiered nature of the characterisation in both films. In Proof the relationships between a blind man (Hugo Weaving), his housekeeper (Genevieve Picot) and his friend (Russell Crowe) translate to a comment on the larger issues of trust, truth and perception of both. Similarly, Lust and Revenge is about the interactions of the characters on one level and how frail humanity and human relationships are on another. This point can be seen in the recurring motif of the commissioned sculpture. The scuplture is everchanging: from sketches of a clothed man to a naked one; from a lone male clay figure to a heterosexual couple; from clay to bronze and finally – when the clay/bronze sculpture is shattered – to skin encased in clay. The sculpture can be likened to self: at times soft and malleable; at others alone; or fractured; and sometimes only calm on the surface.
Tyndall (2000) also observes the presence of such humanity in Cox’ work:
The themes in his films – isolation, faith, hope, love, survival – remain the same and reoccur over and over, but above all else Paul Cox’s films are about human frailty.
Situate the film in relation to Australian national cinema as a medium sized English language cinema.
Lust and Revenge, Strictly Ballroom, Romper Stomper and Proof all have the common theme of multiculturalism but all represent it in different ways. It may seem obvious to have illustrated commonalities in characterisation; but the minutiae are as important as the ‘big picture’. Each of these films has contributed to a national identity and contrariwise this identity is fragmented by such contributions. Ideas of self differ as much as ideas on multiculturalism. The most important thing is that diverse views are represented so all audiences can, at some stage, identify with who and what they see on the screen: that is one way Australian cinema can contribute to the national identity.
As Bunney (2001) notes:
A country’s cinema, whether Iran’s or ours, is part of the national psyche…there are many untold stories and diverse perspectives yet to nourish a growing audience. A new year, though, always holds the potential for Australian stories that confront our history and our present with humanity and vision.
While Lust and Revenge is a skillful and entertaining construction of the director, cast and crew it is only one of Paul Cox’ films and only one story on the Australian cinematic landscape. Many Australian cinematic agents are less thrilled with the Paul Cox ‘experience’ than I was but this disparity is also a diversity. Critics are part of the audience and Cox acknowledges their frailty:
“A lot of people have in the past been very bored with my films. I understand this and I forgive them for it”, he said with a wry smile on his face. (Tyndall, 2000)
Websites and Search Engines (includes methodology)
Links from sites
Note from author – research was conducted in approx 2003 please email me using the Contact page if links are out of date.
Generally found websites from a variety of sources like Ozfilm database and then used selected links from these major sites. Even if the site wasn’t specifically about what I was looking for e.g. film site on UK cinema, sometimes even these sites provided links to resources I had not encountered previously.
World wide web Search engines
Searches inside film industry sites were the most useful; for example Cinemedia, when compared to external search engines like Metacrawler and Google which were not particularly helpful in title seaches. If I had made my searches less specific then I probably would have achieved better results – or at least some useful film sites. Metacrawler has an option that allows to to search just Australian sites. Google has a web directory where you can narrow down your search by category listings and metacrawler has recently followed suit: this makes a search more organised and not so much like looking for the needle in the proverbial haystack.
Murdoch University library
However, when I used telnet on campus to search Murdoch library I found Cox’ autobiography (suggested by Garry Gillard) and a number of journal articles.
Online presence
High online presence. Mostly reviews from Urban Cinephile et. al. The Australian Film Commission website was invaluable; although my Acrobat Reader had trouble opening some of the documents I found. In the file summaries they appeared to be the ones I would have found most useful(!).
I could not find any TV ratings, distribution, box office or budgetary information. I searched the Australian Cultural Network (which the AFC site is part of) for Adfilm the distributor of Lust and Revenge. I should have looked on the ACNielson site and at a newer version of Australian Film 1978-1994 (1995), ed. Scott Murray, Oxford University Press in association with AFC and Cinema Papers, South Melbourne, Australia (SWL2link R791.430994 AUS 1995). This is obviously not a website and should be under ‘published reference sources and guides’ but I think if I had found this book earlier I would not have spent fruitless hours searching the internet for information that is (very) probably in the library.
Databases
I think I am inept at database searching. I found very interesting journal articles on SWETSnet; none of which were relevant. I shall reread the library information sheet…
Published reference sources and guides
Festival listings were provided mainly from the Australian Film Commission Website in the ‘Festivals’ section.
(Accessed 7 May 2001)Most critics’ pages I found were located on a particular film site like www.sensesofcinema.com – see bibliography below.
Annotated Bibliography
Bunney, Andrew 2001, From Wogboy to Mallboy: The Good, The Bad and The Lovely (online), Available World Wide Web: http://www.senses of cinema.com/contents/01/12/australian.html (Accessed 3 May 2001)
Cox, Paul Reflections: an autobiographical journey. Currency Press Pty Ltd: NSW, 1998
Martin, Adrian 1996, TV Time Tunnel in ‘Phantasms’, McPhee Gribble, Victoria Australia
Martin, Adrian 2000, Worst Film of the Festival: Innocence from Daily Reports: Melbourne International Film Festival www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/8/miff/daily.htm
