|
|
CRITICS RAVE ABOUT NUMBER 96 |
||||
|
- A taste of the critical response to Number 96 the movie - |
|||||
Contents |
Reproduced below is the entire the text of a contemporary review by critic Ken Quinnell of the Number 96 feature film. It appeared in Cinema Papers, July 1974. Many other reviews of the film followed the same contours. Ken Quinnell's Review
This is one of those
films which gives the reviewer a feeling of
invulnerability - it is difficult to imagine that it would be possible to
make a statement about the film that anyone without some kind of vested
interest would ever bother disagreeing with. It is one of those films that begs for the witty superficiality of a Bob Ellis or a John
Tittensor. Number 96 is a bad film by every criteria,
except the criterion of its ability to make money, which it will do wherever
the television serial it
spun off from is
viewed. This is not to knock the serial itself, which often achieves a
reasonable standard of writing and script editing for a local programme. Basically the film suffers from the same fault as Country Town (nee Bellbird). That is, the large cast
of characters, which for some reason are all included in the film, preclude
the possibility of structuring a satisfactory plot line. Country Town made the dual error of constantly explaining
the absence of regulars from the serial, while using other key characters to
no purpose at all. Number 96 introduces a variety of unintegrated
sub-plots to occupy all the tenants of that famous building: a solution that
disintegrates the dramatic structure of the script, and leaves the film
without even a shred of coherence on which to hang its ill-fitted humour. No purpose is served recounting the plot of Number 96. It is a lot more obviously tongue-in-cheek than the serial - Vera Collins marries the Prime Minister - and the humour is a lot less successful. Les’ sauna venture, and Herb and Dorrie’s marital mix-up, requires for their laughs the extension of the situations beyond the abilities of the characters to contain them. Number 96 is the first commercial feature I have ever encountered of which the
reviewer could legitimately say, if he so desired, that it is out of focus.
The blow up to 35mm from 16mm
for theatrical presentation emphasises the inadequacies of local laboratory
facilities. The whole “look” of the film is appalling - garish,
claustrophobic sets, the flat lighting and the poor colour
quality actually make it physically difficult to watch. The acting is
undirected in any meaningful way and remains pitched at the same general
standard as that of the serial - which is OK for television but excruciating
on the big screen. It has allowed
Australia to see its 96 super-stars in colour
before the arrival of colour television. That is
the extent of its achievement. [1] David
Stratton and TV Week
Other reviewers were
no less kind. David Stratton wrote that “Never has such an ugly looking film
been presented for paying cinema audiences. In fact, the whole shoddy
enterprise, with its fifth-rate acting, cardboard sets, juvenile plotline and
amateurish direction, was an insult to the intelligence.” [2] Even the reviewer from the usually
complimentary TV Week, a magazine that seemed to specialise in Number
96 coverage and which
seemed to write more on the show than any other, disliked the movie. Said TV Week movie reviewer Grahame Willis: “The movie
version of Number 96 is as comfortable as an old coat, but a
movie it isn’t-it’s big screen TV without the
commercials. The plot plunges along at an even pace, and the characters are
there but never develop. Technically, it leaves much to be desired, with
direction and camera seldom interesting or showing much imagination. The
color is over-bright and variable; the backgrounds are over-busy; the makeup
wanders disconcertingly-all good reasons in what not to do when Number 96 goes to color next year. Yet, does it matter? The critics will
probably be caustic; the fans will come in their droves,
and producer Bill Harmon can cry all the way to the bank. [3] |
||||
|
|
Originally uploaded November 2004 Last updated 27 June 2008 |
||||
