PETER ANDRIKIDIS: DIRECTOR/ PRODUCER

Peter Andrikidis has been directing and producing for over twenty years. He has won six Australian Film Institute (AFI) awards, three for best drama (‘Wildside’, ‘Grass Roots’ and ‘My Husband, My Killer’) and three for best direction. He has also won four ATOM awards, two Silver Hugo’s (Chicago International Film Festival) for ‘Heroes Mountain’ & ‘Jessica,’ and a Centenary Medal for outstanding services to Australian Society and Film Production, as well as having received numerous other award nominations. He has also directed a number of other popular Australian series, such as ‘Halifax F.P.’, ‘Water Rats’, ‘Flying Doctors’, and ‘BlackJack’. AUSUS Magazine spoke to Peter about working on US co - productions, the future of the Australian film industry and how he approaches directing actors.

Q: You directed a couple of episodes of ‘Farscape’? Who did you work with on that?

It was about three years ago. I worked with Rockne O’Bannon, the show’s creator, and David Kemper, who took over the series. David also did the mini series, which hopefully will be shown in Australia.  Channel Nine originally had the show and then it went to cable so I’m not sure if Fox Australia will pick it up but I think that they probably will because it finishes off the whole series. Science fiction is a difficult sell here. It’s like ‘Star Trek’; they always air it at ten or eleven at night - terrible time slots! It’s police 

and hospital dramas that get prime time. I think that ‘Farscape’ could have found a good audience here.  In its second series it started to find a sense of humor and the writers started to get the tone of the lead actor, Ben. He relished it in the end and almost had an Australian sense of humor, which was great. It was a terrific show. 

Q: What was the budget for ‘Farscape’?

It was just over two million per episode, which is quite substantial when you realize the budget of local television drama is about four to five hundred thousand per episode. It was also double the schedule. You’d spend two weeks per episode as opposed to five days. It involved huge make up and special effects, which we don’t usually get to do here.  

Q: You also directed the US/ Canadian TV series ‘Beastmaster’?

Yes, it was hard work. It was different to ‘Farscape’ in that you were only there for the preparation and the shoot. In ‘Farscape’, they paid for you to be there in post – production as well. They embraced our system. You got to be in involved in the whole process. Real directing is being able to shape the script, cast and edit.  

Q: Is it different process for television in the US?

In America, the writer and producer take over once you’ve shot it. In Australia, we usually have one writer and a director and a producer as opposed to the American system where there are numerous producers and can even be a writer for each particular character in a series. There’s a lot more people involved in the U.S. I’ve produced as well in the Australian system. We’re more similar to features where you’ve got the producer, the writer and the director. This system has worked for so long because these three ‘creatives’ have their own strengths, so you don’t have to please a number of other people (it doesn’t become a committee). The buck stops with each of these positions and sometimes you’ve just got to jump in and do it. You can intellectualize things and go through all the permutations but you can end up talking yourself out of it. Sometimes you’ve got to trust you’re gut feeling about something or someone and go with it - right or wrong. That’s what makes great television or movies. Putting your job on the line everyday. You can’t please everybody because it’s all completely subjective. Somebody’s going to not like someone or something.  So you have to wear it and take it on board. The fewer people there are, the more chance there is to work with people who like similar films or actors.  

Q: Is there also a difference in casting overseas?

I think so. This current project, for example, ‘Mary Bryant’, revolves around convicts in 1788. There’s a risk we could produce a softer version if we cast it for demographics, but we don’t have to do that. We can actually cast a much rougher and believable type of convict. The British are great on that level. They make some of the best television in the world. I think that we’re in tune with that too.  

Q: Where did you go to film school?

I did three years at AFTRS.  It was a great experience. Some of the people from there I still work with. I went to school with the DOP Joe Pickering who has worked on most of my telemovies and mini-series. The producer of ‘Wildside’, Steve Knapman, is also a film school grad of that time. Great to work with!  

Q: Do you have any directors you admire?

Peter Weir. Michael Jenkins is another one. They brought a lot of energy and pace to their films. George Miller with ‘Mad Max’. Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen in the US and Ken Loach and Mike Leigh in Britain. The film ‘Cathy Come Home’ by Ken Loach was a big influence on me.  

Q: What do you think is the future of the Australian film industry?

We’ve never really had a feature film industry as such! You can’t make a living directing only Australian films here.  Australians will watch Australian drama on television but they won’t go to the cinema to watch Australian Films.  Not even one percent of box office returns are for Australian films. It’s shocking. The last two years have been the worst ever. There have been too many mediocre comedies.  We don’t have the variety - we should be making all genres. We’re lucky to make fifteen films a year. In television you do get to work in different genres, from period to sci-fi. But in film so many of my mates from film school have either gone to L.A. or they work here once every five years. And you’re not a director unless you’re directing. You’ve got to keep those muscles working. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have that crossover. The British do. You can work in television, then do a feature and move between both mediums. Even directing theatre is good for the directing muscle.  

Q: Is it possible that this will change?

It’s difficult because the industry is geared to the first time director and if they make a film and it’s successful they don’t work here anymore. They end up in L.A. I think more tax incentives to invest in Australian films are needed. Either that or stronger government support. Or it’s the HBO syndrome. Fox Australia is trying to set up something like that at the moment. Or like Channel Four in England where a television company actually makes films which will come to television but are released in the cinema first. Canada and England also have a system where money from the lottery goes toward making films. In the seventies the industry had stronger government backing and a lot of successful directors came out of that period. Gillian Armstrong, Peter Weir, Fred Schepisi. Many of those directors are still here, but a lot have gone too. The American’s hold on to their directors. The French also have a great system. They make two hundred films a year.  We do need to make more films. Thirty or forty a year would be great, which means that three or four would be successful. (The US model is 1 in 10 films are financially successful). But we must get the audience to Australian films first!  

Q: Do you think we’re pitching our films to the wrong audience?

I think we are making movies that are pitched to people in their teens and twenties but there’s a whole other audience beyond that that will go to the cinema. We need to make movies for that audience.  Just like my parents who would go and see ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and ‘Doctor Zhivago’. I saw ‘Lantana’, for example, in Leichardt and the cinema was full of people in there thirties to sixties. So I think we should be pitching not only to people in their teens and twenties but to older people – we need more variety.   

Q: Do you have any plans to move to the USA?

If I had an offer I’d give it a go. There are a couple of Australian features that possibly I’ll do and if they reach an international audience that would be the icing on the cake.  I like working with good ensemble actors but the power structure is different in the U.S. The lead is usually in before the director. You’re job is on the line and that lead actor is really in control! That’s fine but what happens when things go wrong and that relationship deteriorates. The film’s up because they got the actor to do it. It’s not necessarily the story or the passion of the director. You have more creative control in Australia. Directors like Phillip Noyce and PJ Hogan and Jocelyn Moorehouse are coming back. In L.A. nearly  everybody’s an actor. They’re not dealing with the real world. An actor’s job is to actually sit in the world and observe. But once you’re a star you’re world becomes more and more controlled and nobody’s telling you what doesn’t work. You need that criticism, you need that trust, and you need the real world. You’d need to accept that LA is a film town to live there.  That aside, America still makes most of the best films in the world, so as a director you want to be working with the greats. So if someone offers me a great script I’m over in a shot.  

Q: If you were to do projects like that here do you think they’d find an audience?

I think so. I think ‘Lantana’ is an example of that. We’re sort of doing that in our mini series and telemovies. ‘Jessica’ was going in that vein.  We tend to copy the British and Americans in our television, even our ‘reality’ series. They’re spin off’s of what’s proven. So no one’s taking a risk. Unfortunately, the great dramas like ‘The Sopranos’ or ‘West Wing’ ends up in a late timeslot. I did a programme a few years back for the ABC called ‘Grass Roots’ which was created by Geoffrey Atherden. It was about a local council and it was original. Nobody had ever made a series about a local council.  I think there is a market for something different. There’s also a US drama called ‘Cold Case’. It’s an interesting format. In a scene they’ll keep flashing back to when the crime happened, which could be from a different period. But they kind of have really slick, fast story telling. It’s just bang, bang, bang, bang. We don’t do that here. We rely on that soap factor. The theory is that the audience gets hooked in the melodrama. I don’t know. Maybe they are. It’s a case in point that shows like ‘Law and Order’ and ‘CSI’ and ‘Cold Case’ do so well here. Even the more recent but not so mainstream American films do well here. Like ‘Election’ and ‘Requiem for a Dream’ and ‘About Schmidt’. These types of films are capable of finding an audience.  

Q: Now you’re working on ‘Mary Bryant’. What sort of research do you do for a period piece like this?

I’ve read about ten books on it and kind of immersed myself in the period. ‘Jessica’ was 1900 and this is 1788. This is my second period piece and it’s been great. So much of what I studied at school is in this, even though I hated history back then. There are so many different versions of what she did. I’ve read a lot of books and taken bits from each. For that twelve weeks you have to be completely in that period. However, I still want to keep it modern. The British do this really well but for Australians I want to shoot it in a more modern style. The BBC did a series about Charles the Second and it was fantastic. They kept a contemporary feel to the music and the language was the other thing - they kept it accessible. The lead character, Mary, is eighteen. I want my daughter to be able to identify with her, with the language. The good thing about ‘Jessica’ was that the audience came from the sixteen to thirty nine age group and they liked the book and they liked what we did. All my daughter’s friends liked it! We had to fight for the ending where she dies, which Bryce also wanted. You’ve always got to be truthful to the material.  

Q: How do you approach working with your actors?

It’s mainly the casting. Eighty per cent of my job is to get that cast right. Then the rest of it is easy. I like to cast real people and take a risk with the casting. I also tend to work with people I’ve worked with a lot, having learnt from Woody Allen’s style of casting. It’s about trust in the end. I had to fight for most of this cast because the British don’t know these actors. It was important to get everybody I wanted because I don’t think in terms of individuals but of the ensemble. Each actor enhances another and everybody is interrelated. That’s where the casting can fail. Not getting this right. If you’re handed a job and you’ve got to use a certain actor, it colors everything. It’s about actors reacting to each other, not the one performance. I like the ensemble performances. We start with everybody on the same level. We discuss the scene, find out what it’s about. I don’t like to rehearse too much because I think it kills the freshness. Even going off the page is good. You get real bonuses that way. Comic tags at the end of the scene or intense moments in the middle. It’s important for the actor’s personality to be involved. I think people at some acting schools find this hard to do. They’ve been taught to construct someone outside themselves. Whereas people who have come up via the school of hard knocks, like Russell Crowe, can always bring something of their personality to the part. Cary Grant was always Cary Grant. James Stewart was always James Stewart. Some people are good as character actors. But they always bring their own quality to the role. Sam Neill always brings his charm. He should play the meanest villain of all time. He’d be fantastic because he’s such a nice person. That’s what I want to portray through the actors and the story. Things that are not always black or white. Some filmmakers in the US are still doing this. Ang Lee, with ‘Ice Storm’, for example. Woody Allen’s the same. He’s had complete control of his own career. Every year he does something completely different. And it’s all about character. We could never do the special effects that they do in the US anyway. We don’t have the money.  

Q: Finally, Peter, do you have any plans to cross back and forth between film and television?